Some of those who are making remarks would be more correct in displaying their intelligence by keeping quiet.
Money has been the key to the organization of society. Money makes economic democracy possible by making consumer choice the arbiter of economic direction. We can go back, if we so desire, to Great Britain during the 1500's when the renaissance was just developing, when the industrial revolution was beginning to take its embryonic form. Here, again, this development was preceded with a development for the facility of the medium of exchange in the monetary system which ultimately resulted in the present monetary system.
As we look for democracy, for a system of government, let us remember that economic democracy is at the root of democratic democracy. The one is not complete, and the one cannot survive unless it has the other. I am concerned because of the trend towards increased governmental control, increased taxation. This is actually an abandonment of our monetary system, an abridgement or
The Address-Mr. Thompson an attempted abridgement of economic democracy. It does not enlarge the human spirit, but abridges it instead. It does not enlarge human dignity. It subjects individuals to the indignity of government by bureaucracy. If it promotes equality, it is precisely at the expense of that precious individuality that has been the spark kindling the fire of western civilization. As the Austrian writer Heimito von Doderer said, contemplating the difference between east and west, that in the east, "individual life does not rebel. There is too little of it for rebellion. One soul mingles with the other like smoke. But in the west, every life has its own special, if invisible, garden plot. A man stands alone between the tended flower beds and the little porticos of a house from which no one, by law and equity, is entitled to expel him... This is the only way he knows how to be. Only in this way can he be big or little, crooked or straight, good or bad".
So, as we consider this new path let us remember the old fundamentals that are basic to the very way of life we mutually agree is the way we should live. Is the new path we are taking, then, a new path or is it an old one? Is it the collapse of economic democracy which is forcing us to take actions which are contrary to the basic principles under which we live? Perhaps this sounds strong, but look at the socialist governments behind the iron curtain. It is the logical confusion of bigger and bigger governments. Creative ideas have never sprung from groups, they spring from individuals. No committee has ever painted a piece of art. No board of directors has ever written a symphony. No commission has ever invented a scientific machine. In our awe of the power of the organization compared with that of the individual, let us not forget the complementary need of the organization, however complex, for the individual's vision, skill and ability. It is the contact between the aspired mind of the individual and his Creator that enables him to bring to others a glimpse of the infinite and the eternal that lie outside the view of ordinary men. This suppression of creativity carries with it the seeds of decay of every socialist state.
Now, the question that faces us in this parliament is a simple one. Are we to master the mighty economic and social machine that we have created, or is it to master us? Some 40 years ago the founder of the Social Credit movement, which has developed into the political party I have the privilege of leading, pointed out that the answer lies in the difference between yet one more retreat into the dark ages or the emergence into the full light of day of such splendor as we can at present only envisage dimly.
I am convinced that if we are to continue as a private enterprise system we cannot cure this problem by the direction of production as this government, in the speech from the throne, indicates it intends to do. We must see that the consumers have the incomes to create a big enough market to absorb the immense production of which we are now capable. Let us begin at the proper end. Let us begin with people and their needs for better food, clothing, housing and education. If their incomes were sufficient to buy the things they already want to have, and which we are capable of giving them, our problems of unemployment and poverty in the midst of abundance would be solved.
We are still faced with problems which plagued Canada 40 years ago. The reason is that the old line parties have refused, and are still refusing, to solve them by methods that are already more than 40 years old. In the speech from the throne we have a promise that matters of detail will be taken care of, but our basic, underlying economic problems will continue without change.
In spite of what the Leader of the Opposition has said about last year's prosperity, we can no longer tolerate the stagnation of the past six years. Therefore we have two choices. We either make our financial system work- and there are perfectly simple reasons for its not working at the present time-
Subtopic: CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY