Sharp brings in mini-budget

By PHYLLIS CLARKE
E NOW have a minister of
finance who has decided
to bepart educator.
Feeling that Canadians believe
in Santa Claus, and regard the
| federal government as Santa’s
_ agent between Christmases, the
Hon. Mitchell Sharp has decid-
ed to shatter these illusions.

No, we are not working for
Santa he has said. Every time
Parliament votes to spend
money, someone must pay, and
you ‘know who that means —
you, the taxpayer.

In case you have any doubt I
will prove it to you. We just
decided to increase old age
Security pensions to those
whose total income is only their
pension, at present $75 a month.
Now we have to find the money.
So voila, a. mini-budget: Who’s
_ he kidding. We never saw Sharp

as a fat, jolly man giving out
presents.

Whom does this budget. hit?
Why the pensioner, of course,

IF WE CANT STOP

and the low wage worker. May-
be that will convince them to
stop asking for more social sec-
urity in this country!

For Mr. Sharp, with many al-
ternatives before him, picked
a sure thing. He decided that
the sales tax should be increased
one percent starting at the be-
ginning of Canada’s centennial
year.

Everyone knows that the sales
tax is the one that hits hardest
those people who are in the low
income brackets. Up will go
prices again and so that extra
$30 the pensioners got, that
wage increase many workers
won, that roll back on prices
the housewives fought for, will
all go up the flue.

E. H. Van Slyke of Toronto,
general manager of the Retail
Merchants Association of Can-
ada, has already said that this
one percent in federal sales tax
will mean a two percent in-
crease when it gets to the con-
sumer.

LET'S PROTECT

: When over 600 Prudential cre-
| ditors met last week in Toronto,
they were angry. They were
frightened. They were woeful.

For some of them this meant

the end of their savings, and .

what could they do?

There was an old-age pension-
er who had lost the $1,030 she
had saved from her pension
cheques. There was the worker
on compensation, a father of six
children, who had his retirement
money wiped out. There was a
retired machinist—all his sav-
ings are now gone.

What had happened to Pru-
dential? Why was there no pro-
tection for these people who had
put their savings into this fi-
nance company?

There are thousands of others

who had polices in the two Pru-
dential-owned insurance compa-
nies that have gone into bank-
ruptcy.
- Why could such a_ thing
happen? Why is there no gov-
ernment control over finance
companies as there is for banks?
Why are there no guarantees for
the creditors?

One thing that has been dis-
closed because of Prudential is
that if the policy holders had
gone to a British or foreign firm
thay would have had protection.

Finance Minister Sharp in

contrasting the Canadian from
the foreign firms has said, “Their
(foreign firms) securites are de-
posited with me and therefore
they cannot be stolen.”

Sharp has called a meeting
_ with the general insurance asso-

ciaton. “I should like to discuss
with the Canadian companies,”
he said, ‘whether it is neces-
sary to tighten regulations in
such a way that the policy hold-
ers of the Canadian companies
have just as much protection as
the policy holders of British or
foreign companies operating in
Canada.”

Locking the barn door after
the horse is gone is hardly new
in Canadian poltics. It would
be good if in addition to perhaps
equalizing protection, such as it
is, for the future, the govern-
ment would give some assur-
ance that no indivdual will suffer
the loss of their savings because
of the thievery of the Pruden-
tial management.

But beyond the immediate
question is the question as to
whether Canada is to continue
to be at the mercy of private
interests in its banking and fi-
nancial institutions.

It is not only the sort of prob- -

lems for individuals that can be
an outcome of private owner-
ship in this area, but of great
importance as well is the extent
to which private banking inter-

ests are or will be concerned °

with the development of the
economy of our country.

Four years ago when the
Royal Commission on Banking
and Finance was holding its
public hearings, the Communist
Party in its submission propos-
ed the nationalization of bank-
ing and credit.

The need for this is underlined
today because of Prudential. It

_(NDP,

“When you take all the goods
across the board,” he says, “‘and
average them out, you usually
find that any increase at the
manufacturing level is doubled
by the time it reaches the con-
sumer at the counter. The in-
crease in cost has to be passed
on to the consumer somehow.”

Both the Conservative and
New Democratic Party financial
critics have asked the question
as to why the extra money
needed on the pensions couldn’t
have come from the Old Age
Security fund. Colin Cameron,
Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands) said the budget was un-
necessary, incompetent and an
exercise in futility.

Of course Cameron is think-
ing that he is dealing with a
finance minister. He has forgot-
ten that Sharp is out to educate
the public and just taking the
money out of existing funds
(even if there is more than suf-
ficient) can hardly do that.

