Mr. Chairman The committee is now considering that section headed "The Co-operative Movement".
[2]
Mr. Fowler Mr. Chairman, I suppose I was partly responsible for this section not passing yesterday
afternoon. There are, a couple of
observations I would like to make now, however,
relative to the co-operative movement. When Mr.
Newell was speaking yesterday he stated that
there was no money put into the co-operative
movement by the government. Mr. Keough however did inform us that the government did
have
money in several of the co-operative movements,
especially land settlements. Then aquestion from
Mr. Hollett elicited an answer from Mr. Newell,
that the government had advanced them $50,000
annually for salaries and travelling expenses. I
contend that any committee bringing in a report
on any department or institution in which government monies are involved should show
what that
department is costing and is likely to cost in the
future. I feel that in order to arrive at the cost of
government these are the facts we must have.
They are more important than the price of some
fishery products ten years ago.
Mr. McCarthy Mr. Fowler seems to want to
know how much is involved so far as the government is concerned. I might say that
the land
settlements (at the present time there are two or
three) were started with money supplied by the
government, and when they were wound up there
was a certain amount of stock, buildings, etc. left
over, and an inventory was taken. and in the case
of Lourdes it amounted to $8,000. Some people
think that $8,000 was passed over as a gift but
that is not correct. We have not yet paid off the
full amount, but we have it down to about $2,000
and will pay it off practically at any time. It is not
a matter of the government losing any money.
This same situation applies to Midland and Point
au Mal.
Mr. Hollett What Mr. Fowler really wants to
know is why the people should be taxed to the
extent of $50,000 a year to maintain or sustain
some particular ideology which some people
wish to bring forward. I think that's your point is
it not, Mr. Fowler?
Mr. Hollett I would like to know that too. I
wonder if Mr. Job can tell us?
Mr. Job I can't answer it, but I asked Mr. Newell
the other day and I believe it has been more
412 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
education than anything else. I believe it is
having an important effect among fishermen. I
believe in the movement because it is making
people think. It is costing the government
$50,000, but you can't very well say it is costing
that much as a co-operative movement, it is part
of the education of the people, I think.
Mr. Job It has undoubtedly done quite a job —
it has exported quite a lot of salmon and lobster.
I don't see why they should not do it. Competing
with merchants, Idon't suppose you object to that
do you?
Mr. Fowler I am not objecting to anything, I just
want to know what it is costing the country and
what it is likely to cost in the future.
Mr. Hickman If it will clear it up any I have the
estimates here for 1946-47.... That is a total of 22
for the personnel, for which there is a budget of
$31,400, and travelling expenses of $18,000,
which makes a total of roughly $50,000. That is
how it is laid out in the estimates.
Mr. Smallwood A moment ago I asked Mr. Jones
from Harbour Grace, who sits behind me, to work
out a little mathematical table. I asked what percentage $50,000 was of $30 million,
and he
handed it back — 1.75%. The government is
spending 1.75% of the total expenditure on the
encouragement of the co-operative movement. I
don't like that, Mr. Chairman I think it is entirely
wrong. I think that in the budget the co-operative
movement ought to have spent out of public
funds for the purpose of education and propaganda three or four times that sum. I
think there
should be 50 field workers or more. I think the
whole tendency of the government ought to be
the encouragement of the co-operative movement. That's a lot better than communism,
and if
you don't have a co-operative movement in this
world, that's what you are going to have. There
is no iron curtain shutting Newfoundland off
from ideas around the world, and if we don't do
something to prevent it from happening, mind
you don't wake up ten or 15 years from now and
find in Newfoundland a communist ideology.
There is one thing that can prevent that, and that's
the co-operative movement. Mt. Hollett wanted
to know if the co-operative movement competes
with the fish merchants....
Mr. Smallwood Sorry, well someone was wor
rying for fear the co-operative movement might
compete with the merchants. Let's get this
straight. In this country for the past 400 years
there have been merchants ... in charge of our
fisheries. Up to now we have not been able to do
without them. They collect the fish, pack and
export it, but I don't suppose anyone thinks that
when God created the world he ordained that the
fish trade of Newfoundland had necessarily got
to be in the hands of merchants. So long as there
is no one to replace the merchants you have got
to have them and be glad, but there is nothing
to say that fishermen should not be their own
merchants through organising co-operatively,
and that movement, spreading as it is throughout
the earth, should be encouraged here in Newfoundland, and no government can do anything
basically better than to encourage the cooperative movement.
Mr. Hollett In reply to thatexcellent speech we
have at least three co-operative men here — Mr.
Newell, Mr. Keough and Mr. McCarthy. To you
I would like to put this question, and I take it they
have studied the co-operative movement much
better than I have, is it consistent with the whole
idea of the co-operative movement that the
government should assist in any shape or form to
enhance this movement?
Mr. Keough I am not here at the National Convention in particular to defend the co-operative
movement. I don't see that it needs any particular
defence. For instance, when ten people get
together to do a certain piece of business it is
called private enterprise, but when two or three
or four hundred people get together to do the
same piece of business it suddenly seems to have
an ideology involved. As to whether it is consistent with co-operative ideology that
the government should be involved, I would say not
particularly. In this country the government happened to get involved, but in the
first instance it
happened to get involved in the wrong way. It got
involved in land settlements and suddenly one
morning they woke up to find they had a cooperative society on their hands. Overnight
they
had a government store down there, and that's
now called a co-operative society. It is possible
that the government may have lost a few
thousands in other government stores. If they did
I have no particular sympathy for them, that's the
price they had to pay to find out that co-operative
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 413
stores should not have been run in that particular
fashion. There is one other point, whether it is
consistent for the government to have monies
involved in the co-operative movement — I
would say not particularly. With regard to the
maintenance of the Co-operative Division, when
a country spends money to educate its citizens
nobody raises much objection, but apparently
when they educate the people as to how to make
their dollars go further people have a lot of objection....
Mr. Newell I would say that the co-operative
movement is open to constructive criticism, and
the term ideology as applied to the movement is
not one to create embarrassment. History is on
the side of this movement, but I am at a loss to
understand what particular ideology is being
taught by these government- sponsored field
workers. The word "ideology" is common currency in die last few years, but I wish
people
would be careful in the use of it. You get the idea
that there is something subversive going on, that
you might wake up some morning and find a lot
of anarchists on our hands. As far as I know, and
I am open to correction, there is no ideology
being taught. The money that the government is
putting into the co-operative movement it is not
putting into individual co-operative societies. A
certain amount of money had been previously
invested in land settlements' stores, but it is not
the practice of the government today to put
money into co-operative societies. Any money
from now on will be on the same basis as they put
it in cold storage companies — loaned as a deal
with private business. This $50,000 that the
government is spending on the enhancement of
the co-operative movement is to organise adult
study groups to see by what means they can help
solve their problems and benefit themselves
financially.
There should be no more criticism directed at
that sort of investment than there is at primary
schools or adult education, on which the government has spent $3 million. It is purely
an educational expenditure. It does strike me as rather odd
that this Convention, which has hitherto so warmly endorsed the investment of govemment
money
in research to develop the fisheries, etc., without
any dissent whatever, should suddenly find itself
balked because the government is investing
$50,000 in the development of the most impor
tant resource we have — the people of the
country. That's what it amounts to. Actually at
the moment, in the estimates of 1946-47, I don't
believe there are quite as many people on the staff
— not that it matters much, but we might have
the records right. There are 16 workers and two
stenographers.
Mr. Newell Perhaps if we had had more cooperative societies 50 years ago and right down
through, certain things that happened in 1933
might never have happened, and this Convention
might not be meeting here today.
Mr. Ashbourne I am quite in favour of this
co-operative movement. I believe that it is a
world-wide movement and viewing its effect in
other countries I believe it is in Newfoundland to
stay. Whether or not the working out of these
co-operative ideas will bring the utmost value to
the greatest number remains to be seen, but I
think it contains the seed of something which is
very essential and valuable to the people. Now
with regard to the amount spent, the way I figure
it out it is less than 1%. Of course it looks large
enough, $50,000, but I am of the opinion that we
want more co-operation in this country all
around. A year or two ago there was a firm here
that wanted to invest about $1 million in the
building of a powerful steamer to prosecute the
seal fishery, and the government was asked to
help in that matter by perhaps chartering this boat
in the summer to go to the Labrador, quite a place
for tourists and probably there would be a good
many dollars come into the country if we had
suitable boats to take people down around there.
That proposition was turned down. Today we are
told that around the Labrador there are probably
200,000 seals, a very valuable asset and one of
our natural resources. It is not easy to get to these
seals by small auxiliary boats, they have not the
power for one thing, except when the ice is breaking up and they can get through it.
There is a case
where if the government had co-operated with
that firm, and there are not many firms willing to
put $1 million down, it would be a great benefit
to the country. It might be possible, with cooperation in some other way, that plans
like that
could be worked out....
Mr. Hollett It appears to me that both Mr.
Keough and Mr. Newell misunderstood me. I feel
that I know something about the co-operative
414 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
movement, and I am in sympathy with it. I asked
a direct question, and got a camouflaged answer.
I asked whether it was consistent with the whole
idea of the co-operative movement that it should
obtain government assistance. 1 got no proper
answer, and I am surprised, from two men who
are so prominent in the co-operative movement.
They should have said, "No, the government has
nothing to do with it."
Mr. Keough What right have you got to get any
such answer?
Mr. Hollett I asked for it. If you could not
answerit you might have said, "I'm sorry I cannot
answer it", but to give a camouflaged answer and
use the word ideology, to try to cover up the
question and not answer it properly, I don't give
anybody much credit for that. The whole idea is
not to get any assistance whatever from the
government. It starts from a very small nucleus
and builds up gradually. If you are going to get
the government to come in and spend $50,000,
where is it going to stop and when? If they are
going to spend that much why should they not
spend $500,000 or more to put it through? The
co-operation Mr. Ashboume is speaking of is
entirely different. We all believe in co-operation,
but whether we all believe in the co-operative
movement is another thing; but I do believe,
according to Dr. Coacly, that it is not the way to
get a co-operative movement going well in any
country, to get assistance from the government or
Dr. Grenfell or anyone else.
