Three myths about corporations and taxes

Filip Palda

SOMETIMES CANADIAN corporations get bad press they do not deserve. Last month the B.C. Federation of Labour attacked corporations for not paying their fair share of taxes. The media gave these attacks wide coverage because this is the sort of story that gets ordinary Canadians angry. Canadians would get less angry and pay less attention to these attacks if they knew that three myths cloud the truth about corporations and taxes.

Myth: 63,000 profitable corporations paid no tax in 1990 on profits of nearly $14 billion and as a result shifted the tax burden to ordinary working Canadians.

Fact: The important question here is WHY those corporations did not pay tax. Here are the reasons, discovered in a 1989 study of 117,000 corporations done by the Ontario NDP government's Fair Tax Commission. Of the profits that were not taxed

•54 percent were intercorporate dividends or equity income earned by subsidiaries. That is, profits earned by one branch of the corporation which had been taxed, then transferred to another part of the corporation. Taxing these transfers of money would be like taxing a person for moving his or her wallet from one pocket to another

•11 percent of profits were earned by firms which in the year before had made a loss. The tax system takes a long view of profits and allows firms to carry their losses forward. If Widgets Inc. lost $1 million last year and earned $1 million this year, over two years it has not made any profit and so should not be taxed within this two-year cycle

•4 percent of profits were exempt from taxation because of the small business tax holiday (later abolished in Ontario)

•31 percent of profits were exempt either because these profits went to replacing depreciating equipment or because they were "paper gains," that is assets transferred between members of the same corporate group without any economic gain or loss to the group

In other words, in the view of the Ontario NDP government, there was no overwhelming problem of "corporate tax ripoffs."

Myth: Corporations in Canada are undertaxed.

Fact: Between 1987 and 1991, a time of falling corporate profits, the federal government closed many loopholes and increased the amount of tax paid by corporations from $9.8 billion to $11.7 billion. This meant that federal corporate taxes as a percent of profits went from 17.5 percent to 36.9 percent, a more than 100 percent increase.

Corporate taxes are only part of the taxes businesses face. In addition to rising corporate tax rates in the 1990s, Canadian businesses face rising social security premiums, UI levies, and workers' compensation fees. These combined assaults on enterprise in Canada are a big reason why Canada has about 200,000 fewer jobs now than in 1990. The U.S., which has not experienced such tax increases, has increased its net number of jobs by more than 1.2 million since 1990.

Myth: Corporations should bear their fair share of the tax.

Fact: In the end corporations do not pay tax any more than a brick or a tractor pays tax. It is the owners of corporations, their managers and workers, and the consumers of their products who must bear the burden. Perhaps as much as 51 percent of all corporate taxes are paid by the elderly. That is because the elderly depend on money from pension funds. These funds are typically invested in corporations.

If these myths were better understood there would be fewer calls to "skin corporate fat cats" and people who think they have an axe to grind with corporations would have less success in turning Canadians against each other in fits of indignation.

March questions and answers

Isabella Horry

Q: What are the provincial and federal government deficits for the past ten years?

A: Both federal and provincial government deficits are given in the following table.

Click here to view Table: Federal and Provincial Government Deficits, 1983-84 to 1993-94, in millions of dollars

Will Mr. Martin's budget be successful?

Michael Walker

IN HIS EXCELLENT ARTICLE IN this issue of Fraser Forum, Robert Crozier shows the effects on the Canadian economy of persistent government deficits. His evidence adds to the already compelling case for doing something about the federal deficit. In his widespread pre-budget consultations and in the budget itself, Finance Minister Paul Martin paid considerable attention to the threat which the deficit posed. The question is, did he cut the deficit enough and did he do it in the right way?

What should have been done?

Regular readers of Fraser Forum will remember that The Fraser Institute had proposed very deep cuts to the social welfare programs on the grounds that a very large portion of the money they dispense is going to families whose incomes are above the national average. The implication is that we are incurring very large deficits in part to help those who don't need it. By our calculation, more than $20 billion is being spent in this way, and without touching any other area of government spending, a significant cut in the deficit could be realized. We have for some time ruled out the possibility of tax increases as the primary way of responding to the deficit both because we think that further tax increases would have a very negative effect on the economy and because they would lead to a greater flight to the underground economy.

