Howard Charles GREEN

GREEN, The Hon. Howard Charles, P.C., Q.C.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Vancouver Quadra (British Columbia)
Birth Date
November 5, 1895
Deceased Date
June 26, 1989
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Charles_Green
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=6dec82d6-fab3-438b-b40f-c7720a93d8c1&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister

Parliamentary Career

October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
CON
  Vancouver South (British Columbia)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
NAT
  Vancouver South (British Columbia)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
PC
  Vancouver South (British Columbia)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
PC
  Vancouver Quadra (British Columbia)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
PC
  Vancouver Quadra (British Columbia)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
PC
  Vancouver Quadra (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Public Works (June 21, 1957 - August 19, 1959)
  • Minister of Defence Production (June 21, 1957 - May 11, 1958)
  • Progressive Conservative Party House Leader (October 14, 1957 - July 18, 1959)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (October 14, 1957 - July 18, 1959)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Vancouver Quadra (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Public Works (June 21, 1957 - August 19, 1959)
  • Minister of Defence Production (June 21, 1957 - May 11, 1958)
  • Progressive Conservative Party House Leader (October 14, 1957 - July 18, 1959)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (October 14, 1957 - July 18, 1959)
  • Secretary of State for External Affairs (June 4, 1959 - April 21, 1963)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Vancouver Quadra (British Columbia)
  • Secretary of State for External Affairs (June 4, 1959 - April 21, 1963)
  • Minister of Public Works (July 18, 1962 - August 8, 1962)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4136 of 4138)


April 23, 1936

Mr. GREEN:

Speaking of the north arm,

might I ask the minister what the intention is with regard to the north arm of the Fraser river? I notice it is not included in the port of Vancouver.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Full View Permalink

March 26, 1936

Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):

At the outset, may I say that I approve the general principle of this bill, and that I have great admiration for the Minister of Marine (Mr. Howe), who is bringing in the measure. I believe that in Vancouver he is regarded as a minister of exceptional ability and fairness. 1 do suggest, however, that there should be in the bill some provision for the appointment or election of advisory local councils. That may not be so necessary in the case of ports that are near Ottawa, but I suggest that there should be at least the power to appoint or to elect such a local advisory council. That recommendation has been made by Sir Alexander Gibb in his very able report, and I would refer the minister to page 4, paragraph 9, in which Sir Alexander says:

Adequate representation of local interests and of the port users, which at present is almost non-existent, is essential to the progress and efficiency of a port, and a strong local harbour council should be established on an elective basis.

The idea is, I imderstand, that such council should serve without remuneration. A local advisory council would be particularly helpful to the port of Vancouver for the following reasons. That port is very far removed from Ottawa and it will be very difficult for a central control board to keep in touch with the problems of the port; further, there is bound to be delay in handling those problems. Then, the port is the only one on the Pacific coming under the terms of this act; our problems are those of a Pacific port and not of a port on the Atlantic or on the St. Lawrence. I suggest to the minister that the problems are quite different and are those of the ports of Seattle and Portland, with which we are in direct and strenuous competition. Again, private business interests have had far more to do with the development of Vancouver than is the case with these other national ports.

Again, I refer to the report of Sir Alexander Gibb, quoting from page 178:

I feel inclined to emphasize the tendency of Vancouver to develop on rather different lines from those of other dominion ports, in that there is there a much greater participation of private enterprise. Vancouver is a national port and its policy must be directed accordingly, but so long as local business continues to play the part in its development that it does at present, it should be given full scope, subject only to the overruling considerations of the national policy.

That is a direct finding on this particular question which I am discussing to-night.

We have in Vancouver a port manager who is an excellent man; he knows the port and the work; but managing that port is very big business, and it is physically impossible for a port manager to keep in contact with the various groups using the port. Sir Alexander Gibb also realized this point, and I would quote from page 31 of the report:

Considerable latitude should be allowed to the port managers, so long as their activities are directed to carrying out the policy laid down by the central authority. It is essential to avoid emasculating the local administration, since no centralized control can replace an efficient and active local administration, or the special knowledge and initiative of the local business community, both of which are vital to a port's prosperity.

Then he goes on:

For this reason I strongly advocate a local advisory council. There are very many aspects of port working which such a council can properly care for, such as the representation of the interests of private wharf owners, of local merchants and distributors, of local consignees and exporters, of the labour view, and of the attitude of boards of trade, chambers of commerce, corn exchanges and other such trade organizations, in addition to shipping.

National Harbours Board-Mr. Ryan

It serves very usefully to identify the community with the port; and to secure the support and interest of local members of parliament, the city council, or provincial government in schemes, and so anticipate and meet criticisms from any such quarters, or action that might be prejudicial to the port.

It is invaluable in exploring the possibilities of local markets, in carrying out advertisement and propaganda, and in cooperation with interests likely to promote industrial developments. Finally, a local council provides a useful check on the tendency of more or less permanent officials to become stereotyped or arbitrary.

I cannot emphasize this too strongly, because our port is vital to the development of Vancouver. Sir Alexander goes on;

The port manager would be ex officio chairman of the council, which would meet regularly and be consulted on all such matters as proposed developments, alterations in rates, important changes in operation. The members of the council should have the right of initiating discussions on matters of policy affecting the port, on any complaints raised by users of the port, and on questions of rates, charges, etc.; but not on any purely executive matters, and they would have no executive duties or powers.

The advisory council's proceedings and recommendations would be submitted to the central authority, and they should have the right of direct access to the central authority, but not to any other department of government.

I suggest to the minister that without a local council of some sort there is bound to be misunderstanding, there is bound to be friction in a port so far removed from Ottawa as is the port of Vancouver.

In closing, may I say that I have every confidence that the minister is trying to do the right thing for all of our great national ports, but I hope that he will consider again this question of appointing or electing local advisory councils. I cannot too strongly or too earnestly impress upon both the minister and the members of the house the need of such a council in the case of the port of Vancouver.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Full View Permalink

March 19, 1936

Mr. GREEN:

Very well. Our port is of vital importance to us.

Topic:   NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF PUBLIC HARBOURS
Full View Permalink

March 19, 1936

Mr. GREEN:

With all due respect to the Minister of Finance I should like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals whether he has considered the advisability of appointing local advisory boards, to serve without remuneration, for each of these harbours. That question is particularly worthy of consideration in the case of Vancouver, where many of our problems are far different from those of the eastern ports. Ottawa being so far away from the Pacific coast, questions may come up from time to time which will not be properly or efficiently dealt with by a board serving from Ottawa.

Topic:   NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF PUBLIC HARBOURS
Full View Permalink

March 17, 1936

Mr. GREEN:

I was just going to explain

that. This quota of 250 million feet applies only to Douglas fir and hemlock, although it must be remembered that in 1929 we sold the United States twice the amount of this quota. Quotas are something new to Canada. I believe this is the first time that one has ever been placed against us by the United States. I ask hon. members not to be misled during the next few months by the increases in lumber shipments to the United States, because at the present time lumber exporters are rushing lumber to that country in order to get their own lumber in before the quota is used up.

I should like the committee to compare that quota of 250 million feet with the sales to the empire totalling 640 million feet. This comparison will give the whole picture in a nutshell. It will show why the lumbermen of British Columbia are more concerned with the empire agreements than they are with

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

the Canada-United States agreement. The empire trade is far more important than the trade with the United States, because in empire trade there is great room for expansion while in the case of the United States we are met with the quota. Russia, Sweden and the Baltic countries sell to the United Kingdom four times as much lumber as we do; this shows the vast possibilities for expansion in that market. Also our empire trade is not subject to the dangers confronting our trade with the United States. The chief competitors of British Columbia in the American market are the lumbermen of Washington and Oregon, and they offer stiff competition. I should like to give some figures in explanation of this competition. In 1929 these two states shipped 550 million feet of lumber to the British empire in competition with British Columbia; this was nearly three times as much as the sales of British Columbia. Last year as a result of the empire trade agreements, Washington and Oregon shipped only 70 million feet to empire countries as compared with the 550 million feet shipped in 1929; this was just about one-ninth of what we shipped. Naturally this has irritated the lumbermen of the two states in question. These people have a strong lobby in Washington, and if the Roosevelt administration is defeated, I believe there will be little doubt that the lumbermen and other interests will make short work of this Canada-United States agreement.

My own opinion is that there is more scope for the development of trade within the empire than with the United States. The products of that group of nations which we term the British commonwealth are of great variety. This is not the case with Canada and the United States. As I have said already, the lumber of British Columbia must compete with the lumber of Washington and Oregon. As the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) told us the other evening, British Columbia fruit must meet American competition. The same thing applies to the fruit of Ontario and Nova Scotia. Wheat and other grains from our prairies and the manufactured products of Ontario and Quebec must compete with similar products of the nation to the south. The same applies to the cattle of the west and the fish of the maritime provinces. Both Canada and the United States produce practically the same commodities and there are definite limitations to the expansion of trade. This is not the case within the empire.

Finally, I believe it will always be more satisfactory for us to deal within the empire. Just as sentiment helps in business, so does

it help in trade between nations. There is a certain sentimental feeling between the different countries comprising the British empire. We know we are not so apt to be cut off on short notice by any of our sister nations, which might happen in the case of the United States, whose dealings with us are on a cold-blooded bargaining basis and always have been.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Full View Permalink