1969-06-03

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege related to the rights and responsibilities of members of this house which are being usurped by a practice existing for many years between the government and the news media people on budget night.
Prior to the budget being presented at eight o'clock this evening by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) there will be a secret and confidential briefing to the press people on the budget statement and proposals. Mr. Speaker, I should say that there is no question of a breach of information or any leaks taking place during this period between six and eight o'clock, since the members of the press are locked in and are not released until the minister commences his statement in the house at eight o'clock.
Last October a request was made to the office of the Minister of Finance regarding the participation of a representative of this party in the budget briefing. This request was turned down due to time considerations and other factors related to precedent. It was stated that this matter would be reconsidered, with possible participation in such press briefings by representatives of each of the opposition parties for the next budget.
We have again made this request and again it has been refused. It is for this reason that I raise this matter now for your consideration. Because of the time element involved, because of the necessity for spokesmen of the opposition parties to comment on the budget I think it is important that we be accorded the same information, the same privileges as the press, through an appointed representative at the briefing. I am prepared to move a motion, Mr. Speaker, if you accept this question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) according to requirements 29180-5941
of the Standing Orders gave notice to the Chair of his proposed question of privilege. This has given the Chair an opportunity to review the situation and consider whether there is a prima facie case of privilege.
The hon. member claims that the decision of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to deny party representatives access to advance budgetary briefings is a breach of parliamentary privilege. As hon. members are aware it is a long established practice that budgetary information is made available to the press some hours before the same information is made available to the house. That is always done, I understand, under the terms of the strictest secrecy.
The suggestion of the hon. member for Waterloo is that if such advance information is available to the press, party officials and other individuals representing members of parliament are entitled to the same advantage. The objection taken by the hon. member to past procedure as it has existed is, of course, of great interest.
There are really two aspects to the problem. The first is whether there should be advance information at all, even to the press; then if that practice is accepted, and continued as it has been in the past, whether this advance budgetary information should be limited to a specific group.
The first aspect of the problem has been raised on a number of occasions, particularly in January, 1961, when Mr. Speaker Michener was called upon to make a ruling on a similar question. The Speaker then said:
I do not find a prima facie right on the part of the house to insist that the government, when it tables the full information shall not give a summary of it to the press-
I would be inclined to come to the same conclusion in the present circumstances.
While it may well be that the whole practice should be reviewed by the executive or by members, I doubt very much if the way to have or conduct such a review is by way of a specific question of privilege of the type raised by the hon. member for Waterloo.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
In the circumstances my suggestion is that the matter be given some thought perhaps for
9380	COMMONS
Feasibility of Merchant Marine Study future consideration when budgets are presented, and that a determination be made by the executive concerning whether there should be advance briefing at all in such circumstances. For the time being, however, I suggest to hon. members that there is no prima facie case of privilege and that the motion should not be put to the house at this time.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if I might rise on a question of privilege, since my name as Minister of Finance was mentioned in this particular question of privilege, I should like to indicate to all members of the house that the whole matter of budgetary secrecy is one which has deeply concerned me for some time in that changes in taxation affect so many people and so few people know about them in advance. I should like to assure members of the house that this matter is being given careful consideration by the government.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts-Mr. Reid.
[Stage Direction]
Twenty-first report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Clermont (Gatineau).
[Editor's note: The text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland) moved: that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, presented to the house on Thursday, May 29, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce today that the Canadian Transport Commission has selected a team of consultants to

DEBATES	June 3, 1969
conduct an economic feasibility study of a Canadian deep sea merchant marine. Prime contractors will be Hedlin-Menzies and Associates Limited of Winnipeg, Vancouver and Toronto. Technical support will be provided by Gibson Transportation Limited of Vancouver and Montreal, and George G. Sharp Incorporated, New York. Proposals had been received from many consulting firms in Canada and elsewhere for carrying out all or parts of the study. The main purpose of this study is to explore the range of possibilities for privately owned Canadian flag shipping in the years ahead, and to assess the cost and benefits attached to different possibilities.
In carrying out this assignment, the consultants will investigate such matters as: The prospective volume and content of Canadian trade to be handled by ocean shipping; the cost differentials and other factors inhibiting the carriage of that trade in Canadian flag ships; the most promising areas for the development of Canadian flag shipping; the context of international shipping in which Canadian ships would have to compete; policies of other nations in encouraging their own shipping; and the costs and benefits of various practicable courses of action to encourage Canadian flag shipping. Work on the project is to start immediately and is expected to take about 12 months.
The question has arisen as to the inclusion in the study of the feasibility of building ships in Canada for a deep sea fleet. In answer to this question I would point out that the purpose of the study is to investigate the potential for privately owned Canadian shipping. It is, if you like, a market study for Canadian flag shipping, and as in any business it is prudent to begin by making a thorough examination of the market that may exist for any prospective production.
This study is therefore a necessary preliminary to any study of the feasibility of building deep sea ships in Canada. Unless it can be shown first that a potential exists for a Canadian flag deep sea fleet, the other study would not be justified. But the terms of the study do not foreclose in any way the possibilities of building ships in Canada if the feasibility of a deep sea fleet is demonstrated.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will welcome the minister's announcement. It would seem to be another straw in the wind, and if nothing else a hope for more in the future in the way of some tangible result from the
June 3, 1969



work already done by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of this house, because this was a matter in respect of which a considerable amount of evidence was heard when the committee recently visited the Atlantic provinces.
I am very glad indeed that the minister has decided to have this study undertaken, because not only is this of interest to those in the Atlantic provinces but also to others, since the question of a merchant marine for Canada is of great importance to people in parts of Canada other than the maritime provinces, and of course those engaged in shipbuilding. It is of great importance indeed.
I am very glad to see that some concrete steps are being taken to ascertain whether it is economically feasible for us to have a merchant marine. Consequent upon this decision, and equally as important, is the question as to whether we can build the ships ourselves.
I am sure everyone welcomes this announcement by the minister, and trust the study will not take too long. I hope it will not take longer than 12 months, because everyone would like to see immediate action in this regard.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) upon initiating a study into the economic feasibility of a Canadian deep sea fleet. At the end of the war we had one of the finest merchant fleets in the world, but gradually we have allowed it to be eroded. Many of the ships that were sailing under the Canadian flag were allowed to transfer their registry to other places, particularly Panama.
Even the payment of subsidies for shipbuilding has not solved this problem. Only the other day when an hon. member raised the matter in the house of the Cape Breton Miner, which was built with government subsidy under an agreement requiring that for five years it must stay under Canadian registry, it was discovered that almost to the day five years later it was transferred to another registry.
At the present time Canadians are paying in the neighbourhood of $500 million per year to other countries to transport our goods to the markets of the world. We have a tremendous potential here; we have all the raw material necessary to build ships, and we have people on both coasts who are familiar with sailing ships. A deep sea fleet for Canada would provide employment not only for those who build ships and make the materials
Estate Tax Act
that go into them, but also for those who sail the ships.
Therefore I only regret that such a study was not commenced many years ago. I congratulate the minister on initiating this now and I hope that if the report which he receives is favourable, the government will proceed to do something about this very serious lack in the Canadian economy.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened attentively and with pleasure to the minister's announcement that a study will be made into the economic feasibility and the practicability of a merchant marine for Canada.
Unfortunately, it is only when it is already too late that the government takes action and assumes its responsibilities. It is quite late, I think, to establish a task force. It is only after Canadian Vickers in Montreal and the Lauzon shipyards have closed down that it is decided to study the practicability of a merchant marine.
Mr. Speaker, the question of Canada having a merchant marine has been discussed since 1896. The successive governments have all failed to carry out their responsibilities in this matter.
Today, the minister tells us the commission will make a twelve-month study after which we will be told that operation costs are higher in Canada than in Japan or the United States. Our situation will be exactly the same. We do not need studies as much as action. If the government took its responsibilities and told us that in twelve months a merchant marine will be established, we would get results instead of worthless studies.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very good thing to appoint task forces composed of sociologists, economists, ministers and anyone you like, but it does not help the creation of a merchant marine in Canada and this is what is required right now, to help the workers of Canadian shipyards.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



ESTATE TAX ACT


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) asked me to table a summary of interpretations and undertakings concerning certain provisions of

June 3, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry the Estate Tax Aot which were made by the officials of the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Finance and myself to a committee of the other place. I would like to table these in English and in French.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday he indicated to the house that the objections taken to his statement at Brussels related not to the policy itself nor to right of Canada to make its own decisions in this regard. I ask the minister whether he intended to indicate to the house that in fact no objections were taken to the substance of his proposals at Brussels.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I do not think I ever intended to indicate that, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I believe I gave a precise answer in which I indicated that the principal objection was to our not conforming exactly to the procedures of consultation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister mean to indicate to the house that in fact objections were not taken to his proposal that Canada's contribution to NATO would be reduced?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I never indicated that, Mr. Speaker. It was not my intention at least to indicate that. What I meant to convey was that as long as the negotiations had to start from a base, obviously whatever serves as a base is not considered by the other people with whom we negotiate as a proposal but as a basis of discussion. Therefore we have now to go through the complete process of consultation before we arrive at a solution.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Minister of National Defence in fact indicate at Brussels the approximate reduction in forces that he was proposing on behalf of Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did indicate in some general terms what the implication was if the plan as presented was proceeded with.
[Mr. Benson.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any reason why the minister will not disclose to the house the proposal that he made at Brussels?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I think I did indicate yesterday that the main reason was that this was nothing firm; that it was a basis for discussion, comment and an exchange of views. I also indicated that I might have either overestimated or underestimated the numbers, or the figures, that were possibly quoted. We approached our allies with a concept which is to a degree, we think, something new, and therefore before the whole plan itself is really spelled out I do not think it is in the interests of either the forces or the Canadian public to give a figure which may prove to be very inaccurate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be unfair to the minister, but am I right in concluding from what he said that he made a quite specific proposal regarding the strength of our forces in Europe and that he now refuses to disclose this proposal to the house?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I think this is an unfair interpretation. I am trying to indicate the difficulties with which we were faced in the committee. I could not indicate with certainty what the figure would be. I did indicate what was involved in our estimation. This of course will have to be further discussed. I will have to have the reactions of the other members of the military committee, and an exchange of arguments and ideas will have to ensue before we arrive at a definite figure.



FINANCE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the concern which he and the Prime Minister have expressed with regard to the takeover of Canadian financial institutions such as Royal Securities, and the effects which this may have upon Canada, will the minister be prepared before the recess to outline to the house what steps the government intends to take to prevent further takeovers of financial institutions in Canada by foreign corporations?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that I
June 3, 1969

would be making a statement to the house in regard to this matter, and I intend to do that before the recess.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Porter Commission suggested that these financial institutions be declared near-banks, and that the Bank Act be amended to bring them within the purview of the federal government, is the minister giving any consideration to introducing such legislation in the house?


Edgar John Benson: I do not think the Porter Commission referred to the kind of institution that was involved in the takeover we are discussing.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right honourable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the hon. member for Broadview wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Before making a statement to the house with regard to foreign ownership, would he seriously take into consideration the suggestion by Walter Gordon of the 30 per cent takeover tax on foreign companies?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
INDUSTRIAL INCENTIVES BILI____REQUEST FOR

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Does he pretend that the bill to promote regional economic expansion will be introduced in the house before the summer recess?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a pretension. The bill has already been read for the first time, but what we hope to obtain is the co-operation of the parties opposite to pass the motions for second and third reading.


David Réal Caouette: I should like to put a supplementary question.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Is the Prime Minister also ready to co-operate with the opposition, so that this legislation may be considered as soon as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are always ready to co-operate. I think rather that it is the Ralliement creditiste which made the house waste whole weeks not long ago.


David Réal Caouette: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Prime Minister claim that there is some danger that the bill might be aborted between now and the adjournment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that it is the hon. member's ideas that are aborted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



POLLUTION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it his intention to head an anti-pollution council in Canada, similar to the environmental quality council in the United States which will be headed by President Nixon himself and on which will serve his principal cabinet officers? This is a good indication of the tremendous importance which the President of the United States and his cabinet place on dealing with pollution by practical and immediate anti-pollution methods.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a very interesting suggestion which I shall consider.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of what the Prime Minister said, that it is a most interesting suggestion, would the minister now confirm that in the national parks they have stopped pouring raw sewage into the Bow River along which there have been signs warning people against the water.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question a number of times a few months ago, and my department is looking after this problem.

June 3, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence for the purpose of clarification. Yesterday when in his statement on motions he referred to an air transportable combat group, was he referring to a tactical air transportable group which would be stationed in Europe or did he imply a strategic air transportable group, part or all of which might be stationed in Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, the plan I had in mind was the combat group stationed in Europe, with Ace Mobile Force, as a matter of fact.


John Angus MacLean: Would the minister tell us whether Canada was asked to contribute to the multi-national NATO force being set up by NATO in the Mediterranean and, if so, what decision if any has been reached by the government?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, we were not asked to contribute to what is known as the on-call force in the Mediterranean. This was one of the subjects raised at the last meeting, not this particular one. The question which arose last Wednesday was concerned with the political control over the decisions to use that force, but Canada is not participating in the operation.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I
wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General arising from news of yet another spontaneous strike on the part of postal workers, this time in Burnaby, British Columbia. Will the minister say what reply he is making to these workers, who are fed up with the flood of mail which has engulfed them every Monday morning since Saturday delivery was cancelled?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Our
officers in Vancouver are discussing the matter with the discontented postmen. It is not a general condition. I do not know what their particular objections are, but we are in the process of finding out.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Will the minister say
whether the statement made by the Deputy Postmaster General as reported in the C.B.C. news, that the post office is considering abolishing home delivery, is to be taken as the Postmaster General's method of reducing the burdens of the postmen?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That was my question, Mr. Speaker. I was astounded, too.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Wellington.


Mr.   Flees@: I have a question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Hales:: I have the floor, George.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Always willing to give way to a sensible Conservative.


Alfred Dryden Hales: My supplementary question is directed to the Postmaster General. In order to ensure that Canadians receive a good mail service, is the hon. gentleman considering a return to the six-day delivery system?


Eric William Kierans: We are not considering
returning to six-day delivery, and I wish to deny that the Deputy Postmaster General made any such statement about home delivery in Toronto yesterday. The question was raised: Is the department considering abolishing home delivery? And the deputy minister said, no.


George Harris Hees: My supplementary is directed to the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Since a letter sent from the House of Commons post office on May 22 arrived in Campbellford, Ontario, 160 miles away, six days later on May 28, travelling a little more than one mile an hour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already made his point. I do not think that was a supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: My supplementary is approaching, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope it will come faster than at one mile an hour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
June 3, 1963


George Harris Hees: I will rev it up a little. Would the Postmaster General set aside work on his space age projects until postal deliveries can at least be brought up to the pace maintained by stage coaches and the pony express of a hundred years ago?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question, in light of the denial he made a few moments ago? Is the Post Office Department considering any reduction in the service the department now makes available to the Canadian people?


Eric William Kierans: The underlying philosophy of the Post Office is to examine the cost of all services and then to determine, in consultation with the people to whom we supply those services, whether the services are worth the cost, or the taxes. Accordingly we are making an examination of all our present services and will make an appropriate recommendation when the time comes. I wish to say this, however: We do not envisage there will be any reason for any person who presently works in the Post Office and who wishes to make the Post Office his career, to feel any loss of security.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the fact that delivery service was reduced from six days to five days without consultation with the people of Canada, is there to be a further reduction without consultation?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: A supplementary question to the Postmaster General in relation to his remark about studying costs. I would ask the minister whether this would include the cost of the concessions granted to Time magazine. Or is the government still scared?


Eric William Kierans: We are reviewing the concessions presently granted to all newspapers and magazines. There is no particular concession granted to Time magazine or to Reader's Digest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bell:: You will be man of the year for that.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Is it true, as has been reported, that the Postmaster General is trying to get the Post Office out of the mail delivery service?
Inquiries of the Ministry RESEARCH
AUSTERITY MEASURES IN ANIMALS PROGRAM Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North): My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether he is now ready to answer this question which was first asked two months ago, or more. Has Canada's reputation been seriously hurt and jeopardized in the field of animal research, and has the health of scientists engaged in this field been endangered by austerity measures? If so, what corrective steps are being taken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is asking the minister to express an opinion. I have the impression that he is asking for a statement of policy which would normally not be made at this time.


Mr. Rynard:: When I asked this question first, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour suggested that a statement could be made on motions.
I asked that this be done, but it has not been done.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I have a brief reply here, Mr. Speaker, which I have carried with me since March 20 when the question was first asked-I think it was also asked on April 23. Very shortly, the reply is that Canada's reputation has not been hurt.



SHIPPING


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker? Would the minister be good enough to advise the house of the terms of reference to His Honour Judge John C. Stewart, appointed to preside over a court of formal investigation into the circumstances which led to the sinking of the tug Emerald Straits? Will he further tell the house whether the terms of reference include authority to report on the physical structure of this type of vessel in view of the fact that 27 men have lost their lives in similar tugs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked the minister to indicate the terms of reference, and in those circumstances I think he is asking a question which should be placed on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: The investigation has already begun, Mr. Speaker, yet we do not know what the terms of reference are.

June 3, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONFEDERATION
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OTTAWA AND QUEBEC RESPECTING REFERENDUM [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister was asked about the constitutionality of a referendum to be held in the province of Quebec, following a promise by Premier Jean-Jacques Bertrand, in connection with separatism.
Has the premier of the province of Quebec communicated with the Prime Minister of Canada concerning the holding of a referendum in the province of Quebec in order to clearly define the positions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not formally, Mr. Speaker. I seem to recall that the matter has been raised before by the premier of the province of Quebec, but not in an official capacity.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. Did the minister receive a resolution directed to the Prime Minister by the Collingwood town council expressing anxiety and alarm with respect to the situation in the shipbuilding industry in which 900 residents of that town are employed? Does the minister share this concern, and does he have any plans or proposals which would protect the jobs of these people?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the second part of the question I think I indicated some measure of my concern in the announcement made earlier today. As for the submission, I believe it was directed to the minister of industry.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the serious situation prevailing in the towns of Labrador City and Wabush, Newfoundland, in that due to a

strike in the province of Quebec the operation of the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway has been suspended, thus cutting off the only means, apart from air, of bringing in vital supplies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this is a question that might be considered at the time of adjournment. But if it is a matter that the hon. member feels should be answered immediately rather than at the time of adjournment, I would allow the minister to reply to the question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, my reply is to the effect that I received a petition this morning from, I believe it was, the chamber of commerce of that community. An investigation is now under way to determine what the needs are and whether they are as widespread as stated, as well as what alternate means of providing transportation can be found.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider the decision of the Labrador West chamber of commerce that the minister or his representative go into the area to assess the situation at first hand.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if that
appeared to be the wisest course, yes.



LABOUR RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
LABRADOR-ACTION TAKEN TO ASSESS CRISIS Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):
A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Minister of Labour what action is being taken by his department to assess the labour crisis which is facing Labrador as the result of a related strike.
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take this question as notice for the Minister of Labour, but I think these employees are under provincial jurisdiction.



VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
WOODS REPORT-REQUEST FOR PRESENTATION Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):	Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Since we are approaching the date of adjournment, June 27, and the house will
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
have to recess for the summer months, could the minister inform the house if there are any new developments regarding the publication of his White Paper dealing with the Woods committee report on pension administration?
Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I still hope to table this White Paper as soon as possible.


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell us whether "as soon as possible" means before the summer recess?


Mr. Speaker:: the hon. member is repeating the question he just asked.



WHEAT-ACTION TO ASSIST FARMERS IN WESTERN AND EASTERN CANADA

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to inform the house, following his consultations, if the government proposes to take any specific action to be of assistance to the wheat farmers of western Canada, and if the government will be taking this action before the house adjourns.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the Leader of the Opposition that the government has taken a number of steps to help in this situation. I am not in a position to announce today any additional steps in this regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Is the minister expecting to be in a position shortly to announce any additional steps to be taken?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we always hope that we will be able to do these things as quickly as possible.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise me, following the representations I made in the form of a question last week, whether he will now look very seriously at the situation in northern Alberta and parts of northern Saskatchewan, where the debt position of farmers is having alarming consequences and is resulting in a number of foreclosures and the repossession of machinery. Would the minister consider having his officials look into the situation
Inquiries of the Ministry to see what the federal government is able to do?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I advised the hon. member for Peace River when he asked his question that within the limits of the jurisdiction of the department of Agriculture we have taken those steps. We have taken measures, not in the last few days but a long while ago, in fact months ago, to assist any person who had a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation, taking into account the circumstances surrounding his income position. I think that this is about the limit as far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned.
What is more, I think the hon. member knows that the matters raised in the other parts of his question perhaps lie within provincial jurisdiction.


Gerald William Baldwin: A further supplementary. Is the minister not aware of the fact that some years ago a previous Conservative government was able to find means of jurisdiction-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: -to repair the mess created by a previous Liberal government?


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the government is giving consideration to taking emergency steps to relieve the cash position of farmers, such as through the form of acreage payments or the making of a special payment on wheat deliveries?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked at least a dozen times in the house and I have nothing to add to the replies I have given.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister is quite right when he says that the question has been asked dozens of times but has not been answered, I wonder whether he could tell the house this simple fact: Has the government decided to do nothing, or is it still going to do something, though it is not yet ready to tell the house what it is going to do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is argumentative.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then may I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that for

June 3, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
three months the minister and his associates under NATO will reduce the effectiveness of have been saying that this matter is under our political participation, thereby delaying consideration, when does he think that the progress toward greater unity among the government will have reached a decision, and nations of the North Atlantic community' when does he think that he will be able to .
convey that decision to the house?	Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out a few minutes ago the government has done a number of things, not only within the last three months but indeed within the last ten months, to be helpful in this situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What has it done?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not have time to list them now, but I would be happy to do so. Further to that, ministers other than the Minister of Agriculture have replied that we are considering additional helpful steps.


Gerald William Baldwin: Your attitude is a positive disgrace.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that if they spend too much time asking numerous sup-plementaries we will have again a situation that arose in recent days, when a considerable number of members are not given the opportunity to ask questions. If, every day, we adopt two subjects and then spend 20 minutes on each one, I doubt whether we will achieve a result that is satisfactory to hon. members generally. I should like to call on the hon. member for Frontenac.


Mr. Bernard Dumoni (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Has the minister considered also the problems of eastern farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman received intimations from our NATO allies that Canada's withdrawal from its military obligations 
I have received no direct communication to that effect, Mr. Speaker. I understand that various members of NATO communicated various points of view to the Minister of National Defence when he was in Europe, but I have received no personal representations from any government.


George Harris Hees: Does the phrase "passing the buck"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: -mean nothing to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member does have a supplementary but we are returning to a question on which we have already spent 20 minutes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is the government phasing out its political support for NATO in the same ratio as the withdrawal of its military support?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. COMBINES



CONTROL OF DEALERSHIPS BY AUTOMOBILE, MANUFACTURERS

Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whit-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my congenial colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the concern recently expressed by Mr. F. W. Dalglish, president of Volkswagen London Motors Ltd. about the fact that automobile producers now control 60 per cent of the auto dealerships in Toronto, would the minister appeal to his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to have the combines investigation branch investigate this situation, to see whether there has been a violation of Canadian law?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Representation has been received.
June 3, 1969



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Have the studies of pollution in British Columbia determined the cause of death of approximately three tons of herring recently in waters adjacent to Nanaimo? What steps is the government taking to prevent further pollution in that area?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Remedial action has been taken in consultation with the chemical plant involved.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION OF MUNICIPAL UNITS IN JUNE MEETING

Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I would ask him if it is still his view that the question of representation of officials of municipal governments at the federal-provincial conference next week is a matter to be decided by each provincial government concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is perhaps a brief summary of my views under the present constitution, Mr. Speaker. Of course the whole constitution could be debated and other opinions are welcome.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister given any instruction or caused any instruction to be given to any provincial government to the effect that the in-camera nature of the conference would make participation by municipal officials inappropriate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not raise this subject. I repeat again that under the present constitution we have no authority to decide how the provincial delegations will be composed, but the idea of municipal representation under a different kind of constitution, or that of different forms of participation, are ones which I think are open for debate and to which many levels of government are giving consideration, including our own.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



INQUIRY INTO LAXITY IN OPERATING EFFICIENCY

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent half million dollars railway mishap on the C.N.R. near Mor-risburg, caused apparently by a locked wheel, and in view of the continued practice of the railway to reduce car inspection at intermediate terminals, will the minister now give immediate attention to instituting a public inquiry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this is virtually the same question I answered a few days ago. There are a number of inquiries under way now which are under the auspices of the Canadian Transport Commission with regard to individual accidents. A summary of these cases, when brought together, will determine whether a public inquiry is necessary.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Transport accept recommendations of interested parties through the C.T.C. in this regard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Whether I want to accept them or not, Mr. Speaker, I am getting them.



MINAS BASIN-DISPOSITION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As a result of some private communication for which I am grateful, will the minister now reply to the question I asked earlier regarding the present disposition of the report on the feasibility study of development of the Minus Basin tidal power?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the report is expected to be completed within a matter of a few months, and some time during the autumn it should be available.



FISHERIES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: I have a question for the Minister of

June 3, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Fisheries. I ask the minister whether the new boundary lines respecting Canadian waters which were supposed to be available yesterday are now available to members of this house?


John (Jack) Davis: This announcement is to be made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I hope it will be made this week.



ST. MARY'S BAY, N.S.-DISPUTE BETWEEN SEINERS AND WEIR FISHERMEN

Louis-Roland Comeau: Has the minister received many telegrams, letters and briefs requesting the immediate closing of St. Mary's Bay, Nova Scotia and if so, what action does he plan to take?


John (Jack) Davis: I have received a number of communications to that effect, but I do not contemplate taking any action at the moment.



COMMUNICATIONS


Max Saltsman: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General and ask whether he has received an appeal from the Canada News Agency concerning the long delays in the cable office in Toronto, which is seriously interfering with news stories to overseas newspapers? If the minister has received such a communication, will he tell the house what action he intends to take?


Eric William Kierans: I have not received such a communication.



SHIPPING


Harold Edward Winch: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him if he will file with the house as speedily as possible a copy of the terms of reference of Judge Stewart's report on the Emerald Straits'!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will be very pleased to provide this if it is in my competence. I know of no reason why this should not be done.



HOUSING


Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to direct a question to either the Minister of Finance or the Minister without Portfolio from Port Arthur. My question is based on allegations that the housing situation in northern Alberta is being seriously eroded due to the fact chartered banks, allegedly on instructions from head office, are refusing to grant interim financing loans. Will one of these ministers volunteer to investigate to see if instructions to this effect have been given by the Bank of Canada to the chartered banks.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am relatively sure no such instructions have been given by the Bank of Canada. However I will make inquiries with respect to the chartered banks, to see if the allegations are correct and what action can be taken.



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAM

Alfred Dryden Hales: My question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. In view of the fact the mayors and reeves of municipalities are meeting in Ottawa this week, will the minister make his announcement regarding urban renewal, so many of these men can go home with some good news?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: I have met many of these men in the last two days. I will be speaking to them this evening and no doubt having private audience with many of them. I think that is as far as I can go right now.



THE MINISTRY


John Gilbert: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the house gave second reading to the housing legislation which the Prime Minister introduced, and in view of the fact all hon. members of the house are very anxious to have the new minister succeed in the portfolio he now has, will the Prime Minister introduce another piece of legislation, which I am sure will have the unanimous consent of
June 3, 1969

all members, setting up a separate ministry of housing and urban development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if we can have all the matters on the order paper dealt with sufficiently by June 27, I might give that matter consideration.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? In view of the fact the former minister of transport was able to get action on housing, specifically on his own housing report, by resigning from the cabinet, will the minister consider taking the same course so that we can get action on the Woods report and other matters relating to our veterans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this house is desired, S-37, an act to amend the Trust Companies Act and S-38, an act to amend the Loan Companies Act.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson that Bill C-191, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, last night I was stopped by the clock after having made what I would consider some negative remarks concerning income tax. I very rarely speak in negative terms throughout my speeches. I outline what I think is the problem and then try to finish my remarks with suggestions as to where we go from there.
Before I continue I want to clear up one small misapprehension which may have arisen during my speech last night. I was interrupted by a member of the New Democratic
Income Tax Act
party who asked me to substantiate a statement I made that Mr. Woodsworth had said in this house on February 1, 1933, that there was no difference between communism and socialism, if one took them to their logical conclusion. Rather than bore the house and fill up the pages of Hansard with unnecessary verbiage I point out that Mr. Woodsworth's remarks are recorded on page 1689 of Hansard for February 1, 1933. Although that sounds like ancient history it is not that old. It is well worth reading because in my opinion Canada today is becoming oversocialized, and so it behooves us to look up what the-


An hon. Member:: Who told you? Barry Goldwater?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You may live to regret that remark. I will not bother identifying you because you do not have the courage to stand up on your own feet and do it yourself. I am no Barry Goldwater. I am a Canadian, born in Canada and, make no mistake about it, I am a free enterpriser. I am now 57 years of age and I shall remain a free enterpriser as long as the people of this country have faith in that system and allow me to be a free enterpriser. That is why I am on my feet today. I represent some 70,000 people who feel the way I do. That is why I am back in this house.
Read that page in Hansard and you will have no doubt that the spiritual leader of the New Democratic party felt there was no difference whatsoever between communism and socialism except the method by which every person in Canada is made subservient to the state. I wish I could leave the matter there, but unfortunately I cannot because I have been accused in this house, in the kind of verbal display we have had this afternoon, and anonymously, of being a revolutionary, and this from no other lips than those of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself.
This is passing strange. I checked Hansard to try to find our little exchange but it was not there. So, Mr. Speaker, bear with me a moment while I put it on record. The only kind of revolution I have ever taken part in is the kind the Prime Minister says he is engaged in, a revolution against poverty, a revolution against discrimination, a revolution against division in our country. That is the kind of revolutionary I am.
If those within his party who support him so strongly agree with him, then I suggest they ask him publicly in this house to explain certain things to which he has put his name.

June 3, 1969
Income Tax Act
Rather than make any mistake, I have pbtained a book from the Library of Parliament entitled, "Trudeau-Federalism and the French Canadians." Beginning at page 124, in a chapter headed "The Practice and Theory of Federalism" he devotes several pages to a very illuminating doctrine. Again, rather than bore the house by quoting it I suggest that everybody within hearing of me and everybody who hears about my speech or who has misquoted me in the press or otherwise, should read this chapter carefully.
It is in excellent English, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister is completely bilingual. He is able to convey his meaning to us in clear, unequivocal terms, and in this chapter he praises socialism- complete socialism. If one takes this in conduction with the remark of Mr. Woodsworth which I have just quoted, Mr. Woodsworth the spiritual father of socialism in Canada who equates socialism with communism, I can only make a layman's decision and say that the Prime Minister espouses one and the same cause. If this is not so, then I would like some kind of denial.
The chapter to which I have referred first appeared in another book, which I also obtained from the Library of Parliament, entitled "Social Purpose for Canada" edited by Michael Oliver and published by the University of Toronto Press in 1961. The same chapter appears in it, word for word. I have taken the trouble to do my homework. I have checked them and they are word for word.
On the radio and on television, and also in this house I have heard it suggested that we now have a new and enlightened Prime Minister. Am I to understand that one short year in office has changed him, just as St. Paul's outlook was miraculously changed when travelling on the road to Damascus? The suggestion is that the Prime Minister has seen the new light of democracy. He no longer believes this garbage. Political garbage is all I can call it. He goes through the Regina Manifesto of 1933-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Cheers from the left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Big cheers from the left. They would have us believe that the Regina Manifesto, or even a watered down version of it, is the answer to Canada's economic problems. But if this is so, Mr. Speaker, if it will work

anywhere, why did it not work in England? That is what I asked last night.
Many times I have heard it said, "You had a Conservative majority at one time. Why did you not do better for Canada in the short time that you had a mandate?" The socialists have had a mandate in England three times since the end of the war, a greater mandate than we ever had, but there the socialist experiment has been a complete flop. The reason is, and I stake my life on this, that any theory that puts the state above the individual is false, dangerous, rotten and unthinkable to right-thinking Canadians. I would be the first if the Prime Minister has changed his mind-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker,-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a point of order.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I hope it is a question of privilege.


John Edward Broadbent: It is. I do not for a minute question the integrity of the hon. member, although I differ profoundly with his judgment. With regard to his reference to a former distinguished member of this house, Mr. J. F. Woodsworth, a man honoured by people in all parties, I would ask him in all seriousness whether in respect of the accusation he is making now about the kind of political system referred to by that former member of the house, he is not failing to make the distinction, which Mr. Woodsworth as a Christian would make, between socialism and communism.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. This is not a point of order; this is a speech.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, Christianity is not on trial here, but rank socialism may well be on trial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have in mind income tax. In my opinion, when income tax gets beyond a certain point it becomes socialism by legislation. I am against that type of legislation which takes away so much of my income that I am no longer master of my own destiny. Through financial legislation socialism is coming in the back door, even though the people of Canada have no stomach for it. I assure the house if they knew exactly what kind of a parcel they are buying there would be less of
June 3, 1969

that parcel today. I see that I am receiving a response. I have awakened considerably the party on my left.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
How many members of the Liberal party have read the two books to which I referred? How many members of the Canadian public have read these books? How many cabinet members have read these two books? This is not a rhetorical question. The last member who resigned from the Liberal cabinet, apart from those who refused to serve in the first place, said that had he read these books he would never have sat on the treasury benches. I am quite sure others would leave the treasury benches if they read these books and interpreted them in the way I do. I am not a hair splitter or a peeker through keyholes. I am reading the plain English language.
I make no aspersions whatsoever on the spiritual leadership of Mr. Woodsworth and his Christian image. I do not deny those beliefs; I happen to share them myself. But they can be profoundly wrong when related to politics. I believe that if you read his remarks you will be as convinced as I am. I challenge you to read page 1689 of Hansard for February 1, 1933. If you are honest I am sure you will then get up and say that the privileges of every Canadian are being abused when these principles are allowed to be spread in a democratic institution such as this.
Any democratic government must raise money. Every member of parliament wants to have some of that money spent in his district. I understand that. After the budget comes down tonight we will hear a great deal about new culverts, new docks, and new railroads which members want built. But is there to be no limit to the amount of taxation required? I want to know what the final result of this ever increasing spiral of taxation will be. What is the principle behind it? I do not know any better place to talk about it than right here. I am not speaking of Christianity. I am speaking about the lifeblood of a democratic nation. I am speaking of money-plain dirty, cold, old gold. If you do not have it, your chances in this world are sadly reduced; I do not know what they are in the other world. I do not want any red herring to be dragged across my trail, if you will pardon the expression.
I have tried to make some positive suggestions. One of the members from Toronto spoke very strongly about United States
Income Tax Act
domination of Canadian industry. He suggested they are buying us out. He is partly right. To the Canadian people who do not want to be overtaxed I make the plea that they cut down on their own personal extravagance. I suggest that they stop spending their money abroad and that they buy the products of Canadian industries. They should invest in the future of this country. Why are the Americans investing in Canada? They are doing so because Canada has the best future of any country in the world. If Canadians would invest in their own country I venture to say the next generation would find that a smaller percentage of their income would go into income tax. We would be able to pay our bills better than by any system that this government could dream up. There is no limit to the development of Canada if we go about it in the right way.
The next thing is to put everybody in Canada back to work. I understand that this summer in Ottawa there are 3,000 young people unemployed. They approach officials and say, "Will you find me a job". I am told by some officials that some of these people really do not want work. They want play money; they want a few days pocket money. They do not want to pay for their schooling or any part of their tuition. They just want a few days pocket money. I am certain that if they said they wanted three months' hard work, or any work, to enable them to go back to school and stop being a burden on their families and the community, a more sincere effort would be made to find them jobs. There are still places in Canada where companies are looking for young men to work for even three months at a time if they are willing to assume some responsibility. They might have to start out by doing a reasonable amount of physical labour but later they will be given a share of the responsibility. In my opinion this country is a bonanza for those who want to take their share of the burden.
As I said last night, the federal government is not alone in wasting money. We have three levels of government. Without co-operation among these three levels of government it is very easy for one to point to the other and say that it is the other's fault. We need more co-operation among the three levels of government. To be fair to the Prime Minister, I recommend the other sections of his book. I suggest that you read not just the section on communism but also the sections on co-operation and the responsibility of the different levels of government. There is much to be said for this book. Heaven knows, when you

June 3, 1969
Income Tax Act
are selling a bad product there is nothing like putting it in a good parcel and gift wrapping it.
You can call a political doctrine anything you like just as long as you do not cheat me out of my personal freedom. Call it anything you like. If you call it strong socialism and give me the right to free enterprise under that name, fine and dandy, but do not call it free enterprise and end up with socialism. That is apparently what we are trying to do. Do not cut back on the armed forces and save money by this cutback and streamlining if it will cost the taxpayers ten times as much later to try to get the necessary force to help defend the North American continent. That is poor economics. Do not tell me that you are going to save money by cutting back on defence spending and then spend millions of dollars to house a bureaucracy. This is the type of waste I am talking about.
What does federalism mean to the Prime Minister? I want him to tell me. I want the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to tell me tonight why it is that the burden of stopping inflation should always fall on the wage earner or the small businessman. I want to know why the burden of taxation cannot be more effectively distributed. I want to know why we do not look into some of the escape routes of waste and luxury living. I do not know, but perhaps some of these world tours people are going on should be taxed. I do not know why there should not be a more liberal-if you will pardon the word-allowance for investment in Canada. Perhaps we should have a family plan by which $1,000 per family would be exempt from income tax for investment purposes in this country. A great many people do not have the money to invest in Canada. For at least five years I have been advocating that the basic rate of exemption for income tax purposes should be raised.
On both sides of the house I hear people say, "How are you going to do that and balance the budget?" We have had unbalanced budgets before for poor causes. There is no doubt in my mind that something in the order of $4,000 per family should be the basic exemption for income tax purposes today. We could find other ways to raise the money. One would be by having the people go back to work. It is not a good enough answer to say it is difficult to raise the money. If the present administration has sufficient imagination it could do it and, if not, it should hand over the administration to us again like they did in 1957 when we did find some of the answers. 
We sold grain, we built railroads and put people back in school. In five years, with heavy spending, we came up with balanced budgets at a time when there was supposed to be a sagging economy. For the last seven years we have had a so-called buoyant society. The radio is silent about it and the television is silent about it.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes.


Edgar John Benson: Would he indicate to me in what year the Tories balanced the budget?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I said "the economy". The
Minister of Finance knows very well that his question was an attempt to-


Edgar John Benson: It is a simple question.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The Minister of Finance knows perfectly well that in one year we budgeted for a $700 million deficit but the affairs of Canada were governed so well in that year tnat we came within $200 million of balancing the budget, which is $500 million ahead of any prognostication on the part of the Minister of Finance. Our Minister of Finance in those days was a Conservative and he made a conservative estimate of the income of Canada. At least he erred on the side of truth. When things went better than he thought he was able to present the Canadian people with that tremendous achievement, but the press said nothing nice about him. He was not praised on television, and nothing was said by members on the opposition side. That was one of the finest pieces of financial administration this country has ever seen. It was the start of the boom on which the Liberals have ridden ever since without contributing in the slightest.
The wheat we sold to Communist China, without any need for recognition of that government, helped balance the budget. Their money was good, and the wheat filled the stomachs of Communist children. That is just as close to my heart as it was to Mr. Woods-worth's, or anyone else in this chamber. I do not want to fight wars on empty children's stomachs. Let us not have any suggestion of this type. I should like to see another 500 million bushels sold for the same reason.
I can well remember one time on the platform when I was asked by a radical individual what I intended to do about the hungry
June 3, 1969

people in Korea. I said that I would match my cheque with the cheque of that gentleman. Needless to say he was one of the richer farmers in our district. He put his hat on his head and went home and I went ahead with my speech.
I hope I serve the poor people of the world as well as anybody else because I am a reasonable man. It is our own free democratic system which enabled North America to support the Marshall Plan. It is our democratic system which helped build Europe after it had been smashed apart by dictatorial powers as a result of foolish dreams. It was our democracy and free enterprise which rebuilt Europe. This was not done by Communist activity but was the result of people dipping into their pockets.
I am not preaching Christianity but ordinary humanity and the virtues of democratic people like myself who were responsible for this rebuilding and the contribution of some $100 billion. This money was willingly poured out to fill the hungry stomachs and the food baskets of the world. This has never been done by anyone else. If it has been matched by someone on the other side of the picture I want to hear about them. If the system in that extremely socialized England is able to produce a balanced budget, let us hear about it. If the workers over there are better housed, have a better morale and are happy, let us hear about that. Let us hear how this wonderful system is going to put us all back to work. Let us see whether it will make all our young people happy with the lot that is theirs.
Has it been the contributions of parents in this country that built these wonderful universities at which there is now unrest, or did these universities come about as the result of radical elements telling people they have not had anything decent so far and that utopia is just around the corner? If utopia is around the corner, I should like to know on whose terms. I believe in hard work-


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


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the indulgence of hon. members I should like to refer to the business of the house. I should like to say there have been some discussions, and if there is agreement in respect of the order of business perhaps we could suspend the provisions of Standing Order 40 for tonight and
Income Tax Act
establish the adjournment of the house following the initial remarks of the principal spokesman for the official opposition, and his adjournment of the budget debate if that takes place before ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it so
ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I intend to direct my remarks to the bill of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) which is now before the house. As a matter of fact I intend to oppose it and to move an amendment to give it the six months hoist. Before I do so, however, I feel I must say a few words in respect of some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg). I am glad he is still in the house, and perhaps his colleagues will draw his attention to the fact that I am about to refer to some of the things he said.
I refer in particular to the remarks of the hon. member for Pembina in respect of my distinguished predecessor, the late J. S. Woodsworth, who for many years was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Last night, and again today, the hon. member for Pembina asserted that Mr. Woodsworth said in this house in February, 1933, that there was no difference between socialism and communism. When he was challenged last night to indicate when this statement was made he said it was made on February 8, 1933.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: February 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have the floor, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that was a slight slip, and he has made it clear today that it was on February 1. I am glad to have that information because I could not ascertain that Mr. Woodsworth spoke at all on February 8, 1933.
It is true that on February 1, 1933, Mr. Woodsworth made a speech on a motion he had moved calling for the establishment of a Co-operative commonwealth in Canada, and there were certain interjections in his speech as recorded at page 1689 of Hansard for that date. I must say to the hon. member for Pembina, with all the respect and regard I have for him, that I feel he has grossly distorted what Mr. Woodsworth said on that occasion. I do not think he would like his words to stand, unfair as they are.

June 3, 1969
Income Tax Act
Rather than pitting my words or interpretation against his let me read from Hansard what the hon. member for Pembina did not take the trouble to read. This appears in the first column on page 1689 of Hansard for February 1, 1933. Mr. Woodsworth said:
Let me say that we must distinguish clearly between the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and communism. It is quite true that both believe in a changed social order, in a new economic system.
He did not say they believed in the same economic system, but that they both believed in a new economic system. He went on to say:
The communists are convinced that this can be brought about only by violence. They think it cannot be done in any other way. We believe that it may come in Canada by peaceful methods and in an orderly fashion, and that is the purpose of this organization.
"This" was the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the C.C.F., which has now been succeeded by the New Democratic Party. At that point-
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Why don't you read all of it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't worry; I will be fair and read everything that is here, which is precisely what the hon. member did not do, Mr. Speaker. There was an interruption by Mr. Morand, who I presume was a Liberal. These are his words:
The end being the same.
Those are not Mr. Woodsworth's words; those are the words of the interrupter.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Is there a question mark after them?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No,
there is not.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Well, there should be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
only does the hon. member distort Hansard but he now wants to edit it 36 years later.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, was there ever a clearer case than this of trying to distort a man's words? That was a rhetorical question by the hon. member posing the question, who said "The end being the same". Whether or not the Hansard reporter wrote it down that way, everybody in this chamber knows what he meant, and everybody knows from the answer given that it was taken as a question. Mr. Woodsworth

said there was no answer except the use of
force.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is no question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I did not rise on a question of privilege when the hon. member was speaking because as Your Honour said to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent), this is a matter of debate, and to me it is a very serious matter of debate. If the hon. member rests his case upon the punctuation mark Hansard should have used 36 years ago, that is quite a different thing from his standing up and saying that Mr. Woodsworth said there is no difference between communism and socialism. As a matter of fact, on this page no references were made to socialism itself. Other hon. members were trying to compare the C.C.F. with communism, and Mr. Woodsworth said that we must clearly distinguish between them.
Since the hon. member wants me to do so, and because I think I must do so in order to be fair, let me read Mr. Woodsworth's reply to the interjection by Mr. Morand. Mr. Morand interjected:
The end being the same.
To that interjection Mr. Woodsworth replied:
It may very well be that force may prove inevitable-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: For what?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I have the floor, Mr. Speaker?
The A cling Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


Harold Edward Winch: You are not in the R.C.M.P. now.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Aren't you glad?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So are the R.C.M.P.


Stanley Howard Knowles: think I know the mind of J. S. Woodsworth better than my hon. friend. This is the reason I was so astounded, as was the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) who was sitting behind me last night when these remarks were made by the hon. member for Pembina. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that this was in the context of what was happening in 1933. Mr. Woodsworth said:
It may very well be that force may prove inevitable, yes, if the attitude of certain gentlemen-
June 3, 1969

By the way, the Conservatives were in power.
-is persisted in and the people of this country are denied the right that they have to self-expression and to the enjoyment of a decent livelihood.


Mr. Garland (Bow River):: Even the right to work is denied them.
Then Mr. Woodsworth quoted a passage which I would be quite happy to read, if necessary. It is a quotation from the Vancouver Province suggesting that this is the kind of thing that could happen, but Mr. Woodsworth gives his own comment on that quotation and says:
We in our group are out to try to bring about the end in view by peaceful and orderly methods.
Mr. Woodsworth went out of his way in that speech to assert the position he always took-some of us know it very well because of our contact with him-namely, that violence and force were not weapons to be used. If ever there was a man in this house who believed in non-violence, it was J. S. Woodsworth. For it to be suggested that there was any similarity between the things he stood for and communism is, I suggest, a gross distortion of the position taken in this house by one of the finest men who ever graced the parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: said that it was my purpose to speak mainly about Bill C-191 which is now before us and on which the Minister of Finance spoke at the second reading stage last night. I have just taken a few minutes to try to clear up a distortion by an hon. member to my right.
In a different vein, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance that he was guilty of a tremendous distortion last night when he stood in this house and tried to suggest that the 2 per cent social development tax, this flat rate tax on the first $6,000 of taxable income which does not apply to taxable income above that level, is a progressive form of taxation, a premium, something that one should be privileged to pay because of what he gets for it. It is one of the finest things ever thought of, to listen to the Minister of Finance last night. Well, what word can I use? Should I say "rubbish", Mr. Speaker?


John Gilbert: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly that is what the minister's presentation last night was. I do not know what you are smiling at, Mr. Speaker, and I must not put
Income Tax Act
words behind your smile, but I have a notion why you are smiling. The 2 per cent social development tax, far from being a progressive measure and one that we should welcome, is as regressive as it can possibly be. It is 2 per cent on the first $6,000 of taxable income, with a cut-off at that point. This means that a married man who has no children gets the $2,000 income tax exemption and if he makes $8,000 a year income he pays $120. It also means that the $18,000 people, the $40,000 people, the $100,000 people, the millionaires, pay the same amount-$120 a year. For the Minister of Finance to ask us to swallow the notion that this is a progressive tax is really pressing things a little too far.
One of the examples of the application of this 2 per cent social development tax which demonstrates how unfair, how anti-social it is, is to be found in its effect on old age pensioners, particularly those between the ages of 65 and 70 who are able to qualify for the guaranteed income supplement on top of their basic old age security. If they are drawing old age security, people in that age bracket have an income tax exemption level of only $1,000. It is $1,100 if you add the $100 everybody can claim for charitable donations, and so on. So $1,100 is the tax exemption level.
The government has decided that incomes must be brought up to a certain point. The act originally provided that they should be brought up to not less than $105 a month or $1,260 a year. There have now been some 2 per cent additions to that, so the figure is a little higher. But this 2 per cent social development tax which the minister wants us to believe is so progressive and a fine example of paying for services one receives, hits those people in this way: every dollar over $1,100 these people receive is taxed at the ordinary rate plus this additional rate of 2 per cent. So if pensioners have $160 or $200 over the $1,100 they pay $3.20 or $4, as the case may be, on that amount. The amount may not seem great but this is on top of the regular tax they must pay, and bear in mind that this is money that is taxed back from people who are given the money because the government said there is a floor below which people must not fall; there is a minimum income level to which everybody 65 or over must be raised; it is a minimum that we must guarantee. It is a fine kind of guarantee to turn around and with the other hand tax the money one receives under that guarantee, above a certain level. I suggest that on all counts this tax

June 3. 1969
Income Tax Act
has to be condemned out of hand. No government in a modern age has the right to put on this kind of tax, let alone try to tell us that it is progressive.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
One of the arguments that the minister used last night was that there are one or two precedents for it. Of course there are precedents for it, but that does not mean they are good precedents. The old age security tax is established on the basis of 4 per cent on individuals who have up to the level of $6,000 of taxable income. Does the fact that it is there make it a precedent that is worth following? The fact of the matter is that from the day these taxes were put on for old age security, first at a $3,000 cut-off point, later at a $6,000 cut-off point, we were saying that it is a regressive form of taxation and that it should not be continued. We have argued from the very day it was brought in that if we are going to collect a special tax for old age security it should be a graduated rate, but at least if it is a flat rate it should be the same rate all the way up to the top dollar that the wealthy and the millionaires may make. So it is no precedent so far as we are concerned. It was a mistake in the first place.
The minister also cited the Canada Pension Plan where he suggested that a cut-off is justified because the premiums are related to income. May I point out that the cut-off in the Canda Pension Plan of the amount on which you pay carries with it the penalty of not being able to get a Canada Pension Plan benefit related to the higher incomes that people make. I am not even defending that scheme down the line, although in my view the plan is a pretty good one. However, it has no relevance to a form of general taxation such as we have now before us. Who knows what we are going to get in tonight's budget, but at some future time another of these taxes will be imposed that puts the burden on the poor and lets the rich off scot free, and we will be told that there is a precedent for it. We will be told, "we did it for old age security and we did it for social development, so therefore it is a good thing. The people of Canada have not risen up in revolt, therefore we can do it again".
We think that the time to stop this kind of taxing is right now before it goes any farther.
I should like to say that people find it passing strange that the government can so easily and so blithely impose these taxes and collect hundreds of millions of dollars from the little people-because that is where most of this $400 million will come from-and then turn

around and give $80 million back to the automobile manufacturers of this country. I am sure that my mail and the mail of my colleagues is not unique. I am sure that members in all quarters of the house are getting protests from all over this country about the way in which the government was able to do that. "It was a technicality", said the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). He wanted to help the automobile manufacturers, and this technicality of their having to pay $80 million in tax stood in the way, so he wanted to help them out and the government forgave them this money under the Financial Administration Act. I still agree with the Auditor General that the government had no right to interpret the Financial Administration Act in that way. Even if the government could establish legal authority for doing this, I say it is disgraceful for a government to hand out $80 million to the automobile manufacturers and then to turn around and say to old age pensioners with an income of just over $1,100 that they shall have to pay an extra 2 per cent social development tax on the few dollars the government has given them to bring them up to a guaranteed level.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wonder what it is about the $80 million that mesmerizes the Liberals. I have been here longer than some of them, but one does not have to have been here very long to remember another $80 million story back in 1956. At that time there was in the government a man of great power, namely, the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who made a deal with a certain pipeline corporation according to which the government would make a loan of $80 million to that corporation by a certain day. In the same session we were trying to get something for the old age pensioners of this country, but we got nothing that year. The next year there was sm election and we got $6 a month for the old age pensioners, an addition on top of the $40 that was then being paid. That was the action of the Liberals in 1956 and 1957- the six buck boys. The pensioners got $6 a month, and the pipeline company got $80 million.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is the same old gang.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now again it is $80 million for the automobile manufacturers, but not even six bucks for the old age pensioners. No, it takes away by
June 3, 1969

means of a 2 per cent social development tax a further portion of the very money that we have given them by way of a guarantee. Yet the Minister of Finance expects us to support this legislation.
The minister looked somewhat annoyed with me when I suggested that I was going to move the six months' hoist. This bill should be defeated completely. It should not be put on the statute books of Canada, a country that regards itself as progressive and is concerned about the well-being of its people. We are going to have a budget speech tonight and we may get some legislation.


Edgar John Benson: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question? In speaking about the treatment of old age pensioners does he not also recognize the fact that pensions have been increased by this and previous Liberal governments by $42 per month since 1963?


Stanley Howard Knowles: almost wonder whether the Minister of Finance is a mind reader because he asked a question that leads right into what I was going to deal with at this point.


Edgar John Benson: Your mind is easy to read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: my mind is so easy to read, perhaps the minister will tell me what I am going to say.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister could read your mind, he would be insulted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) says he does not agree with me. He used to agree with me in the times when he sat over here, but since then he has been metamorphosed. The Liberals like to give us that old line about what has been done by way of increasing old age pensions. Of course they have been increased a great deal. When I came here they were $20 a month; they are now $105, plus some little 2 per cent additions. Of course there have been changes. There have also been changes in the cost of living. Even members of parliament do a little better now than they did when they got $4,000 at the time I first came here.
Let me say to the Minister of Finance-and I will tie in my answer to the question he just put to me-that I can also read his mind; I know that he is going to talk tonight a great
Income Tax Act
deal about inflation. All the bank presidents, all the financiers, and all the big important people who run this country, are talking about inflation. They say we have to do something to check inflation. What is it that they want to do? They want the little people to tighten heir belts. That is what this 2 per cent social development tax is all about. It is a demand that the little people carry the brunt of the battle against inflation. I say to the Minister of Finance in answer to his question about old age pensions that when the government does nothing to help old age pensioners keep up with the rising cost of living and the rising standard of living, when the government contents itself with an act under which pensions are increased by only 2 per cent although the cost of living may go up by 4 per cent, that is exactly the same as taking money away from old age pensioners.
If the Minister of Finance and his colleagues had any sense of shame at all, they would not stand up and boast about the increases that have been made in old age pensions. In these days and these months they are taking money away from old age pensioners. They are actually reducing the amount that they have to buy the necessities of life. If they went into their pockets-I was going to say to their bank deposits but they do not have bank deposits-if they went into their homes and robbed them of their money, it would not be any more a case of robbery than it is for this government to give old age pensioners and a few others only a 2 per cent increase when the cost of living has gone up 4 per cent. What the government is doing by this kind of method is to require old age pensioners and war veterans to reduce their standard of living. I tried this afternoon to get the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) to take effective action for the war veterans. I am sure that if he resigned on the issue of the Woods report, it might be referred to the Veterans Affairs Committee two days later and action taken there, just as we got action on housing. This action with regard to old age pensioners also applies to superannuated civil servants, retired pensioners of the C.N.R., and people in receipt of family allowances. The government is asking these people to fight the battle against inflation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Yes, these are the people who are being asked to fight the battle against inflation. Are the presidents of the chartered banks taking

June 3. 1969
Income Tax Act
cut-backs? I'll bet! This is what the government is doing. It is marshalling the ranks of the poor, the needy, the disadvantaged, the old age pensioners, the people on fixed incomes, and telling them: you must tighten your belts; you must take less and, if you can do this, somehow we shall do something about the inflation which is facing this country.
No one in this house denies the existence of the inflation problem. But let it be clear, neither does anyone in this house want to go back to the wage and price levels of 10, 20 and 30 years ago, or to the poverty and the living standards which went with them. Let it be admitted that as prices and wages rise there is a certain amount of adjustment, and that living generally is better today than it was in the period of the thirties in relation to which I was quoting from Hansard a while ago. In facing this problem of inflation the government ought not to be asking the old age pensioners and the poor to carry the whole load. It should, rather, be protecting their position by saying that their pensions and allowances are to be increased to enable them to keep up with the rising cost of living.
I will go further, Mr. Speaker. I would say they have a right to share in the rising standard of living and that their pensions should keep pace proportionately with the increases which take place in wages and salaries. This is an old story. My hon. friend the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and I were today reading from the speech made by Mr. Woodsworth, drawn to our attention by the hon. member for Pembina. We were reminded of conditions back in the middle thirties. It happened that the Conservatives were in power then, though the Liberals are now. It does not make much difference. The battle through the ages has been to obtain a recognition of the right of the poor and the disadvantaged to have their share of the wealth they help to produce in a nation such as ours. They will not do so unless wages are allowed to rise, unless farm prices are allowed to rise, unless money is spent on social welfare, on health, on housing, on education, and until there are pensions and guaranteed incomes which keep raising the standard of living of the ordinary people of this country. These are the people about whom we should be concerned.
When the minister asks us to put a 2 per cent social development tax on all the people of this country, when he wants the pensioners to get by with less, when he robs them of
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
what little they have, when he wants the poor people to fight the battle against inflation on his behalf and on behalf of the chartered banks, he is not representing the best interests of the ordinary citizens of a democratic country such as this. Mr. Speaker, you allowed me to use the word "rubbish" a while ago. Allow me, now, to use the word "hypocrisy", because I think this is what we shall be hearing tonight. The minister will be talking about inflation and what we must all do to combat it. I say that people, not bank and insurance company presidents, must come first, and that we should be concerned not with belt-tightening or the methods which Herbert Hoover would have adopted but with ways of developing our production, increasing our productivity, and making sure that the increases that are achieved lead not to profits for the few but to an improvement in the livelihood of ordinary people.
Without any question, therefore, we are opposed to this bill. We think the house should put it off for six months and then for another six months after that. That is why I intend to move this amendment. I hope the house will go on record as squarely opposing the 2 per cent social development tax and that its action will be a warning to the minister not to bring in anything more of this nature tonight.
I hope that tonight the minister will find it possible to do a few things which are progressive and helpful. I have been pleading with him for a year or more to get over this technicality as a result of which pensioners receiving income supplements are obliged to pay income tax on them. Surely the minister can take care of this situation by means of a tax credit or an adjustment of some sort. As a matter of fact we believe he ought to provide that any income of less than $2,000 for a single person or $4,000 for married people should not be taxable at all. And let the hon. gentleman not tell us that I said he should raise exemption levels to these points and give bonanzas to the wealthy. I know the mathematics of this. You can leave the rates as they are in respect of those earning upwards of $4,000 or $5,000, but you can provide that on incomes below a certain amount no tax should be paid.
The minister knows how to do this. He did it in connection with the Estate Tax Act where he provided that when people leave estates of less than a certain sum, no tax at all is payable. I hope the minister will bring in something on these lines tonight. If he cannot be progressive, then at least let him
June 3, 1969

not be so reactionary as to give us another dose of the kind of tax now before us for which there is no justification whatever in a country which calls itself democratic or thinks itself to be progressive in any sense of the term.
Therefore, because we feel as strongly as we do about this tax and believe the bill should be defeated, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That the word "now" be deleted from the motion and that the words "this day six months hence" be added at the end thereof.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, during the short period of time I am allowed, I shall stick to the bill before us, namely Bill C-191 which has a rather mild title but I feel that it could nevertheless have long-range implications on the Canadian economy. This bill is intituled: An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.
As a matter of fact, this is a most important bill since it provides for an indirect tax to be levied from nearly every Canadian.
The bill itself is quite complex as it deals with several matters, like sales of ships, the use of tax tables and a change in the date when companies have to file their income tax returns.
Ten items or so are merely consequential items resulting from changes to certain sections of the Income Tax Act.
As for the other provisions, they are of the utmost interest to the Canadian tax-payer. For instance, clause 27 of the bill intends to add immediately after section 104A the pompous title of:



PART IB

[Stage Direction]
Social development tax
This section affects every Canadian taxpayer. Every individual liable to pay a tax for a taxation year shall pay a social development tax for the year equal the lesser of 2 p. cent of his taxable income or a maximum of $120 a year.
This tax directly affects the poor as well as the wealthy but more harshly the first group.
Indeed, the person whose taxable income is $6,000 a year will have to pay $120 in social development tax exactly as the one whose taxable income is $25,000 or $100,000. The small taxpayer whose taxable income is only $2,000 will have to pay $40 a year in social 29180-595
Income Tax Act
development tax, while the well-off or the millionnaire will pay only $120 a year. We claim that this is an unfair legislation, for it deprives the small taxpayer of part of his vital minimum and allows the big interests to pay only a small social development tax of $120.
Such legislation indeed runs counter to the "just society" which is so highly praised in government statements.
The other clauses of Bill C-191 relate to taxation of insurance company income and of the profits made by insurance policy-holders at the time of redemption or of maturity of a policy.
Here is what Mr. Hazzlet Lemmon, president of the Canada Life Insurance Company, had to say on the subject at the meeting of the shareholders of that company last January 30, and I quote:
It may well be that the most important event of 1968 insofar as the future of life-insurance in Canada is concerned was the proposals announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget of October 22. He introduced a complete new system of taxation for life-insurance companies which includes three types of taxes. First of all, he announced that any net profit made by a policyholder after October 22, at the time of redemption or maturity of a policy, except in cases of death, should be taxed as personal income.
He took good care to exclude all retroactive taxation element. If this form of taxation is adopted, it will mean that we would have to consider seriously the important values involved in the greater number of life insurance contracts now in force before taking any step to end these contracts.
Secondly, companies would pay tax on their investment income-after fixed deductions-at the proposed rate of 15 per cent.
Thirdly, any corporation income, as defined, will be taxable at the regular rate that applies to corporations income.
Since that budget was introduced, some representatives of the industry have discussed the details of the application of these taxes almost continuously with government officials and the minister. Suggestions have been made which, according to insurance companies, would make these taxes far more equitable as compared with taxes that apply to other institutions. To date the final bill has not been introduced so that it is impossible to know exactly what burden these taxes will represent.
Over the years, the Canadian life insurance industry has managed remarkably well to reduce the cost of life insurance to its policyholders, through increased rates of interest, a better return on the capital and the improvement in the death rate. Any new taxes imposed upon the industry will of necessity have the opposite effect and, as a result, the cost of insurance will be much higher than it would have been otherwise. If it were to result in reducing the amount of insurance taken by Canadians, this would lead to widespread social
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Income Tax Act
repercussions. In addition, the shortage of capital available for investment in these long term contracts will continue to grow increasingly in Canada, and even in all western countries.
The minister said in the course of his speech that, according to the government, the extra revenue thus gained would counterbalance the obvious disadvantages of such taxes. We sincerely hope that the government will give serious consideration to all these points when it makes a final decision on the bulk of the proposed taxes.
Insurance, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most popular saving devices in Canada. It is an incentive towards saving; it helps to curb inflation, this nightmare of the government; lastly, it is a huge source of that capital so much needed now by Canada to control its economy and also an important source of mortgage money that will help solve the housing problem.
The government, therefore, does not seem very consequent when it is asking us to take steps in order to control inflation while proposing a legislation meant to penalize the thrifty.
The government also does not seem consequent when it complains about the scarcity of capital available for house building while punishing whose who build up a fund available to those who want to build themselves a home.
What were the portfolio assets of the insurance companies at the end of 1966, according to the reports provided by the Superintendent of Insurances?
The life insurance companies in Canada had $5,485 million in mortgage loans in 1968; $5,929 million in bonds and debentures of all kinds $523 million in ordinary shares, of which only $94 million were in non-Canadian companies $450 million in policy loans and finally $423 million in real estate with only $56 million in cash.
The life insurance companies invest in Canada. They make mortgage loans and invest in Canadian industries they are ever ready to finance government programs.
As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, for example, life insurance companies have invested, according to a statement made in Montreal on June 17, 1968, by the president of the Canadian association of life insurance companies, Mr. Lemmon, over $4,863 million, that is 1.6 times their commitments towards their policy holders.
Out of this total, $1,698 million were in mortgage loans, $1,526 million in government

and municipal bonds $1,477 million in corporation stock and $162 million in other investments.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Life insurance companies invest more in Canada and in Quebec than their total commitments because they also invest funds coming to them from policy holders living in the United States. In 1966, for the whole of Canada, life insurance companies had invested $5 billion on behalf of their policyholders residing in the United States. Therefore it can be said that life insurance companies contribute to the growth of Canada and that they help in remarkable way in its development.
Here are the comments made by Mr. Graham F. Towers, former governor of the Bank of Canada, at the annual meeting of the shareholders of the Canada Life Insurance Company, on January 30 last. We know that Mr. Towers, chairman of the board of the life insurance company, was the first governor of the Bank of Canada, president of the Industrial Development Bank and assistant governor of the International Monetary Fund. I quote:
In October last, the federal government introduced a special budget which showed that the 1969 fiscal deficit will be much greater than anticipated. In order to avoid this deficit and to balance the 1970 budget the federal government suggested that it intended to levy new taxes including a tax on life insurance which would bring the government $95 million.
As we know fully well the tremendous advantages which accrue to the individual and the economy through life insurance savings, one can ask whether the government is right in levying this tax at a time when the bond and mortgage markets are experiencing a shortage of capital.
With the passing of this bill, at least $95 million this year, and perhaps more in the following years, will contribute to the payment of government expenditures while this amount would have probably been invested in the capital market.
There are other kinds of taxes which tend to diminish savings and, consequently, supplies of capital, but none, I think, have such direct and heavy consequences as in life insurance. Those taxes can only help to worsen the situation in a country suffering from a lack of capital.
The president of Mutual Life, M. K. R. McGregor, said on February 6, 1969:
A good number of recommendations could be examined to promote savings, curb inflation and supply capital. The interest on the new federal, provincial and municipal bonds could be made tax free. Just as the government grants a tax exemption on the dividends of mining and oil corporations to compensate for the gradual depletion of operating resources, so it should recognize that there is an element of depletion in high interest during a period of inflation.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
The state should in fact exempt from taxation the part of this interest representing in fact a depreciation of capital rather than an actual output. As for savings derived from permanent life insurance, I believe we should follow the example set by England, Australia, West Germany and other countries, where life insurance premiums are, up to a certain amount, deductible from taxable income.
Therefore, instead of taxing the thrifty, the holders of small life insurance policies that provide some degree of security to low or middle income people, the government should, instead of taxing them, grant them a tax abatement on a part of the premiums used to pay their policy.
Mr. Speaker, I would have two more remarks to make about Bill C-191, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
The first one concerns the provision which will oblige the companies to produce reports as to payments of interests and dividends for every amount over $10 paid to an individual.
Has the government considered, Mr. Speaker, the tons of paper, the numerous calculations, the work that will be foisted on dividend-paying firms, which will have to inform the government of every payment over $10? It will be, at the least, one of the most vexatious devices which will certainly cost the government, on account of the required auditing, more money than it will collect. Will we see federal employees scrutinizing the books of insurance companies, for example, to see if they have declared a dividend of $10.02 paid to Mr. Leonel Beaudoin on an insurance policy?
The other matter which I would like to discuss briefly, Mr. Speaker, deals with the consequences of clause 14. This clause provides that beginning in 1969, the income tax exemption for a federal, provincial or municipal corporation does not apply if another corporate body is entitled to acquire shares or capital in that corporation. We will have to wait for the clause by clause study of the bill in committee to know what is the real meaning of those provisions which are apparently aimed at Quebec's Societe generale de financement.
Established under a law of the province of Quebec, on July 6, 1962, the SGF could be described as a private enterprise serving the public interest. It is both a credit and a management company. As a credit society, it grants loans for industrial and commercial purposes. As a management company, it provides funds to existing businesses or for the creation of new ones.
29180-595J
Income Tax Act
Among its achievements, it has made possible the industrial complex comprising Marime Industries, Volcano and Forano, and a car assembly plant, the SOMA corporation. It has invested millions of dollars in the newsprint plant of the Donohue Company, in Clermont, in association with the French company, La Papeterie de la Seine.
In other words, the SGF aims to accelerate the passage from a trade and family economy to a capital stock type of economy. It plays an important role in the conversion of the economy, which necessitates the setting-up of vast technical and financial means, supported by a government policy based on a general plan.
It is worth mentioning that the assets of the Societe generale de financement total some $100 million, that its sales exceed that amount and that 10,000 workers earn their living through the SGF.
It is also worth mentioning that the SGF gathers capital from the government of Quebec, from credit unions, from financial institutions, as well as from the public.
We therefore ask ourselves whether the new provisions in clause 14 of the bill will apply to Quebec's Societe generale de financement.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, we do not think that this bill is1 worth much. It is one more tax for taxpayers. It taxes all taxpayers through the social development tax. It taxes thrifty people who guarantee their security by subscribing to insurance policies, one of the main sources of financing for mortgages and bonds.
It is a legislation full of new taxes, including direct taxes like the social development tax, and hidden taxes like those affecting insurance companies.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to this proposed legislation.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on Bill C-191. First I wish to mention the disparity of taxes between the United States and Canada. Taxes have reached their limit. Incentives are being lost and we are losing some of our top graduates from our universities. Today in Canada 36 per cent of our gross national product goes into taxation. In the United States the figure is 25 per cent. Ten years ago in Canada the figure was 25 per cent. In other words, we have had an increase of almost 50 per cent in taxation in a period of ten years.

June 3, 1969
Income Tax Act
The federal government has adopted the principle that future fiscal arrangements should provide that each government should be accountable for its taxation and spending decisions, health insurance, welfare and education. If the tax burden increases in Canada, it will widen the gap between Canadian and United States companies and between the people of Canada and the people of the United States. Enterprising Canadians will be put to a more and more serious disadvantage.
In general the people of the United States can deduct mortgage interest and most forms of taxes. On the average the people of the United States receive approximately 30 per cent more in salaries. It does not take any great flight of imagination to realize what our young graduates from our universities look for. They are brilliant young men. When they look at our salaries and forms of taxation, although they may be very dedicated to their country they go south of the border.
I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) that the present and previous Liberal governments they have done their part to get this figure up to 36 per cent. This year $840 million more was collected in taxes than in any year in the history of this country.
The minister stated that if the income tax had been increased by 2 per cent, instead of labelling it a social development tax, it would have been necessary to share it with the provinces. The minister did not have any compunction in enforcing universal medicare on the provinces. He let them look where they could for the money to finance their share, blackmailing them into accepting it. The government and the minister wanted total universal medicare instead of covering the 30 per cent of the people across Canada who really need it. Had such a scheme been introduced it would have cost only one-third of what medicare will now cost.
9 (4:20 p.m.)
The very same government cuts back a few months later on the health resources fund, which is to provide for the education of the doctors who will be required to operate medicare. What a travesty of justice and honour! There is at present roughly a 20 per cent shortage of doctors in the general practitioner field. As you know, Mr. Speaker, general practitioners are the work horses of the medical profession. If the minister does not realize this, although as he comes from the city of Kingston and attended Queen's University I am sure he does know of the shortage, just let him go to some strange city, unknown and EMr. Rynard.]
unheralded, and try to get a doctor. I tell him now he will wind up in the emergency department of some hospital sitting on a bench waiting his turn.
The government set up not one but seven task forces to find out how medical manpower can be arranged, and how to stop escalating hospital and medical costs. Dr. Dalgleish, President of the Canadian Medical Association, wrote about this as follows in the C.M.A. Journal:
We disagree with Mr. Munro's statement that the shortage of doctors in Canada is a myth.
This is the cabinet minister who set up not one task force but seven to investigate the shortage.
The very real shortage of physicians and their most effective use are very complex problems- problems that the profession has been struggling with for some time. As a result, we were pleased when Mr. Munro recently scanned the whole country to collect the best brains available to serve on federal government task forces to study them. We are a little surprised that after doing so he appears to have prejudged the task forces' studies, identified the problems and provided solutions himself.
Mr. Munro must be poorly informed or has misinterpreted his sources of information. His reported comments on the doctor-population ratio and supply of Canadian trained physicians are a long way from actual fact.
It is the same general story when the government gets into anything. As the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) indicated, I believe, when the government is involved in something it cannot be run like a business, it has got to be a bit sloppy. How true those words were.
I accuse the government of acting with the wrong motives. It has broken faith with the Canadian people. It has withdrawn the grant of $2,000 per bed for new hospital construction. This means that fewer hospital beds will be provided and fewer people will get into hospitals. In effect the government is taxing the people of Canada for hospital premiums and at the same time cutting down the number of hospital beds available. This is exactly the game that was played in England. There the services were cut. Is the minister going to do the same thing with medicare? There was little or no building of new hospitals in England. In fact the government has made a good start in that direction. It has cut the health resources fund, the very fund that was to provide the necessary hospital beds and the facilities required to train doctors.
The government will collect over $450 million this year from the 2 per cent social
June 3, 1969

development tax, but it will not provide for the training of sufficient doctors to do a good job under medicare. The government will not even help financially to operate summer medical schools at which doctors could complete their training earlier than has been the case heretofore. It is evident that the government intends to keep doctors in a position of not being able to give the services for which the people of Canada are paying. The government may not realize it, but this is the same road down which the medical profession and the people of Britain were led.
I now wish to deal with the situation of our old age pensioners. As we know, they are allowed a 2 per cent increase in their pensions per year if the cost of living increases that much. But we all know that for the last three or four years there has been an annual increase of 4 per cent to 5 per cent in the cost of living. In other words, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, we are taxing these people's rights and privileges. This is a ridiculous application of a mismanaged social conscience. The increase in the old age pension should bear a close relationship to wage increases and to the increase in the gross national product. Both of these things should be considered together with the cost of living index. I think we have to do this because wages have increased faster than the gross national product.
We have also a problem in that, in my opinion, we are now taxing welfare payments to old age pensioners. Take the case of those between the ages of 65 and 70. With their present low income tax exemption they are subject to income tax, and this cuts out the payment of their hospitalization. Surely this is not fair. If on the one hand we say they qualify under the means test, then how in the name of conscience can we tell them, "You are quite able to pay your hospitalization; you are quite able to pay half your medicare costs"? This nonsense must stop. The exemption level was fixed 20 years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, the present level was fixed in 1948, and nothing has been done to raise it since then despite the fact that the cost of living index has gone up 60 per cent in that period. That is just not cricket.
I hope the Minister of Finance will raise income tax exemptions for old age pensioners and for all others in receipt of welfare payments such as mothers allowances, blind and disabled allowances, and veterans allowances. Just imagine how far we are behind in dealing properly with war veterans. I believe
Income Tax Act
it was in 1960 that we introduced a bill which said that if they lived in a house worth over $6,000 we would put a 5 per cent tax on them. Then in 1965 we changed the dollar figure to $10,000, again with a 5 per cent tax. But, Mr. Speaker, a veteran may have bought his house for $10,000 or he may have bought it for less. Why in the world should we use real estate values, which have gone up, according to some realtors in Toronto, almost 20 per cent in the last year and grab money back from the veterans because the price of homes has gone up? Let us stop this inequity. What a terrible way to treat people who do not have enough money to look after themselves. We drive more and more of these people below the poverty line.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
What about our social conscience? Have we a social conscience or is it just lip service we offer? Are we like the people who do not look at a beggar when they pass by him but just toss a coin in his can. Let us be fair to these people who cannot help themselves. There are approximately 500,000 people between the ages of 65 and 70 in the Dominion of Canada.
I wish to dwell for a minute or two on the question of the perpetual bonds, because this is something which I think involves rank discrimination. It is a blot on the escutcheon of Canada. People today hold these bonds which were issued in 1936. I could mention many cases of people who badly need the money represented by these bonds. It is clear that the federal government has reneged and will pay only 45 cents on the dollar on these bonds and interest at the rate of 3 per cent. Tonight the budget is coming down and there are a few things we ought to keep in mind. This situation should be corrected because it can only hurt the credit of Canada and the bond market. Leaving aside entirely the question of justice which is involved. It is not necessary to have these bonds cashed in. All that is necessary is that the interest rate be raised to the current level. That would correct the problem and the price. Is there another country in the world which has not done this? Perhaps England has not

I do not know- but certainly the United States has made such provision in respect of their perpetual bonds, their Liberty bonds.
I might deal now with the insurance question. Most of these companies operating in Canada today are mutual companies; they have very few stockholders. Their rate of return is limited, so to all intents they are

June 3, 1969
Income Tax Act
mutual companies. The little fellow who buys life insurance today buys a policy of $5,000 or more by paying a premium once a year, halfyearly, quarterly or even weekly. He does this to create a nest egg and to look after his wife and family in a small way if death overtakes him. If he can afford enough insurance he is in a position to look after his wife and family entirely and take the burden off the country. In other words, he may prevent the payment of welfare. People buy life insurance for two purposes: First, to create an estate and to protect their families and, second, as a saving. The fellow who will have to pay the tax on this insurance is the ordinary fellow who lives in your town and my town. It is not the corporations or Insurance Companies that will pay it because in the long run they will come right back to the person who has bought the insurance. When one considers all the arguments I do not believe this is fair.
I should like to leave with the Minister of Finance the suggestion that medicare, welfare payments and the insurance question are of vital importance to the Canadian people. They are matters of concern to the little people across Canada. Justice must be done for the people at the lower level of society, the poor people. It is not sufficient to mouth words. Actions speak much louder than words, and action is overdue.


Mr. Gordon Riichie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the social development tax. When the minister introduced this tax some time ago it was based on the need to provide additional funds for medicare and the promotion of the medicare program. The mere fact that it was based on a maximum of $120 a year is evidence that the government recognized that if it were higher it would reduce substantially in some cases the productivity of many of the citizens in the higher brackets, particularly those in higher wage earning brackets. So it was necessary for the minister to set a limit. In some ways it may be an unfair limit but it is an indication that at least we are approaching the limit of taxation so far as incomes are concerned.
Since this tax was introduced with the idea of paying for medicare, I believe, I should like to say a few words about it. When health care is free, consequently supply and demand are not kept in balance by price. When resources are limited both theoretically and in practice, supply must be controlled by means other than price. These forms of control are adopted deliberately or by default, usually

unrecognized and very often unproclaimed. We tend to deny that the demand for health care is unlimited. We assume that there is a need and that if that need is met there will be no further demand.
Let us consider some of the advances in the health care field. If a kidney machine benefits one person, there are many more whom it would benefit. More of these machines are required. If a heart-lung machine benefits one person, there are many others whom it would benefit. So we require many more of these machines. If the availability of health care increases, so also does the demand for health care increase. There is no limit to the amount of health care an individual is capable of absorbing. We would all benefit if our ailments were treated sooner.
There is a vast range in the quality of care provided by a general practitioner and a specialist. There is a wide range of alternative treatment involving skill, care, and all the other things that go with it. In the health care field we have improved the survival rate of our people, In short, the appetite for medical treatment is unlimited. There are many other good things in life, but limits are placed on these by the impersonal force of circumstances in most cases. When human needs become good things, public responsibility is taken for supplying them.
The supplying of food and clothing which, while much more necessary than health care, are not regarded in the same light. It is characteristic of health care today that its public position is exceptionally problematic. The demand for health care is not only potentially unlimited but is also by nature not capable of being limited in a precise and intelligble way. We might compare it to education where again demand is also unlimited. It can be limited by the fact that children go to school in a certain age group. It can be limited by the nature of the subjects that are taught and by the fact that the size of classes is limited. In other words, in education we limit the quantity and quality of demand even though the demand is unlimited. There is no similar situation in respect of health care and there are no similar criteria for health care which can be introduced. Popularly the need for any criteria at all is strongly opposed by many people.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I would like to point out that in the implementation of medicare the federal government has been guilty certainly of a lack of consideration and inconsiderate application of the act. No attempt has been made in any
June 3, 1969

way to ascertain priorities in the health care field. All provinces which have attempted to approach the federal government with plans based on some control and limitation of demand have been turned down, as witnessed by the situation in my own province of Manitoba. When it brought forward a plan which would have created some limitation it was turned down by the federal government.
So there is great necessity for the government to observe these medicare and hospitalization programs with a view to limiting expenditures. In my view the government has done very little in this field. In the committee on finance the minister stated that he, along with the health ministers of the various provincial governments, was looking into medicare and hospitalization in an attempt to define the economics and how far and in what manner health care facilities should be made available to our people. This is a belated recognition that health care has to be limited by the amount of money there is available. It seems important to me that the federal government should decide how much money the taxpayers and the government can afford to allocate to health care, and in turn work out with the provinces what this money will bring in the way of care for our people. Unless this is done I am quite sure we will be faced with an ever-mounting bill for medical care.
The present medicare system as inaugurated in Manitoba, which is an open-end plan, could produce a great deal of havoc financially. There is still time for the federal government, with the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, the two largest in the country, coming into the plan, to work out some curtailment or limitation beyond which the taxpayer will not be charged. Unless this is done there is no limitation on the amount of money these health care facilities will demand. With this belief, I would ask the minister to speed up his consultations with the provincial ministers of health and finance, and to reach some sort of agreement in this field in order that our shared-cost programs can be kept within manageable limits.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, the income tax amendments now before the house expose in stark nakedness the sham and the fraud of the government's claims of working toward a just society. It is no wonder they waited seven months after the budget to introduce the bill.
The social development tax provided for in the bill represents the negation of any acceptable concept of a just society. It was difficult
Income Tax Act
to believe the minister on that dark night last October when he first blandly placed his proposal before the house. No doubt the concept of this tax reflects the Prime Minister's expressed concern that the rich are being taxed too much. No amount of rationalization can reconcile this tax with a just society.
Whatever justification might be made for the need for more revenue, nothing can justify the form in which this tax is being imposed. It is a regressive tax. It is one regressive tax added on top of another regressive tax-the old age security tax. The need for more revenue cannot be reconciled with an unjust, regressive tax imposition.
The imposition of a new levy of this nature at this time creates another problem. It helps to further distort the tax structure. At present Canada has an income tax system badly in need of reform. The Carter report pointed out many of the inequities and inconsistencies in the present system. Whatever element of fairness or justice may be present in the existing income tax structure is largely negated by the old age security tax. Now it is the intention of the government to distort the structure further with this new levy.
A further question arises. The government has promised a white paper on tax reform. Like a will-o'-the-wisp, the date for its presentation keeps receding in the distance. What does this measure portend of things to come? Will the government's proposals really be reform in nature? Will this measure not make it more difficult to effect real reforms? Reforms are not made by putting them off until tomorrow; they are made by starting now. I urge the minister to turn over a new leaf before it is too late by withdrawing this bill and introducing a more equitable measure. I use the phrase "before it is too late" quite deliberately. A continuation of injustice and unfairness, together with new measures which add to the tax burden of those on lower incomes, can only lead to disillusionment with government and with the role to be played through public affairs in correcting the ills of our society.
A second major feature of the bill now before us has to do with the taxation of life insurance companies. At first glance, this may appear to be a tempting morsel designed in part to counteract the adverse reaction resulting from the introduction of the social development tax. Indeed, there is some merit in the amendments as they apply to life insurance companies. Indeed, my understanding

June 3, 1369
Income Tax Act
is that many of the amendments are consistent with the recommendations of the Carter commission. In so far as these amendments remove some of the unfair advantages enjoyed far too long by life insurance companies, they may be commended.
However, in my view these amendments must be considered in a far broader context. They must be considered within the context of the role played by life insurance companies in the economy. Life insurance companies are a major instrument in our economy for mobilizing and organizing the savings of the economy and channelling them for investment purposes. In the past this industry was able to accomplish this with the advantage of special tax concessions as well as with the active compliance of government. Some of the special advantages and concessions are now being removed, but the basic role of life insurance companies still remains and their control over the economy remains.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the extent of the privileges enjoyed by life insurance companies in the past by quoting from the Financial Times of May 5, 1969. The Financial Times, in commenting on the legislation before us at present, stated:
Life companies had been almost immune from corporation tax because the law-and the revenue department-were so generous. Only income actually credited to the shareholders was taxable. Most of the large Canadian insurers have been mutualized and hence needed to make no transfers to their shareholders. Any kind of transfer to reserve was allowed, tax free.
Foreign insurance companies were even better off because it was so hard to determine how much Canadian income was being credited to their shareholders.
The Carter commission noted the importance of life insurance companies in the Canadian economy when it stated, and I quote from volume 4 at page 402:
The importance of the life insurance business is indicated by the fact that the total assets employed by Canadian life insurance companies in Canada and elsewhere at the end of 1964 amounted to over $11 billion, primarily in mortgage loans and bonds. The net investment earnings for that year from assets in Canada amounted to approximately $410 million for Canadian companies, and approximately $140 million for non-resident companies.
Of course these figures would be considerably larger today.
It has been recognized in many quarters that with the high degree of organization in the life insurance industry, many Canadians are vastly overinsured and, in some cases,

wrongly insured. The result is that a part of the resources of many Canadians is diverted into a less useful channel than it might be. These people-the boards of life insurance companies-in many cases hold a large degree of economic control over individuals, communities and even the nation.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is this power that I question. I feel that the entire field of life insurance operations needs to be subjected to a thorough public investigation. The implication of the legislation now before us is that while certain preferential treatment is being removed, the status and role of life insurance companies remains unchanged; they will process the same degree of control and power as previously.
I think the day has come when we should consider a complete overhaul of the life insurance industry. There is no reason why the industry should not be operated as some form of public utility and considered as such. The desirability and necessity of life insurance is recognized. The Carter commission stated:
Life insurance exists because of the desire of individuals to provide for their financial responsibilities upon death.
Anyone will recognize that life insurance companies have gone far beyond that role in soliciting business. Of greatest concern to myself is the control exercised by life insurance companies in the economy. Today, life insurance companies invest heavily in stocks and equity capital, which gives them a degree of direct stockholder and director control over many concerns. This is a significant change from the days when life insurance companies concentrated on bonds and similar securities. Those investments were such that the life insurance company simply provided the necessary capital to implement decisions taken by independent companies or by government. Today, the growing scope of stock operations by life insurance companies enables them to use other people's money, the policyholders' mainly, to exert a large degree of control over the economy.
There is one other aspect of the operations of life insurance companies which I think is of great concern to all of us in this house. We have in the last number of months and years heard a great deal of comment about the dangers and degree of foreign investment and control in Canada. We have also heard it suggested that there is need for foreign capital if Canada is to maintain an adequate level of
June 3, 1969

economic development. This is used as justification for the maintenance of the present policy and pattern whereby there are large inflows of capital into Canada from other countries, particularly the United States.
If we are to achieve an adequate level of development and control by Canadians we must find some way of changing this pattern. The fact is-I think this has been demonstrated quite clearly-that Canada can finance its own economic development; it does have the necessary resources with which to do so, contrary to statements made by some people. However, the life insurance companies are playing a very dangerous and important role in this entire picture by contributing to an outflow of capital from Canada which would otherwise be used in Canada and should remain here to help foster our economic growth and development.
I suggest it is time to stop the abuse of powers, at present enjoyed by life insurance companies, by a very small group of corporate individuals and corporations. I suggest that Canada should control its own economic destiny. The financial wherewithal to bring about economic development is one of the essentials in controlling our destiny. I suggest it is time we stopped the outflow of capital, which is largely contributed to by the life insurance companies, if we are to change the direction of Canadian development and the pattern of the Canadian economy.
I would like to make one or two other comments with respect to the operations of life insurance companies. We have heard it suggested in the past, particularly through the advertising that is put out by life insurance companies-I refer to the very slick ads that we see on television and other news media-that they are the very epitome of efficiency, that they are the bulwark of the nation, that they are the institutions upon which Canadians can depend for their future. I found it very interesting to read a comment made in the Underwriter News recently, as quoted in the Globe and Mail of April 30, 1969. Mr. Kayler, an official in the life insurance industry, commented as follows:
I submit that the Benson budget will prove to be one of the greatest aids of this century to the growth of the life insurance business . .. The bulk of the new tax package falls directly upon the life companies, although it will ultimately affect the consumer. Thus, for virtually the first time in Canada, the stark reality of taxation will challenge the top management of the life insurance industry to increase efficiency and develop better ways of serving the buying public.
Income Tax Act
He went on to say:
This challenge of the Benson budget could not have come at a better time, because it will force the industry to develop its greatest asset, the energy, skill and creative imagination of its people-
Mr. Benson has done us a favour. This is exactly what we needed to force us to get on the ball and tool up to meet not only the new tax system but all the opportunities that lie before the life insurance business.
I suggest that in this statement a prominent official of the life insurance industry admitted that the industry was not operating at its best, was not operating with the greatest possible degree of efficiency, and that it sees in this legislation no impediment to its continued growth, not for the sake of the policyholders but for the sake of the corporate control which it already exercises over the Canadian economy. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from a recent statement by Mr. Poyntz, chairman of the Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada, as quoted in the Toronto Star:
Our money belongs to our policyholders ... The tax cannot be paid by anyone else-
He made this statement when referring to the new tax which will be imposed if this measure is passed. I suggest that the principle he enunciated should apply not only to the matter of taxation, but the fact that it is the policyholders' money, the people's money, should be applied to the whole matter of investment policy carried on by insurance companies.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the need for a change of direction in the entire structure and operation of the life insurance industry in Canada. As I stated before, I suggest that the life insurance industry needs a public investigation. I suggest it is abusing its position and hurting the Canadian economy. It needs a complete reorganization. I suggest it should be operated as a public utility, the form of which can be worked out in the future. I believe this is a critical problem which requires the urgent attention of all of us, and in particular the government of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.

Division


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, before we deal with the main motion, there are a few things I would like to say about this bill. I think perhaps viewing the actions of the government from outside the house for a brief period gives one a healthier perspective of what is going on in this place than perhaps one can sometimes achieve inside it. One of the results of my observations of what has happened since June, 1968, has been that introduction of this particular measure has reaffirmed the view I have come to hold with regard to the functioning and the main purpose of the Liberal Party.
At other times and in other places, I have come to the conclusion the principle objective of the Liberal Party over the years has always been primarily to do what they could
June 3, 1969

to keep the world sate tor millionaires. As an ancillary to that objective, they are prepared to use almost any means in order to maintain themselves in the position ot power in this chamber. As a secondary result of that objective ot retaining power, from time to time they did condescend to drop a tew crumbs from the rich man's table to the ordinary people of Canada. Apparently as a result of the election of last June the Liberal Party decided they need no longer even think about dropping crumbs, at least in the foreseeable future. They are now making in parliament an attempt, in the form of this 2 per cent tax, to get back what was denied them before the election.
There may not be quite the strength on this side of the house in opposition to this kind of taxation proposal that there was before the mid-summer madness of last June, but in the minds of some of us the proposal which has now been brought forward is at least as objectionable as the tax against which some of us voted prior to the last election. The result of that vote was a saving to the poorer people of Canada for at least a period of time. The government is now seeking to reimpose this levy.
o (5:40 p.m.)
I have been looking at this bill and I do not ever recall having seen a piece of legislation which was a more flagrant and scurrilous piece of Liberal Party propaganda than the clause which sets out the imposition of this 2 per cent tax. To label this a social development tax is to mislead the Canadian people as to what this government has in mind. The mere fact that term has been applied to this particular surtax on the income tax bears out what I have said with regard to the Liberal Party's desire to use any and all means to maintain themselves in power. This kind of P.R. approach may have some justification at the height of an election campaign, but to try to incorporate it into the serious legislative proposals which are put before parliament for its consideration is an insult to this institution and to the citizens whom we come here to represent.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he realize that $5 billion out of the total of $11 billion raised by the federal government is spent on social development programs?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I could not quite follow the minister's remark.
29180-596J
Income Tax Act


Edgar John Benson: I simply asked the hon. member, does he realize that $5 billion out of the total of $11 billion raised by the federal government is now spent on social development programs?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I certainly realize that certain expenditures are made from the federal treasury on the provision of various kinds of social services. Nobody quarrels with that fact, but for the minister to try to suggest that this tax levy is being paid to expand social services, particularly in the light of the government's refusal to move one step in that direction since assuming office, confirms the argument I am making.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. member permit another question? Does he realize that additional payments during the last fiscal year for social development programs amounted to $450 million, which is more than is being raised by this tax?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the minister can bandy figures about of greater or lesser amounts paid to the provinces. I have heard statements of this kind on many occasions, and to me they mean neither more nor less, coming from this minister, than they meant in the past.
The minister knows as well as I do that this tax is not allocated for social development. It goes into the consolidated revenue of Canada, and it is a tax burden placed on the people of Canada who are least able to pay it. So I felt I should rise to express my views on this tax, on the approach that the government has taken since assuming office, and my feeling, which is shared by an increasing number of Canadians, that far from moving toward the just society the government, by its actions and in particular by its tax proposals, is moving in exactly the opposite direction. That is why some of us are opposed to this measure.
One can amplify this argument in many directions. The unfairness of the ceiling that is imposed by this proposal has been referred to many times, and I do not need to repeat what has been said. The fact remains, and my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) touched on it the other evening, that not only has the government completely ignored the recommendations of the Carter commission but, in spite of its talk about a just society, it has ignored even the most glaring inequalities and injustices that exist in the Income Tax Act.
My colleague referred to the unfair imposition of taxes so far as wages and salaries are

June 3. 1369
Income Tax Act
concerned. I remind the house that the Minister of Finance by his action in introducing this bill has ignored not only Mr. Carter's statements but a statement by a Liberal finance minister in this house as long ago as 1956. At that time the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Walter Harris, admitted to me across the floor of the house that there was a discrimination in section 5 of the Income Tax Act against those whose source of income is wages or salaries and said that the government was considering doing something about it. That is 13 years ago and we have had successive Ministers of Finance since then. I presume that the present minister, if I question him across the floor in committee of the whole as I may well do, will blandly admit that the government is still considering doing something about it.
When we are dealing with the principle of this bill we should register our strong disagreement with the bland tactics of the minister and his predecessors in regard to taking action. Kind words, saying that an idea will be considered, are not enough. Any reality that there may be in such suggestions is denied by the very tax measures the government introduces, of which this is the latest and perhaps most glaring example.
I would have thought that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who was on the sidelines during discussion of the income tax bill which was defeated on third reading, despite the headiness of his victory at the polls might have taken some note of the views expressed in the house during the debate which led to the defeat of that previous tax measure. I suggest that the defeat of that bill and the blatant introduction of this bill in a new parliament will live to haunt the present Prime Minister.
Sooner or later the ordinary people of Canada are going to wake up to the kind of double-talk the Liberal party has been giving them. This is why I am pointing out that the labelling of this surtax as a social development tax cannot disguise its real nature from the people of Canada. It places an additional burden on the very group in our society that the Carter Commission said were already overburdened.
Canadians would like to have honesty and straightforwardness from their governments. No one in this party has ever tried to argue that we should not tell the Canadian people that proposals made from time to time to provide public services will cost them money. In fact, of all the groups in the house this party has laid the greatest emphasis on the

fact that nothing can be had in this life for nothing and that where public benefits are provided they must be paid for. What percentage of one's income should be devoted to expenditures by citizens as a whole and what percentage should be available for personal spending is, of course, a debatable question.
The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg), who recently voted with the socialists and was kidded about it, argued that too much of our personal incomes is taken away through taxation. This is a matter of judgment, of evaluation, and can properly be a subject matter for debate.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Another subject matter for debate, which is perhaps equally if not more serious, concerns whether or not the taxes we pay are levied in accordance with the principle of ability to pay. I do not know whether the hon. member for Pembina would quarrel with my point of view-he did not deal with the matter in his speech-but I have the feeling that he would agree with me in some measure that taxes should bear some realistic relationship to the ability of individuals to pay. Perhaps he would agree with me that on this point we have something in common because the actions of the present government, not only in respect of this bill but also in respect of certain other proposals, have consistently been moving us farther and farther from the principle of taxation according to ability to pay. I do not know of any other single matter on which my constituents have expressed more concern than the type of taxation put forward in this bill.
Despite the virulent propaganda put out against the proposals of the Carter commission by those interests which felt that their preferred position in the tax field might be threatened if its proposals were implemented and despite the fact that many well meaning citizens swallowed that propaganda, I believe more and more the idea is registering with the ordinary people of Canada that Mr. Carter really had something and that despite his own personal background he made an honest and constructive effort to bring forward proposals that would rectify the inequities in our present taxation system. I believe they found in him a spokesman.
It seems incredible to me that with all the powers of analysis and scrutiny the Minister of Finance and the government have at their command, their first tax measure, having had the opportunity to analyse and scrutinize the proposals of the Carter commission report, should move in a direction directly opposite
June 3. 1969	COMMONS
to that which Mr. Carter recommended. While the many pages of this bill contain complicated taxation proposals which one may or may not agree move in a proper direction, on this particular aspect of the bill there can be no question but that the government of Canada has shown callous indifference to the position of the ordinary wage earner, has firmly turned its back on moving in the direction of removing the inequities in the present Income Tax Act, and has set its course to make taxation sweeter for the wealthy, the powerful and the great multi-million dollar corporations which seems to dominate our economy so much today.
The minister talked about payments to the provinces in the field of social measures. On the other hand, every so often there are statements by the Prime Minister and various other sources within the government suggesting that they intend to withdraw from participation with the provinces in carrying on such programs as medicare. Before this debate is concluded would the Minister of Finance like to tell us whether, if they withdraw from medicare, they will remove this tax? Would the Minister of Finance like to tell us whether, if they withdraw from that program, they are prepared to eliminate the tax inequities borne by those who derive their incomes from wages and salaries? Certainly he gives very little indication that he is even concerned about or recognizes that inequity exists when he tries, as he did, to get me to agree that somehow or other the purpose of this proposal is to meet a rising level of payments to the provinces.
We in this part of the house do not intend to be fooled by that kind of talk. We intend to do our part in the discussion of this measure to try to defeat it but at least to make the government of Canada aware that we oppose it and make the people of Canada aware of the fact that the Prime Minister, who talks about a just society, is moving in the opposite direction in these tax proposals which he has allowed the Minister of Finance to bring in. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six
o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
DEBATES	9413
The Budget-Mr. Benson


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Edgar John Benson: That this house approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
He said:


Mr. Speaker:: When I presented my first budget to this House last October, I suggested that we had to ensure a sound economic and financial base from which the country might move forward through a new period of growth and social progress. From the review which I shall give tonight, I think it will be evident that we are well launched upon this course. The hard decisions taken seven months ago, regarding both expenditure control and difficult tax measures, are now paying off. As a result, after a lengthy period of difficulty, we are now getting a firmer grip upon the national finances and bringing them under more effective control.
It will be recalled that last October I had to submit a revised fiscal statement for 1968-69, taking particular account of substantial increases in expenditure which could not be avoided. While budget balance was a desirable goal, I felt at that time that drastic attempts to raise the necessary revenues over a short period would disrupt the whole Canadian economy, and it was therefore preferable to plan for budget balance in 1969-70. Tonight I am able to confirm that we now expect not only to meet but to surpass our target.
Nevertheless, it is also apparent that developments in the economy will not let us be complacent. Rather, the vigor of the current economic expansion and the persistence of strong inflationary tides necessitate a reassessment of our position. They lead in turn to further important decisions on the course of fiscal policy for the period ahead.
Out-turn for Fiscal 1968-69
I turn first to a brief review of the background in fiscal 1968-69. Both the economic setting and the financial results of the past year have been described in detail in the

June 3. 1969
The Budget-Mr. Benson Budget Papers tabled last Tuesday. The main highlights were the emergence of a strong upswing in the economy, a faster increase in revenues than had been anticipated, and some results from rigorous control over expenditure. Consequently, the actual budgetary deficit was not only substantially reduced from the previous fiscal year, but it was also brought down by $109 million below the level foreseen in the October budget.
The preliminary figures also show that while total expenditures rose by some 9 per cent, half of this increase was accounted for by larger payments to the provinces. These payments, both in the form of unconditional fiscal transfers and in grants for shared-cost programs in health, welfare and education, rose by over $450 million, an increase of some 27 per cent. Additional public debt charges accounted for a further $178 million. The increase for all other federal programs and services provided through the budget was held down to less than 4 per cent, less than the rate of increase in pay and prices in the country as a whole. Despite all that has been said to the contrary, I believe that this result provides clear evidence of the success of our efforts to limit expenditures and cut back wherever there has been scope to do so.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In October I estimated that our net extrabudgetary cash requirements during the fiscal year 1968-69, apart from the financing of our exchange reserves, would be about $600 million. This took into account loans for housing, farm credit, power projects, etc. as well as the requirements of our crown corporations for their investment programs. In fact these loans and investments turned out to be somewhat less than I anticipated in October. As a result the net requirements for all extrabudgetary purposes other than exchange transactions, and one unforeseen extra-budgetary receipt which I shall mention, are now estimated to have totalled approximately $380 million. The special item to which I referred was the amount charged to last year's expenditures for delayed retroactive wage payments of $111 million. The cash was not paid out in the last fiscal year but was credited as noted in the White Paper to a liability account in a manner to offset the expenditure item and reflect the fact that no cash disbursement was made. In addition we did have requirements between October and March 31st to finance foreign exchange transactions. These and the salaries adjustment

item offset roughly any reductions made in our loans and advances.
A summary of budgetary and non-budgetary transactions and the changes in our cash position in the fiscal year 1968-69 is set out in Table 1 of Part II of the White Paper on page 164. Overall cash requirements of approximately $1.9 billion were financed mainly by an increase of approximately $1.5 billion in unmatured debt outstanding, inclusive of foreign loans obtained last May to add to our exchange reserves. The remainder of our requirements were financed by drawing down our bank balances by about $400 million, leaving them on March 31st last at about $600 million.
Economic Trend and Prospect
As for the state of the economy, one of the most important highlights detailed in the Budget Papers was the gathering momentum of activity toward the end of 1968, and the carrying forward of a strong advance into the current year. All elements of demand-consumer expenditure, capital investment, exports and total public spending-have contributed to the acceleration. Real production has turned strongly upward and unemployment, which reached a high point of 5 per cent in the middle of last year, has since declined. There have also been a number of important developments in our trade, the balance of international payments, and our foreign exchange position, especially in regard to arrangements with the United States. These have been set out in the Budget Papers, and it will not be necessary for me to review them in speaking this evening.
Looking forward at this time to the balance of the present year, we can now expect a growth rate stronger than in 1968 and considerably stronger than we anticipated last October. With a gain in employment of about 4 per cent, an advance in real output of better than 5 per cent, and assuming an increase in prices about the same as last year, the gross national product is likely to rise by 9 per cent.
This strong expansion is of course welcome, but the main problem is obvious. Although the rate of increase in the price index of the gross national product as a whole has subsided from its peak in 1966, the persistent year-to-year rise in prices and costs is unacceptably high. Further, the very strength of the current expansion clearly aggravates the threat of intensified inflationary pressure,
June 3, 1969	COMMONS
with all of its attendant evils. I emphasized this dangerous prospect last October. In opting for a policy of fiscal restraint, I spoke at some length about the serious and damaging effects caused by a rapid rise in prices and costs on the scale experienced in recent years. Most of these damaging effects-the injustices visited upon the poorest and weakest groups in our society, the undermining of the productive market system, the erosion of our ability to compete abroad, the disruption of the essential flow of savings and investment through the capital markets-have been painfully evident to us all. There can be no question that the number one priority in economic policy today must be to deploy all available forces-public and private-more aggressively than ever in the battle against inflation in Canada.
In recent months the influence of international price trends upon our domestic price performance has become increasingly important. Hon. members need not be reminded of the key role played by prices in our external trade and of the importance of remaining competitive with other countries. With exports of some $17 billion, equal to one-quarter of our gross national product, Canada, of course, is one of the world's great trading nations. We all know that we must not let our prices advance more rapidly than those of other countries. At the same time, we also have to recognize that our vast economic and financial relationships with the rest of the world lead to the spreading of price movements from country to country. We cannot hope to insulate ourselves completely from these influences.
Over the past year, however, the problem of price inflation has been of concern not only to Canadians, but to most of the countries with whom we trade. In the United States, price increases have recently been running higher than those in Canada and strong measures have been adopted there to contain the problem, with difficult consequences for our capital markets. Among other major trading nations, Britain, France and Japan are encountering an advance in prices higher than the rise being experienced in this country. In Germany and Italy, the only two major economies where price increases are lower than those in Canada, it is expected that the rate of price inflation will be more severe in the present year than last year.
Looked at from this perspective, it is not surprising that we have found it so difficult in
DEBATES	9415
The Budget-Mr. Benson Canada to make progress in checking price increases as effectively as we would have hoped. Nevertheless we cannot afford to relax our efforts. Major steps are under way on a worldwide basis to reduce inflationary pressures. In the United States especially it is widely anticipated that the restrictive fiscal policy and, in particular, the tough monetary policy now being followed will begin to take hold and slow the rate of price advance significantly before the end of the year. The success of other countries' policies will help us in our own efforts. At the same time it makes the successful achievement of a better price performance here in Canada even more urgent and compelling, I believe.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In this regard, I am confident that the establishment of the Price and Incomes Commission recently announced by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, represents an important step forward. In too many cases not enough is known as to why the prices we have to pay have risen. Still less is known as to what can be done about the problem, fairly and effectively, in a free market economy which we have in this country. Adding to our understanding and knowledge is the task of the Commission, and in carrying out that task it is bound to point in the direction of relevant and acceptable solutions. It will, I am sure, help all of us to recognize and adjust to the inescapable fact that we cannot expect unrealistic gains in our incomes year after year.
There have been suggestions that because the Commission is not empowered to intervene in particular price and income decisions, for example, in a price or wage increase in a single company, it cannot exert much influence. This is a mistaken view. It fails to recognize the procedures for referral of reports to the Parliamentary Committee, the armoury of formal and informal weapons available to governments, and the powerful thrust of public opinion once it has been focused upon a clearly defined issue. To argue that the work and stimulus of the Commission will be ineffective is to argue that Parliament, government, and the Canadian people themselves are ineffective. I do not agree. I believe, as Dr. Young, the Chairman of the Commission, has put it, that "those who are betting on a high rate of price increase will prove to be wrong".
June 3, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Benson Fiscal Outlook, 1969-70
I come now to the question of the fiscal outlook for 1969-70, as revised on the basis of the most recent information. In looking ahead last October over a period of eighteen months, I felt it wise to be particularly cautious in budget forecasting. Revenues were put at $11,675 million, and expenditures at $11,670 million, for a nominal surplus of $5 million. However, the buoyancy of the economy and the tax measures introduced in October are now forecast to produce a year-to-year growth of revenues, before any budget changes to be announced tonight, of about $1,870 million bringing them to a fiscal year total of $12,040 million. The yield of income taxes, both individual and corporate, should be particularly strong, offsetting the slower growth of other revenues attributable to such factors as the reduction of tariffs and the cancellation of sales taxes on drugs and production machinery introduced two years ago by my predecessor.
As for expenditures, I am still confident that these will remain within the limit of $11,670 million previously forecast. We will not spend the total amount originally budgeted for medicare since a number of the provinces will be joining in the program later than assumed. In other shared-cost programs, we have had excellent co-operation from the provinces in the forecasting of their expenditures and in their own efforts to contain rising costs, so that the major problems encountered last year are not likely to be repeated. A number of small, but urgently necessary supplemental have to be anticipated, for example, emergency assistance to Newfoundland fishermen, and additional sums for the education and welfare of Indian Canadians. Some over-runs on statutory items are also expected, including advance payments on farm-stored grain and interest costs on loans for students. The largest of these, however- about $39 million-is an increase in equalization payments to Quebec, the Atlantic Provinces and Manitoba, caused mainly by the stronger-than-expected advance in the yields of provincial taxes. The next largest increase over items as originally forecast is in the cost of servicing the public debt, because of higher interest rates. Taking these and other uncertainties into account, it now appears that total expenditures can be held to $11,650 million, which is $20 million less than I provided for in October.

As a result, the outlook before any budgetary changes to be announced tonight, is for a substantial surplus of some $390 million. I might note that while the federal budget was essentially balanced in both 1964-65 and 196566, under Prime Minister Pearson, the substantial surplus now foreseen will be the first actual surplus realized since the administration of Prime Minister St. Laurent in 1956-57.
Impact of Fiscal Policy
I have given considerable thought to the impact of this prospective surplus, not only upon our finances but also upon the national economy. Obviously, as I shall detail later, it will be of great assistance in enabling us to meet our large extra-budgetary lending programs for housing construction, farm credit, atomic energy and Atlantic power development, export credits and so forth. This is most important at a time when borrowing is very difficult for everyone.
The size of the surplus also accentuates the very sharp swing in the impact of fiscal policy upon the economy. Taken together with the deficit of $566 million experienced in the last fiscal year, the swing amounts to a total of nearly one billion dollars, considerably more than one per cent of the G.N.P. It can be regarded as a very substantial budgetary restraint upon the growth of total demand in the economy, and provides a powerful general check upon the inflationary forces pushing up prices and costs in the economy. A fiscal policy of restraint, as expressed in a surplus of this size, combined with a restrictive monetary policy which the circumstances of North America have made necessary, should be an effective combination to overcome persistent inflationary pressures in our Country. An undue portion of the necessary overall restraint cannot be left to be accomplished only by monetary policy in an economy where a large, continuing flow of savings through the capital market for both private and public investment is of major importance. From every point of view I am convinced that maintaining a strong fiscal position is now essential to check the rise in prices and smooth the way toward more balanced and sustained economic growth.
For these reasons I have given no consideration to a reduction of taxes, attractive as such a prospect might be. On the contrary, so important is it not to relax the fiscal brakes exerted by the present structure of income taxes upon inflationary forces in the economy,
June 3. 1969

that I have concluded they should be maintained in full force for the period ahead. I am not proposing any increase in either personal or corporate tax rates beyond their current levels nor an increase in sales tax, but I am proposing tonight that the personal income tax surtax of 3 per cent on "basic tax" in excess of $200 and the corporation income surtax applicable for the years 1968 and 1969 should be extended until December 31, 1970. When the White Paper on tax reform has been discussed with the public and the provinces, and examined by Parliament, and the government decides upon the final tax proposals which it will submit to Parliament, it will be necessary to re-assess the need for these surtaxes in the light of the economic circumstances of that time. This proposed extension of the surcharges would increase budgetary revenues by some $25 million in this fiscal year, and if continued throughout the whole of 1970 would provide about $155 million next fiscal year.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In making this proposal tonight, I am mindful of the implication given last October that these surtaxes would be allowed to terminate as scheduled and that this was a factor in determining the series of tax measures then introduced. It will be clear to everyone, however, that the extension of the surtaxes at this time is required for the purposes of economic stabilization, and not for budgetary revenues.
Tax Reform
I now expect that the White Paper on the reform of the Income Tax, containing proposals I have been discussing with other Ministers during recent months, will be ready some time during the Parliamentary recess. I propose to issue it when it is ready and will send it immediately to all members. I shall also invite all parties in the House to have representatives meet with me and my officials at the time the White Paper is issued to ask questions about it and receive explanations. I shall also invite representatives of the provincial governments, who are of course very much interested in the proposals, to do the same. I think this procedure will assist members to prepare for the consideration of the White Paper in committee in the session commencing in the fall, as well as to deal with questions they may receive during the recess.

The Budget-Mr. Benson Selective Anti-Inflation Measures
I have also given careful attention to the fact that the current economic expansion is not evenly distributed across the country. This is reflected in rates of unemployment and economic growth, where long-standing differences among the regions continue to persist. This disparity is the basic problem now being attacked under the array of programs of the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The expansion and improvement of these programs is of course a major commitment of the government, and the more rapidly the House is able to pass the legislation establishing the Department and its new industrial incentives program, the more rapidly the Department will be able to get on with its very important job. In the short-term however, the Budget Papers point out that the rate of advance among the regions this year is mixed, even though inflationary increases in prices and costs are unfortunately widespread.
Under these conditions we have turned our attention to measures which might be directed in a more selective way to deal with particular problems. One of these is the need to increase the element of price competition and efficiency in the domestic economy. In too many cases the attitude is that cost increases, including large wage settlements, can be accepted because they can be easily passed on in higher prices to the consumer. This is a psychology which needs to be broken.
In considering this situation, we have concluded that a particularly useful and effective way of intensifying competition would be to put into effect immediately the remaining tariff reductions of the Kennedy Round.
To be specific: I propose that the final rates which were to come into effect on January 1, 1972, should come into effect as of tomorrow morning. This means that the remaining Kennedy Round tariff reductions which had not yet been given effect are to apply immediately. The reductions should amount on average to about three percentage points, on imports worth about $2 billion a year.
It may be useful if I remind the House of certain features of our Kennedy Round tariff reductions. In that negotiation the Canadian Government undertook to reduce tariffs on a wide range of raw materials, on semi-processed products, on components, and on final manufactured and consumer goods. It was the Government's view then, as stated by my predecessor, that the carefully selected
June 3, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Benson package of tariff reductions agreed to by Canada would, when fully implemented, contribute to the overall efficiency of the Canadian economy. We gain from such tariff cuts because of the greater efficiency required to meet keener competition; moreover, the tariff reductions on the products of one producer are, of course, reductions in the costs of others. Thus, aside from the improved access to foreign markets for Canadian producers negotiated in the Kennedy Round, the modernization and rationalization of the Canadian tariff achieved in the Kennedy Round context offered the prospect of reduced costs and improved efficiency.
Certain sectors of the Canadian tariff proposals were implemented without phasing

that is, they were implemented in one step. These included the tariff reductions on certain tropical products, the tariff reductions on certain wood products, the tariff reductions on chemicals and plastics and, perhaps most important of all, from the point of view of cutting costs, the modernization of the machinery tariff. Under the direction of the new Machinery and Equipment Advisory Board, Canadian industry has been able to secure at duty-free world prices a wide variety of machinery determined by the board not to be available from Canadian sources. This is now having an important impact in reducing Canadian production costs.
The remaining group of tariff reductions were to be staged over four years. Two-fifths of these reductions have already been made. In the present situation, in which there are continuing increases in both U.S. and Canadian costs and prices and a need to introduce more competition into the Canadian economy, the Government has concluded that the full benefits of the Kennedy Round tariff reductions should no longer be delayed.
I recognize that some producers will feel they are being denied the time for adjustment to increase competition, which the phasing of the Kennedy Round reductions would have provided. However, I believe that in today's climate, when failure to counter inflation holds its own risks for our competitive position, more time is not necessary for our producers to adapt themselves to these tariffs.
I am confident that the whole economy will gain by the step we are taking.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
A most important consideration before the Government in making this proposal is that the burden of adjustment and the pressure of

increased competition will fall mainly on producers in the industrial centre of Canada. It is here that inflationary pressures are greatest. This is one of the principal reasons why the Government has decided to propose this measure rather than resort to any generalized tariff or tax measure, the burden of which might well have fallen with rather greater weight on those areas of the country where economic activity is still lagging behind central industrial Canada.
These reductions should, of course, be of importance to consumers, although the main effect will be, I think, to reduce producers' costs. There will be tariff reductions on canned meat, confectionery, biscuits, cereals, fruit juices, and some other foodstuffs. These immediate tariff reductions should help to keep down prices. There will be reductions too, on a number of consumer appliances, such as washing machines and dryers, power lawn mowers and television sets. In the textile sector there will be reductions on knitted fabrics and garments, and on synthetic fabrics. I believe the principal effect of these reductions will be to help our garment industry maintain its competitive position.
In the industrial sector one reduction will be the elimination of the present thirty cents per ton duty on coal. There will also be a number of important reductions in the tariff on semi-manufactured forms of non-ferrous metals.
I am making only one exception to the acceleration of these cuts. This will be on shoeboard, a paper product for which the tariff is scheduled to be reduced from 20 per cent to 5 per cent. The full period of four years is required for readjustment of the production facilities of this small industry to meet this more than usual tariff reduction.
Tourist Exemptions
I am also proposing changes to the two existing tariff items which provide free entry for goods brought in by Canadian residents returning from trips abroad. One of the tariff items now provides for a $25 exemption once every four months after an absence from Canada of not less than 48 hours. Under the second, Canadian residents returning from a point beyond the continental limits of North America after an absence of not less than 14 days may claim an additional exemption up to $75. If use is made of the second tariff item no further claim can be made under either tariff item for the next 12 months. These
June 3, 1969	COMMONS
exemptions have been at the $25 and $75 level since 1962.
The present provisions are misunderstood by many Canadians, including myself, returning from trips abroad and I have received a number of representations that they be modified. This evening I am proposing changes which will expand the current exemptions and which should also simplify administration. The $25 exemption after an absence of 48 hours, which now can be used once every four months should, I suggest, be available on a quarterly basis, and be completely independent of the annual exemption. There should be a $100 exemption each calendar year for Canadian residents returning from any country, including points in North America, after an absence of 12 days. These two exemptions would not be combined for the same trip abroad. Since it is intended to go to a calendar year basis, it is proposed that these changes come into effect on January 1, 1970.
In addition, I am proposing that there be a combined rate of 25 per cent for duties and taxes on goods valued up to $100, other than duty free goods, alcohol and tobacco, brought in by Canadians who have been out of the country for 48 hours and who on their return are either not entitled to an exemption or have purchased goods abroad in excess of their exemption. It is also suggested there be an exemption for those returning to Canada after an absence of 48 hours with goods, other than alcohol or tobacco, valued at no more than $5, which can be used by those not claiming the annual or quarterly exemption.
These latter provisions, which are to come into effect on a provisional basis tomorrow, will assist in speeding up customs procedures for returning Canadians. They will eliminate the need for customs officers to look up and check the rates of duty on innumerable small items, and the returning tourist-and he is a tourist only because of prosperity under a Liberal government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: You are not a good gag man; stick to the straight stuff.


Edgar John Benson: The returning Tory tourist, tired and broke-


Some hon. Members:: Oh oh.


Edgar John Benson: -will know where he stands.
DEBATES	9419
The Budget-Mr. Benson
Taken all together, the changes in the tariff involve a loss of revenue estimated at about $50 million for the balance of the year, including a sales tax. This is no small loss of fiscal pressure. But it is more than offset by the leverage effects of the tariff cuts in reducing Canadian prices. The real impact of the cuts will be many, many times this amount. They will increase supplies, sharpen competition, reduce producers' costs, and strike directly at a wide range of prices.
Deferred Depreciation
A further measure is intended to deal in a selective way with a particular source of inflationary pressure in the economy. It is well known that under conditions of strong demand and expansion, the building industry typically tends to lead the upward movement of costs and prices. This year the survey of capital investment intentions indicates that the rise in new capital investment will be 9 per cent, with a high degree of concentration in Ontario where the forecast is for a gain of 13.7 per cent. In the longer-term, this investment is essential to provide expanded employment and productive capacity, but under present circumstances rapid changes add to current inflationary pressure, especially when they are highly localized. I have considered this problem at length and have concluded that a modest degree of restraint on some kinds of building would be appropriate.
I therefore propose that depreciation, or capital cost allowances, for tax purposes should be deferred for a period of two years on commercial buildings put in place up to the end of 1970. This would not apply to any form of housing, industrial building, utilities, or public institutions. Commercial building includes buildings for wholesale and retail trade and services, office structures, banks, financial institutions, and other commercial facilities such as hotels, theatres and service stations. Having in mind the disparity of regional conditions, however, this measure will not apply in those provinces where unemployment remains relatively high or where employment growth has been slower than the national average. Building in rural areas and in smaller towns and cities, which bear the effects of inflationary pressures but scarcely contribute to them, will also be totally exempt. The cut-off point will be a population size of 50,000 as recorded in the last census, and the boundaries of the areas affected will also be those defined in the 1966
June 3, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Benson census. The measure, therefore, will apply to major urban centres and census metropolitan areas in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. In these urban concentrations in aggregate, commercial building construction this year appeared likely to rise by more than 25 per cent, and total building construction by more than 10 per cent.
Some holding back of commercial building in these centres will therefore ease the pressure of demand upon construction supplies and resources. It should help to divert more funds and resources to essential housing, schools, and municipal works, and to the industrial plants and factories needed to produce the increasing flow of goods and commodities which remain the basis of our prosperity. The beneficial effects of this action will also spread to all parts of the country. At the same time it is the intention of the government so far as possible to defer major new construction for its purposes in the same areas.
Earlier experience with the deferral of capital cost allowance suggests that this kind of procedure can be effective and minimize the problems of taxpayer compliance. The action will not be retroactive, since projects for which a firm commitment has been made will be exempt. The urban areas in which it applies, as I have indicated, will be clear, as will the definition of commercial building. In the case of multi-purpose projects, the regulations will provide a clear and relatively simple method of pro-rating the floor-space involved. I am also confident that the measure will lead to some postponement of commercial construction, since the financial effect of deferred depreciation of two years is substantial. This fact will not escape the notice of the lending institutions.
(8:50 p.m.)
In making this proposal, I do not believe the construction industry as a whole, or its labour force, will be seriously affected. Nor do I suggest that commercial building is not important in the longer-run growth of our economy. It is clearly necessary for the wide range of services which account for an increasing proportion of our consumption and total employment. My main thought, however, is that when the demand for capital and resources is unduly high in particular areas, it makes sense to postpone those things which are less urgent to ensure the successful accomplishment of more important needs. If there is going to be overcrowding, it is better that it take place in stores, offices and banks than in homes and factories.

With respect to a different matter entirely, I should also announce that I propose to extend the provisions of the Income Tax Act relating to the two-year write-off of the cost incurred by firms in the installation of water pollution control equipment. These provisions expire at the end of this year and I suggest that they be extended until the end of 1970,
User Charges and Airport Costs
A further measure of budgetary significance arises out of a general policy to ask those who benefit directly from services or facilities provided by the government to pay charges more in line with the direct costs; involved. We already obtain about $200 million per annum from such user charges of various kinds, apart from postal charges but including rents for government property. In some cases these charges have not been recently revised to reflect current levels of costs or values of services, and we are carry* ing out a systematic review and revision of these charges. We shall probably introduce some new charges as well. In almost all cases this action can be taken under existing legis-. lation. There is one important field, however-* where legislation will be required to impose what will in effect be a tax. This relates to air transport.
It is well known that our expenditures on the construction, equipment, operation and maintenance of airports and other air transport facilities are now very large. In the last fiscal year they are estimated at $73 million. The revenue we obtain from user charges, rents, etc. of one kind and another-related to airports and air transport facilities is far less-only about $41 million currently. In the general review I have mentioned, the Minister of Transport and the Treasury Board will be working out revised charges for various facilities and services. We have decided, however, on one measure which we believe should be enacted by Parliament as soon as possible to assist in providing more revenue in this field. We shall wish to consult the air carriers about detailed problems of defining and administering a measure of this kind before putting it forward to the House. Therefore tonight I am simply announcing the main lines of what we intend.
We propose that a charge, a tax, be levied on the price of tickets or other charges (such as charter hire) made by air carriers for car* rying passengers in or from Canada on trips commencing with a date to be specified in the
June 3, 1969

legislation. We have worked out a tentative plan for such charges which we believe would yield revenues of about $20 million a year. The actual amount to be collected in this fiscal year will depend of course on how soon the proposal can be put into effect after the necessary consultations on details.
Further Tariff Amendments
I should also draw attention at this point to certain further amendments to the Tariff which relate to recent reports of the Tariff Board. The first of these reports dealt with machinery, apparatus and printing plates for the printing and allied industries. The proposed schedule of tariff items will result in a significant simplification of the existing tariff provisions for this equipment. The Tariff Board recommended continued dutyfree entry for most of the printing equipment which is now free of duty and removal of the duty on a considerable range of other equipment. Although the Board recommended some increases in rates of duty, the net effect of the new schedule will be to reduce the amount of duties payable by the printing and allied industries.
The second report covered precision instruments and apparatus used in engineering, surveying, prospecting, drafting and metalworking. Most of these instruments and apparatus are not made in Canada. The revised tariff items represent a modernization and expansion of the scope of the existing items for this equipment. There are also some reductions in duty including a reduction from 9 per cent to 5 per cent M.F.N. on engineers', surveyors', and draftsmen's instruments and apparatus.
In the third report the Tariff Board dealt with the principle of providing duty free entry for certain goods because they are for religious, educational, scientific, literary or artistic purposes, or for the benefit of afflicted or handicapped persons or for use in ministering to such persons. The schedule I am tabling this evening will continue, consolidate and clarify provisions which now exist for the free entry of goods for the purposes I have just mentioned. It also adds certain specified goods to the list of articles which now come in free of duty when for use by afflicted or handicapped persons. There is also some broadening of the duty free entry privileges for hospitals.

The Budget-Mr. Benson Effect of Budget Changes
The several proposals I have outlined will leave the total revenue position for the current fiscal year changed by only a very small percentage. Taken together, I estimate their net effect to be a reduction in revenues of about $10-15 million. The really significant change, however, is that there is a shift in the overall impact of the budget to ensure that it will be as effective as possible in its restraint upon price and cost increases, especially in areas where they are more prevalent.
A further budgetary provision will also be appropriate under present circumstances. The final accounting for Expo '67 has now been carried out, and arrangements made for the settlement of the operating deficits incurred by the Expo Corporation, which Parliament will be asked to approve by legislation. The federal share of this deficit amounts to about $125 million, and I propose that this amount be written off completely as a budgetary charge during the current fiscal year.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: The last of the big
spenders!


Edgar John Benson: In answer to my hon. friend, I should say the money was long ago spent. It is a matter of writing off the deficit, and not spending the money.
This will of course reduce the surplus on budgetary account, but will not affect our cash position. After the adjustment, the net budgetary surplus now foreseen for 1969-70 thus stands at some $250 million.
Federal-Provincial Relations
I should like to turn now briefly to the question of federal-provincial fiscal relations, and to the overall position of the public sector of the economy. The problems of joint occupancy of tax fields by the federal and provincial governments have continued to be the subject of vigorous debate. In our discussions with the provinces during the past winter, we have had to reiterate the firm view that the federal government cannot go on abating its taxes in order to provide painless revenues to the provinces. We have had to keep in mind both the rapid growth of our own expenditure commitments and the fact that our over-riding responsibility for stabilization policy makes it necessary for us to be able to make rapid and significant changes in income taxes. We must always bear in mind,
9422	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Benson also, the fundamental principle of the responsibility of governments to account to those who elect them.
At the same time, both to minimize inconvenience to the taxpayers and to maintain as much consistincy, co-ordination and efficiency in tax policy as possible, we have renewed and widened the tax collection agreements with nine of the provinces. Under these agreements, we collect the great bulk of provincial personal and corporation tax-to an amount estimated for this year at about $1,500 million-at no financial cost to the provinces. They in turn agree to accept the federal definitions of taxable income, exemptions and the basic rate structure. But they are free to impose rates higher than the standard abatement at their own discretion.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
At least six of the provinces have taken advantage of the flexibility provided in the agreements.
We have also discussed at length in a number of forums the existing co-operative arrangements in the major shared-cost programs for health insurance, welfare assistance and post-secondary education. While recognizing to the full the importance of these programs, reflecting as they do a liberal social conscience and the value of investment in human resources, both the provinces and ourselves cannot but be troubled by the extremely rapid growth of the expenditures involved. We have all been attempting to find ways to control costs and to improve the efficiency and productivity of these services as well as elsewhere.
As Honourable Members know, these questions were also discussed at the Constitutional Conference in February, and steps have now been taken toward a further formal review under the aegis of a re-activated federal-provincial Tax Structure Committee. One of the most important elements in these further discussions will be to determine how the arrangements now in effect for co-ordination in the income tax fields will be affected by the program of tax reform. Obviously, I am looking forward to the closest possible consultation and collaboration with the provinces in this vital regard over the months ahead.
I should add as well, Mr. Speaker, that despite the vigour of our debate with the prov-

DEBATES	June 3, 1969
inces, I am much encouraged by the evidence of closer consultation and co-ordination in fiscal policy. The need for restraint and a better balance in government budgets at all levels was an important focus of discussion at the economic and fiscal outlook meeting of the Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers last December. Subsequently, with few exceptions, the budgets brought down in provincial legislatures in the early spring reflected the most strenuous efforts on the part of the provinces to improve or maintain budgetary balance.
As a result, it is now apparent that the overall impact of federal and provincial budgets upon the economy in 1969-70 will be strongly anti-inflationary. To some extent this is offset by normal capital borrowing at the municipal level. For the government sector as a whole, however, it now appears that a deficit of about $200 million, measured on the basis of the national economic accounts, in calendar 1968, will be transformed into a surplus of the order of $300 million this calendar year. This is entirely apart from the revenues and accompanying investment funds, totalling over $1 billion in calendar 1969, made available for provincial-municipal capital borrowing through the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. For the federal government alone, the change is from a revised estimated deficit in 1968-69 of about $100 million to an estimated surplus of over $575 million in 1969-70, again on a national accounts basis.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the permission of the House to insert two small tables in Hansard. One would indicate the change in revenues, expenditures, and surplus between the estimates of October last and the revised estimates. The second gives the estimated yield of the main categories of taxes in 1968-69, and before and after tax changes in 1969-70.
I should also like to include with the Budget Papers at the conclusion of this speech, with the agreement of the House, revised tables and explanatory notes giving the budget for 1968-69 and 1969-70 on a national economic accounts basis, and a reconciliation with the budgetary accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]
June 3, 1969

The Budget-Mr. Benson
Forecasts of Budgetary Transactions for 1969-70 in the October, 1968 Budget and in the Phesent Budget
($ million)
		Present Budget
	October, 1968	after
	Budget	Tax Changes
Revenues	
11,675	12,025Expenditures	
Expo '67 Write-off*	
11,670	11,650
-	125Surplus	
5	250
'Federal share of the deficit of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition.
Budgetary and Old Age Security Revenues ($ million)				
		1969-70		1969-70
		Before		After
1968-69	Tax	Tax	TaxBudgetary Revenues	Preliminary	Changes	Changes	ChangesPersonal income tax	
3,422	4,480	+20	4,500Corporation income tax	
2,030	2,440	+ 5	2,445Non-resident tax	
206	220	220Estate Tax	
112	110	110Customs duties	
760	800	-47	753Sales tax	
1,572	1,680	- 3	1,677Other duties and taxes	
886	970	970Total taxes	
8,988	10,700	-25	10,675Non-tax revenues	
1,181	1,340	+10	1,350Total budgetary revenues	
10,169	12,040	-15	12,025Old Age Security Revenues	Persona] income tax	
915	1,045	-	1,045Corporation income tax	
183	225	-	225Sales tax	
522	570	-	570Total old age security revenues	
1,620	1,840	-	1,840


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn now to discuss our extra-budgetary requirements for this fiscal year and the means of meeting them. It may be recalled that last October I indicated that our net extra-budgetary requirements, apart from foreign exchange transactions, would probably be in the neighborhood of $600-700 million. While it remains difficult to forecast these requirements with precision, because they are the differences between large totals, I now forecast these extra-budgetary requirements, exclusive of any foreign exchange requirement, at $650 million, or exactly in the middle of my former estimate. This includes the disbursement of the $111 million charged to the special contingency vote in the previous fiscal year on salaries which of course has to be taken account of this year as an extra-budgetary cash item. The main requirement is something over $1.3 billion for loans and advances
for housing, farm credit, power projects, crown corporation investments and many other accounts. These in turn are offset by substantial non-budgetary receipts.
These non-budgetary requirements for the current year will be financed in considerable part by the budgetary surplus which I have forecast at $375 million, before the write-off of the Expo deficit, which will give rise to another non-budgetary offset. It will also be possible to finance part of requirements by some rundown in our cash balances, although in view of the many contingencies to which we are exposed I would like to end the fiscal year with as little reduction below end balances in 1968-69 as capital market conditions will permit. It is also my expectation that the employment situation will be such that the government will be selling some non-marketable bonds to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
June 3. 1969

The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert
As I have indicated, however, the $650 million forecast for these extra-budgetary requirements excludes any amount for foreign exchange acquisitions. It would probably be prudent to assume that we will need some modest amount for this purpose. On the whole I would think that we will probably need to raise $200 or 300 million over the year as a whole, and more if the foreign exchange acquisitions are substantial. Plans are under way for a vigorous Canada Savings Bond campaign this fall. Prior to that campaign, however, it may be necessary for the government to raise new funds temporarily through the sale of marketable bonds or Treasury Bills offsetting in part the redemptions of Canada Savings Bonds which normally occur between campaigns.
Mr. Speaker, I think the message of this budget should come through fairly loud and clear. It is not simply an effort to balance our accounts. It is certainly not calculated to increase the popularity of the Minister of Finance. Rather it is intended to show that we really mean business in the fight against inflation. Along with other countries we face now a truly unusual economic situation that will put to the test the willingness and ability of Canadians to use the modern tools of fiscal management in guiding our economy along a path of balanced growth and sustainable high levels of employment. To accomplish that we must not give way to the temptation of letting prices go on rising with all the injustice and destruction that will cause, and the hardships it will cause to the people who have least opportunity in our country. This, Mr. Speaker, is the real objective and impact of the budget. For that reason I am confident that it will commend itself to all Canadians who are truly concerned for the real economic health and progress of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section (1) of Standing Order No. 60 I wish to lay on the Table of the House copies in English and French of notices for ways and means resolutions referred to in my budget statement.
[Editor's Note: For text of ways and means Resolutions See Appendix A. For Budget Papers see Appendix B.]
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, 254 days after the last budget

and, as already stated, three years before the next general election, we have heard the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
This speech reminds me of an old story which applies best of all to government members. This fellow had had a very serious operation. He was just coming out from under the anesthetic, and as he regained consciousness he saw the doctor at his bedside. Seeing that the blinds were pulled down, he asked why and the doctors gave him this answer: "My dear fellow, there is a big fire across the street, and I was afraid you might have doubts about the operation being successful."

This, frankly, is the story of what has been the purpose of the budget speech. It is an old story, says my old friend. Yes, but it fits the situation perfectly. This budgetary speech was drawn to, shall we say, create an illusion in the eyes of the minister's supporters and I suppose the people of the country. This is termed a budget to deal with inflation. Well, the Budget Papers disclose what has happened to the cost of living index through all of these years, particularly since 1963. At page 117 of the Budget Papers there is an indication that the minister is satisfied that the budgetary practices of the administration of which he and his predecessors have been a part have been a complete fiasco. To this extent he is right, because never in the history of this country has there been such a continual erosion of precisely those things the minister wishes to protect. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, my heart bled.
One paragraph on page 3 of the minister's text reads:
In opting for a policy of fiscal restraints, I spoke at some length about the serious and damaging effects caused by a rapid rise in prices and costs on the scale experienced in recent years. Most of these damaging effects-the injustices visited upon the poorest and weakest groups in our society-
And so on. I have a note beside that paragraph which reads, "crocodile tears". After all, the minister is now perhaps paying some attention to the strictures that were imposed upon the administration, of which he is a part, in connection with his previous budget and those of his predecessors. These strictures came not only from members on this side of the house but from all reputable financial commentators in the country. So now, this administration has come to the great awakening that inflation is the major problem. You
June 3, 1969	COMMONS
know, Mr. Speaker, we make a sort of pious passing reference to the effect of the increased cost of living, but in case anybody has any doubt I ask hon. members opposite to read the contents of the budget white papers.


An hon. Member:: All of them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, if they have not been thrown unread into the waste basket because their attitude demonstrates they have not looked even beyond the first page. At page 117 we see the consumer price indexes for the years 1947 to 1969 with 1961 as the base of 100.0. We look at 1961 and on through to 1963 when the index had only risen to 103.0; but from 1963 to the month of April 1969 it rose from 103 to 124.6.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is this like a woman who has been walking the streets all these years suddenly confessing maybe she has been erring?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: After all, I am talking in the language of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He knows what I mean. Today we were dealing with a tax bill that was consequent upon the budget of October 22, 1968. Why was it held back? Because the government insisted that we deal with an omnibus bill which had features related to what I was saying with reference to the Prime Minister. Those are the things that preoccupied the house rather than dealing with matters relating to the tax structure.
Then, yesterday, the government house leader read us a long list of those things we have to attend to before the end of June. He added a little caveat in which he said, subject to those things the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) might introduce in his budget. Has anyone looked at it? There are pages and pages of his budget speech, most of which deal with the Income Tax Act but also the Customs Tariff.


Edgar John Benson: That is all.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. Are we to take the minister proposals as they have been presented and say "aye"? This is what the government means by co-operation. We are to pass these and all other measures in the four, six or whatever number of days the opposition is willing to yield to the government in order to assist it in meeting its
DEBATES	9425
The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert target date for a summer recess. Of course, you will have noticed that the minister was very very careful to avoid any reference to interest rates in his talk about borrowing. Interest rates, frankly, are the absolute reflection of what the people think of what the government is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All we
have to do is look at the Bank of Canada weekly reports. I do not have them before me but if my memory serves me right, last week the 90 day bills were selling at 6J per cent and even government long term obligations, with the 1983's as a good indicator, were almost at 7 per cent. They are climbing, climbing and climbing. "I am reaching," says the hon. member for Ottawa. He would not know what an interest rate going up or down meant.
The minister indicated that it was difficult to control prices in Canada. But if we look at page 3 of this text we find in the middle of the page a reference to increasing prices among some of our competitors. He says that the major trading nations, Britain, France and Japan are encountering an advance in prices higher than the rise being experienced in this country. After all, it is of some comfort to us that they are now enjoying increases in their prices. But, what about all those years in the past when our prices increased faster than theirs? Oh, the hon. Minister without Portfolio-he talks about those years 1958 to 1962. Why, he wasn't even dry behind the ears politically. He didn't even know what was happening in those years.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: He still doesn't.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We know what his performance was and I will not refer to the present. Let us not talk about the price increases in those years in Europe or here in Canada. If you want to ascertain what happened in those years look at page 117 of the budgetary papers. You will see what the price increases were from 1957 to 1963, and you will see that they were minimal. During that time the gross national product increased and the transfer payments to the provinces increased. Had the minister made a real study of the budgetary situation in those years his education would certainly have been improved.
June 3/ 1969

The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position where I can go into all of the details of this budget. After all, the hon. member who made that intervention would hardly be able to even comment on the first paragraph of the minister's speech, having seen what I've seen.
Then the minister made a great deal about one other aspect of his budget. The minister did say that he was aiming for the biggest surplus and, frankly, the only balanced budget since 1956-1957.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, of course, he failed to tell hon. members, or they failed even to learn, that in 1956-57 the government took 27.3 per cent of the Gross National Product. I know the minister is as aware of these tables as I am. But now, all governments take 35 per cent of Gross National Product. The federal government takes an increasing share because in this adjustment there are a lot more transfer payments than there were back in 1956-57. Under those circumstances it is easy to say: "Oh, yes, we're going to have a budgetary surplus." But has anyone looked at the percentage tax load that the public are bearing? Again, this bears on what I said last night on second reading of Bill C-191, and what I have repeated on previous occasions, that this government as well as previous ones have been quite happy to tax up to the level of expenditures. When the government does happen to have a slight surplus why do they say, "We're good; how wonderful we are?"
On the other hand hon. members will remember that in October of last year this government indicated they were increasing expenditures in 1969-70 over 1968-69 by over $880 million. Yes, this was their way of fighting inflation. The minister had said that he was meeting his problems. He had recognized them and he knew how to meet them. The minister said at that time, too, that he was going to curb public expenditures. We were given a lot of paper cuts and a lot of fanfare. The poor President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) was put through an exercise in futility in announcing increases which a few weeks later were shown to be quite erroneous, to the extent of $880 million. Well, all right, so we tax up to the total of those increased expenditures and who pays these taxes? John Q. Citizen pays every iota of taxes. Every cent is going to be paid by John Q. Citizen.
But you know, Mr. Speaker, this is an antiinflationary budget and I'm going to say something about that now. There is not one provision here that deals with high interest rates which is the true measure of the public's estimate of the performance of this government. This budget does not deal with the forcing of the banks to sell long term bonds, which depresses the markets, so that they can transfer this money into treasury bills. This action, which increases the demand for treasury bills, was taken by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, I daresay, after consultation with the minister for an increase in secondary reserves.
So, the action on the one hand is being defeated by action on the other and, we are still faced with increasing interest rates. It doesn't matter how much money is put out or alleged to be put out for housing, the interest rates are increasing. The people are going to pay for those interest rates and so is this government. The minister has used weasel words in so far as his requirements of Canada Savings Bonds, and other bond issues, are concerned. Perhaps the Minister will pay off some of the demands for the cashing or the realization of Canada Savings Bonds but all this will be at increasing interest rates. Until the minister can show us how he's going to deal with interest rates in so far as they concern Canada, then I say he has failed in the purpose of his anti-inflationary budget. There are some things-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Having said that, I should say that we must commend the minister, I think, upon the steps he has taken with regard to the Kennedy Round.


An hon. Member:: Your best line.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That's fine from my colleague on the finance committee, but he apparently doesn't understand interest rates either. But again, we must indicate that if this is an anti-inflationary budget it has not dealt with the problem of the cost of living index or the interest rates. To that extent it has failed. May I adjourn the debate?
On motion of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West), the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to an order made earlier today this house stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 9.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
House of Commons CANADA



WAYS AND MEANS BUDGET RESOLUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Presented to the House of Commons by
The Honourable Edgar J. Benson
Minister of Finance
Tuesday, June 3, 1969.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Preliminary
1969-70 Forecast after tax changes
(millions of dollars)
A. Revenue
1.	Direct taxes, persons	
2.	Direct taxes, corporations	
3.	Withholding taxes	
4.	Indirect taxes	
5.	Investment income	
6.	Employer and employee contributions to social insurance and
government pension funds	
3,750	4,455	5,6461,670	2,065	2,235226	205	2203,684	3,822	4,010836	950	1,134728	890	1,0657. Total revenue	
10,894
Expenditure
1.	Goods and services: defence	
2.	Goods and services: others	
3.	Transfers to persons	
4.	Interest on public debt	
5.	Subsidies	
6.	Capital assistance	
7.	Transfers to other levels of governments.
8. Total expenditure	 H 227
C. Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)	
. 10,894	12,387	14,310. 1,816	1,816	1,873. 2,513	2,875	3,312. 3,021	3,388	3,645. 1,270	1,442	1,602. 398	394	394. 72	63	89. 2,137	2,476	2,820. 11,227	12,454	13,735. -333	-67	+575
Note: At the time of the October budget, the federal government deficit for 1968-69 was forecast at $675 million on a budgetary basis and at $435 million on a national accounts basis. Whereas the budgetary deficit for 1968-69 is e.®5'lma^ed at $566 million (a reduction of $109 million) the deficit on a national accounts basis is forecast at $67 million (a reduction of $368 million). Over and above the budgetary reduction of $109 million, two factors mainly account tor the additional $259 million national accounts reduction. Firstly, corporate profits have been revised upward resulting m an increase of $147 million in corporate tax liabilities over a $3 million adjustment to corporate tax collections and old age security taxes. A reallocation of corporate cash flows between profits, and capital cost allowances accounts for that revision. Secondly, the Supplementary Estimates tabled on February 24, 1969 provided for the establishment of a reserve for contingency and its unexpended balance at the end of fiscal year 1968-69, $111 million, was credited to the liability account "contingency for salary revision". Whereas this transaction represents a budgetary charge, it is not regarded as an expenditure on a national accounts basis.
June 3. 1969 COMMONS DEBATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE Public Accounts and National Accounts Reconciliation			9429
		1968-69	1969-70 Forecast after Tax
1967-68	Preliminary	Changes1. Budgetary revenue	(millions of dollars) 9,029 10,169	i 12,025Deduct: 2. Budgetary return on investment	-612	-693	-8153. Post Office revenue	-282	-305	-3704. Other non-tax budgetary revenues	-119	-183	-165(-1,013)	(-1,181)	(-1,350)5. Corporate income tax, excess of accruals (+) over collections (-)	-151	-148	-434Add: Extra-budgetary funds revenue: 6. Old age security taxes	1,495	1,620	1,8407. Unemployment insurance fund-employer-employee contributions	340	440	5008. Government pension funds-employer-employee contributions..	382	450	5659. Prairie Farm Assistance Act levies	11	9	10(2,234)	(2,519)	(2,915)Government investment income: 10. Interest on loans, advances and investments	352	375	44711. Interest receipts on social insurance and government pension funds	235	255	28812. Profits before taxes (net of losses) of government business enterprises	249	320	399(836)	(950)	(1,134)13. Miscellaneous'1'	-41	78	2014. Total revenue, national accounts basis	10,894	12,387	14,310
(1)These miscellaneous adjustments represent revenues from miscellaneous direct and indirect taxes and adjustments for the supplementary period. In the National Accounts, revenues in the supplementary period are shifted into the following fiscal year.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Public Accounts and National Accounts Reconciliation
		1967-68	1968-69 Preliminary	1969-70 Forecast
	(millions of dollars)		
1. Budgetary expenditure		9,824	10,735	11,650
2. Expo 67 Write-off				125
Deduct:			
3. Budgetary transfers to funds and agencies^1*	-696	-717	-7564. Post Office expenditure	-301	-347	-3605. Deficit of government business enterprises	- 83	- 79	- 766. Reserves and write-offs	- 33	-144	- 337. Expo 67 Write-off	-	_	-1258.	Purchase of existing capital assets	
9.	Budgetary revenue items off-set against budgetary expend-	- 5	- 12	- IQiture(2>	-120	- 90	- 90Add:	(-1,238)	(-1,389)	(-1,450)Extra-budgetary funds expenditure:	10. Old age security benefits	1,387	1,544	1,73311. Unemployment insurance benefits	389	463	50012. Government pensions	139	149	16213. Prairie farm emergency payments	9	7	8(1,924)	(2,163)	(2,405)14. Expenditure of government funds and agencies^1)	608	747	78415. Miscellaneous^3)	109	198	22116. Total expenditure, national accounts basis	11,227	12,454	13,73517. Surplus (+) or deficit (-), national accounts basis	-333	- 67	+57518. Surplus (+) or deficit (-), budgetary basis	-795	-566	+37519. Expo 67 Write-off	-	-	-125
Win the national accounts, budgetary appropriations to various funds and agencies are replaced by the expenditure actually made by these funds and agencies.
<2>This item mainly consists of revenue from sales of goods and services by the government. These sales appear as final expenditure of the private sector and are deducted to avoid double counting.
<3>This item includes the supplementary period adjustment. In the national accounts, expenditure on goods and services in the supplementary period are divided between adjacent fiscal years; most other expenditure are shifted entirely to the next fiscal year.
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the surtax imposed on individuals and corporations by Part IA of the Income Tax Act be applicable in the case of individuals to the 1970 taxation year and in the case of corporations to taxable income earned in 1970.
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Customs Tariff and Excise Tax Act

[Stage Direction]
1.	That section 11 of the Customs Tariff be amended by repealing subsection (1) thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
11. (1) On the materials set forth in Schedule B, when used for consumption in Canada for the purpose specified in that Schedule, there may be paid, out
of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the several rates of drawback of Customs duties, other than any special duty or surtax, set opposite each item respectively in
that Schedule, under regulations by the Governor in Council.
2.	That each tariff item in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff, other than tariff item 19201-1, that contains the expressions "on and after January 1, 1970", "on and after January 1, 1971" and "on and after January 1, 1972" be amended
(a)	by striking	out the expression "on and after January 1, 1970" and the rate or rates of duty set opposite thereto;(b)	by striking	out the expression "on and after January 1, 1971" and the rate or rates of duty set opposite thereto; and(c)	by striking	out the expression "on and after January 1, 1972" and substituting therefor the expression "on and after June 4, 1969".3.	That tariff items 19905-1 and 65200-1 in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out the expression "on and after January 1, 1970" contained in each such tariff item and substituting therefor the expression "on and after June 4, 1969".4.	That tariff items 7303-1, 7311-1, 13650-1, 29005-1, 40401-1 and 40402-1 in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended(a)	by striking	out the expression "on and after January 1, 1970" contained in each such tariff item and the rate or rates of duty set opposite	thereto;	and(b)	by striking	out the expression "on and after January 1, 1971" contained in each such tariff item and substituting therefor the expression	"on	and	after June 4,
1969".
5.	That section 15 of An Act to amend the Customs Tariff, being chapter 12 of the Statutes of Canada 1968-69, be repealed.
6.	That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff and each order in council made under section 10 of the Customs Tariff and section 273 of the Customs Act reducing the duty on goods be amended by striking out tariff items 30200-1, 34000-1, 34100-1, 34610-1, 41200-1, 41205-1, 41210-1, 41215-1, 41220-1, 41225-1, 42605-1, 47200-1, 47300-1 47305-1, 47400-1, 47500-1, 47505-1, 47510-1, 47515-1, 47520-1, 47525-1, 53415-1, 66000-1, 66005-1 and 66010-1, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
			Most- Favoured- Nation Tariff		Rates Proposed in this Budget		
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	General Tariff	British Preferential Tariff	Most- Favoured-Nation Tariff	General Tariff34000-1	Type, chases, quoins and slugs, for use in printing..	Free	10 p.c.	20 p.c.	7| p.c. Free	17J P-c. Free	20 p.c. 10 p.c.34100-1	Babitt metal and type metal, in blocks, bars, plates and sheets	Free	10 p.c.	20 p.c.	Free	10 p.c.	20 p.c.34610-1	Zinc rods; zinc shapes other than flatrolled; all the foregoing if containing not more than ten per cent by weight of other metal or metals	Free	Free	10 p.c.	Free	Free	10 p.c.9434	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1969
84615-1
41202-1
Zinc strip or sheet, ungrained, whether or not ground, for making offset plates for lithographing; zinc strip or sheet, not ground or polished, coated on one side with acid-resisting material, when imported, for use by grinders and, polishers, to be prepared for use in photo-engraving; all the foregoing if containing not more than ten per cent by weight of other metal or metals	 Free
Printing presses, n.o.p., with an image or printing area of 374 square inches or larger; mechanical deliveries or conveyors for use with such presses; parts of the foregoing	 Free
Printing presses, n.o.p., with an image or printing area of less than 374 square inches; parts of the foregoing	 Free
Machines and apparatus, excluding those provided for in tariff item 41210-1, for use exclusively by, and in their capacities as printers, lithographers, bookbinders, paper or foil converters, manufacturers of stereotypes, electrotypes and printing plates or rolls, or manufacturers of articles made from paper, cardboard or foil, namely:-
Machines and apparatus for making matrices, stereotypes, electrotypes or printing plates of any kind;
Machines and apparatus for the preparation of plates by graining, grinding, polishing or sensitizing;
Machines and apparatus, including cameras and camera equipment, lenses, prisms, camera and printing lamps, screens and vacuum frames, for transferring imagery to sensitized paper, film, plates or rolls for use in printing;
Machines and apparatus for slitting, winding or rewinding, having a roll width of less than seventy-two inches;
Free
Free
10 p.c.
10 p.c.
15 p.c.
15 p.c.
Free
Free Free Free 2i p.c.
Free
Free
Free
Free Free 10 p.c. 15 p.c.
10 p.c. Free
10 p.c.
15 p.c. Free 15 p.c. 35 p.c.
15 p.c. Free
June 3. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9435
			Most-
Tariff		British	Favoured-
				Preferential	Nation
Item		Tariff	Tariff
41205-1 Gun and mould apparatus for making press rollers;
(Cont'd) Machines and apparatus for addressing or wrapping newspapers, magazines, periodicals, pamphlets and catalogues;
Machines and apparatus for bookbinding, boxcovering, bronzing, bundling, carbon coating, counting paper, cardboard or foil, creasing, cutting, drilling, dusting, embossing or producing embossed or engraved effects, eyeletting, flocking, folding, gathering, glueing, gumming, inserting, jogging, looping, metal mounting, numbering, pasting, patching, perforating, punching, reinforcing, ruling, scoring, sewing, sheet feeding, sheet piling, spraying for anti-offset, stamping, staying, stitching, stripping, tubemaking, tying, varnishing, or waxing;
Parts of all the foregoing	 Free	Free
41210-1 Machines and apparatus for use in the manufacture of manifold business forms, namely:-
Rotary web fed rubber plate and offset printing presses, and printing units therefor;
Feed-in units;
Xumbering units;
Punching units;
Slitting units;
Perforating units;
Winders or rewinders;
Folders;
Sheet cutting and piling units;
Hot carbonizing units;
Continuous forms collators;
Snap set collators;
Continuous forms interleavers;
Crimp-lock and slitting machines;
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
General
Tariff
15 p.c.
British	Most-
Preferential	Favoured-Nation	GeneralTariff	Tariff	Tariff
Free Free 2\ p.c. Various
Free 10 p.c. 15 p.c. Various
10 p.c. 15 p.c. 35 p.c. Various
COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1969
41220-1
41225-1
Stitchers;
Carbon paper processors;
Parts of all the foregoing	 Free
Machines and apparatus designed for typecasting, typesetting including phototypesetting, or for producing justified copy; machines and apparatus designed for creating or translating signals, on tape or wire or other media, for programming the automatic operation of the foregoing; typemaking accessories, n.o.p.; parts of all the foregoing; stereotypers' blankets or blanketing	 Free
Articles and materials which enter into the construction and form part of the machines and apparatus entitled to entry under tariff items 41201-1, 41205-1 and 41215-1, when for use in the manufacture of such machines, apparatus and parts thereof Free
Sheets, plates, blocks, rolls or cylinders, ground, polished or otherwise prepared for the production of printing plates, rolls or cylinders	 10 p.c.
Printing plates of all kinds, including rolls and cylinders, for the reproduction of non-advertising material in newspapers, or for printing books or music, or for printing periodical publications enjoying second-class mailing privileges the pages of which are regularly bound, wirestitched or otherwise fastened together, not including catalogues; copper shells, bases, matrices, moulds, exposed positive or negative films and reproduction proofs, for such printing plates... Free
10 p.c.
Free
Free
15 p.c.
Free
Free	10 p.c.	15 p.c.Free	Free	10 p.c.2? p.c.	15 p.c.	35 p.c.Free	Free	FreeFree	Free	FreeFree	Free	10 p.c.Free	5 p.c.	10 p.c.Free	10 p.c.	15 p.c.2{- p.c.	15 p.c.	35 p.c.15 p.c.	19 p.c.	30 p.c.Free	Free	FreeFree	10 p.c.	15 p.c,Various	Various	VariousFree	15 p.c.	20 p.c.15 p.c.	19 p.c.	30 p.c.10 p.c.	15 p.c.	20 p.c.Free	p.c.	30 p.c.10 p.c.	10 p.c.	30 p.c.Various	Various	Various
25 p.c.
Free	F ree
Free	Free
Free	5 ct/sq. in.
i ct./sq. in.	j ct./sq.	in.
Various	Various
Free 25 p.c. i ct/sq. in. i ct./sq. in. Various
June 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9437
			Most- Favoured- Nation Tariff			Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget	
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	General Tariff	British Most-Preferential Favoured-Nation Tariff Tariff	General Tariff41240-I	Stereotypes, electrotypes, and other printing plates made from moulds, n.o.p.; copper shells, bases, matrices or moulds, for such printing plates	
per square inch	1 ct.	1 ct.	1£ cts.	1 ct. Various	1 ct. Various	H cts. Various41245-1	Printing plates including rolls and cylinders n.o.p.; exposed positive or negative films and reproduction proofs, for such printing plates	10 p.c.	15 p.c.	25 p.c.	10 p.c. Free Various	15 p.c. 15 p.c. Various	20 p.c. 20 p.c. Various42605-1	Machinery and apparatus enumerated in tariff item 41205-1, when for use exclusively by, and in their capacities as manufacturers of articles made from regenerated cellulose or cellulose acetate; parts of the foregoing	5 p.c.	5 p.c.	35 p.c.	5 p.c. Various	5 p.c. Various	35 p.c. Various53415-1	Press blankets or blanketing, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use with printing presses....	Free	5 p.c.	10 p.c.	Free	5 p.c.	10 p.c.58417-1	Press blankets or blanketing, n.o.p., for use with printing presses	10 p.c.	15 p.c.	25 p.c.	Free Free 24 p.c. 20 p.c.	Free 10 p.c. 24 p.c. 24 p.c.	Free 15 p.c. 35 p.c. 40 p.c.
7. That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff and each order in council made under section 10 of the Customs Tariff reducing the duty on goods be amended by striking out tariff items 43125-1, 43130-1, 43130-2, 43150-1 and 43155-1, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
9438	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1969Tariff	British Preferential	Most-Favoured-N ationItem	Tariff	Tariff43125-1	Toolmakers', machinists' or metal workers' precision tools and measuring instruments, namely:
Bevels;
Buttons;
Calipers;
Clamps, including key seat clamps and rule clamps;
Dividers;
Gauges, including thickness gauges in roll form;
Micrometers;
Parallels;
Plumb bobs, mercury;
Protractors;
Punches, automatic centre;
Scribers;
Speed indicators, hand;
Squares;
Straight edges;
Trammels;
Verniers;
Vises;
Toolmakers', machinists' or metal workers' precision tools and measuring instruments, n.o.p.;
Parts of all the foregoing	 Free	9 p.c.
43130-1 Engineers', surveyors' or draftsmen's precision instruments and apparatus, namely:
Alidades;
Altazimuths;
Aneroid barometers;
Boards, military sketching;
Clinometers;
Compasses;
Cross staff heads;
Curves, adjustable, irregular, railroad and ship; Curvi meters;
Dipping needles;
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
British	Most-
General	Preferential	Favoured-Nation	GeneralTariff	Tariff	Tariff	Tariff20 p.c.	Free
9 p.c.
10 p.c.
June 3. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9439
			Most- Favoured- Nation Tariff		Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff		General Tariff	British M ost-Preferential Favoured-Nation General Tariff Tariff Tariff
43130-1 Distance measuring apparatus using light, radio or (Cont'd) soundwaves;
Drafting instruments of all kinds;
Drafting machines;
Engineering lasers;
Gyro converters;
Heliographs;
Integrators;
Levels;
Liners, section;
Meters, portable for hydraulic engineering; Pantographs;
Parallel rules;
Parallel ruling attachments;
Pedometers and paceometers;
Plane tables, military and topographic;
PI an i meters:
Poles, ranging;
Prisms, angle;
Protractors;
Rods, levelling;
Scales, Hat and triangular;
Sextants;
Slide rules;
Splines;
Straight edges;
Subtense bars",
Tacheometers;
Tallying machines, pocket;
Tee squares;
Telemeters;
9440	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1969
Theodolites;
Transits;
Traversing targets',
Triangles of all types;
Parts, attachments, tripods, base plates and fitted cases for all the foregoing	 Free	5 p.c.
43150-1 Geophysical precision instruments and equipment of a class or kind not made in Canada;
Parts, attachments, tripods, base plates and fitted cases for all the foregoing	 Free	Free
43155-1 Photogrammetric instruments and equipment for use in the interpretation of photographs and in the preparation of maps and plans from photographs, including the following: stereoscopes, binoculars for use with stereoscopes, parallax bars, height finders, contour finders, sketchmasters, slotted template equipment and accessories for use with any of the foregoing; stereoscopic plotting instruments and equipment of either optical-mechanical or projector type, including such accessories as plotting and tracing tables whether electrically, mechanically or remotely operated, optical instruments for preparing diapositive plates, voltage regulators, and electrical transformers, cooling systems, lamps, spectacles, filters, height gauges, principal point selectors and other components for use with the foregoing equipment; all the foregoing of a class or kind not made in Canada and parts and fitted cases for any of the foregoing Free
Free
20 p.c.
20 p.c.
20 p.c.
Free	9 p.c.	10 p.c.Free	5 p.c.	10 p.c.Free	p.c.	30 p.c.Free	18 p.c.	28 p.c.Free	Free
30 p.c.
Free
5 p.c.
20 p.c.
June 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9441
nJ'^f^CKiedule \ *3 the ^U'f?ms Tariff, and each order in Council made under section 10 of the Customs Tariff and section 273 of the Customs Act reducing the 48^X*_T	4H2?T1' 47600-1* 47602-1 [DOT] 47605-1, 47610-1, 47806-1, 47810-1, 47815-1, 47900-1, 48000-1, 48005-1, 48100-1, 48105-1,
uie a to thlTu^^^USrates of duty 861 opposite each of those items'and by "serting in Sched-
TarifT
Item
Most-
British	Favoured-
Preferential	Nation
Tariff	Tariff
Rates in Effect Prior to. Rates Proposed in this Budget
British	Most-
General	Preferential	Favoured-Nation	GeneralTariff	Tariff	Tariff	Tariff
46200-1 Instruments for observation, measurement, experimentation or demonstration in respect of natural phenomena, n.o.p.; photographic, mathematical and optical instruments, n.o.p.; speedometers, cyclometers and pedometers, n.o.p.; parts of all
the foregoing	
2| p.c.	15 p.c.	30 p.c.	2J p.c.	15 p.e.	30 p.c.47600-1 X-ray apparatus and X-ray film; microscopes, illuminating devices and stands for use therewith; the following surgical, dental, veterinary and diagnostic articles: instruments; sterilizers; cobalt-therapy units; anaesthesia, surgical suction and oxygen administering apparatus including motive power and wall outlets but not piping systems. Parts of all the foregoing; electric light lamps designed for use with all the foregoing; portable cases and containers for all the foregoing	Free	Free	Free	Free2i p.c. 2j p.c. 12$ p.c. Various	15 p.c. 15 p.c. 21i p.c. Various
Free 30 p.c. 35 p.c. 40 p.c. Various
47605-1 Operating room lights designed to minimize shadow, not including bulbs, of a class or kind not made in Canada; chairs and tables for surgical operating purposes; infant incubators; infant and patient medical-alert or identification devices including beads, tapes and ribbons of any material, cases therefor and equipment for their application; electrocardiographs, paper and sensitized film for use therein; apparatus for sterilizing purposes, including bedpan washer-sterilizers but not in-
9442	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3. 1969
586S-08168
47810-1
47820-1
eluding washing nor laundry machines; parts of all the foregoing; electroence-phalographic paper.
All for the use of any public hospital, under such-regulations as the Minister may prescribe	 Free
Artificial limbs, with or without power, and all accessories and devices therefor; spinal and other orthopedic braces; parts of the foregoing	 Free
Aural, nasal, mastectomy and other medical or surgical prostheses; materials for use in reconstructive surgery; ileostomy, colostomy and urinary appliances or articles other than infants' pants and diapers, designed to be worn by an individual; materials and articles required therewith for proper application and maintenance	 Free
Auxiliary driving control kits and other equipment designed for attachment to motor vehicles to facilitate their operation by physically disabled persons; parts of the foregoing	 Free
Boots, shoes and appliances for an individual with a defective or abnormal foot or ankle when made to order for the individual or when purchased on the written order of a registered medical practitioner	 Free
Invalid chairs, commode chairs, walkers and all other aids to locomotion, with or without wheels; motive power and wheel assemblies therefor; toilet, bath and shower seats; all specially designed for the disabled; accessories and attachments for all the foregoing:
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free	Free	Free	Free20 p.c.	261 p.c.	50 p.c.10 p.c.	19 p.c.	35 p.c.Various	Various	VariousFree	Free	Free	Free15 p.c.	19 p.c.	30 p.c.21 p.c.	15 p.c.	35 p.c.Various	Various	VariousFree	Free	Free	Free20 p.c.	251 P-c.	50 p.c.211 p.c.	251 P-c.	35 p.c.10 p.c.	20 p.c..	35 p.c.Free	Free	Free	30 p.c.Free	151 p.c.	30 p.c.10 p.c.	19 p.c.	35 p.c.Various	Various	VariousFree	Free	Free	FreeJune 3. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9443
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
Tariff
Item
47826-1
47826-1
Of a class or kind made in Canada; parts thereof....
Of a cl as 8 or kind not made in Canada; parts thereof.
Artificial larynges; devices for amplifying speech to budible volume; devices for the audible or visual recording or reproduction of speech or attempted speech, for use in training; attachments, accessories and batteries for the foregoing; parts of all the foregoing. All the foregoing when imported for the use of a mute or partially mute person, of a public hospital, or of a bona fide association or institution for the mute or partially mute, and not for sale or rental unless to those mentioned herein, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe	
Alternating pressure mattresses; canes and crutches; ceiling projectors and prismatic glasses, for reading; oscillating beds; patient-lifters; powered feeders, powered page-turners; pressure-gradient elastic supports made to order for an individual in accordance with the written prescription of a registered physician or surgeon; attachments and accessories for the foregoing; parts of all the foregoing. All the foregoing when imported for the use of a disabled person or of a public hospital, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe	
Most-
British Preferential Tariff	Favoured- Nation Tariff	General Tariff	British Preferential Tariff	Most- Favoured-Nation Tariff	General TariffFree	10 p.c.	15 p.c.	Free 15 p.c. Various	10 p.c. 19 p.c. Various	15 p.c. 30 p.c. VariousFree	Free	Free	Free 15 p.c. Various	10 p.c. 19 p.c. Various	15 p.c. 30 p.c. VariousFree	Free	Free	Free 15 p.c. 15 p.c. Various	Free 19 p.c. 20* p.c. Various	Free 30 p.c. 27* p.c. VariousFree	Free	Free	Free	Free Free17* p.c.	17* p.c. 35 p.c. and 61 cts. and 11.50per dozen pairs20 p.c.	26* p.c. 50 p.c.Various	Various Various9444	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3. 1969
51100-1
51125-1 695SO-1
Materials and articles for use exclusively in the manufacture of the goods enumerated in tariff items 47600-1, 47605-1, 47805-1, 47810-1, 47815-1, 47820-1, 47826-1, 47830-1 and 47835-1	 Free
Golf clubs and finished parts thereof; racquets and racquet frames and baseball bats; balls of all kinds for use in sports, games or athletics, n.o.p..
Walking sticks and talking canes of all kinds, n.o.p.. .
Motion picture films and filmstrips, with or without sound recording, for deposit as archives and for exhibition without commercial purpose, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe	
Scientific apparatus (and ancillary equipment thereto), utensils, instruments, and preparations, including boxes and bottles containing them-, glassware for laboratory or scientific uses; maps, charts, motion picture films, filmstrips, microfilms, slides and other photographic reproductions and pictorial illustrations; pamphlets and magazines; reproductions of works of art; sound recordings and video tape recordings; stencils and cards specially designed for the preparation of library index cards; models, static or moving; animals as research or experimental subjects; living plants, seeds, cuttings, buds, scions, tubers, bulbs and root-stock; mechanical equipment not otherwise enumerated in this item when of a class or kind not made in Canada: parts of all the foregoing. All the foregoing when for the use of any society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious, educational, scientific or literary pur-purses, or for the encouragement of the fine arts (namely architecture, sculpture, painting, engraving and music), or for the use of any public hospital, public library, public museum, university, college, academy, school or seminary of learning in Canada and not for sale or rental unless to those mentioned herein, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe	 Free
15 p.c. 15 p.c.
Free
Free
20 p.c. 20 p.c.
Free
Free
Free	Various	Various	Various35 p.c.	15 p.c.	23 p.c.	35 p.c.35 p.c.	15 p.c.	20 p.c.	35 p.c.Free	lj cts. Free	l£ cts. per linear foot l\ cts. per linear foot (20 p.c. max.)	3 cts. 3 cts. (30 p.c.Free	Free
Free
Free
June 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9445
			Most- Favoured- Nation Tariff			Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget	
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	General Tariff	British Most-Preferential Favoured-Nation General Tariff Tariff Tariff	69610-1	Materials and articles for use exclusively in the manufacture of the goods enumerated in tariff item 69605-1	Free	Free	Free	Free Various	Free Various	Free Various69625-1	Sound recordings specially made for use in the study of languages; sound recordings, tape recorders and phonographs for bona fide libraries, and being the property of the organized authorities of such libraries and not the property of individuals or business concerns; under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe	Free	Free	Free	Free 13 p.c. 10 p.c.	Free 18 p.c. m p.c.	Free 28 p.c. 25 p.c.9. That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff and each order in council made under section 10 ol the Customs Tariff and section 273 of the Customs Act reducing the duty on goods be amended by striking out tariff items 945-1, 2705-1, 10505-1, 10540-1, 17310-1, 20620-1, 23240-1, 29655-1, 31615-1, 31905-1, 38800-1, 41001-1, 41002-1, 41305-1, 4152,5-1, 42835-1, 44043-1, 44047-1, 44059-1, 44300-1, 45400-1, 50600-3, 50600-5, 50600-6, 61625-1, 70320-1, 70321-1, 82300-1 and 93404-2, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:	Most- Favoured- Nation Tariff	Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget	Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	General Tariff	British Most-Preferential Favoured-Nation General Tariff Tariff Tariff	945-1	Feeds for use exclusively in the feeding of trout and salmon	
on and after July 1, 1970	Free 5 p.c.	Free 5 p.c.	25 p.c. 25 p.c.	Free 11 p.c.	Free 11 p.c.	25 p.c. 25 p.c.9446	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 196910505-1	Lemon, lime, orange, grapefruit and citron rinds, n.o.p	Free	Free10540-1	Oranges, grapefruit, lemons, or limes, sliced or in the form o? pulp, with or without the addition of preservatives	Free	Free17310-1	Printed books, pamphlets, cards and sheets for use in intelligence testing; other articles and materials imported with and specially designed for use with such printed books, pamphlets, cars and sheets. cards for use in the teaching of reading or arithmetic	Free Free19946-1	Trays of pulp or pulpboard, with pockets, imported for use exclusively in the packaging of peaches and pears in their natural state	Free	20620-1	Materials and articles for the manufacture of the goods specified in items 20605-1, 20610-1 and 20615-1	Free	Free93240-1	Ossein for use exclusively in the manufacture of gelatine	Free	Free29655-1	Pyrophyllite for use in Canadian manufactures	Free	Free31615-1	Glass tubing in straight lengths of not less than three feet, not coated, for use in Canadian manufactures.. .	Free	Free31905-1	Plate glass, not more than five thirty-seconds of an inch in thickness, for use in the manufacture of laminated safety glass	Free	5 p.c.34405-1	Composition foils, composed of varying percentages of lead and tin, and whether or not containing antimony.	Free	Free35115-1	Metal alloy slugs, cast, with diamonds or diamond chips embedded therein, of any size or shape, in condition as from the mould, for use in Canadian manufactures. .	Free	FreeFree	Free	Free	Free15 p.c.	19 p.c.	25 p.c.35 p.c.	Free	3 p.c.	35 p.c.19} p.c.	22 p.c.	35 p.c.Free	Free	Free	Free17J p.c.	21} p.c.	35 p.c.35 p.c.	17 p.c.	19} p.c.	35 p.c.Free	Free	Free	Free10 cts.	20 cts.	40 cts.
per gallon of the strength of proof
25 p.c.	Free	Free	25 p.c.25 p.c.	Free	Free	25 p.c.10 p.c.	Free	Free	10 p.c.15 p.c.	Free	5 p.c.	15 p.c.Free	15 p.c.	19 p.c.	25 p.c.Free	Free	Free	FreeJune 3, 1963	COMMONS DEBATES	9447Most-British	Favoured-Tariff	- Preferential	NationItem	Tariff	TariffS8009-1 Sheet piling sections or iron or steel, not further manufactured than hot-rolled, and whether or not with handling holes therein	
5p.c.	lOp.c.
38800-1 Foundry moulding flasks and jackets for use therewith; parts and attachments or accessories for the
foregoing	 Free	Free
Bits and augers of all kinds;
Drills of all kinds, not including those drilling rigs entitled to entry under tariff item 49103-1;
Fishing tools, n.o.p
Reamers, stabilizers, and combinations thereof, n.o.p.;
All the foregoing for use in the exploration or drilling for water, oil, natural gas or minerals, or in mining or quarrying:
41001-1 Of a class or kind made in Canada;
parts thereof	 5 p.c.	15 p.c.
41002-1 Of a class or kind not made in Canada;
parts thereof	 Free	Free
41305-1 Machinery and apparatus, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and parts thereof, for preparing, manufacturing, testing or finishing yarns, cordage, and fabrics made from textile fibres or from paper, imported for use exclusively by manufacturers and scholastic or charitable institutions in such processes only	 Free
Free
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
British	Most-
General	Preferential	Favoured-Nation	GeneralTariff	Tariff	Tariff	Tariff
20 p.c.
35 p.c.
5 p.c.	10 p.c.	20 p.c17 p.c.	19 p.c.	40 p.c,Free	Free	35 d.c.10 p.c.	19 p.c.	35 p.c.15 p.c.	19 p.c.	30 p.c.17 p.c.	IS p.c.	25 p.c.25 p.c.	5 p.c.	15 p.c.	25 p.c.10 p.c.	19 p.c.	35 p.c.Free	Free	Free	Free10 p.c.	19 p.c.	35 p.c.
10 p.c.
Free 21 p.c. 10 p.c. Various
Free 15 p.c. 19 p.c. Various
10 p.c. 35 p.c. 35 p.c. Various
9448	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1969
42835-1
44047-1
Sewing machines, not to include industrial sewing machines, with or without motive power incorporated therein; parts thereof	 5 p.c.
Governors, n.o.p., and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture or repair of diesel locomotives...
Free
71 p.c.
Aircraft, not including engines, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe:
When of types or sizes not made in Canada	 Free
on and after July 1, 1971 Free
Free 7i p.c.
Aircraft engines, when imported for use in the equipment of aircraft:
When of types or sizes not made in Canada... Free
on and after July 1, 1971 Free
Free 7} p.c.
Auxiliary power units;
Batteries;
Bolts, cocks, cotter pins, eyelets, nuts, pins, rivets, screws, turnbuckles and clevis, washers;
Brakes, with related operating gear;
Carburettors;
Direct or inertia starters with or without related operating gear;
Distributors;
De-icing and anti-icing equipment;
Electric generators;
Electric lamps;
Exhaust gas analyzers;
Fittings and couplings;
Fuel pressure warning devices;
Forgings and castings;
Hinges;
Hydraulic jacks;
Hydraulic pumps;
Ignition coils;
Instruments;
25 p.c.
30 p.c.
27$ p.c. 27J p.c.
27J p.c. 27$ p.c.
5 p.c.	15 p.c.	25 p.c.10 p.c.	19 p.c.	35 p.c.Various	Various	VariousFree	7| p.c.	30 p.c.Free	10 p.c.	20 p.c.Free	18 p.c.	30 p.c.
Free
Free
Free	27$ p.c.
7$ p.c.	27$ p.c.
(On and after July 1, 1969)
Free
Free
Free	27$ p.c.
7$ p.c.	27$ p.c.
(On and after July 1, 1969)
[Stage Direction]


s
o
2!
[Stage Direction]
a
pi
to
>
C/l
[Stage Direction]
to
to
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
Item
Most-
British	Favoured-
Preferential	Nation
Tariff	Tariff
44059-1 Landing and navigation lights;
(Cont'd) Magnetos;
Oil coolers;
Pressure fire extinguishers;
Primer pumps;
Propellers and helicopter rotors;
Radio for navigation and air traffic communication-
Seats;
Shapes or sections, rolled, drawn or extruced, and bars, rods, tubes, plate, sheet and strip, of any metal or alloy thereof;
Spark plugs;
Swaged -wires and tie rods;
Tires and tire inner tubes;
Vacuum pumps with related operating gear;
Voltage control boxes;
Wheels;
Parts of all the foregoing;
All of the foregoing when of types or sizes not made in Canada and for use in aircraft, aircraft engines, airborne aircraft equipment, or parts of aircraft, aircraft engines, or airborne aircraft equipment	
Free	Free44300-1 Apparatus, and parts thereof, for cooking or for heating buildings, not to include commercial food processing machines, namely, continuous pressure and atmospheric pre-heaters and cookers, and parts thereof, for sterilising or for cooking or for both sterilizing and cooking food products in hermetically sealed containers	
15 px.	20 p c4462S-1 Electron beam welding machines and laser beam microwelding machines	
5 p.c.	10 p c
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
_	,	„ British	Most-Ueneral	Preferential	Favoured-NationTariff	Tariff	Tariff
General
Tariff
275 p.c.	Free Various	Free Various	27* p.c. Various30 p.c.	15 p.c.	21§ p.c.	30 p.c.30 p.c.	5 p.c.	18 p.c.	30 p.c.COMMONS DEBATES	june 3, 1969
61625-1
70320-1
Frames not more than ten inches in width, clasps and fasteners (not to include slide or hookless fasteners), when imported for use in the manufacture of purses, chatelaine bags or reticules;
parts of the foregoing	 Fre®	12* P-c>
Scrap nr used tires and tubes, wholly or in part of rubber, when imported for use exclusively in the manufacture of reclaim rubber	 Free
Motion picture films, negative or positive, with or without sound; still picture films, negative nr positive; video tape recordings; sound recordings in tape, disc or wire form; all the foregoing being news features or recordings of current events	
Goods (not including alcoholic beverages, cigars, cigarettes and manufactured tabacco) imported by a member of the Canadian Forces or an employee of the Canadian Government, or by a former resident of Canada returning to Canada to resume residence therein, and acquired by him during an absence from Canada of not less than one year for personal or household use and actually owned by him abroad and in his possession and use for at least six months prior to his return to Canada	 Free
The Minister may by regulation exempt any goods or classes of goods from the six-month ownership, possession and use requirement set out in this item.
Goods entitled to entry under this item shall be exempt from all imposts noth withstanding the provisions of this Act or any other Act.
Any goods imported under this item which are sold or otherwise disposed of within twelve months after importation are subject to the duties and taxes otherwise prescribed.
20 p.c.
Free
Free
Free
Free	12£ p.c.	20 p.c.Various	Various	VariousFree	Free	FreeFree	Free	FreeFree	lj cts.	3 cts.per	linear footFree	Free	3c/lin. ft.15 p.c.	20 p.c.	25 p.c.15 p.c.	174 p.c.	30 p.c.Free	Free	FreeJune 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9451
Tariff
Item
British
Preferential
Tariff
Rates in Effect Prior to
.,	Rates Proposed in this Budget
Most
[Stage Direction]
Favoured-	British	Most-
Nation General Preferential Favoured-Nation	Genera!
Tariff	Tariff	Tariff	Tariff	[DOT] Tariff
92942-Vegetable alkaloids, natural or reproduced by synthesis, and their salts, ethers, esters and other derivatives:
92942-4 Caffeine and its salts	 Free	12} p.c. 25 p.e.	Free
12} p.c.
25 p.c.
93404-Synthetic wax; .waxes containing synthetic wax:
93404- Polyethylene of a number-average molecular
weight not exceeding 4,000	 Free	Free	10 p.c.	Free	Free
10. That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 70310-1 and 70315-1, and the opposite each of those items, and by inserting in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff the following items, enumerations
enumerations of goods and the rates of of goods and rates of duty:
duty set
Rates in Effect Prior to
					Rate:	s Proposed in this Budget
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	Favoured- Nation Tariff	General Tariff	British Preferential Tariff	Most- Favoured-Nation General Tariff Tariff
Goods (not including alcoholic beverages, cigars, cigarettes and manufactured tobacco except where specifically provided therefor) acquired abroad by a resident of Canada for his personal or household use or as souvenirs or gifts, but not bought on commission or as an accommodation for any
9452	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 196S
70311-1
other person or for sale, and declared by him at the time of his return to Canada, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe:
Valued at not more than twenty-five dollars (including alcoholic beverages not exceeding forty ounces, and tobacco not exceeding fifty cigars, two hundred cigarettes and two pounds of manufactured tobacco) and included in the baggage accompanying the resident of Canada returning from abroad after an absence from Canada of not less than forty-eight hours	 Free
A resident of Canada shall not be entitled to the exemption granted under this item more often than once in each calendar quarter, that is in each quarterly period in a year beginning on January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1, respectively.
Valued at not more than one hundred dollars (including alcoholic beverages not exceeding forty ounces, and tobacco not exceeding fifty cigars, two hundred cigarettes and two pounds of manufactured tobacco) and included in the baggage accompanying the resident of Canada returning from abroad after an absence from Canada of not less than twelve days	 Free
Goods (other than alcoholic beverages, cigars, cigarettes and manufactured tobacco) acquired in any country beyond the continental limits of North America may be entered under this item although they are not included in the baggage accompanying the returning resident if they are declared by him at the time of his return to Canada.
The exemption granted under this item shall be extended only to a resident who, upon his return to Canada, establishes in such form and manner as the Minister may specify by regulation that he has been abroad for a minimum period of twelve days, which form and manner may differ according to the country visited or the mode of travel used.
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free	F ree
Free
Free	Free	FreeVarious	Various	VariousJune 3, 19G9	COMMONS DEBATES	9453
Tariff
Item
British
Preferential
Tariff
Most-
Favoured-
Nation
Tariff
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
British	Most-
General	Preferential	Favoured-Nation	GeneralTariff	Tariff	Tariff	Tariff
A resident of Canada shall not be entitled to the exemption granted under this item more than once in a calendar year and he shall not be entitled, with respect to the same trip abroad, to claim an exemption under tariff item 70S 10-1 if he claims an exemption under this item.
70312-1 Valued at not more than one hundred dollars (not including goods otherwise allowed duty-free entry into Canada, nor alcoholic beverages, cigars, cirarettes and manufactured tobacco) and included in the baggage accompanying the resident of Canada returning from abroad after an absence from Canada of not less than forty-eight hours	
..	25 p.c.	25 p.c.	25 p.c.	Various	Various	Various70313-1 Valued at not more than five dollars (not including alcoholic beverages, cigars, cigarettes and manufactured tobacco) and included in the baggage accompanying the resident of Canada returning from abroad after an absence from Canada of not less than forty-eight hours. . 	Free	Free	Free	Various	Various	VariousThe exemption granted under this item shall be extended only to a resident who, at the time of his return to Canada, is not entering any other goods under any other item of this heading (or under tariff items 70310-1 or 70315-1 until January 1, 1970).	
Goods entitled to entry under any item of this heading shall be exempt from all other imposts notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other Act.
9454	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1969
The Minister by regulation may, notwithstanding any other provision in customs legislation relating to the entry of goods, excuse a returning resident of Canada from any requirement for making a written declaration or entry with respect to goods entitled to entry under any item of this heading.
The Governor in Council may, by order, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, reduce the maximum value of goods that are entitled to entry under any item of this heading but every order made pursuant to this authority shall be published in the Canada Gazette, and shall cease to have any force or effect on the 180th day following its making or, if Parliament is not then in session, on the 15th day after the. commencement of the next ensuing session, unless, before that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
11. That the heading to the column in Schedule B to the Customs Tariff entitled "Portion of Duty (not including Special Duty or Dumping Duty) payable as Drawback" be amended by striking out the expression "not including Special Duty or Dumping Duty' .
12 That any enactment founded upon paragraphs 1 to 9 inclusive and paragraph 11 of this motion shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4th day of June, 1969 and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said paragraphs imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
13.	That any enactment founded upon paragraph 10 of this motion shall come into force on the 1st day of January, 1970, with the exception of items 70312-1 and 70313-1 which shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4th day of June, 1969.
14.	That a consequential amendment be made to the Excise Tax Act by providing that the reference in Part VII of Schedule III to the Excise Tax Act to tariff items 47600-1, 47815-1 and 69605-1 be read and construed as a reference to these items as they read immediately before June 4, 1969.
June 3. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9455
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
presented by
the Honourable Edgar J. Benson, M.P., Minister of Finance for the information of Parliament
June 3, 1369

[Stage Direction]
The purpose of these Papers is twofold:
1.	to present a general economic review of 1968 and early 1969, bringing together in one place and in convenient form some of the more comprehensive indicators of economic conditions prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the Bank of Canada and other government agencies, together with some comments;
2.	to present a preliminary review of the Government Accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969.
June 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9461

[Stage Direction]
Page
The Canadian Economy: Recent Developments	 9463
Introduction	 9463
Financial developments	 9465
The Changing Pressures of Demand	 9467
Personal sector	 9468
Business sector	 9470
Government sector demand for goods and services	 9472
Foreign sector: exports and the current account	 9473
Regional Activity	 9479
The Balance of the Economy: Source and Disposition of Saving	 9483
Employment, Prices, Costs and Productivity	 9485
Employment	 9485
Prices	 9487
Wage rates and labour costs	 9489
Productivity	 9491
Governments	 9493
The functions of government	 9493
Current developments	 9495
Revenues of governments	 9497
Expenditures of governments	 9499
External Financial Relationships	 9499
The external environment	 9499
Government and private borrowing abroad	 9500
The capital account of the Canadian balance of payments	 9501
The reserves	 9503
Developments in Domestic Financial Markets	 9504
Bond market financing	 9506
Federal government debt operations	 9508
Housing finance	 9511
Financial flows and financial institutions	 9513
The Economic Outlook	 9518
Foreign developments	 9518
The Canadian outlook	 9520
Conclusions	 9522
Index to Reference Tables	 9525
The tables and charts in this Budget Paper are based upon data provided by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the Bank of Canada and other government agencies. A few of the figures appear for the first time; others have been published elsewhere. All 1969 figures and some of those for 1968 are preliminary and subject to revision.
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Page
Price Change and Unemployment Rate, 1955-1968	 9464
Change in Gross National Expenditure, 1963-1968	 9468
Personal Income and Expenditure, 1963-1968	 9469
Housing Starts and Completions and Mortgage Rates, 19591968	 9471
Government Sector Expenditure on Goods and Services, 19611968	 9472
Balance of Payments Current Account 1965-1968	 9474
Current Account-Non-Merchandise, 1965-1968	 9476
Current Account Balances, Major Trading Partners, 1963-1968 9478
Labour Force and Employment, by Region, 1964-1969	 9481
Unemployment Rates, Canada and by Region, 1964-1969. ... 9482
Business Investment Expenditure and Business Gross Saving,
1963-1969	 9484
Labour Force Developments, 1961-1969	 9485
Changes in Labour Force and Employment, 1964-1968	 9486
Consumer Price Index, 1963-1969	 9488
Contract Settlements and Price Change, 1965-1968	 9489
Wage Costs per Unit of Output, 1963-1968	 9490
Real Domestic Product, 1964-1968	 9491
Labour Costs and Productivity in Manufacturing, 1964-1968. . 9492
Structural Changes in Government Sector Expenditure, 1960,
1964 and 1968	 9494
Government Revenue and Expenditure, Annual, 1955-1968.. 9496
Government Revenue and Expenditure, quarterly, 1966-1968. 9498
Canadian Dollar in United States Funds, 1965-1969	 9502
International Interest Rate Comparisons, 1966-1969	 9505
Selected Interest Rates, Canada, 1966-1969	 9507
Mortgage Rates and Bond Yields, 1965-1969	 9512
Assets of Selected Financial Institutions, 1963-1968	 9514
Selected International Indicators, 1964-1968	 9519
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]


ECONOMIC WHITE PAPER FOR 1969 THE CANADIAN ECONOMY: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Introduction
In early 1969, the Canadian economy entered its ninth year of expansion. In perspective, there had been a period of recovery from 1961 until 1964, followed by two years of overheating, a year of adjustment and slower growth in 1967, and a resumption of strong growth in 1968 which gathered momentum towai'd the end of the year and carried forward into early 1969. Since 1965 increases in prices have been larger than desirable, and public policy has been designed to replace inflationary expansion by balanced and sustained growth.
The slower pace of economic activity apparent early in 1967 raised some concern that the economy might be entering upon a period of recession after the acceleration of 1965 and 1966. On the basis of past experience, such concern might well have been justified. The very rapid expansion of industrial capacity during the investment boom meant that the nation's stock of capital plant and equipment was sufficient to meet current and immediately prospective demand for goods and services. Commercial inventories were high. Bottlenecks had developed in construction, and cost and price increases signalled full employment of resources in many parts of the country. The unsustainable increases which had occurred in many sectors of the economy suggested that expectations of decline would not have been unreasonable.
As the evidence came in, however, it became clear that a number of dynamic elements were at work during 1967. They proved powerful enough to maintain continued expansion in overall economic activity throughout 1967 and into 1968. Business investment declined, as expected, but the decline was only moderate and did not spread to other parts of the economy. The inventory adjustment which occurred took the form of a stabilization rather than of substantial cutbacks. The effect was orderly and spread over several successive quarters. Meanwhile, certain features of the new Bank Act and other financial changes had cleared the way for an increase in new residential construction, and housing starts rose sharply during the course of 1967. Although unemployment rose as the labour force continued to expand rapidly, employment and labour income also increased. Personal expenditures rose. Exports continued to grow in an expansive international environment.
Thus, although the year 1967 was indeed marked by a desirable correction of some imbalances the readjustment was overshadowed by further expansion in production, income and expenditure. As a result, total activity continued to advance, but at a slower pace. Expectations of recession were not confirmed by events, but the temporary slowdown in overall growth permitted some necessary cyclical corrections to take place.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
In 1968, despite some strikes which affected a number of industries, the real growth of the economy again began to accelerate. By year-end the pace of advance had returned to a very high level. Among the elements which contributed, the increase in exports was a most important influence. This gain reflected both exceptionally strong demand for most of our traditional products and further rapid growth of exports of secondary manufactures; the continued rationalization of the North American automotive industry played a large part in this. Also of major importance in the renewed growth was the rapid expansion of activity in residential construction. Steadily increasing expenditures by individuals and governments contributed to the increase in overall demand, and renewed expansion of investment expenditures by the business sector now appears to be under way.
The rise in output which occurred in response to the 1968 demand growth was met to a considerable extent by rising productivity in goods-producing industries. Despite a year-over-year increase in employment, new job opportunities failed to match the still-rapid growth of the labour force. Unemployment was consequently higher than in 1967, for both men and women. In more recent months, however, the rate of unemployment has been declining although the labour force has continued to increase rapidly.

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent	per Cent
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
The pressure of costs and prices remains a major problem. Neither the 1967 slowdown nor the advance of productivity in 1968 has brought to an end the general advance in prices. Strong gains in prices late in 1968 have been followed by further substantial increases in the opening months of 1969. Rents and other housing costs are still moving upward at a rapid rate, with health and personal care items also recording large increases. New labour contract settlements, although fractionally less than in 1967, continued at high levels throughout 1968, reflecting strong collective bargaining positions, the pressure of current demand for certain kinds of labour, and expectations about future trends in general price levels.
Despite the still-excessive increase in prices, the Canadian balance of payments on current transactions achieved further substantial improvement in 1968. This was attributable to inflationary pressures in the United States which were even stronger than those in Canada, and to major strikes which increased U.S. requirements for Canadian metals. In these circumstances, demand for Canadian exports was strong, while imports, reflecting in part the stability of investment spending in Canada, did not rise as rapidly. The deficit on current account was the lowest since the early 1950s.
Financial developments
International financial disturbances and an increasingly inflationary environment and psychology combined to bring about extensive changes in financial conditions in Canada in 1968. As a result, long-term interest rates rose to record levels in the course of the year.
Interest rates began their marked rise in the late spring of 1967, in response to inflationary expectations and tightening monetary conditions in both Canada and the United States. The Canadian Bank Rate was raised from per cent to 6 per cent during the later months of the year.
Early in 1968 a combination of factors, including concern about the international monetary system, pessimism in some quarters about Canada's competitive position in world markets, and concern about the effect on Canada of new U.S. restrictions on business investment abroad, gave rise to a severe speculative run on the Canadian dollar. Policies affecting monetary and credit conditions in Canada during the first half of 1968 were designed first to meet this threat to the value of the Canadian dollar, and subsequently to allow foreign exchange reserves to be rebuilt and to repay the foreign funds borrowed to meet the crisis. In the early part of this period, short- and long-term interest rates in Canada moved significantly higher than U.S. rates, although the forward discount on the Canadian dollar often more than offset the short-term interest differential in favour of investment in Canada. Bank Rate was raised to 7 per cent in January and 1\ per cent in March.
In early March 1968, Canada was given complete exemption from those parts of the U.S. Balance of Payments Program administered by the U S.
29180-59S
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board. This exemption, together with the calming effect in world financial markets of the establishment of the two-tier gold price system on March 17, brought to an end pressures on the Canadian dollar. A strengthening trend immediately set in and, by August, the short-term funds borrowed abroad had been repaid, the reserves had been rebuilt to their pre-crisis level, and the Canadian dollar was strong.
Several developments combined in the spring and summer of 1968 to improve the tone of securities markets in Canada. The economy had moved to a more sustainable rate of growth, the government's revised tax increases were passed by Parliament in mid-March, and there was some evidence that prices and wages were not rising as fast. International agreement on a scheme to create Special Drawing Rights and on the two-price gold system helped to stabilize the international situation. The enactment of U.S. tax increases and budgetary expenditure cuts in late June and the commencement of talks on peace in Vietnam also contributed to confidence. Short-term and long-term interest rates eased, and the chartered banks made substantial purchases of federal government bills and bonds to restore their liquidity position. Bank Rate was reduced in three stages, to 6 per cent, between early July and early September.
The modest improvement in bond prices and market psychology was short lived. As the third quarter drew to a close, it appeared that the U.S. fiscal measures passed in June were having less impact than expected. The Canadian economy continued to grow while prices maintained their advance without further improvement. The central banks of Canada and the United States both moved to reverse the monetary ease that had developed over the summer, in anticipation of the restraining impact generally expected from the new fiscal policies in both countries. By the end of the third quarter credit conditions were again tightening; yields were moving up in all sectors of the market and reached record highs for long-term bonds and mortgages. These developments, including larger-than-expected budgetary expenditures by the federal government, adversely affected Canadian financial markets. The Minister of Finance, in his October Budget, noted particularly the urgent need to check inflation, and announced a further programme of fiscal tightening to achieve a balanced budget in the 1969-70 fiscal year. Taxes were increased for the second time in 1968. In November, renewed uncertainties about the French franc and the British pound resulted in speculative funds moving out of both those countries, mainly into Germany, and from currencies into gold. These factors continued in varying degrees to affect the situation into the first quarter of 1969.
The most significant and pervasive factor influencing financial markets throughout 1968 was the inflationary psychology, a phenomenon which had been taking root in the previous three years. It had many manifestations. Despite historically high and rising yields, even at levels which appeared to anticipate a continuation of inflation, the market for long-term bonds in Canada became progressively less receptive to new issues. As a result, although Canadian governments and corporations borrowed more through the sale of bonds in
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
1968 than they did in 1967, net sales of bonds in Canada were down substantially. Foreign borrowings were, however, more than double the high level of 1967. The main feature of this foreign borrowing was the large-scale use for the first time of the continental European bond market, especially in Germany.
Canadian financial institutions and investment funds accelerated their move from long-term fixed income securities into shares, real estate, and money market instruments. Holdings of mortgages, however, increased significantly as the high level of interest rates attracted substantial investment flows without restraining the demand for new housing.
As common stock prices rose, stock yields fell from about 4.75 per cent in March to about 3.50 per cent at year end, or to about half the yield obtainable on long-term Government of Canada bonds. This situation reflected the accelerated move into stocks by financial institutions, funds, and individuals seeking; a hedge against inflation, as well as the higher profits of Canadian and U.S. corporations. Although the new issues of corporate stocks in Canada in 1968 were slightly larger than in 1967, non-resident purchases were over three times, as high, and the amount purchased by Canadians declined substantially.

[Stage Direction]
To appreciate the economic consequences of the changing pattern of supply and demand, it is helpful to divide the long period of economic expansion from 1961 to the present into four distinct periods. The first of these is the period 1961 to 1964; the second, 1965 and 1966; the third, the adjustment period of 1967; and the fourth is the period of renewed expansion since that time.
The period from 1961 to 1964 may be characterized as a period of recovery and price stability. The underemployed resources of 1961 were gradually integrated into the economy, and by the end of 1964 the Canadian economy was approaching full employment.
Toward the end of 1965, it became apparent that the current growth of demand pressures, if sustained, would give rise to inflationary conditions and: imbalances in some or all sectors of the economy. Public economic policy, both: fiscal and monetary, therefore moved to a position of restraint. But strong: pressures of external demand and the momentum of earlier developments in Canada kept the economy operating at high levels of activity in 1966, as evidenced by the year-end unemployment rate of 3.6 per cent. Associated with: the sustained high rate of demand growth was a 4.6 per cent rise in the overall price level in 1966 compared to 1965.
After the second quarter of 1966, partly as a result of policy restraints, the rate of growth in real Canadian economic activity abated, falling to 3.1 per cent in 1967 from 6.4 per cent in 1966. The rate of price advance also moderated after the peak year of 1966, but only slightly as cost pressures resulting from, the earlier build-up of demand continued to affect the economy.
29180-599J
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969

[Stage Direction]
(Millions of Dollars)
1,000	_ 0 -f-	1,000	2,000	3,000	4,000	5,000	6,000
1963 TO 1964
*:::(:|:::j:-:::'i957 dollars iSyjvivj price I gross national expenditure y}7/////////////A Tpersonal expenditure on consumer goods and services
\ (GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE ON GOODS AND SERVICES I BUSINESS GROSS FIXED CAPITAL*
T '^1 I EXPORTS I IMPORTS
1964 TO 1965
[Stage Direction]
1965 TO 1966

1966 TO 1967
[Stage Direction]

immmc
1967 TO 1968

~1-I
- 0 4-
5,000
6,000
'Includes change in business non-farm inventories
Personal sector
The rate of increase in personal income, after the 11 per cent rise in 1965, slowed only slightly in the following two years; the growth was still nine per cent in 1968. These sustained increases were due, in the first place, to large annual increases in labour income which reflected both employment growth and gains in average earnings. Secondly, in 1967 there was a very sharp increase in tx-ansfers from governments to individuals.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Labour income accounted for 67.5 per cent of total personal income in the first quarter of 1965 and rose to 69.8 per cent in the fourth quarter of 1968. (Labour income represents more than two-thirds of net national income). Over the same period, the nation's total pay packet increased by 45.7 per cent. Transfers to persons (excluding interest on government debt) increased, over the same period, by 68.8 per cent. These transfers, which accounted for 12 per cent of personal income in the first quarter of 1965, accounted for 14 per cent in the last quarter of 1968. Investment income has remained at around 10 or 11 per cent of total personal income throughout this period.
The rate of annual increase in personal disposable income, which is the income available to the individual after taxes, has declined over the past four years. In 1965, disposable income rose by nearly 11 per cent, but the annual advance has since moderated steadily and in 1968 the gain was below 8 per cent. On a per capita basis the deceleration has been somewhat greater.
Despite this trend in personal disposable income, personal expenditures on goods and services have maintained a rate of increase averaging close to 8.5 per cent per year; this rate advanced slightly during 1968. Such an increase has a substantial impact on national expenditure, as the personal sector accounts for more than 60 per cent of this total.

[Stage Direction]
(Millions of Dollars)
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Personal expenditure on consumer durables was more erratic. In both 1966 and 1967 the increase was about 4 per cent, while in 1968 it jumped sharply to 10 per cent. In real terms, the changes were even more volatile, owing to substantial price increases in 1967, which reduced to about one per cent the real growth in consumer durable purchases. These price increases contrasted with relative price stability over a considerable preceding period. In 1968, the increase in prices was somewhat smaller.
In 1968, expenditures on non-durable goods increased by 6.5 per cent, somewhat below the level of 1967, which had been remarkably high, perhaps largely because of Expo. In the case of services, the increase was 10.5 per cent of which nearly half represented price.
As a result of the sustained advance in total money expenditures by individuals, the margin of saving in the non-farm personal sector has been declining as a percentage of disposable income. Although this ratio is still high by historical standards, its decline has reflected the expansionary influence of the personal sector since the period of adjustment in 1967.
Business sector
Corporation profits before income tax reached a peak in the first quarter of
1966,	and moved erratically downward in the year that followed (see reference table 20). However, on a quarterly basis, they began to rise from early in 1967. Profits amounted to 13.5 per cent of the net national income in the first quarter of 1965 but dropped to 11 per cent in the second quarter of 1967; since then, they have been on a rising trend, reaching 12.3 per cent in the last quarter of 1968. Total profits increased strongly in 1968 as a whole, compared to the year
1967.
Profits per unit of output in the non-agricultural sector fell by 6.9 per cent in 1966 and by a further 5.6 per cent in 1967. However, they rose quite sharply in 1968 as output advanced. In the manufacturing industries, profits per unit of output have tended to increase from the low point recorded in the first quarter of 1967. The mining industry in 1968 has achieved substantial gains compared to 1967. There have been diverse tendencies in the other sectors. During 1968, profits per unit of output in the transportation, storage and communication industry have shown a further decline after a very sharp drop in 1967. However, the wholesale and retail trades groups together, after a year of virtually no gains in 1967, realized substantially higher profits in 1968, with profits per unit of output advancing more moderately.
Improvement in profits encourages increases in capital outlays, just as a decline in profits leads to some postponement of investment activity. The diminution of profits in 1966 and 1967, following the high level of growth in capital expenditures from 1961 to 1966, was followed by a levelling-off in capital spending by the business sector in 1967 and 1968. Accordingly, after the end of 1966, the stock of capital was brought into a better relationship with current production. Business investment now appears to be rising again.
The behaviour of business inventories also has shown cyclical characteristics. Accumulation reached a peak early in 1966 but, following this, the quarterly increases were minor. Thus, the absolute level of inventories continued
June 3, 19B9
[Stage Direction]
to rise until the last quarter of 1967, when it declined. During 1968 a rising trend became re-established, and the inventory build-up has been of normal proportions.
Expenditures for residential construction have varied considerably over the past three years In 1966, conditions in the financial markets caused a very appreciable decrease in the funds available for mortgages. As a result, residential construction dropped off sharply that year. However, this trend was reversed in 1967 and housing expenditures increased during the year. This was followed by a major thrust in new housing starts in 1968, to record levels.

[Stage Direction]
HOUSING STARTS AND COMPLETIONS					
		AND MORTGAGE RATES					
		TOTAL			INTEREST RATES		
Thousands	Thousands	Per	Cent	Per Cent	200	200	9	9175	175	8	- N.H.A. MORTGAGE RATE** / -	8STARTS , / t	/"\ A //	150	/r\ /' -	150	7	/ -	.7\	/ / \l	f /	\\	/ / v	/	125	\\ - \\	-	125	6	/ / -	6/ / COMPLETIONS	V	GOVERNMENT BOND RATE* r	100	1	i i i i i i i	100	-i-"*-t-f- i-T'''	i i	1959 60	61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68	1959 60 61 62 63 64 65	66 67 68	SINGLE	MULTIPLE	Thousands	Thousands	Thousands	Thous	ands125	125	125	125100	100	100	100STARTS	/ /	\\	A t	\\	STARTS	f V /	75	\v,	75	75	/r^	\ / y -	75COMPLETIONS	/ ✓	/ /	J 7	50	-	50	50	COMPLETIONS "	5025	1	i i i i i i i i	25	1 1 1 1 1 1	1 1 1	1959 60	61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68	1959 60 61 62 63 64 65	66 67 68	'Average of all direct Government of Canada issues due in ten years or over	''Average rate at which mortgages issued	
June 3, 1969
Government sector demand for goods and services
The rate of increase of total public expenditure on goods and services has abated appreciably from the 11.1 per cent and 17.4 per cent advances recorded in 1965 and 1966 respectively. Expenditure grew by 9.7 per cent in 1967 and by 7.7 per cent in 1968. Price changes accounted for 4.8 per cent and 6.5 per cent of these increases respectively. The real increase in total government spending on goods and services was 4.7 per cent in 1967 and 1.1 per cent in 1968.

[Stage Direction]
NATIONAL ACCOUNTS BASIS - ANNUAL (Millions of Dollars)
The deceleration has been particularly pronounced for capital expenditure where the rate of increase has dropped from 20.3 per cent in 1965 and 17.3 per cent in 1966 to 8.2 per cent in 1967 and 6.6 per cent in 1968. The acceleration of capital expenditure in 1965 and 1966 resulted largely from activities relating to Canada's Centennial celebrations and from a rapid expansion of educational facilities. Since current expenditure is less volatile than capital expenditure, the relative decline in its rate of advance has been less pronounced. Increases in current outlays were 10.1 per cent and 8.0 per cent in 1967 and 1968 respectively.
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968
			(Millions of dollars)			
Current expenditure	6,273	6,813	7,400	8,689	9,568	10,3440)Capital expenditure	1,802	1,841	2,214	2,597	2,809	2,9950>Total current dollars	8,075	8,654	9,614	11,286	12,377	13,329(Per cent change from previous year)	Current expenditure	Real	1.4	4.8	4.7	10.4	4.8	n.a.Price	3.8	3.6	3.7	6.3	5.1	n.a.Total	5.2	8.6	8.6	17.4	10.1	8.0O>Capital expenditure	Real	-1.6	1.2	8.8	10.2	4.3	n.a.Price	4.3	0.9	10.4	6.4	3.7	n.a.Total	2.7	2.2	20.3	17.3	8.2	6.6(0All expenditure on goods and services	Real	0.5	3.9	5.8	10.4	4.7	1.1Price	4.1	3.2	5.0	6.3	4.8	6.5Total	4.6	7.2	11.1	17.3	9.7	7.7
(0 Data for 1968 are Department of Finance estimates.
As noted, the inflationary pressures at work since 1965 have pre-empted a significant proportion of the growth in value of public expenditure on goods and services. Price changes accounted for over half of the 10.1 per cent value increase registered by current expenditure in 1967. In 1968, price changes will account for an even larger proportion of the 8 per cent total increase. For capital expenditure, price increases of 3.7 per cent in 1967 were responsible for just under half of the value increase, and they could account for two-thirds of the 1968 increase.
Foreign sector: exports and the current account
The current account of the balance of payments reflects many important aspects of the state of the economy. Imports rise as the economy grows. They rise more rapidly when demand is strong and inflationary pressures are powerful. In this, they can be a useful safety-valve, supplying the marginal needs which might otherwise result only in sharp price gains. A disproportionate rise in imports is a major indicator of inflationary excess demand, and a rapid rise in the price level similarly is an inducement to an increased inflow of goods and services. Imports are thus both an indicator and a regulator.
The growth in exports depends upon economic growth in other countries, and upon cyclical variations in those countries. As the economies of the world become more closely linked, cyclical movements become more closely related.
9474
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969

[Stage Direction]
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED - BY QUARTERS (Millions of Dollars)
(Ratio Scale)
5.000
4.000
3.000
2,000
1,000
800
600
(Arithmetic Scale)
400
200
+
100
300
500
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Business fluctuations in Canada and the United States (our major customer and supplier) are usually similar in timing, and thus, as pressure of domestic demand upon productive resources increases, pressure of demand upon the export industries also grows.
In the period of growth from 1961 to 1966, shared alike by Canada and the United States, the Canadian economy could at first meet growing domestic demand out of idle domestic resources, and imports grew relatively slowly. This situation changed to one of more rapid growth as Canadian resources became more fully employed. Exports, reflecting strong demand abroad, grew even more rapidly over the period.
In 1967, exports of goods and services rose by 12 per cent and imports by 6 per cent; in 1968, exports rose by nearly 14 per cent and imports by 11 per cent. These trends are consistent with the easing of pressures in the domestic economy in 1967, and with a move toward accelerated growth in 1968.
Detail in reference table 6 shows that buoyant demand abroad indeed represented a major contribution to the demand pressures of the early period, although the growth of imports in the later part of the period eased the inflationary impact by contributing significantly to available supply. The nonmerchandise deficit increased, although this was almost entirely due to the swing of the travel account away from the extraordinary surplus achieved during the year of Expo '67.

[Stage Direction]
1966	1967	1968		Changes from previous year	
					1967	1968
		(Millions of dollars)				
Merchandise trade balance	224	481	1,295	+257	+814Gold production	127	112	112	-15	-Travel	-60	427	-8	+487	-435Interest and dividends	-822	-896	-971	-74	-75Freight and shipping	-65	-39	-22	+26	+ 17Inheritances and migrants' funds	70	124	151	+54	+27Official contributions	-166	-181	-133	-15	+48Other current transactions	-470	-571	-605	-101	-34Total non-merchandise balance	-1,386	-1,024	-1,476	+362	-452(excluding travel)	(-1,326)	(-1,451)	(-1,468)	(-125)	(-17)Current account balance	-1,162	-543	-181	+619	+362
The widening of the deficit on some other non-merchandise accounts was offset by further improvement in the balances on freight and shipping and inheritances and migrants' funds, and by a lower level of official contributions due in part to a reduction in the international food aid programme.
Instrumental in the achievement of the smallest current account deficit in 16 years was the 1800 million increase in the trade surplus to a level of $1.3 billion. The main reason was the extraordinary expansion of exports as the
9476
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED - BY QUARTERS (Millions of Dollars)
[Stage Direction]
ALL OTHER TRANSACTIONS*
INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS	INHERITANCES AND MIGRANTS FUNDS
'Including gold production available for export, freight and shipping and official contributions
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
result of faster growth in the United States than in Canada. U.S. import demand was further reinforced by labour disputes in that country, which imparted a particular stimulus to Canadian shipments of copper and iron and steel during the fourth quarter of 1967 and the first half of 1968. The increase in Canadian imports in 1968 was enlarged by the growth in the two-way trade in automotive products, but moderated by the lack of growth in business outlays on machinery and equipment, which have a high import content. Consequently, the trade surplus rose substantially, and the pressure on production capacity in Canada was thus significantly increased. Not until the fourth quarter did the growth rate of imports exceed the rate of export expansion, and the trade surplus then fell slightly below the level of the corresponding period of 1967.

[Stage Direction]
MERCHANDISE TRADE (Balance of Payments basis, seasonally adjusted)
1967	1968	1967	1968	IQ	2Q	3Q	4Q	IQ	2Q	3Q	4Q(Per cent change from same period a year ago)	Exports	10.3	19.4	16.6	15.7	0.7	8.9	14.8	17.3	25.4	20.4Imports	8.0	12.8	13.1	13.5	6.4	0.2	12.0	5.6	11.0	22.9(Millions of dollars)	Balance	481	1,295	172	79	- 63	293	274	418	317	286Change from	previous year..	+257	+814	+97	+58	-147	+249	+102	+339	+380	-7
On a Trade of Canada basis (i.e., before adjustment for balance of payments purposes), the trade surplus in 1968 was $1.2 billion, an increase of $675 million from the previous year. The surplus on trade with the United States at $123 million represented a swing from substantial and typical deficits, and was more than the overall improvement in the merchandise balance.
The deficit on trade in motor vehicles and parts, which can be attributed almost entirely to the United States, contracted by about $80 million, contributing only in a small way to the improvement of the bilateral balance with the United States. Canadian exports of wheat and flour declined further, despite a good recovery of shipments to Mainland China. All other major markets reduced their wheat purchases from Canada. In the case of South Africa, this accounted for more than the total reduction in the trade surplus with that country, and in the case of Japan, for more than half of it.
The greater strength of exports in 1968 was thus largely related to the buoyancy of demand in the United States. Shipments to the EEC accelerated only moderately, while those to the U.K. recorded an even smaller increase than in 1967. Exports to Mainland China rose nearly 80 per cent, but the increase was based on the very low level of the previous year, and was in any case offset.
[Stage Direction]
June 3< 1969

[Stage Direction]
by further declines in sales to other state-trading countries. Japanese purchases from Canada, which in 1967 rose by 45 per cent, fell off substantially during the first few months, and the gain for the year as a whole reached only 6 per cent. Exports to Australia also rose less rapidly and those to South Africa fell substantially.
On a commodity basis, wheat shipments fell for the second year in succession, but exports of motor vehicles and parts continued to advance rapidly, accounting for nearly half the gain in overall exports. Nevertheless, the demand for other Canadian products also rose much more than in the previous year, and this found expression in larger increases in shipments of forest products, iron ore and scrap, aluminum, and iron and steel. On the other hand, some slowdown took place in the rate of exports of oil and gas and nickel.
In the case of imports, the acceleration was largely attributable to transactions with the United States, although there was also a significant recovery in purchases from the U.K. Imports from Japan and Venezuela rose at about the same high rates as in the previous year, but those from the EEC advanced at a much slower pace.
The composition of imports in Canada is such that end products show a much faster growth rate than primary and fabricated materials. This was true again in 1968, but to a lesser extent. Imports of motor vehicles rose at about the same rate as in 1967, but those of production equipment were flat and there were declines in some sectors, particularly agricultural machinery and tractors.
June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
On the other hand, imports of drilling machinery and of machinery for the plastics and chemical industries registered very substantial increases. Imports of some end products, such as aircraft, communications equipment and textiles were very buoyant, while iron and steel purchases registered another decline.

[Stage Direction]
Variations in the regional structure of the Canadian economy give rise to differences in incomes, employment, investment patterns, and rates of economic growth from one region to another. In a country of such great geographic diversity as Canada, regional economic developments may diverge quite widely from the national trend in response to differing circumstances affecting the regions.
At times, when prices are rising too rapidly and when certain regions of the country are more fully employed, such as the present, measures designed to increase economic activity in those areas with under-employed resources must of necessity be different from policies designed to raise the level of economic activity throughout the whole country. Accordingly, programmes to reduce regional inequalities present a serious challenge to the policy-maker.
Among the current indicators of the level of regional activity, the regional labour force data provide a useful guide to trends and developments. Reference table 33 shows that unemployment in Ontario, the most highly industrialized labour market region, remains very low, having returned to the levels of late 1966. The rate in the prairie region is also lower than the average, although the low rate itself (which is characteristic of this region) is not so much an indication of local pressures which could contribute to price advance as a reflection of the high proportion of self-employed farmers in this part of Canada. In this region, as in all others, the unemployment rate now appears to be moving downward. The rapid growth in employment opportunities in British Columbia attracts workers; the unemployment rate in that province is usually higher, reflecting in part the resulting frictional unemployment. Trends in the Atlantic region are showing more improvement relative to the rest of Canada than has been typical in the past; and Quebec, due to adjustments after Expo year, has recently lagged in relative terms. These trends are summarized in the following figures:

[Stage Direction]
Expressed as a ratio of the unemployment rate for Canada
1967	1968	1969IQ	2Q	3Q	4Q	IQ	2Q	3Q	4Q	IQAtlantic	1.69	1.71	1.56	1.49	1.48	1.59	1.58	1.59	1.54Quebec	1.31	1.28	1.27	1.28	1.35	1.31	1.30	1.43	1.48Ontario	0.75	0.76	0.80	0.77	0.75	0.76	0.77	0.70	0.65Prairies	0.53	0.54	0.57	0.59	0.59	0.62	0.71	0.58	0.61British Columbia	1.27	1.21	1.21	1.28	1.27	1.25	1.25	1.15	1.17
June 3. 1969
Although changing industrial patterns and numbers of part-time workers raise statistical problems, a comparison of average wages earned gives another general indication of economic developments. In 1967, the average wages earned by each employed worker in the Atlantic region was close to 80 per cent of the national average, and the proportion increased to about 82 per cent in 1968. In the prairies the proportions were somewhat higher than in the Atlantic region. Quebec was marginally below the national average in 1967, and moved closer in 1968. In Ontario, average earnings were consistently close to 111 per cent of the national average in both years, and in British Columbia there was a decline in relative earnings, from around 114 per cent of the national average in 1967 to around 110 per cent in 1968.
Capital expenditures provide another useful guide to the strength of7the economy in the various provinces. For Canada as a whole, as noted elsewhere, outlays on new investment levelled off in 1967 after three years of very rapid growth, and moved up only modestly in 1968. Among the provinces, however, developments have varied. British Columbia, after the vast pulp mill developments of earlier years, recorded a slight drop in 1968. The prairie provinces have shown sustained strength as a group, although the Saskatchewan picture has recently softened as the potash development programme has moved to completion. Manitoba has shown consistent advances in capital outlays in the business sector, which for Canada as a whole have been level since 1966. Alberta also has shown above-average strength in both business and housing Business investment in Ontario has been virtually flat, at a relatively high level, since 1966. In Quebec, the completion of major Expo projects in late 1966 was followed by a fairly sharp drop in business spending in 1967, but total outlays advanced modestly in 1968. In New Brunswick, as some major projects were completed, business expenditures fell very steeply in 1967 and 1968. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have each recorded continued gains of some magnitude; in the latter case the influence of the Churchill Falls project has been important, but in Nova Scotia the business sector has been declining, while housing and the public sector have been moving forward. Investment in Prince Edward Island has shown no growth since 1965, and recorded a decline in 1967.
The 1969 outlook in the provinces is still mixed. The Atlantic region as a whole shows more widespread strength with a major swing from decline to growth in New Brunswick; Nova Scotia and Newfoundland also record new advances. According to the survey of capital investment intentions, Prince Edward Island appears likely to experience some further decline. In Quebec, a rather modest total advance reflects gains in housing and the public sector. In Ontario, an expected very substantial advance in the business sector and a large advance in housing will result in a major increase in total outlays-a potentially inflationary danger. The prairie region reflects continued but more modest gains in Manitoba, an expected decline in Saskatchewan, and an average increase in Alberta, so that the region as a whole reveals rather less investment growth than in 1968. British Columbia, after a slight drop in 1968, should record some advance in 1969, although a fall in utilities (as major hydro-electric projects move closer to completion) offsets other gains in the business sector. Details are shown in reference tables 15 and 16.
June 3. 1969

[Stage Direction]
SEMI-ANNUALLY - IN THOUSANDS*
(Ratio Scale)
LABOUR FORCE	 EMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
[DOT]1969 figures are first quarter only
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Trends in retail trade have varied from one region to another. In 1968, the uncertain condition of world wheat markets, together with the existence of large stocks of unsold grain, were associated with little change in total retail sales in Saskatchewan. In British Columbia, by contrast, settlement of major forest industry labour disputes early in 1968 was followed by a rise of 8 per cent in retail sales in the year. In Newfoundland, a heavy construction programme was instrumental in raising personal expenditures by 9 per cent in the year. In Quebec, after the Expo climax of 1967, the 1968 increase in retail sales was only 2.5 per cent.
Similarly, regional specialization in particular types of products, together with recent and prospective developments of markets and of transportation technology, have influenced the pattern of capital expenditures in the various regions. The potentialities of bulk carriers of primary products, loading at deep water ports, have already influenced profoundly economic developments in western Canada and may well have begun to bring about far-reaching changes in the east. In Alberta and British Columbia these developments have been supported by the development of railway and other inland transportation, and have made feasible the large-scale exploitation of primary resources which previously would not have been economic. These developments have been sparked by growing demand, particularly from Japan, for many primary products, but in their turn they open up new competitive possibilities in many other markets. The future location of oil refineries and the petro-chemicals industries will also be affected by new transportation techniques, and here again export prospects are an important factor. The specialization of the central provinces in manufacturing, and the location of their major export markets in the highly-industrialized, densely-populated adjacent American states, have now resulted in renewed emphasis on investment in manufacturing facilities in this part of Canada, particularly metals, machinery and transportation equipment.
These differing trends and developments are of importance for the longer-term future. For the more immediate future, however they illustrate the nature of differing regional economic structures. The regional investment programmes in some degree reflect different inducements, different technologies, and different market potentialities. Regional wage movements and consumer demand pressures display a wide range of intensities, and unused labour resources currently vary from very low in some parts of the country to high in other parts. These differences add to the problems of policy for stabilization and growth, and underline the need to develop supplements to the more traditional economic instruments, directed at the restraint of excess pressures in areas where they develop, while encouraging continued advance wherever there are unused resources to make it possible.
THE BALANCE OF THE ECONOMY:

[Stage Direction]
The economic acceleration of 1968 arose from renewed demand strength and continued growth in almost all sectors. Only business investment showed little significant expenditure change in 1968. As noted, merchandise exports grew by nearly 20 per cent, and housing, consumer and government spending all increased substantially in percentage and dollar terms.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
As may be seen by the table on source and disposition of saving (reference table 57), there was little change in the level of personal saving in 1968 and there was less call on real resources from abroad (as measured by the reduced deficit on current account). But substantial increases in savings both by the business sector and the government sector, including the Canada and Quebec pension plans, took place. These savings matched the increase in outlays on housing and business inventories, and there was, as noted, virtually no change in the level of business fixed investment.

[Stage Direction]
There was a moderation in the rate of growth of personal saving, as the increase in expenditure exceeded the growth in personal disposable income. The needs of the business sector for saving were moderated by the unchanged level of business investment. With respect to governments, the growth in the surplus (on a national accounts basis, including contributions to the Canada and Quebec pension plans), represented an additional source of saving to the economy, which was used to finance in part the very large investment and lending operations of all levels of government.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
While the capacity of the economy to meet increasing demand grows from year to year, it can be seen from the 1968 experience that a renewed growth in business investment, together with sustained demands from other sectors of the economy, would require additional saving, either from domestic sources or from abroad. These savings arise domestically from a moderation in the spending, relative to income, of each major sector, and from abroad in the form of a widening of the current account deficit, necessitating a corresponding inflow of capital. The extent and degree to which the various sectors generate saving, given spending demands, helps determine changes in prices or in the balance of payments. In terms of pressure on resources, this means that a rising investment programme should be matched by more moderate growth in net demand by the other Sectors.
EMPLOYMENT, PRICES, COSTS AND PRODUCTIVITY Employment
For several years, the Canadian labour force has been rising by more than
200,000	persons annually; indeed, in 1966 and 1967 the rise exceeded 270,000 persons. This increase in numbers has been supplemented by a number of qualitative changes, such as changes in the age and sex composition of the labour force (summarized in reference table 27), and changes in the skills and mobility of the workers themselves.

[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Since 1961, the proportion of those aged fourteen and over who are employed or actively seeking employment has shown some extensive changes. The number of women participating in the labour force has increased very substantially during this period, while the participation rate for men has shown a modest decline. The influence of extended years of schooling has sharply reduced the proportion of young men seeking work or holding jobs, while young women are today remaining at work longer. The net rise in participation rates has been associated with the prolonged expansion beginning in 1961; the period of slower growth in 1967, as was to be expected, was accompanied by a check in the upward trend of the total participation rate, but this has since resumed its advance. Among adult men, the participation rate has remained relatively constant.

[Stage Direction]
From 1961 until 1966, the rate of increase in new jobs, especially in the non-agricultural sector, exceeded the growth of the labour force. While labour force growth then fell below the 1966 peak, it remained high by international standards, and the adjustment of 1967 and improved productivity through 1968 moderated the demand for additional workers. As a result, the unemployment rate rose from 3.6 per cent in 1966 to 4.1 per cent in 1967 and to 4.8 per cent in
1968.
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Labour force	
Agricultural	
N on-agricultural	
Male	
Female	
Participation rate (per cent)	
Employment	
Agricultural	
Non-agricultural	
Male	
Female	
Unemployment rate (per cent of labour force)	
1965	1966	1967	1968
(Per cent change from previous year)
3.0	3.9	3.7	2.9-6.1	-8.5	2.7	-1.83.9	5.0	3.8	3.32.1	2.5	2.6	2.55.3	7.3	6.2	4.954.4	55.1	55.5	55.53.8	4.2	3.2	2.1-5.7	-8.4	2.8	-2.34.8	5.4	3.2	2.53.1	2.9	2.0	1.65.7	7.4	5.9	4.43.9	3.6	4.1	4.8
Source: DBS The Labour Force.
Prices
The rate of increase in the implicit price index for gross national expenditure, which is the most general measure of overall price change available, rose from 1.8 per cent in 1963 to over 2.6 per cent in 1964, and reached 4.6 per cent in 1966. In 1967, this index registered an increase of 3.6 per cent over 1966. This last change was attributable in part to the removal of the federal sales tax on machinery and equipment which occurred in that year, and to a relative (but temporary) stabilization in food prices. The rise in prices was otherwise general throughout all components of gross national expenditure. This tendency persisted in 1968, though with some moderation in some areas, and the 1968 rise, as measured in the implicit price index, was also 3.6 per cent over the previous year.
The consumer price index showed much the same trends as the implicit price index for personal expenditures.
After advancing by 3.7 per cent in 1966, largely as a result of the sharp rise (6.3 per cent) in food prices, the consumer price index increased by fractionally less than this in 1967. In 1968, the total index increased by 4.1 per cent, due in part to a 6 per cent increase in shelter costs and a 4.4 per cent increase in the cost of services; food increased by 3.3 per cent. Prices of non-durable goods, other than food, have increased more rapidly since 1966 than in the preceding years, and have become one of the strongest components in the index. Shelter costs, as a result of the increase in the price of new houses, higher interest rates on mortgages and the rising levels of rents, municipal taxes, and related services, have played, and continue to play, a relatively important role in raising the consumer price index. For four years, the price index for services has shown consistently strong increases, averaging more than 4 per cent a year. This reflects a steady rise in wage rates and little offset from productivity, so that wage costs have been translated fairly directly into prices.
Certain other price series have come to the fore as economic indicators of pressure in recent months. Among them are the industry selling price indexes, some of which serve as particularly sensitive indicators of demand pressure
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
and cost developments. The sharp increases which have occurred in the wood products industries since mid-1968 have in part reflected the rise in demand associated with the increase in housing construction in both Canada and the United States. Over the past year, prices of cement and similar construction items have risen substantially, as have prices of paint and associated products. Some items in the wholesale price index similarly have advanced in response to renewed demand growth, and the total index rose by 2.1 per cent in 1968. In the final months of 1968 and in early 1969 the rate of increase accelerated. The price index for merchandise exports rose by 3.6 per cent in 1968.
These developments suggest that the pause of 1967 did not remove the underlying inflationary tendencies, and that prices remain susceptible to the pressures of demand.
Wage rates and labour costs
During the recent past, earnings have continued to increase fairly rapidly throughout the economy. This increase shows up clearly both in new wage settlements and in actual earnings.

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent	Per Cent
Negotiated increases in average annual wage rates under major collective agreements (excluding construction) rose from 5.7 per cent in 1965 to 8.7 per cent in 1967, moderating only slightly to 8.1 per cent in 1968. In those noncommercial industries (public administration and defence, hospitals, education and other community services) for which information is available, increases were about 1 per cent higher than the general average. Incomes of professional workers, both employed and self-employed, have also been rising substantially in the past few years.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Average hourly earnings have followed a similar pattern to that of wage settlements. In manufacturing, the annual rate of growth in hourly earnings was 7.7 per cent in 1968 compared to 8.3 per cent in 1967. In the construction industry, average hourly earnings advanced more rapidly, and were 10.4 per cent higher in December 1968 than a year earlier. This increase was largely attributable to the advance in hourly rates in engineering construction, which was 12 per cent in 1968.

[Stage Direction]
4	2	- 0	+ 2	4	6	8	10I	' I 1	1	1	1	1
1963 - 1966*
| TOTAL
[%/^ANUFACTURINO

[Stage Direction]
^Ttra^p^tm^7^rage and communication COMMUNITY.

[Stage Direction]
1967/1966
* Annual Average
The annual rate of increase in wage cost per unit of output in the commercial non-agricultural industries rose from 4.5 per cent in 1965 to 6.7 per cent in 1966. It dropped to 5.1 per cent in 1967, and in 1968 it advanced by 3.4 per cent. In the manufacturing industries, unit wage costs also decelerated, registering an advance of 1.7 per cent in the year compared to 5.7 per cent in 1967. This was the result of higher productivity, which rose by 4.6 per cent in 1968 after a rise of only 0.2 per cent in 1967.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Productivity
The volume of real domestic product, excluding agriculture, after rapid increases in 1965 and 1966, rose at a more moderate rate of 3.5 per cent in 1967. In 1968, as the economy resumed more rapid growth, it advanced by 4.4 per cent.

[Stage Direction]
10. 1964 = 100
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
The construction industry, after output gains of 13.9 per cent in 1965 and of 5.9 per cent in 1966, advanced by only 0.5 per cent in 1967. In 1968, output rose by 5.1 per cent in this industry. The output of the manufacturing industries was virtually unchanged in 1967, after the sharp rises of 7.3 per cent and 9.1 per cent in 1966 and 1965, respectively. In 1968, after a slight rise in the first quarter, the volume of production in these industries advanced in the second quarter; this increase continued in the third and fourth quarters. As a whole, manufacturing output advanced by 5.1 per cent in the year.
To a large extent, fluctuations in employment reflected the trends in real output. The mining sector, after increasing its labour force quite sharply in 1965, made only moderate advances in total employment in 1966 and 1967. In the manufacturing industries, where the rate of long-term employment increase is relatively low, employment increased by 5.2 per cent and 4.8 per cent in 1965 and 1966 respectively; it remained more or less stable in 1967. In 1968, the rate of increase was slight, despite the renewed growth in output, as output per worker rose substantially.
In the commercial non-agricultural industries as a whole, productivity (as measured by aggregate output per employee) in 1966 advanced very moderately, and in 1967 it showed a slight acceleration. This was in part attributable to productivity gains in the mining and construction industries of 4.8 and 4.9 per cent respectively. Productivity in the durable-products sector slowed down

[Stage Direction]
10. 1964 = 100 (Ratio Scale)

[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
in both 1966 and 1967. Recovery in 1968 was accompanied by additional strength in overall manufacturing productivity, where output per employee advanced by 4.6 per cent in the year.
Productivity in the transportation, storage and communications sector improved in 1968, and employment also increased. In the wholesale and retail trades, however, productivity and the level of employment moved in opposite directions; productivity declined while employment rose. The same trends were observed in the finance, insurance and real estate sector.

[Stage Direction]
The functions of government
Since the middle of the nineteen fifties, the role and structure of government expenditure in Canada have steadily changed. In 1956 the expenditures of all governments, on a national accounts basis, were slightly more than 26 per cent of gross national expenditure. By 1960 they had grown to almost 31 per cent. Between 1960 and 1964, their growth was roughly parallel to that of the whole economy, but by 1968 they had increased their share to about 35 per cent.
Within this over-all pattern, structural changes were evolving.
The expenditures of governments on goods and services, which are a measure of what governments buy, have grown relatively modestly from 17.6 per cent of gross national expenditure in 1956, to 19.8 per cent in 1968. Transfers from governments to persons (including universities and hospitals) and to businesses, however, grew more rapidly than government expenditure on goods and services, rising from less than a third of total government expenditure in 1956 to almost 43 per cent in 1968. Federal transfers also grew more rapidly than expenditure on goods and services, but the federal government share of the public sector declined from 59 per cent in 1956 to 47 per cent in 1968.
While the overall growth on the revenue side mirrored the general expenditure picture, the structure of the revenue system changed much less. Personal direct taxes grew from about 21 per cent to 27.5 per cent of total revenues, while the relative importance of corporate and indirect taxes declined. The most striking change in revenues was the relative decline in the federal share, over the whole period, from almost 90 per cent to 64 per cent in personal direct taxes, from 95 to 75 per cent of corporate taxes, and from 53 to 38 per cent of indirect taxes. In total, the federal share of all government revenues, including intergovernmental transfers, declined from about 63 per cent in 1956 to 46 per cent in 1968.
The basis of this pattern of change can be seen in the growth of Canada's population, the changes in public expectations, and the rapid industrialization and urbanization of the country. The rate of Canada's population growth has been among the highest in the developed world, due to the baby boom of the
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
$ Millions
late 1940s and early 1950s, and to substantial immigration. It is expected to continue growing more rapidly than in the United States, and twice as rapidly as in Europe. A very rapid movement from rural to urban areas has also been in progress. While total population increased by about 10 per cent between 1961 and 1966, urban population increased by 16 per cent, and population in centres over 100,000 grew by almost 20 per cent. These two factors have made immense demands upon the public educational system. The growing number of young Canadians, and the higher educational level required by an industrial society, rapidly and successively increased enrolments at all levels. The period of rapid expansion now appears to have ended for the elementary schools, although their enrolments increased by about 8 per cent between 1964 and 1968. Secondary school enrolment grew by almost 20 per cent in that period, compared however to 45 per cent in the previous four years. The crest of the wave has now reached
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
the universities. University enrolment grew by 71 per cent, up from 56 per cent between 1960 and 1964. These pressures rapidly expanded the requirements for educational facilities provided by municipal, provincial and federal governments. Table 6 illustrates these population trends.

[Stage Direction]
Reprinted from Economic Council of Canada, Fourth Annual Review, page 59.
While the most rapid expansion was required in educational facilities and operation, the larger, more concentrated, and more affluent population increased demands, both quantitative and qualitative, for hospital services, water and sanitation, urban transportation and the whole urban infrastructure. The need for social welfare services has also grown. This was especially evident in the older age groups. The increasingly industrial economy had fewer jobs to offer those over sixty-five and the urban family could no longer provide the shelter and security which used to be provided by the family farm.
Current developments
These underlying factors have operated throughout the period. The most recent changes, however, reflect the inflationary pressures and rapidly rising costs which have affected the whole economy over the past four years. The particular sensitivity of government expenditures to inflationary pressure is largely due to the fact that government (including education) is a labourintensive industry. Probably 70 per cent of operating expenditures in education are wages and salaries, and most other functions of government show similar patterns. Productivity gains are difficult to measure or even define in the government sector, so that as salaries have risen (generally at similar rates to those in the private sector) the price and cost indicators relating to the public sector have been advancing particularly rapidly.
In this situation, with growing demand compounded by inflationary trends, government efforts to moderate demand expansion have reduced rates of ex-
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
NATIONAL ACCOUNTS BASIS (Millions of Dollars)
TOTAL*	FEDERAL
5.000
4.000
(Arithmetic Scale)
1,000	1,000
+	+
0	0
1,000	1,000
1965	1968
(Ari thmetic Scale)
	SURPLUSES.	
I I l'/	/~~'**^***'S DEFICIT I I I I I I I I I	_l	
1,000
1,000
1965	1968


[Stage Direction]
5.000
4.000
3.000
2,000
1,000
(Arithmetic Scale)
1,000
	SURPLUS	
I I I I	DEFICIT l l I I l l I	L_L
1,000 1,000
1965	1968
(Arithmetic Scale)
1,000 1,000
MU l . I, LI J ...L-i-.L. I,
1,000
+
1,000
1965	1968
"'Excluding Intergovernment Transfers **lnduding Canada and Quebec Pension Plans
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
penditure growth rather than changed their direction. Governments have therefore had recourse to increases in taxation as well as to the growth in revenue resulting from expansion and inflation. As a result, their total revenues have risen at annual rates of 12 to 15 per cent. These actions and the operations of the Canada and Quebec pension plans resulted in a surplus, on a national accounts basis, of $800 million in 1968.
Leaving out of account the transactions of the Canada and Quebec pension plans, the overall deficit position of governments was substantially reduced from $729 million (national accounts basis) in 1967 to $190 million in 1968. The reduction was accounted for mostly by a change in the provincial government position from a deficit of around $125 million in 1967 to an estimated surplus of more than $300 million in 1968. However, irregular variations in the quarterly pattern of provincial-municipal revenues and expenditures over the past year affect the statistical results. Fiscal year figures, more reliable for provincial comparisons, will likely show a more gradual (and not as large) reduction in the provincial-municipal deficit in 1968-69.
The detail underlying the transactions of the government sector on a national accounts basis is presented in reference tables 48 to 55.
Revenues of governments
Government revenues in 1968, exclusive of intergovernmental transfers, totalled $24.2 billion, some 13.3 per cent above their 1967 level. A strong economic expansion was largely responsible for this increase, and important tax changes made it more pronounced at the provincial-municipal level. Direct taxes, accounting for approximately 40 per cent of government revenues, rose by more than 20 per cent with the rapid expansion of both personal and corporate direct taxes at the federal and provincial levels. A growth in labour income of more than 8.5 per cent, along with personal income surtaxes at the federal level and in the Province of Quebec, and increased hospital insurance premiums in Manitoba and Ontario, accounted for a 21 per cent gain in personal direct taxes. Corporate tax liabilities rose by 17 per cent in 1968, reflecting the rapid growth of corporate profits and a 3 per cent federal surtax.
Federal receipts of indirect taxes increased by less than two per cent in 1968 while provincial-municipal revenues from corporate, property and consumption taxes rose by more than 13 per cent. The lower increase at the federal level resulted from the implementation of the first Kennedy Round tariff cuts, and the exemption of drugs and production machinery from sales tax. Provincial-municipal corporate, property and consumption taxes, on the other hand, were affected by numerous increases in rates and reduced exemptions during 1968, which may have accounted for one quarter of the revenue gain. Investment
3498
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1963
income, employer and employee contributions to social insurance and receipts under the Canada and Quebec pension plans added 15 per cent of the revenue increase in 1968.
Provincial-municipal revenues were also assisted by a 23 per cent rise in receipts from the federal government. These mainly reflected higher payments for hospital insurance, post-secondary education, the Canada Assistance Plan and general fiscal arrangements.

[Stage Direction]
NATIONAL ACCOUNTS BASIS Seasonally Adjusted at Annual Rates
$ Millions

[Stage Direction]
PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL $ Mi||ipns
16,000
14.000
12.000 10,000
8,000
6,000
4.000
2.000 0
+
200
600
INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE (Annual Average)
Per Cent 18
June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures of governments
Expenditures of governments, excluding intergovernmental transfers, increased in 1968 by 10.3 per cent, continuing the deceleration from the 15 per cent increase of 1966. Restraint is most evident in payment for goods and services, which grew by about 8 per cent as compared with gains of 17 and 10 per cent in 1966 and 1967. Federal purchases of goods and services rose by 5 per cent, while provincial-municipal purchases of goods and services increased by 9 per cent. Additional wage and salary increases have accounted for a large proportion of the increased outlays on goods and services. As in 1967, transfers to persons, which include debt charges, contributed very substantially to the expenditure growth. At the federal level, the reduction on the minimum age limit for old age security payments, additional transfers for adult training allowances and increased payments out of the unemployment insurance fund largely contributed to the increase in transfer payments. At the provincial-municipal level, the continued expansion of universities and higher education as well as other social services called for a rapid growth in transfers to individuals.

[Stage Direction]
CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE 1960-61 and 1964-65 and estimates for 1968-69
1960-61	Per cent of Total	1964-65	Per cent of Total	1968-69	Per cent of Total	Perce Annual 1960-61 to 1964-65	ntage growth 1964-65 to 1968-69$m	$m	$m	1,830	17.0	1,919	13.3	2,224	9.4	1.2	3.8Health and sanitation	984	9.1	1,604	11.1	2,680	11.4	13.0	13.71,629	15.1	2,246	15.6	3,271	13.9	8.4	9.91,578	14.6	2,450	17.0	4,625	19.6	11.6	17.3Transport and communications....	1,452	13.5	1,772	12.3	2,560	10.9	5.1	9.7Natural resources and primary in-	567	5.2	624	4.3	1,080	4.6	2.4	14.7817	7.6	1,147	7.9	2,101	8.9	8.8	16.31,927	17.9	2,674	18.5	5,001	21.2	8.6	16.9Total	10,784	100.0	14,435	100.0	23,543	100.0	7.6	13.0
EXTERNAL FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS The external environment
The past year saw strong economic growth in most of the industrialized countries of the free world. There was also a most welcome development in the pattern of longer-term capital movements, which improved the financing of imbalances on current account resulting from fluctuations in trade.
Nevertheless, 1968 brought a succession of international monetary and exchange crises, of a frequency and severity hitherto unknown in the postwar period. In some cases inflationary trends certainly led to doubts about the stability of particular currencies on straightforward balance of payments grounds. But
29180-60H
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
it was also a year of social upheaval in many countries and of generalized nervousness about all currencies and about the adequacy of the international financial system. Private short-term funds moved across the exchanges in very substantial volume by comparison with past experience.
The trigger was the devaluation of sterling, in November 1967; but the ensuing ripples of nervous speculation more than once involved evident overestimation of the underlying currency risk, not least in the case of the Canadian dollar itself, but also in the cases of several European currencies.
Relative calm has prevailed since the meeting of Ministers and Governors of the Group of Ten countries in Bonn in November last. Rising levels of real investment in some countries, the prospect of the impending creation of Special Drawing Rights in the IMF, and the continued high volume of flotations in international bond markets, all combine to offer some promise that reasonably well-balanced economic and social policies henceforth may restore sufficient confidence to enable the international system to continue to function as effectively as it very clearly has done over most of the postwar period.
Government and private borrowing abroad
As already noted, the monetary crises of 1968 did not seriously impede development of longer-term capital markets on an international basis. The year saw significant and welcome growth in the European markets as sources of funds for the world at large. New international bond issues outside the United States increased to $4.7 billion, from $2.4 billion in 1967 and less than $1.5 billion in earlier years.
Canadian borrowing outside Canada rose to a record $1,889 million (gross new bond issues delivered), with a substantial carry-over of undelivered bonds at the year-end. Retirements of $394 million left net new borrowings very close to $1.5 billion. These borrowings reflected the rapidly growing need for funds on the part of Canadian borrowers, at a time when domestic capital markets were disturbed. Occurring as they did in a year which saw a much reduced deficit on current account, they left ample scope for continued heavy purchases of U.S. equities.
The most striking development with regard to Canadian borrowing abioad in 1968 was, of course, the extent to which it was carried out in European markets, especially the Eurobond and Deutsche Mark markets; these accounted for $540 million of the $1.9 billion of gross new issues, and this newly-developed flow has continued into 1969. But at the same time, this new source of funds did not drastically diminish the momentum of the more traditional Canadian borrowing in the United States, which reached $1,349 million in gross new issues, or very little less than the record level of $1,357 million recorded in 1966. The federal government placed $92 million (Canadian equivalent) in the New York market, with some $21 million in addition for delivery after the end of the year, and $176 million in Italy and Germany. Provincial and municipal governments again accounted for the majority of the remainder, as in 1967, but there was a sharp recovery in corporate borrowings.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
The capital account of the Canadian balance of payments
In contrast to the disrupted pattern of the first quarter of 1968, and the subsequent readjustments which occupied a good deal of the second quarter, the closing months of last year saw capital flows between Canada and the rest of the world fall into a more normal pattern for recent years. In most sectors of the account activity was at very high levels, which resulted in record net movements of some types of capital for the year as a whole.
It is noteworthy that most of this activity in the second half of the year seems to have been neither prompted nor interrupted to any significant extent by the major international currency crisis of November, centering on the Deutsche Mark, the French franc and sterling. As during the similar but somewhat less severe exchange crises of May and August, both the U.S. and Canadian dollars remained largely unaffected by the monetary upheaval in Europe; and the developing participation by North American borrowers in European capital markets suffered no serious setback. Moreover, flows across the exchanges as a result of changes in bank balances in 1968 were not particularly large by the standards of recent years. Large net flows and sharp swings from one quarter to another characterized years such as 1962, 1964 and 1967, and might have been expected to accompany both the domestic and overseas currency crises of 1968 as well; but in the event there were only quite modest, though persistent, outflows of banking funds during most of the year, and a small net inflow in the second quarter, when swapped deposits were being run down.
It is also clear, however, that short-term funds of other kinds did move in considerable volume during 1968. The net outflow on account of bank balances and similar short-term funds for the year as a whole amounted to $373 million, but other short-term transactions resulted in a net outflow of another $637 million, for a record total of just over $1 billion. Net repurchases of short-term Canadian corporate paper, especially finance company paper, were a more significant element in this outflow ($127 million) than in some previous years. But they were offset by increases in Canadian dollar holdings of foreigners, including international institutions. Thus, on balance, the short-term outflow other than on banking account was more than accounted for by "all other" transactions.
The contribution to this residual of the balancing item representing all unidentified transactions was discussed at some length in the last Budget Papers. While far from explaining the relatively sudden emergence of large negative balances during 1967 and 1968, a substantial positive balancing item in the fourth quarter of 1968 does tend to suggest a degree of seasonality in the balancing item; this seasonality had evidently been temporarily disrupted by the weakening of the Canadian dollar toward the end of 1967.
It would seem that new problems of measurement, rather than of coverage, have arisen in recent years, and that these are related especially to "leads and lags" in a broad sense, affecting current and capital transactions of many kinds and not necessarily or even normally arising out of particular pressures on particular currencies. In view of the significant increase in the magnitude and
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
sophistication of international corporate transactions in the sixties (and especially of intracorporate transactions across the exchanges) it is perhaps only surprising that such statistical problems did not arise sooner and have not become more widespread.

[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN DOLLAR IN UNITED STATES FUNDS*
AVERAGE NOON RATES (U.S. Cents per Unit)

[Stage Direction]
Limits at which the Exchange Fund Account has undertaken to sell or buy U.S. funds without limitation in the wholesale market
Absolute parity limits
Leads and lags of various kinds clearly occurred during the Canadian exchange crisis in the early months of 1968. The fact that they arose in the relatively unusual field of long-term direct investment flow's, both inward and outward, perhaps reflects a somewhat greater flexibility in these flows than would be the case for most other countries, as a result of closer inter-corporate links, but probably represents also the delayed effect of weakening confidence during the closing weeks of 1967. The direct investment inflow into Canada which dried up during the first quarter was subsequently resumed, and the total of $585 million for the year represented little change from the relatively high 1967 level. Direct investment abroad by Canadians rose sharply to $170 million from abnormally low net levels in 1966 and 1967. There was evidently some anticipa-
June 3, 1963
[Stage Direction]
tion involved in the $85 million total for the first quarter, as there was net disinvestment in the second quarter, but the fourth quarter especially saw further large investments abroad.
In the field of Canadian borrowing abroad through the issue of long-term securities, discussed above, anticipation seems to have become habitual. Since mid-1967, the carry-over of Canadian bonds offered in the U.S. market but not yet delivered by the end of the quarter has never fallen below $350 million and in most cases has equalled or exceeded the total value of bonds actually delivered during the quarter. The carry-over was relatively constant at $350 to $440 million until the fourth quarter of 1968; a very large bond issue for considerably later delivery, related to the Churchill Falls hydro-electric development, then raised the total of offerings to the unprecedented level of $857 million, resulting in a carry-over at the year-end of no less than $923 million.
For the first time in several years, net trade with non-residents in outstanding Canadian securities resulted in a moderate net inflow of funds, as net sales of common and preference stocks exceeded net repurchases of bonds and debentures by $42 million. This was dwarfed, however, by the outflow of funds for the acquisition of foreign, chiefly U.S., securities. This has been in excess of $400 million in each of the past three years and last year rose to $464 million.
Receipt of $88 million in respect of the Columbia River Treaty represented a payment by the U.S. equivalent to $56 million in Canadian funds for flood-control benefits, the last major payment of this kind, in addition to the regular annual encashment of a medium-term U.S. Treasury bond for $32 million (Canadian).
Despite the continued high level of Canadian borrowing in the United States, the net inflow of long-term capital in all forms from that country fell back from nearly $ljj billion in 1967 to just over $1 billion in 1968. At this level, it was virtually equal to the current account deficit with the United States; this fell by about $400 million, as the sharp reduction in the Canadian surplus on travel from that of Centennial year was more than compensated for by the swing into small surplus on merchandise trade. The bilateral deficit with the United States on current and long-term capital accounts therefore fell from $264 million to only $5 million, but a substantially larger net outflow of shortterm capital to the United States offset this. Net current account earnings and borrowings in third countries rose substantially in 1968, and were available to cover the overall bilateral deficit with the United States of some $1.1 billion and to increase Canadian reserves.
The reserves
The net capital inflow of $534 million in 1968, including the long-term foreign borrowing of $268 million by the Government of Canada, comfortably exceeded the net current account deficit of $181 million. The official monetary position therefore improved over the year as a whole by $353 million, as the heavy losses of the first quarter were more than recouped. International assistance of $742 million was received during the first quarter and the reduction in gold and foreign exchange was thereby limited to $23 million (Canadian equivalents).
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
That portion of the IMF drawing which represented Canada's gold tranche position was reconstituted in the second and third quarters, and a net creditor position of U.S. $21.2 million had been built up again by the end of 1968 (as against U.S. $248.4 million at end-1967, prior to the crisis). The reciprocal swap facility with the Federal Reserve System, which had been drawn upon to the extent of U.S. $250 million, was wholly reconstituted by the end of the third quarter, with some drawing-down of official reserves in that quarter for the purpose. Substantial increases in the holdings of foreign exchange in the second and fourth quarters, to give a net increase of $604 million (Canadian) for the year as a whole, resulted from the strong current account position and the high level of long-term capital inflow, including the federal government's borrowing abroad in the second quarter.
December 1967	March 1968	June 1968	December 1968	April 1969Official holdings of gold and U.S.	2,267.8 +248.4	(Millions of 1 2,244.0 -185.0 -250.0	J.S. dollars at 2,574.0 - 64.0 -125.0	month end) 2,826.8 + 21.2	2,782.3 + 46.2IMF creditor (+) or debtor (-) position	
Federal Reserve swaps outstanding.	2,516.2	1,809.0	2,385.0	2,848.0	2,828.5
By an exchange of letters on December 17 between the Minister of Finance and the then Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Mr. Henry Fowler, the arrangements between the two countries in the balance of payments field were restated and clarified. Under these arrangements, the support which Canadian international transactions provide for the position of the U.S. dollar is recognized in the exemption of Canada from certain U.S. balance of payments measures, including especially the Interest Equalization Tax, insofar as it relates to new issues, and restraints on direct investment; it is also reinforced by Canadian undertakings not to permit transactions in contravention of the U.S. programmes to be channelled through Canada, and by Canadian reserves investment policy. In the letters it was agreed that the undertaking by Canada not to increase its reserves through unnecessary borrowings in the United States does not require that the level of those reserves be limited to any particular figure.

[Stage Direction]
Financial developments in the United States during 1968 had a significant impact on financial markets in Canada and Europe. The U.S. dollar was among the currencies which came under attack through the first quarter of 1968. Shortterm interest rates rose sharply during February and March and the U.S. discount rate was raised to 5 per cent in March and to 5f per cent in mid-April. Banks' loans and investments, which had increased at an annual rate of about 7 per cent in the first quarter, experienced a growth of only about 3 per cent in the second quarter. Faced with uncertain markets and serious inflationary pressures, U.S. financial institutions built up their liquidity and longer term investment funds became increasingly difficult to attract.
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
(Monthly)
Per Cent	Per Cent
Salomon Brothers and Hutzler three month Eurodollar rate.
[DOT][DOT]Hedged spread between Government of Canada and United States Treasury Bills.
Average yield on the 10 provincial bonds included in the monthly series published by McLeod, Young, Weir and Co., Ltd.
[DOT][DOT]Source: O.E.C.D. and the Weekly Bond Buyer Bontrade Index.
[DOT][DOT][DOT]Moody's Investors Service Inc., average yield on public utility bonds.
[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]Spread between average yield on Canadian Provincial and U.S. Public Utilities long term bonds.
However, the climate changed in June, when Congress passed the 10 per cent income tax surcharge and approved reductions in budgetary expenditures. As a result, there were expectations that the economy would be less strong in the second half of 1968 and that inflationary pressures would diminish. On August 15 the rediscount rate was reduced by \ per cent to 5j per cent, reflecting some easing of interest rates generally. This easing also occurred in Canada, where four successive declines in the Bank Rate took place, from 7\ per cent in March to 6 pei cent on September 3, 1968.
In the second half of the year, evidence developed that the U.S. economy was not responding as rapidly as expected to the fiscal measures, and that inflationary pressures still were persisting. Interest rates again began to move up. The Federal Reserve raised the discount rate to 5| per cent in December as the heavy demand for funds persisted.
9506
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Pressure on the U.S. banks was reflected in a sharp increase in their borrowings from the Federal Reserve and in their increasing reliance on the Eurodollar market. This pressure on the U.S. banks occurred particularly toward the year-end, when the discount rate was increased while the maximum rates that U.S. banks were permitted to pay on term deposits were left unchanged. As money market rates rose relative to these regulated rates, the banks experienced a sharp run-off of certificates of deposit. This run-off amounted to over $4 billion during the first quarter of 1969, following a decrease of $1.5 billion in December. Borrowing in Europe by large New York City banks increased by about $2.0 billion in the same period, and the demand for funds continued sufficiently strong to push up Eurodollar rates to a level of 8§ per cent in March 1969. The liabilities of U.S. banks to their foreign branches, which totalled about $4 billion at the beginning of 1968, increased to $6 billion during the summer and reached $8 billion at the beginning of 1969.
High interest rates and scarcity of funds for long-term fixed income investments both in the United States and Canada encouraged many borrowers to rely on the European capital market. Although this market was supplying mostly medium-term funds in the first part of 1968, it was able to supply more and more long-term funds in the second half of the year. With Germany enjoying a large current account surplus in its balance of payments, the market for international bond issues reached a volume of new issues of about $5 billion in 1968, more than double that of the preceding year. Germany supplied more than 25 per cent of these funds.
Since mid-1968, the historic spread between German and U.S. interest rates has completely disappeared, as the German current account surpluses were accompanied by declining interest rates at a time when North American rates were rising. For the first time in recent history this market became attractive to North American borrowers, and North American obligations became attractive to the market; Canadians took advantage of it on a substantial scale. With an unreceptive Canadian market and a scarcity of funds in the United States, Canadians turned to the Eurobond market where medium and long-term funds were both available and obtainable at rates that were more attractive than those in North America. Of the total $540 million raised by Canadians in this market in 1968, more than half was accounted for by provincial governments and their agencies. There was also a more modest increase in net new issues sold in the United States.
Bond market financing
The continued strong demand for capital by Canadians in 1968 contributed to the forces which maintained very high levels of interest rates for most of the year. In 1968, total net new issues of bonds in Canada and abroad by all levels of governments and corporations amounted to over $3.9 billion, about 5 per cent above the relatively high level of 1967. Net new marketable bond issues placed in Canada were almost $500 million lower than in the previous year, and net sales of Canada Savings Bonds were $200 million lower. This reflected a growing reluctance on the part of Canadian investors to commit funds for investment in long-term fixed-income securities. On the other hand, new funds raised through the placement abroad of foreign-pay bond issues
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
more than doubled, rising to approximately $1.6 billion. Details of changes in market bonds and Canada Savings Bonds outstanding in each of the years 1964 to 1968 inclusive are shown in reference table 69.
In 1968, the level of outstanding Canadian dollar marketable bonds of the Government of Canada rose by $1.2 billion, compared with an increase of $800 million in the previous year. In the same period, outstanding Canada Savings Bonds increased by only $38 million, compared with $230 million in 1967, although gross sales of the 1968 series amounted to $3.2 billion. Provincial and municipal net new domestic bond issues amount to $723 million, considerably lower than the $1.2 billion level in 1967. New corporate bond issues in the Canadian market, at $390 million, were less than half of the level of the year before. Provinces and municipalities borrowed, in total, for the first time, more abroad than in Canada. The outstanding foreign debt of provinces and municipalities increased by $927 million in 1968, sixteen per cent greater than the very high increase recorded in 1967. Corporate issues denominated in foreign currencies were almost three times the level of 1967 but considerably lower than in 1966.

[Stage Direction]
LONG-TERM	SHORT-TERM
Per Cent
Average weekly yield on the 10 provincial bonds included in the monthly series published by McLeod, Young, Weir and Co., Ltd.
**Average stock yield on 114 stocks as compiled by Moss, Lawson and Co., Ltd.
There was a considerable change in the flow of funds within the market between the first and second halves of 1968. The net new issue of marketable bonds in Canadian dollars in the second half of 1968 was about $570 million
2918C-602J
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
higher than in the first half. Taking into account a swing between the two halves of the year of almost $1.1 billion in Canada Savings Bonds outstanding, which was much larger than the normal seasonal change, the issue of bonds (including the new series of Canada Savings Bonds) in the domestic market reached approximately $2 billion in the second half of the year.
The chartered banks were again a major source of funds during the year, taking up approximately $1.1 billion of the new bonds offered, an increase of 25 per cent oyer the relatively high level of 1967. Of this amount, $936 million represented an increase in holdings of Government of Canada bonds (of which about $400 million were Treasury Bills) compared with an increase of $744 million in 1967. The Bank of Canada purchased a net amount of $136 million in the year as a whole.
A very large proportion of the federal government's domestic financing needs during this period, which as noted above were met in large part by the chartered banks, was a consequence of the purchases of foreign exchange by the Exchange Fund. Many Canadian borrowers found it more advantageous during this period to raise funds outside Canada than in Canadian financial markets. The net inflow of capital, of which this borrowing was a part, exceeded the Canadian current account deficit. The excess of foreign exchange had to be purchased and held by the Exchange Fund. In order to purchase this foreign exchange, the Fund required advances of Canadian dollars from the Minister of Finance, thereby increasing the financial requirements of the federal government. In the circumstances, the transfer of borrowing activity outside Canada by entities other than the federal government did not result in an equivalent reduction in the total pressure of demand for funds in the Canadian capital market. 1 he series of transactions had the effect of transferring the necessity to borrow in Canada from other borrowers to the federal government. The Canadian funds which the borrowers needed and which in other circumstances might have been supplied by a variety of financial intermediaries were supplied in large part by the chartered banks. Their purchases of obligations of the Government of Canada provided the Exchange Fund with Canadian dollars which it supplied to Canadian borrowers other than the federal government in exchange for the foreign currency they had borrowed outside Canada.
Net new purchases of bonds in 1968 by non-bank residents, at $1.4 billion, including Canada Savings Bonds, represented a significantly smaller amount of new issues than in the previous several years, and the lowest proportion for many years of total financing in the bond market. On the other hand, purchasers of foreign-pay bonds financed over one-third of the increase in outstanding marketable bonds.
Federal government debt operations
Ihe federal government began the 1968-69 fiscal year with relatively large Canadian dollar cash balances of $997 million. To a considerable extent this represented Canadian dollar proceeds from the sale of foreign exchange during the exchange crisis in the latter part of the previous fiscal year, and provided the government with some flexibility in the timing of market financing in the early months of 1968. The renewed strength of the Canadian dollar and the
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
replenishment of foreign exchange reserves between mid-March and the end of August, as noted, involved large cash outlays of Canadian dollars as foreign exchange was repurchased on a large scale. In fiscal year 1967-68, foreign exchange transactions provided cash receipts in a net amount of $812 million; in 1968-69 they required a cash outlay estimated at $1,048 million.

[Stage Direction]
(by fiscal years)
	1967-68	1968-69*
	(Millions of dollars)	
Cash Requirements		
	795	566
Non-budgetary excluding all foreign exchange transactions	606	325Sub-total	1,401	891Foreign exchange transactions cash requirements (+) or receipts (-)	-812	+1,048Overall cash requirements	589	1,939Sources of Finance	Market bonds(1)	Gross new issues	2,235	2,344Retirements	1,885	1,341Net	350	1,003(of which foreign pay)	(-205)	(282)170	360Canada Savings Bonds	80	72Non-marketable and other ^	190	88790	1,523Changes in Receiver General bank balances	201	-416
(1)CNR included under non-budgetary.
<2)Includes UIC and CPP bonds, Securities Investment Account and securities held for retirement of unmatured debt.
*Preliminary
Other major factors affecting the magnitude and timing of market debt operations in the current fiscal year were the heavy net redemptions of Canada Savings Bonds up until October and the larger budgetary requirements which became apparent after mid-1968.
The federal government, along with other Canadian borrowers, was confronted with a reluctance on the part of investors to commit investment funds in long-term bonds. Hence, high yields and short maturities were necessary on new issues to attract buyers, resulting in an increase in debt charges and a shortening of the average term to maturity of the outstanding debt. The budgetary provision to meet debt charges in fiscal year 1967-68 amounted to $1.3 billion; in 1968-69 it amounted to $1.5 billion. As at January 1969, the average term to maturity of the government's outstanding direct and guaranteed securities had shortened by eight months from the beginning of 1968 and stood at 6 years 3 months. The following paragraphs trace the main features of the government's debt programme through the fiscal year 1968-69.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
The first refunding of the past fiscal year, which was offered in mid-March for delivery on April 1st, occurred immediately following the height of the foreign exchange crisis, when interest rates were at very high levels and Bank Rate stood at 7\ per cent. This issue comprised $275 million of bonds having maturities of 1 year and 5 years; the latter maturity offered the first 7 per cent coupon on a federal government issue and was priced to yield 7.30 per cent. Although no new money was raised, $100 million of bonds maturing later in 1968 were pre-refunded at this time. On May 15, $56 million of CNR bonds were redeemed for cash out of government balances.
To assist the replenishment of foreign exchange reserves without drawing down Canadian cash balances, the government floated in May a $68 million Canadian equivalent Deutsche Mark loan in the Eurobond market, and placed a $108 million equivalent Italian lire loan directly with the Italian Exchange Office. In June a loan for the equivalent of $108 million, subject to delayed delivery contracts, was issued in the United States.
As prevailing high levels of interest rates presented Canada Savings Bonds holders with relatively attractive alternatives, unusually large net redemptions occurred in the first half of the year. This, combined with re-purchases of foreign exchange after mid-March and the fact that some $700 million of the 1959 series of Canada Savings Bonds were scheduled to mature in November 1968, posed special debt management problems. In May a Special Replacement Series of Canada Savings Bonds was offered to refund in advance the 1959 series. The new series was offered initially to holders of the 1959 series in exchange for the maturing bonds; subsequently it was offered for cash during a limited period. The issue was a success and was terminated on May 23, with total sales amounting to $850 million, of which $538 million represented a refunding of the 1959 series. The new bonds offered the investor a compound interest feature, which would double his money in 10 years and 5 months, and a record high annual average yield of 6.88 per cent if held to maturity.
The bond market in Canada, following similar developments in the United States, improved considerably in price and tone during the summer months. In view of the continuing cash requirements, including the need to meet net redemptions of Canada Savings Bonds, a refunding on June 15 raised $105 million in new cash, a further $150 million was provided by a special 364-day Treasury Bill issue on June 28, and $300 million was raised in a cash offering on August 1. The issue in August stimulated considerable interest in the market and, in addition to the new cash raised, the government pre-refunded $100 million of bonds maturing later in the year.
As noted, the tight credit conditions which prevailed during the period of recovery from the exchange crisis were relaxed to some extent during the summer months. Chartered bank holdings of government bonds, which had remained relatively level in the first half, rose sharply during the second half of 1968, making possible the success of the government's market financing from June to the end of 1968, at a time when foreign exchange reserves were being rebuilt. The October 1 refunding provided also an opportunity to raise $275 million in new cash, and for the first time since April 1, 1967, a long-term bond was included in the offering.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
In view of the large cash requirements of the government and the difficult conditions of the bond market, the regular Canada Savings Bonds campaign beginning in October was particularly significant. The terms of the new series, which had to be set in August, reflecting the prevailing high yields of competitive investments, were the most favourable ever offered on a regular issue. The new bonds offered an annual average yield of 6.75 per cent if held to maturity, and a compound interest feature which would permit an investor to realize two and one half times his original investment in 14 years. Net sales of Canada Savings Bonds during the campaign period to the end of November 1968 amounted to $891 million compared with $637 million in the same period of the 1967 campaign. Because of the unusually high level of redemptions in the earlier part of the year, the value of Canada Savings Bonds outstanding at the end of the fiscal year 1968-69 was virtually unchanged from the previous year-end.
In the last few months of 1968 interest rates in both Canada and the United States moved sharply upward again as monetary conditions tightened. On November 29, $50 million of the $125 million special 364-day Treasury Bills maturing on this date was refunded, to keep to a minimum pressure on a deteriorating capital market while maintaining adequate working levels of government cash balances. Net new issues of Treasury Bills (including the use of one-year Treasury Bills) totalled $360 million, and constituted a particularly significant means of financing in the fiscal year, reflecting the liquidity preference of the market and the difficulties of longer-term financing. At the time of the December 15 refunding, the Minister of Finance stated that he considered it prudent to raise $50 million in new money in view of recent foreign exchange purchases, and announced a $100 million advance refunding of bonds maturing in July 1969 to assist in debt management operations in the early part of the next fiscal year. It did not prove necessary to have another bond issue in the fiscal year 1968-69.
Housing finance
The financing of housing construction last year overcame investors' general resistance to long-term fixed income securities by means of high rates on mortgages. The investment of private capital in mortgages increased substantially in 1968, and despite an appreciable decline in direct loans by CMHC, housing starts were 20 per cent higher than in 1967, rising to 197,000 units from 164,000 units. The recovery of the housing sector in 1968 was due largely to two factors. One was the change in the Bank Act in 1967, allowing the purchase of conventional mortgages by chartered banks. The second was the decision, in the fourth quarter of 1967, to modify the formula used to calculate the ceiling on loans insured under the National Housing Act. In September 1967, the Government decided to fix the maximum rate for NHA insured loans at 2\ per cent above the average yield on long-term Government of Canada bonds calculated to the nearest § of 1 per cent, the widest yield permitted under the National Housing Act. (Since November 1966, a spread of H per cent, calculated to the nearest i per cent, had been used). This new flexibility in the rate succeeded in attracting large sources of private funds for investment in housing mortgages, and in easing somewhat the extent of government direct financing of housing construction.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent	Per Cent
** Average N.H.A. interest rate on home-ownership loans by approved lenders. Up to and including Sept. 1967, this rate was generally the same as the maximum on N.H.A. insured loans.
***Month-end arithmetic average of forty municipal, provincial, public utility and industrial bonds, as compiled by McLeod, Young, Weir and Co., Ltd.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
In 1968 total private lending, both conventional and NHA, increased by 27 per cent to $2.7 billion. In the same period, CMHC approvals of direct loans for housing and associated purposes declined by $234 million to just over $500 million.
The activity of the private lending institutions brought about an unprecedented increase of 39.2 per cent in the construction of multiple rental dwellings. Two major factors influenced this concentration of investment, in addition to the high occupancy rate and heavy demand for such accommodation. In February last year, the ceiling per unit for NHA insured loans on multiple unit housing was increased from $12,000 to $18,000, and, in the case of a rental loan made to a corporate bonower, the possible lock-in period was extended to within 10 years of the term of the loan, which can be as long as 35 years. The increase in construction starts of single family or semi-detached dwellings for the whole of 1968 was 3.6 per cent.
The expectation of continued inflation made itself felt in the application of various mortgage techniques. For example, an increasing number of mortgage loans for large projects were combined with a direct equity participation, an indication of the caution which existed despite the wide spread between the rate of interest payable on mortgages and that on long-term Government of Canada bonds. Other developments made it possible for investors to participate in the mortgage market by purchasing shares in companies specializing in the financing of large construction projects or by buying blocks of mortgages of a specified maturity and yield.
While all major financial institutions increased their holdings of mortgages in 1968, as shown in reference tables 72 to 78, the rate of increase varied considerably among different institutions. The value of gross NHA insured loans approved by the banks almost tripled compared with 1967, and trust, loan and insurance companies as a group almost doubled their insured loans. NHA insured loans provided by all approved lenders in 1968 increased by 125 per cent in gross number of loans and by 135 per cent in value over 1967, and were made, on average, somewhat below the NHA interest rate ceiling. Conventional loans, which increased by one-third in value, provided a bit more than one-half of the new residential mortgage funds made available by private lenders. These developments are summarized in reference table 70.
Financial flows and financial institutions
The judgment and decisions of financial institutions, as collectors of savings, and of large investors, are important factors in the allocation of resources throughout the economy. The role of financial institutions in total credit flows, and the relative position of each group of institutions within the total financial structure, depend on the legal framework within which they operate, their own efficiency and enterprise, and, most significantly, on the preference of the investing public for various forms of liabilities offered by each group or institution and the willingness or ability of the institution to meet these preferences.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969

[Stage Direction]
(Millions of Dollars)

[Stage Direction]
* Canadian assets of federally-registered life insurance companies physically held in Canada. Others includes all assets of both federal and provincial fire and casualty companies in respect of business in Canada.
** Includes foreign currency assets net of foreign currency liabilities
June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
Three readily discernable factors affected the relative growth of financial institutions in 1968. First, most institutions were continuing to adjust to the new competitive forces introduced by the revised Bank Act which became law in May 1967. Secondly, in an effort to increase earnings and improve their competitive position, many institutions accelerated their investment in common stocks, both foreign and domestic. And finally, as observed earlier, the continuing inflationary psychology made investors and financial intermediaries reluctant to commit funds to long-term bonds, preferring instead shoiter-term investments, real estate, and common stocks. 1 he impact of these investors' preferences on borrowers in Canada is indicated in reference table 71.
Total assets of the major financial institutions grew by an estimated 87.4 billion or 12 per cent in 1968, compared with 10 per cent or $6.8 billion in 1967 (see Chart 26). Almost half of the increase accrued to the chartered banks. The banks were able to achieve this large increase by bidding aggressively for savings and time deposits of individuals, which increased by 15.8 per cent, and for non-personal term deposits by large institutional depositors, which increased by 20.3 per cent over the 1967 levels. At the beginning of 1968, interest of 5 per cent was paid on non-chequable personal notice deposits and o4 per cent for large blocks of short-term funds. In late March 1969, these deposit rates had increased to 5| per cent and over 7 per cent respectively.
Large quarterly fluctuations occurred in the growth rate of the chartered banks' deposits, in response to changing market and credit conditions (see reference table 72). Non-personal term and notice deposits decreased slightly during the exchange crisis of the first quarter, when borrowings by business in the capital markets was restrained and an outflow of short-term capital occurred. These forms of bank deposit increased in the second and third quarters, as monetary conditions eased in anticipation of a slowing down in economic activity and businesses rebuilt their liquid positions, which had fallen to relatively low levels. The trend in non-personal term deposits was reversed as monetary conditions tightened again towards year end.
Personal non-chequable savings and term deposits increased dramatically, especially in the first half of the year. In part the increase was due to the successful efforts of the banks in encouraging individuals to transfer their deposits from chequable into non-chequable savings accounts where, since February 1968, the cash reserve requirement has been reduced to 4 per cent, compared to 12 per cent on demand deposits. In addition, proceeds from encashments of Canada Savings Bonds, to some extent, were deposited in these savings accounts.
As a result of this large inflow into savings and term deposits, the banks were able to increase their investments and loans in almost all major asset groups. The largest increases in 1968 occurred in Government of Canada securities ($946 million), personal loans ($738 million), business loans ($649 million) and loans to grain dealers ($294 million). Quarterly changes in business loans were significant. A large increase occurred during the exchange crisis early in the year, when bond financing by businesses was difficult, and less than usual reliance was placed on loans and investments from parent companies
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
abroad. With the easing of market conditions in early summer business loans declined, to increase again in the latter part of the year as borrowing conditions in the bond market again became increasingly difficult.
Trust company liabilities grew by 13.2 per cent in 1968, a higher rate than in the two previous years but substantially below the 21.3 per cent average in 1962-65. Most of the increase in term deposits and certificates, their major source of funds, occurred in the third quarter. Their demand and savings deposits declined slightly in the first half, but the flow was reversed during the second half of the year. During the fourth quarter, the net increase of $54 million in demand and savings deposits was the largest since mid-1965.
Investments in mortgages continued to be the major outlet for trust companies' funds; 65 per cent of their net increase in assets represented increased holdings of mortgages. Significant gains occurred in the second and third quarters, reflecting the large number of mortgage approvals which followed the establishment of the more flexible NHA rate in late 1967. The large increase in their holdings of finance paper, commercial notes and other short-term assets in the third and fourth quarters reflected a general disposition on the part of investors to remain liquid, and possibly to some extent the expectation that yields on mortgages, their major long-term investment, would increase in early 1969. The maximum rate on NHA insured mortgages moved to 9f per cent from 8f per cent at the end of the fourth quarter.
Total major assets of mortgage loan companies increased by about $157 million or 6.4 per cent in 1968, compared with a growth of 8 per cent in 1967. Mortgage loans rose by more than the increase in total assets, as holdings of government bonds and bills were run down. During 1968, these companies did not attract funds to debentures and term deposits on a large scale. Whereas these sources of funds had increased by 11.2 per cent in 1967, their increase in 1968 totalled only 6.1 per cent. The slower growth in this form of liability was only partially offset by a more rapid increase in demand and savings deposits, resulting in the slower rate of asset growth between 1967 and 1968.
. l^e increased preference by Canadians for equities as a hedge against inflation was reflected in the total net sales of $316 million in mutual fund shares during 1968, more than twice the 1967 level. The largest increases occurred in the second and fourth quarters, responding to sharp gains in North American stock prices. During this period mutual funds increased their holdings of common and preferred stock by $450 million. Their purchases of foreign assets, mainly U.S. equities, continued unabated throughout the year. During the first and third quarters, the mutual funds placed all their net increase in funds into foreign equities, and in addition sold part of their holdings of Canadian equities for investment in foreign equities. At mid-year, notwithstanding the incentives undei present tax legislation to hold domestic equities, the industry's holdings of foreign equities surpassed for the first time their holdings of Canadian equities.
The Canadian investment transactions of 16 life insurance companies, whose assets represent about 80 per cent of total life insurance assets held in Canada, totalled $623 million in 1968 compared with $579 million the previous year. Mortgage investments totalled $332 million, nearly 15 per cent above the
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
1967	level, the increase being heavily concentrated in the second half of the year. Purchases of corporate and institutional bonds were down substantially from
1967.	For the fourth successive year these companies reduced their holdings of municipal bonds, the reduction of $19 million occurring mainly in the fourth quarter. Net purchases of provincial bonds were relatively high during most of
1968,	especially during the first and third quarters. Substantial purchases of Canadian common and preferred stocks were made in the third quarter and, during December, net purchases of $20 million represented 56 per cent of the total net new investments in that month, bringing the total for the year to about $100 million or 16 per cent of net new investments. This movement into stocks reflected, in part, a reaction to the new tax proposals affecting insurance companies announced in last October's Budget, and also the introduction by some companies earlier in the year of variable income annuities and similar plans which are largely based on equity investments offering the contractual investor greater protection against inflation.
' Assets of trusteed pension funds increased by approximately 11.5 per cent during 1968. Preliminary indications are that the pension funds as a group continued to invest a growing proportion of their funds in equities and lets in government and corporate bonds. It also appears that the percentage of total assets invested in mortgages in 1968 increased slightly, a reversal of a downward movement which began in 1966.
Total assets of the sales finance and consumer loan companies grew by an estimated $427 million, or 9.5 per cent, in 1968, compared with 3 per cent in 1967 and 15 per cent per year in the 1962-65 period. Because of the demand by other sectors of the economy for liquid assets, these companies were able to increase their net outstanding demand and short-term notes by $344 million, with all of the increase occurring in the first half of 1968. On the other hand, the increase in long-term debt outstanding totalled only $60 million compared with $111 million in the previous year.
Consumer credit extended by these companies continued to be their major outlet for investment, increasing by $229 million in 1968, or at the same per cent rate as the increase in total assets. Their share of all consumer lending continued to decline. Total consumer credit increased by 14.4 per cent in 1968, bringing the total outstanding at year-end to approximately $9,525 million. The major competition for consumer credit came from the chartered banks which accounted for over 65 per cent of the $1.2 billion increase in 1968. At the end of 1968, the sales finance and consumer loan companies held about 28 per cent of consumer credit outstanding compared with 32 per cent in 1964. The chartered banks held 39 per cent at the end of 1968 compared with 30 per cent in 1964.
Also affecting the investment decisions of financial institutions during
1968	were the guidelines issued by the Minister of Finance on their foreign currency operations. As mentioned earlier, a factor in the run on the Canadian dollar in the first part of 1968 was concern about the impact on Canada of mandatory restraint placed by the U.S. authorities on foreign direct investments abroad by U.S. companies. As noted, on March 7,1968, in the exchange of letters
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
between the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of the Treasury, Canada received an exemption from all U.S. balance of payments measures administered by the Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board. In response, Canada undertook to ensure that this exemption would not result in Canada being used as a "pass through" by which the purpose of the U.S. balance of payments measures would be frustrated. In order to implement this undertaking, the Minister of Finance announced two sets of guidelines for financial institutions: the first, on May 3, for chartered banks and the second, on July 24, for non-bank financial institutions. In essence, the guidelines asked financial institutions not to increase their foreign currency assets abroad unless such an increase was accompanied by an equal or greater increase in foreign currency liabilities abroad. The financial institutions, recognizing the importance to Canada of unrestricted access to the U.S. capital markets, have cooperated with the Minister's request. In addition, in September 1968, the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced some voluntary guidelines respecting investment abroad by Canadian non-financial institutions, designed to ensure that these investments outside Canada and the United States will be compatible with Canada's unrestricted access to the U.S. capital market.
THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK Foreign developments
Economic activity in those countries which are important outlets for Canadian exports advanced substantially in 1968, despite uncertainties arising from international financial difficulties. In the major industrial countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, other than the United States, expectations are that the increase in activity in 1969 will be similar to that achieved in 1968.
Germany's domestic activity has acquired considerable momentum. It is expected that the increase in real output in 1969 could be about 5 per cent. In Italy, demand appears to have strengthened in the last half of 1968 and it is expected that real output may increase by more than 5 per cent in 1969. Prospects in France are somewhat less clear, but it is expected that the increase in real output will be considerably above that achieved in 1968, when disturbances in May and June seriously affected output.
In the United Kingdom, the primary objective of diverting resources toward improvement of the balance of payments, through policies of restraint, should impose some constraint on the ability of the United Kingdom to expand domestic demand at the rate recorded in 1968. In Japan, the growth in real GNP in 1969 may fall short of the 11 per cent rate of 1968, but it will nevertheless be strong. In sum, the OECD countries apart from the United States are expected to increase their real output in 1969 by more than 5 per cent, about the same as that achieved in 1968.
June 3/ 1969

