Mr. Lewis:

These people who have misgoverned this country for over 100 years are so determined that they will do everything possible to prevent Canada from making progress, but the people will see to that. I say, sir-

Mr. David Lewis (York South):

Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), I understood why he had delayed so long in presenting his budget. Even he was ashamed of it. To suggest that the budget attacks the problem of the rising cost of living is the height of hypocrisy. To suggest that the budget helps those most hurt by the burden of rising prices is the depth of cruelty.

I have said often in this House on behalf of the New Democratic Party, as have other members of my party, that we reject the idea of over-all wage and price controls. In this we agree with the minister, so far as his budget is concerned, although I am somewhat worried about the

The Budget

Mr. Lewis

contingency plan about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has spoken.

We disagree with the idea of wage and price controls for reasons we have often given. Let me summarize them in one sentence. I suggest that such policy would either freeze high prices and low wages or would have to be so modified that it would cease to be an over-all plan and would become what the NDP has proposed, a selective price control system. Indeed, the members of the Conservative Party themselves have edited their proposal. First, it was to be a 90-day freeze; then it was to be for 120 days; then they were to institute controls for 18 months. Then, there were to be controls for two years. Then, there would be no freeze or control at the farm gate; then low paid workers were to have their wages lifted. I think the proponents of the idea of over-all price and wage controls have condemned it themselves, because they cannot stick with it.

But equally, we will not accept the proposition that nothing can be done for the people of Canada with respect to the rising cost of living. We reject the notion that you can let the corporations control the market at the expense of the consumer, and slap them on the wrist for so doing, as the minister did yesterday. The redistribution of income in Canada that has taken place in the last year or two has been redistribution in reverse, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I express my gratitude to the members of this House. The minister rejected the excess profits tax mainly because he said they could not technically define what is desirable and what is excess profit. There was not sufficient ingenuity in his department to be able to solve the technical problem. I have seen the work of his department before. The people in his department have ingenuity enough when they want to do their own thing. The only time they lack ingenuity is when we want them to do the right thing. But the minister says to the people of Canada and to this House, not in these words but to this effect, that he will not bring in an excess profit tax but that he has a new one, a 10 per cent surtax on corporate taxes. That sounded pretty good until I read the entire paragraph and found that he had excluded a number of areas of the economy.

He excluded, let me say quickly so that he will not have to remind me, small businesses and I agree with him that they should be excluded. I have no argument with that. There is no end to my generosity. However, from the 10 per cent surtax the minister excludes processing, mining, petroleum, investment corporations, mortgage investment corporations, mutual fund corporations and non-resident owned investment corporations. Let us be fair-he leaves the banking and financial institutions and they ought to be kicked a great deal more than in the past, I agree. He leaves some other industries. The point I want to make is that the areas of the economy which made the largest profits in 1973-74, which had the largest increases in profits in 1973-74, are excluded from the 10 per cent surtax. The suggestion that that is an alternative to the excess profits tax is really an unacceptable thing. Then, there is the half tax on capital gains which remains.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have come to my concluding paragraph or two.

Mr. Lewis:

Just don't try to be a psychiatrist.

Mr. Lewis:

That's right.