Mr. Job Mr. Chairman, in the absence
of Mr. K.M. Brown, who is unfortunately
incapacitated, I have been requested as acting
chairman of the Fisheries Committee to present an
interim report. This is not a complete report, but I
fancy that the delegates will nevertheless find it
both interesting and instructive, and, I
hope, helpful to our deliberations. It will give
them a general idea of the great importance of the
cold storage industry in Newfoundland.
It gives plenty of food for thought, dealing
mainly with our new industry. Many people in
Newfoundland will agree with the Fisheries
Committee's View that the future welfare and
happiness of our people depend largely upon the
future development of this industry. Delegates
will find copies on their desks, and it has been
suggested that it is not necessary to have the
report read in full, as it can better be studied by
the delegates at their homes or temporary
quarters before being debated. I would however
like to make a few comments in presenting it.
About five-sixths of the report deals merely
with facts and figures of Newfoundland's cold
storage industry. During the discussions of these
facts it became evident to the members of your
Fisheries Committee that the future prosperity of
this industry, and indeed of our country,
depended largely upon future tariff and tax arrangements for entries of our products,
especially
those of our fisheries, into the United States of
America, and that until some long-term arrangements regarding tariffs can be made
for years
ahead, it may be difficult to further develop our
fisheries and particularly our cold storage industry. People can hardly be expected
to make
large capital expenditures for expansion of an
industry until reasonably certain that a definite
market for their products is available, and that it
cannot be suddenly taken away by the imposition
of adverse tariffs. How vulnerable our country is
as regards external tariffs is clearly shown by the
effect of the so-called processing tax which was
enacted by the USA some 10 or 15 years ago, and
which has since then absolutely prevented exportation of our seal oil to the USA.
Prior to this
enactment something like 50 per cent or more of
our seal oil production went to that market. The
enactment discouraged, if it did not help actually
to kill, a valuable industry. Today the world is
literally crying out for fats, under which category
our seal and herring oils come.
It naturally occurred to members that the USA
might appreciate our need for some permanent
tariff concessions, in view of the fact that she
herself sought and obtained tariff concessions
and long-term leases from us before erecting her
permanent military and naval bases in Newfoundland territories. She did this mainly
for the
protection of her people, and incidentally for the
people of Great Britain, of Canada, and of the
comparatively insignificant population of Newfoundland. She asked for, or perhaps
demanded,
99 year leases and also freedom from customs
and other taxation of every sort. These concessions under the serious stress of war
times were
granted by our Commission of Government no
doubt at the instance of Great Britain, probably
at the personal request of that greatest of war
statesmen, the Honourable Winston Churchill.
Can we blame him, or anyone else, for at that
time overlooking the fact that they were asking
us to concede without any actual consideration,
long period leases of Newfoundland territory and
other concessions which today Newfoundlanders
consider should not have been conceded without
some substantial quid pro quo for the owners? No
doubt our little country, with her small popula
October 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 69tion amounting to about 300,000 persons, was
looked upon as a mere pawn in the game, which
must be sacrificed to win the war. But I most
strongly affirm that we think differently, and that
we consider we are entitled to some substantial
and permanent consideration in return for the
concessions yielded. Admittedly it was no time
for argument when these bases and concessions
were granted, as the enemy was literally at our
own gates and all statesmen were concentrating
upon the first essential, namely the winning of the
war.
I do not suggest that we have received no
benefit from the occupation of these bases by our
American friends, but I do suggest that we have
received only a temporary benefit and that we
had, and perhaps still have, the opportunity of
securing a permanent benefit by means of special
tax considerations in the USA in return for the
concessions granted by us. I think every fair-
minded person will agree that some reservation
for future consideration might have been made
when the long-term leases of our territory and
freedom from taxation were being conceded
without consultation with the people of Newfoundland. For all we know, there may have
been
some reservations, but the bald fact remains that
Newfoundland has so far received no quid pro
quo for the valuable concessions granted.
