1971-03-16

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Mr. Speaker:: This House is greatly honoured today by the visit of a distinguished parliamentary colleague representing one of Canada's friends across the Pacific in the person of the Hon. Hyo Sang Rhee, Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Republic of Korea is fortunate in having a Speaker who brings to the exercise of his duties not only a lengthy parliamentary experience but also the thoughtfulness of the eminent scholar in philosophy and literature, fields in which Mr. Rhee has achieved international recognition.
Speaker Rhee's visit honours the House of Commons and the people of Canada. On behalf of this House, I extend the warmest welcome to Mr. Speaker Rhee and wish him a most pleasant and successful journey in our country.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Blair.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words to the House about the steps which the government has undertaken in order to provide this summer a program of student employment and activities. Hon. members may know that the number of university and high school students released from studies this summer will number more than 1,800,000. This represents an increase of close to 100,000 over the summer of 1970. Some of these persons will be seeking jobs; many of the rest will be in search of other
equally meaningful summer activities. It is in the national interest that the wishes of as many persons as possible in each category be accommodated.
Few countries in the world are able to encourage students at the secondary and post-secondary levels to assume part of the cost of their own education by means of earnings from part-time or seasonal employment. Canada is one of them. Yet even in this country the economy has not always been able to accommodate all of those who would like to work. The advantages of summer employment are so obvious, however, in terms of self-support, of broadening of outlook, of acquisition of new skills and experience, that every effort to assist on the part of governments and business is justified. There is equal justification for assistance to students who do not seek work but who are nevertheless desirous of occupying their summer vacations in an otherwise rewarding and worthwhile fashion. The talents and energies of all these young people can contribute much to Canada during the summer months if properly utilized.
However desirable the goal of summer employment for students may be, it must not be pursued in a fashion that reduces the opportunities of employment for those persons who are in or are entering the permanent Canadian labour force. Ideally, one of the results of properly designed programs of summer employment and student activity should be the avoidance of competition for permanent jobs with adults. The programs which the government proposes, and in which it needs and is seeking the co-operation of other levels of government and the private sector, have been drawn up with this in mind. They are aimed at the provision of summer jobs or summer occupations for students. Every effort is being made to avoid competition for jobs between students and permanent members of the labour force.
Such a task is a difficult one in any summer. This year, however, job opportunities will not reach their peak until the summer months while the influx into the labour market of some hundreds of thousands of students will take place during the spring months.

The federal government accepts its obligation, as a major employer, to provide as many temporary jobs as possible within the public service. It is also encouraging actively other employers, in both the public and private sectors, to employ students for the summer months. Both government and industry recognize at the same time another requirement, however. It is to avoid "make-work" activities which contribute little to the national wellbeing either now or in the future. Employment opportunities-whether permanent or temporary-must either contribute to present productivity or serve to upgrade our future labour force and so contribute to an increase of productivity and output in years to come.
23966-59!

March 16, 1971
Student Summer Employment
In addition to providing summer employment, the government will operate again this year the special Student Employment Centres which were so successful last year. These centres are operated by a staff composed almost entirely of students. More than 100 such centres will be in operation.
I have spoken so far, Mr. Speaker, of summer employment. I should like now to turn to the other portion of the federal government program, that part which assists students in non-employment activities. Some effort should be made by both government and non-governmental organizations to assist those students not wishing to work or not able to work to gain from their summer activities, be these in the form of travel, study, or voluntary occupations. The federal government will again this year encourage and facilitate youth travel and study. It will do so by providing assistance to communities that wish to organize and operate hostels, and by adding a series of roadside service kiosks to provide information and assistance to travelling students.
The government believes that there is a positive and beneficial value in travel by young Canadians. National unity is a product of national understanding and national pride. Never in our history has there been the same opportunity for mobility of young people as now exists. With or without help, young people will be travelling this summer. We should help to make their experience more worthwhile.

The government believes as well that youth is sincere in its efforts to improve society and that young people are anxious to work and to engage in activities which are intended to make Canada a better place in which to live. The government proposes therefore to encourage young persons to direct their energy, their imagination and their altruism into projects which are beneficial to the entire community. The opportunities for youth program will combine the resources of the government with the resourcefulness of youth. We are saying, in effect, to the youth of Canada that we are impressed by their desire to fight pollution; that we believe they are well motivated in their concern for the disadvantaged; that we have confidence in their value system. We are also saying that we intend to challenge them to see if they have the stamina and self-discipline to follow through on their criticism and advice.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the government expects a valuable return on the resources it will allocate this summer, and it believes that other governments, private organizations and businesses hold out the same expectation. There is work to be done; there are tasks to be performed; there are experiences to be gained. There is a whole country to be explored. There is a generation desirous of improving the world in which it finds itself. This summer will challenge us all to accomplish these ends.
The federal government proposes to spend some $57.8 million this summer in support of these activities. This sum has been allocated to nine separate categories of programs involving several departments. Rather than
burden the House at this time with details of each of these programs, I have requested the responsible ministers to make the information available to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and to the leaders of the other parties. This has been done.
The total summer program is the product of close consultation with the provinces, and with the private sector. Responsibility for continued co-ordination will rest with the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier).


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: In his statement the Prime Minister speaks about the importance of creating job opportunities and says that "every effort to assist on the part of governments and business is justified." He goes on to say that "there is equal justification for assistance to students who do not seek work but who are nevertheless desirous of occupying their summer vacations in an otherwise rewarding and worthwhile fashion." I would agree there is justification for assisting those students who wish to spend their time in travel, improving themselves and seeing the country. I think this is important. But I cannot agree that it is equally as important as providing job opportunities for students who need to earn money in order to remain in school or university.
It is very clear from looking at the material handed out by the Department of Manpower that it is private industry that will have to provide the great mass of jobs for students this summer as was the case last summer. It is very clear that no effective program has been announced even at this date to really encourage the expansion of employment by private industry. It is equally apparent to all of us that the main reason so many students will have such terrible difficulty obtaining employment or will fail to obtain employment this summer is the slack that exists in the economy which is the result of the government's slowing down of the economy and its glib and smug acceptance of the amount of unemployment that exists in Canada today. The prospects faced by these students this summer underline the need for more rapid expansion in the economy not only for the benefit of students but for all youth and all unemployed. The government has neglected its responsibilities and added to this neglect by delaying even this announcement until the middle of March.
I conclude my few remarks by reading what the Prime Minister said to the students in the course of his remarks:
There is work to be done; there are tasks to be performed; there are experiences to be gained. There is a whole country to be explored. There is a generation desirous of improving the world in which it finds itself.
I simply ask the government, why does it not give the kids a chance to do it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister comes into the House today and makes a statement. Arrangements have already been made for a group of four or five cabinet ministers to flesh out the supposed details later this afternoon in a press conference. I hope that the members of the press who attend that conference and the public outside this chamber will keep in mind that the 990,000 students who the Minister of Manpower and Immigration says will be looking for work this summer will be joining the more than 700,000 people who are looking for work at the present time, and that a very large percentage of these people are looking for work because of the policy of slowing down the economy deliberately adopted by this government a year and a half ago.
Student Summer Employment
What does the Prime Minister say? He says that the government will provide $15 million for employment programs for students, which is a very good objective. He says that the money will be provided to between 4,000 and 5,000 voluntary organizations which are asked today, on March 16, to come forward with ideas to put students to work, not make-work programs but programs that will provide useful work. In five weeks a very large number of university students will be finishing their university terms and a month later high school students will be entering the job market. These voluntary organizations have been given between five and eight weeks to develop meaningful projects. Nothing could be more ridiculous than to expect that really useful projects will be developed in that time. I am not critical of the voluntary organizations nor am I critical of the students who will be hired, but I say to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State that when this summer is over we will find that a good deal of the money went for the same kind of useless projects which we saw operated by the Company of Young Canadians, and the blame will not rest with the voluntary organizations nor the students but with the government.
Why did the government have to wait until March to announce this program? They knew what happened last year. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration said in his statement that 940,000 students were looking for work last year and there will be 50,000 more this year. We know from the figures which the minister gave us at the end of last year that 50 per cent of the students who looked for work last year did not get work for more than half the time for which they were available for work. Surely the government should have started last September to work out the kind of programs which they have announced today.
The Prime Minister said there had been close consultation with the provinces. I know of one province at least where the first official announcement to the province of this program was in a telephone call to the premier last week. If that is close co-operation, I do not know what co-operation means. So I say that to a large extent the employment program will be meaningless.
I want to deal now with the travel program which is divided into two parts. The first is the hostel program. That is a very useful program because a large number of students who cannot get work will be moving across the country. We see more of this every year, and it is good for the federal government and the provinces to co-operate in providing facilities where these students can stay in the cities they visit. I approve of that.
I want to say something about the other part of the program, the $3,750,000 which is being provided for young people with respect to two projects in Canada and two projects overseas. I am all in favour of students having the opportunity to broaden their experience, but what kind of students are going to be able to spend a substantial part of the summer travelling, partly at their own expense and partly at the expense of the government of

March 16, 1971
Student Summer Employment Canada, the people of Canada? The students who can avail themselves of that kind of program are those who come from middle and upper income families. They are students who do not have to worry about getting a job and earning some money this summer so they can go back to school or university in September. I object to a program which is primarily designed to subsidize those who already have the most in this country.
Having been so critical of what the Prime Minister has announced today, following the quick study I have been able to make of the announcement I want to commend the government and the Department of National Health and Welfare for the programs which will come under that department. The program to involve 700 students in the study of drug abuse seems to me to be an extremely useful one. Another useful program is that which provides clinics for training athletic coaches. For too long Canada has lagged in its ability to produce athletes of a high calibre. Projects of this kind should be commended.
The whole idea of doing something for students this summer is one which every member of the House can support, but I want to close by again saying that in my view the bulk of the value which could have been obtained from this kind of program will be lost because the government waited until the middle of March to announce it instead of making plans and announcing them to the provinces, the cities and the voluntary agencies last September or October.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister has just said that 1,800,000 students will enter the labour market during the summer months.
I feel that the action taken by the government at the present time is nothing but a poultice on a wooden leg. It will not solve the problem.
Our young people, who constitute our Canadian population of tomorrow to use the right hon. Prime Minister's words, expect something more. Already late in 1971 for settling the problems facing our students, the government merely states that it will create 500,000 peacetime jobs for our young people, while 1,300,000 of them will be left in the cold.
If a world war broke out tomorrow morning, all students would find jobs immediately because they would be called up, we would clothe them, house them, feed them and pay them. The $57,800,000 would not even be mentioned. That is what staggers me. In wartime, on the pretext of saving civilization, millions are not taken into account, the government spends money. However, in peacetime, to help the young adapt to our society, the government talks about $57 million. It mocks the people, to their faces. That is what the present program boils down to.
We shall not oppose, of course, the assistance that may be granted to students during the summer months. However, we feel that a long-term program is required. We suggest the payment of an advance salary to students, which would enable them to adapt to society and prepare their future in Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Rober* L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the government's acquisition of a controlling interest in Cygnus Corporation and thereby in Home Oil Company. Does the government intend to introduce legislation with regard to the acquisition of these shares or does the government consider it now has the necessary authority to acquire the shares and, if so, would the Prime Minister indicate what that authority is?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced to the House the other day what I can only repeat now, namely, that the negotiations have been undertaken. There is nothing new to report since the minister spoke to the House, I believe last Friday, and we do not think it is in the public interest now to say in which way this acquisition will proceed, if indeed it does proceed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister to indicate for the information of the House and the people of the country whether the government feels it has the necessary legal authority at the present time to make this acquisition and, if so, what the authority is, or whether the government intends to introduce legislation? I respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister, Sir, that there is no conceivable reason in the public interest why he cannot give that information to the House, if he has it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the question has to do with this particular transaction my answer can only be the previous one, but if the Leader of the Opposition is asking me for some kind of opinion on whether the government of Canada, by contract, can purchase something, the answer is that it can, but subject as always to the appropriation of the money by this House or to what other procedure is needed, either legislation or estimates. The government of Canada is not prohibited by law from buying an interest in this kind of company, if this is what the Leader of the Opposition is asking. If such an undertaking is proceeded with, of course we will have to come to the House in one way or another for funds to proceed with such appropriation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I thank the Prime Minister for indicating to the House that if this transaction is completed the government will be coming to the House for the necessary authorization, at least in terms of money. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to retain the controlling interest in the company if it completes the transaction or whether it intends to

March 16, 1971

resell under terms which would ensure the retention of control in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You will recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the question as asked is hypothetical. The Leader of the Opposition is asking me to state what the government would do if this deal were proceeded with. At this time there is nothing in the direction of a concluded deal on which I can report to the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am simply trying to find out what the policy of the government is but there apparently isn't one.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question related to one asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. Is it the view of the government that the government of Canada can acquire a corporation for purposes other than those specifically assigned to it in the constitution?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member realizes that the question he has asked is defective in at least two ways. He is asking, according to my way of thinking, for a legal opinion. In the second place, he is inviting the government to express an opinion. On both grounds the question is out of order. Nevertheless, if the hon. member thinks his question can be phrased in some way which would make it acceptable from a procedural standpoint he might attempt to do it now.


Gerald William Baldwin: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I was following the line taken by my hon. friend. I will put it this way: can the government acquire corporations for purposes other than those specifically assigned to it under the constitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is obviously a request for a legal opinion. In order to give advice on that I would have to know whether the hon. member has in mind acquisition by way of expropriation or acquisition by way of voluntary purchase.



ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY OF GOVERNMENT ACTIONS RESPECTING DENISON MINES AND HOME OIL

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman could explain briefly to the House why the government is proceeding to purchase share control of Home Oil Company when in the case of Denison it simply passed legislation prohibiting the sale to foreign ownership? Is there a specific reason for this change?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The distinction has been made on several occasions both in and out of this House and again by myself yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Under the British North America Act the government has jurisdiction over the uranium industry but it does not have the equivalent type of jurisdiction over
Inquiries of the Ministry
other resources such as the petroleum industry, and that is one of the reasons why we are acting in this way.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in view of the answer he has just given and in view of the answer he gave to me yesterday on this question when, as found at page 4245 of Hansard, he said:
In the case of uranium, the federal government had jurisdiction under the constitution to intervene directly.
Was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources expressing the view of the government on September 18 when he said in the second paragraph of his press release headed "Control of Foreign Ownership of Canadian Uranium Properties and Facilities":
It was proposed, the minister said, to bring into force regulations under the Atomic Energy Control Act for the carrying out of government policy with respect to the control of foreign ownership of Canadian uranium properties and facilities, but legal counsel now advise that some of the provisions which will be required by government will necessitate legislation rather than regulations. Accordingly, the government is preparing legislation to be introduced to Parliament during the forthcoming session, but it will take some additional time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member is coming to the question. I realize he is inviting an opinion from the right hon. Prime Minister as to whether a statement made is government policy, but the statement quoted by the hon. member should not be too long. I hope he will come to the question soon.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I had finished my quotation. My question to the Prime Minister is: He said one thing yesterday, that the government had jurisdiction, and the minister on September 18 said the government thought it had but found it did not have the jurisdiction it needed and therefore must pass legislation, which legislation has not been presented to the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has had the floor for quite some time. The question period is only 40 minutes long. We will be running short of time.


George Harris Hees: My question is, how does the Prime Minister reconcile these two completely opposite points of view?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple, and I think what the minister said confirms what I said. If the government intends to pass legislation it is quite obvious that the government considers it has jurisdiction, and that is exactly what I said. The federal government has jurisdiction over this area and that is why we will be in a position to present legislation to the House. If we did not have jurisdiction we would not be able to present legislation. It would be presented in some provincial House.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings for one brief supplementary, but in fairness to other members we have to go on to other questions. We have spent more than ten minutes on the first question and in my view that is unfair to other members.

March 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister has said that the government had jurisdiction. There is no jurisdiction under the Atomic Energy Control Act to prohibit the sale of uranium. The government does not have jurisdiction now, nor did it have a year ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
:js % sfc



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-STATEMENT RESPECTING PROVISION OF RIGHT OF WAY

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister who has now had a week to study the speech made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Dallas, Texas, on March 9. When I asked a question a week ago the Prime Minister had not had a chance to read the speech. Since the Prime Minister was worried about distortion the other day, perhaps I had better read the relevant sentence:
In other words, if it is felt desirable to build an oil pipeline from Prudhoe Bay direct to the mid-continent market then a right of way through Canada I am sure can, and will, be made available.
Does this mean that the minister was speaking on behalf of the Canadian government and that the Canadian government is now saying, without any preconditions, that a right of way will be made available for the building of both oil and gas pipelines through Canada from Alaska to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously the answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is asking if this will be done without any preconditions. The quotation he just read to the House contained the words "if it is desirable". Surely this is the whole phrase on which the case rests. If it is desirable in terms of public policy and in terms of government decision, a way can be found to do it. There is no problem here that I can see.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since two ministers have now issued invitations making it clear to the United States that the government would favour the building of an oil pipeline through Canada, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake to give either of the giveaway twins an opportunity to make a statement to the House so that we may be fully aware of what commitments the Canadian government has made, what the conditions are and when the ecological studies with respect to a pipeline through Canada will be completed?


Mr. Boulanger:: Where were you on Friday? We were all day on that subject.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premise of the question, that there has
been a firm indication to United States interests to build a pipeline. The minister said quite clearly that if it were in the Canadian interest, if it were desirable to have such a pipeline built we would make the conditions available whereby it could be built. This is not a clear invitation. This is an indication that there is a route there, that it can be considered and that we are looking at the various conditions under which it would be beneficial to Canada.



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-WITHHOLDING OF COMMITMENT UNTIL STUDIES COMPLETED

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since his statement said nothing about whether it was in Canada's interests but simply said that a right of way could and would be made available-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -I want to ask the minister whether he is having discussions this week with representatives of the 17 companies comprising Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Research Limited. In view of the fact that Mr. E. C. Hurd, president of this group, has said that studies will not be completed for some three years, does the minister intend to delay making any firm commitment until these studies have been completed and also the studies by his own department?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we had a debate on that matter on Friday and I spoke very clearly to the House about the situation. We said to the Americans what is obvious, that there is a route there that we can use if they accept the conditions that we have laid down about it, that it is going to be a common carrier, that it is going to protect the ecology, that it will have to give employment to the native people and so on. I think that this policy is in the best interests of Canadians. It was made public last August, so I am quite surprised that the hon. member has not checked it.



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-OPPORTUNITY FOR CANADIANS TO INVEST IN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Canada prefers the Mackenzie valley route, does the government have any plans which would enable Canadians to invest in such a pipeline development? Are any specific plans now laid out which will enable Canadians to invest in this pipeline development should it come down the Mackenzie valley?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, no specific plans.

March 16, 1971



POST OFFICE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office.
Since the last increase in postal rates has brought about the folding up of several magazines and generally resulted in a decrease in the volume of mail, could the minister indicate whether his department is presently considering the possibility of further increasing postal rates in order to offset the deficit resulting from the reduced volume of mail?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the decrease in volume did not necessarily result from the rates increase, but we are considering the possibility of further increasing postal rates.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Under whose authority was the publication called "Bi-monthly Research Notes, published under the authority of the minister of the environment", issued and distributed across Canada? There is no minister of the environment. Under whose authority was this publication put out?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make inquiries and report back to the hon. member.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I will put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that Canadair of Montreal has revealed its financial difficulties and threatens to lay off 6,000 workers, could the right hon. Prime Minister inform us whether his government intends to take immediate steps likely to alleviate the situation, such as the purchase of CL-215 aircraft.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my department is making every effort to help Canadair, for example, in the international field, promote the sale of CL-215 aircraft. My department is also trying to secure for the company
Inquiries of the Ministry
sub-contracts from the United States and is also helping in the areas of research and development.
The Minister of Transport is, for his part, engaged in developing a reorganization program which would apply to the Canadian aircraft industry as a whole, in regard to short take-off and landing.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Is he doing his best to prevent, by means of temporary contracts or agreements, the dismissal of the 6,000 Canadair employees involved?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is aware of the situation of the aircraft industry in Canada, the United States and the rest of the world, he knows that the industry is encountering great difficulties at the present time because of cuts in the defence budgets of several countries, particularly Canada and the United States.
I therefore feel that expecting the company to continue operations at a wartime employment level would be unrealistic.


Georges-J. Valade: In view of the importance of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I feel the minister should reply to my question. Does the government intend to purchase CL-215 amphibian aircraft, which have already been purchased by other countries to combat forest fires?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that question is under consideration, but it is well known that it involves real difficulties. Some provinces, among which Quebec, have already got those planes. Were the government of Canada to buy some, the fact that a province is already equipped would raise problems, and it might also happen that when fires would have to be fought in Newfoundland, the planes would be in British Columbia.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. I will drawl the question while he is returning to his seat. Will the government redirect a large portion of the funds allocated for subsidized housing to support lower interest rates on housing for ownership as suggested to the minister today by the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the large amounts of money available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are, of course, capital funds. There would be some difficulty in applying capital funds to what is basically an expenditure program. Nevertheless we are, and have been for some time, examining the proposal. If there is a decision made, I will announce it to the House.
4294

March 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



SUGGESTED LOW-COST INNOVATIVE PILOT PROJECT

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister in respect of the request of the Housing and Urban Development Association for his support for a 100-acre, low-cost, innovative pilot housing project. Is the minister prepared to support their request?


Robert Knight Andras: The National House Builders Association is now the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. Last year they came to us with a proposal in principle. It was not possible to entertain it at that time. I have not seen any details. I was told this morning that they have received an enthusiastic response from a municipality and provincial government. I invited them to send us the details so that we can examine them. .Generally speaking, we would be receptive to examining them, but I am in no position to make a decision at this time because I have not seen them yet.



EFFECT OF FLUCTUATING INTEREST RATES ON STARTS

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I have a supplementary question with regard to the report that many builders are withholding their building programs because of the wide fluctuation of interest rates. Would the minister consider stabilizing interest rates for a period of six months or a year so that builders can proceed with their building programs? As a further supplementary, will the minister consider making some of the interest rates more especially with regard to CMHC loans, dependent on income, in other words, interest geared to income?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the last portion of the question was wrapped up in the answer I gave a moment ago. With regard to the builders holding off for a stabilization of interest rates, I inquired of the house builders this morning if this was the case to any marked degree. They said this is not the case. As far as my ability to stabilize interest rates for six months or a year is concerned, it is a very interesting proposition, but I do not really subscribe to it at the present time.



QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO GRANT TO LA LIGUE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: My question is for the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is in connection with the answers he gave with regard to a pipeline through Canada from Alaska to United States. The minister referred to a condition regarding the ecological consequences of the pipeline. Is research on the question of the ecological consequences of building a pipeline completed, what organization is the minister depending on for such research, and if he has any report is he prepared to table it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, exactly two years
ago, my own department as well as other departments and the private sector undertook some research work on the possible effects on the tundra of pipeline construction. A few days ago, I even told the House that such research would be extended for another summer season before we came to a final conclusion. On many occasions, I stated that such a final conclusion could in my opinion be arrived at before the end of 1971 at the latest. The sooner the better, but I have repeatedly said that we intended to take up all the time we needed and only when we have in hand all the information made available by the government officials and by the private companies will we able to make a meaningful decision.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Is he sure that the research will bring about a satisfactory solution to this issue?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said, Mr. Speaker, that if man is able to send another man to the moon, he would probably be able to build a pipeline in the North without destroying the ecological balance. I can also say that the experiments made in the last two years lead us to believe that that will be possible.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister be prepared to set up some form of inquiry into the question of trafficking in industrial milk quotas?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member has asked this question a number of times; indeed, it has been the subject of one "late show". If he has some evidence in connection with "trafficking in milk quotas" I would be happy to receive that evidence and look into it.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of a request made a fortnight ago by Mr. Jacques Hebert, representative of the Quebec chapter of the Civil Liberties Union, for financial support from the federal government, and since the Secretary of State is supposed to be studying this request since then, could the Prime Minister say whether the government has agreed to subsidize this organization and for which purposes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Secretary of State has indeed received a request in these general terms and that he is considering it. Unfortunately, I cannot tell the House which decision he has reached, but I am satisfied that if the hon. member asks this question of the minister upon his return, he will obtain an answer.

March 16, 1971



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs described Canada's action in extending a $14 million interest-free loan for 50 years to eastern African countries for the purchase of railway locomotives as a bold experiment in international co-operation. Will the Minister of Transport approach the Secretary of State for External Affairs and suggest that we pursue a bold experiment in national co-operation by making interest-free loans to Canadian railway companies in order that we may enjoy railway passenger services in Canada, particularly in the area of Owen Sound where not one train is running?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question was hardly in order; it was in the form of a representation and the hon. member has to assume there will be communication between the ministers in question.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: In the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport who seems still to be basking in the euphoria produced by the previous question. I should like to ask him whether the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers conciliation board report has been submitted to the government. If not, when is it expected?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: To
my knowledge the report has not been received. I shall make inquiries and let the hon. member know.


Mark Willson Rose: Since there has been more than a year's delay in bringing about a settlement between the railway companies and this union, has the minister or any member of the government considered initiating changes in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in order that delays may be eliminated or shortened in the future?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This is properly a matter for the Minister of Labour, but my colleague has indicated to the House on a number of occasions that he is proposing amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and no doubt these will be coming forward in due course.
* *



POST OFFICE


Mr. Stevens E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is directed to the minister in charge of the Post
Inquiries of the Ministry
Office. Is the Post Office Department investigating the reported theft of 150 parcels in the Riverside Park area of Ottawa? Can he assure anxious residents deprived of Christmas gifts that action is being taken by his department?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: We
have made an inquiry, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
It is quite difficult to write a word of thanks for something that we have not yet received.

lEnglish]



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Paul Yewchuk: My question is for the
Solicitor General. Can the minister inform the House of the circumstances surrounding the holding of a CYC vehicle by the RCMP in Hay River, Northwest Territories?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to inquire about the circumstances and to inform the hon. member.


Paul Yewchuk: Since the CYC may be directly or indirectly involved with or related to the bombing of a building in Hay River, can the minister indicate whether an investigation is being carried out and whether a report will be made to the House on this matter?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I will make sure that this matter is considered, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in order to determine precisely what stage negotiations with Home Oil have reached. Would the right hon. gentleman say that Home Oil could still negotiate privately with a Canadian company or companies held principally by Canadian shareholders if it decided not to do business with the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, very much so.
4296

March 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN SUIT BROUGHT BY ONTARIO AGAINST DOW CHEMICALS

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister with respect to the suit for damages launched by the Ontario government against Dow Chemicals and, if I understand correctly, against the parent corporation in the United States? Is the federal government participating in this suit along with the Ontario government? Perhaps I should have directed the question to the Minister of Justice or to the Solicitor General. In any case, I should be glad if the minister who can supply the information would reply.


John (Jack) Davis: We are providing all the information we have to the government of Ontario and keeping our options open.
* # *



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: My
question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs or for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the grave concern expressed recently by the Canadian Airline Pilots Association with respect to hijacking in Canada. May I ask whether Canada intends to subscribe to the terms of the Hague convention or to move on its own with respect to this most heinous of all crimes?
Hen. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport): I
have answered this question on a number of occasions. Our position is that we are prepared to co-operate with any country in any way which would put an end to this type of senseless crime. Whether there is any specific initiative at the moment, in addition to what we have taken unilaterally, I cannot say. At the same time, we are continuing talks with the Canadian Airline Pilots Association and I believe the association understands the position.



POST OFFICE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I would direct my question to the minister responsible for the Post Office. It concerns the opening of a new postal service centre in Toronto yesterday. May I ask the minister whether it is the case, as reported in an article I read in the Globe and Mail, that the rent being paid is $8 per square foot per month and, second, whether it is the intention to use these premises to sell merchandise in competition with private enterprise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he cannot ask a minister to confirm or deny the accuracy of statements which appear in the press. Perpaps we can
assume, however, that the question was asked directly, and the minister may wish to reply.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: As
far as arrangements for allocation of buildings are concerned, this is a matter which comes within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. I understand that the premises include a very nice boutique, and maybe this is a new concept for the Post Office. We intend to sell other things besides stamps, including mint sets, mineral specimens and other articles of a kind which symbolize Canada. We shall also provide services which people need when sending parcels and so on.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister prepared to clear up the inconsistency between his answer on Friday to the hon. member for St. John's East and the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on Monday to the same member with regard to the protest voiced by the French government over Canada's announced 12-mile limit along the south and west coasts of Newfoundland? In other words, will French trawlers refrain from fishing within our 12-mile fishing limit?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, concerning the nature of the communication that we received last week, I understand it originated with a junior official of the French government and was of the character of a protest. Since then, the French Ambassador has termed it a reservation, so I now report that a reservation has been expressed by the French government.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister undertake to keep the parliamentary secretary informed while his minister is away?



TRANSPORT


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister be throwing his weight behind the conveniently scheduled six-month experimental commuter service on the CPR line between Agincourt and Toronto, as requested of him by the Agincourt committee?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have already assured the chairman of the metropolitan group in Toronto, Mr. Campbell, that we will participate with them in a thorough study of all

March 16, 1971

commuter lines feeding into Toronto. Initial negotiations area already under way with Mr. Campbell's office, and I assume that that particular route will be embraced by the study.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: May we take it that the minister will push for progress in the commuter service area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister's department investigated the sewage pollution problem in the Yukon River? If so, what are the plans of his department in this respect?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not presently aware of this problem. I shall inquire and I shall be pleased to inform the hon. member regarding this matter.



SHIPPING


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister's department consulting with insurance companies which underwrite ocean shipping with a view to extending the present shipping season out of Churchill this coming year?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If these gentlemen are not in the country now they will be within a matter of hours. I have invited the top people in the insurance fraternity from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Part of their visit will involve a complete tour of the St. Lawrence seaway, and they will be thoroughly briefed while here about the so-called Hudson Bay route. Later in the year, we will invite them back when the time is appropriate to view that route. The objective of the exercise is to get them to reduce insurance rates for all ocean shipping into icy Canadian waters.



HISTORIC SITES


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Last Wednesday I asked him about the proposed discontinuance of summer job oppor-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tunities for students at historic Fort Garry and at other national historic sites in Canada. Is the minister now ready to reply?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have been
informed that the military guard at Fort Garry was not of a very great historical authenticity, because that fort had been mostly used for fur trading rather than for military purposes. This is why, from the point of view of historical authenticity, it was not desirable to maintain this military guard. However, we are taking the necessary steps so that the number of jobs for students will not be decreased at Fort Garry.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the other part of my question referred to stepping up the program of animation with a view to employing students and providing summer job opportunities. Will such animation be taking place this summer at Fort Garry and at other historic sites across the country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the program of animation which will be diversified enough should be undertaken this summer. It will particularly highlight fur trading. I was told that students will wear appropriate costumes.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he assure the House that the total capacity of ships made available for the Cape Tormentine-Borden ferry service this year will be at least as great as the total capacity in operation last year, and will the total number of crew be approximately the same?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In
reply to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give that assurance. In point of fact, it is my assessment that there will be an increase in capacity- that is our intention-with regard to passengers and automobiles. In so far as the crews are concerned, I have no doubt that since we are adding two additional vessels to the east coast ferry fleet there will be employment for at least the same number of people as previously. There is a question about which I have asked the CNR to advise me as soon as possible with regard to the disposition of those crews relative to where the ships themselves are going to be used during the summer.


John Angus MacLean: Can the minister assure me, on the assumption that only one of the ferries in operation there this summer will be capable of carrying railway cars, that there will be another ferry available as a reserve which can be quickly brought into service if necessary?

March 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance. The proposal

and I emphasize, as I have on previous occasions, that at the moment it is only a proposal- would be to locate the rail-car ferry service in such a way that under normal circumstances it can serve on the gulf crossing but would be readily available, in the event that the Abegweit were to have problems on the Prince Edward Island service, to be diverted to P.E.I. within a matter of a very few hours.



AGRICULTURE


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the recent ruling of the Manitoba Court of Appeal that persons within a province may receive for consumption or resale agricultural products from outside the province free from any regulation, direction or control by a provincial marketing board-an important interpretation of section 121 of the British North America Act-would the Prime Minister take steps to instruct the Minister of Justice to refer this whole matter to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised with me yesterday, I believe, by the Minister of Agriculture who is discussing it with the Minister of Justice. The question is presently being studied. It certainly points to the correctness of the line that we have taken at the federal level, that these problems can be settled only by a measure of federal-provincial co-operation.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Crowfoot has a supplementary to his previous question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. If the Manitoba government takes the position that it should take this question to the Supreme Court, are the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice prepared to assist in determining the exact interpretation, for the good of all provinces, of section 121 of the British North America Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the matters that the Minister of Justice will be looking into.



SURREY, B.C.-THREAT POSED BY CRUMBLING OF DYKES

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the minister received a request from Surrey, B.C. asking for a meeting to discuss the flood threat which has been raised in Surrey by the crumbling of some dykes that were built in 1912? If so, would he
undertake to look into the matter so that any immediate threat might be removed?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under joint study with the province of British Columbia.



FINANCE


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns the question I directed to him last week asking what action he intends to take about the 33 per cent increase that the banks have levied on the handling of cheques. He replied at that time that the Prices and Incomes Commission was conducting a preliminary inquiry. I should like to ask the minister whether that preliminary inquiry has been concluded and, if so, what was the result? If it has not been concluded, when does he expect to receive a report from the commission?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minisier of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, it has not been received and I do not have information as to when it will be. I am sure it will be completed as soon as the commission can do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period
expired a moment ago. Will the House allow the hon. member for Leeds to ask a question, after which we will call orders of the day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
* sfc



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Desmond Morton Code: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the grave concern of Kingston merchants, is it the policy of the government to establish what are known as CANEX stores for the Canadian Armes Forces at Kingston, which will function in direct competition with the retail merchants of that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is the kind of question that might be considered at the time of adjournment. I realize the hon. member's question is one of importance, but I am wondering whether it should not ordinarily be placed on the order paper or, if there is urgency, considered at the time of adjournment. Orders of the day.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the President of the Treasury Board is still in the House, I should like to inquire when he will next appear

March 16, 1971

before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. If the hon. member is asking a question and we must assume it is one which might have been asked during the question period, it can now be asked only with the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that he is not on a point of order. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse) moved:: That this House regrets that the government has not seen fit to apply Social Credit monetary policy.
Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I have the honour to move the censure motion of the Ralliement Creditiste now before the House, and which reads as follows:
That this House regrets that the government has not seen fit to apply Social Credit monetary policy.
As we move this motion, we have no intention of wasting the time of the House, and we do not feel that we are. During the present session or during the preceding ones, the House was not called upon to discuss bills designed to put an end to the present economic and financial disorder.
Unfortunately the government refused to leave the beaten path and preferred to rely on traditional policies which give no results.
The government was satisfied with offering measures which, until now, failed everywhere else in the world. If the economic situation is so mixed up at present in Canada, inflation is to blame; if there is unemployment at the same time, the Ralliement creditiste is certainly not to blame, it is not because the Social Credit monetary proposals were put into effect. On the contrary, it is because conventional policies once again show their failure. Once again we renew our attempt because we want to awaken the members of the government and of other parties to the policies we promote and to the means we would use if we were sitting in place of the present government.
Before coming to the heart of the matter and proving the failure of the government policy and the reasons for its failure, I should like to call attention to the remarks of those who claim that the failure of Social Credit is a foregone conclusion, that it has been judged, and that economists are content to grant it divided attention. That is precisely the case, Mr. Speaker: Social Credit has been
Social Credit Monetary Policy judged and condemned without a fair trial. Those who state its policy are listened to only absent-mindedly. That is the truth of the matter.
With regard to what economists think of it, here is what one of them has to say. Mr. Hutchison, professor of political economy at Birmingham University, wrote this in a book published in London in 1964.
The study deals with the role of the judgments passed by economists on its value, and on the narrow-mindedness they reveal in these judgments, either because of the ideologies they have espoused, their political or social commitments, the selection of biased facts, unverified propositions and finally because of their differences as to the means to reach the ends. I quote from Mr. Hutchison:
If sciences-i.e. positive sciences-follow a straight line, economic sciences follow a spiral. With positive sciences, discoveries add to knowledge. When new truths are revealed past errors are rejected into oblivion. But with economics, we are going around in circles: every generation discovers the same errors as fast as it absorbs new ideas. The reason may lie not in economics themselves but with economists. When young we-the economists-take up theoretical positions and we spend the rest of our lives selecting facts to confirm them.
Thus speaks a modern economist about the so-called economic sciences.
Economics are prejudiced, biased, they spend their time digg ng up facts, disclosing some, hiding others, in order to preserve their status in the universities, get their degrees and maintain their own prestige.
After this digression, I come back to the motion read a few minutes ago to show that Social Credit monetary proposals would bring satisfactory solutions to our economic problems.
What are those problems? Judging from the crest-fallen appearance of government members, they have a great number of problems but no solutions. This is why they are sad, cheerless and have such mournful faces.
Obviously, we are not going to enumerate all those problems. It would be too long, too boring, and I have no desire to rub it in. But still, some of them seem to take it more seriously than others and they ask for special attention and they may even require the members of the government to undertake research work to solicit opinions, to seek advice, as we heard it said the other day by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) concerning his white paper on taxation.
First of all, we must face the problems of inflation, and of price increases. The government says that inflation no longer prevails and that our economy must be expanded. Still, this is surely not the opinion of the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada who claims that inflation is still prevailing, and who has recently been critical of the government for its attempts at letting loose the economy with the means at its disposal. This is also not the opinion of the officials of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics who have just disclosed that in February 1971, the increase in prices has not stopped and the general consumer price index has gone up by .5 in February 1971.

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy
Neither is it the opinion of the consumers who note a spiral in the price of food, clothes, rents and transportation.
There is also the problem of the 500,000 registered unemployed Canadians in addition to those whom statistics do not take into account since they are "seasonally adjusted" unemployed, ghost unemployed, who only disturb official figures and the rosy dreams of the ministers.
There is also a growing misery which stems from unemployment. More than 1,000,000 Canadians are unemployed which means that their families are deprived of the necessities of life because they are short of money though there is no shortage of goods. Is there a shortage of wheat to make bread? Of milk to feed families and meet children needs? Of cream to make butter which is no more to be found on Canadian tables, because we make do with 25 cents a pound margarine? Is there a shortage of poultry? Of hens so that eggs are scarcely used in Canadian fares? Is there a storage of eggs so that chicken are seldom eaten by the families of the unemployed? No, Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of wheat to make bread, but the government pays farmers to lay their lands fallow and produce a little less. No, there is no shortage of milk, but the government refuses to subsidize farmers alleging that they produce too much milk, cream and butter. No, Mr. Speaker, we have no egg shortage in Canada, because Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the western provinces take all steps to prevent entrance of eggs from other provinces. It has become a problem because there is a surplus. It sometimes leads to violent discussions.
Nor do we have a shortage of apples. In fact, Canadian applesauce producers complain that applesauce from South Africa competes with their own production. Nor is there a shortage of textile products for clothing Canadian families. There is no shortage of footwear for Canadian citizens' feet. Textile mills are closing down, dismissing their employees, lacking a market for their production. Shoe manufacturers complain that Italian, Czechoslovak and Indian shoes come into Canada. Is there a shortage of furniture to give Canadian homes the modern touch? Is there a shortage of wood, of building materials? Is there a shortage of labour for erecting buildings, factories and plants, for housing families and providing jobs for Canadian workers? No, Mr. Speaker. We have plenty of all that. There are also more than 750,000 people who do not produce anything, who would like to receive a salary in exchange for labour, in order to be able to buy the goods and services they need and for which their wives and children are calling.
How does the government react to these problems? It is never still and pretends to be doing something. Ministers make statements, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) wants to sell as much as possible to foreign countries so that foreigners may have better food, better clothing, better housing and better health, and in the meantime he forgets that thereby prices are rising in Canada, that thereby inflation is spreading whereas our people are hungry, go about in rags and line in substandard housing. That is what the government is doing with its tools in the present system.

What else does the government do? What steps does it take to correct the situation? Two things: First of all, it is not a bit shy about levying taxes, thus adding to the fiscal burden of Canadians and reducing their purchasing power. Government officials do not seem to be unemployed and supply the matter for the publication of white papers, red papers and finally blue books. The whole thing began with the white papers on the Constitution, as if a new constitution was needed for Canadians to eat all they want.
Then, the white paper on taxation was published, which quickly became the red paper, because the proposals it contains, specially with regard to the Canada Development Corporation, lead to individual dispossession and state control over all businesses, on the savings of citizens, in order to establish public concerns, government enterprises, which will finance themselves with the compulsory savings of citizens, through taxes, invested by the government in order to implement the theories of Mr. J. M. Keynes, that is a collectivist economy. That is where we are led by the proposals contained in the white paper on tax reform.
A white paper on unemployment insurance was introduced: that was a great discovery. A white paper on income security was also presented. Those are not legislation, the ministers repeatedly say, but merely working papers, proposals put before the Canadian people, in order to get their opinion, advice, suggestions.
Constitutional matters have been discussed in this House and all over the country at least since 1940, when Ottawa wanted to force the hand of the provinces in order to snatch from them the sole power of taxation which they were in a position to exercise. The question of unemployment and of unemployment insurance has been discussed in the country since 1944 when the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed. The question of taxation also goes back to 1940 when Ottawa took away from the provinces, as I have just said, their taxation rights.
The question of guaranteed income has also been discussed in this chamber since 1944 when the Creditistes entered Parliament, where they made themselves the champions of guaranteed minimum income for everyone, where they pushed the government to pass family allowances legislation, where they urged the government to increase old age pensions. Therefore, there is nothing new in the proposals of the government which is really short of solutions. It says to us: Advise us! Give us some suggestions! We are ready to co-operate with them, but on condition that they leave the beaten paths, that they at least listen to our suggestions and apply the ones we offer.
All too often, unfortunately, the Social Credit's opponents propose arguments such as: if the Socred doctrine is so good, how come it has never been put to the test in another country? To this I could reply: if the telephone is such a good means of communication, how come it has ever been tried before the XIXth century? The man who
March 16, 1971

invented the telephone did not argue: nobody ever tried it before, therefore I have no right to do it since it has not yet been put to the test somewhere else.
Today, no one denies that the telephone is very useful. It takes only a fraction of a minute to place a call anywhere in Canada and this is very useful. It has been invented by Mr. Bell, a very good man, a chemist, a researcher who came up with the most precious means of communication.
Why is it that Russia did not first start a telephone service on its territory before anyone else? It could have been argued likewise here in America: Russia did not do it, it must not be done here either.
That is a somewhat disturbing line of reasoning, but that is what people do in connection with the theories of Major Douglas at this moment. Why can Canadians innovate in the areas of science, communications and so on, and cannot do so in the field of finance?
Had the firm which produced the first lunar module which landed on the moon reasoned like the opponents of Social Credit on the grounds that it had never been done elsewhere, no device would have reached the moon.
Had Mr. Armstrong reasoned like certain opponents of Social Credit, he who was the first man to set foot on the moon would never have gone. Yet, he went.
Let us be logical. Canadians must be more than a bunch of sheep. We have proved in the past that we could be ourselves, that we could innovate in several fields. Let us prove mankind that we are also capable of leaving the beaten paths, in the field of finance in the public sector, by reforming our financial system so as to modernize it and enable it to serve a society grown modern in the area of production.
Let us apply the following saying: fast and increasingly easy production, fast and easier profits, to allow that abundant and easy production to achieve its end, that is consumption, to meet the needs of all mankind and not only those of a few.
Everyday, men who live in society need a large number of goods and services. In exchange for then-work, they receive some money to look after their needs. They give money, coins or bank notes which are instruments of exchange. Although work is the essential factor, we cannot either deny the prime role also played by finance. It gives impetus to the economic life.
To ensure the proper operation of a mechanism, its various parts must be synchronized in order to obtain the desired performance. If automobile manufacturers had modernized their motors by adding cylinders to make them more powerful and if they had persisted in using the same carburetor as the one used on automobiles 60 years ago, surely the distribution of fuel would not be sufficient enough to enable cylinders to operate fully and instead of travelling at 80 miles per hour, a car would only travel at 50.
So, the manufacturers have decided to modernize everything, to change the carburetor in order that there would be enough fuel in every cylinder, to get a maximum output. Motorists nowadays are pleased to find that
Social Credit Monetary Policy
there are carburetors which respond to the wish of the driver when he steps on the gas pedal.
Mr. Speaker, the same logic applies to our economic system whose production capacity has been exceptionally increased. However, we have failed to modernize our financial system so as to enable a distribution of goods in sufficient quantity in all households in order to satisfy the basic needs of everyone. There is the flaw of our system and we should not be stubborn and maintain it.
The Minister of Finance and those who reject the Social Credit proposals as outlined by Major Douglas might find it interesting to read over again the latter's testimonies before the finance committee here in Ottawa and they would realize that his predictions were right.
It is urgent to change our way of financing the public sector in order to leave to the private sector the monies necessary for more economical operations so that it can meet competition on the world market. This change would also have the consequence of leaving to Canadians a greater share of their income which would increase their purchasing power. That is the core of the problem: insufficient purchasing power in the hands of most Canadians. Social Credit proposes a solution to this problem.
The purpose of the economic life must be human and social if it is to be morally sound. Our economic life must be consumer oriented, because the consumer group includes all human beings. Riches exist for consumer democracy, and not only for producer aristocracy or for the financiers' "Sanhedrin". Consumption must be the true object of production. Without consumption, production has no reason for being. A system that makes fruitfulness of money the main purpose of production is unhealthy, illogical and inhuman, and it is high time that it be changed.
A society will survive if its members are convinced that they can more easily attain their objectives through joint action. Surely they are all looking for a maximum of security, through the ability to satisfy their needs, and for a maximum of freedom.
Abundance for all, a principle which should no longer have to be proven, should mean economic security for the individual. The very small amount of work required of man to ensure such abundance should mean that the individual is assured of leisure time, of economic freedom, etc. Now, God knows what grimaces the words security and liberty bring to our faces. Economic insecurity is almost general. Destitution is the lot of a multitude of human beings, and everywhere, we witness a multiplication of laws aimed at restricting individual freedom. The individual can no longer develop; being no longer able to identify himself, he is ready to surrender submissively to the systems which fail to recognize him.
A study of the monetary machinery reveals that the control and issue of money are in the hands of a private, highly centralized monopoly.
This is a deficiency, because the basis of all financial credit is real credit, and this real credit belongs to the people, that is to the capacity for agriculture, industry

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy
and transport to deliver goods where and when they are required. This real credit is common in essense since it cannot exist without a structured society, a fully operating industry, a consuming public and a government ensuring law and order. The end pursued in the monetization of Social Credit, society's credit, influences the rights of individuals and their mutual relations. The control of this end by the individuals represents on their part an usurpation of the state's function and on the part of the government that gives us this function or fails to take it back, a treason of its mandate and the enslavement of its citizens to the will and fancy of a few tyrants.
Here is what was said a few years ago by Charlie Chaplin, a kindhearted and thoughtful man, who has pondered over human problems. I shall quote him to show how little things have changed since then, and how right we are today, in repeating his words and in trying to readjust our position, in order that the individual may enjoy freedom in moral law and democracy. Here is what Mr. Chaplin said, and I quote:
We want to help one another and human beings are made just for that. We want to live with the happiness of one another . . . and not with misery. We do not want to hate and despise one another. There is room for all of us in this world. Our good planet is plentiful and can provide for the needs of all. The road of life may be free and bright but we have lost our way.
The government is looking for solutions to the problems facing us. We have solutions to propose. The government is looking for advice, suggestions. We are offering him Social Credit solutions. First: The government wants to solve the problem of prices and costs, that are disproportionate to the purchasing power. We suggest one way of balancing prices and costs to obtain the best of purchasing power, and that is the compensated discount.
Second: Then the government wonders how it can provide the necessary funds to guarantee a minimum income to all Canadians and thus protect them against poverty. The Ralliement Creditiste has suggested the establishment of a national dividend.
Third: The government is seeking means to restart the economy in order to finance production, reopen plants, create new products and insure that the Canadian economy will remain in Canadian hands. The Ralliement Creditiste has a solution to offer.
Fourth: The government wonders how to obtain the necessary funds to finance social development and facilities in the country, the provinces and municipalities. The Ralliement Creditiste has come up with a solution.
These are the solutions which other Creditistes will submit to the House if they are offered an opportunity to do so and if this opposition day is truly what the spirit and the wording of the Standing Orders intend it to be-a day for the Ralliement Creditiste.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Belle-
IMr. Lambert (Bellechasse).]
chasse (Mr. Lambert). I have a great deal of respect for him, but unfortunately I am not always able to follow the arguments he presents. I sit close to him and he is such a forceful orator that the power of his words disrupts my translation equipment, so I must apologize for not catching everything he said.
Thumbing through the record I note that at one time the Liberal party, which now forms the government, opted for debt free money. I go back to November 5, 1962, where, as recorded at page 1290, of Hansard for that date, the following subamendment was proposed:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following at the end thereof: "and replaced with a policy of debt-free money and constructive proposals to foster balanced domestic economy and balanced international trade."
It is interesting to recall that all the financial experts presently in the government supported that subamendment. There was the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson); the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray); the Chairman of our Finance Committee, Mr. Clermont, and I could go through the whole list. There was Mr. Badanai, Mr. Beer, Mr. Drury, Mr. Dube, Mr. Hellyer, Mr. Honey, Mr. Lachance, Mr. Laing, Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), Mr. McNulty, Mr. Otto, Mr. Munro, Mr. Whelan, and Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton). All these gentlemen voted for debt free money. That policy might have put them in trouble, but it could not have put them in much more trouble than they have put themselves.
I should like to refer to an article in the Financial Times of March 15, written by Bogdan Kipling and Bruce Little, headed "The Painful Problem of Canada's Too-Strong Dollar," in which they identify the financial problems facing the government. I quote:
The finance minister and the governor of the Bank of Canada can let the dollar go above par-perhaps as high as $1.05 (U.S.) -and seriously damage some of Canada's most sensitive industries or they can take one of several dangerous steps to keep it down.
Either way, there will be serious implications for Canada's long-term economic policies.
The authors go through all the options. They speak of the "misfortunes of Canada's trading partners," and say that there appears to be an over-abundance of riches with our accelerating dollar. This has caused many problems.
Eventually, it may be the value of the Canadian dollar, not the cost of producing Canadian goods, that could drive our exports out of world markets.
The article continues:
Some government experts fear that the high exchange rate will start to produce significant loss of jobs within the next couple of months-
No matter how it twists or turns, the government is facing the prospect of a steadily appreciating dollar. But the key point is that such a dollar depresses the Canadian economy at a time when unemployment is high and worse appears to be in store.
The conclusion is as follows:
Quite simply, Ottawa is boxed in. To make it worse, it has very little way of knowing precisely why the dollar is so strong.
March 16, 1971

Speculative short-term movements are one thing. The general movement of money out of the United States is another. Such factors may be temporary and can be fought accordingly.
I suggest that our current financial dilemma is well outlined in that article. At the conclusion of my speech I intend to present an amendment, but first I wish to speak on the motion in an endeavour to bring to its consideration a workable alternative to the non-workable socialistic measures which are being advocated from nearly every quarter of this House, and I would say particularly with the greatest persistence and vigour by the government party. The great dilemma facing Canadians is the lack of effective and clear alternatives to our basic economic and social problems. Each party in the House is pressing socialist aims in varying degrees as a panacea. Fortunately, Canadians have always rejected socialism as a national alternative. Whenever an election occurred the alternative of socialism was almost completely rejected.
Unfortunately, the present government party came into power masquerading as Liberals. I am in complete agreement with that growing body of concerned Canadians who believe that if the government's taxation proposals, as outlined in its white paper on taxation, are implemented the ownership of private property in this country will quickly become a thing of the past. I think every member of this House should recall a judgment given by that great American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, when he stated that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." It has become a convenient and dishonest tactic for the government and other socialist sympathizers to attempt to convince the people of this country that our economic and other ills have come about from exploitation of our workers by that segment of our society which has provided the capital input for our economy.
Perhaps most hon. members of the House are not familiar with the economic philosophy of a man named Kelso, a man I believe will eventually become the fourth member of the greatest group of social and economic philosophers known to the western world, the others being Ricardo, Marx and Smith. Mr. Kelso, an American corporate lawyer who presently practices in San Francisco, believes that current economic thinking has overstressed the role of labour in the production of wealth by negating the second factor in its production, which is capital. He illustrates a fundamental dilemma in the American economic system by pointing out that approximately 5 per cent of the population owns the capital that produces 90 per cent of its wealth. Since capital is property, and since it is a basic tenet of our common law that one who owns property is entitled to all benefits which flow from it, it become most evident that the overwhelming proportion of workers in the United States do not benefit under this system because they are not the owners of property. In his theories, Kelso is referring to economic property, which is most customarily possessed in the form of shares or bonds in companies.
The dilemma facing Canadians in this situation is aggravated by the fact that the preponderance of our
Social Credit Monetary Policy
secondary industries are foreign-owned and, of course, controlled, so much of the wealth which flows from them finds its way outside our country. At this point, it might be a great temptation for our socialist-thinking friends to claim that they have the solution for redistributing the benefits of ownership through our society by imposing taxation measures which take from those who own and give to those who do not. I prefer to think of this as the dependency syndrome in which the government seeks incessantly to encourage our citizenry to believe that they have a right to expect the government to provide for their needs from birth until death.
This same attitude on means of distribution is one which encourages government patronage and can lead to various forms of inequality. There is, I think, a certain attraction to this business of the government distributing to each according to his need in times when our economy is facing serious difficulties, such as it is at present and will likely continue to do for a good many months, if not years. This has already been indicated by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, although I must admit that he made this appraisal at the cost of some considerable embarrassment to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Perhaps the minister felt that, out of gratitude for his appointment the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission ought not to say anything which detracted from the government's wishful thinking that inflation has been ended, that the country is turning the corner on unemployment and that a new era of sweetness and light is on the near horizon.
This House, Mr. Speaker, has heard members of every party refer at one time or another to automation and the leisure time which will result therefrom. It is also, I trust, apparent to the House that our industry is becoming more and more capital-intensive and less and less labourintensive. In short, as these past months have borne out rather cruelly for tens of thousands of Canadian workers, machines and not people are producing a relentlessly increasing proportion of our goods and services. When one considers the degrading and dehumanizing tasks which so many Canadians are required to perform in order to earn their living, I think we must in conscience ask ourselves if the concept of full employment is either necessary, desirable or possible. This is true when we look at the number of make-work projects which are currently in existence, when we look at the feather-bedding in industry and at the many current projects in which machines can actually take the place of men. Only ten years ago I can remember some of our major Canadian producers saying "Every man who walks in in the morning is costing us $25; he can be replaced". Today, we are creating jobs but I suggest that a lot of the jobs are unrealistic. There would probably be one-third more unemployment in the nation today if this aspect of make-work projects were removed.
It is surely apparent that the government's solution to the problems of unemployment rests in massive welfare programs. When we look at the unemployment insurance bill which is presently before the House we see that it is

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy nothing short of a welfare measure in which the dignity of the individual is not only compromised, but in which his basic needs and aspirations cannot be realized without a burden of taxation upon the productive elements of our society of such a staggering nature that industry will simply not be able to carry the burden.
The philosophy of Louis O. Kelso is that property produces wealth, and since wealth is in so many ways intertwined with personal freedom, dignity and opportunities for self-development, the acquisition of property by the broadest possible number of workers becomes a matter of social and economic necessity. Without such an alternative, workers become dependent upon the largesse of a massive bureaucracy administering socialistic programs of the kind which have taken such a destructive toll of once-great nations like Great Britain.
Anybody who watched television last weekend may have seen a program which illustrated the complete breakdown in Great Britain and the resultant unemployment. This situation is largely due to the attitude of the people and the socialistic measures that have been brought to bear over the last years. The basis of Kelso's economic theory is that everyone should be able to purchase a share in the ownership of the wealth-producing capital instruments in society so that he may then receive, in proportion to his labour and property contribution, his share of the wealth produced. I wish to emphasize at this point that when I speak of each citizen in our society owning a portion of the capital means of production, I am offering this as a clear alternative to what others think is really the same process whereby in socialist countries, the state, supposedly in the name of every individual, owns the means of production. When the state owns the means of production, then it also controls the distribution of the wealth which flows from that ownership. I earnestly hope that the examples of the production of wealth in existing socialist states are such as to discourage us from considering further this type of social arrangement as a desirable one for Canadians.
I might say that we have gone far down this road when 35 per cent of our total product is now taken in the form of taxes. I compare this with Japan where 16 per cent of the wealth is taken and even with Australia, which is comparatively socialist, where only 21 per cent of the total wealth is taken by the state.
In summarizing the essence of the economics of Mr. Kelso, I wish to quote the following from an article on him which appeared in Time magazine of June 29, 1970. This article, refers to the plan that he proposes for enabling the workers to become shareholders in industry, and it reads:
The plan might begin by helping the poor and unemployed. An eligible borrower would go to a bank and obtain, for example, $4,000 a year for five years (or $20,000 all together) to buy stock in corporations. The bank, protected against loss by the government insurance, would put the money in escrow; a trust officer would buy a diversified portfolio of dividend-paying shares. Kelso figures that the stocks would ultimately pay for themselves through dividends. Thus, the borrower could pay off the loan, then own the stocks outright and enjoy a dividend income from $20,000 of capital.
At present, a $20,000 portfolio of highgrade stocks generally pays about $1,000 a year, or 5 per cent in dividends. But Kel-sonian economics calls for a return of at least 20 per cent, or $4,000 a year-a level that Kelso figures could take five million families off the welfare rolls in five years. To increase the dividend payout, Kelso would gradually abolish corporate income taxes and require companies to distribute all of their earnings to stockholders. Kelso maintains that the government's revenue loss would be temporary and bearable. One reason is that rising personal income tax collections would greatly offset the gradual decline in corporate tax take. He also foresees a decline in government expenditure for welfare and make-work activities- subsidies for uneconomic farms, dubious construction and military projects-that, by his estimate, now occupy one-third of the U.S. labour force.
The economic theories of Louis O. Kelso are beyond summarizing properly in the time at my disposal. I do, however, urge all thoughtful members of the House to study these books: "The Capitalist Manifesto" and "The Two Factor Theory: The Economics of Reality", brought out several years ago. These works explain at length why and how we can free ourselves from the suffocation of socialism, allegedly the only alternative to the worst features of a capitalist, free-enterprise society.
In an article in the American Bar Association Journal of February, 1960, Louis O. Kelso wrote:
The abandonment of the goal of full employment and the setting of the goal of full participation in the production of wealth, either through the ownership and exercise of labour or the ownership and wise husbanding of capital, as the state of technological change dictates, is, I am sure, the one possibility open to us to avoid the collectivization of our economy, and the disappearance of freedom from our society.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following amendment:
That all the words after "House" be deleted and the following substituted:
-blames the government for not adopting fiscal and monetary policies designed to effectively bring about full expansion of the economy with minimum inflation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has some doubts about the acceptability of the amendment from a procedural standpoint. I would be pleased to hear from hon. members if they wish to be of assistance. Hon. members may be able to convince me otherwise, because I have an open mind on the matter, but it seems to me that we must start from the proposition that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) has moved a motion, as his group is entited to do under the particular proceedings today. I quote his motion:
That this House regrets that the government has not seen fit to apply Social Credit monetary policy.
The motion regrets the failure of the government to apply a particular policy. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) seems to substitute another philosophy or policy for the one moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse. Without accepting the proposed amendment as being procedurally correct, I will just refer to it. It "blames the government

March 16, 1971

for not adopting fiscal and monetary policies designed to effectively bring about full expansion of the economy with minimum inflation". It seems to the Chair that this is really not an amendment to the motion.
I think the amendment would have to follow the stream, if I may use that expression, of the main motion, because, it would be unfair to the hon. member who moved the motion if the amendment enlarged the debate to the point that there was no focus on the motion. These are my preliminary thoughts. If hon. members would like to assist me on the procedural problem, I would be pleased to hear from them.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed to the Chair, in my opinion, is of such a nature as to replace completely the motion I had the honour to move.
If our parliamentary system really respects, as I believe the rights of all hon. members, simple judgment tells us that another member should not be permitted to propose an amendment that nearly wipes out the whole motion, leaving only three words: "That this House".
I am quite ready to believe that this was done in fun, but we are not here to amuse ourselves but to work seriously and study proposed, existing and known solutions. They are trying to take advantage of the day which is allotted to us, in a democratic manner to explain to the House these resolutions which might help the government to settle the problems. This system is indeed not perfect. Nothing is perfect on earth but, at least, we believe that these proposals are logical and serious.
As far as I am concerned, I consider that the amendment as presented should not be accepted for the reasons I have just mentioned because it does away with the real sense of the motion that I had the honour to move.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I support the position that Your Honour has taken, even though thus far you have taken it only tentatively. I hope that Your Honour will rule the proposed amendment out of order so that the debate can continue on the subject that was put down. We should recognize, in all fairness, that this day having been allotted by agreement amongst the opposition parties to our friends of the Ralliement Creditiste, it should not be possible for one of the other parties to take back the day in this way.
I have been able to put my finger on a couple of citations that are on our side of the case. Citation 205(1) at page 174 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition reads:
It is the practice in the United Kingdom House of Commons that an amendment to a proposed amendment (called a subamendment in Canada) cannot be moved if it proposes to leave out all the words of such proposed amendment. In such a case the first amendment must be negatived. This rule is now accepted in Canada.
Social Credit Monetary Policy
I realize that the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) does not strike out all the words of the main motion, but does strike out all but the first one or two, so the effect is the same. The reference in Citation 402(3) at page 284 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition is also helpful. It is true that this refers to proceedings in committee on clauses of a bill but I think the principle is sound. I quote:
It is irregular to propose to leave out all the words from "That" to the end of a clause in order to substitute other words, as such an amendment is in the nature of a new clause.
What the hon. member for Battle River is trying to do by this amendment is to offer a substantive motion, a different proposition altogether, that should appear before us only by notice. We have the right to have notice on these opposition days. This must be done the day before the debate takes place. Yesterday, we were given notice of the subject that was laid down by our friends of the Ralliement Creditiste. In all fairness, I think it should stand that way.
I realize that there will be no vote on this, so there is no serious effect as far as the speeches are concerned. The subject is pretty wide. However, even in that connection I point out that if there were a vote at some stage of the proceedings, and if the proposed amendment was allowed to stand, it could be voted on and defeated, with the result that we could then get back to the main motion. If this amendment were allowed that would not happen, for technically we would spend the whole day on the amendment presented by the hon. member for Battle River. I am not taking sides at this moment on the question of Social Credit monetary theory or of Conservative monetary theory, though perhaps either would be better than what we are getting from the government on the other side of the House. It does seem to me, though, that bearing in mind the rules of procedure as well as those of ordinary fair play, the motion should not be amended in this way. I am not saying that all amendments on opposition days are out of order; an amendment which would qualify or add to a motion before the House might well be allowed. Nevertheless, I think an amendment which would strike out completely what has been set down and propose something else altogether is not in keeping with the rules of procedure or the rules of fair play.


Cliff Downey: Might I say, Mr. Speaker, that it was not my intention to be facetious or to take the motion put forward by the hon. member for Bellechasse lightly. I realize it is doubtful whether, in a procedural wrangle, my words will be given as much weight as those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I will simply say that my purpose was to clarify a situation which, it seemed to me, was a little on the nebulous side, in order that we might all participate more fully in the debate.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the remarks of the previous

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy
speakers and I also read the amendment. There is no doubt that the object of this amendment is simply to eliminate the main motion, which is certainly not a show of fair play.
It would mean that all speeches would be related to the amendment rather than the main motion and I believe as do the previous speakers that this amendment should be rejected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would like to thank hon. members for their contributions and assistance on the procedural point. Is the hon. member for Battle River rising on a point of order?