Mr. Newell I had thought that hitherto we made
it plain that co-operative societies are business
operations, and are not receiving assistance from
the government. That is defnite, This $50,000 is
being spent to finance adult education — those
who go into a community and offer leadership in
formulating study groups.
Mr. Newell No co-operative society or anybody
interested in the co-operative movement is urging that they put any money into individual
co-operative societies as a business venture, because it is generally felt it would
not be in the best
interests of such societies. As to whether the
government or the Grenfell Mission should
spend money on a field service, which is education which may result in the formation
of study
clubs, that is a different question and the situation
is this: if the government or somebody else did
not sponsor such a movement, the probability is
the movement would not get started. Mr. Hollett
referred to Dr. Coady; he is connected with the
movement in Nova Scotia. St. Francis Xavier
College, I understand, sent out men to organise
study groups as part of the adult education movement. It was not financed by the government,
but
it was by somebody. He and all the other people
had to eat, they had the elementary human needs,
somebody had to pay them. The point is this: if
in the beginning you had not had the government
mooting the idea, then it possibly might not have
been mooted. I agree that the sooner the cooperatives are strong enough to take over
educational work, the better — in some places they are
strong enough. In the Flowers Cove area they saw
fit to withdraw the field workers, so we are going
to pay for it ourselves. The people dug into their
pockets. That was only after they got a start.
Whatever we feel ideally, we have to be practical
and admit such assistance is necessary; but certainly not when it applies to a business
enterprise
being carried on.
Mr. Jackman Up to about halfan hour ago I was
doubtful if we were getting anywhere as far as the
Convention is concerned; but when someone
backs up the workingman, we are certainly on the
road to responsibility especially when that is
done by a Water Street merchant. I am not a
co-operative worker, but I feel grateful to the
co-operative movement for what it has done for
Bell Island. We could not do it on our own. We
were not educated in that manner and of course
we had to depend on the field workers of the
co-operative to put us on the right track. We
instituted a credit union within our own union and
we did it for the purpose of getting some of our
men out of debt. and make them independent. I
could quote a few cases of what I consider the
co-operative movement did which benefited not
only the working class but the employment class
as well. We had a man who came to the credit
Committee to know if it was possible to raise a
loan. He was in debt to his merchant in the
amount of $300. His merchant told him if he
could pay off the amount he would give him 20%
discount. We gave him the money and he
received his 20% discount — $60 — and he has
not been in debt since...
Mr. Smallwood I cannot agree with Mr. Hollett
when he says the government is giving money to
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 415
the co-operatives. They are not. They are spending the money towards an educational
movement
which will put Newfoundland back on its feet....
Mr. Penney I want to correct the record. A
matter was brought out in yesterday aftemoon's
debate on the co-operative section of the
Fisheries Report. I understand the delegate from
Bonavista Centre, a wizard on statistics, said that
the co-operative movement began around ten
years ago. I want to try and show that is incorrect.
Some 15 or 16 years ago, a co-operative movement originated or was in operation in
the town
of Carbonear. It had a membership of some 40
people, a cross-section of merchants, labour.
politicians and everything in the town. I do not
know of any member who favoured confederation.
Mr. Penney I did not say that. Fifteen or 16
years ago a co-operative was in operation in
Carbonear, representing all denominations,
labour and industry and all shades of political
beliefs (except confederation); it operated until
the younger members could not give it the time
involved, when it was agreed to close up and
distribute the assets to the people. During the time
it was in operation members competed in public
exhibitions in St. John's and won many cups and
prizes. These souvenirs are still held in the homes
of the winners. This co-operative society did not
have the privilege of radio propaganda or special
advice, yet it earned and paid dividends and gave
the people a nest-egg until disbanded. I believe
Canon Rusted will bear me out, and also Father
Coady of Tors Cove, through whose efforts we
were able to obtain a pedigreed Jersey bull, the
offspring from which is around the settlement of
Carbonear and until this day is producing butterfat and milk of a quality second to
none
anywhere, and this was in keeping with the
quality of fresh eggs known so well all over the
place. From this you may believe that the cooperative movement was in being before
the time
of Commission government.
Mr. Ballam ....When we find the net price
derived by the fishermen from sales to co-operatives is two to three times the price
paid by the
local buyers, that in itself proves the co-operative
movement must be doing a wonderful job or else
local buyers are falling down on the job.... I know
the co-operatives on the west coast boosted the
lobster fishery. Sweden is a 100% co-operative
country; every phase of the industry in that
country is co-operative, even the government.
They get government assistance. Sweden is the
most solvent and successful country in the world.
If by spending government funds we can promote
any such idea that might come near anything in
Sweden we should do it by all means....
Mr. Newell I am anxious not to create false
impressions. I would like to refer again to the
figures — I hope nobody will get the impression
that, because there is such a discrepancy in prices
paid by local buyers and by co-operatives, local
buyers are deliberately holding down the prices.
I think the local merchants were paying as big a
price as they could pay. This is important in the
point of view of the fisheries.... With reference to
competition, I remarked there was one or two
firms which paid as much as 26 cents or 27 cents
this year. Ever since the co-operative movement
has gotten strong enough to have fairly large
quantities of salmon on the market, there have
been chartered boats to do it. It has been common
practice for local dealers collecting certain
amounts of salmon to get space on boats
chartered by the co-operative society, and to
enable them to pay practically the same prices as
co-operatives. Most of the businessmen say they
feel it is a good thing if the earnings of the
fishermen can be increased, then the businessman has a chance of getting his bills
paid.
Mr. Roberts I would like to say a word or two
in regard to the co-operative movement on the
northwest coast. with regard to the lobster
fishery. I am not a co-operative man, neither am
I a fisherman, but living in the midst of the
co-operatives, we are all more or less connected
with it. Mr. Ashbourne was wondering if extensive fishery would deplete fish. It can,
especially
in regard to lobsters. Fifty years ago lobsters were
a nuisance, a pest, no one knew about canning
lobsters. Their only use was for fish bait. Finally
some Canadian who knew the northwest coast
came down and packed those lobsters. The best
price paid was 50 cents for 100 lobsters, regardless of what size they were. Today
they are paid
practically 50 cents each. In 1920 the government
416 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
had to put on a closed season to protect the
fishery. After the season was opened they found,
after four or five years, the same thing was happening. They were tinning lobsters
and some of
the fishermen were not altogether honest. They
packed small lobsters and female spawn lobsters,
which should have been left there. The government were considering another closed
season
when another Canadian firm came on the coast
buying these lobsters fresh. They were not a large
concern.
Mr. Roberts Yes. They paid pretty nearly what
the people were getting for tinned. Then
Maritime Packers came in, they opened branches
at Lark Harbour and Bonne Bay and after a
couple of years, the co-operative business was
introduced by the government. The field workers
showed the people where they could double their
earnings by getting the lobster to market and
cutting out the middle men. The first year the
co-operatives sold lobsters, they got 20 cents; the
Maritime Packers paying 10 cents. They had a lot
of expense. The co-operatives began to grow and
in three years the whole coast had gone co-operative. Maritime Packers still held
their plant at
Lark Harbour and were not a branch of the
society. Last year they paid 14 cents to 17 cents;
average 16 cents a pound. The co-operative
society at Rocky Harbour and Bonne Bay
averaged after all expenses paid, or loss to the
fishermen, 35 cents a pound. There is a great
spread between 17 cents and 35 cents a pound. It
means the fishermen are doubling their wages. It
does not mean they are banking this money —
they have more to spend and their standard of
living is higher. Another good thing is this — it
has centralised the industry. The co-operative
officials or inspectors, when a boat comes in, go
through the catch and the small lobsters and
spawning lobsters are thrown overboard. They
cannot be sold. Instead of the industry decreasing, it is increasing every year.
Mr. Watton ....I am quite in accord with the
co-operative movement. I think it is a good thing,
but I do not think it is a question of government.
I am not very familiar with the co-operative
movement, but I do happen to know a little about
it and I am in accord with the fundamentals
behind the movement. I know for a fact in some
cases in this country what the co-operative move
ment has done. People have come into communities where there are three or four big
merchants, with this idea — that they will close every
business house in the community. I don't think
that's co-operation.
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, I believe in the co-
operative movement, and l think it was in the
north where the first co-operative movement
started in this country. I am sure it was a good
thing, but unfortunately transportation was one
of the reasons that it was killed. I don't know
whether Rev. Burry is conversant with the way
the Labrador coast was, back in the years when
even if you had money you could not buy anything. Everybody that came along with a
pedlar's
pack went out of it with the packjust as heavy as
when they came in. There was no limit to what
they had to sell and the people could not afford
it. Dr. Grenfell put in ten stores. The people were
up against it, but the stores carried on until 1928
anyway, I don't know if they are still in operation
now, but I believe if they had had the right system
the people would have benefitted a lot.
The question was put here yesterday, "Was
the government behind the co-operative move
ment"? Absolutely, I am sure ofthat, but an awful
long way behind. I don't know whether the rest
of the members of this Convention believe that
the co—operative movement is a long time overdue in this country, but I certainly
do. I don't see
why we have to be at the beck and call of somebody else when we can get together and
produce,
and I believe the day will come when Newfoundland is going to come to the top, and
every
man that is interested will be able to market what
he produces. I came in here in 1939 from a district
that was suffering, and on the way home I met a
bunch of lads and lasses between Winterton and
Ham's Harbour and l was wondering if I could
get a lift home. I asked who they were and they
said they were the co-operative workers. I said
the government needed to get the people interested in co-operation. I believe the
government
would have done a lot in those days with a clear,
sane policy, when they had to give out the money
to the people. There was not a village in Newfoundland that did not have a percentage
of
people on the dole. They could have taken a truck
and gone to some central place and bought the
food and divided it among themselves instead of
buying from the retailer. You would have had the
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 417
germ of the whole co-operative movement, and I
don't believe that you would have to spend
$50,000 a year today on field workers. That's
why I said the government was a long way behind
co-operation.
Mr. Burry I don't need to rise to support the
co-operative movement, it has a great deal of
support throughout the country and in this Convention. I rise to support the idea
that the government should give some support to this movement
as it has been doing in the past by educating the
people to get into this thing as their own.... Mr.
Bailey spoke of the co-operative movement in
Labrador. As we all know Sir Wilfred Grenfell
started it and it failed, and now it has been taken
over by the co-operative movement and they are
doing a great job of it. I hope that the government
of the future will support this movement...
Mr. Starkes I notice the number of cases that
came from Notre Dame Bay — 3,648 cases,
which averaged around $45 a case. Part of Notre
Dame Bay happens to be in my district and I
certainly would like to see the co-operative
movement down there if they would bring in 32
cents a pound to the fishermen for their lobster.
If the lobster caught in Notre Dame Bay last year
was sold for 32 cents a pound, that would have
netted them $70,000 more than they got. I believe
every member will agree that the co-operative
movement is a benefit to the fishermen.
Mr. Newell Before we pass on I should like to
say that I am simply amazed at the enthusiasm
which the co-operative movement has been given
by individual members of this Convention. One
point I would like to clear up is about the government putting money into it. The
best means of
deciding whether or not the government was
justified in conducting co-operative educational
policy would be to examine the result which that
policy has achieved. I feel that since the co-operative division has been in existence
only some ten
years, and viewing the situation that we had to
begin with, the individualistic attitude of the
average Newfoundland fisherman, the suspicion
of anything new which we all have, I think that
the results achieved by this annual expenditure
have been nothing short of amazing. I can say that
because none of that money is being spent on my
salary! What I intended to draw the attention of
the Convention to was another point in connection with the co-operative movement that
has not
been brought out. We have seen how the earnings
of fishermen have been enhanced, and even in the
St. Anthony area in one year the co-operative
society paid out $45,000 in cold cash for salmon,
plus whatever it paid out for boxes, etc. If that
salmon had been sold locally it would have
fetched $18,000. In other words there was a
$27,000 increase over the local price. When you
add up all these amounts it must seem obvious
that purely on the dollar advantage the $50,000
which the government is spending annually, and
which seems to be causing some delegates concern, is money well spent. And then too
I am
interested in the educational value of a movement
of this kind, in fact any movement that has an
educational value. Two or three days ago when
we were on another section of this report we read
that the Fisheries Committee endorsed the idea
that we should try to put the Newfoundland salt
codfishery on a cash basis, and there was a good
deal said on the advantage of cash trading over
credit taking. I have before me the annual report
of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies,
Dec. 31, 1945, and the co-operative credit
societies, which are small community banks,
have loaned to their members $834,667, and if
you look at what has been done in l946 in loans,
because the amount is increasing every year,
among these 60 or 70 credit unions, the amount
must be well over $1 million at the present time,
loans that have been made by the people themselves. I might also point out that the
number of
loans overdue is less than 1% of the total amount
loaned. The point I am trying to make is this: we
come in here and talk about the desirability of
going on a cash trading basis, and here is a group
of organisations that have a plan for putting that
idea into effect. I don't mean to suggest that that
million dollar loan business was all to fishermen,
but a great proportion of it was loans to fishermen, and I have myself seen fishermen
borrowing cash from credit unions to buy motor engines,
fisheries supplies, etc., and very often patronising
the local merchant with that cash.... The total
number of members in those societies in 1945
was 4,640, which is only a small proportion ofthe
people.
Mr. Crosbie I am in favour of the co-operative
movement, but we have spent one and a half
hours discussing it, and I think it is time we went
on to other things.
418 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
[The section was adopted, and the Secretary read the next section[1]]
Mr. Job There are two more appendices, one is
the extracts from Mr. MacKay's book,
[2] we
thought it would be a good thing to put the
extracts before the Convention. Appendix L
[3] is a
summary taken from the Post-War Planning
Committee's report. I think we might take that as
read. Appendix M
[4] is a rather interesting document prepared by the Natural Resources Department in
reply to a request for information as to
the amount expended in connection with the
fisheries since 1934. Delegates can refer to it at
any time and we can also take that as read, if that
is agreeable.
Mr. Smallwood What is the position now with
regard to remarks of a general character on the
report as a whole?
Mr. Chairman You have an opportunity to do
that on the motion to adopt the report as a whole.
Mr. Spencer Page 64 of the report: "(m) Bounty
for Repairing...." I understood an arrangement
was made some years ago about that. I wonder if
the Committee could tell us, is that practice now
discontinued?
Mr. Job I think we shall ask Mr. Ashbourne if
he could tell us that.
Mr. Ashbourne It had been the practice of the
government to pay a bounty for repairing vessels.
It was discontinued. I am afraid I cannot read the
minds of the Commission of Government as to
why this should be discontinued. I do remember
one enquiry was made as to whether a bounty was
payable or not, and it was remarked that the
bounty was not payable at the time. Coupled with
that was some remark about the matter of inspection, as to whether or not it might
not be abused.
That depends entirely upon the inspector himself,
and I see no reason why, if the system could be
abused by some who wanted to affect sham
repairs, the person who wanted to effect any
repairs should suffer. I am in accord with the
suggestion and I believe there are vessels along
the coast that could be repaired. It has been done
in the past. With the exception of that excuse I do
not know of any other reason why the matter was
dropped.
While I am on my feet I would like to reply to
a question asked by Mr. Hollett as to the quantity
of Merchantable fish shipped out of this country
last year, and if any of it was classed as such. I
went to the Fisheries Board this morning and I
give you the official figures:
*
There is no report at the Fisheries Board of the
amount of Merchantable fish exported from
Lamaline.
Mr. Hollett A few years ago Lamaline was the
exporting center, now it goes direct from Grand
Bank.
Mr. Harrington The Committee gives the approximate numbcr of men prosecuting the salt
codfishery. I wonder if the Committee could give
the number engaged in fresh fishery?
Mr. Job Those numbers there partly fished for
fresh fish and partly engaged in salt fishery.
These numbers refer to the entire fishery.
Mr. McCarthy Page 2 of Appendix 1: ....Does
that mean that if a local vessel left St. John's to
go to Halifax, she could not land freight along the
coast?
Mr. Job Yes, that is the meaning. What is happening is this — take a vessel loading at Port
Union bound for Placentia Bay. She clears from
Port Union and is permitted to carry cargo from
Port Union to Placentia Bay. If it is any other
vessel clearing for a foreign port, she is not
permitted to carry cargo between ports.
Mr. Job There was no satisfactory reason given.
The only reply was that it was the custom in
Canada.
Mr. Hickman I think it was originally instituted
to prevent foreign vessels or time-chartered ships
  Â
|
Merchantable |
|
| 1943 |
22,019 qtls. |
4.27% of the total exports of graded fish |
| 1944 |
8,165 " |
1.78% " Â Â " Â Â " Â " Â Â Â " Â Â Â " Â Â Â Â Â " |
| 1945 |
11,528 " |
1.98% Â Â " Â Â " Â Â " Â Â Â " Â Â Â " " Â " " |
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 419
from calling at several ports and taking away
cargo belonging to Newfoundland coastal boats
or vessels.
Mr. Job All vessels except government.
Mr. Crosbie The answer I got was that we must
"christen our own baby first."
Mr. MacDonald I am not quite clear on this.
"....but the extremely heavy expense of managing
steamers and vessels in Newfoundland as compared with other countries is a serious
detriment."
Where is the extremely heavy expense in operating local ships? I do not mean ships
running
around the coast. I am talking about 10,000 ton
ships. One reason why we should have our own '
ships is dial there is considerable money paid out
to foreign ships which money goes out from this
country and does not come back.... Is it not possible to arrange some way to have
our own ships
carry that freight? They could handle some or a
large percentage of it. It incurs a great deal of
initial expense to build a ship, I know, and
whether the extra amount of freight would correspond to the increased cost, I am not
prepared
to say....
Mr. Job In reply to that, there is a very considerable portion of the outfits of ships that
have to
be purchased here and it is more costly here.
Again, repairs cost very much more here than in
Canada. One of the competitions we have had in
the past has been Norweigan competition. These
Norweigan ships have been getting cheaper
provisions than us. I expect they also have been
getting lower wages; also they are subsidised. We
are up against all these. The only thing to do
would be to make sure we got all our expenses
down to the finest point. You will remember in
the sealfishery report, in the case of coal, they
charged duty on it although it never left the ship.
They all count up in the expenses of running a
ship.
Mr. MacDonald I am talking about ships to
handle imports and exports, ships of from 5,000
to 10,000 tons, ships to carry paper and iron ore.
If these ships were owned in Newfoundland and
employed on foreign trade, it is not necessary for
them to buy their supplies in St. John's.
Mr. Starkes ....I am speaking of something I
know a little about. I was on a ship sailing out of
here some years ago, and we bought very little. I
was an engineer, and except when we were absolutely stuck we never got goods in St.
John's. I
don't suppose we get $20 worth of supplies here,
because we were going to ports where there was
no duty to pay. That is the point I am raising with
regard to the heavy expenditures on materials
bought here in St. John's. These ships don't need
to buy here.
Mr. Starkes Very little unless they are stuck,
and then they buy just enough to take them to
Sydney.
Mr. Job I think my own experience has been
that we have to buy quite a large portion of our
stuff in St. John's. I am speaking now of running
a steamer like the
Ungava[1]. We have a very
heavy expense here and pay quite a lot for duty,
for such things as rope and all that sort of stuff.
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, I don't know why we
have no merchant marine.... I know if a country
like Greece, which has practically no import or
export trade, could become the fourth largest
tramp tonnage in the world at the outbreak of this
war, and whose only assets were the seamen they
could put to work, we should be able to do the
same, because I know what our seamen can do. I
should not say this perhaps, but I am forced to. I
was not satisfied with our Transportation Report,
and I went back quietly to find what the trouble
was. I found out that the little
Kyle[2] takes 25 tons
of coal daily to operate it. The ship I was on, the
Halcyon which was 26,000 tons, used to take 10
tons daily, but I don't know the tonnage of the
Kyle. Now I believe the
Ungava is around 25,000
tons.
Mr. Job No, from 18 to 22,000 tons.
Mr. Bailey Now as regards the loss to this
country in having other vessels coming in here
and taking freight out of it, while good men are
walking around on the dole, it is considerable. If
you remember there was a time when there was
hardly a Newfoundland seaman, master, mate or
anything around because we had foreign owners
down here getting men to man their ships. I can't
see for the life of me why it costs ships more to
operate in this country than anywhere else, because I know that when you are sailing
foreign
you can buy in the cheapest markets in the world
420 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
and put in your stores.... It seems to me there is
something lacking. Our men get no more money
than the Norwegians and the Greeks. They get
$120 a month. lean assure you there is no place
in the world where wages are so small as in
Newfoundland today. We never got more than
$50 a month and often $30. I never got $30 on a
Norwegian ship and I am sure they are as good
as ours are. I am not satisfied with the answer
given as to why we have not got a merchant
marine. I think it is because there is an easier way
to get money than to worry about where your
ships are, and what they are doing, and where
they are going to find freights. That's the trouble
today.... You take the
Prospero and the
Portia,
[1]
they are still running, but they should have been
diesel 25 years ago. These ships were repaired
after they left here and I can't see why they could
not have carried on to a ripe old age. The
Kyle
could have been turned to oil too, and when you
look at the money that's spent every year in the
coastal service of this country you can see that
those ships are too costly to operate, and the same
thing applies to everything. I would not be
surprised that if Scandinavian or British owners
came to Newfoundland they would make those
ships pay, because in the first place you have got
the men — 460 men today are under register up
at the railway office waiting for jobs. I am sure
it's a disgrace that our country has got into this
place when you take the place we were in 60 or
80 years ago. We could have operated in the bad
times for $20 and $25 a month and a lot of men
would have been glad to get jobs, in fact I know
men who signed on for $15 a month to get jobs.
I can't see why we pay more, and get more
overtime. I believe something should be done in
this line.
Mr. Hollett Speaking of the mercantile marine,
it is no use to have a mercantile marine unless we
have something to put in the bottom, so to speak.
Those figures that Mr. Ashboume has been so
kind as to produce show that in 1945 we could
apparently ship less than 2% of our fish as merchantable. What has happened? Did the
Committee find out the cause? Is it possible that our
people can't make Merchantable fish? I can
believe now that the man who wrote that letter to
Mr. Smallwood was real and his figures were
real. What happened? Did you, Mr. Job, and your
Committee try to find out the trouble?
Mr. Job We think the standard has no doubt
been raised in recent years.
Mr. Hollett You can't raise the standard of Merchantable fish, can you?
Mr. Job I will tell you an experiment we made.
We got an amount of fish and had it successively
culled by five different cullers and there was a
tremendous difference each time. The difference
between a Merchantable fish and a Madeira fish
is very slight.
Mr. Hollett I don't believe the figures. There is
something wrong. I think the Committee should
have taken pains to find out what is wrong with
it. If nothing is wrong, let's cut it out altogether
and sell Madeira only.
Mr. Starkes In my opinion what is wrong is that
years ago we always had our fish graded as
merchantable, Madeira or West India. The
people tried to get merchantable, which was the
best price, but the past two years our fish has been
graded as merchantable, Madeira, Thirds and
West Indies. Thirds and West Indies are actually
the same, but they have been receiving the same
price for it as Madeira, Thirds and Madeira being
the one price. They are not encouraged to make
Madeira fish. If we had only three prices they
would be encouraged to make good fish.
Mr. Job They are encouraged to make merchantable by the difference in price, but they
can't do it apparently.
Mr. Smallwood I raised that matter in the first
place, and I am wondering now about this 2% of
all the codfish exported which is classified as
merchantable. Is that the only word that is used?
Is some merchantable fish exported from the
country under some other name?.... Frankly I
don't believe that only 2% of the fish exported is
Merchantable. I don't believe it, and I am not
going to believe the Fisheries Board or the Customs or the Chairman of the Fisheries
Committee
or anyone else. I just don't believe it. There is a
catch somewhere. Does it go out under some
other name, and if so what is that name? For
instance take shore fish, which is one quality of
fish that I know something about, and that
Spanish shore fish, I have seen it packed —
hundreds upon hundreds of quintals, in Bonavista, English Harbour, up the shore from
Bonavista
in Elliston — beautiful fish, as they say in
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 421
Bonavista, just like cheese. I know that is shipped
out under many names, and I doubt if the word
Merchantable is used. There is choice, prime and
other grades, but I don't remember the word
Merchantable being used, but a lot of it was
Merchantable. Then again Madeira. Is it shipped
out as Madeira? Under what names and grades is
that fish shipped out? The mere fact that there is
some technical classification of only 2% merchantable makes me believe that there
is some
other name. Now somebody knows we are going
to get at the bottom of that and lift the lid off.
Mr. Crosbie Mr. Smallwood makes some very
bad statements at times. Apparently he does not
want to believe anyone. It does not sound logical
or responsible for a man not to believe in anything. With regard to Merchantable fish,
the
grades have changed in the past few years, and I
believe the figures are possibly correct. Speaking
for our own firm we have not exported a merchantable fish for five years, or bought
one for
that matter, for that period. The fish in this
country is not as good as it was ten or 15 years
ago. Whether it is the fault of the curing or what
I am not in a position to say.
Mr. Crosbie Merchantable and Madeira, you
can go down to the Fishery Board and see.
Mr. Crosbie I am not sure, but $2 or $3 a quintal
anyway.
Mr. Bailey I wonder can anyone tell us what the
names are that the fish is exported under? How
many grades and the names on there?
Mr. Job I will have to refer back to Mr. Crosbie,
I have been so long out of that I don't know.
Mr. Crosbie I will take a crack at it. Merchantable, Madeira, Thirds, tom cods, West India and
him and scale fish — these are the grades they are
exported under today. Bim is a new one. If you
get on a culling board today you are mesmerised,
you can go down on my premises any time when
you are not too busy with confederation. You
have Madeira no. 1, 2 and 3, and so on with each
grade. You want to be a genius today to know the
salt codfish business on grades.
Mr. Ashbourne Referring to this matter of cull
if I might, as far as I know the cull, when the fish
is bought from the fishermen, is Merchantable,
Madeira, West Indies and tom cods, not Thirds.
Thirds is an export grade, which means that when
the fish is culled at the exporting premises there
are certain fish which are graded as Thirds. There
are some people who think that the fishermen
should have that extra grade too — Thirds....
Mr. Chairman I would like to draw your attention to the fact that l have permitted the debate
to
wander. There has been some information
solicited, but we are not dealing with the salt
codfish section just now. The motion is that this
section now pass, as read.
[The motion carried. It was then moved that the report be adopted as a whole]
Mr. Vincent ....This report deals with what is in
all probability the most important debate to be
discussed in this chamber. I do not see the urgency to railroad it through, it concerns
more than
60% of our people. On Tuesday, fishermen north,
south, east and west listened with great interest
to something that appeared to be in the nature of
an accusation, a firm or firms receiving an overall
commission on every quintal of saltfish shipped
out of this country, Tonight they may have some
misgivings when they hear of agents, commission merchants, brokers, trade representatives,
and sundry others, all getting some cut from what
they, who go down to the sea in ships, can extract
but a very poor living. I am not quite content with
the chairman's explanation that in his opinion
this is justified. The whole economy of our
country revolves around our fisheries, and I am
surprised that so many delegates have not shown
a greater interest in this debate.
I do not know what phase of our fisheries
should get top priority, I would say that one is so
dependent on the other. Mr. Crosbie specialises
in fresh codfish products, in this he is joined by
Mr. lob, whose firm also figures largely in the
fisheries. But just for purposes of comparison, I
would point out that in the last fishing season,
1946, the value of the salt cod expert was more
than three times the export value of fresh and
frozen cod products. If, as Mr. Smallwood with
his pessimistic outlook on this phase of the industry suggests, or Mr. Crosbie with
his "catch
herring" policy points out, if this means curtains
for everything but the fresh products and herring,
then it devolves upon us to be up and doing
something about the reconversion of the salt cod;
and reconversion to the fresh and refrigeration
422 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
means a very costly investment....
In Bonavista North there are around 70
schooners and some 1,500 inshore fishermen.
Very little of the expensive Labrador outfits can
be of any use for fresh fish. Schooners will have
to be refrigerated, plants must be built and I
would remind the Commission of Government
here that in all Bonavista North and Centre there
is no freezing plant. There is a bait depot at
Greenspond, so when the salt cod goes, something must be done at once to give those
displaced
fishermen a chance to cam a living. Their present
fishing equipment for the greater part, I refer to
the Labrador outfits, will be considered obsolete
and scrapped.... I believe in our fisheries and I am
prepared to wager that in the future we will stand
or fall not by farming, not by forestry, not by
mining, but by our fisheries, and that only....
I entirely agree with Mr. Crosbie that the
figure of $24 million is very conservative and I
certainly do not visualise it falling below that for
many years. Your Committee suggests a wider
diversification of this important industry, with
emphasis laid on the fresh and frozen fish
markets; that there are tremendous possibilities
in our herring fisheries no one doubts, and that it
is fast becoming a major branch of the trade is
certain. Yet can the herring fishery, centralised
as it already is, and restricted to certain specific
areas in the island, absorb a part of the many men,
who when the salt cod markets go, will of necessity be seeking other sources of employment?
Hanging over every phase of our fisheries
must ever be factors beyond our control, such as
our utter dependence on the economy of foreign
countries to purchase our products, and our absolute lack of internal markets. Coupled
with that
are the uncertainties of our fisheries; even this
year the failure of the Labrador schooners to
secure the elusive cod may seriously affect the
getting of good fishermen to follow that calling.
With the subsidiary fisheries I shall deal but
briefly. The once proud industry of our hardy
sealers has dwindled to a shadow of its former
self. Of the minor industries, salmon and lobster
figure prominently, both seem to be firmly established in the continental market,
and the future
seems bright. The revival of the whaling industry
and its impact upon the economy is something
Newfoundlanders must have greeted with much
satisfaction. The liberal wages paid by the operat
ing firms is very commendable....
The Fisheries Board costs the fishermen of
Newfoundland exactly $225,000. I agree that
department has justified its existence. But nothing is altogether perfect and there
is still much
room for improvement. There are discrepancies
in our culling system, in our inspection personnel. This must be corrected; codfish,
salmon.
lobster, should be firmly rejected if it does not
meet the requirements. Inspectors should be fair
and fearless and ensure a good article for export
which will automatically ensure our retention of
good markets.