It was with this fact in mind that your Fisheries
Committee added to the factual portion of the
report the summary which I will read verbatim,
as it is regarded by the Committee as airing one
of the most important matters affecting the discussions and recommendations of this
Convention:
To sum up the position it seems clear to
the Fisheries Committee that a very strong
case can be worked up for special consideration in any negotiations for improvement
in
trading relations with the United States of
America, as well as with Canada and Great
Britain, on the following grounds:
1. The future welfare of Newfoundland is
without doubt mainly dependent upon a free
market for her export products, especially
those from the fisheries.
2. The future ability of Newfoundland to
secure and maintain for her fishermen and
other inhabitants a fair and decent standard
of living is largely dependent upon such free
markets.
3. The strategical position of Newfoundland as disclosed by conditions arising
out of the recent world war, is of the utmost
importance to the millions of people in the
United States of America and also to those of
Canada and Great Britain, and all these
countries have a definite interest in assisting
the people of Newfoundland to improve their
standard of living for the following reasons:
(a) In the case of Canada the importance of a prosperous Newfoundland is of
special interest, owing to the fact that Newfoundland's imports from Canada amount
to
a very large percentage of the total imports
into Newfoundland, whereas unfortunately
she is not in a position to provide in her own
country a market for Newfoundland's chief
exports. It is therefore to the interest of
Canada to help and encourage our export
trade in other directions, in order to retain and
increase her present exports to Newfoundland. Moreover Canada has already
received important concessions from Newfoundland.
(b) Great Britain is obviously anxious
to assist us. In recent years she has supplied
grants-in-aid to Newfoundland, but it is quite
likely she may not be in a position to continue
these in future years. She can assist us in
making better tariff arrangements not only
with the United States of America, but with
other countries. Moreover, it can be borne in
mind that it was with her authority that sections of our territory have been ceded
to the
USA without any suitable quid pro quo for
Newfoundland.
(c) In the case of the USA, leases of
Newfoundland territory for military and
naval bases for 99 years, and at the same time
facilities for free entry without taxation of
any sort of products imported into this
country for use at these bases, were conceded
without any direct quid pro quo for Newfoundland.
4. It would seem to be extremely important to the people of Newfoundland that
negotiations should be initiated at an early
date with a view to securing favourable trade
arrangements for Newfoundland with the
USA, not only on the basis of reciprocal tariff
70 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1946
concessions, but also as a quid pro quo for
the concessions already granted by way of 99
year leases and free customs entries.
5. Whilst this report deals mainly with
the cold storage industry in relation to fisheries, sight must not be lost of other
Newfoundland products which are, or may be,
subject to duty and tax restrictions entering
the USA, and which also have considerable
bearing on Newfoundland economy. Among
these may be mentioned:
(a) Herring and its by-products, such
as herring oil and meal.
(b) White fish meal.
(c) Seal oil and seal skins.
(d) Cod liver oil and common cod oil.
(e) Salt codfish and all other fishery
products including canned goods.
6. Recommendations contained herein
must not be construed as limiting any views
on the subject of tariffs which could be
reasonably put forward in the interests of
other Newfoundland industries, such as lumbering, pulp and paper, and mining.
[1]
I cannot believe, Mr. Chairman, that great
countries like the USA, Canada, and of course,
Great Britain, will fail to realise our viewpoint
and will deny us the opportunity to expand our
important fishery, sealing and other industries to
a point that will enable us to improve our standards of living, which have been the
subject of so
much destructive comment in the press of all
these countries from time to time. They now have
a chance to help us and I believe they will do so
if properly approached with a direct appeal.
I cannot help believing that a round table
conference between authorised representatives
of these three great countries with Newfoundland representatives acting entirely in
Newfoundland interests, could not fail to arrive at
some arrangement which would give us the tariff
and tax free concessions which we so urgently
require, to secure for our people by their own
effort a respectable standard of living. It may be
that during our discussions at this Convention of
the forms of government to be recommended,
one of those put forward might be some form of
responsible government sponsored or fostered by
a joint advisory council consisting of representatives from Great Britain, Canada,
and the
USA, with or without some partial control by
such a council over our financial and external
policy, to help us to keep from running off the
rails This idea is not entirely my own, and I
merely mention it in passing.
I beg to move that the interim report of the
Fisheries Committee be received and that the
National Convention resolve itself into a committee of the whole for further discussion
of the
report.
Mr. Job Copies of the report were
laid on the desks of the delegates, I thought
perhaps they would rather take it home and consider
it.
Mr. Chairman I think it would finish
your address if the report were read by
you or by the Secretary.
[The Secretary read the report]
Mr. Butt Mr. Chairman, I am not a
member of the committee, but it is apparent that the
committee wishes to give us the
facts of the fishing industry in Newfoundland, and
this very important question has been
agitating the minds of many Newfoundlanders for some
time. There are a number of very important separate
questions involved in this wider one, and in order
to deal with them properly I suggest that the
members have some time to study the questions
further. I would therefore move, sir, that we
adjourn the debate until tomorrow afternoon at three
o'clock.
Mr. Smallwood There are ten members
of the Fisheries Committee. Are none of them perhaps
prepared to go on with the debate today? To them
the report is quite familiar, and could we not hear
from some of them today? I don't know if there
is any other business that could be done today. This
is the first session in two weeks, and to adjourn
within an hour of meeting seems a little unnecessary
if any of the other members of the Fisheries
Committee are prepared to go on with the debate.
Mr. Chairman I invite the comments of
any members of the Fisheries Committee on that
point before putting the motion for adjournment.
Mr. Crosbie Speaking as a member of that committee, we have
thrashed all this out in our
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
71 meetings, and I don't think we can
continue this debate until the other members study
the report and bring in their questions.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Job, you moved that
the report be received and that it be referred to a
committee of the whole. Mr. Butt's motion will
not be superseding your motion in any way.
Mr. Job May I be permitted to meet the committee
of the whole tomorrow?
Mr. Smallwood If I may speak again.
Mr. Crosbie, for whom I have the
profoundest respect, is not, I hope, going to be
content with leaving us with this written report
without some amplification from him on the
report. I take it that the whole Fisheries Committee
are not going to leave this
written report of theirs as their only word, but
that they will, participate in the debate.
Mr. Chairman May I point out that
that original motion, which will be taken
up tomorrow if we now adjourn, is that the report be
referred to a committee of the whole. I take it that
a full debate in committee will then follow.
Mr. Crosbie Mr. Chairman, that's only
an interim report anyway. As far as the
Fisheries Committee is concerned it is
only an attempt at what we have to do. It is far
from finished.
Mr. Chairman The debate will continue
when the Convention goes into committee. Is the
House ready for the question?
[The motion carried]
Mr. Chairman What is the wish of the
Convention on the subject of the
Chadwick and Jones report?
Mr. Reddy Mr. Chairman, with
your permission I would like to trespass
on the time of the Convention whilst I make a few
general remarks about some of the subjects that have
been before the Convention since its opening. It is,
I think, expected that every member should make some
contribution, no matter how modest it might be,
to aid the Convention in its work. That is expected of us by the country which sent
the Convention here, and by the people of
the different sections who have chosen us to
represent them and to speak for them as well as we
can.
No matter what the outcome of the Convention may be, the section of the country that
I come
from will always have to depend almost entirely
on the fisheries. For a great portion of the southwest section of Newfoundland the
future
economy is a matter of the development on progressive lines of the fishing industry.
I think
everybody will agree with Mr. Wild when he
says "there is room for considerable development
of the fisheries", and we hope that, no matter what
form of government is to follow the Convention,
the policy outlined by Mr. Wild will be carried
out when he says that "a determined effort will
be made to stabilise prices and to ensure that
primary producers are given a fairer deal than
they often were in the past." If we could feel that
this would be really the policy of the future
government of Newfoundland, no matter what it
might be, it would be good and heartening news
for large numbers of the fishermen throughout
the country.
