Civic Reform declares : Gas precautions are _ BCE responsibilty — ; By BERT WHYTE : Fifteen deathe in 40 days — that’s Vancouver’s tragic toll of gas victims. deadly gas fumes: One traffic fatality in 1954 — and 15 lives snuffed out by Yet city council, while expressing “sympathy” in public, backs away from taking action to force B.C. Electric to install safety devices which would save lives . “Non-Partisan” aldermen are showing themselves to be very: partisan indeed toward the B.C. the gas death crisis has been to Place the onus upon lodging and rooming house proprietors and Pass a bylaw compelling them to install safety devices on domestic gas outlets by April 19. By this action, council seeks to exonerate B.C. Electric from its responsibilities to the public. Appearing before council’s so- cial services committee this week, _ Emil Bjarnason of Civic Reform Association argued that many gas 2nd Annual ‘LABOR BAZAAR FRIDAY FEB. 26 Bazaar 8 p.m. ‘SATURDAY FEB. 27 Bazaar All Day DANCE - 9 P.M. HASTINGS AUDITORIUM 826 E. Hastings St. “Have you got one that doesn't come up when | go down?” THE HUB sells everything with a “Money Back” Guarantee that Ur clothes must make good or We will. Buy your next suit with FREE CREDIT. ; THE Hue 45 EAST HASTINGS Electric. Council’s “solution” to deaths are caused by failure of gas pressure during off-peak hours; that sulphurous impurities in the gas may be an additional cause of accidents; and that zoning regula- tions create a _ situation where thousands of landlords will be afraid to take out permits for safety devices. ' Bjarnason proposed that the city require the B.C. Electric: @ To maintain adequate pressure at all times @ To clean its gas to remove any hazardous components. @ To carry out installation of safety devices, contending that the B.C. Electric “can do it more economically than the individual and can assure that all installations are covered, whereas the civic authorities cannot.” Ald. Birt Showler thought there was “too much fuss” being made. Ald. T. F. Orr tried to shift the blame on\rooming house propriet- ors “who are reluctant to expend the amount necessary to eliminate the present danger.” Ald. Orr’s statement drew a sharp retort from J. D. McPhee, repre- senting the Apartment and Room- ing House Association. “We are more than willing to offer every cooperation,” said McPhee. “But we feel that the responsibility should be assumed by the company supplying the gas. These deaths are deplor- able; city council should immed- iately demand that the gas com- pany accept its responsibility.” Non-Partisan Association alder- men, however, show no desire to offend their great and good friend, the B.C. Electric—the power that really runs city hall. VLC elects officers IWA delegate Lloyd Whalen ‘has been elected president of Vancou- ver and Lower Mainland Labor Council (CCL), defeating Ray Lund- strom and succeeding Ewart Orr, who did not contest the post. Ed Sims of the Brewery Work- ers was re-elected as vice-president and Vic Forster was returned by ac- clamation as secretary-treasurer. ‘In his annual report, outgoing || president Ewart Orr called on mem- bers to help break the Non-Parti- son Association stranglehold on the ballot box in 1954.” : ‘the forties, and he was returned East Hastings Street, followed by Labor mourns ‘Ed’ Leary The progressive labor movement lost a courageous and colorful fig- ure this week by the death in St. Paul’s Hospital on Wed- nesday of Eldred Elile “Ed” Leary, former president of Vancouver Labor Council and a trade union leader in this province over the past quarter-century. He-was 67 years of age. Born in Portgeville, Nova Scotia, Ed. Leary came to B.C. as a young man and worked as a cook in min- ing and logging camps. His first experience of the organized labor movement was when he joined the Industrial Workers of the World. Subsequently he joined the old Communist Party of Canada in 1930 and became a foundation member of the Labor-Progressive party when it was formed in 1948. During the war years he helped to organize the Ship and Dockyard Workers Union in Vancouver ship- yards, holding office as its presi- dent until the union amalgamated with the Marine Workers and Boilermakers Union. Later he was organizer and busi- ness agent for Vancouver locals of the International Fur and Leather Workers Union, a post he held for two years before declining health compelled him to relinquish it. Known and respected throughout the trade union movement, he had served as a delegate to both Van- couver Trades and Labor Council (TLC), in the thirties, and Van- couver Labor Council (CCL), in as president of Vancouver Labor Council for four successive terms. He is survived by his wife, Olive; two ‘daughters, Mrs. Annie Wayne, Burnaby, and Miss Betty Leary, New Westminster; and a. step- daughter, Mrs. Yvonne Green, Van- couver. Funeral services will be held this Saturday, February 13, at 1 p.m. from Bell Funeral Home, 2746 cremation. Postal workers score use of amateur help Employment of high school students and other amateur letter carriers for Saturday work, announced by the federal government last week and scheduled to take effect when postal employees switch over to a 40-hour week, was unanimously denounced by members of three unions concerned at a mass meeting held in the Labor Temple here Sunday afternoon. The meeting was sponsored by Canadian Postal Employees, Feder- ated Association of Letter Carriers and Amalgamated Civil Servants of. Ganadan] & is The government order instructed officials to hire Saturday, only let- ter carriers for $8 for a full day’s work and $4 for a half-day. Experience postmen said that an inexperienced letter carrier would take up to 12 hours to complete an g-hour “walk.” Besides, mail would probably be put in wrong addresses causing inconvenience and confu- sion. : The $8 and $4 rate is far below the usual standard of pay for post- men, which varies from $1.15 to $1.47 an hour. : The meeting also protested any drastic change in differential paid to postal employees engaged in night work, and demanded that em- ployees be paid time and one-half for work over the 40-hour-per-week the St. Lawrence Seaway? “go along” with the U.S. There has been no official Ottawa com- ment on the terms of the Wiley Bill. Transport Minister Chevrier, ask- ed on February 2 what he would now considered “undue delay” in getting U.S. cooperation to build the seaway, replied that the question was “unfair” at this moment since the bill had not passed the House of Representatives. (It passed the House Public Affairs Committee by a wide margin.) Chevrier told the press: “If Congress goes on fiddling with it for another year we might consider that undue delay.” Chevrier said the fact that Con- gress was now dealing with the seaway question after 12 years of inaction (U.S. has stalled action on the seaway for more ‘than 60 years) was Ottawa’s announced intention of building it alone. He said the government had committed itself to consider the U.S. bill but that it would “prefer” to proceed with- out U.S. participation. There is no treaty that binds Canada to accept the U.S. terms. That the government is standing by waiting for the U.S. is evident in the fact that so far nota single shovelful of earth has been turned, despite widely publicized state- ments from government leaders that the all-Canada route would start as far back as July 1953. Prime Minister St. Laurent made trips to Washington to see both Truman and Eisenhower. Pearson went to see Dulles and C. D. Howe visited U.S. Attorney - General Brownell on the legal aspects of the power development. The Toronto Star’s Robert Taylor quoted “government sources” on February 4 saying that if the Wiley Bill passes “there is nothing Canada can do but accept.” It is freely suggested here that the next move may be to build two channels, one on the U.S. side, one on the Canadian. But with what U.S. brass said in Washing- ton about the necessity for the U.S. Army to control the seaway as it does the Panama Canal, such a plan would run into heavy going and it is not held likely the Cana- dian government would stand up to such opposition. The visit of Prime Minister St. Laurent to President Truman in 1951 is still recalled here as pro- viding the basis of Canadian poli- cy of going along with the U.S. A Toronto Globe and Mail edit- orial at that time (September 28, 1951) headed “Down The River” | was widely quoted. The editorial declared: “Canadians will be shocked and bitterly disappointed at what Prime Minister St. Laurent did in Wash- ington yesterday. After many months of preparation he went there to acquaint President Tru- man with the decision of the On- tario government, and his own, to go ahead with the- all-Canadian seaway. Instead, he made a deal struction of the seaway, on any —a deal which delays the con- basis, into the indefinite future. “Apparently the lure of Yankee dollars were too much for the prime minister. .. .” Library board protests PRINCE GEORGE, B.C. ‘Book-burning and McCarthyism in Victoria were denounced at the annual . meeting of the Prince George Public Library Association here. limit. ‘PACIFIC TRIBUNE — Will Ottawa knuckle under to Washington? OTTAWA How much longer will Canada be kicked around by the U.S. on Will the St. Laurent government accept the U.S. Wiley Bill proposals which mean sacrificing control of the key section of the waterway to the U.S. Army? There’s every indication here that the government is prepared to Continued U.S. Army (Under the proposed Canadian plan, the entire seaway would be built on Canadian soil whether or not the U.S. participates. Cana- dian engineers declare the best and cheapest route along the Inter- national Rapids sector is through Canada.) James M. Minifie, Washington correspondent for the CBC and Toronto Telegram, reported: “Should it (the Wiley Bill) Pass the House, pressure will be Put on Canada to abandon plans for an all-Canada waterway, de- spite the fact that these have been approved by the Interna- tional Joint Commission. “Unless Canada falls in line, there will be likelihood of serious friction, for the American leader- ship is most anxious not to lose control of this key waterway, par- ticularly owing to its strategic value in wartime as the iron-ore route from Labrador to the heart oi the American steel industry.” That the Canadian government ,is willing to accept this dictate from Washington is indicated by Minifie’s conclusion: “The official Canadian position ,is still one of willingness to ac- cept U.S. ‘participation’ if Congress _ authorized it in time. / “The most. recent public engage- 'ment was made by Prime Minister St. Laurent on his visit to Wash- ington last May, when he said that the Canadian government ‘is still prepared’ to discuss U.S. partici- pation in the international section, provided that arrangements for power construction are completed and provided the whole seaway would not be delayed.” When the bill was before’ the U.S. Senate, Admiral Arthur Red- ford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, declared it would be “in- conceivable” to permit Canada fo complete the seaway alone. The Wiley Bill, if agreed to by Ottawa, would give the U.S. eon- trol for $105 million which would finance only 34 percent of the work on the 120-mile international section — 46 miles of which would be in U.S. territory. Canada would be asked to foot the rest of the over $300 million total cost, yield- ing control at the same time. Meanwhile,’ U.S. interests are continuing to throw blocks in the road to the power development side of the seaway project. In the last week of January the licensing power of the New York State Power Authority (which is work- ing with Ontario Hydro) was up- held. But it is expected the matter will be taken te the U.S. Supreme Court. While Canada could build an all- Canadian seaway on her own ter- ritory without U.S} participation, to get the maximum power develop- ment would require U.S. coopera- tion... / ; 4 It is not generally known, how- ever, that Canada could build a power development along the St. Lawrence without the U.S. though it would yield only about 50 per- cent of the power. Prime Minister St. Laurent told the House of Commons May 9, 1953: “We could develop a portion of the potential power in the international section of the St. Lawrence and we could build a canal on our own side. But we would be losing for Ontario . . . almost half the po- tential: