Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon we completed all of the report on roads and bridges
up to but not
including the section here given as an appendix,
[3] on local roads, and I
would suggest that the Secretary be asked to read the appendix on
local roads before we have any discussion on it.
[The Secretary read from the report]
January 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 237
Mr. Harrington On page 2, where it says "Committees are
entitled to grants....", is that grant made annually?....
Mr. Smallwood Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the amount they
give. The experience that I have had with the local road committees leads me
to think that, although $25 per mile, or 25 cents per head of the
population, is what the government officially says it is prepared
to grant to local road committees, actually they do grant quite a bit
more than that. So far as I can learn, ... if the people of a locality
show a genuine interest in their own local road problem, and in a way that
the government likes, i.e., by setting up a local road board and showing
a definite desire and intention to push ahead with local co-operation,
then in that case, although $25 per mile or 25 cents per head is the
rule, actually the government treats them much more generously. For example,
if Mr. Harrington will look further down on the last page
[1] it says that the total value of the repair
program for local roads and bridges authorised to be performed during
last year, 1945-46, was $179,000. Of this amount the Department of
Public Works assumed liability for $ 109,000, the balance, that is
$70,000, being put up by the people either in cash or with free labour. In
other words $109,000 from the government and $70,000 from the people in
cash or labour.
Now, at the beginning of the scheme, I understand the agreement was that the government
would match the people's money or labour value
dollar for dollar, but in actual fact they are doing
much better than that. Then again of course, as
Mr. Harrington will appreciate, if a local road
committee is formed it is only because the condition of the local roads in a settlement
has become
so bad that the people in desperation get together,
either led by one of themselves or an official, and
form a local road committee. When you get a
committee formed in that way you get a certain
enthusiasm which results in much better value
being gotten for the work done than if it were a
straight out-and-out government project, with the
government footing all the bills, hiring men and
paying them wages. So that it's not quite as bad
as it sounds.
Mr. Butt I might say $25 a mile is given each year provided
the committee wants to carry that
out. In other words if $25 is given this year, it means that $50 is
spent on the road. If they spend the same amount next year they may do so,
so that over a few years the amount spent on that mile of road is much
more than $25. When those committees are formed, it is probably
for a number of reasons, but one is that when a man sits in an office
in St. John's, and a community applies for a grant, obviously that man
cannot answer each individual in the community; but if there is a
representative committee, then the man here knows he is dealing with a
responsible group of people who have taken up the matter already with
the magistrate or roads superintendent, or someone of that kind.
Mr. Jones How is that 25 cents per head basis applied
to the town councils and their special grants? Is it on the same basis?
Mr. Smallwood I would like the answer to that
question.... I am sure Mr. Butt could answer it.
Mr. Butt I drink that as far as town councils are concerned
it is a matter of dollar for dollar. It may be $25 per mile, but it may be
very much more. For instance, a small community has a small piece of
road, which having $50 per mile per year spent on it would be kept in fairly
decent shape, but if there is in that community a large bridge which
requires special attention, then the government is prepared, as I
remember it, to give very much more so that in some cases it may work out
a little better than the town councils are getting. It depends on the
situation. Is that an answer, Mr. Jones?
Mr. Smallwood When it comes to bridge building, or repairs of bridges or the provision of culverts,
I think in that
case the government provides the material to repair or build the bridge
or culvert over and above this $25 per mile.
Mr. Northcott I think you are all wrong about that
scheme, because it only just came into being. For 12 years we had no $25 per
mile or anything at all; then the thing got so bad we got after the
government, and it is only the pastcouple of years that we have been getting
that. Since then committees have started up, and now we are
getting the $25 per mile or 25 cents per head, Getting back to town
councils, we have got to get dollar for dollar until we reach the $3,000
mark, then
238 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1947
we get 50 cents to the dollar, etc.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Smallwood referred to me being an authority
on local roads, and I believe I can claim that honour somewhat, since I have
been for many years connected with these schemes. I was chairman of the
first road committee around Random.
[1] I am
chairman of that still and several others. Notwithstanding the fact that I
have interested myself in roads, I am not dead or ready for a
cemetery, notwithstanding the remarks made on the radio last night where they
referred to a dead Convention and a dead country.
Regarding these local road committees, first
there is a magistrate of the district, who is really
the local government officer today, and very
useful in that capacity. He has to interest himself
first in some particular locality, go there, call
together two or three people and ask them if they
would interest themselves in forming a local
roads committee. There must be three, two members and a chairman. They must submit
certain
facts regarding mileage, etc., to the magistrate.
He turns that over to the officials in St. John's,
who in turn send back the authority for that local
road committee to go on with the work, and
allocate a certain amount of money to it. The
amount is really very much better than $25 per
mile or 25 cents per person. I may say that although I have been most critical of
the Commission of Government, I can hand it out to them
there, they have done very good work, Never
have I had a request turned down.... I cannot find
words too hard to criticise them for their neglect
of these outside places for ten or twelve years, but
today I must be fair; if the people get together and
show a spirit to help themselves, the Department
of Public Works will definitely go the other half
way and much farther to help them....
