THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

BY BRUCE YORKE
HE Vancouver Sun headline Jan. 11, 1961, says “U.S.

_ Urges Speedy Columbia Hydro Pact Signing.” Why

are the U.S. and certain “Canadian”

interests in such a

hurry? What are the terms of this proposed pact? What

' do these terms really mean?
’ -There are four main terms
of the proposed agreement:

1. Canada, at its own expen-
se is to provide and operate
“three STORAGE dams _ at
High Arrow, Duncan Lake and
Mica Creek — minimum cost
$458 millions.

2..‘The United States sub-
ject to’ constitutional and oth-
er’ limitations’ promises to
“ube it’s best endeavours” to
return to Canada half of the
additional power developed at
U.S. plants resulting from the
Cahadian storage dams.

3. The U.S. is given permis-
sion to build the Libby dam
on the Kootenai.

4. As a direct result of the
Libby decision Canada agrees
not to. divert the Kootenay in-
to the Columbia.

6

In Capsule form the terms
of the treaty mean:

@ Main development of the
Celumbia in B.C. to be for
water storage for U.S. power
dams.

@ Permanent alienation of

the huge Kooteney River wa-
ter reSources to the United
States.

@ Economic and social
ruination of the Arrow Valley,
a rich agricultural and timber
reserve.

@ Dependency on US.
‘goodwill’ for any power at
all, and high cost power at
that. .

@® Huge expenditure of
Canadian taxpayers money to
provide the U.S. with a 60%
reduction in their power. costs
amd enermous flood control

benefits estimated at $720
million.

This is a betrayal of our
national interests on qa grand
scale degradation unsurpass-
ed. We are reduced not to
‘drawers of water’ but mere
‘storers of water’ for the U.S.
overlords and their B.C. quis-
lings. NO WONDER THE
HURRY.

e@
BLOCK THE TREATY

Once the present treaty is

blocked an alternative plan

should be put into effect. This

plan should be based on de-,

veloping the Columbia in
Canada as cheaply as possible,
putting Canadian interest first.
Such a plan would mean.

@ immediate construction
of the Mica Creek dam,. built
as a public utility and prim-
arily for generation of power.

@ serapping of the High
Arrow project and replace-
ment with a low Arrow dam.

@ scrapping of the Libby
project and replacement with
the Kootney diversion into the
Columbia in Canada:

Immediate and speedy build-°
ing of Mica is the king-pin. It ;
would be possible to develop '

1,400,000 kilowatts at Mica at
the exceptionally low cost of
2.09 mills. This is more power
than is presently generated in
all B.C. and at one third of
the cost of promised’ power
vnder the terms of the propos-
ed treaty. More important it
would be our power without
any possibility of it being
witheld. It would strengthen

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

B.C. Electric has the trans-
mission system capable of ut-
ilizing this in the densly pop-
ulated. Lower Mainland. And
finally, by making Columbia
River power expensive in Can-
ada (at least 6 mills according

:|to B.C.’s foremost Hydro En-

BRUCE YORKE

‘would provide

lumbia Treaty:
“The U.S. negotiators

‘prime’ power ..

“Treaty real bargain
for United States”

The current issue of the Financial Post, big busi-
ness organ in Canada, had this to say about the Co-

agreement gives them a real bargain, and because the
initial spending proposed is all on Canada’s side.

“Under the treaty, the U.S. stands to gain on its
ewn estimates, 1,142,000 kilowatts of ‘prime’ average
minimum) power without spending a nickel.” At an-
other point FP notes that “the Canadian share of down-
stream -benefits is estimated at 763,000 kilowatts of
.’. This writer has previously pointed
out that, on the basis of these figures—1,142,000 versus
763,000 kilowatts — this is hardly the 50-50 split of
downstream benefits Ottawa promised.

FP also states: “For their part, the U.S. negotiators
will be taking home a bargain... .

“In other words, the U.S. has gained reasonable
flood. control and exceptional power benefits at 60 per
cent.of what they would have cost had it been necessary
to provide them in the U.S.”

are pleased because the

} provides

economie independence from
the U.S. and speed industrial-
ization of the province.

The building .of the low
Arrow, along with | Mica
sufficient wa-
ter to guarantee flood control
in the Unitéd States. The low
Atrow would cost approxim-
ately % of the High A¥row.
More important, it would
leave the Arrow Valley undis-
turbed, preserving it for fut-
.ure development and’ popula-
tion growth.

