BENNETT, DIEF BOTH PLAN POWER SELLOUT TO U.S. One would think that the Premier would cail for the scrapping of the Treaty. But: no,-he is sure that it will pro- ceed; Only the form of the sell- out should be changed not the ' substance, in the view of Ben- ~ nett. But a sell-out is a sell-out no matter what the form. The reai ‘interests of B.C. and of Cana- | da eall for a complete scrapping of the Treaty. : Bennett wants to use the pro- ceeds from the sell-out of the Columbia to subsidize Peace River power. His demand is _ that the so-called downstream benefits be returned in the form of cash not power. Bennett remains deeply com- “ mitted to the Wenner Gren in- terests. They still have the ‘rights to the natural resources of most of northern B.C. Cheap power would bring them super profits from the exploitation of these resources. Bennett’s demand is part of ‘his. overall policy of ‘intergra- tion’ with the U.S. He wants the right to export electricity to the U.S. from any B.C. river. Tf the Federal government agrees to this demand it would constitute a giant step towards the complete subordination of _ Canadian resources to the Un- ited States. So far the Federal . government has refused, though they too stand for “integration” with the United States. HISTORY OF COLUMBIA _ TREATY How did the Columbia Trea- ty eome about? In early 1960) the Federal government _threugh «General McNaughton reached agreement with the U.S. for the development of | _ the- Columbia under a plan that would genuinely serve the interests of both countries (the Dorr Diversion-Mica Creek Plan). In February 1960, Ben- mett personally intervened in the negotiations and vetoed | the Dorr Diversion Plan. He de- manded the non-diversion High Arrow plan and the Federal fovernment meekly . agreed They thus became accomplices in the sell-out. _ ‘The Dorr Diversion vlan is essentially a plan based on - power production in Canada. _-The non-diversion plan as em- ~ bodied in the Treaty is essen- tially a plan based on storage of water in Canada. If the Treaty is ratified thousands of eC oh pete il teed coe-aes hh comment. ge €d on production of power in Canada would be “exported” > tO EUS. - THE MICA CREEK DAM _. The key dam under the Dorr _ Diversion-McNaughton scheme is the Mica Creek dam. The key dam under the Treaty is the High Arrow. e real nature of the Treaty is obscured by ‘the fact that Mica Creek is al- s0 ineluded (on paper at least) - under the terms of the Treaty. The Treaty calls for. tne building of three dams, one at High. Arrow, one at Duncan Lake and one at Mica Creek, fits employment opportunities bas- |. all at Canada’s expense. Both High Arrow and Duncan Lake are storage dams only. Mica is essentially a power dam cven though it will store more wa- ter than both the other two combined. It is a power dam because ofits tremendous drop —650 feet to High Arrow’s 60 feet. Under the Dorr Diversion plan the Mica Creek Dam could have an installed capac- ity of 1,600,000 kilowatts, only slightly less than Grand Cou- Jee. Under the Treaty propos- ed this potential would be cut a third and there is great doubt that it would in fact be built, as the following figures show. TREATY TERMS . Under the terms of the Treaty the U.S. intends to use water from the three dams for flood control purposes as fol- lows: High Arrow — 7,100,000 acre feet and to pay $52, 100,- 000. Duncan Lake — 1,270,000 acre feet and to pay $11,100,- 000. . Mica Creek — 80,000 acre feet and to pay $1,200,000. Much the same story is the ease as. far as downstream power benefits: are concerned. In this case. the ‘first-added’ principle is used whereby the dams first constructed get the credit. The Treaty calls for Mica to be built in 9 years and the other two in 5 years. As a result Canada’s share of down- stream power resulting in the U.S. is accredited as follows: High Arrow — 484,000 kilo- watts of prime power; Mica Creek — 204,000 kilo- watts of prime power; Duncan Lake — 75,000 kilo- watts of prime power. In summary this means that 99% of the flood control bene- and 73% of the down- stream power benefits can be secured without building the Mica Creek Dam. Mica Dam, the king pin as far as Canada ‘March For Life’ starts Saturday A “March for Life’ com- mences at White Rock this Saturday at 7 a.m. and winds up Sunday, 6 p.m. at Victory Square, Vancouver. The “March”, which is being sponsored by a group called the Focus for Arts and Politics will assemble at 15069 Marine Drive, White Rock at 7 a.m. Saturday and march to Queens Park New Westminster, where they will spend Saturday night. = Sunday morning Oct. the group will leave Queens Park at 8 a.m. and march into Vancouver to Victory Square. U.S. MILITARY BUDGET The U.S. Senate this year! voted $46,848,292,000 for the country’s military budget, a peacetime record. This amount includes President Kennedy’s $3.5 billion for expansion of conventional arms. >| Bennett. 1st,: Now is the time to scrap the Columbia River By BRUCE YORKE Premier Bennett’s speech in Prince George exposed the Columbia River Treaty as a gigantic give-away to the United States. The Premier supplied all the details. And who should know them any better than Bennett, the real author of the main features of the Columbia River Treaty? is concerned is made to look very important, despite the fact that its cost is over twice that of the other two dams. WHY WAS MICA INCLUDED? The only plausible theory is that Mica was included as a smokescreen to cover up the monstrous betrayal of the na- tional interest. If the Treaty did not call for the eventual development of Mica then the sellout would be perfectly ob- vious. It would be clear that we would be acting entirely as storers of water for the U.S. and no power would be de- veloped in Canada even in the distant future. Bennett made no fuss over the inclusion of Mica Creek at the time of negotiations. He al- so made no fuss over getting half the downstream power back in the form of power. Af- ter all these were the only saving features of the Treaty. BENNETT PLANS AN EVEN GREATER SELL-OUT But now Bennett is complain- ing of the cost (which immed- iately calls into question the building of Mica) and of the return of the downstream ben- efits in the form of power. - Having pressured the Feder- al government into abandon- ing the Dorr Diversion scheme and signing the Treaty with the U.S. he is attempting to bring off a gigantic ‘double cross’, Placed simply, he proposes to completely sacrifice the Col- umbia to the U.S., using what proceeds he can secure to sub- sidize his notorious backer Axel Wenner Gren with ‘cheap’ Peace River power. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE: But the Federal Government, though an accomplice, still stands in the way. So far it has not agreed to Bennett’s de- mand for cash returns and the right to export electricity. The demand musi grow for the Federal government to con- ‘tinue this policy. Continuation of this policy would lead log- ically to development of an all Canadian east-wesi power grid, instead of the north-south U.S.-Canada grid championed by Bennett. An east-west power grid would mean that power produc- tion would take place in Cana- da. Hence the present Colum- bia River Treaty should be scrapped, and renegotiated on the basis of the: Dorr Divers- ion-McNaughion Plan. Under the B.N.A. Act the Federal government could intervene in the national interest and could completely by-pass Premier The Federal government will only act however. if sufficient pressure is generated from the ranks of the people. Now is the time for the complete scrap- ping of the sellout Treaty. The interests of the full de- velopment of the Canadian and B.C. economy requires mass public action to: _ ~® Demand scrapping of the Columbia River Treaty: © Forbid the export of elec- tric power; ® Demand immediate con- struction of the Mica Creek ‘dam and full implementation of the Dorr Diversion-McNaugh- ton Plan. Cont’d from page 1 avoiding war and settling out- standing differences through negotiations. Starting his speech with a solemn warning that “we are confronted with the danger of war which would inevitably become world nuclear war,” Buck said it is “today possible to pull the teeth out of im- perialism” and prevent war. Turning to the Berlin prob- lem, Buck charged that use of the word by western leaders of “‘access” to Berlin was both “deceptive and false”. The im- perialists used the word to mean ‘‘possession’’. Outlining the history of the Berlin problem Buck said the western powers never had “rights of conquest” in Berlin but were allowed there by the Soviet Union, who on the basis -of the Potsdam Treaty, pro- posed that the centre for ad- ministration of the Treaty should be in the heart of Ger- many as a demonstration of unity of the great powers. Buck pointed out how the western powers had _ violated the Potsdam Treaty and built up the present West German army into the biggest in NATO, and that former top nazi gen- erals, like Speidel and Heus- inger, now hold the main com- mand posts in NATO. He charged that the western powers refuse to sign a peace treaty because they do not want to recognize the bound- aries now existing. Buck said as long as a treaty is not signed it provides a legal ex- cuse for the nazis now in con- trol to seek to re-establish the old boundaries of Germany. An attack on East Germany Poland, Czechs study status of women So dk joint project to examine the status of women in Poland and Czechoslovakia is being undertaken by the govern- ments of the two countries. This will be the first pro- ject of its kind in the socialist countries. Its aim is to ascer- tain the most important prob- lems facing employed women and housewives. September 29, 1961—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page Buck's appeal by West Germany to annex it by force would under presen! circumstances, be labeled bY the west as a civil war. peace treaty was urgent to Te move this threat to peace. “A peace treaty,” said Buck, “would establish the bound aries of Germany and give rec ognition to the existence of two Germanys.” “How can the Soviet pro- posal to sign a peace treaty to end World War 2 constitut a threat to world peace? asked Buck. : Calling on his listeners t0 defeat the Diefenbakers and Kennedys and those who want war, by demanding there be no war over Berlin, Buck said peace in Berlin might bring permanent peace. He said We face two alternatives: world war over Berlin or the begil- ning of an epoch in which the socialist world would take the lead in world development. Turning to nuclear tests Buck said , the Communist Party has and will carry oF — the battle to stop nuclear tests: — But-he said it would be wrond: to overlook the fact that there are enough nuclear weapons — now to destroy all living things, ‘“‘and these will be used in the event of war.” He said we must work t0 influence the policies of the government of Canada to fight for a world without arms. “If we don’t carry through dis- armament the danger of wat remains,” he said, pointing out that the fight to stop nucleat tests can only be successful a5 a step to abolish nuclear weap- ons and all armaments. A resolution unanimously adopied by the capacity cro demanded, “immediate negotia- tions towards the signing of peace treaty with both Ger manys, the establishment of # nuclear free zone in Central | Europe, and transfer of Berlin into a free city with acces guaranteed by the U.N.” The resolution also urge? that Canada take steps towards achieving general and complet? disarmament. 5 --Harold Pritchett, secretars of the Vancouver Communist Party, was chairman of the meeting.