Finance committee  The issue I raised with respect to 94 does not involve that many taxpayers.

Finance committee  It would be very difficult to say. With all the non-resident trusts, I'm sure this is something that would be looked at. You'll never have perfect tax legislation, and I think the time has come for it to be passed. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, the best indicia of this is that people in the tax community love to write articles, and commentaries, and tax notes ad nauseam.

Finance committee  But yes, it would be regarded favourably, sir.

Finance committee  If you take a look at all of the measures—and I won't characterize it as fairness or not—there must be tens of thousands of Canadians who will be impacted by this bill.

Finance committee  I would say generally yes, because many of them are remedial measures, and at least taking them out of their uncertainty, and clarification.... There are many highly remedial measures.

Finance committee  To the extent to which Canadians would ever think they're getting tax fairness—

Finance committee  No. I share the views that Paul expressed, sir.

Finance committee  Let me try to answer your second question first. The changes made to section 94 and subsection 94(1) are perhaps not technical measures or remedial measures per se; however, they have been brought before the House of Commons and the Senate on a number of occasions in the past.

Finance committee  It's offshore, but there is only one of the ten owning a 10% interest who is in Canada, and yet the entire trust is taxable in Canada. As I mentioned, I've had to write letters to some clients saying if any of the grandchildren or great-grandchildren—everyone is now out of Canada—ever think of coming back to Canada, please tell me in advance and we'll have to try to do something, because the entire trust is going to be subject to Canadian tax.

Finance committee  The Income Tax Act is certainly a very complex act. It's 2,882 pages, at least the most recent version. Presumably, there are other bills brought before you that are almost as complicated. I think, fortunately, with respect to income tax, you have the byplay between the department and the outside tax community.

Finance committee  Thank you for your question. I would just suggest, with respect to proposed section 56.4, that everyone, now that it's been through three or four iterations, knows what it stipulates. The one area that perhaps could be looked at anew in the future is the problem—all of this derives from the Fortino situation—that if you have a company whose assets are being sold, and it's a family holding company and the non-compete is for only one of the members of it, the provisions really don't work that well.

Finance committee  I'm a lawyer, sir, with Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg.

Finance committee  Most of these provisions would have been presented previously. The proposed section 94 and section 94.1 measures have been before you and I think have been adopted in various iterations previously. There are relatively no significant provisions. Subsection 94(1) and section 94.1 are obviously significant provisions, but these have been studied before you I think at least three times previously, sir.

Finance committee  I would share Andrew's view. Unfortunately, delay often has its cost to taxpayers. Most of the taxpayers we would act for who are waiting on comfort letters and the adoption thereof are waiting patiently. I referred earlier this morning to clause 274. Let me share with you the example of a real person.

Finance committee  I understand that it's Finance's policy, understandably, to ensure the presentation and the adoption of the budgets, generally speaking, in preference to technical measures. It's a question really of the parliamentary timetable. Obviously you can't have automatic adoption. Everything has to be adopted by Parliament.