This afternoon when the hon. member for Temiscouata was criticizing the government for the policy involved in this particular measure, he made some reference to consistency and logic with particular reference to myself. I rather resented1 his remarks with respect to me, because I have always prided myself on being consistent and logical in what I say. If the hon. gentleman has any criticism to make of anything I have said in the past on economics or on the British North America Act, I suggest that he take the text of my remarks and indicate in what respect I have been inconsistent and illogical. I believe that the shoe is on the other foot. I think the hon. gentleman is the one who is illogical and inconsistent. On the one hand, he criticizes his party and the government for taxation policy and, on the other hand he does not suggest any alternative. Yet he has the audacity and the effrontery to ridicule and scoff at suggestions which emanate from this group. Furthermore, he indicates his inconsistency most definitely by voting opposite to the way in which he talks, when it comes to a vote. So, when it comes to a matter of consistency, I suggest that the hon. gentleman resort to a little introspection.
I think the only members of this house who have spoken logically on the principle involved in this particular bill and similar bills are the members of the Social Credit group. We have heard much criticism on the part of certain hon. gentlemen in the Liberal party; we have also heard a great deal of it from the Conservatives and from the C.C.F. But if they were in the seats of the mighty, what policy would they pursue? What would be their source of funds? What would be their method of attempting to achieve the results which the government alleges it is attempting to achieve? With regard to the Conservative party, I cannot imagine their using any different policies whatsoever from those which the government is using. They have not indicated that they have any other policy. If they are to reduce taxation in some respects, they must raise money by other means. Thus far they have not subscribed to the Social Credit way of doing it, and they have not any of their own. So I think they are certainly guilty of inconsistency as well.
I think the same reasoning can be applied to our C.C.F. friends. They moved an amendment this afternoon in an attempt to abolish at least one section of this measure, in order to reduce taxes which are being levied or which might be levied. But on the other hand, if they were in office and were managing the government, what would they use as a source of funds? How would they derive their revenue? So far as I am able to observe from listening to their statements, they would resort to taxation. They have not suggested any alternative. So whether, under their administration, they raise the money through this particular means or not, they would still have to resort to taxation. In advocating the policies which they have advocated, I cannot see how they can consider themselves to be consistent.
Therefore that leaves only the members of the Social Credit group who, in my opinion, have spoken consistently on this. All through the years we have advocated drastic reductions of taxation, even to the point of total elimination of dominion taxation. But we have not left it there. We have indicated an alternative for the raising of money.
Topic: WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic: EXCISE TAX ACT AMENDMENT