1970-03-12

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House Ottawa
12 March 1970 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Gerald Fauteux, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, March 12, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,
Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General. [DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



VISIT OF PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF FRANCE

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will be pleased to learn that, in reply to my invitation on behalf of the House, the President of the National Assembly of France, Mr. Achille Peretti, will visit Canada from March 20 to 23 next. Mr. Peretti will be accompanied by an eminent member of the National Assembly, Questor Lucien Neuwirth.
In the person of President Peretti, members of the House of Commons of Canada will be welcoming a friend. Indeed, our distinguished visitor has often expressed his attachment for this institution and for Canada. A founding member of the Franco-Canadian Interparliamentary Association, he has attended all annual meetings of the Association, which constitutes for us an important link with the National Assembly of France.
Unfortunately, President Peretti's stay will be very short. However, he will have the opportunity of meeting His Excellency the
Governor General, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other leaders of Parliament. It will be my pleasure to introduce Mr. Peretti at the opening of the House next Monday, March 23. I have no doubt that the House of Commons will show warmth and cordiality in welcoming President Peretti to the capital city and the Parliament of Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in French and in English.-Mr. Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity on motions to make my weekly statement on the business of the House because I would like to follow it with a number of procedural suggestions. As hon. members know, the business called for today includes government order No. 47, Bill C-162, with regard to the Standards Council of Canada, and government order No. 78, Bill C-193, with regard to the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act.
As hon. members know, there will be Royal Assent at 5.45 p.m. this afternoon and the business will be interrupted at 8 p.m. for the budget presentation of my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
Tomorrow the business will be called in the following order: the first item would be government order No. 71, report stage of Bill S-9 to amend the Parole Act, to be followed by such of government orders Nos. 47 and 78 as shall not have been disposed of in today's sitting. As the fourth item of business there will be that perennial favourite, the motion in my name for television in the House.

March 12, 1970
Business of the House On Monday next and including through until next Thursday the time will be devoted to four days of budget debate. On Friday, March 20, and on Monday, March 23, the House business will be devoted to legislation to be announced.
On Tuesday, March 24, and subject to the approval of the special order that I hope to propose in just a moment, we would have the final allotted day for supply in this part of the session, and on Wednesday we would be calling other government legislation, with Royal Assent and a motion to adjourn the House for the Easter Recess.



PROCEDURAL ORDER AFFECTING PRESENTATION OF BUDGET

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a number of procedural suggestions to the House. First, so that we can proceed to the budget debate at eight o'clock this evening and complete the budget proceedings in a normal manner, I would suggest that the House pass an order that at 5 p.m. today the debate on the government item then under discussion should be adjourned so that at 8 p.m. government order No. 2 can be called for the budget presentation, and also that Standing Order 40, dealing with the late show, be suspended for today's sitting. Accordingly I move:
That at 5:00 p.m. today the debate on the Item under government orders be adjourned so that, at 8.00 p.m., government order No. 2 may be called for the purpose of the budget presentation; and
That the provisions of Standing Order 40 be suspended for today's sitting.
If there is unanimous consent perhaps that could be made an order of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEDURAL ORDER RESPECTING SUPPLY

['It appears there is not\nunanimity. The motion cannot be put.']
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should also say that there have been some discussions among the representatives of the various parties with respect to the supply business for this part of the session, and I think it will be found that there is general agreement that one of the allotted supply days should not be taken in this period but that it should be added on to the number of supply days for the third semester of this session and be taken at that time. The understanding is that it is to be a [Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).l
Friday in that period under the auspices of the New Democratic Party. On that basis an order has been prepared as follows:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 58, the supply period ending not later than March 26, 1970 shall consist of six sitting days: provided that, in relation to this order, one sitting day shall be added to the next supply period and that, for the purpose of section (10) of Standing Order 58, the sixth allotted day shall be deemed to be the final allotted day in the current period and that at 9.45 p.m. in the sitting of Tuesday, March 24, 1970, unless the business of supply be previously concluded, any proceeding then before the House shall be interrupted and every question necessary to dispose of any supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970, all stages of the bill based thereon, the adoption of the motion for interim supply for the period April 1 to June 30, 1970, and the passage of the bill based thereon, shall be forthwith and successively put and disposed of without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous consent perhaps that order could be put to the House.


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


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, we in this party	are agreeable to	this general
arrangement


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this plethora of words sets out what we have agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion. I do so as a result of the lay-off at Dunlop Tire Friday involving 600 workers without prior notice. In view of the financial and social hardships that this means I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That the question of finding a way to keep open the Toronto plant of Dunlop Canada Limited, pending a thorough study of the operations of the company, be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, with instruction to report back to this House within ten days.
March 12, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposed motion. As hon. members know, under the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion can be put only if there is unanimous agreement. Is it unanimously agreed that the motion be put at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears there is not
unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell the House whether there has been an agreement between the federal government and the province of Quebec about the composition of the Canadian delegation to be sent to Niamey?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Two days ago on March 10 we received a letter from the Prime Minister of Quebec making certain comments on the composition and functions of the Canadian delegation and the part that the government of Quebec would play in the Canadian delegation. After we had been able to consider the letter from Mr. Bertrand at the cabinet meeting today, the Prime Minister sent a reply to Mr. Bertrand.


An hon. Member:: What was the reply?


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the House what counter proposals were made by the federal government to the province of Quebec in reply to the suggestions of the Quebec premier?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if there is agreement, as I hope there is, between our two governments we would, of course, make that agreement public. If there is not agreement I suppose we would make that public too, but we are hoping for agreement.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put another supplementary question.
In my opinion, the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not understand my question. I would like to know what counterproposals the federal government has made to the Quebec government in reply to the suggestions of the Quebec premier? It seems to me that my question is clear enough.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am confused about the words "counter-proposals". That is why I could not answer the hon. gentleman's question. The Canadian government's position has been and it must be that we have been invited to go to the meeting in Niamey. The Canadian government has been invited. Certain provinces have been invited by us and by President Diori, as part of the Canadian delegation. That is the fundamental position, and within that context we have been trying to agree as to the respective functions of the federal and provincial representatives. That has been the issue and I hope it has been clarified. We have done everything possible to recognize both the principle that Canada speaks with one voice and the special position of Quebec and the other provinces.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question concerning the Niamey conference.
Can he inform the House on the substance of the letter he has sent to the Quebec premier on the matter referred to by the hon. member for Charlevoix in his question?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to do so before the Quebec premier has had time to look into the document; as stated a moment ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if there is agreement, the letter will be made known. On the other hand, in case there is no agreement and the governments involved agree to make the correspondence public, the federal government will have no objection. Then, hon. members can look into the reply.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
When did he forward his letter? Was it today, yesterday, or the day before yesterday?
4704	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry He may not have heard the special news bulletin at noon announcing that the province of Quebec would not be represented at the Niamey conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A special bulletin, certainly not. The letter was forwarded on the 10th, and I perused it yesterday. The cabinet met this morning to decide upon the answer.
Could it be that the hon. member is making a subtle distinction that escapes me, Mr. Speaker?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The "subtle" distinction is that the Prime Minister does not hear the news properly, or does not listen to them, because the Quebec premier stated this morning, following his announcement with regard to the provincial election, that the Quebec government would not send any representatives to the Niamey Conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there is one hoax or two, one truth or two. For my part, I was presiding at a cabinet meeting at 1.55 p.m. and I do not listen to the radio at the same time.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House what role has been attributed to the province of Quebec at the Niamey conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already explained the general policy. As he said, it has been agreed that there would be a Canadian delegation. However, as the Niamey conference will deal with many matters, both federal and provincial, the delegation is to represent Canada as a whole but as certain of the matters to be discussed might, according to our own internal policy, come within provincial jurisdiction, the Canadian delegation will include representatives of the different provinces involved. That is the basis on which Canada was invited to Niamey, and the basis on which we invited the different provinces, including Quebec, to appoint representatives to the delegation. Moreover, that is how we proceed in the case of other delegations to international meetings.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask another supplementary question.

DEBATES	March 12. 1970
Could the Prime Minister tell the House if the province of Quebec has been charged with a special function since it represents 80 per cent of the French Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to suggest to the hon. member that this is the question he asked earlier. I should like also to say to him that it would perhaps be appropriate to give other hon. members the chance to ask questions, but we might later on during the question period come back to this problem.

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to-


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Charlevoix is rising on a point of order.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have great respect for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but we often try to ask questions, without success. When matters such as wheat or oil are being discussed, the Chair sometimes allows members to put 10 to 12 questions. However, when a member wants to ask an important question which concerns Quebec or French-Canadians, the Chair should allow him to ask more than one question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the closing of the Dunlop Tire Company plant of Toronto without any notice being given to the 600 employees who are now going to be out of work? I ask the minis-
March 12, 1970	COMMONS
ter if his department is prepared, either alone or in conjunction with the province of Ontario, to take over and operate this plant, as was done with the Dosco steel plant in Sydney, at least until such time as the feasibility of the operation can be established and a course of action mapped out?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I can announce any decision concerning that plant at the moment. This is something we are looking into. This may be a sound proposal, but I am not sure that it is a proposal that will be adopted by the government.
DEBATES	4705
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. MacEachen:: -I am having a meeting this evening with the group of workers involved. This will be the first step. If a further meeting with my colleagues arises out of the consultation with the workers, I will be happy to arrange it.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: know about that meeting, Mr. Speaker. I hope to be there also. Rather than delay the matter, will the minister not at this point co-ordinate all these forces and ascertain whether something can be done to prevent these lay-offs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Has the minister or his department made any approaches to the government of Ontario with respect to some joint action which might be taken between the two governments in order to keep this plant in operation and to provide employment for the men who are otherwise going to be thrown out of work without any prior notice?


Jean Marchand: I do not know of any specific communication on that problem. I will make inquiries. Perhaps tomorrow I can answer the question.



TORONTO-CLOSING OF DUNLOP PLANT-SUGGESTED MEETING OF FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL AND COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES

Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would he display the leadership I know he possesses-at times-and immediately convene a meeting of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Minister of Labour and himself, as well as representatives from the Ontario government, the union involved, and from the Dunlop Company whose action has so seriously affected the workers, to ascertain if the proposed lay-offs, which are being carried out in a crude and terrible manner, can be averted, and report back to the House later?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As a first step in displaying the leadership which is displayed by the government at all times-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the proposed meetings this afternoon and this evening with the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and, I hope, other cabinet officials, will the minister make a statement within the next few days with regard to the results of those meetings and any proposed plans that the government may make?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at the
moment I can tell the hon. member that the Department of Manpower and Immigration has been active in this situation for quite some time. We attempted at the beginning to negotiate with the employers a manpower assessment incentive agreement that might, even at a late stage, do some advance planning to assist workers. In the absence of reaching agreement on that point, we have at present about 14 special counsellors in the area attempting to assist the workers in every possible way.



LA GUADELOUPE, QUE.-LAY-OFF OF 300 EMPLOYEES FOLLOWING CLOSURE OF PLANT

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Labour but, in his absence, I shall direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary.
In view of the fact that the Boa-Ski corporation, set up at La Guadeloupe, in the riding of Frontenac, and sold to American interests a year ago, has closed its plant without notice and that 300 workers are deprived of their livelihood, could the minister-since this is a labour problem-get in touch with officials of the company concerned in order to ensure that these workers are treated in a more humane manner?
4706	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The Minister of Labour is in his office right now engaged on government business. I will bring this matter to his attention immediately after the question period.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the minister's representative promise that he will go to Miami to negotiate with officials of what has now become an American company?



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


John Angus MacLean: I should like to address to the Prime Minister a question related to the communique which was issued following the thirteenth interparliamentary meeting in Washington. It was stated that the United States delegates did not expect their government to accede to arrangements which would involve United States recognition of Canadian claims to all the waters of the Arctic archipelago. My question is: have Canadian claims to sovereignty over the lands and waters of the Canadian Arctic been challenged by the United States or by any other nation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Angus MacLean: I will ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question and then he can take the opportunity to answer both questions at once. Will the Prime Minister be making an unequivocal and forthright statement asserting Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic before the sailing of the Manhattan through the Arctic waters in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I have stated before, Mr. Speaker, when we introduce the bill concerning Arctic sovereignty, which we announced in the Speech from the Throne, the position of the government will be stated.


John Angus MacLean: A further supplementary question either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the United States government given any

DEBATES	March 12. 1970
indication to date that it will question Canada's right to exercise pollution control over marine traffic in the Canadian Arctic?


Mitchell William Sharp: No question of that kind has arisen so far. We have been taking effective measures in connection with the voyage of the Manhattan, and, of course, no protests have been made with regard to them. I do not think any protest could arise until we had taken action to enforce pollution control measures in the Arctic by a Canadian law. As the Prime Minister has said, the legislation will be before the House, and that is the time at which the matter can be tested.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the United States government has communicated to the Canadian government at any time its contention that the Northwest Passage is open sea rather than Canadian territorial waters?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would have to search the files to determine exactly what the United States government has said to us in this regard. It is certainly clear they would probably not accept without question the claims that we would make.



WHEAT-PROSECUTIONS FOR OFFENCES AGAINST WHEAT BOARD REGULATIONS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Hum-boldt. Having regard to the multitude of prosecutions which are taking place or have been launched in the province of Saskatchewan under the Wheat Board Act, and the fact that most of the alleged offences were of a technical nature, as in the Humboldt area of which the hon. gentleman has some knowledge, has consideration been given by the Wheat Board to withdrawing these charges because of the uncertainty of the potential prosecution, which now hangs over so many western farmers, especially in view of the difficult economic situation in which our province finds itself at this time?


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: The question of particular charges laid under the Wheat Board regulations has certainly been receiving considerable attention and publicity. Consideration has been given to
March 12, 1970	COMMONS
the whole question of their nature and background. However, I really have no more to say to the House at this time about the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Having heard that
equivocal answer from the minister, may I ask whether it means that the threat of persecution-prosecution-


An hon. Member:: Right the first time.


John George Diefenbaker: -on technical grounds, which is now hanging over western farmers, will not be proceeded with? And will the minister also tell us how the siutation in Humboldt in his own constituency is developing?


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio whether there have been any withdrawals of prosecutions within the last few days?


Otto Emil Lang: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-CLARIFICATION OF EXPLANATORY PAMPHLET

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: I, too, wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the pamphlet put out to describe the operation of the wheat acreage reduction program does not give any examples which would apply to a farm that has been under continuous cropping, will the minister prepare such an example and release it for the information of farmers and of the House?


Otto Emil Lang: We shall, of course, be dealing with many more examples in due course in addition to the kind of case referred to by the hon. member. We shall be discussing these in public and giving appropriate publicity to them.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Can the Minister without Portfolio assure western farmers that in the application of the acreage reduction program special consideration will be given to those who were hailed out last year or who were unable to harvest their crops because of unseasonable weather?


Otto Emil Lang: The program itself is not
designed to compensate farmers for damage
DEBATES	4707
Inquiries of the Ministry which their crops may have suffered as a result of hail or similar occurrences. However, the position of farmers who did not have a surplus because of such disasters was certainly taken into account in the designing of the program.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In reply to a question last week in the House, he said that there had been some talks between the representatives of the Canadian Dairy Commission, those of the department and those of farm organizations. Could he tell the House whether there have been negotiations with the representatives of the Quebec Manufacturing Milk Producers' Union, together with those of the UCC executive?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculiure):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but not in the last few days.


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. The hon. member for Ontario will have to wait for just a few moments. There is a supplementary question to be dealt with. I will return to him shortly.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I know that the minister has just said "not in the last few hours", but my question relates to March 5, 1970, because at that time the minister answered that talks were going on with representatives of the dairy industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has now had his supplementary question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting yesterday with the representative committee of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Prior to that I have had several discussions with some of the producers of Quebec, including representatives from the UCC, though I am not sure of the exact dates.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now reward the patience of the hon. member for Ontario.
4708	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



LAID-OFF GENERAL MOTORS EMPLOYEES- TYPE OF BENEFITS AVAILABLE

Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question that I should like to direct to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Was he reflecting government policy when on March 6 he indicated that laid-off employees of General Motors in Oshawa will be eligible for TAB benefits?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this question gives me an occasion to confess that I made a little mistake the other day; I referred to the TAB program when I had in mind SUB, and I apologize for that slip.
The policy is simply that either SUB or TAB can be used. In the case of TAB, a relationship must be established between the lay-off situation and the Canada-U.S.A. automobile agreement. In the three latest instances such relationship was not established.


Norman Augustine Cafik: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate whether these laid-off employees have any recourse by way of appeal from the decision that has been made in this respect by the adjustment assessment board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would not think that that question is in order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to express an opinion on an interpretation of the law and regulations, and in this form the question is not in order.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. My question concerns the announcement yesterday of special areas eligible for assistance by his department, and the unfortunate and ill-considered omission of the Parry Sound-Muskoka region while including adjacent areas in a similar situation. Does the minister intend to make further special designations from time to time which might hopefully include this region?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have designated a certain number of areas now. Probably in the future we will have to designate some more, depending on circum-

DEBATES	March 12, 1970
stances, but I cannot indicate any limit or give any time period within which this will be done.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope that supplemen-taries will not all be directed to situations in particular regions of the country. For the moment we might allow a supplementary question from the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister whether he can briefly explain the criteria on which people can get in on these special designations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this very general information ought to be given by way of a statement on motions.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In light of the announced program of the government to create a higher level of unemployment, would the minister consider declaring the whole country a special area for incentives?



DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL AREAS WHERE ARMED FORCES BASES CLOSED

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I intended to ask this question yesterday but the question period was too short. My question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the minister's statement yesterday, would he now make it possible to make all areas where Canadian Armed Forces bases are being closed eligible for assistance under the program? I ask this question in view of the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces base at Clinton is now in the course of being phased out.


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot make this general statement.



OMISSION OF CORNWALL FROM SPECIAL AREAS

John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that on television last evening mention was made of the fact that naturally Your Honour could not express any interest in the reasons why Cornwall was omitted, would the
March 12, 1970

minister say why Cornwall, with 20 per cent unemployment, was left out of the special areas program?


Some hon. Members:: Answer!


John George Diefenbaker: The Speaker is not holding you back.



ARDA GRANT TO INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the severe difficulties which are likely to result from the drastic cutback in the grant to the Indian Association of Alberta under ARDA, and in view of the fact that economic development among Indians is likely to suffer most from such a cut, will the department consider reviewing its decision to cut the grant?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the grant had been cut.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is his department presently considering further programs of assistance to people of Indian and Metis origin?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary. In light of the fact that the minister is unaware of the cutback in the grant, would he take it upon himself to talk with the president of the Indian Association of Alberta who is presently in Ottawa?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I met with the president yesterday and I think he is now convinced that the grant has not been cut back. Certainly the grant was not increased, as he probably wanted.



SPECIAL AREAS-MEADOW LAKE-SUGGESTED INCLUSION OF BIG RIVER REGION

Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The people of Meadow Lake are certainly very happy with the announcement made yesterday, but could the assistance be extended to take in the Big River area, where a

Inquiries of the Ministry year ago an unforeseen and unfortunate occurrence resulted in the loss of the sawmill, leaving the area in great need of expansion. I think this is very urgent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can be considered to have made a representation to the minister.



COMBINES


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who received about five months ago a request to investigate the activities of the Rubbermaid Company which was allegedly violating the Combines Investigation Act.
In view of the time that has elapsed, could the minister inform the House what concrete steps he has decided to take immediately in keeping with his authority?
[English}


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained on a number of occasions, proceedings under the Combines Investigation Act are kept confidential until a charge or report is made.


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


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless the hon. member wishes to ask a complementary question, I invite the hon. member for Lisgar to put his question.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-CONSULTATION WITH CHAIRMAN OF GRAINS COUNCIL

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon. In light of the statement made by the chairman of the Canada Grains Council to an agricultural seminar at the University of Alberta that the government acreage reduction plan may not benefit individual farmers, can the minister inform the House whether Mr. Runciman was consulted with regard to the development of the plan?
4710	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Runciman was among the leaders of farm and other organizations consulted during the formulation of the plan.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister has apparently chosen to ignore the advice of the chairman of the Grains Council, a body that was set up to advise the government on these matters, is it the intention of the government to disband this group as an advisory body?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not the intention of the government to do that. Neither is it a fact that the advice of this body has been ignored.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of recent legislative action in British Columbia against non-returnable bottles, and in view of the announcement of the Minister of Highways of Alberta that the highways ministers of all ten provinces will discuss this matter unless the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs places a ban on nonreturnable bottles, what plans has the minister to protect the consumers of Canada against this pollution menace?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be placed on the Order Paper, or if the minister prefers he might make a statement on motions.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question.
In view of the statement he made a moment ago, could he tell the House if, between February 17 and March 5, he had talks with the representatives of the Quebec manufacturing milk producers' union as well as with those of the UCC?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the dates, but during the course of the last three months I have had several meetings with representatives of the groups named.

DEBATES	March 12, 1970



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the disaster that has struck the workers of Dunlop of Canada at Toronto, and it is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can he advise when legislation may be brought forward along the line suggested by members of the opposition, and concurred in by the minister, which would compel corporations to provide notice of closure of a plant, mine or, indeed, any operation, at least six months before the cessation of operations resulting in throwing workers on the street?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there are too many weaknesses in this proposal and I do not think the government will adopt it.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise why he soundly endorsed this policy when we had a similar problem at the Hawker-Siddeley Steel plant at Sydney, which threw 3,000 people out of work, and this government sat back and did nothing?



WHEAT-ALLOTMENT TO WHEAT OF 50 PER CENT OF ACREAGE SEEDED TO FORAGE IN 1969

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board. Has the hon. gentleman received representations from the Manitoba pool elevators recommending that farmers who seeded forage crops in 1969 be allowed to claim 50 per cent of that acreage for wheat in 1970 and, if not, will he give positive consideration to this recommendation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have been out of the office for a day or two and neither this representation nor any such representation has come to my attention. I will certainly look into the matter as to whether or not it may have been received.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-AVAILABILITY OF GRASS SEED AT REASONABLE PRICE

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplemen-
March 12, 1970	COMMONS
tary question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board. In light of the serious shortage and high prices of grass seeds resulting from the government's recently announced wheat acreage reduction plan, can the minister indicate what action, if any, is being taken to make these grass seeds available at a reasonable price?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, before announcing the plan we had information about the allocation of grass seeds and the likely available supply. It was reassuring to us to know that the large quantities were in the hands, for instance, of farmer-owned organizations. We were sure we could count on them to be responsible in regard to the price of these seeds.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. Can he indicate what progress is being made by the Bell Corporation, Fairey of Canada, E.M.I. Electronics and the group interested in the takeover of the Fairey plant?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the
negotiations are still going on and I am still very hopeful that they will reach a settlement.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question that has in part been discussed, and I direct it to the Prime Minister. In light of the Dunlop plant closing without notice, putting 600 men on the scrap heap of unemployment, is the government considering any form of legislation to deal with the likelihood of similar occurrences in federally controlled industries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would seem difficult for the federal government to consider legislation in an area which is essentially provincial.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the Prime Minister misunderstood my question. I asked whether in light of this occurrence, within provincial jurisdiction it is true, the government was
DEBATES	4711
Inquiries of the Ministry considering dealing with the possibility of similar occurrences in federal industries by federal legislation? I was not proposing that we should go into the provincial field.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would gladly consider that proposal, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: You don't have to; it is already on the books.



POLLUTION


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of reports that another major fish kill induced by pollution has occurred in Vancouver harbour, is the minister able to inform the House whether the nature and source of this pollution have been determined and what action, if any, is contemplated?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the pollutant in question is definitely cyanide which came, in all probability, from a plating plant in the area. We hope this afternoon to definitely pinpoint the plant. Of course when we do a prosecution will follow.



HOUSING


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister in charge of housing.
In view of the difficulties the city of Montreal is presently experiencing about the Little Burgundy project and since there has been a 50 per cent reduction of the subsidy for that project, could the minister tell us whether he intends to review his decision and if he agrees with his colleagues that an order in council is not a commitment?


Mr. Speaker:: The second part of the question is obviously not acceptable.

I believe the hon. member for Fraser Valley West has a supplementary question.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries in relation to the questions asked by the hon. member-
4712	COMMONS DEBATES	March 12, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Translation]	is negotiable. If they want to pay it all to the


Roch La Salle: On a point of order, Mr. city of Montreal we are certainly open to that Speaker.	type of suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member, and he will be recognized in a moment, but the hon. member for Joliette has a point of order.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, you will not allow the second part of my question. I agree with you on that point, but the minister is apparently willing to answer the first part.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, no basic revision of the amount of money being considered is now under review. Negotiations have been going on in respect of this whole matter of urban renewal with regard to the government of Quebec, including the one in Montreal. I have stated before that there was an Order in Council in 1966 authorizing the entry into negotiations with the city of Montreal vis-avis la Petite Bourgogne, but this was superseded to a considerable degree by the formation of the Quebec Housing Corporation and the entering into matters occurring subsequent to the Order in Council.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. I think he made a mistake earlier when he referred to the Order in Council of 1966. I think he meant 1967. I would like to ask the minister whether this Order in Council has been rescinded or if the minister does not intend to live up to the Order in Council to pay half of the cost of La Petite Bourgogne?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the master agreement with Quebec of 1968-69 meant that we offered $27 million to the province of Quebec for urban renewal programs in that province, the priorities of which were to be decided by the government of the province of Quebec. It certainly would be totally up to them to make decisions to apply some of that fund to the Montreal situation. I believe a very small amount was for a neighbourhood operation in Little Burgundy. Subsequently we offered an additional sum last December, drawing their attention specifically to the Montreal project and the project in Quebec City. This amount



POLLUTION


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the question directed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour to the Minister of Fisheries. When the cause of this particular pollution is ascertained will the name of the polluter be made public?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, certainly when a charge is laid, and I expect one will be laid, the name of the polluter will be made public.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the deep anxiety felt by many diabetics on special diets about the approaching deadline in respect of the purchase of diet foods, will the minister state whether manufacturers will be ready to market substitute foods to take their place?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the food industry has indicated to myself and the Food and Drug Directorate that it wiH be possible to produce dietetic beverages and spreads without the use of cyclamates. Formulation research is in progress on dietetic fruits and it is anticipated that satisfactory fruit products without cyclamates will also be available. Some of these spreads are already on the market, and I presume-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-PROVISION OF APPEAL BOARD

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan. I should like to ask when he hopes to set up an appeal board which will deal with matters such as indicated by the question of the hon. member for Crowfoot, in addition to
March 12, 1970	COMMONS
the problem facing those people who broke land, and also in respect of the special conditions that may exist on Indian reserves where some of the land is under contract? When can we expect that appeal board to be set up?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the regulations concerning the acreage reduction program are being developed at the present time. I cannot put an exact time on when they may be finalized.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe is rising on a point of order.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I know that you have a difficult task in recognizing members and I do not mind getting up 25 or 30 times, but I am just wondering if I could be given an idea as to when I can ask a question. I have a file six inches thick. I cannot understand it, Mr. Speaker, because you accept questions from this side of me and from that side of me and come back the next day to this side and that side. Should I come here any more or should I stay in my office?


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member is well taken. If hon. members are in agreement, perhaps the hon. member should be allowed to ask his question at the present time. I hope, however, that this does not set a precedent.


Jack Marshall: Really I should not do it, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but he has gone now. I will try tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask the question and it would be on the record.


An hon. Member:: Here comes the Minister. He just put out his cigarette.


Mr. Bell:: He really should not smoke.


Jack Marshall: I thank the minister for coming back. Perhaps we should get together and have a drink or something.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Jack Marshall: Could the Minister of National
DEBATES	4713
Standards Council of Canada Health and Welfare advise the House if, under the new program for physical fitness which he is due to announce later this month, provision will be made for grants to the Royal Canadian Legion? I am referring to the grants that were withdrawn from the national track and field program which has been of such enormous value to the development of youth in the country.


John Carr Munro: At the time the Royal Canadian Legion received their last grant they were advised that we would not be in a position to renew it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-163, to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, before we begin consideration of this question, I should like to raise a point of order for your consideration. The point does not require an immediate decision but, perhaps, a decision should be made on it in advance of any amendment that might be proposed. Briefly, the point of order centres on the basic principle adopted by the House that the same question can only be considered and resolved once during a session of the House.
The specifics of the point of order are that Bill C-163 purports to be a money bill under Standing Order 62. The message and recommendation of the Governor General were printed on the notice paper of 28 November, 1969, and in Votes and Proceedings of 1 December, 1969. The text of the recommendation is printed on the page of the biff facing page 1. The purpose of the bill is given in the title as, an act to provide for the establishment of a Standards Council of Canada. The recommendation and clause 17 of the bill provide that the money for this purpose shall be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament.
March 12, 1970

Standards Council of Canada
The main estimates for 1970-71 were tabled on February 11, 1970. When they were brought in, the message from the Governor General was presented to and read by you, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 62(3). This message is the money resolution that will cover all the votes in the Main Appropriation Act. These votes are founded on the items in the estimates. The estimates for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce authorize a budgetary expenditure of $190,000 as a "grant to assist in establishing a national standards association". This appears at 10-10 of the department's estimates and is included, I believe, in vote 5 under "grants and contributions".
As far back as April 2, 1604, there has been a parliamentary rule:
That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the House.
This rule, although not in our Standing Orders, has always been followed in this House. It is cited in Bourinot and Beauchesne, and has been upheld in decisions of our speakers in recent times. It is a common sense rule that is intended to prevent repetition in debate and stability of decision during a session.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It seems to me that this House is going to be asked to vote successively in this session on two identical questions: once on the so-called money vote in this bill and once again on a part of the budgetary vote for the department in the main appropriation bill. If we proceed on the assumption that this is a money bill and vote on the question that this bill have third reading and pass, then so much of the budgetary vote in the department's estimates as relate to the purpose of this bill will have to be deleted when the main appropriation bill is brought in.
I believe that the late Watson Sellar wrote in the audit guide a direction to the audit officers that they could not pay out money under a bill such as this.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me, even from the hon. member's own remarks, that there is every indication that these are two different questions. The first concerns the setting up and empowering of a Standards Council of Canada, provision for which is made under this bill, and the second is the appropriation of money from time to time to provide for it.

I suppose that the logic in the thinking of the hon. gentleman would lead him to conclude that since virtually every federal public law that provides for a money spending body is covered by the annual appropriations, one could never introduce in the same session both an appropriation bill and any amendments to the basic statute. Clearly, this does not follow. The words of clause 17 referred to by the hon. member bring out clearly that the creation of the body is something quite different from the appropriation of money. This is a standard clause which has been adopted by the House many times and used repeatedly in statutes, providing that the appropriations may be made from time to time and to give flexibility to the institution so it can increase or decrease its funds from year to year.
The simple answer to the hon. gentleman's question is that the creation of this body, with possible demands against the Consolidated Revenue Fund, is one question, and the actual annual appropriation of funds from time to time is another question. In effect, the two questions, are not the same at all. There are different aspects of the administration of this problem, and I suggest therefore that there is no conflict between the two.
I suppose it could also be said that neither of the two questions has really been decided as a second point. The House cannot assume at what time this bill will be passed nor can one make assumptions with regard to the appropriation for the national standards. So that, in effect, neither of the questions has been decided at this time.
The fundamental point is that the matter of the creation of the body is separate and independent from the appropriation of funds for it from time to time, and this is my reply to the hon. member's point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Basically the hon. member is right in his contention that the same question cannot be put twice to the House during the same session. This has been decided, as the hon. member has pointed out, and we should be careful at all times not to put the House in a position where a decision has been reached and the same question is put a second time. That is only logical, and I am sure hon. members would want the Chair to ensure at all times that this principle is preserved.
However, I think that the argument brought forth by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has considerable merit, particularly the second point which he raised. I think that the hon. member, if he has a point of order, is anticipating the situation.
March 12, 1970
He is assuming, first, that the bill will pass, and second that there will be an estimate to cover the situation later on. I think that if he has a point, he would have to wait, first, for the bill to be passed and then for the matter to come up, again before the House. At this time he may suggest that we are being asked to consider for the second time a question on which a decision has already been reached. So, my suggestion to the hon. member is that he is anticipating the situation. I am not ruling that his point of order would be acceptable if it were raised later on, but I respectfully submit to him that it cannot properly be submitted at the present time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed to say a few words on your comments, I undertake not to spend the $190,000 if the bill is not carried. I think that this would be agreeable to everyone.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill now introduced in the House is to establish a corporation to be known as the Standards Council of Canada. It will be responsible for promoting and co-ordinating the role of existing organizations involved in voluntary standardization in Canada. It would also be responsible for Canadian participation in international voluntary standards organizations.
Before we have a look at the bill, let us ask ourselves a few basic questions about standards. Not long ago I acquired some knowledge on the subject and I should like to share that knowledge with my honourable colleagues.
What are standards? Mr. Speaker, standards permeate all aspects of life. A standard is a basis of comparison. It can be anything used to measure, to measure in its broadest sense: length, height, time, colour, utility, performance of products, beauty, virtue, tolerance-and so on.
Let us have some examples:
Building codes or zoning regulations, established by municipal governments, are standards. Regulations defining membership in a club are standards. School examinations are standards of academic excellence.
In the present bill however, we are naturally concerned only with the industrial standards of products and their manufacturing process.
In industry and commerce, standards may define how something is to be produced or how something should perform. For example, a standard might define a kind of steel by
Standards Council of Canada stating its composition and heat treatment or again its strength and hardness.
A standard can also define size and shape, for example, the size and shape of a cassette for a tape recorder is standardized to permit interchangeability, that is to permit their use in recorders of different makes. Plywood and wallboard are produced in standard sizes to facilitate design.
Standards also can define the brightness of a light bulb, the power of an engine or the durability of paint. Mr. Speaker, I am cutting this short, but this gives an idea of the nature of industrial standards. Every day, each member of the House undoubtedly comes into contact with industrial standards, whether he drives a car that meets certain performance requirements, uses a home appliance subject to safety conditions, eats meat of a certain quality level or buys Canada Standard Size garments for his children.
Mr. Speaker, there are two types of standards. First of all, there are voluntary standards. In most free enterprise economies the identification, formulation and usage of many standards is based on voluntary participation arising from a recognition of a common interest on the part of producers and consumers.
There are also mandatory standards. In some areas, such as public health, safety, or welfare, it is not sufficient sometimes to leave the enforcement and the development of standards to voluntary action. In the food and drug industries, for example, or even in the construction industry, no variation in minimum quality levels can be permitted if the public is to be fully protected. Mandatory standards are therefore established by legislation, at one or another level of government, making compliance a legal obligation.
Penalties are imposed upon individuals, associations or companies that do not adhere to the requirements specified in the legislation. There was an illustration of this in the House yesterday with the bill providing for mandatory standards with regard to motor vehicle safety.
I underline that Bill C-163 is concerned exclusively with voluntary standards. I repeat that there is nothing in it about mandatory standards.
Why do we need standards? First of all, it is in order to improve the quality of goods. Standards provide also for the interchangeability of parts which makes possible, of course, mass production techniques. When a part is standardized, it is possible to manufac-

4710	COMMONS
Standards Council of Canada ture it in greater quantity, because it is known that it can be mounted on several devices.
Standards help also to improve the flow of goods and services in international trade. This is obvious. If a part is standardized, it can be sold in several countries, but if it is not, its sale will be limited to the domestic market.
Standards help to bring some order into a world where industrial production is becoming more and more diverse. Once you know that a certain article meets a given standard, you already know a great deal about it.
In a country such as Canada, where about 40 per cent of the industrial production is destined for export, international acceptance of our goods and the expansion of our trade is directly tied to the extension of the use of standards in Canada and in foreign markets.
I have asked the able member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) to say more about the importance of standards in industry and commerce.
Who uses standards?
Standards are of interest to two main groups of people: the industrial producers and the users or consumers. I have already said enough, Mr. Speaker, not to have to demonstrate the interest of the producer.
The user, be it the large industrial purchaser or the man on the street, will want to ensure that standards are drafted in a way to constitute a meaningful protection of his interests.
I believe the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) will speak further on this matter of protecting the consumer by way of voluntary standardization.
Who can create standards? In each country, industrial and commercial standards can be written by one or more agencies. These agencies may be private or public. Standards used in some fields may actually be written abroad (by an international or a national foreign agency) and 'imported' into a country by companies who find it convenient to use them.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that there is no single "right" or "wrong" way for standardization to take place. Different industries, different countries use diverse approaches. For instance, we will be told that the "American way", the "French way" or the "English way" to implement standardization is the best one. I do not think that argument

DEBATES	March 12, 1970
has any value. Every country sees the problem from a different angle, and has its own way of institutionalizing it into agencies such as the ones I shall deal with later.
In this connection, Canada provides a good illustration of the possible diversity of approach. Indeed, we have here in Canada quite a varied and complex situation. This is precisely one of the reasons why we advocate the setting up of the Standards Council, that is to attempt to draw up some strategy, some co-ordination between the various agencies I will now mention.
Many standards employed by Canadian companies are written by the Canadian Standards Association. This Association has a long history and is the prominent private agency in Canada. And we want to make sure that its importance will be recognized and even emphasized.
A limited amount of standards writing is performed by other private agencies, such as the Canadian Gas Association or the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association.
In many important fields where the CSA is not active-for instance, textiles, paper products, paints or petroleum-much standardization has been performed by the Canadian Government Specifications Board.
Although this Board is a federal organization, many of its standards have been adopted voluntarily by the private sector and are now used throughout Canada. In several other important fields, standards used by Canadian manufacturers have been formulated in other countries, notably the United States. Thus, the ASA speed rating on photographic films relates to an American Standards Association standard (now called the American National Standards Institute).
Finally, Canadian standards may be affected by international consultation. There are two major standards-formulating bodies at present:	The International Organization for
Standardization and the International ElectroTechnical Commission. These agencies prepare international standards which, as they become accepted in more countries, do much to facilitate the flow of world trade. Their work is particularly helpful to small and new countries who may be more or less "starting out" in standardization. It does not mean that other countries do not also use it extensively.
To protect its own position, Canada must ensure that its interests are taken into account by these international agencies, ISO and IEC.
March 12, 1970	COMMONS
To sum up, I should say that standards emanate, in Canada at least, from a wide variety of agencies and organizations. So there is a possibility that a patchwork quilt of standards, repetitious, if not contradictory, may develop.
Consequently, only close intra-national and international consultation in standards writing helps to ensure the consistency and efficiency that we all want so much.
The need for consistency and co-ordination in Canada, in standards making, is the driving force behind the legislation I have the honour of introducing today.
In view of the fact that the present bill would create a national Canadian entity in this area, let us ask ourselves what should be the characteristics of a national standards organization.
I ask the question once again: since we are trying to establish such a body this afternoon, and perhaps another one tomorrow, what should be the features of a standards organization in Canada?
It should meet the following requirements. First of all, it should be representative of all those groups with major interests in standardization. Broadly speaking, this includes producer and consumer associations, plus government representatives from all levels, since governments are major users of standardized products besides having responsibility to ensure that the broad public interest is taken into account.
The first condition is that this organization should really be representative of all those concerned. The second condition is that it should be able to gain and retain, through the quality of its management, orientation, dynamism and leadership the confidence of industry and the general public.
The third condition is that this organization should be impartial. No group's special interests should be allowed to predominate in the organization. As it was said about Caesar's wife, not only should it be impartial, but it should also give the impression of being so. It seems to me that the most important thing is "to be" impartial, but "to seem to be impartial" is not unimportant either.
The fourth condition is that this organization should have a wide scope of activity and concern, and be prepared to take an interest in all sectors and in all parts of the country, as well as in developments in other countries.
DEBATES	4717
Standards Council of Canada
The fifth condition is that the organization should be energetic, responsive to needs and able to identify new areas of concern, in the light of rapid technological developments and constant increase in the variety of new products placed on the market.
It should also be fully aware of the government policy in the field of industrial development and international trade and be able to develop a fund of information relating to standardization in the country as well as abroad.
That is, Mr. Speaker, the aim of the new Standards Council. The government felt that only such a Council as the one described in the bill could meet all these criteria-or all the standards, if you will allow me this play on words-which I have just mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) has told me that he would like to give the history of standardization in Canada as well as in foreign countries, to underline the importance of it.

For my part, I speak now not to the history of the whole field of standardization but to the history of this particular bill, C-163.
In 1966, in view of the growth of Canadian international trade and of the increasing rate of technological change leading to a proliferation of new techniques and products, the federal government thought that a close look should be taken at the development of standards in Canada. A steering committee was established comprising representatives from the federal government and the major private Canadian standards writing agency; that is, of course, the Canadian Standards Association. The purpose of this steering committee was to examine standardization activity in the country and to make recommendations for future action. The federal government and the CSA were equally represented on that steering committee, having six members each.
In July, 1967, the prime minister of the time wrote to each of the provincial premiers inviting them to send representatives to a full federal provincial conference for an exchange of views on the steering committee's proposals. This conference was convened in February, 1968. I am trying to underline, en passant, that we have been at it for four years; this is why I give the whole chronology of events that have taken place. A consensus was reached at that federal provincial conference: a standards council of Canada should be established.
4718
March 12, 1970

Standards Council of Canada
In June, 1968, the Canadian Standards Association annual meeting approved a resolution supporting the creation of the Standards Council of Canada. In July, 1968, 258 organizations selected by the federal govern-ment-CSA steering committee were sent detailed information of proposals concerning the establishment of the standards council of Canada. Each organization was asked to indicate its reaction and replies indicated an overwhelmingly favourable reaction. I do not know what those who did not reply would have said, of course.
In June, 1969, the unanimous support of the steering committee proposing the establishment of the standards council of Canada was submitted to the government. The government decided, then, to proceed on the basis of the committee's recommendation. After four years of careful consideration and consultation with standards writers and users, the time had come indeed for us to take concrete action. Thus, in December, 1969, this House gave first reading to the present bill.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
What is in the Bill? The objects of the council are defined. Those objects are to "foster and promote"-and I do not know how many times I shall repeat those words before the close of my presentation. Nowhere in the bill will one see the word "replace". The objects are to foster and promote in Canada the voluntary standardization of weights and measures, quality and performance of goods and industrial and commercial methods and practices not expressly provided for by law. I am not trying to invade the domain of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). We are creating here a voluntary organization dealing with voluntary standards, voluntarily arrived at and voluntarily implemented.


Mr. Peters:: Why is this bill being
introduced?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the bill will be to advance the national economy, benefit the health, safety and welfare of the public, assist and protect consumers, facilitate domestic and international trade, and further international co-operation in the field of standards.


William Arnold Peters: But what does it all mean?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Some reaction is coming from the NDP side of the House:	the voluntary
approach is not considered strong enough. I must, therefore, repeat that standardization can be achieved by two different methods, one that is voluntary, and the other that is mandatory. These are two different means to the same objective; they do not contradict each other, they complement each other. There is no reason to believe that the voluntary way is not productive; neither are there reasons to believe that the mandatory way is always unnecessary. It sometimes is necessary. We are talking about two different ways of doing a good thing.
To reach its objective, the council will foster and promote co-operation between all interested parties, manufacturers, commercial interests, service industries, government, and consumers. As I said, the council will speak to and for the whole population of Canada.
The council, I repeat, will be concerned with voluntary standards only. I have already said on two occasions that the standards developed on a voluntary basis might later be adopted by governments and become mandatory. That will be a decision for the different levels of government to take. The council will have no power to enforce standards. As I said, the standards referred to in this bill are to be voluntarily arrived at, voluntarily adopted-


An hon. Member:: Why repeat?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am repeating because I am expecting to face some lack of understanding on these points, and I should like to prevent it.


William Arnold Peters: We will vote against the bill, anyway.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If hon. members on the other side of the House want to oppose the bill, they ought to know what they are opposing. That is why I am repeating some of my remarks.


An hon. Member:: I suppose we are all
stupid.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The standards council will make maximum use of existing capacities and Canadian organizations concerned with standardization. The demands placed upon existing organizations for developing new standards are expected to increase. The increase will come about partly as a result of the creation of the national council, because of the great deal of interest it will generate.
March 12, 1970
The bill specifically provides in clause 4(1) that the council is to "foster and promote" standardization-not to write standards-and to promote co-operation between all existing agencies, whether private or governmental. The latter provision is to be found in clauses 4(2) (a) and (b).
In meeting new standardization needs, the council is directed to obtain the co-operation of existing organizations accredited to it. That is to be found in clause 4(2) (f) (i). It is not intended that the council will write standards itself. Its role would be to encourage the identification of needs.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I ought to add it will please my tough friends of the NDP, that in the event that existing organizations prove unwilling or unable, for whatever reason, to meet an identified standardization need in Canada, the council has the power to promote the establishment of a new organization to see that the need is met. However eager we may be to use available and existing agencies, I do not think it would be acceptable to ask that the council be completely in the hands of existing agencies. That is why, if the council identifies a need for a standard in a certain area of endeavour, whether it be in processing, manufacturing or any other, the council can say, "We want to establish that standard." If existing organizations do not move to introduce the new standards, then it will be the job of this organization, to create a body that will do so.
I have received many letters expressing the fear that we would not respect existing organizations. We will. There is no intention of having the standards council duplicate the work of existing organizations. That would be pointless. In their own fields, existing organizations are performing very useful functions. But if a new need develops, if existing organizations cannot meet the need, then clause 4(2)(f)(i) will ensure that the council can take action that is clearly in the public interest.
Existing organizations will maintain their own freedom to determine their own priorities and policies. Contrary to the statements that have appeared in some newspapers, the establishment of the standards council does not imply a takeover of present independent agencies. The procedures for standards formulation in Canada remain unchanged under the proposed act. Existing procedures employed by major standards-writing agencies such as the CSA and CGSB have performed well. Recent indications suggest an
21774-21J
Standards Council of Canada increased desire by such agencies to secure maximum participation in standards writing by interested parties.
The establishment of the council will extend the principle of consultation and participation to the level of policy formulation at. the full national level, so that interested parties may have a chance to be heard not only in standards writing but in planning the whole direction of standardization activities in Canada in the future. I hesitate to use the word "Parliament" in this connection, but perhaps I ought to do so. This will be the Parliament of standards in Canada. Its members might not be elected but will be sent there by their respective associations.
Bringing standardization in Canada under the umbrella of the proposed council is expected to have particular advantages in the' realm of international trade. I, as minister responsible for external trade, would like to see the council fully involved in that. The new council, by providing a forum where an overview of Canada's standardization activities can be arrived at, will ensure that competing interests are reconciled and that a balanced posture reflecting all these interests can be taken by our Canadian representatives at those different international organizations I have already mentioned. They will speak with one voice, to use a phrase the Prime Minister used today when talking of another matter. They will speak with a reconciled voice in international matters. The council will also be asked to take responsibility for the development and co-ordination of the planning and preparation for conversion of Canadian industry to the metric system of measurement, including metric standards.
What about the organization and financing of the council, Mr. Speaker? As I have said, a national standards organization must be sufficiently broadly based to take full account of all sectors of interest and all standardization activities in the country. The standards council would satisfy this requirement. Members of the council, all 57 of them, would be drawn from primary and secondary industry, distributive and service industry, consumer associations, trade associations, labour unions, professional associations and from federal, provincial and municipal governments.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In this connection, I should stress that the standards council of Canada will be independent of the government-1 emphasize the word "government"-in its policies,



COMMONS DEBATES '4720

[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Standards Council of Canada financing and operations. Policy will be determined by the council alone. To avoid the need to rely on special interests for financial assistance the council will, however, be entirely financed by parliamentary appropriation, as per clause 17 of the bill, and will be accountable only to Parliament. Obviously, there is a difference between the "government" and "Parliament" in these matters.
The possibility of the council financing part of its own expenses by membership fees and Industry contributions was considered. However, in attempting to do so the council would have competed with private standards-writing organizations which rely on these very sources to finance their own activities. Again, it was decided not to weaken these organizations. That is one of the reasons there will be parliamentary appropriation.
Quite normally, the council will be expected to report annually to Parliament. Usually, the minister rises and says he wishes to table the annual report of such-and-such an organisation; the minister certainly does not write the report. He may not even look at it before it is tabled. He acknowledges receipt of the document and gives it to the Parliament.
The accounts of the council will be subject to audit by the Auditor General as provided for in sections 19 and 20. If the council should fail to perform adequately, the option of discontinuing financial assistance always remains as a last resort, but it is for Parliament to decide.
Some people might ask, in fact some have already asked, why is government action necessary? I hope I have suggested some reasons by now. The government, in any broad field such as standardization which reaches far into the lives of many people, has a responsibility, not to control the field but to ensure that the public interest is protected. What the standards council provides is a forum where all interested parties can participate. Thus, the public interest can be identified through debate, discussion and consensus.
The government could have turned over its funds to an existing institution and said, "You do the job". However, it was believed that no agency existed which was national enough in scope and representative of enough interested parties, not only at the standards writing level but also and, mainly, at the policy-making level. No such organization exists at the present time. This is why we are, .hopefully, creating one now.

In the areas of standardization where good work is already being done, it is proposed that maximum use be made by the council of existing organizations. In areas where there is a need for new activity and initiative, a broad, objective forum is provided, independent in its policy formation and execution, able to identify and resolve problems as Canadian industry further develops and trade further expands.
It has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we might continue to look for "the best possible structure". That might be an interesting academic exercise, but the problems which are posing themselves in the field of standardization are serious and need full attention now. "The best possible structure" has been studied carefully for four years. The government consulted provincial governments, associations and organizations across the country. I suggest that the House approve the concept of this bill today. I will be pleased, with the support of my learned officials, to answer any detailed questions in committee.
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a few minutes to ramble on and react to some of the statements made by the minister. I am reacting because I was not aware of the points that would be made by the minister. I hope there is a possibility that some of the observations we on this side of the House make will be taken into consideration by the minister and his department and perhaps some modifications will be made to the present proposals.
After listening to the friendly and genial minister, it is difficult to immediately start criticizing because he spent his time smiling and encouraging fellowship. I wondered whether he was trying to convince the House of the importance of the particular bill before us or just himself. Perhaps he was trying to convince the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), who listened very intently to his remarks. Possibly, there has been some discussion behind the curtains and sound and solid argument between the two departments on the actual intent of the legislation.
The minister went into great detail about the tremendous amount of consultation which has taken place during the past four years. In a very general way, he indicated the basic aims and philosophy of the standards council of Canada and emphasized the necessity for its establishment. It is difficult to quarrel with the fact that consultation is necessary. It is
March 12, 1970

even more difficult to quarrel with some of the basic aims of the legislation. The minister indicated that the provinces agree there is a need in Canada for a standards council in order to co-ordinate and support the standards which exist, not only in Canada but internationally. It is difficult to quarrel with the fact that over the years governments, private industry, consumers and the Canadian Standards Association have all been involved. All have made their points of view known and the government has acted accordingly.
I do not honestly think that the minister has told the whole truth. Perhaps I won't tell the whole truth. My aim is to look at some of the aspects which the minister very carefully, and perhaps deliberately, avoided. It struck me as being more funny than rational that the minister indicated the council would be totally and completely independent of government. All throughout his remarks he emphasized that this would be a totally independent agency, yet clause 3 of the bill reads:
A corporation is hereby established to be known as the Standards Council of Canada consisting of
(a)	six members who are employed in the public service of Canada,
(b)	ten members, one member to be nominated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of each of the ten provinces, and
(c)	not more than forty-one other members, to be appointed by the Governor in Council as provided in section 6.
Right off the bat I smell a rat. I will not comment on that aspect, any further. Perhaps it is not important. I point out to hon. members that we can take exception to the minister's point of view in that regard.
I wish to make some observations on this bill. First, there is the involvement of the CSA, the provinces, industry, consumer groups, etc., the great amount of consultation which is taking place and the consent of these groups to this legislation. This is what the minister said. Second, I want to deal with the powers given to the council under section 4 and to take issue with the minister's statement that the basic aim of the legislation is to foster and promote co-ordination between existing organizations, not to replace them. Third, I want to get involved in the economics and to raise the question of the capability of the council, when it is established, as far as its technical and administrative aspects are concerned. These are the points with which I wish to deal.
In the area of consultation, the minister said he consulted with the provinces. He indicated that there was some discussion as far back as 1967.
Standards Council of Canada


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1966.


John Howard Lundrigan: 1966; the minister indicated a steering committee was set up, the CSA was consulted and the recommendation of the steering committee was that there be a federal-provincial conference to study this whole matter. I believe this was consummated in January of 1968. As a result of that conference there was almost unanimous agreement. The minister almost gave the impression that these groups were all holding their breath waiting for the government to introduce this piece of legislation.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I believe there has been a misunderstanding between the governments of the provinces, the existing organizations, various other groups of interested people and the federal government. I suppose we all agree with the concept underlying the establishment of a council, a council which would play a supporting role in co-operation with existing organizations, as is the case in many countries of the western world. There is, indeed, a need for co-ordination of effort in this field, a need for the promotion of the work internationally. It might be a good thing. It might cause an overflow effect which would benefit industry and international trade. I have the impression that the provinces believed this was the purpose of the legislation. I have the impression the Canadian Standards Association believed this was the purpose of the measure. If, when the discussions were going on, I had been asked my own opinion as a Member of Parliament, I would have said I was in favour of the kind of thing the government was proposing to the provinces and the organizations.
When we look at the legislation, however, we realize that the government evidently does not intend to play a supporting role. The intention is, basically, to create the power to usurp the entire role of any others engaged in this field. From representations I have received, I am aware that a number of provinces are having second thoughts after seeing the bill. I should like the minister to tell us how many provinces have made representations to him since the bill was placed before the House for first reading on December 1, seriously questioning the powers provided for in the bill. The provinces feel it is a far cry from the objects and aims set out when this measure was in contemplation, and the provisions which are in fact contained in Bill C-163.
March 12, 1970

Standards Council of Canada I do not know precisely what is the attitude taken by the Canadian Standards Association, but I bet the Association feels this legislation has gone far beyond what was necessary. I bet the Association feels that the federal government is sticking its bureaucratic nose much further into the affairs of private enterprise than was anticipated. The minister definitely left the impression with the provinces, the Canadian Standards Association and the other associations involved in standardization across Canada that the government's role would be to foster and promote, rather than provide for a take-over. Hon. members will find, I am sure, that there is a great divergence between the attitude taken by the minister today, as expressed in the bill before us now, and the attitude of the people to whom I have referred. I am confident the minister himself really wants to believe that the intention of the government is, in fact, to foster and promote, not to replace. I am sure he did not intend to mislead the House.
Nevertheless, I want to read clause 4 of the bill, subclauses (1) and (2), so that hon. members may see what powers are contained therein. They will find the govermnent has power to completely replace the Canadian Standards Association, power to do everything and play a major role. And instead of the business being done for four or five million dollars, perhaps, with another couple of million from the government, we will find the Canadian public paying as much as $20 million. We are told that one of the basic objectives of the bill is to foster and promote in Canada the voluntary standardization of weights and measures, quality and performance of goods and industrial and commercial practices. The CSA has authority given to it under letters patent going back to 1914 and renewed in 1944. For half a century or more, the Canadian Standards Association has been the association recognized internationally as being in the forefront of this work. The CSA has the authority to provide, originate and furnish Canadian standards of any nature whatsoever which are in the interest of producers and users.
Another power, which goes back to the SCC, the Standards Council of Canada, is to promote co-operation among organizations concerned with voluntary standardization in Canada, to co-ordinate standardization activities and to develop common standards and goals. The CSA has the auhority to provide systematic means by which organizations interested in standardization work may cooperate in establishing and promoting


Canadian standards to the need that duplication of work and the promulgation of conflicting standards might be avoided. According to the powers given it here, the SCC will be able to represent Canada as the Canadian member of the international organization for standardization, as the Canadian member of the IOS, the international organization for standardization.


Raymond J. Perrault: You mean, ISO.


John Howard Lundrigan: All right. It is written here.
I wonder whether we could have the co-operation of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) Mr. Speaker. He is getting a little hot under the collar. I hope that when he does get a chance to speak and convey his coached information to the House he will do so. I am looking forward to hearing the coached hon. member make his views known.


Raymond J. Perrault: I am listening to every word. Get on with it.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister's council will have the right and the power to collect, translate and distribute information on standards and standardization activities in and outside Canada. The Canadian Standards Association has the right to serve as a clearing house for information on standardization work in Canada and foreign countries.
The bill obviously gives the government total power in this field, if it wishes to use that power, to usurp a function presently being carried on by an existing organization. Again, the proposed council is to have power to promote the use of standards approved by the council. The CSA is already promoting the knowledge of and the use of approved Canadian standards both in Canada and in foreign countries. The proposed council is to have the power to establish and register under the Trademarks Act its own standards marks, and, subject to that act, to authorize and regulate their use. The CSA has the right to register in the name of the association and to hold, own, use and operate any and all trade marks, trade names and other distinctive marks. I place these facts on record in order to show the extent of the powers for which provision is made in this legislation; they are, indeed, sufficient to enable the existing associations to be replaced.
e (4:00 p.m.)
The minister will, no doubt, say: It is difficult to write anything which is to become
March 12, 1970
law without building in certain powers; however, we do not intend to use these powers; we just want to have them. Let me return to a point upon which I touched briefly a few minutes ago. One of the sound, basic arguments in favour of establishing any sort of council is that in doing so we might improve Canada's reputation as a member of international standards committees. An international standards organization is now in existence, and numerous committees have been established to deal with the setting of standards for various products, consumer goods, electrical goods, mechanical devices, and so on. All of these are represented at the moment by the Canada Standards Association. As a matter of fact, Canada is on no fewer than 80 committees of the ISO, I understand. I think that the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour corrected me on that.
On the other hand, I think Canada sits on 22 other committees of an international nature. I am sure the government, the council and the provinces would be quite eager to agree that our role at the international level is not aggressive enough; that perhaps we are not as well represented or as aggressive as we should be. One of the limiting factors, as the minister has pointed out, may be that the CSA and other existing organizations in Canada do not have the resources to become involved, to be as aggressive as we would wish and to take the kind of initiatives that we would like them to take. I should like to ask the minister why it is that consideration is not being given to doing what other countries in the western world do, namely to assisting the existing organizations, at least for the time being until we get a clear description of exactly how far we want to involve ourselves in standardization.
I should like to know why we cannot assist existing organizations. This question has been raised before and has undoubtedly been given some consideration, but I should like the government to reconsider that point. Why is it that in this respect Canada is so different from other western nations like the United States, Britain, France and West Germany? If the minister would take the time to consult his learned officials-he must have done so already because I can see evidence of it all through his speech-he would ascertain that much of the legislation in other countries in this regard is supporting legislation. The role of this legislation is that which the minister says is also the role this bill will perform. Other countries, such as the United States, Britain, France and West Germany, have
Standards Council of Canada standards associations. I forget the actual designation of the American institute, but it does play a supporting role, one of promoting and fostering. Certainly, it does not play a role of usurpation; that is not its function. As I say, other countries in the world have similar institutes.
This is the reason I ask why we cannot now assist our existing organizations in order to enable them, as they are attempting to do within their limited budgets, to refine their procedures and change their structures? The minister knows that during the last year the Canada Standards Association really went overboard in trying to redirect its energies and restructure itself in order to meet an ever-growing need and fulfil the function it is designed to perform. Why cannot the government try and give a little more assistance, even on some sort of trial and error basis, to help promote the CSA and other organizations internationally, instead of granting us power to stick our parochial noses into private enterprise and possibly bring about some sort of restriction under this legislation. When the minister gets an opportunity to think about this, let him give us some formal reaction to the proposal, instead of pursuing his present course.
There is another point I want to raise, one that bothers me as a Canadian and as a member of the House of Commons representing other Canadians. We are living in a period, as every dedicated member of the House knows, of great stress and strain for the average Canadian citizen as a result of the government's fiscal and monetary policies of restraint and restriction. We are all aware of some of the moves that have been made by the government. The hon. member for Hum-ber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) today asked the minister of health why $50,000 is being taken away from the Canadian Legion sports program. I visited the province of Prince Edward Island last evening and I found the people there very concerned at the lack of federal activity and federal assistance in promoting growth in various regions of Canada. We all know that Prince Edward Island did not get its causeway, even though the government spent $20 million on it.
Last week I was at a committee meeting at which one member made a very interesting point in connection with a grant given to promote fish markets during the Lunenburg fishing fair, which has been held now for almost 100 years. This year they lost $3,000 as a result of a cutback in the grant. We have

4724	COMMONS
Standards Council of Canada witnessed other cutbacks in post offices across the nation. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) is actually closing out 2,000 post offices in Canada so as to save $2 million.
I could go on for a week, Mr. Speaker, telling the House about some of the moves the government has made to cut back spending. I have received representations from Canadians who have worked for government departments for 25, 30 years and now are laid off as a result of government cutbacks. We find the government cutting back its spending in all departments. Its attitude seems to be that the economy cannot stand any more government expenditure, that the government has to curtail inflation.
Then, all of a sudden, this year-not next year or in a couple of years' time when the money situation has hopefully eased-we find the government saying that it is now going to involve itself in something that has already been done by private enterprise, though granted perhaps not to the extent that is required. I am not talking about government involvement in the Canada Development Corporation; I am not talking that kind of language. Neither am I talking about promoting across the nation the idea of upgrading people through new start programs. Nor am I talking about trying to improve relations with Britain, the United States and other countries which have been strained to the point where we are now getting anti-Canadian reaction. I am talking about becoming involved in standardization. I should like to inform the House that one association in Canada today is spending $4.5 million on employing expert technical and administrative assistance, and other expenses of this nature, to try and promote standardization. In Rexdale, Ontario, I believe it is, something like 300 people are employed by the Canada Standards Association.
In addition to that, we have across the nation-if I am wrong the minister or the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour will correct me-about 3,000 people who voluntarily are assisting in projects similar to the schemes now being devised by the government. These 3,000 people sit on ,God knows how many hundred committees. These people are taken from the consumer section, from government-many are officials from government departments-from industry, from the universities, from the professions, engineers, industrial experts and so on. All of them are volunteers.

DEBATES	March 12, 1970
I should like to ask whether these people are going to volunteer their services to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If the government throws in the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) as well, then that might make it attractive enough for the volunteers to stay. But I predict that if, as appears to be the case, the government takes over the work of existing organizations-


Jean-Luc Pepin: No.


John Howard Lundrigan: the minister? I already know the answer to that one. In any event, it reads:
Each of the other members of the Council shall be appointed to hold office during pleasure for such term, not exceeding three years, as will ensure-
It goes on in this vein. I can see a lot of my friends who perhaps got badly hurt during the last federal election finding their way into the standards council of Canada.
I want to raise one other question, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond J. Perrault: Tell them to make
application.


John Howard Lundrigan: "Tell them to make
application", the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) says. I have some friends. The former member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has been looking for years for a position. If you want, I will now make formal application on his behalf right now. Nevertheless, I will get along to another point.


An hon. Member:: What is his name?


John Howard Lundrigan: I forget his name; Tucker or something. In any event, getting down to Clause 14 of the bill, there is an indication that the people who will be employed by the SCC, or the standards council of Canada will be-I can read it.
The council may
(a) appoint such other officers and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the Council-
What kind of people are to be employed? The minister never reflected on this at all. What kind of people are going to be employed by the standards council of Canada. Is it going to employ technical people? I have had people indicate to me the government has already put out feelers to some of these people who are working in various capacities with other agencies and organizations.
The government has been putting out feelers saying: We are going to have openings, you know, so keep your options open. I ask the minister, is the government going to employ people who are now in the technical end of standards-writing for the Canadian nation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have said four times that the council was not going to be writing standards.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the minister is indicating that the council is not going to be writing standards. What kind of people are 21774-22

Standards Council of Canada going to be employed? I see no definition. I would like the minister to prepare some kind of brief for the consideration of the House. This bill will be before the committee before too long, we hope. Actually we do not hope that, we hope this bill will get before the committee some time in the distant future. Why does the minister not give us information in respect of two or three things? Let him give us information, first of all, on what kind of people he is going to employ. How many people is the council going to employ? What is going to be the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of this new found employment? Perhaps I should not be too critical. This is the best hope for employment I have seen for a long, long while.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Waterloo wants to ask a question.


Mr. Saltsman:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes, certainly.


Max Saltsman: This question of cost is of concern to all of us. I should like to ask the hon. member whether it is not a cost to the public if industry employs the present members of the council? After all, that cost is deductible for tax purposes. If it is deductible for tax purposes it is reflected in a cost to the taxpayers, surely.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce referred to the schizophrenic, socialistic tendencies of hon. members to my left. After that question, I am beginning to realize that there is something to that observation.


Max Saltsman: I rise on a point of order. I am always interested in the remarks made by the hon. gentleman-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I do not think the hon. gentleman is in his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Howard Lundrigan: That is an indication of the confusion that exists in the mind of the hon. member. I was asking the minister, before I was interrupted by the hon. member who will undoubtedly want to rise in his place and make some observations later, to indicate the nature and kind of people who will be employed by the council. There is no indication here as to how much money this is going to cost the Candian taxpayers over a period
4726	COMMONS
Standards Council of Canada of time. I should like the minister to give us an indication of this. He should prepare a lengthy proposal or document. Perhaps he should take this bill back for a few months and prepare that sort of thing in order to convince other people in Canada of the need for this organization.
I have the impression, as a result of the mail reaching my desk, which is not as extensive as the mail reaching the desk of the minister, that the people do not know what this is all about. I should like to ask the minister to give us an indication of the depth of the studies that have been made with regard to the implications of this kind of move.
The minister talks about consultation and his proposals to the standards associations. There are a lot of people who sit back in their offices with a pen-those great experts who draft legislation-who somehow or other do not have the required knowledge at their fingertips. They do not understand all of the implications of these things. Frequently, legislation which reaches the House does not seem to reflect the total situation. As a matter of fact, it is almost impossible for it to reflect the total situation.
I am sure the provinces would be very interested in having this information. I should like to ask the minister to indicate what types of studies have been made and what type of promotional role has been played in the international sphere. What type of technical assistance, in addition to what we have, does the government intend to give to assist existing organizations? What is the long term role of existing organizations and associations, and what is their future? Can they start planning to continue their role with enthusiasm and vigour? These are the kinds of questions we would like the minister to answer.
I am sure my colleagues, and all hon. members of the House, feel that the government has not given this matter enough consideration. I suggest, therefore, there is a great deal of concern in the minds of those who have taken the time to read this bill as to the cost of this measure to the taxpayers of Canada and the relative benefits to be derived. Again, on the basis of the reaction of the provinces and the lack of information regarding the studies which have been made, which are not as extensive as they might have been, we wonder about the underlying philosophy and attitude the government has taken toward this measure. We accept this bill as the beginning of a journey toward the establishment of 
DEBATES	March 12, 1970
some kind of council which might be modified to suit the needs and interests of Canada. With this in mind I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey):
That the word "now" be deleted and the words "this day six months hence" be added.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have changed my mind about this bill several times this afternoon. I read it and thought I agreed with it. I have been informed by many of my constituents that there are many desirable aspects to the establishment of standards in many fields. I was surprised to hear the minister suggest he was going to keep repeating the words "foster" and "promote" and "voluntary action" because he felt we did not understand them. As a consumer, I do not want voluntary action. I want a standard I can trust. I should think such a standard should be adopted in respect of various things. This information should be attached to the items I buy. I do not want voluntary action. I do not have much faith or trust, and I do not want to foster or promote this lack of trust in respect of guarantees.
After reading this bill, I felt there was an indication it would mean something. It is very interesting to note that this organization will eventually supersede the Canadian Standards Association. In a letter which that Association circulated to all Members of Parliament- several of my colleagues received it so I assume it was received by all members-they said that if the bill is enacted, it appears that a federal government corporation will be given the power to supersede the Canadian Standards Association as the national agency for voluntary standardization in Canada. This letter is dated March 10 and the bill is dated December 1. Several newspaper items on the subject are dated early in January, so the conclusion of The Canadian Standards Association is that they will be superseded.
e (4:20 p.m.)
I should like to know from the minister whether or not what this organization says is true, because if it is true then I am very much in favour of the bill. However, if it is not true, then I would be prepared to support a six months hoist. So, I hope the minister will decide whether or not the conclusion of the Association is valid because there is a need for such an organization in Canada. I was interested to note that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) is aware of the fact that he has oodles
March 12, 1970

of trouble, a lot of which stems from the fact that we do not have proper standards in Canada and that the agencies that have been attaching a tag to the products are not better than the people who produce them.
I am also interested in another aspect of the matter. The minister said he is going to support the association, and he commented on the wonderful work it did. In their letter, the association says that it is privately financed, and that it has an annual budget of about four and a half million dollars to which the federal government contributes only about 1 per cent. These people have been able to raise for themselves four and a half million dollars for doing what? Certainly, not for protecting the public. The 1 per cent which the government put into the organization could have been 50 per cent if they thought that organization would protect the consumers. The minister must think about the Canadian Standards Association because that association, from whom I received the letter dated March 10, either does not believe the minister that the organization proposed under the legislation will not supersede them, or else is pretty stupid. No wonder it does not make better decisions on some of the safety regulations, because if it read the minister's bill as badly as I did then neither of us should set standards for electrical appliances.
A number of articles were written by Maurice Western, a special correspondent for the Journal who had some things to say about this matter. His opinion is that, of course, the minister's bill is only the thin end of the wedge. Judging from his argument it seems to me he believes it is a voluntary foot in the door is not opened, then the minister will have some leverage. He gives some reasons as to why this bill is necessary. One of the reasons is to allow the minister to exercise some control. In one of the articles appearing in the Journal Western said:
But standards can also be a cloak for extortion. They can be used to impose higher prices on Canadian consumers by keeping off the market goods which have proved safe and serviceable in other countries.
He goes on to give an example:
In Ontario, for example, firms have been prosecuted by provincial authorities because they offered for sale such items as Japanese radios and radiophonographs which did not carry the approval stamp of a private organization, the Canadian Standards Association.
Until now. Parliament has shown no interest in this anti-consumer aspect of standards regimes. Furthermore, although Mr. Pepin's bill contains a few pious expressions about ''facilitating domestic and international trade" and "furthering intema-21774-22$
Standards Council of Canada tional co-operation in the field of standards", there is nothing in it which promises an effective attack on the problem.
If there are to be standards policed by the provinces, which may indeed be necessary in many cases, they ought not to be set by representatives of private organizations with a market interest. In principle, therefore, an official standards council is a good thing. The one proposed will consist of six civil servants, 10 members nominated by the provinces and not more than 41 other members chosen by the federal government on some basis not spelled out in the bill.
The general idea of the legislation is that the new council will work through existing organizations. It may "accredit, in accordance with criteria and procedures established by the council, organizations engaged in standards formulation, testing and certification in those fields-
Western goes on to say:
Since it will not have its own laboratories, how will it avoid becoming captive to these bodies, including presumably the Canadian Standards Association and Canadian Gas Association? In the past, such groups, although non-government associations, have managed to endow themselves with a semiofficial aura. Now they are to be accredited, which will put the matter beyond doubt.
The article goes on to describe the effect this will have on imports and exports and how United States products have been unable to come into Canada because total and often useless changes would be involved. Mention is made in the article of one case, of which I have known for some time, of an electric stove that was brought to Canada. Most of us do not consider the Americans to be backward in their industrial products, yet the wiring in that stove has to be removed and a different type of wiring installed, boosting the price, I would imagine by 10 per cent. What does it do to the cost once a stamp of approval is put on the stove? It boosts the cost of that stove by 100 per cent so the stove, which would be considered acceptable in the United States and which sells for $100 there, will probably cost $200 or $225 in Canada. In addition, there is the bother of having to re-wire it to obtain a stamp of approval, which obviously the Americans do not think was necessary so why should we?
The minister is also aware that often we have not been able to sell in other countries products manufactured in Canada because we have not been able to meet their standards. It has been very interesting, in travelling around parts of the world on a number of occasions, to find that in other countries electrical appliances are uniform in their application. We do not have this uniformity. An electric shaver in Europe operates on current of different voltage. In Canada, electric shavers do not even operate on household current
4728	COMMONS
Standards Council of Canada but have to have a special transformer attached to them because they cannot take normal power fluctuation.
It seems to me that we are not all that smart in this respect, and the minister who is responsible for trade must realize that the area of his responsibility is much larger than just to protect an association. Let me tell the House that this is a very powerful association if it can raise privately four and a half million dollars a year. This indicates that they must be very effective with the people to whom they talk, but since they could only receive 1 per cent from the government, they are not very effective with the government. This shows a great degree of self-interest and a smaller concern for the consumers, for trade interests or even for safety interests in many cases.
The association sets out in its letter how much money they raised and how much the government was providing. They consider it in a different light than I do. I do not think it is unfair to say that some self-interest must be served in this field. As a matter of fact, I imagine there is a total monopolistic interest in this field. Certainly, this is the case with gas underwriters. I have seen many appliances bearing the laboratory underwriters's stamp, and I would think this is a good standard. I have seen Good Housekeeping's Seal of Approval on many appliances also. If I saw that on an electric iron I would think it was worth buying, not because of standards set by any government agency but because use of the Good Housekeeping Seal has been restricted, and any article which bears it is usually satisfactory. That has been my experience.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Another seal of approval is that of the Canada Standards Association, but this only means that it is legal for me to use the article bearing it. I have bought equipment with that seal, and without it. I have not considered that seal as any great stamp of approval, except that it is the legal stamp of approval needed in the province of Ontario, and thus is absolutely necessary in that province.
As the minister said, he is backed by a large number of people in his department who are very competent in their various fields. I suggest that their's is a fairly new competence. I am impressed with the interest which Canada is showing in developing trade, mainly through co-operation between international agencies. It is no longer a question of,

DEBATES	March 12, 1970
"We have it; if you want to come and buy it, do so. If you have it and if you want to send somebody to us to demonstrate it, then maybe we will buy it." Now, there is co-operation. Trade seems to be on a fairly formal basis, and not only the present minister but several previous occupants of that post have made fairly good showings, both throughout the country and in this House. The reason for that is the expertise which is behind them..
Experts have pointed out that a number of changes must take place in Canada if we are to expand our trade. One of the changes I wish to talk about is the adoption of the metric system. I have introduced a bill dealing with this subject on a number of different occasions. Now, on looking over it again, I do not know where I stole it originally, or where it came from, because certainly it is pretty complicated. I do not think I knew that much about the subject. I really do not know how I developed such a comprehensive bill, but I would ask the minister to have a look at Bill C-42, and it might explain some of the support that I have been receiving on this subject.
Some of this support comes from people in the educational field. The annual general meeting of the Canadian Teacher's Federation in 1962 passed a resolution which read:
Whereas countries containing 78 per cent of the world's population either are using the metric system of measurements or are in the process of adopting it; and
Whereas 57 per cent of world trade is carried on in metric units; and
Whereas the metric system is much simpler and more systematic than the English system; and
Whereas the metric system is already being used in Canada to some degree;
Be it resolved that the Manitoba Teachers' Society adopt a policy of favouring a complete change in Canada to the metric system of measurements; and
Be it further resolved that the Manitoba Teachers' Society recommend to the Canadian Teachers' Federation that it, too, adopt a policy of favouring a complete change to the metric system.
A report on the metric system by Dr. J. T. Henderson of Ottawa was presented to the Canadian Conference on Education in January, 1962, in which he stated his firm belief that the change to the metric system would cut a whole year from the present 12 year elementary and secondary education course and thus enable young people to become members of the labour force one year earlier. That is an interesting conclusion.
Most of the world is interested in doing business according to the metric standard.
March 12, 1970	COMMONS
The metric system is simple, involving multiplication and division by tens. It is easy to train young people in its use. In fact, at present many Canadian industries use it, but for domestic purposes have a conversion system to the English measurement system. All measurement in the pharmaceutical industry is done according to the metric system. Hospitals, doctors and scientists operate according to the metric system, and I am glad that the government is now making a detailed study of the subject.
A change to the metric system need not be made overnight. It is not like the recent experience in Sweden, where a change was made from driving on the left hand side of the road to driving on the right hand side of the road. That change had to be implemented overnight, but the adoption of the metric system could be spread over a much longer period of time.
I have been informed that the Canadian construction industry has done a study on the metric system and is prepared to adopt it. That industry needs only a little encouragement from the minister to do so. I believe there are many other industries that would be interested in gradually adopting the metric system, and thus better serve world markets.
It is inevitable that we will adopt the metric system, and I commend the minister for having announced, as reported in the Ottawa Journal on January 16, that the government believes adoption of the metric system of measurement is ultimately inevitable and desirable. I am quite pleased with the development that is taking place in this field.
I suggest that we start with industries that are now willing to adopt the metric system, and encourage others to do so as well. This standards bill is broadly based, and in the last few months we have had three bills of this nature.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The other day we had a bill on the standard of textiles and not long ago we had a bill on the standard of sizing for children's clothes. We have considered a number of these standards, and they seem to be haphazard. I suppose the CSA was administering those as well. Size two clothes would fit a child aged two or one aged six or maybe one in the cradle. We have not established standards and it seems to me we are going to be hard pressed in making trade agreements with other countries unless we do.
A standard has to consider the consumer in my opinion. If we set standards that raise the
DEBATES	4729
Standards Council of Canada price of the commodity 30 or 40 per cent artificially then, of course, the establishment of those standards is too expensive. It is more-than we can afford and will not serve the-purpose. Standards should be properly administered and uniformly developed so that they can be applied in the trade. The housewife should be able to pick up a can and know whether it contains 11 ounces or 14 ounces. It is very interesting to look at the shelves in a grocery store where the cans appear the same size but examination will reveal perhaps an ounce difference in the contents, and the price-of one will be a fraction of the other. It would; take a mathematician to figure out if one is cheaper than the other.
We will have to establish and enforce standards, and that is why I am opposed to the minister saying that his job is to promote voluntary action. I do not think the Canadian public is interested in the fostering of voluntary standards if that means they will be established a long time from now. The general public is interested in standards being established now so they know what they are buying. We should know exactly what a standard means.
So much depends on the company that is producing food products, for instance. One company will maintain that its soap is 99 or 100 per cent pure. I do not think this claim has ever been challenged. Pure what? Pure soap? Pure lye? Pure fat? Pure what? It is hard to say what it is, but nobody complains. We have so many things that are "select", "first grade", "pure" this or that, that are not pure at all. The reference is to something that is not a commodity in itself but is a combination of commodities. It cannot be pure unless it is free from impurities and "pure" would have to be defined.
This country is demanding very strongly and rapidly a more complete knowledge of products on the market. For example, if you went to Europe and bought a bag of Canadian flour you would know the protein content of the flour and what grade it was. You might even know where it came from because of certain standards that must be marked on it. But if you go downtown in Ottawa and buy a bag of flour it will be marked as "finest grade", "household flour", "cake flour" or some designation that has nothing to do with what is in the bag. You would not know whether it was fifth grade northern or frozen wheat or general purpose flour. You would not know anything about that particular flour
March 12, 1970

Standards Council of Canada and certainly would not know whether you were getting your money's worth. This is true of almost everything we have.
Another example is light bulbs. The Ontario Hydro has set standards to a point where they can buy bulbs with a 400, 500, or 1,000 hour life or even a lifetime bulb. I cannot do this. When I buy a bulb there is nothing to indicate whether it is going to last 400 hours, but I think I have a right to know how long it will last. I am willing to pay a premium for the knowledge. I am even prepared to pay a premium for the government to set a standard to enable me to tell.
I am disappointed with the minister, particularly because of his glee at being able to say that this is voluntary, and that he is not going to interfere in the CSA or with the gas nr electrical underwriters. Apparently he is not going to interfere with any of the agencies that, in my opinion, may have been acting in a manner detrimental to consumer prices and to our ability to participate effectively in international trade. I am sure, and I think the minister is, that this bill will have to be amended before it is in operation very long.
I think the minister indicated what might have been one of the defences of his position, had he been able to say that the provinces will not allow the federal government to enforce standards on a national basis. But the indication in the letters received from the provinces by the former minister was that the federal government should go ahead. If this is so, I think we should be willing to exert ourselves and move into a field that apparently is vacant in relation to many commodities.
I know the public is waiting for this type of legislation, waiting for an expansion of it into all consumer requirements. I hope by the time the bill comes to committee, the minister will be able to convince himself or his colleagues to give consideration to this point. The government should give consideration to bringing all those agencies which set standards under the umbrella of a national agency. The organizations could use it and the government would have a responsibility to the consumer for the goods which were examined and approved.
The CSA is really not of much interest to people in China. It might not be of much interest any place else, but it certainly is not an international agency that countries will respect. I think it is time we got into this field, and I hope it can be done by the time this bill gets through committee.
.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, when introducing the bill, the minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) was justified, of course, in saying that the entire Canadian population wishes that, in some fields, we would comply with certain standards.
However, we are wondering whether the government is acting in a normal way with regard to its standards legislation since there is already-as has been pointed out before-a Canadian Standards Association. If the government intends to establish a Standards Council of Canada whose objectives will be exactly the same as those of this association, the Canadian people will have to decide which standards are the best. Therefore, no standardization could be possible.
Are we going to follow the standards set by the Canadian Standards Association or those of the Standards Council of Canada? It seems to me that, right from the start, a detailed study of this matter should have been made. For instance, have the proposed standards been already carefully considered by the existing association?
In a letter sent to us by the association on March 10, and to which reference was made before, we find the following and I quote:
The yearly budget of the association is about $4.5 million to which the government contributes in a proportion of about 1 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I am not in favour of a pro rata contribution but of a whole contribution. This means that if we allocate thousands of dollars to that association, it is because we consider it satisfactory, otherwise why should we grant it a subsidy. I wonder, since the association is sending a letter of protest to the members, whether this means that the government possibly did not take care to consult this association before introducing Bill C-163. I think that we have here an example of a lack of standardization of the government itself.
This association is either good or not good. I am inclined to think that it is good since it receives a subsidy from the government. If it wants to take charge of standardization in Canada, why did it not resort to the Canadian Standards Association which already exists in order to avoid ambiguity and useless quarrels?


Jean-Luc Pepin: They changed their mind.


Mr. Matte:: I did not hear the minister's remark.
March 12, 1970


Jean-Luc Pepin: They changed their mind.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: They changed their mind?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Then I am glad that there were consultations with this association before the bill was drafted.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The previous speaker's argument, to the effect that a private association can protect some private interests at the expense of general interests is valid to some extent, for such a thing is always possible. So it probably behoves the government to concern itself with such standards, in order that they may really be objective. But one could perhaps seriously wonder if it might not be better to alter the existing organization so as to make it more efficient and more or less a Crown corporation. Maybe it could be done.
When referring to the content of the letter sent out by that Association, one can but conclude that the latter seems well-structured and provides several services. Therefore, we could perhaps change it a little.
As far as this bill is concerned, you may say what you like, but if it is the government's intention to have it passed, we know very well it will pass. Therefore, I will allow myself to point out some aspects that could be improved upon or simply deleted. Referring to the bill, I note for instance that the Council would consist of, and I quote:
(a)	six members who are employed in the public service of Canada,
(b)	ten members, one member to be nominated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of each of the ten provinces, and
(c)	not more than forty-one other members-
Mr. Speaker, that Council will have not more than 57 members and we are sure of one thing, namely that it will have only one representative per province.
Therefore, the following could happen, that Quebec, for instance, would have only one member out of 57 to represent it within that Canadian Council.
I wonder whether it might not be advisable to add to clause 3(c) which reads as follows:
(c) not more than forty-one other members-
-the words: "chosen on a pro rata basis in the provinces", for standardization will affect all sorts of things, weights and measures, the quality and performance of goods, and industrial and commercial methods and practices.
Standards Council of Canada
I am still referring to clause 4(c) which reads as follows:
(c) industrial and commercial methods and practices-
It may happen, Mr. Speaker, that some standards are related somewhat to the ethnic groups. Indeed, it is quite possible that in industrial and commercial fields, some standards might be particularly related to Quebec, because that province is in the majority made up of French Canadians. And so, with regard to the number of members on the council which is to be established, the provinces and especially Quebec should be adequately represented. We would thus avoid the differences and quarrels that are always liable to occur.
The bill does, indeed, say "voluntary". These standards should not, however, compel manufacturers to bring about any changes in products which have now caught the fancy of the public.
As for clause 4(a), we certainly agree it is high time to think of changing our present system of weights and measures-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being 5 o'clock and under the special order passed today about tonight's budget speech, Mr. Matte moved, seconded by Mr. Winch, that the House do now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being five o'clock the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) we have agreed to stand the first two notices of motions, Nos. 203 and 204. I believe the hon. member sponsoring notice of motion No. 141, the third from the top on the Order Paper, is ready to proceed. Perhaps Your Honour might call that notice of motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 12, 1970
4732	COMMONS
Regional Development Incentives Act PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT


John Stratford Burton: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan regarding the selection of designed regions under the new Regional Development Incentives Act.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He said: On November 26 last, I placed this notice of motion for papers on the Order Paper in view of my concern about the designated areas program under the Regional Development Incentives Act as it applied to the province of Saskatchewan. Indeed, this concern was shared by many other people in the province of Saskatchewan in view of the state of the Saskatchewan economy, particularly in the past year.
I think it is very useful and timely that we should have an opportunity to discuss the implications of this motion and its import in terms of the current situation. It is also timely and useful to have this discussion in view of the minister's announcement yesterday afternoon. All of us recognize that the programs that are involved are important in fostering and promoting a recovery and improvement in the state of the Saskatchewan economy which has experienced very severe setbacks within the past two to three years in particular. This, of course, marked an interruption of a steady period of growth over the past 25 years or so, from the early forties through to the mid sixties.
Over the past year and a half this growth has shown a very sharp change in direction. There has been a downturn in the state of the Saskatchewan economy. Figures produced by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for 1968, although not published as yet due to a changed reporting system, show personal income per capita in Saskatchewan for the year 1968, the latest year for which figures are available, is almost $300 per capita below the Canadian average. If one excluded the factor of change in farm inventory, and this change in farm inventory and the net addition to farm inventory was included in these
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. B6chard).l

personal income figures, we would see that the income per capita in Saskatchewan for 1968 was almost $400 below the national average.
It can also be noted that both of these figures, with or without the change in farm inventory, are below all other Canadian provinces with the exception of the four Atlantic provinces. Indeed, they are below the figure for the province of Quebec where it has often been noted there is a great need for economic stimulus. When the designated regions were first announced last August, many people in Saskatchewan were profoundly concerned. They could not see any rationale in the designation of the particular areas of Saskatchewan which were included under the terms of the new Regional Development Incentives Act. There is a strip across the south of the province which includes such communities as Estevan, Weyburn and Moose Jaw. I have no objection to the inclusion of these communities and I think a good case could be made for their inclusion. There is also an area in the northeastern part of the province which includes the communities of Melfort, Humboldt, Nipawin, Hudson Bay and a few other towns as well.
I have no objection to the inclusion of these communities in the designated areas program. However, if these communities are to be included then I certainly think an equal or better case can be made for the inclusion of many other communities in Saskatchewan. One of the communities in the northeastern block of Saskatchewan, the town of Humboldt, happens to be my home town. I have a certain amount of loyalty and faith in my old home town, but I can say that the town of Humboldt is as prosperous as many other centres in that province. The point I wish to make is that many people in the province of Saskatchewan felt that if it were possible to include a community such as Humboldt, it should be possible to include many other communities and towns such as Wynyard and Melville. There are many such communities that could be named throughout the province.
The Qu'Appelle Valley is one area which is of interest in the province of Saskatchewan. This valley has new potential for development as a result of the completion of the South Saskatchewan dam and the assurance of a more stable water supply for that part of the province since the water supply has been linked with that of the South Saskatchewan River and the waters impounded by the South
March 12, 1970
Saskatchewan dam. Many of us were very much disturbed by the boundaries that were established.
I subsequently corresponded with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). I asked him in particular to include the major cities of the province. I did so, not because I have anything against the inclusion of the smaller centres in the province-I think a very sound case can be made for the inclusion of them-but if any meaningful growth is to be carried out in the province of Saskatchewan it is absolutely necessary to include the major growth centres in the province within the program.
On this basis, I suggested that Regina and Saskatoon should be included in the program. In fact, I suggested the entire province of Saskatchewan should be established as a designated area in view of the economic conditions in that province. I followed up my exchange of correspondence with the minister by placing questions on the Order Paper when the session of the House commenced on October 23. I received some very evasive answers. When I asked what criteria were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the selection of designated areas for each province, the answer provided to each question was, weighted measures of representation of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry. I suggest that this wording and answer was a clear case of bureaucratic gobbledygook.
I followed this question up with a motion for papers asking for correspondence between the federal government and the governments of the various provinces regarding the consultations that took place prior to the establishment of the designated areas across Canada. I was very much astonished and surprised to learn, in response to my motion, that there was no correspondence with any province except the province of Alberta.
I was supplied with information on the exchange of correspondence between the federal government and the province of Alberta. It was clearly set out in this correspondence just what proposals were made by the federal government and what proposals were made by the province of Alberta. I found that all of the other consultations that were carried on, I might say consultations which are provided for under the legislation, were carried on through what seem to be rather informal discussions. When I attempted to obtain some details of the proposals that were discussed, I
Regional Development Incentives Act was told that the details of such consultations were confidential, except for the information that had been supplied with respect to the province of Alberta.
It is then that I transferred the motion for debate with respect to correspondence between the federal government and the province of Saskatchewan and this is the motion that is now being debated, Mr. Speaker. Further questions were asked regarding the criteria. I tried to obtain more information on what sort of criteria were used in establishing the designated areas across Canada. I obtained a rather vague set of figures dealing with each of the 64 geographic economic regions across Canada.
Subsequently, I privately asked for a map that set out the boundaries of these various regions. The Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to supply me with such a map. When an analysis was carried out, it was quite clear that on the basis of the information supplied in response to this request there was no meaningful criteria applied in establishing the designated areas across Canada. Indeed, it amounted to little more than an exercise in political manoeuvring which did not take into account the real needs that should have been dealt with under the terms and objectives of the legislation for which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is responsible.
In discussing the programs of that department over the past year, the government has made a case that this is their major program to decrease and eliminate regional economic disparities in Canada. It is a major weapon in dealing with the government's war on poverty. As a result of some of the information that has been supplied, some very serious questions need to be asked about the adequacy of the programs that are being developed by the government. Indeed, we have very serious questions with respect to the application of those programs in the province of Saskatchewan. I do not need to go into detail concerning the state of the Saskatchewan economy at the present time. Whether we look at income, retail sales or investment, we are confronted with a gloomy picture. There has been a distinct decline in population over the past one and a half years. Between October, 1968 and January 1, 1970, the population declined from 962,000 to 948,000. This is a matter which requires urgent public consideration.

March 12, 1970
4734	COMMONS
Regional Development Incentives Act [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. O'Connell:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel I should bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that the debate concerns the production of certain papers. The hon. member has, himself, noted that the papers do not exist, and I really wonder whether a debate ought to be permitted on a subject which is outside the scope of the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: May I
suggest to the hon. member that he attempts to make his remarks as relevant as possible to the debate?


John Stratford Burton: I will certainly do that, Mr. Speaker. 1 was attempting to explain why I was seeking this information-the reasons for the concern which led me to bring this motion before the House and ask for whatever correspondence did exist. We did hear a statement by the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. O'Connell) and I will be interested in any further explanations he may have to give when he takes part in the debate.
I wish to say this in conclusion. Yesterday we heard an announcement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion with respect to the establishment of 22 special areas across Canada. As far as I am concerned, I welcome the inclusion of the cities of Regina and Saskatoon as well as an area of northwestern Saskatchewan within this program. Questions need to be answered as to the scope of the program envisaged in this regard. Will it be restricted to a few areas of emphasis, as suggested in the minister's announcement, or will its application to areas such as the Saskatchewan communities involved be as broad as was foreseen in the over-all program? We ought to keep in mind the need for an over-all program of massive assistance for the Saskatchewan economy, realizing that the economy of Saskatchewan plays an extremely important role within the whole national framework.
At the present time we are confronted by the lift program-the letters standing for "lower inventory for	tomorrow"-as
announced by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. This is bound to have a serious impact on the income of Saskatoon people in the coming year. We very much need a program initiated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to offset the effects of the other programs which adversely affect the province. In fact, the entire province of Saskatchewan should be established as a designated area. This is only fair when one com-
TMr. Burton).!

pares the situation in Saskatchewan with that in Manitoba where the entire southern settled region is included as a designated area under the regional development incentives plan, in addition to some of the northern region which is now included as a special area. I have no objection to these boundaries having been chosen, but in justice I believe similar treatment should be accorded to Saskatchewan.
We need extensive public works programs in the province. We certainly need special help in programs of the department to assist the Indian and Metis people. I was pleased to hear the minister announce yesterday that help would be extended to the Indians and Metis in northwestern Saskatchewan. I was glad to note he has adopted some of the proposals made by the hon. members for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and Skeena (Mr. Howard). They recently made a tour of this area and recommended that certain programs be carried out. I might also say, to their credit, that they carried out their tour of inspection in a much more tasteful and sensitive manner than did some others who recently investigated the social and economic problems of the area.
Earlier, when this question was placed before the House, it was suggested that no correspondence along the lines sought for in the motion did, in fact, exist. I am astounded to think that so little consultation took place with respect to the establishment of designated areas in Saskatchewan that there should not be one scrap of correspondence or one document which could be tabled in answer to my request for papers. I would be interested to hear more about this aspect from the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorklon-Melville):: rise to take part in this debate on the production of papers. May I at the outset-


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should not have been given an opportunity to reply to the observations which were made by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). It would appear there are no papers and, in these circumstances, it would seem to me that the Parliamentary Secretary should at least be given the opportunity to say so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The chair has recognized the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
March 12. 1970	COMMONS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps, when I have finished, the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. O'Connell) will have a few more questions to which he can reply. The hon. gentleman did say a while ago in this House that there was no correspondence.
I am flabbergasted that there should be no correspondence at all between the premier of Saskatchewan and the federal government with regard to federally-designated areas. Did the premier not write even a single letter on this important subject? He has expressed his views about it freely in the Saskatchewan legislature, in the press and over the other media. D'.d he not write even a brief note mentioning the areas which he believed should be included under the regional development incentive program? Mr. Speaker, I did not ever have very much confidence in the premier of Saskatchewan, but after learning something like this, if the Parliamentary Secretary is telling us the truth, I have even less confidence in him. It seems to me that any premier would be interested enough at least to write to the minister in charge and make known to him the areas which he believes should be included as designated areas in his own province. This is especially important in the case of a province such as Saskatchewan, having regard to developments there during the last two or three years. I do not think the people of our province should forgive the premier if he did not even send a few letters to the minister in charge or to the department.
If there is no correspondence at all, it becomes very difficult to debate this point further. But I think there must be some. All of us will have to demand a good explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary when he rises to take part in the debate. I do not intend to become involved in a long series of suggestions to indicate what ought to be done, in my opinion, or to prove that the government is not doing what I think. The Parliamentary Secretary heard me speak for seven minutes during the late show last Monday night and is familiar with some of my ideas as to what should be done in this area. What is really important in this particular debate is that the government should produce the relevant papers if they exist. I am sure some do exist. I am sure some correspondence must exist. If the Parliamentary Secretary says that it does not, I think the premier of Saskatchewan would be interested to know that.
DEBATES	4735
Regional Development Incentives Act [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The Federal government is led by a man who a year and a half ago talked of the new politics of participatory democracy, of opening up government and society for all to participate. Yet when we ask about something as basic as this, it is denied us. The people in my province have the right to know what kind of letters, briefs and communications were exchanged between the two governments before this government made up its mind which areas to include within the regional development incentives program. This is a matter that is basic to parliamentary democracy and to a society that pretends to believe in participatory democracy.
All members from Saskatchewan are very happy at the inclusion of Regina and Saskatoon and the Meadow Lake area in the new plan announced yesterday. I think all of us would be very happy to see the government do something to improve life in these areas. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I and other hon. members have for some time called upon the government to designate all of Saskatchewan a special area which would qualify for government grants under the regional program.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Why not include all of Canada?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I hear the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) making his usual contribution to the debate, and I shall be interested to hear later what he has to say.
As the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) outlined today, and as I have said on previous occasions, all of the people of Saskatchewan, farmers and others, are affected by the economic recession that has set in. Farm income has fallen drastically; there is no quarrel about that. Non-farm income has gone down. Unemployment is higher now in Saskatchewan than it has been for years. Businesses are closing up; many have gone bankrupt, others are slowing down. Unless some help arrives soon, others will have to pull out. In addition to that, investment has fallen and people are moving out of the province. About 1,800 people moved out of Saskatchewan each month between last April and last October. This alone gives a very good illustration of what is happening in Saskatchewan.
After the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) made his announcement in the House yesterday, I telephoned the mayor of Yorkton. He asked me why Yorkton was left out of the regional
March 12, 1970
4736	COMMONS
Regional Development Incentives Act economic plan. The city of Yorkton-and Yorkton is but one example-has sent briefs and letters to the minister outlining the economic situation in that city, and asking that Yorkton qualify for additional incentives to attract industry to the area. Yet Yorkton has not been included in the plan.
I should like to know why this is the case. I should like to know also why other communities in Saskatchewan were not included in the plan. Perhaps a little light would be cast on the situation by the correspondence that passed between the provincial and federal governments in relation to regional economic development and the choice of designated areas. But apparently the Provincial Government did not see fit to send any correspondence.
I could go on at great length to talk about different problems in Saskatchewan, and advance further arguments for designating the whole province of Saskatchewan, but in view of the time element and the fact that other people want to participate in the debate I will try to be as brief as possible. I hope that the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was not mere tokenism on the part of the government. Because if it was, this will mean nothing to the people of Saskatchewan in areas now within the new regional development plan. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate, perhaps he could tell the House whether or not the new special areas will be treated on the same basis as the old areas originally designated under the plan announced last August. I hope that the announcement that has just been made will not be a paper announcement. These areas need more than that; they need help immediately. Not only is the economic life of the province failing, but the entire way of life of hundreds of thousands of people is being affected.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a request for the production of papers passing between the government of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan in connection with the designation of certain regions of Saskatchewan under the new incentives plan. There is no such correspondence, Mr. Speaker. I informed the hon. member who raised the question of that some months ago, and I now have to inform him once again that no such correspondence exists.


Some hon. members will probably be surprised to learn that this situation is not unique to Saskatchewan; the same situation obtains in all of the other provinces with regard to designation of various regions, with the exception of the province of Alberta. There was some consultation between officials of the department and their counterparts in each of the provinces. These consultations resulted, not without friction in some cases, in some consensus.
Section 3 of the Regional Development Incentives Act requires consultation in such matters. It does not require agreement between the two governments concerned in any particular case, but it does call for consultation. In this case there was a desire to get on with the job as quickly as possible, to have a rapid commencement in view of the high promise of the programs of this department, and therefore discussions were entered into between the officials. These discussions were oral. I repeat that, except in the case of Alberta where there was some disagreement between the officials and some correspondence did result and was tabled in the House on December 15 in response to a request from the hon. member who moved this motion, there is no other correspondence.
The reason for the lack of correspondence was in order to avoid any sort of confrontation, if at all possible; to avoid the kind of situation where there is proposal and counterproposal. Many officials of the federal government travelled to the provinces in order to conduct these consultations. In the very cooperative environment that existed, agreement, or at least a consensus, was sufficiently reached to enable the federal government, as was its responsibility, to designate certain regions.
In view of the fact that there is no such correspondence, Mr. Speaker, I feel I ought to ask the hon. member whether he would agree to withdraw his motion.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat, might I ask him a question? I quite recognize what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about consultations between provinces, the value of discussion, and that no formal agreement following consultation is required. However, in view of the fact that consultations were held and that information about the proposals passed between the federal government and the province of Alberta, why was it that in answer to questions that I placed on the order paper in regard to consultations with other
March 12, 1970	COMMONS
provinces, the only reply given by the government was that consultations did take place, and the whole thing was done by discussion? The government would not even answer my question about when those consultations took place. The government then went on to indicate that the details of those consultations were confidential.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I think I explained that, Mr. Speaker. The desire was to hold oral consultations, if at all possible, in order to arrive at a rapid resolution of the boundaries in each province. In only one case did they result in correspondence. I ask again whether the hon. member is prepared to withdraw the motion on the basis of that explanation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: I am not prepared to accept further questions. I think I am entitled to an answer to the explanation I have given the hon. gentleman. I do not think he is prepared to withdraw his motion. I would say in conclusion, since I do not propose at this time to enter into a debate on the motion, that there are a number of appropriate occasions to raise this type of question. The time will soon come when the estimates are before the Standing Committee on Regional Development. I think the hon. member is a member of that committee. With regard to the points raised as to why various matters were not included, let me say that there will be more appropriate opportunities than this to discuss such details and I will be delighted to be in attendance at some of these meetings.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) has before us a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers. These papers do not exist, yet we continue to debate a matter which has nothing to do with this motion. We are talking about a matter which concerns the incentives program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I am happy to talk about that program at any time, but it seems to me this is nothing but a ruse on the part of the hon. member. In any event, the hon. member refuses to withdraw his Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers which do not exist. He is using this as a ruse in order to do some politicking back home and to talk about the situation in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows he cannot impute motives.
DEBATES	4737
Regional Development Incentives Act


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I am sorry if I seemed to impute motives to the hon. member for Regina East, but it is difficult to understand why we must go on with the debate when there are so many other important things to discuss in the House. In any event, we continue to discuss a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers which do not exist. To me, this is the kind of thing that lowers the whole tenor of the House of Commons. It is the kind of thing that lowers the reputation of this institution in the eyes of people of this country.
I can understand the hon. member's desire to bring this matter before the House. I can understand why everyone would like to have certain parts of the country designated for special consideration. We would all like that, but I suggest this is not the way to go about it. It seems to me this is typical of the kind of method used by a number of members in this House to bring things forward and to talk about situations that are important to them personally and to their constituents, but they are not necessarily matters of importance to the whole country.
The question of regional economic expansion is very close to my heart. I have always been extremely interested in it. Our country is relatively underdeveloped as compared with other countries, but it has a tremendous future. The only way we can become great in the world is by developing our potential. It is rather ridiculous for all of us to come here and say that certain parts of Canada should be considered under this program. Perhaps this is why I said a while ago, out of turn, that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was wandering when he suggested that all of Canada should be designated. He suggested that we should designate Yorkton, this place and another place.
I have a sister and a brother-in-law who work in the area of Melville. I am sure they would like to see Melville designated as a special region. We would all like this in all areas of Canada. But let us be practical. As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, I cannot remember when I have heard anything about politics in this country and the Prairies, and particularly Saskatchewan, have not been mentioned in one way or another, usually in connection with wheat. We have had our share of discussion about wheat in this Parliament since I was elected. We have heard nothing but talk about wheat, damp and otherwise. We have heard about the hardships suffered by the people of Saskatchewan and why they should receive special consideration.
4738	COMMONS
Regional Development Incentives Act We have never heard in past years about the difficulties faced by the people of northern Ontario, and we have heard little about the people in other parts of Canada.
We have now been given a plan for regional economic expansion which will give us the opportunity to develop certain parts of this country which need development and which perhaps have been neglected in the past. That is the importance of this legislation. Now our hon. friend comes along and says: Why not Saskatchewan? The ironic part of the motion before the House is that only yesterday the minister came into the House and announced that two of the major cities in Saskatchewan were to be designated as special areas. What more do they want? Are they talking about welfare? It would appear that the hon. member for Regina East is talking about welfare, because he said a while ago that we need more public works projects and more Indian and Metis programs. What on earth does he want? Is he talking about regional economic expansion, or about welfare?
We must try to develop the whole country. We cannot develop every single community. We must select certain areas for special treatment, perhaps those which have been neglected in the past, in an attempt to bring them up to the standard we want for Canada. My whole riding needs to be developed; there is no doubt about that. We are all trying hard to see that it is developed, but we can hardly expect that every community in the riding of Cochrane will benefit.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) should be dicuss-ing the topic covered by this motion and not wandering off into different areas of the country. He should be talking about the topic at hand.


Mr. Speaker:: The point made by the hon. member is well taken. Unfortunately, I missed the first part of this very interesting debate. I have been here for a few minutes and I have the impression that perhaps what has been debated up to now is not what is before the House. Hon. members know that before us at the present time is a Motion for the Production of Papers. According to precedent, the only subject which can be discussed at this time is not whether there should be assistance to Saskatchewan, the area of Cochrane or any other particular place, but whether certain documents should be produced. The limits of debate on a Motion for the Production of

DEBATES	March 12, 197&
Papers are very narrow. Indeed, I have often, thought it very difficult to make a 20-minute or a 15-minute speech on such a subject. If I continue, I will be making a 20-minute ruling on the subject.
Let me say to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), and other hon. members who may wish to speak during this hour, that the only point we should be considering at this time is whether or not these papers should be produced.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I note that your ruling is very similar to my suggestion at the beginning of my remarks. I find it rather difficult to understand how we can debate the production of something which does not exist. We have already been told that the papers do not exist, yet the hon. member for Regina East insists that they be produced. I do not know whether he wants the Parliamentary Secretary to perform some kind of hat trick; but if the papers do not exist, they cannot be brought forward.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Obviously, the sponsor of the motion is concerned that in that fictitious correspondence there would be something to indicate that one or another area of Saskatchewan should be designated. This is what seems to bother him. I should like to make the point that we cannot possibly consider each and every community in Canada for special designation. Certain areas have to be singled out for that, because the idea of such designation is not to give welfare but to develop an area for the future and bring in new industry: where you have a one-industry town, for example, you can bring in other industries so that the people do not have to depend strictly on one industry for their living. This is the important part of the legislation.
It seems to me that the hon. member for Regina East should be aware of that and in agreement with it, since not only this government but previous governments gave special consideration to Saskatchewan and the Prairies. But now the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has given special consideration to Saskatchewan by designating two cities there as special zones. Does the hon. member know what that means? It means that they are not only designated in the way other areas are designated, but they are given special consideration so that even primary industries in most cases can be considered for special help from the federal government. It seems to me this is far
March 12, 1970

more than they could ever want in Saskatchewan or what is implied in the motion of the hon. member. I think that now, in light of this new regulation, the hon. member should be willing to withdraw his motion for the production of fictitious papers.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, what is being debated here is the right to know. That is why there is a Motion for the Production of Papers. In reality, it is for the production of information.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are no papers.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The people of Saskatchewan whom we represent want to know what has happened over a period of time between two governments,, the government of Saskatchewan and the federal government, in respect of the development program that was put into effect. Saskatchewan is staggering under the blows of two Liberal governments, one there and one here. We want to know what they have been doing.
The answer seems to be that they have been doing nothing, because they cannot produce any evidence that anything has happened. If anything has been done, it should be possible to produce some evidence in this House and to say to the House that such and such has happened and that such correspondence or agreements exist. But nothing has happened. This is the real difficulty of the government, that they have to say there is nothing for us. We have to accept it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Always crying and complaining. The New Cry-baby Party.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: When Mr. Speaker calls us to order and asks that we stay on the subject of the Motion for the Production of Papers, I must admit it is hard to discuss something that happened that really did not happen, if you know what I mean. It is a very difficult thing to do, and I admit it. This probably has been the difficulty faced by hon. members who preceded me.
I do not want to disappoint the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) and start speaking about a certain cereal, in which case he would say, "There they go again". So I will disappoint him. I do not know whether so far as this program is concerned we will find ourselves in the same circumstances as befell other programs that have been announced. Perhaps a representative of the government will stand in this House a few months from now and say that this and this happened with
The Royal Assent
the new programs and he can give the House this and that information.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My concern in asking that the motion be transferred for debate was based on the lack of information or correspondence regarding this motion, two other motions and other related motions and questions on the Order Paper. I asked that the motion be transferred for debate because I thought it required further discussion. In view of the further explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon, I ask leave to withdraw my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) seeks leave to withdraw the motion now before the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: 

THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Lieutenant-Colonel A. Fortier, Assistant Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this House attend him immediately in the chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, Royal Assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act
An act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments
An act to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act
An act to amend the Trust Companies Act
4740	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Benson
An act to amend the Loan Companies Act An act to incorporate Pitts Insurance Company An act to incorporate Pitts Life Insurance Company
An act to prevent the introduction into Canada of infectious or contagious diseases
An act respecting McOuat Investments Limited An act respecting Buccaneer Industries Ltd.
An act to incorporate ICG Transmission Limited An act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act An act to amend the Railway Act An act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act An act to implement a Supplementary Income Tax Agreement between Canada and Sweden
An act to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act
At six o'clock the House took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting the budget to the House last June, I expressed the government's view that a strong fiscal position was essential to check the rise in prices and smooth the way toward more balanced and sustained economic growth. We have maintained that position. Fiscal and monetary policies have worked in tandem to establish conditions which should give us the upper hand in squeezing inflation out of the economy. This year by a national effort we must reduce the rate at which prices are increasing. To accomplish this we must be resolute in continuing to restrain the demands that are made upon the economy. We must also continue to relieve situations where particular economic circumstances and the need to apply the big levers of economic policy may create difficulties. This has already led to several adjustments of our policies.
The Economic Situation in 1969
In the Budget Papers which I tabled in the House on February 27, hon. members will find a comprehensive review of economic

DEBATES	March 12. 1970
developments in the past year. As a background to my remarks on our present situation and to gain perspective on the prospects for the year ahead, I should like briefly to review the highlights of economic development in 1969.
We in Canada have not been alone in confronting entrenched inflation. The United States faces it. Many countries of Europe fight the same fever. The fact that our experience is far from the worst gives us no comfort for we know that the illness, if not corrected, will only deepen. We also know that while the illness is to some extent contagious, every country has to make its own provision for curing it.
The average rise in prices of all the goods and services that enter into the gross national product was of the order of 4.2 per cent last year compared to 4 per cent during 1968. The consumer price index was 4.6 per cent higher in January, 1970, than a year earlier. There are some recent glimmerings of evidence that the rate of increase of prices is no longer rising. But however one interprets these scraps of hopeful news, the hard fact is that both prices and costs-and wages and salaries in particular-are still rising at quite unacceptable rates.
The Canadian economy made notable gains last year both in output and employment. The growth of real output maintained the 1968 rate of 4.8 per cent. Employment grew faster than in the previous year-by 3.2 per cent compared with 2.2 per cent. But after the first quarter, as the restraining policies took hold, the rate of growth of demand slowed down. This development was anticipated although it was delayed longer than we had wished. It is a necessary pre-condition for the moderation of price and cost increases which it is the object of policy to achieve. Unemployment in December, 1969, was 4.8 per cent of the labour force, the same proportion as in December, 1968. Seasonally adjusted, the proportion fell in January to 4.5 per cent.
In the personal sector of the economy, incomes after taxes rose more rapidly than in 1968. Spending on consumers' goods and services rose even more quickly than personal disposable income. Personal saving therefore declined. The balances of consumer credit outstanding rose especially rapidly in the first part of the year. In distributing their increased expenditure among categories of goods and services, consumers favoured services and non-durable goods in general.
March 12, 1970

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Information on business capital expenditures suggests that numerous projects planned for 1969 were postponed or cancelled in the latter part of the year. A fall in profits per unit of output accompanied this apparent change in investment plans. Manufacturers' inventories, especially of finished products, were also building up at a substantial rate in the final months of 1969. Housing starts reached 210,000 units for 1969 as a whole but they declined successively each quarter of the year. The government is now providing a substantially increased flow of funds for low-cost housing projects this coming year. This reflects the high priority we place on meeting the need for housing in general and for low-rental homes in particular.
In our foreign transactions we had in 1969 a rather substantial increase in the deficit on our transactions on goods and services-the current account of the balance of payments. Wheat sales were substantially lower. Other exports increased but at a slower rate than imports, which rose quite strongly early in the year. There was a large inflow of longterm capital including the foreign borrowings of provinces and some municipalities. Once again there was a significant outflow of shortterm capital attracted by very high shortterm interest rates abroad. The over-all impact of all of these transactions upon our reserves was a modest increase of some $60 million (U.S.) during 1969. The value of the Canadian dollar in foreign exchange markets continues to be very strong, and our reserves have increased by $318 million (U.S.) in January and February. I hope this will decry what many people have said about flights of capital due to our white paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Financial Markets


Edgar John Benson: Financial markets reflected the restraining influence of the monetary authorities in Canada and elsewhere. Interest rates reached record levels by year-end. The growth of the assets of the banking system was about 5 per cent for 1969, and the liquid asset ratio of the banks was pushed to a record low. Net new issues of securities by Canadian borrowers were nearly $850 million lower in 1969 than in 1968, though the issue of securities denominated in foreign currencies rose substantially. Apart from the very successful issue of Canada Savings Bonds the government of Canada was not a net borrower in the bond market in 1969. In fact, the
The Budget-Mr. Benson amount of our marketable securities outside government accounts declined somewhat, and there was a reduction in the net public debt for the first time since 1957.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: This feature of our operations helped the monetary authorities in their task of maintaining an appropriate degree of restraint. It also permitted other borrowers- provinces, municipalities and businesses-full access to the funds available. The funds accumulating in the Canada Pension Plan invested by my department in provincial and provincially guaranteed long-term bonds exceeded the total net new marketable bond issues of all kinds taken up by the Canadian bond market. This fund has been a lifesaver in meeting the needs of provinces, municipalities, school boards and other public authorities during a difficult period.
Regional Aspects
Although the various regions of the country had different rates of economic growth in the past year, all of them suffered higher prices. In this sense all regions feel the problem of inflation. Our fiscal and monetary policies have been directed to this general and widespread problem. The government has explicitly recognized, however, that the total spending pressures have not been equally distributed across the country. Accordingly, we have adopted certain measures that differentiate between regions of higher and lower employment. Our tax measure concerning depreciation charges on costs of commercial construction is one example. The request to the chartered banks to have special regard for borrowers in the less prosperous areas of the country is another. In addition, in our expenditure policy, we have given high priority to certain programs which attack specific economic problems of regions of slow growth. Among such programs are those of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Manpower Training Program, the Farm Credit Program and the Wheat Inventory Reduction Program. Equalization grants to the provinces of slower growth amounted to $750 million in the past fiscal year, an increase of 16 per cent over the previous year.
The Fiscal Position in 1969-70
I turn now to the fiscal position for the year 1969-70. Of course, there are some weeks remaining in the fiscal year so that the results I present are the best estimates we are able to
4742	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Benson make at this juncture. Last June I forecast a budgetary surplus of $250 million. In the Budget Papers tabled February 27 I estimated the surplus at $455 million for the current fiscal year. The difference from the budget arises mainly from the more rapid growth in our tax revenues. Total revenues are expected to be some $245 million above the earlier forecast; expenditures, $40 million above. Since the Budget Papers were printed, the government has decided that the very serious excess of wheat stocks in Canada must be drastically reduced by emergency action. Consequently, Parliament has been asked to appropriate immediately a sum of $100 million to enable Prairie farmers to reduce their acreage planted to grains this year and enable them to adjust to a system of wheat delivery quotas intended to move the existing stocks off the farms. We are proposing to charge this appropriation to this current fiscal year's accounts, increasing budgetary expenditures to $11,915 million in 1969-70, and reducing the budget surplus to $355 million.
Last June I foresaw cash requirements for non-budgetary purposes, apart from exchange transactions, of some $650 million, before allowing for the offset to the write-off of the Expo deficit to expenditures. It now appears that our non-budgetary requirements will be much less than was forecast at that time. A figure of $365 million is implied in the Budget Papers. This figure will be reduced by $100 million, representing a contra non-budgetary credit to the budgetary charge for the appropriation for the wheat inventory reduction program, since the funds will not be disbursed until after the year-end. Other changes in expected year-end items have involved a further reduction to a total net non-budgetary requirement of only $105 million. To this we must add an amount on account of exchange transactions of about $310 million up to the present, somewhat more than was recorded earlier in the Budget Papers. Offsetting these cash requirements on non-budgetary account against the budgetary source of cash, we anticipate that our net over-all cash requirement for the fiscal year ending March 31 next will have been about $60 million. I have already explained that our marketable bonds in the hands of the public decreased slightly. However there was a net increase in Canada Savings Bonds outstanding of $374 million, and small increases in treasury bills outstanding, and in non-marketable securities held by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. These were more than enough to meet the net cash requirements,

DEBATES	March 12, 1970
and should result in an increase in our Canadian dollar cash balances of about $400 million, to a figure which I now forecast at about $1 billion at the year end; that is March 31.
Economic Prospects
Let me turn now to the year behind. I shall speak first of the prospects for the economy and of the fiscal outlook under these circumstances. Then I shall turn to policy issues and proposals.
With the pace of economic activity now somewhat reduced, I expect that the economy will continue to move upward in 1970, but at a lower rate than in 1969. In terms of volume of output, the rate of growth in 1970 may well be 1J or 2 percentage points lower than last year's 4.8 per cent. Employment will continue to rise, but more slowly than in 1969, and I anticipate some increase in unemployment. There will also be difficult wage negotiations. Some of these negotiations may issue in strikes-perhaps prolonged ones- before settlements are reached. Profits, which have already begun to fall, are likely to fall further in the coming year, in total dollars and per unit of output.
Mr. Speaker, we have a hard task ahead of us in bringing about a significant reduction in the rate of rise of prices and costs. It is the policy of the government to restrain the growth of total spending in the economy, for that is a necessary condition for achieving our primary economic objective. We shall continue to support the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission which is striving to engage business, labour, consumers and governments in a united resistance against inflation. To the extent they succeed, the objective can be reached with less severe fiscal and monetary measures than would otherwise be necessary.
To translate a 3 per cent growth of real output in 1970 into value terms requires a forecast of the success to be achieved in all our efforts to stem inflation. This is particularly hazardous this year. We just cannot tell how soon or how far the slowing of growth in demand and in production will bring about a slowing down in price increases. In forecasting revenues we assumed that prices will increase slightly less than last year. But if we could cut the rise in prices to say three-quarters of the rate last year, and if as the year progresses this trend is clearly evident, we shall
March 12, 1970	COMMONS
have good cause to be pleased. Any shortfall in our revenues for this reason would be welcome.
We have also been encouraged in our efforts to check the inflationary rise of costs and prices by the co-operative approach of the provincial governments. This was made clear, as honourable members will recall, at the conference of first ministers in mid-February. The consensus contained in the conference communique indicated the broad support of the provinces for the program of voluntary restraint, and their own intentions, so far as their particular circumstances permit, to apply the proposals of the Prices and Incomes Commission within their own jurisdictions.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
There was, of course, continued emphasis at the conference on the financial pressures facing provinces and municipalities, as projected in the report of the Tax Structure Committee. Much of this emphasis was naturally focused upon the sharing of tax resources. However, there was also evident a deeper awareness of the fact that the demands upon governments at all levels for new and improved services of all kinds-and from all parts of society-are outrunning the growth of revenues. This is the fundamental problem responsible for financial pressures upon governments. It is also true that the brunt of these demands has fallen upon the provinces and municipalities. Their expenditures have been rising rapidly as a percentage of the gross national product during the past dozen years, while those of the federal government, excluding transfers to the provinces, have remained relatively constant. However, there was a clear recognition that in an environment of erosive inflation it is necessary to contain these rising demands. Consequently, even though the projections of provincial budgets for 1970-71 showed a very large increase in potential deficits, most of the provinces indicated their intentions to do everything possible to reduce or eliminate the projected increases. The Ontario government is a particularly significant case in point, having in mind both the size of its budget and the predominant position of the Ontario economy in the total national picture. If Ontario is successful in achieving its stated objective of a balanced budget, the fiscal position of provincial and municipal governments in the aggregate should not be markedly different in 1970-71 from the position achieved in 1969-70. This is an important element in the national struggle to beat inflation.
DEBATES	4743
The Budget-Mr. Benson Fiscal Prospects
What are the prospects for our fiscal position, given our present programs? My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), has tabled the estimates of expenditure for the coming fiscal year. On the basis of these estimates, and making some modest allowance for contingencies, as well as for lapses in appropriations, I am forecasting budgetary expenditures in 1970-71 of some $12.9 billion. My colleague has drawn the attention of hon. members to the important part of the projected expenditure increase which consists of the items we share with the provinces and over whose magnitudes we do not have much control. Members are aware of our sustained effort to restrain the growth of expenditures over which we do have control, including those to which we attach a particularly high priority at the present time. We have given highest priority to such expenditures as those for regional expansion, for the development of bilingualism, for improvement of technology in industry and for improving the position of Indians and Eskimos.
Our budgetary revenues based on the existing tax law will be higher in 1970-71 than in the past year, as the economy continues to grow. But because growth will be slower our revenues will not be as buoyant as in the past year. The receipts from the corporate income tax will be particularly affected both by the lower levels of profits that we anticipate and by the fact that the revenues have already reflected most of the once-and-for-all gain from the speed-up of corporate tax payments. Moreover, as part of the program of restraint in price and cost increases we have postponed a number of increases in charges for government services, and the implementation of the air fares tax. We are forecasting revenues of $13.2 billion. We expect the budgetary surplus to be $300 million. This is to be compared with the surplus of $355 million in the current fiscal year noted above.
Our net non-budgetary cash requirements, apart from those arising from exchange transactions, are expected in 1970-71 to be approximately $775 million. Of this total, $100 million will arise from the cash outlay for the wheat inventory reduction program. Leaving this wheat item out of account in each year, the increase has been from about $650 million forecast last June for 1969-70 to about $675 million now forecast for 1970-71.
In fact, however, the net amount required for those non-budgetary purposes in 1969-70
March 12, 197ff

The Budget-Mr. Benson has turned out to be much less, for several reasons as I have previously noted. A number of our lending programs, such as those for farm credit and international development, as well as the investment programs of our Crown companies, required less than we forecast. These changes, together with the substantial budgetary surplus, reduced our net cash requirements to an unexpected but welcome low level.
We cannot expect a similar reduction this year. While our estimated non-budgetary requirements include some allowance for contingencies, as they should, they also reflect increases in a number of firmly established programs of high priority. Among these increases are the following:
-nearly $150 million more for loans to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to assist in offsetting an expected decline in the flow of private funds into financing housing, to give more emphasis to low-cost rental housing, and to finance more municipal sewage plants urgently needed to reduce pollution;
-about $25 million more in mortgage funds for farm credit, chiefly to assist prairie farmers in readjusting to meet the new outlook for grains;
-about $40 million more for Atomic Energy of Canada to invest in advanced power plants and a large heavy water plant to meet the urgent shortage of that important material;
-about $40 million more for loans to less developed countries as part of our external aid program;
-about $50 million more for loans for regional economic expansion, on which all of us place high priority.
As a result, the forecast total of our lending programs, net of repayments, will be increased from about $1,150 million in 1969-70 to about $1,675 million in 1970-71.
These loans are important uses of the nation's savings for investment purposes. However, their economic impact must be assessed, and they must be budgeted as carefully as expenditures. Moreover, they have important effects on our government financing program, and on the management of monetary policy.
Taking the projected budgetary surplus and net non-budgetary requirements together, our net cash requirements for the year 1970-71 are expected to be some $475 million- excluding amounts that may be required to finance foreign exchange transactions.

[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In terms of the national income accounts, as compiled by the Bureau of Statistics in recent years and used by economists, we estimate that the federal government sector, excluding the Canada Pension Plan, has had a surplus of $570 million in 1969-70 and, on the forecasts I have given, would show a surplus of $180 million in 1970-71.
General Policy
It is evident that the federal government's fiscal position as a whole in 1970-71 will be exerting somewhat less restraint on the economy than in this year. In part this will be due to the emergency wheat inventory reduction program. I am satisfied that the measure will be in the interest of the nation as well as in the long-term interest of the wheat producers in Canada. In part the change in our fiscal position is due to expenditures, particularly the transfers to the provinces for health and education, rising somewhat more rapidly than revenues. It is also due to our increased lending programs for housing and farm credit where the capital market is not providing an adequate flow of private funds to meet the needs of balanced growth and development. In general, the fiscal effects of our operations will be better distributed regionally than last year. Our regional expansion expenditures, revenue equalization grants and other payments will be higher in the areas of less inflationary pressures. Our revenues, of course, are growing more rapidly where incomes are increasing more rapidly.
These forecasts are based upon expectations of lower rates of growth in employment and production, and an economy operating at a lower percentage of capacity than during 1969-70. If we could be concerned only with the pressure of total demands upon our productive capacity and markets, further action would not be necessary. However, there has been no slowing down in the rate of increase of prices and wages and other incomes. Costs continue to push prices up. Slower real growth has not yet reduced inflation. I sincerely expect it will do so as the year proceeds. The code of price behaviour arranged between the Prices and Incomes Commission and representatives of business and the professions, should assist materially in bringing about some reduction in the rate of price increases. We must give it a chance to take effect. We must also give organized labour time to decide whether and how it should join
March 12, 1970

in some sort of agreed program to moderate the pressure of costs on prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: In these circumstances, I feel some additional specific restraints upon the economy are necessary to maintain the pressure against the price and cost increases. I am not proposing any tax increases in this budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have your white paper. What more do you need?


Edgar John Benson: I am terribly upset that the opposition wanted tax increases which I have not provided. I am informed that this will be the first budget since 1913 in which there were no Ways and Means motions.


John George Diefenbaker: When will be the next budget-in six months?


Edgar John Benson: I am proposing, however, two measures of a special character that will help to implement our determination to bring inflation under control.
Proposals
The first concerns construction. This industry has been a leader in the inflationary spiral, even though the total volume of construction has not increased substantially since 1966. There are special characteristics of this industry which make it particularly prone to "cost-push" inflation. As a government we are encouraging the construction of housing on a large scale, and also industrial construction in those regions in need of expansion. We think both deserve priority in all parts of Canada. On the other hand we do not wish to aggravate the peculiarly inflationary situation in this industry-which was vividly in evidence last year. Last June we introduced a measure of mild restraint on commercial construction applying to the main urban areas of the three provinces of most rapid economic growth. This appears to have had some effect in deferring projects of lower priority or profitability, though it is hard to disentangle its effects from the many other influences at work.
The recent medium-term survey of the capital investment outlook published by the Economic Council forecasts a rapid expansion of commercial investment in 1970-a rate of increase several times that for business generally. This and other information leads me to the conclusion that we should maintain the
The Budget-Mr. Benson force of the depreciation measure we introduced last June. Hon. members will recall that the right to claim depreciation for tax purposes was postponed for two years on commercial construction begun after budget night. The postponement applied only to construction costs incurred on these projects up to the end of 1970. Initially, then, it applied to work done within the following 18 months. However, now, in its present form, it applies only to work done in the nine months until the end of 1970. Consequently, the force of the measure has been reduced by the lapse of time. I am now proposing that, for projects commenced between tonight and the end of 1970, the postponement will apply to construction costs incurred up to the end of 1971. The effect of this change will be to restore approximately the same impact to the measure as it had when it was first introduced. It will apply only to buildings to which the original measure would have applied.
This decision will be implemented, as last year, by a regulation under the Income Tax Act.
The second action I propose is that Parliament enact a control over the terms of consumer credit similar to the act passed in another inflationary situation 20 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: It would be a temporary antiinflationary measure, intended, in the national interest, to safeguard the integrity of our currency. It would authorize the government to regulate the terms of credit extended to consumers by various kinds of lending institutions and merchants. It would apply to banks, sales finance companies, consumer loan companies and other lenders, and to department stores, automobile dealers and other merchants. In general, our intention would be to use this act to require a minimum down payment for large purchases being financed by credit extending for more than one year, and to limit the period over which such credits must be repaid. We would not propose to interfere with credit for small purchases-say under $100 nor with ordinary charge accounts, payable within 60 days, nor with revolving credit or budget accounts requiring regular monthly payments that would repay them within 12 months. It would not apply to outstanding loans or the terms of purchases already made on credit.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The purpose of the action proposed is to limit the growth of consumer expenditures in
4746	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Benson the present inflationary situation. We have in mind not only spending on durable goods but also on other goods and on services such as travel. In recent years the rate of increase of consumer expenditure has been stimulated and supported by substantial, though somewhat uneven, increases in consumer credit outstanding. I can well understand the smile of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who was threatened by a bomb yesterday, and he may not want to travel any more.
Mr. Speaker, the increase in consumer credit was particularly rapid in the first half of last year. It slowed down after mid-year because of the levelling out of unsecured personal loans by the banks, but the latest figures indicate that growth in consumer credit has been resumed. It now seems probable that the expansion of consumer spending this year will be reinforced by a large increase of credit unless some action is taken to check it. We believe that selective action along the lines proposed would be better than more general measures that would interfere with the flow of funds required for housing and for industrial and urban development in our country.
We do not intend to restrict loans for business pin-poses, including farming, or loans for the acquisition, construction or improvement of houses. Student loans for education would, of course, also be exempt.
It is difficult to forecast the quantitative effect on consumer expenditure of requiring specified down payments and limiting the period of repayment. We are planning to require down payments of 20 per cent where credit is extended for more than a year and to require repayment within 30 months for automobiles and 24 months for other purchases. We think these terms will have only a very moderate impact on the purchases of new cars which are already temporarily low just now. We think it will bear directly somewhat more heavily on other purchases particularly of durable goods and holiday trips. The reduction in spending will probably affect indirectly a wide variety of goods and services, as many consumers can be expected to divert their spending from less desired things in order to make the down payments on what they want most, and to pay off their credit more rapidly than they otherwise would. In all, we think that the total of consumer expenditures might be reduced by $300 million or $400 million a year, which is less than one per cent of the total of consumer purchases.

DEBATES	March 12, 1970
In order that the legislation and regulations can properly take into account the variety of institutions and practices involved in extending credit to consumers, I intend to have my department consult with representatives of those who provide credit or sell on credit. I would expect the government to be in a position to introduce the legislation in about six or eight weeks.
I am not proposing any legislation on taxes or tariffs at this time. We will need to keep a close and continuing watch on the condition of the economy and particularly the success achieved in checking the rate of increase in prices and wages. Possibly legislation will be needed in the autumn. Meanwhile, I do not anticipate any lack of interest in any parliamentary discussion of the subject of taxation.
In regard to tariffs, I should say that since the last Budget I have received a number of requests for amendments to the Customs Tariff, some for increases and some for decreases. I have decided that I would not introduce any changes at this time. This will mean postponing any action on two reports in which the Tariff Board recommended higher duties-in one case on live turkeys, in another on polyethylene.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: How long?


An hon. Member:: This budget is a real turkey.


Edgar John Benson: I consider that this is not an appropriate time to propose even modest increases in protective tariffs in Canada. I will be prepared to take decisions on these reports at a later date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: I wish to make an important announcement concerning air and water pollution. We have permitted accelerated capital allowances under the Income Tax Act to encourage and assist industry to invest in structures or equipment for the primary purpose of preventing or reducing the pollution of Canadian waters. This section of the regulations expires December 31, 1970. We are now proposing to revise and extend it for another three years. Before it is necessary to extend it beyond 1973, I expect it will be reconsidered in the light of more general policies and programs in respect of pollution.
We have also decided in principle that we should grant a similar special allowance in
March 12, 1970	COMMONS
respect of structures and equipment acquired after tonight primarily for the purpose of preventing or reducing air pollution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: In the case of air pollution, some need to minimize smoke and fumes, however, has usually been taken for granted and regarded as a normal cost of production, while other measures are undertaken in part to improve efficiency or to produce saleable by-products. Therefore, I wish to consider the details that should be included in a regulation on this subject and would welcome receiving the views of those concerned.
This concludes the proposals and announcements I wish to make. Since the proposed measure in regard to consumer credit will reduce consumer expenditures, it will also reduce our various revenues by about $50 million during this coming fiscal year. I do not expect the other proposed changes to have any significant effect on our revenues this
DEBATES	4747
The Budget-Mr. Benson coming year. Taking the $50 million into account will reduce our budgetary revenues in 1970-71 to $13,150 million and reduce the prospective budgetary surplus to $250 million.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission of the House first to insert in Hansard a small table giving the estimated yield of our main categories of budgetary and old age security revenues for 1969-70 and for
1970-71 and secondly, as in recent years, to include with the Budget Papers, as an appendix to Hansard, tables and explanatory notes giving the budget figures for 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 in terms of the national economic accounts in the form published by the Bureau of Statistics, together with a reconciliation with the budgetary accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister's request agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]
BUDGETARY AND OLD AGE SECURITY REVENUES ($ million)
Budgetary Revenues
Personal Income Tax	
Corporation Income Tax	
Non-resident Tax	
Estate Tax	
Customs Duties	
Sales Tax	
Other Duties and Taxes	
Total Taxes	
Non-tax Revenues	
Total Budgetary revenues
Old Age Security Revenues
Personal Income Tax	
Corporation Income Tax	
Sales Tax	
Total Old Age Security Revenues.
1969-70	1970-71
Preliminary	Forecast
4,592	5,290
2,605	2,480
240	255
105	115
815	835
1,725	1,755
905	1,000
10,987	11,730
1,283	1,420
12,270	13,150
1,027	1,170
227	230
569	600
1,823	2,000
March 12, 1970

The Budget-Mr. Benson



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ON NATIONAL ACCOUNTS BASIS

[Stage Direction]
1969-70	1970-71
1968-69 Preliminary Forecast
(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	
7.	Total revenue	
B.	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	
C.	Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)	
4,455	5,725	6,5752,025	2,090	2,065205	240	2553,830	4,035	4,220990	1,180	1,395895	1,040	1,11012,400	14,310	15,6201,845	1,845	1,8752,775	3,280	3,6403,430	3,680	4,0101,445	1,660	1,785395	450	47565	105	1152,525	2,720	3,59012,480	13,740	15,490- 80	+ 570	+ 130
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE Public Accounts and National Accounts Reconciliation
1969-70	1970-71
1968-69 Preliminary Forecast
(millions of dollars)
1.	Budgetary revenue	
Deduct:
2.	Budgetary return on investment	
3.	Post Office revenue	
4.	Other non-tax budgetary revenues	
5.	Corporate income tax, excess of accruals (+) over collections (-)	
Add:
Extra budgetary funds revenue:
6.	Old age security taxes	
7.	Unemployment insurance fund-employer-employee contributions	[DOT] * [DOT] [DOT]
8.	Government pension funds-employer-employee contributions	
9.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act levies	
Government investment income:
10.	Interest on loans, advances and investments	
11.	Interest receipts on social insurance and government pension
funds	
12.	Profits before taxes (net of losses) of government business
enterprises	
13.	Miscellaneous11)	-
14.	Total Revenue, National Accounts Basis	
10,191	12,270	13,150-	695 -	311 -	199 (-1,205)	- 801 -	353 -	129 (-1,283)	-	900 -	375 -	145 (-1,420)- 188	- 742	- 6451,626	1,823	2,000435	500	515460 8 (2,529)	540 6 (2,869)	595 6 (3,116)395	475	550255	285	400340 ( 990) 83	420 (1,180) 16	445 (1,395) 2412,400	14,310	15,620
COThcse 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.

March 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4749
The Budget-Mr. Benson

[Stage Direction]
Public Accounts and National Accounts Reconciliation
	1968-69	1969-70 Preliminary	1970-71 Forecast
		(millions of dollars)	
1. Budgetary expenditure	10,767	11,915	12,900Deduct: 2.	Budgetary transfers to funds and agencies*1*	
3.	Post Office expenditure	
4.	Deficit of government business enterprises	
5.	Reserves and write-offs	
6.	Purchase of existing capital assets	
7.	Budgetary revenue items offset against budgetary expendi- ture(2)	-	716 -	342 -	82 -	157 -	11 - 84 (-1,392)	-	776 -	350 88 -	297 -	11 - 88 (-1,610)	737 -	396 85 -	36 -	11 92 (-1,357)Add: Extra budgetary funds expenditure; 8.	Old age security benefits	
9.	Unemployment insurance benefits	
10.	Government pensions	
11.	Prairie farm emergency payments	
12.	Expenditure of government funds and agencies*1*	
13.	Miscellaneous*3*	1,541 459 159 7 ( 2,166) 702 237	1,730 520 165 7 ( 2,422) 853 160	1,905 610 205 7 ( 2,727) 827 39314.	Total expenditure, National Accounts Basis	
15.	Surplus (+) or deficit (-), National Accounts Basis	
16.	Surplus (+) or deficit (-), budgetary basis	12,480 - 80 - 576	13,740 + 570 + 355	15,490 + 130 + 250
Offn 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, expenditures 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.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the reduction of $50 million in our revenues will also increase our net cash requirements for the year 197071 to some $525 million, excluding amounts that may be required to finance foreign exchange transactions.
While our prospective cash requirements for the next fiscal year are higher than those of the fiscal year now closing, I am confident they can be met in a manner consistent with our anti-inflationary policy. We shall, of course, have to enter the market from time to time if only to refund our maturing debt. Our cash balances at the beginning of the year will be about a billion dollars and can safely be reduced somewhat during the year. It should be possible again to raise funds by a Canada Savings Bond campaign.
I would expect that these factors, together with the improved state of the bond market and persistence in our anti-inflationary measures will make possible a smooth and success-21774-23
ful debt management program this coming fiscal year.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize several simple points. First, we must continue with firm measures to accomplish our purpose in checking the rise in prices. This is essential in itself to convince those in the capital market, the labour market and the markets for goods and services that they should not expect inflation to continue year after year. Second, we must continue to do what we can to recognize the differences in the various parts of our country and the several sectors of our economy. Third, we must be flexible in our ability to respond to changes in the economic situation. The record of recent years proves that Parliament and the government can act promptly when that is necessary to meet new or changing circumstances.
4750	COMMONS
The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks toward the end of his budget address, the minister when referring to tariffs spoke of live turkeys. I think he has one with this budget-it is a real turkey.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: A cold turkey.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Somehow or other we now come back to the philosophy enunciated by the previous Minister of Finance that we would have two budgets a year. Then the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said, "Oh, no; we are going to come back to one budget a year". So now we are back to two a year.


Edgar John Benson: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am glad to hear the minister say that, because it will kill the 3 per cent surcharge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Unless
there is another budget-and obviously the white paper will not come into force by January 1, 1971-the 3 per cent surcharge is gone for some time.
In any event, the minister indicated in a variety of ways that the Canadian economy is on a dangerous knife-edge. He pointed out, quite rightly, that there is a nagging problem of growing unemployment and no real signs of abatement in price increases. On the second page of his speech the minister talks about reductions in business capital expenditures. Some have been postponed, others have been dropped. I am referring to 1969. But the effect of those decisions will become evident in 1970 and 1971. This is what we are concerned with.
There has been a fall in profits per unit of output which has accompanied this change in investment plans. Manufacturers' inventories have increased. Housing starts, which were at a high level in 1969, have now declined dramatically. If hon. members across the way cast their minds back to the conditions in 1956 and mid-1957, they will remember there was at that time a serious accumulation in manufacturers' inventories. We saw a decline in investment plans, and housing in mid-1957 came to a complete stop.


An hon. Member:: Now we have pollution.

DEBATES	March 12, 1970


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Those were the conditions, and the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) might as well cast his mind back to that time. In 1956-57 we were on the eve of a period of recession. The symptoms were all there in 1956 and 1957, and all but those who wanted to be blind could see what was happening. And it did happen.
This is why at this stage, when the government and the country are fighting inflation, we are caught with these nagging symptoms of malaise in the Canadian economy. How ironic it is, Mr. Speaker. I know that this is a joke for many lighthearted people who have never had to face one of these problems before, but how ironic it is that today all Canadians should be forced to concentrate their efforts on fighting inflation after the sloth and idleness in the past four or five years by this administration and its predecessor.
Many of the members of the present administration were members of the preceding one. They had it pointed out to them on many occasions from all sides that because of the lack of priority in spending programs, its unilateral action with regard to certain joint programs would force the federal government and the provinces into a straitjacket. This is what we have now. The minister speaks about it on page 5 where he says:
This is the fundamental problem responsible for financial pressures upon governments.
Further on on the same page he says:
My colleague has drawn the attention of hon. members to the important part of the projected expenditure increase which consists of the items we share with the provinces and over whose magnitudes we do not have much control.
This is precisely so. The tax structure committee told the conference two weeks ago that the federal government and the provinces will face an additional expenditure of $1.75 billion by 1972 as a result of four joint programs, three of them rammed willy-nilly down the throats of the provinces. We are fighting the wrong war at the present time, but it is a battle caused by the maladministration of those on the other side of the Chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The
monetary and fiscal measures used so far by the government have brought us to the present point, growing unemployment but no real effect on prices and interest rates. As a matter of fact, it is rather ironic-
March 12, 1970


An hon. Member:: What would you do?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What
would you do? It is the government that has caused this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is rather ironic that while the government and the Prices and Incomes Commission were holding their conference a few weeks ago, a number of trust companies increased the interest rate on their deposit certificates. Was that a downturn for interest rates? Not at all. As a matter of fact, that was an indication to the government that the public is not yet satisfied that there has been control of inflation. So now we are faced with the highest peacetime taxes merely to meet expenditures-not to reduce the national debt, not to fight inflation, but merely to meet expenditures.
This year expenditures go up some $900 million. Last year they went up $900 million. That is not controlling expenditures. If there were to be control, if there were to be a real fight against inflation by fiscal measures, we would be taxing to defeat inflation, not merely to catch up with the bills that are coming in to the government. In addition to that the minister proposes certain consumer credit controls on certain types of credit transactions, based on amount and the length of repayment. But what are we going to get, Mr. Speaker? The main effect of these consumer credit controls is going to be on durables, automobiles, furniture, white hardware, refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, dryers, ironers, television sets, motorized ski vehicles, boats and trailers, whether they are of the camping or living accommodation type. And where are most of these things made, Mr. Speaker? They are made in Ontario and in Quebec. All of this is designed to reduce consumption of them. The only thing that is at the end of that road is unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the only thing that is at the end of that road in those industries, depending on the effectiveness of these controls. We know that last year Ontario felt the attention of the Minister of Finance in his June Budget. It was one of the areas selected for cooling off certain types of construction. That is now being continued. But look at Quebec. Last time we were told that there was too much unemployment in Quebec, and that this was not the area in 21774-23^
The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert which to impose controls. As a matter of fact, it was indicated that the minister's colleague, through regional expansion and development, would pay particular attention to encouraging development in the province of Quebec. If we look at the amount of loans, and grants and so forth that we made under this program, Quebec is certainly getting the lion's share of that program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is so. The problem is there.


An hon. Member:: Per capita?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Of course, by far per capita. Now look at what the effect will be of these consumer credit controls. What is manufactured in Quebec in great quantities? Furniture, white hardware-


An hon. Member:: Liberals.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -motorized ski vehicles, boats and trailers. Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to wager that the effect of the consumer credit controls, in so far as they will be effective in reducing consumption in these lines I have mentioned, will be worse in the province of Quebec than in Ontario. So we have the paradox of one minister working to develop the province and the other minister clamping down on it.
The Minister of Finance had an opportunity to assist the province of Quebec and certain parts of Eastern Ontario. There was a recommendation with regard to tariffs on the materials used by textile manufacturers in this country, to allow them a reduction in tariffs in order that they might compete more effectively with imported goods. And what was done? Nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This would have cost the minister relatively little. After all, last June he supported all of the tariff cuts negotiated under the Kennedy Agreement.


Edgar John Benson: And you are against it?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, no.
This is what the minister did in order to assist in the fight against inflation, but when we are dealing with unemployment in particular provinces, in eastern Ontario and in Quebec, particularly so far as textiles are concerned, here was a golden opportunity to do something and nothing was done.

March 12, 1970

The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert
Mr. Speaker, there is a strange paradox in the tables put forward by the minister. He estimates an increase of some $20 million under customs tariffs revenue for this coming year, despite the major reductions in tariffs contained in the last budget, which presumably were going to reduce the price of goods to the consumer. Yet we are now going to see more customs revenues.


Edgar John Benson: That is prosperity.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Prosperity nothing! That merely means more imports. It means a further increase in imports in competition with Canadian industry. That means more unemployment. Lower tariffs rates mean we will have a much greater volume of imports. That is a simple conclusion-a greater volume of imports.


Edgar John Benson: And exports.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But
strangely enough, when you bring in imported goods you bring in the other fellow's inflation. With the other chap's imported goods you bring in his inflation, so to the extent that it fights inflation this move is not as effective as it could be, or as it may be thought to be. Of course, there is an old saw that nothing is entirely bad, and I would commend the minister without reservation with regard to the provisions in the budget for an extension of the taxing provisions concerning water pollution and the introduction of some measures as yet undefined for air pollution control. I think there may be some problems with regard to air pollution control incentives, but I feel the minister deserves full marks in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But having said that, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -I think this budget has one major omission. I know it has many, but the major one is that there has been no provision at all for the lower income groups.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And I mean particularly those old age pensioners who qualify for a guaranteed income supplement.


[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: You want to tax their
clothing?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) wants to wake up.


An hon. Member:: He has to grow up before he can wake up.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if there had been an increase in the GIS of, say, $200 or $300- after all, the government chairman of the committee on poverty announced yesterday as a matter of certainty that there would be an increase-you are not giving him a very good track record for predictions. At least about 50 per cent of old age pension recipients receive, on the present scale, some portion of GIS. Now the 2 per cent increase that they get under the old age security formula is not sufficient to take care of what has happened in regard to the cost of living. In all seriousness I would suggest to the minister, and I know he is fighting inflation, that these are not the people who are causing it. He said this himself in the Finance Committee the other day. This would be a minor transfer-I am not talking about many millions of dollars-to those recipients of GIS to give them some relief.
The minister's proposals with regard to tax exemptions in the lower income groups are at least two years away. Let the minister sit down with pencil and paper and a calendar and study the mechanics of this measure, and he will see that considering the time needed to get legislation drafted, into this House, considered in the other place, and so on, it cannot be effective by January 1 next. That is what I am considering, to give this relief to these people between now and 1972. The same thing could be done with what you would call the working poor through a form of tax credit. My leader has talked about this and we have given figures on it. The minister has it right there and he is talking about budgetary surpluses-


An hon. Member:: He doesn't understand that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With $150 million to $175 million we could take care of most of the proposals of which he has spoken. I am not going to complete my remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to finish with this point: The hon. member for Calgary South
March 12, 1970	COMMONS
(Mr. Mahoney), the seer of the Prairies, the land where the hot winds blow, makes a remark but I shall go on. If we analyse the budgetary surplus for this year, we will see that it is composed of a lot of one-year windfalls.


Edgar John Benson: What about next year?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: First of all there was a hurry-up or advance in corporate tax payments. If my memory serves me right, that accounts for about $200 million, and that is only for last year. Then let us look at that portion of the social development tax which was not expended for medicare, part of the year in the province of Ontario, a part for the province of Alberta, all of the year for New Brunswick, all of it for Prince Edward Island and all of last year, plus until next July for the province of Quebec. These are moneys
DEBATES	4753
The Budget-Hon. M. Lambert which are not being spent for the purpose for which they were collected. If I were able to collect taxes and not spend them, of course I could build up a surplus. But as soon as these programs come into force in the provinces we will see what happens to the surplus and if there has to be a further tax increase. Of course there has to be. The minister has a built-in tax increase of at least $600 million in his white paper, on his figures and, on figures equally as trustworthy, up to double that amount. Even if we put it half way between, we get to $900 million additional taxes by the end of five years.
Mr. Speaker, may I adjourn the debate?
On motion of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Olson the House adjourned at 9.19 p.m.



BUDGET PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
presented by
the Honourable Edgar J. Benson, M.P., Minister of Finance for the information of Parliament in connection with the Budget for 1970-71
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
The purpose of these Papers is twofold:
1.	to present a general economic review of 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, 1970.
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Page
List of Charts	 4758
The Highlights of the Year 1969	 4759
The External Environment	 4761
Prices	 4764
Employment, Output, Productivity and	Unit	Costs	 4766
Spending and Financing by Sector	 4774
Personal sector	 4774
Housing sector	 4776
Business sector	 4778
Government sector	 478?
A perspective on the government	sector	
4782Current developments: the net	position	
4784Revenues of governments	
4786Expenditures of governments	
4787Government financing	
4788Government of Canada cash requirements	
4788Non-resident sector	
4790Financial Markets	
4795The banking system	
4795Other financial institutions	
4798Securities markets	
4799Economic Prospects for 1970	
4802Index to Reference Tables	
4805The tables, charts and figures quoted	in	this paper are based upon data
provided by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the Bank of Canada and other government agencies that had been released prior to February 4, 1970.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Page
Base Wage Rate and Annual Price Changes	 4760
International Comparison of Consumer Prices	 4762
Consumer Price Indexes	 4765
Changes in the Labour Force	 4767
Average Annual Percentage Increase in Total Employment
1965-1969, Canada and by Region	 4768
Unemployment Rates by Region	 4770
Regional Unemployment Rates as a Ratio to the Canada
Average	 4771
Changes in Output, Employment and Output per Employee.. 4772
Indexes of Labour Income Per Unit of Output and Corporate
Profits Per Unit of Output	 4773
Residential Construction	 4777
Business Capital Outlays by Region: Percentage Share of
Canada Total	 4779
Saving and Investment of Non-financial Private Business
Corporations	 4781
Government Revenue and Expenditure	 4785
Balance of Payments-Current Account	 4791
Canada's Balance on Current Account	 4792
Canadian Dollar in United States Funds	 4794
Assets of Selected Financial Institutions	 4796
Selected Interest Rates, Canada	 4797
International Interest Rate Comparisons	 4801
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
In 1969, consumer prices rose more rapidly than in any year since the Korean war inflation of 1951. Inflation has been the chief concern of public opinion and national policy throughout the year and continues to have priority.
Both fiscal and monetary policy have been restrictive in the past year. The strategy has been to slow the growth in demand by government and by the private sector. The retarded growth in demand is expected to make it more difficult to pass increases in costs through to final buyers. This difficulty in turn is expected to diminish the willingness and ability of producers to accept increases in costs. The Prices and Incomes Commission has been developing its program to assist in restraining increases in costs and prices. If cost increases can be restrained until the growth of productivity establishes adequate support for the present high levels of income, and if price increases can be restrained while the remaining demand pressures die out, then orderly, balanced growth of supply and demand without price increases may proceed. This way of subduing inflation permits an adjustment that is more equitable, since all share in it, that is quicker and that affords a higher level of total real output than the alternative way of very severe restrictions of demand, which force some members of the labour force to accept a loss of earnings for a period of time, and which bear more heavily on the less prosperous regions of the country.
This strategy takes time to work. One may distinguish two phases in it: the phase of reduced growth of demand, the holding phase, and then the pay-off phase in which the increases of prices and costs moderate. The record for 1969 shows that considerable progress was made in the first phase. By the end of the year, however, it was clear we had not entered the second phase.
The growth in Gross National Expenditure in real terms, i.e., corrected to eliminate the effects of price increases, diminished over the course of the year. There was real growth; it amounted to 5 per cent. But while in the first half, as compared with the second half of the previous year, it was at an average annual rate of 5.9 per cent, it was only of the order of 2.8 per cent in the second half of 1969, according to the best estimate that could be made at the time of writing.
The index of industrial production, though affected by strikes, declined in the second quarter, and again in the third quarter. In November, the last month for which data are available, a moderate increase occurred.
The growth of the labour force has slowed. Although several factors have been at play here, the slowing is a typical characteristic of the cooling of an overheated economy. Certain marginal workers drawn into the labour force at the height of a boom withdraw when labour demand eases.
21774-24£
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
There has also been a slowing in the growth of employment. However, because the labour force, too, has been growing more slowly, the unemployment rate for December 1969 was the same as for December 1968.
Profits have weakened in the course of the year; in fact, on last reading they were falling substantially after rising vigorously in 1968.
Thus, while there are still some strong forces of demand in the economy, such as the demand for capital structures and equipment, the evidence is mounting of a slowing of the overall growth of demand and a reduction of the capacity to pass cost increases forward.
On the other hand, costs and prices are still rising very rapidly. Wage settlements have on the average exceeded productivity gains by a wider margin than in 1968. The increase in the consumer price index from December 1968 to December 1969 was 4.6 per cent. The average value of the GNE price deflator for 1969 was some 4.3 per cent above that for 1968.
All sections of the economy have felt the effects of price increases. In fact, the data do not reveal any substantial differences in the price averages among regions. However, not all regions have had equally high levels of employment, output or demand for goods and services. The government recognizes these differences and policies have been followed which seek to restrain certain classes of expenditures in areas where these were expected to be particularly strong, while other policies have sought to ameliorate the effects of the general policies of restraint in areas where the inflationary impetus is less marked.

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent	Per Cent
'Weighted annual average per cent change in base wage rates over the life of new agreements covering 500 or more employees, excluding construction.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
The financial markets absorbed a smaller volume of new issues of bonds and stocks during 1969 than in the previous year. The volume of money and bank credit grew much less rapidly and the liquidity of the banks was sharply curtailed through the operation of monetary policy. The public showed a growing preference for holding financial assets in liquid form. The net consequence of the myriad pressures in the capital markets, emanating from abroad as well as from the actions of the authorities and other domestic lenders and borrowers, was an upward sweep of interest rates to historic peaks. This rise in yields which started in September 1968 continued through the end of the calendar year 1969.
Canada is not unique among countries of the western industrialized world in having to face a menacing erosion of the value of its currency. The malaise is widespread, and we can take some comfort from the fact that our experience in 1969 was not the worst in comparison with some of these countries. The increase in consumer prices in the United States, for example, was of the order of 6 per cent. This fact serves to emphasize how vital it is to maintain the attack on the disease.
The balance of this White Paper contains an elaboration of the economic developments in 1969 in the perspective of the events of recent years, and concludes with a preliminary view about prospects for 1970.

[Stage Direction]
Inflationary pressures intensified throughout the industrialized world in 1969. Consumer prices in most major countries rose at rates between 4| per cent and 6 per cent. The rises were smaller in Germany and Italy, but in these countries pronounced increases in wage settlements are viewed as the harbingers of accelerated price increases. The rise in prices in the United States was greater than in any year since the Korean war. The moderation hoped for in the North American trend of prices had not appeared by the turn of the year. The pervasiveness of inflation throughout the industrialized world is illustrated in Chart 2.
The volume of world output remained high in 1969, though its growth slowed to about 5 per cent in the OECD countries(1). This slowing reflected the gradual impact of anti-inflationary policies in North America and Britain and the attainment of capacity production in much of Continental Europe. Fiscal and monetary policies reinforced each other in the fight against inflation in North America and Britain. Elsewhere, countries started tightening credit conditions significantly, not only to restrain demand but also to defend official reserves against the effects of the massive flows of funds during much of 1969 to Germany and, via the Eurodollar market, to the United States. By early 1970, interest rates throughout much of the industrialized world had reached their highest levels in modern times.
(I)The members of OECD are: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, The Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Despite uncertainties over exchange parities, which prevailed until late last year, world trade continued to grow at a greater pace than expected. Exports of OECD countries were about 16 per cent higher than in 1968, a rate of increase nearly double the average of the previous decade. The war in Vietnam and the U.S. investment boom continued to stimulate burgeoning world trade. However, the major stimulus last year was the economic expansion in Continental Europe and Japan.
Expansion in these areas, during a period of gradual slowing in the North American and British economies, was one major factor behind the better balance in the international structure of current payments which became increasingly evident in the latter part of the year. In Britain, too, the combination of the 1967 devaluation and the subsequent fiscal and monetary restraints brought about a marked improvement in the balance of payments. This appears to bring within reach the British target of a U.S. $1.2 billion surplus on current and long-term capital account during the twelve months ending March 31, 1970, and has enabled a start to be made on the repayment of short-term debt. The United States' current balance showed definite signs of an upturn in the latter half of last year, though it still fell far short of a level comparable to its 1960-67 average of over U.S. $3.2 billion. Japan's rapid economic growth has not yet strained its productive capacity, and indeed, has been accompanied by a relative decline in the Japanese propensity to import. The combination of the French and German parity changes has started to work towards a reduction in their payments
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
imbalances. The devaluation of the franc in August and the revaluation of the mark last October have been followed by a very substantial reflux of speculative funds from Germany. There has been a fundamental calming in exchange markets and international payments flows in recent months.
The dramatic increases in international trade and capital flows in recent years have been the mark of a growing economic interdependence in the world community. International monetary co-operation has continued to respond to the problems posed by this evolution. Five years of study and negotiations have resulted in approval of a new international reserve asset to supplement gold and U.S. dollars. The decision by the International Monetary Fund to activate U.S. $9.5 billion in Special Drawing Rights during 1970-72 has helped to ensure that international liquidity will expand appropriately to support further growth in world trade and payments. The amount allocated to the 104 participants in the scheme on January 1, 1970, was $3.4 billion, in proportion to their quotas in the IMF, an additional $3 billion will be allocated in each of the next two years. The first year allocation represents a 4.5 per cent increase over present global reserves of about $75 billion. The historic principle accepted in the new SDR scheme is that there should be deliberate control over the world's supply of reserves through a permanent new fiduciary system.
The price of gold in the free market has fallen back to the neighbourhood of the official price of $35 an ounce from its earlier highs of more than $43 an ounce, as a result of renewed confidence that the monetary price of gold will be maintained and because of the very high yields available on alternative investments. Late in 1969, arrangements for the orderly marketing of South African gold were agreed upon under the auspices of the IMF.
. The fifth quinquennial review of quotas in the IMF has resulted in proposals to increase their total by 35.7 per cent. This will keep the financial growth of the Fund in line with the increasing demand made on it. The proposed individual quotas reflect members' changing positions in the world economy and maintain an undiminished share of quotas for the less developed nations in the IMF. (The Canadian quota will increase from U.S. $740 million to U.S. $1.1 billion.)
These responses to the problems of the international monetary system improve the prospects for orderly growth of trade. But the pressing problem of inflation remains. While this problem is now widespread, particular importance attaches to its solution in the United States.
In the United States last year the rate of growth of real output slowed down while that of prices speeded up; by the last quarter of the year real output had in fact ceased to grow while price rises showed no clear sign of slowing. In December 1969 the consumer price index was 6.1 per cent higher than a year earlier.
Most components of demand shared in the deceleration of real growth in the second half of the year. The spending of the U.S. federal government on goods and services levelled out, as a result of a reduction of expenditures related to the Vietnam war and of restrictions in other areas of the military budget. State and local governments have encountered increasing difficulty in borrowing. Residential construction expenditures have been declining since early last year,
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
as restrictive credit policy has made it more difficult for some buyers and builders to raise mortgage money. There has been continued buoyancy in personal spending on non-durable goods and services, but purchases of automobiles and other durable goods softened noticeably in the second half. The advance in retail trade was sluggish, inventories grew and some production cut-backs occurred. After falling sharply in the first half, the ratio of personal saving to income after taxes increased in the latter half of 1969. Surveys at the end of the year indicated a mood of caution among consumers. In real terms, business investment in plant and equipment in the second half of 1969 was running about 7 per cent above the rate in the second half of 1968. Successive surveys late last year showed higher investment intentions for 1970. The explanations offered included fear of higher prices of capital goods.
Productivity in the U.S. economy was no higher in 1969 than it had been in 1968. Average earnings continued to increase at a rapid rate, however, and so wage costs per unit of output rose more rapidly. This development, in turn, was reflected in the high rates of price increase in 1969 and the decline in profits per unit of output. In 1970 negotiations will take place on a large number of key wage settlements.
American fiscal and monetary policies were restrictive in 1969, and the effects could be seen in the decline in the growth of demand and production. As in Canada, the results in terms of moderating increases in prices and costs have yet to become evident.
[Stage Direction]
We have stated that inflation was our most pressing economic problem in 1969, and that it is a widespread phenomenon. The purpose of this chapter is to provide more detail on the price movements of the last year, before reviewing the underlying cost and demand developments.
Consider first the consumer price index, one of our most widely used indicators of price trends. Figures in this paragraph relate to the percentage changes from December 1968 to December 1969. In this period the total index advanced 4.6 per cent. Over the previous 12 months the advance was 4.1 per cent. Some items in the consumer's standard selection of goods and services rose in price much more rapidly than others. The cost of shelter increased considerably more than any other component; its advance accelerated sharply in 1969, reaching the very high rate of 7.5 per cent, more than a full percentage point greater than the increase during 1968. Shelter costs include such items as rentals, prices of new houses, and related financing and maintenance. The increase in the cost of services (excluding shelter), reflecting closely the increases of wages in the economy, was almost as great as that of shelter, but the acceleration was very much greater. Service prices were up 7.1 per cent during 1969, which is almost three percentage points higher than in the previous year. Notable among the service items where prices increased rapidly were local transportation, rail fares, theatre admissions, postage, and household help. Shelter costs have a weight of 18 per cent in the total consumer price index; costs of services have a weight of 13 per cent. Food prices, though they moved irregularly during the past
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
CONSUMER	PRICE	INDEXES	PER CENT CHANGE,	DECEMBER TO	DECEMBER, SELECTED COMPONENTS	TOTAL	GOODS	NON-DURABLES	EXCLUDING FOOD	8	8	8	-	87	-	7	7	-	76	-	6	6	-	65	-	5	5	-	54	-	4	4	-	43	-	3	3	-	32	-	2	2	-	21	-	1	1	-	11965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	8	FOOD	8	8	DURABLES	-i	87	7	7	-	76	-	6	6	-	65	-	5	5	-	54	-	4	4	-	43	-	3	3	32	2	2	21	-	1	1	-	1n	1965	1966 1967	1968 1969	U 1965	1966 1967	1968	1969	8	-	SERVICES EXCLUDING SHELTER	8	8	r-	SHELTER	87	-	7	7	-	76	-	6	6	-	65	-	5	5	-	54	_	4	4	-	43	-	3	3	-	32	-	2	2	-	21	-	1	1	-	11965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	Includes prices of	sue	h gooc	s as new	ouses, as well as services	
March 12, 1970
year, registered a total advance over the year of 4.3 per cent, compared with 3.9 per cent in the previous year. A point of considerable note is that the cost of goods in the consumer's basket, other than food, rose by only 2.5 per cent, which was significantly less than the increase of 3.3 per cent in the previous year. Within this group the slowing down was confined to the non-durables category, which rose by only 2.8 per cent in 1969 compared to 4.2 per cent in 1968. Durable goods prices rose more rapidly during 1969 than they did in 1968, but even so they rose only by 1.6 per cent in 1969.
Another group of price measures more comprehensive in their coverage are the so-called implicit price indexes in the national accounts. Their changes are reviewed in this paragraph and the percentages cited are percentage increases from the fourth quarter of 1968 to the fourth quarter of 1969. The figures are based on Department of Finance estimates of the results for the fourth quarter of 1969. On this basis, the prices of all the goods and services entering into GNE rose 5 per cent in 1969 as compared with 3.7 per cent in 1968. The prices of goods and services acquired by governments rose by 9.2 per cent in 1969 and 7.3 per cent in 1968. The implicit price index attached to non-residential construction also rose by 9.2 per cent; this very high rate was precisely double that of the year before. Prices of residential construction were up by 7 per cent in 1969 and 6 per cent in 1968. Export prices were up 2.5 per cent in 1969 compared with only 0.9 per cent in 1968, while import prices rose by rather more in both years: 3.3 per cent in 1969 and 2.4 per cent in 1968.
Another important set of price indicators is the group of manufacturing industry selling price indexes. These indicators are free of the influences of manufacturers' and retail sales taxes. Each industry selling price index also excludes freight and insurance charges associated with delivery of its final product but it does reflect, indirectly, the payment of such charges by the industry on the materials it uses. The composite index based on the movements of selling prices of approximately 100 manufacturing industries rose by 3.7 per cent in 1969. This is 1.6 percentage points higher than the increase in 1968.

[Stage Direction]
We now turn to a discussion of some of the major developments underlying the increases in prices just described. We deal first with some factors affecting the supply of goods and services in the economy, notably employment, productivity and unit costs; later, we examine the demand for goods and services and the financing of that demand.
A very substantial change in the growth of the labour force occurred in the latter half of 1969. The Canadian labour force has been notable in recent years for having one of the fastest growth rates in the western industrialized world. The annual rate of growth was 3 per cent in 1965, 3.9 per cent in 1966, 3.7 per cent in 1967 and 2.9 per cent in 1968. Last year, it grew by 3.1 per cent. But while it grew by 2.8 per cent from December 1968 to the end of June 1969, it actually declined by 0.8 per cent from June to the end of the year. (Year-over-year changes by months may be found in reference table 26.)
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
The changes in the labour force may be viewed as due to changes in the size of the population aged 14 and over, on the one hand, and to changes in the proportion of that population which belongs to the labour force changes in the participation rate-on the other. Changes in the labour force due to each of these components of change are depicted in Chart 4. In this chart, the changes for each quarter are measured against the comparable quarter of the previous year. The changes due to growth in the population have been fairly regular. On the other hand, changes due to movements in the participation rate show a distinct cyclical pattern. The rate fell during the brief slowdown of 1967, and then picked up after the pace of economic activity quickened once again. In 1969, in the second half, with the slowdown in the rate of expansion the participation rate fell off sharply and induced a very pronounced decline in the growth of the labour force. This development, as was observed earlier, was one of the pieces of evidence of a slowing pace of economic activity in Canada during the last half of 1969.
Regionally, the growth of the labour force in the last five years has been greatest in British Columbia and least in the Atlantic and prairie provinces. There is a continuing net migration of population from both of these latter regions. The growth in Quebec has been slightly below the national average, and
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 19701
the growth in Ontario slightly above. Immigration to Canada has contributed more population to Ontario than to any other region. Changes during the two halves of 1969 are shown in Table 1.
table l

[Stage Direction]
Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British ColumbiaDecember 1968-June 1969..	+2.8	+3.6	+3.2	+1.9	+1.0	+3.6June 1969-December 1969..	-0.8	-2.4	-1.6	+ 1.0	-0.7	-0.5
It will be seen that the labour force in Canada as a whole actually declined in the second half of 1969 (using seasonally adjusted data). This was also true of every region except Ontario. Even in this province, however, the rate of growth, though it remained positive in the second half, was distinctly lower than in the first half.
Employment, too, has shown strong rates of growth over the past five years. In 1969 employment growth was strong in the first half, but, as in the case of the labour force, it fell off in the second half. On the average, employment was higher in 1969 than in 1968 by a quarter of a million persons.

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent
CANADA ATLANTIC QUEBEC	ONTARIO PRAIRIE	BRITISH

[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
The strong increase in employment over the last five years has been shared, in varying degrees, by all of Canada's regions, as Chart 5 reveals. In British Columbia, with its rapidly expanding economy, the growth rate of employment was almost double the national rate. Employment in Ontario and Quebec grew at about the national average, while growth in the Atlantic and prairie regions was moderately lower. These lower rates perhaps reflect the relatively larger proportion of primary industries with slower rates of employment growth in the industrial structure of these regions. In 1969, with the exception of the prairie region, all regions experienced employment growth well in excess of the previous year. The present state of the world wheat market has had a significant impact on the economies of both Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The deceleration in the growth in employment opportunities in both of these two prairie provinces was not matched in Alberta, where employment accelerated.
Since mid-year the level of employment, like the level of the labour force, has fallen moderately in all regions of the country save Ontario. In Ontario the rate of growth of employment was distinctly lower in the latter half of 1969 than in the first half.
The unemployment rate in Canada in the last two years has been slightly more than a percentage point higher than in 1966, and a little more than half a point higher than in 1967. The averages for the years 1968 and 1969 were virtually the same, marginally lower in 1969 (4.7 per cent) than in 1968. Chart 6 shows the national and regional unemployment rates. Average unemployment rates for 1969 were higher than in 1968 in the Atlantic region and Quebec, lower in Ontario and British Columbia, and about the same in the prairie region. Chart 7 compares the unemployment rates in the regions with the national average in yet another way. In this chart the pattern of development over the period is particularly noteworthy in the Atlantic region where many regional development programs have been intensified in recent years.
During the course of 1969, in Canada taken as a whole, the decline in the labour force overtook the more moderate decline in employment in the last quarter of the year and consequently unemployment rates registered declines. This was also true in all regions save Ontario and British Columbia, where the unemployment rates were somewhat higher than in the third quarter. (See reference table 32.)
Let us now analyze the relationships between output, employment, incomes, costs and prices during the 1960s.
During the first half of the decade, when economic slack was being taken up, real output in the total economy increased more rapidly than in the second half (see Chart 8). Real output per worker increased nearly twice as fast in the early years as it did during the later 1960s. At the same time, average earnings rose more rapidly in the second half of the decade than in the first half, so that wage and salary costs per unit of output rose more in the latter half of the 1960s. Table 2 illustrates these developments.
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970

[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(1)	Real output	
(2)	Output per worker	
(3)	Average income per worker	
(4)	Wage and salary cost per unit of output = line (3) - line (2)
Average Annual Percentage	
Rate of Increase	
1961-1965	1965-1969
6.4	5.1
3.2	1.8
5.3	7.7
2.0	5.8
The increase in prices in the total economy is composed of increases per unit of output in wages and salaries, corporate profits, indirect taxes less subsidies, and other items of income.(1)
("Includes rent, interest and miscellaneous investment income, unincorporated net income and capital cost allowances.
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent
The table below shows rates of increase by these broad categories of incomes and costs, and the relative contribution of each category to the total increase. The figures are based upon broad aggregates and describe general trends and developments. More detailed calculations yield figures which are slightly different, but the trends are broadly similar.

[Stage Direction]
COMPONENTS OF PRICE CHANGE, TOTAL ECONOMY Average Annual Percentage Rate of Increase
1961-1965	Contribution to total increase	1965-1969	Contribution to total increaseWages and salaries per unit of output	2.0	i.i	5.8	3.1Corporate profits per unit of output	5.9	0.7	0.2	n.s.Indirect taxes less subsidies per unit of output....	4.1	0.5	4.7	0.6Other incomes per unit of output	0.2	n.s.	1.3	0.3Total price change	2.3	2.3	4.0	4.0
n.s.-not significant
This table shows that in the period 1961-1965 unit wage and salary costs increased at an average rate of 2 per cent annually, slightly less than the average price increase of 2.3 per cent. This accounted for about one-half (1.1 percentage
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
points) of the total increase in prices. Corporate profits per unit of output rose more rapidly (5.9 per cent per annum) and accounted for about one-third of the total price increase. By contrast, in the period 1965-1969, unit wage and salary costs accelerated to an average annual rate of 5.8 per cent, compared with an annual increase in prices of 4 per cent, and accounted for about three-quarters (3.1 percentage points) of the total rise in prices. During this time there was little change in corporate profits per unit of output.
In the more recent period, 1968-1969, there have been a number of significant developments. In 1968, output per worker in the economy as a whole increased at a rate slightly above the average achieved in the latter half of the decade, while unit wage and salary costs increased by 4 per cent, the same rate as the general price level. In that year there was a substantial increase in profits, so that profits per unit of output rose more rapidly than the general price level. Taken together, the other elements contributing to the change of prices did not increase as rapidly as the general price level. In 1969, however, the increase in output per worker was less than ,in 1968, while average wages(1) rose faster than in the previous year, so that unit wage and salary costs accelerated to 6.3 per cent. Meanwhile, the increase in profits for the year 1969 as a whole was less than in 1968, and profits per unit of output rose less than the general price level. In the course of the year, total profits began to turn down and unit profits showed a marked decline (see Chart 9).
(1) Total wage and salary bill divided by the number of employees (labour force basis).

[Stage Direction]
INDEXES OF LABOUR INCOME PER UNIT OF OUTPUT AND CORPORATE PROFITS PER UNIT OF OUTPUT, TOTAL ECONOMY*
(1961 - 1964 = 100)
130 -
110
90
1962
1964
1966
1968
Annual data 1961-1967, quarterly data 1968-1969
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
For a more precise analysis of costs, movements in the so-called "commercial non-farm sector" are of interest. These industries account for four-fifths of the output in the economy and are subject to fairly accurate output, productivity and unit cost measurements. Variations in agricultural output arising from year-to-year weather differences can bring about changes in total output and costs which obscure underlying trends in the rest of the economy. In addition, it is difficult to measure productivity in the public administration, community and personal services industries. Output in the agricultural and non-profit service industries has therefore been separated from total output to permit analysis of the commercial non-farm sector. Using the concept commercial non-farm real output also permits analysis as between the various goods-producing and service-producing industries in the economy (see reference tables 34 to 38).
Productivity in the goods-producing industries has been growing much more rapidly than in the service-producing industries. While differences in productivity growth may reflect the difficulties of measuring output in the service industries, it is of significance for developments in costs and prices. To the extent that increases in incomes in those industries where productivity is rising rapidly are emulated in industries where productivity gains are smaller, there will be an upward push on total costs. Complete data for 1969 are not yet available, but preliminary information strongly suggests that costs rose much more rapidly in the service-producing sector than in goods-producing industries. This development appears to have been brought about by broadly similar increases in earnings in both groups of industries, at a time when output per worker in the goods sector was increasing at about average rates, and when in the service sector there may well have been a decline in output per worker.
SPENDING AND FINANCING BY SECTOR Personal sector
Personal income, including wages and salaries as well as earnings of unincorporated businessmen and farmers, increased by 10.5 per cent in 1969. Even after deducting personal direct taxes, which were 25 per cent higher than 1968, as a result of higher incomes (which accounted for about two-thirds of the increase) and some additional tax measures, income after taxes still rose by 8.2 per cent over the preceding year. Translating this into "real" terms, by allowing for the rapid rise in consumer prices, real disposable income of persons in 1969 was 4.2 per cent higher than in 1968.
About three-quarters of personal income consists of wage and salary income; in 1969 this was 12 per cent higher than in the preceding year. The number of paid workers was about 3.5 per cent above 1968, so that the average increase in employee earnings was about 8.2 per cent, substantially above the estimated gain in output per worker of some 2 per cent(1). This 8.2 per cent also happens to be about the same rate of increase negotiated for new wage settlements during 1969. Incomes received in the form of returns on capital (i.e., dividends and in-
(1) This is derived by dividing changes in output, as measured by Gross National Expenditure in constant dollars, by changes in total employment, as measured by the Labour Force Survey. The results differ slightly from those shown in Chart 8, and Table 34 which are based on DBS estimates.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
terest) rose by about the same percentage as total wages and salaries. Transfer payments received from governments also rose at about the same rate. These transfers include not only old age pensions, public assistance, family allowances and veterans benefits, for example, but also grants to institutions such as universities and hospitals. By contrast, incomes of unincorporated businessmen and farmers in total showed little change from 1968. The dominant feature for this group was, of course, the decline in income of farmers. While cash receipts from livestock sales increased, there was a decline in receipts from grain, as lower wheat exports limited the quantity of grain farmers could deliver to elevators, and curtailed their cash receipts from the Canadian Wheat Board. Inventories of wheat were at a very high level. In total, cash receipts from farming declined slightly while operating costs continued to rise. Net income of farmers fell from about $1.7 billion in 1968 to about $1.5 billion in 1969.
By regions, personal income increased more rapidly in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec than in the other main regions; in the Atlantic region income grew at a lesser rate than elsewhere, while in the Prairie provinces the decline in farm income offset part of the increase in other forms of income.
Canadians increased their spending on consumer goods and services in 1969 at a greater rate than their increase in incomes after taxes. As noted above, income after taxes was 8.2 per cent higher than in 1968. Spending on consumer goods and services was 9 per cent higher than the year before. Accordingly, the ratio of personal saving declined from 7.6 per cent of disposable income in 1968 to 6.8 per cent in 1969. Excluding increases in farm inventories, the personal saving ratio declined last year to 5.7 per cent from 7.1 per cent in 1968; this latter figure was roughly comparable to those of the two preceding years. The decline in the saving ratio appears to have been associated with a smaller accumulation of liquid assets as well as some increase in spending on goods financed by a growth of consumer credit.
Personal spending on services increased more rapidly than did spending on goods. In 1969, spending on services was 10.6 per cent higher than in 1968, while spending on goods rose by about 8 per cent. Part of the difference can be explained by price movements: prices of services (including shelter costs) rose by more than 5 per cent, while prices of all goods increased by about 3 per cent, with the rise in durable goods prices averaging less than 1 per cent. After allowing for different rates of price increase, the volume of goods and services consumed each rose about 5 per cent between 1968 and 1969.
In the latter half of 1969 sales of durable goods levelled off, mainly because of a softening in new car sales. On the basis of preliminary data, car sales in the fourth quarter of 1969 appear to have declined from the third quarter, and sales in December to have fallen below those of one year earlier.
Regional statistics on personal income and spending are still incomplete. The retail sales data show that for the first nine months of 1969 total retail sales in Canada were 7.5 per cent higher than in the same months of 1968. In Ontario and British Columbia, the increases were well above this figure, 9.3 per cent and 9 per cent respectively. In Quebec, the increase was 6.1 per cent, in the prairie region 5.4 per cent and in the Atlantic provinces 4.2 per cent.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
In the first quarter of the year, consumer credit granted by the major lenders rose at an annual rate of 20 per cent. This increase decelerated to a rate of 14 per cent in the second quarter and to 9 per cent in the third quarter, which was also the rate reported for October. In November the rate was 2 per cent. Within these totals, there have been some substantial divergences. Chartered banks' consumer loans, which account for about 45 per cent of outstanding credit, grew rapidly by 30 per cent per annum in the first quarter of the year, decelerated to 15 per cent in the second quarter, and showed no gain at all in the third quarter.
The lending activities of sales finance companies accelerated during the course of the year. In the first quarter of 1969 sales finance companies and consumer loan companies increased lending at annual rates of 10 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. By the second quarter the increases had accelerated to 14 and 15 per cent for the two groups and in the third quarter there was a further acceleration to annual rates of 19 and 23 per cent. In November, however, consumer credit issued by sales finance companies declined and that issued by consumer loan companies grew more slowly than in previous months.
At the end of the third quarter of 1969, outstanding consumer credit balances were equivalent to slightly more than 20 per cent of personal disposable income.
Housing sector
Activity in the housing sector remained high during 1969 despite restrictions of credit and rising interest rates. The underlying demand for housing remained strong, even though effective demand was probably limited by high mortgage rates and the restricted credit availability.
Residential construction outlays totalled about $3.9 billion in 1969. This figure represents an increase of approximately 17 per cent, 'which is about the same rate of increase as had been achieved in the previous year. However, both of these rates reflect large increases in construction costs. If account is taken of this pronounced rise in construction costs, real outlays are estimated to have increased by 8.8 per cent in 1969 after rising by 10.2 per cent in 1968. This sharp acceleration in housing outlays has made the residential construction sector one of the strongest sectors of the national expenditure accounts, and has raised the ratio of that sector to total GNE to the highest level since 1959. (See Chart 10.)
Housing starts totalled 210,415 units in 1969, up from 196,878 in 1968. In the first quarter of the year starts were exceptionally high for that season, owing to the volume of CMHC direct lending in the last quarter of the previous year and to a surge in the commitment of other funds. By the last quarter of 1969, starts were running well below the levels of the same quarter in the previous year. Almost all of the increase in starts in 1969 was in multiple rather than single housing units. Demographic factors have favored the market for multifamily units, because of the growing relative importance in the population of young families and individuals, who are typically renters, and of older couples, who need less living space. In addition, the cost of apartment renting has been rising much less rapidly in recent years than has the cost of home ownership. In the shelter cost component of the consumer price index, rental costs, which lag
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
1959 60 61	62 63 64 65	66	67 68	69
somewhat owing to lease arrangements, have risen 16.4 per cent from 1965 to the end of 1969, as compared with a rise of 34.1 per cent for home ownership costs. This has undoubtedly shifted some of the demand, especially that of the low and middle income groups, from single family to multiple units. Finally, the scarcity and cost of suitable land, and the opportunities for equity participation by institutional lenders, have encouraged the building of multiple dwelling units.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
On a regional basis, the Atlantic provinces experienced the largest increase in starts; they rose by 25 per cent to a level of 13,800. An increase of 22 per cent in both the prairie region and British Columbia brought the level of starts in these areas to 40,000 and 31,800 respectively. Ontario recorded a modest gain from 80,400 in 1968 to 81,400 in 1969, while Quebec experienced a 7 per cent decline over 1968, to 43,400. Thus, in summary, the increase from 1968 to 1969 was largely concentrated in the western provinces, where 12,700 out of the total increase in starts of 13,500 occurred.
The flow of funds from financial institutions into mortgages as measured by mortgage loan approvals was higher in the first three quarters of 1969 than in the comparable period in 1968, (reference table 65). The increase was accounted for by the chartered banks and by the trust and loan companies. Life insurance companies, with a reduced cash flow and an increased interest in equities and short term investments, have sharply reduced their mortgage commitments. CMHC diverted funds from home ownership and rental loans to low income housing, for which approvals increased by 45 per cent.
Business sector
It now appears likely that total business outlays on non-residential construction and machinery and equipment rose in 1969 by 6.5 per cent. While at least half of this increase was due to higher prices, real investment rose significantly for the first time since 1966, the boom year immediately preceding Expo and the Centennial. There appears to have been some shortfall in 1969 from the mid-year intentions survey, which projected an increase of 11.4 per cent for total business fixed capital formation from the 1968 level, a somewhat larger increase than had been visualized at the time of the intentions survey at the beginning of the year. This shortfall of actual investment from the mid-year intentions was probably due to such factors as strikes in the steel and construction industries and the increasing scarcity of funds as the year progressed. Clearly, investment was an important expansionary force in the economy during 1969, and its strength derived not only from the immediate capital needs of an expanding economy but also from the confidence that growth would continue in the future and the fear that investment programs would become more expensive if delayed.
The regional distribution of the investment program in 1969 reflected the diversity of factors at present bearing upon the various regions. Ontario increased its share of the total in marked degree in 1969. The Atlantic region continued to obtain an increasing share of Canadian investment. Business investment outlays in other regions were expected to increase less rapidly.
In the Atlantic region, the Churchill Falls development in Labrador has moved forward in accordance with long-term plans, the large-scale financing required being drawn down in accordance with the staged timing of the over-all project. In the manufacturing sector, such large export industries as pulp and paper have added to capacity. Smaller operations with less favorable export prospects, such as fishing and fish processing, have had mixed fortunes and have declined in significance in the capital expenditure picture. Some decline in secondary manufacturing investment has also been associated with a decrease
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent 40
*Mid-year Review
in government participation, partly reflecting the maturing of some incentive programs offered to industry by provincial governments. The increased costs of borrowing by provincial governments and their agencies have probably also affected the investment activity of some smaller utilities.
Business investment in Quebec was expected to rise by 2 per cent at the time of the mid-year review, following two years of decline from the 1966 peak. A number of rubber, textile and metal manufacturing industries increased their investment significantly, but these gains were all but offset by sharp declines in the petroleum and chemical products industries, where existing major developments were nearing completion and work was barely due to begin on new large projects. There was a continued downward drift in the trade, finance and commercial services sector, while utilities raised their expenditures slightly above 1968 levels.
In Ontario, the trade, finance and commercial services group planned capital outlays of $720 million in 1969, an increase of nearly 23 per cent from the previous year. This amount, nearly one-fifth of business capital expenditures in Ontario, represented 42 per cent of all such outlays in Canada. A large part of the total activity reported was located in major metropolitan areas and involved the construction of new business facilities intended for rental. Manufacturing investment was expected to rise by nearly 40 per cent in Ontario. This represented
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
85 per cent of the increase for Canada as a whole. Strikes in the construction industry and the steel industry probably resulted in a fairly significant shortfall from the planned program in Ontario, although the actual increases would still have been substantial.
The three prairie provinces taken together were expecting a small increase in business investment in 1969. Within the total, however, Manitoba expected virtually no change, Saskatchewan a decline of some 16 per cent, and Alberta an increase of about 14 per cent. Plans for the development of downtown Winnipeg and continued work on the Nelson River hydro-electric project have been important features of the program in Manitoba. In Saskatchewan, the completion of the present stage of potash development has coincided with the very sharp decline in farm cash income associated with the present state of the world wheat market, which led to a decline of 23.5 per cent in investment in primary industries, particularly agriculture. However, the trade and services group raised its outlays. In Alberta, sharply higher business outlays occurred in the primary sector, utilities and trade. Primary industry expansion continues to be associated with export markets, as does that in the utilities, notably oil and gas pipeline construction. The influence of growing Japanese investment in resource development in the province again contributed to total growth, including further expansion of transportation facilities. Oil exploration and oil field development have been well maintained, despite the uncertainties introduced by the new Arctic oil discoveries.
In British Columbia, business outlays resumed their advance after a temporary decline in 1968, with the primary industries, manufacturing and trade all recording strong advances. Investment in commercial development in the Vancouver area accelerated sharply. New mining development, notably in copper, was an important feature of the 1969 program. Investment in expansion of pulp facilities was also significant. The Japanese interest in investment in resource industries is particularly apparent in this province.
A large proportion of investment is financed by internally generated sources of funds, including retained earnings and capital cost allowances. These sources of funds continued to expand in 1969, but their growth was insufficient to finance the increase in investment. This is apparent in Chart 12, which compares saving with investment in fixed assets and inventories of private corporations. Non-farm business inventories increased by about $500 million in 1969 compared with $473 million in 1968. This does not appear to have been disproportionate to the growth of production and trade during the year. Farm inventories and grain in commercial channels rose by about $400 million in 1969 compared with $239 million in 1968; the main factor here is of course the limited level of wheat exports in a year of substantial crops. Less is known about the other uses of funds of the business sector, including the purchase of land and other existing physical assets, which are not included in investment in the national accounts, and the extension of trade credit. In the circumstances prevailing in 1969, one would expect these uses of funds also to have expanded.
It is certainly clear that the business sector as a whole bomnved substantially more in 1969 than in 1968, despite the increasing cost and difficulty of financing as the year progressed. Table 4 brings together some of the more important and readily available statistics on the sources of funds to Canadian business.
March 12. 1970

[Stage Direction]
(Millions of Dollars)
8.000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
1,000

[Stage Direction]
1966	1967	1968	first 9 months	
				1968	1969
		(Millions of dollars)			
Increase in chartered bank loans					
Business	398	748	649	527	1,016Farm and grain dealers	109	383	302	229	335Increase in IDB loans	44	34	42	29	35Business financing by sales finance companies^2*	-25	-14	188	-28	-8Bankers' acceptances	20	-24	-30	2	63Net new issues of commercial paper(3)	49	85	115	89	331Net new issues of	Corporate bonds	1,045	947	783	705	689Stocks	595	504	570	347	799Direct investment from abroad	790	691	610	427	470Total	3,025	3,355	3,228	2,325	3,731
(^Excludes foreign currency loans to Canadian residents.
<2>Increase in balances outstanding on wholesale finance and retail sales of commercial and industrial goods.
^Excluding finance and loan company paper.
4782
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
This table should be regarded as providing only a general impression of business financing developments; a more precise analysis will only become possible as experience in using the newly published Financial Flow Accounts develops. It is not yet possible to generalize about the liquid asset position of business in 1969. Moreover, this table does not include the major sources of funds to government-owned enterprises which are provided directly or indirectly by their parent governments. The main outlines of private business financing, however, are clear. There was a sharp increase in the total recourse to outside sources of funds in 1969 after a period of little growth. A shift to borrowing on short-term is apparent, owing to the trend of interest rates during the year, and the preferences of investors. Heavy demands were placed upon the chartered banks, which were able to lend large sums to businesses, as their liquid assets were relatively ample at the beginning of the year following the period of monetary easing in mid-1968. The table does not include foreign currency loans to Canadian residents, which also increased in 1969. This situation changed in the course of 1969, however. As bank financing became less readily available, business turned increasingly to other sources, such as the sales finance companies and especially the market for short-term paper and bankers' acceptances. There was no increase in net new issues of corporate bonds in 1969, as a result of the high and rising level of longterm interest rates and the associated expectation of continuing inflation. About half of the issues continued to be placed in foreign capital markets. On the other hand the net new issues of stocks more than doubled in 1969 and surpassed the volume of bond issues. Throughout much of the year it was evident that investors were much more interested in acquiring stocks than bonds. Direct investment from abroad did not increase significantly, reflecting the growing financial pressures on parent corporations, and to some extent the industrial distribution of the 1969 investment program.
Government sector
Perspective on the government sector
The consolidated net general expenditures of all levels of government in Canada have grown from a little less than 29 per cent of GNE in 1960 to close to
32.5	per cent in 1969. The developments over the decade are the result of the responses of the different levels of government to the changing demands upon them, the productivity of the economy, the rising costs of government and the economic stabilization function performed by the Government of Canada.
The real economic growth and stable prices of the early 1960s rapidly increased public revenues relative to expenditure costs. This apparent fiscal dividend, at a time when the demands for education and other public services were multiplying, helped finance a steady growth in the quantity and an improvement in the quality of public services.
The shift to a much higher rate of price increase in late 1964 was more pronounced in the labour-intensive public sector than in the economy as a whole. Over-all expenditure growth, which had averaged 7.6 per cent annually between the fiscal years 1960-61 and 1964-65, grew by over 10 per cent in 1965-66 and by
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
17.7 per cent in 1966-67. Growth in that year was led by an increase of almost a third in education costs, but all major functions of expenditure increased substantially.
Neither the revenue system nor the capital markets could sustain such rates. While education and welfare grew by a further 25 per cent in 1967-68, and health costs increased by over 15 per cent, the growth of most other areas of expenditure, and particularly the capital-intensive transport and communications sector, was sharply reduced. By 1968-69 the effects of fiscal policies to reduce the growth of public sector demand, limitations on market borrowing, and public reaction to tax increases combined to reduce the growth of spending on health, welfare and education, and maintain the restrictions on other areas. Only public debt charges, reacting to rising interest rates and earlier heavy borrowing, grew substantially faster than in the previous year. This pattern was continued in the 1969-70 spending plans. The spread of provincial medical care insurance plans boosted health spending. However, this largely represented a transfer from private to public spending, rather than a net increase in demand. Salary and wage increases, particularly at the federal and municipal levels, also raised other expenditure growth slightly above the previous year's levels.

[Stage Direction]
CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments
	1960-61	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68<0	1968-69<*	1969-700)
			(Millions of dollars)				
Health	984	1,604	1,769	2,119	2,450	2,750	3,300Social Welfare	1,629	2,246	2,385	2,641	3,300	3,700	4,050Education	1,578	2,450	2,615	3,481	4,350	4,900	5,500Debt Charges	817	1,147	1,258	1,355	1,450	1,650	1,850Defence and Veterans	1,830	1,919	1.944	2,056	2,200	2,200	2,250Transport and Communica-	tions	1,452	1,772	2,035	2,260	2,300	2,300	2,300Other	2,494	3,298	3,903	4,815	5,300	5,800	6,350Total 	10,784	14,435	15,909	18,727	21,350	23,300	25,600(percentage annual	growth)	Health	11.1	13.0	10.3	19.8	15.6	12.2	20.0Social Welfare	8.2	8.4	6.2	10.7	25.0	12.1	9.5Education	18.6	11.6	6.7	33.1	25.0	12.6	12.2Debt Charges	-1.6	8.8	9.7	7.7	7.0	13.8	12.1Defence and Veterans	-0.3	1.2	1.3	5.8	7.0	2.3Transport and Communica-	tions	3.6	5.1	14.8	11.1	1.8	Other	14.0	7.2	18.3	23.4	10.1	9.4	9.5Total	8.1	7.6	10.2	17.7	14.0	9.1	9.7
Estimated by Department of Finance.
In summary, all sectors of public spending grew in the mid-sixties, but as rapid growth in prices and real demand made it impossible to maintain this pattern, objects of expenditure other than health, welfare and education services were cut back sharply. In the final years of the decade virtually all growth rates
4784
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
were reduced. As Canada enters the 1970s, expenditures related to its people-oriented policies have been growing for two years at rates which maintain established service levels and meet earlier commitments, while the growth of expenditure in other areas of government has been limited to such an extent that real levels of service may have declined.
Meeting the growing costs of these levels of services has altered both the revenue structure of governments and their patterns of borrowing. Perhaps the most remarkable change has been in personal income taxes. Changes in rates and, to a greater extent, the combination of rapidly rising incomes and a progressive rate structure have increased the relative importance of this source of revenue. In 1960-61 personal income taxes accounted for just over 20 per cent of all government revenues. By 1969-70 the proportion has become over 30 per cent. Over the decade they have increased to 40 per cent from 30 per cent of federal revenues, and changes in tax-sharing arrangements have increased their importance as a source of provincial revenues to 22 per cent from 2 per cent. Consumption taxes, on the other hand, even with regular rate increases throughout the period, accounted for roughly 20 per cent of total revenues throughout the period. Both corporation income taxes, with relatively fixed rates, and municipal property taxes, whose rates have increased but whose tax base has no automatic relation to economic growth, have declined relatively.
Government borrowing expanded rapidly with growing expenditures in the mid-sixties, reaching a peak in 1967 and 1968 and then declining rapidly. Within this general pattern, however, dramatic changes were taking place. In particular, provinces and municipalities increasingly drew funds from the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans after 1966 and from foreign as opposed to domestic market issues.
Current developments: the net position
The net positions of governments on a national accounts basis, excluding transactions of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, changed from a deficit of $190 million in 1968 to a surplus of about $1 billion in 1969. The federal government accumulated a surplus of $600 million, from a deficit of $165 million in 1968. The net position of provincial and municipal governments moved from near balance to a $400 million surplus. At the aggregate level, the surplus was mainly the result of a substantial growth in government revenues whereas the rate of growth in public expenditures was restricted to its 1968 level.
Including the operations of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, the position of the government sector, on a national accounts basis, showed a change of approximately $1.3 billion, from a net surplus of $800 million to one of about $2.1 billion. Total receipts of the plans from contributions and investments amounted to $1.1 billion in 1969, an increase of 12.9 per cent over the preceding year. Increases in employment and income per employed person were responsible for this gain. Total benefits paid under these plans in 1969 amounted to $50 million.
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(Billions of Dollars)
total1"	federal
1955	1960	1965	1969	1955	1960	1965	1969
Note: 1968 and 1969 - Department of Finance Estimates '' 'Excluding Intergovernmental transfers and Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. Including Canada and Quebec Pension Plans.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Revenues of governments
Government revenues, exclusive of intergovernmental transfers and Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan contributions, rose to $26.8 billion in 1969, an increase of 15.9 per cent over 1968. This increase was the result of a combination of real economic advance, price increases and tax rate increases. During the year federal government transfers to provincial governments and municipal authorities amounted to $2.7 billion, while net transfers from provincial governments to municipal authorities were $2.6 billion. These represent increases of about 12.8 per cent and 6 per cent respectively over 1968. The revenues available after transfers between governments were $11.3 billion for the federal government, $9.2 billion for the provincial governments and $6.3 billion for the municipal authorities; these amounts show increases of roughly 20 per cent, 17 per cent and 8.5 per cent respectively over the 1968 levels.
Direct taxes on persons yielded $8.4 billion, an increase of 26 per cent over the preceding year. This substantial growth is due to a relatively high elasticity with respect to GNP of levies on personal income, to the new federal social development tax, to increases in the provincial personal income tax rates in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Alberta, and to the introduction of medicare premiums in Ontario and Manitoba. It should be noted that many of these tax increases did not apply for the full year in 1969.
Direct tax liabilities on corporations reached $2.9 billion in 1969, for an increase of some 11 per cent over their level in 1968. The increase is attributable in part to the gain posted by corporate profits in the first half of 1969, and in part to federal tax changes (taxation of the profits of life insurance companies and to lower excess reserves permitted to other financial institutions), together with increases in the provincial corporation income tax rates of Newfoundland and Alberta. The Alberta change was operative for only half of 1969.
Indirect tax revenues of $11 billion in 1969 were 10 per cent above the corresponding receipts of 1968. The increase was due to increased consumption of goods as incomes expanded, to particular commodity tax increases in New Brunswick and Ontario, and to real property tax increases in all provinces. Real property taxes in Canada amounted to 5.9 per cent of personal disposable income in 1969. This ratio was 4.6 per cent in 1960, 3.2 per cent in 1950, and 5.1 per cent in 1940.
The investment income of governments rose to $2.7 billion in 1969, for a gain of 18 per cent over its level of the previous year. This substantial increase is largely attributable to the rise in interest rates of the last two years, since the interest on federal securities held by the Bank of Canada, CMHC mortgages and securities held by governments in employee pension and other accounts form a major part of government sector investment receipts.
Employer and employee contributions (mainly to government employee pension plans, to workmen's compensation and to the Unemployment Insurance Fund) rose by 13 per cent to $1.5 billion in 1969. This substantial increase reflects the first full-year effect of the higher contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund which became effective July 1, 1968.
Match 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures of governments	-[DOT] r: .	; v ,
The growth in government expenditures during 1969, excluding intergovernmental transfers, remained at around 11 per cent, despite higher prices and wage costs and growing demand for public goods and services. Federal expenditures totalled $13.4 billion, an increase of some $1.3 billion. The expenditures Of provinces and municipalities amounted to $15.1 billion, an increase of about $1.4 billion.
Expenditures on goods and services (as opposed to transfers) by all governments in 1969, at $14.6 billion, accounted for 56.5 per cent of all government expenditures. Their rate of growth amounted to 9 per cent, some 2 per cent more than in 1968. This acceleration is largely attributable to wages and salaries and general government services. Wages and salaries have continued to increase rapidly in 1969, especially at the federal and municipal levels, where increases of 18 per cent and 16 per cent respectively were experienced. Excluding retroactive salary adjustments pertaining to 1967 and 1968, the growth in federal wage payments was around 10 per cent. The dollar amount of general government services increased by 8 per cent in 1969, notably because of the fuller implementation of the Medical Care Insurance Plan. With the entrance of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta into the Medical Care Insurance Plan in the course of 1969, provincial expenditures for medical care amounted to some $225 million, of which $130 million was financed by transfers from the federal government. The growth in government sector capital expenditure slowed to around 2.5 per cent. Federal capital expenditure, which had increased by around 7.5 per cent in 1968, declined by around 10 per cent in 1969, while provincial-municipal capital expenditures increased by between 5 and 6 per cent.
Transfers to persons, excluding debt charges, have continued to represent a substantial portion of the growth in government expenditures. These transfers were increased at the federal level by a further reduction of the minimum age limit for old age security payments, by increased unemployment insurance benefit payments and by additional payments for adult training allowances. Increased transfers for hospital careci), social services and education account for the major increases in provincial and municipal transfer payments to persons.
Interest on the public debt of all governments increased by 15 per cent over its 1968 level, and now accounts for 10 per cent of all government outlays.
The increase in federal transfers to other levels of government reflects additional contributions to medicare, following the entrance of the five additional provinces into the program, as well as the continuation of rapid increases in the costs of financing federal-provincial shared-cost programs, such as hospital insurance and the Canada Assistance Plan, together with large increases in fiscal transfers for post-secondary education. The increase in net provincial-municipal transfers is largely attributable to the need for more education outlays at the municipal level; it reflects, however, a significant reduction in the rate of growth of general provincial assistance to municipalities.
(1>This treatment of transfers in respect of hospital care is based on the old definition of the personal sector in the national accounts. In the revised national accounts, hospitals will be shown as a separate item in the government sector.
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
Government financing
Reflecting efforts to restrain expenditures, and the limited availability and high cost of funds in the Canadian bond market, net new direct and guaranteed issues of marketable bonds by all levels of government declined in 1969 to about
SI.5	billion, half the level of the previous year. While provincial and municipal governments reduced their reliance on the capital markets, this significant reduction was accounted for almost entirely by the swing in the federal government's position.
In sharp contrast to 1968, when the federal government borrowed heavily in the bond market, in 1969 it was a small net source of funds. The government did, however, receive S330 million from net sales of non-marketable Canada Savings Bonds.
Provincial governments' direct and guaranteed market issues have consistently exceeded $1 billion in the past four years. These governments have significantly increased their recourse to foreign markets in this peiiod. Whereas 70 per cent of provincial bond financing was done in Canada in 1966, in 1969 all but a small proportion was done in the United States and Europe. The other major source of funds for the provinces was the Canada Pension Plan which provided $805 million or almost 40 per cent of their total borrowings in 1969C1>. Provinces also reduced their cash balances by about $200 million, or 50 per cent, over the year.
Total net new issues of securities by municipalities declined by about 14 per cent in 1969, their foreign borrowings declining somewhat more than their new issues in Canada. This is in striking contrast to the provincial experience. Municipalities increased their bank borrowing by about 14 per cent or $95 million to help meet their financial requirements.
The deterioration of the long-term market in Canada as the inflationary psychology retained its control over investors accounted for the increased reliance of provinces and municipalities on foreign markets. It also meant that to the extent that funds were available in Canada, they were for shorter terms. In an attempt to overcome this problem and to attract lenders, the provinces made considerable use of bonds with an extendible feature.
Government of Canada cash requirements
Our discussion of the current developments in the government sector has used the national accounts framework for the presentation of material. We conclude with a statement of Government of Canada cash requirements and a description of recent developments in lending activities, which comprise the main non-budgetary outlays of the Government of Canada.
(')The operations of the Quebec Pension Plan also provide a source of funds to the Quebec government. The funds are managed by "la Caisse de D6p6t et Placement". To the extent that the funds are used to buy issues of the Quebec government these purchases are reflected in the figures of the province's market issues.
March 12. 1970

[Stage Direction]
(Calendar years)
1968
(Millions of dollars)
Cash Requirements
Budgetary deficit(+) or surplus(-)	
Non-budgetary excluding all foreign exchange transactions*1)	
Sub-total	
Foreign exchange transactions cash requirements(+) or receipts!-)	
Over-all cash requirements	
Sources of Finance Market Bonds*1)
Gross new issues	
Retirements	
Net	
(of which foreign pay)	
Treasury Bills	
Canada Savings Bonds	
Non-marketable and other*2'	
Total	
Changes in Receiver General bank balances	
646	733	-441673	331	3361,319	1,064	-105158	252	181,477	1,316	-871,935	2,778	1,4061,485	1,640	1,497450	1,138	-91(-206)	(266)	04)285	370	70230	40	329216	-179	2801,181	1,371	588-296	+55	+675
(''This item includes funds used to pay off maturing CNR bonds.
<2>Includes Unemployment Insurance Commission and Canada Pension Plan bonds. Securities Investment Account and securities held for retirement of unmatured debt.
**) Preliminary-
The budgetary position of the Government of Canada swung from a deficit of $733 million in calendar 1968 to a surplus of $441 million in 1969. The deficit on non-budgetary account, which had been halved in 1968, remained virtually unchanged at $336 million in 1969. Taking into account cash requirements for foreign exchange operations, there was a change from a total cash requirement in 1968 of just over $1.3 billion to a cash surplus in 1969 of a little less than $100 million. Main features of the financing of these requirements are exhibited in Table 6.
The non-budgetary accounts of the Government of Canada include some very large receipts deriving, for example, from contributions to the federal employees' pension funds and from taxes credited to the Old Age Security Fund. The details may be found in Part II of this White Paper. The economic significance of the non-budgetary loans and investments has special character and deserves discussion here.
Loans, advances and investments by the federal government to Crown corporations and agencies, other governments and their agencies, and international organizations, but excluding Exchange Fund Account transactions, will
4790
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
amount to about $1.2 billion in fiscal 1969-70 on a net basis, that is after deducting principal repayments. This total compares with $981-million in fiscal 1968-69 and $1,351 million in fiscal 1967-68.
Since fiscal 1963-64, when net non-budgetary expenditures totalled $232 million, there have been sharp increases in the federal government's lending and investment programs. These increases reflect the government's growing role as a financial intermediary. Almost $750 million in direct loans to the private sector will be made, net of principal repayments, in the current fiscal year through government lending agencies such as.the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; the Farm Credit Corporation, Export Development Corporation,- and the Veterans' Land Act Fund, TThe rapid expansion in amounts disbursed on these lending operations, from about $227 million in fiscal l963-64 to current levels of expenditure, has been closely associated with the federal government's support of housing programs through CMHC. For example, in the Ifist three ydarS the federal government hag lent an average of $500 million a year to CMHC over and above repayments, compared with about $200 million a year in the previous three years.
Federal government loans to and investments in Crown corporations carrying out commercial operations account for the bulk of other non-budgetary expenditures, which may total about $472 million in fiscal 1969-70 compared with $387 million in fiscal 1968-69 and only $5 million in fiscal 1963-64. Generally speaking, these expenditures involved capital spending programs carried out by Crown corporations such as Air Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and the Canadian National Railways. Advances to CNR are also made to .finance nurturing- CN R loans held by the public.	.
In addition to its role as a financial intermediary, the federal government assists numerous lending operations in the private sector by guaranteeing or insuring loans made under certain federal government-sponsored programs. While no cash outlay is involved, except in the case of a default, these guarantees have resulted in a rapid increase in contingent liabilities of the federal government. At the end of fiscal 1968-69 these amounted to almost $9 billion and they have been growing at over 6 per cent a year in recent years. These contingent liabilities arise under sUch programs as National Housing Act insured mortgages, Canadian Wheat Board financing, and Farm Improvement and Student Loans.
The non-resident sector
The current account deficit, that is, the difference between receipts and expenditures in current transactions with other countries, appears to have been about $800 million in 1969, compared with the unusually low figure of $111 million in 1968. This was not quite as rapid a change as in 1965 or as in the period of resource boom of the mid-1950s but is evidence, nevertheless, of both growth and inflation within the Canadian economy. The increase in the deficit occurred between the middle of 1968 and the middle of 1969, as a result of a rapid growth of imports which reflected the continuing expansion of the economy and the consequent upward trend of investment. The growth in both imports and exports flattened out during the course of 1969, but at levels which left the merchandise trade surplus well below the peak attained in 1968. The deficit on non-merchandise transactions continued to increase, with a rather sharper change than usual
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
due to a sizeable increase in the deficit on travel. The inflows of long-term capital remained substantially in excess of the current account deficit. As in 1968, however, this was offset by a large outflow of short-term funds, and the official reserves increased by only 165 million.

[Stage Direction]
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED - BY OUARTERS (Millions of Dollars)
500 400 300 200 100 0
100 200 300 400 .500
1965	1966	1967	1968	\	1969
Canada's current account balance with the United States has shown a considerable improvement since 1966, reversing the earlier deterioration. This occurred during a period in which the current surplus of the United States with all countries was disappearing. Canadian costs rose slightly less rapidly after 1967 than those in the United States, and Canadian goods continued to share in the growth of U.S. imports through 1969, partly as a result of special factors such as the rapid expansion of bilateral trade in autos and parts, but also because of the general composition and sheer pressure of U.S. demand. Until the second half of 1968, on the other hand, Canadian demand (and more particularly investment demand, with its high import content) lagged sufficiently far behind that in the United States to retard the growth of imports by comparison with that of exports. These were the major causes of the reduction in Canada's own total current account deficit to only $111 million in 1968. Despite the more rapid increase of imports after 1968, there was some further slight improvement in Canada's current account with the United States in 1969, so that the whole of the deterioration in Canada's current account took place in its transactions with other countries.. Particularly since mid-1968, Canada's balance with the rest of the world has been showing much more clearly the effects of the cyclical pressures within its own economy, and the effects also of the increase in costs which has been taking place in both Canada and the United States. The current account
21774-26^
400~
200
0
200
400
50Q.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
surplus with the United Kingdom and Continental Europe, which had been $359 million as recently as 1967, gave way to a small deficit in 1969, while the surplus with all other overseas countries, $484 million in 1967, fell to less than $200 million in 1969. In both cases, lower wheat shipments were partly responsible, but Canadian imports from these third countries have risen more sharply than imports from the United States. The non-merchandise balance with the rest of the world has also tended to deteriorate.
At the depressed levels of world wheat prices in 1969, both the volume and value of Canadian wheat exports were lower than they had been for several years; contracts announced since the start of the new crop year, however, imply some recovery in calendar 1970, which would be reflected in the trade balance with countries other than the United States. On the other hand, 1969 also saw the

[Stage Direction]
CANADA'S BALANCE ON CURRENT ACCOUNT*
1961	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69
Estimated
Excluding gold production available for export
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
completion of the initial program of rationalization of production and trade under the Canada-U.S. Automotive Products Agreement. A significant sum in potential export earnings was lost to Canada in 1969 through major strikes in the steel and nickel industries. To some extent the lost sales may be recovered in 1970.
The total net inflow of long-term capital into Canada was about $2 billion in 1969 compared with $1.6 billion in 1968. Foreign direct investment in Canada was again in excess of $600 million last year, and there was some growth in investment by other than U.S. residents. Canadian direct investment abroad, the majority of which was in the United States, was at the highest level ever recorded, amounting to well over $200 million. As usual in recent years, by far the greater part of the total net inflow on long-term capital account was accounted for by net sales of market securities. In marked contrast to the experience of 1967 and 1968, there were virtually no net purchases of foreign securities by Canadian residents over the year as a whole, as the earlier substantial outflow of capital for the purchase of U.S. equities dried up by mid-year owing, in part, to differences in stock market conditions in the two countries during the year. There were also some net sales abroad of outstanding Canadian securities and a marked increase in net new issues of Canadian equities to non-residents. The major element in the inflow continued to arise from the net new issue of debt by provinces and their agencies, municipalities and corporations. Total net new bond issues again exceeded $1.5 billion. Net new issues of Canadian bonds in the U.S. market remained close to the $1 billion level first approached in 1966. Canadian bond issues in the European capital markets, which had become a major source of funds for Canadian borrowers in 1968, were again about $500 million. Provinces and municipalities accounted for about two-thirds of total net borrowing abroad in 1969.
The outflows of short-term capital in 1969 may have exceeded $1.1 billion, as they did in 1968. There was a fairly heavy inflow of funds into Canadian finance company short-term obligations in the early months of the year, and some borrowing by Canadian residents from foreign banks in the second quarter. Simultaneously, however, Canadian bank balances abroad increased by well over $500 million in that quarter alone, in response to the rise of 3 per cent or more in Eurodollar rates which occurred between April and June. Identified short-term outflows in the third quarter, prior to the German election and the abandonment of the former parity of the deutsche mark, were more moderate, and little net reflux appears to have taken place in the fourth quarter. But analysis is complicated by large unidentified flows, partly representing changes in leads and lags, which may have been related to the mark crisis. Apart from a minor reflux in the second quarter of 1968, a steady outflow of banking funds has now persisted since the summer of 1967 and there has been an apparent total net build-up of short-term assets held abroad by Canadian residents, over that period, of more than $3 billion. The very duration of this build-up, together with the experience of other countries in recent years, suggests that a large part of the capital concerned may represent, in practice, a significantly longer-term export than is conventionally assumed from the nominal term of the deposits. As described in earlier Budget White Papers, some part of the apparent outflow may be accounted for by essentially permanent "slippage" between the direct measurements of the current and capital accounts. Nevertheless, a substantial short-term foreign currency net asset position clearly exists.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
1.0725**
Parity
1.08108
^Inverse of quotations for U.S. dollar in Canada 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
Those short-term flows which can be identified took place chiefly in response to changes in covered interest-rate differentials and to some extent because of speculation on possible parity changes in Europe, but had no seriously weakening effect upon the exchange value of the Canadian dollar during 1969. On the contrary, although the rate fell fairly slowly from the upper intervention point at which it began the year, and hovered around parity from late June through July, it then rose gradually again and at the end of December was virtually against its ceiling. There was a roughly offsetting movement of the forward differential during the year (first a widening and then a narrowing of the discount on the forward U.S. dollar), leaving the actual forward rate for the Canadian dollar fairly flat and close to the ceiling for the spot rate, throughout the year.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
All of the net increase in Canada's official reserve assets in 1969 is attributable to the last quarter of the year, as there was a net rundown of $100 million to the end of September. Over the year as a whole, there was a net reduction of U.S. $211 million in official holdings of gold and foreign exchange and an increase of U.S. $272 million in Canada's reserve position in the International Monetary Fund.

[Stage Direction]
The economic developments reviewed in this White Paper influenced and were influenced by the course of financial flows and financial markets during 1969, which were characterized by rising interest rates and important shifts among financial channels.
First, there were large changes in the borrowing requirements of the various sectors. The demand for consumer credit by individuals increased, although at a diminishing rate, and business borrowing rose sharply. Mortgage lending increased and the borrowing of provincial and local governments and their enterprises remained at a high level. On the other hand, the federal government reduced its borrowing very substantially. Second, the policies of monetary restraint checked the growth of the chartered banks, with consequences for interest rates, the structure of chartered bank assets and the relative position of other financial institutions. Third, the experience and expectation of inflation contributed to the increase in interest rates, encouraged borrowers to borrow for short-term rather than long, and shifted investors' preferences away from long-term bonds and toward liquid assets and equities. A number of these factors were also felt in the rest of the industrialized world, and the rise in interest rates in Canada was equalled or surpassed elsewhere.
The banking system
The Bank of Canada pursued a policy of monetary restraint throughout 1969. The primary way in which this was done was through restricting the growth of the chartered banks' cash reserves. The Bank of Canada also raised the Bank Rate to 7 per cent in March, to 7.5 per cent in June and to 8 per cent in July, and increased the secondary reserve ratio of chartered banks from 7 per cent to 8 per cent in June. Under this monetary policy, chartered banks' total assets grew less rapidly than those of non-bank financial institutions. Over-all, assets of all major financial intermediaries, including the chartered banks, are estimated to have grown by about 8 per cent over 1969. Total assets of the banking system expanded by 5.2 per cent, those of other financial intermediaries by about 9.4 per cent. Further details as to the relative growth of assets of the financial intermediaries are shown in Chart 17.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(Billions of Dollars)

[Stage Direction]
* Canadian assets physically held in Canada of federally-registered life insurance companies. 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.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Monetary policy affected not only the growth of total chartered bank liabilities but also had differential effects on various deposit liabilities and assets. Total Canadian dollar liabilities of the banks continued to expand at relatively high rates early in 1969, but the rate of expansion slowed as the year progressed. Around the middle of the year total liabilities declined, and although they have risen since, they were at year-end only slightly above the level reached at midyear. Growth of demand deposits was held in check throughout the year while non-personal term and notice deposits declined sharply, the fall being due partly to limitation of the rates that the chartered banks pay on certain large deposit receipts. Foreign currency swapped deposits rose substantially in the first half of the year, but did not grow after July, when the Bank of Canada requested the banks to observe a temporary ceiling on the amounts outstanding.
Marked changes also occurred on the asset side of the chartered banks' balance sheets. The most striking of these was a sharp fall in the liquid asset holdings of the banks in order to meet the demand for loans. Their holdings of

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent

[Stage Direction]
Per Cent
m Average weekly yield on the 10 provincial bonds included in the monthly series published by McLeod, Young, Weir and Co., Ltd. 01 Average stock yield on 114 stocks as compiled by Moss, Lawson and Co., Ltd.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Government of Canada bonds fell by $450 million during 1969. The banks also reduced their net foreign currency asset position. Chartered bank loans continued to expand until about mid-1969 at relatively high rates. There was a pause in growth around mid-year, which was followed by a resumption of expansion although at reduced rates of growth. This second-half increase includes loans to grain dealers and to the Canadian Wheat Board, and also reflects advances on grain held in inventory on farms or in storage terminals. Unsecured personal loans have shown only a slight increase since about mid-1969. The banks as a whole have substantially increased their mortgage lending. From the end of
1968	to the end of 1969, their outstanding mortgages rose by $275 million, compared with $199 million over the previous twelve months. There were small reductions in the banks' holdings of provincial, municipal and corporate bonds.
At the beginning of 1969, the more liquid assets of the banking system were some 30 per cent of the total of their major assets. This percentage fell to about 26 per cent at the close of 1969. Hence, while the banking system did offset to some extent the impact of monetary tightness on its lending in 1969, its increasingly illiquid position was reflected in lending policies. The prime loan rate was increased to 7 per cent in January, 7.5 per cent in March, 8 per cent in June, and
8.5	per cent in July. Moreover, it is likely that an increasing number of borrowers were excluded from this preferential rate and accordingly their cost of borrowing increased even more sharply. Others found it difficult to borrow at all and had to seek funds elsewhere, normally at higher cost, or reduce their spending plans. Large borrowers turned increasingly to the market for short-term paper. Others turned to non-bank financial institutions.
Other financial institutions
Borrowing from the sales finance and consumer loan companies increased substantially. Total assets of these institutions rose by $442 million in the first three quarters of 1969 compared to an increase of $232 million during the corresponding period of 1968. Their lending to consumers accelerated until the closing months of 1969, while, as noted, chartered banks' lending slowed down after mid-year. The sales finance and consumer loan companies shifted to alternative sources of funds, reducing their use of domestic and foreign bank credit. Although their short-term market borrowing in Canada expanded at a lower rate than in 1968, they sharply increased their borrowing in the short-term markets in the United States. They have also expanded their long-term debt and have added substantially to their loans from parent and affiliated companies.
The trust and loan companies expanded their financial assets rapidly in 1969. Trust companies' assets rose by $639 million in the first three quarters of
1969	as compared with $501 million in the same period of 1968. The mortgage loan companies' assets rose by $257 million in the first three quarters of 1969 compared with $155 million in the same period a year earlier. Both groups Of institutions increased their mortgage lending as mortgage rates rose. The average rate on conventional mortgages rose from 9.1 per cent at the end of 1968 to
10.5	per cent at the end of 1969. In the competition for funds these companies secured a proportionately larger part of the growth of deposits than did the banks. The banks for their part increased their deposit rates and increased the variety of deposits available. By mid-year, rates as high as 7.75 per cent were﻿March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
being offered on certificates of deposit maturing within two years. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has recently stated, however, that in response to a request by the Bank of Canada, the large chartered banks have not been competing aggressively for large blocks of short-term funds through the sale of Canadian dollar instruments. The trust and loan companies have been able to offer terms that many depositors have found more attractive. Thus, for example, rates on trust company guaranteed investment certificates rose from an average of 7.19 per cent in December 1968 to an average of 8.58 per cent in December 1969.
The assets of fire and casualty insurance companies expanded by about the same amount in the first three quarters of 1969 as in the same period of 1968. The assets of the credit unions, caisses populaires and mutual funds rose over the same period. Mutual funds increased their holdings of Canadian stocks, and reduced their holdings of foreign stocks in 1969. This shift was due to the relatively better performance of the Canadian rather than the United States stock market, and to the effect of the Canadian guidelines on overseas investments. Life insurance companies grew somewhat more slowly in 1969 than in 1968, while continuing to shift a part of their resources from fixed income securities to equities, a trend which began late in 1968. They reduced their holdings of bonds and invested less in mortgages.
Securities markets
The net amount of securities issues of all kinds by Canadian borrowers fell off quite sharply in 1969, and there were very significant changes in their composition.

[Stage Direction]
1966	1967	1968	1969
		(Millions of dollars)		
Issued or Guaranteed by: Government of Canada^*				
Treasury Bills	10	295	360	67Canada Savings Bonds	223	230	40	329Other bonds, payable in Canadian dollars	84	444	718	-104Bonds payable in foreign currencies	-169	-45	266	14Total	148	924	1,384	306Provincial and Municipal Governments Bonds sold to CPP	462	669	704	805Other bonds, payable in Canadian dollars	1,031	1,013	612	241Bonds payable in foreign currencies	424	800	900	1,057Total	1,917	2,482	2,216	2,103Corporations and Others	Commercial Paper	142	76	453	502®Bonds payable in Canadian dollars	536	830	517	403Bonds payable in foreign currencies	534	161	368	443Stocks	595	507	598	932T otal	1,807	1,574	1,936	2,280Total net new issues	3,872	4,980	5,536	4,687
^Outside Government Accounts. (^Preliminary.
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
The change in the total is more than accounted for by the decline in new issues by the Government of Canada, since provincial and municipal direct and guaranteed borrowing was well maintained and corporate issues increased. In the case of the Government of Canada, the change took the form principally of a small net retirement of marketable bonds following the large volume of new issues of such securities in 1968. Net new issues of Treasury Bills declined, but there was a larger net sale of Canada Savings Bonds. Provincial and municipal governments and their enterprises obtained more funds from the sale of bonds to the CPP ^nd from foreign currency issues outside Canada, and sharply reduced their market borrowing in Canada. Corporations also reduced their reliance on the Canadian bond market and raised more funds from foreign issues and from the sale of commercial paper. They greatly increased their net new issues of common and preferred stocks.
Whereas in 1968 Canadian governments and corporations raised $2.3 billion in new money in the Canadian bond market, they raised less than half of that amount in 1969 (excluding CSBs and bonds sold to the Canada Pension Plan). This striking decline is accounted for, to a significant extent, by the change in the position of the banks, which were net buyers in 1968 and net sellers in 1969. Canadian marketable bonds taken up by resident investors other than the banking system amounted to nearly $1 billion in 1968 and a little less in 1969, compared with $1.4 billion in both 1966 and 1967. This reduction is impressive in the light of the very high yields obtainable on such investments. The evident preference of investors for short-term liquid assets and equities illustrates the extent to which the bond market was affected by inflation and the persisting inflationary psychology. In these circumstances, Canadian borrowers were fortunate to be able to continue borrowing on a large scale in foreign capital markets, as described in the discussion of the balance of payments.
Bond yields in both Canada and the United States reached historic highs in 1969. The average yield on long-term Canadian Government bonds increased a full percentage point to 8.33 per cent during the course of the year. Provincial yields increased by over 1| points on average to 9.20 per cent in the same period. In the United States the average yield on long-term Treasury bonds rose over If points to 6.91 per cent and the yield on utility issues, which are comparable in the United States market to Canadian provincial issues, rose from 6.75 per cent to 8.40 per cent.
In April, there was some recovery in bond prices in Canada and the United States, which however proved to be short-lived, partly as a result of liquidation of securities by the commercial banks in both countries. During the summer restrictive credit conditions and a persistent, strong demand for credit combined to bring about a series of increases in interest rates. By the end of September, record yields had been established. In October, further signs of a slowdown in the United States economy, rumors of peace in Vietnam and widespread expectations of lower rates in the future combined to produce a dramatic increase in U.S. bond prices, which was followed to some degree in Canada. However, this rally too proved to be premature and bond prices once again declined, to produce record yields in December. Rates on new prime corporate issues in Canada reached 9.5 per cent in this period, while the United States an "Aaarated" utility bond was offered on a 9.10 per cent basis.
March 12. 1970

[Stage Direction]
(Monthly)
11) Salomon Brothers and Huuler three month Eurodollar rate.
Canadian Treasury Bill yield less the U.S. Treasury Bill yield corrected for the cost of foward cover. A plus indicates that the covered differential is favourable to capital inflows into Canada.
HI Average yield on the 10 provincial bonds included in the monthly series put* lished by McLeod. Young. Weir and Co.. Ltd.
^2) Source: O.E.C.O. and the Weekly Bond Buyer Bontrade Index.
(3)	Moody s Investors Service Inc., average yield on public utility bonds.
(4)	Average yield on Canadian provincial minus average yield on U.S. public utility long term bonds.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
In the stock market in Canada, prices of industrial stocks, after some hesitation in February and March, thrust upward to a peak in May, reaching a level in that month some 6| per cent higher than the average for the previous December. A sharp fall in stock prices then occurred, as interest rates moved to higher ground. The decline continued into August; thereafter prices climbed again until toward the end of the year, but in their rally did not regain the May peak. In summary, the stock market in Canada was weaker after mid-year.
The desire for liquidity and a more aggressive use of corporate funds, combined with ceilings on commercial bank deposit rates, shifted substantial funds to the money markets in both the United States and Canada. The increased size of the money market served to accommodate many prime borrowers who would normally have obtained their requirements from the banks or the bond market, but this led to rising interest rates and a shortening of terms to maturity. During 1969, prime finance company and corporate paper rates rose in Canada from a 6.50 per cent level at the beginning of the year to about 9.50 percent at the year-end.
The increased size of the Canadian money market made it particularly susceptible to the influences of short-term rates abroad. The United States banks, restricted by Regulation Q in their access to domestic funds, competed actively for foreign deposits. The New York banks increased their balances due to foreign branches by almost $5 billion during'the course of 1969. Rates payable on Eurodollar deposits exceeded 10 per cent for most of the year and at one point reached 13 per cent. The resulting bidding for funds by the Canadian chartered banks to employ abroad was reflected in increased swapped deposit rates; rates on fully hedged U.S. dollar deposits rose from a level of 6.5 per cent at the end of 1968 to as high as 9.5 per cent at the end of 1969. From the end of 1968 to the end of July swapped deposits outstanding increased by 96 per cent, or $807 million, Because of the upward pull of these rates on other rates in the Canadian money market, in July the Bank of Canada arranged a temporary ceiling on the level of swapped deposits outstanding. During the latter part of the year hedged money market rate differentials in favor of investment in Canada had narrowed considerably, until at year-end the Government of Canada 91-day Treasury Bill rate was below the equivalent rate in the United States, and some provinces were borrowing at about the same rate in Canada as in the II nited States.

[Stage Direction]
We are beginning the year 1970 having made some progress in the effort to re-establish the economy on a non-inflationary upward course. We expect further progress this year. ,
What we have seen so far, briefly, is a slowing of the growth of demand, a more moderate advance of output, and some reduction, recently, in profits. What we have not seen is the hoped-for slowing of the rise of costs and prices. In 1970 we expect to see signs of more moderate rises of costs and prices.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
The growth of demand will probably continue to ease gradually throughout 1970 while policies of restraint continue to be applied. The slower growth of the labour force and of employment we have seen in recent months will continue well into 1970. It has to be expected that, in contrast to 1969, some increase in the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment will occur.
This broad picture is not dissimilar from that foreseen for the United States, and also for a number of other industrialized countries where inflation has evoked policies of restraint.
Although we expect the demand for goods and services to grow less rapidly, we expect the moderation to be rather evenly spread. Demand by consumers, supported by high incomes, will continue to move ahead. The slowing in this area will probably be felt most noticeably in the sales of durable goods including automobiles, although the demand for services will be increasingly restrained by higher prices. Although the data on intentions are not yet out, they are expected to indicate a considerable advance in capital investment. Housing starts which were over 210,000 last year are expected to be close to 200,000 in 1970, with a larger portion in the public and other low rent categories. We may be fairly optimistic about exports apart from wheat, automobiles and parts. The slowing down of growth in imports is expected to be greater than that of exports, and consequently the increase of the deficit in the current account of the balance of payments should be much smaller in 1970 than it was last year. Government expenditures will rise in 1970; the rate of increase is expected to be higher in the provincial and municipal sectors than that of the federal government. The Canada Pension Plan will again accumulate a large flow of savings to be lent to provincial governments and their agencies.
It is impossible to be precise about the likely course of costs and prices. The government has indicated its determination to slow down the inflationary increases, but a sudden end to the problem of inflation is not to be expected There are important wage settlements to be made this year. Many of these negotiations will be difficult and some strikes must be expected. A moderation of the rise in vmge costs and continued declines in profits per unit of output are likely. It is expected that before the end of the year the continued effect of the slow-down in the growth of demand, the much less buoyant profit situation, and more moderate advances in wage costs will be beginning to show in smaller rates of price increase.
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Reference
Table
Number	Page
1	Demographic Developments	
48082	Gross National Expenditure	
48093	Changes in Gross National Expenditure	
48104	Gross National Expenditure in Constant (1961) Dollars. 48115	Changes in the Components of Gross National Expenditurein Constant (1961) Dollars	
48126	Structural Changes in Demand (per cent distribution ofGross National Expenditure by components)	
48137	Structural Changes in Demand (per cent distribution ofGross National Expenditure in Constant (1961) Dollars by components)	
48148	National Income and Gross National Product	
48159	Changes in National Income and Gross National Product... 481610	Structural Changes in Income (per cent distribution of GrossNational Product by components)	
481711	Personal Income and Expenditure	
481812	Personal Income, Canada and by Provinces	
481913	Value of Retail Trade, Canada and by Region	
482114	Private and Public Investment in Canada	
482215	Private and Public Investment by Region	
482416	Changes in Private and Public Investment, Canada and byRegion	
482517	Dwelling Starts, Completions and Under Construction... 482618	Dwelling Starts and Completions, by type	
482719	Manufacturers' Inventories, Shipments and Orders	
482820	Manufacturers' Shipments, Canada and by Region	
482921	Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry	
483022	Changes in the Indexes of Real Domestic Product byIndustry	
483223	Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Major IndustrialGrouping	
483424	Changes in the Indexes of Real Domestic Product by MajorIndustrial Grouping	
483525	Main Components of the Labour Market	
483726	Changes in the Main Components of the Labour Market. .. 483827	Participation Rates by Sex and Age Groups	
483928	Unemployment Rates by Sex and Age Groups	
484029	Participation Rates, Canada and by Region	
484130	Labour Force, Canada and by Region	
484231	Employment, Canada and by Region	
484332	Unemployment, Canada and by Region	
484433	Estimates of Employees by Province and Industry	
484534	Productivity and Costs, Total All Industries	
484835	Productivity and Costs, Commercial Non-AgriculturalIndustries	
4849
March 12, 1970
36	Productivity and Costs, Commercial Non-Agricultural'
Goods-Producing Industries	 4850
37	Productivity and Costs, Commercial Service-Producing
Industries	
.	485138	Productivity and Costs, Manufacturing Industries	1.	485230	Gross National Expenditure Implicit Price Indexes,	485340	Changes in Gross National Expenditure Implicit	PriceIndexes	i. 485441	Consumer Price Indexes: Standard Classifications	
485542	Changes in the Consumer Price Indexes: Standard Classifications	:	v	
485643	Consumer Price Indexes: Supplementary Classifications... 485744	Changes in the Consumer Price Indexes: SupplementaryClassifications	
485845	Contributions to Changes in the Consumer Price Index	
485946	Other Price Indexes	
486047	Changes in Other Price Indexes	
486148	Total Government Expenditures-unrevised National Accounts Basis	486249	Federal Government Expenditures	
A	486350	Provincial-Municipal Government Expenditures	
.	486451	Total Government Revenues	
.	486552	Federal Government Revenues	
486653	Provincial-Municipal Government Revenues	
486754	International Payments: Current Account	
486855	Net Balances on Selected Non-Merchandise Accounts	
487056	Summary of Balance of Payments	
487157	International Payments: Capital Movements	
487258	Net Proceeds from New Issues of Canadian Bonds andDebentures to Non-Residents	
487459	Canadian Chartered Banks' Head Offices and Branches inCanada, Net Change in Foreign Currency Position	
487660	Financing of Canada's Bilateral Account with the UnitedStates	
487761	Canada's Reserve Position with the International MonetaryFund	:	
487862	Canada's Official International Reserves	
487963	Details of New Issues and Retirements of Government ofCanada Direct and Guaranteed Marketable Bonds from January 1, 1969 to February 15, 1970	
488064	Changes in Market Bonds and Canada Savings Bonds Outstanding	
488165	Mortgage Loan Approvals	
488266	Summary of Sources of Net New Financing in Canada	
488367	Financial Flows: Chartered Banks	'. 488468	Financial Flows: Trust Companies	
488669	Financial Flows: Mortgage Loan Companies	
4887
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
70	Financial Flows: Mutual Funds	
488871	Financial Flows: Closed-End Funds	
488972	Financial Flows: Life Insurance Companies	
489073	Financial Flows: Sales Finance and Consumer Loan Companies	
489174	Financial Flows: Fire and Casualty Insurance Companies...	489275	Financial Flows: Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires.... 4893
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 1
DEMOGRAPHIC DEVELOPMENTS 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Population as of June 10)	Birth Rate	Death Rate	Natural Rate of Increase	Immigra- tion Rate	Annual Growth Rate of Population	Number of Families	Net Family Formation(Thousands of persons)	(Per thousand	of population)	(Per cent)	(Thousands)	1947	12,888	28.9	9.4	19.5	5.0	2.1	1948	13,167	27.3	9.3	18.0	9.5	2.2	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	1951	14,009	27.2	9.0	18.2	13.8	2.2	3,282.4	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	17.6	7.4	10.2	8.9	1.7	4,696.0	88.01969	21,061	17.6	7.4	10.2	n.a.	1.5	n.a.	n.a.(Expressed at	annual rates)	1968 I	20,630	17.1	8.1	8.9	6.9	1.9	n.a.	II	20,700	18.0	7.1	10.8	9.6	1.8	n.a.	Ill	20,772	18.5	7.1	11.4	9.8	1.6	n.a.	IV	20,857	17.1	7.1	10.0	9.1	1.5	n.a.	n.a.1969 I	20,940	17.2	7.8	9.4	5.9	1.6	n.a.	II	21,007	17.7	7.0	10.6	7.7	1.3	Ill	21,089	18.4	7.2	11.0	9.2	1 .6	IV	21,180	17.3	7.2	10.1	n.a.	1.7	n.a.	n.a.
n.a.=not available
^Quarterly figures are the estimates for the months of January, April, July and October.
Source: DBS Vital Statistics, Annual, Cat. 84-201, Monthly, Cat. 84-001.
DBS Estimates of Families in Canada, Annual, Cat. 91-204.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 2
GROSS NATIONAL EXPENDITURE 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Current Expenditure on Goods and Services	Gross Fixe Total	id Capital Govern- ment	Formation Business	Value of Physical Change in Inven-tories<l>
Exports ol Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Residual Error of Estimate	Gross National Expenditure at Market Prices
					(Millions of dollars)					
1947	9,054	1,343	2,350	304	2,046	343	3,661	-3,601	19	13,1691948	10,051	1,454	3,057	424	2,633	97	4,055	-3,630	43	15,1271949	10,892	1,722	3,439	456	2,983	78	4,004	-3,853	18	16,3001950	11,991	1,928	3,862	521	3,341	549	4,158	-4,492	-41	17,9551951	13,399	2,811	4,424	640	3,784	871	5,052	-5,580	83	21,0601952	14,818	3,620	5,096	779	4,317	511	5,568	-5,369	-202	24,0421953	15,717	3,824	5,733	782	4,951	697	5,380	-5,806	-218	25,3271954	16,561	3,825	5,714	873	4,841	-395	5,137	-5,543	-66	25,2331955	17,902	4,036	6,422	948	5,474	275	5,749	-6,390	-99	27,8951956	19,466	4,426	8,000	1,144	6,856	986	6,350	-7,664	-190	31,3741957	20,886	4,573	8,689	1,327	7,362	170	6,379	-7,767	-23	32,9071958	22,211	4,854	8,535	1,397	7,138	-296	6,329	-7,321	-218	34,0941959	23,620	4,976	8,647	1,508	7,139	414	6,674	-8,028	-37	36,2661960	24,705	5,281	8,473	1,560	6,913	409	7,004	-8,092	-5	37,7751961	25,120	6,350	8,317	1,671	6,646	119	7,651	-8,480	3	39,0801962	26,636	6,770	8,823	1,901	6,922	568	8,265	-9,045	336	42,3531963	28,364	7,149	9,522	1,983	7,539	592	9,102	-9,562	298	45,4651964	30,647	7,684	11,173	2,022	9,151	469	10,540	-10,915	185	49,7831965	33,134	8,307	13,251	2,443	10,808	1,172	11,223	-12,343	153	54,8971966	36,057	9,820	15,405	2,845	12,560	1,230	13,088	-14,260	81	61,4211967	38,998	10,875	15,519	3,048	12,471	408	14,708	-15,280	380	65,6081968	42,360	12,078	16,035	3,204	12,831	741	16,692	-16,996	544	71,454n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	78,100(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I	41,300	11,716	15,812	3,092	12,720	524	16,116	-16,644	256	69,080II	41,576	11,732	15,848	3,280	12,568	400	16,692	-16,484	528	70,292Ill	42,832	12,020	16,104	3,268	12,836	768	16,592	-17,012	616	71,920IV	43,732	12,844	16,376	3,176	13,200	1,272	17,368	-17,844	776	74,5241969 I	45,068	13,392	16,788	3,088	13,700	1,376	18,340	-19,016	660	76,608II	45,772	13,696	17,552	3,248	14,304	828	17,944	-19,024	664	77,432Ill	46,460	13,980	17,888	3,116	14,772	820	18,344	-19,228	472	78,736IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Note: These are revised National Accounts figures. Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not available. tt>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.
(^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
Source: DBS. National Income and Expenditure Accounts 1926-1968.
DBS. National Income and Expenditure Accounts, Quarterly, Cat. 13-001.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 3
CHANGES IN GROSS NATIONAL EXPENDITURE 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Govern- ment Current	Gross Fixed Capital Formation	Value of Physical Change in Inventories	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Gross National Expenditure at Market PricesExpemlilui e on Goods and Services	Total	Govern- ment	Business	(Per cent change from previous period]	1947	13.0	-18.9	39.7	28.3	41.6	148	11.6	25.9	10.81948	11.0	8.3	30.1	39.5	28.7	-246	10.8	0.8	14.91949	8.4	18.4	12.5	7.5	13.3	- 19	-1.3	6.1	7.81950	10.1	12.0	12.3	14.3	12.0	471	3.8	16.6	10.21951	11.7	45.8	14.6	22.8	13.3	322	21.5	24.2	17.31952	10.6	28.8	15.2	21.7	14.1	-360	10.2	-3.8	14.21953	6.1	5.6	12.5	0.4	14.7	186	-3.4	8.1	5.31954	5.4	-	-0.3	11.6	-2.2	-1,092	-4.5	-4.5	-0.41955	8.1	5.5	12.4	8.6	13.1	670	11.9	15.3	10.51956	8.7	9.7	24 .6	20.7	25.2	711	10.5	19 .9	12.51957	7.3	3.3	8.6	16.0	7.4	-816	0.5	1.3	4.91958	6.3	6.1	-1.8	5.3	-3.0	-466	-0.8	-5.7	3.61959	6.3	2.5	1.3	7.9	-	710	5.5	9.7	6.41960	4.6	6.1	-2.0	3.4	-3 .2	-5	4.9	0.8	4.21961	1.7	20.2	-1.8	7.1	-3 .9	-290	9.2	4.8	3.51962	6.0	6.6	6.1	13.8	4.2	449	8.0	6.7	8.41963	6.5	5.6	7.9	4.3	8.9	24	10.1	5.7	7.31964	8.0	7.5	17.3	2.0	21.4	-123	15.8	14.1	9.51965	8.1	8.1	18.6	20.8	18.1	703	6.5	13.1	10.31966	8.8	18.2	16.3	16.5	16.2	58	16.6	15.5	11.91967	8.2	10.7	0.7	7.1	-0.7	-822	12.4	7.2	6.81968	8.6	11.1	3.3	5.1	2.9	333	13.5	11.2	8.91969W)	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	9.3(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.II	0.7	0.1	0.2	6.1	-1.2	-124	3.6	-1.0	1.8Ill	3.0	2.5	1.6	-0.4	2.1	368	-0.6	3.2	2.3IV	2.1	6.9	1.7	-2.8	2.8	504	4.7	4.9	3.61969 I	3.1	4.3	2.5	-2.8	3.8	104	5.6	6.6	2.8II	1.6	2.3	4.6	5.2	4.4	-548	-2.2	-	1.1Ill	1.5	2.1	1.9	-4.1	3.3	-8	2.2	1.1	1.7IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Note: These are revised National Accounts figures. Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not available. 0>Se« footnote 0>
on reference table 2.
(^Expressed in terms of absolute changes (millions of dollars) from the previous period.
(^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 4
GROSS NATIONAL EXPENDITURE IN CONSTANT (1961) DOLLARS 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Current Expenditure on Goods and Services	Gross Total	Fixed Cap formation Govern- ment	tal i) Business	Value of Physical Change in Inventories	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Residual Error of Estimate	Gross National Expenditure in Constant (1961) Dollars
					(Millions	of dollars)				
1947	13,721	2,814	3,796	442	3,390	326	5,018	-5,149	28	20,8611948	13,438	2,682	4,358	549	3,845	51	5,185	-4,643	58	21,3741949	14,083	2,986	4,680	568	4,153	69	4,878	-4,770	23	22,1191950	15,038	3,218	5,029	622	4,449	555	4,844	-5,196	- 52	23,8091951	15,224	4,175	5,047	645	4,442	744	5,297	-5,845	93	25,0041952	16,514	5,125	5,635	767	4,907	468	5,905	-6,045	-219	27,3981953	17,538	5,273	6,327	818	5,559	612	5,843	-6,547	-235	28,8621954	18,296	5,070	6,326	912	5,451	-364	5,626	-6,233	- 71	28,2831955	19,757	5,174	6,911	921	6,040	339	6,053	-7,067	-105	31,0791956	21,172	5,334	8,174	1,003	7,240	775	6,508	-8,204	-194	33,7801957	22,044	5,240	8,756	1.233	7,581	141	6,568	-8,108	- 23	34,7101958	22,846	5,398	8,659	1,367	7,332	-207	6,545	-7,539	-215	35 i 4621959	24,000	5,354	8,705	1,472	7,263	301	6,799	-8,319	- 36	36,9291960	24,866	5,467	8,419	1,508	6,931	344	7,090	-8,310	- 5	37,9941961	25,120	6,350	8,317	1,671	6,646	119	7.651	-8,480	3	39,0801962	26,277	6,598	8,692	1,867	6,825	534	8,010	-8,665	332	41,7781963	27,551	6,726	9,144	1,873	7,271	576	8,712	-9,001	288	43,9961964	29,372	6,980	10,437	1,862	8,575	393	9.856	-10,163	175	47,0501965	31,113	7,126	11,797	2,108	9,689	1,095	10,348	-11,470	140	50,1491966	32,771	7,900	13,082	2,326	10,756	1,146	11,714	-13,034	71	53 i 6501967	34,309	8,094	13,121	2,507	10,614	312	12,949	-13,699	321	55,4071968	35,853	8,463	13,165	2,549	10,616	611	14,485	-14,978	442	58,041n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	60,900(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I	35,372	8,420	13,196	2,492	10,704	360	14,016	-14,744	212	56,832II	35,332	8,400	12,984	2,560	10,424	356	14,472	-14,552	432	57,424Ill	36,168	8,300	13,112	2,548	10,564	700	14,396	-15,004	500	58,172IV	36,540	8,732	13,368	2,596	10,772	1,028	15,056	-15,612	624	59,7361969 I	37,348	9,080	13,368	2,356	11,012	1,256	15,728	-16,492	524	60,812II	37,452	9.036	13,752	2,516	11,236	868	15,212	-16,320	520	60,520Ill	37,740	8,908	13,780	2,336	11,444	856	15,600	-16,316	364	60,932n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Note: These are revised National accounts figures. Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not available.
<*Pnor to 1960 gross fixed capital formation included an adjusting entry, thus the sum of business and government does not add to total gross fixed capital formation.
<2>Estimated by the Department of Finance.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 5

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Current Expenditure on Goods and Services	Gross Fixed Capital Formation(*>	Value of Physical Change in Inventories (2)	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Gross National Expenditure in Constant (1961) DollarsTotal	Govern- ment	Business	(Per cent change from previous period)	1947	3.1	-24.5	26.4	16.9	28.0	185	-0.6	12.3	1.81948	-2.1	-4.7	14.8	24 .2	13.4	-275	3.3	-9.8	2.51949	4.8	11.3	7.4	3.5	8.0	18	-5.9	2.7	3.51950	6.8	7.8	7.5	9.5	7.1	486	-0.7	8.9	7.61951	1.2	29.7	0.4	3.7	-0.2	189	9.4	12.5	5.01952	8.5	22.8	11.7	18.9	10.5	-276	11.5	3.4	9.61953	6.2	2.9	12.3	6.6	13.3	144	-1.0	8.3	5.31954	4.3	-3.8	-	11.5	-1.9	-976	-3.7	-4.8	-2.01955	8.0	2.0	9.2	1.0	10.8	703	7.6	13 .4	9.91956	7.2	3.1	18.3	8.9	19.9	436	7.5	16.1	8.71957	4.1	-1.8	7.1	22.9	4.7	-634	0.9	-1.2	2.81958	3.6	3.0	-1.1	10.9	-3.3	-348	-0.4	-7.0	2.21959	5.1	-0.8	0.5	7.7	-0.9	508	3.9	10.3	4.11960	3.6	2.1	-3.3	2.4	-4.6	43	4.3	-0.1	2.91961	1.0	16.2	-1.2	10.8	-4.1	-225	7.9	2.0	2.91962	4.6	3.9	4.5	11.7	2.7	415	4.7	2.2	6.91963	4.8	1.9	5.2	0.3	6.5	42	8.8	3.9	5.31964	6.6	3.8	14.1	-0.6	17 .9	-183	13.1	12.9	6.91965	5.9	2.1	13.0	13.2	13 .0	702	5.0	12.9	6.61966	5.3	10.9	10.9	10.3	11.0	51	13.2	13.6	7.01967	4.7	2.5	0.3	7.8	-1.3	-834	10.5	5.1	3.31968	4.5	4.6	0.3	1.7	-	299	11.9	9.3	4.81969(3)	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	4.9(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.II	-0.1	-0.2	-1.6	2.7	-2.6	-4	3.3	-1.3	1.0Ill	2.4	-1.2	1.0	-0.5	1.3	344	-0.5	3.1	1.3IV	1.0	5.2	2.0	1.9	2.0	328	4.6	4.1	2.71969 I	2.2	4.0	__	-9.2	2.2	228	4.5	5.6	1.8II	0.3	-0.5	2.9	6.8	2.0	-388	-3.3	-1.0	-0.5Ill	0.8	-1.4	0.2	-7.2	1.9	-12	2.6	-	0.7IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Note: These are revised National Accounts figures. Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not available. d)See footnote (1) on reference table 4.
<2>See footnote (2) on reference table 3.
(^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 6
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN DEMAND (Per Cent distribution of Gross National Expenditure by Components)
1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Current Expenditure on Goods and Services	Gross Fixed Capital Formation	Value of Physical Change in Inven-toriesO)	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Residual Error of Estimate	Gross National Expenditure at Market PricesTotal	Govern- ment	Business	1947	68.8	10.2	17.8	2.3	15.5	2.6	27.8	-27.3	0.1	100.01948	66.5	9.6	20.2	2.8	17.4	0.6	26.8	-24.0	0.3	100.01949	66.8	10.5	21.1	2.8	18.3	0.5	24.6	-23.6	0.1	100.01950	66.8	10.7	21.5	2.9	18.6	3.0	23.2	-25.0	-0.2	100.01951	63.6	13.4	21.0	3.0	18.0	4.1	24.0	-26.5	-0.4	100.01952	61.6	15.0	21.2	3.2	18.0	2.1	23.2	-22.3	-0.8	100 .01953	62.1	15.1	22.6	3.1	19.5	2.8	21.2	-22.9	-0.9	100.01954	65.6	15.2	22.6	3.4	19.2	-1.5	20.4	-22.0	-0.3	100.01955	64 .2	14.5	23.0	3.4	19.6	1.0	20.6	-22.9	-0.4	100.01956	62 .0	14.1	25.5	3.6	21.9	3.2	20.2	-24.4	-0.6	100.01957	63.5	13 .9	26.4	4.0	22.4	0.5	19.4	-23.6	-0.1	100.01958	65.1	14.2	25.0	4.1	20.9	-0.8	18.6	-21.5	-0.6	100.01959	65.1	13.7	23.9	4.2	19.7	1.1	18.4	-22.1	-0.1	100.01960	65.4	14.0	22 .4	4.1	18.3	1.1	18.5	-21.4	100.01961	64.3	16.2	21.3	4.3	17.0	0.3	19.6	-21.7	100.01962	62.9	16.0	20.8	4.5	16.3	1.4	19.5	-21.4	0.8	100.01963	62.4	15.7	20.9	4.3	16.6	1.3	20.0	-21.0	0.7	100.01964	61.6	15.4	22.4	4.0	18.4	0.9	21.2	-21.9	0.4	100.01965	60.4	15.1	24.1	4.4	19.7	2.1	20.5	-22.5	0.3	100.01966	58.7	16.0	25.1	4.6	20.5	2.0	21.3	-23.2	0.1	100.01967	59.4	16.6	23.7	4.7	19.0	0.6	22.4	-23 .3	0.6	100.01968	59.3	16.9	22.4	4.4	18.0	1.0	23.4	-23.8	0.8	100.0(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I	59.8	17 .0	22 .9	4.5	18.4	0.7	23.3	-24.1	0.4	100.0II	59.2	16.7	22.5	4.6	17 9	Ill	59.5	16.7	22.4	4.5	17 .9	1.1	23 !l	-23 .7	0.9	100.0IV	58.7	17.2	22.0	4.3	17.7	1.7	23.3	-23.9	1.0	100.01969 I	58.8	17.5	21.9	4.0	17.9	1.8	23.9	-24.8	0.9	100.0II	59.1	17.7	22.7	4.2	18.5	1.1	23.2	-24.6	0.8	100.0Ill	59 .0	17.8	22 .7	3.9	18.8	1.0	23.3	-24.4	0.6	100.0IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Note: These are revised National Accounts figures. Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not available. W See footnote (1) on reference table 2.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
4814
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 7

[Stage Direction]
(Per Cent distribution of Gross National Expenditure in Constant (1961) Dollars by Components)
1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Personal Expendi- ture on Consumer Goods and Services	Govern- ment Current Expendi- ture on Goods and Services	Gross Fixed Capital Formation <0	Value of Physical Change in Inventories	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Residual Error of Estimate	Gross National Expendi- ture in Constant (1961) DollarsTotal	Govern- ment	Business	1947	65.8	13.5	18.2	2.1	16.2	1.6	24.1	-24 .7	0.1	100.01948	62.9	12.5	20.4	2.6	18.0	0.2	24.3	-21.7	0.3	100.01949	63.7	13.5	21.2	2.6	18.8	0.3	22.1	-21.6	0.1	100.01950	63 .2	13.5	21.1	2.6	18.7	2.3	20.3	-21.8	-0.2	100.01951	60.9	16.7	20.2	2.6	17.8	3.0	21.2	-23.4	0.4	100.01952	60.3	18.7	20.6	2.8	17.9	1.7	21.6	-22.1	-0.8	100.01953	60.8	18.3	21.9	2.8	19.3	2.1	20.2	-22.7	-0.8	100.01954	64.7	17.9	22.4	3.2	19.3	-1.3	19.9	-22.0	-0.3	100.01955	63.4	16.6	22.2	3.0	19.4	1.1	19.5	-22.7	-0.3	100.01956	62.7	15.8	24.2	3.0	21.4	2.3	19.3	-24.3	-0.6	100.01957	63.5	15.1	25.2	3.6	21.8	0.4	18.9	-23.4	-0.1	100.01958	64.4	15.2	24.4	3.9	20.7	-0.6	18.5	-21.3	-0.6	100.01959	65.0	14.5	23.6	4.0	19.7	0.8	18.4	-22.5	-0.1	100.01960	65.4	14 .4	22.2	4.0	18.2	0.9	18.7	-21.9	100.01961	64.3	16.2	21.3	4.3	17.0	0.3	19.6	-21.7	-	100.01962	62.9	15.8	20.8	4.5	16.3	1.3	19.2	-20.8	0.8	100.01963	62.6	15.3	20.8	4.3	16.5	1 .3	19.8	-20.5	0.7	100.01964	62.4	14.8	22.2	4.0	18.2	0.8	21.0	-21.6	0.4	100.01965	62.1	14.2	23 .5	4.2	19.3	2.2	20.6	-22.9	0.3	100.01966	61.1	14.7	24.4	4.3	20.1	2.2	21.8	-24.3	0.1	100.01967	61.9	14.6	23.7	4.5	19.2	0.6	23.4	-24 .7	0.5	100.01968	61.8	14.5	22.7	4.4	18.3	1.0	25.0	-25.8	0.8	100.0(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I	62.2	14.8	23.2	4.4	18.8	0.6	24 .7	-25.9	0.4	100.0II	61.5	14.6	22.6	4.5	18.1	0.6	25.2	-25.3	0.8	100.0Ill	62.2	14.3	22.5	4.4	18.1	1.2	24 .7	-25.8	0.9	100.0IV	61.2	14.6	22.4	4.3	18.1	1.7	25.2	-26.1	1.0	100.01969 I	61.4	14.9	21.9	3.8	18.1	2.1	25.9	-27.1	0.9	100.0II	62.0	14.9	22.7	4.2	18.5	1.4	25.1	-27 .0	0.9	100.0Ill	62.0	14.6	22.6	3.8	18.8	1.4	25.6	-26.8	0.6	100.0IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Note: These are revised National Accounts figures. Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not. available. WSee footnote (1) on reference table 4.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 8
NATIONAL INCOME AND GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Wages, Salaries and Supple- mentary Labour In- come*1)	Corporation Profits		Interest and Miscel- laneous Invest- ment Income	Accrued Net Income of Farm Operators from Farm Production (*>
Net Income of Non- Farm Unincor- porated Busi- ness Including Rents*4 >
Inven- tory Valua- tion Adjust- ment*6*	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 Prices
		Corpo- ration Profits Before Taxes	Divi- dends Paid to Non- Resi- dentsl2>
(Millions of dollars)						
1947	6,482	1,814	-248	197	1,105	1,427	-571	10,206	1,678	1,303	-18	13,1691948	7,496	1,964	-249	239	1,366	1,524	-506	11,834	1,832	1,504	-43	15,1271949	8,115	1,879	-317	276	1,216	1,651	-112	12,708	1,878	1,731	-17	16,3001950	8,766	2,522	-404	372	1,307	1,699	-374	13,888	2,065	1,960	42	17,9551951	10,340	2,874	-379	428	1,868	1,806	-643	16,294	2,548	2,300	-82	21,0601952	11,633	2,791	-343	493	1,878	1,933	119	18,504	2,799	2,537	202	24,0421953	12,671	2,746	-325	554	1,461	2,161	2	19,270	2,994	2,844	219	25,3271954	13,009	2,447	-336	603	918	2,250	88	18,979	3,042	3,146	66	25,2331955	13,967	3,220	-394	744	1,120	2,475	-184	20,948	3,321	3,527	99	27,8951956	15,815	3,690	-448	843	1,283	2,496	-247	23,432	3,731	4,020	191	31,3741957	17,191	3,424	-494	938	908	2,614	-59	24,522	3,975	4,387	23	32,9071958	17,660	3,498	-490	1,008	1,116	2,707	-41	25,458	4,036	4,381	219	34,0941959	18,862	4,046	-526	1,004	1,008	2,819	-108	27,105	4,401	4,723	37	36,2661960	19,862	3,912	-493	1,074	1,021	2,797	-26	28,147	4,587	5,036	5	37,7751961	20,746	4,075	-618	1,261	839	2,800	-41	29,062	4,838	5,182	-2	39,0801962	22,249	4,607	-619	1,396	1,343	2,791	-118	31,649	5,446	5,594	-336	42,3531963	23,727	5,078	-648	1,534	1,538	3,073	-202	34,100	5,714	5,948	-297	45,4651964	25,886	6,043	-788	1,697	1,284	3,215	-139	37,198	6,441	6,328	-184	49,7831965	28,858	6,574	-815	1,846	1,397	3,424	-315	40,969	7,280	6,800	-152	54,8971966	32,658	6,913	-835	2,015	1,958	3,650	-327	46,032	8,056	7,414	-81	61,4211967	36,114	6,774	-828	2,337	1,306	3,926	-323	49,306	8,786	7,896	-380	65,6081968	39,353	7,442	-876	2,580	1,471	4,218	-317	53,871	9,677	8,449	-543	71,4541969(fl)....	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	78,100(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I....	37,764	6,744	-836	2,460	1,492	4,040	-296	51,368	9,520	8,444	-252	69,080n...	38,884	7,164	-980	2,536	1,304	4,188	-184	52,912	9.488	8,420	-528	70,292hi..	39,728	7,548	-940	2,600	1,496	4,288	-296	54,424	9,628	8,484	-616	71,920IV ..	41,036	8,312	-748	2,724	1,592	4,356	-492	56,780	10,072	8,448	-776	74i5241969 I....	42,296	8,284	-868	2,952	1,544	4,316	-596	57,928	10,500	8,840	-660	76,608II. . .	43,512	8,312	-856	2,924	1,596	4,252	-760	58,980	10,564	8,548	-660	77,432III..	44,636	7,284	-804	3,000	1,504	4,360	-360	59,620	10,612	8,976	-472	78,736IV..	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n-a- .	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Note: These are revised National Accounts figures. Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not available.
(^Includes military pay and allowances.
<J>Includes the withholding tax applicable to this item.
<*>Includes an arbitrary smoothing of crop production and standard 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.
(^Includes net income of independent professional practitioners.
l#)In the seasonally adjusted series, the value of grain production in each quarter is taken as one-fourth of the estimated value of crop production for the year as a whole. All other items in the farm inventories series are seasonally adjusted bv standard techniques.
(«>Estimated by the Department of Finance.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
21774-27*
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 9

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969
Corporation
Profits
Years
and
Quarters
Wages,
Salaries,
and
Supplementary
Labour
Income^)
Corporation
Profits
Before
Taxes
Dividends Paid to Non-Residents12)
Interest
and
Miscellaneous
Investment
Income
Accrued Net Income of Farm Operators from Farm Production (3)
Net Income of Nonfarm Unincorporated Business
Including
Rental)
Net
National Income at Factor Cost
Indirect
Taxes
less
Subsidies
Capital
Consumption
Allowances
and
Miscellaneous
Valuation
Adjustments
Gross
National
Product
at
Market
Prices
(Per cent change from previous period)
1947	11.2	23.1	21.0	15.9	7.2	8.1	9.0	22.4	21.7	10.81948	15.6	8.3	0.4	21.3	23.6	6.8	16.0	9.2	15.4	14.91949	8.3	-4.3	27.3	15.5	-11.0	8.3	7.4	2.5	15.1	7.81950	8.0	34.2	27.4	34.8	7.5	2.9	9.3	10.0	13 .2	10.21951	18.0	14.0	-6.2	15.1	42.9	6.3	17.3	23.4	17.3	17.31952	12.5	-2.9	-9.5	15.2	0.5	7.0	13.6	9.9	10.3	14.21953	8.9	-1.6	-5.2	12.4	-22.2	11.8	4.1	7.0	12.1	5.31954	2.7	-10.9	3.4	8.8	-37.2	4.1	-1.5	1.6	10.6	-0.41955	7.4	31.6	17.3	23.4	22.0	10.0	10.4	9.2	12.1	10.51956	13.2	14.6	13.7	13.3	14.6	0.8	11.9	12.3	14.0	12 .51957	8.7	-7.2	10.3	11.3	-29.2	4.7	4.7	6.5	9.1	4.91958	2.7	2.2	-0.8	7.5	22 .9	3.6	3.8	1.5	-0.1	3.61959	6.8	15.7	7.3	-0.4	-9.7	4.1	6.5	9.0	7.8	6.41960	5.3	-3.3	-6.3	7.0	1.3	-0.8	3.8	4.2	6.6	4.21961	4.5	4.2	25.4	17.4	-17.8	0.1	3.3	5.5	2.9	3.51962	7.2	13.1	0.2	10.7	60.1	-0.3	8.9	12.6	8.0	8.41963	6.6	10.2	4.7	9.9	14.5	10.1	7.7	4.9	6.3	7.31964	9.1	19.0	21.6	10.6	-16.5	4.6	9.1	12.7	6.4	9.51965	11.5	8.8	3.4	8.8	8.8	6.5	10.1	13.0	7.5	10.31966	13.2	5.2	2.5	9.2	40.2	6.6	12.4	10.7	9.0	11.91967	10.6	-2.0	-0.8	16.0	-33 .3	7.6	7.1	9.1	6.5	6.81968	9.0	9.9	5.8	10.4	12.6	7.4	9.3	10.1	7.0	8.91969(0	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	9.3(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.II	3.0	6.2	17.2	3.1	-12.6	3.7	3.0	-0.3	-0.3	1.8in	2.2	5.4	-4.1	2.5	14.7	2.4	2.9	1.5	0.8	2.3IV	3.3	10.1	-20.4	4.8	6.4	1.6	4.3	4.6	-0.4	3.61969 I	3.1	-0.3	16.0	8.4	-3.0	-0.9	2.0	4.2	4.6	2.8II	2.9	0.3	-1.4	-0.9	3.4	-1.5	1.8	0.6	-3.3	1.1Ill	2.6	-12.4	-6.1	2.6	-5.8	2.5	1.1	0.5	5.0	1.7IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Note: These are revised National Accounts figures.Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not available.
a), (2), (3)t 10See footnotes (1), (2), (3), (4) on reference table 8.
(^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
March 12. 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 10
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN INCOME (Per Cent distribution of Gross National Product by Components) 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Wages, Salaries and Supple- mentary Labour In- come^	Corporation Profits		Interest and Miscel- laneous Invest- ment Income	Accrued Net Income of Farm Opera- tions from Farm Produc- tion	Net Income of Non- Farm Unincor- porated Busi- ness Includ- ing Rents^	Inventory Valuation Adjustment <5>
Net National Income at Factor Cost	Indirect Taxes less Subsi- dies	Capital Con- sumption Allow- ances and Miscel- laneous Valua- tion Adjust- ment	Residual Error of Esti- mate	Gross National Product at Market Prices
		Corpo- ration Profits Before Taxes	Divi- dends Paid to Non- Resi- dents									
1947	49.2	13.8	-1.9	1.5	8.4	10.8	-4.3	77.5	12.7	9.9	-0.1	100.01948	49.6	13.0	-1.6	1.6	9.0	10.1	-3.5	78.2	12.1	9.9	-0.2	100.01949	49.8	11.5	-1.9	1.7	7.5	10.1	-0.7	78.0	11.5	10.6	-0.1	100.01950	48.8	14.0	-2.2	2.1	7.3	9.5	-2.2	77.3	11.5	10.9	0.3	100.01951	49.1	13.6	-1.8	2.0	8.9	8.6	-3.0	77.4	12.1	10.9	-0.4	100.01952	48.4	11.6	-1.4	2.1	7.8	8.0	0.5	77.0	11.6	10.6	0.8	100.01953	50.0	10.8	-1.3	2.2	5.8	8.5	0.1	76.1	11.8	11.2	0.9	100.01954	51.6	9.7	-1.3	2.4	3.6	8.9	0.3	75.2	12.0	12.5	0.3	100.01955	50.1	11.5	-1.4	2.7	4.0	8.9	-0.7	75.1	11.9	12.6	0.4	100.01956	50.4	11.8	-1.4	2.7	4.1	8.0	-0.9	74.7	11.9	12.8	0.6	100.01957	52.2	10.4	-1.5	2.9	2.8	7.9	-0.2	74.5	12.1	13.3	0.1	100.01958	51.8	10.3	-1.4	3.0	3.3	7.9	-0.2	74.7	11.8	12.9	0.6	100.01959	52.0	11.2	-1.5	2.8	2.8	7.8	-0.3	74.8	12.1	13.0	0.1	100.01960	52.6	10.4	-1.3	2.8	2.7	7.4	-0.1	74.5	12.2	13.3	100.01961	53.1	10.4	-1.6	3.2	2.2	7.2	-0.1	74.4	12.4	13.2	100.01962	52.5	10.9	-1.5	3.3	3.2	6.6	-0.3	74.7	12.9	13.2	-0.8	100.01963	52.2	11.2	-1.4	3.4	3.4	6.8	-0.6	75.0	12.6	13.1	-0.7	100.01964	52.0	12.1	-1.6	3.4	2.6	6.5	-0.3	74.7	13.0	12.7	-0.4	100.01965	52.6	12.0	-1.5	3.4	2.5	6.2	-0.6	74.6	13.3	12.4	-0.3	100.01966	53.2	11.3	-1.4	3.3	3.2	5.9	-0.6	74.9	13.1	12.1	-0.1	100.01967	55.0	10.3	-1.3	3.6	2.0	6.0	-0.4	75.2	13.4	12.0	-0.6	100.01968	55.1	10.4	-1.2	3.6	2.1	5.9	-0.5	75.4	13.6	11.8	-0.8	100.0(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I	54.7	9.8	-1.2	3.6	2.2	5.8	-0.5	74.4	13.8	12.2	-0.4	100.0II	56.3	10.2	-1.4	3.6	1.9	6.0	-0.3	75.3	13.5	12.0	-0.8	100.0III....	55.2	10.5	-1.3	3.6	2.1	6.0	-0.4	75.7	13.4	11.8	-0.9	100.0IV	55.1	11.2	-1.0	3.7	2.1	5.8	-0.7	76.2	13.5	11.3	-1.0	100.01969 I	55.2	10.8	-1.1	3.9	2.0	5.6	-0.8	75.6	13.7	11.6	-0.9	100.0II	56.2	10.7	-1.1	3.8	2.1	5.5	-1.0	76.2	13.7	11.0	-0.9	100.0III....	56.7	9.3	-1.0	3.8	1.9	5.5	-0.5	75.7	13.5	11.4	-0.6	100.0IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.Note: These are revised National Accounts figures. Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not available. (1\ <2)* (a).	(6), see footnotes (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) on reference table 8.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 11
PERSONAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE 1947 to 1969
	Personal Income	Personal Disposable Income	Personal Expenditure	Personal Saving	Ratio of Personal Saving to Personal Disposable Income	Personal Disposable Income Per Capita	Personal Expenditure Per Capita
			(Millions of dollars)				
1947	10,583	9,621	9,054	509	5.3	721	7031948	12,161	11,128	10,051	982	8.8	868	7631949	12,902	11,889	10,892	960	8.1	884	8101950	13,681	12,704	11,991	647	5.1	926	8741951	16,159	14,803	13,399	1,325	9.0	1,057	9561952	17,900	16,230	14,818	1,319	8.1	1,122	1,0251953	18,932	17,100	15,717	1,271	7.4	1,152	1,0591954	19,006	17,157	16,561	465	2.7	1,122	1,0831955	20,573	18,639	17,902	590	3.2	1,187	1,1401956	22,817	20,593	19,466	954	4.6	1,281	1,2111957	24,500	22,044	20,886	950	4.3	1,327	1,2571958	25,893	23,555	22,211	1,124	4.8	1,379	1,3001959	27,425	24,757	23,620	882	3.6	1,416	1,3511960	28,921	25,893	24,705	909	3.5	1,449	1,3821961	29,411	26,211	25,120	792	3.0	1,437	1,3771962	31.966	28,518	26,636	1,565	5.5	1,535	1,4331963	34,109	30,448	28,364	1,749	5.7	1,608	1,4981964	36,618	32,385	30,647	1,379	4.3	1,679	1,5891965	40,591	35,787	33,134	2,249	6.3	1,822	1,6871966	45,702	39,499	36,057	2,999	7.6	1,973	1,8021967	50,207	42,791	38,998	3,295	7.7	2,097	1,9111968	55,170	46,384	42,360	3,516	7.6	2,236	2,04219690)	60,900	50,200	46,200	3,400	6.8	2,400	2,200
Note: These are revised National Accounts figures. (^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 12
PERSONAL INCOME, CANADA AND BY PROVINCE 1949 to 196$
Years	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Y.T. and N.W.T.	Canada
				Percentage distribution of Personal Income^)								
1949	1.3	0.4	3.6	2.6	24.2	38.7	5.8	6.2	7.1	10.2	-	100.01950	1.3	0.4	3.6	2.6	24.5	39.4	5.7	5.2	6.8	10.5	100.01951	1.3	0.4	3.2	2.5	24.3	38.5	5.6	6.5	7.6	9.9	0.2	100.01952	1.2	0.4	3.3	2.4	24.5	38.5	5.4	6.7	7.3	10.0	0.2	100.01953	1.3	0.3	3.3	2.3	24.9	39.1	5.2	5.9	7.3	10.1	0.2	100.01954	1.4	0.4	3.4	2.4	25.5	40.1	5.1	4.2	6.9	10.4	0.2	100.01955	1.4	0.3	3.2	2.3	24.9	40.0	5.0	5.0	7.0	10.5	0.2	100.01956	1.4	0.4	3.1	2.3	24.9	39.4	5.1	5.2	7.4	10.5	0.2	100.01957	1.4	0.3	3.1	2.2	25.3	40.5	4.9	4.2	7.0	10.8	0.2	100.01958	1.3	0.3	3.1	2.2	25.0	40.4	5.1	4.4	7.4	10.4	0.2	100.01959	1.4	0.4	3.1	2.2	24.9	40.5	5.1	4.3	7.3	10.4	0.2	100.01960	1.4	0.3	3.1	2.3	25.1	40.2	5.1	4.6	7.2	10.3	0.2	100.01961	1.5	0.3	3.2	2.2	26.0	40.5	4.9	3.6	7.3	10.2	0.2	100.01962	1.4	0.4	3.1	2.2	25.7	39.9	5.1	4.7	7.3	10.0	0.2	100.01963	1.4	0.3	3.0	2.2	25.5	40.1	4.8	4.9	7.3	10.1	0.2	100.01964	1.4	0.4	3.0	2.2	26.1	40.2	4.9	4.2	7.1	10.2	0.2	100.01965	1.4	0.3	2.9	2.2	26.0	40.3	4.7	4.4	7.1	10.3	0.2	100.01966	1.4	0.3	2.8	2.1	25.9	40.3	4.5	4.5	7.3	10.4	0.2	100.01967	1.4	0.3	2.9	2.2	26.2	40.5	4.6	4.0	7.2	10.4	0.2	100.01968	1.4	0.3	2.9	2.2	25.9	40.6	4.7	4.2	7.3	10.3	0.2	100.0Personal Income Per Capita	(Dollars)	1949	475	543	728	667	804	1,140	1,982	958	1,033	1,183	-	9671950	519	552	760	703	845	1,205	1,007	858	1,019	1,264	9981951	560	633	804	779	967	1,355	1,169	1,266	1,299	1,375	1,040	1,1531952	588	780	896	810	1,050	1,440	1,218	1,418	1,343	1,479	1,200	1,2381953	650	634	938	816	1,103	1,499	1,211	1,300	1,368	1,528	1,280	1,2751954	666	683	958	841	1,106	1,489	1,173	914	1,236	1,522	1,370	1,2431955	695	650	977	872	1,136	1,561	1,235	1,178	1,318	1,610	1,414	1,3111956	759	838	1,027	937	1,225	1,665	1,374	1,341	1,499	1,716	1,742	1,4191957	797	778	1,096	970	1,300	1,758	1,384	1,158	1,466	1,789	1,774	1,4751958	801	820	1,130	998	1,320	1,798	1,507	1,272	1,580	1,756	1,667	1,5161959	841	941	1,193	1,055	1,361	1,862	1,558	1,302	1,595	1,828	1,647	1,5691960	895	942	1,242	1,104	1,411	1,904	1,613	1,461	1,615	1,856	1,583	1,6181961	932	943	1,256	1,099	1,455	1,908	1,546	1,146	1,607	1,843	1,486	1,6131962	951	1,047	1,307	1,147	1,532	2,007	1,712	1,604	1,711	1,924	1,400	1,7211963	998	1,056	1,370	1,217	1,588	2,111	1,727	1,788	1,767	2,022	1,561	1,8021964	1,070	1,165	1,452	1,311	1,710	2,222	1,853	1,616	1,821	2,145	1,524	1,8981965	1,154	1,248	1,562	1,416	1,857	2,409	1,969	1,879	1,992	2,334	1,610	2,0661966	1,274	1,367	1,713	1,571	2,045	2,648	2,153	2,154	2,281	2,542	1,674	2,2831967	1,398	1,532	1,904	1,737	2,239	2,842	2,407	2,089	2,419	2,693	2,182	2,4611968	1,467	1,682	2,072	1,897	2,406	3,065	2,654	2,386	2,645	2,842	2,326	2,660
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 12 (continued)
PERSONAL INCOME, CANADA AND BY PROVINCE 1949 to 1968
Year	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Y.T. and N.W.T.	Canada
				Annual per cent change of Personal Income Per Capita								
1950	9.1	1.8	4.4	5.4	5.1	5.7	2.6	-10.4	-1.4	6.8	'	3.21951	7.9	14.6	5.8	10.8	14.4	12.4	16.1	47.5	27.6	8.8	-	15.51952	5.1	23.3	11.4	4.0	8.6	6.4	4.2	12.0	3.4	7.5	15.4	7.31953	10.5	-18.8	4.7	0.8	5.0	4.0	-0.6	-8.3	1.8	3.3	6.7	3.01954	2.4	7.8	2.2	3.0	0.3	-0.6	-3.2	-29.7	-9.7	-0.4	7.1	-2.51955	4.3	-4.9	1.9	3.7	2.7	4.8	5.3	28.8	6.7	5.8	3.2	5.41956	9.3	29.0	5.2	7.4	7.9	6.7	11.3	13.8	13.7	6.6	23.2	8.31957	5.0	-7.2	6.6	3.5	6.1	5.6	0.7	-13.6	-2.2	4.3	1.9	3.91958	0.5	5.4	3.1	2.9	1.5	2.3	8.9	9.8	7.7	-1.9	-6.1	2.81959	5.0	14.7	5.6	5.7	3.1	3.5	3.3	2.4	1.0	4.1	-1.2	3.41960	6.4	0.1	4.1	4.6	3.7	2.3	3.5	12.2	1.2	1.5	-3.9	3.21961	4.2	0.1	1.2	-0.4	3.1	0.2	-4.2	-21.6	-0.5	-0.7	-6.1	-0.41962	2.0	11.0	4.0	4.4	5.2	5.2	10.7	40.0	6.5	4.4	-5.8	6.71963	5.0	0.8	4.8	6.1	3.7	5.2	0.9	11.4	3.2	5.1	11.5	4.71964	7.3	10.4	6.0	7.7	7.7	5.3	7.3	-9.6	3.1	6.1	-2.4	5.41965	7.8	7.1	7.6	8.0	8.6	8.4	6.3	16.3	9.4	8.8	5.6	8.91966	10.4	9.6	9.7	11.0	10.1	9.9	9.3	14.6	14.5	8.9	4.0	10.51967	9.8	12.1	11.1	10.6	9.5	7.3	11.8	-3.0	6.0	6.0	30.3	7.81968	5.0	9.8	8.9	9.2	7.5	7.9	10.3	14.3	9.3	5.5	6.6	8.1Personal Income Per Capita by Province as a	Percentage of Personal Income Per Capita at the Nationa	Level1949	49	56	75	69	83	118	102	99	107	122	1001950	52	55	76	70	85	121	101	86	102	127	1001951	49	55	70	68	84	118	101	110	113	119	90	1001952	48	63	72	66	85	117	99	115	109	120	97	1001953	51	50	74	64	87	118	95	102	107	120	101	1001954	54	55	77	68	89	120	94	74	100	123	110	1001955	53	50	75	67	87	119	94	90	101	123	108	1001956	54	59	72	66	86	117	97	95	106	121	123	1001957	54	53	74	66	88	119	94	79	100	121	120	1001958	53	54	75	66	87	119	100	84	104	116	110	1001959	54	60	76	67	87	119	100	83	102	117	105	1001960	55	58	77	68	87	118	100	90	100	115	98	1001961	58	59	78	68	90	119	96	71	100	115	92	1001962	55	61	76	67	89	117	100	93	100	112	82	1001963	56	59	76	68	88	117	96	99	98	113	87	1001964	57	62	77	69	90	117	98	85	96	113	80	1001965	56	61	76	69	90	117	96	91	97	113	78	1001966	56	60	75	69	90	116	94	95	100	112	74	1001967	57	62	78	71	91	116	98	85	99	110	89	1001968	55	63	78	71	91	115	100	90	100	107	88	100
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
Note: Canada figure includes personal income of Canadians temporarily abroad (including pay and allowances of Canadian armed Forces abroad).
(^Figures do not cross-add. See note.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
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	6,963.4(D	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	1,793.4I960	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	1,760.5196K2)	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	2,241.71966	22,415.9	1,840.2	5,857.1	8,496.9	3,800.5	2,421.11967	23,785.2	1,894.8	6,108.0	8,870.4	4,012.8	2,547.61968	25,412.4	2,102.4	6,459.6	9,806.4	4,245.6	2,796.01969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted)	1969 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	246.8M	2,228.0	191.9	553.2	861.9	367.0	250.3A	2,211.5	167.5	571.8	866.4	363 .7	242.2M	2,228.1	171.4	563 .5	865.9	368.7	264.2J	2,242.0	175.7	559.5	875.2	371.3	253.7J	2,242.1	179.6	568.8	883.5	373.8	248.7A	2,261.7	181.8	566.5	885.5	376.6	250.4S	2,284.4	189.0	585.4	901.1	371.5	256.50	2,314.3	182.4	587.8	892.1	374.4	263.7
Note: Figures may not cross-add due to rounding.
(^Excludes Newfoundland.	_
<2>Break in series is due to changes in the Standard Industrial Classification.
Source: DBS Retail Trade, Monthly, Cat. 63-005.
4822
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 14
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN CANADA 1947 to 1969 (Millions of dollars)
Years	Capital Expenditures	Repair Expend- itures	Total	Capital Expenditures	Repair Expend- itures	TotalCons- truction	Machinery and Equip- ment	Sub- 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	1,8061960	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	1,089	1,327	2,416	923	3,339	710	1,962	2,672	1,202	3,874Utilities	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	1,0011960	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	2,183	1,384	3,567	1,048	4,615	839	890	1,729	276	2,005
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
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	2,6051965	867	145	1,012	82	1,094	2,133	2,133	618	2,7511966	1,020	184	1,204	93	1,297	2,181	-	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	1,252	218	1,470	132	1,602	3,258	-	3,258	972	4,030Government 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	4,5571949	338	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	8,1821954	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	10,5541957	1,025	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	10,9781959	1,128	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	11,1931962	1,130	128	1,258	388	1,646	5,787	2,928	8,715	3,161	11,8761963	1,154	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	16,7921966	1,702	222	1,924	526	2,450	9,283	5,807	15,090	4,365	19,4551967	1,731	215	1,946	573	2,519	9,448	5,874	15,322	4,700	20,0221968	1,891	196	2,087	526	2,613	10,136	5,542	15,678	4,667	20,3451969	2,053	191	2,244	550	2,794	11,384	5,972	17,356	4,903	22,259
Note: 1968 figures are preliminary actual and 1969 figures are a revised forecast.
Source: DBS and Department of Trade and Commerce Private and Public Inveetment in Canada, Occasional, Cat. 61-504, Annual, Cat. 61-205.
21774-28*
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
Reference Table 15
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTMENT BY REGION 1952 to 1969
Years
Newfoundland
Prince Edward	Nova Scotia	New	AtlanticIsland	Brunswick	Region
(Millions of dollars)
Quebec
1952	
1953	
1954	
1955	
1956	
1957	
1958	
1959	
1960	
1961	
1962	
1963	
1964	
1965	
1966	
1967	
1968	
1969	86 80 73 89 94 100 107 115 146 184 261 236 231 228 341 359 414 454	17 18 19 21 24 22 30 37 37 38 43 43 39 57 57 45 44 41	133 157 156 164 183 188 185 226 234 224 223 234 270 318 412 463 498 557	104 108 119 168 186 159 182 203 180 171 179 189 257 334 391 377 333 383	340 363 367 442 487 469 504 581 597 617 706 702 797 937 1,201 1,244 1,289 1,435	1,283 1,374 1,362 1,546 1,851 2,029 2,054 2,094 2.007 2.008 2,154 2.301 2,828 3,206 3,446 3,214 3.301 3,467Ontario	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	Prairie Region	British Columbia &>(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	6,422	876	894	1,982	3,752	2,280
Note: 1968 figures are preliminary actual and 1969 figures are a revised forecast. (^Includes Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Source: DBS and Department of Trade and Commerce Private and Public Investment in Canada.

March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 16

[Stage Direction]
1953 to 1969
Years	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Columbia*1)
		(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	-	-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	10.7	11.3	5.0	16.3	6.2	12.1
Note: 1968 figures are preliminary actual and 1969 figures are a revised forecast. (1)See footnote (1) on reference table 15.
Source: DBS and Department of Trade and Commerce Private and Public Investment in Canada.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 17
DWELLING STARTS, COMPLETIONS AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Starts	Completions	Under Construction^1)	Centres of 5,000 Population ana Over**)	Other Areas	Total	Centres of 5,000 Population ana Over1*)	Other Areas	Total	Centres of 5,000 Population and Over<*>	Total(Number	of units)	1947	n.a.	n.a.	74,300	44,600	27,600	72,200	n.a.	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	59,5031950	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	59,9231954	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	72,5731958	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	81,9051960	76,687	32,171	108,858	90,513	33,244	1213,757	44,975	65,7731961	92,741	32.836	125,577	83,148	32,460	115,608	53,195	73,5831962	104,279	25,816	130,095	100,447	26,235	126,682	60,541	76,1531963	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	102,7161968	162,267	34,611	196,878	136,337	34,656	170,993	106,834	126,6381969	169,739	40,676	210,415	159,089	36,737	195,826	114,386	137,357(Seasonally adjusted at annual	rates)	1968 I	165,300	36,500	201,800	128,900	35,300	164,200	83,500	105,900II	154,100	35,000	189,100	128,200	34,200	162,400	93,200	112,900Ill	139,900	33,900	173,800	138,500	36,100	174,600	94,000	112,900IV	196,600	34,500	231,100	148,800	33,200	182,000	100,000	120,8001969 I	227,200	47,800	275,000	143,900	31,100	175,000	117,900	143,600II	169,800	43,800	213,600	169,900	36,500	206,400	117,200	142,000Ill	153,500	40,600	194,100	160,300	41,100	201,400	116,000	140,300IV	155,200	35,000	190,200	160,000	37,900	197,500	130,500	152,500
(*>At end of period.
WData for years 1967 to 1969 and all quarters are based on areas of 10,000 population and over.
Source: CMHC Canadian Housing Statistics.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 18
DWELLING STARTS AND COMPLETIONS BY TYPE 1947 to 1969
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.	72,2181918	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	73,0871953	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 i 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	170'9931969	78,404	10,373	10,721	110,917	210,415	78,584	10,483	7,827	98,932	195^826(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 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 j4771969 I	13,177	1,892	1,646	22,167	38,882	15,840	2,119	1,319	18,373	37,651II	24,712	3,035	2,922	33,079	63,748	18,368	2,738	1,715	29,732	52,553Ill	22,447	2,996	2,716	30,484	58,643	21,696	2,649	2,298	23,368	50 OilIV	18,068	2,450	3,437	25,187	49,142	22,680	2,977	2,495	27,459	55,611
Source: CMHC Canadian Housing Statistics.
CMHC Housing in Canada.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 19
MANUFACTURERS' INVENTORIES, SHIPMENTS AND ORDERS (Monthly averages)
1961 to 1969
Years, Quarters and Months	Manufacturing	Durable Manufacturing	Non-Durable Manufacturing	Ship- ments	New Orders Received	Unfilled Orders	Total Inven- tories Held	Ratio of Goods in Process 4-Finished Products to Ship- ments	Ship- ments	New Orders Received	Unfilled Orders	Ship- ments	New Orders Received	Unfilled Orders(Millions of dollars)	1961..	1,953.2	1,985.0(D	1,959.9	4,529.4	1.35	769.3	792.KD	1,525.9	1,183 .9	1,192 .90)	434.01962	2,149.2	2,158.3	2,177.2	4,866.9	1.34	882.6	894.0	1,747.3	1,266.6	1,264.0	430.01963	2,334.6	2,344.4	2,198.6	5,085.0	1.31	987.6	994.6	1.783.6	1,347 .0	1,349.8	415.01964	2,571.4	2,600.9	2,497.2	5,435.9	1.26	1,120.7	1,150.9	2,069.4	1,450.7	1,450.0	427.81965	2,824.1	2,866.9	2,950.3	5,951.7	1.25	1,281.2	1,358.1	2,950.2	1,542.9	1,548.8	459.51966	3,077.4	3,126.5	3,523.3	6,661 .8	1.30	1,404.9	1,455.2	3,043.9	1,672.4	1,671.2	479.41967	3,211.1	3,211.2	3,740.9	7,178.7	1.38	1,454.3	1,456.2	3,278.1	1,756.8	1,754 .9	462.81968	3,387.4	3,378.6	3,663.8	7.220.7	1.32	1,569.9	1,556.6	3.177.9	1,817.8	1,822.2	488.21969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	3,226.2	3,192.3	3,711.7	7,205.3	1.37	1,445.3	1,401.1	3,237.5	1,780.9	1,791.2	474.2II....	3,344.8	3,328.2	3,644.6	7,159.2	1.32	1,534.8	1,523.6	3,164.3	1,809.9	1,804.6	480.3III...	3,458.2	3,465.7	3,629 .0	7,237.1	1.30	1,644.5	1,640.7	3,142.8	1,813.7	1,824 .9	486.1IV...	3,521.7	3,529.3	3,679.0	7,288.3	1.28	1,655.1	1,661.1	3,167.0	1,866.6	1,868.2	512.01969 I	3,602.9	3.595.6	3,674 .7	7,425.6	1.27	1,712.0	1,706.4	3,174.0	1,890.9	1,889.2	500.6II....	3,585.2	3,615.3	3,695.7	7,546.8	1.31	1,673.7	1,704.1	3,192.9	1,911.5	1,911.1	502 .7III...	3,674.1	3,734.2	3,850.3	7,720.7	1.31	1,743.6	1,797.2	3,343.6	1,930.5	1,937.0	506.7IV...	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted)	1969 J	3,539.2	3,518.3	3,656.8	7,371.6	1.29	1,671.8	1,659.9	3,158.6	1,867.4	1,858.4	498.2F	3,638.5	3,693.2	3,711.5	7,434.5	1.26	1,734 .9	1,786.1	3,209.8	1,903.6	1,907.1	501.7M....	3.631.1	3,575.3	3,655.7	7,470.6	1.27	1,729.3	1,673 .2	3,153.7	1,901.8	1,902.1	502.0A....	3,509.6	3,539.1	3,685.2	7,505.5	1.33	1.626.0	1,650.7	3,178.4	1,883.6	1,888.4	506.8M....	3,593.3	3,564.0	3,655.9	7,544.3	1.31	1,696.5	1,673 .5	3,155.4	1,896.8	1,890.5	500.5J	3,652.7	3,742.7	3,745.9	7,590 .5	1.30	1,698.6	1.788.2	3,245.0	1,954.1	1,954.5	500.9J	3,676.3	3,740.7	3,815.9	7,694.6	1.30	1,717.1	1,790.5	3,322.2	1,959.2	1.950.2	493 .7A....	3,702.6	3,689.6	3,802.9	7,715.1	1.30	1,791.5	1,768.2	3.298.9	1,911.1	1,921.4	504.0S....	3,658.0	3,770.2	3,915.1	7,727.5	1.30	1,707.1	1,803.7	3,395.5	1,950.9	1,966.5	519.60...	3,683.1	3.634.3	3,866.3	7,821.0	1.32	1,724.9	1,689.9	3,360.5	1,958.2	1,944.4	505.8Np...	3,672.2	3,741.1	3,935.2	7,857.6	1.33	1,692.2	1,746.1	3.414.4	1,980.0	1,995.0	520.8
p=preliminary
(^Eleven month average for 1961 only.
Source: DBS Inventories, Shipments and Orders in Manufacturing Industries. Monthly, Cat. 31-001.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 20
MANUFACTURERS' SHIPMENTS, CANADA AND BY REGION 1961 to 1969
Years and months	Nfld.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Canada 0)
					(Millions of dollars)					
1961	11.3	31.8	32.5	585.2	963.6	59.7	27.7	77.9	160.6	1,953.21962	12.0	35.5	33.4	632.5	1,076.6	62.8	29.3	84.6	179.2	2,149.21963	12.9	38.2	38.0	672.7	1,188.5	66.1	30.9	90.4	193.5	2,334.61964	13.8	43.6	41.2	731.2	1,320.3	71.8	31.8	99.5	214.5	2,571.41965	14.5	46.9	42.7	791.0	1,473.0	76.1	35.1	106.9	233.8	2,824.11966	15.8	49.9	44.5	865.0	1,606.1	84.4	38.5	115.3	253.7	3,077.41967	14.7	50.6	45.6	912.1	1,666.5	87.7	39.1	123.7	266.8	3,211.11968	14.0	54.2	47.5	944.5	1,772.9	90.8	39.7	127.3	292.7	3,387.41969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Per cent change from previous year)	1962	6.2	11.6	2.8	8.1	11.7	5.2	5.8	8.6	11.6	10.01963	7.5	7.6	13.8	6.4	10.4	5.3	5.5	6.9	8.0	8.61964	7.0	14.1	8.4	8.7	11.1	8.6	2.9	10.1	10.9	10.11965	5.1	7.6	3.6	8.2	11.6	6.0	10.4	7.4	9.0	9.81966	9.0	6.4	4.2	9.4	9.0	10.9	9.7	7.9	8.5	9.01967	-7.0	1.4	2.5	5.4	3.8	3.9	1.6	7.3	5.2	4.31968	-4.8	7.1	4.2	3.6	6.4	3.5	1.5	2.9	9.7	5.51969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Millions	of dollars not	seasonally adjusted)	1968 J	11.7	48.5	42.6	838.6	1,610.2	80.8	35.0	113.5	263.5	3,047.7F	12.4	46.4	42.7	881.0	1,567.1	82.9	34.2	116.6	262.9	3,048.9M	12.3	53.8	44.6	916.0	1,680.9	91.2	38.9	128.1	291.9	3,260.7A	12.1	53.9	46.0	912.4	1,794.7	88.2	36.3	129.5	281.4	3,357.3M	14.2	55.4	54.3	974.4	1,898.8	96.2	45.1	137.6	310.0	3,591.6J	14.8	52.7	51.2	942.4	1,818.8	97.6	43.8	135.3	313.2	3,474.4J	15.0	56.9	49.8	887.2	1,654.8	95.2	44.5	137.1	276.0	3,221.0A	15.3	53.6	49.1	977.7	1,565.5	96.2	41.9	138.8	294.2	3,326.8S	13.4	55.2	45.9	1,000.4	1,886.0	91.5	40.8	128.9	299.2	3,566.0O	16.1	59.8	50.4	1,063.4	2,030.0	96.1	43.7	125.9	316.0	3,805.2N	15.0	56.2	47.5	1,002.1	1,957.5	90.4	36.0	121.4	307.8	3,637.3D	15.9	57.4	45.2	938.6	1,810.1	83.8	36.7	114.7	296.4	3,402.11969 J	13.8	56.0	44.4	901.8	1,782.1	85.0	33.7	118.8	270.4	3,309.6F	12.0	50.0	42.3	918.7	1,740.5	87.7	35.2	124.3	301.8	3,316.2M	15.4	58.9	46.2	999.2	1,972.8	92.9	37.1	132.7	336.1	3,695.0A	11.5	54.2	45.2	982.9	1,914.7	94.4	40.0	132.1	322.2	3,500.8M	14.9	61.8	49.6	1,017.0	1,992.0	96.8	44.2	140.4	343.8	3,764.1J	18.6	60.1	50.9	1,027.0	1,997.0	98.5	45.3	143.7	333.5	3,778.5J	19.0	56.4	51.3	981.3	1,798.7	100.2	45.4	142.0	308.0	3,507.0A	17.9	58.6	52.2	1,003.3	1,643.4	101.6	48.9	145.7	300.8	3,376.8Sp	17.8	57.0	54.2	1,095.1	1,952.5	96.6	47.3	143.4	314.5	3,782.4
p = preliminary
Note: Annual figures are twelve month averages.
WPrince Edward Island, Yukon and Northwest Territories are not published separately. They are included in the total for Canada.
Source: DBS Inventories. Shipments and Orders in Manufacturing Industries.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 21
INDEXES OF REAL DOMESTIC PRODUCT BY INDUSTRY 1947 to 1969 (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)	(4.567)	(95.443)	(4.298)	(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	80.5	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	149.71969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 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	152.71969 I	152.1	150.9	152.2	160.8	167.7	150.7	188.4	161.2II 	151.4	147.0	151.6	149.1	168.2	150.6	189.8	160.7Ill	151.4	142.7	151.9	139.5	167.6	152.4	186.2	160.4IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 21 (Continued)
INDEXES OF REAL DOMESTIC PRODUCT BY INDUSTRY 1947 to 1969 (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	n.a.	65.5	1951	40.9	65.9	63.7	62.5	64.5	n.a.	68.5	1952	44.5	69.6	68.0	66.4	69.0	n.a.	71.7	1953	46.7	70.5	72.6	70.3	74.0	n.a.	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	n.a.	82.4	1957	69.5	87.4	89.2	87.3	90.4	n.a.	85.0	n.a.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	120.11969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 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	119.41969 I	186.1	159.7	143.9	139.6	146.5	133.6	149.9	119.3II	186.6	152.3	144.7	142.2	146.1	135.6	151.3	119.7Ill	191.2	153.2	147.1	146.4	147.5	137.0	153.2	119.7IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Source: DBS Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry (1961 Base), Occasional, Cat. 61-506. DBS Index of Industrial Production, Monthly, Cat. 61-005.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 22

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969 (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)	1947	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	0.91952	7.7	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	11.11956	8.5	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	-4.81960	2.4	4.6	2.1	0.1	1.7	2.7	0.5	-1.71961	2.0	-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	0.51968	4.5	7.1	4.4	3.2	5.1	4.6	5.6	5.11969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	1.5	12.3	1.0	0.3	0.3	2.4	-1.8	1.1II	1.4	-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	0.61969 I	2.4	9.5	2.1	4.1	1.6	2.2	1.0	5.6II	-0.5	-2.6	-0.4	-7.3	0.3	-0.1	0.7	-0.3Ill	-2.9	0.2	-6.4	-0.4	1.2	-1.9	-0.2IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 22 (Continued)

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969 (1961=100)
Years and Quarters	Electric Power, Gas and Water Utilities	Trans- portation, Storage and Communi- cation	Trade	Finance, Insurance and Real Estate	Community, Business and Personal Service	Public Adminis- tration and DefenceTotal	Wholesale	Retail	(Per cent change from previous period)	1947	13.1	8.5	9.0	7.8	9.4	4.1	1948	5.6	1.6	-1.4	0.7	-2.4	3.2	1949	5.3	0.2	4.3	2.6	5.0	n.a.	4.3	n.a.1950	13.3	3.4	7.1	3.8	8.9	3.3	1951	14.2	9.5	1.1	8.3	-2.3	4.6	1952	8.8	5.6	6.8	6.2	7.0	4.7	1953	4.9	1.3	6.8	5.9	7.2	3.8	1954	9.4	-2.4	1.1	0.6	1.4	n.a.	1.9	n.a.1955	13.3	13.5	11.4	13.0	10.5	2.5	1956	11.6	11.5	9.0	10.5	8.2	6.0	1957	7.6	0.3	-	-1.1	0.8	3.2	1958	9.8	-3.4	2.4	1.8	2.5	3.8	1959	13.5	8.1	6.7	10.2	4.9	n.a.	5.4	n.a.1960	9.0	3.0	0.2	-0.7	0.7	4.0	1961	5.9	6.5	2.5	2.8	2.1	3.4	1962	7.1	4.1	5.7	5.4	5.8	4.0	5.4	3.41963	5.0	6.7	3.8	3.5	4.0	4.0	4.2	0.61964	9.7	8.3	5.8	6.4	5.6	4.4	6.6	1.21965	8.6	5.8	7.2	8.2	6.6	3.8	7.4	0 91966	10.3	7.2	4.4	3.4	5.0	2.8	5.4	2.91967	9.2	5.8	4.3	3.5	4.8	4.4	4.8	6.91968	8.1	4.1	3.5	3.3	3.7	3.9	3.8	2.8n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	2.6	2.6	-0.1	-0.8	0.4	0.9	1.1	2.0II	0.9	-0.8	1.7	4.7	-0.1	0.9	0.6	-0.2Ill	4.1	0,7	1.4	-3.1	4.0	0.6	1.1	-0.3IV	2.1	2.9	-0.1	-0.8	0.4	0.8	2.0	-0.3i969 I	2.5	3.6	1.8	1.7	1.9	1.1	1.8	-0.1II	0.3	-4.6	0.6	1.9	-0.3	1.5	0.9	0.3Ill	2.5	0.6	1.7	3.0	1.0	1.0	1.3	IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Source: DBS Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry (1961 Base). DBS Index of Industrial Production (1961=100).
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 23

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969 (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	151.71958	147.1	147.9	154.7	157.1	138.1	135.9	138.3	159.81969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	144.2	144.6	150.5	152.0	136.6	134.5	n.a.	154.9II	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.	165.11969 I	154.7	154.9	164.3	165.9	142.6	138.4	n.a.	168.4II	153.6	154.0	163.2	165.1	142.3	139.5	n.a.	167.3Ill	153.5	154.1	161.3	163.4	143.8	140.4	n.a.	165.9IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Source: DBS Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry (1961 Base). DBS Index of Industrial Production.
DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends.
March 12. 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 24

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969
Yea re 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	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	-	1.7	5.0	5.9	4.7	1.81968	4.5	4.4	5.5	5.2	3.7	4.2	3.2	5.31969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 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.	3.01969 X	2.7	2.2	2.9	2.3	1.8	0.9	2.0II	-0.7	-0.6	-0.7	-0.5	-0.2	0.8	0.7Ill	-0.1	0.1	-1.2	-1.0	1.1	0.6	n.a.	-0.8IV	1	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Source: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends.
DBS Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry (1961 Base). DBS Index of Industrial Production (1961=100).
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 25
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	1,1991955 	10,597	5,610	4,341	1,269	5,364	4,128	1,2361956 	10,807	5,782	4,437	1,346	5,585	4,266	1,3201957 	11,123	6,008	4,573	1,435	5,731	4,329	1,4021958 	11,388	6,137	4,641	1,496	5,706	4,263	1,4421959	11,605	6,242	4,687	1,554	5,870	4,363	1,507I960 	11,831	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	1,7371963	12,536	6,748	4,879	1,870	6,375	4.567	1,8081964	12,817	6,933	4,961	1,972	6,609	4,698	1,9111965	13,128	7,141	5,065	2,076	6,862	4,842	2,0201966 	13,475	7,420	5,193	2,227	7,152	4,983	2,1691967 	13,874	7,694	5,329	2,365	7,379	5,083	2,2961968 	14,264	7,919	5,443	2,476	7,537	5,146	2,3911969	14,638	8,163	5,560	2,603	7,780	5,272	2,508(Seasonally adjusted12*)	1969 J	14,470	8,099	5,534	2,583	7,753	5,265	2,486F	14,495	8,128	5,533	2,605	7,779	5,265	2,515M 	14,528	8,108	5,529	2,566	7,771	5,287	2,479A 	14,557	8,207	5,571	2,647	7,842	5,283	2,554M 	14,592	8,244	5,606	2,633	7,840	5,305	2,532J 	14,619	8,258	5,626	2,605	7,835	5,316	2,509J 	14,651	8,155	5,554	2,594	7,768	5,264	2,504A	14,687	8,143	5,551	2,590	7,745	5,249	2,495s	14,719	8,151	5,527	2,593	7,744	5,243	2,497o	14,748	8,128	5,548	2,607	7,742	5,248	2,504N	14,778	8,162	5,562	2,590	7,747	5,262	2,509D	14,809	8,193	5,579	2,614	7,798	5,279	2,517
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 25 (Continued)
MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE LABOUR MARKET*" 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	581956	3.4	3.9	1.9	53.5	82.2	24.9	197	165	911957	4.6	5.3	2.3	54.0	82.3	25.8	278	282	1521958	7.0	8.1	3.6	53.9	81.7	26.2	432	125	631959	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	541961	7.1	8.4	3.7	54.1	79.8	28.7	466	72	351962	5.9	6.9	3.3	53.9	79.1	29.0	390	75	371963	5.5	6.4	3.3	53.8	78.5	29.6	374	93	461964	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	741966	3.6	4.0	2.6	55.1	77.8	32.8	267	195	991967	4.1	4.6	3.0	55.5	77.5	33.8	315	223	1201968	4.8	5.5	3.4	55.5	77.0	34.4	382	184	951969	4.7	5.2	3.6	55.8	76.6	35.3	383	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted*2))	1969 J	4.3	4.7	3.6	56.0	77.1	35.3	346	F	4.3	4.8	3.4	56.1	76.9	35.6	349	31	17M	4.2	4.6	3.2	55.9	76.7	35.0	337	A	4.4	5.0	3.4	56.5	77.2	36.0	365	M	4.9	5.4	3.8	56.4	77.4	35.8	404	40	21J	5.1	5.7	3.6	56.4	77.7	35.4	423	J	4.7	5.3	3.5	55.7	76.5	35.2	387	A	4.9	5.4	3.7	55.3	76.3	35.0	398	49	25S	5.0	5.6	3.7	55.2	75.8	34.9	407	o	5.3	5.9	4.0	55.2	75.9	35.1	436	N	5.1	5.6	4.0	55.1	76.0	34.8	415	n.a.	n.a.D	4.8	5.4	3.7	55.3	76.0	35.0	397	
<1>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.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 26
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	4.11969	2.6	3.1	2.1	5.1	3.2	2.4	4.9(Seasonally adjusted(1>)	1969 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	8.5M	2.7	4.8	3.3	8.2	4.8	3.4	7.8J	2.6	3.0	1.9	5.5	3.3	2.3	5.6J	2.6	2.6	1.7	5.1	3.1	2.1	5.5A	2.6	2.5	1.6	4.5	2.6	1.7	4.6S	2.6	2.0	1.3	3.2	1.8	1.2	3.00	2.6	1.9	1.2	3.2	1.6	1.1	2.7N	2.6	1.2	1.2	1.1	1.0	1.3	0.6D	2.6	2.0	1.7	2.7	1.9	1.7	2.4
(^Population figures are not seasonally adjusted. Source: DBS The Labour Force.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 27
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	5.91969	38.0	31.1	84.2	59.3	96.8	38.6	91.0	35.5	23.6	5.5Seasonally adjusted)	1969 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	5.7M	39.7	32.7	86.1	60.9	97.2	39.2	91.3	34.8	24.1	5.9J	41.9	33.8	85.6	60.7	96.9	38.1	90.8	34.6	24.5	5.9J	36.7	31.1	85.6	60.9	96.8	38.3	90.8	34.8	23.7	5.7A	34.5	30.9	85.5	60.3	96.7	38.4	90.9	34.7	23.5	5.3S	36.9	30.5	81.5	58.8	96.4	38.3	90.8	35.2	23.1	5.20	37.0	30.8	82.6	59.0	96.4	38.7	90.8	35.4	22.8	5.2N	37.2	30.4	81.8	58.5	96.6	38.8	91.0	34.8	22.9	4.3D	38.3	29.0	82.1	57.6	96.4	39.0	90.8	35.6	22.0	4.9
Source: DBS The Labour Force.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 28
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	5.3	2.5	2.9	1.9	3.7	1.51967	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	2.01969	12.5	8.9	7.5	3.7	3.8	2.5	4.2	2.2(Seasonally adjusted)	1969 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	2.2M	13.9	8.8	7.5	4.2	3.9	2.8	4.1	2.1J	11.9	10.5	7.7	3.3	4.5	2.6	4.3	1.8J	13.4	8.1	7.4	4.0	3.6	2.2	4.5	1.6A	11.2	8.4	7.7	3.1	4.2	2.8	4.6	2.2s	10.3	9.1	7.1	3.5	4.7	2.9	4.6	2.90	13.4	8.2	9.5	4.3	4.2	2.8	4.5	2.6N	11.8	9.1	8.0	5.3	4.5	2.3	4.4	2.3D	12.5	9.8	7.9	4.0	4.1	2.5	4.7	2.0
Source: DBS The Labour Force.
March 12. 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 29
PARTICIPATION RATES, CANADA AND BY REGION 1954 to 1969
Years and Months	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Columbia
		(Labour Force as a percent of population 14 years and over)				
1954	52.9	46.0	53.7	55.9	51.0	50.41955	52.9	46.4	53.5	55.7	51.4	50.91956	53.5	46.6	53.1	56.9	52.4	51.51957	54.0	47.7	53.6	57.2	52.9	51.91958	53.9	47.0	54.0	56.4	53.8	51.51959	53.8	47.0	53.5	56.2	54.2	51.71960	54.2	47.1	53.6	57.0	54.7	51.71961	54.1	48.1	52.8	56.7	55.6	51.81962	53.9	47.8	52.5	56.3	55.7	52.31963	53.8	46.8	52.6	56.5	55.0	52.81964	54.1	47.0	52.6	57.0	55.1	53.61965	54.4	48.1	53.2	56 7	1966	55.1	48.6	54.3	57.2	55.7	54.91967	55.5	48.5	54.8	57.6	55.8	55.81968	55.5	48.2	54.3	57.7	56.8	56.01969	55.8	48.1	54.5	58.0	56.9	56.7(Seasonally adjusted)	1969 J	56.0	48.6	54.5	58.4	57.6	55.8F	56.1	48.5	54.2	58.7	58.0	56.0M	55.9	48.0	54.4	58.1	57.4	55.7A	56.5	49.1	55.0	58.5	57.5	57.0M	56.4	49.2	54.9	58.9	57.5	57.8J	56.4	48.4	55.5	58.1	57.4	58.4J	55.7	48.2	54.9	57.8	56.6	55.7A	55.3	48.0	55.0	57.2	56.7	55.9S	55.2	47.3	54.2	57.5	54.7	56.80	55.2	47.6	54.4	57.5	56.0	57.1N	55.1	47.1	54.1	57.4	56.1	57.5D	55.3	47.1	53.9	57.8	56.4	56.8
Source: DBS The Labour Force
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1S70
Reference Table 30
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 Ontario	British Colum- bia
		(Thousands of persons)					(Per cent change from same period a year ago)					
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	4.61969	8,163	654	2,290	3,032	1,351	836	3.1	1.7	2.8	3.3	2.5	4.9(Seasonally adjusted)	1969 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	6.1M	8,244	669	2,290	3,071	1,362	850	4.8	3.6	3.5	5.2	4.2	8.0J	8,258	662	2,324	3,035	1,362	856	3.0	1.5	2.7	2.6	3.2	6.3J	8,155	660	2,303	3,028	1,344	823	2.6	1.7	3.0	3.0	2.0	3.0A	8,143	659	2,318	3,004	1,349	828	2.5	1.4	3.0	2.2	2.0	3.5S	8,151	649	2,293	3,027	1,338	844	2.0	0.2	1.7	2.3	1.0	5.50	8,178	653	2,308	3,035	1,341	852	1.9	1.4	2.6	1.3	0.4	6.2N	8,162	6*6	2,297	3,030	1,342	859	1.2	0.5	1.9	0.6	-1.0	5.8D	8,193	646	2,288 ;	3,064	14352	852	2.0	1.1	1.6	2.9	0.2	3.1
Source DBS The Labour Force.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 31
EMPLOYMENT, CANADA AND BY REGION 1954 to 1969
Years		Atlantic			
and Months	Canada	Region	Quebec	Ontario	Region
1954.
1955.
1956.
1957.
1958.
1959.
1960.
1961.
1962.. 1963.
1964..
1965..
1966..
1967..
1968..
1969..
1969 J.. F.. M. A..

[Stage Direction]
(Thousands of persons)
5,243
5,364
5,585
5,731
5,706
5,870
5,965
6,055
6,225
6,375
6,609
6,802
7,152
7,379
7,537
7,780
7,753
7,779
7,771
7,842
7,840
7,835
7,768
7,745
7,744
7,742
7,747
7,798
468	1,470	1,945	925478	1,493	1,993	939489	1,535	2,096	976492	1,576	2,161	992469	1,582	2,142	1,013482	1,620	2,198	1,049492	1,639	2,249	1,069507	1,652	2,269	1,100516	1,713	2,317	1,129522	1,762	2,382	1,138542	1,827	2,473	1,162566	1,912	2,548	1,196586	2,016	2,651	1,222593	2,080	2,745	1,238596	2,082	2,830	1,280605	2,132	2,936	1,312614	2,114	2,928	1,320613	2,117	2,947	1,329607	2,136	2,940	1,320617	2,150	2,948	1,329615	2,128	2,958	1,325603	2,152	2,926	1,316601	2,148	2,935	1,298600	2,150	2,910	1,309594	2,113	2,932	1,303601	2,125	2,930	1,287595	2,126	2,927	1,299598	2,127	2,957	1,315British Colum- bia	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Colum- bia(Per cent change from same period a year ago)	437	0.2	-2.1	-0.7	2.0	-1.4	1.2462	2.3	2.1	1.6	2.5	1.5	5.7489	4.1	2.3	2.8	5.2	3.9	5.8509	2.6	0.6	2.7	3.1	1.6	4.1501	-0.4	-4.7	0.4	-0.9	2.1	-1.6521	2.9	2.8	2.4	2.6	3.6	4.0516	1.6	2.1	1.2	2.3	1.9	-1.0527	1.5	3.0	0.8	0.9	2.9	2.1551	2.8	1.8	3.7	2.1	2.6	4.6571	2.4	1.2	2.9	2.8	0.8	3.6605	3.7	3.8	3.7	3.8	2.1	6.0639	3.8	4.4	4.7	3.0	2.9	5.6678	4.2	3.5	5.4	4.0	2.2	6.1723	3.2	1.2	3.2	3.5	1.3	6.6750	2.1	0.5	0.1	3.1	3.4	3.7795	3.2	1.5	2.4	3.7	2.5	6.0(Seasonally adjusted)	773	4.6	2.8	3.2	5.6	4.9	4.9770	4.7	2.3	3.6	5.7	5.5	4.2773	5.0	2.4	4.4	6.2	4.6	4.6798	4.8	3.7	3.9	5.6	3.4	7.8809	4.8	2.5	2.3	5.8	4.6	9.9819	3.3	0.8	2.4	3.0	3.6	8.6783	3.1	0.7	2.7	4.0	2.4	4.5787	2.6	0.7	2.4	2.5	2.7	4.9799	1.8	-1.0	-	2.6	1.6	6.4806	1.6	1.5	1.3	1.5	-0.7	6.9810	1.0	0.5	1.5	0.6	-1.4	6.0808	1.9	1.0	1.8	2.7	0.3	3.1
Source: DBS The Labour Force.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 32
UNEMPLOYMENT, CANADA AND BY REGION 1954 to 1969
Unemployed
lears and Months	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Colum- bia	Canada	Atlantic Region	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie Region	British Colum- bia(Thousands	1 i o	(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	6.5I960	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	32	28	3.9	7.4	5.4	2.5	2.6	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	5.91969	383	49	158	96	39	41	4.7	7.5	6.9	3.2	2.9	4.9(Seasonally adjusted)	1969 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	4.4M	404	54	162	113	37	41	4.9	8.1	7.1	3.7	2.7	4.8J	423	59	172	109	46	37	5.1	8.9	7.4	3.6	3.4	4.3J	387	59	155	93	46	40	4.7	8.9	6.7	3.1	3.4	4.9A	398	59	168	94	40	42	4.9	9.0	7.2	3.1	3.0	5.1S	407	55	180	95	35	45	5.0	8.5	7.8	3.1	2.6	5.30	436	52	183	105	54	46	5.3	8.0	7.9	3.5	4.0	5.4N	415	51	171	103	43	49	5.1	7.9	7.4	3.4	3.2	5.7D	395	48	161	107	37	44	4.8	7.4	7.0	3.5	2.7	5.2
Unemployment Rate
Source: DBS The Labour Force.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 33
ESTIMATES OF EMPLOYEES BY INDUSTRY 1961 to 1969
(Thousands)
Years and Months	Forestry	Mines, Quarries and Oil Wells	Total Manufac- turing	Construc- tion	Transportation, Communication and Other Utilities	Trade	Finance, Insurance and Real Estate	Total Community, Business and Personal Services	Public Adminis- tration and Defence(l)	Grand Total
	CANADA									
1961	68.4	106.7	1,302.1	291.5	571.1	743.0	194.8	1,065.1	331.7	4,681.51962	70.2	108.1	1,356.2	305.0	575.4	772.3	205.4	1,117.1	341.7	4,868.71963	68.2	106.4	1,396.9	306.0	581.6	796.8	218.1	1,192.6	345.2	5.021.21964	71.1	107.5	1,450.5	323.0	598.9	829.0	229.9	1,270.8	352.8	5,243.91965	71.7	114.2	1,520.1	356.6	616.4	872.5	238.9	1,362.2	362.0	5,523.51966	72.6	116.8	1,597.8	379.6	634.8	920.2	248.8	1,458.7	375.6	5,814.01967	71.1	118.5	1,621.8	363.4	652.1	949.4	265.6	1,567.5	399.1	6,017.71968	64.5	120.4	1,639.2	361.3	642.3	984.5	280.7	1,679.3	408.1	6,189.3(Not seasonally adjusted)	1969 J	47.4	120.2	1,635.9	316.1	632.9	1,004.5	288.8	1,749.4	406.7	6,207.8F	47.1	120.6	1,650.4	321.8	637.6	1,006.3	289.7	1,759.8	408.6	6,248.8M	44.9	121.7	1,658.1	323.9	640.0	1,019.2	293.6	1,766.6	406.0	6,274.0A	43.7	119.6	1,668.3	346.7	639.2	1,026.7	298.9	1,787.2	398.9	6,329.1M	64.2	118.8	1,703.2	364.2	671.3	1,052.5	298.5	1,816.1	408.9	6,508.5J	79.2	124.2	1,738.4	390.6	682.3	1,071.3	301.9	1,854.7	422.9	6,665.5J	80.4	116.9	1,690.8	422.1	673.6	1,046.6	313.1	1,846.4	440.2	6,639.1A	81.9	116.7	1,724.3	436.3	692.7	1,073.6	303.8	1,835.8	441.7	6,715.7S	n.a.	113.4	1,719.3	433.6	n.a.	1,098.9	301.8	1,852.9	432.1	6,729.1ATLANTIC	REGION	1961	15.0	12.8	59.8	24.2	59.1	62.2	9.6	94.7	35.8	373.41962	14.4	12.7	62.9	27.0	58.7	63.3	10.2	96.5	38.1	383.91963	12.6	13.8	65.3	25.8	58.4	65.4	10.8	101.2	38.6	392.11964	14.1	14.3	67.4	25.7	59.6	67.0	11.3	106.9	38.8	405.21965	13.7	16.2	71.0	31.9	61.1	69.8	11.7	111.3	40.2	426.91966	13.5	16.2	73.0	36.6	63.2	72.5	12.2	116.7	38.6	442.61967	12.4	15.7	73.6	34.0	62.9	73.8	12.9	123.1	39.8	448.21968	11.2	15.1	76.0	32.1	60.7	76.8	13.4	129.9	41.6	456.9(Not seasonally adjusted)	1969 J	8.0	14.9	68.8	29.1	62.4	77.8	13.9	130.3	41.2	446.5F	6.6	14.6	69.1	27.1	65.4	75.7	14.1	130.9	41.0	444.9M	6.3	14.9	69.8	27.2	62.5	77.6	14.3	132.0	40.9	445.1A	6.0	14.8	71.2	29.4	61.1	77.6	14.2	134.8	41.1	450.6M	9.1	13.2	79.5	34.3	60.4	80.3	14.4	138.7	42.6	472.4J	14.4	12.5	82.2	37.6	63.2	81.1	14.5	139.6	44.2	489.2J	13.8	12.5	87.2	38.6	60.3	80.1	14.5	139.1	47.3	493.4A	14.3	13.7	86.6	42.6	62.7	83.1	14.4	140.6	47.8	506.0S	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	505.7
4846
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
Reference Table 33 (Continued) ESTIMATES OF EMPLOYEES BY INDUSTRY 1961 to 1969 (Thousands)
Years and Months	Forestry	Mines, Quarries and Oil Wells	Total Manufac- turing	Construc- tion	Transportation, Communication and Other Utilities	Trade	Finance, Insurance and Real Estate	Total Community, Business and Personal Services	Public Adminis- tration and Defence^)	Grand Total
	QUEBEC									
1961	21.5	24.0	429.9	84.5	151.2	187.6	52.0	278.1	71.6	1,300.51962	21.7	24.9	442.8	89.3	152.3	198.0	55.8	297.8	74.3	1,356.71963	19.9	24.3	446.4	91.9	153.7	204.0	60.5	317.5	75.7	1,394.21964	21.8	24.6	459.9	98.5	158.5	212.9	64.3	340.5	77.6	1,458.61965	21.9	26.0	475.3	102.6	164.9	224.1	68.1	367.5	78.1	1,528.51966	22.9	26.5	497.3	103.8	170.2	233.3	71.3	395.4	77.7	1,599.21967	24.3	26.3	507.0	87.0	176.5	240.1	75.6	429.3	88.4	1,654.61968	20.1	25.4	515.5	82.4	175.8	244.7	79.1	451.7	87.5	1,682.2(Not seasonally adjusted)	1969 J	12.4	23.7	511.1	71.6	173.0	252.1	80.3	466.3	89.3	1,679.7F	9.9	23.9	515.1	70.6	171.9	252.6	81.1	462.1	89.7	1,676.8M	7.4	24.4	514.2	72.2	173.7	253.7	82.9	465.1	89.2	1,682.7A	7.5	24.5	517.6	76.2	172.0	255.8	85.9	469.8	83.4	1,692.8M	19.6	22.6	525.0	74.8	184.1	258.7	83.6	480.7	84.0	1,733.0J	26.3	25.1	538.7	76.1	184.1	264.1	84.7	493.1	87.1	1,779.3j	27.2	25.3	525.3	92.9	187.5	255.3	84.3	496.0	95.1	1,788.9A	26.2	26.6	542.9	94.7	188.9	269.6	85.1	494.3	95.2	1,823.7s	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	1,826.5ONTARIO	1961	11.8	37.1	622.6	113.0	183.6	291.6	88.3	400.4	132.2	1,880.41962	12.5	35.7	653.9	114.1	187.4	302.7	91.4	425.9	136.2	1,959.91963	13.0	34.0	680.8	113.3	190.4	312.6	96.2	453.6	138.1	2,031.91964	12.7	33.1	712.2	118.7	196.5	324.5	100.5	483.0	142.6	2,123.81965	12.6	33.8	751.1	132.4	201.3	340.5	102.1	512.8	147.4	2,234.01966	12.5	33.2	796.5	140.9	205.9	358.8	105.8	547.2	158.2	2,359.21967	12.6	34.5	806.7	138.1	211.9	369.7	113.4	583.9	162.2	2,433.91968	11.3	35.4	810.6	142.8	207.1	385.3	120.9	637.8	168.5	2,520.8(Not seasonally adjusted)	1969 3	11.2	34.9	821.3	133.8	205.0	399.6	124.7	671.6	167.3	2,569.4F	10.5	35.1	825.7	132.0	205.4	401.7	125.6	677.8	169.2	2,583.2M	9.1	35.0	831.9	132.9	206.3	406.1	126.9	675.1	166.9	2,590.2A	8.1	35.1	834.2	143.7	208.7	409.6	127.1	690.1	165.0	2,621.4M	9.6	36.2	846.7	146.5	217.5	424.7	129.6	692.7	169.1	2,672.4j	11.2	37.6	858.5	157.2	222.6	430.0	130.9	708.9	173.4	2,730.4J	10.7	29.2	820.8	165.0	214.1	415.7	142.0	709.0	177.2	2,683.7A	11.6	25.3	833.5	169.7	222.4	420.5	133.2	701.3	177.0	2,694.7S	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	2,706.7
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 33 (Continued) ESTIMATES OF EMPLOYEES BY INDUSTRY 1961 to 1969 (Thousands)
Years
and
Months
Forestry
Mines, Quarries and Oil Wells	Total Manufac- turing	Construc- tion	Transportation, Communication and Other Utilities	Trade	Finance, Insurance and Real Estate	Total Community, Business and Personal Services	Public Adminis- tration and Defence^1)
Grand
Total

[Stage Direction]
1961	3.4	24.51962	3.8	25.01963	4.0	24.81964	3.8	25.91965	4.2	27.81966	4.2	29.21967	3.7	30.41968	2.9	32.11969 J	3.0	35.1F	3.2	35.0M	3.0	35.5A	2.4	32.9M	3.2	33.7J	3.9	35.1J	3.9	36.2A	4.2	36.4S	n.a.	n.a.89.7	48.7	113.9	129.792.6	51.9	114.3	133.795.4	51.3	115.7	137.099.8	52.1	118.2	142.3105.2	57.1	119.3	149.8108.3	62.0	121.0	161.5111.5	66.2	123.0	166.4113.6	67.8	120.3	173.0
(Not seasonally adjusted)
112.8	53.1	115.8	170.7115.1	58.2	117.7	170.2116.3	57.4	118.8	172.4117.5	62.5	116.7	174.8120.2	69.7	124.9	179.5123.9	75.8	129.8	182.9122.1	80.4	131.0	179.5124.2	81.1	130.5	182.9n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.27.6	188.9	58.6	685.129.7	196.5	58.8	706.230.9	206.6	58.8	724.032.5	218.4	59.9	753.033.9	234.8	61.3	793.335.3	248.2	64.5	834.237.5	267.2	69.1	874.838.9	284.3	69.8	903.040.2	296.3	67.3	894.339.6	305.7	67.3	911.840.1	303.3	67.5	914.341.6	300.4	68.2	917.040.6	309.9	70.9	952.741.4	315.4	75.3	983.440.4	311.6	77.0	982.241.0	304.9	77.4	982.7n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	989.6

[Stage Direction]
1962.
1963.
1964.
1965.
1966.
1967.
1968.
1969 J.. F. M A. M
[Stage Direction]


16.7	6.7	100.2	20.717.9	8.1	104.2	22.418.7	7.7	108.9	23.518.6	7.8	111.2	27.619.7	8.6	117.4	32.519.6	9.8	122.9	35.818.2	9.7	122.8	27.619.0	10.0	123.3	35.512.9	9.3	121.8	27.616.8	9.5	125.1	33.219.1	9.4	125.9	33.519.7	9.7	127.8	33.922.6	10.3	131.6	38.023.4	11.1	135.0	43.024.8	10.7	135.2	44.525.4	11.8	136.8	47.2n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.61.5	71.8	17.2	100.861.4	74.3	18.4	106.562.1	77.5	19.8	111.664.8	82.7	21.3	119.968.9	87.8	22.9	133.873.5	94.4	24.3	148.876.5	99.2	26.2	161.676.9	103.9	28.2	172.6(Not seasonally adjusted)	75.4	103.2	29.5	182.075.6	105.0	29.2	181.477.2	108.3	29.5	188.478.8	107.6	30.3	189.182.5	108.2	30.3	191.380.4	112.1	30.4	194.778.5	114.7	31.8	187.485.8	115.9	30.1	191.3n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
^Excludes non-civilian employees.
^Employees in fiching and trapping are included in the total.
30.8	426.4
31.5	444.7
31.5	461.4
31.8	484.8
33.0	524.6
34.6	563.6
37.6	589.3
38.7	608.1
39.3	601.0
39.3	615.2
39.5	630.8
39.0	635.9
40.0	654.6
40.5	670.6
41.0	668.7
41.6	686.0
l.a.	687.4
Source: DBS Estimates of Employees by Province and Industry, Occasional. Cat. 72-508.
DBS Estimates of Employees b4 Province and Industry, Monthly. Cat. 72-008. *
21774-29i
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 34

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969 (1961 = 100)
Years	Output	Persons Employed (O	Total Man- Hours	Wages and Salaries (2>	Corpora- tion Profits^)	Output Per Person Employed	Output Per Man- Hour	Average Earnings Per Person Employed	Average Hourly Earnings	Wages and Salaries Per Unit of Output	Corporation Profits Per Unit of Output1947	54.8	80.6	89.4	31.2	44.5	68.0	61.3	38.8	34.9 39.7 42.7	57.0 63.7 67.0	81.2 85.0 79.01948	56.7	82.0	90.9	36.1	48.2	69.1	62.4	44.1	1949	58.4	83.4	91.7	39.1	46.1	70.0	63.7	46.9	1950	62.4	84.2	90.7	42.3	61.9	74.1	68.8	50.2	46.6 53.7 59.8 64.6 66.6	67.7 74.1 77.3 80.9 84.4	99.2 104.8 94.5 89.31951	67.3	86.7	92.8	49.8	70.5	77.6	72.5	57.5	1952	72.5	88.0	93.7	56.1	68.5	82.4	77.4	63.7	1953	75.5	89.1	94.5	61.1	67.4	84.7	79.9	68.5 70.3	1954	74.3	89.2	94.2	62.7	60.0	83.3	78.9	1955	82.1	90.7	95.0	67.3	79.0	90.5	86.4	74.2	70.9 77.3 83.3 87.7 91.3	82.0 85.6 92.6 93.5 95.0	96.2 101.6 93.9 94.3 103.71956	89.1	94.4	98.6	76.2	90.6	94.4	90.4	80.8	1957	89.5	96.3	99.5	82.9	84.0	92.9	89.9	86.0	1958	91.0	94.8	97.1	85.1	85.8	96.0	93.7	89.8 93.2	1959	95.7	97.6	99.6	90.9	99.3	98.1	96.1	I960	98.0	98.7	99.9	95.7	96.0	99.3	98.1	97.0	95.8 100.0 104.7 110.5 117.1	97.7 100.0 100.3 101.8 104.4	98.0 100.0 105.8 111.0 124.11961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	loo.o	1962	106.9	102.8	102.4	107.2	113.1	104.0	104.4	104.3 109.0 114.9	1963	112.3	104.9	103.5	114.4	124.6	107.1	108.5	1964	119.5	108.6	106.6	124.8	148.3	110.0	112.1	1965	127.8	113.6	110.5	139.1	161.3	112.5	115.7	122.4 133.3	125.9 138.7 150.3 163.2	108.8 116.2 125.1 130.5 139.4	126.2 125.2 119.5 125.6 130.21966	135.5	118.1	113.5	157.4	169.6	114.7	119.4	1967	139.1	121.1	115.8	174.1	166.2	114.9	120.1	143.7 154.0 165.6	1968	145.4	123.2	116.2	189.7	182.6	118.0	125.1	1969	152.2(0	128.1	n.a.	212.1	198.2	118.8	n.a.	n.a.	(Percent change from previous year)	1948	3.5	1.7	1.7	15.6	8.3	1.7	1.8 2.1	13.7 6.4	13.7 7.3	11.8 5.1	4.6 -7.11949	3.0	1.7	0.9	8.3	-4.3	1.3	1950	6.8	1.0	-1.1	8.0	34.2	5.8	8.0 5.4 6.7 3.3	7.0 14.6 10.8 7.6 2.6	9.2 15.3 11.4 8.0 3.0	1.1	25.61951	7.9	3.0	2.3	18.0	14.0	4.7	4.4 4.6 4.3	-9.9 -5.5 -9.41952	7.7	1.5	1.0	12.5	-2.9	6.1	1953	4.1	1.2	0.9	8.9	-1.6	2.9	1954	-1.6	0.1	-0.3	2.7	-10.9	-1.7	-1.3	1955	10.5	1.7	0.8	7.4	31.6	8.7	9.6	5.6 8.8	6.5 9.1 7.7 5.3 4.1	-2.8 4.3 8.2 1.0 1.6	19.1 5.6 -7.6 0.5 10.01956	8.5	4.1	3.8	13.2	14.6	4.3	4.6	1957	0.4	2.0	0.9	8.7	-7.2	- 1.5	-0.5	4.4 3.7	1958	1.7	-1.6	-2.4	2.7	2.2	3.3	4.2	1959	5.2	3.0	2.6	6.8	15.7	2.1	2.5	I960	2.4	1.1	0.3	5.3	-3.3	1.3	2.1	4.1 3.1 4.3 4.5 5.4	5.0 4.3 4.7 5.5 5.9	2.8 2.4 0.3 1.5 2.5	-5.6 2.1 5.8 4.9 11.81961	2.0	1.3	0.1	4.5	4.2	0.7	1.9	1962	6.9	2.8	2.4	7.2	13.1	4.0	4.4	1963	
1964	5.1 6.4	2.0 3.5	1.1 3.0	6.6 9.1	10.2 19.0	2.9 2.8	3.9 3.3	1965	6.9	4.6	3.7	11.5	8.8	2.2	3.2	6.6 8.9 7.8 7.1 7.5	7.5 10.2 8.4 8.6	4.2 6.7 7.7 4.2 6.8	1.7 -0.8 -4.5 5.1 3.71966	6.0	4.0	2.7	13.2	5.2	2.0	[DOT] 3.2	1967	2.7	2.5	2.0	10.6	-2.0	0.1	0.6	1968	4.5	1.7	0.3	9.0	9.9	2.7	4.2	1969	4.7	4.0	n.a.	11.8	8.5	0.7	n.a.	
(^Estimates based on data from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. ^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
DBS Indexes of Real Domestic Product by Industry (1961 =100).
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 35

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969 (1961=100)
Years	Output	Persons Employee	Total Man- Houra	Wages and Salaries 0	Corpora- tion Profits 0)	Output Per Person Employee	Output Per Man- Hour	Average Earnings Per Person Employee	Average Hourly Earnings	Wages and Salaries Per Unit of Output	Corporation Profits Per Unit of Output1947	52.1	75.9	82.3	32.6	44.5	68.6	63.3	43.0	39.6	62.6	85.41948	54.0	78.4	85.0	37.9	48.2	68.9	63.5	48.4	44.6	70.2	89.21949	56.1	80.2	86.0	40.7	46.1	70.0	65.2	50.7	47.3	72.5	82.21950	59.9	81.8	86.6	43.9	61.9	73.2	69.2	53.7	50.7	73.3	103.31951	64.0	86.4	90.7	52.7	70.5	74.1	70.6	60.9	58.1	82.3	110.21952	67.4	88.5	92.6	58.9	68.5	76.2	72.8	66.6	63.7	87.5	101.71953	71.5	89.9	93.5	64.0	67.4	79.5	76.5	71.2	68.4	89.5	94.31954	72.2	88.7	91.3	64.7	60.1	81.4	79.1	72.9	70.8	89.6	83.21955	79.3	91.5	93.7	69.5	79.1	86.7	84.6	75.9	74.2	87.6	99.71956	86.8	97.0	99.6	79.0	90.6	89.5	87.1	81.5	79.4	91.1	104.41957	88.6	99.8	101.8	85.5	84.1	88.8	87.0	85.7	84.0	96.5	94.91958	89.1	97.3	98.8	86.7	85.8	91.6	90.2	89.1	87.7	97.3	96.31959	94.7	99.7	101.3	92.6	99.4	95.0	93.5	92.8	91.4	97.7	104.91960	96.5	99.6	100.6	96.8	96.1	96.9	95.9	97.2	96.2	100.3	99.61961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	106.5	103.1	103.1	107.1	113.1	103.3	103.3	103.9	103.9	100.6	106.21963	112.0	105.6	105.0	114.3	124.5	106.1	106.7	108.2	108.8	102.0	111.21964	120.8	110.2	109.5	124.8	148.3	109.6	110.3	113.3	114.0	103.3	122.71965	129.6	116.3	115.0	139.5	161.1	111.4	112.7	119.9	121.3	107.6	124.31966	137.4	121.9	119.1	157.2	169.4	112.7	115.4	129.0	132.0	114.4	123.31967	141.7	123.9	120.9	172.1	165.9	114.4	117.2	138.9	142.3	121.4	117.11968	147.9	125.0	121.0	186.3	182.2	118.3	122.2	149.1	154.0	126.0	123.21969	155.00)	130.4	n.a.	207.7	197.9	118.9	n.a.	159.3	n.a.	134.0	127,7(Percent change from previous year)	1948	3.6	3.3	3.3	16.4	8.2	0.3	0.4	12.6	12.7	12.3	4.41949	3.9	2.3	1.2	7.2	-4.3	1.6	2.7	4.8	5.9	3.2	-7.91950	6.8	2.0	0.7	8.0	34.3	4.7	6.0	5.9	7.3	1.2	25.71951	6.8	5.6	4.7	19.9	14.0	1.2	2.0	13.5	14.4	12.2	6.71952	5.3	2.4	2.1	11.9	-2.8	2.8	3.2	9.3	9.6	6.3	-7.71953	6.1	1.6	1.0	8.6	-1.6	4.4	5.1	6.9	7.5	2.3	-7.31954	1.0	-1.3	-2.4	1.1	-10.9	2.3	3.4	2.5	3.5	0.1	-11.81955	9.8	3.2	2.6	7.4	31.5	6.5	7.0	4.2	4.7	-2.2	19.81956	9.5	6.0	6.3	13.7	14.6	3.3	3.0	7.3	7.0	3.9	4.71957	2.1	2.9	2.2	8.2	-7.2	-0.8	-0.1	5.1	5.8	6.0	-9.11958	0.6	-2.5	-2.9	1.4	2.1	3.1	3.6	4.0	4.4	0.8	1.51959	6.3	2.5	2.5	6.8	15.8	3.7	3.7	4.2	4.2	0.5	8.91960	1.9	-0.1	-0.7	4.6	-3.3	2.0	2.6	4.7	5.3	2.7	-5.11961	3.6	0.4	-0.6	3.3	4.1	3.2	4.2	2.9	3.9	-0.3	0.41962	6.5	3.1	3.1	7.1	13.1	3.3	3.3	3.9	3.9	0.6	6.21963	5.2	2.4	1.8	6.7	10.1	2.7	3.3	4.2	4.8	1.5	4.71964	7.9	4.4	4.3	9.2	19.0	3.4	3.4	4.7	4.7	1.3	10.41965	7.3	5.5	5.0	11.7	8.7	1.7	2.2	5.9	6.4	4.1	1.31966	6.0	4.8	3.6	12.7	5.1	1.1	2.4	7.5	8.8	6.3	-0.81967	3.1	1.6	1.5	9.5	-2.0	1.5	1.6	7.7	7.8	6.1	-5.01968	4.4	0.9	0.1	8.3	9.8	3.5	4.3	7.3	8.2	3.7	5.21969	4.8	4.3	n.a.	11.5	8.6	0.5	n.a.	6.9	n.a.	6.4	3.6
(1>Estimated by the Department of Finance.
(^Estimates based on data from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Source: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends.
DBS Daily Bulletin, Wednesday, December 31, 1969.
DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 36 PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS
COMMERCIAL NON-AGRICULT URAL GOODS-PRODUCING INDUSTRIES 1947 to 1969 (1961 = 100)
Years	Output	Persons Employed	Total Man- Hours	Wages and Salaries O)	Corpora- tion Profits^1)	Output Per Person Employed	Output Per Man- Hour	Average Earnings Per Person Employed	Average Hourly Earnings	Wages and Salaries Per Unit of Output	Corporation Profits Per Unit of Output1947	48.5	85.9	92.3	35.5	48.6	56.5	52.5	41.3	38.5	73.2	100.21948	51.3	88.2	94.8	41.4	54.3	58.2	54.1	47.0	43.7	80.8	105.81949	53.3	89.9	95.3	43.5	52.0	59.3	55.9	48.4	45.6	81.6	97.71950	57.6	92.1	97.1	47.4	70.5	62.5	59.3	51.4	48.8	82.3	122.41951	62.4	98.7	103.5	58.6	79.6	63.2	60.3	59.4	56.7	94.0	127.51952	65.5	100.0	104.4	65.6	72.9	65.5	62.7	65.6	62.8	100.1	111.31953	70.6	100.8	105.5	71.0	72.9	70.0	66.9	70.5	67.3	100.6	103.21954	71.0	97.0	99.6	70.1	65.7	73.2	71.3	72.3	70.4	98.7	92.51955	78.8	100.4	102.7	74.7	85.6	78.5	76.7	74.4	72.7	94.8	108.71956	87.3	106.3	109.1	85.9	96.1	82.1	80.0	80.8	78.7	98.4	110.11957	89.2	107.3	109.1	91.8	88.2	83.1	81.8	85.6	84.2	102.9	98.91958	89.1	101.3	102.6	90.3	84.2	88.0	86.8	89.2	88.1	101.4	94.51959	94.8	103.3	105.2	95.8	99.6	91.8	90.1	92.8	91.1	101.1	105.11960	96.5	101.6	102.7	99.4	94.6	95.0	94.0	97.8	96.8	103.0	98.11961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	108.6	102.8	103.6	107.1	114.9	105.6	104.8	104.2	103.4	98.6	105.81963	114.6	104.7	105.0	113.8	127.3	109.5	109.1	108.7	108.3	99.3	111.11964	126.1	109.3	110.0	124.4	149.4	115.4	114.6	113.9	113.1	98.7	118.51965	137.5	115.3	115.9	140.0	161.3	119.3	118.6	121.4	120.8	101.8	117.31966	147.0	120.5	120.6	158.4	167.1	122.0	121.9	131.4	131.3	107.8	113.71967	149.4	120.1	119.9	169.4	155.7	124.4	124.6	141.1	141.3	113.4	104.21968	157.3	120.7	120.1	179.4	171.3	130.3	131.0	148.6	149.4	114.1	108.91969	165.5(2)	124.6®	n.a.	196.3	188.6	132.8	n.a.	157.5	n.a.	118.6	114.0(Percent change from previous year)	1948	5.8	2.7	2.7	16.7	11.7	3.0	3.0	13.6	13.6	10.3	5.61949	3.9	1.9	0.5	4.9	-4.1	1.9	3.4	2.9	4.4	1.0	-7.71950	8.1	2.4	1.9	9.0	35.4	5.5	6.1	6.4	7.0	0.9	25.31951	8.3	7.2	6.6	23.8	12.9	1.1	1.6	15.5	16.1	14.2	4.21952	5.0	1.3	0.9	11.8	-8.4	3.6	4.1	10.3	10.8	6.5	-12.71953	7.8	0.8	1.1	8.4	-0.1	6.9	6.7	7.5	7.2	0.5	-7.3C954	0.6	-3.8	-5.6	-1.3	-9.9	4.5	6.5	2.5	4.5	-1.9	-10.41955	11.0	3.5	3.1	6.5	30.4	7.2	7.6	2.9	3.3	-4.0	17.51956	10.8	5.9	6.2	15.0	12.2	4.6	4.3	8.6	8.3	3.8	1.31957	2.2	0.9	6.9	-8.2	1.2	2.2	5.9	6.9	4.6	-10.21958	-0.1	-5.6	-6.0	-1.6	-4.5	5.8	6.2	4.2	4.6	-1.5	-4.41959	6.4	2.0	2.5	6.1	18.3	4.3	3.8	4.0	3.5	-0.3	11.21960	1.8	-1.6	-2.4	3.7	-5.0	3.5	4.3	5.4	6.2	1.9	-6.71961	3.6	-1.6	-2.6	0.6	5.7	5.3	6.4	2.2	3.3	-2.9	2.01962	8.6	2.8	3.6	7.1	14.9	5.6	4.8	4.2	3.4	-1.4	5.81963	5.5	1.8	1.4	6.2	10.8	3.6	4.1	4.3	4.8	0.7	5.01964	10.0	4.4	4.8	9.4	17.3	5.4	5.0	4.8	4.4	-0.6	6.61965	9.0	5.5	5.4	12.5	8.0	3.4	3.5	6.6	6.7	3.1	-1.01966	6.9	4.5	4.1	13.2	3.6	2.3	2.7	8.3	8.8	5.8	-3.11967	1.6	-0.3	-0.6	7.0	-6.9	2.0	2.2	7.3	7.6	5.2	-8.41968	5.3	0.5	0.2	5.9	10.0	4.8	5.1	5.4	5.7	0.6	4.51969	5.2	3.2	n.a.	9.4	10.1	1.9	n.a.	6.0	n.a.	4.0	4.7
(^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
^Estimates based on data from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Source: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends.
DBS Daily Bulletin, Wednesday, December 31, 1969.
DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 37

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969 (1961=100)
Years	Output	Persons Employed	Total Man- Hours	Wages and Salaries 0)	Corpora- tion Profits 0)	Output Per Person Employed	Output Per Man- Hour	Average Earnings Per Person Employed	Average Hourly Earnings	Wages and Salaries Per Unit of Output	Corporation Profits Per Unit of Output1947	55.8	66.6	73.6	29.2	37.7	83.8	75.8	43.8	39.7	52.3	67.61948	56.9	69.4	76.5	33.8	38.1	82.0	74.4	48.8	44.2	59.5	66.91949	59.1	71.3	78.0	37.4	36.2	82.9	75.8	52.4	47.9	63.2	61.31950	62.2	72.4	77.6	39.9	47.7	85.9	80.2	55.1	51.4	64.2	76.61951	65.7	75.1	79.6	45.7	55.5	87.5	82.5	60.8	57.4	69.5	84.51952	69.4	78.0	82.4	51.2	61.3	89.0	84.2	65.7	62.2	73.8	88.31953	72.4	79.9	83.2	55.7	58.4	90.6	87.0	69.8	67.0	77.0	80.71954	73.3	81.0	84.1	58.3	50.8	90.5	87.2	72.0	69.4	79.6	69.41955	79.4	83.4	86.0	63.4	68.2	96.6	92.3	76.1	73.8	79.9	85.91956	85.6	88.6	91.5	71.0	81.6	96.6	93.6	80.1	77.6	83.0	95.31957	87.6	93.1	95.6	78.1	77.2	94.1	91.6	83.9	81.7	89.2	88.21958	88.7	93.5	95.3	82.4	88.5	94.9	93.1	88.1	86.4	92.8	99.81959	94.1	96.4	98.0	88.7	98.9	97.6	96.0	92.0	90.5	94.3	105.11960	96.3	97.7	98.7	93.8	98.4	98.6	97.6	96.0	95.1	97.4	102.21961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	104.6	103.3	102.7	107.1	110.0	101.3	101.9	103.7	104.3	102.4	105.11963	109.4	106.5	105.0	114.9	119.9	102.7	104.2	107.9	109.4	105.0	109.61964	115.7	111.1	109.0	125.3	146.4	104.1	106.1	112.8	114.9	108.3	126.51965	122.2	117.3	114.1	138.9	160.8	104.2	107.1	118.4	121.7	113.7	131.61966	128.1	123.2	117.7	155.8	173.1	104.0	108.8	126.5	132.4	121.6	135.11967	134.2	127.5	121.8	175.2	182.9	105.3	110.2	137.4	143.8	130.5	136.31968	138.9	129.1	121.8	194.4	200.3	107.6	114.0	150.6	159.6	139.9	144.21969	145.0*>	136.18)	n.a.	221.1	213.2	106.5	n.a.	162.5	n.a.	152.5	147.0(Percent change from previous year)	1948	2.0	4.2	3.9	15.9	0.9	-2.1	-1.9	11.2	11.5	13.7	-1.11949	3.9	2.7	2.0	10.4	-4.8	1.1	1.9	7.5	8.3	6.3	-8.31950	5.2	1.5	-0.5	6.8	31.5	3.6	5.8	5.2	7.3	1.5	24.91951	5.6	3.7	2.6	14.4	16.6	1.8	3.0	10.3	11.6	8.3	10.31952	5.6	3.9	3.5	12.1	10.3	1.7	2.0	8.0	8.3	6.2	4.41953	4.3	2.4	1.0	8.8	-4.7	1.8	3.3	6.3	7.8	4.3	-8.61954	1.2	1.4	1.1	4.7	-12.9	-0.1	0.2	3.2	3.5	3.4	-14.01955	8.3	3.0	2.3	8.7	34.1	5.2	5.9	5.6	6.3	0.4	23.81956	7.8	6.2	6.4	11.9	19.6	1.5	1.3	5.4	5.2	3.8	10.91957	2.3	5.1	4.5	10.0	-5.3	-2.6	-2.1	4.7	5.3	7.5	-7.41958	1.3	0.4	-0.3	5.4	14.6	0.8	1.6	5.0	5.8	4.1	13.21959	6.1	3.1	2.8	7.7	11.7	2.9	3.2	4.5	4.7	1.5	5.31960	2.3	1.3	0.7	5.8	-0.5	1.0	1.6	4.4	5.0	3.3	-2.71961	3.8	2.4	1.3	6.6	1.6	1.5	2.5	4.1	5.2	2.6	-2.21962	4.6	3.3	2.7	7.1	10.0	1.3	1.9	3.7	4.3	2.4	5.11963	4.6	3.1	2.2	7.3	9.1	1.4	2.3	4.1	4.9	2.6	4.31964	5.8	4.3	3.8	9.0	22.1	1.4	1.9	4.5	5.0	3.1	15.41965	5.6	5.6	4.7	10.9	9.8	0.9	5.0	5.9	5.0	4.01966	4.8	5.0	3.2	12.2	7.7	-0.2	1.6	6.8	8.8	7.0	2.71967	4.8	3.5	3.5	12.4	5.7	1.2	1.2	8.6	8.6	7.3	0.91968	3.5	1.3	-	11.0	9.5	2.2	3.5	9.6	11.0	7.2	5.81969	4.4	5.4	n.a.	13.8	6.4	-1.0	n.a.	7.9	n.a.	9.0	1.9
(^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
^Estimates based on data from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Source: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends.
DBS Daily Bulletin, Wednesday, December 31, 1969.
DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 38

