Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, the only additional information that this Committee has to
bring before the committee of the whole today is
the supplementary report on Gander,
[3] consisting
of a verbatim shorthand account of the interview
held with the Commissioner of Public Utilities,
Mr. Neill, by a Committee appointed by the Convention, and i think perhaps that the
best thing
would be to ask the Secretary to read the verbatim
account of that interview.
[The Secretary read the verbatim report]
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, some of my friends
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 269
have been commenting on the fact that, for the
past few weeks, I have not been taking a very
active part in the debates of this assembly. My
explanation to them and to the public, is that, first,
I felt the carefully prepared reports which the
several committees have presented were in themselves sufficiently informative and
factual for the
basic purposes of this Convention. And second,
wishing to expedite the work, I did not desire to
enter into any analysis of endless details, which,
if encouraged, could only develop into idle discussions, with a consequent cost of
the people's
money and the delegates' time. For these reasons,
I have been content to adopt the role of a more or
less silent spectator. But on the present occasion
I rise to what I regard as a state of political
emergency, with the object of placing before this
Convention my impression of things as I see them
today, and with the hope that what I shall have to
say may be of some assistance to my fellow
delegates and to the public at large.
On September 18 last, just a week after this
Convention had assembled, I made a speech introducing the Chadwick-Jones report. I
referred
to this Convention in terms which, to some of
you, may have seemed unduly harsh — perhaps
shocking. I pointed out my lack of faith in this
Convention, referred to it as being ethically
improper, in View of the agreement which was
made between the last Newfoundland parliament
and the British government, wherein self-government was promised this country upon
its becoming self-supporting. I pointed out how that
agreement had been deliberately avoided and
ignored by the wholly unauthorised substitution
of this Convention set-up. I said that as time went
on, and the true nature of this Convention
emerged, many delegates would endorse my sentiments. I concluded with the statement
that it
would become clear that in its dealings with us,
the Dominions Office had stolen the vocabulary
of democracy, but had ignored both its spirit and
substance.
Over four months have elapsed since I made
that speech, and today the things that I said then
seem to have proved too dismally true. In one
respect, perhaps, I might change my views. At
that time I referred to the Convention as a
glorified stall. Today I do not regard it in any such
light manner. Rather I see in its characteristics
something far more sinister and even tragic.
Today I see it as a premeditated design to keep us
out of control of our own country, so that time
may be afforded those in power to complete their
campaign of sabotage. And so, I see this Convention and its activities as something
in the nature
of fiddling while Rome burns. Now, let me say,
that in speaking in this strain, I cast no reflection
whatever on the personnel of this body, I simply
speak of the Convention as a political entity —
as being part of the costly and cumbersome
machinery, consisting of plebiscites and referendums, which have been foisted on us
to confuse
our thoughts and efforts, until the plans of the
Dominions Office have been completed.
As for the personnel in the months that we
have been together, I have come to know most of
the delegates intimately and have made many
warm friends. I have been greatly impressed with
the sound reasoning and sincere utterances
shown in their speeches. Many of them may not
have been blessed with college education, and
have had to get their learning in the university of
hard knocks, but new as some of them may be to
the political atmosphere, they have proven that
they can measure up to their jobs in a manner
reflecting credit on themselves and the people
they represent. We have in this assembly representatives of all Newfoundland, including
Labrador. From the great forests of the west to
the stormy coastlines of the north — merchants
and miners, lawyers and lumbermen, fishermen
and farmers, teachers and teamsters; the rich and
the poor, the classes and the masses — all are
represented here. And because of this wide representation, I feel that I am speaking,
not so much
to the delegates themselves, as to the 300,000 odd
people who are depending on us to safeguard
their interests. I speak on behalf of no particular
district, nor as the advocate of any political party
or belief, but just as an ordinary Newfoundlander
to his fellow men and women, on a matter of
national interest.
I said that I rose to an emergency, and perhaps
I should explain myself a little more clearly. Let
me say, then, that I am seriously alarmed, at the
state of things in this country today. I am disturbed at the things which have come
to my
notice as an ordinary citizen and as a member of
this Convention. I have seen things which I think
the people should know, because in the final
analysis they are our masters. They are the people
270 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
who own this country, and who are most directly
concerned in what happens to it.
Firstly I am not satisfied, and have never been
satisfied, with the method adopted for the solution of our political position. I have
always
regarded the setting up of a Convention such as
this as not being the proper method of solving the
problem which confronts us, and every day that
passes further confirms these beliefs. I have slowly seen emerge into the light of
day the duplicity
and bad faith which underlies this whole business. I have seen proof that our country
is being
deliberately sidetracked from the democratic
highway that we thought we were on into a blind
alley, where we can spend our time groping for
progress and getting nowhere. As a result, I say
that if we do not become aware of these things,
and turn around on a new course, we are headed
for danger.
Let us review things. This country was
promised self-government when she became
self-supporting. On December 12, 1945, in the
House of Lords, the Dominions Secretary
declared that Newfoundland was then self-supporting, and had been since 1941; and
coming
nearer home, we find that no less an authority
than former Commissioner for Finance Wild told
this Convention four months ago that we were
self-supporting. All right then, we are self-supporting. These men say we are, and
they should
know. Now then, the first question we ask is, why
was not this international contract carried out? It
is a serious thing to break an international agreement, Mr. Chairman. Yet not alone
was this done,
but no reason was given us for such default. What
does this mean and what impression must we, as
sensible men, gather from this? I submit there is
only one deduction we can make, and this is that
the British government has not kept faith with us;
that it was not in their interest that we should have
control of our own country. And so determined
were they to carry out their plan, that they did not
hesitate to treat an international agreement as just
another scrap of paper. Is this the situation which
confronts us today? Must we look for duplicity
where we should look for straightforward dealing? But let us go on and study the character
of
the thing further.
You will remember when, on the request of
the Convention, Commissioner for Finance Wild
was asked to appear before us, his point-blank
refusal to answer certain questions. Does this
indicate a wholesome co-operation with our efforts, or does it indicate another example
of the
bad faith to which I have referred? Does it not
indicate that both Mr. Wild and the Commission
government, as well as the Dominions Office,
have regarded us as an opposition rather than a
friendly body — that they did not care whether
we got facts or not; that they had no sympathy for
either ourselves or the work which we had undertaken? For myself, as a member of a
committee
of this Convention, 1 have been time and time
again unable to get the information I requested. I
have been refused information, sometimes almost insolently refused. Other committees
have
indicated that they have been greeted with the
same hostility and lack of co-operation. I remember one extraordinary instance, when
the government refused information on confidential
grounds, and shortly after I saw the whole thing
published in pamphlet form in the Dominion of
Canada. Could there be anything more farcical?
Here they tell us we are an assembly appointed
and authorised to get facts, and yet when we go
to the very people who so appointed us — when
we go to the normal source — we are, in so many
words told to go about our business. I say again,
does this conduct indicate anything? Does it not
indicate beyond all reasonable doubt, that the
Commission government and the Dominions Office do not want us to get all the facts
— do not
want us to know what the true state of this country
is today, and how our affairs are being managed?
Does it not clearly show that we are regarded as
a body without either importance or standing;
that we are not being taken seriously; that they
have given us the glory, but that the power
remains with themselves? What would you say,
Mr. Chairman, if you were doing business with a
man and he treated you that way? You would say
that he was a trickster and a deceiver; refuse to
have anything to do with him any longer. You
would cease to put faith in him. But let us see if
we cannot also prove what 1 have said in a different manner.
Let us suppose that we have none of this
evidence of bad faith on the part of the Commission government and the Dominions Office.
Let
us forget all this, and take up a single instance
where the British government comes to us, in all
good faith, and asks us to find out the facts
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 271
relating to the financial and economic position of
this country. Would not the first question that
would come to mind be this: why should the
British government have to ask us to undertake
such a task now? Do you think they would need
to call on 45 men, living in all parts of this country
with no particular training in such matters, to do
this work for them? Don't you think they have all
the answers themselves? They with their 4,000
civil servants, with their $10,000 salaried
departmental heads, with their highly-paid imported financial experts, with their
agents scattered all over the island, with their great numbers
of bureaux and offices — do you think in the face
of this, they can ask us to believe that they must
send out an invitation to us, and ask us to please
come to St. John's, and add up their accounts for
them and tell them whether the country is self-
supporting or not? Why the whole thing is so
wildly absurd, so obviously a thing of sending the
fool further, that I am amazed that this Convention has not long ago refused to have
any part of
this political game of hide the button. I say that
we are being trifled with, that the country is being
trifled with, that this Convention is being treated
as so many children, to whom this political toy is
given to distract their attention to play this mock
parliament business according to a book of instructions furnished by those two jokers,
Messrs.
Chadwick and Jones.
On behalf of the people whom I represent and
myself, I wish to record my strong resentment at
the derogatory and insulting manner in which we
have been treated by the Dominions Office, and
in the interests of all Newfoundland I say that,
being aware of this position, it is high time that
we did something about it. To use the words of
Winston Churchill, "What kind of people do they
think we are anyhow?" Do they think we have no
intelligence? Do they think we have no national
pride? Do they think we do not resent such uncalled-for treatment?
Some months ago in a radio address, I expressed myself to the effect that if Newfoundlanders
did not soon take over their country,
there would be nothing left to take over. I have
that same feeling today. It is an old story now,
about the bartering away of our national assets.
But the thing still goes on, and the tragedy of it is
we are doing nothing to stop it. Sometime ago this
Convention unanimously passed a resolution re
questing the Commission that no further commitments or charges should be made upon
our national resources, until such time as it was decided
what form of government would administer our
affairs in the future. But do you think there will
be any attention paid to such a request? I tell you,
Mr. Chairman, not the slightest. Indeed, I doubt
if this Convention has been given the courtesy of
a reply to their request. It was only a few days ago
that a further act was passed giving further concessions on the Labrador to outside
parties, and
we have no doubt that as time goes on further
contractual obligations will be made involving us
to the tune of many millions of dollars of the
people's money, further compromising our future in adeeper bondage. You will remember
that
at the beginning of this Convention we were
furnished with a ten-year programme for the expenditure of some $60 million. This
programme
is actually being carried out today by the Commission government itself, without any
notice
being taken of this Convention.
I am aware there are those amongst us who
seem obsessed with the peculiar idea that the
problem of Newfoundland can be dealt with as
one would a problem in mathematics; that it is
something which can be worked out by the rule
of three. They seem to want somebody to come
and show as a mathematical certainty that Newfoundland will never know another bad
day.
They want a gilt-edged guarantee that there will
be no more depressions in the world, that there
will be no more wars, no more bombs, no more
ups or downs in either politics or commerce.
They want to be assured of the exact number of
fish we are going to catch ten years from now, the
number of trees we are going to cut, the number
of tons of ore we are going to extract from our
mines. And if we can't perform this miracle of
exactly prophesying all these things, they will say
that we are not self-supporting ― that we had
better not take a chance, there may be a depression in 1950 or even 1960, and we had
better go
in with some other country that has no depressions, no wars, and no business cycles.
Why the
thing is so absurd, so hopelessly impractical, that
I would not mention it at all but for the reason that
there are people who actually think this way. I
ask, what country, what individual, what
businessman expects to be able to have a
blueprint of his condition five or ten years from
272 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
now? If a prosperous firm in good standing today
cannot tell how things are going to he say five
years hence, do they throw up their hands in
despair, close their doors and beg someone else
to come and take over their business? When
Canada, the United States and Great Britain herself were in the depths of the depression,
did they
do it? Of course they didn't. They kept on — they
took the good with the bad, and they won their
fight, just as our ancestors did when we had a bad
fishery. I repeat, no man and no nation knows
what the future holds. But they don't show the
white feathers, they know that uncertainty is the
unavoidable law of life. And their pride, their
courage, and their patriotism bids them fight on.
They know well that any other course is the
course of cowardice and dishonour.
But why, I ask, should any one in Newfoundland talk of giving up, or talk of selling
out?
For what is the actual position? We are faced with
no financial or economic emergency. On the
contrary, we are richer than we ever were before,
than we ever expected to be. And as for our future
prospects, I tell you they were never brighter. I
know something of the economic and financial
structures of other countries, and I also know
something about the position of Newfoundland,
and I place myself on record as saying that I know
of no other people in the world who can today
face their future with more confidence and assurance, than Newfoundland. I see no
shadow on
the road ahead. Rather do I see continued brightness and prosperity. And when the
final reports
are presented to this Convention, I will prove
what I say by the evidence of hard facts and
figures. I know that there are with us today the
prophets of doom and disaster, and they in their
way are bad enough. But worse still are those
whom I honestly believe are disappointed at
every new sign and proof of our country's
prosperity, which the investigations of this Convention are steadily producing. I
cannot find
words to express my utter contempt for this latter
class. All I can say is that they disgrace the very
name when they claim to be Newfoundlanders.
Then there is another class of individual, who
give evidence of a truly strange form of political
thinking — who say give us food, not votes. Feed
us, and we care not what you do with us. Why,
sir, one can be well fed in a gaol. And Hitler, I
believe, fed his people very well. But is that an
argument for us going to gaol, or setting up a
tyrannical dictatorship? I agree we must have
food, but let us see that we eat that food as free
men, and not as a dishonoured people, lest the
food we seek turn sour in our months.
I know something of what people called graft
in the old days, and I know something also of the
things which are going on today. If you want
evidence of this, I refer you to that section of the
Auditor General's report which deals with the
Department of Public Health and Welfare, and
also the Railway Department, and you will get an
indication of what I mean. I assure you that if the
whole story of the things which are taking place
today under the present regime were exposed, the
people of this country would be shocked as they
have never been before. Why, Mr. Chairman,
there is at present on the table of this house the
report of the Transportation Committee, and in
this instance alone we find that a sum of no less
than $1 million per year is being sacrificed, or
should I say sabotaged, with no more consideration or foresight than if it were so
many cents. In
a recent interview with the Commissioner for
Public Utilities we were coolly informed that this
obligation had been fastened on the necks of the
Newfoundland people solely by the decision of
the local Commissioners without any reference
to the British government. What an example of
spendthrift dictatorship, what an abuse of a
people's interests, what a breach of the sacred
obligations of trusteeship.
Is it not high time that we did something about
all this, that we took some steps to prevent this
country being kicked around in this manner, of
having the British government use us and all that
is ours for her advantage and to our detriment? is
it not time that this Convention did something
about saving the country itself? I say, sir, that
there was never a time in our national life when
the motto "Delays are dangerous" was more applicable.
The great need of this country today is unity
— unity of thought and purpose in doing the job
which lies before us. I am too well aware of the
fact that there are many circumstances which
mitigate against this sense of unity, and which at
the same time render more easy the task of those
who would disunite us. There is our far-flung
coastline, our isolated settlements, our lack of
communications — all these things militate
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 273
against unity of thought and ideas. Indeed, our
very origin is rooted in disunity. With us, the
melting-pot of nationalism has worked very
slowly. Hundreds of years ago our country was
peopled with English, Irish and Scotch, and even
today their assimilation into a national unity is
not complete. We proclaim public holidays in
honour of England, Ireland and Scotland, but
where is our Newfoundland day? Why, even our
very national ode was composed by one who was
not a Newfoundlander. We boast of our English,
Irish and Scotch descent, but who boasts that he
is a Newfoundlander? Is not all this wrong?
Should not the state of things be rectified? Is it
not time that we awoke to the fact that we are first
of all Newfoundlanders and not the citizens of
any country thousands of miles across the seas?
Let us acknowledge our national obligations,
take pride in the fact that we are Newfoundlanders, and acknowledge the duty we owe
this land. And the first duty — the first obligation
— is the duty of unity; the duty of joining our
strength and our numbers in the common interests of our common country.
