|THE MULTINATIONALS _

The Communist Party of Canada has submitted a brief to the Royal Commis- sion on Corporate Concentration. Below

- follows an abridgement of the brief plac-

ing the party’s proposals and part of the argumentation for them. The complete brief will be published in the January- February issue of Communist View- point.

e In 1968, 58% of Canada’s -manufacturing assets were owned by foreigners, mostly Americans. They accounted for - 63.4% of the profits, 55% of the sales and 62.4% of the taxable income. The greatest amount of foreign ownership was_ in natural resources — almost 100% of oil and gas, 55% of primary metals, 52% of non- metallic materials.

In examining the economic, political and social impact of the corporations, mainly U.S. owned or controlled, on the Cana- dian community as a whole it is neces- sary to acknowledge the decisive role of

the multi-nationals. It is well known that —

the multi-nationals, conglomerates, branch plants and subsidiaries are well entrenched in the commanding heights of the Canadian economy. Consequently the corporations exert a decisive role in shaping the Canadian economy, decision making and on the very lives of Canadian

citizens: Indeed, the multi-national cor- \ . porations are instruments through which

U.S. imperialism exercises its domina- tion over the Canadian economy. They are the trojan horse of U.S. imperialism in Canada. %

EXTENSIVE POWER |

The corporations use their extensive power to attack the living standards, democratic rights and interests of the people. They raise prices at will, close plants and layoff workers at will, and generally pursue policies inimical to the public interest and the all-sided de-

e Three electrical’ firms — General Electric, Westinghouse and Northern Electric account for 44% of industry sales. Three huge auto firms have an almost unchallenged grip on auto pro- duction. Six companies produce ‘90% of all farm machinery bought in Canada. The steel in-. dustry is virtually the preserve of Canada’s three giant steel firms. —

velopment of the Canadian economy. As a consequence the anti-monopoly clas- ses and groups, in defence of their own

economic. and political interests, are -

compelled to fight back against the

_ power of the monopolies much of which

is wielded through state channels. The small businesses, industrial enter-

prises and farmers are likewise vic-

timized by the corporations as the con- centration of capital proceeds apace. The economic viability of small and medium business, industrial enterprises and farms, indeed their very existence, Is threatened by the policy of accumulation followed by the big industrial and bank- ing corporations.

Jo a,

FOREIGN REVIEW BOARD

As a concession to broad public opinion and the pressure of certain financial in- terests the federal government estab-

e Corporate profits reached an all-time high in 1973, amount- ing to a whopping $15-billion. In 1971 Canadian Pacific reported a net income of $63.7-million. Three years later it had tripled to $181.3-million.

lished the Foreign Review Board to sc-

’ reen foreign takeover bids and mergers

for the stated purpose of increasing the Canadian content of capital investment in the country. Unfortunately, the Re- view Board has not been able to check in any appreciable way the process of foreign mergers and takeovers.

There have been proposals advanced that the best way to combat the foreign based multi-nationals and conglomerates is to build Canadian multi-nationals and conglomerates. While this road. would undoubtedly be favored by certain cir- cles of Canadian finance capital and monopolies, it would not serve the in-

terests of the working people, farmers, : _ professionals, or the small and medium

businessmen and industrialists. It would

e In 1947 book value of foreign investment in Canada was $2,986-million with the U.S. constituting 85% of this figure. In 1973 foreign investment totalled $32,783-million with the U.S. hav- ing 79.4% of this amount. The decline in percentage of the U.S. share does in_no way signify a decline _ in, U.S. _ corporate. influence. feet

be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. For, this proposal begs the main

question: whose interests are these huge

concentrations of Canadian capital and property going to serve? Are they going to serve only the profit interests of the corporate elite? Or are they going to serve the interests of the Canadian com- munity as a whole? This is the sixty-four dollar question. .

NO SAFEGUARDS

Whether the big corporations are U.S. or .

Canadian owned and controlled, there are at present no adequate safeguards to

e The natural resource indus- try is not a good job-creating sector of the economy. It is capi- tal intensive. In 1970 mineral production accounted for 7% of the Gross National Product, but only 1.4% of the labor force was

employed in mining.

protect the public interest from corpo- rate concentration and avid profit-taking. The state must intervene to bring an end to this situation and assert sovereign ownership of these corporations and conglomerates. This is the way to uphold the public interest and the independence of Canada.

COMMUNISTS PROPOSE

e We propose that the recommenda-

‘tions of the Commission include mea-

sures that will begin the process of break- ing up the multi-national corporations and to prohibit the operation of conglom-

erates in Canada. As a first step in this direction we propose that the Combines Act be amended .to include measures to forbid mergers and takeovers which un- dermine (a) Canadian sovereignty, and (b) the public interest; failure to comply with such measures to be met by nationalization of the holdings in Canada of the participating parties.

e We further propose that the Canada Development Corporation be authorized as a vehicle through which public owner- ship of those monopoly corporations which transgress Canadian sovereignty or the public interest, be carried through. e We consider the foregoing proposals as only first steps towards the breaking up of the giants and super-giants of the corporate community. Government pol- icy should be directed towards placing the monopoly corporations under strict Canadian ownership and - democratic control, i.e., control bodies fully rep- resentative of the Canadian community, backed up with the appropriate govern- ment regulatory measures to protect the public interest. Failure to comply with such measures to be severely dealt with, up to and including nationalization of the property of the offending corporation.

e International Nickel and Falconbridge produce 99% of Canada’s nickel. Four com- panies produce 88% of our cop- per. All of Canada’s mining and smelting is carried out by nine companies. The petroleum in- dustry is concentrated in the hands of a few gjlant oil monopolies.

e We advocate nationalization of all multi-national corporations in Canada as a first step toward the nationalization of the banks, trusts, insurance companies and the credit system to ‘secure the necessary capital for the planned ba- lanced development of the economy under public ownership and control serv- ing the public interest. e The Communist-Party is not opposed to bigness as such. What we are con- cerned with is: who owns the bigness and whose interests does it serve. Centraliza- - tion and concentration of capital into the hands of a small group of huge corpora- tions, which in reality constitute a gov-

e Canada has 18 corporate companies with assets of more than $1-billion and 23: financial institutes in the same category. The top five financial institutions are all banks — Royal, Com- merce, Montreal, Nova Scotia

.and_ Toronto-Dominion. Royal Bank is the largest corporation of any kind in Canada with as- sets of almost $217-billion.

ernment within government, is an objec- tive process under capitalism. The his- tory of capitalism in Canada is develop- ment from laissez-faire capitalism and the free market, to monopoly-and its con- trol of the market, to state-monopoly capitalism. As Lenin correctly said: there is no going back to free competition capitalism. From modern capitalism there is only one path and it leads to- wards socialism. Lenin had good reason to emphasize that ‘‘State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material prep- aration for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung in the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate

ch)

rungs’’.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—DECEMBER 19, 1975—Page 7