The Kootney © diversion
would increase potential hy-
dro electric development on
the Columbia’ by 50%. The
diversion is a relatively sim-
ple job, because at Canal
Flats the two rivers are but a
mile apart. Under the terms
of the proposed treaty Can-
ada would get absolutely no-
thing in return for its expen-
diture since the ‘promised’
power that we would get’ is
merely that which we surren-
dered by agreeing not to di-
vert the Kooténay

e
BENNETT,. THE B.C.
ELECTRIC AND THE C.C.F.

Apart from the U.S. mon-

opoly interests the main ben-
‘ificiary for the proposed
‘treaty would be the B.C. El-
ectric. Through their agents,
the Socred Government, they
are attempting to preserve
their power monopoly in B.C.
They have many irons in the
fire.
_-Firstly, they would like to
prevent any development of
public power in Canada on the
Columbia.

Secondly, they would like
to get their hands on any
_ downstream power gencrated
on the Columbia.

Thirdly, they would like to
make a killing on Peace River
power if possible.

All of these plans are serv-

;ed by the proposed treaty.
iThe treaty has nothing to say

about Canadian power devel-
opment on the Columbia. It
for the return of

| power to B.C. and only the

gineer) the treaty enables
Peace River power to ‘com-
pete’ with the U-S. Columbia

favourable possible terms.

_C.C.F. provineial’ leader
Robert Strachan has éorrectly:
maintained’: that the Socred

agent for the B.C. Electric.

‘}From this, Strachan draws the |

conclusion that the ‘treaty
‘Jay, construction should start
immediately on the High Ar-
row and the best made of this
‘admittedly unsatisfactory deal.
“Why? Because in his view any
delay in signing the treaty
would facilitate the early in-
troduction of B.C. Electric
controlled high cost Peace
River* power.

Is there any truth in this
contention? Strachan’s fellow
C.C.F.”er, Federal M:P. Bert
Herridge, does not appear to
believe so, for he strongly op-
poses the treaty. In our opin=
ion Strachan’ is wrong. If the
treaty is ratified in its present
form: Bennett is given a virt-
ual free hand on the future
development of the Columbia.
Any stalling on Bennett’s part
now is designed primarily to
completely eliminate the Fed-
éral government from the pic-
ture. While at the same time
getting the largest possible
federal grant.

He has got most of what he
‘fequires. To all intents and
purposes the federal govern-
ment has capitulated. Bennett
is able to dictate to Ottawa
because nothing can be devel-
oped on the Columbia in B.C.
without a B.C. water license:
The federal government does
not want to appear to obstruct
Columbia River power. Besid-
es the Tory government is as
willing a satellite of the U.S.
as its. Liberal predecessor,
which effectively blocked
Bennett’s plan in 1955. The
Tories have no confidence in
the development of Canada or
else they would prevent this
sell-out, not act as accomplices.

In our view, the position of
-C.C.F. leader Strachan is also
based on not wishing to ap-
pear to obstruct Columbia
River power. While recogniz-
ing that Bennett is playing the
B.C. Electric game Strachan
hag failed to see that the give-
away terms of the Columbia
treaty effectively eliminate it
as a threat to the B.C. Electric.
The only way that the Col-
umbia can end the domination

power in Canada: on ‘the most.

government is: nothing but. an}:

‘should be signed without de- |

ttc  Sieeie ve eee
“Immediate and speedy

building of the Mica dam-
is the king-pin,” says this

tion of the dam site near
Revelstoke.

public power development in
Canada at the lowest possible

to this in every respect.

aids the B.C.. Electric and its
champion Premier -Bennett.
Other C.C.F. leaders, notably
Bert Herridge, realize this and
strongly oppose the treaty. We
‘appeal to the C.C.F. and the
labor movement — examine
this treaty .closely, do not be
deceived by Bennett’s clever
manouvers. The Colhimbia is
not a solution to our problems
if it is given away to the U.S.
The issues are great. The fut-
ure of our province is at
stake.

The Communist Party of
Canada appeals to all demo-
cratic and patriotic Canadians

passage of this treaty. There
is still time to do this but
great public pressure is. need-
ed. It is essential that the la-
bor movement _becomes_in-
volved, More than any other
Section of the population its

question of jobs, now and in
the future,

Canadian Slavs
publish pamohlet

A hardhitting anti-war pam-
phiet, written by Gregory
Okulevich for the Canadian
Slav Committee, is being pub-
lished simultaneously in Eng-
lish, Russian and Ukranian.

Entitled At the CrossToads—
For Peace and Happiness, the
booklet is an indictment of

those who are blocking dis-
armament, and strikes telling

blows at the warmongers.

January 20, 1961—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 8

article. Map shows loca- |

of the B.C. Electric is through .

cost. The treaty runs-counter .

Hence, the C.C.F. leadership -
through Strachan, objectively .

to join together to prevent the.

interests are at stake — the :