February 27, 1978

NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

I have owed them several times, and sometimes they carried me longer than my own mother did.

February 27, 1978

An hon Member: And she carried you too long.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

You were a long-term baby.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

I have been a member, on the board of directors and a member of the supervisory committees of a credit union for about 30 years. I have seen at first hand how money can work for people instead of people just working for money. I have seen what can be done for individuals in a community who desperately need the help of a financial friend. I have seen what money can do for an entire community when these private enterprise banks would not touch the project with a ten-foot pole, even though it meant a local skating rink or a curling club. As a result the people got together and did it themselves.

At a time when we need hundreds of millions more investments in low-income housing, senior citizens' homes or, even a real risk item, a day care centre which might go belly-up a year or two later

in other words, when it comes to the things in respect of which money can really work for the people- where do we find these banks? They all have great commercials on television, and they do everything to try to drag you in off the street to make you a loan, even for something for which you neither have the money nor the need. But when society really needs the money, or when a community, a small group or an individual needs financing, that is when whatever amount of social conscience they might attempt to display through their television ads totally disappears.

Let me tell my hon. friend from Vancouver that perhaps I should give him an honorary citizenship in Saskatchewan, or make him an honorary wheat farmer so that he can find out what the CCF did in respect of the co-operative movement in Saskatchewan. In fact, even his own party gave at least lip service to that movement in the dirty thirties, and the labour party bailed out the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the farmers' co-operative. There is a great deal of history of government activity in my province, a government which has said to hell with the banks and has done things itself.

At a time when we need so much investment in homes, hospitals, day care centres, senior citizens' housing and other socially desirable projects, these outfits are telling us how great they are about shoring up outfits in South Africa and Chile. It seems to me that condemns these institutions out of their own mouths and from their own actions. I do not see these banks rushing to help other Third World nations whose short-term prospects are not very good. They may be terribly poor nations with an annual per capita income of $50 or $100. They may be located in the middle of the desert, or because of some other geographical or natural circumstance they are in that category; but I do not see our banks volunteering to make investments, particularly if the chance of their making a buck is not very good. I do not see them volunteering to risk some part of their worth and wealth for these people. I have had many people in the banking fraternity tell me they are willing

Bank Act

to invest their money, but that it must be in a very good thing. Any damned fool can be a banker with that kind of a deal.

I think that governments must have some direction in this regard. This is a horrible thought to my friends to the right and to many across the way, but other countries to the right, the left and the centre have done this with their financial institutions and banks decades ago. They have moved in and directed them in terms of where some if not all of their investments are to go.

These governments have given the banking institutions two choices in respect of how much of their investment will be made in low-income housing, day care centres and other worth-while social projects which may or may not make a buck. They have directed them as to how much investment must go into those projects. They are given one of two choices; it is "compulsory" or they "must" do it.

Let us consider the whole matter of using our chartered banks as a tool of national policy. It seems to me this is even more important than the manner in which our national transcontinental railways are set up. In that case we are looking at investment in projects of national interest and national worth. When you require funding for some great national project the banking community, which obviously will not do it on its own, must be directed as to how much of their investment portfolios will go into the national project.

Let me say a word or two about the people who work in the banks-the tellers, the clerks and accountants. They are all capable, competent people. If they were not the banks would not be making nearly as much money as they do. For decades and decades they have attempted to obtain better working conditions-better hours, holidays with pay and rates of pay- but they have been looked upon as Scrooge looked upon Bob Cratchett. The needs and the wellbeing of the people who work for the banks come almost last in the banks' consideration. In fact, when one looks at the 30, 40 and 50-storey highrises the banks have been putting up in several cities in Canada, and the competition among our bankers to see which bank can put up the highest building, one can only conclude that their employees should be given the same kind of break employees in other industries are getting. When that is suggested to the bankers the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

One might also talk about experts at union busting and at preventing employees from voluntarily organizing themselves into associations. Here is where the banks expend great effort. They can put up 50-storey towers, but they cannot do something about the pensions of their own employees. The banks carry on these chambers of commerce contests as to which one will be the most swinging. They carry on contests as to which one will have the best television advertisements. They advertise to buy off people with their own money. They cannot lead the way as they should do. They are the most financially capable of any employer in Canada. They should lead the way in dealing with and treating their employees, but they rate among the lowest. I know of restaurant owners who pay their waiters, waitresses and dish washers better than some banks pay their junior employees.

February 27, 1978

Bank Act

I hope the government in power a year from now will bring in some real changes in the Bank Act. We will provide these institutions with another year of life under the present law, but surely the next government should bring in amendments to the Bank Act which will provide for genuine public participation and be of meaning to the people of this nation. These amendments should provide some direction in the handling of financial institutions, individual citizens, groups of citizens, regions and small businesses.

Recently I heard a colleague indicate that the New Democratic Party did not object to more competition in the banking field. If there was some real competition, I suppose I could agree. It seems to me that competition is not necessary among churches, because their parishioners believe in the same God. I wonder why competition among banks would be necessary when their god is the same-mammon. We need competition among the banks like we need a hole in the head. Banks do not compete. Their competition is so marginal and dispersed that one bank will provide a one-quarter of 1 per cent better deal on one thing while the bank across the street will give you a like deal on something else. There is no genuine competition. If there was genuine competition in the banking institutions, it would hurt the people who need to use those services. I hope this parliament and the next one will direct their minds toward some fundamental changes with respect to how our banking institutions are required to operate and in fact operate.

The left and the right wing political parties of Norway have laid down some real rules for their banks. These banks operate in the best interests of people and money comes second. Canadian banks should serve people and not money. If and when a profit is made, it should be secondary. Much more can be done in this nation. Hundreds of thousands of people who require monetary assistance could be treated much better. If that was accomplished, Canada could be more proud of its banking system. I hope all hon. members will think about what has been said with respect to the kind of financial institutions Canada requires and how they should serve people.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan

Liberal

Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of participating in this debate, but having listened to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), I cannot refrain from rising in an attempt to counter some of the ridiculous accusations he has made against banking and business. It is obvious the hon. member does not believe in business; he thinks that business is one of these evil necessities we would be better without. I do not rise to defend the banks. I rise to defend something the hon. member was prepared to attack and to take away from Canadian society, that is freedom. Freedom is something which is important in Canadian society.

The hon. member argued that Canadian banks should not be free to lend their shareholders' and depositors' money where they think it is in the best interest of their institutions to do so.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

They lend it whether the shareholders like it or not. Does the hon. member call that freedom?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

I will come to that. The hon. member's point was that the banks should not have this freedom. He was able to refer to a list of countries which, in his view, are evil countries. I do not argue with that. In fact, I agree with him. Canada is one of the freest countries in the world. In most other countries human rights are not respected, even though they should be. These countries should be condemned. We should take concerted action with other countries, as we do, in an attempt to influence those countries along the lines of greater recognition of freedom and greater rights for the individual.

How does the hon. member want to solve that problem? The hon. member wants to take away the freedom of Canadians and Canadian institutions. He indicates that those institutions should not have the right to trade with the Soviet Union, parts of Africa, Latin America and Pakistan. Perhaps a list of 80 or 90 countries where people are far less free than Canadians could be drawn up. I do not mean to belittle the hon. member's point. Many people are less free than Canadians. Many countries that are run by autocratic dictators are unworthy. The hon. member wants to take away freedom. If the New Democratic Party wants the right to lend money to Chile to be taken away from Canadian institutions-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

I did not say that.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

That is what the hon. members said. If that right is to be taken away, what about the right of travel? Why should the hon. member be prepared to permit Canadians to travel to those same countries? If the logic of the New Democratic Party is to take away the right to lend, invest and trade, should not the right to travel be taken away? That would be logical. Travel supports these countries. If the logic is followed, what about the right of Canadians to make telephone calls to those countries? Should that right be taken away? Why should Canadians be allowed to make telephone calls to those terrible countries? I agree they are terrible countries. If the position of the New Democratic Party is to take away the freedom of Canadians to trade, invest and do business with these countries, should not the freedom to travel and make telephone calls also be taken away? What about the freedom to send letters? Why should Canadians be allowed the freedom of writing letters to those totalitarian countries? In the policies advocated by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), the NDP wants to take this country down the very dangerous path of reducing freedom of choice.

