1969-12-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of certain questions asked last week, there have been discussions about the document entitled "Changing Patterns of Indian Mortality". I believe there would now be unanimous consent to introduce a motion to refer that document to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wonder if I could have unanimous consent at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the memoranda entitled "Changing Patterns of Indian Mortality" tabled on Thursday, December 4, 1969, be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the Purchasing Agents' Association of Canada that a survey which they have just conducted shows that at least 60 per cent of all companies in
21545-39}
Canada intend to raise prices in the next year, would the Acting Prime Minister have the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make a statement on motions at the first opportunity outlining the steps the government intends to take to see that these price increases do not have the same inflationary effect as similar increases have had on the economy during the current year?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report referred to by the hon. gentleman but I will look into it. I hope the hon. gentleman will support the anti-inflationary policy the government is following-


An hon. Member:: What is it?


Mitchell William Sharp: -and that he will not call for greater government expenditures from time to time on certain projects.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, is the Acting Prime Minister not aware that it is the opposition that has been urging the government to take the steps which it has not yet taken to curb inflation?



POSSIBLE BRITISH ENTRY INTO ECM-SAFEGUARDING OF CANADIAN INTERESTS

['Order, please.']
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Inasmuch as it now appears likely that the British government will enter the European Common Market, has the minister had any discussions or correspondence with his corresponding minister in the U.K. government regarding the protection of Canada's traditional markets in Great Britain for primary products, particularly wheat?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I gave a fairly long answer to this question last week. When talking about protection of Canadian wheat sales in the U.K. the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert referred to an agreement that was reached back in 1963. I have
December 9, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry looked into that agreement. First of all, I discovered that it was confidential, and since it was entered into on a confidential basis I do not think it was appropriate to make it public at this time. Second, I also confirmed as the hon. gentleman indicated himself that the British commitment was to the effect that essential Canadian interests would be protected as far as possible. The definition of "essential" and "as far as possible" was apparently left up to the British, and that leaves quite a lot of room, if I understand words.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the minister's information, but he has not answered my question. Has the minister had any correspondence or discussions with his corresponding minister in the United Kingdom regarding Canada's position vis-a-vis Great Britain entering the European Common Market, and has Canada advanced any proposals for the British government to include in its plan to be laid before the members of the European Common Market when applying for admission to that body?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I did not answer that part of the question because I did so last week. I said at that time that since the last British application discussions had been held, at both ministerial and official levels, between Canada and the U.K. The most recent were held in Ottawa a month or a month and a half ago at top official level, at which time the Canadians repeated to the British that Canadian interests were at stake. We have given the British representatives information on Canadian interests which would be damaged by British entry into the Common Market. As I said the other day and previously, the British told us they would keep us very well informed on developments; we will consequently have occasions to express our views.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Were Canada's proposals included in any written memorandum? If so, is the minister prepared to table such memorandum in the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I did not think it would be particularly useful for us to obtain from the British a formal commitment in which they would say that they would protect Canada's "essential Interests" if at all possible.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the minister, in his statement last week, outlined what damage we can expect to the Canadian economy as a result of Britain's entry into the Common Market but not how we can be protected from that damage, will he take the first opportunity on motions to outline the steps the government of Canada intends to take to protect Canada's economy from the damage which will undoubtedly arise from British entry into the Common Market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the damage can only be assessed when the terms of Britain's entry into the Common Market are known. It would be premature for us to speculate on what the terms of Britain's entry into the Common Market will be since these could be the subject of the negotiations.
ITranslation]



Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether he has received complaints as regards Quebec ministers being closely watched when on missions outside Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to remind the hon. member that the question was asked yesterday and ruled out of order.


Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the learned and congenial Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. May I ask if he has yet taken or indicated any course of action in response to the urgent brief of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America presented recently to a part of the Liberal caucus and ministry concerning the growing unemployment in their industry as a result of an increasing flow of imports of electronic tubes from Japan and the United States?
December 9, 19S9


Jean-Luc Pepin: The last time this question was asked Your Honour found it unacceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: It must have been a very judicious ruling and I think I have to make the same ruling today. I must say in all fairness that I did not hear the first part of the hon. member's question. There was a bit of noise at this end of the chamber. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase the question and attempt to make it acceptable to the Chair.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I say, Mr. Speaker, I have not asked this question before. I would like to know if the minister has found any course of action to protect this very important industry form the rapid decline which its people are now facing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we have not found one but we are looking for ways to help. The gist of my answer on the previous occasion would have been that entries into Canada were to a large extent in the form of full sets, mostly coloured sets, and most of those were not from Japan but from the United States. We have had control on import of tubes from Japan, a voluntary restraint agreement with that country. We have found no proof that they are not living up to this restraint agreement. I also found that tubes were progressively being replaced by transistors. I already said that we were in consultation with the industry on these matters.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware the government did find a solution


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to tell him what it was later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: My
question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since there is a very real possibility of the air traffic controllers going
DEBATES	1739
on strike within the next two weeks, thus causing the complete suspension of all air services in Canada, what action is the minister taking to ensure the continued operation of air services and the protection of the interests of the public?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the question is based on two assumptions which I suggest are a bit on the extreme side, first, that there will be a strike and, second, that it will result in cessation of all air activities. Even if those were the likely results, I hope they will not materialize. I am still confident we can work out a satisfactory arrangement with the air traffic controllers before that time.


George Harris Hees: The hopes two years ago did not materialize and stop a strike. Will the minister take some more concrete action and ensure that Canadian air traffic is not paralysed in the same way it was two or three years ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I direct a most urgent question to the minister responsible to the House of Commons for communications, whom I believe to be the Postmaster General. Is the minister taking any action to insist that Canadian Pacific Telegraphs live up to the judgment of the Transport Commission that there is to be no cessation of telegraph services, in view of the CP decision in British Columbia to close counter service after 8 p.m.?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: I will look into the particular complaint that the hon. member for Vancouver East has brought forward.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture which sector of the dairy industry will be affected by the decision to reduce the budget of his department and whether it is possible for the cabinet to revise its decision
December 9, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry in view of the precarious situation of the dairy industry in Canada and particularly in Quebec.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, what we have asked the dairy industry to do, and I am repeating myself here, is to help us design a dairy program for the 1970-71 dairy year that will reduce the production that is surplus to Canadian domestic requirements because of the very high cost of putting surplus, milk powder in particular, and other products into the international market. It may be that with the help of the dairy industry we will be able to design a program that will return more net income to the farmers, even though the total charge to the national treasury is less, if we can reduce these surpluses.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture.
If I understand correctly, Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet established in which sector the budget will be reduced for the next fiscal year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, that is correct. What we have announced is that the program will be designed with an over-all maximum of $115 million from the federal treasury in mind.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Since he has just implied that the dairy and farm policy will be revised, does the minister intend to consult the various dairy unions before announcing this new policy to the Canadian farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have invited them to make their wishes, their opinions and their submissions known to us.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture.
I would ask him to indicate to the House whether the Quebec Milk Producers Association has already asked him for a special debate on the policy of the Canadian Dairy Commission.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, although I have already had some discussion with two organizations representing farmers in the province of Quebec.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinths):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
I would like to ask him whether he intends to take special steps to search for external markets in order to dispose of our surplus farm products, more particularly milk products?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I might add that I believe maximum efforts are being made at the present time to dispose of these surpluses.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister requested his colleague the Solicitor General to send members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the Six Nations Reserve near Brantford, Ontario, on Saturday, December 13? I ask this question because an election is being held on the reserve that day and I have received complaints from some of the Indians who are afraid of intimidation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt as to the form the question has taken but perhaps the minister might reply.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, elections in Indian reserves are held under the Indian Act and the members of each reserve are free to vote for whomever they consider to be their best leaders, and the officials of my department have very strict instructions not to interfere in the elections.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I apologize for not rising sooner but I did not quite understand the minister's reply on the translation facilities.

December 9, 1969

Would the minister give an assurance to the House that members of the RCMP will not be sent to the Six Nations reservation next Saturday? I draw to your Honour's attention the fact that people in this area are apparently very concerned about possible harassment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the R.C.M.P. will be present next Saturday. I say that the Indians of the Six Nations Reserve at Brantford are free to elect their leader in the democratic manner and if the R.C.M.P.'s presence is required, they will be there. However, if no such request is made, I do not see why they should be. At any rate, my department is not responsible for the R.C.M.P.



STUDENT LOANS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Acting Minister of Finance or to the Secretary of Slate for External Affairs who is Acting Prime Minister. In light of the statement made yesterday by Robert Clark, Minister of Education for Alberta, will a member of the federal cabinet be meeting with the education ministers of the ten provinces to discuss the proposal to set up a new national system for the repayment of student loans on terms corresponding with income? If so, what position will the government be taking?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: I shall be happy to take that question as notice.


J. Michael Forrestall: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would be good enough to take this supplementary question as notice too. Is any legislation being considered along the lines of the proposal put forward by the Alberta Minister of Education?



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the minister's expressed concern over the
Inquiries of the Ministry position of retired civil servants as well as his expressed hope that something will be done in this connection, may I ask him whether the government will give consideration to making arrangements for an interim increase in their pensions pending the presentation of the white paper on social security, waiting for which can take quite a bit of time?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I myself feel it is better to solve the problem in its entirety than to make some ad hoc arrangement, but I will look at the suggestion made by the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then perhaps we could ascertain the results of that look some night at ten o'clock.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This kind of blackmail will not lead to an early solution of the problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, friendly though it is. I do not believe that remark-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the minister used "blackmail" in the sense that the meeting will be at ten o'clock at night.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell us how far the negotiations in connection with the recognition of the People's Republic of China have progressed?


Mitchell William Sharp: The discussions are still continuing, Mr. Speaker.



EDUCATION


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it in line with government policy to have university facilities which are supported in part by federal funds used on occasion for military research purposes under contracts between the universities and governments of other countries?
1742	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure university authorities make decisions that they consider in the best interests of their institutions. Certainly the federal government does not have control over contracts that the universities enter into.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question. With regard to contracts entered into between universities and foreign governments, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the federal government acts as agent of the foreign governments when contracts are let or are they made directly? If the latter is the case, would the minister say what precautions are taken to ensure that their primary purpose, from the point of view of the university, is not prejudiced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had serious reservations about the original question. I suggest to the hon. member that if he wishes to seek additional information on the matter the question should be placed on the order paper.



CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS FOR ARGENTINA- FINANCING BY EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the Export Development Corporation agreed to finance the construction of six ships for Argentina in the amount of some $90 million? If so, what rate of interest is to be charged on this loan?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the rate of interest is the usual one. I might caution members that this is only a bid and that other countries of the world are in competition. We hope the Canadian bid will be successful, but there is no way at this time of knowing if it will be.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question. When the minister says that it is the usual rate of interest, does he mean the usual rate that is charged by banks to prime borrowers, or what does he mean?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, on this matter I feel a little like the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. These negotiations are explorations that are being made by potential exporters. If the contract should come to fruition,

DEBATES	December 9, 1969
then I would answer the question more fully. In the meantime I do not think it is in the best interests of the company or of the Export Development Corporation to discuss this possible sale.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, having in mind the United States regulation which comes into effect next January 1 requiring the manufacturers of automobiles to provide the people of the United States with specific information and data on the safety qualities of their vehicles, is the Minister of Transport giving consideration to similar legislation in this country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for having sent me a copy of the United States notice. I think this is a commendable step. As soon as we have the necessary authority and a bill is passed by this House I will be more than pleased to give it consideration. I see no reason that we should not do so.



REPRESENTATION AT INTERNATIONAL FUR TRADE FAIR

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether it is the intention of the government to reserve a booth at the International Fur Trade Fair at Frankfurt, Germany?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. I might add, if you allow me, that my department has taken part in the Fair for the last 11 consecutive years, with an expenditure of some $400,000. But we have found that the law of diminishing returns applies here. We have also found other ways of helping that industry, one of which was to send a mission to Japan earlier this year. We will continue to support the industry but not in the particular form of the past. I have asked the trade Commissioner-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was asked previously by the hon. member and I thought at the time it should be placed
December 9, 1969

on the Order Paper or discussed at the time of adjournment. The hon. member should not now ask a supplementary.


Percy Verner Noble: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a different question from the one I asked before. I mentioned the Canadian Mink Breeders' Association before but I did not mention it today.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the objections raised by some commercial salmon fishermen in British Columbia against the new regulations announced by the Minister of Fisheries for the further control of the British Columbia salmon fishery, is it the intention of the minister to place these proposals before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for discussion and examination and, if so, when does he plan to reconvene this committee?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: These new regulations will be brought before the committee for discussion, Mr. Speaker. The first phase was discussed last year. The second phase will be discussed as soon as the committee reconvenes. I hope it will reconvene shortly and discuss these plans early in the new year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he will give the House an undertaking that the regulations will not be put into effect until the parliamentary committee has had an opportunity to examine them and to hear the representations which the fishermen may care to make regarding these new licensing provisions?


John (Jack) Davis: I cannot give the House that assurance, Mr. Speaker. The fishermen are busily building vessels for the coming year, and it is necessary to give them a clear indication of our intentions this fall.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (St. John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the unassailable information recently disclosed that Newfoundland is slowly sinking and will disap-21545-40
Inquiries of the Ministry pear into the sea, will the Acting Prime Minister say whether there will be new measures to support this province inasmuch as this condition may be due to the neglect of this government?


An hon. Member:: Newfoundland was all right until it sent all those Tories here.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which might also be asked of the Secretary of State. It has reference to the decision of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission which has blocked out cable television in western Canada. Is this decision going to be reviewed by the cabinet and, if so, will the minister be prepared to make an announcement when it has been reviewed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I should think this question might be more properly addressed to the Secretary of State, to whom the CRTC answers. I will be glad to call it to his attention.

May I say while I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, and with your permission, that I can assure the hon. member for St. John-Lancas-ter that if Newfoundland is sinking it is perhaps because of the imbalance caused by the amount of money being poured into New Brunswick.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the department is conducting chemical and bacteriological warfare experiments on animals at Shirley's Bay and Downsview?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the order paper.



WHEAT-OPENING UP OF QUOTAS BY HALF BUSHELS

['This important question could easily be put on the order paper and, should it be urgent, the hon. member could discuss it at the time of adjournment.']
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the all-time low wheat
December 9, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry deliveries on quotas this year and since all points are still on a unit basis, is the Wheat Board giving consideration to opening up quotas by half bushels in order that wheat growers may make some deliveries before the Christmas season?
Hon, Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board is continuing to give the highest priority to the movement of unit quotas out of those points which have not received sufficient cars to move that grain and no doubt will be in a position to adjust quotas when this question of high priority has been taken care of.


Stanley James Korchinski: Can the minister indicate whether the special extra delivery quotas for last year have been almost taken in and, if not, how much longer will it be necessary before these deliveries will be taken in?


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that most of them have actually been taken in but I will have to get an up-to-date report on how things stand. I will be glad to do that.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the suggestion made recently by the Minister without Portfolio that farmers might "reduce their inventory by the amount of sales and thus put themselves in a more liquid position, with more of their revenues remaining free to provide a reasonable living income for the year", could the minister indicate when the one bushel quota will be opened up, and will this take place before Christmas?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the whole of the question which contained a rather inaccurate reference to a question I asked. I should simply like to say that the opening of the quota is, of course, in the hands of the Wheat Board which has quite properly attached high priority to the movement of unit quotas. It will no doubt be opening quotas as soon as the high priority items have been take care of.


John Stratford Burton: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comments made by the minister about his statement being taken out of context, let me state that I quoted a complete paragraph of a press release reporting a speech made by the minister.



J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question related to last week's Paris conference of Education ministers.
During that conference, the chairman of the Canadian delegation announced that Canada would supply another 100 teachers to French-speaking countries of Africa and that those teachers would be recruited by the province of Quebec. Could the minister tell us whether the Quebec government alone would pick the teachers or whether the federal government, for instance, would have a say in the selection of these teachers?


Mr. Speaker:: This important question could easily be put on the order paper and, should it be urgent, the hon. member could discuss it at the time of adjournment.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Prime Minister but since he is not here, I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the House whether the government intends, during this federal-provincial conference, to start discussions on a non-contributory guaranteed annual income formula which would insure a minimum income to all Canadians?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. A. Moore (Welaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Agriculture prepared, in the formulation of the coming year's dairy policy, to take into account the fact that the dairy surplus is not in western but in eastern Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to take into account all of the arguments the dairy industry wishes to advance.

December 9, 1969	COMMONS


Harry Andrew Moore: Does the minister intend any further transfer of western subsidy quotas to
dairymen in eastern Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There never has been any transfer of the nature my hon. friend speaks about. Indeed, I explained this to him and to the House a few months ago. That answer is even more accurate today than when it was made.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising from a further study on pollution of the Ottawa River which was released today. Will a decision be made shortly concerning a pilot project for the clearing up of pollution in the Ottawa River?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago we made an offer to both the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec to have a survey made of the Ottawa River on a completely federal initiative and at federal cost. We have never received the consent of the provinces to proceed. However, with the Canada water bill before the House, with the good co-operation of the House and with the possibility of getting it before the committee shortly and passed, then we hope that under the aegis of this act these provinces will be prepared, as I believe they will be, to join us in a study of the Ottawa River and action to clean it up.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, is it the minister's view that the Canada water act would permit the federal government to proceed on its own in respect of such a project?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize that the question as asked is not in order.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question in relation with the answers given a moment ago by the Minister of Agriculture.
21545-40J
DEBATES	1745
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would he care to tell the House if the government is prepared to make interest-free loans to the eastern farmers as a compensation for the losses they will suffer?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which arises out of one I put to the Prime Minister a week ago. Last week I asked the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government intended taking any action with regard to the report of the European Human Rights Commission to the effect that there was systematic torture of prisoners in Greek prisons. Yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a similar question and I was unclear concerning his answer. The Secretary of State for External Affairs seemed to indicate that this report was not yet available.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should come to the question as soon as possible.


John Edward Broadbent: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I thought the background was necessary for the question to be understood. Does the government of Canada now have access to this report and, if so, has it looked at it and decided to take any action?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no. We have not yet received this report which is supposed to be a confidential report provided to the members of the Council of Europe. There have been some reports in the newspapers, of course, which I am told are fairly accurate.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the minister to make a statement to the House before the Christmas recess on the status of Canada's reserve force?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to make a statement before the recess if the
1746	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry recess is not too early. I expect that the conclusion of our studies and our consultations with the Conference of Defence Associations should provide a final answer in probably a couple of weeks. The hope I express is that by that time I could prepare a statement.


Howard Russell MacEwan: If and when the minister makes his statement, would he be willing to wear a kilt in the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Will these men be paid at some time for their services in November and December of this
year?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.



PENITENTIARIES


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board, notice of which I gave him verbally prior to two o'clock. Is the minister in a position to inform the House concerning the negotiations with employees of the penitentiary service who by a vote of the 2,100 personnel involved have stated they will strike unless there is a satisfactory award?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in agreement with the bargaining unit these proceedings are now before an arbitration tribunal.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the President of the Treasury Board, in view of his answer, whether special provisions are being made because of the strike vote?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, a strike by the members of this particular bargaining unit would be an illegal strike. The procedure for the reconciliation of this dispute is by way of arbitration, not by way of a strike.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions you have ruled a question

DEBATES	December 9, 1969
out of order, but in view of the importance of this matter, I dare hope that you will allow me to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in clear terms, whether or not Quebec ministers travelling abroad are subject to some special surveillance requested by his department?


Mr. Speaker:: The same rule applies now as it did a few moments ago. The question as worded is out of order.


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in light of the persistence of these questions, I wonder whether I might answer by saying simply that the answer is false.


An hon. Member:: Your answer?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Tell us what else is new.
Another hon. Member: Explain.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister's answer is false, would he take the first opportunity on motions to clear up the most serious charge about the S. and I. branch and Quebec ministers travelling abroad?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think it is necessary to clear up anything. The report is completely false and unfounded.



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister indicate whether he is now prepared to make a statement on motions, perhaps tomorrow, indicating the position of his department with regard to the Labrador fishery? He indicated a week ago he was considering making a statement on motions.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make a statement on motions. I can say, however, that our department is examining several alternative areas for fishing, lower cost insurance and financing through our new
December 9, 1969
Salt Fish Development Corporation next year to help vessel owners from the Labrador fishery.


John Howard Lundrigan: Could the minister indicate in a general way whether the government plans any form of assistance to the Atlantic fishermen in view of the fact that they had a complete failure this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a request of the minister for a statement which should normally be made on motions.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am simply asking whether the government is planning anything and I should be able to expect a very simple yes or no answer.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport was not here when the CRTC made its decision last week, might I direct this question to him. In light of the CRTC decision on microwave broadcasting, would the minister take a stand against this type of unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of Canadians?


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask why the Minister of Transport did not answer my question. If he feels he cannot answer it now, then I would like to bring it up at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister was not allowed to answer the question because the question was out of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if the government has authorized a $850,000 Canex retail and recreation centre at Chilliwack Canadian Forces Base allegedly being built by nonunion labour? I should like to ask if the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question should be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry HARBOURS



VICTORIA FISHERMEN'S WHARF-RESTORATION OF POWER AND LIGHT

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the appeal by the Victoria fishermen's local regarding the fact that power and light on the fishermen's wharf at Victoria have been cut off since last summer and the fact that this is now a danger to persons, vessels and navigation in this area, will the government take immediate action to restore power and light on this wharf?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation and must assume it has been noted by the minister.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but I see he has just left the chamber. I had hoped that he would be able to answer the very relevant questions asked yesterday concerning the relief of several thousand people directly affected by the announced lay-offs at the Fairey Aviation plant in Dartmouth.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to my friend and neighbour, the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the many frantic appeals reaching us from federal public servants regarding retroactive pay cheques, can he say when this matter will be put in a current and satisfactory position?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to report that the Central Pay Office is making real progress toward the objective of cleaning up the backlog. This backlog of cheques has been reduced by 21,500 in the last 13 working days. I would also like to draw to the attention of the House that although we hear a great deal about the cheques that are not being paid, Central Pay Office is a very hard working group, and they

December 9, 1969

Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party actually issue on time half a million cheques every month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question. In view of the income tax problems that would be created if some of these cheques are not received until 1970, can arrangements be made for all of these retroactive cheques to be dated in 1969?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gilbert F. Rondeau: That, in the opinion of this House, in order to remedy the economic paralysis in Canada, parliament should give serious consideration to the monetary proposals of the Social Credit party and proceed as soon as possible with the following:
1)	financing of public funds by credit advances at a nominal cost by the Bank of Canada to be repaid at the rate of depreciation of the works achieved;
2)	distribution of a national dividend to each Canadian citizen in order to ensure, out of the Canadian national product, at least his minimum living expenses;
3)	balancing the sum of prices attached to the Canadian national product with the purchasing power in the hands of the consumers by means of a discount allowed to the latter.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to move, on behalf of the Ralliement creditiste, the motion which appears on today's order paper and which deals first of all with the economic paralysis in Canada, and also with the measures that the Creditistes are proposing to correct the situation.
There is no need for long speeches to prove that economic paralysis does exist in Canada at the present time. As a matter of fact, it is enough to read the briefs submitted yesterday by the provincial premiers at the third constitutional conference. The latter are all agreed that it is not to constitutional problems that the conference should devote its time but rather to economic ones.
There are several types of economic problems: inflation, regional disparities, unemployment, investments, taxation and taxing powers.
Although they are different, these problems have one common aspect. They all have

financial consequences, for in order to settle all these problems we have to talk solely about money and financing.
That is the key to the solution of all these problems. Each time the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) meet at federal-provincial conferences they have to deal with the same matter, to tackle the same question: money.
When confederation was established, the provinces were given their own responsibilities, such as education and road construction. The federal government kept the responsibility for finance.
The prime responsibility of the federal government was and still is to make funds available to the provinces, so that the latter may discharge their duties adequately.
The prime responsibility of the federal government is to provide financial blood, which is money, and make it available to each of the provinces. But since it does not play its part, the provinces do not have enough funds or financial blood to discharge their responsibilities adequately. Therefore, we note that the members of the Canadian financial body, that is the provinces, increasingly wish to part from it, on account of the deficient flow of financial blood. The financial paralysis has affected each member of confederation.
More and more, each member would like to separate from the Canadian economic body which does not allow it to live because of a lack of economic blood or money. Every one accuses the government of feeding some members too well, to the prejudice of others. Lack of economic vital fluid is mostly due to a financial haemorrhage suffered by the federal government that does not allow the Bank of Canada to operate in keeping with the Canadian resources and the needs of the provinces, a financial haemorrhage which we should not tolerate.
To the eight chartered banks of the country, the federal government sold for a mess of pottage-the campaign fund-the power to manipula e, to create and to destroy the economic blood of the nation, that is credit, that only a so-called sovereign government should possess and keep, by controlling the Bank of Canada.
That is the cause of the financial haemorrhage in Canada. And that is why the provinces are paralysed and why several of them obviously want more and more to part from the body which "separates" them, because it does not supply them with the economic blood, money, that it had undertaken to provide
December 9, 1969	COMMONS
them in the early days of confederation so that each one might carry out its responsibilities.
The Cred tistes are not the only ones nor the first ones 10 note that Canada is paralysed by the sovereign power to issue and control the coun ry's currency, a power which has been used for private purposes rather than for the common good, as the government should.
I should like, at this point, to quote authorities in several fields, who said before us what we have been saying in this House for about 30 years, and who denounced the financial system which s ifles the provinces and the federal government.
The former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King said in 1935, and I quote:
As soon as a nation ceases to control its currency and its credit, it does not matter who makes the laws. Usury once under control ruins all nations.
In his encyclical letter Quadragesima Anno, Pope Pius XI stated, and I quote:
This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit, and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying so to speak, the life blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will.
All economic life has become terribly hard, cruel and implacable.
Some bankers and economists have also discovered before us what we are describing today. Mr. Graham Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, had this to say, and I quote:
Evidently, the banks create money out ol nothing.
Mr. R. G. Hawthrey, an eminent economist and a high official of the Treasury Board, stated the following, and I quote:
When a bank makes a loan, it creates money out of nothing.
Mr. Eccles, president of the United States Federal Reserve Bank said, and I quote:
Banks create and destroy money.
And Reverend Georges-Henri Levesque,
O.P. remarked:
When high finance and the two old-line parties fight Social Credit, they fight against the common people since Social Credit is for them what light is to man. They constantly persecute the supporters of Social Credit for fear of losing their monopolies and their powers.
DEBATES	1749
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party This was his concluding statement, and I quote:
If you want neither communism nor socialism, set Social Credit against them, for into your hands it becomes a terrible weapon against these two enemies.
I should also like to quote U.S. presidents and financiers such as, for instance, the former Canadian Finance Minister, the Honourable Donald Fleming who stated in 1959:

I emphasize that the government of Canada has no power of control whatsoever over the money supply.

And the Right Honourable Reginald McKenna stated, and I quote:

Those who control the credit of a nation direct the policy of its government and hold in their hands the destiny of the people.

And in a book on political economy entitled "Understanding the Canadian Economy", Mr. W. Trimble stated, and I quote:

We have already learned that the most important kind of money is credit created out of thin air by the banking system. Ninety-five per cent of the volume of business in Canada uses money that isn't there. Banks lend it out of nowhere to people, and when it is paid back, it returns to nowhere. It can't be seen, yet it can make the difference between full employment and mass unemployment. Most of the revenue of banks is interest on money that does not exist.

When Senator Louis T. McFadden remarked that our financial system was an imitation of the American system, he said, and I quote:

The federal reserve (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.

And further on, President Andrew Jackson stated, and I quote:

If Congress has the right under the constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or to corporations.

And on page 394 of the proceedings and evidence of the Committee on Banking, Trade
December 9, 1969

Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party and Commerce, one finds the following question put to the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Graham Towers, and I quote:

Question: Will you tell me why a government with power to create money should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which Parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?


Mr. Graham Towers:: Now, if Parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of Parliament.

The Right Hon. Prime Minister Mackenzie King said on June 27th, 1934, as reported in Hansard:

As I said the other evening, once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.

United States President John Adams said in 1787, and 1 quote:

All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arises, not from the defects of the constitution or confederation-not from want of honour or virtue so much as from down right ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.

I could cite hundreds of other statements by financiers and economists who said before us what we are repeating about the control of finance in Canada.
The explanations and the quotations I have just given justify the Ralliement Creditiste's wish to change our present financial system and to give Parliament a necessary and absolute authority as regards control over issuance of money and creation of credit.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In my opinion, the lengthy list of authorities in that field is sufficient to convince us that it is urgent and imperative for parliament to bring about the necessary solutions to the present financial problems. To those who claim that Social Credit is wrong-which is not yet proved-I retort that the present system has already proved without any shade of doubt that it is wrong.
For example, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been talking for some time about inflation. The steps he advocates to fight it

remind me of firemen who, to fight a fire, will stir it up.
Inflation is the result of the present financial system. Creditistes are charged, often through ignorance, with wanting to establish an inflationist system in the country.
Inflation is here in Canada right now, and growing daily, and yet we do not have Social Credit. There are two potential causes for inflation: scarcity of money or scarcity of products. When products are in short supply, prices go up, but that is not our problem for the time being since there is no scarcity of products in Canada.
Scarcity of money can also be a cause of price increase, or inflation. When consumers are short of money, strikes occur; they in turn result in salary increases, which contribute to higher prices. That is the only cause for the inflation we are experiencing in 1969.
A shortage of purchasing power forces consumers to claim higher wages, which brings about price increases. Increases in salaries because of strikes, tax increases by all governments, interest rate increases at all levels, those are the three main reasons why prices get higher, thus downgrading the purchasing power. Increases in expenses for consumption are followed by a reduction in the purchasing power and by an increase in production costs.
We suggest that, to fight inflation, we must achieve an economic equilibrium between production and consumption by a well-balanced purchasing power. Our economic system is made of three elements: production, distribution and consumption.
It is proven that our wealth distribution system is wrong and inadequate since it does not permit the high modern production to reach the consumers.
It belongs to the governments to govern and if our financial system does not permit the distribution of the goods we are able to produce it should be replaced by another. Many backward economists and theoricians say that consumption should be financed by production. We, creditists, say that because of the insufficient buying power resulting from the production process, a gap is caused between the total consumption prices and the total buying power resulting from this very same production.
Under the present system, people try to close this gap by means of mortgages or debts on the future. They try to close this gap by putting into the consumers' pockets money obtained through getting into debt, so that this debt money and the money earned
December 9, 1969

through the production process, may enable the citizens to buy goods.
This is a fallacy which may be worded as follows: Buy today the production of yesterday with the money of to-morrow. Or to put it differently: Incur debts for the future generations to live today with the production of yesterday!
Adam Smith, the world-renowned economist and author of the Wealth of Nations stated in connection with the objective of production:

Consumption is the sole aim and purpose of production.

The aim of production is consumption. Our economic system is made up of three areas: production, consumption and distribution, and nobody now believes production to be lacking, because all provinces, social classes, manufacturers and sellers, at any level, are faced with the so-called problem of production and even overproduction, as we are told.
And in the meantime, all provincial governments, and every city and municipality are faced with social problems. They are a prey to misery, poverty, or the victim of regional disparities despite abundance.
Production is not lacking, yet consumption is inadequate. Two thirds of mankind have to do without the bare necessaries of life in 1969. In Canada, the problem is similar. Why? Because our distribution system of goods and services does not work, or works inadequately-
We suggest therefore that the federal government, which controls the issue of money and credit in the country, should keep in circulation an amount of money equal to the total amount of production.
In other words-and that is easy to understand-the amount of money in circulation should be based on the total amount of production. If the production in Canada is worth $72 billion in 1969, the government should maintain economic balance through the Bank of Canada by circulating $72 billion by which it is always possible to buy for $72 billion worth of the production proposed to the Canadian people.
But, under the present system, there are about $50 billion in circulation whereas the production of goods and services is worth $72 billion. One should not try to pour a gallon of
DEBATES	1751
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party liquid into a quart container or to put a ton of anything in a 500-pound bag or 72 gallons of gasoline into a 50-gallon container.
How then should $72 billion production be distributed with a purchasing power of $50 billion? Social Credit wants to balance the Canadian purchasing power against the global volume of production, that is to say, to base the amount of circulating currency on production. Money should serve production and production should be subordinated to consumption. Money is a medium of exchange and the money in circulation should be equal to the value of goods to be exchanged.
Does not the federal government issue as many stamps as are needed to post all the letters of this country? Stamps have a specific face value and they are issued according to postal requirements. We have nothing to say against this.
Money has also a nominal value and there should enough of it to match production. Why should there be a lack of drinking water in the house when lakes, rivers and municipal reservoirs are full, if not because the water system, that is the aqueduct is out of order or too small?
Why should one freeze in the house when the tank is full of fuel oil, if not because the heating system which distributes the heat is out of order or is not working?
Why should the worm in the apple die of hunger, if not because the apple is too big?
Why should we die of thirst in a boat on a lake, if not because we are lying tied and bound in the bottom of the boat?
At the present time, the government is tied and bound in the bottom of the financial boat and that explains the economic paralysis in Canada.
In 1935, the Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. William Lyon MacKenzie King, promised during the election campaign to fight big finance, but once in office, he failed to do it. Once more, the capitalists won without having to fight and the people were once again deceived.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I would like to suggest some practical solutions to the problem of finance in Canada, as well as to the distribution of wealth. We have proposals to make to the government which unfortunately, is tied and bound in the bottom of the financial boat while people are starving even in a period of abundance.
1752	COMMONS DEBATES	December 9. 1969
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party The first thing I would like to deal with is the following:

(1)	Restoration to the sovereign community of effective control of money in all its forms and
(2)	The establishment by the Canadian Parliament of the machinery which would secure regular equation between the community's production and the community's purchasing power.
Social Credit supplies the principles upon which such machinery can be constructed. In brief these principles are as follows:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The setting up of the Credit Authority, consisting of statistical experts whose duty it will be to draw up a statement of consumption and production of consumer's goods for a convenient period expressed in terms of dollars at current prices. This account would be drawn up at the end of each accounting period and would provide the measure of the extra money needed by the people to buy all the goods produced. The results of one period's production and consumption would provide the basis of the issue of extra money for the ensuing period and it follows that the extra money to equate consumption with production would in this way be based on the amount of goods produced but unsold in the earlier period.
Two methods of issuing the extra money are proposed and they are inseparable if the method is to be technically sound. This feature cannot be overemphasized. They are the dividend and the scientific price discount. Purchasing power can be increased either by increasing incomes without an increase in prices, or by lowering prices leaving incomes unchanged.
The dividend will increase incomes and in theory would be paid as a right to every member of the community although expediency might dictate that it should be used to pension the aged, give greater educational facilities or improve services in some other desirable way. The price discount would apply to all retail sales and would be a fiat rate calculated according to the figures in the hands of the Credit Accountants.
The essential point is that together the price discount and the dividend would make up the deficiency of purchasing power in the hands of the consumers.
If we take token figures and put production at 10 and consumption at 7-if the dividend distributed one unit then the price discount would be 20 per cent and thereby the whole of the gap would be made up.
If the discount were 20 per cent, all retail prices would be marked down by that rate and the retailers would be reimbursed by an issue of credit which would be debited to the Credit Account. Just like the present system of finance as has been explained, the Social Credit system would be a system of bookkeeping. The difference would be that the issue of money would be based on the amount of goods in existence and would be a true representation of the physical facts instead of one in which poverty and unemployment exist simultaneously in a rich land. The price discount is the supreme discovery of Major Douglas because it offers a means of translating into accountancy the truth that the cost of production is consumption. The physical cost of producing is the amount of energy used in

that production. That means the food, etc., consumed by the producers. The financial cost under the present system includes factors which do not represent food etc., consumed, and the books are falsified. The price discount by enabling goods to be sold below financial cost would bring the books into line with physical facts.

These explanations summed up in the motion debated today, would allow Canadians to enjoy a logical, sensible and well-balanced economic system. Production could reach the consumers, thus enabling about 100,000 families who are at present living on family allowances, to work and produce for the benefit of all Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this debate and I have no hesitation in saying so. The motion and the speech that has just been made by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) raise serious and important questions and I hope that the members of the House will give these questions the attention that they deserve. I confess that it is not my intention to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Shefford regarding federal-provincial relations. That is another subject of great importance. Neither is it my intention to delve into the particular financial or monetary theories which are involved in the motion that is before us. Those theories will be defended by my friends of the Rallie-ment Creditiste. They no doubt will be attacked by members of the other parties. It is a debate we have had a good many times in this House.
However, Mr. Speaker, I welcome most strongly the motion placed before this House which suggests in paragraph (2) that a first charge on the production of this nation should be the guarantee of minimum living expenses to every Canadian. There are many ways in which to phrase that proposal, but I submit that in whatever way one puts it, it relates to the most important question facing this country, namely the absolute necessity of our abolishing povety in Canada. I agree with my hon. friends that branching out into various side issues is not the way to abolish poverty, nor will we do so by concerning ourselves with other things. We should come directly to the problem and see to it that we get the means of livelihood into the hands of all our people.
Surely, it is not necessary for us to stress the urgency of the poverty problem, but I do
December 9, 1969

have two or three press clippings or quotations that I should like to put on the record, a couple of which came into my hands a few days ago.
A press dispatch from Vienna quoted Mr. Maurice Strong, the President of the Canadian International Development Agency, who made a speech at the Vienna Development Institute in that city recently. Mr. Strong spoke about the blight of poverty as it hangs over our world and I should like to quote a couple of sentences from the report of his speech.
It is not realistic to expect the people of the less developed countries to reach the level of affluence of the developed countries in the foreseeable future, Strong said. But dire poverty forcing people to live in sub-human conditions has to be overcome.
Then, there is this direct quotation from Mr. Strong:
"Today for the first time in history this is a practical proposition. I share the conviction of those who say that if it is not done, civilized life on our planet may not survive much beyond the end of this century.
A new dark age is not a vague threat. It is a real possibility."
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
That is the world picture. Mr. Strong went to some lengths to make it clear that the gap between the rich and the poor, the gap between the have and the have-not nations, is actually growing and that it can engulf our whole civilization unless we do something about it. That clipping, incidentally, came into my hands almost at the same time as another which includes a photograph of a certain family, underneath which are these words:
Aristotle Onassis and his wife Jacqueline, the former Mrs. John Kennedy, have managed to spend between $15 and $20 million since their marriage last year. Big spender? Not really... not when you have nine residences which have a total of 202 servants on duty at all times around the world.
I shall not comment on that, Mr. Speaker; I have simply read it into the record. But I suggest that these two clippings taken together, on the one hand, poverty so harsh that it could engulf our civilization and, on the other, downright sinful affluence, present a situation about which we simply must be concerned.
Lest we think this problem is not so much domestic as it is international, I would remind hon. members again of the forthright statement made to us in the Fifth Annual Report of the
DEBATES	1753
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party Economic Council of Canada in that important chapter on poverty:
Poverty in Canada is real. Its numbers are not in the thousands, but the millions. There is more of it than our society can tolerate, more than our economy can afford, and far more than existing measures and efforts can cope with. Its persistence at a time when the bulk of Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world is a disgrace.
Further on in the course of this chapter the Economic Council points out that 27 per cent of the people in the non-farm population of Canada are living below the poverty line, and that the figure is 29 per cent if one includes both farm and non-farm population. The Council does give different sets of figures, and it says that in some cases the statistics given may be a little high. But it states on page 110 of the report that to describe at least one Canadian in every five as suffering from poverty would not appear to be an exaggeration.
So, Mr. Speaker, the problem is with us; it is with us in the world, and it is with us in Canada. I do not blame the members of the Ralliement des Creditistes for giving us once again their theories. Some hon. members on the other side will probably tell us that their theories are silly-that is the word which is often applied to them. But I suggest they are not half as silly as the principles upon which we are working in this country today, the principles which leave us with a few people who enjoy great affluence while at least a fifth, and probably a quarter, of those who live in Canada endure dire and degrading poverty. We have got to cope with this issue. We have got to solve it.
It seems to me that sometime, soon, we must face the fact that there is no easy solution, no magic trick, no financial, fiscal or monetary formula which, if put on the books, will solve the problem. The fact is, we must get more goods and services, more housing, more education, more health care, more money into the possession of all our people. Therefore, when my friends on my immediate left talk about the desirability of making arrangements which would provide a guaranteed annual income for all our people I am happy to stand in this House and commend them for having brought this issue to our attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
interesting that a topic such as this should be
1754	COMMONS DEBATES	December 9, 1969
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party the subject of debate in the House of Commons during the very week in which a federal-provincial conference has spent a fair amount of time discussing the question of income security and income protection. I am not completely satisfied with the position the federal government took in the white paper which was tabled last week, but I must say it is so much better than any position I thought this government would take, that I am pleased with it. I am pleased that the federal government has said that it is a national, a federal responsibility, to be concerned about providing or protecting the incomes of all our people. I hope I am not misinterpreting the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if I see it in this light. He is saying, it seems to me: We must maintain family allowances under federal control so that we can do something about the income position of the young; we must keep old age pensions under our control so that we can protect the incomes of people who have retired; for those in the in-between group, we must keep unemployment insurance under our control and we must also, as the federal government, be responsible for sickness insurance and income maintenance. So today there is talk about a guaranteed annual income. What puzzles me in the words I have heard from the Prime Minister this week, in the white paper, and in the radio and television despatches, is a line of his which goes something like this: It is our responsibility to be concerned for people, and to do something for them, when they are poor, when they are unemployed, when they are ill, when they are old, and so on.
Can we not get to the point at which we do things for people in Canada simply because they are people? It is this eternal categorizing of people as poor, as unemployed, as welfare cases, which bedevils any attempt to build a just and humane society in Canada. We have to get the means of livelihood to the people as people. This is why I welcome the language in the second part of the resolution under which a portion of our national product would be distributed to all the Canadian people simply because they are Canadians, simply because they are human beings, simply because they are here.
Most hon. members who have been around half as long as I have been here, let alone all the time, know how strongly I have felt during all my public life about means tests and incomes tests. I think they are degrading because of the reasons I have just tried to put forward; they pick out people not as human beings but as welfare statistics. The day will

come when we shall get away from that attitude and, instead, provide goods, services and money for people just because they are here, just because they are Canadians.
It is the universality of the concept in the second part of the resolution which appeals to me. I think this is a concept we shall have to adopt if there is to be any question of a just society, of a more humane society, of any kind of society with any heart in it at all. I come back to what the Prime Minister has been saying in the last few days, both in the white paper and to the federal-provincial conference. I welcome his insistence that the protection of incomes must be a federal responsibility so that there may be a sense of community among Canadians from coast to coast. I commend him for it. But my heart sinks when I hear him destroy this concept by saying, in effect, that we can only do things for people when they are old, or sick, or unemployed or otherwise disadvantaged. We do not provide education on this basis. We do not provide roads or postal services-if we still have postal services-or national defence on this basis. All these things, and many others, we provide on a universal basis. They are here for all of us.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I think that a certain standard of living for all of us must come, and that it will come. I have no doubt in my mind that it will come, even if it takes two or three decades. Therefore, it hurts me to see the Prime Minister, who poses as a progressive, a modern thinker, a swinger, talking this old language of doing things for people because they are in need. In other words, he means a means test, he means a needs test, he means a shelving of the principle of universality, which I think is the only principle upon which we can build a just society.
I know the cry will come back that this kind of a just society will cost money. I would not be surprised if this cry comes in the speech that will be made when I sit down. It will be said that it is going to cost a lot of money to pay everyone a guaranteed income. The first thing I do in answer to that is to pick up the fifth annual review published by the Economic Council of Canada and read a sentence that appears at page 105:
It has been estimated in the United States that one poor man can cost the public purse as much as $140,000 between the ages of 17 and 57.
I suggest the U.S. government could have given such a poor man $3,000 a year all those years and still be ahead. In the process you
December 9, 1969

might have made him a human being instead of just another welfare statistic.
Let me move on and say that I do not quite agree with my hon. friends in the Ralliement des Creditistes who express the notion that the solution is easily accomplished; that if you pass the right bills, fiddle with the books, issue credit, print money and so on, you can solve the problem. I do not think you can solve the problem in that way. I think what has to happen is that we must produce all of the goods and services we can, and that we have to distribute and redistribute those goods and services on the basis that as a first priority there must be a guaranteed minimum income for all our people. If this means challenging the myth about a wage and salary elite, then I am all for it. If it means that we cannot go on expounding the old theory that if you have a lot of wealthy people this wealth will trickle on down, then I am all for it.
I know that what I say now will be unpopular, but I deplore the suggestion being made these days by public representatives that they should receive more pay so that they can do their work better.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: They do not all have your absence of personal responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: knew that would evoke some comment. But somebody has to give the lead in this matter, and who better than the elected representatives, who better than members of parliament? The more we try to solve the problems of the poor by granting salaries that are high at the top, the more we will widen the gap and the more unjust our society will become. If helping the poor means taxation, cutting into the concept of a wage and salary elite, then I am all for it. It will be costly, yes; but the cost might be worthwhile if we realize that what is at stake is the saving of our society, the saving of our civilization.
The Economic Council of Canada has said that unless we can cope with the problems of poverty, we can go under. Maurice Strong has said about the world that unless we can cope with the problems of poverty, "civilized life on our planet may not survive much beyond the end of this century"; that "a new dark age is not a vague threat, it is a real possibility".
I see that 20 minutes pass very quickly, Mr. Speaker, but I hope I have made my point. I am not getting into an argument about Social
DEBATES	1755
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party Credit theory, but I do suggest that those opposite who say that Social Credit is silly had better show us that what they have is not just as silly, or maybe moreso. I suggest that what is really important in this day and age is to put a stop to the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor. This will be done not in some indirect fashion but by establishing a guaranteed standard of living for all our people, a standard that must be guaranteed to every man, woman and child in Canada. In my view this has the very first claim on the production of this country.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to follow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), firstly because our respective constituencies are across the street from one another, and secondly because I think he is a member of parliament from whom a young or recently elected member can learn a lot.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Have you learned anything?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I hope I will always learn something. I am not going to criticize the intent of the motion moved by the member of the Ralliement des Creditistes. I am sure that the intent is good, though I find it difficult to understand its significance and the solutions that have been proposed.
Having said that, I acknowledge that there are problems in our monetary system, and that conventional wisdom does not seem to be coming up with too many answers. Therefore, as far as I can see, there is no reason why we should not listen to somebody whose solutions I find difficulty in understanding.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre talked about people in business. I am also going to talk about people. People can be fed and housed only if money is generated. In the world today, money is generated by employment. If the hon. member would listen he might find wisdom in what I say.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I am listening.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Jobs have to be created by business. Businesses that provide the tax base of this country and supply funds for welfare purposes are not able to expand at the present time as much as they should. For example, a man telephoned the other day and asked me whether there was any way of knowing when the tight money policy of the government is likely to end because he had three or four very worthwhile contracts for work. He told me he was running out of
1756	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party money and that he would have to get out of his business unless he could find financial backing. I asked him what happened when he went to the bank. He told me that the bank with which he had been dealing for some 20 years would not give him any credit. I asked him what kind of collateral he had, and he informed me he had a house worth $25,000 which was subject to a mortgage of $2,000, but his bank would not consider giving him a mortgage.
He asked me what he should do, and whether I could talk to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) about it. 1 replied, of course, that I could not talk to the minister about it and I did not know what he could do. However, I did tell him what his problem was. I said his problem was that the bank was making so much money out of Chargex, credit cards, red convertible loans and all that sort of nonsense that they would not take a mortgage on his house so that he could expand his business and provide work for people in my constituency. It was as simple as that. If the banks will not put up this sort of money, then I do not know who will. It is terrible to admit that you are being fooled by people who keep insisting that the government's tight money policy is causing monetary problems when you know damn well that these people choose to allocate their funds to the high profit areas of investment that have no social significance whatsoever. If this deduction is true, and I think it is, then I suggest the so-called lack of funds that we are supposed to have today is not as severe as alleged.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I would say also it is perfectly obvious at this point that the banks are not going to play ball by helping anybody, from the Government down to the average fellow who does need a loan, unless they are compelled to do so. Loans to businessmen have dried up; mortgage money has disappeared and if housing bogs down it will bog down because it is impossible to get funds at anything like a decent rate of interest in order to pump those funds into much needed housing. The banks will tell us they are lending their money to the farmer or to somebody else and that they are doing such and such. Like hell they are. What they are doing is putting their money out on short term consumer loans at exorbitant rates of interest.
Credit may be a provincial matter, but banks come under the federal government. If the sort of thing I maintain is true can be

DEBATES	December 9, 1969
proven by the facts and figures available to the minister, then I suggest the federal government must do something about it. The federal government is committed to solving the problem of regional disparity, problems regarding the provision of equality of opportunity, getting on with urban renewal and providing adequate housing-a million home in the next five years-pollution control, etc. All these things will have to be done by direct injection of public money or by some form of manipulation of existing money markets. I would much prefer to see some form of manipulation of the money markets, because I think this would be more efficient than having government agencies getting into the act with more and more government departments.
While there is a lot of talk about wage and price controls, and a lot of people in my area want to see these imposed, the real thing we should be considering is credit control. Why should we allow costly loans for luxury items? Why should we allow anybody to make the personal choice of getting a loan for a third car or even a second car in most cases? Why should we allow people to get loans to purchase mink coats or other luxury items when there is a lack of credit in significant areas of social need? There is no reason in the world why some form of credit control should not be imposed, in order to comply with the priorities set in this Parliament under the leadership of the government of Canada.
We need more money for urban renewal, for housing, for expansion of businesses and in other areas which are accomplishing constructive and useful things. The present voluntary restraints on prices and wages do not seem to be working and they certainly are not doing anything in the way of making money available where it is needed most. Even if voluntary restraints did work, they would still work hardships because they would not work evenly throughout the whole country. If they worked in Toronto and slowed things down, they would slow things too much in Winnipeg, Halifax and other places.
One of the most sensible approaches to this whole problem is in that area of credit control. This way we can decide upon our priorities and see that credit is used to further the growth of the country along the lines of those priorities. Let us take hold of credit and make it work for the good of all of us in Canada rather than against us.
December 9, 1969


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, while considering the motion before the house, as a citizen of Alberta, I might simply say that the first paragraph of the said motion is the substance of it and that the remainder is old hat. I read and heard the same suggestions 35 years ago-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: You failed to understand them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: People tried to apply the Social Credit system, but it fizzled out and they gave up.
What is the substance of this motion? It is the monetary policy of the Ralliement Creditiste.

I well recall the years from 1933 to 1939 and those propositions advanced by the Social Credit Party which are, in many ways, reflected by the detail in the subparagraphs of this motion. Certainly, the question of a national dividend is not new. This was discussed and there was an attempt made to initiate such a dividend. I well remember scrip money.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No. Besides, the hon. member has already spoken. Moreover, my time is limited to 20 minutes.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed one question only?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, not right now. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not afraid of replying to the hon. member's question but may I be given at least the courtesy to finish my speech without interruption.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I can understand in some ways the motivations of the hon. member in putting forward these ideas in this type of motion. Hon. members of his party have been stirring around in my province trying to organize some of the old time Social Creditors to come forward and resurrect some of these ideas. It would appear that there is very little attention being paid to them.
I do not think there is much quarrel about some of the observations or diagnoses of the shortcomings of our society as described by
DEBATES	1757
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau). He is more familiar with his region than I am. That is also true of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier). We will differ radically on the emphasis to be placed on certain aspects and on the methods we may suggest to correct certain of the ills of our society. If we had to accept the views of only one person we would not have a democracy.
I can certainly argue against some of the points put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He was advocating some sort of wartime control on credit to discourage the consumption of goods. I should like to know what all those people engaged in the fur industry in Winnipeg for instance would be doing were this to be the case. I suppose one can store any amount of goods on the shelves indefinitely without having to replace them. The number would then have to work with some sort of unemployment pool, unless he knows of other means to immediately employ those people who would be out of work because they were not producing those goods and services curtailed by the restrictions he wishes to impose.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We, as a society, can never produce all the goods or services we want. Everyone always wants more. We look for a better life. We look toward alleviating, shall we say, some of the discrepancies that have arisen in our society in respect of individuals either culpably or because of circumstances beyond their control. I do not believe anyone has any monopoly in the degree of concern for one's fellow man. Having said that, however, I cannot accept, for instance, the principles which are accepted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning an egalitarian universality, because I do not believe we were all created with the same qualities nor can we be directed in the same actions. If he can guarantee that with universality all individuals will be so controlled that they will not culpably place themselves in a position of want, in other words, that there shall not be waste, shall not be abuse, shall not be discrimination, shall not be cupable laziness or any of these things, then perhaps the principle of universality might be one that has some reliability.
On the other hand, that shall not happen. So, therefore, why say that you are going to, shall we say, by way of tax redistribute income? After all, income is a measure of the
1758	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party return for the goods and services produced. Income is the measure. For example, the good farmer will receive a greater return than the poor farmer. The poor farmer may be on poorer land, but there are farmers who have less ability than others and there are men in business who have much less ability than others. This variation, I suggest, will always exist. It is one philosophy to say to everyone that because they are men or women they will be entitled to so much income or will be entitled to enjoy so many goods and services and no more because if they do produce more it will be taken away from them and given to others. That is a complete egalitarian philosophy.
But, on the other hand, I say to the Chef du Ralliement-

-to the leader of the Ralliement credi-tiste, who has been constantly preaching us in this House, that we must not tax the "haves" in favour of the "have-nots", because before long, there would only be "have-nots".

In other words, you cannot tax to transfer income from the "haves" to the "have-nots", at least in the context of the many repeated remarks of the Leader of the Social Credit Rally (Mr. Caouette). But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the fact that we do have an insufficiency of goods and services, we must progress faster in exercising the priorities or demands of government and we must also proceed to determine the appropriate allocation of the resources. At the present time the public sector, federal, provincial and municipal, tax upwards of 37 per cent of the gross national product. It is estimated on good authority that on the basis of the actions of government at all three levels the demands of education, medicare, social welfare and other programs within the next five years will require 41 per cent of the gross national product.
It is very instructive, however, to note that in order to achieve that 4 per cent increase in the allocation of resources to the public sector it will require 45 per cent of the increase in the gross national product over the next five years. I would point out that this certainly would not be acceptable in my province, nor in any developing province, where people are prepared to work extra long hours. They are not bound by the hours of a negotiated agreement. They will work extra hours. They will absorb the worry involved in arranging for

DEBATES	December 9, 1969
credit, meeting payrolls or obtaining other resources by using some of the ingenuity the good Lord gave them and some of the extra courage that is given to man to produce more. That is how we increase our gross national product. That is how we develop our country. This is how this country was developed so that we are able to sit here today, in this generation, and enjoy the resources we have.


Mr. Laniel:: That is what Germany did after the war.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Are we to
say to a man, a woman or a particular industry-people grouped in that industry-shall be penalized by extra heavy taxation so that the fruits of their extra labour may be distributed to others? This I do not believe Canadians as a whole are prepared to accept. We do not have that acceptance of an egalitarian society.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I will say this: I recognize it is my duty morally as a citizen of this country to assist my fellow man, but I will not accept that I must provide him with three mattresses on which he may lie for the rest of his life. I will provide him with assistance and encouragement so that he can become self-reliant and can produce. But, except in the case of those who are incapable by reason of illness, infirmity or circumstances beyond their control, I would say we as Canadians believe that every penny and every dollar spent for what is called the welfare of the public must be earned by somebody. It must be earned and it must be paid over to the government. The ability to support that type of expenditure is limited. It is like a business where the owner or those in control thereof-they can be shareholders-milk much more than the profit from the business. In other words, if the owner lives off the shelf of his inventory that business will die. In the same way our economy will die if we continue to draw more than we require to maintain the level of production, to renew our production and to increase our production.
Our Canadian society will improve with respect to its cultural achievements and its social justice only on the basis that the people themselves will work to increase the base upon which we can draw for the necessary funds, the necessary energy, and the necessary personnel required to carry out what might be called public activities. But if we are going to turn everything into the government, into the public sector, where are the
December 9, 19G9

people who will work in the public sector? From where will they be drawn? From the other pools? We do not have a shelf of trained people in this country. We are underpopulated. We are under-skilled, and yet we find proposals that would make us prodigal of our resources.
I would say it is far better for us to proceed on the basis that we can preserve our economy, that we can make it expand and thereby encourage not only our own people to produce, but others to come here. It may come as a shock to hon. members to know that our birth rate has reached the point where we are barely renewing our population. We are at a point in the reproduction of our own population that is lower than the point in 1935, which was the previous low in Canadian history. Do we think we are going to develop this country and are going to have added population as a result of our own efforts? Of course not. We will have to rely on people who come to us from other lands. We will have to attract those people, and they are very good people, let me assure you. But they must be attracted to this land and opportunity provided for them. If we do not follow that course they will not come, and we will stand still.
I cannot find within the terms of the motion before us the type of encouragement that I would want for the society that I feel is required in order that we can put its resources together and develop our country. Of course, we will do things imperfectly, Mr. Speaker. My goodness gracious, we are human beings prone to error, subject to influences from outside this country over which we have no control.
I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) talking about interest rates. Does he feel he can unilaterally drive down interest rates by government decree, particularly since the greatest influence on our interest rates comes from the United States. There is no Watkins formula that will eliminate that influence. We are social animals in this country, just like people in any other country. We cannot isolate ourselves within our own country. We live as a result of our inter-relationship with our fel-lowman in other countries. His conditions affect us; ours affect him. We are imperfect men. We make mistakes; we made them in the past and we will continue to make them in the future. But there is one thing we can do, and that is bend our energies and capabilities toward using our resources in the best possible way so that we can develop our country. I must say I cannot find any incen-
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party tive within the terms of the motion before us to move toward that goal, and therefore I cannot support it, Mr. Speaker.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a motion presented by the Ralliement Creditiste which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, in order to remedy the economic paralysis in Canada-
1.	Financing of public funds-
2.	Distribution of a national dividend-
3.	Balancing the sum of prices attached to the Canadian national product with the purchasing power in the hands of the consumers-
Before dealing at length with the subject, since Social Credit is a subject one can speak of at length, I should like first to point out certain remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). He referred earlier to that famous recession which we experienced from 1930 to 1940. He himself was one of those who were clothed by Canadians to go and fight for freedom on the battlefields of Europe for quite a substantial salary, following a very serious recession. In fact, the Canadian people found a way to feed those freedom fighters, to clothe them and to make it possible for them to throw bombs over Germany in the name of freedom.
Today, we experience an unacceptable inflation. One day I had a discussion with an economist and he told me that inflation is worse than the recession we experienced from 1930 to 1940. In fact, we all know that with $1 we cannot do much today.
If the hon. member for Edmonton West were intelligent, he would give intelligent explanations throughout Canada. In my opinion, this hon. member is nothing but the ombudsman of the loan sharks. He keeps on advocating a long obsolete system. In 1900, the explanation he gave would have been acceptable, for at that time Social Credit was practically unknown.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
He accuses us of always repeating that we do not want to tax the rich in order to give to the poor. But this is simply communism and we are against communism. We want some purchasing power to be made available both to the rich and to the poor so that they may all lead a comfortable life in a country as rich as ours.
He went on to say that further credit is not advisable, since it would step up the pace of evolution, thus increasing inflation.
1760	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party
I wonder whether the chartered banks, whose profits have increased by 29 per cent, now suffer from inflation? Does inflation only affect chartered banks? The hon. member for Edmonton West is anxious to keep on extending his protection to those who are reaping extravagant profits and he does not see the dire poverty now prevailing.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, in supporting the motion introduced by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), I thought of conveying to the House the ideal, which is ours, we of the Ralliement Credi-tiste. I urge the members of all other parties who are willing to share it to follow the example of the Liberal member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) and to resign from their party in order to freely express their opinions. Provided they have the same courage, they should, with the help of the former Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), join the ranks of free people like us, as we have no financial ties and no election funds to dictate our policy. Let them consider seriously the proposals we are making today and let them not hesitate to join us, so that all people of goodwill may join together to have justice done.
In order to show that even the government sometimes understands this problem, I should like to quote the statements made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), in San Francisco, on December 1 last and I quote:
Few problems are more disturbing than that of permanent and oppressive poverty. That such poverty should exist in Canada, as shown in the report of our Economic Council, is a disgrace.
The Minister of Justice added the following:
It is useless to explain the nature of poverty to the poor, they know it quite well. They feel helplessness and despair as wounds, and destitution, as frustrations. They know what it means to live in dilapidated houses, to have no other park than the cracked street pavement and no other animal life than the rodents infesting their home. No task force impression is more vivid of mind and depressing of spirit than those formed amid the blight and slum of Canada's larger cities.
In the most dilapidated downtown areas; ... poverty stares you in the face. It can be seen, heard, tasted, felt.
The poor know what it is to live tossed about by sickness, family quarrels, interrupted studies and chronic unemployment. They know what it is to be victims of debts, discouragement, bondage and delinquency.
The first physical need of the poor is that of decent lodging. Goodwill goes to waste in yards littered with rubbish, half-torn walls, gaping windows, cold radiators and drippy ceilings. The poor live in slums, and the slums make new poor.

DEBATES	December 9, 1969
If the Minister of Justice can make such statements and yet, in cabinet, cannot make himself heard, he can see the destitution even though he finds no solution. As early as tomorrow, he should recommend the study of the motion we have moved to the cabinet, so that, once and for all, all economic problems can be solved; and the shameless destitution be done away with; for if we can reach the moon, we can also feed humanity.
I agree with him: let us allow every family head to have a home of his own. But this cannot be done at interest rates of 10 and 11 per cent, such as we now have. Our minister can come out with those statements, but I wonder if he has spoken to the house of the paralysis of the Canadian economy.
Unfortunately, we notice that, the problem exists but when the time comes to correct it, we do not have the courage to denounce the financial sharks. The government is not firm enough.
So, here is what we advocate. I want to define clearly that we propose in order to help building up a country that belongs to the Canadians.
Everybody understands now that it is certainly not by lending money at an interest rate of 11 per cent or more, that we are going to save Canada.
Indeed, it is not by lending money to farmers at an interest rate of 9 per cent that we are going to help the agricultural class. It is not by letting the municipalities borrow money in Germany that we are going to solve the problem of inflation. It is not by allowing Quebec Hydro to borrow money on the American market at an interest rate of 11 per cent that we will reduce the cost of living, because already the province of Quebec, which is in serious financial situation, finds it difficult to borrow money. Let us refer, in this regard, to the requests of Premier Bertrand. Finally, it is not by imposing new taxes as it is intended for 1971, particularly on capital gains, that we will encourage Canadians to invest in Canada.
Let me analyse the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) concerning the taxing of capital gains. I think it is unsafe and, in my opinion, it will discourage private enterprise. Besides, I will give only one example to show how the government is ready to enforce an unjust legislation.
If an individual purchased bonds in 1965 at $5 each, when taxing him on capital gains they will decide to take as a basis the present lower market prices.
December 9, 19G9
Those shares may be worth $3 today, but if, as is quite probable, prices resume their upward trend in 1974 or 1975, the Minister of Finance will be collecting taxes on a loss of $2 per share.
So I feel that the act is unfair. That is why I urge the Minister of Finance to reshape it in order to avoid inequities, because all those who invested their money in Canadian companies will otherwise invest it in American companies, which would lead to a drain of Canadian capital to o her countries as our Canadian economy is stifled by the Minister of Finance who fails to pay heed to the voice of reason, or if you like to that of Creditistes.
Having said this, I should like to explain above all what Creditistes are suggesting to revive the Canadian economy which is on the brink of self-destruction while politicians are unable to give it a new stimulus in order to bring it back to life.
Our economy is gnawed by the cancer of inflation; it needs a new heart. Why not put new life into the dying through a Creditiste transplant?
Mr. Speaker, what I want to define now is, first, the objective of economic activity in any country, and essentially this objective is that the economy must meet human needs. As we understand it, under the present system, people have to live in misery and austerity, despite the present and potential affluence which could make it possible to meet all those human needs.
When studying the present monetary system and its effects, one notes that the major cause of disorder derives mainly, if not solely, from the fact that the consumers do not have enough money.
To confirm the statements of social credit supporters, let us remember those words that the great international financier, Vincent Cartwright Vickers, governor of the Bank of England, said in 1939, before dying, and I quote:
With the help of nature, man is now able to produce more than he can consume, more food than he can eat, more clothing than he can wear, more housing than he needs.
If producers can increase their production, if ships, railways and other means of transportation are waiting to carry the resources and to provide the services they have to offer, the fault must lie with the consumer. Why does the latter paralyse trade, industry and world progress, and why does he prevent the advent of a durable peace by deliberately refusing all the good things that the world
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party puts at his disposal? The answer is obvious. The consumer cannot afford to buy more because he does not have enough money. Unless one is prejudiced, the only possible conclusion is that the health and welfare of the individual, the happiness of the community and world peace depend mostly if not entirely on the monetary problem.
Of the amounts that business concerns transfer to the consumers, only a part is distributed to them, as revenue, as a payment for their services. The rest is transferred to other businesses as a payment for raw materials and equipment. As a result, the purchasing power of individuals does not enable them to buy the entire production. This theory has been criticized and not without some unfairness. The sums paid to other businesses, as has been noted, finally result in the distribution of income, since these other businesses also have to pay the services of the production factors used by them. This is undoubtedly true, but the payments as a whole are made only after an extremely long delay. This means that the purchasing power distributed in the course of production is never enough to buy the entire production whose value would keep on increasing. Douglas's thesis would therefore be valid on the "dynamic" plan.
"It would be true to say that the national income would be equal to the national production", writes Douglas, "if all wages, salaries and dividends related to production were used at the very moment they have been earned so as to purchase the production that distributed them." But such is not the case and over the gap between production and distribution is erected a mass of on credit buying power which never appears as income.
And so, the solution would be to adjust the global buying power to the global amount of the production prices. The Social Credit proposes to make this adjustment of the buying power necessary to the purchasing of the whole production and to the satisfaction of the consumers' needs in so far as the national economy permits by distributing a national dividend to each and every citizen, and by adjusting periodically the prices to the current buying power, so as to stop inflation.
A national dividend paid periodically to every citizen and the compensated discount are the two aspects of the plan for the distribution of wealth and services proposed by the supporters of Social Credit.
Credit is synonymous with trust. Credit is given to a trustworthy person. The physician

December 9, 1969
1762	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party will enjoy the esteem of his patients and will have credit with them if they feel he can give them the care required by their condition. The pioneers who settled in America were confident that the new world would provide them with the necessities of life. That was the actual credit of America.
Many industries are starting everywhere, even in desert regions of northern Quebec. People trust to the future of Quebec and of Canada. That is the actual credit of the province of Quebec and of Canada.
The measure of the actual credit of a country, a province or a business resides in the exact evaluation of its capacity to produce and deliver the goods in sufficient quantity at the right place and at the time required by prospective consumers. More specifically, the actual credit of the wealth of a country or a province can be expressed in terms of potential goods and services.
One realizes then that the actual credit is made up of two factors: the capacity to produce and the requirements to be met. Both factors are closely related. The producer of wealth that nobody wants is as useless as a consumer of goods which are not produced. The consumer is as necessary to the production of actual credit as the producer. Actual credit is a joint creation.
Not only is the consumer as essential as the producer to create actual credit but the community as a whole is even more essential. From the economic point of view, a nation is an association of people engaged in the production of actual credit and thus, the government, as the guardian of actual credit of the community, must also protect the interests of both producers and consumers, since both are equally essential to the creation of actual credit.
However, since producers and consumers form together the whole community, we can conclude that actual credit has a social or joint origin: it belongs neither to the producer nor to the consumer, but jointly to the community of which everyone is a part.
Therefore, actual credit is a social factor. It is common and social, because it is the basis of the entire community. It derives its efficiency from the producers and the consumers; from the producers, acting as suppliers of capital and entrepreneurs, as well as the producers working with their own hands and their brains for the common task of developing the country and the whole world.


On the other hand, the other basis consists of the consumers. For instance, we know that a shoe factory would not be worth anything if the users of shoes decided to go barefoot, in the same way as a refrigerator factory is unthinkable at the North Pole, because there are no consumers, no buyers of that product in that area.
Therefore, we may conclude that Social Credit, far from being only a theory, is an undeniable fact.
That is why Tudor Jones who succeeded Major Douglas as chairman of the Social Credit secretariat, defined Social Credit as follows:
The ability of human beings living in a society to attain the desired ends to their satisfaction.
While actual social credit-
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired unless the House unanimously consents to his continuing. Is there that consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bernard Dumont: I thank the House for allowing me to proceed with my remarks. I will try to come quickly to a close.


An hon. Member:: This does not mean that we will agree.


Bernard Dumont: Perhaps not, but to the end I will say that it is never too late to take a step in the right direction and there will always be time for approval.
The difference between actual credit and financial credit is that actual credit is based upon things, tangible goods actual or potential, whereas financial credit is based on money which, as we know, often bears no relation to things and produced wealth.
But it is clear however that financial credit based on money should reflect real credit, since money has value only if it allows to obtain things and wealth as well as to meet basic needs.
We are therefore finding out that financial credit serves to activate and to orient real credit. We know that money allows plants to operate, machines to run and workers to produce.
The banker finances the shoe manufacturer's real credit. He lends him money on
December 9, 1969

one condition only, that it be reimbursed to the bank not with shoes but with more money than was borrowed.
Here we have then the eventual consumers.
If there are no potential consumers or very few of them, the bank will make no loans at all or only a few. Financial credit is issued by the banks not to the producers of wealth considered as such, but to the producers of wealth considered also as producers of money.
As Major Douglas said: If a producer succeeds in convincing a bank that if he produces less, in other words, that in reducing production he will achieve a monopolistic position, he will certainly get a loan. One realizes that the banker is not interested in meeting the consumers' needs but rather in getting his money back with interests.
Meanwhile, we, the supporters of Social Credit and actual credit, believe that our credit is based on tangible things, on certainties, that it originates, so to speak, from the Creator's kindness, who put into earth, water and air all the resources necessary to satisfy people, and provided them with two arms, a mind and brains to make use of such wealth.
Financial credit, which should reflect actual credit, has been created by men, individuals, private organizations that can control and restrict it as they wish and can arbitrarily call for tight money during times when credit should be expanded.
In order to play its role as generator, financial credit must reflect actual credit, mesh with economic factors and consumers' needs. As Douglas said, a modern and efficient financial system should aim at expanding the consumer's credit to the limit of his capacity to produce.
What to do then? As Douglas said, provide additional purchasing power not included in the price of manufactured goods, thus stabilizing prices and enabling consumers to regain control over production.
According to Major Douglas, the price of an item with regard to its production cost, should bear the same relationship as does the production of the actual item with regard to the national consumption. Thus if an item costs $4, the consumer should be able to secure it for $3. That is the explanation of the compensated discount.
Social Credit therefore suggests to allow consumers to grant an additional purchasing power equal to the difference between production and consumption, or to decrease the
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party production price to the actual cost which is that of consumption. In the first instance, it is a matter of dividend; in the other, it is a matter of compensated discount.
We have therefore proved that actual credit is social credit, a common credit, a credit shared by everyone.
In 1934, Major Douglas testified before members of the Standing Committee on Banking and Credit. When questioned as to the source of the national dividend, he replied:
The origin of the national dividend can be explained in two ways: first by a very simply stated sentence, which is a matter of importance nowadays, a predominant factor. That is what happens, for example, when ten men are pulling a load. If each man draws on his own, they could exert their efforts for a whole week without moving the load at all, but if the ten of them take a rope and pull together, the thing comes off easily. It cannot be said that the huge increase in production made possible because of the partnership is the result of the particular efforts of one person; it comes from the group as a whole.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, we are convinced, in introducing this motion, that we are doing a service to Canadians, since we ask them to help us get rid of the tax burden and forget it altogether. Let us keep on making suggestions as we have done lately, by saying: Let us forget railroad taxes, old war debts, and let us rather build a country on the credit that we know is real, on the capabilities of the machines and the brains at our disposal. By calling upon all men of good will, since there is no shortage of products in Canada, everybody will have a home and will be happy to live in Canada, and the federal-provincial feuds of today would vanish into thin air.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take part in this debate because there have been so many conflicting viewpoints expressed. I wish to say right off the bat that many things have been said here this afternoon with which I do not agree. The last speaker, and the Creditiste members who have spoken, have treated the motion most sincerely.
What the motion is really asking us to do is to give everyone in Canada a dividend by printing more money. It suggests the Bank of Canada should give everybody a $1,000 bill or $1,000 credit which they can spend. In this way, those unfortunate people who do not have an electric stove, new car, or whatever they are lacking could buy what they want.
1764	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party There is just one flaw in this proposal. I am sure ail Canadian citizens would be glad to accept this money, but I wonder how the rest of the world would look upon it? This course has been followed on numerous occasions throughout history. I ask my very sincere friends in the Creditiste movement to read the history of Germany. Following World War I, that country printed money as if it were going completely out of style. As a result, their money became worthless. The same thing has happened to a lesser extent in Italy since World War II. That country has devalued its money at least six times, and maybe more. A short while ago France devalued its money for the second or third time since World War II.
I suggest if Canada starts printing money its dollar will be less valuable. Instead of our dollar being worth 93 cents in United States currency, it would only be worth 65 cents or 75 cents. We would lose the confidence of the financial people of the world. That is what would happen. When we would purchase goods from a foreign land, they would cost us much more. It is as simple as that. Instead of our dollar being worth 93 cents when purchasing grapefruit from California or Florida, it would only be worth 65 cents or 75 cents.
While this situation might be of benefit to the citizens of Canada in the immediate future-for about ten minutes I suggest-as soon as the financial people of the world heard about it our dollar would be devalued and they would have no confidence in the money of Canada. That is a fact, my friends, and there is no way you can argue around it. The Creditiste members are very sincere, so I hesitate to go as far as I might in saying these things. They remind me of a little girl six or eight years of age who listens with great interest when we tell her the story of Cinderella or Jack and the Beanstalk. Of course, the little girl believes it. These members also believe a fairy story. I suggest they should read about some of the things that have happened in the world in years gone by. Printing money simply does not work. It has not worked in Canada and, frankly, in the past few years we have been printing money-not $1,000 bills, but $1,000 bonds. We had been going in debt each and every year up to the moment that this great government took office. Consequently, we have this inflationary period. Money is not as valuable as it was previously because we have printed too much of it. If we print any more, it will be of less value than it is now.

DEBATES	December 9, 1969
One of the participants in the debate, I forget which one, mentioned that this inflationary period is worse than the depression and, therefore, we must do something about it. I believe it was a Creditiste member who suggested we should give a national dividend. This suggestion is also made in the second paragraph of the motion. This inflationary period cannot be underemphasized. It is a terrible thing. It is really legalized robbery, that is what it is. A small businessman or farmer who retired 15 years ago with $50,000 in bonds or cash in the bank, and who has been fortunate enough to live for the past 15 years, finds that today his $50,000 is worth only $25,000. That is what I call legalized robbery. The government must do something about inflation. I hope the steps they are taking are sufficient. If not, something further must be done. I do not hesitate to agree with our government officials, our high priced help behind the curtains, who state that something that works in wartime will not necessarily work in peacetime. I agree with that.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
But something must be done, and it may be that prices wages and profits should be pegged as they were during the last war and in other wars. Let me emphasize this, however: while inflation today is terrible, let no one think it is as bad as it was back in the 'thirties. How many homes in Canada today lack a refrigerator or electric stove? How many do not possess a radio? How many have not one, but two cars? While I have every sympathy with the poor, the fact is that the poor today are not as poor as they were yesterday and that we in Canada can stand to attention before the rest of the world and say that within reason we have done a good job. I repeat what was said by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)-the sympathy we have for our fellow human beings who are less well off or less fortunate than we are, is not limited to members of one party.
If you do not believe me, Mr. Speaker, when I say we have done reasonably well, ask those hon. members on your left which other country in the world they would prefer. Would it be Italy or France, or Russia or China? Sometimes when I hear hon. members over there, members who are not all the way to the left, asking silly questions about Russia and China, and telling us what terrible things our friends to the south are doing, I think it might be a good idea if they were to take a slow boat to China and find out how living
December 9, 1969

conditions are there. I say we can hold our heads up reasonably well in this old world. Of course there is poverty in this country of ours but over the last 25 years Canada has done a very great deal to lessen its effects. Let us remind ourselves of such things as disability pensions. Do these exist in countries all over the world? What about such things as blind persons' pensions and old age pensions? Everyone in this chamber believes old age pensions should be increased. But how many dollars a month did our grandfathers get as old age pensioners in Canada? They did not get anything at all unless they have died just lately.
We have done a reasonable job. It is true our old age pensioners need more money, but suppose we doubled the present pension from, say, $109 a month to $218 a month. It would cost us $1,400,000,000. Hon. members in the far corner suggest we should print a little money and give it to the pensioners that way. But what would be the point of printing money if next morning the dollar was worth only 50 cents?
One way in which we can improve the lot of our citizens is by hard work. This has been proved in a country like Germany; it has been proved in Japan. It is unfortunate, remembering the awful wan- we fought, that the only country Germany is jealous of today is the other country which lost the war, namely, Japan. The reason is that over there people have a great desire to do all the work they can. To the hon. members who support this motion I make the following suggestion: they should take a trip to Germany or Japan and watch the people there going to work. They do not walk to work; they run to work. They see not how little they can do, but how much. This is why only a month ago the German Deutschmark was revalued upward and made more valuable.
There are other things we can be proud of here, such as the mothers' allowance. The amount could be increased, of course. Who would not be sympathetic to a situation of a deserving mother with three or four children to bring up. We know that in some of the provinces the money provided is not sufficient. Nevertheless, it is a lot more that it was 25 years ago and it will buy a great deal more, too. Take unemployment insurance. This is something which many hon. members feel has been abused. I, too, believe abuses have taken place on many occasions. Nevertheless, its introduction represented a great step forward. Who in this chamber would suggest that veterans do not deserve more
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party money, especially those who gave their all so you and I might have an opportunity to speak as we see fit in this chamber? At the same time, who will say that our veterans are not treated better than any in the whole world today? And after legislation has been presented and dealt with here in the House of Commons in the course of the next few months I am sure the benefits available to them will be even greater.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) delivered quite an oration on the subject of the poor. It would have been much more applicable in Biblical times when they really had poor people. He seems to feel there is no sympathy in the hearts of supporters of the government for those who are on the brink of what is described as poverty. All of us are in erested in their situation. The hon. member went on to suggest that simply because a man is a Canadian he should have the right to get a cheque every month from the government- not because he is disabled, not because he is blind, not because he is old, not because he is sick, but because he is here. Mr. Speaker, you will never shove that down my throat. While the Government of Canada has an obligation to provide us with a chance to make a living, it does not have any obligation to provide us with a living.
You and I, as citizens of Canada, have some
obligations, too. One of them, if we have the ability and the required capacity, is to go to work. Work is a four-letter word which in the case of a small minority, a small percentage of Canadians, particularly among some of our young people, is not as well known as other four-letter words. I suggest that special attention be paid all over Canada to this word "work", spelled w-o-r-k. It is very necessary. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre maintains that he, as a Canadian, should get a cheque every month from the treasury of Canada without necessarily doing any work. In suggesting that, I believe he is like one of the three blind mice, going round in a circle continually without knowing when to stop. Indeed, it amazes me that a man like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, one who is unquestionably sincere, one who knows more about this parliament than I shall ever know, should be unaware of the fact that in the world today socialism, giving something away for nothing, simply will not work. Let him look over to England, that once mighty country which only a few decades ago practically ran the world but which today is
1766	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party drowning in a sea of socialism. If socialism is such a wonderful thing, if we should all get a cheque each month for the privilege of being Canadian, why is there no provision made on those lines in the United States, the country whose people enjoy by far the highest standard of living in the world?
There are many things we can complain about when we think of our United States friends. It is true that in many ways they have not done too well. But one thing in respect of which they cannot be criticized is the standard of living enjoyed in that country. It is the highest in the world, and it was achieved without what I call-and, to me, this is a horrible word-socialism.
How can we help our poor who are living on the brink of poverty, Mr. Speaker? I say we shall do it by educating them, and we are educating them. Today there are more of our children than ever going to universities and trade schools. They will be better citizens, equipped to go into the world and make a living.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In my opinion, this is the way we must approach the problem. Geographically, Canada is the second largest country in the world, and services must be provided its people from Vancouver to Newfoundland. Although with our small population we have done a remarkable job, I do not think we will ever advance economically by allowing people to sit on their haunches and collect a cheque each and every month whether or not they are physically able to work or, as my hon. friend who presented the motion to the House suggested, by simply printing money. Such a philosophy is just not sound.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) moved his motion asking the government to establish a production distribution system in order to ensure greater social justice, I have listened with interest to the speeches of the hon. members for Winnipeg-North-Centre (Mr. Knowles), Winnipeg-South-Centre (Mr. Osier), Edmonton-West (Mr. Lambert), and Bruce (Mr. Whicher).
I have been especially impressed with the speeches-if they can be called speeches-of the hon. member who preceded me, that is the hon. member for Bruce and of the hon. member for Edmonton West.

DEBATES	December 9, 1969
Those two hon. members, of whom one is a Liberal and the other a Conservative, have the same things to say, instead of being honest enough to study the heart of the matter. Those two hon. members have only one interest: to ridicule something that they do neither know nor understand because they refuse to study it.
And what is even more ridiculous is that the honourable member who has just resumed his seat was saying: I have much sympathy and esteem for the Canadian poor, just as the member for Edmonton-West.
A little later he was saying that there are no destitute people in Canada and that if we made a comparison with other countries we would find that everything was fine here.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the same honorable member would have the courage to go and repeat what he has just told us to the two million children who live in poverty in Canada and the 350,000 women and millions of children who receive welfare allowances in this country.
I wonder if he would have the courage to admit that out of the 3,600,000 urban families in this country, only one in five earns less than $3,000 a year. I wonder if, to him, the fact that over 160,000 rural families earn less than $3,000 a year does not spell poverty.
For him, perhaps this does not represent social injustice, perhaps it is normal and desirable. After what he just said, I conclude that he is party to the system of flagrant injustices which we have in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it was my duty to take part in this debate and try to be more realistic than the two members who tried earlier to shed some light on the subject and to put forth the views of Social Crediters on problems which are now confronting Canada.
We are witnessing today a paradox in our so-called "consumer" society. It is hardly necessary to study this society at length to discover that for more than 20 or 30 years, our governments, at all levels, have been insisting on production. That collective effort explains how our production, originally one of handicrafts, quickly became an industrial production through overwhelming individual and collective investments.
We also see that progress did not stop there, but that industrial production employs less and less manpower, for technological developments have increasingly replaced the worker, with resulting problems which I will go over very briefly.
December 9, 1969

In the first place, the unions must adjust to these new situations in order to safeguard the rights of their members. Second, we must face a rising in the cost of living. In the third place, the resulting super-efficient chain production is leaving less and less place for man. Fourth, unemployment can only spread.
On the one hand, technological developments are proceeding at great speed, encouraged by governments, and on the other hand, income is continually getting more uncertain.
I will, at this point, give a very simple illustration. For several years, governments have been encouraging dairy producers to develop their farms, to improve their production, to add to their equipment, for instance by purchasing bulk tanks. However, at the same time, the government takes steps to reduce their income. As a result, those people who are being encouraged by the government and have the means to live comfortably, must, under the same government, be content with an average annual income which, in Quebec, is under $2000.
That is the result in a society which claims to accelerate production but does not, at the same time, think about its distribution and consumption system. So the gap is widening from day to day, doubled by a steadily increasing need of capital for the various governments if they intend to meet the needs of a modern country in search of a policy while none is willing to stop that development.
Every government, be it Liberal or Progressive Conservative, wants to be considered as promoting progress. The need for money is forever increasing. According to its own concept it takes the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers in order to feed and to support that development.
This explains why the Ralliement creditiste is proposing today to the House a motion inviting the government to take the necessary steps to close this ever-widening gap between production factors on the one hand and consumption factors on the other.
The present government's policy, which I shall explain in a moment, cannot be effective in the so-called consumers' society.
Today, governments find-as has been seen at the federal-provincial conference on the Constitution now in progress-that social security programs cost more and more, and that they cannot be curtailed because the needs are ever-increasing.
This is easy to explain, because in our consumer society, the individual eventually 21545-41
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party reaches a profound state of insecurity and he has no means of pulling through.
To help the human being, governments resort to palliatives such as unemployment insurance, retraining courses for manpower, investments to eliminate regional disparities, welfare benefits, old age pensions, allowances to needy mothers, to handicapped, to veterans and to the blind. Some programs have been drawn up such as the manpower mobility program and ARDA-which are only temporary solutions-industrial incentives to create new jobs, and health insurance. Special subsidies are granted for the production of wheat, milk and, finally, an austerity program is drawn up which means: tighten your belts!
There you have the whole range of the steps conceived by the succeeding governments since 1867 in order to check the ever-increasing insecurity of Canadians.
The various governments are trying to cope with the problems through direct or indirect assistance, taking into consideration the financial situation, their obligations, their revenues and also the disagreements between the various levels of government.
Now, the population is increasing, the needs are greater and the cost of living is higher from day to day. The unions, which are constantly better organized, are making astounding efforts in order to obtain more security for their members. But in so doing, they unconsciously contribute to raise the price of goods and, consequently, to widen the gap between those who draw an income and those who depend on the state and benefit from the above-mentioned programs, so that in spite of the best intentions and the best men available, even when the government income is increasing, the condition of families and individuals is getting worse instead of improving, though the cost to the government is constantly increasing.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There is one thing that one cannot deny, whether one is liberal, conservative or member of the New Democratic party or of the Ralliement creditiste. Our society, which was first composed of craftmen, has become industrial thanks to investments and to common and individual efforts. It has now reached such a point that it is producing with such speed and efficiency that the production piles up and that it is sometimes necessary to stop it.
We then face a problem of over-production of wheat, of milk and its by-products, of automobiles and of almost everything we
December 9, 1969

Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party produce, while living in a sub-consumption society. That is the paradox! On the one hand, in spite of all our efforts, we have built an over-productive society with surpluses on the shelves, surplus butter and surplus milk in the dairy shops, surplus grain in the elevators of the West. And during all this time, two thirds of the world population are starving, and our society does not consume all its production. This is the result of the policy the government has been following for a hundred years.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the technological advance in all fields, our society has become one of consumption. Now, through this motion, the Ralliement creditiste is calling on the government to find a means to distribute that production, so that our society, instead of consuming only part of our production, may consume no more no less than the whole of it.
As we have devised various means to increase our production, it is essential for us, if we are sincere and serious, to find some way of making consumption easier. All modern societies are faced with this problem and conscientious members of parliament must, before saying that the members of the Ralliement creditiste are ridiculous and that there are no poor in Canada, be logical enough to study those proposals first.
That is why the members of the Ralliement creditiste unite to suggest to the government measures to encourage consumption of Canadian products.
Therefore, our first proposal is the following:
Financing of public funds by credit advances at a nominal cost by the Bank of Canada to be repaid at the rate of depreciation of the works achieved;
A moment ago, the member for Bruce, as the member for Edmonton West had done before him, tried to ridicule Social Credit by calling it a "money-making machine" which would cause inflation because money would be devalued.
I would ask those two members whether, when Liberal or Conservative governments went abroad to borrow $50 or $100 million in bonds to finance public utilities such as schools, churches, and the building of schools or bridges, it is fresh money that they fetched at rates of interest of 9J per cent as Hydro-Quebec did recently, for this money did not exist in Canada before and when it arrives in the country, it is under the form of new credits.
I should like the hon. members for Bruce or Edmonton West to say, if they are sincere,

what is the difference, as regards their effect upon the total purchasing power or inflation, between borrowing from the United States or Europe, and loans granted by the Bank of Canada.
In both cases, it is money which is added to the credit available to build our country, with the only difference that the money we borrow from foreign countries serves the interests of foreigners, because we pay off two, three or four times the initial amount account being taken of interest while in the case of the Bank of Canada, we should refund money on the basis of its face value, according to the real rate of depreciation of what we built.
When hon. members, under the pretense that the Social Credit philosophy is absurd- and let us not forget that they have not studied it, and that they refuse to do so-contend that we should keep on floundering in our present system, in order to promote underconsumption, they become the accomplices of big finance and show to what extent they can become slaves of an election fund.
Mr. Speaker, we also suggest, and I quote:
2.	Distribution of a national dividend to each Canadian citizen in order to ensure, out of the Canadian national product, at least his minimum expenses;
3.	Balancing the sum of prices attached to the Canadian national product with the purchasing power in the hands of consumers by means of a discount allowed to the latter.
There is one point which I cannot but mention: the various programs carried out by successive governments in an effort to cope with the insecurity experienced by an increasing number of citizens, are paid out of the taxpayers' money. This is why every year, whoever is Minister of Finance and regardless of the political stripe of the government of the day, a tax increase is announced. That is why we say: what is the use of changing from "red grits" to "blue tories" or vice versa.
According to governments, there would be only one source of capital: taxation, numerous taxes and foreign high finance. However, governments notice, as I do, the widening gap between rich and poor and also a certain discrimination which affects the less privileged. Let us carry out a tax reform in an effort to bring about justice and order so as to settle the problem.
In this connection, the present government resorted recently to window-dressing by presenting a white paper on tax reform. The government is trying to establish fiscal equality. To try is commendable, but to succeed, however, is another matter.
December 9, 1969
If one admits that every direct or indirect tax increases the normal price of goods and services, it is again and still the consumer who will foot the bill and as a result, the only taxpayer will always be the consumer. We live in a society of under-consumption in relation to our production. Whether we are rich or poor, whether we earn $25,000, $4,000 or even less than $1,000 a year like the farmers, the cost of living is the same for all of us without exception, without distinction and without mercy.
In order that a fiscal system be really equitable, there should necessarily be an equitable monetary system made up of a just distribution method of the purchasing power, according to the actual production of the country and to the needs of the consumers. Otherwise, any tax reform is only a poultice on a wooden leg and can only widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
The tax reform, as proposed by the government, is directed more particularly to the middle class and the family business. As for the rich, it only affects them slightly. It tends to be more favourable to foreign businesses as compared with big businesses operating on Canadian capital. As for the poor, they are completely forgotten. Indeed, what can be squeezed out of the middle class, even though the point of saturation, has already been reached, will not necessarily be distributed to the poor. It will serve instead to pay the debts incurred with foreign investors who finance our own country.
They seem to forget, as stupid as that may seem, that without money there can be no taxes. The problems of the cost of living, unemployment, economic imbalance, regional disparities, poverty, are directly related to the present monetary system. Instead of attacking the source of the evil to cure it, we blame the dressing. How ridiculous!
In an economy where money circulates freely, where costs are determined as well by market possibilities and competition as by the means of production and consumption, taxation cannot be "reorganized" without risking serious economic disturbances, detrimental to the little people, unless the monetary system is "reorganized" as well.
One can expect the search for greater tax equity, which in itself is an excellent objective, to lead to economic recession, to an increase in unemployment and the cost of living.
We are therefore no further ahead. The rich will continue to grow richer, the poor,
1769
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party poorer, and the middle class will live sparely, unless it collapses under the tax burden. It follows then that the gap will grow ever wider.
All the measure enumerated so far, related to social security in general, to regional disparities and tax reform, are but stop-gap measures which contribute to sinking Canadian consumers deeper into debt. They do not solve the problem; they merely compound it.
Social Credit is a measure designed specifically for the consumers, under the control of the government, through the Bank of Canada.
Social Credit allows our productive society to adjust itself to the needs of the consumers and to meet them, whereas we now produce for the sake of producing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member should carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also wish to thank my colleagues most sincerely. I shall be through in a couple of minutes.
Social Credit can replace most of the various government programs, in order to fill the gap between the rich and the poor and to restore the balance between producers and consumers.
In other words, the national dividend and the compensated discount can alone replace some of the present welfare measures. The latter aim at increasing indebtedness since they are enforced through the availability of ready money, whereas a national dividend is fresh, debt-free money, guaranteed by production.
Social Credit is therefore a scientific method devised to strike the balance between total production and total consumption, a balance which our economy is now lacking.
Social Credit affects every individual according to standards based on minimum needs. It is not a palliative but an incentive to participation in the economy of the country.
Social Credit becomes in turn a production factor in two ways: first, through the national dividend enabling the consumer to dispose of products and secondly through a compensated discount which provides for an adjustment of the cost of products to the cost of living.
The result therefore is that the poor as well as the rich not only can meet their essential needs but also afford the amenities of life,

December 9, 1969
1770	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party according to their income, talent and ambition.
Social Credit is a measure that directly reaches the individual by means of the national dividend and the compensated discount while, with the present various government social security measures, more than half the amounts earmarked for assistance to the individual or the family never reach them, on account of the go-betweens, the mutiplicity of programs and duplication of administrations.
The individual is taxed up to his ears at present and gets only crumbs in return.
It is therefore impossible for older people to make ends meet with a maximum pension of $107. It is also impossible for a blind person to live on a maximum pension of $75 per month. Thus families or widows who have to rely on social welfare cannot make it. The number of poor in Canada is steadily increasing in spite of more and more extensive social security measures.
To be honest, the members owe it to themselves to give thorough consideration to the Creditiste proposals, so as to provide this country with a distribution system of wealth as efficient as our production system.
I should like to remind the House that whatever some members may say, the poverty problem in Canada is due to the present monetary system and policy, because even though we have generalized the implementation of our production methods, we have failed to improve our wealth distribution method in order to really reach the people for whom we are producing. Two million children live in poverty in Canada; 350,000 women and one million children are on welfare. One out of five urban families in Canada has an income of less than $3,000 per year. Finally, more than 160,000 rural families have an income below $3,000 per year.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
These statistics appeared in the November 1969 issue of McLean's Report.
Before such poverty, we can see that production must be equitably distributed and reach the individual according to a system that respects his freedom and dignity. Therefore, it is my pleasure and my privilege to support the motion of the hon. member for Shefford, and my duty to call upon hon. members on all sides of the house to study it carefully.
If we fail to do so and other hon. members have nothing to suggest, it means that they
IMr. Fortin.]

support the present system and are accessory to the spreading of poverty.
Under that system, we are going around in circles. Thus, the government is proving right those who challenge it and want to overthrow it. We feel that we will not succeed through dissent but through serious and honest discussion. Farmers today are studying their problems and are trying to find solutions which they do not want to impose on anyone. They only invite others to take their difficulties into consideration.
I therefore urge hon. members to study proposals and resolutions in order to attempt to solve the problems with which Canadians are now faced.
It is our duty to guarantee each and every Canadian economic security in freedom while respecting his dignity, which is certainly not the case at the present time.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the motion asks that Parliament give serious consideration to the monetary proposals of the Social Credit Party. I intend to do that. I know it is very unpopular in Ottawa to admit any knowledge of Social Credit theories. The lowest civil servant would never admit in front of anyone that he understands Social Credit theory, or that he has ever read it. Of course, Members of Parliament within 50 feet of the House of Commons will deny they know anything about it, but once they get out of the 50-foot radius, where they are nobodies, they will admit they know something about it. None of the ministers would ever consider admitting they understand Social Credit theories, and indeed the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will deny he ever understood or now understands them, because it is not fashionable to do so. However, it was not always thus.
I recall the occasion about six years ago, and some hon. members who are present were in the House at that time, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was leading the government and a motion of non-confidence was introduced because the government was not introducing debt-free money. It was a Social Credit motion-*


Stanley Howard Knowles: Moved by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).
December 9, 1969


Mr.   Olio@: I recall that Sailor Jack, now president of the Canadian Transport Commission, who was then one of our great tacticians, together with the now government leader in the Senate and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) told us, "We have to vote for this." Some of the new members replied, "But Jack, we don't understand it." He then told us, "Don't try and understand it; just vote for it." And we did. How history changes. The Social Credit members who at one time were valued friends are now people we deny knowing. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not deny knowing
them, and I think I understand their philosophy.
I wish to point out that the Social Credit Party already has in effect what the motion seeks, especially in paragraph 2 where it calls for:
-distribution of a national dividend to each Canadian citizen in order to ensure, out of the Canadian national product, at least his minimum living expenses;
If the mover would consider our present consumer credit system he would find that except for the fact that it is haphazard and is not orderly, it is what Social Credit has always supported-the use of future credit, or earning capacity, or national resource, and the consumption of it by Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that two years ago a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons was formed to study consumer credit. It was then found that about 75 per cent of Canadian families used consumer credit and 25 per cent did not. The average family whch did use it was in debt approximately $2,800 for automobiles, refrigerators and goods of that nature, not including a mortgage. At 18 per cent, the interest alone was about $504 per year.
The tragic thing about it was that the total disposable income left to buy goods and materials other than rent, food and clothing, was less than $500 a year. Every family that used consumer credit was paying more in interest than it had left in disposable income. That figure has grown tremendously since
then.	There has been an increase of at least 18 per cent, so that the average Canadian family is now in debt to the tune of about $3,200 and is paying about $700 in interest, which means in fact that any further borrowing hypothecates its earning capacity. So, Mr. Speaker, Social Credit members should conclude that they have already in practice what they preach in theory.
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party
The second tragic thing about it is that nothing can be done about the situation. There is a great deal of talk by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) that consumer credit should be curtailed and that the banks should curtail their issuance of Chargex cards and consumer loans. But the banks are knowledgeable enough to know that if they curtail these loans they will soon close up shop and get us into the greatest depression we have ever known.
When this was brought to the attention of the chairman of the joint committee two years ago he said, "Let us suppose that half the Canadians who are so far in debt decide they are going to pay back what they owe and are not going to borrow any more money. That means they are going to pay back the $500 interest which they now owe, and then try to reduce their interest payments to nothing, which will mean that 50 per cent of the families in Canada will not buy any shoes, clothing, television sets, radios and gadgets of one kind or another." He said to me, "Otto, do you realize what a great depression this would cause"? It would, Mr. Speaker, because no one would produce. There is no sense producing if no one is buying. This is something we will have to consider. I have taken part in this debate only to put to the Social Credit members this concept of a fact which exists.
1	now wait for them to explain the difference between what they recommend in paragraph
2	of their motion and what we indeed have in practice in Canada today.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words about the motion introduced by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).
This motion is, I believe, consistent with the facts. It concerns the economic realities that every one should know about
I realize what is happening in the House at this time. Very intelligent people who, unfortunately, do not know anything about economics, or the present system, are unable to define its terms. I regret such a situation. They are supposed to enlighten the people. They don't even know the economic system under which they live. They cannot even outline its operation.
The speech of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) contained gross stupidities and trite commonplaces. There was nothing true
1772	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party in his remarks. He knows absolutely nothing about economics.
I will not add anything more, I have said enough. If the cap fits, let them wear it.
We live in Canada within a logical system. As far as production is concerned, there is nothing to criticize. Those who have organized it have done a good job. It works well. The problem of production has been solved long ago, but this has created others. We produce for consumption. If we have mass production today, we owe it to technology and the scientific endeavour of preceding generations, and we must be proud of it. Far from denying this, we bless those who have built marvelous automatic equipment which turns out products without the need for manpower.
Therefore we have an economic problem to solve. Products are made automatically and, similarly, people are laid off. People can no longer earn a living because production is automatic. That is what many people, including a number of hon. members, do not understand yet. They never understood how the economy works. We have built schools and universities to teach science to the greatest possible number of students so that the population may benefit. If the science of economics is not placed at the service of the population, we no longer need teachers, members of parliament and manufacturers.
If we want all citizens to work, we will have to put them to work with picks and shovels. We will then have to reject technology which replaces man.
If, faced with these facts, we are unable to recognize them and to deal with the problem, we do not deserve to be here. Members of parliament who do not understand the present system really don't deserve to be in the house. 1 can't understand how the nation came to elect such representatives.
To be a member of parliament within the present system, in the twentieth century, we must at least be acquainted with a "compass" to guide ourselves by, and with logic. We must also be realistic.
There are many who do not even know their own compass, who are unable to find their way, who tell untruths and come up with fanciful solutions that are no help at all in the present malaise.
I propose in my submission to point to the basic flaw of our financial system. The present economic system is certainly not aimed at attaining the objectives set by the present
[Mr. Latullppe.l
DEBATES	December 9, 1969
regime, and our friends say nevertheless that they are in a position to solve the problem. Since Confederation, we have seen a lot of smart alecks, of great economists of every stripe bringing forward a great deal of suggestions, but they all led the economy a little further towards an unparalleled economic chaos. Personally, I have no confidence left at all in those great prophets who say that Canadians must produce more, consume less and export a lot while reducing their prices so as to compete with the foreign market.
Mr. Speaker, when our adversaries state that our financial system is sound they show how incompetent they are. I believe that all this foolisness is not over by a long shot. Actually, we are victimized by the foolishness concerning debts and mounting prices, and by the myth of full employment; technology turned it into a myth.
Our leaders have no scruples to get Canada into debts by undertaking commitment after commitment, by taxing the citizens to such a point that many face bankruptcy or repudiation of debts. It seems to me that the present leaders are the only ones who find our economic system logical. Maybe they realize that the system is really out of order. But then, what are they waiting for to change it? Maybe they consider it to be beyond repair and maybe they even enjoy dominating people through the disastrous economic measures that we know.
Unemployment, bankruptcies, plant shutdowns, price increases are as many facts which bear testimony to the weakness of governments in the area of economics.
Why does unemployment rise in Canada, and why do our industries close their doors or pass into the hands of foreigners? 'Why a price rise with such a steady increase in unemployment?
What is the reason for the unprecedented disaster in the field of agriculture and the wheat surpluses in western Canada?
These are four obvious indications of a serious economic uneasiness which should put us on the alert, bring home to us the weaknesses of our economy, and prompt us to eliminate their causes before the people have to suffer even more.
Let us stop wondering about the soundness of these assertions, because everyone has to suffer those ills, all newspapers mention them every day, all sociologists proclaim that the rich get richer and the poor poorer, and this is true of all countries.
December 9, 19B9
Therefore the gap is widening between the rich and the poor countries, the developed and the developing countries. The gap also exists between individuals in developed countries where affluent people are found alongside the poor who live hand to mouth in the midst of insecurity and privation, getting deeper and deeper into debt which they cannot pay.
This uneasiness is widespread and very real, and, as politicians and human beings, it is our duty to find effective solutions as soon as possible. It is not with the present economic policies that we shall succeed in overcoming the difficulties that are directly or indirectly created by an unbalanced economic system.
I would like to draw this point to the attention of the hon. members, but without however blaming anyone. Since June 25, 1968, the government's positions have, without fail, led to the same results, and instead of improving the situation this only makes it worse. Until now, the government has found solutions to imaginary problems only. A true diagnosis of the problems has not even been made yet.
Some will ask why I criticize and denounce the present system. It is because I am convinced it always leads to deficits and puts the country into greater debt. Rather than finance the production and the distribution of goods that meet the needs of the Canadian population, it fails to serve its end. In fact, the people demand public realizations which are physically feasible but which never come true because the financial system does not finance them.
On the other hand, goods are offered to people who need them but are unable to get them because the present system does not finance consumption.
Our great active economists and politicians get panicky and shout everywhere: produce more, consume less, export more, and they do so after having hampered production by increasing interest rates, by imposing exorbitant taxes of all kinds on gas and transportation means which lead to a record price increase.
Then, manufacturers are asked to reduce their prices and to sell abroad, which is sheer madness. This begins in the financial system and spreads to all economic and political activities. We can no longer tell between the purpose and the means, there is no more scale of values and everything is mixed up.
Thus, the more an industry is productive while requiring less labour, the more perfect
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party it is and the more it contributes to progress. Any industry which reduces its labour force and produces more is denounced. Industry is required to assume an extraneous function and to seek a detrimental and illogical purpose.
Our economy is greatly lacking in that form of income distribution which would be in keeping with the essential needs of the Canadian people. Production is plentiful but the distribution of revenues is not made according to work incomes and invested capital.
It is urgent that somebody should look into the matter because I wonder where we are going. I wonder also what our children will be doing in 1985 if this situation still prevails.
It is recognized that we live in a century of progress such as has never been experienced before. Canada could by itself support nearly half the population of the world thanks to its wealth and production. Consequently, we ought to recognize that half the population of the earth live in dire poverty, getting into debts under the present system.
Last year, the interest paid on the debt was $1,273 million. This year, it is $1,406 million, an increase of $133 million.
In connection with family allowances, a tremendous increase has taken place in respect of money paid to a few financiers: this increase is about $614 million. Family allowances have cost around $1 million more this year on account of the increase in population, but the allowances themselves have remained the same.
Thus, I am bringing to light a great fraud by telling what is really happening in civilized countries.
Canada has certainly more real wealth now than 50, 75 and even 100 years ago. Canada's public debt is greater than ever before. Yet it is the Canadian people themselves who throughout the years have brought the country prosperity. Why keep them in debt when they have worked?
As for schools, bridges, roads, aqueducts and other public works, who has built them? Those who have supplied materials, contractors and manufacturers who can do public works because other workers are producing food, clothing, shoes and are supplying them with services.
This adequately shows that wealth results from the work of the whole population. If we import goods, it is only as a counterpart of

December 9. 1969
1774	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party what we provide to foreign countries. Now, what is happening all over? The citizens are taxed to pay for schools, hospitals, roads and public bridges and they are charged collectively the price they have already paid for the goods.
Production, actual wealth becomes for them an interest-bearing debt and, with the years, the charges paid may amount to two, three or four times-
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few brief words on the question of interest rates, and at this time I want to register some local protest from individuals in my constituency who have been having difficulty obtaining loans for the purpose of building business operations and houses. In the last week or so we have seen the tremendous increase in profit Which the banks have reported for their last year's operations. We also heard a lot of complaints in this House that interest rates are too damn high, to use the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). We have seen that the Canadian government has had to pay up to 8 per cent interest for money it obtained in the market.
I am told on fairly good authority that the long-term interest rate structure has not changed much. The reason interest rates are so high is the inflationary factor. When all other companies are losing money and their profits are going down, the banks are in a position to improve their profits at the expense of all of us.
I wish to comment on the rationing of loans because it seems quite obvious that instead of making advances to people in business, to increase employment, the banks are venturing into the more lucrative field of consumer loans. Instead of making loans to help businesses expand and develop, the banks urge you to get a red convertible loan. Instead of advancing money with which to build a
[Mr. Latulippe.)

house, they urge you to take a vacation in some sunny climate. The point I am trying to make is that while the banks have an obligation to return a profit to their shareholders, they also have a social obligation to regulate the flow of credit into those areas which society as a whole deems to be the most useful.
At the present time, when we are talking about a housing shortage, the banks have not been making money available to help the situation; instead, they have been urging us to spend money on more frivolous things. In areas like my own there is a situation wherein the loans made for business expansion and for homes are not as large as those that can be obtained in other areas, yet people in these areas still have to live and work. The banks and the trust companies should be obliged to put a certain amount of their finances into these areas as a social lubricant.
As a result of the profits the banks have shown, they could very well entertain a redistribution of their loan pattern in this way. I am particularly upset about reports that capable businesses with guaranteed contracts cannot get working capital from the banks in order to finance these operations. I am also concerned about reports that when people try to obtain money for housing, the banks will not make it available to them because they prefer to make red convertible and travel loans, where the profits are greater.
I think it is the duty of the government to set the priorities for society; in other words, it should decide that we are going to build so many housing units and then make the regulations necessary to direct the flow of available credit into these areas. As in all other matters, decisions will have to be made. Some people will have to do without things. Nevertheless, we are not operating with boundless resources; there are restrictions. The government must reconsider the policy established when it removed the 6 per cent ceiling on the interest rate. I thought this would result in a more equitable distribution of funds, but that has not been the experience so far.
The government will have to decide in its wisdom what the priorities are for society. If necessary, it will have to coerce the banks and other financial institutions into providing the means whereby these goals can be achieved. I am thinking of expansion money for businesses, particularly for small businesses, and for housing units. These things should come before red convertible and travel loans.
December 9, 1969
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to those who took part in this debate.
Most members of the Ralliement creditiste supported the motion, but a few of them decided to criticize it and I was amused to notice that not one of them could bring any proof that the present system answers our needs. Therefore, I am happy to support the motion which is the subject of the present debate. Any serious observer will admit that the present financial system does not give all and sundry a sufficient share in our natural and industrial wealth. Consequently, it is for the rulers who are responsible for the common good to apply the necessary corrective measures. Indeed, the systems are intended for men not men for the systems.
We notice that today the capacity of production is practically without limit, both from the point of view of quantity and variety. The main cause of our worries is due to the difficulties of the distribution system. Since nowadays the most flexible method we can use for commercial exchanges is money, providing that one has enough of it, it is necessary to find out the causes of the lack of money if we sincerely intend to solve the problem of poverty.
It is useless to multiply the studies and the seminars on poverty. We must shut our eyes not to note that an important percentage of our population lives in misery and lacks the necessities, especially money which is necessary to buy the products that are stocked everywhere in the shops.
So the real war on poverty must be fought against the system that controls money, and this is clear enough. Since when can a war be won by launching the attack off target? In the 1914-18 period, as well as in the 1939-45 period, the Allies' aim was to win the war. That is why they took the necessary measures to that effect. They needed money. They ordered the money system to provide the necessary amounts and were successful. Then they organized the army and had the necessary equipment made. Had they merely considered the situation and convened conferences, they would certainly have lost the war.
The war on poverty will not be won with investigations and conferences because the poor remain poor that way. We must therefore find other ways.
1775
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party
The amendments to the Canadian banking system must provide for enough flexibility in ways and means of implementation so that the necessary money is available at the right time in order to reduce or else eliminate poverty in Canada.
If you tax the income of those who already do not have enough, you will not solve the poverty problem but you will make it worse. One does not have to be an economist to understand that.
With regard to poverty in Canada, the Ralliement creditiste is not the only one to talk about it. On November 10, 1964, the newspaper Le Droit published an article entitled "The plague of poverty" in which one could read and I quote:
Robert Louis Stevenson once wrote:
The worst deficiency in our civilization and the best proof of its failure is a man who is able and willing to work but who cannot find work.
During the recent convention of the Labour Federation in Ontario, Le Droit, in agreement with that organization, was alarmed at the way the cancer of poverty was spreading. We should deal again with the subject, following the report just published by that association, a document which paints in the most minute details the dark picture of human misery in Canada.
The economic depression which lasted from 1929 to 1939 showed the irresponsibility of the governments of the time whose representatives had nothing else to say to those who sought to live decently but: there is no money.
The leaders of today's so-called just society seek complex solutions in retraining or in possible errors in statistical percentages to answer those who are concerned about the present unemployment situation.
Yesterday as today, financiers hold the controls and the majority government is controlled and conditioned by the masters of money and credit. Even with a prime minister whose popularity the newspapers try to keep alive through loud advertising, a great percentage of unemployed Canadians are obliged to do without the essentials.
We all agree on the tremendous responsibility thrust on our leaders today. The aim is to preserve freedom and to provide security while bringing about reforms wherever they are needed and according to the light perspective. Together with all the citizens, they have to carry out projects in order to provide every Canadian anxious to lead a decent life

December 9, 1969
1776	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party with a healthy and productive job. They can no longer be satisfied-with studies and reviews: they will have to prove they can do better.
Declaring war on poverty, submitting reports and statistics about the poor will not solve the problem. The poor will realize that we really understand their problems the day we set up vast public works projects.
I realize that development projects would entail expense, but they are not impossible to carry out, unless our leaders want to remain enslaved to the small group of people who control our economy.
It is not the bankers who are responsible to the people, but rather the government which has the sovereign right to create money and credit.
Let us stop fooling around, and use our brains. The weak remedies applied so far have proved inadequate. Let us resort to extreme measures. Desperate ills call for desperate remedies. The government must show it is sincere by replacing the old system with a new one, by making financially possible what is physically feasible and good for the Canadian people whether poor or rich. This is what our politicians, in spite of their powers, have never been willing to do.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Hypocrisy must cease. People expect measures of this kind and not to have to tighten their belts. There is no need for that in Canada. Let the majority government use the power it received from the voters in the last election to take truly effective measures to fight poverty and to create a truly just society, while letting the big money lenders attend to their business and resorting to the sovereignty of the State to discharge its function.
This is the only solution to our present economic difficulties. We are no longer naive enough to believe that tightening our belts as a result of taxes will settle the situation. We agree that overhauling a faulty system will not be easy, but since there is no choice, we must act as soon as possible, if we honestly intend to prevent a revolution.
Along with the commissions concerned with the civil service, education, public service and unemployment insurance, why not establish a monetary commission made up of financial experts devoted to the poor which, with the help of technology, would balance the goods with the needs, provide the necessaries of life, and devise credit patterns in all conscience, foresight and honesty? Since the country is


responsible for money, should it not derive benefits from it and regulate its circulation?
The Bank of Canada should issue sufficient credits for the necessary public works. Let the country use its own commodities first before applying on foreign markets. A national currency, measured more accurately, should make production and consumption credit easier. Afterwards, we could import what we still need. We shall not have to pay for our surplus production or for this gold of little nutritive value that God has hidden under our mountains of rock.
Even at that, we cannot fear that our economy will not ensure us a decent living. What exists, we have made, and we produce enough to ensure a living to those who do not produce anything.
Reverend Father Alexandre Dugre, a Jesuit, in a scathing article published in the Messager canadien du Sacre-Cceur, in May 1943, called the attention of political leaders to the economic situation of that time, which is still prevailing.
We ensure a living to workers and unemployed, and we deprive ourselves of the potential production of those who are unable to work. Some economists, who seem to know all the answers, remind us of heretics who claim to have a perfect philosophy. That does not prevent us from realizing that quite often, it is perfectly false.
If they were right, Pope Pius XI would have been wrong to stigmatize with a violence unusual in encyclical letters the frightening strike of those who ration money and take unfair advantage of men to the benefit of dark interests. This is, indeed, what the Pope said:
In the first place, then, it is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few, and that those few are frequently not the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure.
A terrible charge without any limitation in time, space and countries. Very harsh words that the rich and mighty would like to suppress, that the true leaders of the people did not want perhaps to understand.
Napoleon said: "I plead in favour of the poor; the rich will always have good dinners as an excuse."
The Pope advocates the same thing. Let us listen to him. May poor people never be forced to appeal to revolutionaries to obtain
December 9, 1969

justice! Let us hope our leaders will wake up before it is too late.
To ensure a better adjustment of goods to human needs, it is obvious that the mechanism for the distribution of existing goods should be reformed. That is why we should no longer dally with outdated methods that produced the well-known results: inflation, deflation, ever increasing taxes, an increasing national debt that is unpaid and unpayable under the present system.
Why keep on looking for solutions not to be found in a topsy-turvy system?
Thousands of examples of all types of destitution logically lead us to conclude that the main cause of economic and social disorders in our times lies in the faulty distribution of wealth. Each thing must be put in its place and be given its real value.
In the first place, we must recognize that human beings-men, women and children- need wholesome food, decent clothes, adequate care and proper homes in order to live. Our Maker, in His wisdom, has provided that the earth would give to mankind the necessary means of living and we have the undeniable evidence that the creative genius of man inspired by numerous natural factors has succeeded in improving the mechanism of production to a very high degree.
At times, our learned theoreticians and those who believe they are have tried to explain that we were facing an overproduction crisis. Let us remember especially the years 1929 to 1939! The facts have clearly shown that it was rather a crisis of underconsumption. One will recall that the politicians at that time had not found anything better than to destroy production before the starving people.
Rather than establishing a mechanism for the adjustment of prices and the payment of a compensating discount to producers, thus enabling consumers to use an abundance of goods, it was thought advisable to destroy them, in order to support prices represented by figures.
The same system is still being applied in 1969. The people are not being fed with the abundant production that our farmers obtain with the help of nature; Canadians are not building houses with the wood, the stone, the concrete or all the other existing materials. The people are not wearing the clothes made in our factories or in foreign countries displayed in store windows or piled on their shelves. The same applies to medical care, 21545-424
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party transportation and comfort under the most varied forms imaginable. Under the present system, the citizens buy the food, the clothing and the medical care that they can afford. That is the system that the Creditistes call a topsy-turvy system.
It is not a question of disrupting everything or of setting up a printing shop, as certain simple-minded persons claim. We already have some institutions. It is a question of adjusting values and of book-keeping, through which the financial machinery could be made to reflect the actual wealth, while taking into account the dignity of the human being and the value of the goods that can be produced in large enough quantities to feed, to house and to clothe the people.
It is truly surprising to find that the numerous researchers of various kinds, especially in the economic field, have not succeeded in developing the machinery required for the distribution of our abundant production so as to satisfy promptly the many needs that now exist.
There is certainly no lack of means of transportation. Now they are even taking trips to the moon, spending billions of dollars to find out what is going on on another planet, while on earth thousands of human beings suffer from hunger, are deprived of housing, clothes and care.
It is high time politicians in responsible positions found a solution other than the programs proposed up to now and which have only contributed to favour the rich at the expense of the poor.
We do not claim that the Social Credit we are advocating will be a cure-all, but one can logically predict that it will eliminate a great deal of our present worries.
During the centennial year, we have paid tribute to our founders and our pioneers, to their bravery and their wonderful achievements. We have stressed our scientific and technical success, the products of our forests, of our farms, of our fisheries, of our plants, of our mines, of our industry and of our trade and commerce. Every visitor had the opportunity to realize that we have modern means of communication.
We realize that our forbears did not lose their time and that the members of the present generation assert themselves by their varied knowledge in many areas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.
1778	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party


Charles-Eugène Dionne: I only need two minutes more.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may proceed with his remarks if the House unanimously agrees.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: I thank my hon. colleagues very sincerely and I promise I will not go over the time limit.
We realize that our forbears have not lost their time, as I was saying, and that the present generation is asserting itself by its diverse knowledge in many fields. However, there is a fly in the ointment: after having reached peaks in the area of production and communication means, we fail to establish methods for exchanging the available wealth.
Instead of using logic and natural order as a basis for our economic system, we cling to a system of scarce distribution methods for the innumerable goods available so that thousands of people must live in slums while we have great quantities of materials for building decent houses. Thousands of citizens must depend on social welfare to keep starvation away in a country which highly publicizes an enormous variety of products.
It is not necessary to be a university graduate to admit that man needs food, clothing, housing, love, in short, needs to live as a social being. This has not been intended by financiers nor politicians. It will also be recognized that the Creator in its wisdom has made all things to meet all needs and here, in Canada, all these goods are in abundance. Our Minister of Trade and Commerce travels to many countries to offer our production surpluses.
Our difficulties are not derived from our inability to produce and to build but rather from insolvency. We have the physical ability but we are financially unable to act. Our production system works well but not our financial system.
In conclusion, I shall quote from an editorial published in IS Action catholique on August 17, 1939, and entitled "A mystery to clear up, where does the money come from" by the late Louis-Phillipe Roy:
The State gives the right to make money and pays to obtain some of it. Let us not forget that our governments are as poor as the individual. Municipal, provincial and federal authorities have only the money that we pay in taxes, etc., the money they borrow from banks. Yes, the public powers that authorize banks to make money must go to them and pay high interests for the credit required to manage the country and feed the unemployed.

DEBATES	December 9, 1989
Are money and credit therefore one and the same thing? Are banks their masters? What principles do they follow in making money, in issuing money, in distributing credit? What do they demand in return and why? No text-book answers those questions. Yet, the problem seems crucial at this time. Why that mystery around the origin of money? Is it not high time to dispel this mystery?"
This topic always timely and deserves much more time with a view to devising a mechanism that would make financially possible what is morally right and physically achievable.
If we really want to build a better future, we must do some research in that direction.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
IEnglish]


Mr. Max  Bailsman@Waterloo: Mr. Speaker, years ago when I first came to this House I had heard about the Creditistes and their monetary theories. Most of what I had heard was mentioned in snickers, as was the case this afternoon with hon. members of the government party and those of the "official" opposition. I have been quite impressed with the Creditistes in this House because I think they are one of the few groups in this chamber whose members speak with genuine anger and concern for the people. Often in debates in the past I have disagreed with them, particularly in respect of social policies and Criminal Code changes. We were far apart then and I am sure we will continue to be that way on many issues. I do not laugh at the members of that party because, like them, I sense that this country has been badly mismanaged, that money has not been used for the people but that the people have been used by those who make money.
Years ago, in the early days of our party, we had a saying about people coming before profits. Essentially, my friends on this side are saying the same thing after looking around and seeing what is going on in our country. We must conclude that the government of today and those of the past should not take credit for whatever merit there is in our present society. Governments have squandered our resources beyond belief. They have created idleness that is unjustifiable. Were it not for the inherent wealth and resilience of this nation we would have been destroyed a long time ago by this kind of policy. Like the very rich, we have been able to squander our resources knowing we have a storehouse of resources. It may not be possible to do this forever.
December 9, 1969
It is for these reasons I welcome the opportunity today of making some suggestions of change in our financial system. I can understand how my friends who moved this motion feel. They look around and see a system that has failed to solve the problems of production. They see people on the one hand who need services and houses and who want work, while on the other they see a government that creates unemployment and wastes resources. If we look back at history we will recall two wars in which this country participated. When the country needed resources, we virtually created them and financed our war effort from our resources. We managed to finance those things with which to kill other people. Today, when the sons of Quebec need jobs, the government cannot find the necessary money. The government had money with which to call on people from Quebec to go to war, but it cannot find money to kill the unemployment that exists in that province.
A change is taking place in the province of Quebec; people are moving from the farms to the cities; young men are being trained for jobs that do not exist. It is the policy of this government that unemployment shall continue. Those of us who are concerned about the survival of this nation must wonder about the kind of policies that create this situation. Those who create unemployment and poverty are the true separatists of the nation. It is small wonder that hon. members to my left scoff at the orthodox economics of the traditional parties, particularly when they see how those orthodox policies have failed to solve the basic problems of matching the needs of the people with the productive resources of our society. These members look around and see that our system has failed to solve the problems of distribution. They cannot understand how the rich and the poor live side by side in a nation that is capable of tremendous expansion but is held back and prevented from expanding.
Our governments have not been able to solve the problems of inflation. Our governments do not have the courage to step in and recognize that our system has broken down and that we require a new system to prevent rising costs. They seem to depend on the kind of fiscal and monetary policies which create these things. Recently there came to my attention a brief which was written in response to the white paper of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). This brief deplored the white paper, asked what would be gained by redistributing income in this country and stated that everyone would receive $8,000 a
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party year. Terrible: we would only receive $8,000 a year! I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that millions of Canadians would think that was a very grand sum to receive and might very well favour that kind of distribution. However, in the circumstances, that is not the answer. You cannot distribute money continuously; you must create and increase the productive resources and the potential of the society. In order to do that you must find a way to provide opportunity for growth and for employment and then share the resources within the system.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I should like to remind my hon. friends of the Official Opposition that it is sometimes forgotten that Social Credit had some antecedents in this country. From my reading of history it would seem that from 1878 the Conservative Party was supported by a small group called the National Currency School which was really the forerunner of the Social Credit movement. There are some who say that the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald in some ways was Social Credit policy, because John A. Macdonald was trying to use the resources of this country to improve the conditions of its people.
I shall come to the theory of my hon. friends, but I wish to point out it is not a theory to be scoffed at and is not one to be taken lightly. The people who cry out against the system do so with a genuine concern about the financial doctrines that have not served the needs and interests of Canadians. More so, one reason for some of these early approaches to soft money, if you want to call the Social Credit theory that, was concern about our future as a nation. This is perhaps one of the matters my hon. friends do not understand, that is, the implementation of some of the theories they have would serve the purpose of erecting tariff walls in this country and of insulating us from other nations. I have looked at this theory and I cannot say I understand it too well. I have tried to understand it. Perhaps some day I will.
One reason I do not understand it is that while there is a large measure of truth in the theory, while their motives are understandable and while their rebellion against the system is understandable, there are too many inconsistencies in the theory. I have often wondered whether the advocates of Social Credit theory really understand it as fully as they might. I wonder whether they understand that, as in any other system, there are

own value judgments, because we must follow what goes on in the rest of the world. When we attempt to deviate from this system, the speculators of the world move in very quickly for the kill. I could say many things to our hon. friends to the left on this subject. However, I wish to know whether they are prepared to have our economy insulated in this way from the rest of the world, because this is what would happen.
I say these things very seriously. I say there are things we can do in our system but there are also prices to pay. I believe my friends to the left should consider this fact and state whether they are prepared to pay the price of insulation. In some ways this might be very good for us. As I said earlier, this was one of the purposes of the Conservative government before the turn of the century which suggested it wanted to deliberately insulate us from the rest of the world.
That government believed our currency would decline in relation to other currencies and that more employment would be created in Canada; it would also have the effect of erecting a tariff wall, but would create a burgeoning industrial economy in this new land. At least those who advocated this policy in those days realized the consequences of their actions. Today we have high interest rates. It is becoming very obvious that we have these high interest rates because of government policy. I have come to the conclusion that, perhaps more important than changing our theories about finance, we should change our government and have one that is determined to do something about the kind of situation that exists in this country.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
When we create the kind of situation we have today, with high interest rates and high unemployment, it is not the fault of the system. To some extent that is the way the system moves if nobody moves a finger to correct it, but those faults and problems can be laid directly at the door of government policy. There is a great deal of difference between interest rates in Germany and those in Canada. We discovered this in the committee that studied interest rates. There is a great deal of difference in the spread between what banks pay for money and charge for money in Germany and in Canada. The spread in Germany is very much lower than that in Canada. I am sorry I cannot quote the exact figures, but those who attended the committee hearings will bear me out.
December 9, 1969
Part of the reason is that inflation in Germany has been less than that in Canada. But there is another significant reason. The policy of the German government has been to keep interest rates down, and the policy of our government has been to keep interest rates up. The chief beneficiaries of high interest rates in Canada have been the banks, and this is because the government wanted it that way. The high profits of the banks are the direct result of government policy. The government wants the banks to make more money, and it wants high interest rates because that is how it is trying to control inflation. It is a shameful course. There is a bankruptcy of ideas on the part of the government when this is the only method to which it resorts.
Again I would like to point out to my hon. friends, who seldom miss an occasion to criticize us for our social democratic policies, that though they seem to be so adamantly opposed to socialism one of the remarkable things about their theory is that it is largely Marxist. Major Douglas owed much of what he wrote to the Marxist theory of values, and what he did not owe to Marx he took from Henry George in the United States, who first talked about taxing property. In the early days they could not tax property in Canada because there simply was not enough property around, and my hon. friends should understand this. They should understand that social democrats are not really very different from themselves in terms of wanting to change society. This may be one of the reasons that we sometimes feel quite warmly about our friends to the left, despite the dreadful things they do in some debates. We feel they have a genuine concern about people and that theirs is a sort of grass roots protest.
They look at the world and ask what gives. They say that here we have people who need things and there we have people who want to produce things; why cannot we match them up? They conclude that there is something wrong with the financial system and say that it should in an adequate and intelligent way be changed to meet the needs of people. There can be no quarrel with that. It is not a cause for laughter by the financial dinosaurs of the two old parties who have not had an original idea since Adam Smith.
Unemployment should not be a natural condition of our society. Unemployment should be an unknown word in our society. The natural condition should be full employment and a scarcity of resources, where we get to the stage when there will not be enough
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party people to do the job and they will not have enough resources to do the job. When a country like Canada creates unemployment and does everything it can to dissipate its resources, it is flying in the face of what the Canadian society really wants. It is deliberately obstructing the desire of our economic system and of our people to move ahead. We will have to deal with Social Credit theories for a long time to come-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will be sorry to learn that the hon. member's time has expired, unless he may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous agreement.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) for having said quite frankly that he has confidence in the Social Credit theory. In fact, he recognizes having studied the monetary question although he claims there are certain points he does not know. This is not surprising, in view of the fact that to understand well the Creditiste theory one must first understand the present system.
That is precisely what is not understood and we have an excellent proof of it since yesterday morning when all the provincial premiers, and the Prime Minister of Canada met two or three blocks away from here, to discuss how public funds should be spent. They do not agree, for the provinces would like to have more spending powers. The federal government, on the other hand, feels that they have enough powers as it is, and that it should keep what spending powers it already has, and even increase them.
Spending is not to be scaled according to the production capacity but rather to the taxing powers.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Taxing powers are very limited indeed whereas production powers are practically unlimited. In fact, our Canadian citizens can buy according to their income. When they have spent all their money, they simply go to a finance company and borrow in order to buy more. After they have borrowed from

