I believe that once the full scale of the inequities in the tax system reach the public sphere, it could raise so many more questions than the government has gotten for a long time.
To give you one example, Professor Philipps was talking about how the tax savings in income splitting go to the taxpayer with the higher income and the tax bill goes to the taxpayer with the lower income. Not only is that an unequal allocation of the benefit and the burden of it, but it also means that then the individual owner of the resulting money becomes more and more wealthy—the higher-income spouse becomes more wealthy—and this means that a woman's ability to accumulate income over her life diminishes as she has to pay this tax benefit that accrues to her husband's benefit.
This is a principle of allocation of family property that we have not accepted in this country since Irene Murdoch went to the Supreme Court of Canada in the early 1970s, and there was quite an uproar over it, that the woman should work and the husband should get the benefit. What is a good farm wife good for? It's to generate income, capital, savings, and now tax benefits for her husband.
I think that is one of the reasons any government might be nervous about this, and I would hope every party could step beyond whose fault this really is—because it's an inherited system—and go to work at it in a very serious way.