Mr. Chairman Orders of the day. Mr. Small-
wood to table a report of the Transportation and
Communications Committee.
Mr. Smallwood[2] Mr. Chairman, the members
will find the copies of the report on their desks,
and I believe that I am supposed only to give
notice of the motion that the report be received
tomorrow. However the day is still young, and I
wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the gentlemen would
be agreeable to the idea of proceeding this afternoon with the consideration of at
leastone section
of the report, and whether they would be willing
to waive the rule requiring notice of motion....
What I would like to do is to move the house into
a committee of the whole to consider the report
of the Committee on Transportation and Communications, on the understanding that only
one
section, namely that on Gander, be considered
this afternoon.
[The Convention resolved into a committee of the whole]
Mr. Smallwood The report is a pretty bulky
document of 143 foolscap pages, covering the
railway, the coastal steamer system, posts and
telegraphs, roads and bridges, Gander airport,
broadcasting, and the tourist trade. The committee has worked hard, every member.
Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Figary and Mr. Northcott were
especially valuable members of the Committee
in connection with its work in investigating the
railway. Mr. Hannon was especially valuable in
investigating posts and telegraphs, Mr. Butt and
Mr. Ryan were able to give us a lot of information
on roads and bridges, Mr. Bailey an endless fund
of knowledge on shipping, and Mr. Watton, who
acted as secretary, I hope will never have to work
as hard again as in the last two weeks. We were
very sorry to lose you, sir, from the Committee
but very glad to see you so signally honoured by
being appointed Chairman of the National Convention.
With your permission I propose for just a few
minutes to review the report as a whole. We find
that Gander cost $4 million to build up to the
outbreak of the war. In 1941 the Canadian
government spent $25 million, and the
RAF spent $3 million, so that the total cost of the
airport was $32 million. Then Newfoundland
bought out Canada's interest for $1 million.
Newfoundland, since then, has spent $300,000 to
reconvert the airport to civilian purposes, and
will yet have to spend another $300,000 to purchase new equipment.... We find in the
report that
Mr. Neill, Commissioner for Public Utilities, estimates the probable operating loss
at around
$500,000 a year; while Squadron Leader Pattison
estimates the probable operating loss at around
$1 million a year. Roads and bridges. We have in
Newfoundland today 94 miles of paved highway,
1,500 miles of gravel highway. Secondary roads,
442 miles motorable, 154 miles non-motorable.
Thus 2,000 miles motorable, 3,000 miles local,
total, 5,000 miles. Of the 5,000 miles in the
country now, 264 miles were built since Commission of Government came. That government
has spent on new road construction $2 million;
on reconditioning $1 million; on paving roads
$1.3 million; on bridge construction, $1 million;
on snow clearing $132,000; and on road maintenance, $4 million — total, $11 million.
Since
they came they have spent $781,000 on the purchase of road machinery and equipment,
and they
need now to spend a $¹/₂ million on the purchase
of new road machinery and equipment. We find
that the government is spending $2¹/₂ million a
year under the heading of "Roads and Bridges."
We find in our report that the future expenditure
under the heading of roads may be $1 million a
year, and it should be $2 million and probably
$2 1/2 million
Under the heading of "Posts and Telegraphs"
we find that in the last seven years there has been
an average surplus of $180,000 a year and from
this it would appear that the Department of Posts
and Telegraphs is self-supporting. We find this
has been done at the cost of letting the system
itself run down; and of underpaying the staff,
especially the outport staff. I cannot at this point
resist the temptation to quote from one of a number of letters that I have received
from outport
postmasters and operators. This one says:
For 25 years I have been one of those
outport operators (we are everything now,
postmasters, operators, bank managers, mes
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 191
sengers, all in one) whose living has been and
still is a mere existence. During that time I
have taught a dozen students, some of whom
are now working with the department, others
having had to resign and go away to the States
and Canada to get a decent living. I have a
wife and family. My present wage, including
bonus and all, totals $17.50 per week, or
approximately 32 cents per hour. This office
is central and serves the following places
(here he names seven settlements) with over
2,200 people. Formerly this was the work of
five different post offices. Amongst these
eight settlements we have five churches with
five clergymen, eight schools with twelve
teachers, 22 businesses large and small, three
garages, doctors, nurses, police, etc. An
average of over 1,000 items of ordinary mail
is handled daily. The general increase of
business for the past 12 years has averaged
over 500%. All this has been pointed out to
the authorities and repeated requests have
been made for adjustment of salary. I was
told to make application. It is now November
and no favourable reply has yet been
forthcoming, but it is rumoured that the outport post offices are being reviewed and
their
salaries revised. It is rumoured that the
amount of increase for some of us married
men will be $2.20 per month or 50 cents per
week or 1 cent per hour. This will probably
be termed 'substantial' and will be supposed
to take care of present living conditions. Mr.