December 9, 1969
1782	COMMONS
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party finance companies for periods of three, four or five years, after they have mortgaged their salary for five years to come, aftey they have spent that borrowed money to buy goods, the shelves in the stores are as full as ever. Production is almost unlimited whereas spending power is very restricted. The motion introduced by my colleague for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) is therefore quite clear. Some may still laugh at it now and this may go on for a few more years still, but it will not last forever. In the end, they will understand it is time to bring about a thorough monetary reform instead of exchanging small nickels for big ones.
The motion reads as follows:
1.	financing of public funds by credit advances at a nominal cost by the Bank of Canada to be repaid at the rate of depreciation of the works achieved;
2.	distribution of a national dividend to each Canadian citizen in order to ensure, out of the Canadian national product, at least his minimum living expenses.
In 1962, whether on television or at public meetings I urged the government, to try an experiment and to distribute $100 to every Canadian citizen. A family of five would have received $500, a family of ten $1,000 in buying power, through a dividend granted every month to start. This would have meant new credit of about $2 billion to the Canadian people. After three, four or five months, we could have seen the results. Dealers would have sold their products and applied for more to the manufacturers. New industries and new employment would have been created. The government said: It is sheer nonsense.
To-day, all Canadian governments, federal and provincial, are gathered in Ottawa to discuss what? Financial matters. One province is not satisfied, neither is the other. The federal government is not satisfied, yet they all have the power to reform the financial system.
The present system is unknown. It is not understood because it was hidden to the people who believe, for instance, when they stroll on Rideau Street in Ottawa, in front of banks or anywhere else, that by opening a savings account in which they would deposit money and get in return a 74 or 7-| per cent interest, that this would give them security from then on.
Who are the members who know-the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Pilon) does, as he was bank manager once-that the moment I go in a bank to open a $1,000 savings account,


yielding a 74 per cent interest, such an account yields at the end of the year $75? This is what the 74 per cent interest amounts to.
But who knows that when I open a saving account in the branch of a chartered bank, the latter, according to the federal legislation, has the right to lend 14 times more than my saving account and has the right to lend $14,000 at an interest of 9, 94 and 10 per cent. Let us say for example a 10 per cent interest. The bank will cash $1,400 profits in interest on my $1,000 saving account which I opened. This is a shameful exploitation of the Canadi-ian people, of the individual and of the governments in our country.
Mr. Speaker, a while ago, my good friend from Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) said that the Creditistes are not always kind towards the New Democrats.
I had recently the opportunity to visit western Canada with my friend, my colleague from Shefford. We went to Alberta, to Saskatchewan and to Manitoba. Now, at that time, the New Democratic Party was holding its national congress in Winnipeg. People from Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, in short, from everywhere had met there. One evening, when we had a bit of free time, we listened to the news on television, at 11 o'clock. The leader of the New Democratic Party as well as the parliamentary leader, the member for York-South (Mr. Lewis) addressed themselves to the representatives and roundly denounced-quite rightly too-the American influence on the Canadian economy. The member for York South, shaking his fists, declared: These Americans must not take advantage of our national resources. The whole audience cheered. Everybody was convinced that these ugly Americans have too much power over us and that they should go home, while we should use our own means in Canada to develop our natural resources.
The next evening, everyone knows that the New Democratic Party forms the new government in Manitoba under the leadership of a premier who used to be a member in this house-the provincial premier agreed with the national leader and the parliamentary leader to say that the Americans were ambitious and that they controlled 85 per cent of our national economy.
However, on the next evening, to my utmost surprise and amazement-I could not get over it-I heard the Minister of Finance of the new NDP government in Manitoba state on television that he was coming back from a trip to the United States where they
December 9, 1969	COMMONS
had rolled out the red carpet to welcome him-in San Francisco, Chicago, New York, where he had borrowed $15 million at 8.89 per cent interest for a project of Manitoba Hydro. He was quite happy to have gone to United States to get his province into debt.
Mr. Speaker, it is unconceivable that a so-called responsible government mainly in view of the attacks against American financiers, should go and beg the United States asking for the permission to develop a power project in Manitoba, right in the middle of a political convention.
Mr. Speaker, this does not happen only in Manitoba. The same thing happened in the province of Quebec.
The premier of Quebec-who is now in Ottawa-but when he is not in Ottawa he is on his knees in New York borrowing for Hydro Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: All this to say that we are slaves to a financial system and that only Creditistes have the courage to denounce it.
Someone said earlier that Sir John A. Macdonald probably favoured the creditiste philosophy. Here is an unavowed creditiste, a former American president during the war of secession, Abraham Lincoln, who said, and I quote:
I have two powerful enemies: the Confederate Army in front of me and the financial institutions behind me. The most fearsome is the one behind.
He did not fear the southern army which stood before him, no, but he did fear the financier who, behind him, controlled the economic blood of the nation and the army.
He went on to say:
The government should create, issue and put out all the required currency consistent with the spending powers of the government and the purchasing power of consumers.
What is being discussed two blocks from here at the moment? The spending power controlled by financiers, and not by the people who build Canada and ensure the Canadian production. The efforts of a whole people are paralysed to the benefit of a damned finance which controls our economic life.
President Lincoln also said, and I quote:
The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of the government, but it is also its greatest opportunity to create something. Citizens can and will be provided with currency as strong as their own country.
DEBATES	1783
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party Lincoln said that. When I hear Liberals panicking, saying on television that the Creditistes will issue currency without limits, without consideration and that money will lose its value, I would like to ask them: "Has not money lost enough of its value since we have been having monkey governments here in parliament?"
They are the ones who created inflation, the ones who maintain a cut-throat, stifling financial system, forcing us to reimburse three or four times the amounts borrowed.
Those are precisely the foundations of the Creditiste theory Lincoln was describing.
And I quote further:
Money will no longer master the people, but will serve them. Democracy will prevail over the power of money.
President Lincoln held that money should serve the individuals. And what are we saying, here, in this House? Exactly the same thing.
Instead of passing legislation aimed at subduing men, women and children, instead of telling the provinces the municipalities, the school boards not to spend and to tighten their belts, instead of telling the financiers: You may loosen your belts by increasing interest rates, the government should consider the solutions put forward by the Creditistes, for it is impossible for such a policy to last indefinitely.
As far as the Creditistes are concerned, in a given period of time, the total incomes of Canadians cannot buy the total production for the same period.
Mr. Speaker, the economists are of the opinion that, eventually income will buy up the products and that thus a balance will have been achieved. Yes, eventually, if income continued to flow in, while production remained at a standstill. It is obvious that if we went on receiving income we would finally mop up the whole production.
But such is not the case. Production keeps on growing year after year, at such a rate of growth that, as I said earlier, after we have spent all our national income, after we have borrowed from financing companies for three or even for ten years we see that the stores are bursting at the seams. We do not make enough money to buy the whole production even after we have borrowed on the salaries that we will be payed over the two or three next years.
December 9, 1969
1784	COMMONS DEBATES
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party
Economists say: incomes will eventually be used to buy goods. It is as if I said to honourable members: everyone is born some day, and, of course, is bound to die some day. Since we all are born and that we will eventually die, this proves clearly that the total of deaths is equal to the total of births, and that, therefore, nowhere in the world is there any population increase. Everybody would burst out laughing at this, because it would sound stupid: However, it is true that we shall all die one day, and that total deaths will eventually equal total births.
Time must therefore be taken into account, since people die at all ages, and consequently a time factor is involved, but it is in the course of that time that population increases, and to such an extent that one wonders why governments do not establish a system of birth control. Why such stubbornness about birth control, if the total number of deaths must one day be equivalent to that of births? Why birth control? Is it because there would also be a death control?
Mr. Speaker, it is a stupid system and when the Ralliement creditiste demand the distribution of a national dividend to each citizen in order to ensure him a vital minimum, it is logical. Let us logically, sincerely and frankly make a try and note the results. If they are not satisfactory, we should stop immediately, but if they are good, let us carry on!
We are also asking that the price set for the Canadian production and the purchasing power in the hands of consumers be balanced, through a compensated discount granted to consumers.
Mr. Speaker, for years we have been suggesting creditiste solutions, but instead of considering them, the government would rather draft white papers, establish inquiry commissions to find out if there are poor people and all sorts of things-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired and he cannot continue without the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to complete my remarks which will be brief, since I am almost through.
Before resuming my seat, however, I wish to say that, in my opinion, the time has come when those Who have responsibilities such as

members of Parliament, municipal aldermen and mayors should look at Social Credit more closely and more seriously than ever before.
We have kept asking that the public sector of our economy be financed by the Bank of Canada.
The member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) was perfectly right in saying earlier that nothing prevents us from using the Bank of Canada. I did not say that myself, but Mr. Graham Towers when he was the governor of the Bank of Canada. He said in 1939 that parliament was empowered to require that the Bank of Canada create the necessary credits so as to make financially possible what is physically feasible and desirable.
I heard the member for Waterloo say a while ago that we would likely have to become isolated under the Social Credit monetary system.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, our dollars are not in circulation elsewhere than in Canada, they do not even circulate in the United States. When I was in Russia, I did not see one single Canadian dollar and neither did I in Czechoslovakia, in India, in Tokyo, in Hong Kong and in Formosa. But they are circulating here, in Canada, I must admit. And what the foreigners want to know is how many Canadian goods they can get for a Canadian dollar.
Let us go to the United States and put a quarter into a cigarette vending machine for instance, and it will be rejected. With a Canadian quarter, you cannot even buy a pack of cigarettes in the U.S.
Then, our dollar has its full value only at home. What the foreigner wants to know is what he can buy in our country with a Canadian dollar. If we produce more, our dollar will have a greater value and our foreign trade will be more flourishing than it has ever been, because people who will be buying goods in our country will get more for their Canadian dollars.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we are asking that the Bank of Canada, which is our own financial institution, be used to finance the whole public sector of our economy, whether it is municipalities, school boards, or provinces, especially these poor provinces! We can see their representatives now, in the old Ottawa Station, pleading hat in hand with the Prime Minister to give them a little money, because they cannot keep things going any
December 9, 1969	COMMONS
longer. The provinces claim that Ottawa is responsible for centralization while Ottawa denies it. Others say that the provinces are not decentralizing but that the financial system is controlling all the administrative hierarchy of Canada and is responsible for all that happens. And even if the right honourable prime minister or Crown ministers find our solutions over-simple, let them make other suggestions, let the Progressive Conservatives make a better one and we shall support them if such a solution is really better, and goes to the very root of the political, economic and social uneasiness now existing in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, these are the few remarks I wanted to make on the motion brought in by my honourable colleague of Shefford. All the proposals of the Social Credit are included and I think that we are really aiming at a better future for all Canadians and if we really want to get rid of that financial dictatorship which could now help us but which on the contrary, is crushing us, the government has to make a stand and stop saying: we have only the money that we collect through taxation. It should take proper measures to make use of the Bank of Canada, our financial institution, and provide Canada with an economic system guaranteeing to every one security and personal freedom.
Mr. Speaker, we are not free under our present system and every one knows it. We want to help the poor. All members are prepared to do so. Except that nobody is willing to propose solutions likely to eliminate once and for all poverty in such a rich country as Canada.
We get white papers such as the one, for instance, which purports to tax the average income so as to help the lower income groups. And according to the Carter report the higher income group would be tax exempt, those, for instance, who earn half a million dollars or more would only pay 50 per cent in taxes instead of 80 per cent, while the lower or the average income groups, lets us say, those who earn between $15,000 and $30,000, would bear all the cost of helping the poor. Those who earn $2,800 or less would save nothing and those who earn over $2,800 would save $30, $40, $50 per year, or $4 or $5 per month. Of what use would that be to them?
This reminds me of a remark made by a farmer. Quite often, farmers are more intelligent than many lawyers.
This farmer who sold Christmas trees said "I own a stand of conifers and 1 operate like
DEBATES	1785
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party the federal government. I cut all the small fir-trees to make Christmas trees. When all the small fir-trees are cut, then 1 cut the tops of the big ones to make small Christmas trees out of them."
This is exactly the way the government operates at the present time. It cuts the small ones then he will cut the tops of the big ones when necessary. In the meantime, it is the average taxpayer who will foot the bill. He is the one who will be discouraged with fiscal and monetary policies not geared to the needs of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes have the answer and they invite all members, red and blue or NDP members to study the financial matter not only from the social credit viewpoint, but also the present system in operation, in order to better understand the social credit theory and to make the necessary reforms to give Canada a system at the service of man.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, in the next few minutes, I should like to explain to all members of this House the reasons that prompt me to support the notice of motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).
I will use a language everybody here can understand, the language of figures. I am convinced that if you consider those figures, you will draw the same conclusions.
To me, the justification of a government, is to act in such a way that people under its jurisdiction, will have an essential minimum purchasing power, so as to lead a free life, according to their work rather than to an economical structure.
Now I realize that at the present time in Canada, there are many factors, expressed in figures, that show very clearly, even a blind person, could see it, that the Canadian economy tends to stifle the worker, to the benefit of big enterprises or trusts. I will explain with a few quotations to prove my point.
The price of consumer goods has gone up. It is undeniable, as anybody looking at what is happening in Canada in 1969 can see, that everything is on the increase: the price of food has increased by 0.7 per cent during October 1969 as compared with September, as a matter of fact, the price of fruit, vegetables, pork and dairy products has gone up. That of fuel, and ladies' and children's clothing increased by 1.5 per cent and 1.4 per cent respectively during the same period. The
December 9, 1969
1786	COMMONS DEBATES
Monetary Proposals of Social Credit Party price of furniture and other household appliances also increased as well as that of services. Indeed that sector showed an increase of 1.6 per cent during the third 1969 quarter, as compared with the previous one.
We also witnessed a tremendous increase in the interest rates of banks and finance companies. The current bank interest rate is of 8 } or 9 per cent. As for those who cannot afford bank loans, they borrow from finance companies and other lending institutions at a rate of 18 per cent or 20 per cent and sometimes even higher.
I have here an advertisement of the Quebec government which proves my point quite well. This advertisement stipulates that Hydro-Quebec borrowed on December the 3rd an amount of 50 million dollars payable in American funds at 9} per cent and falling due on December the 15th, 1995.
If we stop a while to examine this loan, we can notice that on December the 15th, 1995, Hydro-Quebec will have to hand over to the American lending companies, for this transaction, about 175 million dollars, that is nearly $125 million in interest for a period of 25 years only. And the borrowed sum is $50 million. I think it is absolutely insane to refund a sum three and a half times greater than the original debt after 25 years only. We wonder who will pick up the talk? Everybody knows it here. The Quebec taxpayers will pick it up that's who. This is one example among hundreds of others which prove the total lack of financial genius among the people who are ruling Canada.
I should like to draw the attention of the members to the increase in unemployment in Canada at the present time. It is another symptom of the inability of the present administration to solve the problem. According to bulletin 71-001F of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the month of November which deals with the labour force in October, there were 26,000 more unemployed compared to 1968. Expressed in percentage of the total labour force, the rate of unemployment in 1969 was 3.9 per cent in October 1969, compared to 3.4 per cent in September 1969 and 3.6 per cent in October 1968.
The rate of activity for men, in the third quarter of 1969, was inferior to the corresponding period in 1968, in every age group. There lies the reason for the existence of the government, with regard to those facts which prove, beyond a doubt, that the number of people who are reduced to the strict minimum is increasing daily.

I should also like to point out to the members the case of farmers who now stand, under the present administration, close to bankruptcy. About thirteen thousand farms disappeared last year. In 1967-68, there were 5.3 per cent fewer farmers in Canada. In support of those figures, here are a few excerpts from various reports. According to report No. 1349 of the Canadian Department of Agriculture, page 11 of the French version, and I quote:
Although the general consumer price index revealed an increase of 36 per cent between 1948-52 and 1964-68, the retail price of food products increased by only 33 per cent. In that same period, the prices paid the farmers increased by only 9 per cent.
So we have a gap of 27 per cent. This, in my opinion, is very serious. Some people in the federal government who have a keen interest in the present system will tell you: The government grants subsidies which help the farmer to get through.
I will now quote from page 12 of the same report, published by the Department of Agriculture a few weeks ago, and I quote:
Canadian farmers do not get much in the way of subsidies. A comparison made by the OECD shows that the federal spending for agriculture in Canada (which includes not only subsidies but all services such as research and survey) average about $286 per gainfully employed person as against $1,287 in the United States.
The difference amounts to a mere $1,000 per year for every worker. What does the future hold in store for the Canadian farmers?
We can say without the shadow of a doubt that our financial system is inadequate. It may very well be that the people who run the economy of the country are incompetent, but I would rather blame the system. One can certainly not blame the country, for Canada is very rich. However, because of the poor administration of the present government, the poor are growing in number every day in the most appalling way.
By studying certain symptoms, we realize that the present government has failed in its effort to check inflation. We see now that the recipe was not good because there has been a frightening increase in the cost of insurance, municipal, school and other services. As for those who must ask for high interest rates, I cannot blame them because they need money to pay the interest on the loans they secured here and there.
Our economy is in a vicious circle and the only thing that could break it would be the
December 9, 1969

implementation of the social credit system in order to distribute the purchasing power among all people. Expressions such as "designated areas" and all others which lead people to believe that new industries will spring up in their areas do not mean a thing because, if we use borrowed money to set up new industries and can sell the goods produced by these industries, we are deluding ourselves.
It is impossible to have a healthy economy if we borrow to build, and if we cannot sell our products. That means that all the needs of the many Canadian families have not been met. Thousands of consumers do not have the necessities of life. Then, why does consumer demand fall, when thousands of them do not have the required minimum? In my opinion, the answer is very simple: a certain class of the Canadian society does not enjoy an adequate purchasing power although our subsoil is one of the richest there is and industries are up against production surpluses. Is that normal?
Is it normal that the government denies credit to these people by bringing forth restrictions of all kinds, one of which consists in letting the interest rate climb to an unprecedented level in the history of Canada?
Who benefits by the raise in interest rates? It is certainly not the man who needs it, but rather the anonymous banker or rich man.
I feel that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening from day to day. To remedy the situation we should change either our system or some of our economists so that the latter may deal more effectively with the problems confronting the world.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Since debate on this motion has now expired pursuant to paragraph 10 of Standing Order 58, the House will proceed to the next item for its consideration, the business of supply.



BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That Supplementary Estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 1970, presented to the House Tuesday, November 18, 1969, be concurred in.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, these estimates were before the

Supplementary Estimates committee designated as miscellaneous estimates. In the work this committee had to do we found 45 $1 items. Forty-one of these were transfers and four were items of legislative extension or items having the effect of statutory amendments. One year ago the same committee in its report recommended against this procedure being followed. None the less, four of these items were in the miscellaneous estimates. They were well explained, of course, and duly passed.
I am rising to take only a minute or two of the time of the House to complain about the shortness of the period which was allotted to the committee for the examination of these supplementary estimates. The committee was organized on November 20 with instructions that it report back to the House by December 5. I submit with great respect that this was not sufficient time in which to deal adequately with estimates involving some $66 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Your committee discovered tremendous increases in certain areas. One in particular which caused concern related to the Privy Council, and there was an increase of approximately $350,000 in the cost of operating the Prime Minister's office. We were also somewhat concerned to discover an increase of $1,206,000 representing extra expenditures of Senate committees as compared with the cost last year.
I should like at this point to pay tribute to an excellent chairman, but with great respect to the committee it does not have, constituted as it is, the expertise sufficient for a real examination of the matters which come before it. The field is much too broad, covering as it does virtually every department of government from agriculture to veterans affairs. I do not suggest for one moment that the government has taken advantage of this ready-made situation, but I do suggest that one day an unscrupulous administration might use this small, unknown committee, so to speak, in a manner which would not be in keeping with what we expect from Parliament.


An hon. Member:: I bet they have thought of that.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Perhaps they have
thought of it. But I object strenuously to this new system whereby committees can and are being used mainly as rubberstamps.

December 9, 1969
Supplementary Estimates


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baltleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I too sat on the miscellaneous estimates committee and I should like to raise one topic in the moment or two available to me. On that committee we voted an extra $40 million to pay for the salary increases of civil servants. I suggest that in the $1 items we transferred about another $20 million, in effect voting another $20 million to pay these increases. I am not questioning the pay increases themselves, but I do suggest that the $20 million we transferred was in effect a reduction in government capital expenditure, and we should have something to show for it next year. I realize that an effective and contented civil service is a useful tool for the government, but nevertheless this increase will have to be found in other years.
May I just comment briefly on the admission of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) that some of his colleagues had not been willing to accept the principle of cost-benefit studies in their approach to estimating the cost of programs requiring government expenditure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 10 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt the proceedings forthwith and put every question now before the House, including any bill based thereon. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr.	Drury	thereupon	moved	that	Bill
C-169, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1970, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr.	Drury	thereupon	moved	that	Bill
C-169, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1970, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Bechard in the chair.
On clause 2-$91,206,528 granted for 1969-70.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 9.50 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Wednesday, December 10, 1969