The idea of the 25-ton powered boat for late
inshore fishing is sound and. unlike carrying out
ice in small boats in July and August, is practicable. The best thing in this report
is this
centralisation idea, the objective for which we
should constantly strive. This must come with the
reconversion of our fisheries, and the opening up
of our communications, so that when Mr. Crosbie
starts his processing plant at Wesleyville or Hare
Bay in my district, fast trucks will speed up from
Musgrave Harbour and Lumsden with the fish
fresh from the boat. A centralised curing and
processing plant situated in Bonavista Bay could
serve 50 miles of fishing coast if the plant could
absorb all the catch.... Our fisheries are the vital
life blood of our nation; we need more men of
vision, men of a gambling spirit, men who will
seek out and exploit every last chance to utilise
to the last ounce our fishery products and byproducts.
I do not want to be accused of self-serving
localism but I cannot refrain from saying that if
there are two districts where the opening up of
communications is of vital importance to the
future prosecution of the fisheries, they are the
districts of Bonavista North and Centre. Every
settlement from Hare Bay to Musgrave Harbour,
a distance of 60 miles, is a fishing settlement, and
with the advent of the mechanisation and modernising of the industry, and centralisation,
roads
must be built. Like Mr. Hollett, who yesterday
fearlessly demonstrated that he was not a native
of Burin, nor of Grand Falls, but of Newfoundland, I am unable to endorse the opinion
that there is sufficient justification for the expenditure of $1.5 million in a certain
specified area
on the pretense that it is vitally necessary to the
industry there, while 150 men, women, and
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 423
children of fishing stock waddle through mud in
another district, and have not the wherewithal to
improve their methods of catching or curing the
same product....
The social security scheme, so ably discussed
by Mr. Hillier yesterday, deserves more than
passing comment. Our fishermen from now on
will be watching with great eagerness the activities of our energetic Board of Trade
now
actually studying that question. Here's where the
words of vital importance get their fullest meaning. Of the co-operatives I will say
no more than
to intimate to Messrs. Newell and Keough, that
they can count Bonavista North as a sympathetic
supporter of the club which threw the bouquets
at their organisation yesterday.
Mr. Job I am wondering where that information
came from that the road is going to cost $1.5
million? I did not get on my feet to refer to that,
but rather to a statement made by the member
from Bonavista Centre who yesterday said that a
little bird gave him some information. I want to
make clear to the delegates that it was a very
untruthful little bird. I got this direct from the
Fisheries Board: the cost of group marketing of
all salt codfish exports from Newfoundland for
the past several years has been below 1.5% of the
export value. That includes the amounts paid to
the organisations to which he refers.
[The committee recessed until 8 pm]
Mr. Smallwood I would like to congratulate the
Fisheries Committee upon what I consider to be
one of the finest pieces of work in connection
with a report on fisheries in Newfoundland ever
compiled. I know of no other document on the
fisheries so complete, and so accurate on the
whole....
I have absolute faith in the basic possibilities
of the Newfoundland fisheries. We must never
forget that over half our entire economy consists
of the fisheries and that half of the population is
directly affected by the fisheries, and that the
remainder who are not directly affected, are certainly so in an indirect way. Everyone
in Newfoundland stands or falls in the long run by the
fisheries. We must not make the mistake of
neglecting the fisheries. We must never forget
that we cannot have a prosperous Newfoundland
without prosperous fisheries. So I would like to
say I have great faith and great belief in the basic
possibilities of the fisheries of this country, and
any man who has not that kind of faith had better
leave the country and forget it. Having said that,
I think it is common fairness and common sense
for us to take a realistic look at the fishery situation, not so much as it is at
the present moment,
but as it is likely to be in the next two to four
years, and then what it is likely to be eight, ten
and 20 years after.
For the past several years the fisheries of Newfoundland have been going through what
you
might call a honeymoon. A lot of countries had
stopped fishing almost completely. Only a
limited number were fishing in the last few years.
The result has been a world-wide shortage of fish
and fish products, including oil and other
products, and the consequence has been that the
demand for fish has been great because at the time
the supply was down, the demand was up and the
ability to buy it also up. That is now coming to an
end.... The shortage will soon be over. What we
will have to face is perhaps ample supplies and
more than enough to meet the demand.
[Mr. Smallwood surveyed fisheries developments in other countries]
All that, while it is serious, is not as discouraging as it sounds. Nominally there
appears to be in
all the fish countries an elaborate and in some
cases hasty programme of expansion in the
means of taking, producing and processing fish.
It means that immediately ahead there is going to
be difficulty on the part of all the fish countries
to market sufficient quantities. That is why I am
so keen on three things: development of the fresh
fish end of the fishery; of herring oil; and of meals
and fertilisers from herring and other kinds of fish
in Newfoundland.
It seems we have reached a point that we never
did reach before the war. We have to get down to
brass tacks — keep up with the times; keep in the
forefront in the development of fish trades. If we
do not, we are going under. Clive Planta,
Secretary of the Fisheries Council of Canada ...
made this statement: "From discussions with the
delegates at Copenhagen and later at Bergen, I
gained the same impression of the trends of the
fisheries. Without exception, every fish producing country was gearing its economy
to maximum production with emphasis on quality. On all
sides there was evidence of every country adopting progressive steps to extend its
fisheries and
also of adopting all new and improved methods."
424 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
Iceland is expanding, so is Sweden. Norway is
seeking maximum expansion. Great Britain will
be back to pre-war strength within a year. Other
countries are building new and improved vessels,
including factory ships. The action of the fishery
industry in shaking off traditional modes has
brought about greater concentration. Private
companies have joined large co-operatives; have
federated and expanded; fisheries unions have
developed and become a permanent part of the
industry. It means we have to get on our toes or
Newfoundland is going to be left far behind in the
march of progress. She cannot afford to be left far
behind with over half the economy of the whole
country. What can we do about it? This Convention, nothing What can the country do?
It seems
to me we have to reduce the cost of production in
the fisheries and in other things as well. Like Mr.
Job, I never lose the chance to stress that.... The
fisheries are burdened with costs that they do not
have in other countries. If we are to compete we
must bring down the cost of production. Second,
scientific research; and third, new methods of
production and of processing. I would say the
fishery has to get off in new directions — herring,
oils, meals, fertilisers, canning — I have great
faith in canning. The Committee tells us that
Senator MacLean appeared before them — he is
one of the biggest fish men in Canada — and one
of the members asked him, "Why is it you are not
bothering the United States?" "I never even think
of them, we are shipping to 100 different
countries," he said. That is canned fish. His plant
is costing $250,000. We have enough to put up
five like that and not miss it. If Senator MacLean
can have 11 or 12 in Canada, why not 10 or 12
modern efficient plants in Newfoundland? We
have to do it.
In connection with new methods, it is only fair
to say a word of praise of the Hon. Mr. Job who
is one of its pioneers in the fish trade of the
country. Every now and then his firm comes up
with something of a pioneering experiment, and
they are still at it. Then Mr. Crosbie in whose
energy, in whose ability, courage and daring in
the fish trade, I have the utmost respect, as I
expect everyone else has.... Also Mr. Monroe,
Mr. Hazen Russell and the Harveys, who have
broken new trails, started new products. But it is
not vast enough; it has to be done under tremendous pressure if the fisheries are
going to provide
a living for our people.
Fourth is the question of a new tariff. I understand that there is a feeling among
some that
capital should not be brought in for our fisheries;
that if we cannot produce the capital, we should
do without it; any new development in the fish
industry we cannot get with our own capital, we
should not get it. This country has been running
250 years. The amount of capital we have accumulated is woefully below the amount
we
need. It is nothing to be ashamed of. The United
States itself was built up with capital brought in
from Great Britain. Canada was built up with
capital brought in from Great Britain and the
United States; New Zealand and South Africa,
the big countries loaned it out, they became
developed and loaned it to other countries. I am
not an economist or a statistician, but I see the
fisheries have to have new capital by thousands
or millions. Why not become a greater country
than Iceland with its 120,000 population? We
have 318,000 population. Why not become one
of the most modern? If we have not got the capital
in Newfoundland, let us go after it and bring it in.
Fifthly, we can put tremendous emphasis on
organisation. The Fisheries Board deserves a lot
of credit. Let us bear one thought for William
Coaker and for Mr. Justice Dunfreld who was a
director of Job Brothers in 1919. They were
pioneers; they were too early to have the idea of
organisation. The Fish Exporters Group was born
in 1919 and it has flowered and blossomed. Give
them credit, but do not forget the men who
preceded them,
Sixth, the co-operative movement. That I
regard as fundamentally one of the most important developments that has taken place
in the
fisheries, and especially in regard to the cost of
production. One way to reduce cost is by cooperation.
Seven, a separate department of fisheries. I
would not have fisheries linked up with land,
forests. etc., I would have a completely separate
department of fisheries. At least one of the
departments of the government can specialise in
one department of fish.
I am not going over the estimate of $25 million. Whatever differences of opinion we
may
have at least we can agree on this. When it gets
down to estimating the value of this country, it
would be very poor criticism if I tried to paint the
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 425
picture glowing only for the sake of arguing
against, say, responsible government.... Regardless of the form of government we get
in l948
this country is due for a recession in the fish trade,
that is likely to last three or four years.
I have absolute faith in the eventual uiumph
of this country. She may go through hard times,
but Newfoundlanders have in them what it takes.
If only the country can get a decent chance, we
will amount to something in the end.
Mr. Spencer ....We are all agreed that the
fishery is likely to remain for many years the
main industry of this country, and in the past we
have invariably thought of the salt codfish industry. In this respect our thinking
was wrong,
but there is no need for me to enlarge on this as
it has been dealt with very thoroughly.
My experience of the fishery has been that the
fisherman who got most out of fishing, who made
the most comfortable living, was without exception the man who was equipped to go
after and
catch different types of fish. If a man was
equipped to go after halibut, he went after them
in the early spring, or one who had enough herring nets would go after them when they
were
plentiful, and in recent years he could sell them
to the government bait depot or the local herring
packets. Unfortunately, the bait depots have not
the refrigeration or storage capacity to handle all
the herring that can be caught. Then when the
time of the year came for salmon he went after
them; the same is true of lobster and mackerel,
and if he had a harpoon aboard of his boat, and
was lucky, he might add a swordfish to his catch;
and he only went after cod when none of the other
fish were available. In this way if the price was
low for any one type of fish, he very likely made
up for it on the other types. For this reason I
cannot quite agree with the table in Appendix B,
which draws a comparison between the catches
of the inshore and deep-sea fisherman.
[1] I have no
doubt it is accurate as far as codfish is concerned,
but it does not give the true picture, as many of
those who are classed as inshore fishermen catch
other fish besides cod. This may not apply to all
parts of our coast, as there may be sections where
they catch only cod.
I would add my voice to that of Mr. Hillier and
the Fishery Committee, when they advocate a
scheme of social security for our deep-sea fisher
men. I consider it is the distinct duty of any
country to provide protection and security for the
families of our men who go down to the sea in
ships.
With regard to the fresh frozen cod industry,
our people are becoming more fresh fish conscious and every effort should be made
to find
markets for our products.
I feel there is no need for me to more than
mention the co-operative marketing and export
of our fishery products. The results speak more
eloquently than any words of mine.
Now to consider the value of the fisheries to
the national income of this country for the years
which lie immediately ahead. In my opinion the
men who comprise the Fishery Committee have
wide experience in matters pertaining to the
fisheries, and the reasons they have given for
expecting an annual income from the fisheries of
approximately $25 million are sound, and unless
something drastic happens to our markets, can be
expected to materialise. We hear much of the
need for new industries, but to me our greatest
need is to develop to the full the industry that we
have.
Mr. Bailey ....I hardly know where to begin to
enumerate the ills and shortcomings that have
befallen the backbone of our economic structure,
the codfishery.... I firmly believe that every sane
Newfoundlander — whether layman or fisherman — should have a chance to study and closely
follow this report. The government should put it
out in pamphlet form and send a copy to every
hamlet in Newfoundland. Its figures leave much
room for thought, I was forcibly struck with the
great differences in the export of our fish during
the past and at present. We find, for example, in
1908-09 the export of salt cod was 1,732,387
quintals. Whilst I know that two of our markets
— Italy and Greece — are in the doldrums today,
yet we find that in 1945 the export of our saltfish
was 1,058,933, a decrease of 673,454 quintals, or
a loss of over $10 million at 1945 prices. Was
there a market for that fish, and we did have the
fish to supply it, or have we lost the markets
where we marketed that extra 700,000 quintals of
fish? I think the time for stocktaking in our
primary industry was long overdue. Another 40
years at the rate we are going will find us without
any markets....
426 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
I'll take the report of the Fisheries Post-War
Planning Committee first. It says, "Foreign trade
is the very life blood of Newfoundland and every
effort should be made to co-operate with other
producing countries in endeavouring to find solutions for the numerous problems which
will face
the saltfish trade in the post-war years."
[1] It goes
on to say that Newfoundland has no bargaining
power with most countries consuming her
saltfish, and consequently it was to the British
government that Newfoundland had to look for
protection. We have had bargaining powers in the
past. Did we use them? I cannot understand why
we, a maritime race, had to look to Britain in the
past; before steam at the end of World War I
forced our sailing vessels from the sea we were
in a more fortunate position then we are today.
Now we have had two world wars; wealth, as we
knew it in 1914, has been practically blasted from
the earth. All nations have become creditor nations either to their own peoples or
outsiders....
We today are a fortunate people if we face and
plan for the future....
I don't think the saltfish business is dead, but
I firmly believe the time has come for a rejuvenation, and a nation with a backbone
instead of a
wishbone can do just that. This country has the
resources to feed its people and could feed, clothe
and house ten times as many more in a manner
comparable with any frontier people. This will
mean very careful planning unless we are going
to continue in the same old lairrez-faire way. If
so, then heaven help us. The time has definitely
come to call a halt and we must get busy and
seriously co-operate along entirely different and
more progressive lines if we ever hope to become
economically independent.
There is not one market that we had and lost
that would have gone out of our keeping if we
had shipped the proper quality fish, except those
markets wherein the people have built their own
ships and caught their own fish. Ever since I can
remember I have heard it said that everything is
OK if the quintal of fish buys the barrel of flour.
It is when the price of flour is up and the fish
down that the people worry. What steps have we
taken to ensure our people that we can sell fish
and buy flour? Not from 1931 to 1940, however.
Look at our exports of fish in 1936-37, 965,699
quintals — a drop of 766,688 quintals below the
1908-09 score of 1,732,387 quintals. Now that
should make one wonder how our people were
fed. Bread from British mills, mostly from
Spillers, bakers in Cardiff. Why did we get flour
from there? Because Britain was supplying
manufactured goods to Australia, Argentina and
Canada and was getting wheat from them. Is it
possible that with 150,000 square miles of this
earth we could not find anything to trade with
those countries to get wheat to feed 280,000
people? What was wrong? Let us examine the
situation closely. Just where were those superb
young seamen that the British Admiralty called
for in October 1939 for boarding boats' crews?
On the crossroads of every village in Newfoundland, their hands nearly worn off through
keeping them in their pockets so long, because
somebody could not operate a merchant marine
as cheaply as other countries. We had no ships.
Who, when we were borrowing money by the
millions, would not allow five ships to be built
for the trade of the colony, who was to blame?
Who in a changing world expected to carry on in
the same old way? But look what we got. Now.
the path is ahead of us today, a thorny path if we
take the wrong turning, but a path that will give
our people freedom from fear and freedom from
want if we do what can and should be done. We
have it in our hands today, let us plan wisely.
Today we have no deadwood and we have a
backlog, if I may use those terms. By that I mean
we have no fleet of sailing vessels, the deadwood,
like we had after the last war, which high insurance and low freight rates made obsolete
in a
few years. To enable us to enter the maritime field
the people of Newfoundland, through the government, have nearly $40 million, that
is what I
meant by the backlog. We have no obsolete ships
like Norway and Iceland. We can start from
scratch with all modern improvements in the ship
of today, and this is where this island home of
ours can begin to live. In the past we had to sell
our fish in cheap markets and buy our food in dear
ones, we had no chance to barter. The lack of a
merchant marine has done that to us, for no
country today, no matter how willing they are to
sell for cash, can sell to a country when they have
no cash Formerly you could sell to one country
for cash and take that cash to another country and
buy goods, but that is impossible today. There
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 427
fore the country that is in a position to ship its
products in its own bottoms to another country
and take from that country the products of that
country, is in a far better position to do business
and create trade than is a country who has not the
means to transport its own goods and return with
other necessary cargoes. This is where we have
to start today. We had in Australia, in 1908, a
market for 65,000 quintals of fish. We lost that.
The Norwegians and Icelanders were putting into
the English market at that time their soft-cured
fish, 18 hogsheads to the 100 quintals, we were
putting in Labrador and Strait Shore cured fish,
13 hogsheads to the 100 quintals, seven days sun.
A fish that held up and sold itself wherever it
went. That fish was the kind of fish that went to
Australia, and every Australian who could get
fish for tea Sunday evening had it. They called it
Newfoundland tea fish. Messrs. Munn, Baine
Johnston and Job started that time what we called
the Labrador slop. Ships came out from England
with coal, discharged here, were not cleaned out,
had no inspection, and went north and loaded at
Grey Island and down the coast. The fish was
stowed in bulk, no cask, I helped load them. This
fish went across and was shipped to Australia,
and by 1913 not one fish was eaten in Australia.
First the fish was soft-cured and could not stand
the handling, then it was stowed in bulk with sand
from the men's shoes, coal dust from the stringers
and other dirt and nobody would buy it. Brokers
in towns in Australia took a beating of at least
$4,000 on a single shipment. That is how we lost
one market.
We had quite a market in the west of England.
I believe Mr. Goodridge knows how we lost that
market during the first world war. In the cities of
Bristol, Exeter and Taunton, Newfoundland
shore cod was on practically everybody's table
for Sunday's tea. In October, 1917, the wholesale
house on Broad Quay, Bristol, finished taking
Newfoundland cod. It was Labrador slop, toe rag
they called it. This grocer was 40 years in the
business. I have shown you how markets were
lost. I watched them go and talked with the men
who imported the fish. Others I could speak about
but it is water under the bridge and time forbids
me, but don't forget we did not lose those markets
because people did not want to buy New
foundland fish, but because we would not send
them the quality of fish they required. Speak to
the average Newfoundlander today and he will
tell you that the saltfish business is dying; sure it
is, but handled right, shipped in the right type of
ship, and stored in the right kind of stores in
Newfoundland, and you would sell 4 million
quintals. The market is unlimited if marketed the
right way, and it is one of the most expensive
foods in the world. In the south I have never paid
less than 50 cents a pound for cod in my life —
58 cents in Montevideo in 1911, 63 cents in
Panama in 1935, 32 cents in Bristol in 1914.
There was a profit somewhere and anybody
living in a tropical or semi-tropical country wants
saltfish. I referred to the market we lost in
Australia. We can get that market back when
things settle down and the world gets back to
normal. Now we cannot sell fish to Australia for
cash because the rate of exchange is against us,
but this is the way we can turn that cheap money
to our advantage.... First we have to find at least
four ships to do three jobs, seal fishery, refrigeration for carrying perishable goods
and other cargoes, built and owned by the country, operated
by a shipping board like the Fisheries Board....
By building those four ships it would be possible
to operate in the trade of the island all the year
around, and, under the direction of the shipping
and fisheries boards, all classes of exporters including the co-operatives would be
able to avail
of their services. They would be able to take any
kind of a cargo, mixed or otherwise, anywhere in
the world. They would not only be able to bring
in the pelts from the ice but they would be able
to bring in the meat as well. With cold storage
facilities we could have seal meat all the year
around. Perhaps we could find a market for this
meat in the future.... I see nothing improbable in
this idea. If the money that was put into the
Newfoundland Hotel had been put into ships of
this type at the time the hotel was built, it is
probable that the ships would not be showing a
deficit such as the hotel is.
[1] If we had had the
ships I have described, and a flour and feed mill,
we could probably have created a market for
about 100,000 quintals in Australia. They have
nearly 6 million people and they have the wheat,
wool, meat and dairy products that we need....
