1973-06-01

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege about which I gave Your Honour notice earlier this morning. My question of privilege relates to the manner in which the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament are being infringed, notwithstanding Standing Order 58(14), by the way in which some hon. members and some committees function under that Standing Order. As everyone knows, Standing Order 58(14) provides that the estimates shall be considered and reported by the various committees, with the deadline being yesterday. If by that date committees have not been able to report to the House on their consideration of the estimates, the estimates are to be deemed to have been reported regardless of whether or not committees have considered or voted on them. I realize there is a citation in Beauchesne which says that until the report of a committee and the evidence have been laid upon the table it is illegal to refer to activities and proceedings before standing committees, but I think Standing Order 58(14) has come into effect since that citation was written and colours the situation somewhat.
The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections had referred to it the estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer and held some meetings on the Chief Electoral Officer's proposed expenditures. A few days ago, on Wednesday, because no steps were being taken by the committee to hold further meetings and as the estimates had not been voted upon, at my request to the chairman the steering committee met and called a meeting of the committee for Wednesday of this week. The committee waited half an hour for members to appear. During the course of that time only half a dozen members attended, two members of the Liberal party, two Conservatives and my colleague from Regina-Lake Centre and myself. As there was no quorum, the chairman agreed to call another meeting last evening. The committee assembled again in the committee room. Again we waited for a long period and again only two Liberal members, two Conservative members and my colleague from Regina-Lake Centre and myself appeared.
It seems to me there was, if nothing else, negligence on the part of certain members of that committee in not attending and providing a quorum so that the estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer could be considered and voted upon and the committee provided with an opportunity, if it so desired, to make some recommendation to the House with regard to these estimates of expenditure or on some other matter related to them. I feel that what was almost
collusion on the part of the Liberals and Conservatives not to attend that committee meeting has resulted in the privileges and rights of members being infringed. Accordingly, if Your Honour finds I have a question of privilege I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That Standing Order 58(14) be amended by substituting for the date May 31 the date June 15 for the purpose of allowing the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to continue to consider the estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer for the fiscal year 1973-74.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might hear the hon. member for Peace River briefly but, as hon. members know, there should be no debate on a question of this kind. The Chair should be given an opportunity to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege and a motion that should be proposed for the consideration of the House. However, I shall hear the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of privilege arising out the hon. member's reference to collusion on the part of the Conservative and Liberal parties. I will not ask the hon. member to withdraw, but that is an improper statement which should not have been made. It is an incorrect statement. If there is collusion in this House it is certainly not between the Conservative party and the Liberal party.


Mr. Speaker:: That is, of course, a different issue and perhaps a different question of privilege. I suggest to the hon. member for Skeena that he may have a grievance but I doubt very much whether the operation of a Standing Order accepted by the House can be brought into question under the cover of a question of privilege. The hon. member will admit, I am sure, that the motion he has proposed is a substantive motion and not a motion of privilege. In this respect I do not think the motion can be put at this time. I would hope that some other way could be found for the hon. member's grievance to be considered by the House or by one of its committees.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF QUEBEC

['I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has tabled the fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions.']
Mr. Speaker:: May I call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation of the Quebec National Assembly headed by its distinguished president, Mr. Jean-Noel Lavoie.

June 1, 1973
Penitentiaries, Parole and Temporary Absence
The delegation, representative of all political groups of the Assembly, is visiting Ottawa under the sponsorship of the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians. The House is happy to welcome its Quebec colleagues and their wives.
I hope our guests will gain a favourable impression from this one-day immersion in parliamentary usage of their federal colleagues. Hon. members of Ottawa and Quebec, we trust indeed that the discussions taking place in the framework of the association's activities will enhance already existing good relations between Ottawa and Quebec parliamentarians.

On behalf of every member of the House I extend to our distinguished visitors a very warm welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has tabled the fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, for the information of hon. members, the annual review of government accounts. I understand it is the practice of the House to seek unanimous consent to make the review an appendix to the day's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of above document, see appendix.]


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are well aware of public criticism stemming from the fact that some inmates, while on parole or

temporary leave of absence, have committed offences. Additionally, there have been serious questions raised with respect to both inmate grievance procedures and staff morale within our penitentiaries.
I should therefore like to take this opportunity to outline to the House immediate measures which will help prevent abuses of our release programs, provide for a more adequate means of investigating inmate grievances, and describe steps which will improve working conditions and morale of employees working in penitentiaries.
In recent years, both parole and temporary absences have played an important role in the process of rehabilitating inmates. Parole is a procedure whereby an inmate of a penitentiary may be released before the expiration of his sentence so that he may serve the balance of his sentence in society, but under appropriate guidance and surveillance to help him lead a law-abiding life. It is a transitional step between close confinement in an institution and absolute freedom.
In recent years, day parole, requiring an inmate to return to prison periodically, or after a specified period of time, has been widely used. The National Parole Board has granted day paroles for the purpose of enabling inmates to pursue specified educational, cultural or job training activities which were not available within the institution and which, in the opinion of the Parole Board, would assist in the inmate's rehabilitation. When the Penitentiary Act was amended in 1961 parliament conferred upon the Commissioner of Penitentiaries and individual institution directors the authority to authorize temporary leaves of absence for inmates for three or 15 days. It was intended that such leaves of absence, either with or without escort, were to be granted for medical, humanitarian or rehabilitation reasons.
Since 1961, therefore, inmates could be released to the community both under the authority of the National Parole Board or the Canadian Penitentiary Service. Because the criteria for selection of inmates by these two agencies have not necessarily been the same, there has been some difficulty. The differences in criteria arise not only because of the different statutory authorities under which they operate but also because the considerations that apply in assessing an inmate for temporary absence differ from those applicable to parole. Inevitably this has led to confusion in the public mind. Moreover, there are certain legal complexities that bring into question the operation of a large portion of the temporary absence program. The most difficult problem concerns what are commonly called back-to-back temporary absences, a practice developed in recent years whereby inmates are released on successive leaves of absence over an extended period of time, generally for rehabilitative purposes. I have therefore made the following decisions:
1.	In the future the Canadian Penitentiary Service will cease the practice of providing back-to-back temporary absences for inmates in federal penal institutions. This involves a change in the Canadian Penitentiary Service directives and does not require an amendment to the legislation. The Penitentiary Service will continue to operate a temporary absence program under section 26 of the Penitentiary Act to provide three and 15 day absences for
June 1, 1973

medical, humanitarian and rehabilitation purposes, with or without an escort.
2.	For those inmates who are now on successful temporary back-to-back absences or where in the future extended absences are considered necessary or desirable by penitentiary authorities, provision will be made for a greater use of day parole under the Parole Act. This will enable inmates to continue their education, accept employment, and generally pursue their rehabilitation outside the institutions.
3.	Legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity to amend the Parole Act to permit the appointment of ten additional ad hoc members of the Parole Board. These ten members will be assigned in teams of two to the five regions of Canada and will deal primarily with day parole and panel hearings in the institutions. This step will enable the National Parole Board to deal with a considerable backlog of cases that require detailed consideration, and simultaneously satisfy the new volume of decisions on day parole that will come before the members.
4.	The appropriate regulations under the National Parole Act will be changed so that an inmate will be required to serve one-third of his sentence or seven years, whichever is the lesser, before he becomes eligible for parole. Previously inmates became eligible for parole after they had served one-third of their sentence of four years, whichever was the lesser. Concern has been expressed that the premature release of inmates on parole contributes to an unacceptably high rate of parole violations, and that those who violated their conditions of parole previously are permitted to become again eligible for parole at too early a date. This change in the parole eligibility period will affect primarily offenders serving long terms, that is, of more than 12 years.
5.	The National Parole Act regulation will be changed so that those who have forfeited their parole will have to serve one-half of any new term of imprisonment or seven years before being again considered for parole. This will prevent an offender who has forfeited his parole by committing an indictable offence from being reconsidered for parole before he has completed a large part of his total sentence. Under the present regulation an inmate who has forfeited his parole and has his parole revoked is eligible for parole consideration after serving one-third of his total term of imprisonment or four years, whichever period is completed first.
The two above-mentioned changes apply to inmates currently in our institutions. I am mindful of the fact that some inmates who had been making good progress toward their rehabilitation in the community might feel aggrieved by these changes. Any such case could be favourably considered by the National Parole Board where justified because of special circumstances resulting from these modifications.
6.	Steps have been taken to increase the number of classification, visiting and correspondence officers within the Canadian Penitentiary Service, as well as those members of the staff who are concerned with the social development of inmates. More visiting and correspondence
Penitentiaries, Parole and Temporary Absence
officers will provide additional opportunity for family and friends to meet and communicate with inmates within institutions. Additional classification officers will ensure that individual inmates receive appropriate diagnostic and counselling service as well as providing for closer screening of applications for temporary absence, day parole and full parole. Social development and activity officers are required to enrich institutional programs of leisure-time activities. The steps that have been taken to improve programs within the penitentiary system have included, as I mentioned, the use of temporary absences and day parole to gain access to rehabilitative resources in the community for individual inmates.
7.	Steps are being taken to provide additional staff facilities, such as conference rooms, libraries, lockers, lounge and shower facilities, to improve working conditions for employees in our penitentiaries.
Programs of inmate rehabilitation cannot be achieved without good relations between staff and inmates. A great deal of effort has been and will continue to be expended on establishing the best possible conditions for the reform of the inmate, but I fully realize that where staff, for one reason or another, are dissatisfied in terms of their working conditions, the prospects of useful staff-inmate relationships tend to diminish. While it is true that the penitentiary service is now unionized and a collective agreement exists, there are other areas not subject to negotiation where we could improve staff conditions.
8.	To assure the impartial investigation of inmate complaints and grievances, I have received authority, under part II, section 6, of the Inquiries Act, to create the position of correctional investigator. Both the Archambault and the Swackhamer commissions recommend visiting committees to assist in the impartial consideration of inmate grievances. While I feel that this is a valuable suggestion, I am certain the creation of the correctional investigator's position will better accomplish these goals.
The appointee will assure that inmate grievances are dealt with at an early stage and on a basis that is satisfactory, generally speaking, to the inmate, the penitentiary staff, and to the Canadian public. The appointee will report directly to the Solicitor General. The correctional investigator's duties will be to investigate complaints of federal penitentiary inmates and to make recommendations concerning those complaints. The investigator will also be authorized to inquire on her own initiative but will be relieved of the necessity of making an investigation if she is satisfied that the complainant has not sought legal or administrative remedy. This official will be required to make an annual report to the Solicitor General who will table it in the House of Commons, subject to the deletion of any material that might adversely affect the security of Canada or any penitentiary, and the civil liberties or privacy of individuals.
9.	Miss Inger Hansen has been appointed Canada's first correctional investigator. Miss Hansen has broad experience in both the field of criminal law and corrections generally and I believe that her distinguished background will assure her success as correctional investigator.
These are recommendations that are calculated to deal with some federal correctional problems on a short-term basis in the field of penitentiary services, temporary

June 1, 1973
Penitentiaries, Parole and Temporary Absence
absences and parole. For the long term, more profound changes may be necessary. I should remind the House that there is a report of the task force on the release of inmates under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Hugessen to be made public shortly which requires detailed consideration because it raises a number of important issues that could only be dealt with by substantial changes in current legislation. Similarly, a committee of the other place is conducting inquiries into the entire question of the release of inmates, whether on parole or temporary absence. Finally, there is the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee of this House which just a few days ago has assumed the task of carrying out an inquiry into our penitentiary system, including parole and temporary absence. All of these reports will be considered in depth as part of an ever-expanding development of federal corrections in Canada.
As I stated above, I do not contend that the policies I have announced today are the long-term answers to our problems in the field of corrections. In due course, we will have to deal with some of the other more complex questions, but these measures I have discussed are designed to provide immediate solutions for some immediate problems. They will, I hope, help to assure the public and parliament that this government is determined to demand both security and rehabilitation from our release programs, while at the same time protecting the rights of inmates and creating better working conditions for our penitentiary employees.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard another example of government by ad hocery. The minister has reacted to public outcry as have others of his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). They have reacted with band-aid measures when they should be formulating cohesive and in-depth policies.
The minister cannot extract the penal system and the penitentiary system from the over-all problem of dealing with crime in this country, and that is exactly what he is attempting to do. He has made certain changes with respect to back-to-back leave and temporary absences. Does this mean that convicted wife murderers are no longer going to be able to obtain leave in order to marry their mistresses for whom murder was committed in the first place? Does this mean that criminals are not going to be permitted to visit such eminent institutions as la salon de la femme and then disappear? Does this mean that judges are no longer going to say at the conclusion of a criminal trial, I find you guilty and sentence you to two years, three years, five years, or whatever the case may be, but, instead, will be saying, I find you guilty and I have arranged for a reservation for you at the rehabilitation centre at such and such a place. Taking measures such as those that have been announced by the minister, instead of approaching the matter in a scientific fashion, in an in-depth fashion and considering the over-all fabric of crime and penal reform in the country, is no solution.
In my view, Sir, what the minister should have been announcing is a program aimed, first, at primary prevention; second, at early detection; third, at the problems of detention; fourth, at active treatment; fifth, at rehabilita-

tion and follow-up and, last, at education and research. That is the whole scientific package that has to be considered. The penal system cannot be viewed in a vacuum and extracted and band-aid solutions applied in the expectation that they will solve all the problems that exist. Government policies such as I have suggested in order to deal with crime in accordance with the directives I have listed would be an immense step forward. Our knowledge of man and his behaviour could be utilized within such a unified policy to provide a scientific basis for developing that kind of policy. Surely the knowledge we have in the various disciplines impinging on criminal behaviour and the measures deemed appropriate to control it could thereby be co-ordinated.
In his announcement the minister also failed to outline to us, and thereby failed to allay public apprehension in this area, the criteria for temporary leaves of absence that are going to be granted without escort. What criteria are envisaged in the granting and greater use of day parole? The elimination of back to back leave implies that a greater use of day parole is very likely to cancel out the former. What assurance have the people of Canada that the enlargement of the day parole process is not going to be so great as to eliminate entirely whatever improvement may be derived from the cancellation of the policy of back to back leaves?
With respect to the announcement concerning the National Parole Board, we wonder whether the enlargement of the Parole Board will permit the reinstatement of the interview system. When will this legislation be introduced? The minister has said nothing about that, given the government's new set of priorities as leaked by a secret cabinet document the other day, which does not include penal reform, I might point out.
The minister referred to serving longer sentences prior to becoming eligible for parole. Is any consideration given to the type of crime in the granting of parole? He said nothing about that. For instance, what will the procedure be regarding sexual offenders, murderers, habitual criminals and so on? Is any account taken of the response of the prisoner to rehabilitation efforts? How much consultation exists or is planned with the judiciary? There is precious little today. It is the judge who must decide the length of the sentence, not the parole board. Liaison is necessary, for example, in cases where the judge does not recommend mercy.
It is one thing to view the almost complete erosion of the morale of the staff of the penal system and another to try to correct it by the measures announced by the minister. The increases in staff mentioned by the minister will not solve the problem. They sound good, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Is the Department of the Solicitor General having success in recruiting persons for these positions? What ratio of classification officers tc inmates has been established as acceptable? These are the kinds of questions that arise in our minds.
The minister made an announcement with regard to additional staff facilities. We welcome this kind of announcement. Perhaps the staff will at least have the kind of luxurious facilities now available to inmates. Will
June 1, 1973

staff members be consulted on any new reform undertaken in the penal institution? Are there any plans for increased training facilities for penitentiary staff, an area which is crying out for reform?
With regard to the correctional investigator, I find no quarrel with the minister in so far as the appointment is concerned, if for no other reason than her racial background and the spelling of her name. Coming from the country which she does and settling in Canada, obviously she has to be of unusually high calibre as an individual. However, the announcement is woefully inadequate with regard to the terms of reference of this individual.
The status of the correctional investigator is not clear. She continues to be a public servant. Although the Solicitor General stated that the investigator is independent of any association with the Canadian Penitentiary Service, the investigator appears to remain a legal officer of the Department of Justice which is responsible for providing legal advisers to all government departments. The functions of these officers are under the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, another public official. Their duties are to furnish legal advice and obtain for officials opinions of the Deputy Attorney General for the government departments and agencies to which they are assigned.
It appears, therefore, that the correctional investigator, as a Department of Justice legal officer, always was and continues to be independent of the penitentiary service of the Solicitor General. Accordingly, the statement that she has been granted full independence is, in my view, rather meaningless. She has been and continues to be responsible to and under the direction of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada. She is not an investigator who is independent of the government and responsible to parliament and the public. Further, as a departmental official, all the reports of the investigator will be interdepartmental communications and subject to the rules of government secrecy as announced by the government in the House this session. In short, the correctional-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. I would hope the hon. member is coming to the end of his remarks. I interrupted him just as he was saying "in short". I assume he was about to summarize what he had said, but I remind hon. members that the provisions of the Standing Order suggest that members who speak on behalf of parties in opposition should be brief. I always like to relate the length of their comments to the length of the statement by the minister. That is why I have been more lenient with regard to the comments being made by the hon. member for Yukon, but I thought it my duty to remind all hon. members of the provisions of the Standing Order.


Erik Nielsen: I was watching the clock very carefully, Mr. Speaker. As the minister took 12 minutes and I have been speaking for 10, I was coming to the end of my remarks.
In short, the correctional investigator was and is an official of the Department of Justice assigned to the Solicitor General's Department. She now has authority as an inquiries commissioner to subpoena and swear witnesses. As most, if not all, the witnesses will be prison guards and prisoners, the granting of power to summon
Penitentiaries, Parole and Temporary Absence
witnesses under penalty to punish for contempt appears to be in questionable taste. The fact that her reports are confidential memoranda between herself and her departmental superiors is really an insult to this House.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want first to express my thanks to the minister for having made available a copy of his statement some time before the House met, even though its social implications and effects on the penitentiary service are more than could be grasped in the time available to look at it. My reaction is that it is a statement responding to a situation out of desperation rather than a clear approach to a fair and just penal system in the nation. It is a political document, not one with any penological sense to it.
I wish to deal briefly with the points raised by the minister. The minister referred to the day parole system and the so-called back-to-back or successive 15 day temporary absences that can be granted by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries. The minister seeks to dispose of that and not have any more successive temporary absences. He thinks that abuses of the system will accordingly be lessened or curtailed. The minister is under a misapprehension or misunderstanding. The problem does not arise because an inmate has a three day, 15-day or a number of 15-day successive temporary absences. The problem arises in the assessment of the individual in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: If the person who makes the assessment or selection of inmates eligible for temporary absence is incompetent or conned into it, there will be a continuation of abuses. Let me say that when it comes to conning, inmates have far more brains than most of the people in the penitentiary system.
The minister talked about expanding the Parole Board. I gather the purpose is that the additional members will permit the board to deal with the question of day parole and the great backlog of cases. One would think from this that the minister is curtailing day parole, but he is in fact seeking to expand and intensify it. This is fine, but the difficulty again arises with regard to the competency or otherwise of the person making the selection. There is also the problem of supervision in the after-care field and working with the inmate whether he is on temporary absence, day parole or full parole. In the absence of a concomitant community activity involving that individual, the prospects of failure will increase.
Again-and this points up the political impact of the document-the minister talks about establishing a seven year period instead of a four year period before a person will be eligible for parole. The minister seems, on the one hand, to wish to intensify the activities of the Parole Board and, on the other hand, to restrict and curtail those activities and to make sure that individuals stay in jail for a longer period of time. This is contrary to the idea of parole, contrary to the idea that an inmate should have an opportunity to live in a free society, in a free community to the fullest extent that it is possible to live in that way after he has been sentenced for a crime, in the hope that his activity within the community will lead him to the

June 1, 1973
Penitentiaries, Parole and Temporary Absence point of rehabilitation. It flies in the face of the concept that there is no rehabilitation possible in a penitentiary. This is a point the minister seems to miss. The penitentiary is for purposes of custody; rehabilitation takes place outside and afterwards, and not within the penitentiary. The idea that if you keep a person inside for a longer period he will thereby become more amenable to rehabilitation is arrant nonsense.
The minister talks in terms of an additional expansion of the number of classification officers, visiting officers and corresponding officers. Generally-and this does not apply to every individual who falls within these categories-professional social workers who spend their time going through universities getting a degree in social work are not much help as classification officers or persons working as visiting or corresponding officers within penitentiaries because they do not know what life in a jail is all about, and they talk to inmates using a concept of language that differs from what the inmate understands. I think this step is doomed to be less than helpful, though it will no doubt build up the bureaucracy within the system.
Additional staff facilities, such as showers and lounge rooms, will not help build up the morale of the staff within the system. They are disenchanted for two reasons, basically. First, they are custodial officers who see their function being overridden by classification officers who, most of the time, do not know what they are doing anyway. Second, there is a conflict, a disenchantment, because staff custodial officers feel the people in the headquarters office do not know what they are doing either. In this regard, the first thing I think the minister should do is take some steps to replace the commissioner, Mr. Faguy. I have no complaint about Mr. Faguy's administrative competence. I am sure it is very great. But he has no idea about penological matters or prison systems. He is a professional civil servant, and his concern is with administrative structures without regard to the fact that people are within them. I would take him out of there and put somebody in who knows something about prisons and about human beings.
I have very grave doubts about the value of the correctional investigator, regardless of who fills the office, and her effectiveness in dealing with grievances by inmates. If the warden sends somebody to the hole, is the correctional officer to step into that picture and override the decision of warden's court? Certainly not. I hope not, in any event. What about the question of lost remission? What about the question of lost privileges? What about the question of discipline within a penitentiary? All we are likely to see here, following the appointment of this correctional investigator, is an advancing bureaucracy, the setting up of a further level of government structure to confuse inmates, confuse the staff, and create more general public confusion than exists at present.
The minister's statement indicates that he has not yet understood what is involved in a prison or penological system. He seeks to make the ideas contained in this statement available to all institutions. He seems to ignore the fact of life that programs applicable to one prison are not applicable in the same way to another. Surely the minister is not telling us that the program with respect to day parole should apply equally at Joyceville, which is a
{Mr. Howard.]
minimum security institution in Ontario, and at the special detention or special correctional unit just outside St. Vincent de Paul in Quebec. In our prison system what we need is not a furtherance of the so-called traditional or historic liberal approach-and I use a small "1" here, Mr. Speaker. We need one that is sensible, one that is just, one that is fair. And the two are not compatible. As long as he continues to ignore the fact that jail is for custody and that rehabilitation takes place only outside the jail and has its best opportunity for success when the citizenry are drawn into it, we shall continue to encounter difficulties, problems, abuses and, hopefully, a change of minister.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the recommendations that you have often made, I will be very brief.
I would like first to congratulate the hon. minister for being kind enough to respect the bilingual character of this House and give me a French copy of his statement. I am all the more pleased to say so as last night, in committee, such was not my opinion. As a matter of fact, I blamed the hon. minister who previously had not respected the bilingual character of this country.
As far as the minister's statement is concerned, I must say that at first sight it seems acceptable to me. Ever since I became a member of the House, I have heard discussions about problems of parole prison escapes. Several members have not only made suggestions but have proposed solutions designed to improve the living conditions of prisoners in penitentiaries and to make their rehabilitation easier so that, once they are back into society, they become good citizens and help it to improve their living conditions, in order to enable our country to take full advantage of all its human resources.
Every so often, officers, prison guards are blamed for not carrying out their supervisory duties, for not doing their job, and sometimes even for deliberately taking part in some of those escapes. Personally, I am convinced that it certainly must not be easy to be a guard in a penitentiary, to live in such difficult conditions, under constant pressure.
Therefore, according to the minister's statement, today, he wants to have better living conditions for our officers, and our prison guards, allowing them to live a more normal life while doing their duty, and accepting their responsibilities. I think that this will also enable them to create a more congenial atmosphere for our inmates who no doubt have not been locked up in the penitentiary just to have a good time. They cannot expect to lead a completely normal life. If they are in there, it is because they have done something wrong, because they have violated the law and also, because order must prevail in our society.
Therefore, it is not out of nastiness or revenge that the state decrees penalties but to make sure that law is respected in the land. If the action that the minister intends to take to correct this situation appears effective, and if it is actually implemented, I am convinced that there will be considerable improvements.
June 1, 1973

Another point on which I would like to draw the attention of the minister, and I regret that he did not mention it in his statement, is the drug problem in our penitentiaries. This does not help create a responsible climate among our inmates. On the contrary, it helps to make it worse, and supervision should be more rigid in that area so that those who violate the law and who find ways of introducing drugs into our penitentiaries, be made to join those who are inside the walls, and this would help our society correct a situation which is fast becoming alarming.
When inmates have the advantage of being paroled, our society should enable them to reintegrate it easily, welcome them generously, and facilitate their rehabilitation. We must do our share. And to do our share we must act. The government is now responsible in a large part for the situation in which we are.
There is an old proverb that says: Idleness is at the root of all evil. If it is true, let us manage so that there will be fewer idle people. Conversely, one can say that work is the remedy for all evil.
Let us therefore do our utmost so that there will be more jobs in our country, so that there will be more people at work; and when there will be more people at work every day, there will be fewer inmates in the prisons.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages the Textile and Clothing Board report on a study concerning towels and material for towels or sponge-cotton.



CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to request unanimous consent of the House to deal with a motion concerning a matter that is urgent and pressing, namely, the ability of at least two standing committees of the House of Commons to complete their work, and to put an end to the negligence of Members of Parliament who fail to attend these meetings. If I have the unanimous consent of the House I would move:
That Standing Order 58(14) be amended by substituting for the date May 31 the date June 15 for the purpose of allowing the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to continue to consider the estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer for the fiscal year 1973-74.
Chief Electoral Officer's Estimates [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: for leave to introduce the bill entitled "An Act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (minimum residence requirement)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, for the third year in a row I have the honour of introducing this very simple bill which, I hope, will be unanimously agreed to on second reading and deferred to the appropriate standing committee.
The purpose of this bill is to reduce from five to three years the minimal residence requirement for citizenship applicants.

I think I might have unanimous consent for second reading as the Leader of the Official Opposition said recently he would be in agreement with such a bill, and also members of other parties have-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. When will this bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The bill cannot be read the second time today without the unanimous consent of the House.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put. The second reading is deferred until the next sitting of the House.

June 1, 1973
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. lames Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the price of gold has risen quite remarkably on the free market in the last week and that there is continued speculation the United States dollar may be devalued again, can the minister tell us whether there has been any direct contact by his officials with officials of the United States government about the possibility of a further devaluation of the U.S. dollar?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if that were so it would not be something I would speculate on in the House.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, if there has been no direct consultation about this matter, can the minister tell us whether the government has taken the position that it is willing to accept a devaluation in the purchasing power of reserves held in U.S. dollars by the Canadian exchange equalization fund rather than propose to the United States government some possible plan whereby the purchasing power of these dollars can be maintained at the present exchange rate?


John Napier Turner: The brunt of the hon. member's question is dulled a bit by the fact that most of these reserves are held in U.S. dollars in any event, and our dollar has remained at virtual parity with the U.S. dollar.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, that is the very point. The fact is that as the U.S. dollar depreciates our dollar floats with it. The question is, what are we doing to protect the purchasing power of our reserves having regard to paying off debts such as the one to Germany paid today and having regard to the Japanese dollar and so on? The very fact that our dollar is floating with the U.S. dollar makes it imperative that we do something.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the question is not in order in that it is argumentative.


An hon. Member:: Let's have an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: Tell him you haven't got to that chapter of the book yet.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works concerning the procedures for expropriating the lands required for the Pickering airport development project.
Would the minister tell the House whether he has given any guidelines to the officials and agents of his department to the effect that the rights of the people involved be not encroached upon as far as tenure of residence is concerned?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, I intend to go personally to Pickering some time next week to explain to the people involved the very generous provisions of the Expropriation Act.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works intends to travel to Pickering to assure the persons expropriated of their rights, will he also look into the repeated reports to the effect that his agents, or agents working for his department, have entered homes without the knowledge or permission of the residents to make assessments, and in certain cases have effectively browbeaten residents into signing expropriation papers they did not have to sign, according to the undertaken given recently by the Minister of Transport?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, these rumours are not correct. These assessments are not made by officials of my department; they are made by independent qualified assessors, and as far as we know there is no veracity in these false claims.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Scarborough West on one last supplementary and then complete the first round of questioning by recognizing the hon. member for Champlain.


John Paul Harney: When the minister is in the area next week, does he intend to explain to the people involved and affected exactly what the difference is between officials of his department and agents working on behalf of his department?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: We will tell the people concerned the true facts, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: That will be a change.
June 1, 1973


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Since we are discussing bilingualism within the Public Service, could the minister tell us if he will make the Coulombe report available to the House so that the discussion on the Prime Minister's resolution will be more relevant and effective?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think that I have already said that the Coulombe report was not intended to be made public. This report was prepared by an official of the Treasury Board for the information of Treasury Board officials themselves, for the Secretariat. Thus, it is not intended to publish it or make it public. But if there are facts related to this report, I would like to make them known to the hon. member.


René Matte: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us whether he intends to base the statement he will make during the debate on the official languages on facts taken from the Beaudet report or the Coulombe report, in order to further enlighten the House?


Mr. Speaker:: The member will recognize that he is now anticipating on the debate which will continue later on today.


