I attach Air Transport Working Draft #34† which contains the work of the Sub-Committee in PICAO on the preparation of a draft multilateral agreement for consideration by the May 1947 Assembly.

The matter now moves to the Air Transport Committee where it may receive some publicity and it is important that Canada's position be considered in the light of developments so that our present stand and that which we will take in the Assembly will he consistent.

The 1946 Assembly asked Air Transport Committee for a draft multilateral agreement, claiming it was the only solution compatible with the objects of the Organization. Two of the seven members of the Sub-Committee claimed that a possible interpretation would permit us to produce a draft, multilateral in every aspect except the interchange of routes which would be left to bilateral dealings by every pair of States. The other five members claimed this was contrary to the spirit of multilateralism and to the letter of our directive, although, of this five, one member, the U.K., claimed that the course of the minority would he more likely to meet general acceptance.

The only representative at the 1946 Assembly who actually defined multilateral-ism was Mr. Symington,² who said, (I), "When I say multilateralism, I mean that each and everyone should be able to fly internationally according to a set of rules and regulations which is a convention, that the convention should he agreed upon so that the rules are the same for all, and that those who desire to avail themselves of these universal rights should sign the convention and he under a treaty obligation to abide by those rules as administered by an international body." No one at the Assembly denied this definition so it seemed wrong for the minority in our Sub-Committee to claim that the application of "Bermuda principles"³ with bilateral exchange of routes would comply with the Assembly's directive.

The rest of us have disagreed not only with the interpretation of our directive but with the minority claim that their solution would be likely to meet wide acceptance. The evils of bilateralism would remain in what would be a standard form of bilateral agreement and political pressures alien to aviation could influence the exchange of routes in a way that multilateralism is supposed to avoid.

Canada's position I believe to be also the position of many other States including a number that have closed bilateral agreements containing "Bermuda principles". I have stated, as have Canada's representatives before, that there would be no incentive for us in a standard bilateral. We have said a truly multilateral agreement would bring us the indirect benefits of world order in the air, and we would be prepared to make concessions to achieve it but we are not afraid of our position under bilateral agreements. We would insist, as would many others, (so long as we are to have bilaterals,) on the right to close whatever type suits the circumstances of each case.

In short, we are asked to give away the protection of a precisely worded capacity clause of the Sub-Committee draft, which the minority claim is too rigid, and to receive in return more general statements of intention with exchanges in a form. fixed in advance. We would make little contribution toward order in the air and would be obligated to give five freedoms⁴ to all comers. This offers us little incentive and I believe this view will be upheld by a majority of the Air Transport Committee and Council. The U.S.A., the U.K. and China will oppose it probably picking up support from Ireland and perhaps some who habitually follow them.

I think there is little chance of a multilateral agreement succeeding in the Assembly but I think it is an object worth striving for to increase its chance of success in some later year. I think we will gain credit for taking such a stand which is consistent with that taken by Canada in Chicago and in Montreal last year. I do not think we should support the standard form of bilateral if the multilateral fails and I do not think the U.K. are serving their own best interests if they continue to do so.

I would be glad of any criticism of the above which will help me to best represent our position.

A.C. MCKIM

¹Une copie fut envoyée au ministre de la Réconstruction des Approvisionnements, au président de Trans-Canada Airlines, au sous-secrétaire d'État aux Affaires extérieures (à l'attention du chef de la Direction économique) et au secrétaire adjoint du Cabinet.
Copies were sent to Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, President of Trans-Canada Airlines. Under-Secretary of State for External Affair (attention Head, Economic Division) and Assistant Secretary to Cabinet.

²H.J. Symington, président de Trans-Canada Airlines.
Hi. Symington, President, Trans-Canada Airlines.

³Voir le volume 12, documents 325 et 334./See Volume 12, Documents 325 and 334.

⁴Les cinq libertés de l'air sont :
1) Le privilege de traverser un territoire sans atterrir;
2) Le privilege d'atterrir pour des misons non-commerciales;
3) Le privilege de dibarquer des passagers, du courrier et des marchandises embarqués sur le territoire de l'État dont l'aironef possède la nationalité;
4) Le privilege d'embarquer des passagers, du courrier et des marchandises à destination du territoire de l'État dont l'aironef possède la nationalité;
5) Le privilege d'embarquer des passagers, du courrier et des marchandises à destination du territoire de tout autre État Contractant et le privilege de dibarquer des passagers, du courrier et des marchandises en provenance du territoire de tout autre État Contractant.

The five freedoms of the air am:
1) The privilege to fly across a territory without landing;
2) The privilege to land for non-traffic purposes;
3) The privilege to put down passengers, mail and cargo taken on in the territory of the State whose nationality the aircraft possesses;
4) The privilege to take on passengers, mail and cargo destined for the territory of the State whose nationality the aircraft possesses;
5) The privilege to take on passengers, mail and cargo destined for the territory of another State and the privilege to put down passengers, mail and cargo coming from any such territory.