There is no Social Credit in either Alberta or British Columbia

Before returning home, after having assisted at an interprovincial conference called at Quebec city by Premier Lesage of Quebec, the premier of British Columbia and a minister of the Alberta government went to Rouyn in northern Quebec. They were invited to a convention whose purpose it was to endorse officially the candidature for the constituency of Villeneuve of Réal Caouette, president of a small group of party-minded, power-hungry individuals who splintered off from the Union of Electors some time ago when the movement refused to have anything to do with the destructive business of party politics.

Quite naturally the two ministers devoted themselves to eloquent eulogies of the great works which had been accomplished by the governments of which they were a part.

Since that time the splinter group under Caouette have gone to a great deal of trouble to emphasize and advertise Alberta and British Columbia as two examples of the wonderful things which can be achieved under a Social Credit party in power. In fact, they devoted one entire issue of their monthly publication to an exposé of the "marvels" of Alberta. If this splinter group had been logical, they would have arrived at this conclusion: "We must do the same thing by electing a party to power in Quebec as was done in Alberta and British Columbia". But not so; they have laid aside any plan they might have had for attempting to take power in the province Quebec and have set their sights on Ottawa, where, in fact, neither Alberta nor British Columbia have a single member!

Furthermore, there is no more Social Credit in Alberta or British Columbia than there is in any other province. It is true that there has been a party bearing the name "Social Credit" in power in Alberta since 1935 - for 26 years. And likewise there has been a party of this name in power in British Columbia since 1952, for 9 years. But neither in Alberta nor British Columbia has there been even a beginning of the application of the financial principles set forth by Major C. H. Douglas and known under the name of Social Credit.

Surrender in Alberta

It was with the promise of establishing Social Credit provincially in Alberta that the party took over power in 1935. The preceding government, that of the United Farmers, was not opposed to Social Credit. It had, in fact, chosen Douglas as its financial adviser. The leader of the United Farmers, Mr. Reid, did not believe that it was possible to establish Social Credit provincially. Mr. Aberhart, founder of the party in Alberta, maintained that it was possible.

Under the government of Aberhart, in the years 1937-38, several attempts were made to apply the financial proposals of Social Credit in the province. These attempts were blocked by Ottawa, which simply disallowed such legislation, or by judgement of the Court which declared it ultra vires.

With the opening of hostilities in 1939 all further attempts were halted. Aberhart died during the war and Manning succeeded him.

With the war over, the Social Credit League of Alberta asked Manning once more to bring forward measures for the institution of Social Credit. A "Bill of Rights", half Social Credit, half Socialist, was adopted by the legislature in Edmonton in 1946. The Alberta government itself submitted for approval to the court before its promulgation. This bill was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court and by the Privy Council in London. In 1947, Manning announced publicly and officially that his government would no longer make any attempt to establish Social Credit in the province of Alberta.

Consequently, there is not only no Social Credit in Alberta but there is not even the attempt to realize it there.

It will be objected that this is the fault of Ottawa, or of the courts or of the Constitution, etc. But the fact remains: There is no Social Credit in Alberta.

The voters in Alberta may love there government. Or at least prefer it to a government by the Liberal or the Conservative parties. But when they vote for Manning and his candidates they are most certainly not voting to have Social Credit since Manning has declared publicly and categorically that there is no question of attempting to realize Social Credit on a provincial scale. Contrary to his master, Aberhart, Manning says that this cannot be done provincially. He accepts the point of view of Ottawa. The so-called "Social Credit" party which is in power in Alberta has bowed down before Ottawa. If this same party were in power in Ottawa is there any reason to believe that it would not capitulate before International Finance which is much more powerful than even Ottawa itself?

Since the surrender in 1947, Manning along with Solon Low and the other leaders of the group, have adopted as their slogan: "On to Ottawa!" This is equivalent to saying to the voters of Alberta: "Manning's government continues to call itself, Social Credit. But it squarely refuses to occupy itself with the matter of giving you a Social Credit regime. When it comes before you it does not bring with it a Social Credit programme. In voting for Manning you in no way vote for Social Credit. If you want to vote for Social Credit you will have to do so in a Federal election".

So, when a provincial election comes along, an election which will mean absolutely nothing as far as the establishment of Social Credit is concerned, Albertans vote for candidates of the Social Credit ticket. But when an On-to-Ottawa election is held these same voters turn their backs on the so-called Social Credit candidates. They have never elected more than a few, and not one single candidate reached the Commons in the elections of 1958. This electoral plan, so dear to the hearts of party-minded Crediters seems to make progress only in reverse!

The same holds true for British Columbia. After having had a few members in the Commons, they haven't one there today. And in this province also, the party cries, "On to Ottawa!"; but does nothing for the advancement of Social Credit in the province.

Are arguments of "successes" valid?

But Réal Caouette, Gilles Grégoire and the other spokesmen of the splinter group in Quebec, seek to support their venture into the electoral field by pointing up the remarkable sucesses achieved in Alberta, especially since the last war which was precisely the time that the government there renounced all Social Credit legislation!

Even if it were true, what can they prove from the fact. Certainly not that there is need for a Social Credit financial reform. If there have been any improvements in Alberta they are certainly not due to Social Credit since there is neither Social Credit nor Social Credit activity in this province on the legislative scale. Whatever has been accomplished has been done within the framework of the existing financial system. Their argument, then is false and misses its goal completely; in fact it goes against the objective they have in view. For in effect, what is said is this: "Everything is going marvellously well in Alberta, and doing so without there being any trace of the Crediter financial system. Hence, the Social Credit system is not necessary to make a prosperous and happy people. A good administration will do the job. So, let's leave off demanding Social Credit".

We might also draw this other conclusion: "Since we have in Alberta a government called Social Credit, which nonetheless does nothing to legislate Social Credit measures, could we not likewise have at Ottawa a government, like that of Manning, which would call itself Social Credit, and yet do absolutely nothing to realise Social Credit principles and policies?"

But there has been so much dust thrown into the eyes of the people by the publicists of the party! If Alberta has found itself better off since the war brought a flood of money due to the Commonwealth Air Training Center and due likewise to the oil wells dug there, in addition to wheat and beef, the people there are still not better off than those in other provinces which have equal quantities of natural wealth and a population just as competent and hard-working. The citizens of Alberta are taxed just like the citizens of other provinces.

The same holds true for British Columbia, which the splinter group lauds so highly because of its pretended Social Credit government.

And what would the condition of these two provinces be, compared to Quebec, if for example, the average percentage of children per family was as high there as it is in Quebec?

Regarding public debt

The minions of Caouette are fond of proclaiming that these two provinces have no provincial debt. Well, juggling with the figures of the public debt can be done in various ways depending whether you are the party in power or the opposition. However, if it is true that these two provinces have no public debt, it would be so because they have paid it off. And since they have no Social Credit, they have paid off these debts with the money of the existing financial system. Which means they paid it with money either from taxes which they collected from the people, or with the royalties which they collected from those exploiting the oil fields who would naturally include these royalties in the prices of their finished products. Now, is there anything vaguely resembling Social Credit in taxes and rising prices!

Let us, by all means, extend our approval to a government which will see to it that the people get something for the exploitation of their own natural resources by private individuals. But this recompense must go the people and not to those who have plunged them into debt by stealing their credit.

For true Crediters, who denounce public debts as being the fruit of the robbery of the peoples' credit, it seems very strange that the same men should be so proud of having paid a debt to robbers.

That which we call the national debt, represents, in fact, the works executed and the services performed by the people themselves; bridges, roads, hospitals, etc. which certainly are not the work of the financiers. It is by a financial perversion, then, that these works and services are written down as national debt or provincial debt, a debt which serves as the motive for taxing the people instead of as bonds or shares which would fructify in dividends for the citizens.

Authentic Social Credit, would certainly never approve, let alone praise, such "repayment of debt". It would rather seek to convert this "debt" into a profit bearing bond or share. Major Douglas, the founder of the Social Credit School, has written:

"(In a Social Credit regime) The National debt which he did not create, becomes a national credit which is a reflection of the national capital which he did create." (The Monopoly of Credit, p. 113).

Douglas also made this remark:

"No proposal to redistribute the National Debt has ever received the slightest encouragement from Socialist leaders." (Social Credit, p. 150)..

In an article which appeared in the splinter group's monthly publication, over the signature of Gilles Grégoire, the following statement appeared:

"Crediters (of the party), during the course of an assembly of the national committee called to study principles and the application of Social Credit, elaborated a plan for the paying off the Canadian debt, or at least of a major portion of the Canadian debt within a period of five years after the election of a Social Credit government."