AIR CANADA
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour with regard to the announcement I understand has been made that rotating strikes will take place affecting the operations of Air Canada. Can the minister tell the House if he proposes to undertake any new measures to head off this thing? I realize that yesterday he appointed a mediator.
Hon. ]ohn C. Munro (Minister of Labour): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would advise the Leader of the Opposition that, from whatever information I have been able to glean, if rotating strikes are a possibility as indeed overall strike action is, the indication has been couched in those terms. I do not think there has been any decision yet to have rotating strikes on the part of the labour leaders involved. Mediation is going on right now with Mr. Gallagher. I believe they are meeting this afternoon in Montreal. I take it that the parties are meeting with him in good faith to endeavour to find a solution to this matter. I hope to have further particulars during the course of the weekend.
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the indication of rotating strikes, which I understood was more definite than the minister seems to believe, I would ask the minister to inquire concerning what the situation actually is, and would he consider taking a hand himself with a view to trying to bring the parties together in order to avoid rotating strikes in view of the very serious disruption that would be caused to our economy and to many individual Canadians?


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think Mr. Gallagher should be given an opportunity to see what he can do in terms of resolving this dispute. Because of the inconvenience caused by rotating strikes, if this should turn out to be a reality instead of what I consider at the moment to be a possibility, my intervention is always under consideration. If it can indeed be helpful to the situation, it will, of course, be entertained.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings on a supplementary.


Mr. Hees:: Mine is not a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBILITY OF ROTATING STRIKES-DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND PRESIDENT OF COMPANY TO PREVENT INCONVENIENCE TO TRAVELLERS
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question. In view of the fact the union announced a short while ago that they will commence rotating strikes by giving two hours notice to whatever airports they are going to strike, has the minister had discussions with the president of Air Canada to see what steps can be taken to prevent this tremendous inconvenience to the Canadian travelling public at this peak travelling period?
[Trans lation]


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think that government members are at least as interested as the hon. member by what is now going on at Air Canada. I think that to indicate what action might be taken in every possible case would not help the parties involved and would not contribute at all to the settlement of the conflict.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings, after which I will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the statement by the Commander of Maritime Command that an alternative to selling or put-

June 1, 1973
Oral Questions
ting in mothballs the four destroyers that cannot be manned because of lack of manpower in the department, would be for the government to allot to the navy sufficient funds to hire personnel necessary to operate these ships, is the government considering taking this very excellent advice of the Commander of Maritime Command, thereby making it possible for these four destroyers, which cost the Canadian taxpayers $120 million, are in first class shape and were designed to carry out this maritime role-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the department and the government have not received that advice.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is the government considering transferring some of the funds which are allotted to the OFY and LIP to the Department of National Defence to make it possible for young men who wish to go into the navy as a permanent career to be employed permanently in this role-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: -and by so doing make it possible for these warships to operate and stop the continuation of the scandalous waste of $120 million of the taxpayers money?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


George Harris Hees: Let us have an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: Put George into drydock.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to become involved in any controversy and therefore I will wait until the controversy is over before asking my question.
My question is directed to the Solicitor General. I should like to ask him whether or not consideration is being given to abolishing or demobilizing the police and security planning and analysis research group. I have to look at my notes because the name has changed. What is his answer to that?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, has the minister read the evidence that has been given in the Watergate case in the Senate of the United States, which indicates
what happens when a group of powerful men is responsible not to Congress but only to the President and to the cabinet and the effect this can have on individual rights? In view of the fact that this government group that has been set up is secret, silent, but equally effective when it comes to interfering with human rights, should it not be subject, if not to abolition, to reporting to parliament on its conduct?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to read all the evidence in the Watergate affair, but I wish to assure the right hon. member there is no resemblance whatsoever between it and this group. We have answered all questions about this group in the House. This group is to protect civil rights against such things as Watergate rather than to impinge on them.


John George Diefenbaker: May I suggest to the minister that he shows he has not read any of the evidence, for this body was set up with the identical purpose he now defines as the one for his own group.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Selkirk.


REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION OF IN-CAMERA BRIEFINGS OF COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Erik Nielsen: In view of the in-camera briefing the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has had while considering estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General, and in view of the minister's assurance that further such briefings would be available to committee members and because that reference is out of the hands of the committee by reason of its reporting to the House, will the Solicitor General, in consultation with the government House leader, make arrangements for a further reference to that committee so that these very useful in the one case, and could be useful in the other, in-camera meetings might be continued because otherwise they are terminated?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I intend to live up to that commitment and I will see to it that arrangements are made. I might say that this group- and I have said it several times before-is to deal with security matters and police matters, not with spying on the political opposition. It is to deal with questions such as the possible threat of the Black September Organization and FLQ threats. If the opposition wants to do away with that, they can take the responsibility.
[Mr. Hees.J
June 1, 1973



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Doug Howland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and it is supplementary to those asked earlier by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. In view of the fact that it would cost about $1.6 million a year to put the four destroyers to sea-we are talking about a total investment in those ships lying alongside amounting to $160 million, so here we are talking about one per cent of that investment-and in light of the fact we could probably draw 700 men from the national defence headquarters and never feel it-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Rowland: -will the minister reconsider his decision to let the ships lie alongside and put them back to sea where they could at least assist our fishermen in avoiding the kind of harassment they sometimes experience from larger ships of other nations?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the hon. member knows that we have recently commissioned three new DDH destroyers which have a much greater capability than the ones to which he is referring.



MANPOWER


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I should like to put a question to his Parliamentary Secretary.
In view of the growing importance of local initiatives projects because of the new economic blood that has been injected for the coming months, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether, in addition to the criteria referred to in the letter sent by the minister to members of the House at the end of May, other standards will be applied to the Department in order to guide the officials responsible for the selection of local initiatives projects to see whether they can be extended?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there are no other standards, but of course there is always the problem of interpreting rules and criteria.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN PROJECTS

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I realize that there is an interpretation of the rules.
Oral Questions
My supplementary question is as follows: Are any local initiatives projects concerning the building of reservoirs, the restoration of old furniture or still the building of recreational facilities, playgrounds, being considered in the standards set up by the minister in his letter of May 19?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to answer that question without further information from the hon. member, and I will be glad to have that information from him subsequently.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the House and the public about the steps which he has taken and the activities of his officials in the conflict which is constantly deteriorating on the St. Lawrence Seaway?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a meeting of the pilots of the St. Lawrence Seaway is now underway. This meeting should end today. Normally, the activities should resume tomorrow. However, even if the pilots decide to return to work today-an accident unrelated to the meeting having occurred, the Snell lock in the U.S. has been damaged-unfortunately they would be unable to do so due to that accident.



POSSIBLE STRIKE OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-INQUIRY AS TO CONCILIATION BOARD REPORT AND CONTINGENCY PLAN

Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In light of growing unrest and imperilled rail service because of slow contract negotiations between the railways and the unions, would the minister tell the House whether he has any indication of when the conciliation report will be completed and whether the government has prepared a contingency plan and a firm policy in the event of the suspension of rail services?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, a conciliation board has been constituted and I announced approximately a week ago the appointment of the conciliation board chairman, Mr. Justice Craig Munro. They will be holding their meetings in British Columbia-


An hon. Member:: Any relation?


John Carr Munro: No, no relation. They will be holding their meetings in Vancouver starting next week.

4342

June 1, 1973
Oral Questions



POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the admitted lack of plans and economic analyses regarding potential air and rail strikes at this time, is the government now going to set up an industrial disputes tribunal to undertake this kind of work and prepare rational and responsible measures to protect essential public interests?


John Carr Munro: Despite what I consider to be the rather overblown rhetoric of the hon. member in the first part of his question, I think any parliamentarian in the House or in the country is well aware of the serious economic consequences that would visit a country like Canada if there were a rail strike. So we are going to do everything in our power to try to avoid that.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put another question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Following the discussion that took place recently between Quebec and Ottawa, the Quebec government stated yesterday that it was in favour of eliminating special areas since the minister Mr. Levesque stated that he would like to see in the terms of those agreements, the province of Quebec free to set its own priorities. Can the minister say if he will favour such freedom for the province of Quebec?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Basically, yes, Mr. Speaker. I think that was the gist of the meetings that were held with the province of Quebec and with other provinces, that rather than maintain the so-called special areas it would be better to bring to bear as much help as we can on industrial opportunities wherever they happen to exist in a particular province.



FARM FUELS-REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE OF SUPPLY AT NO INCREASE IN PRICE

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the increased export of energy and the fact that farm costs have gone up by 6.1 per cent in the first three months of this year which, if it continues, would mean an increase of 25 per cent this year, can the minister assure us that the price of farm fuels will not be

going up further this year, and can he guarantee to farmers any security of supply of fuels for their farms?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any control the federal government has over the price at the retail level.



FARM FUELS-POSSIBLE USE OF TWO-PRICE SYSTEM AND EXPORT CONTROLS

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the drastic increase in farm costs, can the minister say whether or not he would consider now a two-price system so far as farm fuels are concerned as well as the extension of export controls to gasoline and other farm fuels?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think that the question of a two-price system which the hon. gentleman has mentioned, while it might be effective in the farm area, would undoubtedly produce higher prices for other Canadian consumers. Obviously these two considerations would have to be weighed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's West who has a supplementary to a previous question, I believe, and then the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked of the Minister of National Defence by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. In view of the fact that Canada is providing inadequate protection for our fishermen against the encroachment of foreign fishing ships, would the minister consider making these four destroyers available to his colleague, the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries, to provide protection for our fishermen on Canada's east coast?


James Armstrong Richardson: The protection we provide is by no means inadequate. The Minister of the Environment has recently confirmed the increased surveillance that we provide from the air. We also provide protection from the sea. We do not need those reserve destroyers in order to protect the fishing fleets.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In order to protect against an even greater financial fiasco than the Bonaventure fiasco by the sale or scrapping of ships that are less than 20 years old and have a shelf life of at least 40 years if they are properly maintained, will the Prime Minister give consid-
June 1, 1973

eration to undertaking consultations with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of the Environment toward the end of utilizing these four destroyer escorts for beefing up our coast guard service and utilizing these ships for protection of our fishing industry, especially in light of the statement by the Minister of the Environment that we intend to extend our fisheries management control limit to 200 miles, or to the edge of Canada's continental shelf?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government understands the importance of giving the greatest protection to our country, the greatest protection to our coastlines, and as much surveillance as possible. The difficulty, of course, is the size of the defence budget. The government has to keep that budget within a rate of escalation which is considered to be reasonable. We are not able to do everything we would like to do in every area of government. This is one example of an area where the government has to curtail expenditures and choose other areas of expenditures where, if funds were not available, certain social services would be prevented from being delivered to the Canadian people. It is this kind of decision the government has had to reach in deciding the size of its defence expenditures.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether, in view of the fact the reason the four destroyers are idle is the inability to man them, he has given any thought to solving this problem by establishing a ratio of one sailor to one admiral in order to supply sufficient sailors to man the ships?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



REQUEST FOR INCREASED SURVEILLANCE OF COASTAL AREA TO PROTECT FISHERMEN

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he is aware that Canada's present effort in surveillance of the continental shelf consists of the Cape Freels, which has just about enough capacity to maintain surveillance over the Rideau Canal? Further, would he seriously take under advisement the recommendations made by members on this side of the House in view of the fact that the proposed plan put forward by the Minister of the Environment for beefing up our surveillance capability cannot be implemented until seven years from the present date?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, I will do that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich for one last supplementary on this subject followed by the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Peel South. I would like to assure the latter that he will be recognized before the end of the question period.
Oral Questions



MANNING OF DDH DESTROYERS

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he can explain how construction plans for the DDH series of four vessels can be carried forward without, at the same time, developing plans to man those vessels and the vessels that were still in service?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there has never been any question about being able to man the four new DDH vessels. They are being manned now. They are at sea.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General arising out of his statement earlier this morning. Is the correctional investigator to be part of the minister's departmental staff? If so, how can inmates be assured of independence of consideration of their grievances, and how can the investigator be considered as any substitute for such procedures as recommended in 1938 by Archam-bault and in 1972 by Swackhamer?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the correctional ombudsman or investigator is in no way at all to be connected with the department. I do not know how the hon. member for Yukon could interpret my statement that way.


Mr. Fairweather:: I am asking the question.


William Warren Allmand: The investigator is to be completely independent, operating under the Inquiries Act with all the powers of the Inquiries Act, and she will be able to initiate inquiries on her own or at the request of families and friends of inmates. I repeat that she will have all the powers provided under Part II of the Inquiries Act.



TEMPORARY RELEASE PROGRAM-APPLICATION TO THOSE UNDER LIFE SENTENCE FOR MURDER

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Solicitor General this question. In light of the fact your statement suggests you are going to continue the temporary release program-I am not arguing about that-and in light of the fact that the bill with respect to the abolition of capital punishment has gone to committee and there is serious concern in reference to weighing what kind of penalty should be handed out to a person convicted of murder, will the temporary release program apply as in the past to any person given a life sentence for murder, or will you act in accordance with that section of the Criminal Code which says that no one serving a life sentence will be released from a prison without passage of an order in council? Which act are you going to follow?
4344

June 1, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should have directed his question to the Chair, but we will assume he did that.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the rules for release relating to people who have been convicted of murder have special provisions. As the hon. member knows, there is a ten-year minimum period before a person who has been convicted of murder can be considered for parole. We will consider special arrangements for parole and temporary absence for convicted murderers, and these will be discussed in the committee in connection with the bill dealing with capital punishment. The measures I announced this morning apply to all other inmates but not to convicted murderers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North on a supplementary and then see the hon. member for Rimouski and the hon. member for Skeena.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: So there will be no misunderstanding, will the temporary release program apply to people who have been convicted of murder and given life sentences?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, it can apply in certain cases. For example, section 26 of the Penitentiaries Act provides for release for medical reasons, with escort. We would have to be very explicit. If a man is in prison having been convicted of murder and he has to go to hospital he would be released on temporary absence, with escort, and would probably be there for some time. There are other cases we will have to deal with separately, especially temporary absence for rehabilitation reasons without escort. They will be dealt with in the committee when we deal with the capital punishment bill.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Following the publication of articles in some Quebec newspapers, particularly La Presse and Le Soleil, with respect to a report on regional development in the province of Quebec, Mr. Minister, is it your intention to release copies of that report to hon. members so they will know before the newspapers what is the situation with respect to the economy?


Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted once more to remind the hon. member, as I did the hon. member for Calgary North a while ago, that questions should be put through the Chair rather than directly to the minister.
Having made that procedural remark I suggest that the minister might reply to the hon. member's question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the documents to which the hon. gentleman referred are not, in fact, the papers that were submitted to the province. They are merely a set of working papers within the department. When the process of consultation with all ten provinces has been completed it is my intention to make the contents of our papers available.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a supplementary and he will be recognized, but we must try to limit supplementaries because we are reaching the end of the question period and I am still anxious to recognize the hon. member for Peel South.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As we are deeply interested in the department's policy with regard to the Quebec economy, would the minister assure us that he will enlighten the House, on motions, to clear up the confusion that exists in Quebec in this regard?



PENITENTIARIES


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. With respect to the appointment of a correctional investigator, would he be prepared to bring a motion before the House, which I am sure could be dealt with without debate, to refer that office and appointment to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee so that the members of that committee can have an opportunity to pass on the question?


William Warren Allmand: Well, I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I would consider that, but I do not really think that is necessary at this time. We have discussed the nature of ombudsmen offices in this country for years. This is a correctional ombudsman. I am willing to table the terms of reference, the order in council and so on, but I do not know whether we would accomplish very much by having further discussions in committee.



POSSIBILITY PROVINCIAL PAROLE BOARDS SHOULD BE


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In addition to the measures announced today, would the minister give immediate consideration to having provincial parole boards assume responsibility for paroles to inmates in provincial institutions, thereby reducing the backlog of cases before the National Parole Board?
June 1, 1973


William Warren Allmand: That is being considered, Mr. Speaker, and it is a possible agenda item for the federal-provincial conference on corrections in the fall. I might say if we get consent to the bill to add ten members to the board to serve in five regions of Canada, that will do a lot to prevent a backlog of cases before the Parole Board. It will also lead to the resumption of panel hearings and dealing with the increased workload for day paroles.



MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-DATE OF PRESENTATION OF BILL RESPECTING FINANCING-POSSIBILITY OF LIMITING DEBATE

Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Various authorities of the City of Montreal and the province of Quebec are concerned about the priority given by the government to the bill concerning the financing of the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal. Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House on what date this bill will be introduced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a specific date, but I can tell him that the cabinet has actually approved the final drafting of the bill. The bill is already drafted. There are a few printing and production problems to settle, but I think I am not far off in saying that we hope to have the first reading of this bill next week.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
To your knowledge, Mr. Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member not to follow the example set earlier this afternoon by other hon. members who put questions directly to ministers. It is a rule easy enough to follow and I beg the hon. members to direct their questions directly to the Chair.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether there has been agreement between the House leaders as to the time limit for the debate, so that this bill may be passed as soon as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I hope that when the bill is introduced in the House, there will be discussions between the various party leaders so as to reach an agreement with respect to the time limit for this debate, in order to pass the bill as soon as possible.
Oral Questions



HOUSING


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister confirm his statement in Toronto last week when he said it was not the cost of land that is pricing housing out of the market but the cost or shortage of serviced land?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have had sufficient difficulty recently in connection with asking questions in this way. Perhaps the hon. member might put the question more directly rather than asking the minister to confirm whether a statement was made.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Rephrasing the question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if it is the minister's view now that it is not the price of land but the shortage of services that is driving up the price of houses?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister oi State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I take it the hon. member is referring to a statement I made at the Peterborough tri-level meeting, which statement was very well received by the mayor and others from Toronto.


Gerald William Baldwin: You have been misinformed on that; more deception.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will be happy to send the text of the statement to the hon. member. As I recall the text, my statement was that obviously the cost of servicing land is one of the contributing factors to the increase in the price of housing and land, and that is why we have initiated a number of policies in this government to help deal with this problem.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Is the minister proposing to use money set aside for land banking now to get at the real problem, servicing, as set out by our party in debate on this matter throughout this session?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, I think we should be land banking as fast as the provinces are willing to take it up and use the very substantial budget we have established at the federal level. I have also indicated that I would like to explore additional ways of accelerating the laying down of trunk sewer services where land costs are a major problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin, then the hon. member for Edmonton Centre and then call orders of the day.

June 1, 1973
Oral Questions TRANSPORT



SHORTAGE OF BOXCARS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA- STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN CANADIAN NATIONAL AND BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House if any progress has been made in talks with the government of British Columbia with regard to the railroad system in that province, with particular emphasis on the shortage of boxcars and the need for a railway interchange in the Lillooet area?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister oi Transport):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been going on for months now between the CNR and the British Columbia railway and the government of British Columbia. I think they came to an understanding as far as the shortage of boxcars is concerned. As you know, there is an imbalance between Canadian cars in the United States and American cars in Canada. The railway companies are working hard on this so that we can recover our boxcars, but there is certainly a shortage and a serious problem.
* *
*



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence may I direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance for Tunisia has been in Canada to negotiate a loan, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether the loan to Tunisia has been completed and, if so, in what amount?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I cannot give an answer to the question. I am meeting the Minister of Trade and Commerce for Algeria if I can leave the House in a few minutes and it may be that I will meet some other gentleman, but we are obviously talking of different countries.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would just like to know if the Prime Minister can sign a cheque for over a million dollars?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. member is talking about the right country. There is a matter of a loan being discussed-but Algeria, Tunisia; who cares.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday May 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That this House,
(i)	aware that, as provided in the Official Languages Act, the English and French languages possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada;
cognizant that it is the duty of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to ensure, in accordance with that Act, that members of the public can obtain available services from and communicate with them in both official languages; while
recognizing that public servants should, as a general proposition and subject to the requirements of the Official Languages Act respecting the provision of services to the public, be able to carry out their duties in the Public Service of Canada in the official language of their choice;
do hereby recognize and approve the following Principles for achieving the foregoing:
(1)	that positions which are seen, under present circumstances, as requiring the knowledge and use of both the French and English languages will be first identified, and then designated, as bilingual in the course of the period ending December 31, 1978;
(2)	that positions will also be identified where English is an essential requirement of the job, where French is essential, or whether either French or English may be used;
(3)	that a knowledge of English and French is one of the elements of merit in the selection of candidates for bilingual positions;
(4)	that competitions for bilingual positions will be open both to bilingual candidates and unilingual candidates who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual;
(5)	that competitions for unilingual positions will continue to be open to unilingual or bilingual candidates who meet the language requirements of the job;
(6)	that unilingual incumbents of bilingual positions may elect to become bilingual and undertake language training, or transfer to another job having the same salary maximum, or, if they were to decline such a transfer, to remain in their position even though the posts have been designated as bilingual;
(7)	that employees who, as of April 6, 1966, had at least ten years of continuous service and who, since that date, have been employed continuously in the federal Public Service, will be entitled to apply for any job that has been identified for future designation as bilingual without having to indicate their willin-gess to become bilingual;
(8)	that unilingual French-speaking and English-speaking persons from outside the Public Service who are willing to become bilingual may apply for bilingual positions open to public competition;
(9)	that language training, at public expense, will be provided to unilingual public servants as well as to persons who are appointed to the Public Service to bilingual positions;
do further approve the Government of Canada, and, in particular, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, taking the measures required to give effect to the aforementioned Principles; and
June 1, 1973
[Stage Direction]
(ii) do further approve the taking of measures, after consultation with employee representatives, designed to produce a greater use of the French language at all levels in the Public Service, through increasing, where practical, the number of French Language Units, through further recruitment efforts by the Public Service Commission, through training programs offered in the French language and by developing proposals, in conjunction with the Governments of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to enhanced the bilingual character of the National Capital region, thus helping to realize the objective of achieving, within the merit principle, full participation in the Public Service by members of both the anglophone and the francophone communities.
And on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield, seconded by Mr. Baker,-That the motion be amended by adding to paragraph (i) thereof, next after the words, "taking the measures required to give effect to the aforementioned Principles", the following:
"and the Government of Canada, as a priority measure, introducing legislation to incorporate the aforementioned Principles in the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act and other appropriate statutes;"
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in moving this resolution, outlined the approach that this government is proposing to solve the problems that linguistic pluralism poses to Canada.
Canada is not, of course, the only country faced with the challenge of ensuring that two official languages do enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all government institutions. In Canada, Mr. Speaker, the passage of the Official Languages Act made this the law. It is part of this law that Canadians should be able to receive services from, and communicate with, their government in the official language of their choice. Why is this required? Quite simply to allow the 18 million Canadians who are unilingual to remain unilingual. That is the right of every Canadian. And that is why the Public Service which serves all Canadians must be able to provide its services in both English and French.
Faced with this responsibility, it is encouraging that most Canadians understand this need and the government, public servants and the staff associations which represent most employees are prepared to adopt the traditionally reasonable Canadian approach to solving this complex linguistic issue-an approach exemplified by the late respected former prime minister of Canada, Lester Pearson, who laid the foundations for bilingualism within the public service.


Mr. Peters:: It sure got screwed up.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Simply stated, Mr. Speaker, if the government and the Public Service of Canada cannot meet the needs of the country by providing services in both languages and, if the public service can not be a place where both language groups can work together, both in the language of their choice, then we will have indeed failed to find a solution to the problems that linguistic pluralism poses to Canada. The price of failure for Canada is too high and is one that, I am sure all members of this House will join me in saying, is unacceptable.
Official Languages

That is my concern as President of the Treasury Board and as the minister responsible for implementing bilingualism in the Public Service.
What is involved in the first part of the resolution under study dates back to December 14, 1972 when I made a statement setting forth the government policy on bilingualism in the Public Service of Canada, the principles underlying the implementation of that policy and its effects on all Canadian citizens whether they are public servants or not.
As I said before, the principles set forth in today's resolution follow from the government policy on official languages which, even if it is well known by some, might have been forgotten or misunderstood by others.

A public service for all Canadians whether they are members of the public or public servants: that short phrase summarizes the goal of the resolution. However, without a more sustained effort to produce a greater use of the French language at all levels in the public service, without good will and a conscious, constructive effort to achieve this objective, this country will find itself with a central institution, its public service, that has little or no meaning for a large number of its citizens. To ensure that the public service has the same meaning for French speaking Canadians as it has for English speaking Canadians, Mr. Speaker, is the objective of the second part of the resolution.
Unfortunately, the government's language policies have often been misunderstood. Misunderstanding seems to be endemic to this complex and often emotionally charged subject. This resolution apparently is no exception to the rule. Various interpretations have already been read into it by some members of the House and some members of the press. Before discussing in greater detail the substance of the resolution, I would like to make clear two points.
First, it is not the government's intention to increase the use of French-or English for that matter-at all levels in the public service in all parts of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I underline the words "in all parts of Canada". In the statement that I made in December, it will be seen that the development of a functionally bilingual public service that is providing equality of opportunity for public servants at all levels to work within the public service in either English or French-will essentially be limited to the national capital region, and other such areas where both official languages are in relatively common use, both in government offices and in the surrounding communities. Given today's geographical distribution of English and French speaking Canadians, these areas would presently include such places as Montreal, certain other parts of Quebec, parts of eastern and northern Ontario, and parts of northern and eastern New Brunswick. For most of Ontario, many areas in Quebec and in most of eastern and western Canada bilingualism will only be required to meet the provisions of the Official Languages Act; but in these areas it will not be required throughout the hierarchy of the public service. I want to make this quite clear.

June 1, 1973
Official Languages

I would like to make a few remarks about another matter. It concerns the realization, in the Public Service and within the scope of the merit concept, of the full participation of members of the anglophone and francophone communities. Certain people have seen in this objective the appearance of a quota system designed to increase the number of francophone public servants to about 28 per cent, which would represent the approximate percentage of French-speaking Canadians compared with the population of Canada. That is not the case.
The government intends to ensure wider use of French in the Public Service by increasing the number of French language units, by improving the recruiting effort of the Public Service Commission, by increasing the number of professional training and administration programs offered in French and, finally, through co-operation with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to enhance the bilingual aspect of the national capital area. I am convinced that when all those objectives will be realized, francophones will experience more satisfaction working in the Public Service of Canada, and that their number will increase. Thus, we will have attained our objective, which is to obtain the full participation of the English-and French-speaking communities.

If then one objective is to increase the use of French within the public service, the public service must in itself become functionally bilingual. Functional bilingualism is the expression best suited to describe the aims of the nine principles, Mr. Speaker. However, to avoid these words being misunderstood, I would like to outline for the House exactly what they mean.
More precisely, functional bilingualism in the public service means that the structures of the public service should provide those in it, and those who aspire to join it, with the opportunity of choosing freely to remain unilingual while still enjoying satisfying carriers or, in cases where bilingualism is required, by offering unilinguals the opportunity of becoming bilingual, not only, Mr. Speaker, to meet their job requirements but to provide them with the means to expand their personal horizons and appreciate more fully the bilingual nature of Canada. The main points of the plan are now in front of us. Their implementation requires the good will of individuals, the talents of managers, the support of staff associations, and, the approval of this parliament.
The policy of developing a functionally bilingual public service has been supported, I am sure, by most Canadians. But at the same time, apprehensions have been aroused, individually as well as collectively. Many Canadians, and particularly public servants, were concerned about the policy because the details as to how it would be implemented had not been developed and explained clearly enough. It was not that they disagreed with the policy, but each further step appeared to them to be nearing the moment when they would have to become bilingual. Such a misunderstanding gives rise to a fear that individuals' rights would be infringed, in the name of bilingualism; of a fear, also, that measures to achieve bilingualism would jeopardize the security of employment of many conscientious and dedicated public servants. These fears, shared
(Mr. Drury.]
by many English-speaking Canadians, should now be allayed.

If it is true that English-speaking Canadians felt somewhat apprehensive, the majority of French-speaking Canadians for their part had come to mistrust the bilingualism program because progress was slow, especially in the part of the program that consisted in making the higher echelons of the Public Service capable of efficiently supervising those who wanted to work in French. Each new measure gave them the impression of becoming increasingly involved in a situation which was strange to them. They feared that the use of French would be limited to bilingual positions, even if this was contrary to the principle of equal status and rights provided for in the Official Languages Act. To them, a bilingual person is first of all a French-speaking Canadian who can work in English! To them, the concept of functional bilingualism has been created to calm this fear and mistrust by increasing the use of French as a working language to the same extent as English in the Public Service. This, Mr. Speaker,-I repeat once again-in some regions of Canada where the two language groups are significantly represented.
The government looks to the principles on bilingualism in the public service as an important milestone in the implementation of the policy on official languages; in direct continuity with the statement by the late Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson in 1966; with the Official Languages Act of 1969, which received the support of all parties in this House and with the statement of the Prime Minister in 1970 relating to Book III of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Nevertheless, as indicated in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the present session, the government feels that the House should be given the opportunity of expressing its views with the purpose of achieving a consensus on the principles.
I am pleased to inform the House that the staff associations of the public service were continuously consulted from the date of my announcement of the principles with regard to the development of the Treasury Board guidelines that give administrative application to the principles.
I would like to make special mention of the forum in which these consultations took place, the National Joint Council. The achievements of this unique organization are too numerous to enumerate here. Members of both sides of this House interested in the subject of staff relations in the public service are well acquainted with them. I would merely wish for the record to state my own satisfaction with the manner in which the National Joint Council rose to the occasion of ensuring effective consultation on this most complex and potentially divisive subject. A permanent committee of the National Joint Council will be established to provide a continuing forum for consultation on official language matters.
The guidelines on the language requirements of positions, as they now stand ready to be circulated by the Secretary of the Treasury Board, bring to the principles
June 1, 1973

only greater precision of detail with regard to the timetable of their implementation, the sectors and areas of application, the specific procedures protecting the jobs and careers of unilingual employees, the necessary mechanism of on-going consultation with the parties concerned and the setting of priorities for access to language training.
The first two principles cover the identification of the language requirements of all jobs in the public service. Principles three, four and five relate to the procedures for staffing positions in the public service with respect to language requirements. The last four principles cover the entitlement of individuals.
No one principle in those nine is more important than another, Mr. Speaker, and all are inseparable from the notion of a public service for all Canadians. In the resolution before you, the principles are derived from two fundamentals: first, Canadians should be able to receive service from, and to communicate with, the federal government in either English or French, whichever is the language of their choice. Second, Canadians who work for the Government of Canada should be able, as a general rule, to work in the language of their choice.

It is interesting to note that although most Canadians have supported these proposals there was a clearly divided reaction to implementation policies. Some Frenchspeaking Canadians considered those policies as slowing down efforts to create a functionally bilingual Public Service; although many English-speaking Canadians reacted favourably in view of the fact that the proposals supplied the clarification and the guarantees they wanted, some felt that implementation of bilingualism should be postponed for some three years. I believe that all those who felt that the policies would slow down or delay creation of a bilingual Public Service were mistaken since instead of considering the policies as a whole they considered them in isolation. Let me clarify this point.

I would like to make a clear distinction in the difference between the 1975 target percentages for bilingual employees for each occupational category, first proposed by the Public Service Commission and subsequently confirmed in the management objectives for bilingualism in the public service which I announced before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates in March 1971, and the 1978 deadline for designation of bilingual positions. Far from being one other change, this process will mark an important turning point; accelerating previous efforts to achieve a proper form of functional bilingualism in the Public Service of Canada.
The 1975 figure refers to numbers of people in each occupational category who should be bilingual by 1975, irrespective of whether they are in positions that require bilingualism. The 1978 date refers to positions that require knowledge of both official languages and that should generally be filled by that date by bilingual persons. Using the executive category as an example, the 1975 target called for 60 per cent of those in that category to become bilingual; the 1978 deadline will require 90 per cent of the positions to be occupied by bilinguals, a somewhat different picture and hardly a slowing down of our efforts. I
Official Languages
should add, however, that the same increase in the number of those who will be required to become bilingual will not occur in other categories. The effect on the executive category is strongly influenced by the fact that most of these positions are in Ottawa. Why then the 1978 target date for the designation of bilingual positions? The answer is critical to the issue in point.
The 1975 targets aimed at achieving a pool of bilingual individuals, irrespective of the language requirement of their jobs. This posed a management problem in so far as it made it difficult to evaluate the benefit language training was bringing the public service in its day-to-day bilingual profile. After two years of closely monitoring bilingualism, the conclusion became clear. The successful achievement of the targets for 1975 would not induce or guarantee the realization of the complete list of all 11 objectives for bilingualism in the public service which I outlined to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates in March 1971. The successful development of bilingual skills in individuals does not lead to the achievement of a functionally bilingual public service. This development must be related to jobs where these skills are required and can be used.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Before we adjourned for lunch, Mr. Speaker, I was outlining the problem caused as a result of the earlier endeavour to introduce bilingualism by looking at groups of people rather than at institutions. Having discerned the difficulties into which this approach led us, I am now prepared to suggest that a more effective approach has been to identify precisely the positions in which bilingualism is required and the date by which these positions will be filled by bilingual persons, always recognizing, of course, the entitlement offered to employees under the nine principles. This is why the government looks upon these arrangements as a furthering of established policies rather than as a departure from them.

Although some French-speaking Canadians felt at first that the nine principles benefited English-speaking Canadians more, their apprehension is understandable. English-speaking Canadians have only been considering the establishment of a bilingual public service for a few years; French-speaking Canadians have been aware of its lack for more than 100 years. Some French Canadians aimed their criticism at the protection enjoyed by unilingual civil servants, stating that our decision to that effect would impede the implementation of bilingualism.
Such an attitude, Mr. Speaker, ignores too many essential factors. It takes for granted that the unilinguals involved are exclusively English-speaking; that they systematically reject the possibility of acquiring second-lan-
4350

June 1, 1973
Official Languages
guage skills; that if they could not or would not become bilingual they would refuse a transfer to another position. That is completely false, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that such an attitude only creates dissent. The principles announced, including principle No. 6, were developed for all Canadians, for all public servants, whether English- or French-speaking.
Of course the number of unilingual public servants who are Anglophones is by far greater than the number of those who are Francophones. But such a disproportion is drastically reduced when considering only those areas of the Public Service where bilingualism is a foreseeable or established need. The government feels that members of both groups are entitled to job security in case of inability or refusal to become bilingual in recognition of newly recognized linguistic requirements for the position they occupy.
Furthermore, 1 for one am not prepared to question the integrity or the good will of public servants, or to presume, as some have done, that a majority or even a substantial number of unilinguals will reject the possibility offered them of becoming bilingual under the most favourable conditions. When such situations occur, departments and agencies will receive the required funds from the Treasury Board to take alternative administrative action in order to satisfy linguistic requirements.

In certain cases, the price of ensuring linguistic equality in the public service may indeed result in some additional positions being provided. However, I expect more often than not in such cases the option of a job transfer will be satisfying or even attractive to the employees, thus eliminating the need for alternative administrative arrangements.
We are determined that the development of bilingualism in the public service will be the product of evolution. The government acknowledges that such evolution is achieved at the cost of considerable outlays, of goodwill and of individual effort. The tempo of change we seek is based on our readiness to rely on the goodwill of the men and women who make up the public service of Canada, the staff associations, this government and members of parliament.
I should like to say that the support of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission to these principles and guidelines was indispensable to their successful development. The Public Service Commission has taken on a demanding task ranging from the determination of language proficiency levels required for individual positions, the administration of the merit principle in respect of appointments as required by the Public Service Employment Act, the reorganization of language schools so as to provide for continuous language training, to the hearing of appeals against the improper determination of the language requirements of positions.
The most notable development, however, touches on the subject of competitions for the minority of public service jobs which will be designated as bilingual. In order not to prevent Canadians from getting into the service of their country through lack of a language skill, which they may

not have had the opportunity to acquire, unilingual English or French-speaking Canadians will be allowed to compete for bilingual positions if they have indicated their willingness to become bilingual. The Public Service Commission has extended such an advantage to present employees of the government as well as to new entrants, Mr. Speaker. Such candidates judged successful in respect of job requirements other than second-language skills will be given immediate access to continuous language training, at the completion of which they will be confirmed in their positions. Candidates unsuccessful in language training will also be provided with an opportunity for a review of their ability in the second language. In the event that they are unable to acquire the necessary level of bilingual ability, they will be given an equivalent unilingual job with no loss of earnings.
The Treasury Board's contribution with regard to these procedures will be to provide the parties with the means to replace those on language training and to ensure that positions are available for those who may be unsuccessful in language training. The Treasury Board will also be responsible for co-ordinating and monitoring the complex administrative task of implementing the guidelines.
The resolution before you, Mr. Speaker, does not spell out the timetable for the implementation of the nine principles; and I would like to explain this further.
The first step, known as the identification of positions requiring the knowledge and use of both French and English, will be completed by December 31 of this year, although we will be pressed to achieve this. The list of those positions, to be prepared by the departments and agencies, will be reviewed by the Treasury Board and with the staff associations.
The formal designation of positions as "bilingual" will follow the identification step by 15 months, and thus be effected progressively from April 1, 1975 to the end of 1978. Employees, will, therefore, have at least 15 months notice of the effective date of designation of the positions they occupy. Prior to the designation taking effect, unilingual persons in these positions will be able to take language training of up to 12 months at public expense.
After the identification of bilingual positions, the language requirements of all other positions in the public service will be listed on the following basis: English essential, French essential, or optional use of French or English.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the principle that entitled long-service employees, those with 10 years continuous service in 1966 when Mr. Pearson addressed this House on the same issue, to have access without second-language skills to positions identified as bilingual. The Prime Minister in his address, has commented at length on the fulfilling of the commitments made to public servants by Mr. Pearson.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should also point out that the Public Service Commission has for some time been hearing appeals against the language requirements of any position at the time that a selection process is taking place to fill vacant positions; whether unilingual or bilingual. This appeal route will be an added preventative to incorrect identification of the language requirements of the
June 1, 1973

position as well as against the incorrect assignment of the level of language competence required.
One element absent from the government's program on official languages is compulsion; its only excess, in the eyes of some, is compassion. If these are faults, Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to bear with them. For no person now in the employment of the Public Service of Canada will be compelled to become bilingual. On the contrary, as I have previously emphasized, the government's policy is intended to allow those who wish to remain unilingual to do so. I am sure, however, that the opportunities given to become bilingual will commend themselves to public servants and all Canadians.
The implementation of these principles and the adoption of this resolution is an invitation; an invitation to public servants, an invitation to staff associations, an invitation to all Canadians and, Sir, an invitation to the representatives of all Canadians in this House, to give unqualified support to the implementation of a policy first put to this House by Prime Minister Pearson, and so heartily endorsed by the leaders of all parties in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, deep down I am convinced that we are now writing a page in history of which our fellow-citizens and future generations will either be critical or proud, depending on whether we have acted with prejudice or foresight.
I shall support wholeheartedly the amendment of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the motion before the House, all the more so because the last part of it deals with the crying need to attract more Francophones to the Public Service and give them more recognition.
I sincerely hope that the present debate will continue in the same non partisan vein as the first interventions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis).
The linguistic challenge made by Canada, I accept and, like so many others, I intend to act upon it actively.
I want to place myself well above emotional considerations, on the level of facts and needs.
Even now in 1973, the situation of bilingualism in the Public Service, statistics on the subject, everything prompts us to speak on this motion in terms of justice.
As eloquent, I was about to say sadly eloquent as those figures maybe which were conveyed to us in answer to the relevant questions asked by our colleagues of the Social Credit Party, or again following the publication of the second annual report of the official languages commissioner, how much more specific and more striking, Mr. Speaker, would they not be if we could refer today to the famed and long awaited Coulombe report on the efficiency of the bilingualism programs in the Public Service.
Official Languages
By the way, I should like to urge all my colleagues in this House to join me in requesting the publication of that report without delay.
This synthetic report should not be reserved for the sole use of the government. That this tool cannot be used as a source of information during our proceedings is surely inexplicable and therefore shameful.
I hope that the Fox report on the creation of bilingual districts, whose publication is scheduled for the fall of 1973, will be make public sooner.
If there is an area where we must not fear to face the facts, however hard they may seem to some people, it is that of our two official languages, in other words, linguistic justice.
Some recent data-I shall mention two for the consideration of my colleagues-show that in 1971, out of 66,675 positions "called" by the Public Service Commission and by federal departments, only about 8 per cent required a unilingual French-speaking incumbent, while approximately 80 per cent, that is ten times more, required English only.
Here is now another statistics, one among many which discloses the unfair situation in which French-speaking Canadians find themselves: in 1972, contrary to the recommendations of the 1962 Dion report, only 12 per cent of high officials were French-speaking and half of them only were from Quebec.
Therefore it is on the basis of those facts and many others and in view of the challenge that Parliament, I insist Parliament, accepted in July 1969 with the adoption of the Official Languages Act, that all fair-minded people should talk about bilingualism in Public Service.
Yet in all fairness and realistically, we must be concerned with the only and real purpose of the law, namely the equality of the French and English languages in the federal government with the specific purpose of providing the Canadian public whenever possible and the need warrants it with federal services in both official languages; moreover, we must as much as possible allow all federal employees to work with language of their choice, usually their mother tongue.
Then we can talk about institutional bilingualism relations with the public, and working language in federal institutions.
Consequently, if we want the words justice, equity and equality to mean something, all of us we must take effective steps in the recruiting and promotion of federal employees particularly those who are likely to deal with the public. For the same reasons, and if need be in other ciecumstances and places, we will also have to make sure that many of the recommendations and suggestions of the official languages Commissioner will be followed up.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, in our studies and even when dealing with legislation, let us keep these considerations in mind. Let us not be distracted by untruths, by false pretences or still by extremes in our way or the other.
In order to do useful work in this essential field so urgent for the future of Canada, let us not, for pity's sake,
26314-58i

June 1, 1973
Official Languages
get all confused and mislead the Canadian public, plunging it also into confusion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the reality of mul-ticulturalism. It is desirable no doubt to encourage and preserve the various cultures which make our Canadian society more valuable. But let us not get confused making them all equal. Canada will and must continue to have two prevailing cultures, and we know which ones; they are part and parcel of our Canadian heritage. And along with my colleagues, here, I have regard for the culture of each of the ethnic groups in this country. I say what a rich cultural contribution to the real Canadian mosaic that is ours! And a moral and financial endeavour on the part of the state should recognize that situation without altering for all that the already precarious balance of the Canadian challenge.
Mr. Speaker, I am all the more at ease to say so since the first member for the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe in this House was a Polish immigrant, the Hon. Edward Kierzkowsi. It was an almost wholly French-Canadian population that elected him as their member as early as 1867, and one can see that long before today Saint-Hyacinthe was proud of accepting people from outside who soon sank their roots deep into Canadian soil.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House, in the name of justice itself, should arouse and command unanimous assent.
That being said, I shall repeat my words of last December 15, on the day after the Treasury Board communique was published, dealing with nine new official language policy principles in the Public Service.
The position announced then was-and I am well aware of the terms I am using-a step backward from the objectives of the legislation passed in 1969, a backward movement that others have more justly described as strategic withdrawal. It was a backward movement first as to the expiring date. The expiring date of the identification of bilingual positions was the end of December 1973. As to the period for appointments to such positions, it was to extend until December 1978. It was a withdrawal also as to the territory concerned. We are not thinking anymore of Canada as a whole but of Quebec and certain areas in Ontario and New Brunswick. Moreover, they did not want to give the exact percentage or the number of public servants who could hold senior positions or others of bilingual character. And especially, a consequence that could lead some people to cynicism, they did little to encourage Quebecers, far from it, to contribute in a greater number to the enrichment of the federal Public Service.
In fact, however, one must admit that the administrative measures of December 14 last-perhaps because they have been made more complete in the resolution before the House by specific clauses in respect to French-speaking people-serve-and such may be their advantage-as a criterion for measuring the extent, the depth of the problem, and the seriousness of the real challenge facing us.
Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate here the impatience of our colleagues of the Social Credit Party, I cannot agree with their approach to this problem. By its very

nature, the amendment they have proposed but which has not yet been adopted, deviates from the legislator's original design and distorts and by-passes the true objective of the Official Languages Act in Canada. To concur with this amendment would be to go against what they had in mind and transform, through a parallel public service, French-Canadians into second class citizens.
I, for one, believe that this motion as a whole, in its present form, exemplifies the challenge facing us. It is very significant and reflects, as it should, the philosophy and the strategy of the intended bilingualism; and this is the purpose of our amendment once incorporated into the Official Languages Act, to enforce this legislation and ensure the protection of all civil servants' rights and the possible recourse to the courts, in cases of infringements of the act; because, if certain resolutions may leave some hon. members unmoved, no one, and no government, :s above the law. Our respect for linguistic rights urges us to engrave them in an authentical legal instrument.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier of the differentiation that must be made between the philosophy of bilingualism and a bilingual strategy for a public service. There are few in this House who would differ on the issue of the principle of bilingualism and its desirability. Where the differences emerge is on the question of strategy. From the point of view of either the English or French Canadians, it is clear that the strategy of the existing government has simply not been successful. The Language Commissioner has said that progress in the area of opening up access to the public service to French Canadians has not been rapid enough. Figures put before the standing committee of this House a couple of weeks ago by the Language Commissioner indicate that more than 70 per cent of those complaints looked into by the Commissioner came from public servants who have French as their mother tongue.
It is clear that both English and French public servants have had ample cause for dissatisfaction and unease. That is why my party takes the view that, as a parliament, we must move to enshrine in law the nine points put forward in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) resolution as well as that portion of the resolution that is a firm commitment to rectifying the imbalance in the public service and recruiting where possible public servants from our Francophone community.
The initial speaker for the Creditistes said that we should deal with the realities of Canada and see things as they are. I imagine that the fundamental reality of Canada is that there are in our society, as in any other, those who have little patience and no tolerance. Whether we speak of a mayor in one province or a party leader in another, intolerance supported from a public office is a sin of unmentionable magnitude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: It was my privilege to serve in the government of a province where the minority happen to be English speaking. Having been involved in the administration of justice at all levels, I might say that I am particularly hurt and shocked by the views expressed by one
June 1, 1973

political leader to the effect that only French should be used in the courts of Quebec. That is the type of suggestion that flies in the face of everything this land is supposed to stand for, and it is the type of suggestion that indicates how important this debate is and can be. Yet, to be frank, many provinces with French speaking minorities have not progressed as far as Quebec with reference to its attitude toward its English speaking population.
I say quite candidly that the report issued by the French Canadian Association here in Ontario must be disturbing to all men and women of decency. In a nutshell, the reports indicate that earning opportunity is limited for Franco-Ontarian families when compared with other Ontario citizens. Surely if this were true, this would be the type of de facto economic discrimination that Canada could do without. If bilingualism is to work, it must be the product of not only faith, of which the Prime Minister spoke, but also of trust. The resolution proposed by the government relates to the issue of faith. Indeed, it constitutes an affirmation of faith by this House. The amendment put forward by my leader makes this resolution an instrument of trust. I beseech my colleagues on all sides of the House to make use of that instrument.
This position being established, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely wish with so many others that by the end of this debate, the primary intention of the 1969 Parliamentarians will come out clearly, firmly and neatly. Let the whole federal Public service and the 150 federal agencies realize the urgency of making bilingualism a reality within the federal Public Service. Let all Parliamentarians-all of us- realize the importance of their role before the Canadian public in this respect. All of us, from all political parties, must buy 100 per cent in order to sell 100 per cent the objective of the Official Languages Act. Let provincial governments, various agencies throughout the country, private firms, be more and more aware of their social role, as Mr. Keith Spicer so rightly put it, and let them follow suit. The final solution to the problem of bilingualism-and this will never be said enough-cannot come from the Parliament of Canada alone.
As for myself, further to the remarks that I am making today, I intend actually to become the apostle of bilingualism. More specifically, I shall see to it that in this Parliament the objective of the Act is respected.
As a Quebecker, I shall also see to it that Quebeckers, and generally French-speaking Canadians, be served in good French. Along with others, I do not want, for instance, that our French-speaking farmers be wronged- even only temporarily-in their rights and their dues, because of badly filled out forms, which were worded in poor French;
Furthermore, in due time, I intend to deal with, the comments made by the Commissioner to the official languages, concerning bilingualism within the External Affairs Department. The image of Canada as a bilingual country, must stand out throughout the world.
Finally, within my party if need be, I intend to be consistent as my remarks will show. And at this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like once again to a pay another tribute
Official Languages
to Leader of the Official Opposition for his stand concerning this motion, and for his commendable efforts, which are already paying off, to master the French language.
In closing, I join with Mr. Keith Spicer is saying:
Plainly, departments and agencies must find more room for unilingual French-speaking Canadians, or the vicious circle of low French-language recruitment and few federal opportunities to work in French will go on forever. Easy slogans can neither solve nor disguise this problem. The Commissioner hopes that the Government will move quickly to find policies on linguistic work rights, on administrative settings where French-speaking Canadians feel at home, and on more balanced opportunities in recruitment. All these, and nothing less, can make the Official Languages Act the instrument of full linguistic equality which Parliament intended.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to borrow these words from the founder of the Jeunesse ouvriere catholique cana-dienne, and say to you, by changing his words a little: Canada will end in triumph or in disaster.
It depends on you, it depends on me, but you and I, can change the course of history.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, it was only a few weeks ago that we were debating a resolution on this question presented by the members of the Social Credit party. Those of us who spoke at that time will find ourselves more or less forced to repeat some of the things we said then. I used to worry about this matter of repeating one's self. As a matter of fact, I come from a profession where repeating one's self was a necessity, but now I discover I am in one where repeating one's self is a virtue, and so I will not hesitate to go over a few of the points I made at that time and to add a few new ones, particularly on matters that have come to light and to consideration under this particular resolution.
The other week I made some point about the importance of making distinctions in this very important question, and I am glad to report what I am sure many members have noticed over the past few years, that we have all learned more about the matter that is before us as the years have gone by and as our deliberations have become more informed and more searching. I would ask members of the House to remember the days in 1963-64 when the debate on bilingualism and biculturalism, as it was called then, began in earnest, and to recall some of the terminology we used to try to describe for our own understanding the state of affairs that existed in Canada, and to try to describe the goals we would seek to achieve. If we were to go back to those documents, indeed to the statement Prime Minister Pearson made on the day he announced the establishment of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, we would see that we have come a long way. Some of the terminology we used in the past we would now find totally inadequate. Indeed, in this process we may note that our learning process had accelerated in the past four or five years.
I could not help but listen yesterday to the remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and compare them with the remarks he made a few years ago. I listened to his use of the terms that are so important in this great national debate. In his speech yesterday, he was very careful to limit the debate on this point to the application and working out of the Official Languages

June 1, 1973
Official Languages
Act in the Public Service of Canada. I would quote a phrase or two referring to this resolution and its status among other matters facing this House. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
The throne speech has proposed measures to improve urban life, and to widen opportunities for western Canadians; to deal with many economic and regional expansion problems; and with what some call "the language problem". They are all on our agenda for this session; we will deal with them all with equal vigour.
In a later passage, making more or less the same point the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, language policy is not an idee fixe with this government; it is one of the means toward our two pre-eminent goals, national unity, and equality of opportunity.
Here, I stress the Prime Minister's words:
... it is one of the means toward our two pre-eminent goals, national unity, and equality of opportunity.
"one of the means", Mr. Speaker. A few years ago the intimation might have been different. It might have been that it was the primordial means, and not only the primordial means, but a sufficient means toward the goal of national unity. I continue to quote from the Prime Minister's address:
To a Quebecker a more desirable Canada may vitally depend on respect for language rights. To a westerner more interest may currently attach to whether this government and their own provincial premiers make real progress at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. In many parts of the country millions of Canadians will judge their government less by the language it speaks than by whether it provides equity and compassion in our social welfare system, or new ideas and resources to help keep urban life liveable and urban government workable.
Can all these needs be understood and tackled together, Mr. Speaker? I think they can-
That is the end of the citation from the Prime Minister's address. I have gone over these two passages very carefully because to me they signal an important change in attitude and outlook. I will not venture to say a change of mind or change of idea, but a change of attitude which allows the Prime Minister and his government to place the Official Languages Act and its application in its proper context.
Let me continue on this matter of distinctions. It is now realized that we are not to equate the Official Languages Act and its provisions and its carrying out, with bilingualism in this country; they are not the same thing. Nor should we equate the Official Languages Act and its provisions with the establishment, maintenance and preservation of national unity in this country; they are not the same thing. To use a classical, logical distinction, Mr. Speaker, which I think is very important in this case, I believe we could say that the proper application, the generous application of the Official Languages Act and its provisions ensures a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition, for the maintenance of national unity.
This distinction is an extremely important one because in the past many Canadians both inside this House and outside this House have heard remarks to the effect that the application of the Official Languages Act, essentially the sine qua non for national unity, is the approach which would establish and develop national unity. There was

always a suggested corollary to this kind of statement, and it was that any criticisms of the Official Languages Act and its application was tantamount to disloyalty-not disloyalty to a party or disloyalty to a government but disloyalty to an idea, the idea of Canada. We have come a long way, Mr. Speaker, since those days of 1968, a very long way because now, as members of this House, we can feel that we can stand up and criticize the specific application of the Official Languages Act, criticize the progress or lack of progress of bilingualism and language opportunity in the civil service, criticize the very proposals put forward by the government this day without feeling we are in any way disloyal. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that is a very large measure of progress.
I feel that is important for myself, among many others, because in many ways I am not satisfied with the state of affairs in the public service, with the state of bilingualism in Canada, with the Official Languages Act or with its application. Later in my remarks I propose to make some very specific comments to that end. Let me repeat that I, as a Canadian, appreciate the fact that I can finally stand up and state my case without there being any intimation whatsoever that I am somehow being disloyal because I do not agree with an act proposed by a specific government at a specific time in the history of my nation.
Basically, my feeling about the Official Languages Act, Mr. Speaker, a feeling which is shared by many of my party and many people out in the country, is that this act is the least we can do with respect to the bilingual nature of our country. If we did less we would lapse into insensitivity and niggardliness. There may be defects in the act, and there may be defects in the application of the act, but at the very least it provides us with an earnest of our intention and this intention is to bring about language equality in the public service. Note, Mr. Speaker, I do not say equality of opportunity for language equality in the public service because I certainly distinguish my position and that of my party. I hope, from that of the Prime Minister on that point. The Prime Minister is after all, and he has not been hiding the fact these last several years, a liberal. I use that word with the small "1", Mr. Speaker; he is even a big "L" Liberal but I am now talking about the fact that he is a small "1" liberal and, therefore, it should not be surprising to any of us that he should speak as a liberal.
I come back to the phrase I repeated a short time ago- "our two pre-eminent goals, national unity and equality of opportunity". These are not my goals, Mr. Speaker. My goals would ring a little more like those of national unity or, preferably, national solidarity but I will not quibble over those two words today-national unity and equality of condition. The words "equality of opportunity" make the Prime Minister a liberal and the words "equality of condition" make me a socialist. That is fine; we understand the distinction. It is clear. I appreciate, of course, the Liberal position. I think I even understand it. As a matter of fact, I understand it so well that I understand its internal contradictions. I remember that a few years ago, in 1968, there was a contest for the leadership of the Liberal party. The person who is now Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was one of the candidates. He epitomized the Liberal position in his address to the convention when he said, "We Liberals do not believe that everybody should
June 1, 1973

end the same, but we believe that everybody should start the same."
He got a huge round of applause, as well he should from the Liberal crowd because he was speaking the very essence of Liberal philosophy-equality of opportunity. Of course, neither he nor anybody else in that room seemed aware of the obvious contradiction inherent in that statement, which was this: how can everybody start the same-we all start as children-unless everybody else more or less ends the same? After all, the people who have children are parents. I do not think you could ever sort it out, but more people are beginning to ponder this assertion.
At any rate, it should not surprise us that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should translate this touchstone of Liberal philosophy into the whole question of language equality in Canada and, specifically, language opportunity in Canada. All the measures that flow from this basic premise, this basic outlook are founded on this approach which is based on opportunity. That is why, of course, I find them insufficient. I will come back to that later.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the House other distinctions because there are, as I said before, extremely important distinctions to be made here. [Translation]
When I looked a little closer at what was suggested in the resolution before us, I found it wanting in some respects. In a sense, I agree with this resolution, but in another I say not only that such a resolution is a step backward, as it is claimed in certain parts of the country, but that it is ill-timed. How? Inasmuch as it fails to suggest any aims, objectives which will eventually give us what this resolution is striving for, namely linguistic equality in the public service.
From experience, I know very well, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible for us to urge people to do this and that, to act in a certain way but if we keep on urging without acting, we remain at a standstill; like preachers in the pulpit, we are urging the faithful to behave in a certain way, because at the end there is the eternal paradise, and not the alternative which I shall not mention here today.
I am coming to this, Mr. Speaker:

Somebody said, "The other place". I am referring to the other other place, Mr. Speaker.

I am coming back to this: If we want to establish on a sound basis equal language rights in the Public Service, we will have to tackle directly and eagerly the problem of recruiting, because if we simply play with the rules before us, we will never achieve anything, or it will be too late.
I would like to talk again about this issue of recruiting in a moment, when I deal with other differences, as I promised a few moments ago.
However, first of all, I would like to touch on another aspect of this issue of bilingualism. Although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said yesterday that we would deal specifically with the resolution on official languages
Official Languages
today, we should never ignore the fact that because we are here in Ottawa, in this parliament or in the public service of Canada, we are not separated from the rest of the country. There are certain facts to be recognized, to say the least, Mr. Speaker, that are a little disturbing. I have already acknowledged them, but I think it is important to reiterate them and draw the attention of parliamentarians to them.
It may be possible for us today to promote bilingualism gradually within the public service, but the fact is that in Canada, we are going backwards.
A few years ago, our fellow citizens were proposed this objective of a bilingual country, of a country where not only everybody could feel at home, where not only every citizen would be entitled to live and act in the language of his or her choice and only in that language, if he or she only spoke one, if, as the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson and the Prime Minister had suggested strongly in their statements, we had established an objective in order to come one of these days to a situation in which a large number of Canadians might be personally bilingual. And I do not speak of institutional bilingualism but I say "personally bilingual".
I myself have always believed that this is a real objective, but I must admit that we do not take throughout this country measures which will enable us to achieve it. On the contrary, we are moving backwards. I quoted a few figures recently and I will quote them again because they are very important.
Throughout Canada, especially in English Canada, one can see that the number of students learning a second language in our schools is gradually decreasing and there are reasons for it, Mr. Speaker. A few years ago, university authorities decided that it was no longer necessary for students requesting admission to universities, to be able to speak, read or write a second language. And all universities, one after the other, dropped this requirement. Finally, high schools, Departments of Education in most provinces also dropped this requirement at the secondary level.
Let us see what is happening in Canada! In 1970-71, of all the young people who could have taken courses in French or another language except English, in English Canadian schools, only 55.7 per cent took such courses. And now, in 1972-73, that percentage has gone down to 47 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that percentage will still be more dreadful next year, because I know that in my province of Ontario, now there is a rule that says that no student needs to take a second language to graduate from a secondary school.
In a sense, Mr. Speaker, "the Ship of State" is becoming bilingual. The process is slow but sure, and our ship is moving landwards rather than seawards.
And although it ploughs through the waters, it is slipping back, running a ground. We are not going forward, Mr. Speaker, but backwards. First, it is important to know that if we are to consider this resolution, we must not debate it apart from the facts existing in our country.

