Mr. Bradley This discussion is a debate upon the
economic position of Newfoundland, and in view of its irregular and somewhat
wandering development, it may be well to remind ourselves of what it
is not, as well as of its true and only useful purpose.
It would seem clear it is in no way concerned
with forms of government, or with the merits or
demerits of any such form, for these things lie in
the future. At the referendum our people will
have to select some form of government to apply
to our economy. They will need all the information obtainable about that economy to
reach a
sound decision. Surely then, our first and only
duty in this discussion is to ascertain what that
economy is, how it has developed, whether it is
satisfactory or not, and what degree of stability it
possesses. Equally certain it is that efforts to
advance the cause of any form of future government to which we may be partial, or
to abuse a
form which we dislike, are not only highly improper, but tend to confuse the real
issue, and
render the whole issue completely worthless.
Anger, and a display of party spirit, exclude calm
analysis and destroy sound judgement. Smart
jibes and sly innuendoes shot into the debate in
an effort to secure a hit against some form of
government which we dislike, and made in the
face of the Chairman's ruling, cause the whole
discussion to degenerate into a partisan contention. When such a situation arises,
and we cannot
deny it has done so on more than one occasion,
the Convention departs entirely from the only
purpose for which it exists, and for which the
people sent us here. The thing becomes a gathering of warring political partisans,
each bent upon
advancing the cause dearest to his own heart, and
completely incapable of forming any sound
judgement on questions which may arise. In a
battle between the mind and the heart, sir, particularly when opposition intensifies
enthusiasm,
often to the point of antagonism, the mind never
wins. To that impasse I fear this Convention has,
on more than one occasion, deteriorated. We
have lost sight of our duty to discover and inform
the people of cold facts, and have developed into
standard-bearers of one or other particular form
of future government.
On every such occasion we have prostituted
our true and only purpose and duty and, with that
involuntary dishonesty which so often accompanies elevated enthusiasm and political
partisanship, we cease to be analysts of things that
are, and become crusaders of things to be. We
have ceased to be one body in search of truth, and
have broken up into factions, each following a
faith. I have no desire to go into details of such
derelictions of clear duty just now; perhaps they
are already too well known. That much of our
activity, both in and out of this chamber, has not
tended to foster public confidence, must surely
be abundantly clear to every one of us by this
time. On the contrary, it has brought upon us
much justified criticism from John Citizen who
is in search of truth, and confidence in us has
failed. As a body there remain to us but a few
short weeks of existence. Only in one way can we
hope to recover that confidence, to be of any real
value to the people who sent us here. Only by
leaving our faiths and our factions, our shibboleths and predilections, our prejudices
and passions on the outside every time we enter this
chamber to discuss matters such as lie before us
today, can we hope to reinstate ourselves in
public esteem and leave a creditable record on the
pages of history. We are not here to espouse any
cause or to fight for any faith. We are neither St.
Georges nor Sir Galahads; we are investigators
of facts and seekers of truth. And it is in this spirit
only that we should come to a consideration of
this report which purports to portray the
economic position of Newfoundland.
It is a remarkable document in many ways - remarkable for its too casual analysis
of figures;
its too ready acceptance of comforting conclusions drawn from such figures; the avidity
with
which it translates possibilities for the future into
probabilities and even into certainties; and the
superlative assurance with which it predicts
progress and plenty for Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders in the days to come. In a
word, sir,
it is remarkable for the rosy hues in which it
paints the utopia of our past, and the blithe optimism with which it envisions a New
Jerusalem
for our future. it is full of fair figures and happy
hopes.
740 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
I have no intention of entering into any
detailed discussion of intricate figures of the past,
or of any nebulous or speculative calculations
propounded for the near or distant future. Figures
are useful things, but unless they are used with
the utmost caution are likely to lead us to
dangerous conclusions. This is particularly true
where the figures of the past are used as a basis
upon which to build castles for the future. It is
equally true where such figures are but arbitrary
estimates of a future and presently non-existent
economy. In the latter case they are the child of
a fervent and often fatuous hope, a stark unreality, a pot of gold at the end of a
rainbow.
To the ordinary man masses of figures are
always confusing and seldom illuminating. He
gets lost in the multiplicity of detail. His vision is
befogged, his perspective is distorted and the
proportions of that which he seeks to evaluate are
lost. He bogs down in frustration and disgust. If
he is to obtain a reasonably true picture of our
past he must sweep away most of these confusing
details, whose tendency is to mislead, and view
the situation not through the tangled web of
meticulous detail, but from the vantage point of
distance, which will enable him to see the whole
picture in broad outline, with its highlights and
its shadows, its peaks and its valleys. To put the
matter in another way, he must determine if our
past as a people was an experience we would care
to repeat, and whether it holds probabilities, not
mere possibilities, for the future of an adequate,
countrywide standard of living, having regard to
the age in which we live. Was that past, on the
whole, a period of prosperity or adversity, of
comfort or poverty, of happiness or grim and drab
monotony for the people?
To put it shortly, he must determine the way
of life which the country's economy has thus far
provided for the people who have kept that
economy going, and what its prospects are for the
future, having regard to the present and in the
light of human experience. Some days ago my
good friend Mr. Keough gave the clearest exposition of the meaning of a sound economy
that I
have heard since this Convention opened over a
year ago. He showed beyond all question that
balanced public accounts — even surpluses — are neither the cause nor the proof
of a sound
economy. They are not necessarily even the
result of such an economy, for the public accounts may show a surplus while the people
starve. In fact, such balanced accounts or
surpluses are nothing but proof that the government has taken enough of the people's
earnings
to pay the bills which it has incurred, while in
truth its operations may have had a disastrous
effect upon the very national economy upon
which it lives.
Before I mention any of the figures which this
report contains, perhaps in the interests of peace
it may be well for me to reassure any who may
incorrectly interpret my criticism as charges of
dishonesty. Let me say at once that I have no
intention whatever of charging anyone of falsifying figures or of a deliberate attempt
to deceive.
For my purposes it is completely unnecessary,
and I am quite willing to accept the position that
in their calculations and their predictions they
believed the former were correct, and the latter
were rational deductions. Moreover, if I am to
assume that every calculation and every prediction which this report makes has been
placed
there with dishonest intent, it surely follows that
I credit its framers with infallibility; for if all their
inaccuracies are dishonest and known to them
when they make them, it necessarily follows that
they themselves are never in error. That is a
supernatural faculty with which I must decline to
credit them, or even this whole Convention when
speaking as a whole, if we can ever reach that
apparently far-distant goal where this body will
speak as a unit. I prefer to assume that in their
figures and mathematical calculations they may
be in honest error, like ordinary mortals, and that
in their predictions they have allowed their optimism and enthusiasm to outstrip their
philosophy.
Let us then have no further charges of imputing dishonesty, and in the name of commonsense
let us have no more of this childish, this petulant
flaring up every time our figures are questioned;
no more of this display of peevishness and bad
temper when our conclusions are disagreed with.
I have said that it is not my intention to enter
into any detailed discussion of intricate figures of
the past. But there is at least one portion of this
report's calculations to which I must make some
reference. It seems to assume that a solvent public
treasury is unmistakable proof of a solvent people
— a people solvent in the sense that they are able
to pay all the bills which they must incur to give
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 741
them a reasonably adequate living. In other
words, it is proof of a sound economy. And so the
report proceeds to lay its proof of governmental
solvency before us. The relation of that solvency
(assuming that it exists) I shall examine later.
The whole point of this so-called Economic
Report — if it has a point — is set forth in
unmistakable terms on page 43. It was to make
this one point that the report was compiled, I will
quote the words of the report:
Now, making every allowance for the
momentum of war expenditures carrying on
after the close of hostilities, and allowing for
the gradual recession of this boom period, it
is yet an obvious fact that our present revenues
cannot be something dependent on war
boom. There must be some other cause, and
on examining the matter further we found
that a great portion of our present revenue is
coming to us because of the growth of our
main industries. Now, these industries are
wholly peace industries and are not dependent for their prosperity on war conditions.
It
is clear therefore that we can properly regard
our present revenues as being anything but a
result of war boom.
Their whole point is admirably stated in that
final sentence: "It is clear therefore that we can
properly regard our present revenues as being
anything but a result of war boom." That is what
they ask this Convention and the people of this
country to believe. There is nothing exceptional,
nothing abnormal about these swollen revenues,
they tell us. They are normal and ordinary, war
or no war. And that being the case, as they are
based upon a solid foundation of the normal
growth of our basic industries, they may confidently be expected to continue. The
future is
assured. Such is the burden of this report's song,
and we are told that it is unpatriotic to question
their conclusion.
Now it is worth spending a few minutes of our
time in an examination of this contention, and the
first fact worth noting is set forth on the first and
second pages. Then the writer of the report gives
us what we are expected to regard as a sort of
average balance sheet of this country's financial
position. This so-called balance sheet is based
upon a set of figures for a span of 50 years of our
country's history which began in 1897 and ended
just a month ago in 1947. We are told that in those
50 years our government spent a total of $500
million and had a total revenue of $496 million.
This left them short $4 million. But paltry as that
deficit amounts to, it is even less than that; for a
sum of $20 million must be taken off that total
expenditure of $500 million. This is $20 million
of capital expenditure made by the Commission
government since 1934, and deducting this from
the half-billion dollar expenditure, it reduces the
amount to $480 million for the 50 years. And that
means, for the 50 years, a total surplus of $15
million, instead of a deficit of $4 million. And
$15 million works out at an average surplus of
$300,000 a year for the 50 year period.
Such is the encouraging picture painted by the
report. This favourable and solvent position, we
are told, is really a normal growth — that the
swollen revenues of the government are not at all
due to the war, that they are the result of anything
but the war. The war, they tell us, has little or
nothing to do with it, and we can therefore leave
the war out of it altogether.
Well, that is exactly what I propose to do - to leave the war out of the picture.
I'm going to
accept the figures and follow the ideas and
methods used in the report itself, and draw up a
balance sheet for 50 years of our government's
life, exactly as the report does it. But so that I can
leave the war out of it altogether, I'm going to
take the report's 50 years and push them back
exactly eight years. That is to say, I'm going to
take eight years off the latter end of the report's
50 years, and put on eight years at the beginning
of the period. In short, I'm going to look at the 50
years which began not in 1897, but in 1890; and
ending, not in 1947, but in 1939. Thus we avoid
the war altogether; and thus we can get a clear
picture of our govemment's balance sheet as it
existed without being influenced by the war at all.
Thus we shall see whether our present condition
has been affected by the war.
Sir, in those 50 years which ended in 1939, just
before this war began, the Government of Newfoundland spent a total of $306,800,000.
Mr. Miller Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is it not a
part of our duty to determine the extent to which the war had an effect on
our economy?
Mr. Chairman That is exactly as I understand it. What is
your point of order?
742 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
Mr. Miller We are getting away from the matter in hand.
Mr. Bradley I am going to make a comparison of the
economy of the country without a war period and with a war period. I repeat
that for the 50 years which ended in 1939 the government spent a total
of $306,800,000. There are a few odd thousand dollars which I have not
included, because I did not see much necessity of it, and in
that respect I have followed the methods of the Committee itself. That then
was their revenue — $306,800,000. But capital expenditures made by the
Commission of Government in the years from 1934 to 1947 is added, and so
then in the years of Commission which come within my period, namely
the capital expenditures from 1934 to 1939.
[1]
Now I admit quite frankly that I have not been
able to estimate the amount of such capital expenditure accurately from the report.
I would
judge it to be around $4-5 million, but I will be
generous in the matter. In my period, Commission was in office about five years only.
In the
period taken by the report, they were in office 13
years. It is obviously fair to say that their capital
expenditures were much greater in the last eight
years of their term when they had vastly greater
revenues and heavy surpluses. Therefore, if the
expenditure on capital account in the whole 13
years of Commission was $20 million, the first
five years, which was all that my period of 50
years include, would not account for more than
$7 million. Deduct this $7 million from the total
expenditure of $306 million and we get a net
expenditure during that period and up to the
beginning of the war of $299.8, say $300 million
in round figures. In that same period they had a
total revenue of roundly $280 million. Therefore,
in the 50 years ending in 1939 they fell $20
million short of meeting expenses on ordinary
account. That is to say, they ended the half century with not a surplus but a deficit
of $20 million.
Then came the war, six years of it, and two
years not of peace, but of armistice and armed
watchfulness. Prices soared to unprecedented
heights and wages followed painfully in their
wake. And we find that a miracle has happened.
By 1947 that deficit of $20 million on ordinary
account in 1939, has become a surplus of $15
million in 1947. Our position from a governmental standpoint was improved in eight
short years
by roughly $35 million. What was the cause of
this providential change in our government's
position? The war? Not at all, says the committee.
Making every allowance, they say,
for the momentum (whatever that may mean)
of war expenditures carrying on after the
close of hostilities, and allowing for the
gradual recession of this boom period, it is
yet an obvious fact, that our present revenues
cannot be something dependent on war
boom. There must be some other cause, and
on examining the matter further we found
that a great portion of our present revenue is
coming to us because of growth of our main
industries.
It would be relevant, sir, to have set out some
of the details of that growth. But we haven't got
it. And is the present price of some $14 per
quintal for shore fish to have none of the credit
when we recollect that in the immediate pre-war
years it fetched about $5 only? And so this
Economic Report asks us to believe, and what is
more important asks this country to believe, that
present revenues are due to anything but war.
Such, sir, is the optimistic assumption of the
committee. That assumption will be received by
the people of Newfoundland, I fear, with amused
incredulity. They know the difference between
$14 and $5. They are watching, watching with
anxious hearts, for the first indication of a break
in price.
We have heard a great deal in this Convention,
sir, about the desirability and the possibility of
getting the Government of the United States to
grant to Newfoundland some kind of special
trade concession. The idea has been repeatedly
expressed that this concession might take the
form of special low customs tariff rates on our
fish or fish products entering that country. Such
special concessions would, of course, prove to be
a very great value to our fishing industry, and
therefore to the whole country. But what are the
practical possibilities of our getting such a special
concession from the United States? I used the
word "special" advisedly. To be of any real value
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 743
to us, such a concession must be special. It would
not be of very much value to Newfoundland if the
United States lowered her customs tariff on fish
or fish products going in there from Canada and
Iceland and Norway and other countries. It would
not serve our purpose very much if the United
States abolished those duties altogether on
fishery products and did the same thing for all our
powerful competitors. No, any concession to us
along these lines must be given especially to us,
else we will realise very little in the way of
advantage from it. The question is, just what
practical chance is there of Newfoundland persuading the United States to give her
such special,
such preferential treatment? The argument used
by those who say they see such a possibility is
what I might call the bases argument. Nobody has
yet suggested that out of the goodness of their
hearts the Americans are likely, at our request, to
give us such specially favourable treatment.
Those who tell us of these possibilities of getting
preferential treatment for our fish always use this
bases argument. This is the quid pro quo argument. The British government and the Newfoundland government in 1941 signed
agreements with the Americans giving them 99-
year leases of certain small areas of our territories
on which to construct defence bases. Newfoundland got nothing in return — save, I
suppose, what all those who are engaged on our side
of the late war got, the advantage of the defence
construction that was actually placed here by the
Americans. But that is the argument, sir, Newfoundland got nothing in return and so
now we
should go to the Government of the United States
and ask for something that we should have had in
1941; and the Government of the United States is
likely to agree to our request, so we are told. That
is the argument.
Sir, the first hard fact that faces us when we
consider this matter is that we are proposing to
lock the stable door after the horse is gone. The
lease agreements were signed in 1941. This is
1947, nearly 1948. The lawful government
signed the leases, not under any compulsion from
the United States of America, but gladly, and
with the feeling that they were doing something
to help in time of dire peril, and with the feeling
also that they had the people of Newfoundland
with them in their action. The leases are signed,
the deal is closed. The bases are here. There has
not been the slightest scrap of evidence to hint
that the Americans would even consider opening
up that deal again.
But suppose that in spite of these facts, the
Government of the United States, who are not
woolly-minded sentimentalists remember, but
hard-headed men of affairs, suppose that they
went so far as to agree that we had a good case in
equity. Would they then give us that for which
we ask? Certainly the high permanent officials of
the State Department and of the Department of
Commerce, and of the United States Treasury, as
well as the members of the Cabinet, would give
careful consideration to all aspects of the matter
before granting our request. And just as certainly
as they would take those special aspects into
careful account, so it is wise and prudent that we
should consider them in this Convention. One
aspect which the Government of the United
States would be bound to weigh is the fact that
they have defence bases in other places besides
Newfoundland. Those bases were acquired by
the United States at about the same time as those
in Newfoundland. If they give Newfoundland
special trade concessions because they have
bases here, must they not in consistency and
justice give similar concessions to those other
countries? That is something for us to consider.
Another aspect which the United States government would take into account is their
policy of
never mixing trade concessions with military,
naval, and air concessions. That is a definite
policy of the United States of America. To do so
in Newfoundland would be quite a novelty and
would be to create a precedent which, as they
would be quick to note, might be fraught with all
kinds of possibilities for the future.
Still another aspect which the Government of
the United States would undoubtedly consider
carefully is the effect that special trade concessions to Newfoundland might have
upon the
greatest cash customer the United States has in
the world. I refer to Canada, which buys many
hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods
from her each year. The United States and
Canada are each other's greatest customer. The
trade, financial, political, and defence relations
between them are probably closer than any other
two countries in the world. Each of these two
great countries is represented by an ambassador
in the capital of the other, and the relationship
744 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
between them is peculiarly intimate and friendly.
Is the Government of the United States at all
likely, in return for bases which they acquired
seven years ago in the hour of great common
peril, to give special trade concessions to Newfoundland which she will not give to
Canada on
at least equally favourable terms? But the most
important aspect of all that the Government of the
United States would take into account, is the fact
that if they did give Newfoundland special concessions over and above those given
to other
countries, the United States would thereby be
deliberately turning her back on a trade policy
which she strained every effort to establish,
which she has striven very hard to get other
countries to accept and which she has advertised
widely throughout the world as her policy. I refer,
of course, to America's well-known policy of
multilateral trade and tariff agreements. A policy
of giving no trade concessions to one country
without offering them to all other countries on
exactly the same terms.
It was, we must not forget, the Government of
the United States that called the trade conference
at Geneva last spring. It was that government that
invited the other nations to take part. It was that
government that took the lead in the conference
which met for many months, and at which Newfoundland was represented. We all know
the
story of the ups and downs of that conference, of
the difficulties, of the narrow escapes it had from
disaster, of the herculean tasks it had to perform.
We know that on the 18th of this present month,
tomorrow, the world is to learn how successful or
otherwise the United States government has been
in establishing its policy of multilateral trade
agreements throughout the world. For on tomorrow 105 trade and tariff treaties are
to be published in all the countries concerned. To give
Newfoundland special trade concessions in such
circumstances as these would mean that the
United States would have to retrace its steps over
the trail it has blazed in its efforts to stabilise its
own and the world's trade.
Finally, there is yet another aspect to which,
whether they liked it or not, the Government of
the United States would have to give most careful
consideration, and that is the powerful pressure
which America's own vast fishing industry
would exert against allowing our fish or any one
country's fish into America at such low rates of
customs duties as to depress the price of
American fish and the wages of American fishermen. That pressure, coming from the
masters of
the American fishing industry, and from the
powerful trade unions of American fishermen
backed by the whole trade union movement of
the United States would carry a political significance, a political threat which no
American
government has ever yet been able to ignore. We
all remember how just a few years ago a great fish
development scheme on the southwest coast of
Newfoundland was wrecked before it could even
get going, by the pressure of those same
American fishing interests who fought fiercly
against any move to admit Newfoundland fish at
special tariff rates even when it was to be brought
into the United States by an American company
operating in Newfoundland.
All these are hard facts Mr. Chairman, and
they are facts upon which we dare not turn our
backs. We must not give our people false hopes.
I wish it were possible, sir, to get special preferential treatment for our fish in
the United States
markets, but I am not prepared to delude myself
or the people of this country in this matter. It
would be a shameful thing to lead the people on
with false hopes. And though I regret to say it, I
must, for the reasons I have given, state very
frankly that I see no hope whatever of our getting
trade concession from the United States of
America that our much larger competitors will
not get on exactly the same terms.
Now, there is another aspect of this debate
upon which I wish to offer a word or two of
comment. We have seen and heard a very thinly
disguised attempt to impute a lack of patriotic
feeling to those members who have declined to
accept this so-called Economic Report and the
rosy picture it paints of our present and future. An
effort is being made to blow this report up into an
infallible test of our patriotism and love of
country. If you are a patriot you will agree with
this report, if you are not a patriot, you will
question it. Your attitude towards it is a sure and
certain test of your patriotism, that is the attempt
that is being made, sir, and nobody seems to have
observed the complete absurdity of it. Have we
sunk so low, Mr. Chairman, are we so lost to all
sense of reality? Have we wandered so far from
a sense of duty? When the report seems to us
literally to glow with easy optimism for the fu
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 745ture, is it really a crime against Newfoundland to
express an honest doubt? When we venture to
disagree with the report's pathetic attempt to
convince us that we have been better than self-
supporting all those tragic years of destitution,
dole, and disease, are we to be denounced as
traitors to our country? Has this Convention sunk
so low that it is a major crime to remind ourselves
of the fact, the indisputable fact, that this country
went through a hell of suffering for nearly 20
years between the two wars? Is it not permitted
to us to wonder where our country and our people
would be today if this war had not broken out?
And when we look ahead, is it the one unforgivable sin to doubt that all is well with
Newfoundland — to wonder whether there may not
be dangerous shoals ahead? I think I know how
our Newfoundland people will answer all these
questions, with their hard-headed practical minds
and their vivid and bitter memories of their privations up to the outbreak of the
war in 1939. They
are not going to be swept into any easy-going
agreement with the optimistic speculations of this
Economic Report. They know exactly what value
to place upon any report that tells them that their
country was self-supporting and better than self-
supporting all through those long years of hunger
and despair. They know exactly what to call a
report that tells them, with cheerful complacency,
that our present prosperity, such as it is, is due to
anything but the war. And any man who imagines
for one moment that our people would be led by
the report into its mood of easy optimism is
making the mistake of his life.
As I read through the pages of this report, sir,
I can allow my imagination to carry me along in
company with the report's high hopes and pleasing predictions. I can hear the tread
of marching
feet, I can see in imagery column after column of
presently worthless Newfoundlanders joyously
marching towards the paradise of the future, and
singing as they go that grand old evangelical
chorus, "We are marching to Zion, beautiful,
beautiful Zion." Would that it were so, sir, but
alas I am brought back to the matter-of-fact world
by another mental picture. A picture which is
founded on reality. It is a picture of Mr. Average
Fisherman's home of 40 years ago. I lived among
fishermen then as I do now. I know their homes,
their work, their flakes and their stages, their
boats and their nets, the hardships and the dangers
they have endured, what they ate and what they
wore, their education, or lack of it, their many
labours and their few and limited pleasures, their
hopes and their fears, the roughness and
monotony of their simple diet, their utter lack of
luxury and most of the amenities of life. It was a
dull, drab existence; an inadequate reward for
their skill, their fearless courage, their iron endurance of heavy labour, chill and
drenching
spray. In those days the average fisherman who
earned a couple of hundred dollars was reasonably fortunate. And yet, sir, he possessed
a pride and
independence surpassed by few in more
favourable circumstances in life. Did the child of
a distant relative or connection become orphaned? He willingly assumed the added burden
of that child's maintenance, if at all possible. It
was something in the nature of a reflection upon
him for a relative to be sent to an orphanage. He
put all he had into life, and received but a pittance
in return. All that was perhaps nobody's fault.
The product of his toil was a cheap commodity,
consumed for the most part in the least wealthy
market.
That sir, is the picture of 40 years ago, a
picture I know well from close personal observation. It persisted with uneven variations
until the
first world war, in the latter days of which, and
for a couple of years after its end, that fisherman
enjoyed phenomenal prices for the fruit of his toil
levelled substantially however, by an increased
cost of production and of living. Then came the
first postwar slump when he went on the dole in
his thousands. Then a short partial recovery
during which the bite of poverty was not quite so
sharp. Then the crash of the early thirties, when
for eight long years he knew the grinding bitterness of dire destitution, and the
torture of seeing
his children grow thin from malnutrition and
crippled with rickets. Beri-beri and tuberculosis
stalked through the land. The government, both
responsible and Commission, battled with this
economic plague as best it could with the limited
means at its disposal. But there was little if any
improvement in the general conditions. Even as
late as 1939, the year of the outbreak of the war,
more than 40,000 people were still on dole after
some $20,000 of British money had been pumped
in in grants-in-aid to help keep the country afloat.
