Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXVII, Western Europe

73. Memorandum From Robert Hunter of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Brzezinski)¹

Washington, February 22, 1977

SUBJECT

• Presidential Meetings with Prime Minister Trudeau

The first meeting was held on Monday, February 21, from approximately 4:10 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., in the Cabinet Room.² Those attending were as follows:

CANADIAN PARTICIPANTS

• Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau
• Secretary of State for External Affairs Donald C. Jamieson
• Ambassador Jack H. Warren
• Undersecretary of State for External Affairs H. Basil Robinson
• Ivan L. Head, Senior Adviser (International Relations), Office of the Prime Minister
• Assistant Undersecretary of State for External Affairs Peter M. Towe
• Vernon G. Turner, Minister, Canadian Embassy (Notetaker)

AMERICAN PARTICIPANTS

• The President
• The Vice President
• Deputy Secretary of State-Designate Warren Christopher
• Ambassador Thomas Enders
• Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Zbigniew Brzezinski
• Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Richard Vine
• Robert Hunter, NSC Staff (Notetaker)

The meeting began with the President and Prime Minister exchanging pleasantries about the size of their respective cabinets and how often they meet.

The President said he was grateful that the Prime Minister had come to Washington. The meetings would be helpful to him. He had been in office only a month, and had a lot to learn. He looked forward to having a personal friendship with the Prime Minister, and hopefully as an adviser as well. He hoped that they could keep in touch when difficult decisions had to be taken, especially since it was impossible to separate the two countries.

The President said he hoped the talks could be informal, and would defer to the Prime Minister on the order. Perhaps they could first talk of things of general importance, not directly on relations between the United States and Canada. The President said that after eight years—and judging from his two years’ campaigning—that the American people need reassurance. Other nations had been waiting for a change in the administration, and had kept many issues in abeyance.

The administration is now pulling together a cohesive approach to foreign policy. Information on the various trips taken by members of the administration would be available to the Prime Minister. The Vice President had been to Europe and Japan; Clark Clifford to the area of Cyprus. Secretary Vance would be back tonight, and would be going to Moscow. The President himself was now seeing foreign representatives, such as the Ambassadors from the Soviet Union and China, and there would be more top level meetings, as with Middle East countries, Britain, and Japan.

Now the American people want their government to be committed to human rights, decency, truth, not intruding in the affairs of other countries, but offering our services where we can help, as in the Middle East.

Some basic decisions were coming on quasi-non-political subjects like energy. The Prime Minister would know more about this issue. Before April 20, the administration will have a comprehensive energy program, with saving energy as its cornerstone.³ We are struggling with the question of dealing with the energy problem on a long-range basis.

We look forward to new opening to the nations of the South, with special feelings towards these nations and to become more acceptable in these countries—as Canada and the Prime Minister are. In Cuba, for example, Canada has good relations, and could perhaps help us.

In some cases, we can work together on common issues, like transporting the energy in the North Slope.⁴ These relations should be done in a predictable and open way, with a sense of mutual interest. There are some problems, like Law of the Sea, and fish; here we need to deal with one another in a way that will get the maximum degree of harmony. Secretary Richardson has been appointed as special representative to the Law of the Sea negotiations, to show their importance. Other issues are transportation, oil spills, water quality on the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence Seaway.⁵ We are sure after the talks on these matters tomorrow to have an easy relationship. The Prime Minister should feel free to phone the President to ask about U.S. policies—such as towards Europe. And he would want to call and ask the Prime Minister’s advice on Soviet issues, and other international problems.

Lastly, the President wanted to speak of the long-term future of working for peace. The United States is deeply committed here, particularly because of the threat of atomic weapons. He has been in touch with Soviet leaders, about SALT II, about getting reductions, leading on to his Inaugural goal of eliminating nuclear weapons altogether.⁶

The President was also grateful to the long-standing partnership between the two countries in the defense of the Continent; with Canada, together we feel secure. So we can now talk about many issues, from the smallest to the largest. Thank you again for coming to Washington.

The Prime Minister replied that he was grateful, so early in the new administration, to respond to the President’s desire for a “neighborhood spirit.” The first steps had all been positive. The Vice President had called; there had been contacts with the Secretary of State, and with Zbigniew Brzezinski, and he had had lunch with Ambassador Enders—some of which was about serious subjects!⁷

In past months, there had been many indications of good will between the two countries. The relationship was managed at every level: the Prime Minister did not have to intervene. He would, of course, call the President as a “last resort”; but generally, on both international and bilateral matters, all were easily dealt with, and it should continue that way.

As far as Canada was concerned, both Presidents Ford and Nixon had adopted a “fair approach” to relations with Canada, for which they were grateful.

What is changing is the spirit and freshness with which the President is looking at problems. Last year, international problems were largely stalled, as countries waited for the new administration. Now they have high expectations of the President. The Prime Minister hoped that the President would not be too overburdened too soon, particularly since he has so much weight on his shoulders. He was confident that the energy, the newness, the sense of morality would lead to a new start on so many problems—as with nuclear safeguards, which they had talked about in the Oval Office before the meeting.

Thus it will be easier in other meetings—like NATO, the Summit, CIEC—for them to reinforce one another, since they seemed to be on the same wavelength.

There is great good will—only waiting to be challenged.

[Omitted here is the remainder of the record of the February 21 meeting, which focused on world issues.]

SECOND MEETING

The participants in the second meeting were the same as the first, except that Secretary of State Vance replaced Deputy Secretary of State-designate Christopher; and a number of other Canadian officials sat in.

The Prime Minister and Secretary of State Vance met privately with the President in the Oval Office for about 10 minutes (to discuss the Quebec situation), before joining the others in the Cabinet Room.⁸ This meeting began about 3:35 and lasted to about 4:40 p.m.

The Vice President began by recalling a point from the Prime Minister’s speech to the Joint Session of Congress: that we could have two baseball teams playing in Montreal, and all the players are American; and two hockey teams playing in the United States, with all Canadian players.⁹

The President said that this has been a good visit; although he and the Prime Minister ran out of things to say when there was no one there to advise them.

Yesterday they had talked about foreign matters. At the dinner last night, they had finished up on Jamaica and Cuba.¹⁰ He noted the good relations that the Prime Minister has with developing nations. They know and trust him, and he has had eight years to get to know them. He can help us in finding ways to work with them.

The Prime Minister said that they had discussed the Caribbean—Jamaica and Cuba last night, and covered a lot of other ground. The President had talked on environmental issues. They had discussed the pipeline. Canada wanted to further this project in a spirit of cooperation. They had obligations under the law, however. He and the President had talked of tankers and the Great Lakes water agreement up for review this year. There had been great achievements of the two countries in working together. They were looking at new environmental dangers.

The President raised a question about Canada’s assessment of the pipeline. If together we decided to go forward with one of the Canadian options, what assurance could the Prime Minister give on the Indian problem that Canada had to deal with. Would it mean a three or four year delay?

The Prime Minister replied that one route was easier in terms of Indian or environmental questions. With the Alcan, there would be no problems; but they could arise with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. The President had posed a difficult question. It could be answered more precisely once the results were in on the reports of Judge Berger (April) and the National Energy Board (June).

Last night, both sides had agreed on a coordinating mechanism, with an individual who could tie together interested departments, and get ready to act.

If both reports were positive, then it would be easy to decide—no problems. If negative or dubious on environmental or Indian questions, then there would be a difficult political problem. He did not know how soon it could be solved. It was a chicken and egg issue. They already had treaties with the Indians in the Mackenzie Valley. They had been trying to solve it for years. Now the Indians have only to choose which land they want. But since the oil finds in Prudhoe Bay, the Indians are dragging their feet. It is a bluffing game.

The President asked if there were a deadline.

The Prime Minister said no. The treaties are there to be implemented. They have only to say what lands they want.

Even if the reports are negative, some Indians will go along, so that they can demand compensation. James Bay,¹¹ however, shows that this kind of problem can be solved—for a price—such as a retrenchment (sic) of rights, like hunting and fishing. They will make a deal. But since the pipeline is in the air, they refrain for now from making a deal.

The President said he would like to designate Dr. Schlesinger to represent the United States on the pipeline as a one man committee, to speak for the U.S. with a coherent voice. If an agreement could be reached at that level, it would then go for ratification to the Cabinet, the President, and the Congress. It was better not to have a committee. Hopefully, both sides would be completely frank, about reserves and options. He had an open mind about alternatives on the pipeline—but will learn the issue.

The Prime Minister said that Minister of Energy Gillespie is the Schlesinger of Canada. But other departments are involved, like Indian and Northern Affairs and the Environment. There were linked interests. Gillespie would be involved ultimately, but another person should coordinate.

Minister Jamieson said that Minister Gillespie would be here next week.¹²

The President said that this morning he had met with Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress, and knew how intense their feelings were on energy.¹³

The Prime Minister said that Canada does not want to be a dog in the manger, but there would be great extra costs for the U.S. if it adopted the El Paso Gas pipeline. Also, Canada would lose because it would not encourage the exploitation of its northern resources. We can tell this from the National Energy Board report. Thus this was a decision of great moment.

In Cabinet last Thursday,¹⁴ the Prime Minister had sought how far he could go in this visit. The desire of the government is to be as helpful as it can be in helping the U.S. to get its gas and oil to the Continental U.S. Canada would be a bad neighbor it if did not help put it through. And there was our help with oil through Portland, Maine, for Montreal. Thus Canada does not wish to be mean, but there are problems. Were they being lax? Or had he presented the only strategy for dealing with the Indian problems?

The President said that we also had Indian problems in the United States, where Indians were claiming 60% of Maine. And the U.S. Government has to represent the Indians in court, with Maine on the other side.¹⁵ (Someone said that Maine was stronger!)

He raised trade and investment. Is there a problem? He thought there was more (trade?) here than there.

The Prime Minister said he would smuggle in a point on trade. He hoped that the Multilateral Trade Negotiations would proceed. In relations with both the United States and the rest of the world, it is in their interest to proceed as far as possible, but not without going into points of Canadian interest.

Regarding foreign investment, any is welcome, provided it is of significant benefit to Canadians. This is both law and policy. They had set up a screening mechanism in 1972 to insure that investment does benefit Canada. More than 85% of applications from the U.S. were approved, and only slightly less than that for other countries. Canada is not trying to keep investment out—though they don’t want investment that really is just using Canadian dollars to buy up industry, without creating more jobs and opportunities. But this is not a serious problem. And some of the provinces want more investment (creating jobs) for their own development.

The President invited the Vice President to talk about his discussions with the European leaders.¹⁶

The Vice President said that the Japanese were very much interested in moving forward with MTN in a multilateral way. He was surprised by the passive reaction of the Europeans, however; they were not that interested.

The Prime Minister said that he had studied economics in France. There was a theory in Europe—with no equivalent at Harvard, where he had also studied; this was a theory of economic domination. It was a parallel in trade to theories of monopoly in market economies. Thus the strongest economy is seen to dominate. (Of course, this is sometimes true in Canada, too; there is something in what they say, in relation to the U.S.!) The Europeans are not sure that lowered trade barriers are good for them, in terms of the international division of labor. He was not sure how far this went, but it is a theory.

Did it apply to Canada and the U.S.? He was not always sure! As trade barriers went down, it was clear that the U.S. would swamp them overnight, unless they phased in the changes.

Minister Jamieson indicated that adjustment assistance would be needed.

The Prime Minister said that the cost of running Canada was greater than that of running the United States: in terms of per capita population (sic), size, climate; the fact that there was historically 1% higher unemployment and a 1% higher bank rate. And the unions, with their international character, want U.S. parity.

The President asked about the prospective Canadian deficit, and what the Prime Minister felt about economic stimulation.

The Prime Minister said that the cash requirements were about $5 billion, with a budget deficit of about $3.5 billion, and the rest not on the budget. The two countries had the same basic economic problems, as those of other industrial democracies. There were rising expectations, with people wanting wages to grow at the rate of the past. But oil prices had gone up; there were third world demands, environmental costs, more welfare, a desire to diversify the economy and develop the less developed regions. Thus they had taken costly economic decisions. As was learned with Japan, there is a danger of exporting the environment; while Canada was trying to preserve its environment, which meant growing less. Should this be raised at the summit?¹⁷ Perhaps; in any event it was basic. It was necessary for our own peoples to exercise self-discipline, with not as fast a per capita rise in income, as though there were no environment to consider.

[Omitted here is material related to the Middle East, Southern Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Indian Ocean, and other world issues.]

The President asked if there were further issues.

The Prime Minister said there were two great problems. One (Garrison) was solved a week ago.¹⁸

The President said he hoped it could be stopped.

The Prime Minister said there was also the great cod war over salmon. The Ministers and Ambassadors had been meeting, and there seemed to be progress.¹⁹

The President said this was good news.

The Prime Minister said the news is that the Canadian public wants it solved.

The President referred to embarrassing Indian Treaty rights and laws.

The Prime Minister said this was important. Officials would meet tomorrow to work out interim agreements. In the process, two principles were important: that each nation should continue to fish in each other’s waters; and that there were rights of the country of origin.²⁰ It was a difficult issue, but now there was apparently good will.

The President said he hoped they could resolve their differences and move forward on law of the sea as well.

The Prime Minister mentioned seabed mining.

Secretary Vance and Minister Jamieson mentioned the 200-mile economic zone.

The President agreed. Was there a claim? (? )

Minister Jamieson said it was not resolved. Perhaps at the next law of the sea meeting. There were slope mining rights, where there were some differences of view.

The Prime Minister asked about sharing and about the counterpart fund.

Minister Jamieson explained that a percentage of revenues would be put into a common heritage fund. It had not been spelled out who would get the money. On balance, the United States and Canada were close at the Law of the Sea Conference. He was glad that Elliot Richardson had been appointed.

Secretary Vance said he would be very good.

The President thanked the Prime Minister and said he had learned much from him. The President had a lot to learn but also a lot to contribute to the Prime Minister. He was glad that Jamieson and Vance were getting together.²¹

Minister Jamieson said they had had a first success.

The Prime Minister said he knew how difficult it had been.

The President said there was a good change (chance?) on non-proliferation. The United States was close to the Canadian position.

He was happy to hear the Secretary’s report on arms sales limits. We were eager to do our share if we could get Soviet and French cooperation, to get arms levels down in all Middle East states.

Secretary Vance replied that the Soviets were tough. Iraq and Syria get some Soviet arms. Libya gets some and gives them to the PLO. Sadat said he has had no spare parts for 3 and a half years.

The Prime Minister said he had some questions to raise, but not to solve. First was extraterritoriality. There were some problems that would not be easy or quick to solve. One could press (?) a little less or more. First on anti-trust there had been (?) a spate of actions.²² They tried to cooperate. They believed in governments making markets freer. But when acts were unilateral, and we told U.S. companies in Canada that they were subject to U.S. law (and this conflicted with Canadian law), then there was a problem. If the U.S. writ runs in Canada, then naturally there would be problems.

Second was trade with Cuba. There has been substantial progress. The difficulty had been with orders to U.S. subsidiaries in Canada. Now U.S. policy does not act on subsidiaries in Canada, but on the mother company here. It was still a problem.

Third, there was a bill in Congress on the Arab boycott.²³ It was likely, if the U.S. took certain legislative steps on counter-measures, that U.S. companies in Canada would be affected, and there would be a problem. This was not a new issue, but the Ambassador (?) gets it constantly.

The President asked whether the Minister of Justice could have a relationship with the Attorney General. Could they sit down together and alleviate some of the problems?

The Prime Minister said perhaps a visit by the Minister here should be encouraged.

Ambassador Enders said that there was an agreement between the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice on anti-trust, and in the area of legislation were the closest (?). They should try elaborating it into a full-fledged agreement as the basis for a test sector. The problem is how to submit it to an agreement we can all rely on. Other issues—like sanctions (boycott) were more difficult. But it is good to start.

The President said he was glad the Prime Minister raised the issue. Congress would pass some form of boycott legislation. Vance had talked to the Saudis on secondly and tertiary boycotts. This would not lead to a severing of ties with the Saudis. Was there progress?

Secretary Vance said there was. They see the right to protect our industries (?). But they were upset by the form of legislation that was telling them what they can do.

Minister Jamieson asked if this was the Stevenson resolution. Was there support for it?

Secretary Vance said it was being reshaped.

The President said (he had met with?) a group of business and Jewish leaders. The new approach could be accepted. He had seen the reports on Saudi Arabia, and the progress. We recognized the right of countries to impose a primary boycott.

The Prime Minister said that the U.S. just objected to it by others (referring to Cuba).

The President said he had hoped the Prime Minister would not see the parallel!

The Minister of Justice and the Attorney General should get together to handle this problem.²⁴

We seem to be close together on autos and potash. These were good first steps. Maybe we should direct a joint report to give time.

The Prime Minister said this was good. This is the way to manage relations—get them done at the ministerial and official level. There were a few issues: first, the St. Lawrence Seaway. Could our people talk tolls? And place user pay policy and review on the agenda? Second, on the auto pact.²⁵ Ford and the Prime Minister said they would look at it, with a bilateral committee report and study, then see further.²⁶ Third, there was the recent U.S. tax law change on conventions.²⁷ He had no special plea. But could the ministers be asked to look at what Canada sees to be a real imbalance (Canada has a tax law on conventions, too)? The invisible transfers were high. Some aspects of U.S. law may have been adopted inadvertently, but still had an effect.

He wanted to say they had brought it up. He hoped the U.S. could look at it.

The President said there was not much difference in the laws of the two countries. Doctors and lawyers use it as a subsidy for vacations. There were abuses, and this led Congress to change the law.

The Prime Minister said that Canada has cracked down severely. Less than five years ago there was tax reform because of escape for the well-to-do. There was an agreement in spirit. The application led to a highly adverse tourist balance of $500 million a year, as part of a $4 billion current account deficit.

The President said he was for complete tax reform and expected a report on September 30.²⁸ We might tighten up this particular provision in a different way. We would try to make it non-discriminatory with regard to Canada.

The Vice President said the old loop-hole was an absolute scandal.

The Prime Minister said he agreed and was trying to strengthen the non-discriminatory aspect.

The President said the law shouldn’t see foreign countries as different from the U.S.

The Prime Minister said they weren’t screaming loudly. If more Americans travelled, then Canadians would come to the U.S. Therefore, Canada would profit (?).

The President suggested that maybe Canada could do something (about its tax law?).

We should get the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General together.

Minister Jamieson said that Minister Gillespie would be coming to talk about petrochemicals.

The meeting adjourned.

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, VIP Visit File, Box 2, Canada: Prime Minister Trudeau, 2/21–23/77: Cables and Memos. Secret; Sensitive. At the top of the page, an unknown hand wrote: “ZB has seen.” Trudeau visited Washington from February 21 to 23 for visits with Carter and other U.S. officials. Vance and Brzezinski both sent Carter briefing memoranda for his meetings with Trudeau. (Memorandum from Vance to Carter, February 14, and memorandum from Brzezinski to Carter, February 19; Carter Library, National Security Affairs, VIP Visit File, Box 2, Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau, 2/21–23/77: Briefing Book [I]) For the text of Carter’s remarks on Trudeau’s arrival, see “Remarks of the President and the Prime Minister at the Welcoming Ceremony,” February 21; Public Papers: Carter, 1977, pp. 208–209.
2. Carter also met with Trudeau in the Oval Office from 4:06–4:15 p.m. (Carter Library, President’s Daily Diary) No memorandum of conversation for that meeting has been found.
3. On April 27, Carter released a national energy plan. (“National Energy Plan Message of the President,” Public Papers: Carter, 1977, pp. 742–743)
4. See footnotes 11–13, Document 72.
5. See footnote 6, Document 72.
6. See Carter’s Inaugural Address, January 20; Public Papers: Carter, 1977, pp. 1–7.
7. No other record of these meetings has been found.
8. No memorandum of conversation for Carter’s meeting with Trudeau and Vance has been found.
9. On February 22, Trudeau addressed a joint session of Congress. (Robert Trumbull, “Trudeau Says Canada May Amend Charter,” New York Times, February 23, 1977, p. 6)
10. On February 21, Carter hosted a State dinner for Trudeau at the White House. No memorandum of conversation for their talks in the evening has been found. (Carter Library, President’s Daily Diary) For the text of Carter’s remarks on that occasion, see “Toasts of the President and the Prime Minister at a Dinner Honoring the Prime Minister,” February 21, 1977, Public Papers: Carter, 1977, pp. 210–211.
11. Apparent reference to the James Bay Hydroelectric Project on the La Grande River in Quebec.
12. On March 3 and 4, Gillespie visited Washington for talks with Schlesinger and other officials. (Edward Cowan, “Canada and U.S. Concur on Energy,” New York Times, March 5, 1977, p. 30)
13. Carter met with Congressional leaders from 8:02 to 9:20 on February 22. (Carter Library, President’s Daily Diary) No minutes for that meeting have been found.
14. February 17.
15. Reference is to the opinions issued by the Departments of the Interior and Justice that land belonging to the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Indian tribes had been taken in violation of the 1790 Indian Non-Intercourse Act. (“Maine Asserts Tribe Yielded Land But U.S. Lawyer Belittles Assertion,” New York Times, January 22, 1977, p. 8; John Kifner, “U.S. May Sue Maine in Indian Land Case,” New York Times, March 1, 1977, p. 65)
16. From January 23 to February 1, Mondale traveled to Brussels, Bonn, Berlin, Rome, London, Paris, and Tokyo to attend a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, to visit the Commission of the European Communities, and to meet with Belgian, Dutch, German, Italian, British, French, and Japanese leaders. Documentation on Mondale’s conversations with West European leaders appears in the relevant country chapters of this volume.
17. Reference is to the London G–7 Summit scheduled for May 7–8, 1977.
18. On February 18, the United States announced a moratorium on the Garrison Diversion Project. (Telegram 675 from Ottawa, February 19; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770060–0504)
19. Reference is to a dispute arising from U.S. plans to reduce fishing for salmon off the Pacific coast of the United States in order to conserve stocks and comply with a court-ordered increase in the catch by Native Americans. (Memorandum from Borg to Brzezinski, February 18; Carter Library, National Security Affairs, VIP Visit File, Box 2, Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau, 2/21–23/77: Cables and Memos)
20. On February 24 the United States and Canada agreed to a short-term fisheries agreement that would allow fishing to continue without disruption while the two countries negotiated a long-term settlement of fisheries issues. (Telegram 43008 to Multiple Addressees, February 25; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770067–0099) In response to a February 26 memorandum from Brzezinski, Carter submitted the agreement to Congress with a request for approval by March 1. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Country File, Box 6, Canada, 1–12/77)
21. Vance met with Jamieson at 11:15 a.m. on February 22; no memorandum of conversation for this meeting has been found. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770060–0583)
22. Reference is to the application of U.S. antitrust law to firms operating in Canada, including, inter alia, cases involving potash and uranium. (Memorandum from Vance to Brzezinski, April 15; Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Office File, Box 6, Canada: 1977)
23. Senators Adlai E. Stevenson, III (D-Illinois) and William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) proposed separate bills that would prohibit U.S. companies from complying with the Arab countries’ boycott of Israel. (Bernard Gwertzman, “Carter Seeks Bill to Thwart Intent of Arab Boycott,” New York Times, March 1, 1977, p. 65)
24. Telegram 5303 from Ottawa, June 18, reported that during Bell’s “extremely conciliatory and constructive” talks with Canadian officials on June 17 it was agreed to lessen conflicts over extraterritoriality with improved consultation during investigations on antitrust, the Arab boycott, and corrupt practices. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770218–1172). Telegram 206435 to Ottawa, August 29, reported on a follow-up meeting in Washington on the extraterritorial application of antitrust laws. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770312–0821)
25. Reference is to the 1965 U.S.-Canada agreement on auto parts, the text of which is printed in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1965, pp. 1040–1041.
26. In an April 15 memorandum to Brzezinski, Blumenthal noted that the U.S. and Canadian studies of the auto pact, which Ford and Trudeau had initiated in November 1974, were complete and wrote: “The Canadian study implies that Canada’s auto industry, in particular, its parts manufacturers, are disadvantaged by the Auto Agreement. We fear release of the study may generate pressures in Canada for a renegotiation of the Agreement. We, on the other hand, face domestic pressure to reduce the level of Canadian safeguards in the current Agreement.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Country File, Box 6, Canada, 1–12/77)
27. Reference is to the Tax Reform Act of 1976, which reduced tax deductions for travel to foreign business conventions. (“Canada Winces at U.S. Tax Law,” New York Times, January 30, 1977, p. F17)
28. In a February 2 speech, Carter called for “comprehensive tax reform.” (“Report to the American People: Remarks From the White House Library,” Public Papers: Carter, 1977, pp. 69–77)