Alphonse Verville
Labour
Mr. A. VERVILLE (Maisonneuve):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the amendment now before the House. I am strongly in favour of that amendment and I desire to support it for many reasons, a number of which have already been disclosed to the House. It is wonderful how, that every time we bring up a matter of this kind, we are met with the cry: We want
to win the w.ar. I should like to know if the fact that I could ibuy my shoes and clothes cheaper would prevent the winning of the war. I would like to know if the fact that the labour classes of the country could feed and clothe themselves more cheaply would prevent the winning of the war. Such language is ridiculous in this House, and the matter is too serious for sucth language to foe used as has been used on far too. many occasions.
Every one knows that in collecting taxation by a tariff the Government secures only about twenty per cent of that taxation and the other eighty per cent is paid by the people to the manufacturers, while by direct taxation the Government would get the eighty per cent. There is a vast difference, therefore, between the results, that would foe' secured from those two methods of taxation. As I have stated 'before, every time the Government requires $20, I have to be taxed $100, whereas, if a tax were imposed on revenue, every time the Government would require $100, I would be taxed $20. The
average earning power of the working man in this country to-day is about $800, and as the tariff averages at the very least about 30 per cent, that means that the working man has to pay $240 of indirect taxation before he can eat anything. If, however, taxation of revenue were imposed, there would be a very great difference, and one would not have to go to school very long to be able with a lead pencil and piece of paper to calculate the amount. The Minister of Finance has more than once said in this House that it would be a rather difficult proposition for him to establish a system of taxation of income. My hon. friend, however, has devised other methods of direct taxation, and I am sure he can establish such a system if he so desires.
As for the taxation of profits made in the making of munitions, I would not be content with 25, or 50, or 75 per cent, as my hon. friend suggests, but I would take the whole of it. I would not allow anyone in this country an income of more than $5,000 a year. Everything above that I would take, and I should consider that pretty generous treatment. This might be considered a radical proposal, but we shall come to it some day, because the' people are not going to stand for the present system of taxation for all time to come. It has often been said in the House that working men who are engaged in the 5 p.m. munitions business are making from $10 to $12 a day, but as a matter of fact, in a factory of 5,000 employees, you would not find more than 10, and perhaps not that many, making $10 or $12 a day. Go into the homes of these munitions workers, and see the prices they have to pay for their foodstuffs. Potatoes are becoming so expensive that we shall soon see the ladies wearing them in their hats as ornaments; they are becoming an absolute luxury. I maintain that foodstuffs should come in free, and if my hon. friend objects that he would lose a certain amount of revenue let him put on direct taxation, and that would bring in not merely the amount he would lose by wiping out these duties, but from 50 to 60 per cent more. I believe that foodstuffs should all be admitted duty free, and that is why I am supporting this resolution. ' I want it to be well understood that lowering the cost of living, giving the people cheaper food and clothing, will not prevent us from winning the war.
Subtopic: REVISED EDITI )N COMMONS
