Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western Europe and Canada, Volume VI, Part 2

611.42321 SL/6–1754: Telegram

No. 993
The Ambassador in Canada (Stuart) to the Department of State

confidential
priority

Ottawa, June 17, 1954—4 p.m.

174. Today received from Pearson reply¹ our June 7 note² Saint Lawrence seaway. Paragraph 1 refers to our suggestion that detailed discussions take place between representatives two governments on planning and execution seaway development in both countries. Paragraph 2 refers to June 30, 1952 exchange of notes³ making arrangements for construction by Canada of navigation works between Lake Erie and Montreal with Canadian undertaking to provide this portion of seaway predicated in sound power project. Canadian Government assumes our suggestion for discussions contemplates reexamination arrangements confirmed by exchange of notes. Paragraph 3: Canadian Government prepared discuss this matter provided discussions do not delay either power project or seaway as indicated Prime Minister memo January 9, 1953⁴ and statement in Parliament May 6, 1954. Paragraph 4: Pearson suggests meeting officials Ottawa week of June 28 which might prepare list specific topics as basis subsequent intergovernmental discussions.

Bliss in long discussion with MacKay, Cote and Cox obtained following clarifications of Canadian views:

1. Canada does not accept our June 7 note as representing “specific proposal” referred to in Prime Minister memo. Wiley bill essentially US domestic matter. International aspect of problem at present governed by June 30 exchange of notes which represents latest intergovernmental agreement and point of departure for further negotiations.

2. Reference in Wiley bill to 1941 joint report⁵ suggests US intention deal at this time only with Saint Lawrence section of seaway and understanding necessary on balance that plan. June 30 exchange of notes obviously must be abrogated to meet new conditions, but Canadians unwilling abandon that agreement on basis our note only. IJC report⁶ must be textually modified in some respects. New legislation may be required to adjust Canadian Saint Lawrence authority.

3. These situations render necessary basic political decisions and what amounts to re-negotiation of existing agreements and arrangements on the basis of specific US proposals which not yet forthcoming. Cote observed $30 million at stake which suggests intention re-negotiate allocation of costs in June 30 notes and possibility we can expect some hard bargaining on this.

4. By persistent needling obtained categorical assurance no intention develop seaway on monopoly basis contemplated by June 30 notes. This is established government policy presumably approved by Prime Minister and cabinet. However some strong official opinion admittedly favors maintaining June 30 position.

5. MacKay not interested in early appointment our administrator and would prefer keep negotiations in government hands until political decisions made. After we have acted they can name Canadian opposite number immediately. However only indication of timing we have given suggests mid-July as earliest possible date for appointment and confirmation.

6. Official level here for June 28 talks means Wershof, Cote and representatives of Transport, Justice and Privy Council.

7. Pressure for publicity strong and Canadians indicate possible necessity table exchange notes Parliament next week. Suggest desirability identical publicity releases Ottawa and Washington that time.

Stuart

1. Reference is to Note No. X–155, June 16, from Pearson to Stuart. A copy of the note was enclosed in despatch 1128 from Ottawa, June 22. (611.42321 SL/6–2254)
2. On June 7, Bliss delivered Note No. 281 to Under Secretary of State MacKay in the absence of the Foreign Minister to whom it was addressed. A copy of the text of the note was enclosed in despatch 1128 cited in footnote 1 above. With the note, which he had signed on behalf of the Ambassador, Bliss conveyed a copy of the Wiley Bill. (See Document 991.) He told MacKay that this formal delivery of the Wiley Bill was made possible by the Supreme Court’s recent rejection of legal actions directed against the St. Lawrence Power Project. A letter from Bliss to Horsey dated June 7, summarizing his conversation with MacKay, is in file 611.42321 SL/6–754.
3. For information on this exchange of notes, see Document 944.
4. See Document 960.
5. Joint report of Jan. 3, 1941, by the Canadian Temporary Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Advisory Committee to the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. For text, see Department of State Bulletin, Mar. 22, 1941, p. 316. For information related to this report, see Foreign Relations, 1941, vol. iii, pp. 167–168.
6. Not further identified.