Isn't it important to look at specific sectors of the economy rather
than just the overall amount of foreign control?
        In the late sixties and early seventies there was a concerted effort by
the left nationalists such as Watkins and Laxer to call attention to the
degree of US and foreign control of the Canadian economy. It may very well
be that the nationalist policies that developed as a result of the Watkins and
Gray report and pressure by those such as the Wafflers in the NDP resulted in
a decline in US and foreign ownership. What would be interesting would be to
look at the relative changes in certain areas dominated by foreign control.
For example what has happened in the following?:(from
Rotstein INDEPENDENCE THE CANADIAN CHALLENGE Mclelland and Stewart 1972)
        Percentage of Non-Resident Ownership by:
                        Assets  Profits
Petroleum and Coal      99.7    99.7
Chemicals               81.3    88.9
Tobacco                 84.5    82.7

        Obviously some key sectors are dominated by foreign ownership. This
may have considerable policy effects. The National Energy programme for example
has been completely gutted and would be impossible under the terms of
NAFTA. I realise the data I use is more than 25 years old, but I would like to
know what is the situation now in sectors such as I cite.
        While assets may be a reasonable measure of concentration of
foreign ownership, other measures may be revealing as well. Take the
pharmaceutical industry. This industry has been successful in lobbying for
legislation that benefits TNC drug giants at the expense both of generic
manufacturers and of our medicare programme. You surely are aware of some of
this. It is not just a question of protecting Canadian generic manufacturers
(or foreign ones) it is of assuring that TNC drug giants
 don't use patent protection
to drive drug prices through the roof.
 Here is an illustration of the manner in which different measures give a
vastly different picture. (Statistics Canada, 1969) 
   COMPARISON OF PHARMACEUTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS OPERATING UNDER FOREIGN AND
DOMESTIC CONTROL:       (%age)
        (1969)
                        Under Foreign Control           Domestic Control
                             US  European Total

Number of establishments   34.7      8    42.7          57.3
 However a different measure gives a radically different picture:
Number of production workers 61.2    10.5  71.7         28.5
or total employees          66.2     12.6 78.8          21.2
or value added from
manufacturing               74.5     13.1  87.5         12.5

Surely it is these sorts of figures rather than gross percentages that give
some idea what is coming down the line.
   Cheers, Ken Hanly   

P>S I agree that there is no reason to protect Cdn Capitalists just because
they are Canadian. As even the gbourgeois Trudeau recognised he had to 
nationalise a large oil enterprise (PEtroCan) as part of a rational national
energy programme. We need a similar significant state presence in drugs
gas etc. Now Petro Can is gone and the very possibility of a national energy
policy is threatened by the terms of NAFTA. THe MAI is just a further
step towards assuring that people cannot use the state in ways not approved by
international capital. Is this not the case? Burgess seems to rail against
bourgeois nationalism and the national bourgeoisie. However, it is not the
national bourgeoisie per se that the new policies are directed against it
is directed against people adopting a national policy that would conflict with
the interests of international capital. A national policy includes such things
 as using
one's energy resources to serve the needs of one's citizens first and foremost
and being able to charge others more if the demand is there or restricting
export--all impossible for oil and gase resources under NAFTA if I understand
it correctly. We now have
such things as control of marketing such as the Canadian Wheat Board, marketing
boards etc. but new rules and agreements attempt to dismantle them.
 National policies might involve subsidies
if it were thought to be in the public interest etc. and protection from
foreign imports etc.etc. But all this is being eroded.
I hear nothing from Burgess about
such matters or nationalisation.
 In fact nationalisation and taking into public ownership seems to be the
last bloody thing the left ever talks about nowadays. A fucking disgrace.
  By the way Canadian farmers voted in favor of retaining monopoly marketing of
barley just recently. Some light in the gloom. 
        
        



Reply via email to