Cliff Downey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the House is in agreement I shall be pleased to withdraw the amendment in my name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the hon. member rose, I was about to make a ruling which may or may not be helpful. In any event, I appreciate the hon. member's gesture. Perhaps, though, I should put on record in Hansard my thoughts as to the admissibility of the amendment. I think I should confirm my first reaction to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Battle River; hon. members who have spoken in the procedural debate have fortified me in this respect. It does seem to me that what we are considering here is something more than an amendment; it does more than qualify or amend the motion moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse inasmuch as it provides the basis for an entirely different debate. On this ground alone, it would have to be ruled out of order.
Moreover, as hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Bellechasse, have mentioned, it does seem that when, under our rules, opposition parties agree as to the election of a subject on a particular day, the spirit of fair play would require that the day should not be taken away by means of an amendment.
I might also say-and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned this in his helpful argument- and it seems to me that the provision in our Standing Orders requiring notice would be useless or, at best, irrelevant, if, one group having given notice, the motion were to be amended so as to make it possible to deal with an entirely new aspect of the matter. I am not being critical of any amendments, but I am excluding the validity of an amendment which does entirely reverse the argument, or the stream of the motion. I am sure effect must be given to the Standing Order which requires that notice be given. For those reasons I must rule the amendment out of order.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to me that the motion which is the

subject of today's debate raised various responses in the mind of some hon. members.
That can be explained easily enough. A good number of members seem pleased with the present system and do not suffer too many inconveniences through it, at least not enough to be convinced that it would be a good thing to change it. Some already have strong views as to the kind of system they would like.
I wish to point out that I respect their opinion and add that everybody has a right to his own opinion provided it does not distort truth. The object of this motion, which I am pleased to support, is to direct the debate towards an understanding of present economic problems, in trying to forget our differences on party interests and in examining facts in an objective way.
All hon. members will agree that all kinds of goods are plentiful in Canada. At times, we hinder production through the enactment of restrictive pieces of legislation, like those which control milk quotas and restrict wheat acreage.
Finally, the Canadian people are paying several million dollars to get less bread and milk. Such a restrictive policy applies at a time when 25 per cent of Canadian families are short of bread, milk and other food products essential to public health, when they only want to live decently in a country endowed by nature of all the resources likely to provide each and everyone with freedom and security.
The picture is already gloomy enough without a host of unemployed reading newspaper and other ads for jobs, trying to remain calm, while explaining to their wives and children what is going on.
As representatives of people a quarter of whom are facing unemployment, hunger and hardship, we have no right to expect that a solution to these problems will crop up automatically, as a result of favourable circumstances.
If we are unable to improve the condition of those thousands of poor people in a country where resources are plentiful, we are not qualified to represent them and we should at least be honest enough to recognize this fact.
I assume that the various means that were tentatively applied to ensure a more equitable distribution of goods have been tried earnestly and in all good faith, but we all find that the results fall short of expectations. One must be under the spell of ominous influences or be short-sighted to refuse to change position. Eventually we shall have to ask ourselves who is responsible for the rowdy demonstrations that are staged occasionally. To all those who want to hear the voice of moderates, I might say that today's extremists are, in several cases, yesterday's moderates who have lost patience.
Under those circumstances, the members of the Rallie-ment creditiste are proposing an economic formula for the distribution of property and suggesting a basic reform of our monetary system. According to true philo-
March 16, 1971

sophic principles, we believe it is more important to try and do good than fight evil.
Social Credit is the result of findings and analyses made by a competent engineer. Major Douglas was able to find the evils in the administration of the present capitalist system. From this he drew conclusions and indicated how to correct the flaws of the system. When he found that the production capability was the result of inventions and of technical improvements which would never have occurred without life in society, he endeavoured to find a way to distribute the already existing products.
To get a proper idea of what would become of human relations in the economic life, in the social and political areas, they must be studied under an economic climate free from tyranny and financial nonsense.
During the week of the anniversary of the death of a great man, Abraham Lincoln, I read the editorial of April 29, 1970, of the CFCM-TV station which was entitled Something to think about". In fact, Abraham Lincoln has great achievements to his credit, and the role he played in American history has proved decisive. Among the famous words we owe him are the following which invite to reflection:
Prosperity cannot be created by discouraging savings. The weak cannot be strengthened by weakening the strong. The worker cannot be assisted by destroying his employer. Fraternity cannot be promoted by inciting the hatred between classes and the poor cannot be helped by destroying the rich. His security cannot be supported with borrowed money. Troubles cannot be avoided by spending more than is earned. Will and courage cannot be fostered by depriving a man of his initiative and independence. A man cannot be assisted in a lasting manner by doing in his place what he should himself do.
This advice was given over 100 years ago and although it may seem a bit old-fashioned today, it has not lost any of its substance. There is nothing older than universal truth and nothing more up-to-date either.
Whoever has studied the history of the U.S. knows that no less than Abraham Lincoln himself was dominated by bankers who were using their credit with the masses to issue currency to control public authorities. Lincoln challenged them and issued money-known as Lincoln greenbacks-against the nation's credit. The Harvard Circular-a banking publication wrote on this occasion:
Greenbacks should not be allowed to be used as legal tender because we have no control over this form of currency. But we can control debentures and, by this means, we can control bank issue. Bankers were able to bring enough pressure to bear on congressmen to pass the National Banking Act of 1863, over the objections of their archenemy Abraham Lincoln.
When the act was passed, the Rothschild brothers wrote, on June 25th, 1963, as follows: "This act gives the National Bank almost complete control over the nation's finances. The few people who understand the system will either be interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours, that they will not oppose it... the majority of the people, mentally unable to understand it, will bear the burden without complaining, and perhaps without even suspecting that this system works against them."
In spite of all objections, Lincoln fought throughout his life to establish a financial system that reflected the
Social Credit Monetary Policy
economic reality. Unfortunately, he did not have the opportunity of attaining his goal, and history relates the tragedy of April 14th, 1865.
I could continue to mention some of the events that took place during the administration of the President of the United States, John Kennedy, but I will bring my remarks to a close by adding, basing myself on history, that Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, McFadden and Kennedy were also right. All were great patriots who fought to make the financial system more flexible, since it was greatly prejudicial to the American nation.
Franklin Roosevelt himself stated the following in his inaugural address during the 1929 depression and I quote:
We have not been devastated as a result of some invasion, abundance is within our reach, but we cannot use those assets in spite of their abundance.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) pointed out that economists have conflicting views and that their prejudices are due to their training, their preconceived ideas or their political and social undertakings.
All those who have some notion of political economy are struck by the contradictions, the divergent theories made public by economists, even those who are world famous.
If you go as far back as the great philosophers of Ancient Greece, you find for the first time in Plato the beginning of a coherent economic philosophy, where he has imagined the integral communist society, in which all citizens would be on an equal footing.
Some 50 years laters, that is approximately 350 years B.C., Aristotle declared war on this communism as well as on the equalitarian policy proposed by Plato, because, in his opinion, common ownership is a source of division and quarrels, and deprives the citizens of the legitimate enjoyment of personal property.
It is only in the Middle Age that the teachings of St. Thomas of Aquinas came out as a justification of private property and a condemnation of communism and socialism.
Later many economists proposed free trade while protectionists insisted on high customs tariffs in order to protect national industries. These differences go two centuries back and are not over yet, countries being at times free traders and at times protectionists, according to their immediate interests. It cannot therefore be asserted that there exists in these matters a theory which is sure and recognized by all.
Two thousand years after Plato, the socialist thought surfaced again with the advent of its main theoretician and propagandist, Karl Marx, and his followers.
Today the world is divided between socialism and capitalism, of various shades, according to the degree in which government interferes with the citizens' business and the managing of the national economy.

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy
Therefore, one may conclude that no existing economic doctrine deserves a special place and is completely superior to the others, and no more so are the economists who advise the government at the present time or those who were its advisers two, three or five years ago.
Evidence of this is to be found in the statements made by the hon. senator Lamontagne, former minister in the Pearson cabinet and main economic adviser of the latter.
At the annual meeting of the Canadian Corporate Management Company, held in March 1970, Senator Lamontagne had this to say about this liberal government's policy to control inflation:
In his last budget statement, the Minister of Finance admitted that the Canadian economy during the 1970-71 fiscal year would "carry on at a slower pace than in 1970 with respect to its total capacity".
Mr. Benson then added:
"If we are to be concerned only about the pressure of the total demand on our productive capacity and our markets, no further action would be required". But immediately he made known his plan to restrict consumer credit thereby hitting the poorer citizens harder and weakening still more the sector of our economy which is the weakest, that is the durable goods sector.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada was of the same opinion when he wrote in his report that:
"The restrictive measures are not intended to slow down the economic progress for its own sake but they are taken as means of lessening the price and cost increases for the purpose of establishing economic expansion on a sound basis '.
These statements and others of the same category made in the United States, for instance by Arthur Burns, lead me to question the philosophy which was accepted during the post-war years in relation with the implications of fiscal and monetary policies in the fight against inflation. I suggest we are witnessing in this field, here and in several other western countries, including perhaps the United States, the worst aberration since the depression that hit the world in the thirties.
According to the Creditistes, the point is to move surplus goods towards the consumers.
Since there is a national inventory level, it is obvious that an efficient demand from the consumers would provide the kind of economy we want, that is one which would use all the modern methods of production and which, at the same time, would offer job opportunities to all those who are both able and anxious to work.
Let us assume therefore that, through some device, we could obtain this effective demand. What would happen? The goods which are presently held up in stores and warehouses would come out and, in the market society we are familiar with, dealers would pass orders on to wholesale dealers and the latter to manufacturers, which would stimulate economy, speed up production and make jobs available to thousands of unemployed, while the consumers might satisfy their needs.
Therefore, we proposed the following changes to the existing banking system: (a) that the available funds be scientifically controlled and determined by the national inventory of stock of saleable production, which would be computed in a scientific way and at regular intervals
according to needs; (b) that the Bank of Canada become the only creator of all supplementary available funds Canada might need; (c) that all available funds created by the Bank of Canada be channelled through a national credit account; (d) that all amounts in the national credit account be allocated to satisfy the people's needs, according to its will as expressed by its representatives in this chamber.
This is, Mr. Speaker, how the Ralliement Creditiste would achieve by various means of distribution better living for all Canadians without destroying personal initiative, without infringing upon the freedom of any Citizen, without intervening directly in the production of wealth.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, this seems like a day to deal with financial matters and to make some suggestions about monetary policy. Since we are considering some special projects in relation to the whole question of organizing our monetary system, I should like to put some suggestions to the House. I am rather pleased to see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in attendance, as he might be interested in these ideas. He might even propose some of them to his colleagues.
Let me suggest that the House give consideration to a column written by Mr. Douglas Fullerton for the Toronto Star in 1967, and which carried the heading "Let's buy out these U.S. Giants". We, in Canada, are very much concerned about the takeover of our economy. What is of even greater concern, now that the evidence is before us, is that this takeover has been accomplished with the use of our own money. Let us turn the tables and buy out United States companies with their own money. This is the suggestion I should like to put forward. Let us not condemn the people of the United States for competing with our industries. Let us not feel sorry for ourselves because of these takeovers. Let us learn from this experience, and profit from the examples which are before us. The United States people have taken over certain corporations in such a graceful way that we cannot be anything but encouraged. Perhaps we can do the same thing.
Perhaps as Arnold Toynbee said, when faced with this challenge of survival, we have to run the risk of accepting responsibility, and from the edges of diversity we draw victory, or something along that line. How do we do this? When looking across the aisle, I see that the President of the Treasury Board has already got the idea of how to do it. Very likely he has even thought of this himself on occasion but perhaps has not worked up enough courage to put it to the Cabinet as a government proposal. Perhaps we should encourage him along these lines.
The suggestion that Mr. Fullerton made in his article was that we should use our reserve funds instead of sterilizing them in U.S. government securities, as we are now doing. He suggested we should use these reserve funds to buy equities in United States corporations which are buying into the Canadian market. He suggests that we should forget about the branch plants these compa-

March 16, 1971

nies have here because these are small potatoes. We should go to the head offices and buy them out. Let us take over control of the head offices of these United States corporations. In this way, we can indirectly control the effect they have on our economy. This is not as far out an idea as it may seem. The fact that no one has undertaken this approach does not mean it is impossible. Surely, Americans would not be critical of our taking over their corporations, in view of their record of taking over our corporations. We should use their arguments to justify the taking over of their corporations to our own advantage.
We could persuade them, with the same arguments, that what we are doing is in the national interests of the United States. At the moment, we have about $4 billion in our foreign exchange fund. That is a very sizable amount. We could use this money to increase our foreign investment in United States companies. We should learn from U.S. experience in Canada, because this is how they have been buying us out. We could very well borrow from United States money markets, as the U.S. has done in Canada. We could be backed up by U.S. capital for this purpose. We could also provide incentives to Canadians to invest in United States holdings. We could make these equities available to corporations such as the Canada Development Corporation. With little difficulty we could make such investment worthwhile to Canadians.
Since we are to have a Canada Development Corporation, we could use it as our investment instrument. I realize this is not what the government had in mind for the CDC. It hopes the CDC will simply be put on the market and quietly disappear from the Canadian con-sc'ence as just another corporation. But I believe a much better role could be designed for the CDC. This is one of the roles. Let us look at some of the suggestions or examples Mr. Fullerton gave in his article. The article was written in 1967 when our foreign exchange reserves were about half what they are now. I quote:
Suppose, for example, we had sold $500 million in gold from our reserves in 1945 and put the money into General Motors Common stock, reinvesting the dividends since. The original stock would now be worth $3,500 million, but reinvestment of the dividends would have more than doubled this figure.
In fact, we would now own one-third or more of General Motors stock, effective voting control (disregarding the effect our buying might have had on the price of the stock). Or take Chrysler-even as late as 1955 we could have bought control of it with $200 to $300 million.
He then makes some suggestions concerning how we would spend $3 billion or $4 billion in buying American equities. He is talking about 50 per cent ownership in these corporations. I realize the figures would be somewhat different today because this was three years ago, but in essence I believe the general study is just as valid today and will serve as an indication of what is possible. He says:
So there we have a pot of $3,000 to $4,000 million. What stocks do we aim at? To stretch the money farthest we could do well to shoot at secondary companies in each industry, not No. 1.
Social Credit Monetary Policy Everyone can make his own shopping list and here's a possible
one:
Automobiles-Chrysler	800
Banks-First National City Bank (who else?)	800
Computers-Honeywell	500
Electric-Westinghouse	900
Chemicals-Merck	1,200
This would give us a 50 per cent control of these companies. Very often we would not require a 50 per cent investment because we could probably obtain control for far less than that. The other day I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) whether he was giving any consideration to changing the Canadian law about eligible assets in the exchange fund. At the moment, the exchange fund is very restricted concerning the type of assets which may be held. The minister's reply was that under the law of course he could only hold certain things and would need parliamentary approval to change that situation. I for one, and I believe others in this House, would be quite happy to see the Minister of Finance ask for parliamentary approval to permit him to hold other than United States treasury bills, as he is permitted to do now, in order to obtain greater flexibility. The exchange fund fluctuates from time to time. The question is, what happens if you need more or less money when your funds are invested in common stocks which you cannot liquidate immediately. I think the answer is obvious. Since we are talking about blue chip stocks, surely the banks, which are willing to lend money to foreign corporations in Canada, would not be averse to lending money to the government against the stocks it held in foreign corporations. I think that could be arranged in a way that would not be unsatisfactory.
From the United States point of view, in many ways this procedure would help their balance of payments position. There would be foreign capital coming into the United States at a time when the United States is quite concerned about its balance of payments. The result would be rather good for that country. I do not mind at all helping the United States in this way since it has helped us. I believe the kind of debate in which we are engaged today lends itself to some of these original suggestions. I make them in the hope that the President of the Treasury Board will take a very serious look at them and consider that we do have a rare opportunity, if he wishes to use his imagination, to make a rather unique attack on foreign ownership, not only in Canada but in United States as well.

Hon, Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe): Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) gives me the opportunity to criticize the economic policy of the Liberal administration.
I am glad to use the few minutes at my disposal to criticize the present government's lack of a definite policy which is responsible for the stagnation we encounter at present.
Mr. Speaker, in a study entitled "Performance and Potential mid-1950's to mid-1970's", the Economic Council

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy
of Canada has defined what should be the economic objectives of the nation. Here are these objectives:
(a)	full employment-3.8 per cent unemployment;
(b)	a high level of annual growth-an increase of 43 per cent of the gross national product;
(c)	reasonable price stability-an annual growth rate of 2 per cent in price increases;
(d)	a viable balance of payments, i.e. a balance of payments where foreign exchange funds would not be submitted to undue fluctuations (for a set rate of exchange);
(e)	an equitable distribution of ever-increasing incomes.
It is important to point out that the Trudeau government has never questioned the validity of these objectives. We should therefore take for granted that such objectives as defined by the Economic Council are also those of the government.
The Canadian economy has three very specific characteristics:
a)	wide regional disparities.
b)	a great dependence upon foreign trade;
c)	a great dependence upon one trading partner.
An economic policy which would not take into account this reality is doomed. The Progressive Conservative party must promote unequivocally those objectives. My leader (Mr. Stanfield) has mentioned that many a time in the House and outside the House. Since these objectives are consistent, they can be achieved simultaneously.
The Trudeau government first tried to come to grips with inflation, then with unemployment and finally with economic growth. That approach was basically wrong. It implies that the government considers those economic objectives to be separate and therefore to be achieved separately.
We would be justified in claiming that these are the views of the present government and in charging it with incompetence in the management of Canada's economic affairs.
What are the weaknesses of the present government's economic policy? The Trudeau government has shown an incredible lack of imagination in the application of its economic policy. This lack of imagination has been evident in the fight against inflation; this government has deliberately and stubbornly increased unemployment to such an extent that in the province of Quebec, for instance, the unemployment rate exceeds 10 per cent. Canadians have been forced into a choice between giving a job to every citizen able and willing to work and controlling prices. And even then, Mr. Speaker, we have not reached the degree of price stabilization which had been advertised by the government.
More concerned with elections than the welfare of Canadians, the Trudeau government has finally decided to fight unemployment, now that it is about to call new elections.
What are the weaknesses of the present government? First, it has been unable to lick inflation or to bring
prices down because it has developed institutions and policies geared to long term price stability. Price stabilization brought about a loss of potential and an increase in unemployment, which are both unacceptable.
Secondly, the Prices and Incomes Commission has used the workers as scapegoats to justify the government's policy.
Thirdly, the government has created a succession of upswings and downturns instead of preparing a consistent policy of economic growth.
The economic policy of this government is devoid of imagination, outmoded and unable to prevent an economic slowdown or bring about an economic upsurge. One cannot deny that the economy is given a new impetus but one may question its timing and quality.
The main argument that can be put forward is that the government is certainly not the best architect of our future prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, we may question the projection, namely when will that new impetus be given to our economy. The Minister of Finance maintains that it will happen during the second half of 1971. It is the general belief that it will occur much later, contrary to the predictions of the Minister of Finance.
Secondly, we also have reservations as to the quality of that economic upswing. There is no guarantee that it will not be accompanied by a new inflationary thrust. This government has failed to establish any institution or policy likely to ensure that prosperity will not be accompanied by inflation. Therefore, if the quality of the economic upswing is being questioned, the part played by the government must also give rise to doubts.
Any Canadian likes to be sure of getting a real income increase, a decent home for his family and reasonable employment stability.
It is unfortunate that the government managed the economy in such a way that all citizens suffer from it.
We are often asked what we would do if we were the government and if our party was at the helm.
We have often listed the steps the government should take, but our suggestions, as well as those of government members, have always been ignored. At the risk of seeing the few suggestions I have to make ignored once more, I will make them again in the hope that the government will finally understand them.
Mr. Speaker, a government headed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would try to restore the economic situation which the Canadian people deserve.
A Progressive Conservative government headed by my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, would strive first of all to increase our productivity. An increased productivity is the basis of a balanced economic cycle. When productivity fails to increase, salaries go up. The war on profits and prices, waged by businessmen, workers, and the government would restore a sound economical climate in Canada.

March 16, 1971

A Progressive Conservative government would set up a federal body whose only task would be to consider and submit recommendations on how to achieve better results.
By its poor administration of its economic policy this government has reduced our business potential. Improved productivity means higher salaries and profits and better consumer products.
Such conditions would place Canada in a much stronger position on the international scene and allow the Canadian people to buy more foreign goods with less Canadian money. An increased productivity would allow us to consider many economic alternatives; increased revenues would enable us to support the cost of an even more progressive social legislation.
We know that family heads have constantly increasing difficulties, and that with a better economic climate the government would be in a better position to face its responsibilities in that respect.
A Progressive Conservative government would endeavour to establish institutions and policies likely to minimize unemployment and inflation. We suggest a body similar to the Prices and Incomes Commission, but somewhat improved. Under this government, the Prices and Incomes Commission was essentially anti-inflationary. Under a Progressive Conservative government, the Commission would be a government body pursuing anti-inflationary policies.
Under this government, the only contribution of the Commission was the 6 per cent limit imposed on salary increases. Under a Progressive Conservative government, the Commission would recommend means to achieve that objective to government, industry and labour unions.
That way of dealing with the problem is altogether different and more efficient than the one taken by this government. The Commission should set itself not to know where there is an increase in prices, but rather how to control them.
That is the importance of the work of a commission, if we are actually willing to obtain encouraging results which could be beneficial to the people. When establishing the Prices and Incomes Commission, the government failed to define adequate terms of reference. That Commission could not discharge completely its terms of reference because it did not have all the necessary powers.
We suggest that a regional fiscal and monetary policy materially accompanies the management of the economy of the federal government without at the same time having disastrous effects on the different areas of Canada.
Under this government, economic decisions are taken as if Canada were an homogeneous economic entity, which indeed is not the case. Canada comprises not one but five economic regions, with different potential, economic and cultural aspirations.
Social Credit Monetary Policy
As long as the necessary measures are not taken to make allowance for those differences in potential and aspirations, any commission entrusted with solving problems will work in a vacuum and fail to achieve concrete results.
In view of the present economic uneasiness and of the slow economic recovery, again we propose a tax reduction; secondly, the fiscal reform needed to meet current obligations, better distribution of taxation, stabilization of the dollar, establishment of a survey on productivity in order to know exactly what the possibilities are in this field and, finally, establishment of a comprehensive housing policy.
Construction is one of the main economic activities in all areas of the country. We support the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada that the government undertake a study on this industry, a provincial and federal review of the responsibilities of the various levels of government in this field. We would suggest that special attention be given to the various techniques liable to increase productivity in the construction field.
We are cognizant with the ill-effects of the 11 per cent tax on building materials. We propose that this tax be eliminated in order to boost construction, and also that a comprehensive system be established to enable the government to report and proceed with short-term economic projections.
In 1964, the Economic Council of Canada was created for the purpose of making long-term economic projections. We would vest upon a revamped Prices and Incomes Commission the responsibility of effecting shortterm economic projections. It is important to establish a long-term policy, but what we need now is a short-term policy likely to solve current problems, and should the government heed the advice of the opposition, I am satisfied that its work will be more efficient and more in line with the aspirations of the whole population of Canada.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the Questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Air Canada-Suggested employment of native Indian girls as stewardesses; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)- Status of Women-Designation of minister to study commission report; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather)-Consumer Affairs-Mark 10 cigarette coupon promotion.

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That this House regrets that the government has not seen fit to apply Social Credit monetary policy.
Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) have outlined the present situation. According to their statements, an impressive quantity of products now find no markets because consumers cannot afford to buy them.
We know that stocks of finished or semi-finished products remaining on the shelves in stores and warehouses, or even raw materials, in effect paralyse production since owners only operate plants when there are prospects of selling their products or of making profits. We know that the total amount of unsold products can be easily surveyed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. We know also that such stocks are for our country an asset to be likened to Canada's real credit, which is to provide the citizens and the whole population with a sufficient quantity of the goods and the services they would expect from a well organized society.
We laid down the principle that this real credit must be issued by the central bank, namely the Bank of Canada, and deposited in a national credit account belonging to all Canadian citizens.
It remains to be seen how these real credits will be assigned proportionately to each individual.
The Ralliement creditiste proposes some means to effect the distribution of those credits, means that reflect the actual credits equal in value to the total inventories at the end of a given period in a production cycle.
Let us assume that at the end of a year, the total inventory of these unsold goods amounts to $10 billion and that the people asked their representatives to proceed to the distribution of these surpluses. According to the requests made to the people's representatives by their constituents and according to the needs of the people, the legislators can distribute equitably these goods and riches through various means.
The first solution is certainly one which would enable families and all those who live under the poverty line to obtain part of the wealth, in order to get out of destitution and poverty and to enjoy such goods and services as the Canadian production is able to provide for them.
On several occasions, government members have voted against the principle of establishing a destitution and poverty line and of paying to each individual and family what they lack in income in order to ensure them a decent minimum under the form of guaranteed minimum income, through the negative income tax formula. In the white paper on social security, on the contrary, ill-assorted and complex formulas are suggested which will result
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]
mainly in increasing red tape, circulation of forms, investigations of all kinds without concern for the families who already are living beyond the poverty level.
A government of the Ralliement Creditiste party would definitely not hesitate to implement such a policy and one of the first measures it would pass would be to abolish all income tax in the case of single persons having an income of less than $2,000 and in the care of married people having an income of less than $4,000, and to supplement by means of corresponding allowances individual incomes below these two figures.
Another measure which is easily applicable and ardently desired by the population would be to increase the amounts paid to pensioners. Considering present production and the unused production facilities, it would not be too much to pay immediately a minimum of $150 per month to every person 65 years of age or over and to his or her spouse, even if the latter has not yet reached that age.
Those are the measures urgently needed to improve the social allowance program.
As for long-term measures, the Ralliement Creditiste suggests the payment of a national dividend to everyone, as well as the price-adjustment formula, that is the compensated discount or, if you prefer, a negative sales tax.
The main feature of the Ralliement's program is surely the payment of a national dividend to each citizen from the cradle to the grave, in addition to what he or she earns.
First of all, what is a dividend? In industry, it is that part of the profits which is distributed to shareholders, according to the financial success of the undertaking and to each shareholder's investment.
What is a national dividend? It is that part of the abundant Canadian production that would be distributed to all Canadian citizens.
It is said that Canada is wealthy and prosperous. This wealth and this prosperity must benefit all its citizens because they are members of Canadian society.
This dividend would consist in a monthly issue of new credits distributed to each Canadian citizen, for the simple reason that he is a person and therefore an integral part of Canadian society.
Not only does this dividend represent for the Credi-tistes a means of distributing production that does not go into salaries, but it also responds to a right held by each Canadian citizen.
Each citizen holds a right on common natural resources, as for example, waterfalls which are today important power factors; forests, which are a source of immense riches; transportation means which encourage communications and trade.
Secondly, each citizen holds a right on the proceeds of common production factors.
The advocates of the so-called liberal economy, just as those of socialism and communism, are completely ignorant of these common production factors.
To quote but one example, we could mention the present organization of work and production. As engineer-
March 16, 1971

economist Douglas explains it, where one individual tries to lift a 500 pound load and does not manage to do it, five persons can combine their forces and manage to accomplish this feat. The benefits that are derived from this social organization must not and should not belong to one individual or group in particular, but to society as a whole. So, benefits derived from the organization of society must be distributed in a social manner, and the Creditistes believe that social dividends are the ideal way to achieve this distribution.
Each citizen is also entitled to share in the yield of the common inheritance, public property, applied science, great inventions, knowledge increased and passed on from generation to generation which is nowadays a prevalent factor of production. The yield of that real work must belong to each and all and the social dividend is the most efficient means to assure its distribution.
Under a Creditiste system, there would no longer be as today, a single means of distribution, but two sources of individual income. The first of these sources is wages and profit as a reward for the direct participation of individuals in production. Of course, that source of income, through wages and profit, would decrease as automation and cybernetics gradually remove the need for manpower in production. The second source of income is the social dividend, as the result of collective work. This source of income would grow in inverse ratio to the decreasing human factor involved in the production of goods arriving on the market place.
Any financial reform that does not take prices into account is bound to fail, engineer-economist Douglas tells us. That is easy to understand. Government members often speak of inflation. We recognize that inflation can become a real threat under the present system, but we deny that it would be, if we applied, in its integrity, a creditiste regime such as the one we propose.
Why increase the monetary units in the hands of the consumer if at the same time the cost of goods increases in the same proportion?
Those are the reasons why, in our present economy, any increase in the income of the individual that is reflected in the cost of the goods produced or sold can only result in higher prices.
Whether it be an increase in the profits of the businessman, an increase in the rates of interest, or the workers' wages, or in taxes of all kinds, they all add to the prices and ultimately result in a higher price for consumer goods.
That is why the Creditistes suggest a means to adjust prices and respect the producers' freedom to set their prices within reasonable limits. We claim that the producer must keep on setting the prices of goods and services all by himself. On the other hand, however, the producer has no right to set the conditions under which the consumer shall gain access to these products. In other words, the producer shall be paid his own selling price, but it is none of his business whether the amount he
Social Credit Monetary Policy requires or receives for his production has been paid in full by the consumer or if a given percentage of his sales is being paid out of new credits issued by a recognized institution.
This price adjustment could be carried out every year or every half-year or even every quarter. It would be similar to a discount and the opposite of a sales tax.
Such a discount would be made good to the retailer by an equivalent credit issued in the amount of the discount shown on the invoice as having been granted to the consumer. Accordingly, the producer would be paid his own selling price, whereas the consumer could obta n the whole production at merely a fraction of the prices shown on the tags, that is the true consumer price.
How would this discount rate be figured out? After what was missing in the purchasing power taken as a whole, after deduction of the amounts paid in welfare allowances from sources other than taxes, and also of the amounts paid as social dividends.
For instance, let us assume that all prices for goods available amount to $80 billion and that during a given manufacturing period, the Canadian people have bought only $60 billion worth of products, the National Credit Board would then set the discount rate at 25 per cent for the following production period.
This price adjustment method would operate automatically according to the calculations of the accountants in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the National Credit Board. Therefore, we would automatically avoid inflation and deflation.
In conclusion, I might say that these measures would entail some negative effects: they would eliminate financial dictatorship, any encroachment on private property rights, the threat of any social disturbance and all desire to revolt among the people.
But the positive aspects would be much more important: the implementation of the Social Credit policy would permit the production of enough goods to meet the needs, would transfer the goods to consumers' homes. It would thus enable the economy to reach its end, which is to meet human needs. That would be something new and unheard of in the world.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the motion introduced by my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and supported by my colleague from Kamou-raska (Mr. Dionne) does not seem to raise much interest in this House. As a matter of fact, the motion says:
That this House regrets that the government has not seen fit to apply Social Credit monetary policy.
I have seldom met with such complete silence. The Liberals, who are in power, say nothing, probably because they have nothing to say. Maybe they intend to support our proposals? On the Progressive Conservative side, two speakers dealt with everything except the motion itself and the same thing can be said of the representative of the New Democratic Party who spoke earlier.

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy
Mr. Speaker, almost everything has been tried in Canada. To fight inflation, we have resorted to high rates of interest and therefore created unemployment. So it has been necessary to decrease the interest rate but this does not solve the problem.
There are more unemployed in Canada this year than last year and they are almost as numerous as in 1962 and 1963 when the Progressive Conservative government was defeated. The government has absolutely nothing to propose to solve this problem.
I am not astonished at this muteness but I am surprised by the fact that no short or long term viable solution is put forward that would give Canada an economic and social system acceptable to the whole population.
In 1931, a famous pope stated in the Encyclical Quad-ragesimo Anno:
Economy will be soundly constituted and will truly reach its goal only when it will provide to each and every one a share of the products that nature and industry can produce and this share will be sufficient to give to all at least a fair living.
There is no question of perpetual misery but of guaranteeing "to all at least a fair living." In short, people are asking for decent housing, food and medical care whenever necessary, that is to live like human beings. That is what is honest affluence. That does not mean that everybody will be rich, but that all will enjoy at least minimum affluence to lead a normal life.
Why do the Creditistes blame the government for not having accepted the monetary proposals of Social Credit? It is because the leaders, Grits or Tories, have always tried to ridicule Social Credit. It was feared that it would create inflation, and yet, inflation has been made to reign.
Others spend their time asking us where Social Credit has been applied. Nowhere. It is for that reason that everything goes wrong everywhere in the world. Why? Because monetary matters interest nobody except the Creditistes. They are the only ones who are concerned with them.
Others will say: Well, Social Credit has not been applied. If so, it is because it is not good. We have proof to the contrary when the effects of the present monetary system are studied. It is a complete failure.
If we look at the national budget, we note that 13 per cent is allocated to the public debt and this amounts to $1,945 million. Nobody is making a stand against the shameful exploitation of Canadians by a handful of financiers who control them and rule the roost.
We heard some economists criticize social credit and others praise it. Those who dislike social credit only agree on one point: they are dead against it!
As for solutions, there are not two economists who come up with the same thing. This is why when I am asked where have all the economists gone, I answer that I prefer not to see them because I do not want to be involved with these guys. They always come up with different solutions.
In university, both Samuelson and Keynes are taught, yet one says the opposite of the other. And now we have another economist, Kelso, who wants to make every worker a shareholder in industries, for the development of Canada. Let us see how. These shareholders would be forced to borrow from chartered banks and would deposit their loans as collateral to buy shares in various Canadian ventures.
Thus, they will still be controlled by the same bankers, by the same monetary system; they will pay interest on their loans to become fictitious shareholders of companies for a time set by the financial system, by the banking system.
What about those who do not work? Will the banks lend them money to enable them to buy shares in various Canadian companies? Therefore, Kelso is just another guy who dreams in technicolor. He is not concerned with lightening the worker's, the farmer's or the miner's burden, but rather with concentrating, and further strengthening the control of financial and banking institutions over the economy and the economic life of the Canadian people.
We have been advocating the same thing for years- like maybe preaching in the desert. We say we must go along with the Canadian production and not according to the will of one individual or to the fancies of a political party, but to the true and genuine Canadian reality. Let us distribute to all Canadians, over and above their salaries and present incomes, a national dividend which would add to their purchasing power and enable them to acquire the products and services which they need.
This dividend is being laughed at but still other kinds of dividends are being distributed lavishly to other countries and nobody objects. Would it not be just as good in Canada? If the Bank of Canada were to grant interest-free loans to the provinces according to their needs, the conflicts they have to face would no more exist.
One would hear less about separatism and differences whose basis is only financial after all. If one asks Premier Bourassa of the province of Quebec, Premier Bennett of British Columbia, Premier Strom of Alberta or the new Premier of Ontario or the New Democratic Premier of Manitoba what is the issue when they come to Ottawa, they answer that they come to ask for money, for a bigger share of the tax base. This tax base is too small because its size is determined by the financial system.
It is up to Canadians to determine the extent of Canada's development, its standard of living, through their work, their ambition, their intuition, their imagination. They develop Canada, yet they do not benefit thereby because thieves prevent their doing so. When I say thieves, I have weighed my words-that is what they are. There are people who do not understand that interest-free loans could be granted to our provinces, our municipalities and our school boards. Municipalities are left to put bonds on the market, paying 12, 15 and 17 per cent interest. The province of Quebec recently paid 9 per cent, besides the commissions to the brokerage firms.
[Mr. Caouette.l
March 16, ism
COIvim'ONS DEBATES
Provinces must pay 10, 11 or 12 per cent; but the federal government is not moved. The Prime Minister of Quebec is in New York just now, kneeling before American financiers, asking them for new investments in the province of Quebec. There are 250,000 unemployed, intelligent, industrious and courageous, people who are left without anything to do. The Prime Minister goes to New York to kneel before financiers and ask them for new credits in order to create jobs for our people, while all the time it is becoming more and more obvious we could use credits from the Bank of Canada, without operating the money printing machines. These credits would be used for financing the province of Quebec, which wants to develop, as well as the other provinces. We shall then realize unity in Canada because the identity of each province will be respected. This is what is lacking presently.
British Columbia is told that it will be more heavily taxed in order to help a poorer province. Money is taken from those who have some and given to those who have none. A fine solution! It is the same thing in Russia, in Czechoslovakia, etc. Such are their policies. We witness the same thing in Canada, a free country. Some citizens have not yet understood anything in that. When we speak about the public sector, people say: So, we will have socialism. Everyone will be nationalized. There is no nationalization. As for the private sector, we leave it to private enterprise, and private enterprise financiers, if they have any capital, will be able to use it to expand their operations. At the present time, through taxes, the government takes money from private enterprise to finance the public sector. So, private enterprise is deprived of that much credit; the Canadian economy is paralysed because of excessive taxation, because of new taxes, such as that on which we voted yesterday. The 3 per cent temporary tax exists since 1968. It was to apply for one year. We shall again be asked to pass it next year. Some people do not differentiate between private enterprise and the public sector. As far as the public sector is concerned, I believe that even Liberals admit that our attitude is rather consistent. Recently the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was away on a trip-it was before his honeymoon-and he granted $8.5 million worth of interest-free loans for a period of fifty years with ten years of grace, which makes sixty years. The Prime Minister will be 112 years old when those countries start paying back minus interest. In the meantime we are merely told that these nations with our credits will buy our products and that this will create jobs.
As if such credits, granted to municipalities, school boards, provinces, would not create employment in this country, for our people.
I repeat that we have no objection against assisting underdeveloped countries, but there are underdeveloped municipalities in Canada, in Gaspe, for instance, where people are forced to leave small parishes where they were born 60, 70 or 75 years ago. They are told, today, that they must move, if they want the government to assist them. They are being moved, these are small com-
Social Credit Monetary Policy munities where they have known misery for too many years. We are aware of it, and we say so. Why not help these small municipalities or these areas in the same way that we help other countries, India, Pakistan, African countries, Central or Latin American countries, Malaysia, Ceylon, etc.
If interest free loans are good enough for those countries, why should they not be so for us in Canada?
Recently, in connection with the public sector, an alderman of the city of Hull, who represents the Tetreault ward, moved that the municipality should ask the government for authorization to apply for interest-free loans to the Bank of Canada. Mr. Villeneuve said the following:
I do not want our citizens to pay for an out-of-date, archaic and obsolete financial system.
Mr. Villeneuve was right. He explained that if the central government could lend money without interest for periods of over 50 years-$420 million to other countries-he did not see why it could not make the necessary funds available to municipalities on the same terms. A newspaper reported as follows:
The argument of Mr. Villeneuve was disputed, very much so. But what would happen if the Bank of Canada should decide to print money and grant interest-free loans to every municipal-
Granting loans to all the countries of the world is something the man who raised the matter understands. But granting a loan to the city of Hull, the citizen from the Tetreault ward does not understand that. People are being eaten alive by rats, along the shores of the Ottawa river. That he understands, but interest-free loans to pull them out of the financial stagnation in which they are, that the man from the Tetreault ward, in Hull, on the other side of the river does not understand.
I continue my quotation:
-"It would not work," exclaimed one taxpayer. "That business is ridiculous", said another. The municipal political arena is not the place to uphold your political arguments, federal or provincial-
That is from another citizen. It is not a place where you can talk about provincial or federal government. For the city of Hull, it is quite right to suck both the federal and the provincial milk; the citizens admit it is normal procedure. That is from a citizen from the Tetreault ward in Hull. I do happen to live in Hull myself. I have not yet been able to convince them all. I could read it this week in Le Droit. Another one states: "Let's stop thinking about it, it will not work".
In Hull, the tax rate has just been raised by 4 mills. The citizens of Hull can understand this. I do not know if one of them is intelligent enough, if I knew one, I would name him. Let us carefully listen to them. To avoid the 4 mills increase which would somehow shake up the citizens in the Tetreault ward and elsewhere in Hull, he suggests:
Why not increase the tax rate gradually? It seems to me more reasonable to raise the rate by 1 mill every year.

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy
Within four years, the increase would still be of 4 mills; it would have been easier. This is understandable.
I know a story about a frog being thrown into boiling water, and it illustrates my point quite clearly. There is a way, according to that idiot, to make the frog accept everything. Let us put the frog in a pail of cold water and then heat it slowly. The water gets hot gradually, and the frog gets used to it and suddenly dies; the water is boiling hot, the frog is cooked without having been aware of it. Everything went well, it is more acceptable that way. Can you imagine the number of frogs in Hull! The minister understands, he is laughing.
Such a system cannot generate anything else than what we are witnessing at the present time. Last night, in Sherbrooke, there was a meeting on the Canadian Constitution, attended by 500 young French Canadians, by Liberal members, the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Gervais), the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), the member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin). Other members of the Progressive Conservative party were there, I think. Most of them took a good verbal beating. They have not the slightest consideration for federalism. "Go back to Ottawa, we do not want to see you any more. Do not come here to sing us songs." This happened in Sherbrooke last night. Tomorrow it will be in Vancouver, then in Toronto and perhaps later in my constituency of Abitibi.
It is time for the government to think of something else besides imposing taxes or of using poultices on wooden legs. The main uneasiness is not lack of courage on the part of Canadians but lack of money in wallets. That is the sensitive spot. The municipalities, the school boards, the provinces, the individuals, the families, the Canadian government are all at grips with the financial system. Instead of correcting what can still be corrected, useless meetings are arranged such as that of last night in Sherbrooke.
Our proposals may still cause in any people to laugh. It might be too late when their merit is recognized. I hope that the government, while it is still time, will be afraid to assume its responsibilities. The Canadian people will support it, but the young people are now ready to blow up everything in Canada. Let us give them the opportunity to integrate into a society where they will feel like human beings, and then, money will serve the human being. The human being will no longer serve money, as is the case under the present system, one of legalized theft, controlled by a few Canadian bankers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hon. member for Portneuf.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 8 p.m.


Since this is the vigil of St. Patrick, with sober thoughts and friendly feelings I want to offer this old Irish prayer:
May the road rise to meet you,
May the wind be always at your back;
May the sunshine warm up your face,
May the rain fall soft upon your field;
And may you be a long time in Heaven,
Before the devil knows you're dead.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the constantly growing needs of the majority of Canadians, I am glad to support the motion under study, moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). As this motion recommends the use of a formula or tool which would promote a more flexible administration, more in line with the possibilities of our country, I hope that it will also be supported by all those who were elected to this Parliament to serve the interests of their constituents. A Progressive Conservative member, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard), suggested this afternoon a better distribution of taxation. I want to thank and congratulate him for his praiseworthy effort which certainly had value during the war and the years following. However, our experience in this area leads us to believe that in peacetime, the tax base assessment is inadequate. That is the reason why the Creditistes propose, rather than an assessment, an expansion of the tax base according to the needs of each member of the great Canadian family. Today, individuals, families, communities and nations must run their business and whatever exists must be managed according to a widely-accepted formula: revenues are the sum total of profits and expenditures. All accountants and professional managers know that. Also everybody knows from experience that nothing will run smoothly when deficits keep piling up. Deficits breed debts, debts call for interests, interests increase fixed charges for administrations with deficits, so this all boils down to a never-ending and hopeless vicious circle.
This is true of nations, societies, families and individuals.
Nations represent mankind; they represent all human beings on earth, living precariously from the resources created by the supreme master of the Universe.
It may be that here, in this Parliament, we are not responsible for the fate of the whole of mankind, but we must assume the administrative responsibility for 21 million Canadians.
March 16, 1971

431?
God has put everything in nature, too much for all, but enough for any one of us. In Canada, particularly, we are in a state of overaffluence; our output for 1971 will reach $90 billion; the per capita output is thus $4,200, namely $21,000 for every household of five persons, or $350 per month per person or $1,750 per month for every household.
Then, with such a production, we would have no reason to complain. It is not production which is lacking, it is distribution between citizens who are entitled to that production and who do not benefit from it because of poor management on the part of responsible citizens.
I believe that the Canadian government must prove that it intends to discharge its responsibilities by all possible means and, among the means available to the Canadian government is the financing of public capital through advances of credit without interest, and through the Bank of Canada, without depriving anybody of anything, without bringing the economic life to a stop, without inducing either inflation or deflation. We anticipate that that measure would greatly contribute to improve the standard of living of all Canadians. This, it is easy to see, would lead to a decrease in the taxes the government now levies to pay the interest on the public debt or its loans, and to an increase in the amount of money now available to the consumer to buy the goods he needs.
At this point in the debate, though the Ralliement creditiste does not have the support of many members as far as the adoption of a national dividend is concerned, it does have the support of many members who favour the creation of new credits, interest-free, to finance public capital.
In his book Demain c'est Van 2000, Gaston Bardet, professor of applied economics at the University of Brussels, after a thorough study of the banking system, and the survey made in Great Britain by the MacMillan commission, as well as those made in Canada in 1939 by the House of Commons committee on banking and commerce, reaches the following conclusions:
Therefore, there are two possible methods of financing and they are totally incompatible: the first being provided by savings, or surplus money, the other being projected ahead. As far as the former is concerned, he says, in relation with private production, self-regulation must be provided by the supply of existing capital, (and on this point, by the way, we are not in agreement with Mr. Bardet) and where the latter is concerned, self-regulation must be provided by the most positive primary needs.
Hence, bank financing is quite appropriate where a country's capital expenditures are concerned and then the whole country benefits. Wherever over-production is not to be feared, it is demand that determines the issue. Then, in this instance, the requirements in the fields of housing, road-building, bridges, hospitals, schools, forests, become the regulating factors of the anticipated scriptural money.
There again, adds Mr. Bardet, we are dealing with consumer and no longer with producer loans. Interest then is out of the question. The country, the community, cannot practise usury.
Another economist has considered the problem of government financing, and he came to the conclusions drawn by the Creditistes a long time ago, that is financing public capital by new credit free of interest.
Social Credit Monetary Policy
This proposition is explained in a book entitled: "The Challenge of Abundance" by Mr. Robert Theobald, and this book can be found in the Parliamentary Library.
In this respect Mr. Theobald writes:
A government may use three means in order to get the funds it needs to meet its obligations. Firstly it can tax the citizens and the institutions in order to get their money. Secondly it can borrow money from the people and from institutions and pay an interest on it.
In the third place, it can just create money and use the funds created for its purchases. What everyone agreed on before 1936 is that the government should never create money. Opposition to the creation of money was based on the belief that the demand for goods should always be equal to the supply, so long as the government did not intervene in the economy. Keynes destroyed that belief when he showed that there was no certainty that the demand was always equal to the supply in affluent countries-
There are many methods for closing the gap between supply and demand. The level of supply could be brought down without great effect on demand by reducing the number of working hours for the same salary. Demand could be increased by telling the population that more goods are required in order to live a decent life and enjoy a better standard of living.
The government could simply make up the difference between actual and potential production by building new schools, demolishing slums and controlling pollution, because one could find there unused resources in the economy. The government would not have to raise money by levying taxes or borrowing.
Money could be merely created, the additional funds would not cause inflation because, by definition, there would not be any shortage of products.
This is the evidence given by American economist Robert Theobald who feels that it is possible to democratize money and use new credits without interest for the social development and equipment of the country.
Moreover, I want to point out the views of a renown British engineer whose opinions are raising great interest in England. No. 5 of Volume 183, Part I of the 1968-69 Proceedings of England's Institution of Mechanical Engineers reproduces the integral text of a lecture given to the members of this organization by Mr. Anthony Vickers, with the abovementioned title.
In this study, Mr. Vickers, who was heartily applauded and whose comments were the subject of discussions among the members of the Institution, dealt first of all with the technological development, the hopes it awakens from the economic development point of view. Then, in the second part of his address, he talked about the means of financing social development. This is how he concluded this part of his lecture:
A first requirement of education is to make everybody able to understand the simple facts and the functions of money (coins, bank notes, and bank credit) under its various forms. This does not mean endless studies about economic and monetary policies. It means that everybody should be able to understand that:
(1)	Money is a medium of exchange or a method of payment and, in itself, it has no value and does not cost anything.
(2)	The control and regularization of the quantity of money required must be greatly improved in order to meet technological advances and the changes due to a capital-intensive industry.
In the last part of his address, the author explains how it would be possible, within the limits of a total employ-
4318

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy ment economy, to endow Great Britain with social assets that cannot be achieved at the present time owing to lack of money or credit.
He continued:
For a great number of years, seven dam projects have been under consideration in the United Kingdom, designed to increase water resources, enlarge the British heritage, improve navigation and port facilities and in certain cases build power plants and improve the road system.
All these projects would result in important assets for the population and besides would create a great number of jobs. Such projects would cost hundreds of millions of pounds, but the cost of producing such credits would be very small. Is this not a case where one should do what Keynes advocated so strongly: "To make financially possible what is physically feasable."
As a first step, it would be necessary to establish a National Financing Corporation to provide the credits required to create assets for the benefit of society. Thus work would be provided as long as resources would permit. In a free society, in peacetime, over-abundant manpower cannot be directed to different occupations, but with education, retraining, good wages, decent housing, it can certainly be attracted to other jobs, bearing in mind that the GNP may be increased yearly by at least 600 million pounds.
Never before has our capacity for production, transportation and communications been so great; however the admonishments from the government to tighten our belts are unavoidably followed by limitations imposed by producers in various ways. History, of course, will tell us that taxes have been too heavy and complicated and, although this is not the object of this lecture to discuss tax problems and their basic objectives, it remains nevertheless that technological progress requires an expansion of the economy if we wish to reach full employment.
This is why we suggest that for what we call capital funds that do not bring profits, a National Financing Corporation must be developed to meet those needs. This would require specific terms of reference to avoid a conflict with the various financial organizations already serving the private sector of the economy which is based on profits- The National Financing Corporation which is one of the most important factors of governmental policies would however provide a considerable share of the money or funds now levied through taxation. In spite of the present high rates, taxation is unable to use unemployed resources to build, for example, a modern road system and in addition, it adds a tremendous burden to the costs which the community must pay in the form of interests.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) stated to the house that he would very much like to be able to finance the construction of a Canadian pipeline in the Mackenzie valley, but that because "he was not a Creditiste, he did not know how to print money."
If the minister does not know how money and credit are created, he should see his banker who, if he is the least bit clever and honest, will tell him how the banking system creates credit out of nothing. And if his banker does not know, than I shall merely send him the extremely instructive booklet published by the Royal Bank of Canada entitled How the Canadian Money Supply is Affected by Various Banking and Financial Transactions and Developments. If he does not understand after having read it, then we can introduce him to members of the party who will be in a position to
explain that to him clearly and accurately. Thus he will learn that whatever is physically desirable must be made financially possible, and that through a financial system consistent with the facts, financial problems would not exist, if there is no production problem.
As Marquess Serra writes in his book entitled "Economic Chaos and The Coming Revolution", there is no trick to evaluating in dollars the use of materials, natural resources and technical processes. And there is no trick either to creating purely monetary means, therefore the credit to facilitate the exchanges of various services, which will make the plans come true.
In this age of technology, here is a technique to be developed. And we can do it as soon as we decide. It is a matter of decision, that is all. The money is there, the products are there, the tools are there. All we have to do, is decide.
May Divine Providence guide you in your deliberations.
The Governor General of Canada thus ended his speech at the opening of this session on October 8, 1970.
If we analyse the travels of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of other members of the government such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to distribute around the world our wealth and help the underdeveloped countries through gifts of food and interest free loans for periods of 50 to 60 years, we realize that the prayer of the Governor General of Canada has been answered. It is obvious that Providence has guided our political leaders to the benefit of foreign countries.
I will repeat the prayer of the Governor General:
May Divine Providence guide you in your deliberations.
Because I am only a representative, I hope that this prayer will be answered at 50 per cent, so that our government might forget for a time the ills of the whole world and limit itself to taking the necessary measures to meet the needs which exist presently within the borders of our country.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the long familiar motion brought before the House regrets that the government has not seen fit to apply the Social Credit monetary policy.
Such a policy was stated for the first time by a British engineer, Major Douglas, in a book published in 1920 and entitled "Economic Democracy".
It is significant that during the half-century that followed, no government of any country in the world endorsed the Social Credit doctrine. It is also significant that the two provincial governments in Canada headed by parties that still go under the Social Credit label, only pay lip-service, if that, to the Social Credit theories.
While the Social Credit party is no longer represented in its original form in the House and no longer exists as a party on the federal level, Social Credit theories are still being advocated by only one group, the Ralliement creditiste.

March 16, 1971

The Social Credit doctrine is only one of the numerous theories put forward in the last hundred years or so, as an ultimate answer to the undoubtedly serious defects in the working of our economic system. No wonder that according to many such theories, all our economic problems would be solved simply through the adoption of one form or other of monetary system.
In the United States, for instance, William Jennings Bryan severely criticized the gold-standard that prevailed then. As a remedy to the real defects of the gold-standard, he suggested the establishment of a parallel system of silver-standard.
Like Bryan, Mr. Speaker, Major Douglas perceived a defect in the economic system of that time, namely that there was no machinery to allow, in a more substantial way, the creation of an adequate demand for the goods and services that the nation can produce.
However, it is quite true that to find out about the existence of a problem is one thing and that to apply an adequate solution is another. As I said before, no country in the world has ever considered that Social Credit theories could bring about a practical solution.
As pointed out by a well-known economist, Alvin Hansen, in his book entitled Full Recovery or Stagnation, Social Credit authors, as those of all other cure-all doctrines, have ignored a most important fact of life, namely that no economic device, whatever its nature, can be grafted to the economic machine to make it work smoothly forever.
Over the last 50 years, after Major Douglas had for the first time outlined his theories, the nations of the western world have worked out a number of interrelated policies and programs offering much wider possibilities as concerns maintenance of a balance between supply and demand for goods and services.
Each year billions of dollars are made available to Canadians through a great range of social welfare programs, which do contribute largely to the maintenance of our purchasing power. Notable progress has been achieved allowing recourse to fiscal and monetary measures to maintain a marked increase in production, employment level and real income.
The main problem, still unresolved and, besides, totally ignored by the Social Credit theory, is to maintain a sustained rate of increase for our economy. As emphasized by the Economic Council in its last report, the most notorious economic failure of the sixties, throughout the world, and which constitutes a major political problem yet to be solved, has been the inability to achieve an acceptable reconciliation between a high level of employment and a relative price stability.
As noted by the Economic Council, the solution of this problem will constitute a most difficult challenge and is not one of those problems which can be dealt with so-called "right" political decisions.
Social Credit Monetary Policy
Although the theories of the Social Credit are almost unknown today, those who keep on advocating them are not the only ones to believe that our increasingly complex economic problems can be solved by a few so-called "right" political decisions, to use the Economical Council's own words.
Quite recently, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative party stated in the House that the longest and most tenacious period of inflation in modern times which continues to affect other western countries could be checked by a mere appeal to voluntary restraints on prices and incomes. Although such restraints would no doubt supplement further political measures, as the government itself stated, the Progressive Conservative party has kept insisting on this magic solution to the whole inflation problem quite a long time after it had become obvious that all the sectors of the economy were not prepared to accept voluntary restraints.
Over the last few months, the Conservative members have been suggesting a similarly simplistic solution to this problem, a sharp but stable economical growth. They have suggested a one billion dollar or more tax reduction and have proposed a substantial increase in government expenditures while omitting to state the amount of such an increase. They have wholeheartedly elected to ignore the serious problems that such an approach could bring about in the future either by giving rise to further infla-tionnary pressures, or through an upwards pressure on interest rates and the Canadian dollar rate of exchange and, finally, by exposing the Canadian economy to the risks of another recession.
Last month, the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic parties as well as the Ralliement Creditiste have censured, in a joint statement, the economic policies followed by the government, to ward off the inflationnary pressures which threaten our economy and to put it back on the way to a strong and stable growth.
However, Mr. Speaker, I see that the Tories and the NDPers are endorsing, in some way, the government's view on the usefulness and the opportunity of the Creditiste doctrine, namely that this doctrine is nothing more than a doctrine and moreover, an idealistic and unenforceable theory. And almost everybody agrees on that point. But at the same time, Mr. Chairman, I think it is regretable that these two parties chose to do nothing during this debate but hide between proposals varied as well as contradictory.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I think that the House of Commons must vote against the Creditiste motion.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Since the Minister stated that the Progressive Conservative position was contradictory because it supported the Creditiste proposals, could he explain why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) backed down in
4320

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy this very Chamber with regard to his White Paper on Tax Reform?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this White Paper was tabled as a vehicle for discussion. It was only after discussing those ideas that the government said it would introduce a bill. It was its intention from the beginning. It is regrettable that our Progressive Conservative colleague missed this basic point.


Roch La Salle: I should like to take the opportunity on this opposition day, Mr. Speaker, to state certain views concerning the motion proposed by the Ralliement Creditiste. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Revenue Minister on his excellent French. I should like to take this opportunity to discuss a few points concerning the motion, but with some reservations.
I am not convinced that a Creditiste policy would be the best solution, but I should like to congratulate, all the same, the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). I heard this afternoon, his splendid speech, delivered in his usual simple way. Knowing well the hon. member for Bellechasse, I know his honesty. I feel I must congratulate him on his speech and the ideas which he advocates in this House. I would even go as far as to say that if all members were as honest and simple as he is, the House would fare much better. Honesty based on such simplicity would result in far more realistic and human ideas and policies. The same could not be said of the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) who from time to time is more apt to indulge in politics than to advocate truly meaningful and progressive ideas. In any case, I congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) on his honesty and his excellent speech.
Production, distribution, consumption and purchasing power have all been mentioned. Obviously, Canada today is not lacking in production. Obviously also, distribution is possible, considering that the average citizen lacks an adequate purchasing power, or income. The consumer is hampered by this lack of purchasing power, even though there is an overproduction which could be consumed through greater purchasing power. The present situation is the result of policies laid out and promoted by this government. We could blame former governments, but we would be wrong in doing so because if we were always blaming those who have built this country, those who have done their utmost, we would be wasting our time. I think we must analyse in depth the present situation. A Liberal government has been in power in Canada since 1968. I know that the Canadian people expect a great deal from this government, taking into account a very commendable promise called the just society. As everyone else I believed in this just society. I thought that once elected, I could participate in this just society by supporting good measures and, obviously, by protesting against bad ones, because that is the role of the Opposition. However, to curb inflation, unemployment was allowed to develop, which is disastrous and harmful. In spite of inflation, we nevertheless witnessed an increase in prices, and this increase has certainly been harmful to consumers. And yet, we experienced inflation, to arrive at this unacceptable unemployment situation.
Not so long ago, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that he had succeeded in checking inflation, and that from now on, he was to come to grips with unemployment.
We all know how embarrassing such a situation is for us and how painful it is in certain parts of the country, in the province of Quebec especially, and in other regions.
Apparently, the main effort was to increase welfare allowances. I think it was essential and vital to create new jobs, to make available additional capital for research which would have led to the manufacture of new products and consequently to the establishment of new industries which would have been viable in the long run.
Efforts were also made to make available substantial amounts for the establishment of new industries but, unfortunately, nothing was done to solve the problems of those already existing. And that is what really matters.
Almost every day, industries of long standing announce that they will shut down owing to certain difficulties, including imports. Has this government done enough to put a stop to competitive imports? Has it seriously studied the possibility of restricting such imports? It has certainly been normal that we import certain products, but have we conducted enough studies in order to limit imports of a given product since Canada is today in a position to produce it? I do not think we have done enough in this respect.
Such endeavours in favour of investments in new industries is a good thing in principle, but it seems to me that we have forgotten to trouble ourselves about the preservation of existing industries.
How could we forget to discuss the financial problems of the municipalities and the provinces? We must discuss in the House the financial situation of the municipalities and the provinces. We certainly want our municipalities and provinces to have the financial means to expand further.
In Quebec we had the quiet revolution which made it possible to launch a number of programs. To a certain extent those new programs caused indebtness.
Clearly the effects were by and large the same at municipal levels; since they need additional services in order to face today's needs and want new industries, municipalities should get up a series of projects likely to supply them with an infrastructure, taking into consideration the prospect of new industries.
Today, municipalities and the population in general are being blamed for not having developed enough projects or established adequate protection against pollution.
How can these municipalities possibly build water treatment plants, in view of the present indebtedness?
The motion before the House is such as to suggest to the government the application of a Social Credit policy aimed at issuing supplementary dollars as well as cer-

March 16, 1971

tain dividends. There are some reservations to make in this connection. We must-and in this I concur with the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray))-guard ourselves against the possibility of greater inflation.
In any case, in view of the financial position of the municipalities and provinces, I am wondering how we can extricate ourselves if the federal government does not make enough efforts to grant certain supplementary credits in order to allow provinces and municipalities to honour commitments which are imminent and necessary.
Of course municipalities are always interested in urgent projects. Is it financially possible for those municipalities and those provinces to keep on providing their own administration at the rate which we have known the last ten years? I think not.
It is obvious that the issue of supplementary credits is necessary. How could those municipalities and those provinces continue to get into debt at an interest rate as high as that prevailing today. I wonder whether the government should not consider issuing supplementary credits, but at a reasonable minimum rate which would allow those municipalities to go on with projects for which there is an overwhelming need.
Otherwise, I wonder how these municipalities or provinces will be able to keep growing and thus to set up the public services and utilities necessary to attract industry.
Obviously, the government has not considered the possibility of extending new credits at reasonable interest rates. All too often, the government has issued new lines of credit with interest rates so high that local governments are put in an awkward position. I urge the government to consider this possibility.
We in the opposition can easily criticize. I would not want to limit myself to criticizing the government, to saying that it has not done anything: it would not be honest. Today, one must ask whether the government has done enough, whether it can do better and whether those who criticize it could do better.
That is the role of the opposition. Starting from that consideration, and being conscious of my role in this House, I should not want to limit myself to criticizing the government; I urge it to consider the possibility of creating additional credit, at reasonable rates; by that, I do not mean that it should blindly endorse the monetary policy of the social credit party, because I have serious reservations about it.
I make as many reservations about the efforts of the government during the past three years. As a result of those considerations, I wonder if I am not entitled-and I should at least be-to ask the government to examine the possibility of granting supplementary funds for carrying out certain projects which are obviously essential in the public utility field.
I do not ask that funds be granted to individuals at high interest rates, but I think that it is extremely important to provide more money to municipalities and prov-
Social Credit Monetary Policy inces for public utilities and large scale projects, taking into account their direct relation with the public sector.
We have asked the government many times to arrange easy credit for housing, an important sector which represents, I believe, from 30 to 33 per cent of the labour force in Canada. The government made some effort, I must admit, to grant credits with regard to housing.
Labourers, people of the middle class, should be allowed to become home owners, taking into account the interest rates, taxes on materials and property taxes.
We have asked many times for the repeal of the tax on building materials, which would be an interesting move for those who want to become owners.
I know that the government should normally study this. Unions interested in construction have made requests which are rather hard to accept.
With respect to construction, the government should call together all the representatives in this field and enter into arrangements with them at both the government and the union levels. The government must have at its disposal substantially large credits for construction, in Canada, because of the heavy demand. Union representatives must also accept some measure of compromise. It is up to the government to prove that it is willing to promote construction and it is up to the unions to prove that they are willing to compromise, because of the capital which the government would be ready to invest.
It could be that an agreement could be reached between the unions, all those involved in construction, and the government as regards salary and price stability. The government should abolish the tax on building materials and make funds available at acceptable interest rates. It did not see fit to do so, and I sincerely believe that the government would serve the best interests of the Canadian people if it did. I would recommend to all those interested in the construction sector to compromise for 3 or 5 years, if we are to have long-term building. The government should take this suggestion into consideration.
I would like to mention that we have to define the policy which the government should normally adopt. This afternoon, the policy to help students find summer employment was introduced. This announcement made us realize that only part of the students will be getting a job this summer at a cost of approximately $50 million. This represents only 50 per cent of the students who will be on holidays this summer.
During the last Liberal convention held in Quebec City, the young, aware of their needs, voted in favour of a resolution asking for the establishment of a civil service. I had thought of a disciplinary civil service. Perhaps it was too severe. This civil service was referred to as a service that could provide work for students. This resolution which was passed is an excellent one, I am not against saying it, but I thought a few months ago-and I said so in this House-that the establishment of a policy

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy
for students was an obvious necessity. It seems that the government has no intention of following this up. I can understand ths frustration of the young before the attitude of the vrvvernment. There is a desire to provide against this < .'solution which is wrong. This service would makfj ,t possible to remedy the situation. The establishment of a civil service on a national scale would have created thousands of job opportunities. And if 1 understand the meaning of the resolution that was passed, the public service could have found a job for all students, provided they had applied for one. But we would then have given proper guidance to these young people who wonder to what extent members of the House are responsible.
By giving a positive answer to such a resolution, we would have proved to these young people that the members of the House are aware of their problems and want them to become actively involved in society. We would have enabled them to accept responsibility and to earn a salary which would have made it possible for them to continue their studies without always relying on a scholarship which often comes too late, or on the financial assistance of their parents which is often inadequate, and that is justified.
I wonder to what extent the government has exerted itself and has shown its awareness of the needs of those students. With the future of Canada in mind, it is very important, I think, to give some responsibility to each student and a salary that will enable him to continue his studies.
I also wish, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. member that his time has expired.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the speeches by the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) and a member of the official opposition who has, to my immense surprise, congratulated the hon. member for Bellechasse. It is a rather rare occurrence for a member to congratulate a group because he would generally be expected to attack the leader of the party. The ideas expressed today by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and upheld in this House are exactly the same as the ones so often outlined here by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste.
They are also exactly the same as those expressed here for the last 36 years. When Social Credit was discussed in this House, whether by Social Credit members from western Canada or by the Ralliement Creditiste from the province of Quebec, the principles have remained the same.
And the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) approved our plans to grant credits to the population in different sectors of the economy, but he did not tell us where he would get those credits. That is what we would very much like to know, where to get them? From the pockets of citizens who are already broke, already over-taxed?


Roch La Salle: From the Bank of Canada!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I would have liked the hon. member for Joliette to tell us while he had the floor and to repeat it in the House.


Roch La Salle: From the Bank of Canada!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: We have a solution to offer. We say credits should be obtained from the Bank of Canada, and we are always consistent with our proposals.
Mr. Speaker, it is amusing for us, members of the Ralliement Creditiste to hear some members discussing something they know nothing about.
We soon find that they have never studied it. Some of them, I agree, know better, but their political ties prevent them from airing their knowledge. I know some Liberal members, among others, who are quite familiar with the working of finance, of the banking system in Canada.
They remind me, when they talk about Social Credit, of those three individuals who, one day, were standing, blind-folded, in front of an elephant in the Granby zoo. One was near the leg of an elephant and tried to guess where he was. When he touched the leg, he thought he was in a temple near a column.
Another individual who was feeling its body thought he was in a warehouse and was touching some kind of a barrel. A third individual who touched the elephant trunk thought he was holding a cable.
When I hear the members opposite, they remind me of people who are blind in the economic field. From time to time, they say: We have encouraged employment. Later they add: We must fight inflation, or still: We must raise or control prices or establish a price control board. We are only presented in this House with temporary solutions, fumbling solutions, by people who move in darkness, with their eyes shut, and who go blindly in the economic field.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) has spoken tonight on the motion under consideration on behalf of the government. I would have hoped that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would have been in the House to give us his reply, for we know very well that the Minister of National Revenue has but one thing in mind, to tax and to "pump" money out of the pocket of citizens to feed the Treasury.
The Minister of Finance also has always another thing in mind, namely get the people into debt. Those are the only two sources of revenue that this government and the preceding ones have known.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has, as in some other circumstances, raised the scarecrow of inflation. He made me think of a waterworks comptroller who, afraid of flooding the city, would close the water mains and let the city burn.
Mr. Speaker, for fear of inflation in Canada, the Cana-dans are kept broke, taxed and in debt. Yesterday we

March 16, 1971

extended for another year the so-called social development tax, something which had already been done previously. It is not with a Minister of National Revenue such as the one we have today that Canada will innovate; as always we shall be followers. We shall remain a home for subsidiaries from foreign countries that from time to time offer us a few millions so that our economy can keep on going.
And yet it would be easy for Canada to be a model and affluent country.
Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue is more aware than anybody in the House that a group of people control finance. He knows that those people are interested in having man exploited by man and it seems to us that he blamed the governments of Alberta and British Columbia among others because, so he says, they did not apply the Social Credit doctrine.
He should have said also that it was his own party, today's government, which in 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939 prevented Alberta from implementing at least seven private bills, that were about to be introduced in the provincial legislature. Those bills were rejected by the government in power at the present time so as to prevent the Social Credit government of Alberta from implementing the Social Credit principles.
If Social Credit is so dangerous, if it is such an utopia, if it is so stupid, why was not in 1935 and in 1939, the then Premier of Alberta, the Hon. William Eberhart, allowed to apply the Social Credit principles? Higher institutions in Canada were used to declare ultra vires seven bills of the Alberta legislature, that had in its statutes and biffs the power to eliminate economic and financial slavery in the province. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Revenue was still harping on the same string when he told us that millions of dollars are granted every year to the Canadian people as social welfare, to stimulate our economy.
Mr. Speaker, those millions which, according to him, are paid out for social welfare in order to stimulate the economy do not stimulate many things for those same millions are taken away beforehand from individuals who still work in order to put them in the pocket of those who cannot work. The Minister of Revenue proved once more tonight that he wants to stay within the system. Perhaps he has personal reasons for that. In fact, one thing strikes us everywhere in the world, it is that it is in the interest of the exploiters who live off the system to maintain it and not to change it.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) this afternoon introduced before the House a non-confidence motion against the government for failing to apply the Social Credit monetary policy. Since 1935, as I said a moment ago, the hon. members sitting here under the Social Credit banner have repeatedly offered concrete financial solutions which would have allowed the present government as well as its predecessor to settle once and for all the financial problem of Canada, which stands at the root of all other economic problems encountered in this country.
For 36 years now, the Social Credit monetary policy has been outlined in this House. I suggest that if the
Social Credit Monetary Policy government in its wisdom has not seen fit to apply the Social Credit policy on a 100 per cent basis, it could at least have applied some of our recommendations and watched the results. If Social Credit is that much unworthy, as some ignoramuses delight in repeating, I think the government could have tried to apply one or two of its proposals in order to verify to which fiasco they would lead. But no, Mr. Speaker, Canadian and foreign financiers will never allow the political party they have themselves financed to test one or two proposals from the Social Credit for that would be the beginning of the end of their control on governments, individuals and the economy. But that would be also be the beginning of the end of the hardship experienced by the Canadian people amid abundance. But that would also be putting an end to exploitation of man by man.
Before coming to the heart of my remarks, I should like to read part of an article published today by the newspaper La Presse and signed by Claude Beauchamp, under the title:
"Beggars on a plane"
When I was young, I knew all kinds of beggars: on bicycles, on foot, in cars. But in 1971, there are modern beggars. I quote the newspaper article I have in hand:
Mr. Robert Bourassa starts today his second pilgrimage to New York since his election as premier of Quebec, now nearly eleven months ago. An unusual thing, the premier leaves in a very quiet way. He probably wants to avoid creating false hopes because of a trip from which, undoubtedly, no concrete or immediate results can be expected.
Today, Mr. Bourassa goes to New York to reassure American investors. Each time the Quebec premier went to New York, it was for the purpose of reassuring, reassuring again and again. In other words, he comes to New York as a "panhandler", a "beggar", a timorous person!
It is always with the same self-consciousness, the same lack of confidence, the same negative attitude that this annual trek is made to the American financiers. Unfortunately, they are the real masters of our economy.
During the electoral campaign, they are very interested in maintaining the same system and in order to do so they see to it that the political organizations which are prepared to support them have the money to pursue their activities.
How humiliating it must be to be the premier of a province as rich as Quebec and act as a modern panhandler. It must also be humiliating to the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister of Canada and having to kowtow to Canadian or more often American businessmen. What would we do, where and how could we run this country if we did not have all those American dollars and if we were not getting deeper and deeper into debt as we develop?
This is one of the stupidities of our governments, of our politicians and of the present system. And we, Credi-tistes, cannot accept such stupidities. Canada borrows money elsewhere at high interest rates and we lend it back interest-free to other countries. Would any businessman who thinks he is bright accept such a situation?
However, we find that with the workings of logic and the pressure of time, some minds open up. We are told that we are right and our theories are taken up again.
March 16, 1971

Social Credit Monetary Policy
I would like to read a telegram which was sent to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) on March 14, that is two days ago. It reads as follows:
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa
It seems to me the Canadian people have had a bellyfull of you chaps jetting around the world spending and offering millions of our tax dollars in foreign aid while we who pay the freight have a tough time watching unemployment take its toll in our have-not areas. It is time you called Mr. Sharp home and call off these Santa Claus junkets by diverting some of these millions to give us back our railways and putting our people back to work. I have a sure-fire plan if you will direct your people to study it for a crash program. As far as we are concerned the honeymoon is over and its time for action for Canadians, not Africa or Timbuctu. If I am wrong, let me know because I speak for a lot of Canadians awaiting your reply.
Respectfully
Eddie Sargent, M.P.P. Grey-Bruce

This shows that not only the Creditistes are shocked by the attitude of our Prime Minister who travels around the world offering money free of interest.
But when it is suggested to apply the same principle to municipalities, they laugh and find it funny. Well, we ask for the same thing as the Liberal member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), we ask that the foreign aid to Africa and underdeveloped countries of the world be also applied to Granby or to any other city, municipality, school board or provincial government. At present, the Quebec premier must go begging to New York, begging for dollars in order to develop the province of Quebec and to mortgage at the same time our development.
Speaking of the current method of presenting the minister of Finance's budgets and of what we feel would be required in order that this presentation be made more comprehensible, more efficient and more normal, what strikes me, when I read the budget documents submitted each year and see the amounts allocated to each item, each year, is that both the "national debt" and the interests on it are going up.
In 1867, Canada's national debt was only $75 million; it increased five times before World War I to more than $314 million. After World War I, the debt jumped to $1,2 billion and increased five-fold in six years.
Then we went through the depression and World War II. In 1945 the national debt amounted to more than $11 billion. From 1945 to 1960 it increased by about $1 billion reaching a total of $12 billion 89 million. From 1960 to 1968 it increased by more than $4 billion to exceed $16 billion in 1968.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, considering the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, we can expect another increase in the national debt of more than $1 billion. It is more striking to read the ever growing amounts that taxpayers are asked to pay each year for servicing the public debt.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member, but I must do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I am grateful to my colleagues for granting me this permission.
In 1969-70, real expenditures under the public debt item were $1,709,938,172. In 1970-71, expenditures under the same item amounted to $1,862,400,000 and finally for the year 1971-72, the hon. Minister of Finance expects expenditures, in interest alone on the public debt, of some $1,988,000,000.
If there are approximately 20 million Canadians, this represents about $100 a year for each one of them. Now, it is to be remembered that in 1945, that is after the Second World War, the per capita interest on the public debt amounted to $26.42 as compared with $42.17 in 1960.
Twelve years later, that is in 1972, every Canadian will have to disburse almost $100 to this effect.
These are the results of the financial system of which the present government and the preceding ones is and have been the faithful servants.
9 (9:20 p.m.)
Although there are some who claim that this is good, such as Alexander Hamilton, the spokesman for international bankers and, more so, for the conservative party of American federalists, who said that a public debt is of national benefit because it enables businessmen, financiers and bankers to make investments that are without risk, others state-and I have heard the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) repeat it- that a national debt is not harmful for the country, because Canadians owe this money to one another and because the money required to pay the cost of such debt is taken in one pocket and placed in another.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion should know that those pockets do not usually belong to the same taxpayers.
We have in the past asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to say who were the government bondholders, to give us the names and addresses of the country's creditors. He has not been able to do so or else he did not want to. If he had, we could have seen that the people who in Canada draw interests on the public debt, who will get something out of the $2 billion or so, that Canadians will pay in 1972, do not belong to the category of the have-nots. Far from it, the ones who pocket these interests already enjoy considerable incomes. The major part of these interests will merely go to increase the bankers' dividends.

March 16, 1971

It is therefore in order to conclude that public debts are repressive and punitive measures, because they hurt mostly low-income people, those who only draw a small income and must contribute about 15 per cent of their taxes to the payment of the national debt.
Therefore, it is time to come back to sounder financial conceptions, and to the introduction of budgets more in keeping with the realities that they should reflect.
What is, indeed, the main function of a minister of Finance? Presently, the Minister of Finance sets down the budget of the nation, figures out the expenditures and the taxes that he has to collect to cover them. If the public seems too heavily taxed, as it is the case concerning the white paper, the Minister of Finance decides either to cut down expenditures on certain items, or to contract new loans which are reflected by a further increase of the public debt.
At the present time, public finances are divided in receipts and expenditures and lead each year to a balance or to a running into debt which means that with the years, as I said a while ago, the Canadian debt is increasing.
The Minister of Finance and his predecessor (Mr. Sharp) did not act otherwise. The Ministers of Finance of previous governments had done the same thing, not a single one acts otherwise and not a single political party thinks otherwise, except the Ralliement Creditiste. We agree on one point:	The Minister of Finance must
introduce a budget showing the receipts and expenditures for the year, but there is more than a mere recording of figures under the column "expenditures and receipts."
A Minister of Finance under a Creditiste government would also submit a balance sheet of Canadian assets and liabilities, a statement indicating the enrichment and another showing the impoverishment of Canada.
For that purpose, a Creditiste government would establish a national credit board which would have to record in the assets column, any increase in wealth in Canada. A bridge built in Canada by Canadians would be an enrichment which should appear in the assets statement.
The construction of a road, a seaway, a hospital or a school, all new public services offered the people of Canada must appear among the assets of the country.
At the present time, I challenge the government and the Minister of Finance to show them to me in the budgets he introduced. I dare him to show me where those additions to the assets of Canada, that new Canadian wealth, are to be found.
In the same trend of thought, the new plants built in Canada, the increase in the Canadian population, should be taken into account. It is said that the human capital is our greatest wealth. Where is mention made of it on the books, under the assets of the country? Nowhere.
Also, more than 300,000 new graduates will enter the labour market this year. That is a sure asset, that is a source of wealth, because those new workers, better educated than their elders, will use their energies, their mind and their knowledge to ensure a greater and better production. That is a very important asset for this country.
Social Credit Monetary Policy
Each year the assets should increase, but nothing of the kind appears at present in the budgetary papers which the present Minister of Finance, or previous ministers of finance table each year.
For instance, which agency sees to it that the financial credit reflects the increase in real credit? Who anticipates the increase in financial credit, in the face of the increase in real values? The increase in financial credit is done haphazardly, hit or miss, according to the fancy of bankers, sole creators of credit in Canada under the present system.
If production increases, who makes sure that the purchasing power increases accordingly? Which government agency makes sure that the amount of money in circulation increases in the same proportion so as to balance the higher output produced by Canadians? The Minister of Finance does not care about an increase in productivity due to new factories, new workers, new brains. No government, no political party, whether or not in the opposition, ever proposed that the positive assets of Canada be made to benefit Canadians.
Everything is left to chance. The governments, the various ministers of finance have never been concerned with controlling the money supply according to our assets or liabilities or our yearly increase in depreciation and in output. The governments let the entrepreneurs and finance ministers settle their accounts with the bankers when money gets scarce.
Chartered banks, private interests are those who decide to increase or reduce the money supply according to production. The bankers are the ones who decide also that all that money will have to come out of the consumers' or taxpayers' pockets, through higher taxes or interests.
Any increase in wealth is thus checked and restrained, penalized and taxed. Farmers, industrialists and all governments must comply with the wishes and the terms of bankers. But what would a Creditiste government do? According to the monetary system of the Social Credit, the best thing to do is to fill such a gap through the establishment of an accounting method geared to the requirements of our country. Should the production capacity increase, the national credit account should show it under assets. Any depreciation, any wearing out, any loss, any destruction, should be entered under liabilities.
The difference should normally be reflected by a net increase in wealth to which must correspond an issue of money which would enable the country to profit by it.
This may not seem like much.
But if in 1929 we had used such an accounting method to adjust money to reality, people would not have starved before heaps of products. If in 1971, we used this accounting method, we would not have about one million unemployed to reflect our paralyzed production because we are short of money in spite of affluence.
What is the Minister of Finance asking himself when preparing his budget? What does the country want, what can the country pay? He starts by asking himself the
4326

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy second question if he wants to balance his budget. Under a Creditiste system, what would the Minister of Finance ask himself? He would ask himself two questions. What does the country want? Whan can Canada supply, not in terms of money or taxes, but in terms of men, labour, resources and techniques?
Who are those and what are the materials the country can do without in the production of food and clothing, in the construction of roads, bridges and hospitals?
If the government decides to build the pipeline along the Mackenzie, the workers and businesses engaged in this project will produce neither food nor clothing. Other people will have to provide them in their stead, to produce food for those employed in the construction of the pipeline as well as for themselves.
The problem is to know whether, under a Social Credit government, the country would be physically able to construct the pipeline without prejudice to the production of consumer goods. Money has nothing to do with that, nor does the bankers' will. Under the Social Credit system there would still exist physical problems, but no longer monetary problems, since money should reflect the real facts and be connected with them.
A Social Credit budget would be based on the hierarchy of the public services required and possibly available, and there would be no question of taxes, for government expenses have nothing to do with taxes. Then, it would provide for the cases where excess money would have to be withdrawn, but it would not impose taxes simply to balance the budget. Taxes have nothing to do with expenditures. The basis of the Social Credit budget would be what the country can provide in the form of public or private services, and the financing problem would be set aside, for finance must be managed as the needs appear, within the physical limits of the country's possibilities.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), has tabled the following motion:
That this House regrets that the government has not seen fit to apply Social Credit monetary policy.
I congratulate them heartily because it is a rather sorry sight to find that the government not only does not innovate, but also keeps repeating the mistakes of preceding governments. This is why we propose that they apply or at least study honestly the open and earnest position of the Social Credit, but in vain because our advice falls on barren land; at the sight of members laughing, we wonder if that is the only thing they can do.
However, this is a definite proposal, in the sense that we suggest again to the government to study first the Creditiste proposals before rejecting them out of hand.
The present liberal government believed, at the last election, that it had appropriate solutions to the various problems of the Canadian people, and that they are more
themselves who said that, but publicity, the power of money.
Mr. Speaker, the government must recognize today its failure in this respect. Successive governments, both Grits and Tories, never wanted to admit that the basic problem which is the direct source of all others was the financial problem. Instead of recognizing it and trying to tackle it, they focus their policies on secondary problems which in fact prove that they are unaware of the real problems of the Canadian people, and that they are more interested in protecting their party than in bringing new and effective solutions. We saw a proof of that when a good Grit and a good Tory, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) and the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) had a heated exchange.
To realize the ineffectiveness of this administration, one has only to recall the countless white papers and royal commissions which cost millions of dollars and give nothing to the population. Those are the solutions offered to us. We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, are most anxious to get action from the government.
The solutions suggested by the Creditistes all have economic balance as a common denominator, as determined by the constant balance that should exist between the production forces on the one hand and the consumer forces on the other. In suggesting practical and specific legislation, Social Credit tends to accelerate the economic process involving both these major lines of force while enabling the human individual to fully enjoy its role as a producer or as a consumer, in complete freedom, and security, assured of a guaranteed minimum income as the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) said a while ago.
To achieve that we propose as a basic rule a debt-free monetary and credit system through realistic monetary and fiscal proposals to encourage the balance of our internal economy and of our foreign trade.
The successive Liberal and Conservative governments have all advocated the same monetary and fiscal solutions for the same economic and financial problems. You may recall for instance the famous period of austerity imposed on us by the Conservative government under the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who was Prime Minister in 1962.
As the Liberals of Mr. Pearson were then in the opposition, they proposed, as you will see at page 1348 of Hansard of November 6, 1962, the following motion blaming the Conservative government, and I quote:
This House is of the opinion that the emergency austerity program of tariff surcharges and tight money introduced on June 24 of this year should he stopped at once.
That was Mr. Pearson, Mr. Speaker, blaming Mr. Diefenbaker.
The Progressive Conservatives, it will be remembered, had formulated and adopted on June 24, 1962 a policy of credit restrictions. They said: tighten your belts, because of inflationary pressures. This galloping inflation must be checked.
Progressive Conservatives, in their effort to prevent galloping inflation, prevented Canadians from eating and

March 16, 1971

living decently and from freely fulfilling themselves, although our country abounds in resources.
The Progressive Conservatives' credit restriction policy, completely failed and the fight against inflation, waged by means of inadequate fiscal and monetary means, brought about a real unemployment crisis.
The Progressive Conservatives were defeated and the Liberals took over. The car did not work any more. Instead of repairing the motor, they were satisfied with changing the fuel, and the driver. As a result, nothing changed and the car still did not run. It is always the same thing. The same causes produce the same effects, as the saying goes, and thus, they refuse to consider new proposals.
Let us continue this short lecture on Canadian history, because it is very interesting. Thus it is that the actual Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) immediately following his election whose success was due not to the solutions proposed, but rather to well-filled coffers and a well orchestrated publicity, attacked inflation head on.
We must check inflation, he said. He therefore took steps to put a restraint on credit by raising tariff rates, for instance, and allowing a spectacular increase in interest rates.
This is exactly what the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) the Prime Minister of the time did, and in 1962, the right hon. Mr. Pearson put the blame on the Conservatives for this action. All this was intended to collect votes, of course.
Mr. Speaker, the result of this is that one fine morning the right hon. Prime Minister will get up and say: Inflation is no longer gaining ground, it has been curbed. Then we will wake up and, once more, find unemployment. So we will start studying unemployment rates only to note that we are the prey to an amazing unemployment crisis. It is exactly what happened after the famous fight against inflation during the former conservative administration. The more it changes, the more it is the same!
Mr. Speaker, I would say that there is deliberate ill-will. The liberals will claim that this is false, but I will prove to them tonight that they are mistaken and that they mislead the public.
As a matter of fact, on November 6, 1962, because of the ridiculous measures adopted by the Progressive Conservative government to solve the economic problem and because of the stupid political play for votes by the liberals who were blaming the Conservatives for doing what they themselves had done previously, the Creditis-tes rose to move an amendment to the amendment which read as follows, and I quote:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following at the end thereof: "and replaced with a policy of debt free money and constructive proposals to foster balanced domestic economy and balanced international trade."
In other words, that was what we are proposing today. And tomorrow when the speeches of our hon. colleagues
Social Credit Monetary Policy
are read, it will be found that all have repeated the same thing.
In 1962, Creditistes were demanding, as today, a comprehensive monetary reform and were offering the progressive conservative government then in office solutions to the financial problems of those days.
Mr. Speaker, it would at this time be interesting to look into the way the Liberals voted on this Creditiste motion in 1962. They supported it. Among the Liberals who voted for the creditiste amendment to the amendment, there were the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard), the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), Senator Martin, former Prime Minister Pearson, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Sauve and the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). There were also many other members who voted in favour of the Creditiste amendment which requested the replacement of the present system of indebtedness by a debt free monetary system. That was the Creditiste amendment.
It provided for an in depth monetary reform through which the present monetary system of indebtedness would be replaced by a policy of debt free money, with a view to balancing the forces of production and consumption and thus allowing every Canadian citizen to play his full role in the economic system.
At that time, the liberals voted for-


Mr. Bechard:: Where is that?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will find the reference on page 1348 of Hansard for November 6, 1962-


Albert Béchard: That does not mean anything.


André-Gilles Fortin: It means that the liberals, at that time, voted for returning the control of money and credit to the Bank of Canada and thus have money serve the Canadian people.


Albert Béchard: That is not true.


André-Gilles Fortin: But were they really interested in that fundamental reform, or did they merely want to overthrow the progressive conservative government and take over the power? Furthermore, the protests of the hon. member opposite prove it.
That is hypocrisy, or else simply, dishonesty towards the people.
Today, the Liberals laugh at the Creditiste proposals and refuse to consider them. It is sheer inconsistency which shows that they are only interested in governing at the expense of the Canadian people who are finally the ones who suffer.
Loans were not first granted to foreign countries by the Liberals but by the Conservatives and they continued to do so. Thus Liberals and Conservatives have never done anything to finance the public sector, as requested.

March 16, 1971
Social Credit Monetary Policy
Hundreds of million dollars are granted to foreign countries, but Canadians are told that it is impossible to grant them any money. Recently, during the question period, I asked the Prime Minister-


Albert Béchard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, when I have completed my remarks, I will gladly answer all questions. I will give time to the hon. member to prepare his question, it will be better.
Last week, I asked the Prime Minister whether he intended to grant interest free loans to the provinces and municipalities to finance the public sector, as he did for India, where he just happened to leave behind $201 millions to be paid back without interest over a period of 50 years.
He stood up and replied that such small amounts could not be granted to the provinces and municipalities. That is rather a serious answer, which indicates again that one is not there to manage the assets of the people, but the power, on the grounds that others would not do better.
Mr. Speaker, this is an upside down system placed under the leadership of the most "upside down" people you can find.


Albert Béchard: This is Caouette, spit and image.


André-Gilles Fortin: It is an honor, thank you. For instance, Tories or Grits, when in office, will grant millions in loans, but not to Canadians.
As a result, Canadians have to live in poverty in an overaffluent country. This is why we blame the government; because it did not apply Social Credit monetary proposals, although the Grits did support them on November 6, 1962 while they were in the opposition.
This, I repeat, shows their poor reliability and their lack of competence in managing public affairs.
The Canadian people are anxious to know what solutions such governments propose, and as long as we have to put up with reform on paper, that is with white papers and reports from royal commissions of inquiry, and as my colleague from Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) said, as long as we act as beggars, hardship will keep growing in Canada.
I am now ready to listen to the question of my colleague, whom I hope, is not himself a beggar of the kind that was known in the past in Quebec and Ottawa.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member now has enough time to reply to my question. I will put to him the question I intended to ask when I interrupted him.
He appeared to criticize the loans and gifts granted by Canada to underdeveloped countries.
Does the hon. member object to Canada helping underdeveloped countries?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my hon. colleague for that question. I thank him for having given me written notice of his question, thus allowing me to prepare the reply I have before me.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Ralliement Creditiste in the House at the present time, as well as those who have preceded us-


Albert Béchard: Please reply.


André-Gilles Fortin: -have always favoured interest-free loans to other countries. Besides, Mr. Speaker, they are part of the monetary policy put forward by Social Credit: provide money to serve people, to serve human beings, whatever their race or language, for we make no distinctions. In 1950, Canada deposited with the International Monetary Fund the interest-free amount of $245,400,000, and with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development the amount of $53,506,500, to be paid back in 50 years, with 10 years' grace. If the same favour were granted to Quebec, to other provinces or municipalities, today, the country could be developed.
I now ask a question of the hon. member. If he thinks these loans are desirable for foreigners, why not for Canadians?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes have the knack of answering without saying anything. I asked for an answer and I am given a speech on Social Credit.
Would the honourable member tell me which item of the Social Credit program provides-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat, please. The parliamentary secretary had the floor for the purpose of asking a question. If he would ask his question, I think the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) would be prepared to reply to it.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we find once more how minds can be distorted. We are in favour of loans to foreign countries but we want loans to be made available to Canadians. I hope it is clear enough for my "dumb" colleague.


An hon. Member:: It is temporary.


André-Gilles Fortin: I hope for him it is temporary but that could be fixed.
Anyway, I am sorry to have lost my temper. When we try to suggest solutions, that is the kind of answer we get. Anyway, I have conducted a study which lead me to conclude that Canadians are now in debt for over 13 billion dollars with finance companies, banks and private lenders.
Canada's debt is overwhelming and to finance it, we are about to borrow from foreigners at high interest rates to pay the interests on our debt and not to pay it off,

March 16, 1971

That is how Canada's debt and Canadians' debts increase and how our purchasing power is being reduced. In fact, in order to repay these loans, Canadians must, of course, pay more taxes.
This is why this policy of loans without interest is basic since it would promote our economic growth, the development of the public sector and of provincial and local governments out of public funds made available by the Bank of Canada and loans without interest, to ensure the continuous, progressive development of Canada. That is what we want and I hope those proposals will be studied fairly by the members opposite so that we may get out of the beaten track, break up new ground and finally act upon them.
It is important to put order in the present administration. In conclusion, I point out that the gross national product in Canada, in October 1970, was $84.1 billion. The three levels of government spent $30.9 billion or 38 per cent of the total. In 1967, the three levels of government spent only 35 per cent of the gross national product.
Within three years, the total expenditures of the three levels of government increased by 47 per cent. Where did they get the money? In the taxpayers' pockets.
Let us see now whether the money supply went up. Mr. Speaker.. .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Ma-rie (Mr. Valade) on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to prevent my friend from going on with his explanations, but he was asked to answer a question, I realize that he has been speaking for 15 minutes. If his time is up, Mr. Speaker, you should recognize another member. I am ready to speak if you allow me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The understanding of the Chair is that the hon. member's time has not elapsed. If I am in error in this respect, I stand to be corrected. However, I have not yet received advice that the hon. member's time has expired.


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member sat down, having said he had concluded his remarks, and was ready to accept a question from the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard). I raised the point of order because he had finished his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is aware that the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) said this during the course of his remarks, but often hon. members say they are about to conclude their remarks when in fact they are not. The Chair must be guided by the time allotted to hon. members, and I have not yet been advised that the hon. member's time has expired.
Social Credit Monetary Policy


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said before, the gross national product has increased constantly and, on the other hand, in December 1970, the money supply was totalling 32,081 million dollars.
We can see the lack of balance between the forces of production on the one hand the forces of consumption on the other.
This is the reason why the debts of Canadians, of municipalities and of provinces continue to increase. This is also why we blame the government for not having seen fit to apply social credit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I am advised that his time has expired.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I only have three minutes left to answer those ridiculous and childish charges raised as a result of the motion which very seriously implied that this government should adopt a monetary policy in line with Creditiste theories.
Mr. Speaker, I only have three minutes left and the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) should put an end to his antics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) rising on a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The opening remarks of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) have absolutely no connection with the motion which reads as follows:
That this House regrets that the government has not seen fit to apply Social Credit monetary policy-
-because its administration is an economic failure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie has very limited time at his disposal. With respect, it seems to the Chair that the debate has been rather wide-ranging on this motion and I hope hon. members will allow the hon. member for Sainte-Marie to be heard.


Georges-J. Valade: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your-


Some hon. Members:: Oh! oh!


Georges-J. Valade: I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that under the rules of the House it is forbidden to an hon. member to cause disorder in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 16, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the House will allow the hon. member for Sainte-Marie to conclude his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an old, Liberal trick.


Georges-J. Valade: It is an old, Liberal trick-yet these are the people who have condemned the Conservatives and the Liberals for avoiding the issue.


Mr. Bell:: The Liberals voted for them at one time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have just proved by my remarks that the statements of the leader of the Ralliement creditiste (Mr. Caouette) that we are a great country which should respect the two founding groups are still valid. The hon. member for Temiscamingue outlined for the House his concept of a new federalism, which he commended. His party has just dared me to speak in the House otherwise than in French, an attitude which proves the hypocrisy of the Creditistes in this House while their leader claims to be the great champion of civil liberties, of the great democratic freedom of Parliament. He is the one-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker- {English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair understands the hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I point out that it is ten o'clock sharp.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) the proceedings on the motion have expired.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) indicated, in answer to a question prior to a supplementary put by me, that there was no racial discrimination in the hiring policies of the Department of Transport. I think the question originally had to do with the hiring of native people. I was prompted to ask the supplementary question, requesting the minister to use the influence of his office to see that no discrimination
was practised by carriers and other agencies that come under his jurisdiction.
Like other hon. members who represent western constituencies, it is natural that I travel across Canada frequently, and since I am not yet blind nor, I hope, senile I have often had occasion to observe air hostesses. I do not imagine I am unique in that masculine pastime. I refer to air hostesses, stewardesses-in particular, those employed by Air Canada. I have seen and heard, and gathered from their speech patterns, girls who obviously were born in Britain, some who sounded as if they were born in Germany, certainly a number of French-Canadian girls, West Indian girls, Chinese-Canadian girls and Canadian born girls of Caucasian origin.


An hon. Member:: Any from Port Moody?


Mark Willson Rose: Not so far. But in all my travels I have yet to see a stewardess who looks as if she is of Indian or Eskimo ancestry.


An hon. Member:: Or Metis?


Mark Willson Rose: Or Metis. I have asked myself, why is this? Surely a responsible Crown corporation such as Air Canada would not countenance something as pernicious as racial discrimination in its hiring policies. However, I have not seen any representatives of the indigenous peoples working in the capacity of air hostess.
If we rule out the possibility of racial discrimination- and I certainly rule that out as an overt practice-what are the other possible explanations? It may be said that one is that young, native, indigenous women are not interested in this occupation-but that would be strange, and most unlikely, because this occupation is one of the most attractive and is considered glamorous by many young women. It is therefore sought by young women. I know that a number of bush airlines employ young Eskimo and native men as pilots, so clearly indigenous people are not averse to flying.
Another explanation is that it is possible-indeed, it may be probable-that far too few of our young, native women can meet the entrance qualifications because of a long and tragic history of cultural collapse and sociological chaos. This has resulted from an educational system that is inadequate and has failed to prepare these young women to meet the entrance standards required by airlines.
It is because of the sociological chaos and cultural collapse that I raise this matter tonight. I think that the airlines should, as a matter of policy, actively recruit native Indian and Eskimo girls for stewardess positions. There are between 250,000 and 300,000 indigenous people in this country, and I believe that they are grossly underrepresented in positions of this kind, just as I believe that native Indians and Eskimos are grossly underrepresented in our secondary schools and colleges. It is time we did something to correct this situation.
I know that one or two natives were hired by Air Canada as long ago as 1965, and I believe that PWA also

March 16, 1971

has a policy of hiring young, indigenous people. But I think there should be far more of these hirings, even if we have to lower the educational requirements. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because we constantly see cases where kids have gone back to college without having to surmount the prerequisite academic hurdles that most of us were required to surmount, and they have done very well. I think we will find that our native peoples will do very well in this field.
I think it is time we started discriminating in favour of our native peoples. For hundreds of years we have discriminated against them. I think that in this country we are becoming more enlightened: we recognize that there are minorities. In the case of Francophones who have been underrepresented in the federal public service, the government has introduced a policy which will try to correct this situation. My party and I support these programs.
I should like to see young, native males and females enter occupations for which I think they would be well suited. For instance, they could embark upon all kinds of tourist-oriented occupations. At present many tourist kiosks across the country employ high school students in the summer. In British Columbia we employ them as tourist guides on the ferries of Mr. Bennett's "navy". Why could not some of these positions be held open for native peoples? I do not think there are enough native people in such positions.
I should like to see far more attention paid to providing native peoples with an opportunity to enter the attractive and, let us say, "status" positions-because they have been excluded from them in the past. I hope there will be more job opportunities for them in fields in which they can make a worthwhile contribution. Let me emphasize that I do not think they should be singled out and become part of the advertising or promotional campaign of any company. Nevertheless, I think that if given a chance to do a job they will be proud of, they will work hard and acquit themselves admirably. [DOT]


Mr. Gerard Duquel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond this evening to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), and in so doing to express without reservation the concurrence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and, I am sure, the entire government in promoting employment policies that are non-discriminatory.
We are discussing a subject with regard to which I can only say that everything possible is being done to ensure that no person or group of persons is discriminated against in this country. Sometimes in carrying out policies problems can arise with personalities, but action always is taken promptly to rectify any unfair or unjust practices.
In the case of Air Canada, their policy on hiring stewardesses is well known. Ethnic origin is not a determining factor. There are certain educational qualifications, certain physical qualifications and in some cases language requirements which must be met by an applicant. Provided these qualifications are satisfied, selection is on the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
basis of merit without regard to any question of racial background.
In extending these assurances to the hon. member I add that if he has any additional suggestions in mind which would benefit either Air Canada or the Department of Transport, I would be only too pleased to take them up with the appropriate authorities. Air Canada officials will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in several weeks' time and the hon. member will have plenty of opportunity to ask detailed questions at this forum.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be ladies' night. A month ago I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if, in view of the great interest being shown by women's organizations across the country, he could name the date when someone in the cabinet would be designated to be in charge of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and its implementation. Agile as usual, the Prime Minister replied that he was surprised at my suggestion that we downgrade the report to the level of one minister, adding:
I say the full cabinet is concerned with it.
Having learned from my childhood that what is everybody's business is nobody's business, I was not impressed with this reply, particularly when I recalled what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said earlier. Cornered some time ago by newsmen and asked which minister would most likely be chosen, he laughed and said he did not know if any of them would be keen to take on the job.
I was impressed, however, when the Prime Minister made the status of women the subject of his address to the Liberal party's fund raising dinner in Toronto on March 3. He indicated that progress toward equality had been made by women since 1912, when Sir Rodmond Roblin, then Premier of Manitoba, complained that he was "opposed by all the short-haired women and all the long-haired men in the province". The Prime Minister could have added that when the women of Manitoba sent a delegation to him to ask for the vote, he called them "hyenas in petticoats". We have come a long way since then, but there is still a long way to go before women can reach true equality with men in the work place, the home, the legislative halls and the community.
The Prime Minister has taken certain, very useful first steps by establishing an interdepartmental committee to examine the recommendations of the status of women report and a co-ordinator who is a very able woman. However, in my opinion that is not enough. If the report is being taken seriously by the government, and if its findings are to be given high legislative priority, there must be someone at cabinet level to push them and work for their implementation. Hints have been made at cabinet level that something of that kind may be forthcoming. Speaking in the debate on the status of women

March 16, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion report, initiated in this House by the New Democratic Party on March 9, the minister in charge of housing said:
I might go so far as to say that if our friends in the opposition will help us get through the government reorganization bill, it might even happen that the minister chosen to handle this subject will be appointed.
A brand new minister to handle the status of women report? Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs was right-and none of the existing ministers are brave enough to take on the job.


Mr. Benjamin:: Barney will do it.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Several federal by-elections will soon be held. Perhaps the Prime Minister has it in mind to run a woman in a safe seat-if he can find one-and then appoint her as a minister; who knows? The important thing is to appoint a minister who will make a start. Even a man will do, if he is competent. What is important is to get going on some of the most urgent recommendations of the report.
As the minister in charge of housing observed recently, we cannot research for ever; we have to move, even if still somewhat crudely, in some direction. Once again I ask the Prime Minister to tell us when we may expect to see a minister charged with getting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women out of the pages of the report and into legislative action.


Mr. Barneli J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to engage in this somewhat informal debate with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). She has already referred to the remarks of the minister responsible for housing. I should like to quote from his statement as reported in Hansard for March 9, page 4097, as follows:
The recommendations of this royal commission directly affect the programs of 25 federal departments. Actions on the recommendations can easily be counter-productive, tending perhaps to cancel each other out if they are not very carefully co-ordinated. This government wants action, as the priority pledge of the Prime Minister indicates, but it does not want a mish-mash. So there has been established a central co-ordinating function within the Privy Council office. I might go so far as to say that if our friends in the opposition will help us get through the government re-organization bill it might even happen that the minister chosen to handle this subject will be appointed. In the meantime, an interdepartmental committee is being established to examine all the recommendations and to draft policy suggestions for the cabinet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now give us your answer.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Aside from the rhetoric which may be generated on this subject, if we review the legislation, the policies and the appointments made by this government and take into account the high priority which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave to this issue in the speech to which the hon. member referred, together with the fact that he followed this up with such decisive action, the situation is indeed encouraging. I would gladly settle for equal rights with women. The Prime Minister
is, of course, having this experience himself at the present time. Whether the minister envisaged by the hon. lady is male or female really does not matter, as she herself said. It is a question of sensitivity and awareness of what ought to be done. Otherwise, it becomes a form of discrimination in itself.
Those of us who were present on a memorable occasion not long ago heard a speech which was a milestone in the history of the government of Canada. I could not help but be moved by the words of the Prime Minister in Toronto that night. Our actions to date, and those which are to come, besides, of course, the deep commitment made by the Prime Minister only the following day, indicate the thrust of the government and the tidings of good things to come.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago on the Orders of the Day I attempted to raise a question with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) having to do with what seems to be an incredible deal put over by a cigarette company, Mark Ten Cigarettes. Under the terms of this deal, Mark Ten Cigarettes undertook to provide any person who smoked a pack of their cigarettes a day, saved one coupon from each pack and turned them in to the company, with a colour-television set.
The incredible part of this deal, to me, is that according to my figures it would take no less than 243 years for a smoker who smoked one pack per day and followed the other instructions to acquire a colour-television set. I realize that the intention of the cigarette company is to encourage people to get together, smoke as hard as they can and get as many coupons out of the packets as possible so that they can be toned in. But even if ten people got together, it would take them 24 years at that rate to get a colour-television set. To me this seemed to be a matter that would surely interest the Minister of Justice-if there is any justice-in regard to the Criminal Code and its broad sections. I was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker at the time, but I welcome the opportunity to say a few words tonight and put the question again.
I have spoken so far only in regard to the length of time that the Mark Ten cigarette couponeering deal would take a person to get a television set by smoking their cigarettes, but I might mention it would also take about $50,000 worth of cigarette packages to qualify for a set. I will not say anything at the moment-though I have in the past and probably will in the future-about the impairment to health that would follow the smoking of so many cigarettes. We are told that the smoking of 88,000 packages, either individually or shared between 10 or 20 people, would do much to promote lung cancer, heart trouble, emphysema and bronchitis.
It is no secret that cigarette smoking has been condemned by our health and welfare department and the equivalent departments of other countries as the greatest disease-breeder known. Although my question was ruled out of order at the time I raised it, I am thankful that the

March 16, 1971

Canadian Press saw fit to put it across the country. I have received a great many responses as a result of the publicity given my question.
I come back to this point. I should like a representative of the government to say whether the Minister of Justice intends to look into the promotion put forward by Mark Ten Cigarettes with a view to ascertaining whether this is a matter that concerns the minister under the Criminal Code, or whether he would at least refer the matter to the attention of his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford).
In conclusion, I am sure I am right in suggesting that the Mark Ten Cigarette Company, and perhaps others, knowing very well that the day is very close when the government will finally introduce legislation to phase out cigarette advertising and couponeering, are seeking the opportunity of hooking as many people as possible and making them as addicted to smoking as they can before cigarette advertising is prohibited. I should like a
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion representative of the government to state what is the position of the government in this regard.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the minister's views on the use of promotional gimmicks are well known to members of the House and the public in general. The government has laid charges recently in a number of cases involving advertising and promotion through games, contests and other devices, under the misleading advertising provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. Two companies, including one cigarette company, have been convicted. We have four cases involving games and contests before the courts at the present time. We will, of course, examine this promotion, which involves premiums, to see whether it contravenes the Combines Investigation Act. Hon. members can be assured that we will take whatever action the existing law allows.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Wednesday, March 17, 1971