Mr. Vincent Mr. Chairman, debating in this Convention,
whether termed sensible or silly by the observer, is fast becoming as real as
the measles and twice as much fun. Yesterday Mr. Smallwood literally
said, "Come on fellows wade in with a flying tackle and a body slam and
give 'em all you've got." However, try as he might, the chairman of the
Transportation Committee could work up no enthusiasm, and there
was a marked reluctance on the part of the Convention to do
any in-fighting with the bureau. crats or their subordinates in the
Commission of
Government. Even Mr. Hollett, who is generally in the thick of the
battle, and who, when his stock of prose runs out, can always quote
trenchant lines from Milton's poetic pen, was not in his usual
fighting mood. Two months ago I said that with the facts at present at my
command, if a plebiscite were held tomorrow, I would vote for a
retention of the present form of government. Now, like my learned friend,
Mr. Higgins, I too have to make an apology for a former statement made
in this House, and I do apologise for saying that. It was my intention to
reserve judgement until I had time to study other reports, but after a
study of the Gander airport, tourist and railway sections of the report, I
am fully satisfied in my own mind that the policies of the present administration
not only do not make sense, but that they are
made without any proper consideration for either the fisherman, the farmer
or the labourer of this country.
I term Gander airport a liability. The refusal
of the government to co-operate with the Tourist
Board for the further development of that industry was unwise and poor business. I
cannot
talk with any degree of exactitude on the railway.
My district is not even remotely connected with
a railroad town, and to us, when en route to the
capital with its paved roads and magnificent
highways, the sight of the old train engine puffing
down the grade from Glenwood into Gambo Station is as welcome as a rich uncle back
from
Australia, especially after we have beaten
through 40 miles of country on what's usually a
two day trip in winter by boat, dogs and horses. I
wonder if the seriousness of the need for communications to the northern outports
is apparent
to this Convention. Mr. Newell touched on the
fringe of that yesterday, and Mr. Roberts, speaking with the courage of his convictions,
said in
effect, forget that transinsular highway, and first
concentrate on connecting up with civilisation
some of our godforsaken outport communities.
Since some of you did get, to quote my friend Mr.
Newell, "district minded" yesterday, you will
permit me to be sectional for a moment and
acquaint you with the appalling situation as
regards roads in Bonavista North. Let's assume
that a fisherman from, say, Lumsden is told by
our hospital doctor that his wife needs
hospitalisation at St. John's. The first thing he
January 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 239
does is to take the patient ten miles by boat to
Newtown; there he connects with another small
boat, and that hospital patient is then subjected to
six hours at sea before reaching railhead at
Gambo. There is no road in summer connecting
Lumsden with Newtown, Wesleyville or Brookfield. If a patient is to be removed from
any
intermediate point between Hare Bay and Brookfield on the south side of the bay, or
from
Lumsden to Brookfield, the site of the cottage
hospital, that patient must be taken to hospital by
boat along what is perhaps the roughest coast in
the island. I repeat that no road connects any of
the above settlements to the Brookfield cottage
hospital. True, the Wesleyville town council has
built a road from there to Brookfield, and on to
the adjoining settlement of Badger's Quay, but
actually no roads exist from Musgrave Harbour
to Hare Bay, and in that district live 15,000
people, all taxpayers.
I am not trying to avoid the acute angle when
I say that the proposed estimates for road expenditures are more than just unfair,
they are an insult
to the hard-working, forgotten people of our outport districts. Let's get the picture
clear; over
$500,000 for the reconditioning and reconstruction of the St. John's-Topsail highroad
— a
distance of only a little over nine miles. The
estimates call for another half million within the
near future, and a proposed $6 million for a
transinsular highroad from the capital to Port-
aux-Basques. This indeed must be pleasant news
for the thousands of fishermen and their families
on the coastline What earthly benefit will this be
to them? Yes, it's just about time that some of us
had a change of mind, or it were better to have no
minds at all.
Mr. Chairman, the roads section of your report is very informative, but I was
somewhat amused to note, I believe it was on page 2,
[1] highroads from Bonavista Peninsula west to Cape Freels,
480 miles. Now only last week I covered that section of my district, and if
this is a statement of fact, it is the quickest piece of road construction
ever done by the utilities department. Actually it must have been
built since Christmas Day, for there is no road of any kind, highroads or
low roads connecting Cape Freels with anywhere. Of course the
department meant a district, and we must not assume that they plan some
expenditure
out there. The expenditure under all headings of roads is presently
running around $2.5 million. This is not at all adequate to the need, but as
someone suggested, there may be waste and unnecessary
reconditioning. Maybe our good friends over the way (I refer to the Avalon
Peninsula) would consent to drive a little slower, and
thus allow a little trickle of that million to be channelled down to
Bonavista or to Mr. Watton's district.
If any progress is to be made in this country
we must have new industries, and we must first
open up our communications. The magnitude of
the task of road building in this country I appreciate, but am not convinced that
a government
that can spend $1 million on the St. John's-Conception Bay highroad, and forget altogether
the
outport districts, is working in the best interest of
Newfoundland as a whole; and I go further and
say that such a government has outlived its usefulness, and its policies should call
for the censure of every patriotic Newfoundlander.
Mr. Chairman, if this Convention is to be more than a woman's story at a
winter's fire, it must come out in the open and expose those perfidious
wrongs — the Gander airport agreement, the refusal to co-operate with
the Tourist Board, the supposedly fat concessions granted to the foreign
corporations, the unfair expenditure and allocation of
monies to construct and recondition roads, and a thousand other things that
should and must be known. This is a new year, a year of hope, and to
Newfoundlanders everywhere I say, let's all resolve that we will exercise
our rights as native sons to have and to hold what is rightfully ours,
and to demand now that these bureaucrats and their agents render unto Caesar
the things that are Caesar's.
The people of Bonavista North, the people of
Mr. Starkes' district, the people of Mr. Roberts'
district, must have been amused yesterday to hear
certain city delegates jump to the defence of the
expenditure on roads on the Avalon. 1 would
remind this House that the people of the outports
are no servile race, and they have certain inalienable rights that will not be denied
them. I
once read that the whole economic stmcture of
this island was controlled by a few families in the
capital. This may or may not be true, yet I often
wonder just how much of a stranglehold might be
240 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1947
exercised should certain powerful interests become the advisory body to the government
of the
day.
