McNaughton exposes the By NIGEL MORGAN A powerful indictment of supporters of the “draft” Columbia River Treaty with the U.S. was deliv- ered in the recent sfatement of General A.G.L. Mc- Naughton. Everything which oppon- ents of the massive surren- der to the U.S. have con- tended, was strikingly con- firmed with unanswerable figures from an unimpeach- able souurce. The Canadian Chairman of the International Joint Com- mission — for the past 12 years entrusted by successive Federal governments with heading up Canada’s study of development and engineering plans of the Columbia project — broke long months of sil- ence imposed by the Diefen- baker administration, to speak out against what he termed “the disastrous SER- VITUDE which the Treaty would impose on Canada”. Placing himself on record as unalterably against the criminal surrender advanced by the Diefenbaker and Ben- nett administrations, the gov- ernment’s own expert made . the following points — fully backed by a table of figures printed on this page, which are based on the latest eng- ineering studies undertaken by the government and the International Joint Commis- sion: The Canadian ‘Dorr 1. Diversion” plan of de- velopment by comparison with the U.S. “Treaty” plan, would increase 2.4 times (from 7,647 million to 18,378 million kilowatt-hours per year) the amount of electri- city available to Canada; half of which would be produced. in Canada, and consequently be firmly under Canadian control — compared to none under the terms of the “Treaty” plan. The “Dorr Diversion” 2 plan advocated by Gen- eral McNaughton would cut costs by one third compared to the “Treaty” plan, provid- ing 2.79 mill power instead. of 4.15 mills. The McNaughton “Can- 3. ada First” plan of de- velopment, would increase employment and material purchases for dam construc- tion by 40 percent. If there are any doubts left on the necessity for Can- ada to notify the U.S. gov- ernment that it does not in- tend to ratify the “draft” treaty, the widely-reported admission of Minister of Jus- tice Fulton (who headed up the Canadian Negotiations Team) that “Canada would have been much better off with a Columbia river treaty drawn according to General A. G. L. McNaughton’s wish- es” should dispel them. Communist stand The Communist Party has for over a year been cam- paigning to have:— ‘The draft treaty rejected by Parliament; An immediate start made on construction of the key Mica Creek generation site, with the McNaughton-backed Dorr Diversion for maxi- mum generation in Canada; The Federal and Provincial Columbia Treaty governments co-operate in establishment of an all-Cana- dian, East-West, publicly- owned power grid; The National Energy Board continue the restrictions. on export of Canadian power to the U.S. until all present and future potentiai needs of Canada are fully guaran- teed. : Similar demands have been made by many other labour, industrial, and community organizations. Larrat Hig- gine, economist for the On- tario. Hydro Commission who worked for Canada on the International Joint Commis- sion has also declared “‘Can- ada will be put in chains” if it ratifies the Columbia River Treaty. “Under the treaty, Canada is a puppet dangling at the end of strings manipulated in Washington.” General McNaughton tully confirmed what opponents of the present draft treaty have maintained right along when he declared the Cana- dian megotiators allowed “the Americans to skin them alive”. And, who is in. a better position to judge the effects of the draft treaty on our welfare than the man who has headed for over 12 years the government’s study of Columbia engineering and development plans? Meanwhile, both Ottawa and Victoria are indicating their intention of proceeding with the present draft treaty immediately the Fed- eral election is out of the way. Apparently the inten- tion is to attempt to ride out “ the storm General McNaught- on’s charges have created, to push through the - massive U.S. give-away. And, if they have their way, General McNaughton will not even be heard. A strong public demand should be made for provision of public hearings where the opinions and evidence of Can- ada’s outstanding expert on the Columbia can be fully reviewed and given the care- ful consideration they merit. For the government to deny such a hearing is an open admission that the charges made by General McNaught- on, and subsequently support- ed by Justice Minister Ful- ton, are justified. If General McNaughton had said nothing, the statement of Minister of Justice Fulton alone provides ample justifi- cation for reopening the ques- tion. But, coming on the heels of the indictment levelled by General McNaughton against the treaty, there is no longer any question that Washington should be notified that the present draft is being scrapped and a fresh start is going to be made. PUT CANADA FIRST — GIVE CANADA’S PRE- SENT AND FUTURE NEEDS PRIORITY IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANADIAN SECTION OF THE COLUMBIA. * Sellout BA REVELSTOKE “Ss Bi ‘ CANYON es Lich \ REVEtSToKe YY \ ZES\ > LUX0 x. <¢ Bs. Kootenay tO & Loke BU Ce x AR RIV A o\ MURPHY CRAWBROCK REEK CANAD Pee. CHlEF TOSEPH. SERIE. CHELAN. : OPOKANE. RockY REACH. Rock 15lann. ‘Waahingln Manos Goal PRies7 3 DEN See. RAPIDS: FRANKLIN. BONNEVILLE THE DALLES, @y McNary, Wreetans. SOHN DAY. THIS MAP SHOWS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN UNDER THE MCNAUGHTON PLAN. THE DORR DIVERSION WOULD SEND THE KOOTENAY WATERS INTO THE COLUMBIA AND HOLD MOST OF OUR HYDRO RESOURCES IN CANADA. UNDER THE TREATY PLAN, LARGE AREAS: OF THE B.C. INTERIOR WOULD BE TURNED INTO GIGAN- TIC WATER STORAGE RESERVOIRS, WITH THE WATER RELEASED WHEN NEEDED TO SERVE HYDRO DAMS IN WASHINGTON. THE COLUMBIA TREATY PLAN WOULD GIVE THE U.S. THE MAJOR BENEFITS FROM THE COL- UMBIA RIVER. McNaughton pian compared to the draft treaty plaf McNAUGHTON PLAN DRAFT TREATY COMMUNIST CANDIDATES OPPOSE TREA TOM McEWEN Vancouver East " WILLIAM STEWART Vancouver South ‘ a8 MARK MOSHER Comox-Alberni: INTERPRETATIO! * Electricity produced at site’ in Canada in a year (kilo- watt hours) 9.241 billion none Plan more than 40 Electricity promes down- stream in the US as a re+ sult of Canadian dams and. returned to Canada “in a year (kilowatt hours) 9.137 billion 7.647 billion bles (240%) electri ity available to C# ada: half of which produced in Cana compared to under the Total electricity for Cana- da in a year (kilowatt hours) 18.378 billion Total yearly cost. Net op- erating expenses including interest at 54% percent. $48.7 million 7.647 billion $29.8 million Treaty. The McNa ugh Plan reduces cost Ba: one third compa! to the Draft Tre@ it would cut exis¥! Cost per kilowatt hour 2.79 mills. 4.15 mills Original construction costs $535.4 million $385.1 million The McNaught Plan projects wot require a 40 perce increase in empl? The above figures the US and Canadian governments. : were released by General McNaughton on April 13, 1962, and are based on International Joint Commis-, sion principles which were unanimously recommended to both May 11, 1962—PACIFIC TRIBUNE— ment an materi purchases in Cana’ compared _ to Draft Treaty.