Mr. Chairman Appendix B, gentlemen, Salt
Codfish, is now under consideration.
[2]
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, on page 10 of
the Appendix: "We suggest that salt be provided
at the very lowest possible price, and the matter
of heights on salt coming into Newfoundland be
reviewed. We understand that the present rate of
freight on salt brought here by the government
boats is about three times its cost in the West
Indies."
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 377
Would Mr. Job tell us if that means that to take
a hogshead of salt, say from St. John's on a
government boat to some other place on the coast,
costs as much freight as that hogshead of salt cost
where it was purchased in the first place?
Mr. Job Most of the salt is freighted from the
West Indies by the government boats, and the
freight is about three times the cost of the salt in
the West Indies. The freights are tremendously
high.
Mr. Smallwood You mean that the salt is
bought in the West indies and freighted to Newfoundland, and the cost of the freight
from West
Indies to Newfoundland is about three times the
price of the salt in West Indies in the first place?
Mr. McCarthy I wonder if Mr. Job would tell
us what the freight is on salt from the West Indies
to Newfoundland?
Mr. Ashbourne At the time that we were writing this sub-committec report the freight on salt
was $12 a ton from the West Indies to Newfoundland, and the cost of the salt was about
$4.02 in West Indies, so that would bring it to
approximately three times the price. Added to
that are certain charges for loading and for insurance. Representations having been
made to
the Newfoundland Fisheries Board,
[1] an arrangement has been made whereby there is a rebate
paid of $1 per hogshead to the importer, in the
outports particularly. I don't know if that applies
to St. John's as well, because the cargoes of salt
to St. John's come in much larger vessels, and
you can expect a lower rate of freight; I think such
a large freight rate on the government boats was
on account of their smaller carrying capacity.
They go to the West Indies with fish and they
bring back molasses, and sometimes rum, and
also bring back salt for the outports....
Mr. Ashbourne No, that's the rate in the West
Indies, and there's a rebate of $1 per hogshead.
Mr. Ashbourne Yes, but the understanding is
that the salt must be sold in the outports at $4.75
per hogshead, which is the same price as in St.
John's when imported from the West Indies.
Mr. Smallwood On page 7 of the Appendix:
"We appreciate the important work that the Newfoundland Fisheries Board is performing
in its
control over all branches of the fishing industry."
I understand that the Fisheries Board has a
definite policy to keep the exportation of fish in
as few hands as possible. I heard or read somewhere that the idea was to keep the
number of
exporters limited to around 50.... Now if Mr. Job
tells us that that is the policy of the Fisheries
Board, would he tell us how the Board, or the fish
trade, proposes to deal with small exporters, and
how it proposes to deal with new exporters. How
can a man become an exporter if he is not one
already? In the old days we have had men, we
have one on Water Street today who began as a
fisherman in Bonavista Bay and started a small
shop, and ended up one of the biggest exporters
in this country. If there had been a fishery board
at that time, could he have become one of the
largest exporters in Newfoundland? Then I am
wondering about the co-operative society. Can a
co-operative society, as easily as anyone else,
become an exporter?.... What do they look forward to, the day when they will succeed
in having
perhaps a dozen exporters in the country? Is that
the ideal they are aiming at, a dozen, or 20, or just
one?....
Mr. Job I don't know whether Mr. Ashbourne
can answer that question; I can't because I am not
a member of the Fishery Board, and I don't attend
their meetings. I am sure they are not going to
discourage any man who wants to go into the
thing on a large scale. If the speaker will put his
question into writing I think it might be passed
on to the Fishery Board.
Mr. Ashbourne There is not much that can be
added, except that I believe that at the time the
licenses were given to codfish exporters it was
stipulated that an exporter, to get a license, had
to export up to a certain number of quintals of
fish, a certain minimum for a year or two previous
to the issuing of the license. Any person or cooperative who was in a position to
export this
quantity of fish — 3,000 quintals I believe it was
— for a year or two before applying for a license
was granted an exporter's license.
Mr. Hickman That might be all right, but following up Mr. Smallwood's point, if he decided
to export fish, how would he acquire a license?
378 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
He may not have exported before, but he may be
in the business financially. How can he acquire a
license? Is it restricted to those who do have
licenses arbitrarily? Can a new man get a license
now, not theoretically but practically?
Mr. Job I think they would take a reasonable
view, and if a man can show that he can make
reasonable arrangements I don't think there is
any fixed ruling. I think that during the war they
made these regulations — that a man should be
an exporter of at least 3,000 quintals to get his
license — because they did not want to get into
it men who were exporting three or four quintals,
underselling, and that sort of thing.
Mr. Hollett I understood yesterday from Mr.
Job that the fresh fish industry was at the moment
more or less in the doldrums. I take it therefore
that you, Mr. Job, would not be able to handle
much more fish if conditions remain as they are?
The amount of fish that you caught last year
would be sufficient to supply the markets that you
now have?
Mr. Hollett I would like an explanation of this
part on page 19A: "The Committee agrees that as
many men as possible should be diverted into the
frozen fish trade and other branches of the
fisheries with as much urgency as conditions
would seem to indicate."
Mr. Job You missed three important words —
"and will permit". If the market does not permit,
you can't do it. That's the position at the moment.
Unless the fresh fish boards can pay the same or
a better price than the people who are salting their
fish and selling it, they won't get the fish. That's
the position that may occur this year. Last year
we handled around this time a considerable number of bankers. This year we are not
going to be
able to do that because the conditions are entirely
different, but I think the quantity of fresh fish
processed by the plant will greatly depend on the
price of salted fish as against the price of fresh.
We can't expect to get the fresh fish at a cheaper
price than can be realised by salting it. It will
more or less cure itself, that situation. At the
present time it would seem it is better business to
salt your fish. That situation may change, I hope
it will. It will be a healthy thing to have both the
plants and the salting go on together.
Mr. Newell I would like to have this clarified.
As I understand it, all the sales of salt codfish at
the present time are negotiated by the Salt Codfish Exporters Association. Is that
right?
Mr. Newell Which association is subdivided
into marketing groups. Where you have a group
of exporters who are fairly large handlers,
marketing for a Specific market, they might be
called the Portugal group, the Brazil group, or
whatever it is. When a sale is negotiated by the
Salt Codfish Exporters Association, the members
of the particular groups which will have to make
that sale are given their allocation as to how much
each can ship, and they decide that allocation on
the basis of total production. Now the difficulty
in marketing for a small group would be in
providing these allocations. One central agent, if
I may use that term, marketing for a group of
businesses around the country, can count in advance on getting their codfish, and
is therefore
able to fill in his allocation. For instance he may
have an allocation for 20,000 quintals of fish, and
may have an agreement in St. Anthony for 20,000
quintals, and another in Bonavista for 20,000
quintals, and ifone is not ready he can take it from
the other. Shipping out little bits of fish now and
then would not be satisfactory. I am vague on this
information, which is as I understand it, but I
think the system works very well. The large
groups in St. John's act for the smaller people
outside on a pretty reasonable commission basis.
I don't know what the qualifications are beyond
being able to export a certain quantity. I don't
know if you have to put up a money qualification
or not.
With regard to licensing, I understand the
situation is that a small merchant, or small group
of fishermen, whatever you have in an outport,
that wishes to pack fish for export, secures from
the Fisheries Board a license, not a license to
export, but a license to pack for export. Their
agent in St. John's does the exporting, and he has
the licence to export. Before they get that license
their premises have to be subject to inspection by
the Fisheries Board. Which leads me to another
point. The situation today is this, that if a merchant is exporting through a large
merchant in St.
John's say, his premises may be inspected before
he gets this license to pack for export, but if a
businessman or a group in an outport is merely
putting up codfish which he sells outright to an
exporter in St. John's for a fixed price, his
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 379
premises do not require any inspection, and I take
it that it is that which is aimed at here: "The
Newfoundland Fisheries Board inspection service should be extended as soon as possible
to the
inspection of fishing vessels and all premises
where fish is handled."
Mr. Job Perhaps Mr. Crosbie, who is more
familiar with Fishery Board regulations than I
am, may be able to answer that.
Mr. Crosbie You don't have to belong to all
groups. You can join a Brazil group, or a Portugal
group, or a West Indies group, but you don't have
to join all of them. You have to put up $1,000.
Mr. Smallwood If you had codfish to export to
three or four markets you would have to join the
three or four groups, and pay $1,000 to each of
them, unless you are marketing it all to the one
agent and then that agent would pay to all groups,
is that it? Suppose Mr. Crosbie wanted to get a
lot of co-operative societies operating, all fish
producers. What is the obstacle, if any, to their
being able to export their own fish? Has each
society got to join each group, and pay $1,000 to
each group? Or is it $1,000 to belong to the Salt
Codfish Association? Can you explain that?
Mr. Crosbie You have to pay $1,000 to belong
to each group. That's a deposit. You don't have
to put it up every season. The past several years
the return to the country has been high, and that's
the only way you can control it. You can't set up
a service to inspect all the people. There has to be
some control somewhere. I may belong to one
group and pay $1,000, and there is nothing
against Mr. Bradley saying to me, "Well now
Chesley, will you ship out this for me?" And I
would do so; or someone else may belong to
another group and ship so much for me. Anyone
can get a license to pack for export, or he can
become an exporter himself if he wants to.
Mr. Northcott Assuming fish is hard to sell and
I have 1,000 quintals on hand, and I am barred
from getting a license, but in the meantime I can
sell that down in South America at a fair price,
would the Fisheries Board give me a license or
not?
Mr. Northcott Last year I sold to a firm in New
York five cases of lobster, and this firm also
wanted me to get fish for them. It was possible
for me to send them a sample, and then they sent
to me for 1,000 quintals. I contacted the Fisheries
Board and I could not sell the fish. This was to go
to South America, and this firm was terribly upset
over the whole thing. If you can produce good
fish and have inspectors to cull it, you should not
be debarred from exporting that fish.
Mr. Northcott No, at a good price, but I was not
allowed to export it.
Mr. Ashbourne It must not be forgotten that the
past few years codfish has been scarce and has
been on allocation. Therefore it is natural that the
countries that have been in the habit in the past
of buying our codfish should not have to go short,
and the time is hardly ripe or opportune for getting new markets; but it is when there
is a surplus
of fish, more than our regular customers require,
that's the time we want to get these new markets
opened up, and there will be no trouble for a
person to arrange that through some exporter who
already has a license. My suggestion to Mr.
Northcott would be to contact some exporter so
that if there is a surplus of codfish Newfoundland
might be able to benefit from that market.
Mr. Smallwood There is something that I would
like Mr. Job to tell me. I have been hearing now
for the last couple of years that one of the big
reasons why the fishermen are so much in favour
of the Commission system of government is that
in the spring of the year, before they have
launched their boats, before they have taken the
cod out of the water at all, they know what the
price of fish is going to be the rest of the year, that
sometime in the winter or the spring it is announced that the price of fish to the
fishermen for
the rest of the year is going to be such and such.
That's been going on for the last two or three
years.
Mr. Job You are generally up to date, but you
are a little behindhand there. That is not so in the
last two years.
Mr. Smallwood I hope you will see what I am
getting at. How true is it that the fishermen, up to
last year, would know early in the season, before
they began fishing at all, what the price of fish
was going to be? Fishermen before that would get
up to the fall, and Christmas, and perhaps the
middle of the winter, before they found out the
price they were going to get for the fish they
caught last year. All of a sudden an announcement is made in the winter or early spring
that the price of fish was to be such and such for
380 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
the coming season, so that they knew what they
were going to get before they went fishing at all.
And they were very thankful to the Commission
of Government for that, a wonderful government
that would tell them ahead of time what price they
were going to get, up to a year ago you say. I
would like someone who knows to tell us how
true that is. Was it the Commission of Government? This needs to be known. Mr. Job
may take
it very lightly, but it is far from being a joke....
Mr. Job I think it largely happened by the help
of our friend Mr. Brown He was greatly interested in it at that time, and he was able
to get the
trade together, and it was easy enough in those
days when the demand exceeded the supply; but
when you are doubtful whether the supply will
exceed the demand you can't fix it. I don't think
you could. You ask whether the Commission of
Government should get the credit for it — not any
more than the trade and Mr. Brown and the
Newfoundland Fisheries Board.
Mr. Job Oh yes, they had something to do with
it. When you could sell ahead it was easy to
arrange with the fisherman and say, "We think
the price should be so and so." It was an international association. The United States,
Canada,
Great Britain. I don't know if France was in it or
not.
Mr. Job It may have been a subsidiary of that, I
am not sure. Anyhow it was with a view of
making full distribution of our Codfish where it
was most needed. It was a very easy thing to come
to an arrangement then as to what would be a fair
price to pay the fishermen; we knew what we
were going to get, but now we don't.
Mr. Job Because the contract was made to take
the allocation at a certain price.
Mr. Smallwood I am grateful to Mr. Job, and
maybe he would not mind my pursuing the matter
a little further. Is this what happened? When the
war broke out the United States, Great Britain,
Canada, Newfoundland and some other countries
formed themselves into a Combined Food Board
to regulate all the food there might be, wheat,
fish, vegetables, meat, etc., so that they could
portion out all the food so that no one country got
more than its share.... This board would say to the
Newfoundland Fisheries Board and the Canadian
and American fish merchants. "In 1942 we want
so many thousand tons of fish. Newfoundland
how much can you produce? How much can
Canada produce? How much USA?" They portioned it out, and fixed the price early in
the
season, and the Fisheries Board would be told
what price the fish exporters would be allowed
for their portion, and then when the exporters
knew beforehand, early in the year, maybe
January or February, what the price would be that
they would get for the coming year, they could
call their suppliers in and say to them, "The price
of fish in 1942 will be such and such, and 1943,
1944 and 1945, etc." Is that what happened?
Mr. Job Yes, that is what happened.
Mr. Smallwood If that is what happened, we
have all been making a mistake in saying, "Thank
God for the Commission of Government."
Mr. Job I think they received credit where they
should not have.
Mr. Smallwood I want to know if the Commission of Government fixed the price; if they did,
we will give them credit for it.
Mr. Job You can give them credit for supporting the board that did it — our Newfoundland
Fisheries Board.
Mr. Smallwood Did the Fisheries Board or the
Combined Foods Board fix it?
Mr. Job Our Fisheries Board had a say in it —
Mr. Gushue was the chairman. The Combined
Food Board had all the negotiations?
Mr. Newell I think our friend from Bonavista
Centre has lost a lot of his perspicacity. I thought
we understood the difference between our market
today and in the old days when it was every man
for himself; he sold his fish where he could, when
he could, for what he could. Under the new
system the fish, as I understand it, is sold by the
Salt Codfish Exporters Association by contracts.
If that is to be continued in future, it is easy to see
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 381
how we can know in advance just about what our
fish will fetch as long as there is a demand for it
— we can make one big contract with the association. We have gone from free enterprise
to a
controlled enterprise system.
Mr. Starkes Can Mr. Job tell us how long this
will continue. We are still under Commission
government — are we still under the rule governing export of fish for 1947-48?
Mr. Job I cannot tell you anything about it. One
thing it would be fair to say about the Fisheries
Board, is that they have done wonderful work.
Mr. Hollett Since when? It has all been done on
a rising market.
Mr. Job When the boot is on the other foot, it
will not be so easy; then they will be more useful
than at any other time.
Mr. Vardy I think there is some mistake. I
believe this price started in 1937 with the FPU
and the fishermen in Bonavista Bay — that is
where this finding out what we were going to get
for the fish started. I think Mr. Brown had something to do with it. I have some recollection
of
that.
Mr. Job I do not think it was as far back as that.
I hesitate to say whether you are right or not. If
we had notice of such questions, we could look
up the information. I think it happened during the
war. I do not think there was any fixed price for
fish in the spring of 1937 or 1938. Maybe Mr.
Ashboume could tell us something about it?
Mr. Ashbourne I cannot remember at that time
what the procedure was; but as far as I am concerned, I think we have to thank the
people for
the high prices of fish; those who put the money
here in Newfoundland — the consumers, those
are the people we have to thank — people who
were prepared to open up credits in Newfoundland and give us the money before the
fish
was shipped.
Mr. Ashbourne The people who bought our
fish. The price has been fixed in the past by the
Combined Food Board, but that does not say that
the people had to buy it; but they have been able
to pay the high prices we got for fish this last few
years. I saw in the paper two or three days ago a
notice that codfish would not be under the Combined Food Board for 1947. As far as
the 1946
production is concerned, the Food Control Board
would look after that; I believe within the near
future probably there will be meetings of the
various groups in Newfoundland in order to try
and formulate a plan for the profitable marketing
of the 1947 catch, and I trust that this will be done
because in the past we realise it has been the
means of stabilising the market. I hope the days
of consigning codfish to Europe, Spain and Italy
is over and we will be able to profitably sell our
fish here and get the money in Newfoundland
before it leaves our shores.
Another matter mentioned by Mr. Newell,
about the Newfoundland Fisheries Board inspection — that this should be extended to
fishing
vessels and all premises where fish is handled. As
far as I know the Board does not have to inspect
any fishing vessels on the Labrador or on the
Banks. The idea is that it might be advisable for
some fishery inspector to examine these vessels
before they go to the Banks and also see them
when they come back; also Labrador fishing vessels. Codfish is an article of food
for human
consumption and the better the quality the higher
the price we will get. And the more satisfaction
from our buyers, naturally, will be when we give
the best quality of fish. The government is to
inspect the exporters' premises; whether this
would extend to every fisherman's stage, I do not
know.
Mr. Hickman I cannot see that there is any
credit due the Commission of Government any
more than any other government which may have
been in power. It was purely the circumstances
brought about by the war when the supply was
shorter than the demand. They could guarantee to
take any production and could guarantee prices
because it could not be possible to fill the demand
required. But with Norway getting back and
Iceland and Great Britain in the producing and
exporting market — Great Britain was a competitor in Brazil, in Rio and other places
— when
they get back, the supply will be greater than the
demand; and I cannot see any possibility of being
able to continue the setting of prices except
through an international trade agreement. If all
countries can establish a price then perhaps the
fishermen will know what they will get. Until that
agreement is made, I do not see how they can
continue knowing in the spring what they will get
in the fall unless the supply is shorter than the
demand.
Mr. Fudge As a member of the Fisheries Com
382 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
mittee, it is not my intention to keep you long.
Referring to the Commission of Government getting the credit for the increase in price
of fish, that
may be all right; but this has been made possible
by an export fee. Who pays that fee? Does it not
come from the fishermen, to be given the Fishery
Board or the Commission of Government to go
to market and negotiate the price for fish? Taxes
have been collected from fishermen by way of
protection for the trade exporters. The fisherman
has not been taken care of; Mr. Brown for a
number of years was trying to get the fishermen
and the exporters together. Last year there was a
common understanding that a certain price would
be paid; there was no agreement really made. I
understand the fishermen on the average received
about $13.50 a quintal. I am not at all satisfied
with the price the fisherman has been getting.
There is too big a gap between fisherman and
exporter and that gap shall have to be bridged. If
something is not done, in view of what we have
seen happen a year ago, we may find the exporter
becoming a millionaire too soon and the fisherman becoming a beggar too quick.
Mr. Fowler It is a fact that during the war 50
cents was taken from all the fish exported from
this country; that was for the price of salt. Take a
hogshead of salt for every ten quintals of fish; the
salt costs the fisherman $11 a hogshead, is that a
fact?
Mr. Fowler I contend ten quintals to a hogshead
is a conservative figure. The section of the report
dealing with the salt codfish industry is, in my
opinion, the most important section of the whole
report, from the point of view of the number of
men employed, which the report shows to be
about 25,000.
Coming as I do from a district interested in
practically every branch of the salt codfish industry, I feel that there is not enough
of the kind
of information that the people are expecting from
this report. There is an array of statistics, but these
are published frequently in government bulletins
and in the press and therefore cannot come as a
surprise to many. Now, we have a Fisheries
Board, an institution of recent years, but the most
the Committee says about it is that there is a
Fisheries Board and that, in their opinion, it is
doing a good job. They do not tell us how they
arrive at that conclusion. I would like to know the
number of personnel of that Board, what it is
costing, and who is bearing the burden of cost.
Are we getting adequate returns for the money
spent, and how? I would like to see set forth the
ways the Board has helped, and plans to help, the
fisherman, merchant and exporter. I understand
the Fisheries Board is costing around $250,000
annually and an expenditure of this magnitude
warrants more comment and explanation than is
given here. I contend we should be supplied with
copies of the Salt Codfish Act in order to get some
information on the working of the most important
of our industries.
With regard to the question of rebates on salt,
as far as I understand it the rebate on salt applies
to the man who has salt left over. If a man has 50
hogsheads of salt left over he gets a rebate of 35
cents a hogshead and the man who uses his salt
gets no rebate. If the Fisheries Board had not
entered the picture, what would the landed cost
of salt be? Would it be $11 or $12?
Mr. Job I think it would be much higher.
Mr. Fowler Have we any expert advice on that?
What do you say about it, Mr. Crosbie?
[Mr. Fowler read an article by R. Gushue in The Atlantic Guardian
Mr. Harrington While we are on this salt codfish business, I have been under the impression
for years that there were branches of foreign
concerns here, which get a percentage of some
sort on fish going out of the country. Who bears
the brunt of that?
Mr. Job I do not know what you are referring
to.
Mr. Cashin I have heard a lot of good things
said about the Fisheries Board. in this report we
should have outlined how it was set up. I believe
it was set up under legislation which gave it
power to control the export of fish. It is costing
the country $225,000 a year; it employs 85
people; they have trade representatives abroad; I
presume that these trade representatives sell the
fish and that there are no brokers employed
anymore and these trade representatives in the
various capitals of Europe — such as Portugal,
Spain and Greece — sell the fish; or are the
London brokers we used to have still in business
and get commission on the sale of fish? if this
Fisheries Board are such wonderful people (and
I do not know anything against them), if they sell
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 388
the fish, then outsiders should not be paid any
commission. Their representatives abroad are
paid. What are the duties of the Fisheries Board
in the sale of fish? Are they controlling the export
of fish or do they merely employ inspectors who
go around and inspect the quality of fish to go to
the various markets, or do they also sell? Are the
fishery products sold through brokers abroad?
Mr. Job As I understand it, the Fisheries Board
have handed control over to the trade. The trade
sets up the various groups and each group contacts the markets. They sell some through
agents
in various places — Trinidad, Pueno Rico and
Spain — they go through very much the same
channels as before, but the Fisheries Board could
not sell that fish without these people on the spot;
it would be chaos if they did.
Mr. Cashin Therefore the Fisheries Board has
nothing to do with the price of fish; they merely
employ brokers, or allocate a certain amount to
the Portuguese group or the West Indies group,
etc.?
Mr. Job No, they negotiate through these people
abroad. Mr. Crosbie can tell us about Brazil; sales
were made through Mr. Crosbie's agents and it
was done in the best interests of the exporters.
Mr. Hollett In one breath the Committee says
they hand it over to the trade and in the other says
the Fisheries Board negotiates the sales.
Mr. Job The Fisheries Board hands over its
authority to those who make the sales The groups
are not part of the Fisheries Board, but they
appoint them.
Mr. Job They set up organisations to sell the
fish. They arrange the groups. A certain number
of people depend upon the Cuban market and
another depends on the Portuguese one.
Mr. Hollett To arrange groups is not a very big
job, is it?
Mr. Job They have to keep in touch with them
— they are very helpful; they have to send special
cables.
Mr. Job They have the authority of the government behind them and it is advantageous to have
such an organisation set up under government
authority specially in these times. I am of the
opinion that the Fisheries Board has done an
excellent job; and we will need it more in times
to come.
Mr. Smallwood I am not going to say anything
about the Fisheries Board. A little bird whispered
to me that an amount of money — $300,000 a
year — is paid out here in St. John's to two men
or two firms. The two firms are supposed to be
the brokers representing the fish exported from
this country — one handles all the fish going to
the other side of the Atlantic. They get commissions which amount, in the case of
one firm on
Water Street, to $150,000 a year as brokerage.
For doing what? In the last four or five years,
since the Combined Food Board came into being,
the United States, Canada and Great Britain have
taken our whole output of codfish; they have not
had much to do but to pass on the trade papers
and see that the money is deposited in the bank.
The Combined Food Board in Washington,
where Mr. Gushue was a high official, says, "You
can ship so much to Trinidad." The importer in
Trinidad who buys the fish has to put the money
in the bank in advance and this agent is supposed
to see that he does. For that he collects $150,000
a year and is doing it now. The other firm does
the same thing for the fish over in Europe. It was
not a little bird that told me that, it was a member
of the Salt Codfish Exporters Association who
told me and he was feeling murderous about it. if
I am driven too far, I will name the firm....
$150,000 a year, as the Americans say, is not hay.
In the last four or five years no one had to work
to sell fish; all you had to do was to get it.... I think
perhaps that's what Major Cashin was trying to
get at.
Mr. Hollett I don't think that Mr. Smallwood
could name that man or his commission.
Mr. Smallwood Well Mr. Chairman, I won't
name him, but it is a well-known fact ... that one
man is the agent for all that fish, and I understand
that he collects $150,000 hard cash for his services.
Mr. Smallwood From the trade. In other words,
from the fishermen of this country. The trade
pays him, but the trade gets it from the fishermen.
Then another firm that handles all the fish to
Spain, Portugal, ltaly, England, etc., they also
collect roughly $150,000 cash a year.
Mr. Harrington That was the point I was trying
to bring out, but I did not make it as clear as Major
Cashin and Mr. Smallwood. I am satisfied now.
384 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
Mr. Hickman Surely there is a limit to what
they can receive. I don't know, I am not in the
fish business. Is that so, Mr. Job?
Mr. Job I don't know really. I don't think they
would continue allowing it to exist unless they
were getting service for it. One of the concerns
to which our friend was referring is a concern that
has a very large organisation through Spain, Italy,
Greece and Portugal, and I have no doubt they
have very heavy expenditures to keep up. That is
quite possible.
Mr. Hollett That is what I can't understand. We
have the fishermen getting the fish and the small
man in the outports collecting it, and sending it
in to St. John's. Perhaps he is an exporter, perhaps
not, but all the Codfish Board has to do is allocate
it to the trade —I don't know whether the trade
has anything to do with the Salt Codfish Board
— and the trade has to sell it. Now we find they
don't sell it at all, but some commission agent
here in St. John's who gets $150,000, is that
right? I am not trying to decry the work which the
Fisheries Board has done, but we have to remember that they did an excellent job from
1939 up
to the present time when they were selling the
goods and dealing with a rising market, the same
as the Commission of Government during that
period. I think everybody did an excellent job
during that period, because we were winning
hands down. Don't let anybody live in a fool's
paradise. What we must not do is praise up the
Fisheries Board too much or they might think
they are little gods, and sit tight. If they were good
during the war years I feel sure they will be good
during the years to come.
One thing I would like to refer to is the statistics which the Committee has given
us with
regard to inshore, Labrador Stationers, Labrador
floaters, and deep sea fishing. The average number of quintals caught by inshore fishermen
was
32 last year, stationers 30 quintals, floaters 61
(these are the men who went down to Labrador
in their own vessels); then we have the deep sea
fishing (referring to bankers on the southwest
coast), 122 quintals. If we are going to improve
the fisheries, you have to get each man producing
more fish. If you look at these figures you will
find that you have to make it possible for the
fishermen to get further away from their own
stageheads. They must have ships to enable them
to get further away and get back safely. The
government of the day, whatever it is, has to see
that each fisherman gets as much fish as it is
humanly possible for him to catch. It is absolutely
useless for us to depend to any large extent on the
inshore fishery. These figures have proved it, that
your banking fleet always got more fish per man,
and thereby made a much better living. I say they
did not make as good a living as they should for
the amount of fish they caught. I don't know who
is to blame, Spain, Portugal, or the St. John's
merchants or whoever, but we must get ready for
that future which is bound to come. You are not
going to be selling fish on a rising market all the
time. We will have at least a short period like we
had after the last war. There is no reason why we
can't, and it is our duty to try to plan to offset that
depression as much as it is humanly possible for
us to do....
There are certain recommendations by the
post-war planning committee of the Fisheries
Board. But what are they doing to implement
them? They have a very nice plan laid down for
our committee going to London, about paying
tariffs, but what are they doing about it?
Mr. Newell In the middle of page 10 there is a
little statement which I think expresses a whole
lot: "We suggest that consideration be given to
the idea that the codfishery be placed on a cash
basis." The implications of that statement are
very wide indeed. They have their roots right in
the very question that we have here — whether
or not the people of this country can be self-supporting. I notice they don't suggest
to the National Convention how this desirable situation can he
brought about. I don't blame them for not attempting to answer that, because it is
going to be
something of a headache. You can't just snap
your fingers and have it done. I have certain ideas
on the subject myself, which I do not propose to
go into now because they have nothing to do with
the Fisheries Report, but it seems to me that we
have sometime or other to try to make a picture
in our minds of a Newfoundland which will provide a decent standard of living for
its people, and
as far as fishermen are concerned this question of
putting our codfishery on a cash basis is very
important from a great many angles. From the
angle ofeconomy, which is enough at the present
time, let us consider what happens when the
fisherman gets credit. I take it most of our salt
codfishery is carried on on a credit basis. As a
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 385
matter of fact, when the people from my district
read that the Convention is considering putting
the codfishery on a cash basis they will probably
lose all confidence in the Convention from then
on, for the idea of putting it on a cash basis is
blasphemy to them. Let us think of the economy
that would be affected if it were possible to put
the codfishery on a cash basis. Let us say that an
important wholesaler needs credit, I presume he
goes to the bank and gets credit. Presumably he
pays whatever the bank's usual charges are, and
these naturally are tacked on to the cost of his
goods. Now that wholesale merchant has to deal
with a smaller retail merchant somewhere in the
outport, and he has to give this particular man not
only six to ten months credit (because very few
of them are in a position to buy for cash), but in
addition to waiting for payment for his goods he
has to undertake considerable risk as to whether
he will get paid for it or not, therefore the cost of
credit under such circumstances is fairly high. In
turn the smaller businessman, who has secured
credit from the wholesale merchant, lets out these
same goods to your average fisherman, again on
possibly six months credit, and again taking considerable risk as to whether he shall
within six
months or ever be paid for these goods. All these
credit charges have to be tacked on to the cost of
the goods, and must therefore be reckoned when
we are considering the cost of production of salt
codfish, because the cost of living of the individual in the primary enterprise must
be reckoned in the cost of production. Now if we
consider what all that means to our economy, and
what a difference between prosperity and the
opposite for a great many people in the fishing
industry this means, we begin to see just how
important this sentence is: "We suggest that consideration be given to the idea that
the codfishery
be placed on a cash basis". That's a very important point, and I would hate to see
it passed over
without due consideration. As I say, the Committee did not have the temerity to suggest
how it
should be done. It is a pretty tough problem, one
of the main problems of our fishing industry, that
is our codfishery. A great many abuses that exist
today from every side are tied up with the same
thing. A little while ago we were discussing the
supervision of codfish that's going to be exported, because if we are going to stay
in the
markets we have to have a good quality, and look,
if a fisherman comes to me, an outpon merchant,
and gets a supply for the fishery and pays for it in
cash, it's no business of mine what kind of codfish he produces, or whether he produces
any or
not —but it's definitely his business He has paid
his account in cash and is depending on the sale
of his codfish to provide himself with a living
through the ensuing months when the fishery is
over. It is to his best interests to produce the best
quality — otherwise he will not dispose of it.
I have never been in the salt codfish business,
but I know a good many who are, and many of
them have reiterated that if a man comes along
who has a credit account of $2-300 and has 60 or
70 quintals of fish to dispose of, and he has the
codfish which is in place of cash, the natural
feeling is to say, "I am sorry I can't take that fish
at the price you want for it." Usually he has been
fortunate enough to get the money for it somewhere else, and the other man has to
whistle for
it. Personally I hate the sound of the words "credit
system", and I think whether or not we can put
our codfishery on a cash basis in the coming years
will determine whether or not the codfishery can
become a paying proposition I congratulate the
Committee on bringing this to the attention of the
Convention.
Mr. Job The fresh codfish business
has been on
a cash basis, and one of the things the Committee
had in mind was the possibility that the purchase
of codfish might eventually be made for cash,
which would mean that the plants, or the operators, would have to make arrangements
for
curing the fish, and then the question arose as to
how much more is it going to cost to cure fish in
that way than when a fisherman cures it himself.
That's a question which requires very careful
consideration, but that would be the ideal sort of
arrangement. It is made a little more encouraging
now by the fact that if you can bring the fish into
one locality you will largely increase the value of
your by-products, especially the offal for fishmeal. That's one of the things the
Committee had
in mind. It is a very difficult matter, and one that
has to be enquired into. It is easy to put it on paper,
but not so easy to carry it through.
Mr. Newell With regard to the cost, I know one
group who went into this, and it was their estimate that in a great many instances
practically
30% to 35% of the cost of consumer goods which
the fishermen used could be charged to credit
386 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
before it passed to the consumer; a markup on the
original cost of say 25%, and with the cost of
handling, etc,, added on, the percentage of selling
price could not be decided with any degree of
accuracy. But the markup on the cost could be
arrived at with a fair degree of accuracy and
would work out at 25% or over.
Mr. Ashbourne There is another point too that
should not be overlooked, that is the stimulus
that's given to the fisherman as he gets up in the
morning and goes out realising that for his day's
catch of codfish, before the evening sun sets, he
will have the money in his pocket. That's a very
important thing, and I am rather of the opinion
that the great production of fresh and frozen fish
that's been made in Newfoundland the past few
years has been practically the result of the fact
that cash has been paid for fresh fish.
Mr. Penney Many delegates are going out for a
rest and it almost looks as if we are getting tired
of this informative debate and that it ought to be
soon ended in order to move on to another section. Before we do, I would like to say
that to me
the Fishery Board as constituted today is one of
the bright sides in the marketing and control of
the fishery products of Newfoundland. The personnel are doing a fine job, and one
of the persons
who had perhaps a great deal to do initially with
that great undertaking is Mr. Brown. I am sorry
he is unable to see the job through, at least in the
House. The fishermen over across our way are
very pleased and satisfied that things are going
so well. I congratulate the members of the Fishery
Committee who so far are giving us a fine report
and doing a good job.
Mr. Keough Before the Convention passes on
to another section I have some information which
I think the Convention should have. It has to do
with the export of fish. I just checked with the
Newfoundland Fisheries Board, and the information I have is as follows:
This guaranteed system was discontinued in
1941. The price has gone up and there is no
further guarantee in that respect. In 1943 the
Combined Food Board allocated all the
world's supplies of salt codfish and under
that allocation system certain prices were
agreed on, and when these export schedules
were established the exporters and fishermen
in this country met and agreed on prices.
These were minimum prices, and they could
pay more if they so desired. In 1944 the same
procedure was followed. The price represented some increase on the 1943 price. In
1945 the exporters and fishermen did not
come to an agreement. Apparently they felt
that competition would take care of providing a good price. Apparently it did, and
the
same story was true in 1946. No agreed to, or
set price was determined by a meeting of
exporters and fishermen, but the price ran
higher than in 1945. Incidentally for 1946 the
fishermen may have further saltfish cuts.
That seems to be the story.
Mr. Smallwood In 1938-39 the government
guaranteed the merchants a certain export price
on small Madeira and Brazil, and on Labrador
fish. It is a remarkable fact that for that very year
the total value of codfish exported from Newfoundland was only $4,190,000, which was
less
than the year before that, when the catch was
bigger. That's an average of only roughly $4 per
quintal.... Now in the following year, that would
be 1940, they guaranteed all did they?
Mr. Smallwood So the exporters are naturally
paying a bit firmer price to the fishermen, but in
that year the catch was 1,208,000 quintals, and
the value was up to $6.5 million. I can't make that
up in my mind just now, but it's a bit more; but
1940 was surely the first year of the great world
up-swing of prices. The war broke out in 1939,
but we did at least sell the fish in spite of the
exchange trouble. What was the position in
1941?
Mr. Keough Apparently the guarantee system
was in existence up to a certain time in 1941, at
which time it was discontinued.
Mr. Smallwood 750,000 quintals. Now in 1942
the price jumped to $9.25 million, and the next
year $12.5 million, and the next year $13.25
million and 1945 $16.75 million, that is of course
when the Combined Food Board was controlling
all the prices was it not?
Mr. Smallwood The total export value was
1,097,700 quintals — over $17.25 million. That
year, 1946, did the Combined Food Board have
anything to do with it?
Mr. Smallwood When did the Combined Food
Board's control over Newfoundland come to an
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 387
end — did they control up to the end of 1946?
Mr. Smallwood Then that is the end of the Combined Food Board as far as Newfoundland is
concerned; we are on our own from this year on?
Mr. Smallwood What we will get is what we
can get from now on. There is nobody to control
it.
Mr. Newell I do not know what the point of the
discussion is at the moment. It does seem to me
that the action of the Fisheries Board or the
govemmentin guaranteeing a certain price would
tend to set a minimum price to the fishermen,
where if a guarantee is not made, it might well be
less. That is what I gather from this discussion.
Mr. Vardy It has been proven it could be more.
Take the case of herring — we had an experience
last year, when we could have gotten $2 a barrel
more for the herring had it not been for the action
of the Board.
The report is a well-worded document; long
enough to digest and plain enough for the average
man to understand. Mr. Hollett touched on an
important matter just now, that there should be
more small boats, 15-25 ton boats. I am in accord
with that. I am disappointed as a member of the
Public Health and Welfare Committee over the
little consideration given through the civil re-establishment department to the fishermen.
We all
know that the fishermen received amounts varying from $100 to the top man getting
$700. In
View of the fact that the present government is
handing out in the vicinity of over $8 million to
rehabilitate the men from World War II, under
various headings such as back pay, gratuities,
land settlement, university courses and various
other brackets, in a country where the fishery is
still the leading industry, it has received by far the
lesser amount. I cannot find words strong enough
to condemn those responsible for creating such a
scheme. I am not satisfied that this country has
spent or is spending sufficient to modernise the
fisheries. We know there is plenty of room for
more cold storages. I would like to know from
Mr. Job whether these 15 quick-freezing plants
are owned by private companies or if the government has any interest in them?
Mr. Job As far as I know, it is entirely private
enterprise. I do not think the government had any
interest as shareholders. They did make certain
advances at one time, comparatively small
amounts. In that connection, Mr. P.H. Dunn introduced the act whereby loans could
be made,
but very little advantage was taken of it. The
loans were not wanted. I think that is one of the
sad features about it — that $4 million was voted
for that purpose and none was used. It was earmarked for loans and people did not
want loans.
Mr. Job They did sell shares and they put in
their own money. The end of it was that the loans
were not required. At least part of the trade
thought it should be earmarked for certain things
like the development of cold storage. It was simply cancelled. It was reduced to something
like
$500,000 and I think it is still available. The
trouble is, under the act, the government takes no
risk. The government simply says, "We will vote
$4 million, anyone who wants a loan may get it
under certain terms — safe terms to the government." The government should take part
of the
risk. I think there is a great deal to be said for the
reason they give, they want to safeguard the
public funds and not make loans without proper
security, but it does not help the trade.
Mr. Smallwood How would bank credit and
government credit compare as to the easiness of
getting loans and time of repayment?
Mr. Job About the same, I think. We could not
see any advantage. The interest was perhaps a
little lower in the case of the government. There
was no term given. They were extremely particular about the matter of titles. There
was so
much exactitude that the people would not be
bothered; they would rather go to the bank and
get a loan; if their credit was good, they could get
it. If you have to mortgage your plant, you do not
like doing it.
Mr. Vardy It does not make good reading when
we have the figure of $l.8 million to be spent on
300 men for land settlement, and then look at the
figures given here for I938-l939 of the amount
of money earned by the fishermen, We are heading in the wrong direction. I do not
think the
people responsible for this knew anything about
the fishery other than the experience gained in
catching a few salmon on the rivers.
I wonder if the Committee paid sufficient
attention to the smoked fish business. We know
388 NATIONAL CONVENTION
March 1947
that all over Newfoundland there is a considerable amount of smoked fish used for
local consumption. I know the export figures are not very
large. There are quite a number of smokehouses
situated all over this country. These smokehouses
turn out kippers, fillets, salmon, caplin and
various other qualities of fish, being consumed
by the local market largely.
Mr. Smallwood Are they of sufficiently good
quality to be exported?
Mr. Vardy Yes, I have exported them myself as
much as 25 years ago. There is a market for
them.... I feel the Committee has done a good job
and we want to get on with it, but I also feel very
strongly about this matter of putting the fisherman off with such a small allocation,
some as low
as $100 and $500 each — the top men get $700
each. Then they turn around and give men who
want to start farming — very often men who
know nothing about it — $6,000 to $7,000. I will
say, as I said before, that time will prove that the
$6,000 will be more like $10,000. If they had
given those poor fishermen one of these little
boats, these fishermen, after they were discharged, if given that $1,000, plus the
bounty,
could have built their boats and owned them. It
would have been an asset to the country. I know
what these men from Bonavista and Trinity are
up against, they have to go offshore to get their
fish. I am firmly convinced that if the government
had spent half that money to rehabilitate the
fishermen and created a job somewhere else for
the others, the money would have been spent in
a better way. I would like to see more cold
storages and more bait depots all over the
country. The fishing industry is still the backbone
of this country. I have been around South
America, Jamaica and Cuba; there are very few
cold storages there, they are like ourselves. The
fresh fish industry is only in its infancy. We have
not enough sharp-freezing facilities to take care
of all the fresh fish. I was a firm believer in the
Fisheries Board, but like all other departments of
government it has gotten out of control; it is
costing more than it should for the service
rendered.
Mr. Vincent For the first hour I thought the
Fisheries Board was the white-haired boy to the
fishing industry but some of our associates do not
seem to think so. I think that Mr. Gushue has done
a good job. There are a few things to which I
would call your attention. Appendix B, page 7,
last paragraph: "The matter of inspection is most
essential to insure that high standard of quality."
Did your Committee investigate the culling of the
different grades of saltfish? Is there a specific
yardstick of grading used in Trinity Bay and
another in Bonavista Bay? Or do they all conform
to one hard and fast rule? That is important. I have
an interest in the Labrador salt codfishery. In
1946 a schooner in which I had a large interest
discharged her cargo at a certain firm at St.
John's. I left this Convention chamber one evening and went down to the schooner.
It was
raining hard. One of my friends across the way
took me down in his car and he remarked it would
be a poor day for handling, inspecting or culling
fish. Arriving at the pier, what do 1 find? 15 or 20
men on the wharf opening barrels and packing
fish. When I went on board I said to the captain,
"It is not a good day for handling fish, is it?" He
said, "Do not say anything, this is coming out
No.1 Labrador — top grade." That is a very
essential article of food and 1 am not going to
stand for the fishermen being blamed for some of
the curing. I was told that one of the inspectors of
the Fisheries Board was on the wharf that day.
That does not tend to create a good market for our
staple product.
Further to Appendix B, page 11. Here I would
make the accusation that a too trenchant pen,
mayhap, makes the worthy scribe responsible for
the generalities. I am conversant with the inshore
fishery, and I cannot conceive how a fisherman
with his crew of four or five men can carry out to
a trap berth half a load of ice, haul his codtrap,
and bring in, say, ten or 12 quintals of codfish.
On page 9 of Appendix B, I find something
rather amusing. I refer to the elderly men
prosecuting the inshore fishery — "Quite a number of inshore fishermen are elderly
people." This
certainly does not apply to districts of the North.
In Bonavista Bay the prime young men are the
fishermen, who consider their calling an
honoured one, and are making a success of it.
Mr. Job Your reference to ice — I would like to
make one remark about that. We had a discussion, and I must say we were all strongly
in favour
of that, because I have often seen fish coming into
St. John's, fishermen waiting before they can get
a chance of landing their fish, and that fish in hot
weather soon deteriorates. There is no suggestion
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 389
that they carry a load of ice. But they could take
a certain amount of ice out in hot weather. There
ought to be some way of keeping the fish cool and
not have it exposed to the heat.
Mr. Hillier I have not been a fisherman, but I
know you cannot have ice aboard a trap skiff.
However, I understand the Bank fishermen carry
out ice. In this connection, I think the boats
should have equipment to bleed the fish and make
it in a good state.
Mr. Ryan How does the Committee suggest the
fishermen keep ice over from the previous
winter?
Mr. Hillier I know there are cases of fishermen
who have erected small ice-houses, and they
secured some sawdust to cover the ice and thus
are able to get it during the summer time.
Mr. Job It is a matter of co-operation and I
expect the co-operatives will fix all that.
Mr. Hickman I would like to ask Mr. Job, does
he know whether the Icelandic or Norwegian
fisheries are subsidised at the present time?
Mr. Job I have no definite information but I
understand that they are not.
Mr. Ballam I saw an article in the paper where
the Icelandic government had put up an amount
of $50 million to subsidise the fisheries in the
building of deep sea draggers.
Mr. Job That was to assist the building, not to
subsidise. It was used to assist in the promotion
of the fisheries.
Mr. Harrington Page 10 of Appendix B: "The
whole problem of the fisheries is quite complex
and is linked up ultimately with the matter of
subsidies which our competitors have used and
are using to bolster their own production of fish.
This matter always will have to be borne in mind,
as it has a most important bearing on the ability
of one producer to compete for any particular
market." I was wondering how that stood up in
relation to what you have just said?
Mr. Job I said I was not quite sure. My impression is they are not using it at the present
time.
These matters will be matters of discussion at the
ITO meeting. The hope is that subsidising will be
done away with
Mr. Smallwood They are definitely subsidising
in Portugal and Spain.
Mr. Job They subsidise boats that catch fresh
fish
Mr. Reddy I was very much struck with the
remarks of Mr. Newell and of Mr. Ashboume
regarding getting salt codfish on a cash basis.
That is important. It gives fishermen a great incentive when they can get cash instead
of waiting
months and months before they can get returns. I
also agree with Mr. Fudge. I am afraid there is
too big a spread between what the fishermen
receive and what the exporters obtain. That is a
question to be gone into thoroughly.
Mr. Hollett Might I ask Mr. Job if it is not a fact
now that fishermen on bankers are paid on a cash
basis when they come in with a load of fish? They
are not like your fresh fish men that catch the fish
and deposit it on your wharf and get paid for it,
they are fishermen who are co-operative in a
sense. They make fish on a certain share, and I
did understand that when they come in, although
they cannot get all settled up. they can get an
amount reasonably equal to what their share will
come to.
Mr. Job I don't know. I know that any fish
landed by the bankers at the fishery premises is
paid for in cash. What the owner does with the
sharemen I do not know.
Mr. Hollett What particular branch of the salt
codfishery were you trying to get on a cash basis?
Take the shore fisherman. He goes out in his dory
and he brings in his fish and puts it in his own
stage and salts it and washes it, but when he takes
it to his merchant he gets cash for it if he wants
it. There is an act to that effect. What branch is
not on a cash basis?
Mr. Job You mean if a fisherman salts his own
fish? I think the fisherman should bring his fish
in and sell it as it is, and receive cash for it.
Mr. Hollett But you are talking about the salt
codfishery.
Mr. Job But even with sailfish the shareman
sells his fish when it is cured. I don't think the
idea was that the fisherman who cures his own
fish should necessarily sell that for cash. I don't
know, but he has generally received some credit
and has to pay for that.
Mr. Hollett What you mean is that our fishery
should be re-organised to this extent, that all
fishermen should bring in their fish and sell it to
some central market. Well, naturally he would
get cash then. But what particular branch of the
salt codfishery are you referring to there when
390 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
you say: "We suggest that [it] be placed on a cash
basis?"
Mr. Job I think what was in the minds of the
Committee was central curing stations, where the
fishermen would bring their fish and it would be
salted by someone; an expansion of the cold
storage plants might take care of that. It might be
a curing place for saltfish. I don't know how far
you can carry that, you might have difficulty, but
it would be a great help.
Mr. Ryan I wonder if Mr. Job would tell us if
they had any success with artificial dryers here?
Mr. Job We have had success with them for the
past 40 years. We have been using them all the
time. You can go over to our Southside premises
and see them. Up to the present we have not been
able to make as good an article of an artificially
dried fish as you can of a carefully sun—dried fish.
Mr. Ryan The fishermen won't get so well
paid?
Mr. Job You would save a lot of your West
India fish. I am afraid it is not practical to cure all
fish by artificial drying, because there is no fish
that can be cured as well as the shore fish, which
is sun-dried. I don't think it has ever been done.
We are the only people in the world that are
attempting to make that very fine light-salted,
sun-cured fish. The Norwegian and Iceland fish
is not by any means in the same class as our fine,
merchantable, light- salted cod. It has got a salty
appearance, and the salt comes up on the face of
it. It is preferred in some markets, but no one has
been able to beat our sun-dried fish when it is
properly cured.
Mr. Ryan But still you recommend the individual fisherman not drying his own fish, but
selling it to be dried artificially?
Mr. Job Well, it would give the fisherman his
cash and the ability to go and catch more fish,
especially with those 25 foot boats. I think that's
a very important suggestion, and the government
can help them buy these boats. We are building
some of these boats ourselves, and are going to
put them into trial this year, but there is a good
deal to be done, and I was going to suggest in the
report that the government might build a few of
these boats for each bay, and test them out.
Mr. Smallwood I wonder if Mr. Job has read
anything about the new method of artificial
drying?.... It is a sort of tunnel, or cylinder, and a
blast of hot air goes in and dehydrates it....
Mr. Job You will see that at our Southside
premises, we have been using it for five or ten
years....
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Job touched on a point a
moment ago about this light-salted fish. We
would not be here today but for the fact of that
light-cured fish. The shortage and high cost of
salt in England compared with the plentiful supply and low cost of salt in Spain,
Portugal and Italy
350 years ago, that enabled the latter to start a
vessel fishery. They could catch their fish, salt it
on the Banks and bring it home. The English had
to light salt it, and that's why they settled in
Newfoundland in the first place. That's why our
light-salted cure is so famous and unique.
I am going to ask Mr. Job this: suppose you
had your choice of having all fish brought by the
fishermen to central curing stations, whether to
be frozen or salt cured, and no fisherman making
his own fish at all, or to go on as we are, where
each fisherman makes his own fish, what does
Mr. Job think would be the best of these two
methods? I think that theoretically the former
would be the better — fishermen merely to be
fishermen, devoting their time almost entirely to
catching. But has Mr. Job considered this side of
it — in normal times when the price is normal, if
a fisherman makes his own fish he is in a sense
getting paid for his own labour and the labour of
his own family for making that fish. That's a very
important point when prices are low. When
prices are high, sell the fish round if you like, but
if the price is down would the merchant taking
that fish and curing it himself pay the fisherman
enough to live on, or might he not be forced to
get the few cents extra by making the fish himself? If he is not making fish time
is on his hands.
If the price is low, you try to get fishermen to sell
fish round when he can get more by making the
fish!
Mr. Job That's a question that would have to be
very carefully gone into. No one can tell how that
would turn out. It might prove to be too costly to
cure it. It is being tried to some extent now. There
are plants in the country now that buy the fish and
dry it.
Mr. Job But as to the experiment of buying it
fresh and making it altogether in one place, there
are a lot of things to be considered. The thing is
that if it could be done you would get the offal. It
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 391
would cost the manufacturer extra to make it
above what the fisherman would do it for.
Mr. Crosbie First when we started we could not
get our men to sell us the fish, but now they won't
make it themselves any more.
Mr. Job But you are handling heavy-salted fish?
Mr. Crosbie Oh yes, we have not money
enough to put in a dryer....
Mr. MacDonald Might I ask Mr. Job if the
quality of artificially dried fish is as good as fish
dried under the sun.