William Kashtan, leader of

THEFT
CITIZENS

is underlined today because the
imbalances in the Canadian
economy which were evident in
1962 are even more serious to-
day. ;
“Nationalization,” said the
Communist Party brief, “of the
banking and ‘credit system
would make it possible to
achieve a balanced economic de-
velopment, based on the genuine
industrialization of Canada —
manufacturing of finished goods
from our natural resources, our
energy and our manpower, and
the elimination of the condition
in which ‘manufacturing occu-
pies a less important part of the
economy than 10 years ago. This
would reduce our dependence
on the USA for a large part of
most all our machinery and
machine tools...

“Nationalization would help
reduce interest charges on loan
capital, encourage capital in-
vestments in manufacturing, in-
crease the rate of economic
growth and stimulate employ-
ment. Lower interest rates
would discourage the flow of

foreign capital and thus reduce |

our dependence upon it.

“Nationalization would ensure
a much more efficient credit
system.”

Sharp says there is really not
much can be done to stop thiev-
ery. Well, nationalization of
banking and credit is the way to
ensure that we shall not again
see the pathos of people meet-
ing with their savings wiped
out as happened last week in
To-a110,

a Sab nes 8 te

the Communist Party, was sharp-
ly critical of the budget.

He said: “Mr. Sharp’s mini-
budget was completely unneces-

_Sary. The fact is that the gov-
.ernment in raising the federal

sales tax by one percent has
opened the door to rising prices
on almost anything Canadians
need. The cost of living will rise
and erode living standards.

“The proposed increase in in-
comes for old age pensioners
could have been met by other
government measures, including
a reduction in arms expendi-
tures and an increase in corpo-
ration taxes.

“Mr. Sharp -claims this is a
neutral budget. What is neutral
about a budget which places the
main burden of hidden, addi-
tional taxes on average incomes
while enabling the big corpora-
tions to add to their profits
from the one percent increase
in the federal sales tax?

“The mini-budget is a green
light for the price gougers, and
a blow to the living standards
of the people. And this at a time
when government policy is lead-
ing to. a.slow-down in economic
growth, with prospects of rising
unemployment in 1967. The fact
is that Mr. Sharp is cynically
using the non-existent threat of
inflation to prevent working
people from getting a larger
share of the wealth they pro-
duce, and cancel out what they
won on the picket line.

“Far from being in ‘delicate
balance’ the economy is moving
downward and will continue to

do so unless present govern-—

ment policy is reversed. What
the Canadian people need most
today is a budget directed to ex-
pansion of the economy and the
Taising of the living standards
of the people. The mini-budget
is a spiteful one and ought to be
rejected by Parliament.”

Of course, Sharp made some
exceptions on the sales tax in-
crease — building machinery
and production materials. With
all the excitement going on
about a Crisis in house construc-
tion Sharp said he was hoping
to avoid any further difficulties
for the hard-pressed construc-

No, Mr. Taxpayer
there is no Santa

tion industry. The hard-pressed
consumer obviously doesn’t have
the same interest to this mod-
ern-day Scrooge.

Back in the dark ages, before
Mitchell’ Sharp became the
Liberal’s strong man, there was
a commission established, the
Carter Commission. It has met;
it has heard briefs; it has been
working on a report on propos-
als for changes in the tax struc-
ture in this country. Of no royal
commission in history, perhaps,
has there been more rumors

_that a report is coming and

fewer signs of a report.

Those who argue that there
should be no mini-budgets at
this time, that the Carter Com-

_ Mission be heard from, and then

some real changes made, make
a great deal of sense. It is quite

‘obvious that there would have

been no crisis in government
financing had Sharp waited un-
til spring to bring in his regular
budget. All reports indicate that
the surplus in the old age secur-
ity fund would not be used up
until the middle of 1969. .

One can only come to the con-
clusion that this mini-budget is
nothing more than the answer
of the establishment to the strike
struggles, to the rising demands
for increased pensions and medi-
care now, to the attack on the
monopoly-set price structure.

And it’s going to take the
united action of the workers, far-
mers, pensioners, housewives, to
get the sort of budgets that will
be in their interest.

All the opposition parties
have criticized the mini-budget.
But words are not enough. With
sufficient pressure, the minority
Liberal government can _ be
forced to repudiate Sharp’s pro-
posals and Parliament should
act in that direction.

Sharp has wrapped himself in
a pious mantle of speaking for
the taxpayers. Well, the taxpay-
ers can sure strip him of that if
they put on the heat.

No, there’s no Santa Claus on
Parliament Hill, but the people
of Canada should make sure
Mitchell Sharp doesn’t play
Santa to the monopoly interests
either.

_—...

-_—

‘ies

”

happily ever afterwards .

“And the prince and princess were married and lived

Nedelya (Moscow)