Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group


Material Information

Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group
Physical Description:
United States -- Delegation to the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Conference, 17th, Key Biscayne, Fla., 1976
McGee, Gale W ( Gale William ), 1915-1992
McGee, Gale W
United States -- Congress. -- Senate. -- Committee on Foreign Relations
U.S. Govt. Print. Off. ( Washington )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 21612424
oclc - 2564255
System ID:

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Canada-United States interparliamentary group
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
Full Text











z ~p 176

AUGUST 1976 "//,
'<%TS >

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreigii Relatiois



2d Session C


Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013


The basic authority for U.S. Participation in the C( anada-United
States Interp)arliamientary Groul) is contained i, Public Law S6-42,
which was adopted on June 11, 1959. Under thle provi-ion of this
law, not to exceed 24 Members of ()nre-s (12 fronm tlhe Se late an 12 from the House of Representatives) are appointed to meet annually
with representatives of the Canadian Parlianent 'for Olis'&,iol of
common problems in the interest of relation i- between the United
States and Canada."' The meetings are held alte:rnately in (Cantada and
the United States.

The U.S. delegation to the 17th meeting of the Canada-United
States Interparliamentary Group) consisted of th', followvi .Itrs
and Representatives:
From the S3nate: Gale W. McGee, Wyomiing; Quentin- N. Burdick
North Dakota; Ernest F. Hollings, South Carolina; Mike Giavey,
Alaska; William D. Hathaway, Maine; Carl T. Curtis, Nebraska;
and Ted Stevens, Alaska.
From the House of Representatives: Thomas E. Morgan, Pennyl-
vania; Dante B. Fascell, Florida; Harold T. Johnson, California;
William J. Randall, Missouri: Sam M. Gibbons, Florida; Claude
Pepper, Florida; Robert C. MeEwen, New York; Lloyd Meeds,
Washington; Philip E. Ruppe, Michigan; Pierre S. duPont, Delaware;
Jack Kemp, New York; Max Baucus, Montana; and John J. LaFalce,
New York.
Senator McGee and Repres,:entative '\Iorgan served as Co-Citairman
of the U.S. delegation.
The Canadian delegation was composed of the following:
From the Senate: A. A. Macnaughton, P.C. (Sorl); Jac(ques Flynn,
P.C. (Quebec); Martial Asselin, P.C. (Quebec); W. M. Benidickl-on,
P.C. (Ontario); Allister Grosart (Ontario); Paul C. Lafond (Quiebec);
George C. van Roggei (British Columbia); and John M. Godfrey
From the House of Commons: Mr. Martin O'Connell, P.( '..'\ M.P.
(Scarborough East); Mr. Andl'-w Brewin, MI.P. (Ontario) : Mr. David
MacDonald, M.P. (Prince Edward Islannd); Mr. Lincoln Alexander,
M.P. (Ontario); Mr. Jacque- Guillault, M.P. (Quebec): I r. Jack
Marshall, M.P. (Newfoundland); M'Xr. Gilbert Rondaa,, ,\l.P.
(Quebec); Mr. Jacques Trudel, M.P. (Quebec): M'r. Jack M.\I-: a. lM.P.
(Manitoba); '_\r. Peter Bawden, M.P. (Alerta)": Mr. Fr::;ik ()bele.
MI.P. (British Columbia); Mr. John Robert,.: M.P. (Ontario: Mr. W.
Ken Robinson, M.P. (Ontario); Miss Coline Campbell, M?.P. (Nova
Scotia); Mr. Ed. Lumlev, M.P. (Ontario); amn Mr. R,,Yer Youni,
M.P. (Ontario).

Senntor Mnleniin.t litoit and Mr. O'Connell served as Co-Chairnen
of the ('Unlzili'i I delegaiortioal.
Thivt t)IHtorzib Rli ,:aude L npoinite, T'he Speaker of the Senate,
,!i ied t 'i11w z dLli tion in I lr ct)pacity a- n Honorary President
of thle (Cal;:lia l Sec(tioll.

Thle 17tih meeting of the (.C",ada-United States Interparlianmentary
(ionfcience w.i foriimlly opened by the Mayor of Miami, the Honor-
2ab1, Mai'itce Ferre, at a plenary se(,ion held in the Royal Biscayne
Hotel (on January 30, 1976. Thereafter, for discussion purposes, the
(dlel_.ites were divided into three committees. Set forth below are the
fgeld'i-A- ;i1(d report- of tho-e committees-, as well as the names of the
United Stat'- and Canadian delegates who served on each committee.

1. Gi eat Lake- Water Quality Agreement.
2. Trans-boundary river pollution problems:
(a) Garrison Diversion Unit
(b) Flathead River
(c) Richelieu and Lake Champlain.
3. Coa-tal pollution problems-tankers and refineries: West Coast;
4. Salt water boundary issues off Maine and the West Coast.
5. Law of the Sea.
6. Canadian cultural legislation and regulations:
(a) Income Tax Act changes affecting Canadian advertising
in U.S. media
(b) T.V. cable ad\-ertising deletion regulations.
The U.S. members of Committee I were Senators Burdick and Gravel
and Representatives Morgan (co-chairman), Fascell, Meeds and
McEwen. The members of the Canadian delegation on Committee
I were Senators Macnaughliton (co-chairman) and Flynn and, from
the Hoii-e of Commons, Messrs. MacDonald, Guilbatult, Marshall,
Oberle, Robinson and Campbell.