Mr. Job For certain markets it is. It makes a very
good Madeira fish, but you don't get the light-
salted fish, you can't do it.
Mr. Hickman I would ask Mr. Job to turn to
page 11 of the Appendix, where your Committee
"see the need of additional staff to investigate
scientifically our fisheries". I was wondering if
you could give us a little detail on that. Has the
Committee gone into the cost, or how many
would be required, or what scientific investigation would have to be made over and
above what
they are doing today?
Mr. Keough The Committee goes on to say that
a proportion of public money should be spent on
research, and some on the herring industry, but
the Committee did not go into it in any detail. The
money being spent is decidedly inadequate.
Mr. Job I noticed yesterday that a biologist had
been appointed to assist Dr. Templeman.
Mr. Chairman Is the Committee ready for the
question? It has been moved and seconded that
this section do pass as read — carried unanimously.
[The Secretary continued reading the report, and the committee then adjourned until
8 pm. When the committee reconvened, the Assistant Secretary read Appendices C and
J.[1]]
Mr. Hickman On page 3 of Appendix C, talking
about research, it says "Unfortunately in our
country, our government has not had the vision
or courage to spend large sums of money in
research work on our fisheries." I understood that
some time last year there was some arrangement
made with the Canadian government — I was
wondering if the chairman would clear that up?
Mr. Crosbie Two years ago our government
agreed with the Canadian government to make a
certain amount of research in the Gulf and around
Canadian shores; but it was not until last fall that
the boats were completed; our government subscribed $12,000 towards that research.
Mr. Hickman How far would $12,000 go?
Would it get them outside the heads?
Mr. Crosbie I do not know what the Canadians
are paying. That is our proportion.
Mr. Crosbie Yes. My experience in operating
research boats is that $12,000 will last about four
months. When we got the boats we were short of
web to make the seine. I asked a fellow in Vancouver to let me have the loan of a
seine. I found
I could not get it out of Canada. I asked the
Commissioner about sending someone to Canada
to get some more web. He asked me if I knew that
Newfoundland was a small place and did I not
realise there was a shortage of twine. Through
Mr. Gushue, who had met some people in Ottawa, we got the loan of a seine for which
we have
not been charged a penny.
Mr. Harrington As far as the $12,000 is concerned I have here an editorial I wrote on the same
matter some time ago.... I do not know if they pay
$12,000 each.
Mr. Hickman I would like to ask how long the
survey would take — how long before we have
definite knowledge?
Mr. Crosbie I am no expert, nor am I a biologist;
it took the Icelandic government five years to
make a complete survey. It may take one to five
years. We have a large area in the Gulf, Bay of
Islands, Green Bay, Fortune Bay and Notre Dame
Bay. Whether there are any large quantities, we
do not know. We do not know definitely about
the Bay of Islands.
Mr. Job They have assisted in the
Explorer?
Mr. Crosbie The
Western Explorer came to this
country in 1939, and cost $52,000. After the war,
when the navy was through with her, she was
stripped of everything in the way of fishing
392 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
equipment. The government asked $45,000 for
her, but after some dickering, they agreed to sell
her to us for $25,000. As regards to the money
which the government has in the fresh fish business, the answer is that it has none.
They have
money in the Newfoundland Dehydrating Company
[1] and the terms of repayment are reasonable
— over 20 years.
Mr. Smallwood Would Mr. Crosbie say a word
on this $4 million forecast. Appendix C, page 5:
"We believe it is only fair to estimate the value
of our herring fisheries over a period of a few
years will be not less than $4 million annually and
this is a long way from $181,406 in 1933."
Mr. Keough The value of exports of herring,
according to statistics, is $4,894,852; and with
the development, the plant envisaged and actually in construction at Petrie's Point,
[2] it was felt
that the annual returns from the herring industry
would be up in the vicinity of $4 million, even
though the price may drop.
Mr. Hollett On that same page, "We must bear
in mind that there are many opportunities in
Newfoundland, such as Fortune Bay and Notre
Dame Bay that have herring in abundance which Â
have not been productive for some years." Where
did you get that information? I am informed that
50,000 barrels went to UNRRA from Fortune
Bay. Herring also supplies the bankers with bait.
Mr. Crosbie We got it from the people from
these sections. They are not nearly as productive
as they were in 1921. We are not talking about
the last 12 months.
Mr. Crosbie Therefore they are unproductive.
We do not say there are no herring in the bay.
Mr. Smallwood Page 1, Appendix C — you say
that you have not been able to get figures from
Iceland except 1936, and you go on and give it,
$3 million. The year before last Iceland exported
15,000 tons of herring oil.
Mr. Smallwood I am saying it. If that was
doubled, 30,000 tons, what would the value be?
Mr. Smallwood That would be three times as
much. From 1939-1945 they packed one million
cases a year of canned herring — and in 1942 1.5
million cases.
Mr. Crosbie These figures are given by the
Dominion government.
Mr. Hollett On page 4 of the same report: "We
understand that the Icelandic government has
spent somewhere in the vicinity of $800,000, but
we have not heard any figures mentioned for the
Norwegian government. We are given to understand the British Columbia govemment, in
conjunction with the federal government spent
annually about $300,000 in fishery research".
Has the Committee any authority for that statement?
Mr. Crosbie As far as I am concerned, I got it
in Vancouver in 1943 from Major Sullivan and
others interested in the herring fishery. All you
have to do, if you want to check it, is to ask the
Fisheries Board. In connection with the Icelandic
government, we have that information from their
ambassador in the United States.
Mr. Smallwood In Holland, pre-war, they had
265 vessels in their hening fleet alone; it wentoff
during the war; but in 1946 they had 140 vessels,
just after herring. It looks as if we should stop the
codfishery and go in for herring.
Mr. Crosbie That is part of my argument. There
are fish which have much more value, but that
runs into tremendous amounts of capital. The
Icelandic government realised that they could not
go ahead without government assistance. I think
in Iceland it is state controlled and private capital.
Mr. Hollett "To purchase and equip a purse
seiner in British Columbia prior to the war, was
approximately $35,000 and today is about
$50,000." What was the cost to this country for a
purse seiner?
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 393
Mr. Crosbie They built the
Eastern Explorer in
Clarenville. She is equipped for purse seining. So
far the government has not been able to say what
the cost will be; they think it is in the vicinity of
$85,000 for 110 tons. Originally, when Mr. Dunn
was here, the government intended building
boats which they would chatter to private concerns, but when he left, everything was
changed.
I certainly would not pay $85,000 for anything of
110 tons.
Mr. Northcott The herring fishery has been a
godsend to this country; it means so much to the
individual fisherman. They all can get a license
to pack. Therefore if you get $3 million for herring, it means a lot of money spread
throughout
Newfoundland. A fisherman can get an early start
and it makes him independent. I hope if UNRRA
does go out, the Fisheries Board will be able to
get contracts from time to time. Our herring has
gone throughout Europe and we should get some
good markets there. The herring fishery will be a
great thing for this country.
Mr. Hickman On page 4 of Appendix J: "when
one considers the quantity of herring which I
have found in the Bay of Islands area, coupled
with the experiences gained by the herring
fishery in British Columbia, there is no reason for
any boundary lines and the present prohibiting of
the use of purse seiners in this area should be
abolished." I was wondering, in view of Mr.
Gammon's report, could it be possible to use
purse seiners unrestrictedly?
Mr. Crosbie I think the position is this. We had
the right to use purse seiners inside Blow-Me-
Down and Liverpool Brook. Last year the fishermen objected and we took the seines
out of the
water. Last July an agreement was made between
the Fishermen's Union and the company that for
the present year we would not operate inside
Blow-Me-Down and Liverpool Brook. Actually,
from the legal point of view, you could go ahead
and use the seines if you wanted to. Until last fall,
in the Bay of Islands, no one knew the quantity
there. The fishermen thought the herring moved
out and they had to wait for them to come inside.
Actually, from researches we made, the fishermen were getting a great deal of fish
in the
Humber flats; there are large quantities also in
Mclvers. The figure we give is 150,000 tons. Mr.
Gammon said it should be 450,000. I said that
was too big a joke to give the public.
Mr. Smallwood Has he been estimating schools
of herring for some time?
Mr. Crosbie They use a feeling wire also. We
have checked the fathometer against his wire and
satisfied ourselves that there is an unlimited
quantity in that area. You can estimate within 15
tons.
Mr. Smallwood What would that 450,000 tons
be? Green? How would you convert that?
Mr. Crosbie It would not be a very profitable
business if you did not.
Mr. Hollett What is your authority for saying
70% of all herring originated in Bay of Islands?
Mr. Hollett On page 5, it says: "In Bay of Islands, where 70% of all herring originates...."
Mr. Job Originates, as far as Newfoundland is
concerned, for export.
