Sir,

I have the honour to refer to the subject of apprehension in the United States of deserters from the Canadian armed forces, and their return to Canada.

The Air Attack, on instructions from Air Force Headquarters, which were in turn received from the United Kingdom Air Liaison Mission, re-quested the United States military authorities to apprehend and return to Canada one LAC Banazkiewicz L P706284, a deserter from the RAF in Canada. The case was very involved in that this airman had been in the United States for some time, and had obtained from the Department of Immigration permission to remain in the country. This permission has expired, but he has already made an application for extension of the period he may remain in the United States. As a result, the Army authorities, although they arrested the airman, went into the matter further and came to the conclusion that they could not properly hold him or return him to Canada under the circumstances.

This particular case has directed the attention of the American authorities to the general practice of returning deserters without reference to, or use of Immigration Department authority and channels. We have some reason to believe that the current practice, which has been working satisfactorily the past few years under an informal arrangement with the War Department, and which is set out in War Department Circular No. 258 of June 24, 1944, may possibly be suspended. Such suspension would be on the ground that the exigencies of the war, which justified the procedure, are no longer

applicable and, from a strictly legal point of view, there is no question that the procedure cannot be supported. However, from the point of view of convenience to both the Canadian Services and the Immigration Department of the United States, the longer the present procedure is kept in force, the better, as it ensures the return of Canadian deserters much more promptly than would be the case if they were deported under Immigration procedure. An additional factor of interest to Canada is that of expense. The Canadian authorities, I believe, are responsible in the first instance for the cost of apprehension and transportation, as well as interim board and lodging. Should it be necessary in each case to go through deportation proceedings, some time would elapse and the expenses for board and lodging would increase appreciably.

I understand that an exchange of notes on the question of return of deserters took place with the United States authorities during the Fall of 1945, and I would like to mention that neither the Embassy nor the Service Attaches have received copies of these notes. I am therefore not in a position to state whether the expected cancellation of the present procedure would, or would not be permissible under the agreement reached by the exchange of notes, and I would appreciate copies of the notes to complete my files.*

I do not propose to approach the American authorities on this matter, feeling that it would be more advisable to let them make the first representations. However, I would appreciate receiving in advance your authority to discuss the matter of return of deserters generally with the American au-thorities as and when the question arises. In the interval you may think it advisable to inform the three Services of the possibility of a change in the present arrangements.

I have etc.
THOMAS A. STONE
for the Ambassador