Reference: Your DESPATCH No. 177? of February 11 and your telegram No. 104? of February 13.

We have discussed with Finance the relationship to be maintained between the 1953 Canadian contribution to the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and the pledges announced by other member states in the Negotiating Committee and at the forthcoming Technical Assistance Conference.

2. It is agreed that Canada should co-operate fully (within the limits of the Cabinet authority)⁸¹ in reaching the target set for the Conference. At the same time we are convinced that everything possible should be done to encourage wider and more equitable participation from other member states. In particular we would wish to ensure that the Canadian pledge is not disproportionate to those of the United States and other member states, with which it is usual to draw comparisons.

3. Although we recognize that your exact course will be largely determined by developments in New York, we are wondering whether an approach along the following lines would serve to indicate continuing Canadian enthusiasm and support for the Technical Assistance Programme while enabling the delegation to offer maximum encouragement to wider financial support through the "matching" formula.

4. Since you have not made an advance announcement in the Negotiating Committee, you might make an early statement at the Technical Assistance Conference indicating the general terms of the Cabinet authorization. This announcement might be accompanied by a brief statement in familiar terms, referring to past Canadian contributions to the Programme, reaffirming our continuing support, and underlining the desirability of wider financial participation which has led the Government to relate the Canadian pledge directly to that of others. In this way you would make our position clear while leaving the way open for the announcement of a specific Canadian contribution when there is more information on the probable response of others.

5. If present forecasts are accurate and early pledges fall considerably short of the target, you might then wish to consult with other member states on an appropriate method for encouraging further support and deciding on the exact size of our final pledge.

6. You will recall that in similar circumstances at Paris last year the Canadian delegation held informal consultations with the delegations of the United States, Australia and Switzerland (which had also announced "matching" contributions) and agreed to announce a minimum pledge. Although the basis for this "minimum" should not be announced publicly, we have no objection to a contribution based on that of the United States. As you know, the ratio of the Canadian national income to that of the United States is roughly one to sixteen. Accordingly, if the United States is prepared to, pledge $12.2 million, a firm minimum pledge of $750,000 would seem appropriate.

7. In announcing this minimum pledge you might express regret that it has not been possible to take up the full amount of the Canadian offer. You might also express hope that those member states which have not received instructions from their governments will be in a position to make pledges before the end of the Conference and indicate that the Canadian contribution will be subject to upward adjustment in the light of any further response that might be forthcoming before the final Act is closed. For the purposes of these adjustments we have no objection to the scale suggested in your DESPATCH No. 136 of January 26.⁸²