The condition of roads in Newfoundland outports beggars description. In scores of
northern
settlements there are no roads to the schools, no
roads to the churches, no roads to the cemeteries,
yet with a callous indifference to the dire need of
the people, the present government squanders
what, to the country, is a fabulous amount on
what is more or less a luxury road, a super-high-
way. There are no Superlatives that I can think of
at the moment that will convey the denunciation
of such a policy, that I would here like to say that
it shows the dictatorial power of the present
government, and should make clear to every
Newfoundlander residing in the outports at least,
that it's high time to tell the Dominions Office
that sailing time is here for their colonial administration.
Mr. Penney The subject of roads touches the hearts and
minds of every settlement in the country. I do not know just how the late
policy of the government affects the different settlements in the
outports, but I do know how it affects the people of Carbonear and vicinity.
Fourteen years ago the local roads in the town of Carbonear and
outside were in good condition owing to the painstaking efforts, of our
local road boards, with grants so small and limited that they really had to
scratch for it. Today all these local roads are washed out and
destroyed at a time when money is flush in government departments; so much
so that if the people only could know the actual cost of the two to
three mile section of the Tilton highway for the past four years, the
surprise would be really greater proportionately than the revelation
of the cost of the nine mile Topsail highway. In the town of Carbonear, the
roads are not only destroyed, but the public sewer serving the court
house building is in such a condition that it is now a menace to public
health as well as being a dangerous trap for pedestrians. A town
council is the answer, they say! For some of us who have been repairing
local roads at our own cost for a decade, a town council could have been
negotiated if our citizens had been helped in their endeavours....
Anyway, we are hoping for better results in the near future. Outside our
town I know the people of the settlements will be bitter over the
condition of their local roads. May I
suggest that some of the wasted money be applied, under
proper supervision, to local roads?
Mr. Fowler Mr. Chairman, before making a few comments I
would like to compliment the members of the Transportation
Committee on their very informative report, and their chairman on the
very able manner in which he is piloting it through committee of the whole.
The report may not contain all the facts we would like to see, but then
we must bear in mind the limitations under which all committees function.
I listened yesterday with much interest, but the
debate was not of a very high order; to me it
flavoured too much of politics, and too little of
its economic significance. It reminded me of the
old political days, when the man who could talk
the most about roads and make the most
promises, had the edge on the other fellow. I feel
it is our business to raise the discussion of this
report from the mire of politics to the realm of our
country's economy, and discuss it purely in that
light. It is time for us to realise that unfortunately
there is nothing we can do regarding the policy
of the present government, but the facts contained in this report should be stressed
insofar as
they effect our economy, and will likely influence our final recommendations. I would
state
here, however, that I consider the allocation of
public monies for roads altogether disproportionate.
At the opening of the Convention I sought
information relative to the government's policy
in respect to local roads. I am pleased to find that
in the appendix to this report, their policy for
local roads as introduced in 1943 is fully outlined,
and I hope that the public will avail of the opportunity of becoming conversant with
it, because I
fear it is a scheme to which the labouring man
very often finds it difficult to reconcile himself,
with the result that we often find him antagonistic
to the road committee which is working in the
interest of the community, and without
remuneration.
I contend that the Commission of Government
have neglected the local roads and allocated far
too little of the $2.5 million they have spent on
roads for this upkeep, with the result that the
majority of local roads today are almost impassable, a condition which is yearly becoming
more
expensive to remedy, and is a matter of much
concern to a large number of people in the various
January 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 241
towns and villages of this country.
Mr. Starkes ....I understand that I do not enjoy the
ancient rights and privileges that I once did when I was an elected
representative during responsible government. I know I can be sued for
making statements contrary to the law of the land, but my first statement on
roads in this country is this. It is my firm opinion that practically all
roads built so far have been undertaken through pull with the
government in power at the time. The report should make the head of every
member of this Convention hang in shame, to see how such large sums
collected from all over the country have been spent on such small territory
as the Avalon Peninsula. I feel ashamed after reading this report, and
seeing how and where the hard- earned revenue collected from the
actual producers of this country has been spent; and in the same
spirit I feel that the men sent here by other districts, including the men
representing the districts that have received such great benefits,
actually do feel ashamed, when they see how unfairly the majority of them
has been treated I must refer to a statement made yesterday by Mr.
Gordon Higgins.... His statement hit me hard, and I am compelled to take
exception to it. He said, when talking on roads, "Avalon first and the rest
of the country after. We bow the knee to nobody as far as that is
concerned." I certainly give Mr. Higgins great credit for making that
statement. Is there anything he could say that would make him more
popular on the Avalon Peninsula? But are we, the representatives sent here
by the actual producers, the actual salt of the earth (and we all know
what that means) from the districts where roads are unknown, are we going to
come here and still allow that thing to go on — "Avalon first and the
rest of the country afterwards"? Gentlemen, if all were of my mind, we would
see that it would be equal rights for all, and not special rights for
the Avalon.
I am surprised that the remarks of Mr. Higgins
did not provoke some discussion.... Mr. Higgins
said that the St. John's members were not hanging their heads in shame over the tremendous
sums of money that had gone out to give St.
John's and neighbourhood all these roads. I come
from a district where there are more people with
broken legs and arms, broken by falling over
rocks and boulders, than any other district in the
country.... What do we find when it comes to
productive industries in this country? You find
that the great bulk of these industries are in those
parts of the country that have got practically no
roads. It is not in St. John's that you find the bulk
of our great fisheries. It's not in St. John's that
you find the great bulk of our forests, or of our
other productive industries. It's out around the
country, where little or no government money is
being spent on roads. Where would St. John's be
and what roads would they have, if we took the
fisheries away from them? If we took the great
Buchans mine away from them? If we took the
great Grand Falls industry away from them? If
they didn't have the great Comer Brook and
Humber Valley to depend on? These are the
things that keep St. John's going. Suppose we
divided Newfoundland into two separate
countries — the Avalon Peninsula forming one
country, and the rest of Newfoundland and
Labrador forming another. Where would the
Avalon Peninsula be then? Who would have most
of the roads in that case? It wouldn't be the
Avalon Peninsula. If you took a photograph of
the Avalon from the air, what you'd get would be
a big web with a spider in the middle of it — and
the spider would be St. John's. I am not advocating that Newfoundland be separated
into two
countries. I am advocating that the rest of the
country should get a good share of whatever
money is going for roads and other public improvements.... Before they build more
beautiful
paved roads around Conception Bay they should
first see that the people of the rest of the island
get half-decent roads to travel over and transport
their produce. I hope Mr. Higgins won't think
that I am making an attack upon him or upon his
St. John's colleagues, or upon the members who
come here from Avalon Peninsula districts. All I
am trying to do is to put in a claim for the rest of
the island....
Mr. Higgins I think it would be rather discourteous to say the least of it, if I did not answer
our friend across the
way. I want to make my position quite clear in the matter. Yesterday the
convenor of the Committee was a little worried about having no comment
on his report. He has harped on the fact that the Avalon was getting so much
money, and because of that suggestion, I suppose Mr. Starkes and our
other good friend Mr. Vincent over there, have taken to heart the
insinuation that this highroad was built for the people in
242 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1947
Topsail. I am not one of the Topsail nabobs,
like some of my friends near me are! Apart from that, the district I
represent does not get any money for roads whatever. By the grace of the
municipal council we have the finest roads in the country, and we do
not have to bother what government comes into power. I don't know, I am
trusting my memory on this, but I believe the highroads policy was
instituted in 1924. Is that right Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman 1925. That policy was instituted by the
people here, chiefly made up for the roads through the Avalon. I would not
like to undertake any comment on that.
Mr. Higgins We can hardly blame Mr. Starkes, although I
think he was one of the people who subscribed to that highroads policy; but
certainly there are members in this House today who agree that that
road was to be built not for the St. John's people, but for the whole
peninsula. I do agree it is a pity that we can't have a series of roads
through all the places, but that's going to be in the future. You have
got to depend on your local roads committees for that. I am strong in my
advocacy of a transinsular highroad. I don' t know if you can do that
for $6 million, but if so it will be money well spent. In that event you can
have Mr. Starkes come up from Nipper's Harbour and come in to St.
John's by bus, if he lives long enough.... It will develop the country and
pay for itself....
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, much discussion has taken place
since this report has been presented regarding the Railway, the amount of
money that it is costing the country, and especially the loss which
reaches the tidy sum of $1.5 million. Of course, the greatest concern to the
Convention is to try and devise ways and means to reduce this, so that
we may be able to recommend our find ings to the present or future form of
government. I understand that in 1938 there were certain concessions granted to
Bowater's Newfoundland Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. by
the present form of government, and this also, I take it, applies to the
Anglo-Newfoundland Co. and Buchans Mining company. We are all aware of
the tremendous rise in operating costs since 1938.... Due to rising
costs, labour has agitated for and received increases in wages to
offset conditions as much as possible. I think we will agree that where a
company contributes an enormous amount of busi
ness to the Railway, it is human nature to expect some special
consideration or concessions. In other words, it is a matter as I see it of
wholesale and retail prices.... Now, Mr. Chairman, can you imagine
that our government of today is applying concessions to those companies
which might have been suitable in 1938, but are out of all proportion
today. It does seem businesslike that in view of the high cost of operating
the Railway, the government should have negotiated with the various
companies for an adjustment upwards in the rates.... But I warn the powers
that be that the general public will not accept further taxation while
wealthy corporations are getting off with a mere trifle. The Railway cannot
pay under such circumstances. The increases should rest on the
shoulders of those who can afford to bear them.
With regard to roads, I am well aware that
roads are a necessity, but they should be built in
sections where they serve the greatest number of
people, and not through a wilderness. The first
necessity today is local roads, and roads linking
up with the railway. It is all very well to talk of a
highroad through the country, but we must cut
our garment according to our cloth. I am sure that
outport doctors will agree with me. Let me tell
you of one instance that came to my notice last
year. There is a settlement in Bay of Islands
called Cox's Cove, which has no road connection
with Corner Brook.... There was a shortage of
food, such as sugar, milk and other necessities. It
was impossible to get these items due to lack of
road communication and the result it cost the
businessman $15 additional freight on three
sacks of sugar from Corner Brook to Cox's Cove,
a distance of approximately 12 miles, which
meant that those poor people had to pay in the
neighbourhood of 20 cents per pound for sugar....
It is my firm conviction that people who are
forced to live in remote places should be given
first consideration and provided with a road connection with the railway at least.
Mr. Chairman,
we need men with full realisation of these facts,
men of vision, not those who build castles in the
air, but those who can turn their visions into
reality....
