Two for trade, trade for...?

The border in question this program is produced and

recorded at the University of British Columbia Canada under a grant from the National

Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National

Association of educational broadcasters.

You. Would. Like.

To see.

Or.

Two for a trade and trade for the

fourth of 10 programs devoted to an examination of Canadian American relations

to for trade. Trade 4 is a brief look at economic

problems between the two countries.

Hardly a day goes by now without one or more of Canada's 200 daily

newspapers fretting and nagging over the Dominion's economic position. And

this means usually the northern neighbors economic position in respect to the United

States. The U.S. has had experience in various parts of the world with that

conflict between her own economy and the trade and economy of developing

countries. And so far the experience with Tenet in this respect have not

had too serious repr cautions for either nation. But it may

not always remain so. Canada is growing Canada's post-war

expansion is such that it is barely recognizable to those who visited her

before the war. Anthony Eden former British prime minister said a

few years ago gentlemanly achievements of your great country.

It seems to me have got many lessons for the outside world.

You do not preach your practice tolerance.

Men and women from many of them. Have brought to this country

that engine car cares which of you have been assimilated

to enrich the Canadian nation. Yeah in Vancouver.

The gateway to the Pacific. You have no job by your

enterprise. A vigorous and prosperous community.

Since my last visit to 1925. The expansion of industry

I didn't he'd been remarkable.

But even more remarkable is what has happened to the Canadian

economy. For example the widely read Canadian magazine

Toronto Star Weekly has asked editorially. Will

Canadians own Canada. The paper then re cited

evidence which Canadian suspect indicates a negative answer to the question.

The editorial said nearly half of all Canadian manufacturers

is as American owned. Fifty two percent of Canada's mining in

smelting 71 percent of petroleum and natural gas is own

being controlled in the United States. Well American

tourists and incidentally Canadians value highly U.S. tourist dollars

are sometimes disturbed by such editorials and public discussion

which to them has an anti-American ring. They are also

sometimes surprised to discover that in Canada they usually

dose subject of economics is a razor sharp controversy

to many Canadians it appears that the annexation which the bluff and

bluster of Manifest Destiny failed to accomplish may be quietly

accomplished by the pressures of trade and commerce. Surprising to many

Americans is the simple fact that most Canadians want no part of

union with the United States and hence the conflict in

this economic drama. Professor JM To teach is an American

economist at the University of California at Berkeley. And this is how he

sees this problem.

I think that the need for the improvement of Canadian United States relations

currently is only to be matched by the probability of their further deterioration.

Despite the present recession in our country and yours

at no time in the 20th century has the brisk pace of

Canadian economic development been more strident.

At no time has the national force of a Canadian Canada

been more potent.

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker did not invent

Canada's late fear of her giant neighbor but

to use it successfully in his campaign and it contributed heavily to his victory

over the liberals. He promised to do something to save gard the

Canadian identity and he is keeping his word.

For example a new code

and largely at maintaining Canadian culture recently was given to Canadian television by

the board of broadcast governors. They laid down the rules in the future Canadian

broadcasting stations must broadcast a minimum of 55 percent of programs

originating in Canada. Earlier this year the government

issued new oil and gas regulations designed to insure Canadian participation

in the development of oil and gas in the Northwest Territories and on the offshore

Arctic islands.

All companies are taking out a lot of gas

and oil permits in the area must be incorporated in Canada.

Private concern of the do not offer stock on the market must prove that they are at least 50

percent Canadian owned public companies

must make their stock available to Canadian investors.

The Royal Commission for Canada has suggested that

serious consideration be given to the provision

that Canadian firms follow by Canadian

policy which would mean purchasing a good deal of their goods of course

from Canadian firms rather than the United States.

Perhaps what is most interesting to notice is

in 1960 Mr. Pearson who

now of course is the Liberal leader who hopes to be the next prime minister

and who the New York Times last week wrote was considered to be a good friend of the

United States recently sounded a warning in a public address.

Again the danger of an elephant from across the border

I quote.

He said How do we escape the colonial frying pan only to have

jumped into the Washington fire. Have we sold our

birthright for a mess of below par. United States dollars.

These are strong statements from leaders

of the United States closest friend and ally.

Regrettably I think that the

momentum of Canadian nationalism has

come at a time when the need for understanding by our

friends and allies is it is probably its most critical point

because as Mr. Pierston refers to

United States below par dollars it so happens

that the United States itself.

Is now in a gold crisis Professor Latif

expressed these sentiments that the United States Canadian relations conference at

the University of Washington.

He went on to say in so far as United States trade with Canada is concerned

we used to have an export balance with Canada about of about one

billion dollars. This was so for

nineteen fifty six fifty seven our export balance was reduced in

58 59 to six hundred eighty four million for 1960

on a yearly basis.

It is now only five hundred million.

Moreover the United States obligations to Canada

and other would be accumulation of United States liquid assets in Canada

has increased from 1 billion in 1955 to 2.5 billion in

1908. So that in so far as short term

American liquid assets are concerned I positioned visa to Canada.

It's similar to opposition views every the rest of the world.

The fact of the matter is that alas

our friends and allies assist us in dealing with this problem intelligently.

There is the greatest danger that the United States will be compelled to

invoke restrictionist policies.

It is for this reason that I mention for my Canadian friends that if ever there was a

time of danger in our mutual relations it is now because Canadian feelings are

higher and American circumstances may not be able to handle them even as

badly as we've had in the past.

No what we've done of course is put the cart before the horse. The reply before

the question.

However in this way we've started by showing that Americans are as

concerned as our Canadians about their mutual economic relations

at least on the academic level if not always in the supermarket.

Well what is what is it that caused this American concern. A convenient

date to set this concern might be 1955 when the

Canadian government appointed a royal commission similar to an investigating committee

to quote inquire into and report upon the probable economic development

of Canada and the problems to which Development appears likely to give rise

unquote. The Canadian appointed to head the commission was Walter Gorton.

Two years after his appointment the Gordon commission in a well documented report

warned that quote It is quite clear from the evidence that many Canadians are

worried about such a large measure of economic decision making being in the hands

of nonresidents unquote. Years later Walter Gordon was still receiving

applause from Canadian audiences by reiterating these sentiments. This is

how he expressed himself at a University of British Columbia conference.

We should think twice before concluding that the same approach would be

desirable on this continent.

After all.

Some of the keenest promoters of the Common Market idea in Europe of Polish have

political union as their ultimate objective.

A union incidentally in which no one of the present countries would wield a

dominating influence. A similar approach on

this continent might have a very different result if eventually it led to

some kind of political union between Canada and the United States.

In our case because of our much smaller population this would really mean absorption

by the United States. And this is a prospect that I for

one would not look upon with relish. Not that I'm

in any way anti-American. But just because I think Canada

has something to contribute to this weary troubled world as a

separate independent nation with no ax to grind. At the

expense of any other country anywhere

on this connect connection the commission had quite a lot to say about the extent to which

Canadian industry is owned and controlled by non residents mostly by citizens

or corporations in the United States.

Foreign investment has been helpful in the rapid

development of our country and we've gained a great deal through the connections

that many of our larger companies have with their parent companies in the United States and elsewhere.

These benefits include access to management know how technological

developments and research and in the case of many of our.

Primary Industries to assure markets for their products.

But looking at the picture as a whole. I think we have allowed this trend to go too

far. There is no other country in the world to my

knowledge certainly no country that is as fully

developed economically as Canada which has so much of its industry

controlled by nonresidents. We still have to

reverse the present trend.

If we really wish to maintain our identity as a separate nation on the North

American continent that is the Canadian view which was embodied in the

report of the government appointed Gordhan commission. It is perhaps

simple economic nationalism but which Canadians point out to American

was once and still is US policy.

What the Gorton also stated in the so-called private sector.

Many of our largest companies which we had a dominating influence in their

respective industries are controlled and directed not by

individual Canadians but by people who reside outside our borders.

Canadians do not make the day to day decisions in the economic sphere.

Again this is hardly what we mean when we talk about

free enterprise. Certainly it's not free enterprise in any national sense

insofar as Canadians are concerned. Now there are of course

large sections of Canadian economic life that still are relatively free.

Small Businessman professional man and farmers can still be independent up to a

point. And speaking as one of them I hope this will long

continue. But taking the country as a whole. I

think the term mixed enterprise rather than free enterprise

would be a better way of describing it.

Like the majority of Canadians I dislike too much government

interference too much bureaucracy too much red

tape and too much government control will always be

particularly obnoxious in a federal state like ours with

its great differences in points of view and in the nature of the economies of the different

provinces. But I'm afraid that in the age in

which we live governments provincial as well as federal

must be prepared to take the initiative from to give the lead upon occasion.

If Canada is to remain free and independent and if we're to have high levels of

employment throughout the country.

No Professor expresses an American view of the problem of economic

nationalism and trade imbalance with the United States.

The solution to our problem would rest on the

most solid value.

If the initiative were taken by our friends and allies rather than ourselves.

At the moment do United States dollar is now a much stronger position than it has

been for a number of years because on goods and services our exports are greatly

increased. There is no evidence that the United States prices have been rising more rapidly than those

of other countries.

Consequently the crisis as of the moment is primarily one of capital flight

of hot money. When you deal with capital flight

your actions must be dramatic both in deed and

policy.

I couldn't imagine a better situation than under the leadership say of the United Kingdom with

Canada right. And countries such as The Netherlands

France Sweden and Germany called the conference of the

earlier stage when the new president took office

and suggested that as and previous occasions they respectively agree that they will not use the

dollar balances to convert into gold.

The United States happens to have two billion dollars with the International Monetary Fund. But you could utilize

at any time to purchase other currencies and therefore prevent a

run on the dollar. This requires a form

of collaboration between the government that we have not recently seen. It would

also require some adjustments in interest rates. The United

States rate of interest at the moment is lower than that of any other country in the world with the

exception of Switzerland as other countries in Europe find that their own

boom is climbing.

It would help if they would lower their rates of interest and it probably would be a good policy

under the circumstances. If we would raise our rate of interest a little so that it wouldn't be profitable for

Americans and others to move funds from the United States abroad.

Also with the exception of Japan United States goods and

services are today discriminate against the world trade more than those of any other country.

This notice requires a different kind of approach on the part of our

friends and allies of the one we usually hear from them.

If all these measures are not successful as a conference in a

package deal probably with a statement of the United States that we do not intend to raise the price of gold

or do we intend to lower the value of the dollar compared to other currencies.

If such a conference is not successful then other measures will have to be involved.

They will be probably first and foremost a restrictionist policy against our best friends and allies our most

important writers and a Canadian view of another aspect of U.S. Canadian

economic relations.

Now this brings us to the basic to a basic question.

About which we should make up our minds before we can discuss intelligently

the most appropriate policies for Canadians to pursue

and that is the importance that we attach to retaining our

pull of our economic and political independence. For as much

independence as is possible for any single nation in this drinking world farfel

superstate. There are tremendous pressures

upon us to integrate the Canadian economy more and more with that who we are with that

of the United States. Hardly a day goes by it

seems that some Canadian company is not purchased by a large US

corporation or by its subsidiary in Canada.

Hardly a day goes by. Without someone making a speech or writing an

article suggesting a continental approach to one or other of our economic

problems or asking if it is possible or could really

make sense for a small country like Canada. To struggle to

remain free and separate. From an enormous neighbor with 10 times the

population and 14 or 15 times the value of our annual output.

The fact is.

That in recent years whether we like to admit it or not. Canada has been

losing steadily a considerable measure of our independence both

economically and politically.

If we're sensible we should decide either to accelerate the pace of further

integration with the United States politically as well as economically

trying to do it later to take steps without delay to reverse the present trend

either course in my opinion. But

until difficulties and some unpleasantness free

trade with the United States on any appreciable scale. Even

if the Americans were willing to consider this would bring about a great disruption

of Canadian industry and serious unemployment. Certainly during an

extended period of readjustment and probably for longer.

And if this was not accompanied by moves in the direction of some sort of political union

or affiliation we might find ourselves in a very difficult position.

If at some later date some you would ministration in the United States

decided to abrogate the arrangement.

On the other hand. We could not hope to reverse the present trend

until we regain some of our lost independence without paying some

sort of price in terms of our last rapid rise in our standard of

living. The amount I think of great around employment.

This is a price Incidentally the Canadians have always been prepared to pay. Ever since

Canada became a nation when the situation was explained to them.

But for the border we could not hope to accomplish our objectives quickly

to be successful. We would have to work at it for many years and with great

determination. Now a case can be made for either of the

courses mentioned faster integration with the United States

or the regaining of our independence.

I would submit that there is no excuse whatever for failing to face up to the dilemma

in which we find ourselves today. To do nothing.

To refuse to recognize a situation that confronts us or to admit its

implications will lead inevitably to our becoming a more

or less helpless satellite of the United States.

How is it possible for the United States

to maintain this position.

The position Professor Latif refers to is that of the United States as leader of the

Western world. But Tenet is but one nation in the Western camp

but it is a nation which is increasingly vocal in complaints over U.S.

domestic policies such as restriction on Canadian imports.

One thing to put it back to me just the

effectiveness of her domestic expansion growth would be politically

intolerable for present America and it would be a travesty

from an economic point of view it decline to be external ballasts.

We permitted this to restrict the policies that we must follow domestically

given. This is the problem.

What do we find the governor of the Bank of Canada

recently stating and he's sure the governor of the Bank of Canada James Coyne

said many things which troubled us statesmen and economists and indeed

troubled his own finance minister though their differences are said to have been

personal and over methods rather than over aims. Both the

Canadian government and Mr Coyne are avowed Canadian nationalists.

But here is the type of statement which troubled Professor Latif

heard her briefly from discussion in regard.

To the curriculum. The writer for the Crimson. Probably

stuck to the picture of the law going to create.

Such a program for fun to read. The way we're

here. We're going to be probably we're going to we're.

Creating a payment within three years. It will be a great

thing and so you want to be in the media

in the country. Money and

creating hearing opportunities for them.

Being focused. Or promoting.

The rate of economic freedom. And you're a human being for him about.

Many of these. Given fresh matter.

For me I'm only.

Going to take a. Direct

crit.

Clearly again at a time in history when the United States needs the greatest assistance

a normal political figure to an American event

to take to taking a stand which will be most inimical to Canadian long

term interests and to those other two countries.

If we really do wish to retain her separate identity as

an independent nation. We will have to re-examine our present

dependent foreign policy and do something about stopping and

then reversing the trend under which such a staggering number of our most dynamic

industries have fallen into foreign hands.

What then is a sampling of the conflict in Canadian United States

economic relations cozy as they are they are seen as

a threat of supplication to Canadians whether they be in a Kamloops

supermarket or a Bay Street Stock Exchange concerned

over their national survival. The northern neighbors are wondering whether

in dealing with a giant trade for two really mains

two for trade or just one for

trade.

The border in question is produced in cooperation with the National Association of

educational broadcasters. Narration And scripts by film across

production by Ajax my God.

This is the end E.B. Radio Network.