Free Enterprise in Canada

MR. POTTS:

C'est un grand honneur de vous souhaiter, M. Caouette, une cordiale bienvenue a Toronto et surtout au Club Empire du Canada. Vraiment vous etes un Canadien formidable.

My French-English dictionary translates 'formidable' into English as 'formidable, dreadful or fearful'.

I think 'formidable' is appropriate, 'fearful' is applicable in a political sense but 'dreadful' is quite de trop. Actually I think the most accurate translation is 'fantastic'.

Indeed, an undisclosed source is reported to have said

Real Caouette is looked upon,
As a veritable political phenomenon.
In the general election of sixty-two
He created a terrible hullabaloo;
Poor Dief and Pearson were in a terrible fix
'Cause Real had seats totalling twenty-six.'

You will pardon me, Sir, when I say that most of us here today first became aware of you when the ballots were counted on the night of that election.

However, as you well know, your political career started some twenty years previously.

You have at least one thing in common with Mr. Diefenbaker in that you were both defeated the first and second time as a candidate for public office but, as contrasted with a less hardy breed of politician, you both succeeded on the third occasion.

M. Caouette was first elected in a federal by-election in the riding of Pontiac in 1946.

He was defeated in the general elections of '49, '57 and '58 but was elected and re-elected in '62, '63, '65, '68 and '72-mute testimony of the determination which is an outstanding characteristic of our guest today.

Another outstanding characteristic is his sense of humour.

The late John F. Kennedy once said--

'I don't think a man can enjoy life without a sense of humour and particularly he can't enjoy life in politics.'

I hope you will excuse me, M. Caouette, if, by way of example, I quote one of your own jokes

'None of us were born Creditiste, my friends. I, myself, came from a Liberal family. It was so Liberal we had two pictures on the wall in the living room, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Sacred Heart and on some nights we didn't know which one to say our prayers to.'

In a sense it is unfortunate that the traditions of The Empire Club are such that M. Caouette is not likely to encounter any hecklers today and consequently we won't have an opportunity to observe, at first hand, his exceptional skill in dealing with them.

M. Caouette attended the College Classique St. Alexandre and completed a business course at the College Sacre-Coeur in Victoriaville.

He was one of the founders of the Caisse Populaire in Rouyn.

In his spare time he operates his own garage business in that City.

He married Suzanne Cure of Trois Rivieres. They have two children, Roger and Gilles.

Or, the night of October 30 this year he was able to celebrate not only his own victory in the riding of Temiscamingue and the victories of fourteen other Social Credit candidates in La Belle Province du Quebec, but more particularly the victory of his son, Gilles, in the riding of Charlevoix, formerly held by Martial Asselin.

That is really something in any country-a father and son serving their country in the same legislature at the same time.

M. Caouette et son fils share this distinction with a very select group of their predecessors in the House of Commons.

In 1874 Malcolm Cameron joined his son who had been elected in 1867.

In 1882 Sir Charles Tupper was joined by his son, Hibbert. In 1891 Hugh John MacDonald joined his father, Sir John A. Hugues La Pointe was elected, along with his father, Ernest La Pointe, in 1940, and The Rt. Hon. Louis St. Laurent welcomed his son, Jean Paul in 1955.

You will note that in two out of the five cases the father was or became the Prime Minister of Canada-that represents an odds ratio of 40%--I think that is pretty encouraging from your point of view, M. Caouette--after all there have been instances in Canadian history, one quite recently, when the odds in favour of a Prime Minister were even less.

We are extremely grateful to you, Sir, for being with us today. Many of us heard you last week on the CBC when you announced rather proudly that you were coming to Toronto to speak to The Empire Club. To use an old English expression-you are indeed a doughty warrior--having just finished a gruelling eight-week election campaign without a single day of rest--you sacrificed all of yesterday travelling in order to be sure to keep your date with us today.

Messieurs et mesdames 9a me donne beaucoup de plaisir de vous presenter M. Real Caouette, Depute de Compte de Temiscamingue et le chef du Parti Credit Social du Canada.

M. REAL CAOUETTE:

M. Le President, Honoured Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I wish to thank Mr. Potts for his welcome and his good words to me. Merci beaucoup, M. Potts.

