In our despatch under reference we said that the French authorities would reflect further on their feelings of dissatisfaction with Canadian immigration policy and would in due course approach the Embassy. This approach has now been made. On February 13 Mr. Fournier,32 First Secretary, was asked to call at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was handed a Note Verbale. Copies of this are enclosed together with a memorandum by Mr. Fournier recording his conversation with M. Serres, Directeur des Affaires Administratives et Sociales.^?

2. The note, which is rather petulant and contains a number of inaccuracies, calls for a considered reply. On the whole I think we have managed fairly successfully over the.; last year and a half, since Canadian immigration regulations were broadened, to conduct an immigration policy in France with the at least tacit approval of the French authorities when that policy is distinctly unpopular in a number of French circles and is capable of giving rise to political repercussions. The drain on a particular automobile factory or aircraft plant or mining area can cause dislocations which are of serious concern to the management and to government departments. This reflects itself in political pressures on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (sometimes on the Embassy directly) and in addition there are explosive political issues in the whole question of "desertion" from France to a safer, wealthier and happier country.

3. You are well aware of these considerations as is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. There has been a realistic understanding of the delicacy of the situation in France and all concerned on the Canadian side have worked together to keep our immigration policy sufficiently under wraps to avoid antagonizing the French too much, while at the same time bringing a very creditable number of French emigrants to Canada. Obviously if we were to antagonize the French authorities they would find ways of making life difficult for the Paris immigration office.

4. We now have to concoct a reply to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which will endeavour to set things on the rails again and allow us to continue our immigration operations as in the past. I have discussed the question fully with Mr. Cormier,33 head of the Immigration Office in Paris, and it seemed to us that you might find it helpful in considering this question with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration if we were to prepare a draft reply to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I accordingly enclose copies of a rather rough draft embodying the points which might be made.^?

5. The draft reply may be summarized by saying that it refutes misstatements, renews our promises not to carry on a recruiting campaign and indicates more clearly than ever before our willingness to avoid embarrassing particular plants or industries. Mr. Cormier has done this on a number of occasions by deferring or postponing action on visa applications. Sometimes it is a temporary affair when new workers will be trained in a matter of six or nine months. Sometimes it is a more long-range question as with Italian workers brought to France, whom the French Government are anxious to keep here and whose applications Mr. Cormier is leaving aside more or less indefinitely. In our final sentence we say that it is always open to the French authorities to apply their own controls to emigration. After all we cannot undertake to do the French Government's policing for them. If they wish to deny an individual the right to emigrate they can do it easily enough in one way or another (e.g. by refusal of the passport). You may have other thoughts about this, but it seems to us desirable just to remind the French gently that they cannot shift their responsibility in this matter to our shoulders. If they ever reach the point of deciding that certain categories of persons should not move to Canada, it is for them and not for us to make the regulations. If a time were to come when, to pick a random example, radar or aircraft technicians could not emigrate to Canada, we ought to be in a position to say publicly that this resulted from a decision of the French Government which we would obviously respect.

6. Your comments on this question in due course will be appreciated. In view of the importance of the question you might prefer to prepare in Ottawa a French version of whatever reply is to be sent in order to be certain that the shadings and nuances are what you have in mind. 7. There is also the point that while in our draft we have used the term "Canadian authorities" throughout, you may feel the matter sufficiently important to justify the use of the stronger terra "Canadian Government." Our suggestion is that when a reply is ready it should be taken to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and discussed with them by an External Affairs representative and Mr. Cormier. This will give an opportunity to elaborate verbally on the contents of our note and explain orally any points which you might wish us to make but are better omitted from a written communication.

R.M. MACDONNELL
for Ambassador