By how much should the deficit have been cut? Of course, there is no precise answer. We really don't know how close we are to "the wall"--the point at which foreign and domestic lenders will hold government of Canada debt only if they are paid a risk premium of such a size as to render continued borrowing fiscally impractical. The decision has already been made by some potential bond holders that the risk is too great. Some Canadians, and some foreigners, have already "pulled out" of Canada. When this trickle will turn into an unstoppable flow that washes out the framework of confidence, we simply don't know. However, Mr. Martin himself has given a strong guide in his pre-budget comments to the effect that he intended to cut the deficit to 3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product by the end of his third year in office. This of course was the "Red Book" promise given in the recent election campaign. The achievement of this target would require that the budget deficit drop from the current level of $45.7 billion to about $24 billion by the end of three years, given the forecast of GDP contained in the budget. Such an achievement would still imply that the national debt would grow somewhat faster than the economy overall and that there would be an accumulation of nearly $100 billion in new debt--or, to anticipate Robert Crozier's piece, the loss of $100 billion in potential investment in the capital structure of the country.

Modest goals difficult to reach

So, the "3 percent solution," as one of my colleagues calls it, is by no means perfect and would leave a lot of deficit cutting work undone. However, it is doubtful that even it can be achieved given Mr. Martin's cuts in his first budget. The reason is that he has only three years in which to make $21 billion in cuts and this year only $6 billion has been cut. The budget predicts that the deficit will fall in 1995-96 to 32.7 billion, leaving the single biggest cut of $8.7 billion to come in the third year. It might be argued, of course, that what he has done is take roughly the same proportion of GDP in each of the three years--a stratagem which might work if only Mr. Martin's cabinet colleagues and the special interest groups could be taught to think in proportions.

My own view was that the deficit had to fall to no more than $35 billion in the upcoming year in the budget if Mr. Martin was to achieve his target. That would have seen half the cut in the first year, and left ample time before the next election to make the rest of the cuts. As it stands, Mr. Martin will now have to deliver budgets in each of the next two years which are tougher than this one, and the second one will be delivered 30 months into the government's mandate. Evidently Mr. Martin feels he can still do it because he is still saying that he will, but it will be a very challenging task to complete successfully.

The spending cuts

What was actually accomplished in this budget? By how much was spending cut and by how much were taxes raised? The answer depends on how one measures the levels from which the exercise starts and what one means by "cut." The importance of these distinctions is made clear by the fact that the Finance Minister claimed to have cut billions of dollars from the budget, yet spending overall will rise from $160.3 billion to $164.7 billion over the next two years. In order to reduce to a minimum the extent of "jiggery pokery" in making these calculations, we have taken last year's revenue and expenditure projections as the basis for calculating the changes made in this budget.

Chart 1 shows spending as it is currently predicted to unfold (Liberals) and as it was predicted this time last year (Conservatives). As can be seen, the spending projection for 1992-93 was much too low--by $3.5 billion--but for 1993-94 it was about correct, and the Liberal government now predicts declines relative to Conservative expectations for the next two years. The spending cuts of $1.2 billion made during the coming year were comprised of $2.2 billion in cuts from the anticipated level of spending and the addition of $1.0 billion in new spending. In the second year, 1995-96, there were cuts of $5.5 billion with new initiatives of $1.7 billion.

Click here to view Chart 1: Spending Forecasts

The crucial element

The main story of the budget and of the dramatic escalation in the deficit since the last budget are to be found on the revenue side of the ledger. As can be seen in chart 2, revenue projections for the year which will end March 1994 have proved to be very wide of the mark. and this difference explains why the deficit, shown in chart 3, has risen to threatening proportions rather than quietly declining as was predicted in the Conservative budget of last year. The Finance Department's current revised forecasts show a widening gap between what was expected this time last year and what is now predicted: from $1.4 billion in 1992-93 to $12.2 billion during 1993-94 to $15.5 billion by 1995-96. Nevertheless, it is primarily on the revenue side that Mr. Martin expects to make his main gains against the deficit. Largely this is due, not to tax rate increases or removal of deductions or exemptions, but to the increase in the overall tax recovery rate of the federal government. Some explanation is required.