I know there are members of this Convention
who entertain ideas of merging our individuality
with other countries, of absorbing our nationhood
with other peoples. Such things, in view of the
great vital issue which now faces us, I regard as
being of secondary importance — things that
properly belong not to the present, but to the
future — things for the people of Newfoundland
to consider as a self-governing dominion I regard
them as issues which should not be allowed to
destroy the unity, or enervate the thoughts of the
people at this juncture. But let me add, that I deny
to no man his right to advocate any form of
government he may choose, and if a general
election were called in this country, there is a free
scope for the confederate, the unionist, the
labourer, the socialist, and all those who wish to
present their belief for the endorsement of the
people. All such things come within the sphere of
a free democracy. But I emphasise, that the issue
today is not a party issue, it is a national issue, an
issue of emergency, of saving the country, of
saving the treasury, of saving the resources of the
people while there is yet time. It is a situation
where we must put Newfoundland first, before all
else, before the aims of this Convention, before
the designs of the Commission government,
before the wishes of the Dominions Office or the
British government. We must put first things first.
All else must be brushed aside in the interest of
Newfoundland. If that interest demands that we
should convert this assembly into a purely Newfoundland assembly, that should be done.
If it
demands that we ignore the rules and constitution
of this Convention that should be done. If it
demands we should send a delegation to London,
demanding a general election in the spring of
I947, that should be done. Anything and everything should be done to ensure that there
is no
delay, that there is no time lost in restoring the
control of our destinies to the hands of our own
people. If we have any rights at all in our own
country, the right of free action or free speech,
then these rights should be exercised to obtain for
us the right of responsible government.
Now we come to this matter of confederation
with Canada. Propaganda, inspired right here in
Newfoundland, has been appearing in certain
sections of the Canadian press, specially
designed to injure Newfoundland by misrepresentation of facts. There is a lot of talk
about
this affair of submerging our century-old nationhood with another country, and I expect
we shall
hear more, much more of it in the future. For the
present I merely say this: if Canada is prepared
to accept us in confederation, then be assured it
is only because she wants something we have,
and that she wants it very much. If she wants us,
she wants us for her benefit, not for ours. And if
she offers us one dollar, you can be certain that
she counts on getting two or three of ours in
return. Remember this, to any such deal Great
Britain must be a party, and so it would all boil
down to a clever game between Canada and Great
Britain in which they would take the winnings
and Newfoundland would be the pawn. As commonsense people, I ask you to remember this
when you are being deluged with the gilded story
of the lovely things Canada is going to do for us,
of how grand we will live with two chickens in
every pot and every man a millionaire. Let us
remember that this is simply a repetition of the
siren song that has lured many an unlucky
country to its doom. It is the sugar on the pill, the
bait in the trap. Such was the method used in
luring us into Commission government and the
valley of the dole in l933. The little countries of
Europe have heard that song, the Maritime
274 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
provinces heard it and to their grief heeded it. I
expect to hear it sung in this very chamber before
long. For a change I should like someone to tell
us not why we should go to Canada, but why
Canada should want us at all. Is anyone within
the reach of my voice, I wonder, so innocent as
to think that a big country ever yet cared a hoot
about the welfare of a little country. Such in brief
is all I want to say about this confederation business at the present time. I have
faith in our people,
and I firmly believe that the people will see
through the sham and skulduggery which lies
behind this whole confederation issue. And I
know they will stand by Newfoundland when the
call goes forth.
I do not know what the other delegates may
think, but as for myself, I express it as my sincere
conviction that a general election under responsible government should be held in
this country
in the spring of 1947. I further say that if this is
not done, we shall live to deeply regret it. Let us
remember that we cannot escape the verdict of
history and that today we are on trial.
I do not propose to further take up the time of
this Convention, and in closing I would like to
briefly sum up the message I would leave with
you. That message is that there are grave reasons,
why we should not delay in taking some steps to
forestall the disaster which looms ahead. To the
best of my ability I have given you these reasons.
I do not make any specific motion at the present
time, because I wish to give this Convention time
for full consideration of the things which I have
stated. I give a challenge and the challenge I
present is one for action. I do this because of my
sense of duty to the people who sent me here; to
my conceptions of those things which I feel are
just and decent; and above all, for the love which
I share with you all for the greatest and finest little
country in the world ― Newfoundland.
Mr. Northcott ....Mr. Chairman, many of the
delegates stressed the great need of roads in their
districts. I think it is my duty to do likewise in
fairness of the district I represent. Whatever the
form of government is in we must have roads
and more roads. Roads should be, sir, foremost
in any form of government. I would like to see a
trunk road across this country, but the big question is just where is the money coming
from.
Gentlemen, I really and truly think it would come
if we had more faith in ourselves and our country,
but then "Faith without works is dead". The
delegates have not all agreed or approved of the
idea of a trunk road across the country, but I think,
sir, we have all agreed on this one point, and that
is, the great, and urgent need for more and better
roads in the outport settlements. I would like to
see all our local roads connected from settlement
to settlement, and connecting up to the railway.
Then we can live, move and have our being, and
do business with one another, which is essential
to the well-being of any country or community.
Mr. Chairman, I want now to refer briefly to
a small settlement in Lewisporte district, known
as Laurenceton, where no train, no steamer calls.
There are approximately 80 or 90 families living
there, without any government transportation,
yet these same people always pay their taxes, and
are all independent, and further they do not know
the meaning of dole. To get their supplies, or
freight, these people have to go all the way to
Botwood, a distance of 12 or 14 miles, blow high
or blow low. All you gentlemen know where
Botwood is, as usually every November month
the Kyle is ordered there by the Railway to keep
the port of Botwood open so that the AND Co.
can load their paper and ship it, while the Kyle
keeps the channel free of ise. This same channel
the Laurenceton people must use to get their
freight along in the late fall. This is not good
enough, and provision should be made for them.
I may say, sir, these same people are only four or
five miles away from the Lewisporte — Brown's
Arm road, and if these people could be connected
to that road it would eliminate all this unnecessary risk and hardship. When once
joined to the
road they would get their freight by way of
Lewisporte in half an hour by truck. Those people
also are the salt of the earth, and are entitled to
better treatment.
Some 18 or 20 years ago the Lewisporte -
Boyd's Cove road was surveyed, or partly surveyed, and not a great deal more has been
done
to it since, although some settlements have been
extended a little here and there. This road is of
paramount importance, not only to Lewisporte
district, but to Twillingate district, Fogo district,
and Bonavista North to Weslcyville. This road,
therefore, when completed, can and will serve
more than 30,000 people.... Freight then can be
landed at Lewisporte or Wesleyville, and trucked
from either end of the road as the need arises.
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 275
Then there would be no need of the steamers
being jammed in the ice in December. I am sure
that Mr. Ashbourne and Mr. Watton will support
me on this very worthy and urgent road project.
By this road will travel lumbermen, fishermen,
farmers, and tourists....
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I listened with
very great interest indeed to what Major Cashin
had to say, and nothing would give me more
pleasure than to be in a position at this moment
to take up in discussion some of the matters he
discussed. I am positively itching to discuss the
matters touched on by Major Cashin. Perhaps the
opportunity will come my way to do that before
the Convention ends. Unfortunately, however, I
have a duty this afternoon that I must perform,
namely to deal briefly with this supplementary
report on the operation of Gander airport.... Now,
Mr. Chairman, when the original report on
Gander was brought in, I said as plainly as I could
— well, perhaps I did not exactly say, but I
certainly hinted very broadly — that in my
opinion the people and Government of Newfoundland would not have to pay a dollar of
the
losses that would be run up in operating Gander.
I was the only one, I believe, who did say that,
because I had information, gathered at Gander
and here, that led me strongly to believe it.... Now
today we have a little more knowledge about it,
given to the Committee by Mr. Neill, the Commissioner for Public Utilities, who is
the final
boss, in Newfoundland at any rate, over Gander.
I am convinced that this interview that we had
with Mr. Neill is very strong evidence that my
original contention was correct. Major Cashin
put this question to Mr. Neill. Major Cashin said,
"The government agreed to operate, knowing
there was going to be a loss, primarily for the
purpose of helping these air companies?" Mr.
Neill said, "I go with you except to say that we
never contemplated there would be a loss on the
Newfoundland exchequer". Then Major Cashin
said to him, "You must have some reason for
that?", and Mr. Neill replied, "Yes". Then Major
Cashin said, with a question mark in his voice,
"Great Britain half-indicated they would pay the
deficit?", and Mr. Neill said, "Well, in brief
words, we have put up the case to them and they
have not yet finalised it" (page 3 of the report).
Major Cashin said again, "Why should New
foundland be burdened with this expenditure of
$750,000," and Mr. Neill replied, "I am hoping
we will rectify that." I said to him, "When you
did it (that is, took over Gander), did you have
any knowledge or belief that Newfoundland
would not have to pay that operating deficit on
Gander?", and he replied, "We always put up the
position that we would require assistance for the
operation of Gander." I said, "To whom?", and
he said, "To the British government." Major
Cashin said, "They did not say 'yes' or 'no' they
would pay this deficit?", and he said "Not yet." I
said to him, "Is this the position: you took over
the operation of Gander, believing there would
be a deficit in its operation, and hoping only that
the British government might help Newfoundland in paying the deficit?" He said, "I
would not
go so far as to say that. We have placed the
position before the British government, stating
that we expect assistance in the operation of
Gander." I asked him, "When did you put that
before them?", and he said, "Several times." I
said, "When was the earliest time? Did you put it
to them before you decided to take over the
airport?", and he replied, "I think it was always
known." It was an understood thing between the
Commission of Government and the British
government that if Newfoundland were to take
over the operation of Gander, and if there was to
be a loss each year that Britain, or PICAO,
[1] or
someone would have to pay it, but not Newfoundland.
It is important, extremely important, to know
where we stand on Gander. I won't go so far as
to say that we now know definitely, beyond all
doubt, that the loss in running Gander will not
have to come out of our pockets; we do not know
definitely and finally, and we will not know it
until the government here gets a final official
reply from the British government, but we are
going to get it....
The last thing I have in mind is to defend the
Commission of Government. Except for the first
year they were in the country, I have always been
against them.... At the same time, if they have a
word of credit coming to them I see no reason
why I should refuse to give them that word of
credit. If I had thought when l piloted the Gander
report through this Convention just before
Christmas, that the Commission of Government
276 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
had agreed to pay the loss, I would have said so....
But I had to speak the truth as I knew it.... I don't
think the loss on Gander will cost the public chest
of this country a single dollar.
Mr. Higgins I hope I don't embarrass Mr.
Smallwood in the question — I would be rather
surprised if I did, but nevertheless this is a report
brought in by his Committee, and the intimation
that we have from anything brought in is that it
is public, I take it.... We gather that Mr.
Smallwood, or his Committee, were advised by
some person, maybe Mr. Pattison, that he advised
the government that the fee for landing should be
$300.... Do you know if that is a fact or not, Mr.
Smallwood? It is very important. Did the Director say that we should get $300 for
a landing fee?
Mr. Smallwood I would like very much indeed
to be able to answer Mr. Higgins frankly; however, I can do no more than repeat what
is in this
last page of our report. I asked if $300 for landing
should be charged, and he said, "I am not going
to answer that question because it might interfere
with Pattison." I thought he meant Squadron
Leader Pattison, who is the Director of Civil
Aviation. Then I said, "Would you say whether
or not that it is the opinion of the Director and
other officials of the Department of Civil Aviation that it ought to be $300 per landing?",
and
Mr. Neill, said "I certainly will not." Mr. Job said,
"Would you say they expressed that opinion?"
He said, "Minutes between Gander and myself
are privileged." That's all I can say to Mr. Higgins. I will, however, say this, that
a man who is
an outstanding authority on aviation, and I do not
refer to Squadron Leader Pattison now, stated to
me that any amount up to $1 ,000 per landing, that
is $2,000 per round trip, would be still an
economic figure to charge the international air
lines for the use of Gander.... I have a copy of that
statement, and I delivered it to a Commissioner
who delivered it to Mr. Neill, or at least he told
me he did. Anything up to $1,000 per landing
would be an economic figurel Now when I asked
him if he had been advised by the Director of
Civil Aviation, or anyone, if a figure of $300
would be all right, he would not reply.
Mr. Higgins I am asking him that.... Did you
have $300 per landing fee as a fishing question,
or it is based on facts?
Mr. Smallwood It was based on knowledge. I
know that the Commissioner for Public Utilities
was advised officially that $300 ought to be
charged.
Mr. Higgins You know that the Commissioner
was advised officially, by, I take it, some member
or the Director of Civil Aviation?
Mr. Smallwood I am sorry, I won't say by
whom. Mr. Higgins will appreciate that I cannot,
in honour, repeat information given to me unless
I am permitted to do it.
Mr. Higgins Then I don't think the shorthand
script should have been submitted to the Convention. We are not sure if Mr. Smallwood's
man of
honour can't tell us, or what it is. We are trying
to figure out why Mr. Smallwood thinks we
should get $300 instead of $85 as a landing fee,
and we are allowed to use that information.
Mr. Smallwood I think we are getting a little
away from the mark. If Gander is costing $1
million a year operating loss, the first question is
who is to pay that loss. It was to find that out , if
we could, that this delegation was appointed to
go and interview the Commissioner for Public
Utilities. We did not exactly find out, but I think
that we are satisfied that whoever does pay, it will
not be Newfoundland. The rest are minor details
compared with who pays the loss....
Mr. Hollett ....The point that I rise to mention is
found on page 4 of the repon of the Transportation and Communications Committee in
connection with Gander, wherein it states as follows:
"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 Organisation (PICAO) which organisation decided that Gander should be kept
upon by
Newfoundland." On that point you will remember that I tabled a question to the Hon.
Mr. Neill,
and he writes me to say that he is in doubt as to
exactly what I meant by that question, which I
thought was obvious and clear to any person, but
he said, "I have my office copy of the minutes of
the meeting of PICAO. I cannot recollect any
reference to Gander." He goes on to say they
attended as part of the British delegation. In the
sixth paragraph he says, "I do not understand the
reference to PICAO — that Gander should be left
open." This report is excellent but this definitely
must be an error. It is important that we have this
definitely decided, because Mr. Neill said he does
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 277
not understand that PICAO decided that Gander
should be kept open, and, on the other hand, the
Committee says that PICAO was the organisation
that decided that Gander should be kept open.
Referring to the supplementary report, I notice
that Mr. Neill denies that he ever said that. Is he
hedging, or is the Committee in error in the
original document? I wonder if Mr. Smallwood
would say anything about that?
Mr. Smallwood It was at the meeting of the
Finance Committee that Mr. Neill made the statement, so I still believe that the reason
Newfoundland took it over was that we are a member
of PICAO.... However, in our interview the other
day he said that he did not say it. I don't think
there was a stenographer present at the meeting
of the Finance Committee at which Mr. Neill
made the statement in the first place, but there are
many members of the Finance Committee here
today, and they can easily say whether, according
to their recollection, he made that statement or
not....
Mr. Miller Again on that $300 landing charge.
I wonder could Mr. Smallwood tell us whether
the Director of Civil Aviation came before the
Committee and if he did, what he thought the
landing charge should be?
Mr. Smallwood Well, Mr. Chairman, when
Squadron Leader Pattison appeared before us, in
view of the fact that he is in a subordinate position
I did not feel that I should embarrass him by
asking him questions on which a decision had
actually been reached by the government as a
whole, on landing fees. I did not ask him, and
neither did any other member of the Committee.
As a matter of fact, when Mr. Pattison appeared
before us the information we sought was more or
less of a background nature....
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, could Mr.
Smallwood tell us anything about this Canada,
Newfoundland, United Kingdom agreement?
Mr. Smallwood I think that refers to other bases
altogether — Torbay, Goose, Stephenville, Harmon Field, etc. Does it refer to Gander?
I don't
think so.
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, sometime ago in this
house I felt that the Committee should have ascertained what equipment was in Gander....
That
was all, I understand, belonging to the $1 million
deal. Rumours have been coming out from
Gander that there is a certain amount of equip
ment being removed, some by the Americans to
Harmon Field, and some by the Canadians to
Goose Bay.... I am wondering if that is our
property, Newfoundland's property?
