Mr. Chairman I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the object of a committee is
not to debate principles, but to discuss and correct
details of the bill or report which may be before
the House. As there are several of those reports
to consider and some are of considerable length,
I suggest we confine ourselves so far as, possible
to details of the report and not the matter of
general principles, upon which perhaps more extensive speeches may be required.
Mr. Job This Fisheries Report consists of some 160 pages, including the appendices; the report
itself consists of 68 pages. In introducing it I would like to take into consideration
some advice I noticed in this morning's newspaper. It says, "When the reports are
introduced it is to be hoped that comment will be brief and pointed, designed to bring
out the truth rather than let constituents know that their delegates are doing their
job." I think that a good remark and I want to set a good example by being short.
I would like to refer to the serious loss this Committee sustained by the serious
illness of Mr. Brown, who was a great strength with his great knowledge of fisheries;
it was really a bad blow when he had to discontinue his work. Then again, we were
deprived of the services of our present worthy Chairman with his knowledge of the
fisheries. I hope when you consider the report you will hear these things in mind
and realise we have been handicapped. We have not been having the best of our talent.
The main object of all these reports is to determine by the presentation of facts
and figures whether the country is and will continue to be self-supporting. By the
term "self-supporting" I mean not only whether it can balance its budget, but also
whether the country, if it stands alone, can expect to provide a decent living and
social services for its 300,000-odd inhabitants. I would say that perhaps the most
important feature of this
report is contained on page 38 which sums up the value of fisheries during the year
1946. The figures show the total value of our fisheries during the calendar year 1946
was roughly $34.5 million, which includes an estimated $1 million worth of fish consumed
by our own population.
We have received great assistance from the Newfoundland Fisheries Board as well as
from the Customs Department in arriving at these figures, and they can be taken as
reasonably accurate.
However, it is one thing to arrive at today's valuation, which as we all know is a
very much inflated one, but it is quite another matter to arrive at reliable figures
for future years. The Committee has (probably very rashly) mentioned a figure of $24
million as a possible average. This is actually a pure guess, and by some people may
be considered on the optimistic side. It will be obvious to everyone that there are
so many future contingencies over which we have little or no control that no estimate
of this sort can really be relied upon.
I would like to point out two features of the report which I think will be specially
interesting to members of the Convention, as they may come as a surprise. I refer
to the sub-committee report in the appendix on the matter of subsidiary fisheries
which shows a value of $2.6 million; and also the report on by-products which shows
a value of nearly $1.7 million. These two branches of the industry especially seem
to be capable of very material development. Our hope seems to be in the further development
of markets for fresh and frozen fish and for canned products, as a relief for the
salt codfish industry, and also in the further development of our herring fishery
which would seem to have scope for very large development if properly encouraged,
and by that I mean research work
We have been fortunate in having the New
372 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
foundland Fisheries Board and its energetic and
capable Chairman, Mr. Gushue, at the disposal of
the country and I feel sure that if the trade and the
people of Newfoundland will continue to place
their confidence in Mr. Gushue and his very
capable Board, there is every hope for the future
of the fishing industry.
As a closing comment, may I say that the
Committee has worked hard and has done its best
to present an intelligent report. The Committee
invites fair criticism; but I ask the delegates to be
reasonable and not expect ready answers to questions which even a minister of fisheries
might not
be able to answer. I am not that minister.
In view of the voluminous nature of this
report, I suggest it be divided for reading and
debating purposes into 12 sections which I shall
define as we proceed. The first section for treatment in this manner is on pages 1-15
of the report
which will automatically include Appendix A,
the report of the sub-committee on cold storage.
These pages comprise also an introduction to the
report. I therefore now request, Mr. Chairman,
with your permission, that the Secretary read
pages 1-15, and Appendix A.
[The Secretary read this section of the report]
Mr. Job Mr. Chairman, I want to make note of
one omission I made when introducing this
report. I had a note to remind me to inform those
who don't know that the Committee was
strengthened very much by the inclusion afterwards of Mr. William Keough, because
he has
kept our records wonderfully, and is actually
responsible for the wording of this report.