Mr. Hollett 70% of all herring caught in this
country were caught in Bay of Islands, is that it?
Mr. Hollett The Santa Cruz Oil Company was
set up here in 1937. and I believe the government
guaranteed bonds up to $225,000. I believe when
they clewed up, they owed the government
$141,000. Did you find out what happened?
Mr. Crosbie I do not think that that concerns
this report. If the government did not have sense
enough to protect themselves, it does not affect
this Convention.
Mr. Hollett At that time the Santa Cruz Oil
Company were given a monopoly to catch herring in Placentia Bay and in Fortune Bay
for a
period of 12 years. They were also given sole
monopoly to catch and cure herring on Labrador
for a period of 15 years. When they clued up, not
394 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
being able to find sufficient herring they owed
our government $ 141,000. I think it should be the
duty of the Committee to find out whether our
government got anything. If they can put up
$225,000 for outside concerns, we might persuade them to put some up for local firms.
[The section was passed as read. The Secretary read the next section and Appendices
B and D[2]]
Mr. Job Some of this report is out of date. The
government did agree to make a survey. I got
permission from the committee working on this
section to send a copy of it to the Commissioner
for Natural Resources before we presented it
here. I think that is what brought about the survey.
Mr. Job Another matter, we have quite stringent
regulations regarding inspection of ships
prosecuting sealfishery. These were supposed to
apply to ships coming in here. It is interesting to
note that within the past few days a ship arrived
here under the Panama flag and sailed for the
sealfishery without inspection.
Mr. Job That matter has to be taken into consideration by those who are prosecuting the seal
fishery and have to compete.
Mr. Job They claimed that, being under the
Panama flag, they had no authority to inspect.
They may be right. If that ship comes in here to
land her seals, they have the right then.
Mr. Job Looking at this report, we have to provide for the good and the bad years. It does
not
look very promising this year.
Mr. Hollett Does Mr. Job know if the Norwegians carry any insurance on their fishermen?
Mr. Job I do not know. We have no insurance
on our fishermen except against the chance of
their being caught out after dark as in the case of
the
Newfoundland disaster and the
Greenland
disaster.
Mr. Job It covers the amount provided in the
act.
Mr. Hollett The reason I ask is that you arrive
at this figure of 1/8th of 1% casualties; you could
easily arrange a nice insurance.
Mr. Ballam These men, do they not come under
the Workmen's Compensation Act?
Mr. Ballam Is the liability insurance looked
after by the firm or is it paid by the firm?
Mr. Job We are liable under the act if they are
caught out after dark and lose their lives.
Mr. Hollett What happens if they lose their lives
before dark?
Mr. Hollett Do you think that is detrimental to
the sealers?
Mr. Job I would not think so because the risk is
so small. If you are going to apply that to the seal
fishery, it ought to be applied to everything.
Mr. Hollett If the risk is so small, it should be
easy to work up a nice insurance.
Mr. Job It adds considerably to the expense.
Mr. Hollett I cannot see that, if it is only 1/8th
of 1%.
Mr. Job Would you accept the risk of 1/8th of
1%?
Mr. Hollett I am not a broker; if I were I would
take a chance.
Mr. Crosbie The rate of insurance is $4 per
$1,000 per man.
Mr. Job It is a lot more that 1/8th of 1%.
Mr. Smallwood The loss has been more than
1/8th of 1%, since 1862. That may be so if you
take the four disasters when 323 lives were lost
and divide that into 250,000 men, that gives you
1/8th of 1%. But you can double that since 1862
— not on sealers, but on sailing craft.
Mr. Job We have taken into account the loss
since the introduction of steamers.
Mr. Hollett I feel strongly about this insurance.
For a good many years I lived in Burin. I was born
there. That is where men go out to fish in all
weathers at all times of the year. I have seen many
cases where men lost their lives — where a whole
1 R.A. MacKay, Newfoundland: Economic, Diplomatic and Strategic Studies (Toronto,
1946).
2 Volume II:215, 226. [Volume II is not in The Confederation Debates Collection]
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 395
ship's crew has been lost, and what do they get?
The Customs pays the widow $85; the Permanent
Marine Disaster Fund
[1] — which has done a
tremendous amount of good work and all credit
is due those responsible for that — from that fund
the widow gets a very small amount, $80 a year.
I am sure that any fisherman going out there, if
he felt there was some security for his wife and
children, would make a much better fisherman
than he would be at the present time. I think it
most important that some sort of scheme be
worked out. Some years ago I took it up with the
government — I sent to Ottawa and got their
fishermen's insurance scheme which applied to
Louisbourg. It was too ambitious for us, so I
asked the government to do something along
those lines. It went in the wastepaper basket. I
think we should do something about fishermen's
insurance.
Mr. Smallwood I agree with Mr. Hollett. I sympathise with it but for rather a different reason.
It
is not so much for the protection of the men
themselves — although Mr. Hollett has said they
would make better fishermen, and probably they
would — but it is for the rehabilitation of the
families when they need it most.
On page 5 you say that the very high cost of
outfitting and repairing ships is caused by a
wrong method of taxation. Would Mr. Job, Mr.
Crosbie or Mr. Ashboume tell me one reason why
materials used in the outfitting, manufacturing
and repairing of sealing ships should be imported
free of duty — m one reason that does not apply
equally strongly to the materials imported for the
use of the cod, herring and other fish industries?
If you are going to have free trade in that particular branch of our basic industry,
why not free
trade in all the other branches?
Mr. Job I can give you one good reason: the seal
fishery is a hazardous speculation. Take this year,
it cost between $30,000 and $45,000 to outfit
each steamer — that has to be hazarded. If you
get no seals you lose the whole thing. You have
paid on that $5,000 or $6,000 duty. When you
take a risk, you want that risk to be cut down as
much as it can be, in order to encourage them to
take the risk. It is not the same with cod fishery.
Mr. Smallwood Suppose you send a ship out
and it costs $35,000 to outfit her, including
$5,000 or $6,000 to the government, and she
comes back clean, what is actually your loss
then?
Mr. Job $35,000 assuming she has consumed
all her stores. She may have a little left — all you
have left is a small amount of stores; and then you
have the expense of cleaning her up.
Mr. Smallwood I was reading in either the
Halifax Chronicle or
Halifax Herald that two or
three steamers had gone out to the seal hunt this
spring — let us assume that is true — if they have
not gone this year, no doubt they will go in future
years. Say three ships went out from Halifax and
three from St. John's, what is the difference in
cost of prosecuting the seal hunt from St. John's
and prosecuting it from Halifax?
Mr. Job Mr. Smallwood is trying to lead me into
confederation. It would be very much less in
Halifax but they have not got the men to
prosecute the seal fishery; they have got to come
to Newfoundland.
Mr. Fudge I wonder if Mr. Crosbie could tell me
what it would cost per thousand to insure the men
provided the sealers were protected day and
night. This $4 insures them if they are out at
night.... What would be the cost of full coverage,
morning, noon and night?
Mr. Crosbie $4 is full coverage day or night. I
disagree with Mr. Job over some things. He says
that it would cost less for a ship to prosecute the
seal fishery out of Halifax. From the point of view
of repairs I cannot agree. I had a certain amount
of work done on a Whaler, converting from coal
to oil, and the quotation I got from Halifax was
$25,000 higher than our own dockyard, and that
included duty on the materials. It was quite a
shock to me.
Mr. Smallwood How would that compare with
the cost of Canadian ships in Halifax?
Mr. Crosbie I would get the same preference as
any Canadian ship going into Halifax.
Mr. Job I was not referring to repairs, I was
referring to outfitting. I know you would save a
lot on coal.
Mr. Job Not if I went into the Gulf.
396 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
Mr. Reddy Does the government compel you to
have these men insured? Or is it voluntary?
Mr. Crosbie The government does not compel
you, but under the act you are responsible for
payment of $1,000 if anything happens to the
men. For years all of our men have been insured.
Mr. Reddy The bank fishermen only get $180.
I consider their lot just as hazardous as seal
fishermen.
Mr. Reddy Therefore I am alarmed at the small
insurance of bank fishermen, compared to the
sealers.
Mr. Ballam I suggest we leave this report on
insurance until we come to that section.
Mr. Harrington ....The point strikes me that
considering the fact that these ships cannot be
used for ordinary purposes, it might be possible to employ them in the fresh frozen
food business, is that possible?
Mr. Job I do not think that a properly built
sealing ship could be equipped to combine with
insulation. Take the
Beothic and
Ungava — it
was the serious competition and they could not
compete, it cost so much more for insurance. We
were paying insurance on an extra $200,000 all
the time and competition was so keen, we found
we had to lie them up.
Mr. Job Yes, carried more than 2,600 tons.
Mr. Job Nothing definite. We are all waiting to
see the results of the sealing survey.
[The committee rose and reported progress, and the Convention adjourned]