[Stage Direction]
1963 =100


[Stage Direction]
115
105
95
1964	1965	1966	1967	1968

[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
In the United States, Canada's major export market, the economic outlook during 1969 will depend on the economy's response to restraints imposed by the authorities to contain the inflationary conditions which have been strong over the past year. It seems likely that monetary policy will be restrictive enough to ensure that the increase in total output will be less than that experienced during 1968, when during conditions of overheating real output grew by about 5 per cent and prices rose by about 4 per cent.
Most observers had expected that the fiscal measures of June 1968 would result in a marked slowing-down in economic activity late in 1968 and early in 1969. In the event, the deceleration has been slow in developing, and some indicators of spending intentions in 1969 suggest further substantial strength. In the face of these developments, the U.S. authorities have intensified monetary restraints. The President has requested Congress to extend the temporary tax surcharges due to expire June 30 and to repeal the investment tax credit, and has sought further to reduce budgetary expenditures in the coming fiscal year.
The policy objectives of the U.S. Administration of restraining the excessive expansion of the economy and reducing inflationary pressures require the flexible but determined use of fiscal and monetary instruments. Until the effects of these policies can be clearly assessed, no precise judgment can be made as to demand developments during the rest of this year. Nevertheless, it is expected that Canadian exports to the United States, while increasing less than in the exceptional year of 1968, will still record a substantial increase this year.
The Canadian outlook
The Canadian economy will therefore operate within the context of sustained demand for its export products in 1969. Some of the special factors of last year, including strikes and the threat of strikes in the United States, cannot be assumed to recur. On the other hand, continued though more moderate growth in that country will be reflected in additional demand for lumber, newsprint, mineral products, automotive products and many other items. Added to the growth which is likely to occur in overseas exports, including shipments of a growing variety of products to Japan, this generally strong picture should result in a rate of overall advance which could be one-half of that recorded last year, depending on developments in the United States as the year progresses.
Private and public investment will show more strength in 1969 than in 1968, as indicated in the Private and Public Investment Survey. The private sector, hesitant since the peak year of 1966, is expected to move forward firmly, with machinery and equipment investment swinging from a slight declining trend back to a sizeable advance. Private construction, for both residential and non-residential purposes, will again advance. Public investment by governments and institutions (including hospitals, schools and universities) is expected to increase at about the same rate as last year. In total, the survey implied an increase in new capital expenditures of nearly 9 per cent.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
In 1968, business inventories, which were low in relation to economic activity, began to rise as the economy expanded. It is expected that a further modest build-up will occur this year.
In the personal sector, higher levels of employment and earnings are expected to result in increases in consumer spending much in line with those of the past few years. Despite substantial increases in personal direct taxes, levels of disposable income remain high, and rates of personal saving, which are still high by historical standards, would allow for continued gains in personal expenditures. Direct purchases of goods and services by governments, while being restrained, are nevertheless expected to increase in real terms. As noted on an earlier page, population growth, urbanization and price considerations represent a built-in growth factor in the government sector.
The outlook for the farm sector appears mixed. Farm cash receipts from sale of wheat will probably be lower than last year, but receipts from other grains are expected to be higher. There is a record level of grain inventories on hand, both on the farms and in commercial channels. Livestock markets remain strong, so that income from this source in both east and west should be well maintained. Income from dairy products will probably change little in the year. A possible stronger demand for poultry meat and eggs could provide income from this source at least equal to that of 1968.
In total, demand growth, including domestic and external, could well be at least as strong as in 1968. Some of this increased demand will likely be met by imports, especially in the area of investment goods. As noted above, the growth rate of the U.S. economy is expected to be less than that of last year, and the very large increase in Canadian exports to that country is not expected to be repeated. Accordingly, it might reasonably be supposed that the deficit on international current account will increase somewhat over the exceptionally low figure achieved last year.
Last year, real output grew by nearly 5 per cent, about in line with the underlying capacity of the economy to grow. Productivity growth per man-year, as noted earlier, was substantially above recent experience, and employment growth, while also substantial, did not keep up with the continued rapid increase in the labour force. One cannot count on a repetition of this sharp increase in non-farm productivity, and the employment growth in 1969 should be above that achieved last year. Evidence in the early months of 1969 points in this direction. The increase in the labour force is expected to continue at least at the rate recorded in 1968. On balance, the reduction in the unemployment rate for the year as a whole is not likely to be substantial, although it should be noted that there has been a considerable decline from the summer of 1968 to the early months of this year.
Total labour income, partly reflecting the accelerated growth of employment, may be expected to grow at about the rates achieved in recent years. The sharp advance in corporation profits recorded last year is unlikely to be repeated, although continued increases are expected. Costs, including both wage-costs and non-wage-costs per unit of output, are expected to advance
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
again, as money incomes continue to rise more rapidly than overall productivity gains. At a time of continued substantial growth in total demand both at home and abroad, cost increases of this nature may more easily be passed on in the form of rising prices, and a continuation of rising prices this year must be anticipated, though hopefully at a gradually diminishing rate.
The outlook for prices is conditioned by a number of offsetting factors. With the persistence of inflationary expectations, the expected growth in demand, and the additional problems posed by more rapid growth in some regions, especially in Ontario, conditions exist in which price increases in some sectors are likely to occur. Additional price pressures may permeate the economy from abroad. In the United States, much will depend upon the success of the fiscal and monetary policies directed toward price restraint. Offsetting these factors to some extent will be a further move to surplus of the government sector as a whole in Canada, on a national accounts basis, and including the Canada and Quebec pension plan net receipts. A small reduction in the rate of price inflation is possible this year. This will be achieved only if the United States succeeds in curbing its rate of increase, if there is responsible action by Canadians whose market actions and collective bargaining have important effects on prices and costs in Canada, and if governments in Canada continue restraining the growth in their expenditures.
Conclusions
The prospects are favourable for a growth in GNP at least equal to that of 1968. While price changes will still be significant, the growth in real output should equal or exceed that of last year. The unemployment rate should average a bit below that of 1968 and employment will move up faster than in that year.
The Canadian economy should have a more balanced expansion in 1969 than last year, as between the various kinds of expenditures. Similar rates of increase expected in public and private investment, and for construction outlays and purchases of equipment, represent a return to more normal conditions after the readjustments of 1967 and 1968. There should be an improved balance as between industrial sectors; notably, expected investment in manufacturing should be in a better relationship with other sectors. Also of importance in terms of balance is the anticipated moderation of the rate of growth in the export sector while investment activity moves ahead. A higher level of housing construction should meet more of the shortage of accommodation. However, important problems remain. As noted, price increases are still higher than desirable. As amongst the various geographic regions, pressure on resources could be strong in Ontario while in the eastern part of Canada unemployment and lower levels of income remain matters of major concern. Problems in the farm sector are aggravated by high levels of grain inventories both at home and abroad.
The increased demand for investment, as represented by rising requirements for housing, business investment and inventories, is expected to be met from increased saving in the business sector, some increase of the current ac-
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
count deficit and the capital account surplus on international transactions, and a considerable improvement in saving from the government sector, which is not expected to make as large demands on the capital market as last year. The level of personal saving is not expected to change much, as increases m personal spending should roughly match increases in personal income after taxes Accordingly, the moves that have been taken in the past eight months toward fiscal restraint on the part of all levels of government are expected to play an important role in attaining the objective of sustained and balanced economic growth.
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Reference
Table
Number	Title	Page1	Demographic Developments, 1947 to 1968	
95292	Gross National Expenditure, 1947 to 1968	
95303	Changes in the Components of Gross National Expenditure,1947 to 1968	
95314	Gross National Expenditure in Constant (1957) Dollars,1947 to 1968	
95325	Changes in the Components of Gross National Expenditurein Constant (1957) Dollars, 1947 to 1968	
95336	Structural Changes in Demand-per cent distribution ofGNE by components, 1947 to 1968	
95347	Structural Changes in Demand, Constant (1957) Dollars,1947 to 1968	
95358	National Income and Gross National Product, 1947 to 1968 95369	Changes in the Components of National Income and GrossNational Product, 1947 to 1968	
953710	Structural Changes in Income-per cent distribution of GNPby components, 1947 to 1968	
953811	Personal Income and Expenditure, 1947 to 1968	
954012	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services,1947 to 1968	
954113	Value of Retail Trade, 1947 to 1969	
954214	Private and Public Investment in Canada, 1947 to 1969.. .	954315	Private and Public Investment by Region, 1952 to 1969...	954516	Changes in Private and Public Investment, Canada and byRegion, 1953 to 1969	
954617	Private and Public Capital Expenditure: Reconciliation withNational Accounts Investment, 1947 to 1968	
954718	Dwelling Starts, Completions and Under Construction, 1947to 1968	
954819	Dwelling Starts and Completions, by type, 1947 to 1968. ..	954920	Analysis of Corporation Profits, 1947 to 1968	
955021	Corporation Profits Before Taxes by Industry, 1947 to 1968	955122	Manufacturers' Inventories, Shipments and Orders, 1961 to1968	
955223	Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry, 1947 to 1968	955324	Changes in the Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry, 1947 to 1968	
955525	Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Major IndustrialGrouping, 1947 to 1968	
955726	Changes in the Indexes of Real Domestic Product by MajorIndustrial Grouping, 1947 to 1968	
955827	Main Components of the Labour Market, 1954 to 1969... .	9559
June 3, 1969
Reference
Table
Number	Title	Page
28	Changes in the Main Components of the Labour Market,
1954 to 1969	 9561
29	Participation Rates by Sex and Age Groups, 1954 to 1969.	956230	Unemployment Rates by Sex and Age Groups, 1954 to	1969	956331	Labour Force, Canada and by Region, 1954 to 1969	
956432	Employment, Canada and by Region, 1954 to 1969	
956533	Unemployment, Canada and by Region, 1954 to 1969	
956634	Productivity and Costs, All Industries, 1947 to 1968.. 956735	Productivity and Costs, Commercial Non-Agricultural Industries, 1947 to 1968	
956836	Productivity and Costs, Non-Agricultural Goods-ProducingIndustries, 1947 to 1968	
956937	Productivity and Costs, Commercial Service-ProducingIndustries, 1947 to 1968	
957038	Productivity and Costs, Manufacturing Industries, 1947to 1968	
957139	Gross National Expenditure Implicit Price Indexes, 1947to 1968	
957240	Changes in the GNE Implicit Price Indexes, 1947	to	1968.	957341	Consumer Price Indexes: Standard Classifications, 1947to 1969	
957442	Changes in the CPI: Standard Classifications,	1947	to	1969	9575,43	Consumer Price Indexes: Supplementary Classifications,1949 to 1969	
957644	Changes in the CPI: Supplementary Classifications, 1950to 1969	
957745	Contributions to Changes in the Consumer Price Index,1963 to 1969	
957846	Other Price Indexes, 1947 to 1969	
957947	Changes in Other Price Indexes, 1947 to 1969	
958048	Total Government Expenditures (National Accounts Basis),1947 to 1968	
958149	Federal Government Expenditures, 1947 to 1968	
958250	Provincial-Municipal Government Expenditures, 1947to 1968	
9583,51	Provincial and Municipal Governments' Expenditures, 1947to 1967	
958452	Total Government Revenues (National Accounts Basis),1947 to 1968	
9585,53	Federal Government Revenues, 1947 to 1968	
9586,54	Provincial-Municipal Government Revenues,	1947	to	1968	9587-55	Provincial and Municipal Governments' Revenues, 1947 to1967	
9588,56	Federal Government Revenues and Expenditures: Public Accounts and National Accounts Reconciliation, quarterly, 1967 and 1968	,, * .	9589>June 3. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9527
Reference
Table
Number	Title	Page57	Source and Disposition of Saving, 1947 to 1968	
959158	Per Cent Distribution of the Source and Disposition	ofof Saving, 1947 to 1968	
959259	International Payments: Current Account, 1947 to 1968.	. .	959360	Net Balances on Selected Non-Merchandise Accounts, 1947to 1968	
959561	Summary of Balance of Payments, 1947 to 1968	
959662	International Payments: Capital Movements, 1947 to 1968	959763	Net Proceeds from New Issues of Canadian Bonds andDebentures to Non-Residents, 1947 to 1968	
959964	Canadian Chartered Banks' Head Offices and Branches inCanada: Net Changes in Foreign Currency Position, 1966 to 1968	*	960165	Financing of Canada's Bilateral Account with the UnitedStates, 1947 to 1968	
"0266	Canada's Reserve Position with the International MonetaryFund, 1946 to 1968	
"0367	Official Holdings of Gold and US Dollars, monthly, 1966 to1969	
960468	Details of New Issues and Retirements of Government ofCanada Direct and Guaranteed Marketable Bonds from January 1, 1968, to April 15, 1969	
969569	Changes in Market Bonds and Canada Savings Bonds Outstanding, 1964 to 1968	
960770	Mortgage Loan Approvals, 1962 to 1968	
960871	Summary of Sources of Net New Financing in Canada, 1965to 1968	
960972	Estimates of Net Changes in Assets and Liabilities ofChartered Banks, 1966 to 1968	
961073	Estimates of Net Changes in Assets and Liabilities of TrustCompanies, 1966 to 1968	
961174	Estimates of Net Changes in Assets and Liabilities of Mortgage Loan Companies, 1966 to 1968	
961275	Estimates of Net Changes in Assets and Liabilities of MutualFunds, 1966 to 1968	
"1376	Estimates of Net Changes in Assets and Liabilities of Closed-End Funds, 1966 to 1968	
[DOT]	961477	Estimates of Net Changes in Assets and Liabilities of LifeInsurance Companies, 1966 to 1968	
961578	Estimates of Net Changes in Assets and Liabilities of SalesFinance and Consumer Loan Companies, 1966 to 1968..	9616
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 1
DEMOGRAPHIC DEVELOPMENTS 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Population as of June Id)	Birth Rate	Death Rate	Natural Rate of Increase	Immigra- tion Rate	Annual Growth Rate of Population	Number of Families	Net Family Formation(Thousands	(Per thousand of population)	(Per cent)	(Thousands)	of persons)	1947	12,888	28.9	9.4	19.5	5.0	2.1	n.a.	n.a.1948	13,167	27.3	9.3	18.0	9.5	2.2	n.a.	n.a.1949	13,447	27.3	9.3	18.0	7.1	2.1	n.a.	n.a.1950	13,712	27.1	9.1	18.0	5.4	2.0	n.a.	n.a.1951	14,009	27.2	9.0	18.2	13.8	2.2	3,282.4	n.a.1952	14,459	27.9	8.7	19.2	11.3	3.2	3,360.0	77.61953	14,845	28.1	8.6	19.5	11.4	2.7	3,423.0	63.01954	15,287	28.5	8.2	20.3	10.1	3.0	3,537.0	114.01955	15,698	28.2	8.2	20.0	7.0	2.7	3,625.0	88.01956	16,081	28.0	8.2	19.8	10.3	2.4	3,705.6	80.61957	16,610	28.2	8.2	20.0	17.0	3.3	3,796.0	90.41958	17,080	27.5	7.9	19.6	7.3	2.8	3,898.0	102.01959	17,483	27.4	8.0	19.4	6.1	2.4	3,982.0	84.01960	17,870	26.8	7.8	19.0	5.8	2.2	4,081.0	99.01961	18,238	26.1	7.7	18.4	3.9	2.1	4,140.4	59.41962	18.583	25.3	7.7	17.6	4.0	1.9	4,189.0	48.61963	18,931	24.6	7.8	16.8	4.9	1.9	4,258.0	69.01964	19,290	23.5	7.6	15.9	5.9	1.9	4,341.0	83.01965	19,644	21.3	7.6	13.7	7.5	1.8	4,432.0	91.01966	20,015	19.4	7.5	11.9	9.7	1.9	4,518.3	86.31967	20,405	18.2	7.4	10.8	10.9	1.9	4,608.0	89.71968	20,744	17.7	7.4	10.3	8.9	1.7	n.a.	n.a.(Expressed at annual rates)	1966 I	19,857	19.3	7.6	11.7	6.2	1.6	n.a.	n.a.II	19,939	20.5	7.6	12.8	11.1	1.6	n.a.	n.a.Ill	20,050	19.8	7.2	12.6	11.7	2.2	n.a.	n.a.IV	20,158	18.1	7.3	10.7	10.0	2.2	n.a.	n.a.1967 I	20,252	18.2	7.5	10.7	8.7	1.9	n.a.	n.a.II	20.334	19.1	7.3	11.8	12.8	1.6	n.a.	n.a.Ill	20,441	18.4	7.2	11.2	12.8	2.1	n.a.	n.a.IV	20,548	16.9	7.4	9.5	9.4	2.1	n.a.	n.a.1968 I	20.630	17.1	8.1	8.9	6.9	1.6	n.a.	n.a.II	20.700	18.0	7.1	10.8	9.6	1.4	n.a.	n.a.Ill	20,772	18.5	7.1	11.4	9.8	1.4	n.a.	n.a.IV	20,857	17.1	7.1	10.0	9.2	1.6	n.a.	n.a.
^Quarterly figures are the estimates for the months of January, April, July and October, n. a.=not available
Source: DBS Vital Statistics, Annual, Cat. 84-201, Monthly, Cat. 84-001.
DBS Estimates of Families in Canada, Annual, Cat. 91-204.
9530
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 2
GROSS NATIONAL EXPENDITURE 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Expenditure on Goods and Services	Business Gross Fixed Capital Formation h)	Value of Physical Change in Inven- tories^	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Residual Error of Estimate	Gross National Expenditure at Market Prices
				(Millions of dollars)				
1947	9.090	1,541	2,085	403	3,640	-3,621	27	13,1651948	10,085	1,797	2,619	113	4,050	-3.633	89	15,1201949	10,923	2,127	3,032	49	4,021	-3,853	44	16,3431950	12,026	2,344	3,348	550	4,183	-4,513	68	18,0061951	13,460	3,271	3,959	914	5,089	-5,613	90	21,1701952	14,781	4,279	4,451	512	5,573	-5,400	-201	23,9951953	15,592	4,432	4,998	583	5,400	-5,843	-142	25,0201954	16,175	4,461	4,779	-130	5,147	-5,574	13	24,8711955	17,389	4,792	5,210	311	5,764	-6,443	109	27,1321956	18,833	5,386	6,774	1,084	6,365	-7,715	-142	30,5851957	20,072	5,722	7,335	231	6,391	-7,813	-29	31,9091958	21,245	6,180	6,975	-322	6,340	-7,423	-101	32,8941959	22,591	6,490	6,894	357	6,683	-8,131	31	34,9151960	23,540	6,769	6,692	410	7,008	-8,172	40	36,2871961	24,466	7,236	6,635	30	7,631	-8,542	15	37,4711962	25,926	7,717	6,960	532	8,259	-9.082	263	40,5751963	27,487	8,075	7,591	535	9,111	-9,618	243	43,4241964	29,666	8,654	9,103	386	10,578	-10,970	-24	47,3931965	32,061	9,614	10,651	948	11,265	-12,400	64	52,2031966	34,848	11,286	12,493	940	13,128	-14,360	-231	58.1041967	37,714	12.377	12,609	225	14,748	-15,415	-149	62,1091968	40.916	13,329	12,753	660	16,735	-17,067	42	67,368(Seasonally adjusted at annual	rates)	1966 I	33,956	10,656	11,968	988	12,552	-13,524	-56	56,540II	34,116	10,964	12,572	1,668	12,736	-13,944	-260	57,852Ill	35,332	11,632	12,308	588	13,456	-14,712	-176	58,428IV	35,988	11,892	13,124	516	13,768	-15,260	-432	59,5961967 I	36,444	11,860	13,236	152	14,520	-15,168	-112	60,932II	37,388	12,672	13,068	148	14,964	-15,848	-244	62,148Ill	38,192	12,288	12,168	680	14,512	-15,380	-32	62,428IV	38,832	12,688	11,964	-80	14,996	-15,264	-208	62,9281968 I	39,872	12,840	12,632	468	16,156	-16,628	-172	65,168II	40,164	13,112	12,516	384	16,736	-16,572	-12	66.328Ill	41,380	13,408	12,736	716	16,636	-17,132	80	67,824IV	42,248	13,956	13,128	1,072	17,412	-17,936	272	70,152
(^Includes private businesses and institutions, and publicly owned business enterprises.
(2)The book value of inventories is deflated to remove the effect of price changes and the derived "physical" change is then valued at average prices of the current period to obtain the value of physical change. The difference between this value of physical change and the change in book value is called the inventory valuation adjustment.
Source: DBS The National Accounts, Income and Expenditure, Occasional, Cat. 13-502, Annual, Cat. 13-201, Quarterly, Cat. 13-001.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 3

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Expenditure on Goods and Services	Business Gross Fixed Capital Formation (0	Value of Physical Change in Inventories	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Gross National Expenditure at Market Prices
			(Per cent change from previous period)				
1947	13.2	-14.2	50.2	70	13.4	25.9	11.11948	10.9	16.6	25.6	-290	11.3	0.3	14.81949	8.3	18.4	15.8	-64	-0.7	6.1	8.11950	10.1	10.2	10.4	501	4.0	17.1	10.21951	11.9	39.5	18.2	364	21.7	24.4	17.61952	9.8	30.8	12.4	-402	9.5	-3.8	13.31953	5.5	3.6	12.3	71	-3.1	8.2	4.31954	3.7	0.7	-4.4	-713	-4.7	-4.6	-0.61955	7.5	7.4	9.0	441	12.0	15.6	9.11956	8.3	12.4	30.0	773	10.4	19.7	12.71957	6.6	6.2	8.3	-853	0.4	1.3	4.31958	5.8	8.0	-4.9	-553	-0.8	-5.0	3.11959	6.3	5.0	-1.2	679	5.4	9.5	6.11960	4.2	4.3	-2.9	53	4.9	0.5	3.91961	3.9	6.9	-0.9	-380	8.9	4.5	3.31962	6.0	6.6	4.9	502	8.2	6.3	8.31963	6.0	4.6	9.1	3	10.3	5.9	7.01964	7.9	7.2	19.9	-149	16.1	14.1	9.11965	8.1	11.1	17.0	562	6.5	13.0	10.11966	8.7	17.4	17.3	-8	16.5	15.8	11.31967	8.2	9.7	0.9	-715	12.3	7.3	6.91968	8.5	7.7	1.1	435	13.5	10.7	8.5(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	2.0	6.3	3.3	380	5.1	2.0	4.4II	0.5	2.9	5.0	680	1.5	3.1	2.3Ill	3.6	6.1	-2.1	-1,080	5.7	5.5	1.0IV	1.9	2.2	6.6	-72	2.3	3.7	2.01967 I	1.3	-0.3	0.9	-364	5.5	-0.6	2.2II	2.6	6.8	-1.3	-4	3.1	4.5	2.0Ill	2.2	-3.0	-6.9	532	-3.0	-3.0	0.5IV	1.7	3.3	-1.7	-760	3.3	-0.8	0.81968 I	2.7	1.2	5.6	548	7.7	8.9	3.6II	0.7	2.1	-0.9	-84	3.6	-0.3	1.8Ill	3.0	2.3	1.8	332	-0.6	3.4	2.3IV	2.1	4.1	3.1	356	4.7	4.7	3.4
(i), (2) See footnotes (1), (2) reference table 2.
(«) Expressed in terms of absolute changes (millions of dollars) from the previous period. Source: DBS The National Accounts.
29180-603J
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 4
GROSS NATIONAL EXPENDITURE IN CONSTANT (1957) DOLLARS 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Govern- ment Expenditure on Goods and Services	Business Gross Fixed Capital Formation 0)	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Value of Physical Change in Inven- tories^)	Residual Error of Estimate tf)	Gross National Product in Constant (1957) Dollars
				(Millions of dollars)				
1947	13,309	2,762	3,576	4,912	-4,967	491	356	20,4391948	13,047	2,839	3,956	4,975	-4,458	96	366	20,8211949	13,637	3,175	4,350	4,770	-4,581	54	221	2l'6261950	14,542	3,349	4,543	4,743	-5,003	616	324	23,1141951	14,759	4,188	4,736	5,193	-5,568	932	291	24'5311952	15,775	5,250	5,146	5,751	-5,806	537	-139	26'5141953	16,658	5,251	5,628	5,702	-6,263	648	-99	27^ 5251954	17,044	5,098	5,340	5,476	-5,961	-237	-46	26'7141955	18,304	5,319	5,682	5,894	-6,825	461	183	29,0181956	19,478	5,664	7,014	6,333	-7,921	1,086	-146	31,5031957	20,072	5,722	7,335	6,391	-7,813	231	-29	31'9091958	20,707	6,113	6,825	6,365	-7,313	-314	-99	32^2841959	21,711	6,205	6,562	6,610	-8,058	338	30	33,3981960	22,402	6,268	6,231	6,884	-8,020	397	38	34,2001961	23,105	6,562	6,125	7,379	-8,132	29	13	35,0811962	24,173	6,811	6,254	7,747	-8,306	508	242	37|4291963	25,260	6,848	6,618	8,445	-8,550	510	221	39^3521964	26,846	7,113	7,606	9,610	-9,632	354	-21	41i8761965	28,461	7,524	8,530	10,098	-10,838	938	55	44,7681966	29,902	8,309	9,633	11,382	-12,295	891	-186	47,6361967	31,326	8,696	9,533	12,563	-13,054	174	-117	49,1211968	32,740	8,792	9,361	14,106	-14,127	545	34	51,451(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	29,508	7,944	9,392	11,044	-11,684	1,000	-48	47,156II	29,296	8,164	9,732	11,124	-11,988	1,568	-208	47'688Ill	30,256	8,504	9,436	11,532	-12,560	532	-144	47,556IV	30,548	8,624	9,972	11,828	-12,948	464	-344	48,1441967 I	30,784	8,356	9,980	12,420	-12,892	116	-88	48,676II	31,232	9,012	9,920	12,760	-13,432	100	-192	49;400Ill	31,496	8,572	9,244	12,328	-13,044	556	-24	49,128IV	31,792	8,844	8,988	12,744	-12,848	-76	-164	49,2801968 I	32,296	8,588	9,448	13,648	-13,848	324	-128	50,328II	32,268	8,780	9,204	14,096	-13,740	328	-8	50,928Ill	33,032	8,740	9,300	14,020	-14,180	620	60	51i592IV	33,364	9,060	9,492	14,660	-14,740	908	212	52,956
W, <*) See footnotes (1), (2) reference table 2.
<*'Years 1947 to 1955 include an adjusting entry arising from the rebasing of the 1949 constant dollar series to a 1957 constant dollar
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 5

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Expenditure on Goods and Services	Business Gross Fixed Capital Formation®)	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Value of Physical Change in Inventories®! ®)	Gross National Expenditure in Constant (1957) Dollars
			(Per cent change from previous period)				
1947	3.2	-19.4	35.2	0.6	12.3	n.a.	1.31948	-1.9	2.8	10.5	1.3	-10.2	-395	1.91949	4.5	11.8	9.9	-4.1	2.8	-42	3.91950	6.6	5.5	4.5	-0.6	9.2	562	6.91951	1.5	25.1	4.2	9.5	11.3	316	6.11952	6.9	25.4	8.7	10.7	4.3	-395	8.11953	5.6	0.0	9.4	-0.9	7.9	111	3.81954	2.3	-2.9	-5.2	-4.0	-4.8	-885	-2.91955	7.4	4.3	6.4	7.6	14.5	698	8.61956	6.4	6.5	23.4	7.4	16.1	625	8.61957	3.0	1.0	4.6	0.9	-1.4	-855	1.31958	3.2	6.8	-7.0	-0.4	-6.4	-545	1.21959	4.8	1.5	-3.9	3.8	10.2	652	3.51960	3.2	1.0	-5.0	4.1	-0.5	59	2.41961	3.1	4.7	-1.7	7.2	1.4	-368	2.61962	4.6	3.8	2.1	5.0	2.1	479	6.71963	4.5	0.5	5.8	9.0	2.9	2	5.11964	6.3	3.9	14.9	13.8	12.7	-156	6.41965	6.0	5.8	12.1	5.1	12.5	584	6.91966	5.1	10.4	12.9	12.7	13.4	-47	6.41967	4.8	4.7	-1.0	10.4	6.2	-717	3.11968	4.5	1.1	-1.8	12.3	8.2	371	4.7(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	0.8	3.5	2.2	4.1	1.7	376	2.9II	-0.7	2.8	3.6	0.7	2.6	568	1.1Ill	3.3	4.2	-3.0	3.7	4.8	-1,036	-0.3IV	1.0	1.4	5.7	2.6	3.1	-68	1.21967 I	0.8	-3.1	0.1	5.0	-0.4	-348	1.1II	1.5	7.9	-0.6	2.7	4.2	-16	1.5m	0.8	-4.9	-6.8	-3.4	-2.9	456	-0.6IV	0.9	3.2	-2.8	3.4	-1.5	-632	0.31968 I	1.6	-2.9	5.1	7.1	7.8	400	2.1II	-0.1	2.2	-2.6	3.3	-0.8	4	1.2Ill	2.4	-0.5	1.0	-0.5	3.2	292	1.3IV	1.0	3.7	2.1	4.6	3.9	288	2.6
0),<ttgee footnotes (1), (2) on reference table 2.
®!See footnote (3) on reference table 3.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 6

[Stage Direction]
(PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF GROSS NATIONAL EXPENDITURE BY COMPONENTS)
1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Personal Expendi- ture on Consumer Goods and Services	Govern- ment Expendi- ture on Goods and Services	Business Gross Fixed Capital Formation 0)	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Value of Physical Change in Inventories(2)	Residual Error of Estimate	Gross National Expendi- ture at Market Prices1947	69.0	11.7	15.8	27.7	-27.5	3.1	0.2	100.01948	66.7	11.9	17.3	26.8	-24.0	0.7	0.6	100.01949	66.8	13.0	18.6	24.6	-23.6	0.3	0.3	100.01950	66.8	13.0	18.6	23.2	-25.1	3.1	0.4	100.01951	63.6	15.5	18.7	24.0	-26.5	4.3	0.4	100.01952	61.6	17.8	18.0	23.2	-22.5	2.1	-0.8	100.01953	62.3	17.7	20.0	21.6	-23.3	2.3	-0.6	100.01954	65.0	17.9	19.2	20.7	-22.4	-0.5	0.1	100.01955	64.1	17.7	19.2	21.2	-23.7	1.1	0.4	100.01956	61.6	17.6	22.2	20.8	-25.2	3.5	-0.5	100.01957	62.9	18.0	23.0	20.0	-24.5	0.7	-0.1	100.01958	64.6	18.8	21.2	19.3	-22.6	-1.0	-0.3	100.01959	64.7	18.6	19.8	19.1	-23.3	1.0	0.1	100.01960	64.9	18.7	18.4	19.3	-22.5	1.1	0.1	100.01961	65.3	19.3	17.7	20.4	-22.8	0.1	0.0	100.01962	63.9	19.0	17.2	20.4	-22.4	1.3	0.6	100.01963	63.3	18.6	17.5	21.0	-22.2	1.2	0.6	100.01964	62.6	18.3	19.2	22.3	-23.1	0.8	-0.1	100.01965	61.4	18.4	20.4	21.6	-23.7	1.8	0.1	100.01966	60.0	19.4	21.5	22.6	-24.7	1.6	-0.4	100.01967	60.7	19.9	20.3	23.7	-24.8	0.4	-0.2	100.01968	60.7	19.8	18.9	24.8	-25.3	1.0	0.1	100.0(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	60.1	18.8	21.2	22.2	-23.9	1.7	-0.1	100.0II	59.0	18.9	21.7	22.0	-24.1	2.9	-0.4	100.0Ill	60.5	19.9	21.1	23.0	-25.2	1.0	-0.3	100.0IV	60.4	19.9	22.0	23.1	-25.6	0.9	-0.7	100.01967 I	59.8	19.5	21.7	23.8	-24.9	0.3	-0.2	100.0II	60.2	20.4	21.0	24.1	-25.5	0.2	-0.4	100.0Ill	61.2	19.7	19.5	23.2	-24.6	1.1	-0.1	100.0IV	61.7	20.2	19.0	23.8	-24.3	-0.1	-0.3	100.01968 I	61.2	19.7	19.4	24.8	-25.5	0.7	-0.3	100.0II	60.5	19.8	18.9	25.2	-25.0	0.6	-	100.0Ill	61.0	19.8	18.8	24.5	-25.3	1.1	0.1	100.0IV	60.2	19.9	18.7	24.8	-25.5	1.5	0.4	100.0
G\<*)See footnotes (1) and (2) on reference table 2.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 7

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Govern- ment Expenditure on Goods and Services	Business Gross Fixed Capital Formation 0)	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Value of Physical Change in Inven-tories<2)	Residual Error of Estimate	Gross National Expenditure in Constant (1957) Dollars1947	65.1	13.5	17.5	24.0	-24.3	2.4	1.8	100.01948	62.7	13.6	19.0	23.9	-21.4	0.4	1.8	100.01949	63.0	14.7	20.1	22.1	-21.2	0.3	1.0	100.01950	62.9	14.5	19.6	20.5	-21.6	2.7	1.4	100.01951	60.1	17.1	19.3	21.2	-22.7	3.8	1.2	100.01952	59.5	19.8	19.4	21.7	-21.9	2.0	-0.5	100.01953	60.5	19.1	20.5	20.7	-22.8	2.4	-0.4	100.01954	63.8	19.1	20.0	20.5	-22.3	-0.9	-0.2	100.01955	63.1	18.3	19.6	20.3	-23.5	1.6	0.6	100.01956	61.8	18.0	22.3	20.1	-25.1	3.4	-0.5	100.01957	62.9	17.9	23.0	20.0	-24.5	0.8	-0.1	ioo.o1958	64.1	18.9	21.2	19.7	-22.6	-1.0	-0.3	100.01959	65.0	18.6	19.6	19.8	-24.1	1.0	0.1	100.0I960 	65.5	18.3	18.2	20.1	-23.4	1.2	0.1	100.01961	65.9	18.7	17.5	21.0	-23.2	0.1	0.0	100.01962	64.6	18.2	16.7	20.7	-22.2	1.4	0.6	100.01963 	64.2	17.4	16.8	21.5	-21.7	1.3	0.5	100.01964	64.1	17.0	18.2	22.9	-23.0	0.8	0.0	100.01965	63.6	16.8	19.0	22.6	-24.2	2.1	0.1	100.01966	62.8	17.4	20.2	23.9	-25.8	1.9	-0.4	100.01967	63.8	17.7	19.4	25.6	-26.6	0.3	-0.2	100.01968	63.6	17.1	18.2	27.4	-27.5	1.1	0.1	100.0(Seasonally	adjusted)	1966 I	62.6	16.9	19.9	23.4	-24.8	2.1	-0.1	100.0II	61.4	17.1	20.4	23.3	-25.1	3.3	-0.4	100.0Ill	63.6	17.9	19.8	24.3	-26.4	1.1	-0.3	100.0IV	63.4	17.9	20.7	24.6	-26.9	1.0	-0.7	100.01967 I	63.3	17.2	20.5	25.5	-26.5	0.2	-0.2	100.0II	63.2	18.3	20.1	25.8	-27.2	0.2	-0.3	100.0Ill	64.1	17.4	18.8	25.1	-26.6	1.1	0.1	100.0IV	64.5	18.0	18.2	25.9	-26.1	-0.2	-0.3	100.01968 I	64.2	17.1	18.8	27.1	-27.5	0.6	-0.3	100.0II	63.4	17.4	18.1	27.7	-27.0	0.6	0.0	100.0Ill	64.0	17.0	18.0	27.2	-27.5	1.2	0.1	100.0IV	63.0	17.1	17.9	27.7	-27.8	1.7	0.4	100.0
(i). (2)See footnotes (1) and (2) on reference table 2. <!>See footnote (3) on reference table 4.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 8
NATIONAL INCOME AND GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Wages, Salaries and Supplementary Labour Income 0)	Corp Corpo- ration Profits Before Taxes	oration I Divi- dends Paid to Non-Residents (2)	rofits Divi- dends Paid to Resi- dents and Undis- tributed Profits	Rent, Interest and Miscel- laneous Invest- ment Income	Accrued Net Income of Farm Operators from Farm Production <*>
Net Income of NonFarm Unincorporated Business w	Inven- tory Valua- tion Adjust- ment	Net Nationa Income at Factor Cost	Indirect Taxes less Sub- sidies	Capital Con- sump- tion Allow- ances and Miscel- laneous Valua- tion Adjust- ments	Re- sidual Error of Esti- mate	Gross National Product at Market Prices
						(Millions of dollars)							
1947	6,482	1,814	-248	847	591	1,120	1,173	-571	10,361	1,608	1,223	-27	13,1651948	7,496	1,964	-249	1,006	651	1,378	1,269	-506	12,003	1,765	1,441	-89	15,1201949	8,115	1,879	-317	821	703	1,248	1,389	-112	12,905	1,808	1,673	-43	16,3431950	8,766	2,522	-404	1,110	890	1,322	1,439	-374	14,161	2,000	1,913	-68	18,0061951	10,304	2,825	-370	1,012	1,020	1,933	1,519	-643	16,588	2,469	2,203	-90	21,1701952	11,478	2,698	-334	953	1,175	1,959	1,572	106	18,654	2,717	2,422	202	23,9951953	12,419	2,611	-317	1,046	1,329	1,575	1,688	-11	19,294	2,911	2,673	142	25,0201954	12,799	2,290	-327	855	1,511	1,017	1,656	86	19,032	2,947	2,905	-13	24,8711955	13,617	2,965	-395	1,269	1,684	1,264	1,791	-189	20,737	3,237	3,266	-108	27,1321956	15,314	3,345	-437	1,461	1,767	1,450	1,965	-238	23,166	3,636	3,642	141	30,5851957	16,494	3,056	-475	1,208	1,980	1,026	2,008	-78	24,011	3,861	4,009	28	31,9091958	17,012	3,075	-470	1,252	2,104	1,200	2,125	-35	25,011	3,882	3,899	102	32,8941959	17,955	3,504	-501	1,379	2,315	1,121	2,210	-122	26,482	4,259	4,204	-30	34,9151960	18,754	3,338	-458	1,296	2,470	1,186	2,213	-70	27,433	4,470	4,423	-39	36,2871961	19,546	3,427	-586	1,189	2,670	1,008	2,274	-89	28,250	4,696	4,540	-15	37,4711962	20,819	3,819	-584	1,481	2,832	1,496	2,401	-130	30,653	5,293	4,892	-263	40,5751963	22,145	4,188	-614	1,703	3,078	1,721	2,551	-200	32,869	5,600	5,198	-243	43,4241964	24,016	4,819	-753	1,969	3,262	1,464	2,720	-131	35,397	6,372	5,600	24	47,3931965	26,766	5,199	-780	2,150	3,537	1,645	2,877	-325	38,919	7,238	6,110	-64	52,2031966	30,282	5,145	-804	2,045	3,844	2,204	2,949	-321	43,299	7,950	6,623	232	58,1041967	33,093	5,020	-798	1,970	4,339	1,698	3,194	-291	46,255	8,705	7,000	149	62,1091968	35,921	5,877	-841	2,395	4,758	1,796	3,422	-305	50,628	9,521	7,260	-41	67,368(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	29,232	5,380	-728	2,404	3,708	2,184	2,936	-488	42,224	7,860	6,404	52 .	56,540II	29,876	5,236	-768	2,112	3,844	2,244	2,852	-232	43,052	7,912	6,624	264	57,852Ill	30,552	4,824	-748	1,796	3,832	2,252	3,000	-340	43,372	8,180	6,696	180	58,428IV	31,468	5,140	-972	1,868	3,992	2,136	3,008	-224	44,548	7,848	6,768	432	59,5961967 I	32,252	4,796	-684	1,948	4,012	1,996	2,948	-292	45,028	8,792	7,000	112	60,932II	32,820	4,900	-804	1,824	4,360	1,856	3,176	-268	46,040	8,688	7,176	244	62,148Ill	33,464	5,148	-856	2,024	4,444	1,488	3,336	-228	46,796	8,624	6,980	28	62,428IV	33,836	5,236	-848	2,084	4,540	1,452	3,316	-376	47,156	8,716	6,844	212	62,9281968 I	34,472	5,324	-804	2,076	4,580	1,820	3,272	-284	48,380	9,368	7,252	168	65,168II	35,492	5,656	-940	2,188	4,732	1,592	3,400	-176	49,756	9,296	7,260	16	66,328Ill	36,264	5,960	-904	2,400	4,776	1,828	3,480	-284	51,120	9,512	7,272	-80	67,824IV	37,456	6,568	-716	2,916	4,944	1,944	3,536	-476	53,256	9,908	7,256	-268	70,152
Win eludes military pay and allowances.
^Includes the withholding tax applicable to this item.
^Includes an arbitrary smoothing of crop production and seasonal adjustments for withdrawals of grain from farm stocks and the change in livestock items. Because of the arbitrary elements, too precise an interpretation should not be given the seasonally adjusted figures of accrued net income of farm operators.
W Includes net income of independent professional practitioners.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 9

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Wages. Salaries, and Supple- mentary- Labour Income®)	Corporation Profits	Rent, Interest and Miscel- laneous Invest- ment Income	Accrued Net Income of Farm Operators from Farm Production®)	Net Income of NonFarm Unincorporated Business®)	Net National Income at Factor Cost	Indirect Taxes less Subsidies	Capital Con- sumption Allow- ances and Miscel- laneous Valua- tion Adj ust-ments	Gross National Product at Market PricesCorpora- tion Profits Before Taxes	Dividends Paid to Non-Residents®)	Dividends Paid to Residents and Undistributed Profits	(Per cent change from previous period)	1947	11.2	23.1	21.0	40.5	1.7	6.1	9.4	8.5	26.6	22.5	11.11948	15.6	8.3	0.4	18.8	10.2	23.0	8.2	15.8	9.8	17.8	14.81949	8.3	- 4.3	27.3	-18.4	8.0	- 9.4	9.5	7.5	2.4	16.1	8.11950	8.0	34.2	27.4	35.2	26.6	5.9	3.6	9.7	10.6	14.3	10.21951	17.5	12.0	- 8.4	- 8.8	14.6	46.2	5.6	17.1	23.4	15.2	17.61952	11.4	- 4.5	- 9.7	- 5.8	15.2	1.3	3.5	12.5	10.0	9.9	13.31953	8.2	- 3.2	- 5.1	9.8	13.1	-19.6	7.4	3.4	7.1	10.4	4.31954	3.1	-12.3	3.2	-18.3	13.7	-35.4	- 1.9	- 1.4	1.2	8.7	- 0.61955	6.4	29.5	20.8	48.4	11.4	24.3	8.2	9.0	9.8	12.4	9.11956	12.5	12.8	10.6	15.1	4.9	14.7	9.7	11.7	12.3	11.5	12.71957	7.7	- 8.6	8.7	-17.3	12.1	-29.2	2.2	3.6	6.2	10.1	4.31958	3.1	0.6	- 1.1	3.6	6.3	17.0	5.8	4.2	0.5	- 2.7	3.11959	5.5	14.0	6.6	10.1	10.0	- 6.6	4.0	5.9	9.7	7.8	6.11960	4.5	- 4.7	- 8.6	- 6.0	6.7	5.8	0.1	3.6	5.0	5.2	3.91961	4.2	2.7	27.9	- 8.3	8.1	-15.0	2.8	3.0	5.1	2.6	3.31962	6.5	11.4	- 0.3	24.6	6.1	48.4	5.6	8.5	12.7	7.8	8.31963	6.4	9.7	5.1	15.0	8.7	15.0	6.2	7.2	5.8	6.3	7.01964	8.4	15.1	22.6	15.6	6.0	-14.9	6.6	7.7	13.8	7.7	9.11965	11.5	7.9	3.6	9.2	8.4	12.4	5.8	9.9	13.6	9.1	10.11966	13.1	- 1.0	3.1	- 4.9	8.7	34.0	2.5	11.3	9.8	8.4	11.31967	9.3	- 2.4	- 0.7	- 3.7	12.9	-23.0	8.3	6.8	9.5	5.7	6.91968	8.5	17.1	5.4	21.6	9.7	5.8	7.1	9.5	9.4	3.7	8.5(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	4.7	1.5	- 6.2	9.7	- 1.2	25.5	0.5	4.5	6.2	2.0	4.4II....	2.2	- 2.7	5.5	-12.1	3.7	2.7	- 2.9	2.0	0.7	3.4	2.3III...	2.3	- 7.9	- 2.6	-15.0	- 0.3	0.4	5.2	0.7	3.4	1.1	1.0IV...	3.0	6.6	29.9	4.0	4.2	- 5.2	0.3	2.7	- 4.1	1.1	2.01967 I	2.5	- 6.7	-29.6	4.3	0.5	- 6.6	- 2.0	1.1	12.0	3.4	2.2II...	1.8	2.2	17.5	- 6.4	8.7	- 7.0	7.7	2.2	- 1.2	2.5	2.0III...	2.0	5.1	6.5	11.0	1.9	-19.8	5.0	1.6	- 0.7	- 2.7	0.5IV...	1.1	1.7	- 0.9	3.0	2.2	- 2.4	- 0.6	0.8	1.1	- 1.9	0.81968 I	1.9	1.7	- 5.2	- 0.4	0.9	25.3	- 1.3	2.6	7.5	6.0	3.6II....	3.0	6.2	16.9	5.4	3.3	-12.5	3.9	2.8	- 0.8	0.1	1.8III...	2.2	5.4	- 3.8	9.7	0.9	14.8	2.4	2.7	2.3	0.2	2.3IV...	3.3	10.2	-20.8	21.5	3.5	6.3	1.6	4.2	4.2	- 0.2	3.4
G), (2), (a), (*)See footnotes (1), (2), (3) and (4) on reference table 8.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
9538
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 10

[Stage Direction]
(PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT BY COMPONENTS)
1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Wages, Salaries and Supplementary Labour Income d)	Corporation Profits	Rent, Interest and Miscel- laneous Invest- ment Income	Accrued Net Income of Farm Oper- ators from Farm Produc- tion	Net Income of Non- Farm Unincor- porated Busi- ness^)	Inven- tory Valua- tion Adjust- ment	Net National Income at Factor Cost	Indirect Taxes less Sub- sidies	Capital Con- sump- tion Allow- ances and Miscel- laneous Valua- tion Adjust- ments	Re- sidual Error of Esti- mate	Gross National Product at Market PricesCorpo- ration Profits Before Taxes	Divi- dends Paid to Non- Resi- dents{2>	Divi- dends Paid to Resi- dents and Undis- tributed Profits	1947	49.2	13.8	-1.9	6.4	4.5	8.5	8.9	-4.3	78.7	12.2	9.3	-0.2	100.01948	49.6	13.0	-1.6	6.7	4.3	9.1	8.4	-3.4	79.4	11.7	9.5	-0.6	100.01949	49.7	11.5	-1.9	5.0	4.3	7.6	8.5	-0.7	79.0	11.1	10.2	-0.3	100.01950	48.7	14.0	-2.2	6.2	4.9	7.4	8.0	-2.1	78.7	11.1	10.6	-0.4	100.01951	48.7	13.3	-1.8	4.8	4.8	9.1	7.2	-3.0	78.3	11.7	10.4	-0.4	100.01952	47.8	11.2	-1.4	4.0	4.9	8.2	6.6	0.4	77.7	11.3	10.1	0.9	100.01953	49.6	10.4	-1.3	4.2	5.3	6.3	6.8	0.0	77.1	11.6	10.7	0.6	100.01954	51.5	9.2	-1.3	3.4	6.0	4.1	6.7	0.3	76.5	11.9	11.7	-0.1	100.01955	50.2	10.9	-1.5	4.7	6.2	4.7	6.6	-0.7	76.4	11.9	12.1	-0.4	100.01956	50.1	10.9	-1.4	4.8	5.8	4.7	6.4	-0.8	75.7	11.9	11.9	0.5	100.01957	51.6	9.6	-1.5	3.8	6.2	3.2	6.3	-0.2	75.2	12.1	12.6	0.1	100.01958	51.7	9.3	-1.4	3.8	6.4	3.6	6.5	-0.1	76.0	11.8	11.9	0.3	100.01959	51.4	10.0	-1.4	3.9	6.6	3.2	6.3	-0.3	75.8	12.2	12.1	-0.1	100.01960	51.7	9.2	-1.3	3.6	6.8	3.3	6.1	-0.2	75.6	12.3	12.2	-0.1	100.01961	52.2	9.1	-1.6	3.2	7.1	2.7	6.1	-0.2	75.4	12.5	12.1	0.0	100.01962	51.3	9.4	-1.4	3.7	7.0	3.7	5.9	-0.3	75.6	13.0	12.0	-0.6	100.01963	51.0	9.6	-1.4	3.9	7.1	4.0	5.9	-0.5	75.7	12.9	12.0	-0.6	100.01964	50.7	10.2	-1.6	4.2	6.9	3.1	5.7	-0.3	74.7	13.4	11.8	0.1	100.01965	51.3	10.0	-1.5	4.1	6.8	3.1	5.5	-0.6	74.6	13.8	11.7	-0.1	100.01966	52.1	8.9	-1.4	3.5	6.6	3.8	5.1	-0.6	74.5	13.7	11.4	0.4	100.01967	53.3	8.1	-1.3	3.2	7.0	2.7	5.2	-0.5	74.5	14.0	11.3	0.2	100.01968	53.3	8.7	-1.2	3.6	7.1	2.7	5.1	-0.5	75.2	14.1	10.8	-0.1	100.0(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	51.7	9.5	-1.3	4.3	6.6	3.9	5.2	-0.9	74.7	13.9	11.3	0.1	100.0II	51.6	9.1	-1.3	3.7	6.6	3.9	4.9	-0.4	74.4	13.7	11.4	0.5	100.0Ill	52.3	8.3	-1.3	3.1	6.6	3.8	5.1	-0.6	74.2	14.0	11.5	0.3	100.0IV	52.8	8.6	-1.6	3.1	6.7	3.6	5.0	-0.4	74.7	13.2	11.4	0.7	100.01967 I	52.9	7.9	-1.1	3.2	6.6	3.3	4.8	-0.5	73.9	14.4	11.5	0.2	100.0II	52.8	7.9	-1.3	2.9	7.0	3.0	5.1	-0.4	74.1	14.0	11.5	0.4	100.0Ill	53.6	8.3	-1.4	3.2	7.1	2.4	5.4	-0.4	75.0	13.8	11.2	0.0	100.0IV	53.8	8.3	-1.4	3.3	7.2	2.3	5.3	-0.6	74.9	13.9	10.9	0.3	100.01968 I	52.9	8.2	-1.2	3.2	7.0	2.8	5.0	-0.5	74.2	14.4	11.1	0.3	100.0II	53.5	8.5	-1.4	3.3	7.1	2.4	5.1	-0.2	75.0	14.0	11.0	0.0	100.0Ill	53.5	8.8	-1.3	3.5	7.0	2.7	5.1	-0.4	75.4	14.0	10.7	-0.1	100.0IV	53.4	9.4	-1.0	4.2	7.0	2.8	5.0	-0.7	75.9	14.1	10.4	-0.4	100.0
d)( (2)( <a)( (i)gee footnotes (1), (2), (3) and (4) on reference table 8.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 11
PERSONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Total Wages and Salaries 0)	Supple- mentary Labour Income	Employer and Employee Contributions to Social Insurance and Government Pension Funds	Net Income of Farm Operators from Farm Production	Net Income of Non-Farm Unincorporated Business (3>
Interest, Dividends and Net Rental Income of Persons (4>
Transfer Payments (Excluding Interest)
			(Millions of dollars)				
1947	6,269	213	-181	1,086	1,173	959	8561948	7,243	253	-224	1,478	1,269	998	8841949	7,823	292	-239	1,359	1,389	1,043	9711950	8,442	324	-256	1,156	1,439	1,268	1,0551951	9,925	379	-336	1,945	1,519	1,333	1,0591952	11,057	431	-375	1,916	1,572	1,418	1,3861953	11,966	468	-410	1,599	1,688	1,551	1,4891954	12,325	494	-422	1,009	1,656	1,719	1,6601955	13,079	538	-476	1,200	1,791	1,840	1,7661956	14,697	617	-532	1,430	1,965	1,908	1,8001957	15,811	683	-590	1,026	2,008	2,141	2,1121958	16,285	727	-615	1,201	2,125	2,277	2,6751959	17,512	743	-652	1,126	2,210	2,599	2,7981960	17,960	794	-751	1,177	2,213	2,882	3,1601961	18,726	820	-787	978	2,274	3,030	3,4811962	19,976	843	-812	1,490	2,401	3,305	3,7691963	21,272	873	-852	1,582	2,551	3,616	3,8921964	23,090	926	-912	1,353	2,720	3,799	4,1771965	25,649	1,117	-1,027	1,689	2,877	4,139	4,6181966	28,746	1,536	-1,843	2,048	2,949	4,536	5,0911967	31,441	1,648	-2,031	1,785	3,194	4,894	6,2671968	34,103	1,818	-2,298	2,022	3,422	5,315	7,242(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	27,829	1,401	-1,548	2,044	2,936	4,420	4,804II	28,330	1,546	-1,872	2,080	2,852	4,484	4,972m	28,972	1,580	-1,964	2,056	3,000	4,568	5,200IV	29,853	1,616	-1,988	2,012	3,008	4,672	5,3881967 I	30,669	1,582	-1,972	2,136	2,948	4,748	5,928II	31,183	1,638	-2,028	1,732	3,176	4,848	6,280Ill	31,784	1,680	-2,132	1,620	3,336	4,924	6,244IV	32,128	1,693	-1,992	1,652	3,316	5,056	6,6161968 I	32,756	1,717	-2,204	2,048	3,272	5,140	6,684II	33,719	1,772	-2,208	1,808	3,400	5,312	7,220Ill	34,402	1,862	-2,272	2,060	3,480	5,384	7,452IV	35,533	1,922	-2,508	2,172	3,536	5,424	7,612
29180-604*
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 11 (Continued) PERSONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Personal Direct Taxes	Personal Disposable Income*6)	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Personal Net Saving	Ratio of Personal Net Saving to Personal Disposable Income*6)	Personal Disposable Income Per Capita*7)	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services Per Capita*7)
			(Millions of dollars)				
1947	-791	9,584	9,090	494	5.2	764	7241948	-822	11,079	10,085	994	9.0	864	7861949	-789	11,849	10,923	926	7.8	881	8121950	-740	12,688	12,026	662	5.2	925	8771951	-1,030	14,794	13,460	1,334	9.0	1,056	9611952	-1,323	16,072	14,781	1,291	8.0	1,112	1,0221953	-1,432	16,904	15,592	1,312	7.8	1,139	l'0501954	-1,437	16,984	16,175	809	4.8	1,111	i;0581955	-1,499	18,239	17,389	850	4.7	1,162	1,1081956	-1,732	20,153	18,833	1,320	6.5	1,253	1'1711957	-1,917	21,274	20,072	1,202	5.7	1,281	L2081958	-1,795	22,880	21,245	1,635	7.1	1,340	1 ^ 2441959	-2,088	23,948	22,591	1,357	5.7	1,370	1,2921960	-2,360	25,075	23,540	1,535	6.1	1,403	1,3171961	-2,511	26,011	24,466	1,545	5.9	1,426	1'3411962	-2,729	28,243	25,926	2,317	8.2	1,520	l'3951963	-2,916	30,018	27,487	2,531	8.4	1,586	1,4521964	-3,428	31,725	29,666	2,059	6.5	1,645	1^5381965	-3,913	35,149	32,061	3,088	8.8	1,789	1,6321966	-4,484	38,579	34,848	3,731	9.7	1,928	1'7411967	-5,493	41,709	37,714	3,995	9.6	2,044	1 j 8481968	-6,660	44,964	40,916	4,048	9.0	2,168	1,972(Seasonally	adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	-4,256	37,632	33,956	3,676	9.8	1,887	1,703II	-4,208	38,184	34,116	4,068	10.7	1,904	1'702Ill	-4,604	38,808	35,332	3,476	9.0	1,925	l|753IV	-4,868	39,692	35,988	3,704	9.3	1,960	1,7771967 I	-5,532	40,508	36,444	4,064	10.0	1,992	1,792II	-4,980	41,848	37,388	4,460	10.7	2,047	1,829Ill	-5,540	41,916	38,192	3,724	8.9	2,040	1 i 859IV	-5,920	42,564	38,832	3,732	8.8	2,063	1,8821968 I	-6,412	43,000	39,872	3,128	7.3	2,077	1,926II	-6,236	44,788	40,164	4,624	10.3	2,156	l'934Ill	-6,716	45,652	41,380	4,272	9.4	2,189	1,984IV	-7,276	46,416	42,248	4,168	9.0	2,217	2,018
Note: The sum of "total wages and salaries" and "supplementary labour income" above may not agree with its counterpart in reterence table 8 due to different estimating procedures. Columns do not cross-add for this reason.
^Includes military pay and allowances.
**)This item differs from "accrued net income of farm operators from farm production" (see reference table 8) by excluding the Boani nt WhlCh has been made to take account of the accrued net earnings arising out of the operations of the Canadian Wheat
*3>Includes net income of independent professional practitioners. ^Includes all government debt interest paid to persons.
(5Personal income loss total personal direct taxes.
*6 Expressed as a percentage.
^Expressed in dollars.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
DBS Estimates of Labour Income, Monthly, Cat. 72-005.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 12
PERSONAL EXPENDITURE ON CONSUMER GOODS AND SERVICES 1947 to 1968
Years	Food	To- bacco and Alco- holic Bever- ages	Clothing and Personal Furnishings	Shelter	House- hold Opera- tion	Trans- porta- tion	Personal and Medical Care and Death Expenses	Miscellaneous 0)	Total	Durables	of which: Non- Durables	Serv- ices®)
						(Millions of dollars)						
1947	2,442	776	1,295	963	1,215	824	545	1,030	9,090	841	. -5,490	2,7591948	2,823	831	1,440	1,066	1,337	898	615	1,075	10,085	934	6,179	2,9721949	2,887	883	1,497	1,200	1,416	1,109	691	1,240	10,923	1,146	6,409	3,3681950	3,140	928	1,528	1,385	1,544	1,355	745	1,401	12,026	1,451	6,853	3,7221951	3,619	975	1,660	1,586	1,669	1,381	839	1,731	13,460	1,490	7,773	4,1971952	3,804	1,081	1,803	1,778	1,875	1,599	936	1,905	14,781	1,780	8,234	4,7671953	3,884	1,101	1,844	1,972	1,999	1,775	1,012	2,005	15,592	2,001	8,407	5,1841954	4,030	1,114	1,826	2,192	2,104	1,800	1,091	2,018	16,175	1,970	8,608	5,5971955	4,236	1,181	1,900	2,454	2,272	2,023	1,166	2,157	17,389	2,245	9,065	6,0791956	4,571	1,278	2,037	2,621	2,509	2,211	1,316	2,290	18,833	2,431	9,736	6,6661957	4,951	1,370	2,098	2,906	2,593	2,346	1,437	2,371	20,072	2,430	10,402	7,2401958	5,236	1,441	2,179	3,154	2,701	2,511	1,611	2,412	21,245	2,499	10,878	7,8681959	5,465	1,552	2,267	3,442	2,873	2,723	1,769	2,500	22,591	2,678	11,373	8,5401960	5,713	1,606	2,355	3,621	2,919	2,807	1,925	2,594	23,540	2,664	11,813	9,0631961	5,829	1,683	2,432	3,812	3,032	2,872	2,045	2,761	24,466	2,716	12,178	9,5721962	6,123	1,782	2,526	3,996	3,202	3,160	2,204	2,933	25,926	2,960	12,965	10,0011963	6,414	1,840	2,643	4,323	3,352	3,430	2,396	3,089	27,487	3,246	13,518	10,7231964	6,724	1,911	2,803	4,595	3,576	3,730	2,613	3,714	29,666	3,592	14,389	11,6851965	7,114	2,079	2,972	4,907	3,836	4,120	2,841	4,192	32,061	4,001	15,438	12,6221966	7,620	2,225	3,141	5,323	4,170	4,262	3,078	5,029	34,848	4,169	16,930	13,7491967	8,073	2,431	3,365	5,790	4,522	4,549	3,381	5,603	37,714	4,365	18,488	14,8611968	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	40,916	4,805	19,695	16,416
(1)Includes motion picture theatres (excluding amusement taxes), newspapers and magazines, net expenditure abroad, and other. ^Includes net expenditure abroad.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 13
VALUE OF RETAIL TRADE, CANADA AND BY REGION 1947 to 1969
Years and Months	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Columbia
			(Millions of dollars)			
1947	6,963.40)	563.60)	1,621.1	2,721.1	1,320.8	736.91948	7,835.0<D	607.30)	1,792.0	3,067.2	1,550.7	817.81949	8,532.0	734.2	1,872.0	3,293.6	1,758.1	874.11950	9,617.2	822.2	2,183.0	3,715.4	1,914.4	982.11951	10,693.1	898.5	2,442.6	4,129.8	2,122.3	1,099.81952	11,567.2	970.7	2,657.8	4,409.2	2,339.9	1,189.61953	12,189.4	1,004.4	2,793.1	4,665.6	2,485.3	1,241.01954	12,317.2	1,023.6	2,867.7	4,761.7	2,390.6	1,273.61955	13,472.8	1,124.7	3,109.3	5,295.7	2,496.1	1,447.01956	14,773.7	1,208.6	3,463.0	5,734.3	2,727.8	1,640.01957	15,423.3	1,233.0	3,709.6	5,943.1	2,854.5	1,683.21958	16,139.1	1,286.7	3,854.4	6,271.1	3,021.3	1,705.51959	17,087.1	1,356.5	4,114.2	6,614.9	3,208.1	1,793.41960	17,390.5	1,421.0	4,213.1	6,750.7	3,250.3	1,755.31961	17,752.3	1,455.6	4,490.1	6,808.0	3,238.1	1,760.51961 «>	16,073.0	1,380.5	4,108.0	6,206.7	2,773.6	1,604.21962	17,093.8	1,424.8	4,482.8	6,504.4	2,945.2	1,736.71963	18,115.7	1,502.2	4,764.0	6,903.1	3,096.1	1,850.31964	19,350.9	1,602.0	5,108.2	7,299.4	3,301.8	2,039.61965	20,954.0	1,743.0	5,515.3	7,950.7	3,503.4	2,241.71966p	22,415.9	1,840.2	5,857.1	8,496.9	3,800.5	2,421.11967p	23,785.2	1,938.9	6,270.7	8,941.3	4,053.5	2,580.81968p	25,411.9	2,103.4	6,459.9	9,806.6	4,245.5	2,796.5(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	2,094.8	171.0	534.4	797.3	354.8	223.8F	1,946.4	170.2	517.6	761.6	348.8	220.7M	2,037.1	165.5	524.4	772.3	355.7	224.9A	2,047.9	165.7	531.3	776.3	328.0	215.5M	2,060.5	171.5	541.3	779.2	346.3	229.5J	2,101.2	174.2	532.5	804.1	352.4	231.9J	2,173.9	180.0	541.1	839.9	359.3	235.5A	2,128.4	179.8	540.5	835.3	360.0	243.3s	2,172.3	180.6	530.9	849.7	349.7	239.10	2,156.5	178.4	540.7	850.8	355.6	242.9N	2,205.2	182.7	548.0	861.7	371.1	244.0D	2,206.5	178.7	558.5	852.5	357.2	238.01969 J	2,213.3	181.9	549.1	879.4	356.6	239.0F	2,260.2	185.5	569.9	885.9	378.2	246.8
Note: Figures may not cross-add due to rounding.
OlExcludes Newfoundland.
<*>Break in series is due to changes in the Standard Industrial Classification. p=preliminary.
Source: DBS Retail Trade, Monthly, Cat. 63-006.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 14
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN CANADA 1947 to 1969 (Millions of dollars)
Years	Capital Expenditures	Repair Expend- itures	Capital Expenditures	Repair Expend- itures	TotalCons- truction	Machinery and Equip- ment	Sub- Total	Total	Cons- truction	Machinery and Equip- ment	Sub- Total	Primary and Construction Industries	Manufacturing	1947	87	317	404	195	599	185	343	528	273	8011948	127	382	509	218	727	181	392	573	329	9021949	159	461	620	263	883	157	379	536	339	8751950	173	528	701	292	993	135	367	502	347	8491951	212	601	813	311	1,124	268	525	793	422	1,2151952	248	631	879	360	1,239	344	629	973	459	1,4321953	287	648	935	375	1,310	325	644	969	480	1,4491954	309	512	821	368	1,189	288	534	822	489	1,3111955	387	612	999	411	1,410	345	602	947	513	1,4601956	534	772	1,306	475	1,781	488	906	1,394	578	1,9721957	544	702	1,246	461	1,707	520	959	1,479	613	2,0921958	378	619	997	468	1,465	398	697	1,095	572	1,6671959	396	678	1,074	517	1,591	374	770	1,144	662	1,806I960	451	683	1,134	522	1,656	335	843	1,178	671	1,8491961	572	639	1,211	512	1,723	279	806	1,085	682	1,7671962	568	738	1,306	536	1,842	353	916	1,269	750	2,0191963	599	879	1,478	586	2,064	355	1,003	1,358	801	2,1591964	702	1,051	1,753	660	2,413	443	1,388	1,831	896	2,7271965 	869	1,151	2,020	724	2,744	604	1,736	2,340	974	3,3141966	1,066	1,348	2,414	796	3,210	788	2,126	2,914	1,096	4,0101967	1,069	1,427	2,496	854	3,350	677	1,857	2,534	1,156	3,6901968	1,053	1,344	2,397	887	3,284	584	1,634	2,218	1,159	3,3771969	1,067	1,338	2,405	923	3,328	619	1,921	2,540	1,202	3,742Utilities	Trade, Finance	and Commercial Services	1947	174	236	410	373	783	112	90	202	96	2981948	282	284	566	438	1,004	159	122	281	101	3821949	376	313	689	465	1,154	142	151	293	120	4131950	437	322	759	483	1,242	207	192	399	128	5271951	497	442	939	545	1,484	201	210	411	160	5711952	701	493	1,194	598	1,792	160	183	343	125	4681953	692	562	1,254	635	1,889	283	243	526	135	6611954	610	554	1,164	606	1,770	319	263	582	133	7151955	649	487	1,136	600	1,736	296	265	561	130	6911956	1,086	676	1,762	640	2,402	327	284	611	138	7491957	1,475	833	2,308	677	2,985	383	307	690	146	8361958 	1,405	748	2,153	650	2,803	396	309	705	146	8511959	1,118	724	1,842	703	2,545	462	371	833	168	1,001I960	1,074	698	1,772	713	2,485	466	409	875	168	1,0431961	1,088	610	1,698	723	2,421	451	396	847	162	1,0091962	982	619	1,601	734	2,335	438	422	860	164	1,0241963	1,111	660	1,771	774	2,545	468	450	918	183	1,1011964	1,332	727	2,059	822	2,881	548	494	1,042	195	1,2371965	1,443	980	2,423	867	3,290	705	564	1,269	220	1,4891966	1,666	1,260	2,926	945	3,871	860	667	1,527	248	1,7751967	1,748	1,397	3,145	1,019	4,164	764	770	1,534	272	1,8061968	1,856	1,412	3,268	983	4,251	707	742	1,449	262	1,7111969	1,977	1,489	3,466	1,048	4,514	850	833	1,683	276	1,959
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 14 (Continued)
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN CANADA 1947 to 1969 (Millions of dollars)
Years	Capital Expenditures	Repair Expen- ditures	Total	Capital Expenditures	Repair Expen- ditures	TotalCons- truction	Machinery and Equip- ment	Sub- Total	Cons- truction	Machinery and Equip- ment	Sub- Total	Institutions	Housing	1947	78	13	91	23	114	526	526	155	6811948	126	22	148	37	185	635	635	189	8241949.	172	23	195	35	230	822	-	822	206	1,0281950	187	26	213	34	247	923	_	923	226	1,1491951	212	30	242	40	282	947	-	947	270	1,2171952	252	33	285	40	325	971	-	971	287	1,2581953	270	33	303	42	345	1,189	-	1,189	304	1,4931954	297	41	338	42	380	1,238	-	1,238	316	1,5541955	367	41	408	49	457	1,397	1,397	338	1,7351956	359	43	402	52	454	1,547	-	1,547	355	1,9021957	407	47	454	56	510	1,430	-	1,430	383	1,8131958	457	57	514	57	571	1,782	-	1,782	407	2,1891959	479	57	536	59	595	1,752	-	1,752	431	2,1831960	500	73	573	71	644	1,456	1,456	457	1,9131961	536	81	617	78	695	1,467	-	1,467	484	1,9511962	729	105	834	76	910	1,587	-	1,587	513	2,1001963	757	116	873	75	948	1,713	-	1,713	544	2,2571964	648	123	771	79	850	2,028	-	2,028	577	26051965	867	145	1,012	82	1,094	2,133	_	2,133	618	2,7511966	1,020	184	1,204	93	1,297	2,181	[DOT] -	2,181	661	2,8421967	1,107	208	1,315	113	1,428	2,352	2,352	713	3'0651968	1,201	214	1,415	121	1,536	2,844	2,844	729	3 5731969	1,287	233	1,520	132	1,652	3,200	-	3,200	772	3,972Government Departments	Grand Total	1947	235	44	279	145	424	1,397	1,043	2,440	1,260	3,7001948	314	61	375	158	533	1,824	1,263	3,087	1,470	4,557338	46	384	146	530	2,166	1,373	3,539	1,574	5; 1131950	391	48	439	185	624	2,453	1,483	3,936	1,695	5,6311951	534	60	594	220	814	2,871	1,868	4,739	1,968	6,7071952	758	88	846	216	1,062	3,434	2,057	5,491	2,085	7,5761953	710	90	800	235	1,035	3,756	2,220	5,976	2,206	8j 1821954	676	80	756	268	1,024	3,737	1,984	5,721	2,222	7; 9431955	728	68	796	268	1,064	4,169	2,075	6,244	2,309	8,5531956	932	80	1,012	282	1,294	5,273	2,761	8,034	2,520	10,5541,025	85	1,110	288	1,398	5,784	2,933	8,717	2,624	11,3411958	1,014	104	1,118	314	1,432	5,830	2,534	8,364	2,614	10,9781,128	108	1,236	341	1,577	5,709	2,708	8,417	2,881	11,2981960	1,171	103	1,274	383	1,657	5,453	2,809	8,262	2,985	11,2471961	1,125	122	1,247	380	1,627	5,518	2,654	8,172	3,021	11'1931,130	128	1,258	388	1,646	5,787	2,928	8,715	3,161	11'8761,154	128	1,282	393	1,675	6,157	3,236	9,393	3,356	12*7491964	1,303	157	1,460	402	1,862	7,004	3,940	10,944	3,631	14;5751965	1,494	174	1,668	442	2,110	8,115	4,750	12,865	3,927	16,7921,702	222	1,924	526	2,450	9,283	5,807	15,090	4,365	19*4551,731	215	1,946	573	2,519	9,448	5,874	15,322	4,700	20;0221,891	196	2,087	526	2,613	10,136	5,542	15,678	4,667	20*3452,034	198	2,232	550	2,782	11,034	6,012	17,046	4,903	21,'949
Note: 1968 figures are preliminary actual and 1969 figures are intentions.
^ A SP,US: DBS and department of Trade and Commerce Private and Public Investment in Canada, Occasional, Cat. 61-504 Annual Cat. 61-205.	'
June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 15
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTMENT BY REGION 1952 to 1969
Years	Newfoundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Atlantic Region	Quebec
			(Millions of dollars)			
1952	86	17	133	104	340	1,2831953	80	18	157	108	363	1,3741954	73	19	156	119	367	1,3621955	89	21	164	168	442	1,5461956	94	24	183	186	487	1,8511957	100	22	188	159	469	2,0291958	107	30	185	182	504	2,0541959	115	37	226	203	581	2,0941960	146	37	234	180	597	2,0071961	184	38	224	171	617	2,0081962	261	43	223	179	706	2,1541963	236	43	234	189	702	2,3011964	231	39	270	257	797	2,8281965	228	57	318	334	937	3,2061966	341	57	412	391	1,201	3,4461967	359	45	463	377	1,244	3,2141968	414	44	498	333	1,289	3,3011969	437	38	556	403	1,434	3,408Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	Prairie Region	British Columbia*1*
(Millions of dollars)
1952	1,899	242	313	602	1,157	6041953	2,106	286	357	730	1,373	6261954	2,089	270	377	627	1,274	5331955	2,271	301	349	735	1,385	7071956	2,842	364	485	901	1,750	1,0891957	3,266	371	455	834	1,660	1,2931958	3,104	409	477	890	1,776	9251959	2,900	484	467	947	1,898	9441960	2,856	487	474	946	1,907	8951961	2,794	417	454	981	1,852	9011962	3,054	424	513	937	1,874	9271963	3,282	491	603	995	2,089	1,0191964	3,747	528	648	1,100	2,276	1,2961965	4,379	537	773	1,320	2,630	1,7131966	5,261	656	928	1,564	3,148	2,0341967	5,357	719	964	1,675	3,358	2,1491968	5,522	808	982	1,742	3,532	2,0341969	6,379	861	902	1,890	3,653	2,172
Note: 1968 figures are preliminary actual and 1969 figures are intentions.
^Includes Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Source: DBS and Department of Trade and Commerce Private and Public Investment in Canada.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 16

[Stage Direction]
1953 to 1969
Years	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Columbia <*>
(Per cent change from previous year)				
1953	10.6	6.8	7.1	10.9	18.7	3.61954	-3.7	1.1	-0.9	-0.8	-7.2	-14.91955	12.9	20.4	13.5	8.7	8.7	32.61956	26.3	10.2	19.7	25.1	26.4	54.01957	8.7	-3.7	9.6	14.9	-5.1	18.71958	-4.1	7.5	1.2	-5.0	7.0	-28.51959	0.6	15.3	1.9	-6.6	6.9	2.11960	-1.8	2.8	-4.2	-1.5	0.5	-5.21961	-1.1	3.4	0.0	-2.2	-2.9	0.71962	6.6	14.4	7.3	9.3	1.2	2.91963	7.8	-0.6	6.8	7.5	11.5	9.91964	16.5	13.5	22.9	14.2	9.0	27.21965	17.6	17.6	13.4	16.9	15.6	32.21966	17.3	28.2	7.5	20.1	19.7	18.71967	1.5	3.6	-6.7	1.8	6.7	5.71968	2.3	3.6	2.7	3.1	5.2	-5.41969	8.7	11.2	3.2	15.5	3.4	6.8
Note: 1968 figures are preliminary actual and 1969 figures are intentions.
(1)See footnote (1) on reference table 15.
Source: DBS and Department of Trade and Commerce Private and Public Investment in Canada.﻿June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 17
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CAPITAL EXPENDITURE RECONCILIATION WITH NATIONAL ACCOUNTS INVESTMENT 1947 to 1968
Years	Private and Public Capital Expenditure- reference table 14	New Residential Construction by Governments	Deduct: New NonResidential Construction by Governments	New Machinery and Equipment Outlays by Governments	Business Gross Fixed Capital Formation- National Accounts Definition, reference table 2
			(Millions of dollars)		
1947	2,440	32	274	49	2,0853,087	26	373	69	2,6191949	3,539	28	424	55	3,0323,936	40	488	60	3,3484,739	52	654	74	3,9595,491	38	897	105	4,4515,976	23	848	107	4,9981954	5,721	11	828	103	4,7791955 	6,244	19	924	91	5,2108,034	21	1,137	102	6,7748,717	21	1,251	110	7,3358,364	19	1,237	133	6,9751959	i..	8,417	18	1,368	137	6,8948,262	13	1,420	137	6,6928,172	9	1,368	160	6,6358,715	10	1,562	183	6,9609,393	6	1,609	187	7,5911964	10,944	7	1,618	216	9,10312,865	9	1,958	247	10,65115,090	10	2,252	335	12,49315,322	15	2,380	318	12,6091968	15,678	13	2,609	303	12,753
Source: DBS and Department of Trade and Commerce Private and Public Investment in Canada. DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 18
DWELLING STARTS, COMPLETIONS AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Starts	Completions	Under Construction*1)	Centres of 5,000 Population and Over	Other Areas	Total	Centres of 5,000 Population and Over*2)	Other Areas	Total	Centres of 5,000 Population and Over*2)	Total(Number of units)	1947	n.a.	n.a.	1 74,300	44,600	27,600	72,200	42,2001948	57,671	32,523	90.194	48,006	28,091	76,097	39,217	56,4561949	58,370	32,139	90,509	60,262	27,971	88,233	37,344	59,5081950	68,599	23,932	92,531	62,847	26,168	89,015	41,510	60,5381951	47,374	21,205	68,579	61,167	20,143	81,310	26,783	45,9261952	63,443	19,803	83,246	54,346	18,741	73,087	36,998	55,6891953	80,313	22,096	102,409	73,375	23,464	96.839	42.808	59,9281954	89,755	23,772	113,527	80,593	21,372	101,965	51.302	68,6411955	97,386	40,890	138,276	93,942	33,987	127,929	53.677	79,3391956	87,309	40,002	127,311	95.152	40,548	135,700	44,386	68,5791957	84,875	37,465	122,340	80,995	36,288	117,283	49,508	72,5781958	121,695	42,937	164,632	107,839	38.847	146,686	63,080	88,1621959	105,991	35,354	141,345	108,059	37,612	145,671	59,879	81,905.1960	76,687	32,171	108,858	90,513	33,244	123.757	44,975	65,7781961	92,741	32,836	125,577	83,148	32,460	115,608	53,195	73,5881962	104,279	25,816	130,095	100,447	26,235	126,682	60.541	76,153.1963	120,950	27,674	148,624	101,529	26,662	128,191	79,233	96,6131964	136,206	29,452	165,658	123,902	27,061	150,963	89,950	107,7181965	138,779	27,786	166,565	125,475	27,562	153,037	101,786	119,8541966	108,434	26,040	134,474	135,134	27,058	162,192	71,722	88,6211967	131,858	32,265	164.123	120,163	29,079	149,242	82,616	102,716-1968	162,267	34,611	196,878	136,337	34,656	170,993	106,834	126,638(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	119,900	31,300	152,600	141,600	24,900	168,300	95,800	119,009II	108,700	26,500	134,800	135,500	34,700	168,900	78,500	96,200Ill	105,300	25.S00	130,900	144,000	25,000	167,700	67,700	85,200=i	101,000	24,400	125,100	123,400	27,100	147,600	66,100	84,1001967 I	113,800	24,800	138,300	109,500	24,800	133,200	65,600	84,600II	137,600	34,400	172,200	112,700	26,800	138,600	75,000	94'100Ill	136,400	32,900	169,300	126,100	29,700	155,900	82,100	102,000IV	128,600	32,200	161,800	133,400	33,400	167,100	76,900	97,8001968 I	167,700	36,500	201,800	130,600	35,300	164,200	83,500	105,900II	155,200	35,000	189,100	127,600	34,200	162,400	93,200	112,900Ill	140,200	33,900	173,800	138,900	36,100	174,600	94,000	112,900IV	197,700	34,500	231,100	150,100	33,200	182,000	100,000	120,800(1)	At end of period.(2)	Data for years 1967 and 1968 and all quarters are based on areas of 10,000 population and over. Source: CMHC Canadian Housing Statistics.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 19
DWELLING STARTS AND COMPLETIONS, BY TYPE 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Starts	Completions	Single Detached	Semi- Detached and Duplex	Row	Apart- ment	Total	Single Detached	Semi- Detached and Duplex	Row	Apart- ment	Total(Number of units)	1947	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	74,263	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	72,2181948	73,399	7,488	1,810	7,497	90,194	61,787	4,560	1,607	8,143	76,0971949	71,425	7,536	-	11,548	90,509	68,966	7,309	485	11,473	88,2331950	68,675	8,664	631	14,561	92,531	68,685	7,376	145	12,809	89,0151951	53,002	5,658	54	9,865	68,579	60,366	7,568	585	12,791	81,3101952	60,696	5,360	299	16,891	83,246	55,967	5,314	99	11,707	73.0S71953	70,782	7,202	553	23,872	102,409	68,916	7,714	372	19,837	96,8391954	78,574	6,498	1,000	27,455	113,527	71,760	6,098	1,065	23,042	101,9651955	99,003	10,606	1,909	26,758	138,276	90,553	8,278	1,547	27,551	127,9291956	90,620	9,441	2,263	24,987	127,311	95,656	11,872	2,137	26,035	135,7001957	82,955	9,272	2,214	27,899	122,340	81,096	8,464	2,350	25,373	117,2831958	104,508	10,713	2,457	46,954	164,632	96,830	10,004	2.226	37,626	146,6861959	92,178	10,468	1,908	36,791	141,345	95,455	10,923	2,308	36,985	145,6711960	67,171	9,699	2,301	29,687	108,858	78,113	9,911	1,616	34,117	123,7571961	76,430	11,650	1,864	35,633	125,577	76,171	10,593	2,019	26,825	115,6081962	74,443	10,975	3,742	40,935	130,095	75,593	11,922	2,451	36,716	126,6821963	77,158	7,891	3,895	59,680	148,624	71,585	7,150	3,487	45,969	128,1911964	77,079	8,706	4,755	75,118	165,658	76,225	8,091	3,861	62,786	150,9631965	75,441	7,924	5,306	77,894	166,565	75,104	8,730	4,097	65,106	153,0371966	70,642	7,281	5,000	51,551	134,474	73,858	7,707	6,412	74,215	162,1921967	72,534	9,939	7,392	74,258	164,123	73,631	9,089	5,431	61,091	149,2421968	75,339	10,114	8,042	103,383	196,878	74,640	10,098	7,896	78,359	170,993(Not seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	12,016	1,355	898	8.806	23,075	16,838	1,707	1,276	16,143	35,964II	16,441	1,577	1,289	15,441	34,748	23.131	2,755	1,340	20,388	47,614Ill	18,706	1,476	1,479	15,484	37,145	15,597	1,565	2,099	20,325	39,586IV	23,479	2,873	1,334	11,820	39,506	18,292	1,680	1,697	17,359	39,0281967 I	7,810	1,035	451	7,793	17,089	15,376	1,553	876	12,198	30,003II	23,064	3,373	2,339	22,772	51,548	15,870	2,103	1,014	16,565	35,552Ill	24,384	3,239	2,841	22,170	52,634	19,267	2,238	1,578	14,517	37,600IV	17,276	2,292	1,761	21,523	42,852	23,118	3,195	1,963	17,811	46,0871968 I	9,854	1,443	792	14,689	26,778	17,176	2,584	1,553	13,899	35,212II	22,349	2,775	2,225	29,545	56,894	16,721	2,429	2,411	18,881	40,442Ill	21,596	2,535	2,515	25,928	52,574	19,578	2,376	1,761	20,147	43,862IV	21,540	3,361	2,510	33,221	60,632	21,165	2,709	2,171	25,432	51,477
Source: CMHC Canadian Housing Statistics. CMHC Housing in Canada.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 20
ANALYSIS OF CORPORATION PROFITS 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Corporation Profits Before Taxes and Before Dividends Paid to NonResidents	Corpora- tion Income Tax Liabilities	Corpora- tion Profits After Taxes	Dividends Paid to Non- Residents	Corporation Profits Retained in Canada	Dividends Paid to Canadian Persons	Undistrib- uted Corpora- tion Profits	Corpora- tions Capital Consump- tion Allow- ances	Gross Corpora- tion Saving<2>
(Millions of dollars)					
1947	1,814	-702	1,112	-248	864	-236	628	582	1,2101948	1,964	-687	1,277	-249	1,028	-238	790	702	1,4921949	1,879	-718	1,161	-317	844	-257	587	797	1,3841950	2,522	-983	1,539	-404	1,135	-383	752	907	1,6591951	2,825	-1,416	1,409	-370	1,039	-377	662	1,037	1,6991952	2,698	-1,384	1,314	-334	980	-362	618	1,189	1,8071953	2,611	-1,220	1,391	-317	1,074	-345	729	1,354	2,0831954	2,290	-1,082	1,208	-327	881	-310	571	1,521	2,0921955	2,965	-1,272	1,693	-395	1,298	-336	962	1,733	2,6951956	3,345	-1,413	1,932	-437	1.495	-364	1,131	1,976	3,1071957	3,056	-1,337	1,719	-475	1,244	-390	854	2,242	3,0961958	3,075	-1,315	1,760	-470	1,290	-414	876	2,091	2,9671959	3,504	-1,581	1,923	-501	1,422	-436	986	2,303	3,2891960	3,338	-1,544	1,794	-458	1,336	-499	837	2,426	3,2631961	3,427	-1,612	1,815	-586	1,229	-472	757	2,447	3,2041962	3,819	-1,710	2,109	-584	1,525	-588	937	2,680	3,6171963	4,188	-1,827	2,361	-614	1,747	-681	1,066	2,847	3,9131964	4,819	-2,053	2,766	-753	2,013	-721	1,292	3,083	4,3751965	5,199	-2,225	2,974	-780	2,194	-840	1,354	3,415	4,7691966	5,145	-2,252	2,893	-804	2,089	-947	1,142	3,729	4,8711967	5,020	-2,208	2,812	-798	2,014	-984	1,030	3,959	4,9891968	5,877	-2,593	3,284	-841	2,443	-926	1,517	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally	adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	5,380	-2,204	3,176	-728	2,448	-916	1,532	n.a.	n.a.II	5,236	-2,312	2,924	-768	2,156	-936	1,220	n.a.	n.a.Ill	4,824	-2,236	2,588	-748	1,840	-956	884	n.a.	n.a.IV	5,140	-2,256	2,884	-972	1,912	-980	932	n.a.	n.a.1967 I	4,796	-2,120	2,676	-684	1,992	-984	1,008	n.a.	n.a.II	4,900	-2,228	2,672	-804	1,868	-988	880	n.a.	n.a.Ill	5,148	-2,224	2,924	-856	2,068	-992	1,076	n.a.	n.a.IV	5,236	-2,260	2,976	-848	2,128	-972	1,156	n.a.	n.a.1968 I	5,324	-2,396	2,928	-804	2,124	-952	1,172	n.a.	n.a.II	5,656	-2,480	3,176	-940	2,236	-948	1,288	n.a.	n.a.Ill	5,960	-2,608	3,352	-904	2,448	-904	1,544	n.a.	n.a.IV	6,568	-2,888	3,680	-716	2,964	-900	2,064	n.a.	n.a.
^Includes charitable contributions by corporations.
(2)Sum of "undistributed corporation profits" and "corporations capital consumption allowances". Source: DBS The National Accounts.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 21
CORPORATION PROFITS BEFORE TAXES BY INDUSTRY 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Mines, Quarries and Oil Wells	Manufac- turing	Trans- portation	Storage	Commu- nication	Electric Power, Gas and Water Jtilities	Whole- sale Trade	Retail Trade	finance, insurance and Real Estate	Service Indus- tries	Other Non-Manufacturing Industries0)	Total All Indus- tries
					(Millions of dollars)							
168	992	81	6	24	38	156	171	109	32	37	1,814207	1,084	61	8	24	37	169	173	114	35	52	1,9641949	191	i;038	49	6	18	40	155	157	135	36	54	1,879272	1,400	88	8	26	47	222	187	161	39	72	2,522341	1,538	141	10	47	48	251	162	177	44	66	2,825256	r,413	131	15	59	52	238	186	220	55	73	2,698207	1,396	108	19	62	54	186	158	258	58	105	2,6111954	221	1,186	81	11	39	49	151	130	269	49	104	2,290325	1,515	144	11	43	55	222	170	326	56	98	2,965382	1,646	177	15	48	60	295	213	318	69	122	3,345322	1,469	145	8	47	61	262	209	301	77	155	3,056246	1,401	96	12	81	57	241	241	445	73	182	3,0751959	326	1 i 658	134	15	116	72	272	256	446	85	124	3,504348	1,516	132	14	129	85	228	212	510	81	83	3,338361	l'555	126	12	137	87	222	213	530	75	109	3,427406	1 j 816	125	12	157	96	262	233	543	93	76	3,819458	2,045	205	15	164	75	292	257	499	105	73	4,1881964	604	2| 223	284	16	190	74	345	272	607	125	79	4,819602	2,371	306	16	214	92	378	312	660	152	96	5,199570	2| 302	308	19	226	94	419	297	643	176	91	5,145566	2^214	235	15	187	117	398	316	689	203	80	5,0201968	618	2,759	428<2>	117	453	330	894	179	99	5,877(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	604	2,472	508	92	480	332	616	192	84	5,380624	2'356	560	92	408	276	640	184	96	5,236556	2,148	476	92	376	288	632	160	96	4,824IV	496	2,232	668	100	412	292	684	168	88	5,140560	2,084	444	140	380	264	652	208	64	4,796512	2' 136	460	92	396	316	648	248	92	4,900TTT	580	2'244	412	120	400	388	732	196	76	5,148IV	612	2,392	432	116	416	296	724	160	88	5,236636	2,436	364	116	444	340	744	164	80	5,3242 632	432	108	436	316	860	152	92	5,656648	2,668	464	128	440	320	964	192	136	5,960IV	560	3,300	452	116	492	344	1,008	208	88	6,568
(^Includes agriculture, forestry, fishing and construction.
(2>For annual 1968 and all quarters this is the sum of transportation, storage and communication. No quarterly detail is available, and the annual detail for 1968 will not be available until later in the year.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
DBS Corporation Profits, Quarterly, Cat. 61-003.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 22
MANUFACTURERS' INVENTORIES, SHIPMENTS AND ORDERS (Monthly averages)
1961 to 1968
Manufacturing	Durable Manufacturing	Non-Durable Manufacturing	Years, Quarters and Months	Ship- ments	New Orders Received	Unfilled Orders	Total Inven- tories Held	Ratio of Goods in Process + Finished Products to Ship- ments	Ship- ments	New Orders Received	Unfilled Orders	Ship- ments	New Orders Received	Unfilled Orders
(Millions of dollars)
1961.
1962.
1963.
1964.
1965.
1966.
1967.
1968.
1966 I....
II.	.
[Stage Direction]
IV.	.
1967 I....
11..	.
111.. IV..
1968 I____
11..	.
111.. IV..
1.953.2
2.149.2 2,334.6
2.571.4
2.824.1
3.077.4
3.211.1
3.387.4
3.047.1
3.048.8 3,081.3
3.145.9
3,143.8
3.182.7
3.285.8
3.283.9
3.226.2 3,344.8
3.458.2 3,521.7
l,985.0<O	1,959.9	4,529.42,158.3	2,177.2	4,866.92,344.4	2,198.6	5,085.02,600.9	2,497.2	5,435.92,866.9	2,950.3	5,951.73,126.5	3,523.3	6,661.83,211.2	3,740.9	7,178.73,378.6	3,663.8	7,220.73,104.3	3,282.5	6,373.53,116.4	3,501.7	6,557.03,113.0	3,615.4	6,758.53,190.6	3,694.7	6,960.13,133.4	3,748.8	7,072.83,165.3	3,710.4	7,169.73,288.1	3,738.4	7,281.33,308.0	3,755.8	7,199.53,192.3	3,711.7	7,205.33,328.2	3,644.6	7,159.23,465.7	3,629.0	7,237.13,529.3	3,679.0	7,288.31.35	769.3	792.1CD1.34	882.6	894.01.31	987.6	994.61.26	1,120.7	1,150.91.25	1,281.2	1,358.11.30	1,404.9	1,455.21.38	1,454.3	1,456.21.32	1,569.9	1,556.6
(Seasonally adjusted)
1	24	1,391.9	1,453.71	29	1,394.5	1,459.21	32	1,410.7	1,438.11	35	1,433.8	1,482.71	39	1,417.2	1,407.01	40	1,430.2	1,417.81	38	1,513.3	1,521.11	35	1,494.9	1,515.91	37	1,445.3	1,401.11	32	1,534.8	1,523.61	30	1,644.5	1,640.71	28	1,655.1	1,661.11,525.9	1,183.9	1,192.9(D1,747.3	1,266.6	1,264.01,783.6	1,347.0	1,349.82,069.4	1,450.7	1,450.02,950.2	1,542.9	1,548.83,043.9	1,672.4	1,671.23,278.1	1,756.8	1,754.93,177.9	1,817.8	1,822.22,806.6	1,655.2	1,650.63,020.2	1,654.3	1,657.23,129.9	1,673.9	1,674.93,220.9	1,712.1	1,707.93,281.0	1,726.6	1,726.33,243.9	1,752.5	1,747.53,288.2	1,772.6	1,767.03,301.7	1,789.0	1,729.13,237.5	1,780.9	1,791.23,164.3	1,809.9	1,804.63,142.8	1,813.7	1,824.93,167.0	1,866.6	1,868.2
434.0
430.0
415.0
427.8
459.5
479.4
462.8 488.2
475.8
481.5
485.6
473.8
481.2 466.5
450.3
454.0
474.2
480.3
486.1 512.0
(Seasonally adjusted)
1968 J	3,257.0	3,224.8	3,751.6F....	3,211.5	3,161.4	3,701.5M....	3,210.1	3,190.7	3,682.1A	3,300.8	3,275.8	3,657.1M....	3,372.5	3,359.8	3,644.4J	3,361.0	3,348.9	3,632.3J	3,380.6	3,376.7	3,628.4A....	3,444.4	3,419.7	3,603.7S	3,549.6	3,600.7	3,654.8O....	3,578.0	3,581.3	3,658.1N....	3,533.8	3,576.9	3,701.2D...	3,453.2	3,429.7	3,677.7
(^Eleven month average for 1961 only.
7,199.7	1.36	1,475.4	1,432.57,213.7	1.38	1,446.2	1,388.17,202.5	1.38	1,414.2	1,382.87,185.1	1.34	1,487.3	1,458.87,146.1	1.31	1,562.8	1,554.87,146.4	1.32	1,554.4	1,557.17,195.9	1.32	1,574.8	1,567.17,235.5	1.31	1,639.5	1,603.97,279.9	1.26	1,719.1	1,751.17,288.1	1.25	1,729.6	1,726.77,264.0	1.27	1,660.0	1,691.87,312.8	1.31	1,575.6	1,564.93,286.7	1,781.6	1,792.3	464.93,228.6	1,765.3	1,773.3	472.93,197.2	1,795.9	1,807.9	484.93,168.7	1,813.5	1,817.0	488.43,160.7	1,809.7	1,805.0	483.73,163.4	1,806.6	1,791.8	468.93,155.9	1,805.8	1,809.4	472.53,120.3	1,804.9	1,815.8	483.43,152.3	1,830.5	1,849.6	502.53,149.4	1,848.4	1,854.6	508.73,181.2	1,873.8	1,885.1	520.03,170.5	1,877.6	1,864.8	507.2
Source: DBS Inventories, Shipments and Orders in Manufacturing Industries, Monthly, Cat. 31-001.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 23
INDEXES OF REAL DOMESTIC PRODUCT BY INDUSTRY 1947 to 1968 (1961 = 100)
Years and Quarters	Real Domestic Product	Agriculture	Real Domestic Product less Agriculture	Mines, Quarries and Oil Wells	Manufacturing	Con- structionTotal	Non- Durable	Durable	(Weights)	(100.000)	(4.557)	(95.443)	(4.2981	(24.741)	(13.608)	(11.133)	(5.840)1947	54.8	89.2	52.1	27.7	55.4	53.5	57.9	41.41948	56.7	92.1	54.0	31.8	57.8	55.3	61.0	46.31949	58.4	86.8	56.2	35.3	59.5	57.4	62.0	51.91950	62.4	94.9	60.0	38.7	63.4	61.4	66.1	56.01951	67.3	108.3	64.1	43.6	68.9	64.4	74.6	56.51952	72.5	132.6	67.8	46.5	71.5	66.2	78.0	64.11953	75.5	121.2	72.0	50.6	76.6	70.8	84.0	71.91954	74.3	93.1	72.8	56.1	74.9	71.9	78.7	73.71955	82.1	114.9	79.5	66.4	82.2	77.2	88.6	81.91956	89.1	122.0	86.5	77.1	89.9	83.5	98.0	92.21957	89.5	102.6	88.5	84.6	89.7	85.5	95.1	100.21958	91.0	113.8	89.3	86.0	88.0	86.9	89.5	103.71959	95.7	110.2	94.6	97.3	94.5	92.9	96.5	98.71960	98.0	115.3	96.6	97.4	96.1	95.4	97.0	97.01961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	106.9	121.2	106.3	104.8	110.5	107.1	114.8	104.61963	112.3	135.8	111.2	110.6	118.0	112.5	124.7	105.91964	119.5	122.3	119.4	124.9	129.2	120.9	139.4	117.41965	127.8	128.3	127.8	131.6	141.0	128.4	156.3	133.71966	135.5	145.4	135.0	136.5	151.2	135.9	170.0	141.71967	139.1	124.7	139.8	145.2	151.7	137.6	168.9	142.41968	145.4	133.5	145.9	152.7	159.4	143.9	178.4	149.7(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	134.6	146.5	134.1	137.6	150.3	135.2	168.9	146.2II	135.0	146.1	134.5	137.5	150.9	136.0	169.1	144.9Ill	135.3	141.8	134.9	132.7	151.3	135.3	170.8	138.8IV	137.0	144.8	136.7	139.2	152.3	136.7	171.4	137.71967 I	137.8	144.9	137.5	141.1	150.6	136.4	168.0	139.1II	139.4	131.4	139.8	144.8	151.3	137.7	167.9	143.4Ill	139.7	118.8	140.7	146.0	151.9	137.5	169.5	146.2IV	140.6	122.3	141.5	150.7	153.5	139.0	171.2	141.61968 I	142.7	137.4	142.9	151.2	154.0	142.3	168.2	143.1II	144.7	130.9	145.3	152.2	158.7	143.7	177.1	151.5Ill	145.6	128.4	146.5	152.9	159.6	141.9	181.3	151.8IV	148.6	137.8	149.1	154.5	165.1	147.5	186.6	152.7
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 23 (Continued)
INDEXES OF REAL DOMESTIC PRODUCT BY INDUSTRY 1947 to 1968 (1961 = 100)
Years and Quarters	Electric Power, Gas and Water Utilities	Trans- portation, Storage and Communi- cation	Trade	Finance, Insurance and Real Estate	Total Community, Business and Personal Service	Public Adminis- tration and DefenceTotal	Wholesale	Retail	(Weights)	(2.812)	(9.985)	(12.721)	(4.788)	(7.933)	(12.013)	(13.789)	(7.725)1947	28.4	57.2	57.2	53.8	59.1	n.a.	58.9	1948	30.0	58.1	56.4	54.2	57.7	n.a.	60.8	1949	31.6	58.2	58.8	55.6	50.6	n.a.	63.4	n.a.1950	35.8	60.2	63.0	57.7	66.0	65.5	1951	40.9	65.9	63.7	62.5	64.5	68.5	1952	44.5	69.6	68.0	66.4	69.0	71.7	1953	46.7	70.5	72.6	70.3	74.0	74.4	1954	51.1	68.8	73.4	70.7	75.0	n.a.	75.8	n.a.1955	57.9	78.1	81.8	79.9	82.9	n.a.	77.7	1956	64.6	87.1	89.2	88.3	89.7	82.4	1957	69.5	87.4	89.2	87.3	90.4	85.0	1958	76.3	84.4	91.3	88.9	92.7	n.a.	88.2	1959	86.6	91.2	97.4	98.0	97.2	n.a.	93.0	n.a.1960	94.4	93.9	97.6	97.3	97.9	n.a.	96.7	1961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	107.1	104.1	105.6	105.5	105.7	104.0	105.4	103.41963	112.5	111.1	109.6	109.2	109.9	108.1	109.8	104.01964	123.3	120.2	116.0	116.1	115.9	112.9	117.0	105.21965	134.0	127.2	124.3	125.7	123.6	117.2	125.7	106.21966	147.8	136.4	129.8	130.0	129.7	120.4	132.5	109.31967	161.3	144.3	135.3	134.5	135.8	125.7	138.8	116.81968	174.4	150.2	140.1	138.9	140.8	130.6	144.1	120.1(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	144.1	133.1	130.4	131.3	129.9	119.0	130.1	107.9II	146.4	136.2	126.6	126.9	126.4	119.7	131.9	108.4Ill	148.5	136.2	130.1	128.9	130.9	121.0	133.1	109.9IV	152.4	139.6	132.3	133.2	131.8	121.9	134.8	110.91967 I	158.1	142.8	131.4	129.3	132.7	123.4	136.5	112.7II	160.8	144.3	136.7	137.1	136.5	125.2	138.7	116.2Ill	162.3	145.1	136.0	135.2	136.5	126.7	139.9	117.4IV	164.9	146.2	137.4	137.4	137.3	127.8	140.3	117.91968 I	169.2	150.0	137.2	136.3	137.8	129.0	141.9	120.3II	170.8	148.8	139.5	142.7	137.7	130.2	142.8	120.1Ill	177.8	149.8	141.4	138.3	143.2	131.0	144.4	119.8IV	181.6	154.2	141.3	137.2	143.8	132.1	147.3	119.4
Source: DBS Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry (1961 Base), Occasional, Cat. 61-506. DBS Index of Industrial Production, Monthly, Cat. 61-005.
DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends, Annual, Cat. 14-201.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 24

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968 (1961 = 100)
Years and Quarters	Real Domestic Product	Agriculture	Real Domestic Product less Agriculture	Mines, Quarries and Oil Wells	Manufacturing	Con- structionTotal	Non- Durable	Durable	(Per cent change from previous period)	1047	4.4	-6.1	6.1	5.3	9.3	3.9	16.7	16.61948	3.5	3.3	3.6	14.8	4.3	3.4	5.4	11.81949	3.0	-5.8	4.1	11.0	2.9	3.8	1.6	12.11950 	6.8	9.3	6.8	9.6	6.6	7.0	6.6	7.91951 	7.9	14.1	6.8	12.7	8.7	4.9	12.9	0.97.7	22.4	5.8	6.7	3.8	2.8	4.6	13.51953 	4.1	-8.6	6.2	8.8	7.1	6.9	7.7	12.21954	-1.6	-23.2	1.1	10.9	-2.2	1.6	-6.3	2.51955	10.5	23.4	9.2	18.4	9.7	7.4	12.6	11.18.5	6.2	8.8	16.1	9.4	8.2	10.6	12.61957 	0.4	-15.9	2.3	9.7	-0.2	2.4	-3.0	8.71958 	1.7	10.9	0.9	1.7	-1.9	1.6	- 5.9	3.51959	5.2	-3.2	5.9	13.1	7.4	6.9	7.8	2.4	4.6	2.1	0.1	1.7	2.7	0.5	-1.72.0	-13.3	3.5	2.7	4.1	4.8	3.1	3.11962	6.9	21.2	6.3	4.8	10.5	7.1	14.8	4.61963	5.0	12.0	4.7	5.5	6.7	5.1	8.6	1.31964	6.4	-10.0	7.4	13.0	9.5	7.5	11.8	10.91965 	6.9	4.9	7.0	5.4	9.1	6.2	12.2	13.91966	6.0	13.3	5.7	3.7	7.3	5.8	8.7	5.91967 	2.7	-14.2	3.5	6.4	0.3	1.3	-0.6	0.54.5	7.1	4.4	3.2	5.1	4.6	5.6	5.1(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	2.4	14.8	1.8	2.2	2.3	2.0	2.7	6.5II	0.3	-0.3	0.3	-0.1	0.4	0.6	0.1	III ..	0.2	-2.9	0.3	-3.5	0.3	-0.5	1.0	-4.2IV	1.3	2.1	1.2	4.9	0.7	1.0	0.3	-0.81967 I 	0.6	0.1	0.6	1.4	-1.1	-0.2	-2.0	1.0TT	1.2	-9.3	1.7	2.6	0.5	1.0	-0.1	3.1III....	0.2	-9.6	0.6	0.8	0.4	-0.2	1.0	2.0IV	0.7	2.9	0.6	3.2	1.0	1.1	1.0	-3.11968 I 	1.5	12.3	1.0	0.3	0.3	2.4	-1.8	1.11.4	-4.7	1.7	0.7	3.1	1.0	5.3	5.9Ill	0.6	-1.9	0.8	0.5	0.6	-1.3	2.4	0.2IV	2.1	7.3	1.8	1.0	3.4	3.9	2.9	0.6
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 24 (Continued)

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968
(1961 = 100)
Years
and
Quarters
Trade		
Total	Wholesale	Retail
Electric Power, Gas and Water Utilities
Transportation.
Storage
and
Communication
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Community,
Business
and
Personal
Service
Public
Administration
and
Defence
1947..	.
1948..	.
1949..	.
1950..	.
1951..	.
1952..	.
1953..	.
1954..	.
1955..	.
1956..	.
1957..	..
1958..	..
1959..	..
1960..	..
1961..	..
1962..	..
1963..	..
1964..	..
1965..	..
1966..	..
1967..	..
1968..	..
1966 I... II.. Ill IV.
1967 I... II.. Ill IV.
1968 I...
II.	.

[Stage Direction]
(Per cent change from previous period)
9.0	7.8	9.4-1.4	0.7	-2.44.3	2.6	5.07.1	3.8	8.91.1	8.3	-2.36.8	6.2	7.06.8	5.9	7.21.1	0.6	1.411.4	13.0	10.59.0	10.5	8.20.0	-1.1	0.82.4	1.8	2.56.7	10.2	4.90.2	-0.7	0.72.5	2.8	2.15.7	5.4	5.83.8	3.5	4.05.8	6.4	5.67.2	8.2	6.64.4	3.4	5.04.3	3.5	4.83.5	3.3	3.7
(Seasonally adjusted)
2.3	2.2	2.4-3.0	-3.4	-2.72.8	1.6	3.61.7	3.3	0.7-0.7	-2.9	0.74.0	6.0	2.9-0.5	-1.4	1.0	1.6	0.7-0.1	-0.8	0.41.7	4.7	-0.11.4	-3.1	4.0-0.1	-0.8	0.4n.a.	4.1	n.a.n.a.	3.2	n.a.n.a.	4.3	n.a.n.a.	3.3	n.a.n.a.	4.6	n.a.n.a.	4.7	n.a.n.a.	3.8	n.a.n.a.	1.9	n.a.n.a.	2.5	n.a.n.a.	6.0	n.a.n.a.	3.2	n.a.n.a.	3.8	n.a.n.a.	5.4	n.a.n.a.	4.0	n.a.0.0	3.4	0.04.0	5.4	3.44.0	4.2	0.64.4	6.6	1.23.8	7.4	0.92.8	5.4	2.94.4	4.8	6.93.9	I 3.8	2.80.6	1.2	0.70.6	1.4	0.41.1	0.9	1.40.7	1.3	0.91.2	1.3	1.71.4	1.6	3.11.2	0.9	1.00.9	0.3	0.40.9	1.1	2.00.9	0.6	-0.20.6	1.1	-0.30.8	2.0	-0.3
Source: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends.
DBS Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry (1961 Base). DBS Index of Industrial Production (1961=100).
June 3, X969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 25

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968 (1961 = 100)
Years and Quarters	Commercial Industries	Commercial Industries less Agriculture	Goods- Producing Industries	Goods- Producing Industries less Agriculture	Service- Producing Industries	Non- Commercial Industries	Commercial Service- Producing Industries	Index of Industrial Production(Weights)	(84.355)	(79.798)	(43.767)	(39.210)	(56.233)	(15.645)	(40.588)	(31.851)1947	55.0	52.1	54.0	48.5	55.7	n.a.	55.8	48.91948	57.0	54.0	56.8	51.3	56.7	n.a.	56.9	51.51949	58.5	56.1	57.8	53.3	59.1	n.a.	59.1	53.41950	62.7	59.9	62.6	57.6	62.2	n.a.	62.2	57.31951.	67.5	64.0	68.6	62.4	65.8	n.a.	65.7	62.71952	72.5	67.4	74.5	65.5	70.0	n.a.	69.4	65.31953	75.5	71.5	77.4	70.6	73.3	n.a.	72.4	70.11954	73.8	72.2	73.9	71.0	74.7	n.a.	73.3	70.01955	82.1	79.3	83.7	78.8	80.2	n.a.	79.4	77.71956	89.5	86.8	91.9	87.3	85.7	n.a.	85.6	85.81957	89.7	88.6	91.0	89.2	87.7	n.a.	87.6	87.21958	91.0	89.1	92.4	89.1	89.4	n.a.	88.7	86.71959	95.9	94.7	96.8	94.8	94.4	n.a.	94.1	94.21960	98.0	96.5	99.0	96.5	96.6	n.a.	96.3	96.21961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	107.3	106.5	109.9	108.6	104.6	105.0	104.5	109.51963	113.3	112.0	116.8	114.6	108.8	107.4	109.3	116.51964	120.8	120.8	125.6	125.9	114.9	112.5	115.6	128.11965	129.6	129.6	136.4	137.3	121.2	118.4	122.0	139.11966	137.8	137.4	146.7	146.8	126.8	123.1	128.0	148.91967	140.7	141.7	146.7	149.3	133.2	130.4	134.0	151.71968	147.1	147.9	154.7	157.1	138.1	135.9	138.3	159.8(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	137.1	136.6	146.6	146.6	125.3	121.2	n.a.	148.1II	137.4	136.9	147.1	147.2	125.6	122.4	n.a.	148.7Ill	137.4	137.1	145.6	146.0	127.2	123.7	n.a.	148.5IY	139.3	138.9	147.3	147.6	129.0	124.9	n.a.	150.51967 I	139.9	139.6	147.3	147.6	130.4	126.8	n.a.	150.0II	141.2	141.8	147.3	149.2	133.2	129.8	n.a.	151.3Ill	141.2	142.5	147.0	150.2	134.0	131.6	n.a.	152.0IV	142.2	143.4	147.9	150.9	134.9	132.0	n.a.	154.11968 I	144.2	144.6	150.5	152.0	136.6	134.5	n.a.	154.911	146.4	147.3	154.1	156.8	137.3	135.3	n.a.	158.9Ill	147.4	148.5	154.9	158.0	138.4	136.2	n.a.	160.3IV	150.7	151.5	159.6	162.1	140.1	137.1	n.a.	165.1
Source: DBS Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry (1961 Base). DBS Index of Industrial Production.
DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 26
CHANGES IN THE INDEXES OF REAL DOMESTIC PRODUCT BY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL GROUPING 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Commercial Industries	Commercial Industries less Agriculture	Goods- Producing Industries	Goods- Producing Industries less Agriculture	Service- Producing Industries	Non- Commercial Industries	Commercial Service- Producing Industries	Index of Industrial Production
			(Per cent change from previous period)					
1947	6.6	8.8	5.9	10.0	2.8	7.7	9.41948	3.6	3.6	5.2	5.8	1.8	2.0	5.31949	2.6	3.9	1.8	3.9	4.2	n.a.	3.9	3.71950	7.2	6.8	8.3	8.1	5.2	5.2	7.31951	7.7	6.8	9.6	8.3	5.8	5.6	9.41952	7.4	5.3	8.6	5.0	6.4	5.6	4.11953	4.1	6.1	3.9	7.8	4.7	4.3	7.41954	-2.3	1.0	-4.5	0.6	1.9	n.a.	1.2	-0.11955	11.2	9.8	13.3	11.0	7.4	n.a.	8.3	11.01956	9.0	9.5	9.8	10.8	6.9	7.8	10.41957	0.2	2.1	-1.0	2.2	2.3	2.3	1.61958	1.4	0.6	1.5	-0.1	1.9	1.3	-0.61959	5.4	6.3	4.8	6.4	5.6	n.a.	6.1	8.71960	2.2	1.9	2.3	1.8	2.3	2.3	2.11961	2.0	3.6	1.0	3.6	3.5	3.8	4.01962	7.3	6.5	9.9	8.6	4.7	4.9	4.5	9.51963	5.5	5.1	6.3	5.6	4.0	2.3	4.6	6.41964	6.7	7.9	7.5	9.9	5.5	4.8	5.8	10.01965	7.2	7.4	8.6	9.0	5.5	5.2	5.5	8.51966	6.4	6.0	7.6	6.9	4.7	4.0	4.9	7.11967	2.1	3.1	0.0	1.7	5.0	5.9	4.7	1.81968	4.5	4.4	5.5	5.2	3.7	4.2	3.2	5.3(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	2.7	2.0	4.0	2.9	1.0	0.9	2.3II	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.3	1.0	0.4Ill	-	0.2	-1.0	-0.8	1.2	1.1	-0.1IV	1.4	1.3	1.1	1.0	1.4	1.0	n.a.	1.31967 T	0.4	0.4	_	1.1	1.5	-0.3II	0.9	1.6	-	1.1	2.2	2.4	0.9Ill	-	0.5	-0.3	0.7	0.6	1.4	0.5IV	0.7	0.6	0.7	0.5	0.7	0.3	n.a.	1.41968 I	1.4	0.8	1.8	0.7	1.3	1.9	0.5II	1.5	1.9	2.4	3.2	0.5	0.6	2.6Ill	0.7	0.8	0.5	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.9IV	2.2	2.0	3.0	2.6	1.2	0.7	n.a.	3.0
Source: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends.
DBS Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry (1961 Base). DBS Index of Industrial Production (1961 = 100).
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 27
MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE LABOUR MARKETS 1954 to 1969
Years and Months	Population 14 Years and Over	Labour Force	Employment	Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female(Thousands of persons)	1954	-	10,391	5,493	4,263	1,231	5,243	4,044	1,19910,597	5,610	4,341	1,269	5,364	4,128	1,23610,807	5,782	4,437	1,346	5,585	4,266	1,32011,123	6,008	4,573	1,435	5,731	4,329	1,40211,388	6,137	4,641	1,496	5,706	4,263	1,4421959	11,605	6,242	4,687	1,554	5,870	4,363	1,50711,831	6,411	4,754	1,657	5,965	4,368	1,59712,053	6,521	4,782	1,739	6,055	4,381	1,67412,280	6,615	4,819	1,797	6,225	4,488	1,73712,536	6,748	4,879	1,870	6,375	4,567	1,8081964	12,817	6,933	4,961	1,972	6,609	4,698	1,91113,128	7,141	5,065	2,076	6,862	4,842	2,02013,475	7,420	5,193	2,227	7,152	4,983	2,16913,874	7,694	5,329	2,365	7,379	5,083	2,2961968	14,264	7,919	5,443	2,476	7,537	5,146	2,391(Seasonally adjusted**))	14,086	7,759	5,353	2,425	7,415	5,065	2,34814,115	7,788	5,374	2,433	7,433	5,079	2,35714,151	7,771	5,367	2,411	7,404	5,067	2,33314,184	7,848	5,424	2,437	7,480	5,122	2,35514,213	7,868	5,429	2,433	7,484	5,132	2,34914,249	8,020	5,522	2,470	7,583	5,198	2,37514,281	7,946	5,463	2,469	7,533	5,157	2,37414,316	7,948	5,462	2,479	7,548	5,161	2,38514,349	7,988	5,454	2,512	7,606	5,179	2,425o 	14,378	8,023	5,480	2,527	7,622	5,193	2,43714,407	8.064	5,494	2,562	7,667	5,194	2,494D	14,435	8,035	5,485	2,545	7,651	5,192	2,45714,470	8,099	5,534	2,583	7,753	5,265	2,48614,495	8,128	5,533	2,605	7,779	5,265	2,51514,528	8,108	5,529	2,566	7,771	5,287	2,479A	14,557	8,207	5,571	2,647	7,842	5,283	2,554
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 27 (Continued)
MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE LABOUR MARKET ft) 1954 to 1969
Years and Months	Unemployment Rate	Participation Rate	Unemploy- ment	Total Immi- gration	Immigrants Destined to the Labour ForceTotal	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female	(Per cent)	(Thousands of persons)	1954	4.6	5.1	2.6	52.9	82.2	23.7	250	154	841955	4.4	4.9	2.6	52.9	82.1	23.9	245	110	1956	3.4	3.9	1.9	53.5	82.2	24.9	197	165	4.6	5.3	2.3	54.0	82.3	25.8	278	282	1958	7.0	8.1	3.6	53.9	81.7	26.2	432	125	1959	6.0	6.9	3.0	53.8	81.0	26.7	372	107	541960	7.0	8.1	3.6	54.2	80.7	27.9	446	104	1961	7.1	8.4	3.7	54.1	79.8	28.7	466	72	5.9	6.9	3.3	53.9	79.1	29.0	390	75	5.5	6.4	3.3	53.8	78.5	29.6	374	93	4.7	5.3	3.1	54.1	78.1	30.5	324	113	561965	3.9	4.4	2.7	54.4	77.9	31.3	280	147	743.6	4.0	2.6	55.1	77.8	32.8	267	195	4.1	4.6	3.0	55.5	77.5	33.8	315	223	4.8	5.5	3.4	55.5	77.0	34.4	382	184	95(Seasonally adjusted <2>)	1968 J	4.4	5.1	3.1	55.2	76.6	34.1	344	4.6	5.2	3.1	55.3	76.7	34.2	355	36	4.7	5.4	3.2	55.2	76.4	33.8	367	4.7	5.3	3.3	55.4	77.2	34.1	368	M	4.9	5.5	3.4	55.3	77.1	34.0	384	50	265.4	6.1	3.8	56.2	78.2	34.4	437	J	5.2	5.7	3.8	55.6	77.2	34.3	413	5.0	5.5	3.8	55.4	77.0	34.3	400	51	264.8	5.4	3.4	55.6	76.7	34.7	382	5.0	5.6	3.6	55.6	76.9	34.9	401	N	4.9	5.7	3.4	55.9	77.0	35.2	397	48	4.8	5.4	3.5	55.6	76.7	35.0	384	1969 J	4.3	4.7	3.6	56.0	77.1	35.3	346	4.3	4.8	3.4	56.1	76.9	35.6	349	n4.6	3.2	55.9	76.7	35.0	337	A	4.4	5.0	3.4	56.5	77.2	36.0	365	
0) Small differences in totals may arise due to the seasonal adjustment process, or rounding.
"'Immigration statistics are by quarters and are not seasonally adjusted. Population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
Source: DBS The Labour Force, Monthly, Cat. 71-001.
Department of Manpower and Immigration Immigration Statistics. Department of Manpower and Immigration Quarterly Immigration Bulletin.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 28
CHANGES IN THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE LABOUR MARKET 1954 to 1969
Years and Months	Population 14 Years and Over	Labour Force	Employment	Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female(Per cent change from same period a year ago)	1954	2.2	1.8	1.4	3.4	0.2	-0.5	2.31955	2.0	2.1	1.8	3.1	2.3	2.1	3.11956	2.0	3.1	2.2	6.1	4.1	3.3	6.81957	2.9	3.9	3.1	6.6	2.6	1.5	6.21958	2.4	2.1	1.5	4.3	-0.4	-1.5	2.91959	1.9	1.7	1.0	3.9	-2.9	2.3	4.51960	1.9	2.7	1.4	6.6	1.6	0.1	6.01961	1.9	1.7	0.6	4.9	1.5	0.3	4.81962	1.9	1.4	0.8	3.3	2.8	2.4	3.81963	2.1	2.0	1.2	4.1	2.4	1.8	4.11964	2.2	2.7	1.7	5.5	3.7	2.9	5.71965	2.4	3.0	2.1	5.3	3.8	3.1	5.71966	2.6	3.9	2.5	7.3	4.2	2.9	7.41967	3.0	3.7	2.6	6.2	3.2	2.0	5.91968	2.8	2.9	2.1	4.7	2.1	1.2	4.1(Seasonally adjusted (O)	1968 J	3.0	2.4	1.4	5.9	1.7	0.0	5.4F	2.9	2.6	2.0	4.9	1.8	0.4	4.8M	2.9	1.3	1.2	2.3	0.5	-0.2	2.0A	2.9	2.8	2.4	4.5	2.1	1.2	4.1M	2.8	2.1	1.7	2.7	1.3	0.9	2.3j	2.8	4.0	3.5	4.4	2.6	2.2	3.5J	2.7	2.6	1.9	3.5	1.4	1.0	2.4A	2.8	2.6	1.6	4.0	1.5	0.8	2.9S	2.8	3.4	2.0	5.6	2.7	1.4	5.2O	2.7	4.1	2.6	7.0	3.7	2.4	6.5N	2.7	4.1	2.8	6.7	3.5	2.2	6.6D	2.7	3.1	2.4	4.7	3.0	2.4	4.41969 J	2.7	4.4	3.4	6.5	4.6	3.9	5.9F	2.7	4.4	3.0	7.1	4.7	3.7	6.7M	2.7	4.3	3.0	6.4	5.0	4.3	6.3A	2.6	4.6	2.7	8.6	4.8	3.1	8.5
(^Population figures are not seasonally adjusted. Source: DBS The Labour Force.
9562
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 29
PARTICIPATION RATES BY SEX AND AGE GROUPS 1954 to 1969
Years and Months	14-19	20-24	25-44	45-64	65+	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female(Per cent)	1954	50.2	33.6	92.0	46.6	97.3	23.3	91.3	18.1	33.2	3.71955	48.6	32.9	92.2	46.3	97.6	23.8	91.8	19.0	32.3	3.91956	48.1	33.9	91.7	47.1	97.6	24.5	92.0	20.8	34.0	4.51957	47.8	33.1	91.4	46.5	97.7	25.7	92.5	22.9	34.1	5.01958	45.6	32.1	91.7	47.4	97.8	26.2	92.5	24.1	32.1	5.21959	43.6	32.1	91.0	46.5	97.8	27.0	92.4	25.1	31.0	5.21960	42.8	32.6	91.2	47.9	97.8	28.3	92.5	26.7	30.3	5.61961	40.3	32.3	90.7	48.7	97.7	29.2	92.2	28.5	29.3	5.91962	39.6	30.9	88.6	49.7	97.7	29.8	91.7	29.4	28.5	5.61963	39.2	29.9	88.7	50.3	97.7	30.5	91.9	30.5	26.4	5.91964	38.3	29.9	88.2	51.0	97.7	31.7	91.8	31.6	26.8	6.31965	38.7	30.2	87.6	52.6	97.6	32.6	91.9	32.9	26.3	6.01966	38.6	31.4	87.4	55.6	97.6	34.3	91.8	33.9	26.4	5.91967	39.4	31.6	86.0	56.6	97.3	35.7	91.7	35.1	24.7	5.91968	39.1	31.3	84.4	58.4	97.0	36.4	91.1	35.4	24.4	5.9(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	38.3	32.1	83.2	57.2	97.2	35.7	91.2	35.2	23.1	5.9F	39.4	31.8	82.8	57.7	97.1	35.6	91.1	35.1	23.4	6.3M	38.7	31.5	83.7	57.5	97.1	35.8	91.1	34.4	23.6	6.0A	39.7	31.3	84.2	57.9	97.1	36.1	91.4	34.8	25.1	5.6M	39.3	30.2	84.7	58.6	97.0	36.1	90.7	34.9	24.5	5.6J	44.3	32.8	85.3	58.6	97.2	36.2	91.1	35.2	24.3	5.9J	38.5	31.3	85.8	60.0	97.1	36.1	91.2	34.8	24.8	6.2A	36.4	30.9	85.6	59.5	97.0	36.2	91.1	35.3	25.0	6.1S	37.8	30.4	83.9	59.2	96.9	36.8	91.2	36.2	25.0	6.00	38.9	31.0	84.6	58.5	97.1	37.2	90.8	36.5	24.3	6.1N	39.8	31.5	83.6	58.1	97.0	38.1	91.2	36.4	24.5	6.2D	38.7	31.1	83.7	57.2	97.0	37.2	90.6	36.6	24.9	6.21969 J	39.0	30.4	84.2	57.6	97.4	38.0	91.1	37.4	24.3	5.6F	38.1	30.4	85.1	58.8	97.1	38.4	91.1	37.0	24.1	6.0M	39.2	31.2	85.1	58.4	96.7	37.8	91.5	35.8	24.0	6.1A	39.4	31.9	84.8	60.0	97.1	39.7	91.6	35.9	24.7	5.7
Source: DBS The Labour Force.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 30
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY SEX AND AGE GROUPS 1954 to 1969
Years and Months	14-19	20-24	25-44	45-64	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female(Per cent)	1954	10.0	5.4	7.6	2.7	4.4	2.0	4.3	1.31955	10.1	5.0	7.2	2.4	4.1	1.9	4.2	2.01956	8.1	3.8	5.7	1.9	3.2	1.6	3.3	1.11957	11.2	4.6	8.2	2.7	4.5	1.7	4.2	1.61958	16.6	7.4	12.7	4.1	6.9	2.6	6.7	2.41959	14.3	6.7	10.5	3.7	5.8	2.2	5.8	1.61960	16.4	8.6	12.2	3.9	6.9	2.5	6.9	1.81961	16.4	8.6	11.8	4.2	7.3	2.6	7.3	2.31962	14.4	7.9	10.0	3.7	5.6	2.4	6.1	1.91963	14.0	7.7	9.6	4.1	5.1	2.2	5.4	2.21964	12.3	7.6	7.9	3.3	4.1	2.0	4.5	2.11965	10.2	6.9	5.7	3.1	3.4	1.9	3.9	1.61966	9.7	6 4	1967	10.9	7.3	6.1	3.2	3.5	2.0	3.8	1.71968	12.7	8.3	7.7	4.2	4.2	2.3	4.3	2.0(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	11.5	7.6	7.0	4.4	3.9	2.0	4.3	1.2F	12.3	7.4	7.7	4.1	4.0	2.2	4.4	1.5M	13.0	6.9	7.4	4.3	4.3	2.0	4.2	1.9A	12.8	8.0	7.4	4.3	4.1	2.4	4.3	1.7M	13.3	7.4	8.1	4.4	4.4	2.6	4.0	1.4J	13.1	10.7	8.2	4.2	4.8	2.6	4.3	1.8J	14.4	9.1	8.3	4.1	4.4	2.5	4.3	2.0A	12.0	9.2	7.4	4.3	4.4	2.4	4.6	2.3S	12.1	8.2	7.2	4.3	4.2	2.1	4.5	2.90	12.5	8.8	8.3	3.7	4.3	2.3	4.3	2.0N	12.4	8.4	8.0	3.7	4.5	1.6	4.4	2.5D	12.1	7.4	7.8	4.2	4.3	2.1	4.3	2.31969 J	11.3	8.1	7.4	3.9	3.3	2.5	3.6	3.1F	11.8	8.4	7.2	4.0	3.6	2.7	3.6	1.7M	12.0	9.0	6.7	3.0	3.4	2.2	3.4	1.9A	13.0	9.6	7.4	2.9	3.6	2.4	4.1	2.2
Source: DBS The Labour Force.
29180-605*
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 31
LABOUR FORCE, CANADA AND BY REGION 1954 to 1969
Years and Months	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Colum- bia	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Colum- bia
		(Thousands of persons)					(Per cent change from same period a year age)					
1954	5,493	501	1,562	2,022	949	461	1.8	-1.0	1.6	3.8	-0.7	2.71955	5,610	511	1,591	2.059	969	480	2.1	2.0	1.9	1.8	2.1	4.11956	5.782	520	1.615	2.147	998	503	3.1	1.8	1.5	4.3	3.0	4.81957	6.008	537	1,678	2.238	1,019	536	3.9	3.3	3.9	4.2	2.1	6.61958	6,137	535	1,735	2.264	1,055	548	2.1	-0.4	3.4	1.2	3.5	2.21959	6,242	541	1,758	2,301	1,084	556	1.7	1.1	1.3	1.6	2.7	1.51960	6,411	550	1,803	2,377	1,115	565	2.7	1.7	2.6	3.3	2.9	1.61961	6,521	571	1.820	2.401	1,154	575	1.7	3.8	0.9	1.0	3.5	1.81962	6,615	578	1,852	2,422	1,175	590	1.4	1.2	1.8	0.9	1.8	2.61963	6,748	577	1,904	2,476	1,181	610	2.0	-0.2	2.8	2.2	0.5	3.41964	6,933	588	1,951	2,556	1,199	639	2.7	1.9	2.5	3.2	1.5	4.81965	7,141	611	2,022	2.614	1.228	666	3.0	3.9	3.6	2.3	2.4	4.21966	7,420	626	2,116	2,719	1.248	710	3.9	2.5	4.6	4.0	1.6	6.61967	7,694	635	2,196	2,834	1,268	762	3.7	1.4	3.8	4.2	1.6	7.31968	7,919	643	2,227	2,934	1,318	797	2.9	1.3	1.4	3.5	3.9	4.6(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	7,759	642	2,178	2,861	1,292	780	2.4	2.6	0.6	3.0	2.1	5.4F	7.788	642	2,177	2,889	1,293	786	2.6	2.4	0.5	3.8	1.7	5.8M	7,771	635	2,185	2,875	1,299	785	1.3	0.6	0.1	1.9	1.1	4.1A	7.848	640	2.215	2,888	1,318	787	2.8	2.1	1.8	2.1	5.6	4.7M	7,868	646	2,213	2,918	1,307	787	2.1	2.5	0.0	2.9	3.0	3.8J	8.020	652	2.263	2,958	1.320	805	4.0	2.8	2.8	4.2	4.1	6.9J	7.946	649	2.237	2,940	1,318	799	2.6	2.0	0.5	2.9	4.1	5.5A	7.948	650	2.250	2.939	1.323	801	2.6	2.5	0.6	2.7	4.5	5.3S	7.988	648	2,255	2,959	1,325	800	3.4	2.4	2.1	3.8	4.7	3.9N	8.0 3	644	2.250	2,995	1,336	80?	4.1	0.3	3.0	5.1	7.0	2.3N	8.064	643	2,254	3,012	1.355	812	4.1	1.1	2.6	5.6	6.3	3.4D	8,035	639	2,251	2,977	1,349	826	3.1	-0.8	2.8	3.6	4.7	5.11969 J	8,099	656	2,261	3,010	1,355	811	4.4	2.2	3.8	5.2	4.9	4.0F	8.128	655	2,256	3,037	1,365	813	4.4	2.0	3.6	5.1	5.6	3.4M	8,108	651	2,275	3,019	1,355	813	4.3	2.5	4.1	5.0	4.3	3.6A	8,207	665	2,302	3,038	1,364	835	4.6	3.9	3.9	5.2	3.5	6.1
Source: DBS The Labour Force.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 32
EMPLOYMENT, CANADA AND BY REGION 1954 to 1969
Years and Months	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Colum- bia	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Colum- bia
		(Thousands of persons)					(Per cent change from same period a year ago)					
1954	5,243	468	1,470	1,945	925	437	0.2	-2.1	-0.7	2.0	-1.4	1.21955	5,364	478	1,493	1,993	939	462	2.3	2.1	1.6	2.5	1.5	5.71956	5,585	489	1,535	2.096	976	489	4.1	2.3	2.8	5.2	3.9	5.81957	5,731	492	1,576	2.161	992	509	2.6	0.6	2.7	3.1	1.6	4.11958	5.706	469	1,582	2,142	1,013	501	-0.4	-4.7	0.4	-0.9	2.1	-1.61959	5,870	482	1,620	2,198	1,049	521	2.9	2.8	2.4	2.6	3.6	4.01960	5,965	492	1,639	2,249	1,069	516	1.6	2.1	1.2	2.3	1.9	-1.01961	6,055	507	1,652	2,269	1,100	527	1.5	3.0	0.8	0.9	2.9	2.11962	6.225	516	1,713	2,317	1,129	551	2.8	1.8	3.7	2.1	2.6	4.61962	6,375	522	1,762	2,382	1,138	571	2.4	1.2	2.9	2.8	0.8	3.61964	6,609	542	1,827	2,473	1,162	605	3.7	3.8	3.7	3.8	2.1	6.01965	6,862	566	1,912	2,548	1,196	639	3.8	4.4	4.7	3.0	2.9	5.61966	7,152	586	2.016	2,651	1,222	678	4.2	3.5	5.4	4.0	2.2	6.11967	7,379	593	2,080	2,745	1,238	723	3.2	1.2	3.2	3.5	1.3	6.61968	7,537	596	2,082	2,830	1.2S0	750	2.1	0.5	0.1	3.1	3.4	3.7(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	7,415	597	2,048	2,772	1.258	737	1.7	1.9	-0.6	2.6	1.5	4.7F	7,433	599	2,043	2,789	1,260	739	1.8	2.0	-0.5	3.1	1.2	4.5M	7,404	593	2,046	2,769	1,262	739	0.5	0.7	-1.2	1.2	0.2	3.1A	7,480	595	2,069	2,792	1,285	740	2.1	1.7	0.1	2.0	5.2	3.6M	7,484	600	2.081	2.797	1,267	736	1.3	2.9	-0.5	1.7	2.2	2.2J	7,583	598	2,102	2.842	1,270	754	2.6	1.4	0.8	3.4	2.6	5.3j	7,533	597	2.092	2,823	1,268	749	1.4	0.3	-0.7	2.1	2.4	4.2A	7,548	596	2,099	2,838	1,275	750	1.5	0.3	-1.5	2.7	3.1	3.7S	7,606	600	2,112	2,857	1,283	751	2.7	1.2	1.2	3.5	4.0	2.50	7,622	592	2.097	2,887	1.296	754	3.7	-1.5	2.1	5.2	6.4	2.2N	7,667	592	2,095	2,909	1,318	764	3.5	-2.0	0.9	5.6	6.2	3.1D	7,651	592	2,090	2,879	1,311	784	3.0	-1.3	1.3	3.9	4.8	6.11969 J	7,753	614	2,114	2,928	1,320	773	4.6	2.8	3.2	5.6	4.9	4.9F	7,779	613	2,117	2,947	1,329	770	4.7	2.3	3.6	5.7	5.5	4.2M	7,771	607	2,136	2,940	1,320	773	5.0	2.4	4.4	6.2	4.6	4.6A	7,842	617	2,150	2,948	1,329	798	4.8	3.7	3.9	5.6	3.4	7.8
Source: DBS The Labour Force.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 33
UNEMPLOYMENT, CANADA AND BY REGION 1954 to 1969
Years and Months	Unemployed	Unemployment Rate	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Colum- bia	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Colum- bia(Thousands of persons)	(Per cent)	1954	250	33	92	77	24	24	4.6	6.6	5.9	3.8	2.5	5.21955	245	33	98	66	30	18	4.4	6.5	6.2	3.2	3.1	3.81956	197	31	80	51	22	14	3.4	6.0	5.0	2.4	2.2	2.81957	278	45	101	77	27	27	4.6	8.4	6.0	3.4	2.6	5.01958	432	67	153	122	43	47	7.0	12.5	8.8	5.4	4.1	8.61959	372	59	138	103	35	36	6.0	10.9	7.8	4.5	3.2	6.51960	446	59	164	128	47	48	7.0	10.7	9.1	5.4	4.2	8.51961	466	64	168	132	53	49	7.1	11.2	9.2	5.5	4.6	8.51962	390	62	139	105	46	39	5.9	10.7	7.5	4.3	3.9	6.61963	374	55	142	94	44	39	5.5	9.5	7.5	3.8	3.7	6.41964	324	46	124	83	37	34	4.7	7.8	6.4	3.2	3.1	5.31965	280	45	109	66	31	28	3.9	7.4	5.4	2.5	2.5	4.21966	267	40	100	69	26	32	3.6	6.4	4.7	2.5	2.1	4.51967	315	42	116	89	29	39	4.1	6.6	5.3	3.1	2.3	5.11968	382	47	145	104	39	47	4.8	7.3	6.5	3.5	3.0	5.9(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	344	45	130	89	34	43	4.4	7.0	6.0	3.1	2.6	5.5F	355	43	134	100	33	47	4.6	6.7	6.2	3.5	2.6	6.0M	367	42	139	106	37	46	4.7	6.6	6.4	3.7	2.8	5.9A	368	45	146	96	33	47	4.7	7.0	6.6	3.3	2.5	6.0M	384	46	132	121	40	51	4.9	7.1	6.0	4.1	3.1	6.5J	437	54	161	116	50	51	5.4	8.3	7.1	3.9	3.8	6.3J	413	52	145	117	50	50	5.2	8.0	6.5	4.0	3.8	6.3A	400	54	151	101	48	51	5.0	8.3	6.7	3.4	3.6	6.4S	382	48	143	102	42	49	4.8	7.4	6.3	3.4	3.2	6.10	401	52	153	108	40	48	5.0	8.1	6.8	3.6	3.0	6.0N	397	51	159	103	37	48	4.9	7.9	7.1	3.4	2.7	5.9D	384	47	161	98	38	42	4.8	7.4	7.2	3.3	2.8	5.11969 J	346	42	147	82	35	38	4.3	6.4	6.5	2.7	2.6	4.7F	349	42	139	90	36	43	4.3	6.4	6.2	3.0	2.6	5.3M	337	44	139	79	35	40	4.2	6.8	6.1	2.6	2.6	4.9A	365	48	152	90	35	37	4.4	7.2	6.6	3.0	2.6	4.4
Source: DBS The Labour Force.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 34
PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS TOTAL ALL INDUSTRIES 1947 to 1968 (1961 = 100)
Years	Output	Persons Employed	Output Per Person Employed	Wages and Salaries	Average Earnings Per Person Employed	Corporation Profits	Corporation Profits Per Unit of Output	Wages and Salaries Per Unit of Output1947	54.8	79.8	68.7	33.7	42.2	52.9	96.5	61.51948	56.7	80.5	70.4	39.0	48.4	57.3	101.1	68.81949	58.4	81.1	72.0	42.1	51.9	54.8	93.8	72.11960	62.4	82.2	75.9	45.4	55.2	73.6	117.9	72.81951	67.3	84.2	79.9	53.2	63.2	82.4	122.4	79.01952	72.5	85.4	84.9	59.0	69.1	78.7	108.6	81.41953	75.5	86.5	87.3	63.8	73.8	76.2	100.9	84.51954	74.3	86.6	85.8	65.4	75.5	66.8	89.9	88.01955	82.1	88.6	92.7	69.6	78.6	86.5	105.4	84.81956	89.1	92.2	96.6	78.4	85.0	97.6	109.5	88.01957	89.5	94.6	94.6	84.3	89.1	89.2	99.7	94.21958	91.0	94.2	96.6	87.0	92.4	89.7	98.6	95.61959	95.7	96.9	98.8	92.1	95.0	102.2	106.8	96.21960	98.0	98.5	99.5	96.0	97.5	97.4	99.4	98.01961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	106.9	102.8	104.0	106.5	103.6	111.4	104.2	99.61963	112.3	105.3	106.6	113.4	107.7	122.2	108.8	101.01964	119.5	109.1	109.5	123.4	113.1	140.6	117.7	103.31965	127.8	113.3	112.8	137.8	121.6	151.7	118.7	107.81966	135.5	118.1	114.7	156.1	132.2	150.1	110.8	115.21967	139.1	121.9	114.1	170.5	139.9	146.5	105.3	122.61968	145.4	124.5	116.8	185.5	149.0	171.5	118.0	127.6(Per cent change from previous period)	1948	3.5	0.9	2.5	15.7	14.7	8.3	4.8	11.91949	3.0	0.7	2.3	7.9	7.2	-4.4	-7.2	4.81950	6.8	1.4	5.4	7.8	6.4	34.3	25.7	1.01951	7.9	2.4	5.3	17.2	14.5	12.0	3.8	8.51952	7.7	1.4	6.3	10.9	9.3	-4.5	-11.3	3.01953	4.1	1.3	2.8	8.1	6.8	-3.2	-7.1	3.81954	-1.6	0.1	-1.7	2.5	2.3	-12.3	-10.9	4.11955	10.5	2.3	8.0	6.4	4.1	29.5	17.2	-3.61956	8.5	4.1	4.2	12.6	8.1	12.8	3.9	3.81957	0.4	2.6	-2.1	7.5	4.8	-8.6	-8.9	7.01958	1.7	-0.4	2.1	3.2	3.7	0.6	-1.1	1.51959	5.2	2.9	2.3	5.9	2.8	13.9	8.3	0.61960	2.4	1.7	0.7	4.2	2.6	-4.7	-6.9	1.91961	2.0	1.5	0.5	4.2	2.6	2.7	0.6	2.01962	6.9	2.8	4.0	6.5	3.6	11.4	4.2	-0.41963	5.1	2.4	2.5	6.5	4.0	9.7	4.4	1.41964	6.4	3.6	2.7	8.8	5.0	15.1	8.2	2.31965	6.9	3.8	3.0	11.7	7.5	7.9	0.8	4.41966	6.0	4.2	1.7	13.3	8.7	-1.1	-6.7	6.91967	2.7	3.2	-0.5	9.2	5.8	-2.4	-5.0	6.41968	4.5	2.1	2.4	8.8	6.5	17.1	12.1	4.1
Source: DBS Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry {1961 = 100). DBS The National Accounts.
DBS The Labour Force.
[Stage Direction]
June 3# 1969
Reference Table 35
PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS COMMERCIAL NON-AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES 1947 to 1968 (1961 = 100)
Years	Output	Persons Em- ployed	Total Man- Hours	Output Per Person Em- ployed	Output Per Man-Hour	Wages and Sal- aries	Average Hourly Earnings	Corporation Profits W	Cor- poration Profits Per Unit of Output	Wages and Salaries Per Unit of Output1947	52.1	75.9	82.3	68.7	63.3	35.4	43.0	53.0	101.7	67.91948	54.0	78.4	85.0	68.9	63.5	41.2	48.5	57.5	106.5	76.31949	56.1	80.2	86.0	70.0	65.2	44.2	51.4	55.0	98.0	78.81950	59.9	81.8	86.6	73.2	69.2	47.7	55.1	73.9	123.4	79.61951	64.0	86.4	90.7	74.1	70.6	56.1	61.9	82.7	129.2	87.71952	67.4	88.5	92.6	76.1	72.8	62.0	67.0	78.8	116.9	92.01953	71.5	89.9	93.5	79.5	76.4	67.0	71.7	76.2	106.6	93.71954	72.2	88.7	91.3	81.4	79.0	68.1	74.6	66.9	92.7	94.31955	79.3	91.5	93.7	86.7	84.6	72.3	77.2	86.7	109.3	91.21956	86.8	97.0	99.6	89.5	87.2	81.8	82.1	97.7	112.6	94.21957	88.6	99.8	101.8	88.7	87.0	87.7	86.1	89.2	100.7	99.01958	89.1	97.3	98.8	91.6	90.2	89.2	90.3	89.8	100.8	100.11959	94.7	99.7	101.3	95.0	93.5	94.1	92.9	102.1	107.8	99.41960	96.5	99.6	100.6	96.9	95.9	97.2	96.6	97.3	100.8	100.71961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	106.5	103.1	103.2	103.3	103.2	106.4	103.1	111.3	104.5	99.91963	112.0	105.6	105.0	106.0	106.6	112.9	107.5	121.9	108.8	100.81964	120.8	110.3	109.6	109.5	110.2	122.8	112.0	140.1	116.0	101.71965	129.6	116.5	115.2	111.2	112.5	137.8	119.6	150.9	116.4	106.31966	137.4	122.3	119.5	112.4	115.0	155.8	130.4	148.9	108.4	113.41967	141.7	124.2	121.2	114.0	116.9	168.9	139.4	145.0	102.3	119.219680)	147.9	126.1	122.1	117.3	121.1	182.2	149.2	170.7	115.4	123.2(Per cent change from previous period)	1948	3.6	3.3	3.3	0.3	0.3	16.4	12.8	8.5	4.7	12.41949	3.9	2.3	1.2	1.6	2.7	7.3	6.0	-4.3	-8.0	3.31950	6.8	2.0	0.7	4.6	6.1	7.9	7.2	34.4	25.9	1.01951	6.8	5.6	4.7	1.2	2.0	17.6	12.3	11.9	4.7	10.21952	5.3	2.4	2.1	2.7	3.1	10.5	8.2	-4.7	-9.5	4.91953	6.1	1.6	1.0	4.5	4.9	8.1	7.0	-3.3	-8.8	1.81954	1.0	-1.3	-2.4	2.4	3.4	1.6	4.0	-12.2	-13.0	0.61955	9.8	3.2	2.6	6.5	7.1	6.2	3.5	29.6	17.9	-3.31956	9.5	6.0	6.3	3.2	3.1	13.1	6.3	12.7	3.0	3.31957	2.1	2.9	2.2	-0.9	-0.2	7.2	4.9	-8.3	-10.6	5.11958	0.6	-2.5	-2.9	3.3	3.7	1.7	4.9	0.7	0.1	1.11959	6.3	2.5	2.5	3.7	3.7	5.5	2.9	13.7	6.9	-0.71960	1.9	-0.1	-0.7	2.0	2.6	3.3	4.0	-4.7	-6.5	1.31961	3.6	0.4	-0.6	3.2	4.3	2.9	3.5	2.8	-0.8	-0.71962	6.5	3.1	3.2	3.3	3.2	6.4	3.1	11.3	4.5	-0.11963	5.2	2.4	1.7	2.6	3.3	6.1	4.3	9.5	4.1	0.91964	7.9	4.5	4.4	3.3	3.4	8.8	4.2	14.9	6.6	0.91965	7.3	5.6	5.1	1.6	2.1	12.2	6.8	7.7	0.3	4.51966	6.0	5.0	3.7	1.1	2.2	13.1	9.0	-1.3	-6.9	6.71967	3.1	1.6	1.4	1.4	1.7	8.4	6.9	-2.6	-5.6	5.119680)	4.4	1.5	0.7	2.9	3.6	7.9	7.0	17.7	12.8	3.4
^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
revised ioutr^Unde^d °D preliminary Productivity estimates (DBS Daily Bulletin, Friday, April 18, 1969) and updated by recently
Source: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends. DBS The National Accounts.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 36
PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS NON-AGRICULTURAL GOODS-PRODUCING INDUSTRIES 1947 to 1968 (1961 = 100)
Years	Output	Persons Em- ployed	Total Man- Hours	Output Per Person Em- ployed	Output Per Man-Hour	Wages and Salaries 0)	Average Hourly Earnings	Corporation Profits 0)	Corporation Profits Per Unit of Output	Wages and Salaries Per Unit of Output1947	48.5	85.9	92.3	56.5	52.5	38.7	41.9	58.4	120.4	79.81948	51.3	88.2	94.8	58.2	54.1	45.2	47.7	65.3	127.3	88.11949	53.3	89.9	95.3	59.3	55.9	47.4	49.7	62.6	117.4	88.91950	57.6	92.1	97.1	62.5	59.3	51.7	53.2	84.7	147.0	89.81951	62.4	98.7	103.5	63.3	60.3	61.7	59.6	94.3	151.1	98.91952	65.5	100.0	104.4	65.5	62.7	68.2	65.3	85.0	129.8	104.11953	70.6	100.8	105.5	70.0	66.9	73.6	69.8	83.5	118.3	104.21954	71.0	97.0	99.6	73.2	71.3	73.1	73.4	73.8	103.9	103.01955	78.8	100.4	102.7	78.5	76.7	77.4	75.4	94.2	119.7	98.21956	87.3	106.3	10J.1	82.1	80.1	88.8	81.4	104.6	119.8	101.71957	89.2	107.3	109.1	83.1	81.8	93.9	86.1	95.2	106.7	105.31958	89.1	101.3	102.6	88.0	86.8	93.5	91.1	89.4	100.3	104.91959	94.8	103.3	105.2	91.7	90.1	97.2	92.4	103.3	109.0	102.51960	96.5	101.6	102.7	95.0	93.9	99.3	96.7	96.3	99.8	102.91961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	103.6	102.8	103.6	105.7	104.8	107.0	103.3	113.4	104.4	98.51963	114.6	104.7	105.1	109.4	109.0	112.6	107.1	125.5	109.5	98.31964	125.9	109.3	110.1	115.2	114.4	122.6	111.4	141.1	112.1	97.41965	137.3	115.4	116.1	119.0	118.3	138.8	119.6	149.7	109.0	101.11966	146.8	120.6	120.7	121.7	121.6	158.4	131.2	144.8	98.6	107.91967	149.3	120.0	119.8	124.4	124.6	168.4	140.6	141.0	94.4	112.81968«>	157.1	120.2	119.7	130.7	131.2	178.5	149.1	170.2	108.3	113.6(Per cent change from previous period)	1948	5.8	2.7	2.7	3.0	3.0	16.8	13.8	11.8	5.7	10.41949	3.9	1.9	0.5	1.9	3.3	4.9	4.2	-4.1	-7.8	0.91950	8.1	2.4	1.9	5.4	6.1	9.1	7.0	35.3	25.2	1.01951	8.3	7.2	6.6	1.3	1.7	19.3	12.0	11.3	2.8	10.11951	5.0	1.3	0.9	3.5	4.0	10.5	9.6	-9.9	-14.1	5.31953	7.8	0.8	1.1	6.9	6.7	7.9	6.9	-1.8	-8.9	0.11954	0.6	-3.8	-5.6	4.6	6.6	-0.7	5.2	-11.6	-12.2	-1.21955	11.0	3.5	3.1	7.2	7.6	5.9	2.7	27.8	15.2	-4.71956	10.8	5.9	6.2	4.6	4.4	14.7	8.0	10.9	0.1	3.61957	2.2	0.9	0.0	1.2	2.1	5.7	5.8	-9.0	-10.9	3.51958	-0.1	-5.6	-6.0	5.9	6.1	-0.4	5.8	-6.1	-6.0	-0.41959	6.4	2.0	2.5	4.2	3.8	4.0	1.4	15.5	8.7	-2.31960	1.8	-1.6	-2.4	3.6	4.2	2.2	4.7	-6.8	-8.4	0.41961	3.6	-1.6	-2.6	5.3	6.5	0.7	3.4	3.8	0.2	-2.81962	8.6	2.8	3.6	5.7	4.8	7.0	3.3	13.4	4.4	-1.51963	5.5	1.8	1.4	3.5	4.0	5.2	3.7	10.7	4.9	-0.21964	9.9	4.4	4.8	5.3	4.9	8.9	4.0	12.4	2.4	-0.91965	9.1	5.6	5.4	3.3	3.4	13.2	7.4	6.1	-2.8	3.81966	6.9	4.5	4.0	2.3	2.8	14.1	9.7	-3.3	-9.5	6.71967	1.7	-0.5	-0.7	2.3	2.5	6.3	7.2	-2.6	-4.3	4.51968(2)	5.2	0.2	-0.1	5.1	5.3	6.0	6.0	20.7	14.7	0.7
(^Estimated by the Department of Finance. <2>See footnote <2>
on reference table 35. Source: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends. DBS The National Accounts.
9570
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 37
PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS COMMERCIAL SERVICE-PRODUCING INDUSTRIES 1947 to 1968 (1961 = 100)
Years	Output	Persons Em- ployed	Total Man- Hours	Output Per Person Em- ployed	Output Per Man-Hour	Wages and Salaries 0)	Average Hourly Earnings	Cor- poration Profits11)	Corporation Profits Per Unit of Output	Wages and Salaries Per Unit of Output1947	55.8	66.6	73.6	83.7	75.9	31.6	42.9	44.1	79.0	56.61948	56.9	69.4	76.5	82.0	74.3	36.6	47.8	44.6	78.4	64.31949	59.1	71.3	78.0	82.9	75.7	40.4	51.8	42.3	71.6	68.41950	62.2	72.4	77.6	85.9	80.2	43.2	55.7	55.8	89.7	69.51951	65.7	75.1	79.6	87.5	82.5	49.6	62.3	63.3	96.3	75.51952	69.4	78.0	82.4	89.0	84.3	54.8	66.5	68.4	98.6	79.01953	72.4	79.9	83.2	90.6	87.0	59.4	71.4	64.1	88.5	82.01954	73.3	81.0	84.1	90.5	87.1	62.3	74.1	55.2	75.3	85.01956	79.4	83.4	86.0	95.2	92.4	66.3	77.1	73.9	93.1	83.41956	85.6	88.6	91.5	96.6	93.6	73.7	80.5	86.1	100.6	86.11957	87.6	93.1	95.6	94.1	91.7	80.4	84.1	79.2	90.4	91.81958	88.7	93.5	95.3	94.9	93.0	84.2	88.4	90.5	102.0	94.91959	94.1	96.4	98.0	97.6	96.0	90.0	91.8	100.2	106.5	95.61960	96.3	97.7	98.7	98.5	97.6	94.6	95.8	99.0	102.8	98.21961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	104.5	103.4	102.9	101.1	101.6	105.6	102.6	107.8	103.2	101.11963	109.3	106.2	104.8	102.9	104.3	113.3	108.1	115.7	105.9	103.71964	115.6	110.9	109.0	104.2	106.0	123.1	112.9	138.3	119.6	106.51965	122.0	117.0	114.2	104.2	106.9	136.7	119.7	152.8	125.2	112.01966	128.0	122.9	117.8	104.2	108.7	152.8	129.7	155.6	121.6	119.41967	134.0	127.3	121.9	105.3	110.0	169.4	139.0	151.6	113.1	126.41968®	138.3	130.6	123.5	105.9	112.0	186.4	150.9	171.8	124.2	134.8(Per cent change from previous period)	1948	2.0	4.2	3.9	-2.0	-2.1	15.8	11.4	1.1	-0.8	13.61949	3.9	2.7	2.0	1.1	1.9	10.4	8.4	-5.2	-8.7	6.41950	5.2	1.5	-0.5	3.6	5.9	6.9	7.5	31.9	25.3	1.61951	5.6	3.7	2.6	1.9	2.9	14.8	11.8	13.4	7.4	8.61952	5.6	3.9	3.5	1.7	2.2	10.5	6.7	8.1	2.4	4.61953	4.3	2.4	1.0	1.8	3.2	8.4	7.4	-6.3	-10.2	3.81954	1.2	1.4	1.1	-0.1	0.1	4.9	3.8	-13.9	-14.9	3.71955	8.3	3.0	2.3	5.2	6.1	6.4	4.0	33.9	23.6	-1.91956	7.8	6.2	6.4	1.5	1.3	11.2	4.4	16.5	8.1	3.21957	2.3	5.1	4.5	-2.6	-2.0	9.1	4.5	-8.0	-10.1	6.61958	1.3	0.4	-0.3	0.9	1.4	4.7	5.1	14.3	12.8	3.41959	6.1	3.1	2.8	2.8	3.2	6.9	3.8	10.7	4.4	0.71960	2.3	1.3	0.7	0.9	1.7	5.1	4.4	-1.2	-3.5	2.71961	3.8	2.4	1.3	1.5	2.5	5.7	4.4	1.0	-2.7	1.81962	4.5	3.4	2.9	1.1	1.6	5.6	2.6	7.8	3.2	1.11963	4.6	2.7	1.8	1.8	2.7	7.3	5.4	7.3	2.6	2.61964	5.8	4.4	4.0	1.3	1.6	8.6	4.4	19.5	12.9	2.71965	5.5	5.5	4.8	0.0	0.8	11.0	6.0	10.5	4.7	5.21966	4.9	5.0	3.2	0.0	1.7	11.8	8.4	1.8	-2.9	6.61967	4.7	3.6	3.5	1.1	1.2	10.9	7.2	-2.6	-7.0	5.91968(2)	3.2	2.6	1.3	0.6	1.8	10.0	8.6	13.3	9.8	6.6
^Estimated by the Department of Finance. <2)See footnote (2) on reference table 35. Source: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends. DBS The National Accounts.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 38
PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES 1947 to 1968 (1961 = 100)
Years	Output	Persons Em- ployed	Total Man- Hours	Output Per Person Em- ployed	Output Per Man-Hour	Wages and Sal- aries	Average Hourly Earnings	Cor- poration Profits	Cor- poration Profits Per Unit of Output	Wages and Salaries Per Unit of Output1947	55.4	86.8	93.4	63.8	59.3	39.9	42.7	63.8	115.1	72.01948	57.8	88.8	95.9	65.1	60.2	46.1	48.1	69.7	120.6	79.81949	59.5	90.2	95.6	66.0	62.2	48.6	50.8	66.8	112.3	81.71950	63.4	91.7	96.3	69.1	65.8	52.1	54.1	90.0	142.0	82.21951	68.9	97.3	100.3	70.8	68.7	61.4	61.2	98.9	143.5	89.11952	71.5	99.9	101.9	71.6	70.2	68.2	66.9	90.9	127.1	95.41953	76.6	103.0	105.6	74.4	72.5	74.1	70.2	89.8	117.2	96.71954	74.9	98.6	99.2	76.0	75.5	73.3	73.9	76.3	101.9	97.91955	82.2	101.1	102.3	81.3	80.4	77.7	76.0	97.4	118.5	94.51956	89.9	105.3	107.3	85.4	83.8	86.1	80.2	105.9	117.8	95.81957	89.7	105.8	106.4	84.8	84.3	91.0	85.5	94.5	105.4	101.41958	88.0	100.5	101.2	87.5	87.0	90.9	89.8	90.1	102.4	103.31959	94.5	101.7	103.0	92.9	91.8	95.8	93.0	106.6	112.8	101.41960	96.1	100.5	101.0	95.7	95.2	98.9	97.9	97.5	101.5	102.91961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	110.5	102.7	103.1	107.6	107.1	107.3	104.1	116.8	105.7	97.11963	118.0	105.2	105.6	112.1	111.7	113.6	107.6	131.5	111.4	96.31964	129.2	110.0	111.0	117.4	116.4	123.5	111.3	143.0	110.7	95.61965	141.0	115.7	116.1	121.8	121.5	137.2	118.2	152.5	108.2	97.31966	151.2	121.2	120.7	124.8	125.2	153.9	127.5	148.0	97.9	101.81967	151.7	121.3	121.1	125.1	125.3	163.3	134.8	142.4	93.9	107.619680)	159.4	121.8	121.6	130.9	131.1	174.4	143.4	177.4	111.3	109.4(Per cent change from previous period)	1948	4.3	2.3	2.7	2.0	1.5	15.5	12.6	9.2	4.7	10.81949	2.9	1.6	-0.3	1.4	3.3	5.4	5.6	-4.2	-6.9	2.41950	6.6	1.7	0.7	4.7	5.8	7.2	6.5	34.7	26.4	0.61951	8.7	6.1	4.2	2.5	4.4	17.9	13.1	9.9	1.1	8.41952	3.8	2.7	1.6	1.1	2.2	11.1	9.3	-8.1	-11.4	7.11953	7.1	3.1	3.6	3.9	3.3	8.7	4.9	-1.2	-7.8	1.41954	-2.2	-4.3	-6.1	2.2	4.1	-1.1	5.3	-15.0	-13.1	1.21955	9.7	2.5	3.1	7.0	6.5	6.0	2.8	27.7	16.3	-3.51956	9.4	4.2	4.9	5.0	4.2	10.8	5.5	8.7	-0.6	1.41957	-0.2	0.5	-0.8	-0.7	0.6	5.7	6.6	-10.8	-10.5	5.81958	-1.9	-5.0	-4.9	3.2	3.2	-0.1	5.0	-4.7	-2.8	1.91959	7.4	1.2	1.8	6.2	5.5	5.4	3.6	18.3	10.2	-1.81960	1.7	-1.2	-1.9	3.0	3.7	3.2	5.3	-8.5	-10.0	1.51961	4.1	-0.5	-1.0	4.5	5.0	1.1	2.1	2.6	-1.5	-2.81962	10.5	2.7	3.1	7.6	7.1	7.3	4.1	16.8	5.7	-2.91963	6.8	2.4	2.4	4.2	4.3	5.9	3.4	12.6	5.4	-0.81964	9.5	4.6	5.1	4.7	4.2	8.7	3.4	8.7	-0.6	-0.71965	9.1	5.2	4.6	3.7	4.4	11.1	6.2	6.6	-2.3	1.81966	7.2	4.8	4.0	2.5	3.0	12.2	7.9	-3.0	-9.5	1.61967	0.3	0.1	0.3	0.2	0.1	6.1	5.7	-3.8	-4.1	5.71968W)	5.1	0.4	0.4	4.6	4.6	6.8	6.4	24.6	18.5	1.7
u>See footnote (21 on reference table 35. Sources: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends. DBS The National Accounts.
29180-606J
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 39
GROSS NATIONAL EXPENDITURE IMPLICIT PRICE INDEXES*1) 1947 to 1968 (1957 = 100)
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Expenditure on Goods and Services	Business Gross Fixed Capital Formation	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Gross National Expendi- tureTotal	Non- Durables	Durables	Services	Total	New Resi- dential Con- struc- tion	New Non- Resi- dential Con- struc- tion	New Machin- ery and Equip- ment	1947	68.3	72.5	74.7	60.4	55.8	58.3	57.4	58.1	59.2	74.1	72.9	64.41948	77.3	84.5	85.5	64.0	63.3	66.2	67.6	65.4	66.4	81.4	81.5	72.61949	80.1	87.1	87.3	67.5	67.0	69.7	70.8	68.1	70.7	84.3	84.1	75.61950	82.7	88.9	83.4	71.8	70.0	73.7	75.1	71.9	74.7	88.2	90.2	77.91951	91.2	99.3	100.3	76.5	78.1	83.6	87.2	80.5	84.5	98.0	100.8	86.31952	93.7	99.8	101.8	81.9	81.5	86.5	89.7	86.4	85.4	96.9	93.0	90.51953	93.6	97.2	100.6	85.9	81.4	88.8	91.2	89.7	87.1	94.7	93.3	90.91954	94.9	96.9	99.7	90.2	87.5	89.5	91.9	89.5	88.3	94.0	93.5	93.11955	95.0	96.4	94.8	93.0	90.1	91.7	93.9	92.2	90.0	97.8	94.4	93.51956	96.7	97.4	96.1	95.9	95.1	96.6	97.4	97.1	95.6	100.5	97.4	97.11957	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01958	102.6	102.3	101.5	103.6	101.1	102.2	102.4	101.6	102.8	99.6	101.5	101.91959	104.1	102.5	103.3	106.4	104.6	105.1	106.2	104.7	104.7	101.1	100.9	104.51960	105.1	103.1	103.2	108.4	108.0	107.4	109.1	107.2	106.7	101.8	101.9	106.11961	105.9	103.9	101.1	110.1	110.3	108.3	109.8	107.6	108.3	103.4	105.0	106.81962	107.3	105.1	100.9	112.3	113.3	111.3	113.0	110.0	111.6	106.6	109.3	108.41963	108.8	106.9	101.2	113.9	117.9	114.7	116.8	113.7	114.5	107.9	112.5	110.31964	110.5	108.7	100.2	116.5	121.7	119.7	123.2	118.7	118.8	110.1	113.9	113.21965	112.7	110.9	99.9	119.8	127.8	124.9	129.3	125.9	122.0	111.6	114.4	116.61966	116.5	115.5	99.8	124.3	135.8	129.7	137.1	132.7	124.5	115.3	116.8	122.01967	120.4	117.7	102.5	130.8	142.3	132.3	145.6	139.2	122.4	117.4	118.1	126.41968	125.0	122.1	103.9	137.1	151.6	136.2	155.3	145.2	121.5	118.6	120.8	130.9(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	115.1	114.2	99.1	122.5	134.1	127.4	133.8	129.9	122.8	113.7	115.7	119.9II	116.5	115.3	100.1	123.7	134.3	129.2	135.7	131.7	124.3	114.5	116.3	121.3III....	116.8	115.8	99.5	124.7	136.8	130.4	138.6	133.5	125.3	116.7	117.1	122.9IV	117.8	116.4	100.7	126.1	137.9	131.6	141.2	135.4	125.5	116.4	117.9	123.81967 I	118.4	116.3	100.9	127.5	141.9	132.6	141.8	137.1	126.4	116.9	117.7	125.2II	119.7	117.1	102.1	130.2	140.6	131.7	144.4	139.1	122.3	117.3	118.0	125.8III....	121.3	118.5	102.9	132.4	143.4	131.6	146.3	139.9	120.2	117.7	117.9	127.1XV	122.1	118.9	104.0	133.2	143.5	133.1	149.2	140.9	120.2	117.7	118.8	127.71968 I	123.5	120.8	103.9	134.5	149.5	133.7	151.7	142.6	120.7	118.4	120.1	129.5II	124.5	121.8	104.1	135.8	149.3	136.0	154.3	144.8	121.1	118.7	120.6	130.2III....	125.3	122.3	103.6	137.8	153.4	136.9	156.5	145.8	122.1	118.7	120.8	131.5IV	126.6	123.3	104.0	140.0	154.0	138.3	158.2	147.4	122.2	118.8	121.7	132.5
WThese implicit indexes are currently weighted price indexes. They reflect not only pure price changes, but also changing expenditure patterns within and between major groups. Theimplicit price index for Gross National Expenditure is derived by dividing the total of current dollars by the total of constant dollars.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 40
CHANGES IN GROSS NATIONAL EXPENDITURE IMPLICIT PRICE INDEXES&>
1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Expenditure on Goods and Services	Business Gross Fixed Capital Formation	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Gross National Expendi- tureTotal	Non- Durables	Durables	Services	Total	New Resi- dential Con- struc- tion	New Non- Resi- dential Con- struc- tion	New Machin- ery and Equip- ment	(Per cent change from previous period)	1947	9.6	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	6.4	11.0	12.7	11.5	11.3	12.7	12.0	9.71948	13.2	16.6	14.5	6.0	13.4	13.6	17.8	12.6	12.2	9.9	11.8	12.71949	3.6	3.1	2.1	5.5	5.8	5.3	4.7	4.1	6.5	3.6	3.2	4.11950	3.2	2.1	1.3	6.4	4.5	5.7	6.1	5.6	5.7	4.6	7.3	3.01951	10.3	11.7	13.5	6.5	11.6	13.4	16.1	12.0	13.1	11.1	11.8	10.81952	2.7	0.5	1.5	7.1	4.4	3.5	2.9	7.3	1.1	-1.1	-7.7	4.91953	-0.1	-2.6	-1.2	4.9	3.6	2.7	1.7	3.8	2.0	-2.3	0.3	0.41954	1.4	-0.3	-0.9	5.0	3.7	0.8	0.8	-0.2	1.4	-0.7	0.2	2.41955	0.1	-0.5	-4.9	3.1	3.0	2.5	2.2	3.0	1.9	4.0	1.0	0.41956	1.8	1.0	1.4	3.1	5.5	5.3	3.7	5.3	6.2	2.8	3.2	3.91957	3.4	2.7	4.1	4.3	5.2	3.5	2.7	3.0	4.6	-0.5	2.7	3.01958	2.6	2.3	1.5	3.6	1.1	2.2	2.4	1.6	2.8	-0.4	1.5	1.91959	1.5	0.2	1.8	2.7	3.5	2.8	3.7	3.1	1.8	1.5	-0.6	2.61960	1.0	0.6	-0.1	1.9	3.3	2.2	2.7	2.4	1.9	0.7	1.0	1.51961	0.8	0.8	-2.0	1.6	2.1	0.8	0.6	0.4	1.5	1.6	3.0	0.71962	1.3	1.2	-0.2	2.0	2.7	2.8	2.9	2.2	3.0	3.1	4.1	1.51963	1.4	1.7	0.3	1.4	4.1	3.1	3.4	3.4	2.6	1.2	2.9	1.81964	1.6	1.7	-1.0	2.3	3.2	4.4	5.5	4.4	3.8	2.0	1.2	2.61965	2.0	2.0	-0.3	2.8	5.0	4.3	5.0	6.1	2.7	1.4	0.4	3.01966	3.4	4.1	-0.1	3.8	6.3	3.8	6.0	5.4	2.0	3.3	2.1	4.61967	3.3	1.9	2.7	5.2	4.8	2.0	6.2	4.9	-1.7	1.8	1.1	3.61968	3.8	3.7	1.4	4.8	6.5	2.9	6.7	4.3	-0.7	1.0	2.3	3.6(Seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	1.2	1.8	-0.6	1.2	2.6	1.0	1.7	1.3	0.6	0.9	0.3	1.5II	1.2	1.0	1.0	1.0	0.1	1.4	1.4	1.4	1.2	0.7	0.5	1.2III....	0.3	0.4	-0.6	0.8	1.9	0.9	2.1	1.4	0.8	1.9	0.7	1.3IV	0.9	0.5	1.2	1.1	0.8	0.9	1.9	1.4	0.2	-0.3	0.7	0.71967 I	0.5	-0.1	0.2	1.1	2.9	0.8	0.4	1.3	0.7	0.4	-0.2	1.1II	1.1	0.7	1.2	2.1	-0.9	-0.7	1.8	1.5	-3.2	0.3	0.3	0.5III....	1.3	1.2	0.8	1.7	2.0	-0.1	1.3	0.6	-1.7	0.3	-0.1	1.0IV	0.7	0.3	1.1	0.6	0.1	1.1	2.0	0.7	-	-	0.8	0.51968 I	1.1	1.6	-0.1	1.0	4.2	0.5	1.7	1.2	0.4	0.6	1.1	1.4II	0.8	0.8	0.2	1.0	-0.1	1.7	1.7	1.5	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.5III....	0.6	0.4	-0.5	1.5	2.7	0.7	1.4	0.7	0.8	-	0.2	1.0IV	1.0	0.8	0.4	1.6	0.4	1.0	1.1	1.1	0.1	0.1	0.7	0.8
G>See footnote (1) reference table 39.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 41
CONSUMER PRICE INDEXES: STANDARD CLASSIFICATIONS 1947 to 1969 (1961 = 100)
Years and Months	All Items	Food	Housing	Clothing	Trans- portation	Health and Personal Care	Recreation and Reading	Tobacco and Alcohol(Weights)	(100.0)	(26.7)	(32.2)	(11.3)	(12.0)	(6.6)	(4.7)	(6.5)1947	65.6	64.1	n.a.	70.1	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.1948	75.1	78.6	n.a.	85.0	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.1949	77.4	80.6	75.1	88.9	71.1	64.4	68.4	86.01950	79.6	82.7	78.2	88.6	75.0	65.6	69.8	88.31951	88.0	94.4	85.4	97.6	80.4	71.5	75.1	95.91952	90.2	94.2	88.6	99.4	83.5	75.9	79.2	97.41953	89.4	90.8	90.1	97.9	84.8	77.3	79.9	92.91954	89.9	90.5	91.3	97.2	85.3	80.2	81.8	92.31955	90.1	90.4	91.9	96.0	84.3	81.6	83.9	92.31956	91.4	91.5	93.2	96.5	87.7	83.7	85.8	92.61957	94.3	95.6	95.1	96.4	92.4	89.0	88.8	94.11958	96.8	98.5	96.8	97.5	95.2	93.6	94.7	95.11959	97.9	97.7	98.6	97.7	98.4	96.7	97.0	98.01960	99.1	98.5	99.6	98.6	99.8	99.5	98.8	99.619610)	100.0	100.00)	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	101.2	101.8	101.2	100.9	99.9	102.0	100.8	101.31963	103.0	105.1	102.3	103.4	99.9	104.6	102.2	101.51964	104.8	106.8	103.9	106.0	101.0	108.0	103.9	103.41965	107.4	109.6	105.8	107.9	104.8	113.0	105.6	105.11966	111.4	116.6	108.7	112.0	107.3	116.5	108.6	107.61967	115.4	118.1	113.4	117.6	111.8	122.5	114.1	110.41968	120.1	122.0	118.6	121.1	114.7	127.4	119.7	120.4(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	118.1	121.3	116.1	118.6	113.8	124.7	116.5	117.2F	118.2	120.8	116.7	119.1	113.2	125.1	117.6	117.3M	118.6	119.9	117.1	120.5	114.0	125.1	118.1	119.0A	119.3	120.8	117.6	121.2	114.4	126.9	117.8	121.2M	119.3	120.1	117.9	120.7	114.5	127.4	119.2	121.3J	119.7	120.5	118.3	121.2	115.1	127.4	119.2	121.3J	120.4	122.5	118.8	121.0	115.1	128.0	119.6	121.3A	120.7	123.9	118.9	120.6	115.1	128.2	119.9	121.3S	121.1	123.4	119.8	121.2	115.4	128.5	121.0	121.30	121.4	122.9	120.3	122.8	114.9	129.0	121.4	121.3N	121.9	123.4	120.9	123.4	115.7	129.4	123.3	121.3D	122.3	124.5	121.0	123.4	115.7	129.4	123.3	121.31969 J	122.6	125.1	121.9	121.5	116.3	129.5	124.2	121.3F	122.6	123.9	122.3	121.8	117.3	129.6	124.7	121.9M	123.2	123.8	122.8	123.8	118.3	129.5	125.1	121.9A	124.6	125.0	123.7	124.3	119.9	133.7	125.4	125.5
0)1957 weights replace 1947-48 weights beginning January 1961.
<*>The system of variable weights for seasonal foods was revised beginning January 1961.
Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes, Monthly, Cat. 62-002.
DBS The Consumer Price Index (1949=100): Revision Based on 1957 Expenditures, Occasional, Cat. 62-518.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 42
CHANGES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEXES: STANDARD CLASSIFICATIONS
1947 to 1969 (1961 = 100)
Years and Months	All Items	Food	Housing	Clothing	Trans- portation	Health and Personal Care	Recreation and Reading	Tobacco and Alcohol
			(Per cent change from same period a			year ago)		
1947	9.4	13.6	n.a.	14.0	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.1948	2.3	22.6	n.a.	21.3	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.1949	3.1	2.5	n.a.	4.6	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.1950	2.8	2.6	4.1	-0.3	5.5	1.9	2.0	2.71951	10.6	14.1	9.2	10.2	7.2	9.0	7.6	8.61952	2.5	-0.2	3.7	1.8	3.9	6.2	5.5	1.61953	-0.9	-3.6	1.7	-1.5	1.6	1.8	0.9	-4.61954	0.6	-0.3	1.3	-0.7	0.6	3.8	2.4	-0.61955	0.2	-0.1	0.7	-1.2	-1.2	1.7	2.6	0.01956	1.4	1.2	1.4	0.5	4.0	2.6	2.3	0.31957	3.2	4.5	2.0	-0.1	5.4	6.3	3.5	1.61958	2.7	3.0	1.8	1.1	3.0	5.2	6.6	1.11959	1.1	-0.8	1.9	0.2	3.4	3.3	2.4	3.01960	1.2	0.8	1.0	0.9	1.4	2.9	1.9	1.61961 (1>	0.9	1.50)	0.4	1.4	0.2	0.5	1.2	0.41962	1.2	1.8	1.2	0.9	-0.1	2.0	0.8	1.31963	1.8	3.2	1.1	2.5	0.0	2.5	1.4	0.21964	1.7	1.6	1.6	2.5	1.1	3.3	1.7	1.91965	2.5	2.6	1.8	1.8	3.8	4.6	1.6	1.61966	3.7	6.4	2.7	3.8	2.4	3.1	2.8	2.41967	3.6	1.3	4.3	5.0	4.2	5.2	5.1	2.61968	4.1	3.3	4.6	3.1	2.6	4.0	4.9	9.1(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	4.5	3.8	4.8	3.8	4.6	4.7	5.1	7.7F	4.5	4.0	5.2	3.7	2.7	4.9	5.0	7.6M	4.6	3.7	5.1	3.6	3.0	4.9	5.4	8.6A	4.3	4.0	4.3	3.4	2.4	3.8	4.8	10.4M	4.1	3.6	4.3	3.0	2.4	3.6	4.6	10.3J	3.9	3.2	4.2	2.9	2.3	3.7	4.2	10.2J	3.5	2.3	4.2	2.7	2.2	3.8	4.1	10.2A	3.3	1.6	4.0	2.6	2.4	3.7	4.4	9.7S	3.9	3.0	4.5	1.3	2.4	4.3	4.8	9.7O	4.2	3.1	4.7	3.4	2.3	3.7	4.7	9.7N	4.3	3.4	4.9	3.2	3.0	3.7	5.7	9.6D	4.1	3.9	4.8	3.1	1.9	3.7	6.1	6.01969 J	3.8	3.1	5.0	2.4	2.2	3.8	6.6	3.5F	3.7	2.6	4.8	2.3	3.6	3.6	6.0	3.9M	3.9	3.3	4.9	2.7	3.8	3.5	5.9	2.4A	4.4	3.5	5.2	2.6	4.8	5.4	6.5	3.5
d).(2)See footnotes (1) and (2) on reference table 41.
Source: DBS Prices and Prices Indexes.
[Stage Direction]
June 3# 1969
Reference Table 43
CONSUMER PRICE INDEXES: SUPPLEMENTARY CLASSIFICATIONS 1949 to 1969 (1961=100)
Years and Months	Total Consumer Price Index	Total Commod- ities	Total Commod- ities Excluding Food	Non- Durables	Non- Durables Excluding Food	Durables	Total Services	Services Excluding Shelter(Weights)	(100.0)	(70.2)	(43.5)	(57.9)	(31.2)	(12.3)	(22.3)	(12.7)1949	77.4	83.3	84.9	82.9	84.5	86.1	64.4	61.51950	79.6	85.0	86.2	84.5	85.9	87.6	68.0	63.91951	88.0	95.0	94.9	94.3	93.5	99.7	72.5	68.61952	90.2	95.8	96.8	94.9	95.4	101.8	77.2	73.41953	89.4	93.7	95.8	92.6	94.3	100.9	79.9	75.71954	89.9	93.4	95.4	92.4	94.1	100.1	82.7	78.41955	90.1	92.8	94.4	92.0	93.5	97.5	84.6	80.11956	91.4	93.5	94.8	92.8	94.2	97.2	87.3	83.41957	94.3	96.2	96.4	95.6	95.5	99.7	90.8	88.01958	96.8	98.4	98.0	97.9	97.2	101.2	94.0	91.91959	97.9	98.7	99.3	98.1	98.6	102.1	96.6	95.31960	99.1	99.5	99.9	99.0	99.4	101.8	98.7	98.1196 LD	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	101.2	100.9	100.2	101.2	100.7	99.3	101.4	102.11963	103.0	102.6	101.0	103.3	101.7	99.5	102.8	104.11964	104.8	103.9	102.1	104.9	103.4	98.6	105.4	107.91965	107.4	105.6	103.2	107.0	104.9	98.7	109.8	114.6I960	111.4	109.6	105.3	111.7	107.7	99.1	113.6	119.61967	115.4	112.4	109.2	114.6	111.9	102.1	119.7	127.01968	120.1	116.4	113.2	119.0	116.9	103.9	125.0	132.6(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	118.1	114.7	111.4	117.0	114.3	103.7	122.5	130.0F	118.2	115.0	111.6	117.3	114.9	103.4	122.5	129.7M	118.6	115.2	112.6	117.7	116.0	103.9	122.9	130.4A	119.3	115.7	113.1	118.1	116.7	104.0	123.7	131.3M	119.3	115.7	113.2	118.1	116.8	103.9	124.3	132.1J	119.7	116.0	113.3	118.5	116.9	103.9	125.2	132.9J	120.4	116.5	113.4	119.2	117.2	103.8	125.6	133.3A	120.7	116.8	113.4	119.6	117.3	103.2	125.9	133.5S	121.1	117.3	113.7	120.1	117.6	103.6	126.3	133.90	121.4	117.7	114.2	120.6	118.3	103.7	126.5	133.9N	121.9	117.7	114.7	120.5	118.6	104.5	127.3	135.0D	122.3	118.2	114.8	121.0	118.7	104.6	127.3	135.01969 J	122.6	118.1	114.3	121.0	118.1	104.3	127.8	135.7F	122.6	118.1	114.7	120.9	118.6	104.3	128.5	136.7M	123.2	118.4	115.3	121.3	119.3	104.6	129.3	137.9A	124.6	119.4	116.0	122.4	120.3	105.1	131.4	141.3
(1)See footnote (1) on reference table 41.
Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 44
CHANGES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEXES: SUPPLEMENTARY CLASSIFICATIONS
1950 to 1969
Years and Months	Total Consumer Price Index	Total Commod- ities	Total Commod- ities Excluding Food	Non- Durables	Non- Durables Excluding Food	Durables	Total Services	Services Excluding Shelter
			(Per cent change from same period a			year ago)		
1950	2.8	2.0	1.5	1.9	1.7	1.7	5.6	3.91951	10.6	11.8	10.1	11.6	8.8	13.8	6.6	7.41952	2.5	0.8	2.0	0.6	2.0	2.1	6.5	7.01953	-0.9	-2.2	-1.0	-2.4	-1.2	-0.9	3.5	3.11954	0.6	-0.3	-0.4	-0.2	-0.2	-0.8	3.5	3.61955	0.2	-1.6	-1.0	-0.4	-0.6	-2.6	2.3	2.21956	1.4	0.8	0.8	0.9	0.7	-0.3	3.2	4.11957	3.2	2.9	1.7	3.0	1.4	2.6	4.0	5.51958	2.7	2.3	1.7	2.4	1.8	1.5	3.5	4.41959	1.1	0.3	1.3	0.2	1.4	0.9	2.8	3.71960	1.2	0.8	0.6	0.9	0.8	-0.3	2.2	2.919610)	0.9	0.5	0.1	1.0	0.6	-1.8	1.3	1.91962	1.2	0.9	0.2	1.2	0.7	-0.7	1.4	2.11963	1.8	1.7	0.8	2.1	1.0	0.2	1.4	2.01964	1.7	1.3	1.1	1.5	1.7	-0.9	2.5	3.71965	2.5	1.6	1.1	2.0	1.5	0.1	4.2	6.21966	3.7	3.7	2.0	4.4	2.7	0.4	3.5	4.41967	3.6	2.6	3.7	2.6	3.9	3.0	5.4	6.21968	4.1	3.6	3.7	3.8	4.5	1.8	4.4	4.4(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	4.5	3.9	4.2	4.0	4.5	3.1	5.7	6.4F	4.5	4.2	4.1	4.3	4.6	2.9	4.9	4.9M	4.6	4.1	4.3	4.3	4.8	2.7	5.0	5.2A	4.3	3.7	3.9	4.0	4.4	2.3	4.2	3.9M	4.1	3.6	3.9	3.8	4.4	2.2	4.1	3.8J	3.9	3.3	3.6	3.0	4.2	1.6	4.4	4.2J	3.5	2.6	3.6	2.9	4.5	1.2	4.2	4.0A	3.3	2.5	3.6	2.8	4.5	0.9	4.2	4.0S	3.9	3.4	3.2	3.8	4.0	0.9	4.2	4.0o	4.2	3.7	3.9	4.2	5.0	0.8	4.0	3.7N	4.3	3.7	4.1	4.1	4.9	1.5	4.4	4.3D	4.1	3.5	3.3	4.0	4.2	0.5	4.3	4.21969 J	3.8	3.0	2.6	3.4	3.3	0.6	4.3	4.4F	3.7	2.7	2.8	3.1	3.2	0.9	4.9	5.4M	3.9	2.8	2.4	3.1	2.8	0.7	5.2	5.8A	4.4	3.2	2.6	3.6	3.1	1.1	6.2	7.6
O'See footnote (1) on reference table 41. Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1989
Reference Table 45
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHANGES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX 1963 to 1969
-	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969®
			(Percentage points)				
All items	1.8	1.8	2.4	3.7	3.5	4.1	4.0Food	0.9	0.4	0.7	1.6	0.4	0.9	0.9Housing	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.9	1.4	1.5	1.6Clothing	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.5	0.3	0.3Transportation	-	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.5	0.3	0.4Health and personal care	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.3Recreation and reading	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.3Tobacco and alcohol	-	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.6	0.2All items	1.8	1.8	2.4	3.7	3.5	4.1	4.0All commodities	1.2	0.9	1.0	2.4	1.6	2.4	2.0Durables	-	-0.1	-	-	0.3	0.2	0.1Non-durables	1.2	1.0	1.0	2.4	1.3	2.2	1.9Non-durables excluding food	0.3	0.5	0.4	0.8	1.0	1.4	1.0Services	0.3	0.7	1.1	1.0	1.4	1.0	1.2Portion of shelter excludedd>	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.5	0.7	0.8
(^Includes new houses, property taxes and mortgage interest.
<2>Per cent change is based on the first four months of 1969 compared to the first four months of 1968. Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 46 OTHER PRICE INDEXES 1947 to 1969
Years and Months	Price Index Com- modities and Services Used by Farmers	Farm Prices of Agricultural Products h)	Wholesale Price Indexes		Thirty Indus- trial Materials	Building Materials		Merchan- dise Export Prices	Merchan- dise Import Prices	Terms of Traded)
			Raw and Partly Manufactured Goods(2)	Fully and Chiefly Manufactured Goods(2)						
						Resi- dential	Non- Resi- dential			
(1935-1939 = 100)	(1949 =	100)	(1948 = 100)	1947	157.5	215.8	164.3	162.4	187.0	79.1	84.5	91.6	88.0	104.11948	183.7	255.8	196.3	192.4	222.7	95.4	95.9	100.0	100.0	100.01949	191.7	255.4	197.1	199.2	218.0	100.0	100.0	103.3	102.6	100.71950	197.3	260.8	212.8	211.0	244.6	106.4	105.0	108.3	110.3	98.21951	217.5	296.8	237.9	242.4	296.1	125.5	118.6	123.9	126.2	98.21952	229.8	274.4	218.7	230.7	252.6	124.9	123.2	121.8	110.4	110.31953	225.3	250.4	207.0	228.8	232.3	123.9	124.4	118.3	109.4	108.11954	224.2	236.8	204.8	224.2	223.7	121.7	121.8	115.1	109.5	105.11955	224.5	232.7	209.7	224.5	236.0	124.3	123.4	117.7	110.5	106.51956	230.3	234.6	215.8	231.5	248.2	128.5	128.0	121.3	113.0	107.31957	238.7	234.2	209.4	237.9	240.3	128.4	130.0	121.3	116.4	104.21958	242.7	245.5	209.3	238.3	229.8	127.3	129.8	120.6	116.5	103.51959	249.7	247.4	210.9	241.6	240.2	130.0	131.7	122.8	114.4	107.31960	254.7	250.0	209.6	242.2	240.4	129.2	132.3	123.0	115.5	106.51961	259.0	261.2	212.6	244.5	243.2	128.3	131.1	124.0	119.1	104.11962	265.8	272.0	223.8	249.0	248.0	129.7	131.9	128.1	124.5	102.91963	273.8	268.4	226.9	254.2	253.5	133.9	135.1	128.9	129.4	99.61964	281.6	265.8	225.7	256.4	258.3	142.5	139.6	130.7	130.8	99.91965	289.3	282.2	231.2	261.3	258.7	148.9	146.8	132.4	130.8	101.21966	305.2	307.0	242.7	268.6	261.4	154.4	151.0	137.9	132.5	104.11967	322.6	305.2	246.1	274.2	253.1	159.3	154.2	140.6	133.3	105.51968	338.9	299.1	249.1	281.6	254.0	168.2	157.8	145.6	136.3	106.8(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	328.8	294.5	249.0	277.4	253.8	163.8	156.6	142.8	135.7	105.2F	294.4	247.8	278.1	252.5	164.4	157.1	143.3	137.1	104.5M	292.3	250.3	278.3	253.5	165.3	157.5	143.9	136.8	105.2A	342.2	292.7	247.9	278.7	251.0	166.7	157.7	144.6	136.7	105.8M	295.6	249.2	279.7	251.7	166.9	157.8	145.6	136.0	107.1J	302.1	250.9	281.2	252.7	168.2	157.9	145.9	136.5	106.9J	304.8	248.3	281.0	253.4	168.5	157.2	146.3	135.8	107.7A	345.6	305.9	248.4	282.2	254.2	169.2	157.5	146.0	135.5	107.7S	306.2	249.3	284.2	253.6	170.5	157.9	146.5	135.7	108.0O	300.7	247.4	284.8	255.3	171.0	158.2	146.3	135.9	107.7N	299.7	249.7	286.0	257.2	171.3	159.0	146.5	136.6	107.2D	n.a.	300.7	250.9	287.7	258.9	172.9	159.5	146.5	136.4	107.41969 J	344.1	299.1	255.4	290.8	261.4	177.0	161.2	147.6	137.4	107.4F	n.a.	300.7	255.9	292.0	263.5	178.9	162.1	148.5	138.0	107.6M	n.a.	n.a.	255.0	293.7	264.1	183.2	164.3	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
0)Exclusive of Newfoundland. Western grain prices used in the construction of the index prior to August 1, 1967 are final prices. From August 1, 1968 to date, the western grain prices used in the index are initial prices only for wheat, oats and barley. For the period August 1, 1967 to July 31, 1968, the western grain prices used in the construction of the index are final prices for oats and barley and initial prices for wheat.
«>These two series comprise the general wholesale price index.
<*>The index of the ratio of merchandise export prices to merchandise import prices.
Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes.
DBS Trade of Canada Exports, Monthly, Cat. 65-004.
DBS Trade of Canada Imports, Monthly, Cat. 65-007.
DBS Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services Used by Farmers, Monthly, Cat. 62-004.
DBS Index Numbers of Farm Prices of Agricultural Products, Monthly, Cat. 62-003.
[Stage Direction]
June 3/ 1969
Reference Table 47
CHANGES IN OTHER PRICE INDEXES 1947 to 1969
Years and Months	Price Index Com- modities and Services Used byFarmers	Farm Prices of Agricultural Products11)	Wholesale Price Indexes		Thirty Indus- trial Materials	Building Materials		Merchan- dise Export Prices	Merchan- dise Import Prices	Terms of Trade
			Raw and Partly Manufactured Goods'2'	Fully and Chiefly Manufactured Goods(2)						
						Resi- dential	Non- Resi- dential			
			(Per cent change from same period a year ago)							
1947	8.6	5.7	17.3	17.7	25.8	16.7	12.7	14.6	15.0	-0.31948	16.6	18.5	19.5	18.5	19.1	20.6	13.5	9.2	13.6	-3.91949	4.4	-0.2	0.4	3.5	-2.1	4.8	4.3	3.3	2.6	0.71950	2.9	2.1	8.0	5.9	12.2	6.4	5.0	4.8	7.5	-2.51951	10.2	13.8	11.8	14.9	21.1	18.0	13.0	14.4	14.4	0.01952	5.7	-7.5	-8.1	-4.8	-14.7	-0.5	3.9	-1.7	-12.5	13.11953	-2.0	-8.7	-5.3	-0.8	-8.0	-0.8	1.0	-2.9	-0.9	-2.01954	-0.5	-5.4	-1.1	-2.0	-3.7	-1.8	-2.1	-2.7	0.1	-2.81955	0.1	-1.7	2.4	0.1	5.5	2.1	1.3	2.3	0.9	1.31956	2.6	0.8	2.9	3.1	5.2	3.4	3.7	3.1	2.3	0.81957	3.6	-0.2	-3.0	2.8	-3.2	-0.1	1.6	0.0	3.0	-2.91958	1.7	4.8	0.0	0.2	-4.4	-0.9	-0.2	-0.6	0.1	-0.71959	2.9	0.8	0.8	1.4	4.5	2.1	1.5	1.8	-1.8	3.71960	2.0	1.1	-0.6	0.2	0.1	-0.6	0.5	0.2	1.0	-0.71961	1.7	4.5	1.4	0.9	1.2	-0.7	-0.9	0.8	3.1	-2.31962	2.6	4.1	5.3	1.8	2.0	1.1	0.6	3.3	4.5	-1.21963	3.0	-1.3	1.4	2.1	2.2	3.2	2.4	0.6	3.9	-3.21964	2.8	-1.0	-0.5	0.9	1.9	6.4	3.3	1.4	1.1	0.31965	2.7	6.2	2.4	1.9	0.2	4.5	5.2	1.3	0.0	1.31966	5.5	8.8	5.0	2.8	1.0	3.7	2.9	4.2	1.3	2.91967	5.7	-0.6	1.4	2.1	-3.2	3.2	2.1	2.0	0.6	1.31968	5.1	-2.0	1.2	2.7	0.4	5.6	2.3	3.6	2.3	1.2(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	4.8	-5.3	1.7	2.2	0.2	4.7	2.2	2.1	1.7	0.3F	n.a.	-5.6	0.4	2.3	-0.6	4.6	2.2	2.6	2.7	-0.1M	n.a.	-5.7	2.2	2.2	0.6	4.9	2.3	3.0	2.5	0.5A	5.0	-4.8	1.2	2.3	-0.6	5.6	2.2	2.9	2.1	0.9M	n.a.	-4.4	1.2	2.3	-1.2	5.4	2.5	3.6	2.0	1.5J	n.a.	-3.5	2.0	2.6	-1.6	6.1	2.5	3.6	2.3	1.3J	n.a.	-1.5	1.7	2.2	0.2	5.7	2.0	4.1	2.0	2.0A	5.3	1.8	0.7	2.6	0.8	5.7	2.1	3.5	1.7	1.7S	n.a.	2.2	1.2	3.1	1.0	6.2	2.3	3.8	2.1	1.7o	n.a.	0.6	0.2	3.3	2.1	5.9	2.4	3.8	1.7	2.1N	n.a.	1.4	1.8	3.5	1.7	5.8	2.8	3.4	2.4	0.9D	n.a.	1.4	0.4	4.0	1.8	6.5	2.8	2.9	2.3	0.61969 J	4.7	1.6	2.6	4.8	3.0	8.1	2.9	3.4	3.0	2.1F	n.a.	2.1	3.3	5.0	4.4	8.8	3.2	3.6	1.3	3.0M	n.a.	n.a.	1.9	5.5	4.2	10.8	4.3	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
d\ (2\ (3)See footnotes (1), (2) and (3) on reference table 46.
Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes.
DBS Trade of Canada Ex-ports.
DBS Trade of Canada Imports.
DBS Price Index Numbers of Commodities and Services Used by Farmers. DBS Index Numbers of Farm Prices of Agricultural Products.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 48
TOTAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES (National Accounts Basis)
1947 to 1968
Years and Quaterrs	Goods and Services	Transfer Payments to Persons	Interest on the Public Debt	Subsidies	Capital Assist- ance^!	Canada and Quebec Pension Plans	Total Expen- ditures^!	Deficit (or Surplus
				(Millions of dollars)				
1947	1,541	839	559	177	-	-	3,116	7531948	1.797	862	558	75	-	-	3.292	7081949	2,127	948	572	77	-	-	3,724	3731950	2.344	1.030	545	63	-	-	3,982	5851951	3.271	1.032	553	128	-	-	4,984	9851952	4.279	1.359	580	100	-	-	6,318	2531953	4.432	1,461	610	110	-	-	6,613	1751954	4,461	1,634	669	86	-	-	6,850	-1311955	4.792	1,737	669	82	-	_	7,280	1061956	5.386	1,766	714	123	-	-	7,989	3501957	5.722	2.076	739	116	-	-	8.653	1001958	6,180	2,637	782	146	-	-	9,745	-1.0071959	6,490	2,755	963	205	-	-	10,413	-5561960	6.769	3,120	1,095	235	-	11,219	-7171961	7,236	3,441	1,170	251	6	-	12,104	-1,0051962	7.717	3,725	1,305	292	27	-	13,066	-8541963	8.075	3,848	1,423	311	61	-	13.718	-6901964	8,654	4,133	1,526	323	82	-	14,718	361965	9,614	4,574	1,645	326	84	-	16.243	3251966	11.286	5,047	1,805	516	59	-	18.713	3481967	12,377	6,223	1,982	522	65	-	21.169	1571968	13,329	7,179	2,262	500	70	15	23,355	800(Seasonally adjusted at annual	rates)	1966 I	10.656	4,760	1,756	416	32	-	17,620	580II	10,964	4,928	1.780	456	88	-	18,216	576Ill	11,632	5.156	1,820	384	56	-	19.048	316IV	11,892	5,344	1,864	808	60	-	19,968	-801967 I	11.860	5.884	1,844	416	52	-	20.056	824II	12.672	6.236	1,928	536	60	-	21.432	-588Ill	12.288	6.200	2.020	540	48	-	21.096	452IV	12,688	6,572	2,136	596	100	-	22.092	-601968 I	12.840	6,632	2,092	444	80	4	22.092	1,168II	13,112	7,160	2.260	472	36	12	23.052	220Ill	13.408	7,388	2,364	532	108	16	23,816	436XV	13.956	7,536	2,332	552	56	28	24,460	1,376
U)From 1961 on, this item is treated as government current expenditure; prior to 1961, it was treated as capital transfer. (2>Excludes inter-governmental transfers*
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 49
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Goods and Services	Transfer Payments to Persons	Interest on the Public Debt	Subsidies	Capital Ass is t-ance*1)	Transfers to Other Levels of Government	Total Expend- itures	Deficit (-) or Surplus
				(Millions	of dollars)			
1947	629	611	453	171	192	2.056	6841948	673	570	453	71	150	1.917	7601949	870	583	461	73	-	187	2,174	4801950	977	615	427	60	__	251	2.330	6351951	1,702	577	427	124	259	3.089	1,0211952	2.489	979	441	96	-	368	4.373	2531953	2,559	1,046	461	106	412	4.584	1421954	2,449	1,161	504	84	-	430	4,628	-1001955	2,510	1,232	494	75	450	4.761	1761956	2,683	1,224	524	118	-	485	5.034	5441957	2.728	1,463	519	108	-	521	5.339	2491958	2.854	1,899	544	131	-	663	6.091	-7571959	2,832	1,791	678	189	-	880	6,370	-3271960	2,730	1,976	753	209	994	6,662	-2511961	2,982	2,006	786	221	6	1,128	7,129	-4611962	3,025	2,112	866	260	27	1,134	7.424	-5651963	2,934	2,133	935	275	61	1,169	7,507	-3301964	3,046	2,239	995	277	82	1,252	7.891	3441965	3,293	2,312	1,052	259	84	1,434	8.434	6251966	3,920	2.478	1,151	375	59	1.662	9,645	1641967	4,259	2,936	1,245	390	65	1,992	10.887	-2561968	4,475	3,277	1,409	375	70	2,452	12,058	-165(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	3,700	2.420	1,124	252	32	1,544	9,072	348II	3,752	2,428	1,128	320	88	1.640	9,356	268Ill	3,992	2,516	1,168	248	56	1,644	9,624	284IV	4,236	2,548	1,184	680	60	1,820	10,528	-2441967 I	4.096	2,772	1,140	292	52	1.752	10,104	400II	4,472	3,032	1.208	436	60	2,112	11.320	-920Ill	4,196	2,972	1,280	396	48	2,064	10,956	-208IV	4,272	2,968	1,352	436	100	2,040	11,168	-2961968 I	4,384	3,064	1,256	328	80	2,324	11.436	108II	4,348	3,400	1,424	352	36	2,564	12,124	-936Ill	4,376	3,292	1,500	388	108	2,376	12,040	-80IV	4,792	3,352	1,456	432	56	2,544	12,632	248
(1)See footnote (1) on reference table 48. Source: DBS The National Accounts.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 50
PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Goods and Services	Transfer Payments to Persons	Interest on the Public Debt	Subsidies	Total Expenditures	Deficit(-) or Surplus
			(Millions of dollars)			
1947	912	228	106	6	1,252	691,124	292	105	4	1,525	-521949	1,257	365	111	4	1,737	-1071950 	1,367	415	118	3	1,903	-501,569	455	126	4	2,154	-361,790	380	139	4	2,313	-1,873	415	149	4	2,441	331954	2,012	473	165	2	2,652	-312,282	505	175	7	2,969	-702,703	542	190	5	3,440	-1942,994	613	220	8	3,835	-1493,326	738	238	15	4,317	-2501959	3,658	964	285	16	4,923	-2294,039	1,144	342	26	5,551	-4664,254	1,435	384	30	6,103	-5444,692	1,613	439	32	6,776	-2895,141	1,715	488	36	7,380	-3601964	5,608	1,894	531	46	8,079	-3086,321	2,262	593	67	9,243	-3007,366	2,569	654	141	10,730	-5358,118	3,287	737	132	12,274	-4731968	8,854	3,902	853	125	13,734	-25(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	6,956	2,340	632	164	10.092	-2607,212	2,500	652	136	10,500	-436HI 	7,640	2,640	652	136	11,068	-768IV	7,656	2,796	680	128	11,260	-6761967 I 	7,764	3,112	704	124	11,704	-440II 	8,200	3,204	720	100	12.224	-540HI 	8,092	3,228	740	144	12,204	-236IV	8,416	3,604	784	160	12,964	-6768,456	3,568	836	116	12,976	108II 	8,764	3,760	836	120	13.4S0	168TTt 	9,032	4,096	864	144	14,136	-460IV	9,164	4,184	876	120	14,344	84
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 51