428 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
There is another market in the Argentine
which we could get into, they have cold storage
facilities there already. We can take from them
wheat, corn and cheaper grains, also linseed and
meat. So with a flour and feed mill we would be
independent of the world in feeding our own
people and our own cattle. The Argentine is a
market for flaked and boneless fish, another industry we can start here. I have put
down on paper
here an extensive programme, maybe an ambitious one, but there is nothing that a progressive
government cannot accomplish with less than
$20 million and we have that money. Surely if
the Iceland government is going to spend $40
million on the reorganisation of their fishery, and
they have only a population of 130,000, we can
invest less than $20 million with our population
of nearly three times that number. There is not a
tree on leeland, whilst we are assured of at least
$16 million in wages from our forests, and the
market is here for flour and feed. We have a cloth
mill which last year used 120,000 pounds of
Australian wool, and that was getting it the dear
way, carried past our doors to the United States
and then hauled across Canada. If this wool was
imported direct the mill would probably be able
to use more.... Our butter factory can use the dairy
products. We can bring them. I cannot see how it
can fail. I see no reason why we could not be on
the pig's back with the resources we have.
We need men of vision who would not be
afraid to step out of the rut we have been wallowing in too long. We have looked for
leadership
where it wasn't to be found. Too long we have
thought that only certain men could do things —
why not do it ourselves? The time has come for
us to change. God helps those who help themselves. We all belong to this island home
of ours,
everybody must work together, if the fisherman
is getting a good living everybody is getting one.
If I may quote the Cabot and Lodge couplet, "Too
long have we been under / The towering South
Side Hills, In the land of the sacred Cod / Where
the Jobs spoke unto the Bowrings / Then the
Bowrings spoke to God." I am not speaking
disparagingly or irreverently of these gentlemen,
but that is the pedestal our folks have put them
on, and then blamed them when things went
wrong. Now we want leadership from all classes.
I don't hold with the pessimistic view. I know
there are hard times ahead for everybody and I
consider we are the lucky ones. Sure, the fresh
fish is going to have a hard time. A wholesaler
asked me in Grimsby, "God, man. how do you
get the fillets so fresh?" "Because", I said, "they
are mostly caught within ten miles of the freezing
plant, and a lot of it is not six hours out of water
before it is frozen." Nothing in the world can take
place of Newfoundland shore dried fish, especially after three weeks of the caplin.
When we
get central curing stations with artificial drying,
then we will hold our own with the world. Throw
a Newfoundland fish down anywhere, after you
have cleaned the blood, guts, and blubber off the
napes, washed it with running water, dried it hard
and made it white, and it will sell itself. If the
regulations apply to the merchant they must
apply to the fishermen as well. We have had 40
years of propaganda trying to get fishermen to
take the entrails off fish, and still this is not done,
even though they know this is one of the reasons
why our fish won't sell. Let the government put
out an order that next fall fish with blood and guts
and liver on it will not be permitted to be purchased by the merchant, and that fishermen
producing that kind of fish must take it home
again, and I'll venture to bet that you will get
clean fish. Then we are suffering too much today
from the saying, "It's good enough for the
blacks." Fish from all other fish producing
countries is white, why not Newfoundland fish?
The custom of grinding fish into packages by the
crew should be abolished, and boxes used. I
noticed one box of fish from Norway and cask
fish from Newfoundland in Montevideo; the customer tried the weight of the two fish
and he
eventually bought the Newfoundland fish because it was fuller fleshed. The Norse fish
was
thin but he said it looked better. Newfoundland
fish was good but it was crushed with the screw....
I have already dealt at some length with the
herring, and will leave that fishery with this observation, that when the world gets
settled down
the wedge inserted by UNRRA in middle Europe
should be followed up. The seal fishery is there
and there is no if. The fishery is there, and we
have $12 million in Britain, she has the men to
build the ships and we have the men to man them.
The world is starving for fats and seals are fat, so
let us demand those ships and get busy before
other nations deplete our seal herds. The time is
right now. The whaling industry, while not spec
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 429
tacular, fits into our economy and will, if common sense rules are carried out, go
on for a long
time. I believe our subsidiary fisheries can, in
many cases, be enlarged.... The figure of
$34,499,171 for last year was heartening, and
although these are inflated values, yet our fishery
is in a healthy condition and I believe a firm
policy now, with an eye for new markets and also
to barter where we can't get cash, will put us
through. But it must be done by a combination of
government, merchants, and fishermen. We are
all tied up together. I believe the whole question
of the Labrador cure is that we heavy-salt too
much of it.... With regard to decked boats of
20-25 tons, those vessels would be very economical, especially on short hauls....
The time has
come for the nations to get together to find out
where fish spawn and to protect those regions,
because the depletion of the Banks is caused by
the heavy dories and nets ploughing up the bottom and destroying the food the fingerlings
live
on in their early life.... The depletion of the Banks
also makes great inroads on the shore fishery. In
the Straits of Belle Isle in 1880 it was usual for
two men fishing from whale boats with hand lines
to land from 360 to 460 quintals of shore fish
from the 15th June to the 20th September. Today
three men are doing well to land 160 quintals in
the same time, fishing with motor boats. I believe
the setting up of the Fisheries Board is a step in
the right directionand more power to their elbow.
The co-operative movement, especially in the
fisheries, should and must be of prime importance to this country. It is only when
the fishermen show an interest in the fish from the time it
spawns until it reaches the consumer that our
fisheries will come into their own. Bounties
should be given for the repair of schooners.... I
am not in a position to speak from experience
with regard to the frozen fish business. I know it
has a future. I believe that if we had one strong
central company with faith in the resources behind it, this would be the coming industry,
with
the ships I have spoken about in the first part of
this address....
The land for the bases is a job for the Foreign
Office in my estimation, and is outside our jurisdiction, but I firmly believe we
should get a
government of our own people elected to present
our case to those who made it, and to get the case
adjusted. I believe we should get some adjust
ments in lieu of hire for our land, that would pay
us better in the long run. I believe central curing
stations are long overdue, also cold storage
facilities for storing the fish we have to keep over
a long time.... Depots for salt outside of St. John's
are long overdue. Anything that makes the outfitting of the fisherman less expensive
should be
of prime importance, first to the fisherman and
then to the government. This should be done as
quickly as possible. We should demand, while
our present status exists, to have access to the
British marketing agency in the same proportion
as a regular citizen of the United Kingdom, and
if we do get back dominion status we should be
a pan of that agency either by negotiation with
the UK government or by other means, even if it
meant a cash contribution towards its upkeep.
They have the greatest marketing agency in the
world and I believe there is no reason why we
should not have a liaison with them.... There is
one more thing I want to speak about and it is the
insurance; as Kipling puts it, "If blood be the
price of Admiralty", we have paid it in full in the
past. I believe not in an insurance but a pension
scheme paid something like the British government paid to their seamen and fishermen
during
the war, where a widow would receive a pension
until she remarried, and the children until they
reached a certain age. This could be a tax on the
industry with the government standing a part of
it. The time has come for social service to come
into the picture in this country. The government
employee gets it, why not the primary producer's
dependents, if he is drowned? If a loss of limbs
occurs through hardship, sickness, stranding or
suffering hardship on wrecks, then he should be
looked after....
Mr. Job I would like to thank Mr. Smallwood
and Mr. Vincent for their kind words. I congratulate Mr. Smallwood on his very fine
speech. The
only disappointing part of it was the absence of
remarks about markets. It is all very well to talk
about getting new capital and developing
fisheries. We have developed it to saturation
point at the moment, and unless you get markets
what is the point? I am disappointed he made no
reference to the point I stressed so much here —
a
quid pro quo from the USA for the concessions
already given them. When the delegation goes to
London, I hope someone will not forget to bring
up that point in spite of the fact that the Commis
430 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
sion of Government has said they did not think it
is a matter for discussion. I firmly believe if it is
brought up, the matter will be discussed. I am still
of the opinion that the most vital part of the whole
report is where we stress the need for the US
market. Unless we can get something of that sort,
it will be a poor situation in the future. It is all
very well to say America has a big fishery of its
own, we can still get a small quantity and it would
make all the difference in a decent living for our
people and the reverse; if we do not take this
opportunity, it will be a great mistake. I distributed copies of a pamphlet on that
question and
received from outside the country, from people
who are used to national questions, a very flattering statement. They thought that
we had put
forward an extremely strong case for approaching the US.... Great Britain has already
purchased
considerable quantities of frozen fillets from
Norway. Her readiness to buy from Norway was
on account of exchange. We are up against that
in the British market today. With the consent of
the Treasury I hope something can be done in
regard to Great Britain. The American market
remains in its present position. You know what it
would mean if we have to shut down the cold
storage plants. I again stress that we must push
that question of
quid pro quo from the United
States.
Mr. Reddy ....I would like to refer to the deep-
sea fishermen of the southwest coast, as I feel I
know something of the hardships they encounter
whilst pursuing their avocation. This type of fishing entails greater hardship than
the shore fishing. The men leave their homes in the dead of
winter, when storms are most severe, and the
danger and hardships to which they are subjected
earn for them a special place in our consideration
and a special recognition by the government in
any future plans for the development of the
fisheries.
This past number of years many of our sea
fishermen proceeded to Lunenburg to engage in
the deep-sea fishery. The return they receive for
fishing there is higher than for fishing the same
length of time in Newfoundland. I believe if the
cost of production in this industry was lowered,
those men would earn as much in this country as
they do in Lunenburg — thereby adding the
wealth of their labour to their own country.
The Newfoundland fishermen have paid a
heavy price down through the years — hardly a
year passes without the loss of some fishermen.
There have been occasions when entire crews
failed to return. Many of the stories of heroism
and suffering are never told. Although those men
have insurance under the Bank Fishery Act, the
amount paid to dependent widows and children
is a mere pittance. Of course the PMD Fund gives
great assistance to such bereaved families, but I
urge the government to immediately devise plans
for adequate insurance for those brave toilers of
the deep.
This past year has witnessed the inauguration
of a more modern way of fishing. A large fresh
fish filleting plant has been completed at Burin,
as well as a fishmeal plant considered equal to, if
not surpassing, anything of its kind on the North
American continent. Three fair size draggers are
in operation at the plant, manned with local captains and crews, which up to the present
time has
brought to the old and historic town of Burin,
with its long and checkered history in the Bank
fishery, an unprecedented era of prosperity that
has penetrated many towns and villages on the
whole Burin Peninsula. The undertaking has required large capital expenditure — whether
this
is American or private capital I am not aware. I
do know for the proper development of the
fisheries of this country we need capital to the
extent of at least $50 million....
