Document Information

Date: 1946-11-04
By: Newfoundland (National Convention)
Citation: Newfoundland, National Convention Debates.
Other formats: Click here to listen to original recordings.

National Convention

Monday, November 4, 1946

• (p. 128 in the primary document)

Motion to send a Delegation to Ottawa[1]

Frederick Bradley [Bonavista East]—I had no intention of delivering any lengthy or prepared speech upon this resolution. It seemed so clearly the right thing to do that the bitter opposition which it has encountered appeared impossible. But, unfortunately, the debate has wandered far afield from the original resolution. It has been made the occasion of confessions of political faith and expressions of antagonism to this and that form of government. It has even degenerated into an orgy of indecent imputation, low insinuations, sour invective and what may perhaps be charitably described as plain misrepresentation.

Some months ago, in a broadcast to the people of this country, I offered the opinion that this Convention was in the nature of a bench of judges rather than a body of partisans. I am more confirmed today that my interpretation of its function was and is still right. To me there is something incongruous in the association of either eloquence or tub-thumping with matters and problems of finance and economics, of addition and subtraction, multiplication and division. Figures do at times speak eloquently, but they speak quietly. They never bellow. We are concerned principally with figures. We have to ascertain the financial and economic position and prospects of this country, and whether under the tutelage of Britain, as an autonomous state, or in partnership with the other provinces of Canada, lies the greatest probability of relegating the six cent dole of pre-war days into the realm of unpleasant and, we hope, eventually traditional memories. In the welter of irrelevant and sometime dubious eloquence the real issues of this resolutions have been sometimes wholly submerged. Can we not forget these confusing side-issues and confine ourselves strictly to the question upon which we have shortly to vote, bearing in mind that we must vote as judges, cooly, and impartially, calmly, and not as partisans in heat and in passion?

What is this question? Briefly, it is a proposal that a delegation be sent to Canada to learn the terms and conditions of the confederation of Newfoundland with Canada. What does that mean? Obviously, it is not a discussion of the merits or the demerits of confederation; and yet we have been told of the allowance offered by Canada in respect of our public debt in 1895, and the computation of what we should get in the same connection today. The amount mentioned was I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300 million. Incidentally, that sounds like a fantastically good sum to me. Again, we were informed of the fabulous prices obtained for fishery products in Canada. Were these gentlemen unconsciously advocating confederation?

Again, it has been suggested that the delegation might explore the question of tariffs and other matters affecting the general relations between Canada and an independent Newfoundland. Surely it is clear that such investigations are wholly without the jurisdiction of this Convention and obviously beyond the scope of any delegation’s activities. None of these things has anything to do with the resolution before the Chair. We are not discussing the merits or the demerits of Confederation. The proposal is simply that this delegation endeavour to obtain facts, commonly referred to as the terms or conditions of union which would be acceptable to the Government of Canada, if the people of Newfoundland approved of such union. That and nothing more.

It is true that in the course of these explorations and inquiries much further, and valuable, information would be obtained—the normal functioning of the Canadian system, the actual relations existing between the federal and provincial authorities, and many other matters of which I, at any rate, have very little knowledge today. Nor is the delegation in any sense entitled or empowered to negotiate any agreement or in any way to bind even its own members, or in any was bind even its own members, much less the Convention, and least of all, the people of Newfoundland. They are gleaners of facts only.

Today I am neither a Commissionite nor an anti-Commissionite, I am neither friend nor foe of responsible government, I am neither confederate nor anti-confederate. I have not the facts upon which I may arrive at a reasonable or reasoned conclusion. The facts of one of these forms of government can only be obtained by sending a delegation to discuss the matter with the Canadian government. I want those facts. I demand them. I refuse to offer any opinion whatever on any form of government till I get them. And even more important than that I should have those facts, that they should be placed before the people of this country. These people must, within the next few months, decide their destinies at the polls. Any recommendation we may make is but advisory in character. Their decision, however, is final and ir-

• (p. 129 in the primary document)

-revocable. It would be nothing short of a criminal dereliction of duty on our part to leave any avenue of information unexplored. And in that connection, let me say here, that not only do I entirely approve of the sending of this delegation to Canada. But that I am equally insistent, that steps shall be taken to obtain from the United Kingdom a statement as to what financial and other assistance they would be prepared to afford us in case of need. I do not suggest in the first instance that we should send a delegation to the United Kingdom. I do not think that is necessary. The United Kingdom Government is the government of Newfoundland. And we can communicate with them either through His Excellency the Governor or through their agents, the Commission of Government here. If they, the government of the United Kingdom should, in their wisdom, deem it proper that we should then send a delegation to England, by all means, let us send that delegate. But I want to clearly understood that should any resolution be brought into this House to send a delegation in the first instance, I shall not oppose it. I do not consider it the right way to initiate the acquiring of this information from the United Kingdom. But I shall certainly take no steps whatever to place anything in the way of such a delegation going immediately.

And now after the timing of this delegation’s visit, there has been much nervousness and fear expressed over the prematurity of the resolution. Whether these fears arise out of a lack of knowledge of the real situation, or out of the panic stricken desire to exclude information about any form of government which might endanger the position of that form which their closed minds cling to with fanatical tenacity, I do not know. But it is clearly their desire to delay any examination of confederation facts for a considerable period. That attitude tends to create the impression, that the appointment of a delegation now would result in an immediate rush to Ottawa by such delegation. If, by any strange chance, anything even remotely approaching a resemblance to such a proceeding exists in the mind of any delegate, the fact would not even be humorous. It would be painful and pitifully deplorable. Of course, nothing is further from the truth. Conferences and discussions between governments and public bodies are not conducted in that way. Let us for a moment briefly review the probable course of procedure. The resolution, if adopted, would at once be sent to the governor or to the Commission of Government, who in turn would communicate with the Dominion Office.

The latter would then through the proper channels, get in touch with the Government of Canada. That government has already indicated in the House of Commons that it would be willing to meet a delegation of this Convention. And so, Sir, the door has already been opened in a friendly manner by Canada herself. In all probability, the Canadian government would either suggest a suitable time or inquire what date would be agreeable to us. Thus, and inevitably, the timing of the delegation’s departure from Newfoundland would be delayed for a considerable period, probably a period of several weeks. Again, does anyone in this convention for one moment imagine that any delegation of its members would have the temerity, or even the discourtesy to rush off to Ottawa at with at any time, without first advising this body? And conclusively, is anyone here under the impression that any sane body of delegates would depart upon such a mission without previous preparation right here in this city?

Their very method of approach to the subject will have to be carefully considered first, for they will have in their keeping the dignity of this land of ours and Newfoundland must not be placed in the position of a suppliant. They will have to compile a considerable amount of factual material for possible reference, during their stay in Canada’s capital. They will have many conferences with the Department of Government here. For it is perfectly elementary that before leaving for Ottawa, it will be imperative that they prepare figures estimating closely:

1. The amount of public service expenditures which will be lifted from our shoulders by the Dominion govemment’s assumption of responsibility for the Railway and its subsidiaries, the postal telegraph services, and other items for which our revenue is now liable.

2. The sources and amounts of our present revenue which will remain to us as a province when the Dominion takes over customs, income and other taxes.

3. The amount of revenue which will be required to carry on the remaining public services which will still be our responsibility—education, public health and the like.

These are but a few of the subjects upon which much information must be carefully compiled. They and many others will occupy many days of work in close collaboration with the ablest officials of the public service, some of whom, by reason of their intimate knowledge of departmental affairs, will have to accompany the delegation to Ottawa. Sir. The early appointment of this delegation could not possibly result in their arrival at Ottawa much

• (p. 130 in the primary document)

before the middle of December next, and it might easily be early in the New Year before they could leave Newfoundland. So, it seems clear that if we are to arrive at sound conclusions, based upon all the facts, and communicate our recommendations to the Dominions Office in time to enable the British Parliament to deal with them before the Easter recess, we must act on this resolution now. There is no advantage to be gained by delay. There is a probability of much harm. The people of this country, whether confederate or anti-confederate—and there are many of the former in Newfoundland today—want this information. They are anxiously awaiting it. Shall we take the responsibility of balking that desire? Shall we refuse them that information, or even delay it? Have we the right to place any obstacles in the way of the disclosure of any truth to which the people are entitled?

In 1933 the Amulree report[2] was concealed from the people until within a few days of the opening of the legislature which destroyed their freedom, and many knew little or nothing of the scheme to degrade them for their misfortunes until their liberties had passed into history. Shall we be parties to even a temporary suppression of the facts, whether of confederation or anything else? If we destroy this motion, or even delay it, we shall be guilty of just that. There are those in this land, and perhaps in this House, who would recklessly prevent the examination of every form of government which lies outside the limits of their own narrow notions, whose minds are firmly lashed to the chariot wheel of a single political system, whose judgement is impaired by the narrowness and restrictions of their mental horizons, who talk wildly that this or that form of government will not come to Newfoundland, save over their dead bodies. Are these the men whose lead we shall follow down the blind alley of obstruction to the search for truth? Or shall we take the straight road, the road which leads to the facts, the evidence, the information which we, as representatives of the people, are bound to lay before them without unnecessary delay, and upon which they must ponder and decide their destinies? Let us beware of all efforts to block the truth, any truth which concerns the people. Lest we regret it to our dying days. Sir, I have said, and I hope demonstrated, that the early appointment of this delegation could not possibly enable its members to reach Ottawa before the middle of December or early January. That there is too much preliminary work to do. That delays may prevent our recommendations reaching the British Parliament before the Easter vacation. That there is nothing to be gained by delaying this resolution, though much may be lost.

Doubtless, in good faith, it has been suggested by some that this matter should be deferred until we know the details of our financial position. Why? Why? What connection is there between the two? How is the determination of the one dependent upon the ascertainment of the other? Early action upon this resolution will not bring the terms of confederation to the people before the last of January next, and that is delay enough. And in the final analysis, even if our present financial position is found to be fairly satisfactory, is that the last word? Is that the last word? Is it suggested that in such case no inquiries are to be made of Canada, of the United Kingdom or of anyone? Are we then bound to walk this chaotic world alone? In such case, are the people to have no choice? That would be a repetition of the vicious scheme of 1933. It would be a clear breach of fundamental political morality. It would violate, nay, it would defeat both the spirit and the letter of the Convention Act of 1946. It would be an arrogant determination of the people’s destinies in the dark, a determination which would be bitterly resented by them, for, as may of you know full well, the supporters of responsible government are, to say the least of it, not in an overwhelming majority in this country today.

But, Sir, I am not without sympathy for those who fear precipitate action. I can understand their desire to avoid mistakes. I think their fears are groundless. I think the delegation should be selected at an early date. Their departure for Ottawa, early, is definitely impossible. In any case it is not essential. And, in order to eliminate all uncertainty, I propose at the proper stage in this debate to offer another amendment, an amendment which will ensure, in any event, that the delegation shall not leave St. John’s before the first day of January, 1947. That, I think, should meet the views of all, save irreconcilables.

In conclusion, Sir, it is my earnest wish and sincere hope that before voting upon this question every member of this Convention will bring to bear upon it the full strength of his intellect, backed by an irresistible urge to seek the truth; that we shall, every one of us, purge our minds of all passion and prejudice, all party and personal allegiances, all enthusiasms and all antagonisms. Let us discharge this solemn duty which rests upon us; let us reach a decision upon this, as upon all other questions, in cool, impartial and reasoned judgement. That has come to the tasks that lie ahead. Let us render our decision upon the resolution now at our hands as a bench of judges, and not as a body of partisans.

Thomas Kennedy [Harbour Main]—This House was resolved into nine committees with one main object in view, to produce for Convention members, and the people, a detailed general summary of our country’s standing in such a form as to avoid con-

• (p. 131 in the primary document)

-fusion, and at the same time give us a general basis on which we are to form the groundwork for, or reach our decisions. Hitherto these committees have worked both energetically and smoothly towards their goal, without which any decisions cannot logically be even considered, unless, of course, previous bias exists. Surely, should the ultimate summary prove our beloved country to be financially and economically independent, any delegation to anywhere would be both futile and a further source of expense to a country which has already been exploited to a disgusting extent.

I maintain that such interruption as this motion would inevitably entail is both untimely and at the present stage of procedure more than impracticable. Indeed I go so far, Mr. Chairman, as to say such action to my mind strongly suggests sabotage—at whose instigation it is within my power to think, but not to state. In consequence, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Convention, as an ex-service Newfoundlander, whose one aim is the freedom of my country for which I fought, I see no other possible outlet than to support the amendment. Thank you.

John Hannon [Harbour Main]—My first vote in this National Convention is not going to be a silent one. The introduction of the proposal before the Chair brings back to my mind an old, old story—confederation, a bugaboo which lies dormant in this country until rumour has it that an election is in the offing. Since our last general election in 1932, I believe, up to 1946 the word Confederation was seldom if every heard.

Some delegates have made the broad statement that confederation is a very live issue over the greater part of this country. I have no authority to speak, except for a small section of the country, and that section is the district which sent me here, where I may add, Mr. Chairman, confederation is anything but a live issue. However, I can speak from an experience gained by me when acting as employment manager at the Gander from 1940 to 1944. During that time I passed through my hands some thousands of men coming to the Gander to work, not from any particular section of the country, but from all over the island, and not once did I hear one of these men say anything in favour of, or even about, confederation. But after our men had lived and worked with the Canadians at the airport and had exchanged opinions, I found that whatever sentiments they had had before, they were certainly unfavourable afterwards.

I am going to vote against the original motion and for the amendment proposed by Mr. Penney, the delegate for Carbonear, for the following reasons: I do believe, Sir, that this is not the time to send a delegation to Ottawa, or anywhere else—our work as a fact-finding organisation has only just begun. When the work which we were sent here to do is accomplished, and we are ready to submit an official reports to the country, then, Mr. Chairman, will be time enough to send envoys to outside nations, if indeed it is even then found necessary to do so.

D. I. Jackman [Bell Island]—Mr. Chairman, I would like to say from the very outset that I am not in favour of confederation with Canada, nor am I in favour of confederation with anyone. I am a Newfoundlander, proud of my heritage, proud of my forebears. I believe in my country and I believe in my countrymen. I am satisfied with nothing less than that our country should be restored to its former position, a grand position, a self-governing dominion within the Commonwealth of Nations, the cornerstone of the British Empire.

I had no intention at this time to state my mind here in this House. I have already done so in public, but because of this resolution I am forced to partly state what I was sent here for. I am the only delegate, at this Convention, who was sent here by my constituents on a definite policy for Newfoundland. I am not going to talk possible forms of government now, because I realize, Sir, the time hasn’t come. I merely wish to say this, that I speak for the common people. I speak for people like these. I speak for a woman who came to my home shortly before I came on this Convention, and she asked me to go into her house and view the circumstances under which she had to live—I went in there. A shack of about 18 feet by 24. There were in that shack 16 human beings, half of them TB, living like cattle. I speak for a man who has worked 45 years for a company, and after his 45 years is thrown onto the scrap heap and has to take a net pension of $8 a month. I speak for the countless numbers of young children in my own district who are barred in from October until the sun shines again next spring, because they have not sufficient clothing to wear. These are the people I speak for, and as I have said before, I have a definite idea of what form of government Newfoundland needs; but I feel Newfoundland must first of all get back her responsible government before we can go on further.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I can continue talking on these lines, but I do not wish to obstruct the proceedings of this House in any way. I said before I am not here to waste time, notwithstanding that $15 a day is big money for the labouring man. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the advocates of confederation with Canada this question, I would like to know the answer from them, and the country would like to know

• (p. 132 in the primary document)

as well. I would like to know why do 25,000 Canadians leave Canada yearly to go to the United States? Mr. Chairman and gentlemen I stand to support the amendment.

Percy Figary [Burgeo]—I have been deeply impressed as I have listened to the proceedings of this convention since its opening. I have been particularly impressed both by the eloquence and subject matter of the addresses that have been delivered during this Convention. And I like the attitude of most of our members in coming here to try and find out what would be the best setup for our people. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have followed, very closely, the debate on this resolution that has been presented by Mr. Smallwood to this Convention, and I may say, Sir, that I do not object to the principle involved in the resolution as I feel we should have that information, and all the information we can get on any form of government. I want it, and the people of my district want it, and we must get it, so we can be in such a position as to decide what form of government will be best so as to give our people a square deal. A government for all citizens of this country and not for a few.

In the past, Mr. Chairman, a lot of our people were given a rotten deal, they have been hungry and cold, and there is no doubt about that; I have been in homes and seen it. I have seen children crying for bread and none to give them. I have seen children and even adults use flour sacks in order to cover their nakedness. These people did not endure this because they were too lazy to work; they were eager to work, there was no work to be had, and those who did work, Mr. Chairman, were paid a shamefully low wage, and the fishermen received next to nothing for their fish, barely enough for an existence. There was nothing that we could do about it, as at that time organised labour got little assistance or recognition from any source, indeed it was frowned upon in many places. Since Commission of Government has controlled this country there has been a lot of improvement as regards recognition of organised labour. This does not mean, however, that the government has in all cases favoured the organisation of the workers, there have been times when they opposed and actually fought against the right of workers to organise and bargain collectively. In the main, however, they have generally encouraged the idea of collective bargaining and have set up machinery whereby employer and employee can meet and discuss their difficulties. And at the present, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat in favour of the present form of government until we can determine a better form of government for Newfoundland.

There has been considerable debate on the resolution now before this Convention and I have the feeling the majority are in favour of the amendment so nicely presented by my friend Mr. Penney. As I have already said, I am in favour of the principle of the resolution and it is proper that we should have the information concerning terms of union with Canada and I feel we should know it. I want to associate myself with previous speakers. I too came to this Convention with an open mind, and I shall vote only for that which I know will benefit the people of our country. I do not intend to be carried away or swayed by every wind and doctrine. I will vote on the vital issues of this Convention according to what I believe to be in the best interests of this country. As I have already stated, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the principle of this resolution, and it’s really too bad that it had to come up at this time. There is no doubt that when the time is opportune, this Convention will not overlook this matter, and will obtain the terms on which Canada would receive us, or should I say, on which we would be willing for Canada to join us. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the delegates to this Convention will have a lot to say when the time is opportune to discuss Confederation or any other form of government. I feel, Sir, a lot of time has been wasted on this matter, and I do not see any advantage in discussing it further. As I have already said, repeating myself again, I am deeply interested in this Convention. I shall try and obtain all information possible so as to enable me to arrive at a decision as to the best setup to recommend to the people of my district. I have taken particular notice of the remarks of certain speakers about the positions being offered and trips to Ottawa and so forth, I’m not concerned about that, Mr. Chairman, because I have the feeling that no delegate to this convention has the authority to offer such positions. I agree somewhat with Mr. Watton, who opened a debate at a previous session that some remarks have been very interesting and more very disgusting.[3] If we as delegates think that this resolution should not have been brought in this time, why all the discussion? Why did we not throw it out when it was introduced? Or let the question lay on the table for a later date?

No person, Mr. Chairman, can carry me beyond what I deem advisable on this question. I can decide that when we have received and studied the terms of confederation with Canada. I do not like people outside of this Chamber asking me how I am going to vote, that’s my business, and I am only going to be led by my own conscience, whether it’s voting for confederation or any other form of government. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I see no alternative for me but to vote for the amendment. And they say that I am sorry that this resolution was introduced so early as it will tend to delay the reports of our Forestry and Education Committees. I trust the matter will be voted on soon so as to enable the committee to complete and report on their important work.

Edmund Cranford [Trinity Centre]—Mr. Chairman. while listening to the debate on the motion now before the House, it has given me cause to ask the question, are we inconsistent? In other words, do we practise what we preach? The vote now pending will decide my question.

When we had responsible government, it was very often considered by us that spending money on trips both local and foreign, together with other similar acts, would lead to the financial collapse of our country. That collapse did come. Responsible government was ousted from power and Commission of Government took its place, and in the opinion of some of us the Commission of Government has not lived up to expectations. Hence a National Convention has been inaugurated to investigate our country’s economic and financial condition of today, and before we have got anywhere we are confronted with a resolution to send delegates to Canada to seek terms of confederation. In my opinion we are asked to favour the pleasure of a few gentlemen on a joyride at the expense of the taxpayers of this country.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Edmund Cranford [Trinity Centre]—Now why do the same thing that past governments had done that we did not approve of? And why send a delegation anywhere out of the country at any time? Why not let our actions be an example for any future government?

Let the terms of confederation be sought by all

• (p. 133 in the primary document)

means if we think it necessary to do so, but do it in an economic manner that would be consistent with the impression we gave our constituents when seeking election to this Convention. Let our wishes be known to the Commission of Government, with the request that the government open negotiations immediately with the Canadian government with the aim of securing the terms of confederation. Let it be done by mail instead of selecting a band of globe trotters. By setting a precedent. For example, suppose some person brought in a resolution advocating this country be made part of an international zone comprising the three greatest English-speaking nations of the world, namely England, Canada and the United States of America, would not that person have reason to demand the same right and privilege as the person who brought in the motion now before us? And that confederation with Canada would be such a [unintelligible] as some people would try and make us believe. Would not such a Union as I have just mentioned be a threefold benefit? And should command our consideration? Gentlemen, if we mean what we say, that we will support every movement that would be in the best interest of our country, with this object in mind, may I suggest we use a postage stamp instead of a railway ticket when we can get the same result. Do not let us be deceived in thinking that Canada will give us any better terms than the Maritime provinces received when they threw in their lot with the federal government. With all due consideration, it is with pleasure that I will support the amendment proposed by Mr. Penney. Thank you.

Michael McCarthy [Port-au-Port]—I am not going to speak at any length to the motion now before the Chair, and I am certainly not going to speak on confederation, which is not the issue; too much has been said for and against that by some previous speakers. I wish to make it clear that I am not supporting confederation or any other form of government at this particular time, but when the time comes, I shall favour the form of government which I think, in my mind, will best serve Newfoundland and its people.

I know there are some Newfoundlanders, few though they may be, who are favouring confederation with Canada, and we owe it to them to obtain the information possible. Whether this is sought now or later does not matter a great deal, as long as it is available to the Convention when the committees are finished. Canada, knowing now that we do not have to accept, will I think submit her best offer. Then our confederates, knowing this, will have a better idea whether or not it would be wise to vote that way. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support the resolution.

UNKNOWN—Mr. Chairman, I rise here to announce my intention of supporting the resolution before the House. I do this with the conviction that it is my duty to help give the people of Newfoundland an opportunity to decide for themselves if they want Confederation with Canada or not. I feel the only circumstances under which they can do this intelligently are if they know the terms under which candidate would be willing to accept us as the 10th province.

John Spencer [Hermitage]—Hitherto, Sir, I have taken no verbal part in the public sessions of this House. Being one of the younger members of this Convention and unaccustomed to gatherings of this sort, I have chosen rather to listen and learn. But having sat and listened for the last week or so to the comments and debate on the resolution now before this House, I feel compelled to make some comment. I know, and many gentlemen here have stated, that there are people in all the districts of Newfoundland and Labrador who are expecting that confederation will be one of the forms of government which will be presented to them at a future referendum, and for that reason alone it was inevitable that the question of getting terms from the Canadian government should at some time have to come before this House. I think we agree on that. The main point of the argument in this House at the present time is, it seems to me, the time of presenting the resolution, which some of us think was premature. But the fact remains that the motion is before the House and we have spent over a week in disputing and debating it. Now what are we going to do about it? Are we going to shelve this resolution at the present and bring it in at some future date, say two months from now? Or shall we pass the resolution now and see that the machinery is sitting able to secure the information for us so that it will be at hand when we need it. I have given much thought and consideration to the question now before the chair and have come to the conclusion that I will support the motion, because I consider that if we shelve the question now and have it brought in again at some future date, we should have all our discussions and debates over again which to me, Sir, seems a decided waste of time, and I have no wish to see this Convention prolonged more than is absolutely necessary. And again, I would like this Convention to have the facts when they want them and not have to wait for them. And in making this decision, Sir, I wish it to be clearly understood that I have not been approached or influenced by any member of this Convention, or anyone else for that matter. Let us, gentlemen, get the question settled as quickly as possible and get on with the real business of finding out the facts about our own country.

Charles Ballam [Humber]—Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken on this resolution before the Chair because in the first place I did not think it necessary for so many speeches to have been made. If every resolution and every question that that comes before this Chair, Sir, is going to have 45 speeches made on it we are going to be here for a very long time yet, and I cannot see the sense or necessity for it. We have a resolution placed before us, this convention. And the resolution is nothing more or less than to obtain the facts of Confederation, that is all. There is nothing in the question about confederation except to obtain the facts. And I personally think that almost everyone who spoke for the amendment, they want to get the facts too. I do not think that there is anybody here in this House that do not want to find out what the terms of Confederation would be, whether it’s here, and whether we look for it now or two weeks time or when. Well, that might be alright to get the machinery in motion, but that is not the thing, as far as I am concerned, the idea of getting these things is in the back of my mind, and I think as I mentioned before, everybody here. Now, I think I heard a lot of talk here about delegations and trips here and there and about jobs, senatorships, trips to Ottawa. I think this is a lot of nonsense. There’s nobody mentioned me to me or offered me any senatorships or any trips to Ottawa, because if this convention were sensible enough in its work to recommend that a delegation go anywhere, and we decided that it would be necessary, well, we’d be making a sort of an awful fool of ourselves if we did not do so. But this Convention would do that. And there’s nobody here, there’s no single individual here, has got any authority, in my opinion, to ask anybody to go anywhere, that’s this Convention’s job. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know, as I see it, the resolution is, and I hope I’m sticking close enough to the resolution, is that we obtain facts of the Confederation from Canada. Now, if I understand properly the amendment, I haven’t got it here and I’m not privileged, I know, to speak on it at this time, but the amendment is along the same lines of the resolution, except that it puts off the time when this matter should be taken up at a later date. If I understand correctly, that would be the amendment. Now I’m not going to go into the amendment because I’m not permitted to speak on it and I’m supposed to speak on the question before the floor. Now if all those who agree with the amendment and those who agree with the resolution, if they put their heads together it’s identically the same thing, except that one is a little delayed. Now I think I heard a gentleman mention this afternoon that he was going to make an amendment to the amendment that this matter be laid on the table until the 1st of January. Well, if that’s not along the lines of the amendment already before the House, I don’t know what is. And I hope that we could sort of get straightened out, Sir, and get on with the job. I think we’re wasting too much time, absolutely too much time on something that should have been finished long ago. Now when every amendment comes up, we got to have 45 speeches on the amendment and then the amendment to the amendment. We got to have 45 speeches on that. I’ll start making amendments myself and make a real job of it.

Some hon. Members—Laughter.

Charles Ballam [Humber]—I think, Sir, I don’t know, I’m so confused. I don’t know whether vote on the resolution or vote on the amendment. I do want to get the information, but just where it’s my vote, I’m for both. If you could turn it that way, I want to get the information and whether we get this week, next week or next week. It matters very little to me as long as I have that for my own use. Sometime. I’m not a confederate. Indeed, I am not a Confederate. I’m not supporting any particular form of government but I do want the terms and the sooner we can get on with this job and get something done, the better to be for everybody concerned.

Edmund Reddy [Burin East]—Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to speak briefly on the motion introduced by my friend Mr. Smallwood. I must say I am favourably impressed with the tenor of some of the speeches delivered on the opening of this debate. A fair number of citizens in my district are sympathetic towards confederation, therefore I deem it absolutely imperative that the terms of confederation be obtained and laid before the House at the proper time. Gentlemen, do you realize the responsibility that is ours; the destiny of our country for generations to come, in our hands. The fate of 300,000 people rests with us. They are carefully watching every move we make. They sent us here to do a job. The government is paying us at the rate of $1000 per day to do it. What is the job we are paid to do? Isn’t it to enquire into the financial and economic condition of this country and make certain recommendations as to the future forms of government? The final report of two committees has been laid aside due to the premature resolution now before us. To support the above resolution at this time would, I am afraid, cause serious division amongst us. Thereby creating two rival factions in the Convention, the faction of responsible government and consideration. Which would embrittle this country into the greatest political fermentation in our history and throw back to our committees political discord which would make future progress impossible. Why all the hurry to obtain the terms of confederation? If this convention takes a year to complete its work, what is a year compared with the life of the country?

“Was there ever a man so dead who never to himself, had said this is my own, my native land?”[4]

With a sincere heart and with all the love of a Newfoundlander for his native home, I will support the amendment of my good friend, Mr. Penney.

Mr. Chairman—Is the House ready for the question?

Chesley Crosbie [St. John’s City West]—Mr. Chairman, when this resolution was introduced, unfortunately I was away. I did, however, hear most of the speeches over VONF and VOCM and I would like to congratulate on the job they did not do. I do not think this is the time to debate confederation. We have not any facts or figures actually concerning our own country. And definitely, we don’t know the terms of confederation. To me, at the moment the idea of preparing to send a delegation to Ottawa is ridiculous. I happen to own a business and Mr. Smallwood happens to own a business. I look around, and have a pretty good idea in my mind [unintelligible] was Mr. Smallwood. So I approach Mr. Smallwood, the idea of amalgamating in my mind. During the conversation says

“Mr. Crosbie, what are your assets?”

“I’m sorry, Mr. Smallwood, I don’t know.”

“Would you mind going back and find out what they are? Let me discuss this thing in a later date.”

That’s the answer. Mr. Smallwood would naturally give me. What I’d expect. I don’t see any bitter opposition in this convention. We’re guarding the question of obtaining the facts of confederation. I think the majority of the delegates agreed we should have the information. There’s a question of time when we should get it. We’re working around very nicely trying to find the facts we could of our own country and get them assembled. And from that point move farther on. We have lost approximately a week, I believe, discussing this question and Mr. Ballam says 45 people are going to speak to two amendments, and every resolution that comes up in this Convention. I think I better give a [unintelligible]. Mr. Bradley, and he speaks, did say, that the departure of the delegation, wasn’t necessary to be hurried. Rather than no hurry, put a departure. Well if is no hurry to depart the delegation, why hurry about appointment at the moment. These men can’t possibly serve in a delegation, get the information that the delegation required, and still serve the committee to this debate. Can’t be done. I’m not anti-confederate, neither am I confederate. If the terms are right and the terms are proper and Canada wants to be Santa Claus in Newfoundland, I back her up. But I’ve got to be convinced first. I am not in here supporting any particular form of government, I still have a mind on my own and I think it’s still open. But I definitely oppose and regret what’s happened in this convention the last week over this resolution. For my own part, I’m going to support the amendment. Thank you.

Charles Bailey [Trinity South]—Mr. Chairman, at this stage I am not going to say much about sending a delegation to Ottawa, while I believe was badly-timed and poorly-put, but I am sorry, at this time, that such an issue would be injected into this Convention. And I myself, and I believe other honourable gentlemen see that it smacks too much of old-time politics. [unintelligible] and move on with the primary work of the Convention to find out the financial condition of the country and let the forms of government come after.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Is the Convention ready for the question?

Gordon Higgins [St. John’s City East]—My learned friend Mr. Bradley referred to sessions of the British government. I wonder if you, Sir, or Professor Wheare explain to the Convention the meaning of session to the British Parliament and what bearing they have on any possible referendum in the Spring or later, what time we have to have our work done?

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Perhaps when Mr. Bradley returns, I will get the exact words. You may leave the question on over until afterwards, Mr. Higgins. Is the Convention ready for the question? Now the following—you have spoken already, Mr. Smallwood.

[Some of the recording lost]

Joseph Smallwood [Bonavista Centre]—Mr. Chairman, before coming to the main part of my remarks I would like to say how deeply grateful I am for the very many words of encouragement I have received since I moved this resolution on Monday last. By word of mouth, by telephone and by telegraph from many parts of the country these encouraging messages have come, enough to show me, if I had not known before, that this country wants the resolution to pass. And now I reply to my friend Mr. Harrington. I am deeply sorry to find that we are on opposite sides. I did hope it would be otherwise. As he said himself, I was expecting his support of this motion, for months ago he declared to me his intention to do so. From the moment I first met him—that was when he worked with me on the Book of Newfoundland[5]—I liked and admired him. I have followed his

• (p. 135 in the primary document)

career ever since, especially as my successor in the Barrelman radio programme. I believe he is a patriot, and I believe he loves this country every bit as much as I do. I am all the more sorry, therefore, that he has marred his political career, which I thought was a rather promising one, by his remarks aimed at me on Monday. I thought at first that I should put them down to naivety, to lack of experience in everyday affairs. I felt sorry that he should make such an almost unforgiveable break. Yes, I told Mr. Harrington that I thought he would make a very good member of any delegation that might go to Canada to get the terms of confederation. I did not promise a seat on any such delegation from this Convention to Ottawa. 1 shall not appoint it I suppose I would be lucky to be on it myself. I did tell Mr. Harrington that he would make a good member of the delegation, and I would say now again that he would make a good member, if I could feel sure that it was only an unfortunate break he made here on Monday last, and not a deliberate piece of double-crossing treachery, if it was not an unscrupulous attempt at political throat-cutting. Some day, I trust, Mr. Harrington will learn that in the circles in which men move and work and deliberate there is a line drawn, a well-known and well-established line, which men do not cross. It’s simply not done to rush into a public assembly and blurt out what is said in private conversation…. Mr. Harrington will learn all this if he remains in the public life of our country. Maybe Mr. Harrington merely made an unfortunate and immature break—if he did I forgive him, and there are no hard feelings. Again, perhaps he fancied a perfectly sincere remark to be a foul attack upon his political virtue. In that case I could be sorry for his inexperience. But if it was a deliberate piece of throat-cutting, if it was part and parcel of a planned campaign to rivet responsible government on us, and to tune out everything but responsible government, then it’s another situation altogether.

Now I turn to Mr. Hollett’s remarks. I did not offer him a senatorship for two very good reasons.

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—Mr. Smallwood, in making the statement, must first prove that I said that he, Mr. Smallwood, offered me a senatorship. Before I allow it to proceed any further, I did say that even I was offered a senatorship.

Joseph Smallwood [Bonavista Centre]—I did not offer Mr. Hollett a senatorship for two very sound reasons. First, because I have no senatorships to offer. Secondly, because if I were going to offer him any job it would be something on a very much lower level than a senatorship.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Now, Mr. Smallwood, I don’t want to have to call you to order. I want you therefore, to be very careful as to what you’re saying—

Joseph Smallwood [Bonavista Centre]—Yes, Sir.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—what you intend to say, because I do not propose to have personalities exchanged or comments made which may be under any circumstances regarded as aspersions upon the members of the Convention.

Joseph Smallwood [Bonavista Centre]—Yes, Sir. I will, Sir.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Now, will you please observe that rule so that you will not have leave to be forced to call you to order?

Joseph Smallwood [Bonavista Centre]—Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will observe that. I was going to go on to say that I do Mr. Hollett the credit of not having accused me directly of offering him a senatorship. He merely said that he had been offered on. I think he meant it to be inferred that it was I who offered it to him. Now I have never exchanged more than 50 words with Mr. Hollett in all my life. I trust to his honour to make it clear that it was not to me he referred. My friend Mr. Fudge, his objection was to the holding of what he called “a little side convention” in my room at the Newfoundland Hotel. I noticed that a local paper also referred to these meetings, so-called. Now it is perfectly true that many delegates, I might say two or three dozen delegates, have visited me in my room at the hotel, some by my specific invitation, some without any particular invitation. And I have visited other delegates in their room. In my room and in their room, in the committee rooms in this house, and walking along the street and in the streetcar, I have often discussed public affairs with delegates and with non-delegates. I am quite sure that other delegates have done likewise. It’s the habit we have. It’s the habit all public men have, and you can’t stop. It isn’t even sensible to want to stop. It happens all over the world, even in the peace conference, in the UNO conference, in every conference and convention and public assembly everywhere. It’s just the ordinary, practical, everyday procedures for men to talk things over, to try to convince each other, or to try to find out what the other man is thinking and to canvas the situation generally. There is nothing improper or unusual about it. You yourself, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bradley and Mr. Starke and Mr. Ashbourne, will I feel sure not disagree when I say that it would be impossible to count the number of times in the past that public men met and conferred, and explored, or canvassed this possibility or that motion, or the other act or proposed act. It’s just simple inexperience. Immature unsophistication to paint such meetings as sinister

• (p. 136 in the primary document)

or improper or unusual.

Mr. Cashin, I turn to him. I like Mr. Cashin. I enjoy him—

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Excuse me, I want to draw the attention of strangers to the fact that this is not a theatre and applause of any character is forbidden.

Joseph Smallwood [Bonavista Centre]—Resuming, Mr. Chairman, I say I like Mr. Cashin and I enjoy him. He fascinates me. His arguments fascinate me. His statements fascinate me. For instance, that statement he made here a day or two ago that he never said anything outside the House that he wouldn’t be prepared to say in the House. Now most men I’d hardly be willing to believe if they made such a statement. But I think I believe Mr. Cashin when he makes it. And that other statement he made, when he said there was an ulterior motive behind this resolution. Now Mr. Cashin is not an easy man to fool. We can always trust him to ferret out ulterior motives and plots. He ferreted out an ulterior motive behind this Convention itself – it’s just a bluff, he says, a glorious stall, dripping with treachery, a clever stunt to keep Commission Government in power. But he admits that the members of the Convention are not aware of the ulterior motive behind this resolution to get information for our people, he admitted it here last week. And he fears that the members do not see the ulterior motive behind the setting up of this Convention. And he is determined, Mr. Chairman, to expose the ulterior motive behind both, behind the resolution and behind the Convention itself. He is determined to protect the members of this Convention, to protect Mr. Bradley and Mr. Job and Mr. Burry and Mr. Keough and Mr. Newell and Mr. Crosbie and all of us. He’s the great protector. He’s not going to see us get bluffed and conned. He represents more men in this convention than anyone else, 30,000 of them. He’s going to see that the country gets the only kind of government that he thinks is fit for the country, responsible government of course. He’s against this resolution, which seeks to get information for the people, on the ground that he knows the country is self-supporting anyway, so why waste time getting more information? He knows the country is self-supporting, he says, because it’s all in the Auditor General’s report. There it is, according to him, as clear as mud, the clear proof that the country is self-supporting. We don’t need to look any further. And yet, Mr. Chairman, one of his reasons for not sending a delegation to Ottawa is that the delegation would have no information to take with them. Wasn’t he overlooking that remarkable Auditor General’s report, which he says contains such remarkable information about this country? Mr. Cashin in one breath says that on the basis of the 1895 confederation offer from Canada we’d get $300 million cash from Canada if we federated with her now, and in the next breath he speaks about selling the country. There’s something wrong in this line of reasoning. I fear there’s something wrong in a lot of his reasoning, for example when he convinces himself that Prime Minister Attlee’s reference to the three-year reconstruction programme of the Commission government proves a deep plot on Mr. Attlee’s part to keep the Commission Government here another three years. I’m afraid I’m not impressed any more by Mr. Cashin’s standing as an authority on constitutional theory, constitutional history and constitutional practice, than I am by his grasp of financial matters, as he has displayed it, on a notable occasion, since this Convention first began. Before I leave Mr. Cashin for the time being, I must say that it appears to me that he is rather annoyed with me for not including him in my list of senatorships. Well I hasten now to repair that blunder on my part. I have no more senatorships to offer, I’m sorry, but I promise him faithfully that if I should ever become prime minister of Canada I’ll see that he is taken care of. I’ll see that he is all fixed up. I’ll see that he gets a position fully in keeping with his parliamentary background. I’ll make him Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. I’d give anything to see him all togged off in those dinky black pantaloons and three-cornered hat.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Mr. Smallwood, would you kindly abstain from burlesque statements.

Joseph Smallwood [Bonavista Centre]—I will, sir.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Well you will because I’ll have to rule you out of order if you don’t.

Joseph Smallwood [Bonavista Centre]—I won’t make another, sir. And now, Mr. Chairman, while I’m at it, I want to say a word about The Sunday Herald newspaper. I want to say emphatically that it is not true that I’m paying that newspaper to attack me every week. There’s not a word of truth in it. I am grateful to them for their valuable attacks upon me. I hope they keep it up, but I’m definitely not paying them one cent for doing it.

Now turning to more important aspects of this question. I don’t think that thoughtful Newfoundlanders are glad to see such silly efforts being made to take their attention away from the main question in this resolution. The people of our country want to know the truth, and they have a right to know the truth, the truth about Commission government, the truth about responsible government, the truth about confederation. They would not thank me if I tried to keep the truth about Commission government away from them and I would not be so foolish as to try to keep it from them; or the truth about responsible government either. And the people are not thanking anyone who is trying to keep the truth about confederation from them. There are people in this Convention who want to keep the truth amount Commission Government and about confederation from our people. All they want the people to hear about is responsible government, all they want this convention to hear about is responsible government. All they can see, all they are willing to talk about is responsible government. Their every thought is about responsible government, and they’re not satisfied for anything else to come before us. If they could have their way this Convention would close up right now after narrowing our people’s

• (p. 137 in the primary document)

choice down to responsible government. It maddens them, it infuriates them, when I introduce this resolution, when many delegates support it. It maddens them because it takes attention away from the one thing that they want the people to see, responsible government. But, sir, our people are not blind. They see through this political dodge. Our people know why this effort is being made to block this resolution. They know why some people are trying to block getting the terms of confederation. Our people have learned a lot in the last 20 years. They have their eyes open today. Mr. Chairman, I am not at this point referring to everyone who has spoken against the resolution. I want to make myself quite clear on this point. There are members in this Convention who have spoken very sincerely against the motion, because they feared that it was trying to rush them. Not to them do I refer, but to a certain willful minority whose only policy is responsible government or bust.

We have heard some silly talk about selling the country. “Smallwood is trying to sell the country,” they say. Could political bankruptcy go lower? The fanatical opponents of this motion must be pretty hard-up for an argument when they descend to such old-time political clap-trap, the sort of tripe that brought responsible government into such contempt and disrepute before. Personal abuse, name-calling, charges of graft, bribery and corruption, accusations of selling the country and so forth, don’t the gentlemen who stoop to such tactics see, don’t they realise, that every time they get down to such depths, they’re only reminding the people of the bad old days of responsible government? Don’t they see that every such remark only makes the people more determined than ever never to touch responsible government again? Those people have a very poor opinion of our people’s intelligence. They are gambling on the hope that our people have short memories. They are living in a world that is dead and past, that bad old world of playing politics, of playing politics as a game. Not ideas, but personalities; not policies, but name-calling; not great political principles, but accusations of graft, bribery, treachery and all the rest of the old time political ammunition-dump of trash and garbage. If you don’t agree with a man, smear him. If you can’t answer his arguments, try to draw attention away from his arguments by blackening his character. Accuse him of bribery, start a great hullabaloo, a big noise, and maybe the public will forget the solid things he said. It’s an old game, Mr. Chairman, but it doesn’t work any more. Our people are on to that old trick of the political game.

But, sir, why should I complain because a few people say that I’m trying to sell the country? Better men than I, greater Newfoundlanders, higher patriots, have had the same charge hurled against them. That greatest patriot of all, the Right Honourable Sir Robert Bond, who occupied a seat only two or three feet from where I stand today, had the same charge made against him. Here, Mr. Chairman, is a printed pamphlet published in 1909, when he was prime minister. On the cover of this pamphlet, in heavy black type, are the words: “Bond’s Awful Plot to Sell the Country fully exposed.” And what is this pamphlet about? That pamphlet tells how our great Newfoundland patriot, Sir Robert Bond, he was a confederate who wanted to get Canada’s terms of confederation in 1909. For wanting to get the terms of confederation Sir Robert Bond was accused of wanting to sell his country, so why should I complain for having the same charge hurled at me when I propose to get the terms? Sir Edward Morris not only tried to get the terms in 1914 but got them—was he trying to sell the country? Were Sir William Coaker and Sir Michael Cashin traitors to Newfoundland because they were anxious, in 1915, to get the terms of confederation? Were Sir William Whiteway and Archbishop Howley traitors for believing in confederation? Was Sir Richard Squires, were Sir Ambrose Shea and Sir Frederick Carter? Were those great Newfoundlanders all trying to sell the country because either they believed in confederation or at least wanted to get Canada’s terms of confederation?

Mr. Chairman, someone said, I believe it was Mr. Hollett, the junior member from Grand Falls district, that he didn’t believe that the Government of Canada would receive a delegation from this Convention. Well, let’s look at the record. In the House of Commons, on June the 27th of this present year, the Prime Minister of Canada—I take that back, Mr. Chairman, I’m a little ahead of my story—in the House of Commons of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada made this very precise statement and I quote him now exactly. He said:

“If the people of Newfoundland should ever decide that they wish to enter the Canadian federation and should make that decision clear beyond all possibility of misunderstanding, Canada would give most sympathetic consideration to the proposal.”[6]

That was in l943. Coming down to June the 27th of this present year, after the National Convention election, the Government of Canada made its position again very clear, in the words of Mr. St.

• (p. 138 in the primary document)

Laurent. Mr. St. Laurent, who is Canada’s Minister of Justice, was then acting Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. King being in Paris. Mr. St. Laurent was asked by a member of the Opposition, in the Canadian House of Commons, if the Canadian government would extend an invitation to Newfoundland to enter the Canadian federal union. Mr. St. Laurent replied for the government as follows, and now I quote him exactly:

“As the Hon. members know,”

he said,

“just within the past few days an election has been held in Newfoundland for the purpose of constituting an assembly. The position of Canada is still as it has been stated on more than one occasion in this House. If the people of Newfoundland come to the conclusion that they would be happy to throw in their lot with Canada, their representations will be given most earnest and sympathetic consideration. But it has been said,”

he goes on,

“on more than one occasion in this House that this is a matter concerning the inhabitants of the old colony of Newfoundland, and this Government would not wish to appear to be interfering in the affairs of that colony. Their delegates,”

Mr. St. Laurent went on to say,

“or representatives will be welcomed here as cordially as we can welcome them. I believe there are many Canadians who feel that it would be to the mutual advantage of Canada and Newfoundland to come closer together.”[7]

Mr. St. Laurent was followed immediately by Mr. John R. MacNichol, an Opposition member, who said, and again I quote him exactly:

“If and when Newfoundland should send delegates to Canada to discuss the question of the entry of Newfoundland to Confederation, which I for one favour, I would strongly urge that no effort be made or no suggestion advanced to detach Labrador from Newfoundland.”[8]

Mr. MacNichol said he had been in Newfoundland and knew how strongly Newfoundlanders felt on this point of losing Labrador. Mr. St. Laurent expressed his agreement. I think, Mr. Chairman, we may feel quite sure that Canada would receive a delegation from this Convention and would impart any terms that she was willing to offer Newfoundland. Their only policy in this whole matter is that it must be the Newfoundland people themselves who shall express a wish for confederation. Canada simply won’t accept Newfoundland unless the Newfoundland people express a wish for it. Now, the Newfoundland people cannot express a wish for it until they know the terms, and that’s what this resolution asks this Convention to do, to get the terms, to get them so that the Newfoundland people can judge for themselves, as they have every right to do.

Now we also know the attitude of the Opposition in Canada. At their annual conference this past summer, a few months ago, the opposition party of Canada passed a resolution unanimously calling upon the Government of Canada to extend an invitation to Newfoundland to enter the federal union. And we know, also, the attitude of the Canadian people. In the Gallup poll held in Canada this summer a big majority of the Canadian people declared that they would welcome Newfoundland into their federal union. Over 87% of the Canadian public in the Gallup Poll declared that they would like to see Newfoundland enter their Canadian federation.

So now, Mr. Chairman, we know all the factors but one. We know that it is lawful for the Convention, itself, to send the delegation to Ottawa. We know that Ottawa will receive the delegation, and receive it cordially. We know that the opposition party in Canada will not oppose it. We know that the Canadian people will not oppose it. The only thing we still don’t know is what the Newfoundland people want. We don’t know whether they want confederation or not—and we’re not going to know, in this Convention, until the people vote in the national referendum. All we can do, the most we can do, is get the terms and conditions to lay before the people, and that’s all that this resolution calls for. The rest can be very safely left to the people; once they know the terms, they’ll know how to make up their minds all right, never you fear.

I am sorry, in a way, that when the committees were set up five or six weeks ago we didn’t set up ten committees instead of nine. While nine committees were getting the facts about Commission government and responsible government, the tenth committee could have been getting the facts about confederation. At the same time an eleventh committee could have been sent up six weeks ago to be getting the facts as to whether or not Great Britain was willing to give us any assistance if we continued under Commission government or reverted to responsible government. And then there could have been eleven committees. However, it isn’t too late by any means. We can adopt this resolution and then the machinery can start. Word will finally come back to us saying very definitely whether Canada will receive the delegation, and the delegation itself could leave in December or January, for Ottawa. They’d probably be back in ten days or a fortnight, with the terms, and then the terms will be before us when, at last, we come around finally to discussing forms of government. If we think the terms are good, we’ll be able to recommend that confederation on those terms be put before the people in the referendum. If we do not think the terms are worth putting before the people, we don’t have to put them before the people. It’s the people who’ll decide. They’ll have the last word, and the only word that counts. If we ever enter

• (p. 139 in the primary document)

Confederation, Mr. Chairman, it’ll only be because our people will want it, and they’ll want it, if they do, only because the terms will make this a better country for them to live in. We owe it to the people to get them the facts they need to make up their minds on this question. We owe them that. It is our plain duty to get the facts for them, and I do not see how we can fail in that duty.

Now once again, Mr. Chairman, let me repeat the solemn pledge I have made to this House and to the country: if the terms, when we get them, are good for our people, then I shall support them. If the terms are not good, then I shall oppose and condemn them as strongly as anyone. Let us set the machinery going now that will eventually, eight or ten weeks from now, put the facts before us. Let us decide now to get the machinery going and then forget about confederation until the facts are laid before us by the delegation after their return from Ottawa some time late in January. Let us remember that it is the people of Newfoundland we are here to serve, first, last and all the time. Let us turn our backs upon nothing that might be good for our Newfoundland people.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Before you leave, Mr. Smallwood, the question before the Chair, which I shall now read, needs at least, in my opinion, a verbal amendment, because  clearly, there is a typographical error or omission between the 2nd and the 3rd paragraphs. It has been moved by Mr. Smallwood, seconded by Mr. Higgins K.C.,

“That whereas it is desirable that the National Convention and the people of Newfoundland should be fully informed as far as possible of all facts having any bearing upon forms of government that might be submitted to the people in a national referendum.

Therefore, be it resolved that the appropriate authorities be advised that the Convention desires to inform the Government of Canada of the Convention’s wish to learn that government’s attitude on the question of federal union of Newfoundland with Canada, and further wishes to ascertain the terms and conditions on the basis of which the Government of Canada consider that such federal union might be affected.

And be it finally resolved that the delegation shall have no authority whatsoever to negotiate or conclude any agreement or in any manner to bind the Convention or the people of Newfoundland.”

That is the motion. Now, you will notice that in the concluding paragraph which incorporates the final resolution, reference has been made to “the delegation,” but there is no previous reference to any delegation. I assume, therefore, that what was meant by the mover and the seconder of the motion was that:

“Resolved, that the Convention further wishes to ascertain the terms and conditions on the basis of which the Government of Canada considered as such federal union might be affected for which purpose it desires to send a delegation to Ottawa.”

That would clarify the meaning and add to the grammatical flourish of the motion. By the addition of the words which I have submitted for the consideration of the mover and of the seconder of the resolution, namely,

“After the words, ‘might be affected’ at the end of the second paragraph. To insert the words ‘for which purpose it desires to send a delegation to Ottawa.’”

Before I submit the motion to the Convention and further submit the amendment which has been proposed and seconded to that motion. I invite the comments of the mover and the seconder of the original question.

Joseph Smallwood [Bonavista Centre]—Mr. Chairman, the words which you have now added were in fact in my resolution and were omitted in the mimeographing. And to be quite frank with you, once I had handed in my resolution, I read it no more until I think on Saturday passed when I discovered the fact that those words were now missing. Between handing in the resolution containing those words and reading it again on Saturday, I hadn’t noticed that those words had been dropped out in the act of mimeographing copies for Members of this House.

Gordon Higgins [St. John’s City East]—I agree with the addition. [Unintelligible].

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—I thought so. Now to that original question, moved by Mr. Smallwood and seconded by Mr. Higgins K.C., the following amendment has been moved by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Roberts, namely:

“That all words after the words ‘national referendum’ in the preamble to the motion be deleted, and the following substituted therefor; namely: ‘But that the question of ascertaining the attitude of the Government of Canada towards the possibility of federal union of Newfoundland with Canada and the further question of sending a delegation to Ottawa to ascertain the terms and conditions on the basis of which the Government of Canada consider that such union might be effected, be deferred for consideration until the reports of the committees appointed pursuant to the session of September 20th have been presented to this Convention, or such earlier or other date as the Convention may determine.'”

Now the debate on the original question has finished. The amendment submits to the Convention a separate question. To that question several of the members of the Convention already have spoken, including Mr. Penney who moved it, Mr. Roberts who seconded it, Mr. Smallwood and Mr. Brown. The other members of the Convention if they so desire and see any need for so doing, may speak to the amendment.

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—It is not my intention, Sir, to delay the debate very long. I might say that I am neither very much enamoured of the amendment, and certainly not of the motion, but I believe I shall vote for the amendment. I do regret that there seems to be from day to day a change in the manner of procedure. One day we seem to be using parliamentary procedure, and some other day we seem to be using some other form of procedure, so it makes it rather awkward when one gets to his feet to make some remarks.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—I have to correct you, Mr. Hollett. There is no variance in the procedure originally laid down for the conduct of the business of this Convention whatsoever. Where the rules approved by this Convention are silent then ordinary parliamentary procedure applies. If you refer to the point relative to the naming of a member, that is one thing; I have explained that, and I do not propose to let your comment pass either unchallenged or unmarked that from day to day there is any variance in the procedure in this assembly.

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—Mr. Chairman, please understand I am not casting any aspersions at the Chair. That is the feeling which I have, I may be wrong.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Insofar as the Chairman of this Convention controls the procedure and regulates the order of business and the conduct of that business, I can’t imagine that your reference has any other inference than the one to which I now call your attention and on which I challenge you.