I would like to stress that the men from the
district I represent are engaged largely in what we
call the deep sea fishery. This entails greater
hardship than the shore fishing. The men leave
their homes in the dead of winter when storms are
most severe, and the danger and hardship to
which they are subjected earn for them a special
place in our consideration, and a special recognition by the government in any future
plans for the
development of the fisheries.
There will have to be other means of work for
the people in times outside the fishing season. We
were glad to hear the remarks of the Governor the
other day when he referred to the road from Burin
Peninsula to Terenceville. The people of the
peninsula have been looking forward to this main
highway for many years. Some of the older
people in the district still remember the first
campaign of Sir Edward Morris when he came to
the district nearly 40 years ago. Addressing the
people of Burin, he spoke of the need for this road
to help the development of the Burin Peninsula.
Some people might be inclined to say this was
done for political purposes, but however that may
be, Lord Morris showed great insight into the
future. We hope that in the reconstruction work
of the next few years this important highway will
have a foremost place.
Speaking of the election, I would ask that a
date be selected which will enable every voter to
72 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1946
avail of his privilege to cast his vote at this
important time in our country's affairs, and not
one at which many of the people would be absent
from their homes and therefore deprived of this
privilege.
In conclusion I feel that every member of the
Convention will do his utmost to justify the hopes
and the wishes of the people of the country who
sent us here. It will not be easy to recommend the
form of government under which future Newfoundlanders must live, but when the time
comes
for the people to make a choice, after hearing
what the Convention has to say, I am sure the
good judgment and the strong commonsense of
Newfoundlanders will guide them to make a wise
decision.
Mr. Harrington Mr. Chairman, I have
not as yet spoken to this motion on the Chadwick and
Jones report. When this report was brought in
first the Convention was more or less feeling
around, trying to get its feet, and I imagine that
this discussion was initiated to get things started
here. We had the Chadwick and Jones report, and
since then we have had the reconstruction plans of
the Commission of Government, the financial report,
etc., and now we have enough extraneous matter. We
have the Fisheries Report now, the first real work
that has been done by this Convention. The
Education Committee, I understand, will have its
report completed very soon, and other committees are
ready to come forward too, so I would suggest that,
if it meets with the approval of the Convention, we
give the Chadwick and Jones report the six
months hoist, and get down to our own work as soon
as possible.
Mr. Chairman If the Convention wishes we could have a
motion to have this report accepted.
Mr. Job I take it this will be before
the Convention again for adoption?
Mr. Chairman Not necessarily, but it
will be laid on the table and reference can be had
to it.
Mr. Job I think it would be a pity if it is not debated for
itself.
Mr. Chairman Well then, it would have
to be put before a committee of the whole, and it
will have to be read item by item. Is that what you
meant?
Mr. Job Well no, but I think we can
go through it quickly without going over it item by
item - just bring up the most important parts for
discussion. There are several
errors in the report as a matter of fact, and I
think it would be a pity to shut off all
consideration of it.
Mr. Jackman Mr. Chairman, I have not
anything prepared to say in regards
to this report, but what I say now is just the way I
feel about it. I would say, sir, there is nothing in
it we don't already know, and therefore I would say
here that, as an individual, I am very much disappointed in the report. I remember
when
the Commission of Government was
instituted in this country it promised two things —
political education and economic
development. There is no question about it this
Convention is a political education, not only for us
assembled here but for the country as a whole. In
regards to the economic development of this country
the Commission of Government has failed utterly.
There has not been one major industry established in
our country. There has not been one which was
plugged. As regards the report I am against it
because I see nothing in it that is of importance to
us as a people — that is the economic development of our country. I would not vote
in favour of its adoption.
Mr. Chairman The motion is not to
adopt it, it is merely to receive it. Is the
Convention ready for the question?
Mr. Miller It seems to me that
shortly the several committees will be bringing in
their reports, and I would consider it a nice way,
when these reports come in, to take that section of
the Chadwick~Jones report which deals with that
particular report...