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1967
Years	Goods and Services	Transfer Payments to Persons	Interest on the Public Debt	Subsidies	Transfers to Other Levels of Government	Total Expenditures	Deficit(-) or Surplus
	Provincial Governments						
			(Millions of dollars)				
1947	382	209	68	6	101	766	1071948	467	271	68	4	129	939	321949	510	342	72	4	157	1,085	-11950	535	391	76	3	171	1,176	631951	631	425	79	4	197	1,336	781952	724	343	85	4	215	1,371	1431953	695	377	91	4	242	1,409	2031954	747	429	97	2	259	1,534	1551955	846	463	97	7	327	1.740	1341956	1,041	500	105	5	362	2.013	791957	1,128	564	114	8	452	2,266	1441958	1,222	677	119	15	545	2,578	661959	1,349	895	126	16	622	3,008	1121960	1,465	1,067	148	26	714	3,420	-761961	1.467	1.332	166	30	842	3.837	-1281962	1,563	1.515	192	32	1,063	4,365	931963	1,725	1,612	224	36	1,148	4.745	591964	1,929	1,792	249	46	1,280	5,296	1301965	2.188	2,141	271	67	1,469	6.136	2251966	2,663	2,441	297	141	1,703	7,245	671967	3,015	3,154	357	132	2,127	8.785	-124Municipal Governments	(Millions of dollars)	1947	530	19	38	7	594	-381948	657	21	37	9	724	-841949	747	23	39	10	819	-1061950	832	24	42	11	909	-1131951	938	30	47	13	1.028	-1141952	1,066	37	54	13	1,170	- 1431953	1,178	38	58	15	1.289	-1701954	1,265	44	68	15	1,392	-1861955	1,436	42	78	22	1,578	-2041956	1,662	42	85	18	1.807	-2731957	1,866	49	106	28	2.049	-2931958	2,104	61	119	17	2.301	-3161959	2,309	69	159	24	2,561	-3411960	2,574	77	194	17	2.862	-3901961	2,787	103	218	15	3.123	-4161962	3,129	98	247	15	3.489	-3821963	3,416	103	264	17	3.800	-4191964	3,679	102	282	17	4,080	-4381965	4,133	121	322	22	4,598	-5251966	4,703	128	357	30	5,218	-6021967	5,103	133	380	38	5,654	-349
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 52 TOTAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES (National Accounts Basis)
1947 to 1968
Years
and
Quarters
Direct Taxes
Persons
Corporations
Withholding
Taxes
		Employer and Employee		
Indirect	Investment	Contributions to Social	Canada and Quebec Pension Plans	Total Revenues d) d)Taxes	Income^2)	Insurance and Government Pension Funds (2)	
(Millions of dollars)				
1947	791	702	35	1.785	375	181	_	3.8691948	822	687	41	1,840	386	224	-	4.0001949	789	718	47	1,885	419	239	-	4,0971950	740	983	54	2,063	471	256	4,5671951	1,030	1,416	56	2.597	534	336	-	5,9691952	1,323	1,384	55	2,817	617	375	
6.571
1953	1,432	1.220	54	3,021	651	410	-	6.7881954	1,437	1,082	58	3,033	687	422	-	6,7191955	1.499	1.272	67	3,319	753	476	7,3861956	1,732	1,413	69	3,759	834	532	-	8,3391957	1,917	1,337	83	3.977	849	590	-	8,7531958	1.795	1,315	48	4.028	937	615	-	8,7381959	2,088	1,581	74	4,464	998	652	-	9,8571960	2,360	1,544	79	4.705	1,063	751	10.5021961	2,511	1,612	116	4,947	1.126	787	-	11.0991962	2,729	1.710	125	5.585	1.251	812	-	12,2121963	2,916	1,827	127	5,911	1,395	852	-	13.0281964	3.428	2,053	140	6,695	1,526	912	-	14,7541965	3,913	2,225	168	7,564	1,671	1,027	16.5681966	4.484	2.252	203	8,466	1,808	1,129	719	19.0611967	5,493	2.208	218	9.227	2,112	1,182	886	21.3261968	6,660	2,593	209	10,021	2,294	1,373	1,005	24,155(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	4,256	2,204	180	8.276	1,736	1,056	492	18,200II	4.208	2,312	196	8,368	1,836	1,128	744	18.792Ill	4.604	2,236	204	8.564	1,784	1,172	800	19.364IV	4,868	2,256	232	8,656	1,876	1,160	840	19,8881967 I	5,532	2,120	192	9,208	1,828	1,136	864	20.880II	4.980	2.228	240	9.224	2,116	1,184	872	20,844Ill	5,540	2.224	220	9,164	2,228	1,276	896	21,548IV	5,920	2,260	220	9,312	2,276	1,132	912	22,0321968 I	6.412	2,396	220	9,812	2,160	1,304	956	23.260II	6.236	2.480	208	9.768	2,292	1,288	1,000	23.272Ill	6,716	2,608	232	10.044	2,308	1,352	992	24,252IV	7,276	2,888	176	10,460	2,416	1,548	1,072	25,836
0) Excludes inter governmental transfers.
(* *>
Excludes receipts from Canada and Quebec Pension Plans.
(*) Includes receipts from Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 53
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Direct Taxes		With- holding Taxes	Indirect Taxes	Investment Income	Employer and Employee Contributions to Social Insurance and Government Pension Funds	Total Revenues
	Persons	Corpo- rations					
			(Millions of dollars)				
1947	729	631	35	1,136	109	100	2,7401948	752	568	41	1,086	101	129	2,6771949	707	588	47	1,048	123	141	2,6541950	654	837	54	1,115	146	159	2,9651951	931	1,227	56	1,495	ISO	221	4,1101952	1,223	1,275	55	1,595	231	247	4,6261953	1,329	1,144	54	1,697	232	270	4,7261954	1,319	1,018	58	1,612	234	287	4,5281955	1,325	1,210	67	1,744	267	324	4,9371956	1,550	1,334	69	1,972	296	357	5,5781957	1,723	1,132	83	1,990	276	384	5,5881958	1,581	1,075	48	1,912	327	391	5,3341959	1,770	1,310	74	2,125	350	414	6,0431960	2,017	1,266	79	2,180	382	487	6,4111°61	2,132	1,311	116	2,190	409	510	6,6681962	2,088	1,279	125	2,401	448	518	6,8591963	2,193	1,362	127	2,451	510	534	7,1771964	2,558	1,546	140	2,847	570	574	8,2351965	2,716	1,675	168	3,252	630	618	9,0591966	2,955	1,696	203	3,575	690	690	9,8091967	3,572	1,630	218	3,707	800	704	10,6311968	4,283	1,932	209	3,764	878	827	11,893(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	2,808	1,668	180	3,512	612	640	9,420II	2,732	1,740	196	3,536	720	700	9,624Ill	3,060	1,684	204	3,608	636	716	9,908IV	3,220	1,692	232	3,644	792	704	10,2841967 I	3,632	1,568	192	3,820	612	680	10.504IT	3,276	1,648	240	3,712	808	716	10,400Ill	3,588	1,644	220	3,644	872	780	10,748IV	3,792	1,660	220	3,652	908	640	10,8721968 I	4,260	1,788	220	3,716	784	776	11,544II	3,952	1.852	208	3,576	844	756	11,188Ill	4,272	1,944	232	3,772	952	788	11,960IV	4,648	2,144	176	3,992	932	988	12,880
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 54
PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Direct Taxes		Indirect Taxes	Investment Income	Employer and Employee Contributions to Social Insurance and Government Pension Funds	Transfers from Federal Government	Total Revenues
	Persons	Corpo- rations					
			(Millions of dollars)				
1947	62	71	649	266	81	192	1,3211948	70	119	754	285	95	150	1,4731949	82	130	837	296	98	187	1,6301950	86	146	948	325	97	251	1,8531951	99	189	1,102	354	115	259	2,1181952	100	109	1,222	386	128	368	2,3131953	103	76	1,324	419	140	412	2,4741954	118	64	1,421	453	135	430	2,6211955	174	62	1,575	486	152	450	2,8991956	182	79	1,787	538	175	485	3.2461957	194	205	1,987	573	206	521	3.6861958	214	240	2,116	610	224	663	4.0671959	318	271	2,339	648	238	880	4,6941960	343	278	2,525	681	264	994	5,0851961	379	301	2,757	717	277	1,128	5,5591962	641	431	3,184	803	294	1.134	6,4871963	723	465	3,460	885	318	1,169	7,0201964	870	507	3,848	956	338	1,252	7,7711965	1,197	550	4.312	1,041	409	1,434	8,9431966	1.529	556	4,891	1,118	439	1,662	10.1951967	1,921	578	5,520	1,312	478	1,992	11,8011968	2,377	661	6,257	1,416	546	2,452	13,709(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	1,448	536	4,764	1,124	416	1,544	9,832II	1,476	572	4,832	1,116	428	1,640	10,064Ill	1,544	552	4,956	1,148	456	1,644	10,300IV	1,648	564	5,012	1,084	456	1,820	10,5841967 I	1,900	552	5,388	1,216	456	1,752	11,264II	1,704	580	5,512	1,308	468	2,112	11,684Ill	1,952	580	5,520	1,356	496	2,064	11.968IV	2,128	600	5,660	1,368	492	2,040	12,2881968 I	2,152	608	6,096	1,376	528	2,324	13,084II	2,284	628	6,192	1,448	532	2,564	13,648Ill	2,444	664	6,272	1,356	564	2,376	13,676IV	2,628	744	6,468	1,484	560	2,544	14,428
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 55
PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS' REVENUES 1947 to 1967
Years	Direct Taxes		Indirect Taxes	Investment Income	Employer and Employee Contributions to Social Insurance and Government Pension Funds	Transfers from Other Levels of Government	Total Revenues
	Persons	Corpo- rations					
	Provincial Governments						
			(Millions of dollars)				
1947	59	71	289	179	76	199	8731948	66	119	351	187	89	159	9711949	78	130	392	195	92	197	1,0841950	82	146	449	211	90	261	1,2391951	94	189	527	226	108	270	1,4141952	95	109	567	245	120	378	1,5141953	97	76	613	271	131	424	1,6121954	112	64	655	289	126	443	1,6891955	159	62	739	309	140	465	1,8741956	165	79	846	346	162	494	2,0921957	176	205	937	367	192	533	2.4101958	195	240	960	390	202	657	2,6441959	297	271	1,043	413	216	880	3,1201960	320	278	1,090	437	240	979	3,3441961	353	301	1,233	461	251	1,110	3.7091962	611	431	1,535	511	265	1,105	4.4581963	692	465	1,663	564	286	1.134	4.8041964	839	507	1,947	612	305	1,216	5,4261965	1.166	550	2,209	679	370	1,387	6,3611966	1,497	556	2,535	735	402	1,587	7,3121967	1,891	578	2,905	911	438	1,938	8,661Municipal Governments	(Millions of dollars)	1947	3	360	87	5	101	5561948	4	403	98	6	129	6401949	4	445	101	6	157	7131950	4	499	114	7	172	7961951 	5	575	128	7	199	9141952	5	655	141	8	218	1.0271953	6	711	148	9	245	1.1191954	6	766	164	9	261	1,2061955	15	836	177	12	334	1,3741956	17	941	192	13	371	1,5341957	18	1,050	206	14	468	1,7561958	19	1,156	220	22	568	1,9851959	21	1,296	235	22	646	2,2201960	23	1,435	244	24	746	2,4721961	26	1.524	256	26	875	2.7071962	30	1,649	292	29	1.107	3,1071963	31	1.797	321	32	1,200	3,3,811964	31	1,901	344	33	1,333	3,6421965	31	2.103	362	39	1,538	4.0731966	32	2.356	383	37	1.808	4.6161967	30	2,615	401	40	2,219	5,305
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
Reference Table 56
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND NATIONAL ACCOUNTS RECONCILIATION 1967 and 1968 (Not seasonally adjusted)
Revenue:
Budgetary Revenue.
Deduct:
Budgetary return on investment	
Post Office revenue	
Other non-tax budgetary revenue	
Corporate income tax, excess of accruals (+) over collections(-) -.
Add:
Extra budgetary funds revenue:
Old age security taxes	[DOT]	...
Unemployment insurance fund-employer-employee contributions..
Government pension fund-employer-employee contributions...
Prairie Farm Assistance Act levies	
Government investment income:
Interest on loans, advances and investments	
Interest receipts on social insurance and government pension accounts. Profits before taxes (net of losses) of government business enterprises.
Miscellaneous (1>
Total Revenue, national accounts basis	
Expenditure:
Budgetary Expenditure..
Deduct:
Budgetary transfers to funds and agencies	
Post Office expenditure	;	
Deficits of government business enterprises	
Reserves and write-offs	
Purchase of existing capital assets	[DOT] * [DOT] *
Budgetary revenue items offset against budgetary expenditure13*.,
1967				1968			
I 1	II 1	m i	IV	I 1	n i	hi i	IV
			(Millions of dollars)				
2,224	2,173	2,104	2,340	2,425	2,136	2,396	2,666-148	-141	- 90	-218	-163	-145	-101	-228- 65	- 59	- 60	- 85	- 78	- 63	- 57	- 89- 52	- 14	- 28	- 28	- 61	- 18	- 28	- 60(-265)	(-214)	(-178)	(-331)	(-302)	(-226)	(-186)	(-377)-122	- 82	- 23	+ 34	- 80	+ 46	- 87	+151373	377	345	345	428	420	377	38088	82	93	87	84	85	104	12784	91	105	74	112	97	97	1223	5	1	2	2	4	1( 547)	( 553)	( 548)	( 507)	(626)	(604)	(582)	(630)67	81	80	106	85	90	85	8853	57	58	60	60	60	61	6272	77	83	17	71	96	103( 126) -108	( 210) 93	( 215) - 4	( 249) 35	(162) -166	(221) 149	(242) 4	(253) 242.402	2,733	2,662	2,834	2,665	2,930	2,951	3,3472,756	2,018	2,320	2,392	3,106	2,108	2,456	2,686-200	-159	-125	-153	-259	-113	-119	-151- 83	- 61	- 71	- 78	- 91	- 67	- 69	- 103- 46	- 9	- 13	- 14	- 47	- 8	- 6	- 22-151	- 7	- 8	- 7	- 11	- 8	- 8	- 9- l	- 1	- 1	- 2	- 3	- 3	- 32 (-513)	- 32 (-269)	- 32 (-250)	- 35 (-288)	- 33 (-443)	- 33 (-232)	- 27 (-232)	- 34 (-322)June 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
Add:
Extra budgetary funds expenditure:
Old age security benefit payments	
Unemployment insurance benefits	
Government pensions	
Prairie farm emergency payments	
Expenditure of government funds and agencies(s>
Miscellaneous'4)	
Total Expenditure, national accounts basis	
Surplus (+) or deficit^-), national accounts basis.. Surplus(+) or deficit(-), budgetary basis	
Total, national accounts basis	
316 138 33 1 (488) 178 -301	345 102 35 (482) 169 428	335 51 34 (420) 147 98	337 62 35 (435) 146 31	370 174 35 8 (587) 146 -448	374 126 36 (536) 134 486	375 66 36 (477) 194 106	378 72 37 (487) 195 312,608	2,828	2,735	2,716	2,948	3,032	3,001	3,077-206	- 95	- 73	+118	-283	-102	- 50	+270-532	4-155	-217	- 52	-681	+ 28	- 60	- 22,402	2,733	2,662	2,834	2,665	2,930	2,951	3,347
revenue ^ the Ruppirmentary period are shifted in^ethefo!lo'^gfiK:al1quartei\OUS "d "d,reCt and adiuStments f°r «* supplementary period. In the National Accounts.
0i^ti'lt^VO"lAcCOU"tSi !>1+5,tary appropriations to various funds and agencies are replaced by the outlays actually made by these federal agencies dedSUaagvoitdCdTuS"ng'S **" C°™StS °f reVenUe8 fr°m sales ot *°°ds "nd	^ *** S°vemmentf ThesefppJr^Tnal e^rSe of the private sector, and are
fiscal'Sr "Le? rp&^K^m^rnlirefy to6t&liX"enditUrt9 ^ "d	period are split evenly between adjacent
Source: DBS, and Department of Finance estimates.
9590	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3. 1969
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 57
SOURCE AND DISPOSITION OF SAVING 1947 to 1968
	Source:								Disposition-		
		Business Gross Saving									
				Capital							
Consump-	Govern-	Deficit	Years	tion	ment	on	Undis-	Allow-	Sector	Current	Quarters	Net	tributed	wances	Surplus	Account	Other 0)	Total	TotalSaving	Total	Corpora-	and	or	with	tion	Miscel-	Deficit	Non-	Profits	laneous	(-)	Residents	Valuation	Adjust-	ment	(Millions of dollars)	1947	494	1,851	628	1,223	753	-19	-591	2,488	2,085	403	2,4881948	994	2,231	790	1.441	708	-417	-784	2,732	2,619	113	2,7321949	926	2,260	587	1,673	373	-168	-310	3,081	3,032	49	3,0811950	662	2,665	752	1,913	585	330	-344	3,898	3,348	550	3,8981951	1,334	2,865	662	2,203	985	524	-835	4,873	3,959	914	4,8731952	1,291	3,040	618	2,422	253	-173	552	4,963	4,451	512	4,9631953 	1,312	3,402	729	2,673	175	443	249	5.581	4,998	583	5,5811954	809	3,476	571	2,905	-131	427	68	4,649	4,779	-130	4,6491955	850	4,228	962	3,266	106	679	-342	5,521	5,210	311	5,5211956 	1,320	4,773	1,131	3,642	350	1,350	65	7,858	6,774	1,084	7,8581957	1,202	4,863	854	4,009	100	1,422	-21	7,566	7,,335	231	7,5661958	1,635	4,775	876	3,899	-1,007	1,083	167	6,653	6.975	-322	6,6531959	1,357	5,190	986	4,204	-556	1,448	-188	7,251	6,894	357	7,2511960	1,535	5.260	837	4,423	-717	1,164	-140	7,102	6,692	410	7,1021961	1,545	5,297	757	4.540	-1,005	911	-83	6,665	6,635	30	6,6651962	2,317	5,829	937	4.892	-854	823	-623	7,492	6,960	532	7,4921963	2,531	6,264	1,066	5,198	-690	507	-486	8,126	7,591	535	8,1261964	2,059	6,892	1,292	5,600	36	392	110	9,489	9,103	386	9,4891965	3,088	7,464	1,354	6,110	325	1,135	-413	11,599	10,651	948	11,5991966	3,731	7,765	1,142	6,623	348	1,232	357	13,433	12,493	940	13,4331967	3,995	8,030	1,030	7,000	157	667	-15	12,834	12,609	225	12,8341968	4,048	8,777	1,517	7,260	800	332	-544	13,413	12,753	660	13,413(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	3,676	7,936	1,532	6,404	580	972	-208	12,956	11,968	988	12,956II	4,068	7,844	1,220	6,624	576	1,208	544	14,240	12,572	1,668	14,240III .	3,476	7,580	884	6,696	316	1,256	268	12,896	12,308	588	12,896IV...	3,704	7,700	932	6,768	-80	1,492	824	13,640	13,124	516	13,6401967 I	4,064	8,008	1,008	7.000	824	648	-156	13,388	13,236	152	13,388II .	4,460	8,056	880	7,176	-588	884	404	13,216	13,068	148	13,216III...	3,724	8,056	1,076	6,980	452	868	-252	12,848	12,168	680	12,848IV...	3,732	8,000	1,156	6,844	-60	268	-56	11,884	11,964	-80	11,8841968 I	3,128	8,424	1,172	7,252	1,168	472	-92	13,100	12,632	468	13,10(1II....	4,624	8,548	1,288	7.260	220	-164	-328	12,900	12.516	384	12,906III...	4,272	8,816	1,544	7,272	436	496	-568	13,452	12,736	716	13,452IV...	4,168	9,320	2,064	7,256	1,376	524	-1,188	14,200	13,128	1,072	14,20C
(^Includes adjustment on grain transactions, inventory valuation adjustment, capital assistance and net residual error. Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 58

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Source:	Disposition:	Personal Net Saving	Business Gross Saving	Government Sector Surplus or Deficit (-)	Deficit on Current Account with NonResidents	Otherd)	Total	Business Gross Fixed Capital Forma- tion	Value of Physcial Change in Inventories	TotalTotal	Undis- tributed Corpo- ration Profits	Capital Con- sumption Allow- ances and Miscel- laneous Valuation Adjust- ments	1947	19.9	74.4	25.2	49.2	30.3	- 0.8	-23.8	100.0	83.8	16.2	100.01948	36.4	81.7	28.9	52.8	25.9	-15.3	-28.7	100.0	95.9	4.1	100.01949	30.1	73.4	19.1	54.3	12.1	- 5.5	-10.1	100.0	98.4	1.6	100.01950	17.0	68.4	19.3	49.1	15.0	8.4	- 8.8	100.0	85.9	14.1	100.01951	27.4	58.8	13.6	45.2	20.2	10.7	-17.1	100.0	81.2	18.8	100.01952	26.0	61.3	12.5	48.8	5.1	- 3.5	11.1	100.0	89.7	10.3	100.01953	23.5	61.0	13.1	47.9	3.1	7.9	4.5	100.0	89.6	10.4	100.01954	17.4	74.8	12.3	62.5	- 2.8	9.2	1.4	100.0	102.8	- 2.8	100.01955	15.4	76.6	17.4	59.2	1.9	12.3	- 6.2	100.0	94.4	5.6	100.01956	16.8	60.7	14.4	46.3	4.5	17.2	0.8	100.0	86.2	13.8	100.01957	15.9	64.3	11.3	53.0	1.3	18.8	- 0.3	100.0	96.9	3.1	100.01958	24.5	71.8	13.2	58.6	-15.1	16.3	2.5	100.0	104.8	- 4.8	100.01959	18.7	71.6	13.6	58.0	- 7.7	20.0	- 2.6	100.0	95.1	4.9	100.01960	21.6	74.1	11.8	62.3	-10.1	16.4	- 2.0	100.0	94.2	5.8	100.01961	23.2	79.5	11.4	68.1	-15.1	13.7	- 1.3	100.0	99.5	0.5	100.01962	30.9	77.8	12.5	65.3	-11.4	11.0	- 8.3	100.0	92.9	7.1	100.01963	31.2	77.1	13.1	64.0	- 8.5	6.2	- 6.0	100.0	93.4	6.6	100.01964	21.7	72.6	13.6	59.0	0.4	4.1	1.2	100.0	95.9	4.1	100.01965	26.6	64.4	11.7	52.7	2.8	9.8	- 3.6	100.0	91.8	8.2	100.0I960	27.8	57.8	8.5	49.3	2.6	9.2	2.6	100.0	93.0	7.0	100.01967	31.1	62.6	8.0	54.5	1.2	5.2	- 0.1	100.0	98.2	1.8	100.01968	30.2	65.4	11.3	54.1	6.0	2.5	- 4.1	100.0	95.1	4.9	100.0(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	28.4	61.2	11.8	49.4	4.5	7.5	- 1.6	100.0	92.4	7.6	100.0II....	28.6	55.1	8.6	46.5	4.0	8.5	3.8	100.0	88.3	11.7	100.0III...	27.0	58.8	6.9	51.9	2.4	9.7	2.1	100.0	95.4	4.6	100.0IV...	27.2	56.5	6.8	49.6	- 0.6	10.9	6.0	100.0	96.2	3.8	100.01967 I	30.4	59.8	7.5	52.3	6.2	4.8	- 1.2	100.0	98.9	1.1	100.0II....	33.7	61.0	6.7	54.3	- 4.4	6.7	3.0	100.0	98.9	1.1	100.0III...	29.0	62.7	8.4	54.3	3.5	6.8	- 2.0	100.0	94.7	5.3	100.0IV...	31.4	67.3	9.7	57.6	- 0.5	2.3	- 0.5	100.0	100.7	- 0.7	100.01968 I	23.9	64.3	8.9	55.4	8.9	3.6	- 0.7	100.0	96.4	3.6	100.035.8	66.3	10.0	56.3	1.7	- 1.3	- 2.5	100.0	97.0	3.0	100.0III...	31.8	65.5	11.5	54.0	3.2	3.7	- 4.2	100.0	94.7	5.3	100.0IV...	29.4	65.6	14.5	51.1	9.7	3.7	- 8.4	100.0	92.5	7.5	100.0
(1)See footnote (1) on reference table 57. Source: DBS The National Accounts.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 59
INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS: CURRENT ACCOUNT 1947 to 1968
Current Receipts:
Years and Quarters	Merchan- dise Exports (Adjusted)	Gold Production Available for Export	Travel Expendi- tures	Interest and Dividends	Freight and Shipping	Inheritances and Immi- grants' Funds	Other Current Receipts	Total Current Receipts
				(Millions of dollars)				
1947	2.723	99	251	64	322	69	220	3,7481948	3.030	119	279	70	336	84	229	4.1471949	2,989	139	285	83	303	68	222	4,0891950	3,139	163	275	94	284	57	218	4.2301951	3,950	150	274	115	351	77	230	5,1471952	4.339	150	275	152	383	85	289	5,6731953	4,152	144	302	164	318	91	322	5,4931954	3,934	155	305	147	313	89	305	5,2481955	4.332	155	328	161	398	86	399	5,8591956	4 837	147	337	142	457	99	456	6,4751957	4,894	144	363	153	445	124	406	6,5291958	4,890	157	349	167	401	97	391	6,4521959	5,151	148	391	180	420	109	414	6,8131960	5,392	162	420	171	442	102	447	7,1361961	5.889	162	482	213	486	104	452	7.7881962	6.387	155	562	202	509	124	484	8,4231963	7.082	154	609	230	563	151	500	9.2891964	8,238	145	662	332	644	169	557	10,7471965	8.745	138	747	322	668	216	645	11,4811966	10.326	127	840	318	758	268	759	13.3961967	11,387	112	1,304	294	845	337	806	15,0851968	13,597	112	962	339	919	371	776	17,106(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	9.816	132	840	320	716	232	728	12,784ii	9.940	120	840	356	728	260	752	12,996hi	10.040	128	836	280	792	284	780	13.740IV	10,908	128	844	316	796	296	776	14,0641967 I	11.448	124	952	320	832	320	844	14,840II	11.504	116	1,484	236	848	348	776	15,312Ill	10.712	104	1,744	312	832	352	808	14.864IV	11.884	104	1,036	308	868	328	796	15,3241968 I	13.148	112	944	300	916	304	736	16.460II	13.492	116	1,064	360	928	368	776	17,104Ill	13,436	108	1,016	380	908	424	788	17,060IV	14,312	112	944	316	924	388	804	17,800
9594
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 59 (Continued) INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS: CURRENT ACCOUNT 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Current Payments:							
	Merchan- dise Imports (Adjusted)	Travel Expendi- tures	Interest and Dividends	Freight and Shipping	Inheritances and Emigrants' Funds	Official Contribu- tions	Other Current Payments d>
Total Current Payments
				(Millions of dollars)				
1947	2.535	167	337	278	49	38	295	3,6991948	2,598	134	325	279	50	23	287	3,6961949	2,696	193	390	253	59	6	315	3,9121950	3,132	226	475	301	61	5	349	4,5491951	4,101	280	452	354	70	9	393	5,6591952	3,854	341	413	375	94	16	393	5,4861953	4,212	365	406	374	96	25	463	5.9411954	3,916	389	424	356	99	11	477	5,6721955	4,543	449	473	415	116	24	526	6,5461956	5,565	498	524	502	131	30	597	7,8471957	5,488	525	594	515	157	40	661	7,9801958	5,066	542	614	460	159	53	695	7,5891959	5,572	598	671	525	165	72	697	8,3001960	5,540	627	656	533	184	61	768	8,3691961	5,716	642	764	568	176	56	794	8,7161962	6,203	605	783	595	175	36	856	9,2531963	6,579	585	860	648	185	65	888	9,8101964	7,537	712	1,010	679	201	69	963	11,1711965	8.627	796	1,086	761	211	93	1,037	12,6111966	10.102	900	1,140	823	198	166	1,229	14.5581967	10.906	877	1,190	884	213	181	1,377	15.6281968	12,302	1,000	1,310	941	220	133	1,381	17,287(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	9,516	876	1,056	800	180	n.a.	1,276	13,704II	9,856	892	1,104	816	192	n.a.	1,276	14,136Ill	10,304	944	1,100	836	208	n.a.	1,528	14,920IV	10,732	888	1,300	840	212	n.a.	1,500	15,4721967 I	10,760	936	1,064	888	208	n.a.	1,520	15,376II	11,188	848	1,188	888	208	n.a.	1,736	16,056Ill	10,964	820	1,276	868	224	n.a.	1,452	15,604IV	10,712	904	1,232	892	212	n.a.	1,524	15,4761968 I	12,052	944	1,252	952	204	n.a.	1,428	16,832II	11,820	928	1,368	936	212	n.a.	1,520	16,784Ill	12,168	1,116	1,384	920	232	n.a.	1,544	17,364IV	13,168	1,012	1,236	956	232	n.a.	1,564	18,168
^Includes official contributions from 1966 to 1968 quarterly.
Source: DBS Quarterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments, Quarterly, Cat. 67-001, Occasional, Cat.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 60
NET BALANCES ON SELECTED NON-MERCHANDISE ACCOUNTS 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Travel Expenditures	Inheritances and Migrants' Funds	Freight and Shipping	Interest and DividendsUnited States	Rest of World	All Countries	United States	Rest of World	AH Countries	All Countries	AH Countries(Millions of dollars)	1947	89	- 5	84	-19	39	20	44	-2731948	154	- 9	145	-19	53	34	57	-2551949	102	-10	92	-26	35	9	50	-3071950	67	-18	49	-16	12	- 4	-17	-3811951	12	-18	- 6	-23	30	7	- 3	-3371952	-37	-29	-66	-39	30	- 9	8	-2611953	-25	-38	-63	-37	32	- 5	-56	-2421954	-37	-47	-84	-36	26	-10	-43	-2771955	-60	-61	-121	-45	15	-30	-17	-3121956	-82	-79	-161	-63	31	-32	-45	-3821957	-78	-84	-162	-77	44	-33	-70	-4411958	-104	-89	-193	-57	- 5	-62	-59	-4471959	-97	-110	-207	-71	15	-56	-105	-4911960	-87	-120	-207	-92	10	-82	-91	-4851961	-24	-136	-160	-85	13	-72	-82	-5511962	93	-136	-43	-78	27	-51	-86	-5811963	161	-137	24	-87	53	-34	-85	-6301964	109	-159	-50	-80	48	-32	-35	-6781965	112	-161	-49	-69	74	5	-93	-1641966	102	-162	-60	-39	109	70	-65	-8221967	549	-122	427	n.a.	n.a.	124	-39	-8961968	198	-206	- 8	n.a.	n.a.	151	-22	-971(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1966 I	n.a.	n.a.	-36	n.a.	n.a.	52	-84	-736II	n.a.	n.a.	-52	n.a.	n.a.	68	-88	-748Ill	n.a.	n.a.	-108	n.a.	n.a.	76	-44	-820IV	n.a.	n.a.	-44	n.a.	n.a.	84	-44	-9841967 I	n.a.	n.a.	16	n.a.	n.a.	112	-56	-744II	n.a.	n.a.	636	n.a.	n.a.	140	-40	-952Ill	n.a.	n.a.	924	n.a.	n.a.	128	-36	-964IV	n.a.	n.a.	132	n.a.	n.a.	116	-24	-9241968 I	n.a.	n.a.	
*	n.a.	n.a.	100	-36	-952II	n.a.	n.a.	136	n.a.	n.a.	156	- 8	-1,008Ill	n.a.	n.a.	-100	n.a.	n.a.	192	-12	-1,004IV	n.a.	n.a.	-68	n.a.	n.a.	156	-32	-920
Source: DBS Quarterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments.
20180 -6075
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 61
SUMMARY OF BALANCE OF PAYMENTS 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Merchan- dise Trade Balance	Deficit on Non-Merchandise Transactions(l)	Current Account Balance^)	Gold Produc- tion Avail- able for Export	Capital Movements Inflows and Outflows (-):		Total	Increase or Decrease (-) in Official Holdings of Gold and Foreign Exchange	of which: Net Inter- national Monetary Fund Position	Reci- procal Swap Falicity With Federal Reserve System
					Long- term Forms	Short- term Forms				
					(Millions of dollars)					
1947	188	-238	- 50	99	-721	4	-668	-742	74	__1948	432	-100	332	119	43	- 2	492	492	1949	293	-255	38	139	- 29	- 20	128	128	-	-1950	7	-489	-482	163	610	431	722	722	1951	-151	-511	-662	150	666	- 98	56	56	1952	485	-448	37	150	455	-605	37	37	1953	- 60	-532	-592	144	649	-239	- 38	- 38	1954	18	-597	-579	155	599	- 51	124	124	-	-1955	-211	-631	-842	155	414	229	- 44	- 44	1956	-728	-791	-1,519	147	1,490	- 70	48	33	15	1957	-594	-1,001	-1,595	144	1,320	26	-105	-105	1958	-176	-1,118	-1,294	157	1,153	93	109	109	1959	-421	-1,214	-1,635	148	1,179	297	- 11	- 70	59	-1960	-148	-1,247	-1,395	162	929	265	- 39	- 39	1961	173	-1,263	-1,090	162	930	288	290	229	61	-1962	184	-1,169	-985	155	688	297	155	537	-378	_4<2)1963	503	-1,178	-675	154	637	30	146	60	86	-1964	701	-1,270	-569	145	820	-33	363	86	277	-1965	118	-1,386	-1,268	138	864	423	157	- 11	168	1966	224	-1,513	-1,289	127	1,061	-258	-359	-462	103	1967	481	-1,136	-655	112	1,339	-778	18	34	- 16	1968	1,295	-1,588	-293	112	1 644	-i.nin	363	604	-249	-2(2)a	fot seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	10	-431	-421	34	465	-216	-138	-166	28	TT	- 49	-360	-409	29	214	49	-117	-181	64	Ill	223	-222	1	32	239	-357	- 85	-105	20	IV	40	-500	-460	32	143	266	- 19	- 10	- 9	-1967 I	98	-464	-366	32	277	44	- 13	- 35	22	II	6	-314	-308	28	256	- 30	- 54	- 37	- 17	Ill	86	90	176	26	301	-447	56	55	1	__IV	291	-448	-157	26	505	-345	29	51	- 22	-1968 I	231	-508	-277	29	112	-629	-765	- 23	-471	-271II	355	-387	- 32	28	721	- 97	620	355	130	135Ill	467	-193	274	27	392	-532	161	- 43	70	134IV	242	-500	-258	28	319	248	337	315	22	-
(^Excluding gold production available for export.
(i) Represent differences in Canadian dollar equivalents as between receipt and repayment of special international assistance, denominated in US dollars, including, in 1962, a swap with the UK authorities.
Source: DBS Quarterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 62
INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS: CAPITAL MOVEMENTS 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Direct Investment in Canada	Direct Invest- ment Abroad	Canadian Securities:	Foreign Secu- rities (Total)	Loans and Capital Subscriptions by Government of Canada	Colum- bia River Treaty Net	Long- Term Capital Trans- actions not included else- where(1>Trade in Outstanding Bonds and Deben- tures	Trade in Outstanding Common and Preference Stocks	New Issues	Retire- ments	Advances, etc.	Repayments to Canada	(Millions of dollars)	1947	61	6	-13	95	-364	5	-598	111	-241948	71	15	-	3	150	-114	- 8	-142	80	-	-121949	94	13	-	8	105	-147	20	-126	18	-	-141950	225	35	329	210	-284	76	-50	74	- 51951	320	-30	-	38	411	-184	15	-	68	-	281952	360	-85	-168	73	323	-89	-11	-	56	-	- 41953	450	-70	-52	21	335	-146	- 1	-	87	-	251954	425	-90	-66	129	333	-205	-24	-	72	-	251955	445	-85	-165	137	166	-185	- 5	69	371956	650	-105	11	187	667	-141	- 3	- 4	69	-	1591957	545	-80	-45	142	800	-134	1	- 1	50	-	421958	430	-40	-	88	688	-158	1	-34	64	-	1.1141959	570	-85	92	110	709	-258	-34	- 1	34	-	421960	670	-50	3	51	448	-266	-19	-11	32	711961	560	-80	61	39	548	-301	-35	- 8	38	-	1081962	505	-105	64	-115	729	-319	-65	-22	129	-	-1131963	280	-135	39	-170	984	-404	22	-18	25	-	141964	270	-95	77	-98	1.100	-382	-52	-10	10	54	-541965	535	-125	55	-274	1,240	-390	-85	-14	10	32	-1201966	710	- 5	-104	-136	1.465	-499	-401	-35	24	32	101967	620	-90	-56	12	1,300	-338	-418	-38	34	44	2691968	585	-170	-70	112	1,961	-395	-464	-78	5	88	-30(Not seasonally adjusted)	1966 I....	134	-22	-12	-14	577	-116	-79	- 6	2	1II...	203	-29	-25	-44	357	-165	-126	- 3	2	-	44III..	151	80	-52	-34	303	-87	-103	- 9	1	-	-11IV..	222	-34	-15	-44	228	-131	-93	-17	19	32	-241967 I....	138	-30	-10	-53	317	-58	-74	- 3	11	39II...	164	- 7	-22	-17	291	-131	-70	- 3	2	-	49III..	143	-25	-10	30	274	-48	-142	- 9	1	-	87IV..	175	-28	-14	52	418	-101	-132	-23	20	44	941968 I....	10	-85	-53	15	416	-126	-87	-10	2	30II...	205	10	-11	34	712	-121	-127	- 8	2	-	25III..	185	-15	-13	10	488	-39	-132	-16	1	-	-77IV...	185	-80	7	53	345	-109	-118	-44	-	88	- 8
June 3. 1969
Reference Table 62 (Continued)
INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS: CAPITAL MOVEMENTS 1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Change in Certain Canadian Assets of Foreigners:	Bank Balances and Other Short- term Funds Abroad	All Other Trans- actions	Net Capital Movements Excluding Monetary Items Shown in the following Columns	Official Monetary Movements in the Form of:	Canadian Dollar Deposits	Govern- ment of Canada Demand Liabili- ties	Canadian Treasury Bills	Short-term Funds	Canadian Finance Com- pany Obliga- tions not included else- where	Change in the Official Holdings of Gold and and Foreign Ex- change	Change in Net International Monetary Fund Position	Other Special Inter- national Financial Assist- anceCanadian Com- mercial Paper	Canadian Finance Paper	(Millions of dollars)	1947	-26	ft)	1948	-21	-2	21	'41	492	1949	33	-	8	-	-	-	-2	-59	-49	128	-	-1950	235	- 4	- 3	-	11	192	1,041	722	_	1951	-190	- 8	2	-	-	-	- 14	112	568	56	1952	-66	- 5	1	-(3)	_(3)	35	-165	-405	-150	37	1953	-22	-11	- 2	-	-	-2	- 80	-122	410	- 38	1954	27	-15	8	-	-	10	- 75	- 6	548	124	-	-1955	60	- 9	29	23	91	35	643	- 44	1956	-30	-	3	-	-	64	-216	109	1,420	33	15	1957	-15	-	-18	-	-	4	-274	329	1,346	-105	1958	39	45	21	-	-	24	- 58	22	1,246	109	1959	10	-8	14	-	-	68	-119	332	1,476	- 70	59	-1960	79	-12	56	-	59	- 60	143	1,194	- 39	_	1961	33	- 2	-58	-	-	95	140	80	1,218	229	61	1962	-10	- 4	4	-	-	119	93	95	985	537	-378	-4 W1963	43	1	-27	-23	93	35	-258	166	667	60	86	1964	28	-	-16	-11	196	52	-528	246	787	86	277	-1965	31	2	12	10	-162	209	138	183	1,287	- 11	168	1966	10	5	-15	-	- 4	154	-601	193	803	-462	103	1967	24	- 4	4	11	- 54	34	-286	-507	561	34	- 16	1968	70	21	48	-11	-135	19	-373	-649	534	604	-249	-2*4>(Not seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	-15	- 6	- 8	-12	27	34	-171	- 72	249	-166	28	II	- 8	- 2	-	- 5	- 5	-11	- 16	81	263	-181	64	in-	21	5	2	12	-55	44	-317	- 57	-118	-105	20	IV	12	8	- 9	5	29	87	- 97	241	409	- 10	- 9	-1967 I	48	- 6	15	- 6	7	-17	332	-329	321	- 35	22	II	-59	- 7	8	5	-24	11	44	- 8	226	- 37	-17	III.*..	7	- 2	-17	1	-55	-31	-311	- 39	-146	55	1	IV	28	11	- 2	11	18	71	-315	-131	160	51	-22	-1968 I	8	- 4	23	7	-60	- 7	-125	-471	-517	- 23	-471	-271II	4	- 3	1	-17	-35	- 6	27	- 68	624	355	130	135in....	4	1	11	2	-37	- 1	-149	-363	-140	- 43	70	134IV	54	27	13	- 3	- 3	33	-126	253	567	315	22	
WFrom 1947 to 1961, includes export credits extended from Canada directly or indirectly at risk of the Government of Canada. W Included in "all other transactions'' from 1947 to 1951.
^Included in "Canadian finance company obligations n.i.e." from 1952 to 1962.
<4>Represent differences in Canadian dollar equivalents as between receipt and repayment of special international assistance, denominated m U.S. dollars, including, in 1962, a swap with the U.K. authorities.
Source: DBS Quarterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 63

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968
Years and Quarters	Government of Canada (Including Guaranteed)	Provincial Governments (Including Guaranteed)	Municipal Governments	New Issues	Retire- 1 ments	Net Proceeds	New Issues 1	Retire- 1 ments |	Net Proceeds	New Issues 1	Retire- 1 ments |	Net Proceeds(Millions of dollars'	1947	n.a.	39	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.1948	150	36	114	-	n.a.	n.a.	-	n.a.	n.a.1949	99	96	3	-	n.a.	n.a.	6	n.a.	n.a.1950	62	159	-97	96	n.a.	n.a.	20	n.a.	n.a.1951	7	94	-87	262	43	219	72	12	601952	1	18	-17	107	38	69	55	17	381953	6	84	-78	143	28	115	76	15	611954	8	69	-61	126	63	63	46	28	181955	5	100	-95	3	19	-16	44	18	261956	9	83	-74	224	15	209	112	18	941957	16	29	-13	136	25	111	123	24	991958	76	25	51	168	45	123	148	30	1181959	56	101	-45	334	41	293	157	33	1241960	30	58	-28	103	57	46	135	38	971961	37	48	-11	66	24	42	47	38	91962	156	86	70	148	22	126	74	41	331963	173	76	97	343	70	273	62	77	-151964	43	88	-45	439	66	373	182	53	1291965	28	85	-57	297	31	266	84	53	311966	32	203	-171	448	65	384	177	96	811967	20	95	-75	760	61	699	163	53	1101968	288	59	229	898	73	825	130	61	69(Not seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	4	54	-50	126	24	1C2	60	13	47II	10	80	-70	168	15	153	52	16	36Ill	12	43	-31	95	13	82	5	11	- 6IY	6	26	-20	59	13	46	60	56	41967 I	3	3	217	22	195	56	11	45II	4	63	-59	242	24	218	6	12	- 6HI	4	4	118	5	113	52	8	44IV	9	29	-20	183	10	173	49	22	271968 I	4	11	- 7	240	21	219	46	16	30II	255	30	225	180	19	161	34	11	23Ill	4	4	279	8	271	25	11	14IV	25	18	7	199	25	174	25	23	2
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 63 (Continued)

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968
Years	Total Governments	Corporations (Including Railroads)	Total	*and	New	1 Retire-	Net	New	1 Retire-	1 Net	New	1 NetIssues	1 ments	1 Proceeds	Issues	1 ments	| Proceeds	Issues	1 ments	1 Proceeds(Millions de dollars)	1947	n.a.	39	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	95	1948	150	36	114	-	n.a.	n.a.	150	1949	105	96	9	-	n.a.	n.a.	105	n.a.	n.a.1950	178	159	19	28	n.a.	206	1951	341	149	192	28	n.a.	n.a.	369	1952	163	73	90	136	15	121	299	88	2111953	225	127	98	64	13	51	289	140	1491954	180	160	20	133	35	98	313	195	1181955	52	137	-85	51	41	10	103	178	-751956	345	116	229	252	20	232	597	136	4611957	275	78	197	464	31	433	739	109	6301958	392	100	292	253	42	211	645	142	5031959	547	175	372	114	66	48	661	241	4201960	268	153	115	154	104	50	422	257	1651961	150	110	40	354	136	218	504	246	2581962	378	149	229	331	140	191	709	289	4201963	578	223	355	392	101	291	970	324	6461964	664	207	457	414	117	297	1.078	324	7541965	409	169	240	807	214	593	1,216	383	8331966	657	364	293	751	131	620	1,408	495	9131967	943	209	734	312	129	183	1,255	338	9171963	1,316	193	1,123	573	201	372	1,889	394	1,495(Not seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	190	91	99	341	24	317	531	115	416II	230	111	119	124	53	71	354	164	190Ill	112	67	45	187	18	169	299	85	214IV	125	95	30	99	36	63	224	131	931967 I	276	36	240	30	22	8	306	58	248II	252	99	153	31	32	- 1	283	131	152Ill	174	13	161	93	35	58	267	48	219IV	241	61	180	158	40	118	399	101	2981968 I	290	48	242	117	78	39	407	126	281II	469	60	409	233	61	172	702	121	581Ill	308	19	289	152	20	132	460	39	421IV	249	66	183	71	42	29	320	108	212
Source: DBS Sales and Purchases of Securities Between Canada and Other Countries, Monthly, Cat. 67-002.
Reference Table 64
CANADIAN CHARTERED BANKS' HEAD OFFICES AND BRANCHES IN CANADA NET CHANGE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY POSITIONS^)
1966 to 1968
(Not seasonally adjusted)
1966	1967	1968	1967	1968	I	II	III	IV	I	ii	hi	IVWith U.S. residents:	208	273	169	-366	(Mil 116	ions of dol 254	ars) 269	-207	247	210	- 81-309	76	-296	12	7	-103	160	- 98	38	-145	- 91Net	517	197	465	-378	109	357	109	-109	209	355	10Other non-residents:	- 2	391	744	3	165	-104	327	223	40	95	38648	188	792	-123	215	21	75	48	197	273	274Net 	- 50	203	- 48	126	- 50	-125	252	175	-157	-178	112Total non-residents:	206	664	913	-363	281	150	596	16	287	305	305-261	264	496	-111	222	- 82	235	- 50	235	128	183467	400	417	-252	59	232	361	66	52	177	122With Canadian residents:	84	-110	- 54	- 19	- 73	- 1	- 17	- 29	- 22	- 7	4401	364	88	-189	- 31	146	438	35	- 90	104	39(187)	(165)	(-141)	(-145)	(- id	(88)	(233)	(-164)	(-161)	(166)	18)Net ...V.	-317	-474	-142	170	- 42	-147	-455	- 64	68	-111	-35150	- 74	275	- 82	17	85	- 94	2	120	66	87
(^Adjusted for variations in exchange rates.
Balance of payments effects:
(a)H-(a)2 with sign reversed, is major component of D.17. 1,
"bank balances and other short-term funds-abroad"
as follows:
-[(a)H-(a)*j:
D.17.1:.
-601
1 -290 1	-363 1	271 1	14 1	-231 1	-344 1	- 37 1	- 30 1	-170 1	-126| -286 |	-373 |	332 |	44 1	-311 |	-351 |	-125 |	27 |	-149 |	-126(b)	is divided between D.17.5 and D.13, respectively short and long-term residual capital items.(c)	with sign reversed is net balance of payments effect of banks foreign-currency operations.
Source: Department of Finance.
June 3. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9601
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 65

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1968 2
Years and Quarters	Transactions with U.S. (Excluding International Financial Agencies):	Net Amount to be Financed by Other Transactions	Other Transactions:	Increase (-) in Canadian Holdings of Gold and Foreign Exchange	Change in Canada's Position with the International Monetary Fund(1>	Reciprocal Swap Facility with Federal Reserve System	Total FinancingCurrent Account Surplus with Rest of World	Net Capital Move- ment from or to Rest of World	New Gold Production Available for Export	Current Account Deficit (Excluding Gold)	Capital Inflow from U.S.	(Millions of dollars)	1947	-1,233	-163	-1,396	1,183	-554	99	742	- 74	1,3961948	- 512	111	-401	844	- 70	119	-492	4011949	- 740	64	-676	778	-113	139	-128	-	-	6761950	- 548	946	-398	66	95	163	-722	3981951	-1,095	556	-539	433	12	150	- 56	5391952	- 980	-106	-1,086	1,017	- 44	150	- 37	1,0861953	-1,051	199	-852	459	211	144	38	'8521954	- 955	379	-576	376	169	155	-124	-	-	5761955	-1,184	366	-818	342	277	155	44	8181956	-1,797	891	-906	278	529	147	- 33	- 15	9061957	-1,723	942	-781	128	404	144	105	7811958	-1,324	1,045	-279	30	201	157	-109	2791959	-1,369	1,312	- 57	-266	164	148	70	- 59	-	571960	-1,521	974	-547	126	220	162	39	5471961	-1,503	1,311	-192	413	- 93	162	-229	- 61	1921962	-1,247	1,073	-174	262	- 88	155	-537	378	4C2)	1741963	-1,302	829	-473	627	-162	154	- 60	- 86	4731964	-1,780	1,639	-141	1,211	-852	145	- 86	-277	-	1411965	-2,075	437	-1,638	807	850	138	11	-168	1,6381966	-2,157	1,059	-1,098	868	-256	127	462	-103	1,0981967	-1,491	336	-1,155	836	225	112	- 34	16	1,1551968	-1,069	- 66	-1,135	776	600	112	-604	249	2(2)	1,135(Not seasonally adjusted)	1966 I	-640	544	- 96	201	-277	34	166	- 28	96II....	-634	265	-369	230	- 7	29	181	- 64	369III.. .	-215	32	-183	226	-158	30	105	- 20	183IV....	-658	199	-459	219	189	32	10	9	-	4591967 I	-605	370	-235	257	- 67	32	35	- 22	235II	-528	38	-490	252	155	28	37	17	490III.. .	27	-241	-214	149	95	26	- 55	- 1	214IV....	-356	145	-211	199	15	26	- 51	22	-	2111968 I	-489	-364	-853	212	-153	29	23	471	271	853II	-317	156	-161	285	468	28	-355	-130	-135	161III.. .	93	-449	-356	181	309	27	43	- 70	-134	356IV....	-356	591	235	98	- 24	28	-315	- 22	-235
(^Improvement (-) in Canadian position represents net provision of resources by Canada to the IMF.
(2)Represent differences in Canadian dollar equivalents as between receipt and repayment of special international assistance, denominated in US dollars, including, in 1962, a swap with the UK authorities.
Source: DBS Quarterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 66

[Stage Direction]
1946 to 1968
Years and Quarters		Increase in Gold Subscriptions	Drawings by Canada (-)	Repurchases (Repayments of Drawings) by Canada	Net Fund Sales or Repurchases (-) of Canadian Dollars to or from Third Countries	Fund Sales of Gold for Canadian Dollars	Reserve Position at end of Period (*)
				(Millions of U.S. dollars)			
1946	1.0	...	1.01947	74.0	-	75.01956	15.0	90.01958	-0.1	-	90.01959	62.5	[DOT] -	152.51961	84.6	25.0	212.11962	-300.0	-50.3	-	-138.21963	79.7	-58.51964	166.0	99.0	- 9.0	197.51965	183.4	-27.5	353.41966	47.5	47.6	448.51967	-15.1	433.41968	-426.0<'!	64.8	131.2	-	206.2«>(Not seasonally adjusted)	1966 T	.	_	25.5	378.9TT 	47.5	11.9	- *	438.3Ill	18.7	457.0TV	-8.5	-	448.51967 I	20.0	468.5TT	-16.1	-	452.4Ill	1.2	-	453.7TV.	-20.3	-	433.41968 I	-426.0(0	-7.3	0.1TT	121.0	-	121.1Ill	64.8	-	185.9TV	17.5	-	206.2(5)
Note: Fund borrowing under the General Arrangements to Borrow (GAB) does not affect the reserve position.
0>Only those years in which transactions take place are shown.
(^Columns may not cross-add due to rounding.
(*)A negative figure indicates the amount by which the credit tranche position falls short of the quota. (4>Includes the Fund's repayment of its 1965 borrowing from Canada ($35 million).
<6>Includes $2.8 million, representing Canada's share in IMF dividend paid to members in their own currencies.
Source: IMF International Financial Statistics, Monthly.
9604
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Reference Table 67
OFFICIAL HOLDINGS OF GOLD AND UNITED STATES DOLLARS Monthly 1966 to 1969
End of period	Gold	U.S. Dollars	Total	Net I.M.F. Position 0)	Grand Total
		(Millions of U.S. dollars)			
1966 J	1,112.8	1,449.6	2,562.4	276.4	2,838.8F	1,076.5	1,471.1	2,547.6	246.2	2,793.8M	1,085.6	1,424.2	2,509.8	241.4	2,751.2A	1,096.0	1,373.1	2,469.1	254.8	2,723.9M	1,060.7	1,351.5	2,412.2	263.5	2,676.0J	1,024.2	1,317.6	2,341.8	253.3	2,595.1J	986.2	1,329.2	2,315.4	255.3	2,570.7A	996.7	1,284.3	2,281.0	261.8	2,542.8S	1,008.7	1,235.6	2,242.3	272.0	2,516.30	1,020.5	1,202.7	2,223.2	272.1	2,495.3N	1,033.7	1,208.4	2,242.1	267.5	2.509.6D	1,045.6	1,190.3	2,235.9	263.5	2,499.41967 J	1,055.9	1,182.3	2,238.2	283.5	2,521.7F	1,069.6	1,124.6	2,194.2	283.5	2,477.7M	1,083.5	1,119.9	2,203.4	283.5	2,486.9A	1,042.3	1,145.9	2,188.2	280.1	2,468.3M	1,052.9	1,141.7	2,194.6	263.5	2,458.1J	1,066.3	1,102.4	2,168.7	267.4	2,436.1J	1,073.5	1,109.1	2,182.6	265.9	2,448.5A	1,085.7	1,112.1	2,197.8	263.7	2,461.5S	1,099.3	1,121.5	2,220.8	268.7	2,489.5O	1,103.8	1,199.6	2,303.4	266.7	2,570.1N	1,110.0	1.166.9	2,276.9	248.4	2,525.3D	1,014.9	1,252.9	2,267.8	248.4	2,516.21968 J	1,024.8	1,150.5	2,175.3	243.2	2,418.5F	1,026.2	1,463.8	2,490.0	-184.9	2,305.1M	976.1	1,268.3	2,244.4	-184.9	2,079.5A	976.1	1,439.5	2,415.6	-184.9	2,230.7M	926.3	1,768.7	2,695.0	-184.9	2,510.1J	926.3	1,647.7	2,574.0	-63.9	2,510.1J	926.3	1,588.3	2,514.6	-63.9	2,450.7A	926.3	1,663.2	2,589.5	-63.9	2,525.6S	863.1	1,671.0	2,534.1	0.9	2,535.00	863.1	1,662.2	2,525.3	3.7	2,529.0N	863.1	1,809.3	2,672.4	11.2	2,683.6D	863.1	1,963.7	2,826.8	21.2	2,848.01969 J	863.1	2,001.4	2,864.5	27.2	2,891.7F	863.1	1,957.0	2,820.1	27.2	2,847.3M	863.1	1,916.2	2,779.3	36.2	2,815.5A	863.1	1,919.2	2,782.3	46.2	2,828.5
(I)A negative sign indicates a net debtor position with the International Monetary Fund. Source: Department of Finance.
Reference Table 68

[Stage Direction]
(Millions of dollars par value)
Date	Retirements	Amount	Sub-Total	New Bonds	Amount Delivered	Sub-Total	Net Change in Amount Outstanding	Term of New Bonds	Yield to MaturityJanuary 15	41%	15,	1968	303	6%	Feb.	15,	1970	250	450	+50	2 yre.	1	mo.	6.2054%	Jan.	15,	1968	97	400	6%	Dec.	15,	1971	200	3 yrs.	11	mos.	6.44April 1	41%	1,	1968	175	54%	Apr.	1,	1969	60	275	lyr.	7.03June	15,	1968	24	7%	Apr.	1,	1973	215<1>	5 yrs.	7.3044%	June	15,	1968	25	5%	Oct.	1,	1968	26	Dec.	15,	1968	25	275	April 3	51%	Aug.	1,	1980 <*>	9	9	-9	April 15	5%	Oct.	15,	1987 *>	1	1	-1	May 15	CNR 5% May 15,1968	56	56	5i% 5j%	May May	15, 15,	1970 1971	35 36	108<')	-56	2	yrs. 3	yrs.	5.75 5.876%	May	15,	1972	37	+108	4 yrs.	6.006f%	June	1,	1973	68	68<6)	+68	5 yrs.	7	days	6.876i%	June	1,	1988	78	78«>	+78	20 yrs.	6.90June 15	2 m	15,	1968	285	6}%	July	1,	1969	75	1 yr.	4	mo.	7.0015,	1968	135	7%	Oct.	1,	1970	275	600	+105	2 yrs.	34	7.115%	Oct.	1,	1968	75	495	7%	June	15,	1974	250«)	6 yrs.	7.2664%	Dec.	15,	1969	35	1 yr.	44	mos.	6.656f%	Oct.	1,	1970	105	+400	2 yrs.	2	mos.	6.757%	Apr.	1,	1973	260	400	4 yrs.	8	mos.	7.00September 13	5%	Oct.	1,	1968	100	100*>	-100	October 1	5%	Oct.	1,	1968	260	260	6% 64%	Feb. Oct.	15, 1,	1970 1971	35 200	1 yr. 3 yrs.	44	mos.	6.11 6.2564%	Apr.	1,	1975	200	+275	6 yrs.	6	mos.	6.6064%	Oct.	1,	1995	100	535	27 yrs.	6.60October 15	5%	Oct.	15,	1987<«	1	1	6J%	June	1,	1988	14	14 «>	+13	20 yrs.	6.87December 15	4f% Dec.	15,	1968	100	100	6}% 6J%	May Apr.	1, 1,	1970 1971	50 200(10)	250	+150	1	yr. 2	yre.	44 34	mos. mos.	6.28 6.36Total (Calendar 1968)	1,697	2,778	+1,081	June 3. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9605January 15	6J% June 1, 1988	16	16(8)	+16	20 yrs.March 14	5% July 1, 1969	100	100(*)	-100	Total (Fiscal 1968-69)	1,397	2,344	+947	April 1	5i% April 1, 1969	410	410	7% May 1, 1970	125	7}% Apr. 1, 1972	185<*)	7i% Apr. 1, 1974	100(11) (12)	410	5 yrs.April 15	5% Oct. 15, 19870)	1	1	-1	
(1)$100 million 7% bonds exchanged directly with Bank of Canada for bonds maturing in 1968.
<5>Subject to purchase fund.
(3)U.S. pay issue subject to partial redemption for sinking fund on prorated basis following partial retirement of issue on December 1, 1967.
(4>Payable in Italian Lire and placed directly with Italian Exchange Office.
(s>Payable in German Marks and offered in Europe through Deutsche Bank.
(fl)U.S. pay issue in principal amount U.S. $100 million, subject to delayed delivery contracts.
(7)	$75 million 7% due 1974 exchanged directly with Bank of Canada for bonds maturing in 1968.
(8)	$100 million 7% due 1973 exchanged directly with Bank of Canada for bonds due October 1, and December 15, 1968.
(^Cancellation of securities held in the Securities Investment Account.
(10>$100 million 6\% due 1971 exchanged directly with Bank of Canada for 5% bonds maturing July 1, 1969 and since cancelled.
<ll>$50 million 7{% due 1972 and $25 million 7J% due 1974 exchanged directly with Bank of Canada for $75 million 5$% bonds maturing October 1, 1969. (^Exchangeable between April 1, 1973 and September 30, 1973 into an equal par value of 10 year 7|% bonds to be dated April 1, 1974 and due April 1, 1984.
Source: Department of Finance.
1 mo.
6.87
7.09
7.29
7.25
9606	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3. 1969
Reference Table 69

[Stage Direction]
1964 to 1968
		1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	1st half 1968	2nd half 1968
				(Millions of dollars)			
New Issues in Canadian dollars:	-45	-380	82	800	1,178	333	845480	253	223	230	38	-524	562435	-127	305	1,030	1,216	-191	1,407928	724	1,128	1,172	723	323	400Corporations	613	1.004	558	815	390	204	1861,976	1,601	1,991	3,017	2,329	336	1,993Foreign-Pay Bond Issues:	-5	-5	-205	266	253	13472	267	424	800	927	449	478Corporations	205	394	542	138	399	263	136Total	677	656	961	733	1,592	965	627Total Bond Issues	2,653	2,257	2,952	3,750	3,921	1,301	2,620Taken up by:	24	357	1	334	135	-426	561-191	54	113	873	1,092	364	728Non-bank holders:	1,663	937	1,654	1,580	1,064	922	142480	253	223	230	38	-524	562Holders of Canadian foreign-pay	677	656	961	733	1,592	965	627T T	2,653	2,257	2,952	3,750	3,921	1,301	2,620
COIncludes Treasury bills and outstanding marketable bonds held in Government of Canada Accounts and excludes non-marketable bonds. ^Excludes securities bought by the Canada Pension Plan.
Sources: Bank of Canada and Department of Finance.
June 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9607
Reference Table 70 MORTGAGE LOAN APPROVALS0) 1962 to 1968
	Private Lending Institutions								CMHCW	Total Private and Public
	Conventional Mortgages			NHA						
	Non- Resi- dential	Residential			Total Private Lending	Banks	Life Cos.	Trust Cos., etc/3)		
		Existing <2>
| New								
					(Millions of dollars)					
1962-1964 Average	397	476	638	383	1,894	3	900	991	313	2,207581	749	902	320	2,552	6	1,158	1,388	513	3,065382	471	574	191	1,618	804	814	593	2,211369	655	744	356	2,124	253	800	1,071	737	2,861335	570	963	832	2,700	446	844	1,410	503	3,2031967 I	80	101	133	187	501	15	180	306	59	560107	210	249	32	598	58	221	319	405	1,00393	202	193	46	534	75	220	239	191	'72589	142	169	90	490	105	178	207	81	5711968 I	98	127	243	188	656	88	261	307	84	740IX	74	143	235	205	657	82	237	338	94	75183	138	208	257	686	95	179	412	75	76180	162	277	182	701	181	167	353	250	951
h>Data are on a gross basis, i.e., they do not necessarily take account of cancellations or alterations of loans after initial approval. (^Includes data on farm property.
<*>Includes loan and trust companies, Quebec saving banks, fraternal and mutual benefit societies. u>Includes student housing.
Source: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
9608	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3. 1969
June 3. 1963
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 71
SUMMARY OF SOURCES OF NET NEW FINANCING IN CANADA 1965 to 1968
-	1965	1966	1967	1968
		(Millions of dollars)		
Government of Canada		82	800	1,178
Market securities11*		-380			
Canada Savings Bonds	253	223	230	38Sub-total	-127	305	1,030	1,216Provinces <2* and Municipalities	1,590	1,841	1,427724	Bank loans	198	137	80	28Sub-total	922	1,727	1,921	1,455Corporations and others (J>	1,004	558	815	390474	594	505	522Commercial and Industrial Goods and Bankers' Acceptances	214	22	-53	5Short-term commercial paper	-120	22	57	168Bank loans	1,087	536	1,110	943Sub-total	2,659	1,732	2,434	2,028Individuals	954	1,401*Mortgages from private sector institutions	1,365	1,013	Consumer credit	887	613	768	1,201*Sub-total	2,252	1,626	1,722	2,602TOTAL	5,706	5,390	7,107	7,301
(^Includes Government of Canada Accounts and guaranteed bonds but excludes non-market bonds.
<2>Includes securities purchased by Canada Pension Plan.
(3>Others include unincorporated businesses, farmers, non-financial, religious and non-profit institutions.
<*)Chartered Banks, Quebec Savings Banks, Trust and Loan Companies, Life Insurance Companies. Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires and Trusteed Pension Plans. Includes a small amount of commercial and industrial mortgages.
[DOT]=estimated
Source: Bank of Canada and Department of Finance.
Reference Table 72
ESTIMATES OF NET CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF CHARTERED BANKS«
1966 to 1968
Assets:
Cash«>
Day, call and short loans	
Government of Canada Treasury bills	
Government of Canada bonds	
Provincial bonds (*>
Municipal bonds (J>
' [
Corporate bonds and stock	
Loans to:
Provinces	
Municipalities	
Grain dealers	
Finance companies	
Consumer credit(O	
Other loans to persons (4\(5>
Farmers <4>
Businesses <4>
Other(®>
Residential mortgages	
Net foreign currency assets	
Total (7)	
Liabilities:
Government of Canada deposits	
Personal savings deposits
Chequable	
Non-chequable	1
Fixed term	j
Non-personal term and notice	
Demand	
Total	
1967
1967
[Stage Direction]


(Millions of dollars)
143	-54	45	-27	85	-66	-46	-109	28	47	7974	114	87	56	15	170	-127	-60	78	127	-58214	256	388	183	-72	148	- 3	94	64	455	-225-30	570	519	195	133	215	27	-23	-13	376	179-55	63	31	8	37	30	-12	9	-18	41	- 1- 7	17	20	15	7	17	-22	1	13	629	63	128	3	20	8	32	-27	10	62	8335	119	-56	-24	18	73	52	-71	55	-43	380	-22	107	112	-141	-26	33	211	-78	-65	3937	272	272	292	-148	58	70	45	237	-32	22-107	-72	22	-56	11	-24	- 3	79	-35	-69	38217	519	688	45	253	115	106	77	187	166	258-31	15	50	-23	17	11	10	-22	5	21	4690	116	8	-73	91	65	33	-62	14	31	25427	728	640	125	176	362	65	442	-69	146	12124	- 7	17	-69	-72	-61	195	-67	-70	-59	213-41	53	199	- 9	- 7	23	46	41	57	46	5592	42	179	-27	129	48	-108	-43	102	66	541,191	2,792	3,344	726	552	1,166	348	514	555	1,338	93793	-303	203	-20	-225	-218	160	383	-766	53	533498	/	-1,011	t	f	-556	-289	-367	-141	-2141,488 \	1,565	\ 422	410	501	490	509	482	304	270177	i	1,278	1	221	245	593	351	891,172	743	344	164	581	83	-10	538	264	-49436	354	480	-263	85	290	242	-790	357	564	3491,204	2,711	3,258	483	434	1,154	640	48	837	1,395	978urn i	j
7	r r "	-MAiuwuoj ill me uww xuuuwi ui i/uc quarter.
(2)Bank of Canada notes and deposits.
([DOT]^Securities purchased directly from issuer with a term of less than one year at time of issue are classified as loans.
<4>Data based on the last day of the quarter.
(^Personal loans fully secured by marketable stocks and bonds and Home Improvement loans.
(®>Loans to finance the purchase of Canada Savings Bonds at the time of issue.
WThe difference in changes in assets and liabilities is due mainly to the use of quarter-end data as indicated in note 4 and the exclusion of selected items from the balance sheet.
'net Va?a,dm"dollar 'i6™5 m transit, bank premises, shares of and loans to controlled corporations, coin, inter-bank deposits and other assets are excluded. The following liabilities are also excluded: advances from the Bank of Canada, outstanding debentures, accumulated appropriations for losses, other liabilities and shareholders' equity.
Source: Bank of Canada and Department of Finance.
9610	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3. 1969
Reference Table 73

[Stage Direction]
1966 to 1968
-	1966 1967	I| II | III | IV I I II 1 in 1 IV	Assets: Currency and deposits.	
Short-term notes and bills(1)	
Government of Canada bonds	
Provincial bonds	
Municipal bonds	
Corporate bonds	
Mortgages and sales agreements	
Canadian preferred and common shares	
Other assetsw	-11 93 47 34 1 21 193 8 49	6 37 23 56 -16 51 245 2 26	25 141 62 9 29 308 12 33	-19 111 -23 31 16 39 35 18	(Millie -109 22 25 -16 13 67 1 11	ns of dolla -16 74 4 -8 7 76 2 3	rs) 41 -39 20 -8 -8 67 -1 -6	-12 19 23 -19 7 24 54 3 8	8 2 27 -8 12 84 -2 5	14 125 -39 33 5 96 6 29	15 -5 51 -6 3 -2 74 5 -19Total	435	430	619	208	14	142	66	107	128	268	116Liabilities: Demand and savings deposits	
Certificates and term deposits	
Other liabilities(3)	-19 420 34	67 314 49	61 467 91	13 147 48	18 4 -8	39 82 21	-3 81 -12	-1 78 30	-3 117 14	11 228 29	54 44 18
(^Government of Canada treasury bills, short-term notes of sales finance companies, commercial paper, deposit receipts, certificates and term deposits in chartered banks, trust and mortgage loan companies and collateral loans.
(^Investments in foreign securities, subsidiaries and affiliated companies, interest, dividends and rents receivable, real estate and equipment and other assets. ^
(3>Bank loans, short-term loans and notes payable, amount owing parent and affiliated companies, interest and dividends and other liabilities and shareholders equity.
Source: DBS Business Financial Statistics, Quarterly, Cat. No. 61-006.
June 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9611
Reference Table 74

[Stage Direction]
1966 to 1968
1966	1967	1968	1967	1968	i	ii	in	IV	I	ii	hi	IVAssets:	12	23 10 - 3	(Mil	ions of dol	ars)	-10 16	3 - 9	23 -28Short-term notes and bills*1)	18 1	22	19 -16 11	- 6	31	Government of Canada bonds	18	1	Provincial bonds	8 - 1	- 1	Municipal bonds	1 - 1	- 1	1 65	109 3	127 10 23	160	12	24	11 - 1 -20	34	50 - 1 101	25	11	31	-10	
132	205	202	33				15	39	89	59
											
Liabilities:	19	11 167 27	48 127 27	14 59 - 7	1 38 - 3	3 50 -38	15 - 8 32	13 43 33	17 42114	32	38	- l	
(*'Government of Canada treasury bills, short-term notes of sales finance companies, commercial paper, deposit receipts, certificates and term deposits in chartered banks trust and mortgage loan companies and collateral loans.	'
("'Investments in foreign securities, subsidiaries and affiliated companies, interest, dividends and rents receivable, real estate and equipment and other assets.
("'Bank loans, short-term loans and notes payable, amount owing parent and affiliated companies, interest and dividends and other liabilities and shareholder's equity. Source: DBS Business Financial Statistics.
9612	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1963
Reference Table 75

[Stage Direction]
1966 to 1968
(^Short-term notes of sales finance and other companies and Government of Canada treasury bills. (2>Current assets, investments in foreign bonds and debentures and other assets.
(3>Short-term loans, accounts payable, long-term debt and other liabilities.
1966	1967	1968	1967	1968	i	ii	in	IV	I	i ii	i hi	1 IV ss(Millions of dollars)	Assets:	15	5	80	8	- 5	12	-10	39 -11	- 1 12	15	277	33	12	- 8	16	11	14	3	-37	3	- 9	-15	-12	- 1	-	i -	1	- 9	-10	-14	- 2	2	- 9	- 1	*2	-	- 7	8	- 6	- 1	- 1	- 1- 1	- 2	- 3	-	-	- 1	-23	10 159	91	-12	2	11	1	-20	- 4	81 1	167 3237	262	452	54	73	86	49	45	Other assets(2>	5	39	26	17	2	2	18	21	Total	340	278	551	79	68	68	63	69	180	82	220Liabilities:	301	134	316	35	18	47	34	66	95 48 37	51	10432	125	169	29	40	28	28	19	7	19	66	15	10	- 7	1	- 16	
Source: DBS Business Financial Statistics.
June 3. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9613
Reference Table 76

[Stage Direction]
1966 to 1968
1966	1967	1968	1967	1968	I	ii	hi	IV	I	ii	hi	IVAssets:	1 2	30 1	(Mil	ions of do!	lars)	25 -11 - 1	Short-term notas and bills(1)	- 6 - 2	- 8 - 1	7 33	- 1	- 1	4	j	- 1 5 1 1	- 1 - 1	1	1 1630	28 7	34 10 11	16	1 1 - 3	28	3 2	7	1	
47	15	85		10	1	4	6	36	10	33
											
Liabilities:	13	4	-26	2 - 5 1	1	-12	- 2	1	- 1 10 18 69 62 44	1	- 1	16	- 3	1	1 24	20	16	8	6	2	
WShort-term notes of sales finance and other companies and Government of Canada treasury bills. <2>Current assets, investments in foreign bonds and debentures and other assets.
^Accounts payable and other liabilities. Source: DBS Business Financial Statistics.
9614	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1969
Reference Table 77
ESTIMATES OF NET CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES^)
1966 to 1968
-	1966	1967	1968	1967				1968			
				I | II | III | IV				I | II | III | IV			
Assets: Cash	
Short-term notes and bills(2>	
Government of Canada bonds	
Provincial bonds	
Municipal bonds	
Corporate and other bonds(l)	
Preferred and common shares	
Mortgages	
Real estate	
Policy loans	
Collateral loans	10 -57 -10 -6 136 34 457 44 30 3	7 -26 -17 35 -3 170 68 284 32 29	1 -9 4 26 -19 98 101 332 33 56 2	-12 -1 -15 25 4 71 11 59 10 6	(Mil -22 -15 -8 7 -5 39 18 97 9 9	ions of dol 4 -7 -7 2 30 14 84 8 8	ars) 36 -3 12 2 -3 30 26 44 5 7	-18 67 19 19 -3 17 18 36 10 14	-21 -26 -1 4 43 18 107 7 21	18 -4 -16 21 -1 24 19 86 6 13	20 -47 4 -17 -14 14 46 104 11 10 2Total W)	640	580	623	159	129	136	156	177	152	163	131
0>Data based on Canadian dollar transactions of sixteen life insurance companies having in 1967, 81% of net premium income of all federal companies. ^Federal, provincial and municipal treasury bills, short-term paper of sales financial companies, corporate and bank paper and trust company certificates. <*>Other bonds consist of issue of Canadian religious and other institutions and issue of foreign debtors in Canadian dollars.
(OTotal net change in assets is equal to total net change in life insurance and pension liabilities.
Source: The Canadian Life Insurance Association.
June 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	9615
Reference Table 78

[Stage Direction]
1966 to 1968
-	1966	1967	1968	1967				1968			
				I | II 1 III | IV				I | II | III | IV			
Assets: Cash and deposits	
Short term notes and bills'1)	
Government of Canada bonds	
Other Canadian bonds	
Consumer credit	
Commercial and wholesale credit	
Claims on associated enterprises	
Other assets'2)	
Total	
Liabilities: Short-term bank loans	
Demand and short-term notes (Canadian)	
Demand and short-term notes (Foreign)	
Long-term bonds (Canadian)	
Long-term bonds (Foreign)	
Unearned income	
Owing parent and affiliates	
Other liabilities'*)	53 6 10 -8 173 -25 112 -175	-2 20 - 5 42 61 -14 -115 139	-13 -17 7 - 3 229 95 -26 155	3 23 - 6 27 -19 13 - 2 24	(Mil -32 -17 2 7 94 - 3 -28 6	lions of do! - 6 - 2 -	5 -	8 3 -133 -65 76	lare) 33 16 4 6 -17 109 -20 33	-11 -17 - 2 - 8 - 4 46 -13 15	- 8 21 5 - 2 128 75 30	21 19 - 6 - 2 55 -177 - 2 57	-15 -40 10 9 50 151 -11 53146	126	427	63	39	-140	164	6	249	-35	207-132 164 -71 21 73 21 113 -43	-43 -33 24 111 5 66 -37 33	-47 344 -15 60 -26 67 16 28	-111 108 2 25 5 13 10 11	14 -41 -13 38 -9 23 9 18	-20 -63 10 7 1 17 -72 -20	74 -37 25 41 8 13 16 24	-31 177 -25 -58 -	5 4 -	7 -49	-47 179 - 4 15 12 32 3 59	-74 -17 -16 28 10 12 - 8 30	105 5 30 75 -43 19 28 -12
'^Short-term notes of finance and other companies and Government of Canada treasury bills.
'2)Includes investments in preferred and common shares, foreign securities, fixed assets and other investments. (3)Accounts payable and other current liabilities and shareholders' equity.
Source: DBS Business Financial Statistics.
9616	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1969
June 3, 1S69


[Stage Direction]
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction	 9619
Highlights of the government's financial operations during 1968-69. 9619
Budgetary accounts	 9623
Revenue	 9623
Expenditure	 9633
Assets and liabilities as at March 31, 1969	 9669
Summary	 9670
Liability accounts	 9670
Asset accounts	 9683
Net debt	 9696
The cash position	 9696
The public debt	 9699
Supplementary detailed tables	 9707
June 3, 1969


[Stage Direction]
This Part of the Budget Papers presents in summary form a review of the accounts of the Government of Canada for the fiscal year 1968-69. Although the fiscal year of the government ended on March 31, the books must remain open for some time after that date to record various adjusting entries and to take into account section 35 of the Financial Administration Act which provides that for thirty days after the end of each fiscal year payments for the discharge of debts properly applicable to the old year may be made and charged to that year. Consequently the figures used in this report are preliminary and subject to revision and the final figures when they become available next July or August will vary to some extent from those given in the following pages.
In 1968-69, in order to improve the functioning of the government service, major changes were made in the control and supervision of the duties and functions of a number of departments and several new departments were established.
The newly formed departments are: Communications, which is responsible for the operations of the Post Office, matters relating to telecommunications, and the development and utilization generally of communication undertakings, facilities, systems and services; Fisheries and Forestry, which is responsible for matters relating to the sea coast and inland fisheries and the forest resources of Canada; Industry and Trade and Commerce, which is responsible for matters relating to the manufacturing and processing industries in Canada, tourism, and trade and commerce generally; Regional Economic Expansion, which is responsible for matters relating to economic expansion and social adjustment in areas requiring special measures; and Supply and Services, which is responsible for matters relating to the acquisition and provision of materiel and services for departments.
The presentation of expenditures in this report follows the 1968-69 Revised Estimates which were established to conform to the reorganization of government departments. For purposes of comparison the 1967-68 figures have been adjusted accordingly.
More detailed information in respect of the realignment of duties and responsibilities are given in the departmental references to expenditures in subsequent pages of this report.

[Stage Direction]
This section outlines the financial operations of the government in 1968-69 giving a brief summary of the budgetary and non-budgetary transactions, the unmatured debt transactions and the changes in the cash position and the debt
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
position during the fiscal year. More detailed explanations are given in subsequent sections of this review.
The following table summarizes the budgetary and non-budgetary transactions for 1968-69 with comparative figures for 1967-68 and indicates how these transactions affected the government's cash balances.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Summary of Budgetary and Non-Budgetary Transactions and Changes in Cash Position
Budgetary transactions-
Revenue-
Tax	
Non-tax	
Expenditure	
Deficit (-)	
Non-budgetary transactions (excluding unmatured debt transactions) Receipts and credits-
Net annuity, insurance and pension accounts receipts	
Repayment of advances to exchange fund account	
Canada pension plan account	
Investments in United States dollar securities issued by other
than the Government of Canada	
Increase in non-interest-bearing notes payable on demand.
Repayment of loans, investments and advances	
Other	
Disbursements and charges-
Advances to exchange fund account	
Loans, investments and advances	
Canada pension plan investment fund	
Decrease in non-interes1>-bearing notes payable on demand Other	
Net amount available from, or required for (-), non-budgetary transactions	
Overall cash requirement to be financed by increase in unmatured debt or decrease in cash balances	
Net increase in unmatured debt outstanding in hands of the public	
Net Increase or decrease (-) in Receiver General bank balances....
Fiscal year ended March 31
1969 (preliminary)	1968
8,988	8,016
1,181	1,013
10,169	9,029
10,735	9,824
- 566	-795
709	465
	322
755	672
32	57
	450
98	
411	445
2,005	2,411
834	
1,153	1,471
742	665
216	
433	69
3,378	2,205
-1,373	206
-1,939	-589
1,523	790
-416	201
Note: In 1968-69 revenues arising from Department of Transport air services and marine services expenditures were credited thereto. For purposes of comparison the 1967-68 figures have been adjusted.
Budgetary transactions
The budgetary revenue, expenditure and deficit as forecast in the budget speech of October 22, 1968 and the actual figures as now estimated are shown in the following table:
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Budgetary Transactions for Fiscal Year 1968-69	Budget forecast October 22, 1968	Actual (preliminary)	Increase or decrease (-) compared with October 22, 1968 forecast	
			Amount	Per cent
10,105	10,169	64	0.63Expenditure	10,780	10,735	-45	-0.42675	566	-109	
Revenue
Budgetary revenue of the government amounted to $10,169 million for 1968-69. This was $64 million or about one half of one per cent more than the figure of $10,105 million forecast on October 22, 1968 and $1,140 million or 13 per cent more than the total collected in 1967-68.
Tax revenue accounted for $972 million of the increase and non-tax revenue accounted for $168 million of the increase over 1967-68 receipts.
The yield from income taxes was $917 million higher and from return on investments $81 million higher than in 1967-68.
Expenditure
Budgetary expenditure amounted to $10,735 million, $45 million or approximately one half of one per cent less than the figure of $10,780 million forecast on October 22, 1968 and $911 million or 9 per cent higher than expenditure in 1967-68.
The main changes over 1967-68 were increases of $178 million in public debt charges, $130 million in fiscal, subsidy and other payments to provinces, $169 million in post-secondary education payments, $23 million in amortization of actuarial deficiencies in the public service superannuation account, $85 million in the adult occupational training program, $91 million in the government's contribution under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and a decrease of $81 million in the technical and vocational training program.
Deficit
On the basis of these preliminary figures, expenditures of $10,735 million exceeded revenues of $10,169 million resulting in a deficit of $566 million compared with a deficit of $675 million as forecast on October 22, 1968 and a deficit of $795 million in 1967-68.
Non-budgetary transactions (excluding unmatured debt transactions)
Non-budgetary transactions are those which increase or decrease the government's asset and liability accounts and do not enter into the calculation of the annual budgetary surplus or deficit.
In 1968-69 net disbursements and charges of $3,378 million exceeded net receipts and credits of $2,005 million, resulting in a net requirement of $1,373
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
million. In 1967-68 net receipts and credits were $2,411 million and net disbursements and charges were $2,205 million, resulting in a net receipt of $206 million.
Old age security fund
^ Receipts by the fund during 1968-69 of $1,620 million exceeded payments of $1,544 million by $76 million. In 1967-68 receipts of $1,495 million exceeded payments of $1,388 million by $107 million.
The transactions in the fund during 1968-69 compared with those for 1967-68 were as follows:
Fiscal year ended March 31
1969	iqco
(preliminary)	iyDO
(in millions of dollars)
Balance in fund at beginning of fiscal year	 536	429
Receipts-
Sales tax	
622	545.Personal income tax	
915	gQOCorporation income tax	
133	159i~v* 1	.	2,156	1,924
Disbursements-
Pension payments	
-1 544	__j 333Balance in fund at end of fiscal year	
612	536
Canada 'pension plan account
Receipts during 1968-69 were $786 million and disbursements were $31 million. In 1967-68 receipts were $685 million and disbursements were $13 million.
The transactions in the account during 1968-69 compared with those in 1967-68 were as follows:
Fiscal year ended March 31 1969	1Qfia
(preliminary)
(in millions ol dollars)
Balance at beginning of fiscal year	 1 353	681
	 '786	685
Disbursements	
-31	_i3Balance at end of fiscal year	
2,108	1 353
At March 31, 1969 the balance in the account consisted of an operating balance of $85 million on deposit with the government and provincial securities n the amount of $2,012 million and Government of Canada securities in the amount of $11 million recorded in the Canada pension plan investment fund.
Unmatured debt transactions
Unmatured debt transactions in 1968-69 reflected an increase of $1,523 million in unmatured debt outstanding in the hands of the public compared with an increase of $790 million in 1967-68.
Change in cash position
Receiver General bank balances in current deposits were $416 million less at March 31, 1969 than at the previous fiscal year-end. The budgetary deficit
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
of $566 million plus non-budgetary requirements of $1,373 million was financed by an increase of $1,523 million in outstanding unmatured debt and a drawdown of $416 million in Receiver General bank balances.
Change in debt position
As a result of budgetary and non-budgetary transactions the gross liabilities increased by $2,928 million to $35,852 million at March 31, 1969, net recorded assets increased by $2,362 million to $18,526 million and net debt increased by $566 million to $17,326 million.
Fiscal year ended March 31 1969	^0	Increase or
(preliminary)	decrease (-)
(in millions of dollars)
Gross liabilities	
35,852	32,924	2,928Less net recorded assets	
18,526	16,164	2,362Net debt	
17,326	16,760	566

[Stage Direction]
Total budgetary revenue is estimated at $10,169 million in 1968-69, budgetary expenditure at $10,735 million and the budgetary deficit at $566 million.
In 1968-69 the practice whereby revenue arising from a particular vote is credited thereto was extended to include Department of Transport vote 5, marine services and vote 30, air services.
The figures in the following table for prior years have not been changed but subsequent tables show 1967-68 figures as amended for comparative purposes.

[Stage Direction]
Budgetary Revenue, Expenditure and Deficit (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal Year ended March 31	Budgetary revenue	Budgetary expenditure	Surplus or deficit (-)5,289.8	5,702.9	-413.15,617.7	5,958.1	-340.45,729.6	6,520.6	-791.05,878.7	6,570.3	-691.66,253.2	6,872.4	-619.27,180.3	7,218.3	-38.07,695.8	7,734.8	-39.08,376.2	8,797.7	-421.59,076.6	9,871.4	-794.81969 (preliminary)	10,169.0	10,735.0	-566.0
Revenue
Budgetary revenue in 1968-69 is estimated at $10,169 million, $1,140 million or 13 per cent over the total of $9,029 million received in 1967-68. Tax revenue at $8,988 million accounted for 88 per cent of the total revenue for the fiscal year and non-tax revenue at $1,181 million accounted for 12 per cent.
The more important items are increases of $572 million in personal income tax collections, $359 million in corporation income taxes, $81 million in return on investments and $23 million in postal revenue.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31
BUDGETARY REVENUE	BUDGETARY EXPENDITURE
BY MAJOR SOURCE	BY MAJOR FUNCTION
For Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1969 Preliminary
1. Does not Include payments owl ol old age iecwrily fund.
*[DOT] Does not Include those payments made to provincial and municipal for specific purposes.
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Budgetary Revenue by Major Sources (in millions of doEars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31				Increase or decrease (-)	
Source	1969 (preliminary)	1968	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per centTax revenue- Income tax- Personal 	3,422.0	33.7	2,849.6	31.6	572.4	20.1Corporation® W	2,030.0	20.0	1,670.6	18.5	359.4	21.5On dividends, interest, etc., going abroad	206.0	2.0	220.5	2.5	-14.5	-6.6Excise taxes-	Sales®®	1,572.0	15.4	1,601.1	17.7	-29.1	-1.8Other®	377.0	3.7	337.0	3.7	40.0	11.9760.0	7.5	746.4	8.3	13.6	1.8Excise duties®	509.0	5.0	488.6	5.4	20.4	4.2Estate tax	111.7	1.1	102.2	1.1	9.5	9.3Other taxes	0.3 8,988.0	88.4	0.3 8,016.8	88.8	971.7	16.1Non-tax revenue-	Return on investments	693.0	6.8	612.3	6.8	80.7	13.2Post office-net postal revenue	305.0	3.0	281.6	3.1	23.4	8.3Other non-tax revenue	183.0	1.8	119.0	1.3	64.0	53.81,181.0	11.6	1,016.9	11. 6	168.1	16.6Total budgetary revenue!*)	10,169.0	100.0	9,029.2	100.0	1,139.8	12.6®Excluding credits to: The old age security fund-	1968-69	1967-68Personal income tax	800.1Corporation income tax	150.0
522.0	544.51,620.0	1,494.6
(s) Net after deduction of refunds and drawbacks.
® Department of Transport votes 5 and 30, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1968 gave authority to credit thereto revenue arising from services provided thereunder, lor purposes of comparison the 1967-68 total has been adjusted.
9626
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31 Billions of Dollars
[Stage Direction]
1965	1966
Preliminary
1968
1969*
1969*

[Stage Direction]
Federal-provincial fiscal arrangements
Under fiscal arrangements, that became operative in 1962, the federal government withdrew in part from the field of direct taxation and left the vacated area to the provinces. The federal government offered to collect the provincial income taxes without charge provided that provincial personal income tax was expressed as a percentage of federal personal income tax otherwise payable and provincial corporation income tax applied to taxable income calculated in the same way as for federal income tax purposes. To allow for the imposition of the provincial income taxes, the Income Tax Act was amended to abate the federal income tax otherwise payable by individuals in all provinces except Quebec by 24 per cent in 1966 and 28 per cent in 1967, 1968 and 1969. For 1966 the abatement of federal income tax otherwise payable in the Province of Quebec was 47 per cent; for 1967, 1968 and 1969, the abatement was 50 per cent. These higher abatements for Quebec are in compensation of the fact that the payment of youth allowances and the full cost of certain programs which are supported jointly by federal and provincial governments in the other provinces have been assumed by Quebec. For the year 1966 the federal corporation income tax rates were abated by 9 percentage points for taxable income earned in a province other than Quebec and by 10 percentage points for taxable income earned in Quebec. For 1967, 1968 and 1969 the abatement was 10 percentage points for all provinces. The federal government has entered into tax-collection agreements under which it collects the provincial personal income taxes of all provinces except Quebec and the provincial corporation income taxes of all provinces except Ontario and Quebec.
June 3, 1963
[Stage Direction]
Under these collection agreements, payments are made monthly to each province based on an estimate of that province's tax revenue. The actual amounts due based on assessed returns are established as at December 31 following the end of the fiscal year and adjustments are made with the provinces.
Under the present fiscal arrangements, the federal government agreed to abate its estate tax by 50 per cent in the fiscal years 1962-63 and 1963-64, and by 75 per cent thereafter, in any province that imposed its own succession duties. To a province that did not wish to re-enter the succession duty field the federal government agreed to pay 50 per cent of the federal estate tax revenue from within the province in 1962-63 and 1963-64 and 75 per cent thereafter. During
1962-	63, Quebec and Ontario collected their own succession duties while the other provinces received a payment in lieu of imposing duties. Starting in
1963-	64 British Columbia joined Ontario and Quebec in imposing its own succession duties. When the estate tax abatement was raised to 75 per cent in
1964-	65, British Columbia increased its succession duty rates accordingly but Quebec and Ontario preferred to take in lieu of the extra abatement a payment equivalent to 25 per cent of the federal estate tax in those provinces. This arrangement also carried into 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69.
Tax on personal income
In 1968-69 personal income tax was again the largest source of government revenue. Its yield (excluding the old age security tax) was 83,422 million or 34 per cent of all budgetary revenue compared with 12,850 million or 32 per cent in 1967-68. The increase of $572 million was due mainly to a higher level of personal incomes in 1968-69, partly due to a temporary surtax of 3 per cent on the basic tax in excess of $200 applied in respect of tax imposed on 1968 and 1969 income and partly to a social development tax of 2 per cent on taxable income up to a maximum tax of $120 per annum applied in respect of 1969 income.
In addition to the federal revenue, $1,090 million was allocated to the provincial tax collection agreements account under the terms of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements compared with $961 million in 1967-68.
The tax on personal incomes levied under the Old Age Security Act and credited to the old age security fund was $915 million compared with $800 million in 1967-68. This increase of $115 million was due mainly to higher levels of personal income in 1968-69.
Corporation income tax
Corporation income tax was the second largest source of government revenue. The yield (excluding the old age security tax) was $2,030 million or 20 per cent of total budgetary revenue compared with $1,671 million or 19 per cent in 1967-68. The increase of $359 million was due to the shift fonvard of the payment period for corporations announced in November 1967 and to the termination of the accelerated depreciation programs at the end of 1966 and early in 1967 and to the three year curtailment of capital cost allowances for certain classes of assets-purchased between March 30, 1966 and April 1, 1967.
29180-609a
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
In addition to the federal revenue, $196 million was allocated to the provincial tax collection agreements account under terms of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements compared with $167 million in 1967-68.
The tax on incomes of corporations levied under the Old Age Security Act and credited to the old age security fund was $183 million, compared with $150 million in 1967-68.
Taxes on dividends, interest, etc., going abroad
Revenue in this category is derived from taxes withheld from payments of dividends, interest, rents, royalties, alimony and income from estates and trusts paid to non-residents. Collections for 1968-69 were $206 million, a decrease of $15 million or 7 per cent from the 1967-68 total.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31 Millions of Dollars
Excise taxes
From a revenue standpoint the general sales tax is the most important tax levied under the Excise Tax Act. Receipts (excluding the old age security tax) were $1,572 million, $29 million less than 1967-68 receipts. The decline in receipts reflects the cancellation of the sales tax on production machinery and on drugs enacted during 1967-68.
The sales tax levied under the Old Age Security Act and credited to the old age security fund was $522 million compared with $545 million in 1967-68.
The yield from other excise taxes levied under the Excise Tax Act was $377 million, $40 million more than in 1967-68. The increase was due to increases in the excise taxes on tobacco products and on wines applied from December 1,
1967.
Customs import duties
Receipts from this source totalled $760 million compared with $746 million in 1967-68.
June 3, 1369
[Stage Direction]
Excise duties
Excise duties are levied on alcoholic beverages (other than wines) and tobacco products. (Additional taxes on tobacco products are levied under the Excise Tax Act.) Net receipts in 1968-69 were $509 million compared with $489 million in 1967-68.
Gross receipts of $321 million from duties on alcoholic beverages consisted of $187 million in respect of spirits and $134 million in respect of beer and were $20 million higher than collections of $301 million in 1967-68 of which $181 million was in respect of spirits and $120 million in respect of beer. This was due mainly to increases in the duties on spirits and beer applied from December 1, 1967.
Gross receipts of $196 million from duties on tobacco products were $1 million more than in 1967-68.
Refunds and drawbacks of $8 million resulted in net excise duty collections of $509 million in 1968-69. In 1967-68 refunds and drawbacks were $7 million and net receipts were $489 million.
Estate tax
Revenue in this category is derived under the Estate Tax Act. Net receipts of $112 million were $10 million more than in 1967-68.
Other taxes
Revenue under this heading during the fiscal year was $300 thousand the same as in the previous fiscal year.

[Stage Direction]
Non-tax revenue totalled $1,181 million compared with $1,013 million in 1967-68. The increase of $168 million was due mainly to increases of $81 million in return on investments, $23 million in post office revenue and $61 million in bullion and coinage.
It is noted that Department of Transport vote 5 and vote 30, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1968, which covered administration, operation and maintenance costs of marine services and air services respectively, gave authority to credit thereto revenue arising from services provided thereunder. Consequently such revenue is not reflected in the accounts as revenue. For purposes of comparison the 1967-68 figures have been amended accordingly.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Non-Tax Revenue	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase or decrease (-)	1969 (preliminary)	1968	Amount	Per cent693.0	612.3	80.7	13.2305.0	281.6	23.4	8.321.0	21.1	-0.1	-0.529.0	31.7	-2.7	-8.516.0	17.3	-1.3	-7.531.0	23.5	7.5	31.972.0	10.7	61.3	572.914.0	14.7	-0.7	-4.8
1,181.0	1,012.9	168.1	16.6
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Return on investments
These receipts, in an amount of $693 million, consisted of income derived from loans and advances made by the government and from investments by the government in productive or earning assets. In 1967-68 receipts were $612 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Return on Investments	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations- Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	0.7	0.8	-0.1Bank of Canada-profits	186.2	177.0	9.2Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation	0.8	0.2	0.6Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	5.0	3.8	1.2Canadian Commercial Corporation-net profit	0.1	0.1	Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition... .	7.1	9.9	-2.8Canadian Dairy Commission	1.5	0.9	0.6Canadian National Railways	35.8	22.5	13.3Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. . ..	2.6	2.5	0.1Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation- Interest on debentures	194.7	156.7	38.0Net profit	10.0	6.6	3.4204.7	163. S	41-4Crown Assets Disposal Corporation	1.0	0.2	0.8Exports Credits Insurance Corporation	10.3	9.5	0.8Farm Credit Corporation	50.5	34.6	15.9National Capital Commission	4.2	3.8	0.4National Harbours Board	2.1	1.4	0.7Northern Canada Power Commission	4.0	3.8	0.2Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation	0.7	-0.7Polymer Corporation Limited	2.6	-2.6The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	11.2	10.8	0.4527.8	448.4	79.4Other loans and investments- United Kingdom	2.7	21.2	-18.5Other national governments	3.6	3.9	-0.3Provincial governments	0.5	0.6	-0.1Exchange fund account	84.5	55.2	29.3Interest-bearing deposits with chartered banks	23.6	23.4	0.2Municipal Development and Loan Board	14.2	12.7	1.5Securities investment account	1.1	17.0	-15.9Soldier and general land settlement loans and veterans land act advances	14.5	13.0	1.5Investments in United States dollar securities issued by other than the government of Canada	5.2	6.6	-1.4International bank for reconstruction and development..	2.0	-2.0Investments held for retirement of debt	0.6	0.3	0.3International monetary fund	3.0	3.0National Defence-housing loans	1.2	1.2Quebec-re Expo 1967	1.9	1.9Miscellaneous	8.6	8.0	0.6165.2	163.9	1.3693.0	612.3	80.7
Receipts from Crown corporations at $528 million were $79 million more than in the previous year. The main changes were increases of $41 million in payments by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, $16 million by the Farm Credit Corporation, $13 million by the Canadian National Railways and $9 million in the Bank of Canada profits paid to the government.
June 3, 19S3
[Stage Direction]
The yield from other loans and investments was $165 million compared with $164 million in 1967-68. The main items resulting in the increase of $1 million were the deferment of the interest payment in the amount of $19 million which was due on December 31, 1968 on the loan to the United Kingdom, a decrease of $16 million in earnings of the securities investment account and an increase of $29 million in interest in respect of the exchange fund account.
Post office revenue
Gross receipts from post office operations were $360 million but authorized disbursements from revenue for salaries and rent allowances, other allowances and commissions at semi-staff and revenue offices, commissions at sub-offices, transit charges on Canadian mail forwarded through and delivered in foreign countries, etc. in the amount of $55 million brought net revenue to $305 million. In 1967-68 gross revenue was $327 million, authorized disbursements were $45 million and net revenue was $282 million.
Net costs of operating the Post Office Department during 1968-69 (excluding the $55 million charged to revenue) were $347 million. As net revenue was $305 million there was a net operating deficit of $42 million. In 1967-68 net revenue was $282 million, net operating costs were $302 million and the net

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Post Office Revenue	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Postage-			
In Canada	339.4	307.1	32.3From foreign countries	6.0	6.4	-0.4Commission on money orders	10.0	9.4	0.6Rental of post office boxes	2.6	2.5	0.11.5	1.7	-0.2S59.5	S27.1	Si. 4Less-	Salaries and allowances-	Revenue post offices	-14.4	-11.9	-2.5Semi-staff post offices	-26.4	-21.7	-4.7Sub-post offices	-7.1	-5.9	-1.2Transit charges to or through foreign countries	-4.8	-4.3	-0.5Other	-1.8	-1.7	-0.1-54.5	-45.5	-9.0305.0	281.6	23.4
June 3, 1969
operating deficit was $20 million. The higher receipts in 1968-69 resulted from increased postal rates and the increase in costs was due mainly to higher salary rates and to normal staff growth.
However, it should be noted that the total shown for post office revenue does not reflect any payment for the franking privilege covering parliamentary and departmental mail or for certain miscellaneous services provided for other government departments and agencies, nor does the total shown for operating expenses reflect any charges for premises occupied by the Post Office Department or for accounting and miscellaneous services provided by other departments.
Refunds of previous years' expenditure
Refunds received in 1968-69 of expenditure made in prior years totalled $21 million the same as in 1967-68.
The Department of National Defence received $7 million of which $2 million was due to cost audits and $3 million to adjustments on contracts with the United States government and the Department of Veterans Affairs received $4 million in refunds of veterans pensions, allowances and re-establishment credits.
Services and service fees
Revenue from this source was $29 million compared with $32 million in 1967-68.
The Department of Agriculture received $10 million of which $5 million was for services in connection with the inspection, weighing, storage and elevation of grain and $2 million for race track supervision; the Department of Finance received $3 million mainly numismatic revenue; and the Department of National Health and Welfare received $6 million including a $3 million reimbursement by the provinces for treatment of Indians in federal government hospitals.
Proceeds from sales
Receipts of $16 million were $1 million less than in 1967-68.
The Department of Supply and Services received $4 million from the sale of surplus Crown assets and $2 million from the sale of publications; Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation received $3 million from the sales of properties; and the Department of Agriculture received $2 million from the sale of livestock and produce.
Privileges, licences and permits
Revenue from this category totalled $31 million for 1968-69, $8 million more than in the previous fiscal year.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received $15 million of which $9 million was from fees, leases and royalties in respect
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
of oil, gas and gold and $1 million from transient motor vehicle licences; the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs received $6 million from patents, trade marks, charters, etc. and the Department of Public Works received $5 million for rental of public buildings and sites.
Bullion and coinage
Revenue of $72 million derived from the operation of the Royal Canadian Mint consisted mainly of a net gain on coinage resulting from the change in the composition of 10 cent, 25 cent and 50 cent coins. Small amounts were also obtained from gold refining charges, handling charges and gain on gold refining. In 1967-68 revenue from the operation of the Mint totalled $11 million.
Other non-tax revenue
Other non-tax revenue of $14 million was $1 million less than in 1967-68.
Expenditure
Budgetary expenditure is estimated at $10,735 million for 1968-69, $911 million or 9 per cent higher than in 1967-68.
The presentation of expenditures in this report follows the 1968-69 Revised Estimates which were established to conform to the reorganization of government departments. For purposes of comparison the 1967-68 figures have been adjusted accordingly.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31
9634
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Statement of Budgetary Expenditure by Departments (in millions of dollars)
-	Fiscal year ended March 31				Increase or decrease (-)	
	1969 (preliminary)		1968			
Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per centAgriculture	286.0	2.7	276.4	2.8	9.6	3.5Communications	357.5	3.3	312.8	3.2	44.7	14.3Consumer and Corporate Affairs	14.0	0.1	12.9	0.1	1.1	8.5Energy, Mines and Resources	182.0	1.7	203.3	2.1	-21.3	-10.5External Affairs	225.0	2.1	215.7	2.2	9.3	4.3Finance	2,419.7	22.5	2,121.0	21.6	298.7	14.1Fisheries and Forestry	71.0	0.6	73.8	0.7	-2.8	-3.8Governor General	1.0	1.0	Indian Affairs and Northern Develop-	ment	265.0	2.5	231.4	2.3	33.6	14.5Industry and Trade and Commerce	204.0	1.9	186.3	1.9	17.7	9.5Justice	17.0	0.2	15.4	0.1	1.6	10.4Labour	138.0	1.3	118.0	1.2	20.0	16.9Legislature	18.5	0.2	18.3	0.2	0.2	1.1Manpower and Immigration	415.0	3.9	417.9	4.3	-2.9	-0.7National Defence	1,762.0	16.4	1,756.1	17.9	5.9	0.3National Health and Welfare	1,670.0	15.6	1,509.0	15.4	161.0	10.7National Revenue	120.0	1.1	115.1	1.2	4.9	4.3Privy Council	9.5	0.1	11.1	0.1	-1.6	-14.4Public Works	282.0	2.6	290.9	3.0	-8.9	-3.1Regional Economic Expansion	170.0	1.6	159.6	1.6	10.4	6.5Secretary of State	530.0	4.9	365.7	3.7	164.3	45.0Solicitor General	160.0	1.5	153.5	1.6	6.5	4.2Supply and Services	66.0	0.6	64.6	0.7	1.4	2.2Transport	501.8	4.7	534.1	5.4	-32.3	-6.0Treasury Board	423.0	3.9	259.3	2.6	163.7	63.1Veterans Affairs	427.0	4.0	400.8	4.1	26.2	6.610,735.0	100.0	9,824.0	100.0	911.0	9.2
Note. Department of Transport votes 5 and 30, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1968 gave authority to credit thereto revenue arising from services provided thereunder. For purposes of comparison the 1967-68 total has been adjusted.
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31
1.	The unshaded areas el *he columns in ihe chart for health, welfare and social security representlpension payments out of old age security fund not charged to budgetary expenditure,
2.	Does not include those payments made to provincial and municipal governments for specific purposes.
Preliminary
Agriculture
Expenditures of the Department of Agriculture were $286 million compared with $276 million in 1967-68.
Expenditures in respect of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, which in 1967-68 were included in expenditures of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development, are now included under the Department of Agriculture and expenditures in respect of land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects, which were included under the Department of Agriculture in 1967-68, are now included under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Agriculture	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Production and marketing- Agricultural stabilization board-net operating loss	143.0	139.7	3.3Other	51.0	36.6	14.4194-0	176.3	17.7Research	44.0	39.7	4.3Administration and general	48.0	60.4	-12.4286.0	276.4	9.6
29180-610£
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Outlays for production and marketing at $194 million were $18 million more than in the previous year. The charge to expenditure in 1968-69 in respect of net operating losses of the agricultural stabilization board at $143 million was $3 million higher than the 1967-68 total.
Expenditures for research were $44 million compared with $40 million in 1967-68.
Communications
Expenditures in respect of Communications for 1968-69 were $357 million compared with $313 million in 1967-68. These comprise expenditures of the Post Office Department, the government telecommunications policy and administration bureau from the Department of Transport, a portion of the telecommunications and electronics branch of that department and elements of the defence research telecommunications establishment from the Defence Research Board.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Communications	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Post Office- Operations- Salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices and railway mail services; and supplies and equipment and other items for revenue post offices	245.2	205.6	39.6Salaries of postmasters and staff at revenue and semistaff offices, commissions paid at sub-offices and other distributions^1)	54.5	45.5	9.0Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water	91.1	87.1	4.0Financial services	4.7	4.6	0 1Administration and general	6.0	4.5	1.5Gross post-office expenditure	401.5	347.3	54.2Less: charged to revenue	-54.5	-45.5	-9.0Research satellite program	347.0 3.5	301.8 3.5	45.2Administration and general	7.0	7.5	-0.5357.5	312.8	44.7
(1) Charged to budgetary revenue.
Costs of the Post Office charged to budgetary expenditure at $347 million were $45 million more than in 1967-68 due mainly to normal staff growth and salary increases.
Costs of operations at $245 million were $40 million more than in 1967-68 and costs of movement of mail were $4 million more.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Remuneration of postmasters and staff at revenue and semi-staff offices and certain other disbursements are paid from revenue. These payments at $55 million ($9 million more than in 1967-68) brought gross post office expenditure to $402 million compared with $347 million in 1967-68.
Other expenditures of $10 million included $3 million for the research satellite program. In 1967-68 other expenditures totalled $11 million of which $3 million was for the research satellite program.
Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Expenditures of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs were $14 million, $1 million higher than comparable figures for 1967-68.
These figures include the expenditures of the standards branch which were formerly included under the Department of Trade and Commerce and some administration expenditures transferred under the government reorganization from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of National Health and Welfare.
TABLE 11 (in millions of dollars)
Consumer and Corporate Affairs	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Patent division, copyright and industrial designs division and trade marks office	3.5	4.2	-0.7Combines Investigation Act-administration	1.3	1.2	0.1Bankruptcy Act-administration	0.9	0.8	0.1Corporations Branch	0.3	0.2	0.1Standards Branch	3.2	4.2	-1.0Administration and general	4.8	2.3	2.514.0	12.9	1.1
Energy, Mines and Resources
Expenditures of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources including Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Atomic Energy Control Board which in previous years had been shown under a separate heading, the Dominion Coal Board and the National Energy Board amounted to $182 million, a decrease of $21 million from the 1967-68 total.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Expenditures of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and expenditures for subventions in respect of eastern coal which were included in expenditures of this department in 1967-68 are now included in the expenditures of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Previous years figures have been adjusted for purposes of comparison.
TABLE 12 (in millions of dollars)
Energy, Mines and Resources	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Mines, minerals, energy and geosciences-			
Emergency gold mining assistance	14.6	15.2	-0.6Field and air surveys, mapping and aeronautical charting	10.5	10.1	0.4Geological research	10.0	9.4	0.6Mining and metallurgical investigations and research	8.5	7.6	0.9Research in astronomy and geophysics	5.3	5.4	-0.1Polar continental shelf	2.0	1.6	0.4Other	2.6	3.8	-1.253.6	53.1	0.4Water and co-ordination of renewable resources programs-	Marine surveys and research	19.0	20.3	-1.3Research and investigations on water resources	16.4	13.3	3.1Contributions to provinces towards construction of dams	and other works	3.3	6.9	-3.6Other	2.5	2.541.3	40.5	0.7Administration and general	6.1	5.2	0.9100.8	98.8	2.0Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	68.6	66.5	2.1Atomic Energy Control Board	4.0	2.8	1.2Dominion Coal Board	7.1	33.6	-26.5National Energy Board	1.5	1.6	-0.1182.0	203.3	-21.3
Expenditures for mines, minerals, energy and geosciences were $53 million compared with $53 million in 1967-68. The larger items in these expenditures were $14 million for emergency gold mining assistance compared with $15 million in 1967-68, $10 million for field and air surveys compared with $10 million, $10 million for geological research compared with $9 million, $9 million for mining and metallurgical investigations and research compared with $8 million and $5 million for research in astronomy and geophysics compared with $5 million in 1967-68.
Expenditures for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited were $69 million, an increase of $2 million, for Atomic Energy Control Board $4 million, an increase of $1 million, for the Dominion Coal Board $7 million, a decrease of $26 million and for the National Energy Board $2 million in each fiscal year.
June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures for water and co-ordination of renewable resources programs were $41 million compared with $41 million in 1967-68. Included in these expenditures were $19 million for marine surveys and research compared with $20 million in 1967-68 and $16 million for research and investigations on water resources compared with $13 million in 1967-68.
External Affairs
Expenditures of the Department of External Affairs amounted to $225 million for 1968-69, $9 million more than the total for the previous year.
Expenditures of the Canadian international development agency, formerly the external aid office, were $141 million compared with $135 million in 1967-68. Included in these expenditures were $69 million for the international food aid program ($76 million in 1967-68), $62 million for international development assistance ($50 million in 1967-68) and $5 million for contributions to approved development assistance projects undertaken by Canadian non-governmental organizations, a new program in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
External Affairs	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Canadian International Development Agency- Economic, technical, educational and other assistance-	International food aid program	68.9	76.3	-7.4International development assistance	61.9	50.0	11.9Contributions to approved development assistance projects undertaken by Canadian non-govem-	mental organizations	5.0	5.0Contribution to the Indus Basin development fund..	1.4	5.0	-3.6Other	0.2	0.7	-0.5Administration	3.9	2.8	1.1Ul.S	m.8	6.5International Joint Commission	0.4	0.4	Contributions, grants and payments to international commissions and organizations-	United nations and its agencies	15.3	15.3	Miscellaneous grants and payments	2.8	3.7	-0.9Other international commissions and organizations	0.1	0.1	Commonwealth organizations	(1)	(1)	18.2	19.1	-0.9Assessments for membership in international commissions and organizations-	9.9	-0.1United nations and its agencies	9.8	Other international commissions and organizations	2.6	2.7	-0.1Commonwealth organizations	0.3	0.3	12.7	12.9	-0.2Construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings,	7.0	6.5	0.5works, land, equipment and furnishings	Administration, operation, maintenance and general	45.4	42.0	3.4225.0	215.7	9.3
U>
Less than $50,000.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Contributions, grants and payments to international commissions and organizations were $18 million compared with $19 million in 1967-68, assessments for membership in international commissions and organizations were $13 million in 1968-69, the same as the previous year and administration, operation, maintenance and general costs were $45 million compared with $42 million.
Finance
Expenditures of the Department of Finance amounted to $2,420 million in 1968-69 compared with $2,121 million in 1967-68. These figures include expenditures of the Auditor General's Office and the Department of Insurance which formerly were shown under separate headings but exclude expenditures of the former Comptroller of the Treasury whose duties and responsibilities are now included in the Department of Supply and Services.
The main items accounting for the increase of $299 million were public debt charges which were $178 million higher than in 1967-68 and payments to provinces which were $130 million higher than in 1967-68.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Finance	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Public debt charges	1,479.0	1,300.8	178.2Fiscal, subsidy and other payments to provinces	807.1	737.5	129.6Municipal grants	43.7	41.5	2.2Forgiveness of indebtedness-municipal development and loan board	3.5	17.4	-13.9Royal Canadian Mint	4.6	4.0	0.6Auditor General's Office	2.6	2.3	0.3Insurance	2.0	1.9	0.1Administration and general	17.2	15.6	1.62,419.7	2,121.0	298.7
Public debt charges
Public debt charges consist of interest on the public debt, the annual amortization of bond discounts and commissions, the cost of issuing new loans and other costs incurred in servicing the public debt. These charges were $1,479 million compared with $1,301 million in 1967-68.
Interest on public debt totalled $1,442 million, of which $1,142 million was in respect of unmatured debt and $300 million in respect of other liabilities. In 1967-68 total interest was $1,270 million of which $980 million was in respect of unmatured debt and $290 million in respect of other liabilities.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
The increase of $161 million in interest on unmatured debt reflected an increase in unmatured debt and higher interest rates. The increase in interest on other liabilities was due mainly to increases in the superannuation accounts.
Other public debt charges were $37 million compared with $31 million in 1967-68.
When considering the magnitude of these public debt charges and the burden they place upon the public treasury, it must be borne in mind that a substantial portion of the debt is attributable to, or is invested in, productive or earning assets. Therefore, in calculating the net burden of the government's annual interest charges, the income derived from loans, investments and other productive assets must be taken into account. For 1968-69 this income totalled $693 million as shown in the non-tax revenue section under the heading "return on investments". This amount deducted from the gross total of $1,442 million for interest as shown in the table leaves a net amount of $749 million compared with a net of $658 million in 1967-68. Measured as a percentage of the net debt the burden of the net annual interest charges was 4.32 per cent in 1968-69 compared with 3.92 per cent in 1967-68. As a percentage of the gross national product for the calendar year ending within the fiscal year, the relative burden was 1.11 per cent compared with 1.06 per cent in 1967-68.
TABLE 15 (in millions of dollars)
Interest and Other Public Debt Charges
Fiscal year ended
Interest on public debt-
Unmatured debt including treasury bills-
Payable in Canada	
Payable outside Canada	
Other liabilities-
Annuity, insurance and pension accounts	
Deposit and trust accounts	
Refundable portion of corporation income tax	
Total interest on public debt	
Other public debt charges-	. .
Annual amortization of bond discounts and commissions
Cost of issuing new loans	
Servicing of public debt	
March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
1969 (preliminary)	1968	
1,121.0	967.9	153.121.0	12.6	8.41,H2.0	980.5	161.5286.0	273.8	12.27.0	4.6	2.47.0	11.1	-4.1SOO.O	289.5	10.51,442.0	1,270.0	172.032.0	26.3	5.73.0	2.9	0.12.0	1.6	0.4S7.0	SO. 8	6.21,479.0	1,300.8	178.2COMMONS DEBATES	June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Net Burden op Annual Interest Charges	Fiscal y< Mar 1969 (preliminary)	jar ended ch 31 1968	Increase or decrease (-)Total interest on public debt	
Less return on investments	
Net interest cost	1,442.0 -693.0	1,270.0 -612.3	172.0 -80.7749.0	657.7	91.3Net interest cost as a percentage of net debt	4.32	3.92	
Fiscal, subsidy and other payments to provinces
Budgetary expenditure was charged with $867 million for payments to the provinces, $130 million more than in 1967-68.
Payments of $644 million under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act were $81 million higher than in 1967-68. However, during 1967-68 amounts due to the provinces for the years 1962 to 1966 inclusive were recalculated on the basis of revised population figures for those years. This resulted in overpayments to the provinces of $38 million. These overpayments have been recorded in the asset category "loans to provincial governments" and the 1967-68 charge to budgetary expenditure was reduced to $564 million.
Payments of $187 million under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act were made to the Province of Quebec in compensation to that province for its opting out of the following programs: hospital insurance and diagnostic services, old age assistance, disabled persons allowances, blind persons allowances, unemployment assistance and Canada assistance plan; and in part, the general health grants program. Payments totalled $153 million in 1967-68.
Subsidies to provinces payable under the British North America Acts and other statutory authority were $32 million the same as in 1967-68.
The transfer of certain public utility tax receipts was $21 million in 1968-69, $14 million more than in 1967-68 and represented the transferable portion of income tax received from corporations whose main business was the distribution to, or generation for distribution to, the public of electrical energy, gas and steam.
The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, 1964, provides that where, in any fiscal year commencing on or after April 1, 1964, the federal savings
June 3, 19S9
[Stage Direction]
in respect of a province providing schooling allowances exceeds the federal revenue abatement in respect of that province for the taxation year ending in that fiscal year, the Minister of Finance may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, pay to that province in respect of that fiscal year an amount equal to the excess and where for a taxation year ending in any fiscal year commencing on or after April 1, 1964 the federal revenue abatement in respect of a province providing schooling allowances exceeds the federal savings in that fiscal year in respect of that province, the amount of the excess may be deducted from any payment to that province under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act or under any subsequent Act of the Parliament of Canada substituted therefor, or may be otherwise recovered as a debt due to Canada by that province. The abatement for the taxation year 1968 and the revised abatement for the taxation year 1967 in respect of the Province of Quebec exceeded the federal savings by $17 million which has been recovered from payments to the province under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act; in 1967-68 the abatement for the taxation year 1967 exceeded the federal savings by $19 million and was recovered.
TABLE 17 (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal, Subsidy and Other Payments to Provinces	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Payments under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements	624.4	601.7	22.7Act.M	Transferred to "loans to provincial governments"*2)	18.5	-38.1	56.6Credited to Revenue-Return on Investments	1.4	1.4Charged to budgetary expenditure	
Payments under the Established Programs (Interim Ar-	644.3	563.6	80.7rangements) Act<3)	186.9	153.0	33.9Statutory subsidies	
Payments under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Ar-	31.7	31.7	-1.3rangements Act	1.3	Transfer of certain public utility tax receipts	21.0	6.7	14.3Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act (youth allowances)(i).	-16.8	-18.8	2.0867.1	737.5	129.6
O) Gross prior to recovery of an excess abatement under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act (youth allowances) to the Province of Quebec.
(2)Overpayments resulting from a recalculation of these payments on the basis of revised population figures for the years 1962 to 1966 inclusive.
<*>Payments made to the Province of Quebec in respect of opting out agreements.
<4>
Recovered from payments to the Province of Quebec under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
A summary of payments by provinces is given in the following table:
TABLE 18 (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31, 1969 (preliminary)
Fiscal, Subsidy and Other Payments to Provinces	Payments under fiscal arrange- ments	Payments under Interim Arrangements Act	Statutory subsidies	Recovery under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act (youth allowances)	Transfer of certain public utility tax receipts	TotalNewfoundland	73.2 88.0 14 8	9.6 2.1 0.7 1.8 4.0 4.6 2.1 2.1 3.0	1.2 1.9 0.2 0.1 2.9 5.5 0.9 0.1 7.4 0.6 0.2	84.0 92.0 15.7 78.5 473.4 31.8 48.0 24.6 17.3 1.6 0.2Nova Scotia	Prince Edward Island	New Brunswick	76.6 296.4 21.7 45.0 22.4 6.9 -0.7	Quebec	186.9	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia	Yukon and Northwest Territories	
644.3	186.9	31.7	-16.8	21.0	867.1
Municipal grants
Payments to municipalities and provinces in lieu of taxes on federal property amounted to $44 million compared with $42 million in 1967-68.
Municipal development and loan board
Under the Municipal Development and Loan Act, advances are made to the municipal development and loan board to provide financial assistance by way of loans to municipalities to augment or accelerate capital works programs. The act also provides that the board shall, under certain conditions, forgive payments by the municipality of 25 per cent of the principal amount of the loan. During 1968-69 payments forgiven amounted to $4 million compared with $18 million in the previous year.
Fisheries and Forestry
This is a new department which is comprised of the former Department of Fisheries and the forestry branch of the Department of Forestry.
Expenditures were $71 million in 1968-69, a decrease of $3 million from comparable amounts in 1967-68.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries management and development accounted for $32 million compared with $35 million in 1967-68 and included $9 million in each year for conservation and protection, $8 million for resource development compared with $6 million in 1967-68 and $4 million for grants, contributions and subsidies compared with $9 million in 1967-68.
TABLE 19 (in millions of dollars)
Fisheries and Forestry	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Fisheries management and development-	-0.2Conservation and protection services	9.2	9.4	Resource development service	7.9	6.3	1.6Grants, contributions and subsidies	4.0	8.5	-4.5Inspection service	3.3	3.1	0.2Industrial development service	3.2	3.6	-0.4Canadian share of the expenses of international commis-	sions	1.5	1.3	0.2Other	3.1	2.8	0.3$2.2	35.0	-2.8Fisheries Research Board of Canada	15.7	14.6	i.iForestry-	10.7	Regional research and services	10.7	Research institutes	6.3	7.3	-1.0Contributions to provinces	1.0	1.1	-0.1Other	1.9	1.9	19.9	21.0	-1.1Administration and general	3.2	3.2	71.0	73.8	-2.8
The fisheries research board accounted for $16 million compared with $15 million and forestry accounted for $20 million compared with $21 million.
Governor General
Included in these expenditures are the salaries of the Governor General of Canada and the Lieutenant-Governors of the provinces and other expenses of these offices. Expenditures were $1 million in 1968-69, the same as in 1967-68.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Expenditures of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were $265 million, $34 million higher than in 1967-68.
Expenditures for Indian affairs were $142 million compared with $123 million in 1967-68. Costs of education were $70 million ($59 million in 1967-68) and outlays for development and maintenance of Indian communities were $65 million ($57 million in 1967-68).
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
TABLE 20 (in millions ol dollars)
Indian Affairs and Northern Development	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Indian affairs-	Education	70.0	58.9	11.1Development and maintenance of Indian communities.	64.5	57.0	7.5Administration and general	7.0	6.6	0.4141.5	m.5	19.0Northern program-	Regional development	15.5	13.6	1.9Education	16.0	12.3	3.7Resource and economic development	
Payments to the Governments of the Yukon Territory	14.0	13.6	0.4and Northwest Territories	12.0	9.4	2.6Northern mineral assistance grants	2.0	2.8	-0.8Administration and general	19.6	17.9	1.779.1	69.6	9.5Conservation-	National parks	26.0	23.5	2.5Historic sites	7.0	5.5	1 RCanadian wildlife service	5.0	3.8	1.2Administration and general	3.4	3.9	-0.541.4	36.7	4.7Administration and general	3.0	2.6	0.4265.0	231.4	33.6
Expenditures of the northern program were $79 million compared with $70 million in 1967-68. Regional development costs were $16 million ($14 million in 1967-68), education costs were $16 million ($12 million in 1967-68), resource and economic development costs were $14 million, the same as last year and payments to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories were $12 million ($9 million in 1967-68).
Expenditures for conservation were $41 million compared with $37 million in 1967-68. Outlays for national parks were $26 million ($24 million in 1967-68), for historic sites $7 million ($6 million in 1967-68) and for the Canadian wildlife service $5 million ($4 million in 1967-68).
Industry and Trade and Commerce
This is a new department and includes expenditures formerly under the Department of Industry, with the exception of those in respect of incentives for the development of industrial employment opportunities and those for the area development agency which are now under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, expenditures formerly under the Department of Trade and Commerce, with the exception of those for the standards branch now under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and those for the Canadian government exhibition commission now under the Department of Public Works, and expenditures for the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures totalled $204 million in 1968-69. Comparable expenditures in 1967-68 were $186 million.
TABLE 21 (in millions of dollars)
Industry and Trade and Commerce	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Industry- Technological capability (defence)	25.0	33.5	-8.5Capital subsidies for construction of commercial and fishing vessels	23.4	39.3	-15.9General incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada	20.5	2.1	18.4Technological capability (non-defence)	5.5	6.4	-0.9Administration and general	12.1	10.8	1.386.5	92.1	-5.6Trade and Commerce- Canadian wheat board- Carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves	51.0	31.4	19.6Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act	0.9	0.7	0.2Payments to the board	8.6	2.7	5.9Trade commissioner service	10.4	10.3	0.1Canadian government travel bureau	9.8	10.0	-0.2Canadian government participation in world exhibitions.	2.3	7.0	-4.7Administration and general	9.8	9.6	0.292.8	71.7	21.1Dominion Bureau of Statistics	24.7	22.5	2.2204.0	186.3	17.7
Expenditures in respect of industry totalled $86 million compared with $92 million in 1967-68. Included therein was $25 million to develop and sustain the technological capability of Canadian defence and related industry ($34 million in 1967-68), $23 million in capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels ($39 million in 1967-68) and $21 million in general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada ($2 million in 1967-68).
Trade and commerce expenditures totalled $93 million compared with $72 million in the previous fiscal year. Payments in respect of the carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves were $51 million compared with $31 million in 1967-68 and costs of the trade commissioner service and the Canadian government travel bureau were each $10 million in both 1968-69 and 1967-68.
Expenditures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics were $25 million, $2 million more than in 1967-68.
Justice
Expenditures of the Department of Justice amounted to $17 million compared with $15 million in 1967-68.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Judges salaries, travelling allowances and pensions were $12 million compared with $11 million in 1967-68 and administration and general costs were $5 million compared with $4 million.
TABLE 22 (in millions of dollars)
Justice	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Judges salaries, travelling allowances and pensions	12.3	11.8	0.5Administration and general	4.7	3.6	1.117.0	15.4	1.6
Labour
Expenditures of the Department of Labour now include those of the Unemployment Insurance Commission which were reported under a separate heading in 1967-68.
Total expenditures in 1968-69 were $138 million compared with $118 million in 1967-68.
TABLE 23 (in millions of dollars)
Labour	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Unemployment Insurance Commission- Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund	86.0	69.5	16.5Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act....	40.0	37.6	2.4126.0	107.1	18.9Labour standards and benefits	6.4	5.5	0.9Research and development	2.4	2.2	0.2Labour relations	1.2	1.3	-0.1Administration and general	2.0	1.9	0.1138.0	118.0	20.0
Expenditures in respect of the unemployment insurance commission were $126 million and included the government's contribution of $86 million to the fund and $40 million for administration costs. In 1967-68 comparable amounts were $107 million, $69 million and $38 million respectively.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Other expenditures of the department included $6 million for labour standards and benefits ($5 million in 1967-68), $2 million for research and development ($2 million in 1967-68) and $1 million for labour relations ($1 million in 1967-68).
Legislature
Costs of Legislature were $18 million in 1968-69, the same as in 1967-68.
TABLE 24 (in millions of dollars)
Legislature	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)14.3	14.3	3.5	3.4	0.10.7	0.6	0.1
18.5	18.3	0.2
Manpower and Immigration
Expenditures of the Department of Manpower and Immigration totalled $415 million compared with $418 million in 1967-68.
In accordance with the government reorganization the experimental projects branch formerly included under this department is now included under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
TABLE 25 (in millions of dollars)
Manpower and Immigration	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Development and utilization of manpower-	190.6	105.1	85.5Capital assistance in the provision of training facilities..	98.0 38.0	119.3 32.3	-21.3 5.722.0	30.5	-8.5Payments to provinces under the Technical and Voca-	4.3	85.6	-81.319.0	16.2	2.8S71.9	S89.0	-17.122.8	21.6	1.26.3	2.9	3.48.1	8.10.6	0.3	0.35.3	4.1	1.2
415.0	417.9	-2.9
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Development and utilization of manpower accounted for $372 million compared with $389 million in the previous fiscal year. The main items were $191 million for the adult occupational training program, $86 million more than in 1967-68; $98 million for capital assistance in the provision of training facilities, $21 million less than in 1967-68; $38 million for employment services, $6 million more than in 1967-68; and $22 million for the municipal winter works incentive program, $9 million less than in 1967-68.
Outlays for immigration were $23 million compared with $22 million in 1967-68, costs of program development were $6 million compared with $3 million and special assistance to Czechoslovakian refugees was $8 million.
National Defence
Expenditures of the Department of National Defence totalled $1,762 million for 1968-69 and were $6 million more than the total of $1,756 million for 1967-68.
Expenditures for the Canada emergency measures organization formerly shown under the Department of Defence Production are now included in expenditures of the Department of National Defence and expenditures in respect of the defence research telecommunications establishment formerly included

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
National Defence	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Defence services- Operation and maintenance	1,265.0	1,237.4	27.6Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment	223.0	277.5	-54.5Development	14.7	13.0	1.7Other	1.5	0.3	1.21,604.2	1,628.2	-24.0Pensions and other benefits- Canadian forces superannuation account- Government's contribution	57.0	58.4	-1.4Amortization of deferred charges	104.8	72.6	32.2Government's contribution as an employer to the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan	7.8	8.1	-0.3Payments under Parts I-IV of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act	9.2	9.3	-0.1Other	0.3	0.3	179.1	148.7	so. 4Defence Research	47.4	45.0	2.4Mutual aid to NATO countries including contributions towards military costs of N ATO	15.3	18.0	-2.7Canada Emergency Measures Organization	6.9	8.0	-1.1Defence Construction (1951) Limited	2.3	2.2	0.1Administration and general	6.8	6.0	0.81,762.0	1,756.1	5.9
June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
under the Department of National Defence are now included under the Department of Communications.
Expenditures of $1,504 million for defence services included $1,265 million for operation and maintenance, $223 million for construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment and $15 million for development. In 1967-68 expenditures of $1,528 million for defence services included $1,237 million for operation and maintenance, $278 million for construction or acquisition and $13 million for development.
Expenditures for pensions and other benefits totalled $179 million and included $162 million in respect of the Canadian forces superannuation account, $8 million for the government's contribution as an employer to the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan and $9 million in payments under Parts I-IV of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act. In 1967-68 expenditures totalled $149 million of which $131 million was in respect of the superannuation account, $8 million for the government's contribution as an employer to the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan and $9 million for payments under Parts I-IV of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act.
The government's contribution to the Canadian forces superannuation account, of an amount equal to If times the contributions of the permanent services personnel, was $57 million compared with $58 million in 1967-68. An amount of $105 million, equal to one fifth of the actuarial deficiency arising out of pay increases was also charged to budgetary expenditure in 1968-69.
Defence research costs of $47 million were $2 million more than in 1967-68.
Mutual aid to NATO countries including contributions towards military costs of NATO at $15 million were $3 million less than in 1967-68.
Expenditures in respect of the Canada Emergency Measures Organization were $7 million, a decrease of $1 million from the previous fiscal year.
National Health and Welfare
Expenditures of the Department of National Health and Welfare totalled $1,670 million compared with $1,509 million in 1967-68.
Expenditures of the medical research council which were formerly included under the expenditures of the National Research Council are now included herein.
Outlays for welfare services amounted to $896 million compared with $877 million in 1967-68; outlays for health insurance and resources were $679 million compared with $549 million; outlays for medical services were $48 million compared with $42 million; and outlays in respect of the medical research council were $27 million compared with $21 million.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
TABLE 27 (in millions of dollars)
National Health and Welfare
Fiscal year ended March 31
(preliminary)
Increase
or
decrease (-)
Welfare services-
Family allowances	
Family assistance	
Youth allowances	
Canada assistance plan-payments to provinces
Disabled persons allowances	
Old age assistance	
Blind persons allowances	
Unemployment assistance	
Fitness and amateur sport	
National welfare grants	
Other	
560.4 3.6
52.6
251.4
6.0
3.3 2.0 1.0
4.0
2.0
9.4 895.7
558.8
4.2 49.4
225.6
7.1
8.9
2.3
6.1
3.6
1.9
8.6
876.5
1.6 -0.6 3.2 25.8 -1.1 -5.6 -0.3 -5.1 0.4 0.1 0.8 19. S
Health insurance and resources-
Government's contributions under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act	
Health resources fund	
Medical Care Act	
Grants to provinces-
General health	
Hospital construction	
Other	
560.0
37.5 33.0
30.5 16.8
1.2
679.0
468.6
32.7
29.6
16.4
1.3
558.6
91.4
4.8
33.0
0.9 0.4 -0.1 ISO. 4
Medical services	
Medical research council. . .
Health services	
Food and drug services	
Administration and general
48.2
26.5
7.6
9.0
4.0
1,670.0	1,
42.5
21.0
8.6
7.9
3.9
509.0
5.7
5.5
-1.0
1.1
0.1
161.0
Family allowances, family assistance and youth allowances
These expenditures totalled $617 million of which $560 million was family allowances, $53 million was youth allowances and $4 million was family assistance. In 1967-68 the total was $612 million of which $559 million was family allowances, $49 million was youth allowances and $4 million was family assistance.
Family allowances are payable in respect of all children under sixteen years of age, resident in Canada, with minoi exceptions such as in the case of children of immigrants who must reside in Canada one year before family allowance is payable. The monthly allowance is $6 if the child is under 10 years of age and $8 in the age group 10 to 15.
Family assistance is payable at the same rates to children of immigrants and settlers during their first year of residence in Canada.
Youth allowances are payable at the rate of $10 per month in respect of persons resident in Canada who have attained the age of 16 years and have not attained the age of 18 years and who are in full-time attendance at a school or
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
university or are by reason of mental or physical infirmity precluded from attending school or university. No payments were made in respect of persons resident in the Province of Quebec. However, under authority of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, 1964, abatements in federal income tax otherwise payable by individuals resident in that province weie allowed in compensation of the fact that the payment of youth allowances had been assumed by the province and to allow for the imposition of the required provincial income taxes.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Family Allowances, Family Assistance and Youth Allowances Payments		Fiscal year ended March 31, 1969 (preliminary)			
Family allowances	Family assistance	Youth allowances	Total17.0	(>)	1.7	18.721.6	(*)	2.8	24.43.1	(*)	0.5	3.618.4	(>)	2.5	20.9163.6	0.5	164.1189.3	2.0	25.5	216.825.3	0.2	3.6	29.126.4	0.1	3.6	30.143.5	0.3	5.5	49.350.7	0.5	6.8	58.01.5	(*)	0.1	1.6
560.4	3.6	52.6	616.6
(')Less than $50,000.
Canada assistance plan
Payments to provinces under the Canada assistance plan totalled $252 million compared with $226 million in 1967-68. The Canada Assistance Plan Act which was enacted in 1966 authorized the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces for sharing the costs of assistance and welfare services provided by the provinces, territories and municipalities to persons in need, including the costs of food, shelter, clothing, fuel and utilities, essential household supplies, expenses incidental to a trade, care in a home for special care, travel and transportation, funerals and burials, health care services, prescribed welfare services including rehabilitation, and comfort allowances. The rate of federal contribution is 50 per cent of the shareable costs; the rates for assistance granted and the specific conditions of eligibility applied are determined by the provinces and their municipalities and take into account the budgetary requirements as well as the income and resources of the applicants. Contributions under this plan have replaced certain contributions which formerly had been made under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Unemployment Assistance Act.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
TABLE 29 (in millions of dollars)
Canada Assistance Plan	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Newfoundland	21.0	17.9	3.1Nova Scotia	11.2	10.3	0.9Prince Edward Island	2.3	1.7	0.6New Brunswick	8.3	7.2	1.1Ontario	116.1	100.3	15.8Manitoba	15.1	15.6	-0.5Saskatchewan	15.4	13.4	2.0Alberta	25.5	26.5	-1.0British Columbia	36.2	32.7	3.5Northwest and Yukon Territories	0.3	0.3251.4	225.6	25.8
Old age assistance, disabled persons allowances, unemployment assistance and blind persons allowances
Contributions to the provinces for old age assistance totalled $3 million in 1968-69 compared with $9 million in 1967-68, for disabled persons allowances $6 million compared with $7 million, for unemployment assistance $1 million compared with $6 million and for blind persons allowances $2 million compared with $2 million.
The decreases noted above were due mainly to the fact that certain contributions to the provinces which in prior years were made under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Unemployment Assistance Act are now being made under the Canada assistance plan. The decrease in old age assistance payments was also due to the lowering of the age limit for old age security benefits.
Under the Old Age Assistance Act, the federal government reimburses the provinces by paying 50 per cent of the lesser of $75 monthly or the amount of assistance given by the provinces in the form of monthly pensions to eligible persons in need who have attained the age of 65 years. (Under the Old Age Security Act, all persons who satisfy the residence requirements of the act may receive a pension of $78 ($75 up to January 1, 1968 and $76.50 to January 1, 1969) per month from the federal government out of the old age security fund provided that no pension is paid in any month before January 1966 in which the person had not attained 70 years of age, the age limit being reduced by one in each subsequent year until 1970. An amendment to the Old Age Security Act authorizes the payment of a monthly guaranteed income supplement to eligible pensioners. The amount of the supplement that may be paid to a pensioner for a month is (a) in the year 1967, $30, and (b) in any year after 1967, 40 per cent of the amount of the pension that may be paid to him for that month, dependent upon the amount of his income for the preceding year.)
Similarly, the federal government reimburses the provinces under the Blind Persons Act for allowances of not more than $75 per month to blind persons in need 18 years of age or over by paying 75 per cent of the total payments, and
June 3, 1369
[Stage Direction]
under the Disabled Persons Act by paying 50 per cent of not more than $75 per month for allowances to disabled persons in need 18 years of age or over.
Under the Unemployment Assistance Act, the Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with any province for the payment by Canada to the province of contributions not exceeding 50 per cent of unemployment assistance costs in the province. Contributions in 1968-69 were $1 million compared with $6 million in 1967-68. Under federal-provincial agreement the Province of Quebec has opted out of a portion of this program.
The following table presents a distribution of these payments to provinces for 1968-69:

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Federal Share of Old Age Assistance,	Fiscal year ended March 31, 19G9 (preliminary)			
Disabled Persons Allowances, Blind Persons Allowances and Unemployment Assistance	Old age assistance	Disabled persons allowances	Blind persons allowances	Unem- ployment assistance0.2	0.5	0.3	0.6	1.4	0.4	(i)(i)	(i)	(i)	(i)0.6	0.9	0.3	0.2	0.7	0.2	0.60.5	0.7	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.5	0.7	0.2	0.30.7	1.0	0.3	(i)	(i)	(i)	0.1
3.3	6.0	2.0	1.0
U>Less than $50,000.
Government's contributions under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act Contributions of $560 million to the provinces in 1968-69 under this act were $91 million more than in 1967-68. Under federal-provincial agreement the Province of Quebec has opted out of this program.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Government's Contributions Under the Hospital	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase or decrease (-)Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act	1969 (preliminary)	1968	20.4	15.5	4.928.3	24.0	4.33.7	3.4	0.322.2	19.5	2.7286.2	234.8	51.434.8	30.6	4.235.5	32.3	3.259.2	49.8	9.468.2	57.4	10.81.5	1.3	0.2
560.0	468.6	91.4
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
General health grants and hospital construction grants to provinces
Grants to provinces for general health services totalled $31 million compared with $30 million in 1967-68 and for hospital construction they totalled $17 million compared with $16 million. Under federal-provincial agreement the Province of Quebec has opted out of a portion of this program.
TABLE 32 (in millions of dollars)
General Health Grants and Hospital Construction Grants	Fiscal year ended March 31, 1969 (preliminary)		
General health grants	Hospital construction grants	TotalNewfoundland	1.1	0.2	1.31.6	0.8	2.4Prince Edward Island	0.4	0.1	0.5New Brunswick	1.3	0.2	1.5Quebec	1.7	1.4	3.1Ontario	13.0	7.2	20.2Manitoba	2.4	0.7	3.1Saskatchewan	2.2	1.0	3.2Alberta	2.8	1.5	4.3British Columbia	3.9	3.7	7.6Northwest and Yukon Territories	0.1	(1)	0.130.5	16.8	47.3
CULess than $50,000.
Health resources fund
The Health Resources Fund Act provides for the establishment of a health resources fund to assist provinces in the acquisition, construction and renovation of health training facilities and research institutions.
Expenditures in 1968-69 amounted to $38 million compared with $33 million in the previous fiscal year.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Contributions to Provinces Under the Heawh Resources Fund Act	Fiscal ye Mar 1969 (preliminary)	iar ended ch 31 1968	Increase or decrease (-)Newfoundland	0.2	0.1	0.1Nova Scotia	9.8	8.6	1.2Prince Edward Island	0.1	0.1	New Brunswick	1.4	1.2	0.2Quebec	11.2	9.8	1.4Ontario	9.7	8.6	1.1Manitoba	0.6	0.5	0.1Saskatchewan	0.1	0.1	Alberta	1.9	1.6	0.3British Columbia	2.5	2.1	0.437.5	32.7	4.8
June 3. 1963
[Stage Direction]
National Revenue
Expenditures of the Department of National Revenue amounted to $120 million, an increase of $5 million over the 1967-68 total of $115 million.
Outlays of $59 million in respect of the collection of customs import duties, excise taxes and excise duties were $2 million higher and outlays of $61 million in respect of taxation were $3 million higher than in 1967-68.
TABLE 34 (in millions of dollars)
National Revenue	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Customs and excise	58.5	56.7	1.8Taxation	61.2	58.1	3.1Income tax appeal board	0.3	0.3	120.0	115.1	4.9
Privy Council
Expenditures of the Privy Council now include those of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, formerly set out under a separate heading, but those in respect of the Company of Young Canadians, formerly under the Privy Council, are now included in the expenditures of the Department of the Secretary of State.
Expenditures of $10 million were $1 million less than comparative expenditures in 1967-68.
TABLE 35 (in millions of dollars)
Privy Council	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Administration and general	6.9	8.6	-1.7Economic Council of Canada	1.5	1.5	Public Service Staff Relations Board	1.1	1.0	0.19.5	11.1	-1.6
9658
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Public Works
Expenditures of the Department of Public Works now include those in respect of the Canadian Government Exhibition Commission which in 1967-68 were included in expenditures of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Those in respect of the National Capital Commission which in 1967-68 were reported under the Department of Public Works are now reported under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Expenditures in 1968-69 totalled $282 million compared with $291 million in 1967-68.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Public Works	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Accommodation services- Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds-	National capital region	40.1	35.1	5.0Other than national capital region	53.4	49.6	3.8Acquisition of equipment and furnishings other than	office furnishings	1.5	1.4	0.1Construction, acquisition, major repairs, etc. of public buildings-	Ottawa	41.3	24.8	16.5Other than Ottawa	32.2	22.9	9.3168.5	133.8	84.7Roads, bridges and other engineering services-	Operation and maintenance	7.0	6.7	0.3Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, roads, bridges and	other engineering works	9.6	10.4	-0.8Trans-Canada highway- Contributions to provinces under terms of the Trans-	Canada Highway Act	33.0	64.7	-31.7Construction through national parks	0.1	2.0	-1.949.7	83.8	-84.1Harbours and rivers engineering services-	Operation and maintenance	8.5	7.6	0.9Construction or acquisition of equipment	0.6	0.9	-0.3Construction, acquisition, major repairs, etc. of harbour	and river works	23.3	35.2	-11.9Dry dock subsidies	0.2	0.2	82.6	43.9	-11.8Canadian Government Exhibition Commission ..	5.2	5.4	-0.2Testing laboratories	1.1	1.2	-0.1Administration and general	24.9	22.8	2.1282.0	290.9	-8.9
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Accommodation services
Expenditures for these services were $169 million, $35 million higher than the 1967-68 total.
Costs of maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds were $93 million compared with $85 million in the previous year, costs of construction or acquisition of buildings, etc. were $74 million compared with $48 million and costs of acquisition of equipment and furnishings other than office furnishings were $1 million, the same as in 1967-68.	v
Roads, bridges and other engineering services
Expenditures for these services totalled $50 million, $34 million less than in 1967-68. Contributions of $33 million to provinces in respect of the Trans-Canada highway were $32 million less than in 1967-68.
Harbours and rivers engineering services
Expenditures for these services totalled $33 million, $11 million less than in 1967-68 due mainly to a reduction in expenditure for construction, acquisition, major repairs, etc. of harbour and river works which amounted to $23 million compared with $35 million in the previous year.
Canadian Government Exhibition Commission
Expenditures of this commission which were transferred from the former Department of Trade and Commerce amounted to $5 million approximately the same as in the previous year.
Regional Economic Expansion
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was formed to be responsible for the Agricultural and Rural Development Act function and the fund for rural economic development (included in expenditures of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development in 1967-68), the Atlantic Development Board (included in expenditures of the Department of Transport in 1967-68), the Area Development Agency (included in expenditures of the Department of Industry in 1967-68), the experimental projects branch (included in expenditures of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in 1967-68), land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage (included in expenditures of the Department of Agriculture in 1967-68), the National Capital Commission (included in expenditures of the Department of Public Works in 1967-68), and the Cape Breton Development Corporation (included in expenditures of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in 1967-68).
Expenditures in 1968-69 totalled $170 million compared with expenditures in 1967-68 of $160 million.	,
The increase of $10 million was due mainly to an increase of $30 million in respect of the Cape Breton Development Corporation which was partly offset by reductions of $19 million in other programs.	,	>
29180-611J
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
TABLE 37 (in millions of dollars)
Regional Economic Expansion	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Atlantic Development Board	42.0	42.4	-0.4Cape Breton Development Corporation	32.0	1.6	30.4National Capital Commission	22.0	23.2	-1.2Department	74.0	92.4	-18.4170.0	159.6	10.4
Outlays of $42 million in respect of the Atlantic Development Board were approximately the same as in 1967-68, expenditures in respect of the Cape Breton Development Corporation totalled $32 million compared with $2 million, expenditures in respect of the National Capital Commission were $22 million compared with $23 million in 1967-68. Other expenditures totalled $74 million compared with $92 million in 1967-68.
Secretary of State
The expenditures of the Department of the Secretary of State now include those in respect of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (formerly the Board of Broadcast Governors), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the National Film Board, the National Museums of Canada, the Public Archives and National Library and the Public Service Commission which were reported under separate headings in 1967-68; and the expenditures relating to the Company of Young Canadians which in 1967-68 were reported under Privy Council.
These expenditures totalled $530 million in 1968-69 compared with $366 million in 1967-68.
The increase of $164 million was due mainly to increases of $169 million in payments to the provinces for post-secondary education ($277 million compared with $108 million), $13 million in respect of the Chief Electoral Officer ($14 million compared with $1 million), reflecting the cost of the 1968 federal election and $9 million in respect of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ($152 million compared with $143 million) and decreases of $31 million for the Centennial Commission (nil expenditures compared with $31 million) and $4 million for construction and acquisition in respect of the National Arts Centre ($15 million compared with $20 million).
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
TABLE 38 (in millions o{ dollars)
Secretary of State	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Post-secondary education payments to provinces	277.0	108.0	169.0Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-National Arts Centre	15.4	19.5	-4.1Citizenship	4.4	3.3	1.1Translation bureau	4.6	4.1	0.5Administration and general	2.1	2.1	SOS. 5	1S7.0	166. SCentennial Commission	31.2	-31.2Canada Council	20.4	16.9	3.5Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	152.5	143.3	9.2Canadian Film Development Corporation	0.3	0.3Canadian Radio-Television Commission^1)	1.9	1.0	0.9Office of the Chief Electoral Officer	13.9	0.7	13.2Company of Young Canadians	1.8	2.4	-0.6National Arts Centre Corporation	1.1	1.0	0.1National Film Board	10.5	9.3	1.2National Library	1.6	1.6	National Museums of Canada	7.0	6.6	04Public Archives	2.2	2.0	0.2Public Service Commission	13.2	12.6	0.6Office of the Representation Commissioner	0.1	0.1	530.0	365.7	164.3
(D Formerly the Board of Broadcast Governors.
Solicitor General
Expenditures of the Department of the Solicitor General totalled $160 million, $7 million more than the previous year's total. The main changes were increases of $13 million in respect of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a decrease of $6 million in respect of correctional services.
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Solicitor General	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease ([DOT]-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Royal Canadian Mounted Police- National police services, federal law enforcement duties and provincial and municipal policing under contract- Administration, operation and maintenance	72.0	61.9	10.1Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment	6.4	10.0	-3.6Pensions and other benefits- Pensions	5.9	5.4	0.5Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account- Government's contribution	6.6	4.2	2.4Amortization of deferred charges	7.8	5.3	2.5Other	1.6	0.9	0.7100. s	87.7	12.6Correctional services- Administration of the Canadian penitentiary service. ...	1.9	1.0	0.9Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries	40.4	39.1	1.3Parole Act administration	2.1	1.6	0.5Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment	14.0	23.1	-9.158. If	64.8	-6.4Office of the Solicitor General	1.3	1.0	0.3160.0	153.5	6.5
i
Correctional services
Expenditures of $58 million in respect of correctional services were $6 million less than in 1967-68 and included outlays of $40 million for operation and maintenance of penitentiaries compared with $39 million in 1967-68 and $14 million for construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment compared with $23 million in the previous fiscal year.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Gross expenditures were $133 million in 1968-69 but receipts of $33 million arising from services provided by those expenditures brought the net amount charged to budgetary expenditure to $100 million. The receipts of $33 million included $31 million in payment for policing certain provinces, territories and municipalities and $2 million in payment of rations, accommodation, etc.
In 1967-68, gross expenditures were $119 million, receipts were $31 million resulting in a charge of $88 million to budgetary expenditures. Payment for policing services was $30 million and payments for rations, accommodation, etc. were $1 million.
Supply and Services
The Department of Supply and Services was newly formed in 1968-69 and is responsible for the supply of goods and services to departments and agencies of the Federal Government. These responsibilities consist of those of: the former
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Department of Defence Production, less the Canada Emergency Measures Organization, now under the Department of National Defence and less the International Programs Branch, now under the Department of Industry and Trade and Commerce; the former Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury, formerly under the Department of Finance; the former Department of Public Piinting and Stationery; the Management Advisory Services formerly under the Public Service Commission; the Shipbuilding Branch, formerly under the Department of Transport; the Canadian Arsenals Limited; the Canadian Commercial Corporation; the Polymer Corporation Limited; and the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
Expenditures of $66 million in 1968-69 were $1 million more than comparable expenditures in 1967-68.
TABLE 40 (in millions of dollars)
Supply and Services	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Services-	Central office and branch office administration	31.2	31.0	0.2Superannuation and Retirement Acts administration....	1.1	1.1	Management advisory services	0.9	0.7	0.2Other	1.4	1.4Si. 6	SS.8	1.8Supply-	Administration	22.0	20.8	1.2Other	0.3	0.7	-0.422. S	21.5	0.8Public Printing and Stationery	4.0	4.9	-0.9Canadian Commercial Corporation	1.9	2.0	-0.1Canadian Arsenals Limited	0.3	0.4	-0.1Administration and general	2.9	3.0	-0.166.0	64.6	1.4
Outlays for services totalled $35 million compared with $33 million in the previous year and mainly consisted of $31 million for central office and branch office administration.
Expenditures for supply amounted to $22 million, an increase of $1 million over the previous year.
The above increases were partly offset by expenditures of $4 million for Public Printing and Stationery which decreased one million from the previous year's total.
Public Printing and Stationery costs were $4 million compared with $5 million in 1967-68, for the Canadian Commercial Corporation expenditures were $2 million in each year and for administration and general, expenditures were $3 million in each fiscal year.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Transport
Expenditures of the Department of Transport including those in respect of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, formerly reported under its own heading, the Canadian Transport Commission, the National Harbours Board and The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority totalled $502 million in 1968-69 compared with $534 million in 1967-68.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Transport	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Marine services-			
Administration, operation and maintenance	45.0	45.5	-0.5Construction or acquisition	39.0	46.3	-7.384.0	91.8	-7.8Railways and steamships-	Maritime Freight Rates Act	19.4	14.2	5.2Construction or acquisition	9.8	24.5	-14.7Railway to Great Slave Lake	1.1	4.4	-3.3Victoria bridge	0.9	0.9	Operating deficits-	Canadian National Railways	29.2	35.8	-6.6Newfoundland ferry and terminals	16.7	16.5	0.2Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals	5.0	4.8	0.2Yarmouth, N.S.-Bar Harbour, Maine, U.S.A. ferry	service	0.3	0.4	-0.1Railway employees' provident fund-deficit	6.6	-6.6Other	0.7	0.6	0.183.1	108.7	-25.6Air services-	Administration, operation and maintenance	96.7	83.0	13.7Construction or acquisition	47.0	45.3	1.7Grants, contributions, subsidies and other payments....	2.5	2.8	-0.3146.2	181.1	16.1Administration and general	8.5	7.1	1.4321.8	338.7	-16.9Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-	Urban renewal	16.4	9.7	6.7Loans forgiven by the corporation	8.0	7.9	0.1Losses sustained on federal-provincial projects	4.5	2.4	2.1Housing research and community planning	4.5	3.1	1.4S3.4	23.1	10.3Canadian Transport Commission-	Payments under the National Transportation Act	93.7	126.0	-32.3Contributions to the railway grade crossing fund	15.0	15.0	Steamship subventions	12.3	11.1	1.2Subsidies to air carriers	2.1	1.2	0.9Administration and general	4.9	3.6	1.3128.0	166.9	-28.9National Harbours Board	7.0	4.8	2.2The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority-	Welland canal deficit	9.2	8.2	1.0Other operating deficits and capital requirements	2.4	2.4	11.6	10.6	1.0501.8	534.1	-32.3
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures which in 1967-68 were reported under the Department of Transport and which are now reported elsewhere are those in respect of: the Atlantic Development Board, now under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion; the Government Telecommunications Policy and Administrative Bureau and a portion of the Telecommunications and Electronics Branch, now under the Department of Communications; and the Shipbuilding Branch, now under the Department of Supply and Services.
Another factor affecting the department's expenditures is the authority contained in vote 5, marine services and vote 30, air services to credit thereto revenue arising from services provided thereunder. In 1968-69 this revenue was $40 million in respect of vote 30 and $10 million in respect of vote 5. In 1967-68 this revenue was $38 million and $9 million respectively.
Marine services
Net expenditures of $84 million were $8 million less than in 1967-68 and included $45 million for administration, operation and maintenance compared with $46 million in 1967-68 and $39 million for construction or acquisition compared with $46 million in the previous year. Revenue credited to the administration, operation and maintenance appropriations amounted to $10 million, of which $5 million was earnings from marine services steamers and $2 million from wharfage rentals. In 1967-68 comparable revenue was $9 million, of which $5 million was earnings of marine services steamers and $2 million was wharfage rentals.
Railways and steamships
These expenditures totalled $83 million compared with $109 million in 1967-68. The main items resulting in the decrease were construction or acquisition which were $10 million in 1968-69 compared with $25 million in 1967-68, the charge to budgetary expenditure of $30 million compared with $36 million in
1967- 68 in respect of the Canadian National Railways operating deficits, the subsidy in respect of the railway to Great Slave Lake which was $1 million compared with $4 million, the payment of $7 million in 1967-68 to cover the deficit in the railway employees provident fund for which there was no charge in
1968-	69 and payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act which were $19 million compared with $14 million.
Air services
Net expenditures of $146 million were $15 million more than in 1967-68 and included $97 million for administration, operation and maintenance compared with $83 million in 1967-68 and $47 million for construction or acquisition compared with $45 million. Revenue credited to the administration, operation and maintenance appropriation amounted to $40 million of which $16 million was from aircraft landing fees and $15 million from concessions and rentals. In 1967-68 comparable revenue was $38 million of which $15 million was from aircraft landing fees and $14 million from concessions and rentals.
966$
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Budgetary expenditure of the government in respect of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was $33 million compared with $23 million in 1967-68. Urban renewal at $16 million accounted for $7 million of the increase and losses sustained on federal-provincial projects accounted for $2 million of the increase over 1967-68 figures.
Canadian Transport Commission
Expenditures of the Canadian Transport Commission amounted to $128 million compared with $157 million in 1967-68. The decrease was due mainly to payments to railway and transportation companies pursuant to the National Transportation Act which totalled $94 million compared with $126 million in 1967-68.
National Harbours Board
Non-active advances to the board which were charged to budgetary expenditure totalled $7 million compared with $5 million in 1967-68. Net increases reflected additional expenditures for reconstruction and capital expenditures of the Halifax, Churchill and Quebec harbours.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Budgetary expenditures in respect of The St. La-wrence Seaway Authority were $11 million, $1 million more than in 1967-68. The 1968 operating deficit of the Welland canal, charged to budgetary expenditure, was $9 million compared with the 1967 deficit of $8 million charged in 1967-68 and other operating deficits and capital requirements totalled $2 million in each fiscal year.
Treasury Board
Expenditures of the Treasury Board, including the National Research Council, amounted to $423 million compared with $259 million in 1967-68. In 1967-68 the National Research Council was shown under a separate heading.
Public service superannuation account
The government's contribution to the public service superannuation account, in an amount equal to the estimated current and prior service payments of individuals in 1967-68, was $66 million compared with $60 million in 1967-68.
A further amount of $84 million, equal to one fifth of the actuarial deficiencies arising out of pay increases, was also charged to budgetary expenditure compared with $61 million in 1967-68.
Contingency for salary revisions
An amount of $111 million was charged to budgetary expenditures to cover salary revisions in respect of 1968-69 and prior fiscal years and was credited to the liability account "Contingency for salary revisions".
Canada's contribution as an employer
These contributions totalled $21 million approximately the same as in 196768. The main item was $17 million to the Canada and Quebec pension plans the same as in the previous year.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
TABLE 42 (in millions of dollars)
Treasury Board	Fiscal year ended March 31	r Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Public service superannuation account-	Government's contribution	66.0	59.6	6.4Amortization of deferred charges	84.0	60.6	23.4150.0	120.2	29.8Contingency for salary revisions	
Government's contributions as an employer-	111.0	111.0Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan	17.4	17.3	0.1Unemployment insurance fund	1.6	1.4	0.2Death benefit account	
Pension plans for employees engaged locally outside	1.7	1.7	-0.1Canada	0.1	0.2	Hospital insurance (outside Canada) plan	0.4	0.3	0.121.2	20.9	O.SGovernment's share of surgical-medical insurance premiums.	13.5	11.2	2.3Payments under Public Service Pension Adjustment Act....	1.8	1.9	-0.1Administration and general	8.3	4.4	3.9305.8	158.6	147.2National Research Council-	Scholarships and grants in aid of research	
Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land	61.7	45.5	16.2and equipment	5.4	9.3	-3.9Assistance towards research in industry	6.1	5.0	i.iAdministration, operation and maintenance	44.0	40.9	3.1117.2	100.7	16.5423.0	259.3	163.7
National Research Council
Expenditures of the National Research Council, excluding the Medical Research Council which is now reported under the Department of National Health and Welfare, amounted to $117 million compared with $101 million in 1967-68.
9668
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Outlays for scholarships and grants in aid of research at $62 million were $16 million higher than in the previous year and costs of administration, operation and maintenance at $44 million were $3 million higher than in 1967-68. These increases were partly offset by the reduction of $4 million in expenditures for construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment which were $5 million compared with $9 million in 1967-68.
Veterans Affairs
Expenditures of the Department of Veterans Affairs totalled $427 million compared with $401 million in the previous fiscal year.
War veterans allowances and civilian allowances at $95 million were $3 million less than in 1967-68, pensions for disability and death at $223 million were $17 million higher and costs of $72 million for treatment services were approximately $11 million higher than in the previous fiscal year.
TABLE 43 (in millions of dollars)
Veterans Affairs	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Pensions-			
Disability and death	223.0	205.6	17.4Administration and general...	3.0	3.1	-0.1226.0	208.7	17. SWelfare services, allowances and other benefits-	ar veterans allowances and civilian allowances	95.5	98.4	-2.9Assistance under provisions of the Assistance Fund (War	Veterans Allowances) Regulations	6.5	6.4	0.1Other benefits	6.0	2.6	3.4Administration and general	4.7	6.8	-2.1112.7	114.2	-1.6Treatment services...	71.8	61.4	10.4Soldier settlement and veterans land act-	Provision for reserve for conditional benefits	4.3	4.0	0.3Administration and general	5.3	5.5	-0.29.6	9.6	0.1Administration and general.	6.9	7.0	-0.1427.0	400.8	26.2
June 3. 1969

[Stage Direction]
The assets and liabilities of the Government of Canada as at March 31, 1969, the comparable balances at March 31, 1968 and the changes in each category during 1968-69 are shown in condensed form in the following table:
TABLE 44 (in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		Increase
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)
Liabilities			
Current and demand liabilities	2,158.8	2,310.6	-151.8Deposit and trust accounts	513.4	440.9	72.5Annuity, insurance and pension accounts	10,517.2	9,053.0	1,464.2Undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts...	225.3	124.8	100.5Refundable corporation tax	139.5	235.3	-95.8Provision for estimated premium on redemption of bonds...	12.4	26.0	-13.6Deferred credits	180.4	149.9	30.5Suspense accounts	4.0	3.8	0.2Unmatured debt	22,101.0	20,579.9	1,521.1Total liabilities	35,852.0	32,924.2	2,927.8Assets	Current assets	1,116.3	1,530.7	-414.4Cash in blocked currency	1.9	2.1	-0.2Advances to the exchange fund account	2,867.0	2,033.3	833.7Investments in United States dollar securities issued by other	than the Government of Canada	90.3	122.6	-32.3Canada pension plan investment fund	2,023.0	1,280.8	742.2Investments held for the retirement of unmatured debt	6.0	8.1	-2.1Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations	8,767.7	7,935.6	832.1Loans to national governments	1,269.1	1,206.1	63.0Other loans and investments	2,110.4	1,945.2	165.2Securities held in trust	112.6	59.5	53.1Deferred charges	
Capital assets	
Inactive loans and investments	613.5 CD 94.8	492.0 (l) 94.8	121.5Total recorded assets	
Less reserve for losses on realization of assets	19,072.6 -546.4	16,710.8 -546.4	2,361.8Net recorded assets	18,526.2	16,164.4	2,361.8Net debt represented by excess of liabilities over net recorded	assets	17,325.8	16,759.8	<«566.0
(('Shown at nominal value of $1.
<*'Reflecting the budgetary deficit of $566 million.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Summary
The gross liabilities of the government amounted to $35,852 million as at March 31, 1969 compared with $32,924 million at March 31, 1968. The main changes were increases of $1,464 million in annuity, insurance and pension accounts, $1,521 million in unmatured debt and $101 million in undisbursed balances and decreases of $152 million in current and demand liabilities and $96 million in refundable corporation tax.
Net recorded assets totalled $18,526 million as at March 31, 1969 compared with $16,164 million at March 31, 1968. The main changes were increases of $834 million in the exchange fund account, $742 million in the Canada pension plan investment fund, $832 million in loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations, $165 million in other loans and investments and $122 million in deferred charges, and a decrease of $414 million in current assets.
The net debt of Canada, or the excess of liabilities over net recorded assets, was $17,326 million, $566 million higher than the net debt of $16,760 million at March 31, 1968, reflecting the 1968-69 budgetary deficit of $566 million.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31
Liability Accounts Current and demand liabilities
These liabilities, which consist of obligations of the government payable currently or on demand, in the amount of $2,159 million were $152 million less than the total at March 31, 1968.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
The main changes were decreases of $216 million in non-interest-bearing notes and $120 million in accounts payable and increases of $84 million in outstanding treasury cheques and $71 million in interest accrued.
Non-interest-bearing notes represent those portions of Canada's equities in the capital of certain international agencies which are not covered by cash or gold. Notes in respect of the international monetary fund decreased by $239 million and notes in respect of the international development association increased by $22 million in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		Increase
Current and Demand Liabilities	1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)511.0	427.4	83.6400.0	520.2	-120.2Non-interest-bearing notes payable to-	552.0	791.0	-239.045.0	23.0	22.04.0	2.7	1.3601.0	816.7	-215.732.8	26.0	6.8163.0	161.6	1.4386.0	315.3	70.754.0	34.9	19.18.0	6.1	1.93.0	2.4	0.6
2,158.8	2,310.6	-151.8
Deposit and trust accounts
Sundry funds deposited with, or held in trust by, the Receiver General of Canada for various purposes are recorded in these accounts.
There was a net increase of $73 million during 1968-69 bringing the total to $513 million at March 31, 1969. Increases of $42 million in the provincial tax collection agreements account and $55 million in guarantee deposits were partly offset by decreases of $18 million in the Canadian Commercial Corporation special deposit account, $11 million in the post office savings bank account and $7 million in Crown corporations deposits.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Deposit and Trust Accounts	Balance a 1969 (preliminary)	March 31 1968	Increase or decrease (-)Indian trust funds	36.0	34.0	2.0Guarantee deposits	104.0	49.3	54.7Post office savings bank	8.0	18.6	-10.6Crown corporations deposits	16.3	23.7	- 7.4Canadian Pension Commission-administration trust fund...	17.5	16.6	0.9National Harbours Board-special accounts	15.0	16.8	- 1.8Instalment purchase of bonds-public service	16.0	16.2	- 0.2Contractors holdbacks	15.0	14.9	0.1Contractors securities-sundry departments	4.0	4.2	- 0.2Canadian Commercial Corporation-special deposit	20.1	38.2	-18.1Canadian Dairy Commission	24.1	25.2	-1.1Prairie farm emergency fund	16.1	13.0	3.1Provincial tax collection agreements account	162.0	120.2	41.8Other	59 3	50 0	0 3513.4	440.9	72.5
Annuity, insurance and pension accounts
This category records the government's liability in respect of various annuity, insurance and pension accounts.
During 1968-69 there was an increase of $1,464 million bringing the total to $10,517 million as at March 31, 1969. The main changes were increases of $298 million in the public service superannuation account, $301 million in the Canadian forces superannuation account. $755 million in the Canada pension plan account and $76 million in the old age security fund.
TABLE 47 (in millions of dollars)
Annuity, Insurance and Pension Accounts	Balance at March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Unemployment insurance fund		404.0 -388.0	320.3 -303.9	83.7 -84.1
Less investments in bonds and accrued interest				
			
	16.0 3.174.2 3.024.0 131.0 6.329.2 2.108.0 1,324.0 612.1 127.9	16.4 2.875.8 2,723.3 104.7 6.703.8 1.352.8 1,326.1 536.1 117.8	-0.4 298.4 300.7 26.3 625.4 755.2 -2.1 76.0 10.1
Superannuation accounts- Public service				
			
Royal Canadian Mounted Police				
			
Government annuities				
Old age security fund				
Other				
			
	10,517.2	9,053.0	1,464.2
June 3. 1969
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment insurance fund
The balance in the fund at March 31, 1969 was $404 million (of which $20 million represented a liability for unredeemed warrants and deposits from employers) consisting of $388 million invested in special government bonds (including accrued interest) and $16 million on deposit with the Receiver General. The balance in the fund at March 31, 1968 was $320 million (of which $18 million represented a liability for unredeemed warrants and deposits from employers) consisting of $304 million invested in special government bonds (including accrued interest) and $16 million on deposit with the government.
Receipts of $544 million during the fiscal year included employee and employer contributions of $440 million, the government's contribution of $86 million and $18 million in interest from investments. As benefit payments totalled $463 million, receipts exceeded payments from the fund by $81 million during 1968-69. Receipts during 1967-68 totalled $433 million and included employee and employer contributions of $347 million, the government's contribution of $70 million and $16 million in income from investments. Benefit payments during 1967-68 totalled $389 million.
TABLE 48 (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
Unemployment Insurance Fund	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969 (preliminary)Revenue- Contributions-	347.4	440.0Employee and employer*1)	310.8	328.3	343.8	Government^	62.1	65.7	68.8	69.5	86.0Net income from investments	1.8	4.7	10.9	15.9	17.7Other income	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2374.8	398.8	423.7	433.0	543.9Expenditure-	-388.6	-462.6Benefit payments	
Interest on loan	-335.0 -0.2	-297.8	-307.0	Excess of revenue over expenditure or expen-	116.7	44.4	81.3diture over revenue (-)	39.6	101.0	Balance at credit of fund at fiscal year-end....	40.5	141.5	258.2	302.7	384.0Unredeemed benefit warrants and deposits	22.2	17.6	20.0from employers	17.8	20.6	58.3	162.1	280.4	320.3	404.0Investment in bonds and accrued interest	-44.0	-148.6	-266.6	-303.9	-388.0Balance on deposit with the government	14.3	13.5	13.8	16.4	16.0
(^Contributions by employees and employers are on an equal basis.
(*)Government's contribution is equal to 20 per cent of the combined employee-employer contributions.
Public service superannuation account
The balance of $3,174 million in this account was $298 million higher than the balance at the end of the previous fiscal year.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Receipts of $385 million during the year included credits of $121 million to provide for additional liabilities arising out of salary revisions made in 1968-69, contributions of $72 million by individuals, the government's contribution of $66 million, contributions of $6 million by certain Crown corporations and interest of $118 million credited to the account by the government. Contributions by the government and contributions by Crown corporations are equal to the estimated current and prior service payments of individuals in 1967-68. Interest at 4 per cent per annum is credited to the account quarterly and is computed quarterly on the outstanding balance at the end of the previous quarter.
The credit of $121 million to provide for additional liabilities arising out of salary increases was charged to the asset account "unamortized portions of actuarial deficiencies".
Disbursements amounted to $87 million and included $70 million in annuities and $11 million in withdrawals of contributions.
In 1967-68 receipts totalled $270 million and disbursements totalled $84 million.
TABLE 49 (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
Public Service Superannuation Account	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969 (preliminary)Receipts- Contributions- Employees- Government	
Crown corporations	
Crown corporations	
Government	
Interest	
Actuarial liability	
Other	57.7 4.1 61.8 3.4 55.6 78.7 169.5 0.6	«>63.4 3.3 66.7 3.7 57.8 89.5 79.6 1.2	W55.5 3.8 69. S 3.8 59.3 98.5 152.2 0.9	66.0 5.2 71.2 5.0 59.6 110.9 21.5 2.2	66.0 6.0 72.0 5.5 66.0 117.9 121.0 2.5Disbursements- Annuities	
Withdrawals of contributions	
Other	369.6	298.5	374.0	270.4	384.9-52.6 -10.8 -0.8	-57.7 -11.3 -0.9	-62.8 -11.1 -1.0	-68.2 -10.8 -5.1	-70.0 -11.0 -5.5Excess of receipts over disbursements	
Balance in fund brought forward	
Balance at credit of fund	-64.2	-69.9	-74.9	-84.1	-86.5305.4 1,856.4	228.6 2,161.8	299.1 2,390.4	186.3 2,689.5	298.4 2,875.82,161.8	2,390.4	2,689.5	2,875.8	3,174.2
d^The 1966 figure includes $4.1 million due to dual contributions temporarily required in respect of the Canada and Quebec pension plans.
(2)Net after deduction of $4.1 million referred to in footnote <*>.
June 3, 19S9
[Stage Direction]
Canadian forces superannuation account
The balance of $3,024 million at March 31, 1969 reflected an increase of $301 million during the fiscal year.
Receipts of $366 million included $35 million in contributions by personnel, $57 million in regular government contributions, $112 million in interest credited by the government and $160 million credited to the account to provide for additional liabilities arising out of salary increases in 1968-69. Regular government contributions were made at the rate of one and two-thirds times the current and prior service contributions by personnel. Interest at 4 per cent per annum is credited to the account quarterly and is computed quarterly on the outstanding balance at the end of the previous quarter.
Disbursements of $65 million included $58 million in pensions and retiring allowances and $7 million in cash termination allowances and return of contributions.
In 1967-68 receipts were $198 million and disbursements were $52 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31				
Canadian Forces Superannuation Account	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969 (preliminary)Receipts- Contributions-	35.2	0)34.1	025.1	33.1	35.058.8	58.8	42.6	58.4	57.075.0	83.2	91.7	105.2	112.267.2	16.6	279.2	159.6Other	0.2	0.3	0.3	1.4	1.8236.4	193.0	438.9	198.1	365.6Disbursements-	-18.6	-26.7	-36.8	-45.7	-58.1Cash termination allowances and return of	-11.0	-10.1	-9.2	-6.0	-6.5Other	-0.2	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.3-29.8	-36.9	-46.1	-51.8	-64.9206.6	156.1	392.8	146.3	300.7Balance in fund brought forward	1,821.5	2,028.1	2,184.2	2,577.0	2,723.32,028.1	2,184.2	2,577.0	2,723.3	3,024.0
(i) Includes $2.1 million due to dual contributions temporarily required in respect of the Canada and Quebec pension plans.
(a) Net after deduction of $2.1 million referred to in footnote").
Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account
The balance of $131 million in this account as at March 31, 1969 was $26 million more than the previous fiscal year-end balance of $105 million.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Receipts during the year of $28 million consisted of $4 million in contributions by personnel. $4 million in interest credited to the account, $7 million in contributions by the government and $13 million to provide for additional liabilities arising out of salary increases in 1968-69.
Disbursements of $2 million consisted of annuities and allowances, cash termination allowances and return of contributions.
In 1967-68 receipts were $21 million and disbursements were $1 million.
TABLE 51 (in millions of dollars)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	Fiscal year ended March 31				
Superannuation Account	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969 (preliminary)
Receipts-					
Contributions-					
Personnel		2.1 3.2 1.9 5.2	CU2.2 3.9 2.4	<J>2.2 4.5		3.8 6.6 4.6
Government						
Interest						
Actuarial liability				11.1		
					
	12.4	8.5	20.7	20.6	27.7
Disbursements-					
Annuities and allowances		-0.4	-0.5	-0.7	-0.8	-1.0
Cash termination allowances and return of					
contributions		-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.2	-0.4
					
-0.7	-0.8	-1.0	-1.0	-1.4Excess of receipts over disbursements	11.7	7.7 57.7	19.7 65.4	19.6 85.1	26.3Balance in fund brought forward .	46.0	
Balance at credit of fund		57.7	65.4	85.1		131.0
				'	
(* Includes $0.2 million due to dual contributions temporarily required in respect of the Canada and Quebec pension plans.
<2>Net after deduction of $0.2 million referred to in footnote'1).
Canada pension plan account
The balance of $2,108 million at March 31, 1969 was $755 million higher than the balance at March 31, 1968.
Credits to the account of $786 million included $698 million in contributions under the act, $85 million in interest from investments and $2 million in interest on the operating balance in the account on deposit with the Receiver General. Charges to the account were $31 million of which $15 million was administrative costs.
The amount by which the operating balance of the Canada pension plan account in any month exceeds the estimated amount required to meet all payments in the following three-month period is available for the purchase of securities of participating provinces. Securities of Canada shall be purchased with the excess remaining after purchasing securities of each province as required.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
During the year, securities totalling $742 million were purchased bringing the balance at March 31, 1969 to $2,023 million of which $2,012 million was provincial bonds and $11 million vras federal bonds. These are recorded in the asset account "Canada pension plan investment fund".

