Final Assembly

PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA

THIS has been a great occasion, this meeting in Dartmouth College. You, Mr. President, and those associated with you, have made a contribution - recognized by Sir Harold in his remarks, recognized by Mr. Lodge - a contribution to the building of our relationship and the clarifying of those issues that naturally arise among friends. It represents, I believe, a milestone in our relationship. Indeed in the last few days Dartmouth College has become a cathedral for freedom and its maintenance among the three nations represented.

A few weeks ago I was in London at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and there we discussed with other members of the Commonwealth mutual problems, family problems. Here for just a short while I am going to discuss what I choose to call "neighborly" problems. All of us are agreed here that the Anglo-Canadian-American Community constitutes a grand, the grand, alliance for freedom in partnership with the other nations in NATO. It has, as Mr. Lodge stated, those "built-in" stabilizers for unity: a common tradition, a respect for the rights of men, our unswerving dedication to freedom. With you I believe this, that the maintenance of unity among us is the only certain hope for the survival of freedom everywhere in the world. That is the spirit in which I come before you. . . .

We have had our relationships together ana there have been ups and downs since 1794, when we agreed "to promote a disposition favourable to friendship and goodwill. We are partners in defense; we realize that the security of this continent Cannot be assured without the closest cooperation between our two countries. Let no one say to you that the recent change of government means any change of attitude on our part towards cooperation; for the first thing we did was to agree to a joint operational control of our air defense forces as between Canada and the United States whereby each of us joined together under common leadership, representing in North America something of the principles embodied in NATO. In so doing, I need not add, Canada does not in any way derogate from or sacrifice her sovereignty over, or ownership of, these Arctic regions. We have learned to trust each other. We are two nations that have never received assistance from ourselves or from anyone else without payment. We have no hereditary animosities. We have no ancestral fears. We know that freedom would not have survived, might well not have survived anywhere in the world since the Second World War, had it not been for the world leadership assumed by the United States.

The former Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Pearson, once said, "The era of easy and automatic good relations between Canada and the United States is over." Let me assure you at once, that does not mean an era of difficult or bad relations. It means, as the British Ambassador said, as Mr. Lodge has said, as the Chairman has reiterated, that each of us must now look at our problems with common sense, frankness, absolute confidence and mutual trust. And that has been the characteristic of this meeting and this gathering, to the end that in candor we may strengthen the understanding of each other and help thereby to avoid those pitfalls of misunderstanding that, unless resolved when they are small, become difficult to resolve when they are great.

I am going to speak to you about one or two matters, economic matters, which today are much in the hearts of the Canadian people. Any government has to consider its interests first. I want this made clear as this moment, that the present government of Canada is not - indeed there will be no government of Canada in the days ahead, as in the past, that will be - anti-American. We realize the need of cooperation. We recognize how different our position in Canada would be if geographically the U.S.S.R. occupied the position of the United States. But we have problems that have been brought before you in the last few days, problems that I believe will be resolved because of discussions that have taken place, riveting, as they will, the attention of the people of both our countries to the need of action being taken.

The first thing I'm going to refer to is trade. We are numbered among the great trading countries of the world. We sell to you 60 percent of our total exports. We import from you 73 percent of our imports. There is no part of America that does not benefit by that trade. Only recently these statistics were made available: that Brooklyn sells more to Canada than Argentina does; Louisville sells more to Canada than New Zealand does; Chicago sells almost as much to Canada as does West Germany; and Seattle sells almost as much to Canada as does Norway. That, in short, represents something of our problem. And let me add this fact, that we purchased from the United States last year - we an agricultural country in the main, but becoming industrial, particularly since the end of the Second World War - $100,000,000 more in agricultural products than we sold to this country. What does this mean? This concentration of trade in one channel, we believe, contains inherent dangers for Canada in that it makes our economy too vulnerable to sudden changes in trading policy in your country.

We have always purchased from this country more than we have sold. That imbalance is increasing day by day. Last year it amounted to $1,298,000,000. This year it will amount to more. A situation such as that, particularly when our trade situation is concentrated mainly in the United States, requires the consideration and statesmanship of both our countries to bring about a satisfactory solution to a situation that cannot economically continue.

One matter that particularly impresses us is this: the need of action being taken in connection with the agricultural disposal program of the United States. It is very difficult for us when we have a piling surplus of 700 million bushels of wheat, when we must have markets abroad for 300 million bushels of wheat each year, when we find that as a result of that disposal program - aggressive, more vigorous during the past two years than it has been - we cannot compete for our share of the markets of the world.

Unless ordinary competitive practices remain, as far as surplus disposal is concerned, we cannot maintain our share of the world markets. We are losing that share of the world markets, not through ordinary competition, but as a result of what has taken place as necessary and expedient for your country: export subsidies, barter deals, sales for foreign currency, which we in Canada cannot meet and which we in Canada believe deserve some attention at this time. I am more than pleased that out of this Conference have come the words of Sherman Adams, when he said yesterday, as reported in the press, encouraging words that "this is a problem and I recognize it as such," that the people of the United States and its government recognize it as one that demands attention.

Because we face not only military but economic aggression from the U.S.S.R., military alliances are not enough. We believe that there must be economic cooperation, which in turn demands recognition of the fact that larger nations dare not in their economic policies act in such a way as to be detrimental to the economies of smaller nations joined with them in the eternal quest and maintenance of freedom. We cooperate in defense measures. I believe that in the years ahead we must cooperate to a greater degree in economic matters, and my hope is that in the joint United StatesCanadian Cabinet Committee on Trade and Economic Ques- tions, which will meet in Washington in early October, there will be something in the nature of a solution arrived at by mutual agreement that will assure a fair and a reasonable solution for the disposal of those disturbing surpluses of agricultural products and in particular of wheat. After all, ladies and gentlemen, this Conference has shown that we can talk these problems over, not in order to show our truculence, not our independence, one of the other, but in that spirit, mentioned by Mr. Lodge, of infinite compassion, forbearance and a common dedication to the maintenance of those things that are greater than life itself.

These are the type of problems that we face. There is another one and I can just mention it very shortly. There has been an intangible sense of disquiet in my country over the political implications of large-scale and continuing external ownership and control of Canadian industries. The question being asked over and over again: "Can a country have a meaningful independent existence in a situation where nonresidents own an important part of that country's basic resources and industry?" We do not ask that you do not invest in Canada. We welcome foreign investments. We welcome the investments of the United States, increasing year by year. We will provide in Canada, in the future as in the past, a climate that will make investment worth while and also pay reasonable returns. There is no questioning in that regard. There is, however, an almost universal demand, a request that I now make, not only to this audience but to great industry in this country - that in great industry's investment in our country we ask but one thing, that is, that we in Canada be not denied the opportunity of investment in the companies that are operating in our country. We believe that is fair. We believe that is just. We believe that those companies operating in our country should make available equity stock to Canadians. They should incorporate there as Canadian companies, realizing that our national future - its entity and its preservation - is in large measure dependent on the economic control of that country, as of every country. . . .

What I have said, ladies and gentlemen, is not spoken in a spirit of truculence or of petition. My purpose is to have causes for disagreement removed, for unresolved disagreements diminish that spirit of understanding which is characteristic of our relationship. We are such close neighbors that it is hard to realize that we can have some differences. We are united in the great cause of freedom. In our military alliance there is the closest cooperation. In the fundamental things of life there is no difference. Our comradeship knows no closer alliance in the world.

My message to you tonight is this. Let it not be said that we cannot achieve a similar spirit of cooperation in economic affairs. Indeed, I bring to you the words of President Eisenhower. That tribune of democracy, speaking in the Canadian House of Commons on November 14th, 1953, said this: "More than friendship and partnership is signified in the relations between our countries. These relations that today enrich our people justify the faith of our fathers that men, given self-government, can dwell at peace among themselves, progressive in the development of their material wealth, quick to join in the defense of their spiritual community, ready to arbitrate differences that may arise to divide them."

What a heritage we have, our two countries with Great Britain. We are united in our determination to preserve our heritage of spiritual values. To preserve that steadfast and undiminished unity that saved us in war, our governments must today, and every day, give due regard at all times to the problems of each other with infinite respect, with all-embracing tolerance, and with the realization that we have rest- ing upon us that responsibility that has been so apparent in this Conference.

In the days ahead many grave decisions will face our peoples. In the last analysis, how Canadians and Americans and Britishers get along will be a world test of "neighborhood" in international relations. In concord with the other free nations, the solidarity of Anglo-Canadian-American friendship is vital to the peace and well-being of the world. We believe it will provide the key to whether we succeed or fail in our great quest to maintain freedom for this and future generations.

I cannot conclude without saying this to President Dickey. I believe that in the years ahead this Conference will be looked back on as one that provided the climate for bringing us closer together, and that it will be said in the years ahead, "Dartmouth College, in this Conference, and its leaders built better than they knew."