[ The Secretary continued reading the report.]
Mr. Butt Mr. Chairman, I skipped one small
detail yesterday. We have the recapitulation of
imports in detail, so if anyone wants any particular item you can have it. Further,
you will find
on your desks a memo on the feed pool situation.
We did not look upon this as part of our report,
because it was more or less an emergency
measure about the distribution of feeds. I
apologise because we only got it on February 25,
and I barely read it myself, and some of you have
not even seen it.
[The Secretary read the feed pool report.[2]]
Mr. Smallwood I wonder if Mr. Crosbie would
tell us, how serious is it to take 5,000 sacks of fish
meal and export it? Does it leave enough to meet
local needs? There is a shortage of high protein
fish meals. Have our local dairy and pig men
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 327
enough protein concentrates to bring up the
protein content of their other feeds? Does this
mean that our local demand will be curtailed?
Mr. Crosbie No, the government has kept
enough in the country for our own use with the
other feeds that come in. We were not allowed to
export that.
Mr. Smallwood I think there is, but it is only
now beginning to show; we are in the dead of
winter and it is now that they need it. That 5,000
sacks, is that a big proportion of last year's
production?
Mr. Smallwood Well the rest of it, what happened to that, apart from what was held here?
Mr. Crosbie As far as I know the government
purchased the 5,000 sacks for Canada because
the Canadian price is much higher than ours. To
get the fish meal they had to give us a certain
amount of other feed and our government absorbed the extra loss. We are only allowed
to
export sufficient fish meal so that there would be
enough left for the country. As far as the shortage
now is concerned, I don't think it can be serious
because there is a firm in Burin (the Monroe
plant) making a lot every day
Mr. Smallwood It is rather serious. I was on a
farm Sunday night where they have 50 head of
cattle and they are definitely short of protein. If
it's being made daily now in Burin, could not the
feed pool or the government bring it into town
where it is so badly needed?
Mr. Crosbie You may find isolated cases, but I
don't think it is serious.
Mr. Hickman I may be wrong, but I understand
that if they had not exported those 5,000 bags of
meal we would not have been able to obtain our
allocation from the Canadian Feed Control.
There is a lot of meal in Halifax, about 80,000
sacks but the transportation is at fault.
Mr. Figary Mr. Chairman, on pages 18-19,
[1]
speaking of tonnages for shipping in 1946 due to
shortage of freight cars, railway and other labour
troubles. Do you mean in Canada, United States,
or where?
Mr. Butt That was intended to be outside Newfoundland.
Mr. Higgins I have a couple of questions. On
page 1
[2] you have, "The government soil analyst
informed us that about 3% of our soil, i.e. 700,000
acres, is first-class agricultural land, and that in
addition about 30% is second-class soil." Where
would that be situated?
Mr. Butt There are two main areas around the
Codroy and Humber valleys as one area, and
around Conception Bay and a small amount
around Eastport. The 700,000 acres would be
made up not so much in that area as from what he
has done all over the country. Most of it is in that
big area on the west coast and around Conception
Bay.
[There followed a series of questions and
answers dealing with livestock prices, and
government assistance to land clearing]
Mr. Harrington In connection with land settlements,
[3] I notice here that in Markland the number
of holdings is 73, expenditure $644,000, acres
cleared 385; Brown's Arm, 24 holdings, expenditure $133,000, acres cleared 123. The
com»
parison is about three times the number of
holdings at Markland as compared to Brown's
Arm; and three times the number of acres at
Markland, as compared with Brown's Arm; and
the cost is approximately five times. Incidentally,
too, the expenditures on Markland began in 1934
when costs were much lower than in those days.
Could you give us some information on that?
[4]
Mr. Butt Do you want me to attempt to defend
Markland? I do not intend to. There were certain
things involved in Markland, e.g., they were getting experience.
Mr. Butt At Markland they had a number of
people who are today in charge of land settlements in the country. After they had
the experience in Markland it helped them get down the
costs. I do not want to go too deeply into this.
328
NATIONAL CONVENTION
February 1947
Mr. Starkes Touching on that paragraph referred to by Mr. Harrington I notice 251 holdings —
is that farmers?
Mr. Butt The average was six acres per family
when they started in 1934, but it is a few more
since then. The 1939 average was eight acres.
Mr. Starkes Am I correct in saying that each
farmer cost the taxpayer roughly $700 per year
since they settled there?
Mr. Smallwood We read the totals spent and the
total number of acres, we did not read the names
of the settlements.
[Mr. Butt read from the report]*
Mr. Smallwood Could Mr. Butt tell us about
those 251 holdings, are they all occupied now?
This 1,534 acres? All under cultivation?
Mr. Butt I really do not know. In some settlements there may be possibly one or two families'
places unoccupied, waiting for someone to come
in. That is the case in Brown's Arm. They are
filling them up. Presumably when you have the
total 251 families on these holdings, you will then
have all the land worked.
Mr. Smallwood This total expenditure. How
lately was money spent to make up that total?
Mr. Keough My guess would be up to 1942 or
1943; they are not spending any money on these
land settlements now.
Mr. Smallwood Would the managers' salaries
be coming out of public funds, or are they coming
out of their own groups?
Mr. Keough As far as I know there are no longer
any managers there. They are on their own.
Mr. Northcott You have given no returns for
this large sum of money — $1,370,000. Is it
really gone as far as the treasury is concerned?
Has any of it ever been paid back? I might have
a house built there; I am to pay back some of that
money over a period of years. Has any of this ever
been paid back?
Mr. Butt As far as I know none of that has ever
been returned.
Mr. Keough There was one time when the
department concerned did have under advisement a plan for collecting a small sum in
respect
of some holdings. I do not think it was ever
decided upon. I do not know of any specific
instance where any amount was collected.
Mr. Butt This land development was started
from the Colonial Development Fund — it was
started out of that grant of £100,000; one interest
payment was made and the rest cancelled.
Mr. Butt Principal. Actually because of that
gift, it was $870,000 on total overall cost.
Mr. Smallwood That is not entirely a sad story.
There are people living there and earning their
living; they have homes and something to show
for it.
Mr. Butt We did not attempt to justify this. It is
all over and done with.
Mr. Hollett I am concerned with this
February 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
329
$1,370,000. They are now in the process of starting another settlement in the Humber
area
[1] Did
the Committee endeavour to find out to what
extent these families are actually rehabilitated?
How many families in the nine settlements are
making their whole living from the soil which
they have developed with the aid of government?
Did you find out what were the actual returns in
agricultural products for last year or attempt to
draw any conclusions from that experiment?
Mr. Butt No. You will see there our note, "We
did not consider it our business to justify or
otherwise to assess the returns to the country for
the expenditure involved in this project."
[2]
Mr. Hollett What are the actual bona fide results
accrued to the country by reason of these nine
settlements?
Mr. Butt There are 251 people with homes.
Mr. Hollett How many are there now? Have not
some gone into the woods or mining?
Mr. Butt They do leave and come back. I understand that practically all those 251 would be
in
the various settlements now
Mr. Hollett Has their condition been improved
by reason of that expenditure?
Mr. Butt Definitely, yes, in many, many instances. The original settlers were people who found
it difficult, if not impossible, to make a living in
the circumstances in which they lived at the time.
As to whether the government was justified in
spending the amount of money to give them the
standard of living they now have — in many
instances, yes, their condition has been improved.
Mr. McCarthy I refer to the question asked by
Mr. Northcott regarding payments having been
made. I understand that when the grants were
issued to these people, they would pay about $50
for them; that would include holdings of land,
buildings and barns — just a nominal charge.
These grants are all made out now for members
of the settlements; there are some negotiations
going on as far as land is concerned with
Bowaters and some other company. The number
of acres, 1,534, that has been cleared by 251
families, this has been increased — I know it has
been doubled in some settlements at the present
time.
Mr. Smallwood Since the 1,500 were cleared,
there might be more now?
Mr. Smallwood You said something about the
upper Humber, settling 300 ex-servicemen at a
cost of $6,000 each.To what extent is that $6,000
made possible by the experience gained in opening up the other land settlements? I
have been
through Sandringham — it was quite a job to
clear that place, build homes and get the men
settled — that gave them a certain amount of
experience that now I suppose is useful to them
in opening up the settlements in the Humber
Valley for the ex-servicemen.
Mr. Butt I would say yes. In the first place the
Director of Rural Development is a man who
went from Markland to Midland. His deputy is
also a man who went through Markland. He
afterwards graduated from an agricultural college. There are a number of people like
that. The
experience gained by these people makes a lot of
difference in other settlements. They are new
building schools out of land settlement funds;
they have a better method of getting original land
cleared.
Mr. Newell I would like to refer to the point
made by someone who was wondering about the
returns we got by settling people on the land. The
convenor made a classical understatement when
he said the situation of some of those people was
such that they found it difficult to earn a living. I
happened to be on the south coast, where some
of those people came from in 1938 — you
remember the tidal wave of 1929 destroyed the
fishing grounds there — and the average catch of
fish had been estimated by the government to be
ten quintals per man. I went around with one of
the clergymen who was trying to do something
about the economic condition of the people, and
I can assure you that Mr. Butt's statement is very
much an understatement. I would not wish to
interfere with the digestion of your dinner this
evening by giving a description of the graphic
details of the conditions of those people who had
been taken off the barren rocks; had not even soil
in which to grow vegetables; and I wish to go on
record that every $5,000 spent on these people
out of any fund, they are welcome to it. I would
330
NATIONAL CONVENTION
February 1947
like to make one query. I note two settlements
were started in 1934, Markland and Lourdes;
Markland had 73 holdings at a cost of $644,000
which was $8,000 plus; and Lourdes had 27
holdings at a cost of $86,000 which was $3,000
plus. Since both started in the same year, I was
wondering if the Committee had anything to say
on that point?
Mr. McCarthy I might be able to clear that up.
In the $644,000 spent in Markland we included
equipment which was afterwards transferred to
other land settlements. When Lourdes started
there was no equipment except two old horses.
Mr. Keough As Mr. McCarthy has said, they
had considerable equipment at Markland,
whereas at Lourdes the stumps were pushed out
with cattle.
Mr. Higgins Your figures, even with all the
experience of these land settlements, come to
$5,400 per family; and this new settlement is
going to cost $6,000.
Mr. Higgins While on the subject of the upper
Humber — possibly Mr. Keough could revert to
this more because it is his district and he is pretty
well aware of the situation. It strikes me that
instead of having the land settlement in the upper
Humber, breaking new ground, bringing new
people together where there are no experienced
farmers located, it would have been infinitely
better to have settled them on the numerous acres
in Codroy Valley not being farmed by anybody.
It is true that these acres, though not used, are
owned usually by the people around there; great
quantities are also owned there by people in St.
John's and it has never been used. You will agree
that some of the best soil is situated in that valley,
Would it not have been better and cheaper to have
that new settlement in the Codroy Valley? Mr.
Job and I had a talk with Mr. James Tompkins of
Tompkins; he is a practical farmer and he was
strong on the idea that the settlement would have
been much more profitable to the settlers themselves had the land in the Codroy Valley
been
used. He said he and a number of his neighbours
would have been prepared to advise these settlers, not only with local knowledge,
but to give
them if necessary actual help in developing their
holdings. It is right on the railway line and has
everything to make a perfect land settlement. Did
the government make a mistake in that matter?
Would it not have been better to have bought up
private, unoccupied, untilled land in the Codroy
and put those men there?
Mr. Keough I am not prepared to say on what
grounds the government decided on the upper
Humber. It is a matter the Committee did not go
into. I imagine they did have some specific
reason for putting them there.
Mr. Smallwood Are there actually enough unoccupied grounds in the Codroy Valley?
Mr. Keough I am not prepared to say. I doubt if
there is.
Mr. Smallwood I walked from Port-aux-
Basques to Corner Brook and counted the number of farms vacant.
Mr. Smallwood A few years ago. There are a
large number of farms vacant, but they are scattered here and there. If you have a
bunch of
ex-servicemen, it may be easier if you settle them
together. All have certain adventures in common;
have roughly the same outlook. If you settle them
as a community so that they can get their clubs,
societies, churches and their schools all there
together, I imagine you would have a better
chance of success than if you merely scattered
them throughout an area of 100 miles.
Mr. Smallwood Would not me Codroy Valley
itself be from Cape Ray to Black Duck and up to
Stephenville?
Mr. Keough Come to think of it, the thing envisages the settling of 300 families on the soil
with a minimum of 50 acres per family; I do not
think there is that much acreage in the Codroy.
Mr. Butt That was where they found the most
soil; it is cheaper to work machinery in one area.
Mr. Higgins The point is you have to break the
soil, absolutely new; it is miles away from local
habitation; you are putting men in the bush.... It
strikes me as being infinitely more suitable to
have steady farmers there than to put in a crowd
of men because they can get together and form
clubs.
Mr. Northcott We don't want to get anything
for nothing. I expect to get part of it back a few
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 331
years from now. We want to make them independent. A few years ago we had 8,000 on
the dole,
today they are not, thank God. The same thing
applies. If these people were given $10,000 to
build a place they should pay something back
when they can, It makes a man independent. You
can go on with this forever.... We have farmers
working all their lives and never got five cents
from anyone.
Mr. Hollett This matter of land settlement was
started in the first place as a measure of relief.
People were taken from the seaport towns where
they could not get fish, and if they did they could
not sell it or get any price for it. It was not a case
of putting a man on the land and expecting him
to pay the whole amount back. The real complaint
is that they took the fisherman, who was not a
farmer, and cleared some land and gave him some
seed and he grew some vegetables. Then they
said to him, "Now you are established", and cast
him out on the open market to dispose of his own
produce without any assistance whatever, and
consequently he had no means of improving his
existence. I am inclined to think that this agricultural business, as far as Newfoundland
is concerned, is as much a local industry as a factory.
To that end I want to quote some figures which
were not included in this report.
Under the heading of plug tobacco, cut tobacco and cigarettes, we find that the cost
of the
material imported to manufacture these articles
last year was $1,109,571. The excise paid by the
people who manufacture this amounted to
$1,057,567. If that manufactured article had paid
the regular rate of duty the government could
have received $1,818,000, whereas they only
received $1,807,000 in excise. You may call that
a loss to the government of $11,000. There were
engaged in the manufacture about 131 people,
and the average wage paid was $2,250.29, which
means of course that that is $533,323.60 gross
coming in to the directors after all wages are paid.
I grant there are other overheads which were not
taken care of, but this means that the industry was
protected to that extent.
Come with me to Brown's Arm in l940. I
went through the settlement and talked to the
people, and at least three men had from 100 to
200 barrels of potatoes in the cellar, and I asked
why they were keeping them and what they were
asking for them. They said if they got $1.50 a
barrel for these potatoes they would be glad to
take it, but they could not get that much. It was
easy for me to understand why some of these
people were in distress, here they were with all
those potatoes in the cellar and they could not sell
them. In the meantime potatoes were coming into
this country and being consumed. Here you have
two local industries, one controlled by a very few
people who employed 131 men and women and
they are able to pay good wages, comparatively
good at least as far as this country is concerned,
and can make $533,000 in profits. Here we have
a settlement Brown's Arm, I don't know how
many are there (yes, 24 men) and the government
had spent $133,000 to put them there. Don't you
think if they are going to talk protective tariffs
that these men, on whom the people of this
country had to spend $1,370,000 to rehabilitate,
don't you think they should be protected to the
extent of making it possible for them to sell their
products at a reasonable rate?.... We protect local
industries which are handled by a very small
number of people and we are sure that their
employees shall be paid reasonable wages, and
apparently we are sure that the shareholders will
make a fair dividend. I have no objection to that
but I do have objection to the government spending $1,370,000 to rehabilitate men
and then
saying, "Here's your land, and if you can sell your
produce OK, ifnot we can't do anything for you."
They should do something to make it possible for
these people to make a fair living. Of course, as
soon as the war came they went on the bases, and
in some of the land settlements today the men are
no more farmers now than they were when they
fished out of Lamaline or elsewhere.
Mr. Figary Take the case of Midland
[1] where 25
families had been settled and 231 acres cleared at
a cost of $120,735.67, which is approximately
$13,000 less than Brown's Arm where 24
families were settled and only 123 acres cleared
at a cost of $133,090.78. What caused the difference of $13,000 there?
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, I was struck there
with the difference in the cost of land clearing. I
don't know much about Brown's Arm, but it is
easier to clear 20 acres of land in Lourdes than
one acre where I am in Trinity South.
332 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
Mr. Butt Going into one settlement you take 20
men, five of whom will break up a field in a short
time; and in another place you take the same
number of men and it will take much longer. I
don't know the answer, but there are a lot of
factors to be taken into consideration. This land
settlement scheme originally was started, not by
the government, but by private individuals who
said, "If we would take ten families and you give
us what they would normally receive in relief we
will look after their rehabilitation." The government thought if private individuals
could do it, so
could they.
Mr. Smallwood What do you mean, referring to
the demonstration farm, where you say that the
Committee felt "that the farm is not properly
constituted to attract farmers to it as an authority
on their problems"?
[1]
Mr. Butt The information we had was that the
farmers were not, going there as much as the
government would like to see them.
Mr. Smallwood You go further than that, you
say that the Committee did not feel that the farm
was properly constituted.
Mr. Butt "Constituted to attract farmers".
Mr. Butt Because farmers do not go there as
they should.
Mr. Smallwood You don't necessarily infer
that. In fact the farmers don't visit, therefore you
infer that there must be something wrong with the
farm.
Mr. Butt I think if you added something to the
farm, maybe a radio program, or moving pictures
— in other words, something was missing. That' s
all we intended to say, I drew attention to that in
a short note in the introduction.
Mr. Hillier In connection with these homes and
the land, I was wondering if these people had any
legal claims to their homes. An outport man
especially is very keen on being able to claim
ownership of the property on which he works. A
few years ago the settlers at Midland were not
satisfied because they had no guarantee that they
had any legal right to their homes.
Mr. Butt I think that question was answered by
Mr. McCarthy. He says the papers are going out
now. Up to this year they did not give them.
Mr. Hillier With regard to the lack of success of
some of these land settlement schemes, might it
not be that most of these men were chiefly fishermen, and fishermen do not take very
kindly to
farming? Sometimes they leave these settlements
when other work offers.
Mr. MacDonald Mr. Smallwood asked a question regarding the farm being properly constituted. If
he reads down a little further the
reason was given by the Committee. it says: "To
have it so constituted would undoubtedly call for
more expenditure than is apparently being
made." That is the reason, but may I ask, expenditure on what?
Mr. Butt We intended to convey that there was
something wrong in the whole farm set-up, in that
it did not attract the farmers as it should. There
may be certain expenditures necessary to add
something else to it for the special purpose of
attracting farmers.
Mr. Butt People go there to learn new ways of
doing things, to see the results of some new kind
of seed, how to use DDT, etc. On the professional
work we did not comment, as far as we could find
it was pretty good....
Mr. Job Just one question, it is at the end of the
report: "The gross annual value at present of
agriculture to the country is roughly estimated at
$12 million. It is probable that this value will
relatively increase as people get back to their
normal pursuits. The Committee hesitates to indicate what the increased revenue may
be as any
figure is not likely to be more than mere
guesswork."
[2] That $12 million is made up at
today's high figures, and you cannot expect the
future to keep up to that $12 million, let alone
increase.
Mr. Butt That's why we put in "relatively". The
actual dollars and cents value, as of today's price,
may go down, I think it was $6 million if I
remember correctly, and it may go back to that.
What we are trying to convey is that people who
were away on bases or overseas, and other people
from outside, are now going back to the land, so
that in the near future it might go up a little
beyond the 1945 figure, but it will relatively
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 333
increase....
Mr. Job ....I would like to refer to a remark made
by my friend from the same district. He was
referring to the settlements on the west coast,
which I know very well, and I have had many
talks with people from there. I am sorry to see that
the Committee had not been able to contact very
closely these west coast farmers. I talked with Mr.
Tompkins, who has one of the ideal farms in the
country.... He could do much more if he could get
help. The reason is possibly that there is not
enough attraction to the place itself.... They also
stressed the fact that roads,
roads, is what they
want to make their farming a success. They have
increased enormously their cleared land in that
vicinity, and they have actual value there, but
they don't get a very big thing out of it from a
living point of view.
Mr. Smallwood I was interested in the appendix
that the Committee brought in on the feed pool.
You say the Dairymen's Association pointed out
that the costs of production were high because of
the necessity of importing so much feed, hay,
animals, etc.;
[1] as one man put it, what we are
doing now is selling Canadian milk. He meant
they imported the cow, the hay, the feed, etc., put
them all together and got milk, but it all came
from Canada. Iwonder if the Committee has gone
into the question of a feed mill in Newfoundland.
If you look at the figures
[2] it is very discouraging
as you look back over the years. Look what you
find. In 1945 we had, according to the census,
14,000 cows. You go back ten years earlier, in
1935, and again it has 14,000 cows. You go back
to 1921 and it is 18,000 cows, and in 1901 we had
14,000. The population has gone up from less
than $250,000 in 1911 to 318,000, and still we
have 14,000 cows. We are going backward very
badly. Now you take pigs. In 1945 we had 11,400
pigs, but in 1921 we had 14,500, and in 1901,
34,000 — 50% more population almost, and only
one third as many pigs. Now it is true that in
poultry there is a big increase.... The number of
sheep has increased also, but it is down as against
1935 and 1945. These are not very romantic,
cows, pigs, hens, sheep, not very romantic at all.
Some people don't like the smell of them, but it
is by these things that we live, and we are going
backward. We have not got as many pigs, or
cows, or sheep as we used to have compared with
our population.
I know a lot of the troubles back of it, but one
of them is right here — we have to import our
feeds, we have to import our hay, and the cows
and the sheep and the pigs to begin with and the
equipment used in the farm. They are duty free
and it is a good thing, but are we importing feed
in the most economical way we can?.... Why
cannot we have a feed mill?.... Why cannot we
import the grains separately and mill them here?
We would need only a little hammer mill.... You
could run a schooner to Montreal or Fort William,
load up at the elevators, bring them down here
and mix them here and cut the cost of feed. Why
some businessmen are not doing it, I do not know.
Maybe there are too many firms on Water Street
who are agents for the balanced feed. Why has
not the Committee gone into this question — it is
the crux of the whole business; that, plus the fact
that we did not have any hay in Newfoundland. I
know dairymen in the suburbs who imported
from 60% to 90% of their hay. Just picture that!
And all their feed.... Importing that hay and selling it in the form of milk at 80
cents and 90 cents
a gallon. That is not a square deal to the farmer,
nor to the consumer of milk. If we are going to
raise our own milk and livestock, there are two
things we have to do. First, we must grow our
own hay. It is a good climate to grow hay. Look
at the figures,
[3] the amount of land cleared, and
then we call ourselves farmers. In 1901 there
were 215,000 acres cleared-roughly speaking an
acre per person. In 1945 you are back to 124,000
acres, with a population of 318,000. You expect
to make a living out of that?.... In the course of
three generations in Newfoundland we managed
to get 15 acres of land cleared and cultivated,
which has to support an entire family. It cannot
be done. It could, if the price we get for the
produce is way up high. Then who pays it? The
consumer. Then up goes the cost of living. Ido
not want to say one word against the farmer. I am
one-eighth farmer myself —- at least, I have had
ten acres under cultivation and worked like a dog
until I knew the movement of every worm and
insect; and I raised pigs and poultry. Clear more
334 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
land.... The second thing is to bring down the cost
of feeds through a feed mill.... You can produce
fertiliser out of fish offal. They do it in the United
States and Canada; we can do it in Newfoundland
too.
Mr. Butt The evidence we got was that you
must import 90% of the ingredients.
Mr. Smallwood I find it hard to believe. You
have the raw material here.
Mr. Keough It is more profitable to turn it into
fish meal than fertiliser.
Mr. Butt We have clear evidence from the Industrial Board, which went into it. They told us
there was a possibility of looking into a fertiliser
plant, but 90% of the ingredients would have to
be imported; it may bring the cost down by $5 a
ton, and in addition Newfoundland would have
the labour. They are looking into the question of
milling feeds here.
Mr. Smallwood Talking about fertiliser, I went
into a firm in Toronto to find out about double
super-phosphate. The price was $25 a ton, and
the man said that no double super-phosphate was
manufactured in Canada now. It is manufactured
in the United States.... He gave me the names of
three firms in Philadelphia and I wrote them;
what do you think the price was? $12 a ton. How
much is it on Water Street today? $48 a ton....
What chance has a farmer got in this country if
the farmer in Canada can buy double super-phosphate for $23 a ton or less? What chance
has he
got to grow hay or anything else? And in the
outports, God knows how much it is.
Mr. Vardy I support Mr. Northcott. In looking
over the land settlement business, it is a pretty
dark picture. If money had been spent in encouraging local farmers by giving them
a good
bonus for clearing land, this country would have
had better results. I refer to page 21:
[1] "It envisages the settlement in the Upper Humber area
of 300 full-time holdings by ex-servicemen by
the end of 1948. The total estimated cost is
$1,800,000 or an average cost of $6,000 per
holding." In connection with the Public Health
and Welfare Report, I had occasion to go to the
Civil Re-establishment Committee and they gave
me the figures as being $5,000 per holding. Further down on that page
[2] — part-time holdings,
300 ex-servicemen, grants $724, total cost
$757,200. That works out at $2,524 per applicant.
The figures they gave me in Civil Re-establishment work out at $900. I hope someone
down
there is listening to me, because these figures
were given me as correct. It shows what is happening with the work covering the same
project,
the same group of ex«servicemen, and one
department does not know what is happening in
the other. I am not blaming the Committee, they
have done a good job; like ourselves, they have
to accept the figures given. But if you check the
figures you will find they do not work out right.
Mr. Butt The part-time holdings are not covered
in the summary at all.
Mr. Northcott I agree with Mr. Smallwood on
the feed business. If the government wanted to
help the farmer, the farmer should be in a position
to import his feeds direct. If a farmer wants 100
sacks of fertiliser he should be able to get a permit
from the government to have that landed at his
own place, instead of having it come to St. John's
first and brought back again. The same thing
applies to feeds. The farmer pays $1.50 per sack
more than he should, by reason of the fact that it
has to come to St. John's first.
Mr. Fudge I visited Midland a number of times
and I know quite a number of men there. They
find it very hard to get their living; they have to
go into the woods and so on. I regret that we have
no report from some of our independent farmers
on the west coast—such as Mr. Earle, the Whites
and others.... In connection with assistance to
farmers to grow potatoes, cabbage and so forth, I
fail to see the use of encouraging those men and
spending a lot of money, without giving them
protection in connection with marketing. We see
ads in the papers advertising local potatoes. Surely those men should be able to sell
their
vegetables. I regret that we get potatoes from
Prince Edward Island, and that's the reason why
some of our small farmers are unable to sell. I
believe the government should see that their
vegetables are sold before any are brought in
from outside. Someone is going to say, "We can
buy them cheaper". I believe it, but I want to
show you something. I have before me the
Labour Gazette, December, 1946, from Canada,
and I find there that there are 2,902 Polish war
veterans brought into Canada. They signed a two
1 Volume II:174. [Volume II is not in The Confederation Debates Collection]
2 Ibid.
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 335
year contract with the government at the rate of
$45 a month. I wonder what our people would say
if they were asked by the government to work for
that rate. Some of our farmers are paying their
hired men 50 cents an hour. Surely if our potatoes
are a bit higher we should patronise them
anyhow.
Mr. Burry I find this debate on this report very
helpful and interesting. I am bound to point out,
however, that there is no reference made to
Labrador. The members can very well be excused
for that, because no one would think that
Labrador is an agricultural country. I bring it up,
because I think the agricultural prospects of
Labrador are based on the future welfare of Newfoundland and Labrador.... I foresee
that a lot of
Newfoundlanders will be called upon to go to
Labrador to take part in the mineral and timber
operations there, and I think that Newfoundland
should know something of the agricultural
prospects of Labrador. When families are asked
to uproot themselves from our fishing villages
they will want to know the possibilities of growing some vegetables. It would not
have been a bad
idea if the Committee had brought in something
along that line. Because they have not, I want to
tell you that there are possibilities for agriculture
in a small way, for gardening, in Labrador.
Anyone should not have any fear about the
climate or the weather.... It is better than the
Avalon Peninsula, Mr. Higgins.
A professor from Nova Scotia did a scientific
test of the soil in Labrador, and it is very interesting. Along the coast nothing
much can be done,
but when you go inland 20 or 30 miles vegetables
can be grown, and at Lake Melville, 150 miles in,
lots can be done. The Hudson's Bay Co. at North
West River and all the families around there, can
grow all the vegetables they need if they put the
time on it. The Grenfell Mission grows from 75
to 100 barrels of potatoes, and cabbage by the
hundreds of tons, and all the ordinary vegetables.
I have grown celery and bleached it, and
tomatoes, although the season is rather short, but
all the ordinary vegetables can be grown in these
bays.... In 1938 Dr. Paddon,
[1] a great doctor,
encouraged gardening in Labrador, said in the
Daily News that gardening in Labrador was three
weeks ahead of Newfoundland. That does not
mean we are three weeks ahead in setting out
gardens, but around the middle of the summer the
result is about three weeks ahead of the east coast
of Newfoundland. I left my own home on the
north side of Bonavista Bay when the potatoes in
our garden were just peeping through the ground.
I went to North West River, it took me about a
week to get there, and when I saw my own garden
there our potatoes were out in flower. The explanation is the long sunny days that
we get in the
great dependency, I suppose....
Mr. Reddy I must agree in part with the member
from White Bay in speaking of his experience on
the southwest coast. I am very familiar with the
activities at Winterland. The people there are in
a fairly comfortable condition, selling their
produce and getting a high price for it, and there
is no question they have bettered themselves
considerably. The settlement at Marystown is not
nearly so successful. I don't know why, but it is
a fact. I would like to know the cost of these field
workers, and how many there are.
Mr. Butt There are only three at the present
time, although the estimates provide for 16. The
reason for the shortage is that they can't get the
men.
Mr. Vincent ....In his comprehensive study of
Newfoundland, Professor R. A. MacKay
[2] has this
to say: "Agriculture's claim to recognition in this
country is as a handmaid to other industries rather
than as an industry in its own right." I believe the
report bears out the truth of this statement and
refer you to page 1, when the Government
Analyst states that about 3% of our soil (some
700,000 acres) is first-class agricultural land, and
30% is second-class soil. Of the 3% comprising
700,000 acres, the 1945 census shows total holdings of 124,953 acres, which still
leaves some
600,000 acres for those who believe in the back-
to-the-land movement. It may be an accident of
birth that some of us grew up in districts where a
normal size potato, or a turnip with an attractive
figure, was as rare as a $100 bank note, but the
fact remains that in a large part of our island the
development of agriculture is severely limited by
the availability of the soil, by soil fertility, and the
preoccupation of the people at the fisheries and
336 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
other major industries You just can't foster
agriculture on parts of the northeast coast —
unless you first import the soil. On page 2,
[1] he
report says, "It seemed to us and still does that
our fisheries are of prime importance." Coming
from a fishing district where the word "farmer"
humorously applies only to a sea-sick, third-rate
fisherman who is usually also a bungler, I can
appreciate the truth of that statement; but isn't
there something in this centralisation idea? Isn t
it possible for the fisherman to fish from sheltered
inland harbours where he could produce enough
vegetables for his own family? Are there to be
found around our bays and inlets, sites where
towns could be built for fishermen-farmers? The
big problem is the centralising of our fisheries in
selected communities where men can till the soil
and reap the harvest of the sea as well. Some will
say this is but a vision, but it is a vision that we
must keep before us, and while large scale commercial farming can never be carried
on on the
coastal belt, there is a lot which can be done. We
must in the future have men big enough to put the
centralisation idea into effect, and I can only
visualise success through the fisherman-farmer
method. I am not suggesting a Markland land
settlement idea, rather places where the cod-
fishery can be profitably prosecuted, for example
Glovertown and Eastport — Glovertown in particular, built on a good harbour, up to
last year
(when that disastrous fire occurred) possessing
lots of available timber and very fertile soil. Here
a fisherman could prosecute the Labrador fishery
and grow enough vegetables for himself and
some to sell, thus being able to produce fish at a
much lower cost than his fellow Labrador fisherman at Wesleyville, who buys every
spring and
fall the agricultural produce of Glovertown and
Eastport.
On the matter of expenditure the government
reconstruction scheme proposes to spend in the
next nine years $3,892,000 on land development,
$8,000 for soil survey, and a further $691,000 for
schemes to further promote development of
agriculture. Against this they propose spending
only $650,000 for fishery development. So it may
be that quite a few of us may nine years hence
share in the beneficence of this approximately $5
million expenditure, and under the benign influence of the Commission of Government
find
ourselves gathering eggs on lovely farms where
sleeping chickens grow.
Mr. Smallwood I wonder if Mr. Keough would
care to give us a little dissertation on the main
problems of the professional farmer. He comes
from a farming district. What are the obstacles in
the way of a professional farmer, and does he see
any general solution of these problems?
Mr. Keough I would need more than a minute's
notice to tackle that.
Mr. Higgins I will give Mr. Keough time to
answer the question. Reverting to protection for
farmers, the question that's been agitating me and
a great number of us who are not farmers, is
whether we ever hope to compete in our sale of
vegetables with the people of the continent next
door. Have we the land, and can we ever get the
price down? If you can't, what is the best thing
to do? is it better to subsidise the farmer or put
the duty up and also the cost of living? That's the
general question. Could you give your
Committee's opinion on that?
Mr. Butt The evidence that we got varied very
considerably as between individual farmers. We
were informed that it was possible to get down
the cost of certain items. For example, I don't
think we had any evidence to show that potatoes
could be grown as cheaply as we could import
them, but turnips, yes. The reason was that there
is so much land that we have not yet cleared for
growing potatoes with the help of machinery, and
we could not afford that land. But turnips, you
require so much less land that you can produce,
not perhaps as cheaply as they can be imported,
but pretty nearly.
Mr. Higgins Under no circumstances can you
produce potatoes, is that it?
Mr. Butt in subsistence farming the more
potatoes you grow, provided people do not stay
away from productive work, the better, but on a
commercial basis it is doubtful if you could grow
them as cheaply as we can import them. Do you
follow that?
Mr. Higgins If you can't grow them as cheaply
as you can import them, should we cease to
protect the farmer and bring in these imported
potatoes?
Mr. Butt We did not follow on that far, because
it is a very important issue of the economy of the
country, wider than the Committee could go. In
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 337
England at one stage there was a fine balance
between agriculture and industry. Great Britain
found she could make more money by going into
industry to the neglect of agriculture. At the
present time she is going back and spending a lot
of money to try and build up her agricultural
possibilities. It seems to me that if we could build
up a lot of industries which would return to us
greater wealth than farming, then maybe we
should not do much farming. My opinion is that
we should always do so much, because if one of
your vital industries sadly failed, you would have
something to fall back on. Do you not agree?
Mr. Butt It is a question of the whole economy
and stability. I believe in 1870, France, because
of the fine balance between industry and agriculture, was able to pay off her debt
to Germany and
she came back quicker than if she had depended
on industry.
Mr. Higgins That is likely what is happening in
England today. I am sure your Committee gave
thought to the matter.
Mr. Butt Yes, we thought of the soil which is
rocky and rough; but you read the history of
agriculture in Norway, and it is almost word for
word the description of the soil in Newfoundland.
If you read the history of the founding of the New
England states, almost word for word would be
the language used about the soils when they took
over first. It seems to the Committee we are
starting agriculture 300 years too late. We have
the advantage now, of course, we will be able to
use modern machinery, whereas before, it was
done by back-breaking work.
Mr. Butt Some people think we might be able
to do much more than at the present time. We will
in time compete in various fundamental items of
agriculture
Mr. Butt Not for a long time. It might be possible to rear calves for milk production and
afterwards sell the cows. To go in for production on a
big scale might be questionable. The same thing
is true for sheep. A man has eight or ten sheep on
a normal size farm; that can be worked all right;
but to have sheep as acommercial proposition is
not feasible.
Mr. Smallwood I could add to that. I was talking
to a farmer in the west end of St. John's; he grew
2,000 barrels of potatoes. He did not grow them
on his own land, he did not have enough, but he
got the use of two or three farms and he grew
2,000 barrels, ... sold them and made money on
them. He himself said the trouble is that if you
plant out five or ten acres in potatoes, you have
not got enough land to do it on a large scale. Your
unit of production is very low; and your cost per
bushel or barrel naturally is going to be high. You
have to get a high price to make it pay. The only
way to get a good price is through the customs
tariff which will make the price of competing
potatoes artificially higher. If you get away from
the small unit, and turn out at the rate of 2,000
barrels, you can make money....
[There followed a discussion on meat prices. The committee passed the report, rose
and reported, and the Convention adjourned]
