1973-03-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, I have just returned from the International Conference on Viet Nam which I attended as the representative of the government of Canada. Essentially, this was a conference of the great powers and the belligerents in the Viet Nam war. Canada was present because of our participation in the International Commission for Control and Supervision.
As members will recall, I made clear prior to my departure that we were not going to Paris to sit in judgment on the political and military settlements embodied in the Paris agreement. I have made it clear repeatedly that Canada has not sought, and is not seeking, a truce supervisory role in Indochina but was prepared to serve in such a capacity if we were convinced that the ICCS could be made to play a useful and effective role in restoring peace in Viet Nam.
I have also made clear in this House and outside it the conditions we would consider essential if we are to continue our participation in the ICCS. One of these essential conditions was the establishment of an outside political authority independent of the belligerents themselves to which the commission could send its reports and which could alert the international community to a serious threat to the peace in Viet Nam. Provision for such a mechanism was lacking in the January 27 agreement and it was our hope that this deficiency would be corrected by this conference. I therefore went to Paris to do all I could to see if a satisfactory authority could be established.
In my initial intervention at the conference on February 26 I expressed our views on this subject clearly and forcefully and placed before the participants a proposal that provided for the Secretary General of the United Nations to receive and circulate communications from the International Commission of Control and Supervision to the membership of the international conference, and to perform a similar function regarding the comments of the membership of the conference on such communications. The Canadian proposal also contained a provision for the reconvening of the conference on any of four conditions:
(a)	on receipt of a request from the International Commission of Control and Supervision;
(b)	on receipt of a request from the Four-Party Joint Military Commission or the Two-Party Joint Military Commission;
(c)	on receipt of a formal request from five of the members of the conference, excluding the Secretary General of the United Nations; and
(d)	after determining, at the request of any member of the conference that a two-thirds majority of the members, excluding the Secretary General, considered that there was cause to reconvene the conference.
It soon became clear that few participants at the conference were prepared to support the type of independent international reporting mechanism, involving the Secretary General of the United Nations, such as we had suggested and some were strongly opposed to the whole concept. I think it is safe to say that it was only because of our insistence on this matter that the conference addressed itself at all seriously to the matter. What finally emerged in Articles 6 and 7 of the act was the most that could be obtained. Under these arrangements, the reports and views of the international commission will at least be transmitted outside the closed circuit of the belligerents to the conference participants, and the conference itself can be recalled.
I made clear to the conference our disappointment that it could not agree on a more effective arrangement and I questioned whether the mechanism established went far enough and whether it could work. I emphasized to the conference on March 1 that the arrangements provided in Articles 6 and 7 would be carefully reviewed by the Canadian government in determining the extent to which our conditions for continued participation in the conference had been fulfilled.
The act provided an opportunity for world powers to acknowledge their respect and support for the January 27 agreement in association not only with the parties to that agreement, but also with the governments participating in the International Commission established under it. It is also noteworthy that the conference was conducted in the presence of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
I signed the act on behalf of Canada because the spirit of the act and the good will reflected in it were such as to command the support of the Canadian people. The act welcomes peace in Viet Nam and it calls for the participants to do nothing to jeopardize that peace. It was, therefore, important to have all the participants at the conference associated with those objectives, and failure to sign could have been open to misinterpretation. Moreover, not to have signed the act could only have been construed as meaning that one of our sine qua non had not been met. We were not in a position at the conference, nor are we yet in a position, to say whether the machinery provided in
1866

March 5, 1973
International Conference on Viet Nam
Articles 6 and 7 could serve the purpose we have had in mind. We will look at these arrangements in the light of our experience in the International Commission. This will be one of the prime factors in determining whether the commission is playing or can play an effective role in restoring peace to Viet Nam.
We must now, Mr. Speaker, examine very carefully the political authority and the reporting arrangements that have been established to determine whether, in our judgment, they have a reasonable prospect of operating effectively. We must also relate these arrangements to the effectiveness of the International Commission on the ground. The Canadian delegation under the direction of Ambassador Gauvin is making a tremendous effort to see that the commission works. But we cannot do it alone, Mr. Speaker, and disturbing developments in Viet Nam compel us to question whether the International Commission will be allowed to function in a way that would justify our continued participation. Perhaps-and I cannot say that I am very confident-the discussions in Paris will result in increased support by all the participants at the conference for the objectives we have in mind. Over the next few weeks, therefore, we will need to assess the relevant factors very carefully. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that at some time I should pay a visit to Viet Nam and see the situation on the ground for myself. If so, I would invite members of the opposition to come with me, but that is a decision that has not yet definitely been made. I will report to cabinet on the results of this assessment and the government will then be in a position to make its decision.
Perhaps I should emphasize again that the peace in Viet Nam depends upon the parties to the peace agreement itself. The International Commission can help by investigation and observation and reporting but it cannot keep the peace. The commission is not an essential element. It can be of help only if the parties-and that means all of them-wish to see the commission function.
I wish to table, Mr. Speaker, the text of the act of the International Conference on Viet Nam and copies of my statements to the conference on February 26 and March 1. It might be useful, since they are really part of the statement I have made today, if they could be printed either as an appendix to Hansard or as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish to the House that the documents referred to by the minister be made an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document referred to above, see Appendix.]


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to welcome back the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). We wished him good luck when he left but, unfortunately, we notice that our wishes for his success did not materialize.

The minister has reported to the House his failure to secure acceptance of what he termed himself before his departure a sine qua non condition to our continuing participation in the International Control Commission. The conference's new position is virtually without meaning and constitutes a watered down and unacceptable version of the minister's proposal. This failure leaves the government with but one alternative. It has been summed up very clearly by many observers who have expressed themselves over the weekend. One Montreal paper expressed it this way:
A continuing Canada presence will not stand for devotion to duty but rather for bluff, backdown and bumbling.
Our view all along has been that the minister should not have involved Canada without prior consultation with parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: -and without prior acceptance by all parties involved of the essential conditions.
As a nation, we should not apologize for desiring structures that will ensure a peace that can be supervised. The minister not only implies apology but indicates that for all intents and purposes we have backed down.
If a middle power has any long term interest it is in peace arrangements that guarantee an effective role for neutral smaller powers. If we do not stand by our own ground rules now, we will not succeed in letting belligerents know that the ground rules exist and must exist in the future.
The minister has disregarded parliament, has left dormant on the order paper the resolution calling for a debate and vote, and now, in spite of the difficulties in which he finds himself, the minister continues on behalf of the government to show continued disregard of the role of this House. He stated with arrogance yesterday that parliament will not be consulted before a final decision is reached. On the part of a weak minority government, the behaviour of the minister cannot be condoned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Although we sincerely regret the minister's failure in Paris, he has but himself to blame and in this House he stands alone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, this party has made it clear that while it supported the participation of Canada in the International Commission of Control and Supervision in Viet Nam for an initial period of 60 days, we believed and believe that the decision to continue Canadian participation was and is such an important and grave commitment, not a mere detail in the conduct of our international affairs, that the decision should not be made without the prior approval of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: We repeat this stand today and invite the minister to bring a resolution dealing with this matter

March 5, 1973

before the House prior to committing the government to action on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: As to the continuation of our contribution to the commission, we would deeply regret if the arrangements or machinery for ending the war and restoring peace in Viet Nam broke down. But it remains true, as we said in an earlier statement, that the observer team can perform no useful function if the parties do not themselves accept the ceasefire or do not accept the provisions of the agreement in any important respect. No outside observer team or peacekeeping arrangement can enforce an agreement which the two parties themselves do not accept in good faith.
So far the ceasefire has been only partial and the observer team has been frustrated in performing its supposed function by lack of an adequate international body to whom to report and lack of a proper and workable procedure for reporting. We share the doubts of the minister as to the effectiveness of clauses six and seven of the Paris Act. We, along with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, would much have preferred the Security Council or the Secretary General of the United Nations to have been designated as the international authority to which the observers would report.
If the present situation continues without improvement-and I say "if"-then Canada must not repeat the farce of the International Control Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: But I repeat-and in this I differ from the views expressed by the spokesman for the Official Opposition-if the observer team can function effectively, and we have not made a judgment on this aspect, then we would support the government in continuing the Canadian contribution.
The picture is not all dark. The arrangement made last week for the further release of United States prisoners of war and the continued withdrawal of United States troops from Viet Nam are to be welcomed, as is the international endorsement of the peace agreement reached in Paris.
I should like once again to refer briefly to the question of the release of the 200,000 political prisoners in South Viet Nam as constituting an integral part of a peaceful settlement. Many of these prisoners are neutral or noncommunist politicians. Many are students, teachers or religious leaders. They constitute the third force which is so essential to the genuine national reconciliation that is the core of the peace agreement. One of the reasons I hope Canada may be able to continue its participation in the work of the commission is that it could use its membership as a measure of leverage in urging that this immense tragedy be relieved.
Lastly, a word on reconstruction. The international community must make it clear that international aid for reconstruction in Viet Nam is contingent upon a genuine peace and the bona fide acceptance of the peace agreement by all parties. The absence of any reference to these
International Conference on Viet Nam
issues in the minister's statement presumably means that they were not the subject of serious discussion at the international conference. This is much to be regretted. These questions must be solved if genuine peace is to come to Viet Nam.
We look forward to further frank and full exploration of the situation in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Following that full study, we want our share of participation in reaching the decision on whether or not we should continue to participate.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Viet Nam conference in Paris has shown us that bringing peace to Viet Nam is going to be a difficult and even a painful business. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was full of optimism when he went to the conference, but he no doubt discovered very quickly that, however good his intentions, his proposals would not gain immediate acceptance, because not just one but both sides were represented at the conference. And unlike here in the House, even though we do have a pretty strong opposition, there seem to have been greatly differing opinions.
I am by no means sure, Mr. Speaker, if the suggestion or proposal of the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have had much success even if it had been accepted and carried out.
It must be admitted that United Nations achievements so far in the field of worldwide peace-keeping have been somewhat inconclusive.
It may be that we have nothing better to propose when it comes to trying to reconcile countries in conflict, especially when they have been at war for almost 30 years; however, if the United Nations is to become an effective instrument in future situations of this kind, I believe it will need to undergo some reforms.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has now committed herself to continuing to seek a way of bringing peace to Viet Nam, and I think that we should continue the debate that we started at the beginning of this session, on a subject that is still on the Order Paper, to give Parliament an opportunity to express its opinion.
I recall that in a very similar situation in 1964, under rather complicated circumstances, the government saw fit to ask for the support of the House for sending troops for peace-keeping in Cyprus.
I have always wondered why the government did not do likewise when it came to sending troops to Viet Nam for observation duties after the cease-fire. At all events, Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues in the opposition consider that Parliament ought to be consulted on any further steps that might be taken.

March 5, 1973
B.C. Herring Fishery


AIR CANADA
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion on an urgent matter affecting all members of the House. In view of the serious deterioration in Air Canada service across the country, especially in the Ottawa area and surrounding communities since relocation of their information services to Montreal, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That a special reference of this matter be made to the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications, and that Messrs. Baldwin and Pratt be summoned to account accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the complete chaos currently existing in the British Columbia herring fishery, I ask leave of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House demand that the Minister of Fisheries forthwith (a) institute a rational quota division between gillnetters and seiners in order, among other things, to ensure that local fishermen, Indians and others have some reasonable opportunity to participate in the herring roe fishery and (b) lift his ruling that test fishing to determine the suitability of herring schools for harvesting be done by seine fishermen without remuneration for their work.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is put to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT
Thomas Speakman Barnett: for leave to introduce Bill C-155, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, this bill adds a new clause to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to make Her Majesty in right of Canada, in right of the provinces, or agencies of Her Majesty, subject to the terms of the act. Many activities of the governments of Canada and the provinces and their agents now affect navigable waters in ways similar to non-governmental activities. It is therefore proper and necessary that the act clearly require that governmental activities are subject to the same conditions and approvals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to removing the 12 per cent tax on confectionery products?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: In his February 19, 1973 budget, the Minister of Finance did recommend that confectionery products and all other foods for human consumption be made exempt from the general 12 per cent sales tax.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Tax Review Board on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. 1968-69, nil; 1969-70, nil; 1970-71, nil; 1971-72, nil.
2 and 3. Not applicable.
4. No contracts have been awarded.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare remove its water testing laboratory a few years ago to Kingston, Ontario, from the Brockville Shopping Centre, Stewart Blvd., Brockville, Ontario and, if so (a) did any persons make any representation to the Department on behalf of such removal (b) what were their names (c) were they in any way involved in the decision to make this removal?
2.	How long did the lease the government had on the premises have to run beyond the date that the Department vacated this Brockville location?
3.	What was the monthly rental paid by the government at this Brockville location?
4.	Between the date when the Department vacated the Brockville premises and the date the lease expired, what was the total amount of rents paid to the owners of the Brockville Shopping Centre?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare phased out temporary laboratory operations at Brockville, subsequent to the decision that current and projected analytical support required for field activities could be provided by the Department's larger and better equipped laboratory at Kingston. The Brockville and Kingston laboratories were initially established at the same time, (a) No record of any representation; (b) N/A; (c) N/A.
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned:
2.	Twenty-eight months.
3.	$810.
4.	$22,680.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	To date, how many acres of land have been secured by or on behalf of the government for use in the proposed Toronto harbour park?
2.	How many acres remain to be acquired for the full assembling of the parcel required for this park?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
14.569 acres have been secured by the purchase of Terminal Warehouse Limited, expropriation proceedings are currently underway to secure approximately 21 acres in private ownership and some 46 acres owned by the Toronto Harbour Commission have been secured by written agreement in principle that the lands will be transferred to the Crown in exchange for harbour improvement works to an equal value.
2.	Less than five acres to be acquired, generally under Provincial or Municipal control. Arrangements to transfer these lands to the scheme will be discussed at forthcoming tri-level meetings.
Order Paper Questions RAIN DAMAGE PROGRAM


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What was the total amount spent by the government in the Province of Quebec for aid to farmers whose crops were damaged by rain in 1972?
2.	What was the amount spent by the government in each Quebec constituency under the same program?
3.	Does the government intend to renew this assistance program to disadvantaged farmers and, if so, through which programs?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: (1) Under the auspices of the Rain Damage Program $7,311,200 was paid to Quebec farmers up to December 31, 1972.
(2)	Records are not maintained on a constituency basis.
(3)	No.


Mr. Stackhouse: What was the total amount of DREE grants made during 1972 (a) in Metropolitan Toronto (b) in Scarborough (c) in each of the ten provinces, Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: (a) Metropolitan Toronto, none, not designated under Regional Development Incentives Act. (b) Scarborough, none, not designated under Regional Development Incentives Act. (c) From January 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972, the following figures represent the net totals, by province, of accepted offers of development incentives authorized under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act: Newfoundland, $2,018,827; Prince Edward Island, 1,576,336; Nova Scotia, 15,602,654; New Brunswick, 9,938,337; Quebec, 66,514,253; Ontario, 19,031,443; Manitoba, 5,171,595; Saskatchewan, 1,456,407; Alberta, 6,749,054; British Columbia, 623,300; Total, $128,682,206. The Yukon and Northwest Territories, none, not designated under Regional Development Incentives Act.


Mr. McKenzie: When travelling on official government business, do Bank of Canada employees receive first-class or economy-class accommodation and, if first-class, for what reason?


John Napier Turner: It has not
been the practice to answer detailed questions concerning the internal administration of the Bank of Canada inasmuch as the Bank of Canada Act places the responsibility for its management in the hands of its Board of Directors.


Mr. Stollery: 1.	How much did it cost the government to put on the Ontario Regional Arts Conference known as "Direction Ontario" held at the O'Keefe Centre in Toronto on January 19, 20 and 21,1973?
2.	How many such conferences were or will be held across Canada in 1973 and what will be the total cost of all of the conferences?

March 5, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3.	(a) Were the artists charged admission to the Ontario Regional Arts Conference, known as "Direction Ontario" and, if so, how much was the total amount collected from artists (b) were the press charged admission to the conference and, if so, how much was the total amount collected from the press (c) what was the total amount of admission collected from the conference?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1, 2 and
3.	"Direction Ontario" was organized by the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA), which is a non-profit organization serving working members of the artistic and cultural community in a variety of ways. The CCA received a sustaining grant of $150,000 from the Arts and Culture Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State in 1972-73 to aid it in carrying out its program, including "Direction Ontario"; but the CCA was free to prepare its budget so as to meet its objectives in the most efficient and effective way possible and also to supplement the federal grant with funds from other sources. Further information can be obtained directly from Mr. John Hobday, National Director, Canadian Conference of the Artg, 49 Wellington Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1C9.


Mr. Fortin: Were funds invested by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the constituency of Lotbiniere since the establishment of the Department and, if so (a) what was the total amount (b) what is the complete list of firms that received grants (c) what are the details of the agreements reached in the constituency?


Marcel Prud'homme: The following amounts were committed by the department in the constituency of Lotbiniere, Quebec, from the coming into force of the Regional Development Incentives Act to December 31, 1972 by means of the acceptance of offers of development incentives authorized under the provisions of the Act: (a) $2,004,882.
(b)
Name
Arthabaska
Imprimerie d'Arthabaska
St-Louis-de-Blandford
Les Industries Ltee
Warwick
Warwick Ladders Inc.
Warwick Woollen Mills Co. Ltd.
Roland Boulanger & Cie Ltee
Lockport Felt Ltd.
Princeville
Duval & Raymond Inc.
Sani-Chutes Lego Ltee
Prince-Caravane Inc.
Victoriaville
Sani-Marc Inc.
Royal Chesterfield (1966) Inc.
H. P. Cyrenne Ltee
Name	Incentive
H. P. Cyrenne Ltee	19,400
Placements des Bois-Francs Inc.	6,300
Polyclar Inc.	20,601
Les Produits Industriels Motorises Ltee	19,691
Menuiserie Rive-Sud Inc.	42,600
J. M. Caya Ltee	15,300
Interprovincial Parts Inc.	21,518
J. M. Caya Ltee	47,550
Industech Inc.	30,000
Sunray Boats Inc.	60,800
Ventilateur Victoria Ltee	48,600
Daveluyville	
National Underlay (1972) Inc.	53,520
Tricot P.G. Ltee	149,800
Robert Lapierre Ltee	55,850
Entreprises A.R.M. Ltee	37,550
Ste-Croix	
Fonderie Ste-Croix Ltee	234,400
Val Alain	
P. Bolduc & Fils Inc.	35,000
Deschaillons	
Montreal Terra Cotta (1966) Ltd.	26,043
Laurier Station	
Meubles Laurier Ltee	36,000
A.P. Furniture Industries Inc.	42,000
Ste-Eulalie	
Yelles & Freres Enrg.	5,244
St-Samuel	
J. A. Poulin	14,580
Confection Ideale Ltee	7,030
Ste-Marie	
Vachon Inc.	160,407
(c) There have been no agreements reached between Canada and the government of Quebec in the constituency of Lotbiniere.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Is the Visual Education Centre (a) a private corporation (b) a public corporation?
2.	Who are its senior management personnel?
3.	To whom is the Centre responsible for its operation?
4.	Has the Visual Education Centre been given exclusive postbroadcast distribution rights in Canada of any and/or all CBC program material including educational television rights and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Are taxpayers funds used in any way to finance the operation of the Visual Education Centre and, if so, in what amounts?
Incentive


[Stage Direction]
March 5, 1973
[Stage Direction]
6.	Does the Visual Education Centre charge for programs distributed to education bodies or authorities and, if so, in what amounts?
7.	Are individual schools or educational bodies allowed to videotape and rebroadcast educational programs within their own school systems and, if not (a) for what reason (b) what is the penalty for so doing?
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. The Visual Education Centre is a private company.
2,	3 and 6. Enquiries concerning the Visual Education Centre should be addressed directly to the Visual Education Centre, 115 Berkeley Street, Toronto.
5. No.
In so far as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is concerned, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
4.	The Visual Education Centre has exclusive non theatrical distribution rights in Canada for those CBC owned programs that CBC is able to clear and wishes to put into distribution. The contract does not cover those programs in which another party has an interest, and therefore national and local school broadcasts are not covered. VEC has the right to licence telecasts of those CBC programs released to it on the educational television in Edmonton and Toronto. No theatrical distribution has been undertaken under the contract. CBC has selected a private company to carry out its distribution because the audiovisual market is highly specialized and outside its sphere of major activity. The use of a successful private company ensures the most effective educational distribution.
7. In so far as CBC is concerned, individual schools or educational authorities cannot be authorized to videotape and re-use CBC programs within their own schools or school areas. There are several reasons for this, but they are usually based on ownership of copyright and on collective agreements with performers and writers. In the great majority of cases CBC has only acquired broadcast rights and the non-broadcast rights are either not available or are already under contract to other organizations. Those infringing rights held by others are liable to the penalties provided by law should action be taken by the holders of the rights.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When was the LIP grant for the project for senior citizens in Ottawa given?
2.	How much was voted and expended in this project?
3.	For what reason was it deemed necessary to eliminate the services of conveying senior citizens to doctors for medical examination?
4.	What future plans are in store for this particular LIP project?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Contract between the sponsor and the government is dated December 4, 1972.
2.	Contract is for $24,322, of which a payment of $7,548, has been made.
3.	The services of conveying senior citizens to doctors for medical examination have not been eliminated.
Order Paper Questions
4.	According to the sponsor an attempt will be made to set up a permanent transportation service for senior citizens in co-ordination with other local groups.


Mr. Lawrence: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the County of Durham, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during 1972, and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: In 1972, the following lawyers or legal firms were retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the County of Durham, Ontario, for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans: (a) Bonneville, Fitzgibbon and Good, Port Hope, (b) R. C. Honey, Port Hope. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers.


Mr. Lawrence: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the County of Durham, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during 1971, and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In 1971, the following lawyer was retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the County of Durham, Ontario, for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans: James H. Clark, Cobourg. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amount paid to this lawyer. C. D. Fitzgibbon, Port Hope, was retained to handle eight actions where arrears on loans had developed, and E. R. Lovekin of Newcastle was retained for one such action. These actions were settled prior to trial and the costs were paid by the borrowers, the Corporation therefore not having a record of the amounts paid to these lawyers.


Mr. Lawrence: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the County of Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during 1972, and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In 1972, the following legal firm was retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the County of Northumberland, Ontario, for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans: Thompson & Thompson, Brighton. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are

March 5, 1973
Order Paper Questions
paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amount paid to this firm.


Mr. Lawrence: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the County of Northumberland, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during 1971, and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In 1971, the following lawyers were retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the County of Northumberland, Ontario, for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans: Trevor E. Clark, Campbellford, J. P. Funnell, Cobourg. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers. J. H. Clark of Cobourg was retained to handle four actions where arrears on loans had developed. These actions were settled prior to trial and the costs were paid by the borrowers, the Corporation therefore not having a record of the amount paid to this lawyer.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the Post Office Department commenced a policy of selling prestamped coloured scenic postcards and, if so (a) on what date was this policy begun (b) for what reason?
2.	Has the government received any protests over this invasion of private business?
3.	(a) What has the program cost to date (b) what have been the revenues to date?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. Yes. (a) Prestamped picture postcards were introduced for sale in most regular post office locations beginning July 24, 1972. (b) Prestamped scenic postcards are offered as a convenience to post office customers and as an extension of the sale of prestamped stationery which the Canada Post Office has been engaged in for more than 100 years. A series of prestamped monochrome scenic postcards was offered for sale in 1930. Prestamped stationery displaces separate transactions for postage stamps and eliminates the need by the customer to handle, moisten and affix postage stamps.
2.	Yes, but we do not believe the sale of special prestamped postcards through post office outlets represents an invasion of the commercial market for postcards. The scenes illustrated on the prestamped postcards were selected in cooperation with Provincial officials who were enthusiastic about the opportunity to promote areas of their provinces not normally featured on commercial postcards. Commercial cards tend to depict popular tourist areas or specific points of interest, whereas the scenes on the prestamped postcards are representative of the provinces generally. The cards are sold through postal outlets only, and in packages containing five cards. Most post offices therefore are carrying only one package of

five cards for sale; that is to say, the five cards relating to the province in which the post office is located. The selling price is $1 per package. Excluding the stamp value, the price of an individual card would be 12c/, which is two cents higher than the prevailing price for commercially retailed postcards. The prestamped postcards are of special interest to the stamp collecting community and a representative group of stamp collectors has endorsed the philatelic aspects of the sale of these cards. Since there is a significant number of collectors of Canadian stamps and postal stationery located outside Canada, the prestamped cards help to advertise the beauty of Canada to collectors in other countries. The primary objective of the sale of the prestamped scenic postcards is customer convenience and reduced stamp sales transactions and with this in mind the Canada Post Office is prepared to discuss the possibility of private postcard manufacturers producing prestamped picture postcards for distribution and sale through commercial retail channels.
3.	(a) $228,643. (b) $258,624. A major part of the costs stated in (a) was made up of initial manufacturing and advertising costs which will not be repeated to the same extent. Revenue shown in (b) is revenue as at September 30, 1972. Since revenue is continuing to be derived, the spread between cost and revenue is greater than that indicated.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Since 1942, what were (a) the date of the first federal-provincial meeting and the names of all the provincial premiers who attended the meeting (b) the dates of the meetings held in order to renew the five year fiscal agreements regarding certain taxation authorities granted by the provinces to the federal government since the beginning (c) the names of all Quebec premiers who attended such meetings to 1972?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: (a) The Fed-eral-Provinsial Conference of 1945-46 was composed of three meetings: August 6-10, 1945; January 28-February 1, 1946; April 29-May 3, 1946. The First Ministers in attendance were: Canada-Rt. Hon. Mackenzie King; Nova Scotia-Hon. A. S. MacMillan; New Brunswick-Hon. J. B. McNair; Prince Edward Island-Hon. J. W. Jones; Quebec-Hon. Maurice Duplessis; Ontario-Hon. George Drew; Manitoba-Hon. Stuart Garson; Saskatchewan- Hon. T. C. Douglas; Alberta-Hon. E. C. Manning; British Columbia-Hon. John Hart, (b) The Dominion-Provincial Taxation Agreements, 1947-1952: These Agreements were established through individual negotiations with each province following the failure of the 1945-46 Conferences to reach agreement. The Taxation Agreements, 1952-1957: These Agreements were discussed at a meeting of First Ministers in Ottawa December 4-7, 1950. The Federal-Provincial Tax Sharing Arrangements Act, 1957-1962: The following meetings of First Ministers in Ottawa established the framework for the Federal-Provincial Tax Sharing Arrangements Act 1957-1962: April 26, 1955; October 3-6, 1955; November 25 and 26, 1957. The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1962-1967: Discussions for the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act 1962-67 took place in Ottawa at First Minister's Meetings
March 5, 1973

on the following dates: July 25-27, 1960; October 26-28, 1960; February 23 and 24, 1961. The Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers also met in Ottawa in this period to discuss fiscal arrangements on the following dates: July 6 and 7, 1959; October 15 and 16, 1959. The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967-1972: The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act of 19671972 was discussed at a First Ministers' Conference held in Ottawa from October 24 to October 29, 1966. The Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers also met in Ottawa to discuss the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act of 1967-72 on December 20, 1966. The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972: The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972 was discussed at a First Ministers' Conference Held in Ottawa on November 15-17, 1971. The Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers met several times to discuss the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act 1972. Meetings were held on the following dates: November 4 and 5,1968; December 19, 1968; December 7 and 8, 1970; July 12 and 13, 1971; November 1 and 2, 1971; January 31 and February 1, 1972. (c) Premier Maurice Duplessis attended all of the above conferences during the period from August 1945 to Novemberl957. From July, 1960 to November, 1963 the First Ministers' conferences referred to were attended by Premier Jean Lesage. Premier Daniel Johnson represented Quebec at the October, 1966 conference. Premier Robert Bourassa represented Quebec at the November, 1971 conference.


Mr. Stackhouse: How much was spent in DREE grants during 1971 and 1972 for purposes in the Montreal special area?


Marcel Prud'homme: In the designated Region C, with reference only to that part thereof which includes the Montreal area and the Province of Quebec, but not including the Province of Ontario, 660 offers of development incentives, authorized under the Regional Development Incentives Act, were accepted by applicants. The total net amount committed by the Department in the period from January 1, 1971 to December 31, 1972 was $46,501,795. In the period from January 1 to December 31, 1971 payments totalling $734,324 were made. In the period from January 1 to December 31, 1972 payments totalling $5,009,233 were made.


