Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman I would suggest
that Mr. Secretary might read the report on the
tourist trade.
[2] There are two very long appendices attached to the report, and another not quite
so long, three in all. It might not perhaps be
necessary for these appendices to be read, although members would no doubt like to
refer to
them throughout the debate.
[The Secretary read the report on the tourist
trade]
Mr. Fowler I would like all the members
present to know that my knowledge of the Tourist
Board
[3] is comparatively new, and chiefly confined to this report, and the correspondence
I have
lately read in the press as a result of the resignation of the Tourist Board.
The opening remarks of the Committee suggested that the Tourist Board's work was one
of
the bright spots in the country's affairs. It has
been demonstrated quite clearly that the Tourist
Board has more than given good returns for the
money they expended. It is incomprehensible
that the work of the Board has been treated in
such a careless fashion by the Commission of
Government. The mind of a government that will
look at the work of the Tourist Board, that has
worked voluntarily over a period of 20 years, and
dismiss their labours in such a summary fashion,
is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume
that the gentlemen handling our affairs are not
only utterly callous to the future of our country,
but actually do not want to see this country
prosper. It is apparent that tourist traffic can be a
major industry but for reasons best known to
themselves the Commission of Government are
not going to see this industry properly developed.
If we had the power I would like to move a vote
of censure on the Commission of Government for
their attitude towards the most important industry
of the country.
The future of the tourist industry cannot be too
strongly stressed. I am firmly convinced that with
a proper approach it can be a wonderful asset to
us. We have seen what the tourist industry in
Nova Scotia has meant — why, in the last year
alone the sum of $22 million was realised, Even
with the very conservative figure of $50 per
tourist in Newfoundland in the last year before
the war, the sum of $346,500 was realised. I am
certain that $50 is too conservative and at least
the sum of $ 10 per day is spent by tourists coming
to Newfoundland. This would mean that
$750,000 came to the revenue in 1939.
Newfoundland is the least explored country in
the world as far as tourist traffic is concerned. It
has a real attraction for tourists, and if we properly develop the traffic Newfoundland
is assured of
a definite income that will increase as the years
come. When we realise that for salmon fishing
alone we have over 200 fishing streams, we can
be sure that our country's possibilities are of
immense value.
Mr. Higgins I heartily endorse everything Mr.
Fowler has said. I agree with his condemnation
of the powers that be over our tourist trade. I
congratulate the Committee on a very fine and
full report, because I see tremendous possibilities
in the future for our tourist traffic. I, like a good
number of you here, have gone over a great part
of the country. I have observed it particularly
from the tourist standpoint, because most of my
wanderings have been for sport-fishing or shooting. I am convinced it is a factor
in the economy
of our country. All we have to do is look nextdoor
to our immediate neighbour, Canada and Nova
Scotia alone, where the attractions are not a patch
on our own, in spite of any ideas some people
may have. We look at our own and we see that in
1939, 6,900 tourists came here and spent an estimated $346,500, and that for an expenditure
by
this government of $34,932. I am sure the figure
of $50 spent by each tourist is very conservative
and this $346,000 coming into the country can
easily be doubled, or possibly trebled. In the past
three years the Tourist Board's grant from the
government has been $26,000, and we have seen
210 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1946
the returns. We saw the crowds of tourists in the
country this year, even though no preparations
had been made for their accommodation. We
have seen all during the war years the potential
visitors we will have, even if members of the
forces and their relatives only came here once.
All that goodwill that has been built up is in grave
jeopardy by a government which, rightly or
wrongly, is pursuing a most extraordinary policy.
I have criticised Major Cashin in this House
earlier in the debates about remarks made about
this government. I am beginning to wonder if he
is not right and I am wrong. Because the attitude
of this government today is utterly incomprehensible; and your report, Mr. Smallwood,
is the
same thing. All we have to do is look at the
correspondence between the Tourist Board and
the Commissioner for Public Utilities leading up
to the resignation, the most discourteous treatment any body of citizens was ever
handed in this
country by any government. It is hard to realise
that in the Commission of Government are three
Newfoundlanders who subscribed to the letters
shown in this correspondence.
The correspondence began September, 1945,
urging on the government the necessity of taking
action about the tourist policy. After a lot of
cajoling they finally agreed to have two experts,
one at a time — the Mathes agency was the first
one, they came down and made a survey in 1945,
and they made their report.