Small-wood, this is applicable to 75% of the
outport officials of the Postal Telegraph Of fices.
This is only one of a number of similar letters
received from various parts of the island, along
the same lines. There are nearly 900 full-time
staff employed at a cost of $750,000. There are
in Newfoundland and Labrador 630 post offices.
In Newfoundland. in summer, there are 159
courier routes covering 167,000 miles; in winter,
160 courier routes covering 116,000 miles. In
Labrador, in summer, there are two courier routes
covering 1,340 miles; in winter, eight courier
routes covering 7,300 miles. The increases in
numbers of letters, telegrams and money orders
since 1939 have been striking:
*
Now we find in our report that it is utterly necessary that $1 million be spent by
the Department
of Posts and Telegraphs to prevent its utter collapse.
Under the heading of "Railway", we find that
from 1904-1946 earnings amounted to $129 million and expenses to $142 million. The
operating
loss has been $13 million. In the last 26 years
since the government took over
[1], the operating
loss has been $7 1/2 million, an average over
$250,000 every year. In the last ten years the
operating surplus was $300,000, or $30,000 a
year. This period includes the war years, the
richest in our history. In the past 44 years there
were only five years with a surplus; four of these
during the recent war and the other, 1937, with a
surplus of $32,000. In 1944-45 the operating loss
was over $500,000; in 1945-46 it was $1 million.
This does not tell the whole story. For there has
been no mark-down for depreciation, and the
government had to give the Railway $1 1 million
for capital improvements.
Since 1923, $7 1/2 million has been given by
the government to the Railway to pay losses; $11
million for capital improvement. A total of $18
million, or $700,000 a year from the public chest.
In the future, the main line has got to be
re-railed within a very few years at a cost of
$3 1/2 million; new rolling stock has to be purchased at a cost of $750,000 — total
$4 million
to be spent for capital improvement, if it is to be
kept operating.
In connection with the Broadcasting Corporation, the capital cost of land, buildings,
masts,
transmitter, and studio equipment spent by the
government was $84,000. This amount is payable
to the government by the Broadcasting Corpora
192NATIONAL CONVENTIONNovember 1946tion in 25 yearly installments at 3 1/2%. The income of the Corporation consists of
two
things: sale of time to broadcasters, and license
fee received from the public on their receiving
sets.
*
By the end of 1945 the Corporation had increased its fixed assets from the original
$84,000
up to $96,000, after paying the government
$30,000 on account of capital liability, and its
current assets stood at $75,000, of which $68,000
was in cash.
We find the plans for the future are to build in
St. John's a broadcasting house; in Corner Brook
to increase VOWN from 250 to 1,000 watts and
to erect a new building to house it; at Gander to
take over and renovate the former RCAF radio
station; at Grand Falls to erect a new 1,000 watt
station.
You will find in the report a discussion of the
question of free speech on the government station; and a discussion of the repeated
request of
VOCM
[1] for the right to increase the power and
install other stations as well.
The final section is the tourist business. You
will find the report to be fairly comprehensive.
The Committee reports of the pleasure it found
on turning from the other three or four things on
which a lot of public money is going to be lost,
to something in which there seems an excellent
prospect of getting money into the country in the
shape of profits. The Committee has been impressed by what they have learned about
the
magnitude and value of tourist trade in North
America and have wondered strongly what share
our country can get of it. It has every possibility.
I regard the tourist business as the most hopeful
possibility economically before this country
today.
Recapitulating the sections, the country is
faced with annual operating loss on Gander of
$500,000 to $1 million; on the Railway, $1 million and up. A total of a $2 1/2-3 million
loss on
operating just these two public utilities. We find
the country is faced with the need to spend a lot
of money on capital outlays.... Summing it up, we
shall have to find between $3.75 and $4 million
a year for the Railway, Gander and roads; and we
shall have to spend around $5 million on capital
account on these three utilities within the next
very few years
That is a brief outline of the 140 odd pages of
the six sections of this report. The understanding
is we deal merely with Gander, and I suggest that
the report be read section by section, with any
gentleman wishing to intervene doing so.
[The section of the report dealing with Gander airport was read][2]
Mr. Chairman I was hoping the members
would interrupt Mr. Secretary while he was reading that report to take it up bit by
bit, but they did
not. I hope that we do not infer from that they do
not intend to deal with it.
Mr. Higgins The entire operating loss that you
estimate as $500,000 to $1 million, does that
include the value of the landing fees or not?
Mr. Higgins According to that, the country has
spent $2.5 million for the airport, it pays out $1
million for salaries and that is recoverable, our
own people are getting the $1 million back again,
and all the other companies are paying $1 million
in salaries. By the way, you made a comment
about why the plane companies were not approached to take over this airport themselves.
Did
your Committee discuss the feasibility of approaching the airlines on that matter?
Mr. Smallwood No. Airlines have got some
kind of contractual agreement with the government, and for the Committee on Transportation
to approach those airline companies and interfere
in any way or degree in the question of landing
fees would have been an inexcusable interference
with the function of government, It was not our
duty, or within the rights of this Convention to
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 193
deal with a firm having a contract with the
government, raising the question of landing charges. Mr. Higgins will agree.
Mr. Higgins Yes, but it is important. I think
your Committee were in agreement to leasing the
airport to the airline companies?
Mr. Smallwood I prefer not to speak for the
whole Committee on that. We stand by the report
as a whole. We say it was suggested to Mr. Neill
that such an attitude might have been chosen by
the government in the first place. Knowing that
these foreign airlines were more eager to use
Gander than the government was or could be, all
they had to do was to sit tight and wait for the
airlines to come to them. They can't make their
airlines pay, so far as the North Atlantic traffic is
concerned, without Gander; it's an impossibility
to make it pay, and the government might have
stood pat and waited for the airlines to come to
them, and then said "All right, we have no use for
Gander, we have no aircraft and we don't intend
to use it, but if you want to use it you can, on our
conditions, and these are (1) that you pay all
charges of operating the port, and (2) that you
follow the conditions and standards of payment
of wages, and the fact that Newfoundlanders
must be employed. We lay down the standards
and you follow them and pay all costs." It was
suggested to Mr. Neill that should have been the
attitude of the government His answer was to
shrug his shoulders and not vouchsafe a word of
comment.
As for the Transportation Committee, in reply
to Mr. Higgins, I still don't see for a moment that
it would have been profitable, or that the Committee would have got anywhere if it
had gone to
Pan-American, Trans-World Airways, BOAC,
TCA, etc., and even if it had been practical to
meet them, I don't see that it would be quite
proper. Maybe I am misunderstanding Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Harrington I would like to ask a question,
but first I would like to make a few comments on
the report. To my mind the way Gander is being
operated now is a public scandal. I have expressed myself on this whenever I could
get an
opportunity. The most reasonable thing to do
would be to close down Gander. It is like a man
with $3,000 a year trying to operate a 50 car
garage for the benefit of his neighbours. It is a
disgrace. As for the question, I see here that
Mr. Smallwood, in the preamble, page 2, says,
"We have to record that with one exception we
have secured all the information we wanted."
That exception is Gander, Has that been refused?
Mr. Smallwood In reply to Mr. Harrington, the
House will recall that the very first question
tabled in this Convention was the one I tabled in
connection with Gander. It was rather a long
question, asking for details of expenditure, etc. I
understand that a very honest attempt is being
made to get out that information, but as yet we
have not received it. It has not been refused.
Mr. Job It seems to me that, in expressing its
views on the omissions, the Committee has overlooked the fact that not only should
the airport
have been run without loss to the colony, but the
colony should have gotten something out of it.
We have a strategic position, but it seems to have
been given away, and a heavy loss incurred.
There should have been something obtained for
the colony in return for the concessions given.
Early in February this year the surviving members of the old Legislative Council issued
a
protest through the newspapers here on the leases
of airfields, and the lack of general information
given to the public. In his reply Mr. Neill stated,
as an excuse, that it was a rule between the
nations concerned that only exchanges in air
rights should be given. This report rightly points
out that we were not in the same position of other
countries because we did not want to run an air
service, therefore we were entitled to something
else in addition in exchange for use of our airfields. We were a member of this organisation
and the excuse was that we were not able to
bargain. The answer would seem to be that we
should never have been a member of PICAO
[1] s
it is called. I thought I would like to draw the
attention of the members to the fact that this had
been protested against. This is exactly what
Mr. Neill wrote us: "Strategic positions on air
routes are not a bargaining factor against any
other concessions. 'Air rights for air rights' is the
accepted international principle, and any suggestion that air rights should be a bargaining
factor
for other concessions would not be entertained."
That is where we fell down at the start, in agreeing to abide by the decision of an
organisation to
194 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1946
which it was not suitable for us to belong.