Mr. Chairman This section is now open for
debate. We shall deal with the different sections
one by one and pass them seriatim.
Mr. Smallwood On page 6 of the Appendix —
does that mean an individual plant?
Mr. Smallwood You gave the amount paid to
fishermen and to labour employed in and around
the plant for 1943-1946, and the figures rise every
year, so that last year that plant paid $234,000 to
the fishermen and to the plant workers $69,000.
Can Mr. Job give us any idea of what those
corresponding figures might be in 1947, taking
that plant as being subject to the same conditions
as other plants throughout the country? I am
trying to get the position generally for the fresh
fish industry in 1947. Could you give us an
outline of what it might be?
Mr. Job It is impossible to give any outline; we
do not know what the position is going to be. We
have not made any contracts. The American
market at the present time is in a bad condition.
The British market has not purchased any fish. It
is utterly impossible to make any commitments.
I would not risk stating what I think would happen. We are all hoping that if we get
a contract in
the United States and if the American market
recovers, we will produce on the same scale. It is
indefinite.
Mr. Smallwood Where was most of the fresh
fish sold in 1946? What I am trying to get at is
this — you mention the United States and the
United Kingdom — the United Kingdom is still
in the picture, is it?
Mr. Keough Page 13 of the report shows the
amounts which went to the different markets. I
question whether a great deal more went to the
States than to England.
Mr. Job Here it shows 7.5 million pounds exported to Canada — some of that was transshipped
to the States.
Mr. Smallwood I do not want Mr. Job to say
more than he can, but I am trying to get the fresh
fish prospects for 1947-48. The position today is
you can sell to the United Kingdom and United
States and some to Canada; a lot of what went to
Canada was re-sold to the United States?
Mr. Smallwood I know Mr. Job is well-informed on this business — he is actually in it,
how much are we likely to sell in 1947 to Great
Britain and the United States? You say no contracts are made — is not that really
late?
Mr. Job No. This is about the time we make
contracts with Great Britain; as a rule there have
not been any contracts made ahead with the
United States. The position there is very bad.
There is a tremendous amount of fillets in cold
storage and until that is disposed of, it is impossible to gauge the US market in
the future.
Mr. Job Very low, there has been a drop in
prices. I do not want to talk about it.
Notwithstanding all the emphasis that has
been put in the foregoing upon the importance of the US market, it should not be
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 373
thought that it is the opinion of the Committee that that is the only market to which
we
should seek access. Once adequate refrigeration facilities come to be somewhat extensively
installed in other countries, then
Newfoundland should be ready to penetrate
those markets to the maximum extent that
may be possible.
Would Mr. Job give us a little on that? Is this
the position literally that this country today, with
$3-4 million invested in cold storage facilities
and cold storage ships, is depending on only two
countries, the United States and United
Kingdom? Is there anywhere else we can turn
during this year or next?
Mr. Job The trade are on their toes about it; they
are working in conjunction with the Fisheries
Board.
Given no further restrictions than now exist
it is felt that we can shortly penetrate that
market to such an extent as to dispose of a
considerable part of the production that must
be diverted from the United Kingdom
Would Mr. Job tell us what is meant by "given
no further restriction"? We know there is an open
quota of 18 million pounds from Newfoundland,
Canada, Iceland, etc. at 1 7/8 cents a pound duty;
over that 18 million pounds, 2.5 cents duty; "no
further restrictions," does that refer to the 1 7/8
cents, the 2.5 cents, or the quota of 18 million
pounds?
Mr. Job We refer to all three; and the future, in
my opinion and which I have emphasised,
depends on some arrangement with the US that
will provide for years ahead, because we cannot
plan. If we knew there were to be no funher
restrictions, we could help production by advertising — there is no other way we can
do it, unless
we know that at any time the US will not put on
a prohibitive duty.
