Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, before we go into the appendix to the report on
posts and telegraphs, there is an item that I think I ought to pass on to
the Convention Yesterday we were talking about the subsidy paid by the
Department of Posts and Telegraphs for the conveyance of mail, paid to
the Railway. At that time I was not informed of the tme situation. I said the
amount was $150,000. It was $150,000 from 1934 on. Before that for two or
three years it was $217,000 a year, and before that for quite a number of years
it was $500,000. Well, on September 1, 1946, a new agreement was made
between the Post Office and Railway, setting up an entirely new basis
for postal subsidy. Up to that time it was a flat rate of $150,000, but
since September 1 the new agreement is, to the Railway 30 cents per mile,
and to the coastal boats 50 cents per mile. It works out, as far as the Post
Office can estimate it, at about $101,000 a year to the Railway, and to the
coastal boats about $92,000. Then, over and above that the Post Office
has agreed to pay the Railway a flat amount of$15,000 a year to handle
mail in North Sydney and Port-aux-Basques, so that the total would be around
$210,000 a year.
We only have the appendix of the report on the posts and telegraphs which
consists of a report from the Secretary of the department.
Mr. Job I was just going to allude to the fact that is there not another
$100,000 in addition to the $210,000 provided by the Finance Department for
the Railway?
Mr. Smallwood We are dealing only with posts and telegraphs, and there is only
this $210,000 now from that department. Mr. Cashin says, "Yes, there is
another $100,000 paid the Railway by Finance Department." He was former Finance
Minister, and is also chairman of the committee for public finance, and I
would say that he would be the man to give the answer to that. Mr. Cashin
nods his head and says, "Yes, they do pay that extra amount."
[The Assistant Secretary read the report]
Mr. Higgins What is the date of that report of the Secretary of posts and
telegraphs?
Mr. Smallwood This is not a report made for us; it is made for the Commission
of Government, and the Secretary, when he appeared before us, brought it
and read it out, and we asked if there was any objection to our having copies
made. It is a report submitted by the department to the government about
a year ago. Some of the things mentioned, as things they intend to do, they
have since done. They have introduced the ship-to- shore
and coast-to-coast radio-telegraph system on the southwest coast. In Gander
they have done some of the things they said they were going to do.
Mr. Higgins How do you reconcile the second last sentence in the report, "Up
to the present no sums have been allocated for reconstruction work", with
Table 3 in the Chadwick-Jones report, where it says $300,000 was allocated
1946-47? Is there any explanation?
Mr. Smallwood The Chadwick-Jones report was prepared about a year ago. This
report of the Secretary was probably written a bit after that.
Mr. Higgins That is not an answer to the question. Your information
may be perfectly correct and this report may be wrong; but that report
stated $300,000 was allocated for reconstruction that is probably
incorrect.
260
NATIONAL CONVENTION
January 1947
Mr. Smallwood I think it is in the estimates for the current year, which means
that this report by the Secretary is more up to date — $299,000 for the
current year. I cannot be responsible for the Chadwick-Jones report.
Mr. Smallwood Only to a limited extent am I responsible for the Chadwick-Jones
report.
Mr. Northcott In yesterday's debate there seemed to be a lot of
misunderstanding in connection with the smaller post offices in the
island. On page 5 of the report you will see, "203 postmasters — salaries
paid $80 per year." In these small places there are perhaps ten families.
They have a boat once a week. When the boat arrives, these ten families go to
the post office and get their mail. On the return trip, the ten families
will go and post their mail. That is all the work there is to that post office.
Perhaps that person spends one hour in a week in the post office;
therefore he or she is fairly well paid. In nine out of ten cases the post
office is in the person's home. He or she gets a small rent. That will make
a clearer picture. Then 97 postmasters are in places where there are 15
or 20 families; they are getting better salaries, $126—$240 a year. They
have no telegraph system; they have about 20 families and weekly mail. And the
same thing applies. In the next group, at $240-$500 a year, nine out of
ten of these have a money order office and perhaps a telephone. They send only
three or four messages a day. It is not necessary for that person to
spend all of his or her time in the office. Again this office may be in the
home, for which rent is received. Then we find 21 getting $500- $600 a year. There
is more work there. The person who is
underpaid is the postmaster or postmistress in places like Botwood, Fogo. St.
Anthony and Lewisporte. You have in the last place a post office and
telegraph office all in one — one person doing three persons' work. The
Canadian army is there, the Shell Oil Co. and other businesses. It is a centre.
They are in the office from nine in the morning until 12 at night. This
group is very much underpaid. If these people were getting $200 a month they
would be getting a fair rate of wages.... Again we have 159 mail
couriers, these people have long, hard and weary trips, and to them the country
owes a great debt of gratitude. Sometimes they travel on hor
ses, sometimes on dog teams, and sometimes they have to carry the mail on their
backs.
Mr. Vardy I am not so sure that that is, critically speaking, a true picture.
I am thinking of a place where there are 600 people and the postal
operator is employed there 20 years. He is a family man, his salary is $22 a
month, and he gets $2 a month rent for the post office. He collects an
average of $100 a month customs duties. I have a message today from a man who
is employed around 30 years; his monthly salary is $11.62 including war
bonus, and he has four in his fami1y. I think that this
Convention must have some sympathy for these people. I know this
postmaster to be a capable man. There are at least three communities adjoining
that settlement where post offices were taken away, telegraph and
telephone poles chopped down, and this office serves 1,200 to 1,500
people. That man is employed full time all the year round and he receives
$11.62 a month. I have every sympathy for him....
Mr. Miller Mr. Chairman, I have but few observations to make and
shall refrain from any detailed criticism. It appears we have today a
worn-out railway and a worn-out telegraph system, and we are coldly
advised of this fact by both of these departments. This has happened despite
the fact that both the railway and the telegraph system had been building
up pre-war in a highly satisfactory manner and indicated an ability to
handle our normal needs for a long time. What, then, was the reason for this
overburdening and unprofitable business? Plainly, sir, it is because we
have just fought a war, we have rendered services beyond our means; whether
willingly or unwillingly I don't know, but certainly to a distressing effect in
assisting a world interest. Are we then satisfied to
receive from that world a graceful thank-you, and leave the matter there?
England, the US and Canada, stand together because they must....
Standing together in war they still stand together in peace, but we stood with
them in war. Why then are we so quickly forgotten in peace? If
I were to answer that question I would say because we work out our deals on
"friendly terms" — two words to be careful of in the future of
Newfoundland. In a friendly manner we have gone on in the past and accepted
things as we found them. We have accepted the word and treatment of old
England as final and live
January 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
261
under it or die under it, if you will. We are deprived of any standing in any
international set-up. We must be humble contributors, exploited
in any and every way; and so we go on to face the future; so we let ourselves
forget the sacrifice made to the railway and telegraph system;
to the roads; we let ourselves forget the bases deal; the free interest loans;
all consequences of friendly terms. Mr. Chairman, in international
politics there is no place for friendly terms, it is a case of dog eat dog....
Is it now time then that we, as a people, cease to condone this policy, and
cease to be the good servant?
I hold that we in this Convention, emphatically, man for man, should
condemn this treatment and take an aggressive stand; that we should go
beyond the Dominions Office, and ask that a delegation from the present Labour
government of Great Britain be sent here to study and discuss its
findings with the National Convention more particularly in respect to our
injustices. I feel that we should not go on alone, since the situation has
arisen mainly as a result of the war policy of other countries, and those
other countries must assist us to mend the damage. I feel, sir, that we are
spending too much time discussing reports which in the long run amount,
as my friend Mr. Newell said yesterday, to cutting our garment to suit the
cloth, without considering how we can enlarge the cloth. Bigger matters
vitally concerning us are being passed by, and time goes on. We have
assisted these countries in their problems, we have worked together in war —
let us now boldly present our demands in peace.
[In response to a question from Mr. Harrington, Mr. Smallwood gave information
concerning telegraph lines built by the American forces]
Mr. Ballam ....I notice that they are going to build a parcel post station out
in Comer Brook. I may say that this is very good news for people all over
the island. It always seemed ridiculous to us that parcels had to be carted in
here to St. John's and then carted back again all over the country....
Mr. Butt Mr. Chairman, I have not trespassed too much on your time, and now that
the cross- firing has practically ceased, this appears to be a
good time to sum up my impression of what we have learned so far. As a
member of the Transportation and Communications Committee it would
not come with good grace from me to be critical of the report.... Having
said this it would appear
that I should say no more. However, various interpretations were put on some
of the facts and it is on these that I wish to offer a few comments. My
reason for doing this is twofold: I would like to clarify my own thinking now
that the debates in committee have finished, and I would like to pass on
to the public and the other members of the Convention my thoughts, in the hope
that they may be of some assistance in helping us all to reach the best
possible conclusion when we come to make final decisions.
Since the Convention came into being I have conceived of its work, in broad
essentials, as having to discover, first, what our yearly national income
is likely to be in the foreseeable future. I visualised our getting out a sort
of overall picture of what is likely to be produced yearly for say the next
five or ten years — as the amount of wealth which we would have to live on as a
people....
[Mr Butt went on to make an estimate of value of fisheries, forestry,
agriculture, investment returns, bases, minerals of approximately
$65 million]
The total fund, in other words, out of which we all had to get a living at some
standard. Now having found that we should, secondly, discover what percent
of that yearly income we should devote to government services. Government services
are divided into two parts. One part is services that we
wish for ourselves and for which we do expect to pay on a specific basis, for
example, education. The other part is services which are a combination of
service and specific business such as the Railway....
Then there would be our major problem of discovering what form of government
would best help us to increase our annual production, and provide for the
best distribution of that production. To get the information required
for the first two items mentioned we appointed nine committees.... So far three
committee reports and one interim report have been
presented to the Convention. Two — Forestry and the Interim
Fisheries report — dealt with national wealth, and the other two — Education,
and Transportation and Communications — dealt with a possible avenue of increasing
that national wealth insofar as it
referred to the bases deal. The two others, Education was one of pure service,
and the Transportation and Communications has dealt with the combination
of poor service and
262
NATIONAL CONVENTION
January 1947
poor business. In these few remarks I propose to touch on the Education Report
only, and to review the items discovered under Transportation
and Communications The remark on education is this: it has, Ibelieve, been
accepted by a majority of us that this one item of government
expenditure must be of the order of $3 million — $4 million.
[1] That is one item
which must go into our second table to be spent on education.
Let us turn now to the report immediately under consideration. In my view we
can add certain items to our projected government expenditure
table. First of all radio service — $25,000; secondly, posts and telegraphs —
$1.5 million- $1.75 million; roads and bridges — $2.5 million
$3 million; railway — $12 million-$13 million; Gander and the tourists.
On these last mentioned I am unwilling to say what our expenditure will
have to be because, as regards Gander. I feel that the position should not be
allowed to remain as it is: namely, Newfoundland is giving outside concerns services
for which these concerns are only paying an
estimated one-half of the cost. We have agreed that this is a matter which will
require much more probing before we can say what must go into our
expenditure account. Again, on tourists, we will have to make up our minds
where we are going and then estimate our expenditure with its
counterpart of the estimated return to the total economy. Before leaving this
short sum-up, sir, I would ask you to note two things. First, that
although the items at present about which we are able to speak definitely are
very few, the country ought to know that within the next few weeks as the
bulk of the work is done many more items will be added quickly. I say that
in fairness to the members of the Convention and because I feel that the
public generally would like to know that that is so. And secondly. you will
note that I have neglected for the moment the form in which we are to
cover the expenditure for these government services — that is to say, how
we are going to collect the funds to pay for the services.
[2]
As regards broadcasting, Mr. Chairman, I was impressed with the need to get on
with the expansion of our present services. In a country such as
ours where the people do not live in large centres,
radio was discovered for our benefit. We ought to back those in charge of
broadcasting not only with our most helpful criticism, but with the
necessary funds to get a full Newfoundland coverage, on the same principle and
for the same reasons as we have satisfied ourselves that we ought to push
to the limit the purely formal education of the country.
Our discussion of posts and telegraphs appeared to turn on the
question of the adequacy of the wages paid to postal employees, and at the
same time to an extension of the services. On the question of an
equitable distribution of wealth, I have a closed mind. My mind cannot tolerate
a general position where wealth is concentrated into the hands of a
minority. We should be discovering ways and means of seeing to it
that everyone produces and that wealth is shared. Howeverl say frankly
that we ought not to go off half-cocked. Whether wages paid in the Department of
Posts and Telegraphs are high, low, or fair in relation
to other government services, I do not know, because I have not carefully
studied the position. How a postal telegraph employee's wages in the
various communities compare with the average person's wages I do not know. If
the courier to whom Mr. Burry referred is doing a necessary job, and that
job takes a great deal of his time and puts him out of production in other
spheres, then he should be paid a wage which will put him in as
favourable a position as the rest of the people with whom he lives. However, to
refer to a $50 a year payment in some cases as a salary of $4 per month,
and as shameful, is not necessarily being realistic. For example, a
community of fishermen wants a lightkeeper at the approach of their
harbour. They cannot afford to pay a man a living wage forjust doing a
half-hour's work a day, so they say to someone of their number who lives
on the point: "Keep your eye on that light, fix it up if anything happens to
put it out on the odd occasion. This will take some of your time away
from farming, carpentry, etc, and we'll pay you for that lost time, i.e. $50 a
year." This question will come up time and time again before our
discussions have finished. It is right that it should. I have offered my
comments in the hope that they might be of some value in helping us all
to keep a sense of perspective. I repeat, I am all
January 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
263
for the fairest distribution of wealth, but I have to remember that as
taxation is increased for ordinary services, the farmer and the
fishermen pays.
May I now comment on our work in connection with the Railway....
There is one point which is of particular interest to me, which has not been
sufficiently brought out. I put a blunt question to the General Manager
like this: "From the point of view of lessened maintenance costs in the
future have you got today a better outfit to give service than you have ever
had?" His reply was, and I ask the other members of the Committee to hear
me out, an unqualified "yes". He went into details on the subject which I am
not going to do. Further he was expecting a number of things to "break"
favourably over the next few years of operating, so that the costs of our
service may be lessened.
[1] As Mr. Smallwood said yesterday, the General
Manager hopes to see a gradual reduction of the ordinary deficit over
the next ten years after we have passed the present period of terrifically high
and abnormal costs, particularly materials. To me,
looking at the probable costs of government in the forseeable future, this is
of the utmost importance. During the next few years, when we have money,
we will be able to carry on and pay the high deficits. But after that period
when things get back more nearly to normal, there will be a corresponding
relief in the form of reduced railway deficit.
I turn for a moment to roads, Mr. Chairman. It is to my mind quite proper that
we should have debated the relative merits of trunk versus community roads. As a
result of our work I feel that the country has been
reminded that there is a direct relationship between the development of
the economy, or to repeat Mr. Newell's words, the economic potential of the
country and the development of all necessary means of communication and transportation.
One point here did not appear to me to be
sufficiently brought out. It is the fact that roads themselves, their
location, their standard, the method of building them, is of tremendous
importance. And further, that there is or should be an economic basis for
the standard, the location, and the method of building. For example, if it has
been decided that a base depot should be established in a certain
locality, it may be proper economy to build a
third-class road leading to it. If however, that area developed, it may be
necessary and proper to re-build a road to a necessary standard. Finally,
some time later because of the increase in traffic on that road, it may be
necessary to put a hard to on it or to build it to a higher standard still.
[2]
Similarly, in thinking about the merits or demerits of a transinsular
bighroad, I have already reduced my thoughts to writing in an article
in the
Atlantic Guardian, wherein I stated we should have an overall
design of a transinsular road but that it should be constructed in sections
paralleling the development of these sections. The sections to be
developed first should be based on the criterion of their adding to the
development of our economy or our total production.
Mr. Chairman, at the moment I have not cleared my own thinking on Gander and
the tourist report, and therefore I will reserve my comments to a later
date I wish also to say that the time taken by me today has a twofold purpose:
to be helpful to the Convention; and to report particularly to that part
of Newfoundland which is responsible for my being in the Convention. 1 do
hope these purposes have been reasonably fulfilled.
Mr. Miller I find it difficult to reconcile this statement about the excellent
condition of the railway. We are told we need seven new locomotives; we are told
that due to the increased traffic handled, the main line
needs to be re-railed, That will cost $600,000. It cannot be so good. The
report goes on to say that the present rails can be cut and used to re-rail the
branch lines. If we anticipate laying new branch lines, they cannot be so
good either. Further there is no mention of any money to re-rail those branch
lines. That, I presume, is an expenditure that has been overlooked.
Mr. Smallwood There is another item that ought to be added to the cost of
re-railing. Mr. Russell's estimate is $600,000 for six years — $3.6
million to re-rail the main line. To that has to be added another $1 million to
cover labour and other incidental expenses in connection with the
re-railing; which would make a total of over $4.5 million, and as I remarked
before, there are those who contend that it will be extremely unlikely to re-rail
the main line at an overall cost of
264
NATIONAL CONVENTION
January 1947
$4.5 million.... It is true that Mr. Russell told us that the railway is in a
fairly good condition, basically. When the railway was built, the contractors were
paid by the mile, and they were not too particular
about how they built it. For instance a lot of culverts were built of
wood, and the wood rotted and had to be replaced. Now it is true, in
recent years they have replaced a number of those with concrete culverts. A
certain amount of ballasting was done. In other respects the railway is
in better condition than it has been for years. But the main line has to be
re-railed. That will call for a better roadbed. That will run into money.
How much is any man's guess. They have to buy seven new locomotives, and a lot
of new rolling stock. If the railway were good, they would not have to
re-rail the line, buy locomotives and buy rolling stock. But when the
Committee visited the Railway and spent an afternoon with
Mr. Ryan, that matter was raised. It was admitted that at the end of World War
I they had a completely worn-out railway. There were lives lost and
people maimed on account of the condition of the railway, because of
the traffic it had to carry, and which no one anticipated it would carry.
The question was put to Mr. Ryan, "The railway has been called upon to carry
tremendous amount of traffic during the war years, is it now as worn-out
as it was at the end of the last war?" He said, "No, it is distinctly better
now than at the end of the last war." Because, he told us, during the war
years they did spend some money on the roadbed, and some money on rolling stock
and some on general upkeep.... It is better than it was but is far from
being perfect and a lot of money has to be spent to make it ordinarily
efficient and workable.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Smallwood said something about not congratulating ourselves on
the condition of the railway. It seemed to me he was pleased
with the condition of the railway. Mr. Smallwood said that at the end of World
War I we had an absolutely worn-out railway, would he tell me what the
government has done in regard to that?
Mr. Smallwood When the railway was worn- out, it was owned by the
Reids. The Reids kept coming to the government with this, that and the
other proposition and finally the government had to step in. They appointed a
Railway Commission and they brought in railway experts. The
upshot was that in 1923 the government bought out the railway from the Reids.
Mr. Smallwood When the government bought it, they re-railed the whole line.
There are always improvements going on. For a small country, it is a mighty
system. Naturally, capital expenditure has had to be made — stations, sheds built
and re-built, as regularly as clockwork.
Mr. Miller I think the point is now very clear that the management of the
Railway in the lean years did a good job. When war came along we had a
railway system which might have carried on for a long period to serve our needs,
but an excessive burden was thrown on it ... I cannot be reconciled to the
fact the Newfoundland should be saddled with an expenditure on a railway
which helped fight a war, beyond our means. Someone else should pay.
Mr. Hollett What I cannot understand is, one statement says the railway is worn
out, and another says it is in better condition than ever.
Mr. Butt Basically, it is in a better condition. They have put in new culverts;
done a lot of ballasting; taken off curves; have built new sheds which will
last for long periods; have put gravity feed in the water system. Basically the
railway has an outfit better than before....
Mr. Hollett I wish to draw attention to this particular report. You will note
that everything we have in this country is absolutely worn out and should
be scrapped. It is tragic. We have to throw the postal telegraphs in the Narrows
and get in a new system. The railway has to be re-railed. Everything this
report touches has to be scrapped. That is an important thing to remember when
we are discussing forms of government. What particular form of
government is able to afford that? When we come to sum up, we will have to bear
that in mind.
Mr. Job Are we now discussing the report, not only on posts and telegraphs, but
the general report?
Mr. Job We have not had any general picture of what all these six items are
going to cost the country. As a member of the Finance Committee, I may say
we are rather interested in finding out what that is.... I take it from this
report that the Finance Committee will have to estimate a rise
January 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
265
on expenditure of $3.5 million from a revenue point of view. They do help the
primary industries. The railway system and roads and bridges
help the fisheries and they help forestry. But they are not, in themselves,
revenue producers, and I cannot feel there is much advantage in
debating this report until we have had the other side of the picture. People
have talked about the irreducible minimum of expenditure to carry along
these services; but I think the irreducible expenditures will
eventually be governed by the maximum revenues....
There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. Mr. Smallwood
replied to a question in connection with duty on plates for the repair of
ships. The duty is refundable on foreign ships, but it is not refundable on our
own ships. I take it that applies to the Railway — the ships run by the
Railway?
Mr. Job They presumably pay duty and it consequently increases the
cost of operation. It is the same with our local mercantile marine. I do not
know how we are going to expect to compete with other people in working
up a mercantile marine when that condition exists. The Railway itself is
the largest employer of mercantile marine at the present time. I suppose one of
these days we will again be sending all our produce abroad in foreign
ships, because they are operating more cheaply, and it is not right that these
duties are charged against our own ships when they have to compete with
these ships. Ninety percent of our fish was shipped, in previous years, in
Norwegian ships and they gave very good service. It is a sad thing being
a naval people that we cannot work up a good mercantile marine of our own and
run our own ships. Things like this question of duty have something to do
with it.
Mr. Smallwood It is a pleasure indeed to find myself in such complete
agreement with Mr. Job. Anything charged in the repair of local vessels on
the Newfoundland Dock is an imposition, a burden on local
shipping. As a free trader, an anti- protectionist I would say that
all our productive industries should be exempted from customs duty.... I
would say sweep out the customs duty, have free trade, and do away with this
protection. If our local mercantile marine has got to compete with any
other merchant marine, then it is necessary to reduce the costs of
operation. The same
thing applies to fish. We are competing today with Canada, Iceland, and Norway
in the marketing of fish. That job is made hard for us because
the fishing industry is paying customs duty. Let's wipe out those duties and
lower the cost of producing fish, while we are wiping out the cost of
repairs on the dock by wiping out duties altogether.
Mr. Ashbourne 1 don't see why these ships coming into Newfoundland and using
our dock should not pay the duty on the stuff that goes into them. Does
anybody think these ships would ever come here if they did not have to pay? Why
should our own ships have to pay it, and foreign ships get a rebate of
duty? 1 must say I feel very strongly about the matter, and while discussing
the dockyard I would like to ask Mr. Smallwood the number of people on
the payroll.... Now it may be that you have not that at hand, butI would
certainly like to know how many people are on that payroll with over $1
million....
Mr. Smallwood I could give the official explanation, not meaning
that I agree with it all. If Mr. Ashboume had a vessel and she needed
repairs, and he decided to repair her down in Twillingate and he had to use
materials for those repairs he would get no rebate of the duty on the
material, and the government takes the stand that whether that is done by
himself in Twillingate or done for him at the docks in St. John's, it is the
same situation as far as customs duty is concerned. In other
words, all the local merchant marine pays duty on certain things used in the
repair and operation of their ships. Now why should any difference be
made for foreign ships going on the dock? Their answer is that by charging duty
on material used to repair a local vessel on the dock
they are only doing what that vessel has to do if it is repaired anywhere else
in the country, but in getting a ship from outside they are getting
something new, and they have to be in a position to compete with other docks,
and for that reason the duty is paid back. That's clear to me, not saying
that I agree with it, but I can certainly see that if you going to have duty on
the local you must have it off on the foreign or you will not get any
foreign ships to do. It's probably a bit cheaper for a man having a local ship
repaired on the dock, because it reduces the overhead,
therefore making it a little cheaper for local vessels.