Other member, of both delegations participated actively in the Com-
mittee's discussions of tlhe various i-sses included on the Committee's
agenda. The isue rehlate(d to a number of specific transborder environ-
mental problems, Law of the Sea questions, and the effects of Ca-
nadian cultural legislation. The latter subject was also the subject of
discussions in Committee II.

Both C uitdian and U.S. delegates noted with sati4faction the real
proEr,'-- that has been made on both sides toward achievement of ef-
fective pollution control relating to the Great Lakes. The Canadian
(1dlegation reported that virtually all construction projects related to
the Water Quality Agreement are either completed or under construc-
tion. The U.S. dele(gatel- acknowledged that only about 60 percent of

the work nece-.-ary in tlhe United States hadl been conipleti,1 ilt r-
ported its conviction that U.S. progre-s toward full imiplenmentatioii
of the Water Quality Agreement would continue at a satisfaetoi ryv
pace. U.S. delegates a grdil on the importance of the U.S. rapid fill-
fillment of the mutual commitments made in the Water Quality A..ree-
ment. A U.S. delegate estimated that completion of facilities in tlhe
Detroit area in late 1976 should raise U.S. completion of targeted fa-
cilities to 80 percent and that it should be possible to reach 95 percent
by 1978.
Specific discussions were held on the continuing problem of phos-
phate pollution in western Lake Erie as a result of chemical wastes and
the problem of PCB pollution in Lake Ontario, which a U.S. delegate
suggested was a new issue deserving of further consideration. Both
delegations agreed these issues should be dealt with and that special
consideration should be given to an examination of air pollution prob-
lems and the possibility that they are contributing to water pollution
in the lakes. The Canadian delegation pointed to the need for early
recognition of possible new pollution sources and cited as a construc-
tive step Canada's new law requiring industry to inform the govern-
ment of possible environmental hazards of new products.
As progress is made toward dealing with sewage and chemical
wastes, members of both delegations stressed the need for action to
control the pollution related to both commercial and recreational boat-
ing on the lakes. The differing approaches to control of ve.ssel pollu-
tions was raised as a possible obstacle to more effective controls.

Canadian delegates expressed their deep concern that the Garrison
Diversion project in North Dakota might do major environmental
damage in Manitoba by increasing flooding on the Souris River, by
degrading the quality of the river water, and by possibly leading to
th e introduction of new and possibly destructive parasites or fish dis-
eases into Canada. The Canadian Government ha, objected to the pro-
ject on grounds that its impact on Canada might be in violation of the
Boundary Waters Treaty.
A U.S. delegate from the area concerned stre>,ed the benefit, to
North Dakota agriculture which would result from the project au-
thorized by Congress 10 years ago. He indicated that there is not suffi-
cient information to confirm the fears expressed in Canada and indi-
cated that it was to be hoped that Canada would reserve judgment on
the project until the International Joint Commission has completed it-
review of possible environmental effects.
Canadian delegates suggested that the United States consider alter-
natives to the project as presently planned which miiliht accomnplihi
the purposes of the project while maximizing protection of Canadian
interests. American delegates agreed that no work should be carried
out which would adversely affect Canada. U.S. delegates pointed to
differences between bureaus in the U.S. Government over the project
and an on-going review of the project in the lloll-c of Reprio-en it:*tives.
Both sides agreed that thev would await the rc-ults of the Interna-
tional Joint Commission's study and expre.--e-d the hope it would be
completed in 1976.

The U.S. deleg:_tioni expre--dl concern over po-.ible environmental
dlim,,.e to tihe i'lalh'Lad River in Montana from conil mining opera-
tiol in the area of the river's water-hed in British Cohlumnbia. It
wa pointed out thlt tlie Flatliead is paIrt of the U.S. Scenic River
SysteJm and( that becali-,e of its unspoiledl nature it is a center of touir-
i-Im in Muitima. Damage to the river, it was argued, could seriollusly
(lani:g' the, touri-ml1 -ector of tie area'4 economy.
C('imiudilin delegates acknowledged that feasibility studie- were being
co Tiducted with respect to mining operations but indicated that while
there might be an impact it could conceivably be beneficial since dark-
ening of the river's waters might increase fish size. Canadian" dele-
Sate-. did state, however, that the Federal and Provincial Govern-
ments were consulting closely on possible mining operation- and( that
nothing would be (lone that would violate the Boundary Waters
Treaty v. An American delegate expressed reservations about the ade-
(qacy of the treaty's protection of water quality and sugge-ted efforts
be male to tighten the treaty's provisions.

Seattle's requirements for power involve a possible increase in the
height of a dam on the Skagit River. Such construction would be
ba-ed on an existing contract between Seattle and British Columbia.
The construction would, however, lead to flooding of the Skagit
Valley. Canadian delegates expressed the hope that flooding of the
valley could be avoided and both sides agreed that alternative. should
be sought and that efforts should be made by the concerned city and
Provincial officials to seek a new arrangement.

Both United States and Canadian delegates expressed concern about
flooding on the Richilieu River, which flows from Lake Champlain
to the St. Lawrence River. Concern was expressed by U.S. delegates,
however, that the flood control works might damage the ecology of
Lake Champlain. U.S. delegates expressed the hope that no work
would be done by Canada until completion of further environmental
studies by the International Joint Commission. Canadian delegates-;
indicated that Canada would not go forward with the project until
the final Commission report is completed.

1. Ea- Coast-Eastport
U.S. delegates reported fltuiat efforts to build a refinery at Ea-tport,
Maine, continue to be vehemently opposed by environmentalist,.
Mine's approval of the project is under appeal in the courts, but
that approval was contingent on Canada's approval of tanker passage
through its waters to Ea Canadian delegates reported their continuing determined opposi-
tion to tle refinery and to approval of transit rights through Canadian


Both delegations agreed that tidal power is deserving of further
consideration as an alternative energy source and it was suggested
that both countries consider a joint re-earch effort.
2. West Coast
Canadian delegates expressed their continuing concern over possible
damage to Canada from oil spills related to oil tanker lii(ic through
the Strait of Juan de Fuca into Puget Sound. It was urged that the
United States consider alternative sites as tanker termiinals which
would reduce the risk to Canada. Growing opposition to the tanker
traffic was reported in Washington State, and it was noted with ap-
proval that the State is attempting to limit the size of tankers allowed
in Puget Sound despite projections which show that there may be a
dramatic increase in the quantity of oil to be processed or transshipped
through Washington.
U.S. delegates noted the incre'am-ig dependency on oil brought by
tanker and said that the problem was further complicated by Canada's
decisions to restrict energy exports to the United States and by
Canadian price increases. American delegates noted their own new
perspective on the pollution threat to the area as a result of the possi-
bility that 3 to 4 times as much oil might be shipped daily through the
strait than had previously been estimated.
The need for further improvements in the vessel management sys-
tem in the Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca area was raised
by a Canadian delegate. U.S. delegates agreed that the system, de-
signed to prevent ve-sel collisions, should have high priority.
Both delegations agreed that more research needs to be done into
methods of coping with large oil spills.

The boundary issues arise from the extension of maritime jurisdic-
tions beyond the areas of traditional jurisdiction. Both (delegations
agreed that each of the distinct boundary issues on the east and west
coasts should be considered individually on their merits.
With r,.,-pect to the east coast the Canadian delegates explained tihe
Government's position defining the boundary based on a median line
theory. The U.S. delegation outliiined the American position tlhat
special g( graphical features dictate that the Georgecs Bank area is
a part of the Uited States. It was no01( (' that Canada has tradi(ition-
ally had fishing interests on the Geoiogs B-;nk.
A Canadian delegzi te stated that exclusive attention slouldl not be
paid only to problems on the east coast but thzAt attention shoIuld be
paid by both governments to the three areas (' bolder definition on
the west coast.
The U.S. delegation explained that recent U.S. legislation dealing
with extension of resource management to 200 miil would not aft'ect
the negotiations conceerning United States-Canadian boundai,- and
was designed to be consistent with po:-ible action by the United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.


S;;!(Ii i'd .,rai \pie.--,.' their Coi<( ,. I tlat tlhe [lAihle Stales
ex'..,uteu ri ,.i-i, i )o o!-l.ei, pi(ot4 'ti,Il to 2('0 nilt- nightt
mak('e a s'- f(1l 4O:,clA.i-i,,uL t,, l.,. 11aw of the Sea (C,,fereince more
(iiiilc ilt. i iJe:u i..,. it X\;,- -;iid tii:t li:iLiteral U..". ;'.ctior. might hamper
i"-. :',.--, ,:jidian c,,,,l, :,tioH on fi-,erries and int,,"frtre with
C at;!,i;,'.'; '-, rts t0, ,-' t )!- biali t i a, iiti.' ,. .cnts with other fi-])incg

I...S. .l,,, *; .l jti: 1,ii' c prove i-ions- of tLlie lt,'i-l. tio n, \t was
expWi 1to 1 ''v firomIII (iti'vin I I',o nild S(iiate vrT-iJo1n. The
.S. He .:il.s (le-, it,.,6 the .:nticipn1Ied U.S. action as an interim
r('''i,, '.. llc l would co,!pl "i:;..ut .'ultilat rl cf'Fort- at resource l an-
;''Iie ;i which s--oulid not 1i;i)ipcr ,'iher Catnl'dian effort-. with
tliird nalI)Is or joi',it Unitedi St,!te--'-;intdian fi-leries cooperation.
Tlhe U.S. repi,-ntati\e exp,-.l their view that the U.S. action
lilit a sur.-es-ful conclusion to multilateral negotiations- rather
1i:iiH co1lnpli('ate the n-'<.jotiations.
A Ci.;uin elevate exprcsed his fear that the U.S. action might
,,neourO1':,_ rapid moves by U.S. interests into exploitation of minerals
on the de(ep seab'(i.

l.-,lent Canad(lian d(lecisions to change tan laws affecting Canadian
ad(verti-in,: in U.S. media and to require deletion of adverti-ing from
U.S. television pro(,.z-ail rebroadcasts on Canadian cable ,y.te ns pre-
cipitated a lively debate that revealed significant differences on the
issue- within eiach delegation.
A U.S. dele-ate arguted that Canada's action- violated the General
Agreemient on Trade and Tariffs and would produce retaliatory action
in the United State-, including po-sible attempts to prevent U.S.
broadcasting -i nal from leaching Canada. Other U.S. delegates sugt-
'Le-te(l that there is -till room for compromi-e and that talks among
intere-ted partie- -h!ould be held.
Caniadian (dele,_at,'s divided between those who detailed the( difficil-
ti-es of Canad.ian media and their need for special protection in order
to promote Canatla's ii dependent cultural and tho-e who
viewed the C;tn !lian action, as violations of economic freedom.
Both dele nations agreed that it was constructive that sub-tantive
negotiations between both governments had at last. begun.

All (lehlcrai s agreed( on the value of the conver-,ntions held to their
undelrstaInding of the important issues on the committee's agenda. It
was. noted )by all members of the Committee that they regretted that
Repr(o-,'"itative MojLai's decision to retire' from Congress would bring
to a ((concMlusion hii great contributions to the tInterparliamentary
Group and to the Coinmittee which lie liasn so ably cochlnired with
Senator Maieaii.rhton.

1. Auto Pact .' i' ,rment.
2. U.S. Dumping Charges and (Coutntervo li 'z Duties.
3. Multi-National Corporations:
-U.S. application of controls on taid, wii ( "
-Canadian Foreign Investment Review Act, Pli: ,e 24
-Extension to Canada of United Stat .v reslintioiis on p)oliit(al
-Saskatchewan take-over of potash comnpaiies.
4. Canadian anti-inflation program.
5. Canadian cultural legislation and regulations:
(a) Income Tax Changes affecting Canadian a(lvertisinr in
United States media.
(b) T.V. cable advertising deletion regulations.
6. Multilater.:il trade negotiations:
(a) Canadian approach.
(b) United States approach.
Committee II wa- co-chaired by Representative Sam M. Gibbons
and the Honorable Martin O'Connell. Other members from the U.S.
delegation were Senators Hathaway and Curtis and Repre-entatives
Randall, LaFalce and Kemp. Also representing the Canadian delega-
tion were Senators Asselin, Benidickson and Godrey and, from the
House of Commons, Messrs. Alexander, Trudel, Roberts, Lumley
and Young.
The Auto Pact was placed on the agenda because of various reports
in the media of dissatisfaction with the agreement. In fact, the discus-
sion in the Committee revealed that the criticisms were more alleged
than real and the result of the general ill-health of the two economies
over the past several years than to the actual workings of the Pact.
It was noted that trade in automobiles and automotive parts hlas
increased some ten-fold during the 11-vear life of the ;grement. Al-
though each country may have suffered setbacks in specific areas of
the industry-Canada has lost her tractor manufacturing and much of
her automotive parts manufacturing-overall the automobile industry
of both countries has benefited substantially from the ai2r.,ment.
There was consensus that there was no need to rewrite the I'act, al-
though a review would be useful, as is currently being condu(lcte(l by
both executives. The hope was expressed that both countries would
avoid the clamor for more protection.

The issue of multinational corporations i- a(cI(e1 titon ll -
ing the 17th meeting than at tlie 160th meetir;:. -pparently 1a'-, tof
the greater certainty over hlow ( Calatda is iliplemeniin g tlihe new lFor-
eign Investment Review Act and bec: ii;e of tlie declii1e in c(oIcern in
the United States over tlie potential implica iiolns of 'freizn invet-

mIent in'l(w-. lThere wai ai clear understainding that tlhe Canadian
Fvorei,,i Inve-lment Review Act wa-; nondi-criiniiatorv and was not
inte'lded pcr -t to d1i-c.iirage foreign investnlent, but only to direct
in into ;'ie: i beneficial for Ca('nad U.S. controls onl trade with Cuba
,,11We.i 1ted very little di-cuI-sion, primarily because the change in U.S.
policy to Culwa 1,a-. for tlhc mot paili. eliminated the problem. How-
ever, invol vii t i- -;ile .irea of the extratcrritria l application of
1.S. l;iw, there \w:;I- conerl expre'--e(d over effort-. by the United States
to apply its Uantil rii-t Imwv- to C(,andi,;i s1 -idiari- of U.S. mrpanies.
"\II,-t of the dis,(-i--ion of multinitiomiiil corporations wa-, directed to
U.-. I''-triclio,-s on I)olitic;il contribution- in C(an:ida and the efforts
by \.,..k itcl ,\\an to lidke over the potash co mpanie-.
'['V. focus on poidtical conftribition- A\w-.i primarily an exposition of
tt(he c,--,mn and practice in Canada. Since 1920 it his been legal for
corpir;'tion- in (A.-ida to make political coi[riibutiolns. Thev have
teti,,l t(. give Ci) percent olf their contribution- to the party in power
:atd 4 40 percent to tthe opposition. U.S. corporation- have been advised
to (divide their contribution- among the p-arties, but U.S. -iubsidiaries
have ,rifi'iilty, first, acceptingp- the principle of making political con-
tributions, and, seond, acce.ptin" the concept of givii,- to both parties.
U.S. comipanic- have pre--ured their Canadian subl make, con'i ributions. Prior to Watergi'te, approximately 25 percent of
all contributions came from foreign corporations; since then, because
of tIe new disclo-ire policy, U.S. sub-idiarie- have severely restricted
their contributioi-.
In the di-cussion-, on multinational corporations, the attempt to
t.,ke over the pota-h compani-es by the provincial government of Sas-
katcliewan generat,.-d tihe mot controversy. On this i--e there was as
much divergence of opinion within each delegation as between the two
delwzations. The dli-cussion commenced with an explanation of the
hi-tory of the Saskatchewan potash industry-the entry of the corn-
piiici in the mid-1960's, the controver-y over the imposition of addi-
tionzil taxes and tlie failure of the companies to expand production to
meet growing demand, and the effort-, of the provincial government to
pai- standby legislation to permiit nationalization of the companies.
There was considerable attention devoted to thle role of the Cana-
dian National Government, particularly as to whether the Federal
G(,'verOIMient -hould inject it-elf into the mtter and whether it could
u-' its power of "di-;ilowance" to veto an act of nationalization by the
Pr.,vnci'i:l ,ZWl"i.Ne t. ,,De-pite considerable divergence( of opinion on
tlis i--Ie, dithe balance of the argumentation and opinion fell with the
p,-ition that po--ible takeover of the pota-hl companies .a-, clearly
a ;;i.tter vwitIhin the Provincial juri-dictin--wv1iich is clo)hely guarded-
111id that the Federal veto over Provincial decisions was more theo-
reti,.a; than fuct, con-idering it lia- not bhee, il-ed in 40 year-. Concern
was expre-ed over the contill] edC wce-- of U.S. agriculture to potash
suppli,- a1d over the po,--ible damage, that such a takeover would
have for tle investment climate in Canada. The members noted the
irony that implementation of tlhe propective nationalization would
require tlie floating of a nitiajor loan by the Province of Sa.-katchewan-
probably iu New York.