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Chairman, it may be thought that some
of the statements made in this chamber are not relevant to the job we were
sent here to do. Perhaps some of the debates on matters
brought up are not exactly in order, but where
January 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 243
else can the representatives of the people voice
their statements except in this chamber? I would urge that people should not
be too critical when we voice our opinions about these different matters. We know
the roads are the arteries which carry the
products of industry, and realise also we should have a good sound grant as
regards our system of transportation. These roads help to open up the
country and connect settlements with each other. The amount of money which
this country can justifiably expend annually on roads and bridges is a
matter for great consideration. I would like to have fixed in my mind what
is the right percentage of our revenue that we can annually
expend on roads and bridges.... It seems to me also that the transinsular
road may be a good idea. Anyway, from Port-aux-Basques to Humber there should be
a good road. I believe there are a large number of
Americans and Canadians — monied men — who are prepared to come with
their wives and families and spend some of that money in Newfoundland, and I
think it would be a good idea to have that section so that these
people can come in with their cars and use our roads down to the Humber
where they can go fishing. Another section which should be completed is from Gander
to Lewisporte. The Canadian government spent a large
sum on that road, but it is not completed... Speaking of Lewisporte, I
would like to take up the matter of placing Lewisporte on the main line of
railway. Whoever heard of a terminal not on the main line? There are
nine miles of railroad and there should be a spur line. I advocated that 20
years ago.... I feel very strongly on this Lewispone matter because
this year I had to leave the express at Notre Dame Junction, and had to stay
there overnight to go that nine miles. It would not be tolerated in a
good many countries, and I hope the Commission of Government will consider
the amount of traffic that goes through Lewisporte. It is a big terminus
— the Imperial Oil Co. and the Shell Oil Co. have tanks there; there are a
lot of boats; and now that the railway is to be converted
from coal to oil, they would save money. They should make a detour and put
Lewisporte on the main line....
I would like to know how many miles this
money was spent on as regards local roads — how many miles of road were covered
by this
small expenditure of money?
Mr. Smallwood We have not got that information. We could easily get it. No doubt the returns
are in the department.
Mr. Ashbourne That information would be helpful. I am a
firm believer in town councils and self-help as regards local roads. People
are interested in their own communities, and prepared to give
free labour or pay an amount of taxes, and in the spring of the year when
people are not so busily engaged they will put in a few hours of work on
the roads....
Mr. Ballam I concur entirely with the remarks of Mr. Fudge,
my colleague here. It is not necessary for me to go further into
the details of the road conditions in the Humber district. We are well
aware of them. and you have been told a good deal about them by Mr. Fudge,
and I want to go on record as supporting him heartily.
Mr. Smallwood Yesterday it was Mr. Jackman, I think, who
wanted to have some information as to the rates of pay of workers on
highroads work.... The department tells me that their policy in
employing men on the highroads for labour is to pay whatever rate of wages is
prevailing in each area where any road work is done. They have a minimum
of 40 cents an hour, but in St. John's they pay 55 cents an hour. Out on the
west coast they pay 58 cents, because that is the prevailing rate out
there. In the Grand Falls area, where I understand the prevailing rate for
common labour is 70 cents an hour, I assume the rate paid
common labour by the highroads division is the same....
Mr. Jackman The prevailing rate on Bell Island unless it
has changed during the past six or eight weeks, is 68 cents an hour, and the
prevailing rate for highroads employees is 40 cents an hour.... That
rate has been paid for the past five years. The union rate has been between
58 cents and 60 cents, and the highroads rate has been 40 cents an hour
up to September month anyway.
Mr. Ballam The rate of 58 cents an hour paid the highroads
workers in the Humber area is not the rate in the paper mills where it is
72.5 cents per hour....
Mr. Smallwood It is 4.25 pm, and we appear not to have
completed roads. I was hoping we could get on today to posts and telegraphs,
and perhaps complete the report this week.... I don't know if it is the
pleasure of the House to do that.
If I were a newspaper reporter, expected today
244
NATIONAL CONVENTION
January 1947
to write an account for the papers tomorrow, or
if I were a radio commentator expected to go on
the air tonight and describe this debate, I think
that, with my knowledge of this country, I would
be deeply impressed by the debate of yesterday
and today. To hear 40-odd men, elected from 37
districts, come in and bear out a united and unanimous story of neglect of roads that
once existed
and have disappeared, that have been washed
away by the floods and storms, and have had
practically no money spent on them for a dozen
years, I think I would be deeply impressed by the
fact that here is an island which, except for a few
highroads, is practically without roads, and I
would not feel in the least like ridiculing the
elected representatives from those districts. I
would know enough about the conditions of this
country to know that these members were speaking the views of the 318,000 men, women
and
children of Newfoundland.
Now, this appendix prepared for us by the
Department of Public Utilities describes the new
system which the government has brought into
existence in the past couple of years for dealing
with local roads. I am not disposed to ridicule the
scheme the government has worked out. It seems
to me that behind this plan of working up these
local road boards, of which we now have about
400 involving, I suppose, between 400 and 500
settlements, there is something more than merely
forming committees to handle local roads. Behind it is a plan to get the people of
Newfoundland to take a more active part and interest
in the public affairs of their country. It may turn
out, when all ... the reports have been considered
by this small batch of Newfoundlanders, that we
will recommend some form of elected government, or it may turn out that we will recommend
that we go right on under Commission government, we don't know yet. Let us say that
we
recommend some form of elected government.
What gentleman in this chamber today, or out of
it, would be willing to be a member of that
government of the future, knowing that there
were 1,300 settlements with, at the present time,
3,000 miles of local road (that's only a guess)
which have to be taken care of? What member
would wish to be a member of a government, if
that government had to find every dollar to keep
up those 3,000 miles of local roads? I feel that no
one would want to do that.
For that reason I am delighted to see an effort
made to work up these local road committees, not
merely for the sake of getting the people interested in their own local affairs with
regard to
roads and bridges, but also for getting these same
people more actively interested in public affairs
generally. One of the weaknesses of this country
in the past has been the fact that we had in
Newfoundland only one government, namely the
central government in the city of St. John's. They
tell me that you cannot get more than 60 miles
from the salt water anywhere in Newfoundland.
But from St. John's to some parts of this country
it might as well be 2-3,000 miles. This means that
St. John's and the government here know practically nothing of what goes on in the
country. If
you are going to have democracy and efficient
government, you have got to enlist the people of
the country in it, and to do that they have at least
made a beginning in the formation of these road
committees. I know it is pitiful to think of
$109,000 voted by the government to assist these
local road committees. It only scratches the surface of the problem, but it is a beginning.
I hope
that people in the settlements where they still
have no local road committees, as they listen in
to these broadcasts, many of them finding out,
maybe for the first time, that there is a way in
which they can get a few dollars from the government, I hope that they also will get
awake and
active and form their road committees. Who
knows but that these local road committees may
some day develop into a first class form of local
government.
I will say that this Convention is supposed to
consider not only roads, but everything else, in
the light of one great question: will the future
government of Newfoundland, whether it be
Commission or anything else, be able to balance
its budget? If it can't, we are up against it. In
trying to decide whether or not the future government can balance its budget we must,
whether we
like it or not, we must find out as far as we can
what the future expenditure of the government
has got to be. Now, so far as the Transportation
and Communications Committee is concerned,
that is exactly what we have been trying to do. In
our report on Gander we have told you that so far
as we can see, the country is saddled with a loss
of $1 million a year; that as far as the Railway is
concerned, a loss of $1.5 million a year. So far as
January 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 245
roads are concerned, we must spend at least $1
million a year in future, no matter what government we have. If that is wasting time,
then I don't
know what I am here in this Convention for. Is it
wasting time to try and get a picture of what these
activities will cost us? If it is wasting time, will
some radio commentator tell me just what this
Convention is for? Will some of the critics tell
me just what is the function of the National
Convention?
We are not great statesmen, we have not had
the advantage of having been trained in the Fiji
Islands, or to be the products of the Colonial
service: we are just ordinary Newfoundlanders
sent in here to examine the various departments
of government — what they have spent in the
past, and what they are liable to spend in the
future. That is what we are trying to do.
Mr. Ashbourne I am of the opinion, that possibly only within the last few days, since this debate
has gone over the
air, that in certain isolated parts of Newfoundland has it been
known that the government has this plan as regards local roads. If
that is not so, how can we explain the small expenditure which has been made
up to the present time?....
Mr. Harrington Mr. Chairman, before this section of the Transportation and Communications Committee's
report — the
Railway section — is left by the Convention, I'd like to make one or
two comments on it that appear not to have been considered by the Committee.
Perhaps they did not feel it came within their province — perhaps they
did not think of it — I shouldn't wonder at that, considering the vast
amount of data they gathered and had to try and assimilate. The point
I mention arises from a statement of the General Manager of the Railway
contained on page 6: "The General Manager states that the main line
needs retailing, that seven new locomotives, and some new rolling stock must
soon be purchased. These expenditures, which cannot it seems, long be
delayed, will run up into millions of dollars."
The Newfoundland Railway in recent years
has come in for a great deal of criticism, some of
it deserved, a lot of it unthinking, a great deal of
it unjustifiable. To my mind, the history of railroading in this country, the story
of the railway is
on the whole an epic of great triumph. The building, maintenance and operation of
our cross-
country line has been put by some observers on
a par with similar trans-continental operations in
the United States and Canada. This criticism is
not, however, without reason. For the fact
remains that it still takes an express train over a
day to cover 546 miles from eastern to western
terminus. A person who flies from New York or
Montreal to Gander in a few hours, takes perhaps
12 to 16 hours to reach St. John's by rail, and so
on. I know that trains will never be able to travel
as fast as aeroplanes, but they can travel as fast
as automobiles, at least they do in other countries.
I am quite aware too, that in other countries, there
are trains a lot slower and a lot worse-appointed
than our trains — but again I am not making
comparisons. I am merely saying these few things
as a lead-up to a question that has always
bothered me whenever the Newfoundland Railway is on the carpet, namely this business
of the
narrow gauge. For that, it appears to me, is the
chief drawback of our railway system.
In previous debates on other matters, some
delegates have asked in jocose mood or otherwise, why we persist in believing that
we are right
and the rest of the world is wrong on certain
questions. I make the same observation on the
matter of our railway and its narrow gauge. In
debating this report yesterday, almost every
delegate made the observation that he was not a
railroad man, as though to apologise for his
remarks if they should prove to be stupid, irrelevant or anything else. I make no
apology in
referring to the narrow gauge road that traverses
this country, since it is the greatest drawback not
only to the efficient, but also to the profitable
operation of this vital public utility. The standard
gauge railroad, 4 feet, 8 1/2 inches, is in use in the
United States, Canada, Mexico, England, the
continent of Europe, and Australia, amongst
other countries. In Europe, it is true, as well as in
other countries, there are considerable mileages
of smaller gauge, especially in mountainous districts, such as Switzerland and parts
of Germany.
But the main trunk lines, if not exactly 4 feet
8 1/2 inches, are so close to that gauge as to permit
the through running of locomotives and rolling
stock. Thus by means of train ferry steamers,
which carry locomotives and rolling stock on
their decks, it is possible for British rolling stock
to cross the continent on the Harwich to
Zeebrugge train feny, traverse all central Europe,
and by means of similar steamers, reach Scan
246 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1947
dinavia, and even cross to Sicily from the Italian
mainland. Similarly, continental rolling stock
can arrive in England if it is not too large for the
smaller British loading gauge.
