CANADIAN INDEPENDENCE: All parties talking now By NELSON CLARKE Concern over U.S. control of the Canadian economy is grow- ing apace, and finding its reflec- tion in ever-widening circles. The month of January has seen the launching of the pub- lic campaign of the Committee for an Independent Canada for 100,000 members. The Commit- tee, set up last fall, held back its public activity because of preoccupation with events in Quebec in the closing months of 1970. But even during this period it received 12,000 mem- bers and $23,000 in donations from supporters. across. the country. Speaking for the Committee in Edmonton, Dr. Andrew Rot- stein, a University of Toronto economist, focussed on the fact that 60% of the expansion of U.S. companies in Canada in 1969, was paid for by Canadian money, including heavy invest- ment by Canadian banks. “In other words,” as Dr. Rotstein put it, “we are septs: our own takeover.” (Dr. Rotstein’s figure appears low in light of the later revela- tion by a U.S. government econ- omist, R. David Belli who, on Jan. 20, conceded that NDP leader T. C. Douglas “was prob- ably right when he said that 94% of U.S, subsidiaries’ in- vestment in Canada is effected with Canadian funds.”) Dr. Rotstein made clear that the Committee was not advo- cating nationalization of for- eign-controlled industry, but a minimum of 51% Canadian ownership. In the same vein, another Committee | speaker, former Liberal Finance Minister Walter Gordon told a group of high school students in the To- ronto area: “The idea of na- tionalization doesn’t offend me, but we’ve got to keep the is- sues of independence and social- ism separate.” One student, however, thought that the only hope of keeping Canada Can- adian was to nationalize all in- dustry. Another said: “You’ve got to be radical with the U.S. if you want them to understand you.” Meanwhile, Robert Nixon, Ontario Liberal leader, who un- An anti-Columbia River Treaty cartoon published during the in- tensive debate over the sell-out of power to the United States. like his federal counterpart is not in office, is calling for a “campaign” against foreign eco- nomic domination. He would use the Ontario Development Corporation to buy up compa- ‘nies which are in danger of be- ing taken over by U.S. firms. He also stands for a require- _ment that 80% of texts used in ‘Ontario schools should within five years be produced by Can- adian companies. Within that same time, two-thirds of the staff of all universities should be Canadian. The Tories, who are in office in Ontario, but currently choos- ing a new leader, also find it politic to talk about foreign con- trol. Four out of the five candi- dates for leadership, speaking at a meeting in Ottawa last week, talked about the problem of rescuing control of the Can- adian economy from foreign do- mination. They are searching for a different image than that presented by John Robarts who has declared “economic national- ism” to be ‘fa phony issue.” Sig- nificantly William Davis, Rob- arts’ apparent choice for suc- cessor stayed in Toronto at a coffee party. The Tory hopefuls’ didn’t plunge too deeply into the stor- my waters of what Mr. Robarts calls “Canadian nationalism.” Municipal Affairs Minister Dar- cy McKeough only wanted some Tucked away in the security- tight files of the Atomic Energy Commission, is a report pre- pared in 1966 which suggests in very calm terms that should there be a nuclear war, the thing to do with the old and the sick after the attack would be to get rid of them. Two leading nuclear scient- ists connected with the agency, John Gofman and Arthur Tam- plin, in their newly-published book, “Population Control Through Nuclear Pollution” re- veal that the AEC engaged the Rand Corporation of California to make a study of the popula- tion of the USA after a nuclear war. The Rand Corporation is de- scribed as a “think tank.” In this figurative “tank” there sit some of the most brilliant men provided with the most sophis- ticated computers ready to an- -swer even the most difficult _ problem without sentiment or emotion. Ask them if the U.S. could survive a nuclear war and sev- eral hundred thousand dollars later they come up with an op- timistic “of course,” because their thinking tells them that only 60 million Americans would be killed in the first nuclear ex- change. (The Canadians would pre- sumably all be wiped out—Ed.) The Rand report on the sur- viving population was prepared for the AEC’s division of biolo- gy and medicine, a sick sort of joke in itself. After the bombs stop falling, Rand thinker Ira S. Lowry pre- dicts, the country will be faced with a “ticklish” problem be- cause “‘the working members of the society would insist on transferring some part of their personal advantages to mem- bers of their families ‘who were not directly contributing to output.” In plain English, workers would behave like civilized hu- man beings and share their crusts with the “non-produc- tive” members of the family. That’s bad. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1971—-PAGE 8 tax concessions for Canadian businessmen to get them to in- vest more in Canada. Mines Min- - ister Allan Lawrence wanted to make sure U.S. companies didn’t get more than a “fair return” on their investment. What is to be seen as signi- ficant in these proposals is not so much their obvious limitations and the opportunism which un- doubtedly underlines those of Liberal and Tory politicians, as the fact. that the situation in which Canada has been placed through decades of U.S. take- overs, and the deep-going popu- lar resentment against them, is now compelling Canadians of all shades of political opinion to raise these issues in a great pub- lic discussion. More deep-going were the ac- tions of the federal council of the New Democratic Party which under the pressure of the left-wing Waffle Group adopted a motion calling for “the early working out with the provinces of effective means of bringing the oil and natural gas indus- tries within public ownership.” The Wafflers had fought for a more far-reaching resolution calling for nationalization of all: Canadian resource industries, and were narrowly defeated on this by a vote of 27 to 19. The issue of U.S. domination of the Canadian economy was first strongly raised by the Com- munist Party of Canada a quar- ter of a century ago—years be- fore that domination had reach- ed the proportion of today. The Communist Party calls outright for the. “public ownership of energy resources and their use for economic development and growth” and for “nationaliza- tion of foreign-owned indus- tries in Canada.” It points out that. nationalization, while es- sential to restoring Canadian independence, is not. to be equated with socialism which would involve the taking over by the working people of all the commanding heights of the Canadian economy now in pri- vate hands—whether Canadian or U.S., and which would re- quire the establishment in power of a state firmly led by the working class. The report suggests: “policy- makers would have to draw the line somewhere, however, in making such concessions, and those most likely to suffer are people with little or no produc- tive potential, old people, chro- nic invalids and the insane... a community under stress would be better off without its old and feeble members.” “The easiest way to imple- ment a morally repugnant but socially beneficial policy,” Low- ry continues, “is by inaction. Under stress, the managers of post-attack society would most likely resolve their problems by failing to make any special pro- vision for the special needs of the elderly, the insane and the chronically ill.” Among his suggestions for activating this policy are the elimination of medicare for those over 65 und the banning of all pensions. Hopefully, the over-65 parasites would die of starvation and untreated disease. —UE News (U.S.) $40 billion. Overwhelmingly, economy: Iron mines z Oil and gas wells Non-metal mining Rubber products Synthetic textiles Publishing Aircraft and parts Petroleum refineries Fertilizers Drugs Industrial chemicals Sporting goods, toys States. late 1970. Frigidaire, Toronto Canadair Ltd., Montreal RCA U.S. STRANGLEHOLE ON OUR ECONOMY U.S. investment of all kinds in Canada is now approa Fruit and vegetable canners Motor vehicles and parts Industrial electrical equipment B.C. Forest Products, Hammond, B.C. International Harvester, Hamilton Dupont of Canada, four plants Canadian General Electric These figures have undoubtedly in many cases gone hig as unemployment deepens. To them should be added # actions of multi-national corporations, other than those D in the United States such as: Dunlop, Toronto (British): ‘ —and now with the threat to close the Whitby plant unle workers take a 10% wage cut; Philips Electronic, (Dutch, e# Toronto: 500; Canadian Marconi, (British), Montreal: 1, 00. Direct investment (that is the direct ownership, for exam] of factories and mines) has now passed the $20 billion mé .this investment represents wealth cumulated out of the exploitation of the Canadian, work class including capital in the hands of Canadian banks.” e With this investment, U.S. corporations have establis the following degree of control over these sectors of | 85.8% 65 65 62.3 82.8 In the 1960’s, 953 Canadian companies were taken ove foreigners. From 1960 through 1967, about 100 compan year bought out. In 1968 and 1969 331 were acquire foreigners. In 1970 up to mid-November, there had been companies taken over, 104 by U.S. corporations. U.S. corporations will generally lay off their Cana@ workers before cutting back on employment in the Unll Here is a partial list of lay-offs in such companies up 2,000 Escalating again Bombs rain on Cambodi By M. ILYINSKY The U.S. aggressors have sharply stepped up military ope- rations in Indochina in the early weeks of this year. On Jan. 6 and 9, 15 and 16 the USS. air- craft bombed towns and villag- es, sprayed chemical agents over the Hatinh and Quang Binh provinces and the Vinh Linh county. American planes daily fly more than 700 missions to strike at the liberated areas of Laos. The situation. has been especially aggravated in Cam- bodia, where the United States is expanding military operations by increasing the “airlift sup- port” of the Saigon and Phnom Penh troops hurled to crush the patriotic forces. American , bombers, including heavy ones, keep pounding the areas deep inside Cambodia, clearing the road to thousands of Saigon rangers who again in- vaded that country a while ago. They subjected to concentrat- ed saturation bombing the Pich Nil Pass on the strategic High- way 4 linking Phnom Penh with the port of Kompong Som, blocked by the patriots for sev- eral weeks now. Many foreign observers be- lieve that the U.S. is planning to expand aggression against Cambodia in the near future. This opinion is confirmed by the moving of 7th Fleet ships closer to the shores of that country. A U.S. helicopter carrier is cruising in the Gulf of Siam. Saigon has asked washil for additional $35 mill conduct operations in bodia. The White House is ™ ring in the face of the @ condemnation of its pol progressive people throu the world, including ma ricans, who are demandi end to the U.S. armed if! ence in Indochinese affa United States, continuing against North Vietnam, ing military operations i? bodia, trying to turn that try into the main pattle in Indochina, and car? an armed interference i tian affairs, is seeking tO the impression that imP tation of the Nixon will help disengage Am from the Indochina wat: But who will believe th surances of American pr? da? Actions speak loudé@ words. The U.S. is doing thing to smother the ® liberation movement. in ” East Asia. If Washingtol wanted to extricate the © States from the Indochif@ it could have done this * Paris talks. Howes talks have reached a through the fault of a The escalation of U.S. sion in Indochina show? @ .Washington intends, as to bolster up the puP gimes, of South-East (APN).