June 1, 1973
Official Languages

I made this point before. I said at the beginning of my remarks that it was necessary to repeat, so I will make the point again. Even with proper and total discussion of this act, and proper and total application of the rules, or even amending to the best possible extent all the items coming under this act, we will not solve the problem that is facing our nation.
Two centuries ago the famous author, Jonathan Swift, wrote a book entitled "Gulliver's Travels." In the third volume of that book he described the island of Laputa. I recommend the reading of that book by hon. members. On the island of Laputa there were some disinterested, extremely rational beings who debated at great length, in the most logical fashion, what they thought was the order of reality. However, these beings, who were supposed to be the rulers or governors of the country below, were floating out of sight and out of mind. This is why I stress the importance of the related issue before us. This is why I ask members of the government as well as the other members of this House to reconsider certain policies or lack of policy.
I ask the members of the government, particularly those who have to deal with post-secondary financing, to address themselves to the problem of second language requirement for university entrance. After all, this used to exist universally in Canada some ten years ago and it should be possible for the federal authorities, sitting in consultation with the provincial authorities and in confrontation-I use that word advisedly-with the university authorities in this country to say to them, "we wish to restore this requirement. We wish to see inscribed in the rules for admission to our universities the fact that a student should be able to present evidence of achievement in a second language."
I am not even going to suggest a specific language. Let us just leave it at a second language. I believe-indeed, I happen to know-that in English Canada the second language for most students would be French. They are not fools. They know the importance of French in this country. They know the value and importance of the French language in literature and history. They will choose French. However, if you insist that they choose French you will run into the impossible argument of somebody saying, "Why not Italian?"-and you will spend the next ten years discussing that; the country will have run another ten years toward the other place I referred to a while ago.
When the ministers of this government who are in charge of the policies that have to do with the provision of funds to the provinces for the encouragement of bilingualism-and we have been spending quite a bit of money in this area over the past couple of years, and propose to spend more-consult the provinces, they should insist that these moneys indeed go for the purposes of furthering bilingualism, innovation in teaching the second language, and not simply for the purpose of supporting programs which already exist. Otherwise we will have figures like the ones I am now going to quote back to haunt us every year.
In Ontario, in 1970-71, out of the total number of students enrolled in high schools and capable of studying

French, 47.5 per cent were studying French. I do not mean studying French in every year of high school. These figures tell us they studied it once, took one course. This figure of 47.5 per cent is good compared to the figure for 1972-73: it has now dropped to 39.4 per cent. What we are looking at here is part of an accelerated downward progression.
If I cannot get my point across by quoting figures, perhaps I can symbolize it by referring to something which has struck me over the years. We live in a bilingual country. One institution in this country is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has two parts: in English Canada we know it as the CBC, and in French Canada as Radio Canada. I have admired and respected this corporation over the years, but one thing that burns me is the simple fact that on the news programs even the most highly qualified announcers can rarely pronounce a French Canadian name correctly.
It may seem like a small point, but I have seen the CBC pay a lot of attention to the accurate pronunciation of names of people from very far away. I have admired them. I could never pronounce those names accurately. I say to myself that somebody must be doing research. More important, there is somebody who is concerned. However, when I listen to the horrible mangling of names of people who live in this country, I say to myself that there cannot be anybody there who is concerned. You can have theoretical concern, but if it has no practical consequence you might as well not have it. I do not mean to single out the CBC for criticism; I just use them to underline a point.
I will end this part of my remarks with a brief quotation from the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. He states in his report:
From our observation post we definitely do not have the impression that the cause of bilingualism is advancing with giant steps.
The statement drips with irony. It is a very serious accusation. How can we advance the progress of bieultur-alism or language equality, in the civil service at least? I began my remarks by dealing specifically with the resolution before us and advancing some considerations which should be brought to its application. A while ago I was thinking about the important difference between equality of opportunity and equality of condition. I happen to believe we shall only achieve language equality in the civil service when we adopt the second statement, equality of condition, as our fundamental working premise. The first speaker for the Social Credit party said the principle ought to be "celle de la participation."

-that of participation. As I stated two weeks ago, I disagree with the policy which he specifically advocates, but I recognize the importance of the principle he lends to that policy which is the following. As long as we do not give full support to the idea of participation which will make us concentrate on recruitment, we will never attain linguistic equality in the Civil Service.
I would like to recall, Mr. Speaker, the promise made by the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson in 1966 and I quote:
June 1, 1973

In the recruitment and training of its members, the Civil Service must reflect the cultural and linguistic values of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians.
I know quite well that it is a rather comprehensive statement, but still it contains a very important principle.
We note that he is trying to stress two ideas, two things: recruitment and training of civil servants.

So until we come to a full realization that we need to establish something like quotas, and pursue these quotas actively, we shall find ourselves snared year after year by the task of trying to work out linguistic equality using means which simply will not work: means, moreover, which will greatly exacerbate feelings on both sides. We were given an indication yesterday by the Prime Minister, that we do not have all the time in the world in which to solve this problem. So let us proceed as quickly as we can to a reconsideration of the whole approach.
In sum, I should like to stress the two main points I have been making. First, the Official Languages Act and the resolution before us are not concerned with national unity but with linguistic justice in the public service. They are also concerned about the ability of Canadians to address their public servants in the language of their choice, a most important consideration. Second, if we wish to bring about bilingualism in Canada we need to search for other methods rather than the correct application of the Official Languages Act.
It is about time we in Ottawa took our heads out of the sand and began to realize that there is a vast country outside the gates in front of Parliament Hill. We had better start talking to the provinces about these matters which concern us, and not assume that the residents of the provinces are not citizens of Canada. Sometimes, in order to make distinctions between governments we begin to split our country up into parts which have nothing to do with reality.
Third, I should like to urge, for the consideration of the House and the government, that in approaching this whole question of language rights in the civil service in the future it is much more practical to seek to establish quotas than merely to designate certain roles in the public service as being bilingual. Such an approach has a far better chance of success.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate on the motion introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the issue of languages and the unity in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if we really want to maintain unity in Canada, this Parliament will necessarily have to take sound and positive action to bring about a final settlement of this issue and also achieve the goal which is to give equal opportunities to all Canadians in this country, irrespective of their language, colour, race or religion. Indeed the Canadian Constitution says that all Canadians must be treated on an equal basis.
Official Languages
What we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to implement the constitution. It is not a question of changing it or changing its terms and conditions because I think we have a sound Constitution. It is rather a matter of enforcing it. The time has come when the Constitution must be truly implemented.
Then if the Constitution says that both races and other ethnic groups must be treated on an equal basis that equality must be made quite clear to all Canadians concerned.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to have the Constitution respected in Canada, everyone must be free to speak the language of his choice. That it what the Constitution says by and large and that is what we want, that is what Canadians want. At present, there are shortcomings in that respect.
The Constitution also says that everyone should have the right in Canada to be served and administered in one of the two official languages. That is a principle we must enforce because in Canada, we have ethnic groups who are not dealt with in their own language, and which is not respected as it should. We still have a long way to go in that respect.
Unilingualism cannot prevent a public servant from being promoted to a higher position. Therefore, we must set up, and the Parliament must set up and work out parallel administrations: one French and one English, within the federal departments. That is what is provided for in the Constitution, and that is what Canadians of every nationality are asking for.
And we also require tht all departments have two sections: one French and one English. The size of those sections would be according to the respective administrative needs. This means that the departments would not necessarily have the same number of employees, and they would form self-contained units with equal responsibilities up to the deputy minister level. It is at this price, Mr. Speaker, that we will settle that matter once and for all in Canada, and it is at this price that we will provide this unity that our country needs.
Each minister should therefore have one French-speaking and one English-speaking deputy minister, both having the same powers and the same responsibilities.
All the administrative fields coming under the provincial jurisdiction, according to the Constitution, would be turned back to the provincial authorities, provided it is agreed with each particular province. This will reduce to a minimum the number of public servants employed by some departments such as the Department of National Health and Social Welfare. Promotions would be exclusively based on merit in all departments.
As the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) pointed out yesterday, the English and French networks of the CBC are a fairly good example of administration. That corporation has two parallel administrations, well structured and therefore well protected.
The parallel administration we advocate would not be more costly than the expensive integral bilingualism the government is now striving for. In any event, Mr. Speaker, that is the cost we will have to pay to maintain Canadian unity.

June 1, 1973
Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, a study made by the Treasury Board reveals that the representation of Francophones and bilingual civil servants is not adequate. Bilingualism programs are neither effective nor adequate. Recruitment for top jobs still encourages a greater number of unilingual Anglophones.
National unity must be strengthened through equality of rights and opportunity for all Canadians, whether they speak English, French or another language. We maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the problem in this country is not a language problem but a problem of participation. Even if the whole federal administration were bilingual, nothing would be solved because French Canadians would not feel at home.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot solve the problem only through bilingualism. It is most important that the structures and the members of the administration be really distributed according to a fair percentage in relation to the relative importance of the ethnic elements which make up this country.
For a long time, Mr. Speaker, we have been living on hope; in 1969, when the Official Languages Act was passed, a great hope was born because we thought then that we would be offered something tangible to solve the problems of bilingualism. And that hope, we felt it and we thought that the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, which cost a great deal of money, would make suitable suggestions and find suitable solutions to really solve the problem. But such was not the case. This royal commission simply taught us that there were in Canada a certain number of French Canadians, a certain number of English Canadians and a certain number of Germans, Ukrainians, Polish and many other nationalities, and we were given percentages and numbers and this commission cost as we all know close to $9,500,000.
Mr. Speaker, this has cost a lot of money and it has not solved the problem. Many Canadians were disappointed, English speaking as well as French speaking. We were disappointed because this commission did not produce such great results.
But as statistics show, there has been no progress but a stagnation, and in certain areas, a regression. I would like to see us achieve an atmosphere of objectivity, of realism, devoid of any animosity akin to a struggle between two ethnic groups.
Mr. Speaker, we could quote figures. Several hon. members have already done so; we now know that the participation of ethnic groups is decreasing in the Public Service when it should be increasing; yes, it should have gone up considerably, but it has diminished. We therefore feel, Mr. Speaker, that we have lost ground on that score. We must therefore update, put back in evidence all facts, concretize them and act according to reality, to the logical and justified requests which are being made by various personalities, by those who have a vast knowledge of biculturalism, multiculturalism, etc.
Mr. Speaker, in order to establish a true system of equality here, they say and I quote:
[Mr. Latulippe.J
Excerpt from the conclusion of the report written on behalf of the task force on bilingualism of the Treasury Board by Mr. Gilbert Langelier. This report is entitled: French Language Units: machinery for implanting a system of equality in the Public Service. The sub-titles are those of Le Devoir.
The study may appear to some as being very critical of the present experiment.
We are aware of the possibility of such an interpretation. We would like here to clarify the grounds of our approach. We strongly believe that the implementation of true bilingualism in the Public Service implies that French must occupy an important place as a true language of work.
The government must take action to implement the principle of equality between French-speaking and English-speaking employees, a principle which is essential as long as the fact of working in French will be a disadvantage.
The government has started to implement a policy in that sense but it appears at this time to be too timid and weak to achieve the principle of equality. Obviously, it is only an experiment to better inform the government on the possibility of institutionalizing French Language Units as an element of organization and management.
However, thought must be already given to the components to be considered in the formulation of a policy of over-all bilingualism aimed at achieving the principle of equality between Frenchspeaking and English-speaking employees in the Public Service. The implementation of such a policy will require co-operation and planning at the level of those responsible for bilingualism and will require available human and financial resources to bring about the necessary changes.
The study underway has clarified the nature of the necessary changes and stated ways of achieving them. We are aware of the amount of work that will be required to implement those changes but we firmly believe that their importance warrants perseverance and the necessary resources to carry them out. So, objective No. 4, which reads as follows:
"Secure gradually the place French deserves besides English as a language of work in the federal Public Service" should be made the priority objective of the new Bilingualism Division of the Treasury Board and grant the necessary recources to achieve it. Once this objective has been achieved, all the others will be much more easy to reach.
We hope finally that the point of view we have adopted will be properly understood and that people will recognize the FLU is the main agent for the realization of institutional bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not read the findings of the report any further: the rest is more of the same. But, Mr. Speaker, we are in complete agreement with the clause dealing with equality and with the Spicer report which also deals with equality and the opportunity of participation.
We entirely agree on that and we also agree, Mr. Speaker, on the preamble to the resolution of the right hon. Prime Minister. But we disagree with him on the methods he is proposing to apply those reforms.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to propose an amendment to the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the amendment moved by Mr. Stanfield be amended by adding, next after the words "and other appropriate statutes", the following words: "and the government studying the possibility of setting up, organizing and implementing a parallel administration, one English-speaking, the other French-speaking, in all departments of the federal government;
(a)	each department shall have two sections, one English, the other French; the size of these sections shall be proportional to the requirements of their respective administrative needs, which means that the departments shall not necessarily have the same number of employees;
June 1, 1973

(b)	these departments shall be autonomous entities with equal responsibilities up to the deputy minister level, both the Englishspeaking and the French-speaking deputy ministers having similar authority and similar responsibilities;
(c)	promotions in each department shall be based exclusively on merit.
Mr. Speaker, that is the motion I wish to propose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Would the hon. member for Compton have something to say?


Henry P. Latulippe: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Again, we request earnestly that this motion be adopted. We would like that this motion be accepted, we would like that the feelings be a little unanimous, if I may say so.
Mr. Speaker, we are confident that we can give Canadians unity, that we can reinforce national unity to the extent that we give Canadians equal opportunities that are coming to them. This is the purpose of this motion: that there be equality in every respect within the government departments and that the participation of Canadians whatever their language, race or colour, be proportionate to their number.
Mr. Speaker, if we adhere to this principle, we will be on the way to unity and we will have, if we can achieve this unity, a great Canada, a united country, and thanks to some economic reforms, we will also have a prosperous nation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Does the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) wish to speak to the subamendment on which I was about to give a ruling or ask for the assistance of hon. members?

As I have said, I am ready to render a decision on the subamendment. However, if any hon. member wishes to express an opinion I will listen to it.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should merely like to point out that I moved an amendment yesterday after the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Stanfield) moved his; I know the debate may be limited which is why we return to the charge today and my colleague for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) has moved a subamendment to the amendment of the leader of the official opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. With regard to the sub-amendment just moved by the hon. member for Compton, I certainly have doubts about its being in order, specifically about its having a bearing on the subject. May I refer to the 4th edition of Beauchesnes' Parliamentary Rules and Forms, before going into further details, and quote citation 202(3) on page 173 of the French version:
Since the purpose of a sub-amendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment; if it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
Official Languages
On that basis, I would like to explain to the hon. member that under that standing order, he will be able, after all, to move his motion later on during the debate. After the House has dealt with the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition-whether it is defeated or passed-the member could always move another amendment in accordance with the standing orders or move an amendment such as the one he moved yesterday.
Now, for the above reasons, especially the standing order which I have just quoted, and since it is possible that the hon. member will move an amendment later on during this debate, I have to declare the sub-amendment out of order.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in this House for nearly 8 years now and one thing has always struck me. With the accumulation of words and the series of speeches on a given topic after a while we always end up forgetting about the basic issue of any debate.
This is why, I would like first to reiterate this afternoon the position that the government has defined as its own right at the opening of this debate, a position which will force us to refuse both the amendment introduced by the official opposition and a potential sub-amendment, which the chair has just indicated as possible.
First of all, let us explain how the government looks upon the present situation concerning the official languages. Everyone, except for a few dinosaurs-and if the term is not parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to substitute brontosaurus or diplodocus,-everyone, except in a very few cases, accepts the principles which have been enshrined in the Official Languages Act.
This is why this resolution does not bring forth these principles. On the contrary, it is most practical, since it concerns the implementation of these principles. With this resolution, we are out of the realm of theory and concerned exclusively with implementation.
The time had come to leave theory behind and I say that it was time for everyone to get out of it. To support generally accepted principles is relatively easy. It hurts when it becomes more complex, when one has to implement these same principles.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I myself had such an experience when I was Secretary of State and was responsible to the government for the official languages policy.
At that time, everybody, except a few "dinosaurs" had already approved the Official Languages Act. And yet, I often had to answer members who repeatedly asked questions and questioned principles to which they actually had only paid lip service.
For instance, as soon as an unilingual public servant had to be transferred, even without a loss of salary or any other inconvenience to him, some hon. members who had welcomed the passage of the Official Languages Act started to cry out and denounce the injustice, without any evidence whatsoever. What is even more serious, these very people generally condemned the implementation of the act without ever giving one specific, possible and documented example, without even taking the trouble of proving anything, being satisfied, on the contrary, with

June 1, 1973
Official Languages
spreading rumours that they had not checked or giving examples of dissatisfaction, the causes of which they had not even taken the trouble to establish.
I remember in particular the case of a public servant who was ineligible for a promotion in the city of Montreal and who claimed that after living 10 years in Montreal, he never, and I quote:
had the chance to learn French.
When I was asked myself on a television program what I thought of this public servant's comment, I answered to the reporter who was questioning me: I am going to answer by a question. If, after living 10 years in Toronto or even in Ottawa, I was to claim that I never had the chance to learn English, who would believe me? The reporters told me: You are not supposed to ask questions, we are. One of them then said: By refusing to answer, you gave me an eloquent answer.
It is really to put an end to such practices, which are extremely detrimental to the cause of the official languages in Canada, that the government introduced the resolution now before us, so that after the principles are approved, nobody afterwards can undermine the efforts at implementation on the pretext that he was not consulted on their application or that he disagrees with the terms and that he was never given the chance to say so.
Thanks to this resolution, hon. members now have the opportunity-and they should take advantage of it-to say where they stand in respect to the application of what they have already accepted in principle. The resolution proposes reasonable, sound, practical and realistic measures, as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has shown very well during debate.
So far, what is the basis for the opposition's objections on this matter? Except for the Social Credit Party-I shall come to that later-the opposition has made known its intention-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but it being four o'clock ... Is the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member of the Conservative Party whose motion would ordinarily be dealt with during the next hour is, I understand, agreeable to forgoing private members' hour on the understanding that his motion retains its place. We could therefore continue with the present item of business for the next hour.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is correct, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) is willing to make that sacrifice at this time in light of the subject which is being discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, we agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Then, since there is unanimity to forego the private members' hour, the hon. Minister of Communications has the floor again.


Gérard Pelletier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the House and more particularly the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn).
So, I was going to say that, except for the Social Credit Party of Canada, to which I shall return in a moment, the opposition has stated its intent to support the resolution, for which I commend it and I rejoice like, doubtless, the overwhelming majority of members.
However, I would like to note as briefly as possible some points of disagreement which have been expressed by the Leader of the Official Opposition, last night, by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and finally by the spokesman for the Social Credit Party of Canada (Mr. Matte).
First, I would like to comment the amendment introduced by the official opposition and say that it is rather amusing for anyone who in 1969 took part in the debate previous to the passing of the Official Languages Act. In the course of that debate, and I was re-reading it this morning in Hansard, the position of the opposition was to the effect that it was useless-that was the word-to pass a bill concerning the official languages. That position was to the effect that the government had but to issue directives, take decisions at the executive level, and not to go through all the ceremonial of the passing of an act. That was a viewpoint, and I would not like by recalling it to take any credit from the opposition for having finally supported the Official Languages Act.
We were told that after all, as far as principles were concerned, we did not need a law. I cannot but be surprised to hear today that we have to legislate at the implementation level.
The reason why the government decided not to legislate in this case, was best explained by the Leader of the Opposition himself last night when he said, and I quote:
... that these guidelines have to be, and should be flexible, and that they have to be subject to change . . .
Obviously. But he asked afterwards:
... why are we being asked to endorse them in this House?
I believe I have just said why we are asking this House to approve them.
Why not enshrine them in a piece of legislation? Precisely because they have to be, to use the very words of the Leader of the Opposition: "flexible and subject to change".
Now, we all know from experience, Mr. Speaker-and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will admit it-that even to bring a very light change in the way of applying principles on which we have agreed, it is extremely costly to go through the legislative process which is quite painstaking, as everybody knows.
However, having established the precedent of submitting to the House for its approval the guiding principles of its endeavour as to a better balance concerning official
June 1, 1973

languages in the public service, the government will want I am sure, every time there will be an opportunity to change those methods, to consult the House again but perhaps not, and certainly not each time, through the passing of an amendment to an existing legislation, which would be a loss of time.
The Leader of the Opposition-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Gérard Pelletier: Of course.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the minister whether he is giving an assurance that the government will bring a resolution before the House each time before there is any change made in its guidelines.


Gérard Pelletier: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I can give this assurance if what the hon. member has in mind is any change in the principles that are submitted to the House in this resolution.

I would also emphasize that the Leader of the Official Opposition was generous enough-and I commend him for it-to say that even if his amendment were not passed he would vote for the main resolution and I think that in this debate he contributed to creating a climate that, as far as I am concerned, I would not disrupt.
If I had time, I would tease him on the way he introduced monarchy into the bilingualism issue, but it would be only to tease him. However, he said in his speech- realizing that it was difficult to accept a relation between the two-that there were people who had compared the erosion-whatever that is-of anarchic institutions with bilingualism. I think on the contrary that in a certain "integrism" that he knows as well as I do, people tend to see in bilingualism an attack against monarchy. In fact, for those people almost everything is an attack against monarchy. I admit that I expected that kind of comment from the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker), but not from the Leader of the Official Opposition himself.
To come back to serious things, the Leader of the Official Opposition expressed criticism. He said at the outset:

Let's discuss this Irankly and openly.

I would have liked him to add another adverb and to put it into practice: the adverb "specifically". I find that his numerous objections directed against the government do not constitute a well-founded criticism or at least not the substantial criticism I was expecting. I think that the Leader of the Opposition merely pointed out minor details and I could not help thinking that it is really very hard for the Leader of the Opposition or for the leader of any opposition party in this House, to make a realistic criticism. Because, after all, who criticizes the action of the government in this area? People who never had to face the extremely complex problems created by the balance of the official languages in the Civil Service, problems that are so complex that they would discourage any gov-
Official Languages
ernment without optimism or deep faith in this country of ours, problems the difficulty of which one can hardly imagine before tackling them. And if I credit the opposition leader for waiting to deal with these problems, it is because he recognized himself last night that in the past positions he held, time had not yet come-I have to admit it considering the province where he was premier-to make this revolution and he never had the opportunity to undertake it. I would almost wish that he could one day take office, if no other inconveniences were related to that, so that he could finally realize how difficult efforts are in this very complex field.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to comment Drieny on one of the remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), a remark that he had already made in this House, at the beginning of this session, which, at that time, had shocked me and which shocked me once again last night. When I say "shocked", I mean "distressed", not "offended".
The hon. member for York South said yesterday, and I quote:
I regret that this resolution has been brought before the House, not for some of the reasons I have heard but for another and perhaps deeper reason. I have learned that in life, particularly in collective life, there are matters with respect to which repeated argument produces confrontation and repeated confrontation pollutes rather than clears the air.
The hon. member for York South had already adopted that attitude with respect to a speech by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and again, with respect to a speech by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) on the same subject as the one we are discussing this afternoon. This attitude, coming from a man like the hon. member for York South, had confounded me, all the more that he is ready, as are all the other members of his party, to discuss the most delicate problems in this House. He is willing at any time to discuss the death penalty, the status of women, abortion, the situation of our native peoples. Those are issues which are, as the hon. member for York South puts it, most controversial.
Why does he feel sorry only when it comes to the language problem? Would the language question in Canada be of an obscene, shameful or pornographic nature that would forbid us to discuss it or is it to be considered as so extraordinary or explosive that it should be ignored? Mr. Speaker, I think it has been ignored for too long, and I am surprised to see this kind of resistance from a man like the hon. member for York South who, as I said a while ago, does not lack daring.
The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) just spoke, with a smile, about certain contradictions that might exist in our party. I think I could amuse myself in calling attention to a contradiction between him and his own leader.
Indeed, when a few months ago the member for York South had just said what more or less I have just reported, but in another context, the member for Scarborough West contradicted him in a television program. He had said that a speech by the Minister of Transport was "an emotional speech". And he said, and I quote:

June 1, 1973
Official Languages
An emotional speech? I do not agree. It was an intense speech, but perfectly logical.

The hon. member for Scarborough West, added during this television broadcast, and I quote:

I think it is a good thing that such speeches are made in a place like the House of Commons, where they belong.

In this internal conflict, I am against such a dissension within the New Democratic Party and on the side of the hon. member for Scarborough West.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, if the House has the patience to listen to me for another three or four minutes, I would like to say why I cannot accept the Social Credit Party proposal. I am referring to the proposal in general and not to the subamendments which were rejected. I think the Standing Orders allow me to comment on some remarks which were made and the idea which was voiced.
I think that the Social Credit Party proposal corresponds exactly to the definition which that party tried to attach to the government's resolution during a debate held on an allotted day, a few weeks ago. It was said at that time that the resolution was neither positive, nor factual nor practiced.
I could repeat exactly the same thing.
Sure enough, the hon. member for Champlain and this afternoon the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) nut forward those two parallel administrations as being worthy, first, from the economic point ol view. 1 took time since last night to ask people who are more knowledgeable than I am about the administrative problems. They told me that compared with what the bilingualism program of this government may cost, the implementation of those parallel structures put forward by members of the Social Credit Party would probably reach in the billions of dollars. Even if it were economical I would like to try and prove that it is not practical. When to promote national unity or solidarity you split the public service from top to bottom I think that you go against those same purposes you are pursuing.
I think that even with parallel structures-because I cannot deny that French Languages Units are to a certain extent parallel structures-the program put forward in the resolution presently before the House should nevertheless be implemented because why should a number of public servants have to become bilingual? The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) explained it this morning: if public servants are to be able to work in the official language of their choice we necessarily need to have people in supervisory positions able to communicate in both French and English, that is to say that the same person in that case must know both French and English. This also means that more members of both linguistic communities in Canada will have to become bilingual as the application of that policy is gradually increased.
I would like to point out to the hon. member for Champlain that even Belgium, which faces a linguistic problem

similar to ours, has established those parallel structures only in a minimum of departments. And why? Because it is a unitary state. We understand, for instance, that in Belgium they have a Department of Dutch Education and a Department of French Education. We understand also that they have a Department of Dutch Cultural Affairs and a Department of French Cultural Affairs and that they have two ministers for the two departments. But, precisely, we are not in a unitary country and the federal system has been established in our country to find a solution to such problems and tensions.
We have provincial departments of education and within those departments in provinces where there are large minorities using another official language, they have developed different structures.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Champlain had a slip of the tongue and that sometimes reflects unconsciousness. He said: Who could blame me for having nursed my mother! All of us have these slips of the tongue and I do not laugh at the hon. member for Champlain when I recall this one but his system seems as impossible to realize as it is surely impossible for the member for Champlain to have nursed his own mother.
To conclude, I would like to say two things. First, that we are about to conclude one phase. I already told the hon. member for Champlain and I say it again, as the non. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) noted himself: being French-speaking it is impossible for us not to feel very impatient.
The Leader of the Official Opposition talked yesterday about the scars he gained in his efforts for the French 'anguage. But what is threatening us as French-speaking Canadians in this country, is not some scars; but we should fear being flayed alive if we do not have the necessary optimism.
But I think that realism and common sense consist in telling ourselves, about this century of guilty negligence and of injustice as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe called it, that this year we cannot make up for the consequences all of a sudden, that there must be gradual stages. I am also impatient, I have already said it and I will repeat it.
Only if this whole House becomes impatient will we really end up with a fair system. But we must control our legitimate impatience and tell ourselves that in any political matter such objectives are always reached gradually.
Mr. Speaker, I also submit that the step taken with this resolution is an extremely important one. Personally, this is th realistic objective to seek and this is why I think that all members of this House will wish to vote for the resolution, some with minor reservations, and I cannot blame them, I have some myself, others perhaps with serious reservations, and I cannot blame them either because maybe they perceive difficulties to which I am not sensitive myself but I feel that a climate, not of understanding which is an abused word, but of realism and healthy optimism, should preside over the whole remainder of this debate and also the final vote and that this vote should be unanimous to enable us to start working in a climate of trust and, I repeat, unanimity.
June 1, 1973

Mr. ]. H. Horner (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I cannot help thinking of the last words of the speech of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), who suggested that perhaps he should ask for good will and reasonableness for the sake of reasonableness. To my mind he did not start out as well as he ended. He referred to certain members of this House being of the age of the dinosaur and being like dinosaurs in their objections to the official languages bill in 1969. That to my mind did not indicate a desire for good will on his part. I regretted having to sit here and hear those words.
The minister suggested that members should stand up in this House and speak about these problems. I agree. I have wrestled with this problem since 1969. I spoke at length on it when it was debated. I urged the government at that time to be careful and not to go too fast, because they would create enemies in certain parts of the country while thinking they were healing wounds in other parts. They did not pay much attention to my remarks.
Many Members of Parliament at that time sat in their seats and would not voice their opinions in parliament. They would not voice the opinions of their constituents on the official languages bill. Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic members would not voice their opinion. They were afraid to do so because the party leaders were telling them that they had to support the bill. I take part in the workings of this democratic institution and the exercise of representative government, and I wrestled with the problem. I asked myself, should we speak frankly and tell this House what our constituents feel, or was the lesson they taught us on October 30 clear enough? If we are to be part of a democracy and governed by representative government, then I think one must speak as a representative. Certainly a member can lead his constituents, but a government that gets too far out in front of the people is not returned; it is defeated in the next election.
Some say it was the anti-Trudeau feeling in the last election that nearly led to the defeat of the Liberal government. Some say that the way western Canada felt about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was terrible. I spoke to a Liberal candidate who was defeated in Alberta. I said, "What was the thing that beat you?" He said, "The animosity toward Mr. Trudeau defeated me in the last election." Whether you like it or not, and whether the country likes it or not I am certain that hundreds of thousands of people in western Canada realize this is true. I am certain, having watched television on election night and seeing the Prime Minister shortly after the election results were in, that the Prime Minister recognized that fact.
Whether we like it or not-and we cannot sweep the question under the rug-the Prime Minister has brought in this resolution. Personally, I question whether he really means it. I was certainly pleased when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) moved his amendment because it puts the test right to the Prime Minister. On October 30 many people across Canada outside Quebec rejected the Prime Minister and his party. Whether you like it or not, that is the fact: they rejected the Prime Minister and the Liberal party.
Why was that party rejected? Every person can give his reason. Certainly in some areas the languages bill was a factor, although it was not in western Canada and it was not in my constituency. Some mention was made of news-
Official Languages
paper ads that I had run in my constituency during my election campaign in which I complained about money from western Canada being spent in too many places other than western Canada, and I mentioned Quebec and Ontario.
Constituents have complained over the years about Ontario milking the cow, but you cannot mention Quebec. The attitude of the hon. member who just sat down was: Let us mention this. Let us get it out in the open. I did so in my election campaign and was accused of being racist. Well, I am not. I am not afraid to represent my people in our democracy. When a country fails to produce people with enough courage to represent other people, there is something wrong with that country, and if it is a democracy one can say that their democracy has been severely eroded.
What does the Prime Minister mean by this resolution? Now that we hear the government will not accept the amendment, I suggest it means very little.


An hon. Member:: It doesn't mean a damn thing.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Thank you for that vivid explanation. I have come to the same conclusion. I should like to believe in my heart that the Prime Minister really means it, because it closely parallels an amendment I moved when the languages bill was being debated. The Prime Minister has brought in the resolution in the hope that he can get a unanimous vote of support from the House of Commons so that once and for all the language question will be settled. He said that. I quote from an article by Peter Desbarats. According to him, the Prime Minister said:
The struggle for the recognition of the "French fact" from sea to sea is not over, the battle is not won, and I propose to make certain that the question is well debated in the next election.
I think if he does that he will be taking a pretty dangerous gamble. He has brought this resolution in to try to shore up confidence in the government in areas outside Quebec. He is asking those areas to trust him in his application of the language question. Yet he really does not mean it.
Whether you like it or not, Canada started out as a nation after three constitutional conferences. Anyone who reads history can read the reports of those constitutional conferences. Language was not the important question in those days. Perhaps it should have been, but apparently it was not. Some provinces had already existed for some time. At the time of the constitutional conference of 1867, Nova Scotia, for example, was 109 years old. True, western Canada really had not been born. Some have said that this country is a marriage between the French and the English. We in the west wonder what we are. Are we a child of that marriage? We are not. We want to feel that we can play a full and equal part in this country of ours as an equal offspring of that marriage.
The Prime Minister has said that less than 10 per cent of the civil service is bilingual. He said it was 25,000 people out of 370,000, I think. The sad part today is that they are all at the top. Whether you like it or not, you will find, as I have found from my research, that instead of more French being taught in western Canada, less is taught. I said in the languages debate four years ago that if we want to make Canada a bilingual country we are going about it the wrong way. Otherwise, I said, we would create bitterness. I said the way to do it was through education. Education must come first, not afterwards.

June 1, 1973
Official Languages
The Prime Minister said yesterday that he is not going to force any Canadian to learn French or English; on the other hand, Canadians can learn either language if they want to. Why did he do this by bringing in a resolution first and then saying the government would spend money to educate people-after the fact, so to speak? Whether you like it or not, he is forcing people to learn; many people in the civil service feel they are being forced. The hon. member for Hochelaga suggested that that is just a feeling and that somehow we have put forward a myth. It is not a myth.
Hon. memoers can read the second annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is not the best of reading because this very serious matter is treated in a very light vein. However, even he recognized the fact that we should not proceed with bilingual districts. This resolution does not touch on the matter of bilingual districts. That is the problem we are confronted with today: should we go ahead and establish bilingual districts across this country, or not? The Prime Minister has not decided what to do about this issue. Quebec does not want bilingual districts, and I do not suppose any other province is very fussy about them.
Where do we go from here? Why do I believe that without the resolution being written into the act it will not be any good? We have all heard of the pledge which the late Mr. Pearson made in this House on April 6, 1966. The Prime Minister made a similar pledge on October 17, 1968. What was wrong with those pledges? Is it going to be any better than this dictatorship where the leader makes a speech, the bureau agrees and it is endorsed and followed by all civil servants and those who have the obligation of administering the act? It will not work that way. Mr. Carson said that. I quote from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of November 20, 1972. It reads:
-Public Service Commission Chairman John Carson explicity repudiated this pledge, stating he was guided by the law-
Mr. Carson has to administer much of the languages legislation. What has he said in committee? What has he said about appeals made to his commission? I quote from page 29 of the proceedings of the miscellaneous estimates committee of June 13, 1972:
The commissioner conceded that the public service staff associations were right in their contention that assurances by Prime Ministers Trudeau and Pearson that no unilingual civil servants would suffer in career terms because of the bilingual program, just didn't hold up in practice.
Will this resolution be any better? It will not hold up in practice. It may, while the spirit and intent is fresh in the minds of the Public Service Commission and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) who has to battle with this problem and has accepted the fact that he must accept these points. The fourth point is interesting. It reads:
that competitions for bilingual positions will be open both to bilingual candidates and unilingual candidates who have formally indicated their willingness to become bilingual-
On July 4, 1969, I moved an amendment that parallelled this point almost to the word. Many people in my constituency do not think an opposition member can find his words in legislation. This is not legislation but my words are there. My amendment read:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, no person shall be refused employment or promotion within the Public Service of Canada on grounds alone of inadequate acquaintance with either of the official languages mentioned in this act, provided that the applicant has declared his intention and willingness to learn the other language.
Those are nearly the same words as in item 4. What did the former minister of justice, now Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) say when piloting this bill through the House? What has caused him to change his mind? He thinks this resolution can be enforced. In reply to a remark which I made, the minister said, as recorded at page 10819 of Hansard for July 3, 1969:
We deny that categorically, and I say that through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Crowfoot. We contend that the hon. member's solution would be impracticable, one not capable of realization.
That is why I distrust this resolution and say that it will not mean anything to the public servants. The former minister of justice said it was impracticable. If point 4 is impracticable, what about point 6? The minister, in the same speech, dealt with the meaning of willingness. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) also spoke on that amendment. He, too, was in difficulty about the real meaning of willingness. Anyone who reads Hansard for July 3, 1969, will see whether the government wants to put any teeth into this act.
One can read the Ottawa newspapers to see what two former representatives from the Ottawa area had to say. They both complained bitterly, after the fact, that Mr. Carson was administering the act in the wrong way. Mr. Carson was doing his duty and obeying the law. If a public servant administers any legislation contrary to the law, he gets into trouble. An article in the June 9, 1972, Ottawa Citizen about Mr. Gordon Blair, the former member for Grenville-Carleton, reads in part:
He is confident that some of the programs implemented by John Carson, PSC chairman, do not truly reflect government attitudes and desires.
The attitudes and desires of this government have a tendency to change; they flip around a little from time to time. In July, 1972, they did not want anything to do with the question of willingness of people to learn the other official language. They said it was impracticable and could not be implemented. Something has happened since then and they have changed their desire. People in western Canada are saying that the Prime Minister is nice, he has done a lot of things, but can we trust him? My standard reply is, "You tell me." They fear that if the government gets back with a majority of seats, the Prime Minister will return to his old ways. They fear his desires and intentions will change after the next election. That is why I say that if the Prime Minister means what he says in this resolution, it should be incorporated in the act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Some members questioned my good faith last December 14 when the President of the Treasury Board made his announcement. I immediately contacted th(j press and said that I supported the nine points announced at that time. However, we are now asked to debate this resolution, bow down and say this is a bilingual country. I can say that; it is not difficult: everyone in this House can say it. However, if the country is not prepared to accept it at this time, what is the use of saying it?
No government can move any faster than those governed want it to move. If they do, they are rejected. The Prime Minister found that out. Some members his cabinet were very bitter after the last election, as were some Liberal backbenchers. This is the irony of democracy; the people are always right. The government is the servant of the people, not the master. The Prime Minister would love to be the master and absolute ruler. Before the last elec-

June 1, 1973

tion many people said that the Prime Minister would never call another election because he thought himself the master.
I am sorry to say that this resolution will not build faith and confidence in the government. I have listened to the speeches that have been made to date on this subject and I have not been convinced that the government means what it says. I may not be a very easy person to convince. Certainly, if I am convinced I will get out and try to sell the idea. I will try to sell the good faith of the government as I did back in December when I issued a press release saying I supported the President of Treasury Board in issuing the nine points.
But now they are trotting this issue out in an effort to hoodwink and pacify certain areas of the country. To my mind, the lesson was clearly given on October 30. The government has understood that lesson and is trying to prepare itself to go to the people again. This is one of the ways in which it is trying to prepare itself. It is trying to cover up this issue.
I firmly believe the resolution before us will be closely adhered to until the next election, but I have no confidence it will be adhered to afterward. How can I think otherwise when even a prominent member of the cabinet indulges in name-calling? The Prime Minister calling the premier of a western province a bigot does not help. The languages commissioner saying the English-speaking people in Westmount are Westmount Rhodesians does not help. This does not help to build good faith. If we want to build good faith, we have to mean it in our hearts. And the government has to legislate upon a basis of good faith. Nowhere in Canada will the people be fooled by this attempted hoax.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning the timing of the vote on this motion. There have been discussions and I think there may be general agreement in the House that all questions required to dispose of the motion now before us be put at 9.30 Tuesday evening.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Daniel Aiken Lang: If the debate came to a conclusion earlier, it would be understood that we would move on to other business. In particular, it would be our intention to call the National Housing Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, any fixing of a date or of an hour like that is not acceptable to me. This is a matter which the people of Canada want to know something about, and to rush it through without full discussion is not in keeping with the responsibilities of this House. Letters are starting to come in from everywhere concerning this debate. I have never raised objection before to the fixing of hours, but I am absolutely opposed to a fixed hour being set for the termination of a debate as important as this. To do so might well deprive the Canadian people of an opportunity of knowing the facts.
If there are no other speakers to carry on the debate when we arrive at that point, or prior to Tuesday evening, a vote will take place. But I cannot agree to a suggestion that we be shackled when we are dealing with a matter in connection with which the Canadian people expressed themselves so strongly everywhere in the country last fall. Behind many of the votes lay the fact that people were disgusted with the administration of this act. So I take the strongest objection to the proposal put forward by the hon. gentleman.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In these circumstances I need not inquire whether there is agreement; I
Official Languages
will merely call upon the next speaker, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark).


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a new member taking part in this debate, one of 57 new members of this party in the House. I think it is probable that each Parliament reflects the times in which particular groups of individuals are sent to this chamber. While within our party there is an established tradition of individual members acting as individuals, most of us came here, I think I can say, on the assumption that the basic principles of the Official Languages Act were established and that the issue of that legislation would not dominate the present parliament.
We came here with a mandate from our electors to deal with other issues, issues which were regarded by them as being highly important. For that reason, in my case at least, I was most surprised when it became evident, as it did before the first week of debate was concluded, that the government was apparently preoccupied with questions related to language. I regretted to find new evidence of this preoccupation today in the speech of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier).
To a certain extent this preoccupation is understandable. It relates to problems encountered in the public service. I am not so much surprised by the concern shown as by the strength of the comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on January 8 and by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) shortly afterward. A charitable explanation is that the principal reason the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport came into parliament was to try to contribute in a positive way to questions related to cultural equality. I respect them for that. I go beyond that: I thank them for coming here to serve their country for that reason.
I recall hearing the Prime Minister speak in my own constituency in Alberta. He went there for purposes which are not at all related to my being here-quite the opposite-and answered questions put by audience in the town of Edson having to do with the government's position on the official languages bill. He spoke then, as he and others have spoken since, about the grave difficulties which had been encountered by many people in the province of Quebec in dealing with a government, which they had every right to regard as their government, in a language which was not their own. He made the point that this was the cause of grievous concern. This was accepted by the people of that community, as it had been accepted earlier by those of us who had been given an opportunity to hear it from the Prime Minister and from others.
There is no question of the importance of making the case which the Prime Minister made at that time as well as on other occasions. It is also natural that, since this was to such a great extent the personal motive of the Prime Minister and of other senior ministers for entering public life at the federal level, they should assume that since this question had provided such an important personal motive for their coming it might, indeed, have been the motive in the minds of some Canadians when voting for opponents of their party. In my opinion, this is simply not true. It is not an accurate analysis of the voting behaviour of electors, at least in my part of the country, in rural western Canada.
I think the government recognizes that it is not true, because they have begun to change their approach in a number of fields which had been the subject of criticism before the last election. Some of us feel that this change is more apparent than real. They have indicated that there are questions of taxation and unemployment insurance to be dealt with. These questions have been recognized in

June 1, 1973
Official Languages
western Canada to the extent of calling a conference there to consider the very legitimate criticisms of the administration of these matters for reasons that have nothing to do with the language matter question.
I have to say, Sir, with some regret, that charity is not the only quality which influences members of this House as we come to some of our conclusions. We are also, all of us, subject to certain suspicion regarding the motives of those in other parties for some of the things they do. I believe it is fair to state that some of us believe that this issue is being raised deliberately now in a considered effort by the Liberal party to find an issue on which it might be able to win an election. That is a suspicion, in short, that national unity is being used for partisan purposes.
We in this party are sensitive about the weakness of our representation in the province of Quebec, although certainly we are proud of our members from that province and their quality. We are also pleased by the size of the vote we received and hope to be able to translate this into seats. But we recognize that we need strength in that province and in the rest of Canada, not simply to win an election but to govern effectively. We have to earn not just votes in Quebec but also the confidence of French Canadians, and we believe we are well on the way to that goal.
We are aware, also, that if a concerted attempt were made to try to divide this party on the question, it could have serious consequences, not simply to us as a party competing in national affairs but also ultimately perhaps to the country. I very much regret having to express my suspicion that this might very well be part of the reason we are dealing with this matter now.
For the record, I want to state my own belief as a new member here-that there can be no question at all about the commitment of this party to the principles of the Official Languages Act and, indeed, to the principles of a bilingual and multicultural nation. That commitment was reiterated last night in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). As I have said before, the Leader of the Opposition came to this House and to national politics expressly to help unite Canada. Most of us who came here as new members on this side came to parliament expressly to support our leader and to work with him in the job of uniting Canada.
Against that background it was alarming for me and my colleagues to begin our careers in the House of Commons by hearing the Prime Minister of Canada accuse us, by unmistakable implication, of a kind of bigotry. I can say quite frankly, and this is no surprise to anyone here, that in my campaign in a rural riding of Alberta there were opportunities for bigotry. There were opportunities to condemn the people of a distant part of Canada. We undoubtedly faced more opportunities to make political gain in that way than people in other parts of the country. The point is that we turned down these opportunities because we did not want to associate ourselves with any action that would help to disunite our nation. That is why so many of us reacted with such heat and felt such a sense of unfairness about the implications of accusation made by members of the government.
We are faced again with wondering about the motives of the government when we have before us a resolution which has no effect in law and which, while it is being defended here and now as an expression of moral approval, was inspired by a determination to have members of
this House, in the words of the Prime Minister which appear in Hansard for January 8, "stand up and be counted". Those are words that have a connotation that is unmistakable, and that connotation was not reduced by the suggestion of the Minister of Communications who said not long ago, as I understood him, that new members must have an opportunity to express their own support for these principles, because if we do not do that we might be asking questions which would be unfortunate or embarrassing.
That seems to me a novel principle to be embarking upon. I would think that in fact, if I heard the Minister of Communications correctly and if that precedent is to be established, we will face a multitude of resolutions in this House to ensure that members who were not here before are committed in some personal way t^ every piece of legislation that has been passed here hitherto. Indeed, that would make by-elections a very dangerous occupation in the country. What is dangerous and particularly regrettable about the comments of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Communications in a muted way today, is the suggestion and the implication that some of us are acting out of mean or narrow instincts.
There are obviously some people in some regions who are more reluctant than others to embrace this particular act. That is so with every piece of legislation. What is different about matters relating to the Official Languages Act is that the differences here can inspire deep antagonism. The point I want to make as the representative of a western Canadian constituency who is concerned about the unity of my nation is that it need not have that effect.
When we talk about questions of this sort we move inevitably into the precincts of prejudices on both sides. There are people who think that any particular act, whatever it says, goes too far. There are those on the other side who think it does not go far enough. I think in that kind of area of legislation it is well for us to proceed very cautiously, not to act when we do not have to act and not to act when all we are doing is expressing an opinion.
Some commentators have suggested that this issue and related issues should be fought out once and for all. I suggest that is a piece of advice for the crusades or for religious wars, but not for politics, we are not engaged here in a holy war. This is not an issue on which every citizen should, to use the Prime Minister's words, "stand up and be counted". Rather, this is a question in my view of ensuring that rights are defined and respected. In my part of the country people will accept that. They might do it reluctantly in some cases, but they will accept it virtually everywhere in the sense that it is going to happen and it will not hurt them particularly. Many of them, like myself, are much more enthusiastic; but with others-there is no point in masking the fact-this issue is an irritant which will pass but which can, if it is agitated, become an open wound.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock p.m. next Monday. I wish all hon. members a happy weekend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The same to you, Sir.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
[Stage Direction]
presented by
the Honourable J. Turner, M.P.
Minister of Finance for the information of Parliament
Table of Contents
[Stage Direction]
Introduction	 5
Highlights of the government's financial operations during 1972-73	 5
Budgetary transactions during 1972-73	 9
Revenue	 9
Expenditure	 16
Assets and liabilities as at March	31,	1973	 33
Summary	 34
Asset accounts	 34
Liability accounts	 41
Net debt	 41
The cash position	 48
The public debt	 51
Supplementary detailed tables	 55

[Stage Direction]
s review presents in summary form the financial ions of the Government of Canada for the fiscal year 73. The fiscal year of the government ends on March t the books must remain open for some time after 'ate to record adjusting entries and to take into nt section 30 of the Financial Administration Act permits payments made up to April 30 to discharge incurred before March 31 to be included in the nts for the fiscal year. The figures used in this review ased on eleven months actual and one month ted.
financial operations of the government include the of tax and other revenues and departmental and
other expenditures; such operations are provided for in its annual administrative budget. In addition, the government undertakes other transactions which do not enter into the calculation of its budget surplus or deficit. These transactions include all receipts and payments leading to changes in the assets or liabilities of the government. Among such receipts and payments are those arising from debt operations which are undertaken to finance the government's cash requirements. Any deficit or surplus arising from all operations of the government, whether budgetary or non-budgetary, is reflected in the Receiver General bank balances. Accordingly, in what follows, debt operations and changes in the bank balances of the Receiver General are distinguished from other non-budgetary transactions.

[Stage Direction]
section outlines the financial operations of the ment in 1972-73 giving in Table 1 a brief summary e budgetary and non-budgetary transactions, unmatured debt transactions and changes in the cash position and the debt position during the fiscal year. More detailed explanations are given in subsequent sections of this review.

[Stage Direction]
THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT 1971-72 and 1972-73 (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
	1972		1973 (preliminary)	
Budgetary transactions-				
Revenue-				
Tax	. 12,562	14,715	Non-Tax	. 1,665	1,885	14,227	16,600	Expenditure	. 14,841	16,155	Surplus or deficit (-)	-614	445Non-budgetary transactions-	Social security accounts-	Old age security account	. -87	-300	Canada pension plan 	. 25	44	Unemployment insurance account	. -172	-1,331	-234	-1,587	Other annuity, insurance and pension accounts	. 914	859	Loans, investments and advances-	To crown corporations	. -1,243	-790	To others	. -425	-673	-1,668	-1,463	Foreign exchange reserves	. -698	-73	Provincial tax collection agreements account	. 130	-5	Other transactions	. 443	441	Net amount available from or required for (-) non-budgetary	transactions	-1,113	-1,828Overall cash requirement to be financed by increase in unmatured	debt or decrease in cash balances 	-1,727	-1,383Unmatured debt transactions-	Marketable bonds 	. 354	42	Treasury bills 	. 95	460	Canada savings bonds	. 1,908	1,276	Canada pension plan bonds	. 7	7	Unemployment insurance bonds	. -315	Increase or decrease	2,049	1,785Net increase or decrease (-) in Receiver General bank balances	322	402Receiver General bank balances at beginning of year	1,278	1,600Receiver General bank balances at dose of year	1,600	2,002
Budgetary transactions
Revenue estimated at $16,600 million for 1972-73 is $2,373 million or about 17 per cent more than 1971-72 revenue of $14,227 million. The increase is the result of a rise of $2,153 million in tax revenue and an expansion of $220 million in non-tax revenue. The yield from personal income taxes (including the social development tax) is $1,205 million higher, from corporation income tax $437 million higher and from all other taxes and duties $511 million higher than in 1971-72.
Expenditure estimated at $16,155 million for 1972-73 is $1,314 million or 9 per cent higher than in 1971-72. The major changes between 1971-72 and 1972-73 expenditures are increases of $167 million in public debt charges, $37 million in fiscal transfer payments to provinces, $54 million in payments in respect of the Medical Care Act, $106
million in outlays under Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, $33 million under the Canada Assistance Plan and $103 million for development and utilization of manpower.
With revenue of $16,600 million and expenditure of $16,155 million, the budgetary surplus is $445 million as compared with a deficit of $614 million in 1971-72.
Non-budgetary transactions (excluding unmatured debt transactions)
The three social security accounts are those for the Old Age Security Fund, the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Account. Summaries of the transactions in these accounts for 1971-72 and 1972-73 are given in table 2.

[Stage Direction]
SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNTS (in millions of dollars)
Receipts	1971-72	1972-73 (preliminary)	Disbursements	1971-72	1972-73 (preliminary)
		OLD AGE SECURITY FUND			
Income tax	.... 1,450	1,456	Old age pensions	. 1,679	1,787Sales tax	. . . . 668	770	Guaranteed income supplement . . .	. 526	7392,118	2,226	2,205	2,526Surplus of receipts 	. -87	-300CANADA PENSION PLAN	Contributions	.... 826	897	Pensions	. 144	206Investment income	. . . . 275	354	Administration costs	. 23	23Other	. . . . 1	1	Investments	. 910	9791,102	1,252	1,077	1,208Surplus of receipts 	
25	44UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACCOUNT	Contributions 	. . 663	763	Benefits 	
1,123	2,020Investment income	. . 16	Administration costs	.... 26	128Investments realized	. . 326	1,305	Other	.... 28	Advance from government	. . 184	Other	53	1,177	2,1481,189	2,121	Surplus of receipts 	
12	-27
26314-59
The Old Age Security Fund is financed by tax receipts. These receipts are $2,226 million, an increase of 5 ner cent over their level in 1971-72. Payments of $2,526 million in 1972-73 are $300 million more than receipts. In
1971-	72, payments of $2,205 million exceeded receipts by $87 million.
Canada Pension Plan receipts of $1,252 million in
1972-	73 exceed disbursements of $229 million. The greater part of the excess of $1,023 million is invested in purchasing $979 million of provincial and federal government bonds.
Unemployment Insurance Account receipts at $2,122 million are $27 million less than disbursements resulting in a balance of $10 million in the account at March 31, 1973 compared with a balance of $37 million at March 31, 1972. Included in the receipts are advances of $1,305 million by the government.
Other annuity, insurance and pension accounts include the superannuation accounts of the public service, the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the government annuities account and certain other accounts of a similar nature. Net receipts from these accounts at $859 million are $55 million less than in 1971-72.
The greater part of loans, investments and advances are made to crown corporations and the remainder made to provincial governments, governments outside Canada, international organizations, private businesses and individuals. In 1972-73 net loans and investments of $790 million to crown corporations are $453 million less than in 1971-72; other loans, investments and advances in the net amount of $673 million are $248 million more than in 1971-72.
Foreign exchange operations to finance increases in Canada's international reserves include receipts from Special Drawing Rights (SDR's) issued by the International Monetary Fund and payments arising from subscriptions of capital to the International Monetary Fund, advances to the Exchange Fund and the redemption of non-interest-bearing notes payable to the International Monetary Fund. During 1972-73 net disbursements arising from these operations in the amount of $73 million include net disbursements of $125 million in transactions in the Exchange Fund Account and net receipts of $52 million from transactions in respect of the International Monetary Fund. In 1971-72 net disbursements were $698 million, $938 million in net disbursements in Exchange Fund account partly offset by net receipts of $240 million in the International Monetary Fund.
Collections of provincial income taxes amount to $2,448 million and payments to the provinces total $2,453 million. In 1971-72 collections were $2,153 million and payments were $2,023 million. Net receipts from other nonbudgetary transactions are $441 million compared with net receipts of $443 million in 1971-72.
Unmatured debt transactions
The net cash requirement of $1,828 million arising from budget transactions, operations of social security funds and other operations was met by net issues of marketable bonds, treasury bills and Canada savings bonds. In 1972-73 there was a net issue of $42 million of marketable bonds compared with $354 million in 1971-72, a net issue of $460 million in treasury bills compared with $95 million in 1971-72 and a net issue of $1,276 million in Canada savings bonds compared with $1,908 million in 1971-72. Other borrowing produced a net receipt of $7 million compared with a net payment of $308 million in 1971-72.
Change in cash position
A summary of all these operations is given in table 1 which shows that their net effect was to increase the bank balances of the Receiver General, including those in foreign currencies, by $402 million from $1,600 million at March 31, 1972 to $2,002 million at March 31, 1973.
Change in debt position
As a result of all operations just described, the gross public debt increased by $4,017 million to $51,740 million at March 31, 1973, net recorded assets increased by $4,462 million to $34,248 million and the net debt decreased by $445 million to $17,492 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Balance at March 31		
DEBT POSITION	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Increase or decrease (-)Gross liabilities	
Less recorded net assets . . .	. . 47,723 . . 29,786	51,740 34,248	4,017 4,462Net debt 	. . 17,937	17.492	-445

[Stage Direction]
Total budgetary revenue for 1972-73 is estimated at million and the budgetary surplus at $445 million. $16,600 million, total budgetary expenditure at $16,155

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31	Revenue	Expenditure	Surplus or deficit (-)	Amount	Per cent change	Amount	Per cent change	Amount	As a percentage of expenditure1964 	. 6,253.2	6.39	6,872.4	4.60	-619.2	9.011965 	. 7,180.3	14.83	7,218.3	5.03	-38.0	0.531966 	. 7,695.8	7.18	7,734.8	7.16	-39.0	0.511967 	. 8,376.2	8.58	8,797.7	13.74	-421.5	4.791968 	. 9,076.6	8.36	9,871.4	12.20	-794.8	8.051969 	. 10,191.1	12.28	10,767.2	9.07	-576.1	5.351970 	. 12,323.9	20.93	11,931.3	10.81	392.6	3.211971 	. 12,803.0	3.88	13,182.1	10.48	-379.1	2.881972 	. 14,226.6	11.12	14,840.9	12.58	-614.3	4.141973 (preliminary) ....	. 16,600.0	16.68	16,155.0	8.85	445.0	2.75
Revenue
Budgetary revenue at $16,600 million is estimated at $2,373 million or 17 per cent higher than the total received in 1971-72. Tax revenue of $14,715 million accounts for 89 per cent and non-tax revenue of $ 1,885 million accounts
for 11 per cent. The main changes are increases of $1,608 million in personal income taxes, $437 million in corporation taxes, $320 million in sales tax, $211 million in customs import duties and $142 million in return on investments.
26314-591

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31
Preliminary.