My friends--I am only sorry that the election doesn't take place tomorrow. But it was, indeed, a real pleasure to accept the kind invitation from your Club, from your officers, to meet with you today. I heard of The Empire Club for years. In fact, I did refuse one time, I think, an invitation because I could not make it at that time. But today I nearly lost the occasion again yesterday as we were faced with a snowstorm up north and I had to fly with a private aircraft to Earlton, and I came to Toronto last night at six o'clock and right after the lunch today I am going back to Ottawa. The first time since the election.

Now, you have all heard that at least I won my seat in the Province of Quebec and I am not the Prime Minister yet but 1 know a sure thing that the Prime Minister will have to talk to me eventually. I know that.

Now many people have asked me 'why, why, have we succeeded only in the Province of Quebec and not outside the Province of Quebec?' I was just asked this morning on T.V. as they woke me up at six o'clock this morning and I was on the air at 7:15 to 8 o'clock on CTV and they asked me, 'How is it?' Well, I told them just plainly, 'Stop voting against me and vote for me so we will win more seats.' But what I had noticed though, seriously speaking, that out west as well as in the eastern provinces many people wanted to get rid of Trudeau so they thought the only way was, let's vote Stanfield and they went on like that. In the Province of Quebec, well Mr. Stanfield thought that with Claude Wagner he would take everything everywhere and they would get all the Social Crediters behind themselves, so they only lost 200,000 votes on account of that in the Province of Quebec. And we have more than doubled what we took in 1968. Even outside the Province of Quebec, take Dr. McGillivray's riding-he has made a 100% increase. We had no candidate in '68 and this time he took at least a thousand votes in Collingwood.

But the election is over and everybody is asking himself 'Well what will happen as Mr. Trudeau has decided to remain the Prime Minister of Canada.' It will be, it is a minority government and as a mm nor party I'll say this, we are not going to play politics with the situation at all. I'm not going to. I'm going to support all the measures in the interest of the people of Canada. The good Measures but I'm not tied up and I will not support any measures which will not be in the best interest of the Canadian people from coast to coast, not only for one province. And this is the stand I am going to take. Now it's up to the government to bring in legislation. If they come in with abortion, definitely I will be against, as I was. I told Mr. Trudeau himself had that Bill on abortion been passed 53 years ago, probably the Prime Minister would not be sitting where he is.

At the same time we were talking about homosexuality. I asked the Prime Minister 'Who's going to look after the kids?' He didn't know. But my friends, if the government comes out with legislation so to encourage free enterprise and personal initiative, my colleagues and I are going to support the government.

If the government is following the policy by taking away from those who have something so to give the havenots in our country I am not going to follow because there is plenty for everybody without killing incentive or personal initiative. When they take away from the haves to give the havenots I told them right in the House of Commons 'Let's go along that line of that philosophy for ten years and in ten years we will have all kinds of havenots in Canada and no more haves at all and this is exactly what will take place.'

Just as recently as the day before last I met an engineer from North Bay who is working for a mining company from Toronto here up north. We have nice prospects, I think, out there. Those who are in the stock market watch that very closely, it's good. I don't give any name though but look at, on the paper. But I was told that with the new legislation and taxation, for instance, personal initiative is completely discouraged, while the mining industry or prospecting up north is 50% less now than it was. Why? Because when you are working and making some money you are so badly taxed that you are not interested at all going in the bush for six months a year, or three months a year, so we have to find a way through which we will encourage the initiative of the men. And this is why I say that our country today, while we hear so much about division and the west fighting against the east and the east against the west, French against the English, and so on, this is not our problem today. Not at all. Even if we have some language problems--yes. But this is not the main problem. I know, and you all know, we cannot make a French out of an English or an English out of a French but we can make good Canadians out of both when we understand each other.

So when I was out west I heard the same thing as I heard down east. If it's going bad here it's because of the west giving too much to the east. And down east it's going bad here, in the Maritimes, it's because of the east giving too much to the west and they are all complaining one against the other like that. Sometimes you will hear 'Well if it's going that bad it's on account of those pea soup from the Province of Quebec. We're giving everything to those people.' And in Quebec you hear Rene Levesque saying 'Well, if it's going that bad in Quebec it's because of the Anglo-Saxons. Get rid of them.' And we all know that if Levesque would become, he'll never be, but if he would become, suppose he would become the Premier of the Province of Quebec to replace Bourassa, what would he be doing? Exactly the same as Bourassa--in United States borrowing credit for the development of our national resources. You think he would tell the companies out there 'You speak French or else I won't borrow money from you.' No! Levesque would be on his knees-speaking English.