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, the million dollars that Newfoundland is to pay Canada for what
Canada had at Gander does not include any
American equipment, so the Americans could do
what they liked with their own equipment. The
great bulk of it they moved to St. John's. They
formed a pool of equipment they intended to sell,
and to it they brought the equipment they owned
in Gander. The buildings were not owned by
them but by the Canadians. The $25 million that
the Canadians spent on capital account included
the buildings they built to be occupied by the
Americans. They now belong to the Department
of Civil Aviation of the Newfoundland government.
So far as equipment is concerned the vast bulk
of it was included in that purchase price. That
which was not included was shipped back to
Canada or in here to War Assets Corporation for
sale, or, to a limited extent, remains at Gander.
Now so far as the tremendous quantity of equipment owned by Newfoundland is concerned,
the
government has disposed of some of it.... There
is a tremendous surplus of certain things at
Gander, and I suppose one day they will be offering a lot of it for sale....
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, I am wondering
whether or not the government actually knows
what equipment was there when it was taken
over. We don't know, therefore, in my opinion,
they could move a lot of things that we did not
know were there, and that is why I say surely the
government should make an inventory....
Mr. Smallwood They have an inventory, and
when I was at Gander at Christmas I saw it. It is
a huge thing — I suppose a thousand sheets....
Mr. Higgins I don't want to stop Mr. Fudge on
this matter, but I would like to direct Mr.
Smallwood's attention to this $300 matter once
more. The importance of it is that from your
report we understand that we are losing half a
million a year at Gander. In the letter from
Squadron Leader Pattison to your Committee he
states that by mid-I947 we might expect 1,000
planes a month. The normal fee is less than $100.
That would mean that we would have $200 more
per plane, which would give us $2.4 million a
278 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
year, or $1 million over the deficit....
Mr. Smallwood I think that I will unbutton a
little. Here's the position: Newfoundland is under
Commission of Government, therefore Newfoundland is under the Parliament of Great
Britain and the government of Great Britain, and
the Dominions Office of Great Britain, and will
so remain so long as we have Commission
government. We are virtually a branch of the
British government. Now the British government
has a tremendous stake in post-war civil aviation.
Civil aviation is becoming as important in world
trade as the merchant marine used to be before
the war. If Britain is to have her place in the sun
commercially speaking in the world, she must
have a great part to play in civil aviation. One of
the biggest trumps that Britain had was virtually
control over Gander. We here in Newfoundland
look at Gander as our airport — we Newfoundlanders who say that Gander should be
made to fit into the scheme of things in such a
way as to be the greatest possible benefit to
Newfoundland. But you could not expect the
British government to look at Gander in that light
at all. If I were in the government of Great Britain,
as Minister of Civil Aviation, I would have on the
wall in my office a great map of the world, and I
would have drawn on the map in red lines the
British airways and air routes, and show on that
map the airports that Britain controlled,' and
could look at it and say, "Here is what we have;
these are our bargaining weapons in dealing with
the Americans", and amongst them I would place
Gander.
As a Newfoundlander I would look at it in an
entirely different light. Great Britain, God
knows, needed some weapons to fight the
Americans in civil aviation. Before the war ended
the Americans had thousands of planes ready to
fly, and tens of thousands of personnel ready to
fly them, millions of money. The American
policy was for each nation to be on its own, act
unilaterally, grab all the airways and air traffic of
the world, and if America had been able to do that
now, in 1947 she would dominate the airways of
the world. Britain, on the other hand, had no
planes, not even yet has she got her new models
ready to fly. If America had been able to go ahead
on her own today Britain would be out of the
picture, but Britain is not out of the picture, and
one of the reasons is that Britain virtually control
led Gander, because they could say to America,
"Look here, you think you can do as you like,
charge as little as you like, etc., but you can't
because you can't use Gander without our consent, neither can you use that other big
airport in
Africa, or the one in India; and if you want to use
them you are going to play ball with us, or agree
to our policy of multilateral action, agreeing on
policy and all doing the same thing. That's what
you have to agree to or you won't have the use of
the airports that we control." That was a perfectly
reasonable attitude for Britain to take, thinking of
her own interests. If I had been prime minister of
Newfoundland and if the British government had
come to me and said, "Look here, Smallwood,
you have an airport at Gander, and it is very
important to us that we should control that airport. We are on the broad of our back,
we have
been blitzed and beaten to pieces, and the
Americans have been untouched, and if we don't
do something about it inside a year the Americans
will own all the airports of the world, will you
help us? Will you let us control Gander so that
we can use it for a bargaining weapon in talking
with the Americans?" I would say, "How?", and
they would say, "If we don't allow them to use it
that finishes them for the North Atlantic air
routes." I would say, "Well, I hate to say 'no' to
you, but what is it going to cost us?" They would
say, "Well, we can't ask $300 per landing, because if we do that the Americans are
going to
demand $300 for our planes crossing the
Pacific." I would say, "But if you are only going
to charge $85 a plane we will lose $l million a
year. We are willing to help you, sure, but what
does Newfoundland get out of it?" Now if they
said, "Look, we will employ all Newfoundlanders out there, and let you have the
general running of the airport, and we will foot
the bills", I would say, "OK, take it with my
blessing." Now that's the rock bottom position.
Gander has been used up to now not for the
interest of Newfoundland, but for the interest of
Great Britain. I am not saying a word against that,
but I don't want it to cost Newfoundland anything. We need every dollar we can lay
our hands
on in the next 20 years. We can't afford to pay
the loss of Gander. If Britain will pay it, and all
Newfoundlanders are employed out there (including those American airlines, and they
are
employing men that are not Newfoundlanders),
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 279
and they get decent pay and decent working
conditions, and it does not cost us anything, then
it is a bargain for us to let Britain dominate
Gander in the international field. That's the
thought as I see it.