Mr. Stackhouse: Has Polymer Corporation liquidated its investments in South Africa and, if so, what was their value at liquidation?


John Napier Turner: Polymer Corporation was sold to the Canada Development Corporation on July 31, 1972, pursuant to authority given by Section 39 of the Canada Development Corporation Act. Officers of the CDC have informed the Minister of Finance that Polymer has disposed of its investments in South Africa and that a statement to this effect will be included in Polymer's Annual Report which is to be avail-
Order Paper Questions
able in March 1973. For commercial reasons, Polymer does not disclose the details of its transactions. A request has been made to Polymer Corporation asking that a copy of its Annual Report be forwarded to the hon. member when it is published.


Mr. Stollery: 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works received a request from the City of Toronto asking for first priority on any disposal of the property at 38 Sullivan Street, Toronto, formerly occupied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	Is the Minister of Public Works instructing Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to give first choice of the site at 38 Sullivan Street, Toronto, to the City of Toronto for use by the local residents in whatever capacity they should decide upon in conjunction with the City Council?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
The Department is now in receipt of a letter dated February 1 from the City of Toronto Planning Board enclosing a copy of a letter from the City of Toronto Executive Committee, dated January 18 asking that arrangements be made to open negotiations with federal authorities for the acquisition of the property at 38 Sullivan Street.
2. In the event the property is declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, the Minister will advise the Corporation of the City's desire to acquire the land, and the Corporation will then follow-up on its priority basis.


Mr. Marshall: 1. Under SSEP Program, how much of the Department of National Defence funds will be allocated to the province of Newfoundland?
2.	Will high school and post secondary students who have dropped out of school in the past two years because of lack of funds qualify for employment?
3.	Under the civilian term-employee program (a) what is the allocation by province of the 2,500 students who can apply for maintenance, clerical and research positions, at Canadian Armed Forces bases (b) what is the Public Service rate of pay for each classification?
4.	Under the citizenship and community assistance program what is the allocation by province of the 2,600 job openings?
5.	On completion of eight weeks employment will students who cannot afford to return to university qualify for Unemployment Insurance benefits?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Department of National Defence and Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows:	1. Under the civilian term
employee program the Canadian Forces Stations in Newfoundland have been allocated $35,000. Details of the Militia, Cadet and Citizenship programs are not yet complete therefore it is not possible to determine the amount of funds that will be allocated to units located in Newfoundland.
2. The overriding objective of the program is to facilitate and create temporary student employment and activities. Pursuant to this objective, an applicant who states

March 5, 1973
Order Paper Questions
that he is or will be attending a high school, university or other institute of post-secondary education would be accepted.
3.	(a) The number of students to be employed in each province cannot be given with any degree of accuracy at this time; however, funds have been allocated as follows: Newfoundland, $35,000; Prince Edward Island, $48,000; Nova Scotia, $311,000; New Brunswick, $197,000; Quebec, $859,000; Ontario, $892,000; Manitoba, $194,000; Saskatchewan, $107,600; Alberta, $187,000; British Columbia, $326,000; (b)(i) At the minimum on-going contract rates for those hired to perform duties in the Administrative Support Category, (ii) At the hourly rate of pay applicable to the zone as set out in the General Labour and Trades or General Services collective agreements, if they are engaged in tasks calling for the various duties in these categories, (iii) Students recruited to work in their career specialities (Career Oriented Employment Program) received rates based on Academic Achievement Levels and range from $1.90 per hour for those who have successfully completed 12 years of schooling or less with Junior Matriculation, to $5.15 per hour for those who have successfully completed 21 years of schooling, (iv) In all instances no student will receive less than $1.90 per hour which is the minimum wage under Part III of the Canada Labour Code.
4.	Atlantic Area (Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), 520; Eastern (Quebec), 725; Central (Ontario less Northwestern Ontario), 705; Prairie (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northwestern Ontario), 390; Pacific (British Columbia), 260.
5.	On completion of eight weeks of insurable employment any worker, including students, can qualify for unemployment insurance benefit subject to the normal requirements of the legislation. These requirements are that the worker has not been discharged from his employment for cause or voluntarily left is employment without just cause, and is capable of and available for suitable employment. In the case of voluntary separation or discharge for cause, the worker could be declared ineligible for up to three weeks. A worker is not eligible for benefits unless he is capable and availabe for suitable employment.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	By province, what was the total number of applications received by LIP for assistance in the fiscal year ended 1972?
2.	By province, of those approved, how many applications were exercised by the applicants?
3.	What was the total operating cost of the program for the same period (a) exclusive of grants (b) inclusive of grants?
4.	What was the average cost, based on the above cost exclusive of grants payments, of each decision made by the program on applications (a) received (b) accepted (c) rejected?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. See Schedule 1, Column 1.
2.	See Schedule 1, Column 2.
3.	(a) $4,022,000; (b) $153,133,000.
4.	(a) $293; (b) $721; (c) $493.

Note: The value of the grants for the purpose of question 4(b) has been taken to be the value of program funds committed to projects by contract as at March 31, 1972.
Schedule 1
Local Initiatives Program 1971-72
Applications Applications Received Exercised
Newfoundland	1,142	397Nova Scotia	1,009	427Prince Edward Island	258	113New Brunswick	712	379Quebec	5,215	1,905Ontario	2,238	989Manitoba	594	198Alberta	607	309Saskatchewan	493	171Northwest Territories	109	34British Columbia	1,323	635Yukon Territory	36	21Canada	13,736	5,578


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is the Canadian Development Corporation's head office in Montreal?
2.	Is it still the intention of the government to establish a head office in Vancouver as originally announced and, if not, for what reason?


John Napier Turner: 1. No. The
head office of the Canada Development Corporation is in Ottawa, as designated by Order in Council P.C. 1971-2560 dated November 18, 1971.
2. In his announcement to the House of Commons made on November 29, 1971, the Prime Minister said that "the Government has made known to the Board of Directors its wish to see the location of the head office moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, within two years". Section 10 of the CDC Act says "The head office of the company shall initially be at such place within Canada as may be designated by the Governor in Council and thereafter at such place as the Board of Directors may determine subject to Section 21 of the Canada Corporations Act." It is understood that the CDC's Board of Directors will be considering this question prior to the end of 1973.


Mr. Godin: Does the government contribute to grants made to farmers by the Province of Quebec under drainage and mechanized works programs?
March 5, 1973

Mr. ]ohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): The Department of Regional Economic Expansion does not contribute financially to the grants that the Quebec government gives to farmers under the drainage and mechanized works programs. However, DREE can contribute, and has contributed recently to two projects under the 1971-1975 Canada-Que-bec Agreement on Rural Development (ARDA). Both projects are now completed: improvement of major waterways in Saguenay, Lac St-Jean (total cost: $502,700); mechanized works in Saguenay, Lac St-Jean (total cost: $337,200). Under the terms of this Agreement, the federal contribution represents 50 per cent of the total cost.
Insofar as Agriculture Canada is concerned: no.


Mr. Lawrence: Who, or what organizations, resident or located in the County of Durham, in the Province of Ontario, received Local Initiatives Program grants in 1972, and what were their addresses, the purpose of the grants, and how much was paid to each?


Robert Knight Andras: Under the 1971-72 program, the following project was approved in the County of Durham: Project 311-1101-Sponsor: Canadian Legion Branch 30, Port Hope. Purpose: To assist in the construction of a new Legion Hall in Port Hope. Amount Paid: $20,592. Under the 1972-73 program, the following project has been approved:	Project K2183-Sponsor:	Ryerson Rural
Centre, Box 93, Millbrook, Ontario. Purpose: To employ six people to develop the Ryerson Rural Centre into a suitable country retreat for children who are under the care of the Children's Aid Society. A residential and activity program would then be implemented to provide periods of country holidays for the children. Value of Approval: $9,745.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What is the total annual cost of maintenance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
2.	How much of such cost is paid by each of the provinces?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. Operating and Capital Expenditures for Fiscal Year 1971/72: Manitoba, $11,169,823; Saskatchewan, $15,334,050; Alberta, $18,465,464. These figures do not include the cost of the government's contribution to pensions, the operation of Air Division or the administration of Headquarters, Ottawa.
2. Manitoba, $3,431,955; Saskatchewan, $5,168,095; Alberta, $6,108,616.
N.B.: In addition to the amounts paid by each of the Provinces the following amounts were paid in the Fiscal Year 1971/72 by Municipalities that are under contract with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police within these Provinces: Manitoba, $1,293,730; Saskatchewan, $1,314,738; Alberta, $1,714,291.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Allard: 1.	What amount was spent to date on programs under the Cana-da-Quebec agreement for Eastern Quebec?
2.	Are there any projects planned for the near future?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. The total amount spent on programs under the Canada-Quebec agreement for eastern Quebec development will reach $216,862,100 at the end of the current fiscal year (1972-73).
2. A certain number of projects are planned for 1973-74. Most of these projects will ensure the extension of current programs. All parties concerned in the development plan are presently negotiating the content of these projects. The details of the projects will be available as soon as an agreement is reached.
Development Plan for the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe and Iles-de-la-Madeleine Area
Total Expenditures Incurred by All Parties to the 1968-1973 Agreement (in $)
Field	1968-76 Budget	1968-73 Expenditures	1973-76 BalanceAgriculture	24,470,000	12,484, 00	11,985,300Forests	25,148,000	18,082,100	7,065,900Fisheries	21,605,000	8,061,200	13,543,800Mines	11,333,000	9,623,100	1,709,900Tourism, recreation	29,962,000	19,459,100	10,502,900Business development	17,663,000	3,859,200	13,803,800Urban development	36,727,000	28,464,400	8,262,600Transport	113,500,000	58,959,300	54,540,700Social development	
Labour force training and	31,777,000	7,995,200	23,781,800mobility	
Administration and partici-	86,000,000	47,577,800	38,422,200pation	13,133,000	5,296,000	7,837,000Total:	411,318,000	219,862,100	191,455,900
The 1972-73 budgetary data used to compute the 1968-73 expenditures are only estimates and are subject to change. They were established on the basis of a provisional balance sheet drawn up in December 1972, from which the administrators of the Agreement have derived a projection from the trends observed at that time. In a similar way, the 1973-76 balance is also subject to change.


Mr. Arrol: Will the government give consideration to imposing restrictions similar to those existing in Great Britain, the United States and Australia forbidding the importation of such exotic furs as tiger and snow leopard skins in the interests of the preservation of endangered wildlife?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: There is at present a plenipotentiary conference in session in Washington, at which all

March 5, 1973
Order Paper Questions
states that are members of the United Nations are represented. The purpose of the conference is to prepare and adopt a convention on the export, import and transit of certain animals and plants.


Mr. Stackhouse: Is it the intention of the government to give city councils a share of the revenue from personal income tax?


John Napier Turner: Under the British North America Act, each provincial government has exclusive jurisdiction over the municipal institutions in its province. It is the responsibility of the provincial government to determine the allocation of responsibilities between itself and its municipalities, and to decide how much taxing authority should be delegated to the municipal institutions. Thus the federal government cannot give city councils a share of the revenue from personal income taxes. Through a variety of measures over the past 20 years, the federal government has reduced its share of the total personal income tax and provinces have increased their share. Increased provincial revenues from personal income taxes, as well as other taxes and revenues, have been accompanied by increased provincial transfers to their municipalities.


Mr, Fortin: 1.	For each year 1966 to 1972, how many individuals were sentenced to be hanged in Canada?
2.	In how many cases, each year, were these sentences commuted to life imprisonment?
3.	Among individuals sentenced to life imprisonment during these years (a) how many were paroled (b) on what dates were they paroled (c) how many years had they spent in prison (d) how many became repeat offenders?


William Warren Allmand: 1 and 2.
During the past seven calendar years, the number of individuals sentenced to be hanged in Canada and the number of commutations to life imprisonment were as follows:
Disposition of	Capital cases considered
capital cases	by Governor in Council
Year	Sentenced to death	Commuted*	Cases	Commuted1966	10	10	4	41967	8	8	5	51968	1	1	18	181969	-	-	1	11970	3	3	1	11971	-	-	1	11972	2	-	1	1
* These figures are given according to the year of trial, not by the date of commutation.
3. (a) Three, whose nature of offence, sentence and age on the date of conviction were as follows: Case 1: Age 77, non-capital murder, life imprisonment; Case 2: Age 59, non-capital murder, life imprisonment; Case 3: Age 18, capital murder, death commuted to life imprisonment, (b) Case 1: Paroled on 22 August 1969, by exception, at the age of 80; Case 2: Paroled on 30 March 1970, by exception, at the age of 61; Case 3: Paroled on 21 April 1970, by exception, at the age of 22. (c) Case 1: Two years nine months and four days; Case 2: three years and twenty days; Case 3: four years one month and twenty-five days, (d) Case 1: No repeat offence, died on parole in 1970; Case 2: No repeat offence, died on parole in 1972; Case 3: No repeat offence to date, still on parole.


Mr. Andre: 1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1971, for the Department of Public Works?
2.	How many copies of the report were distributed?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.


Mr. Reynolds: Has a Western Canadian been appointed to the new Canada Labour Relations Board and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: No. A Western Canadian was approached to accept appointment but declined for personal reasons. As vacancies occur on the Board, Western Canadians will be considered for appointment, along with Canadians from all other regions.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	In addition to the amount paid for demurrage by the Wheat Board as set out in the reply to Question No. 55, how much was paid by (a) ship owners (b) consignees and purchasers of wheat from the Wheat Board in 1972 for demurrage on ships which were held up in Vancouver or other Pacific Ports because of a lack of wheat cargoes?
2.	Were the several amounts so paid by wheat purchasers or consignees claimed as a credit or deducted by them when making settlement to the Wheat Board or its representatives for the wheat shipment severally purchased by them?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Following verification, the Wheat Board pays demurrage claims submitted to it by buyers but has no way of knowing what additional demurrage charges if any may have been paid by ship owners, consignees and purchasers of wheat from the Wheat Board.
2. If any such additional demurrage charges are paid they do not in any way involve settlement with the Board

March 5, 1973

which is only concerned with those demurrage claims which are submitted directly to it.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Canadian Transport Commission on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



LOAN GUARANTEES UNDER REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT 1970-73

Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What are the names of corporations which received loan guarantees under the Regional Development Incentives Act (RDIA), in each of the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 to date, distributed by province where the capital expenditure was to be made?
2.	In each case, what were the amounts of the loan guarantees?
3.	What are the objectives of the above program?
4.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.



IRISH MOSS INDUSTRY

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What has been the amount and value by province of Irish moss landed during each of the past ten years?
2.	In each of these years, what amounts of this product were sent to (a) Denmark (b) United States for extraction of carageen?
3.	What representations have been made by the Government of Prince Edward Island for the construction of a carageen extraction plant in Prince Edward Island?
4.	What feasibility studies have been carried out on the question of construction of such a plant?
5.	What has been the cost of any such studies?
Return tabled.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, now that the figures show a budgetary surplus of about $1,100 million for the first ten months of the year, some $800 million more than for the first ten months in the previous fiscal year, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is now prepared to amend his forecast at the time of his budgetary speech that the accounts would in fact break even on a budgetary basis this year and agree that he is going to have a substantial budgetary surplus?


John Napier Turner: No, Sir, not at this stage. The enlargement of the surplus in January was not unexpected. Indeed, it corresponded very closely with the forecast we put forward and it is quite in line with what I understand to be normal seasonal trends. The hon. gentleman knows that the large drawdown of expenses is done within the last months or few weeks of the fiscal year. In this case the revenues this year are particularly buoyant, I suppose due to the vibrancy of the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Keep a straight face; don't laugh.


John Napier Turner: It is also partially due to a rise in prices and to some uncertainty among Canadian businesses, large and small, concerning the status of the corporate tax measures already proposed to parliament.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand how the minister could be pleasantly surprised by buoyancy in the economy when the gross national product is growing substantially less than he anticipated. In view of the great buoyancy in revenues which he welcomes as running away ahead, some 27 per cent, of January, 1972,1 should like to ask the minister whether in these circumstances and under these conditions he will give favourable consideration to the request of the Canadian Labour Congress that there should be a temporary tax holiday for personal income taxpayers earning under $10,000 a year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I made my response to the CLC this morning.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to be insistent, but since the minister has been gracious enough to speak to the CLC outside the House, perhaps he might give a brief response inside the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the Leader of the Opposition is technically right, although the meeting was held in the railway committee room of the House. What I said this morning was that if the proposals of the Canadian Labour Congress were added

March 5, 1973
Oral Questions
to the proposals already before the House in the form of budget measures this would add another $2,300 million to the deficit, and I thought that was inappropriate in the current state of the economy.


BUDGETARY DEFINITION OF FULL EMPLOYMENT-POSSIBLE INDEXING OF FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE LAW
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]ames A. McGrath (St. John's East): Mr. Speaker, in view of the concern expressed by the Canadian Labour Congress in its brief this morning over the inability of the minister's budget to achieve anything near full employment, I should like to ask the minister to tell the House, in the interest of the community interests that exists between his government and the NDP, whether he is able now to indicate just exactly what his budgetary definition of full employment is?
John Napier Turner: As I have said on several occasions to the House, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned full employment is a state in which every man and woman of this country who is actively and legitimately seeking work can find a job. That is full employment in my view.


Mr. McGrath:: On a different tack, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of those who are fortunate enough to have jobs in Canada may I ask whether the minister is now prepared to undertake to provide means whereby the federal minimum wage law will be indexed in a similar way to income tax in the budget so as to protect those who are working under these laws from erosion created by inflation which this government does not seem to be able to control?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is a representation that the government will consider, but it is probably more appropriately directed to my colleague, the Minister of Labour.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect my question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he intends to provide means, through amendments to the federal minimum wage law, whereby the minimum wage will be indexed or tied to the cost of living, in a similar way to the income tax provisions in the budget of the Minister of Finance?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated this morning when I talked to the CLC, the department is giving study now to this whole matter. We are compiling data and comparisons of minimum wage rates across the country, and I will hopefully be in a position to make some recommendation to my colleagues shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for York South on a supplementary.


Mr. Lewis:: No, Mr. Speaker, my question is on another subject.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate there are a number of supple-mentaries members wish to ask to the question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps before recognizing the hon. member we might hear the question

of the hon. member for Central Nova and then return to this matter later.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister tell the House whether he plans to adopt any of the strategies put forward by the Atlantic Development Council or to develop similar strategies for other regions of the country as suggested by the Canadian Labour Congress in its annual brief to the government? If so, when will he be making an announcement to this effect?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to answer what appears to be a somewhat oblique supplementary question. I am examining all aspects of the Canadian Labour Congress presentation and have met with the president of the Atlantic Development Council. As I told my hon. friend a few weeks ago, I hope to be able to be more specific when the estimates of my department are under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are getting away slightly from the original question. The hon. member's supplementary was perhaps more related than supplementary, but I will return to him and other members in a moment.
The hon. member for York South.
Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It may well be that my question was slightly oblique, as the minister suggested, but since he is a master of obliqueness I thought it was appropriate.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct one or two questions to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration relating to the activities of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and its method of trying to get rid of those who are abusing the unemployment insurance program. In view of the fact there is a great deal of disturbance about the way things are being done in various areas where this investigation is now being conducted, may I ask the minister whether he will undertake not later than tomorrow or the day after to make a statement to the House indicating precisely how this investigation is being carried on?
March 5, 1973


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly entertain the hon. member's suggestion. In the interim I should like to say, however, that I have been checking into this matter fairly thoroughly with officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I think they have a difficult job to do at times in terms of ensuring the validity of claimants in their receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. I have not had the direct evidence that has been suggested by several members that their activities represent abuse on their part, and I have full confidence in the commission. Nevertheless, by virtue of the fact that so many people are expressing concern, and in the interests of the individuals who would be affected if in fact there has been any abuse, I have decided to ask the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee to convene as quickly as possible and to take this under examination. Although I am quite sure there is a fair implementation of the program, it also must be seen to be fair, and I want this neutral committee to examine the whole situation and advise us all exactly where it stands.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister say that this morning. I am sure everyone is pleased that the advisory committee is being called in. However, in view of the fact that the investigation of claimants apparently is being made on the basis of certain computer printouts, and in view of the result that a good many innocent claimants are being harassed by questions from people representing the Unemployment Insurance Commission, would the minister undertake to discuss immediately with the commission that it not go scatter-gunning as it is now in looking for people who abuse the system and thereby harass a good many innocent claimants?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the whole premise of the
activities of the unemployment insurance benefit control operation in this area under discussion is a pre-selection in certain areas of claimants whose occupations fit job vacancies that have also been identified through manpower in those areas. Those claimants are then asked to indicate whether they are genuinely and actively seeking jobs and if they indicate that they are not actively seeking jobs that have been proven to exist they are then disqualified. This is the requirement under the act. I think the question is whether or not any of the benefit control officers or any of the activities of the Unemployment Insurance Commission represent over-zealousness. I am inclined to think not, but I want to check into that.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that one can easily see with any application of logic that you could have a dozen of certain jobs available in an area and 30 people who might fill those jobs, and in view of the fact that asking people whether they are actively looking for work is a pretty general question-whether they were actively looking last week, two weeks ago or yesterday-and all of this places innocent claimants at a disadvantage, may I ask the minister to tell the House precisely what criteria are being applied for the disqualification of claimants?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make a statement on motions on that matter at the earliest opportunity.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF EFFECT OF SECTION 145(9) OF ACT ON RURAL CLAIMANTS
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, when
the minister is making this request to the advisory committee will he also refer to it section 145(9) affecting particularly predominantly rural areas and the effect this has had on legitimate claimants?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we do not want any legitimate claimants disqualified or disentitled, and I certainly would not restrict the terms of reference to the advisory committee to exclude that consideration.


STUDY OF PROBLEMS ARISING FROM BENEFIT APPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH REASONS
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the minister.
While he is asking the advisory committee to study the problems mentioned by the leader of the New Democratic Party, would he also request the committee to look into the problems arising out of applications for unemployment sick benefits, especially in rural regions where there is a severe shortage of doctors?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can arrange for that.


RECIPIENT DISQUALIFICATION-IMPROVEMENT OF APPEAL PROCEDURE AND DEFINITION OF CERTAIN PHRASES-CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF CITIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF ABUSES
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the new investigative procedures that have been implemented by the minister, resulting in some 20,000 persons, I understand, being disqualified or threatened with disqualification, this certainly will place some strain on the boards of referees and umpires. Has the minister at the same time improved the procedure in order to speed up appeals to these bodies, and in fact has he arrived at a definition of the phrases that have been accepted such as "capable of work", "available for work", and "suitability of employment"? Have these definitions been determined and given to the officers involved?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, for some years the Unemployment Insurance Commission has had to exercise judgment in all these matters as well as those other phrases included in the proposed amendments in Bill C-125, that is to say, the question of quitting without cause and the question ox misconduct. There is no change in that. I readily admit that the penalties are probably stepped up a bit, but the basic fundamental definition is in existence now and is based on case histories of decisions from boards of referees and umpires over many years.

March 5, 1973
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I note that the minister, perhaps unintentionally, did not answer the first part of my question concerning whether the appeal procedure would be strengthened and made more effective. What criteria did he use when he picked out the city of Hamilton, metropolitan Toronto and the city of Kingston for these investigative blitzes? Has he any criteria to explain why he picked out these three cities throughout the country rather than many more cities that could have been involved in this type of action?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I described the criteria for selection. There were known to be jobs in the categories that had been publicized and there were known to be many claimants who were skilled or who had had experience in those jobs. On the one hand, we had people who were capable of performing in those occupations and, on the other hand, we had jobs that were not being filled. We tried to match them first through manpower in co-operation with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. When they did not match or when there was an indication that the claimants did not want to take the jobs we suggested to them that perhaps they were not fulfilling their obligations under the terms of the act and they were thus disqualified. That is how these claimants were selected.
With regard to the appeal system I am informed, and I quite readily admit, that in spite of the startling volume of disqualifications as a result of that exercise in the Toron-to-Hamilton area, which began about January 1, there has not been an increase in the number of appeals in relation to the number of claimants at the present time, although I also readily admit that we want to beef up the appeal system, and many more boards of referees are in the process of being appointed right now.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West on a supplementary. Then we will try to complete the first round of questioning by allowing one of the hon. members to my extreme right to ask a question. I will then recognize the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have one last supplementary. Would the minister stop pussyfooting around and bring forward Bill C-125 in order that the House can deal with this whole matter, whereby we can hear briefs from labour, management and others affected, rather than going about this matter in a piecemeal way?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Richmond.


Robert Knight Andras: I think we have been around this race course before-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Richmond.


REQUIREMENT OF PROOF OF EFFORTS TO SECURE EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Since unemployment insurance officers demand proof that the claimant has seen two or three employers and that the latter often refuse to furnish proofs of interviews, could the hon. minister tell the House whether the advisory committee will come up with something new in that respect.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize. There were conversations going on, and I am really sorry I did not hear the hon. member's question in full.


Léonel Beaudoin: My question was the following, Mr. Speaker.
Since unemployment insurance officers demand two or three proofs that the claimant has seen two or three employers, would the hon. minister tell the House if the advisory committee he has called will come up with something new or give more freedom to the claimants on that matter?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a misunderstanding. The claimant does not necessarily have to produce a document from an employer to the effect that he has sought a job and has been turned down. We are asking individual claimants to show that they are actively searching for work. Unless some other factor enters into it, we accept the word of claimants that they are doing that, particularly when they conform to the regulations and the principles of the act that this House endorsed a year and a half ago.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
I do not think the hon. minister is aware of what is going on in some unemployment insurance offices because in Sherbrooke evidence is indeed demanded.


INVESTIGATION OF ABUSES-REPORT THAT MORE WOMEN THAN MEN AFFECTED
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is predicated on the fact that this subject is of great interest to women throughout the country. In
March 5, 1973

light of initial reports that these restrictive measures are affecting a larger number of women than men-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -could the minister say what the criteria are that result in these measures being applied more vigorously and more particularly to women than to men?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, they are not being applied more vigorously to women than to men. It so happens that of the 20,000 reportedly disqualified in the Toronto-Hamil-ton area there were more women than men, but they were not pre-selected that way.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to get this matter out of the House I would like to ask the minister this question. In light of the obvious problems the government is having in trying to deal with the legislation in question, would he discuss with the chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration the suggestion that the Unemployment Insurance Commission be called before that committee immediately, in connection with consideration of the estimates so that a thorough examination could be made and the government could have the benefit of some intelligent advice from hon. members on this side of the House?


Robert Knight Andras: I always welcome intelligent advice, Mr. Speaker. I often get it, but not always. I shall be glad once more to place the Unemployment Insurance Commission, its officials and myself at the disposal of the committee when our estimates are before that committee. I think we had four or five goes at this during the last four or five weeks when the miscellaneous estimates and Bill C-124 were being dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We still have not completed the supplementaries on the very first question raised this afternoon. I would like to return to them now, and I recognize the hon. member for Rocky Mountain.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the male chauvinist Minister of Manpower and Immigration. What action has the government taken on the proposal made 19 months ago, in a report by the government's committee on youth, to establish a Canadian youth employment directorate as one means to focus action and attention on the youth unemployment crisis that was apparent even then, that was not changed one whit by the budget and was a highlight of the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress today? If no action has been taken, will the minister specify what steps the government has taken to meet the special, serious and recur-
Oral Questions
ring crisis of unemployment among Canadians under age 24?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State, a few weeks ago enunciated a policy for youth employment throughout the summer in which my department will be joining. The details were given to the House on that occasion. I can assure the hon. member that we will be just as interested in all the younger female participants in that youth program as we will be in the men, and I do not see where the male chauvinism comes in.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, newly returned from the fields of Paris, where he went, saw but did not conquer.


An hon. Member:: He should have taken you with him.


John George Diefenbaker: He would have been successful if he had.


Robert Knight Andras: What at?


