Dear Mr. Robertson,
I have been wanting to write you again since my return from Los Angeles on the extension of our consular representation in the United States. I have, as you know, referred to this on more than one occasion, but I think that the importance of the subject justifies earnest and continued consideration. Furthermore, two recent communications from you (December 12th and December 20th) dealing with the appointment of a Canadian Vice-Consul at Portland, Maine, and the extension of our representation in South America, prompt some additional observations on my part.

I had not been in Los Angeles during my recent visit many hours before I was once again made aware of our dependence on British Consuls for the protection of Canadian interests. As you know, Los Angeles is quite a Mecca for Canadians, the number of whom has recently been increased by the advent of Canadian soldiers on leave, or after discharge. Some of these present troublesome cases, and two or three were brought to my attention a fortnight ago when I happened to be there. Of course, I know that there is a Canadian Trade Commissioner in Los Angeles who should look after these matters, but for two reasons that is not a satisfactory solution. In the first place, consular activities are an incidental part of his job, as his direct responsibility is to Trade and Commerce; and secondly, a Canadian when in difficulties, goes to a British Consul, whom he knows about, rather than to a Canadian Trade Commissioner, about whom he has never heard.

For many reasons I think it is a matter of first importance that we plan now consular representation in this country and that we should not, as we appear to be doing, allow it to develop according to circumstances. Surely the difficulties regarding personnel to which the Department repeatedly alludes do not prevent the working out of a carefully considered and practicable plan for Canadian consular representation in the United States, to take effect progressively as these difficulties are removed. If there is such a plan, I have not heard of it. For instance, what should be the priority in opening offices? Also, has consideration been given to the use of Canadians or exCanadians in American cities as honorary consuls, a device which is customary and which in our case it would be easy to adopt? It seems to have occurred to the Department when the consular issue was forced at Portland, Maine, by the closing of the British office. However, the problem cannot, I suggest, be solved by dealing with emergency cases in this way. If we are to appoint honorary consuls, as well as Consuls de carrière, steps should be taken at once to canvass the U.S. communities concerned for suitable personnel.

When I was in Los Angeles, Mr. Monty¹ told me about a report which he had made to the Commercial Intelligence Service on the future of his office and the extent and importance of Canadian interests in that area. I would be most interested to know whether a copy of that report, which is dated November 9th and which is enclosed herewith, was ever sent to the Department of External Affairs. Certainly no copy was sent to this Embassy until I requested one from Mr. Monty. This seems to me to illustrate how unsatisfactory it is to ask Trade Commissioners to do consular work when they have no direct contact with the Department which should be responsible for consular activities. If you read Mr. Monty's report, you will agree, I am sure, that it is one which might have appropriately been made to External Affairs as well as to Trade and Commerce. It also makes a strong case-to my mind, an unanswerable case-for concentrating all Canadian official activities in that area in one or two consular offices. Yet the Department of Trade and Commerce is apparently considering either the closing of the Los Angeles office or transferring it to San Francisco. Instead of closing it, we should be thinking of, in fact we should actually be, converting it into a consular office. I would be glad to know if this question has been discussed by the Commercial Intelligence Service with the Department in the light of recent communications from Mr. Monty. Also, I would be grateful for the report of any discussions between the two Departments on the post-war relationship between External Affairs and Trade and Commerce officers stationed abroad.

The reply to any observations I make on this subject of consular representation is always the same. It is, to quote a sentence from your letter of December 12th, "Pressure of wartime activities has greatly expanded the work of the Department and we have been faced with a consequent scarcity of experienced personnel." I fully appreciate this difficulty, but we cannot keep urging it indefinitely as an excuse. I cannot really believe that it has been impossible for us to secure suitable men during the last twelve months for consular posts. I have, in fact, submitted in the last six months a number of names for this purpose, but nothing seems to have been done and in some cases my letters, or the letters of the applicants, written at my suggestion, have not even been acknowledged. It is hard for me to believe that with so many intelligent, educated officers and men coming back from overseas or being released from the Services in Canada, we cannot secure the consular personnel we would need. In this connection, your letter of December 20th rejects any analogy with the Trade Commissioner Service, on the ground that the qualifications for the head of a new diplomatic mission should be considerably higher than those for the head of a commercial office and that junior Trade Commissioners can be trained more quickly than Third Secretaries. I have some doubts about this myself, but in any case, I should think the qualifications of a Consul need not be much greater, nor his training more prolonged or complicated, than is the case with a Trade Commissioner. You also give your impression in this letter that External Affairs have recruited about twice as many men as Trade and Commerce have from the Armed Services. From the most recent list of Department of External Affairs postings, there seem to have been 18 Third Secretary appointment made by External Affairs within the last twelve months. The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in the House of Commons on December 11th that the Commercial Intelligence Services have recruited from the Services for service abroad, 30 new Assistant Trade Commissioners, who are now at work or will join the Trade Commissioner Service shortly. The comparison seems to be in favour of Trade and Commerce, and I think myself that it should be the reverse.

I realize, also, that the Department's hands are tied by the Civil Service regulations making it obligatory to give preference in appointments to ex-service men with overseas experience, a ruling which I think is entirely illogical and works out most unfairly; one which prevents us using an ex-officer in Washington for an administrative job who was ineligible for overseas service and did such good work for the Army here that he was decorated, while we are told to take an R.C.A.F. administrative officer who had never had operational or combat duty. However, that is another subject. In any event, this overseas preference regulation applies to Trade and Commerce as well as to us.

I will conclude by pointing out that at this Embassy at the present time there are five External Affairs officers and seven from Trade and Commerce; viz., Mr. Scott, Mr. Allen, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Paterson, Mr. Lewis, and two recently arrived Agricultural Products Trade Commissioners.

Yours sincerely,
L. B. PEARSON

¹Le délégué commercial du Canada en Los Angeles.
¹ Trade Commissioner of Canada in Los Angeles.