Mr. Hickman Mr. Chairman, when I first came
to this House I had a very different opinion of
what was to be done and how we were to do it.
As I understood it, the Convention was to be
something like a royal commission. There was
certain work to be done of a fact-finding nature
and I assumed that it was our duty to get these
facts, examine and check, and then use them as a
basis for hard and fast opinions that would be
useful in deciding the state of the country and its
prospects. I thought we would get down to that
job like a group of businessmen and that our
debates would be chiefly like the discussions that
go on around a council table. I thought that once
we had agreed on the question of fact, we would
enter into a dignified discussion of the constitutional
 question. I have been surprised at the difference between my ideas of what would
happen
and what has actually occurred, and I regret that
issues were injected into this Convention, before
we had been here long enough to find our feet,
that have given a different and, in my opinion, an
unfortunate turn to our proceedings.
When we come down to the practical problem
that was put before the Finance Committee, it
must be admitted that it amounted to a matter of
getting what facts we could and doing our best to
try and draw the correct conclusions from them.
I have listened with impatience to a good deal of
silly talk about the report being full of estimates,
guesses and so on. But, Mr. Chairman, neither
you nor I nor any member of this House can say
with certainty where he will be an hour from
now. The Finance Committee could not do any
more than take what information it could get
together, examine it in the light of such
knowledge as we have of general conditions, and
say, "In our opinion the position of this country
for the next three years should be so and so"....
Mr. Hollett has rightly said that the terms of
reference do not ask us to determine if this
country is self-supporting. At least, they do not
ask this question directly. On the other hand,
reference to the conditions laid down in the Newfoundland Act for a change of the
island's con
stitution sets out that when we are again self-supporting and on request of the people,
self-government will be restored. The primary condition for
the restoration of self-govemment, which is the
only alternative to the Commission that was considered by the British government,
is that the
island should be self-supporting. Exactly what is
meant by that term of self-support may be
debatable. The Finance Committee recognised
that, and tried to limit its predictions to inferences
that seemed completely reasonable, and to a
period that might lend itself to sensible predictability. That was the only systcm
we could work
by and it was my understanding that our report,
when it had been completed to our satisfaction,
would be considered in the light of the problems
it involved and in a decent and impartial way. The
business of the Convention was that of taking the
report, examining it, correcting it if it was found
we had made some mistakes, and then of agreeing
 in the end either on our conclusions or an
amendment to them. Nothing could have
astonished me more than to hear the attack on the
report by the member for Bonavista Centre. I
resented that attack, Mr. Chairman. It was uncalled for, and it was uttered in language
so
insulting to the Committee and so bitter that I
cannot help wondering just what was the motive
behind it. I am not a politician and I came to this
Convention to try and give some service to the
country. I have no axe to grind and in helping to
frame the report, I did my best within my personal
limitations. The report presents a completely
honest view of the country's position and its
prospects so far as any person with some
knowledge of business and finance can foresee
them. Nothing was farther from my mind that I
should have to come and hear that report tom to
shreds in the destructive and discourteous speech
made by Mr. Smallwood.... We were simply carrying out a job that had been given to
us by the
Convention, and the surest way to kill all thought
of personal service of a public nature, is to have
honest efforts subjected to the violent type of
attack that the member for Bonavista Centre
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 691
directed at this report. Don't misunderstand me,
Mr. Chairman, I can take it and what was said
does not bother me as an individual, but the
principle of the thing is wrong. No one knows it
all, even if he thinks he does. Mr. Hollett quoted
some predictions made by Mr. Smallwood in
1931 which showed how wrong he could be when
he ventured into the field of prophecy. I think it
worthwhile to refer to this matter because it
shows how things and opinions change. In 1931
the member for Bonavista Centre figured that
conditions in Newfoundland were far better than
they were in the cities of Canada and the United
States. Today Mr. Smallwood sees nothing but
rocks ahead. Why? That is what I have been
asking myself, and what a lot of other people like
me have been asking since they heard the destructive opening attack on the report.
Was it necessary to take up this report, pick a few sentences
from it and try to make them sound as if the
Finance Committee had nothing else in mind
except to deceive the people of the country? I
want to know also what gain there is to be found
in proclaiming to the world that Newfoundland's
future is grim and depressing when, as far as I am
aware, there is no basis for it. That speech
sounded like the prediction that all who entered
here should abandon hope. I am content, however, to leave the decision on the usefulness
of
the report to the people of this island and also to
put it on the conscience of its opponents as to
whether their forebodings are not one of the most
harmful things to be heard in this country for a
very long time. I tell you that nothing can so
easily undermine prosperity than a loss of confidence, and anything that is done to
discourage
our productive workers is a dangerous thing. I
don't believe in concealing the true facts of a bad
situation, but there is nothing in the report that is
deceitful or that hides anything. If there are errors
of fact they are accidental and they are not, in my
opinion, relevant to our main conclusions. As a
businessman, I don't believe in fooling myself or
trying to fool anyone else on a matter of such
importance.
Now, Mr. Chairman, while this report contains an estimate of past financial results
and
includes some suggestions as to how the
surpluses of future years might be used, the important thing is to know just what
is the position
of the economy at the present time, and what is
the outlook for the chief industries and for
employment. In coming to conclusions about the
condition of the economy we have been guided
by the facts that are available — many of them
from the reports of the various committees that
have reported— and by such knowledge as members
 of the Finance Committee have themselves,
or have been able to obtain from others who are
reliable witnesses. When it came to the estimation of the condition and future of
the fisheries
we had, of course, to be guided by the opinions
of those people who are fully conversant with all
sides of that great industry. The people who are
investing large sums of money in the future of the
fishing industry are better guides than others who
are looking in from the outside. in the case of the
paper industry the same thing is true. We had all
the leading figures in the Newfoundland forest
industry give evidence to the Forestry Committee, and the House is aware of their
optimism and
must surely accept their words before those of
others who have no inside knowledge. I want to
emphasise again that to the best of our ability we
got all the facts we could get, and all the opinions
we could find that we thought useful and valuable
 We were not a committee of experts. We
were only a few ordinary people trying to use our
common sense as well as we could, and we were
not interested in trying to fool the people or
creating a sense of false optimism. I would ask
the House to examine the picture very briefly
because others, lam sure, will be prepared to go
into greater detail on certain industries with
which they are fully acquainted.