And then sir, then, at the end of that terrible
period, we experienced one of the bitterest
746 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
paradoxes of history — the paradox which
drenched this world in blood and at the same time
was the means of giving our people enough to eat,
and placing a few dollars in their empty pockets.
Yet we are asked by this report to believe that our
swollen revenues are due to anything but war.
During those terrible years of conflict and their
aftermath, Mr. Average Fisherman has enjoyed a
turn of comparative prosperity and again I use
that word "comparative" advisedly. Let no one
imagine that he has been living the full life during
that period. He had a long leeway to make up to
regain what the latest period of privation had
taken from him. His home was dilapidated and in
serious disrepair. Household utensils and essentials of all kinds, the very clothing
on his bed had
worn thin or disappeared altogether. Even his
boat, his traps, his net, his engine, those things
which claim priority of attention, for by them
alone he could hope to live at all, suffered sadly.
Yes he had a long leeway to make up. And it is a
source of satisfaction to know that to a large
extent at any rate he has been successful in that
endeavour. And for that, wartime scarcity of
food, high wages on transient defence works and
high prices for his staple products have been
fundamentally responsible. That, sir, is the story
of the Newfoundland fisherman as I have known
him intimately for over 40 years. And yet, we are
asked to believe that our present levels of comparative prosperity and our revenues
are due to
anything, anything but the war.
[1]
That story is the acid test of the economy of
Newfoundland — the way of life of the fisherman
and of those directly dependent upon the fishery,
the bulk of our people. And the same story with
obvious variations holds true in all essentials for
the logger, the labourer and the miner.
Mr. Jackman Point of order. Does Mr. Bradley mean to say
that these conditions are peculiar to Newfoundland only?
Mr. Chairman What is your point of order? What irrelevancy
are you referring to?
Mr. Jackman The conditions that exist in Newfoundland exist everywhere else...
Mr. Bradley That is not a point of order. If Mr. Jackman,
or any other member disagrees with what I say he will have an opportunity to
state his opinion later on.
Mr. Bradley Not balanced budgets, not satisfying surpluses, not trust and sinking funds, not
these things, but the way
of life of the people: that is the supreme test of our economy. Truly has it
been said by a great British statesman that Newfoundland has
been the sport of historic misfortune.
We have had a great deal of chatter about
optimism and pessimism and realism, and the
more we talk the further away we seem to get
from the simple realities of the situation. We
bandy about figures of millions and hundreds of
millions, and roll our tongues over our industries
and commerce; we talk of Marshall Plans and of
exchange problems — and the more we talk of
these things the further away we get from the
simple truth, a truth so simple that it is lost in the
mountain of figures over which we pore so painfully.
This country is not made up of budgets and
deficits and surpluses. There are 300,000 living
souls in the land, and they are Newfoundland.
Not the soil, the rocks and the water that constitute the island; nor the great companies
and
corporations; nor even the government itself. Are
these 300,000 living souls the slaves of that
government? Do they exist for the primary purpose of paying taxes and balancing the
government's budget? Or does the government
exist to serve them, the people, who make that
government possible? 300,000 living souls,
fashioned in God's image, for whom all material
things in this land exist. They are the yardstick of
value, and the only yardstick. Anything which
benefits them, anything which serves them,
stands justified. A company or corporation is
good for Newfoundland if it operates to the
benefit of Newfoundland's people. Natural
resources are valuable only if they serve the
people's needs. A government is good if it functions in the people's interest. Under
God our
people are supreme over all in this island, and any
institution or interest that does not serve their
welfare stands condemned in the sight of the
Almighty and in the sight of all just men. The
people's interest, and their condition, are the acid
test of this country's economy.
Sir, that is how it should be: that is what divine
law ordains it should be. But that is not always
what it has been in our history. Our companies
November 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
747
and corporations have not always operated for the
benefit of the people. Our natural resources have
not always been developed and exploited in the
interest of the people. Our government has not
always functioned for the welfare of the people.
In too many cases the people's welfare has been
the last consideration. Have we so arranged our
system of taxation as to make it fall with the
utmost gentleness on the shoulders of toiling
bread-winners, so that they may live in frugal
comfort and Christian decency? Or have we so
arranged it as to crush all hope and initiative out
of the lives of many? Is there a great hue and cry
when the very government itself wrings $18-20
million a year in customs duties out of our
production? Or when the commercial interests
wring more millions out of it in profits on those
duties? No, we don't talk about these things - we prefer to talk of budgets and
surpluses and
foreign exchange, Marshall Plans, and anything
and everything but those simple truths that stare
us in the face.
I have wondered during the course of this
debate, what has been in the minds of our fishermen and other working classes as they
heard from
speaker after speaker that their country is
prosperous, has been prosperous, and will be
prosperous. I have thought of the way of life of
these men, of their unending struggle against the
mounting prices of everything they buy, and the
fear which they must entertain of a drop in the
prices of what they sell. I have thought of the
decades and even centuries of the grim battle they
have had to wage with life. Is it supposed, Mr.
Chairman, that these people are impressed by all
this discussion in terms of millions, all this supposed prosperity of today? $40 million
is roughly
the amount being presently wrung out of our
production annually — roughly half our whole
export trade. But is there any indignant shout in
this chamber over these terrible figures? Is there
even an exclamation of disgust at this crushing
burden placed upon the shoulders of our people?
On the contrary, the govemment's revenue is
hailed with delight and cited as evidence to show
how prosperous and self-supporting the people
are.
In the year 1945, the latest for which we have
the figures, 318 companies admitted to the income tax assessor that they had made
profits that
year amounting to $17 million. $17 million of
taxable profits made in this little country by 318
companies in one short year! Is this likewise to
be taken as further proof that Newfoundland is
prosperous and self-supporting? Can it be this
that is meant when we are told that there is not a
shadow on the road ahead? Some of us must be
excused, sir, if when we hear of all this
prosperity, and when we see these figures of big
trading profits, some of us must be excused if we
ask who has all this prosperity? Who is enjoying
it?
True, the government is prosperous, and it
cannot be denied that Newfoundland as an official entity, a corporate body, is self-supporting
today. It is equally two that a number of individual citizens, and many companies
and corporations are prosperous. But does that make
Newfoundland prosperous? Does that make the
people prosperous? Or are the people poor because of that very prosperity? And yet
it is their
prosperity, or the lack of it, which makes up our
economy. They are the measure of that economy.
They are that very economy itself. Their
prospects are the prospects of that economy. The
trend of what lies ahead of them is the trend of
Newfoundland's economy. And what are those
prospects? Those trends of today? Little consideration has yet been given to the possibilities
which have agitated the minds of many statesmen, economists, manufacturers, financiers
and
merchants for the past two years, and which are
regarded by many as an imminent probability,
and by some as a practical certainty. I refer to the
possibilities of post-war depression.
The chaotic conditions of world trade today
are already plain to be seen. Nearly the whole of
Europe lies prostrate in the aftermath of the most
devastating war in human history. World statesmen arc struggling with hope, but hardly
with
confidence, to solve problem after problem arising from day to day. And in the offing
— we hope
the far-distant offing — the grim spectre hovers
of a struggle between the rival forces of communism and democracy. We have to depend
upon that world for any degree of prosperity, for
we are first, last, and all the time an exporting and
importing country, and have little or no control
over the prices we receive for what we sell, and
no control at all over the prices we pay for what
we buy. Already we see indications that all is not
well. Cracks and rents are beginning to make
748
NATIONAL CONVENTION
November 1947
their appearance in many aspects of our
economy. The prices of what we buy seem to be
continually rising, while on the other hand we
begin to see indications of a recession in the
prices of those things we sell. And some are
presently unsaleable. There is said to be a much
larger quantity of our staple product of this year
still unsold and in the hands of the merchants than
for many years past, and there appears to be
hesitation about making further purchases from
the fishermen.
All these points and observations I have made,
Mr. Chairman, and others like them that I have
not the time to make today, are the stark considerations which are in the minds of
our people
and should be in ours. These are the considerations upon which we must, if we are
true to
Newfoundland, base all our thinking about our
country's economy. It is a time when every factor
must be taken honestly into consideration, and
this time the people shall know the truth, and the
truth shall set them free.
Mr. Starkes A few days ago, when I spoke on this
Economic Report, I had hardly taken my seat when Mr. Hollett stood up and
reeled off a whole lot of figures to show how much more prosperous our
industries are than they were last year. I want to fill in some of the gaps
left in Mr. Hollett's account of our industries. I want to tell you that
at this moment many hundreds and thousands of producers are
experiencing some of the worst misery they have ever known. Take a look at
our biggest industry of all, the fisheries. Only last week a man from
St. Mary's tramped Water Street, from one end to the other, trying to sell
1,000 quintals of good quality shore codfish, and had failed to sell
any of it up to the time I was speaking to him. What about the truckloads of
codfish brought in here last week by the fishermen, and
carried back home again because nobody would buy it?
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of order. I have been
thinking about this ever since Mr. Starkes brought it up. Any figures which
I quoted the other day were based on this, and were actual figures
taken from the report. Why he imputes this statement to me I would like to
know, and more than that, he spoke of somebody coming in with a
truckload of fish. I wonder, could we have an official report of that? I
would like to know. These are things we want.
Mr. Chairman I think 1 must sustain you on the first
point. By the process of elimination my very definite recollection, Mr.
Hollett, is that any figures quoted by you were from the Finance
Report or the Economic Report. Their accuracy, of course, would obviously be
decided when these reports come before the House. On the second point,
however, I have to sustain Mr. Starkes, because I feel that any member must
be free to express an opinion. I must assume that the opinion is
honestly expressed, and he shall not be required to defend it simply because
his opinion is not shared universally by other members of the
Convention. Therefore 1 don't think he is out of order, because I don't
think I can allow this Convention to be resolved into a court of judicature where
every member would have to provide independent
corroboration. That would be a very serious state of affairs, Mr. Hollett.
Mr. Hollett On that point again, if I may. We must
remember that we are speaking to the people when we speak here, and if Mr.
Starkes is going to make a statement about somebody bringing in a
truckload of fish and not selling it, it will cause alarm in this country. I
think, therefore, that any statement of that kind should be
substantiated.
Mr. Chairman I see the seriousness of what you say, Mr.
Hollett, but as I see it I am powerless to prevent consequences which may
follow from any member's making an ill—advised statement. I think the
members would be well advised to seriously consider every statement that
they make before it is made; but on the other hand, unless and until
the remark is out of order, I can't deal with it, and I think, in the
circumstances, Mr. Starkes, I can't do anything.
Mr. Starkes I was not contradicting Mr. Hollett's
figures, I was just filling in the gaps that he left out.
Mr. Hollett These are not my figures, they are from the
Financial Report and the Economic Report.
Mr. Hollett The gaps then that you are proposing
to fill in are the gaps left by the Economic Report and the Finance Report,
as the case may be.
Mr. Starkes Why is it that our salt codfish exports fall short over 100,000 quintals as compared
with the same
period last year? What about
November 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
749
the fish stores that are filled up today with fish
that has not yet been sold, and if and when it is sold, who can tell us what
price it will bring to the fishermen? And what about the hundreds of
fishermen who can't sell their fish, and can't even batter it for food? From
January 1 to the end of September last year we exported over $4 1/2 million worth
of fresh and frozen codfish, but for the same
period this year the value was only $1 1/2 million, which is $3 million
less. That is a big difference in my eyes, and it tells us a lot...
Mr. Chairman There is altogether too much commotion in
this chamber. Members and visitors will please refrain from commenting at
all, because it is with the greatest difficulty that I am able to
follow the speaker, and at any time I may be asked to rule upon a point of
order which the speaker is trying to address to the Chair.
Mr. Starkes That's a big difference in my eyes, and it
tells us a lot, for had we exported as much fresh frozen fish this year as we
did last year we would have that much less salted fish to try to get rid
of now.
Again, take our herring. From January I to the
end of October last year we exported over $4 1/2
million worth of herring; but what do we find for
the same period this year? Our herring exports are
only $2 million, that is over $2 1/2 million less that
last year. Take lobsters. Our expert of lobsters
this year is $150,000 less than last year. Look at
dried squid. Out of 10,000 barrels packed this
year only 2,000 barrels have been sold, leaving
8,000 barrels still in the country, mostly in the
fishermen's hands and practically unsaleable.
