5

_ BWC, BEECHI
VERYONE cess an
on budget. Premier
Bon sane said it was a bud-
* a ich he could willingly
an c People. The CCF has
ao election Campaigning.
Ba on leader Woodrow
ar Said the CCF would be
Bo ae 8rave error if it did
1967, Sure on an election in

So ‘
on, “"e Buessing game is still
_N .
hough “ssing about the budget,
he bug tripped of its shine,
Saskatches describes how the
Ment will carry octal _govern-
mic poli Carry out those econ-
Policies best suited to the

e .
the ‘ . big business. And how
tracted 4, to do it will be ex-
Work: 10m the incomes of the

and farmers.

*UCe the
Paid by th
hteres

; t pai
Batelen to the bankers and

high
ams, jobs

é Prices, youth pro-
education

Se unities; under-
medi » Seriously inadequate
* Onesttvices and poor folie:

Could also add regional

Dack:

; nes and real poverty.
a moun gloated that
(i the » € No tax increases
] ®cord $300,000,000 bud-

ADicgec
Dublig ‘ations to appear at the
House faring of the Senate-
edit Pace on Consumer
ick an 1ces) must have been
Schedules ‘4st as they had full
they visit s1 every place that
es across Canada.
Carry a ercek the Tribune will
Of the ween Summarizing some
Ms, Points in these hear-
Or one ,
at Place, at least — Lon-
®PPointmer mittee refused an
test roup. 9 a Consumer pro-
and Distr And the Hamilton
Ssociati A Consumer's Protest
Sted, quite Properly pro-

i. e
| dent fase? that their presi-
Sue Hammond, had
tee, ore before the com-
*Umerg ee the Canadian Con-
Tolest Association ap-
the; Public rallied to
and after the
control, Hamil-

tm, SYPPort
a, Or, boarg of

ee
£ ‘ Minny —
3 * FMR Ae tee ne

ar, eran
% Ve Matatigeas 2

‘ SINT tye SAS |

budget

get, and that a modest surplus
would be realized. The latter is
important for Premier Thatcher,
because he has been an ardent
opponent of deficit financing.
The opposition has shown that
the picture is false.

For big business, corporation
taxes will rise by about 6.6 per-
cent to approximately $16 mil-
lion. This amounts to slightly
more than 5 percent of the total
budget. If you add to this re-
sources revenues, mainly from
the monopolies, of about 15.5
percent of the budget, it means
the corporations pay about 20
percent of the total budget.

The working people will make
up the balance. There are five
main sources: income; gasoline;
and 4 percent education and
hospitalization tax; liquor pro-
fits; .and automobile licenses.
These total 61 percent of. the
budget revenue. Add another 12
percent from federal-provincial
payments which the taxpayer
has already paid to Ottawa.

Where will the money be
spent? Some of it on things
needed — none of it adequate.
The construction companies will
be in the gravy. The bankers
will get more interest than ever,

PRICES BATTLE

ton MPs, trade unions in the
Hamilton area and others had
wired the chairman of tre com-
mittee supporting the right of

the Hamilton group to be heard,”

an appointment was granted
and, late in the afternoon of the
London hearing, Mrs. Hammond
presented the brief on behalf of
her organization.

While this parliamentary
committee is still gathering evi-
dence the Ontario government
has taken up one aspect at least
of the demands of the consum-
ers, Attorney General Arthur A.
Wishart announced that legisla-
tion would be introduced to out-
law the use of trading stamps in
Ontario.

Bruce Magnuson, Ontario
leader of the Communist Party,
in welcoming this announce-
ment said: “It is to be hoped
that any legislation along these
lines will outlaw all unneces-
sary and costly gimmickry in

Saskatchewan's
chromium-plated

since the per capita debt has
risen 10 percent to $660 million.
The doctors are promised a fee

increase in a year’s time.

The Local Government Board
has turned down almost all pro-
posals for public works, school
and hospital construction.
There’s a serious shortage of
nurses, doctors and dentists;
and long waiting lists for hos-
pital admissions. Regina last
year suffered the greatest drop
in housing starts on the prairies.
The highest cost of living in
Canada is on the prairies.

Strangely (because there is
no Communist MLA?) no one
has raised the question of Otta-
wa spending nearly $2-billion a
year on armaments, even a por-
tion of which could go a long
way to solve the tax crisis. Also
notably absent are any proposals
to end the special relief accord-
ed the big potash and oil mono-
polies through low royalty rates
and tax holidays.

Until these questions are
tackled, arguments about tax
reform. and reforms in general
are unrealistic. Avoiding these
questions dodges the kind of
political struggle which gets at
the heart of the tax crisis, fede-
ral-provincial relations and the
needs of the prairies.

There will be no meaningful
tackling of the questions of
markets and jobs, health, educa-
tion, homes, until this struggle
is joined in the legislature.

’ Refusal to hear group
| Prompts wide protest

advertising. Such costs do even-
tually find their way into the
price structure and are thus
paid for by consumers.
“Ontario may well take the
lead in establishing some ma-
chinery for putting a stop to
misleading advertising, mani-
pulation of prices and cheating
of the consumer by means of
various unethical practices.
“This may be done by estab-
lishing a permanent public re-
view board empowered to hear
complaints from consumers and
people’s organization and to re-
commend specific action where
needed to protect consumers in-
terests. Hearings of complaints
before such a body should be
conducted in public.”

Overheard at a ladies’ lun-
cheon: “So I told him if he
doesn’t make his alimony pay-
ments promptly, Vll repossess
him!”

math,| THE ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
NE IN SESSION

Where is the money
to come from?

A WEEKLY COMMENTARY

By BRUCE MAGNUSON
Ontario Leader of the Communist Party

HE idea advanced by Ken Bryden, financial critic of the
New Democratic Party in the Ontario Legislature, that
the province should draw the ‘municipalities into annual

budget conferences and a closer partnership in governing this
province is an excellent idea. .

Ever since 1950 the municipal share of overall govern-
ment expenditures have increased so enormously that already
by 1962 municipal spending exceeded federal government
spending. By 1965 Canadian municipalities accounted for 42.7
percent of spending in this country. The federal government
accounted for 34 percent and the provinces came last with
23.3 percent. These figures do not include income transfer
payments, welfare and interest on public debt.

Spending by all governments more than doubled in the
decade from 1955 to 1965. But as percentage of gross national
product this increase was less than one percent (17.7 percent-
18.5 percent) because of the rapid increase in economic deve-
lopments and growth.

Two salient facts stand out from the above observations:
(1) The tax burden is being shifted from federal and provin-
cial governments to the municipalities whose main source of
tax revenue is real estate. (2) It is clear from this situation
that senior governments are not assuming their rightful share
of responsibility for measures aimed to redistribute part of
the enormously increased wealth derived from productive ac-
tivity, to increase buying power, expand social capital and,
to some degree at least, influence the level of economic activ-
ity. In a system of private ownership, private profit and pri-
vate wealth accumulation, this failure by senior governments
is bound to increase poverty in the midst-of affluence.

The heaviest tax burdens are being put on people with
modest or low incomes, on homeowners, tenants and the
masses of consumers who pay indirect taxes of all kind, such
as the sales tax, and higher rents.

The Ontario budget was deceitful in the extreme in this
respect. Last year the government upped the sales tax by
66.66 percent. This year it budgeted for a large deficit because
it is an election year. But what about next year?

Mr. Bryden challenged Liberal leader Robert Nixon to say
where he would get the money to pay for 80 percent of edu-
cation costs. Perhaps Mr. Nixon has in mind that as the head
of a new Liberal government he would add three or four per-
cent to the present five percent sales tax? Clearly such a policy
would not relieve the medium and low income groups, even
if it would ease the municipal tax burden. It would be a mat-
ter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It would be giving with one
hand and taking it away with the other.

But Mr. Bryden did not challenge this policy. In fact he
agreed with Mr. Nixon that this is where the money would
have to come from if the municipalities were relieved of the
education costs all at one time. Mr. Bryden’s alternative would
be to embark on a phased program of assuming five percent
of education costs every year over the next five years, which
he felt, could be absorbed by new sources of tax revenue. ;

Well, really, Mr. Bryden! Here I must disagree with you
completely. As the financial critic of the only party that can
challenge the two old parties for power in the coming election
it was surely incumbent upon you to expose Mr. Nixon’s hypo-
crisy and to provide a genuine alternative. That alternative is
to reform the tax structure on the basis of ability to pay: a
heavier tax on the rich, the speculators and profiteers; a tax
on capital gains. Lay-off the middle and low income brackets.
Any tax which reduces the standard of living of a taxpayer
below a certain minimum level, contradicts the principle of
ability to pay and is therefore retrogressive. That is the crux
of democratic tax reform. The source of new revenue is accu-
mulated wealth plus increased economic growth.

To be an alternative to the old capitalist parties the New
Democratic Party has to challenge the present power struc-
ture and its capitalist backers, and prove to the people that it
means to do so. Anything short of this is political opportun-
ism that will only end in defeat.

March 10, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Poge 3