That, I would think, would be a two-bit reduction by the two-bit boys on the other side of the House. This is not what we were led to believe. This is not what the country expects nor what the country wants today. I do not intend, of course,
Mr. Speaker, to analyse the various proposals which have been brought before us tonight. Undoubtedly there are some very minor things included in the chaff with which we have been fed, and I would want some time before dealing with them. We will be doing that, I hope, in the relatively near future. In the few minutes left tonight I just want to sketch one or two of the outlines which I think are important. One of the most important defects in this alleged budget is the failure of the Minister to deal with the sales tax on not only building materials but at least on production machinery. This, Mr. Speaker, can hardly be anything but a deliberate omission on the part of the Minister of Finance, who had to retreat so far and so long and so fast on his first budget that he is determined to hold on to some vestige of that budget so he can show posterity that all of it was not scrapped. All of it should be scrapped and he would be a better Minister of Finance if it were scrapped.
Talk about tax reduction. Talk about income tax reduction. The President of Chemcell at the annual meeting last week said that if that tax was not repealed or changed, his company, with over 50 per cent of its products being exported, would have to pay a surcharge, as he called it, of over $1 million a year. That is one company in the export business that will be paying this amount of money because of the tax on production machinery and equipment. Sir, that is one thing that should have been dealt with. I will go into it at greater length on another occasion; but I want to emphasize that I think the country naturally expected something of that kind to be done, perhaps not with regard to the sales tax on all building materials, although that would have been desirable, but certainly with regard to the sales tax on the equipment and supplies going into production. This is something that I think would do more to develop and take the check off the economy than anything else that could have been done, and here the Minister absolutely refuses, apparently-although I am quite sure there was a great deal of pressure and argument brought to bear upon him-to do something that should have been done. For some reason he did not do this.
Another glaring omission in the budget, of course, is the failure to deal in any way with the problem of education. This is one of the fundamental problems with which this country is concerned; one which obviously, as we know, comes under provincial jurisdiction but
April 26. 1965 COMMONS
one in which the Federal Government, as I have said and we have said on this side of the House time and time again, must take a greater responsibility and greater activity. Yet there is no mention of that in the budget.
Mr. Speaker, one could go on listing the omissions. I have just jotted down rough notes as we went along and I will develop some of those later on.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Topic: INCOME TAX ACT RESOLUTION