Mr. Job It is an open question. We have already
read the opinions expressed in the Armstrong
Report — a report which was gotten at considerable expense to the government — that
unless we
can make some definite arrangement with the
United States for future imports, we will not be
in a very good position. I think that is true and
therefore I think we are entitled to some arrangement because of the bases to which
I referred on
so many occasions.
Mr. Hollett I notice that one plant referred to,
the company paid an amount of $302,000 for fish
and for labour. There were 15 plants, that would
mean the total paid out would be $4 million; but
I notice on page 13 the total received was
$5,515,000. That would probably indicate a
profit of $1 million. The point I am getting at is
this: the Committee are lamenting, and I think
rightly so, that there is likely to be a recession of
trade in regard to fish. 1 would like to ask, have
the profits in years past been such that they could
very well take up some of the slack in a possible
falling market, so that they might be able to pay
the fishermen somewhere near the prices which
were paid last year?
Mr. Job That is a very pertinent question. I think
in a case of this sort you have to provide for the
writing off of your plant on an extensive scale out
of your profits. Suppose we have to scrap that —
you cannot tell what your profit is; you have to
provide for the wiping off of capital, to provide
for contingencies. I do not know what the reply
would be; I do not think there is very material
margin in it. The shareholders received nothing
of any consequence. I tell you who has received
a great deal and that is the government.
Mr. Smallwood On page 3 of the Appendix "it
would seem that Newfoundland producers are
working under a heavy handicap as compared to
the Canadians, and to build the Newfoundland
production up to a worthwhile figure employing
many thousands of people, some of the following
things will have to be done." One is quality ofthe
fillet; two is another system of producing fish
through draggers and trawlers; and three is Newfoundland products in competition with
Canadian and American. What is the heavy handicap under which the Newfoundland producers
are working compared with Canadians?
Mr. Job That is already pointed out.
Mr. Smallwood What are the handicaps under
which our producers work compared to the
374 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
Canadians, over and above this A, B and C?
Mr. Job There may not be any other handicap;
I do not say there is. I think they have some
advantages in the way of better shore fish.
Mr. Smallwood I am trying to get at the disadvantages. To what extent is the fresh fish industry
and the saltfish industry too, handicapped for
Newfoundland as compared with Canada or the
United States or Iceland.... To what extent are our
producers handicapped by customs duty collected on machinery and plants and shops
and
packages and equipment used in the industry, and
second by the rising costs of the actual producers
— the actual fishermen? You go back to page 1
of the Appendix and you will note because of
"The frozen blueberry industry was also a very
substantial business and of very definite value to
the country, owing to the fact that the cost of
picking was very little and the number of pickers
probably thousands, making for a wide distribution of the cash paid out, which some
years
amounted to over $500,000." A man or woman
goes out and picks one gallon or ten gallons of
blueberries. I think the cost of producing that one
gallon of berries, to that woman, is her cost of
living. Similarly the fishermen in competition
with fishermen of Iceland, Norway and Canada,
have a higher cost of living which is due to some
extent to taxation. Taking the two together —
taxation on what he and his family eat and wear
and use; taxation on machines, plants, wrapping,
canons, paper — all these things that enter into
the fish industry. I do not want to anticipate your
sealing report, but there you make that very point
that taxation on things going into the seal hunt,
coaling the ships, equipment and the ship itself,
is making the cost of production high. To what
extent is it true in the fresh fish industry? How
can it be helped by reduction of taxation?
Mr. Job I can answer that to a certain extent.
The government has encouraged the cold storage
industry very much by free entries. But I know of
one case of an engine put into a vessel or steamer;
the engine was purchased in Canada, in Vancouver, came over the railway to Halifax;
by boat
from there to Newfoundland — the engine cost
about $30,000. We thought we could get it in free
of duty; but it was charged up in the thousands. I
think that was unfair because it was directly in
the interest of the cold storage industry. On the
whole the policy of the government has been to
permit everything possible in connection with the
cold storage industry to come in free of duty.
Mr. Job Capital equipment and material. I do
not think they paid anything for linings or cartons. You will have to give us notice
of these
questions.
Mr. Hollett On page 8. "Newfoundland would
then be at the advantage of such multilaterial
trade arrangements as would materialise — one
of which, it is thought, sould be most favoured
nation treatment for the entry ofour fish products
into the United States." That sounds more like
"unilateral" to me.
Mr. Keough I thought any nation that entered
this ITO
[1] would get preferential treatment all
around; they would get most favoured nation
treatment.
Mr. Keough Outsiders would not have the same
preferential treatment.
Mr. Smallwood There are 18 nations — 17
invited by the United States to come together and
form an international trade organization. The
ITO, if it is formed, will be for the purpose of
enabling the members to enter into multilateral
and bilateral trade agreements between each
other. You may have any two or all 18 members
coming to bilateral treaties in addition to multilateral. I understand Newfoundland
is attempting
at this conference, after it opens on April 8, to
negotiate a bilateral trade treaty with the United
States.... No doubt there will be other bilateral
arrangements made as well.
Mr. Hollett I am not any more clear on the
matter than I was. However, we will see what we
shall find out.
Mr. Smallwood This is a gigantic thing, this
fresh fish industry. There are a lot of people in
Newfoundland engaged in this industry. Here is
a most valuable report that, in my humble
opinion, is one of the finest documents ever
produced in the history of Newfoundland, if not
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 375
the finest, in connection with the fisheries. It
would be a shame if it should not become known
to the Newfoundland people, especially the
fishermen. It would be a pity to skimp it. We are
torn between two desires, to get through our work
on the one hand, and to let the people know what
is in the report on the other hand. I have not yet
got a clear picture of what the prospects are for
the fresh fish industry in Newfoundland. For
example, we hear in the United States they are
going into this fresh fish industry on a gigantic
scale, building new plants, building draggers and
trawlers in many dozens. In Canada they are
doing the same thing; Iceland has already done it
and are doing it even more; in England they are
starting now on the construction of fresh fish
refrigeration plants, and the same in Norway.
What I am trying to do is to fit Newfoundland into
that picture for the next four or five years. What
is to be the outcome of this industry in Newfoundland? We have the best fish in the
world,
lovely quality. What are the actual chances of
marketing? What are the chances in competition
with Canada, Iceland, Norway, England and
France? France is building in St. Pierre, they tell
us, a $4-5 million plant. How are we going to
market this 30 million pounds of fresh fish in the
next few years if the only markets are the United
Kingdom and the United States, and all the
countries in the world are trying to get fish into
these two countries? Now, Mr. Job, I know if I
could make him mad I could make him talk, but
what is the picture?
Mr. Smallwood I can't make him mad, he is too
much of a gentleman. I know the prospects for
the next six months are not very bad, but I am
asking him to look ahead of 1947, and give us the
picture of the next four or five years of this very
important fresh fish industry.
Mr. Job I am afraid we can't give you any more
than we have already given you in the report. I
am not going to go ahead and say what the market
will become; he can draw his own conclusions as
well as we can. I believe the markets will come
back, but when he talks of expansion in the USA,
it is fresh fish expansion, not frozen fish expansion; that's one of the things we
have to remember as well. At the present time the market is
overstocked in the United States. When Mr.
Smallwood goes up there and goes around and
see things, he will be able to judge better than I
can. We have to make a guess.
Mr. Hollett On page 2 of the Appendix:
"Another heavy investment is in draggers, say
around $350,000." I wonder if the Committee
inquired as to the number of small and young fish
that were killed and had to be thrown away?
Mr. Job It is so new that really we have not had
time. These draggers have been going only about
six months. Perhaps Mr. Crosbie could shed
some light on that.
Mr. Crosbie My experience with draggers is
that very little fish is thrown overboard. There's
a good deal of small fish caught, but most of them
go down the hold with the other fish. We know
what is brought in, but not what is thrown away.
With regard to Mr. Smallwood's question, I am
not so pessimistic as some people. In this country
we only know one fish —- cod. Actually it is only
one of the many varieties of fish that are required
in the fish business. I think it has a tremendous
future in this country over the next four or five
years. There are markets that we have not heard
about, and have never gone to look for. We don't
actually know what conditions are. There is
Brazil, these peeple consume a lot of fresh fish.
With regard to competition from the United
Kingdom, I don't think we are going to have any.
Their catch will be all consumed in England and
very little exported. Iceland's production is being
bought by Russia, and probably will be for the
next few years. I don't think we will have much
competition there.
Mr. Smallwood They are starting a five year
plan there with regard to fish.
Mr. Crosbie I don't care. I think there is a
tremendous future in frozen fish and canned fish.
Mr. Crosbie Brazil and other places. One of the
Committee men said to McLean, "You are near
the United States market", and he said, "Yes, but
we don't look to them, 40% is shipped to Canada
and 60% to other countries."
Mr. Crosbie Yes, that's what I am talking about,
frozen fish and canned. In San Paulo and Rio
alone they consume a lot. There are other markets
besides the USA that we ought to look to.
Mr. Smallwood But are they doing that? I asked
Mr. Job if the trade was doing anything about
getting other markets apart from the United
376 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
States, and he said, "Yes, the trade is very much
alive to it, and very much on their toes." He
mentions Brazil. Is anyone trying to sell fish in
Brazil?
Mr. Crosbie I don't know, they don't tell me
their trade secrets.
Mr. Smallwood Well, the fresh fish people concentrate too much on the United States. Are they
paying enough attention to other markets?
Mr. Crosbie You are trying to pin me down to
something I am not prepared to be pinned down
to, and as far as I am concerned I won't be pinned
down. You must remember that going into other
markets costs a great deal of money. They have
already spent a lot of money on advertising, and
these people may not be prepared to go into these
other markets and advertise. It may run into
hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am not
prepared to criticise them.
Mr. Northcott Getting back to fish again. Is
there duty on all fish going into the United States?
We have fillets, turbot, smelts, etc., is there duty
on all of them?
Mr. Job Yes, but the duty varies on different
sorts of fish.
Mr. Hollett I wonder if Mr. Job could tell me
the price of fresh cod fillets in St. John's? I can
tell you, 28 cents per pound. What do you think
of that price?
Mr. Job A very nice price if you can get it.
Mr. Hollett I am looking at the cost of living of
the average St. John's man and woman.
Mr. Job I think if we could sell the fillets here
at cost they would be very glad to do something.
Mr. Penney As far as I am concerned the section
of the report as read is self-explanatory, and I am
willing to accept it and move on to other business.
I believe we should think over what kind of a
delegation we are going to send to the United
States to see about our markets for fresh fillets
and other fishery products.
[The section passed, and the Secretary read the next section]
Mr. Job I suggest we adjourn until tomorrow to
give the members time to master this report on
the salt codfishery.
Mr. Chairman We have not been making much
progress of late, and I suggest to you that since a
great deal of time has been lost as a result of a
shortage of paper, and we have a great deal of
work to do, it would be advisable to hold night
sessions. However, I am entirely in your hands.
Mr. Hillier I think it would be a good idea, if it
would not be putting too much on the ladies who
are reporting the proceedings.
Mr. Chairman I will look after that. I will see
that they are not driven too hard.
Mr. Jones I think we should have one night to
go over the report and see what we can make of
it.
Mr. Job It is the most important part of the
Fisheries Report. There is some justification for
the request.
Mr. Hillier In view of the fact that the members
received the report only this afternoon, we might
dispose of the night session until tomorrow night.
I make that as a motion
Mr. Hollett Before the motion, I would like to
ask Mr. Job or Mr. Ashbourne, did they make any
inquiries whatever into the figures of the
fishermen's insurance scheme in connection with
this country?
[The committee rose and reported progress, and the Convention adjourned]