Look at the salmon. Last year salmon exported in
the first ten months came to $800,000. In the
same period this year it is only $550,000, that is
$250,000 less. And if you look at the pulpwood
industry, what do you find? Practically all the
camps cutting pulpwood had their quota reduced
this year, and speaking of the district I represent,
a very large pulpwood operation at Springdale
has its camps at present all closed, while at
Roberts Arm, where there is another large operation, they expect to close this week.
With all these facts staring them in the face,
Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that thousands of our
producers are today up against conditions worse
than any they have seen for many years past. Not
very many of them would give a plugged nickel
for all the rosy pictures painted in this Economic
Report. I am compelled to base my figures on
those produced by the Fisheries Board, and not
on the figures in this Economic Report which is
in my opinion absolutely wrong. As proof, in the
fisheries this year we exported less than we did
last year as follows:
| Fresh and frozen codfish |
$3,190,396 |
| Pickled herring, all types |
2,522,623 |
| Fresh and canned lobster |
168,207 |
| Salmon |
245,157 |
| making a total of |
$6,126,383 |
less this year than last year, to say nothing of our
salted codfish, and as over 60% of our people are
dependent on the fisheries for a living, speaking
as their representative, and considering the facts
as stated, I say that this rosy report is not worth
the paper it is written on.
Mr. Penney larn going to take a chance, without any
notes or preparation, to take issue with two matters that Mr. Bradley
brought out in his extended talk. One of them is that he used a
lot of "ifs" in his arguments about getting into the United States
market. "If", and the result of it was there was no possible chance for
Newfoundland to do anything there. Well, I want to say to him,
although he is not in the House at this time, and to the delegates, that if
we had the chance to send an official delegation to Washington, and spent
one-third of the time there that the delegates did in Ottawa, then we
would see and then we would know what could be done.
Another matter that Mr. Bradley stressed was
speculation. There was speculation in our Eco<
nomic Report, and speculation in this and that,
and everything. I say to you that no man or
woman who speculates in any walk of life, they
never got anywhere, and Mr. Starkes should bear
me out in that matter.
Now then, in regard to the Economic Report
itself, I was a humble member of that Committee,
and I want to say, notwithstanding the slurs that
were put across this House about the report and
the personnel of the Committee, we served
honestly, unmoved by exterior motives of any
kind, and I claim that the report is a good one.
Lots of the information contained in that report is
taken from all the reports of this Convention,
compiled by all members of the Convention, and
moreover they were also taken from official sources, and I believe they are right;
and when one
member says, "It was not an honest report", I
750
NATIONAL CONVENTION
November 1947
differ with that. I don't claim to be any special
angel, but I am not dishonest, and Mr. Smallwood
can search the records of the court, or the statistics of debtors, or the Economic
Report, and he
won't find anything there showing dishonesty. I
am convinced from what I have seen and what
we did, that this country is self-supporting, no
matter what people may argue or say to the contrary.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Chairman, it does not matter how we obtained
the prosperity we have, but rather what are our chances of holding it. It
matters not to a country whether an earthquake, war or even a revolution
brings prosperity. What does matter in deciding on a plan for the future is
whether the prosperity is real. Is it lasting? Have we a reasonable
chance of continuing to be self- supporting? Surely we do not
expect a drop of 25% in our revenue in the immediate future.
Frankly, I fail to see what purpose it serves to
be debating these reports in committee of the
whole. Most of us could have used up much more
valuable time talking, bickering and arguing over
something we ourselves, and the whole country,
know has been prepared in such a manner as to
do full justice to all the circumstances surrounding it. Each member should have spoken
once
only and then the vote taken. It has been very
difficult for some of us to hold our seats when we
see so much valuable time wasted. I am in full
support of Mr. Job's suggestion to get on with the
job, and I must reiterate that this whole business
should not have lasted six months. In my opinion
we are all justified in suggesting corrections or
minor alterations, but when we appoint committees to do a job, we should not question
the
honesty of the reports, but rather the purpose they
serve, and vote according to the dictates of our
own consciences. In my opinion, anyone who
votes against this report is betraying the land that
gave them birth; regardless of whether we recommend that we carry on on our own or
join hands
with some other country, it is and will still remain
our bounden duty to keep the torch of Newfoundland burning high, and never let us
accept
an inferiority complex at any time, but insist that
we are, and will always be equal with our neighbours of the same race. We are all
only too
conscious of the fact that all is not well with the
world, and we cannot expect to escape our full
share of the aftermath of the war; but we are
prepared to adjust ourselves to new world conditions, just as other countries must;
and this will
not be altered by any particular form of government.
It is my definite opinion that the USA would
renew negotiations concerning the base leases, or
grant reciprocal trade tariffs, owing to the fact
that the USA did not get 99 year leases from other
countries who are seeking free entry for their
products,
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to waste the time
of this Convention with my opinion of members who consider their own
blocking has any bearing whatsoever on the economic, or indeed any other
standing, of our country. The general public, and indeed you yourself,
must by this time be heartily sick of would-be statesmen and their egotism,
so enough of this nonsense. I make no pretense of being an economist,
but at the same time I claim common sense, and I trust that my claim will be
substantiated.
The direct aim of any business involving the
public is to bring to that public the things that it
needs most. If stocks held are the stocks in
demand, then that business, regardless of whether
its neighbours sink or swim, is bound to thrive - and if it doesn't, no one is going
to blame the
finance minister's estimates. Apply this principle
to countries at large and what have you? This
island is producing commodities for which the
whole world is clamouring from resources
which, far from being worked out, are not even
as yet tapped. It is indeed unfortunate that the
sterling crisis affects our would-be market in
Europe, but why in the name of heaven sit back
and wail like a man with one theory, whose
theory has been blown sky high? Every pound of
fish, every cord of timber, every ton of ore sent
to Europe must be shipped — using foreign
fleets, note you! — at least 2,000 miles.
The United States needs our food in the form
of fish. Transport and other difficulties regarding
this commodity have in recent years been overcome, and I think I'm safe in saying
larger strides
are under plan, and soon the term "direct from
fisherman to consumer" will become fact. With
the appropriate trade agreements, we can derive
from this need of the United States all the essentials which our now precious dollars
are purchasing from a country unable to buy anything which
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 751
we can produce. In other words, millions of dollars are yearly leaving this country
without one
dollar returning in remuneration. Mr. Job has
already attempted to emphasise to you that the
largest and most sought-after market in the world
is ours for the asking. Is our economy such that
someone else is needed to do the asking for us?
Why fritter away our precious dollars, which
belong as much to the humblest fisherman in
Bonavista Bay or any other bay as to the country
at large, on a dead market? Summarising, Mr.
Chairman, the whole affair is a one-sided gain.
That side does not happen to be ours.
As far as the agricultural aspect of our economy is concerned, this report itself
showed all too
clearly that much in this country is to be decided
in this respect. Encouragement of veterans into
agriculture but a year ago, and today these same
veterans have practically everything they have
grown still on their hands, while foreign produce
pours into this country — no economy of any
country will stand this lack of planning and
foresight. Granted, this island a mere 200 years
ago was a barren waste; but these 200 years have
witnessed considerable advance. With the institution of a good marketing system and
the
promise of a sale for goods produced, farming
will substitute another answer to the unnecessary
outside expenditure on goods which are here on
our doorstep. I would remind certain members
that three meals a day are more easily acquired
by even the poorest, when two or more of those
meals are to be found in the back garden.
Mr. Chairman, a depression is forecast by our
members; just when, even the most pessimistic
souls are not able to state. I wish to ask the
member for Bonavista Centre if he considers that
from the whole world, this small island of ours is
to be singled out for starvation? Any fool knows
that the economy of any country fluctuates from
time to time. In the event of international crisis,
is manna to drop from heaven in every country
but Newfoundland? If there are to be soup and
bread lines as before, are other countries to be
spared them? Mr. Butt put forward what I consider to be a concrete fact when he stated
that in
economic spheres, material possessions may
have more bearing on a country's prosperity than
existent dollars. The value of the materials Newfoundland possesses has increased
beyond doubt;
not alone because of the war which ended two
years ago, but because this war inevitably exhausted supplies and in some cases even
the
sources of those supplies for all time. Now the
occasion is opportune to release to a world
hungry for raw materials such as we possess of
the natural resources at our command.
Any member in this Convention who expresses no faith in his country infers only lack
of faith
in himself; and who with such a line of thought
can ever hope to gain for Newfoundland international respect? May I remind the member
from
St. George's that the hope and charity theme
accentuated in his eloquent delivery of yesterday,
fails to make sense when one perceives that he
ignores that equally important factor of "faith".
I shall make no attempt to wrangle with the
figures so ably provided by Major Cashin and his
Committee. I, for one, am certain that fooling is
implied only in our discussions with outsiders.
After much thought and with deep sincerity, I am
satisfied that our beloved country is self-supporting at the present time and will
be for as far into
the future as any human being is able to foresee.
I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating
Major Cashin and his Committee on their fine
work. With faith in my country and its people - may God bless them — I submit my
wholehearted support to this report.
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, before recess there was a point
or two on which I felt that I should comment, and that is in connection with
our fish. Our trouble with fish is caused by our customers in Europe
who trade in sterling, and the inability of Great Britain to convert the
sterling into dollars. This of course applies also to the woods
situation. As far as the woods are concerned, I regret that the cut
for this year is very near completed, but I think it is only fair
that I should explain as best I can why it is that the cut is up so
soon. It is because of the fact that due to a poor fishery we have had such
a flow of men to the woods as we have not had for years and years,
with the result that two weeks ago, in one week's cutting, Bowaters had
27,000 cords of wood cut and piled. The like was never known before in
their history. It must be understood that the forests cannot stand that...
I remember in the days before the war that our
earning power was not very good, and therefore
the economic position of Newfoundland was
752 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
none too good, because of the fact that our people
were not getting sufficient for their toil. Wood
was cut at $1 a cord, and you worked a long weary
hour for $1.60, but today I find that matters have
improved and the economic position is much
better, and therefore the economic position of the
country has come up also. The fisherman and the
woodsman are well aware of what is going on.
They are aware that there's been a lot of people
who have done fairly well off the fisherman and
the labourer, and some of those have made statements in this House today. They are
aware of that,
and I say that those things don't help the position
in any case. I fear that by the words that we use,
and the gloom that we are prepared to cause, we
may have some effect upon our people. I realise
that there are businessmen who are willing to
allow a person two or three months groceries
ahead to carry them over the winter; but with the
pictures that we are painting here, why the wolf
is living at their doors, and they will wake up in
the morning and say, "I am sorry we can't give
you anything, because those fellows in the National Convention know it all, and poverty
is right
at our door". We should be careful in the way we
express ourselves. I feel confident that this thing
will right itself and I have taken a course perhaps
opposite to others, and I am prepared to see what
I can do about the future in Newfoundland. Along
with the rest of the labour organisation I think
those of you who are in doubt can leave it in the
hands of those who represent labour, especially
this winter.
Mr. Burry I would like to make a few comments
on this report. First, I would like to give my congratulations to Mr.
Bradley (he is not in the House at present), because I feel he has given
a very able and masterly and well balanced address. The
report, sir, as you pointed out at the beginning of the debate, is one that
is of utmost importance, the most important document before us in
connection with the main purpose of this Convention. It was with a great
deal of eagerness that we looked forward to it. I remember clearly the
disappointment I received, before we adjourned last spring, when
the Finance Committee thought it would not give an economic report. But
the report is before us, and in anticipation of it I tried to draw up
in my own mind a picture of what the economy was like, and to project it
into the future. I did it for my own satisfaction, and to my
own satisfaction. I came here two weeks ago and heard this report
given by Major Cashin in his characteristic way, and I was very much
interested in it, but I must say that I was keenly
disappointed, because it did not match up with the things I had in mind....
It has been said often that the Finance Committee has done an excellent
job in marshalling the facts and presenting them to us in the Finance
Report that they presented to us some time ago. I subscribe to that, and say
that it is a very comprehensive and able report....
Now this report that is before us is an interpretation of these facts, and an interpretation
of
the facts coming out of the other reports and I am
not enthusiastic about the work of the Committee
in interpreting the facts that we have discovered.... I think the weakness of the
report is
that it does not give sufficient consideration to
the smaller units of production in this country,
and their relation to the economy. I refer to the
individual farmer, fisherman, trapper and miner
— the primary producer, or what Mr. Keough
likes to call the "little man". Now it may be
argued that his capacity to produce is reflected in
the millions and millions of dollars that have been
referred to in this Economic Report and in the
Financial Report. It may be that the farmer's
ability to produce is reflected in the $12.5 million
that the industry is worth in the estimation of the
Agricultural Committee; and that the ability of
the individual fisherman to produce is reflected
in the number of quintals of fish, etc. That may
be true in a sense, but it does not tell the whole
story of the ability of the individual man to
produce, and how it reflects upon the actual
economy. The farmer, for instance, how is he
equipped to produce? What is the state of his
equipment, and how modern is it, and how well
is he provided to bring the best possible contribution? The fisherman, much has been
said about
him and his ability to produce. We have heard it
said, and it was brought out in the Fisheries
Report, that the equipment he has today, in some
parts of our country at least, is outmoded — it is
old fashioned. I wonder if we realise just how
outworn and dilapidated that equipment is and
how much he is handicapped in his ability to
produce because of that.... Someone has said that
the equipment of the fishermen has reached a
very high stage of efficiency. I have no doubt that
he was sincere in making that statement, and that
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 753
he was referring to some of the fishermen he
knew, but I am just as sincere in saying that the
fishermen I know, and the equipment I have seen
them use in the past, certainly cannot be
described in that way. I rather think that if an
efficiency expert were to pass judgement on
some of the equipment our fishermen have to use,
and I am not thinking only of the Labradorians,
but of the fishermen who go to the Labrador, that
at least 50% of it would be thrown on the scrapheap, and the other 50% would not reach
a very
high stage of efficiency.
And not only is the equipment of the fisherman a handicap to him, but I think it can
be well
said that a man cannot do his best unless he is
well-fed and well-housed, and well cared for in
that way. On the bread and tea economy that our
fishermen have had to depend upon, they are not
able to bring their best possible contributions to
our productive life. It is true that that man's bread
and tea economy has been varied, as far as he is
able to have a meal of fish and brewis two or three
times a week, and on Sunday he can have a meal
of puffins and turrs, but that kind of diet does not
enable him to bring his best possible contribution.
We all know that when England had to reduce on
her rations the authorities saw to it that the men
who had to go down in the mines, and the men
who had to work in the factory, and the fishermen, were given an extra ration. It
has a bearing
upon his ability to produce. The same is true of
our people. If they had better equipment, and
were better fed, they could bring a better contribution to the economy of this country.
When the member from Bonavista Centre
made that speech here two weeks ago on the
opening of the debate, on the way out I offered
him my congratulations. I thought he was rendering a great piece of service to this
country. It has
been backed up several times by other members,
and especially by Mr. Bradley this afternoon, I
offer him my congratulations because I thought
then that he was "on the beam", as some other
individual put it. I hasten to explain that in giving
my congratulations to Mr. Smallwood, I am not
giving blanket approval to all he said that day. He
has a way of saying things sometimes that perhaps I don't like, and perhaps others
don't like,
but nevertheless who am I to say what he should
say, or how he should say it?....
There have been letters read here, I think the
member from Bonavista Centre has read letters,
from individual members of their constituencies,
and I suppose if the rest of us were to gather
together our letters and read them it would take
up a great deal of our time, and I am not going to
do that, but what I want to say is this: that there
is none of us in this Convention who is so shortsighted as to think that because there
is an individual family or two somewhere on the coast
of Labrador, or somewhere in the bays of Newfoundland, who are living in squalor,
poverty,
distress, and hunger, that because of that the
whole background of this report should be
darkened.... But when there is forced in upon me
the fact that these are not isolated cases, that there
is a great deal of hunger, and has been in the past,
and a great deal of poverty, and a great deal of
distress in our island, I think that that fact, which
our Committee members must have known,
should have made them shade in some dark lines
in the background at least in the report, rather
than presenting only the highlights.
It is not a waste of our time to look at this
country through the spectacles that so many,
many people on the island and the coast of
Labrador have to wear through all the year, and
see the position we are in through the shady
spectacles that they have to wear. I think it is not
a waste of time, and I think we would have spent
some portion of the 14 months we have spent here
more valuably, if we had tried together to see the
country as it really is.
It was with a great deal of concern and regret
that I read this morning in the
Daily News of the
fact that another of our industries in Labrador has
had to declare itself insolvent. That company
touches in a very vital way a large part of the coast
of Labrador. The people along that coast have had
a very hard and very difficult existence all
through their lives. A few years ago this industry
started. It did not have a very good beginning. It
dropped out of existence for a while and came
back again, but when this company came into
existence these people saw an opportunity
whereby they might be able to make a few dollars
other than through the fishery. In the long winter
months they might work and make a bit of
money, rather than have to rely upon the dole
which they know so well. It was a very bright spot
to them. Now to most of us it would not be a
bright spot. It is not an easy thing to have to make
754 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
a living by working, week after week, month after
month, year after year, cutting wood to get a mere
living. That's not an easy thing, but to these
people who have had such a dreary existence, this
was a great light, and they rejoiced in the fact that
an industry was started. It had a very checkered
beginning, but it did do good. And now this
morning I was shattered in my hopes for these
people to hear that this company has gone into
liquidation. It is something more than another
company gone broke. The coast is left stranded
at a late part of the season, when the fishery was
very, very poor, so poor that there was nothing
left on the coast as a result of the fishery, or
practically nothing. All supplies for the winter
depended upon the industries, upon Goose Bay
and the Labrador Development Company,
[1] and
upon the government. There is very little upon
the coast by way of groceries and supplies to
carry them through the winter.... The people were
depending, on this part of the coast, upon the
work that would be given them by the Labrador
Development Company. In that area the population is 400 people, 165 children. In the
immediate
vicinity there are 500 people, another 160
children — north and south there is a large
population coming to the Labrador Development
Company to look for work rather than depend
upon the government to supply them with dole.
Even before the fishery stopped as many as 200
men poured into Port Hope Simpson in the hope
of getting work. The usual quota of the company
is 150 people; that is quite a strain upon the
supplies — 250 men calling upon them. Consequently the food had been all used up even
before
the boats left the coast for the year. They are in
pretty desperate need.
I am not in a position to make any pronouncement upon what has been done — upon the
wisdom or justice of the company's going into
liquidation. This is how it strikes me. Here is a
company cutting wood in Labrador; there is plenty of wood, plenty of labour, the market
is open,
prices are generous, and this company is not
absolutely broke. They have some credits on the
other side of the Atlantic in sterling. They have
applied to the government for some help. As I
understand it the government has not seen fit to
grant their request — a mere $200,000 — to
enable them to carry on, to send supplies in and
to engage all these people. The government has
not seen fit to help them out to this extent. There
is one thing certain: the government will have to
do something. They will have to send a supply
boat to feed these people. There are about 900 of
them in that particular area — north and south of
that many others depend upon the company and
now they have nothing to depend on but relief.
The people cannot be allowed to starve this
winter. It will cost $150,000 to get supplies in. I
wonder if it would not be better for the government to find some way whereby they
might help
this company out by sending in supplies and
engage those men, enable them earn as much as
$300,000 — unless of course this company is not
reliable. I understand this company is composed
of genuine, reliable, honest men of this country
— no question about that — this company is in
good circumstances, or would be but for the
inconvertibility of sterling. I do not see why the
government is not able to tide them over, let the
company send in supplies and let the men earn an
honest living rather than be humiliated by going
on the dole as they will have to. Some may say
that is not a matter for the Convention. That is not
the way I see it. It is the job of the Convention to
consider that there is another one of our industries
not going well at this particular time.
I do not want to be unkind, but it seems rather
strange that the Economic Committee could
write such an optimistic report when, while they
were writing it, our most northerly industry was
going into liquidation and our most southerly
industry — the mining operation at St. Lawrence
— has been closed during the summer for want
of hydro-electric power. That is a thing which
shows there is a very vital weakness in the
economy and its inability to work up industries,
the shortage of hydro-electric power. It is
portrayed now in the bigger industries. Our most
northerly industry is going into liquidation, there
is our labour leader telling us that the camps are
just about finished cutting, and we have been
reminded that so many of our men rely upon that
cut to tide them over; in view of these facts, I
cannot but help thinking that the Committee
should have shaded in a few dark outlines and
shown the people that everything is not rosy and
there are some discouraging things about it.
There are some encouraging things about it too.
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 755
I am not a pessimist. There are a certain amount
of encouraging things and given a fair amount of
stability, these encouraging things are going to
come to the forefront and make things a little
more easy for our people. We have to go a long
way to set up a standard of living as comfortable
as we would want to enjoy life with. There has
been a great deal of vying with one another as we
have shouted about our great race of people; the
great stock they came from...
Mr. Chairman Do not interrupt the speaker unless you have a point of order.
Mr. Burry Better than the best. We have talked about
their courage and dogged determination. I have experience enough to know,
and I cannot close my eyes to the fact that this great stock of people
have had to undergo some of the cruellest, gruelling experiences, hardships
and privations during this generation, and I have seen the blush
fading from their cheeks; I have seen the sparkle go from their eyes and I
have seen them reduced to discouragement and despair, and they cannot
go much further; a certain percentage of our people have had just about as
much as they can stand and still maintain their dogged determination.
I have great faith in the future. I really believe
we have seen the worst, given a fair amount of
world stability. But it is no use for us to paint a
bright, glowing picture and think we are doing
justice to the people. Those of us who would like
to see a few shady lines in this picture are not
unpatriotic. We are not backing down on the
people just because we are trying to see the thing
in its real state — the realities as they exist today
and the prospects we have for the future. I have
figures which I could give you to tell you what
happened even last year in my own district, of the
amount of privation and need that existed: 641
individuals receiving dole last winter, and that
did not include the Indians, 300 of them, most of
them were on dole rations last year. Somewhere
around 900 people receiving dole out of a population of 5,500, one out of every six.
From some
places men could get to Three Rapids Estate and
the Labrador Development,
[1] so we can imagine
the very much more concentrated privation and
hunger there were in other places, and from what
I can gather, things are even worse. You would
have to go back into the worst dole days to find
anything comparable, even providing our
government can send in the necessary supplies.
Mr. Chairman I am sorry to interrupt you, Rev. Burry, but
it is my proposal to rise until eight o'clock, when I shall be glad to hear
you continue your address. Before doing so, I direct your attention to the following
letter:
Broadcasting Corporation of Newfoundland
November 17, 1947.
Francis J. Ryan, Esq.,
Assistant Secretary,
National Convention.
Dear Sir:
Replying to yours of November 15, I have
arranged to have the Monday, Tuesday and
Thursday evening sessions recorded and they
will be rebroadcast as quickly as it is possible
to do so, bearing in mind our present obligations of contracts.
Yours sincerely,
George R. Williams
[The Convention recessed until 8 pm]
Mr. Burry Mr. Chairman, when the session closed this
afternoon I was about to observe that this Convention is very anxious to
have its work completed and I am in sympathy with that. I would like
to have it over as quickly as possible. But I am wondering if fate has not
had some hand in delaying this Economic Report. Perhaps if we had had
it last fall or spring we would not see the true position of the country as
we see it at the present time....
I was about to say also, that in treating this
subject in a bright and cheerful way, we are not
treating the people of this country fairly. We have
to recognise the struggle that they have had in the
past and the struggles that they are bound to have
in the immediate future. I do not want to be too
pessimistic. I do not want to dwell upon this too
much; but the other side of it has been given such
importance that I feel someone should show that
not every side of our life and economy is as bright
as some would have us think. It was pointed out
here the other day, in all seriousness, that 90% of
our people own their own homes. That fact was
taken from the census and is an interesting fact.
But that does not tell the whole story. We know
756 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
perfectly well that 90% of these homes are not
equipped with the conveniences and comforts
that people of this age and generation have come
to expect. A great number of these homes are not
equipped with furniture that might be described
as the chesterfield suite, on which the breadwinner might be able to recline at the
end of the day
to rest his weary bones, or even on a Sunday
afternoon. A lot of the furniture are hard-backed
chairs, home-made couches; not only that, the
kitchen range is still the Waterloo stove in a lot
of them. I could take members of this Convention
to homes where there are not even hard-backed
chairs, but packing cases to sit on, and where
stoves are still strung together with wire and
sometimes local cement or mud. These are isolated cases perhaps, but yet they are
cases we
have to recognise. It was also said that even if our
people do not make very much money, they do
not need as much money as other people — they
are able to get their own fuel by their own labour.
