)
.

Ser 2

pe ae ow oat

_ Surance

_ tention

CANADA'S CHOICE

ELDOM has a book received
Such instant attention and
notoriety as Walter Gor-

don’t newest effort, “A Choice
for Canada.”

When a member of the Es-
tablishment steps out of line,
at’s news, and particularly

When he counterposes his views.

to that of his successor in the
federal Cabinet.

Consistently Gordon has op-
Posed government policy on the
issue of the effects of United
States ownership of so much of
our industry,

Back in 1957 the report from
€ Commission - he headed
Stated: “We believe Canadians
Should have more tangible as-
than they now have
ae the people responsible for
1€ Management of such for-
©1gn-owned concerns will, when-
‘ver reasonably possible, make
; ee that are in the best
: ests of Canada; that such
Concerns will become more
Canadian’ in outlook.”

pone Passed, and the process
6 80bbling up Canada ‘con-
eee So Gordon wrote a
ok, “Troubled Canada” in
Which he again sharply drew at-
_10n to the problem of the
alienation of control of Can-
adian industry,

He even got to be minister of
Nance, and history will record
he frustration of his efforts to
make some changes in the

direction of greater Canadian
control, :

Now Gordon has gone back
to the writing table and to un-
derline his thinking on the
question, has subtitled his book-

let, “Independence or Colonial
tatus,”

There is no doubt where
Ordon stands on this question
i firmly for a basic change in
N€ direction of the .Canadian
©COnomy as the guarantee for
independence,

He quotes Jobn Foster Dul-

A review article on Walter Gordon’s new

book and the debate it has provoked

les, the brinkmanship man of
the Eisenhower cabinet, as say-
ing, “There are two ways of

-conquering a foreign nation.

One is to gain control of its
people by force of arms; the
other is to gain control of its
economy by financial means.”

Gordon continues: “The Unit-
ed ‘States as such has made no
attempt to gain control of Can-
ada by either method. But indi-
vidual Americans and individu-
al United States corporations
have accomplished this to some
degree. They have done so, not

by foreigners. At the same time,
the sale to foreigners of busi-
nesses now controlled in Can-
ada should be discouraged.”

He outlines a number of pro-
posals for government action
that would assist in this. direc-
tion.

He also suggests a revision in
capital-cost allowance. He
states: “. . . very generous rates
might be allowed for all com-
panies that are controlled in
Canada or that have made 25
percent or more of their shares
available to the Canadian pub-

By Phyllis Clarke

according to any preconceived
plan, but rather in a casual and
uncoordinated manner that,
nonetheless, has been effective.
Moreover, they have done it
with the encouragement and ap-
proval of Canadians themselves,
few of whom realized the im-
plications of what was happen-
ing.”

It is -Gordon’s view that
“complete economic union with
the United States would be a
disaster for Canada.” As he
says, “We would be swallowed
up.”

Wryly commenting on ‘the
criticism he received in 1960
for suggesting that Canada was
or might become a satellite of
the United States, he says,
“There would be less comment
about such a remark today be-
cause that is what Canada is
fast becoming.”

Gordon is convinced that
there is still time to do some-
thing about it.

“Canadians,” he says, “should
employ every possible means to
buy back the Canadian busi-
nesses that are now controlled

lic. Other companies — that is,
wholly owned subsidiaries of
foreign concerns — could be
restricted to rates designed to
do no more than amortize their
plant and equipment over its
useful life.”

Gordon lays gteat stress on
the role the Canadian Develop-
ment Corporation could play in
providing “a greater opportu-
nity for the participation by

Canadians in the ownership and-

control of major business enter-
prises in Canada.”

Underlying’ these economic
proposition are two basic pre-
mises: first, that economic con-
trol subverts independence, and
second, that we “insist that
Canada will remain free and in-
dependent, economically and
politically.”

The attack on Gordon has
mainly come from those who
argue that economic control
has no political strings.

Of such a nature was the
paper presented by John Dales,
economist, at the recent annual
conferences of Exchange for
Political Ideas in Canada.

Dales described the concer :

about U.S. control of Canadian
industry as a “made-in-Canada
bogeyman” to distract attention
from the real problems in Can-
ada.

In the lively debate that fol-
lowed Gordon put forward his
position along the lines of his
booklet. :

He was followed by Alvin
Hamilton, former minister of
natural resources in the Diefen-
baker cabinet. Hamilton sharply
criticized Gordon for his “mild
approach.”

Hamilton, a self-styled Can-
adian economic nationalist, re-
ceived the greatest applause
from the audience which large-
ly consisted of politicians and
academicians. He not only sup-
ported Gordon’s aims for eco-
nomic and cultural nationalism,

.but urged a more vigorous fight

for such policies,

In contrast to the audience’s

enthusiasm for Hamilton and

Gordon, only polite applause
greeted the speech of New De-
mocratic Party MP Reid Scott
who took up Dales’ theme that
the need was to get to the “real”
issues.

This conference session re-
vealed the essentials of the de-
bate that will undoubtedly con-
tinue between those who prefer
to ignore or underplay the rela-
tion between “who owns Can-
ada” and who decides Canadian
policy, and those who have
fought and continue to fight for
Canadian sovereignty and inde-
pendence.

The Communist Party’s posi-
tion on this has continued in a
Straight line from its 1949 pro-
position that there needed to be
a fight to keep Canada inde-
pendent to its recent 19th con-
vention’s keynote address.

Dealing with the struggle
against foreign economic con-
trol William Kashtan, in this

¥* © *

July 2, 1966—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5

speech, called U.S. subsidiaries
operating in Canada “Trojan”
horses.”

“U.S. control and domination
over our economy has. already
reached a stage which, unless
checked and reversed, will lead
to the complete loss of our in-
dependence and sovereignty,”
he added.

One can’t, however, leave
Gordon’s book without examin-
ing. some of the other questions
with which he deals.

Gordon, as said above, is a
member of the Establishment.
This becomes glaringly obvious
when he deals with foreign
policy.

His main principle of foreign —

policy is, “We simply have to
get along with the Americans.”

While he doesn’t want to see
Canada becoming embroiled in

’ the war in Vietnam, neither is ~

he prepared to propose recogni-
tion -of China, because we
shouldn’t offend the United
States.

But can the need for econo-
mic policies to ensure. Canadian
independence be separated from
the fight for new directions in
Canada’s foreign policy?

Equally weak is his position
in relation to French and Eng-
lish Canada, of the recognition
of bilinguilism but not of two
nations; which leads Gordon
into a cul-de-sac when trying to
get at the question of federal-
provincial relations.

These comments notwith-
standing, Gordon has _ helped
provoke a vital debate for our
country on its political and eco-
nomic future.

This debate will. be resolved
finally in action. “Independence
or colonial status” — the choice
is before us and every Canadian
should have his say on what
will be the shape of Canada’s
future.

Taner

net