Click here to view Chart 2: Revenue Forecasts

Click here to view Chart 3: Deficit Forecasts

In 1991-92, the federal government collected $121.5 billion in revenues. This amounted to 17.6 percent of the GDP. If the Finance Depart-ment's GDP forecast in 1993-94 had been correct (instead of overshooting somewhat), and the federal tax take from GDP had stayed the same, the revenues for 1993-94 would have been $125.5 billion (the forecast of 126.9 which was based on the faulty GNP forecast). The error in forecasting revenues due to the GDP forecasting error would have been about $1.4 billion. In fact, there was a shortfall of $12.2 billion. This was due to the fact that the aggregate tax take fell from 17.6 percent to 16.1 percent of GDP. Of that 1.5 percentage point decline, .4 percent was accounted for by one-time adjustments made by the current government.

The revenue for the fiscal year just now ending was only $114.7 billion. Mr. Martin's budget predicts that the tax recovery rate from GDP will rise from 16.1 percent (which is really 16.5 percent, in 1993-94 if we adjust for the one-time revenue reductions which affect 1993-94) to 17.0 percent in 1995-96. If there were to be no recovery in the federal tax take from GDP and it were to stay at Mr. Martin's 16.1 percent figure for 1993-94, revenues for 1994-95 would be low by $5.2 billion and for 1995-96 would be low by $7.0 billion compared to the budgeted figures. Under those circumstances, the deficit would be $44.9 billion in 1994-95 and $39.7 in 1995-96.

Will it happen?

Chart 4 shows the pattern of the aggregate tax rate. The sharp recovery is a crucial part of the fiscal outlook and at this time it is very difficult to say how likely that is to happen. In Mr. Martin's favour, the economy has been in a relatively sluggish mode and it is now recovering. Perhaps the recovery of personal incomes and the return to profitability of the corporate sector will be pronounced enough to raise government revenues. Perhaps, as has often proven to be the case, the forecast of the current fiscal year will be wrong so that the starting revenue figures are actually higher then currently forecast. Evidently, if that is the case, it will be easier for Mr. Martin's pattern of recovery to be realized since in reality we won't have actually experienced the sharp dip he now predicts.

Click here to view Chart 4: Revenue Take from GDP

Our own best estimate is that the combination of recovery and forecast error will mean that Mr. Martin will make his targets for 1994-95 but that he will not be able to get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP by the end of fiscal 1995-96. The one proviso is that he can easily do both if his cabinet colleague Mr. Axworthy adopts the approach to social welfare programs which we spelled out in the March 1993 edition of Fraser Forum.

March graph

Isabella Horry

Click here to view March Graph

To revolt or not to revolt

Michael Walker

REFORM PARTY LEADER Preston Manning set the House of Commons a-buzz the other day. In the pre-budget debate he indicated that he was willing to use his and his party's position in the House as the beachhead for a tax revolt, if the Finance Minister followed through with his own pre-budget mumblings to the effect that Canadians were willing and able to accept more taxes in the pursuit of a balanced budget. There then ensued great speculation from political observers as to whether or not Mr. Manning's stance was appropriate.

The answer is likely to hinge on what the revolt entails. It is difficult to know exactly what people have in mind when they use the term tax revolt. Most probably think of it as a mass movement of some sort characterized by mobs in the street, great outbursts of lawlessness or some other form of cataclysmic manifestation. But when economists think of the term, the concept is a good deal more boring. In the world of the economist, a tax revolt is simply a response to incentives and is usually a gradually evolving behaviour. That doesn't mean that there may not be occasional dramatic changes in behaviour--like a Boxing Day sale at a record store--but the change is in proportion to the incentive. If there is going to be a sustained revolt or a dramatic change in behaviour, then there has probably been a corresponding and preceding change in the incentives.

So, for example, the decision to evade income taxes by not reporting income, or to evade sales taxes by not reporting a sale, will be made by different people at different levels of taxation. In Newfoundland, with its combined GST and sales tax of nearly 20 percent, more people have probably opted not to declare their sales than in Alberta, where the sale attracts only the GST. As the levels of taxation have moved from an aggregate of about 30 percent of income in 1961 to the current levels, more people have undoubtedly revolted as the incentive to cheat simply overcame their sense of propriety.

