411.426/8–3051
The Counselor of Embassy in Canada (Willoughby) to the Director of the Office of Economic Defense and Trade Policy (Leddy)
official—informal
Dear John: During an informal conversation with Claude Isbister, Chairman of the Canadian Delegation to the forthcoming GATT meeting, he urged that an early response be given to the note of the Canadian Government1 protesting the recently announced import restrictions under the Andresen amendment to the Defense Production Act. He pointed out that Parliament reconvenes early in October and said that the Government will have to have a satisfactory answer to charges, that presumably will be made during the debate on the Speech from the Throne, to the effect that Canada granted valuable concessions at Torquay in exchange for ones from the United [Page 1445] States that are valueless because they may be withdrawn unilaterally.
The Government is on the spot because Hector McKinnon emphasized during hearings on the results of Torquay that rates were bound for three years and that it was unthinkable that the United States would unilaterally violate its agreement. Mr. McKinnon also testified, in response to questions, that the Government could, if the United States did nullify any of its concessions, make compensatory withdrawals without waiting for further authority from Parliament. Under the circumstances Dr. Isbister does not think it a sufficient defense against political attacks for the Government to say that a protest has been lodged.
I expressed a personal opinion that the United States could not, if an answer to the note were drafted at the present time, say much more than that the President had recommended repeal of the Andresen amendment and that his recommendation was under consideration by Congress. I agreed, nevertheless, to explain to the appropriate authorities in Washington the importance to Canada of receiving an answer to its note at an early date.
Thinking out loud, as he expressed it, Claude Isbister suggested that Canada might, if Congress did not repeal the Andresen amendment in the immediate future, be obliged to take retaliatory action before GATT CP’s had time to act on a complaint. On this point I questioned whether such a procedure would conform to Article XXIII.
In view of the passage of the resolution recommending an embargo on Czech trade are we going to be able to defer action until the CP’s act on our request for a waiver?
Sincerely,