[Stage Direction]
For Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1973
Preliminary.
[Stage Direction]
14%
CUSTOMS ^ IMPORT DUTIES

[Stage Direction]
43%
EXCISE DUTIES, SALES AND OTHER EXCISE TAXES 20%
CORPORATION INCOME TAX 16% 1 2
[Stage Direction]
19%
TRANSPORTATION^^ AND COMMUNICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
14%
[Stage Direction]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS 9%	X

[Stage Direction]
15%

[Stage Direction]
12%
1.	Includes additional interest in respect ol the Public Service,
the Canadian Forces and the R.C.M.P. superannuation accounts.
2.	Does not include payments out of old age security fund.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
SOURCE	1972	1973 (preliminary)	Increase or decrease (-)	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per cent	Amount	Per centTax revenue-income tax- Personal(t)	5,582.0	39.2	7,190.0	43.3	1,608.0	28.8Corporation!1)	2,183.1	15.4	2,620.0	15.8	436.9	20.0On dividends, interest, etc. going abroad .	287.7	2.0	289.4	1.7	1.7	0.6Social development tax	408.4	2.9	5.6	-402.8	-98.6Excise taxes- Sales!1)	1,984.7	14.0	2,305.0	13.9	320.3	16.1Other 	388.4	2.7	410.0	2.5	21.6	5.6Customs import duties 	988.6	6.9	1,200.0	7.2	211.4	21.4Excise duties	606.6	4.3	635.0	3.8	28.4	4.7Estate tax	132.0	0.9	59.6	0.4	-72.4	-54.8Other taxes	0.4 12,561.9	88.3	0.4 14,715.0	88.6	2,153.1	17.1Non-tax revenue-	Return on investments 	1,133.3	8.0	1,275.0	7.7	141.7	12.5Post office-net postal revenue	403.8	2.8	475.0	2.9	71.2	17.6Other non-tax revenue	127.6	0.9	135.0	0.8	7.4	5.81,664.7	11.7	1,885.0	11.4	220.3	13.214,226.6	100.0	16,600.0	100.0	2,373.4	16.7
All amounts are net after deduction of refunds and drawbacks
(^Excluding credits to the old age security fund-
Personal income tax	
Corporation income tax	
Sales tax	
Tax Revenue
The effect of the tax changes announced in May 1972 and January 1973 was to moderate the growth in revenue which ordinarily would accompany a period of rapid growth in the economy.
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 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.
1971-72	1972-73(preliminary)
1.237.0	1,190.0
212.5	266.0
668.5	770.0
2.118.0	2,226.0
During the year collections are expected to be $2,448 million and payments to the provinces $2,453 million. These sums are not included in federal tax revenue shown in Table 5.
Tax on personal incomes
As is shown in table 5, personal income tax is again the largest source of government budgetary revenue. The yield (excluding the old age security tax) is $7,190 million or 43 per cent of total budgetary revenue. In 1971-72 the yield was $5,582 million or 39 per cent of total revenue. The increase is due mainly to a higher level of personal incomes during the fiscal year. The tax on personal incomes credited to the old age security fund is estimated to be $1,190 million compared with $1,237 million in 1971-72.
[Stage Direction]
\5
BUDGETARY REVENUE BY SOURCE Fiscal Years Ended March 31 Billions of Dollars	
14%	OTHER REVENUE <	TOTAL REVENUE FROM TAXES 89%
	CUSTOMS IMPORT DUTIES
jjjjj	EXCISE DUTIES, SALES AND OTHER EXCISE TAXES
3	CORPORATION INCOME TAX
iHWBi Jjjf	PERSONAL INCOME TAX -
H	-
1969	1970	1971	1972	1973*	1973*
* Preliminary.
Corporation income tax
Corporation income tax is the second largest source of budgetary revenue. The yield (excluding the old age security tax) is $2,620 million or 16 per cent of total budgetary revenue compared with $2,183 million or 15 per cent in 1971-72. The increase of $437 million is due mainly to the strength of the economy during the fiscal year. The tax on incomes of corporations credited to the old age security fund is estimated to be $266 million compared with $213 million in 1971-72.
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 $289 million in 1972-73 are $2 million more than in 1971-72.
Social development tax
This tax first took effect for the taxation year 1969 and was discontinued effective January 1, 1972 under the new income tax provisions. The tax, which was imposed on individuals, was originally the lesser of 2 per cent of taxable
income or $120. For 1971 the maximum was $100. During 1972-73 the yield is $6 million compared with $409 million in 1971-72.
Excise taxes
Excise taxes including the sales tax total $2,715 million or 16 per cent of total budgetary revenue compared with $2,373 million or 17 per cent in 1971-72.
From a revenue standpoint the general sales tax is the most important tax levied under the Excise Tax Act. Receipts (excluding the amount credited to the old age security fund) of $2,305 million are $320 million more than in 1971-72.
The sales tax credited to the old age security fund is $770 million compared with $669 million in 1971-72.
The yield from other excise taxes is $410 million of which $354 million is in respect of tobacco products. In 1971-72 the yield was $388 million of which $330 million was in respect of tobacco products.
Customs import duties
Receipts of $1,200 million from this source are $211 million more than in 1971-72.
[Stage Direction]
Excise duties
Excise duties are levied on alcoholic beverages (other than wines) and tobacco products. (Additional taxes on tobacco products are levied under the Excise Tax Act.) Net receipts of $635 million are $28 million more than in 1971-72.
Gross receipts of $414 million from duties on alcoholic beverages consist of $245 million in respect of spirits and $169 million in respect of beer and are $18 million higher than receipts of $396 million in 1971-72 of which $235 million was in respect of spirits and $161 million in respect of beer. Gross receipts of $233 million in respect of tobacco products are $12 million higher than in 1971-72.
Refunds and drawbacks of $12 million are $1 million more than in 1971-72.
Estate tax
Revenues in this category are derived under the Estate Tax Act. This Act does not apply in the case of any death after 1971. Net receipts of $60 million are $72 million less than in 1971-72.
Other taxes
Revenue under this heading of $400,000 is approximately the same amount as in 1971-72.
o

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31 Billions of Dollars

[Stage Direction]
- 4

[Stage Direction]
1969	1970	1971	1972	1973*
* Preliminary.
Non-Tax Revenue
Non-tax revenue in the amount of $1,885 million is $220 million more than in 1971-72. The main changes are increases of $142 million in return on investments and $71 million in net postal revenue.
Return on investments
These receipts amounting to $1,275 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 1971-72 receipts were $1,133 million.
Receipts from crown corporations at $922 million are $132 million more than in 1971-72 due mainly to increases of $36 million in Bank of Canada profits paid to the government and $49 million in payments by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the crediting to revenue of $32 million resulting from the sale of Polymer Corporation to the Canada Development Corporation.
The yield from other loans and investments at $353 million is $10 million more than in 1971-72. The main changes are increases of $9 million in profits of the
exchange fund account and $5 million in interest on loans to provincial governments.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
NON-TAX REVENUE	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase or decrease (-)	1972	1973 (preliminary) Amount	Per centReturn on investments 	1,133.3	1,275.0	141.7	12.5Post Office - net postal revenue .	403.8	475.0	71.2	17.6Refunds of previous years'	expenditure 	21.5	23.0	1.5	0.7Services and service fees 	17.9	19.0	1.1	0.6Proceeds from sales 	15.7	16.0	0.3	0.2Privileges, licences and permits . .	28.3	30.0	1.7	0.6Bullion and coinage 	23.5	25.0	1.5	0.6Premium, discount and exchange	1.0	1.0	Other	20.7	21.0	0.3	0.11,664.7 1,885.0	220.3 13.2

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
RETURN ON INVESTMENTS	Fiscal year ended March 31 1972 1973 (preliminary)		Increase or decrease (-)
Loans to, and investments in, crown corporations-			
Bank of Canada - profits	265.5	301.1	35.6Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 	8.4	9.0	0.6Canadian National Railways 	50.3	54.9	4.6Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation 	320.8	370.0	49.2Export Development Corporation 	18.8	24.0	5.2Farm Credit Corporation 	72.0	74.0	2.0Northern Canada Power Commission 	17.6	20.0	2.4Polymer Corporation Limited	0.5	32.0	31.5The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	22.2	23.0	0.8Other	14.0	14.0	790.1	922.0	131.9Other loans and investments-	National governments 	23.4	23.0	-0.4Provincial governments 	3.0	8.0	5.0Exchange fund account 	194.1	203.1	9.0International Monetary Fund 	5.2	8.0	2.8Interest-bearing deposits with chartered banks 	46.0	45.0	-1.0Municipal Development and Loan Board	14.2	15.0	0.8Soldier and general land settlement loans and veterans land act advances . . .	23.7	27.0	3.3Investments in United States dollar securities issued by other than the	Government of Canada	1.0	-1.0Airport capital loans	7.1	9.0	1.9Miscellaneous	25.5	14.9	-10.6343.2	353.0	9.8	1,133.3	1,275.0	141.7	
Post Office revenue
Gross receipts from Post Office operations are $562 million but authorized disbursements from revenue for salaries and rent allowances, other allowances and commissions at semi-staff and revenue offices, commissions at sub-offices, transit charges on Canadian mail forwarded through and delivered in foreign countries, etc., in the amount of $59 million and revenue credits of $28 million to expenditure result in net revenue of $475 million. In 1971-72 comparable amounts were gross receipts of $487 million, authorized disbursements of $56 million, credits of $27 million to expenditure and net revenue of $404 million.
As is shown in the section on budgetary expenditure the net costs of operating the Post Office during 1972-73 (excluding the $87 million charged to revenue) are $474 million. Given net revenue of $475 million, there is an operating surplus of $1 million. In 1971-72 net costs of $413 million and net revenue of $404 million resulted in an operating deficit of $9 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended	
	March 31	
		Increase
	1973	or
	(preli-	decrease
POST OFFICE REVENUE	1972 minary)	(-)
Postage-			
In Canada 	. 461.8	537.0	75.2From foreign countries	. 8.4	7.0	-1.4Money orders	. 10.6	11.0	0.4Rental of post office boxes	. 5.2	5.6	0.4Other	. 0.6	1.3	0.7486.6	561.9	75.3Less- Expenditure charged directly to revenue- Salaries and allowances-	Revenue post offices	. -12.5	-13.7	-1.2Semi-staff post offices	. -31.1	-32.0	-0.9Sub-post offices	. -6.8	-7.0	-0.2Postage and transit charges to	or through foreign countries .	. -4.1	-4.9	-0.8Other 	. -1.3	-1.3	-55.8	-58.9	-3.1430.8	503.0	72.2Credited to appropriations	. -27.0	-28.0	-1.0403.8	475.0	71.2
Refunds of previous years' expenditure
Refunds of $23 million include $3 million in receipts by the Department of National Defence (mainly from adjustments to cost audits and contracts with the United States government) and $3 million in receipts by the Department of Veterans Affairs (mainly from refunds of veterans pensions, allowances and re-establishment credits). In 1971-72 refunds totalled $22 million.
Services and service fees
Revenue of $19 million from this source includes $9 million received by the Department of Agriculture (mainly for services for the inspection, weighing, storage and elevation of grain) and $3 million received by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (mainly from inspection fees in respect of weights and measures, and electricity and gas). In 1971-72 revenue totalled $18 million.
Proceeds from sales
Revenue of $16 million includes receipts of $5 million by the Department of Supply and Services from the sale of surplus crown assets and $3 million from sales of publications by Information Canada. In 1971-72 revenue totalled $16 million.
Privileges, licences and permits
Revenue from this source in the amount of $30 million includes $10 million in receipts by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (mainly in respect of oil, gas and gold), $5 million in receipts by the Department of Public Works (mainly from rentals) and $7 million in receipts by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in respect of patents, trade marks, charters, etc. In 1971-72 revenue from this source was $28 million.
Bullion and coinage
This revenue, which is derived from transactions in the bullion and coinage working capital advance, is $25 million compared with $23 million in 1971-72.
Premium, discount and exchange
These transactions reflect net revenue of $1 million compared with a net expenditure of $2 million in 1971-72.
Miscellaneous non-tax revenue
Miscellaneous revenue is $21 million approximately the same as the previous year.
26314-60
EXPENDITURE	The main changes are increases of $233 million in
expenditures of the Department of Finance, $211 million Budgetary expenditure for 1972-73 is estimated at	in those of the Department of National Health and Welfare
'$16,155 million, $1,314 million more than the 1971-72	and $106 million in those of the Department of the
total of $ 14,841 million.	Secretary of State.
10

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31 Billions of Dollars
		-
:	19%	ALL OTHER EXPENDITURE
	Pi	PUBLIC DEBT CHARGES 1
	V//////A 77/9% ///	FISCAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS
laiiMi	<XX524%Xa$<	HEALTH AND WELFARE 1
	lllll	
	Bit	ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT
		TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
		
	ooo< 12%	DEFENCE
1971
1973 *
1973 *
* Preliminary.
1.	Includes additional interest in respect of the Public Services, the Canadian Forces and the R.C.M.P. superannuation accounts.
2.	Does not include payments out of old age security fund.
- 2

[Stage Direction]
Budgetary Expenditure Classified by Function (in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
1969	1970	1971	1972	(preliminary)	Amount	per cent	Amount per cent	Amount per cent	Amount per cent	Amount	per centGeneral government services .	. 411	4	505	4	579	4	630	5	814	5Foreign affairs 	, 227	2	243	2	282	2	314	2	369	2Defence	. 1,763	17	1,791	15	1,773	14	1,839	13	1,899	12Transportation and communications	. 910	8	893	8	940	7	1,023	7	1,155	7Economic development and support	. 1,527	14	1,776	15	1,857	14	2,167	15	2,452	15Health and welfare (1) 	. 2,378	22	2,734	23	3,191	24	3,633	24	3,831	24Education assistance 	. 287	3	315	3	463	3	561	4	588	4Culture and recreation	. 244	2	376(2)	3	263	2	348	2	392	2Fiscal transfer payments . . . .	. 867	8	932	8	1,229	9	1,426	9	1,462	9Public debt	. 1,480	14	1,717	14	1,920(3)	15	2,137(3)	14	2,362(3)	14Internal overhead expenses . .	. 644	6	639	5	685	6	763	5	831	610,738	100	11,921	100	13,182	100	14,841	100	16,155	100(1)	Payments out of the Old Age Security Fund, the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Fund are not included.(2)	Includes write-off of EXPO deficit.(3)	Includes additional interest in respect of the Public Service, the Canadian Forces and the R.C.M.P. superannuation accounts.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31
* Preliminary.
1.	The unshaded areas of the columns in the chart for health and welfare represent payments out of old age security fund not charged to budgetary expenditure.
2.	Includes additional interest in respect of the Public Service, the Canadian Forces and the R.CM.P. superannuation accounts.
17

[Stage Direction]
Statement of Budgetary Expenditure by Departments (in millions of dollars)
DEPARTMENT	Fiscal year ended March 31 1973 1972 (preliminary)	Increase or decrease (-)	Amount	per cent	Amount	per cent	Amount	per centAgriculture	286.1	1.9	318.5	2.0	32.4	11.3Communications 	21.7	0.1	33.9	0.2	12.2	56.2Consumer and Corporate Affairs	23.9	0.2	30.0	0.2	6.1	25.5Energy, Mines and Resources	175.6	1.2	171.4	1.1	-4.2	2.4Environment	200.7	1.4	239.3	1.6	38.6	19.2External Affairs	314.6	2.1	381.0	2.3	66.4	21.1Finance 	3,542.1	23.9	3,774.6	23.4	232.5	6.6Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors . .	1.2	1.3	0.1	8.3Indian Affairs and Northern Development . . . .	426.6	2.9	480.4	3.1	53.8	12.6Industry, Trade and Commerce	362.6	2.4	414.0	2.6	51.4	14.2Justice	28.7	0.2	36.4	0.2	7.7	26.8Labour	25.4	0.1	28.7	0.2	3.3	13.0Manpower and Immigration	792.9	5.3	749.2	4.6	-43.7	-5.5National Defence	1,895.2	12.7	1,984.0	12.3	88.8	4.7National Health and Welfare	2,706.1	18.2	2,916.8	18.1	210.7	7.8National Revenue	185.3	1.2	220.7	1.4	35.4	19.1Parliament 	32.6	0.2	34.7	0.2	2.1	6.4Post Office	413.3	2.8	474.1	2.9	60.8	14.7Privy Council	13.1	0.1	39.0	0.1	25.9	198.0Public Works	338.2	2.3	376.0	2.3	37.8	10.7Regional Economic Expansion	346.4	2.3	373.6	2.3	27.2	7.9Science and Technology 	2.4	4.3	1.9	91.7Secretary of State	867.5	5.8	973.1	6.0	105.6	12.2Solicitor General 	260.1	1.8	309.0	1.9	48.9	18.8Supply and Services 	75.6	0.6	88.1	0.5	12.5	16.5Transport 	511.1	3.5	603.1	3.7	92.0	18.0Treasury Board 	438.7	3.0	518.8	3.2	80.1	18.2Urban Affairs 	129.9	0.9	133.6	0.8	3.7	2.8Veterans Affairs	423.3	2.9	447.4	2.8	24.1	5.714,840.9	100.0	16,155.0	100.0	1,314.1	8.9
Agriculture
Expenditures of the Department of Agriculture together with those in respect of the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and the Farm Credit Corporation total $318 million compared with $286 million in 1971-72.
Outlays for production and marketing at $167 million are $17 million higher than in 1971-72 due mainly to larger payments for farm income maintenance as a result of
adverse weather conditions. The charge to expenditure to cover the net operating loss of the Agricultural Stabilization Board is $119 million compared with $122 million in 1971-72.
Research costs are $55 million compared with $51 million in 1971-72; expenditures for the health of animals program are $30 million compared with $27 million; and expenditures in respect of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board are $22 million compared with $21 million in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in million of dollars)
	F iscal year ended March 31		
AGRICULTURE	1972	1973 (preli- minary)	" Increase or decrease (-)
Department- Production and marketing- Agricultural Stabilization			
Board	. . 122.0	118.6	-3.4Other 	. . 28.0	48.0	20.0150.0	166.6	16.6Research program 	. . 50.7	54.7	4.0Health of animals	. . 27.3	30.2	2.9Canadian Grain Commission . . .	. . 13.1	16.4	3.3Administration and general . . .	. . 15.0	19.3	4.3256.1	287.2	31.1Canadian Dairy Commission ....	. . 0.5	0.7	0.2Canadian Livestock Feed Board . .	. . 20.6	22.0	1.4Farm Credit Corporation-net	operating loss 	. . 8.9	8.6	-0.3286.1	318.5	32.4
Communications
Expenditures for the Department of Communications are $34 million compared with $22 million in 1971-72. The increase is due mainly to higher outlays for communications and space applications which are $23 million compared with $ 13 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
[Stage Direction]
Increase
1973 or (prelimi- decrease
COMMUNICATIONS	1972	nary)	(-)
Communications and space applica-			
tions research and development . .	12.7	22.5	9.8
Management of the radio frequency			
spectrum 	2.5	2.4	-0.1Administration and development . . .	6.5	9.0	2.521.7	33.9	12.2
Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Expenditures of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are $30 million, $6 million more than in 1971-72, due mainly to higher outlays in all programs with the exception of that for the Prices and Incomes Commission, which ceased on August 31, 1972.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS	Fiscal year ended March 31 1973 (prelimi-1972 nary)	Increase or decrease (-)Consumer affairs 	. 8.8	10.8	2.0Corporate affairs 	
Combines investigations and	. 8.7	10.0	1.3competition policy	. 2.1	2.9	0.8Prices and Incomes Commission . .	. 1.6	0.5	-1.1Administration and general	. 2.7	5.8	3.123.9	30.0	6.1
Energy, Mines and Resources
Expenditures of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources including those in respect of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Atomic Energy Control Board and the National Energy Board total $171 million compared with $176 million in 1971-72.
Outlays of $32 million for the earth sciences program are $ 1 million higher, outlays of $40 million for the mineral and energy resources program are $5 million lower and outlays of $88 million in respect of atomic energy are $1 million lower than in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)			
ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCE	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	iS 1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	
Mineral and energy resources-			
Energy development	. 6.3	7.6	1.3Mineral development 	. 14.8	3.8	-11.0Mining and metallurgical	investigations and research . . .	. 10.6	12.6	2.0Geological research and surveys .	. 13.5	16.4	2.945.2	40.4	-4.8Earth sciences-	Field and air surveys	. 14.1	15.5	1.4Geological research	. 2.1	2.2	0.1Research in geophysics	. 4.3	4.6	0.3Other	. 9.8	9.3	-0.530.3	31.6	1.3Administration and general	. 7.8	7.9	0.183.3	79.9	-3.4Atomic Energy Control Board . . . .	. 12.4	8.9	-3.5Atomic Energy of Canada Limited .	. 77.0	79.0	2.0National Energy Board 	. 2.9	3.6	0.7175.6	171.4	-4.2
Environment
Expenditures for the Department of Environment are $239 million compared with $201 million in 1971-72.
Expenditures of $112 million for the environmental quality program include $60 million for water management services, $37 million for meteorological services, $11 million for environmental protection services and $5 million for land inventory. In 1971-72 expenditures of $109 million included $61 million for water resources, $19 million for fisheries and forestry, $26 million for meteorological services and $3 million for environmental protection services.
Expenditures of $115 million for the renewable resources program include $73 million in respect of fisheries, $30 million in respect of forestry and $ 11 million for Canadian wildlife service. In 1971-72 expenditures of $84 million included $54 million for fisheries, $24 million for forestry and $7 million for Canadian wildlife service.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
ENVIRONMENT	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	
Environmental quality-			
Fisheries and forestry	19.0	-19.0Environmental protection service .	3.2	10.8	7.6Water management service	61.0	60.1	-0.9Atmospheric environment service .	25.6	36.5	10.9Land inventory	4.6	4.6108.8	112.0	3.2Renewable resources-	Fisheries management and research	53.7	73.0	19.3Forestry research and services ....	23.5	30.1	6.6Canadian wildlife service	7.1	11.4	4.384.3	114.5	30.2Administration	7.6	12.8	5.2200.7	239.3	38.6
External Affairs
Expenditures of the Department of External Affairs, including the Canadian International Development Agency and the International Joint Commission, total $381 million compared with $315 million in 1971-72.
Expenditures of the department in the amount of $109 million are $14 million higher than in the previous year and include $71 million for foreign operations ($62 million in
1971-72) and $21 million for membership and support of international organizations ($18 million in 1971-72).
Expenditures of the Canadian International Development Agency of $271 million are $52 million higher than in 1971-72. Economic assistance at $145 million is $34 million more than in the previous year, technical assistance at $45 million is $5 million more, grants to multilateral assistance programs at $33 million is $3 million more and contributions to development assistance projects at $16 million is $4 million more while international emergency relief at $9 million is $4 million less than in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	
Department-			
Headquarters operations	. 7.0	8.1	1.1Foreign operations	. 62.4	71.1	8.7Membership in and support of	international organizations . . .	. 17.6	20.6	3.0World exhibitions	. 0.1	0.1	Administration 	. 8.3	9.4	1.195.4	109.3	13.9Canadian International Development	Agency-	Economic assistance	. 111.2	145.0	33.8Technical assistance	. 40.2	45.0	4.8Grants to multilateral inter-	national assistance programs . .	. 29.9	32.7	2.8Contributions to development	assistance projects of Canadian	organizations 	. 11.9	16.5	4.6International emergency relief . .	. 13.8	9.4	-4.4Other	. 11.7	22.6	10.9218.7	271.2	52.5International Joint Commission . . .	. 0.5	0.5	314.6	381.0	66.4
Finance
Expenditures of the Department of Finance including those of the Auditor General, the Department of Insurance and the Tariff Board total $3,775 million compared with $3,542 million in 1971-72.
The main changes are increases of $37 million in fiscal transfer payments to provinces and $167 million in public debt charges.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
FINANCE	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	
Public debt charges	. . . 2,009.6	2,176.8	167.2Fiscal transfer payments 	. . . 1,425.5	1,462.2	36.7Municipal grants	. . . 57.2	62.0	4.8Guaranteed loans	. . . 32.6	34.6	2.0Forgiveness of indebtedness,	Federal-Provincial Loans	Program, 1971	10.0	10.0Administration and general ....	. . . 11.7	22.9	11.23,536.6	3,768.5	231.9Auditor General	. . . 3.9	4.3	0.4Insurance 	... 1.1	1.3	0.2Tariff Board 	. . . 0.5	0.5	3,542.1	3,774.6	232.5
Public debt charges
Public debt charges consist of interest on 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 $2,177 million include interest of $2,131 million of which $1,707 million is in respect of unmatured debt and $424 million in respect of other liabilities.
The increase of $167 million mainly reflects an increase in unmatured debt.
When considering the magnitude of these public debt charges and the burden they place upon the public treasury, it must be borne in mind that a substantial portion of the debt is attributable to, or is invested in, productive or earning assets. Therefore, in calculating the net burden of the government's annual interest charges, the income derived from loans, investments and other productive assets must be taken into account. For 1972-73 this income is $1,275 million as shown in the non-tax revenue section under "return on investments". This amount deducted from the gross total of $2,316 million as shown in table 19 leaves a net amount of $ 1,041 million compared with a net of $957 million in 1971-72. Measured as a percentage of net debt, the burden of the net annual interest charges is 5.95 per cent in 1972-73 compared with 5.34 per cent in 1971-72. As a percentage of the gross national product for the calendar year ending within the fiscal year, the relative burden is 1.01 per cent compared with 1.04 per cent in 1971-72.
	Fiscal year ended March 31		
INTEREST AND OTHER PUBLIC DEBT CHARGES	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Increase or decrease (-)
Interest on public debt- Unmatured debt including treasury bills-			
Payable in Canadian dollars ....	1,560.4	1,689.4	129.0Payable in foreign currencies . . .	17.4	17.4	1,577.8	1,706.8	129.0Other liabilities-Annuity, insurance and pension	accounts	377.9	414.9	37.0Deposit and trust accounts . . . .	7.9	9.1	1.2385.8	424.0	38.2Total interest on public debtU) .	1,963.6	2,130.8	167.2Other public debt charges-Annual amortization of bond	discounts and commissions . . .	41.5	41.5	Cost of issuing new loans	3.4	3.4	Servicing of public debt	1.1	1.1	46.0 2,009.6	46.0 2,176.8	167.2
(l)Additional interest of $58.7 million in 1971-72 and $78.5 million in 1972-73 is included in National Defence expenditures; $65.3 million in 1971-72 and $102.0 million in 1972-73 in Treasury Board expenditures; and $3.3 million in 1971-72 and $4.5 million in 1972-73 in Royal Canadian Mounted Police expenditures.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ending March 31
[Stage Direction]
Increase
1973	or
NET BURDEN OF ANNUAL	(prelimi- decrease
INTEREST CHARGES	1972 nary)	(-)Total interest on public	debt(l) .... 2,090.9	2,315.8	224.9Less return on investments	
1,133.5	1,275.0	141.5Net interest cost	
957.4	1,040.8	83.4Net interest cost as a percentage of net debt	
5.34	5.95
(^Includes additional interest referred to in table 18.
Fiscal transfer payments to provinces
These payments total $1,462 million, $37 million more than in 1971-72.
Payments of $1,160 million under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act are $42 million higher than in 1971-72.
Payments of $226 million under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act to the Province of Quebec are in respect of 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 the Canada Assistance Plan; and, in part, the general health grants program. Payments were $281 million in 1971-72.
Subsidies to provinces payable under the British North America Acts and other statutory authority are $34 million, the same as in 1971-72.
The transfer of certain public utility tax receipts in the amount of $81 million are $56 million more than in 1971-72 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. Moreover, 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 therefore, or may be otherwise recovered as a debt due to Canada by that province. The abatement for the taxation year 1972 and the revised abatement for the taxation year 1971 in respect of the Province of Quebec exceeded the federal savings by $38 million which has been recovered from payments to that province under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act. In 1971-72 abatements exceeded the federal savings by $32 million and was recovered.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
FISCAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	increase or decrease (-)Payments under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act	1,118.4	1,160.2	41.8Payments under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act	280.7	225.5	-55.2Statutory subsidies	33.8	33.8	Transfer of certain public utility tax receipts	24.6	80.9	56.3Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act (youth allowances)	-32.0	-38.2	-6.21,425.5	1,462.2	36.7

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31, 1973 (preliminary)
Recovery under
Payments	the Provincial Transfer of
FISCAL	Payments Under Interim	Fiscal Revision certain public
TRANSFER	Under Fiscal Arrangements Statutory Act (youth utilities tax
PAYMENTS	Arrangements	Act	subsidies allowances)	receipts	TotalNewfoundland	
114.0	9.7	3.3	127.0Nova Scotia	
147.0	2.2	3.7	152.9Prince Edward Island	
25.5	0.7	1.5	27.7New Brunswick	
125.2	1.8	127.0Quebec	
473.7	225.5	4.5	-38.2	12.1	677.6Ontario	
7.9	5.5	36.0	49.4Manitoba	
91.3	2.1	1.1	94.5Saskatchewan	
174.7	2.1	0.1	176.9Alberta	
0.9	3.1	18.9	22.9British Columbia	
2.1	3.3	5.4
Yukon and Northwest Territories . ._____________________________________________________________________0.9______________0.9
1,160.2	225.5____________3L8___________-38.2____________81L9___________1,462.2
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 1971-72.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Expenditures of this department at $480 million are $54 million more than in 1971-72.
Expenditures of $272 million for Indian and Eskimo affairs include $ 118 million for education, $ 116 million for community affairs and $17 million for economic development. In 1971-72 expenditures of $262 million included $120 million for education, $110 million for community affairs and $14 million for economic development.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT	Fiscal year ended March 31 1973 (prelimi-1972 nary)		Increase or decrease (-)
Indian and Eskimo affairs-			
Education	. 120.0	118.0	-2.0Community affairs	. 109.8	116.4	6.6Economic development	. 13.9	16.6	2.7Consultation and negotiation . . .	. 2.0	5.3	3.3Other	. 16.0	15.2	-0.8261.7	271.5	9.8Northern development-Resource management and	development	. 12.7	18.2	5.5Territorial affairs	. 73.7	80.5	6.8Northern roads and airstrips . . . .	. 18.2	31.5	13.3Other	. 1.8	2.2	0.4106.4	132.4	26.0Conservation-	National parks	. 32.0	38.7	6.7Historic sites	. 12.3	21.5	9.2Other	. 5.0	4.9	-0.149.3	65.1	15.8Administration	. 9.2	11.4	2.2426.6	480.4	53.8
Expenditures of $132 million for northern development include $81 million for territorial affairs, $18 million for resource management and development and $31 million for northern roads and airstrips. In 1971-72 expenditures of
$106 million included $74 million for territorial affairs, $13 million for resource management and development and $18 million for northern roads and airstrips.
Expenditures of $65 million for the conservation program include $39 million in respect of national parks and $22 million in respect of historic sites. In 1971-72 expenditures of $49 million included $32 million for national parks and $12 million for historic sites.
Industry, Trade and Commerce
Expenditures of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce including those of Statistics Canada and the Standards Council of Canada total $414 million compared with $363 million in 1970-71.
Outlays of $193 million for the trade-industrial program are $12 million higher than in 1971-72 and include $79 million for technological capability ($76 million in 1971-72), $31 million for general incentives to industry ($31 million in 1971-72) and $31 million for capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels ($ 10 million in 1971-72).
Costs of the grains program of $144 million are $44 million higher than in 1971-72 and Statistics Canada expenditures of $59 million are $10 million less than those of the previous year which included the costs of the 1971 census.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE	Fiscal year ended March 31 1973 rprelimi-1972 nary)		Increase or decrease (-)
Trade-industrial program-			
Technological capability (defence)	48.8	48.3	-0.5
Technological capability			
(non-defence)		27.4	31.0	3.6
Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing			
vessels	10.2	31.0	20.8General incentives to industry . . .	31.3	31.3	Administration and general 	63.6	51.8	-11.8181.3	193.4	12.1Tourism program 	11.6	17.1	5.5Grains and oilseeds program	100.0	144.0	44.0292.9	354.5	61.6Standards Council of Canada 	0.5	0.5	Statistics Canada 	69.2	59.0	-10.2362.6	414.0	51.4
Justice
Expenditures of the Department of Justice including those of the Law Reform Commission of Canada and the Tax Review Board are $36 million compared with $29 million in 1971-72. Judges' salaries and allowances are $19 million compared with $17 million and outlays for legal services are $12 million compared with $8 million in the previous year.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
Increase
		1973	or
		(prelimi-	decrease
JUSTICE	1972	nary)	(-)Legal services	7.8	12.0	4.2Judges' salaries and allowances ....	16.7	18.9	2.2Administration and general	3.8	4.0	0.2 '28.3	34.9	6.6Law Reform Commission of Canada .	1.0	1.0Tax Review Board 	0.4	0.5	0.128.7	36.4	7.7
Labour
Expenditures of the Department of Labour including those in respect of Information Canada (previously reported under the Department of Supply and Services) are $29 million, $3 million more than in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
			Increase
		1973	or
		(prelimi-	decrease
LABOUR	1972	nary)	(-)Program expenditures	
Payments of compensation respecting	11.9	13.0	1.1public service employees and merchant seamen	5.4	5.5	0.1Information Canada 	8.1	10.2	2.125.4	28.7	3.3
Manpower and Immigration
Included under this heading are the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Immigration Appeal Board, and the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Expenditures of the department of $734 million are $115 million more than in 1971-72. Development and utilization of manpower costs of $679 million are $103 million more and costs of immigration services at $32 million are $9 million more than in the previous year.
There are no comparable expenditures in 1972-73 to those made in 1971-72 for the government's contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Account or for the costs of operations of the Commission; these costs of operations are now a direct charge to the account and under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 the government is not required to make a contribution to the account until April 1, 1973. Expenditures of $1 million for the government annuities program are approximately the same amount as in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31		- Increase or decrease (-)
MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	
Development and utilization of manpower-			
Employment and training services	564.9	667.8	102.9Administration and general	11.0	11.0	575.9	678.8	102.9Immigration-	Recruitment selection 	10.4	17.4	7.0Enforcement and control	8.5	11.0	2.5Administration	3.8	3.5	-0.322.7	31.9	9.2Program development	6.3	7.3	1.0Administration and general 	13.7	15.9	2.2618.6	733.9	115.3Immigration Appeal Board	
Unemployment Insurance Commission	0.9	1.2	0.3Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance	account	92.1	-92.1Annuities program 	1.3	1.1	-0.2Administration and general	80.0	13.0	-67.0173.4	14.1	-159.3792.9	749.2	-43.7
National Defence
Expenditures of the Department of National Defence, including those for Defence Construction (1951) Limited, in the amount of $1,984 million are $89 million more than in 1971-72.
Expenditures of $1,903 million for the Canadian Armed Forces program include $1,487 million for operating expenses, $148 million for capital outlays and $268 million in respect of military pensions and other benefits. In 1971-72 expenditures were $1,818 million and included $1,392 million for operating, $206 million for capital and $220 million in respect of pensions.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
NATIONAL DEFENCE	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Canadian armed forces- Operating expenditures 	1,392.0	1,487.4	95.4Capital expenditures	206.2	147.6	-58.6Military pensions, pension contributions and other benefits- Superannuation account- Government's contribution .	73.8	79.0	5.2Amortization of deferred charges 	66.3	89.2	22.9Additional interest	58.7	78.5	19.8198.8	246.7	47.9Other pensions, contributions and benefits 	20.7	20.9	0.21,817.7	1,902.6	84.9Defence research 	. 47.0	47.5	0.5Mutual aid to NATO countries including contributions towards military costs of NATO	. 13.8	14.4	0.6Civil emergency measures 	. 4.9	5.6	0.7Defence Construction (1951) Limited	. 2.7	3.0	0.3Administration and general 	. 9.1	10.9	1.81.895.2	1,984.0	88.8
Outlays in respect of military pensions, pension contributions and other benefits include $79 million for the government's contribution to the Canadian forces superannuation account, $89 million for amortization of deferred charges and $79 million for additional interest in respect of the superannuation account. In 1971-72 the government's contribution was $74 million, amortization of deferred charges was $66 million and additional interest was $59 million.
Defence research costs of $48 million are $1 million more than in 1971-72.
National Health and Welfare
Expenditures of the Department of National Health and Welfare including those of the Medical Research Council are $2,917 million compared with $2,706 million in 1971-72.
Outlays for income security and social assistance are $1,134 million compared with $1,100 million in 1971-72; for health insurance and resources $1,633 million compared with $1,476 million; for medical services $53 million compared with $50 million; and for the Medical Research Council $38 million compared with $36 million.
Family allowances, family assistance and youth allowances
These expenditures total $610 million of which $549 million is family allowances, $59 million is youth allowances and $2 million is family assistance. In 1971-72 the total was $616 million of which $554 million was family allowances, $60 million was youth allowances and $2 million was family assistance.
Family allowances are payable in respect of all children under 16 years of age, resident in Canada, with minor exceptions such as 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 on behalf of 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 reasons of mental or physical infirmity precluded from attending school or university. No payments were made in respect of persons resident in the Province of Quebec. However, under authority of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, 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.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	
Health insurance and resources-			
Government's contributions under			
the Hospital Insurance and			
Diagnostic Services Act . . .	. . 844.6	950.8	106.2Health resources fund	. . 37.0	37.0	Medical Care Act 	. . 576.5	630.8	54.3Health grants to provinces . . .	. . 15.2	11.3	-3.9Other	. . 2.6	3.5	0.91,475.9	1,633.4	157.5Income security and social	assistance-	Family allowances	. . 554.4	548.9	-5.5Youth allowances	. . 59.7	59.4	-0.3Canada assistance plans-payments	to provinces	. . 457.1	489.6	32.5Other	. . 28.0	36.2	8.21,099.2	1,134.1	34.9Medical services	. . 50.0	52.7	2.7Health protection	. . 24.3	30.0	5.7Fitness and amateur sport	. . 8.5	10.1	1.6Administration and general 	. . 12.1	18.5	6.42,670.0	2,878.8	208.8Medical Research Council-	Scholarships and grants in aid	of research	. 35.6	37.4	1.8Administration	. 0.5	0.6	0.136.1	38.0	1.92,706.1	2,916.8	210.7TABLE 29	(in millions of dollars)	
Fiscal year ended March 31 1973 (preliminary)
FAMILY AND YOUTH ALLOWANCES AND ASSISTANCE	Family allow- ances	Youth allow- ances	Family assist- ance	TotalNewfoundland	. 16.9	2.1	19.0Nova Scotia	. 20.7	3.2	23.9Prince Edward Island . .	. 3.1	0.5	3.6New Brunswick 	. 17.5	2.8	20.3Quebec 	. 152.7	0.3	153.0Ontario	. 190.4	28.8	1.1	220.3Manitoba	. 24.5	3.7	0.1	28.3Saskatchewan	23.6	3.8	27.4Alberta 	. 44.2	6.4	0.1	50.7British Columbia 	
Yukon and Northwest	53.4	8.0	0.4	61.8Territories	1.9	0.1	2.0548.9	59.4	2.0	610.3
Canada A ssistance Plan
Payments to the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan are $490 million compared with $457 million in 1971-72. The Canada Assistance Plan Act which was enacted in 1966 authorizes 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. The rate of the 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 a federal-provincial agreement the Province of Quebec has opted out of a major portion of this program.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	
Newfoundland	. 25.6	26.3	0.7Nova Scotia	. 21.8	21.3	-0.5Prince Edward Island	. 4.0	4.6	0.6New Brunswick 	. 20.2	20.1	-0.1Quebec	(1)	0.4	0.4Ontario	211.1	223.6	12.5Manitoba 	36.3	37.8	1.5Saskatchewan 	25.3	26.4	1.1Alberta 	42.9	46.7	3.8British Columbia 	68.6	80.1	11.5Yukon and Northwest Territories ..	1.3	2.3	1.0457.1	489.6	32.5
(OLess than $50,000.
Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act
Contributions of $951 million to the provinces in 1972-73 under this Act are $106 million more than in 1971-72. Under federal-provincial agreement the Province of Quebec has opted out of this program.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
GOVERNMENT'S CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE AND DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES ACT	Fiscal year ended March 31 1973 (prelimi-1972 nary)	Increase or decrease (-)Newfoundland	27.1	30.2	3.1Nova Scotia	42.8	46.7	3.9Prince Edward Island	5.2	5.9	0.7New Brunswick 	34.8	39.8	5.0Ontario	427.5	479.8	52.3Manitoba 	53.5	63.3	9.8Saskatchewan 	49.5	54.4	4.9Alberta	94.8	105.3	10.5British Columbia 	107.1	122.0	14.9Yukon and Northwest Territories . .	2.3	3.4	1.1844.6	950.8	106.2
Medical Care Act
The Medical Care Act authorizes the payment of contributions by Canada towards the cost of insured medical 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; Ontario effective October 1, 1969; Quebec effective November 1, 1970; Prince Edward Island effective December 1, 1970; New Brunswick effective January 1, 1971 and Northwest Territories effective April 1, 1971.
Payments of $630 million are $54 million higher than in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROVINCES UNDER THE MEDICAL CARE ACT	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Newfoundland	14.4	15.3	0.9Nova Scotia	20.7	22.6	1.9Prince Edward Island	2.9	3.2	0.3New Brunswick 	16.2	18.5	2.3Quebec	159.8	175.2	15.4Ontario	203.7	225.0	21.3Manitoba 	27.5	30.2	2.7Saskatchewan 	25.4	26.6	1.2Alberta 	45.0	48.0	3.0British Columbia 	60.0	64.7	4.7Northwest Territories 	0.9	1.5	0.6576.5	630.8	54.3
Health Resources Fund
The Health Resources 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 institutes.
Expenditures are $37 million, the same amount as in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROVINCES UNDER THE HEALTH RESOURCES FUND ACT	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Newfoundland	0.7	5.2	4.5Nova Scotia	1.2	1.8	0.6Prince Edward Island	0)	0.1	0.1New Brunswick 	1.0	1.0Quebec	7.2	1.0	-6.2Ontario	17.4	16.2	-1.2Manitoba 	0.7	4.1	3.4Saskatchewan 	2.9	2.8	-0.1Alberta	4.6	4.1	-0.5British Columbia 	2.3	0.6	-1.7Northwest Territories 	0.1	0.137.0	37.0	
0)Less than $50,000.
National Revenue
Expenditures of the Department of National Revenue are $221 million compared with $185 million in 1971-72.
Outlays of $95 million in respect of the collection of customs import duties, excise taxes and excise duties are $10 million higher and outlays of $126 million in respect of taxation are $26 million more than in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
NATIONAL REVENUE	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Customs and Excise 	
Taxation	. . 84.9 . . 100.4	94.8 125.9	9.9 25.5185.3	220.7	35.4
Parliament
Costs of Parliament at $35 million are $2 million more than in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
PARLIAMENT	Fiscal year ended March 31		
1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Increase or decrease (-)House of Commons	. . . 25.7	27.3	1.6The Senate 	... 5.7	5.8	0.1Library of Parliament 	... 1.2	1.6	0.432.6	34.7	2.1
Post Office
Gross expenditures of the Post Office department total $561 million in 1972-73 compared with $496 million in 1971-72.
Salaries and allowances are $431 million, $59 million higher than in 1971-72 and costs of transportation of mail are $92 million, $4 million less than in 1971-72.
However, as authorized by the Post Office Act, remuneration of postmasters and staffs at revenue and semi-staff offices and certain other disbursements are paid from revenue. These payments amount to $59 million in 1972-73 ($56 million in 1971-72). Also, Post Office vote 1 authorized that revenue arising from services provided thereunder be credited thereto; this amounts to $28 million compared with $27 million in 1971-72.
Consequently net expenditures charged to budgetary appropriations are $474 million compared to $413 million in 1971-72.
As net Post Office receipts total $475 million as shown in the revenue section of this report and net expenditures are $474 million there is a net operating surplus of $1 million for 1972-73. In 1971-72 net receipts of $404 million and net expenditures of $413 million resulted in a net operating deficit of $9 million.
However, it is to be noted that post office expenditures do not reflect any charges for premises occupied by the Post Office nor for certain accounting and miscellaneous services provided by other departments, nor does post office revenue reflect any receipts from the franking privilege covering parliamentary mail or other miscellaneous services provided for other departments and agencies.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
POST OFFICE	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Operating expenditures-Salaries and allowances-Headquarters, regional and district offices, staff post offices and railway mail services 	. 321.9	378.2	56.3Postmaster and Staff-Revenue offices 	. 12.5	13.6	1.1Semi-staff offices 	. 31.1	32.3	1.2Sub postmasters 	. 6.8	7.3	0.5372.3	431.4	59.1Transportation of mail -Rail 	. 10.8	11.0	0.2Land	. 52.0	44.4	-7.6Air	. 28.2	30.5	2.3Water 	. 1.3	1.2	-0.1Payments to foreign postal administrations	. 4.1	4.9	0.896.4	92.0	-4.4Other	. 19.6	27.0	7.4488.3	550.4	62.1Capital expenditures	. 7.7	10.5	2.8Grants and contributions	. 0.1	0.1	Gross expenditure	496.1	561.0	64.9Less: Expenditure charges directly to revenue under the Post Office Act 	-55.8	-58.9	-3.1440.3	502.1	61.8Revenue credited to approbations 	-27.0	-28.0	-1.0Net expenditure 	413.3	474.1	60.8
Privy Council
Expenditures for the Privy Council, including those for the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Economic Council of Canada and the Public Service Staff Relations Board total $39 million, $26 million more than in 1971-72. The increase is due mainly to the costs of the 1972 federal election. Expenditures in respect of the Science Council of Canada and the Science Secretariat which were reported under Privy Council in 1971-72 are now reported under the Department of Science and Technology.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
PRIVY COUNCIL	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	
Privy Council	7.4	10.0	2.6Chief Electoral Officer	1.2	23.6	22.4Commissioner of Official Languages .	0.9	1.0	0.1Economic Council of Canada 	2.1	2.6	0.5Public Service Staff Relations Board .	1.5	1.8	0.313.1	39.0	25.9
Public Works
Expenditures of the department total $376 million compared with $338 million in 1971-72. Expenditures for the accommodation program at $298 million are $40 million more than in the previous year and account for most of the increase.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31
Increase
1973 or (prelimi- decrease
PUBLIC WORKS	1972	nary)	(-)
Accommodation services-			
General purpose buildings	171.5	191.6	20.1Single purpose buildings 	76.2	95.6	19.4Other	10.5	10.8	0.3258.2	298.0	39.8Transportation and other engineering services-Contributions to provinces under terms of the Trans-Canada	Highway Act 	2.3	-2.3Other	12.9	16.0	3.115.2	16.0	0.8Marine services	34.4	28.4	-6.0Professional and technical	services 	16.6	17.6	1.0Administration and general	13.8	16.0	2.2338.2	376.0	37.8
Regional Economic Expansion
Expenditures for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, including those for the Cape Breton Development Corporation, total $374 million compared with $346 million in 1971-72. Departmental expenditures are $321 million compared with $309 million in 1971-72 and include $92 million for industrial incentives ($106 million in 1971-72), $118 million for social adjustment and rural economic development ($88 million in 1971-72), $89 million for infrastructure assistance ($96 million in 1971-72) and $22 million for development planning ($19 million in 1971-72).
Payments to the Cape Breton Development Corporation total $53 million compared with $38 million in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION	Fiscal year ended March 31 1973 (prelimi-1972 nary)		Increase or decrease (-)
Department-			
Development planning	18.8	22.2	3.4Industrial incentives 	105.5	91.8	-13.7Infrastructure assistance	96.1	89.0	-7.1Social adjustment and rural	economic development	88.2	117.9	29.7308.6 Cape Breton Development Corporation-	320.9	12.3Payment to the corporation	covering mining losses 	28.9	32.6	3.7Payment to the corporation	for capital expenditures	9.4	9.4Payment to the corporation under	sections 22 and 23 of the Act .	1.5	1.5Payment to the corporation under	sections 19 and 24 of the Act .	8.9	9.2	0.337.8	52.7	14.9346.4	373.6	27.2
Science and Technology
This is a new ministry and includes the Science Secretariat which in 1971-72 was reported under Privy Council; also included under this heading are expenditures of the Science Council of Canada.
Expenditures in 1972-73 are $4 million compared with $2 million in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	
Science Council of Canada 	. 1.3	1.4	0.1Department	. 1.1	2.9	1.82.4	4.3	1.9
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 Company of Young Canadians, the National Arts Centre Corporation, the National Film Board, the National Library, the National Museums of Canada, the Public Archives, the Public Service Commission and the Representation Commissioner.
Expenditures total $973 million compared with $868 million in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in million of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31		- Increase or decrease (-)
SECRETARY OF STATE	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Department- Post-secondary education payments to provinces 	450.5	480.6	30.1Bilingualism development 	78.1	83.3	5.2Citizenship	43.0	59.9	16.9Translation bureau	11.1	13.8	2.7Arts and culture	12.1	8.3	-3.8Administration and general 	3.9	5.2	1.3598.7	651.1	52.4Canada Council	26.3	34.0	7.7Canadian Broadcasting Corporation .	181.0	205.0	24.0Canadian Film Development Corporation 	1.8	0.4	-1.4Canadian Radio-Television Commission 	4.7	5.4	0.7Company of Young Canadians 	1.9	2.0	0.1National Arts Centre Corporation ...	3.0	3.7	0.7National Film Board	12.0	14.5	25National Library	3.7	5.0	1.3National Museums of Canada 	11.2	19.9	8.7Public Archives	3.7	5.7	2.0Public Service Commission	19.4	25.2	5.8Representation Commissioner	0.1	1.2	1.1867.5	973.1	105.6
Expenditures for the development of bilingualism in the public service, which were included under Secretary of State in 1971-72 are now included under Treasury Board. Prior year figures have been adjusted for comparative purposes.
Post-secondary education payments to provinces of $481 million are $30 million higher than in 1971-72, expenditures for the bilingualism development of $83 million are $5 million higher and expenditures for citizenship of $60 million are $17 million higher than in 1971-72.
Solicitor General
Expenditures of the Department of the Solicitor General including net exepnditures for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police total $309 million, $49 million more than the 1971-72 total.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
SOLICITOR GENERAL	Fiscal year ended March 31 1973 (prelimi-1972 nary)		Increased or decreased (-)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police- Law enforcement-			
Police services under contract .	89.2	110.9	21.7
Enforcement of federal statutes			
and executive orders	50.5	65.2	14.7Administration 	22.8	26.2	3.4Support services 	14.6	14.0	-0.6National police services 	12.8	17.4	4.6189.9	233.7	43.8Pensions and other benefits-	Pensions	7.6	8.0	0.4Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account-	Government's contribution .	11.1	12.5	1.4Amortization of deferred	charges	7.9	8.2	0.3Additional interest	3.3	4.5	1.2Other 	2.1	2.6	0.532.0	35.8	3.8221.9	269.5	47.6Less: receipts and revenue credited	to the vote 	-49.2	-57.6	-8.4172.7	211.9	39.2Correctional services-	Care of inmates	58.0	60.0	2.0Rehabilitation of inmates 	15.4	19.9	4.5Parole and community services . . .	5.7	7.4	1.7Administration 	6.4	7.4	1.085.5	94.7	9.2Departmental administration 	1.9	2.4	0.5260.1	309.0	48.9
Gross expenditures of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are $270 million but receipts of $58 million arising mainly from policing services provided to certain provinces, territories and municipalities result in net expenditures of $212 million. In 1971-72 gross expenditures were $222 million, receipts were $49 million resulting in net expenditures of $173 million.
Expenditures of $95 million for correctional services are $9 million higher than in 1971-72.
Supply and Services
Expenditures under this heading, which include those for the Department of Supply and Services, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Canadian Arsenals Limited, total $88 million compared with $76 million in 1971-72.
Expenditures of the Supply Administration of the department are $25 million, $2 million more than in 1971-72 and for the Services Administration $51 million compared with $43 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
SUPPLY AND SERVICES	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Supply- Commercial supply	11.8	10.8	-1.0Engineering procurement	9.8	12.9	3.1Program administration	0.7	0.8	0.1Other	0.7	0.7	23.0	25.2	2.2Services- Public services compensation administration 	15.3	18.0	2.7Social and economic assistance program administration 	9.3	11.3	2.0Accounts payable and other payments administration	5.6	5.6	Management, financial and other services	5.9	7.3	1.4Computer Services Bureau revolving fund-deficit 	1.3	1.3Accounts of Canada and reporting services 	5.6	6.6	1.0Other	0.9	1.0	0.142.6	51.1	8.5Administration	4.2	5.4	1.269.8	81.7	11.9Canadian Arsenals Limited	1.9	2.2	0.3Canadian Commercial Corporation . .	3.9	4.2	0.375.6	88.1	12.5
Transport
Expenditures of the Department of Transport, including those in respect of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Transport Commission, the National Harbours Board, The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority and the Pacific Pilotage Authority, total $603 million compared with $511 million in 1971-72. Outlays in respect of real estate operations which were previously included in the Ministry of Transport expenditures are now included in expenditures of the Department of Public Works.
Department
Expenditures of $125 million for marine services are $22 million higher than in 1971-72, $171 million for air services are $12 million higher, and $66 million for surface transportation are $6 million less.
Canadian National Railways
The 1972 deficit of the Canadian National Railways at $18 million, to be charged to budgetary expenditure, is $6 million less than the 1971 deficit of $24 million which was charged to budgetary expenditure in 1971-72.
Canadian Transport Commission
Expenditures of the Commission in 1972-73 in the amount of $186 million are $64 million more than in 1971-72. Payments under the National Transportation Act are $122 million ($65 million in 1971-72), contributions to the railway grade crossing fund are $20 million ($20 million in 1971-72) and payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act are $13 milhon ($ 13 million in 1971-72).
National Harbours Board
Non-active advances to the Board to be charged to budgetary expenditure are $2 million, $1 million less than in 1971-72.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Budgetary expenditures in respect of the Authority are $13 milhon, approximately the same as in the previous fiscal year. The 1972 operating deficit of the Welland Canal of $10 milhon, charged to budgetary expenditure, is $1 million more than the 1971 deficit charged in 1971-72 and other expenditures of $3 milhon are $ 1 milhon less than in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ending March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
TRANSPORT	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Marine transportation program -Way facilities	95.7	114.7	19.0Marine regulations	4.6	5.0	0.4Other	2.7	4.8	2.1103.0	124.5	21.5Air transportation program-Airports and associated ground services 	36.1	39.1	3.0Air navigational services 	93.9	100.8	6.9Regulatory services	11.5	12.8	1.3Construction services 	8.5	8.8	0.3Other	9.4	9.4	159.4	170.9	11.5Surface transportation program-Ferry services 	61.0	51.2	-9.8Supplementary pensions	7.7	8.0	0.3Other	3.1	6.5	3.471.8	65.7	-6.1Transportation development agency .	4.5	10.2	5.7Administration	8.5	9.4	0.9347.2	380.7	33.5Canadian National Railways operating deficit	24.3	17.8	-6.5Canadian Transport Commission-Payments under the National Transportation Act 	65.5	122.0	56.5Contributions to the railway grade crossing fund 	20.0	20.0	Steamship subventions for coastal services 	6.3	7.0	0.7Maritime Freight Rates Act	13.1	13.0	-0.1Subsidies to regional air carriers . .	1.4	2.0	0.6Atlantic region freight assistance . .	6.9	12.0	5.1Other	8.5	9.7	1.2121.7	185.7	64.0National Harbours Board	3.7	2.3	-1.4Pilotage Authorities 	0.7	3.4	2.7The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority-Welland canal deficit	8.9	10.3	1.4Other	4.6	2.9	-1.713.5	13.2	-0.3511.1	603.1	92.0
Treasury Board
Expenditures of the Treasury Board, including those in respect of the National Research Council, are $519 million compared with $438 million in 1971-72.
The government's outlays in respect of the public service pension accounts are $320 million, $47 million more than in 1971-72. Contributions to the public service superannuation account, in an amount equal to the estimated current and prior service payments of individuals, are $109 million compared with $93 million in 1971-72. A further amount of $81 million, to cover the annual amortization charge in respect to actuarial deficiences arising out of salary increases and the actuarial deficiency revealed by the quinquennial evaluation made as at December 31, 1967, is included in budgetary expenditures. In 1971-72 amortization charges were $87 million. Also included in 1972-73 expenditures is $102 million for additional interest in respect of the superannuation account; in 1971-72 additional interest was $65 million.
Expenditures in respect of the Canada and Quebec pension plans total $24 million, the same as in 1971-72.
Contributions of $44 million in respect of public service social insurance are $20 million higher than in 1971-72.
National Research Council
Expenditures of the National Research Council are $142 million compared with $131 million in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
TREASURY BOARD	Fiscal year ended March 31		
	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	* Increase or decrease (-)
Public service pensions-			
Superannuation account-			
Government's contribution ....	93.0	109.1	16.1Amortization of deferred charges	87.4	81.0	-6.4Additional interest	65.3	102.0	36.7245.7	292.1	46.4Government's contributions to	Canada and Quebec pension plans	24.1	24.4	0.3Other 	3.6	3.8	0.227.7	28.2	0.5273.4	320.3	46.9Public service social insurance	23.4	43.7	20.3Administration and general	11.1	12.8	1.7307.9	376.8	68.9National Research Council of	Canada-	Operating expenditures	48.7	55.1	6.4Capital expenditures	6.1	9.6	3.5Grants and contributions	76.0	77.3	1.3130.8	142.0	11.2438.7	518.8	80.1
Outlays for scholarships and grants and assistance towards research in industry total $77 million, $1 million more than in 1971-72.
Urban Affairs
Expenditures of $134 million under this heading include budgetary expenditures in respect of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Capital Commission.
Expenditures in respect of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at $92 million are $10 million more than in 1971-72 and expenditures in respect of the National Capital Commission at $31 million are $15 million less than in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31		* Increase or decrease (-)
URBAN AFFAIRS	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Central Mortgage and Housing CorporationHousing research and community planning 	. 6.7	9.1	2.4Public housing projects and land development 	. 34.8	29.0	-5.8Municipal sewage treatment assistance	. 14.3	21.1	6.8Urban renewal assistance	. 24.4	23.0	-1.4Loss on mortgage sales 	. 2.0	10.0	8.082.2	92.2	10.0National Capital Com mission-Operating expenditures	. 12.3	13.1	0.8Payment to the national capital fund	. 33.5	18.1	-15.445.8	31.2	-14.6Department	. 1.9	10.2	8.3129.9	133.6	3.7
Veterans Affairs
Expenditures of the Department of Veterans Affairs total $447 million compared with $423 million in 1971-72.
Costs of the pensions program at $246 million are $11 million higher than in 1971-72, outlays for welfare services at $110 million are $11 million more, and outlays for treatment services at $73 million are $2 million higher than in 1971-72.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
VETERANS AFFAIRS	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Pensions- Grants and contributions	. . 231.4	241.5	10.1Operating expenditures	. . 3.9	4.8	0.9235.3	246.3	11.0Welfare services-War veterans allowances 	. . 77.2	87.0	9.8Other	. . 22.0	23.0	1.099.2	110.0	10.8Treatment services 	. * 70.8	73.0	2.2Veterans land administration . . .	. . 11.3	11.3	Bureau of Pensions Advocates . . .	. . 5.7	5.7	Administration	. . 1.0	1.1	0.1423.3	447.4	24.1

[Stage Direction]
The government's asset and liability account balances at March 31, 1973 as now estimated, the balances at March 31, 1972 and the net increases or decreases during 1972-73 are summarized in the following table:

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Balance at March 31, 1972	Net transac- tions 1972-73 (prelimi- nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)LIABILITIES Current and demand liabilities . . .	. 2,681.1	519.7	3,200.8Foreign exchange reserve accounts 	. . 1,120.3	103.0	1,223.3Deposit and trust accounts	. . 600.2	-10.5	589.7Annuity, insurance and pension accounts- Social security accounts 	. . 5,456.5	696.6	6,153.1Superannuation accounts . . . .	. . 8,672.3	860.4	9,532.7Other 	. . 1,447.5	-1.7	1,445.815,576.3	1,555.3	17,131.6Undisbursed balances of appropriations	. . 190.7	-4.7	186.0Refundable corporation tax . . .	. . 1.9	-1.2	0.7Provision for compound interest on Canada savings bonds . . . .	. . 56.9	44.8	101.7Deferred credits	. . 231.7	31.1	262.8Suspense accounts 	. . 6.0	6.0Unmatured debt	. . 27,258.5	1,779.0	29,037.547,723.6	4,016.5	51,740.1
TABLE 48 (Cont'd)
(in millions of dollars)
Balance at March 31, 1972	Net transac- tions 1972-73 (prelimi- nary)	Balance at March 3 1, 1973 (preliminary)ASSETS Current assets- Cash accounts	. 1,903.9	519.5	2,423.4Other 	. 56.0	9.5	65.51,959.9	529.0	2,488.9Departmental working capital advances 	. 172.0	8.7	180.7Foreign exchange reserve accounts-Advances to the Exchange Fund Account 	. 5,516.3	125.0	5,641.3Canada's subscription to the International Monetary Fund	1,141.3	50.9	1,192.26,657.6	/ 75.9	6,833.5Social security accounts- Canada Pension plan investment fund	. 4,611.3	978.7	5,590.0Unemployment insurance account-advances 	. 183.6	1,305.0	1,488.64,794.9	2,283.7	7,078.6Investment held for retirement of unmatured debt	. 15.4	-15.4	Advances, loans and investments-Domestic	. 13,749.7	1,248.7	14,998.4External	. 1,838.9	212.9	2,051.815,588.6	1,461.6	17,050.2Securities held in trust	. 128.6	-4.0	124.6Deferred charges 	. 921.5	22.0	943.5Capital Assets 	
Inactive loans and investments . .	* (1) . 94.8	94.8Total recorded assets 	. 30,333.3	4,461.5	34,794.8Less: Reserve for losses on realization of assets . . .	. -546.4	-546.4Net recorded assets 	. 29,786.9	4,461.5	34,248.4Net debt represented by excess of liabilities over net recorded assets 	. 17,936.7	-445.0	17,491.7
OlShown at nominal value of $1.

