41. Memorandum From the Chair of the United States Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs (Marks) to Secretary of State Vance 1

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Section 106 (b)(1) of Public Law 87–256, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961,2 instructs this Advisory Commission to “formulate and recommend to the President policies for exercising his authority under this Act and (to) appraise the effectiveness of pro[Page 114]grams carried out pursuant to it.” Since the President has delegated to the Department of State primary responsibility for the conduct of this country’s exchange programs, I address to you this report on a meeting which the Commission held in Ottawa on February 18, 1977, with the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, Donald Jamieson, the Secretary of State of Canada, John Roberts and their colleagues who deal with international educational and cultural matters.

The purpose of our meeting was to examine ways in which educational and cultural exchange can better contribute to mutual understanding between our two countries, and to consider constructively any problems which may stand in the way of this goal. We reviewed existing programs for the exchange of students, professors and performing arts groups; Canadian and American patterns of education; cultural matters of mutual concern, such as the importation of books, magazines, films and television programs; and multilateral questions like the Helsinki agreement, the activities of UNESCO and the formation of a United Nations University, in which both countries have an interest. Our discussion touched specifically upon recent Canadian legislation affecting international exchange and on the relationship between both governmental and private groups engaged in the field. The Commission’s principal observations stemming from examination of these subjects are outlined in the following paragraphs.

1. Although close political, economic and social ties exist between Canada and the United States, there are nevertheless differences between Americans and Canadians. These stem largely from our differing historical, economic and social backgrounds; and they have led to contemporary differences in political structures and attitudes, in cultural aspirations and opportunities. Far from deploring their differences from Americans, Canadians cherish them and wish to maintain them, for they provide Canada with a specific Canadian identity, which it is eager to retain in the face of the enormous penetration of their country by ideas, attitudes and artifacts from the United States. Our Commission believes it is important to continued good relations, between our two countries that Americans understand this Canadian attitude.

2. Great care must be exercised on both sides of the border to make sure that the Canadian Government’s legitimate aspiration to provide “a Canadian choice” for its people in the selection of cultural products, and the American Government’s legitimate desire to provide the widest possible market for its cultural products, do not lead to recriminatory or discriminatory legislation which is damaging to Canadian-American relations.

Our Commission quite understands why the Canadian Government has taken steps to regulate the flow of cultural materials from [Page 115] the United States and appreciates Canadian efforts to stimulate the creative energies of its own people. At the same time it questions whether these measures will produce the desired result. It is a fact of international life that competition exists in the distribution of cultural as well as other products; and experience has shown that the quality of the product rather than the nationality of the producer determines its acceptance in the foreign market. The success in the United States of such Canadian artists as Saul Bellow and Robert Goulet, and of such products as the film “The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz,”3 are cases in point.

The Commission further believes that Canada profits from its close proximity to the United States, in that the United States pays developmental costs for encyclopedias, reference books, television programs, musical and dance productions and the like, and makes them available to Canadians at reasonable cost. The Commission believes it would be unfortunate for both sides if these transactions were inhibited.

Finally, the Commission favors unfettered international educational and cultural exchange, and is therefore opposed in principle to any measures, at home or abroad, which restrict it. Thus while it regrets Canadian legislation to limit in Canada the sale of American products, the performance of American artists, the viewing of U.S. television programs, or the advertising of American products in Canadian periodicals, it understands the philosophical principles behind the legislation and does not recommend that the United States adopt similar measures which would restrict the importation of Canadian cultural and educational materials.

What the Commission does recommend is a continuation of a calm, frank approach by both countries to a resolution of problems which arise. Neither side need abandon the philosophical, commercial or cultural principles which it espouses. Candid discussion and a spirited defense of each country’s perceived self-interest can, we believe, lead to a realistic settlement of these issues.

3. In spite of the large volume of private exchanges between Canada and the United States, an official U.S. program is desirable. In fact, given the importance of the U.S.-Canadian relationship, the Commission recommends that consideration be given to increasing the State Department’s budget for exchanges, particularly with a view to making possible more grants to Canadians under the Department’s International Visitor Program.

[Page 116]

4. Our final observation, though very general, is perhaps the most significant of all. It is that, in spite of the enormous possibilities for misunderstanding which exist between two such close—yet such different—neighbors, Canadians and Americans agree on basic principles and values and are striving intelligently to resolve their differences.

The Commission commends recent efforts of the Canadian Government to make its country better known in the United States. It is reassured by the statements of its leaders that their efforts to provide a “Canadian choice” for Canadians do not represent a denial of the principle of free flow of information nor any discrimination against the United States. It is encouraged by growing evidence that Americans are developing a sympathetic appreciation of Canada’s desire to retain its own national identity. It is convinced that the maintenance of good relations between Canada and the United States is a top priority for the Canadian Government, as it is for the American Government, and that educational and cultural exchange can promote the mutual understanding both countries desire.

The Commission hopes that its exchange of views with Canadian officials has made a contribution to this goal. Detailed Minutes of Commission’s meetings in Ottawa have been prepared and will be submitted to the Congress and the State Department in accordance with the provisions of Section 107 of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961.4

Respectfully yours,

Leonard H. Marks 5
  1. Source: Carter Library, White House Central Files, Subject File, Foreign Affairs, Information-Exchange Activities, Executive, Box FO–35, FO–5 1/20/77–9/30/77. No classification marking. Copies were sent to the President, Duffey, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, the Canadian Embassy in Washington, Sparkman, and Zablocki. Marks sent a copy of the memorandum printed here to the President under an April 26 covering memorandum. (Ibid.)
  2. See footnote 5, Document 7.
  3. Reference is to the 1974 film, directed by Ted Kotcheff, starring Richard Dreyfuss and Randy Quaid. The film is based on the 1959 novel, of the same name, written by Mordecai Richler.
  4. The Commission’s annual report, dated June 30, 1977, includes a synopsis of the February 18 meeting. See The Thirteenth Report: U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, June 30, 1977. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977) Marks’s letter to Vance is printed as Appendix B, ibid., pp. 59–64.
  5. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.