Now, let us come back to banks.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Yes, let us do that.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

I do not doubt that shareholders turn up at meetings at these banks to advocate that the banks should stop trading or doing business with certain countries. This is a free country and they are perfectly free to go to these meetings and to take these positions. What I would argue about with the hon. member is that if the majority of them took the view that

February 27, 1978

he says some do, then they would not be lending to these countries because banks are controlled by the majority of their shareholders, not by the minority. If the majority wanted the bank to stop trading, lending or investing in a certain way, the bank would have to stop doing it. So I disagree with the hon. member in his assertion that the banks are disobeying their shareholders. If a shareholder, depositor or a lender is dissatisfied with a policy of a bank, they have an easy recourse. They can sell their shares, transfer their deposits, and they have lots of places to go in this free country. If they do not like having shares in a bank, they can make a deposit in a credit union, as the hon. member indicated, and a credit union will have the advantage of having to pay far less income taxes and corporate taxes than do banks. In this country they have the perfect right to do that.

I should like to say in conclusion that I agree with the hon. member's condemnation of many countries. I think that the Canadian government and the Canadian people should express their views and do what they can to advance human freedoms in the world. But to recommend that our policy for achieving that should be to take away the freedom of our own people in this country is something that I am astonished to hear the NDP advocate, and something that I certainly hope this House will reject wholeheartedly.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
SC

Charles-Eugène Dionne

Social Credit

Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity, when a banking problem is being discussed, to suggest ways of improving the present system. Bill C-16 explains that the passage of this legislation may be delayed and that other drawbacks could occur to delay it further. Therefore, no specific date is given. But since this matter is under discussion, I have here statements made by politicians which inspire me and lead me to discuss the difficulties resulting from our famous banking system.

I listened carefully to some of my colleagues who referred to the various problems that arise from the implementation of the regulations following from the legislation which allow the banks to control just about everything because of the power they have. But I want to point out at the very beginning that I am not referring to the staff of those banking organizations. They are very honest and dedicated people who have been selected after investigation and they are actually performing their duties. What I want to point out in particular is the power held by the banking system which needs to be straightened out.

I realize that we live in a rich country, a tremendously rich country as many of our politicians like to put it, and I realize also that a high percentage of the population lives in poverty, that we accumulate debts which we cannot repay, because I have been here for over 15 years now and I do not hear anymore our friends opposite responsible for the administration of this country say how they are going to manage to repay the debt. The only thing they can do is to try to explain how they are going to manage to pay the interest. Can you imagine

Bank Act

a man managing his industry or whatever he has in that fashion? His whole enterprise would collapse.

We live in a system in which the banking organization forces our politicians who think they are smart to manage the country day in and day out grappling with ever increasing debts. Moreover, they do not seem to understand that money should be a man-made service. According to what some of them say, one would believe that money has been created by an outer-space force. Yet, when one takes a close look at the system, one can clearly see that money is created by people. God does not send angels every six months to create money. People create money. So how come the men who are supposed to hold the sovereign power of governing the country are controlled by a small number of people who are the only creators of money? That is the inefficient banking system we have and which is in dire need of a few basic changes. Otherwise we will never be able to pull ourselves out of the economic chaos in which we are struggling now.

I know that most people wish they could find a solution to the problem of unemployment which makes hundreds and even thousands of Canadians suffer. 1 know that many sincere politicians on both sides of the House would like to find a solution to this problem. But why are they unable to find it? Why is it that their efforts to fight unemployment only make inflation grow worse? They are also fighting hard against inflation. Therefore why not take a moment to consider the source of all these problems, which is our famous monetary system.

Earlier when I arrived in the House my colleague gave me a copy of a speech delivered by a man who is not just anybody. I am talking of Father Georges-Henri Levesque, the founder of the Social Sciences Faculty of the Universite Laval, who spoke not so long ago, as he did in 1936 and 1937. Many of his writings were published in the press, but some people managed to reduce his influence and to send him away as a measure of protection for the present system. But he is back and he understands very well the nature of this system.

I should like to quote a few excerpts from this lecture; on the subject of money, he said:

That general commodity is not only economic in nature. Money is a servant with a great many capabilities. Its contribution has hardly started when it has made it possible for us to clear the land for cultivation, operate a plant, and eat our daily bread. It must also and especially help develop the higher values in this world.

Money therefore must be put to use for charity. What favour from Heaven it is to be entrusted with some of the wealth which permits us to be generous ...

... to help the poor and the needy ...

.. . and contribute to our neighbours' happiness! What a privilege it is for one to cause the succurred poor to send prayers of thanks to Heaven through this great servant which money is.

Later on, he stated:

Is money not the magic instrument capable of mobilizing all beings in creation, of representing all things while expressing their value ...

February 27, 1978

Bank Act

At this time, we know the value of money can be played with, the dollar floats and we see it lose value. It fluctuates from one day to the next in Canada and in the United States.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
SC

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert

Social Credit

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):

It will drown if it continues floating like that!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
SC

Charles-Eugène Dionne

Social Credit

Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska):

My colleague tells me that in these days of floating about, the dollar will drown if it continues to float like that. So, to resume my quotation from Father Levesque's text:

Is money not the magic instrument capable of mobilizing all beings in creation, of representing all things while expressing their value... even where men are concerned (is it not said that so-and-so is worth a million?) In fact, money is not a means, it is the perfect means. So, the infinity of its possibilities confers upon it, falsely, the traits and prestige of a god.

Further on, it is very interesting because in that talk we Find many explanations of our famous present monetary system.

Speaking of money he says this:

That general commodity, what is it in fact, where does it come from?

Talking about money.

I remember reading an article in the August 16, 1939 edition of the Action Catholique which was entitled: A mystery to clear up. Where does money come from? This article was written by Louis-Philippe Roy who, after mentioning that we had been short of money for a long time-let us not forget that we were in 1939, at the time of the declaration of war-all of a sudden there was plenty of everything, there was a flow of money for all the needs, war needs, of course.

He concluded his article by saying:

If, according to Pius XI, economic conditions are such that the salvation work is absolutely jeopardized by the money makers, it is high time we investigated in that direction.

I return to the speech I mentioned earlier:

What is it in fact? Where does it come from? It is not a direct creation of God who does not waste his time coining money. God does not need money. He has in his hands all the magnificence of creation: all the treasures buried in the ground or scattered in the infinity of space, the beauty of spring flowers and the brilliance of fall colours . . . One may even say that with regard to His creation, God does not need anything since He is everything. We must have things because our being is finite. To have is the human condition. To Be is the attribute of God. In his celestial grammar, the Creator only conjugates with the auxiliary verb to be: "I am that I am". Hence, money is a human invention.

That is what I was saying at the beginning.

It is produced by us. And in doing so, we are wonderfully right, even in the eyes of God. For God has put the material world at our disposal, leaving it to us to develop and to increase the natural wealth that He distributed here and there. He also endowed our minds and our bodies with various talents and different aptitudes enabling us to help each other.

But in order to achieve this, we must take the required means. I was saying at the very beginning, when 1 had other quotations in hand, particularly the one referring to a former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King.

Once a nation loses control over its currency and its credit, it does not matter much who in that nation makes laws. Once in control, money lenders will ruin any country.

This is somebody that you know well. Several of you have probably sat with him in this House. I also have here statements from American administrators, like Jefferson for instance who said and I quote:

Money, that is the mean through which modern nations will recover their dues. This institution (the Bank of the United States) is one of the deadliest enemies threatening the principles and the form of our Constitution. I believe that no government can feel safe when it is subservient to an independent authority or toward any authority other than that of the nation.

I could give you hundreds of quotations such as these, which demonstrate that the power held by the banking system must absolutely be changed. Otherwise we are directing ourselves toward . . . Well, the population is asking itself toward what. How many times has this question been asked to us during our travels in our ridings. People ask us: Where is that system leading us to? I confess that it is difficult to give an answer because we cannot foresee, at least seriously the presence of active politicians exercizing decisive powers of control and who seem likely to bring back order to that financial chaos. It must be undertood that this is a serious matter. One must first grasp the difference between what is real and what is financial. These are two different things. Yet one has to admit it.

When one speaks about wheat, butter, cheese, eggs, shoes or anything likely to help us in our daily life, we are talking about real things. But when one talks about dollars, pounds, francs, you are talking about symbols. You do not eat symbols. In our present system, symbols are nevertheless necessary to obtain food. These symbols cannot by themselves feed, clothe, house or cure individuals. They are only symbols made to evaluate things and also in our organized world to give to those who offer to trade them certain rights to things they want.

The most important of the two and this is at this stage that one must come to think about it, is obviously the real one for these are the things which are the most important. Without the real thing, the symbol would not mean anything. If there were not goods, if there were no men at work, no women at work, if it were not for the fact that the whole population of a country who wishes to produce something, what would then be the use of money? What is essential is the material good. The symbol is of secondary importance. It is therefore necessary that we adopt a policy to adjust the value of that symbol. This must be corrected to enable the goods to meet the needs that are to be fulfilled. There lies the answer. Why not look for it in that area. It is useless to discuss or replace the Minister of Finance. Even when we do have good ones, they do not change the system. They try to struggle in a defective system. Reality rather than the financial aspect is what counts. A starving man in the desert with a wad of bills in his hand will die. A loaf of bread would be more appreciated. And in a city, a man with a wad of bills does not starve because he exchanges his dollars for food. Reality depends on the productive capacity of the country: natural resources, land, climate, manpower, machinery, production procedures, division of labour, social order, etc. This productive capacity of the country, real or anticipat-

February 27, 1978

ed, is the basis of the confidence held by its residents or its new citizens. Before it was even realized, that potential capacity of our country inspired enough confidence in people from France for them to leave their country for the shores of the St. Lawrence. Today Canada's production system while it has not yet reached it's full capacity is not of concern to anyone at all-there is not a Canadian who fears that in 10 or 50 years from now his country will no longer be able to produce wheat, meat, wood and manufactured goods.

The confidence in Canada's production system is total. If the financial system were the true image of the production system it would inspire exactly as much confidence as the production system. That is not the case; if no one fears for Canada's production many Canadians fear for the financial means of obtaining the product. That is what you see; nobody can deny it. We do see constant progress made in the production system but also continuous disorders in the financial system. The signs are not at all in precise and constant relation with things. There are so many advanced machines today to make calculations of all kinds and computers costing millions of dollars that can apparently at even excessive speed put out results from a problem they are fed based on the operator's programming, and we, as politicians, as administrators, could not Find means of making adequate calculations and fairly distribute the wealth of this country based on the sign values. We would not have this difficulty of always being faced with the uncertainty of the variation of our dollar as the wealth, the real wealth, is in things and not in the bucks. No matter how many bucks you have, if the things are not there, people can starve to death. The main thing is food, clothing, conditions, everthing one can find to have these decent living conditions. And there is no lack of that in Canada! What we lack is an adjustment in figures. Did you ever see such nonsense? It is really beyond understanding. And as I was saying earlier, if it came from a divine power, we would comply with it but that is not the case. All that is controlled by men, a handful of men who control the exchange, products, at will; they supply the money needed to organize their system so as to continue to make money, to build up profits. It is written all over the place. Banking organizations, we know what they are from charter bank annual reports. That does not mean I am critical of reasonable profits, however there is no reason why the system that controls everything should also be controlling our very lives, deciding whether we are going to eat two or three meals a day through the amount of money they put into circulation, with their power to create and delete money at will. Dollars there is no dearth of in wartime, when the producing system is geared to making things that in no way correspond to the people's needs. But when the producing system is no longer capable of supplying everything required from it, dollars to cover orders disappear. This we have experienced on many occasions.

That game is anti-social and barbaric. It hurts consumers in the context of unused production. We remember periods where

Bank Act

there was talk of overproduction, while families without actually dying of hunger pretty near did, lacking the essentials in of everything across the land. We now have the same thing again. We should not be talking of Canadian prosperity but of the percentage of the people who enjoy that prosperity when thousands of people have incomes below the poverty level. The reason they do not enjoy prosperity is the lack of symbols which dollars are. That game is anti-social and barbaric, it hurts consumers and creates fictitious problems not only for the individual but for groups and even governments. The government is wrestling with its debt and is unable to repay. If we think seriously about that, there is no way this will not lead us into trouble. The government is trying to juggle with figures, it is not trying to go to the root of the problem. They would identify its cause if they tried, as it is rather easy. Today there are courses on monetary reform. I already quoted in this House the book written by a famous economist about the issuing of money. It proved that those who still believe that banks do not create money supply are wrong.

As there have been so many inquiries that proved it, we can say without exaggeration that 90 per cent of the problems are financial problems. And if we look at what happens everywhere in our families, our households, how many quarrels are caused by a lack of money? When federal and provincial ministers meet to conclude an agreement, it is always on a financial matter. Federal-provincial conferences are endless and what is the subject of discussion? Who has the right to tax? It is always on a money matter.

I remember very well that during a federal-provincial conference in 1941, a Social Credit premier of Alberta made some suggestions. They listened to him. They listened to him very quietly and the conference chairman who was the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King even thanked him. He was the last one to have the floor but it did not bother the Alberta premier who explained his views about the situation. He made practical suggestions and said: We meet here to find the means to improve the situation and conditions in Upper Canada. If we really wanted, we should try to change something in the present system. Unfortunately, they did not follow his suggestions and since then they debate the same matter from one conference to another and it is sometimes a cause of differences. Now we are talking about national unity. We try to reunite-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
SC

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert

Social Credit

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):

Some of them slam the doors!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
SC

Charles-Eugène Dionne

Social Credit

Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska):

Indeed. All sorts of things happen but if you consider the problem, they always meet about taxation rights. Who will best be served by knowing how much money Canadian taxpayers have? If reality consists in products and if the financier simply has to make symbols, the symbol acquires importance because of the rule under which you have to present the symbol to have the product that you do not manufacture yourself. Bread feeds you, but when you do not make your own bread, you can only get some by giving

3278

February 27, 1978

Adjournment Debate

money. Money is important since it is a prerequisite to having bread. This is extremely important in today's world because to survive everyone needs products made by others. Therefore the dollar sign is truly a permit to live. If you have this permit, you can get what you want from the production system. If you do not have this permit, the dollar, you will get nothing and the production system will slow down instead of serving you.

Control of money and credit therefore is the same as the control of peoples' life. It is not a coincidence that one of the highest doctrinal authorities in the world said in the encyclic that manipulators of money and credit hold economic life in their hands, so much so that no one can breathe without their consent. The encyclic has been praised many times. The words of the Pope of the time have been lauded, but his advice has never been followed. We have never tried. We have never made sufficient investigations on the issuing of money and there still are problems that cannot be solved. This is unfortunate. Even though the majority of members of parliament are sincere when they say they would like to find answers, I can tell them that I am convinced that I am right and that those who will live in the years after me will find that out. If the present financial system is not modified, we will continue to be constantly in debt and we will always have the same problems. A change, a radical change is needed in that area, as well as earnest people. Yet there are people who can understand that the money system must be adjusted to the needs of man since money must be a servant not a master.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being ten o'clock, in accordance with Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is that the House do now adjourn.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BANK ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATION TO APRIL 1, 1979
Permalink

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.


TRADE-TEXTILES-PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMPORT QUOTAS

February 27, 1978