September 15 to October 15 will certainly help many people. In the cities on or before September 15 the last instalment of city taxes will just have been paid; the water rates will be due, and the householder has either put his coal in for the winter or is putting it in, so that the month's grace will help. But I wonder if even October 15 will not handicap a good many. There are some who would
like to pay all at once, but the discount does not make it worth while. Is it one per cent where the taxpayer pays all in advance?
What about the farmer? I am connected in one way with a farm, but it does not affect the farm I have in mind. Farmers' crops may be harvested by
October 15, but they will not have been disposed of by that time. How will the
farmer pay even on October 15 before receiving from the government, as in the western provinces, the allowance with respect to wheat, for instance? The fall payment on machinery will be due. I sincerely hope that the income tax will not work to the disadvantage of the whole country as so many seem to think it will. It certainly will come very hard on most people, advancing the payments from March 31 as they have been making them in the past, to October and January, at a time earlier than they formerly paid their taxes.
I am sure the minister will appreciate the plea made on behalf of the farmers by the hon. member for Davenport. He is always on the job, whether it is farming, mining or anything else. The change in the dates of the quarterly payments will be of some assistance, but I should like to have seen the first made November 15 at least, and the second, February 15. Western members can verify the fact that the farmer will not have much return by October 15. This year the season is late; expenses have to be met first; the quota on the first delivery may be very small, not many farmers will be able to take advantage of the first quarterly payment on October 15. Would the minister consider making it November 15? I have no objection to April and July.
I should like to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, particularly with reference to this year. If the minister will discuss this matter with his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, he will find he is having difficulty right now with his wheat board in trying to work out some arrangement whereby the coming crop can be marketed. There will be a tremendous shortage of help this fall, and even in a normal season October 15 is very early for the farmer to make his first payment. This is going to be an abnormal season. There is a great shortage of help on the prairies to take
additional to the resolution. They are administrative, for the most part, and will be explained by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue. I was asked to consider many changes. I cannot remember them all, but they have all been considered.
That is the retail purchase tax section, I suppose. I will bear that in mind and mention it when we come to it. I do not know how far I should go in drawing to the attention of the committee changes which have been made, but I want to do so, so that it will not be said that anything important was changed without the committee having been advised. There is a change made in the definition of "company", and in subsection 2 will be found paragraph (b) defining or interpreting the term "company".
made with reference to companies all of whose business is the insuring of churches, schools, or other religious, educational or charitable institutions. The situation in the past has been that a mutual company which insured farm property to the extent of at least 50 per cent of its business was free from the special war revenue tax of one per cent on the premium. But that exemption did not extend to companies whose business was wholly the insuring of churches, schools or other educational or charitable institutions.
Parish mutuals, in the province of Quebec. When we prepared the resolutions we substituted a 3 per cent for a 1 per cent tax on those institutions, although there had never been any provincial tax on them. The result was clearly unjust. The whole question was then whether in preparing the bill we should remove the 2 per cent that we had inadvertently imposed in the resolutions, or whether we should relieve them altogether. Well, if their business is wholly- 100 per cent, not only 50 per cent as in the case of the farm mutuals-the insurance of churches, schools or other religious, educa-
tional or charitable institutions, it seems to be a reasonable thing to remove it altogther. That is what is done here.