LIBERALS

SELLING CANADA

Stu Leggatt, MLA during Liberal Government, 1978.

Let us give credit where it is due. The Foreign Investment Review Agency has found a way not to doits job more efficiently. All on its own, FIRA reduced its hundred plus person staff by four workers. This was no small accomplishment when you con- sider that foreign corporations were asking FIRA’s permission to take over chunks of the Canadian economy at one and a half times the previous year’s rate. But then again, how many people does it take to lift up an “application approved” stamp?

In its latest annual report FIRA tells us that of 602 new business and acquisition proposals that came before it, FIRA disap- proved of a grand total of — are you ready — twenty-five. If that were not bad enough, FIRA admits that the proportion of acquisi- tion proposals involving takeovers of Cana- dian controlled businesses as opposed to foreign controlled concerns already operat- ing in Canada rose to 50% from 38% the year before.

Barron’s the U.S. business weekly, summed up FIRA’s track record well when it wrote that, “the only U.S. business which wouldn’t be welcomed in Canada is Murder Incorporated.” The view from Britain is the same. That country’s respected magazine the Economist says that, ‘“‘The Foreign Investment Review Act is being used so loosely that it is not even a sluice gate, let alone a dyke to foreign investment.”

Every time I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Parliament about FIRA’s mysterious approach to control of foreign investment I am told, in effect, not to worry — that all these takeovers are good for Canada and that each and every one comes with ITC’s seal of approval.

Well, if our Liberal politicians are not bothered by this state of affairs, the Science Council of Canada sure is.

The latest background study on the sorry state of the Canadian economy says that “the most important agent of entrenched industrial malaise is the way firms of foreign origin have been permitted to oper- ate in Canada.” The report, entitled, “The Weakest Link, A Technological Perspective on Canadian Industrial Underdevelop- ment” goes on to say that, “Simply (and obviously) the behavior of multinational companies does not support the long term aspirations of Canadians for their economy and society.”

As an example the report points to the behavior of two industries central to the British Columbia economy, mining and forestry. You would think that these indus- tries would provide a large market for Canadian technology, but instead “‘the equipment purchasing patterns by foreign- owned forest and mining firms have led toa bypassing of Canadian engineering, con- sulting, and machinery manufacturers.”

So, what is to be done? The report con- cludes that, “Zhe only cure for the ills of Canadian manufacturing will be found in a coherent industrial strategy.”

Funny thing — this is just what the New Democratic Party has been calling for since way back in April.

In commenting favorably on the Science Council report the Toronto Star noted that the “mostimportant need is the political will in the Liberal government and the Progres- sive Conservative opposition to tackle the problem”.

The Star goes on to say that despite the existence of numerous government studies addressing this very question, ‘Tight now only the New Democratic Party sees this as

a critical issue.” So, what else is new?

—

“Crime does not pay at your level.”

EDITORIAL

The Federal Election on February 18th is essentially a Canada- wide Referendum Ballot on the budget that is the subject of this special issue. If you like it, you vote for either the Tory or Liberal parties that have presided over such budgets for all of Canada’s 113 year history. If you don’t like it, you seek an alternative.

We urged that the budget be defeated, and were jubilant when it

was. e We get another chance to protest ruinous interest rates

that deprive thousands of Canadians of their livelihood.

© We got another opportunity to protest the delivery of our most precious and strategic energy resources to foreign cartels, a delivery which we are expected to vote for and to

pay for.

e But, perhaps most important, we get for the first time in decades an election on issues which accurately and starkly contrast the interests of working people with those who live by clipping coupons.

The issue is not whether we should “Follow John”, or whether (circa 69) we should join the commercial media in welcoming Pierre as a “Refreshing Personality”. Despite the best efforts of megalomanic open-liners, the election is not about Soviet troops in Afghanistan or U.S. hostages in Iran. No possible result in a

Canadian election will change those terrifying situations. It is not hard to understand why the far right want to shift the electoral focus

away from the domestic scene, but that won’t wash. The election is about the issues we have discussed in the two

special issues of “The Lumber Worker”.

e It is about the fact that Liberal Pierre Trudeau and Tory John Crosbie are millionaires, how they got that way, how they stay that way, and who they serve when in public office.

e It is about the fact that Don Macdonald, heir apparent to the Liberal throne, moves so easily, graciously, from Liberal Finance Minister to the Shell Oil Board of

- Directors. The election cost Canadians about $2.45 each. The ordinary

working people of this country have never had such a bargain from Ottawa.