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969 (1961 = 100)
Years	Output	Persons Employed	Total Man- Hours	Wages and Salaries 0)	Corpora- tion Profits 0)	Output Per Person Employed	Output Per Man- Hour	Average Earnings Per Person Employed	Average Hourly Earnings	Wages and Salaries Per Unit of Output	Corporation Profits Per Unit of Output1947	55.4	86.8	93.4	36.7	52.8	63.8	59.3	42.2	39.2	66.2	95.21948	57.8	88.8	95.9	42.4	57.7	65.1	60.3	47.7	44.2	73.3	99.81949	59.5	90.2	95.6	44.7	55.2	66.0	62.2	49.5	46.7	75.1	92.81950	63.4	91.7	96.3	47.9	74.5	69.1	65.8	52.2	49.7	75.5	117.51951	68.9	97.3	100.3	59.2	83.0	70.8	68.7	60.9	59.0	85.9	120.41952	71.5	99.9	101.9	66.2	77.6	71.6	70.2	66.2	64.9	92.6	108.51953	76.6	103.0	105.6	72.3	78.0	74.4	72.5	70.2	68.4	94.3	101.81954	74.9	98.6	99.2	71.5	67.6	76.0	75.5	72.6	72.1	95.5	90.31955	82.2	101.1	102.3	76.3	88.1	81.3	80.4	75.4	74.6	92.8	107.21956	89.9	105.3	107.3	84.7	96.9	85.4	83.8	80.4	78.9	94.2	107.71957	89.7	105.8	106.4	89.9	87.5	84.8	84.3	84.9	84.5	100.2	97.51958	88.0	100.5	101.2	89.8	84.9	87.6	87.0	89.4	88.8	102.1	96.51959	94.5	101.7	103.0	95.2	102.6	92.9	91.7	93.6	92.4	100.8	108.61960	96.1	100.5	101.0	98.6	95.7	95.6	95.1	98.1	97.6	102.6	99.61961	100.0	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	107.1	118.2	107.6	107.2	104.3	103.9	97.0	107.01963	118.0	105.2	105.6	114.6	132.6	112.2	111.7	108.9	108.5	97.1	112.41964	129.2	110.0	111.0	125.2	149.9	117.5	116.4	113.9	112.8	96.9	116.01965	141.0	115.7	116.1	138.9	163.4	121.9	121.4	120.1	119.7	98.5	115.91966	151.2	121.2	120.7	155.9	165.1	124.8	125.3	128.6	129.1	103.1	109.21967	151.7	121.6	121.5	166.9	142.0	124.8	124.9	137.3	137.4	110.0	93.61968	159.4	122.9	122.6	178.2	156.0	129.7	130.0	145.0	145.3	111.8	97.81969	168.8<*	127.3W	n.a.	197.2	170.2	132.6	n.a.	154.9	n.a.	116.8	100.8(Percent change from previous year)	1948	4.3	2.3	2.7	15.6	9.3	2.0	1.6	13.0	12.6	10.8	4.71949	2.9	1.6	-0.3	5.4	-4.2	1.3	3.3	3.8	5.7	2.4	-7.01950	6.6	1.7	0.7	7.2	34.9	4.8	5.8	5.4	6.4	0.6	26.61951	8.7	6.1	4.2	23.6	11.4	2.4	4.3	16.5	18.7	13.8	2.51952	3.8	2.7	1.6	11.8	-6.5	1.1	2.1	8.9	10.0	7.7	- 9.91953	7.1	3.1	3.6	9.2	0.5	3.9	3.4	5.9	5.4	1.9	- 6.21954	-2.2	-4.3	-6.1	-1.0	-13.3	2.1	4.1	3.4	5.4	1.3	-11.31955	9.7	2.5	3.1	6.6	30.4	7.0	6.4	4.0	3.4	-2.8	18.81956	9.4	4.2	4.9	11.0	9.9	5.0	4.3	6.6	5.9	1.5	0.51957	-0.2	0.5	-0.8	6.1	-9.7	-0.7	0.6	5.6	7.0	6.3	- 9.51958	-1.9	-5.0	-4.9	-	-2.9	3.3	3.1	5.3	5.1	1.9	- 1.01959	7.4	1.2	1.8	6.0	20.8	6.1	5.5	4.7	4.1	-1.3	12.51960	1.7	-1.2	-1.9	3.6	-6.7	2.9	3.7	4.8	5.6	1.8	- 8.21961	4.1	-0.5	-1.0	1.4	4.4	4.6	5.1	1.9	2.4	-2.5	0.41962	10.5	2.7	3.1	7.1	18.2	7.6	7.2	4.3	3.9	-3.0	7.01963	6.8	2.4	2.4	7.0	12.1	4.2	4.3	4.4	4.4	0.2	5.01964	9.5	4.6	5.1	9.3	13.0	4.7	4.2	4.5	4.0	-0.2	3.21965	9.1	5.2	4.6	10.9	9.0	3.8	4.3	5.5	6.1	1.7	- 0.11966	7.2	4.8	4.0	12.2	1.0	2.4	3.1	7.1	7.9	4.6	- 5.81967	0.3	0.3	0.7	7.1	-14.0	-	-0.3	6.7	6.4	6.7	-14.31968	5.1	1.1	0.9	6.8	9.9	4.0	4.1	5.6	5.8	1.6	4.51969	5.9	3.6	n.a.	10.6	9.1	2.2	n.a.	6.8	n.a.	4.5	3.1
(^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
(^Estimates based on data from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Source: DBS Aggregate Productivity Trends.
DBS Daily Bulletin, Wednesday, December 31, 1969.
DBS National Income and Expenditures Accounts.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 39
GROSS NATIONAL EXPENDITURE IMPLICIT PRICE INDEXES*1) 1947 to 1969 (1961 = 100)
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Current Expenditure on Goods and Services	Gross Fixed Capital Formation	Value of Physical Change in Inventories	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Residual Error of Estimate	Gross National Expen- ditureTotal	Govern- ment	Business	1947	66.0	47.7	61.9	68.8	60.4	105.2	73.0	69.9	67.9	63.11948	74.8	54.2	70.1	77.2	68.5	190.2	78.2	78.2	74.1	70.81949	77.3	57.7	73.5	80.3	71.8	113.0	82.1	80.8	78.3	73.71960	79.7	59.9	76.8	83.8	75.1	98.9	85.8	86.5	78.8	75.41951	88.0	67.3	87.7	99.2	85.2	117.1	95.4	95.5	89.2	84.21952	89.7	70.6	90.4	101.6	88.0	109.2	94.3	88.8	92.2	87.81953	89.6	72.5	90.6	95.6	89.1	113.9	92.1	88.7	92.8	87.81954	90.5	75.4	90.3	95.7	88.8	108.5	91.3	88.9	93.0	89.21955	90.6	78.0	92.9	102.9	90.6	81.1	95.0	90.4	94.3	89.81956	91.9	83.0	97.9	114.1	94.7	127.2	97.6	93.4	97.9	92.91957	94.7	87.3	99.2	107.6	97.1	120.6	97.1	95.8	100.0	94.81958	97.2	89.9	98.6	102.2	97.4	143.0	96.7	97.1	101.4	96.11959	98.4	92.9	99.3	102.4	98.3	137.5	98.2	96.5	102.8	98.21960	99.4	96.6	100.6	103.4	99.7	118.9	98.8	97.4	100.0	99.41961	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01962	101.4	102.6	101.5	101.8	101.4	106.4	103.2	104.4	101.2	101.41963	103.0	106.3	104.1	105.9	103.7	102.8	104.5	106.2	103.5	103.31964	104.3	110.1	107.1	108.6	106.7	119.3	106.9	107.4	105.7	105.81965	106.5	116.6	112.3	115.9	111.5	107.0	108.5	107.6	109.3	109.51966	110.0	124.3	117.8	122.3	116.8	107.3	111.7	109.4	114.1	114.51967	113.7	134.4	118.3	121.6	117.5	130.8	113.6	111.5	118.4	118.41968	118.1	142.7	121.8	125.7	120.9	121.3	115.2	113.5	123.1	123.11969«>	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	128.3(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I	116.8	139.1	119.8	124.1	118.8	145.6	115.0	112.9	120.8	121.6II	117.7	139.7	122.1	128.1	120.6	112.4	115.3	113.3	122.2	122.4Ill	118.4	144.8	122.8	128.3	121.5	109.7	115.3	113.4	123.2	123.6IV	119.7	147.1	122.5	122.3	122.5	123.7	115.4	114.3	124.4	124.81969 I	120.7	147.5	125.6	131.1	124.4	109.6	116.6	115.3	126.0	126.0II	122.2	151.6	127.6	129.1	127.3	95.4	118.0	116.6	127.7	127.9Ill	123.1	156.9	129.8	133.4	129.1	95.8	117.6	117.8	129.7	129.2IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Note: These are revised national accounts figures. Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not available.
WThese implicit price indexes are currently weighted price indexes. They reflect not only pure price change, but also changing expenditure patterns within and between major groups. The implicit price index for gross national expenditure is derived by dividing the total of current dollars by the total of constant dollars.
(^Estimated by the Department of Finance.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
4854
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 40
CHANGES IN GROSS NATIONAL EXPENDITURE IMPLICIT PRICE INDEXES^)
1947 to 1969 (1961 = 100)
Years and Quarters	Personal Expenditure on Consumer Goods and Services	Government Current Expenditure on Goods and Services	Gross Fixed Capital Formation	Value of Physical Change in Inven- tories	Exports of Goods and Services	Imports of Goods and Services	Residual Error of Estimate	Gross National Expendi- tureTotal	Govern- ment	Business	(Per cent change from previous period)	1947	9.6	7.4	10.5	9.7	10.6	-23.9	12.3	12.0	12.6	8.81948	13.3	13.6	13.2	12.2	13.4	80.8	7.1	11.9	9.1	12.21949	3.3	6.5	4.9	4.0	4.8	-40.6	5.0	3.3	5.7	4.11950	3.1	3.8	4.5	4.4	4.6	-12.5	4.5	7.1	0.6	2.31951	10.4	12.4	14.2	18.4	13.4	18.4	11.2	10.4	13.2	11.71952	1.9	4.9	3.1	2.4	3.3	-6.7	-1.2	-7.0	3.4	4.31953	-0.1	2.7	0.2	-5.9	1.2	4.3	-2.3	-0.1	0.7	1954	1.0	4.0	-0.3	0.1	-0.3	-4.7	-0.9	0.2	0.2	1.61955	0.1	3.4	2.9	7.5	2.0	-25.3	4.1	1.7	1.4	0.71956	1.4	6.4	5.4	10.9	4.5	56.8	2.7	3.3	3.8	3.51957	3.0	5.2	1.3	-5.7	2.5	-5.2	-0.5	2.6	2.1	2.01958	2.6	3.0	-0.6	-5.0	0.3	18.6	-0.4	1.4	1.4	1.41959	1.2	3.3	0.7	0.2	0.9	-3.8	1.6	-0.6	1.4	2.21960	1.0	4.0	1.3	1.0	1.4	-13.5	0.6	0.9	-2.7	1.21961	0.6	3.5	-0.6	-3.3	0.3	-15.9	1.2	2.7	-	0.61962	1.4	2.6	1.5	1.8	1.4	6.4	3.2	4.4	1.2	1.41963	1.6	3.6	2.6	4.0	2.3	-3.4	1.3	1.7	2.3	1.91964	1.3	3.6	2.9	2.5	2.9	16.1	2.3	1.1	2.1	2.41965	2.1	5.9	4.9	6.7	4.5	-10.3	1.5	0.2	3.4	3.51966	3.3	6.6	4.9	5.5	4.8	0.3	2.9	1.7	4.4	4.61967	3.4	8.1	0.4	-0.6	0.6	21.9	1.7	1.9	3.8	3.41968	3.9	6.2	3.0	3.4	2.9	-7.3	1.4	1.8	4.0	4.01069*>	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	4.3(Seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.II	0.8	0.4	1.9	3.2	1.5	-22.8	0.3	0.4	1.2	0.7Ill	0.6	3.7	0.6	0.2	0.7	-2.4	-	0.1	0.8	1.0IV	1.1	1.6	-0.2	-4.7	0.8	12.8	0.1	0.8	1.0	1.01969 I	0.8	0.3	2.5	7.2	1.6	-11.4	1.0	0.9	1.3	1.0II	1.2	2.8	1.6	-1.5	2.3	-13.0	1.2	1.1	1.3	1.5Ill	0.7	3.5	1.7	3.3	1.4	0.4	-0.3	1.0	1.6	1.0IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Note: These are revised National Accounts figures. Quarterly revised figures prior to 1968 are not available. UlSee footnote (1) on reference table 39.
(2>Estimated by the Department of Finance.
Source: DBS National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
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	99.61961 d)	100.0	lOO.Od)	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	120.41969	125.5	127.1	124.7	124.5	120.0	133.6	126.8	125.0[Not seasonally adjusted)	1969 I	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	125.5M	124.9	125.1	124.2	123.8	120.4	134.2	127.4	125.8J	125.9	127.8	124.7	124.9	120.6	134.2	127.4	125.8J	126.4	128.8	125.2	124.8	120.7	134.2	127.4	126.3A	126.9	130.6	125.4	125.0	120.5	134.2	127.6	126.4S	126.6	128.5	125.7	125.2	120.9	135.0	128.0	126.40	126.8	127.8	126.4	126.1	120.9	136.1	128.1	126.4N	127.4	128.8	126.9	126.3	121.8	136.4	128.5	126.3D	127.9	129.8	127.6	126.4	122.0	136.8	128.1	126.3
<l>1957 weights replace 1947-48 weights beginning January 1961.
(2>The system of variable weights for seasonal foods was revised beginning January 1961. Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes, Monthly, Cat. 62-002.
21774-30*
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
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	14.5	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	_1956	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	3.0I960	1.2	0.8	1.0	0.9	1.4	2.9	1.9	1.6i96io>	0.9	1.8«)	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	-	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	9.11969	4.5	4.2	5.1	2.8	4.6	4.9	5.9	3.7(Not seasonally adjusted]	1969 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	3.5M	4.7	4.2	5.3	2.6	5.2	5.3	6.9	3.7J	5.2	6.1	5.4	3.1	4.8	5.3	6.9	3.7J	5.0	5.1	5.4	3.1	4.9	4.8	6.5	4.1A	5.1	5.4	5.5	3.6	4.7	4.7	6.4	4.2S	4.5	4.1	4.9	3.3	4.8	5.1	5.8	4.2o	4.4	4.0	5.1	2.7	5.2	5.5	5.5	4.2N	4.5	4.4	5.0	2.4	5.3	5.4	4.2	4.1D	4.6	4.3	5.5	2.4	5.4	5.7	3.9	4.1
(O.WSee footnotes (1) and (2) on reference table 41.
Source: DBS Prices and Prices Indexes.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 43
CONSUMER PRICE INDEXES: SUPPLEMENTARY CLASSIFICATIONS
1649 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	63.01951	88.0	95.0	94.9	94.3	93.5	99.7	72.5	68.01952	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	98.119610)	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.91962	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	114.01966	111.4	109.6	105.3	111.7	107.7	99.1	113.6	119.01967	115.4	112.4	109.2	114.6	111.9	102.1	119.7	127.91968	120.1	116.4	113.2	119.0	116.9	103.9	125.0	132.61969	125.5	120.3	116.2	123.6	120.5	104.9	132.3	141.S(Not seasonally adjusted)	1969 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	141.3M	124.9	119.8	116.1	122.9	120.4	105.0	132.2	142.4J	125.9	121.4	116.4	124.9	120.8	105.0	133.0	143.1J	126.4	121.5	116.4	125.1	120.8	104.8	133.4	143.4A	126.9	121.6	116.4	125.3	121.0	104.5	133.6	143.5S	126.6	121.0	116.7	124.5	121.3	104.5	134.1	144.1O	126.8	120.9	116.9	124.4	121.6	104.6	134.5	144.4N	127.4	121.5	117.4	124.8	121.7	106.2	134.5	144.3D	127.9	122.1	117.7	125.5	122.0	106.3	135.0	144.6
OJSee footnote (1) on reference table 41.
Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
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	2.9196ia>	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	4.41969	4.5	3.4	2.7	3.9	3.1	1.0	5.8	6.9(Not seasonally ajusted)	1969 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	7.6M	4.7	3.5	2.6	4.1	3.1	1.1	6.4	7.8J	5.2	4.7	2.7	5.4	3.3	1.1	6.2	7.7J	5.0	4.3	2.6	4.9	3.1	1.0	6.2	7.6A	5.1	4.1	2.6	4.8	3.2	1.3	6.1	7.5S	4.5	3.2	2.6	3.7	3.1	0.9	6.2	7.60	4.4	2.7	2.4	3.2	2.8	0.9	6.3	7.8N	4.5	3.2	2.4	3.6	2.6	1.6	5.7	6.9D	4.6	3.3	2.5	3.7	2.8	1.6	6.0	7.1
(i)See footnote (1) on reference table 41.
Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 45

[Stage Direction]
1963 to 1969
-	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969
			(Percentage points)				
All items		1.8 0.9 0.4 0.2						
Food								1.1
Housing			0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1	0.6				
Clothing								0.3
Transportation								
Health and personal care		0.2		0.3 0.1 0.1	0.3			
Recreation and reading		0.1						
Tobacco and alcohol								
							
All items								
All commodities		1.2	0.9 -0.1 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.2			1.6		
Durables								
Non-durables	1.2 0.3 0.3 0.3	1.0 0.4 1.1 0.3	Non-durables excluding food	0.8	1.0	Services	Portion of shelter excluded W	0.3	
^Includes new houses, property taxes and mortgage interest. Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 46 OTHER PRICES INDEXES 1947 to 1969
Years and Months	Prices of Com- modities and Services Used by Farmers	Farm Prices of Agricultural Products 0)	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			
	(1935-39)	(1961								
=100)	= 100)	(1935-39=100)	(1961	=100)	(1948=100)	1947	157.5	83.6	164.3	162.4	187.0	61.7	64.5	91.6	88.0	104.11948	183.7	99.1	196.3	192.4	222.7	74.4	73.2	100.0	100.0	100.01949	191.7	98.9	197.1	199.2	218.0	77.9	76.3	103.3	102.6	100.71950	197.3	101.0	212.8	211.0	244.6	83.0	80.1	108.3	110.3	98.21951	217.5	115.0	237.9	242.4	296.1	97.8	90.5	123.9	126.2	98.21952	229.8	106.3	218.7	230.7	252.6	97.4	93.9	121.8	110.4	110.31953	225.3	97.0	207.0	228.8	232.3	96.6	94.8	118.3	109.4	108.11954	224.2	91.7	204.8	224.2	223.7	94.9	92.9	115.1	109.5	105.11955	224.5	90.1	209.7	224.5	236.0	96.9	94.2	117.7	110.5	106.51956	230.3	90.9	215.8	231.5	248.2	100.1	97.7	121.3	113.0	107.31957	238.7	91.2	209.4	237.9	240.3	100.1	99.2	121.3	116.4	104.21958	242.7	95.2	209.3	238.3	229.8	99.2	99.0	120.6	116.5	103.51959	249.7	95.2	210.9	241.6	240.2	101.3	100.5	122.8	114.4	107.31960	254.7	96.1	209.6	242.2	240.4	100.7	101.0	123.0	115.5	106.51961	259.0	100.0	212.6	244.5	243.2	100.0	100.0	124.0	119.1	104.11962	265.8	104.3	223.8	249.0	248.0	101.1	100.6	128.1	124.5	102.91963	273.8	102.9	226.9	254.2	253.5	104.4	103.0	128.9	129.4	99.61964	281.6	101.3	225.7	256.4	258.3	111.1	106.5	130.7	130.8	99.91965	289.3	107.8	231.2	261.3	258.7	116.1	112.0	132.4	130.8	101.21966	305.2	117.0	242.7	268.6	261.4	120.0	115.4	137.9	132.5	104.11967	322.6	116.0	246.1	274.2	253.1	124.3	117.8	140.6	133.5	105.31968	338.9	113.7	249.1	281.6	254.0	131.3	120.6	145.6	135.7	107.31969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Not seasonally adjusted)	1969 J	344.1	112.2	255.4	290.8	261.4	138.2	123.1	147.6	137.4	107.4F	n.a.	112.4	255.9	292.0	263.5	139.8	123.8	149.0	139.0	107.2M	n.a.	112.2	255.0	293.7	264.1	143.2	125.5	150.2	140.0	107.3A	355.2	113.4	256.6	296.6	267.7	146.0	126.5	151.3	139.5	108.5M	n.a.	117.0	260.4	295.7	271.8	145.0	126.7	152.0	139.5	109.0J	n.a.	119.3	263.2	296.2	270.6	142.4	126.2	152.5	139.7	109.2J	n.a.	119.6	262.6	294.0	269.2	141.3	126.0	153.2	140.4	109.1A	356.8	115.8	262.0	293.8	269.2	140.4	126.4	153.0	141.1	109.4S	n.a.	115.8	261.8	295.4	270.4	138.9	126.6	152.7	141.8	107.70	n.a.	113.3	261.5	295.4	266.8	137.9	126.8	153.0	142.5	107.4N	n.a.	114.3	261.1	296.2	267.8	138.4	127.6	153.5	142.7	107.6
^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.
<2>These two series comprise the general wholesale price index.
(3>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.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 47
CHANGES IN OTHER PRICE INDEXES 1947 to 1969
Years and Months	Prices of Com- modities and Services Used by Farmers	Farm Prices of Agricultural Products	Wholesale Price Indexes		Thirty Indus- trial Materials	Building Materials		Merchan- dise Export Prices	Merchan- dise Import Prices	Terms of Trade*3)
			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	4.7	4.2	3.3	2.6	0.71950	2.9	2.1	8.0	5.9	12.2	6.5	5.0	4.8	7.5	-2.51951	10.2	13.9	11.8	14.9	21.1	17.8	13.0	14.4	14.4	-1952	5.7	-7.6	-8.1	-4.8	-14.7	-0.4	3.8	-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	-5.5	-1.1	-2.0	-3.7	-1.8	-2.0	-2.7	0.1	-2.81955	0.1	-1.7	2.4	0.1	5.5	2.1	1.4	2.3	0.9	1.31956	2.6	0.9	2.9	3.1	5.2	3.3	3.7	3.1	2.3	0.81957	3.6	0.3	-3.0	2.8	-3.2	-	1.5	-	3.0	-2.91958	1.7	4.4	-	0.2	-4.4	-0.9	-0.2	-0.6	0.1	-0.71959	2.9	-	0.8	1.4	4.5	2.1	1.5	1.8	-1.8	3.71960	2.0	0.9	-0.6	0.2	0.1	-0.6	0.5	0.2	1.0	-0.71961	1.7	4.1	1.4	0.9	1.2	-0.7	-1.0	0.8	3.1	-2.31962	2.6	4.3	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	3.3	2.4	0.6	3.9	-3.21964	2.8	-1.6	-0.5	0.9	1.9	6.4	3.4	1.4	1.1	0.31965	2.7	6.4	2.4	1.9	0.2	4.5	5.2	1.3	1.31966	5.5	8.5	5.0	2.8	1.0	3.4	3.0	4.2	1.3	2.91967	5.7	-0.9	1.4	2.1	-3.2	3.6	2.1	2.0	0.8	1.21968	5.1	-2.0	1.2	2.7	0.4	5.6	2.4	3.6	1.6	1.91969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Not seasonally adjusted)	1969 J	4.7	-0.4	2.6	4.8	3.0	8.1	2.8	3.4	1.3	2.0F	n.a.	-0.1	3.3	5.0	4.4	9.0	3.2	4.0	1.7	2.3M	n.a.	-	1.9	5.5	4.2	11.0	4.3	4.4	2.7	1.6A	3.8	1.0	3.5	6.4	6.7	12.2	5.0	4.6	2.4	2.2M	n.a.	3.4	4.5	5.7	8.0	11.4	5.1	4.4	2.8	1.6J	n.a.	4.1	4.9	5.3	7.1	8.4	4.6	4.5	2.7	1.8J	n.a.	2.8	5.8	4.6	6.2	7.5	4.9	4.7	3.8	0.8A	3.2	0.7	5.5	4.1	5.9	6.4	5.0	4.8	4.4	0.3S	n.a.	-0.2	5.0	3.9	6.6	4.3	4.9	4.2	4.6	-0.30	n.a.	-0.2	5.7	3.7	4.5	3.3	5.0	4.6	4.9	-0.3N	n.a.	0.9	4.6	3.6	4.1	3.4	5.0	4.8	4.5	0.4
U), (2), (*>See footnotes (1), (2) and (3) on reference table 46.
Source: DBS Prices and Price Indexes.
DBS Trade of Canada Exports.
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.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 48
TOTAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES (Unrevised National Accounts Basis)
1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Goods and Services	Transfer Payments to Persons	Interest on the Public Debt	Subsidies	Capital Assist- ance*1)	Canada and Quebec Pension Plans	Total Expen- ditures*2)	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	1061958	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	8001969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted at annual	rates)	1968 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	436IV	13,956	7,536	2,332	552	56	28	24,460	1,3761969 I	14,228	7,680	2,448	496	56	32	24,940	1,908II	14,752	8,064	2,604	568	96	48	26,132	1,468Ill	14,948	8,092	2,568	488	64	60	26,220	1,404IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
OlFrom 1961 on, this item is treated as government current expenditure; prior to 1961, it was treated as capital transfer. (^Excludes inter-governmental transfers.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 49
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Goods and Services	Transfer Payments to Persons	Interest on the Public Debt	Subsidies	Capital Assistance d>
Transfers to Other Levels of Government	Total Expen- ditures	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	2,380	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	-1651969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 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<969 I	5,132	3,536	1,436	376	56	2,728	13,264	48II	5,108	3,584	1,604	456	96	2,780	13,628	76Ill	5,120	3,696	1,600	348	64	2,684	13,512	280IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
d>See footnote (1) on reference table 48.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 50
PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES 1947 to 1969
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	691948	1,124	292	105	4	1,525	-521949	1,257	365	111	4	1,737	-1071950	1,367	415	118	3	1,903	-501951	1,569	455	126	4	2,154	-361952	1,790	380	139	4	2,313	-1953	1,873	415	149	4	2,441	331954	2,012	473	165	2	2,652	-311955	2,282	505	175	7	2,969	-701956	2,703	542	190	5	3,440	-1941957	2,994	613	220	8	3,835	-1491958	3,326	738	238	15	4,317	-2501959	3,658	964	285	16	4,923	-2291960	4,039	1,144	342	26	5,551	-4661961	4,254	1,435	384	30	6,103	-5441962	4,692	1,613	439	32	6,776	-2891963	5,141	1,715	488	36	7,380	-3601964	5,608	1,894	531	46	8,079	-3081965	6,321	2,262	593	67	9,243	-3001966	7,366	2,569	654	141	10,730	-5351967	8,118	3,287	737	132	12,274	-4731968	8,854	3,902	853	125	13,734	-251969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I	8,456	3,568	836	116	12,976	108II	8,764	3,760	836	120	13,480	168Ill	9,032	4,096	864	144	14,136	-460IV	9,164	4,184	876	120	14,344	841969 I	9,096	4,144	1,012	120	14,372	780II	9,644	4,480	1,000	112	15,236	276Ill	9,828	4,396	968	140	15,332	24IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 51
TOTAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES (Unrevised National Accounts Basis) 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Direct Taxes			With- holding Taxes	Indirect Taxes	Investment Income*2)	Employer and Employee Contributions to Social Insurance and Govern- ment Pension Funds*2)	Canada and Quebec Pension Plans**)	Total Reve- nues*1)**)
	Persons	Corpo- rations							
					(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 j 9691952	1,323	1,384	55	2,817	617	375	6,5711953	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	24,1551969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 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	25,8361969 I	7,588	2,976	212	10,860	2,600	1,500	1,112	26,848II	8,200	2,832	240	10,960	2,644	1,560	1,164	27,600Ill	8,584	2,396	264	11,012	2,636	1,572	1,160	27,624IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
**) 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]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 52
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES 1947 to 1969
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	180	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	6,4111961	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	11,8931969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 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	12,8801969 I	4,976	2,216	212	3,924	1,044	940	13,312II	5,368	2,112	240	3,988	1,004	992	13,704Ill	5,656	1,784	264	4,040	1,068	980	13,792IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 53
PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Direc Persons	; Taxes Corpo- rations	Indirect Taxes	Investment Income	Employer and Employee Contributions to Social Insurance and Government Pension Funds	Transfers from Federal Government	Total Revenues
			(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	3,246194	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	T, 7711965	1,197	550	4,312	1,041	409	1,434	8 9431966	1,529	556	4,891	1,118	439	i; 662	10 1951967	1,921	578	5,520	1,312	478	1,992	ll|8011968	
1969	2,377 n.a.	661 n.a.	6,257 n.a.	1,416 n.a.	546 n.a.	2| 452 n.a.	13,709 n.a.(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I	2,152	608	6,096	1,376	528	2,324	13,0842,284	628	6,192	1,448	532	2,564	13,648Ill	2,444	664	6,272	1,356	564	2,376	13,6762,628	744	6,468	1,484	560	2,544	14,4281969 I	2,612	760	6,936	1,556	560	2,728	15,1522,832	720	6,972	1,640	568	2,780	15|512III	
IV	2,928 n.a.	612 n.a.	6,972 n.a.	1,568 n.a.	592 n.a.	2; 684 n.a.	15,356 n.a.
Source: DBS The National Accounts.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 54
INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS: CURRENT ACCOUNT 1947 to 1969
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)				
2,723	99	251	64	322	69	220	3,7483,030	119	279	70	336	84	229	4,1471949	2,989	139	285	83	303	68	222	4,0893,139	163	275	94	284	57	218	4,2303,950	150	274	115	351	77	230	8,1474,339	150	275	152	383	85	289	5,6734,152	144	302	164	318	91	322	5,4931954	3,934	155	305	147	313	89	305	5,2484,332	155	328	161	398	86	399	5,8594,837	147	337	142	457	99	456	6,4754.894	144	363	153	445	124	406	b,5294.890	157	349	167	401	97	391	6,4521959	5,151	148	391	180	420	109	414	6,8135,392	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 	11,338	112	1,318	295	830	329	863	15,0851968	13,538	120	992	331	894	370	875	17,1201969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I 	13,072	124	964	284	880	308	844	16,476II	13,444	112	1,028	340	892	360	876	17,052III 	13,336	128	1,008	376	888	436	884	17,056IV	14,300	116	968	324	916	376	896	17,8961969 I 	14,992	116	1,100	388	920	348	992	18,856II 	14,444	116	1,112	496	920	360	1,024	18,472Ill	15,104	116	1,064	380	924	348	1,052	18,988IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
March 12. 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 54 (Continued) INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS: CURRENT ACCOUNT 1947 to 1969
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 h)	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	10,772	895	1,211	861	213	182	1,450	15,5841968	12,162	1,015	1,290	937	209	133	1,485	17,2311969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I	11,868	960	1,284	912	224	n.a.	1,540	16,788II	11,632	956	1,348	928	232	n.a.	1,588	16,684Ill	12,028	1,112	1,344	928	192	n.a.	1,672	17,276IV	13,120	1,032	1,184	980	188	n.a.	1,672	18,1761969 I	13,936	1,160	1,352	976	212	n.a.	1,640	19,276II	13,820	1,284	1,384	992	216	n.a.	1,704	19,400Ill	13,856	1,368	1,364	984	180	n.a.	1,808	19,560IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
(^Includes official contributions from 1968 to 1969 quarterly.
Source: DBS Quaterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments, Quarterly, Cat. 67-001, Occasional, Cat* 67-505.
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
Reference Table 55
NET BALANCES ON SELECTED NON-MERCHANDISE ACCOUNTS 1947 to 1969
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	All( Countries	All Countries	All 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	-2431954	-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	n.a.	n.a.	-23	n.a.	n.a.	161	-43	-9591969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)	1968 I	n.a.	n.a.	4	n.a.	n.a.	84	-32	-1,000II	n.a.	n.a.	72	n.a.	n.a.	128	-36	-1,008Ill	n.a.	n.a.	-104	n.a.	n.a.	244	-40	-968IV	n.a.	n.a.	-64	n.a.	n.a.	188	-64	-8601969 I	n.a.	n.a.	-60	n.a.	n.a.	136	-56	-964II	n.a.	n.a.	-172	n.a.	n.a.	144	-72	-888Ill	n.a.	n.a.	-304	n.a.	n.a.	168	-60	-984IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Source: DBS Quarterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 56
SUMMARY OF BALANCE OF PAYMENTS 1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Merchan- dise Trade Balance	Deficit on Non-Merchandise Trans-actionsd)	Current Account Balanced)	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	38	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<*>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	566	589	-611	112	1,347	-830	18	34	- 16	1968	1,376	-1,607	-231	120	1,590	-1,126	353	604	-249	- 2d)1969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	263	-524	-261	33	132	-669	-765	- 23	-471	-271II	372	-418	- 46	27	742	-103	620	355	130	135Ill	483	-182	301	32	360	-532	161	- 43	70	134IV	258	-483	-225	28	356	178	337	315	22	-1969 I	243	-539	-296	31	549	-321	-37	- 53	16	II	97	-450	-353	28	481	-215	-59	-168	109	_Ill	366	-255	111	29	605	-749	- 4	- 91	87	-IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
^Excluding gold production available for export.
^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.
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
Reference Table 57
INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS: CAPITAL MOVEMENTS 1947 to 1969
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 Debentures	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	691	-125	-57	12	1,307	-357	-432	-38	34	44	2681968	610	-135	-69	112	1,933	-395	-468	-78	5	88	-131969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	20	-66	-52	15	407	-124	-89	-10	2	29II....	229	17	-11	34	708	-120	-129	- 8	2	-	20III...	178	- 9	-13	10	452	-37	-132	-16	1	-	-74IV...	183	-77	7	53	366	-114	-118	-44	-	88	121969 I	130	-55	17	37	643	-69	-58	-11	-ssII....	245	-110	- 6	44	506	-126	- 8	-43	2	-	-23III...	95	-30	-11	-4	563	-49	-64	-15	-	-	- 8IV...	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 57 (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 Foreign Exchange	Change in Net Internationa] Monetary Fund Position	Other Special Liter- national Financial Assist- anceCanadian Com- mercial Paper	Canadian Finance Paper	(Millions of dollars)	1947	-26	33	-	-(s)	- (2)	-(2)	-8	5	-717	-742	74	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)	-(8)	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	-4W)1963	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	-559	517	34	- 16	-1968	70	21	48	3	-131	19	-405	-751	464	604	-249	-2(4)1969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	8	- 4	23	6	-60	- 6	-125	-548	-537	- 23	-471	-271II	4	- 3	1	-18	-35	- 7	27	- 53	639	355	130	135III....	4	1	11	2	-36	- 2	-149	-345	-172	- 43	70	134IV	54	27	13	-13	-	34	-158	195	534	315	22	1969 I	-11	- 2	13	- 3	159	23	-155	-345	228	-53	16	II	25	-30	- 5	- 3	71	28	-584	233	266	-163	109	III....	- 4	1	- 3	-15	-71	3	-233	-427	-144	-91	87	-IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	-
(OFrom 1947 to 1961, includes export credits extended from Canada directly or indirectly at risk of the Government of Canada. (2>Included in "all other transactions" from 1947 to 1951.
(3>Included in "Canadian finance company obligations n.i.e." from 1952 to 1962.
(^Represent differences in Canadian dollar equivalents as between receipt and repayment of special international assistance, denominated in U.S. dollars, including, in 1962, a swap with the U.K. authorities.
Source: DBS Quarterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 58

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Government of Canada (Including Guaranteed)	Provincial Governments (Including Guaranteed)	Municipal Governments	New Issues	Retire- ments	Net Proceeds	New Issues	Retire- ments	Net Proceeds	New Issues	Retire- ments	Net Proceeds1947	39	(Mi	llions of doll	irs)	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	290	58	232	861	75	786	124	60	641969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	4	10	-6	240	22	218	45	15	30II	255	30	225	173	19	154	28	11	17Ill	4	-	4	251	8	243	20	11	9IV	27	18	9	197	26	171	31	23	81969 I	16	16	332	27	305	43	15	28II	9	49	-40	209	17	192	86	14	72Ill	5	9	-4	331	13	318	44	10	34IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 58 (Continued)

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969
Years and Quarters	Total Governments	Corporations (Including Railroads)	Total	New Issues	Retire- ments	Net Proceeds	New Issues	Retire- ments	Net Proceeds	New Issues	Retire- ments	Net Proceeds(Millions of dollars)	1947	n.a.	39	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	95	1948	150	36	114	-	n.a.	150	1949	105	96	9	-	n.a.	n.a.	105	n.a.	n.a.1950	178	159	19	28	n.a.	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	9171968	1,275	193	1,082	597	201	396	1,872	394	1,4781969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	289	47	242	110	77	33	399	124	275II	456	60	396	244	60	184	700	120	580Ill	275	19	256	152	18	134	427	37	390IV	255	67	188	91	46	45	46	113	2331969 I	391	42	349	178	27	151	569	69	500II	304	80	224	115	45	70	419	125	294Ill	380	32	348	171	17	154	551	49	502IV	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Source: DBS Sales and Purchases of Securities Between Canada and Other Countries, Monthly, Cat. 67-002.
Reference Table 59
CANADIAN CHARTERED BANKS' HEAD OFFICES AND BRANCHES IN CANADA-NET CHANGE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY POSITIONS*1)
1967 to 1969
(Not seasonally adjusted)
With U.S. residents:
Assets	
Liabilities	
Net	
268
191
152
449
815
476
1 n | nT
iv
1 ii i in'
-98
(Millions of dollars)
38
212
358
-91
247
78
79
276
332
[Stage Direction]
147
Other non-residents:
Assets	
Liabilities	
Net	
158
636
-65
1,405
1,361
127
80
97
113
-172
272
464
-14
304
227
-211
141
Total non-residents:
Assets	
Liabilities	
Net claims*®).
234
788
385
2,220
1,700
-97
-46
135
325
186
181
711
63
383
503
122
288
With Canadian residents:
Assets(b)	
Liabilities**)1	
Net	
Changes in banks' own position*11)2.
306
-48
-146
1,252
-1,037
-57
152
-517
-19
-29
-6
-112
5
-34
-61
-226
217
-572
10
-371
49
132
(^Adjusted for variations in exchange rates.
Balance of payments effects:
_f(a)l-f(a)2].
D.17.1:...
-286
-405
n.a.
-125
1 -109 1	-180 1	-120	I ~3 I	-524 1	-131 1	-781 27 |	-149 |	-158	| -155 1	-584 |	-233 |	| n.a.
*b)is divided between D.17.5 and D.13 respectively short and long-term residual capital items. *°)with sign reversed is net balance of payments effect of banks foreign-currency operations.
Source: Department of Finance.
COMMONS DEBATES	March 12, 1970
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 60

[Stage Direction]
1947 to 1969
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 FundM	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	114	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	-	671960	-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	4«)	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	-1,454	300	-1,154	843	217	112	- 34	16	l' 1541968	-958	-159	-1,117	727	623	120	-604	249	2(2)	1,1171969	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.(Not seasonally adjusted)	1968 I	-454	-381	-835	193	-156	33	23	471	271	835II	-316	167	-149	270	472	27	-355	-130	-135	149III....	124	-472	-348	177	300	32	43	- 70	-134	348IV....	-312	527	215	87	7	28	-315	- 22	-2151969 I	-420	197	-223	124	31	31	53	- 16	223II	-344	624	280	- 9	-376	28	168	-109	-280III....	216	-516	-300	-105	372	29	91	- 87	300IV....	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
^Improvement (-) in Canadian position represents net provision of resources by Canada to the IMF.
(^Represent differences in Canadian dollar equivalents as between receipt and repayment of special international assistance denominated m US dollars, including, in 1962, a swap with the U K authorities.
Source: DBS Quarterly Estimates of the Canadian Balance of International Payments.
4878
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Reference Table 61

[Stage Direction]
1946 to 1969
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 (O1946	1.0	(Millions c	f U.S. dollars)	1.01947	74.0	-	-	-	-	75.01956	15.0	90.01958	-	-	-	-0.1	-	90.01959	62.5	-	-	-	-	152.51961	„	84.6	25.0	212.11962	-	-300.0	-	-50.3	-	-138.21963	-	-	79.7	-	
-58.5
1964	-	-	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(0	64.8	131.2	-	206.2(01969	-	-	280.3(0	-8.6	478.1«>1968 I	-426.0(0	-7.3	0.1II	-	-	-	121.0	-	121.1Ill	- "	-	64.8	-	-	185.9IV	-	-	-	17.5	-	206.2 «>1969 I	15.0	* 	221.2II	-	-	-	103.5	-2.5	322.2Ill	-	-	-	86.2	-6.1	402.3IV	-	-	-	75.6«>	-	478.1«>
Note: Fund borrowing under the General Arrangements to Borrow (GAB) does not affect the reserve position.
(OOnly 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.
(OIneludes the Fund's repayment of its 1965 borrowing from Canada ($35 million).
(OIneludes Canada's share in IMF dividends paid to members in their own currencies, amounting to $2.8 million in October 1968, and $.2 million in October 1969.
(OIneludes a transfer to Canada of $30 million in GAB notes formerly issued to the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with the German drawing of November 1969.
Source: IMF International Financial Statistics, Monthly.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Reference Table 62
CANADA'S OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL RESERVES*1) 1961 to 1970
Years and Months	Foreign Currencies*2) U.S. Dollars | Other**)		Gold	Special Drawing Rights	Reserve Position in IMF	Total
			(Millions of U.S. dollars)			
1961	1,123.0	10.7	946.2	212.1	2,292.01962	1,842.8	9.2	708.5	2,560.51963	
1964	1,786.6 1,654.5	9.5 11.8	817.2 1,025.7	-	197.5	2,613.3 2,889.51965	1,519.9	12.8	1,150.8	353.4	3,036.91966	1,195.4	12.4	1,045.6	448.5	2,701.91967	1,255.2	13.4	1,014.9	-	433.4	2,716.91968	1,964.9	11.6	863.1	-	206.2	3,045.81969	1,743.6	12.3	872.3	-	478.1	3,106.31969 January	2,002.6	12.0	863.1	212.2	3,089.9February	1,958.2	11.2	863.1	212.2	3,044.7March	1.917.4	9.0	863.1	221.2	3,010.7April	1,920.4	16.1	863.1	-	231.2	3,030.8May	1,898.2	14.4	863.1	-	236.2	3,011.9June	1,758.1	14.8	865.8	-	322.2	2,960.9July	1,700.1	12.8	865.8	-	355.7	2,934.4August	1,729.3	10.8	865.8	360.7	2,966.6September	1,667.5	14.3	872.0	402.3	2,956.1October	1,758.2	13.3	872.0	__	406.5	3,050.0November	1,742.0	16.5	872.2	444.5	3,075.2December	1,743.6	12.3	872.3	-	478.1	3,106.31970 January	1,827.8	11.6	869.9	129.3	472.6	3,311.2
**)At end of period.
(^Convertible foreign currency holdings of the Exchange Fund Account, the Receiver General for Canada and the Bank of Canada.
**) Valued at official parity rates in terms of U.S. dollars. Source: Department of Finance.
21774-31£
Reference Table'63
DETAILS OF NEW ISSUES AND RETIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT OF CANADA DIRECT AND GUARANTEED MARKETABLE BONDS FROM JANUARY 1, 1969 to FEBRUARY 15, 1970
(Millions of dollars par value)
Date
January 15. March 14.. April 1...
April 15., July 1....
July 25...
August 15..
September 15. October 1...
October 15- December 15..
December 31.
TOTAL (Calendar 1969)	
February 15.
TOTAL (Fiscal 1969-70)	
Retirements
5% July	1, 1969
5i% April	1, 1969
5% Oct.	15,	1987(5)5% July	1,	19696*% July	1,	19695i% Oct.	1,	1969CNR 21% Sept. 15/69 5\% Oct.	1,	19695i% Oct.	1,	19695J% Oct.	1,	1969
5% Oct. h\% Dec. 6|% Dec. h\% Dec. 5% May 5J% Jan. 5% Oct.
15, 1987(5) 15, 1969 15, 1969 15, 1971 15, 1977 1, 1985 1, 1987
6% Feb. 15, 1970
Amount
100<*>
1
75
75(*)
50(2)
175
175
4
2
285
Sub-total	New Bonds	Amount Delivered	Sub-total	Net Change in Amount Outstanding	Term of New Bonds	Yield to Maturity6?% June	1, 1988	16<b	16	+ 16	20 years	6.90100	-100	7% May	1, 1970	125	1 yr. 1 mo.	7.0971% April	1, 1972	235(3)	3 yrs.	7.29410	7i% April	1, 1974	125(J)«)	485	+ 75	5 yrs.	7.251	- 1	7}% July	1, 1970	130	1 yr.	7.75300	8% July	1, 1978	125	255	- 45	9 yrs.	8.0075	- 75	7j% Oct.	1, 1970	40	1 yr. 1$ mo.	7.888% Feb.	1, 1973	110	150«*	+ 150	3 yrs. 5£ mo.	8.00120	-120	8% Oct.	1, 1970	30	1 yr.	8.008% Oct.	1, 1971	45	2 yrs.	8.00350	8% Oct.	1, 1974	225 a)	300	- 50	5 yrs.	8.001	- 1	15, 1970	75	1 yr.	8.11210	8% Dec.	15, 1971	125	200(8)	- 10	1 yr. 9J mo3.	8.1411(9)	-11	1,578	1,406	-172	1, 1971	75	1 yr. 3J mos.	8.11285	8% Oct.	1, 1974	2000°)	275	- 10	4 yrs. 7£ mos.	8.131,763	1,665	- 98	
<*U.S. pay issue in principal amount U.S. $100 million, subject to delayed delivery contracts.
(^Cancellation of securities held in the Securities Investment Account.	_ . , _	, .	.... cs~ .	,	1 iqaq onA
(^Includes $50 million 1\% bonds due 1972 and $25 million 7\% bonds due 1974 exchanged directly with Bank of Canada for $75 million 5f% bonds maturing October 1, 1969 and can-
CelIe«)E"chUragrabiebi'to an equal par value of 10 year 71% bonds to be dated April 1, 1974 and due April 1, 1984, yielding 7.50% for the 10 years commencing April 1, 1974 and about 7.39% for the full 15 year period commencing April 1, 1969.
«)U.S. pay issue subject to partial redemption for sinking fund on prorated basis.	.	.	_ xl	D	inco
'^Includes $50 million of bonds exchanged directly with Bank of Canada for $50 million 5|% bonds maturing October 1, 1969 and cancelled on September 15, 1969.
(^Exchangeable into an equal par value of 8% bonds due October 1, 1986 to yield 8.00% for 17 years.	,	.	.	,, i in7fl ,. ,
(8)	Includes $25 million 8% bonds due 1970 and $25 million 8% bonds due 1971 exchanged directly with Bank of Canada for $50 million 3|% bonds maturing May 1, 1970 which were placed in the Securities Investment Account.
(9)	Cancellation of securities held by CN purchase funds.
(^Exchangeable into an equal par value of 8% bonds due October 1, 1986 to yield about 8.05% for 16 years 7$ months.
Source: Department of Finance.
4880	COMMONS DEBATES	March 12, 1970
Reference Table 64

[Stage Direction]
1964 to 1869
	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969
			(Millions of dollars)			
New Issues in Canadian dollars:						
Government of Canada-marketh)	-45	-380	82	800	1,177	-109Canada Savings Bonds	480	253	223	230	40	329Sub-total	435	-127	305	1,030	1,217	220Provinces and municipalities G)	868	742	1,031	1,013	612	241Corporations	617	981	536	832	486	403Total	1,920	1,601	1,872	2,875	2,315	864Foreign-Pay Bond Issues:	Government of Canada	-	-5	-5	-205	266	14Provinces and municipalities	471	267	424	800	901	1,057Corporations	211	394	542	161	372	443Total	682	656	961	756	1,539	1,514Total Bond Issues	2,602	2,257	2,833	3,631	3,854	2,378Taken up by:	Bank of Canada	29	352	3	329	137	173Chartered Banks	-191	54	113	873	1,092	-456Non-bank holders:	Market bonds	1,602	942	1,533	1,443	1,046	818Canada Savings Bonds	480	253	223	230	40	329Holders of Canadian foreign-pay	682	656	961	756	1,539	1,514TOTAL	2,602	2,257	2,833	3,631	3,854	2,378
^Includes Treasury bills and excludes non-marketable bonds. (^Excludes securities bought by the Canada Pension Plan.
Sources: Bank of Canada and Department of Finance.
March 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4881
Reference Table 05 MORTGAGE LOAN APPROVALS^) 1962 to 1969
Private Lending Institutions	CMHC«>	Total Private and PublicConventional Mortgages	NHA	Total Private Lending	of which:	Non- Residential	Residential	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	2,2071965	581	749	902	320	2,552	6	1,158	1,388	513	3,0651966	382	471	574	191	1,618	-	804	814	593	2,2111967	369	655	745	356	2,124	253	800	1,071	737	2,8611968	335	572	963	832	2,702	446	845	1,410	503	3,2051968 I	98	128	243	188	657	88	261	307	84	741II	74	143	235	205	657	82	237	338	94	781Ill	83	138	208	257	686	95	179	412	75	761IV	80	163	277	182	702	181	168	353	250	9521969 I	90	153	266	152	661	93	141	427	83	744II	129	227	362	231	949	150	224	575	119	1,068Ill	113	158	199	167	637	79	152	406	154	791
0>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.
<2includes loan and trust companies, Quebec saving banks, fraternal and mutual benefit societies.
^Includes student housing.
Source: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
4882	COMMONS DEBATES	March 12. 1970
Reference Table 66
SUMMARY OF SOURCES OF NET NEW FINANCING IN CANADA 1965 to 1969
-	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969®
		(Millions of dollars)			
Government of Canada					
Market securities 0)	-380	82	800	1,177	-109Canada Savings Bonds	253	223	230	40	329Sub-total	-127	305	1,030	1,217	220Provinces and Municipalities	742	1,493	1,682	1,316	1,046198	137	80	28	74Sub-total	940	1,630	1,762	1,344	1,120Corporations and others^3)	986	536	832	517	403465	588	502	555	777Commercial and Industrial credit and Bankers' Acceptances	214	22	-53	-3	100Short-term commercial paper	-116	40	91	136	2341,210	548	1,161	1,029	1,100Sub-total	2,759	1,734	2,533	2,234	2,614Individuals	1,574 887	1,057	1,006	1,265	1,500Consumer credit	613	816	1,212	1,400Sub-total	2,461	1,670	1,822	2,477	2,900TOTAL 	6,033	5,339	7,147	7,272	6,854
^Includes Treasury bills and excludes non-marketable bonds.
<*>Includes securities purchased by Canada Pension Plan.
<*)Others include unincorporated business, farmers, non-financial, religious and non-profit institutions. [DOT]= estimated.
Source: Bank of Canada and Department of Finance.
March 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4883
Reference Table 67
FINANCIAL FLOWS: CHARTERED BANKS 1966 to 1969
1966	1967	1968	1968	1969	9 months ending Sept. 30	i	ii	in	IV	i	ii	hi	1968	1969(Millions of dollars)	Gross domestic savings	76	117	208	47	51	53	47	62	58	66	151	186Non-financial capital formation	42	41	46	12	11	12	11	15	15	15	35	45Net lending (+) or borrowing (-)	34	76	162	35	40	41	36	47	43	51	116	141Net financial investments	46	75	153	-11	-	-9	173	-4	-6	-12	-20	-22Net increase in financial assets	1,237	2,686	3,501	489	789	1,090	1,133	563	264	-236	2,368	591Currency and bank deposits	138	-13	168	-246	12	254	148	-160	103	26	20	-31Consumer credit	217	518	689	77	188	166	258	202	303	-57	431	448Loans	663	1,262	1,076	451	214	-167	578	493	389	32	498	914Provinces	42	104	-61	-98	70	-85	52	-62	-16	-4	-113	-82Municipalities	95	-24	89	256	-96	-105	34	237	-104	-90	55	43Grain dealers	19	267	294	90	210	-54	48	78	53	128	246	259Sales finance companies	-106	-3	-4	-20	-59	-35	110	-72	7	-7	-114	-72Other loans to persons	3	8	67	-89	-65	-38	259	-46	-65	-92	-192	-20390	116	8	-62	14	31	25	-43	100	19	-17	76Business	398	748	649	444	-66	148	122	491	445	80	526	1,016Stock brokers and investment dealers...	78	44	180	34	104	46	-4	-154	3	-18	184	-169Day-to-day loans	27	28	-113	-98	101	-65	-51	54	-34	21	-62	41Other loans	17	-26	-33	-6	1	-10	-17	10	-	-5	-15	5Government of Canada Treasury bills	191	177	399	141	224	210	-176	31	65	-56	575	40Mortgages	-32	57	203	43	60	32	68	75	90	64	135	229Government of Canada bonds	-40	567	537	-9	15	395	136	21	-325	-30	401	-334Provincial bonds	-58	63	30	9	-18	51	-12	8	-35	-9	42	-36Municipal bonds	-11	21	18	4	-2	17	-1	6	-4	-5	19	-3Other Canadian bonds	31	45	107	-10	11	54	52	32	-35	9	55	6Claims on associated enterprises	11	12	16	-1	5	2	10	2	3	31	6	36Net foreign currency assets	121	-52	260	39	86	77	58	-142	-295	-233	202	-670Other financial assets	6	29	-2	-9	-6	-1	14	-5	5	-8	-16	-84884	COMMONS DEBATES	March 12, 1970
Reference Table 67 (Continued) FINANCIAL FLOWS: CHARTERED BANKS
1966 to 1969
1966	1967	1968	1968	1969	9 months ending Sept. 30	i	n	in	IV	i	ii	in	1968	1969(Millions of dollars)	1,191	2,611	3,348	500	789	1,099	960	567	270	-224	2,388	6131,178	2,560	3,309	496	786	1,087	940	539	238	-246	2,369	531Government of Canada^)	93	-303	203	383	-766	53	533	-254	201	-193	-330	-246Personal savings	r-1,011	-289	-367	-141	-214	-175	-157	-320	-797	-652498	1,488	{ 1,565	509	482	304	270	388	317	445	1,295	1,150l 1,278	245	593	351	89	336	265	368	1,189	969177	1,172	743	-10	538	264	-49	509	-666	-324	792	-481436	354	480	-790	357	564	349	-638	348	38	131	-252FloatW	-17	21	-191	302	-202	-97	-194	365	-129	-39	3	197Adjustment	-9	-172	242	146	151	-211	156	8	59	-221	86	- 154Loans	-	3	2	-3	-	-	5	-4	-	-	40	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	--	3	12	-	-	12	-	7	35	2	12	44Other liabilities	13	5	25	7	3	-	15	25	-2	20	10	43Discrepancy (2)	12	1	9	46	40	50	-137	51	49	63	136	163
(DThe break down of currency and bank deposits is based on the average of Wednesdays in the last month of the quarter. The difference between these data and the month-end data used in the financial flows is shown in the item "adjustment".
<2>Part of the discrepancy is due to the fact that the banks' earnings are reflected both in the savings and investments accounts of the Chartered Bank sector. Double counting is inevitable because the "balance of revenue", as indicated by the banks, is not allocable to a specific item on a uniform basis during their fiscal year.
Source: DBS Financial Flow Accounts, occasional, Cat. 13-530, Quarterly, 13-002.
Bank of Canada.
March 12. 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4885
Reference Table 68
FINANCIAL FLOWS: TRUST COMPANIES 1966 to 1969
1966	1967	1968	1968	1969	9 months ending Sept. 30	I	i n	hi	IV	I	ii	in	1968	1969(Millions of dollars)	Gross domestic saving	19	15	14	3	2	3	6	4	5	4	8	13Non-financial capital formation	3	9	5	2	2	1	-1	1	3	4	3Net lending (+) or borrowing (-)	16	6	9	1	3	5	5	4	1	4	10Net financial investment	16	4	8	1	2	5	4	3	1	3	8Net increase in financial assets	429	422	613	106	126	269	112	234	190	215	501	639Currency and deposits	23	96	34	-101	19	46	70	99	-41	-74	-36	-16Loans	16	-4	28	27	-38	40	-1	-	-17	5	29	-12Short-term notes and bills	27	-46	79	56	28	56	-61	42	12	59	140	113Mortgages	213	247	304	53	84	96	71	74	133	181	233	388Government of Canada bonds	46	22	63	23	27	-39	52	17	51	11	11	79Provincial bonds	34	57	-1	-20	-7	32	-6	3	3	-18	5	-12Municipal bonds	1	-17	10	7	1	-1	3	-5	1	-5	7	-9Other Canadian bonds	33	50	29	24	12	5	-12	-5	20	41	15Claims on associated enterprises	11	1	27	-	4	19	4	22	3	23	23	48Stocks	8	-	8	3	-3	4	4	1	2	6	4	9Foreign investments	14	7	22	26	-1	7	-10	-19	18	15	32	14Other financial assets	3	9	10	8	-	4	-2	5	5	12	12	22Net increase in liabilities	413	418	605	105	126	267	107	230	187	214	498	631Demand and savings deposits	-19	67	61	-1	-3	11	54	25	66	-17	7	74Certified debentures and term deposits	420	314	467	78	115	229	45	199	122	203	422	524Bank loans	-1	-2	-1	2	3	-2	-4	1	4	3	5Other loans	-18	5	3	16	3	-5	-11	1	-3	14	-2Claims on associated enterprises	-	3	27	-1	8	12	8	-7	9	5	19	7Stocks	14	6	23	1	4	4	14	3	8	3	9	14Other liabilities	17	25	25	10	-4	18	1	8	-19	20	24	9Discrepancy	-	2	1	-	-	1	-	1	1	-	1	2
Source: DBS Financial Flow Accounts.
DBS Financial Institutions, Quarterly, Cat. 61-006.
COMMONS DEBATES	March 12, 1970
21774-32*
Reference Table 69
FINANCIAL FLOWS: MORTGAGE LOAN COMPANIES
1966 to 1969
1966	1967	1968	1968	1969	9 months ending Sept. 30	I	ii	hi	IV	i	ii	in	1968	1969(Millions of dollars)	Gross domestic savings	5	12	8	-4	5	2	5	2	2	1	3	5Non-financial capital formation	10	4	1	-	-	-	1	1	11	2	-	14Net lending (+) or borrowing (-)	-5	8	7	-4	5	2	4	1	-9	-1	3	-9Net financial investment	-5	6	7	-4	4	2	5	1	-10	-2	2	-11Net increase in financial assets	93	197	217	18	41	96	62	58	119	80	155	257Currency and deposits	-18	16	36	-3	8	7	24	-32	-10	-3	12	-45Loans	2	1	4	3	-1	6	-4	3	-	-1	8	2Short-term notes and bills	11	10	-7	6	-12	15	-16	12	-9	-8	9	-5Mortgages	101	125	166	11	32	72	51	25	75	100	115	200Government of Canada bonds	1	7	-2	-12	3	-	7	-5	3	1	-9	-1Provincial bonds	5	3	-2	9	-3	-7	-1	1	-1	-1	-1	-1Municipal bonds	-	1	-2	-1	- 1	-	-	-	-	-1	-2	-1Other Canadian bonds	-5	4	5	5	-2	1	1	-2	3	-	4	1Claims on associated enterprises	-7	12	10	-	7	-	3	11	52	-6	7	57Stocks	3	9	3	-1	3	2	-1	32	- 1	-1	4	30Foreign investments	-	1	-	1	1	-2	-	4	9	-2	-	11Other financial assets	-	8	6	-	6	2	-2	9	-2	2	8	9Net increase in liabilities	98	191	210	22	37	94	57	57	129	82	153	268Demand and savings deposits	19	11	52	3	15	11	23	-2	-16	-12	29	-30Certified debentures and term deposits	114	168	175	62	27	44	42	16	69	26	133	111Bank loans	-3	-6	-12	-7	-3	18	-20	-10	15	11	8	16Other loans	-9	-15	-5	-1	4	-5	-3	12	8	18	-2	38Claims on associated enterprises	-	3	1	-	1	4	-4	10	-13	22	5	19-1	25	17	1	1	9	6	1	84	-4	11	81Other liabilities	-22	5	-18	-36	-8	13	13	30	-18	21	-31	33Discrepancy	-	2	-	-	1	-	-1	-	1	1	1	2
Source: DBS Financial Flow Accounts. DBS Financial Institutions.
March 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4887
Reference Table 70
FINANCIAL FLOWS: MUTUAL FUNDS 1966 to 1969
1966	1967	1968	1968	1969	9 months ending Sept. 30	i	n	in	IV	i	ii	Ill	1968	1969(Millions of dollars)	Gross domestic saving	3	-3	-3	-	1	-4	-	-1	3	-4	-3	-2Non-financial capital	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Net lending (+) or borrowing (-)	3	-3	-3	-	1	-4	-	-1	3	-4	-3	-2Net financial investment	3	-3	-3	-1	2	-4	-	-1	3	-4	-3	-2Net increase in financial assets	313	150	377	48	134	56	139	114	72	49	238	235Currency and deposits	14	-4	77	13	23	11	30	54	4	19	47	77Foreign currency and deposits	-2	9	2	27	-25	5	-5	6	11	11	7	28Trade receivables	-3	22	31	19	4	-21	29	8	-6	-22	2	-20Short-term notes and bills	9	38	-13	-52	37	47	-45	33	-32	56	32	57Mortgages	-1	-2	-4	-2	2	-3	-1	-1	1	1	-3	1Government of Canada bonds	3	-38	2	6	-1	-2	-1	-1	-1	-3	3	-5Provincial bonds	-8	-10	-14	-4	-1	-8	-1	1	-3	3	-13	1Municipal bonds*1*	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	-	-	2Other Canadian bonds	-5	-2	-7	-2	-1	-4	-	5	-	3	-7	8Claims on associated enterprises*2*	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-1	-	-	1Stocks	77	-86	-81	-37	-11	-37	4	12	38	22	-85	72Foreign investments	228	224	384	80	107	68	129	-5	60	-46	255	9Other financial assets	1	-1	-	-	-	-	-2	1	5	-	4Net increase in liabilities	310	153	380	49	132	60	139	115	69	53	241	237Trade payables	8	18	58	-16	37	6	31	-37	2	9	27	-26Bank loans	-	1	3	-	-	-	3	-3	2	-3	-	-4Other loans	-1	-	1	-1	-	2	-	-2	2	-2	1	-2Stocks	302	133	318	66	95	52	105	158	64	46	213	268Other liabilities	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-1	-1	3	-	1Discrepancy	-	-	-	1	-1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
^Included in provincial government bonds prior to 1969. <2>Included in stocks prior to 1969.
Source: DBS Financial Flow Accounts.
4888	COMMONS DEBATES	March 12, 1970
Reference Table 71
FINANCIAL FLOWS: CLOSED-END FUNDS
1966 to 1969
1966	1967	1968	1968	1969	9 months ending Sept. 30	I	ii	in	IV	I	ii	hi	1968	I960(Millions of dollars)	Gross domestic savings	-6	-17	1	_	3	-2	-11	1	-1	3	- 11Non-financial capital acquisition	-	-	_	-	Net lending (+) or borrowing (-)	-6	-17	1	_	_	3	-2	-11	1	-1	3	- 11Net financial investment	-6	-16	2	-	-	4	-2	-11	1	-1	4	-11Net increase in financial assets	21	-11	35	-14	43	-2	8	-48	16	-9	27	-41Currency and deposits	-4	1	30	-3	27	5	-11	-7	-5	25	-23Foreign currency and deposits	4	-4	1	1	-1	-1	2	2	-1	2Trade receivables	1	-	2	-	3	-3	2	- 1	- 1Short-term notes and bills	2	-4	1	9	-1	-12	5	-8	8	-1	-4	- 1Mortgages	-	_	Government of Canada bonds	3	-2	-2	-1	-1	3	2	2	Provincial bonds \	1	1Municipal bonds /	Other Canadian bonds	10	-10	6	-1	8	-1	-11	7	- 11Claims on associated enterprises W	-	-	_	14	-12	2Stocks	5	-	-13	-21	36	-24	-4	-13	6	6	-9	- 1Foreign investments	1	7	8	1	5	3	-1	-2	-5	-2	9	-9Other financial assets	-1	1	2	1	1	-3	-2	2	-5Net increase in liabilities	27	5	33	-14	43	-6	10	-37	15	-8	23	-30Trade payables	-1	2	9	-1	1	9	-6	-2	-8Bank loans	3	-3	-12	-12	-	-1	1	14	-8	-13	6Other loans	9	8	-15	-2	-1	-11	-1	_	1	-1	-14	Bonds	-1	-5	_	Stocks	17	4	51	1	43	6	1	-33	2	_	50	-31Other liabilities	-	-1	-1	-	-	2	1	3Discrepancy	-	-1	-1	-	-	-1	-	-	-	-	-1	-
(^Included in stocks prior to 1969. Source: DBS Financial Flow Accounts.
March 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4889
Reference Table 72
FINANCIAL FLOWS: LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES 1966 to 1969
1966	1967	1968	1968	1969	9 months ending Sept. 30	I 1	n i	hi	IV	i	ii	III	1968	1969(Millions of dollars)	15	11	12	2	4	4	2	2	4	3	10	945	33	31	9	6	6	10	34	17	14	21	65-30	-22	-19	-7	-2	-2	-8	-32	-13	-11	-11	-56-30	-22	-19	-7	-2	-2	-8	-32	-13	-11	-11	-56637	700	709	209	163	192	145	143	143	125	564	4112	7	5	-16	-22	20	23	-20	-3	-6	-18	-2936	28	62	16	22	14	10	12	25	35	52	721	-22	5	72	-24	-4	-39	68	-12	26	44	82498	315	368	43	116	98	111	44	76	73	257	193-83	-4	7	27	-5	-20	5	-3	-5	-3	2	-1113	71	52	27	9	35	-19	2	7	-20	71	-11-8	18	-16	-3	1	2	-16	-6	2	-3	-	-7139	210	114	20	47	28	19	10	15	6	95	3139	77	112	23	19	19	51	36	38	17	61	91667	722	728	216	165	194	153	175	156	136	575	467667	722	728	216	165	194	153	175	156	136	575	467
Source: DBS Financial Flaw Accounts.
4890	COMMONS DEBATES	March 12, 1970
Reference Table 73
FINANCIAL FLOWS: SALES FINANCE AND CONSUMER LOAN COMPANIES
1966 to 1969
1966	1967	1968	1968	1969	9 months ending Sept. 30	i	n	hi	IV	I	ii	in	1968	1969(Millions of dollars)	Gross domestic saving	-52	38	38	11	7	11	9	14	13	17	29	44Non-financial capital acquisition	7	13	14	4	3	3	4	4	5	4	10	13Net lending (4-) or borrowing (-)	-59	25	24	7	4	8	5	10	8	13	19	31Net financial investment	-59	26	24	8	6	3	7	10	8	13	17	31Net increase in financial assets	158	166	439	19	252	-39	207	81	173	188	232	442Currency and deposits	19	-	-29	-19	-7	18	-21	-4	2	-1	-8	-3Foreign currency and deposits	33	_2	17	9	-1	2	7	-4	9	8	10	13Consumer credit	173	61	229	-5	129	55	50	15	166	143	179	324Other loans	-115	80	221	48	90	-124	207	57	-33	-32	14	-8Short-term notes and bills	6	20	-16	-16	21	19	-40	46	1	-2	24	45Mortgages	28	4	23	10	7	-	6	-42	22	27	17	7Government of Canada bonds	11	-4	7	-2	5	-6	10	-	-	-	-3	-Provincial bonds	-5	42	-3	-8	-2	-3	10	-	-18	-8	-13	-26Other bonds	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-7	-8	4	-	-11Claims on associated enterprises	6	-35	-13	-	-	-2	-11	23	17	21	-2	61Stocks	-	2	-2	-	-	-	-2	-	-	-	-	-Foreign investments	3	-5	-	-	4	-1	-3	-	-	-	3	-Other financial assets	-1	3	5	2	6	3	-6	-3	15	28	11	40Net increase in liabilities	217	140	415	11	246	-42	200	71	165	175	215	411Trade payables	7	2	3	-53	57	7	-8	-1	3	4	11	6Bank loans	-106	-6	-26	-18	-40	-72	104	-119	82	-32	-130	-69Other loans	-34	-38	-21	-14	-7	-1	1	8	27	-8	-22	27Demand and short-term notes (Canadian)...	152	-33	344	177	170	-8	5	117	-123	143	339	137Demand and short-term notes (Foreign)	-59	24	-15	-25	-4	-16	30	21	38	-5	-45	54Mortgages	-2	-1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	1Long-term bonds (Canadian)	24	109	60	-58	15	28	75	-79	48	-21	-15	-52Long-term bonds (Foreign)	73	5	-27	-6	12	10	-43	78	5	-9	16	74Claims on associated enterprises	105	11	26	2	4	-8	28	21	34	26	-2	81Stocks	31	14	1	-	-1	-	2	2	10	-2	-1	10Unearned income	21	66	67	4	32	12	19	9	44	46	48	99Other liabilities	5	-13	3	2	8	6	-13	13	-3	33	16	43Discrepancy	-	-1	-	-1	-2	5	-2	-	-	-	2	-
Source: DBS Financial Flow Accounts. DBS Financial Institutions.
March 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4891
Reference Table 74
FINANCIAL FLOWS: FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES 1966 to 1969
1966	1967	1968	1968	1969	9 months ending Sept. 30	i i	n i	hi i	IV	i	II	m	1968	1969Gross domestic savings	52	31	94	14	45	(Millions 23	dollars) 12	8	22	4	82	34Non-financial capital acquisition	4	-2	6	-	3	-	3	-1	-1	-	3	-248	33	88	14	42	23	9	9	23	4	79	36Net financial investment	48	33	88	14	42	23	9	9	23	4	79	36Net increase in financial assets	268	268	205	16	83	62	44	-3	76	81	161	154Currency and deposits	5	1	4	-51	13	40	2	-48	14	19	2	-15Trade receivables	1	-21	30	20	52	-26	-16	31	31	5	46	67Short-term notes and bills	19	-10	3	-3	-3	9	-	9	-1	19	3	27Mortgages	-	4	5	2	1	-	2	-1	1	2	3	2Government of Canada bonds	32	8	8	16	-4	2	-6	-19	8	31	14	20Provincial bonds	58	75	50	10	3	19	18	18	-7	-13	32	-2Municipal bonds	25	17	6	-2	1	3	4	4	-3	5	2	6Other Canadian bonds	43	59	27	6	-	15	6	4	15	12	21	31Claims on associated enterprises	1	7	-	-	1	6	-5	1	-	1	-4Stocks	57	50	53	5	14	13	21	9	11	8	32	28Foreign investments	7	-3	4	3	4	-2	-1	-1	-4	-	5	-5Other financial assets	21	87	8	10	2	-12	8	-4	10	-7	-	-1Net increase in liabilities	220	235	117	2	41	39	35	-12	53	77	82	118Trade payables	-	12	8	-12	10	-2	12	-5	-4	-3	-4	-12Claims on associated enterprises	-	5	-10	4	1	-6	-9	-19	-	2	-1	-17Stocks	-	4	-1	-2	1	-	-	1	1	2	-1	4Other liabilities	220	214	120	12	29	47	32	11	56	76	88	143Discrepancy	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Source: DBS Financial Flow Accounts.
4892	COMMONS DEBATES	March 12. 1970
Reference Table 75
FINANCIAL FLOWS: CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES 1966 to 1969
1966	1967	1968	1968	1969	9 months ending Sept. 30	i	n	III	IV	i	ii	hi	1968	1969(Millions of dollars)	Gross domestic savings	25	49	34	-24	14	25	19	-31	14	27	Non-financial capital acquisitions	13	16	15	3	3	9	1	3	Net lending (+) or borrowing ( -)	12	33	19	-27	11	16	19	-32	11	Net financial investment	10	35	15	-28	10	15	18	-33	10	29	3	Net increase in financial assets	321	492	335	97	127	65	46	-26	172	96	289	Currency and deposits	38	-32	44	10	1	21	12	-10	19	13	32	Consumer credit	123	188	152	24	58	29	41	-25	72	39	111	86Loans	23	38	17	1	5	6	5	-18	8	7	Mortgages	116	169	129	57	41	30	1	7	31	26	Government of Canada bonds	23	-8	-10	-1	1	2	-3	Provincial bonds	3	43	1	9	-2	3	-9	18	10	1	Municipal bonds	17	55	11	7	7	-3	-4	Other Canadian bonds	11	-13	7	5	6	-3	-1	-10	16	Claims on associated enterprises	-	-	Other financial assets	-10	21	-18	-6	12	-22	-2	19	12	3	-16	34Net increase in liabilities	311	457	320	125	117	50	28	7	162	67	292	Currency and deposits	312	463	312	121	96	38	57	18	124	77	255	219Bank loans	-7	20	-1	-3	20	1	-19	-6	24	-7	18	11Other loans	-4	-3	5	5	1	9	-10	-6	12	-4	Other liabilities	10	-23	4	2	2	1	2	1	4	4Discrepancy	2	-2	4	1	1	1	1	1	1	-2	3	-
Source: DBS Financial Flow Accounts.
March 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4893
March 12, 1370

[Stage Direction]
REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS 1969-70 Table of Contents
Page
Introduction	 4897
Highlights of the government's financial operations during 1969-70. 4897
Budgetary accounts	 4901
Revenue	 4903
Expenditure	   4910
Assets and liabilities as at March 31,	1970	 4941
Summary	 4941
Liability accounts	 4942
Asset accounts	 4954
Net debt	 4966
The cash position	 4966
The public debt	 4969
Supplementary detailed tables
March 12, 1970


[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 1969-70.
Although the fiscal year of the government ends on March 31, the books must remain open for some time after that date to record adjusting entries and to take into account payments during the thirty days after March 31 pursuant to 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 estimated and are based on ten months actual and two months estimated and the final figures when they become available next July or August will vary to some extent from those given in the following pages.
The presentation of expenditures in this report follows the departmental structure as set out in The Government Organization Act, 1969.

[Stage Direction]
This section outlines the financial operations of the government in 1969-70 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 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 1969-70 with comparative figures for 1968-69 and indicates how these transactions affected the government's cash balances.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ending March 31
Summary of Budgetary and Non-Budgetary Transactions and Changes in Cash Position
(estimated)
Budgetary transactions-
Revenue-
Tax	
Non-tax	
Expenditure	
Surplus or deficit (-)	
Non-budgetary transactions (excluding unmatured debt transactions) Receipts and credits-
Net annuity, insurance and pension accounts receipts...
Canada pension plan account	
Old age security fund	'	
Investments in United States dollar securities issued by other
than the Government of Canada	
Repayment of loans, investments and advances	
Other	
Disbursements and charges-
Advances to exchange fund	
Loans, investments and advances	
Canada pension plan investment fund	
Decrease in non-interest-bearing notes payable on demand Other	
Net amount available from, or required for (-), non-budgetary transactions	
10,987	8,986
1,283	1,205
12,270	10,191
11,815	10,767
455	
773	627
821	755
104	85
32	32
163	81
340	416
2,233	1,996
129	834
1,230	1,147
801	742
223	216
429	418
2,812	3,357
-579
-1,361
Overall cash requirement to be financed by increase in unmatured debt or decrease in cash balances	
-1,937
Net increase in unmatured debt outstanding in hands of the
public	 463
Net increase or decrease (-) in Receiver General bank balances...	339
1,523
Budgetary transactions
The budgetary revenue, expenditure and surplus as forecast in the budget speech of June 3, 1969 and the actual figures as now estimated are shown in the following table:

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Budgetary Transactions for Fiscal Year 1960-70	Budget forecast June 3, 1969	Actual (estimated)	Increase or decrease (-) compared with June 3, 1969 forecast	
			Amount	Per cent
	12,025 11,775	12,270 11,815	245 40	2.04 0.34
				
				
	250	455	205	
				
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Revenue
Budgetary revenue is estimated at $12,270 million for 1969-70. This is $245 million or approximately two per cent more than the figure of $12,025 million forecast on June 3, 1969 and $2,079 million or 20 per cent more than the total collected in 1968-69.
Tax revenue accounted for $2,001 million of the increase and non-tax revenue accounted for $78 million of the increase over 1968-69 receipts.
The yield from personal income taxes was $759 million higher, from corporation income tax $575 million higher, and from return on investments $106 million higher than in 1968-69.
Expenditure
Budgetary expenditure is estimated at $11,815 million, $40 million or one-third of one per cent more than forecast on June 3, 1969 and $1,048 million or 10 per cent higher than expenditure in 1968-69.
The main changes over 1968-69 expenditure were increases of $224 million in public debt charges, $83 million in payments to provinces, $148 million in respect of the Medical Care Act, $40 million for regional economic expansion and a charge of $123 million in respect of the EXPO deficit.
Surplus
On the basis of these estimated figures, revenue of $12,270 million and expenditure of $11,815 million, there will be a surplus of $455 million compared with a surplus of $250 million as forecast on June 3, 1969 and a deficit of $576 million in 1968-69.
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 1969-70 it is estimated that net disbursements and charges of $2,812 million will exceed net receipts and credits of $2,233 million, resulting in a net requirement of $579 million. In 1968-69 net disbursements and charges were $3,357 million and net receipts and credits were $1,996 million resulting in a net requirement of $1,361 million.
Old age security fund
Receipts by the fund in 1969-70 are estimated at $1,823 million and payments are estimated at $1,719 million resulting in a net gain in the fund of $104 million. In 1968-69 receipts of $1,626 million exceeded payments of $1,541 million by $85 million.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
The transactions in the fund during 1969-70 compared with those for 1968-69 are shown in the following table:
Fiscal year ending March 31 1970
(estimated)	1969
(in millions of dollars)
Balance in fund at beginning of fiscal year	621	536Receipts-	.... 569	5281,027	915Corporation income tax	227	1832,444	2,162Disbursements-	.... -1,450	-1,297Guaranteed income supplement	.... -269	-244Balance in fund at end of fiscal year	.... 725	621
Canada pension plan account
Receipts during 1969-70 are estimated at $889 million and disbursements at $68 million resulting in a net gain of $821 million. In 1968-69 receipts of $785 million exceeded disbursements of $30 million by $755 million.
The transactions in the fund for 1969-70 compared with those for 1968-69 are shown in the following table:
Fiscal year ending March 31 1970
(estimated)	1969
(in millions of dollars)
Balance at beginning of fiscal year	
2,108 	
889	1,353 785Disbursements-	
-50	-16Administrative expenses	
-18	-14
Balance at end of fiscal year.
The balance in the fund at March 31, 1970 includes investments of $2,809 million in provincial government securities, $15 million in federal government securities and an operating balance of $105 million on deposit with the Receiver General for Canada.
Unmatured debt transactions
It is estimated that these transactions will result in an increase of $463 million in unmatured debt outstanding in the hands of the public compared with an increase of $1,523 million in 1968-69.
Change in cash position
Receiver General bank balances in current deposits including those in foreign currencies are estimated to be $939 million at March 31, 1970 compared with $600 million at March 31, 1969.
The budgetary surplus of $455 million plus the increase of $463 million in outstanding unmatured debt exceeded non-budgetary requirements of $579 million by $339 million.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
The implication of the level of government balances at any given time can be misinterpreted because of their wide fluctuations throughout the year, as is illustrated in the following table. Furthermore, because many cheques are issued at the end of a month and are redeemed in the first few days of the following month, whereas the largest percentage of receipts are not received until later, cash balances may drop in the early days of each month by as much as $125 million to $300 million.
Government of Canada

[Stage Direction]
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969January	
857.1	925.6	670.5	1,065.2	853.5February	
867.3	807.7	823.4	940.6	761.2March	
652.0	603.8	795.7	997.2	587.0April	
528.7	496.4	594.7	609.7	713.0May	
729.9	600.4	866.7	458.4	804.1June	
639.6	561.3	650.4	328.6	879.8July	
787.4	687.3	686.7	248.4	874.4August	
675.2	503.1	661.5	381.2	841.9September	
509.6	491.5	367.0	190.8	636.4October	
504.7	530.9	194.9	391.8	479.0November	
984.8	1,048.9	607.1	995.0	1,537.0December	
895.3	941.8	650.1	706.6	1,377.0
Change in debt position
As a result of the estimated budgetary and non-budgetary transactions the gross liabilities will increase by $2,099 million and net recorded assets will increase by $2,554 million and the net debt of Canada will be reduced by $455 million.
Fiscal year ending March 31 1970	Increase or
(estimated) 1969 decrease (-)
(in millions of dollars)
Gross liabilities	
38,018	35,919	2,099Leas net recorded assets	
21,137	18,583	2,554Netdebt	
16,881	17,336	-455

[Stage Direction]
Total budgetary revenue is estimated at $12,270 million and budgetary expenditure at $11,815 million resulting in a budgetary surplus of $455 million.

[Stage Direction]
Budgetary Revenue, Expenditure and Surplus or Deficit (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal Year Ending March 31	Budgetary revenue	Budgetary expenditure	Surplus or deficit (-)1961	5,617.7 5.729.6 5.878.7 6.253.2 7.180.3 7.695.8 8,376.2 9,076.6 10,191.1 12,270.0	5,958.1 6.520.6 6.570.3 6.872.4 7.218.3 7,734.8 8.797.7 9.871.4 10,767.2 11,815.0	-340.4 -791.0 -691.6 -619.2 -38.0 -39.0 -421.5 -794.8 -576.1 455.01962	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970. (estimated)	
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ending March 31
BUDGETARY REVENUE	BUDGETARY EXPENDITURE
BY MAJOR SOURCE	BY MAJOR FUNCTION
For Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1970 Estimated
1.	Do.. net include poya.nl. oul *1 old op. .ocurlly lund.
2.	Do., not include thoio poya.nl. mod. to provincial and Municipal 90v.rnm.nt.
I.r .pacific purp.i...
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Revenue
Budgetary revenue is estimated at $12,270 million, $2,079 million or 20 per cent over the total of $10,191 million received in 1968-69. Tax revenue at $10,987 million accounted for 89 per cent of the total revenue for the year and non-tax revenue at $1,283 million accounted for 11 per cent.
Increases of $759 million in the yield from personal income taxes, $575 million in the yield from corporation income taxes, $414 million in the yield from the social development tax, $155 million from the yield from the sales tax and $106 million in returns from investments are the main items resulting in the higher total in 1969-70.

[Stage Direction]
Budgetary Revenue by Major Sources (in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31					
Source	1970 (estimated)	1969	decrease (-)	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per centTax revenue- Income tax- Personal(1)(2)	4,115.0	33.5	3,356.4	33.0	758.6	22.6Corporation 0)0)	2,605.0	21.2	2,030.0	19.9	575.0	28.3On dividends, interest, etc., going abroad	240.0	2.0	205.6	2.0	34.4	10.7Social development tax	477.0	3.9	63.0	0.6	414.0	657.1Excise taxes- Sales (1><2>	1,725.0	14.1	1,569.8	15.4	155.2	9.9OtherW	380.0	3.1	377.9	3.7	2.1	0.6Customs import duties <2>	815.0	6.6	761.7	7.5	53.3	7.0Excise duties <2>	525.0	4.3	509.3	5.0	15.7	3.1Estate tax	104.8	0.8	112.4	1.1	-7.6	-6.8Other taxes	0.2 10,987.0	89.5	0.2 8,986.3	88.3	8,000.7	28.3Non-tax revenue- Return on investments	801.0	6.5	695.1	6.8	105.9	15.2Post office-net postal revenue	353.0	2.9	310.6	3.0	42.4	13.7Other non-tax revenue	129.0	1.1	199.1	2.0	-70.1	-35.21,283.0	10.5	1,204.8	11.8	78.8	6.5Total budgetary revenue	12,270.0	100.0	10,191.1	100.0	2,078.9	20.41969-70	1968-69
<>) Excluding credits to:
The old age security fund
Personal income tax___
Corporation income tax Sales tax	
1,823.0	1,626.1
1,027.0	915.0
227.0	183.0
569.0	528.1
<2) Net after deduction of refunds and drawbacks.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Budgetary Revenue by Source Fiscal Years Ending March 31 Billions of Dollars
* Estimated

[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. The abatement in 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 was 28 per cent for taxpayers in all provinces except Quebec and 50 per cent for taxpayers in the Province of Quebec. The higher abatement for Quebec is in compensation of the fact that the payment of youth allowances and full cost of certain programs which are supported jointly by federal and provincial governments in the other provinces have been assumed by Quebec. The federal corporation income tax rates were abated by 10 percentage points for taxable income earned in all provinces in the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970. 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.
March 12, 1970
[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, 1968-69 and 1969-70.
Tax on personal income
In 1969-70 personal income tax is again the largest source of government revenue. Its yield (excluding the old age security tax) is expected to be $4,115 million or 33 per cent of all budgetary revenue compared with $3,356 million or 33 per cent in 1968-69. The increase of $759 million was due mainly to a higher level of personal incomes in 1969-70 and 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. A full year's yield from the tax was not received in 1968-69.
In addition to the federal revenue, it is estimated that $1,312 million will be allocated to the provincial tax collection agreements account under the terms of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements compared with $1,089 million in 1968-69.
The tax on personal incomes levied under the Old Age Security Act and credited to the old age security fund is estimated at $1,027 million compared with $915 million in 1968-69. This increase of $112 million is due mainly to higher levels of personal income in 1969-70.
Corporation income tax
Corporation income tax was the second largest source of government revenue. The yield (excluding the old age security tax) is estimated at $2,605 million or 21 per cent of total budgetary revenue compared with $2,030 million or 20 per cent in 1968-69. The increase of $575 million was due to higher corporation incomes during the year.
In addition to the federal revenue, it is estimated that $249 million will be allocated to the provincial tax collection agreements account under terms of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements compared with $171 million in 1968-69.
The tax on incomes of corporations levied under the Old Age Security Act and credited to the old age security fund is estimated at $227 million compared with $183 million in 1968-69.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 197(1

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ending March 31 Millions of Dollars
ClliMltd
Taxes on dividends, interest, etc., going abroad
Revenue in this category is derived from taxes withheld from dividends, interest, rents, royalties, alimony and income from estates and trusts paid to non-residents.
Collections of $240 million are $34 million higher than in 1968-69.
Social development tax
This is a new tax which first took effect for the taxation year 1969. The tax, which is imposed on individuals, is the lesser of 2 per cent of the taxable income or $120. During 1969-70, its yield is expected to be $477 million compared with $63 million in 1968-69.	[DOT]
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) are estimated at $1,725 million compared with $1,570 million in 1968-69.
The sales tax levied under the Old Age Security Act and credited to the old age security fund is expected to be $569 million compared with $528 million in 1968-69.
The yield of $380 million from other excise taxes is $2 million more than in 1968-69.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Customs import duties
Receipts from this source in the amount of $815 million are $53 million more than in 1968-69.
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 of $525 million are $16 million higher than in 1968-69.
Gross receipts of $334 million from duties on alcoholic beverages consist of $195 million in respect of spirits and $139 million in respect of beer and are $14 million higher than collections of $320 million in 1968-69 of which $185 million was in respect of spirits and $135 million in respect of beer.
Gross receipts of $199 million from duties on tobacco products are $3 million more than in 1968-69.
Refunds and drawbacks of $9 million bring net excise duty collections to $525 million. In 1968-69 refunds and drawbacks were $8 million and net receipts were $509 million.
Estate tax
Revenue in this category is derived under the Estate Tax Act. Net receipts of $105 million are $7 million less than receipts of $112 million in 1968-69.
Other taxes
Revenue under this heading of $200 thousand is approximately the same as in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
Non-tax revenue in the amount of $1,283 million is $78 million more than in 1968-69. The main changes are increases of $106 million in return on investments and $42 million in post office revenue and a decrease of $67 million in bullion and coinage.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Non-Tax Revenue	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase or decrease (-)	1970 (estimated)	1969	Amount	Per centReturn on investments	
Post Office-net postal revenue	
Refunds of previous years' expenditure	
Services and service fees	
Proceeds from sales	
Privileges, licences and permits	
Bullion and coinage	
Premium, discount and exchange	
Other	801.0 353.0 24.0 29.0 17.5 34.0 8.0 16.5	695.1 310.6 23.8 30.7 17.4 35.0 74.8 0.5 16.9	105.9 42.4 0.2 -1.7 0.1 -1.0 -66.8 -0.5 -0.4	15.2 13.7 0.8 -5.5 0.6 -2.9 -89.3 -100.0 -2.4
1,283.0	1,204.8	78.2	6.5
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Return on investments
These receipts, amounting to $801 million, consist of income derived from loans and advances made by the government and from investments by the government in productive or earning assets. In 1968-69 receipts totalled $695 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Return on Investments	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	decrease (-)Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations-	Bank of Canada-profits	229.0	186.2	42.8Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	7.0	4.8	2.2Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition....	7.9	-7.9Canadian National Railways	45.0	35.9	9.1Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation- Interest on debentures	221.0	190.6	30.4Net profit	13.0	8.5	4.5Export Development Corporation'1)	13.0	11.1	1.9Farm Credit Corporation	60.0	50.5	9.5Northern Canada Power Commission	8.4	4.5	3.9The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	10.0	13.3	-3.3Other	8.6	15.4	-6.8615.0	528.7	86.SOther loans and investments-	Exchange fund account	85.0	84.5	0.5Interest-bearing deposits with chartered banks	40.0	20.1	19.9Municipal Development and Loan Board	14.0	14.2	-0.2Soldier and general land settlement loans and veterans land act advances	20.0	16.1	3.9United Kingdom	21.0	2.7	18.3Other	6.0	28.8	-22.8186.0	166.4	19.6801.0	695.1	105.9
W Formerly the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.
Receipts from Crown corporations at $615 million are $86 million more than in 1968-69. The main changes are increases of $43 million in Bank of Canada profits paid to the government and $35 million in payments by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
The yield from other loans and investments at $186 million is $20 million more than in 1968-69. The main changes are increases of $20 million in interest in Receiver General deposits with chartered banks and $18 million in interest received on the loan to the United Kingdom. In 1968-69 the interest due on that loan was deferred in accordance with a special agreement.
Post office revenue
Gross receipts from post office operations are estimated at $407 million for 1969-70 but authorized disbursements from revenue, for salaries and allowances at semi-staff and revenue offices, transit charges on Canadian mail forwarded through and delivered in foreign countries, in the amount of $54 million resulted in net receipts of $353 million. In 1968-69 gross receipts were $363 million, authorized disbursements were $53 million and net receipts were $310 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Post Office Revenue	Fiscal year en 1970 (estimated)	ding March 31 1969	Increase or decrease (-)
Postage-			
In Canada	384.0	342.9	41.1From foreign countries	6.0	6.0	Commission on money orders	11.1	10.0	1.1Rental of post office boxes	5.0	3.1	1.9Other	0 8	406.9	S6S.3	4S.6Less-	Salaries and allowances	-47.8	-47.2	-0.6Transit charges to or through foreign countries	-4.2	-3.8	-0.4Other	-1.9	-1.7	-0.2-53.9	-52.7	-1.2353.0	310.6	42.4
Net costs of operating the Post Office for 1969-70 are expected to be $350 million (excluding the $54 million charged to revenue). As net revenue is expected to be $353 million there is an estimated operating surplus of $3 million. In 196869 net costs of $342 million exceeded net receipts of $310 million by $32 million.
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 do the operating costs include any charges for premises occupied by the Post Office or for accounting and special services provided by other departments.
4910
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Refunds of previous years' expenditure
Revenue under this heading in the amount of $24 million includes $7 million in receipts by the Department of National Defence, mainly from adjustments to cost audits and to adjustments on contracts with the United States government, and $5 million in receipts by the Department of Veterans Affairs mainly from refunds of veterans pensions, allowances and re-establishment credits. In 1968-69 receipts totalled $24 million.
Services and service fees
Revenue from this source of $29 million includes $10 million in receipts by the Department of Agriculture mainly for services in connection with the inspection, weighing, storage and elevation of grain and $3 million in receipts by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for electricity, gas, weights and measures inspection fees. In 1968-69 receipts totalled $31 million.
Proceeds from sales
Revenue of $18 million includes receipts of $5 million by the Department of Supply and Services mainly from the sale of surplus Crown assets and $3 million in receipts by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation from the sales of properties. In 1968-69 receipts totalled $17 million.
Privileges, licences and permits
Revenue of $34 million from this category includes $13 million in receipts by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from fees, leases and royalties in respect of oil, gas and gold and receipts of $6 million by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs from patents, trade marks, charters, etc. and $5 million in receipts by the Department of Public Works for rental of public buildings and sites. In 1968-69 receipts totalled $35 million.
Bullion and coinage
This revenue which is derived from the operation of the Royal Canadian Mint is $8 million compared with $75 million in 1968-69. The decrease is due to the fact that the 1968-69 total included a net gain of $66 million in nickel coinage mainly accounted for by the change in the composition of the 10 cent, 25 cent and 50 cent coins.
Premium, discount and exchange
These transactions reflect a net expenditure of $5 million compared with net revenue of $500 thousand in 1968-69.
Other non-tax revenue
Other non-tax revenue in the amount of $17 million is approximately the same as in 1968-69.
Expenditure .
Budgetary expenditure for 1969-70 is estimated at $11,815 million, an increase of $1,048 million over the 1968-69 total of $10,767 million.
March 12. 1970

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ending March 31
1.	Don no* include lho*« payments made to provincial and municipal governments lor speafied purposes.
2.	Does no* include pension payments oul of the old age security fund not charged to budgetary expenditure in the year in which they were paid. * Estimated

[Stage Direction]
Statement of Budgetary Expenditure by Departments
(in millions of dollars)
-	Fiscal year en 1970 (estimated)	ding March 31 1969	Increase or decrease (-0	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per centAgriculture	285.0	2.4	286.9	2.7	-1.9	-0.7Communications	364.0	3.1	354.5	3.3	9.5	2.7Consumer and Corporate Affairs	17.0	0.1	13.7	0.1	3.3	24.1Energy, Mines and Resources	187.0	1.6	179.7	1.7	7.3	4.1External Affairs	248.0	2.1	226.1	2.1	21.9	9.7Finance	2,859.0	24.2	2,420.7	22.5	438.3	18.1Fisheries and Forestry	76.0	0.6	79.0	0.7	-3.0	-3.8Governor General and Lieutenant-	Governors	1.0	1.0	Indian Affairs and Northern	Development	304.0	2.6	267.0	2.5	37.0	13.9Industry, Trade and Commerce	294.0	2.5	203.9	1.9	90.1	44.2Justice	20.0	0.2	16.9	0.2	3.1	18.3Labour	158.0	1.3	136.6	1.3	21.4	15.7Manpower and Immigration	455.0	3.9	416.1	3.9	38.9	9.3National Defence	1,785.0	15.1	1,760.8	16.3	24.2	1.4National Health and Welfare	1,950.0	16.5	1,668.7	15.5	281.3	16.9National Revenue	143.0	1.2	120.0	1.1	23.0	19.2Parliament	22.0	0.2	18.6	0.2	3.4	18.3Privy Council	11.0	0.1	9.3	0.1	1.7	18.3Public Works	298.0	2.5	284.8	2.6	13.2	4.6Regional Economic Expansion	221.0	1.9	180.8	1.7	40.2	22.2Secretary of State	542.0	4.6	522.6	4.8	19.4	3.7Solicitor General	176.0	1.5	165.9	1.5	10.1	6.1Supply and Services	80.0	0.7	65.7	0.6	14.3	21.8Transport	514.0	4.3	508.1	4.7	5.9	1.2Treasury Board	381.0	3.2	432.2	4.0	-51.2	-11.8Veterans Affairs	424.0	3.6	427.6	4.0	-3.6	-0.811,815.0	100.0	10,767.2	100.0	1,047.8	9.7
4912
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ending March 31
1000
69	70*
l Th. uniha dad «... o* tha column* in lh. .hart lor haalth, w.lfor. ond .o.ial ...urity ..pr.i.nl p.n.ion paym.nl.
[DOT]xp.ndilur*.	.
2. Do., not irxluda ihoM paym.nl* mad. lo provintial ond munitipal toy.rnm.nl. lor .p.cilic purpo...,
* filimol.d
ol old ago ...urity lund not (harg.d lo bwdg.lary
Agriculture
Expenditures of the Department of Agriculture estimated in the amount of $285 million are $2 million less than in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase
Agriculture	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Production and marketing- Agricultural stabilization board-net operating loss	
Other	125.0 40.0	145.4 33.4	-20.4 6.6165.0	178.8	- 18.8Besearch	46.0	45.3	0.7Canadian livestock feed board	22.0	18.2	3.8Farm Credit Corporation-net operating loss	7.9	6.0	1.9Administration and general	44.1	38.6	5.5285.0	286.9	-1.9
Outlays for production and marketing at $165 million are $14 million less than in 1968-69. The charge to expenditure in 1969-70 in respect of the operations of the Agricultural Stabilization Board is expected to be $125 million compared \with $145 million in 1968-69.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures for research at $46 million are approximately the same as in 1968-69, and the estimated loss of $8 million of the Farm Credit Corporation is $2 million more than in the previous year.
Communications
Expenditures in respect of Communications, including the Post Office, in the amount of $364 million are $10 million higher than in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Communications	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increaseand Post Office	1970 (estimated)	1969	or 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	243.0	243.0	Salaries of postmasters and staff at revenue and semistaff offices, commissions paid at sub-offices, and other disbursements	53.9	52.7	1.2Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water	94.0	89.0	5.0Financial services	4.0	3.6	0.4Administration and general	9.0	6.1	2.9Gross post office expenditure	403.9	394.4	9.5Less: charged to revenue	-53.9	-52.7	-1.2Communication-	350.0	341.7	8.3Research satellite program	5.0	3.5	1.5Administration and general	9.0	9.3	-0.3364.0	354.5	9.5
Costs of the Post Office, charged to budgetary expenditure, at $350 million include $243 million for operations and $94 million for transportation. In 1968-69 costs of $342 million included $243 million for operations and $89 million for transportation.
Remuneration of postmasters and staff at revenue and semi-staff offices and certain other disbursements are paid from revenue. These payments at $54 million ($53 million in 1968-69) brings gross post office expenditure to $404 million in 1969-70 compared with $394 million in 1968-69.
Expenditures for Communications of $14 million include $5 million for the research satellite program. In 1968-69 other expenditures were $13 million of which $4 million was for the research satellite program.
Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Expenditures of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are $17 million, $3 million higher than comparable figures for 1968-69.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
TABLE 11 (in millions of dollars)
Consumer and Corporate Affairs	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)6.7	5.9	0.86.9	5.5	1.41.6	1.2	0.40.6	0.61.2	1.1	0.1
17.0	13.7	3.3
Energy, Mines and Resources
Expenditures of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, including Atomie Energy of Canada Limited, the Atomic Energy Control Board, the Dominion Coal Board and the National Energy Board, total $187 million, an increase of $7 million over 1968-69 expenditures.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Energy, Mixes and Resources	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Mines, minerals, energy and geosciences-	Emergency gold mining assistance	15.2	14.7	-0.5Field and air surveys, mapping and aeronautical charting	11.0	11.5	-0.5Geological research	10.0	11.2	-1.2Other	16.4	17.4	-1.052.6	54.8	-2.2Water and co-ordination of renewable resources programs-	Marine surveys and research	19.5	18.3	1.2Research and investigations on water resources	18.1	16.4	1.7Other	6.4	4.0	2.4U.o	38.7	6.8Administration and general	5.7	4.9	0.8102.3	98.4	3.9Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	69.0	68.6	0.4Atomic Energy Control Board	6.0	4.0	2.0Dominion Coal Board	8.2	7.2	1.0National Energy Board	1.5	1.5	187.0	179.7	7.3
Expenditures for mines, minerals, energy and geosciences amount to $53 million, of which $15 million was emergency gold mining assistance, $11 million was for field and air surveys and $10 million for geological research. In 1968-69 expenditures of $55 million included $15 million for emergency gold mining assistance, $12 million for field and air surveys and $11 million for geological research.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures for water and co-ordination of renewable resources programs of $44 million include $20 million for marine surveys and research and $18 million for research and investigations on water resources. In 1968-69 expenditures of $39 million included $18 million for marine surveys and research and $16 million for research and investigations on water resources.
Expenditures for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited amount to $69 million, compared with $69 million in 1968-69, for Atomic Energy Control Board $6 million, compared with $4 million and for the Dominion Coal Board $8 million, compared with $7 million.
External Affairs
Expenditures of the Department of External Affairs, including the Canadian International Development Agency and the International Joint Commission, in the amount of $248 million are $22 million more than the total for the previous year.
Expenditures of the Canadian International Development Agency are $175 million compared with $157 million in 1968-69. Included in these expenditures are $82 million for the international food aid program ($69 million in 1968-69), $57 million for the international development assistance ($63 million in 1968-69) and $25 million for grants to international organizations ($15 million in 1968-69).

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase
External Affairs	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)
Grants, contributions and assessments for membership in international and commonwealth organizations-			
United nations and its agencies	8.3	9.7	-1.4Commonwealth organizations	0.3	0.3	Other	8.1	5.2	2.916.7	16.2	1.6Construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings,	works, land, equipment and furnishings	6.9	6.7	0.2Administration, operation and maintenance	49.0	47.0	2.072.6	68.9	3.7Canadian International Development Agency- Economic, technical, educational and other assistance-	International food aid program	81.8	68.9	12.9International development assistance	56.9	62.9	-6.0Grants to international organizations	25.0	15.3	9.7Contributions to approved development assistance projects undertaken by Canadian non-govern-	mental organizations	6.0	5.5	0.5Other	0.3	-0.3Administration	5.3	3.9	1.4176.0	166.8	18.2International Joint Commission	0.4	0.4	248.0	226.1	21.9
March 12, 1970
Expenditures of the department in the amount of $73 million include $49 million for administration, operation and maintenance, $7 million for construction and acquisition and $17 million in respect of international and commonwealth organizations. In 1968-69 these expenditures totalled $69 million of which $47 million was for administration, operation and maintenance, $7 million for construction and acquisition and $15 million in respect of international and commonwealth organizations.
Finance
Expenditures of the Department of Finance are estimated at $2,859 million compared with $2,421 million in 1968-69. Also reported under this heading are expenditures of the Auditor General and the Department of Insurance.
The main changes are increases of $224 million in public debt charges, $83 million in payments to provinces and a charge of $123 million to cover the federal share of the EXPO deficit.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
# Finance	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
Public debt charges	1,704.0	1,480.0	224.0Fiscal, subsidy and other payments to provinces	950.2	867.1	83.1Municipal grants	50.0	45.1	4.9Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition-deficit	123.0	123.0Administration and general	27.8	24.2	3.62,855.0	2,416.4	438.6Auditor General	2.5	2.4	0.1Insurance	1.5	1.9	-0.42,859.0	2,420.7	438.3
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 in the amount of $1,704 million include interest on public debt of $1,663 million of which $1,284 million is in respect of unmatured debt and $379 million in respect of other liabilities.
The increase of $148 million in interest on unmatured debt reflects an increase in unmatured debt and higher interest rates. The increase in interest on other liabilities is attributable mainly to the superannuation accounts.
Other public debt charges of $41 million are $4 million higher than in 1968-69.
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
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
annual interest charges, the income derived from loans, investments and other productive assets must be taken into account. For 1969-70 this income is estimated at $801 million as shown in the non-tax revenue section under the heading "return on investments". This amount deducted from the gross total of $1,663 million for interest as shown in the table leaves a net amount of $862 million compared with a net of $747 million in 1968-69. Measured as a percentage of the net debt the burden of the net annual interest charges is 5.10 per cent in 1969-70 compared with 4.31 per cent in 1968-69. As a percentage of the gross national product for the calendar year ending within the fiscal year, the relative burden is 1.17 per cent compared with 1.11 per cent in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Interest and Other Public Debt Charges	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Interest on public debt- Unmatured debt including treasury bills- Payable in Canadian dollars	1,259.5	1,115.6	143.9Payable in foreign currencies	24.5	20.5	4.01,284.0	1,136.1	147.9Other liabilities-	Annuity, insurance and pension accounts	365.0	289.9	75.1Deposit and trust accounts	8.0	5.9	2.1Refundable portion of corporation income tax	6.0	10.6	-4.6379.0	S06.4	72.6Total interest on public debt	1,663.0	1,442.5	220.5Other public debt charges-	Annual amortization of bond discounts and commissions	34.0	30.1	3.9Cost of issuing new loans	4.0	3.8	0.2Servicing of public debt	3.0	2.9	0.1Commitment fees	0.7	-0.741.0	37.5	3.61,704.0	1,480.0	224.0
TABLE 16 (in millions of dollars)
Net Burden of Annual Interest Charges	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
	1,663.0 801.0	1,442.5 695.1	220.5 105.9
			
Net interest cost				
	862.0	747.4	114.6
Net interest cost as a percentage of net debt				
	5.10	4.31	
			
Fiscal, subsidy and other payments to provinces
Budgetary expenditure for payments to the provinces is $950 million, $83 million more than in 1968-69.
4918
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Payments of $751 million under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act are $107 million higher than in 1968-69.
Payments of $167 million under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act to the Province of Quebec are 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 $187 million in 1968-69.
Subsidies to provinces payable under the British North America Acts and other statutory authority are $32 million, the same as in 1968-69.
The transfers of certain public utility tax receipts of $24 million in 1969-70, are $3 million more than in 1968-69 and represent the transferable portion of income tax received from corporations whose main business is 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 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 1969 and the revised abatement for the taxation year 1968 in respect of the Province of Quebec exceeds the federal savings by $24 million which has been recovered from payments to the province under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act; in 1968-69 the abatement for the taxation year 1968 exceeded the federal savings by $17 million and was recovered.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		
Fiscal, Subsidy and Other Payments to Provinces	1970 (estimated)		or
		1969	decrease (-)
Payments under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements	751.2	644.3	106.9
Payments under the Established Programs (Interim Ar-			
rangements) Act	166.8	186.9	-20.1Statutory subsidies	31.8	31.7	0.1Transfer of certain public utility tax receipts	24.1	21.0	3.1Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act (youth allowances)..	-23.7	-16.8	-6.9950.2	867.1	83.1
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
A summary of payments by provinces is given in the following table:
TABLE 18 (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31, 1970 (estimated)
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	86.5	9.7	1.3	97.5Nova Scotia	92.7	2.1	2.0	96.8Prince Edward Island	17.2	0.7	0.2	18.1New Brunswick	84.4	1.8	0.1	86.3Quebec	373.8	166.8	4.0	-23.7	3.1	524.0Ontario	26.8	4.6	7.8	39.2Manitoba	47.9	2.1	1.0	51.0Saskatchewan	14.4	2.1	(1)	16.5Alberta	7.5	3.0	7.7	18.2British Columbia	1.7	0.7	2.4Yukon and Northwest	Territories	0.2	0.2751.2	166.8	31.8	-23.7	24.1	950.2
<'>Less than $50,000.
Municipal grants
Payments to municipalities and provinces in lieu of taxes on federal property are $50 million compared with $45 million in 1968-69.
Fisheries and Forestry
Expenditures for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in the amount of $76 million are $3 million less than in 1968-69.
Fisheries management and development costs are $32 million compared with $37 million in 1968-69 and include $9 million for conservation and protection compared with $9 million in 1968-69 and $8 million for resource development compared with $8 million in 1968-69. The charge to expenditure to cover the losses in the fisheries prices support account is $2 million compared with $7 million in 1968-69.
21774-34J
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
TABLE 19 (in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase
Fisheries and Forestry	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)
Fisheries management and development-			
Conservation and protection service	9.0	8.7	0.3Resource development service	8.0	7.9	0.1Fisheries prices support account-losses	2.0	6.5	-4.5Grants, contributions and subsidies	2.0	4.1	-2.1Inspection service	3.5	3.1	0.4Industrial development service	3.0	2.9	0.1Canadian share of the expenses of international commis-	1.3	0.2sions	1.5	Other	3.0	2.9	0.182.0	87.4	-5.4Fisheries Research Board of Canada	16.0	15.7	0.3Forestry-	Regional research and services	13.6	12.7	0.9Research institutes	7.3	7.3	Contributions to provinces	1.5	1.2	0.3Other	i	1.6	1.6	24.0	22.8	1.2Administration and general	4.0	3.1	0.976.0	79.0	-3.0
The fisheries research board expenditures are expected to be $16 million, approximately the same as in 1968-69 and forestry expenditures are $24 million compared with $23 million in the previous year.
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 of $1 million are approximately the same as in 1968-69.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Expenditures of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at $304 million are $37 million higher than in 1968-69.
These expenditures include $185 million for the social program, $70 million for the development program and $42 million for the conservation program. Comparative amounts in 1968-69 were $142 million, $79 million and $42 million, respectively.
Expenditures for the social program consist of $97 million in respect of education ($69 million in 1968-69), $77 million for community affairs ($66 million in 1968-69) and $11 million for general administration ($7 million in 1968-69).
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
TABLE 20 (in millions of dollars)
Indian Affairs and Northern Development	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Social program-	Education	97.0	69.0	28.O'Community affairs	77.0	66.3	10. TAdministration and general	11.0	6.6	4.4;185.0	141.9	43. tDevelopment program-	Northern economic development	17.9	23.5	-5.6Indian and Eskimo economic development	12.5	16.6	-4.1Territorial governments	17.4	23.5	-6.1Payments to the Governments of the Yukon and North-	west Territories	17.0	11.8	5.2Northern mineral assistance grants	5.2	4.1	1.170.0	79.5	-9.5Conservation program-	National parks	27.0	26.2	0.8Historic sides	7.0	7.0	Canadian wildlife service	5.0	5.5	-0.5Administration and general	3.0	3.4	-0.442.0	42.1	-0.1Administration and general	7.0	3.5	3.5304.0	267.0	37.0
Expenditures for the development program consist of $18 million for northern economic development ($23 million in 1968-69), $13 million for Indian and Eskimo economic development ($16 million in 1968-69), $17 million in respect of territorial governments ($23 million in 1968-69), $17 million in payments to the Governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory ($12 million in 1968-69) and $5 million for northern mineral assistance grants ($4 million in 1968-69).
Expenditures for the conservation program consist of $27 million in respect of national parks ($26 million in 1968-69), $7 million for historic sites (the same as in 1968-69), $5 million for wildlife services ($6 million in 1968-69) and $3 million for general administration (approximately the same as in 1968-69).
Industry, Trade and Commerce
Expenditures of this department, including those of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, in the amount of $294 million are $90 million higher than the: 1968-69 total.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase
Industry, Trade and Commerce	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Trade and industrial development- Administration and operations-	6.8	3.3	3.5Trade and industry services	External services	13.8	12.4	1.4Operations	9.0	7.7	1.3Other	4.4	4.2	0.2S4.0	27.6	MGrants-	4.4Technological capability (defence)	34.0	29.6	Technological capability (non-defence)	5.3	4.3	1.0Construction of commercial and fishing vessels	15.0	22.3	-7.3Other	1.0	1.0	55. S	57.2	-1.9General incentives to industry for the expansion of scien-	0.4tific research and development in Canada	20.0	19.6	109.3	104.4	4.9Tourism development	10.1	10.1	1.5World exhibitions	3.9	2.4	Carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves	66.3	48.9	17.4Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act	12.0	2.6	9.4Payments to the Canadian Wheat Board	55.0	7.1	47.9Administration and general	5.4	3.7	1.7262.0	179.2	82.8Dominion Bureau of Statistics	32.0	24.7	7.3294.0	203.9	90.1
Expenditures of $109 million in respect of trade and industrial development include $55 million for grants, $34 million for administration and operation and $20 million for general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada. In 1968-69 comparative expenditures of $104 million included $57 million for grants, $28 million for administration and operation and $19 million for general incentives to industry.
Payments of $133 million in respect of grains are $75 million higher than in the previous year.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics expenditures of $32 million are $7 million higher than in 1968-69.
Justice
Expenditures of the Department of Justice are $20 million compared with $17 million in 1968-69.
Judges salaries, travelling allowances and pensions are $13 million compared with $12 million in 1968-69 and administration and general costs are $7 million compared with $5 million in 1968-69.
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Justice	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Judges salaries, travelling allowances and pensions	13.0	12.4	0.6Administration and general	7.0	4.5	2.5
20.0	16.9	3.1
Labour
Expenditures of the Department of Labour including the Unemployment Insurance Commission are $158 million compared with $137 million in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Labour	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Unemployment Insurance Commission- Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund	100.0	86.6	13.4Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act...	45.0	38.8	6.2146.0	125.4	19.6Department	13.0	11.2	1.8158.0	136.6	21.4
Expenditures in respect of the unemployment insurance commission in the amount of $145 million include the government's contribution of $100 million to the fund and $45 million for administration costs. In 1968-69 comparative amounts were $86 million and $39 million respectively.
Other expenditures of the department total $13 million compared with $11 million in 1968-69.
Manpower and Immigration
Expenditures of the Department of Manpower and Immigration at $455 million are $39 million more than in 1968-69.
Development and utilization of manpower is $410 million compared with $378 million in the previous fiscal year. The main items are $252 million for the adult occupational training program, $61 million more than in 1968-69; $97 million for capital assistance in the provision of training facilities, $9 million less than in 1968-69; $39 million for employment services, $2 million more than in 1968-69 and outlays for the municipal winter works program are $400 thousand compared with $22 million in 1968-69.
Outlays for immigration are $26 million compared with $29 million in 1968-69 and costs of program development are $6 million compared with $4 million.
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
TABLE 24 (in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase
Manpower and Immigration	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Development and utilization of manpower- Adult occupational training program	252.0	191.1	60.9Capital assistance in the provision of training facilities..	97.0	105.9	-8.9Employment services	39.0	37.4	1.6Municipal winter works incentive program	0.4	21.5	-21.1Other	21.6	21.6	410.0	S77.B	32.5Immigration	26.4	29.4	-3.0Program development	6.4	4.4	2.0Immigration appeal board	0.7	0.5	0.2Administration and general	11.5	4.3	7.2455.0	416.1	38.9
National Defence
Expenditures of the Department of National Defence in the amount of $1,785 million for 1969-70 are $24 million more than the total of $1,761 million for 1968-69.
TABLE 25 (in millions of dollars)
National Defence	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Defence services- Administration, operation and maintenance	1,293.2	1,226.8	66.4Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment	225.7	261.1	-35.4Development	14.5	18.2	-3.7Grant to Town of Oromocto, N.B	0.7	1.6	-0.91,534-1	1,507.7	26.4Pensions and other benefits- Canadian forces superannuation account- Government's contributions	63.1	57.0	6.1Amortization of deferred charges	92.9	104.5	-11.6Government's contribution as an employer to the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan	8.3	7.7	0.6Payments under Parts I-IV of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act	9.6	9.2	0.4Other	0.4	0.4	174.3	178.8	-4.5Defence Research	47.4	44.1	3.3Mutual aid to NATO countries including contributions towards military costs of NATO	14.2	15.3	-1.1Canada Emergency Measures Organization	5.0	6.3	-1.3Defence Construction (1951) Limited	2.2	2.3	-0.1Administration and general	7.8	6.3	1.51,785.0	1,760.8	24.2
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures of SI,534 million for defence services include $1,293 million for administration, operation and maintenance, $226 million for construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment and $15 million for development. In 1968-69 expenditure of $1,508 million included $1,227 million for operation and maintenance, $261 million for construction or acquisition and $18 million for development.
Expenditures for pensions and other benefits are $174 million and include $156 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 $10 million in payments under Parts I-IV of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act. In 1968-69 expenditures totalled $179 million of which $161 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 for the first quarter of 1969-70 and at If times commencing with the second quarter, was $63 million compared with $57 million in 1968-69. An amount of $93 million, in respect of the actuarial deficiency arising out of pay increases Was also charged to budgetary expenditure in 1969-70.
Defence research costs of $47 million are $3 million more than in 1968-69.
Mutual aid to NATO countries including contributions towards military costs of NATO at $14 million are $1 million less than 1968-69.
Expenditures in respect of the Canada Emergency Measures Organization are $5 million, a decrease of $1 million from the previous fiscal year.
National Health and Welfare
Expenditures of the Department of National Health and Welfare including the Medical Research Council are $1,950 million compared with $1,669 million in 1968-69.
Outlays for welfare services amount to $938 million compared with $901 million in 1968-69; outlays for health insurance and resources are $913 million compared with $674 million; outlays for medical services are $43 million compared with $45 million; and outlays in respect of the medical research council are $31 million compared with $27 million.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase
National Health and Welfahb	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Welfare services-	560.4	560.2	0.22.9	3.5	-0.655.1	52.4	2.7295.3	257.9	37.44.0	6.4	-2.40.9	3.4	-2.51.5	2.0	-0.55.0	4.0	1.02.0	2.0	11.0	8.9	2.19S8.1	900.7	S7.4Health insurance and resources-	625.0	561.9	63.1180.9	33.0	147.937.0	33.9	3.1Grants to provinces-	23.7	30.0	-6.344.2	14.0	30.22.0	1.6	0.4912. S	674-4	238.442.6	45.4	-2.88.5	7.7	0.812.0	9.1	2.95.0	4.2	0.8
1,919.0 31.0	1,641.5 27.2	277.5 3.8
			
	1,950.0	1,668.7	281.3
<*>
Less than $50,000.
Family allowances, family assistance and youth allowances
These expenditures total $618 million of which $560 million is family allowances, $55 million is youth allowances and $3 million is family assistance. In 1968-69 the total was $616 million of which $560 million was family allowances, $52 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 minor 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 university or are by reason of mental or physical infirmity precluded from attend-
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
ing 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 were 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.
TABLE 27 (in millions of dollars)
and Youth Allowances Payments	Family allowances	Family assistance	Youth allowances	TotalNewfoundland	17.0	(i)	2.0	19.0Nova Scotia	21.2	(i)	2.9	24.1Prince Edward Island	3.1	(i)	0.4	3.5New Brunswick	18.2	(l)	2.6	20.8Quebec	162.0	0.5	162.5Ontario	190.2	1.5	26.8	218.5Manitoba	25.3	0.2	3.6	29.1Saskatchewan	26.3	0.1	3.8	30.2Alberta	44.3	0.2	5.8	50.3British Columbia	51.3	0.4	7.1	58.8Northwest and Yukon Territories	1.5	0.1	1.6560.4	2.9	55.1	618.4
Fiscal year ending March 31, 1970 (estimated)
<* Less than $50,000.
Canada assistance plan
Payments to provinces under the Canada assistance plan totalled $295 million compared with $258 million in 1968-69. 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 of 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.
Under federal-provincial agreement the Province of Quebec has opted out of this program.
4S28
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
TABLE 28 (in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase
Canada Assistance Plan	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)20.7	21.1	- 0.414.8	11.1	3.72.9	2.6	0.310.4	9.9	0.5132.7	118.9	13.820.9	14.0	6.915.0	14.1	0.930.0	28.8	1.247.1	37.2	9.90.8	0.2	0.6
295.3	257.9	37.4
Old age assistance, disabled persons allowances and blind persons allowances
Contributions to the provinces for old age assistance total $1 million in 1969-70 compared with $3 million in 1968-69, for disabled persons allowances $4 million compared with $6 million and for blind persons allowances $1 million compared with $2 million.
The decreases noted above are 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 and the Disabled Persons 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 $79.58 ($75 up to January 1, 1968, $76.50 to January 1, 1969, and $78 to January 1, 1970) 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 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.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act
Contributions of $625 million to the provinces in 1969-70 under this act are $63 million more than in 1968-69. Under federal-provincial agreement the Province of Quebec has opted out of this program.
TABLE 29 (in millions of dollars)
Government's Contributions under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
Newfoundland	21.0	19.0	2.0Nova Scotia	32.0	28.2	3.8Prince Edward Island	4.1	3.7	0.4New Brunswick	25.2	22.7	2.5Ontario	317.7	284.7	33.0Manitoba	38.8	35.5	3.3Saskatchewan	39.6	33.0	6.6Alberta	67.3	61.6	5.7British Columbia	77.7	71.9	5.8Northwest and Yukon Territories	1.6	1.6	625.0	561.9	63.1
Medical Care Act
The Medical Care Act authorizes the payment of contributions by Canada towards the cost of insured medical care services incurred by provinces pursuant to provincial medical care insurance plans.
The Provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia became participating provinces effective July 1, 1968, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Manitoba effective April 1, 1969, Alberta effective July 1, 1969 and Ontario effective October 1, 1969.
Payments of $181 million in 1969-70 are $148 million higher than in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Contributions to Provinces under the Medical Care Act	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
Newfoundland	9.4	9 4Nova Scotia	13.7	13.7Ontario	65.0	65.0Manitoba	17.8	17.8Saskatchewan	17.7	11.3	6.4Alberta	21.2	21.7	- 0.5British Columbia	36.1	36.1180.9	33.0	147.9
March 12, 1970
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 1969-70 amount to $37 million compared with $34 million in the previous fiscal year.
TABLE 31 (in millions of dollars)
Contributions to Provinces under the Health Resources Fund Act	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
Newfoundland	0.9	0.1	0.8Nova Scotia	3.3	3.6	- 0.3Prince Edward Island	0.2	0.1	0.1New Brunswick	1.4	1.3	0.1Quebec	10.1	9.7	0.4Ontario	12.0	14.8	- 2.8Manitoba	1.7	0.2	1.5Saskatchewan	1.7	0.1	1.6Alberta	2.5	2.5	British Columbia	3.2	1.5	1.737.0	33.9	3.1
General health grants and hospital construction grants to provinces
Grants to provinces for general health services total $24 million compared with $30 million in 1968-69 and for hospital construction they total $44 million compared with $14 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 ending March 31, 1970 (estimated)		
General health grants	General construction grants	Total0.8	0.9	1.71.3	1.4	2.70.3	0.2	0.50.9	3.2	4.1Quebec	2.1	19.6	21.79.5	7.6	17.11.7	2.4	4.11.7	2.2	3.92.1	1.5	3.63.2	4.8	8.00.1	0.4	0.523.7	44.2	67.9March 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4931
National Revenue
Expenditures of the Department of National Revenue are $143 million, an increase of $23 million over the 1968-69 total of $120 million.
Outlays of $69 million in respect of the collection of customs import duties, excise taxes and excise duties are $9 million higher and outlays of $74 million in respect of taxation are $14 million higher than in 1968-69.
TABLE 33 (in millions of dollars)
National Revenue	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
Customs and excise	68.8	59.5	9.3Taxation	73.9	60.2	13.7Income tax appeal board	0.3	0.3	143.0	120.0	23.0
Parliament
Costs of Parliament in the amount of $22 million are $3 million higher than in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Parliament	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
House of Commons	16.9	14.3	2.6The Senate	4.4	3.6	0.8Library of Parliament	0.7	0.7	22.0	18.6	3.4
Privy Council
Expenditures for Privy Council, including the Economic Council of Canada, the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the Science Council of Canada, at $11 million are $2 million higher than in 1968-69.
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase
Privy Council	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)6.7	6.3	0.41.6	1.5	0.11.4	1.1	0.31.3	0.4	0.9
11.0	9.3	1.7
Public Works
Expenditures in 1969-70 are $298 million compared with $285 million in 1968-69.
TABLE 36 (in millions of dollars)
Public Works
Fiscal year ending March 31
(estimated)
Increase
or
decrease (-)
Accommodation services-
Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds-
National capital region	 44.0
Other than national capital region	 64.0
Acquisition of equipment and furnishings other than
office furnishings	   1.5
Construction, acquisition, major repairs, etc. of public
40.4
56.6
1.4
3.6
7.4
0.1
buildings-
Ottawa	
Other than Ottawa
45.0
34.5
189.0
40.1
30.2 168.7
4.9
4.3
20.S
Roads, bridges and other engineering services-
Operation and maintenance	
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, roads, bridges and
other engineering works	
Trans-Canada highway-
Contributions to provinces under terms of the Trans-
Canada Highway Act	
Construction through national parks	
7.0
10.0
35.0
52.0
7.1
9.2
37.3
0.1
53.7
-0.1
0.8
-2.3
-0.1
-1.7
Harbours and rivers engineering services-
Operation and maintenance	
Construction or acquisition of equipment	
Construction, acquisition, major repairs, etc. of harbour
and river works	
Dry dock subsidies	
8.0
0.2
23.6 0.2 32.0
8.6
0.6
22.1
0.2
31.5
-0.6
-0.4
1.5
0.5
Canadian Government Exhibition Commission
Testing laboratories	
Administration and general	
1.0
1.0
23.0
298.0
4.8
1.1
25.0
284.8
-3.8
-0.1
-2.0
13.2
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Accommodation services
Expenditures for these services are $189 million, $20 million higher than the 1968-69 total.
Costs of maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds are $108 million compared with $97 million in the previous year, costs of construction, acquisition, major repairs, etc. of public buildings are $80 million compared with $70 million in 1968-69, and costs of acquisition of equipment and furnishings other than office furnishings are $1 million, the same as in 1968-69.
Roads, bridges and other engineering services
^ Expenditures for these services are $52 million, $2 million less than in 1968-69. Contributions of $35 million to provinces in respect of the Trans-Canada highway are $2 million less than in 1968-69.
Harbours and rivers engineering services
Expenditures for these services in the amount of $32 million are $1 million more than in 1968-69.
Canadian Government Exhibition Commission
Expenditures of this commission are $1 million compared with $5 million in 1968-69.
Regional Economic Expansion
Expenditures for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, including those for the National Capital Commission and the Cape Breton Development Corporation, total $221 million compared with $181 million in 1968-69.
. The increase of $40 million is due mainly to higher expenditures for incentives to industry for the development of employment opportunities and to higher payments to provinces in accordance with development programs.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Regional Economic Expansion
Grants and contributions-
Agricultural and Rural Development Act	
Development agreements with the provinces	
Payments to provinces re industrial research	
Incentives to industry for the development of employment	
Other	
Irrigation and water storage projects	
Federal share of the cost of a trunk highway system Administration and general	
National Capital Commission	
Cape Breton Development Corporation
Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
1970 (estimated)	19G9	
22.0	32.5	-10.530.0	9.5	20.521.0	20.8	0.249.0	14.6	34.414.0	4.4	9.61S6.0	81.8	54.210.0	10.1	-0.18.1	16.9	-8.812.9	16.9	-4.0167.0	125.7	41.320.5	25.0	-4.533.5	30.1	3.4221.0	180.8	40.2
March 12, 1970
Secretary of State
Included under this heading are expenditures of the Department of the Secretary of State and those in respect of the Canada Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Film Development Corporation, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Company of Young Canadians, the National Arts Centre Corporation, the National Film Board, the National Library, the National Museums of Canada, Public Archives, the Public Service Commission and the Office of the Representation Commissioner.
Expenditures total $542 million compared with $523 million in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase
Secretary of State	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Post-secondary education payments to provinces	287.0	276.6	10.4Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and	13.6	equipment-National Arts Centre	Citizenship	5.0	4.4	0.6Translation bureau	6.0	4.6	1.4Administration and general	4.6 802.6	1.9 S01.1	2.7 1.6Canada Council	24.5	20.6	3.9Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	166.5	148.3	18.2Canadian Film Development Corporation	0.3	0.2	0.1Canadian Radio-Television Commission	2.2	1.9	0.3Office of the Chief Electoral Officer	1.0	13.5	-12.5Company of Young Canadians	2.0	1.9	0.1National Arts Centre Corporation	2.1	1.1	1.0National Film Board	11.1	10.0	1.1National Library	2.1	1.7	0.4National Museums of Canada	7.4	7.1	0.3Public Archives	4.1	2.2	1.9Public Service Commission	16.0	12.9	3.1Office of the Representation Commissioner	0.1	0.1	542.0	522.6	19.4
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Post-secondary education payments to provinces of $287 million are $10 million higher than in 1968-69 and expenditures in respect of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at $167 million are $18 million higher.
Solicitor General
Expenditures of the Department of the Solicitor General including those of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the amount of $178 million are $10 million more than the previous year's total. There are increases of $7 million in respect of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and $3 million in respect of correctional services.
TABLE 39 (in millions of dollars)
Solicitor General	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Royal Canadian Mounted Police- National police services, federal law enforcement duties and provincial and municipal policing under contract- Administration, operation and maintenance	78.0	74.2	3.8Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment	6.6	6.2	0.4Pensions and other benefits- Pensions	6.0	5.9	0.1Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account- Government's contribution	7.0	6.6	0.4Amortization of deferred charges	10.4	7.8	2.6Other	1.0	1.0	109.0	101.7	7.3Correctional services- Administration of the Canadian penitentiary service...	1.3	1.3	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries	47.6	46.0	1.6Parole Act administration	2.0	2.0	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment	15.0	13.8	1.265.9	63.1	3.8Office of the Solicitor General	1.1	1.1	176.0	165.9	10.1
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Gross expenditures are $145 million in 1969-70 but receipts of $36 million arising from services provided by those expenditures will bring the net amount charged to budgetary expenditure to $109 million.
In 1968-69 gross expenditures were $135 million and receipts were $33 million resulting in a charge of $102 million to budgetary expenditures.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Correctional services
Expenditures in respect of these services at $66 million are $3 million more than in 1968-69 and include outlays of $48 million for operation and maintenance of penitentiaries compared with $46 million in 1968-69 and $15 million for construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment compared with $14 million in the previous fiscal year.
Supply and Services
Expenditures for this department in the amount of $80 million are $14 million higher than in 1968-69 due mainly to increases of $6 million for the services component of the department and $6 million for the supply component of the department, the latter for the reimbursement of the revolving fund for losses sustained therein.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Supply and Services	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Services- Central office and branch office administration	37.5	31.9	5.6Superannuation and Retirement Acts administration	1.0	1.1	-0.1Management advisory services	1.0	0.8	0.2Other	0.1	0.1	S9.6	SS.9	5.7Supply- Administration	21.8	21.5	0.3Revolving fund	5.7	5.727.5	21.5	6.0Public Printing and Stationery	4.0	3.5	0.5Canadian Commercial Corporation	3.5	2.1	1.4Canadian Arsenals Limited	0.2	0.3	-0.1Administration and general	5.2	4.4	0.880.0	65.7	14.3
Transport
Expenditures of the Department of Transport including those in respect of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Transport Commission, the National Harbours Board and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in the amount of $514 million are $6 million higher than in 1968-69.
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Transport	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
Marine services-			
Administration, operation and maintenance	65.5	50.1	15.4Construction or acquisition	31.5	41.4	- 9.997.0	91.5	5.5Railways and steamships-	Maritime Freight Rates Act	14.5	13.9	0.6Construction or acquisition	11.0	10.1	0.9Railway to Great Slave Lake	1.1	- 1.1Victoria bridge	0.9	0.9	Operating deficits-	Newfoundland ferry and terminals	16.0	16.7	- 0.7Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals	5.0	5.0	Yarmouth. N.S.-Bar Harbour, Maine, U.S.A.	ferry service	0.6	0.3	0.3Railway employees' provident fund-deficit	6.5	6.5	Other	0.5	0.5	55.0	55.0	Air services-	Administration, operation and maintenance	106.5	87.9	18.6Construction or acquisition	36.0	59.1	-23.1Grants, contributions, subsidies and other payments....	3.5	3.3	0.2146.0	150.S	- 4-6Administration and general	8.0	7.9	0.1306.0	304.7	1.3Canadian National Railways deficit	25.0	29.2	- 4.2Canadian Transport Commission-	Payments under the National Transportation Act	83.5	93.7	-10.2Contributions to the railway grade crossing fund	15.0	15.0	Steamship subventions	12.4	12.2	0.2Payments under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance	Act	4.5	4.5Subsidies to air carriers	3.0	1.3	1.7Administration and general	4.6	4.2	0.4125.0	126.4	- 3.4Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-	Urban renewal	19.0	15.1	3.9Loans forgiven by the corporation	9.0	6.1	2.9Losses sustained on federal-provincial projects	7.9	4.4	3.5Housing research and community planning	6.1	4.2	1.942.0	29.8	12.2National Harbours Board	8.0	6.6	1.4The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority-	Welland canal deficit	8.0	9.0	- 1.0Other operating deficits and capital requirements	2.0	2.4	- 0.410.0	11-4	- 1-4514.0	508.1	5.9
Marine services
Net expenditures are $97 million, $6 million more than in 1968-69 and include $66 million for administration, operation and maintenance compared with $50 million in 1968-69 and $32 million for construction or acquisition compared with $41 million in the previous year.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Railways and steamships
These expenditures total $55 million compared with $55 million in 1968-69. Payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act are $15 million compared with $14 million in 1968-69 and payments for operating deficits are $22 million in each fical year.
Air services
Expenditures of $146 million are $4 million less than in 1968-69 and include $107 million for administration, operation and maintenance compared with $88 million in 1968-69 and $36 million for construction or acquisition compared with $59 million.
Canadian National Railways
The 1969 operating deficit of the Canadian National Railways of $25 million is $4 million less than the 1968 deficit charged to budgetary expenditure in 1968-69.
Canadian Transport Commission
Expenditures of the Canadian Transport Commission at $123 million are $3 million less than in 1968-69. Payments to railway and transportation companies pursuant to the National Transportation Act total $84 million compared with $94 million in 1968-69.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Budgetary expenditure of the government in respect of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is $42 million compared with $30 million in 1968-69. Urban renewal at $19 million accounted for $4 million of the increase, losses sustained on federal-provincial projects accounted for $4 million of the increase and loans forgiven by the corporation for $3 million of the increase over 1968-69 figures.
National Harbours Board
Non-active advances to the board to be charged to budgetary expenditure are $8 million compared with $7 million in 1968-69. Net increases reflect 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. Lawrence Seaway Authority are $10 million, $1 million less than in 1968-69. The 1969 operating deficit of the Welland canal, charged to budgetary expenditure, is $8 million compared with the 1968 deficit of $9 million charged in 1968-69 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, are $381 million compared with $432 million in 1968-69.
March 12. 1970
[Stage Direction]
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 1968-69, is $74 million compared with $66 million in 1968-69.
A further amount of $102 million, to cover the annual amortization charge in respect of the actuarial deficiencies arising out of pay increases and the actuarial deficiency revealed by the quinquennial evaluation made as at December 31, 1967, will be charged to budgetary expenditure. In 1968-69 amortization charged to budgetary expenditure was $85 million.
Reserve for salary revisions
An amount of $35 million is included in budgetary expenditures and will be credited to the liability account "reserve for salary revisions" to cover salary revisions in respect of 1969-70 and prior fiscal years.
Canada's contributions as an employer
These contributions total $41 million, $6 million more than in 1968-69. The main items are $22 million to the Canada and Quebec pension plans compared with $18 million in the previous year and $15 million in respect of surgical-medical insurance premiums compared with $13 million in 1968-69.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Treasury Board	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Public service superannuation account- Government's contribution	73.5	66.0	7.5Amortization of deferred charges	102.0	84.8	17.2175.5	150.8	24.7Reserve for salary revisions	35.0	120.5	-85.5Government's contributions as an employer- Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan	21.8	18.0	3.8Unemployment insurance fund	1.7	1.7	Death benefit account	1.7	1.7	Pension plans for employees engaged locally outside	0.1	0.1	Hospital insurance (outside Canada) plan	0.4	0.4Government's share of surgical-medical insurance premiums	14.8	13.1	1.740.5	S4.6	5.9Payments under Public Service Pension Adjustment Act....	1.8	1.8	Administration and general	6.2	6.7	- 0.5259.0	314.4	-55.4National Research Council- Scholarships and grants in aid of research	60.0	59.0	1.0Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment	6.0	5.2	0.8Assistance towards research in industry	6.0	6.1	-0.1Administration, operation and maintenance	50.0	47.5	2.5122.0	117.8	4.2381.0	432.2	-51.2
March 12. 1970
National Research Council
Expenditures of the National Research Council at $122 million are $4 million more than in 1968-69.
Outlays for scholarships and grants in aid of research at $60 million are $1 million higher than in the previous year and costs of administration, operation and maintenance at $50 million are $3 million more than in 1968-69.
Veterans Affairs
Expenditures of the Department of Veterans Affairs total $424 million compared with $428 million in the previous fiscal year.
Welfare services, allowances and other benefits at $113 million are slightly less than in 1968-69, pensions for disability and death at $220 million are $3 million less and costs of $71 million for treatment services are $1 million less than in the previous fiscal year.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Veterans Affairs	Fiscal year ending March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Pensions-	Disability and death	220.0	223.3	-3.3Administration and general	3.2	3.1	0.1m.s	m.4	-3.2Welfare services, allowances and other benefits-	War veterans allowances and civilian allowances	95.0	95.5	-0.5Assistance under provisions of the Assistance Fund (War	0.1Veterans Allowances) Regulations	7.0	6.9	Other benefits	3.2	3.2	Administration and general	7.3	7.3	112.5	lit.9	-0.4Treatment services	71.0	71.6	-0.6Soldier settlement and veterans land act-	Provision for reserve for conditional benefits	4.3	4.3	Administration and general	6.0	5.3	0.710.S	9.6	0.7Administration and general	7.0	7.1	-0.1424.0	427.6	-3.6
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
The government's asset and liability account balances at March 31, 1970 as now estimated, the balances at March 31, 1969 and the net increases or decreases during 1969-70 are summarized in the following table:

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Liabilities
Current and demand liabilities	
Deposit and trust accounts	
Annuity, insurance and pension accounts	
Undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts..
Refundable corporation tax	
Provision for compound interest on Canada savings bonds..
Deferred credits	
Suspense accounts	
Unmatured debt	
Total liabilities	
Assets
Current assets	
Departmental working capital advances	
Cash in blocked currency	
Advances to the exchange fund account	
Investments in United States dollar securities issued by
other than the Government of Canada	
Canada pension plan investment fund	
Investments held for the retirement of unmatured debt....
Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations	
Loans to national governments	
Other loans and investments	
Securities held in trust	
Deferred charges	
Capital assets	
Inactive loans and investments	
Total recorded assets	
Less reserve for losses on realization of assets	
Net recorded assets	
Net debt represented by excess of liabilities over net recorded assets	
Balance at March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
1970 (estimated)	1969	
2,322.0	2,219.1	102.9501.8	511.8	-10.012,218.3	10,520.1	1,698.2127.5	235.5	-108.026.8	140.8	-114.020.4	12.4	8.0183.4	174.3	9.14.2	4.2	22,613.6	22,101.0	512.638,018.0	35,919.2	2,098.81,370.4	981.4	389.0202.9	188.9	14.01.7	1.9	-0.22,996.4	2,867.0	129.458.0	90.3	-32.32,824.1	2,022.9	801.26.4	6.4	9,635.8	8,767.8	868.01,333.2	1,269.2	64.02,246.0	2,114.3	131.7129.5	111.5	18.0784.4	613.4	171.0(I)	(1)	94.8	94.8	21,683.6	19,129.8	2,553.8-546.4	-546.4	21,137.2	18,583.4	2,553.816,880.8	17,335.8	O>-455.0
(1>Shown at nominal value of $1.
® Reflecting the budgetary surplus of $455 million.
Summary
The gross liabilities of the government are estimated at $38,018 million as at March 31, 1970 compared with $35,919 million at March 31, 1969. The increase of $2,099 million is due mainly to annuity, insurance and pension accounts which are $1,698 million higher than at March 31, 1969.
4942
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Net recorded assets at $21,137 million are $2,554 million higher than the previous year-end total of $18,583 million. The main changes are increases of $868 million in loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations and $801 million in the Canada pension plan investment fund.
The net debt of Canada, or the excess of liabilities over net recorded assets, is estimated at $16,881 million as at March 31,1970 compared with $17,336 million at March 31, 1969.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ending March 31 Billions of Dollars
1966	1967	1968	1969	1970*	1970*
\% OTHER LIABILITIES


[Stage Direction]
* Estimated
Liability Accounts Current and demand liabilities
These liabilities, which consist of obligations of the government payable currently or on demand, in the amount of $2,322 million are $103 million more than the total at March 31, 1969.
There are increases of $15 million in outstanding cheques and $135 million in accounts payable and a decrease of $223 million in non-interest-bearing notes.
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 in the amount of $361 million are $191 million less and those in respect of the international development association at $11 million are $34 million less than at March 31, 1969.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Special Drawing Rights in the international monetary fund represent an allocation of the equivalent of U.S. $124 million = Can. $134 million to Canada by the international monetary fund of a newly created international reserve asset. These Special Drawing Rights have been advanced to the exchange fund account and are included therein.
TABLE 45 (in millions of dollars)
Current and Demand Liabilities	Balance at March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
Outstanding cheques	517.5	502.5	15.0Accounts payable	605.2	470.2	135.0Non-interest-bearing notes payable to-	The international monetary fund	361.0	552.0	-191.0The international development association	11.3	45.0	- 33.7The Asian development bank	5.4	4.0	1.4S77.7	601.0	-22S.8Allocation of Special Drawing Rights	134.4	134.4Matured debt outstanding	40.7	39.7	1.0Interest due and outstanding	164.9	162.9	2.0Interest accrued	423.4	399.4	24.0Post office outstanding money orders	50.9	34.9	16.0Outstanding letter of credit cheques	5.1	5.1	Other current liabilities	2.2	3.4	-1.22,322.0	2,219.1	102.9
Deposit and trust accounts
Sundry funds deposited with, or held in trust by, the Receiver General for Canada for various purposes are recorded in these accounts.
There is a net decrease of $10 million from the previous fiscal year-end balance bringing the total to $502 million as at March 31, 1970.
The main changes are increases of $17 million in guarantee deposits and $6 million in the provincial tax collection agreements account and decreases of $19 million in the Canadian Dairy Commission account and $9 million in the Canadian Commercial Corporation account.
4944
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
TABLE 46 (in millions of dollars)
Deposit and Trust Accounts	Balance at 1970 (estimated)	March 31 1969	Increase or decrease (-)Canadian Commercial Corporation-special deposit	5.0	14.2	-9.2Canadian Dairy Commission	5.5	24.5	-19.0Canadian Pension Commission-administration trust fund ..	17.7	17.2	0.5Contractors holdbacks-sundry departments	13.4	13.4	Contractors securities-sundry departments	3.3	3.3	Crown corporations deposits	16.2	16.2	Guarantee deposits-sundry departments	121.0	104.5	16.5Indian trust funds	34.3	34.3	Instalment purchase of bonds	16.0	15.6	0.4National Harbours Board-special accounts	24.8	22.7	2.1Prairie farm emergency fund	15.9	14.5	1.4Provincial tax collection agreements account	177.4	171.4	6.051.3	60.0	-8.7501.8	511.8	-10.0
Annuity, insurance and pension accounts
This category records the government's liability in respect of various annuity, insurance and pension accounts.
It is estimated that these account balances will total $12,218 million at March 31, 1970, an increase of $1,698 million during the fiscal year.
TABLE 47 (in millions of dollars)
Annuity, Insurance and Pension Accounts	Balance at March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Unemployment insurance fund	496.4	398.9	97.5Less investments and accrued interest	-482.5	-386.8	-95.7Uninvested funds on deposit with the government	13.9	12.1	1.8Superannuation accounts-	3,178.4	470.0Public service	3,648.4	Canadian forces	3,303.6	3,023.6	280.0Royal Canadian Mounted Police	164.8	130.8	34.07,116.8	6.SSS.8	784.0Canada pension plan account	2,929.0	2,107.8	821.2Government annuities	1,320.5	1,324.6	-4.1Old age security fund	724.9	620.9	104.0113.2	121.9	-8.712,218.3	10,520.1	1,698.2
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment insurance fund
The unemployment insurance fund is expected to increase by $98 million bringing the balance to $496 million at March 31, 1970. Of this amount $483 million will be invested in bonds and accrued interest and $14 million will be held by the Receiver General.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Unemployment Insurance Fund		Fiscal year ending March 31			
1966	1967	1968	1969	1970 (estimated)Receipts- Contributions- Employees and employers*1'	328.3	343.8	347.4	433.1	498.7Government*2'	65.7	68.8	69.5	86.6	99.8Net income from investments	4.7	10.9	15.9	18.9	23.7Other income	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2398.8	423.7	433.0	538.8	622.4Disbursements-	Benefit payments	-297.8	-307.0	-388.6	-459.1	-527.1Excess of receipts over disbursements	101.0	116.7	44.4	79.7	95.3Balance at credit of fund at fiscal year-end....	141.5	258.2	302.7	382.4	478.4Unredeemed benefit warrants and deposits from employers	20.7	22.2	17.6	16.5	18.0Balance in fund at March 31	162.2	280.4	320.3	398.9	496.4Investment in bonds and accrued interest	-148.6	-266.6	-303.9	-386.8	-482.5Balance on deposit with the government	13.6	13.8	16.4	12.1	13.9
(*'Contributions by employees and employers on an equal basis.
<8Government contribution is equal to 20 per cent of the combined employee-employer contributions
Public service superannuation account
The balance of $3,648 million in this account is $470 million higher than at March 31, 1969. Receipts of $564 million include employee contributions of $94 million, the government's contribution of $73 million, interest of $131 million, an actuarial liability adjustment of $260 million and a contribution of $6 million by Crown corporations. Contributions by the government and Crown corporations are equal to the estimated current and prior service payments by individuals in 1968-69.
The actuarial adjustment of $260 million is comprised of $51 million to cover the deficit revealed by the quinquennial valuation of the account as at December 31, 1967 and $209 million to provide for additional liabilities arising out of salary increases in 1969-70.
Disbursements of $94 million include $82 million for annuities and $10 million for withdrawals of contributions.
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
In 1968-69 receipts were $390 million and disbursements were $87 million.
TABLE 49 (in millions of dollars)
Public Service Superannuation Account		Fiscal year ending March 31			
	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970 (estimated)
Receipts- Contributions- Employees-					
Government	(*63.4	W55.5	66.0	71.6	87.0Crown corporations	3.3	3.8	5.2	5.1	7.0Government	57.8	59.3	59.6	66.0	73.5Crown corporations	3.7	3.8	5.0	4.8	6.0Interest	89.5	98.5	110.9	118.0	130.5Actuarial liability	79.6	152.2	21.5	121.0	260.0Other	1.2	0.9	2.2	3.0	298.5	374.0	270.4	389.5	564.0Disbursements-	Annuities	-57.7	-62.8	-68.2	-74.7	-82.0Withdrawals of contributions	-11.3	-11.1	-10.8	-10.3	-10.0Other	-0.9	-1.0	-5.1	-1.9	-2.0-69.9	-74.9	-84.1	-86.9	-94.0Excess of receipts over disbursements	228.6	299.1	186.3	302.6	470.0Balance in fund brought forward	2,161.8	2,390.4	2,689.5	2,875.8	3,178.4Balance at credit of fund	2,390.4	2,689.5	2,875.8	3,178.4	3,648.4
^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 0).
Canadian forces superannuation account
The balance of $3,304 million reflects an increase of $280 million during the fiscal year.
Receipts of $354 million include $38 million in contributions by personnel, $62 million in contributions by the government, $125 million in interest and $129 million to provide for additional liabilities arising from salary increases. Government contributions were made at the rate of one and two-thirds times the current and prior service contributions by personnel and increased to one and four-fifths times effective with the second quarter of the fiscal year.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Disbursements of $74 million include $67 million in pensions and retiring allowances and $7 million in cash termination allowances and return of contributions.
In 1968-69 receipts were $363 million and disbursements were $62 million.
TABLE 50 (in millions of dollars)
Canadian Forces Superannuation Account	Fiscal year ending March 31				
	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970 (estimated)
Receipts-					
Contributions-					
Personnel	«>34.1	025.1	33.1	33.9	38.0Government	58.8	42.6	58.4	57.0	62.0Interest	83.2	91.7	105.2	112.1	125.0Actuarial liability	16.6	279.2	159.6	129.0Other	0.3	0.3	1.4	193.0	438.9	198.1	362.6	354.0Disbursements-	Pensions and retiring allowances	-26.7	-36.8	-45.7	-55.2	-67.0Cash termination allowances and return of	contributions	-10.1	-9.2	-6.0	-7.0	-7.0Other	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-36.9	-46.1	-51.8	-62.3	-74.0Excess of receipts over disbursements	156.1	392.8	146.3	300.3	280.0Balance in fund brought forward	2,028.1	2,184.2	2,577.0	2,723.3	3,023.6Balance at credit of fund	2,184.2	2,577.0	2,723.3	3,023.6	3,303.6
^Includes $2.1 million due to dual contributions temporarily required in respect of the Canada and Quebec pension plans.
<2)Net after deduction of $2.1 million referred to in footnote <*.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account
The balance of $165 million in this account is $34 million higher than the balance at March 31, 1969.
Receipts during the year of $35 million include contributions of $4 million by personnel, the government's contribution of $7 million, interest of $5 million and $19 million to provide for additional liabilities arising from salary increases.
Disbursements of $1 million consist mainly of annuities and allowances.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
In 1968-69 receipts were $27 million and disbursements were $1 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account		Fiscal year ending March 31			
	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970 (estimated)
Receipts- Contributions-					
Personnel	<i)2.2	(2)2.2	2.8	3.4	4.0Government	3.9	4.5	4.2	6.6	7.0Interest	2.4	2.9	3.5	4.5	5.0Actuarial liability	11.1	10.1	12.7	19.08.5	20.7	20.6	27.2	35.0Disbursements-	Annuities and allowances	-0.5	-0.7	-0.8	-0.9	-1.0Cash termination allowances and return of	contributions	-0.3	-0.3	-0.2	-0.2	-0.8	-1.0	-1.0	-1.1	-1.0Excess of receipts over disbursements	7.7	19.7	19.6	26.1	34.0Balance in fund brought forward	57.7	65.4	85.1	104.7	130.8Balance at credit of fund	65.4	85.1	104.7	130.8	164.8
^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
Canada pension plan account
The balance of $2,929 million is $821 million higher than the March 31, 1969 balance of $2,108 million.
Credits to the account of $889 million include $745 million in contributions under the act, $140 million in interest on investments and $4 million in interest on the operating balance on deposit with the Receiver General. Charges of $68 million include $50 million in benefit payments and $18 million in administrative expenses.
In 1968-69 receipts were $785 million and disbursements were $30 million.
The amount by which the operating balance of the Canada pension plan 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 are purchased with the excess remaining after purchasing securities of each province as required.
It is estimated that securities totalling $801 million will have been purchased during the year bringing the total amount invested to $2,824 million at March 31, 1970. These are recorded in the asset account "Canada pension plan investment fund".
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Canada Pension Plan Account	Fiscal year ending March 31				
1966	1967	1968	1969	1970 (estimated)Receipts-	94.9	587.2	640.2	698.0	745.011.0	42.2	84.4	140.0(1)	1.1	1.4	2.4	4.00.6	0.9	0.2	94.9	599.9	684.7	785.0	889.0Payments-	-0.1	-1.3	-15.6	-50.0-5.5	-8.3	-11.5	-14.4	-17.8-5.5	-8.4	-12.8	-30.0	-67.889.4	591.5	671.9	755.0	821.289.4	680.9	1,352.8	2,107.889.4	680.9	1,352.8 -1,280.8	2,107.8 -2,023.0	2,929.0Less investments in securities held in the Can-	-34.8	-615.5	-2,824.2
Operating balance on deposit with the govem-	54.6	65.4	72.0	84.8	104.8
					
G>Less than $50,000.
Government annuities account
The balance of $1,321 million in this account is $4 million less than the balance at March 31, 1969.
Receipts of $64 million include $13 million from premiums and $51 million in interest. Disbursements of $68 million consist mainly of vested annuity and commuted value payments and refunds of premiums.
In 1968-69 receipts totalled $66 million and disbursements were $67 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 $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 1, 1952.
Amendments to the act have increased the tax rates: on individual incomes to 3 per cent effective January 1, 1959 and 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.
4950
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Pension rates have also been increased by amendments to the act to $75 per month effective October 1, 1963; to $76.50 per month effective January 1, 1968; to $78 per month effective January 1, 1969; and to $79.58 effective January 1, 1970.
The act was further amended to authorize pension payments effective January 1, 1966 to all persons who satisfied the residence requirements of the act who had attained the age of 69 years on or before January 1, 1966; the age limit being reduced by one year on January 1 of each subsequent year until 1970. A further amendment to the act in 1966-67 authorized 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 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.
Receipts of $1,823 million include $569 million from sales tax, $1,027 million from the tax on personal incomes and $227 million from the tax on corporation incomes.
Payments of $1,719 million consist of $1,450 million in pension payments and $269 million in guaranteed income supplements.
In 1968-69 receipts were $1,626 million and payments were $1,541 million.
TABLE 53 (in millions of dollars)
Old Age Security Fund		Fiscal year ending March 31			
1966	1967	1968	1969	1970 (estimated)Tax receipts- Sales tax	522.1	559.5	544.5	528.1	569.0Personal income tax	494.9	576.6	800.1	915.0	1,027.0Corporation income tax	152.3	149.5	150.0	183.0	227.0Total tax receipts	1,169.3	1,285.6	1,494.6	1,626.1	1,823.0Pension payments	-927.3	-1,033.4	-1,153.3	-1,296.8	-1,450.0Guaranteed income supplement	-39.6	-234.8	-244.5	-269.0Excess of receipts over payments	242.0	212.6	106.5	84.8	104.0Temporary loans brought forward	
Balance in fund brought forward	-25.0	217.0	429.6	536.1	620.9Balance in fund	217.0	429.6	536.1	620.9	724.9
^Effective January 1, 1967.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
A distribution of payments, by provinces, is shown in the following table:

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Old Age Security Payments!1'	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
36.1	32.3	3.877.7	69.3	8.414.2	12.6	1.658.5	52.0	6.5405.6	364.1	41.5610.1	550.6	59.599.1	88.4	10.797.6	86.9	10.7116.6	103.9	12.7202.1	180.0	22.11.4	1.2	0.2
1,719.0	1,541.3	177.7
<* Includes $269 million in 1969-70 and $244.5 million in 1968-69 for guaranteed income supplement.
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 $128 million is $108 million less than the balance of $236 million at March 31, 1969.
The main change was a decrease of $86 million in the reserve for salary revisions.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Undisbursed Balances of Appropriations to Special Accounts	Balance at March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)35.0	120.5	-85.582.4	86.4	-4.02.4	2.4	3.8	3.8	3.2	8.2	-5.013.1	-13.10.7	i.i	-0.4
127.5	235.5	-108.0
21774-36J
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Refundable corporation tax
This account records the refundable corporation tax on cash profits of businesses that 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.
The balance of $27 million is $114 million less than the balance at March 31, 1969. The decrease represents refunds made during the year.
Provision for compound interest on Canada savings bonds
This account records the estimated amount for the prorated provision for the special compound interest feature applicable to certain Canada savings bonds.
The balance of $20 million is $8 million higher than the balance at March 31, 1969.
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 asset categories: "loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations", "loans to national governments" and "other loans and investments".
The balance of $183 million is $9 million more than at March 31, 1969.
Also included in this category are premiums, received on the issue of Government of Canada bonds, which are being credited to public debt charges on a monthly amortization basis.
Deferred interest of $70 million in respect of The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is $9 million higher than at March 31, 1969.
TABLE 56 (in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		Increase
Deferred Credits	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Deferred interest- Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	0.2	0.2	Northern Canada Power Commission	3.9	3.9	The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	70.0	60.6	9.4United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946	101.1	101.1	175.2	165.8	9.4Balances receivable under agreements of sale of Crown assets..	0.3	0.3	Crown Assets Disposal Corporation-government equity....	7.8	7.8	Unamortized premium on loans	0.1	0.4	-0.3183.4	174.3	9.1
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Suspense accounts
These consist of balances where some uncertainty as to disposition exists. The balance of $4 million is slightly higher than at March 31, 1969.
Unmatured debt
The unmatured debt of Canada is estimated at $22,613 million as at March 31, 1970 and is comprised of $22,166 million payable in Canadian dollars, $265 million payable in United States dollars, $74 million payable in German deutsche marks and $108 million payable in Italian lire.
This is $512 million more than the balance at March 31, 1969. The increase is due mainly to securities payable in Canadian dollars.
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".
TABLE 57 (in millions ol dollars)
Balance at March 31
Unmatured Debt
(estimated)
Increase
or
decrease (-)
Payable in Canadian dollars-
Marketable bonds	
Non-marketable bonds-
Canada savings bonds	
Canada pension plan	
Unemployment insurance commission
Treasury bills	
Payable in United States dollars*1) <2>..
Payable in German deutsche marks*1)	
Payable in Italian lire*11 <!>
12,248.0
6,542.3
15.3
466.0
19.271.6 2,895.0
22.166.6
265.0 73.9
108.1
22,613.6
12.263.0
6,168.3
11.3
376.0 18,818.6
2,840.0
21,658.6
266.7
67.6
108.1
22.101.0
-15.0
374.0 4.0
90.0
463.0
55.0
508.0 -1.7
6.3
512.6
("Marketable bonds.
("Converted at the official parity rates.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Asset Accounts
Current assets
These accounts consist of various cash accounts and the securities investment account.
Total current assets at $1,370 million are $389 million more than at March 31, 1969. The main change was an increase of $339 million in cash in current deposits.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ending March 31
TABLE 58 (in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		Increase
Current Assets	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Cash accounts- Cash in current deposits*1*	939.1	600.1	339.0Cash in special deposits	1.4	1.4	2.0Cash in hands of collectors and in transit	284.5	282.5	Customs and excise temporary deposits	0.6	0.6	Indian agencies revenue trust bank accounts	0.4	0.4	Moneys received after March 31 but applicable to the current year	33.3	33.3	-2.0Post office-cash on hand and in transit	16.7	18.7	i,m.o	937.0	SS9.0Securities investment account	94.4	44.4	50.01,370.4	981.4	389.0
^Receiver General year-end balances in London, New York, Paris, Brussels, Bonn, Rome and Frankfurt are at the Canadian dollar equivalent of exchange rates at March 31.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Departmental working capital advances
These accounts record advances outstanding at the close of the fiscal year for working funds for certain departmental activities.
The balance of $203 million is $14 million more than at March 31,1969. The main changes were an increase of $4 million in the stockpiling of uranium concentrates account, a new account "airports revolving fund" in the amount of $13 million and a decrease of $7 million in the Royal Canadian Mint account.
TABLE 59 (in millions of dollars)
Departmental Working Capital Advances	Balance at March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Agricultural commodities stabilization account	1.0	1.0Defence production revolving fund	32.5	34.5	-2.0Miscellaneous departmental imprest and standing advances..	13.4 15.0	13.4 15.0	7.9	14.9	-7.091.2	87.2	4.09.0	8.0	1.013.0	13.019.9	15.9	4.0
202.9	188.9	14.0
The agricultural commodities stabilization account records the operations of the agricultural stabilization board which was established under provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Act to take such action as necessary to stabilize the price of agricultural commodities at their respective prescribed prices. It is estimated that the Board's operations will result in a net increase of $1 million in the account during 1969-70.
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 Eldorado Nuclear Limited on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada with certain mining companies. The balance df $91 million is $4 million higher than the balance at March 31, 1969.
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. The balance of $33 million in the account is $2 million less than at the previous year end.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Cash in blocked currency
The balance of $2 million in the account is slightly less than the balance at the end of the previous fiscal year.
Notes of Industrias Forestales, S.A. and Compania Manufacturera de Papeles y Cartones, S.A., held by the Export Development Corporation (formerly 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 corporation received the payments in Chile in Canadian dollars and the amount upon receipt was paid into a blocked account established by the Receiver General for Canada 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 in Ottawa.
The 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
Advances during the year to finance the purchase of gold and foreign exchange are estimated at $1,471 million and repayments are estimated at $1,342 million resulting in a balance of $2,996 million in the account at March 31,1970. Included in these advances is $134 million (U.S. $124 million) in special drawing rights issued by the international monetary fund.
Investments in special United States of America 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 1969-70 securities in the amount of $32 million have been redeemed leaving a balance of $58 million in the account at March 31, 1970.
Canada pension plan investment fund
This account 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 fund in any month exceeds the estimated amount
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
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 estimated holdings in the account as at March 31, 1970 are $2,824 million of which $2,809 million is provincial government securities and $15 million is federal government securities.
TABLE 60 (in millions of dollars)
Canada Pension Plan Investment Fond	Balance at March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Securities of- Newfoundland	53.4	37.9	15.5Nova Scotia	108.4	77.1	31.3Prince Edward Island	10.3	7.1	3.2New Brunswick	82.7	58.8	23.9Quebec	7.6	4.6	3.0Ontario	1,581.7	1,140.6	441.1Manitoba	165.9	118.7	47.2Saskatchewan	131.5	91.5	40.0Alberta	257.9	181.7	76.2British Columbia	409.4	293.6	115.8Government of Canada	15.3	11.3	4.02,824.1	2,022.9	801.2
Investments held for retirement of unmatured debt
The balance in this account at $6 million is unchanged from the balance at March 31, 1969.
Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations
Loans and investments in this category are estimated at $9,636 million as at March 31, 1970, an increase of $868 million over the March 31, 1969 balance.
The main changes were increases of $476 million in loans to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, $190 million to the Canadian National Railways (including Air Canada), $137 million to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $90 million to the Farm Credit Corporation and $49 million to the Export Development Corporation (formerly Export Credits Insurance Corporation) and the liquidation of the loans to the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
TABLE 61 (in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		Increase
Loans to, and Investments in, Cbown Corporations	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	344.4	207.4	137.0Bank of Canada	5.9	5.9	Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation	23.5	23.5	Canadian Arsenals Limited	5.0	5.0	Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	9.0	9.0	Canadian Commercial Corporation	15.5	15.5	Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition	25.1	-25.1Canadian Dairy Commission	42.0	42.0	Canadian National Railways	2,029.4	1,927.4	102.0Air Canada	146.1	58.1	88.02,175.5	1,985.5	190.0Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation	50.3	49.3	1.0Cape Breton Development Corporation	10.0	10.0	Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	4,436.6	3,960.6	476.0Eldorado Nuclear Limited	22.2	8.2	14.0Export Development Corporation <J>	280.6	231.6	49.0Farm Credit Corporation	1,139.9	1,049.9	90.0National Capital Commission-excluding Greenbelt	28.2	28.2	National Harbours Board	265.2	261.2	4.0Northern Canada Power Commission	42.1	42.1	Northern Transportation Company Limited	5.0	2.0	3.0Polymer Corporation Limited	30.0	30.0	The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority-	Loans	404.2	385.6	18.6Deferred interest	70.0	60.6	9.4Interest-free loans	75.0	75.0	549.2	521.2	28.0Recovery likely to require parliamentary appropriations-	Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	116.4	92.4	24.0Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition	122.9	-122.9National Capital Commission-Greenbelt	37.7	37.7	154.1	253.0	-98.9Other Crown Corporations	1.6	1.6	9,635.8	8,767.8	868.0
<0 Formerly the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
The balance of $344 million, which is $137 million higher than at March 31, 1969, consists of $15 million in capital stock and loans of $329 million.
At March 31, 1969 the balance of $207 million consisted of $15 million in capital stock and $192 million in loans.
Canadian National Railways (including Air Canada)
Outstanding advances to the Canadian National Railways (including Air Canada) of $2,176 million are $190 million higher than at March 31, 1969.
March 12. 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Advances to the Canadian National Railways (including Aik Canada)	Balance at March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Capital Revision Act, 1952- Preferred stock	1,165.2	1,133.3	31.9Twenty-year obligation	100.0	100.0	Financing and Guarantee Acts	223.0	197.4	25.6Interim financing	5.0	-5.0Refunding Act, 1955	501.1	451.1	50.0Loans for maintenance, repair and acquisition of passenger equipment	1.9	2.4	-0.5Temporary loans-acquisition of bonds	21.2	21.2	Canadian Government Railways	17.0	17.0	2,029.4	1,927.4	102.0Air Canada- Financing and Guarantee Acts	146.1	54.8	91.3Interim financing	3.3	-3.3146.1	58.1	88.02,175.5	1,985.5	190.0
During 1969-70 the government will make an estimated amount of $232 million available to the Canadian National Railways (including Air Canada) and will receive repayments of $42 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Advances to, and Repayments by, the Canadian National Railways (including Aik Canada)	Balance at March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Advances- Canadian National Railways- For the refunding of debt	50.0	55.8	-5.8Financing and Guarantee Acts	25.6	65.0	-39.4Temporary loans-acquisition of bonds	9.9	-9.9Interim financing	20.0	21.2	-1.295.6	151.9	-66.3Air Canada- Financing and Guarantee Acts	91.3	54.8	36.5Interim financing	13.2	7.1	6.1104.5	61.9	42.6Purchase of 4 per cent preferred stock (C.N.R. Capital Revision Act)	31.9	28.1	3.8232.0	241.9	- 9.9Repayments- Canadian National Railways- Maintenance, repair and acquisition of passenger equipment	-0.5	-0.5	Interim financing	-25.0	-29.2	4.2-25.5	-29.7	4.2Air Canada- Interim financing	-16.5	-11.8	-4.7-42.0	-41.5	-0.5Net increase during the year	190.0	200.4	-10.4
March 12, 1970
During the year 1969-70 the government will have made advances in an estimated amount of $76 million to the Canadian National Railways for capital purposes and the refunding of debt in the hands of the public and loans of $91 million to Air Canada for capital purposes.
To assist the railway company to finance further capital expenditure the government will have purchased $32 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, 1969 temporary loans of $5 million were outstanding to the railway company in respect of its 1969 deficit. Additional loans of $20 million were advanced during the year for its 1969 operations. These will be charged to 1969-70 budgetary expenditures on parliamentary approval.
At March 31, 1969 temporary loans of $3 million were outstanding to Air Canada in respect of its 1969 operations. An additional $13 million was advanced during the year for its 1969 operations. These have been repaid by the company.
Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition
This account recorded the purchase by the federal government of securities issued by the corporation in accordance with the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act. The balance at March 31, 1969 was $148 million of which $123 million was guaranteed by the federal government, $14 million was guaranteed by the City of Montreal and $11 million by the Province of Quebec.
The Expo Winding-up Act passed by the House of Commons on November 24, 1969 provided for the dissolution of the corporation and the write-off of Canada's share of the deficit of the corporation.
Also during the year the loans guaranteed by the Province of Quebec have been transferred to the asset category "loans to provinces" and those guaranteed by the City of Montreal have been transferred to the asset category "miscellaneous loans and investments".
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
The balance shown in this account at March 31, 1970 is $4,437 million, $476 million higher than at March 31, 1969.
Loans and advances of $608 million are partly offset by repayments of $132 million.
Advances include $457 million for direct lending, limited dividend and public housing, $39 million for sewage treatment projects, $57 million for university housing projects, $49 million for federal-provincial projects and $7 million for urban renewal.
Repayments include $113 million for direct lending, limited dividend and public housing, $10 million for sewage treatment projects, $5 million for federal-provincial projects and $2 million for acquisition or construction of real estate.
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	Balance at March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1970 (estimated)	1969	
Direct lending, limited dividend and public housing	3,640.0	3,296.1	343.9Federal-provincial projects-housing	211.2	167.2	44.0Loan and mortgage purchase fund	4.9	5.1	-0.2Municipal sewage treatment	194.0	165.7	28.3University housing	290.4	234.5	55.9Housing projects	62.8	65.1	-2.3Urban renewal	8.3	1.9	6.4Capital stock	25.0	25.0	4,436.6	3,960.6	476.0

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Advances to, and Repayments by, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	Balance at March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Advances-	Direct lending, limited dividend and public housing. ...	456.9	376.0	80.9Federal-provincial projects	49.0	29.0	20.0Sewage treatment projects	38.6	31.4	7.2University housing projects	57.0	67.0	-10.0Urban renewal	6.5	1.5	5.0608.0	50 It. 9	10S.1Repayments-	Direct lending, limited dividend and public housing. . ..	-113.0	-101.6	-11.4Federal-provincial projects	-5.0	-3.8	-1.2Loan and mortgage purchase fund	-0.2	-0.2	Sewage treatment projects	-10.3	-10.5	0.2University housing projects	-1.1	-1.2	0.1Acquisition or construction of real estate	-2.3	-2.3	Urban renewal	-0.1	-0.1	-132.0	-119.7	-12.3476.0	385.2	90.8
Export Development Corporation (formerly Export Credits Insurance Corporation)
The Export Development Corporation was established by the Export Development Act as passed by the House of Commons on June 5, 1969.
The Export Development Act as passed by the House of Commons on June 5, 1969 established the Export Development Corporation and declared it to be the successor to the Export Credits Insurance Corporation and transferred all property rights, obligations and liabilities of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation to the Export Development Corporation; and that upon surrender by the Minister of shares in the Export Credits Insurance Corporation the Minister shall be issued an equivalent number of shares in the Export Development Corporation.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
The authorized capital of the new corporation is $25 million (250,000 shares at the par value of $100 each) and the Minister of Finance shall subscribe for all the shares of the corporation at par and shall pay to the corporation the amount of such subscriptions out of the consolidated revenue fund at such times and in such amounts as the board requires.
Whenever the Minister of Finance pays any part of a subscription for shares he shall in addition pay to the corporation out of the consolidated revenue fund an equal amount to be credited to the capital surplus account of the corporation, which account shall not exceed in the aggregate $25 million.
The balance of $281 million consists of $5 million in capital shares, $5 million in the capital surplus account and $271 million in loans.
Farm Credit Corporation
The government provides loans to the corporation which makes loans on farm property. The balance of $1,140 million shown in the account consists of the Crown's investment of $40 million in the capital of the corporation and $1,100 million in loans. At March 31, 1969 the balance of $1,050 million consisted of $40 million capital and $1,010 million in loans.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Outstanding obligations in this account in the amount of $549 million consist of $404 million in interest-bearing loans, $75 million in interest-free loans and $70 million in deferred interest. At March 31, 1969 outstanding obligations were $521 million of which $386 million were interest-bearing loans, $75 million were interest-free loans and $60 million was deferred interest.
Loans to national governments
It is expected that these loans will increase by $64 million during the year bringing the balance to $1,333 million at March 31, 1970.
An increase of $86 million in special loan assistance to developing countries was partly offset by repayments of $20 million by the United Kingdom and $2 million by Belgium.
TABLE 66 (in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		Increase
Loans to National Governments	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)
Loans to United Kingdom-			-19.7
The United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946...	937.3	957.0	Deferred interest	101.1	101.1	1,038.4	1,058.1	-19.7Loans under the Export Credits Insurance Act, Part II-	-2.3Belgium	16.2	18.5	France	66.9	66.9	The Netherlands	32.1	32.1	115.2	117.5	-2.3Miscellaneous-	0.7	-0.7France-interim credits-consolidated interest	Special loan assistance-developing countries	178.6	92.6	86.0Other	1.0	0.3	0.7179.6	93.6	86.01,333.2	1,269.2	64.0
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Other loans and investments
Balances in these accounts amount to $2,246 million, $132 million higher than at March 31, 1969.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Other Loans and Investments	Balance at March 31	Increase1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Subscriptions to capital of, and working capital advances and loans to, international organizations- Canada's subscription to capital of- Asian development bank	10.8	8.1	2.7International bank for reconstruction and development 	85.0	85.0	International development association	139.8	112.8	27.0International finance corporation	3.5	3.5	International monetary fund	782.7	782.7	Working capital advances and loans to international organizations	1,021.8	992.1	29.77.0	7.0	Loans to provincial governments	1,028.8	999.1	29.7281.3	270.3	11.0Veterans land act fund	503.1	446.1	57 0Less reserve for forgiveness of indebtedness	-21.4	-24.4	3.0Municipal development and loan board advances	1,81.7 273.3	421.7 281.3	60.0 -8.0Miscellaneous- Assisted passage scheme	12.0	12.0	Crown Assets Disposal Corporation- Government equity in agency account	7.8	7.8	Defence plant modernization	23.6	14.6	9.0Housing projects for Canadian forces	21.7	21.7	Loans to manufacturers of automotive products in Canada	32.6	21.6	11.0Northwest Territories	21.8	16.8	5 0Yukon Territory	17.6	13.6	4.0Other	43.8	33.8	10.0180.9	HI. 9	39.02,246.0	2,114.3	131.7
Canada's subscriptions to the capital of international organizations at $1,029 million are $30 million higher, due mainly to additional subscriptions to the international development association.
Loans to provincial governments at $281 million are $11 million higher due in part to the fact that the federal government accepted notes in the amount of $11 million from the Province of Quebec to cover the provinces share of the EXPO deficit.
Advances under the Veterans Land Act at $482 million are $60 million higher and advances under the Municipal Development and Loan Act at $273 million are $8 million less than at March 31, 1969.
Miscellaneous loans and advances in the amount of $181 million are $39 million higher than at the previous year-end, due mainly to increases of $9 million for loans for defence plant modernization and $11 million for loans to manufacturers of automotive products in Canada.
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
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 are also recorded under this heading. The balance at March 31, 1970 is estimated at $130 million compared with $112 million at March 31, 1969.
Deferred charges
These consist of the unamortized balances of actuarial deficiencies in the superannuation accounts and the outstanding unamortized loan flotation costs.
The balances in these accounts in the amount of $784 million are $171 million more than at March 31, 1969.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		Increase
Deferred Charges	1970 (estimated)	1969	or decrease (-)Unamortized portions of actuarial deficiencies-	254.7	242.7	12.0319.5	186.5	133.0Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account.	28.7 602.9	20.7 U9.9	8.0 16S.0Unamortized loan flotation costs	181.5	163.5	18.0784.4	613.4	171.0
Unamortized portions of actuarial deficiencies
Any actuarial deficiency revealed by quinquennial valuations is credited to the superannuation accounts and charged to these accounts 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 these accounts 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 is expected to be $255 million at March 31, 1970 compared with $243 million at March 31, 1969. During the year $129 million was charged thereto as a result of salary increases and $117 million was amortized to budgetary expenditure of which $24 million was charged to interest on public debt.
The unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the public service superannuation account is expected to be $320 million at March 31, 1970 compared with $187 million at March 31, 1969. During the year $209 million as a result of salary increases and $51 million as a result of the quinquennial valuation as at December 31, 1967 was charged thereto and $127 million was amortized to budgetary expenditure of which $25 million was charged to interest on public debt.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
The unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account is expected to be $29 million compared with $21 million at March 31, 1969. During the year $19 million was charged thereto as a result of salary increases and $11 million was amortized to budgetary expenditure of which $1 million was charged to interest on public debt.
Unamortized loan dotation 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 expenditure. The balance of $182 million is $18 million higher than at March 31, 1969.
TABLE 69 (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ending March 31
Unamortized Loan Flotation Costs	1970 (estimated)	1969Balance of account at beginning of fiscal year	163.5	138.2New loan flotation costs to be amortized-	7% loan April 1, 1969-May 1, 1970	0.3	71% loan April 1, 1969-April 1, 1972	0.6	7}% loan April 1, 1969-April 1, 1974	0.4	71% loan July 1, 1969-July 1, 1970	(4)	8% loan July 1, 1969-July 1, 1978	0.3	7?% loan August 15, 1969-October 1, 1970	0.1	8% loan August 15, 1969-February 1, 1973	0.2	8% loan October 1, 1969-October 1, 1970	(4)	8% loan October 1, 1969-October 1, 1971	0.5	8% loan October 1, 1969-October 1, 1974	0.7	8% loan December 15, 1969-December 15, 1970	0.1	Adjustments	0.1	Treasury bills discounts	38.2	Canada savings bonds-new issues	43.3	7% loan April 1, 1968-April 1, 1973	3.56|% loan May 24, 1968-June 1, 19730)	1.26J% loan June 1, 1968-June 1, 1988<2)	1.26|% loan June 15, 1968-July 1, 1969	0.37% loan June 15, 1968-October 1, 1970	1.27% loan June 15, 1968-June 15, 1974	3.562% loan August 1, 1968-December 15, 1969	0.16|% loan August 1, 1968-October 1, 1970	0.26j% loan October 1, 1968-October 1, 1971	0.26|% loan October 1, 1968-April 1, 1975	1.56?% loan October 1, 1968-October 1, 1995	1.96£% loan December 16, 1968-May 1, 1970	0.16i% loan December 16, 1968-April 1, 1971	0.7Adjustments*3)	0.9Treasury bills discounts	32.8Canada savings bonds-new issues	36.184.8	85.4Less-	Amortization applicable to fiscal year-	Canada savings bonds and general loans	-34.0	-30.0Discounts on treasury bills charged to interest on public debt	-32.8	-30.1-66.8	-60.1Increase during year	18.0	25.3Balance of account at end of fiscal year	181.5	163.5(1)	Loan issued in Germany.(2)	Loan issued in New York.(3)	Adjustments due to cancellations and additional issues of existing loans.(4)	Less than $50,000.
March 12, 1970
Cost of new loans issued during 1969-70 and charged to this account is $85 million, of which $38 million is in respect of treasury bills discounts which will be charged to interest on public debt in 1970-71. Credits of $67 million to the account include $33 million (representing discount applicable to 1969-70 on treasury bills sold in 1968-69) charged 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 the 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 is $546 million.
Net Debt
The net debt of Canada, or the excess of liabilities over net recorded assets, is estimated at $16,881 million as at March 31,1970 compared with $17,336 million at March 31, 1969. The decrease of $455 million reflects the estimated 1969-70 budgetary surplus.

[Stage Direction]
The government's cash account represents balances of current and special deposits to the credit of the Receiver General for Canada in the Bank of Canada, chartered banks in Canada and certain banks in London, New York, Brussels, Bonn, Frankfurt and Rome. These balances are expected to amount to $941 million at March 31, 1970 an increase of $339 million over the balance at March 31, 1969.
The following statement summarizes both the budgetary and non-budgetary transactions in 1969-70 and indicates how they affected the government's cash position. For purposes of comparison the corresponding figures for 1968-69 are also shown.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
TABLE 70 (in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31	
Changes in Cash Position	1970 (estimated)	1969
Budgetary transactions-		
Revenue	12,270.0	10,191.1Expenditure	-11,815.0	-10,767.2Surplus or deficit (-)	155.0	-576.1Non-budgetary transactions (excluding unmatured debt transactions) - Receipts and credits (net)	2,233.0	1,740.3Disbursements and charges (net)	-2,811.6	-3,101.6Net amount available from, or required for (-), non-bud-	getary transactions	-578.6	-1,361.3Overall cash requirement to he financed by increase in	unmatured debt or decrease in cash balances	-123.6	-1,937.4Net increase in unmatured debt outstanding in the hands of the public- Unmatured debt- Marketable bonds	-10.4	1,003.7Canada savings bonds	374.0	71.8Treasury bills	55.0	360.0Special issues- Unemployment Insurance Commission	90.0	80.0Canada pension plan	4.0	5.6512.6	1,521.1Securities investment account	-50.0	-0.1Investments held for retirement of unmatured debt	1.8462.6	1,522.8Net increase or decrease (-) in Receiver General bank	balances	339.0	-414.6
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.
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.
In 1969-70 an estimated surplus of $455 million in budgetary transactions and an estimated net requirement of $579 million for non-budgetary transactions (excluding unmatured debt transactions) will result in a net cash requirement of
[Stage Direction]
March 12. 1970
$124 million. As transactions in unmatured debt during the year are expected to result in an increase of $463 million in outstanding unmatured debt as at March 31, 1970, Receiver General bank balances will increase by $339 million. In 1968-69 the budgetary deficit of $576 million and net requirements of $1,361 million for non-budgetary transactions resulted in a cash requirement of $1,937 million which was financed by an increase of $1,523 million in outstanding unmatured debt and a decrease of $414 million in Receiver General bank balances.
Non-budgetary receipts and credits (excluding unmatured debt transactions)
Non-budgetary receipts and credits of $2,233 million include $1,698 million in respect of annuity, insurance and pension accounts, $195 million in repayments of loans, investments and advances and $340 million in sundry other accounts.
Further details are given in the following table:
TABLE 71 (in millions of dollars)
Non-Budgetary Receipts and Credits (Net)	Fiscal year ending March 31	
	1970 (estimated)	1969
Repayment of loans, investments and advances-	7.0	0.7
Royal Canadian Mint			
Investments in United States dollar securities issued by other than the Government of Canada	32.3	32.3Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition	148.0	57.0Municipal Development and Loan Board advances	8.0	-1.6195.S	88.4Annuity, insurance and pension accounts- Superannuation accounts- Public service	470.0	302.6Canadian forces	280.0	300.3Royal Canadian Mounted Police	34.0	26.1Canada pension plan account	821.2	755.0Old age security fund	104.0	84.8-11.0	-1.71,698.2	1,467.1Other receipts and credits-	Outstanding cheques	15.0	75.1135.0	-50.0Allocation of Special Drawing Rights	134.4	24.49.1	24.0	84.1Post office outstanding money orders	16.0	51.2Provincial tax collection agreements account	6.0	SS9.5	184.82,233.0	1,740.3
Non-budgetary disbursements and charges (excluding unmatured debt transactions)
Non-budgetary disbursements and charges of $2,812 million include $1,359 million for loans, investments and advances and $1,453 million for sundry other accounts.
March 12. 1970
[Stage Direction]
Further details are given in the following table:
TABLE 72 (in millions of dollars)
Non-Budgetary Disbursements and Charges (Net)	Fiscal year ending March 31	
	1970 (estimated)	1969
Loans, investments and advances-		
Agricultural commodities stabilization account. ...	1.0	-1.4Stockpiling of uranium concentrates	4.0	12.2Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	137.0	68.5Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	24.0	18.3Canadian Dairy Commission	19.8Canadian National Railways (including Air Canada)	190.0	200.4Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	476.0	385.2Eldorado Nuclear Limited	14.0	Export Development Corporation	49.0	32.5Farm Credit Corporation	90.0	128.2National Harbours Board	4.0	11.1Northern Transportation Company Limited	3.0	2.0The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	28.0	28.8Exchange fund account	129.4	833.7National governments	64.0	63.1Subscriptions to capital of international organizations...	29.7	29.5Veterans land act advances	60.0	38.7Defence plant modernization	9.0	4.4Loans to manufacturers of automotive products in Canada	11.0	1.1Provincial governments	11.0	82.6Miscellaneous	94 %	1,358.9	1,956.5Other disbursements and charges-	Non-interest-bearing notes	223.3	215.7Cash in hands of collectors and in transit	38.2Canadian Commercial Corporation-special deposit	9.2	24.0Canadian Dairy Commission-deposit account	19.0	0.7Deferred charges	Undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts	108.0	-110.7Refundable corporation tax	114.0	94.5Canada pension plan investment fund	801.2	742.1Other	1,453.7	1,145.12,811.6	3,101.6

[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, is estimated to be $38,018 million as at March 31, 1970, an increase of $2,099 million over the total at March 31, 1969. The main
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
changes are increases of $1,698 million in annuity, insurance and pension accounts and $512 million in unmatured debt and decreases of $108 million in undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts and $114 million in refundable corporation tax. Unmatured debt at $22,613 million represents 60 per cent of the total and annuity, insurance and pension accounts at $12,218 million represents 32 per cent. At March 31, 1969 unmatured debt was $22,101 million or 61 per cent and annuity, insurance and pension accounts in the amount of $10,520 million were 29 per cent of total liabilities.
The government's net recorded assets are estimated to amount to $21,137 million as at March 31, 1970 an increase of $2,554 million over the total at March 31, 1969. The main changes are increases of $868 million in loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations, $801 million in the Canada pension plan investment fund, $132 million in other loans and investments, $389 million in current assets, $129 million in advances to the exchange fund account and $171 million in deferred charges. Loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations at $9,636 million represent 46 per cent, the Canada pension plan investment fund at $2,824 million represents 13 per cent and advances to the exchange fund account at $2,996 million represents 13 per cent. At March 31, 1969, loans to, and investments in, Crown corporations were $8,768 million or 47 per cent, the Canada pension plan investment fund was $2,023 million or 11 per cent and advances to the exchange fund account at $2,867 million was 15 per cent of the total.
Based on the above figures the net debt of Canada will be $16,881 million at March 31, 1970 reflecting a decrease of $455 million, equivalent to the 1969-70 estimated surplus.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ending March 31 Billions of Dollars
1966	67
* Eftimafcd

[Stage Direction]
Billions of Dollars
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Statement of 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 or decrease (-) in net debt during the fiscal yearUnmatured debt	Other liabilities	Total	1966	19,109.7	8,373.1	27,482.9	11,939.5	15,543.4	39.01967	19,940.2	10,399.9	30,340.1	14,375.2	15,964.9	421.51968	20,579.9	12,344.3	32,924.2	16,164.5	16,759.7	794.81969	22,101.0	13,818.2	35,919.2	18,583.4	17,335.8	576.11970 (estimated)	22,613.6	15,404.4	38,018.0	21,137.2	16,880.8	-455.0
Unmatured debt
Total unmatured debt of $22,613 million is $512 million more than at March 31, 1969.
The government's holdings of its own securities as at March 31, 1970 are estimated to be $101 million comprised of $95 million in the securities investment account (of which $43 million is Canada savings bonds held in respect of the employees instalment purchase plan) and $6 million in investments held for retirement of unmatured debt. This is an increase of $51 million over the previous year-end total, when holdings were $44 million in the securities investment account ($41 million in investments in the employees instalment purchase plan account) and $6 million in investments held for retirement of unmatured debt.
Of the total unmatured debt, $22,166 million is payable in Canadian dollars, $265 million in United States dollars, $108 million in Italian lire and $74 million in German deutsche marks. Securities payable in foreign currencies have been valued at official parity rates.
Summary of security issues, maturities, cancellations and redemptions
Excluding the refunding of treasury bills which mature weekly, it is expected that the government will issue securities in an amount of $6,632 million and maturities, cancellations and redemptions will total $6,120 million.
Net sales of Canada savings bonds series 24 of $4,704 million and additional net sales of series 23 of $29 million exceed maturities and redemptions of $4,359 million by $374 million bringing the total to $6,542 million at March 31, 1970.
Treasury bills in the amount of $2,895 million are $55 million more than at March 31, 1969 and consist of $1,755 million in three-month bills, $870 million in six-month bills and $270 million in special bills.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
TABLE 74 (in millions of dollars)
Unmatured Debt Transactions
Balance at beginning of year	
New issues-
Canada savings bonds-
S. 22	
S. 23	
Special replacement series	
S. 24	
Marketable bonds	 [DOT] [DOT] *
Unemployment insurance commission bonds.
Canada pension plan bonds	
Treasury bills (net)	
Revaluation of bonds payable in deutsche marks
Maturities, redemptions, cancellations and conversions- Marketable bonds-
Matured	
Redeemed	
Cancelled	 [DOT]	
Unemployment insurance commission bonds-
Redeemed	
Canada savings bonds-
Matured	
Redeemed	
Converted	
Increase in unmatured debt, Balance at end of year.
Fiscal year ending March 31
1970 (estimated)	1969
22,101	20,580
	278
29	3,204
	802
4,704	
1,665	2,344
169	163
4	5
55	360
6	
6,632	7,156
-1,555	-954
-2	-2
-125	-384
-79	-83
-19	-158
-4,340	-3,516
	-538
-6,120	-5,635
512	1,521
22,613	22,101

[Stage Direction]
Debt matured, Redeemed, Converted or Cancelled during the Fiscal Year Ending March 31,1970 (estimated)
Marketable bonds-
5|% 1960-09	
5i% 1962-69	
5i% 1965-69	
5*% 1967-69	
5% 1964-69	
6|% 1968-69	
5}% 1962-69	
5J% 1965-69	
5i% 1966-69	
5)% 1967-69	
6J% 1968-69	
6% 1968-70	
5% 1962-87 (NY),
Non-marketable bonds-
Canada savings bonds
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment insurance.
(in millions of dollars)
Matured	Redeemed	Cancelled	TotalT 39	80.0	80.0AT 16	100.0	100.0CT 23	100.0	100.0F 16	130.0	130.0CT 11	225.0	225.0F 26	75.0	75.0AT 13	80.0	80.0CT 21	95.0	50.0	145.0F 5	175.0	75.0	250.0F 19	175.0	175.0F 29	35.0	35.0F 24	285.0	285.01.7	1.71,655.0	1.7	m.o	1,681.719.0	4,340.3	4,359.379.0	79.01,574.0	4,421.0	125.0	6,120.0
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
As At March 31

[Stage Direction]
New Securities Issued during Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1970 (in millions of dollars)
-		Total amount issued
Marketable bonds- 7% 1969-70			125.0 235.0 125.0 130.0 125.0 40.0 110.0 30.0 170.0 425.0 75.0 75.0 6.3 1.671.S
7i% 1969-72	 7i% 1969-74			
7}% 1969-70			
8% 1969-78			
7}% 1969-70	 8% 1969-73			
8% 1969-70			
8% 1969-71			
8% 1969/70-74			
8% 1969-70			
8% 1970-71			
61% Germany 			
		
Non-marketable bonds- Unemployment Insurance Commission- 74%			
8%			
		169.0
Canada savings bonds- Nov. 1, 1968-Nov. 1, 1983			29.0 4,704.3 4,733.5
Nov. 1, 1969-Nov. 1, 1978			
Canada Dension plan			4.0 55.0
Treasury bills (net)			
		
		6,632.6
W Revaluation adjustment in 1969-70.
4974
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
Interest rates
The estimated average interest rate on the government's unmatured debt is 6.14 per cent compared with 5.46 per cent at March 31, 1969.
The average yield on three-month treasury bills was 7.74 per cent at tender on February 12, 1970 compared with 6.58 per cent at tender on March 27, 1969; on six-month bills it was 7.74 per cent at tender on February 12, 1970 compared with 6.80 per cent at tender on March 27, 1969; and on one-year treasury bills it was 8.01 per cent at tender on November 27, 1969 compared with 5.90 per cent at tender on November 28, 1968.
The following table shows the average high and low yields together with the average yield on the latest issues for the fiscal years 1965-66 to 1969-70 inclusive:

[Stage Direction]
Treasury Bills Average Yields at Tender
Fiscal Year Ending March 31	High	Low	Last issueper cent	per cent	per centThree-month bills-	1966 	5.06	3.61	5.061967 	5.20	4.10	4.131968 	7.01	3.96	6.981969 	7.00	5.48	6.581970 	7.83	6.54	07.74Six-month bills-	1966 	5.30	3.71	5.301967	5.33	4.04	4.111968 	7.02	3.97	6.981969 	7.01	5.43	6.801970	7.93	7.46	0)7.74365-day bills-	1968 	5.65	5.65	5.651969 	6.53	5.90	5.901970 	8.01	7.46	8.01
Q>At tender on February 12, 1970.
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, bank loans under the Canada Student Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act and bank loans to the Canadian Wheat Board.
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
Contingent Liabilities
-	Amount of guarantee	Amount outstandingRailway securities guaranteed as to principal and interest- Canadian National 21% due January 16, 1971	$ 40,000,000 180,973,500 200,000,000 6,486,486 79.955.000 300,000,000 93.575.000 149,486,000	$ 40,000,000 180,973,500 200,000,000 6,486,486 79.955.000 300,000,000 93.575.000 149,486,000Canadian National 5j% due December 15, 1971	Canadian National 31% due February 1, 1974	Canadian National 2f% 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 5f% due January 1, 1985	Canadian National 5% due October 1, 1987	
1,050,475,986	1,050,475,986
Other outstanding guarantees and contingent liabilities- Deposits maintained by the chartered banks in the Bank of Canada'2'		Unstated 27,500,000 11,000,000,000 900.000.	000 221,279,000 3,775,000 46,033,844 373.000.	000 655.000.	000	
Loans made by lenders under Part IV of the National Housing Act, 1954 for home extensions and improvements^)....		22,048,000 7,327,000,000
Insured loans made by approved lenders under the National Housing Act, 1954<3)(4)			
Liability for insurance and guarantees under the Export Development Act<3)			
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			926,787
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<8)			358,000,000 556,531,604
Loans made by chartered banks to the Canadian Wheat Board'6'..		
		9,813,490,391
Loans maintained by approved lending institutions under National Housing Acts prior to 1954 Act			Indeterminate Indeterminate
Guarantees to owners of returns from moderate rental housing projects'7'	Unstated	
Converted at $1.08108 Canadian official parity rate.
'-'As of February 11, 1970.
<3>As of December 31, 1969.
«>As reported (in accordance with section 45, National Housing Regulations) by approved lenders as of December 31, 1969.
("'Includes contingent liability in respect of alternative payments to non-participating province.
<8>As of January 31, 1970.
<'>As of December 31, 1969, funds totalling $5,359,283 were held by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purpose of settling claims. In 1969 rental contracts totalled $11,520,000.
4976
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED TABLES Revenue Expenditure
Annual Changes in Loans and Investments Unmatured Debt
March 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES
STATEMENT OF REVENUE FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS (in millions of dollars)
-	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70 (estimated)
Tax revenue- Income tax-					
Personal h) (2)	2,142.5	2,473.8	2,849.6	3,356.4	4,115.0Corporation 	1,606.6	1,593.2	1,670.6	2,030.0	2,605.0On dividends, interest, etc., going abroad.	170.0	203.6	220.5	205.6	240.03,919.1	4,270.6	4,740.7	5,592.0	6,960.0Social development tax	63.0	477.0Excise taxes-	Sales tax<0(2)	1,395.1	1,513.6	1,601.1	1,569.8	1,725.0Other taxes-	Cigarettes, tobacco and cigars	238.1	251.4	266.7	304.2	295.0Jewellery, watches, ornaments, etc	7.9	8.9	10.2	9.5	10.5Matches and lighters	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.1	1.3Television sets, radios and phonographs.	27.0	31.2	32.6	35.3	41.0Toilet preparations	14.1	15.5	17.9	18.6	21.0Wines	4.4	4.8	5.3	5.9	7.0Sundry commodities	2.2	1.2	1.5	1.7	2.0Interest and penalties	1.6	1.9	2.2	2.4	2.7Less refunds	-0.3	-0.5	-0.6	-0.8	-0.5m.s	SIS.6	SS7.0	377.9	380.0Customs import duties(2>	685.5	777.6	746.4	761.7	815.0Excise duties-	Spirits	157.0	158.2	180.5	185.4	195.2Beer	107.9	113.3	120.2	135.0	139.3Cigarettes, tobacco and cigars	187.1	196.4	194.6	196.6	199.2Less refunds	-6.1	-6.9	-6.7	-7.7	-8.7445.9	461.0	488.6	509.3	525.0Estate tax	108.3	101.1	102.2	112.4	104.8Miscellaneous tax revenue	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.2Total tax revenue	6,850.3	7,439.7	8,016.3	8,986.3	10,987.0Non-tax revenue-	Return on investments	438.3	519.1	612.3	695.1	801.0Post office-net postal revenue	237.5	253.3	281.6	310.6	353.0Other	116.1	106.4	119.1	199.1	129.0Total non-tax revenue	791.9	878.8	1,013.0	1,204.8	1,283.0Total revenue	7,642.2	8,318.5	9,029.3	10,191.1	12,270.0<*>
Excluding credits to the old age security fund- 1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70 (estimated)Personal income tax	494.9	576.6	800.1	915.0	1,027.0Corporation income tax	152.3	149.5	150.0	183.0	227.0Sales tax	522.1	559.5	544.5	528.1	569.0
,3'Net after deduction of refunds and drawbacks as well as transfers to the old age security fund.
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
-	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70 (estimated)
Agriculture-					
Administration and general	48.3	51.0	60.4	62.8	74.0Production and marketing, including grants and other assistance- Administration and general	58.1	50.9	36.7	33.4	40.0Agricultural commodities stabilization account-net operating loss	39.4	88.7	139.7	145.4	125.0Research	32.6	35.4	39.7	45.3	46.0178.4	226.0	276.5	286.9	285.0Communications-	Administration and general	7.6	9.5	14.5	12.8	14.0Post Office	240.2	268.5	301.8	341.7	350.0247.8	278.0	S16.S	354-5	364.0Consumer and Corporate Affairs	9.0	10.4	12.9	13.7	17.0Energy, Mines and Resources-	Administration and general	2.7	3.1	4.2	4.9	5.7Atomic Energy	54.5	60.2	69.3	72.6	75.0Dominion Coal Board	22.7	38.0	33.6	7.2	8.2Mines, minerals, energy and geosciences	52.2	53.9	53.9	54.8	52.6National Energy Board	0.9	1.1	1.6	1.5	1.5Water and coordination of renewable resources programs	25.5	31.3	40.8	38.7	44.0168.5	187.6	203.4	179.7	187.0External Affairs-	Administration and general	34.5	39.6	48.9	54.1	56.3Canadian International Development Agency	90.5	173.8	150.1	156.8	175.0Assessments, contributions and other payments to international organizations and international multilateral economic and special programs	27.5	17.1	16.7	15.2	16.7162.5	230.5	215.7	226.1	248.0Finance-	Administration and general	9.8	21.3	19.5	22.0	27.8Canadian Corporation for the 1967 W'orld Exhibition-deficit	
Grants to municipalities and provinces in lieu of taxes	36.8	37.6	41.5	45.1	123.0 50.0Municipal Development and Loan Board....	33.9	41.8	17.4	2.2	Public debt charges including interest and amortization	1,110.9	1,190.5	1,300.8	1,480.0	1,704.0Subsidies and fiscal arrangements payments to provinces	466.0	515.5	737.5	867.1	950.2Auditor General	1.7	2.1	2.3	2.4	2.5Insurance	1.5	1.7	1.9	1.9	1.51,660.6	1,810.5	2,120.9	2,420.7	2,859.0Fisheries and Forestry-	Fisheries	34.5	41.5	52.6	56.2	52.0Forestry	21.4	24.8	21.2	22.8	24.055.9	66. S	73.8	79.0	76.0Governor General and Lieutenant-Gov-	ernors	0.7	0.8	1.0	1.0	1.0Indian Affairs and Northern Development- Administration and general	4.5	4.3	5.3	6.1	7.0Conservation program	28.3	34.8	35.8	40.9	42.0Social program	93.0	118.9	139.4	161.5	185.0Development program	30.6	39.4	50.9	58.5	70.0156.4	197.4	231.4	267.0	304.0
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
-	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70 (estimated)
Industry, Trade and Commerce-					
Department	134.5	143.4	163.9	179.2	262.0Dominion Bureau of Statistics	15.6	26.6	22.5	24.7	32.0150.1	170.0	186.4	SOS. 9	394.0Justice	11.4	12.2	15.4	16.9	20.0Labour	24.0	24.9	10.9	11.2	13.0Unemployment Insurance Commission-	Administration and general	32.4	37.3	37.6	38.8	45.0Government's contribution to the fund....	65.6	68.8	69.5	86.6	100.0m.o	131.0	118.0	136.6	158.0Manpower and Immigration-	Administration and general	5.0	7.9	20.6	23.4	33.8Adult occupational training program	105.1	191.1	252.0Capital assistance retraining facilities and	manpower training research	104.1	136.2	119.3	105.9	97.0Employment services	22.7	32.8	32.3	37.4	39.0Immigration	14.3	20.5	21.6	29.4	26.4Municipal winter works incentive program...	41.1	37.8	30.5	21.5	0.4Program development	2.9	4.4	6.4Technical and vocational training assistance	payments to provinces	48.7	85.2	85.6	3.0	936.5	330.4	417.9	416.1	455.0National Defence-	Administration and general	15.3	27.0	25.8	25.9	28.3Canadian forces superannuation account-	Government's contribution	58.8	42.6	58.4	57.0	63.1Amortization of deferred charges	16.8	72.6	72.6	104.5	92.9Defence services including development	1,401.3	1,435.3	1,528.2	1,507.7	1,534.1Defence research	37.0	38.2	40.6	44.1	47.4Mutual aid to NATO countries	14.6	18.7	18.0	15.3	14.2Canada Emergency Measures Organization..	7.7	9.2	8.0	6.3	5.01.551.5	1,643.6	1,751.6	1,760.8	1,785.0National Health and Welfare-	Administration and general	2.5	3.0	3.9	4.2	5.0Food and drug services	5.2	6.5	7.9	9.1	12.0Health insurance and resources-	General health and hospital construction	grants to provinces	45.5	45.1	46.0	44.0	67.9Government's contributions under the	Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Ser-	vices Act	319.6	397.4	468.6	561.9	625.0Health resources fund	4.7	32.7	33.9	37.0Medical Care Act	33.0	180.9Other	0.2	1.3	1.6	2.0Health services	7.6	8.4	8.6	7.7	8.5Medical Research Council	10.8	14.8	20.7	27.2	31.0Medical services	37.5	38.5	42.5	45.4	42.6Welfare services-	Family allowances	551.7	555.8	558.8	560.2	560.4Youth allowances	46.5	47.4	49.4	52.4	55.1Fitness and amateur sports payments	2.5	4.7	3.6	4.0	5.0Old age assistance, blind persons and	disabled persons allowances	45.5	38.1	18.3	11.8	6.4Unemployment assistance	101.7	143.3	6.1	1.1	Canada assistance plan	10.5	225.6	256.8	295.3Other	9.1	12.0	14.7	14.4	15.91,185.7	1,330.4	1,508.7	1,668.7	1,950.0National Revenue	95.0	105.9	115.1	120.0	143.0
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
-	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70 (estimated)
Parliament-					
House of Commons	ll.fi	13.9	14.3	14.3	16.9Senate	2.7	3.3	3.4	3.6	4.4Library of Parliament	0.5	0.6	0.6	0.7	0.7U.7	17.8	18. S	18.6	22.0Privy Council	4.8	5.6	8.1	6.3	6.7Economic Council of Canada	1.1	1.4	1.5	1.5	1.6Public Service Staff Relations Board	1.0	1.1	1.4Science Council of Canada	0.1	0.4	0.4	1.35.9	7.1	11.0	9.3	11.0Public Works-	Administration and general	38.9	38.0	48.4	47.3	42.0Accommodation services	101.7	108.5	133.8	168.7	189.0Harbours and rivers engineering services. . . .	35.4	38.1	43.9	31.5	32.0Trans-Canada highway-contributions to	provinces	83.4	81.0	64.7	37.3	35.0259.4	265.6	290.8	284.8	298.0Regional Economic Expansion-	Department	70.5	90.2	134.8	125.7	167.0Cape Breton Development Corporation	1.6	30.1	33.5National Capital Commission	18.6	33.0	23.2	25.0	20.589.1	12S.2	159.6	180.8	221.0Secretary of State-	Administration and general	9.3	13.7	28.8	24.5	15.6Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	97.5	115.2	143.3	148.3	166.5Canadian Film Development Corporation...	0.2	0.3Canadian Radio-Television Commission	0.4	0.6	1.0	1.9	2.2Centennial Commission	14.6	30.2	31.2	Chief Electoral Officer	13.0	0.9	0.7	13.5	1.0Company of Young Canadians	0.8	2.4	1.9	2.0Grant to Canada Council	16.9	20.6	24.5National Arts Centre Corporation	1.0	1.1	2.1National Film Board	6.9	8.0	9.3	10.0	11.1National Library	0.8	1.1	1.6	1.7	2.1National Museums of Canada	3.5	4.5	6.7	7.1	7.4Office of the Representation Commissioner..	0.8	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1Post-secondary education payments to prov-	inces pursuant to the Federal-Provincial	Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967	108.0	276.6	287.0Public Archives	1.2	1.6	2.0	2.2	4.1Public Service Commission	7.5	10.1	12.7	12.9	16.0University grants	27.7	87.1	0.2	183.2	274.0	S65.9	522.6	542.0Solicitor General-	Administration and general	0.4	0.6	0.9	1.1	1.1Correctional services	56.5	59.6	64.9	63.1	65.9Royal Canadian Mounted Police	64.4	84.1	87.7	101.7	109.0121. S	144-2	153.5	165.9	176.0Supply and Services-	Administration and general	3.2	3.9	5.4	6.7	8.9Services	25.9	30.0	32.8	34.0	39.6Supply	17.1	20.3	21.5	21.5	27.5Public Printing and Stationery	3.0	4.0	4.7	3.5	4.049.2	58.2	64-4	65.7	80.0Transport-	Administration and general	4.6	6.3	7.1	7.9	8.0Air services	110.7	129.5	132.1	150.4	146.0Canadian Transport Commission-	Administration and general	2.6	3.0	3.6	4.2	9.1
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
[Stage Direction]
*	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70 (estimated)
Transport-Concluded Payments to railways and transportation companies under the National Trans-					
portation Act		94.7	120.9	126.0	93.7	83.5
Contributions to the railway grade crossing					
fund	14.0	15.0	15.0	15.0	15.0Steamship subventions	9.4	10.8	11.1	12.2	12.4Subsidies to air carriers	0.4	0.4	1.2	1.3	3.0Canals and works entrusted to The St. Law-	rence Seaway Authority	10.1	12.9	10.6	11.4	10.0Marine services	77.4	91.9	92.0	91.5	97.0Non-active assets-National Harbours Board	4.8	7.0	4.8	6.6	8.0Railways and steamships-	14.5Maritime Freight Rates Act	15.1	14.4	14.2	13.9	Deficits-	Canadian National Railways	33.4	24.6	35.8	29.2	25.0Newfoundland ferry and terminals	12.4	13.0	16.5	16.7	16.0Prince Edward Island car ferry and ter-	minals	4.2	4.6	4.8	5.0	5.0Yarmouth-Bar Harbour ferry service. . .	(1)	0.4	0.3	0.6Other	35.0	30.3	37.0	19.0	18.9Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation..	21.6	20.1	23.1	29.8	42.0450.4	504.7	535.3	508.1	514.0Treasury Board-	Administration and general	19.0	37.8	38.3	163.6	83.5Public service superannuation account-	Government's contribution	57.8	59.3	59.6	66.0	73.5Amortization of deferred charges	25.9	56.3	60.6	84.8	102.0National Research Council	63.6	79.9	101.0	117.8	122.0166.3	SS8.S	359.5	432.9	381.0Veterans Affairs-	Administration and general	10.7	9.6	10.1	10.2	10.2Pensions for disability and death	185.6	195.9	205.6	223.3	220.0Provision for reserve for conditional benefits.	3.2	3.5	4.0	4.3	4.3Soldier settlement and veterans land act....	4.5	5.2	5.5	5.3	6.0Treatment services	49.9	57.9	61.4	71.6	71.0Welfare services, allowances and other bene-	fits	115.8	118.7	114.2	112.9	112.5369.7	390.8	400.8	427.6	424.07,681.2	8,740.0	9,824.1	10,767.2	11,815.0
W Less than $50,000.
4982
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
-	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70 (estimated)
Loans to, and investments in, Crown corpora-					
tions-
[Stage Direction]
Air Canada
[Stage Direction]
0.7
[Stage Direction]
3.1
[Stage Direction]
0.6
[Stage Direction]
50.1
[Stage Direction]
88.0
[Stage Direction]
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
[Stage Direction]
11.9
[Stage Direction]
28.4
[Stage Direction]
32.9
[Stage Direction]
68.5
[Stage Direction]
137.0
[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]
12.5
[Stage Direction]
35.0
[Stage Direction]
18.4
[Stage Direction]
18.3
[Stage Direction]
24.0
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Commercial Corporation
[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]
-148.0
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Dairy Commission
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
22.1
[Stage Direction]
19.8
[Stage Direction]
Canadian National Railways
[Stage Direction]
59.1
[Stage Direction]
124.2
[Stage Direction]
163.2
[Stage Direction]
150.3
[Stage Direction]
102.0
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Cor-
[Stage Direction]
poration
[Stage Direction]
-2.6
[Stage Direction]
-2.7
[Stage Direction]
2.6
[Stage Direction]
-3.1
[Stage Direction]
1.0
[Stage Direction]
Cape Breton Development Corporation
[Stage Direction]
5.2
[Stage Direction]
4.8
[Stage Direction]
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation..
[Stage Direction]
315.1
[Stage Direction]
488.6
[Stage Direction]
633.9
[Stage Direction]
385.2
[Stage Direction]
476.0
[Stage Direction]
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
[Stage Direction]
14.0
[Stage Direction]
Export Development Corporation0)
[Stage Direction]
36.4
[Stage Direction]
36.2
[Stage Direction]
34.7
[Stage Direction]
32.5
[Stage Direction]
49.0
[Stage Direction]
Farm Credit Corporation
[Stage Direction]
147.0
[Stage Direction]
164.1
[Stage Direction]
169.2
[Stage Direction]
128.2
[Stage Direction]
90.0
[Stage Direction]
National Capital Commission
[Stage Direction]
7.4
[Stage Direction]
7.0
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
-9.2
[Stage Direction]
National Harbours Board
[Stage Direction]
3.0
[Stage Direction]
19.5
[Stage Direction]
27.8
[Stage Direction]
11.1
[Stage Direction]
4.0
[Stage Direction]
Northern Canada Power Commission
[Stage Direction]
2.1
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
2.9
[Stage Direction]
8.5
[Stage Direction]
Northern Transportation Company Limited.
[Stage Direction]
2.0
[Stage Direction]
3.0
[Stage Direction]
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority(2)
[Stage Direction]
26.7
[Stage Direction]
29.8
[Stage Direction]
26.7
[Stage Direction]
28.8
[Stage Direction]
28.0
[Stage Direction]
Other
[Stage Direction]
0.3
[Stage Direction]
662.8
[Stage Direction]
1,069.6
[Stage Direction]
1,206.9
[Stage Direction]
832.2
[Stage Direction]
868.0
[Stage Direction]
Loans to national governments-
[Stage Direction]
United Kingdom
[Stage Direction]
<«19.2
[Stage Direction]
-18.9
[Stage Direction]
-19.2
[Stage Direction]
«>18.1
[Stage Direction]
-19.7
[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]
-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]
-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]
86.0
[Stage Direction]
Other
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
18.6
[Stage Direction]
-23.6
[Stage Direction]
4-5
[Stage Direction]
63.1
[Stage Direction]
64.0
[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]
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]
15.0
[Stage Direction]
15.0
[Stage Direction]
15.0
[Stage Direction]
27.1
[Stage Direction]
27.0
[Stage Direction]
Working capital advances and loans to in-
[Stage Direction]
ternational organizations
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
-0.3
[Stage Direction]
-0.3
[Stage Direction]
Loans to provincial governments
[Stage Direction]
-1.7
[Stage Direction]
26.8
[Stage Direction]
64.2
[Stage Direction]
82.6
[Stage Direction]
11.0
[Stage Direction]
Municipal development and loan board
[Stage Direction]
101.3
[Stage Direction]
122.3
[Stage Direction]
48.5
[Stage Direction]
1.6
[Stage Direction]
-8.0
[Stage Direction]
Veterans land act advances
[Stage Direction]
24.1
[Stage Direction]
55.2
[Stage Direction]
71.5
[Stage Direction]
38.7
[Stage Direction]
60.0
[Stage Direction]
Balances receivable under agreements of sale
[Stage Direction]
of Crown assets
[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]
0.2
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
1.1
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
Old age security fund
[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]
1.1
[Stage Direction]
11.0
[Stage Direction]
Defence plant modernization
[Stage Direction]
10.2
[Stage Direction]
4.4
[Stage Direction]
9.0
[Stage Direction]
Other
[Stage Direction]
10.9
[Stage Direction]
7.8
[Stage Direction]
10.3
[Stage Direction]
11.3
[Stage Direction]
19.0
[Stage Direction]
12S.1
[Stage Direction]
460.8
[Stage Direction]
2S1.2
[Stage Direction]
169.1
[Stage Direction]
131.7
[Stage Direction]
Net total of changes in loans and investments..
[Stage Direction]
804.5
[Stage Direction]
1,496.8
[Stage Direction]
1,442.6
[Stage Direction]
1,064.4
[Stage Direction]
1,063.7
[Stage Direction]
<0 Formerly the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. ^Includes deferred interest.
W Deferred interest.
March 12, 1970
[Stage Direction]
UNMATURED DEBT INCLUDING TREASURY BILLS AS AT MARCH 31, 1970 AND THE ANNUAL INTEREST THEREON (estimated)
[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 Canadian dollars-
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
%
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1936
[Stage Direction]
p
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Perpetual
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
55,000,000
[Stage Direction]
1,650,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1958
[Stage Direction]
T
[Stage Direction]
24
[Stage Direction]
1970 May
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
200,000,000
[Stage Direction]
7,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
34
[Stage Direction]
May
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
50,000,000
[Stage Direction]
3,125,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
36
[Stage Direction]
May
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
125,000,000
[Stage Direction]
8,750,000
[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
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
July
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
140,000,000
[Stage Direction]
7,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
40
[Stage Direction]
July
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
7i
[Stage Direction]
130,000,000
[Stage Direction]
10,075,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
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
[Stage Direction]
30
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
6!
[Stage Direction]
105,000,000
[Stage Direction]
7,087,500
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
42
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
n
[Stage Direction]
40,000,000
[Stage Direction]
3,100,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
44
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
30,000,000
[Stage Direction]
2,400,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1957
[Stage Direction]
S
[Stage Direction]
12
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
a
[Stage Direction]
40,300,000
[Stage Direction]
1,914,250
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1960
[Stage Direction]
S
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
44,900,000
[Stage Direction]
2,245,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1966
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
Dec.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
5 i
[Stage Direction]
300,000,000
[Stage Direction]
17,250,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
48
[Stage Direction]
Dec.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
75,000,000
[Stage Direction]
6,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
1971 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
[Stage Direction]
35
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
6|
[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 1970
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
49
[Stage Direction]
June
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
75,000.000
[Stage Direction]
6,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
21
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
6*
[Stage Direction]
200,000,000
[Stage Direction]
12,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
45
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
170,000,000
[Stage Direction]
13,600,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1961
[Stage Direction]
S
[Stage Direction]
16
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
44,200,000
[Stage Direction]
2,210,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967 and 1968
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
17
[Stage Direction]
Dec.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
285,000,000
[Stage Direction]
17,100,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
37
[Stage Direction]
1972 Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
7i
[Stage Direction]
235,000,000
[Stage Direction]
17,037,500
[Stage Direction]
Conversion loan, 1958
[Stage Direction]
T
[Stage Direction]
28
[Stage Direction]
Sept.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
4i
[Stage Direction]
1,267,203,100
[Stage Direction]
53,856,132
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
43
[Stage Direction]
1973 Feb.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
110,000,000
[Stage Direction]
8,800,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
25
[Stage Direction]
Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
475,000,000
[Stage Direction]
33,250,000
[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]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
11
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
200,000,000
[Stage Direction]
10,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1958
[Stage Direction]
S
[Stage Direction]
13
[Stage Direction]
1973 Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
41
[Stage Direction]
20,100,000
[Stage Direction]
854,250
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
22
[Stage Direction]
Dec.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
225,000,000
[Stage Direction]
14,062,500
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
38
[Stage Direction]
1974 Apr.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
71
[Stage Direction]
125,000,000
[Stage Direction]
9,062,500
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1968
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
28
[Stage Direction]
June
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
250,000,000
[Stage Direction]
17,500,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969 and 1970
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
46
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
425,000,000
[Stage Direction]
34,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1964
[Stage Direction]
S
[Stage Direction]
19
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
71,000,000
[Stage Direction]
3,550,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1967
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
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
[Stage Direction]
32
[Stage Direction]
1975 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
[Stage Direction]
36
[Stage Direction]
Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[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
[Stage Direction]
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
[Stage Direction]
18
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
75,800,000
[Stage Direction]
3,790,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1960
[Stage Direction]
T
[Stage Direction]
38
[Stage Direction]
1976 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
[Stage Direction]
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
[Stage Direction]
17
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
118,600,000
[Stage Direction]
6,523,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1965
[Stage Direction]
S
[Stage Direction]
20
[Stage Direction]
1977 Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
66,500,000
[Stage Direction]
3,325,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1953 and 1958
[Stage Direction]
T
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
1978 Jan.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
207,911,500
[Stage Direction]
7,796,681
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1969
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
41
[Stage Direction]
July
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
125,000,000
[Stage Direction]
10,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Special replacement series
[Stage Direction]
1978 Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
261,400,000
[Stage Direction]
18,298,000
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1969
[Stage Direction]
S
[Stage Direction]
24
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
7
[Stage Direction]
4,701,300,000
[Stage Direction]
329,301,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1954
[Stage Direction]
T
[Stage Direction]
13
[Stage Direction]
1979 Oct.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
343,240,500
[Stage Direction]
11,155,511
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1966
[Stage Direction]
CS
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
5
[Stage Direction]
277,200,000
[Stage Direction]
13,860,000
[Stage Direction]
Loan of 1962
[Stage Direction]
AT 14
[Stage Direction]
1980 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 and 1967
[Stage Direction]
F
[Stage Direction]
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
[Stage Direction]
22
[Stage Direction]
Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
51
[Stage Direction]
167,000,000
[Stage Direction]
8,767,500
[Stage Direction]
Canada savings bonds, 1968
[Stage Direction]
S
[Stage Direction]
23
[Stage Direction]
1982 Nov.
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
651,000,000
[Stage Direction]
42,315,000
[Stage Direction]
Conversion loan, 1958
[Stage Direction]
T
[Stage Direction]
29
[Stage Direction]
1983 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 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
[Stage Direction]
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 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
[Stage Direction]
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
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
1992 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
[Stage Direction]
33
[Stage Direction]
1995 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
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
1998 Mar.
[Stage Direction]
15
[Stage Direction]
31
[Stage Direction]
197,045,000
[Stage Direction]
7,389,188
[Stage Direction]
1,755,000,000 870.000.
[Stage Direction]
000 20,000,000 175.000.
[Stage Direction]
000
[Stage Direction]
135,805,000 67,948,500 1,500,000 13,055,000
[Stage Direction]
7.50		
308-day treasury bills						7.46		
4984
[Stage Direction]
March 12, 1970
UNMATURED DEBT INCLUDING TREASURY BILLS AS AT MARCH 31, 1970 AND THE ANNUAL INTEREST THEREON (estimated)-Concluded
[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 Canadian dollars-Conceded
[Stage Direction]
8.01
[Stage Direction]
$ 75.000.
[Stage Direction]
000 68.000.
[Stage Direction]
000 12,000,000 54.000.
[Stage Direction]
000 92.000.
[Stage Direction]
000 71.000.
[Stage Direction]
000 100,000,000 69.000.
[Stage Direction]
000 15,300,000
[Stage Direction]
$ 6,007,500 3.400.000 660,000 3.105.000 5.520.000 4.615.000 7.500.000 5.520.000 1,000,000
[Stage Direction]
Special non-marketable bonds- Unemployment Insurance Commission Unemployment Insurance Commission Unemployment Insurance Commission Unemployment Insurance Commission Unemployment Insurance Commission Unemployment Insurance Commission Unemployment Insurance Commission Canada pension plan investment fund..
[Stage Direction]
5 5i 51 6 6i 7i 8 various
[Stage Direction]
22,166,616,050
[Stage Direction]
1,362,882,218
[Stage Direction]
Payable in United States dollars-
[Stage Direction]
1974
[Stage Direction]
Sept. 1 1975
[Stage Direction]
Sept. 15 1987 Oct. 15
[Stage Direction]
2f n 5
[Stage Direction]
48,755,627 30,301,591 77,837,760 108,108,000
[Stage Direction]
1,340,780 833,294 3,891,888 7,432,425
[Stage Direction]
1988 June 1	61		
				
			265,002,978	13,498,387
Payable in German deutsche marks-	1973 June 1	61	73,844,250	4,984,487
				
Payable in Italian lire-	1970	May 15 1971	May 15 1972	May 15	5|	34,594,560 36,324,288 37,189,152	1,989,187 2,134,052 2,231,349
		51 6		
				
				
			108,108,000	6,354,588
			22,613,571,278	1,387,719,680
The interest shown is a projection for one year at the annual rates on principal amounts outstanding at March 31, 1970. Where various rates of interest are applicable during the term of a loan the interest rate in effect at March 31, 1970 has been used.
Bonds payable in New York, Germany and Italy have been converted at the official parity rate.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 13, 1970