The fishery is still the main industry in the size
of the employment it gives. Anyone who says that
the fishing industry is not stronger than it was
before the war does not know what he is talking
about. Prices may be benefitting today from a
measure of world inflation. That is true of every
commodity that is produced. The point is that the
fisheries are today on much stronger foundations
than they ever were in the history of this country.
We haven't yet reached the point of perfection,
but we are moving steadily forward and every
year sees new improvements that will give
greater security to the producers who are the
life-blood of this and every country. The demand
for saltfish will always exist because in certain
tropical countries it is the ideal food for a number
of reasons, On top of that we have a very large
692 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
investment in the cold storage industry and that
is not only diversifying the codfishery, but increasing the number of kinds of fish
that we can
use. There is also the fish reduction business
which is going to be a big thing. If you look at the
picture you will see ahead of us a certain demand
for a large quantity of salt cod, a growing demand
for canned fish of all kinds, and the commercial
use in increasing quantities of haddock, rosefish,
herring, caplin, mackerel and other species by
either the cold storage, the canning or the fish
meal plants. It does not require any great prophet
to say that the use of so many species of fish in
so many different ways is an assurance that the
fisheries can never again go back to the darkest
moments of the 1930s. I know that at the moment
there is an exchange problem that may be
troublesome. On the other hand, that problem has
to be solved or the whole world will come tumbling about our ears.
Newfoundland cannot expect to be prosperous in a world torn by conflict or sunk in
depression. We know, in the words of the member for
Bonavista Centre, that things looked pretty good
in Newfoundland while the bread lines were
forming in the cities of Canada and the United
States. Just the same, we can't fool ourselves. If
the rest of the world is stricken with poverty, we
can't expect to have prosperity. That does not
mean there is anything wrong with our industries
or their future, and I am as certain as the day that
everything is going to come right. The world
cannot go down. In fact, the world is going to
revive because to have peace we must have
general prosperity. The United States is going to
pour its resources into the poor countries that
have been ravaged by war, and build up their
economies with its help. As the purchasing power
of Europe revives, so will the prospects of
prosperity being secured in Newfoundland increase. We have been improving the means
of
catching and processing fish of all kinds. More
draggers and schooners are reaping the rich harvests of the Banks and the fish are
going into
fillets for the American market or being cured for
our saltfish markets. We are improving the cure
our saltfish and new methods of drying are beginning
ning to be employed to help improve the quality.
Purse seiners and other modern equipment are
being used to build up other parts of the fish
industry. We have now a central marketing sys
tem so that nobody can bring prices down by
cutting other people's throats by underselling
them in the markets. All these things cannot be
ignored in considering the prospects of the
fisheries.
Now there have been some references to the
Labrador fishery. In any industry that is controlled largely by nature, there will
always be black
spots. We hear of a big wheat crop in Canada, but
we don't hear anything about the farmers who
lost millions of bushels because of weather conditions last summer. Those farmers
whose crops
were wiped out were much like our fishermen
who didn't get enough fish. Everyone is naturally
sympathetic to these hardy producers who are
treated badly by nature, and we have to do what
we can to help them. Just the same, the fact that
a percentage of people have had bad luck or are
unemployed for some reason beyond their control does not mean that the whole economy
is
depressed. We may have to find some means by
which the producers can be given greater security
in the future, so that we can eliminate as far as we
can the gamble of the voyage. In a country like
this a wise government will try always to keep
some special public works in hand to meet special
emergencies where people have had hard luck. I
do not agree with the principle of spending every
cent the country has in a time of general
prosperity and we ought, in my opinion, to be
adding to our surplus at the present time.
As to the forest industry, I can only go by what
the people who know that industry best have said
about its prospects and what they are doing to
back up their words. The demand for newsprint
is so great that the exchange problem does not
concern it very much. The United States and
other countries able to pay in dollars can take all
we produce, and we have the word of people who
know what they are talking about that prosperity
seems to be in store for the forest industries for
several years to come. Anyone can stand up here
and point to what happened in the thirties. But the
world would never again survive a depression
like that of the years between the two wars. Our
prospects are good because we are selling all our
produce at good prices, although Britain is not
able to buy so much and other countries in the
sterling group are in difficulties. Their condition
is bound to improve and we shall have better
markets when it does improve.
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 693
While the producer is the backbone of the
country, the volume of employment is much
larger than may be thought by looking at the
number of people in only the productive industries. Back in 1935, in the middle of
our worst
depression, the total number of people employed
in fishing, farming. logging and mining was less
than the people employed in other things. We
have to keep up the volume of production so that
these others can be employed, but the fact is that
in the service and distributing industries there are
many more thousands employed than there are in
the producing industries. The number of wage
earners has greatly increased, and unemployment
in the wage-earning industries does not necessarily decline at once because of a weak
spot in
one of the producing industries The economic
picture must be seen as a whole so that we can
get an accurate picture of it, and it is a pity we
have not got more statistics to help us piece the
puzzle together.
In my opinion we have many prospects yet to
be tapped. I have heard criticisms of the cost of
the Clarenville fleet, yet these vessels are giving
employment at sea to more than a hundred Newfoundlanders and are earning large sums
in
freights that we used to pay out to foreign bottoms. I don't say we can carry all
we produce in
our fleet, but I believe that we can greatly increase the size of our mercantile marine.
We have
the men and if Norway, a country with a population
 of a little more than three million, can have
one of the world's largest mercantile marines,
then I can't see any reason why this island should
not have a much larger mercantile marine than
we have. We believe that the employment and
earnings of Newfoundlanders in the trade of
seamanship can be greatly increased. The same
is true of the tourist industry and I am certain that
the right use of capital in the development of that
industry can bring results that will astonish us
all....
Some people have said that there was no point
in trying to make up a budget. I can't agree with
that. We are trying to answer the question as to
whether the country is self-supporting. We had to
examine the financial picture, and we had to be
guided by the advice of the Finance Commissioner who was interviewed by the Convention.
He said the country could balance its ordinary
requirements with a revenue of $23.5 million. We
say it will take more than that, and we make the
figure $25 million after allowing for some reduction
 in the cost of servicing the debt and in some
other things. We have examined the sources of
revenue and we believe that it is highly improbable that the revenue in the next three
years
will fall below an average of $30 million. That is
allowing for a drop of 25% from the present level,
and that leaves a pretty good margin for error. Of
course, if there were to be a big fall in world
prices, there would be a fall in our revenues like
the revenues of every other country. On the other
hand, if the fall in prices is big, it will mean that
everything will cost less so that we would also
have a fall in our expenses. You cannot foresee
everything but we feel that the figures we have
produced are conservative... My own opinion,
for what it is worth, is that conditions must
remain fairly good, because the consequences of
any grave decline would be terrible beyond
anyone's imagination to the richest nations.
America cannot have prosperity in a poverty-
stricken world. Neither can Canada. Neither can
Newfoundland. But as far as any ordinary person
can examine our situation and foresee what is
likely to happen, I say that our estimates are
conservative and reasonable, and give as fair a
picture of our prospects as it is possible to give.
There are factors which are helpful to us. The
people who live in cities abroad mostly pay rent.
They have to buy coal or oil to heat their homes
and do their cooking. They must earn money to
buy everything they eat and need to live. We do
have a few advantages which are not to be overlooked. In the census of 1935 it was
shown that
nearly 90% of the houses in Newfoundland are
owned by the people who live in them. There is
no other country in the world ofwhich this is true.
Many of our people — not all but a very great
many — not only own their own homes, but can
have fuel at the expense of their labour, can grow
a part of their own food and get some more of it
from the bounty of nature. Their life is not easy,
but if we can build up the value of our productive
enterprises and maintain a good level of seasonal
employment, we should be able to achieve a
standard of living in this country that will make
for security and happiness. We must bend our
efforts to achieve this end and it is my opinion
that it can be attained...
The Finance Committee did not intend, in
694 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
estimating the use of a prospective surplus, to do
any more than indicate its opinion of the kind of
thing in which surplus monies could be employed
to produce the greatest benefits for all the people.
We were not required to make that estimate and
it is not actually of great pertinence to the main
object of our deliberations. Our chief point is that
the economy is far stronger than it was, and that
this strength may have come about during a
period of wartime prosperity, but is now established as a permanent feature of our
industrial and
financial situation. Our second point is that, on
the basis of what we regard to be the reasonable
volume and value of national production during
the next three years, the budget can be balanced
and a substantial sum be available for capital
expenditure directed towards further strengthening of the economy. This is not wishful
thinking
but my free and frank opinion on the basis of my
own knowledge of the facts and tendencies. Our
opinions may be subject to challenge by the
opinions of others who read into the facts different meanings, but that can only be
determined
by sensible discussion, and it certainly cannot be
obtained by heated attacks that seem to have a
political motive.
For myself I can only say that I signed the
report because I believed it is as accurate a
forecast of the position as it is possible to obtain.
I stand by the belief expressed in the soundness
of this country's economic future, and I am sure
that if we all work together in harmony for the
conunon good we shall be able to achieve a much
higher standard of living for all our people in the
future.
Mr. Watton ....As you all know, I have not used
up much time in this Convention in making
speeches. Perhaps I have not used up enough. It
is not my intention to use up much of that time
now, but I feel that I must express my opinion
regarding the Economic Report brought in by the
Finance Committee. . ..
I most sincerely accept this report as an honest
and sincere presentation of our past and present
economic condition, and the forecast for the
foreseeable future of this country, to be a job well
done and to which I subscribe. No person can say
for certain just exactly what will be the conditions
in this country say ten years hence. But by careful
analysis of present conditions they can make a
fair estimate of what conditions are likely to be
in the foreseeable future, and I think that Major
Cashin and his committee have done just that.
Now we come to the very important question
of a mercantile marine... Should we or should we
not have a mercantile marine? I think we should.
We are a maritime nation in every sense of the
word. We all agree we must export or die. To
export our produce we must have ships. What are
we doing now? If we want to export our produce,
the first thing we have to do is to approach about
half a dozen different countries for ships to take
our produce to foreign markets. For these we
have to export, to send out of this country
thousands and tens of thousands of precious dollars to pay for the use of these ships
and find
employment for hundreds of foreign seamen.
Therefore I think we should have our own ships
to take our own produce to market and to bring
back the things we need. And most important of
all is the fact that we would be finding employment
ment for hundreds of the best seamen in the world
—Newfoundlanders. We shall always need ships
whether we meet up with good times or bad...
....I contend that Gander airport should be
operated at Newfoundland's profit over and
above the employment it provides for some few
hundred Newfoundlanders employed there
today. I say this, if foreign companies — AOA,
TWA, etc. — want to use our Newfoundland
territories, let them pay for it! Is there any sane
person who would enter into a business deal
knowing he was going to lose out? That is just
what the government of this country has done...
Regardless of whether the United Kingdom
government is paying part of the deficit or not, it
should not be so. I contend that if this had been
handled properly in the beginning we should be
making a profit, not a deficit. It is in my opinion
a job of the first importance for our future government, whatever form. And we all
know what it is
going to be...
Now we come to our greatest industry, the
fisheries, an industry with which I am closely
connected. I was reared up on fish. I happen to
live on the northeast coast. It has been suggested
that here we have an industry doomed to failure.
I cannot agree. Here we have an industry into
which many cool, hard—headed businessmen are
pouring tens of thousands of dollars for development and for the enlargement of existing
developments. I give you an illustration — only
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 695
a few days ago, a firm from Fogo proper acquired
in Bay Bulls all the extensive naval buildings,
dockyards and piers. I do not know what they
paid for them. And what they have done it for? Is
it for fun, as Mr. Higgins said? They are going in
for the development of fresh fish, frozen fish,
canning and all the rest. There is going to be a
very big development in Bay Bulls in a few years.
Earle and Sons are the business people who are
doing it and they are men of vision. Now are we
to take that as meaning our fish industry is
doomed to failure? I hardly think so. We have
men like Messrs. Crosbie and Job investing
thousands in the fishery — not for now, but for
the future. Is that a criterion that our fishery is
doomed? One thing that was brought up here
about the Labrador fishery — men going to
Labrador and not bringing home any fish. No
person can say how much each individual
schooner is going to bring home. The fishermen
would like to know it. What a person can do is to
look around the world in which he lives and see
what can be done for the fisheries with capable
handling and administration. New processing,
new ways of improving existing processing,
especially in fresh and frozen fish industry, there
I contend lies the future for our fishing industry.
Another thing that can be done is finding bigger
and more profitable markets. That brings me to a
subject which has been discussed by Hon. Mr.
Job at great length; but to quote our absent friend,
Professor Wheare, "at the risk of being an echo",
I wish to mention this question of markets in the
USA. I firmly believe that there is a market big
enough to take just about every fish we produce,
and that that market could be secured if we could
get at it. I think we can, providing we had the
proper government and we are going to get that
government in the future. The USA was granted
territories in this country for 99 years for practically nothing without the consent
of the people.
It is my belief that when we get our own government....
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I have overlooked that point of order. I have overlooked
several such references from Mr. Watton; references to "when we get our own government"
are
completely out of order. If Mr. Watton can do it,
I can do it, and so can any other member. I ask
you to rule it completely out of order, what he has
said in that line, and what he is likely to do. He is
simply not supposed to do it.
Mr. Chairman I must sustain Mr. Smallwood
on that point, I was about to check you myself.
Forms of government are not the concern of this
debate. That was laid down by the Chairman a
few days ago, and it must stand.
Mr. Higgins Would they not be permissible in
elaboration of the argument of the speaker? I
don't want to embarrass you in any way, but
would they not be permissible in that case, sir?
Mr. Watton Mr. Chairman, may I make an explanation? Remember, I am expressing my
opinion, not yours, but mine. I am trying to express what I believe in, and I am trying
to bring
it to bear on this Economic Report, and I don't
think Mr. Smallwood has any right to object to it.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, to a point of
order. I have a perfect right to raise a point of
order. I raised a point of order to the effect that
Mr. Watton, and no other member of this Convention, during the time that this Economic
Report is being debated, has any right whatsoever
to be talking about forms of government, and to
be advocating forms of government. You have
ruled him out of order Mr. Chairman, and he has
no right to be advocating forms of government,
or making allusions to it and getting in
wisecracks about it. That will come in its time,
and not when the Economic Report is being
debated...
Mr. Smallwood It is this: Mr. Watton, in the
course of his discussion of the Economic
Report...
Mr. Hollett That point of order has already been
ruled on by the Chairman, and you have no right
to bring it up. The point of order has been ruled
on, Mr. Chairman, and you have no right to do so
again.
Mr. Chairman I am sorry. I understood that the
point had been raised, but no ruling has been
made.
Mr. Miller I rise to a point of order. For the
matter of information, sir, just the word "government", or "Canada", or the word "confederation"
is required to put a person out of order, and if our
deliberations are words, and if these must be
taken from the dictionary, we might as well stop.
Mr. Chairman Gentlemen will please refrain
696 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
from any comments. Kindly take your seats. A
word is known by the company it keeps, and if
there is, on this discussion of the Economic
Report, any reference whatsoever to the political
situation to be superimposed upon the economy
of this country it is definitely out of order. We are
engaged at the present time in determining what
the economic potentialities of the country are...
Let us confine ourselves to the Economic Report
and I think no words will go wrong if we avoid
any reference whatsoever to the institutions.
Mr. Miller Point of order again, sir. I would like
to be very clear whether or not we are to be
permitted to refer in our economic deliberations
to the program of reconstruction that has been
carried out by the Commission of Government.
Is that out of order?
Mr. Chairman It is not a question of government at all.... Reconstruction undertaken by any
government is one thing, and must not be confused
fused with reference to the government that undertakes that policy of reconstruction,
which is
something entirely different.
Mr. Hollett Still on that point of order which has
been raised. I agree with Mr. Miller, at least I
don't know if I agree, but I am in doubt as to just
how far a person can go in debate on this particular point.
Mr. Chairman I am not going to speculate. If
you don't mind I will deal with any remarks, if
there are any made in the chamber. If a remark is
made by any member, and if it is taken exception
to by any other member rising to a point of order,
then all I could say at this time, Mr. Hollett, is
that I will deal with it then. I can't be asked to
generalise at this time.
Mr. Watton I am sorry that I created all that
discussion, but may I proceed?
Mr. Hollett Point of order. I was about to make
an observation. Am I not to be allowed to make
a simple observation? I was going to draw your
attention sir, to one of the concluding paragraphs
in the address given by the late Chairman, Mr.
Bradley, when they arrived in Ottawa, wherein
he stated that the basic economy of this country
was sound, provided we could get the government.
ment.
Mr. Smallwood I rise to a point of order. Mr.
Hollett is refen'ing to something not said in this
chamber, but in Ottawa. What's this got to do
with this debate?
Mr. Chairman I must sustain that. I am not
concerned with any observations made by any
member outside this chamber. I am simply concerned with any remarks which may be addressed
by any member on this Economic Report. What
Mr. Bradley said in Ottawa, or any other place,
is a matter of complete indifference to me at this
time.
Mr. Watton What I am going to say now is
contained in this report... Speaking about the
United States and our fishing industry, I believe,
as the report states, that the American government and people will give serious and
sympathetic consideration to any representation
made by this country, if it was run by a duly and
properly constituted government (that's in the
report, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman What part of the report are you
quoting from? If members would only quote the
part of the report on which they wish to base their
observations...
We are of the definite view that if properÂ
representations were now made, by a properly constituted government of Newfoundland,
that the American government as well as the
American people whom we consider fair and
just, would certainly seriously consider
giving Newfoundland some favourable tariff
concessions for our fishery products.
Mr. Chairman Now the observations on that
portion of the report, Mr. Watton. You were
about to make one?
Mr. Watton I agree with that. That's all I want
to say about it — I agree with it. I could go on to
some length regarding the fisheries, but it has
been dealt with very competently by other
speakers. But what I want to express is that I do
agree with the Report of the Finance Committee
on our economic position, in their review of our
fisheries, past, present and future. That's what I
want to get across, Mr. Chairman...
I can see nothing in the future of our principal
industries to give me cause for gloom and
despair. It is to these major industries that we
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 697
must look for our future economic stability. They
are in a sound position, and are likely to continue
as far as we can see... In my opinion all that is
necessary now is this: just the five letter word
F A I T H, faith in ourselves as individuals, and
in our fellow man, and above all, faith in our
country....
Mr. Northcott Mr. Chairman, with your permission, and hoping Mr. Smallwood won't interfere,
I would like to congratulate Mr. Hickman
upon his excellent speech... What of our future?
Some 14 months ago we were sent here by the
people of this country as their representatives.
For what? To try and find out the true condition
of our island home. We started, and after a day or
two a monkey wrench was thrown in. Confederation
tion came on the scene. What happened? Confusion has reigned ever since. That is the
sum and
substance of this Convention today.
Mr. Northcott We were sent here to see if our
island home is self-supporting or not. We have
not got anywhere. After we came here we realised
our task was immense. Committees were set up
to try to ascertain the true facts of our economy,
and whether our country was self-supporting or
not. Mr. Chairman, for months we worked in
committees, and after many months we brought
here the various reports. They were approved,
debated, and 45 or 44 members okayed each
report in its turn. And so, by piecing together
these various reports, did we not piece together
at the same time the Economic Report? If we did
not, it does not make sense... They became law,
as it were.
Mr. Smallwood No, sir. Point of order. That is
absolutely incorrect. No report has yet been
adopted — not one.
Mr. Chairman Your point is true, but by virtue
of the fact that they have been debated and not
objected to, they are tacitly accepted. That is a
point, I think.
Mr. Crummey I understood some time ago that
no member on the floor, whether he was correct
or incorrect, was to be interrupted.
Mr. Crummey The point of order was not a
point of order. It was questioning a statement
made by a speaker on the floor.
Mr. Chairman I have ruled against Mr.
Smallwood, so I think it has been disposed of.
Mr. Northcott I don't see why Mr. Smallwood
can get up every few minutes and say what he
wants to. He has got a lot to say.
Mr. Chairman I beg your pardon. Did you say
the Chairman of the Convention had too much to
say?
Mr. Northcott No sir, I did not. Mr. Chairman,
I am absolutely satisfied that if ever this country
was self-supporting it is self-supporting today.
When one can pay his bills he or she is solvent.
The same can be said of this country. If we can
balance our budget and have a surplus left we are
financially sound, and Newfoundland today is
just that. I wish to refer you to page 5 of the
Economic Report. Unfortunately Major Cashin is
not here, but perhaps...
Mr. Chairman I would say that if you have any
questions, it has been decided by the Steering
Committee that it would save time if members
might address them, and I will have the Secretary
record them, and we will have Major Cashin deal
with them in a few days time.
Mr. Northcott You mean all the questions, Mr.
Chairman? Thank you. That will cut my time
pretty short... The first I was going to ask was
this: page 5: "In 1930 an approach was made to
the Canadian government with respect to the
payment of a subsidy in connection with the
operation of our ship on the Gulf service." I was
wondering if Major Cashin took that matter up
with the Commission of Government, as to why
there was no subsidy given since 1933. The
second one was in connection with Gander.... I
was wondering if the Committee could find out
how many millions of gallons of aviation gas was
hauled from Lewisporte to Gander during the
year 1946?
Mr. Northcott Some ten million gallons. If they
got one cent a gallon it would increase the
revenue of the country. I may say though, that
there is no duty on aviation gasoline, and I can't
see why it should not be. It is very sensible and
important to this country, especially when fishermen
men have to pay high taxes on their gasoline...
Mr. Spencer I have no desire to spend much
time in debating this Economic Report, but I am
convinced that this committee of the whole is the
place to speak of it. There can be no doubt that
we are at the moment in a sound financial condition, due in large part to the boom
of prosperity
698 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
we experienced during the war years; also to the
fact that we did not have to finance our own war
effort as we did in the first Great War... We are
all aware of the fact that the economics of this
country have always been very unbalanced. We
have always had to depend too much on the
returns of one industry — the fisheries. This
condition has changed somewhat in recent years.
We have such major industries as mining and
logging, and also in very recent years our fishing
industry has been diversified with the coming of
modern fresh fish processing plants, the
manufacture and sale of fishery products other
than cod; and there are good reasons for believing
that the returns from our mineral resources, especially the iron ore deposits on the
Labrador, will
help in a large measure to balance our economy.
But what I would like to find out is how far we
have come towards having a more balanced
economy during the past 12 or 13 years. We still
have around 50% of our people engaged in the
fishing industry, and with this thought in mind I
would like to draw the attention of members to
page 32 of the report, which reads as follows: "At
the present time we figure that not less than
25,000 of our people are engaged in the fishing
industry; 15,000 in the pulp and paper industry;
and 3,500 in the mining industry", and then they
give the value of these industries. I am of the
opinion that it would have added to the value of
this report, and helped us to more clearly evaluate
the economic conditions of our country, if they
had gone a little farther with this paragraph and
shown in a comparative statement how the percentage of our people engaged in the various
industries has changed in the past 12 or 14 years.
According to the census figures of 1935 those
gainfully employed in the various industries were
as follows: in the fishing industry 36,900 persons;
in the logging industry, including those engaged
in paper-making, 9,700; and in the mining industry, 1,800; or if we take them by percentages,
46.7% fishing, 12.4% logging, and 2.3% mining.
I do not know how these percentages would
compare with those engaged in the different industries at the present time, but glancing
at the
totals we find that the number of those engaged
in in the fishing industry has decreased by about
50%, while those engaged in logging has increased by about 65%, and those engaged
in
mining has nearly doubled. Judging from those
figures it would seem that we are beginning to
have a more balanced economy. I have no wish
to paint either a bright or gloomy picture of the
economic position, but I want to get, and I want
the people 10 get, a true picture, and I am convinced that such a comparative statement
as I
have outlined would help us in getting that picture. I realise that the Committee
has done a
tremendous amount of work in getting this report
to us in such a short time, but I pass this thought
to them for their consideration.
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, first I would like to
congratulate the Finance Committee on this
report because I believe in the light of the other
reports that have been tabled, this very clearly
sums up the information gathered therein. One
cannot help being struck with the brief and clear
way the facts have been presented so that the
common man can understand them. Perhaps
more could be said if we go back to 1897 and find
out where we stood with regard to our way of life,
and compare it with today.... First, I'll paint a
picture from memory and forget the records.
Let's take the doctor, with 14 miles to go on either
end from where he practised. I'm speaking of my
own locality, New Chelsea, and to get the doctor
to a patient it was shanks's mare in the winter, if
it wasn't dog and slide. And the mails, one a
week; the old courier did his best — 17 miles up
and 17 miles down with a large haversack on his
back. Lighthouses? None. You found your way
through the shoals by guess and by God. Now, I
know that these conditions still exist in some
parts of the island, but there have been great
strides made and I believe we are at the turn in
the road, and should go ahead as much in 15 years
as we have in the last 50 years.
Take our income. In 1900 — I am speaking
from memory now - gross exports, less than $9
million; government's income, $1.25 million,
and nearly 7,000 miles of coastline to service, not
counting the interior. Well, either our fathers had
the nerve and faith of their sites, or as we say in
the British navy, "where ignorance is bliss, it's
all my 'blooming eye'." But anyway, I'll bet
there was less weeping and wailing about the
three square meals and the tight roof, beri-beri
and what have you on the whole 7,000—mile
length of that coastline, than there has been in this
chamber since this cod-vention started. One can
be pretty sure that when men who have sung the
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 699
praises of their country for 30 or 40 years suddenly turn around and vilify her before
the whole
world, then there's more in it than meets the eye.
I was thinking yesterday, as I looked at the end
of this report, if it was only possible to locate a
modern Witch of Endor who would raise up our
leaders of the beginning of this century and put
them in this chamber with a revenue of $40
million, then they'd do something, they would
build something, when we see what they built
with the little they had. I must admit that if they
did not plan well they built well, and had it been
followed through the story of our island home
would have been different today.... More could
have been done during the past 50 years, but one
thing we can be thankful for, we have the mistakes of our leaders of the 1920s, l930s
and
19408 to guide us. Experience is a dear school and
a hard teacher, and if we cannot learn there then
nothing can teach us. We have a country that we
can all be proud of, and one of which 1 am proud,
although I have spent almost a lifetime going to
and fro in this world. It has been and always will
be home to me.
I believe all the debts we have accumulated
have assets to cover them, many times over.... I
am satisfied the country today is self-supporting
and can be made more so. I have gone through
the different reports and have done work on two
of them. I was a member of the Transportation
Committee and that has been a revelation to me.
I don't hold to be an expert. but since I made my
first trip around Cape Bauld in 1902, l have been
actively engaged in fishing and transportation,
and a man should learn something about all this
in 45 years, especially when I have made a study
of those matters together with the trade of the
country generally, and the countries that I visited.
I have gone into marine transportation as
thoroughly as any layman can and while I'll
move over and make room for any man to find
out, for example, why the railroad doesn't pay, I
still believe I am capable of putting my finger on
a lot of the money that in this one case has gone
up in the air, through the authorities not being
able to adjust themselves to change.
Last week we had to listen to a tirade on why
we shouldn't have a mercantile marine because
we would have to sell the ships three years from
now for half of what we'd pay for them. Now, I
am going to try and show Newfoundland why our
very life depends on us getting a national merchant marine, and that as quickly as
possible. The
first time I put this belief forward, then the cry
from the street was that we could not operate
ships as cheaply as the Greeks, the Norwegians,
the Swedes and the Danes. I guess the US would
have been a sorry country if they had said we
cannot make tools or machinery as cheap as the
British or the Germans, and got the latter to make
the tools and machinery for them.
Let me try and show you what the lack of a
mercantile marine cost Newfoundland up to say
1923. We did not feel it so much as in our local
foreign-going fleet, we had a fairly good freight-
carrying potentiality — but the picture after 1925,
that's something else again. First I'll try to get to
the root of the cry that we can't carry freight as
cheaply as other maritime countries. Ignorance
had a lot to do with it. Let's take the Railway ships
and see where their dollars go up in the air. The
Kyle, built around 1912, is a good example. That
ship has cost the government of this country an
average of $12 a ton for the 25 tons of coal she
has burned daily. Give her 150 steaming days on
average, every year of her 35 year lifetime, and
the cost of coal is $1,575,000. Now had this ship
been converted in 1930 her running cost would
have been cut from $300 daily to $177, or a
saving to the country in 17 years of $314,000.
Then the
Northern Ranger, which consumes 18
tons a day. This could have been cut in proportion. and so on with the other ships.
And I'm sure
that those that were sold could have been put
under diesel propulsion with a stupendous
saving. The logical thing for the government,
when it took over the Railway, was to have
secured a diesel electric engineer and started a
school at the dock shops. Today we would have
a trained staff and the most modern and efficient
kind of transportation which in years would pay
off. Instead of this, the only solution appears to
be tojump up the fishermen's fares and freights.
There wasn't any need to sell the ships that were
sold. Otherinterests bought them and put them in
the trade and made them pay. Take the little
Sagona. Foreign interests bought her, changed
her to oil and the cost to them was $350,000. But
she paid for herself in three trips in the banana
trade, while all she had done here was lie up and
rust for years. "We should not have a merchant
marine," says the critic, while the
Brigus has
700 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
gross earnings in ten months of $293,000. and a
net profit of $107,000; the Random has a gross of
$304,000 and a net of $145,000. Why, last year
the
Baccalieu grossed $285,000, net $23,000; the
Burgeo grossed $328,000, net $72,000. The
wages paid alone on those two latter ships went
to $66,000 a year. The total wage bill paid to
crews of the Railway ships last year was
$625,000 and to the Splinter Fleet $150,000,
[1] a
total wage bill for both fleets of $775,000. One
thing I can assure you, that this country, before
she can begin to take her place in the world, needs
two things. First a merchant marine, that's essential... In the debate on the Fisheries
Report I
spoke about four ships, each about 3,000 tons
gross and carrying about 5,000 tons of cargo with
about 1,000 tons of refrigeration space for frozen
and perishable cargoes. These ships could be
built for the ice and should have their chill-rooms
aft. They should have three decks for carrying
barrelled goods and cutting down on lumber dunnage. For in the future we are going
to have a
fishmeal and mackerel trade which, as 1 said
before, with a flour and feed mill will give us a
chance to barter in trade with the Argentine and
Australia, so that in the years to come our people
will be assured flour, and our cattle will feed from
our fishmeals which is the most expensive part of
those feeds.
We can export too, there is nothing unsound
in this. Also with woods operations, in carrying
wood from the east coast to the west, we can find
employment for ships like the Brigus; also in the
general trade carrying coal etc., we will never
have to see those ships, we can extend that trade.
There are today 20,000 quintals of fish waiting
shipment to Portugal, waiting for a Portuguese
ship to come for it. Half of that fish should be
eaten by now, and instead we are waiting like a
beleaguered city for the Portuguese to come and
help us. Shades of Captain Thomas and Captain
Dingle, to see this state of affairs in a country
which produced men who could drive a two-
master schooner to Oporto and back home in 28
or 30 days. Too long, Mr. Chairman, we've had
journalists and lawyers in the seats of government. It's time we got men with more
practical
vision.
I picked up a paper the other day and saw that
renders were being called for the
Thackeray,
[2]
now anchored in the harbour here. The government could buy her and next spring we
would
have a ship for less than $300,000 for the trade of
the country that perhaps would net the Railway
$100,000. I interviewed the government
authorities on it. They said they investigated but
were not interested. If they bought her they would
have no deficit on the docks this winter as she
would give work. The actual cost to the country
would be little as the cash would be left in the
country. No, the government cannot go into the
business that pays, only the non-paying services
come under their glance... If we are going to feed
our people we must plan what is best for them
and the country. The laissez-faire ways of the past
must go as far back as the "Indian meal" days of
our grandfathers' time. Now we must plan, and I
believe the country has the resources. All we
want is the brains, brawn and capital, and we have
the last two. Is it possible that we haven't got the
brains to plan? We have the resources. There's
no doubt about that. We must awake to the fact
that we must combine scientific knowledge with
skill and change from the worn-out ways of the
past.
We are fishing the same way as in my grandfather's day when a horn lantern and a compass,
an open galley on deck, a jigger and dabber was
about the whole equipment. Most places fish now
with nets known as traps for fish to swim into. If
the fish don't swim in, all is lost. That era is past.
The trap today must go. In my day, as a boy, the
cod-seine was a part of the equipment of every
second schooner. Today there is not a cod-seine
around Newfoundland. If there is, I haven' t heard
of it this last 30 years. The trap is going the same
way, believe it or not. Take the increase of fish
caught in Greenland. Fish are changing their
habits, and this is where scientific knowledge and
planning must go hand in hand, and we have to
do it. Take our competitor, Iceland; 80% of her
exports are from the sea. The money the government spent there paid off. And now they've
had
a bond issue of $40 million, which works out at
$308 a head, for the population to subscribe. I
wonder what would happen in Newfoundland if
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 701
a government started to raise a bond issue of
nearly $100 million. Yet what they've done in
Iceland will have to be done here. In 1946 the
exportation of Iceland fish and fish products
amounted to 244 million kroner equal to 80% of
its total exports... That's what they've done in
Iceland, with one-third our population. I am critical, but I hope it's constructive
criticism I offer.
But now let me leave this, and pass to what in
my opinion is one weak link in our economic
chain, the lack of a merchant marine. No country,
especially an island can do without one. Let's do
a little figuring, and see what the country has to
offer in the way of freight to keep us from selling
our ships at half-price. I'll only take a few essentials, over roughly the life of
a ship. First I'll say
figures don't lie, but liars can figure. If you doubt
them, you can check them. First I'll talk salt for
the years 1925 to 1942, 16 years, not quite the life
of a ship. We imported 762,503 tons at a freight
rate of $2.80 per ton — that's peacetime freight
rates — an annual freight bill on salt of $132,438.
For 16 years that makes $2,119, 008. Now coal,
for the same period we imported 5,792,191 tons
of coal at a peacetime freight rate of $1 per tort,
or an average of $321,788 annually. Next let's
take flour. It can all come in by ships. Over a 21
year period, still in the life of a ship, we imported
8,249,000 barrels of flour at a freight rate of 60
cents a barrel: $4,949,000 in freights on flour or
$235,686 a year. The last of the four commodities
I'll refer to is fish. And it won't be the least. From
the period 1924-25 to 1944-45, we exported dried
and pickled fish to a total of 24,532,550 quintals.
At a freight rate of 70 cents per quintal, it cost us
$17,172,785: an annual average of$817,751.
Now this means that an annual freight bill
went to outsiders totalling $1,507,563 on these
four commodities alone. That money was lost to
this country, wages were lost to our seamen, and
wealth to our internal trade. In ordinary peace
time that meant a loss to the country, a total loss,
due to the lack of a merchant marine, of
$31,033,384 over the period referred to. If the
government had built those three ships of 2,000
tons in 1925, what a different story. We can
easily see how over that period this country paid
out $80 million in freight, 99% of it going to
outside interests. So that way too, did Newfoundlanders help to bring this cod-vention
into
being, if it wasn't the main cause. How can
300,000 people afford to take in $31 million from
poor countries mostly, and then pass it out to
outside interests, just on essentials? Can we afford to play Santa Claus to outside
interests?
Only the "B block" can do that, a red-blooded
Newfoundlander can't. No! The figure is too
heavy, $2-3 million annually for freight, gone
clean. Not one cent left in the country, and that
sometimes out of a total export of less than $25
million in some years.
That is a sum we can't afford to lose, the trade
loses, the government loses and worst of all the
seaman loses, he has to eat the dole while in many
cases govemment-owned or subsidised ships
carry away his livelihood. And you have to have
seamen in a national emergency, They are the
first line of defence, and they must be trained.
You cannot make an officer or an engineer overnight or a helmsman either. And a ship
that is
sunk because an officer doesn't know his job is
just as much a casualty as if sunk by enemy
action. I think I have shown without a shadow of
a doubt that there is cargo to be had for a merchant
marine, and we should have one. Our flag should
never have gone from the seas. There is always
work for ships to do. Besides the things I have
mentioned, the freight potentialities have not
been scratched. We have the brawn, and the
capital; I say again, do we lack the brains? Can't
we plan like the Icelandic parliament? Why the
defeatist attitude? Only when we do plan like this
will the man on the bill of Cape George and all
the other bills get his three square meals, his suit
of clothes and his tight roof. We can't get it out
of baby bonuses and old age pensions. Let the
people of the country demand that we get it. Let
us learn by our mistakes of the past. We have the
resources here. Let us at one blow lick what we
have always been up against. Let us pledge her to
the hilt. Men can do it, cowards can't. Men looking for fame and opportunity won't
let us cut out
the uneconomical. If a fishery doesn't pay, let's
get rid of it. I heard my friend in the "B block"
the other day speaking about the state of affairs
in his part of the island, putting up a poor mouth
because the Labrador fish are not to be caught,
and is a drag on the market to sell when it is
caught. 15 that any reason why this cannot be
changed, when without going 100 miles from
their homes they can come to the finest fishing
grounds in the world? All the schooners that are
702 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
seaworthy could go in the offshore fishery either
as draggers or dory fishermen. It's balderdash
that a man cannot change to another kind of
fishing. What is there to learn about it? In two
years any man who has his health and strength
can change from an expert trap fisherman to a
trawl fisherman, and I guess in a month to an
expert drag ger fisherman. For he knows this time
he has got to be helped, I know. But ifa man has
a schooner of 60 tons and upward and is well-
found, there's no need for him today to put her
on the auction block. If he has the will and is
willing to learn, of course; then perhaps in a few
years he can look back and say those three bad
years were the best thing that ever happened to
me, and to the country as well.
I believe in this report and can only say that in
planning it is not bold enough. It smacks too
much of the past, it holds too much to the old
traditions. In fact it has the old ship of state
dragging her chains behind her. She has broken
out her anchors, but the Finance Committee forgot to heave them in. Let us stow the
chain in the
lockers and go ahead full speed.
In referring to the merchant marine, the genial
delegate from Bonavista Centre spoke about the
difference of opinion between myself and the
Hon. Mr. Job about the powering of ships. I wish
to congratulate Mr. Job and-his associates on the
pioneer step they have taken, and I'm sure they
are setting an example that will vindicate both
myself and Mr. Crosbie in our opinions. I refer to
the installing of diesel engines in the Sable Island. I'll make a guess this innovation alone will
mean a long step forward in the coming maritime
age of this country, and it will mean that Water
Street will once again be seen at its best, from a
launch that is, and not from a taxi. The trade of
this country will be carried in our own bottoms.
The firms along the streets will once again be
mercantile firms and not calico vendors. Had the
government done what the firm of Job Brothers
and Company is doing today, with the fleet of
ships it had, with the services of a diesel electrical
engineer, plus their new shipping, both the docks
and the coastal services would be in the black
now. This could have been done during the last
25 years.
In conclusion, in the light of the information
before me, I can only come to the opinion that
this country is not only self-supporting now, but
was always self—supporting. The only reason for
the hard straits we have been in has been the
human element, which reflects on all of us from
the government down to the last citizen. We've
had the brawn, the capital and the resources, but
seem to have been lacking in the brains or the
vision. After my extensive study of the natural
resources of our country, in my comparison with
those of other lands, particularly Iceland and
Norway, 1 can only come to the conclusion that
in view of the way our affairs and resources have
been mishandled so far, its a wonder to me not
that she survived, but how she survived. As I said
before, the Finance Committee has only broken
the anchors from the ground. Let's haul in the
chains and full speed ahead.
[The committee rose and reported progress]
Mr. Higgins I beg to move the resolution, notice
of which was given, and which was included in
the order paper today. I give the undertaking, in
case there is any doubt about it, that if the motion
is passed, it will not be discussed or debated until
me motion that Mr. Bradley has given today is
debated.
[The Secretary read the motion of which Mr.
Higgins had given notice.
[1] After some procedural debate, the motion was deferred]
Mr. Higgins I would like to give notice of motion, sir. I give notice that I will on tomorrow
move the following resolution:
That this Convention request His Excellency
the Governor in Commission that paragraph
2 of the National Convention Act, 1946, be
amended whereby provision may be made
that any member or members of the Convention incapacitated by reason of illness from
attending sessions of the Convention may
have his or their vote recorded in his or their
absence, provided he or they have signed and
executed the proper instrument to give effect
to this purpose. Such right to vote by proxy
shall be exercised only during the debate on
forms of government and the recommendations to the United Kingdom government
arising therefrom to be put before the people
at a national referendum.
[The Convention adjourned]