Consider the possibilities if such a position
obtained in this country, if we adopted the standard gauge. Just before the Convention
adjourned
for the Christmas recess, we were debating
another section of the report of the Transportation
and Communications Committee, namely the
tourist trade. Consider what a boost such an innovation in our railway system would
mean to
the growth of a great tourist trade. People from
the Gulf of Mexico not having to leave their
railway cars until they reached their destination
in whatever part of Newfoundland they desired
to reach. Apart from that big consideration, there
would be the added advantages of speed in
transportation, so necessary in the world today.
Travel time across the island could be cut to half
the time, and less, for the trains could travel at
twice their highest speed (40 mph) and more,
without the danger of running off the rails. Bigger
trains could haul heavier loads, and so on.
This may sound a trifle ambitious to some of
you, but it doesn't to me. It is certainly a matter
for consideration in relation to the future, and it's
to the future that we are looking. No matter how
many roads we build, including a cross-country
highway, we are still going to need a railroad, at
least for another 50 to 100 years, unless the
atomic energy commission can work out a speedy
method whereby the nations can dish out tablets
or capsules which we can pop in our mouths and
be whisked away to the bounds of the earth. In
other countries the roads did not supplant the
railways, and there's no reason to suppose it will
happen here.
Therefore, when I see and note that it is in the
minds and plans of the Railway management to
re-rail the main line, and purchase new locomotives and rolling-stock, I cannot refrain
from
asking the question that has always bothered me
in relation to the railway, "What about the standard-gauge?" Has the Railway management
given
serious thought to the matter of introducing the
standard gauge in this country? I have no doubt
it has been thought about a lot, but has it been
given serious thought? Have the whys and
wherefores been thoroughly gone into the pros
andcons exhaustively discussed? The time has
come when this matter must be considered if we
are to make the progress we desire to make. It is
not enough for someone, even someone in this
Convention to get up and say the whole thing is
impossible, prohibitive, and to raise a number of
apparently insuperable obstacles. This is not
meant to be critical of governments, past or
present, or of the Railway, or even of the Committee which produced this Comprehensive
report. It is simply an opinion I have, which is
shared by many others. I make therefore no apology for these few comments, for our
deliberations
concern the future; they concern the costs of
government in the future; they concern the costs
of public utilities like the Railway, and whenever
the costs are discussed, we should make every
effort to see if the country is getting, and is going
to get the maximum results from them.
I can understand that neither Mr. Smallwood
nor his Committee may be in a position to answer
this question, nor prepared to discuss it; but I feel
that the Convention should take note of it. If we
are to spend some millions of dollars in the next
few years to re-rail our main railway line, surely
to goodness we might just as well go a little
farther and adopt the standard gauge.... I am
hoping that my remarks may be termed a constructive suggestion that may serve to bring
this
important matter more into the public gaze,
where they can attempt to appraise the situation
and express their views on the matter also....
Mr. Smallwood Contrary to Mr. Harrington's guess, the
Committee did go into that very matter. When we met in the office of the
General Manager of the Railway, that very question of narrow gauge
versus standard gauge was discussed. The difficulty is bridges;
there are many between St. John's and Port-aux-Basques, which were made
to accommodate narrow gauge and would not now accommodate standard gauge.
Not only would you have to replace the rolling stock, but the bridges.
Consider what is involved in the replacing of rolling stock.... All that
would have to go as well as nearly all the existing bridges along the
main line.
The main advantage would be in connection
with the tourist trade. I, too, would like to see the
Gulf crossed regularly by train ferry service. A
boat leaving North Sydney would take the trains
aboard and bring them over, and set them on the
rails at Port-aux-Basques. Has Mr. Harrington
January 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 247
considered the cost of such a ferry? The new one
which has just been launched to serve Prince
Edward Island is costing $5 million. To accommodate that boat they have got to spend
$6 million to enlarge the terminal facilities at each end
of the run.... At a rough guess, to get the new
equipment and the ferry on the Gulf, it will run
up to $50 million. That, I am afraid, is a little too
rich for our blood. I appreciate Mr. Harrington's
interest, but I wish to assure him that that is a
matter which the Transportation Committee did
investigate.
Mr. Ashbourne I would like to correct what I said
regarding the express train at Lewisporte, that this year passengers had to
leave the express. That should have been last year, not 1947, because at the present
time the train from Lewisporte does meet
all the expresses that come through. But last spring, (1946) and early in
the summer, the train from Lewisporte only met certain
expresses.
There is another point, and it is that when the
railway was built out there, Norris Ann was
supposed to be the water point, so to speak, and
that's why the railroad was brought out to Norris
Arm, but had people had the vision at that time
to see the great port of Lewisporte as it is today,
I think these men would have put the main line
right out to Lewisporte, and I believe it could
have been done at very little cost, and it would be
a great convenience to the travelling people.... I
feel very strongly in advocating that the Railway
management seriously consider the matter of putting Lewisporte on the main line.
Mr. Bailey I have been handicapped the past few days with a
cold, and have not been able to take part in the discussion, but I have been
listening attentively when I could. I have heard the
description of conditions throughout the island, and would like to have
something to say about the way things have been handled in general. I
don't think anybody has been treated worse than the people who belong to
the district (Trinity South) which I come from. When you have had things
and had them taken away from you, it hurts a lot more.
I am glad that Mr. Vincent has seen his way to
make that speech about the Commission of
Government. When he made his earlier speech, I
don't think there was anybody I felt like shaking
more than Mr. Vincent. Ever since I came back
to this country I have been like the Irishman,
"agin it", and as time goes on lam more against
it. I don't believe that we have got a fair representation. We had a royal commission
come out
here
[1], I was not in the country at that time, and it
harked back to our old responsible government,
but that government gave us, where I come from,
a wharf at New Chelsea that must have cost
$8,000; a wharf at Hant's Harbour, and you have
got to take a mark to find where that was today;
at Winterton there was a wharf, and at New
Perlican; and at Heart's Content we had a wharf
that cost $80,000, and a 12,000 ton ship could
load at it. From Heart's Content to Whitbourne
we had a railroad that cost the country, the old
"irresponsible" political parties, $1 million, and
it gave good service. It got to a situation where
they could not find $200,000 to ballast the track
and put it back again. I was one of the committee
that was fighting the government to hold the
railroad to Heart's Content. They said they had
to put the rails somewhere else in the country, but
I found out that $350,000 was spent to build sheds
in St. John's. Now we work with committees, and
find out that it cost $500,000 dollars to put a road
where there was a good road, between St. John's
and Woodstock. When you consider the money
that responsible government spent and the money
that Commission of Government is spending,
you begin to wonder what it is all about. I am sure
that one of the other ideas of the home government, was that they would relieve the
depression
in Newfoundland by building railroads. They
quit building roads, at a cost of 15 or 20 cents an
hour, because the cost was prohibitive; surely
they don't expect us to build roads now when the
British government would notbuild them in 1938
because they were too costly.
When the cost of living came up here today I
could not help admiring Mr. Fudge when he
spoke. I am sure Mr. Figary was right there on the
spot with the railroad men, but I did not see
anybody get up and say anything about John the
fisherman. I don't know what is expected of the
men today who catch fish. You hear talk about
the cost of living, but I know men who went on
the Labrador last summer and after they paid their
company account (the lowest was about $270 and
the highest $360) they had to live out of that.
248 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1947
They are home now working their souls out to get
a bit of wood for the winter. Altogether, their
income for the year will be anywhere between
$550 and $750 a year. I can assure the people in
this House that if there is no fish caught next year
there will not be any money spent on the roads,
either on Avalon Peninsula or transinsular roads,
although I believe in them. We have got to get the
fishermen of this country on a paying standard. I
am going to take this up later when the Fishery
Report comes in. We must see that the fishermen
can earn the money so that the politicians will be
able to go ahead and do those things. That's
where I stand. I concur, to use Professor
Wheare's word, with Mr. Higgins, and I am sure
that nobody in this world was treated worse than
we were.
We had a large amount of money, about
$6,000, spent in 1938 on the roads from Victoria
Village
[1] down. Last year a Plymouth truck tried
to get over those roads and could not. On the
$223,000 road from Heart's Content to Whitbourne, cars could not get through. When
you get
to Winterton hill you get some men to take a rope,
put your car off the road and attach the rope, and
pull the car through the trees, and finally get it on
the road again. You might have it stuck for a week
or two on that road. When you had responsible
government that was a good road. That's what we
have been up against.
We have in St. John's 63,000 people, which in comparison with the mral
population is out of all proportion. The population of Trinity South
has dropped two-thirds in the past few years, and a lot of them are in here.
In the spring when the boats came in to load, most everybody got a few
days work, and when there was a good harbour and a good wharfit was all
right. This is the thing we have been up against — but I don't understand
it. That's still the position we are faced with. Today you have got to
go 49 or 50 miles before you can connect with anything at all. I think that
the quicker we can change this the better for the country. I believe
it would cost $150,000 to put the branch railroad back in its place. We
pleaded with Sir Wilfred Woods, put up every argument possible, but in
spite of that the railroad was taken away from us. I believe the quicker we
can get clear of this form of government the better. One thing we want
to do is put our house in order, so
that the people who produce the wealth of this country, the fishermen,
can make a living. Let us get them earning. If you don't you will be in the
same place four years from today as you were six years ago.
Mr. Northcott I strongly support Mr.
Ashboume's remarks. There is one bright spot, you know — Lewisporte. The
branch line this year brought in a credit balance of $58,000. Then
they took the line away and we had to walk! I think that main line should be
swung on to Lewisporte and Norris Arm to save all that unnecessary expense. Lewisporte,
though small, is a very progressive little
town, second to none as far as taxes and revenue are concerned. It has
1,000 people and we have gone over the $200,000 mark in revenue alone. When
we come to roads we have a trail. Thanks to the local government we
have started now; and I hope in the near future it will be more than 25
cents per mile. I therefore go on record that there should be a main
line to Lewisporte.
Mr. Smallwood I would like to remind Mr. Northcott that
it is not quite the case that the Lewisporte branch was the only one that
showed a surplus. The Argentia line and the Lewisporte line both show
an operating profit, and they are the only ones that do.
I was much interested in what Mr. Bailey said.
It is only fair to say this: the government is
spending $2.5 million a year on roads, but if you
go back to just before the war and look at what
the government spent then on roads and bridges,
you will find that in 1938, on the construction of
new roads, they spent only $12,000.... The total
amount they spent was only $480,000, as against
$2.5 million today. The point is that up to 1938
or 1939 we were not paying our way as a country.
There was a deficit every year. After that we
began to have a surplus, and we have had one
every year, and it is only since they have had a
surplus, money from the taxpayers, that they
spent any real money on roads; but when they
were not getting it from us they were only spending $500,000 dollars on roads each
year.
We must get this right. You have people in this
country saying, "You would get no roads if you
had any other kind of government", but the
answer to that is, "We have got no roads and we
still have Commission of Government." What
January 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 249
made the difference between spending and not
Spending money on roads? When we were not
giving them enough money, then they did not
spend money on roads, but when we began to
pour the money in to them, they began to spend
it; but it's our money all the same. It's only fair
to say that. We must give credit where it is due,
but not where it is not due. Roads will be built in
future and maintained and repaired only if we
give them the money to do it, whether it is Commission or some other government....
[The committee rose and reported progress and
the Convention adjourned]