Mr. Higgins Thank you very much for your
short answer, Mr. Smallwood. I move that we
increase the landing fees of Mr. Smallwood in the
future!
Mr. Miller I can only infer from Mr. Smallwood's remarks that the British government exploited
us, and that the British government were
traitors to us. I won't say any more on that, but if
I think that Mr. Smallwood is bound, as a Newfoundlander, to incorporate this in the
general
report that he has given.... Gander as was and as
is are two different things. It was necessary to
spend more money to change over to a peacetime basis. Who is to find that money? Newfoundland.
Who is to find it next year?
Newfoundland. Who is to get the accommodation? The British government. I am quite
sure that
Great Britain will recover her economic security
in the near future, and I don't see why we should
go on year after year spending money to keep
Gander alive. What is more, it is still a big question as to whether Gander will be
a success or not.
Are we going to pay for the experiment? If it is a
flop, we are a flop with it.
Mr. Smallwood I am very much in sympathy
with what Mr. Miller says, but I don't think he
quoted me right. I did not say that the British
government exploited us. I did not say that, because I did not think it. If the British
government
is footing the bills, and if 1,000 or 1,200 Newfoundlanders are getting work and decent
wages,
that is not exploitation. If it is, God send a lot
more like it. If we get work at Gander under
decent conditions, and there is a loss of a million
a year to do it, and Britain pays that loss, not
Newfoundland, that is not exploitation....
Mr. Higgins I am still in doubt if he really feels
that we can get $300 as a landing fee or not.
Mr. Smallwood I will say this very briefly. If we
had our own government, responsible government, and I am opposed to it just as much
as
Major Cashin is for it, but if we had it, we could
charge what we liked to land at Gander. We could
charge $5,000, or $5 million or $300. If we
charged $300, the airlines would pay it and use
Gander, but we would only break even, and we
break even now if Britain pays the difference.
Mr. Higgins I follow you, but there are too
many "ifs" in it as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Smallwood Well, it is not my fault that we
have no responsible government is it? ...
Mr. Higgins To get down to tin tacks. Will you
get any plane company to pay those fees? If not
why talk about it?
Mr. Smallwood If it would pay them to skip
Gander they would skip it, but how could they do
it? It's a question of gas, from New York to
Gander, the number of extra passengers that a
plane can take on knowing that she can refuel at
Gander. Up to $300 would pay any plane. It is
true that in December, you may remember, some
planes overflew Gander, nonstop from New York
to Ireland, which they did because they only had
a part load of passengers. They are always filled
coming from Europe to America, but sometimes
they are only half full going from America to
Europe.... Under ordinary conditions, for years to
come, planes must land at Gander....
Mr. Crosbie I can't understand Mr. Smallwood's figuring. On $85 per flight for landing the
loss would be approximately $1 million a year. If
we charge $300, that is increase the landing fee
almost four times, according to Mr. Smallwood
we are still only breaking even. That does not
make sense to me.
Mr. Bailey I can't understand why the British
government, if they are going to pay this difference, can't tell us and let us stop
this hackling.
I think until they say they are going to pay us, we
have got to pay it.
Mr. Ashbourne I am afraid that I am unable to
venture any opinion this afternoon as to what
would be a just and equitable charge for these
airplanes that have to use our soil, but one thing
I know is that when they land on Gander they are
landing on Newfoundland soil. and I think the
time will have to come when we shall have to
protect our natural resources and our assets for
the benefit of the people of Newfoundland. Now
I can understand why the British government and
the Dominions Office are in a dual capacity when
they are protecting the interests of the air routes
of the British Empire and the people of New
280 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
foundland. It is not an easy thing to try and see
two sides of an argument, but it is the right thing
to try and see both sides of the argument. If, and
I do not mean to say that it has been done, but if
we on this side of the Atlantic have been used in
order that favourable treatment might be accorded to the British in the air routes
of the
Pacific, if that has been done, and if Newfoundland is suffering by having to receive
a
lower amount of landing fees, then I think it is
only right that the people who are benefitting
from it should see that Newfoundland is reimbursed, and I am of the opinion and belief
that
when this thing is straightened out that it will be
done. I don't see how you can have peace and
concord and goodwill and harmony unless these
things are done on an equitable basis.
We have assets in Newfoundland, be it those
of our forests, fisheries, or minerals (which are a
diminishing asset, for every ton of ore out of
Newfoundland is one less to come). By reafforestation we may be able to protect our
forests, but
unless we get the full amount of labour that these
things will give us, how can Newfoundland
prosper? I am of the opinion that in the past
Newfoundland has suffered when it has come to
the matter of signing agreements with big companies. The government should have had
the best
possible technical advisers, and if necessary,
should have employed them to see that the interests of Newfoundland were fully protected.
Now
maybe we should be satisfied if we get the running expenses of Gander. I would not
be prepared
at this time to give a snap judgement on the
matter. I believe that all our assets should be
turning in something to this country, whether it
be the dry dock or the railway, or our fisheries,
or mines, or the airfields, let them all contribute
their fair share to the up-keep and necessary
expenses of the government....
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, it is 5.30, and I
move that the committee rise and report having
considered the matter to them referred and passed
same with some amendment.
[The motion carried]
