Mr. Hickman Mr. Chairman, before the
Secretary reads the report I would like to say that
I do not intend to introduce it with a long talk,
because after it has been read it will be only a
matter of duplication. I would like to point out
that, with respect to local industries, pulp and
paper, mining, fisheries and forestry have their
own committees, so consequently we could not
touch on those and had to confine ourselves to the
smaller or secondary industries. We did not have
any statistics or sources of information whatever.
We tried several channels but could not get anything on which to base our report.
That presented
quite a difficulty with the result that the report is
not as complete as if there had been a statistical
department of the government which had kept
these figures over a number of years, and which
could have given us comparative figures. This is
a disappointment to the Committee, and perhaps
to you too. The Committee worked very hard, and
everything possible was done. You will see now
that we have had a job in collecting a lot of that.
[The Secretary read part of the report]
Mr. Cashin May I ask Mr. Hickman to turn back
to page 3. I notice here that tobacco and cordage
are grouped as one. Was it not possible to have
them separate?
Mr. Hickman No. The questionnaire was sent
out separately and we received one reply from the
industries.
Mr. Cashin I appreciate there are many members in this Convention who may not understand
protective tariffs, and that is why I asked Mr.
Hickman why these three things were put
together. You will probably remember 22 years
ago I made my House of Assembly debut on
protective tariffs, and one of these industries was
tobacco. That's one particular fault I find with
this report; it does not show the protective tariff
these industries have. I agree in principle they
should have a certain amount of protection, particularly when they are local, but
here is one now
that says it will not give full particulars, the
Imperial Tobacco Co. Over 60% of the stock of
that company is held outside the country, approximately 60% on watered stock, and
they
have a protection of....
Mr. Cashin When the company started we will
assume that they have so many shares, I am
bringing my mind back 20 years, and at that time
they had watered their stock several times. That
means that if they put in $100 and they were
getting 15% on it, then the next year, if they
watered it and made those shares worth $200, that
would mean that they were getting 30% on their
original investment.
Mr. Cashin If they have a good year, and they
pay a 20% dividend on their common stock, they
would "water" that and give two shares for one.
I am not particularly opposed to protective tariffs,
but this company has $550,000 a year in protective tariffs, and I think the people
of this country
should know, and also the members of this Convention. What is the use of this Convention
if we
can't get these facts? Here we have it borne out
— three companies gang up and say, "We won't
give the facts". I did not intend to speak on this,
but I saw here that they had 218 employees
between the three of them, and they pay $400,000
wages that is about $1,700 on average. Now some
of our other industries that belong to Newfoundland and have protection, pay much
more
on an average than these people do to their
employees. They are also paying 45% dividends
on theirstock. This is fact and it should be known.
The protection has been increased by the Commission govemment. I am sorry that we
have not
got a copy of the tariff here, so that we could work
it out. I think I gave some statistics to some
296 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
gentlemen of that Committee to show the tariff
protection There is an excise tariff and an import
duty, and the difference between the two is the
protection they get. If you look up the blue book
of the Customs you will see how much is
manufactured in the year and how much is imported, and work out the protection by
that. Here
is an industry controlled by the British American
Tobacco Co., one of the largest tobacco companies in the world, and it has a protection
tariff
of $550,000 a year.
Mr. Smallwood I intended to discuss the very
matter Major Cashin has raised, but not to do it
until the report was finished reading. I guess how
is the time to go into it. I have a great deal of
admiration for the work that the Committee has
done. Any of us can see they put in a lot of work.
I know the terrible difficulty they must have had
because I have been doing that kind of thing
myself, trying to get the same figures. It is one of
the complaints that I have against this government that they have not got, after 13
years, any
department to gather together just the ordinary
facts and figures and statistics to show what the
country is worth, the value of the goods
produced, and of the manufactures. We and the
government and Mr. Hickman's committee do
not know, because there is no one to tell them.
This matter of protective tariff, I can't agree with
Mr. Cashin, or with the Committee, in drawing
too sharp a line between those local industries
whose capital is owned outside the country, and
those whose capital is owned inside the country.
So far as the consumers of Newfoundland are
concerned it does not make much difference who
owns the capital, if the effect of a high protective
tariff or a high customs tariff is to drive up the
cost of living.... Why draw the line? The enquiry
that has to be made is on the effect of the tariff on
all local industries. That's the enquiry that ought
to be made. It is true the Committee goes on to
say that it would require investigation by accountants and economists in order to
determine
the degree of protection these local companies
get. If it is so it is a pity that the Local Industries
Committee did not make an effort to get an accountant and economist to do that job.
We are
down now to one of the most fundamental things
that we have to face. I heard Major Cashin in this
very chamber stand up 20 years ago, and I heard
him say that if he had his way he would take every
local industry in this country and burn it to the
ground. Now he did not mean that I know, but
what he was getting at then, and also this afternoon, and what I am trying to get
at, is this: taking
Newfoundland as a whole, we know that in a
local industry the employees get their living and
the owners get their dividends, so a local industry
is certainly good for those who are employed in
it and for those who own it, but is that local
industry good for Newfoundland? Industries are
good, but I would point out this fact, and it is the
thing that we have to keep in our minds, and if
we run into the danger of forgetting it we are
going wrong. Every man, woman and child in this
building and in this country today, is eating food
and wearing clothes, footwear, etc, bought from
the money that comes back into Newfoundland
for the fish, the paper and the minerals we ship
out. That's the only money we have, what we get
back for these three things. That's all we have to
live on — how we divide it up is another matter....
There is no other money, except during the war
when we had a lot of Canadian and American
money for base construction. There is a little
dribble still coming in. The only money that we
live on is what comes into Newfoundland from
Spain, Portugal, Italy, the West Indies, etc. for
fish, and from Canada and England for iron ore
and paper, not what is produced in these local
industries. They don't produce a single cent of
new money, they only have their share of the fish,
paper and mineral money. What follows from
this? That it is absolutely necessary for this
country to make the cost of fishing, of manufacturing paper, of mining, as cheap as
we can make
it. Are we doing that? Yes, I am afraid we are.
How? Down through the years whenever we
wanted to cut down the cost of producing fish we
cut down the price we gave the fishermen. How
did we cut down the cost of producing iron ore?
By cutting the wages of the miners. And how did
we cut down the price of paper? By cutting the
wages of the men in the mills. But that is not the
way to do it. One way is to cut down the cost of
living, and these local factories are not cutting it
down, they are making it higher. That's what is
meant in this paragraph here. What does it say?
They received 39 replies, which in their case
showed a yearly total of wages, salaries, etc. of
$3,981,000, and a yearly total of taxes, including
customs, taxes, excise, etc. of $4,800,000. Where
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 297
did that $4,800,000 come from? It came from the
fishermen, the paper makers and forest workers
and from the miners in Bell Island and Buchans
by making the cost of living higher. That's what
the local industries mean. I am far from satisfied
with what this report shows, but I don't blame the
Committee. It is one of the things that we have
kept hidden in this country. I only know a few
men, some in this house today, who are very
much alive to the effect of the protective tariff.
Here it says, "It can be clearly understood that the
tariff in effect today is a revenue tariff." Who says
it is?
Mr. Smallwood They have a perfect right to do
so, just as I have a perfect right to disagree with
the Committee. You can't say that our tariff in
Newfoundland today is a protective tariff, or a
revenue tariff, it is both, and the people pay it all.
Every cent of it comes out of the fish and the
paper and the minerals, and drives up the cost of
living. Some day someone has got to get down to
brass tacks and find out once and for all just how
far these local industries are justified, just how far
it pays the 315,000 of our population to have this
protection on these local industries.
I believe in local industries. I would be a
terrible fool if I did not, but what industries? I
believe in the industries that are natural to the
country, eg. fish.... We have the raw material
right here, and it is only a matter of hauling it out
of the water and curing it, tinning or bottling or
freezing it. Let's encourage the industry in every
way. What else is natural? Paper making, because
we have the timber and the waterpower.
Minerals, because we have the minerals. Furring,
because we have the animals, and gaming because we have the game. These are the industries
we ought to foster and protect.