Mr. Hickman I hope this report is not a forerunner of some more expenditure reports coming in.
I would like to go a little further and, as Mr. Job
just said, I think we should have refused to
operate this airport. It should have been operated
by the joint airlines, and we should have had a
rental for it of at least $500,000 a year. Instead
we have a deficit estimated to run for at least five
years, and only a slim hope of breaking even. I
don't know what the expansion of aviation will
be, but if it keeps on Gander may be by-passed,
and Newfoundland will wind up with big deficits
until it is finally decided to close it. How the
government could make an agreement like that is
beyond my comprehension. At the end of each
statement it says that Mr. Neill has no comment.
That is not satisfactory, but I don't see how he
could make any comment after making the deal
he did.... They were told what to do just the same
as in the bases deal. The findings of this report,
sir, are a disgrace.
Mr. Penney I want to compliment the members
of the Transportation Committee for bringing in
such a fine report, giving us the history of Gander
and its Operation. The subject has been clear to
me ever since we had the privilege of having
Hon. Mr. Neill with us for a meeting of the
Finance Committee. In talking about the Gander
airport operation at that time he told us it was
mnning in the red to the tune of $750,000 and the
Newfoundland Railway $1 million a year. I
remarked it was not a very satisfactory picture,
Mr. Neill remarked he hoped it would be better
next year, and I answered that I was sure the
people of Newfoundland hoped that it would be
better next year. The overall picture I have from
your report, read and explained, is that we are
running in the red to the tune of $500,000 a year
on the operation of Gander airport. That operation, is chiefly for the convenience
and benefit of
the great powers of the world, and how Newfoundland came to be forced into a deal
that
would put our poor little country in that position,
to finance an airport for the great powers of the
world, I can't understand. It surely is not much
credit to them. I think businessmen, if they were
considering the future of Newfoundland, should
consider the matter of leasing the airport to those
great powers, so that Newfoundland would have
gotten at least something out of it for the use of
its territory, and the people of Newfoundland
should get something out of it also for its operation.
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, I wish to call Mr.
Smallwood's attention to page 2, the second
paragraph, wherein he talks of a great number of
trucks, etc. How is it, Mr. Smallwood, that you
do not give us the exact number of trucks, equipment, etc? How many buildings are
there at
Gander? What is the size? Have any of these
buildings been leased, and to whom? And what
rentals have been paid? Did you inquire into the
cost of running the bakery, which I understand is
operated by the government? Those are the things
that we should have had in this report.
Mr. Smallwood In reply to Mr. Fudge, the
report says that for the $1 million that the government paid, they got the hangers
and other erections the Canadians have put there, as well as
whatever equipment they left there. This equipment consisted of a large number of
trucks, cars,
bulldozers, tractors, snow plows, etc. The report
might go on to add at least 1,000 other items,
because it is just beyond counting. I doubt
whether a complete inventory has been made by
the Division of Civil Aviation of the whole of the
equipment. It is something staggering. I suppose
in connection with blankets alone there were
easily 50,000 blankets.... The report says that if
the government had to buy all these buildings and
equipment new it would mean an outlay of nothing less than $5 million and probably
much more.
The buildings the Canadians put on Gander and
the enlarging of the runways ran to $25 million
capital expenditure. The government of Newfoundland, for $1 million, got the enlargements
that had been made in the runways, the new
hangers, and dozens of great barrack buildings,
not counting the almost uncountable number of
pieces of equipment of every conceivable
description... We can get the number of buildings, and we can get the blueprints.
The number
must run into a couple of hundred buildings. It is
a vast airport. Mr. Fudge's third question was
what buildings have been rented out. Some buildings have been rented to Goodyear and
House....
[1]
The main question was what is the airport costing
the country from the capital standpoint, and
second, is the government going to make any
money on it? The Newfoundland people have to
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION
195
foot that bill. I would say in connection with this
report that I feel anything but happy. If you look
at the Gander section you will see "the decision
of the Government to take over the operation of
Gander is to us incomprehensible." You will note
that Mr. Neill was asked why the government
made that decision cold-bloodedly, knowing it
was going to cost $500,000 to $1 million loss
merely to operate it; not counting the million for
buying the installations; not counting the
$300,000 for converting buildings to civilian use.
Mr. Fudge I did not ask for that information.
