In the province of Quebec, the nationalisation of electric power has become the number one political question of the day. In fact, it is over precisely the matter of electrical power that Premier Lesage has called for a provincial election, when ordinarily such an election would not take place until 1964.
The fact is, nationalisation of electricity is not something new in the province of Quebec. For some twenty years now we have had Hydro-Quebec, a creation of the provincial government. Hydro-Quebec was expropriated from the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co. to provide electricity to greater Montreal and the surrounding area. Hydro-Quebec has also become a producer of electricity through harnessing the great sources of hydraulic power available, the most significant of which is the Bersimis power development.
But today, the proponents of nationalisation are casting their regard upon all of the electrical companies which are still free, especially the great Shawinigan Water and Power Co. The campaign for such nationalisation has been carried forward with considerable vigour over the past two years. The chief proponent of this plan has been René Levesque, a one hundred percent Socialist, to say the least, who is also a member of Premier Lesage's cabinet. Levesque's trump card in this campaign is this title of Minister of Natural Resources. As such he has access to all the important media of communications, the support of the large dailies which have become, for the most part, organs of Socialism, the support also of the trade unions which are directed by Socialists, and the passivity of a large part of the population which is particularly susceptible to brainwashing.
What is the attitude of the Union of Electors regarding the nationalisation of electrical power?
The Union of Electors is, by principle, opposed to Socialism, to Socialism in all degrees, partial or complete. Now, whether it concerns the Shawinigan Water and Power Co., or some other company; whether it concerns the production of electricity or any other form of production, the expropriation of free enterprises by the government is a Socialist measure.
It is true that among those who are partisans of nationalisation, there are individuals and groups who reject the name of Socialism and even declare themselves to be opposed to Socialism. But then why do they share the point of view of Socialists regarding this question? These people come out for the nationalisation of electricity either through the concerted and continuous barrage of propaganda; or because they have been won over by arguments which are specious and unilateral; or, chiefly because they blame industry for the financial problems of the day, instead of blaming the financial system itself. But they are very careful to declare that they do not want to nationalise all industries, only certain industries. And among these certain industries they place in the first rank the production and distribution of electrical power.
These supporters of partial Socialisation do not seem to realise that they are playing the game set for them by those advocating complete socialisation. Total Socialisation proceeds by stages because it does not wish to arouse universal opposition by too precipitate action. Those not affected by a partial nationalisation are only too ready to disregard it. Unfortunately, any nationalisation prepares the way for further such action, and those who though themselves safe, suddenly discover that the cause of all free enterprise is in jeopardy.
Today the nationalisation of electricity. Tomorrow the nationalisation of gas. Then transportation, which is already partially nationalised. Then there will be tremendous pressure to nationalise the telephone companies. Afterwards, it will be the turn of those private and free enterprises which are engaged in exploiting our forests. For our forests, like our water ways, are the source of immense wealth. Logically, then, it would be the turn of the mines.
And where will it stop? Why not go on and nationalise the farmlands, the soil, since this too is the source of immense wealth?
But to return to the industry which is menaced at the moment - in particular that great industrial complex which produces so much power, the Shawinigan Water and Power Co. How has it failed in its functions?: What is the function of a hydro-electric industry? As with all other industries, it has a product to furnish. In this case it is electricity, electric currents.
Is Shawinigan not producing this electricity? Is it failing to extract the maximum of energy from our water power for what it has put into the operation? Has it refused to furnish the power necessary to meet existing needs, inasmuch as these needs depend upon it to be filled?
There is no doubt but that Shawinigan must sell its product; sell it at a price which will make it possible for it to pay the costs involved in its operations. But then a nationalised industry would face the same necessity. If certain sections of the population, because they are too poor, cannot obtain a share of the product, electricity, this is certainly not the fault of the company. It is not the function of Shawinigan, or any other power company to see to it that all the people have enough money to buy their product. A lack of the means to pay pertains to finance and the monetary police. The fault lies with a financial system which rations money and does not provide a just and equitable sharing of purchasing power; likewise with those governments which permit this financial vice to go on existing.
Is it because Shawinigan has been a success that the partisans of nationalisation wish to take it over? It is private companies which have established the industry in Quebec. It is they who took the risks, starting from scratch to build up the entire edifice of the industry - the production of energy, its transportation, the demand. Are we to find fault with those who succeed? Is success a fault to be punished? Those who are clamoring for nationalisation — would they look with a kindly eye upon the attempts to nationalise some enterprise they had created and carried forward to success? With what fault then are we to reproach the independent producers and distributors of electricity? Is it because they have made available to the people a wealth of which the community is, collectively, the proprietor? If so, they have done so only with the permission of the government which is the guardian, for the people, of these natural riches. And it is the right of the government, as such a guardian has the right to impose such conditions upon private companies as is in keeping with its duties as guardian.
Are we to blame these private companies because they have undertaken this exploitation with the help of foreign capital? Well, is it not true that many other private companies in other fields have done just this? Is it not true that our various forms of governments have done the same thing many times -- made use of foreign funds for developments and services?
On this question of foreign capital, our publications have frequently discussed the falseness of a system (the financial system and not the electrical system) which does not know how, or will not, make finance accord with realities. It is logically conceivable that we might be obliged to have recourse to foreign capital for materials or labour which we cannot find in our own country. But for all that our country can furnish, it is foolish to go abroad looking for the capital of other countries. It is equivalent to asking permission of foreign financiers to mobilize our own working force in order to exploit our own natural resources. If there were no foreign sources to which to have recourse, there is little doubt that the people of our country would find the means to exploit their natural resources and mobilize the means of production.
Our papers have also, many times, explained how competent producers should not have to bow down before the dollar-men in order to utilize their competence for the good of the country. These producers should be, themselves, the organisers and promoters of the production in which they are competent. But then this would require a financial system which would be in step with realities and at the service of realties.
This would be a Social Credit economy; the creation and use of a financial credit belonging to the country which would reflect the real credit of the country and the country's capacity to produce. And it is precisely because Social Credit is rejected that men are forced to turn to Socialistic measures which penalize industry and which take from men the hard-earned fruits of their personal initiative, their knowledge, and their toil, instead of correcting the vices inherent in this financial system.
Who are the owners of the Shawinigan Water and Power Company? The stockholders and shareholders. Of its 17,452 shareholders, more than half (50.7 per cent) live in the province of Quebec. More than a third, (30.8 per cent) reside in the other provinces of Canada. Less...than a fifth (18.5 per cent) live outside Canada, mostly in France. Foreign capital, then, plays a small part in the company.
If the government nationalises the Shawinigan, it will have to borrow money in order to reimburse these shareholders. Thus it will be simply replacing one group of crediters by another, the latter demanding high rates of interest. So what is to be gained by the change?
The French-Canadians, with reason, are anxious to be masters in their own household. This would be easy under a Social Credit economy. But we have none as yet so the question arises concerning the personnel employed by the electric power companies.
In the Shawinigan, of the employees working there, 85 percent are French-Canadian - which isn't too bad. In the executive positions, French-Canadians are more and more becoming evident. Since the majority of these positions require engineering and technical training, French-Canadians do not hold these positions in proportion to the number of such employed, simply because Quebec schools have only lately begun to place emphasis upon technical training.
But is not the Shawinigan part of a monopoly which exploits the people through the monopoly prices which are charged?
It is difficult to speak today of a monopoly in the power industry. By definition, a monopoly is one. It is alone, or overwhelmingly preponderant in that particular line of industry. This is not the case today with the electric power industry in the province of Quebec. For example, there is the Hydro-Quebec which for nearly twenty years now has been active in producing and distributing electric power. It has been favoured in that it has been given the most industrialised, the most densely populated part of the province - the region of Montreal. Then there are other competitors which are generating electricity from other sources than water-power; thermo-electric power is becoming common.
Furthermore, Shawinigan must have its price approved by the Electricity and Gas Commission, which is a provincial body. The company is subjected to all the regulations of this commission. It cannot undertake any new developments concerning electricity without having the commission's approval on its plans. And the same holds true for the other companies which are yet free. Whoever is not satisfied with the operations of any of these companies can carry his complaints to this Commission; which he cannot do with regard to Hydro-Quebec.
The cost of electricity carried by Shawinigan is lower than it was in 1939. Can you think of any other product whose price is even as low as it was in 1939? Quite the contrary. They have all gone up. And, anyhow, why make such a fuss over the cost of electricity. The average salary gives only one percent to electricity bills. Does anyone seriously believe that nationalisation will bring prices down? The cost of bus tickets in Montreal has gone up, not down, since the bus lines were taken over by the municipal government.
The administration of a government company is never as efficient, in management and costs, as in the case of a private company. Rather the contrary is true. Unfortunately, in the case of a government company, costly errors are always covered by the taxpayer. In private enterprise, the owners of the company have to make up the loss.
Why, then, this sudden and violent desire or a change? How will this change affect the consumer? How will he feel when he has to do business with a government bureaucrat instead of the employee of a private company which depends upon the good will of the public.
Monopolies, true monopolies, are created by nationalisation. When the government takes over an industry — a branch of the production machine — there is no recourse for evils and faults and errors, whether you be a consumer or an employee.