Mr. Crosbie Mr. Chairman, I am not going to
enter into any petty discussions or sandbag
anyone. I have heard too much of this; have
listened to too much doom and disaster and
sundry roaring and reckon our listeners suffered
the same, although not at the same time.
Newfoundlanders are not infallible, neither
are other people, and to prove this I would like to
take you back to the time Japan declared war on
China. We were told by the political economists
of the United States and other countries, including Great Britain, that Japan could
not carry on
war with China without going financially broke,
yet she did continue this war for several years.
Then in March 1933, we were told by the political
economists of Great Britain and the United States
that Hitler, who had come to power in Germany,
could not last six months, yet in fact he lasted
until 1939 when he declared war on Great Britain
and later the United States, and for six years he
waged war against these two great nations and
their allies. Japan later attacked the United States
and helped Hitler for at least two or three years
of war against these two great countries. Hitler
lasted long enough to bring untold hardship and
starvation to millions, and millions are still suffering, yet we are told here in
this chamber that
Newfoundlanders are foolish, because they bring
in a report and make estimates that may not
finally turn out. I have seen budgets and estimates
made of other countries with the same result. It is
true that the report of your Committee may be
changed in places, that is why it is brought in
here; to be treated the same as other reports —
some things added, some things taken away; but
as a member of that Committee I am satisfied it
is as clear a picture of the conditions of this
country today and for the near future as is possible. I am sure we are self-supporting
at the
moment, and will be for some time to come.
I would like to review once more our fisheries.
As we know it is from our fisheries that the
greatest number of our people obtain their
livelihood. If our fisheries are prosperous, our
country is prosperous... It may come as a surprise
to some of you to know that we are the second
largest exporter of frozen fish and fishery
products to the United States. Canada comes first,
but some day I hope we will come first. You
know that there has been a meeting of many
countries to discuss the reduction of tariffs and
inter-trade; it may be possible there will be a
reduction on certain tariffs and then Newfoundland will benefit, we cannot expect
better
treatment than other countries, but at least we
may expect the same. We have been told that this
country is in a very strategic position. This is
perfectly true. But I do not mean a strategic
position with regard to war, but with regard to our
fishing banks, the water around and near our
shores. We are known to have one of the largest
continental fishing ledges in the world, one of the
best. I have been told by presidents of large
fishing companies of the United States that some
day in the near future they will have to come to
Newfoundland for their raw materials. This
paints a nice picture in my mind of what our
fisheries may be in the future. In 1934-35 we
704 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
exported very little frozen or fresh fish. It was
only in 1937-38 that some of our people had
sufficient courage to go ahead. In 1940-45 it took
great strides. Due to the necessity of more food
because of war conditions a great many people
ate fish who never ate fish before, and who will
continue to eat fish for years to come. The war
gave our exporters an opportunity to get more or
less established and today they are still enlarging
and are still very optimistic over the future of our
fresh fish industry.
Within a very few weeks you will have here
in St. John's, operating from Job Brothers, two
new up-to date trawlers which will permit this
firm to operate all year round. This will give
employment to many Newfoundlanders and will
help change entirely the outlook of our fisheries.
It is true that our salt codlish for 1934-35 was
only worth $5 million and in 1945 it was some
$17 millions — quite a gap. It is also true we can
expect reduced prices in our salt codfish over the
course of the next few years, but I do not expect
to see our salt codfish drop in price as low as it
did in 1934-35. If you say, "Why?", my answer
is this: during recent years there has been a
greater spirit of cooperation all over this country
and our marketing system for salt codfish has
improved tremendously. There will be no throat-
cutting, no loss because of shipping on consignment; more co-operation in every direction,
which means a steadier, firmer market and better
returns. Like every other industry, the salt cod-
fishery has certain branches and phases that are
uneconomic, and one of these branches is the
Labrador fishery. This fishery costs a lot to fit out
and continues only for three to four months;
further, during these three or four months, only
six weeks of fishing may be done. We had men
come home from Labrador last year and this year
with no voyages, men who have to go through
hardship because they have caught no fish. For
these men I have deepest sympathy and greatest
admiration; it is not their fault, the country's
fault, but nature's. I feel it is our duty, knowing
that these fisheries are uneconornical, to wake up,
get together, try and find the cure for these uneconomical fisheries. I would suggest
centralisation, intense fishing of certain areas, more
versatile boats, better equipment. You may say,
"Where is this money coming from?" I say, if
necessary the state should put it up. They have
guaranteed bonds to our paper companies to the
extent of $15 to $20 million. Why cannot the
same thing be done for our fisheries? I am sure
that if our men go to the Labrador, properly
equipped with the right vessels, they can come
back and later prosecute other fisheries, even the
seal fishery, which are now on the verge of being
developed.
Then we have in this country our herring
fishery. I have been in touch with this fishery
from an angle entirely different from the pattern
of the old days, from the angle of mass production, the production of protein meals
that are
badly needed all over the world, and will be
needed for many years to come, Fishmeal is only
in its infancy. It is only in the last 15 or 20 years,
that the value of these fish meals have been
realised for the purpose of feeding cattle, poultry
and many other purposes. It is true, as some of
you have said, since 1940 I have been in this
business, had hardship and it is true I have made
no money. But I would like to assure you my faith
in this industry is greater than ever, and I am sure
some day I will be rewarded or at least repaid for
the trouble I have taken. We have today, which
we never had before, the filletting of herring, the
canning of herring by a large Canadian company,
that has invested close to half a million dollars in
Newfoundland for the handling of herring, a firm
that has been for years in the herring fishery of
Canada, who know their markets and have faith
in herring as a product. There are many people in
this country who would doubt that these industries can be developed. To them I say,
have
faith, encourage the people who are trying to run
them, do not knock — just encourage.
We have a whale fishery which has gradually
been built up because ofnewer methods and more
things being found to save waste in the plants,
and to decrease the cost of production which will
under normal times permit this industry to meet
the prices which may be prevailing.
The seal fishery will again come into its own.
We have the opportunity of developing this industry and making it much more valuable
than in
the past. Today the seal fishery has changed
somewhat, we have smaller boats going to the
ice, with smaller crews and it appears to me that
these boats and smaller crews may be the answer
to a larger and most beneficent fishery in the
future.
November 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
705
There are many varieties of fish which I cannot take time to discuss with you. I would
like to
discuss, however, our lobster fishery. At one time
we only canned lobster, but today the greater part
of our lobsters are being shipped alive. I am sure
that the co-operative men in this Convention will
agree that, through the shipment of live lobster
by the co-operatives and private firms, the fishermen are much better off than they
ever were. I am
glad that the co-operative movement has taken
over such work, and I wish them luck in the
future. Now then, we come to the product about
which many people are sceptical and that is the
value of our waste. When we first started in
Corner Brook to manufacture herring oil and
meal after extracting the oil from the water, we
had water left. During the last two years we have
found this water valuable and today there is not
a thing which cannot be used, including the
water. This also applies to the whaling industry,
and I am sure we are going to find the same in all
the other branches of our fishery. In Iceland and
other countries, all this waste is utilised, running
into millions of dollars; and waste can be utilised
in this country as well. I am sure that in centres
such as Bonavista where they are handling large
quantities of frozen fish, fish waste plants could
be established and the fishermen will get more
money per quintal for their fish and get rid of the
dirt and the filth around their harbours.
The value of our fisheries in 1946 was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $34 million.
The
Fishery Committee valued the fisheries at $25
million. I think they can be valued at more if we
have faith and courage enough to go ahead, to
move forward, to push and strive for greater
developments. I feel that if our fisheries go below
$25-30 million, it is because we are lacking
foresight and vision, something which most
Newfoundlanders find in other countries, and
which we seem to lack in our own. I have every
reason, the country has every reason, to feel
optimistic over the future of fisheries. We have
unlimited resources and raw materials; we have
the fishermen; we have everything that anyone
needs to develop the fisheries in this country and
push them forward. We may need assistance,
more research information, more biological information and a better laboratory than
the one we
now have, but these are things we can have if we
want to fight for them, push for them and insist
on them. There is very little more I can say on the
Economic Report.
This country and this Convention is facing
very momentous weeksjust ahead. We are going
to discuss forms of government. We are going to
discuss many different things, but I would like to
say to you all, let us remember it is a fine country
that we live in, that we fought for and that we will
fight for again. During those weeks let us forget
our political passion, let us argue out those things
sensibly, reasonably and intelligently. Let us give
the public of this country the facts that we can
give them without being hot, personal and
abusive. We can do it if we wish, and l for one
intend to follow those lines, and I hope and trust
that we can prove to our country and our people
that we are sensible, reasonable and willing to
co-operate and work together.
Mr. Hillier ....Mr. Hickman, in a very fair
speech calmly made here two or three days ago,
gave me the impression that he was a bit disappointed in connection with Convention
proceedings. If that is so, I can quite understand it. I too
have been somewhat disappointed, because the
mental picture I had built up of this work has been
dashed to pieces. I have no desire to prolong this
Convention one hour longer than is strictly necessary, so my remarks will not be lengthy.
I am not
aspiring to a place in any future government
Newfoundland may have, so like Mr. Hickman,
I have no axe to grind. My only wish is that
whatever our political set-up, it proves to be
productive of the most good for the most people
and in the general interest of all. I do not look on
the dark side of life, even when clouds are heavy
and dark I look beyond them in hope. I believe
that we have somewhere resources as yet untouched which can be profitably developed,
and
that those we have can be further developed; but
capital, labour and government must work
together. A government must not be expected to
shoulder all the responsibility in making a
country progress. We, the people, have to bear
our share, and blame ourselves to the proper
extent for lack of progress.
With a long pull and a strong pull all together,
I see no reason why matters in this country could
not be considerably improved. I fear in the past
there has been a little too much of self and not
enough of the realisation of the necessity of pulling together. What are the hopes
of mending our
706 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
ways? Has our attitude shown that we are moving
along that road?
This report has come in for considerable
debate. Some members have gone all out in support, others have taken a contrary view.
In some
cases the debate has been a bit on the stormy side.
I wonder what our listeners all over the country
think. Are they in agreement that the task assigned us is being handled properly?
Are they
acquiring such knowledge as will enable them to
decide more easily the great question which must
in due time be given serious thought? An artist
may paint a beautiful picture, but it may not
appeal to every one in the same way. The same
applies to the picture this Economic Report gives.
There is no just reason why one man should
become aggrieved simply because the other fellow cannot see in that picture the same
thing.
I do not see much in this report to disturb my
peace of mind, neither am I going to quarrel over
it. There are many listeners all over Newfoundland quite capable of judging the merits
or
otherwise of this report.... I leave it to them....
Economics is the science that treats of production, and use of wealth, so its meaning
has two
sides. Faith in the possibilities of production is
one thing, getting down to business and producing is another thing. Nature may provide
wealth in the land, but she does not dig it out. The
four factors are land, labour, capital and organisation, and capital is very important.
The report
does give an encouraging picture. I hope it works
out along these lines in the years which lie
ahead....
Fishery. I note the government laboratory
motor vessel has found a variety of fish off our
coast which might become a source of wealth
some day; but it is of little value to know that
wealth exists if we don't go after it. I am more
familiar with the shore codfishery than any other,
and agree with Mr. Reddy that the shore fishery
is too short to enable our fishermen to earn a
decent living. On some parts of the Burin Peninsula it has, because of shortage of
bait, been but
a two months fishery for some years. Prospects
are better now by reason of the erection of bait
depots. One member made reference to failure of
the fishery in his area, another brought to notice
the high earnings of a banking vessel at Grand
Bank. To get a true picture of the average earnings of our fishermen the whole rather
than the
part is to be considered. The earnings of fishermen are very irregular depending upon
quantity
secured and price received, and the value of
earnings is based on cost of fishery outfit and the
general necessities of life.
Revenue is affected by earnings. The fisherman is no eight-hour-a-day-man with a regular
income. He too often cannot cut the garment
according to the cloth. When he cannot provide
from the fishery, too often he finds there is no
employment elsewhere, which places him in a
fairly tight spot; and this because of lack of
industries. The problem is the establishing of
more industries. Give our people adequate
employment at a living wage and one of our
greatest problems is solved.
The report suggests an increased grant for old
age pensions. Fishermen who, having spent practically a lifetime at that trade, and
for reasons over
which they have no control, had been unable to
save from their earnings sufficient money to provide even moderate comforts for the
evening of
life, would greatly appreciate augmentation to
that paid at present. The present pension is too
low, and the age should be 65 instead of 75 years.
I am not satisfied that pensions should be paid
from the general revenue. I believe an export tax
on all our fish and fishery products to provide the
wherewithal to pay fishermen pensions would be
the better way....
The Committee does not definitely say that
Newfoundland is in every particular self-supporting. If we accept the interpretation
that when
a government has funds sufficient to meet the
cost of public services that country is self-supporting, then I agree that Newfoundland
is self-
supporting. I take it that was what the Committee
meant, and that was what the British government
meant by being self-supporting. I prefer to class
it as the government being self-supporting. If we
had sufficient industries to assure adequate
employment at a living wage, then providing for
meeting the cost of public services would cease
to be a problem. It is a matter of just how we look
at it and of interpretations, so we won't quarrel
over that...
I feel that the revenue received during the past
two years has to a considerable extent been the
result of high earnings during the period of war,
and the augmentation of the purchasing power of
many of our people, particularly business people
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 707
who ventured to increase their imports when
more shipping space was available, and the risk
of loss was not so great as during the war. I do
not think the increase in revenue has been altogether the outcome of industrial growth.
There
has been an increase in exports of iron and paper
by reason of more shipping available during the
past two years, which directly or indirectly, quite
likely has in some way been responsible for increase in revenue. Suffice it to know
that we had
an increase in revenue, though we all may not
quite agree as to the power which brought it to
us....
Mr. McCormack Mr. Chairman, ... I propose to
deal but briefly with this report, as it has been
thoroughly covered by previous speakers. I am
sure that the members as well as the listening
public have satisfied themselves by this time as
to its merits or demerits.
Since it has been held up to ridicule, though
only by a small minority of speakers, I should like
to say that in my opinion Major Cashin and the
members of his Committee have done an admirable job. The task of estimating the economic
prospects of the country really requires experts
with full authority to probe into every department
of government, and yet in spite of many drawbacks the Committee has given us a body
of solid
facts, arrived at by a co-ordination of reports
prepared by the various committees, and on the
basis of these facts, has estimated our prospects
for the immediate future....
We are expected to determine on the basis of
the committee reports, and bearing in mind the
effect the war had on our economy, whether we
are and can reasonably hope to remain self-supporting. We are all aware that no country,
no
people, is self-sufficient. A country must depend
on its productive economy and on its ability to
trade on a remunerative basis in order to attain
any measure of success in giving its people a
reasonably high standard of living. It is superfluous to say that most people in this
country are
living more comfortably today than they did say
in 1930, and with the indisputable facts of this
report on our ever-increasing productive
enterprises, our improved facilities for trade
negotiations, our favourable position by reason
of our strategic importance, we must honestly
admit that we are definitely self-supporting, and
without being unduly optimistic, can look for
ward to a continuation of this prosperity. The fact
that hard-headed and successful businessmen
have invested large sums and are continuing to
expand their business ventures is an undeniable
proof of their confidence in future progress.
We could not hope for more than this report
contains. It proves the country is enjoying the
greatest prosperity in its history, and gives
evidence that this prosperity is not ephemeral but
permanent. It gives a fair estimate of ordinary
requirements of government over a period of
three years, and of revenue anticipated for the
same period, with facts on which to base such
estimates. It shows good prospects for our main
industries with demand for pulp and paper and
minerals reasonably stable. It evaluates our local
industries and takes into account the considerable
employment at the bases and at Gander. It advises
conservation of our surplus, and points out that
only very necessary public works should be undertaken at the present time. Referring
to the
Marshall Plan it wisely observes that our future
prosperity, like that of all other countries, is dependent on general world conditions
and on the
quantity and quality of what we produce and
export.
Mr. Fogwill has dealt with the value of
agriculture to the economy of this country. I
could and would like to go into this more fully,
but I will not take more of your time. Suffice to
say that agriculture in this country should be
given much more consideration and assistance
than in the past. I accept this report as being fair
and equitable and am satisfied that the country is
at the present time, and can remain self-supporting.
Mr. Keough ....In between now and when we
first did meet there has been much application of
honest effort and sincerity of purpose to the task
in hand — and there has been some application
of effort to the serving of political purposes. We
have been to London and to Ottawa. We have
examined with such competence as was ours into
the financial and economic changes that have
taken place in the island since 1934. And we are
come now, at long last, to the drawing of the first
of the great conclusions — as to whether or not
we are self-supporting; in other words, to the
drawing of a conclusion which in the strict letter
of the law might well be held to be none of our
business. It was as far back as last January that I
708 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
first gave it as my opinion that it was not the
assigned task of the Convention to seek a conclusion as to whether or not we are self-supporting.
I am still of that opinion.
I grant you that the Letters Patent of 1934 did
provide for the administration of Newfoundland
until such time as it became self-supporting
again. But those Letters Patent were issued under
the Great Seal at Westminster. And that locates
the headache at Westminster. The burden of
proof of self-support — at any rate the decision
in the matter — lies with Westminster. And if the
British Parliament had decided to foist the
responsibility for determination of the question
of self-support upon this Convention it would
have been written in the Convention Act. No such
thing was written into the Convention Act. What
we were told to do was examine into the financial
and economic changes that have taken place
since 1934. The Economic Report before us,
undoubtedly not without good reason, has seen
fit to go beyond that commitment and bring the
matter of whether or not the island is again self-
supporting before this assembly. It has gone further and suggests that we are self-supporting.
During the deliberations of the Finance Committee in preparation of the Economic Report,
I,
together with another member of the Committee,
did resign therefrom. By that time it was evident
that the other members of the Committee were of
one mind upon an approach to the matter in hand
with which I was not in accord. Reappointed to
the Committee by you, Mr. Chairman, I thought
that the Committee would make more rapid
progress if I did not attend further meetings. It
was just as well that I did not. For to this report
in its entirety I would not have been able to
subscribe, and my presence at meetings at which
it was prepared could only have led to further
delays — at a cost to the country of $1,000 a
day....
I see it this way. The proper function of the
Economic Report, as is self-evident from the
terms of reference of the Convention, is to indicate the economic changes that have
taken place
in the island since 1934, and as is implicit in those
terms of reference, to make such forecast for the
foreseeable future as the financial and economic
data to hand and the competence of the talent
applied to its interpretation make possible. There
is a line of demarcation between such an
enterprise and taking a decision as to whether or
not we are self-supporting. The Economic Report
has crossed that line. It was not wrong for the
report to do so. But in doing so the report put a
chip on its shoulder and went hunting trouble —
perhaps without as much purpose as may have
been supposed. The British Parliament has not
asked for a decision on the specific question of
self-support. That is a decision that it will make
for itself — for it has made that condition for
itself. To be fair, it must be said that the report
did have some justification for addressing itself
to the question, in that it was popularly expected
to make a pronouncement. Rightly or wrongly,
the people have been led to expect this Convention to pronounce upon the matter of
self-support... And I do think that that makes the matter
of self-support legitimate for our concern. In that
belief I have already discussed the matter in
Convention. And in that belief, now that this
report has formally brought the matter before this
Convention, I intend to discuss it further today.
However, I cannot see that any useful purpose is
served by the estimate of revenue and expenditure for the next three years. For such
an estimate
to have any credibility it would have to be predicated upon a more accurate measure
of our
economy than was possible.
To begin with, there is not in the Convention
anyone equipped with the specialised knowledge
necessary for making a conclusive evaluation of
the present condition and the potential of our
economy. And even if there had been elected a
composite financial wizard and mathematical
genius, it is an open question just how far he
could have gone in that direction. For he would
have had available to him few reliable statistical
indices, no reliable figure of national income,
hardly any basis aggregates upon which to predicate a conclusion that would be much
more than
a good guess. One of the most urgent needs is for
an efficient bureau of statistics. If we had had
such a bureau to turn to this Convention would
have been over in half the time. Even if we had
had foresight enough at the beginning to call in a
competent statistician-economist, I am convinced that we should have achieved more
ac—
curate results sooner....
In the absence of conclusive statistical information and special talent skilled in
interpretation
of the same, I cannot see where any special value
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 709
attaches to the putting together of probabilities to
achieve a budget for tomorrow. Under such circumstances, an estimate of the immediate
future
in broad terms is the most that should be attempted. To provide for the morrow on
paper
down almost to the last million dollar — I'm
afraid I have to view that as counting the chickens
before even the eggs are laid. The way ahead is
loaded with imponderables that do not lend themselves to reduction into round figures
of probable
revenue and expenditure. Under these circumstances any attempt to forecast the shape
of things
to come in terms of millions of dollars could at
its best result in a good guess, a guess susceptible
to challenge by any other guess held to be just as
good.... All of which is not to suggest, mind you,
that the Finance Committee has deliberately
prepared anything like a political document. Far
from it. I am quite prepared to accept this report
as an honest effort to make an objective appraisal
of our economic position — and an effort which
is, after its own fashion, monumental. But I am
not prepared to go along with it all the way. And
if I must give reasons, they are these:
1. The spirit in which the report is written
is more optimistic than I can find cause to
feel. I do not contend that the Committee set
out deliberately to achieve an optimistic
report, or that they have achieved such a
result. But I do not note that the report notes
that there is any dark side to the future. And
as far as I am concerned there is a dark side
to the future.
2. I can see no particular value that attaches to the forecast of revenue and expenditure
for the next three years....
3. ....The way I read it, the report says we
are self-supporting, and as far as can be
foreseen we are going to stay self-supporting.
I have to record that I cannot subscribe to that
position without qualification.
To my mind the Convention is not competent
to do much more than generalise about the
present condition of our economy and its potentials.... For the record, then, I should
like to make
a few generalisations about the economic changes that have come upon us since 1934,
and on
our chances for the future. This will be my final
word upon these matters.
The economy in 1934 was in a state of collapse. The Depression was the immediate cause
that induced this condition. And indeed the
Depression occasioned more havoc within the
economy of Newfoundland than it did within the
economies of most countries. But the Depression
was able to do that because of other causes
making for fundamental weaknesses in the
economy. Of such causes the more notable were
these:
1. Newfoundland's economy was an export economy. The national income was for
the most part derived from the sale of staple
commodities abroad. In consequence, our
economy was extremely vulnerable and collapsed with the collapse of world trade. Collapse
was very nearly complete.... Such a
disastrous deterioration in our export trade
naturally resulted in wage cuts and lay-offs
and in the reduction of fishermen's incomes
to sub-subsistence levels. The coincidence of
these conditions in their turn precipitated
wage reductions and unemployment in local
secondary industry.
2. Newfoundland's economy was based
upon but few natural resources — for the
most part fish, wood and some minerals. Except in the instance of fish the quantity
of the
natural resources was meager. And in the
instance of fish we were geared to the
production of a greater quantity than the
market at that time could absorb. This lack of
diversification was a fundamental fault.
3. Newfoundland's economy was crippled by the great burden of servicing the
public debt. Had the public debt been internally contained, the national income would
have been at the advantage of what it cost to
service it. But the public debt was
preponderantly an external debt and this involved the export of a sizeable proportion
of
the increment from production to service it....
By 1933 the ratio of service cost to revenue
had become such as would in any case have
led to the eventual wreck of the island's
economy even without benefit of a world
depression....
4. The Newfoundland people were
without adequate reserves to fall back upon.
In many countries the Depression did not
bear so heavily as it otherwise might have
upon many people, because in the past they
had been able to make some provision
710 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
against just such an emergency. But the
economy of Newfoundland had never been
such as to permit more than a handful to put
aside a little against a rainy day. At the time
the Newfoundland people had some meager
reserves. And all during the Depression they
hung on to them for dear life. People with a
little money in the bank or in the sock went
on dole, but would not part with their little
accumulated store. I have never been able to
bring myself to blame them....
Finally, there must also be taken into account the fact that the national income had
long been at the advantage of increment from
seasonal employment on the American mainland and from emigrant remittances, and that
the former ceased and the latter were curtailed by about 75% in the early 1930s.