And the article goes on to explain the project which consists of giving to those robbers of the people's credit, new national money in exchange for the bonds or debentures which they hold as the fruit of their thievery.

So this new Social Credit government would start out by gratifying the robber barons of the existing financial regime to the tune of four and a half billion dollars a year for a period of five years! This is certainly a fine beginning for a government which is trying very hard to be considered Social Credit! And what is worse, this is a national committee of the party which is gushing such nonsense and calling it an application of the principles of Social Credit!

And this repayment would in no way disturb the appropriation of the people's credit by the banks in lending at a rate of interest, even if this government were to impose upon the banks the condition of a liquid reserve of 100 per cent, after having furnished this reserve gratuitously to the banks. Furthermore, such a system of 100 per cent liquid reserves is somewhat old-fashioned if you consider that 90 per cent of credit is nothing more than pure accountancy. It is the public which gives confidence to credit, which is satisfied to have ten per cent of concrete money for all its business and commercial transactions. This is progress. There is no need to go back to the time when every transaction involving finance had to be carried through with palpable money.

After having lined the pockets of the financiers over a period of five years, this so-called Social Credit government would begin to issue tiny dividends to the people. Not to everyone, mind you. They would appear as increases in family allowances, old age pensions and various other phases of social security. So writes Gilles Grégoire.

This is a Social Credit stripped of its flesh, reduced to boņes and horribly deformed.

If Gilles Grégoire and Réal Caouette and the others want to make themselves into politicians, that's their business. But to try and make themselves out to be technicians of the school of Social Credit presented to the world by that great master, Major C. H. Douglas, is something entirely different. They make themselves fools in the eyes of those who know Social Credit and they do great harm to the authentic movement. To come back to the two provincial governments which go along under the label, Social Credit. There is nothing really marvellous about either of these two provinces. There is a very considerable difference between the daily life of the average citizen of these provinces and that very gilded picture painted by the politicians of those provinces and the vocalists of the splinter group.

Let's take British Columbia. Here is a letter from a professional businessman who is living right in British Columbia at Penticton. The writer is a Dr. Bourget who is replying to a letter written by one of the splinters which appeared in La Tribune, of Sherbrooke, Quebec, The letter of the Doctor likewise appeared in this publication.

Mr. Editor,

May I be permitted to make some small remarks a propos of an enthusiastic letter by a Mr. Jean Loslier on the advantages of Social Credit in British Columbia, which letter appeared in your paper of February 25.

We are suffering, and that is the word, the rule of Social Credit elected by the lumber companies which fear the Socialist party which party forms the principal opposition... In spite of the strong support of rich companies, Social Credit was elected by only 39 percent of the popular vote, the other parties splitting the remaining percentage among them.

British Columbia's debt is about 600 million dollars, but our Premier tells us very nicely that we have no debt. We are like the man who pays for his car with the aid of the finance company. He pays cash for his car but he owes neary all to the finance company which has advanced the cash. Mr. Bennett says that we have no debt, only guarantees, but our railway owes about $100 million and in order to meet its annual deficit it must take $5 million from public funds. Our bridges have a deficit every year and still have to liquidate their debt.

The situation is the same for public utilities, schools, etc. We, with our population of a million and a half, have a greater debt than Quebec with its five million inhabitants. We have more unemployed in British Columbia than in any other province; we pay more taxes; our schools cost a third of the provincial revenues, if not more. We have more strikes than in either Quebec or Ontario.

As for the beautiful province of Alberta, it is not Social Credit which has helped it, but rather the oil wells and government permits. Before the exploitation of the oil, this province was one of the poorest. The taxes there are as high as they are in other provinces, and the government has nothing to show save homes for the aged.

As for the dividend, it is a joke. The government of British Columbia has remitted to us a little sum on our taxes which are too high, but the municipalities have increased their taxes. We have gained exactly nothing.

Everything seems to be beautiful and ideal from afar, but you have to live, or try to live, there to know the real state of affairs.

Dr. C. BOURGET, Penticton, B.C.

P.S. The budget of British Columbia is 336 million dollars this year for a population of a million and a half. That of Quebec is 700 millions for a population of five millions. Our gasoline tax went up 3 cents a gallon this year; the government is thus taking 8 millions more. The hospital tax is 3 percent in spite of help from Ottawa.

Dr. C.B.