Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue the argument which the parliamentary secretary used to try to explain why the government feels the $150 expense allowance for workers is sufficient. If I understood him correctly, he said that the economic situation is such that the miner can afford to move more than a quarter of a mile away from the mine shaft, that he can afford to move 10, 15 or 20 miles away from his place of work and that the state does not and should not subsidize his expenses in travelling to and from work. But the parliamentary secretary did not address himself to the question that we have been asking. Why does the government have two standards? Why does the government apply that particular standard to the workingman, the factory worker, the man working in a mine or a mill?
To the doctor who lives in Rockcliffe and has an office in downtown Ottawa, who uses his car to go from his home to his office and from his office downtown to the Civic Hospital to see his patients, the government does not say, "You want to live in Rockcliffe and if you have to see your patients at the hospital you will have to pay expenses you incur." On the contrary, the government says to him, "You can charge off a very substantial part of the cost of your car, not just the gas and oil but depreciation and everything else."
The government says to the lawyer who wants to live in Kanata, uses his car to come to his office on Sparks Street or on Metcalfe Street and then uses it to go to the court
October 28, 1971
Income Tax Act
house, "You can travel from your home in Kanata 20 miles to downtown Ottawa, from there to the court house and back to Kanata at night, and you can charge off 70 per cent of the expense of your car in the form of a deduction from your income tax." I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I am pretty stupid-
Subtopic: INCOME TAX ACT