Now the B.B. problem-bilingualism and biculturalism -has been discussed over and over again. I think Ottawa spent, what?-nearly $50 million, on that B.B. Commission to find out what-that we speak French in Quebec and they speak English outside the Province of Quebec. A thing we knew well in advance. So I think that I do favour both languages and I think everyone in Canada, out west as well as down east, we all favour the two languages but don't force anyone, don't tell a man at fifty 'You learn that language or else you are going to lose your job.' This would be discrimination, in Ottawa as well as anywhere in Canada, Montreal or Toronto. But I say this--that if we really want the people of Canada to know of their two languages, of their two official languages, we have to start the first year at school. That is the place--not after that. Because a kid at six years of age will learn any language.

When I visited Czechoslovakia, for instance, just five years ago, I found out there that most of the people are speaking six, seven and even eight different languages and are they ever happy. And here in Canada with only two, we have trouble. Why? My own kids when they were four or five years of age, I think, my neighbour was a Ukrainian and he had a boy of their age. The three of them were playing together. One night I came home for dinner, my two boys were talking between themselves. I couldn't understand a thing--they were talking Ukrainian. See! Without going to school. So at the first year of school it would be very easy for them.

But this only to tell you very, very frankly that the problem in Canada today is an economic problem and nothing else. We have some more problems-yes, but very easy to solve if all the provinces are treated in a fair way by our national government which is in Ottawa. And, ladies and gentlemen, we are, we were in the field for years and years and years and yet the problems have not been solved. We've had or we've been talking about Social Credit for years and I see the future of Canada when we decentralize from Ottawa and giving more autonomy to the provinces from coast to coast. Each province wants some more. Each one of them-your province, my province and all the others. I hear people say 'Well, Quebec is not like the others.' In 1968, for instance, Mr. Stanfield came out in the Province of Quebec so to get more votes and he came with that philosophy or that policy of two nations. The French-Canada and the English-Canada. He thought this would please the voters in Quebec. The night of the election he had four seats and I came in the same province, in my own province, with one platform-one Canada-not ten, not two, not three, one Canada. And for all of Canada on the night of the election we came with fifteen seats. See! So it was accepted in the province.

Tommy Douglas came. He was the N.D.P. leader. He says 'Quebec, oh you are not like the others so we'll give you a special status.'

I found out, as well as anyone of you who has travelled the least possible time across Canada, I found out that there are not two provinces alike. Not two! They are all different one from the other. You think Ontario is like P.E.I.? You think P.E.I. is like Newfoundland? Or Newfoundland like B.C. or B.C. like Manitoba? No!! They all have their own problems, their own, I would say, their own culture, their own interests and they want to be respected inside their own limits. Quebec the same as the others. So I don't want any special status for anyone but I want a status for all the provinces to be themselves. For Ontario to take its own decisions. For Quebec to take its own decisions. What I think is an example-a Canadian, an average Canadian family-your fathers or mothers, some of them are here, you raise children. Say that you have five children, you have two alike? No, and yet they belong to the same family. Dad and mom are the same, yea?, and yet you raise those kids, girls or boys, they are completely different. You have to take one this side, the other one the other side, the other one another side and when they grow up then they become part of life-one will be a doctor, another will be an accountant, another one will be a labourer, farmer. A girl would become a nurse or she will marry and she'll raise a family or things like that. Each one goes his own way or her own way. And yet, they belong to the same family and not one of them wants to be told by his brothers or his sisters what to do or not what to do. We feel that we have to decide by our own selves. Each people, each man, each woman is a world in himself or herself. And when comes the mother's day, or the father's day, or Christmas, or New Year's day, or Easter day, we all together belong to the same family and we are happy to tell our brothers and sisters what we have been achieving in life or what were our failures and things like that. And yet, we all belong to the same family with our complete economy to decide. And, ladies and gentlemen, unless we find and we reach a solution in our country in which each and every province will have that kind of economy, Canada will not last fifteen years. You understand what I say today. I may not be in Canada anymore in fifteen years from now but remember that if we are not going to solve the problem of unity in our country, and it is the only way through which we can have a real family unity by giving all the members of that complex of that nation as much autonomy as possible.