John George Diefenbaker: Did I understand him correctly, as he read his statement, that the question of whether or not the supervisory force should be withdrawn from Viet Nam would be decided by the government and not submitted to the House of Commons? Why should the House of Commons be denied a privilege that has grown up in consequence of what happened not only during the second world war but following it? Why is this course not to be followed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the right hon. gentleman has asked this question because it enables me to clear up a misunderstanding. It is my intention, as soon as the government makes a decision, to bring that decision before the House of Commons. What is being asked on the other side is that before I make the decision there should be a decision made by parliament. I really do not think it would be possible to negotiate with our friends and allies on such a basis, nor do I think it would be wise to deny the government the opportunity of withdrawing our men from Viet Nam if they were under attack rather than waiting for parliament to take action.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have that answer. I now ask him, why is it, therefore, that the government of Canada has threatened to bring before the House a resolution to approve the mishandling of the Official Languages Act, an act passed as a result of a decision made by parliament? Why should there be this transparent and spurious trick on parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To whom was the question addressed?

March 5, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa East.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [English]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in asking to whom I am speaking, indicates his own guilt.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa East.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Can he tell us whether or not the federal government has started negotiations with regard to an urban transport policy for the national capital area and, if so, whether steps will be taken to meet the proposals with regard to setting up a medium-sized rapid transit system for the national capital?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there are discussions under way now with the public transit authorities on both sides of the river with regard to improved bus service, which I am anxious to conclude. There have also been discussions with the province of Ontario with regard to a rapid transit system. It is my view that any discussion of either heavy or intermediate rapid transit should include government agencies on both sides of the river and the National Capital Commission, I am seeking a meeting with the responsible ministers in the government of Ontario and the government of Quebec to have such discussions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to my earlier question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, but we will have to try to get away from the very first question in order to cover more than three or four questions in the question period. The hon. member may ask his supplementary.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the government appears to be undertaking no new programs, apart from Summer '73, to create jobs, I wonder if the minister has taken any account yet of the recommendation of the study entitled "A Right to Opportunity" funded in part by his department, urging a federal-provincial-municipal meeting to end the chaos in social assistance programs for unemployed young Canadians who are seeking social assistance? If the minister has taken no account of this, can he indicate to the House when such a conference will be called?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the opposition has seen a lot of chaos over the weekend. This is about the fifth time the word has been used in the question period this afternoon. I think the answer to this question is very simply that we are embarked with the provinces on a general review of the social security system, including social assistance. We will have our first meeting in April, and I am already meeting with the ministers of the various provinces individually and with their officials. Obviously, the area mentioned by the hon. member is one that will be covered in the general review.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR CORRECT FIGURES ON 1972 CANADIAN DEFICIT OR SURPLUS POSITION-POSSIBLE POSITION PAPER
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the various statements regarding Canada's deficit and/or surplus position under the Canada-United States auto pact, namely, General Motors' statement of February 27, the minister's statement of February 28, Statistics Canada's releases and today's release by the United States Commerce Department, would the minister make a clearcut statement on the subject so we may know our position?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the position as I know it and understand it is the corrected position issued by Statistics Canada at the end of last week, which sets forth that during the calendar year 1972 Canada experienced a $6 million surplus rather than the first figure which came out.


William James Kempling: In light of the growing assertions by United States officials that the auto pact has worked against United States interests, for instance, the statement by Senator Hartke that it is a form of foreign aid for Canada and has cost Indiana 37,000 jobs, is the minister going to publish a position paper on the auto pact at least to point out that Canada has not even achieved produc-
March 5, 1973

tion levels commensurate with our share of the North American automotive market?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is that the auto pact has worked well. We want and expect and intend to keep it that way. We are aware that there are certain interest groups in the United States that would like to alter the agreement. I should like to remind hon. members of the statement I made last week when I said we have made no changes in the safeguards, have taken no decision to alter the agreement in any way, and could only consider changes which in accordance with the agreed objectives of the pact would improve it and protect future Canadian jobs and job opportunities.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the Conservative Party of Canada has now discovered the auto pact and has adopted the NDP program, would the minister assert on behalf of his party that they, too, now adopt the NDP program in regard to the automotive industry of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the minister's answer to the question put by the hon. member for Ottawa East that he hopes to meet with the governments of Ontario and Quebec with respect to rapid transit for the national capital area, is it the position of the government that in the event one or other of those governments is not prepared to meet the terms and conditions for contributions by the federal government, and one or other of the governments is prepared, the government will proceed to grant funds or recommend the granting of funds to one or other of those governments to proceed with rapid transit on either side of the Ottawa River?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that the hon. member's question is hypothetical but if in spite of this the minister wants to reply briefly he will be recognized for that purpose, after which I shall recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to jump to the conclusion that the hon. member is. I am seeking to develop a cooperative arrangement within the whole of the national capital region.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Solicitor General with regard to the industrial dispute now going on at the Duval potash plant in western Saskatchewan. In view of the fact there has been at least one incident where the RCMP used plainclothes personnel at the site of this dispute, and in view of the fact that the use of plainclothes policemen in unmarked cars could lead to provocation or conflict when such individuals attempt to cross picket lines, will the Solicitor General investigate the circumstances surrounding the use of such personnel in this dispute?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this incident but I shall investigate it as requested.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: At the same time will the minister inquire and inform the House if there has been a request for additional surveillance by the RCMP at the mine site and, if so, who made the request and for how many personnel? Specifically, has a request been made by the Duval corporation?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I shall investigate that as well. I might point out that an operation such as this would generally come under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General for the province, which in this case would be the NDP government in Saskatchewan.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Without imposing unduly limiting and restricting air regulations applicable to general aviation operating in sparsely settled areas of Canada, what action does the minister intend to take with respect to the recommendations of the coroner's jury in the Hartwell inquest particularly with respect to requirements for higher standards of training and basic instrument training and an enlargement of radio aids to navigation throughout the whole of the north?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered part of this question. As far as the pilot is concerned, he is in hospital. I regret that his licence has been suspended. We will see when he is recovered if he still can pilot a plane. For the rest, I have asked for about 15 days before I report to the House on the new regulations we want to impose in the north.

March 5, 1973
Oral Questions HEALTH


UPGRADING OF HOSPITAL FACILITIES AND COMMUNICATION TO NURSING STATIONS FOLLOWING HARTWELL INQUEST RECOMMENDATIONS
Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker, also arising out of the recommendations of the coroner's jury with respect to the establishment of a central hospital standard institution at Cambridge Bay-central to the Arctic region. Does the minister intend to take that recommendation to heart and to upgrade the facilities at Cambridge Bay to that extent? Second, with respect to the supply of emergency communication facilities to nursing stations throughout the Arctic, is the minister giving consideration to tying this in with the orbiting Anik?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, even before the report of the inquest was published, we had already taken steps to improve the services offered by the various stations in the north. I have also asked my department to study with particular care the recommendations resulting from this last inquest.
* *
*


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. As there has been a report in Victoria that the minimum security prison at William Head is being used for more hardened criminals, would the minister assure the House that William Head will be used only for prisoners posing minimum security risks?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will check into that, although I have not heard any story to that effect. The William Head penitentiary is a medium security institution and, consequently, it should only be used for medium security risk inmates. I will check into the hon. member's allegation.
* *
*


INQUIRY RESPECTING METHOD OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT EXPORTED IN FEBRUARY
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
According to figures published by his department, some 35 million bushels of wheat were exported in February. 
Can the minister tell the House under what terms those 35 million bushels of wheat will be paid for?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this was part of the regular shipment of all grains. We are very happy indeed that during this past February we were able to set a record not only for February but for any month for the shipment of grains from the west coast.


John George Diefenbaker: But the record was not for price.


Otto Emil Lang: These included all types of grains sold in Canada by the Canadian Wheat Board and by the private trade and would consist of a mixture of grain sold on credit, mostly grain sold for cash, and some grain for aid.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the recent substantial increase in short-term bank interest rates in the United States and the many predictions that similar increases are pending in Canada and that these rates will perhaps reach record high levels in 1973, would the minister advise the House whether he and the new governor of the Bank of Canada have agreed on any measures to counter such high increases?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there has been no agreement. We have had several discussions about this. I am pleased at the moment that the differential between short-term interest rates in the United States and Canada is a point and a quarter in Canada's favour, in the sense that our interest rates are running that much below interest rates in the United States. Monetary policy in Canada will continue to be sufficiently expansive to condition the growth in the economy necessary to reduce unemployment.


INTEREST RATES-POSSIBLE MEASURES TO COUNTER INCREASING PRESSURE FROM UNITED STATES
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate to the House, in these inflationary times, what the government considers to be satisfactory long and short-term interest rates, and at what point the government will consider it appropriate to introduce counter-measures to counter increasing pressures from the United States?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that depends, first of all, on there being a differential in interest rates so as to maintain a benevolent view of our own exchange rate problems. Actually, a good deal of our success-a combination of luck and a bit of good management-in managing to maintain a stable exchange rate has to do with the fact that our interest rates are lower in the short term than those of the United States. As to
March 5, 1973

what the ultimate rate of interest in Canada will be next year, there is no way to predict that because that will depend on the demand for loans and also on many international factors. I might say to the hon. gentleman that if his views were to take effect in the House with respect to the amount of expansion we should need, they would have a very harmful effect on interest rates in this country and a detrimental effect on our exchange rate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. Perhaps we might permit a few quick questions, but not too many supplementaries, and a few short replies. With the co-operation of hon. members, perhaps in this way we might be able to recognize three or four or five more hon. members for questions before the end of the question period. I believe the hon. member for South Shore has a supplementary to a prior question.
* *
*


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Yukon. It is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Before a certificate of airworthiness is issued to small carriers, would the minister tell us what steps are taken to make certain that these aircraft are equipped with proper navigational aids, including strobe lights, etc. as called for by his department, which are vitally necessary for these aircraft when carrying out flights anywhere in Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member has misunderstood the meaning of the question put to me by the hon. member for Yukon. This did not concern the quality of the aircraft or its compliance with standards, but the pilot who was qualified to fly by day only without using instruments. But he did fly using instruments even though he had no instrument rating.
* *
*


PROPOSED WEST COAST OIL TANKER ROUTE-STATUS OF CANADA-UNITED STATES AD HOC COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding the ad hoc committee which he and President Nixon agreed to set up to deal with the matter of the proposed oil tanker route from Valdez to Cherry Point. May I ask if this ad hoc committee has now been appointed? If so, who are the personnel? If it has not been appointed, are negotiations going on at present and which
Oral Questions
Canadian minister has responsibility for representing Canada in those negotiations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I might inform the hon. member that I did not mention an ad hoc committee for that specific purpose but a committee which would look into the general question of shipping, as President Nixon put it himself, not only on the west coast but on the east, coast. I have now been informed by the Minister of the Environment that there have been meetings at the ministerial level, that is, at his level, with his opposite number in the United States and that there have also already been meetings of a working committee of officials on the general matter of navigation on the west coast. This is the information I now have. If there are any further questions, I think they should be addressed to the Minister of the Environment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When does the Prime Minister anticipate that this ad hoc committee will be set up, and what does he envisage the terms of reference will be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not say an ad hoc committee would be set up and I hoped my previous answer would clarify what committee I was referring to. It was a committee which had been suggested by President Nixon as a counter proposal to our request that this matter be sent to the IJC. I am informed by the Minister of the Environment that the follow-up on that decision by United States officials and by ourselves has been of the nature I just indicated.


FISHERIES
Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that on July 31, 1971, at a meeting which the Prime Minister had with Western Nova Scotia lobster fishermen in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, he called for a year's trial period to determine the effect that offshore lobster fishing would have on inshore lobster fishing and promised that an intensive review would be undertaken at the end of that one year trial period, could he now inform the House what are the results of that review, as some 18 or 20 months have now elapsed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would obviously need to obtain a report from the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries. The question might be directed to him at some point.
* *
*


AIR CANADA
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. He took it as

March 5, 1973
Oral Questions
notice last Wednesday. Can he now say if the insurance claims concerning the crash of the DC-8 Air Canada jet in July, 1971,1 think, have been settled?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the answer from Air Canada. Unfortunately, I do not have the information now.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-1Twillingate may ask his supplementary question. The Chair will then recognize the hon. member for Hillsborough, and then call orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: As these claims have not been settled, can the minister inform the House what the problem is? Also, would he be prepared to refer to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the question of the quality of service of Air Canada, especially that being endured by the residents of Ottawa right now as a result of the relocation of the telephone reservation centre to Montreal?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly inquire and make a fuller report on this whole matter.


WRECK OF THE &quot;IRVING WHALE''-POSSIBLE SOURCE OF POLLUTION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport about the Irving Whale, the oil barge which has been lying at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since September, 1970. Noting his statement that the ship has not been raised because there was no guarantee against pollution arising from salvage operations, may I ask the minister if he can advise the House as to what guarantees he has against massive pollution taking place if the ship is left where it is?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that I have no guarantee one way or the other. We are still trying to study the matter to see what can be done and if it is worth while doing it. Personally, I would prefer to lift the ship and get rid of it, but I think I must rely on the advice of technical advisers in the department.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY S. O. 5*-INCOME TAX-SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING FORMS AND LEGALIZATION OF 1972 STRUCTURE AND FORMS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe) moved: that:
This House, noting that the Government's income tax return forms are both confusing and illegal, calls upon the Government to give financial aid and an extension of time to harassed taxpayers, to expedite payment of tax refunds to more than six million taxpayers, and to take immediate steps to legalize both the 1972 tax structure and the forms.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first may I formally move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the motion that Your Honour just read to the House. In so doing, I wish to point out to the House that there are six fundamental points that we are raising in this motion for consideration today.
First, we say that the income tax form is, in fact, confusing. Second, we say it is illegal in certain respects. Third, we suggest that the government should be giving financial aid to those individuals in our country who must now attempt to cope with the form. Fourth, because of the complexity of the form, we say that an extension of time should be offered to these harassed taxpayers to allow them to effectively deal with their own individual tax position. Fifth, we suggest that the government should expedite the payment of tax refunds, which may be some $1 billion in aggregate, to the six million taxpayers who will be receiving such refunds. Finally, we believe the time has long past when this government should have legalized the 1972 tax structure and the forms with respect to that tax structure.
Before dealing in detail with the points that I have enumerated, Mr. Speaker, I feel it may be of help to the House if I briefly touch on the background of individual payment of taxes in this country over the past 10 years. I do this because I feel a review of such figures reveals the absolutely staggering impact the Trudeau Liberal government has had upon individual taxpayers in the country. In many ways I feel that the income tax form we will be discussing today epitomizes the present government in office. It illustrates their glossing over of illegalities and, in some respects, their encouragement of dishonesty. It also illustrates their contempt for parliament and, in fact, the form, in its confused state, is the epitomy of the government, which itself is confused.
When Canadians finish paying the 1972 taxes which they will pay after filing the current form they, as individuals, will have paid in the aggregate in the five years since this government gained power some $38 billion. Under this government they will have paid an amount which is almost equal to the entire aggregate amount paid by all Canadian individuals in the previous 50 years. If you like, you can go back to Confederation, since the income tax legislation was introduced only in 1917. In short, this government has inflicted on Canadian
March 5, 1973

individual taxpayers, in the aggregate, as much taxation as has been inflicted in the previous 50 to 100 years.
It is important to remember that for 1972 it is likely that Canadian taxpayers in the aggregate will pay some $10 billion. That is almost five times as much as the individual taxpayers in this country paid in 1962, and it is almost two and a half times as much as was paid by individual taxpayers in 1967, the year before this government under this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. This House should bear in mind that while Ministers of Finance such as Mr. Benson and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) have repeatedly mentioned that they have taken a certain number of people off the tax rolls, many more have gone on the tax rolls than have come off during this government's five years of rule. In fact, there are two million more people on the individual tax paying rolls today than there were five years ago. There are four million more than there were 10 years ago.
What is most disappointing is that, when we review the individual taxes paid by the average taxpayer in Canada, we find that in 1962 he paid $427; in 1967, he paid $646 and in 1972, he paid $1,176. If we put a deflater on those figures, we see they are equally alarming. Expressed in 1962 dollars, the average taxpayer in that year paid $427. In 1967 he paid $560. Today, and I emphasize, this is in terms of constant dollars, he is paying $841 into the federal treasury. That is an increase of 50 per cent since this government took office. We must bear that in mind as the background of the situation that faces the 10 million Canadian taxpayers who must now cope with the income tax form that we are reviewing today.
As I mentioned, we say that the form is confusing. It has been said that no man should have to pay a tax which he cannot reasonably be expected to understand. In this respect, the Department of National Revenue appears to agree. If we review their booklet Inside Taxation 1972, we find this statement in the introduction, and I quote:
-there is abundant evidence of a direct correlation between taxpayer understanding of the tax laws and procedures and the most efficient and economic administration of the tax-collecting function.
The introduction also makes the interesting comment that the word "taxation" is a Latin derivative which means to touch sharply. In many ways, there is a sharp touch on us today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On the subject of confusion, there are many ways in which one can attempt to portray the anxiety felt by literally millions of Canadians today as they try to cope with this form. I think we should bear in mind that in the last taxation year for which figures are available, 80 per cent of those filing tax returns in Canada used the T-l short form. So, for approximately 80 per cent of our taxpayers in this current year the form distributed to them will be a completely new experience. When we compare it with the T-l short form with which they are familiar we find that whereas they had 74 blanks to fill in on the old form there are more than 300 to cope with in the new form. About $1 million is being spent on advertizing and promotions, in an attempt to convince individual tax-25789-47
Income Tax
payers that the form is not really as complicated as it looks. I would suggest, though, that the mere fact officials of the Department of National Revenue feel it necessary to spend this million dollars is proof that they know it is an extremely difficult form to cope with. I might mention that rate of tax schedules are appended to both the old and the new forms. But for reasons unknown to me in the one form the schedules show odd amounts whereas in the other, even amounts are shown. This tends to make it difficult for the average taxpayer to compare his current rate of taxation with rates in former years. Has this been done deliberately? I do not know.
I do know there has been tremendous pressure on regional offices of the Department of National Revenue as people seek to have their taxation position clarified. In my taxation area, Toronto, there are some 1,500,000 taxpayers whose forms will be processed through one office. I am told the department has increased its staff from 30 to 60 people who will deal at the front desk with inquiries from the 1,500,000 taxpayers. In other words, for every 25,000 taxpayers in my area there is one person to man the desk and iron out whatever difficulties might be experienced by taxpayers in coping with the new form.
Members of the public have been told, it is true, that they can telephone for assistance. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that before entering this debate today I asked my secretary to telephone the Toronto office to ask about the number of inquiries they were currently processing and whether the staff had actually been increased for this purpose. I am sorry to report that I cannot give the House this information, because after trying 25 times to get through on the telephone she gave up. Suppose I had wished to discuss a tax problem with that office in Toronto. I would still be waiting to get through so that I might have a chance of finding out the answer. At least, that would have been the position as at two o'clock.
Mr. Speaker, James H. Boren, the self-proclaimed president of the National Association of Professional Bureaucrats, thinks Canada's new tax system is so complicated that Washington would do well to adopt the same method. In explanation of his reason for making such a statement, Mr. Boren says:
I would say, almost without hesitation, that the tax forms epitomize our feelings about the maximum extension of retrogressive facilitation.
In other words, the new forms have achieved great success in complicating the already complicated. Later, Mr. Boren made the comment:
The guidelines are these. When in charge, ponder; when in trouble, delegate; when in doubt, mumble.
We have referred in our motion to the fact that the form as it now exists is in certain respects illegal. Hon. friends of mine will expand on this later in the debate. For example, provision is made for an age exemption which has not been approved by parliament. Provision is made for a deduction in respect of disability which has not been approved by parliament. Then again, there is provision made for a deduction in connection with education and this, too, has not been approved by parliament. In effect, we are asking some 10 million people to deal with this form knowing that parliamentary approval is still required before it is legal in certain respects. It was

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
unnecessary for this to have happened. We in the Progressive Conservative party asked repeatedly after the election that parliament be convened as early as possible so that matters such as those to which I have referred could have been dealt with and legalized.
I would also suggest that it is extremely unfair for the Minister of Finance to have adopted a philosophy which requires taxpayers to add to their income an amount they have never earned. I am referring to the fact that for the first time in connection with dividend income, taxpayers are expected to add to the amount they received in dividends an arbitrary one-third and count it as taxable income. It is unfair to ask any taxpayer to do this. In effect, he is being asked to report figures he knows are not true.
Granted, the public relations people, Fred Davis and others, have assured the public that the form is easier than it looks. But I suggest it is a very cruel thing to be telling ten million taxpayers in the country not to worry unless attention is drawn, at the same time, to a statement appearing just below the space left for signature, which reads: "It is a serious offence to make a false return".
I believe-and we have made this point in our motion, as well-that the government should extend financial assistance to help taxpayers cope with this form. Department of National Revenue officials admit that it costs approximately $10 to process each return. In short, it costs about $100 million to process the ten million forms with which they will be dealing. Surely it is not too much to expect that if the government feels it is necessary to spend $10 for their processing, it should assist the taxpayer who has to do the bulk of the work in preparing his return. Without such assistance I think it is fair to say that the government has imposed a further levy on the taxpayers of this country in the form of the amount the taxpayers will have to spend in completing their income tax returns. Assuming an amount of $10 per taxpayer, we are talking of a levy of $100 million, in addition to the taxation already levied upon them by the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Benson, and the present Minister of Finance.
In this context, I feel it is probably wise to remember that the individual taxpayers of this country are paying approximately one-half of the total revenue received by the federal treasury. In this connection, our proposal that there be an extension of time for taxpayers to complete their returns is only equitable in the circumstances. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of National Revenue has only 28 offices across the country to service taxpayers. As I have mentioned, some one and a half million taxpayers go through the Toronto area office alone. To expect the average taxpayer to file his return by April 30, with the small amount of assistance given him by existing departmental officers is extremely unfair.
Tied in with this is the broad subject of tax refunds. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972 those refunds amounted to approximately $866 million. It is anticipated that the figure will be approximately $1 billion in the current year. The government should do all in its power to expedite early repayment of those funds to our taxpayers.

The income tax form is so complex, so confusing, that one must ask oneself what was in the mind of the government when it prepared the form. I am more alarmed about this than perhaps anything else, because I believe that the government is setting up 10 million Canadians for further taxation of a kind that we in this House have not even thought of yet. I am told by those who have had some experience with the growth of this type of bureaucratic taxation, that in other countries it has been quite usual to introduce a very complicated form, then in subsequent years new taxes are imposed, such as a possession tax or, as suggested at one time in this House, a capital appraisal tax. Surely, we should recognize the possibility that the present government, if left in power for much longer, will introduce some such tax in order to extract even more from the average taxpayer of this country.
Let me also mention that the form is not only confusing to read but it is an extremely bulky document. As has been pointed out, the length of the form is some 13 feet if attached lengthwise page by page. Many do not realize that if these forms were stretched end to end they would cover a distance of almost 50,000 miles. In short, the forms would stretch twice around the world along its equator. To put it in the Canadian context, the forms could stretch from sea unto sea eight times and from north to south eight times, leaving lots of room for bows.


Mr. Stanbury:: You really are stretching it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: This ribbon of paper symbolizes perhaps what the present government calls national unity. This ribbon of paper stretching from border to border, east to west and north to south, is what the government presumably feels is going to unite this country. It will unite it in utter frustration, confusion and indignation. I believe we should not tolerate this type of behaviour on the part of any government. A Progressive Conservative government would not have inflicted an income tax form like this upon the people of Canada. A Progressive Conservative government would indeed be expediting refunds at the present time to the taxpayers of Canada who rightfully can expect a refund. We believe it is high time that the government of Canada got the message that the taxpayers and voters of this country tried to give them in the last election. In short, Mr. Speaker, the government's time is up. The people of Canada want them no longer, and they want these tax forms no longer.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking in this debate, but I am aware of the confusion that normally takes place at income tax time from my own point of view. A couple of items I received in my mail recently interested me. One was the Ontario property tax credit return, and I also received a farm tax return. I received several other things that I did not understand as well, so I decided to go down and get one of these kits from the post office. Even the first page of it is unintelligible, but it included the Ontario property tax form, and having read the first page of it I am sure I do not know how it will affect me as a farmer, which I am not. Neither am I sure how it will affect me as a property owner. As a result, I am not at all sure what I am going to do with the two little forms I received from the Ontario government; if they had kept them it would have made it
March 5, 1973

far simpler for me. The more you read this sheaf of paper, the more confused you become and the less able you are to fill out your return.
The other day a man wrote me on behalf of his daughter complaining about the complexity of this form. After looking at the form I realized why he was confused. This woman has two children, one of pre-school age and one who goes to school. She works in the local hospital as a nurse, most of the time on day shift, although not always. She has to be at work at 7.30 in the morning. She hires one of the neighbour's children, a 16 year old girl, to come in and give the children their breakfast and get them ready for school. The one who stays at home is looked after by the lady next door. The young 16 year old girl takes the other child to school. That is the end of her part in the routine.
The one child comes home from school on her own and goes to the neighbour's house where the younger child is and has her lunch. The first child takes the second child to kindergarten and then she goes to school. This does not end the matter because the children both come home after school. Then, another 16 year old girl looks after them until the mother arrives home. Occasionally, this woman has to work overtime or has to work a swing shift. This does not happen often, but it does further complicate the matter.
The complaint is that the 16 year old girls involved do not make contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and do not work the minimum time which would require them to pay unemployment insurance. The minister may know where in this form you enter contributions to unemployment insurance as an employer, or Canada Pension contributions. I am not sure where it is and I do not intend to search for it now as that would lengthen my speech considerably. If you do not enter these items you cannot claim expenses for your housekeeper or your babysitters.
The woman to whom I referred could not possibly set up the bookkeeping system required to look after these things. The cost would not warrant keeping track of the unemployment insurance or Canada Pension Plan contributions for these girls who work two hours some days, an hour and a half some other days and perhaps not at all on other occasions. The woman might just as well go on welfare in the first place, and she might well be driven to that position as a result of a mental breakdown before she completes this tax form, and that is only the housekeeper section. I see no reason why this could not be simplified.
I now look at the second page, which apparently is for people who can legally cheat the government. There are all kinds of exemptions listed here including medical expenses and charitable donations. Anyone I know who has medical expenses also probably has a medical plan and, therefore, does not have any expenses as such. It is true that my doctor charges me more than the scheme will pay, but that is a small amount and I am not sure that you should list it here.
There are spaces here for capital dispositions which include personal use of property, listed personal property, other capital properties, real estate, bonds and other properties, and there is a place also for a summary of capital
25789-47J
Income Tax
gains. Presumably these all apply to the rich. Perhaps if you looked through it you would find a place to deduct as an expense the cost of having an accountant look after this for you. Of course, this part will not have any interest for the average taxpayer who will be paying a comparatively small amount. I do not see included in this form a place for deducting that expense paid in respect of child care.
When we included child care expenses as a deduction for income tax purposes, we thought this would be a fairly simple thing for the mother who got herself a job and had to hire someone to look after her children. I find it is not simple. As is pointed out in this schedule, you must have the security number of those individuals for whom you are claiming an expense. It states here that you should not include payments made to a relative under the age of 21 at any time in 1972, or payments made to a person claimed as a dependent by you or by your spouse. It also states that if payments were made to a boarding school or camp, you cannot include any part of such payment in excess of $15 per week per child. Below that there are spaces for the names and addresses and individual social security numbers of those to whom payments were made. The woman to whom I referred has made great effort to provide for her children and now is not going to be able to claim these expenses.
I presume we are trying to cover all tax bases. It may be that the 16 year old girl who comes in in the morning and gives these children their breakfast, getting the one ready to go to school and the other to the neighbour's house, should be paying income tax, should have a social security number and be eligible for benefits. I presume that is the justification. If she did pay income tax it would be such a small amount it would not pay to operate the computer, and the money would obviously be returned. I am sure if she made a contribution to the Canada Pension Plan this whole thing would prove to be a nuisance and not feasible.
I do not agree with those people who are always complaining about changes in society, because I think changes are necessary and are usually good, but I am not sure that the changes in this tax form will work to the benefit of those people with whom I am used to dealing, the people earning $5,000 to $10,000 per year. They pay their income tax and they are allowed deductions for their wives and children. In addition, they get the $100 deduction for medical expenses and the other small deductions provided by the minister. They will be allowed those deductions and no more. Most people will not fill up those spaces provided for contributions. People who make contributions to the church usually do so on a regular cash basis rather than by cheque.
My father was a very meticulous person and had some knowledge of the income tax field, being in charge of a section of the Department of Agriculture during the war. This was the economic section of that department. I was always amazed when he made a contribution to the church that he made it by cheque. He knew exactly what to do with that contribution. As a miner, on the other hand, when I made a contribution to a charitable organization I just gave it the money. Probably I would have spent it for something else, so I can never remember being

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
interested in getting a receipt. Charitable donations were never used for income tax purposes because I really did not have too much money to throw around anyway. In those days the form was fairly simple and I could fill it out myself.
I suggest the form could be much simpler for people whose earnings are through wages and whose deductions are made on a payroll basis. In such cases, the amount of the income tax payment is deducted and is entered on the T4 slip. It should be necessary merely to include the personal exemptions and that would be all there would be to it. I never understood why there was not a calculation which would vary from province to province. I do not understand why my Ontario provincial tax is not figured out for me. If the province of Manitoba, for example, should have a different tax structure, a different form could be used for that province. From my point of view this would solve a good part of the problem. It seems to me many people in this country do not have any unusual deductions or unusual sources of income. In their case it is a straight matter of showing the amount of wages, the exemptions, the charitable donations and so on. Such a person should be able to use a tax schedule and simply determine the amount he must pay or the amount of refund he might have. I do not understand why it should be made any more complicated.
I see no reason that people in the lower income groups who would have no right-offs should have to be involved with such a complicated form. All this does is show a person who is a wage earner employed in John Blow's plant that there are other people in this society who are entitled to many tax deductions to which he is not entitled. It shows him where the rip-off comes in so far as other people are concerned. These are not available to him, and yet he must become mixed up in the whole problem without receiving any of the benefits. When I became a Member of Parliament my income increased slightly, by about $1,000. In those days, I found that the amount of $1,000 placed me in a category that was not in the table. Therefore, I had to work out the calculation. I went to high school and learned how to make mathematical calculations. However, it had been a long time since I was at school and I found it very difficult to come up with an answer. I had considerable difficulty when my income increased from $5,000 to $6,000.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What about now?