Mr. Smallwood I know. I was going to deal
with it, if you have no objection. In addition to
another $300,000 to buy still further equipment
— that is $1,600,000 on capital account since the
war ended — on top of that to lose up to $1
million a year; frankly I do not believe that the
Newfoundland government decided that in cold
blood — to saddle the people of this country with
a loss of $1 million a year. At the last session one
of the gentlemen proposed that the privilege
should be accorded members of this Convention,
that they should have the right that former Houses
of Assembly had, not to be sued in court for
anything said on the floor of the House. We have
not that right — I wish we had.
Mr. Higgins Why does not Mr. Smallwood go
ahead and take a chance.
Mr. Chairman I would like to remind Mr.
Smallwood that indulging in personalities is not
permitted here.
Mr. Smallwood I do not intend to indulge in
personalities with anyone, but Mr. Neill said
categorically it was the first he heard of it. It was
suggested to him that the proposition that the
Newfoundland government operate Gander,
even at a loss, was made to the Newfoundland
government by the British; and he said it was the
first he heard of it. When it was suggested to him
that the British government was, in fact, footing
the bills and paying the operating losses, he said
it was the first he heard of it. I say this, that I am
very sorry we have not that privilege which
former Houses of Assembly had.... Cast your
mind back to a year ago. The war was just about
over, and the United States with a vast aircraft
industry was ready to hurl a vast armada of passenger planes in the air, ready to
seize control of
the air traffic of the world. Great Britain was not
ready; we had no aircraft; she is not ready yet.
This is now December, 1946. If one year ago the
United States had enough planes ready to capture
the air traffic of the air. there was only one thing
that could stop that. That was Gander. Because
the United States airlines must have Gander.... By
being able to land at Gander, an aircraft does not
have to carry fuel load from New York. The
landing fees are $85 each way, $170 a trip.... $170
comes to the government for the privilege of
saving them what? Thousands of dollars. There
is the blunder that has been made. It was given to
me this spring on absolutely high-class authority
(I wish I could mention the name), that it would
pay them to pay anything up to $1,000 per return
flight rather than not have the use of Gander.
Let's work that down. That means that control
over Gander was the great trump someone had up
his sleeve when dealing with the Americans... I
say this deliberately, if Great Britain paid out $5
million cold cash to the Government of Newfoundland in return for giving Britain control
over Gander, it would be money well spent — a
bargain which Britain would be getting. There is
the scandal. 1 find it not only incomprehensible,
but beyond my power to believe. Now we find
Mr. Neill said he had just recently, just a matter
of days before, written a letter to the British
government stating that, in his opinion. it was
unthinkable that Newfoundland should be saddled with the operating losses of Gander.
He had
not gotten an answer. He was asked, "How long
ago did you send it?" "Recently", he said; and he
added, "I made it a strong letter." He still has not
gotten an answer.... If they have saddled this
country with a $1 million operating loss for the
convenience of wealthy foreign airlines who
operate up into millions a year — I find it unbelievable — I do not believe it happened.
If it
did happen, instead of waiting for this Convention to end sometime next year, before
waiting
for that, we ought to fire out the government who
did it, if they did. I am remembering I have no
privilege — remembering it vividly. I find it
impossible to believe that we are saddled with it.
Out in Gander they have a trade union with 900
members; another trade union with 100 members
— 1000 Newfoundlanders. They cannot live —
the cost of living is prohibitive. They got 10%
increases, and since then the cost of living has
eaten it up. Why? What is the game? Is it they
cannot give more wages because we are saddled
196 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1946
with $1 million operating loss?.... We have not
got the whole story on Gander, it is just as well
to face it. We have written in our report all we
may fairly write, because there is not a fact in it
that is not a fact, but all the facts are not there.
Mr. Higgins Iwould like to ask Mr. Smallwood
— not meaning to be personal, it strikes me it is
very fortunate that he has not jet propulsion or we
would have a job to hold him — I would like to
ask him to explain where he gets the authority for
the statement that the operating costs will be
repaid and that it will be retroactive.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Neill said he had recently
written a very strongly worded letter, "as strongly
as any one of you would word it. I have just
written that letter to the British government." In
view of that, I am expecting an announcement
before this Convention closes to the effect that
the British government has generously agreed to
relieve the Newfoundland people of that burden.
And I believe it will be retroactive. From April I
in my belief, the cost of the losses of operating
Gander will not have cost the Newfoundland
people anything and the people of Gander who
are demanding increases in pay should not be
blocked in getting them.
Mr. Hollett On page 4 of the report, "Mr. Neill,
the Commissioner for Public Utilities, was asked
why the Commission of Government had made
this decision. His reply was that it was because
Newfoundland was a member of the Provisional
International Civil Aviation Organization
(PICAO) which organisation decided that
Gander should be kept open by Newfoundland."
