Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act by making the following changes: (1) To increase from $300 to $500 the exemption granted for every child; (2) to differentiate in the
amount of taxation against invested capital and that placed against revenue derived from salaries or wages; (3) to grant to pepple married under the community regime an exemption equal to that which is granted to people married under the regime of separate maintenance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the matter involved in the resolution that stands in my name has been brought before this House by myself on many occasions, with more or less success. It i3 evident that in bringing forward arguments in favour of the resolution I shall have to repeat myself, and I therefore crave the indulgence and the attention of hon. members for a few moments.
As hon. members will notice, the resolution is threefold in its purpose, but all relating to the same subject, the income tax. The first object sought is to increase from $300 to $500 the exemption granted for each child; the second is to differentiate in the amount of taxation against invested capital and that placed against revenue derived from salaries
Income Tax Amendments
or wages; and the third is to grant to people married under the community regime an exemption equal to that which is granted to people married under the regime of separate maintenance. My task will be much easier this afternoon, because the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has given notice of a resolution, which is now on the order paper, embodying an increase in thje epempition for children from $300 to $500, thus giving effect to the wish of the House as expressed last year. I shall therefore refrain from making any remarks on that first point, reserving any observations I may find it necessary to make for the time when the resolution will be brought down. But I wish to congratulate the government heartily upon bringing in this legislation, which I with many other members have been advocating for many years. Under the old administration, which seemed to be in favour of birth control, I advocated on many occasions that this increased Exemption be granted, but without success. I remember the first time I introduced a similar resolution, in 1919 or 1921, I think it was. That resolution was opposed and defeated at the request of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and those members who were in the House at the time will recollect the incongruous and uncouth remarks and objections that were made by some hon. members. They may remember, for instance, that the then hon. member for Peterborough, Mr. Burnham, opposed the resolution because, he said, it would be an encouragement to animal instincts. The then hon. member for Fron-tenac, Doctor Edwards, opposed the resolution because, he said, it was a disguised way of allowing the province of Quebec to avoid paying their share of the taxes. However, I am glad to say that the first year this government were in power they increased the exemption from $200 to $300, and now this year there is a resolution on the order paper in the name of the Acting Minister of Finance for increasing it from $300 to $500. I repeat again, the government are to be congratulated on this step, which I am sure will win the gratitude of all those who believe that the best citizen, after all, is the Canadian bom, and the best immigrant the one that God himself brings into your home.
There remain, Mr. Speaker, two other points in my resolution, which I will discuss very briefly. The first one is a ruling by the Department of Taxation regarding the tax imposed on persons married under the regime of community of property. I may explain to hon. members who may not be entirely
familiar with the civil law of Quebec that in the province of Quebec there are two marriage regimes. There is the regime of community of property, and there is the regime of separation of property. If people are married without a contract they fall under the first regime, that of community of property. The properties and the moneys belonging to the wife or to the husband before marriage and the properties or monies that they may receive after marriage form one whole. When they are married under the regime of separation of property, the husband and the wife each keeps the property or moneys, they may have had before entering into marriage and any moneys or property they may inherit after they ara married.
Subtopic: PROPOSED INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS