February 21, 1983

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

INCOME TAX


The House resumed from Tuesday, February 15, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-139, to amend the Statute Law relating to Income Tax (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.


PC

Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak at second reading stage on Bill C-139. The first thought that occurs to me is that 1 am participating in what fundamentally is an anti-democratic exercise. We have a Bill here that is 295 pages long and we have just heard the Clerk of the House indicate that the motion would move this Bill to a Committee of the Whole.

Inside this Bill are an enormous number of tax changes which attack our society, which create unemployment and which are not good for this nation. If we were moving this Bill into a standing committee we could call witnesses to provide us with testimony on the possible impact of each of the provisions of the Bill. By moving it into a Committee of the Whole, I am quite certain that the Government will ultimately invoke closure. We will not even be able to debate, with the kind of sureness that is required, each of the individual clauses and each of the individual tax measures. We certainly will not be able to call witnesses to tell the Canadian people and Members of this House what the possible repercussions are of each of these individual tax changes.

It reminds me of the omnibus energy Bill. That was such an abomination of democratic principles that we were forced as an Opposition to ring the bells in this Chamber for two weeks before the Government agreed to split the Bill into different parts and to move it to committee where witnesses could be heard.

Mr. Speaker, we are elected to come to this Chamber, hopefully with a sense that collective wisdom will prevail. We are not all experts on all aspects of Canada and the Canadian economy. Very few of us can feel comfortable with the diverse range of topics that go from national defence to atomic energy to farming to manufacturing, and on and on and on.

Some time today we will be asked to vote on this piece of legislation which is 295 pages long. It includes complex tax provisions which will affect all aspects of Canadian society. We have the certain knowledge that it will move into Committee of the Whole where we can talk about it more and question the Minister. However, experts and average Canadians will be denied the right to appear before a parliamentary committee as witnesses to provide information to Parliamentarians on what might be good in the legislation, what might be bad and what needs changing.

When the Government adopts processes of this kind regarding legislation that is so important, it is no small wonder that the country is in trouble. If you have bad processes, you have bad conclusions. If you have good processes, there is no guarantee of good conclusions, but the odds go up that the conclusions will be better.

As I stand in this Chamber and try to review the 295 pages of this Bill, I ask myself what principles are contained in this legislation. The first one that leaps out as I read through it is that this Bill will attack employers. Employers are the job creators. Many of the provisions will make it more difficult for companies to stay alive and employ people. In the present climate with over 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, why bring in a piece of legislation which attacks the employers, the job creators?

A principle of this Tax Bill will disallow future legitimate business costs. Businesses which want to grow and expand must borrow money. The interest cost on that money is a legitimate business cost, but this legislation says that some parts of it will not be legitimate. A trucking business that wants to expand must buy more trucks and a construction business would buy more construction machinery. According to this Bill, the cost of that machinery will no longer be a legitimate business cost in the same way. When you say to the employers of this nation that their interest costs, equipment costs, are not legitimate business costs, you are telling them not to grow, expand or hire more people. If you get an unemployment rate of over 12 per cent, with more than 1,600,000 Canadian unemployed, you should not be surprised. It is because the Government is attacking the employment creators through legislation such as this.

This Bill also attacks employees. It says they shall not benefit from their work the way they used to do. It is a discouragement for people to seek a job, a discouragement for them to put their heart and soul into their work. First it attacks employers and then employees. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, you should not be surprised to find 1,600,000 Canadians

February 21, 1983

Income Tax

unemployed. This Bill attacks all Canadians. The minute you put a six and five cap on deductions in the income tax system, you increase the tax take. You take $1 billion this year and $2 billion next year out of the pockets of Canadians and hand it over to Government. Therefore, Canadians cannot make purchases which would create jobs. A farmer cannot stay in business if no one buys his produce. No one can stay in a manufacturing business unless we have people willing to buy what the manufacturer makes. This Bill will be taking a great deal of money out of the pockets of the consumers of this nation, the buyers of this nation, and if the consequence of that is not increased unemployment, then tell me what it is. I suggest it is increased unemployment. If people are not buying, there will be no jobs.

[DOT] ("15)

One other aspect of this Bill and other legislation is that it is a specific attack on Canadian families. It is a specific attack on the principle of marriage. In a most clear-cut provision previously in our tax system we have declared that any adult Canadian is entitled to own one piece of property and to dispose of that piece of property without paying tax. But this Government, the Liberals on the other side, have decided that if a person signs a marriage licence they have half of the rights of all other adult Canadians. They have a shared right, a half right, simply because they signed a marriage licence.

As for the Child Tax Credit provisions, we cut Family Allowances in this Chamber the other day much to the objection of the Conservative Party. We replaced it with a one time only $50 bribe. It does not go on forever, it occurs only once. That extra $50, Mr. Speaker, is given to someone who makes $10,000 a year, and it is also given to someone who makes $40,000 a year. That is not just, Mr. Speaker. It is not right. We have nothing in this provision to strengthen the traditional family in this country and we are doing much to hurt it, even destroy it.

On the weekend I held a public meeting and many people attended. Many of those people were disturbed about specific provisions in this tax Bill. They were disturbed about the general thrust of policy over the last three years. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that what has been destroyed by this Government is the spirit of Canadians, the sense of confidence which Canadians have had in their country.

One day in this Chamber one of the Hon. Members opposite stood up and told Canadians what it was to be a Liberal. At the public meeting I held on the weekend a Liberal was described as someone who put Party first and Canada second. A Conservative was described as someone who put Canada first, family second and Party third. It is time we got back to that kind of philosophy.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
PC

David Edward Crombie

Progressive Conservative

Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):

because no one could understand what the investment policy or the state of the economic climate has been for the last 15 months.

Tax changes should be just and fair. The main theme which has been evident throughout all of the speeches which have been made in the Elouse, and indeed in editorials and statements from ordinary Canadians who were commenting on these budgets, clearly is that this legislation is not just and fair. Tax changes should be just and fair and perceived to be so. The theme which has been prevalent throughout speeches from all sides of the House has been that the tax changes hurt low and middle income people more than any others.

Second, there has been a shift in tax policy toward those who are self-reliant. This shift discourages people who are selfreliant and it discourages initiative.

Third, a tax regime has been created which has particularly left small and medium-sized businesses on their backs and gasping. This legislation is not just and fair. These are not tax changes which help low and medium-income Canadians. These are not tax changes which allow people who are self-reliant and have initiative to maintain that incentive. This is not a change in taxation which will allow us to support small and medium-sized businesses. Indeed, the reason the budget of 1981, the budget of June, 1982 and the budget of October, 1982 have been condemned time and again is simply because they have not only been confusing and unclear, but unjust and unfair.

The third principle which has been used for centuries to effect tax changes in a parliamentary system is that they must be seen to be linked to more general policies of Government, particularly as they relate to the economic environment. Tax changes do not exist in isolation; they are related to what a Government's economic program is. They are related to what a Government sees for the future economic growth of the country.

If you look through every page of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, including the explanatory notes, you will find nothing there about industrial strategy; you will not find much about improvement of productivity; you will not find much about the investment climate; you will not find much about human resources development; you will not find anything whatsoever about business confidence; you will not find anything about research and development; and you will find nothing about resource development.

There is nothing in these tax changes that in any way speaks to the Canadian people about the Government's economic program. These are tax changes related simply and only to the private imaginings of the people who work in the Finance Department and are unrelated to what happens in the streets, in the towns, in the villages and in the neighbourhoods of the country.

The reason that the Government is being challenged by this Opposition, and indeed is being challenged in all parts of the

Income Tax

country, is that these tax changes are not clear and understandable to the people. They create difficulties for investment. They are not tax changes which are fair and just and they are not tax policies which are linked to some kind of economic recovery, economic renewal and economic growth in the country.

That is why we not only oppose these changes vigorously but, I can assure the Government, 25 million Canadians oppose them as well.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
PC

Frederick John King

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):

Mr. Speaker, ten minutes is not sufficient time to discuss Bill C-139 in detail, so that will not be my purpose. Much less is it enough time to consider the damage caused to the Canadian economy by the policies and actions of the two most recent "Ministers for Gillespie", but we shall try.

In Madrid today the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, stretching its session into the third year, has as one of its aims to negotiate what they call confidencebuilding measures to reduce tensions between participating nations. What Canada needs today is a Government which is devoted to incorporating confidence-building measures into its philosophies, its politics, its actions, its motives and, most specifically, into its fiscal responsibilities. There is very little to generate confidence in the Government's management of national affairs.

This focus of blame on the Government of Canada cannot be dismissed as simply the rhetoric of Opposition Members. In its January, 1983 "Pre-Budget Statement to the Minister of Finance", the Canadian Chamber of Commerce observed, as set out on page 2 of that brief:

-uniquely Canadian factors which, in our view, have served to make the recession here in Canada more severe than it is in the United States or many of the countries in Europe.

On page 3 the brief goes on to say:

We believe that the most important "made-in-Canada" elements of our recession are the twin losses of consumer and business confidence.

On page 4 the brief reads:

-unprecedented weakness in business confidence . . . has resulted in extreme weakness in investment spending . . . while economic conditions were the most important factors causing the drop in business confidence, it is also clear that government policies have been a major contributing factor ... nearly 50 per cent of Canada's senior executives cited "government policies" as representing major impediments to increased investment.

In relation to taxing, the brief states on page 5;

-governments have been too optimistic in their assessment of the level of taxation that can be supported by the resource industries. As a result, overtaxation has undermined the ability of these industries to undertake the investment needed-

Confidence results from trust, trust that comes from a feeling that all will be dealt with fairly by the Government which has been entrusted with writing the rules under which we all live, individually and corporately.

The brief of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce indicated the unease which pervades society stating that:

February 21, 1983

Income Tax

-business confidence in the Government's commitment to private enterprise as the main engine of economic growth in Canada is extremely low.

Also, as the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) just stated, tax legislation must be understood and understandable to allow confidence to be in place.

Let us consider the confusion about the automobile standby charge which began within the Department of Finance. It lacked the proper information for employers until December, 1982. It has left a substantial and unreasonable tax burden on many employees for whom there could be no withholding of tax because there was no information. The request of the Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada for delay in implementation until 1983 is not unreasonable. But the bases of the standby charge are inequitable. The initial cost of vehicles and the cost of their operation reflects the purpose for which employers buy or lease vehicles. It is not right that employees should be charged a share of exaggerated costs which do not reflect upon their use of the vehicles.

Farmers today are banding together in the Canadian Farm Survival Association. They find the Government acting to put impediments in the way of their very intent to survive. In October, changes to the Farm Credit Corporation prescribed a penalty for the farmer who might wish to pay off a loan to take benefit of lower interest rates which now prevail. One Okanagan farmer advised me that he would save $400 per month by refinancing at today's interest rate.

June Menzies, speaking to the National Farm Products Marketing Council in Vancouver, said the following:

It is important for everyone to remember that the foundation stone of the whole food system is the primary producer-in this country, the independent, commercial, family farmer who owns the farm and lives on it.

Also she added:

Urban-dominated policy decision, if ill-informed or misinformed, could lead to his destruction.

She further observed that sensitivity was part of Government leadership. What evidence do we have of sensitivity on the part of this Government to what is happening in the agricultural community today? Can it be found in the evidence that there was a Canadian farm bankruptcy increase of 55 per cent to 405 in 1982? Fortunately only five of those bankruptcies occurred in British Columbia where the Government of that Province takes a more enlightened view of its responsibilities to agriculture and to society.

The changes being made to the Unemployment Insurance Act will involve farmers in compulsory deductions and premium payments for employees working as little as 15 hours in any week. This change is resented by farmers generally. The tree fruit industry in British Columbia is particularly concerned because there are so many extremely short-term workers involved in producing and harvesting crops. Surviving farmers selling their family farms to provide for retirement will find that they are adversely prejudiced by the new rules for property reserves and may very well be forced to pay taxes on money not yet received.

On a personal note, my father, who is 93 years of age, left last week for a holiday in Hawaii. He would have been grossly penalized by the actions of this Government. The implications for the longevity, good health and happiness of my father are difficult to assess.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
?

An Hon. Member:

Perhaps it was the apples.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
PC

Frederick John King

Progressive Conservative

Mr. King:

Yes, it could have been the apples, but what can be said is that his retirement comfort for the past nearly 30 years has been enhanced because he sold his orchard after 45 years of struggled farming, and when he sold it, he was not subject to the penalties to thrift and planning which the Government now places upon Canadians.

In a letter addressed to myself dated June 16, 1982 the then Minister of Finance explained some of the tax changes and indicated that:

The resulting revenue gain has been used to lower tax rates generally to the benefit of all Canadians.

Where is this benefit to all Canadians? Is it in the $27.2 billion deficit, the legacy of debt we leave for our children, the legacy of debt which the Government has run up through waste, patronage and carelessness? Is the benefit to all Canadians found in the competition on the part of Government for capital investment dollars that would better be put to productive use in Canada? Is the benefit to all Canadians to be found in the pressures of inflation and higher than necessary interest rates caused by year after year extravagances? Or is it to be found in the removal of incentives to work and achieve, which the Minister describes as benefits to Canadians?

Every action of this Government seems intent upon exacting some penalty on Canadians. The average citizen works, struggles and creates as he makes his way in the world, paying his bills, raising his family, pursuing the goals of home ownership and comfort in retirement. Especially evident is the way the Government puts blocks in the way of such individual achievement of legitimate goals.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
NDP

Ian Deans (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate which has taken place on this piece of legislation over the course of a number of days reinforces in my mind the problems which Canadians have in understanding the tax structure.

I listened to a number of Members express concern about the complexity of the system. Many of them admitted, I think quite justifiably, that even they were having difficulty understanding it, although it be true that many of them were involved in the actual drafting of the legislation or, if not in the actual drafting, certainly in the passing of the legislation which existed prior to these amendments being brought forward.

I want to take a moment to talk about four points which strike me as important in this debate. The first one which is important to understand is that the present tax system is inherently unfair. The tax system places far too heavy a burden on those with limited means, those who are struggling daily simply to meet financial commitments to themselves and their families. They are being asked to carry a far larger share

February 21, 1983

of the total tax burden than they reasonably can afford. I will return to this point in a moment.

The second point is the one 1 made a moment ago concerning the complexity of the Canadian tax system. 1 know of nowhere else where tax forms are so complex or where rules are so badly written as to make it virtually impossible for average Canadians, educated in the school system of the country, to understand what is expected of them when they fill out their tax forms. It has reached the point where, for the vast majority of Canadian families, tax time is not only a horror story, inasmuch as they might end up paying more than they can afford, but the very prospect of going through countless pages in an effort to find what it is they must pay and to what they are entitled by way of deduction is so onerous and frightening that a new business has been created in the country-the filling out of tax forms.

1 might say that I am sure other Members do as I do, and as I have done for a number of years, and that is provide through the constituency office a service, particularly to senior citizens. On occasion I provide this service to other than senior citizens. I assist people in filling out their tax forms. I confess that over the years it has become a complex matter. People arrive in my office with their tax forms in hand complete with their T-4s, T-3s, T-6s and other receipts. I have great difficulty in personally analyzing and coming up with something I feel confident will adequately reflect their tax situation.

My father, who is now retired, devotes a great deal of time to helping people. He has been an executive member of a credit union for years, and as such was involved in financial matters on a daily basis, and even since he has retired he is involved daily in financial matters. He takes the forms not only of those who cannot afford professional help but those who are unable to fill out their own forms, and he does it for them. He said to me just yesterday that the one thing that puzzles him is what that amount really means which is on the new tax form. It is supposed to reflect last year's income. He said: "I have not found anyone yet who can provide information, with the benefit of last year's forms, which would relate to that number appearing on this year's form. No wonder people are confused and do not understand." [DOT]

My father has taken a number of courses in order to keep up with the changes. If someone has a mind and a bent for that kind of work and still has difficulty understanding the form, then you can well understand, Mr. Speaker, the terrible problems that confront other citizens who are working eight or ten hours every day struggling to pay their bills. At the end of the year they have a form handed to them in which they have not been schooled and about which they have received no real information but they are expected to absorb the contents and fill in the forms.

You cannot talk about a tax bill without considering the whole priority of Government spending. The reason for the tax changes is that the Government's spending priorities have been

Income Tax

wrong over a substantially long period of time. You cannot help wondering as you look at the way this Government goes about establishing its priorities who gives the Government advice-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
PC

Blaine Allen Thacker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Thacker:

Who keeps the Liberals in power?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
NDP

Ian Deans (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Deans:

-who it is that suggests to the Government that it is appropriate to take from those who have little to give to those who have more than they reasonably need.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
PC

Blaine Allen Thacker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Thacker:

Who puts the Liberals in Government?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
NDP

Ian Deans (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Deans:

Yet this Government continually does that, egged on as you know, Mr. Speaker, by the Conservatives who are constantly preaching that people at the higher income levels need more, and to hell with those at the lower levels.

Then, of course, there is the need to look at the whole question of the Government's fiscal policy and the role of the Government in supporting the Bank of Canada's idiocy of the last two years. This support, I might say, as you are well aware, sir, was given not only by the Government of Canada but also by Conservative spokesmen. They supported a policy which time after time after time, as the Bank of Canada operated supposedly in the best interests of this country, has driven people out of their homes as a result of the insane high interest rate policy. Yet the representative of the Conservative Party on financial matters rose and said he believed that the Bank of Canada, and by implication the Government, was pursuing the right policy. You cannot look at the tax structure without considering that, too.

The four criteria for an analysis of the tax papers before us-the unfairness of the system, the complexity of it, the Government's spending priorities and the Government fiscal policy impact-add up to a terrible burden on the citizens of this country. This is a Government that has taken advice from all the wrong sources. It has followed policies that inflicted terrible hardship and it has followed policies that will inevitably, by virtue of what we have before us, add to the tax burden of the majority of Canadians. This action will make it no easier for Canadians to maintain themselves in the years to come than in the years just past.

Think about the questions 1 could ask, Mr. Speaker. How do you encourage a construction worker to work away from home on a project which may in the long run prove to be beneficial to the country if you are going to add a tax to his board so that he will be paying tax as if it were somehow or other income?

I see you are rising, Mr. Speaker. Let me add one final comment. How can you encourage small business development if interest rates, as a result of this Government's policy, will only drive those small business people out of business?

This Bill must get to Committee now. This Bill has to be analyzed more carefully because it will cause more harm than good.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
PC

William John Vankoughnet

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to

February 21, 1983

Income Tax

speak on Bill C-139, an Act to amend the statute law relating to the Income Tax Act.

I believe it is in the interest of the Canadian business community for the Government to eliminate the high amount of uncertainty that presently exists with regard to tax changes. The federal Government's budget of November, 1981 was not an equitable document. While the June, 1982 budget did eliminate some of the more onerous aspects of that disastrous budget, this past October budget-and I refer to the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Lalonde) Economic Statement as a budget-has still not completed the task that is so essential in relieving the stress of this recession. The Minister of Finance has produced a document that still does not eliminate those provisions introduced by his predecessor that have contributed to such high unemployment and so many bankruptcies in this country.

Interested groups and individuals from my federal constituency of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington have contacted me about particular aspects of the continual changes that have occurred in our income tax laws which serve to penalize the working man. It has been brought to my attention that, with the changed definition of "temporary employment", construction workers who incur legitimate expenses travelling from their permanent place of residence to the construction site where they are employed are now going to have to pay tax on this allowance.

All construction workers understand that their employment is temporary, based on the duration of the particular construction job. Construction workers are prepared to travel to their work wherever it occurs. The decision to tax the allowance for room, board and travel because the construction job has lasted more than two years is unrealistic. Workers in my riding are fortunate to be able to find employment at Ontario projects, such as at Bruce Peninsula and at Pickering. It is unrealistic for many of these workers to move to these sites due to the costs involved, allowable deductions for moving expenses notwithstanding, and the fact that the work is temporary and the individual can be laid off at any time. This is one example brought to my attention which illustrates the point that the Government's stated objective of implementing equity in the tax system in actual fact penalizes the working man.

I find that I am constantly reminded of the Liberal budget motion of 1979 which was moved by the former President of the Treasury Board and seconded by the former Minister of Finance. It stated:

-condemns the Government for its budget which will place an unfair and unnecessary burden of higher gasoline prices, higher fuel oil prices, and higher taxes on middle and lower income Canadians-

-condemns the Government for its outright betrayal of its election promises to lower interest rates, to cut taxes, and to stimulate the growth of the Canadian economy.

It is obvious that this Liberal Government's economic programs of the 1980s, as contained in the November, 1981 budget, which Parliament still finds itself addressing today, totally lacks reality, penalizes working Canadians, discourages investment, and has created an economic recession. There is no

doubt in the minds of the majority of Canadians that fiscal responsibility does not exist in the federal Government. In the November, 1981 budget, Canadians were told the deficit would be $10 billion. Then, in June of 1982, they were told that it would be $19 billion; the October, 1982 budget stated $23 billion, and now Canadians are being told $28 billion. Will the next announcement be $35 billion or $40 billion?

Now the Minister of Finance is asking Parliament for the authority to borrow a further $19 billion without giving any projection of need or any complete financial statements to back up this request. This is no way to run a country. If the average Canadian attempted, in any small way, to run his or her personal finances or small business the way in which the federal Government runs this country, he or she would certainly be bankrupt. The federal Government has been morally bankrupt for years. It cannot declare financial bankruptcy because it has nowhere to file.

The federal Government's high interest rate policy has forced a vicious cycle on Canadians. It has driven Canadians out of work. A record 1,598,000 Canadians were officially out of work in January of 1983. The Government's unemployment policy cost Canadian taxpayers approximately $8.5 billion in Unemployment Insurance benefits in 1982. For this cost, the federal Government informed Parliament that it must borrow $19 billion. This expensive borrowing supports the Government's high interest rate policy which will drive more Canadians out of work and force more Canadians through the high interest rate and high unemployment cycle once again.

The Minister of Finance insists that his October Economic Statement is not a budget. Glancing through Bill C-139, it is no wonder that small businessmen in Canada are experiencing great difficulty. This thick volume, comprising 295 pages of numerous provisions and the constant changes to the Income Tax Act, requires an army of accountants to decipher. It is painfully obvious to all Canadians, except those Liberal Members on the Government benches, that a simplification of Canada's tax laws is urgently required.

If the federal Government is serious in its desire to create a constructive program by which to help alleviate the unemployment in this country which leads to the kind of poverty the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) feels Canadians are all the richer for, it will seriously undertake a program to uncomplicate the Income Tax Act. It has been recognized by many very competent income tax accountants that the Income Tax Act is much too complicated. Imagine how the struggling fisherman, farmer or small businessman feels when confronted by these same tax laws. Their simplification is long overdue.

It is clear that the huge federal deficit now facing the country is preventing a recovery of this country's fortunes in a time of economic recession. I do not believe that Canadians would be so troubled by changes to the income tax system if there were some indication that the money was being wisely spent. That is not the case. The numerous corporate bail-outs, the billions of dollars spent as well as the billions of dollars wasted, provide no indication that the Canadian taxpayer is

February 21, 1983

receiving value for his taxes. The $34 million which was spent on the Maislin company is a glaring example of how the Liberal Party rewards its Liberal friends. The Pitfield Senate appointment and the $800 a day to be paid to Donald Macdonald are also examples of the kind of pork-barreling Canadians cannot afford today.

Bill C-139 does not address these problems. It is specifically the failure on the part of the Minister of Finance to provide effective leadership on the broad economy which prevents him from dealing with the individual problems concerning each and every Canadian.

Recent legislation of the federal Government which reduced pensions paid to Public Service and old age pensioners and limited Family Allowance increases demonstrates the federal Government's so-called restraint program which penalizes the very old and the very young but rewards its friends. Here we have a Government promising a just and equitable tax system but adopting a proposal which clearly discriminates against low and middle income Canadians. It was not competent management which led Canada to being twenty-fourth out of twenty-four OECD countries in economic performance.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
PC

Stanley James Korchinski

Progressive Conservative

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):

Mr. Speaker, today we are dealing with the Income Tax Act, and many other Hon. Members have referred to it. I would say that the Government has much for which to be thankful. We have what it takes. When I look at this volume containing 295 pages, when I see what is happening to the economy and when I realize that there are 1.5 million people unemployed, I wonder why at this particular time we are dealing with a Bill which would, in effect, take money away from the economy and hinder employment in the private sector. For that matter, the Government will not even have enough, because of its deficit, to go into the public sector.

The question of capital gains is very important to many people in the sense that the capital gains tax itself has penalized those who, over the years, have been acquiring some assets. Without the benefit of any pension schemes, in effect, their only assets and only pension scheme amount to the farms or businesses they own.

At one time we argued against the inclusion of this particular tax because it is necessary to acquire capital in a country like ours. Why should it be that we must go to the United States or other foreign countries to borrow money when, in fact, that wealth could be accumulated here? We would not have to take money out by way of dividends later on. For that matter, we would not pay back as much interest, which is particularly important at a time when our dollar is so devalued. Therefore, if we cannot eliminate this tax and if the Government has to have money, the least it can do is to index the value of the property that it is taxing. If the personal indexing of individual income is a fair principle, then it also should apply to property.

Even if that cannot be done, the least that could be done is to provide an over-all exemption of an amount of $100,000. What happens in many cases where the businessman or farmer

Income Tax

retires is that he simply sells off one asset and perhaps moves into a community and buys a home. Under the several examples that were provided here last Tuesday by the Hon. Members for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) and Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), out of a $60,000 sale he would end up with $15,000. That does not even begin to buy a home, so how can one retire on that? Why is it necessary constantly to change the regulations is such a way that people cannot even plan for their retirement?

Not only does it apply to businessmen or farmers, it also applies to people who have been employed and who have termination benefits. It is not possible to plan anything because one year the regulations say one thing and the next year there is another budget which changes the regulations. The third year the screws are tightened again, and before it is finished every possible exemption will be eliminated to the point that retirement benefits are going to be taxed. The only group that will benefit is perhaps the taxman, or the axeman, if you like. People who have over the years been relying on that retirement benefit are now being penalized. What kind of a society is this? Is it intended to confuse people, or what is the purpose of that type of a society?

I want to move on to another particular section. I am not a lawyer, but I heard the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) the other day complaining about the Bill's complexity, and he is a lawyer. When I think of the forward averaging Section, Section 155.(1) provides:

"155. (1) subject to section 156.1, every individual whose chief source of

income is farming or fishing, other than an individual to whom subsection

153(2) applies, shall pay to the Receiver General"

106. (1) Subparagraph 157( 1 )(a)(i) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(i) on or before the last day of each of the first 12 months in that period, an amount equal to 1/12 of the amount estimated by it to be the tax payable under this Part by it for the year computed without reference to sections 123.3 to 123.5."

I do not know what that means but it seems to me that what is being asked here is that the farmer or fisherman prepay every month. If that is the implication of that Section, then I suggest that what is happening here is that more bureaucracy is being added and that adds more burden to a farmer or fisherman who is not surrounded by accountants and there is something on the face of his income tax form this year that says that he is going to have to prepay a portion of his tax. Whether he has an income or not, whether he has been hailed out or frozen out or did not catch any fish or whatever the problems are, he is going to have to pay money to the Revenue Department, so they can use his money, and he will pay an interest rate of 22 per cent, if that is what the rate is, only to have the income tax Department tell him a year later that maybe there is a refund to him.

What kind of an arrangement is this? Who is it that needs the money more? Is it the businessman or the farmer? We are

February 21, 1983

Income Tax

asking the banks now to allow farmers to refinance because they are in difficulty, yet the Revenue Department is telling us: "No, sir, you cannot do that; you have to give it to us first whether you owe it or not". It used to be that one could average out over five years, and at least you knew what your expenses were over the year.

When I look at some of the decisions made by the Department, it tells one taxpayer that his machinery is too old and requires too much repair, that it cannot allow any claim. In other words, it is telling him how to run his business. It is telling him that he has to go and buy himself a new machine. The Department says that this machine is for personal use. A one-ton truck with a grain box is supposed to be for personal use? Can you imagine anyone lumbering around the city or town with a one-ton truck with a grain box, bang, bang, bang, for personal use? What other use is there?

At the same time the Department tells him that he has not enough land. There are many feedlots on a few acres. There are many chicken operations and many hog operations on a few acres, but it tells him that he has not enough land there for his cattle. It also tells him that he has to buy feed. Of course he has to buy feed; many farmers have to buy feed. In fact, the Government was subsidizing the transportation of feed because there was a drought, but the Revenue Department cannot see it that way. Immediately it makes that kind of a decision, the onus is on the individual to go and argue with the Department. The individual has to hire an accountant, run around and see lawyers, write to his Member of Parliament. He has to go through the whole rigmarole, all the stress and strain, and for what? Because somebody made a decision. Add to that the complexity of different people from different Departments giving different interpretations, and one has to choose which one is the proper ruling.

Because many farmers, for example, have had outside employment, because they needed the additional revenue, they are not allowed the same type of tax deduction on their farms. How in the world is financing arranged? The banks will not give it to you and the Revenue Department penalizes you.

I have just one other point. On an envelope dated January 12, the Department notified an individual that he was assessed a certain amount and on the back there was a remittance form stating that he had to make his payment by January 15. Tell me how that letter could be delivered and the money returned in three days' time.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
PC

William Hillary (Bill) Clarke

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to contribute a few comments on Bill C-139. I think it is significant that this Bill incorporates the last three budgets of this Government and the dozens of changes that have been made by the different Ministers of Finance in the last couple of years.

I think it is also significant to note that there will be several dozen more technical changes which the Minister says he will be giving to the House after we complete second reading of this Bill. 1 do not know whether they would have helped us get

through second reading sooner but it will certainly be interesting to hear those changes proposed.

1 want to restrict my remarks this morning to one particular aspect of the Bill, and that is the complexity of the whole income tax situation that we have now. I was amused by the example my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), just gave of one horrendous and very complex clause in this particular Bill.

I am a chartered accountant and before I came here ten years ago I did a lot of tax work. In fact, I was the chief financial officer for a small group of companies and individuals and I was able to practise tax work as a chartered accountant. Now I cannot understand the law adequately to be able to give the advice that I used to give.

We have a Bill here, C-139, consisting of nearly 300 pages, and for a long time Liberal Ministers have been telling us that the aim in tax legislation was simplicity and equity. You do not achieve simplicity and equity by a 300-page amendment to the existing body of income tax law. Not only have we not achieved equity and simplicity, but we have come into the worst morass of tax law. It gets worse every time changes are made. We need a new reform which will give us both simplicity and equity.

We do not have equity or simplicity now. I will give an example or two. The present body of law and these changes will not make the tax law any more equitable for single parents, mothers or fathers, who must pay about $4,000 child care for each child in a normal daycare centre. The present tax law allows only $1,000 tax deduction before arriving at taxable income. A person in business is allowed to deduct expenditures; I think the wording in the Act is "laid out to earn income". There can be no argument that the amounts paid out for child care are laid out to earn income. If there was no child care, there would be no possibility of the parent earning a salary.

The parallel in the business world is that a taxpayer in business who hires a clerk to carry out certain functions and who can deduct the total wage cost in arriving at income under the tax law. For years we have been after the Government to increase that $1,000, but we still do not have equity for working single parents.

I have said that we do not have simplicity. That can be clearly seen in the fact that the tax preparation business in Canada is flourishing. I do not know how many hundreds of thousands, and it is probably millions of Canadian taxpayers, have thrown up their hands and said that they cannot cope with the body of information available to prepare their tax forms, so they go to the tax preparers.

I remember rising on another matter dealing with equity and simplicity some years ago. The then Minister of National Revenue was the Hon. Ron Basford. He stated at that time that the Government was unable to give refunds in advance of the return being filed and, therefore, in advance of the end of the taxation year and the returns coming out. Therefore, it

February 21, 1983

would probably be April of the following year before a Canadian could get his money back.

That may not have been so important at that time, but we now have in Canada 1,500,000 unemployed. When Canadians get a job, their tax is deducted at source on the basis that they will be working for a full year. If they do, that is fine. Come the end of the year, they will probably owe all that has been deducted and maybe a little more. However, we now have a situation where a man works for a few months and then becomes unemployed. He needs those tax dollars back. The probability is that he will not owe any money at the end of the year. The Government has that man's money. He may have to go on welfare if he does not get the money back.

This has led to another whole new industry in Canada, tax discounting. The government has criticized the practice. It does not like it. With modern technology, computers and so on, wage statements could be made. The Government accepts a wage statement on the Unemployment Insurance form if a person is laid off. Why could the tax Department not accept a statement from the employer that so much has been deducted, and if the individual can show that at the end of the year he will not have any tax payable, the Government should be in the position of refunding his money? Many things could be done by this Government to achieve a degree of simplicity and equity in the tax laws. We certainly do not have that now.

Many groups have made submissions to the Government on this subject, including the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. All of these groups represent millions of Canadians in one way or another. Most of them are in the small business sector. They cannot afford the technical and professional advice that is needed in order to cope with the tax laws.

I was particularly struck by a paragraph in the brief submitted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce entitled: "Complexity of the Income Tax Act". It should be on the record and I propose to read it. I quote:

Income tax legislation, especially as it relates to Canadian-controlled private corporations, is becoming so complex that it is all but incomprehensible to the businessmen who are paying the taxes. In 1971 a new tax system was introduced which provided integration for Canadian-controlled private corporations; that is, the ultimate after tax return realized by the shareholder of such a corporation was almost exactly the same whether he earned business income directly as an individual, or earned it through a corporation. In 1977 a "mini reform" was introduced which included, among other things, an enriched dividend tax credit, one of the results of which was that shareholders of Canadian-controlled private corporations which had income eligible for the small business deduction received a larger after-tax yield on income received through a corporation than on income earned directly. Much of the present complexity stems from that decision, since successive budgets have been adjusting the system in an attempt to reduce this advantage. This patchwork series of adjustments finally resulted in the introduction, in the 1981 budget, of the corporate distributions tax (which we will deal with in more detail below).

I will skip a bit and then read the final paragraph dealing with complexity. I quote:

In considering whether the system has become too complex we believe a distinction should be made between acceptable and unacceptable complexity. If a businessman decides to reorganize his corporate structure, he would expect to be

Income Tax

involved in complex provisions. However, we believe he is entitled to earn income, pay tax on the income and declare dividends under an understandable set of rules.

We on this side have often urged the Government to come up with a set of rules which the average taxpayer, whether he be a small-businessman, wage earner or-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
NDP

Margaret Anne Mitchell

New Democratic Party

Mrs. Mitchell:

He or she.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
PC

William Hillary (Bill) Clarke

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Clarke:

The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) is thrashing me for ignoring the women. I wish to put in the usual disclaimer. Any words which I use which denote the male gender are also to be taken to include the female gender.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
NDP

Margaret Anne Mitchell

New Democratic Party

Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):

Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-139. I am very concerned about the impact of this Bill, particularly on low-income Canadians. As has already been stated, Bill C-139 is a complex, regressive, omnibus tax Bill. It is completely unacceptable to the New Democratic Party both from a social and economic point of view.

As the previous speaker pointed out, this 300-page Bill is very difficult to understand, even for him, and he is a tax expert. I am sure he will agree that the principles are easy to understand. This Bill follows the typical Liberal-Tory tax philosophy, which is punitive toward low-income earners and rewards the rich. As the social policy critic, 1 want to comment on the social implications of this unjust Bill.

On February 10 our leader referred to the injustices of Bill C-139 when in this House he implored the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to do something for over 3.5 million Canadians who live in poverty in this country. He pointed out that this Bill puts a disproportionate tax increase on the poor in comparison to the rich. For example, a family of three earning less than $18,000 lives in poverty, according to the latest poverty facts published by the Canadian Council on Social Development. Bill C-139 will increase taxes for this kind of a low-income family by 23 per cent. However, if we compare this with the percentage tax increase on higher income families, for instance a family of three with earnings over $ 100,000, the tax increase is only 10.5 per cent. Less than half, Mr. Speaker. Twenty-three per cent tax increases for the poor and 10.5 per cent tax increases for the rich.

There is no doubt at all of the principles and philosophy on which this tax Bill and, indeed, the whole tax system of Canada is based. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said earlier this morning that the tax system of Canada is unfair. It places far too heavy a burden on those with limited resources and means. We know that the Liberal tax system which, in philosophy anyway, is supported by the other Party, is based on a hidden welfare system which robs needy Canadians of essential social security programs and provides substantial benefits through tax policy to upper and middle income families. Canadian expenditures for corporate

23024

February 21, 1983

Income Tax

welfare continue to grow despite dismal results in job production and other promised socio-economic benefits. Canada forgoes vast sums in revenues which are needed for essential programs for the common good through a regressive and highly inequitable tax structure.

Bill C-139, of course, reflects this Liberal tax policy. It focuses on corporate welfare benefits while penalizing those of limited means and at the expense of funds which are needed to maintain vital social programs during a time of high unemployment and severe economic stress.

One of the specific measures of this Bill is to authorize payment of an extra $50 per year, for this year only, on the Child Tax Credit. And it is important to point out to the Canadian public, Mr. Speaker, that this is for one year only. It is a bonus of $50. This credit supposedly was to compensate for the rollback of indexation of Family Allowances to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year. Of course, it does not take too much expertise to figure out that the rollback reduces, in effect, the base rate of Family Allowance payments which will continue thereafter.

The Child Tax Credit is really, in effect, a smokescreen in order to pacify people for one year, but it does not remain as a benefit for low-income Canadians. We strongly opposed this approach when we debated Bill C-132, which imposed indexing restraints on Family Allowances. This Bill obviously reflected the Liberal Government's inclination and subtle intent to undermine universal Family Allowances, a program which applies to all Canadian families with dependent children. We, of course, feel that in any universal program there is a need for more effective tax-back provisions to be applied to higher income families, if it is also to be just.

I want to put on record, Mr. Speaker, that this Party does not object to poor families receiving an extra $50 this year. In fact, the Child Tax Credit should be far higher, particularly since poverty and unemployment have increased so drastically. If Family Allowances and tax credits were increased, it would not only be a more just social policy, but it would also help the economy. Most Family Allowance cheques are spent immediately on consumer goods, for food and clothing, and Child Tax Credits are used by low-income families, and also slightly higher income families, largely for family items. This, therefore, creates jobs and helps small businesses.

The Child Tax Credit gift of $50 is sheer deception, however, Mr. Speaker. It is really hypocrisy. It is for one year only, and the reduction in the indexing of family benefits will continue to reduce the base amount of money which families will receive in the future. This is just not the position of our Party. And it was documented very clearly by the Canadian Council of Social Development when they appeared before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

Recently I met with representatives of the National AntiPoverty Organization and we discussed their concerns about the Child Tax Credit. I would like to just refer to their news release in which they stated that approximately 2.5 million mothers receive the Child Tax Credit. The vast majority of these mothers cannot wait until the end of the year to receive their full Child Tax Credit. However, the National Anti-

Poverty Organization which surveyed a sample of low-income women found that these women wanted to have the Child Tax Credit retained as an annual benefit because they needed a lump sum amount. It is very difficult to save from a monthly cheque for certain larger payments which they have to make.

One of the great problems with relation to Child Tax Credit is the deplorable usury going on in Canada where low-income people are being exploited because of their need for an advance on the Child Tax Credit. I believe it is important to bring this problem to the attention of the House and the Government so that something can be done about it. We are told by the national anti-poverty group of their very serious concern regarding low-income families who are losing part of their Child Tax Credit benefit to tax rebate discounters. Loan companies are legally allowed to charge 15 per cent of the value of the rebate for filling out an individual's tax form and providing a tax advance. Of course, families who need this money are going to these "rip-off artists", as my colleague says, and are losing 15 per cent of the actual tax credit. We feel it is essential that the Government place some restriction on this kind of practice and we would ask it to consider such restriction. The executive Director of NAPO stated that a sizeable portion of the Child Tax Credit will not be getting to the families for whom it was intended this year-that includes the $50 increase provided by this Bill-if something is not done about this matter.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have called for a review of all the family benefit components of the income tax system with a view to reforming the system in order to provide the greatest benefits to those families with the lowest incomes. We feel that there should be a declining scale of benefits for families with higher incomes. In particular, we call for an analysis of spousal exemption, the child exemption, the child care deduction, the refundable Child Tax Credit, and the Family Allowance. We feel it is essential that these programs be reviewed and the tax policy be reformed so that benefits go to low income families and are reduced proportionately as the income of those families increases.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink
PC

Thomas Gordon Towers

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, in looking at Bill C-139, we find that the Government is in a serious situation as a result of fiscal irresponsibility. It is a great misfortune, but it was the inevitable result of the direction in which the Government has been going over the past several years. Unfortunately, the Government has not adopted a policy of "cutting the cloth to fit the pattern". Therefore, we find that the Government's take from the economic community becomes greater and greater each year. This is a great misfortune because it is putting too much of a load on the ordinary business corporation in the business community and on the ordinary Canadian worker.

Canadians are awash in taxes. We have been provided some figures by the Fraser Institute. In those figures we find that in 1961 the average family with an income of $5,000 faced a tax bill of $1,675. By 1980, the average family was earning

February 21, 1983

$22,500 and, of that, $10,306 went to the tax man at three levels of Government. Since 1961, the tax bill to the average family has shot up by 515 per cent.

We have seen a perfect example this year of what a misguided Government is doing to our economic state because of its massive deficit borrowing. The Government first stated that the deficit would be $10.6 billion. It is now up to $27 billion and I believe there is a great possibility that it could end up at $30 billion at year end. Deficit financing, or borrowing, is, in effect, deferred taxation. Somewhere along the line someone- our children or grandchildren-will have to pick up the tab for what we are doing today. If we do not leave something tangible in return for that massive amount of borrowing, we are being very unfair and essentially stealing from future generations.

When one calculates this deficit borrowing into the whole picture, taxes have increased between 1961 and 1980 by 619 per cent. That is a tremendous increase which, of course, we cannot afford.

There does not seem to be any plan from the Government to bring us out of this economic mess that it led us into in the first place. While it has set up the Macdonald Commission, it will not make a report for another two or three years. There are economists, people in the business community, and I know there are Members in the Opposition, who could give the Government some advice about how it can get out of this current mess. I wish the Government would listen to some of the suggestions we are trying to make to it in order to assist not only the Government itself but the Canadian taxpayer generally, so that we may begin an economic recovery.

The tax index has escalated more rapidly than any other economic burden that a family faces. Canadian families now pay more in taxes than they do for food and shelter combined. I suggest that the editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail dated March 31, 1982 perfectly depicts the situation that we are in. It says:

Most Canadians, unfortunately, won't see a copy of this Fraser Institute document-

These are the figures I used.

-and they will scarcely get much information on its message from their tax man or their political representatives. But, until they "wise up" to the fact that governments cannot spend the people's money better than the people themselves, we will continue on the long slide to total dependency on the state and its expensive bureaucracy.

Unless the Government adopts that as a basis for recovering from this mess, I do not see any other way to accomplish much for the ordinary Canadian taxpayer.

At the present time, we find that food prices are rising at approximately 7 per cent a year. This really does not make much sense to the agricultural producer in Canada when he or she, or both together, find their income depreciating by 15 per cent a year. That was the loss last year and that is what it will be this year. That does not make economic sense.

When one considers the number of bankruptcies that are occurring today both inside and outside the system, we will

Income Tax

find ourselves in a very serious situation in the near future. Unless the Government develops a new policy, we will continue down this road to destruction.

John F. Kennedy used to say that "Victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan". This is also true for people starting a business. A person starting a business immediately has the Government as a partner-most of the time on their back-but once the business suffers reversals, he or she ends up as an orphan. There are certainly many orphans in Canada today. The rate of bankruptcies in Canada is staggering. In the past ten years, the total number of bankruptcies has increased four times in the business sector and more than ten times in the consumer or personal area. In 1982 there were more than 10,700 business bankruptcies and more than 30,600 consumer failures. To this total could be added those farmers and small business corporations which have simply closed the door. That is a tremendous amount.

In turn, this creates a real problem for the Department of National Revenue and the Government as a whole because those people are not paying taxes that they would normally pay. No doubt this is where the Government went wrong in its projection that the deficit this year would be a little over $10 billion and has ended up closer to $30 billion. The revenue was not there. Further, there will be large refunds out of that revenue to those who are asking for refunds on their income tax. No doubt as a result of Bill C-139 there will be a delay in those pay-outs until the next fiscal year. This will create further problems next year. This is why the Government is suggesting that the deficit in the next fiscal year will probably be $30 billion to $35 billion. We do not know whether the Government will be able to hold the deficit to that figure. I hope they are not as wrong next year as they were this year because the situation will be intolerable if they are. I do not think the Canadian taxpayer will be able to carry the burden when one considers the amount of debt we are acquiring.

That is why I indicated earlier that the Government must learn how to cut the pattern to fit the cloth. Until that happens we will just keep drifting. Of course, Canadian taxpayers will become more and more frustrated than they already are. They will not be able to carry the burden any longer.

I see you are prepared to rise, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps as this Bill progresses I will have the opportunity to make more comments on it.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO STATUTE LAW
Permalink

February 21, 1983