You have it summed up magnificently by the
Industrial Development Board, if I can anticipate
just for a moment. "The local Industrial Board
have done a fine job ... considered the possibility
of making cement". That's all right because we
have the raw material to make cement. They sent
away samples and had them analysed and the
report came back that it would make a first-class
Portland cement. But why could they not go
ahead with a cement industry? Because some of
the raw materials are on one side of the island,
and the rest on the other side, and it would be too
expensive to bring them together to manufacture
them into cement. All you have to do is put a high
tariff on imported cement. Make out the cost of
bringing the raw materials together from east and
west and the cost of manufacturing them, and it
comes to $5 a bag to produce it here in Newfoundland. Well, make the price $5.60 for
the
imported cement by putting on a high tariff. If
you can do it for other things why not do it for
cement? Putting a protective tariff on an imported
article makes it more expensive then the local
article and drives up the cost ofliving. It was said
by Major Cashin 20 years ago, and it is a wonderful thing how Major Cashin and l are
growing to
agree with each other, I hope to convert him
before I am finished! Some day we have got to
go into this question of our tariff, above all our
protective tariff....
I don't want to say too much because the man
who will stand up and express any doubt that
these local factories are divinely blessed is likely
to be hounded out of the island. I agree they are
an imposition, and the people of the country will
never live while these duties are on, and they have
got to come off. I had better sit down before I say
too much. I am not saying a word against Mr.
Hickman's committee, or against him. The
figures are not here, and the government have not
got them. If they had a royal commission they
would not get them. You can't blame the Committee for not bringing in information
that the
government has not got. I had to get this off my
chest or burst.
Mr. Higgins Now that Mr. Smallwood has not
completely burst, I want to make a comment that
I am sure he will answer. I am a little upset about
this unholy alliance of Mr. Smallwood and Major
Cashin, but I suppose these things are bound to
happen! The thing that puzzles me is that we have
30 manufacturers making returns, and in these
concerns there are 2,300 employees. And if these
are burned or closed down what would be the
position of these employees of all those concerns? What would they do?
Mr. Smallwood Let us take any given article,
say a microphone (a very favourite article of
mine); say there is a factory manufacturing them
in St. John's. The materials have to be imported,
so the government puts a duty on the raw material
used to make these microphones of say 30%, but
298 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
on the completed microphone that might be imported into the country they put a duty
of 40% or
50%, which is aprotection of 10% or 20%. I don't
say close down the manufacturers, I say take off
the 30% duty on the raw materials, and all the
duty on the finished article, wipe out the duty
completely.
Mr. Higgins What is the real difference then so
far as profits to these manufacturers are concerned?
Mr. Smallwood I am not worried about the
profits, I am worried about the cost of living — I
have to pay more, like all of us. I am not a
shareholder in a local factory, if I were — I am
big enough to know what human nature is like —
no doubt I would like a high protective tariff, no
duty at all on the raw material, but say 50% or
60% on the finished article, so that I would have
a protective tariff of 40% or 50%. That's if I were
a shareholder. I am a consumer, and so are all of
us, and I am interested only in the cost of living.
Mr. Higgins Whilst I don't disagree with you,
how is the government going to make up the
difference in their duties under your scheme?
Mr. Smallwood Well, Mr. Cashin told us a few
minutes ago what he said 20 years ago, and I will
remind you of what I said 20 years ago in the
MCLI
[1] in a debate they had up there. I said the
day would come in Newfoundland when there
would be a political party and on their banner
they would inscribe two words "Direct Taxation", not indirect taxation as you have
today in
our customs tariff. The Chadwick-Jones report
tells us that in the last year they report the percentage of the total revenue was
risen to 30% —
30 cents out of every dollar they took in direct
taxation, but that still left you 70 cents to the
dollar that was taken in by indirect taxation. I
would say it ought to be the other way about —
70% by direct taxation and not more than 30% by
indirect taxation. That is what is crucifying the
people of this country and always did....
There was a time in Newfoundland when the
tariff amounted to 8% or 10%. Go back 20 or 30
years ago, when you got a duty of 20% it was
something unusual. It was the same as it is in
Canada today, about 10%. You take all our imports into Newfoundland last year, you
will find
it in the Chadwick-Jones report, lump them all
together and what was the average rate of duty?
25%. It would be much higher than that if we took
out the free list, the flour and beef, etc., that pays
no duty. It would probably be 40% or more.
We wonder why the cost of living is so high,
and we blame the merchants and the shopkeepers. Maybe some do deserve it, I think
there
is some profiteering, but the real trouble is the
tariff: $19 million we paid the government last
year in duty, and on it $10 million profit, that's
$29 million our tariff tacked on to the cost of
living. There is only one cure for it, to cut the duty
out altogether. A few may be hurt, but I don't
think there is any need to burn down the factories
or shut them down.
Mr. Smallwood He did not really mean that, but
he meant that if you took every employee and
gave them their present wages it would be a
couple of million dollars....
Mr. Smallwood Yes, it would pay this country,
it would pay them well, first to shut down the
factories; second to pay out that $4 million from
the treasury in wages and let them go idle, doing
nothing (we could not do that I know, but it would
pay them); and third to take the duty off and let
the cost of living come down. As Major Cashin
says, cut out these tariffs and let the people live
and breathe which they have never been able to
do.
Mr. Hickman A few of the remarks Mr.
Smallwood has made we have pointed out in the
report. He has not taken them into account. I refer
to one remark on page 8, this $4,800,000 which
he implied, and rightly so, came out of the pockets of the people who made the money.
He implied that if those local industries were not there
the people would not have had to pay that money.
They still would have had to pay it, and perhaps
more. There are certain local industries that do
make things cheaper than the imported articles.
Another thing he said was that local industries are
driving up the cost of goods. We have found that
in many cases the tariff has been reduced since
these companies have been in business. There is
one, clothing, which ran to 65% duty, and is down
today to 35% in spite of local industries being
here.
Mr. Smallwood Was the duty on raw material
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 299
reduced also?
Mr. Smallwood Do you mean they are still
paying the same duty on the raw materials?
Mr. Hickman To my knowledge. Here again
there is one case brought up in the Committee.
Some years ago the question of biscuits was
brought up and we discovered that the fancy
biscuits brought in here sold for 85 cents a pound.
The local people bought them out and the imported ones were reduced to 45 cents a
pound
immediately. There are certain instances like that
that we recommend there be a thorough study on.
I think that the sweeping statement you made
should be left until the true picture is brought out.
Mr. Smallwood I am trying to bring a plea to
have the facts brought out. I don't say the Committee can do it, but I am only pleading
that it be
done, and let us know where we stand.
Mr. Penney I have served on the Local Industries Board, and I did not intend to have a
word to say. I prefer to sit back and listen until
the report at least is read; but I have listened to
Mr. Smallwood bawling until our eardrums are
ready to burst, and if I had my way I would have
the microphones fired out of this room today and
save the people from having to listen to all this.
Local industries made the United States and
Canada, and are helping to make Newfoundland;
and in the town where I come from they help
support a good number of people, and no man
should attack them. The tariff question is another
matter altogether, and in our report, where we had
doubt about the question of tariff we asked the
Convention to investigate. Common courtesy
would expect members to listen to the whole
report before they make any loud attacks on
industries as a whole.
Mr. Smallwood I am sorry if I have offended
Mr. Penney. I hope that on reflection he will agree
that I have not attacked local industries. I have
not done so. I have attacked tariff protection of
them. In the very fine and historic town from
which Mr. Penney comes, Carbonear, they have
a very fine industry over there, but it is not
protected. It is a magnificent wood industry, and
is one of the industries that are natural to the
country. The raw material is here and you don't
need any tariff protection. Take for instance your
paper industry, that is not protected, on the contrary there is a customs duty on
many things that
go into it, which are helping to hurt it. They have
no protective tariff, but they have to pay duty on
the things that go into it. The industry Mr. Penney
refers to is not only not protected, but it is hurt
because they have to pay duty on some of their
raw material. I say take off the duty and give that
industry a better chance than it has. I am sorry
that I bawled. I can't change my voice any more
than Mr. Penney can change the shape of his nose.
I can't help it.
Mr. Jackman I believe Mr. Smallwood is advocating free trade.
Mr. Jackman Would you expect a little country
like Newfoundland to take off the duty, when
only a few days ago one of our industries is up
for a higher tariff? They want to put 50% more
on our fish, and you advocate free trade when the
United States is advocating a higher rate of duty
on our fish going in there?
Mr. Smallwood I hope no one jumps on me, but
maybe the cure is along the lines that Mr. Job is
suggesting. Maybe we can let their goods come
in here duty free and they will let our goods go in
there duty free. You might have complete free
trade between the USA and Newfoundland. Why
not?
Mr. Jackman Where are the employees
depending on local industries going to get off?
There is also Norway and Sweden and other
places competing with us for our fish, and where
could we get off?
Mr. Hollett Might I ask the convenor of the
Committee, and Mr. Smallwood, whether or not
the protective tariff is a thing unknown in any
other part of the world, or is it just here? Are there
protective tariffs in Canada?
Mr. Crosbie May I correct Mr. Smallwood? He
said there was no duty on lumber coming into this
country. There is a duty on lumber coming into
this country.
Mr. Smallwood There might as well not be. If
there is a local tariff for local lumber it is a pure
waste of printer's ink...
Mr. Hollett I agree with Mr. Penney that it is a
pity that we started this argument before the thing
has been read, however I would refer to the
returns of the tobacco and cordage companies,
where the totals are grouped as one. Why is that
done? I note that these three items pay wages,
300 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
salaries, commissions, etc., of $480,000. Major
Cashin has told us that tobacco alone has a protection of $552,000. If they are, we
are paying
protection of that amount in order to pay out
much less than $480,000 in wages
I am a little bit disturbed by the Committee's
report that they were unable to get the facts from
the manufacturers. When people hesitate to disclose certain matters, especially when
these matters are essential to us here, I am concerned about
it. I don't want them to disclose their dead secrets,
but they should be able to give us something that
would be of assistance to us in coming to a full
appraisal. Iagree in a good many ways with what
Mr. Smallwood has said. There is no question
that he has something here into which he can get
his teeth, and he certainly got them in. I expect
we shall hear more from other members of this
Convention with regard to this report. I predict
for it a very stormy passage.
On page 4 of the report, after telling us how
difficult it was for you to find the facts, you say
there is an Industrial Statistics Act. Why was it
not possible for you to go to that department of
the government and ask them, under that act, to
get the necessary information for you? If the act
is there it is their duty to find it. Did you approach
any person in that department and ask if they
could get the information under that act?
Mr. Hickman We approached the department
that was handling that, and were told that that act
was put on the books in 1938, and that the Department of Public Health and Welfare
used it for
acquiring statistics covering the number of
employees in the various manufacturing concerns and businesses and their wages. At
that time
there were people on relief, and it was used to
check the earning and the number of people
employed. After that period it was not found
necessary for the department to have those
figures, as unemployment became unknown due
to the bases, etc. We asked the department if we
could have this information obtained through the
act. We were advised that it had been transferred
to the Department of Public Utilities, and it
would be in the hands of the Labour Relations
Office. On making inquiries of that department
we found that they did not know it had been
cancelled. After a while we found it would be
under Public Utilities and the Labour Relations
Officer, and we then found that it only covered
employees and wages, and did not cover the great
majority of questions that we wanted. We then
found that to get those particulars which the act
was empowered to obtain would take so long that
it would delay us for months....
[The Secretary continued reading the report]
Mr. Smallwood I wonder if Mr. Hickman
would explain column 5 on page 3. It says "Purchases of Local Raw Materials and Expenses".
What would the local raw materials amounting to
$2.25 million?
Mr. Hickman Without looking up any actual
returns, we did not ask the firms to specify, it
would include packages, wood, shucks, barrels,
berries, and local produce manufactured locally,
bottles, etc.
Mr. Hickman Yes, milk that would go into butter and ice-cream.
Mr. MacDonald In computing the value of
these local industries it strikes me that we should
have some idea of the amount that these companies pay in corporation taxes. I don't
see anything here concerning that.
Mr. Hickman You mean profit taxes? Well,
that was a question that, after consideration, we
did not like to put in the questionnaire. We did
not expect to get any replies if we asked what
profit taxes were paid.
Mr. MacDonald That is an asset to the country,
the amount of taxes that the country is paid.
Mr. Hollett I agree with Mr. MacDonald that
we ought to know what we ought to expect in
connection with that. In the Mining Committee
we approached the big companies and asked
them that, and they had no hesitation in giving us
the information. Why should your Committee be
careful of asking those local corporations for that
information?
Mr. Hickman In the case of a large corporation
their balance sheet is probably published
anyway, but in the case of local small companies
we felt that if we asked the question we would
not have any answer given us as to income tax,
and they might not have answered a lot of the
questionnaires, with the result that we would not
have as much information as we did get.
Mr. Hollett We asked the Assessor of Taxes if
we could have that information and he said no,
but the corporations themselves did give it to us.
Mr. Miller I think with Mr. Hollett that these
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 301
large companies did give their figures and we
were given permission to use these figures as a
gross total. There is one other point that I would
have liked to have seen in this report, and that is
on the protective tariff, the duties as they would
have regularly been, provided we did not have
that industry here at all. As I see it, this discussion
got a bit away from that, we got down to drawing
examples on the basis of no duties at all. I don't
think that situation has any relation at all when
we are dealing with protective tariffs. I think that
had these tariffs in relation to the different matters
as we found them been figured out, and if we had
a tabulation on these things, that a few figures
there might speak more than a lot of words....
Mr. Smallwood On page 8, the last paragraph,
I wonder if Mr. Hickman would mention that. It
says: "It can therefore be seen rather than
season work which might be directly or indirectly
dependent on that fisheries...." It that means anything, it means that there should
be local industries to provide wages, but which would not
be either directly or indirectly dependent on the
fisheries.
Mr. Hickman It would be dependent on them as
far as the money would derive from these basic
industries.
Mr. Smallwood What do you mean by secondary industries? You don't mean that Corner
Brook and Buchans and Grand Falls are secondary do you?
Mr. Smallwood Well, what kind of industry
could you have that would not be directly or
indirectly dependent on these?
Mr. Hickman That means not dependent on the
fisheries as a cooper, or a longshoreman or anything of that sort. Someone who is
making something that can be sold to the consumer, and which
would provide employment to people who are
today getting employment in the United States or
elsewhere.
Mr. Smallwood You should have left out that
word "indirectly", because it is almost impossible to get an industry which is not
indirectly
dependent on the fisheries.
Mr. Hollett Again on page 8, you consulted the
Board of Trade committee and you say that they
supplied to us figures that they had received in
reply to their questionnaire. Are these figures in
the report? I don't see them.
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, I wonder would the
chairman of the Local Industries Committee say
whether or not they had written W.J. Lundrigan
of Corner Brook in connection with his plant
there, as there are a number of men employed
there.
Mr. Hickman We sent out to all known
manufacturers or local industries.
Mr. Hickman Yes, but we stated that their reply
would be kept confidential and only used in the
total of the category referred to. It was on that
basis that they submitted it.
Mr. Fudge Would you mind stating whether he
said what the number of employees was that he
had there?
Mr. Fudge I have some knowledge of that firm,
because our organisation has an agreement with
that man, and I am prepared to state here that the
rate of wages paid in this wood working plant is
far better than anything else paid anywhere in the
island for local wages. The great bulk of that is
from this particular wood working plant to which
I refer....
Mr. Bailey I see here under boots and shoes, 102
employees, $13,000 duty and excise, $150,000
volume of business, $120,000 capital. For once I
am going to agree with Mr. Smallwood on one
thing. I wonder at what cost to this country that
local industry is carried on. At the end of the last
war I came in contact with quite a bunch of men
who were interested in changing the map of
Europe. One of those rose to a pretty prominent
position in the Czechoslovakian government, and
he explained to me what was going to take place
and what was going to be put into the boot and
shoe industry there. He spoke also of the good
quality of our herring. I suppose today the
country has got an idea of the consumption of
herring in Middle Europe, as they call it. The
humble herring may be nothing at all in this
country, but in those countries it is a luxury. I was
interested, and at that time we had a big export of
herring from this country, but unfortunately, due
to the depression and not being handled right, we
lost that market.... Those chaps, apparently they
were very intelligent and well educated. I
thought, if he banks on going into that position it
302 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
might be all right to get together, and, I do not
understand much about it, but there is a trade
agreement — you buy your stuff from me and I
will buy from you. I supported Sir Richard
Squires and went down with him. I said to him
once, "I don't know much about what can be
done, I am not in the government, but I believe if
this was gone into right we could get the thin edge
of the wedge into Middle Europe". He said,
"What has Czechoslovakia got?" I said, "Boots
and shoes", and he said, "We have a local industry". "Well," I said, "we can't produce
shoes
as cheap as we can herring, and if we don't
produce herring we can't buy shoes whether we
buy them here or not." That's the position. The
first man in this country that you have got to look
to is the primary producer — the fisherman. We
had only a small pulp and paper industry at that
time, and there was lots of talk of the Humber,
and things were pretty tough when fish dropped
from $19 a quintal to around $8. Things were
hitting the fishermen pretty hard. Well, he said he
would take it up and see whatcould be done about
it. He went into it and a month or so afterwards I
happened to go down to Mr. Halfyard's and Sir
Richard was there, and he told me there was
nothing could be done about it because of the
local industries.... We could have been putting
one million barrels of herring into Europe. Now
suppose that one million barrels only gave the
fishermen perhaps $5 a barrel, what would it have
meant to this country during the depression? According to Sir Richard — I won't malign
the man
— the local shoe industry meant more to this
country, but according to what I have heard there
were some boots and shoes imported into this
country from Czechoslovakia; and children's
shoes could have been laid down here for 80 cents
a pair, women's for $1 and men's for $1.20.