In common with many others I view with the
utmost alarm the increased activity of European
countries on the Grand Banks. Unless some international control is exercised, those
famous
fishing grounds will be depleted of fish, which in
turn will have a serious effect on our shore
fishery. I would suggest that die Fisheries Board
take immediate steps that would lead to the
protection of the fishing banks, the lifeline of our
country's natural resources.
Referring to the Burin Peninsula road, to
which some members here yesterday showed
much disfavour, I entirely disagree. Mr. Monroe
appeared before our Fisheries Committee and
stated he was prepared to expand his plant at
Burin by another million dollars if adequate communication could be provided. This
road would
serve four districts — Fortune Bay, Burin West,
Burin East and Placentia West. The people in
those districts realise that this road would bring
them out of the isolation they have so long en
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 431
dured, and I am happy to say the government
proposed to start this road this spring.
Mr. Cashin Did I understand Mr. Job to say that
Britain had placed or was about to place an order
for fresh fish in Norway, and the reason they
could not place it in Newfoundland was because
of exchange difficulties?
Mr. Job About 20 million pounds at 15 cents a
pound.
Mr. Cashin To my mind that order should have
been placed in Newfoundland. With regard to
exchange, they have it right here. We pay them
$3.25 million interest in sinking fund on our
sterling debt. Consequently if they felt like giving
us that order, it would not involve purchasing
dollars in Great Britain; it would mean paying the
interest and we in turn here would pay the dollars
over to the fish exporters who supply the fish for
that order. In my opinion that is a very flimsy
excuse for not buying fresh fish in Newfoundland. That was the only point I wanted
to
make, and I want to congratulate the Fisheries
Committee on their excellent report.
Mr. Starkes During the past few years, we have
been selling fish through the International Food
Control Board; I understand that board is now to
be discontinued as far as Newfoundland fish is
concerned?
Mr. Job I understand that after the end of March
there are no more sales through the Combined
Food Board.
Mr. Starkes If anyone got an order for 20,000
quintals, would they ship it direct or through the
Fisheries Board?
Mr. Job I think it would be through the Fisheries
Board.
Mr. Starkes In connection with small steamers,
I understand there were a few men — returned
soldiers from the US — who came here in a
steamer to get supplies to go to the sealfishery. I
am told the position is that before she could sail
from St. John's or from Newfoundland, she had
to pay $4,000 tax or get a clearance from the
Customs to sail for Halifax. Their intention was
to bring in the seals and manufacture them and
give employment here. The position is today if a
man took sick or the boat lost a propeller and had
to make port, as soon as he entered port her first
obligation is to pay $4,000 tax to the New
foundland Customs.
Mr. Job That is under the old Sealing Act.
Mr. Chairman The matter is not strictly
relevant to the issues before this Convention; but
as a matter of information, if any member of the
Convention is in a position to answer, I will allow
the answer.
Mr. Job I am not in a position to answer it. I have
no doubt they are sticking to the Sealing Act
which was made for the protection of seals and
men. What the actual position is, I do not know.
I think six or seven years ago when Norwegians
came out they were refused clearance — they
wanted to discourage foreign vessels.
Mr. Harrington The Fisheries Report has now
been debated for 22 hours and I do not propose
to keep it on the carpet much longer. There were
a couple of points which struck me. On page 39
— referring to the local consumption of fish in
1946, 68,760 quintals worth almost $1 million.
The average family is given as 4.5, that makes 25
pounds of fish per person per year, less than a half
pound a week. We are a great race of fishermen
but we do not each much of it. There is an
argument there for a strong campaign of "Eat
more fish" or a "National Fish Week". If the local
consumption amounts to $1 million in 1946, I see
no reason why we would not be persuaded to
treble that or double it, which would mean something.
On page 44 — this matter of centralisation. If
this country has a problem, this is it. We have
heard a lot of talk about it, most of the delegates
know about it at first hand. I am representing St.
John's but I have travelled a great deal of the
coast — I have been on most of it. I have seen
some of the places where our people live; I tell
you it goes to your heart sometimes, it does to
mine, what they have to do without, living in
those places! There is a big argument there for
this business of roads (which caused a lot of
controversy). I am not taking sides; if it is a case
of removing isolation, then by all means we
should see what we can do about it. But I do not
believe in this business of roads alone, just to link
up all settlements. No government can possibly
do that or attempt to do it. Mr. Vincent has
referred to centralisation several times. I strongly
support the idea. We have to get our people
together into large communities or we are not
going to get anywhere under any form of govern
432 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
ment. We cannot afford it.
I note the small amount the government has
spent or is going to spend on research. It is a great
pity. The fisheries have been and will continue to
be the mainstay — surely we should invest a little
money in that vital aspect of it. I have not much
to say about co-operation. I think it is a
worthwhile movement and is contributing a great
deal to a better economic setup and outlook and
I wish it all success. Another last point, the matter
of insurance for fishermen, some sort of guarantee or safeguard for families. I think
it is a terrible
state of affairs in 1947 that the primary producers
are in such a precarious position. I would like to
go on record as being in accord with any scheme
which can be formulated to assist fishermen and
their dependents.
Mercantile marine — I agree with Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Bailey. It is basic and the
people
wish a return of some shape or form of our old
mercantile marine. We had a tremendous fleet in
the old days. Sometimes Newfoundlanders went
off on a barque or brigantine to the ends of the
earth...
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Harrington has reminded
me of a pointI forgot to raise. I was asked to raise
it by persons engaged in the fresh fish trade.
There are in St. John's something like 1,000
shops, maybe more. Quite a few of them are
beginning to sell fresh fish.... The point is this:
in Canada and the United States, and I imagine
in Great Britain, shops selling fresh fish are required by law to have the proper
cold storage
facilities.... I am wondering if there are any
regulations on it. Is anything being done to
protect the quality of fish after it leaves cold
storage?
Mr. Job Until quite recently all or most of it was
sold to one or two fish shops. Recently they are
selling more to grocery stores, but they deliver
only a small quantity each time. It is all wrapped.
They have no cold storage facilities in those
shops.
Mr. Hollett I rise again to congratulate the
Committee on the excellence of the report. I can
quite see what a tremendous amount of work was
put in on it. In doing that I am reminded of the
remark Mr. Harrington made when he said there
was a controversy about a road. There was no
controversy whatsoever. A remark was made that
the word "vital" be taken from the record. That
was all there was to it. This Convention has gone
on record as believing that the building of the
road atacost of $1.25 - $2 million was not of vital
concern as far as the fisheries is concerned. But
Mr. Reddy from Burin has chosen to take the
matter up again. I still maintain that the Convention was right when they adopted
that. It is an
accomplished fact. The government has decided
they are going to put the road through. It was most
unfortunate that the name of the man who has
established a plant there should have been introduced. I am sure that gentleman would
be the last
to think there was a move on his part to get the
road through. I do not think that even that
gentleman thinks that because he wants to extend
his plant in Burin, the government should extend
the road.
Mr. Job I would like to thank Mr. Hollett and
others. I hope you will all bear in mind that Mr.
Keough has been largely responsible and that he
has worked very hard. As regards Mr. Hollett's
objection to the use of a certain gentleman's
name, that gentleman is on record before our
Committee as advocating that road....
Mr. Newell I do not want to be like the speaker
who said he did not want to delay the House and
then got up and made a second speech. There are
two questions — what are the fisheries worth to
the country, and what are they worth to the
people? Can they provide a decent living for the
people engaged in it? I think the first has been
covered by the Committee. I am not going into
that $25.25 or $24.75 millions. We take that with
the knowledge there is an element of guesswork
in any such estimate, and the Committee has done
a good job in making that estimate. I also feel we
have the right idea in being enthusiastic about
branching out into newer forms of fishery.
With regard to the second question — how
much will the fisheries be worth to the people
engaged in it? That depends to a greater extent
upon ourselves. I would like to say that even at
high prices, even when conditions are at their
best, in many parts of this country the fisheries
have not been providing a decent standard of
living for the people engaged in them. There are
several reasons for this. The high cost of credit
that was stressed here. There are methods of
handling and the attitude many people have
towards the articles which they themselves
produce. Five years ago the situation came up in
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 433
connection with the salmon fishery. The English
market had been lost; none of the people who had
been marketing salmon had made any arrangements with the American market; where I
happened to live the people had been salmon fishing
for years and then found there was no way to
dispose of the salmon. No one wanted them, so
they thought. These people learned their lesson
the hard way. I want to assure the Convention that
they will never be caught in that position again.
They have an organisation that will put it on the
market for them. It seems to me that while it is
not quite self-evident, while we ought to have a
certain amount of faith in the produce of the
country and in the fisheries, I, at any rate, do not
hesitate in going so far out on a limb as to say that
barring absolute blank catches, the fisheries can
be so organised as to give a decent living to the
people engaged in it.... If I did not think that, I
would clear out of this country. We have to have
a different approach from anything in the past....
While I concur with the government's putting
more money into research; while I have nothing
but the highest esteem for people who have faith
enough to build cold storage industries and try to
develop new markets; I feel there is one essential
factor in the long or perhaps in the short run, the
success or failure of our Newfoundland fisheries
will depend to a very great extent on the people
who are engaged in the primary production.
There are two ways we can get their interest
in their own welfare more than they have shown
in the past: one is through educational methods,
educating the people in the fishing boats to a
better standard of values with regard to the
produce they have to market, in the necessity of
new methods of handling. Even that is not
enough. The normal average individual will only
have the biggest interest in anything when his
own financial returns are tied up with that interest, and in the past we have suffered
much because there was never discrimination between the
man who made a good product and the man who
made an inferior one. The fisheries will only be
successful when the fishermen are shareholders
of the enterprise and when their income depends
as much on the successful marketing operation as
on the catch. The average fisherman feels his job
is done when he has salted it, dried it and passed
it over to the merchants. That is why I deplore
any niggardliness with regard to the investment
of public monies on such things as co-operative
education.
Mr. Fogwill It is not my intention to debate this
excellent report but I was most interested in the
fresh fish question. In reference to some figures
quoted by Mr. Smallwood, I think he quoted
400,000 pounds of fish in 1943. Has he got those
figures broken down?
[The committee of the whole and the Convention adapted the Fisheries Report and adjourned]