[1] On page I you will
note: "Has Newfoundland a tourism potential
worth developing? Our answer is most emphatically YES." They give reasons why. You
have
the report of Oliver
[2] who comes back in his report
this year entirely agreeing with the Mathes agency. On page 1 Oliver says, "Newfoundland
has a
very considerable tourist potential, and there
should be no doubt of that. I have not attempted
to detail it, because Mathes' presentation to your
Board has already done so in comprehensive
fashion." These two reports were all any government should need to be quite certain
they were on
the right track. They had their own Board's
recommendation for years before that; their constant urging on the govemment for action;
and
then to bolster that position that had these two
agencies make these very valuable reports. And
what do they do? All we have to do is refer
ourselves to the correspondence and we will see
the most discouneous letter ever written by a
government department to a semi-govemment
agency. and written to nine men who comprise
this Tourist Board — nine unpaid citizens who
have given, some of them, 20 odd years of service
to the country. Their names alone will tell you
who they are and what their work means:
W.A. Reid, J.F. Meehan, J.W. Allan, C.E.A. Jeffrey, A.B. Perlin, Leonard C. Outerbridge,
Cyril
Duley, A.W. Bentley, And, I believe, Herbert
Russell, who did not sign the letter because he is
an employee of the government and could not
very well do so. They write the Commissioner for
Public Utilities urging the implementing of these
reports. The various letters show how they went
about it. Mr. Reid wrote on 6 June to J.S. Neill,
the Commissioner, and I want to read part of it:
With reference to the report on the tourist
possibilities of Newfoundland, made by
Mr. Douglas R. Oliver of Toronto, copy of
which was forwarded to you on April 16th, I
have to inform you that the Board has given
careful consideration to this report, and considers it to be a sound and conservative
appreciation of the situation, and is generally in
accord with the recommendations and suggestions contained therein. If you will refer
to my letter to the Hon. Sir George London
of September 19, 1945, copy of which is
enclosed. which sets forth very clearly the
Board's views regarding what steps should
be taken in this matter, you will see that the
strong recommendation was made that immediate steps be taken to procure from the
Canadian National Railways or some like
source, the services of a thoroughly trained
and competent executive from their tourist
department. This man should come here
without delay to study the situation and to
make recommendations to the government as
to the best form of organization which should
set up for the development of the tourist
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 211
industry.
As a result of this recommendation,
authority was eventually given for Mr.
Oliver's visit, which culminated in the report
above referred to, and which confirms the
contention of the Board and the opinions
expressed by all those whose advice has been
sought and who, it is believed, are in a position to speak with some authority on
the
subject, namely, that the tourist industry in
this country is capable of successful development.
It is now the urgent request of the Tourist
Board that the recommendations contained
in the report should be implemented as quickly as possible, particularly with regard
to the
setting up of a new government tourist organization. Here let me say that it is the
feeling of the Board that the head of this organization should occupy a position analogous
to that of the chairman of the Fisheries Board, or the manager of the Newfoundland
Railway.
I have been requested by the members of the Board ... to set forth their position
with regard to the future of the Board's activities. Just prior to the outbreak of
the recent war, the matter of the appointment of a full-time director, and the general
expansion of the activities of the Board were under active discussion with the Hon.
Sir Wilfred Woods who was at that time Commissioner for Public Utilities. When the
war intervened it was agreed that for the duration of hostilities tourist expenditure
should be kept to a minimum ... but that the organizations in St. John's and New York
should be kept together with a view to expansion to take advantage of the anticipated
post-war travel demand. Two years ago the opportunity occurred to secure the services
as director of Mr. C.C. Duley, who has been associated with the Board since its inception....
Mr. Duley became the Board's director, and since that time, largely due to his efforts,
an intensive study of tourist possibilities in selected localities has been made and
various recommendations forwarded to the Commissioner. However, no indication of the
government's attitude towards tourist development
has been forthcoming, and no
policy in this connection has been announced. The members of the Board, some
of whom have served for 20 years, now feel
that they are entitled to a definite pronouncement from the government as to its policy
with regard to the development of the tourist
industry....
As you know, the members of the Board
are all engaged in businesses of various kinds
and it is therefore impossible for them to
devote more than a certain portion of their
time to this work. If, however, the development which we hope to see takes place,
we
are all prepared to do anything we can to be
of assistance to the Government in this undertaking.
(signed) W.A. Reid, Chairman
That is the letter and I make no excuse for
reading it at this length because the answer is all
the more worthy of condemnation.... The answer
to the letter was in this form.
I should be glad if you would refer to your letter of the 6th June, concerning the
report made by Mr. Douglas R. Oliver upon tourist possibilities in Newfoundland.
Your letter and Mr. Oliver's report were
considered at a recent meeting of the Commission of Government and 1 have been
directed to inform you that, while the government believes the tourist industry in
Newfoundland is capable of development, it does
not propose to incur expenditure in the erection of accommodation for tourists, as
it is
felt that this is a matter for private enterprise.
The need for additional roads is appreciated and progress is being made in this
direction as quickly as circumstances will
permit.
As you are aware, the government is already making a grant of $26,000 per annum
to the Newfoundland Tourist Development
Board. No doubt the sums so made available
will continue to be expended to the best advantage.
The government is not prepared to establish a new tourist and travel authority.
(signed) J.S. Neill.
(for) Secretary for Public Works.
We look at this programme — this expenditure of $59 million — and there was not one
cent
allocated to tourist traffic. It would definitely
212 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1946
indicate that the "Big 6" have made no allocation
for anything in the way of tourist development.
In spite of all the advice they have had, in spite
of experts going over the country, they come
back and say, "No, we have no interest." That is
the only department of the government which
produces money — big money.
This Board has resigned and the next thing we
will have is the paid personnel of the Tourist
Board receiving their notices at the end of the
year. I do not think we should let the opportunity
pass without at least expressing our opinion on
the utterly ruthless policy of the government. It
is the one department putting in time and effort
and getting returns. But it does not meet with the
approval of our rulers! It leads to the belief that
has been expressed that the government does not
want this country to become wealthy, for reasons
best known to themselves. We have got to be kept
in the condition of servitude so that we will not
get too independent.
If we refer to the paid personnel of the Tourist
Board, I know the work that has been done by
them. They are not paid for working nights, Sundays or holidays; but the Board has
been there
nights, Sundays and holidays. Even the voluntary
workers have been there on such occasions. It has
not cost the country anything, because the Tourist
Board and the paid personnel have been
crusaders for their ideas rather than merely earning government money. Some departments
know
what work has been done by that Board and their
value; and the government expresses its thanks in
three paragraphs. We have this letter addressed
to Mr. Reid:
26 November 1946.
Sir:
1. I have the honour to acknowledge the
receipt of the letter of the 15th November,
addressed to His Excellency the Governor in
Commission, signed by you and other members, tendering your resignation from the
Board.
2. I am directed to accept the resignations. In doing so I am to express the thanks
of the government for the services you have
rendered and to express our regret that you
have found it necessary to sever your connection with the Board.
3. I have sent a copy of this letter to the
other signatories under reference.
(signed) J.S. Neill
After 20 years service, that is what the government thinks of our fellow countrymen.
I think I
have gone further than I intended to in this matter.
That is such a rank injustice that I could not let it
pass without giving you my comments as I feel
them and as I believe a good many members felt
today.
Mr. Smallwood There are several points about
tourist travel business that ought to be brought
out. If an American or Canadian concern comes
to Newfoundland to start a paper mill or a mine,
we are all very glad. It means they employ Newfoundlanders and pay out wages, it circulates
money. But a paper mill or mine uses up some of
this country's natural resources. There is this
about the tourist trade; money is brought into
Newfoundland by tourists who come here and
spend and do not use up any of the natural resources. You might also say it is money
for not
exactly nothing; they get pleasure out of our
climate, our air, out of meeting our people and by
knocking around the country. Some of them do
take some salmon and other fish — that is a very
small diminution of the resources. This Tourist
Board, as Mr. Higgins said, has been working for
something like 20 years, absolutely free. When
the Tourist Board appeared before the Transportation Committee I am sure all the members
were
deeply impressed.... These hard-headed, practical businessmen are not easily impressed
with the
financial possibilities of anything. We were impressed by the great faith these men
had in the
tourist possibilities of Newfoundland. I have
been a firm believer that the tourist trade constitutes the most promising thing we
have in this
country today. If Newfoundland in 1946 had
been ready to receive them, Newfoundland could
have got many, many thousands of the tourists
who, in this present year, were spending $4 billion on the North American continent.
It would
not take a great many million dollars to bring into
Newfoundland each year 40,000 - 50,000
tourists. If 100,000 tourists can be brought into
Nova Scotia in one year, I feel quite confident
that we can bring that number of tourists into
Newfoundland for a fortnight or a month or six
weeks and some even longer, every summer, it
can mean $10 million or $15 million of new
money coming in without costing the country
anything in the way of its natural resources.
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 213
We have got to get away from the idea that the
only tourists who can be brought in here are the
men who come in for salmon fishing. That's the
old idea, but this Mathes advertising agency of
New York, a large and important American concern, who have specialised in the travel
trade,
representing many hotels and other tourist catering organisations in the US, when
they surveyed
the tourist possibilities of Newfoundland they
pointed out that this idea is entirely wrong. You
will see listed one thing after another which to
other people, Canadians and Americans, are
quaint, unusual, appealing and interesting. When
they spend three or four weeks here they go back
thrilled and interested by the different accents
they find, and the different scenery we have.
These things have a cash value, and it does not
cost anything for American or Canadian tourists
to have a look at us. What stands in the way? This
Mr. Douglas R. Oliver who submitted his report,
spent five years as director of the Ontario
government's  Trade and Tourist Bureau. Ontario
gets most of the tourists who come into Canada,
over one million tourists in a year.... So they bring
this Mr. Oliver. He comes down and makes a
study and looks over the various plans that the
Board had drawn up, takes them back and submits these plans to another man in Ontario,
who
is the manager of a firm which is catering to
tourists, and operating a number of hotels, who
looks over them with his expert eye and points
out some weaknesses. For instance, the plan for
Stephenville area.... There they propose that a
tourist hotel should be built. Their original idea
was that it would be one large building but
when Mr. Oliver submitted that plan to that
tourist hotel manager in Ontario, up in Muskoka
Lakes, he said, "Look, all the experience we have
shows that it would be a mistake to have one
building to house all your tourists. Instead of that
have one building, and a series of small cabins
scattered through the trees around that large
building. They can sleep in the cabins and eat in
the hotel. You cut down the cost of accommodation, heating, etc." Finally they got
this report and
presented it to the government. What are they
asking the government to do — put up a lot of
tourist hotels? No. They are asking for one only,
in the west, centering around Stephenville, because you have magnificient fishing
and scenery
there, and also Corner Brook. Hook up that by
road, and your tourist can land by boat at Corner
Brook and later on by air at Stephenville or
Harmon Field, and coming east and west by road
they can center around this Stephenville area.
They have taken that as a seeding ground. Now,
they said that if the government would build that
hotel as an example, then if it worked out private
capital would be encouraged to build the same
kind of accomodation centres in the other areas....
If only the government would spend a few dollars. They have $30 million belonging
to us accumulated over these rich war years, and if they
would build just one, beginning at Stephenville,
as an encouragement and an example to other
people, then in the course of a few years we might
end up by having a magnificent tourist trade.
The government had no faith, belief, no interest in it, being just coldly indifferent
to the whole
thing, and you have the future of these eight or
nine men of whom Mr. Higgins speaks, working
their hearts out, giving their time and work, you
would not know but the fate of the country
depended on the way they have been working,
and the government are completely indifferent to
it. They have given them $180,000 in all those
years, and for that in these same years the Tourist
Board hands back $4 million. If they can find a
better proposition than that I would like them to
lead me to it.