The moralists amongst us will simply insist that people have just become more dishonest and that what separates the tax revolter from the taxpayer is simple honesty. While there are attractions to such a view, the evidence from other times and other countries seems to indicate that the issue is somewhat more complicated. Arthur Seldon, one of Britain's most perceptive economists, coined the term "tax avoision" to describe the behaviour of British tax revolters who faced marginal tax rates of nearly 100 percent in the 1960s. In Seldon's view, the very high rates of tax in tandem with the evident waste of much of the revenue collected actually changed people's attitudes about what was moral conduct. The tax law itself became emblematic of this public sector immorality and so respect for the law was undermined. There was a revolution both in tax payments and in law.

High tax rates led British people to order their lives in such a way as not to pay tax. This ordering included not working as hard as well as reorganizing business activities and cheating. The fiscal crisis which ensued led to a fiscal collapse and the election of Margaret Thatcher, who promptly reorganized the tax structure and dropped the top rates of income tax. The result was a dramatic change in the fortunes of government and, an apparent change in "fiscal morality."

From an economist's point of view, we are in the midst of a tax revolt already. The failure of the GST to generate the expected amount of revenue is one manifestation. The failure of personal income tax revenues to respond to the economic recovery is another. The vast gap between the cost of producing cigarettes and their market price, induced by the very high tax on them, has produced the tax equivalent of a Boxing Day sale and the most tangible evidence that revolt is in progress.

The real concern ought not to be that there is going to be a sudden outbreak of lawlessness or a dramatic, pervasive change in behaviour. The real concern should be that, excluding CPP contributions, Canada has one of the highest tax burdens in the world and collects proportionately more taxes from taxing income and profits than any of the major countries in the OECD except for Sweden. The persistence of this differential, or a widening of it, is likely to provoke an escalation of the silent tax revolt already underway and the destruction of the perceived legitimacy of the tax and spending mechanism. It is this quiet revolt which is the concern of economists and should be the focus of public debate.

The health of a nation and its wealth are directly linked

Tom Davey, Publisher,

Environmental Science & Engineering

AS A YOUNG JOURNALIST, I was fortunate enought to meet Malcolm Muggeridge, then at the peak of his career. Not only was he one of the most stylish writers in the English language, his elegant wit also made him one of Britain's most formidable debaters on TV. His courage matched his wit and eloquence. Repeatedly his razor sharp critiques provoked national outrage as he wrote about the Queen, Winston Churchill, and an assortment of publishers, politicians, prelates and prattling academics.

His writing had been creating turbulence for decades in England. In the early '30s he and his wife Kitty, both enthusiastic socialists, had gone to live in Moscow. What he found appalled him. He smuggled out a series of three articles in the UK diplomatic bag, outlining the widespread brutality and starvation he had witnessed. The articles were published in the Guardian on March 25, 27 and 28, 1933.

Decades later, Ian Hunter, the Canadian author of Malcolm Muggeridge: A Life, wrote: "For telling the truth about what he had seen, Muggeridge was vilified, slandered and abused in the pages of the Guardian and elsewhere . . .Sir John and Lady Maynard refuted his reports from their own personal observations saying: `It is exceptional to see the urban worker and his dependents looking otherwise than well fed and well clothed.'"

George Bernard Shaw, then as now an icon in English literature, and Sydney and Beatrice Webb (founders of the London School of Economics) were united in their praise of the Soviet regime. Shaw said that Stalin "was subject to dismissal in ten minutes' notice if he does not give satisfaction." The Very Reverend Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury, praised Stalin's "steady purpose and kindly generosity," while Harold Laski, a writer and political figure, commended "the scrupulous fairness of the political trials." This elite trio of literature, religion and politics was describing one of the greatest monsters in recorded history.

"Muggeridge was almost alone among correspondents who dared to tell the truth about what was happening in the Soviet Union. This was held against him in the years to come," wrote Ian Hunter.

With his scholarly wit and incisive humour, the Cambridge-educated Muggeridge was a natural choice in the post-war years to become editor of the venerable humour magazine, Punch. For generations the world over, Punch had delighted readers with its sophisticated satires. Yet in spite of being one of the best satirists in the English language, Muggeridge had a surprisingly short tenure at Punch.

I asked him why he had given up this journalistic plum. To a writer as naturally funny as he was, being well paid for humour must have been analogous to a glutton becoming a restaurant critic. "I resigned when I found that even the most humorous fantasy I could devise would frequently be topped by some imbecilic event in real life," he replied.