As we don't want to be told by anyone what to do and not what to do-not by Ottawa, not by Quebec. We don't want to be told by anyone. In Quebec they don't want to be told by Ontario what to do and out west in B.C. the same thing. And here I'll quote a former President of the United States and you will see where's the trouble in the whole thing. Former President John Adams, and this was not yesterday, in 1824, 150 years ago nearly, had this to say-'All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from want of honour or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.' This is the trouble. Let's apply the same wording today in Canada. All the perplexities of 1972 and we know that there are perplexities. Everyone is asking himself what is taking place. What's wrong? What's wrong? And no one has the answer. All the perplexities in Canada-confusion, and there is confusion and distress in Canada, arise not from defects in our Constitution. What's wrong with the Constitution of Canada? Our Constitution has permitted us to be who we are today. I'm from the Province of Quebec, you're in the Province of Ontario. Have you ever been obliged to do something against your will because of the Constitution? And when the Premiers of Canada are meeting with the Prime Minister and they talk about the Constitution, ask Bourassa from Quebec, 'What would you like to change in the Constitution?' 'Well, I don't know.' 'We'll form a Commission, we'll study the problem and we'll give you the report.' So a year later he comes out with the report. We ask him now 'What change would you like to see?' 'I don't know yet, we're not sure. We'll form another Commission to study the report of the first Commission and then we may come out with something.' We've been playing around the Constitution for the past fifteen-twenty years. What I say, and I don't say here in Toronto only, I said it in Montreal and Quebec City the other day-the same thing. First, let us respect the actual Constitution which is giving us the right we have to be who we are in our country and if changes are necessary then proceed to the changes but until we have the proof that changes are an absolute necessity, let's respect the wording of our actual Constitution which is respecting our rights and freedom. Constitution, Confederation-what's wrong with it? If we are able to move according to our own will, to our own wishes, so this is not the problem. Not from want of honour or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation. This is the place where we've heard so many people say 'Well Social Crediters are a bunch of crackpots talking about printing more money without any consideration -funny money people--across Canada.' Funny money! Look at the kind of money we have today in Canada. Forty years ago when a man had $25,000 we could have said that then 'Boy! He. has security.' What kind of security do you have today with $25,000? The government will take care of everything. This is the situation in which we are. So what we say and our platform was around that specific point. Let's use the Bank of Canada-your institution in Canada to finance loans to the provinces, to all of them so to give them more autonomy. It's that they're looking formoney-nothing else. With money they can do whatever they want. So the Bank of Canada, if there are bankers in this audience today just take that in note and don't forget this-Social Credit will never nationalize the banking system of Canada. It would be the opposite. We would be made of the banking system because it is probably the best banking system in world. But that system has to work to the benefit of the Canadian people and we don't have to nationalize anyone as the N.D.P. or the Socialists would do. So we say this 'Let's use the Bank of Canada,' and it is already authorized to make loans to the provinces. Under sections, we have lawyers in the audience-check that this afternoon. Sections 13 and 20 of the Bank of Canada Act say this: 'The Bank is authorized to make loans to the provinces to the extent of 25% of their provincial revenue budget.' In' Ontario this would mean approximately Two Billion Dollars a year, 25% of their budget of loans made to the province. Quebec would mean a little over a Billion and a half a year. And the law says for periods not exceeding six months. So six months! What-the-heck can a province do in six months. They don't even have the time to start building something and they have to pay back--so it's impossible. They don't go there. They go where? Where Bourassa went the other day--the United States and then he borrowed, the last time, One Hundred Million Dollars at 93/4% interest for twenty-five years. You know that in twenty-five years the province will have paid in interest alone, no capital at all, in interest alone $233,750,000 interest alone! We will still owe One Hundred Million. It's a good business. It's quite good.

But when they are talking about inflation. If you talk about an increase of your pension-Oh! Inflation is dangerous right away. Ten dollars a month! Boy, that's dangerous, don't touch that. But $233,000,000 more than your loan it's normal, it's natural. Don't ask yourself 'Where will the money come from?' No! Nobody knows and nobody wants to know.

When Bourassa goes to the United States, and here businessmen will understand, when he comes from the United States do you think for a moment he comes back with wheelbarrows full of American dollar bills? No. He just comes back with a Note. A paper about that size on which paper are written the figures $100,000,000.00-93/4%-25 years--signed 'Bob Bourassa' and endorsed 'Real Caouette' and all the bunch in Quebec.

When the people of the United States are consenting a loan of One Hundred Million Dollars, do you think for a moment that they are basing that new credit on their own resources? Oh no! Oh no! They are not a bunch of stupids. They know where they are going. They ask Bourassa 'What do you want to do with That?' 'Well I want to develop the James Bay Project.' 'Yeh, it's viable.' 'Okay we go along.' If the development was not viable, Bourassa would not come back with twenty-five cents. You all know that. So the One Hundred Million Dollars are based on our national resources. The same thing for your Province of Ontario. Same thing out west or down east.

When I saw David Lewis during the campaign in Winnipeg, on the air, on T.V., both fists in the air against the American control over our economy, those bad Americans had to go back to United States. The very same day, two Ministers of Finance, one from Manitoba the other from Saskatchewan were in the United States on their knees borrowing money from United States telling us 'How nice were the Americans.'

Ladies and gentlemen, we do not object to investments in Canada. No! But to proceed to the development of our national resources, we should use our own institution, The Bank of Canada. This is why we say-suppose that we write the figures with Louis Rasminsky--not after February 1st, I think, but before that. If he cannot write then we will hire another accountant. Write the figures by an authorized body like or organism like The Bank of Canada based on the same resources, the difference would be what? It would be the figures written in Ottawa would be our figures. We would be the owner. If they are made in the United States, they are the owner. The only way to become the real masters of the development of our country-Canada-is by the use of our own credit. If our national resources are good to make credit in the United States, and I have nothing against them, but let's create our things by ourselves with our own credit in Canada here. And when I say the only thing we have to replace is the six-month period in the Act and replace it by sixty years, the same as we do for foreign countries in the world. During the election campaign we made a loan to Algeria, a Communist country, for One Hundred Million Dollars at no interest costs for fifty years, plus ten years of grace. Sixty years. In sixty years Trudeau will be 113 years old-he won't be there anymore. We're lucky--Margaret will only be eighty-four and Justin will be sixty.

Now, just let's think seriously of the whole matter. This is possible. No one will object and find me a lawyer or an organization or a prominent businessman in Canada who will not agree with to that or with that. It is possible. It is not a matter of printing money, without any consideration but new credit based on our resources. When I said the other day, Montreal City-the largest City in Canada, yea-a big city-prosperous city-the largest number of unemployed people in Montreal. It's really prosperous. More people on welfare in Montreal than anywhere else in Canada. Prosperous! We say a strong land, yea, let's go.

Ladies and gentlemen, the other day Montreal borrowed Thirty-one Million Dollars from West Germany, yea!, to pay the interest on its debt. Just that and I am not fooling about that. That's true. How is it that West Germany who had been completely destroyed during the last war is able at this time to make loans to Montreal City, Thirty-one Million Dollars, after having rebuilt the whole thing in their own country and here in Canada no destruction at all during the war and we are more in debt than ever before. We're borrowing from all over the world. We don't know where we're going. We go through election campaign-we hear Mr. Stanfield promising us jobs-we ask him where-'I don't know but I do promise for the election.' Trudeau says the integrity of Canada, it's so nice when a man is starving to death to hear about the integrity of Canada. That was M. Trudeau. And David Lewis against those corporate welfare bums repeating the same song right across Canada. Ask him 'What would you do?' 'I don't know but they are bums, they are bums, they are bums.' '

So, ladies and gentlemen, Social Credit, as I said, I have been saying it for many, many years, I was just blamed this morning to repeat myself. I haven't repeated enough because I only have fourteen Members of Parliament, so it's just like people preaching the Bible, the same Bible has been preached for 2,000 years and we still have people going to hell every day because it has not been preached enough. So we say this, we have four basic principles, I hope the press and C.B.C. especially will take note of them so that they will report me properly the next time they will. Four principles, the first one, we firmly believe, and we are not kidding, we firmly believe that the individual, each one of us, each one, you, each one and me, myself, everyone of us, each one, 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. Don't try to put everyone in the same mold or pass everyone in the same room or the same corridor or try to put the same suit on everyone of us. One takes 40, the other one takes 36, the other one 42, then we decide we'll all wear 39 from now on. Well that would be a real good thing. That is the Socialist proposal. Ask Lewis. When I hear those fellows, they are always willing to share what belongs to others, never willing to share what belongs to themselves.

Because of this belief we are unalterably opposed to Communism, Fascism and all forms of totalitarian government which make the individual citizen subservient to the state. We stand opposed to political organization whose aims are the furtherance of the sectional interests of organized labour, business or finance.

Number two-government must serve the individual. The government has not been invented to penalize the individual but serve, to serve the individual. This is why we are in a society to have some profits out of it, to get something out of the society. All right, we have obligations, we have tasks, we have responsibilities but at the same time we should also have benefits from the society. The major function of democratic government in organized society is to secure for the people the results they want from the management of their public affairs as far as such results are physically possible and morally right.

Number three-the individual must be free, free, and have economic security. Security without freedom is just like a system, the system I give my dog at home. My dog has its fullest security but I'm the one looking after his freedom. Yes! We can be secure and have our security any time. Let's go out from the Royal York here, let us break all the front windows and I bet you that in less than fifteen minutes we have full security but behind the bars--this is not the system we want. David Lewis with his Socialists is looking for that but people do not understand exactly what it would lead us to. When I visited Russia, Czechoslovakia, Sweden and so on, all right they say there is no unemployment: Right, this is true, everybody is working, working for nearly nothing but they are all working. I took the bus at the corner of a street in Prague. Four people working in there, one selling the tickets, the other one punching the tickets, a third one driving the bus and a fourth one in the corner watching the three others if they are doing their jobs properly. Their salary-$55 a month. Not a week-a month. Yes! And we would like to see that system here. I don't think anyone and every Canadian should have the opportunity to go out there and visit what is taking place and then they'll come back here and say 'Boy, are we ever well in this country of ours, Canada, with all its defects we're still far better.'

So, ladies and gentlemen, economic security is a necessary means for attaining this freedom. Not as an end to be attained by restricting, restricting our freedom.

And Number four-what I said a moment ago the physically possible must be regarded as the financially possible. Whatever is physically possible, desirable and morally right can and should be made financially possible and for that we need the financial institutions, of course we do, because suppose The Bank of Canada is financing the provinces, the provinces will hire contractors and people and put people at work and that credit would be spread across Canada. It would go back to the private banks or credit unions or caisses populaires and probably the chartered banks would have more, more liquidity to help free enterprise in our country instead of being tied up always by governments looking and running after the banks-let me have this and let me have that. If the banks had more freedom to deal with free enterprise I think, ladies and gentlemen, that free enterprise would be flourishing right across Canada. We would then see more unity, more better understanding between all the provinces and between all our people in Canada.

Ladies and gentlemen, it has, indeed, been a real pleasure to be with you and I thank you very much for your very kind welcome. The Empire Club, it is the first time I come to your Club. I hope your President, or the next one, will invite me again because it has been a real, really enjoying to be with you. Now I am not asking you all to become Social Crediters at the same time. Take your time but look at our side a little more seriously and I know that we can do something for our country. And in closing I'll say this same as former President Kennedy had to say in the United States-Let us not ask what the country can do for ourselves but let us ask ourselves what we can do for our country, Canada, to keep the parts together and to give an example to the whole world of a true, honest and frank Canadian unity.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

M. Caouette was thanked on behalf of The Empire Club by Mr. Arthur Inwood, a Past President of the Club.

MR. INWOOD:

M. Caouette, after the mental and the physical vibrations that you have set up in this room I feel like the mosquito that unexpectedly landed in a nudist colony. I don't know where to begin. But it might interest you, Sir, to know that last night as I was looking through some of The Empire Club year books, in the year book of 1935 Mr. C. K. Sanderson spoke to this Club, that's 37 years ago, November 7, 1935, spoke to this Club on the subject of Social Credit. It was a wonderful treatment of the subject and I recommend it to you gentlemen, if you are so interested.

I would like to just quote one short piece of his preamble in the article in the year book and it is this "Democracy holds that all sides of a question must be aired in order that in the long run a democracy may, as it will, choose what is right, what is true and what is just."

As you may well know, Sir, The Empire Club is a rock of democracy and I think it has been very well evidenced in recent months when the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Conservative Party, the Leader of the N.D.P. and your good self have all been at this platform speaking to the members of this Club.

We appreciate the thoughts that you have given us today and we know that as time goes by those thoughts will have their right and their just and proper effect on our thinking. You have delivered to us a most stimulating talk today and on behalf of the members of this Club it's my real personal pleasure to extend to you our warmest thanks and appreciation and in the old saying "Thanks for coming to our house."