Where did you get the idea that the Government
of Newfoundland decided it should be kept open?
On page 1 it says the British government paid
five-sixths of the cost of the airport and paid
$100,000 a year operating expenses prior to the
war; the British government surely had some
equity there, how has the equity been liquidated,
or has it?
Mr. Smallwood PICAO is the name of the
group of nations interested in civil aviation —
Canada, United States, Great Britain and Newfoundland are members of PICAO. I intended
to
find out whether Newfoundland has a vote in it.
As to the equity, it was understood and agreed
from the beginning that the British government
would build Gander at their expense up to five-
sixths of the cost. One-sixth of the cost to be
borne by Newfoundland, but the ownership of the
airport was to be Newfoundland's. I do not think
they had any equity, or have now.
Mr. Ballam I would like to ask Mr. Smallwood
if he knows anything about a meeting that was
held by this PICAO in Chicago. I think such a
meeting was held and one of our commissioners
was present. That may have been at the same time
this transaction was on. There is no mention in
the report about it.
Mr. Smallwood The Chicago meeting was the
one at which the dispute occurred between
Canada, United States and Great Britain; Newfoundland had very little part in that,
except to
listen. I believe PICAO is the subsequent
development of the Chicago conference. It was
at that conference that the lst, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and
5th freedoms were enunciated — the right to fly
over territory, right to land passengers, right to
pick up passengers. They have had conferences
since and have sub-committees meeting from
time to time. There was one recently in Ireland.
Squadron Leader McGrath attended that, but he
was merely a technical observer in the British
delegation. No one attended as a full-fledged
representative of Newfoundland. Very few men
attended who had more technical knowledge than
Squadron Leader McGrath, but he was not representing Newfoundland.
Mr. Ballam It was pointed out that Newfoundland was a member of PICAO and PICAO
decided Newfoundland should operate the
Gander. We do not have sufficient information
on it and I think the Committee should go into it.
If we could get the information on that, we might
be getting at the root of the trouble.
Mr. Northcott You must remember that it was
PICAO or the Commission of Government who
made the deal, not the Committee. The Committee has opposed it every step of the way.
I would
say that if the Committee had to make the deal
the mark-up would be $1 million profit.
Mr. Higgins What would be the landing charges made by airports outside?
Mr. Smallwood it would be simple for the
Committee to have gotten landing charges in
various airports around the world. The Committee did not do that. Landing charges
in airports in
any other part of the world are immaterial and
have nothing whatever to do with charges in
Gander. Gander is the only airport in the world
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 197
of its size, it is one which cannot be done
without.... I say forget the landing charges and
charge all the traffic will bear, without driving the
traffic away.
Mr. Higgins Do you think it would have been
feasible for the airlines to operate the airport at
the start?
Mr. Smallwood Yes. They wanted to do that. I
know that in February or March some people
were down here from the States and held a number of conferences. That took place at
Gander
with the Commissioner, Mr. Neill, the Director,
Squadron Leader Pattison, and a number of
others. I may say, Mr. Chairman, as each session
of that conference ended I knew within an hour
exactly what happened at it, and I learned in that
way a lot of information about Gander. I believe
if the airlines were running Gander at their own
expense today they would be paying much better
wages than the Newfoundland government is
paying....
Mr. Higgins Would Mr. Smallwood tell us if
there is any possibility of making such a deal
now?
Mr. Smallwood I don't know that. I would say
the airlines would be very silly and simple if they
did, seeing they are now getting a good airfield
for nothing. The chance was there in the spring,
but I don't know now.
Mr. Crosbie Those figures of wages, did you
get these from the civil airlines in Gander?
Mr. Smallwood Yes, he is Director of Civil
Aviation. The wages paid in Gander are still
pretty low. All the boys working with the airlines
are boys who used to be down with the RAF, and
former Newfoundlanders from the RAF and
RCAF. They are employing Newfoundlanders
wherever they can. The Americans are paying
roughly $1 million in wages, along with the oil
companies and other employers.
Mr. Crosbie I am not quite content with that
explanation. What I want to know is, did you get
any actual figures from the four airlines operating
in Gander?
Mr. Crosbie Well then, the figures are not
worth the paper they are written on.
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, can Mr. Small
wood tell us did the Newfoundland government
pay any fee to join PICAO or not?
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, will Mr. Small-
wood undertake to find out the countries represented on PICAO at the time the decision
was
made that Newfoundland should operate
Gander?