There was a tariff, I forget what it was called....
Mr. Bailey I don't care who it hurts or who is
responsible for it, whether they are dead or alive
today, these men went a long way towards bringing on this country what we had in 1936.
I made
a census in 1939 in every village from Lead Cove
to Summerside, Trinity Bay, and the number of
people who died from TB between 1920 and
1930, and between 1930 and 1939 trebled.
Whoever is responsible for this sort of legislation
in this country is responsible for the deaths of
those people, or a part of it, because you can
understand what it would have meant to this
country if there had been $5 million, or only half
that amount during those years. A few people
have been enabled to go ahead and have a profit
at the expense of the health and wealth of the
primary producer of this country....
We are not ashamed of anything we have done
since we came here. If a royal commission came
here they would have the power to find out the
facts, but we have no power at all. I believe the
words that Major Cashin said, "We are a glorified
mock parliament", and that's all. We are not in a
position to do anything. If the responsible
government and Commission of Government
had been up to their jobs, we could have walked
into a certain office and got the information right
away, and certainly they have enough offices,
they are the biggest real estate owners in the
country. We find out that this country has been
run worse than anything I have ever seen in my
life. I don't know who is responsible for it. It
looks to me that we were never intended to find
out the truth about this country....
Referring to the tobacco factory. I was here in
St. John's in 1942 when one of the Commissioners came back from overseas and spoke
for
the boys, and asked people to give money to send
them smokes. At the price we were paying for
cigarettes it looked all right. I had been used to
going to St. Pierre to buy Gem cigarettes for 60
cents a carton, but this gentleman appealing for
smokes for the boys — Wings, one of the
cheapest cigarettes in the world — says, "You
can buy these cigarettes for $1 .20 a carton", when
the merchant in St. Pierre could buy them here
and freight them to St. Pierre and sell them for 60
cents a carton. I am wondering if the honourable
gentleman had shares in the tobacco factory. This
is one of the reason why the cost of living is as it
is. I am not going to take up any more time on
this. I am not against local industries, I believe
we should have more, but let us produce what we
can produce cheapest, and sell to the people who
can manufacture cheapest, so that the cost of
living can be kept down....
Whatever government comes in, the first thing
we have to do is find out who in this world can
take our stuff from us that we can produce and
sell, and take from them what they can produce
the cheapest, and give our people a chance to live.
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 303
Let us see that our men going to the fisheries get
a square deal so that we can live as a country
should live.
[The Committee rose and reported progress.]
Mr. Chairman Gentlemen, I have to report to
you that in pursuance of the plan adopted a couple
of days ago at an informal session of the Convention, the following were elected to
be members
of the committee to interview His Excellency the
Governor in Commission. These are the members of the committee:
Hon. R.B. Job
Mr. C.A. Crosbie
Mr. G.F. Higgins, K.C.
Mr. T.W. Ashbourne
Mr. J.R. Smallwood
Mr. I. Newell
Mr. F.T. Fogwill
It is necessary that we have a motion formally to
confirm this election I will accept a motion now
from any member of the Convention confirming
the appointment of these gentlemen.
[The motion was put and carried, and the Convention adjourned]