That was true in my day, in our childhood days
perhaps. But it is not true in larger sections of our
country, unless the man is willing to take a hauling rope on his back when the early
snow comes
in the fall and use it throughout the long winter
months; then he might be able to do it, by hauling
wood from long distances. There are very few
places where firewood can be obtained without
putting in the whole winter, and I am sure we are
not prepared to have our people do that and say
it is the justified and right thing for them to
expect.
I do not want to take up any more time on this
debate. There are several things in the report I
would like to call attention to, but the time is
rapidly going. I would like to know where they
get their authority for some of the things that they
have quoted here, especially the picture they have
built up with respect to the Labrador Mining and
Exploration Company's work in Labrador and its
possibilities for the future. I have always had an
optimistic view of that future, but they have
outdone me in my optimism. I wonder where they
get some of the figures when they give this inflated picture. It seems to me it is
a proposition
of great magnitude and we certainly hope it will
mean a lot to the economy of this country and to
Labrador. I wonder what they mean when they
say, "Upwards of 10,000 Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians will be able to find employment in
the production of iron ore".... It seems rather
optimistic for them to say, "It further means, that
the great Grand Falls water-power will finally be
developed and from statistics shown by a survey
conducted a few years ago by the Aluminum
Company of Canada, it is estimated that this
waterpower when developed will produce somewhere in the vicinity of one and one-half
million
horsepower." They are very optimistic, it seems
to me, in saying that this water-power will be
developed. I have not found anything to encourage me to think that this water-power
is
going to be developed by this company.... The
impression I have received from people in
authority is that it is very doubtful yet; no conclusion has been arrived at to lead
anyone to
believe this water-power will be tapped at all. It
is a gigantic undertaking and if power for this job
can be obtained at less expense, it will not be
tapped at all. The Committee says it will be
tapped. They say it will be 1.5 million horsepower when it is tapped. As I recall
it the Committee gives the estimate of 1.16 million
horsepower. Of course it is true that the Mining
Committee did point out that if the waters of
Michikamau Lake flowing into the Hamilton
River were tapped, 20% would be added. Since
it is doubtful that the falls will be tapped, it is
optimistic to say 1.5 million horsepower will be
developed — used in the production of iron ore
and exportation of power to the Quebec area.
There is just one other thing I would like to
say. As far as this country's being self-supporting
is concerned, I am not in a position to admit that
because the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs makes a bare statement that
we
are self-supporting; or because a former Commissioner for Finance also makes the bare
statement, without any qualification; and because the majority of the Finance Committee
makes the same statement.... I am not able to
accept that and many other things; it seems to be
an inflated opinion of the economy. I do not feel
justified in supporting the passage of this report
through the House at the present time.
Mr. Ashbourne The time has come at last to consider and
discuss the economic position of Newfoundland. I was sent here as an elected
member, elected by one of the outports of Newfoundland, with
a duty to perform. I find in the terms of reference ... that our duty is
three-fold or
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 757
perhaps four-fold. Firstly, to consider and discuss. Secondly, to examine the position
of the
country. Thirdly, to make recommendations. We
have been considering the changes that have
taken place in Newfoundland since 1934 and we
have entered into considerable discussion. I
think, in view of what has been said by members,
that there is little need for me to say much more
on the economic situation, but yet I consider that
perhaps my time might be well spent in referring
to the reports which have been presented and in
giving my ideas on them. I shall try to do this in
the shortest possible time, but I would like the
indulgence of the members of this House because
I have no definite prepared speech....
....In discussing the economic position, which
is the backbone and lifeblood of our national life,
I would like to refer to two reports — the report
of Chadwick and Jones,
[1] which was distributed
to us before the Convention met, and the Report
of the Finance Committee.
[2] The former report is
a comprehensive survey and I think it would have
been greatly to our advantage if instead of going
out and making another Economic Report, we
had accepted this Chadwick-Jones Report and
had debated it. It contains 15 tables, and while it
was prepared before the Convention met, we
could have these tables brought up to date by the
government. That is the least we could expect of
them. Perhaps, seeing that we are in the closing
hours of the Convention now, that might be overlooked. But anyone who has considered
and
studied this white paper has been struck with
its comprehensiveness. It is a factual report and
contains a considerable amount of information.
Regarding the Economic Report of the
Finance Committee and also the Finance Report,
I consider these reports have good points in them,
but as far as I am concerned the Economic Report
is not broad enough in its scope. I consider it a
little too budgetary.... It seems to me we should
keep in mind the fact we are not a government,
but elected representatives sent here to do the job
according to well defined terms of reference. We
have the past to guide us. We are told history
repeats itself. We all know we are living in a
changing world. We are getting newer ideas. The
age we live in, with aeroplanes, radios, cars,
trucks, travel, motorboats and all the other inventions of our age, have all played their part in
adding to the changing order. As far as I can see,
the term "foreseeable future" has about it a sort
of unreality which is unconvincing.... I do not
know whether we were sent here to see what the
future of Newfoundland is going to be. I do not
think we were. I think we were sent here to assess
and examine — that is the present tense — the
country as we find it today. Who knows the
future? God alone knows it.
There are several matters I would like to speak
about in this report. The need of a good standard
of living for our people is an essential, a great
essential. We want taxation lifted from the necessities of life, and I would not want
to be a part in
the future, or even in the present, of a government
which would seek to extract $17 million in duties
from 300,000 people. There should be a great
revision of the tariffs. I think it was about a year
ago that the government made some reductions
in the tariff, and I hope it will not be very long
before we have further reductions, so that it will
in some way try and offset the rise in the cost of
living which must be a source of deep concern to
our people. We know it is. I speak as one from
the outports, rubbing shoulder to shoulder with
the fishermen, for in our section people depend
practically wholly upon the fisheries. There are
some people who augment their earnings with the
amount they earn from the lumberwoods. I am
sure these people are anxiously awaiting the day
when this great amount, I think it was $20 million
last year, will be considerably lifted from their
shoulders. We have heard recently about the request of the dairymen for an increase
in milk. The
fact that there is $4.75 a ton placed on imported
hay is excessive. I see no reason whatsoever why
the government could not reduce or remove altogether the duty on hay.
We know that people are wondering when the
economic recession is going to get an impetus
such as the World War brought along. Those of
us who went through the experience after World
War I, and knew the collapse of firms as a result
of the drop in price of fish, wonder today when
this recession is going to strike us again. Personally, I do not think there will
be such a drop
in price as was experienced at that time. I think
the demand for proteins, just the same as the
758 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
demand for oils and fats, will help considerably
to stabilise prices. But we must not forget, Mr.
Chairman, that we are absolutely impotent and
powerless to say what we are going to get for the
fish and other commodities which we export,
particularly to countries which have been devastated by war and whose populations
are living a
little bit above the verge of starvation.
We also know of the inflationary processes
which are at work, which have been controlled to
a certain extent by rationing and by rigid government control. These forces of inflation
are forces
over which we have very little control; and we
find that there is a tendency for these things to
encroach upon our economy. Not only are these
controls being exercised over foodstuffs, but also
over foreign exchange, and that has a tendency to
stagnate trade. When the time comes when goods
will flow freely, then we know trade will prosper.
Progress is limited by how much debt load the
people can carry. I am not unmindful of the fact
that when Newfoundland lost its credit, it lost its
government. Governments depend upon money
to finance them and governments have to extract
certain amounts from the people in order to
finance not only their ordinary expenditures, but
also to provide as best they can for capital expenditures. When we consider the revenues
and expenditures of the governments of the past, when
we see the total revenue on the one side, I would
like to see the total expenditure on the other side.
How can I draw a fair picture, if I see a total on
one side and do not see a total on the other side?
That is why it is rather difficult for a layman to
understand the intricacies of government
finance.... That is one thing I would like to ask
Major Cashin. Having given us the total revenue,
could he give us the total expenditure?
Mr. Cashin In recent years the budget speeches included
capital expenditure as well as ordinary expenditure. It is difficult to
segregate them. It would have taken considerable time if we had. In
the Finance Report we did our best to separate the capital expenditure from
the ordinary expenditure. In the Economic Report we have attempted
to point out that we consider $25 million to be the ordinary
expenditure, to pay the ordinary expenses of the country; anything
over and above that would be capital expenditure. Is that what you
want to know?
Mr. Ashbourne I thank the Major for that. I see
here in the Finance Report that the total revenues from 1897- 1947
were $496 million while expenditures for the same years were
approximately $500 million. What are the total expenditures?
Mr. Cashin I cannot tell you offhand. I will check up....
Since Commission of Government came they have included in their total
expenditures all capital expenditures as well as ordinary
expenditures. For the period of the last 12 or 13 years, particularly
during the last five or six years, they spent a considerable amount in
addition to the ordinary administration of government. They have spent, so far as
we could tell from the accounts,
approximately $20 million, probably more, on capital or construction or
special expenditures. You will find it in the estimates
for each year. You will find estimates for expenditures have
always been exceeded, as well as estimates of revenue. In 1946-47 they
budgeted for $30 million in revenues, and the revenues went up to $34-37
million. They also budgeted for expenditures of $34 million. When the accounts were
wound up, we find the expenditures were $37
million. So while the revenues have increased, the expenditures have
increased proportionately each year.
Mr. Jackman Is it fair that the chairman of the Finance
Committee has to give an accurate forecast for years to come?
Mr. Chairman That is up to the chairman of the
Committee. If you have a point of order, state it.
Mr. Jackman My point of order is, no man here has a crystal
ball.
Mr. Chairman That is an expression of opinion, not a
point of order. I must ask you to resume your seat.
Mr. Ashbourne I am speaking about the 50 years past,
not the future. I am glad we can look forward with a certain amount of
assurance to our exports keeping up in value. We realise that as far
as the fisheries are concerned, the marketing end is being looked after far
differently from what happened after World War I, when cutthroat competition and
poor marketing resulted in great loss to this
country. When the exports of a country drop, we know very well that a
government is hard put to it sometimes to augment the
money which comes in, by having to find loans and make capital expenditures
and that, to my mind, has been the cause of a big increase in our
national debt.... I realise that since 1934 we have
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 759
been fortunate in having a reduction of our interest rates. This was brought about
by our friends
across the water taking over or guaranteeing our
debt with a saving, I believe, of about $2 million.
I sincerely hope the time is gone forever when the
people have to pay interest on loans raised by the
government to keep the country going. It is the
bondholders who get the benefit, and the tax
payers have to pay the piper. Should we be in the
position to float a large government loan in Newfoundland, then the interest would
be coming in
to our own people; not to people outside the
country, but to Newfoundlanders themselves.
I notice that the Economic Report does not
mention the serious Labrador fishery. The failure
of that fishery will bear hardly upon quite a few
Newfoundland fishermen this year. This is an
important industry, the Labrador fishery. It has
been said ... that it is uneconomic. I do not hold
that view. No matter what fishery you have, there
will be years when there are plenty of fish and
there will be hard, lean years as well. Unfortunately we have not been able to work
out yet a
plan whereby in years of plenty the surplus would
be able to take care of the lean years. I believe
that the time will have to come when either
through social legislation or some scheme ...
some plan will have to be evolved whereby the
decline of the fishery with its consequent
hardship upon those who are engaged at the time,
would have to be worked out for the benefit of
the people concerned and also for the benefit of
the country. I do not know how the government
would go about it — probably the Fisheries
Board might have some ideas. I feel that something special should be done this year
for the
people who have come back from the Labrador
without their usual voyages.... Clearly, if our
economy is going to be built on solid foundations,
some such plan should be evolved to take care of
years such as this year. These men do not want
dole. They do not want relief. I do not think the
report speaks very much about relief, but I am
informed that in September month in the city of
St. John's, 314 families got relief at a cost of
$7,873; in the outports, 401 families at a cost of
$1,102. That was in September. I feel sure that
there are sections that probably very soon will
need some relief. My idea would be to work out
a plan different from giving relief — something
so that these men would be able to provide themselves not only with the necessities of life for the
winter, but also perhaps be able to provide themselves with twine and other essential
necessities,
so that their fishery could be carried on next year
in the accustomed fashion. It is to the producers
of Newfoundland that we as a country must look.
These are the men who wrest from the sea and
from the forest and from the land, the wealth of
land and sea, and with the surplus that the government has in hand today, I think
they might well
provide a fund to look after these people.... I am
sure that any money spent in helping these people
would be money well spent. With the surplus the
government has on hand a considerable easing of
taxation should be given and, as I said before, this
would offset the rise in the cost of living. I speak
as a representative of the outports, and our standards of living in the outports are
different from
the standards in St. John's. I know we cannot
expect all the amenities of city life, but there are
so many things in the outports that people have
to do without, that we see, or think we see, a great
difference between the two — between the outports and the city.
The people, who are today being taxed to
provide the revenues, are asking when relief from
taxation will be forthcoming.... What is the use
of piling up huge surpluses, while the government has to give out relief? We want
to know
where the people of Newfoundland, who are the
producers, where they are going to balance their
budgets. It is all very well to say the government
should balance its budget. If the government does
not balance its budget it has to resort to loans, but
the ordinary John Citizen has a budget to balance,
and his budget is balanced by his expenditure
meeting his income....
Though dependent on the fisheries, we are
also dependent upon the forests and other
natural assets and resources. The question arises
as to where we are going to get the capital to
develop our natural resources. If we do not have
the capital here, we must try to get it outside, and
in the past we have depended very much upon the
scientific experience of outsiders, to come in and
help develop our resources. By our dependence
upon these people we have built up paper-making
and other resources, and I am glad to see today
our own men are being trained, so much so that
our dependence on outside scientific experts will
be greatly lessened, and that will be to our ad
760 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
vantage. While we have to import labour and
management to help run our big industries we are
not giving our own people the money returns that
these outside people are getting.
[The committee recessed for 15 minutes][1]
Mr. Ashbourne I was speaking about the capital necessary to help develop our industries, and
about the scientific
experience we needed for our men. I thought about mentioning the fact that
we were going to have a technical college or institute as a result of
the extension of the men's vocational training scheme which will
be, I hope, available in the future for any young men who wish to
get some training and experience to equip them to take up these
necessary occupations. We have natural resources to develop, but our lack of
available capital, I am afraid, may interfere with their development,
which will perhaps react upon our ability to take full advantage of our
maritime position.
As regards the matter of a mercantile marine
mentioned in the report, l think we have in the
past lost quite a bit of money, which might have
gone into our economy, by not having such a
fleet, but on the other hand we are a small
country, and we cannot be reasonably expected
to provide services as if we had a population
twice or three times the size. I believe we are
underpopulated and our present transportation
system and highroads could serve a far greater
number of people. We are a small country, but
yet it seems that we cannot provide full employment for all of our people even at
the present time.
Surely this problem should not defy solution. If
we are to survive, this should command the
earnest consideration of all of us. We want full
employment in order to realise full production.
Our main sources of wealth come from the land
and the sea. We have to study the problem of
production as well as the problem of distribution;
and while we want to try and get the maximum
production, we also want to try and provide full
employment for our people, for these are complementary and both very important.
We hope that the world's complex distribution
system will not break down. Our national
economy needs to be kept at a maximum not only
in times of war, but also in times of peace. We
have been aided by scientific invention and research to harness many of the forces
of nature and
thus have been able to procure greater wealth
from the land and the sea. We are told that our
power to produce wealth has increased thirty-
fold in the past 50 years. But to bring production
and distribution to an equilibrium is a complicated and extremely difficult problem.
What is our dollar worth today? It has been
said here already that the current index, or
yardstick, was a barrel of flour for a quintal of
fish. Today a barrel of flour is $20. The fisherman, who is the backbone of Newfoundland,
has
to get a barrel of flour a month, which means he
needs $240 a year for one item of food — flour.
The cost of living index continues to rise and the
question, is when will it start to fall? People are
looking with anxious hearts to the time when the
cost of living will start to come down, for we
cannot expect big prices for fish. The big prices
we got during the war years will not continue.
When Iceland, Norway and other fish-producing
countries did not catch the fish, it was a matter
practically of transportation for us — we could
sell all the fish we could get providing we could
get the transportation to carry it to the markets.
When these countries get into full production, we
shall not be able to get the prices for fish which
we have been getting in the past. This whole
problem of cost of living is a very, very important
one and really enters into our economic picture.
I have spoken about the tariff. I do not want to
belabour the question. I consider that in 1942
Newfoundland became technically self-supporting and for five years now has been self-supporting....
I believe we need a planned economy, not
a hit-and-miss policy.
We have heard just recently from the north of
the storms which have ravaged our shores. We
know that the fishermen have to meet the storms
and stress of the sea and of life. We have been
very sorry to hear of the destruction which has
been caused by the high seas and by the loss to
these men of their stages and gear and equipment
which is vital and necessary. Our sympathy goes
out to these men in their loss and I hope that
something may be done to assist these men to
recoup that loss, or to encourage them to build up
their fishing gear and property. I hope and trust
that the intense economic storms and depressions
that have swept Newfoundland in the past will be
a thing of the past.
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 761
Mr. Banfield Mr. Chairman, I will not take up much of
the Convention's time, but I feel that I should express my sentiments on
this Economic Report. The report is so optimistic, and so many
optimistic speeches have been made in praise of it, that a man may well
hesitate before he dares to express a word of doubt about the rosy future
that is held out before us. No man likes to be called a traitor to his
native land, but at the same time I look upon it as my duty to speak of
facts as I find them. It makes no difference whether these facts be
bright or gloomy, they have to be expressed. The people do not expect us to
hide unpleasant facts and concentrate on pleasant ones. They want to
know the whole truth, and I do not feel that this report contains the whole
truth.
I have recently read through all the budget
speeches delivered in the House of Assembly
between 1920 and 1932. Those were probably the
worst years this country ever went through. We
all know how our people suffered during those
years. Yet in all those budget speeches not one
word, not one single word, admitted that times
were bad. They were all hopeful and optimistic.
To read them you would never guess that
Newfoundland was in the depths of depression.
Those speeches were only trying to fool the
people. Now, I want to be fair. When I say that
Newfoundland has had more prosperity in the
past half dozen years than ever before in our
history, I am only saying what everybody knows.
We have experienced some prosperity these past
few years, since the war broke out. So we did in
the last war. But a year or two after the last war,
hard times fell upon Newfoundland. Can
anybody get up and tell me that the same thing
cannot happen again? Is depression something
that cannot happen to us in future? I think we
would have a big job on our hands to persuade
our fishermen that depression is out of the question. I cannot agree with this report
when it tells
us that our present degree of prosperity is due to
anything but the war. I think it is very much due
to the war, and our people know it.
The report tells us that our fishery exports will
be worth $25 million three years from now. I
wonder how they know that? Suppose the figure
is only $20 million, or even $15 million. After all,
they were worth only $8 million just eight years
ago. I don't suppose they'll fall that low again,
but between $8 million and $25 million anything
can happen. Fish has dropped before and it can
drop again, in spite of the Finance Committee and
the Economic Report. Of course, we all hope that
fish prices will stay up, but we are not justified in
taking it for granted that they will stay up.
I want to say a word to those who keep telling
us how prosperous this country is today. I'm very
much afraid that there are some amongst us who
seem to know very little about some parts of this
country. There are places in Newfoundland today
where it is anything but prosperous. I will make
you a prophecy right now, Mr. Chairman, and it
is this, that this coming winter we will have more
people on the dole than we have had at any time
since the war broke out. Right in my native Fortune Bay the bright bloom has disappeared
from
our wartime prosperity. Many a family will be
forced to take dole again in Fortune Bay this
winter. And Fortune Bay is not the only part of
Newfoundland where dole is lifting its ugly head
again. With all the millions of money that poured
into Newfoundland from the United States and
Canada these past few years, some people had
forgotten all about the dole — in fact some
shortsighted people told us that we'd never see a
poor day again. The way things are going in some
parts of Newfoundland today, we're in for
another period of dole unless something is done
to stop it, something to make dole unnecessary.
The picture is not all black. The paper mills
will prosper for the next two or three years. The
mines also seem to be pretty safe for the next year
or two or even longer. And some day down in
Labrador we're going to have a big development
in iron ore. It is satisfying to see these bright
spots, but we must not make the great mistake of
imagining that because these industries are
prosperous now, and will probably be prosperous
for the next few years, that everything else is
prosperous and will be prosperous. And we must
never forget that over half our population lives
out of the fishery. There can be no true prosperity
for Newfoundland without a prosperous fishery.
That is something which we must never forget.
In conclusion, I want to say this: I am quite
satisfied that our government is self-supporting
today, but not so sure that our people are all
self—supporting. I am satisfied that some of our
main industries are prosperous and will stay
prosperous for another while, but that our main
762 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
industry, the fishery, already shows dangerous
signs of slipping back. I am satisfied that most of
the prosperity we now have is directly the result
of the war, and that this prosperity is almost
certain to die away when the full effects of this
war die away. I am all in favour of facing the
whole truth, and I'm quite sure that it's the whole
truth our people want, and nothing less.
Mr. Hollett If I am in order, sir, I would like to ask
the last speaker if he expects or wants the people to accept a prophecy
which he has just made about dole and about the dark days — if he
expects them to take that as the truth? He has said we are in for bad times
— we may be. That is a prophecy, but is that the truth? Is that the truth he
wants to spread around this country? I maintain it is only a prophecy.
Mr. Chairman Except that there are two schools of
thought. As I said before and I repeat, if it is the conviction of a member
that — for instance, some people think Cabot should have been hanged
instead of being paid ten pounds for discovering this island; that is merely
a question of judgement upon which men might differ. I suppose he is
entitled to enter into the realms of speculation or conjecture.
Mr. Hollett What I want to get at is this, that
statement, does he expect people to regard that as truth or as his own
personal opinion? I take it this report was based on facts; it is true they
did make some prognostications as to the degree of prosperity for the
next three years. We do not have to accept that. Mr. Banfield says the
fishery is slipping down into the dole stage again, the woods industry
is good only for another two or three years, in spite of the fact, in the
considered opinion of the Economic Committee and in the opinion of the
people who are looking after the woods industry, it will be prosperous for
the next ten years. Do we want the people to accept that Economic
Report based on facts, or does Mr. Banfield want them to accept his opinion?
Mr. Chairman That is beyond my competency. It is his
right to draw any inference or conclusion he desires. Whether or not he will
be able to sell his ideas to the people next May or June, I am not
going to make any pronouncement upon, for the obvious reason that I cannot.
Mr. Smallwood I have no intention of making any speech
at this time on the debate now before the Chair. After leaving here at six
o'clock today
and picking up my mail, I found this letter which I think may help to
throw some light on the present economic position of Newfoundland in at
least one of its aspects.
Mr. Smallwood I was about to read a letter, the author
of which is willing to have her name used.
Mr. Chairman If you do not mind, I have permitted a certain amount of latitude in this connection.
In fact
I might very well and very properly be accused of permitting too much
latitude. I want members to remember that the expression of outside
opinion to them is one thing, and must not be confused with expressions of
opinion by members on matters before the Chair, which is something
entirely different. Therefore I have to state that I cannot concern myself
with anything that happens outside the House and therefore I do not
propose to allow expressions of opinion originating outside the House, in
permanent form or otherwise, to have any bearing at all upon the
deliberations of the House. The only thing with which I am concerned is to
ensure that members shall observe the standing orders and regulations
covering debates on matters which come before the Chair. Therefore, Mr.
Smallwood, I am compelled to draw the line and make a general
ruling: I will not be concerned with any expressions of opinion
outside this House unless the document referred to is of an official nature,
which is calculated to lay the foundation for the consideration
of some matter which is before the House.
Mr. Smallwood I accept your ruling. This letter is not
an expression of opinion. This is a letter which describes the condition of
economic affairs.
Mr. Higgins Point of order. That is not an official document as far as we are concerned. Therefore
I object to
anything being quoted from it.
Mr. Smallwood There was no such ruling ever made and I have
not been out of this House ten minutes since the Convention started. Time and
again members have quoted from documents which were not official. Mr.
Hollett has just quoted from a book written by me...
Mr. Smallwood Time and again documents have been quoted
in this chamber which were not officially compiled. Here is a bit of first
hand information from a part of this country describing
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 763
the economic condition of the people here.
Mr. Chairman My position is, I have only to concern
myself with expressions of opinion by members on motions before the Chair. I
am therefore not concerned with expressions of opinion
outside this chamber, from members of the public to members who comprise
this National Convention. I am afraid, Mr. Smallwood, in
consistency with the line of demarcation I have drawn, I cannot allow
you to read the letter.
Mr. Smallwood I will not read the letter, but I shall
proceed to give a description of the conditions as they exist on
the island of St. Brendan's.
[Applause from the gallery]
Mr. Chairman This is not a matter for applause. Mr.