The master's message struck home after I wrote of a totally fictitious "Rhetorical Bioethecist" for the October Fraser Forum. Wishing to highlight some of the idiotic situations which environmental professionals have to confront on a daily basis, I thought up the most unlikely academic discipline I could imagine, giving the character a vocabulary of sanctimonious platitudes.

Shortly afterwards at the Water Environment Federation Conference in California, my son Steve, who was covering the conference, reported that the keynote speaker was a real Professor of Bioethics, Dr. Margaret Maxey, of the University of Texas' Biomedical Engineering Program.

But unlike my fictitious character, who emoted cerebral nonsense like a Toronto arts critic, Dr. Maxey gave a terrific keynote address positively loaded with incisive observations and common sense. She focused on "the apparent consumer move toward controlling less and less pollution, at greater and greater expense, until we are spending everything for nothing."

She said, "the Joint Economic Commission of the U.S. Congress has pointed out that the 1993 budget for (U.S.) federal environmental regulations is $562 billion, which happens to be about double the defense budget of 1992.

"A common belief is that there is no safe dose of any carcinogenic material; therefore there must be zero pollution. I ask you to consider this: death is no longer natural; death must have a cause; there must be someone to blame. This is the mentality that has caused a plethora of environmental laws."

Part of the cause is also the tyranny of safety. "Is safety now our secular form of salvation? The ethical question is not how safe is safe enough, but how fair is safe enough? The health of nations is directly linked to the wealth of nations," she said.

The economic realities in Dr. Maxey's address seem to have been largely ignored. But how can the media ignore billion dollar projections for environmental regulations which are double that of military spending a year earlier?

While the U.S. figures seem far-fetched at first sight, I recall that in Vancouver just over two years ago, a federal official outlined a proposed $100 million environmental cleanup program for the Fraser River. During question period, I was startled to learn that not a penny of this huge sum would be spend on remediation equipment or the actual cleanup.

If we can spend $100 million on a single river without any funds going to the actual cleanup, $562 billion for environmental regulations for the entire USA might not be too far out of line.

The final irony was the venue of Dr. Maxey's presentation. She spoke at Anaheim, home to Disneyland, the world's first capital of fantasy. Malcolm Muggeridge was right. How can any satirist compete against the comedic realities inherent in these real life situations?

The federal debt in perspective

"Some sobering facts from the Vancouver Board of Trade . . . if the federal debt (rounded off the $500 billion for convenience's sake) was converted to $100 bills, there would be enough bills to pave the Trans-Canada highway from Vancouver to Ottawa. . . . If the deficit were zero, the average employed person in Canada would see his/her taxes reduced by over $3,600 per year.

A.P. McCredie, "News of the Weird," North Shore News, Jan 28, 1994

Letters

For God's sake, don't consult: an open letter to the Ministers of Finance and Human Resources

Gentlemen:

Each of you has promised long-overdue major overhauls of the programs and policies under your responsibility. If there is any assistance we can render in this venture we would be delighted to do so.

But there is a piece of advice that, unsolicited, I wish to extend to you, and particularly to Mr. Axworthy: For God's sake, don't consult the people. It cannot be done, and it should not be done.

There are approximately 30 million Canadians. If they were each to provide you with one minute's worth of their views it would take them 30 million minutes, or 500,000 hours. Round it down to 480,000 hours, and it is immediately obvious that it is 20,000 days or 54.7 years.

If you decide to narrow it to one Canadian in ten, we are down to five and a half years. One in a hundred, and it's six and a half months, twenty-four hours a day. Bring your work day down to, say, twelve hours, and we're looking at over a year, just to listen. Cut your work week down to six days and we're at 15 months. If they want more than a minute, you will obviously go under. What if everyone sent you a letter, or even a postcard? Ottawa has seen many blizzards, but none like that!

And quite apart from the fact that pruning the populace down by 99 percent without distorting the distribution of views is itself an impossible task, the likelihood that your remaining 300,000 Canadians will present a coherent program to you is minimal. You will have to pick and choose those elements of what you have heard that you think make sense, and assemble them into a coherent whole. And obviously, and no criticism is implied, your selections will be based largely on the beliefs and information that, over a lifetime of political activity and interest in public affairs, you have assembled, and which you presented to the Canadian people for their approval in October, and received it.

