2. We have now been informed that both the United Kingdom and United States Embassies in Moscow have recommended retaliation and Mr. Ford bas made a similar recommendation. The State Department has intimated to us that some retaliatory action will probably be taken. While a decision has not yet been reached, it seems likely that the Russians in Washington and New York (other than press representatives and Soviet officials associated with the United Nations) will be required to ask the approval of the State Department in advance of all trips away from Washington and New York, but that there will not be any prohibition of travel. Trips to any part of the United States will normally be approved but if a member of the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow finds that "no tickets are available" for a journey to a permitted area, the next Soviet application may be refused. It is also possible that the U.S. member of the NATO Council Deputies will, in due course, ask whether other NATO governments contemplate any similar action.

3. I agree with our Embassy that the time has come for some form of retaliation, although it is most unlikely that this will help in any way to induce the Russians to relax their restrictions. The argument must be simply the desirability of a reasonable degree of reciprocity in the treatment of diplomatic missions.

4. A form of retaliation similar to that contemplated by the State Department could be adopted without any administrative difficulty. In order to avoid the need to answer every Soviet note on this subject we might instruct the Soviet Embassy only that it must notify this Department, in writing, of any proposed trip farther than perhaps 25 miles beyond the city limits of Ottawa by any member of the Embassy staff. We could require this notification at least one week before the start of the trip. The Embassy would be informed in our original note that provided proper notification was received by the Department it could assume that there was no objection to the journey unless it received notification to the contrary from the Department. This would mean that we would be able to forbid a journey if we should ever wish to do so, perhaps on the grounds that a Canadian in Moscow had not been able to make arrangements to visit one of the permitted areas. The Embassy notification should contain full details of times and places of the itinerary to be followed.

5. It would be essential to take severe action if we learned that these instructions had been violated. Presumably the Embassy would be given notice that the offender must leave Canada within a specified short period. I do not think, however, that any mention of this need be made in our original note to the Soviet Embassy. Although we might answer in advance, in our note, the probable Soviet claim of discrimination, it would perhaps be better simply to send the order to the Embassy without explanation or justification. This is how it has been done in Moscow. It will not be difficult to dispose of the claim of discrimination if one is made.

6. I attach a draft note^? to the Soviet Embassy for your consideration if you approve the recommendation in this memorandum. This note was prepared in consultation with representatives of the Department of National Defence.⁴

A.D.P. H[EENEY]