Mr. Smallwood I would undertake to recommend to the Committee on Transportation and
Communications that they should try to find out.
I think frankly that any further inquiries on
Gander had better come from the Convention as
a whole....
Mr. MacDonald As a member of this Transportation Committee I fully agree with all in this
report, but with regard to Mr. Hollett's question
as to who was on PICAO and whether
PICAO did compel the Newfoundland government to purchase Gander, I would like to know
where we are going to get that information. There
is only one person I know of, the Commissioner
of Public Utilities, and he has said that it was on
the instructions of PICAO that they had bought
Gander. A little later he said that he had written
to the British government saying that the Newfoundland government could not hear the
expense of Gander.
Mr. Smallwood I don't think Mr. Neill said that
PICAO had instructed Newfoundland to purchase and operate Gander. I don't think that
was
quite the word. The word here is "decided" —
that "PICAO decided". Mr. Neill was asked why
the Commission of Government had made this
decision, and his reply was that Newfoundland
was a member of PICAO, which organisation
decided that Gander should be kept open by
Newfoundland. But Newfoundland could have
disagreed, but rather than back out of that organisation altogether — to this Mr.
Neill made
no comment.
Mr. Job Newfoundland is not a member of
PICAO as far as I can make out. Newfoundland
attended the PICAO meeting in Chicago as part
of the British delegation, it was not separate....
Mr. Cashin This million dollars... Have they
actually paid the million dollars over to Canada
yet, and if so from what fund? Is it from the
general revenue of the country this year, or from
the surpluses that have accumulated?
Mr. Smallwood I am afraid I don't know I
198 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1946
remember reading or hearing that it was being
paid in installments, but from what fund I don't
know....
Mr. Cashin I think we will have to get Mr. Neill
on the carpet again.
Mr. Higgins Mr. Smallwood, what is the meaning of the third paragraph on page 2?
Mr. Smallwood Well, there was a formal taking
over of Gander on April 1 by the Division of Civil
Aviation. You see the Canadian government, on
April 17, 1941, took over Gander to operate it as
a war airport, and on April 1, 1946, the government took back formal possession of
Gander, the
operation and control of it, and housekeeping
there was assumed by the Division of Civil Aviation.
Mr. Smallwood Actually the Division was
operating there before that and controlling parts
of Gander during the winter. They began taking
men on in February or March, but it was on April
1 that they formally and officially took over and
began to operate.
Mr. Higgins It was merely the wording that I
was questioning.
Mr. Starkes If Newfoundland was represented
at this convention in making this deal in connection with the Gander, would they not
be entitled
to have a copy of the minutes of that meeting to
bring back to their country, and could not this
Committee get a copy of those minutes for the
Convention?
Mr. Smallwood They could certainly try to get
those minutes, but guaranteeing to get them is a
horse of another colour. I would suggest that
anything of that nature now come from the Convention as a whole. Major Cashin is chairman
of
the Finance Committee and he might be able to
dig up a lot of that stuff better than we could.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, I move that the
committee receive this report now, and take up
the other one to-morrow. I think we have gone
pretty thoroughly into it, there is a lot of information that we can't get, but it
may be forthcoming
later when the Finance Report comes in.
Mr. Neill will certainly have to come before us
again. We can't let him get away with the fact
that we can't get the cost of operating up to date.
I move therefore that we receive this report.
Mr. Ashboume Mr. Chairman, does that mo
tion need a seconder?
Mr. Ashbourne Well, I would like to make a
few remarks. I feel, sir, that too frequently concessions have been made to outside
companies,
and also too sweeping concessions. I believe that
the vast majority of the people of Newfoundland
have thought that the airports on our soil would
have been real assets to this country, and not, as
we find out today, a liability, I rather regret that
I see no reference in this report to Goose airport,
because I believe that when the lease of that was
made to Canada there was quite a spirited comment in the public press. The government
should
certainly have asked the people of this country
for their views through the press before these
terms were agreed upon. I would like to know
whether these agreements are covered by leases,
and how long these leases run? I would also like
to have a copy of these leases if we could secure
them.
I also note that between the estimate of the
Hon. Commissioner of Public Utilities and
Mr. Pattison there is half a million dollars disparity, and furthermore I would like
to see these
figures broken down in both cases, so that we
may know why there should be this disparity.
Regarding a point that has already been mentioned I would like to see the corresponding
scales of landing charges elsewhere I think
that we would be wise in not railroading an
important matterlike this through. I feel that there
is quite a bit more information this Convention
could demand before this report is finally accepted.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I don't want to
delay the House, but I am glad Mr. Ashboume
referred to the estimates. I remember the excitement in Gander the night that Mr.
