The time Canada tried to trade ‘10,000 square miles of useless mountain peaks and glaciers’ for the Alaska Panhandle

A graphic of the Lyons Plan to split the Alaska Panhandle on page 23 the May 16, 1959 edition of the Financial Post, which was published in Toronto.

Part of a continuing weekly series on Alaska history by local historian David Reamer. Have a question about Anchorage or Alaska history or an idea for a future article? Go to the form at the bottom of this story.

In Canada, the news leaked out in April 1959. During that spring session of the British Columbian legislative assembly, a member of the conservative Social Credit Party proposed trading a mountainous swath of the province for most of Alaska’s southeast coastline. The suggestion was made with tongue firmly in cheek, and some audible little titters of amusement circled the room. However, another legislator, Herbert Bruch, assured the Canadian press that the proposal was inherently serious. A group of Canadians were indeed investigating a land swap with America’s newest state. Alaskans, including its leading politicians and residents of the affected areas, seemingly learned about the proposal nearly two months later.

The border between the Alaska Panhandle and British Columbia has been the subject of continual political and social dispute ever since the American purchase of Alaska, particularly after the influx of prospectors during the Klondike gold rush. The more significant disagreements about the border — Canadian claims included Skagway — were settled by arbitration in 1903. Some aspects of the border remain open to debate, most notably fishing rights, which have occasionally erupted into heated confrontations, such as during the salmon war of the 1990s. Fishermen and historians know these stories, but the details and even the existence of these border tensions are largely unknown to the broader public.

The idea of a British Columbia-Alaska land swap had vague predecessors, but this version originated with Vancouver engineer Robert F. Lyons, who had spent years badgering Canadian politicians with maps, notes, and details for the trade. Per Lyons, British Columbia would receive everything east and south of a line drawn down the middle of the Lynn Canal through the Chatham Strait, including most of Southeast Alaska. Skagway, Juneau, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan would thus become Canadian cities. Sitka and Haines, on the other side of the line, would remain in Alaska. As Lyons told Toronto’s Financial Post, “This would leave the deep inlets and river mouths open and free for development from both the sea and land in a natural and logical manner.”

Alaska, in turn, would receive the southwestern and northwestern corners, respectively, of the Yukon and British Columbia provinces. The new border would follow the Alaska Highway east until it met the Haines Cut-Off, and from there down to just east of Haines. As Lyons saw it, “That should aid all Alaskan development from Haines to Anchorage and simplify development and administrative problems facing the 49th state.” In other words, Canada gets several new ports while Alaska makes do with overland access to Haines. All due respect to Haines, the Lyons plan was rather less logical than he claimed.

British Columbia Premier W. A. C. Bennett had apparently entered an empire-building phase of his life. He not only supported the land swap with Alaska, but it had originated from his party. That same year, he also proposed to annex the part of the Northwest Territories directly north of British Columbia into his province. In return, British Columbia would assume the maintenance of over 600 miles of the Alaska Highway. That section of the Northwest Territories was coincidentally rich in oil and gas deposits. As Bennett said, “I have had nothing but criticism that ‘Bennett is trying to grab the north.’” For some reason.

Most Alaskans learned about the possible trade in June. The Anchorage Daily Times was one of the first newspapers in Alaska to run with the story, and its first coverage came on June 10. Meanwhile, a British Columbian legislative committee was reviewing the proposal. Expectations in the province were that the land trade would be formally discussed during meetings with Alaska Gov. Bill Egan that July.

Sen. Ernest Gruening, a former governor and one of Alaska’s original pair of senators, made the first official American response: “The answer is an unqualified no.” That said, he did offer a counter proposal. Alaska would still receive overland access to Haines. Gruening told the Financial Post, “The purpose of this deal would be to give the Alaskans a land bridge between Southeastern Alaska and Western Alaska, which, in effect, they do not now have.” In return, he offered Canada the same amount of land, 10,000 square miles or so, from the northwestern corner of the state, most of what is today the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Canada would also receive one or more corridors through Southeast Alaska, ensuring new Canadian ports and access to British Columbia proper. Gruening claimed he had made the same suggestion to President Franklin D. Roosevelt more than 15 years prior.

A graphic of the Gruening Plan on page 7 the June 13, 1959 edition of the Financial Post, which was published in Toronto.

Gruening added, “I feel that such a move would be well received in Alaska, although naturally it would have to have the approval of the Legislature and government. But based on what I know of existing sentiment, I’m confident there would be no opposition, only support.” Like the Canadian supporters of the proposal, he did not attempt to consult with those Alaskans who would be affected by the proposal.

Like Lyons, the senator was serious, though most Alaskans struggled with the concept, wondering if they were missing a joke hidden in there somewhere. For the Daily Times, editor Bob Atwood opined, “Only a wag would suggest trading the Panhandle of Alaska to Canada in return for 10,000 square miles of useless mountain peaks and glaciers. Such a suggestion might be expected from a comedian living in western Alaska who wanted to chide his friends in the Panhandle.” He further noted, “In selecting the Panhandle, the Canadians are picking one of the best horses in our stable. They want to give Alaska their saw horse.”

To be fair to Gruening and Lyons, a few other Alaskans spoke in favor of the land swap, at least in a broad sense. For the Kodiak Mirror, Sig Digree wrote, “The idea as proposed by Se. Gruening … has merit. As we see it, it would be an excellent exchange from the Alaskan viewpoint.” Notably, Kodiak was not on the trading block.

That August, Alaska Gov. Bill Egan visited British Columbia and, in a public speech, offered support for Canadian corridors through Southeast Alaska. But he was playing a role, the nice, visiting politician giving the crowd what they wanted to hear. As a Vancouver editorial noted, “This is not a promise; Washington has the last say.”

As it turned out, the plan, such as it was an actual plan, was doomed from the start. Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker more or less publicly killed the proposal all the way back in April, well in advance of the proposal reaching Alaska newspapers. Before a laughing crowd of Parliament members, he noted that British Columbia was constitutionally incapable of even beginning such a negotiation. He stated, “Without expressing a legal viewpoint on the matter, I must say that I do express unequivocal doubts as to the constitutionality of such a move.” Premier Bennett’s dreams of annexing oil-rich Northwest Territories lands failed for much the same reason.

Not to worry, there were new crazy dreams the next year and the year after that, so on and so forth until tomorrow. A nuclear-powered dam spanning the Bering Sea. A Teflon tent covering a new city in Denali National Park. Transportation tubes linking all of Southcentral Alaska. A freshwater pipeline to California. Alaska’s richest resource has always been ideas, albeit of every sort, positive and negative.

• • •

Key sources:

Atwood, Bob. “Canada Is Bottleneck in Land Trade Deal.” Anchorage Daily Times, June 23, 1959, 6.

“B.C.—Alaska Land Swap Considered?” [Vancouver] Province, April 18, 1959, 1.

“Bennett Withdraws Big Deal for North.” [Vancouver] Province, August 22, 1959, 2.

Digree, Sig. “Here, There and Everywhere.” Kodiak Mirror, June 27, 1959, 4.

“Get Panhandle for Canada in Land Swap with Alaska?” [Toronto] Financial Post, May 16, 1959, 23.

Nash, C. Knowlton. “No Panhandle to Canada: Alaska Reply.” [Toronto] Financial Post, June 13, 1959, 7.

“Panhandle ‘Swap’ Beyond B.C. Power.” Toronto Star, April 28, 1959, 13.

Ramsden, Eric. “Let’s Co-Operate with North.” [Vancouver] Province, August 26, 1959, 17.

“Swap Bit of B.C. for Alaska Path?” [Toronto] Financial Post, April 25, 1959, 18.

“Through the Panhandle?” [Vancouver] Province, August 27, 1959, 4.