Rod H. posed an article from the Toronto Star. Instead of the heading being "US imperialism", I'd suggest it should be "More Inter-imperialist Struggles", because this puts events in a different political light. >>Ready or not - the Yanks are here >Fight as we might, here are 7 threats to our sovereignty >By Rosemary Speirs >Toronto Star Feature Writer >>Heritage Minister Sheila Copps took a stand in the spring on >behalf of Canadian magazines, vowing to preserve ``our right to >tell our stories in our own voices.'' 'Our' right? Someone said: The working people have no country. We cannot take from them what they do not have. >>One: American firms are taking advantage of our low dollar and >open border to gobble up Canadian companies at a pace not >seen since the takeover mania of the 1970s. As the article later noted (see below) Canadian FDI in the US has been growing *faster* than US FDI in Canada for many years. This is one reason why total FDI in Canada is now *less* than Canadian FDI held in other countries. Like other imperialists, Canada is a net exporter of direct investment. >The pace of American takeovers, slowed in the 1980s by >recession and then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's foreign >investment review agency, has accelerated steadily in the >1990s. Statistics Canada's latest figures, for 1996, show that >foreign firms accounted for 31 per cent of corporate revenue >that year. In manufacturing, foreign control is closer to 60 per >cent. This should qualify as an entry in "How To Lie With Statistics". Takeovers account for a very small portion of the change in the foreign share of the economy. Most of the latter is due to the fortunes of existing businesses. The 1996 foreign revenue share was actually slightly lower than the 1995 figure. Measured by assets, which are less volatile than revenues, foreign control in 1996 was 23.56% - also slightly below 1995 and only slightly more than the 23.43% in 1988. The only industrial sector in Canada that Statistics Canada reports foreign control is close to 60% is chemicals and textiles. For non-financial industries as a whole, foreign control of revenues is half that - 30% in 1995. The article obscures the real change, that the level of foreign and US control is considerably lower than in the early 1970s. The author's focus on foreign control reminds me of Bill Warren's line about giving growing importance to a phenomena of declining significance. >Two: What one newspaper called ``The Devouring of Corporate >Canada'' has concentrated mainly on our manufacturing >companies, but now the Yanks are shifting into the sensitive >fields of Canadian culture and Canadian social programs. > >Copps was forced to rewrite Bill C-55 to permit American >publishers to sell as much as 18 per cent of their ad space to >Canadians - a breach of the wall that Canadian publishers say >means a flood of U.S. mass market competition. ``We are faced >with the reality the Americans are coming,'' says Francois de >Gaspé Beaubien of Telemedia, which publishes TV Guide and >Homemakers Magazine, among others. Examples of progressive Canadian culture, no doubt. >Three: In June, American trade representative Charlene >Barshefsky said the U.S. wants to put free trade in all services, >including health services, on the table in Seattle. Maude Barlow >of the nationalist Council of Canadians says that if Canada >agrees to negotiate ``all services,'' public education and health >care services could be open to bidding by American companies. Medicare was fought for and won against the Canadian doctors and Canadian companies. The line-up has not really changed. 'American' companies are hardly the main threat to social services. >Four: Canada has already suffered blows to its sovereignty >from free trade challenges, most notably the defeat of Copps' >appeal for magazine protection to the WTO. >As well, the government was forced to settle out of court when >the U.S.-based Ethyl Corp challenged the Canadian ban on sale >of the gas additive MMT. Heartened by this precedent, >would-be water exporters in more than one province are >threatening to take Canada before trade tribunals because of >federal and provincial moratoriums on bulk water exports. > >(At this point, it's important to remember we aren't just the >hapless victims of free trade's rules. We've sided with the >Americans in getting a WTO ruling aimed at forcing the >reluctant Europeans to permit imports of hormone-treated beef. >``Canada is in there like a dirty shirt,'' says Barlow. ``Our >government is as hawkish as the Americans on free trade.'') Imperialist countries agree to give up some 'sovereignty' to the WTO in exchange for more secure profit opportunies in other countries, at least for awhile. Why trade the free trade dirty shirt for the protectionist dirty shirt? >Five: Ten years after the original free trade agreement with the >U.S., we are bound more tightly than ever to our neighbour. >Last year, 84.7 per cent of Canadian exports were to the United >States. > >``Under free trade, there has been another quantum leap in the >level of cross-border trade and investment,'' says economist >Mel Watkins, a nationalist guru now retired from the University >of Toronto. ``Our economy is sliding into theirs'.'' So what? Europe is more tightly integrated. 95% of Canadians live within 300 kilometers of the U.S. border. Why would we expect not to integrate? >Six: A new phenomenon has developed in the late 1990s. >Canadian business is pouring its investment dollars into >acquisitions in the United States. (This isn't a Canada-only >phenomenon - Japan and Europe are investing heavily in >America too). As noted above. But actually, since free trade went into effect in 1989 the US share of total Canadian FDI has gone down - Canadian capitalists are investing elsewhere even more enthusiastically. ``The huge thing that has happened since free >trade is that Canadian business is running away from Canada . . >. running away from unions, running away from higher taxes,'' >says political scientist James Laxer of York University. ``The >Canadian business class is selling its birthright and opting for >the American view of the world.'' Quite apart from the issue of there being a capitalist birthright, this is a good example of blaming free trade (a policy) instead of capitalism (the system). Have capitalists ever *not* blamed unions and taxes? >Seven: Head offices migrating south (Alberta's Nova Chemicals, >for example, is moving its executive team to Pittsburgh) and >threats of more corporate headquarters to follow bring >tremendous pressure on the federal government to buckle to >business's calls for tax cuts. Same as above. But why not see this as some Canadian imperialists successfully penetrating the biggest market in the world? Bill Burgess