The problem with the previous government was not that it failed to consult the people, but that it failed to provide enough principled leadership, that it attempted with mixed success to drift with the tide of popular opinion instead of saying "We believe in this: stand with us or tear it down." It consulted too much, and gained the appearance of being unprincipled and poll-driven.

Gentlemen, you have principles, whether or not one agrees with all of them, you have carefully considered ideas for reform, and you have a mandate. Get it done, and ask us in four years whether we like it.

John Robson

Policy Analyst, The Fraser Institute

P.S. If Mr. Axworthy insists upon consulting, we have well over a minute's worth of opinions.

Hiring quotas article troubling

Dear Editor:

I read with concern the article by Ezra Levant of the University of Alberta School of Law in your December 1993 edition decrying the university's consideration of hiring quotas and control over academic freedom.

Mr. Levant describes the proposed policies as "racist." This is ironic because the purpose of such policies is to overcome the effects of racism.

I attended law school 25 years ago and started working for a law firm where there were no female lawyers. None. The firm agonized whether to hire any women at all. I have seen academic institutions and employers go through the same struggle in trying to decide whether to hire any blacks, and whether to hire any Jews. These were very real "quotas," but they were maintained while the institution protested that of course it was judging people only on their individual merits. The same views are held today by many in my profession. I practice with lawyers who are still convinced that women cannot practice law.

It is this kind of "racism" which has led to the need for affirmative action programs.

Women graduate today from our law schools with marks which are as good as (and in most cases better than) men's. That is because they are graded anonymously. Yet they do not get jobs. Can it be that they are being judged on something other than merit?

The statements of people like Mr. Levant that people should be judged solely on their merits would make sense if that is what happened. But it is not. Women and other minorities are not judged anonymously and without regard to race or gender.

One of the most strongly defended tenets of the university system is the concept of tenure. There are many good reasons for tenure. Academic freedom is one of them. Yet tenure has the effect of keeping second-rate and ineffective professors, and preventing better and more qualified persons from teaching. Tenure favours those who got their first--in other words, those who are white and male. Women and other minorities are excluded. Yet I do not hear Mr. Levant criticizing this concept.

How would Mr. Levant feel if all tenured professors at the University of Alberta had to resign and reapply for teaching positions where they would all be judged impartially and without regard to sex or gender?

This brings me to my primary criticism, which is not against Mr. Levant, but rather against your Institute. One express purpose of The Fraser Institute is to "document objectively the nature of the improvement or deterioration resulting from government intervention." An article such as Mr. Levant's is subjective and does little to advance your stated purposes. Why do you not take an issue such as this and provide objective statistics?

Rather than print subjective articles like Mr. Levant's, why not print statistical information showing the number and types of complaints which have been made against academics or to human rights tribunals, and how those complaints were disposed of at the institution or human rights tribunal. Then your readers will have the benefit of objective facts rather than subjective opinions.

In the meantime, please keep the histrionics about how affirmative action programs are run by Nazis to a minimum. I didn't see anything in the University of Alberta proposals about gas ovens.

Richard H. Hamilton

Vancouver

Michael Walker replies:

Your concern is private law firms who, in exercising their own evidently defective judgement, decided historically not to hire women. These decisions you refer to as quotas. The point of course is, (we have documented this in two books, Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity and Employment Equity), that it is very different for a private firm or private individual to make choices discriminating against particular people and for government or some governmental institution to pass a law about the same kind of issue. Those law firms which decided not to hire women, as capable as men but earning lower wages as a consequence of the lack of demand for their services, gave up the opportunity to earn profits as a consequence. Those law firms were less effective than law firms which were not bound by this kind of prejudice. One would expect that systematically over a period of time this liability accepted by discriminating law firms would eventually either cause their profitability to be lower and therefore that they would be punished or fined by the market for their behaviour or that they would relent eventually and begin to hire more female lawyers to take advantage of the contribution to profit which they could offer.

Passing a law about such situations does not eliminate racism or sexism but rather replaces one kind of sexism with another kind of sexism. That is to say, mandates by law a preference for say females over males from which there is no escape by anybody or any firm.

With regard to your comments about the hiring practices in universities and the necessity for us to publish facts, I refer you to the recently published Fraser Forum Critical Issues Bulletin In Defence of Academic Freedom and Scholarship and in particular the papers by Professor Grant Brown.

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.