266
NATIONAL CONVENTION
January 1947
Mr. Job I think I sat down a little too quickly, before I had a chance to
congratulate the Committee on their report, because they have taken a
tremendous amount of trouble and done an enormous amount of
work. The Railway is a great asset to the country, and I always think that one
of the great assets on our Railway is the personnel. I don't
know any place (although I have done a lot of travelling) where they make
people as much at home as on our railway, and I think it is due to the
courtesy of the officials from top to bottom. I have heard that same expression
from people outside the country who have travelled on the railway. They
seem to get a more personal touch, and it is an asset with a view to our
possible future tourist policy.
Mr. Smallwood It's our natural Newfoundland courtesy, I think. We have all got
it, but it only shows up when we are in contact with outsiders. When we
are alone, God only knows what we will say to each other, but to outsiders we
are a very charming and polite people.
Mr. Bailey I think it will be found that in all parts of the world outside
ships in foreign shipyards pay no duty.... A man who goes to sea, once he
is outside the three mile limit does not pay any duty, but when he is in port
he pays duty. That has been something that has grown up throughout
maritime history.... I took the question up with Mr. Russell, and he
says it is impossible for us to compete with the docks in New
York and other large docks throughout the world, so I don't think we can
censure the government for doing what is an old custom.... We are not in
a position, and very few countries in the world are in the position, to compete
with the United States. Ships come from all parts of the world to be
dry-docked in the United States. If we were in a position to have more ships
come here, there would be more surplus for the docks. But we went into
itextensively with Mr. Russell and apparently we are not able to
compete with the large docks in the world. The only thing we get here is an
emergency job or a local job.
Mr. Vardy I feel the most serious aspect of this matter is the fact that by us
paying duty on our local jobs, and foreign ships getting that duty free,
it prevents our local ships from competing. The whole answer is that
Newfoundlanders usually treat outsiders better than their own. Early in
1940 I was in Oakland, California, with
the old Queen of the Pacific, and there was never any question of getting a
rebate on any of the plating we used at the dry dock, and I don't think
any Newfoundland ship could go to any dock in the world and get a rebate of
duty. Usually any foreigners coming to Newfoundland get these special
concessions, and I don't believe they are entitled to it. I never heard of a
boat coming to Newfoundland because of the special concessions,
they only come to Newfoundland because they are forced here because of weather
conditions, or because they become disabled....
Mr. Reddy I would feel remiss if I let this occasion pass without
deploring the awful conditions of first class travel on the
Home in
Placentia Bay. Time and time again she has left Placentia with 120
passengers —- sleeping on deck, and in lifeboats, and every conceivable part of
the ship, food in a deplorable condition, almost beyond description. The
Railway is at last going to replace the
Home with a new boat, and this very
good news. If the railway is in such a deplorable condition due to the
war, I think, as Mr. Miller suggested, that we should ask those foreign
powers which militarily used Newfoundland for some compensation to help us out
in making our railway a better service to our country.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, if there are no other cements it is getting up
around the time to adjourn. This completes all we have of our report,
but, as the House knows, we have asked Mr. Neill to appear before the
Convention and give us further information on Gander, and it may
consequently be necessary to bring in a supplementary report on
Gander....
Mr. Hillier Since Mr. Reddy has raised the point of deplorable conditions on
the
Home, I would like to say that I agree with him. The ship's company
have given their best to make the passengers comfortable as far as
possible. It is a deplorable state of affairs not to have better accommodations,
but I can't see how it can be avoided at the
present time. I know I have felt bad to have to walk down and say, "We can't
take any more, we have no room for them." It is very uncomfortalbe for
women and children lying around on the seats and chairs, etc. I do really
hope that it will be better, not only in that connection, but by the
time we finish our work here maybe you will see a ray of sunshine which at the
present time is not apparent.
January 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
267
Mr. Smallwood I was wondering the past few weeks what the four members from
Placentia Bay were looking so happy about. I think it may be because
these four gentlemen have succeeded in getting a whole lot of things for
Placentia Bay. They are getting a new boat, and a new bait depot, and a
new cottage hospital, so that must be why they are so happy. They have even got
roads, a
couple of million dollars will be spent on them Mr. Chairman, I move that the
committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[The committee of the whole rose and reported progress. The Convention received
and adapted the report of the Committee on Transportation and Communications,
and adjourned until the call of the Chair]
