711.42157 Sa 29/434
The Canadian Minister (Massey) to the Secretary of State48
Sir: I have the honour to refer to your note of March 12th. 1928, on the St. Lawrence Waterway project.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has noted that while the United States is not in complete agreement with the representations contained in my note Number 30 of January 31st. 1928, as to the relative benefits and ultimate costs to the two countries of the proposed improvement and the division of expenses to be borne by each country, it is inclined to regard as an acceptable basis of negotiation the suggestions of the National Advisory Committee summarized in my note as to the division between Canada and the United States of the tasks involved in the completion of the Deep St. Lawrence Waterway.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has also noted that the United States agrees that a channel of twenty-seven feet minimum depth would be advisable, accepts the principle that the works in the international section must be so operated as to control fluctuations of the outflow from Lake Ontario in such manner as to safeguard all interests on the purely Canadian sections, including the port of Montreal, and agrees that the design and operation of the works in [Page 76] the international section should be under joint technical control. It is noted also that the United States would be prepared to have the discussion extended to the consideration of any outstanding problems affecting the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence watershed, as suggested in my previous note.
In your note under reference you raise some question as to the relative advantage of the waterway to each country and as to the validity of some of the items included on the Canadian side of the balance sheet presented for illustrative purposes by the National Advisory Committee, and refer also to the problems involved in the allocation of costs as between navigation and power. At the present stage it does not appear necessary to discuss these points in detail.
It is further noted that you do not favour the recommendation of the National Advisory Committee, which was an integral feature of its plan and of the division of tasks which it proposed, that the works on the national section should be given priority over the works on the international section in order to permit an agreed solution of the engineering difficulties in this area, and to ensure reasonable absorption of the power developed on the Canadian side. In view of the fact that the market for hydro-electric power in Canada, though large and rapidly expanding, has definite limitations, and that export of power is considered contrary to public policy, it is an essential factor in any plan economically feasible from the Canadian standpoint that, whether through the priority procedure set out by the National Advisory Committee or by some alternative method, the development of power to be utilized in Canada should not outrun the capacity of the Canadian market to absorb and thus to meet the proportion of the costs of the waterway fairly chargeable to power.
The National Advisory Committee laid emphasis on another phase of the situation—the necessity of reconciling the divergent views of the two sections of the Joint Board of Engineers as to the best method of development in the international section of the St. Lawrence. Definite and agreed engineering proposals for the development of this section would appear to be a necessary preliminary to any computation of costs or decision as to the order of construction or division of tasks. His Majesty’s Government in Canada has previously referred to the view of the National Advisory Committee, which it shares, that a conference should be held between the Canadian section of the Joint Board and engineers representing the Province of Ontario. It would appear advisable that such a conference should be followed by re-consideration of the engineering problems in the international section by the whole Joint Board.
Reference was made in my previous note to certain constitutional questions affecting the Canadian situation, and to the intention of His [Page 77] Majesty’s Government in Canada, in accordance with the wishes of the Governments of Ontario and Quebec, to seek a solution by reference to the Courts. Steps have since been taken to this end, and it is anticipated that the reference will come before the Supreme Court of Canada at an early date.
It was further indicated in my previous note that, with the constitutional question in process of solution, His Majesty’s Government in Canada would be in a position, upon learning whether the Government of the United States considered that the procedure suggested by the National Advisory Committee formed an acceptable basis of negotiation, to consult with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec upon the aspects of the problem with which they may be concerned. While the acceptance by the United States of this basis of negotiation is attended with important qualifications, yet the position of the Government of the United States has been made sufficiently clear and definite to permit the Government of Canada to take the necessary step thus contemplated and discuss with the provinces the aspects in question. Following this consultation, His Majesty’s Government in Canada will be in a position to inform the Government of the United States further of its views on the proposals contained in your note of March 12th.
I have [etc.]
(For the Minister)
- Handed to the Secretary of State by Mr. Laurent Beaudry, First Secretary of the Canadian Legation, on Apr. 6, 1928.↩