Mr. Chairman The Steering Committee
will tanke up your very admirable suggestion, but
perhaps it would be better to wait
until the final report of the Fisheries Committee is
presented to the Convention, for purposes of
comparison. I think yours is a very excellent
suggestion. It would be a pity to lose sight of the
value of the Chadwick-Jones report and it is of
great importance that the Convention
should study it in detail, and perhaps have it
debated in detail, in the way that Mr. Miller
suggests.
Mr. Job I think it is a very good
suggestion, but I would like to point out that it is
better to await
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
73 the final report of the Fisheries
Committee.
Mr. Chairman The Steering Committee
will take your suggestion under consideration.
Mr. Hollett Before putting the
question, I would like to ask what exactly is meant
by a "motion to receive"? The only things I have
learned from that report are that we are self-supporting; that the Commission of
Government has done an excellent job under the
circumstances; that the wartime economy has brought
us temporary prosperity; but that we are
going to have a pretty tough time. All of us here
who are attempting to study Newfoundland
have studied other documents besides the
Chadwick-Jones report and if we are to receive it, I
would suggest we file it away amongst other
documents; put it up against some other documents,
or some other facts which we have had in connection
with the economic and financial condition of Newfoundland. Before I can vote
intelligently on the motion to receive the
Chadwick—Jones report, I would like to know what
that motion means.
Mr. Chairman It means nothing more than the formal
reception of the report by the Convention. Heretofore
it was laid merely on the individual desks. It does
not mean you accept it. Is the Convention ready for
the question?
[The report was received]
Mr. Smallwood I would like to ask a
question in regard to a rumour. Is it true that the
committees are not getting replies
to some questions asked the government departments,
and that some departments have refused point blank
to answer some of the questions?
Mr. Chairman From what I understand,
the government departments are working assiduously on replies, and some questions
have
already been answered. In regard to others, all have
gone to the various committees whose duty it is to
investigate matters under question. I do not think
it is true that any department has refused to give
information.
Mr. Chairman If that committee will
report the matter to the Information Committee it
will be investigated.
Mr. Smallwood In reference to my
questions, I have today received my first reply. It
was merely the production of a pamphlet — a matter
of reaching up in a cupboard and handing it down.
Mr. Chairman It is going to take some
time to get certain answers. I want to tell you that
the Information Committee is working continuously,
and the committees themselves are not losing any
opportunity of obtaining any information.
Mr. Smallwood The point I want to
make is in connection with a question tabled in the
house; referred then to the Information Committee;
approved by the Information
Committee; and sent forward to the government
department concerned. With the result that
an official of the government department concerned
appeared before the committee concerned, and stated
that the reply was not and would not be forthcoming.
Mr. Chairman We have heard nothing officially on
that point....
Mr. Cashin I am speaking on behalf of
Mr. Fudge, chairman of the Forestry Committee.
There was one particular question we put to the
government and which went through in the ordinary way: we asked if any applications
were on file asking for certain leases or timber
rights on the Labrador. As regards timber rights, we
were told by Mr. Turner or Mr. McLellan who represented the department that these
questions they were not permitted to answer. And I
can tell you the reason. We know that two or three
applications were in the hands of
the government.
Mr. Smallwood Major Cashin knows. I
do not know. If applications are now pending for
grants, mineral rights, water power rights, I want
to know it.
Mr. Cashin In reply to Mr. Smallwood,
when we make our report, we will tell him...
Mr. Chairman Before the Information
Committee, we had Mr. Walter
Marshall, Secretary for Finance, and he assured us
all necessary information would be
supplied. The position is, as I explained some time
ago when we presented the Report of the Steering
Committee, that information necessary to
the work of the Convention would be sought; and it
was the intention that all questions should be
submitted to the Information Committee, that this
Committee would examine the questions to ensure that
there was no duplication and that only
relevant questions would be asked; that a certain
restraint would be exercised in order that there
would not be an undue burden placed upon the
government departments. If every type of question
has to be answered and answered in detail, not alone
will it paralyse the
74
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946 work of the civil
service, but it will have the effect of placing in a
secondary position other very important questions....