If the people of Newfoundland only knew the
possibilities there are for the tourist travel trade,
if they could see the millions of dollars that could
be brought into this country by merely spending
a bit of money. What have they spent on land
settlement schemes? Gone down the drain a lot
of it. They have spent millions in the last ll years
and what have they got to show for it? Here is a
chance for them to spend one or two million and
bring in perhaps a million a year.... We can only
try to let the country know.
Mr. Ashbourne I think this matter has been
well covered by previous speakers. I feel sorry
that the Tourist Board has decided to retire. I
guess they felt it was about the only thing that
they could do — probably as a matter of protest.
It is a natural consequence, after being no doubt
greatly disappointed at the lack of encouragement, that they should feel as they do.
We are
situated on an island, and probably there was a
time when people who perhaps had a certain fear
of the sea hesitated to leave the mainland; but
214 NATIONAL CONVENTION Â Â Â Â Â Â
December 1946
today, with the advance and progress of air
transport, we are in another and different situation altogether...
As Mr. Smallwood said, we know we need
accommodation in Newfoundland to look after
tourists. We certainly want more road extensions,
so that the roads will come to the piers and these
people will have outlets so that they can come,
see and enjoy our trout and salmon fishing, and
also take in the beautiful scenery. Faith and a
breadth of vision are essential in this matter, and
I can only hope the resignation of this Tourist
Board will bring the matter to a head, and that the
government will change its attitude so that this
country can come in on this mine of potential
income.
Mr. Northcott I too agree with the various
speakers in connection with the tourist trade. It is
nothing short of a crime that the government has
not assisted in every possible way the tourist
trade in Newfoundland. The possibilities are
beyond all comprehension, and should be pushed
to the limit, especially when the government had
the men at its disposal to do the job. The figures
of $50 per person quoted in the Amulree Report
are very conservative... If we go over the tourist
trade in the right way and make it worthwhile I
am convinced that it would be the second or third
largest industry in this country today. I fail to see
why the government has not taken a greater interest in this all-important issue. If
it were outside
interests looking for concessions the chances are
they would have been given, but unfortunately
the people asking for these concessions happened
to be Newfoundlanders, and that is why I think
they were not granted.
Mr. Hickman Mr. Chairman, I am wondering
if Mr. Smallwood could tell us, in relation to
these figures covering the number of tourists
from 1929 up to 1939, do they include those
people who travelled here by the S.S.
Fort Amherst and
Fort Townshend and
Fort St. George,
arriving here on Thursday and leaving Saturday,
or are they people who have come in for a definite
stay?
Mr. Smallwood The figures given are strictly
tourists. They are not travellers or businessmen
or returning natives, but people who come in here
on pleasure bound. It would include some round
trippers. The round tripper in any country is
regarded as the poorest result of the tourist trade.
That is the person who with a fortnight's holidays
with pay, the round trip, canjust afford to perhaps
buy a book or two and take snapshots and a few
souvenirs, but they are the small minority. The
big majority — well, Mr. Hickman will have
noticed in one of the appendices the exact account of the money spent. The Tourist
Board
estimates the money that a handful of tourists
spent this year, 1946. They counted the number
of tourists that visited a few rivers this year, and
got an exact count of what they spent, and it was
I think $80,000 or $90,000, an average of $400-
500 per tourist.
There are cases well known to the Board of
tourists coming and spending from $1,000 to
$1,500 or $2,000. We have all known of cases
where the wealthy tourists have actually adopted
the families of their guide for instance, and send
money down to these families each year. Many
of them are extremely wealthy men, some in
Canada and the States whose income runs up to
from $100,000 to $1 million a year, and they
don't mind spending $4-5,000 a year. It is a
country they don't know, unusual and different,
and these round trippers are so insignificant in
number that it's hardly worthwhile mentioning
them at all.
Incidentally, here is a table just brought in, for
the first nine months of this year, 1946. In the first
nine months of 1946, 700,000 US automobiles
entered the Maritimes with tourists. Incidentally,
the house will be interested to know that 2,000
motor cars arrived at North Sydney for the purpose of coming over to Newfoundland,
thinking
there was a ferry service on the boat, as there is
on PE Island. The federal government has a ferry
which takes 60 motor cars aboard. They do not
need to get out of their motor ears. 2,000 arrived
in Sydney thinking they were going to get to
Newfoundland, in addition to the 700,000 who
entered the Maritimes. We have no conception of
what a monumental trade this travel is.
Americans have itchy feet —they get in their cars
and go all over the American continent. We want
to get a batch of them here where they will spend
American money.
Mr. Hollett I thoroughly endorse the statements
of Mr. Fowler, Mr. Higgins and others, particularly in regard to the Tourist Board,
and the
frightful discourtesy handed out to them by some
junior clerk in that department —- at least he was
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 215
ordered to do it....
In dealing with this report of the Tourist Committee I hope I am not going to throw
cold water
on the enthusiasm expressed by other members.
I note 1 1/2 pages are taken up with tourist trade in
Canada, which gives us some interesting facts I
cannot find in the rest of the report about Newfoundland. In looking at the tourist
traffic as it
applies to Canada, and looking at it as it applies
to Newfoundland, we are looking at two different
propositions. In the United States a man gets in
his car, takes his family, and drives to some place
in Canada with little or no inconvenience.... In
this country, there are 90 miles separating us from
the mainland, absolutely no ferry service. When
you get to Port-aux-Basques you get on a train
which is slow moving and you eventually arrive
at Glenwood. I have been there and I have seen
tourists coming to Glenwood. At one time I heard
a lot of curses from four tourists who came up
from the Gander River and had to stand outside
the station, the waiting room was locked, waiting
for the car, a train coming up from Grand Falls.
They did not like the trip very much. The type of
tourist we will get will be sportsmen, people who
want to get away from it all, get clear of the office
and into the wilds where no one can get at them;
men who do not mind roughing it. They will go
to the Humber and the Gander and other lakes.
That is the type we have been getting in the past.
In the report I think the Committee envisages
what Oliver and Mathes envisaged; that is, that
the government should construct a road; that they
should build a first-class hotel at Stephenville
with several cabins; that hotels be built in other
places, and so on. I do not see that the Committee
has brought in any figures to show just what this
scheme is going to cost the government.
Mr. Hollett That is only a small part in a large
scheme. I would say the Committee has not been
able to get facts or figures from the Tourist Board
as to the possible outlay of money it will cost the
country. I am not speaking against the tourist
traffic; it has possibilities I feel that there is little
possibility of making much money as a private
concern until we get a road through the country,
and until we get a few landing places for small
planes where people with lots of money can come
in and drop down near the lakes or rivers where
they want to fish. Such a plan as that brought forth
by Oliver and Mathes would have to be presented
to Dominions Office, and when you say the Commission of Government tumed down the
suggestions of the Tourist Board, simply say Dominions
Office. They, in their wisdom, cannot see any
possibilities in this country for tourist traffic. If
we can ever get to the point where we get transinsular road, I do not think we will
have to ask
the government to start business.
Mr. Smallwood In the Mathes' Report the very
point which Mr. Hollett raised is dealt with:
C. Accommodations
We must be extremely frank and say that
here is Newfoundland's first great weakness.
But it is not one that cannot be quickly
remedied. As the Bank of Montreal plainly
stated in their recent report on tourism in
Canada, the American sportsman and tourist
wants first class accommodations. This
means attractive location, distinctive appearance, good beds and mattresses, hot and
cold running water, showers and private
toilets, cleanliness and paint. That is not their
idea of luxury — just comfort.
Section three of the report covers the other
points raised.
Mathes and Oliver do not say there must be a
transinsular road. At the point where tourists
land, whether it be Port-aux-Basques, Corner
Brook, St. John's, Lewisporte or wherever, there
ought to be roads leading out; that does not involve a transinsular highway. If they
land in
Port-aux-Basques, where are they going to go
then, when there is no road leading out of Port-
aux-Basques?
Mr. Smallwood They were on four wheels and
probably thought they would wander around
Newfoundland and go back by way of Nova
Scotia. But if there had been a ferry across the
Gulf even, there still would be no place to go
when they got in Port-aux-Basques. They would
just have to go back across the Gulf. That is the
problem to be solved.
Mr. Fudge I have listened with a great deal of
interest to Mr. Smallwood's report on the tourist
trade, and one thing strikes me as outstanding.
You will remember that Mr. Smallwood was able
to give the exact number of tourists entering
Canada during 1945, even the exact number of
216 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1946
dollars spent there. I wonder if Mr. Smallwood
would be good enough to tell us where he got this
information and from whom? When it came to
the question of the exact number of items comprising the purchase by the government
of the
equipment at Gander this fine detail was not
available. Surely some sort of inventory was
made and that self same inventory must now be
in the possession of the Commission of Government. Further, it appears to me that
if Mr. Smallwood had taken the same pains to obtain this
inventory as he did to get the figures of the tourist
trade in Canada, this information would now be
in our hands. The purpose of this Convention is
to enquire into the position of this country, and
no doubt by his figures he intends to show what
the tourist trade will mean here. That depends on
the future form of government we may have, as
the Commission of Government, I understand,
has already turned thumbs-down on the tourist
trade. However, Mr. Smallwood's figures on the
value of the tourist trade to Newfoundland 1929-
1939 are small in comparison with Canadian
figures. I cannot understand why our Commission of Government turned down the aggressive
policy to encourage this trade. Certainly an explanation should be forthcoming. It
is a question
of vital public importance. I feel hot under the
collar when I am reminded of the Gander deal
whereby the Commission saddled us with $1
million a year operating cost and then turned
down a profitable tourist trade. I can only come
to one conclusion and that is that their only interest is to run us in the hole. Perhaps
we cannot
expect the Dominions Office to display great
interest in our welfare, but we should expect and
demand from the Newfoundland representatives
their sense of duty to the people of our country.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Fudge asks the question as
to where the Transportation Committee got its
figures on tourism in Canada. We did not need to
look for it; the Bank of Canada in one of its
monthly circulars gives an article on that very
topic, and the Tourist Board considered it part of
their job to know the movement of tourism in
Canada, so that they had figures and they kindly
provided the Transportation Committee with a
copy. As to the inventory of the equipment at
Gander, I said before, and I repeat, I doubt if the
government has a complete list of the endless
variety of things they bought from the
RCAF when they took over Gander.
Mr. Harrington I am in accord with everyone
else who condemned the present regime for their
utter disregard of the possibilities of the tourist
trade. It is one of the things I always believed in,
and I believe in it more now because I see the
Commission of Government does not. It seems,
as Mr. Fudge says, that anything that costs
money, they are all for it — Gander for example;
any way we can make money, that is out. Page
10 of the Oliver report says:
So many Newfoundlanders with whom I
discussed travel trade, and its chances of
expansion, talked in terms of, "But we have
only three months of a season here", or, "Yes,
but we never see any tourist money," or
"Tourists won't come, our summers are too
chilly", or, "Why would we let tourists spoil
our fishing for us?"