William Arnold Peters: Now, I am not even sure what it is. From looking at this form it would seem that I may have income of which I am not aware. That small cheque I received as a rebate in respect of my farm must be income from somewhere. It is interesting to look at this mauve form for the province of Ontario. Perhaps if I study this form I might understand why I got this money back. Mr. Speaker, I believe there surely could be a much simpler system. My income is shown on my T4 slip. If I should be unemployed I would have to have a TU-1 slip. However, if I am fully employed, earning a salary and the deductions are taken off at source, my salary is shown on the T4 slip. In such a situation I should be able to do a simple calculation and determine my income tax. This form is very com-

plicated. I cannot even understand the first page. Then, there is this Ontario property tax. I suppose that is in respect of my house.


An hon. Member:: Send it back.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Do not bother filling it out.


William Arnold Peters: The amount I received in respect of the farm is a very small amount. I would gladly send it back, because no doubt it will just confuse matters. The other day I received a T4 slip indicating I had received a relatively small sum of money in the form of a dividend from an insurance policy. I always thought that would be included each year and totalled at the end. I never drew any money; it accumulated. I did not realize I would have to make a payment on something I was not receiving. I will never receive it. I would have to die in order to receive it.
I agree with the Conservative who moved this motion when he stated that this was a complicated form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: The minister may say it is not. I do not know what his profession was, but I would be very happy to take these blank forms over to him and have him fill them out while he makes his speech. I would be very surprised if he could fill them out in time for you, Mr. Speaker, not to call him to order. I believe there should be two things. First, there should be a tax form which would include the provincial tax, so that each person would receive a form which would indicate the amount of his provincial tax rather than requiring that he make a separate calculation.
There is no question that this complicated form is necessary for anyone engaged in the business field. Probably there is another one relating to farmers which is probably four times as complicated. I suggest, however, that there should be a very simple, uncomplicated form on which the average person would need only show the deductions to which he is entitled and the information on his T4 slip.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: He has not completed his income tax form yet.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, as I can see, this motion gives an indication of the complexity of the tax forms to be filled by the Canadian taxpayers who must comply with the requirements of the tax system.
According to the wording of the motion, the government's income tax return forms will lead to confusion. It will not be the first time. Considering the double taxation system that too many people support, knowingly or not, we find that tax itself is being taxed. Indeed, the provincial tax taxes the federal tax; that is not very intelligent but that is the way it is.
The motion before us refers to illegality. It would be interesting indeed to witness a legal argument in order to
March 5, 1973

establish the legality or illegality of the tax return forms. Such are the consequences of a crazy system according to which wealth is being appraised in the form of dollars instead of things, property and other real values.
We also note that the motion calls upon the government to give harassed taxpayers-it has been found that the taxpayers were harassed, and better late than never- financial aid and an extension of time and it adds "to expedite payment of tax refunds".
Considering the object of this motion was to prevent confusion, I believe the wording somewhat lacks clarity.
The idea naturally is to keep advocating an outmoded system while at the same time trying to convince most hon. members that the motion should be supported, without suggesting anything practical to lighten the burden of the so-called harassed taxpayers. It is obvious that tax return forms should be at least written in a more simple and clearer language to avoid high expenses for accounting services.
The government seems to like to create complications for taxpayers with complicated income tax return forms. We see that all year long, particularly at the end of the month of April or during the month of May. A lot of income tax problems are submitted to me each week and have to do with the difficulties the taxpayers face in trying to comply with government requirements.
It is not necessary to spend hours studying the legislation to discover how stupid are most of the laws governing the country. Everything is so oriented as to protect the money system instead of intelligently distributing the existing wealth.
We find that thousands of public servants paid from tax moneys are watching the taxpayers. Interesting indeed but this is what you find. If we keep on using this method we will find ourselves in the absurb situation where half the Canadians will be watching the other half.
I admit that we must have laws and regulations. However, I am under the impression that the complexity of existing laws has contributed to creating a stampede attitude within a disastrous economic situation. Our financial system supported by too many of our "colored" politicians has contributed to create a wolf mentality where everyone is running after the almighty dollar-the symbol of the wealth kept too rare by those controlling it-with the result that many laws are violated, many formalities are not fulfilled, many regulations are not enforced, and this is contributing to maintain a riot atmosphere which the government is often obliged to quell through emergency measures.
Those at the controls always find good reasons to justify the resulting tax increases and formalities. And yet it is easy to understand that the after-tax money left to the taxpayer may be spent as he pleases, whereas the tax money is spent as the state sees fit and not as the individual does.
The higher the income earmarked for taxes-whatever formality used-the more the we steer toward state socialism so that if the government took everything, individuals would pay nothing themselves and everything would be paid by the government. This would be absolute state socialism.
Income Tax
I would like to quote part of an editorial broadcast by CFCM-TV station on June 1, 1967. Speaking of popular democracies, the editorialist mentioned something thought-provoking, and I quote:
In those countries personal incomes have been over-taxed to such an extent that the cost of living index has wildly spiraled, with no compensation whatever by way of an equivalent increase in incomes. The February 1967 report on international financial statistics indicates that in Yugoslavia the cost of living, increased by 167 per cent from 1958 to 1966, whereas the index of incomes is unchanged. According to the same report, in Sweden, a country governed by a socialist government and benefiting from a mixed economic system, the cost of living has gone up by 34 per cent during the past six years. This increase, to a large extent, is due to the burden of social measures and overtaxation.
It makes no difference what method they use.
This should cause everyone to ponder, and specially those who want to drive us to socialism.
Yet, the individual is paramount and governments are merely institutions at his service.
Others complain specially about taxes, feeling that they are being deprived of the fruit of their toil. They are perfectly right. But what we want to stress is that the increase in taxes is a rapid progression towards state socialism. Moreover, when private enterprise, over-taxed, loses heart, it is necessarily replaced by an industrial or a state monopoly: the first means domination through money, the second means domination with the all-encompassing government. A system has to be very sick indeed when the only choice is between two ways of enslaving individuals.
There is another solution: control funds at the source, in keeping with the facts, the individual's rights and the country's potential. This would mean Social Credit.
But, there, people do hesitate. And our governments would rather control the individuals and leave alone the privileges of the people who create money.
We are living in a world where many seem to have lost a sense of balance, of duty and of responsibility, no matter what forms are being used.
In fact, nowadays, we find that millions of dollars are spent to support exploration trips to the moon, whereas millions of citizens, on our planet, lack the necessities of life, despite the means at our disposal to house, clothe and feed human beings properly. We are grappling with a situation of that kind.
Among the people responsible for this state of affairs, we can easily count many politicians who, in my opinion, do a poor job as far as the interests of the citizens are concerned. Instead of taking the time of the House to discuss red tape due to a silly system, we should rather try to find some means of altering the system which is responsible for all those insignificant and complicated formalities, legal or illegal. We are driven to such a situation by the very nature of the system. Therefore, let us instead try to find a means for changing the silly system that rules us.
Often more interested in showing off than pleasing people, many politicians today are playing the role of actors in offices that would rather command some com-

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
prehensive legislation to meet men's needs. I admit that there are good men in all parties-


Miss Begin:: And also women!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Yes, a few. I admit, again, that there are good men in all political parties at the present time as there were in the past. However, they seem to be paralyzed by completely out of date procedures.
I cannot find a logical explanation for the fact that after so many years of administrative experience, application of plans, studies and suggestions of all kinds, the working and agricultural people of Canada are now at grips with problems of unemployment, insecurity and debts. And more serious still, this kind of unbearable and demoralizing situation for many people created a feeling of revolt which contributes to produce a climate of insecurity.
No one will deny the fact that the number of criminals increases seriously in a country upon which Providence has bestowed all kinds of wealth.
How come our learned politicians, or at least those who think they are, still prefer to keep procedures which lead to such results.
A group of politicians of a certain colour have come to believe that a country whose leaders succeed in paying interest on the public debt may be considered as being well administered. Imagine what would happen if all Canadians took this position. And yet we in Canada should give the example. These people have the gall to come and speak to us about a balanced budget, while they only succeeded in creating a financial and economic situation that is completely-


Mr. Trudel:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa is rising on a point of order.


Jacques L. Trudel: I have no objection to the hon. member for Kamouraska speaking about all systems which now exist, but I wonder when he is going to come to the motion before us which deals with forms to be filled under the Income Tax Act, or suggest that such form be changed. In other words, I would like to know when he is going to speak about the subject matter.
[Eng lish]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair heard the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) mention formalities and complexities a moment or so ago, and assumed that this was in reference to the matter of the income tax forms that we are debating. However, perhaps the hon. member should bear in mind the somewhat limited nature of the debate we are embarked upon today. The hon. member for Kamouraska.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to explain my views on that subject.
At the beginning of my remarks, I explained quite clearly the meaning of the motion, I think, and today I notice that an hon. member is blaming me for speaking a little
too much about the system or about different systems. I shall point out to him, and this is very important, that the stupid formalities we are discussing derive from a foolish system that the hon. member is supporting. That is the reason!
I do not think I am straying from the subject matter because I think those formalities would not be necessary if we had a logical system. It is because we have a confusing system that we have confusing formalities and we try by all kinds of means to set things straight. Each year, reforms are made about these forms; it is such a complicated matter that taxpayers are forced to spend hundreds of dollars in accountant offices to have these famous forms filled, forms which are created by the foolish system the hon. member is supporting. This is the reality and I am glad to have the opportunity to say it in the House this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: What is your system?


Charles-Eugène Dionne: What? Our system? We have a system of common sense. It recommends a distribution of goods based on an orderly financial system and not a financial system which has to admit-I said it earlier-that as long as the country can administer himself by paying the interest on its debt, it can consider itself as being well administered. Have you ever seen such a concept of administration? Would an industrial, a farmer or anybody else who would administer his budget in Canada simply by being satisfied with paying the interest on his debts be considered an able administrator? A foolish system brings the formalities we have. Then we try to bring about improvements in the formalities of application, not only in the area of income tax, but in lots of other areas. There are administrative procedures which are almost inapplicable. I could cite lots of examples that demonstrate it very clearly, but the Income Tax Act is probably the most eloquent.
So I continue my comments, for I think they are quite timely and yet some of them were not in my text.


John Napier Turner: You had better stick to your text.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: I understand that in the system there can be major reasons to levy a tax. When it comes to providing a service requested by the community and there is no way to provide it without depriving some members of that community, this can be understood, but if there is a way to provide that service without depriving anyone, it is not fair to deprive citizens of what they own.
If I take my neighbour's money, this is a theft. When the government takes the taxpayers' money, what is it called? An individual is not allowed to take another individual's property. And the government could do it. Taxes can, besides, reach so high a level, so heavily burden farmers or manufacturers that they discourage personal initiative.
This is verified. Any legislation whose objective is to tax contains sections to tax capital gains and other gains. However, I have not found in all the tax laws, even in the heavy Bill C-259 which contains 740 pages, a single section providing for a compensation for those who would experience losses instead of profits. Everything is organized to

March 5, 1973

protect the financial system and nothing is provided to compensate the victims.
I do not think that changing the forms would bring much relief; it is mainly the system that needs to be changed.
Taxes do not disturb only those they hit, they disturb the whole community because they sabotage production, just as the whole system does.
There is another way of getting money. It would be to simply take back the manufacturing power presently in the hands of chartered banks. But we really have to want it though.
Who must be in charge of creating money and distributing it where it is needed if not the sovereign government which should be the only one so authorized? A government not doing so deserves to be called "the servant of private interests", and you know where I read that expression.
Instead of adopting a tax method which produces provoking and complicated forms, if the government were to use its sovereign power to restore order in the monetary system, it would be possible to balance the incomes of people instead of taking away from them the gains they have made. And there would be no need for forms because the worker would keep the money he earned.
Those who always come up with the word "inflation" would already be anxious to know how long a government could do that. I would say without hesitation: as long as that brings good without evil. There is no doubt that it could follow that method for as long as certain means of production are unutilized.
Presently, production is far from being what it should be in Canada. There are a lot of unemployed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. Minister of National Revenue.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the lot of the tax collector is not a happy one. It never has been and is not likely to be. Paying taxes and completing the various forms required to do so are not the most enjoyable responsibilities of citizenship. Especially at this time of year, taxpayers are seldom moved to thoughts or words of fulsome praise and thanksgiving for the tax collector as he goes about his appointed task. Therefore, we were not surprised to hear that this subject was to be the basis of the opposition motion today, particularly in view of the time spent recently on this subject by opposition spokesmen-who have not always spoken with the greatest accuracy, I must say.
I enjoyed, as I always do, listening to my hon. friend from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). Knowing him as I do, I found many echoes in his speech of his career as a reporter, lawyer, farmer and financeer. He knows the value of publicity and how to get it. He knows the value of a picture like the one which appeared in the press not long ago showing him draped in forms, schedules and tables, all taped together. He knows full well that not even he, nor
Income Tax
any one of his constituents, would have to use all of them. Actually, when I first saw the picture of the hon. member in the newspaper with these forms, I thought he was displaying a collection of old stock certificates.
He supported his motion with "lawyerly" logic, demonstrating that legal training has equipped him to make much of little. In what he has produced here today, he has rivalled the sheep that roam on and enrich the fields of his country estate. His sheep, however, would know better than to produce that in the House of Commons.


John Napier Turner: It was a very woolly speech.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: It was not a serious speech and this is not a serious motion, Mr. Speaker. This motion has been thrown in while the Tories play for time, trying their best to brew up a motion for tomorrow which will not veer too far from any principles they have left and will appeal at the same time sufficiently to socialists and those with Social Credit tastes. They are trying to devise the means, not to improve any law or any program, but simply to destroy this government and this parliament. They are doing this to satisfy their hunger for power. So, today they are taking up the valuable time of parliament playing with form, and with forms, instead of contributing to the constructive improvement of the substance of our laws and programs.
This is political gamesmanship of an old and stale style. It is being played at the expense of ordinary taxpayers, giving them a false impression that may inhibit their taking advantage of tax benefits available to them.
That is not just my opinion, Mr. Speaker. Ralph Erring-ton, reporting on Radio Station CFRB and other stations a week or so ago, said:
Conservative MP's, and to a lesser degree some New Democrats, have been waging a steady campaign to convince the public that the new tax forms are so complicated that it would take a team of chartered accountants to complete the returns. So it was with some misgivings that this reporter decided, as usual, to do my own accounting, and file my tax return without any outside help. Ninety minutes later, my calculations were completed and rechecked, the tax form typed out and stuffed in an envelope ready for mailing. Needless to say, this haste is due to the fact that I've got some money coming back. If anything, the new tax forms were easier to complete than previous ones, with assistance from an easy-to-follow instruction booklet. Granted, anyone with investment income, capital gains to report or working on a selfemployed or commission basis no doubt would need the help of an accountant. But these people would seek professional help anyway. To those politicians who say the average salaried taxpayer can't complete his own tax return, I say: 'Rubbish!' As Fred Davis says in the Revenue Department ads: 'It's easier than it looks.'
That is the opinion of an independent and respected journalist of the parliamentary press gallery.
Giving me a hard time as the minister is "fair ball". I expected it when I took this job. However, I appeal to the members of the Official Opposition not to hurt the little people, the low and middle income earners, the average citizens. I say to those members through you, Mr. Speaker, restrain your ambitions; do not try to climb to power on the backs of our average citizens by stampeding them into fear of our tax forms, into fear of taking advantage of

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
benefits and, perhaps, undermining the self-assessment approach on which our income tax system is based.
We should remind ourselves that our Canadian system of self-assessment is by far the most democratic, the most efficient and the most economical means of collecting taxes. If I had enough time at my disposal I could refer to the views of tax authorities in other jurisdictions to the effect that the administration of our system, as it has evolved over the years under several administrations, is a model of fairness and efficiency. As other ministers responsible for my portfolio before me have done, I conceive it as my responsibility to maintain and improve our self-assessment system. If we are to maintain and improve it, we must administer tax legislation fairly, uniformly and impartially as well as with efficiency and courtesy.
Self-assessment is the exercise of a fundamental relationship between the citizens and their government. The declaration of income, the claiming of deductions, the calculation of tax and the use of an accessible and objective appeal process are all acts of civil participation second only in importance, I suggest, to the exercise of the electoral franchise. But, Mr. Speaker, rights involve obligations. The fulfilment of obligations can be inconvenient. I do not derive any pleasure from assembling records and filling out an income tax form. The keeping of records, the calculation of deductions and, generally, the completion of returns are an inconvenience, and I will not disagree if anyone suggests that is an understatement.
For my part, I know that the taxation component of my department makes every effort to minimize the task it imposes on taxpayers through forms and procedural requirements. It is simply common sense that we do that. Apart from our concern for the taxpayer, the difficulties he or she encounters and the errors he or she makes in the return are time consuming and costly for the department. So, Mr. Speaker, it alarms me when certain interests and certain individuals, in pursuit of personal gain or for other selfish reasons, prey on the natural apprehension of taxpayers at a time of change, caring not for the interests of the individual taxpayer nor for the integrity of our self-assessment system. Also, it disturbs me that the Official Opposition would dignify some of these views and claims that are misleading and even false, certainly not motivated by concern for taxpayers at large or the maintenance of our system of taxation.


John Napier Turner: They display political cynicism.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: May I quote the words of another respected commentator, Mr. Speaker? Writing in the Calgary Herald, Ken Hull said of the current tax form: "smart money would bet that any puppy could lick it to death". He went on to say:
Anyone who mastered last year's tax form will find it a pushover-assuming he or she hasn't had a 1,400 per cent salary increase; bought or sold half of Saskatchewan; become the major shareholder of Imperial Oil, or sold part of his Rolls Royce fleet.
Because of the many reckless statements about the complexity of the paper work that were voiced by certain persons even before they had actually seen the revised form, we suggested to taxpayers that they should not prejudge the forms and the new guide before they had an
[Mr. Stanbury.l
opportunity to read them. We tried to acquaint taxpayers with the expanded and improved services available to them in our 28 district taxation offices.
Some have attacked our efforts to inform and encourage citizens in this essential process of democracy, although I might express my appreciation for the fact the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) wants our information program extended. The cost of this program is approximately 4.5 cents per capita, but there is accumulating evidence that it is paying off for the taxpayers. Citizens who have been turned off, so to speak, by ill-informed and irresponsible criticism have been reassured and have found that it is no more difficult for most people to cope with the new return than with previous ones. That is all we have claimed, Mr. Speaker. Not that it is not complicated or difficult, as I suppose all tax forms are, but that it is easier than it looks. Joe McClelland wrote in the London Free Press, and I quote:
For the past year we've been assailed from all quarters with dire and gloomy declarations that the umpteen pages of the new tax return are incontestably beyond the capacity of any ordinary mortal to fathom.
Later in his column he concluded:
-this one is the easiest return I've grappled with in 15 years or more.
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Why do those independent observers say this? This year we had one tax form for every taxpayer. It is a four-page tax form, not what some of the critics would like it to be. In the envelope also is a guide which gives simple step-by-step instructions for completing the return. Also included are tax tables to assist in calculation and a set of schedules, some of which some taxpayers require in support of their return.
The page size of this year's return is smaller. It is the equivalent of one page shorter than last year's T1 General form and one and one-half pages longer than last year's T1 Short. If those taxpayers who formerly filed on a T1 Short ignore those areas of the form devoted to selfemployed earnings, as they are asked to do, their form this year is only slightly longer than last year, the difference being almost entirely due to the addition of unemployment insurance premiums as a deduction, and a more open layout in the identification and tax calculation areas on page one, which makes it easier for taxpayers to complete that page.
There has been so much misrepresentation that I want to go into some detail. The tax tables this year have been expanded to serve those with taxable incomes up to $12,000, the cut-off formerly being $8,000. This expansion greatly reduces the number of taxpayers having to complete the detailed tax calculation schedule, which is even more apparent when one takes into account the increase in taxable income due to larger exemptions.
There are eight schedules other than the detailed tax calculation schedule. Of these, four are virtually identical to those which accompanied last year's T1 General form and will be used by the same people who would have used them last year. Of the remaining four, one is simply a printed schedule for use by those who would have had to
March 5, 1973

create their own in previous years. Another removes from the tax form a little-used section for additional personal exemption. The remaining two schedules concerning capital dispositions and child care expenses are new. In addition, for residents of Ontario and Manitoba, there are forms on which they may apply for a credit against their municipal property taxes. I sometimes agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that it might have been easier if we had not served as the mailman for these provincial governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: We estimate that approximately five million taxpayers will not have to use any schedules at all. It is expected that for approximately 80 per cent of the taxpayers, the only major new forms requirement is the small section on unemployment insurance premiums.
Why does everyone receive the same tax form? The spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party said that his party would not have shown this kind of consideration to the Canadian people. We could have decided not to send anybody any schedules, but rather send them scurrying out to the post offices to try to find the ones they need. Taxpayers could have been spared the sight of all that paper, but a substantial number who required one or more schedules would have been put to the inconvenience of applying to a taxation office or a post office for those they needed. Why were the Short and General forms combined this year? The use of two forms presumed a considerable difference in the requirements of the groups receiving each form, and that it was possible to get the right form to the right people.
It was felt that neither of these presumptions were strongly enough indicated to warrant separate forms this year. Equity also entered the picture, since experience in other countries as well as in Canada suggested that abbreviated forms lead to taxpayers overlooking or ignoring possible exemptions and benefits to which they are entitled. We do not want them to miss any of those, Mr. Speaker. It may be of interest to hon. members that before making the decision to use one form we consulted our Tax Advisory Committee which is made up of knowledgeable tax experts from across the country who volunteer their services and meet periodically with my officials to discuss departmental policies and procedures. That committee fully approved the change.
There has been a major effort, quite unjustified, to condemn the forms and guide in a way that might cause some taxpayers to throw up their hands and spend money unnecessarily for professional assistance. I do not have anything against professional help. That is a decision for any taxpayer. However, I must protest the innuendoes that our forms and guides are forcing taxpayers to engage outside help when they were able to cope with the filing requirements the past few years.
Tax reform was the subject of public discussion for almost 10 years. There was a good deal of controversy up to and since the parliamentary passage of Bill C-259 in December 1971. We were well aware that many taxpayers would be apprehensive in approaching their first tax reform return. We understood that and were prepared for it.
Income Tax
However, there have been a number of other circumstances that have exacerbated the normal apprehension. There have been some who did not agree with certain tax reform changes who have been using the tax form as an object of a rearguard action. Of course, they have a right to disagree, but I deplore the fact that they have tried, unsuccessfully, I believe, to undermine our self-assessment system.
While the administration of the Income Tax Act is often construed to mean collecting every cent the law permits, my department is equally concerned with collecting not one cent more than the law requires. We try to protect the taxpayers' interest in this regard in two basic ways: by correcting any errors or omissions we can in the assessment of returns, and by informing the taxpayers of provisions of the law that can work to their advantage.
Hon. members will be interested to know, I am sure, that in routine assessing action on last year's returns, we decreased the tax payable for more than 1,400,000 taxpayers by a total amount of more than $75 million. These decreases were effected unilaterally as a result of painstaking scrutiny and computer calculation in the Department of National Revenue.
In addition to protecting taxpayers from their own errors, considerable effort has been made to inform people of the benefits the law holds for taxpayers, and to help them avoid time consuming errors. As you may be aware, following the passage of tax reform legislation my department issued a series of explanatory pamphlets on various aspects of the new laws. More than 25 million copies of these pamphlets are in the hands of Canadians. Also, a comprehensive series of videotaped training courses were made available to tax practitioners and professionals. Almost 10,000 have taken advantage of these courses since May, 1972.
To handle the complex questions which arose for individuals contemplating transactions under the new tax laws, my department instituted an informal consultation service last year as a complement to the advance ruling service which had been available previously. More than
45,000	queries were handled by this service, 3,000 of which involved situations sufficiently complex as to require clearance through head office on special direct lines installed for that very purpose.
To handle inquiries from taxpayers now completing the tax returns, we have taken several fundamental steps. The first of these was to submit our staff to special training courses to enable them to anticipate and solve quickly and courteously any taxpayer problems brought to their attention. Second, we drastically increased the number of staff and requisite facilities for dealing with taxpayer inquiries. Third, and perhaps most important of all, we have put the expertise of the tax department at the disposal of every Canadian, no matter where he lives, by virtue of the new ZENITH 0-4000 telephone number.


John Napier Turner: That's a constructive way to handle it.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: To assist taxpayers who cannot call during normal working hours, we have extended tele-
1896

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
phone inquiry service Monday and Tuesday evenings until 8 p.m. In all these actions, we have anticipated, and are prepared to handle efficiently, almost a 100 per cent increase in the normal taxpayer inquiries we receive during the filing season.
I have already touched on our information program which includes, besides advertising, various projects involving the print, radio and television media, speeches, tax education materials, special programs for groups such as older people, and so forth. Not all the programs of taxpayer assistance have originated from my department. I am particularly pleased to see the amount and quality of support which is coming from outside groups-newspapers, accountants and other professionals, senior citizens associations, neighbourhood action committees, service clubs and a host of other organizations have pitched in to inform and offer free services to taxpayers during this transitional period. I want to compliment them and congratulate them on behalf of the government. They have demonstrated that there are many people in Canada who do not expect the government to do everything for them. I expect that applies to most people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Such has been the quality of this much-appreciated assistance, along with the efforts of my department, that I feel quite secure in asserting that never before has a legislative act of this House been the subject of such massive public study and public information.
All these efforts have been appreciated. I know, because I have heard from a large number of people to that effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, if taxpayers are as confused and so harassed, as the opposition claims today, one would expect a substantial increase in taxpayer errors in the filing of returns. While we have only just passed the deadline for employers to distribute T4 slips to their employees, and though the bulk of returns will be filed in future weeks, I can report to the House that errors in early returns up to last week were approximately 3 per cent less than at the comparable time last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I can also tell the House that a check of our district offices last week indicated that the vast majority of questions by taxpayers were in no way related to the alleged complexity of the form. Some 90 per cent of the telephone calls in one Ontario city for five days last week concerned the province's property tax credit, and nearly 50 per cent of the calls in all our Ontario and Manitoba offices during that period were inquiries about the property tax credit programs of the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: During last weekend, when I heard of the intention of the opposition to move this motion, I just happened to read the lead editorial in the current issue of the Financial Post, the "bible" so often quoted by the opposition.


Mr. Bell:: What?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I do not have time to quote it all, but I should at least quote the first paragraph because it is extremely relevant to the motion before us. It reads:
Much emotional and irresponsible rhetoric has poured forth about the new income tax return. The fact is, the return is not all that complicated and the Department of National Revenue may be right that it's going to be easier than you think.
The newspaper went on to quote a prominent Toronto accountant as saying:
The form is not complicated. Furthermore, the guide which accompanies it is a masterpiece. It's the best guide I've seen anywhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I do not want to go on at great length. I do, however, want to tell hon. members that this year, as in past years, I am sure, the prime aim of the Minister of National Revenue and his department is not simply to collect the revenues which are necessary to carry out the program of the government-or which would be necessary to carry out the program of any government under a democratic system. Our first and foremost aim is to see that the people of Canada are well served by their income tax system; that every taxpayer makes the most of tax reform and the benefits arising from Liberal budgets in the past few years. We want the people of Canada to take every advantage to which they are entitled under the law. Citizens of Canada can depend on us to see that the law is administered in the most sensitive way and that some
7,700,000	Canadians who will be entitled to refunds this year get them as rapidly as this House permits by the passage of legislation.


Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: I was wondering whether the minister would allow me to ask a question and, if so, whether he could give me an answer. I have asked him a couple of questions during the question period and he has been unable or unwilling to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Duncan M. Beattie: When he did not
answer one of my questions he did send me a letter-


Mr. Cafik:: Ask your question.


Duncan M. Beattie: -asking me whether I had any further ideas on his crystal clear income tax guide and whether I would submit them to him.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Duncan M. Beattie: I am wondering whether it is the policy of the government to ask us for our ideas.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I am very glad the hon. member asked about this. There was another member who the other day, asked a question in a rather sarcastic way. He wanted to know why I should be asking hon. members in the opposition for suggestions. I think this reaction demonstrates better than anything how a Conservative government would operate. They are so arrogant they do not care anything about anyone else's ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 5, 1973


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I have heard a great deal in this House over the last few months about how perfidious this form is, but I have not received one constructive suggestion from hon. members opposite. And I do not expect to get one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether, before he sits down, the minister would comment on the assertion in the motion before us today, an assertion which has been repeated by at least one speaker, that the 1972 income tax forms which Canadians are now filling in are illegal. I believe there were references to the fact that there were certain points on which the income tax form differed from the Income Tax Act, and that we would not want people to fill out the form feeling that there was going to be a comeback because the law does not yet conform with the income tax form. I believe there is something about the authority that the minister has to prescribe such forms, but would he comment on the matter so that the confusion on this point will be cleared up?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The tax forms are prescribed by the minister under section 150(1) and section 248(1) of the Income Tax Act. There is no question of their legality.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean, for example, that where the form says that persons over 65 can deduct $1,000 rather than the $650 provided by the act, that is perfectly legal?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I really do not think it is in order for an hon. member to ask for what seems to me to be a legal opinion of the ministry. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if it is not proper for the minister to comment on legal questions, is it proper for us to be debating a motion which indicates there is something before us that is illegal?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was hoping that the minister would seize the nettle himself. Perhaps he could be permitted to reply, since there are several million Canadians no doubt waiting upon his answer.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I had better not attempt a legal opinion for the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, but may I say that persons are being asked to fill out forms that are authorized by law. There are certain aspects of the budget of last May that the Minister of Finance has indicated he would like the House to deal with at an early date. There is no difficulty about having people complete forms according
Income Tax
to the form prescribed by the Minister of National Revenue, and they are proceeding to do this. I suppose about one million Canadians have already submitted their returns, and many of these have received a refund. Those who would qualify for a higher refund or a refund resulting from the budget measures of May 8 will, I hope, not have much longer to wait than the others.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is right, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of National Revenue has indicated that he had not had one single thought or idea to help him from the members on this side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think that is a matter for debate, not a question of privilege.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Airports-Intention respecting extension of runways at Malton; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Youth-Opportunities for Youth program- Request for statement on grant distribution among income classes-Consultation on weekly pay rate with provinces; the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin)-Agriculture-Feed grains-Measures to curb price increase.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that:
This House, noting that the Government's income tax return forms are both confusing and illegal, calls upon the Government to give financial aid and an extension of time to harassed taxpayers, to expedite payment of tax refunds to more than six million taxpayers, and to take immediate steps to legalize both the 1972 tax structure and the forms.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the opening remarks of the minister concerning the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and what he described as sheep. We are more concerned about
1898

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
the fleecing of the people of Canada by the minister than we are about sheep. Apparently the minister is full of wool, or has that in mind. We are not just playing with forms in this debate but talking about equity. We are talking about the people of Canada receiving equity in taxation, the equity that the so-called tax reform legislation was supposed to give them. Now, with this conglomeration of blue, white and in some cases mauve pieces of paper, the taxpayers are not being given equity but a monstrous headache. This headache, together with the accounting cost Canadians have to bear and the problems confronting Canadian business, wipe out any attempt the act makes to treat Canadians equitably, and indeed creates more problems than the equity the act is supposed to give.
Before I reach the main remarks I have to make, let me tell the minister that a great many constituents have telephoned me and talked about the problems they have had with the act and the forms they are required by the minister to complete. Finally, in desperation I have said many times to these people: "Well, if you cannot make it out, do not worry about it. Sign your name to it, put the stuff in an envelope and address it to the minister at the House of Commons-no postage required-because the minister tells me it is pretty simple. So let him look after it".
I am going to address my remarks today to the problems experienced by small businesses with regard to the Income Tax Act and the ancillary forms that must be completed in order to do business in this country in accordance with the act. Small business is pretty important to this country. In the yellow pages of my telephone book, which covers Port Credit, Clarkson and Mississauga, there are pages and pages filled with the addresses of small businesses. Ninety per cent of the ads in these yellow pages are placed by small businesses. Small business represents a tremendous portion of the business activity of the nation.
When the act was first introduced, Mr. Benson introduced what he claimed was the greatest tax system that the world had ever seen. When he announced the tax changes applying to small business, he prefaced them with the following remarks:
This government supports the view that entrepreneurial initiative should be encouraged through the tax system. The Canadian economy depends upon the creative business activity of small, growing businesses.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what have we got? We had a system that was relatively simple: small businesses with earnings under $35,000 paid 20 per cent or 21 per cent corporate tax. We now have a system that is all enmeshed in corporate tax forms, and where at the lower level you pay 25 per cent corporate tax up to the first $50,000 of earnings, providing the cumulative effect of the $50,000 earnings does not exceed $400,000. That is simply to encourage entrepreneurial talent and make you run a small business.
At one time intercorporate dividends were non-taxable. In other words, a dividend paid by a syndicate or by a businessman to the prime company did not carry tax. Under the present system, if this businessman totally controls the subsidiary business, the dividend does not bear tax; but if he does not control it or has a minority interest

in the business, say 49 per cent, that is just tough: the act forces him to take the dividend into the prime company, and it is then passed on either to himself as a shareholder in the prime company or to his family. The complications are totally unreal because companies do have year ends and the dividends must be passed on before the next year end. This is the kind of thing this minister authorizes and this is the kind of problem the businessman faces.
Then, of course, we have the problem of surpluses. We have pre-1972 surpluses, post-1972 surpluses and capital surpluses, and the poor guy in the small business has to figure out when he takes a remittance from his company in the form of a dividend whether he is taking it out of pre-1972 earnings, which he can take out on a flat 15 per cent tax rate, whether it is a regular dividend, or how he can get it out as capital surplus which is not even subject to tax at all. These are the problems to which we must address ourselves.
These are not the only problems. A small businessman is forced to look after a tremendous amount of bookkeeping for this government. These T4 forms are marvelous forms for the average wage earner, but they have to be filled out by every employer. Of course, there are multicarbons; carbon after carbon. They have to go through the Canada Pension Plan and make sure they have deducted, filed and filled in correctly the Canada Pension Plan deductions for their employees. Then, go on in the income tax form to the unemployment insurance portion for their employees, the hospital insurance and other deductions. This does not just involve T4's; it involves T5's, T4A's, T2's and others. These multi-carbon forms have to be filed with the minister, the recipient of income tax, or whoever, before February 28 under penalty, and these forms go on ad nauseam. It is no wonder that businessman after businessman has said to me: Look, if I had to get into it again I would not bother. There is no question about it, businessman after businessman has said this to me and other members, and I bet to the minister himself. They have said they work one-third, one-quarter or half their time looking after the problems of the Minister of National Revenue for free.
Mr. Benson said they were encouraging entrepreneurial talents and initiative through the tax system, but what encouragement is there? Let me talk about the great lie, that situation where we have dividend income and the grossing-up theory. To start off, we have the kind of dividend from the limited company to the individual, and that is all right. However, at the end of the year the corporation which paid the dividend has to produce a T5 slip. On that slip they do not declare what was paid to the individual but one-third more than was paid. Immediately the office is besieged with telephone calls from the shareholders wanting to know what the corporation is trying to do to them. They say they did not receive the money but have received T5 slips indicating a higher dividend. This is the kind of tax problem and form problem this minister has authorized.
The minister said he wanted suggestions. I hope he will sit down, put on his earphone and listen to some suggestions.
March 5, 1973


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I don't need an earphone; I can hear you.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: As long as you do not need an earphone I will give you more suggestions as I go along, but I want to confine this suggestion to business problems.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: That is, unless you are going to break into French.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Let me return to this whole question of dividends. Under the old system you declared to the recipient the dividend he in fact got. He entered it and took a 20 per cent tax credit. Now, when we have this idea of equity, we gross up and then we take a dividend tax credit. The result to the recipient of the dividend may be that the dividend is tax free in the sense that under the system he gets up to 22 per cent or 23 per cent tax credit, or he may get 17 per cent. The difference is not very much, but most recipients of dividends do not receive that much, yet this whole grossing up and grossing down system is so confusing that the present system is not equity at all. This system authorized by the minister does not represent equity at all, but rather confusion, complexity and ridiculous expense.
Let us now turn to the question of the 25 per cent tax on small business corporations. It used to be about 21 per cent under the old act. The concept of this particular dividend credit system was that a dividend coming from a small business would not be doubly taxed. The effect of the system is to increase that tax to nearly 10 per cent over and above the corporate tax when dividends are taken into account. The complications are even greater when it comes to the situation where a small business, a small company or a proprietor is involved with two or three syndicates or businesses in which he has an interest.
I spoke earlier about passing dividends from one company to another. Small businessmen in particular are forced, because of the nature of the small amount of capital, to go into syndicates or partnerships with other businessmen. Part of the problem created in the act was solved, the Minister of Finance suggested, by his budget. He said that the provisions involving the use of surplus for investment would be allowed, but the minister has not solved this problem of passing on dividends from one company to another. What we must have from the minister is an amendment to the act to allow these changes.
I want now to refer to questions of capital gains as these apply to business in respect of real property, particularly manufacturing, office-oriented or store businesses. Large businesses are usually able to expand because they have the ability to go to the capital market and can work out something in respect of the sale or disposition of property, or the re-use of property for another feature of their activity. The small businessman is not in that fortunate position. If he expands and has to sell his office building, his store or his small factory, he must have the total proceeds of that sale in order to buy his next business, finance his next activity or to complete his expansion. Unfortunately, here the capital gains tax legislation comes into effect because the moment he sells his existing plant and uses the money from that sale to buy another plant he is required to pay a capital gains tax on the first sale.
Income Tax
The problem was apparent in respect of houses of ordinary individuals when the bill was passed and that was taken into account. However, in respect of small businesses the problem remains. The act must be changed so that small business will be allowed to expand by selling one property and using the proceeds to immediately purchase another property without a capital gains tax being imposed on the purchase. No one has a capital gain if he must replace the capital asset instantly for the expansion or continuation of his purposes. No capital gain is made until death do us part. In this respect, small business is seriously penalized in this act and in this form where it is forced to declare the asset, the holdings, the sale of that asset and the tax payable on that asset. The effect on the small business is that its expansion activities are seriously limited.
One of the main problems in connection with this act is the additional accounting costs. My activities prior to coming here were in advising small business firms concerning their taxes and corporate and business problems. I can say that from my personal experience since this act was passed almost every small businessman has faced nearly a 100 per cent increase in his accounting costs. The matter was brought to the attention of small businessmen by A. J. Little, President of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants when he spoke last December in Dartmouth. He said that it would take about two or three times longer for the small businessman to prepare his 1972 income tax return. He said the tax return for small businesses would be vastly more complicated than for the large corporation. He also stated:
"In this respect, we have an upside-down system where the burden of compliance will fall more heavily on individuals and corporations with lower incomes and lower capacity to pay."
I wish now to speak for a moment about a matter which does not appear in the forms except in the corporate sense. This is in connection with the write-off or the depletion or depreciation allowances to be granted to manufacturing companies for equipment bought during 1972, and the confusion that these fast write-off provisions are causing small business. A great number of small businessmen get up in the morning and go out to sell. In the afternoon they are supervising their plant. Many of their employees are both salesmen and machine operators. Some of their employees may be involved in manufacturing today and assembling tomorrow. Many of them are involved in shipping part-time or in delivering something another part of the time. A great deal of their activities involve manufacturing one or two components and importing or buying two or three other components and putting them together. When we come to a separate rate of corporate tax for manufacturing companies, these small corporations who operate in this fashion receive little if any benefit. Indeed, the whole system becomes a tax jungle and an accounting nightmare.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, one really appreciates how concerned the members of the Conserva-

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
tive party are in respect of the motion presented this afternoon when one sees the attendance in the House. One might think that this motion was put forward today so that the big guns of the party could hold a little caucus this afternoon to see what kind of a serious motion they might come up with tomorrow in order to attempt to seize that power they desire so greatly.
I listened very attentively to what the last speaker had to say. I appreciate his seriousness. The only problem is that it is too bad he was not here in the 28th parliament because that was the time his speech should have been given. For a long time this afternoon he spoke about the illegality of the new tax form, the fact that the grossing up of dividends, for example, is illegal and that it is very difficult for the person making out the form to do so. I should like to tell him in all seriousness this afternoon that perhaps he was right in his speech, but in the last parliament there was not one single Conservative member who spoke about the grossing up of dividends. Therefore, in his speech this afternoon the hon. member really is not merely condemning the government, which it is his duty to do in a constructive manner, but is condemning his own party which did not once, either in the Senate or in the House of Commons, condemn the grossing up of dividends.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I believe you passed this act with closure, did you not?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I will tell you about that. When the bill finally passed parliament in 1972 there had been a total of 50 sitting days or about one third the normal time of the session provided for all the legislative steps in respect of this particular bill, so if my friend suggests there was an act of closure I suggest to him he does not know what he is talking about. That is the only really weak remark I have heard him make this afternoon.
I had the privilege to be a member of the opposition in the Ontario legislature for many years. I realize how difficult it is to be a member of an opposition party. I know that sometimes the bottom of the barrel is scraped in order to find criticisms in respect of government policy. This afternoon, however, 1 really think the great Progressive Conservative party made a very serious error in introducing this matter, because up until now members of that party had the whole country terrified about these tax forms. This afternoon we have found they are really not that bad and that the new tax forms contain some redeeming qualities which are acceptable to my friends in the opposition party.
Perhaps I might read from a little pamphlet which, many years ago, was written by a member of this House. Indeed it was written so long ago that perhaps he has forgotten about it. It is entitled "The Role of the Opposition." I remember being handed the pamphlet when I was in Toronto. It says that the opposition of course has a duty to oppose, but it is a duty to oppose constructively, to bring in sound advice for the government. Whether the government accepts that advice is another matter. Probably it will not accept advice from the opposition, but at least the opposition would have done its duty by bringing to the attention of parliament, the government and the

people of Canada what it thinks should be done under certain circumstances.
The income tax forms had to be changed because new tax law was passed by parliament last session. I might remind hon. members that that was not done on the spur of the moment. There are many people in Canada who say tax reform should have taken place years ago, instead of ten years being spent discussing change. Even after the government issued its tax reform paper there was further extensive study for two years. During that time every Canadian had an opportunity to make a contribution to tax reform. Indeed, my hon. friends in the Conservative party who were members of the House of Commons finance committee participated in its deliberations every day and gave their criticism, most of it constructive I thought. To say that they did not have sufficient time and that closure took place is absolutely farcical. Never in our history has more time been devoted, inside or outside parliament, to any legislative matter.
In 1970 the Department of National Revenue taxation branch established its own tax reform task force to engage in basic research so that it would be prepared, as well as possible, to administer the new law. The work of this task force involved development of new systems, technique and procedures, retraining of staff and the creation of a program of assistance to taxpayers. All possible steps were taken to achieve as smooth a transition as possible from the old to the new taxation system. There was neither undue haste in constructing the law nor in its administration. In any jurisdiction where there are such comprehensive changes in the tax law, two or three years are required to iron out all wrinkles, to build up sufficient jurisprudence, etc. There is every indication that the advance planning of the department is resulting in an orderly transition to the new system.
For days, Mr. Speaker, we heard questions put by the hon. member who initiated this debate, complaining that the new tax form is complicated. Quite frankly, just from listening to the Official Opposition, I thought the new tax form was a terrible thing until I studied it over the weekend. The fact is that there are many responsible people in Canada who say it is a very fine form. One can give quotation after quotation from responsible financial people, from television and radio stations and from newspaper people, all to this effect. I give one example. In an editorial on this subject in the Financial Post of March 3, the following appeared:
Speaking at Financial Post's tax strategy conference for the owner/manager, Lyman Maclnnis, a Toronto partner of McDonald, Currie and Co. said:
"The form is not complicated. Furthermore the guide that
accompanies it is a masterpiece. It's the best guide I've seen
anywhere."
I note, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who moved the motion initiating this debate has left the chamber. This demonstrates his interest in the debate. I say to him and to my hon. friends in the Conservative party that surely they should be able to bring forward a more serious motion, rather than trying to get the people of Canada all worked up and worried about the new tax form. This shows lack of responsibility on their part. They are trying
March 5, 1973

to instil in the people of Canada a lack of confidence in their ability to make out their own tax forms.
The 1972 tax guide consists basically of two parts. The first part is in the colour of the Progressive Conservative party, blue. Maybe that is a mistake. It is the only thing the Conservatives have not criticized. That part is a step by step instruction in completing the form.


Mr. Fairweather:: It is like the speech they prepared for you.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend, I don't have to have my speeches prepared. If I have any talent at all, it is that I can talk for the next ten or 15 minutes without any notes; but I prefer to be accurate. And I suggest to my hon. friend that when he makes his speech on this topic he should be more accurate than some hon. members on that side of the House.
This blue part is the only section that most taxpayers have to use. The second part contains more detailed information. There has been criticism that too often the guide does not explain fully but refers the taxpayer to his nearest district office. That is done only when a full explanation would require knowledge of the taxpayer's personal situation or when it would be lengthy and complex and of interest to comparatively few people.
I have used these tax offices myself on numerous occasions over the years and I urge people to take advantage of them. The officials are there to help the ordinary taxpayers of Canada. I have had nothing but the greatest courtesy from them; they will bend over backwards to help. The hon. member who moved the motion said that the number of people in the Toronto office had been increased only by 30 to 60. He suggested this meant that one official would have to look after 25,000 inquiries. He should know perfectly well that he was grossly exaggerating beyond even parliamentary bounds. Not all taxpayers go to tax offices. The 60 people in Toronto and the officials in Ottawa, Hamilton and elsewhere do help the taxpayers.
The 1972 guide is new both in design and in substance. Any information required by the majority of taxpayers is in it. The Department of National Revenue taxation branch has been commended by tax authorities in other countries, as well as in Canada, for the simplicity of the guide and its easy to follow instructions. You do not have to take my word for this, Mr. Speaker; just read the newspapers and the editorials. People are beginning to catch on to the fact that even though the form is new, and even though they do not like paying taxes, the Department of National Revenue has done a remarkable job in its first year of dealing with the new form.
When some critics talk about the complexity of the 1972 tax return they are seldom specific about what they mean. Presumably they refer to the guide as well as to the form. I doubt they can offer any evidence that the guide is anything but the best one we have ever had. Most taxpayers will experience no more difficulty in completing the form than they have in recent years.
It would be very nice if the tax form could be as simple as A, B, C. An across the board percentage of all income for tax purposes would require only a few simple forms,
Income Tax
but such a system would be inequitable. Forms are a reflection of the law and of the efforts of the lawmakers to provide an equitable system of taxation. Let us be fair, Mr. Speaker; the tax form is not as complex as many of the critics make it out to be.
This afternoon the mover of the motion gave six reasons why he was introducing his motion. First he said the form was confusing and he gave his opinion on that. This afternoon the minister quoted from speeches and editorials of various people across Canada to show that it is not confusing. It may be confusing in the mind of the hon. member and he is attempting to spread that confusion, for political purposes, all across the country. That is not fair to the people of Canada. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, he said that the grossing up of dividends was illegal and if people had to sign the bottom of these forms it would make them crooks. This suggestion came from the other side of the House even before today.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, not one Progressive Conservative spoke in the last parliament against the grossing up of dividends. Let us suppose for a moment that there might be some substance to the suggestion that the grossing up of dividends is illegal and that the taxpayer did not get the amount that he put down as gross income. Surely it would be equally unbiased to suggest that a person should put in only his net pay instead of his gross pay; in other words, only his take-home pay. Some things have been taken off, such as Canada Pension Plan contributions, income tax deductions, unemployment insurance and hospitalization. In the instance we are discussing, something was taken off as well-the dividend. If the company concerned had not paid corporation taxes there would obviously have been a bigger dividend. For this reason I suggest that if it is right and honest to put down the gross pay, it is also right and honest to put down what the gross dividends would have been had the company concerned not been paying taxes.
There are other provisions in the tax form which my hon. friend suggests are illegal. Three provisions which are reflected in the 1972 tax return but which have not been passed by parliament are the increase from $650 to $1,000 in the old age exemption, the increase from $650 to $1,000 in the disability exemption which is still in existence, and the introduction of the education deduction of $50 a month for full-time attendance at qualifying postsecondary institutions.
Ordinarily, and this was done by the Department of National Revenue, the tax department immediately begins to prepare for tax changes announced in budgets pending parliamentary enactment of legislation; otherwise there would be lengthy delays in their implementation. Enabling legislation is ordinarily passed relatively soon after the budget. In this instance, the government introduced legislation, Bill C-222, to implement the budget provisions but a general election intervened before full consideration and passage of the bill and it died on the order paper in
1972.	The Minister of Finance has clearly indicated that he will introduce legislation as soon as possible in the current session to achieve the same purpose as Bill C-222.

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
Because of time required for design and printing of tax forms, the department was faced with the decision last autumn to include or exclude the aforementioned three items. The decision was taken to include them. Not to include them would have meant that when and if they become law many taxpayers would be forced to file a second return for reassessment. Returns now being filed which are claiming under any of the three provisions are processed to the stage immediately prior to assessment; then they are set aside pending passage of the legislation. When parliament passes the legislation, completion of the assessment can be done quickly and refunds, where they apply, will be mailed with a minimum of delay. Relatively few such returns have been identified so far. Few, if any, taxpayers will suffer any inconvenience if the House deals in the relatively early future with the enabling legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it was with some regret that I saw this motion put before us this afternoon. I must say that I regard it as a strictly political motion. It has done nothing but cause some consternation in the minds of the public. It has not always been my practice to congratulate ministers, but in this instance I think the minister has done an outstanding job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Let us not forget that this is a new form.


An hon. Member:: It is a real mess, isn't it?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It is not a real mess at all. I could take the next five minutes to quote endorsements by responsible financial people in Canada who say that this is the best form we have ever had-and not only in Canada but it is the best guide in the whole world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I say, Mr. Speaker, that the once great Progressive Conservative party is doing nothing but causing some consternation in the ordinary taxpayer's mind in bringing such a motion before us this afternoon. I would remind my hon. friend who introduced the motion, but unfortunately he is not here, that there is nothing in the rules of parliament that would prevent his withdrawing it. Surely that would be the sensible thing to do.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweathor@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, of course, if there had not been the resolution we would not have been treated to the speech by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). I am glad he likes the blue forms. If they are so simple, I wonder why the government has seen fit to spend such an inordinate amount of money on the Fred Davis advertisements. One of my constituents was so upset by the "world's best income tax forms" that she bundled them all up and sent them to Fred Davis because she was sure he would fix them up for her. I am informed that Fred Davis himself gave up attempts to deal with his income tax returns and sent the forms to his accountant.
I want to take the few minutes that are allocated to me, Mr. Speaker, to discuss one aspect of income tax, that is, the right of our citizens to privacy. I think perhaps this aspect has been overlooked by all but a couple of editorialists. I do not purport to have a series of endorsations of

my position that will take up the rest of my time, but I do seriously think that matters of privacy and mutual trust are questions that this parliament should be concerned about.
The whole structure of income tax collection in Canada has been based on mutual trust. The Department of National Revenue relies on the taxpayer to make an honest statement of his income, and the taxpayer relies on the department to keep secret the information about his affairs except in tax evasion proceedings. To the question, "Will the tax man tell?" the answer seems to be that he will, depending on who asks and for what purpose. There is a frighteningly long list of officials, authorized persons and others who have some claim to the production of income tax data. I think this is an area that should be of general concern to parliament and to the taxpayers of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Although officials or authorized persons may not intentionally communicate income tax information to anybody except those persons specified by law in prescribed circumstances, the list of persons to whom communication of some kind is permitted turns out to be fairly long. For instance, there are "other officials and authorized persons", there are "provincial governments", there are "persons otherwise legally entitled", which I suggest might include the chief statistician of Canada, certain foreign governments, the trustee in bankruptcy, the liquidator, the courts in certain circumstances, royal commissions investigating tax matters, the attorney general, the taxpayer who provided the information in the first place and his legal agent or representative.
An official or authorized person can be compelled to reveal income tax information in criminal proceedings under any federal law, not only in tax fraud cases. I think this is a matter of some surprise to people. We usually think of income tax forms as being sacrosanct. The law uses the expression "may", but I suggest that anybody who can show that he is entitled to income tax information under the loose wording of the act can probably compel disclosure.
The definition of "official" is particularly broad. The Income Tax Act provides that an official is any person employed in, or occupying a position of responsibility in the service of Her Majesty, or any person formerly so employed or formerly occupying a position therein. That definition seems to include all ministers, deputy ministers and senior civil servants and does not even exclude former ministers or former civil servants.
An official in the course of his duties investigating the affairs of a taxpayer would not be contravening section 241(1), the basic secrecy section, if he communicated information to a former high civil servant currently in the business world. It may be that I am drawing a wide bow here; I am doing this to emphasize the dangers. According to the present act, it is possible for a former official to be in possession of information regarding a taxpayer under investigation.
March 5, 1973

When an income tax return is produced in open court, there is nothing in the act to prevent the judge quoting from the form in full, not only facts about income but all the details of dependents, medical expenses and charitable donations. There is nothing to prevent the party to the legal dispute who has obtained the income tax return from communicating its contents in full to anybody he chooses. There is not even anything to prevent persons who happen to wander into the courtroom that day from finding out every detail contained in the tax return and communicating that information to others; yet the person whose income tax return is so disclosed might very well be acquitted.
Canadians, I think, have been led to believe that their income tax returns are as secret as their census returns or their ballots. Yet I suggest very seriously that recent events cast doubt on this assumption. A recent case has shaken that sssumption and revealed that legal protection for the confidentiality of tax returns is far from complete.
Richard Green, LL.M., of Queen's University, who now is a research associate at the Canadian Tax Foundation in Toronto, published a study in the January issue of the Canadian Tax Journal in which he concludes that the present legal position of income tax returns is "illogical and can lead to injustice." Mr. Green points specifically to the wording of the Income Tax Act which according to him shows a bias in favour of the taxpayer's privacy, but once legal proceedings begin, the returns and the documents from which they are compiled can be introduced in evidence. The balance swings from the privacy of the individual to the administration of justice. Mr. Green's summary of the present legal position regarding income tax confidentiality indicates that the effect of wording which sounds as if it is providing broad protection of privacy is considerably whittled away by the exceptions contained in section 241(8) (9) and (10) and by court proceedings.
As it is nearly six o'clock, I should like to make one or two suggestions. One of them would interest the hon. member for Bruce, that hon. member who is so upset about attendance but who has left the chamber. The first suggestion comes from Mr. I. H. Asper, a Winnipeg lawyer and leader of the Manitoba Liberal party. Understandably, he finds the form not to his liking. Mr. Asper feels that the commitment of the government to protect the secrecy of taxpayers should be maintained. He wants to make sure that that principle will not be breached. Mr. Asper feels that an assurance to this effect ought to be repeated. I am sure he hopes that the assurance will come from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury).
The former minister of national revenue has said only that the policy of the Department of National Revenue is to do only what is permitted under section 241 of the Income Tax Act. Regrettably, that section in its wording is almost as vague as the minister was, enough so to make one wonder if Canada's entire system of income tax is indeed in peril. If Canada's system of self-reporting income tax is to be regarded as a mutual trust, it should be publicly declared as such by the government.
Second, I do not think there is room for a nebulous category of persons "otherwise legally entitled". The taxpayer should know precisely who has access to his income
Income Tax
tax return and in what situations. Third, only the relevant part of an income tax return, if produced in court, should become part of the public record. One of the reasons for the present legal situation is the breakdown of Crown privilege in relation to income tax returns as a class of documents. If I may interpolate, the doctrine of Crown privilege is a legal doctrine which gives a minister of the Crown the right to withhold documents on the ground that their publication would be contrary to the public interest. The courts have generally refused to accept the idea that all income tax returns are in a class of documents of this kind. Judges have asserted their right to examine the individual tax returns involved to see whether the revenue minister is right in claiming that the public interest would be damaged by their publication.
Lastly, the assistant deputy attorney general said that the justice department is entitled to use information given to the income tax department in cases in which the good of public administration and the administration of justice are concerned. I suggest, with respect, that as matters stand, the information provided on our income tax forms could wind up being widely discussed. I conclude by reading an excerpt from an editorial that appeared in the Financial Times on January 15 of this year. It reads in part:
What is needed is a simple prohibition preventing the use of income tax information for anything but the collection of the tax itself and the prosecution of the taxpayer for having falsified his return.
I suggest that what the public expects is a statement to the effect that that is the law. I would be obliged if, during the course of this debate, someone speaking on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue would clarify the record and make that assertion in parliament.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the motion before the House to try to explain as simply as I can the method of determining the amount of deduction from tax in respect of dividends, referred to as the dividend tax credit. This method for 1972 requires that an individual include in income an amount that is in addition to the amount of dividends he actually receives, but it should be noted that the individual may then deduct from his federal tax, not from his income, an amount equal to 20 per cent of the total amount he has added to his income on account of the dividends. Thus, the fact that an amount in addition to the dividend must be included in income increases the amount that may be deducted from an individual's tax.

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
The effect of the dividend tax credit is to substantially lower the amount of tax payable on a dividend. For example, if an individual had $7,000 of taxable income before counting his dividend, and he received a dividend of $300, the federal tax on the dividend, if there were no dividend tax credit, would be 25 per cent of $300 which is $75. Under the tax credit arrangement in effect for 1972 he would include $400 in income on account of the dividend. The tax on this would be 25 per cent, which is $100, but his dividend tax credit deductible from tax would be 20 per cent of $400, which is $80, and this would wipe out a large part of the tax payable in respect of his dividend.
Some taxpayers express concern that the additional amount that must be included in income in respect of a dividend will place them in a higher tax bracket. This is a misunderstanding. A progressive income tax system, such as that in Canada, uses a graduated rate schedule which imposes an increased rate of tax upon each additional bracket of income. As a result of this system, the additional amount included in income in respect of a dividend may, in some cases, fall into a higher bracket and be subject to a higher marginal or top rate than the dollars received before including this income, but additional income does not affect the rate of tax on all the income of a taxpayer. To illustrate, if a taxpayer had exactly $2,000 of taxable income, which means income after all exemptions and deductions, the rate schedule for 1972 would impose a federal tax of $365 on that amount. This is about 18 per cent of $2,000. Each additional dollar of income over the $2,000, up to $3,000, would be taxed at 20 per cent. This is a higher rate than the tax on the first $2,000, but these additional dollars of taxable income would not affect the amount of tax on the $2,000. As explained before, the additional amount added to income in respect of the dividend increases the amount of the dividend tax credit which is a deduction from tax.
Most Canadians agree that it is desirable that Canadians be encouraged to invest in shares of Canadian companies. This is one of the main reasons why the tax law provides a credit against tax in respect of dividends from Canadian corporations. The change in the method of computing this credit introduced for 1972 made the credit more valuable to those with low incomes than to those with high incomes.
Some taxpayers have asked why a change was made from the previous method of computing the dividend tax credit and why it should be necessary to increase the actual dividend by one-third to arrive at the figure shown in box B on the T-5 slips, called "Taxable amount". This procedure, sometimes called grossing up, has two effects. First, by increasing the amount of the dividend, thereby increasing the shareholder's income and the size of his credit, the situation that would have existed had not the corporate profits been taxed in the hands of the corporations is more closely approximated. Second, the grossing-up of the dividend is equivalent to providing a larger credit and making the amount of the credit taxable. As a result, the dividend tax credit tends to be more beneficial to the lower income taxpayers than to those with higher incomes.
This may be a brief explanation, Mr. Speaker, but it shows that this method of calculating the credit is fair and, I think, practical in this situation.


Charles E. Haliburton: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in this House to discuss such a troublesome matter to the people of Canada as the new tax forms with which a great many Canadians will have to cope this year. They are confusing. No amount of public relations or speech-making in this House will resolve that confusion. I can sympathize with the people who prepared the forms, the schedules and the brochure because obviously one of the basic reasons the form is confusing is that the law which was established in this House is indeed complicated. It makes it very difficult to prepare a form which is easy to follow when the law is obtuse and pretty well concealed from even the bulk of the tax authorities in this country.
The form is mammoth compared with last year's form. This was demonstrated by one of my friends on this side of the House in the photograph referred to earlier by the minister. The guide, perhaps somewhat more psychedelic than it was before, does not have the appearance of any confusion. In fact, it appears quite orderly on the surface. Indeed, some aspects of it are very easy to understand. I wish to read into the record one or two excerpts which I think are meritorious on the part of the people who drafted the guide. One of the most striking is the first paragraph in this booklet:
Stripped of all its mystery, a tax form is simply a piece of paper on which you do four basic things:
(1)	identify yourself.
(2)	lsit your income.
(3)	reduce your income by subtracting allowable deductions.
(4)	calculate your tax.
That is a masterful touch on the part of the draftsman. Indeed, if that were all there were to preparing the income tax return which this year the government has placed before the people of Canada, there would be no trouble at all in preparing it. What else do we find in the little book? The answer is the blue pages. These are prepared, it says, for almost all taxpayers. But if we follow the blue pages carefully, we find there is no mention anywhere of listed property. It would seem that the great mass of the taxpayers who are expected to fill out these forms do not possess any property which falls into this category. The taxpayer who this year will be able to follow these blue pages is the taxpayer who last year used the simple T-l form, the taxpayer who has no income other than his earnings from employment, the taxpayer who has no savings, the taxpayer who owns no chattels worth any significant amount of money-or, if he does, he is not dealing in them because certainly values do not need to be very extraordinary before the blue pages no longer apply.
I have now found the quotation I was looking for in this section. It reads:
While this section will probably not be needed by most people-
The reference is to income from other sources. Mr. Speaker, there are few people who do not derive income from some other sources. This, it seems to me, portrays

March 5, 1973

the attitude of the government, one which will come to fruition in the future when most people will not even be able to invest in a Canada savings bond by way of saving for their old age. Obviously, if they have such an investment they will not be able to fill out the form on the basis of this section. This form is designed for the Canadian taxpayer of the future. It is designed for the poor taxpayer of the future, perhaps even in 1973 when the citizen cannot save sufficient money from which to make investments, buy a cottage for which he might incur a tax liability or acquire a work of art worth more than $1,000.
Then we turn to the aspect of the guide dealing with capital gains. A capital gains tax is one which the great majority of Canadians consider to be applicable only to the wealthy, to those born with a silver spoon in their mouth. But one need not read for very long in the guide before determining that there are not many Canadians who will escape the penalties contained in these provisions affecting capital gains. I want to read one excerpt from that section in the guide which has gone to the other extreme. The compiler of this guide started out in good faith, but by page 27 he is bogging down a bit. It reads:
To compute a capital gain or loss on an asset acquired before 1972, three figures are required:
-the actual cost -the valuation day value
-the proceeds of disposition as described above.
(Note that adjustments to the cost base may change the proceeds
of disposition for this purpose.)
The median of these three figures-
I always understood that the median was half way between two points, and thus one could not have a median somewhere between three figures. It may be I am lacking in appreciation of the niceties of the language and do not understand what it means, but I suggest there are a great many taxpayers who will not be able to understand this, either. It continues:
-that is, the figure which is neither the highest nor the lowest, is the base upon which the capital gain or loss is computed, subject to the election explained below. Where two or more of these three figures are in the same amount, that amount will be the median. This median figure is deemed to be the adjusted cost of the asset and is the amount to be entered in column 2 of schedule 2, provided that there are no adjustments as outlined in item 58. If there are adjustments, contact your district taxation office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles E. Haliburton: At about the time I got to that line I had already decided I would rush to my accountant as soon as I had dug up all the information necessary to determine exactly what had to be done.
Item 68 in the guide talks about valuation day. Valuation day is a concept which will soon come home to Canadian taxpayers. I suggest that the item in the guide constitutes a trap, especially for the taxpayer who does not take the precaution to consult someone who is knowledgeable about the provisions of the new act.
Today we have heard members on the other side encouraging taxpayers to file tax returns this year without consulting anyone with special knowledge of the tax situation. This might be because there are so few people
Income Tax
who thoroughly understand the legislation: witness the statement by Mr. Thorson, as I understand it, that there were only half a dozen such people in the world, of whom he was one and the other five were in his department. How is a person to get fair treatment when it comes to the disposal of his assets if he starts off without receiving proper advice from a tax expert on whether to make an election to use valuation day values or values on acquisition?
Many taxpayers will make a mistake; they will do the wrong thing, and in years to come they will incur a severe penalty. It may be said that the tax law applies to everyone else in the same way it applies to them, but the initial error might have been made simply because they were not accustomed to receiving expert advice when preparing their tax forms. This in itself is a good reason for allowing an extension of time during which taxpayers would have an opportunity to receive professional advice.
Another curious thing about this tax form is that there is no provision for deducting losses in most cases of change in capital value. The only thing the government seems to be concerned with are capital gains. Those who lose go pretty much unrewarded or without much of a deduction.
The detailed information that is required to complete the income tax return is, I suggest to the House, a most serious invasion of privacy. The information that is required in terms of filing valuation day reports calls for the most soul searching determination of every asset that a family owns that might possibly have some value, particularly those that might have a value of over $1,000 in terms of 1972 dollars, which will be worth heaven knows what in ten years' time.
Eventually this will surely mean the declaration of every piece of jewellery and every jewel that is an heirloom in the family, every jewel of value that is passed from mother to daughter. Antique furniture that may have acquired value over the years is another item. It is easy to cite examples of furnishings that will be worth over $1,000 and which have been passed down from generation to generation. Perhaps paintings are an even better example. I suggest this constitutes a very substantial tax by virtue of the continuing inflation that this country has experienced during the past few years. At the current rate, I suggest that when we are compiling an inventory of our personal assets we might be very wise to keep the receipts for underwear that we have bought; with inflation going the way it is, that might end up worth over $1,000 too.
I want to consider for a moment the impact that these forms, and perhaps the forms that will be incorporating the provisions of the 1972 budget resolutions, will have on manufacturing industries. Again the taxpayer, particularly the small businessman, is going to be faced with a substantial tax, not just because of the inflationary aspect of capital gains that I mentioned a moment ago but because small businesses will be required to retain tax consultants to an extent they never have before. In a lot of cases, instead of a business having a part-time accountant or accounts kept by the proprietor himself, a full-time

Income Tax
accountant will be needed to keep track of all capital transactions, as well as revenue and expenditure incurred in the normal course of business. This will mean an additional tax in the form of money expended on appraisal fees to defend the company against any tax levy that the department may seek to impose upon them in the future.
Furthermore, there is the uncertainty of never knowing whether a valuation day report will be acceptable to the department. If it is overruled, a businessman may then require legal advice, again involving him in further expense which could be considered akin to a legal fees tax. Legal experts would need to be employed to argue a case before the Tax Appeal Board. Then, again, any attempt to pass on a business that is not a family farm to members of one's family faces another tax.
All these things result from the effect of this legislation upon small business. By "small business" I speak of the businessman who does business in my constituency of South Western Nova where there are many fish plants, fishermen who own their own boats, and lumber mills. These people do a volume of business of perhaps $250,000 a year and employ 15 to 20 persons. What will be the impact upon those persons when they attempt to determine the income they derive from manufacturing and processing and other facets of their business? For example, take the case of the owner of a fish plant who may also be a boat owner, a fish buyer who may be in the business of filleting fresh fish and shipping them to market as they are, a man who is in the business of freezing and packaging, or a person who is in the business of fish sales and brokerage. Freezing and packaging apparently come under the manufacturing or processing provisions of the legislation. This kind of businessman will not reap any of the benefits of the legislation; rather, it will be a liability to him.
As I say, I represent a rural riding, one with many small businesses and old people. My riding has perhaps a higher percentage of older people than other ridings in Canada, and some aspects of these new forms are particularly troublesome to the elderly. The advertising program that was instituted by the government to familiarize Canadians with the forms and to convince them that it was easy to fill them out did not really cover local areas where the great proportion of the population do not take the large dailies but read the weeklies. The government did not see fit, at least initially, to advertise in the weeklies; as a result, people in the rural areas were not made aware of how "easy to understand" these forms are. As a result, they were a month or two behind, psychologically speaking, in preparing themselves for the insurmountable task of filing their 1972 income tax return.
Most federal and private tax consulting offices, as I understand it, have been forced to extend their office hours in order to cope with the increased demands that are being made upon them. I understand a great many of them are keeping their offices open until nine o'clock and that the government has experienced a similar phenomenon as far as their own information facilities for taxpayers are concerned. At the same time, tax consultants and accountants have naturally found it necessary to increase their fees since the time consumed in preparing these

March 5, 1973
returns has increased. Thus, the cost of retaining an accountant has increased this year.
As I mentioned earlier, when the associate deputy minister of justice was asked about this Income Tax Act while speaking to the Tax Foundation, he stated that only six people fully understood the act; they were himself and five of his employees.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) is rising on a point of order.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Since the former associate deputy minister of justice is not in the House and able to answer for himself, I think the hon. gentleman would want to check the authority for that reference. The last member who used those words in this House received a correction from the associate deputy minister of justice to the effect that he had said no such thing.


Charles E. Haliburton: Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not misled the House, and I am grateful for any rectification. I was relying on the report in Hansard.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: You were quoting another Conservative member.


Charles E. Haliburton: The mathematical calculations required to complete a return are complex and confusing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring a few things to the attention of the minister and the House. I wrote to the minister some time ago because of a problem which had been brought to my attention by an accountant in my area. The minister was good enough to reply. In addition, he sent me a short note on February 26 in which he said that during the tax return filing period, if I had developed some ideas or had received opinions from constituents about tax forms, and so on, I might be kind enough to bring them forward. This evening I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and the House several matters that have been brought to my attention. He may agree that some of them require correction or he may say that there really is not a problem. All I can do is bring these problems to the attention of the minister.
I have an accountant friend who does what I need to be done in filing a return. He said to me as far back as last fall that accountants were going to have difficulty with the new provisions. Some of the things which have come to my attention indicate that these difficulties have occurred. I would refer to a letter I received from an accountant. I sent this to the minister and asked for a reply and he was good enough to provide one. This accountant pointed out that there was real confusion in regard to capital gains tax as it applied to farmers claiming under part 11 as against part 17. Under part 11, the recovery provisions provided prior to 1972 would work
March 5, 1973

out all right but under part 17 they would not. The accountant who wrote to me detailed this at some length.
The minister replied that this would be corrected to some extent, or perhaps altogether, by the ways and means motions that might come in February, 1973. This may be so, and probably is. But what puzzles me is why on earth the taxation proposal for the farm business did not simply leave things on a straight cash reporting basis in simple and easy terms, so returns could be filed by farmers and the people who often do filing in rural communities and prepare estimates of farmers' income returns. If this is a provision in respect of which a chartered accountant finds it necessary to point out the difficulties which exist, and asks me to do what I can to have them clarified, then those who drafted these provisions in the first place did not do their job. Indeed, there are a number of areas in which these gentlemen did not do their job.
Let me point out one area in respect of cattle herds and the farmer and rancher who make their living, or part of it, from raising cattle. When this legislation was going through the House we on this side pleaded with the government to leave the basic herd concept alone, but they would not do that. They wiped out the basic herd concept and had to come back with another proposal in this budget which I understand, and I can be corrected, means that the farmer can take a build-up into inventory at some point of time and spread it over a period of years. Why adopt this involved method of doing things as against a simple concept which existed and worked? I do not know the answer.
Anyone who has anything to do with income tax knows that if you are going to dispose of a cattle herd, take it into inventory and spread it over a number of years, thereby saving yourself income tax in one particular year, you must plan to do that some time ahead. If a farmer has not received the advice of an income tax consultant that he is able to do this and save himself money, he will not know this provision is available to him and will not take advantage of it. He will end up paying more taxes than he should.
There were two courses open to the government, either to retain the basic herd concept or adopt another simple method to allow a farmer or a rancher to set up his cattle herd as a depreciable asset, just as you might with machine tools in a factory or, indeed, machinery on the farm.


An hon. Member:: Why not give him a write-off?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Someone suggests we should give the farmer a write-off. I suggest if this government stays in power long enough and fiddles with taxes, it will have to give everybody a write-off and perhaps write the farmer right out of the picture. I am pleading with the people across the way for some ordinary common sense in tackling these problems. This is one situation which could make a great difference to the farmers of this country.
Let me deal briefly with the capital gains proposal, that is, to set aside the tax in the case where a farm stays in the family on the death of the father. Why was this provision restricted to the time of death? Most people are aware that many farms are transferred during the lifetime of the
Income Tax
farmer. Why not make this applicable during his lifetime, particularly if the objective is to facilitate the transfer without hardship to the family and to maintain a farm within the family? In this way you could maintain a viable structure. If this was the objective, then why not include transfers during a farmer's lifetime? Indeed, it is the concern of government to maintain land for farming, and maintain it within the family farm structure. That is the objective of the land bank program in Saskatchewan; that is the concern of British Columbia in its approach to land.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: What about estate taxes? Do they help the farmer?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Don't worry about Alberta, because you haven't got a plan there. When you people to my right have a program of any kind, then you can start to work. But you don't have one yet. This is a matter which concerns a number of provincial governments. Therefore I ask, why wasn't this provision designed to cover the whole area? Why was it not thought through so that it would cover the family farm corporation? I do not know whether anyone called it to the attention of the minister or his assistants. However, so far as I know it does not apply to the family farm corporation. If, as I say, the stated objective is to keep the farm operation intact, then this situation should be corrected very quickly so that these transfers can be made easier. I wonder whether those people who did the planning thoroughly thought it through or whether this was just a hastily thought up idea that was thrown in. We are very concerned about this.
We have some problems. A farmer wrote to me concerning his situation. The Department of National Revenue had decided that the expenses he had incurred in renovating his farm were not expenses for the current year, could not be classified as repairs and therefore they represented an addition to his capital investment. They decided to capitalize his invertment on that particular building. Since this farmer had written to me, I wrote to the department to see what could be done about the situation. I am not an income tax consultant by any means. The answers I received were the soul of brevity. The first answer was that they had decided to do it in that way. When I wrote back and asked why they did not notify the person and why they did not do this or that, they replied that they had notified him and he had three weeks in which to answer. Acting on this man's behalf, I do not know any more now than I did before I took the trouble to write two letters to the department concerned.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: You should have written to me.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I appreciate the minister saying that, because he is courteous and has replied to me on occasion. I will do so. Thank you.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Everybody else does.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I do not expect the people in the department to really break their necks for a Member of Parliament, but if I take the trouble to write on behalf of someone, surely they would know we are concerned and would try to give us some of the facts to work with. I think

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
what is needed here as much as anything is real contact with the man who is paying the taxes, who is carrying the load and who is trying to meet the circumstances under which he operates.
In my experience, most people are quite prepared to pay the tax that is due whether they be salaried, wage earners or businessmen. I think under the circumstances every effort ought to be made to co-operate in making these provisions as clear and as uncomplicated as possible. I think this is the essence of the matter. That is why I say in relation to the basic herd that it was a good concept and if that method is not to be used, then the cattle herd should be made an appreciable asset subject to depreciation. I hope these few thoughts that I am throwing out are of some help and that we might soon be able to simplify the forms and procedures for the benefit of the ordinary taxpayer.
I do not particularly wish again this evening to go into the provisions of the budget and what they do or do not do for the taxpayer about whom we are talking. This matter has been gone through and I suppose it will be raised again. My main concern is to put forward some ideas which might be of help in these circumstances. I believe some of these problems apply to small business as well as farms because the farmer and the small businessmen operate very similar concerns. I hope those in the department will attempt to simplify the procedure because if they do, time and money will be saved for all concerned.


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, having examined the first motion which the opposition had the opportunity to introduce, I am surprised to see that they had nothing to find fault with, except the income tax forms which apparently are complex and illegal. Evidently, I cannot discuss whether they are illegal or not because I do not think that I have the necessary qualifications to do so since I am not a lawyer. However, I am quite surprised that they lay no other blame upon the government.
We are told that the income tax forms are confusing and that we must speed up the payment of income tax refunds to over 6 million taxpayers. Therefore, I am pleased to note that the opposition has nothing else to hold against us.
As for this year's income tax returns, I think they can be explained easily. People with lesser education than the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) or others can complete the form themselves without being helped by an accountant or a lawyer. I was able to experience it myself for people asked me how was the form as compared with last year's and they realized that it is much simpler because in 1971 and before, income tax returns varied with income. There were then the T-l Short, and the T-l General for those in business or whose income was over a specified maximum.
And if my memory serves me right, the maximum was then $8,000. As for the 1971 guide, I suggest that it was much more complicated than that for the present year, all

the more so since it only applied to those who had to fill a T1 short form.
Moreover, it has to be said that the tax table for 1971 and the previous years was made for incomes up to $8,000, which means that many taxpayers whose income was over $8,000 necessarily had to make what was called a detailed tax calculation on a form which was attached to the T-l General Form. As far as the T-l short from is concerned, this calculation could not be done because this form only applied to people whose income was $8,000 or less.
This year, the 1972 tax table enables those who have an income of $12,000 to know what amount of tax they have to pay without making a detailed calculation, and I suggest that this is a definite improvement.
I would like to refer as well to an article published in Le Soleil of February 3, 1973, and written by Monique Payeur. I quote:
In order to have a more equitable tax system,-
And I believe that our tax system is more equitable than it has ever been, after ten years of study.
-tile federal government has made a complete review of its top legislation and introduces for 1972 a standard tax form for everybody-
In 1972, for instance, the federal government published eleven small booklets in the series "Tax Reform", dealing with specific points of the new tax policy, like child care expenses, travel expenses, capital gains, basic herds, etc.
Therefore, the people who must pay taxes have already received from the Department of National Revenue booklets explaining how to make this calculation, since this is a new act developped as a result of studies carried out by the House. We received the Carter report and, later on, we studied the white paper on the tax reform for a year and a half to two years. This was followed by the introduction of a bill which represented a rather drastic tax reform, needless to say, to help more those who earned less because they are overtaxed compared with other taxpayers.
When the tax reform was studied by this House, several arguments were invoked, for an against, of course, but it was passed and later on, as I have already mentioned, the Department of National Revenue sent out brochures to the people explaining the new deductions to which they were entitled and also the whys and wherefores of those deductions.
I fail to see any problem, all the more so considering the fact that an income tax act, in as complex a business world as ours, cannot be simple. To my mind, the department managed to produce a fairly simple form, in view of course of the complexity of the act.
This act was not necessarily prepared by the Liberal party; it was prepared while the Liberal party was in power, as it has been for many years, and will be for many years to come. The Liberal party called on specialists. Indeed, within the Department of National Revenue, there is an advisory committee made up of legal advisers, specialists in the field of taxation and accountants. These people got together and assisted department officials in preparing the simplest form possible.
And the one that we are considering and for whose defects we are condemned by its opponents is not merely
March 5, 1973

a product of members of the Liberal party or officials of the Income tax Division, but also that of people from the private sector, specialists in this field, who have worked hard trying to draft a personal income tax form which would make it easier for the individual to complete his income tax return and which would at the same time comply with the provisions of the new Income Tax Act which, obviously, is rather complex because in a modern and complex world it is very hard to draft a very simple law.
However, they did achieve something quite simple to prepare, covering a maximum of four pages. First of all, identification of the individual involved, which poses no problems. For those who have incomes other than remuneration for their employment, something very useful has been prepared, the appendixes.
Formerly, there were no schedules. What happened was that people had to prepare their own for submission to the tax bureau. Now, these schedules are supplied.
Schedule 1 includes detailed calculation of taxes applying only to those having incomes of $12,000 and over, thus probably eliminating at least half of taxpayers who do not have to do anything about schedule I.
Schedule 2 concerns statement of capital dispositions. Of course, formerly when sales of capital goods had been carried out, an accountant had to be hired to make out such a document for the civil servant checking this formula, with details of the sale compared with the cost, and so on.
What has been added is the provision concerning capital gains and losses. Now, one of those who spoke before me suggested that the guide contained nothing about capital losses. Well I found out that it does contain something. The government cannot collect from Canadian taxpayers more than they must pay, but really what all Canadians must pay according to the law.
And I am surprised that the hon. member for York-Simcoe, who submitted that motion, has not shown more interest in it; because after he had presented it this afternoon, he disappeared and has not been seen since.
This simply proves the weakness of the Progressive Conservatives' motion. In my opinion, that motion does not make any sense.
Furthermore, schedule 3 deals with medical expenses and charitable donations. But it's not everyone who has to report any for deduction purposes, and the government has added a schedule for them to give the details of the receipts they have in their possession, so that they can claim that deduction.
The income tax return contains a section to make a statement of investment income. Now, in the 1971 form, the reporting of investment income was mentioned, but very briefly, so that many people complained that there was not enough space to report that income properly. Of course for those who make investments, a schedule has been added this year. Once again, I fail to see the difficulty in referring to this annex.
Schedule 5 deals with child care expenses. Of course we had to include child care expenses in the 1972 returns,
Income Tax
because they are something new. They were brought in by the Liberal party and the taxpayers have welcomed them. If they were to profit from their deductions, we obviously had to include an annex for people to note the details of their expenditure in this field.
Schedule 6 deals with additional personal exemptions. Those who have difficulties with their married persons' exemptions and wish to be taxed otherwise than as persons married to a legitimate spouse, will require a special form for additional information so that they can qualify for married status.
Schedule 7 deals with real estate rentals. A good many Canadians are now property owners, we are pleased to see, and receive a small income from this. Rather than force them to consult an accountant and spend money to have a statement of their real estate income and expenditure drawn up, we printed an annex, which will obviously be of help to them.
For those who receive other income, such as sales commission, we added another annex, 9, which is a statement of income and expenses. Here again, this spares the taxpayers the expense of professional advice in making out his return.
A look at the guide, about which a member was making such a fuss just now, shows that it is very clear. It sets up six steps in making out one's return. The first is explained under the heading of "Getting ready", and is obviously that of getting together the papers needed to make out the return. I do think that there are no special difficulties on that.
Step two under the heading "Identifying yourself" is to say who you are. There is no problem on that either, I believe.
Step three, under the heading "Listing your income" is to indicate the income and then some information is given on taxable and non taxable income. A little further, the guide lists especially the income that does not necessarily need to be declared.
Step four, under the heading "Claiming your deductions", deals with allowable deductions. It is quite clear: there are the "Canada Pension Plan contributions." There is no problem on that either. As for contributions to a "Registered Pension Plan", people were previously entitled to only $1,500; the Liberal party, in its tax reform, has granted them an exemption of $2,500. In my opinion, all Canadians are very pleased about it.