Discussion of the new (Canadian anti-infltion p)rog1Th.iI, elacte,'d
December 3, 1975, primarily entailed an explanation of tin, detaiiL of
the prograiii and of the problems which a similar IU.S. ipro-grI I ran
into during 1973-1974. It was noted that a levy oni exce>.s exporIt p)rofits
could lead to a transfer of production from Canada to tilt, n'
States and that a two-tier price system might increase export-i and
thereby create domestic shortages. The U.S. (delegate. , tlie
view that the U.S. economy entails too many variable. an! is too
large-too complex-for such a program to succeeo(I in the ULited
States, but wished the Canadians luck with their anti-inlahtion
program im.

The subject which engendered the most heated debate in (Com-
mittee II was the deletion of advertising from U.S. bri(,,,*; Canadian television stations. As with the take-over of pott-ilh conm-
panies, there was a wide divergence both within and( aino)ng the two
delegations. Several Canadians explained the purpose of tlie deletion,
mainly in terms of protecting the Canadian cultural identity. Several
of the U.S. delegates argued that the policy was hypocritical because
advertising was deleted but not programing-and that what was at
stake was the economics, as witnessed by the position of the Canadian
Government that Canadian dollars can be used to purcha-.' comllier-
cials but that they must be repatriated to Canada.
The point was made that the deletion amounts to piracy of prop-
erty rights and restricted the free flow of ideas. It was counter that
the property rights involved are Canadian not United States-the
right of Canada to use its own airwaves-and that, in fact, tlie tele-
vision broadcasts could be considered an invasion of Canadian air
It was noted that 80 percent of television viewing in Canai!a in-
volves programs for which Canadian stations pay some $35 $40
million a year for pre-release, and that deletion affects only 20 percent
of the viewing population. It was mentioned that the U.S. stations
are considering jamming their signals. Most of the Committee mem-
bers viewed this with repugnance. One member questioned whether or
not it was technically feasible to jam the broadcasts without affecting
the U.S. audience.
There wa- clearly no consensus on the merits of the two side-., but
there was consensus that the Canadian an(d United Stat'- (Gove(rn-
ments should devote considerable resources toward i re-olving thlie con-
flict. It was felt that, while at the moment this was a problems of
regional scope and of little import for overall United Stat-, C.nadian
relations, it had the potential for becoming highly politiciz"ed, ant
endangering Canadian-United States relations. Several stm:i-'-lions
were tabled, such as providing Canadian pro.r.iinig or ,onImercials
according to the proportion of the market represented by tlie (aiadian
audience, or having the stations pay a levy to (ana(da on tie ba>is of

market -liare. Nlainllv, all of ti1 delegates expr'.,,etl an earnest desire
that th(, t\\o TverninI1ts proceed at once to try to reach an accom-
zii'>(lati i on thli- controverv.
Ti,, ( C',nijittee alko di-'ls-oed the prn)po-ed legislation ending the
exemption for Tinme Mlagazine and Reader's Digest from the law that
i-.1llows ldeluctingz ai- a bLsiness expen-e advertising in foreign-
-i,,ICC' ,',din. The dci-'u-ion of this i.--.e was not heated and the
,,l-,ih.1- -,.e,,ed to )be' that the law would be enacted but that the
rffect would be -i.mall. The Canadians took the position that with the
emnctinlent of the proposed legislation, Time and Reader's Dige-,t
would hc t;-citted tlie samnie as other non-Canadian publications.

Tilei' was g-eneral agreement on the urgency for moving the GATT
ne,,otiations ahead. There is apparently little difference in the ap-
proach of the two countries to the trade talks. It was noted that tlhe
U.S. Congress is committed to lowering trade barriers and appreciates
the desire for some Canadian protection in order to promote the devel-
opment of its own industry.

1. Energy:
(a) Gas and oil exports.
(b) Pipeline routes.
(c) Pipeline treaty.
(d) Tanker routes.
2. Agricultural Questions:
(a) Egg and beef quotas.
(b) Grain:
-national marketing systems;
-international perspective.
3. 7th Special Session of U.N.
Committee III was co-chaired by Senator Gale W. McGee and
Senator Alli.ter Grosart. Other members from the U.S. delegation
wern Senators Hollings and Stevens and Representatives Johnson,
Pepper, Baucus, Ruppe and duPont. The Canadian delegation was
al-o represented by Senators Lafond and van Roggen and, from the
Ho-e of Commons, MIessrs. Brewin, Rondeau, Murta and Bawden.

Energy was clearly the main preoccupation of the delegates on both
side-. and a major portion of the Committee's time was devoted to this
topic. A member of the Canadian delegation opened the discussion by
ob-'ervinfl that the most significant unresolved differences between the
United States and Canada are in the field of energy and that it is of
utmost importance that our respective governments reach agreement
on outstanding issues. In this connection, it was suggested that one of
the greatest problems facing both countries at thi- time is whether
to transport natural gas from Prudhoe Bay to U.S. markets via an

Alaskan pipeline or by a pipeline down thle NI acke(nzie River Valley.
The two routes are currently under separate coi-i(leration 1)v the
Federal Power Commission in the United States and( the N;i tioni!
Energy Board in Canada. The studies on each of the alternative
proposals are expected to be completed late in I1976 or early in 1977.
and the Canadian delegates urged( that any decision to proceed should(
be delayed until both regulatory bodies submitted their reports. They
strr-sed that large sums of money are involved and that it seemed
prudent to wait until the experts had reached their concbi-ions.
On the American side concern was expressed about the continuity
of the decisionmaking mechanisms in Canada and whether a tral-
Canada pipeline could be built in the timeframne necessary to allow
delivery of Prudhoe Bay gas to U.S. markets. There was also -ome
uneasiness over Canadian attitudes and intentions, particularly in
view of past natural gas price increase., and the curtailment of
deliveries under government approved contracts, as well as the
recent proposal by Saskatchewan to nationalize the potash industry.
The question was also raised as to whether the Canadian Government
was sincerely interested in a jointly owned pipeline acro. Canada.
If so, it was suggested that more encouragement from the Canadians
in this regard might be helpful.
Some American delegates also expressed concern that the National
Energy Board of Canada had changed its regulations to justify the
curtailment of crude oil exports to the United States. It was pointed
out that in 1974 the National Energy Board concluded that Canada
would not become a net importer of oil until 1983, but in a 1975 update
of the NEB study this date was moved forward to 1981. The net effect
of this is that Canadian exports of oil to the U.S. will be further re-
duced and the final cut-off date will come 2 years earlier than orig-
inally predicted. In response the Canadians stated that the early cal-
culations made by the National Energy Board had been bated on
figures supplied in the main by Canadian subsidiaries of Amnerican
oil companies and had proven inaccurate, since new discoveries had
not materialized at the expected rate. Moreover, with rising consump-
tion, the reserve position had deteriorated substantially and the Na-
tional Energy Board had been obliged to rea-!ess its calculations. In
order to reduce the impact on American refineries that have no alter-
native sources of supply other than Canada, it was suggested that
a swapping arrangement might be worked out.
With regard to Canada's long term contractual obligations to
export natural gas to the United States, it was pointed out that
natural gas exports are subject to licensing by the National Energy
Board which may vary the quantity and price since it i-. required by
law to determine that exports are surplus to Canadian needs and
reasonably priced. Mention was albo made of the fact that Canad.i
supplies less than 5 percent of total U.S. natural gai consunl)tion:
yet this represents one-half of Canada's production. As a cn,-equence.
there is a shortage of natural gas in Canada and exl)ports ilay have
to be curtailed even further if all potential C(anadian u-'v- cannot
be satisfied. The Americain delegation expri'--e(l concern over tlin
po-4ibility and received a-ur;iince- tlhat, if (cutback- were in fact to l,
made, no action would be taken without prior coInsultation. Anl Alier-
ican delegate raised the i--iue of natural ga- prices by observilu that
Canadian export price- have risen from an average price of 32 c.nt-


per tholul-and cubic feet in 197:3 to $1.60 per thousand cubic feet in
1976. lie felt this- fivefoldl increase in prices over the last 3 years, was
di-criminattory and urged the Canadians- to phln-e export price in-
(cr'ases fi) mCe graduially to le.sen the burden on U.S. customers.
On a.uarurv 2S, 1976, United States and Canadian officials inlitialedl
OnVO.ilO ti IP-.i 1)iv)lfl,
i g~.(ral ag'eenent covering ran-it pipeline designed to I)rovide a
framlework of re. iprocal an-rance rgrding secity of t"hroughpJt
1ind nondiicrinihiatory treatment. This ad nu ',eand i agreement was
the subject of eon-(iderable discu-s.ion by members of both dele vgations.
Of pmrticular concern to the American-, is the difference between
United State- and Canadlian constitutional -truetures and practice,
(-,)ecially with reqpevct to the taxing authority of the provinces. The
Canadi1n delegatese. explained that the proposed treaty did not require
provincial approval and that the federal government would be pre-
pared to seek written a-ssurances (in the from of a protocol to the
treaty) from any province through which pipelines passed. In addi-
tion, it was pointed out that the United States could insist on security
safeguards before agreeing to the treaty and that the Canadian Fed-
eral Goveinnment has the power to disallow any provincial action, if
nece- ary.
A member of the Canadian delegation reported on agricultural rela-
tions between the United States and Canada. He observed that prob-
lems between the two countries had never been insurmountable and
at the present time our differences are negligible. He noted that the
United States and Canada recently returned to free trade in the live-
stock and meat sector, thus doing away with one of our outstanding
agricultural problems.
On the other hand, however, there still remains a minor irritant
in our relations which is caused by the imposition by Canada of import
quotas on eggs and egg products. The United States is almost the sole
supplier of shell eggs to Canada. It is expected that bilateral consulta-
tions on this problem will continue in an effort to arrive at a mutually
,acceptable import quota.
The Canadian delegate also submitted a paper which stated that.
trade in potatoes between the United States and Canada had favored
the American grower by a ratio of 2 to 1 and that, as a result, the mari-
time provinces face serious economic hardship and dislocation in )peri-
ods of low or uncertain returns to their potato producers. The delegate
concluded by saying that trade problems between the United States
and Canada had been worked out to the satisfaction of both parties in
the past and that there was no reason why this could not be done in
the future. The American cochairman agreed with the Canadian
delegate's summary and suggested that our geographic proximity and
community of interest were two important factors contributing to the
relatively easy resolution of agricultural problems between the
United States and Cnnada.

The American cochairman opened the disciision on the New Inter-
national Economic Order by pointing out that the Seventh Special
Session of the U.N. had been an important breakthrough in reaching
accommodation with developing countries- on minajor economic ques-

tions. The United States, lie said, actually caine forthl witli co(rl',ete
p)rolpoosals dealing with such matter-, as trade, transfer of real re-
sources, science and technology, industrialization, and food and agri-
culture. Hie also presented the members of Committee III with, tile
formal report of the Congressional Advisers to the Seventh Special
Session as well as background material on the status of U.S. 1)roposal.
In response, a Canadian delegate agreed that the Seventh Special
Session had been a productive meeting and praised the U.S. Con-
gre-.sional advisers for taking the initiative. In his opinion, the Seventh
Special Session rep)rtehented a "turnaround" and he was pleased that
the meeting was characterized by an atmosl)here of cooperation
rather than confrontation.
Although some skepticism was exprehss"ed as to whether the United
Nations could achieve the goals set forth at the Seventh Special
Session, it was generally agreed that further discussions on the New
Economic Order would be helpful. In this connection, it was suggested
that the topic ought to be the subject of periodic ad hoc meetings
between American and Canadian legislators.
In addition to hearing reports summarizing the discussion in each of
the Committees, the plenary ses-ion considered the overall state of
Canadian-United States relations.
The discussion commenced with one of the U.S. delegates stating
that the major problem in Canadian-United States relations was the
lack of knowledge of Canadian affairs both within the Congress and
among the U.S. population as a whole. In explaining this situation, he
quoted from the study "Canada-United States Relations: The Insti-
tutional Framework for the Relationship," recently released by the
Canadian Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs:
In line with the deep concern expressed earlier that the
need for a much closer liaison with Congress was essential,
the Committee is convinced that more attention should be
paid to getting factual information about Canada to Capitol
Hill. It recognizes that this is not an easy task. While the
embassy publication Canada Report, which seeks to explain
authoritatively controversial Canadian policies is a good
effort, it is clearly inadequate for the job although it may be
useful to some congressional staff. A typical Congressman's
mail basket like that of his Canadian counterpart, overflows
with an endless stream of brochures, press release:, booklets,
promotional flyers, leaflets and pamphlets making it an awe-
some task to winnow through, even for the most discerning
staff member or Congressman. For this reason, published
material is of relatively little value if it is not read. Initial
approaches to Congress have to be made on a person-to-
person basis. Personal links have to be developed carefully
over a considerable period of time so that when issues crop up
that need direct explanations, a channel will be available to
an important Committee, and interest developed in any sup-
plementary written material.

Thle Committee i- 'concernedl that isuch contact is minimal
at )resent. How much information work for example has the
emnbasy done in Congress in putting across Canada's and
Maniitoba'S opposition to the Garrison Diversion project in
North Dakota? Tfi- is an area where the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation i. builv bolstering its case for the project in
Congress. But lias Congress been getting the Canadian side
of the story? The saine question could be asked in respect of
other border irritants such as Point Roberts or the Skagit
flooding or Great Lakes pollution. If the federal government
does not move in this area, the Committee foresees that the
provinces, out of desperation, will. Such a multiplication of
the Canadian voice could become very dangerous to Canada's
international image.
Another ct;se in point is the auto pact trade figures. While
numerous outspoken Congressional leaders knew in 1972 that
the balance of automotive trade had been in Canada's favour
by $230 million in 1971, how many Congre.ssmen know that it.
was in tlhe U.S. favour by $1.3 billion in 1974? Has the
embassy tlhe facilities to put these figures across to the mem-
bers of the Was and Means Committee? Has the embassy-
the personnel and budget capacity to contact those Congress-
men who are currently protesting Canadian cable advertising
deletion regulations or Canadian oil and gas export prices
and to present them with the Canadian side of the issue?
The Committee considers that a more vigorous government
information program with the Congress is a matter of prime
importance and should be pursued in the context of a closer
liaison in general with U.S. legislators.
The discussion was continued by one of the Canadian representa-
tives explaining his view of United States-Canadian relations. He
emphasized that Canadians are not hostile to the United States, but
they do want to maintain a separate identity from the United States.
Although United States-Canadian relations have, in general, been
cordial, the two neighbors have not always been the best of friends.
In 1775 one-third the population of Canada were refugees from the
American Revolution; and U.S. forces burned Toronto during the
War of 1812 and the Fenians undertook raids into Canada during the
1860's. The formation of Canada was, to a large extent, a response to
the threat from the South-to the ending of the Reciprocity Treaty
and to the fact that at the end of the Civil War the United States had
the largest standing army in the world.
On the other hand, there are major factors binding the two nations
together-roots in British representative government, frontier ex-
perience, emigrants rejecting a society built on class, idealist view
of the free man and democratic institutions. The post-war conflict over
defense policies has been settled, and the United States and Canada
have many of the same international economic goals.
However, there are three areas which may cause difficulty in United
States-Canadian relations in the coming years. One is the efforts to
maintain a Canadian cultural identity. While U.S. industrial and
economic penetration is perturbing to many Canadians, the more
basic issue is cultural and media penetration, as is evidenced by the


controversies involving TV commercial deletion andl tax-(deduiction for
advertising in Time and Readers Digc-.t. There is deep ( d anadian o'n-
cern over the weakness of the Canadian publishing and film indH1istri]e1-,
the domination by American periodicals of the (Canadian mnir ket. and
the large flow of U.S. academic and literary persons and publication-
to Canada. There is a need to build up the Canadian cultural structire,
which may require restrictions on the free flow of ideas. There is I I nId
for the United States to understand the Canadian point of view on
this matter.
Second, the extraterritorial application of U.S. law may cause alddi-
tional problems in United States-Canadian relations. There i- particu-
lar concern over the attempt to apply U.S. anti-trust law- against the
Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. corporations, particularly as it impacts
on the Canadian economy and competitiveness.
Third, the two economies are not altogether complementary, anl one
country may have to take actions which impinge on the other. This
is particularly the case in the area of employment. Canada ha, one of
the highest influxes into the labor force of any industrial country
and needs to expand its employment base. Unfortunately, Canada
is most efficient in non-labor intensive industries-mainly natural
resource extraction. Furthermore, economic difficulties are created
by the fact that the Canadian economy is small and transportation
costs are high. Canada may be forced to take actions-such as excep-
tions to the Auto Pact, regional incentives, and measures to increase
local processing of raw materials-which increase employment in
Canada at the expense of employment in the United States.
Despite these potential difficulties and the fact that Canadians do
not want their country to be a carbon copy of the United States, the
prospect for good relations is very favorable.
Another member of the Canadian delegation noted that, contrary
to the impression left by media reports, United State--Canadian re-
lations are not worse, only more complex than before. The magnitude
of relations between the two countries is greater than for any other
two countries in the world, and include some 763 separate arrange-
ments between U.S. states and Canadian provinces. The automatic
years of United States-Canadian relations are over; maybe there
needs to be improved mechanisms to deal with the increasing number
of problems.
Several members from both countries reiterated the point that a
major block to better United States-Canadian understanding was the
lack of knowledge in the United States of Canada and Canadian con-
cerns. Aside from the War of 1812, little mention is made of Canada in
history courses in U.S. schools. There was a consensus that good
relations depend on an awareness of the other country's points of view
and interests. Although it was noted that today there is little difficulty
in handling Canadian-United States problems in the U.S. Congress-
there is no spirit of competition or hostility-little irritations. grouped
together can produce major conflicts, unless there is a (deepler under-
standing of Canadian interests. What is required is an iiprovemnent
in the communication of the Canadian position to the U.S. Congre-s.
It was generally felt that the discussions carried on by the Canadian-
United States Interparliamentary Group are helpful in creating an
appreciation for the other country's point of view and that their com-
mon heritage will continue to allow the two nations to work together.

f~~~~lll~ ~I I if Il IDUf IINl II Billl ll Iiii I IN 1111111
16 3 1262 09113 1630

'Tlie 17th inmeeting of thle C(anaida-United States Interparliamentary
(Groupl) provided legilators from both countries with another appor-
tlunitV to di--cii.-s informally bilateral issues of mutual concern. In a
rlation-hlip n extensive aus the one we share with Canada it is in-
evitablhe that ,problems will conltinlue to arise. What is remarkable,
however, is our ability to re-olve them in an effective and constructive
manner thlrouc.h cons-ulta ttion and accommodation. In this respect,
the-e, mee.ting- continue to be beneficial to both sides. The frank and
friendly nature of our di-cussions. give us a better understanding of
each otlier-, attitudes and are clearly helpful in finding solutions to
ou1r )probli 'T-.
I want to Take tlhi., opportunity to pay a special tribute to Congress-
man "I'Thoina-- E. Morgan, the Chairman of the House delegation.
(',ingre.-.sman iMorgan. who announced his retirement earlier this year,
wa- elected to thle Hllou-,e of Representatives on November 7, 1944,
anld ,ha-, been Chairman of the International Relations Committee
.inire 1959. For the last 3 years he has served with me as Co-chairman
of the U.>. delegation to the Canada-United States Interparliamentary
Group. During this time the success of our annual conferences can
be attributed in large measure to Congressman Morgan's dedication
and hard work. I am sure I reflect the views of the entire U.S. delega-
tionl when I commend him for his many accomplishments as a Member
of the Ho.use of Representatives and express my deep appreciation
to him for hi-' many contributions to our annual conferences as well.
lie lha-, been a great asset to the U.S. delegation and we will miss him
in future gatherings with our Canadian friends.
In addition, I wish to take this occasion to express my apprecia-
tion to the other members of the House delegation. They were most
cooperative and helpful and I am deeply grateful to them. I also want
to thank my Senate colleagues for their participation in our discus-
sions. All of them deserve the highest praise for contributing to an
extremely successful conference.
Finally, on behalf of the Senate delegation, I wish to express our
sincere appreciation to Senator Alan Macnaughton and Mr. Martin
O'Connell, tlhe conscientious and hardworking Co-chairmen of the
Canadian delegation. A vote of thanks is also due to Madame Renaude
Lapointe, tlhe Speaker of the Canadian Senate, and the other mem-
bers of the Canadian delegation, including their able and competent
staff. The contributions which they made resulted in a very fruitful
At the time of the filing of this report, the total amount of expenses
incurred by the Senate delegation in connection with its participation
in the 17th Canada-United States Interparliamentary Meeting is
estimated to be approximately $17,000. A detailed report showing
all expenditures will be filed with the Senate later in accordance with