This is not defeatist talk. it springs from
lack of appreciation and understanding of the
industry, and is a natural argument for people
who have still to rub shoulders, so to speak,
with tourist traffic in great volume. These
people are not aware that in the province of
Ontario, which annually takes approximately
70% of Canada's total tourist revenue, most
of the first-class summer resort hotels operate
most profitably on a two and one half
month's basis. These people are not aware,
either, that the tourist dollar, no matter how
or where spent, eventually to some extent and
in some form touches every person's pocket.
Nor do they know that long before Ontario
had any main roads, or even before there
were motor cars, Americans came tremendous distances by train and boat, to locate
summer cottages, fish and hunt, and generally relax and rest.
Not realising that what can be accomplished
elsewhere can be accomplished in substantial
degree in Newfoundland, the average Newfoundlander talks of tourism without thinking,
and unconsciously builds, within himself at least,
an unwarranted prejudice against your travel
trade cause. It is important that we get tourist
consciousness. As a matter of fact I was talking
with a gentleman on this tourist business and one
point he mentioned interested me, it would only
be a small part of the overall scheme, but he spoke
of Harbour Grace and the possibilities of making
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 217
that town a convention town with the possibility
of clubs and societies in the States coming here
to hold their conventions — for example the
Rotary Club, and other societies. This whole
tourist business is a splendid opportunity. I would
like to go on record as being thoroughly disgusted
with the regime in its dealings with the Tourist
Board.
Mr. Miller Before I get too indignant over this
Tourist Board business, I think it essential for us
to have the cost of the proposed programme We
have what it cost under different headings — we
know we must have better roads, but at $50,000
a mile, how many of these can we afford? We also
must have cabins; we must have ferry service on
the Gulf; but we do not know what all this is going
to cost, and that is the essential information. We
have a surplus of $27 million — this programme
looks extensive — would it cost $27 million? I
do not think it would be justified. If it cost $2
million, yes. I do not know how far this
programme was recommended to the government, I do not know what it will cost. If something
better than a guess should have been made
and should have been presented here, then I could
really feel that the Tourist Board were handed out
an injustice. It is essential for us to have that. It is
an important point and one to which we will,
possibly, have to look to in the future when the
thing is considered again. With regard to the
government's setting up of cabins, I disagree, I
think that should be done by private enterprise.
The government should find the roads and
facilities Sometime the highway will be inevitable. But the cabins should be done
by private
enterprise — the least we get the government into
business, the better for Newfoundland.
Mr. Smallwood There were three points raised.
In one of these reports the amount of money
which the Tourist Board proposed to be spent was
stated. It is not even $2 million. As to the point
about this being the job for private enterprise —
yes, the reports all say that it should be done by
private enterprise, but they point out that this is a
country in which businessmen who have money
to invest don't seem to have great deal of faith in
it, and the pioneer work should be done by the
government. The government should build just
one to test it out and see if it works. If the
government built them all it would cost about $2
million, but for one it would cost $100,000.
The other point that Mr. Miller raises is also
dealt with in one of these reports He ventures to
assume that roads for tourists must be paved. It
says in the Mathes report that a paved road is
better than gravel, nevertheless tourists coming
to Newfoundland would not be expecting to find
paved roads, but a half-decent gravel road over
which they could travel at 25 or 30 miles an hour.
The fact that a road is not paved, but gravel, is
rather quaint and different to tourists
Mr. Penney With the spirit and principle of the
Tourist Board before us I am in sympathy and
appreciate the services of the very fine men who
served on that Board for so many years without
any pay, but sitting here this afternoon and listening, Mr. Smallwood made me a little
nervous in
talking about the development of the tourist traffic, where he envisaged thousands
of motor cars
up there in North Sydney trying to get across and
come down this way. I felt very nervous over it,
because they will drive to the right, and half the
people around Conception Bay might be wiped
out. Then again they are going to catch our salmon and sea trout, our partridge and
snipe, and
take away our venison, and even if we have lots
of money we won't have so much fish. Insofar as
the principle of the tourist traffic is concerned, I
humbly step in with the rest of the men who have
spoken regarding the members of the Tourist
Board, but if we left our natural resources open
to a great multitude of tourists we will hardly
have anything left but money.
Mr. Vardy I agree with the previous speakers.
We are all too conscious of the fact that almost
every bit of advertising that Newfoundland has
had has been usually had, apan from the little bit
of favourable publicity given us by the Newfoundland Tourist Board. We who have travelled
on the various continents know that. I have seen
five of the seven seas. In view of my knowledge
of what little has been done in the way of advertising our country abroad, I was not
surprised to
find that so little is known of Newfoundland. A
few days ago I received a letter from New
Zealand, addressed to "Newfoundland, Canada".
Not long ago I received a letter from a friend in
Australia addressed "Newfoundland, North
America". He was probably correct!
In reviewing the action of the Newfoundland
Tourist Board, I fail to see, in view of the
government's insane attitude, how the Board
218 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1946
could do anything else but resign.... In one section of our report we find that they
willingly
throw away $1 million a year, chiefly for the
benefit of foreigners, and in the same report we
find them bickering over a few thousand dollars
which could be wisely spent to promote the best
interests of this country.
Mr. MacDonald Shortly after this Convention
met I put through a question before committees
were appointed, on this very subject of tourist
development. The question was divided into five
parts. I have never received a direct answer to
those questions, but in this report those questions
are all answered.... I have met a lot of tourists in
my time, and found out that they enjoyed it very
much here....
Mr. Ballam I did not think that we were all
going over the question before the House, that is
individually making speeches on it.... The tourist
traffic is probably of more interest over on the
west coast than in this part of the country, simply
because we have bigger fishing rivers, we have
steamship routes in Corner Brook, and there
seems to be a desire amongst the people who
come to visit primarily that part of the coast, so
that the action of the government in not supporting this movement of the Tourist Board
is, in my
opinion, very bad. I know that next summer it is
anticipated by a certain fraternal organisation
that they will have a conference in Corner Brook,
and that might mean a thousand people coming
in there for a start, and much potential income. If
the country had any encouragement from the
government along these lines similar excursions
would be made, and we would materially benefit
from it.
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, there is a point on
which I am not satisfied. That point is the question of broadcasting. I would like
to know from
Mr. Smallwood, if he does know, the frequency
and power of radio station VOUS, and on whose
authority they operate. Perhaps this may come
under the 99-year lease of Fort Pepperell, but I
would like to know anyhow.
Mr. Smallwood In dealing with broadcasting we
did not go into the question of VOUS at Fort
Pepperell or the other station at Argentia, or the
one at Stephenville. These are not in Newfoundland, they are in the USA, on American
bases, and we did not feel our authority extended
that far. However, if Mr. Fudge would bring a
motion that a delegation be appointed to go to
these bases, I have no doubt that delegation
would get that information.
Mr. Fudge I would prefer to make a motion that
we go over and capture those places.
Mr. Crosbie I am not satisfied with the answer
you gave Mr. Fudge, Mr. Smallwood. Yesterday
we heard a lot about VOCM, about frequency and
channels of the air. Who gave VOUS the channel? Certainly if they got it VOCM should
have
it, they were here before the others.
Mr. Smallwood That does sound like a very
valid argument. If VOUS are over the 250 watts
that VOCM has. and authorised by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs that makes
a very
strong case for allowing VOCM to increase their
power to the same extent. If the House wants the
Transportation Committee to go into that I am
satisfied to make a motion to that effect....
Mr. Ballam I imagine that the postal telegraph
authorities here gave permission to VOUS to
operate and they would have the necessary information. I think it would be a simple
matter for
Mr. Smallwood to get this information.
Mr. Higgins ldon't want to interrupt, but are we
not supposed to be discussing the tourist traffic?
Mr. Chairman That's perfectly true. I allowed
some latitude in the hope that some information
would be brought out.
Mr. Hollett We are discussing the whole report
of the Communications and Transportation Committee, and I think this is a matter that
effects the
general public. We have heard how appreciative
the general public are of the services given by
VOCM. I would like to make a motion that we
ask the Committee on Transportation and Communications to inquire into the authority
under
which they act and the frequency they have, that
is the watt power, if I am in order.
Mr. Chairman The motion is that, through
Mr. Smallwood, the Transportation and Communications Committee do inquire into the
authority under which VOUS operates in this
country, and also the power which has been allotted to them by the Department of Posts
and
Telegraphs.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Bailey I don't know just how we should
take this. It seems we must be in the right and the
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 219
whole world in the wrong. Whatever part of the
world I have been in there is one thing a government is interested in and it's the
tourist trade. If
the government of Switzerland had left out the
possibility of the tourist trade that country would
be in a lot worse condition than she is in today.
In fact it's the one thing that makes that country
one of the best living countries in the world with
the assets that she has got. It's only valleys and
mountains, snow and ice, and farming land is at
a premium.... There are other countries in the
world in the same position...
I think some men on the Committee lifted their
eyebrows when I asked Squadron Leader Pattison the potentialities of travelling in
Gander,
and he said, "I think we don't want them, we have
got nothing for them to come to, even people who
want to stay over we don't want, because they are
something we can't manage because we have no
facilities for them." So I don't know, we acquired
the Gander very cheaply, but for a country like
Newfoundland we acquired the Gander at a
sacrifice. Having acquired Gander at a sacrifice,
if there was any way it could be made pay, why
should they turn their thumbs down on it? I
believe people travelling from the old country to
the west would stop over for a day or two and
have a look at it if the country was interested in
it.
I don't hold with Mr. Miller about private
capitalisation because I don't believe hotels in
this country are going to flourish. It is not the
hotel that you have got to look at, it is the dollars
that are left behind in the country, and in that way
the government has to take hold of it. Perhaps in
time, when the country comes up to expectations,
people who have come here and had a good time
will go back and talk about it, and it may pay just
as well as St. Petersburg or Key West. The
Government of the United States came in at Key
West and took a hold there and built up the road
and helped the people. They did not build any
hotels, but they came in and helped the people get
on their feet, and paid the unemployed people
who were starving, fixed the roads and fixed the
golf course I believe that the government should
at least spend $1 million on this. I don't believe
it would be lost to the country. When the dollar
is spent everybody gets the good of it, in fact one
of the reasons that our whole economic system
was so bad was that our dollars were not turned
over. All our earnings we received in a chit
around the table or an IOU. Anything which
takes money out of the country, the Commission
of Government is interested in it. They had their
concentration camps, or land settlements, yet
they could not get a bulldozer to go around and
plow up five or six acres of land. Now they have
other plans. That has been the policy all through.
The Commission of Government wants to stay
here while there is a chance. Apparently the
country is on its feet now, but by the time they
are through with it, perhaps another commission
will want to come in.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Higgins properly condemned the discourtesy of the government in the
way they treated the Tourist Board, but it would
be a pity if the net result of the debate were to
concentrate on that side of the matter. The Tourist
Board is merely an incident — the thing that
matters is tourism; bringing people to Newfoundland and having them spend money. We
are
hoping the tourist trade will develop in this
country. I would like the people to see it as a
chance to help the country. Up to the outbreak of
war, everything Newfoundland needed she had
to import; she paid for everything she received
with the money she got from the things she exported. But when the war came, a new
element
came into the picture. We were not dependent
during the war on the money we got from the
things we exported to foreign markets; we had
new money which the Canadians and Americans
paid us for work in building defense bases. That
construction has stopped and very little money is
coming to Newfoundland today from work on the
bases. We are back again to where we were
before the war. The big thing about the tourist
trade is that it will bring into the country new
money. The Commission of Government has this
chance of bringing new money into the country,
dangling before their very eyes, and they have
done nothing about it. So far as they are concerned the tourist trade does not exist.
They are
not interested in a thing which is going to bring
money into Newfoundland. If this report does not
put that thought across to the people of Newfoundland, then it is just a waste of
words. It is
not enough to feel sympathy for the Tourist
Board for the way the government has treated
them; the thing to be disgusted with is that the
government has neglected what is going to be a
220 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1946
big source of revenue.
Mr. Newell There is no need to attempt to refute
anything said about the Tourist Board. We are all
in perfect agreement about that. What I am concerned about is the subject matter of
this report.
I feel in some cases it is a bit vague. Apart from
registering our indignation at certain things, I
find myself listening to this motion that we rise
and report progress and I ask myself, how much
progress? I feel it is not even open to debate that
tourist trade is an economic value to the country.
We must assume that everyone knows that. I
think it is pertinent to enquire how much money
should we spend on it. What do we find in the
report? To use their own words, "We are convinced that the travel trade has within
it the
possibility of becoming one of this country's
most profitable and most considerable economic
resources." It is too vague. I hope when we consider this report again some consideration
will be
given to the financial side of it. How much do we
want any government to undertake, and how
much should we leave for private enterprise? Is
it going to be private enterprise or free enterprise
or social enterprise? That is the question we have
to decide. It is a serious question and we should
give it some thought.
Apart from that I have no cause to disagree
with anything that has been said, except in this
one other instance The report does not say on
whose authority they based their information. I
am not trying to compare the attitude of the
government as against the attitude of the Tourist
Board, but I wondered if the government was
asked their viewpoint on the matter. I am not
particularly concerned about their viewpoint, but
reverting back to something you said, Mr. Chairman, before you became Chairman, about
our
sitting here as a bench of judges, it seems to me
necessary that before we pass judgement on any
matter of policy we should get both sides of the
story; maybe the Committee satisfied itself on
that point, but I would like to know....
I am inclined to disagree with Mr. Smallwood
when he says that we should try and get certain
things or thoughts across to the people of
Newfoundland. I think the presence of
microphones may incline him to that thought.
WhatI am concerned is with facts that will aid us
in our deliberations a little later on.
Mr. Smallwood I hate to disagree with Mr.
Newell on anything because usually I agree with
what he says. The point about getting information
across to the people — I feel strongly about that.
We are 45 men whose job it is to gather all the
information we can get and on the basis of that
information make up our minds on what kind of
government we will recommend. But when we
have done that, a much bigger choice has got to
be made, and that is by the people of Newfoundland. I feel that the people are even
much
more entitled to get this information than we are
— they need it more than we do.
Mr. Newell I was not criticising our putting information over to the public. I am sorry if you
misunderstood me there. I understood your
remark to be in connection with making the
people tourist conscious, and I do not think that
is necessary as the people are already tourist
conscious.
Mr. Butt It must be shown that we have to spend
money in order to get money. That is of primary
importance. I do not want to put myself in the
position of defending the government, but by
having Gander, people are getting value in dollars and cents. If we spend $500,000
as a deficit,
we get back $1 million in wages; therefore the
country has benefited by $500,000.
Mr. Smallwood If it costs one million and we
get one million, are we then square? Does one
cancel out the other?
Mr. Butt How much money have we got out
and how much do we hope to get back? That is
of primary importance. We should find out what
money they are going to have to find and what
they are going to get back to make themselves
more self-supporting.
Mr. Northcott I think the amount asked for was
$2 million — $200,000 a year over a period of
ten years. After a year or two if it worked, it
would be increased. If they had gotten that when
they asked for it, we would have a big tourist
trade in Newfoundland.
Mr. Hollett I do not see the logic of Mr. Butt's
argument with regard to Gander — paying $1
million to civil servants and going in the hole
another million! Getting back to the other point
under discussion — the information which
Mr. Newell wanted — I do not see how the
Committee could have gotten all the facts in
regard to possible expenditure; and as to making
an estimate as to cost, the most it could have been
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 221
would be a guess. Mathes speaks of a casino,
resorts, etc. Tourist trade
is a gamble, but it is a
gamble worthwhile.
Mr. Smallwood I move that the committee rise,
report progress and ask leave to sit again on
tomorrow.
[The motion carried. The committee rose, and the
Convention adjourned until January 8, 1947]
