Mr. Caouette:

We also had successive Leaders of the Opposition. While I was here, we have had the hon. Mr. Bracken as Leader of the Opposition, followed by Mr. Drew. Later

The Address-Mr. Caouette on, that is in 1958, we had a Conservative government under the former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince-Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The government then had 208 members out of 265, that is, the greatest majority ever granted a political party to administer the country. There was no lack of majority, but what matters were dealt with then in the speeches from the throne? The very same:

-financial and intellectual resources which are not unlimited and must be used with careful planning and the hard judgement of priorities. It is a simple fact of life that everything cannot be done at once.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the country, we have had the opportunity to attend the meetings of the regional economic councils. We have now the report from the Canadian Economic Council, the cream of all the economic councils in Canada. Throughout all our regions, those people have the required intelligence to study the problems, and they do study them. They are part of our intellectual resources and they come out with a planning system. I went to Ville-Marie in my constituency not so long ago in order to find out about the studies being carried out in the fields of agriculture, road maintenance, development of natural resources and others, and the chairman of each committee gave us a report at the end of each day. Mr. Speaker, it was really something to listen to those reports. Therefore, it seemed that it was possible to make wonderful things in our country, according to the regional economic councils. Then, I asked them "When shall we start to implement these measures?"-"What!"-"Yes, when?"-"Well, as it is now, we have not got any money. We cannot do so. We must wait for some help from the governments. We are going to suggest it to the government and they will decide." When we make suggestions to the provincial government, they reply: "We have no money". We then turn to the federal government.

The Prime Minister spent a quarter of an hour this afternoon to tell us that the government has no money. However, during the electoral campaign-it was wonderful-the Prime Minister stated: "Governments have only the money the taxpayers are willing to give them." What we are willing to give them, that is what the government has.

"We are no magicians. We are not Father Christmas. We are just men eager to turn Canada, and the whole world as well, into truly liveable places."

September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Caouette

Mr. Speaker, I agree about the tact that the Prime Minister is no magician, but if he really believes that the Canadian Parliament is indeed a sovereign Parliament, who then is the magician that provides subsidies to wage war while subsidies to enforce peace at home remain unavailable?

Hear, hear.

Mr. Caouette:

I shall come back to that point in a moment, anyhow.

It is all very well to make us say: we are no magicians. But who are the magicians? After the recession, at the beginning of World War II, the national debt of Canada was around $3 billion. Five years later, after the fighting was over, it amounted to $17 billion. Who then was the magician that raised $14 billion, while the slaughter was going on? The prime minister is well aware that during the carnage, during the war, the government of Canada was never heard saying: "We lack money to dress the soldiers, we lack money to enlist 800,000 young Canadians and to send them to the battle-fields. We lack money to make guns and shells." The prime minister knows it, because we probably fought a bit together against the war expenses during that period. If money was not available during the economic crisis for fathers and mothers to bring up their families decently, how could it be allowed to send our young men to their death during the war? The prime minister knows how things were.

Mr. Speaker, during that war, every Canadian of my generation, those who were a little younger than I or a little older, fared better in Canada than during the economic crisis. Meanwhile, 800,000 of our young men were kept away from the production of commodities for Canada. We dressed them, housed them and fed them decently, and we had them looked after by doctors when they became sick. This cost nothing. Things went along fine. Meanwhile also, Mr. Speaker, we spent billions of dollars to make guns, shells and deadly weapons. Our people behaved bravely, gallantly, on the battle-fields. As for all the bombs that we dropped on Hitler's head in Germany, do you think that the Canadian government sent notes saying: "Do pay C.O.D. Otherwise, the bombs shall not be dropped"? We delivered all the bombs free for the duration. Dividends were paid to the Germans during the war, and today, in peace time, the prime minister tells us: "Well, there is such and such a priority. Besides, we cannot do everything at once."

[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)

Since June 25 last, we often hear about a just society. Canada has never experienced as many labour strikes. There is a strike going on at the door of an institution at Rouyn. Why? Because the young people are not satisfied, because people want greater buying power, a better standard of living in a country able to provide it. But the Prime Minister or the government, in the Speech from the Throne continue to say: "It is a simple fact of life that everything cannot be done at once." And that is not all.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Speech from the Throne mentions language, priority or respect for languages, politics, religion, and speaks of mutual respect. I shall come back to that later, if my time does not run out.

Here is another excerpt:

-Pensions for the aged, provision for the sick and for the needy have been made more effective by legislation passed in recent Parliaments and by action of the provinces. Notwithstanding such measures, proverty continues to exist in Canada. My Government recognizes that-

-but it also believes that it would be deluding and cruel to pretend that there is a simple, all-encompassing or instantaneously effective remedy.

Here is where we do not agree with the government. That is exactly where the problem lies, Mr. Speaker, if the government thinks that it would be deluding and cruel to pretend that there is a simple remedy. Let us see what the Economic Council of Canada has to say. At the bottom of page 134, an explanation reads as follows:

Various forms of guaranteed minimum income-

The Council suggests the provision of an annual guaranteed income. Here is what it has to say:

Various forms of guaranteed minimum income have been proposed by different writers.

The simplest form would be a minimum income grant paid by the government to all regardless of means.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the national dividend that the Social Credit party wants to distribute to one and all without exception, regardless of their means. And this brings me to set forth the four basic principles of the Social Credit party. It is all very well to listen to speeches, to hear people refer to the Speech from the Throne, but they do not suggest anything as an alternative. That will not bring about a constructive legislation. And what are the Creditistes saying? For once I shall resort to the English language.

September 1G, 1968 COMMONS

The following are the four basic principles of the Social Credit party. First, Social Credit firmly believes that the individual is the most important factor in organized society. Because he is a divinely created being with spiritual, mental and physical needs and potentialities, he has inalienable rights which must be respected and preserved. Because of this belief Social Credit is unalterably opposed to communism, fascism and all forms of totalitarian government which make the individual citizen subservient to the state. It stands opposed to any political organization whose aims are the furtherance of the sectional interests of organized labour, business or finance.

Reverting to the first sentence which says that Social Credit firmly believes that the individual is the most important factor in organized society, let me say that no matter whether the individual is white, black or yellow, whether he speaks French, English, Ukrainian, Italian or any other language on earth, no matter what his beliefs are, he has the right to be respected anywhere in the world and especially in our country, Canada. These inalienable rights should be respected anywhere, as well as in the province of Quebec.

When people ask that their rights be preserved in the province of Quebec because some of them wish to learn English instead of French, it is their right to learn one language instead of the other. We would of course suggest that everyone should learn the two official languages of our country. When I went to Czechoslovakia a few years ago I found there people who spoke as many as six or seven languages. I thought it was wonderful of them to speak so many languages. Here in Canada there are some people who, because they are French and do not understand a word of English say, "to heck with English, I don't want to learn it". We also hear people who speak English only saying "I cannot understand French and I will never learn it in my whole life". Those two people are two kinds of separatists whom we should not have in our country.

Mr. Lewis:

That is true.

Mr. Caoueile:

It is true, is it not? I have the support of the hon. member for York South, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis:

A hearty one.

DEBATES 85

The Address-Mr. Caouette

Mr. Caouette:

Mr. Speaker, I say there are limits to narrow-mindedness. Canada was not built by people who spent their time devouring one another and it is a country that belongs to all Canadians; we maintain our positions. In the province of Quebec, we were not elected because we talked about of two nations or of a special status, and I am a French Canadian, everybody knows that. There are nevertheless 400,000 people who voted for us in the province of Quebec.

It is said there are two nations, but it is one nation which is Canada. We are Canadian. We have two official languages, French and English, and we have a multiplicity of cultures, such as English, French, Ukrainian, Italian and German. We have all kinds of cultures in our country, and the nation is the richer for them.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Caouette:

We have the Chinese group, and we also have an Indian representative right here in the House of Commons. We are happy that an Indian should sit in this house.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Caouette:

So this is our stand; and those people who called for a special status for the province of Quebec and for two nations nearly disappeared from that province. They were not accepted. This was so because we do not want to hear these things. During an election we want action-that is what we want. We do not ask for a special status for one province. I do not want a special status for Quebec, a special one for Ontario or one for Prince Edward Island, where I was yesterday. What I want is a Canadian constitution which will permit each province to maintain its identity in this country of ours, Canada.

We have one province in this country, namely Quebec, which is predominantly French. Let us have a constitution which will ensure the fullest respect for the rights of Quebeckers as it will for the rights of the other provinces. I do not think it would be wise for any province to interfere with the rights of the other provinces. However, it would be wise for the Canadian government to give us the assurance that each province will be treated with fairness, and that each province will have the maximum autonomy.

The second basic principle of Social Credit is that the government must serve the

September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Caouette individual. The major function of the democratic government in organized society is to secure for the people the results they want from the management of their public affairs, in so far as such results are physically possible and morally right.

The third basic principle is that the individual must be free and have economic security. The individual can only attain his full stature in a society where his ability to make moral choices is restricted as little as possible. Economic security is a necessary means for attaining this freedom, not as an end in itself to be attained by restrictions. This is the difference between those people who advocate economic security and those who advocate freedom in the hands of the government. We have seen that type of government, Mr. Speaker, in many countries. When we visited Czechoslovakia we found that though some people call them a communist country they do not call themselves communists, but socialists.

[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)

We have also been told that Sweden is an example to follow because in Sweden there is no such thing as unemployment. It is true, Mr. Speaker; there is no such thing as unemployment in Sweden. The men work, but in order to attain a decent standard of earnings the women have to work too. Sometimes a man is on one shift, his wife is on another shift and the children are looked after by the government. When in Sweden I remember boarding a bus. On the bus there was a bus driver, another man whose sole task was to sell tickets, another man to punch the tickets, and a fourth man in the corner watching the other three.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. Does the house allow the hon. member to proceed with his remarks beyond the time allowed by standing orders? Agreed.

Mr. Caouette:

Mr. Speaker, I very sincerely thank the honourable members for the fine courtesy they have shown me by letting me proceed with my remarks; I shall make no abuse of it. I will be brief. I was speaking about Sweden and since I was speaking in English, I will continue in English.

In Sweden, Mr. Speaker, monthly wages are in the order of $55 to $65 a month. Although they say that the cost of living is

lower in Sweden, if you want to buy a car you will pay twice the price there that we pay in Canada, where wages are at least three times, maybe four times, the level in Sweden.

When I was in Czechoslovakia I visited the Skoda plant where 6,000 men were working at a wage of $45 to $55 a month. This little Skoda car sells in Montreal city for $1,775. In Czechoslovakia where the car is built it sells for the equivalent of $6,200. Therefore no one in Czechoslovakia can afford to buy a car; the people either walk or use a bicycle. I asked the vice president of the plant in Czechoslovakia the reason for the price being so high. He told me: "We have increased the tax portion of the price because we do not want our people to buy cars. If they buy cars we will then have to build some roads".

Mr. Lewis:

That is not right.

Mr. Caouette:

I hear my hon. friend from York South saying that I am wrong, but I know I am right in this instance because I spoke to the vice president of the plant in Czechoslovakia. I asked about salaries and the production of cars for export only, not for internal use. I also priced refrigerators and T.V. sets. Refrigerators sold in Czechoslovakia for the equivalent of $700.

In Russia, Mr. Speaker, the situation is even worse: They do not have any refrigerators. When I was a young boy we were obliged to use window space as a refrigerator for our quarts of milk, our bread and butter. That is what they do in Moscow today, after 50 years of freedom, of what they call democracy for the people. I have seen men, women and youngsters working in these countries.

I hear my hon. friends from the New Democratic party saying that they have the solution to our problems. They had the solution in England, which can be considered a close parallel to the Canadian scene. For years England was ruled by the Conservative party. The labourer, the workingman, then became sick and tired of the Conservative party and voted Labour. He went "N.D.P.", though that is not what the English party is called. They seem to be associated anyway.

During the election compaign the deputy leader of the New Democratic party in the province of Quebec, Mr. Robert Cliche, was asked on T.V. one night how his philosophy was helping England. He replied: "Well, that is a different situation. There is a bad situation over there which is not easy". So the interviewer said: "Well, you say you are able

September 16. 1968 COMMONS

to keep people out of trouble. If they are in trouble in England, what are you doing to help them?" "Well," replied Mr. Cliche, "never mind about that; let's get back to Canada where it is easier to work out solutions".

There was a socialist government in the province of Saskatchewan for 17 years, following which the government was defeated. The leader of the socialist party in Saskatchewan was defeated in a general election. He was then re-elected in a by-election. Now once again he has been defeated in a general election. This is not because the leader of the New Democratic party is not a fine gentleman; he is definitely a fine gentleman. But his solutions are not going to solve our economic problems. Those solutions are to abolish free enterprise, as do away with personal initiative. I would ask the N.D.P. members to show me where in the world, in countries that have abolished personal initiative and freedom of enterprise, conditions have improved instead of worsened.

In the province of Quebec there is a good friend of the hon. member for York South by the name of Rene Levesque. Mr. Levesque was minister of national resources in the Quebec government and in the 1962 election campaign made an issue of the nationalization of electric power. He stated that this was the key which would permit the people to become masters in their own province. The government was re-elected on the strength of the promise that the people of Quebec would become masters in their province. Electric power was nationalized in 1962. We are now in the year 1968, some six years later.

Mr. Lewis:

Are you opposed to nationalization of that sort?

Mr. Caouette:

Yes, definitely opposed.

Are the Liberals?

Mr. Caouette:

That is a matter for them. I am not a Liberal, but a Social Crediter.

Mr. Lewis:

They were agreeing with you a moment ago.