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—Speaking just a word to that, Mr. Chairman, I might say that in a debate a few days ago there was strong objection taken by the Chair to what was then called personalities.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Exactly.

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—And if the mover of the motion in his reply of a few moments ago did not use personalities and was upheld by the Chair, then I must have heard wrongly.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—You did hear wrongly. You did not hear, apparently, my interruption of Mr. Smallwood, and my direction to him, as well as to you or anybody else, that I do not allow personalities to be indulged in, and that if Mr. Smallwood continued, I would certainly have to call him to order.

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—Thank you, sir. Proceeding with my few words to the amendment, I do feel that both the amendment and the motion are inopportune, premature, and I doubt the legality, or the ability, of this Convention sending a delegation to consult with the Dominion’s House of Commons. Some reference has been made to a remark which

• (p. 140 in the primary document)

I made a week ago today, to the effect that even I was offered a senatorship, and the mover of the motion stated a moment ago that he inferred that I was alluding to him. To that I will say that I did, Mr. Chairman, always have a great regard for the reasoning powers of the mover of the motion, and I suspect strongly that he analysed the whole statement before he decided he arrived at a correct interpretation of the words which I spoke. Now, Mr. Chairman, if, on Monday past, I set a sprat to catch a herring, am I to be blamed if I caught a confederate cod?

Some hon. Members—Laughter.

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—I noticed the greediness with which the proposer grasped at the bait, and I feel, Sir, that he not only took the bait, but he took the hook and all.

Getting back to the matter of sending a delegation to Canada, allow me to refer you to section 146 of the British North America Act, which makes provision for the entry of Newfoundland into the Dominion of Canada as a tenth province. I shall read it, section 146:

“It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council, on the addresses from the Houses of Parliament of Canada and the Houses of the respective legislatures of the Colonies or Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those Colonies or Provinces, or any of them into the Union.”[9]

Does that not, Sir, presuppose that before we can enter into any union with the Dominion of Canada that we must have a legislature? Some people will say you have your Commission of Government, and they have the authority of the legislature. That may be correct or it may not. Even if it were, and if we granted it correct, is it not therefore the bounden duty of the Commission of Government, if they have the power of the legislature, and if so many people in this country are so desirous of confederation, have they not the right and the authority, therefore, to go to Canada and find out the terms? The Dominion of Canada would then be negotiating with a legitimate government. They would not be negotiating with 45 men who were sent in here to appraise the resources of this country. And, as my friend Mr. Crosbie a moment ago pointed out, does it not look ridiculous to you, Sir, that these 45 men of this Convention should proceed to Canada without even knowing the extent of our natural resources, without even knowing just how our finances are? In what position are we to ask Canada to lay her cards on the table if we ourselves are unable to put ours down? I see absolutely no justification at this time, and I wish it to be clearly understood, Mr. Chairman, that I am not against confederation and I am not for confederation, and as Mr. Bradley from Bonavista said, I am not for or against responsible government, and neither am I for or against Commission of Government at this present juncture. What we are for, and what we are not for, I contend, Sir, should have been left to the time when we had gotten those facts which our people sent us here for. But when one member, whom I shall now call the senior member for Bonavista, elects to get his feet on the floor of this house and make a political speech on the issue of confederation one hour long, and then reply for another half hour, then I submit that I or anyone else who did not get up and object to his motion would be failing in our duty to the people who sent us here. I do not wish to say anything more on confederation or responsible government or Commission of Government at this present time. I do think we are wasting an awful lot of time, and I submit that the quicker we get down to a vote on this issue and have done with it the better. Thank you, Sir.

Frederick Bradley [Bonavista East]—As I said perhaps an hour ago, I can sympathise with those members of this Convention who fear that we may be acting too precipitately. I tried on that occasion, with my limited powers, to explain to them that acting now did not mean an immediate delegation to Canada. That in the nature of things that could not possibly happen. That not only were there many formalities and, what perhaps may be termed diplomatic conversations and communications, between Commission of Government here, the Dominions Office in London, and the Government of Canada at Ottawa, but that there was also a tremendous amount of spade work to be done by the delegation before they could possibly leave on any mission to Ottawa. I tried to detail, in some degree, the nature of the work they would have to do. It must be obvious to every Member of this convention that that work would take a considerable period of time. And that by no possibility, even if the delegation were appointed this evening, could they leave on any mission for Canada without that necessary preparation, which would entail weeks and weeks of inquiry and study, and would lend them somewhere between the middle of December and the 1st of January. Not before then, even if we act now, is it possible for a delegation of this Convention to leave for Canada to consult with the Dominion government. Obviously if we defer the passage of this resolution until some later date, by an equal space of time will the departure of the delegation be deferred. Why then should we defer the institution of these inquiries which will lead to a delegation to Canada, until we have finished the inquiries upon which our various committees are engaged today? If we do that it is perfectly obvious that when we have the financial picture of the country before us, we shall not have the terms of confederation, we shall not have the terms of Confederation. We shall not have them by two months or more. And the same thing exactly applies to any inquiries which may be directed to the United Kingdom. If we want all these facts before us when we sit down to consider the question of Commission Government, responsible government or confederation, then we must proceed to get all these facts at the same time and thus far we have delayed all efforts to get any information about Confederation for two months, or nearly there.

Already in the press a rather indiscreet and untimely reference has been made to adjournments of this Convention, made in utter ignorance of the facts of course. I have now doubt that there are few, if any, members of this Convention who desire to prolong it any further than necessary. It has been stated here, I think this afternoon, that this is costing the country somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,000 a day. I have never taken the trouble to compute the amount, Sir, so I can neither confirm nor deny the correctness of that statement. I, for one, Sir, have no desire to expend money belonging to the people of this country, and I feel that every member is of the same opinion, and if we are to

• (p. 141 in the primary document)

postpone all consideration of the question whether we shall or shall not send a delegation to Canada, whether we shall or shall not make any inquiries of Britain, until we have all the facts in connection with our financial position, then the Convention has got to sit down and wait for another couple of months until we can secure the necessary information in connection with Confederation or financial assistance from the United Kingdom. My object is to get this delegation appointed and working here in St John’s now. I want them to be ready to go at the opportune time, and if we are to await our findings on the financial position of this country as disclosed by the various committees we have appointed, then we will not be ready when that financial information is at hand. We will then have to start in and get this other information from Canada and from the United Kingdom.

I quite understand Mr. Penney’s motion, and have a great deal of sympathy with him, but unfortunately, it is so utterly indefinite, if you will pardon my saying so, that it leaves the whole thing in the air. It means that we shall simply spend two or three days here debating this subject for just exactly nothing. It means simply, that at some future unknown date we may again introduce a resolution, and discuss the question as to whether we shall send a delegation to Canada or not, and I think that the best way out of this is to pin down the situation in a manner which I think can be objectionable to nobody. The objection is to prematurity. It is, I presume, contended, that this information which it is proposed to obtain from the Canadian government will not be of any avail to us or the people until we have ascertained our own financial position. There may be something in that argument, Sir. It sounds as if it had some reason in it. But the point that I want to make clear is that by throwing this resolution in the air, as will happen to it if Mr. Penney’s amendment passes in its present form, we shall still be nowhere. When we have the financial position we shall not be ready to discuss it either in comparison with confederation or anything else, and it was for that reason exactly I intimated an hour ago that unless somebody else did it, and quickly, that I myself proposed to introduce a resolution for the purpose of making inquiries from the United Kingdom, because I want the machinery put into operation now. You can’t pass the resolution to send a delegation to Canada looking for information and expect it tomorrow. You can’t pass a resolution to send a delegation to the United Kingdom looking for information and expect a return statement tomorrow. These things take time. They take weeks. And my only object is to see that when we have all available information we can get about our own financial position, which would probably be perhaps towards the middle or the latter part of January, when we have that information, we also have the necessary information about this Confederation question and the question as to what assistance Britain will be prepared to give us in certain other eventualities. For that reason, I propose to make an amendment to the amendment.

First I would like to make a comment upon a quotation of Mr. Hollett, the member for Grand Falls. He pointed out that section 146 of the British North America Act[10] was defined in a way under which Newfoundland might become a province of the Dominion. You will notice I said “a way” not “the way”. There are several ways usually of doing the same thing. It is perfectly true that in the conditions which existed in 1867 when the British North America Act was passed, section 146 was inserted for the purpose of setting up the machinery by which Newfoundland might be included in the Confederation as another province. But the conditions 1867 no longer exist, sir, and, consequently, that section 146 is quite inapplicable to the situation that exists today. There is no Legislature in Newfoundland. There is no House of Assembly and no Legislative Council to pass any resolutions in connection with Confederation.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Excuse me, Mr. Bradley, just to keep the record correct. I must dispute your statement that there is no legislature in Newfoundland. There is—

Frederick Bradley [Bonavista East]—I agree with you entirely, Sir. There is no popular legislature as contemplated by the British North America Act of 1867.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—There is no responsible government in Newfoundland, but there is a legislature.

Frederick Bradley [Bonavista East]—There is a legislature, yes sir, and a perfectly competent legislature, but not a legislature which, in my opinion, would ever undertake to do any such thing as to legislate this country into confederation with Canada. Thus the position today is that whatever method may be adopted in order to bring about confederation, if the people so desire it, the one provided in section 146 of the British North America Act is not that one. It is simply inapplicable to the circumstances and could not be utilised for the purpose. Does that mean that this county can under no circumstances enter the Canadian Confederation unless we get responsible government back again? Suppose we never get responsible government. Suppose the people refuse to vote for responsible government. Are they to be precluded from voting for Confederation? Is it quite legally impossible that this country can become the tenth province of Canada simply because our people do not want responsible government and will not have it? Is that the position? To that position, sir, I cannot exceed. And furthermore, sir, I am prepared to stake whatever reputation I may have as a lawyer to this effect. That the British Parliament, which is the paramount legislating body so far as Newfoundland is concerned, can, if it so desires, legislate this country into the Dominion of Canada tomorrow, with or without our consent. I don’t believe for one moment that Britain would ever do it. I’m quite sure that she would not But I am equally certain that with the assent of the people of Newfoundland, she would, providing always, of course, that Canada also was an assenting party. Now it has been suggested also that Commission of Government is

• (p. 142 in the primary document)

quite competent to legislate upon the matter of confederation. That is a question which I am not prepared to discuss at the moment. But I am prepared to say this about it, that I am quite certain Commission Government never will legislate upon the subject. There are few, if any, men in this assembly today who do not realize that Commission of Government is nothing more than an agent for the Dominion’s office, which in turn is the agent of the British government., which in turn is the agent of the Parliament of Britain.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Are you making that statement, Mr. Bradley?

Frederick Bradley [Bonavista East]—Yes, Sir.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Well, then, I quite disagree with you. Again, in order to keep the record correct, the present Commission of Government is not an agent of the Imperial Government or of any other entity outside this country. It’s fully authorized to conduct the legislative affairs of Newfoundland in all respects as competently as responsible government. And it doesn’t act as an agent for any outside legislative body.

Frederick Bradley [Bonavista East]—That is quite true Sir. That is a legal fact.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Well, just as well, when you are making remarks relative to government, that we have to keep the situation exactly where the law says it has to be.

Frederick Bradley [Bonavista East]—But at the same time, this must also be known. That Commission of Government is in constant consultation with the Dominions Office. And that in certain respects, its activities have in fact been restricted by Dominions Office. And I, for one, do not believe for one moment that Commission of Government would ever attempt to impose confederation or any other system of government than that which now exists upon this country without the consent of the British Parliament.

Some reference has been made here today about political speech affecting the opinions of members of this assembly. I tried this afternoon to point out to this assembly that political speeches had nothing to do with this question, that the merits or demerits of this or that particular type of government was not in any way concerned with this debate. that all we had to decide was the question as to whether we would or would not go seeking information. If the member for Bonavista Center or the member for St. John’s City West decides to make a political speech, I haven’t any objection to it, but it doesn’t affect my mind in the least. So far as this question is concerned, what I want is to try and clarify this situation, to try and pin something down so that we shall know where we are. It’s admitted by the great majority of members present that this question of confederation must be taken up sometime. I think that all these who admit that position will agree that it should not be taken up too late. It should not be taken up so late as to delay this convention in session longer than is necessary. And that is my objection to this amendment, that it throws the whole thing in the air. It throws the appointment of the delegation in the air. It throws the departure of the delegation from Newfoundland in the air. It throws the very question as to whether we shall send a delegation or not completely in the air. Surely, we’re not going to do that and await some future and perhaps far distant time to take the matter up and go through all this debate again. And for that reason, sir, I propose the following amendment, to which, sir, I may say that I haven’t even got a seconder at present.

“That all the words after that in the first line of Mr. Penney’s amendment be stricken out and that the words ‘and shall not proceed to Ottawa before the first day of January 1947’ be inserted in the original motion after the word ‘Newfoundland’ at the end of the third paragraph.”

Now, as I say, perhaps the phraseology is a little bit complicated, but its meaning is perfectly clear. It strikes out the indefiniteness which completely fills Mr. Penney’s amendment. And it adds to the original motion something which effects what Mr. Penney, I think, really desires, a reasonable delay before the delegation goes to Ottawa. It means this, that this convention can, at any time after the passage of the resolution, appoint the delegation, but that even if they were appointed tonight, they could not leave for Ottawa before the 1st of January. In the meantime, of course, they would have ample time to collect together all the necessary information which it would be essential for them to have before they can possibly leave to discuss any terms of confederation. Not only is that the case, sir, but if at any time between now and the first day of January, or rather, I’d better put it the other way, between now and the first day of January, the convention could not possibly go in any case until they’re appointed. This convention has the power to appoint. The resolution does not appoint them. That power still remains in this convention. The convention is not bound to appoint them until they see fit. And that may be never. Obviously, they can’t go until they are appointed. But if appointed and permitted to get on with the job which they have to do here, they cannot in any case leave before the first day of January. And even then, sir, as I’ve already drawn to the attention of this assembly, surely no one imagined that any such appointed delegation would leave at any date contrary to the wishes of this assembly. If, for example, your delegation were appointed now and began their work of investigation here and were ready to leave for Ottawa on the first day of January. I cannot conceive, sir, of that delegation leaving Newfoundland without first acquainting this convention of the fact that they propose to go. I further cannot conceive that they would go if this convention then expressed a desire that they should delay their departure for any period. The whole object of the amendment is to get the machinery moving, to get the men who are to compose this delegation to Ottawa on to their jobs at the earliest possible date. Their departure is still a matter which lies in the hands of this convention. In the same way, as I’ve already pointed out, I propose to see to it that another resolution is introduced here to adopt the same procedure, if necessary, in connection with inquiries of the United Kingdom. I feel that this amendment should meet with the approval of those who want the facts. Certainly the passage of the resolution can do no harm because the delegation is still in the hands of the convention and cannot leave, certainly cannot leave before the first day of January unless the convention subsequently decides that they should go on the 1st of December if they are then ready. And it seems, as I’ve already said quite clear also, that no delegation would go even on the first day of January, contrary to the expressed wishes of this convention. I move this amendment, sir.

Lester Burry [Labrador]—I rise to second this second amendment. I’ve already spoken on the question and declared myself in favor of it, getting this information. I’ve been informed very, very liberally by this debate that has taken place. I thought at once that it was a waste of time, but I don’t consider it as such altogether, although I wish that we could have gotten it over with very much in a shorter time. But now that I’ve been informed and enlighten by the debate that has taken place, I am satisfied now in my own mind that this is the thing to do. And I have very much pleasure in seconding this second amendment.

Gordon Higgins [St. John’s City East]—Can you inform the Convention by what date this House will have to finish its business to have a referendum in the spring? And by what date to have a referendum in the fall?

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—I should imagine, Mr. Higgins, that in order to have a referendum in the spring of 1947, submitted to the people of Newfoundland, the business of this convention should be finished by the end of January or very early in February 1947. If it is desired to have a referendum submitted to the people of Newfoundland in the autumn of 1947, then the business of this convention should finish by the end of May or very early in June, 1947. It has to be remembered that the recommendations from this convention will have to go to the cabinet of the United Kingdom government in Great Britain, having first been considered by the Secretary for Dominion Affairs. And, as I see it, from the Cabinet will be presented to Parliament, say, in the form of a white paper, be considered by the House of Commons, and then by the House of Lords. The British House of Commons will take adjournment after or for the Christmas holidays. And will not reopen until sometime, perhaps, in January. The Easter recess of the British Parliament also has to be considered. And that brings us down to the late spring of 1947, if the recommendations of this convention have to go, as they will, to Great Britain and there be considered by Cabinet and by Parliament. In regard to a referendum in the fall, as I say, I think that our work will have to finish by the end of May in order to accomplish that purpose, if such is the purpose of the convention or the desire of the convention. Because it has to be remembered that the British House of Commons will take recess for the summer vacation, beginning somewhere in July, and I should imagine continuing for, say, two months, which will bring us into the autumn of 1947. After our recommendations have been considered by the United Kingdom government, they also will have to be returned to Newfoundland with the decision of the United Kingdom government thereon. And if a referendum has to take place here in the spring or in the autumn, as the case might be, sufficient time will have to be allowed the local authorities to make the necessary arrangements for the holding of such a referendum. These are opinions on my part only for which I have no actual authority, but perhaps in view of the fact that we have the advantage of the presence of Professor Wheare with us at the moment, that I might ask him, on your behalf, to give us his views on the questions submitted by Mr. Higgins which I have endeavored to answer this afternoon. Professor Wheare.

Kenneth Wheare [Constitutional Advisor]—I would not like to add anything, I think, to what the Chairman has said about this. I have no authority to say what the British government would do in these things, but I think that outline of the procedure is correct. The Easter recess for the British Parliament will be round about the 31st of March. Good Friday comes, I think, on the 2nd of April and that’s so you could go on the whole thing. So that anything you want to get through the British Parliament in time for a referendum at the end of May has got to be got through by the 31st of March. Similarly, if you’re working to a date in the autumn, would need to get through this convention by the end of May, give June and July to the British authorities. August and September and half of October, they don’t sit. But I think the rough outline of the chairman’s given program, starting at the target, when you hope to have a referendum working backwards, is correct and I think it’s based on certain facts which are public problems. I’d, at the risk of seeming to be an echo, I say again, I concur with what the Chairman has said.

Gordon Higgins [St. John’s City East]—Thank you.

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—Mr. Chairman, before speaking to you on the amendment, might I ask, wherein lies the authority of this convention to send delegations? If the authority to send a delegation in Canada is made clear to me, I feel that there is something in Mr. Bradley’s amendment to the amendment. But first and foremost, I want made plain to me by what authority we have the right to send such a delegation from this gathering of delegates. I don’t want to find ourselves in the awkward position, two or three months hence, of being told that we had no such authority to do so. There seems to be some little doubt in the mind, sir, both of yourself and Professor Wheare, as to that point.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—There is no doubt in my mind,

• (p. 143 in the primary document)

and I’ve already ruled on the question, Mr. Hollett.

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—Are you [unintelligible] about that, sir?

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Definitely. That is perfectly competent for this convention to send the delegation to Ottawa or anywhere else. Because there is inherent authority to elicit any information it desires or all the information it requires on any basic fact. I don’t for a moment doubt the authority which inherently this convention possesses to elicit, as I said before, information in regard to the terms of confederation, any more than to elicit information in regards to any other basic question of fact.

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—What I cannot understand is this: that when the Dominions Office through the Commission of Government, or vice versa, set up this Convention, they also set up a commission of two, two men from England to come out here and prepare a White Paper to guide us in our deliberations. And I have searched that White Paper and all I find is a set of facts relative to the well-being of Newfoundland, and only Newfoundland. I can find nothing in that White Paper suggesting the fact that we should go to Canada and find out anything. Why, therefore, did not the imperial authorities in that White Paper state definitely to us what were the terms of confederation? And why couldn’t they say that with or a form of government which we should talk about? They only spoke of a form or forms of government. It seems to me that at the time, they only had in their minds a form of government within the territorial boundary of this island, and not outside. If so, if they meant outside, why therefore did they not supply us with facts as they did relative to the condition of this country?

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—What is contained in that White Paper, to which you refer Mr. Hollett, or is not contained in that White Paper, has nothing at all to do with the question before the Chair or to my ruling on that question. In regard to that question, it is a matter of the construction of the National Convention Act.[11] The statutory terms contained in that statute, which gives this convention power and authority to act as therein prescribed. I’m not concerned with what is in the White Paper insofar as the construction of the National Convention Act is concerned because it’s totally irrelevant to the question or my ruling thereon.

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—Mr. Chairman. In this debate, I am rather confused now. The question from my honorable friend, Mr. Hollett, in Grand Falls, and also quoted by Mr. Bradley from Bonavista East, the question is Confederation. I am confused to this extent; we have your ruling, sir, that it is within the limits of this convention that we should seek the terms of Confederation from Canada, but we have yet to decide whether or not it would be valid for this convention to place on a ballot paper for the international referendum for the people of Newfoundland. Therefore, I think that question should be decided. If I were, sir, to ask you that question, whether it would be valid to place Confederation on a ballot paper in a referendum for Newfoundland, would you answer, sir?

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Yes, I certainly would.

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—Well, if you answered in the affirmative or in the negative, what appeal has this assembly against your decision?

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—The assembly can overrule my decision—

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—The reason, Mr. Chairman, I brought up this question is on that point, the legality of whether or not confederation is a valid issue before the country at the present time.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—No, it doesn’t deal with the legality of it at all. Especially in regard to any ruling that I make, and I’d like to make it quite clear to you, gentlemen, this convention needs laws, if it sees fit, to carry out any ruling that I make. But that does not deal with the validity of your question, Mr. Fogwill. It merely deals with the wish of the convention either to be bound by my ruling or not to be bound by it.—Six o’clock now. Do you desire that we continue this evening or that we adjourn the debate until tomorrow?

UNKNOWN—I want to say that we should continue this evening. We’re wasting enough time now.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—In that case, I leave the Chair until 8 o’clock.

[The Convention adjourned until 8 pm]

Gordon Higgins [St. John’s City East]—I hope I don’t keep you too long in this matter. It’s been long enough after this unfortunate motion. Much longer than it was. So far from my computations, and I am no strong mathematician, the debate on this motion must have cost the country approximately $8,000. The debate on this motion cost the country $8,000.

If so, we can look forward to the debate on Confederation costing it in the vicinity of $40,000. But my reason for moving, or rather seconding this motion, was because I understood it to be the wish of the majority of delegates that we’d try and have a spring referendum. I don’t know if it was stated in the House, that we should have a spring referendum, but at all events, it was discussed on a number of occasions in private sessions, and it wasn’t the sessions of the little national convention referred to, but sessions of very responsible parties. No reflections cast on those who attended the National Convention. Now, Mr. Chairman, as you’ve outlined, and as the learned professor concurred today, to have a spring referendum, we must finish our business in this house by the end of January. That would mean, as you so well outlined it, that not only must we have all our facts in, but we must have the debate on the forms of government concluded, and we must be ready at that time to send our recommendations across to England. Now, if it’s not the intention to have a spring referendum as so many members wanted first to have, then we have to set our sights at a fall referendum. And even to have a fall referendum, as you say, sir, we must be finished here by the end of May. If it’s the wish of the convention that we have a fall referendum, then I say that the motion we should adopt here would be the motion proposed by Mr. Bradley. Because if we leave the indefinite motion that we have speaking for the amendment, we don’t know when we will be in a position to even seek these terms that we all agree we must have. There can be no question that we have to get the terms. Even the, if I’ll be pardoned for saying, the most rabid amongst us against Confederation, all agree that nevertheless it’s our duty to get these terms. That being solved, the only question is when we are going to get them. And we have to govern ourselves by the time that we think we should have the referendum. I’m quite convinced that we have a big job ahead, but I am also equally convinced that we can finish our pet gathering by the end of January. if we really want to do it. It’s going to mean much harder work than we’ve been putting in so far. But if members really want to have the referendum at that time, they can have it by getting down to business and working through the whole period of the day. I don’t say for any moment that the delegates have not been working. I know they have, but I do know that if they want to, they can work harder. Now it’s a matter for the convention to decide. If they want to have the spring referendum, the cost to the country of the convention up to January, up to the end of January, will be $95,000. That’s exclusive of the cost of the original $150,000 appropriated for the election. If we want to wait till the end of May, it’s going to mean another $120,000 more. In other words, if we wait till May, the cost to this convention, of this convention to the country, will be $215,000. If you gentlemen are prepared, and you may think the necessity warrants the length of time and the expenditure of money, then by all means, let us wait till May. But we definitely have to be finished by May, because if we don’t, with the vacation in the House of Commons, we cannot possibly have the referendum until the following spring. Gentlemen, it’s simply up to us to decide what we’re going to shoot for. It’s common agreement amongst all of us. We’ve got to have these terms. We’ll be blackguarded out of the country if we don’t get them.

We’re being blackguarded enough already for the unseemly conduct that’s happened down in this House. And I don’t think it’s fair. I’m sure that Mr. Smallwood will probably feel offended if I say to him that it’s most unfortunate that they hate this motion in general and that he himself is partly responsible for that. But I can understand fully how Mr. Smallwood feels about the matter. He’s very ardent in his advocacy of this cause, and he just had to get it off as he did or blow up in the attempt. Unfortunately, these sentences of his that were inflammatory did the necessary inflaming of, we’ll say, the official opposition on the side that I am sitting with now. I’m not opposed to it, but I’m sitting with those that are. But gentlemen, one thing we don’t want to be, we don’t want to be ridiculous in the sight of the country. And this debate has been making us rather ridiculous. And I’m sure, gentlemen,

• (p. 144 in the primary document)

that we’ve all come into this House for one purpose and one purpose only. And that’s to do our jobs and to show to the people of Newfoundland and the world as a whole that we still can produce legislators in this country. And because of that, gentlemen, I say we haven’t done the country or ourselves credit by some of the remarks made in this debate. It may be very interesting to have Major Cashin running around in knee breeches, but it doesn’t add one statute to our cubit as legislators to have these kind of remarks made. Neither does the same statement of a similar nature made to Mr. Smallwood. So gentlemen, in future, please, let us try and get our minds a little above the old days that this House had to put up with in the days of responsible government. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Bradley’s definition of what our job is. If we’re going to be a board of judges, we’ve got to try and be impartial, and we’ve got to try and deal with these matters that come before us without heat, without abuse, without personal scurrility. And, gentlemen, I’m quite convinced that we can do it, but there’s no necessity for our going down to the gutter where we’ve been the past two days in these discussions and get up to do the job that we were sent here to do. And for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I don’t see any reason why the decision on this matter has to be delayed very much longer tonight. Once the decision is made, let’s be finished with it. Finished with it entirely until the matter has to come before us for decision. I agree with Mr. Fudge to the extent that it’s meant for a lot of unpleasantness among the delegates here. People taking sides made for bad committee work, and in a lot of cases, no committee work at all. So let’s try and cut it out and try and be reasonable people, earning [unintelligible] were sent here to do the job for, and try in the future, keeping the discussions on the level they should be, and not let personalities come into it. Unfortunately, Mr. Smallwood, by his advocacy of the cause, has more or less turned this house into a personal matter, a personal debate against him. When we have such notices that “they dug the hole but Joe wasn’t in it,” it’s getting beyond a joke. I don’t think we should put up with it any longer. And for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I think that we should now, because of the indefiniteness of Mr. Penney’s motion and the general wish of all the delegates to have this question examined, I think we should, and I, for one, am prepared to vote for the motion put forward by Mr. Bradley, rather the amendment to the motion.

Albert Penney [Carbonear]—May I speak to the original amendment?

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—You have spoken to that, Mr. Penney. You might speak to the amendment to the amendment.

Albert Penney [Carbonear]—Well, Mr. Chairman, may I say I introduced the amendment, but I did not make any address in connection with it at the time.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Unfortunately a member doing as you did is considered to have spoken to the subject matter of his motion. However, it is a matter for the Convention to deal with, Mr. Penney. I feel quite certain that even though you have already spoken to it, perhaps with the permission of the Convention you may be allowed to speak again. It’s out of my hands now, it’s a matter for the Convention. In all events, you have a perfect right to speak to the amendment.

Albert Penney [Carbonear]—If I would be allowed to say in order to try to get at a proper understanding, Mr. Chairman.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Yes.

Albert Penney [Carbonear]—My amendment contained very few words. The motion contained a lot of words, and the mover took a half an hour to introduce it to the House, and another half an hour or so this afternoon to reply in rebuttal. And then the supporter addressed this house at quite a lengthy time. If it’s in order I would like to speak, after your ruling.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Mr. Penney, if there is no objects I’ll take it for granted that the convention has no objection to your talking now.

Albert Penney [Carbonear]—Thank you, Sir. Before reading the remarks I had prepared on the amendment, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, to a motion before the Chair, I would like to say that I did not consult or confer with members of this convention, nor with my sponsors or friends in Carbonear, nor with anyone. And if this is the only opportunity I may have of addressing this House before a decision is made, for or against the original amendment, may I be allowed to thank Mr. Roberts for representing the district of St. Barbe, for seconding the amendment, and for the gentlemen who supported it, and the other gentlemen who may support it, and especially for the representatives of labour in this House, who, through their organizations, have a closer contact with the people of Newfoundland than perhaps anyone else here.

Since [unintelligible], as a preface to what I intended to say, I listened to the addresses this afternoon by able speakers and the supporter, or the mover, of the amendment to the amendment, an old politician, an able speaker, and a fine man. His amendment to the amendment was put in a very subtle way. But I would say to members of this House to be aware and think before they act. Since introducing an amendment to the motion of sending a delegation from this convention on a supposed fact-finding mission at the expense of this country, I have been particularly interested in the volume of debate that has ensued, more particularly with that part of it concerning the amendment itself. For as all members now know, it contained few words, and in that respect was in striking contrast to the motion. Before deciding to move an amendment, I believed there was something fishy about it coming at the time it did, and I decided to oppose it. Since then, and after listening to honorable members’ expression of opinion in a full-fledged debate, and noting newspaper comments, pro and con, I am more than ever convinced that my sense of suspicion then is more than justified now. I go further, and I say I believe there was a political attempt to disrupt the feelings of this convention at a time when it needed peace. Two, the wording of this attempt was camouflaged in the disguise of a fact-finding mission to Ottawa, at the expense of this country, which seemingly some members were in agreement with. For myself, I must say that my sponsors and friends in the district of Carbonear did not give me a priority mandate to study the affairs of Canada first. They did, however, give me a mandate to study and examine into the affairs of Newfoundland first and foremost. At any rate, that is how I understand it. But if I am wrong, then I would say that these level-headed men of Newfoundland made a great mistake in

• (p. 145 in the primary document)

sending me over here to represent them at this National Convention. We had these threats, the core of things, concerning Newfoundland, when a red herring was thrown across our path so as to divert our attention and interest on the job we were sent here to do. Why has this attempt been made to divert us from our task in this way and at this time? When so far we have received only three reports in public session. And in regard to these reports, whatever may be said of them during discussions later. Insofar as information will allow, they are a great credit to the personals of the committees concerned as well as to the gentlemen who presented them. They show full well that members of this convention can do their job if left in peace and given the necessary information. Why not allow us to pursue this task unhampered by foreign politics until the facts are known about the position of Newfoundland? Several members in their addresses supporting the motion stressed the time factor in our job of fact-finding. In reference to that important point, may I say, there is no person in this building more anxious to get through with our jobs and back home to our own environment than I. But I submit there’s a better way of doing this than taking a [unintelligible] to Canada at the expense of this country at this time and that is to hold public sessions of this convention, mornings as well as afternoons. Moreover, we must remember that Commission of Government have been in control of the affairs of this country for some 13 years. And it is bound to take time to get properly acquainted with affairs of administration over that period of time for ourselves and the people of this country. And if the result of our findings will have a bearing on the future welfare of Newfoundland for generations to come, then I submit the time factor is not so important as it may appear, nor does it matter materially if Commission of Government continues in office in its present form for another year or two, so long as it rules within its budget estimates and does not give away Labrador. May I say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, there are some weighty problems that would affect the future and economy of Newfoundland, more so than any other, than I can see at this time if this Convention could sell them. They are our national debt. The entry of our fishery products into the United States of America under fair trading tariff conditions, and the elimination or reduction of much of the waste of public funds in departmental affairs of the present government. If we could, by concentrated study and effort, even partially solve these fundamentals, then I would say emphatically, any government of good, honest men call it what you may, could pilot the affairs of this country of ours to a place of happiness and prosperity for all its people to a level yet unknown. God guide thee Newfoundland. Thank you.

Daniel Hillier [Burin West]—Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if I’m in order rising to speak at just at this present time.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—You’re quite in order, Mr. Hillier.

Daniel Hillier [Burin West]—I have quite a while to the debates and collection of the motion which was last Monday I think brought before this House and I of the opinion Mr. Chairman that has gone far enough we’re wasting very, very valuable time and getting nowhere. I am confident as far as the district that I represent, and I have knowledge and districts outside, that they do want to learn facts in connection with every government, any form of government. And the motion before this House at present time, sir, is not a matter of a form of government. It is a fact-finding matter. It is to find out what Canada has to offer us for the future of Newfoundland. But evidently, the fact of mentioning the name of Canada has been very, very disturbing. Our debates have been a bit on the boisterous side, and that, Mr. Chairman, is not what we came here for. We came to go into economic conditions in Newfoundland, and we’re doing it, I believe, to the best of our ability. But I will say this, sir, there will be nothing amiss in our having facts from Canada as to what she may have to offer us for the future. And we can go on with our work and eat when we have finished our work, sir. When we have these facts at hand, I am very sure we’ll be none the worse off. I made no remark in connection with the motion last Monday when I spoke, I had a reason for it. I saw then that there was a danger of us getting off the track, and I think we have. Let’s get back on the track again, sir. Let’s get back to the job which we came here. I don’t want to delay the House any further, Mr. Chairman. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment for the motion made by Mr. Bradley.

Edgar Hickman [St. John’s City East]—I’d like to refer first to the question there that Mr. Higgins also referred and that was the time of the referendum. There’s nobody in the House any more anxious than I am to get this job over but I’m not worried so much about whether we should have a spring referendum or a fall referendum or any referendum at all until we’re ready for it. I can’t agree that we will be ready for the spring one, much as I would like to be able to finish up here in January or February. For that reason, I still feel as I did the other day when I spoke to the amendment made by Mr. Penny. I won’t go into a repetition of what I said at that time, as we’ve been long enough here now, but I would like to refer to the motion of the amendment of the amendment made by Mr. Bradley this afternoon. To my mind, that can be very confusing. I’m not suggesting that the confusion was intentional, but if I understood the motion correctly, to me, it is practically identical with the original motion of Mr. Smallwood in intent or in effect, except that the delegation, when appointed, would not leave here before the 1st of January and perhaps not be appointed until that date. But I cannot see the similarity of it in comparison with the amendment of Mr. Penney. Mr. Penney’s amendment in part reads that the question of ascertaining the attitude of the government of Canada, et cetera, et cetera, be deferred for consideration until the report that the committee has been brought in. That, I think, is slightly different than the amendment to the amendment, if I have understood it correctly. And for that reason, sir, I, with due deference to the eloquence of Mr. Bradley’s speech this afternoon, I have not yet been convinced that I can vote for any other motion than the amendment put by Mr. Penny.

Mr. Chairman—Is the Convention ready for the question?

D. I. Jackman [Bell Island]—I feel pretty nervous now at the present time because I realize my inability to reply to learned lawyers and learned politicians, but before this vote is put, there are a few words I’d like to say because I’m very much concerned about the whole matter. As I stated here before this afternoon, and as I stated on different times before, I am here representing poor people in the majority. And I feel that it’s my duty to do everything in my power to see that their interests are best protected. Now, as the previous speaker

• (p. 146 in the primary document)

pointed out, not the previous one, but one of them, pointed out that if this amendment to amendment didn’t go through, we might be here till next May. It was also pointed out the cost of the convention and the difference between the cost in January and the difference between the cost in May. Personally, I would like to see it finished up next week, if possible, because I realize the people who pay for this convention are the ordinary common people like myself. It’s not going to affect the businessman, I don’t say that in a prejudiced way now, it’s not going to affect him to a great extent, but it’s naturally going to come to the Bell Island miner, or the St. John’s labourer, or the man in the woods. So for that reason, I am prepared, as far as that’s concerned, to walk night and day to get this convention through. I might say, I’ve often worked harder, very much harder. I know what it is to go down the mines and work all day long at back-breaking labour. And for that reason, sir, I’d like to be very clear on this matter before I vote in view what has been said, that if the motion is lost, that is the amendment to the amendment, that might mean we’re going to be here next June. I am going to vote, as I said before today, sir, for the amendment. But God only knows that if that meant that we’d be here the next May or next June, I would certainly have to vote for the motion. But I think any man here who votes for the amendment tonight will not in any way keep this debate prolonged. In fact, if we could, as I said before, if we want to work harder and I’m prepared to do so, we could get down to morning sessions, and night sessions, evening sessions, and night sessions, and Sunday sessions. It was legal. But the point I want to make clear is this. I want to let those who sent me here know that I’m doing all in my power to protect their interests, not only theirs, but the people of Newfoundland as well. I want to do all my power to protect their interests, but I realize this, that by being too hasty, we could, instead of doing good, we would be doing harm. So, I say that I am going to vote for the amendment, and I am willing to work night and day in order to get this matter straightened up and to make Newfoundland a better place to live in for all Newfoundlanders and with the least possible expenses for a taxpayer.

Archelaus Northcott [Lewisporte]—Mr. Chairman, I have supported Mr. Penny’s amendment. Why? By so doing, I think it will give the convention time to put its own house in order. What I mean by that, Mr. Chairman, is it will give the committee time to present their reports and to debate on these reports. And it’s only when we have these reports before us can we get the facts for the gentlemen that are more likely to go into Canada than I am. And we must ascertain the facts before we really can do anything. Therefore, I think that we should really put our own house in order, get all our reports in, debate on these reports, and we will then get a true picture of Newfoundland. And when the delegation get all these facts assembled, they will then have a briefcase full of valuable information. Whereas now, on the other hand, if these gentlemen went to Canada or even put the machinery in order, they still have no facts about Newfoundland regarding our financial stability. So I think that if Mr. Bradley had turned his speech around, he would have made an excellent one for Newfoundland. But instead of that, let’s try and get the machinery in order so we can, by January, go to Canada. Newfoundland first and always for me. I therefore stand by Mr. Penney’s amendment.

Albert Butt [St. John’s West Extern]—Essentially, Mr. Chairman, I’m a very simple man. Essentially, also, I’m a very stubborn man when I feel that I have a case to be made which will be of some help to my country. I feel that we have allowed this debate to come down to too small a level of thinking. And I am not at the moment thinking of the bit of heat that has been engendered. I am thinking rather of the fact that we are looking at the problem of Newfoundland in too small a way. If I could be sure that the people of this convention would have in hand by January the 1st or by next January a reasoned case for Newfoundland in all its professional and scientific and economic aspects, I would be prepared to vote for the amendment. I have had enough experience, sir, with work of this kind to know that that is very unlikely. For that reason, I am going to stick, as I have already said, to the amendment. I want to place myself on record once again. I am not against getting terms from Canada. Practically 40, I should think, out of 45 people have done that. The question in my mind is, should we go now, or should we go later?

There are a number of reasons why I don’t think we should go now, one I’ve just given. The other reason is this. The motion has been introduced in such a way as to make me feel that we are going as suppliants, that we are a hundred years behind the times, that we want to relegate the idea of six cents a day dough to the realm of unpleasant memory. I contend, sir, that before we go to another country, we ought to see to it that we do not consider only going down to early graves on beriberi feet, but that we ought also not to go down with beriberi spirits. And I think, sir, that we ought to stand first of all and find out what we have in Newfoundland, and that we ought to go to Canada when we are ready. We ought to go to Canada on an occasion when we can say,

“look, we have something to offer, you have something to offer. It may be in our interest to get together.”

Then we ought to go to Canada, but not until we know where we are going. We ought, sir, to have our ours in turn before we ever approach Canada or anywhere else. Now, Mr. Bradley, and I appreciate Mr. Bradley’s speech, it was an excellent, cool way in which he put his case. He points out it was so clearly the right thing to do. Mr. Bradley, to my mind, it isn’t so clearly the right thing to do, and that’s what’s worrying me. Mr. Higgins says that this Convention is going to cost this country $215,000. $215,000, sir, may be a small price to pay if we tackle this in the right spirit. A half a million dollars, a million dollars may be a small price to pay if we tackle this in the spirit that will help us in the long run to get a better country for ourselves. It may be that we ought to look at it from the issue that we have not in of ourselves got the ability as individuals to get this thing done in a proper way before we approach another government. It may be that we ought to say to ourselves, these reports that are coming in now ought to be vetted by people trained to look for these things. And I know where all I see, I have seen these reports put in over and over again, and they have been looked at by a man with a practiced eye, and he has practically washed them out easily enough. There are numerous questions that ought to be considered. Mr. Bradley took up this question, for instance, of tariffs. The tariffs ought to be considered before we go away to Canada. The terms that we want ought to be put forward before we go to Canada. As Mr. Coffey so well put it, if two men are going to make a deal, one man doesn’t go in a half cup, he knows all the facts himself before he goes and asks for these questions, before he makes any approach to the other man. Now, what are we doing? What are we doing if we accept the amendment to the amendment? We are saying to ourselves, that we can’t go before the 1st of January. It is now the 2nd of November. And we are going to put ourselves in the position where we are going to have all the facts about Newfoundland before the first day of January, and take out of that period two weeks for recess at Christmas time. Six weeks, gentlemen, to find out the facts about Newfoundland. Mr. Bradley said that the delegation could not go until they are appointed but I ask you, of course you couldn’t go. But if we approach Canada now formally, sir, if we go to them and say we would like to send a delegation up there we would like to find out what terms you have certainly we cannot then even if we wanted to turn down a delegation or refuse to let a delegation go to Canada, it must go at some time or other. Now, I agree that it should go some time or other, but I feel that before we do that, we ought to know everything about our country. And not only the delegation that goes to Canada ought to know about it, but we all ought to know about it. There are a number of questions which ought also to be settled. I raised it last week. Is Confederation a form of government within the terms of reference? I don’t know if you are prepared to give a ruling on that, sir. And in addition to giving a ruling, tell us how you come to the conclusion as to why it is or is not. But it’s one of the things that we ought to settle first. We ought not to draw red herrings. across this issue. I submit to you, sir, that in his reply this afternoon, Mr. Smallwood threw many red herrings. One of them, particularly, is the mention of great names in Newfoundland. Trained to be a salesman? I know that’s one of the ways in which you draw a red herring, by quoting authorities which have had and which still have respect and appeal. It does not make one bit of difference to me, as a young man, what anybody thought about Confederation in the past. Not one bit. What does make a difference to me is the present issue as to whether we should or should not go. I have already gone on record as saying that at some time or other, I would like to see the terms from Canada. My case in voting for the amendment rests on this, that we ought not to limit ourselves to one month or two months for the sake of the amount of money which we may spend or the work which we will put in, that we ought to find out first of all, as we were sent here to do, to find out first of all about our own country. When we have done that and put ourselves into the proper attitude and proper frame of mind, and armed with the proper fact, then, sir, I think that would be the time for us to go off to Canada or to the United Kingdom or anywhere else. And I presume, sir, that under your ruling, we will, when the occasion comes, be allowed also to go to the United States. There are a number of people in this country, and it’s very evident, there are a number of people in this country who would like to see a tie-up with the United States. Are we then to go into these facts too? Presumably we ought to. Then there’s one other thing which I deeply resent. And if it’s the end of any possible political career, which I may have, I’m going to say it now. There are a number of people who sit here this afternoon, determined never to touch responsible government again. Gentlemen, so much to our shame. To think that we, as a people, a small island here, will tell the world that we are afraid to touch responsible government. I think it cries to high heaven. I think that what we are doing at the moment is attempting to sell the day for the hour. Thoughtful people, thoughtful Newfoundlanders, not glad to see such silly attempt to take away from them valuable information, to keep the truth about Confederation away from them. I resent that, sir. I think practically all the people here have committed themselves at some time or other to finding out all the facts, whether it be from Canada or from any other country. I have said that I would like to see the facts at some time or other, but I do not, sir, relish being accused of the fact that because I am against this motion, at this moment, that I am making any silly attempt to take away from the people of this country valuable information. I stand on the position that I stood two days ago, that we ought to think big, that we ought not to limit ourselves, that when the time comes, we ought to go to Canada. When we possess ourselves, gentlemen, we ought to go to Canada. And the way in which this motion was introduced does not give me the feeling that we have yet possessed ourselves. I refer once again to the fact that whether it’s a quarter of a million eventually, or whether it’s a million dollars that’s being spent, and I know as much as anyone how much a million dollars means to this country. We ought to do everything that we possibly can to put ourselves in possession, not only of the facts, but of ourselves. And after that, we should consider going to another country. I ask you, gentlemen, in considering this motion, not to sell the day for the hour.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Is the convention ready for the question?

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—Mr. Chairman. I came to this convention with some great faith. What I am doing is actually living. I expected to find in the first place what would our terms of reference would be exactly. And I thought that we should confine ourselves to our terms of reference. And up to the present time, I do not know what our terms of reference are. I do not know whether this convention can confine itself to one or two forms of government, or three or four or five. And I would like to find out. And I think this question of confederation which we have today before the chair and the amendments thereto should be detailed to the extent that we should find out whether or not the fact that confederation or any other form of government could be placed on any ballot that this convention could recommend to the people of Newfoundland. Therefore, I don’t know if I’m in order or not, sir. I would like to move a motion. I would like to move that this convention ascertain what authority is contained in the terms of reference embodied in the Convention Act of 1946[12] regarding forms of government that could be placed before the people of this country in a national referendum recommended by this convention.

Pierce Fudge [Humber]—I did not intend to have anything further to say on this issue, but I have listened very carefully to those who’ve already spoken, and I am wondering myself what possessed me to come in here to this convention. I had an idea that our duty was, and I put it to you plain, to come in and take stock. This is a business. She’s been in the hands of somebody else for 12 or 13 years. We are now sent in to take stock, to examine every fixture of this country. And after doing that, we should be able then to find out exactly what our assets are. Unfortunately, as other members have said, that this matter of confederation has slipped in between. And I am again prepared to say that the old thing thus far has been interrupted as far as stock-taking is concerned. Now, Mr. Chairman, I may be a peculiar [unintelligible], but it appears to me as a fisherman, a jack of all trades, that the Confederates has a boat for sale. And I have a vivid idea that that boat is called Newfoundland. And before there’s a bid on her at all, I put it to you straight that she’s a hundred years behind time. In other words, she’s [unintelligible] and leaky. [unintelligible], timber’s rotten. How much is our friend across the way going to bid for her? Not very much in my [unintelligible], poor way to make a sale or to try to make a deal. Now, in supporting the amendment of Mr. Penney, I have a vacant seat before me in which a few days ago, one of our Newfoundlanders, I know him quite well, sat at labour meetings with him often, defended this resolution, or amendment rather, of Mr. Penney. He went down as a Viking Newfoundlander with his gun blazing. I am prepared to go brickworker for him to defend this little country of mine. I make that statement, and I go on record that I am prepared to defend this country to the best of my ability, and I shall try and search out all the facts about my country before I take part in auctioning her off.

Charles Ballam [Humber]—I haven’t spoken on this debate at all except for a few minutes this afternoon, and I have still made no prepared speeches. And still say that we have had too many of them. Now, if you look at the resolution, and I might tell you that first when the thing came up, I was in a place where I thought that I would support that resolution. because I did want to get this information, and I still want to get the information as regards the terms of confederation. I didn’t have in my mind any idea that or even that we were going to talk about anybody pussyfooting to Ottawa. That wasn’t in question at all. And if that resolution had been presented in the way that I thought it was going to be, and so on, I think that all of this debate would have been finished and over with long ago. But here we ramble on the whole house, for that matter, not including myself, because that’s what I’m doing now. Well, then Mr. Penney comes along and he makes an amendment to the resolution in which that we will get the terms, but we leave it indefinitely. Well, that don’t change the information or what I want. I just want to get the terms. If and when we get them, well, that’s okay. I think that we as a convention should be able to decide when we want them. Now, Mr. Bradley has an amendment to the amendment, and that is that we do get the terms, but we put it off and we’ll send no delegation until January. Now, when you look at all of these, well, these points, and then when you sort of think and get in your mind, all the different debates and topics that have been debated here, well, now, would make you sort of think that, well, there was more in the cards than just getting the terms from Canada. If, for only the reason that in getting the terms of confederation, that we can be through with it and throw out and forget it forever, we’ll be doing something good. But we would be remiss in what we were sent here for if we did not get those terms. So then, my friend here on my right, whom I have the greatest respect for, and I’ve fought beside him and will fight beside him again, I mean Mr. Fudge. We don’t think properly along the same lines. But we do think along the same line. He thinks that absolutely we should get these terms, and everybody else. The gentlemen who are opposing the resolution and opposing the—well, of course, that’s not put yet, but he’s been speaking against it—the amendment to the amendment, they want to get the terms. And we all want to get the terms. But it’s a question of time. I agree that probably this is not the time. I don’t know. I’m not a politician. And I don’t know if it’s a political idea that you should get these things right before their cat is out of the bag or whether you should let the cat out of the bag, talk about it all over the universe, and then go looking for it. I don’t know. These are little things that are probably well known to more political minded men. But we all agree that we want them. Now, I think, Mr. Chairman, and I think that this is what we should do. I think that we should shelve the whole thing, put it on the shelf. We’ve had enough talk about it, enough bait, enough abuse, and enough everything. I think we would shelve the whole thing until January, as Mr. Bradley says in his amendment to the amendment. If in January we’re far along and some of us think that we should introduce this again, well, let us do so. But let us get rid of it now, one way or the other. And I think that the idea of shelving the thing now until we are in a position to talk about it sensibly and rightly, well then, I think that we’re wasting a lot of time. To finish up, sir, I don’t know what to vote for now. I can’t fix it in my mind, what to vote for. I want the information, but I can’t fix it as to when I want it, as long as we get it sometime.

I thought about supporting the resolution. I thought about supporting Mr. Penny’s amendment here. Now I think I’ll forget all of it, not vote at all.

Some hon. Members—Laughter.

Charles Ballam [Humber]—Or if I do, I’ll vote for Mr. Bradley’s amendment to the amendment, because I think there’s something in there. He is putting it on the shelf. And in the meantime, some machinery can be set in motion to go along with our job. And I think that if we look at it properly, that is a sensible way to look at it. There’s no harm in getting the machinery in order, but we are the ones here who will send the delegates. And if the proper machinery is set up that we can see them, we can see the people in Ottawa, well, I’m sure that we can, for our own time, when to send them. We might ask them to come down here if they want to discuss terms of confederation. The idea of the committees being set up and going off tomorrow, that’s not in the cards at all. Not as far as I can see it. I imagine that when this committee, if there is one at any time, if there is one, that we are going to be the ones that will appoint them. And we will be the ones that will say when they’re going to go. So that if we all want the terms of Confederation, well, we’ve almost agreed on that. Everybody, even our friend Mr. Cashin over there. He’d like to see them too. Well, there you are. Let them go ahead. I will anyway. I’ll support Mr. Bradley’s amendment to the amendment.

• (p. 147 in the primary document)

I’ll let them get their machinery in motion if they want to, but we will decide when and how to send them.

Reuben Vardy [Trinity North]—Mr. Chairman, I would feel a bit guilty unreasonably prolonging this debate if I spoke at any length on the amendment, or the amendment to the amendment. It has now been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that not only the country as a whole, but this Convention wants to know and study the terms for Confederation. Up to the present, I am not a Confederate. On the contrary, I have seen many times accused of being too much Newfoundland. I think that’s a well-known fact. But one thing I wish to make clear, that I shall always try to be big enough to see both sides of a question and admire all sane arguments presented for both sides. But I am sometimes represented and misquoted by some of my best friends. Now, apart from isolated cases, I consider the arguments for and against of a very [unintelligible] order. To me, our terms of reference are very clear, and our right to send a delegation anywhere, particularly within the empire, an indisputable fact. But I would go farther afield than responsible government or confederation in order for us, in the last analysis, to choose what, in our opinion, would be the best for the permanent future of Newfoundland. I feel that Mr. Bradley’s amendment to the amendment provides the missing link, and I shall support it.

Kenneth MacDonald [Grand Falls]—I was speaking to the motion here a few days ago. I think I made the statement that I would support the motion. Since that time, there’s been an amendment brought in by Mr. Penney, and another one by Mr. Bradley this afternoon. And whereas the motion, as put the original motion, did not state any particular time as to when all these things were going to happen, Mr. Penney’s amendment goes on to put the question out. In other words, I imagine, although not a politician, that it’s something like the politicians used to call the six months hoist. If that amendment is carried, there is a chance that we may never get this information that we’re trying to get. I am in favor of getting that information. And I think most of the members here of this convention are the same mind as I am on that matter. Another thing that occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment of Mr. Penney’s carries, when the time comes, we have to go over all the same things that we’ve been doing this last two or three days, and I, for one, don’t want it. I don’t know how the other members feel about it but I don’t want to go over this whole question again. If that amendment carries it undoubtedly will lead to that the whole question after three months five months six months or whatever the case may be will have to come up again and it’ll be all argued over again 45 speeches on a motion, 45 on an amendment, and 45 on an amendment to an amendment and the whole the whole story. Mr. Higgins has stated to discuss the country so far of $8,000 to put this through. Well, if you carry this, if this amendment is carried, Mr. Pennye’s, is going to cost another eight or $10,000, the same thing will have gone over again. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support that amendment. Mr. Bradley’s amendment to the amendment, unfortunately, I was absent from the building just down the hall when that amendment came through. But I understand from some of the speakers that it resembles the motion to a certain extent. I don’t know just where that amendment comes in. Mr. Chairman, if you’d be good enough to have the secretary read that amendment for the amendment. Thank you.

W. Gordon Warren [Secretary]—

“That all the words after ‘that’ in the first line of Mr. Penny’s amendment is stricken out that the words ‘and shall not proceed to Ottawa before January 1st 1947’ be inserted in the original motion after the word ‘Newfoundland’ at the end of the third paragraph.”

Kenneth MacDonald [Grand Falls]—Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In that event, it means that this amendment of Mr. Bradley’s will still leave it on record that this National Convention desires to be fully informed on all facts of having any bearing upon forms of government. The only thing,

“and shall not proceed to Ottawa before January the 1st, 1947,”

that amendment certainly gives us something definite. And for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I will support the amendment to the amendment.

Fletcher Vincent [Bonavista North]—I wish to speak to the amendment, so ably proposed by the delegates of Bonavista East, Mr. Bradley, I am not all repudiating, in principle, my support of the motion submitted by Mr. Smallwood on Monday last. The spectacular, if not interesting, discussions that have taken place since the introduction of that motion lead me to make the following observations. First, that the majority of the delegates who’ve spoken to the debate have expressed their willingness to have a delegation sent to Ottawa to seek terms of union. Second, the delegates who have so far supported Mr. Penney’s amendment withheld their support to the main question, only because of the time factor. In order, then, to facilitate the important work ahead of this convention to get on with the job, I am, to my part, willing to compromise, but only to the extent the definite time limit be set, such as that contained in the Bradley amendment. It is highly desirable that we get back to discussions and examinations of reports now on the desk of this assembly. That end can only be achieved by a prompt disposition of the subject matter now before the chair. It is my unalterable opinion, however,

[The following portion is missing a recording]

this Convention has no right to refuse to examine any issue brought before it. Personally I am willing to explore every form of government, including representative, responsible and confederation. The people of Bonavista North want to know the terms, if any, that are going to be made with Canada. I cannot conceive how any delegate can stand on his feet and say we have no right to seek such and such terms from Canada. I very much regret, however, that there was no trip to Ottawa offered me. But this is not the time to discuss transportation or such like matters and I reaffirm my obligation to the people who sent me here. I am not prepared to say whether confederation is good or bad, and I resent the statement made that we are 100 years behind the times. I am prepared to examine any issue brought in here in the best interests of Newfoundland and its people

Malcolm Hollett [Grand Falls]—Mr. Chairman, I rise to agree with my colleague from Grand Falls, and to show there is no collusion between us. The debate no doubt is amusing. First we have a man proposing a motion in which he already believed, in fact we know he believed in it because he has been fighting for it for years, and he believes in the principle of that motion which was foisted upon us. Mr. Higgins seconded the motion and in the next breath he does not agree with it at all. Then Mr. Burry stated last week that he agreed with the motion, although it was a little premature. This afternoon he was supporting the amendment to the amendment. My colleague supported Mr. Smallwood’s motion; now he is supporting Mr. Bradley’s. Then we have Mr. Ballam altering his mind. I think this issue is not one which

• (p. 148 in the primary document)

should at all be considered at the present time as the facts relative to our own country’s welfare should first be sought. I just rose to make it plain that I am against the motion because I feel there is something subtle in it, and I will vote for the amendment.

Joseph Fowler [Port de Grave]—Mr. Chairman, I contend that the amendment to the amendment was a political move to further confuse the issue, split the vote and thus assure a majority in favour of the original motion. I therefore reaffirm my former intention to support the amendment, and I would exhort all members to stick to their original decision to support the amendment proposed by Mr. Penney, and not to be swayed by the confusing amendment more confusingly presented by the learned member for Bonavista East…. I am pleased to see that Mr. Bradley confirms my opinion as expressed on Thursday last, when he says it would be ridiculous to conceive of a delegation proceeding to Canada without first being informed of our own financial and economic position, a statement which should only further strengthen the argument in favour of Mr. Penney’s amendment, which in short just means waiting until such time as this Convention may chose to send a delegation. I contend that this resolution should not have been brought in at this time, firstly because it has sown the seed of distrust and misunderstanding among the members of this Convention at a time when they should be working in harmony towards the completion of the first and most vital task, the reports of the various committees, and secondly because in the ears and eyes of the public it will eclipse the facts that should be given careful study at this time. I feel, that if there are people in this country interested in confederation, and if we believe in democracy, we must at the proper time give them the opportunity to express their desires, and I think that had Mr. Smallwood awaited a more opportune time and introduced his resolution in a different spirit there could be little reasonable opposition. I must confess that I was not invited to the alleged confederate conferences, nor did Mr. Smallwood as yet make any overture to me. Probably I was considered too insignificant, or more likely he was aware of my attitude towards the whole scheme. I feel sure there is still some honour left, even at this Convention. I suggest Mr. Chairman, that we define once and for all our position, and then with confidence pursue our tasks to a successful conclusion, with equal rights for all and privileges for none.

Isaac Newell [White Bay]—Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to make any lengthy remarks. As a matter of fact I have spoken only once, but I wish to say that if one were not so closely involved in this question, and if one were rather sitting in the gallery a great deal of the logic displayed would cause some amusement. I must say that I do not understand the confusion regarding the amendment….

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—Mr. Chairman, I beg to move an amendment that before we proceed further it is essential for us to know exactly what the terms of reference of this Convention are.

[…]

[Recording Starts Again]

UNKNOWN—That if we don’t want a delegation to go on the 1st of January, we’re not bound to send one. That we can decide whether or not whether we want it to go or not at that time. What this amendment to the amendment does as I see it, and I don’t boast of having any superior intellect, maybe I don’t see it correctly. But as I do see it, what it does is this. It limits the time within which the delegation shall not go; the time between now and the 1st of January. And if we as a convention feel that the time is not then right. We can still further defer the sending of that delegation. Surely we have confidence enough in ourselves to feel that we are capable of taking care of that little issue if and when it arises. But, Sir, whether it seems inconsistent to any of the more brilliant minds than I happen to possess that one should support a resolution and then support an amendment to it. It does not so seem consistent to me. But I think, Sir, that if this entire question is defeated or unduly protracted by the very people who claim that they too want the terms, then, Sir, I think that that little object lesson in parliamentary procedure, if you will forgive the sarcasm, will not be lost on this country. Certainly it won’t be lost on this House.

Albert Butt [St. John’s West Extern]—Mr. Chairman, to reply to Mr. Newell, speaking now to… what?

Some hon. Members—Laughter.

Albert Butt [St. John’s West Extern]—The amendment to the amendment.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Wait now, Mr. Butt, I think you’d want to remove the confusion in which the chair is somewhat involved, as well as yourself. There are three amendments now. I’m not interrupting you, Mr. Butts. I am trying to elucidate this rather tangled scheme. There are now four questions before this Chamber. The original question, the amendment to that question, the amendment to the amendment, and now Mr. Fogwill’s final amendment, he terms of which I’d like for him to put in writing so that we’ll thoroughly understand exactly what his motion is.

UNKNOWN—[Unintelligible] I do rise from the point of order as to the last amendment, although I feel clearly, that there cannot be three amendments to a motion.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—I don’t know whether Mr. Fogwill’s proposed amendment is an amendment to the motion that is the original question or is an amendment to the first amendment, or is an amendment to the second amendment? I therefore ask Mr. Fogwill to clarify that point,

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—Mr. Chairman, it’s not an amendment, neither is an amendment to the amendment, but I consider in making this motion, which I did, that it would be implemented with the question for the Chair and should have that privilege, and that should be debated before the main question.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Then it has to be an amendment to the original question or an amendment to either of the other two amendments. It can’t be a substantive motion.

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—But I understood, Sir, that I’m not quite clear on the procedure in this Assembly, but it’s my understanding, Sir, that any questions before the Chair and which is amended and has amendments to the amendment, that another question can be put which has sufficient privilege when qualified, as the main question, is we are debating the question now which we do not know whether it could or not be a valid question on the ballot to put before the people of this country. Therefore, I offer this motion, which I consider is incidental to the main question and should have that much privilege and should be decided first before the main station and its amendments are debated further.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—You’ll have to inform me and inform the Convention whether you mean by your motion to move an amendment either to the original question or to one of the two amendments, and you only can decide that, I can’t do it for you. You’ll have to let us know whether it is an amendment to an amendment or an amendment to the original question, Mr. Fogwill. I might say in passing, without having had the advantage of seeing your motion in writing that there’s a striking similarity between your proposal and Mr. Penney’s amendment. But perhaps you might be good enough to let me have your proposal in writing, so I could see exactly what is meant.

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—Well, Mr. Chairman, I just wrote this down here this evening since I came in and I had I didn’t have a prepared speech, so I’m not quite sure if it’s in order, and up to the present time, I am not in possession of any of the rules of order, that is proceedings of motions for this House.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—I’ve told you that, Mr. Fogwill. I’ve already told it and I think repeated it several times. One, there is an original question before this Convention. Two, to that original question, there has been an amendment to pose in second and to that amendment, there has been another amendment proposed and seconded. Now you make a further motion. I want to know whether you propose that as an amendment to the original question or an amendment to either of the two amendments to which I have referred.

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—I do not propose—

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—It can’t be a substantive motion. It has to be an amendment either to the original question or to one of the amendments to that original question. [Unintelligible] confused about the whole thing. You don’t know where we are. So, you will have now to clarify the situation in so far as your particular motion is concerned, and let me know what you mean by that. You mean to move an amendment to the original question or an amendment to one of the two amendments which had the moved here and which we have discussed particularly this afternoon and evening, and for certain days before this.

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—I will move this resolution as amendment to the original motion. I believe this Convention should understand, in detail, our terms of reference as embodied in the 1946 Convention Act, before we proceed any further. It’s unfortunate that the question before the chair was introduced at this time. But now that it has been introduced and debated, I believe that it’s essential now that we decide what exactly is the terms of reference of this Convention.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—The terms of reference, Mr. Fogwill, have already been considered and ruled upon. Now, insofar as the competency of this Convention is concerned, to recommend that, amongst other forms of government, a form of responsible government. Confederation with Canada, might be included, perhaps is a matter that more properly comes within the province of the expert advisor to this convention, Professor Wheare. That may shorten this discussion and hasten the vote upon these rather complicated questions, if perhaps Professor Wheare, with your permission, to advise you on that now and get rid of it. Is that your wish?

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—Yes, Sir.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Professor Wheare, would you mind expressing your opinion, if you are so inclined, as to the competency of this Convention to, among other recommendations, recommend to the United Kingdom government to go on the referendum, a form of responsible government, Confederation with Canada?

Kenneth Wheare [Constitutional Advisor]—Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’m willing to give an opinion on that question. And I give it without any reservations at all, without any doubt in my mind. Many of the questions that are raised in the debate, I think would be very doubtful once to pronounce upon and I should hope that I’m not asking an opinion on them, but if I understand

• (p. 149 in the primary document)

the question it is, is this Convention competent to recommend to the government, of the United Kingdom, that the form of Government confederation with Canada be based upon the ballot? Is that the question? The answer is, in my opinion, yes. This Convention is competent to recommend to the government the United Kingdom to place upon the ballot paper any form of government whatever, which in the opinion of this Convention, is worthwhile stating before the people of Newfoundland.

Albert Butt [St. John’s West Extern]—Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of Professor Wheare, here? Would that hold for union with the United States, Professor?

Kenneth Wheare [Constitutional Advisor]—The opinion I just gave I think admitted of no qualifications whatever, except that this Convention might not think a form of government worthwhile. Having given an opinion without qualification, it includes with that form of government known as Union of the United States, I’d only add that if you’re going to face that form of government on the ballot paper, you would have first to get the consent of the government of the United States. Of course you have to get the consent of the government of the United Kingdom to all things that I have put on. So I just mentioned that you have to get the consent of the government of the United States, before you decide to. But in my opinion, it doesn’t include that too. I see nothing in these terms of reference of this Convention to consider or recommend only forms of government within the British Empire. I can see nothing here which [unintelligible].

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Now, Mr. Fogwill, deal with your motion.

Frank Fogwill [St. John’s East Extern]—Mr. Chairman, my question is now answered, and when I beg leave of you, Sir, to withdraw the motion with the consent of my seconder.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—It is a matter entirely for the Convention to give you that leave. Gentlemen, you’ve heard the motion by Mr. Fogwill, I presume, assented to by Mr. Kennedy, the seconder, that he wishes to withdraw the motion which he had just made. Are you content? Well, that eliminates one question. There are three others now before this Chamber. Is the Chamber now ready for the question?

Michael Harrington [St. John’s City West]—Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, Sir, that if Professor Wheare at the outset of this Convention had maybe given us a little talk, we would be a lot further ahead today than we are. We’ve been floundering around now for the last six weeks or so just wondering just what we can do and what we can’t do. And it has taken this resolution, and the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment, and the substantive motion or additional question, wherever you want to call it, to get this statement. I think it’s long overdue. I think it’s one of the first things that we should have done. However, this went along in our own way, which we thought was the best way, I presume, to break up into committees and get the facts. I see no reason to change my stand from a week ago. And before this debate ends, I just want to state for the record that if Mr. Smallwood—I don’t know if I’m in order, Sir, to mention these things, but nonetheless, the charge is there and I will answer—I did not at anytime tell Mister Smallwood that I would support his motion. I want that to go into the record. I did always lend a sympathetic ear to anything that Mister Smallwood had to say. So far so good. I am against the amendment to the amendment. I’m beginning to think that I’m against the amendment. As a matter of fact, the way I feel now, I’d see the whole thing thrown out. However, the position has been clarified. And that, there’s nothing now, I suppose that we can do about it. I still think the whole thing is premature. I don’t see why we should rush this thing. We’ve been 14 years under one form of government. Surely goodness we can take a little time to see how we stand before we begin to discuss the pros and cons of any other kind. Whether it be a form of responsible government, responsible government itself, or the present system. I don’t propose to take too much time, there’s been a lot said—a great deal said—but I want to make the record quite clear on that, but I did not say I would support this motion at all, at any time.

Charles Bailey [Trinity South]—Mr. Chairman, this Chamber tonight owes a [unintelligible] to Mr. Fogwill because it’s the one thing that’s been bothering me ever since I came to the Convention, and I think I’ve spoken about it to probably a dozen men here. We came here for the term of reference. It was vague, that you didn’t know where you were beginning or where you were in, and I’m sure tonight I’m glad that this has come to the fore. It’s the first real thing that we’ve had since we came in the Convention. As Mr. Harrington said, we were floundering along in our own way and I’m sure that we can thank Professor Wheare for his clarifying that.

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Do any other gentlemen wish to speak to the question before the chair?

Albert Butt [St. John’s West Extern]—Mr. Chairman, [unintelligible] I wanted to say to Mr. Newell a minute ago. I have just one thing to say. He said that the great deal of the logic would cause some amusement and it would be rather strange if this motion were to be defeated by people who wanted the terms of logic. Surely the logic is simple, it’s the essence of simplicity. The question is,

“do you or do you not want terms from Canada?”

The second question involved is,

“do you are do you not want terms from Canada now?”

That’s the essence. I say at some time I want terms of reference from Canada, but I do not want them now. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that I am speaking for a good many people when I clarify this issue, two things,

“do you want the terms of reference? Do you want them now?”

I want the terms of reference, but I don’t want them now so I’m voting against the motion.

Joseph Smallwood [Bonavista Centre]—Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just one word in reply to my friend Mr. Harrington. What he says is perfectly right. He did not promise to vote for the motion that I introduced. And I do not think that I said here this afternoon that he had so promised. What I said here this afternoon is that months ago Mr. Harrington had told me, and I repeat that statement now, that he would vote to get the terms of Confederation, as he felt that it was his duty and the duty of every delegate so to vote. But he did not, I will be fair, he did not, with regard to this particular motion of mine, promise me at least that he would vote for it. One other remark, Sir, in reply to Mr. Harrington. He speaks of, as others have done, of rushing this business of getting the terms. I wonder if rushing is quite the right term to use. For 13 years we have had Commission of Government. For 80 years, Or 79, we had responsible government. For 23 years we had representative government. Over 100 years of those three kinds of government. I do not think that after more than 100 years of the other kinds of government that it is now rushing to suggest that sometime in the month of January we should get the terms and conditions of Confederation. Now, Mr. Chairman, this amendment of Mr. Bradley is very clearly a compromise. I moved that this convention wished to advise the proper authorities of the conventions wish to obtain the terms and conditions of Confederation with Canada by sending a delegation to Ottawa to get those terms. My motion did not specifically state that that delegation should go immediately, but some gentlemen in this Chamber, in this Convention, quite sincerely, I believe—and in that I include Mr. Butt in reply to his objection here tonight—quite sincerely, I believe, felt that the adoption of my motion would have the effect of rushing this thing. An effect which as Mr. Bradley so clearly pointed out this afternoon it could not have. And I think that Mister Butt himself, who has had some experience with public affairs, more particularly, as assistant secretary to the Commissioner for Public Utilities, I think Mr. Butt is well aware, there are few more aware than he, of the long drawn-out delay that always occurs in such negotiations involving the Dominions Office in London. And I feel quite sure that he could not have really felt down deep in his heart that the adoption of this motion could have meant the sending of a delegation within quite a number of weeks after its adoption. And so, Mr. Bradley, I admit it, to my delight, brought in here this afternoon an amendment for the sole purpose of meeting the objections of gentlemen in this Convention, who felt that the thing was premature, who felt that it was being rushed unduly. Particularly to meet their objections, he brought in this amendment. In effect, he said this:

“Some gentlemen suppose that the adoption of the motion itself, the main question, might mean the immediate departure of a delegation for Ottawa.”

It would not mean any such thing actually in actual practice, he pointed out, but in case there still be a member of this Convention who thinks that it might mean such a rush to Ottawa, he brings in the amendment to make it very sure that there will be no rush to Ottawa, certainly before the 1st of January next year. And in reply for that decent and reasonable compromise, a decent, reasonable compromise introduced by him to meet the reasonable decent objections of some delegates in reply to that, what answer is brought out? But it’s another cute dodge. They can smell politics in it. And that’s the reply we get. Now, Mr. Chairman. I would like to point out this fact; that the adoption of my emotion, means only this—my emotion now, as it was originally—that we agree that we should have the terms of Confederation. We agree on that. We agree that we should send a delegation to get those terms. Now that was the motion. Does the amendment to it, if we adopt Mr. Penney’s amendment, does that mean that we have then agreed in adopting his amendment that we have agreed to the principle, to the principle that we should get those terms? No. All that would be left of the original motion is the preamble.