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Canada Pension Plan Account	Fiscal year ended March 31			
	1966	1967	1968	1969 (preliminary)
Receipts-				
Contributions	91.9	587.2	640.2	698.011.0	42.2	84.9Interest on operating balance	(1)	1.1	1.4	2.4Other	0.6	0.9	0.694.9	599.9	684.7	785.9Payments-	Administrative expenses	-5.5	-8.3	-11.5	-15.2Benefit payments	-0.1	-1.3	-15.5-5.5	-8.4	-12.8	-30.7Excess of receipts over payments	89.4	591.5	671.9	755.2Balance in fund brought forward	89.4	680.9	1,352.8Balance at credit of fund	89.4	680.9	1,352.8	2,108.0Less investment in securities held in the Canada	pension plan investment fund	-34.8	-615.5	-1,280.8	-2,023.0Operating balance on deposit with the government	54.6	65.4	72.0	85.0
<*Less than 550,000.
Government annuities account
The balance in this account of $1,324 million was $2 million less than the balance at March 31, 1968. Receipts of $65 million included $15 million from premiums and $50 million in interest from the government. Disbursements of $67 million consisted mainly of vested annuity and commuted value payments and refunds of premiums. In 1967-68 receipts amounted to $70 million and disbursements were $68 million.
Old age security fund
The Old Age Security Act, 1951 directed that this fund be established and that credits to the fund should consist of a 2 per cent sales tax, a 2 per cent tax (maximum tax $60) on individual incomes and a 2 per cent tax on corporation incomes, and that pension payments of $40 per month be paid to all eligible persons over 70 years of age. Payments were effective from January 1952.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Amendments to the act have increased these tax rates: on individual incomes to 4 per cent effective January 1, 1964 (maximum tax $120 increased to $240 effective January 1, 1967); on corporation incomes to 3 per cent effective January 1, 1959; and on sales to 3 per cent effective April 10, 1959.
Pension rates also have been increased to $75 per month effective October 1, 1963 and to $76.50 per month effective January 1, 1968 and to $78 per month effective January 1, 1969 by amendments to the act.
The act was further amended to authorize pension payments effective January 1966 to all persons who satisfied the residence requirements of the act and who had attained the age of 69 years on or before January 1, 1966; the age limit being reduced by one year on January 1st of each subsequent year until 1970. A further amendment to the act in 1966-67 authorized the payment of a monthly guaranteed supplement to eligible pensioners of $30 per month in 1967 and, in any year thereafter, 40 per cent of the amount of the pension that may be paid to him dependent upon the amount of his income for the preceding year.
During 1968-69 receipts of $1,620 million exceeded pension payments of $1,544 million by $76 million, bringing the balance in the fund to $612 million at March 31, 1969. Receipts consisted of $522 million from the sales tax, $915 million from the tax on personal incomes and $183 million from the tax on corporation profits.
In 1967-68 receipts of $1,495 million exceeded pension payments of $1,388 million by $107 million resulting in a balance of $536 million at March 31, 1968.
TABLE 53 (in millions of dollars)
Old Age Security Fund	Fiscal year ended March 31				
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969 (preliminary)Tax receipts- Sales tax	383.2	522.1	559.5	544.5	522 0Personal income tax	431.9	494.9	576.6	800.1	915 0145.2	152.3	149.5	150.0	183.0
Total tax receipts		960.3	1,169.3 -927.3	1,285.6 -1,073.0	1,494.6 -1,388.1	1,620.0 -1,544.0
Pension payments		-885.3				
					
	75.0	242.0	212.6	106.5	76.0
	-100.0	-25.0			
			217.0	429.6	536.1
Temporary loans by the Minister of Finance to cover deficit in fund		25.0				
					
Balance in fund			217.0	429.6	536.1	612.1
					
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
A distribution by provinces of pension payments from the old age security fund is shown in the following table:

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Old Age Security Payments	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Newfoundland	32.3	28.8	3.5Nova Scotia	69.3	63.5	5.8Prince Edward Island	12.6	11.5	i.iNew Brunswick	52.1	47.4	4.7363.0	321.9	41.1Ontario	553.0	496.9	56.1Manitoba	88.5	80.4	8.1Saskatchewan	87.1	79.6	7.5Alberta	104.1	93.4	10.7British Columbia	180.5	163.5	17.0Northwest and Yukon Territories	1.5	1.2	0.31,544.0	1,388.1	155.9
Undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts
This category records the undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts from which disbursements may be made for authorized purposes. They fall into two classes. The first of these, comprising the majority of the accounts, consists of those cases where Parliament has appropriated moneys for specific purposes. The other class consists of accounts to which is credited moneys received from the sale of materials, supplies, equipment, land, works and buildings and which are available for purposes of the Department of National Defence. The balance of $225 million was $101 million more than the balance at March 31,1968.
The balance of $87 million in the international assistance account was $22 million more than the balance at March 31, 1968. Disbursements of $41 million from the fund were more than offset by a credit of $63 million, which amount was charged to budgetary expenditure of the Department of External Affairs.
Surplus Crown assets account was established by authority of vote 48 of the Department of National Defence 1965-66 estimates and is credited with all revenue received from the sale of surplus materials, supplies and equipment, and from the sale of surplus buildings, works and land. The account is debited with expenditures, subject to the approval of Treasury Board, for any of the purposes of the Department of National Defence. The balance in the account as at March 31, 1969 was $13 million reflecting a decrease of $18 million from the previous year's balance of $31 million.
The balance of $2 million in the area development account was $9 million less than at March 31, 1968 due to credits of $17 million which were charged to budgetary expenditures of the Department of Industry being more than offset by disbursements of $26 million. In 1967-68 $26 million was credited to the account and disbursements were $15 million resulting in a balance of $11 million at March 31, 1968.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
TABLE 55 (in millions of dollars)
Undisbursed Balances of Appropriations to Special Accounts	Balance at March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)Contingency for salary revisions	111.0	111.0 22.2 -18.0 -8.6 -1.087.0	64.8	13.1	31.1	2.4	11.0 9.5	Railway grade crossing fund	8.5	Centennial of confederation fund	2.3	7.3	-5.0 -0.1Other	1.0	i.i	
225.3	124.8	100.5
The balance of $9 million in the railway grade crossing fund was $1 million less than the balance at the previous fiscal year-end. Credits to the fund amounted to $10 million (charged to budgetary expenditure of the Department of Transport) and disbursements from the fund were $11 million.
The balance of $2 million in the centennial of confederation fund was $5 million less than the balance at March 31, 1968. No credits were made to the account in 1968-69.
The contingency for salary revisions account was set up to record moneys charged to 1968-69 appropriations for salary increases.
Refundable corporation tax
This account records the refundable corporation tax on cash profits of businesses, and is payable by all corporations not exempt from tax under section 62 of the Income Tax Act and by certain types of trusts on specified types of income. During the year there was a net amount of $96 million refunded to corporations, bringing the balance to $140 million at March 31, 1969.
Provision for estimated premium on redemption of bonds
This records the estimated amount of $12 million for the prorated provision to March 31, 1969 for the premium due at maturity on the then outstanding 1959 series of Canada savings bonds and for the prorated provision to March 31, 1969 for the special compound interest feature applicable to the 1966, 1967 and 1968 series of Canada savings bonds.
Deferred credits
Recorded in these accounts are amounts due the government in respect of which payment is deferred. These are contra accounts to corresponding items under the following asset categories: "loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations", "loans to national governments" and "other loans and investments". The balance of $180 million was $30 million more than the balance at March 31,
1968.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Also included in this category are premiums, received on the issue of Government of Canada bonds, which are being credited to interest on public debt on a monthly amortization basis.
Deferred interest in respect of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, vhich is a contra account to a corresponding item in "loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations", increased by $12 million bringing the balance at March 31, 1969 to $67 million.
Deferred interest in respect of the loan under the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946, which is a contra account to a corresponding item in "loans to national governments" increased by $18 million as a result of the deferment of the interest due on December 31, 1968 bringing the balance to $101 million at March 31, 1969.
The government equity in the agency account of Crown assets disposal corporation is a contra account to a corresponding asset account under "other loans and investments". The balance of $8 million was $1 million more than the total at March 31, 1968.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		Increase
Deferred Credits	1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)Deferred interest-	0.1	0.1	Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	Northern Canada Power Commission	3.9	3.9	12.0The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	66.5	54.5	United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946	101.1 171.6	83.0 141.5	18.1 S0.1Balances receivable under agreements of sale of Crown	0.3	0.3	0.7Crown Assets Disposal Corporation-government equity	8.0	7.3	Unamortized premium on loans	0.5	0.8	-0.3180.4	149.9	30.5
Suspense accounts
These consist of balances where some uncertainty as to disposition exists. The balance at March 31,1969 was $4 million, slightly more than at the previous fiscal year-end.
Unmatured debt
The unmatured debt of Canada in the amount of $22,101 million was $1,521 million more than the previous fiscal year-end total. Obligations payable in Canada were $21,658 million, those payable in New York were $267 million, those payable in Germany were $68 million and those payable in Italy were $108 million. Comparative obligations in 1967-68 were $20,420 million for Canadian issues and $160 million for New York issues.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Details of the various loan issues, maturities, cancellations and redemptions resulting in the net increase are described more fully in the section "The Public Debt".

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Unmatured Debt	Balance at March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)Payable in Canada- Marketable bonds	12,263.0 6,168.3 11.3 376.0 18,818.6 2,840.0	11,541.3 6,096.5 5.7 296.0 17,939.6 2,480.0	721.7 71.8 5.6 80.0 879.1 360.0Non-marketable bonds- Canada savings bonds	Canada pension plan	Unemployment Insurance Commission	Treasury bills	
Payable in New York <*>
(2)		21,658.6 266.7 67.6 108.1	20,419.5 160.4	1,239.1 106.3 67.6 108.1
Payable in Germany <*>
<2>
Payable in Italy <2>
22,101.0	20,579.9	1,521.1
WMarketable bonds.
^Converted at the official parity rates.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31
* Preliminary
15
5
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Asset Accounts
Current assets
These accounts consist of various cash accounts, working capital advances and the securities investment account.
Total current assets at $1,116 million were $414 million less than at March 31, 1968. The main change was a decrease of $416 million in cash in current deposits.
The defence production revolving fund records the cost of materials procured for use in the manufacture of defence equipment until such time as they are billed to the Department of National Defence or sold to defence contractors for use in the manufacture of defence equipment, as well as working capital loans and advances for their production. During 1968-69 sales exceeded purchases by $2 million bringing the balance in the account to $37 million at March 31, 1969.
The stockpiling of uranium concentrates account records the acquisition of uranium concentrates in accordance with contracts entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council by the Eldorado Nuclear Limited on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada with certain mining companies. The balance at March 31, 1969 was $86 million, $11 million higher than the balance at the previous year-end.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Current Assets	Balance at March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Cash accounts- Cash in current deposits(1)	
Cash in special deposits	
Cash in hands of collectors and in transit	
Indian agencies revenue trust bank accounts	
Moneys received after March 31 but applicable to the current year	
Post office-cash on hand and in transit	599.0 1.3 250.0 0.3 24.6 15.0	1,014.8 1.3 244.3 0.3 20.4 18.7	-415.8 5.7 4.2 -3.7Departmental working capital advances- Agricultural commodities stabilization account	
Defence production revolving fund	[DOT] [DOT] Miscellaneous departmental imprest and standing ad- Miscellaneous departmental accountable advances	
Royal Canadian Mint	
Stockpiling of uranium concentrates	
Transport stores account	890.2	1,299.8	-409.60.8 37.0 12.9 14.2 3.6 86.0 12.4 14.8	1.4 39.0 12.9 14.2 15.6 74.9 11.4 17.1	-0.6 -2.0 -12.0 11.1 1.0 -2.3181.7	186.5	-4.8Securities investment account	44.4	44.4	1,116.3	1,530.7	-414.4
d>
Receiver General year-end balances in London, New York, Paris, Brussels and Bonn are at the Canadian dollar equivalent of exchange rates at March 31.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Cash in blocked currency
The balance in this account was $2 million, approximately $200 thousand less than at March 31, 1968.
Notes of Industrias Forestales, S.A. and Compania Manufacturer de Papeles y Cartones, S.A., held by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, and which were due in 1965 and 1966, could not be paid in accordance with their terms because the Chilean Government was unable to make available the necessary Canadian currency. An alternate scheme was devised whereby the debtors could make their payments on the notes.
_ The Export Credits Insurance Corporation received the payments in Chile in Canadian dollars and the amount upon receipt was paid to the Receiver General of Canada into a blocked account established by the Receiver General with the Central Bank of Chile, the Government of Chile to pay in Canadian dollars interest at 6 per cent per annum on the sums held in this account directly to the Receiver General of Canada in Ottawa.
Ihe Government of Chile agreed to the withdrawal of 20 per cent of the deposits made to the account in 1965 in each of the years 1968 to 1972 and 20 per cent of the deposits made to the account in 1966 in each of the years 1969 to 1973.
Advances to the exchange fund account
Advances during the year to finance the purchase of gold and foreign exchange amounted to $2,518 million and repayments were $1,684 million, resulting in a net increase of $834 million bringing the outstanding advances to $2,867 million at March 31, 1969.
During 1967-68 advances of $1,508 million and repayments of $1,830 million resulted in a balance of $2,033 million at March 31, 1968.
Investments in United States dollar securities issued by other than the Government of Canada
This account records the special securities issued by the Government of the United States of America and purchased by Canada pursuant to agreements made to carry out the Columbia River Treaty between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada. During 1968-69 securities in the amount of $32 million were redeemed leaving a balance of $90 million in the account at March 31, 1969.
Canada pension plan investment fund
The Canada pension plan investment fund records securities purchased under the Canada Pension Plan Act and the sale of these securities. The amount by which the operating balance of the Canada pension plan account in any month exceeds the estimated amount required to meet all payments in the following three-month period is available for the purchase of securities of participating provinces. Securities of Canada shall be purchased with the excess remaining after purchasing securities of each province as required. The holdings in the account at March 31, 1969 were $2,023 million of which $11 million was in federal government securities.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
TABLE 59 (in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		Increase
Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund	1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)Securities of-	37.9	23.7	14.277.1	47.9	29.27.2	4.3	2.958.8	37.0	21.84.6	2.2	2.41,140.6 118.7	728.6	412.076.4	42.391.5	55.6	35.9181.7	113.3	68.4293.6	186.1	107.511.3	5.7	5.6
2,023.0	1,280.8	742.2
Investments held for retirement of unmatured debt
Recorded herein is $6 million of the 5| per cent loan issued August 1, 1962 and maturing August 1, 1980.
Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations
Loans and investments in this category totalled $8,768 million, an increase of $832 million over the total at March 31, 1968.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
There was a balance of $208 million in this account at March 31, 1969 consisting of an investment of $15 million by the government in capital stock and loans of $193 million of which $70 million was in respect of the Douglas Point generating station. Comparable amounts at March 31, 1968 were $139 million consisting of $15 million in capital stock and loans of $124 million of which $70 million was in respect of the Douglas Point generating station.
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
The Crown's investment in the corporation amounted to $23 million at March 31, 1969, of which $10 million was in capital stock and $13 million in respect of loans. In 1967-68 capital stock amounted to $10 million and loans were $19 million.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
There was no change in the advances for working capital during 1968-69, the balance remaining at $9 million at March 31, 1969. Advances to the corporation for the purpose of capital expenditure amounted to $22 million during the year, bringing the total of advances to $96 million at March 31, 1969. Recovery of these advances is likely to require parliamentary appropriations in subsequent fiscal years.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
TABLE 60 (in millions of dollars)
Loans to, and Investments in, Crown Corporations	Balance at March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	207.5	138.9	68.6Bank of Canada	5.9	5.9	Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation	23.5	29.4	-5.9Canadian Arsenals Limited	5.0	5.0	Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	9.0	9.0	Canadian Commercial Corporation	15.5	16.5	-1.0Canadian Dairy Commission	42.0	22.2	19.8Canadian National Railways	1,982.2	1,777.1	205.1Air Canada	3.3	8.0	-4.71,985.5	1,785.1	200.4Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation...	49.3	52.4	-3.1Cape Breton Development Corporation	10.0	5.2	4.8Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	3,962.1	3,575.4	386.7Eldorado Nuclear Limited	8.2	8.2	Export Credits Insurance Corporation	233.0	199.1	33.9Farm Credit Corporation	1,049.9	921.7	128.2National Capital Commission-excluding Greenbelt	28.2	37.4	-9.2National Harbours Board	260.7	250.1	10.6Northern Canada Power Commission	42.1	33.6	8.5Polymer Corporation Limited	30.0	30.0	The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority- Loans	379.5	362.9	16.6Deferred interest	66.5	54.5	12.0Interest-free loans	75.0	75.0	521.0	492-4	28.6Recovery likely to require parliamentary appropriations-[DOT]	Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	96.1	74.1	22.0Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition....	148.0	205.0	-57.0National Capital Commission-Greenbelt	34.0	37.7	-3.7278.1	816.8	-S8.7Other Crown Corporations	1.2	1.3	-0.18,767.7	7,935.6	832.1
Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition
This account records the purchase by the government of securities issued by the corporation in accordance with the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act. The balance in the account at March 31, 1969 was $148 million compared with $205 million at March 31, 1968. The decrease resulted from a payment of $75 million by the Province of Quebec in respect of its guarantee of these securities. The payment was in the form of provincial notes which have been recorded in the category "loans to provincial governments".
During the year the federal government was called on to implement its guarantee of loans made by certain chartered banks to the corporation. These payments totalled $18 million and have been recorded in this account.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Dairy Commission
Loans to the commission, to enable it to purchase and sell dairy products as authorized by the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, c. 34, 1966-67, amounted to $42 million compared with $22 million in 1967-68.
Canadian National Railways (including Air Canada)
Outstanding advances to the Canadian National Railways at March 31, 1969 amounted to $1,985 million, $200 million more than the balance of $1,785 million at the previous fiscal year-end.
During 1968-69 the government made available $242 million to the company and received payments of $42 million, resulting in a net increase of $200 million in outstanding advances. In 1967-68 advances were $211 million and repayments were $47 million.
In 1968-69 the government made advances of $186 million to the company for capital purposes and the refunding of debt in the hands of the public.
To assist the company to finance further capital expenditure during the year, the government purchased $28 million of the 4 per cent preferred stock of the company. This stock is issued under the authority of the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act, 1952, in an amount equal to 3 per cent of the gross revenue of the company.
At March 31, 1968 temporary loans of $13 million were outstanding to the company in respect of its 1968 deficit. Additional loans of $16 million were advanced during the year for its 1968 operations. These were repaid when the company's income deficit of $32 million was charged to the 1968-69 budgetary expenditures. Additional loans of $5 million were advanced for the company's 1969 operations.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		Increase
Advances to the Canadian National Railways	1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)Capital Revision Act, 1952-	1,133.3	1,105.2	28.1100.0	100.0	29.0	29.0	26.4	26.4	50.0	50.0	72.0	27.0	45.074.8	74.813.0	-13.05.0	5.0451.1	395.3	55.8Loans for maintenance, repair and acquisition of passenger	2.4	2.9	-0.521.2	11.3	9.917.0	17.0	3.3	8.0	-4.7
1,985.5	1,785.1	200.4
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
At March 31, 1968 temporary loans of $8 million were outstanding to Air Canada in respect of its 1968 operations. An additional $4 million was advanced during the year for its 1968 operations. These were repaid by the company during 1968-69. Additional loans of $3 million were advanced for the company's 1969 operations.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Advances to, and Repayments by, the Canadian National Railways	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Advances- For the refunding of debt	55.8	72.3	-16.5Financing and Guarantee Act, 1965 and 1966	10.0	-10.0Financing and Guarantee Act, 1967	45.0	27.0	18.0Financing and Guarantee Act, 1968	74.8	74.8Temporary loans-acquisition of bonds	9.8	11.3	-1.5Interim financing- Canadian National Railways	21.2	48.9	-27.7Air Canada	7.2	11.6	-4.4Total advances	213.8	181.1	32.7Purchase of 4 per cent preferred stock (C.N.R. Capital Revision Act, 1952)	28.1	30.0	-1.9241.9	211.1	30.8Repayments- Maintenance, repair and acquisition of passenger equipment 	-0.5	-0.4	-0.1Advances for interim financing- Canadian National Railways	-29.2	-35.9	6.7Air Canada	-11.8	-11.0	-0.8-41.S'	-4T.S	5.8Net increase during the fiscal year	200.4	163.8	36.6
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
The balance of $3,962 million in this account at March 31, 1969 was $387 million higher than at March 31, 1968, and comprised the Crown's investment of $25 million in the capital of the corporation and $3,937 million in loans and advances.
Loans and advances to the corporation were $522 million in 1968-69 and repayments were $135 million. In 1967-68 advances were $767 million and repayments were $133 million.
Advances comprised $445 million for direct lending and limited dividend housing, $29 million for federal-provincial projects for housing, $17 million in respect of municipal sewage treatment, $30 million for university housing and $1 million for urban renewal.
Repayments of $135 million included $115 million for direct lending and limited dividend housing, $13 million for sewage treatment projects, $4 million for federal-provincial projects, $2 million in respect of acquisition or construction of real estate and $1 million for university housing projects.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
TABLE 63 (in millions of dollars)
Advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	Balance at March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)3,352.1 167.2	3,021.7	330.4142.0	25.25.1	5.3	-0.2148.7	144.8	3.9197.0	168.7	28.365.1	67.4	-2.31.9	0.5	1.425.0	25.0	
3,962.1	3,575.4	386.7

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Advances to, and Repayments by, Centkal Mortgage and Housing Corporation	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase.196.9 (preliminary)	1968	decrease (-)Advances-	Direct lending, limited dividend and public housing	445.4	680.5	-235.1Sewage treatment projects	16.5	29.1	-12.6University housing projects	29.5	42.5	-13.0Federal-provincial projects	29.0	14.0	15.0Urban renewal	1.5	0.5	1.0621.9	766.6	-2U-7Repayments-	-15.4Direct lending, limited dividend and public housing....	-115.0	-99.6	Sewage treatment projects	-12.6	-12.4	-0.2University housing projects	-1.2	-0.6	-0.6Federal-provincial projects	-3.8	-2.9	-0.9Loan and mortgage purchase fund	-0.2	-14.9	14.7Acquisition or construction of real estate	-2.3	-2.3	Urban renewal	-0.1	-0.1- 185.2	-182.7	-2.6Net increase during the fiscal year	386.7	633.9	-247.2
Export Credits Insurance Corporation
The outstanding balance of 1233 million in this account at March 31, 1969 consisted of $5 million for capital stock, $5 million for working capital and 1223 million for loans under section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act. This section of the act authorizes the making of loans, on security of a guaranteed instrument, to the corporation by the Minister of Finance. Comparable amounts in 1967-68 were $5 million for capital stock, $5 million for working capital and $189 million for loans.
9690
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Farm Credit Corporation
The government provides loans to the corporation which makes loans on farm property. The balance of $1,050 million in the account at March 31. 1969 consisted of the Crown's investment of $40 million in the capital of the corporation and $1,010 million in loans and advances. At March 31, 1968 the balance was $922 million consisting of capital investment of $35 million and loans and advances of $887 million.
The 1968-69 transactions in the account consisted of additional subscriptions of $5 million by the government to the capital of the corporation, loans and advances of $172 million and repayments of $49 million compared with $7 million, $195 million and $33 million, respectively, in the previous fiscal year.
National Capital Commission
Loans to acquire property in the "Greenbelt" area amounted to $34 million at March 31, 1969, $4 million less than at the end of the previous year. Recovery of these loans is likely to require parliamentary appropriations in subsequent fiscal years.
Loans to acquire property excluding the "Greenbelt" area totalled $28 million at March 31, 1969, $9 million less than at March 31, 1968.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Outstanding obligations in this account at March 31, 1969 amounted to $521 million and comprised $380 million in interest-bearing loans, $75 million in interest-free loans and $66 million in deferred interest. At March 31, 1968 outstanding obligations were $492 million consisting of $363 million in interestbearing loans, $75 million in interest-free loans and $54 million in deferred interest.
Other Crown Corporations
During the year advances to the Cape Breton Development Corporation increased by $5 million to $10 million, advances to the National Harbours Board increased by $11 million to $261 million, advances to the Northern Canada Power Commission increased by $8 million to $42 million and advances to the Canadian Commercial Corporation decreased by $1 million to $16 million and advances to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation decreased by $3 million to $49 million.
Loans to national governments
There was an increase of $63 million in this category bringing the total balance to $1,269 million at March 31, 1969.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
In accordance with an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Kingdom there was a deferment of the payment of principal and interest due December 31, 1968 on the $1,185 million loan made under the $1,250 million credit authorized by the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946. the principal outstanding at the close of the year remaining at $957 million and deferred interest increasing by $18 million to $101 million.
Advances under Part II of the Export Credits Insurance Act to Belgium, France and The Netherlands to assist them in the purchasing of goods in Canada were reduced by a repayment of $2 million, bringing the balance at March 31, 1969 to $118 million. The decrease of $2 million was the regular annual payment by the Government of Belgium. There were no repayments by the Governments of France and The Netherlands as each of these countries had made advance payments in 1962-63 covering instalments up to and including the 1969 instalment.
The special loan assistance-developing countries account is an account which records loans which are subject to terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, for the purpose of undertaking agreed-upon economic, educational and technical projects. The balance in the account at March 31, 1969 was $93 million, an increase of $49 million over the balance at the previous fiscal year-end.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Loans to National Governments	Balance at March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)Loans to United Kingdom-	The United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946...	957.0	957.0	Deferred Interest	101.1	83.0	18.11,058.1	1,040.0	18.1Loans under the Export Credits Insurance Act, Part II-	Belgium	18.5	20.8	-2.3F ranee	66.9	66.9	The Netherlands	32.1	32.1	117.5	119.8	-2.3Miscellaneous loans and advances- India-loan for purchase of aircraft and associated spare	parts	1.3	-1.3France-interim credits-consolidated interest	0.7	0.7	Special loan assistance-developing countries	92.6	44.1	48.5Other	0.2	0.2	9S.5	46. S	47.21,269.1	1,206.1	63.0
29180-613£
[Stage Direction]
June 3>
1969
Other loans and investments
Balances in these accounts totalled $2,110 million at March 31, 1969, $165 million more than at the end of the previous fiscal year.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Other Loans and Investments	Balance at March 31	Increase1969 (preliminary)	1968	or decrease (-)Subscriptions to capital of, and working capital advances and loans to, international organizations- Canada's subscriptions to capital of- Asian development bank	8.1	5.4	2.7International bank for reconstruction and development	85.0	85.0	International development association	112.8	85.7	27.1International finance corporation	3.5	3.5	International monetary fund	782.7	782.7	99S.1	963. S	39.8Working capital advances and loans to international organizations	7.0	7.3	-0.3999.1	969.6	39.5Loans to provincial governments	270.0	187.7	82.3Veterans land act fund	447.6	406.2	41.4Less reserve for conditional benefits	-24.4	-23.3	-1.1433.9	S83.9	40.3Municipal development and loan board advances	276.7	280.6	-3.9Less reserve for forgiveness of indebtedness	-0.9	0.9376.7	379.7	-3.0Miscellaneous- Assisted passage scheme	11.0	13.2	-2.2Crown Assets Disposal Corporation- Government equity in agency account	8.1	7.3	0.8Defence plant modernization	14.2	10.2	4.0Housing projects for Canadian forces	21.7	21.6	0.1Loans to manufacturers of automotive products in Canada	22.9	20.5	2.4Northwest Territories	14.9	12.8	2.1Yukon Territory	11.7	9.7	2.0Other	33.3	26.1	7.2137.8	131.4	16.4Recovery likely to require parliamentary appropriations- Town of Oromocto, New Brunswick	3.6	3.9	-0.32,110.4	1,945.2	165.2
Canada's subscriptions to the capital of international organizations at $992 million were $30 million higher, due mainly to additional subscriptions of $27 million to the international development association. Working capital advances and loans to international organizations were $7 million, slightly less than at the end of the previous fiscal year.
Loans to provincial governments totalled $270 million at March 31, 1969, an increase of $82 million over the total at the previous year-end.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
The veterans land act fund was established by An Act to amend the Veterans' Land Act, assented to June 30, 1965, to record advances made under the Veterans' Land Act, for the acquisition, by the Director, of properties, buildings, materials, livestock, farm equipment and commercial fishing equipment for purposes of the act, for sale to qualified veterans of world war 2 and Korea under sales agreements which carry specified conditional benefits if the terms of such agreements are adhered to by the veterans, and for progress payments to veterans during construction of housing. During 1968-69 advances of $73 million and repayments of $32 million brought outstanding advances at March 31, 1969 to $448 million. This was partly offset by a reserve for conditional benefits amounting to $25 million, resulting in a net balance of $423 million at the fiscal year-end.
Under the Municipal Development and Loan Act, advances are made to the Municipal Development and Loan Board to provide financial assistance by way of loans to municipalities to augment or accelerate municipal capital works programs. Where the municipal project in respect of which a loan is made is completed on or before September 30, 1966, the board shall forgive payment by the municipality of 25 per cent of the principal amount of the loan. If a project is not completed as at September 30, 1966, the board shall forgive 25 per cent of that portion of the loan that has been advanced to the municipality as of September 30, 1966. At March 31, 1969 advances totalled $277 million compared with $281 million at March 31, 1968. The reserve for forgiveness of indebtedness reflected a nil balance at March 31, 1969 compared with $1 million at March 31, 1968.
Miscellaneous loans and investments totalled $138 million at March 31, 1969, an increase of $16 million over the balance at March 31, 1968 due mainly to increases of $4 million in loans for defence plant modernization and $2 million in loans to manufacturers of automotive products in Canada.
Loans to assist defence manufacturers for defence plant modernization, which are subject to the approval of Treasury Board, amounted to $14 million at March 31, 1969 compared with $10 million in 1967-68.
Loans to manufacturers of automotive products in Canada were made in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, to assist manufacturers of automotive products in Canada affected by the Canada-United States Agreement on Automotive Products to adjust and expand their production; such loans to be made for the purpose of acquisition, construction, installation, modernization, development, conversion or expansion of land, buildings, equipment, facilities or machinery and for working capital. Loans to manufacturers amounted to $23 million compared with $21 million at March 31, 1968.
Securities held in trust
Recorded herein are the security holdings in connection with various deposit and trust accounts and annuity, insurance and pension accounts. Bonds and certified cheques held in connection with contractors' securities included in the deposit and trust category are also recorded under this heading. The balance at March 31, 1969 was $113 million, an increase of $53 million over the previous fiscal year-end balance.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Deferred charges
These consist of the unamortized balances of actuarial deficiencies in the Canadian forces superannuation account, the public service superannuation account and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account and the outstanding unamortized loan flotation costs.
The balances in these accounts totalled $614 million at March 31, 1969 compared with $492 million at March 31, 1968.
TABLE 67 (in millions of dollars)
Deferred Charges	Balance at March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1969 (preliminary)	1968	
Unamortized portions of actuarial deficiencies- Canadian forces superannuation account	242.4	187.6	54.8Public service superannuation account	187.4	150.4	37.0Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account	20.7	15.8	4.9Jt50.5	S5S.8	96.7Unamortized loan flotation costs	163.0	138.2	24.8613.5	492.0	121.5
Unamortized portions of actuarial deficiencies
At March 31, 1969 these totalled $451 million compared with $354 million at March 31, 1968, an increase of $97 million.
Any actuarial deficiencies revealed by quinquennial valuations are credited to the superannuation accounts and charged to this account and amortized to budgetary expenditure in five equal annual instalments commencing in the fiscal year in which the report is laid before parliament. Also, the cost of benefits payable under the superannuation acts as a result of the authorization of salary increases are credited to the superannuation accounts and charged to this account and amortized to budgetary expenditure over a period of five years commencing in the year in which the increase is authorized.
The unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the Canadian forces superannuation account was $242 million compared with $188 million at March 31, 1968. During the year $122 million was charged thereto as a result of salary increases and $38 million as a result of amendments to the Superannuation Act and $105 million was amortized as a charge to budgetary expenditure.
The unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the public service superannuation account was $187 million compared with $150 million at March 31, 1968. During the year $121 million was charged thereto as a result of salary increases and $84 million was amortized as a charge to budgetary expenditure.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
The unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account was $21 million compared with $16 million at March 31, 1968. During the year $13 million was charged thereto as a result of salary increases and $8 million was amortized as a charge to budgetary expenditure.
Unamortized loan flotation costs
This account records the residual balances of discounts, commissions, redemption bonuses and conversion premiums on loan flotations that have not been charged to budgetary expenditures. The balance of $163 million was $25 million more than the previous fiscal year-end balance.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Unamoktized Loan Flotation Costs
Balance of account at beginning of fiscal year.
New loan flotation costs to be amortized-
7% loan April 1, 1968-April 1, 1973	
6|% loan May 24, 1968-June 1, 1973<'>
6|% loan June 1, 1968-June 1, 1988'2>
61% loan June 15, 1968-July 1, 1969	
7% loan June 15, 1968-October 1, 1970	
7% loan June 15, 1968-June 15, 1974	
6i% loan August 1, 1968-December 15, 1969.
6f% loan August 1, 1968-October 1, 1970....
61% loan October 1, 1968-October 1, 1971...
6j% loan October 1, 1968-April 1, 1975....
61% loan October 1, 1968-October 1, 1995..
61% loan December 16, 1968-May 1, 1970	
61% loan December 16, 1968-April 1, 1971...
Adjustments!*1	
Treasury bills discounts	
Canada savings bonds-adjustment previous issues
Canada savings bonds-new issue	
41% loan April 1, 1967-April 1, 1968	
5%, loan April 1, 1967-October 1, 1973	
51% loan April 1, 1967-May 1, 1990	
41%, loan June 1, 1967-June 15, 1968	
51% loan June 1, 1967-December 1, 1974	
5% loan August 1, 1967-October 1, 1968	
51% loan August i, 1967-April 1, 1969	
6% loan August 1, 1967-December 15, 1971...
41% loan October 1, 1967-December 15, 1968.
51% loan October 1, 1967-December 15, 1969.
6% loan October 1, 1967-April 1, 1971	
61% loan December 1, 1967-December 1, 1973-
6% loan January 15, 1968-February 15, 1970.
Fiscal year ended March 31
(preliminary)
138.2
121.2
3.5 1.2 1.2 0.3 1.2
3.5 0.1 0.2 0.2
1.5 1.9 0.1 0.7 0.3
32.8
0.2
36.1
8S.0
0.2
30.1
0.7
12.6
0.4
2.8
4.4 0.3 1.1 0.1 0.1 4.0 1.3
1.5 0.8 1.9
1.5
6S.8
Less-
Amortization applicable to fiscal year-[DOT]
Canada savings bonds and general loans	
Discounts on treasury bills charged to interest on public debt..
-30.1 -30.1 -60. S
-26.3
-20.5
-46.8
Increase during the year
24.8
17.0
Balance of account at end of fiscal year
163.0
138.2
("Loan issued in Germany.
("Loan issued in New York.
("Adjustments due to cancellations and additional issues of existing loans.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
Cost of new loans issued during 1968-69 and charged to the account amounted to $85 million, of which 833 million was in respect of treasury bills discounts which will be charged to interest on public debt in 1969-70. Credits to the account were $60 million, of which $30 million was a charge to the budgetary item "annual amortization costs" and $30 million (representing discount applicable to 1968-69 on treasury bills sold in 1967-68) was a charge to the budgetary item "interest on public debt".
Treasury bills discounts applicable to the current fiscal year are charged to interest on public debt at time of sale. That portion of the discounts applicable to the subsequent fiscal year is charged to this account and transferred to interest on public debt in the following year.
Capital assets
Assets of the government such as land, buildings, works and equipment, etc., that are charged to budgetary expenditure at the time of acquisition or construction, are included in this category and are shown on the statement of assets and liabilities at a nominal value of $1.
Inactive loans and investments
Loans and investments which are not currently revenue-producing or realizable are recorded herein. Included are the loan of $49 million to China under the Export Credits Insurance Act, loans totalling $24 million and $7 million made to Roumania and Greece, respectively, in 1919-20 and 1920-21 and advances of $15 million in respect of the implementation of guarantees (Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited).
Reserve for losses on realization of assets
There has been no change in this reserve since the fiscal year 1956-57. The balance at March 31, 1969 was $546 million.
Net Debt
The net debt of Canada, or the excess of liabilities over net recorded assets, was $17,326 million at March 31, 1969 compared with $16,760 million at March 31, 1968. The increase of $566 million reflects the 1968-69 budgetary deficit.

[Stage Direction]
The government's bank balances represent current deposits to the credit of the Receiver General of Canada in the Bank of Canada, chartered banks in Canada and certain banks in London, New York, Paris, Brussels and Bonn. These balances totalled $599 million at March 31, 1969, a decrease of $416 million over the balance of $1,015 million at March 31, 1968.
The cash position of the government is affected not only by budgetary transactions but also by changes in the government's unmatured debt and other non-budgetary transactions. Non-budgetary transactions are those which affect the government's asset and liability accounts and must be taken into account when considering the full scope of the government's financial operations and their effect on the economy of the country.
June 3, 1369
[Stage Direction]
On the asset side, the non-budgetary transactions consist, for the most part, of loans and advances to, and repayments by, Crown corporations and other government agencies and funds, national, provincial and municipal governments, international organizations, veterans and other borrowers. On the liability side they relate mainly to receipts and payments in connection with the many deposit and trust accounts, and annuity, insurance and pension funds held or administered by the government.
The following statement summarizes both the budgetary and non-budgetary transactions for 1968-69 and indicates how they affected the government's cash position. For purposes of comparison the corresponding figures for 1967-68 are also shown.
In 1968-69 a deficit of $566 million in budgetary transactions and net disbursements of $1,373 million (excluding unmatured debt transactions) resulted in a net cash requirement of $1,939 million for the fiscal year. As transac-
TABLE 69 (in millions of dollars)
Changes in Cash Position	Fiscal year ended March 31	
	1969 (preliminary)	1968
Budgetary transactions-		
Revenue	10,169.0	9,029.2Expenditure	10,735.0	-9,824.0Deficit	-566.0	-794.8Non-budgetary transactions (excluding unmatured debt	transactions)-	Receipts and credits (net)	2,004.9	1,250.7Disbursements and charges (net)	-3,377.9	-1,044.4Net amount available from, or required for (-), non-bud-	getary transactions	-1,373.0	206.3Overall cash requirement to be financed by increase in	unmatured debt or decrease in cash balances	-1,939.0	-588.5Net Increase in unmatured debt outstanding in the hands	of the public-	Unmatured debt-	Canada savings bonds	71.8	80.1Marketable issues	1,003.7	349.8Treasury bills	360.0	170.0Special issues-	Unemployment Insurance Commission	80.0	36.0Canada pension plan	5.6	3.81,521.1	689.7Securities investment account 	154.9Investments held for retirement of unmatured debt	2.1	-4.91,523.2	789.7Net increase or decrease (-) in Receiver General bank bal-	ances	-415.8	201.2
(^Excluding securities other than government securities. 29180-614
[Stage Direction]
June 3. 1969
tions in unmatured debt during the year resulted in an increase of $1,523 million in outstanding unmatured debt as at March 31, 1969, Receiver General bank balances decreased by $416 million. In 1967-68 the budgetary deficit of $795 million and net receipts of $206 million from non-budgetary transactions resulted in a cash requirement of $589 million. As outstanding unmatured debt increased by $790 million, Receiver General bank balances were increased by $201 million.
Non-budgetary receipts and credits (excluding unmatured debt transactions)
Non-budgetary receipts and credits of $2,005 million in 1968-69 included $1,464 million in respect of annuity, insurance and pension accounts, $130 million in repayments of loans, investments and advances and $411 million in sundry other accounts.
Further details are given in the following table:
TABLE 70 (in millions of dollars)
Non'-Budgetary Receipts and Credits (Net)	Fiscal year ended March 31	
	1969 (preliminary)	1968
Repayments of loans, investments and advances- Investments in United States dollar securities issued by other than the Government of Canada		32.3	57.4 -5.0
Defence production revolving fund		2.0	
Royal Canadian Mint		12.0	2 5
	0.6	0 6
	5.9	-29 4
	1.0	-6.5 -30.0
Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition		57.0	
	3.1	-2.6
National Capital Commission	12.9	-0.8Municipal development and loan board	3.0	-48.5129.8	-62. SAnnuity, insurance and pension accounts- Superannuation accounts- Public service	298.4	186 3300.7	146.3 19 6Royal Canadian Mounted Police	26.3	Canada pension plan account	755.2	671.9Old age security fund	76.0	106 5Other	7.6	6.5 1,137.11,484.2	Other receipts and credits- Outstanding treasury cheques	83.6	44.8Matured debt outstanding	6.8	-4.7Interest due and outstanding	1.4	50.3Interest accrued	70.7	29 1Post office outstanding money orders	19.1	5.7Provincial tax collection agreements account	41.8	27.749.9	2.5Undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts	100.5	23.3Deferred credits	30.5	7.0Miscellaneous	6.6	-9.8410.9	176.92,004.9	1,250.7
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Non-budgetary disbursements and charges (excluding unmatured debt transactions)
Non-budgetary disbursements and charges of $3,378 million in 1968-69 included $1,987 million for loans, investments and advances and $1,391 million in other charges.
Further details are given in the following table:
TABLE 71 (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
Non-Budgetary Disbursements and Charges (Net)
(preliminary)
Loans, investments and advances-
Stockpiling of uranium concentrates	
Advances to the exchange fund account	
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	
Canadian Dairy Commission	
Canadian National Railways	
Cape Breton Development Corporation	
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	
Export Credits Insurance Corporation	
Farm Credit Corporation	
National Harbours Board	
Northern Canada Power Commission	
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	
National governments	
Subscriptions to capital of international organizations
Provincial governments	
Veterans land act fund	
Defence plant modernization	
Loans to manufacturers of automotive products...
Miscellaneous	
Other disbursements and charges-
Canada pension plan investment fund	
Accounts payable	
Non-interest -bearing notes	
Canadian Commercial Corporation-special deposit	
Canadian Dairy Commission	
Refundable corporation tax	
Provision for estimated premium on redemption of bonds	
Cash in hands of collectors and in transit	
Moneys received after March 31 but applicable to the current year
Securities held in trust	
Deferred charges	
11.1	17.7
833.7	-321.7
68.6	32.9
22.0	18.4
19.8	22.1
200.4	163.8
4.8	5.2
386.7	633.9
33.9	34.7
128.2	169.2
10.6	27.8
8.5	2.9
28.6	26.7
63.0	4.5
29.8	17.7
82.3	64.2
40.3	71.5
4.0	10.2
2.4	7.9
8.0	20.1
1,988.7	1,029.7
742.2	665.3
120.2	-65.7
215.7	-450.3
18.1	-38.2
1.1	-25.2
95.8	-39.1
13.6	-6.0
5.7	50.0
4.2	5.1
53.1	8.7
121.5	-89.9
1,S91.2	U.7
3,377.9	1,044.4

[Stage Direction]
Gross and net debt
The gross debt of Canada, or the total of liabilities as recorded on the statement of assets and liabilities, was $35,852 million at March 31, 1969, an increase of $2,928 million over the total at March 31, 1968. The main changes were
29180-614i
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
increases of $1,464 million in annuity, insurance and pension accounts, $1,521 million in unmatured debt and decreases of $152 million in current and demand liabilities and $96 million in refundable corporation tax. Unmatured debt at $22,101 million represented 62 per cent of the total and annuity, insurance and pension accounts at $10,517 million represented 30 per cent. At March 31,
1968	unmatured debt was $20,580 million or 63 per cent and annuity, insurance and pension accounts totalled $9,053 million or 27 per cent.
The government's net recorded assets were $18,526 million at March 31,
1969	an increase of $2,362 million over the total at March 31, 1968. The main changes were increases of $834 million in advances to the exchange fund account, $832 million in loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations, $742 million in the Canada pension plan investment fund, $122 million in deferred charges and $165 million in other loans and investments and a decrease of $414 million in current assets. Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations represented 47 per cent, advances to the exchange fund account represented 15 per cent and the Canada pension plan investment fund represented 11 per cent of the total. At March 31, 1968, loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations represented 49 per cent, advances to the exchange fund account represented 13 per cent and the Canada pension plan investment fund represented 8 per cent of the total.
The net debt of Canada was $17,326 million at March 31, 1969 reflecting an increase of $566 million, equivalent to the 1968-69 budgetary deficit.

[Stage Direction]
Billions of Dollars
Preliminary

[Stage Direction]
Billions of Dollars
June 3. 1969

[Stage Direction]
Statement or Public Debt, Net Recorded Assets and Net Debt of Canada (in millions of dollars)
As at March 31	Gross public debt	Less net recorded assets	Net debt	Increase in net debt during fiscal yearUnmatured debt	Other liabilities	Total	1965	18,978.2	7,585.7	26,563.9	11,059.5	15,504.4	434.31966	19,109.8	8,373.1	27,482.9	11,939.5	15,543.4	39.01967	19,940.2	10,400.0	30,340.2	14,375.2	15,965.0	421.61968	20,579.9	12,344.3	32,924.2	16,164.4	16,759.8	794.81969 (preliminary)	22,101.0	13,751.0	35,852.0	18,526.2	17,325.8	566.0
Unmatured debt
Total unmatured debt of $22,101 million was $1,521 million more than the balance at March 31, 1968.
The government's holdings of its own securities as at March 31, 1969 were comprised of $44 million in the securities investment account (of which $41 million was Canada savings bonds held in respect of the employees instalment purchase plan) and $6 million in investments held for retirement of unmatured debt. This was a decrease of $2 million from the previous fiscal year-end
TABLE 73 (in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31	
Unmatured Debt Transactions	1969 (preliminary)	1968
	20,580	19,940
New issues-		79
	23	1,404
	3,338 539	
Canada savings bonds special replacement series-[DOT]		
	313	
	2,344 163 5	2,235 122 4
Non-marketable bonds (Unemployment Insurance Commission)...		
	360	170
		
	7,085	4,014
Conversions, maturities, redemptions and cancellations-	-954	-1,575 -5
	-2	
	-384	-305 -86 -1,403
Non-marketable bonds, matured or redeemed (Unemployment In-	-83	
	-4,141	
		
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]' I	-5,564	-3,374
	1,521	640
		
	22,101	20,580
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
total when holdings were $44 million in the securities investment account (of which $41 million was in respect of the employees instalment purchase plan) and $8 million in investments held for retirement of unmatured debt.
Of the total unmatured debt, $21,658 million was payable in Canada, $267 million payable in New York, $108 million payable in Italy and $68 million payable in Germany. Securities payable in New York, Italy and Germany have been valued at official parity rates.
Summary of security issues, maturities, conversions, cancellations and redemptions
Excluding the refunding of treasury bills which mature weekly, the government issued securities of $7,085 million and conversions, redemptions, cancellations and maturities totalled $5,564 million.
Net sales of Canada savings bonds series 23 were $3,338 million and additional sales of series 22 were $23 million. In addition, a special replacement series was issued in June 1968 for which the public could exchange series 14 bonds. Total of this issue was $852 million of which $539 million was in conversion of series 14 and $313 million was cash sales. Redemptions and maturities of series 11 to 23 totalled $4,141 million. The net increase for all series was $72 million bringing the total of outstanding Canada savings bonds to $6,168 million.
Treasury bills increased by $360 million to $2,840 million and consisted of $1,740 million in three-month bills, $875 million in six-month bills and $225 million in a 364-day bill.

[Stage Direction]
Debt Converted, Matured, Redeemed or Cancelled During the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1969
(in millions of dollars)
-		Converted	Matured	Redeemed	Cancelled	Total
Marketable bonds-						
4i% 1967-68	..F 10	175.0	175.021% 1950-68	..P 9	284.6	24.0	308.64i% 1967-68	..F 13	135.0	25.0	160.05% 1964-68	..CT 3	240.0	201.0	441.05% 1964-69	..CT 11	100.0	100.05% 1967-68	..F 15	20.0	20.04f% 1967-68	..F 18	100.0	25.0	125.05i% 1962-80	..AT 14	7.6	7.65i% 1966-80	..CT 26	1.1	1.15% 1962-87 (N.Y. loan)..	1.7	1.7954.6	1.7	S8S.7	I.S40.ONon-marketable bonds-	Canada savings bonds S 14	538.4	158.2	13.7	710.3Canada savings bonds S	.1-23 and	S.R.S	3,430.4	3,430.4Unemployment Insurance	Commis-	sion, 4J%	17.0	17.0Unemployment Insurance	Commis-	sion, 51%	66.0	66.0538.4	1,112.8	3,528.8	383.7	5,563.7
June 3. 1969

[Stage Direction]
New Securities Issued During Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1969 (in millions of dollars)
Marketable bonds-
51% 1968-69	F	166% 1968-70	F	247% 1968-73	F	2561% 1968-69	F	267% 1968-70	F	277% 1968-74	
F	2861% 1968-69	F	296J% 1968-70	F	3061% 1968-71	F	3161% 1968-75	F	3261% 1968-95	
F	3361% 1968-70	
F	3461% 1968-71	
-F	3561% 1968-88 (New York)	61% 1968-73 (Germany)	51% 1968-70 (Italy)	51% 1968-71 (Italy)	6% 1968-72 (Italy)	
Non-marketable bonds-
Unemployment Insurance Commission-
61%	
6%	
Canada savings bonds-
Nov. 1, 1967-Nov. 1, 1980	S 22
Nov. 1, 1968-Nov. 1, 1983	S 23
May 1, 1968-Oct. 1, 1978 special replacement series-
Conversion	
Cash	
Canada pension plan-
6.40%-7.17%	
Weekly treasury bills (net)	
Total
amount
issued
60.0
35.0
475.0
75.0
275.0
250.0
35.0
105.0
200.0 200.0 100.0
50.0 200.0 108.1
67.6
34.6 36.3
37.2
*,343.8
71.0
92.0
153.0
23.1
3.337.9
538.4
313.1
5.6
360.0
7.084.9
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
As At March 31
Interest rates
The average interest rate on the government's unmatured debt was 5.45 per cent at March 31, 1969 compared with 5.06 per cent at March 31, 1968.
The yield on three-month treasury bills which was 6.98 per cent at tender on March 28, 1968 was 6.58 per cent on March 27, 1969.
The yield on six-month treasury bills which was 6.98 per cent at tender on March 28, 1968 was 6.80 per cent on March 27, 1969.
The yield on 364-day bills which was 5.65 per cent at tender on November 30, 1967 was 6.53 per cent at tender on June 27, 1968 and 5.90 per cent at tender on November 27, 1968.
The following table shows the average high and low yields together with the average yield on the latest issues for the fiscal years 1964-65 to 1968-69 inclusive:
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Treasury Bills Average Yields at Tender
Fiscal Year Ended March 31	High	Low	Last issueThree-month bills- 1965 	3.87	3.53	3.621966 	5.06	3.61	5.061967 	5.20	4.10	4.131968 	7.01	3.96	6.981969 	7.00	5.48	0)6.58Six-month bills- 1965 	4.06	3.69	3.731966 	5.30	3.71	5.301967 	5.33	4.04	4.111968 	7.02	3.97	6.981969	7.01	5.43	0)6.80364-day bills- 1968 	5.65	5.65	5.651969 	6.53	5.90	O>5.90
0>
March 27, 1969.
(i) November 28, 1968.
Indirect debt or contingent liabilities
In addition to the direct debt set out in the statement of assets and liabilities, the government has assumed certain indirect or contingent obligations. These consist of securities of the Canadian National Railways, guaranteed as to principal and interest, and a number of miscellaneous guarantees, the chief of which are the guarantee of insured loans made by chartered banks and other approved lending institutions under the National Housing Act, 1954, deposits maintained by the chartered banks in the Bank of Canada, advances under the Export Credits Insurance Act, notes issued by the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition, bank loans under the Canada Student Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act and bank loans to the Canadian Wheat Board.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Contingent Liabilities (preliminary)
Railway securities guaranteed as to principal and interest-
Canadian National 2f% due September 15, 1969	
Canadian National 21% due January 16, 1971	
Canadian National 5J% due December 15, 1971	
Canadian National 3|% due February 1, 1974	
Canadian National 2|% due June 15, 1975, U.S. $6,000,000®)
Canadian National 5% due May 15, 1977	
Canadian National 4% due February 1, 1981	
Canadian National 5i% due January 1, 1985	
Canadian National 5% due October 1, 1987	
Other outstanding guarantees and contingent liabilities-
Deposits maintained by the chartered banks in the Bank of Canada.. Loans made by lenders under Part IV of the National Housing Act,
1954, for home extensions and improvements®)®)	
Insured ioans made by approved lenders under the National Housing
_ Act, 1954<2>(4)®>
Liability for insurance and guaranties and other commitments with respect to long-term financing under sections 21 and 21A of the
Export Credits Insurance Act<2>
Loans made by chartered banks under the Farm Improvement Loans
Act®)®)	
Loans made by chartered banks and credit unions under the Fisheries
Improvement Loans Act®	
Loans made by chartered banks under the Small Businesses Loans
Act®	
Loans made by chartered banks and credit unions under the Canada
Student Loans Act <2><7)(8>
Notes issued by the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition	
Loans made by chartered banks to the Canadian Wheat Board	
Loans maintained by approved lending institutions under National
Housing Acts prior to 1954 Act	
Guarantees to owners of returns from moderate rental housing projects®)	
Amount of guarantee	Amount outstanding
$	$
70.000.	000 40.000.	000 184,643,500 200,000,000 6,486,486 81.675.000 300,000,000 95.575.000 152,986,000	70.000.	000 40.000.	000 184,643,500 200,000,000 6,486,486 81.675.000 300,000,000 95.575.000 152,986,000
1,131,365,986	1,131,365,986
Unstated	1,038,024,915
25,000,000	21,116,000
9,500,000,000	6,732,000,000
1,100,000,000	332,966,459
235,000,000	84,605,400
2,700,000	730,700
44,010,600	17,196,500
258,561,600	256,302,000
56,100,000 680,000,000	56,100,000 394,900,000
	8,933,941,974
Unstated	Indeterminate
Unstated	Indeterminate
<l>
Converted at $1.08108 Canadian official parity rate.
<2>
As of December 31, 1968.


Amount of guarantee authorized increased as of March 31, 1969 by $2.5 million.
. As reported (in accordance with section 45, National Housing Regulations) by approved lenders as of December 31, 1968.
<* Amount of guarantee authorized increased as of March 31, 1969 by $15 billion.
(6>
Amount of guarantee authorized estimated on basis of new formula included in legislation in November 1968.
m Amount of guarantee authorized increased as of March 31, 1969 by $10.4 million.
®) Includes contingent liability in respect of alternative payments to non-participating province.
®) As of December 31, 1968, funds totalling $4,658,911 were held by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purpose of settling claims. In 1968 rental contracts totalled $12,596,000.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED TABLES Revenue Expenditure
Annual Changes in Loans and Investments Unmatured Debt
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
STATEMENT OF REVENUE FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS (in millions of dollars)
-	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69 (preliminary)
Tax revenue- Income tax-					
Personal <0(2)	2,103.3	2,142.5	2,473.8	2,849.6	3,422.0Corporation 0)(2)	1,523.8	1,606.6	1,593.2	1,670.6	2,030.0On dividends, interest, etc., going abroad.	143.7	170.0	203.6	220.5	206.03,770.8	3,919.1	4,270.6	4,740.7	5,658.0Excise taxes-	Sales tax <*><*>	1,204.6	1,395.1	1,513.6	1,601.1	1,572.0Other taxes-	Cigarettes, tobacco and cigars	218.3	238.1	251.4	266.7	303.0Jewellery, watches, ornaments, etc	6.9	7.9	8.9	10.2	9.0Matches and lighters	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.0Television sets, radios and phonographs.	23.5	27.0	31.2	32.6	36.0Toilet preparations	12.8	14.1	15.5	17.9	18.0Wines	4.1	4.4	4.8	5.3	6.0Sundry commodities	1.4	2.2	1.2	1.5	2.0Interest and penalties	1.2	1.6	1.9	2.2	3.0Less refunds	-0.3	-0.3	-0.5	-0.6	-1.0269.1	296.2	SIS.6	337.0	377.0Customs import duties^2*	622.1	685.5	777.6	746.4	760.0Excise duties-	Spirits	134.7	157.0	158.2	180.5	187.0Beer	105.4	107.9	113.3	120.2	134.0Cigarettes, tobacco and cigars	177.2	187.1	196.4	194.6	196.0Less refunds	-5.9	-6.1	-6.9	-6.7	-8.0411-4	445.9	461.0	488.6	509.0Estate tax	88.6	108.3	101.1	102.2	111.7Miscellaneous tax revenue	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.3Total tax revenue	6,366.8	6,850.3	7,439.7	8,016.3	8,988.0Non-tax revenue-	Return on investments	422.7	438.3	519.1	612.3	693.0Post office-net postal revenue	230.4	237.5	253.3	281.6	305.0Other	106.3	116.1	106.4	119.0	183.0Total non-tax revenue	759.4	791.9	878.8	1,012.9	1,181.0Total revenue*®	7,126.2	7,642.2	8,318.5	9,029.2	10,169.0
(*>
Excluding credits to old age security fund-
1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69 (preliminary)Personal income tax	.... 431.9	494.9	576.6	800.1	915.0Corporation income tax	.... 145.2	152.3	149.5	150.0	183.0Sales tax	.... 383.2	522.1	559.5	544.5	522.0
<*>
Net after deduction of refunds and drawbacks as well as transfers to the old age security fund.
(® Department of Transport votes 5 and 30, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1968, gave authority to credit thereto revenue arising therefrom. For purposes of comparison, prior years' figures have been adjusted accordingly.
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE BY DEPARTMENTS® AND MAJOR CATEGORIES

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
-	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69 'preliminary)Agriculture-	43.3	48.3	51.0	60.4	48.0Production and marketing, including grants and other assistance-	28.7	58.1	50.9	36.6	51.0Agricultural commodities stabilization ac-	57.1	39.4	88.7	139.7	143.028.8	32.6	35.4	39.7	44.0157.9	178.4	226.0	276.4	286.0Communications-	6.7	7.6	9.5	11.0	10.5210.5	240.2	268.5	301.8	347.0217.9	247.8	278.0	312.8	357.5Consumer and Corporate Affairs-	4.6	5.5	6.5	8.7	10.83.3	3.5	3.9	4.2	3.27.9	9.0	10.4	12.9	14.0Energy, Mines and Resources-	2.2	2.7	3.1	5.2	6.146.5	54.5	60.2	69.3	72.622.0	22.7	38.0	33.6	7.1Mines, minerals, energy and geosciences	46.8 0.7	52.2 0.9	53.9 1.1	53.1 1.6	53.5 1.5Water and coordination of renewable re-	21.4	25.5	31.3	40.5	41.21S9.6	158.5	187.6	203.3	182.0External Affairs-	29.8	34.5	39.6	48.9	52.8Canadian International Development Agency Assessments, contributions and other payments to international organizations and international multilateral economic and	81.4 20.0	86.0 32.0	159.7 31.2	134.8 32.0	141.3 30.9131.2	152.5	230.5	215.7	225.0Finance- _	7.2	9.8	21.3	19.6	21.8Grants to municipalities and provinces in lieu	35.7	36.8	37.6	41.5	43.7Municipal Development and Loan Board.... Public debt charges including interest and	2.7 1,051.3 358.4	33.9 1,110.9	41.8 1,190.5	17.4 1,300.8	3.5 1,479.0Subsidies and fiscal arrangements payments	466.0	515.5	737.5	867.11.6	1.7	2.1	2.3	2.61.4	1.5	1.7	1.9	2.01,458.3	1,660.6	1,810.5	2,121.0	2,419.7Fisheries and Forestry-	25.6	34.5	41.5	51.7	49.620.3	21.4	24.8	22.1	21.445.9	55.9	66.3	73.8	71.0Governor General and Lieutenant-Gov	0.7	0.7	0.8	1.0	1.0Indian Affairs and Northern Develop ME NT- ^	1.5	1.4	1.9	2.6	3.025.1	29.0	35.6	36.7	41.464.8	81.7	103.1	122.5	141.535.9	44.3	56.8	69.6	79.1127.3	156.4	197.4	231.4	265.0
June 3, 1969
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE BY DEPARTMENTS <0 AND MAJOR CATEGORIES
FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Continued
(in millions of dollars)
-	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69 (preliminary)
Industry and Trade and Commerce-					
Industry		56.5 71.3 13.5 m.s	72.1 62.4 15.6 150.1			86.5 92.8 24.7 204.0
Trade and Commerce				66.5 26.6 170.0		
Dominion Bureau of Statistics					22.5 186.3	
					
Justice		10.7	11.4		15.4	17.0
					
Labour		23.4	24.0				12.0
Unemployment Insurance Commission-					
Administration and general		32.7 62.1	32.4 65.6	37.3 68.8	37.6 69.5	40.0 86.0
Government's contribution to the fund						
Legislature-	118.2	122.0	131.0	118.0	138.0House of Commons	11.1 2.7 0.4 14.2	11.5 2.7 0.5 14.7	13.9	14.3	14.3 3.5 0.7 18.5Senate	Library of Parliament	0.6 17.8	Manpower and Immigration-	18.8	Administration and general	5.3	5.6	7.9	20.6 105.1	33.0 190.1Adult occupational training program	Capital assistance re training facilities and	manpower training research	52.8 21.7 12.2 42.8	104.1 22.7 14.3 41.1	136.2 32.8	119.3	97.7 37.6 22.8 91 5Employment services	Immigration	21.6 30 5	Municipal winter works incentive program.. Program development	37.8	2.9	8.0Technical and vocational training assistance	44.4	48.7	85.2	85.6	4.3
179.2	236.5	820.4	417.9	415.0
National Defence-					
Administration and general		14.4	15.3	27.0	25.9	26.4
Canadian forces superannuation account-					
Government's contribution		58.8 13.4	58.8 16.8	42.6 72.6	58.4 72.6	57.0 Q7 p
Amortization of deferred charges						
Defence services including development	 Defence research		1,387.0 32.7 27.5 7.6	1,401.3 37.0 14.6 7.7	1,435.3 38.2 18.7 9.2	1,528.2	1,512.0 47.4 15.3 6.9
Mutual aid to NATO countries					18.0 8.0	
Canada Emergency Measures Organization..					
	1,541.4	1,551.5	1,643.6	1,756.1	1,762.0
National Health and Welfare-					
Administration and general		2.3 4.1	2.5 5.2	3.0 6.5		4.0 9.0
					
Health insurance and resources-					
General health and hospital construction					
grants to provinces		56.7	45.5	45.1		47.3
Government's contributions under the					
Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act		433.9	319.6	397.4 4.7		560.0 37.5 33.0 1.2 7.6 26.5 48.2
Health resources fund						
Medical Care Act						
Other						
Health services		7.7 7.6 32.5	7.6 10.8 37.5	8.4 14.8 38.5		
Medical Research Council					21.0	
Medical services						
Welfare services-					
Family allowances		545.8 26.9 2.0	551.7 46.5 2.5	555.8 47.4 4.7		560.4 52.6 4.0
Youth allowances						
Fitness and amateur sports payments... Old age assistance, blind persons and				3.6	
					
disabled persons allowances		74.0 107.5	45.5 101.7	38.1 143.3 10.5	18.3 6.1 225.6	11.3 1.0 251.4 15.0
Unemployment assistance						
Canada assistance plan						
Other		7.0	9.1			
					
	1,308.0 1	1,185.7 1	1,330.4	1,509.0	1,670.0
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE BY DEPARTMENTS® AND MAJOR CATEGORIES
FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Continued
(in millions of dollars)
-	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69 (preliminary)National Revenue	86.9	95.0	105.9	115.1	120.0Privy Council	4.6	4.8	5.7	8.6	6.9Economic Council of Canada	0.8	1.1	1.4	1.5	1.5Public Service Stafi Relations Board	1.0	1.154	5.9	7.1	11.1	9.5Public Works-	Administration and general	32.4	38.9	38.0	48.5	47.9Accommodiation services	87.3	101.7	108.5	133.8	168.5Harbours and rivers engineering services. . ..	30.3	35.4	38.1	43.9	32.6Trans-Canada highway-contributions to	provinces	76.1	83.4	81.0	64.7	33.0226.1	2594	265.6	290.9	282.0Regional Economic Expansion-	Administration and general	38.1	46.7	50.2	92.4	74.0Atlantic Development Board	4.3	23.8	40.0	42.4	42.0Cape Breton Development Corporation	1.6	32.0National Capital Commission	10.4	18.6	33.0	23.2	22.062.8	89.1	12S.2	159.6	170.0Secretary of State-	Administration and general	4.7	9.3	13.7	29.8	27.9Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	88.0	97.5	115.2	143.3	152.5Canadian Radio-Television Commission....	0.4	0.4	0.6	1.0	1.9Centennial Commission	7.3	14.6	30.2	31.2	Chief Electoral Officer	0.6	13.0	0.9	0.7	13.9Company of Young Canadians	0.8	2.4	1.8Grant to the Canada Council	10.0	16.9	20.4National Film Board	6.4	6.9	8.0	9.3	10.5National Gallery and National Museum	2.7	3.5	4.5	6.6	7.0National Library	0.6	0.8	1.1	1.6	1.6Office of the Representation Commissioner..	0.2	0.8	0.2	0.1	0.1Post-secondary education payments to prov-	inces pursuant to the Federal-Provincial	Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967	108.0	277.0Public Archives	0.9	1.2	1.6	2.0	2.2Public Service Commission	5.8	7.5	10.1	12.6	13.2University grants	27.3	27.7	87.1	0.2	164.9	183.2	274.0	365.7	530.0Solicitor General-	Administration and general	0.3	0.4	0.6	1.0	1.3Correctional services	39.0	56.5	59.6	64.8	58.4Royal Canadian Mounted Police	59.0	64.4	84.1	87.7	100.398. S	121.3	144-5	153.5	160.0Supply and Services-	Administration and general	4.7	3.2	3.9	5.4	5.1Services	25.3	25.9	30.0	32.8	34.6Supply	16.7	17.1	20.3	21.5	22.3Public Printing and Stationery	2.7	3.0	4.0	4.9	4.0494	49.2	58.2	64.6	66.0Transport®-	Administration and general	6.4	4.6	6.3	7.1	8.5Air services	100.8	110.7	129.5	131.1	146.2Canadian Transport Commission-	Administration and general	2.5	2.6	3.0	3.6	4.9Payments to railways and transportation	companies under the National Trans-	portation Act	75.7	94.7	120.9	126.0	93.7Contributions to the railway grade crossing	fund	5.1	14.0	15.0	15.0	15.0Steamship subventions	8.3	9.4	10.8	11.1	12.3Subsidies to air carriers	0.4	0.4	1.2	2.1
June 3, 1969
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE BY DEPARTMENTS® AND MAJOR CATEGORIES
FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS-Concluded
(in millions of dollars)
-	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69 (preliminary)Transport-Concluded Canals and works entrusted to The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	29.0	10.1	12.9	10.6	11.6Marine services	55.3	77.4	91.9	91.8	84.0Non-active assets-National Harbours Board	7.6	4.8	7.0	4.8	7.0Railways and steamships- Maritime Freight Rates Act	14.7	15.1	14.4	14.2	19.4Deficits- Canadian National Railways	38.7	33.4	24.6	35.8	29.4Newfoundland ferry and terminals	11.1	12.4	13.0	16.5	16.0Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals 	4.0	4.2	4.6	4.8	5.4Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry service... .	0.1	(2)	0.4	0.5Other	35.3	35.0	30.3	37.0	12.4Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation..	15.0	21.6	20.1	23.1	33.4409.6	450-4	604.7	534.1	501.8Treasury Board- Administration and general	15.0	19.0	37.8	38.4	152.8Public service superannuation account- Government's contribution	55.6	57.8	59.3	59.6	66.0Amortization of deferred charges	10.0	25.9	56.3	60.6	84.0National Research Council	49.1	63.6	79.9	100.7	120.2129.7	166.3	233.3	259.3	423.0Veterans Affairs- Administration and general	10.5	10.7	9.6	10.1	9.9Pensions for disability and death	180.3	185.6	195.9	205.6	223.0Provision for reserve for conditional benefits.	3.1	3.2	3.5	4.0	4.3Soldier settlement and veterans land act....	4.5	4.5	5.2	5.5	5.3Treatment services	46.8	49.9	57.9	61.4	71.8Welfare services, allowances and other benefits	106.9	115.8	118.7	114.2	112.7S52.1	369.7	390.8	400.8	427.07,164.2	7,681.2	8,740.0	9,824.0	10,735.0
<l>
The presentation of expenditures in this report follows the 1968-69 Revised Estimates. For purposes of comparison, prior years' figures have been adjusted accordingly.
<s) Less than $50,000.
<5>
Department of Transport vote 5 and vote 30, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1968, gave authority to credit thereto revenue arising from services provided thereunder. For purposes of comparison, prior years' figures have been adjusted accordingly.
June 3, 1369

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
-	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69 (preliminary)
Loans to, and investments in, Crown corpora-					
tions-
[Stage Direction]
Air Canada
[Stage Direction]
-1.4
[Stage Direction]
0.7
[Stage Direction]
3.1
[Stage Direction]
0.6
[Stage Direction]
-4.7
[Stage Direction]
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
[Stage Direction]
12.0
[Stage Direction]
11.9
[Stage Direction]
28.4
[Stage Direction]
32.9
[Stage Direction]
68.6
[Stage Direction]
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
[Stage Direction]
29.4
[Stage Direction]
-5.9
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Arsenals Limited
[Stage Direction]
-2.5
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
[Stage Direction]
14.3
[Stage Direction]
12.5
[Stage Direction]
35.0
[Stage Direction]
18.4
[Stage Direction]
22.0
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Commercial Corporation
[Stage Direction]
-2.0
[Stage Direction]
2.0
[Stage Direction]
4.5
[Stage Direction]
6.5
[Stage Direction]
-1.0
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Ex-
[Stage Direction]
hibition
[Stage Direction]
44.0
[Stage Direction]
131.0
[Stage Direction]
30.0
[Stage Direction]
-57.0
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Dairy Commission
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
22.1
[Stage Direction]
19.8
[Stage Direction]
Canadian National Railways
[Stage Direction]
24.7
[Stage Direction]
59.1
[Stage Direction]
124.2
[Stage Direction]
163.2
[Stage Direction]
205.1
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Cor-
[Stage Direction]
poration
[Stage Direction]
-0.4
[Stage Direction]
-2.6
[Stage Direction]
-2.7
[Stage Direction]
2.6
[Stage Direction]
-3.1
[Stage Direction]
Cape Breton Development Corporation
[Stage Direction]
5.2
[Stage Direction]
4.8
[Stage Direction]
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation..
[Stage Direction]
221.7
[Stage Direction]
315.1
[Stage Direction]
488.6
[Stage Direction]
633.9
[Stage Direction]
386.7
[Stage Direction]
Export Credits Insurance Corporation
[Stage Direction]
33.4
[Stage Direction]
36.4
[Stage Direction]
36.2
[Stage Direction]
34.7
[Stage Direction]
33.9
[Stage Direction]
Farm Credit Corporation
[Stage Direction]
102.4
[Stage Direction]
147.0
[Stage Direction]
164.1
[Stage Direction]
169.2
[Stage Direction]
128.2
[Stage Direction]
National Capital Commission
[Stage Direction]
6.9
[Stage Direction]
7.4
[Stage Direction]
7.0
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
-12.9
[Stage Direction]
National Harbours Board
[Stage Direction]
1.7
[Stage Direction]
3.0
[Stage Direction]
19.5
[Stage Direction]
27.8
[Stage Direction]
10.6
[Stage Direction]
Northern Canada Power Commission
[Stage Direction]
5.4
[Stage Direction]
2.1
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
2.9
[Stage Direction]
8.5
[Stage Direction]
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority*1)
[Stage Direction]
-6.5
[Stage Direction]
26.7
[Stage Direction]
29.8
[Stage Direction]
26.7
[Stage Direction]
28.6
[Stage Direction]
Other
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
412.1
[Stage Direction]
662.8
[Stage Direction]
1,069.6
[Stage Direction]
1,206.9
[Stage Direction]
8S2.1
[Stage Direction]
Loans to national governments-
[Stage Direction]
United Kingdom
[Stage Direction]
0)19.6
[Stage Direction]
0)19.2
[Stage Direction]
-18.9
[Stage Direction]
-19.2
[Stage Direction]
W18.1
[Stage Direction]
Export Credits Insurance Act
[Stage Direction]
-2.3
[Stage Direction]
-2.3
[Stage Direction]
-2.3
[Stage Direction]
-2.3
[Stage Direction]
-2.3
[Stage Direction]
Special loans to Colombo plan countries to
[Stage Direction]
finance the purchase of wheat and flour from
[Stage Direction]
Canada
[Stage Direction]
-5.0
[Stage Direction]
-1.3
[Stage Direction]
-9.9
[Stage Direction]
-0.3
[Stage Direction]
Loans to India for the purchase in Canada of
[Stage Direction]
aircraft and associated spare parts and
[Stage Direction]
equipment
[Stage Direction]
-1.4
[Stage Direction]
-2.2
[Stage Direction]
-2.4
[Stage Direction]
-2.7
[Stage Direction]
-1.3
[Stage Direction]
Special loan assistance-developing countries.
[Stage Direction]
5.2
[Stage Direction]
9.8
[Stage Direction]
29.1
[Stage Direction]
48.5
[Stage Direction]
Other
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
10.9
[Stage Direction]
18.6
[Stage Direction]
-23.6
[Stage Direction]
4-5
[Stage Direction]
63.0
[Stage Direction]
Other loans and investments-
[Stage Direction]
Subscriptions to capital of, and working capi-
[Stage Direction]
tal advances and loans to, international
[Stage Direction]
organizations-
[Stage Direction]
Canada's subscription to capital of-
[Stage Direction]
Asian development bank
[Stage Direction]
2.7
[Stage Direction]
2.7
[Stage Direction]
2.7
[Stage Direction]
International monetary fund
[Stage Direction]
205.4
[Stage Direction]
International bank for reconstruction and
[Stage Direction]
development
[Stage Direction]
4.5
[Stage Direction]
International development association...
[Stage Direction]
7.9
[Stage Direction]
15.0
[Stage Direction]
15.0
[Stage Direction]
15.0
[Stage Direction]
27.1
[Stage Direction]
Working capital advances and loans to in-
[Stage Direction]
ternational organizations
[Stage Direction]
-0.2
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
-0.3
[Stage Direction]
-0.3
[Stage Direction]
Loans to provincial governments
[Stage Direction]
-4.8
[Stage Direction]
-1.7
[Stage Direction]
26.8
[Stage Direction]
64.2
[Stage Direction]
82.3
[Stage Direction]
Municipal development and loan board
[Stage Direction]
7.6
[Stage Direction]
101.3
[Stage Direction]
122.3
[Stage Direction]
48.5
[Stage Direction]
-3.0
[Stage Direction]
Veterans land act advances
[Stage Direction]
14.3
[Stage Direction]
24.1
[Stage Direction]
55.2
[Stage Direction]
71.5
[Stage Direction]
40.3
[Stage Direction]
Provincial tax collection agreements ac-
[Stage Direction]
count-advances
[Stage Direction]
-10.4
[Stage Direction]
Balances receivable under agreements of sale
[Stage Direction]
of Crown assets
[Stage Direction]
-1.8
[Stage Direction]
-1.7
[Stage Direction]
-1.2
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
-0.2
[Stage Direction]
Housing projects for Canadian forces
[Stage Direction]
2.5
[Stage Direction]
0.2
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
1.1
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
Old age security fund
[Stage Direction]
-75.0
[Stage Direction]
-25.0
[Stage Direction]
Loans to manufacturers of automotive parts in
[Stage Direction]
Canada
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
12.5
[Stage Direction]
7.9
[Stage Direction]
2.4
[Stage Direction]
Defence plant modernization
[Stage Direction]
10.2
[Stage Direction]
4.0
[Stage Direction]
Other
[Stage Direction]
1.5
[Stage Direction]
10.9
[Stage Direction]
7.8
[Stage Direction]
10.3
[Stage Direction]
9.8
[Stage Direction]
-58.4
[Stage Direction]
12S.1
[Stage Direction]
450.8
[Stage Direction]
2S1.2
[Stage Direction]
165.2
[Stage Direction]
Net total of changes in loans and investments..
[Stage Direction]
364.6
[Stage Direction]
804.5
[Stage Direction]
1,496.8
[Stage Direction]
1,442.6
[Stage Direction]
1,060.3
[Stage Direction]
<*>
Includes deferred interest. <*>
Deferred interest.
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
UNMATURED DEBT INCLUDING TREASURY BILLS AS AT MARCH 31, 1969 AND THE ANNUAL INTEREST THEREON (preliminary)
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Date of maturity
[Stage Direction]
Rate per cent
[Stage Direction]
Amount of loan
[Stage Direction]
Annual interest
[Stage Direction]
Payable in Canada-
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
s
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1936
[Stage Direction]
PI
[Stage Direction]
Perpetual
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
55,000,000
[Stage Direction]
1,650,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1960
[Stage Direction]
T 39
[Stage Direction]
196'
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
80,000,000
[Stage Direction]
4,400,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1962
[Stage Direction]
AT 16
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5J
[Stage Direction]
100,000,000
[Stage Direction]
5,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1965
[Stage Direction]
CT 2S
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5i
[Stage Direction]
100,000,000
[Stage Direction]
5,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967 and 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 16
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
130,000,000
[Stage Direction]
7,150,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1956
[Stage Direction]
S 11
[Stage Direction]
May
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
4
[Stage Direction]
19,233,250
[Stage Direction]
769,330
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1964
[Stage Direction]
CT 11
[Stage Direction]
July
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
225,000,000
[Stage Direction]
11,250,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 26
[Stage Direction]
July
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
75,000,000
[Stage Direction]
5,062,500
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1962
[Stage Direction]
AT 13
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
80,000,000
[Stage Direction]
4,400,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1965
[Stage Direction]
CT 21
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
145,000,000
[Stage Direction]
7,975,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1966
[Stage Direction]
F 5
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
250,000,000
[Stage Direction]
14,375,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F 19
[Stage Direction]
Dec.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
175,000,000
[Stage Direction]
9,625,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 29
[Stage Direction]
Dec.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
35,000,000
[Stage Direction]
2,275,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 24
[Stage Direction]
197C
[Stage Direction]
Feb.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
285,000,000
[Stage Direction]
17,100,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1958
[Stage Direction]
T 24
[Stage Direction]
May
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
200,000,000
[Stage Direction]
7,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 34
[Stage Direction]
May
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
50,000,000
[Stage Direction]
3,125,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1965 and 1966
[Stage Direction]
CT 19
[Stage Direction]
July
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
175,000,000
[Stage Direction]
8,750,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1966 and 1967
[Stage Direction]
F 2
[Stage Direction]
July
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
140,000,000
[Stage Direction]
7,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 27
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
275,000,000
[Stage Direction]
19,250,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 30
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
6!
[Stage Direction]
105,000,000
[Stage Direction]
7,087,500
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1957
[Stage Direction]
S 12
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
4f
[Stage Direction]
73,359,950
[Stage Direction]
3,484,598
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1960
[Stage Direction]
S 15
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
91,469,600
[Stage Direction]
4,573,480
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1966
[Stage Direction]
F 8
[Stage Direction]
Dec.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
300,000,000
[Stage Direction]
17,250,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F 20
[Stage Direction]
1971
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
225,000,000
[Stage Direction]
13,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 35
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
200,000,000
[Stage Direction]
12,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1964
[Stage Direction]
CT 15
[Stage Direction]
June
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
350,000,000
[Stage Direction]
17,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 31
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
200,000,000
[Stage Direction]
12,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1961
[Stage Direction]
S 16
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
80,457,950
[Stage Direction]
3,620,608
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967 and 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 17
[Stage Direction]
Dec.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
285,000,000
[Stage Direction]
17,100,000
[Stage Direction]
Conversion loan, 1958
[Stage Direction]
T 28
[Stage Direction]
1972
[Stage Direction]
Sept.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
41
[Stage Direction]
1,267,203,100
[Stage Direction]
53,856,132
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 25
[Stage Direction]
1973
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
475,000,000
[Stage Direction]
33,250,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F 11
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
200,000,000
[Stage Direction]
10,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1965
[Stage Direction]
CT 17
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
275,000,000
[Stage Direction]
13,750,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1958
[Stage Direction]
S 13
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
41
[Stage Direction]
31,779,550
[Stage Direction]
1,350,631
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F 22
[Stage Direction]
Dec.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
225,000,000
[Stage Direction]
14,062,500
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 28
[Stage Direction]
1974
[Stage Direction]
June
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
250,000,000
[Stage Direction]
17,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1964
[Stage Direction]
S 19
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
156,844,800
[Stage Direction]
7,842,240
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F 14
[Stage Direction]
Dec.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
100,000,000
[Stage Direction]
5,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 32
[Stage Direction]
1975
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
200,000,000
[Stage Direction]
13,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1959
[Stage Direction]
T 36
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5|
[Stage Direction]
310,361,000
[Stage Direction]
17,069,855
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1965
[Stage Direction]
CT 24
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
50,000,000
[Stage Direction]
2,750,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F 9
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
70,000,000
[Stage Direction]
3,850,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1963
[Stage Direction]
S 18
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
168,069,750
[Stage Direction]
8,403,487
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1960
[Stage Direction]
T 38
[Stage Direction]
1976
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
436,198,000
[Stage Direction]
23,990,890
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1954
[Stage Direction]
T 11
[Stage Direction]
June
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
247,046,500
[Stage Direction]
8,029,011
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1962
[Stage Direction]
S 17
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
281,818,000
[Stage Direction]
15,499,990
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1965
[Stage Direction]
S 20
[Stage Direction]
1977
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
140,588,350
[Stage Direction]
7,029,417
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1953 and 1958
[Stage Direction]
T 5
[Stage Direction]
1978
[Stage Direction]
Jan.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
207,911,500
[Stage Direction]
7,796,681
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1954
[Stage Direction]
T 13
[Stage Direction]
1979
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
343,246,500
[Stage Direction]
11,155,511
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1966
[Stage Direction]
S 21
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
693,649,650
[Stage Direction]
34,682,483
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1962
[Stage Direction]
AT 14
[Stage Direction]
1980
[Stage Direction]
Aug.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
112,396,000
[Stage Direction]
6,181,780
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1966
[Stage Direction]
CT 26
[Stage Direction]
Aug.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
78,929,000
[Stage Direction]
4,341,095
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1966
[Stage Direction]
F 3
[Stage Direction]
Aug.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
160,000,000
[Stage Direction]
8,800,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1967
[Stage Direction]
S 22
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
424,605,500
[Stage Direction]
22,291,789
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1968
[Stage Direction]
S 23
[Stage Direction]
1982
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
3,204,401,950
[Stage Direction]
184,253,112
[Stage Direction]
Conversion loan, 1958
[Stage Direction]
T 29
[Stage Direction]
1983
[Stage Direction]
Sept.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
41
[Stage Direction]
1,992,679,450
[Stage Direction]
89,670,575
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1963
[Stage Direction]
AT 21
[Stage Direction]
1988
[Stage Direction]
June
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
100,000,000
[Stage Direction]
5,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1964
[Stage Direction]
CT 9
[Stage Direction]
June
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
50,000,000
[Stage Direction]
2,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1964 and 1965
[Stage Direction]
CT 12
[Stage Direction]
1990
[Stage Direction]
May
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
225,000,000
[Stage Direction]
11,812,500
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F 12
[Stage Direction]
May
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
125,000,000
[Stage Direction]
6,562,500
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1966 and 1967
[Stage Direction]
F 6
[Stage Direction]
1992
[Stage Direction]
Sept.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
225,000,000
[Stage Direction]
12,937,500
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F 33
[Stage Direction]
1995
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
100,000,000
[Stage Direction]
6,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Conversion loan, 1956
[Stage Direction]
T 15
[Stage Direction]
1998
[Stage Direction]
Mar.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
197,045,000
[Stage Direction]
7,389,188
[Stage Direction]
Special replacement series
[Stage Direction]
1978
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
801,940,150
[Stage Direction]
48,116,409
[Stage Direction]
Three-month treasury bills
[Stage Direction]
various
[Stage Direction]
1,740,000,000
[Stage Direction]
114,492,000
[Stage Direction]
Six-month treasury bills
[Stage Direction]
various
[Stage Direction]
875,000,000
[Stage Direction]
59,500,000
[Stage Direction]
364-day treasury bills
[Stage Direction]
1 various
[Stage Direction]
225,000,000
[Stage Direction]
13,275,000
[Stage Direction]
June 3, 1969
[Stage Direction]
UNMATURED DEBT INCLUDING TREASURY BILLS AS AT MARCH 31, 1969 AND THE ANNUAL INTEREST THEREON (preliminary)-Concluded
-	Date of maturity	Rate per cent	Amount of loan	Annual interest
			$	$
Payable in Canada-Concluded				
Special non-marketable bonds-
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance Commission...
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
68,000,000
[Stage Direction]
3,400,000
[Stage Direction]
5i
[Stage Direction]
23,000,000
[Stage Direction]
1,207,500
[Stage Direction]
5*
[Stage Direction]
68,000,000
[Stage Direction]
3,740,000
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
54,000,000
[Stage Direction]
3,105,000
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
92,000,000
[Stage Direction]
5,520,000
[Stage Direction]
6J
[Stage Direction]
71,000,000
[Stage Direction]
4,615,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada pension plan investment fund
[Stage Direction]
various
[Stage Direction]
11,315,000
[Stage Direction]
804,497
[Stage Direction]
21,658,549,500
[Stage Direction]
1,187,657,289
[Stage Direction]
Payable in New York-
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1949
[Stage Direction]
1974 Sept. 1
[Stage Direction]
2|
[Stage Direction]
48,755,627
[Stage Direction]
1,340,780
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1950
[Stage Direction]
1975 Sept. 15
[Stage Direction]
2!
[Stage Direction]
30,301,591
[Stage Direction]
833,294
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1962
[Stage Direction]
1987 Oct. 15
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
79,567,488
[Stage Direction]
3,978,374
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
1988 June 1
[Stage Direction]
6}
[Stage Direction]
108,108,000
[Stage Direction]
7,432,425
[Stage Direction]
266,732,706
[Stage Direction]
13,584,873
[Stage Direction]
Payable in Germany-
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
1973 June 1
[Stage Direction]
6i
[Stage Direction]
67,567,500
[Stage Direction]
4,560,806
[Stage Direction]
Payable in Italy-
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
1970 May 15
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
34,594,560
[Stage Direction]
1,989,187
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
197! May 15
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
36,324,288
[Stage Direction]
2,134,052
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
1972 May 15
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
37,189,152
[Stage Direction]
2,231,349
[Stage Direction]
108,108,000
[Stage Direction]
6,354,588
[Stage Direction]
22,100,959,706
[Stage Direction]
1,212,157,556
[Stage Direction]
The interest shown is a projection for one year at the annual rates on principal amounts outstanding at March 31, 1969. Where various rates of interest are applicable during the term of a loan the interest rate in effect at March 31, 1969 has been used.
Bonds payable in New York, Germany and Italy have been converted at the official parity rate.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 4, 1969