In teletype No. WA-157, dated January 27, 1954,? a copy of which is attached, the Embassy in Washington reports that a Bill (H.R. 3300) authorizing an increase of 1,000 cubic feet per second outflow in the Chicago Diversion was reported favourably and without amendment by the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives on January 11th. The Embassy reports, further, that in the opinion of the United States officials concerned, the Bill may be called up at any time and it may be approved with little or no discussion especially if it could be presumed that Canada had no objections to it. (The Deputy Legal Adviser of the State Department informed the House Public Works Committee, during the hearings on a similar Bill in 1952, that the Canadian authorities "had consistently taken the position that an increased diversion by Chicago would be of concern to Canada". It is not expected, however, that this statement would be sufficient to prevent the House from adopting the Bill, especially since the State Department's own opposition to it, later reaffirmed in a letter to the Committee last year, have been insufficient to block the Bill on the Committee).

When the previous Bill referred to was brought to the attention of the Canadian Cabinet on July 31, 1952, Cabinet agreed that if it appeared that the 82nd Congress might give further consideration to the measure, the Ambassador in Washington should be instructed to inform the United States State Department of Canadian views regarding the proposal for an increase in the Chicago Diversion along the lines of a draft attached to a memorandum you put before Cabinet at that time. The circumstances now are precisely the same as those which obtained at the time of the Cabinet's approval of the course of action recommended in July, 1952. As considerable time has elapsed, however, you may wish to discuss with your colleagues principally concerned - the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources - whether the Ambassador in Washington should be instructed to address a note to the State Department now along the lines of that previously authorized by Cabinet.

Attached is a draft of the proposed note which has been suitably amended to refer to action by the present Congress. Also attached for your signature, if you approve, are letters addressed to your colleagues, the Ministers of Transport and or Northern Affairs and National Resources, sending them copies of the telegram from Washington referred to above and asking their concurrence in the recommendation that the Ambassador in Washington be now instructed to address to the State Department the note authorized by Cabinet in July, 1952. Copies of the proposed draft note and of your memorandum to the Cabinet dated July 21, 1952,? are also enclosed for their information.

One point made by the State Department in opposing the Bill before the House Public Works Committee was that the question of the Chicago Diversion is a matter currently before the International Joint Commission under the Lake Ontario Water Level Reference of June 25, 1952, under which the International Joint Commission was asked to study the effect of all diversions into and out of the Great Lakes. ¹⁷⁵ This aspect of the matter was not mentioned in the memorandum to Cabinet or the draft note attached to it, because consideration of the Reference to the International Joint Commission and consideration of the memorandum to the Cabinet had not been interrelated at that time. As the State Department has made use of this argument, however, it is suggested that their position be supported by the addition of a paragraph at the end of the present draft. Another argument put forward by the State Department is that the change in the Chicago Diversion might affect the arrangements set forth in the Niagara Treaty of 1950; ¹⁷⁶ although the Embassy has suggested that such a consideration might be appropriately added to the main arguments of our note, any special emphasis on our interests at Niagara might detract from the assertion of our interests in the St. Lawrence River. It is suggested, therefore, that the additional paragraph should omit this point and that it be worded somewhat as follows:

"As the Chicago Diversion is one aspect of a matter now before the International Joint Commission, pursuant to the Reference submitted jointly by the Governments of Canada and the United States on June 25, 1952, it is suggested that the interests of Canada and the United States would best be served by allowing the International Joint Commission to complete its study of this and related matters under the arrangements already agreed upon".

The attached letters for your signature, addressed to the Ministers of Transport and Northern Affairs and National Resources, also request their concurrence in this suggested addition.

The Legal Division of the Department concurs in this recommendation, including the suggestion for the additional paragraph mentioned above. ¹⁷⁷

R.A. M[ACKAY]