Present
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the Chair,
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming),
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks),
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees),
The Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer),
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes),
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill),
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton),
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough),
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean),
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr),
The Postmaster General (Mr. William Hamilton),
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Macdonnell),
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne),
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Alvin Hamilton),
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith),
The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley).
The Secretary to the Cabinet (Mr. Bryce),
The Assistant Secretaries to the Cabinet (Mr. Fournier), (Mr. Martin).

. . .

CHICAGO DIVERSION; DRAFT NOTE TO U.S. EMBASSY

20. The Secretary of State for External Affairs reported that draft legislation had been introduced into the U.S. Congress which would authorize diversion of additional water from Lake Michigan at Chicago. The State Department had forwarded a copy of the bill, with an aide mémoire, enquiring whether the Canadian government wished to make any representations at this time. Canada had made representations when a similar bill had been before Congress last year.⁵⁹⁰ There was a good deal of opposition to this proposed diversion. Protests had been received from municipal authorities around the lakes, as well as from the government of Ontario and the Ontario Hydro Commission. The Liberals were strongly against it.

The Minister said that, in the draft note which it was proposed to send to the U.S. Embassy at an early date, it would be pointed out that the proposed American bill would make available additional quantities of water for the Illinois-Mississippi river navigation system at the expense of the Great Lakes navigation system. It would also be pointed out that the usefulness of the St. Lawrence Seaway and other projects would be reduced if the proposals of bill H.R. 1 were accepted. A reference would also be made to the fact that every withdrawal of water from the Great Lakes system affected the availability of similar quantities of water for hydro-electric generation. The note would end by urging the government of the United States to give most careful consideration to the various consequences of the implementation of such proposals that were contained in the bill.

An explanatory memorandum was circulated (Minister's memorandum, Feb. 16 - Cab. Doc. 53-59).?

21. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said he was opposed to sending out a strong protest on this subject. He felt that by registering such a protest Canada would be limiting its future freedom of action to divert waters from rivers crossing the boundary, e.g., from the Kootenay, Columbia, or the Yukon. Referring to page 2 of the circulated memoran-dum, he pointed out that by the Chicago diversion, Canada would only lose 100 million Kw.hrs. while the gain in million Kw.hrs. from diversions of the Kootenay, the Columbia, and the Yukon would be close to 4,000 times as much. He noted that in the past the opposition to the bill in the United States had been sufficient to defeat it. He thought that, legally, Canada had no right to protest and that, economically, Canada should not protest.

22. During the discussion the following points emerged:

(a) There was general feeling that the note should be drafted in stronger language. In its present terms, it hardly sounded like a protest.

(b) The Chicago diversion would lessen the effectiveness of the St. Lawrence Seaway and would lower its level by 3/8 of an inch. There would be adverse political consequences if it became known that the government, by not protesting against the diversion, was giving up hydro power beneficial to eastern provinces and diminishing the usefulness of the St. Lawrence Seaway for undetermined benefits in the northern points of the country.

(c) The protest should be focussed on the seaway agreement, the harm to harbours, channels and locks of the Great Lakes system, and also on the adverse effects on hydro-electric generation.

23. The Cabinet agreed that the note which it was proposed to send to the U.S. Embassy concerning the Chicago diversion should be redrafted in stronger terms of protest in accordance with the suggestions made during the discussion, and be delivered to the U.S. Embassy that day.⁵⁹¹

. . .

⁵⁹⁰Voir le volume 25, les documents 202 à 205./See Volume 25, Documents 202-205.

⁵⁹¹Pour le texte de l'aide-mémoire des États-Unis daté du 9 février 1959 et la note de protestation du Canada datée du 20 février 1959, voir Canada, Chambre des Communes, Débats 1959, volume II, p. 1426.
For the text of the U.S. aide-mémoire (dated February 9, 1959) and the Canadian protest note (dated February 20, 1959), see Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 1959, Volume II, p. 1361.