Smallwood, would you please address your remarks to me and not play the
gallery. If you want to express an opinion on St. Brendan's or on any
part of the island, it is your right.
Mr. Chairman Not being inspired and therefore not knowing
what is coming, I cannot make a pronouncement upon what is going to be said.
It is Mr. Smallwood's right to express his opinion on any question
pertaining to any section of the island covered by the Economic Report. With
that in mind, you may proceed.
Mr. Smallwood St. Brendan's Island is one of the
largest islands on the coast of Newfoundland. It is entirely a fishing
settlement. The people do some inshore fishing, some Labrador fishing and
some squid fishing. This year they were encouraged at the
outset to concentrate on the squid fishery. They were offered 35 cents a
pound for dried squid, and many of them dropped everything
else and went at the squid fishery. They did very well, but having caught
and made the squid, they now find they cannot sell any of it whatever;
that no buyer will take any of it; no shopkeeper will trade any food for it,
and these people cannot get any food whatever for their squid. They are
living, many of them, on the kindness of their neighbours. They have
no food for the winter. There is now no flour in St Brendan's and the
people are at their wits' end as to what they are going to do. They cannot
get any labour; they cannot get work at Gander; they cannot get work
in the lumberwoods; they cannot get it in St. John's; the fishery is over;
the fish is useless to them; they have no food; they have no money,
and yet these people are told it is a prosperous
country and that its future is assured. The people down there, as in
many other places in the island today, are wondering what is going to
happen; whether they will be driven back on the dole, the thought of
which they hate, or whether work will be found for them; or whether some
arrangement will be worked out whereby cash can be put up — if not
cash, then food — for the productof their toil all through these summer and
fall months. I have no intention of making a speech. I was not
permitted to read a letter describing at first hand the economic conditions
among these hardy and very fine people on the island of St. Brendan's.
So I have given you a description of it and now the country knows it.
Mr. Hollett Could I ask Mr. Smallwood the authority for
that factual statement he has just made?
Mr. Smallwood I will be happy to give the authority; it
is Mrs. Ed White of the island of St. Brendan's.
Mr. Butt ....I have listened attentively to the debate
for the last four or five days, and whether this man is an optimist, whether
this man is a pessimist, whether this man is a realist, and all the
other words which can be so contentious; but I always ends up with the
feeling, "So what"? Since we have been an island, our people have
suffered. The millennium has not come for Newfoundland any more
than for any other country, and I beg leave to express my doubts on the
future of Newfoundland. I express my doubts on the future of UNO. I
express my doubts on the welfare of the United Kingdom in the
years to come. But what do I do? I sit down and think what I can do
about it. I do not allow myself to get into the doldrums. I face up to the
situation as I see it, hoping to God that I may be able to do something
about it.
If I had written this Economic Report, the
wording and the approach might have been somewhat different; but in the end I should
have
wound up by agreeing with it substantially, and I
would not think of myself as either an optimist or
a pessimist in ending up that way. I would have
looked at the terms of reference and found that
what we are supposed to do is to discuss the
changes that have taken place in the financial and
economic situation of the island since 1934.... I
would have asked myself, what was the position
of the fishery in 1934 and what is its position
764 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
today? And I would have looked at the problem
in such a way as to estimate the chances for the
future as far as the fishery is concerned I would
have come to the conclusion that we are better
organised today; prices are higher and are not
likely to drop to where they were before, if the
world keeps on a sound basis at all. I would have
pointed out that there are a greater number
employed directly in the fishery today than in
1934 on a percentage basis. I would have pointed
out that our fisheries are more diversified than
they have ever been, and I would have ended up
by realising that the people of the world, as well
as in Newfoundland, are in need of food and I
would have then said, "We have got to make that
better; we have to organise it better still and we
have to convey that food to the people who need
it". I would have concluded, so far as we are
concerned in 1947, that we are somewhat better
off in the fisheries than we were in 1934.
I would have looked at the forest resources - as the Committee did — and I do not
propose to
spend much time on them. We know our resources are very much more considerably developed
that they were in 1934. The people concerned
with that development are putting more of their
capital in it because they have some faith in the
future of that industry. We have therefore
developed our timber resources to a greater extent than ever before in the history
of the country.
I would say we have extraordinary market
prospects. There may be a drop in prices when
things get back to normal. You cannot take your
resources and blast them out of the earth without
paying in higher cost of foodstuffs and higher
cost of living. If you take up any magazine from
any country you will find that the high cost of
living is worrying everyone, just as in Newfoundland, and will continue to worry us
until we
have worked out our stupidity as a world for
causing such a war as in 1939. I would point out
that as far as timber resources are concerned, that
there are at least a number of people earning more
wages than ever before in that industry.
I would take serious note, if I happened to be
a government, of the position of the Labrador
fishermen, who have suffered. I would take note
of the failure of the Labrador Development Company to which Mr. Burry referred, and
I would
attempt to do something about it. I would not give
the people the impression that because there are
some cracks in our economy, our country is going
to the dogs. That is the point about which I feel
as keenly as any man, the suffering of our people,
but I do not want to get into the condition of
gloom where we will do nothing about it. As long
as you have not got faith and hope, you have
nothing. That is what I resent about the gloom all
over the place.
If we take the mining industry, I would have
said, as far as the ordinary workings are concerned, it is not much better off than
in 1934. But
I would have said, as the report says, the world
needs our wealth. Therefore potentially we have
market, if we have the vision and courage to go
after it, and we will have extra earning power for
our people in the future.
Agriculture — I would have shown the
present position which is very little better than
1934. But I would say, we have not given to
agriculture the thought and sympathy that it
should have had, consequently we suffered because we have not had the production we
should.... If we have the will and vision to go to
work on the land, we can produce in the future
ten millions, possibly more, even when prices
have found their normal range.
I think the Finance Committee was perfectly
right in putting in the last part of its report this
question of faith. You can call it faith or you can
call it morale — and you would need to call it
some other things in different circumstances — the one thing you must have in the
economy is
faith, the will of the people. If you look at Alfred
Marshall's first book, in it he gives a definition
of economics — "the study of wealth on the one
hand and the study of man on the other". In the
study of political economy you must take into
consideration the human element which is the
will to push forward and do things.
Now I shall look at our financial and other
resources. I shall refer and not too strongly, to the
$70-80 million in the bank. It may be worth in
real wealth only $25 million, according to what
you can buy for it. It is a backlog. I would point
out the increase in life insurance in this country.
It is a backlog. It is worth something to us. In
regard to the investments in securities, I raised
that question with Major Cashin, I do not think
he gave enough credence to that question. In my
own work I find the amount in savings banks
deposits and the amount in life insurance held is
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 765
probably, from what I can judge, a very small part
of our savings in comparison with the investments in securities. I realise it is impossible
to get
it with any degree of accuracy; but because we
cannot get it with any degree of accuracy, does
not mean we cannot depend upon a certain
amount there which can be used as collateral
against loans raised to develop the country or
used to bring in income, and it is doing it, year
after year. I would have pointed out the better
position of our capital assets throughout the
country — our business premises, our barns, our
homes and other equipment and I would have
pointed out this — and this may be a strange thing
to bring in an Economic Report — the development of the radio. Radio is not just a
means of
communication. If you can use your means of
communication to further the enlightenment of
the people, you have created an asset which is
something you did not have before; just as you
say our health and education are assets which
ought to be brought into questions of political
economy. I would point out something else which
has helped our economy, that is the development
of trade unions and the development of the cooperative movement. Not only on its financial
and business side, but in the spirit which it is
bringing about in our country and the education
which it is doing. I would also add a word about
the service industries to which nobody seemed to
have paid much attention.
In all, the conclusion reached from my point
of view is that we are considerably better off than
we were in normal times, and much better off
than we were in 1934, the date given in our terms
of reference. In saying that, I am well aware of
the fact that if we look too far into the future, it
may be that Newfoundland will strike hard times.
The people of this country are not fools. They
know that as well as I do. And when some people
say they want the truth, they know it is the truth.
They also want to know about our chances of the
future. I think the Economic Report gives that
very reasonably, although as Mr. Burry said, it
might have had some shadows put in it.
Having done that, I would ask myself, "Is this
economy of ours the result of the war?" I would
say, "Yes, to a large extent". It is also the result
of our having got back to our normal export
position. I would add that when the war is over
you go into a peace economy and it may be
entirely changed; because of what happened in
the war, that peace economy may take a long time
to settle back into the condition it was before the
war started.
Having done that I would enquire into the
relationship of our economy with government
expenditure. As I see it, and reducing it to its
simplest terms, it is this: if a group of people have
some way of producing wealth which is
measured by money, they have two courses open
to them. One (which is as old as the first fog) is
for each individual man and family to do things
for himself, like looking after his own sick,
educating his own children, building his own
roads and other things which have to be done in
order to make existence possible. Or he might
say, we have a lot of things in common — we
have education, health, roads, protection of
property and of persons, we have communications. All these things we have in common.
Now,
out of this we can produce, either as individuals
or as corporations, or co-operatives, we can
produce a certain amount of wealth, which can be
measured in money, out of which we take so
much to give — not to some big ogre, as some
people look upon the government, any government, but to ourselves — so that we can
spend it
on the things which we have in common, and
relieve ourselves of the private and individual
need of doing it. That is why I say it does not
make much difference where you set the point of
revenue and expenditure as long as you base it on
your taxable capacity, or your own ability to
produce that which allows people to live and pay
for the things they have in common. In assessing
our position in relation to 1934, I would state
quite frankly one thing, I would say from 1920-33
— what is commonly known as the "roaring
twenties" — we in Newfoundland, in common
with other countries in the world, went on a binge
of extravagance; we built for ourselves overheads
which we were not entitled to build up and for
which we could not pay....
Looked at in one way, our public debt and its
burden brought Newfoundland to her knees because at the time we borrowed money we
paid
5% and 5½%, and I would point out today we
have $80 million with interest payment halved,
because we are now paying 3%, therefore we do
not have to carry the burden of $2½ million
which would have helped us considerably in the
766 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
years 1920-34. I would look at the cash surplus,
say $30 million. Never before has our country
been in a position where she has been able to have
a nest egg. I would look at the accumulated
surplus and the sinking fund which is set aside,
and I would be forced to conclude, as the Finance
Committee did, that as far as finance is concerned
we have much better conditions than we had in
1934.
I would say also government plant in the form
of school buildings, public buildings, bait depots,
wharves, hospitals, the demonstration farm, postal telegraphs and the railway are
in much better
shape than they were in 1934, and the expenditure on them will not have to be as great.
But we
have also increased our permanent government
expenditure. What are our chances of maintaining and increasing our services? In view
of the
betterment, as I see it, of our economy, stimulated
by war but projected into the future, it is my
opinion that we have a reasonable chance of
maintaining and increasing these services.
I would like to ask Major Cashin if, in the
process of compiling the Economic Report, he
had recourse to the memorandum from the Commission of Government, and the first page
on the
Reconstruction and Development Scheme?
Mr. Cashin I remember the document. In compiling the report I did not even look at it. I do
not think any member of
the Finance Committee looked at it. It was received in here and it showed
a programme of reconstruction for the next number of years
and there it ended. We did not even debate it.
Mr. Butt I am glad you did not. This scheme in all
amounts to $60 million over the next ten years
— the government put in $26 million to be carried out over a
period of three years, and it made a tentative programme for the next seven
years; each of the next seven years would average $4,700,000. I do not
want anyone to say we would have revenue enough to meet current expenditure over
these ten years, and this much money over
afterwards; but I would say that we would be able to meet our expenditure —
balance our revenue and expenditure — and take care of something on
behalf of reconstruction....
My point in bringing this up is to show that a
party independent of the Finance Committee had
the temerity to set down a plan for ten years. They
have also done what I consider reasonable, and
set a plan for three years. If you will refer to the
estimates you will find in the first year they spent
$10 million on reconstruction and they expect to
spend next year $6.5 million, which is one of the
years included in the Finance Committee's
report. I do not want to be accused of having
invoked the government programme to support
the Finance Committee report in any way. But I
do think it shows there is a reasonable expectancy
in the years to come of meeting expenditures by
the current revenues and providing something for
reconstruction.
I would like to end up by saying that whatever
your natural leanings, whether optimistic or pessimistic, we have been down before;
we are not
very high now; we will probably be down again.
When I was a boy my father used to say to me,
"It is nothing against you to fall down flat, but to
lie there, that is a disgrace".
[The committee rose and reported progress, and
the Convention adjourned]