Wild delivered
his last budget. It was generally believed in
Gander that Britain was footing the bills on the
operating losses of the airport, so on the night that
Mr. Wild delivered his budget, it was broadcast
and everyone who could get to a radio was there,
and I remember very vividly the sentence that
Mr. Wild used. It was this: "Newfoundland is
primarily responsible for the operation of
Gander". The word "primarily" struck me be«
tween the eyes. Why did he not say "Newfoundland is responsible", why "primarily
responsible"? I knew the government did not
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 199
want any talk to be going on to the effect that the
British government was footing the bills. It was
put over in the most beautiful way. It could only
mean that Newfoundland is, in the first instance,
responsible, but will be recouped, and so they
voted $750,000 in the estimate.
Sir William Hillman was in Gander, he was
the Director General of Civil Aviation of the
United Kingdom at that time, on his way through
to the Bermuda Conference, and he made the
statement that "they were fed up with repeated
requests coming to them from Newfoundland in
connection with Gander, authorising this, that
and the other for amounts of $50,000 here,
$70,000 there and $100,000 somewhere else."
His complaint was that instead of putting them to
the necessity of running to their superiors with so
many requests for authorisation, they should
come in and say they wanted $1 million or $2
million, and it would only occur once, and there
would be a row, but they would pass it and there
would be no more trouble for a year. There was
another point that Mr. Ashboume raised —
Goose Bay and Torbay. We thought that as the
operation of Goose and Torbay do not come
within the realm of public finance we would
ignore them. The contracts for the lease of Goose
and Torbay have been published in the press and
are public property, and certainly the exchequer
of Newfoundland is not involved in the expenses
of either of those airports.... If we made a mistake
and if the House orders us to get further information regarding Goose and Torbay,
we will be
happy to carry out their orders.
Mr. Ashbourne My point about Goose was that
on account of its proximity to Newfoundland it
might have a prejudical effect on our bargaining
powers about Gander airport. I believe that might
have been recognised by the people who effected
the lease of the Goose airport....
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, Gander is the
only airport designated by the Newfoundland
government as a port of call for transatlantic
aircraft. The Division of Civil Aviation has the
authority to divert an aircraft from Gander either
to Torbay or Goose or Stephenville in case
Gander is closed in, but Gander is the airport, the
others are only alternates in case of bad
weather.... The CAA
[1] of the United States
government had also designated Gander as the
only airport on the North Atlantic which may be
used by American aircraft flying the North Atlantic. That means an aircraft leaving
the US to cross
the Atlantic, or leaving Europe for the US, must
clear for Gander. If, having cleared for Gander
she learns that Gander is closed in, then that does
not mean that she has to turn back, for Gander
tells them, "You may land at Stephenville, or
Torbay, or Goose", but Gander is the only designated airport, and further, from the
standpoint of
the CAA it is the only designated airport for
American aircraft. There have been rumours
going around from time to time that the
Americans want the right to use Stephenville, but
I don't think there is anything to it. I don't think
our government would be so insane as to permit
the civilian use of any other airport except
Gander. I think we can dismiss that.
Mr. Burry Mr. Chairman, I understand that as
far as Goose airport is concerned it does not enter
into the civilian aviation picture. That is because
it is considered to be a permanent military base
to be operated as such.... Mr. Smallwood is perfectly right in saying that planes
coming across
the Atlantic have the right to land at Goose at the
rate of three or four a day when Gander is closed
in, or any other airport that they cannot reach....
Mr. Smallwood That is the case, but I don't
think Mr. Burry means to say that an airplane
approaching Gander has a choice of landing
where it likes, it has to do so on the instructions
of the Newfoundland government.
Mr. Penney I would like to second Major
Cashin's motion and in doing so I wish I could
know of some correct way to limit the time of
speakers' addresses to l5 minutes or so at a time.
It would facilitate the work of this Convention.
Mr. Vardy I would like to support Major
Cashin's motion. I think we should accept the
various reports coming in after reasonable
debate, by sections, and when the whole report
has been formally received, if there are any critical points on which we need further
explanations,
l feel they should come from the convention of
the whole. If we start throwing reports back on
the hands of the committees, it is going to take a
long time. We have a number of reports coming
in and we have fairly well covered the ground.
Mr. Chairman It has been moved and seconded
that the section of the report of Transportation
200 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1946
and Communications Committee, entitled
"Gander Airport" be received.
[The motion carried. The committee of the whole rose, and the Convention adjourned]