Not since 1919-20 had the taxable capacity of
our economy been such as would enable us to
defray the normal costs of government and service the public debt without borrowing.
By 1933
world depression had played such havoc with our
economy as to have reduced it to where it could
no longer provide many with the opportunity to
make a living, and in consequence a quarter of
the population came to be on relief. Such then
was the fix in which we found ourselves in 1934
— up to our necks in a depressed economy which
was unequal to the task of supporting one quarter
of the population. In between then and now have
come Commission of Government and World
War II and a new virility to our economy.
In a speech delivered about two weeks ago —
and which appears to have been misunderstood
in some respects — I analysed the present condition of our economy and drew the following
three
conclusions:
1. That no man of fair mind can deny that
our finances and economy are in much
sounder condition than they were in 1934 —
and perhaps in sounder condition than they
have ever been.
2. That in consequence, no man may
deny the possibility of a precarious condition
of self-support.
3. That no man can speak with confidence of the future....
I wish to add a comment or two with reference
to this possibility of a precarious self-support. I
know that in using that phrase I shall be thought
of as playing politics. It does not matter. But for
the life of me, I cannot see what other conclusion
there is to come to. To admit of more would
involve gratuitous assumption. Not to admit to so
much would involve downright evasion. And so
I say that a fair man must admit to the possibility
of a precarious self-support However, if it be a
condition of self-support we have come to, we
have to hold that the condition is precarious,
because even the immediate future offers no
surety that the basis upon which our improved
condition rests will not be disestablished overnight.... If this be a condition of
self-support we
have arrived at, it is a meager enough thing. At
its best, it is a condition of self-support at the level
of what we were used to — perhaps even a little
better than what we were used to. But that is not
enough. It may well be that, for the most part, the
standard of living is higher today than it ever was.
But that is not all that is to be taken into consideration. The important consideration
is — is it
high enough? In the issue that confronts this
nation, are we to be satisfied with that which is
as good as what we were used to, or are we going
to seek for the most that may be had?
If anyone feels that the condition of our
economy is sound and satisfactory, then the
reason must be that he feels that our economy is
adequate to provide us with as good as what we
have been used to. That is one way of looking at
it. Yet we may well find the average fisherman
taking another view. The average fisherman has
always had his own cost of living index, which
he has historically applied to determine the satisfactory condition or otherwise of
our economy.
That index has been this — a barrel of flour for a
quintal of fish. In times when fishermen have
been able to get a barrel of flour for a quintal of
fish, they have been able to cope adequately with
their family economies, and enjoy some measure
of temporary security. In times when our fishermen have been unable to get a barrel
of flour for
a quintal of fish, they have found the national
economy out of focus with their best interests,
and have lived with their fingers crossed against
adversity. Today it takes two quintals of fish to
pay for a barrel of flour — and it is just possible
that my last forgotten fisherman on the bill of
Cape St. George is not so happy over the condition of our economy as is the Finance
Committee.
He may not at this moment be wondering about
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 711
where his next meal is coming from. But he may
well be wondering where his next barrel of flour
is coming from.
I have to insist upon relating any conclusion
as to the sound and satisfactory character of our
economy to the minimum that I am prepared to
be satisfied with. I have made the point before
that we are a western people, a North American
people. We have but to look across the Gulf to
the North American mainland to observe the
standard of civilisation that such a people are
entitled to enjoy in this day and generation. If
there are any means that we can employ to come
by such standard, then we have every right to use
those means, provided they are not in conflict
with Christian principles and the democratic
tradition. For a little while I had almost become
uncertain of that. So much emphasis had come to
be put upon our duty not to sell that rather amorphous something called "our sacred
heritage" for
a mess of pottage, that I had almost come to think
that a mess of pottage was something intrinsically
evil. However, in the meantime I have had the
opportunity of talking again with people to whom
a mess of pottage has meant the difference almost
between life and death at times — and I have
consequently been confirmed in my belief that in
its rightful place a mess of pottage is something
of considerable moment.
In the most recent years we have come upon
a new ability to supply ourselves with some of
the public and social services of a western people.
It is but little enough we have come by — and
what we have come by we have come upon the
hard way. We have been a long time in this island.
Our history is as long as the history of any others
who live in this hemisphere. We are as old in the
New World as any men of our race. We have
worked hard in this island — we and our fathers
before us, and their fathers before them. The men
who pushed around the capstans to stump the first
fields, and their sons after them who laboured so
mightily to make those fields produce the little
that they have; the men who decade after decade
have wrenched from the ice floes their wealth of
seals and from the surrounding sea its wealth of
fish; the men who have trapped and logged and
mined and done all such others things as men
have done in this island to make a living; they
have all had to work for that living mightily
indeed. From the wolf at the door they have
received no quarter. Sometimes even to stay alive
has required effort monumental in its proportions.
In June past we came to the end of 450 years
of history — for the most part years of grim
endeavour to make both ends meet, years of just
managing to keep body and soul together, years
of doing without. And at the end of four and a half
centuries we have not very much to show for all
our years and all our efforts. Three or four
cathedrals, a few hundred churches, a thousand
or so schools, a narrow gauge railroad that swirls
across the island in a reiteration of fantastic
scrolls, a few ribbons of road and an airport at
Gander and in the red. Once upon a time we even
had a house of parliament and a museum. These
latter years, it is true, many more of our people
have come to know the benefits of what are called
modern conveniences. But as far as a great many
are concerned, the intimate institutions of their
daily lives still are outdoor latrines, wood stoves,
kerosene oil lamps, and carry in your drinking
water from the well back of the house.
I have often wondered why it is that after four
and a half centuries we have so little to show for
all our efforts. It is true we live in a gaunt land
that maybe has not had the capacity to produce a
higher standard of living than we have known.
But I have often wondered if that is not too simple
an explanation. There is a saying that they built
New England out of hard times and codfish.
Well, we too have had the codfish. It will also be
conceded that we have had the hard times. There
is another saying about the fault being not in our
stars but in ourselves. But there again the explanation is too simple. There have
been things
in our history that have been beyond ourselves to
effect, that have contributed.
In any case, it would appear that we have
lately come to enjoy a somewhat greater portion
than has been our historic portion.... Some of us
have come to be a bit better off than ever before.
As a people, we have come to be able to supply
ourselves with a few of the public amenities and
social services of a North American civilisation.
I am not prepared to accept as conclusive
evidence of a condition of self-support less than
reason to believe that we shall be able to maintain
such personal and national standards for the normal times of the future. No person
of fair mind
will seek to deny that there is some hope that we
712 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
can maintain such standards. And reasons can be
given for such hope.
Take the matter of the fundamental character
of our economy. It is still preponderantly an
export economy. The national income is still for
the most part derived from the sale of staple
commodities abroad. But it so happens that the
world today is temporarily more congenial to the
well-being of an export economy than it has been
for a long time. With the reconstruction of Europe
to be accomplished, and a world-wide shortage
of consumer goods to be filled, one would imagine that world demand for staple products
will
not be satisfied in a short time. So for the future
there is some consolation in that. There is consolation too in the strengthening of
our economy
through the diversification that has been
achieved in the fishing industry and in a lesser
dependence upon that industry; in the reduction
of the burden of the public debt; in the increment
to the national income derived from services
rendered at the military installations; and in the
accumulation of not insignificant national reserves. These are the major factors that
urge us to
look with hope to the future.
But if there is reason to be hopeful there is also
room for doubt. And I am not prepared to avoid
this just because it may be held to be the proper
thing to accent the optimistic view. You see, I
belong to the generation that has never voted. We
have grown up and come to our maturity without
benefit of all the tender ministrations of shibboleth and political poppycock that
other generations have enjoyed. In consequence, we are far
less likely than were our fathers to give our
allegiance to a cause for purely sentimental
reasons. The mere injunction that we should have
faith in our country is not enough to scare us away
from insisting that there is a dark side to the future
too.
Two years ago you could hardly get a man in
this island to do an odd job. There was full
employment. Wartime construction and the
withdrawal of men from the economy to enter the
fighting services were what led to that condition.
It was not a matter of a sudden competency
having come upon the economy to find a niche
and a living for all. Now the war jobs are over,
and those who fought are returned. I doubt that
all returned men have found employment — and
there are certainly others now without jobs. Our
economy has not been able to absorb the twin
flow of manpower from the armed services and
from the schools. And it is no answer to say that
nobody need be without work these days, the
unemployed can go to the lumberwoods. It so
happens that not all of them can. Not all of them
are suited for that sort of work. Technique with a
bucksaw does not come naturally. 1n the last
analysis there is no such thing as unskilled labour.
If you don't believe that, you might try putting
your average professor of psychology in a ditch
with your average road labourer and see who digs
the mostest ditch in the shortest time. In any case,
the Christian position is that it is an inherent right
of man to be free to earn a living at work of his
own choosing and for which he is suited. Am I to
understand that we must be satisfied to have
self-support mean less than that? For it would
seem that we are headed for more of less than
that.
The Economic Report is hopeful of a continuing annual revenue for the future of $30
million
because this year we shall have a revenue of $40
million. A pious hope, a goodly hope, but nevertheless a figure pulled out of thin
air. And it might
just as well have been $20 million or $50 million.
And if I prefer to contend that the year after next
our revenue will amount to $50 million, I'd like
to see anyone in this Convention undertake to
prove to me that it could not be. It would be a
most interesting manoeuvre to observe....
Apropos of that revenue, there are two things
worthy of mention. One is that it derives in part
from not-so-efficient business management.
During the war, goods were in such short supply
that business firms began booking orders for this,
that and the other thing over half the world.
Orders were duplicated and triplicated and never
cancelled. This year there has been a flood of
goods emanating from these orders that should
have been cancelled but were not. The revenue
originating from this source may hardly be construed to have arisen from the normal
needs of
the people. Also there is a great deal of importing
to satisfy what may be called an abnormal replacement demand. Many things wore out
during
the war years, which due to shortages could not
be replaced. Indeed, in this island many things
wore out during the Depression which people
have only lately come to be in a financial position
to replace. Much current importing is being done
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 713
to satisfy such abnormal replacement demand. It
so happens then, that significant proportions of
the $40 million we shall likely realise this year
derive from extraordinary rather than the ordinary needs of the people. Since such
is the case,
it could be that $30 million would be a more
appropriate figure from which to begin to figure....
However, my major concern for the immediate future is rooted in the uncertainty that
hangs
over the whole world. If everything goes just
right with the world everything will go all right
with us. If it doesn't, I prefer not to think of the
consequences. Two months ago something did
not go right — England froze the convertibility
of sterling. Overnight we were no longer so certain that we were self-supporting.
We needed $7
million to tide us over the crisis and the winter.
Such was the meager measure of our much-
vaunted self-support. And had it happened that
we were not able to dig down in our own pocket
for that, a great many of our fishermen would be
finding little evidence of self-support in their
open receipts.
For the future, of this much only can we be
certain — that if everything goes just right in the
world we will manage to get along. If the Marshall Plan goes into effect; if the world's
exchange problems can be solved; if the Geneva
multilateral trade arrangements come to be
ratified and extended; if the US won't up the tariff
on our fresh fish; if the world price of newsprint
stays put; if a hundred and one things go just right,
then all will go all right with us — if at home the
fishery doesn't fail. For the fishery is still important, and a fishery failure will
still mean hungry
people. And will the nations of the world take
care to conduct their affairs so as to serve our best
interests? What is your guess? And don't forget
that my guess is as good as yours.
I do regret it if my attitude appears unreasonable, as I know that it must to some.
But resolution of the question of self-support at the national
level in terms of present and anticipated revenues
in excess of expenditures appears to me too
simple a solution. I keep seeking a conclusion in
terms of the ability of the little fellow to carry on
— the little fellow who hasn't got a Cadillac to
his name, and who never gets to attend a community concert, but who nevertheless makes
up
the fibre and sinew of the nation. And I am not so
certain that right at this moment this little fellow
enjoys as great a measure of security as he did
during the normal times of the past. He has, it is
true, a higher income. But it is a question if it
means as much to him in terms of the necessities
of life as his incomes in the normal times of the
past have meant. He has an enormously increased
cost of living to contend with. And in that respect,
please don't remind me that his salt pork comes
in duty free. He also has to have a shirt for his
back on which he must pay 40% duty — plus
profit, plus profit on the duty. And incidentally
who wants to eat salt pork all the year round? I
grant you that he may have come to enjoy a
measure of precarious self-support. But whether
or not he can continue to enjoy in the normal
times of the future such meager-enough standards of living and social services as
he now
knows, is not something on which we can pass
judgement at this moment. It is something at
which we can but guess.
As has already been pointed out by several
speakers it is not our business here to take the
optimistic view of the future. It is not our business
to take the pessimistic view. It is our business to
take the realistic view. And the realistic view is
this: if all goes just right with the world we will
manage to get along. If not — the deluge.
I am not prepared to accept as conclusive
evidence of self-support less than satisfactory
evidence that we can hope to see the paltry standards of living and public and social
services we
now know, maintained for the normal times of
the future. And there are far too many imponderables in between now and even this
time
next year, for anybody to give me categoric assurance of any such thing. I am consequently
compelled to an attitude of economic agnosticism. I am convinced that the only thing
of
which we can be certain is that we cannot be
certain. So I cannot join in a categoric assurance
to the Newfoundland people that we are self-supporting. The possibility of a precarious
self-support I am prepared to admit. But I cannot join in
such an assurance as sees no shadows on the road
ahead. If others can, be it upon their own conscience. It is a matter of conscience
since it cannot be shown to be a matter of fact.
I note that the Economic Report quotes for our
edification the late President Roosevelt's famous
dictum — "We have nothing to fear but fear
714 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
itself." Might I point out that Roosevelt was
addressing those words to 130 million people
living in one of the richest lands of the earth and
with all the mighty forces of a highly industrialised civilization theirs to command.
The
Economic Report is addressing 320,000 people
living in one of the poorest lands of the earth, and
with but a $30 million national surplus to pull and
haul on if the going gets rough. There just happens to be a slight difference. But
now that
Roosevelt's name has come up, I remember that
he had a formula for the re-establishment of the
lives of men at a level of not less than the most
that might be had for all men. He wanted all men
everywhere to enjoy freedom from fear, freedom
from want, freedom from the fear of want. And I
like to think that he wanted that not only for the
butcher and baker and candlestick-maker he
knew, but for my last forgotten fisherman on the
bill of Cape St. George as well. And if in the
decision that confronts this nation there shall be
any way of coming by such economic security,
and yet retaining the full measure of our political
liberty, then we should not turn our backs on that
way to a more spacious destiny for purely sentimental reasons.
[The committee rose and reported progress. A
number of items on the order paper were
deferred]