Mr. Corbin:: The Progressive Conservatives are not.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Of course the Progressive Conservatives do not like that because they did not introduce it. Besides, they will never do it because they never will take over the government. We have seen it since the beginning of January because they have tried very hard to take over the government. Unfortunately for them, they have been frustrated and helpless. We are convinced that when election time comes in the near future, we will have a much higher majority because the Progressive Conservatives are only politicking in the House instead of legislating and this is often the case in committees.

March 5, 1973
Income Tax
However, this does not apply to the committee I have the honour to chair because the Progressive Conservative members of this committee are most kind toward their chairman and they behave very well. I wish to take this opportunity to thank them for their co-operation even though we sometimes have misunderstandings and lack of co-operation.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the income tax return-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would allow me one short question. I know that in his charitable manner he might, because he is referring to members of the miscellaneous estimates committee and the co-operation he encounters there in an effort to do things of benefit to Canada and Canadians. I wonder if the hon. member was amongst those fortunate people who received a letter from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) requesting their help because of the complexity of the forms, to try to make them more acceptable. Apparently we were expected to send it to lawyers and accountants in our constituencies. In view of the fact that the hon. member makes it sound so simple, and he knows that the hon. Minister of National Revenue sent such a letter-


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: He did not want to, but he did. He would like to have your ideas, if you have any.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, of course, can ask a question if the hon. member who has the floor agrees. However, I think I should warn the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) that he is fast coming to the end of the time allotted to him under Standing Orders.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for giving me the opportunity to discuss the letter the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) has sent to hon. members.
I also received this letter but I do not think there is any difficulty. What he is asking the hon. members-unfortunately I have not the letter before me-is this: Would you have any suggestions to make in an effort to improve the form? Thus there is no problem. It is democratic participation-as the Liberal party has always advocated-of all the hon. members in order to produce the best possible form, for the good of the people and I think the request of the hon. Minister of National Revenue is quite justified. I think that it is quite appreciable, because the minister could have sent that letter to the Liberal members only, but he sent it to all hon. members, in order to obtain their co-operation.
If instead of saying that the income tax return is confusing, constructive solutions were suggested to the Minister of National Revenue, the government would take such requests in consideration. Now, the only thing deemed useful is a motion to the effect that the form is confusing. Indeed, many things can be confusing, but if they really want to co-operate to improve the lot of the Canadian people, they should suggest solutions, which, I am sure,

would be heartily welcomed and taken into consideration by the Minister of National Revenue.
Now, in the motion-


Mr. Olivier:: It is the Progressive Conservatives who are confused.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My point is that there is something wrong with it.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I shall always be pleased to meet my hon. friend and discuss this with him. If he has questions to put, he can always do so. If he has trouble completing his income tax return, he may consult me any time and I shall be pleased to help him. This is the co-operation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is with deep regret that I must advise the hon. member for Laurier that the time allotted to him has expired. He may only continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently, there is not.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this evening to have the opportunity to speak on this matter. I come from an area in the province of Saskatchewan which is either agricultural or dependent upon agriculture. Over the past 20 years I have had occasion to gain considerable experience in the preparation of income tax returns, both the T-l short form for the wage earner and the T-l general for the farmer.
In the early fifties the preparation of these tax returns was a relatively simple matter; however, as years went by it became more and more complicated. Ministerial decisions, regulations and amendments to the act-


An hon. Member:: And Liberal red tape.


Douglas Charles Neil: That's right. These tended to confuse and alarm the taxpayer to the extent that he was concerned about making an error in the calculations and incurring the wrath of the departmental inspectors and officials. The result was that more and more taxpayers became dependent upon professional help to prepare their returns. The Hon. Edgar Benson then arrived on the scene to hold a dialogue with the people and develop a completely new concept of taxation.


An hon. Member:: He got a good job out of it.


Douglas Charles Neil: The public, the accountants and the tax lawyers were flattered. At long last, here was a man who was going to make sense out of our tax system. We all waited with anticipation. Here was a man who was going to give us a new Income Tax Act, one that could be understood
March 5, 1973

and one that would replace the antiquated patchwork act passed, I believe, in 1918 or 1919. Hon. Edgar Benson listened in two official languages but he answered us in a language more incomprehensible than that which might have been used by a visitor from outer space.
I had occasion in November, 1971, to attend the Canadian Tax Foundation seminar in Vancouver. In attendance at that meeting were leading tax experts from all over Canada, men who specialize in income tax, men who had spent upwards of nine months studying the then proposed tax act which was subsequently passed, of course, in December of that year. These men were united in stating that a great many of the sections of the act were completely unintelligible to most experts unless they could understand the operation of a computer and calculate algebraic formulas backwards. This is the act upon which our income tax return is now based, Mr. Speaker, an act that has required the department to spend, I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars on explanatory booklets and interpretation bulletins some of which themselves require interpretation.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) indicated that the new income tax form is not complicated. He even hired a well known television personality to advertise the fact that the return, close up, is easier than it looks. Obviously, hon. members on the other side of the House who have spoken, including the hon. member who spoke prior to me, should themselves appear on television instead of spending money on a television personality. We should put those tax experts on the air and save hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) hit the nail on the head when he said that the tax form is simple in relation to the complexity of the legislation. I think that is absolutely correct. The legislation is complicated, and the tax return must be complicated.
It may be that the physical act of completing the return is not difficult once the information has been gathered together, but it is essential that the taxpayer compile the necessary information. In order to do so, he must have knowledge of the act and of the law. It must not just be cursory, otherwise he will find himself in difficulties with the assessor and the department and subject to penalties which in some cases are much more severe than penalties imposed under the Criminal Code. But at least under the Criminal Code one can get a conditional discharge.
Should a taxpayer be required to spend hours, or even days studying interpretation bulletins and tax guides in order to complete a tax return or, alternatively, should he have to spend money to retain the services of a tax expert or accountant in order to complete a return? The majority of taxpayers just cannot afford the luxury. They require those dollars to help them cope with the spiralling cost of living which continues to plague us. It may be suggested by the government that if a taxpayer reads and studies "Your Guide to the 1972 Income Tax Return" and/or the "1972 Farmers' and Fishermen's Tax Guide", the taxpayer can complete his own return. That may be so if the taxpayer is a scholarly type, has a basic understanding of the law and has spent weeks or even months studying it: under those conditions, perhaps he can fill out the return. However, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that unless a farmer
Income Tax
taxpayer who is preparing his own T1 general form has a good understanding of capital cost allowances and has read the "1972 Farmers' and Fishermen's Tax Guide" with a good deal of care, he could easily come to the conclusion that he must depreciate all assets under part II of the regulations rather than under part 17, regardless of when he acquired them. Once he converted, the decision would be irreversible.
What about capital gains? The hon. member for Laurier looked over the income tax return and made light of the difficulties. He suggested that there is no problem in filling it out. The income tax return, if the taxpayer disposes of some capital assets, requires an election to be made. I ask, how can an individual taxpayer make an election under section 26(7) of the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, unless he knows what the ramifications are? Once he makes that election which is set out at the bottom of the second page of the return, he is bound by it for the rest of his life, and his estate after him is bound by that election.
There is a very important principle which says that no man should have to pay a tax which he cannot reasonably be expected to understand. The government seems to have forgotten that principle, Mr. Speaker. There are new complications to do with partnerships. Professional people who are on a cash basis, or were on a cash basis previously, will encounter many problems. The matter of professional partnerships is especially complicated.
As there are a large number of uncertainties regarding the law of partnership and as much complexity is involved in the calculations, much additional time will be required to be spent by accountants in preparing returns. I am advised by chartered accountants and by tax consultants in my constituency that all returns this year will require a much longer time for completion than previous returns did, partly because of the queries raised by taxpayers and partly because the election I mentioned must be considered and studied where capital gains are involved. I do not envy the chartered accountant who is called on for advice with respect to an election to do with capital gains. In many cases he might be just as well off if he were to make his decision after gazing into a crystal ball.
I am also advised that many accountants feel that because of the additional time required to complete returns they will encounter difficulty in meeting the April 30 deadline. For that reason they are accepting very few new clients. An extension of one month in the filing date is essential if taxpayers are to be given the opportunity of obtaining professional advice and services. I believe, Mr. Speaker, although I have been unable to substantiate my assertion, that an extension of time was granted to farmers in 1950 for the filing of 1949 returns. I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to an extension this year.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that a tax system which is so complicated that it cannot be understood by the individual taxpayer without professional advice, and which requires a taxpayer to pay a government department a fee in order that he may obtain a decision regarding the interpretation of the act, is totally unacceptable.

March 5, 1973
Income Tax


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the comments I have to make will not take a great deal of time and will allow time for other hon. members to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: It pleases me to hear that appreciation from the opposition, because in rising to speak on this issue I want to make the point that I appreciate their respect for the House and their attention to what I have to say, or at least some quietness so I may continue.
I hope that the members of the press who attended this afternoon's session and the night guard tonight will register the fact that when we discuss this particular issue today, the first opportunity for that party which says it should in fact be governing the country-almost has the right to govern, and at one point said it had the right to govern-the major issue it brings before this nation, the major point of confrontation, the public should realize, that is most important in their minds is the income tax form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Having decided that, with the overwhelming unanimity we know their caucus has, they managed through the afternoon to have about 10 per cent of their caucus here on the first day to discuss this, their most important issue. It is not much better tonight, with 15 per cent to 20 per cent. I hope that when the day comes when this House will go back to the people, we on this side and in other parts of the House will remember what they did. This is their first day to register a most important concern-and how many of them are here to discuss it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I wish to refer to a couple of points made this afternoon by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). As an example of the obvious concern the government had, the hon. member for York-Simcoe said that this new form was increasingly difficult and therefore the government must take measures to accommodate that problem. He made the point that the clerical staff in the Toronto area had been increased from 30 to 60. That is one for each group of 25,000 people. I am sure the complaint would have been greater if it had been one in 50,000. That was his point: we must be concerned because the staff has been doubled.
His next point in introducing this motion on behalf of the official opposition was that his secretary had called 25 times over this wonderful phone service and could not get an answer. Two facts were pointed out: one, it is income tax time and the phones are busy; also, it is frustrating. Why do you think the staff was increased? It is easy to twist one fact, be blind to the next one and present the reverse argument. That is typical of what that party is doing. They have been carrying on in this way ever since this session began two months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Neil.)


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The hon. member for York-Simcoe is an economist of sorts. He certainly has banking in mind from time to time. He is a lawyer of great skill. This afternoon he made much of the fact that in the past five years income tax for the average Canadian taxpayer had increased some 50 per cent. He started out by saying the actual amount had increased for the so-called average taxpayer. To be entirely frank and honest, he then broke it down into constant dollars and it came to 50 per cent. It is that statistical game that has the public bewildered as to what politics is and who is trying to help the country.
What the hon. member for York-Simcoe did not mention is how much the net income and gross income of the average taxpayer has increased. Over the past five years it has increased by at least 50 per cent. He has a great deal more money to spend, and a great deal more government services are available to those who need them, as a result of the actions of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Time is taken up during the question period with the politics of the question rather than honestly trying to get some answers and being a strong, firm and honest opposition. It is great politics to say how nonsensical these new forms are: that makes a great picture. The fact of the matter remains that many of the criticisms are from people who have not looked at the form. A great number of people in the media, economists and tax experts-I think the minister quoted an editorial from the Financial Post-say this form is extremely good; that it is one of the best forms we have had in years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: This has been going on for the past two months, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect, whenever anyone on this side rises to speak, we hear only catcalls and interruptions. You do not see the same kind of nonsense when someone on that side rises to speak. That is the kind of government they want to carry on, government by catcall.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: If I can get on with my speech, you can take together all these forms and make easy political hay and a little picture. The exercise of paying taxes and being a participant in democracy is not a pleasant experience. It goes on year after year. This has been mentioned before today. It is very important. Anyone would have to be terribly na'ive or misleading to suggest that our government, our system of economics and our country is not becoming more complex every year. People are bewildered about who is responsible for what. They have to put up with these kinds of "inspiring" tactics from the opposition when, in fact, responsible citizens in the media and economists are repeatedly saying that these are improved forms, they are good forms; stop and look at them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to ask a question on behalf of the senior citizens of this country.
March 5, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to entertain questions from the hon. member at the completion of my speech. It is terribly important in this House for the government to present a policy. If the opposition does not like it, they should criticize; they should make suggestions as to how improvements can be made. I agree with that. However, all this criticism during question periods, and bringing in this matter as their most important issue on their first opposition day, makes one wonder. They have not suggested what they would do to improve it. How would they do it? They have researchers who give them papers which are fanned out at their caucus to be used every day during the question period. Where are the researchers on this, their first opposition day?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: From the party that a few months ago was defeated by a hair's breadth and which claims that it is on the brink of taking power, all we are getting are spitballs and half-baked dreams. That is all they have been involved in for the past few months. If that party has any suggestions on how to improve the forms, let's hear about them. We have not heard anything yet. Surely we are here to talk positively about what we think is best, whether it is our idea or theirs. I did not hear too many suggestions laid down, only "last minutism." They finally got the guts to come out with a suggestion with regard to wage and price controls. That is easy when you are in opposition. They make deficit spending proposals which their backbenchers would not agree to if they were in power and, I understand, almost did not agree to when they were not. The only thing they talk about is stretching and shaving our policy. They have a hard time formulating policies of their own.
In referring to this motion, may I say that a summary of what has happened as far as the role of the official opposition in presenting legislative proposals and alternatives to our policy in the past two months is concerned is that there has been day-dreaming game-playing, hallucinations and misleading facts. There has been the cheap politics of putting fear into the public. May I complete my remarks by saying that if nothing else has happened, two things have happened today. The motion which has been presented today gives us a chance to explain and prove that there has been a real improvement in the current tax form. It has been set out in this form to help the Canadian public.
The second point is this. They have given us the chance to show the public, via the media, that the most important thing the opposition can talk about on its first opposition day is a subject such as the one before us. And then they demonstrate the overwhelming interest taken in their own ranks by attending in numbers fewer than we find on the government side, the subject of the attack. We are here in greater numbers than the opposition-and it is an opposition day!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Income Tax


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) rise to ask a question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has given me that opportunity. I was very impressed by his oratorical brilliance which comes about from his having been a member of the news media.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think my hon. friend from Hamilton West has the right to attack an unarmed man, and on this basis I suggest that perhaps he should not be heard at all.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am usually prepared to listen to advice from my hon. friend from Gander-Twillin-gate, but I listened to the hon. member saying how simple the form was and how easy it was to complete and I recalled another letter which was sent out by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury).


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I recall another letter which was directed to members of this House by the Minister of National Revenue.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members should give the hon. member for Hamilton West a chance to put his question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know the question is going to be embarrassing, because this concerns our senior citizens.


An hon. Member:: We adjourn in half an hour.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Perhaps the hon. member can tell us whether he knew why the Minister of National Revenue had to send us a second letter in connection with this form with the object of alleviating the hardship our senior citizens would undergo as a result of this new, "easy" form. He indicated in this letter that it was possible for us-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -to give some direction to senior citizens groups, that we who are in a position to assist senior citizens in completing this form having regard to its complexity. I ask the hon. member why this action was necessary if the form is as easy as he says it is. This is the letter which has gone out in the past week.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the procedure-and as a member of the government party I have great pride in the efforts they make to improve income tax forms-would ever be easy, but the fact is that any government which is willing to say, "We are doing our best, and if we can improve and it will help a certain sector, we are going to do that," is a government I am proud of; and surely that is what they are attempting.


John Howard Lundrigan: I told you he was unarmed, Mr. Speaker.

March 5, 1973
Income Tax


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) referred to a letter of mine. I know he would not wish to leave a false impression.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Never.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I did not communicate with hon. members to tell them how much difficulty senior citizens were having with federal tax forms. I communicated with them to let them know that senior citizens in large numbers, in Ontario particularly, were finding difficulty in understanding why they were receiving tax forms from the province of Ontario along with their federal tax forms.
I am happy we are co-operating with the province of Ontario in sending these out, but I suggested that hon. members might wish to help voluntary organizations or senior citizens who have not been obliged to fill out federal tax forms in the past and would not, in fact, have to do so this year were it not for the system adopted by the Ontario government which requires them to complete forms for the purpose of getting a property tax credit from Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as I listened a few moments ago to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) and heard him say how short his speech was to be, I thought I would be able to compliment him on his part in the debate. I find now that I cannot compliment anyone who professed such blind loyalty to a dying government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for York West spoke about the two letters which had been sent out. After the explanation by the minister with respect to those letters, soothsaying at its best, I expect we shall be receiving a third letter, this one designated primarily for chartered accountants asking them for suggestions about a system which they are finding it difficult to understand, let alone the ordinary people.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Who do you think wrote it?


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for York West asked why this motion was chosen by the official opposition on the first of two opposition days. I will tell him why. The reason is that the one thing people meet day after day and year after year is the obligation to pay income tax, associated with the form which they must make out. This is sometimes their only contact with government. There is a duty incumbent upon the government to make that form and that income tax law understandable. Any government which fails to do so for the benefit of the ordinary people is failing the ordinary people. And this government has failed the ordinary taxpayer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). He said he would rather see the minister on the air and in the newspapers than Fred Davis and Pierre Paquette explaining the tax

laws to the people of Canada. I would like to see him there, too. I don't like to see the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) hiding behind those radio and television personalities because this monstrosity which, albeit, he inherited, he adopts now like a child; he holds it to his bosom and defends it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the government spent half a million dollars on this advertising program. Now I know why the minister did not go on television and I know why his words did not appear in the newspaper columns. It is because it is not possible to sell commercial time, with the minister-and the newspapers would not risk it-appearing in the ad. I, for one, would like to find out whether Pierre Paquette and Fred Davis found out enough about this income tax return system to make out their own income tax returns, or whether they, too, had to go to a confused accountant like so many of us have had to do.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Or H. & R. Block.


Walter David Baker: Yes, or H. & R. Block, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) says. We talk about chartered accountants in this House. Chartered accountants are the servants of lawyers, the servants of industrialists and the servants of businessmen. They are the servants of people who are privileged. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that many people who are confused in this country cannot afford this kind of service and they must go to the kind of tax services mentioned by the hon. member for Hamilton West, and similar services. These charges are bound to go up because the tax service people also find the forms complicated. I think it is incumbent upon the government to recognize the folly of this system in a small, tangible way. In other words, to adopt a suggestion that came from this side of the House and make a certain percentage of the fee paid to a chartered accountant or a tax consultant deductible as an expense against income.
It has been suggested in the House that the time for filing ought to be set back one month, and I ask, why not? The public is confused. This is why the government owes it to the people of Canada to give them sufficient time to work themselves out of the confused state in which this government, with this greatest of all tax bills, has placed them, this greatest of all tax bills that is supported by the most confusing of all confusing tax forms!
The record of the government has shown that if there is a complicated way of doing something and an uncomplicated way to do the same thing, the government will invariably choose the complicated way. If there is a way of fostering a lack of understanding in Canada as opposed to fostering understanding, the government chooses the former as opposed to the latter.
The fact of the matter is that this government is without imagination. As I have said, they have taken unto their bosom a tax system. Last year they implemented a capital gains tax, and this year they broke it down, and I think broke it down quite properly, in the case of farms. They talked about the corporate rip-off, and this year in his
March 5, 1973

budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has backed down in deferring to the party to my left. The government has now clasped this tax system to its bosom, and it is now beginning to disown the child. But it is not disowning it honestly. The government should level with the Canadian people and admit there is a confusing mess of taxation laws in this country. The government should admit that the average person cannot understand them and should employ an accountant. That being the case, the taxpayer should be compensated. As I say, it is the duty of the government to go that one extra mile.
I have known the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) for a good many years, Mr. Speaker. He and I attended law school together, though he was one year ahead of me. He has always been approachable and I hope he will exhibit that same approachability this evening and announce that he is putting back the date for filing income tax returns, at least for those who must file this most confusing form that has been the subject of the debate today.
There are no two ways about it, Mr. Speaker-the income tax laws of this country as well as the income tax form itself are much like the magistrate in the judicial system. It is the one place where almost every citizen in the community comes in contact with the government. Similarly, this is the one area where I think it is the compelling duty of the government to make sure a person understands the relationship that exists between the citizen and his government.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) told us that he had not received any complaints about this form. I do not know whether the hon. member gets any mail, and if he does perhaps he does not read it, but I have had a lot of complaints from my constituents who have asked me very intelligent questions. However, they are very confused by this form and its complexities.
I think others would like to speak in this debate, so I shall not take up any further time of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am always appreciative when I receive a bit of desk thumping from the seals on the other side of the House. I want to close by making this plea to the Minister of National Revenue. I would ask the minister to consider this suggestion seriously and in a compassionate way. I ask him-indeed, I challenge him and the government with whom he sits-to put back the date for filing the returns by one month. I ask the government to promulgate a regulation between now and the end of that month permitting taxpayers to deduct a reasonable amount for the cost of filing a personal income tax return if a person feels it is incumbent upon him to hire an accountant or engage the service of a tax consultant.
If the minister does that, he will have done a service to the citizens of this country, especially the citizens in my constituency whom I have the honour to represent and who write to me every day and cause me to write to the minister. I have decided that I will not write to anybody but the minister. I have known him a long time and he is reasonably prompt in returning letters, though his answers are confusing. When he deals with the matter of the tax credit, I hope he will not do what he did when I
Income Tax
made representations on behalf of a dear lady on Beaver Ridge Avenue, namely, send me some remarks attributed to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Comtois). That only compounded the confusion that already existed.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to take into account the position of individual taxpayers and to announce, if not tonight then within the next few days, that he is prepared to move the date back one month for filing income tax returns this year, as well as allow as a deductible business expense the cost of seeking professional help in preparing the income tax return.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member be prepared to answer a simple, sincere question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member who had the floor can answer a question if he will allow the minister to ask one.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is exhausted from his efforts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the question is to ask me whether or not 1 approve of a month's delay or the deduction of fees, I will be prepared to answer. Short of that, I would not concern myself with any questions from the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this might become a little complicated. Perhaps we should go to the next question. Is the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) seeking the floor on a question of privilege?


Norman Augustine Cafik: No, Mr. Speaker. I realize the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton did not permit a question from the minister, but would he permit one from myself which I think is quite relevant to a point he made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is suggested that although the hon. member would not accept a question from the minister, he would accept one from the parliamentary secretary.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I appreciate that the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton-I mean Grenville-Carleton-has been courteous enough-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my constituency is Grenville-Carleton, not Ottawa-Carleton.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I corrected myself. I made the slip because the hon. member has not been here for that long and I am not really familiar with him. My question is related to the comment that he made, that if there was a complex or complicated way in which to do something, this government would choose it as opposed to a simple way. My question is this. During the last election campaign, if I understand it correctly, the Conservative party put forward a very complicated formula for what they called a constant dollar policy in regard to adjusting the amount of tax to be paid according to the increase in the cost of living. This government has come forward with

Income Tax
what I believe to be a very simple formula whereby an adjustment is made in the amount of-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's time has expired.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, we have adopted a much simpler formula which is comprehensible. I wonder whether he would care to comment on that, because it appears that the Conservatives adopted a complex way of achieving the very simple objective we achieved in the recent budget.


Walter David Baker: Would the hon. member, if he can, repeat the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time as it is just a few minutes before ten.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I would like to repeat the question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The suggestion has been made to me that the hon. member should place the question on the order paper.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would put the question on the order paper I would be prepared to answer it in due course.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, others in this debate have dealt with confusion, the risk to privacy, with the non-value added dividend notion and other aspects of the income tax form. Some have even offered apologia for these forms. I propose in my remarks to deal with some of the illegalities of the budget, income tax duality and the disrespect that this implies for parliament.
Before doing so, however, and since we have been talking about how simple are these forms which are seven feet long, I thought the House would like to see the form adopted by our friends to the south. If your income, aside from salary and wages, is less than $200 and you are a citizen of that country to the south, you have a form which you have to fill in that has two sides to it. It is not as simple as one side would suggest, but it is 5 i inches by 8 inches, with two sides. That is what I consider to be a simple form.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: He just got started.


Donald W. Munro: When I finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will accept the question, if I may. There are a few remarks I wish to make. To set my remarks in perspective, may I be permitted to outline the chronology which led to our present incredible situation. We taxpayers are being required to sign income tax returns which are to include particulars of income and exemptions that as yet have no basis in law. There is a dilemma for you.
(Mr. Cafik.)
March 5, 1973
As to the chronology, the budget address of May, 1972, contained tax cuts and other exemptions for many classes of Canadian taxpayers. However, before these provisions could be considered by parliament, the government adjourned the House on July 7. Then the House next sat in special session on August 31 and September 1 to deal with the B.C. longshoremen's strike. After that the House was dissolved for the general election of October 30, with the budget proposals still not discussed.
The House did not meet again until January 4. As a result, due to the government's inaction, millions of taxpayers have been placed in a state of confusion and uncertainty, not to mention-as matters stand at this moment-if they are filling in their income tax forms, in illegality. To backtrack a bit, following the presentation of May, 1972, the Liberals refrained from introducing their budget bills for 34 sitting days after the budget address. It was not until June 26, 1972, in fact that the finance minister tabled bills to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Customs Tariff. The Canadian public, therefore, had some cause to wonder why that delay was necessary in tabling these bills. Whatever the reasons, and these we can only suspect, the upshot was that there was not time to debate these bills before parliament was adjourned, eight sitting days later. With no move made to debate these bills during the emergency session, the bills lapsed.
The government could have remedied the situation by calling parliament shortly after the election, but for reasons of its own it did not. The fact that no action was taken on these bills meant that measures of assistance to both individual and corporate taxpayers were not acted upon. There is no excuse that I can see for the government having deferred implementation of these budget proposals in this manner. The necessary bills could have been introduced, as is normally the case, immediately after the budget speech. Parliament need not have been dissolved before they were acted upon or, at the very least, the government could have called the session before the new year to deal with them.
Instead, the government chose to ignore the bills and to introduce another budget in which some of the more controversial measures of the May 8 budget were omitted, for overt reasons of political expediency. The only part of the budget to be enacted were non-budgetary items referring to old age security pensions, exemptions and veterans benefits-what can be called the vote catching items: the nitty-gritty's and the difficult bits were put aside.
Are we going to be faced with deadlines as we so often have in the past, hours of time requiring measures to be passed so that the government can get these returns in on April 30 as required? Would it not have been possible to begin the first session of the twenty-ninth parliament in December, breaking for the Christmas recess, rather than waiting until January? This obviously reveals the government's set of priorities, where political concerns rate higher than do human considerations.
What is the outcome of these tactics? As of now we are faced with a series of illegalities. The government's handling of the whole income tax issue does not conform with law, nor even with the words of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury). The Income Tax Act provides, in
March 5, 1973

section 220, that the Minister of National Revenue shall administer and enforce this act. Section 150 provides that a return of the income for each taxation year in the case of a corporation, or for each taxation year for which taxes are payable in the case of an individual, shall be filed without notice or demand with the minister in the prescribed form, containing the prescribed information. Certain legal requirements follow from these provisions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion are now completed.

In accordance with Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made at this time. Therefore, the question is that this House do now adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on June 30 last the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) made an announcement in connection with airports in the Toronto region. We have received a lot of gobbledygook from the government in connection with airports in the Toronto region and it was for that reason I tried to get from the minister a specific answer in connection with the extension of runway facilities at the Toronto international airport at Malton.
The minister's answer was to the effect that the government at that time was not prepared to give any answers. That is the reason I have raised this matter in the adjournment debate tonight. Early in January of this year the Swackhamer report in connection with the Pickering airport hearings which were held last fall was tabled in this House. The evidence in the Swackhamer report in connection with the Pickering airport is that facilities at Malton could easily be extended to look after the anticipated air traffic growth in the Toronto area until the year 2000. Shortly after that report was filed, the Minister of Transport was good enough to entertain some members from this side of the House with members from the ministry who were involved in the Pickering matter and, indeed, in air transport throughout that portion of Ontario served by the Toronto international airport, the Hamilton airport and other places.
At that time members of the minister's staff indicated to myself and to others that in their opinion the expansion of
Adjournment Debate
Malton was virtually an impossibility. In 1968 the whole question of expansion of Malton airport was brought to public meetings in the town of Mississagua, and at that time it was clearly demonstrated that if further north-south runways were created, at least 100,000 people would be severely affected. At that time the decision seemed to have been made by the minister that there would be no expansion at Malton.
Further, we hear after the notice in respect of the Pickering site that the minister now intends to conduct an inquiry, not an inquiry after the expropriation but none the less an inquiry as to the need for an airport at Pickering and, indeed, an inquiry into the whole airport need at Toronto. So the people who live in the town of Mississagua are confused in not knowing, on the one hand, the extent to which Malton can be expanded and whether Pickering is absolutely necessary and no expansion can take place at all. On the other hand, they know that there is to be an inquiry to see whether Pickering is necessary.
The whole situation leaves everyone in a flux. People who own houses do not know, people who have businesses do not know, people who are taxpayers do not know, and the municipality which is required to service the area does not know. The simple question is a question of the runway. Can this ministry or the government assure this town that a runway or further runways, particularly north-south runways at the Malton site are needed, or whether they will be installed? The ministry has told me and others that a further runway built, say, 1,000 feet west of the existing north-south runway would be only 20 per cent effective. The ministry has said that runways need to be at least 5,000 feet apart. If this is so, and if there is no more land for such a runway, it should be no problem for the minister to flatly declare it is not the intention of the government to increase runway facilities at the Malton airport. But the answer given is that it is not the intention of the government to do so. This is the reason for this debate. This is the reason why I again ask the government to come clean and to say what it intends to do with respect to Malton.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has already answered this question very clearly. However, I will repeat that it is not the intention of the government to extend runway facilities at Malton airport.


YOUTH-OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GRANT DISTRIBUTION AMONG INCOME CLASSES-CONSULTATION ON WEEKLY PAY RATE WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question which I raised in the House back in January on the Opportunities for Youth program. I had hoped that this issue might be debated earlier than this since the deadline for Opportunities for Youth applications was March 1. Nevertheless, I would like to pursue the point on the questions I raised because I do not believe the minister gave a full and adequate reply. The concern that I raised earlier was: What guarantee is there

March 5, 1973
Adjournment Debate
that an equitable proportion of OFY grants go to the youth of various income classes, especially to young people of low income families?
The problem, as I see it, is that we have a government designed and implemented program which is called Opportunities for Youth, but in reality it has become a program of opportunities for students and mostly students in the middle and upper income groups. If we look at some figures for 1971-I am sorry that I do not have the more recent, 1972 figures, if indeed they have been tabulated-we see that the percentage of young people unemployed ran at 15 per cent for post-secondary students and at 20 per cent for non-students.
In the same year we find that 62 per cent of the applicants for Opportunities for Youth grants were postsecondary students and only 26 per cent were non-student applicants. Of the post-secondary applicants, 68 per cent were successful in their applications, but of the non-students only 17 per cent were successful in receiving grants. Therefore we see that students have a greater acceptance rate than non-students. This is readily understandable. The students are more articulate; they can formulate their briefs much better than the non-students and hence enhance their chances of being selected.
We have a problem of goals. A program that began as Opportunities for Youth, in practice has become opportunities for students. I want to know, is this official government thinking? We have hints that it may be. In the 1971 task force report at page 29 we read:
The first objective of the program was to provide employment for students ... the priorities among this target group were postsecondary school students-
If this is what Opportunities for Youth has become, let the government admit it openly, but then let it be fair enough to design another program for the non-student young people, thousands of whom are unemployed, frustrated and angry. The second question I raised earlier asked, did the government consult the provincial ministries of education to determine whether the funds needed for the average student to see him through the year in university were comparable to what OFY was providing? The answer of the minister was no. This soon becomes evident. We see that the average earnings of post-secondary OFY participants in 1972 was $1,000 or $1,200 with an average saving of somewhere between $400 and $600. Mr. Speaker, such earnings cannot possibly cover tuition and living costs for today's university students. The government has set a maximum earning of $90 a week for OFY applicants, so even the OFY-or should I say the opportunities for students program-is not meeting the needs of the students.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to know, first, if the Opportunities for Youth program is now providing primarily opportunities for students. If it is not, what guarantees for equitable distribution of grants to youth of all income and occupational groups is there in the program? I want to know, secondly, if the minister will raise the pay allotted for the applicant so that what he earns can realistically meet the cost of a university education today. Likewise for the non-student, will the government

consider giving him an adequate wage so that he can live decently in today's society?


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question as to whether the Opportunities for Youth program has been successful among under-privileged youth with low incomes, I might say that the Opportunities for Youth program has been very successful over the last two years. The funds that were granted to under-privileged youth show the government's concern for this particular group of people. The Opportunities for Youth Program came to grips with the problem of regional, ethnic, economic and social disparities, by granting the major part of the available funds to the young people who were having a hard time finding a summer job and who urgently needed financial assistance.
In 1972, most of the participants, that is 57 per cent, came from rural areas, which somewhat offsets the nonavailability of summer employment in those areas. The male representation that was dominant on projects in 1971 was reduced in 1972, and we managed to establish a ratio of 55 to 44 per cent. Although 65 per cent of Canadian students at the post-secondary level came from families with a gross income under $11,000, over 70 per cent of the participants at the post-secondary level came from families in that income bracket. Over 50 per cent of the students at the secondary level participating in the Opportunities for Youth program came from families with a gross income under $8,000.
As regards the second question, in respect of salaries, we admit that there were no formal consultations between the federal government and the provincial government. However, I should like to remind my honourable friend that the Opportunities for Youth program is not meant to settle all the employment problems of young people. However, the amount of $90 is a sizeable amount, nevertheless, and we think it was preferable, with a $40 million budget, $6 million more than last year, to try to reach a larger number of young people by paying them a weekly salary that is not the perfect solution but which can partly meet their needs.
And my honourable friend should not forget that only 15 per cent of the summer jobs were filled under the Opportunities for Youth program. Most of them, that is 85 per cent, happened to be filled by the private sector.
In closing, I would say to my hon. friend that young people must not consider the Opportunity for Youth program simply in terms of income but avail themselves of the opportunity to fulfil their personal ideas, to get involved positively in social achievement and to get ready for the tasks of tomorrow.


AGRICULTURE-FEED GRAINS-MEASURES TO STOP PRICE INCREASE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, on January 31 last, I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) concerning the excessive price increases of feed grains and proteins in eastern Canada.
March 5, 1973

My question was the following:
Can the minister tell us, after having met with the representatives of the Canadian Feed Manufacturers Association and the persons directly concerned with the matter in eastern Canada, what he intends to do to improve conditions concerning the price of feed grains?
The minister answered as follows:
-as I said before, the main cost is the high cost of proteins. There is a world shortage. I think the latest figures given to me show an increase of 140 per cent to farmers for these protein supplements. We will be making a decision next week as to how we will aid farmers caught in this cost-price squeeze.
Mr. Speaker, the present situation of farmers in eastern Canada, and particularly in the riding of Richmond which I represent, is very difficult. Many factors have caused this price increase in feed grains in the last few years, an increase which I consider as very difficult for producers, particularly milk producers. Canadian farmers have suffered a lot from the administration of the Liberal majority government between 1968 and 1972. Farmers, perhaps more than any other class of Canadians, have suffered during those four long years from the incoherence of the federal government in the field of agriculture.
During the years 1969-1970, the government paid the farmers of western Canada not to produce. They paid western grain producers to keep a large part of their prairies unploughed because according to them there were enormous surpluses of grains in the west and exports were in difficulty while the price of milk remained stationary.
Mr. Speaker, farmers from eastern Canada then had pay more for feed grain than what the Canadian government was getting for it in other countries.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture told me that such a situation was due to a world shortage of proteins. I can understand that if other countries, just as Canada, have paid grain producers not to produce which, as I said a while ago, has caused scarcity of grain on markets and has contributed to raise its price spectacularly. At home, for instance, in supermarkets around Sherbrooke and the Richmond constituency oats was selling at $2.23 per 100 lbs. in January 1971 and $4.10 in January 1973.
What did the Liberal government do to help farmers face this increase of close to 100 per cent?
The price of barley, of wheat, in short of all feed grains has more than doubled.
Soya, for instance, was the most affected. It was selling at $127 a ton in April 1972 whereas today it is selling at $260 per ton. And executives of the farmers co-operative in Sherbrooke told me today that they were expecting it to reach $300 a ton in June.
The UPA says that raising a hog in eastern Canada costs $4.36 more than in western Canada. I believe new measures involving feed grains should strive for parity between prices in the east and in the west of Canada. The UPA submitted to us a brief suggesting among other things that the Wheat Board should be the marketing body for feed grains on the domestic market outside the
Adjournment Debate
designated zone, that the grants for feed grains transportation should be an integral part of the marketing system of feed grains in Canada, that the initial prices-state-guaranteed maximum prices-for wheat, barley and oats should reflect production costs, that any policy aimed at improving grain prices in a reasonable way in the Prairie provinces should be accepted by Quebec provided milk producers always get equal treatment, that the right to deliver feed grains import licenses should be taken from the Wheat Board and given to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In the last Speech from the Throne, the government committed itself to introducing a bill to establish price parity for feed grains throughout Canada. So, in my opinion, the government is aware of this problem and particularly of the fact that it was mistaken during the years 1969-70-71. Mr. Speaker, we are impatiently awaiting this new bill.


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker, on February 13 last the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nolan) proposed a debate on the same question.
I answered that, in my opinion, his question was essentially the same as the one asked by the hon. member sitting to my right. I also said that my answer would be the same in both cases.
Instead of referring the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) to my previous answer, I am going to repeat it to him.
It can be found at page 6 of Hansard of January 4, in connection with the government's undertaking in the Speech from the Throne. I quote:
The Government supports the principle of an equitable relationship of prices of feed grain to livestock feeders in various areas of Canada.
Before the next crop year, the government intends to take steps to ensure maximum progress in the production of feed grains and stock breeding in Canada; I am convinced it will respect that commitment. We are now having important discussions with various groups of producers, to make sure they will be heard and their opinions will be taken into consideration in finding a solution. I know hon. members would not want decisions to be taken without consultation.
Mr. Speaker, the increase in farm production costs worries me and the fact that this increase stems from a world shortage of feed grains and proteins is of little comfort.
However, I am happy that this time, at least, the price feed grain consumers are getting for their production has also gone up. Let us hope that the rise in stock breeding production costs will also be reflected in better prices for the producer of feed grains and proteins, which will help him to stabilize his income while ensuring that he can produce even more feed grains next year.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will say that everyone is aware of the seriousness of the situation, and I know a practical solution will soon be found.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.
1920

March 5, 1973


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Act of the International Conference on Viet Nam
The government of Canada;
The government of the People's Republic of China;
The government of the United States of America;
The government of the French Republic;
The provisional revolutionary government of the Republic of South Viet Nam;
The government of the Hungarian People's Republic;
The government of the Republic of Indonesia;
The government of the People's Republic of Poland;
The government of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam; The government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
The government of the Republic of Viet Nam; and The government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
in the presence of the Secretary General of the United Nations;
with a view to acknowledging the signed agreements; guaranteeing the ending of the war, the maintenance of peace in Viet Nam, the respect of the Vietnamese people's fundamental national rights, and the South Vietnamese people's right to self-determination; and contribution to and guaranteeing peace in Indochina; have agreed on the following provisions, and undertake to respect and implement them;
Article 1
The parties to this Act solemnly acknowledge, express their approval of, and support the Paris Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet Nam signed in Paris on January 27, 1973, and the four Protocols to the Agreement signed on the same date (hereinafter referred to respectively as the Agreement and the Protocols).
Article 2
The Agreement responds to the aspirations and fundamental national rights of the Vietnamese people, i.e., the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Viet Nam, to the right of the South Vietnamese people to self-determination, and to the earnest desire for peace shared by all countries in the world. The Agreement constitutes a major contribution to peace, self-determination, national independence, and the improvement of relations among countries. The Agreement and the Protocols should be strictly respected and scrupulously implemented.
Article 3
The parties to this Act solemnly acknowledge the commitments by the parties to the Agreement and the Protocols to strictly respect and scrupulously implement the Agreement and the Protocols.
Article 4
The parties to this Act solemnly recognize and strictly respect the fundamental national rights of the Vietnamese people, i.e., the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Viet Nam, as well as the right of the South Vietnamese people to self-determination. The parties to this Act shall strictly respect the Agreement and the Protocols by refraining from any action at variance with their provisions.
Article 5
For the sake of a durable peace in Viet Nam, the parties to this Act call on all countries to strictly respect the fundamental national rights of the Vietnamese people, i.e. the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Viet Nam and the right of the South Vietnamese people to self-determination and to strictly respect the Agreement and the Protocols by refraining from any action at variance with their provisions.
Article 6
(a)	The four parties to the Agreement or the two South Vietnamese parties may, either individually or through joint action, inform the other parties to this Act about the implementation of the Agreement and the Protocols. Since the reports and views submitted by the International Commission of Control and Supervision concerning the control and supervision of the implementation of those provisions of the Agreement and the Protocols which are within the tasks of the commission will be sent to either the four parties signatory to the Agreement or to the two South Vietnamese parties, those parties shall be responsible, either individually or through joint action, for forwarding them promptly to the other parties to this Act.
(b)	The four parties to the Agreement or the two South Vietnamese parties shall also, either individually or through joint action, forward this information and these reports and views to the other participant in the International Conference on Viet Nam for his information.
Article 7
(a)	In the event of a violation of the Agreement or the Protocols which threatens the peace, the independence, sovereignty, unity or territorial integrity of Viet Nam, or the right of the South Vietnamese people to self-determination, the parties signatory to the Agreement and the Protocols shall, either individually or jointly, consult with the other parties to this Act with a view to determining necessary remedial measures.
(b)	The International Conference on Viet Nam shall be reconvened upon a joint request by the Government of the United States of America and Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam on behalf of the parties signatory to the Agreement or upon a request by six or more of the parties to this Act.
March 5, 1973
[Stage Direction]
Article 8
With a view to contribution to and guaranteeing peace in Indochina, the parties to this Act acknowledge the commitment of the parties to the Agreement to respect the independence, sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity, and neutrality of Cambodia and Laos as stipulated in the Agreement, agree also to respect them and to refrain from any action at variance with them, and call on other countries to do the same.
Article 9
This Act shall enter into force upon signature by plenipotentiary representatives of all 12 parties and shall be strictly implemented by all the parties. Signature of this Act does not constitute recognition of any party in any case in which it has not previously been accorded.
Done in 12 copies in Paris this second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and seventy three, in English, Vietnamese, Chinese, French, and Russian. All texts are equally authentic.
Statement by the
Secretary of State for External Affairs,
The Honourable Mitchell Sharp, to the Opening Session of the International Conference on Viet Nam,
Paris, February 26, 1973
Mr. Chairman,
The first words of any representative of Canada to an international conference on the subject of Viet Nam must be to congratulate the authors of the Agreement signed in this same building a month ago. All the parties deserve the gratitude not only of their own peoples but of all those states which have come to regard the war in Viet Nam as affecting their own national aspirations and interests. My government is firmly of the opinion that the Agreement signed here last month represents a magnificent and hard-earned opportunity which must not be lost. This agreement, indeed, doesn't solve all the problems, neither does it meet all of our hopes; but it's very existence is far more desirable than the absurdity of the armed conflict itself.
Although Canada's agreement to participate in the International Commission of Control and Supervision was conditional, the Canadian Delegation in Saigon has taken a leading part in getting not only the International Commission of Control and Supervision teams in place as required by the agreement, but also in facilitating the other organizations established under it to begin to exercise their functions. The Canadian Delegation from the beginning has been motivated by a desire to make the agreement work if this was at all possible. This will continue to be our attitude in Viet Nam for as long as we are there. It will also be the attitude of the Canadian Delaga-tion here in Paris. I am sure that all other delegations at this conference are equally conscious of the importance of the part this conference has to play in transforming the present precarious ceasefire into a lasting peace in which the South Vietnamese people and only the South Vietnamese people will determine their future. Even though the Lao and Khmer peoples are not represented at this
conference, their futures too are bound up in peace in Viet Nam. They too are entitled to the right to determine their own futures for themselves without any foreign intervention.
The fact that there is yet another international conference being held on Viet Nam is in some respects sad inasmuch as it reflects on the rights of the Indochinese peoples to determine their own futures for themselves. But the fact remains that the struggle in Indochina has become an international struggle involving not only the nations of that peninsula but countries far removed from it. From the point of view of my government, the object of the Paris Agreement is not to perpetuate an international presence in Viet Nam but to eliminate it and on conditions that will ensure again a fresh internationalization. This conference should be able to provide for some of those conditions.
Canada has had the educative experience of having served 19 years on the international commissions in Indochina and from that experience we have come to a number of conclusions. If these conclusions seem to imply criticism of the existing agreement of Viet Nam, I hasten to assure you that this is not my intention. My primary purpose is to prevent my country from being once more involved in an intractable situation and an open-ended commitment. At the same time we are deeply conscious that Canada has a history of concern for and participation in international peacekeeping and is very jealous of its reputation in this area.
Canada sees itself, in its membership in the International Commission of Control and Supervision, not as the spokesman of any one point Of view and certainly not as serving any direct national policy of its own, but as a representative of the International Community and invited by all the parties concerned to act as such. We therefore feel that we have an obligation not only to the parties to the agreement and indeed to this conference if it should decide to maintain an active interest in this agreement, but to the International Community as a whole.
We would obviously prefer to see all peace supervisory operations conducted under the auspices of the United Nations in accordance with the charter. The fact that this has not been possible in the case of Indo-China reinforces, in our view, the obligation of the International Commission of Control and Supervision to act as if it were representing the world community. If this were not so it would be merely a quadripartite group with no claim to the description international in its title. Canada would have preferred greater Asian participation not only in the International Commission but also in this International Conference which is to discuss matters of vital concern to the future peace and stability of the Asian region. It is in the attempt to engage the International Community to the greatest extent possible that we have adopted the policy of giving full information on our International Commission of Control and Supervision participation. Apart from details of negotiations while they are still under way, we feel that the International Community has a right to know what is being done in its name in Viet Nam. For our part we propose to report regularly and publicly on this at least until other more satisfactory means are found for
25789-49£
[Stage Direction]
March 5, 1973
transmitting information and points of view to all concerned in the International Community.
As I have already mentioned, our primary concern is to do what we can to make Canadian participation in the International Commission of Control and Supervision effective. We wish to continue to serve and we ask this conference to make it possible for us to do so. In this connection we have come here to seek your support in establishing an independent mechanism more representative of the International Community than the existing mechanism, through which the International Commission of Control and Supervision or any of its members could report and which would provide for some possibility of appropriate reaction to such reports.
But we also have another concern. I have no authority to speak for other member countries of the International Commission of Control and Supervision but my government, as the government of a responsible country, could not accept the onus of passing to the former belligerents in Indo-China reports that could conceivably result in a re-escalation of the war in Indo-China. At the same time, we are not prepared to suppress information once we are satisfied that it is soundly based. For this reason Canada has consistently stated a fundamental condition to its participation: that it would serve on the International Commission in Viet Nam only if among other things this conference produced some more broadly-based international authority which would accept the responsibility for evaluating and, if necessary, acting upon reports from the International Commission, or its members, dealing with the manner in which the agreement was being carried out. Ideally, as I have said before, the Security Council of the United Nations should be the body responsible for receiving reports from the International Commission of Control and Supervision or its members and determining what, if any, action is required. Reluctantly, we are prepared to acknowledge that this solution is not practicable in the present situation but we must have some acceptable substitute. In any event, Canada considers that the Secretary General of the United Nations who has been invited to this conference by the United States and the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam on behalf of the parties to the agreement would provide the most appropriate and effective channel for receiving and transmitting the views of the International Commission. He is present here not only as the principal public servant of the world, but as representative of the world's concern at the decades of warfare in Viet Nam. His obviously disinterested position fits him uniquely for this task. I should make it clear that I do not propose that the Secretary-General assume any responsibility either in this capacity or on behalf of the United Nations for action consequent upon his transmission of information received from the International Commission during the interim period of its involvement in Viet Nam. If however it is agreed that the membership of this conference constitutes the continuing political authority to which the International Commission of Control and Supervision should report, the Secretary-General should in our view also be vested with the task of reconvening the conference when requested to do so on whatever basis we may here decide. I would like to circulate and table a
resolution which could cover the kind of arrangement I have in mind.
My government is well aware of the problems that a vacancy in the International Commission of Control and Supervision could create and would, in practice, do whatever it could to avoid that situation arising. But we should not be asked to watch in silence a resumption of hostilities nor to accept direct responsibility for all the consequences that could ensue if we felt duty-bound to report to the world that the agreement has been seriously breached.
We will work to find a solution that would meet our reasonable requirements. We are willing to examine any proposal that offers any chance of meeting our point. This is one of the reasons why, at the very beginning of the conference, I am putting forward a resolution that would best meet our requirements and we hope it will be given the most serious consideration. Although this is only one of a number of factors in our decision-making, we shall examine the results of this conference with the greatest care and in the light of the information we have received from our delegation in Viet Nam. Should we decide as a result of our study of the outcome of this conference and of our experience up to now, that we must terminate our membership on the International Commission of Control and Supervision, we would so inform all the interested parties that at the end of the 60 days for which we undertook to serve, that is, on March 30, Canada would cease to be a member of the International Commission of Control and Supervision. At the same time, however, we would declare our willingness, if all the parties signatory to the agreement so desired, to reamin in place and act as a member until April 30, 1973, or such earlier date as a new member could be agreed upon by the signatories and take our place.
Such a decision would be a very sad one for my government to have to make. All Canadians have taken justifiable pride in the manner in which the armed forces of Canada in particular have contributed to peacekeeping operations through out the world. It would be a bitter disappointment to them and to us to have to terminate our participation unilaterally. But I am satisfied that no Canadian would wish to see our representatives placed in the position of having to choose between suppressing relevant information or accepting full and direct national responsibility for the possible consequences of transmitting it under the existing arrangements. Even less would the Canadian people wish to see our delegation stand idly by, as Canadian delegations in Indo-China have had to do in the past, while agreements they are supposed to supervise are disregarded.
I am hopeful that the new agreement will succeed if there is a desire on the part of those present to help make it succeed and to involve themselves in the process. If I am wrong we shall have to arrange for the orderly transfer of our International Commission of Control and Supervision responsibilities to some other government. In doing so we would not be suggesting that our partners in the International Commission or a potential successor would be less sensitive or less alert to the problems that could arise than we were. We reached our own conclusions on peace-keeping in Viet Nam some years ago and
March 5, 1973
[Stage Direction]
we have no reason to doubt their validity. On the other hand, we can readily understand that other countries differently situated from Canada could come to quite different conclusions. We respect their points of view and hope that they will understand ours.
Canada was invited to this conference as a member of the International Commission of Control and Supervision and its participation now and in any final act or declaration is linked to our continued participation in the International Commission of Control and Supervision. It follows, therefore, that a cessation of Canadian participation in the International Commission of Control and Supervision would also mean a termination of any other Canadian responsibilities that might arise out of either the agreement and protocols or any acts or declarations emanating from this conference.
I have asked the head of our delegation in Saigon, who happens like myself, to be chairman at the present time, to give me an interim report on the work of the International Commission of Control and Supervision and the state of affairs in respect to the implementation of the agreement and protocols.
The report that I received late last week from the head of the Canadian delegation made two points very clearly: first, the ceasefire has not been effective throughout South Viet Nam, and, second, the four-party joint military commission has not operated effectively. Both these factors have seriously impaired the Commission's ability to meet its obligations.
With respect to the ceasefire, it is evident from this report that the Vietnamese parties are still engaged in hostile activities related to efforts by one side or the other to enlarge its areas of control. The Commission has received numerous complaints from the four parties alleging violations of the ceasefire. In a number of cases investigations have been ordered but, at this early stage, we have been obliged to settle for investigations of a more limited scope than that envisaged in the agreement, debate within the commission over what the commission is empowered to investigate and at whose request, delays on the part of the four-party joint military commission in establishing itself in the field, and the conditions of insecurity prevailing in the countryside as a result of continued hostilities-all these have militated against the commission's ability to take decisive action in investigating most ceasefire violations. After receiving a series of general complaints alleging ceasefire violations, the commission issued a strong appeal to the parties to respect the ceasefire. This appeal on February 16 predated by one day an appeal by the four-party joint military commission to the same effect.
The delay in the four-party joint military commission in becoming fully effective has presented the International Commission with serious problems in meeting its obligations with respect to the deployment of teams in the field. The Commission's regional headquarters teams were deployed on February 5, several days after the deadline imposed upon us. On February 20, the commission decided to deploy its teams at the subregional level. In addition, the commission has decided to deploy its teams to points of entry into South Viet Nam to control the import of
armaments and other military material, as well as four teams to observe the withdrawal of United States forces and other forces allied with the Republic of Viet Nam, from South Viet Nam. Every effort is being made by the Canadian delegation to ensure that teams in the regions and at points of entry are deployed within the deadline established by the agreement, that is to say, by February 27. Whether we succeed in meeting this deadline will depend, as everything will depend on the ability of the four parties to afford the necessary co-operation. We have however taken the position that the inability of the four party joint military commission to function smoothly should not necessarily be permitted to bring a halt to the attempts of the International Commission to meet its obligations.
We have been pleased to note the progress of the exchange of prisoners-of-war and foreign civilian personnel. This has been an operation in which the four parties, despite some initial difficulties, have exhibited an ability to cooperate and coordinate their activities. We can only hope that the cooperative spirit that has characterized this operation will be extended to the implementation of all other provisions of the agreement.
Simultaneously with its attempts to deal with substantive issues and to deploy its field machinery, the commission has been engaged in setting up its headquarters in Saigon, establishing its procedures, securing support facilities, and organizing a secretariat. This has been a complex and lengthy process which has not yet been completed, despite concentrated effort. Among the difficulties the commission has encountered in this area of its work is the fact that neither the agreement nor its protocols made provision for a secretariat, even though the necessity of establishing one was obvious. Personnel additional to the ceilings established in the protocol will be required if delegates are to be in a position to staff the secretariat adequately.
Fellow delegates, this, then, is the Canadian view of the status of the International Commission of Control and Supervision as of the last day or so. There are continuing problems of implementation and there remains the matter of a reporting authority for the Commission and its members. Implementation is the responsibility of the parties to the agreement assisted as best it can by the International Commission of Control and Supervision. However, the matter of providing an adequate international political authority as a basis for the operation and reporting of the International Commission of Control and Supervision and its members is clearly the main responsibility of this conference. My delegation will spare no effort in helping to achieve this objective on which we think so much depends. Thank you.
[Stage Direction]
March 5, 1973
Statement by the
Secretary of state for External Affairs of Canada,
The Honourable Mitchell Sharp, to The International Conference in Paris,
Plenary Session, March 1,1973 Canada supports the spirit of the act of this Conference. We also wish to associate ourselves with the expressions of goodwill and co-operation reflected throughout this conference and underlined in the document before us. For these reasons, we are prepared to sign it. I wish to make it clear, however, that we will have to assess the provisions of Articles 6 and 7 in particular, as to whether they are sufficient to meet one of the major requirements we have consistently stated as being essential to the ultimate effectiveness of the International Commission of Control and Supervision, on the basis of our quarter century experience in international supervision in Viet Nam and elsw-here throughout the world. In very general terms Articles 6 and 7 represent one approach; an effort has undoubtedly been made to meet our requirement but does it go far enough and will it work? Our concept of an independent continuing political authority is contained in the proposal tabled by me in my statement of February 26. The
arrangements provided in Articles 6 and 7 will be reviewed carefully by the Canadian Government as it carries out its consideration of the extent to which the various conditions we have stated to be essential to our continued participation in the commission beyond the initial period of sixty days have been, or, are likely to be fulfilled.
I must add that in signing the act of this conference, I am not accepting any responsibilities on behalf of Canada that are not determined by our initial participation in the commission, nor by previously announced Canadian policy. Finally, Canada considers itself bound by the arrangements provided for in the Act only so long as it remains on the Commission and should Canada find it necessary to terminate its participation in the International Commission of Control and Supervision, it would no longer consider itself formally bound by the terms of the act of the conference. I can, nevertheless, assure this distinguished company that Canadians would, as a matter of policy and as a matter of principle, remain committed to the promotion of the achievement by the peoples of Indochina of a stable and peaceful situation, and our acts would reflect this commitment.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday. March 6. 1973