April,15,1986 page 7

THE SAGA CONTINUES (from page six)!

Gray doesn’t want the CIC
taking credit for the creation
of FIRA, his own brainchild,
or other Liberal nationalistic
policies, but he admits ‘‘it
helped the government per-
severe, knowing there was a
strong group in support of the
measures.’

Gray finds it amusing to be
asked why he’s a nationalist.
“It’s a peculiar thing about
Canada that whether or not
somebody’s a nationalist is
not only a question to be
asked, but in the minds of
some can be a bad thing.
Nobody would ask office at
the national level would be (a
nationalis#}.”~

Like Rotstein, Gray sees a
change in the tone of
Canadian nationalism. ‘I
think that in some ways, it’s
less shrill, it’s less focused on
being simply against the
United States.’’

‘‘l suppose now you could
say you don’t like the
American approach to a lot of
things, but it’s a legitimate
difference of opinion. They
have their way of running

2 cacti and three nines

let down by the Conservatives
“who seem to think the
Americans can give us the
Shangri-La we need in our
economy.”’

Having been mayor of
Ottawa, a city that for years
was a_ symbol of anti-
centralist dislikes in western
and eastern Canada, Dewar
says she feels a new sense of
unity and self-worth in the
country.’’

‘“i think there is a growing
sense of Canadian unity
across the country. People are
saying look, we are a country
and we are a people; let’s go
on with it and see what we
can do.’’

Herb Gray says nationalism
is growing because Canadians
are concerned with the
Conservatives’ dismantlement
of the protective structures
built up by Liberal govern-
ment.

At first glance, his assess-
ment seems well founded.
The Conservative government
has changed FIRA’s name to
Investment Canada; its job is
now to encourage, rather than

hy Beckers and Stech

lapses in May, 1982.

But trends or no trends, the
Conservative government is
bearing the brunt of national-
ist criticism.

‘‘There is an overtone in all
that Mulroney does of undue
subservience to the United
States...that you don’t have to
be at all anti-American to be
woried about,’’ says Gray.

Gray denies that the
Conservatives’ massive elect-
ion victory in 1984 was in any
way an endorsement of their
free trade initiative. ‘/They
didn’t campaign specifically
on what they’re doing (in free
trade),’’ says Gray. ‘‘They
talked about change, about
doing a_ better job - on
unemployment,’’ but they did
not mention free trade.

But if free trade was not
the issue then, it is now. Mel
Hurtig and the COC are still
trying to pull the alarm about
the money Canada is losing
due to foreign ownership--
over $2 million an hour, they
say--but free trade is a more
immediate, more dramatic
issue on which to fasten.

Canada’s opponents of free

 

BACK on THe SET oF Jr Cin ...
HELLO, MR. REAGAN «THIS
1S BEAN MULRONEY CALLING
FRom CANADA ~~

 
   

et

YA

ot, pias
me 4. |

 

 

 

GONNA wis ANOTHER. SuPER-
STANLEY THinG?

SIR, I'm NOT A Hockey

PLAYER —T'm THE Prome

MuntsTem, OF CANADA.

(< ,UH, How's THE TEAM Domg2.

 
     
     
 
 
  

4 MILA'S Hus6AND!

 

 

 

their counry, and we have our
way of running ours.”’

Not just the tone of
nationalism has changed--so
have the issues. The concern
over foreign ownership has
taken .a back seat to free
trade.

The level of foreign owner-
ship in Canadian industry has
fallen from its 1970 high of 37
per cent of 30 per cent 1981.
In oil and gas, the level has
fallen. dramatically-from. 91
per cent to 59 per cent.

On the other hand, Canada
depends on its trade relation-
ship with the United States
more than ever before. In
1965, 58 per cent of Canadian
exports went to: the U.S.
market. In 1985, the proport-
ion was 79 per cent. Twenty-
six per cent of Canada’s GNP
is now. export-related, the
highest level in the indusrial-
ized world.

The principal argument of
fee trade proponents is that in
a- world that seems to be
dividing into free trade blocks
like the European | Com-
munity, and __ protectionist
islands like the United States,
canada must act now to
preserve its crucial trading

relationship with the
Americans.

The COC finds this ‘‘run-
for-cover’’ strategy repug-
nant. Marion Dewar, who

co-chairs the COC with Mel
Hurtig, says Canads has been

to screen, foreign investment.

The NEP was one of the
first Liberal programs to go.
Many crown _ corporations
purchases by the Liberals to
preserve some Canadian
technical expertise have been
put up for sale. De Havilland
has already gone to US.
based Boeing, and now
Canadair is on the block.

But the rationale behind
these actions did not always
have a lot do do with anti-
nationalist attitudes.

Although the Conservatives
blame FIRA for scaring away
billions in foreign investment
in the 1970s and _ 1980s,
Rotstein maintains that the
flight of foreign capital was
more the result of economic
trends than government polic-
ies.

“‘There’s been a_ global
trend for more multinationals
to begin to withdraw their
investments from the more
developed countries, and
retreat back to the United
States or the Third World
countries, to take advantage
of the cheaper labour
markets,’ he says.

The end. of the NEP was
already in sight before the
Conservatives took office. The
oil glut that de-flated the oil
market in early 1982-and
continues to deflate it-took
the lustre out of energy mega-
projects like the Athabasca
tarsands project, which col-

 

trde claim that with no tariff
|barriers between Canada and
the United States, multi-
national corporations woukkld
Canada’s opponents of free
trade claim that with no tariff

the United States, multi-
national corporations would
close down their branch
plants in Canada and turn
them into warehouse for
goods produced more cheaply
in American or Third World
plants.

In addition, they fear free
trade would lead to an
economic marriage between
the two counries, a loss of
autonomy in Canadian foreign
policy decisions, and event-
ually a political union.

Free trade proponents
argue an increase in unem-
ployment would be tempor-
ary, and the _ increased
efficiency and export power of
the competitive Canadian
firms that survived would
take up the slack. S stronger
domestic economy and more
clout in the U.S. economy
would enhance, not diminish,
Canadian sovereignty, they
say. ;

Rotstein questions the pos-
sibility of increased employ-
ment. ‘‘That’s what (free
trade advocate Donald)
MacDonald calls ’a leap of
faith’, which is another way of
saying it’s a pure gamble,
and it might easily go the
other way.”’

Rotstein argues that under
free trade, government fidcal
policies meant to foster things
like regional expansion, and
research and development
could be labelled as subsidies
only to get axed. Canada
would lose ‘‘anything we
could call an_ industrial

policy.’

There are signs of the free
trade initiative may be slow-
ing down--wrangling with the
provinces and loopholes for
cultural and other sensitive
industries threatens to turn

any agreement into a
cosmetic one.
At the same time, the

Tories must remember the
ghost of Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
who went down to defeat in
1911 because of public op-
position to his support for free
trade.

And if free trade becomes a
fact of life, or alternatively, if
the threat of it disappears
entirely, will the revived
nationalist movement die
away? The CIC folded when
the issues it stood for re-
ceded.

The COC’s Jane Hurtig
doesn’t anticipate _ that.
“Their (the CIC’s) concern
was more of a panic’’ about
foreign takeovers, whereas
the COC’s focus is ‘‘more of a

concern for everything:
culture,. teritorial, environ-
mental issues-it’s more than
just economic issues,’’

It’s a peculiarly Canadian
pheonomenon that a group of
people feel they have to form
a lobby to protect their
country’s sovereignty, not
against another country but
against its own government.

But nationalism isn’t the
dirty word it used to.be, and
the COC’s causes aren’t as
radical-sounding to Canadians
as they were 15 years ago.

‘Many of the positions that
we took which were regarded
as controversial have become

part of the conventional
wisdom, such as that
Canadian culture is import-

ant,’’ says Rotstein.

Then, while musing about
the fortunes of his political
persuasion, Rotstein adds:
““When you talk about where
have the nationalists gone,
one might ask, where have
the anti-nationalists gone?’’

“The next 18 months is the
most important mn Canadian
history since confederation”

“Canadas the only country
mthe world where national
ism 1s thought of as a radical
concept.”

MELHURTIG
COUNCIL OF CANADIANS

“1986 1s the year Canada
decides vf 1t wants to bea

>]
country.

MARGARET ATWOOD

If you believe in a Canada for
Canadians join the Council of

Canadians.

 

Vancouver COC contact:
Wayne Crookes 682-6331