October 25, 1949

REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY


On the orders of the day:


PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):

I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On October 14 I asked a question concerning a statement which had been made by Hon. T. C. Davis, our ambassador to China. The essence of the question was whether the government would make a statement early in the week as to Canadian policy with respect to China. On October 17 the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) answered and said that Mr. Davis would be in Ottawa shortly and that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs returned from Lake Success he would make a statement with regard to Canadian policy concerning China. Apparently Hon. T. C. Davis is now in Ottawa. Yesterday he made a further statement to the press, to the effect that communist China wants to do business with Canada. He also said something about Canada recognizing China.

Topic:   REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Question.

Topic:   REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Will the minister make a statement today?

Topic:   REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

The hon. gentleman was good enough to give me notice of his question. It is true that Mr. Davis arrived in Ottawa yesterday morning. Since my own arrival from Lake Success, which was late the preceding evening, I have been able to see him only for a few minutes, because of my preoccupation with other matters arising out of Mr. Nehru's visit to Ottawa.

Mr. Davis of course has been on the spot in China as Canadian ambassador there, and is fully familiar with the situation in that country. I am sure hon. members will appreciate the fact that the government does not wish to make a formal and complete statement with respect to Canadian policy toward China before full consultation with Mr. Davis, and that has not yet taken place. I might, however, say at this time that Canadian policy with regard to the recognition

of any government, in China or elsewhere, will naturally take into consideration the usual requirements of international law. These provide that before a government is granted recognition it must be shown to be independent of external control by any other state; it must exercise effective control over the territory which it claims, and that territory must be reasonably well defined. If and when these requirements are met, then I believe, Mr. Speaker, that consideration should be given to the recognition of a government in China or in any other part of the world.

The Canadian government is in close touch with other like-minded governments on all aspects of the present state of affairs in China, and careful consideration is being and will continue to be given to all the implications arising out of the situation there, which is so important to peace in that area and indeed throughout the world.

I hope that the hon. member who has asked the question will be satisfied with this provisional answer, and that in due course I shall be able to add to it.

Topic:   REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Permalink

TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES VANCOUVER HEADQUARTERS TRANSPACIFIC SERVICE-ALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL


On the orders of the day:


CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):

should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to add anything to the short statement he made on Thursday last in regard to the transfer of Trans-Canada Air Lines shop work from Vancouver to Montreal? I am asking a question now because of the concern expressed in letters and telegrams received from Vancouver in the last few days.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES VANCOUVER HEADQUARTERS TRANSPACIFIC SERVICE-ALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, since replying to a similar question a few days ago I have made inquiries, and I find that of the maintenance staff Vancouver pay roll, T.C.A. is releasing 144 men. Thirty-seven of these 144 have seniority rights, which will permit them to transfer to other stations if they care to do so. In the stores department six men are being laid off, of whom three have seniority rights. These notices have been given and are effective progressively from November 1 to November 15. The greater proportion of

The Budget-Mr. Adamson those being laid off are quite junior in service, having been taken on within the past two years, since T.C.A. first began its program for a transpacific service.

The Canadian Pacific Air Lines have some 300 people on their staff at Vancouver, many of whom have been transferred on a seniority basis from other service points in Canada. However C.P.A. have taken a great number of new employees from the Vancouver area, and have made an informal arrangement with T.C.A. to give first preference to those laid off by T.C.A.

The situation is that T.C.A. had organized a transpacific headquarters at Vancouver. So far T.C.A. has been able to keep the men busy on major overhaul work, but now that that work is coming to an end it is necessary to cut the staff at that point down to the ordinary overhaul requirements of the air lines for domestic service.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES VANCOUVER HEADQUARTERS TRANSPACIFIC SERVICE-ALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Maclnnis:

May I ask a supplementary question? In letters which I have received it is stated that the cut in staff would mean that some planes would have to make the return trip of 6,000 miles, to and from Montreal, without being overhauled.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES VANCOUVER HEADQUARTERS TRANSPACIFIC SERVICE-ALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

I cannot say as to that, since it is an internal operating matter. But I would point out that a very considerable maintenance staff is being left, consisting of some 150 men, and I assume that that staff will take care of the overhaul duties to be performed at the Vancouver end of the system.

I think we all have sufficient confidence in the safety of operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines to believe that the staff is not being cut down to a point where overhaul cannot be taken care of at the Vancouver end to the extent required.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES VANCOUVER HEADQUARTERS TRANSPACIFIC SERVICE-ALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL
Permalink

THE BUDGET

ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE


The house resumed from Monday, October 24, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Thatcher.


PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York Wesf):

The Budget-Mr. Adamson only a three per cent rise in the total average cost in sterling of United Kingdom production. That is extremely encouraging from the point of view of the United Kingdom, but it is something which we must consider as having a serious effect on our economy. The danger is that we shall soon be selling less and less, and not that we shall be insufficiently paid for selling more and more. I want to quote a statement made several days ago in London by Right Hon. L. S. Amery. It is as follows:

The only real and permanent remedy for the present world unbalance lies in creating a new balance by building up nation groups comparable to the United States, thus providing a market for an internally balanced expanding production. The natural way of doing so is by common currency arrangement, and by the flexible methods of tariff preference, and not by the clumsy restrictive devices of quantitative import restrictions and quantitative bilateral bargains. That is the solution clearly envisaged by the recent economic resolution of the Strasbourg assembly. It is even more the obvious policy for the British commonwealth.

There are only two serious obstacles in the way. One is the attitude so far taken up by the United States administration and foolishly accepted by other nations, that all arrangements for mutual cooperation are "discrimination" and therefore anathema. The other is the very serious effect on Canada if she then finds herself excluded from all her natural markets and forced into the position of becoming a mere appendage of the American economy. That is a problem for Canada to decide. For her and for the United States, no less than for us, a solution of the world problem involves a fundamental change of outlook, but nothing less will meet the case, and, until it is achieved, no amount of conferences between statesmen will set the world right.

What does Mr. Amery's statement mean? I think the most significant words in it are those with reference to the Strasbourg assembly. There we have a group of European nations getting together. What is the first thing they do? What is the first problem on their agenda? To find a currency mutually acceptable to each other. Apparently they made great headway in that direction.

Our natural markets-and they must continue to be-are offshore markets, markets abroad, markets in Europe, and once the markets of the Orient. We see the Strasbourg assembly and the British commonwealth finding a method of mutual acceptance of currency, but we find ourselves still with our currency pegged to the United States dollar. There can be only one result. Progressively we are going to be shut out of market after market throughout the rest of the world. That is a very serious thing to contemplate. I realize the difficulty, but the government is taking no fundamental steps to sell to those countries which have been and still are our natural and historic markets. The United States has been a great market for many of our products, certainly the greatest market for products such as wood pulp

and many of our base metals. At the present time we do a far greater business with the United States than with all the rest of the world put together. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the United States is essentially a competitive economy with ours. While they have a deficit economy we can sell to them, but just as soon as that deficit position fills up, just as soon as we find ourselves really competing with their industries, mines and farms, that market will disappear.

There are many devices which the United States has used in the past, and we have suffered from them heretofore. As the millennium does not appear to have arrived, it is altogether likely that she will use them in the future against Canadian products just as soon as they are a serious competitor in the United States market.

We in this party have suggested before now a universal currency. We have suggested convertibility. I have suggested a free gold market, some method whereby our currency can be used by the rest of the world-not just the sterling bloc but the whole of the world. The government apparently are frightened because of the effect of the impact of the world economy if we set our currency free. They have so stated in an apparently inspired article which appeared recently in the Financial Post, headed: "Why government didn't allow dollar to find own level".

I will not read the article but it expressed the fear of the effect on our dollar by speculators and others who would trade in exchange and cause wide fluctuations in the quotations of Canadian dollars in terms of United States exchange and thus upset legitimate trade between the two countries. I would point out that with a powerful central bank and the great number of extremely capable foreign exchange operators in the chartered banks, I should not be very much afraid of serious arbitrary fluctuations of our currency in the United States. We control the issuance of our own currency. That was the fear expressed in this article in the Financial Post.

The basic evil of exchange control does something else, I think; it restricts and inhibits the investment of United States funds in Canada. It is not that the restrictions themselves are particularly onerous; it is the fact that restrictions are there at all that does so much harm to the free investment of United States funds in this country. One way to correct our unbalance of trade with the United States would be to encourage the investment of United States funds here; yet because of these restrictions that investment is inhibited-despite what is probably the greatest boom in oil the continent of North America has ever seen, which is being largely financed by United States capital. I admit

that this has brought to Canada a tremendous amount of United States capital which is very valuable; but in spite of this there is still some hesitancy in regard to such investments. The other day I was speaking to a lawyer, a citizen of the United States, who has an estate in Canada. He was doing everything possible to persuade the beneficiaries to maintain that investment here rather than liquidate it and move it out. Their argument was simply that while the restrictions in themselves were not particularly onerous, there were still restrictions on the free movement of capital. This they would not abide.

Now we come to the essential move which had been forecast for months, the acceptance of the specious argument of devaluation. Following the devaluation of the pound, and in fact the general devaluation of all currencies, we were forced to take similar action; but devaluation is not the answer. We still have a hard currency, even though it is worth only 90 cents. It is still a hard currency, and if you have none of it you are not going to buy even 90 cents' worth of our goods. It is of no use for a restaurant to decrease the price of a meal from $1 to 90 cents if you do not have even the 90 cents. This is another problem which arises from the continuous shackling of our currency to the United States dollar.

One of the recent names for inflation is devaluation. It is a word which conjures up, both in the mind of the seller and in the mind of the buyer, a sort of trick solution which is likely to bring something for nothing in international trade. The policy of devaluation is no answer to an unbalance of trade. Threatened by an external drain of real assets and gold, the monetary authorities do not resort to credit restriction and an increase in the interest rate. They devalue. Devaluation does not solve the problem. If a government is oblivious to the rise in the foreign exchange rate expressed in a free market, it can continue the policy of credit expansion for a considerable time, and even devalue its currency repeatedly; but the nemesis of the crack-up ending of the boom, if the credit expansion is carried to the extreme, will destroy its monetary system. Today credit expansion is an exclusive prerogative of government. Credit expansion, which is inflation in its purest form, is so popular that to speak against it is tantamount to committing political suicide.

The other day the minister took great pride in the reduction of the funded debt. That is a very good thing, and I think it should have been reduced a good deal more. But if we are faced with a major contraction of our north-south trade and at the same time lose our historic and natural markets abroad, we are going to find ourselves faced not only

The Budget-Mr. Adamson with currency expansion and inflation, but also with a trade unbalance the like of which no country has yet experienced. Our apparent prosperity and the extremely high level of our trade since the war form one of the great dangers we see ahead. We, and I particularly, have suggested over and over again that the problem of convertibility should be solved; that we should establish a common denominator, which has always been gold, to make our currency convertible. Many times in this house I have suggested a free market for gold in Canada, and I still believe that is one method we should have adopted.

I had hoped that a more realistic solution would be found when the so-called dollar talks were held in Washington. No matter how you devalue, no matter what you say your currency is worth, it will not be worth what you say it is until somebody else will freely buy it in the open market. That applies to all goods and services in world trade. The hatred of gold has inspired the superstition that omnipotent governments can create wealth out of little scraps of paper. The struggle against gold by all socialist and neo-socialist governments is a part of the great process of destruction which is the overriding symptom of the trend of our time. Autocratic controllers in the national treasuries fight the gold standard because they want to substitute autarchy for free trade, and, in extreme cases, war for peace and omnipotent government for liberty. This is the overriding principle which has driven governments ever since the end of hostilities.

We are in a position of apparent prosperity. Through the Marshall plan, we are the major sellers to the countries of Europe. These are in reality not true sales, however, but are partly gifts resulting from the generosity and foresightedness of the Marshall plan administrators. Eventually those sales will stop. The other day someone said that Europe could be self-sufficient in wheat within three years. This statement was made by an international authority on wheat. If that is so, our major export through the Marshall plan, namely wheat, will cease. If we can find no medium of exchange which will enable us to sell our wheat to the hungry countries in the world outside the North American continent, fifty per cent of our Marshall plan exports will cease, and we shall be left with an immediate unbalance of trade even before the end of ECA. There will then be no generous plan to help us out of our difficulties, and our historic natural markets will be gone. In the words of Right Hon. Mr. Amery, we shall be merely an appendage of the United States. That is the position I foresee in the comparatively near future, Mr. Speaker. I believe

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore that difficulty can be solved only by finding some medium of exchange which will enable us to sell our goods to the rest of the world.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):

Mr. Speaker, were it not for the high degree of esteem in which I hold the hon. member (Mr. Adamson) who has just taken his seat, I would be tempted to make some caustic remarks concerning the general tenor of his statement. I believe it would be a good thing for the hon. member, however, to consider three questions. First of all: If there had been no gold created in the world, does he suppose mankind would have been able to live on the earth, or would the people have had to die because the Creator forgot gold? If all the gold in the world today were to be accumulated in Fort Knox, where a good share of it is already, I wonder if the hon. gentleman thinks the rest of the nations would have to give up and die because they could not get any of that gold. If, owing to some unusual or unexpected mishap while men were tinkering with atomic bombs, they were to discover some concoction the emanations from which were to decompose all the gold in the world, should we all die because there was no gold? The hon. gentleman, however, concluded his remarks on a more hopeful note, in that he implied it might be possible to discover some other medium of exchange.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I happen to attack the problem from the other point of view. I do not believe we need gold at all in this world. I believe the thing that counts is the resources of the world and man's ability to convert those resources into goods and services useful to man. If we could approach this monetary question from that realistic angle, what a difference it would make! We now live in an age in which man, with the wonderful technological skills and machines at his disposal, can produce more goods than all the people in the world could possibly use if they could all obtain everything they wanted. If some means could be discovered, upon which we all agreed, whereby we could distribute those goods to the people who need them, we would be on our way to a veritable garden of Eden in which all men could enjoy the good things of the world as the Creator unquestionably intended they should.

So much having been said with respect to the hon. gentleman's remarks, I will pass on to something more hopeful. I do believe there is a way out of our difficulty without destroying our freedom, without setting up dictatorships or bureaucratic controls which result in the destruction of goods and threats to punish men because they produce too much. I have been told that in the United States they are actually contemplating a measure

under which a man who produces extra wheat next year, and is caught feeding it to chickens, will be punished. This indicates an anxiety on their part to see to it that no more is produced than under the present financial system can be consumed. I believe that is just as silly, just as useless, as it was to shoot cattle and drop them into the Mississippi river, or pile up surplus oranges and burn them, as was done at the beginning of the last depression. Evidently in the United States of America the same kind of mentality prevails today as that which plunged that great nation into the depression and dragged the rest of the world with it, where it remained until finally a war was necessary to rescue the world from the depression. Surely the time has come when someone with a little influence and prestige will say something that will light the way out of these difficulties.

I shall say something about this in the course of my remarks. It is not going to be as hopeless as the words of the hon. gentleman seemed to indicate. I do hope there is somebody in the Conservative party who is capable of learning that goods and not gold constitute the determining factor as regards money.

Everyone is worrying about a shortage of United States dollars. Britain needs Canadian dollars too. There is a shortage of hard currencies. Now, why is that? I shall not attempt to answer the question, because I have other matters to consider. It is astonishing, Mr. Speaker, that dollars can be short while goods are plentiful; for dollars are only tickets or claims to goods. Unless there are dollars to claim the goods, then certainly the goods appear worthless. Surely, if that is so, where goods are, dollars can be.

Reports are now circulating concerning surpluses in the United States which are embarrassing the authorities. They do not know what to do about these surpluses. There are reports of gathering surpluses in Canada which are going to confound the scarcity-minded people. At the same time, there are reported shortages in the have-not countries and the less developed countries. The fact that only yesterday the Prime Minister of India was in Canada recalls that medical investigations reveal that about ninety per cent of all the Indian people today are undernourished; that the average income of the wage earner in India is $26 a year. Famine stares them in the face on every hand, while in the United States and in Canada we are meditating on how to limit the production that we are to bring into being in the next year. Canada, fortunately, has not gone as

ms

far as the United States has, and never did become quite as foolish even in the last depression. I hope they never do.

It is reported in the Christian Science Monitor of September 21, 1949, that the FAO experts are contemplating the creation of a $5 billion fund to buy the surpluses of the world and render them available for purchase by the have-not nations with their own currency. This is a hopeful suggestion. The only thing that I think hon. members are asking with considerable anxiety is this: How far do we have to go in increasing our taxes or our debt in order to be able to supply the money which will be necessary to create a fund sufficiently large to buy the surpluses we are lucky enough to produce when we really turn ourselves loose in the matter of production. If the nation has to be penalized by being taxed for enough money to buy the goods that have been declared surpluses, then hope has departed from the world.

I should like to say a word or two that will guide us to some hope. In the parliamentary library there is a book with the title "Economic Tribulation", published in 1941, by Vincent C. Vickers. I fancy the name will commend the book to all. hon. members, whether they have just come to the house or whether they have been here before. From one of the chapters of this book, entitled "Democracy or Financial Dictatorship?", may I quote two excerpts? From page 59 of the book I quote as follows:

Unless we can contrive and design and establish an improved and reformed financial system, which is the first essential towards a new and better economy in our own country, no satisfactory outcome of the war is possible; for where there is still widespread injustice and discontent there can be no ending to that war, unless it be a tangle of internal revolts and revolutions.

Therefore this man concentrates his attention on the financial system. Do we agree with him, or do we refuse to give any credit to this man? May I quote another passage from the same chapter, this time from page 65:

Strenuous efforts have been made over some twenty-five years to patch up the money system in an attempt to make it last a little longer; but it has stood, and now stands, in the way of progress and social betterment, thereby creating universal unrest and a tendency to obtain by force what cannot be obtained otherwise. For the sake of our children let us take warning in time. Let us discard the policy of inaction and pretence and boldly face the fact that it is not the inevitable smoke of the galley-stove which assails our nostrils, but that a fire is raging in the hold and that the ship of state is in imminent danger. Our democratic system and our existing financial system can no longer live together. One of them must give way to the other.

May I now quote two short extracts from his recommendations? What does he think needs to be done to change our present financial system into that which would be better

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore suited to this age of plenty in which God has placed us? From page 75 of his book I read two of several recommendations. These two are:

1. Any additional supply of money should be issued as a clear asset to the state, so that money will be spent into existence, and not lent into existence.

When we reflect that there is not a dollar that goes into circulation in Canada that is not borrowed from somebody-in other words, every dollar of our money is lent into circulation, and not one dollar of it is originally spent into circulation by the government-. we find that there is some cause for careful study of our own financial system, if this man knows what he is talking about. I read the next recommendation:

2. The abolition of the debt system, where all credit is created by the banks and hired out at interest to the country.

You would think that he had his eye particularly on Canada, would you not? All he did was cast his eye on every country which is operating on the present debt-creating financial system which our government and our people seem to be absolutely enamoured of.

Who was this Vincent Cartwright Vickers that we should give any attention to his idea? From a note in the forepart of the book by Wilma Cawdor, his daughter, we learn that he was born on January 16, 1879, and educated at Eton and Oxford. He was deputy lieutenant of the city of London, director of Vickers Limited for twenty-two years, director of London Assurance. He resigned in January, 1939. He was made a governor of the bank of England in 1910 and resigned in 1919. He later became president of the Economic Reform Club and Institute. He is just about as experienced a man as our Graham Towers, on whose every word we all seem to hang with breathless adoration.

What does he say about himself? In his foreword which he wrote in the last months of his life in 1939 he said:

I who write this need no proof of the importance of the money system to the very lives of the people and even to the future existence of the British race, so long as that system fills the position which it now holds in our national economy.

Again:

I therefore decided to take the unprecedented course of offering to my readers my own qualifications for putting down before the British people the very precarious condition of our monetary system as it exists in this country today; that this our money system forms the most important part of our economic system, and that the nation's economic system forms part of our social system.

And again:

Ever since that day in 1926, when, not in arrogance but with humility, I felt it my duty to explain to the governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Montagu

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore

Norman, that "henceforth I was going to fight him and the gold standard and the Bank of England policy until I died''-(and well I remember the words of his reply!)-I have been an ardent money reformer. Some few years afterwards I resigned my long directorship of Vickers, Limited; since when I have spent much time and money in advocating the necessity for a reform of the monetary system.

And again:

I bear no ill feeling against my own class or any other class. I seek neither notoriety nor kudos. If someone can change my convictions I shall be only too ready to alter them. But in fifteen years nothing whatever has occurred to make me alter my views. I still believe that the existing sytem is actively harmful to the state, creates poverty and unemployment, and is the root cause of war.

And again:

This personal confession is merely to demonstrate that I have seen both sides of the picture. My opinions are based upon my own experience and knowledge. I am today in the unique position of being absolutely and entirely devoid of animosity and wholly disinterested. I feel myself no longer under any restrictions whatsoever, except to guard against doing harm to my country or giving offence to anyone.

These sound like good qualifications; one would feel prompted to listen to a man like that, would he not? Here is one man, eminently qualified, who frankly advocates government-created debt-free money to be spent into circulation, and not lent as is our money under our present financial system.

May I turn now to another man. This time I select Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, longtime chairman of the Midland bank in England. Reginald McKenna was one of the fourteen members of a committee on finance and industry appointed on November 5, 1929, by the British government as the Macmillan committee to inquire into banking, finance and credit. I should think that would be sufficient qualification at least to entitle him to some attention on our part-and probably to a little thinking about what he had to say. He, along with others, inquired into banking, finance and credit, and prepared the Macmillan report on finance and industry.

In January, 1936, in his annual report to the shareholders of his bank, he made a statement which is of great importance to all men of our race. His report is printed in the London Times of January 30-it is available in our parliamentary library to anyone who wishes to read it. May I read a passage from that report:

Additional currency, however, can now be furnished by the authorities, if they choose to exercise their powers without reference to the central bank's holding of gold. Thus the nineteenth century, which brought into general use a means of payment hitherto scarcely known outside London, brought also the machinery whereby it could be subjected to intelligent control.

We learned that a shortage of money may be just as vicious in its effects as an excess, though deflation has still a touch of virtue about it in the

minds of many people. Nevertheless it is becoming more and more widely recognized that greater productivity calls for an increased supply of money, for otherwise prices will fall, business will stagnate, and the growing productive capacity will be unused.

For money to be truly "sound" there must be enough of it to finance an ordinarily growing volume of trade, yet not so much as to give rise to an inflationary movement of prices.

One would think that man was a Social Crediter, would he not? I suppose the Progressive Conservatives would eject him from their party if he made a remark like that. I am almost sure the Liberals would stop him from talking from the floor of the house. And if he did not, they would see that he did not receive any further nominations in his constituency.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

He would get an independent nomination-and win, as happened yesterday.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Brooks:

Not bad.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. Blackmore:

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

October 25, 1949