“Whereas it is desirable that the National Convention and the people of Newfoundland should be fully informed so far as possible of all facts having any bearing upon forms of government that might be submitted to the people in a national referendum.”

Therefore, be it resolved what? That we agree that with regard to one of those forms of government, namely confederation, we should get those terms sometime. No, it doesn’t even agree to that. It merely says,

“Having agreed that that we and the people of Newfoundland deserve to have all the information we can get,”

Mr. Penney’s amendment goes on to say,

“therefore, the question of ascertaining the attitude of the Government of Canada towards the possibility of Federal Union of Newfoundland with Canada.”

And the further question of sending a delegation to Ottawa to get those terms and conditions, what, shall be left open? Shall be postponed? So what is it that would be postponed? The whole question. The whole decision. Should we or should we not get the terms of Confederation? Should we or should we not sometime send a delegation to Ottawa to get those terms? That is less open, that is delayed, that is postponed. No decision is to be taken on that at all after one week of debate. If Mr. Penney’s amendment committed us, everyone in this House who has spoken and said that he agrees we ought to have the terms, and pretty well everyone has done that now, if his amendment says

“all right. Let’s get the terms, and sometime in the future, we will decide as a convention just how we’ll go about getting them and just when we’ll go about getting them.”

If it did that, but no. Not a word, no decision. [Unintelligible]. Here is the position now. If the amendment to the amendment is put, Mr. Bradley’s amendment, which says

“yes, we agree with this motion, but this delegation shall not go before the 1st of January.”

Before the 1st of January. If we put that amendment to the amendment, that is Mr. Bradley’s amendment, if we put that and it’s defeated, then the next vote is taken on the amendment Mr. Penney’s amendment and if we adopt his amendment, what have we adopted? Have we decided in principle that we should get the terms of Confederation? No, we have not. Have we decided in principle that we should send a delegation to Ottawa? No, we have not. What have we decided? Only this. That the whole question of whether we should or should not have the terms of Confederation, the whole question of whether we should or should not send a delegation, both those questions are left over; they’re postponed; they’re procrastinated, and we’ve lost exactly one week of debate. Now, what does that mean? That means this, that sometime towards the end of this month, or sometime in December, or sometime in January, or sometime in February, I or some other delegate stands up in this House, tables a motion just about the same as the one that I tabled here last Monday, just about the same motion, and it’s seconded, and the debate starts all over again. Maybe another week of debate. But with this difference. With this difference. Suppose, by the 16th of December, when it is suggested, so I understand, that this Convention should adjourn for Christmas. Suppose by the 16th of December the reports of all the committees have been handed in to this House. Two of them have already been handed in. The report of a third committee is getting pretty nearly ready; of a fourth, getting pretty nearly ready; of a fifth, getting pretty nearly ready. Suppose by the 16th of December, all nine reports will have been handed in to this Convention. And the delegates take them home and read them over, study them, and think about them and come back here on the 6th of January. On which date, so I understand, it is the intention that the Convention should reassemble after Christmas. Come back here on the 6th of January and begin to consider and debate those reports of committees, which will not have been considered and debated up to and ending on the 16th of December. All right. Suppose there are three or four or five of those reports which still have to be debated beginning around the 6th of January. Getting up around the middle of January, or three parts of the way through January, the Convention finally has done its debating on the last of those 9 reports. Then what follows? The next question on the table is forms of government. By somewhere towards the end of January, we have discussed the 9 reports of the committee. By then, we will know what we’re going to know about the state of this country. I regret to say that Mr. Chairman because, like Mr. Butt, I feel it, not with my head, not with my heart, but with every drop of blood in me and every bit of flesh and bone in my body, I feel it as he does, that this Convention will never get the real truth about this country. I’m quite sure of that. We’ll tinker around the surface, we’ll scratch and we’ll scrape at the surface. And what do we find out? But somewhere towards the end of January, we will have received and we will have debated those nine committee reports. And to all intents and purposes, we will know then what we’re going to know. Unless Mr. Butt’s idea, and mine, of bringing into this country an absolutely outstanding statistician and absolutely outstanding economist, bringing such a man to Newfoundland, giving him sweeping statutory powers, the powers of a Royal Commission to do what we cannot do, to demand the production of witnesses, to subpoena witnesses, to demand the production of documents and accounts and papers that we can’t do unless such a man as that or such a group of men as that be brought into this country because we have not got them here in Newfoundland. We’ve got Newfoundlanders who can do it, but they’re not in Newfoundland unless such a man, such a group as that be brought here to Newfoundland and turned loose and given a year in which to make their real research the real investigation. We are not going to know unless that’s done. We are not going to know what we’ve got in this country but such as we know we will know towards the end of January. And then what’s our position then? We’re confronted by the necessity to make recommendations to the government of the United Kingdom. We are called upon then to recommend to the British Government the particular forms of government that we think that government of Britain ought to submit to our Newfoundland people in a national referendum. We have no guarantee as I take it, despite what Professor Wheare has said, a few minutes ago, we have no guarantee that the British Government will place on that ballot for that national referendum anything and everything that we recommend. We have no guarantee that they will not place on that ballot things that we do not recommend at all. As I understand, Professor Wheare, we have the right as a convention to recommend to the United Kingdom Government what we think they ought to put on the ballot but we have no guarantee that the British Government will put those things on the ballot and neither have we a guarantee that they will not put on the ballot things that we haven’t recommended at all. But to get back up toward the end of January in 1947, this Convention will be called upon to recommend to the government of the United Kingdom, forms of government to be laid before the Newfoundland people. At that point, Mr. Chairman, and I ask this convention, sincerely, I ask the question sincerely; this convention, toward the end of January next year, being confronted by the sheer necessity to recommend forms of government, will they then be able with a clear conscience to recommend Confederation? No. Because no man can recommend Confederation to go on the ballot. No matter how sincerely convinced he is in his heart and his mind that Confederation might be a good thing, he still cannot recommend that it go on the ballots until he has the terms, until he has the conditions that Canada is prepared to offer. And so, having arrived at the point where we’ve cleared off the 9 committee reports, where we’ve considered and debated those reports, and where we have come to the point now of recommending to the government of the United Kingdom what kind of forms of government they put on the ballot, we still have to have our debate here in this very Chamber, in this very Convention, as to whether we shall or shall not get the terms of Confederation, whether we shall or shall not send a delegation to Ottawa. That debate might well take a week. This one has taken a week. At that time, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, our feelings may have run so high in this Convention as to make any little heat or passion of the last week seem like a little mild affair altogether. Because I have no doubt in my mind in the least, no doubt at all, that when the advocates of responsible government get their day, when they have their inning in this House, they are going to make the welkin ring. That’s the time the passion will run. And when we come generally to discuss forms of government is the wrong time in the heat and passion of that debate, with feelings running very deep indeed, that’s the wrong time to have a debate as to whether we should or should not oblige our Newfoundland people. Do them the favour, throw them the bone of giving them the terms of Confederation. That will not be the time to debate that highly important matter. But suppose we debated then toward the end of January next year, and suppose, after a long and acrimonious debate, the motion carries. And suppose the House does decide, even unanimously, without one dissenting vote toward the end of January, that we should get the terms, and that we should send a delegation. What are you up against, then? What you’re up against, then are the very points that Mister Bradley made here this afternoon. When that delegation, whoever they be, when they go to Ottawa, they cannot, as Mr. Cashin said, go empty handed. They must bring with them to Ottawa certain tangible, practical information. Mr. Chairman, that delegation going to Ottawa must take with it the story of our railway. They must take with it the story of our Department of Posts and Telegraphs. They must take with it the story of our lighthouses, our fog alarm, our aids to navigation. They must take with it information about our breakwaters and our public bridges, our public wharves, rather our public launch ways and public slipways. They must take with it to Ottawa full information about our war veterans of the last war, and of this war. They must take with it to Ottawa the story of our court system and also the story of our demonstration farms, because these are things which, if we became a province, would be handled by the federal government, and so we must be in a position to tell the federal government what we’ve got in these regards and what they have cost and what they are likely to cost, we must take that information up there. And then further, we must know this, that delegation must know this as well. How much is it going to cost? The provincial government of Newfoundland, should we go into union with Canada and become a province, how much is it going to cost the provincial government of Newfoundland to carry out the work it will have to carry out as a province? Because if we became a province, we will be responsible as a provincial government for public health and education. These are provincial matters. We must know what these will cost, and we must know where the revenue is coming from to pay for them. Now these are matters which that delegation, once its appointed, must find out. And if, after an acrimonious debate toward the end of January, we decide to send a delegation before that delegation goes, it must get this information to take with it to Ottawa. That’s going to take a matter of two or three weeks. And then finally, a matter of two or three weeks perhaps in Ottawa, getting the terms, handing this information to them, getting their information from us and where are you then? You’re up in March month? And what you could well be doing towards the end of January, what you could well be doing, you will be doing in state in March or April or May because, Mr. Chairman, surely to goodness when we have studied these nine committee reports and when we have got the terms and conditions of Confederation, surely in two or three days after that Mister Butt can bring in a motion, or Mr. Fogwill or Mr. Bradley, or anyone can bring in a motion. A simple motion to this effect, Mr. Chairman,

“I move that this National Convention recommend to the government of the United Kingdom that the following forms of government be placed on the ballot in the national referendum for the Newfoundland people to vote on, namely:

1. Continuation of Commission Government;

2. Restoration of Dominion status responsible government under Dominion status; and

3. Confederation upon the terms handed down by the Government of Canada.”

One simple motion could decide what forms of government we recommend. That’s all we can do is recommend to the Government of Britain what they’ll put on the ballot in the national referendum. And we might well arrive at the point towards the end of January where we’ll be kicking ourselves for having to go on for another two or three months, doing something that could have been done now in the meantime.

There’s one other point I want to make. Suppose, Mr. Chairman, there’s no harm supposing. Suppose this delegation went to Ottawa and brought the terms and conditions of Confederation back. And suppose the gentleman of this Convention, having looked them over and studied them said, “well yes, they look fairly good.” And suppose, then, that that motion were carried, that those three forms of government be put before the people, namely Commission, responsible, confederation. And suppose the referendum took place. And suppose a majority of our people voted for Confederation on those terms. Where have you arrived at that point? You’ve arrived at the point where the people of Newfoundland have spoken. Where they have voted, where they have given their decisions, where they have given their mandate and is any gentleman in this House going to say that you can go higher than the Newfoundland people? No one is going to say that. And if the Newfoundland people gave a mandate for Confederation on those terms, the rest is perfectly simple. You could have your responsible government. And that’s responsible government, then, could proceed to implement the Terms of Confederation. That responsible government then, possibly with Major Cashin in it, could then request the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, to request the Parliament of Britain to amend the BNA Act to admit Newfoundland on the terms handed down by the Government of Canada. Those terms considered by the National Convention. Those terms voted on by the people in the national referendum. And in that procedure, you have followed a completely democratic procedure. Because if the people of Newfoundland vote, you’ve had the last word you can get. You can’t go higher than our own Newfoundland people. Now, Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, there’s one point I promised myself to make, and that is in connection with the words that were omitted from my motion, from the second paragraph of my motion, when it was mimeographed and put in here. I said this afternoon here that those words that are missing or were missing were omitted in the mimeographing of the resolution. That, Sir, is incorrect. They were omitted by me when I was typing the motion, the resolution, from my own handwritten copy of it. I wrote it in handwriting. I made various amendments, changes in it, to try to make it read smoothly and with a little dignity and finally, after changing it about and altering it and smoothing it over, I finally began to type it out and in typing it out omitted those 3 or 4 words, which of course obviously belong in there and were in fact in the original handwritten copy of it. That’s all I want to say, Mr. Chairman. Without, with the exception of one man in this House, I think perhaps Mr. Newell is a little incorrect, I don’t think there are two, I believe now there is just one man of the 45 in this Convention, just one, who has not said that he wants to see the terms of Confederation. That means that 44 of us agree that we ought to have the terms. 44 of us agree that the people deserve to have the terms and that it would be wrong of us to deny the people that chance. All right, what are we calling about? The motion would get the terms. This motion of mind would get the terms. That’s all the motion is for to get the terms to send a delegation to get the terms. That’s all the motion is about. But if you think that the minute you adopt the motion and the delegation is appointed, that delegation goes galloping off to Ottawa. If you think that Mister Bradley’s amendment to my motion or to the amendment clarifies that because it lays it down, that no matter if we adopt my motion tonight, the delegation cannot go anyhow before the 1st of January and maybe not then, because remember the appointing of that delegation will be on the floor of this House. You gentlemen and I have to appoint that delegation or elect them. If we adopt this motion with Mr. Bradley’s amendment, we don’t have to appoint the delegation tonight, we don’t have to appoint them tomorrow or next week. We don’t have to appoint them next month. We don’t have to appoint them even in January. And when we do appoint the delegation, that delegation cannot go anyhow, before the 1st of January. And when they go and when they return with the terms and conditions of Confederation, does that mean this? That there comes a great noise out at the door there? And what is the noise? It’s the noise of 6 or 7 delegates rushing back from Ottawa, all out of breath into this chamber up here to the table, throwing the terms on the table and upsetting everything, does it mean that? It does not. That delegation could be back from Ottawa a week or two weeks or three weeks, and the terms and conditions beyond might be filed away and not be brought on the floor of this House at all until this House is good and ready to receive and discuss the terms. I say this, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion. As Mr. Higgins has said, and I thank him, sincerely, very sincerely for the remark he made. Other delegates no doubt, and I’m sure many people in this country understand it as he does. This matter, is very close to my heart. I don’t think there’s any crime in that. I know of no crime in believing in Confederation anymore than believing in responsible government, I see no crime in it. I do believe in it. I believe it might be the salvation of this country. I don’t ask you to agree, gentlemen. Maybe you haven’t given the matter quite the same. close study I have done for the last nine months. Maybe if you had, you would have come to a different conclusion altogether from the one I came to. But at least I have thought about the matter. I have studied it. It is close to my heart. And if, Sir, if throughout this debate I have said things that were harsh. I apologize to the House for doing it. The matter is close to my heart.

• (p. 150 in the primary document)

I believe it’s close to the hearts of many thousands of our people, but whether they believe in consideration or not, whether you and I believe in it or not, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, whether we believe in it or not, there are many thousands of people in this country tonight, tonight, and there’ll be more tomorrow, and more the next day. The matter will not die. It can’t die. Now it’s got to be settled whether you like it or I like it or not. It’s got to be settled. The people demand it and they’re going to have it settled. Whether you like it or I like it or not, the people have got to have the terms and in all fairness, in all sincerity, in spite of bickering and harshness, let us adopt the amendments that Mister Bradley has moved and then the motion as amended by his amendment, that the delegation in any case. Shall not go before the 1st of January next year.

Gordon Higgins [St. John’s City East]—I think we’ve [unintelligible] this evening. I think it could all be better to be adjourned and take our time thinking over the matter until tomorrow, so I’d move to the debate being adjourned till tomorrow at 3 o’clock.

Mr. Job—I’d like to second that motion, Mr. Chairman.

[Motion passed]

Mr. Chairman—Mr. Hollett, Committee of the whole on the report of the Education Committee.

UNKNOWN—[Unintelligible]

Mr. Chairman—Proposed and seconded that that order stand to be heard tomorrow.

[Motion carried]

Education Committee of the whole on the part of the Policy Committee.

UNKNOWN—[Unintelligible]

Mr. Chairman—Proposed and seconded that that order stand to be heard tomorrow.

[Motion carried]

The orders of the day have now been concluded. I shall accept the motion for the adjournment of the—

Gordon Higgins [St. John’s City East]—[Unintelligible]

Cyril J. Fox [Chairman]—Proposed by Mr. Higgins, seconded by Mr. Macdonald, this Convention stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 3 o’clock.

[Motion passed]

[1] “Whereas it is desirable that the National Convention and the people of Newfoundland should be fully informed so far as possible of all facts having any bearing upon forms of government that might be submitted to the people in a national referendum; therefore be it Resolved that the appropriate authorities be advised that the Convention desires to inform the Government of Canada of the Convention’s wish to learn that government’s attitude on the question of federal union of Newfoundland with Canada; and further wishes to ascertain the terms and conditions on the basis of which the Government of Canada consider that such federal union might be effected; and be it finally resolved that the delegation shall have no authority whatsoever to negotiate or conclude any agreement or in any manner to bind the Convention or the people of Newfoundland.”

[2] William Mackenzie, Newfoundland Royal Commission 1933 (His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1933), https://collections.mun.ca/digital/collection/cns/id/19695.

[3] “Newfoundland, National Convention Debates, (30 October, 1946),” PrimaryDocuments.ca, https://primarydocuments.ca/newfoundland-national-convention-debates-30-october-1946/. 121-122.

[4] Walter Scott, The Lay of the Last Minstrel, 5th ed. (James Ballantyne & Co., 1806), https://ia801307.us.archive.org/35/items/layofthelastmins00scotiala/layofthelastmins00scotiala.pdf. 175.

[5] Joseph Smallwood, The Book of Newfoundland, 2 vols. (Newfoundland Book Publishers, Ltd., 1937).

[6] Dominion of Canada Official Report of Debates House of Commons: Fourth Session-Nineteenth Parliament, vol. 5 (Edmont Cloutier, 1944), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b2887810. 4684.

[7] Dominion of Canada Official Report of Debates House of Commons: Second Session-Twentieth Parliament, vol. 3 (Edmont Cloutier, 1947), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000070386561. 2753.

[8] Dominion of Canada Official Report of Debates House of Commons: Second Session-Twentieth Parliament, vol. 3. 2753.

[9] British North America Act, Parliament of the United Kingdom, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 3 (1867), https://primarydocuments.ca/john-a-macdonald-fonds-drafts-of-the-british-north-america-act-1867-h-l-bill-floor-n-d/.

[10] “It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council, on the addresses from the Houses of Parliament of Canada and the Houses of the respective legislatures of the Colonies or Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those Colonies or Provinces, or any of them into the Union.”

[11] An Act Relating to a National Convention, 10 Geo. 6, c. 16, Newfoundland Commission of Government (1946).

[12] An Act Relating to a National Convention, 10 Geo. 6, c. 16, Newfoundland Commission of Government (1946).