We have no official notification that any requests
for information were rejected.
Mr. MacDonald In the event of the
Information Committee's turning down a question
which to them is irrelevant, is the committee
involved informed?
Mr. Chairman The plan adopted by the
Information Committee is that where
any doubt arises as to the relevancy of the request
for information, the questioner is invited to come
and discuss the matter with the committee. Again we
found that for certain questions asked, the answers
could be gathered from certain reports which we then
placed in the hands of the questioner. Other questions are very difficult from the
viewpoint of finding the source of information. Some
have to be answered not by government departments but
by members of the trade.
Mr. Bradley If the particular committee concerned has been refused answers relative to leases,
it is a matter which should be reported immediately
to the Information Committee and if we cannot get
satisfaction, then we should report it to this house
and let the house deal with it.
Mr. Chairman The Information Committee is meeting every day
so that every opportunity can be availed of to obtain
factual material essential to the Convention; but we
must have reference to the terms of reference with
regard to the relevancy of the question.
We have to remember we are not a parliament. We
cannot go into matters in the same way as a
parliamentary government could be investigated by an
opposition. We are a consultative body considering
amongst ourselves the financial and economic
condition of the country, and the information which
the Convention seeks, of necessity, has to
be information relevant to the work of the
Convention.
Mr. Smallwood There may be a
suggestion of faith and confidence in the executive
and not for us to worry, but the fact remains there
is a pos~ sibility the very future of this country is
being determined today by the government, by the
alienation of some of the resources out of which
the country has to get its revenue. True we are not
an opposition; we are not in opposition to the
government. I do not know what we can do to
convey the idea that even while we are meeting,
perhaps some of the public domain in Labrador
is being bartered away, making it thereby impossible for this country to be
self-supporting in the future. Members of this house
have been complaining and grumbling — I am
doing the unpopular thing of voicing it. I
have had it said to me in the dining room of the
Newfoundland Hotel, "Sitting around you are five
concessionaires seeking concessions
in Labrador over and above those already given."
Perhaps we can only talk about it, but we ought to
let the country, the government and the press and
radio know that we have lost the public domain of
Newfoundland itself; tied it up irrevocably as long
as concessionaires care, bartered away by
this and former governments. What is left is being
sought by hungry concessionaires — hungry like flies
around a molasses puncheon — seeking the last
vestige of territory.
Mr. Chairman We have no power or authority to make
recommendations in regard to matters of policy. Our
sole duty is within the four comers of section 3 of
the National Convention
Act....
[1]
That is the full scope of our authority. In reply to
Mr. Smallwood, I have to advise you that we
cannot interfere with matters of government
policy.
Mr. Dawe What is the use in bringing in the report if we do
not know what is happening?
Mr. Bradley If part of our duty is to examine the position
of the country, it seems to follow that we have the
right to know what assets this country has, and it
follows upon that we have a right to know what is
being done with the assets. I do not know what the
Commission is doing. I know what they have done and I
shall have something to say about it before this
Convention closes. But I do not know what they are
doing now. I want to know what assets are left, and
whether any attempt is being made to
dispose of them by what may be a dying government.
The chairman of that particular committee should
report to the Information Committee and if
that committee cannot get satisfaction, it will be
reported to the Convention.
Mr. Cashin As acting chairman of the Forestry Committee, I
wish to report that we have been
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
75 refused information regarding the
disposition of some timber areas on Labrador. We
have been told that the government was not going to
give that information. I am taking this opportunity
of telling the Information Committee. I would like
to back up what Mr. Bradley has said — we are
here to find out facts as to the assets of the country
and those very assets may be given away.
Mr. Bradley It would be better if we
had it in writing.
Mr. Cashin I shall put it in writing
after adjournment.
[The Convention adjourned]
This individual participated in:
