[The Secretary read pages 1 and 2 of the report]
Mr. Chairman That might be termed the first section of
the report, gentlemen. Any member wishing to debate on the report may now
speak. If you do not desire to discuss that section of the report,
gentlemen.
Mr. Miller I acknowledge there is a fish plant in Long
Harbour, Placentia Bay. I wonder if the government inspected that too, as it
is not mentioned here.
Mr. Job The bait depots are not included.
Mr. Hollett With regard to the amount of capital
invested, did the committee arrive at the amount invested by the government
or did they not?
Mr. Job I don't know of any money invested by the government. That has
certainly not been taken into account. There may be in one or two places
advances made by the government which have been paid or partly repaid, but
they have not been taken into account. These figures are rough I must
confess, but they are the nearest we can get.
Mr. Hollett I saw in the estimates where a certain amount of money had been subsidised by the
government for advances to
possible corporations. I understood also that a certain amount had
been put out, and it might be suggested that the committee arrive at
the true situation.
Mr. Chairman The committee will make inquiries into that point, Mr. Hollett.
Mr. Newell Mr. Chairman. in the fourth paragraph the wording is a little ambiguous. It reads:
"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
...." As it reads it might
seem as if the value was of small return to the pickers, but I am sure
that is not the thought of the Fishery Committee, or is it?
Mr. Job I think that the idea was that the cost of the
picking was small comparatively, and it was a very worthwhile return to the
pickers. I think it was because the price paid to the pickers was
small in past years.
Mr. Hollett There is another question about bait sold
to fishermen. The report states that "The bait frozen (squid and herring)
was substantial, but nothing like the present-day volume because the
fishermen were not generally so accustomed to using the frozen bait as they
are now." I don't believe that, because years ago the only reason why
fishermen did not use frozen bait very generally was because of the cost,
which was almost prohibitive in view of the amount of money they
received for the fish caught. I was wondering if the committee would be good
enough to look into the present cost of bait as supplied to first, our
shore fishermen, and second, our bank fishermen. It is absolutely essential
if our fishermen are to use frozen bait that some means be found to
supply that bait at the least possible cost. The committee might be able to
get some figures with regard to that.... It is several years since I
had anything to do with fishery conditions, but in those old days there were
a good many cases of the fall fishing being given up merely because
for that fishery it became necessary for the banking fleet to procure frozen
bait, and after trying it for a number of years they discovered that
the returns which the individual fisherman made on that trip were absolutely
nil when they took into consideration the cost of
outfitting for that fall trip, which is much more than for a trip in the
summer or spring, and that cost was largely brought about by the money
which fishermen were charged up with on account of bait. I think
it is important for us to know just how the supply of bait now would apply
to the possibility of fishermen prosecuting the bank fishery in the
late fall, and whether or not we might not come to the conclusion that the
fishermen are perfectly right. It is senseless for a man
to go out on the last trip in the fall if they find when they come in with a
loaded ship that they still have nothing coming to them towards their
income for the winter... I would suggest that it would be wise if we knew
just what it would cost a banker, or the individual member of a crew, to
get sufficient bait to enable him to proceed on the fall trip.
Mr. Job That's an interesting point. I really don't know, but we
could take it up. I should have thought that there would be no question at
all that they would make a good deal of money on it, but I can't say
definitely.
Mr. Hollett I am referring to the salt fishery more than to
the fresh.
Mr. Job I was thinking of the fresh fish.
Mr. MacDonald Mr. Chairman, might I ask the committee if
they can tell us by whom these ships are owned or who operates them? Another
heavy investment is the draggers. Is that investment by private
enterprise or is the government going to bill us for new draggers?
Mr. Burry Mr Chairman, there is a small item here regarding
the smelt fishery. l have no doubt there will be more said about that, but I
wonder if there is any idea of continuing this industry to any extent,
of if it means anything to Newfoundland. I know there is a lot of
smelt on the Labrador, and I was wondering if there was any possibility
of the fresh freezing process being continued, as I think we might have some
frozen and sent to the markets. I know the committee will be dealing
with this further and they might go into that.
Mr. Job I think it is gradually increasing.
Mr. Chairman Any further comment on that section, gentlemen? Are you
ready for the questions? Moved that section 1 be adopted.
[The section was adopted. The Secretary read
pages 3, 4 and 5 of the report][1]
Mr. Northcott I wonder if the committee could tell this
Convention just what is Newfoundland's quota on fillets, etc., under the
preferential rate of l-7/8 cents.
Mr. Job We are really operating under a joint quota and it is to this
country's advantage to get as many pounds as possible in under this quota at
the earliest possible date.
Mr. Job I cannot touch that question.
Mr. Smallwood Is there a race to get in that 18 million
pound quota?
Mr. Job We produce as much as we can and get it in as soon
as we can. There is no actual race. We want to get a quota of our own, and a
special one, if we can.
Mr. Smallwood With the total quota for Newfoundland and Canada being 18 million pounds, is the
situation now that the
one who gets there first gets the larger share of the total quota? Might
it not be a little dangerous to get a quota of our own? Our share of the
18 million pounds was 5 million, and unless the quota was increased might
it not be dangerous? Last year we got 5 of the 18 millions; we succeeded
to that extent but if a definite quota is obtained is not the position that
it might be less than the amount we got last year? I have in mind the
pitifully small volume of fishery exports of Newfoundland as compared
with those of Canada. I am not in the trade and many of the members of
the Fishery Committee are and undoubtedly they know of what is in the
minds of the Fisheries Board and in Mr. Gushue's mind, but to me it does
seem that there is a certain amount of danger.
Mr. Ballam I think there is a very great danger if we do
not have a quota, in view of the fact that today you have a joint quota and
this new plant is starting in Louisbourg....
Mr. Job That is why I referred to the necessity of making
some special arrangements direct with the United States on this matter.
Unless we do get some special arrangements we may not get any thing. We
want to get a good quota but it will depend on ourselves.
Mr. Hollett There is one paragraph to which I would like to
refer. On page 4: "The codfish sold
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
77 to the cold storage plants will certainly, in the
long run, give the fishermen much better returns than those from saltfish."
I wonder how long that run is going to be? We are trying to think of some
way by which we can raise the standard of the people, and the only way
is to raise the standard of the primary producer. I am afraid the price for
fresh fish paid to the man who goes out in the morning and comes back
in the evening, will largely depend on the amount of money that that
man would get if he had salted the fish, provided there was no fish plant
there. I have all honour and respect for the men who have been building
up this fresh fish industry. The progress made over the last few years
is marvellous — tremendous.... But the point is this: if the fresh
fish industry is going to be of real benefit to this country, it must,
primarily, be of a real benefit to the primary producer — the man who goes
out and risks his life... At the moment a man goes out and catches
fish and comes in hoping to sell in cold storage. He may be unable to do
that; therefore he has to salt it, make it and dry it. How are
we going to prevent some unscrupulous fresh fish man from taking
advantage of that situation? He has, in a real sense, a gun which he can put
to that man's head by saying, "All right, go salt your fish, you will
get only $5 or $10. You do not have to work; you do not have to run the risk
of weather." How are we going to prevent this? If this Convention is
going to back the fresh fish industry, we have to be careful about that
point. Fresh fish is all right — a lot of fortunes have been made out
of it. You may say, "How am I going to gain by it? I will not have to get
down on the flake and spread it? How much more is it going to raise
the standard of living?" The answer to that is to unite. Unless the fresh
fish trade endeavours to work up some sort of co—operation between
themselves, the fishermen and the packers, then I am afraid the
fresh fish industry will go the way of saltfish. I put it through you to the
Fisheries Board that is something that has to be taken into account.
We have first to raise the standard of living of the people; from the fresh
fish industry as well as the lumbering industries and everything else,
and I suggest that one of the first things the promoters of the fresh fish
industry have to do is to gain the confidence of the men
who produce the raw material. How it is
going to be done is
not for me to say, but unless it is done, the fresh fish industry is ruined
from the start. Any man interested in the fresh fish industry must
take care to see that the price paid to fishermen for fresh fish is not
going to be governed by the price for salt fish.
Mr. Job In replying to that, it is stated in the same
paragraph, "one of the objectives of the cold storage operators is to pay as
high a price as possible to the fishermen." But there is a lot of
money invested and unless the operator can do well in the first few years of
the industry, it is going to be a bad job...
Mr. Fogwill It is my opinion and the opinion of many
others, that the objective of the cold storage operators is to pay as low a
price as possible, and that sentence should not be embodied in the
report.
Mr. Newell I was going to make somewhat the same
remark. I would like to know just what evidence the Fisheries Committee has
at its disposal on which it based this assertion? I am
prepared to accept it on evidence from the committee, otherwise I
am not prepared to accept it....
Mr. Job We have no evidence other than the statements of
the cold storage plants. You could put the word 'alleged' or 'declared' in
there.
[The section was amended accordingly]
Mr. Job I see the old suspicion still exists, that the
operators of all commercial concerns are after one thing. In my experience
the merchants have done a good job in the past and in the most part
have the country's interest at heart.
Mr. Newell It is not a case of suspicion. I am of the
opinion that business is business and I am sorry to have to raise the point,
but I could not accept the statement as it stood. I want to have as
little to say as possible on the subject, but I am in possession of certain
knowledge with regard to the operation of fresh fish plants which made it
impossible for me to accept that as it stood... Mr. Northcott On page
5, paragraph
5
[1]
it says, "There are only four or five large exporters to the USA
market..." Who knows that in ten years' time there will not be 20 such
plants? I would like the Committee to bear that in mind.
Mr. Job I suggest that be amended to read "There are
at present only four or five large
exporters."
[The sentence was amended]
78
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946
Mr. Hollett I hope Mr. Job did not think I was laying
any charges against the merchants. I agree that merchants have many times
done a good job. Our resources are of mushroom growth and mushrooms do
not grow except under favourable circumstances. Our natural resources are
our producers and unless co-operation is kept between the
fresh fish industry and the producer it will go the way of the saltfish
industry.
Mr. Job In the past the cake has not been large enough
to divide. In the fresh fish industry we are trying to enlarge the cake so
that there will be enough to provide for the primary producer.
Mr. Hollett If he believes that, why does he say the men
who put up the money must be paid, must have their money back, must pay off
capital expenditure?
Mr. Job I did not say "pay off" capital expenditure, but I do say "reduce" the expenditure.
The plants will cost twice as
much in say five years time.
Mr. Jackman In regard to merchants, we could leave them
to organised labour. What we want to get at is the market. Have we any
figures on the consumption of frozen fish in the United States?
Mr. Job What we could supply is a mere drop in the
bucket.
Mr. Jackman I think this mere drop in the bucket should be supplied in return for what we have
given them in the past. I
am referring to markets and prices.
Mr. Northcott In trying to get tariff concessions, I would suggest all fish produced in Newfoundland
be
embodied in this report.
Mr. Newell There is a very interesting item on page
6
[1]
showing the comparative years 1943 to 1946 — labour. In connection with
operating plants, I wonder if the committee could make it even more
illuminating. We might be able to obtain figures of how much fish was
produced and what was the overhead and operating cost, and we might be
optimistic enough to find out what the gross production was in dollars.
Mr. Job These figures were given us confidentially, and if it became necessary to ask for
more information we could
try to get it.
Mr. Ballam You notice that the amount paid to
the fishermen in 1946 is practically four times the amount paid for 1943,
whilst that for labour has just doubled; either the fishermen must have done
exceptionally well or the labourers were very poorly paid.
Mr. Harrington This is an interim report as I
understand, and so far we have had a reasonably illuminating discussion on
the various points contained in it, but there is a great deal of talk
about fishermen versus the merchants, etc, and the real purpose of this
aftemoon's meeting was to get to the summary of the report, Mr. Smallwood has been
very quiet, and I am sure that he has something
to say, and would suggest we waive the rest of this discussion as time is
passing.
Mr. Chairman Moved that the second section of the
interim report as read and amended be adopted.
[The second section was adopted, and the
Secretary read the summary]
Mr. Chairman Any comments on this concluding
section of the report?
Mr. Ballam Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in speaking on
the interim report of the Fisheries Committee, the main object of which is
the cold storage industry, may I first congratulate the committee on
the excellence of their report, and the thoroughness with which they have
reviewed the situation, in regard to the future of the industry, and the possibilities
of its expansion. Mr. Job has given us an
excellent resumé of conditions under which our fisheries will have to
function, and stressed the necessity of markets, with favourable tariffs and
trade relations, primarily with the United States. We feel that the
concessions granted to the United States in the way of leases of
Newfoundland territory for 99 years, together with free importations for use
at their bases, use of roads, etc., should justify some adequate
returns, and I concur with the report as presented in its entirety, but will
add that more stress should be placed on other phases of the industry,
particularly the herring industry.
In section 5, page 8
[2], you do mention herring
and its by-products such as oil and meal.... Coming from the home of the herring,
I would be
remiss in my duty if I did not point out a few facts
that are peculiar to the industry, and of great
October 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 79
importance when speaking of markets. The industry has grown from an export value of
$236,000 in the year 1934-35 to $2,071,000 in
the year 1944-45, and to a much greater amount
in the last year. We know that herring are available in vast quantities, and amounts
already
procured can be maintained and probably augmented if we find the markets. The greater
bulk
of the herring exported in this last year or two
went to contracts placed by UNRRA, and although we hope this will be maintained there
is
no guarantee. It is obvious, in order to keep this
growing industry at its present level, new markets
must be found. I did not hear Mr. Gushue's
speech on this subject at Rotary
[1], and also mislaid
the paper containing his speech. I will say that he
and his board have done a good job in respect to
the herring industry.
Getting back to the cold storage industry, you
will note that there is not a cold storage or quick-
freezing plant on the west coast, north of Port-
aux-Basques or Isle-aux-Morts. It would seem
that where the herring are in abundance, as in the
Bay of Islands, would be the most logical place
to have such a plant, since bait could be obtained
not only for our own fisheries, but exported for
the same purpose. We do, during the winter
months export quite a lot of herring to Canada,
frozen by natural process. It is probable these
matters have been gone into by the Fisheries
Committee, or will be looked into at future meetings. I am not forgetting when speaking
of herring to mention the importance of fish meal
plants, and am happy to say we have one of the
finest in the country owned by our mutual friend
Mr. Chesley Crosbie, in Bay of Islands. I think
that this phase of the herring industry can be
developed on a far greater scale if given aid and
encouragement.
When speaking of the herring industry, and I
have mentioned Bay of Island particularly, I do
not want to sectionalise the debate. I speak of it
as it affects the country as a whole, not one
particular part thereof, but, I do say, that in Bay
of Islands we have been, and will probably continue to be, sadly neglected in our
efforts to
promote this great and coming industry. We have
always had and will probably continue to have a
shortage of nets and gear. Also, due to the fact
that shipping closes at an early date due to ice,
much of the produce must be shipped by rail.
Incidentally, all of these products so shipped
must be hauled from the waterfront to the railroad
station, and we have only an abused cowpath on
which to do this most important work....
At the present time in Bay of Islands quite a large processing plant is being constructed
by a Canadian firm which will in all probability include refrigeration. Does it not
seem strange that outside interests have to come and do a job which should be done
by our own government or local interests?....
Mr. Butt Mr. Chairman, when the Fisheries Committee
presented the report which we now have before us it raised a question which
is more important than the apparent subject matter of the report proper.
I feel sure that as it was listened to by the majority of the members of the
Convention, and since that time by the public generally,
there arose in the minds of the majority something of the
past history of Newfoundland...
If we go back into Newfoundland's history far
enough we have, on the authority of McLintock
[2]
in particular, a clear picture of how in her struggle
to establish herself, Newfoundland had to grow
up in an atmosphere where the whole power of
great nations tended to depress the struggling
colony. Newfoundland, and the potential and actual wealth of her fisheries, were treated
as just
another source of producing wealth for the
mother country as well as a training ground for
the defence of Britain, which at that time was
looked upon as the chief preoccupation of
government. In our studies of the problem of
governing Newfoundland we are almost invariably faced with the fact that the greatest
problem of government is the dispersal of our people.
People may vary in their interpretation of the
reasons for our having settled so far apart from
each other, but if my reading of Newfoundland
history is correct the repressive measures taken
against settlement in the island were the main
cause of our having to hide away in places where
we could not be found. In addition, and because
80 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1946
of our settlement in isolated places and our preoccupation with the fisheries, there
came down
through the years a feeling that agriculture, which
in most countries formed the basis of a stable
economy, should not be pushed so far as it could.
These facts helped it to form an economy which
has never in our history made for stability, and
has given us almost without regard to economic
conditions in the outside world a long series of
recurrent depressions.
In a world in which industries were organised
more or less on an individualistic basis, Newfoundlanders were able to extract a tolerable
though relatively poor living. When in more
recent times the emphasis in industry changed
from individual to mass production, the instability of the Newfoundland economy showed
up, as ours was then an economy out of keeping
with world progress In addition there were occasions when our own statesmen should
have
been able to alleviate conditions by reciprocity
treaties with other countries, but there appeared
always to be the interests of some power standing
in the way. Witness the Bond-Blaine Treaty.
[1]
Carrying on this sketchy remembrance of past
history we see weaknesses which may or may not
have been caused by circumstances in our own
handling of the situation: for example, a too great
contribution to World War I on the financial side
— not that Newfoundland should not have given
her utmost, but that she had no right to give far
beyond her capacity; and afterwards, a complete
lack of disinterested self-interest in handling the
burden of debt at a time of world crisis; and
further an apparent unwillingness or inertia on
the part of Newfoundlanders to accept full responsibility for thinking out our own
problems and
carrying them through Arising out of this later
weakness, and bringing ourselves down to the
present day, we allowed ourselves to be put in a
position where again we have found that the little
margin between abject poverty and an ordinary
decent standard of living has been jeopardised.
With these thoughts in mind I suggested
yesterday the adjournment of the debate on the
Fisheries interim report which was obviously
designed to bring together a protest on behalf of
what, I believe, is a majority of Newfoundlanders
against concessions given at Newfoundland's expense and over such a long period. Coming
straight to the point of the proposal, I must say
that I realise that in the end governmental and
economic influence lies where power resides. In
other words, if a small population in a small
island happens to get in the way of larger and
more powerful interests, inevitably — in the
world as it has been constituted in the past — that
island is dealt with as the powers decide. I am not
concerned at the moment with whether binding
contracts or legal technicalities may be used as
an argument for a fatalistic attitude on our part. I
am concerned with a new world which places
emphasis on the welfare of small countries as
well as great....
I suggest, therefore, that this problem of appealing to great powers on a humanitarian
basis
should be pushed to the limit of our ability. I
would not have any of my listeners feel that I
subscribe to a begging attitude. I suggest the
problem be approached with dignity and on the
basis that Newfoundlanders have something to
offer which should command a reasonable return
from fellow human beings — a position of
strategic and geographical importance which
should be as much shared by us as the position of
wealth and purchasing power might be shared by
other countries in the interests of all. It may be
argued that Newfoundland has already been paid
for concessions which have been given to other
countries in the form of a prosperity which we
never before enjoyed, but I would point out that
the prosperity came not so much by design as by
accident and our concern is not with the temporary present as with the continuing
future.
You will note that the Fisheries Committee
left their recommendations as it were in mid-air,
in that they suggested that negotiations should be
initiated at once: they did not say by whom. I
appreciate the committee's difficulties in this
respect because their only appeal could be to a
government which committed this country to the
bases deal without making reservations for a
reconsideration of the position after the stress of
war passed. And at our stage of political in
October 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 81decision, it would appear futile to ask that
government to initiate new proposals. Further, as
a Convention we have not yet clearly defined our
own status, I must confess that I read into our
terms of reference wider powers than we as a
body have yet assumed. This, although it has an
important bearing on the question now before us,
is a problem which will take more definite shape.
In the meantime, I suggest that the committee's
proposal be accepted unanimously and that we
ought in the days before us clarify our minds as
to how Newfoundland should proceed with the
important question of seeking adequate returns
for benefits shared.
Mr. Hickman This first report presented to the
Convention is perhaps one of the most important on which debate will take
place. I am not directly interested in the fishing industry myself, but am
vitally concerned with the contents of this report inasmuch as it
affects the welfare of this country as a whole. I have studied the report
with interest and find that we have made some great strides in
advancement in this particular phase of the fishing industry. From
the original start, which covered only items such as salmon, blueberries
and smelts, we have in a very short while through keen progressiveness
reached the worthwhile figure of approximately 30 million pounds
of fresh cod frozen in its various forms of fillets.
For this country to be economically sound and
to continue as such, the economic welfare of the
people and particularly of the primary producer
must also be sound. This can only be in fact when
we can have these dependent upon our first and
largest industry earning an economic living
wage. While the paper and mining industries may
be the largest in certain respects, yet the fishing
industry with its various types of production is
the mainstay of the majority of the people in this
island. While these larger industries provide
employment and other sources of revenue, yet it
is the primary producer who is the backbone of
this country, even though there may be yet undeveloped mines and other natural resources
which may come into operation within the next
few years. There are approximately 25,000
fishermen directly employed in the production of
fish and by-products, and if we allow them an
average of four dependents to a family, that
would give us approximately half of our population. We must not forget that in addition
to these
producers there are many who derive their living
from the necessary work involved in conjunction
with the handling, packaging and exporting of
our production, such as coopers, truckmen,
longshoremen and other intermediary workers.
These, together with the fishermen and their dependents give us an estimated half
of our population who are directly dependent upon the various
phases of our productive economy.
Although great strides have been made in
recent years it is obvious that our production must
not only include codfish, but other types of fish
as well. I cannot give an accurate estimate of what
the country's total production need be to produce
a secure standard of living. But I imagine it would
have to be raised to something over one million,
to possibly two million pounds a year, so that a
lower cost could be gained, and at the same time
give the maximum return and benefit to the
producer.
The most important point of the interim report
is contained in the introductory remarks of Mr.
Job. He reported that "The United States market
is our main hope for the future." I consider that a
very pertinent point. Tariff arrangements should
be concluded with the United States that will
assure us of being able to dispose of our fish
products on a fair competitive basis, and I feel
that an assurance or arrangement must be concluded for a length of time that will
give us a
source of security for the Newfoundland
producer.
It may not be within the rights of this National
Convention to recommend or suggest policy to
our present government, but I do feel that our
point, if unanimously adopted by this Convention, should be brought as strongly as
possible to
the attention of both our present government and
that of the United States, as well as our Canadian
friends. In the event of any negotiations coming
from this recommendation it might be wise to
point out to our Canadian friends that in this
instance we would not wish to have any repetition
of interference or blocking, as occurred with the
Bond-Blaine treaty.
The whole future of this country depends upon
this great industry and we cannot be too strong in
our efforts to obtain security for the future. The
decision of this Convention as to the form or
forms of government which should be recommended to the people of Newfoundland must
82 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1946
have a bearing on the future prospects and national welfare and economy of the country
as a whole.
I can do no more than support very strongly the
remarks of my friend Mr. Job when he presented
this report.
Mr. Smallwood I have very genuine admiration for the work of the
Fisheries Committee in the preparation of this interim report. I am always
filled with admiration by evidence of work done, particularly work of
research, and the report, insofar as it is factual, statistical, insofar as
it reviews something of the history and present dimensions of the fresh
fish industry, is a very fine piece of work. I know that Mr. Job for many
years has been something of a pioneer in the fisheries of this country
and we find him now one of the pioneers in the fresh fish developments. I
have often wondered whether it was a good thing for Newfoundland to turn
away from her centuries-old method of fishing. I do not refer
merely to the technical methods of fishing, but to the social or
sociological; we have had 30, 40 and 50,000 petty capitalists — whether it is
a good thing to turn away from that and to industrialise the fishing and
increase the units of production; to increase mechanical processing; turn the
fishery from what it has so long been, an adventure, a highly
individualistic adventure, developing certain sturdy independence
and individualism in our fishermen; turning from that into what can only
be called industrialism in the fishery, reaching perhaps ultimately some day
to the fishery proletariat — men engaged for wages as they might be in a
clothing factory, in a mine or paper mill or any other industrial
enterprise.... My head tells me we must change; we must become
industrialised; we must go ahead or go under; yet I will watch this
trend to industrialism in the fisheries with a great deal of interest in
the next ten, 20 or 30 years, if I live that long. I know it must come; it is
inevitable and indeed it may be regrettable. Mr. Bradley has told me of
the developments in Bonavista in the last four or five years. I lived in
Bonavista at a time of desperate privation; he has lived there latterly in
the
time of a partially industrialised fishery. He tells me that a social
revolution has occurred there in living conditions and standards since the
fresh fish freezing plant has been established. So, I have a great
deal of sympathy for and a great deal of appreciation of the importance of
this new development and also a great deal of concern. I am sure Mr.
Crosbie will recall my expressions of concern and worry about future markets
for fresh fish. I felt that in times of shortages of food, especially
protein foods, we could ship fish into the United States and get our prices;
leap over the duty and not feel it.... But what of the day when there
will not be a world food shortage, when in the United States itself perhaps
they will once again be ploughing under every third furrow of cotton,
and the farmers will be paid by the government to destroy their pigs and
their crops, or perhaps not to plant at all; when the coffee of Brazil
will be used experimentally as fuel to run railways; when the trawlers dump
their fish rather than block a market already glutted? What of the day
when shortages will have disappeared, particularly the shortage of
protein foods? What then about our fishery? What then of our fresh fish
industry, whose markets have been in the Untied States of America?
I went this forenoon to the office of the
American Consul General to ask him if he had
statistics showing the quantities of fish imported
into the United States. I brought back a statistical
abstract of the published figures. The figures
come up to as late as March past and in the short
time I had I took up the figures from September
last — 7 months. The figures are given in pounds
and they sound astronomical. For the past seven
months the figures are:
*
Total of 250,000 pounds of fish, or 420 million
pounds per year. I looked back over the period
before the war when there was no shortage of
protein food, and I find that in 1937-1940 the
average imports of fish into the United States
amounted to 328 million pounds or something
like 100 million pounds less than what it is now
October 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 83
averaging.... I was interested to discover the
production of fish in the United States, and I
found that besides importing 425 million pounds
a year, she is producing herself something over 4
billion pounds a year — 12 times as much fish as
she imports. The American consumption of fish
is 32 pounds per year per capita. Of the 32 pounds
consumed she imports three and produces 29
pounds. I wonder seriously, as I have done for
more than a year, what is the future of the fresh
fish industry of Newfoundland in the United
States when times come back to normal, which
we hope they some day will?
Now, this business of approaching America
for special consideration for the admission of our
fish... I wonder honestly and sincerely what can
we do with the United States. I ask the question
sincerely, because I wonder sincerely what we
can do. If they have indeed a multilateral policy,
tariff action and trade agreements and trade
treaties, and if it is a fact that they are trying to
make up an international trade organisation, and
if it is their policy not to deal in bilateral trade
agreements, what can be done by this Convention
or by the Commission of Government or by the
Government of Great Britain or any other
country? By all means let us try, but we have
imposed on us in this Convention a very solemn
and very important duty. We must face facts. It
is because we did not that we lost self-government in 1934.
Whatever we can get out of the United States, I am all for it. I am all for
having this Convention send a delegate there if they
will receive us and if they are prepared to talk
business with us.... I am as much concerned as any
man for the future of this country, for the standard
of our people's lives. I know that our people have
never had a square deal, and I know they are not
getting a square deal now, I know they are being
looted and plundered. My own family, working class
people, my father and mother and my brothers,
are being looted. I happen to have been a bit
luckier than the rest because a rich uncle educated
me (after looting the people to get the money, and I
happened to benefit from part of that looting), but I am still of the blood and guts
of
the class I spring from. If it becomes necessary to
tell some of the truth I am quite prepared to tell it,
but I do want facts to be faced. I don't want
this Convention to be led down a blind alley, but
let us try with our eyes open, knowing where we
are likely to land before we begin.
Mr. Butt Mr. Smallwood gave a lot of figures on the
fish imports into the United States, and from the facts shown they are
importing an extra million pounds per year. Do you mean to say we will
not be able to sell any more fish in the United States?
Mr. Smallwood No, I did say that from 1937 to 1940
imports into the United States then as compared with now showed
the present level is one hundred million pounds a year higher than before
the war, the increase being accounted for, I suppose, by the
world shortage of food, and particularly of protein- containing
foods, but when that shortage disappears, and with American fishermen
producing 12 times as much fish as they are importing from abroad, it will
come back to the normal figure which is a lot less.
Mr. Job The imports today are of frozen and fresh fish,
and frozen fish a few years ago was not in existence.
Mr. Butt You left the impression that we should get out
of the fish business. It seems as if there would be no object in our staying
in the business under these conditions. You did not mean that, did
you?
Mr. Smallwood No, I did not mean that. I am wondering
what will happen to our fish market in the States when the food situation
returns to normal.
Mr. Higgins I have been listening very attentively to my learned friend Mr. Smallwood and he
has had me practically
hypnotized for the past half hour, but the salient facts are these. If
Newfoundland is going to go ahead we have to look to the
fish industry for the future. Because, from that much discussed
Chadwick-Jones report the fact emerges that the greatest number of people
gainfully employed in the country come from the fishing industry. That
being so, it is to increase the earnings of our people in the fishing
industry that we have to look to. The suggestion contained in this
report, and in the address of Mr. Hazen Russell given yesterday before the
Rotary Club is that the pickup of the fish industry in Newfoundland must come from
the sale of fresh frozen fish, and the people
that run this industry, the pioneers and the people who are now putting
their money into it, and in particular a man like Mr. Russell, seem to
have an unbounded faith in
84
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946 the future of this fresh fish industry. In
reading his report and the report of the Fishery Committee
the things that stand out seem to be that there will be necessary plant
extension and there will have to be subsidising of the industry to the
extent that the fishermen will be paid more money. By that I gather
that we will have to keep in line with the other countries such as Canada
and Iceland. But the whole point of this debate is the US market. If
we don't have a United States market we are not going to have a fresh fish
industry. Now that being granted, and I hope I am not going to be
accused by Mr. Butt of being a fatalist, we have got this to face with the
United States of America. They have a very large fishing population,
and are very interested in the same industry that we ourselves are trying to
increase in production. We all remember what happened here in 1938.
That big General Seafoods Corporation
[1] came in here and concluded an agreement with the
government that would have been of immense benefit to the people of this
country, and I don't know whether any local industrialist in the
fishing industry had anything to do with it or not, but when the deal was
practically through the American House of Congress, the American
Senate, the fishing industries of New England were organised to such an
extent that a prohibitive tariff was raised against that deal and
that big industry was dropped and the General Sea Foods people went
out of the picture. What power has that same New England bloc today? We know
they are vitally interested, and they are watching this new Louisbourg
proposition in Canada, and even the debates in this house. We saw yesterday
one of the representatives of the US government present here and
everything that goes on is going to be of interest. Now the point is, is the
western bloc referred to by Mr. Russell, namely the western states, of
sufficient power to overcome the lobbying effect of the New England fish
bloc? If not, then we might as well forget our fresh fish industry. If
only a 1% increase on the present tariff went on the fresh frozen fillets
going in it would not pay the industry to operate. How are we going to
block that? I would certainly try but the bases are here, that's an
accomplished fact. We can't tomorrow or the next day say, "Give us
these concessions or we will turn you out." We
might as well forget that. The only thing we can do is trust to the
humanitarian principles of the people we are going to sell our fish to, and
that's why I am a bit sorry that all this debate had to happen in
public. The Government of the United States might know about it, and the
people of the United States may know what we are going to do, but if
the American interests know that we are going into this industry in a big
way they may take the steps necessary to see that we are squashed....
Mr. Crosbie I have been listening to what I consider to
be an awful lot of pessimism. We have the finest fishing ledge known in the
world. One American fish man told me the time would come when the US
would have to come to Newfoundland waters to get her fish. Before
the war, in the midwestem states very little fish was consumed. The methods of freezing
and keeping frozen fish have changed
entirely in the last ten years. The cost of a freezing unit is very small
today compared to ten years ago. One town in the midwestem states did
not consume one pound of fish per year. They put in a Birdseye freezer there,
and they increased their consumption of fish in a few months from none
to 15 lb. per person. We have no reason to be pessimistic. Why should we
not ask for tariff concessions? We can ask, and if we don't get them,
well, we can't be blamed. We can fight anyway. It is true there is a tariff
on fresh fish in the United States, but that does not say that it can't
be changed. I don't expect this government to go back and ask for
a change in the base agreement. They can't — they signed it. The
American market is not the only market for fresh fish. The methods of
processing fish are changed entirely. You can take and consume huge quantities in
this country year in and year out. Within the last
couple of months I have had inquiries for a fairly large tonnage of frozen
fish from Brazil, which now takes hardly any saltfish at all. We can't
send it down because we have not the cold-storage ships and facilities, and
they have not the facilities to handle it either, but I believe that
will change in a year or two and we may have a market in Brazil or other
countries. I say let's find out what procedure we have got to use, We
have heard a lot about procedure lately. "Procedure" is a
lovely word. You are told you can't do
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
85 this or that. Who are you afraid you will disturb,
the United States, the Commission of Government, the Dominions
Office in Great Britain? We have rather to ask and try to get some
arrangement with the American government, and if we can't
get markets in the US, let's go somewhere else.
Mr. Higgins I don't want to be misunderstood. I did not
suggest no action be taken, but I do think it should be taken in such a
manner as will be proper, and not belligerently.
Mr. Smallwood I am saying this for the benefit of the
House and not Mr. Crosbie, and I don't want him to misunderstand me. Let us
do something if possible, but not through the government
that has betrayed this country for the past 13 years, let this Convention
make the approach. Mr. Crosbie Now if you could tell me how to get
over the question of procedure, I might be able to tell you how to get over
the American tariff.
Mr. Reddy I think this question of trade should be
brought into this. We import from Canada $19 million worth of trade; could
we not inject it in the report. We keep 16 or 19 factories going on a
million dollars each. I think that should be gone into thoroughly. The
question of trade may help soften the Americans. I would like to see them
more familiar with our trade. If Canada wanted to block it as she did
in other industries, we could put up the question of trade.
Mr. Job I take it it will be seen by the Commission of Government in some form or other.
I do not think We ought to take
a pessimistic attitude. I listened to Mr. Smallwood and think he took a
defeatist attitude. He referred to imports which America had from
Iceland, but surely in the case of Newfoundland which has given 99 year
leases of valuable concessions, we ought to have trade concessions
different from Iceland.
Mr. Job It is a matter for development. I do not know.
I hope it will be done by our own government, the British
government and the Canadian government and that something may come of it.
Mr. Hollett There are other points apart from actual
tariff concessions which a good many gentlemen would like to speak about and
I would suggest we adjourn until after dinner. I move the adjournment
of the debate.
Mr. Cashin I did not propose to say anything on this
matter because we are passing this interim report through the committee
stage and it asks that the Commission of Government or the Dominions
Office to do something with regard to getting for our fish favourable
concessions into the United States. We have been working on this,
reading it section by section — one would think it was a bill being
introduced into Parliament, whereas it is an interim report of the Fisheries
Committee, suggesting we do something about our fish. Whether we can
get the concessions or not we have to try, and we should pass this report
without debate. We should be as one and forget whether the merchant or
the fisherman is going to get gypped. We have to get the concessions
from the United States if we can, if not, we have to do something else about
it. I suggest the debate be finished and let us be as one in this
connection.
Mr. Ballam I agree with Major Cashin but I am not content that we
should, in dealing with fresh fish, leave the other fisheries out. The report
says "Herring and its by-products may be mentioned", it is not "may be"
it
must be. They have a right to a place
just as much as fresh frozen fish.
Mr. Ballam They must be mentioned on a common
basis. The herring industry is just as important as the fresh fish
industry and there is a possibility of losing the market because of
UNRRA'S going out and we do not want to lose it; we want to get more, not
less.
Mr. Bailey I take it all stages of the fishery will be
considered in the same way. One kind of fish is just as essential as the
other. I believe we may be able to get our fresh fish onto a firm footing. I
am sure this report is good and we should back it and try and get
something. One of the hardest things we have to face is selling in a cheap
market and buying in a dear market. We have to buy where we sell and
if we cannot sell, we should not buy. We are the largest customer per capita
the United States has and we are the best customer of
Canada. They have to make way for us. In 1922 we imported goods to the value
of $287 million and they took goods to the value of $270,000 from us.
How can we live like that? I do not believe anyone is fighting for our
markets. We just want to swop. I say to the men processing fresh fish,
go ahead, and I say to this Convention, let us go ahead. Let us vote anyway.
86 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1946
Mr. Job I move that this report be adopted.
Mr. MacDonald Does it mean that these recommendations will be carried out? If it does, I hope
that we are going to
deal with the United States on reduction of tariffs, they will also consider other
industries, such as paper, etc.
Mr. Cashin Pulp and paper have free entry into the
United States. The Americans do not manufacture.
Mr. Hollett What is meant by "adopting the report".
There are several points to be brought up. If we adopt the report, what
follows?
Mr. Chairman The Convention resolved itself into a
committee of the whole to consider the report. Before that happened the
report had to be read. Now the duty of the committee is to consider the report and
having considered it, to rise and recommend that it
be adopted by the Convention. After the committee rises that will
be done.
Mr. Hillier I move that we adjourn the debate until Monday.
Mr. Chairman There is a motion before the Chair that
the report be adopted.
Mr. Job I do not want to press mat if the Convention thinks it should be further debated.
Mr. Chairman There is a motion before the Chair that we
rise and resume at 8 o'clock.
Mr. Hollett Before I can vote for the adoption of this
report, I want to know why requests are made for action to be taken to get
tariff concessions from the United States? I want to know
why. Is it that the fresh fish industry cannot carry on longer at the
present rates? If that is so, I would say adopt the report. But surely it
must have some facts and figures to show that the fresh fish industry is in danger
of extinction by reason of tariffs placed
on it by the United States. They must bring figures to show that. We are
told that Canada, who has hitherto blocked our efforts, is anxious to
help, the United States is anxious to help, other countries are anxious to
help, but these things have to be debated before I am prepared to
adopt this report. I am not in favour of the motion to adopt the report.
[The committee of the whole rose and reported
progress. The Convention adjourned]