[Stage Direction]
The gross liabilities of the government are estimated at $51,740 million at March 31, 1973 compared with $47,723 million at March 31, 1972. The increase of $4,017 million is due mainly to increases of $1,779 million in unmatured debt and $1,555 million in annuity, insurance and pension accounts.
Net recorded assets estimated at $34,248 million are $4,462 million higher than at March 31, 1972 due mainly to increases of $1,462 million in advances, loans and investments, $979 million in the Canada pension plan investment fund and $1,305 million in loans and advances to the Unemployment Insurance Account.
The net debt of Canada, or the excess of liabilities over net recorded assets, is $17,492 million at March 31, 1973 compared with $17,937 million at March 31, 1972. The decrease of $445 million reflects the estimated surplus for 1972-73.

[Stage Direction]
Current assets:
These accounts consist of various cash accounts and the securities investment account.
Total current assets at $2,489 million are $529 million more than at March 31, 1972. The main changes are an increase of $390 million in Receiver General current deposits and an increase of $100 million in cash in hands of collectors and in transit.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
CURRENT ASSETS	Balance at March 31, 1972	Net transac- tions 1972-73 (prelimi- nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Cash accounts- Receiver General current deposits- Canada 	. 1,550.1	390.3	1,940.4Foreign countries 	. 17.8	-0.6	17.21,567.9	389.7	1,957.6Receiver General special deposits- Canada 	. 32.1	12.3	44.4Foreign countries 	. 0.2	0.232.3	12.3	44.6Other cash accounts- Cash hi hands of collectors and in transit	. 222.8	100.0	322.8Moneys received after March 31 but applicable to current year	. 59.8	15.6	75.4Post Office-cash on hand and in transit	. 20.2	1.8	22.0Miscellaneous	. 0.9	0.1	1.01,903.9	519.5	2,423.4Securities investment account . . .	. 56.0	9.5	65.51,959.9	529.0	2,488.9

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31 Billions of Dollars
1973*
1969	1970
* Preliminary.
1972
1973*

[Stage Direction]
30


[Stage Direction]
- 15
LOANS TO CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS _


[Stage Direction]
5
1. As shown on table "Summary of assets and liabilities". This chart does not reflect the reserve for losses on realization of assets.
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 $181 million is $9 million higher than at March 31, 1972.
Bullion and coinage consists of separate acc©unts for bronze, gold, nickel and silver in which are recorded transactions in respect of purchases and sales. Debits include the cost of all coin and bullion purchased from the Royal Canadian Mint. Credits represent the face value of all coin issued to, and gold bullion transferred to the Bank of Canada, and sales of silver bullion. The balances at March 31, 1973 total $10 million compared with $8 million at March 31, 1972.
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 at March 31, 1973 is $10 million, $4 million less than at March 31, 1972.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Net Balance transac- at Balance tions March 31, DEPARTMENTAL	at	1972-73	1973
WORKING CAPITAL	March 31, (prelimi- (prelimi-
ADVANCES	1972 nary)	nary)Bullion and coinage	8.0	2.0	10.0Defence production revolving fund .	14.2	-4.0	10.2Miscellaneous departmental imprest and standing advances	14.0	1.0	15.0Miscellaneous departmental accountable advances	9.2	0.8	10.0Stockpiling of uranium concentrates	101.2	8.8	110.0Transport stores account	7.3	-2.3	5.0Other	'.	18.1	2.4	20.5172.0	8.7	180.7
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 of $110 million is $9 more than at March 31, 1972.
Foreign exchange reserve accounts
Included in this category are those accounts which record transactions which affect Canada's holdings of international reserves. These accounts are advances to the Exchange Fund Account and Canada's subscription to the International Monetary Fund.
Advances to the Exchange Fund Account
Advances to the exchange fund are made for the purchase of gold and foreign exchange. Also included in this account are Special Drawing Rights (SDR's) issued by the International Monetary Fund.
During 1972-73 there is a net increase in advances of $125 million bringing the overall balance in the account to $5,641 million compared with $5,516 million at March 31, 1972.
Canada's subscription to the capital of the International Monetary Fund
This subscription is Canada's quota in the International Monetary Fund. In this organization, member's quotas are set in SDR units of account and are normally paid in gold (25 per cent) and the remainder (75 per cent) in the member's currency. If the fund does not require a currency, this portion of a member's quota may be paid in the form of non-interest-bearing notes payable on demand. These notes are recorded in the government's liabilities. The balance at March 31,1973 is $1,192 million compared with $1,141 million at March 31,1972.
Social Security accounts
Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund
This investment fund records securities purchased under the Canada Pension Plan 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 required to meet all payments in the following three-month period is available for the purchase of
securities of participating provinces; securities of Canada shall be purchased with the excess remaining after purchasing securities of each province as required. The holdings of $5,590 million in this account are $979 million more than at March 31,1972.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT FUND	Net transac- Balance tions at 1972-73 March 31, (prelimi-1972 nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Securities of- Newfoundland	. . 87.9	19.0	106.9Nova Scotia 	. . 178.5	38.5	217.0Prince Edward Island 	. . 17.5	3.8	21.3New Brunswick	. . 135.6	28.8	164.4Quebec 	. . 19.4	8.0	27.4Ontario 	. . 2,560.7	536.8	3,097.5Manitoba	. . 271.5	57.4	328.9Saskatchewan	. . 217.4	43.3	260.7Alberta 	. . 428.3	94.5	522.8British Columbia	. . 667.1	141.5	808.6Government of Canada	. . 27.4	7.1	34.54,611.3	978.7	5,590.0
Unemployment Insurance Account
Section 137 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 authorizes the Minister of Finance to make advances to the Unemployment Insurance account for the purpose of meeting payments required to be made in the operation of the act.
Advances at March 31, 1973 total $1,489 million, compared with $184 million at March 31, 1972.
Investments held for retirement of unmatured debt
Recorded herein were the government's holdings of the 5Vi per cent loan issued August 1, 1962 and maturing August 1, 1980. During 1972-73 these were liquidated resulting in a nil balance in this account at March 31,1973.
Advances, loans and investments-Domestic
Balances in this category at March 31, 1973 total $14,998 million of which $12,788 million is in respect of crown corporations. At March 31, 1972 balances totalled $13,750 million of which $11,998 million were in respect of crown corporations.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
ADVANCES, LOANS AND INVESTMENTS- DOMESTIC	Balance at March 31, 1972	Net transac- tions 1972-73 (prelimi- nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Loans to, and investment in, crown corporations- Canadian National Railways . . . .	2,323.8	-4.9	2,318.9Air Canada	268.0	-14.4	253.6Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	5,694.0	507.0	6,201.0Farm Credit Corporation	1,207.2	45.0	1,252.2Polymer Corporation Limited . . .	30.0	-30.0	The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority 	679.7	34.0	713.7Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	l 616.5	76.0	692.5Export Development Corporation	472.4	122.0	594.4National Harbours Board	273.5	273.5National Capital Commission (excluding Greenbelt) 	23.4	23.4Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	9.6	9.6Other 	224.4	30.0	254.411,822.5	764.7	12,587.2Recovery likely to require parliamentary appropriations-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	137.5	22.0	159.5National Capital Commission (Greenbelt)	37.8	3.0	40.8175.3	25.0	200.311,997.8	789.7	12,787.5Loans to provincial governments . .	504.9	193.0	697.9Veterans Land Act Fund	502.8	502.8Municipal Development and Loan Board-advances 	254.1	-10.0	244.1Canada Development Corporation .	25.0	163.0	188.0Airport capital loans	136.8	55.0	191.8Miscellaneous 	328.3	58.0	386.313,749.7	1,248.7	14,998.4
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
Outstanding advances and loans of $2,572 million to the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada are $ 19 million less than at March 31, 1972.
During 1972-73 the government made available $4 million to the Canadian National Railways and received payments of $9 million from the C.N.R. and $14 million from Air Canada.
At March 31, 1972 temporary loans of $9 million were outstanding to the C.N.R. in respect of its 1972 deficit. These were repaid during the year.
At March 31, 1972 temporary loans of $14 million were outstanding to Air Canada in respect of its 1972 operations and have been repaid by the company.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
ADVANCES TO CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND AIR CANADA	Balance at March 31, 1972	Net transac- tions 1972-73 (prelimi- nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Canadian National Railways-Capital Revision Act, 1952-Preferred stock	. . 1,235.2	1,235.2Refunding Act, 1955 	. . 819.5	819.5Financing and Guarantee Acts .	. . 197.4	197.4Interim financing of income deficit	. . 9.0	-9.0	Loans for maintenance repair and acquisition of passenger equipment	. . 1.4	-0.2	1.2Temporary loans-acquisition of bonds 	. . 44.3	4.3	48.6Canadian government railways . ,	. . 17.0	17.02,323.8	-4.9	2,318.9Air Canada- Financing and Guarantee Acts .	. . 253.6	253.6Interim financing	. . 14.4	-14.4	268.0	-14.4	253.62,591.8	-19.3	2,572.5TABLE 54	
(in millions of dollars)
ADVANCES TO AND REPAYMENTS BY, CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND AIR CANADA	March 31		Increase or decrease (-)
	1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	
Advances- Purchase of C.N.R. preferred stock	. 31.1	-31.1Temporary loans to C.N.R	. 3.5	4.3	0.8Refunding of debt (C.N.R.) . . . .	. 278.5	-278.5Financing and Guarantee Acts (Air Canada)	. 14.0	-14.0Interim financing-Air Canada	. 14.4	-14.4341.5	4.3	-337.2Repayments- Maintenance repair and acquisition of passenger equipment . .	. -0.2	-0.2	Interim financing-Air Canada	. -1.1	-14.4	-13.3Canadian National Railways . .	. -11.0	-9.0	2.0Financing and Guarantee Acts (Air Canada)	. -0.2	0.2Capital Revision Act 1952 20 year Obligation	.-100.0	100.0-112.5	-23.6	88.9229.0	-19.3	-248.3
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
The balance of $6,201 million at March 31, 1973 is $507 million more than at March 31, 1972. Loans and advances of $801 million are partly offset by repayments of $294 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
ADVANCES TO CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION	Net transac- Balance tions at 1972-73 March 31, (prelimi-1972 nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Direct lending, limited dividend and public housing	. . 4,676.7	397.4	5,074.1Federal-provincial projects-housing 	. 254.2	29.2	283.4Loan and mortgage fund 	. 4.4	-0.8	3.6Municipal sewage treatment 	. 280.3	47.6	327.9University housing 	. 373.2	24.6	397.8Housing projects	. 58.2	-2.3	55.9Urban renewal	. 22.0	11.3	33.3Capital stock	. 25.0	25.05,694.0	507.0	6,201.0TABLE 56 (in millions of dollars)	ADVANCES TO, AND REPAYMENTS BY, CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION	Fiscal year ended March 31	Increase or decrease (-)1972	1973 (prelimi- nary)	Advances- Direct lending, limited dividend and public housing	. 719.8	638.5	-81.3University housing projects ....	. 35.5	29.0	-6.5Federal-provincial projects-housing	. 31.5	35.5	4.0Urban renewal	. 8.0	12.5	4.5Municipal sewage treatment ....	. 66.4	85.0	18.6861.2	800.5	-60.7Repayments- Direct lending, limited dividend and public housing	. -172.2	-241.1	-68.9University housing projects . . . .	. -1.4	-4.4	-3.0Federal-provincial projects-housing	. -6.1	-6.3	-0.2Urban renewal	. -0.8	-1.2	-0.4Housing projects 	. -2.3	-2.3	Municipal sewage treatment . . . .	. -22.3	-37.4	-15.1Loan and mortgage purchase fund	. -0.2	-0.8	-0.6-205.3	-293.5	-88.2655.9	507.0	-148.9
Advances include $639 million for direct lending, limited dividend and public housing, $85 million for sewage treatment projects, $29 million for university housing projects, $36 million for federal-provincial projects and $12 million for urban renewal.
Repayments include $241 million for direct lending, limited dividend and public housing, $37 million for sewage treatment, $6 million for federal-provincial projects and $4 million for university housing projects.
Farm Credit Corporation
The government provides loans to the corporation which makes loans on farm property. The balance of $1,252 million consists of the crown's investment of $48 million in the corporation and $1,204 million in loans. At March 31, 1972 the balance of $1,207 million consisted of $46 million capital and $1,161 million in loans.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Outstanding obligations of $714 million in this account consist of $520 million in interest-bearing loans, $72 million in interest-free loans and $122 million in deferred interest. At March 31, 1972 outstanding obligations were $680 million and consisted of $513 million in interestbearing loans, $75 million in interest-free loans and $92 million in deferred interest.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
The balance of $693 million compared with $617 million at March 31, 1972. Included in these balances is $15 million in capital stock.
Export Development Corporation
The outstanding balance of $594 million in this account includes $25 million in capital stock, $25 million for working capital and $544 million for loans under section 29A of the Export Development Act. Comparable amounts at March 31, 1972 were $20 million in capital stock, $20 million in working capital and $432 million for loans.
National Harbours Board
Expenditures for capital purposes at harbour sites under the jurisdiction of the National Harbours Board fall into two general categories: (a) non-active loans charged to the net debt of Canada, and (b) investments included in the active assets of the Government of Canada.
At March 31, 1973 active assets of $274 million are the same as at March 31, 1972.
National Capital Commission
Outstanding loans to the Commission to acquire property total $64 million, of which $41 million is in respect of the "Greenbelt" section of the National Capital Area. These latter loans which are likely to require parliamentary appropriations in subsequent fiscal years increased by $3 million during the year.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
There is no change in the working capital, the balance remaining at $10 million. Loans to the Corporation for capital purposes total $160 million compared with $138 million at March 31, 1972. Recovery of these loans is likely to require parliamentary appropriations in subsequent fiscal years.
Other domestic loans
Loans to provincial governments in the amount of $698 million are $193 million higher than the March 31, 1972 balance. The increase is due mainly to the Federal-Provincial Loans Program, 1971 for the purpose of assisting in the creation of employment. Advances under the Veterans Land Act at $503 million are the same as at March 31, 1972, advances under the Municipal Development and Loan Act at $244 million are $10 million less than at March 31, 1972, advances of $188 million to the Canada Development Corporation are $163 million more than at March 31, 1972 and Airport Capital Loans of $192 million are $55 million more.
Advances, loans and investments-External
Balances in this category total $2,052 million compared with $1,839 million at March 31,1972.
The United Kingdom repaid $21 million of the $1,185 million loan made under the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946, reducing the principal to $976 million at March 31, 1973.
Advances under Part II of the Export Credits Insurance Act to Belgium, France and The Netherlands to assist them in the purchasing of goods in Canada are reduced by payments of $2 million by Belgium, $8 million by France and $5 million by the Netherlands, bringing the balance to $70 million at March 31, 1973.
Special loan assistance to developing countries increased by $165 million during the year to $596 million and Canada's subscription to the capital of international organizations increased by $85 million to $404 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
ADVANCES, LOANS AND INVESTMENTS-EXTERNAL	Net transac- Balance tions at 1972-73 March 31, (prelimi-1972 nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Loans to national governments- United Kingdom 	. 996.9	-21.3	975.6France 	. 50.7	-8.4	42.3The Netherlands 	. 23.0	-4.5	18.5Belgium	. 11.5	-2.3	9.2Special loan assistance to developing countries 	. 430.8	164.9	595.7Other	. 0.3	0.31,513.2	128.4	1,641.6Canada's subscription to capital of- Asian Development Bank	. 13.4	13.4Caribbean Development Bank . . .	. 2.6	0.6	3.2Inter-American Development Bank	14.2	14.2International Bank for Reconstruction and Development . . .	. 85.0	16.1	101.1International Development Association 	. 214.8	53.6	268.4International Finance Corporation	. 3.5	3.5319.3	84.5	403.8Working capital advances and loans to international organizations	. 6.4	6.41,838.9	212.9	2,051.8
Securities held in trust
Recorded herein are the security holdings in connection with various deposit and trust, and annuity, insurance and pension accounts. The balance at March 31, 1973, is $125 million compared with $129 million at March 31, 1972.
Deferred charges
These consist of the unamortized balances of actuarial deficiencies in the superannuation accounts and unamortized loan flotation costs. The balances in these accounts total $944 million compared with $921 million at March 31, 1972.
Unamortized portions of actuarial deficiencies
These accounts record the unamortized portions of the actuarial deficiencies in the superannuation accounts in respect of the public service, the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Actuarial evaluations are
39
made quinquennially, the next of which is being made as at December 31, 1970 for the Canadian forces superannuation account, as at December 31, 1972 for the public service superannuation account and as at December 31, 1969 for the RCMP superannuation account. Any actuarial deficiencies revealed when the evaluation is made will be credited to the superannuation account and charged to unamortized actuarial deficiencies and amortized to budgetary expenditure in five equal annual instalments commencing in the fiscal year in which the credit has been made to the superannuation account. Also, the cost for benefits payable under the superannuation acts as a result of the authorization of salary increases is credited to the superannuation accounts and charged to unamortized actuarial deficiencies and amortized 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 public service superannuation account is $388 million compared with $403 million at March 31,1972. During the year $ 170 million was charged thereto as a result of salary increases and $185 million was amortized as a charge to budgetary expenditure of which $104 million was charged to interest on public debt.
The unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the Canadian forces superannuation account is $377 million compared with $331 million at March 31, 1972. During the year $214 million was charged thereto as a result of salary increases and $168 million was amortized to budgetary expenditure of which $79 million was charged to interest on public debt.
The unamortized portion of the actuarial deficiency in the RCMP superannuation account is $24 million compared with $19 million at March 31, 1972. During the year $18 million was charged thereto as a result of salary increases and $13 million was amortized to budgetary expenditure of which $5 million was charged to interest on public debt.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
DEFERRED CHARGES	Net transac- Balance tions at 1972-73 March 31, (prelimi-1972 nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Unamortized portions of actuarial deficiencies-Superannuation accounts- Public service	. 402.7	-15.1	387.6Canadian forces	. 331.1	45.8	376.9Royal Canadian Mounted Police	. 18.8	4.7	23.5752.6	35.4	788.0Unamortized loan flotation costs . .	. 168.9	-13.4	155.5921.5	22.0	943.5
Unamortized loan flotation costs
This account records the residual balances of discounts, commissions, redemption bonuses and conversion premiums on loan flotations that have not been charged to budgetary expenditure. The balance of $156 million is $13 million less than at March 31, 1972.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31 1973
1972	(preliminary)
Balance at beginning of year	175.1	168.9
5% April 1, 1971-April 1, 1974 		. 1.4	
534% April 1, 1971-Oct. 1, 1976 		. 5.2	
64% April 1,1971-April 1, 1980 		. 2.9	
5%% June 1, 1971 - June 1, 1976 		. 1.7	
64% June 1, 1971-June 1, 1979 		. 1.4	
64% August 1, 1971- August 1, 1976 		. 1.0	
5Vi% August 1, 1971- December 1, 1974 		. . 1.3	
5*4% August 1, 1971- December 15, 1972 		. . 0.1	
54% October 1, 1971- December 1, 1973 		. . 0.1	
44% December 15, 1971-December 1, 1974 		. . 0.5	
5%% December 15, 1971 - December 15, 1979 		. . 2.4	
Treasury bills discount	. . 29.1	33.8Canada savings bonds	. . 22.7	17.954% April 1, 1972-December 1, 1973 	0.96>/2% April 1, 1972-April 1,1977 	0.453/4% July 1, 1972-February 1, 1974 	0.37% July 1, 1972-July 1, 1977 	2.064% December 15, 1972- June 1, 1979 	1.969.8	57.2Less - Amortization charges -Canada savings bonds and general loans	. -41.5	-41.5Discounts on treasury bills charged to interest on public debt	. -34.5	-29.1-76.0	-70.6
Increase or decrease (-)
during year	
-6.2	-13.4Balance at end of fiscal year . .	168.9	155.5
Cost of new loans issued during 1972-73 and charged to the account total $57 million, of which $34 million in respect of treasury bills discounts will be charged to interest on public debt in 1973-74. Credits to the account were $70 million, of which $41 million is a charge to the budgetary expenditure category "annual amortization costs" and $29 million (representing discount applicable to 1972-73 on treasury bills issued in 1971-72) is a charge to the budgetary expenditure category "interest on public debt".
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
Such loans and investments which are recorded herein are not currently revenue-producing or realizable. Included are the loans 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.

[Stage Direction]
The net debt of Canada, or the excess of liabilities over net recorded assets, is estimated at $17,492 million as at March 31, 1973 compared with $17,937 million at March 31, 1972. The decrease of $445 million reflects the 1972-73 budgetary surplus.

[Stage Direction]
Current and demand liabilities
Those liabilities, which consist of obligations of the government payable currently or on demand, total $3,201 million compared with $2,681 million at March 31, 1972.
Outstanding cheques at $777 million are $40 million more than at March 31, 1972 and accounts payable at $682 million are $33 million more than at the previous fiscal year-end.
Interest due and outstanding at $870 million is $311 million higher and interest accrued at $592 million is $52 million higher than at March 31, 1972.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31 Billions of Dollars
17. OTHER LIABILITIES 17. DEPOSIT AND TRUST ACCOUNTS 2% FOREIGN EXCHANGE RESERVES CURRENT AND DEMAND LIABILITIES

[Stage Direction]
1969	1970
* Preliminary.
1972
1973*
1973*
26314-61£

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
CURRENT AND DEMAND LIABILITIES	Balance at March 31, 1972	Net transac- tions 1972-73 (prelimi- nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Outstanding cheques	
737.1	40.3	777.4Accounts payable	. . . 649.7	32.5	682.2Non-interest-bearing notes	payable to international	organizations	
32.6	51.0	83.6Interest accrued	. . . 539.8	52.0	591.8Interest due and outstanding . . .	. . . 559.2	310.9	870.1Matured debt outstanding . . . .	. . . 30.9	27.0	57.9Other	. . . 131.8	6.0	137.82,681.1	519.7	3,200.8
Foreign exchange reserve accounts
Included herein are $853 million in non-interest-bearing notes issued to the International Monetary Fund to cover that portion of the government's subscription to the IMF not required in cash, and $370 million to cover Canada's liability for Special Drawing Rights issued by the IMF. At March 31, 1972 comparative figures were $750 million in notes and $370 million in respect of SDR's.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
DEPOSIT AND TRUST ACCOUNTS	Balance at March 31, 1972	Net transac- tions 1972-73 (prelimi- nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)
Deposit accounts -			
Provincial tax collection			
agreements account	216.5	-5.0	211.5Guarantee deposits	121.6	3.4	125.0Crown corporation deposits	48.0	48.0Contractor's holdbacks	20.9	20.9Canadian Dairy Commission	18.9	-6.0	12.9National Harbours Board	23.3	-6.3	17.0Instalment purchase of bonds,	public service	20.9	0.1	21.0Other	33.1	0.9	34.0503.2	-12.9	490.3Trust accounts -	Indian band funds 	29.9	0.1	30.0Canadian Pension Commission . . .	14.3	1.3	15.6Prairie Farm Emergency Fund . . .	14.4	-4.4	10.0Veteran's Care Trust Fund	9.3	9.3Other	29.1	5.4	34.597.0	2.4	99.4600.2	-10.5	589.7
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. Total balances of $590 million are $11 million less than at March 31,1972.
During the year collections of provincial income tax credited to the provincial tax collection agreements account totalled $2,448 million and payments to provinces charged to the account were $2,453 million bringing the balance in the account to $212 million at March 31, 1973.
Annuity, insurance and pension accounts
This category records the government's liability in respect of various annuity, insurance and pension accounts. These fall into two classes: social security accounts, which are the Canada Pension Plan Fund, the Old Age Security Fund and the Unemployment Insurance Account; and other accounts which include the superannuation accounts, the government annuities account and sundry insurance accounts.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
ANNUITY, INSURANCE AND PENSION ACCOUNTS	Balance at March 31, 1972	Net transac- tions 1972-73 (prelimi- nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Social security accounts -Unemployment Insurance Account Canada Pension Plan Account . . . . Old Age Security Fund	37.0 4,778.4 641.1	-26.5 1,023.1 -300.0	10.5 5,801.5 341.15,456.5	696.6	6,153.1Superannuation accounts - Public service	
Canadian forces	
Royal Canadian Mounted Police . .	. 4,488.5 . 3,960.1 . 223.7	440.5 375.1 44.8	4,929.0 4,335.2 268.58,672.3	860.4	9,532.7Government annuities	
Miscellaneous	. 1,303.8 . 143.7	-7.0 5.3	1,296.8 149.015,576.3	1,555.3	17,131.6
Unemployment Insurance Account
The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, authorized the establishment in the accounts of Canada of an account to be known as the Unemployment Insurance Account and that the balance of the amount standing to the credit of the Unemployment Insurance Fund under the former Act on
June 27, 1971, together with interest accrued thereon to that day, be credited thereto.
The Act also provides that all amounts received under the Act as or on account of premiums, fines, penalties, interest and repayment of overpayments of benefits, and all amounts collected by the Commission for services rendered to other government departments or agencies or the public, shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and shall be credited to the Unemployment Insurance Account; that any other amounts provided out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for any purpose related to unemployment insurance that is authorized by an appropriation by Parliament and the administration of which falls to the
Commission shall be credited to the Unemployment Insurance Account; that the Minister of Finance may authorize, in accordance with such terms and conditions and at such rates as he may prescribe, the payment of interest on the balance in the Unemployment Insurance Account, and such interest shall be credited to the account; and that there shall be charged to the account all amounts paid as or on account of benefits under this Act and the costs of administration of the Act.
During 1972-73 receipts totalled $2,122 million of which $1,305 million were advances by the government and disbursements were $2,148 million resulting in a balance of $10 million at March 31, 1973.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
		Fiscal year ended March 31			
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACCOUNT! O	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973 (preliminary)
Receipts- Contributions-					
Employees and employers	. 433.1	491.8	495.2	570.6	763.1Government	. 86.6	98.4	99.0	92.1	Net income from investments	
Advance from government	. 18.9	27.5	29.2	15.7 183.6	1,305.0Other income 	. -0.9	5.3	6.2	0.1	53.4Disbursements-	537.7	623.0	629.6	862.1	2,121.5Benefit payments	
Administration costs	
Outstanding warrants as at March 31, 1971	. -459.1	-542.1	-758.1	-1,122.8 -26.0 -27.6	-2,020.0 -128.0Excess of receipts or disbursements (-)	. 78.6	80.9	-128.5	-314.3	-26.5Balance at beginning of year	. 320.3	398.9	479.8	351.3	37.0Balance at end of year	
Investments in bonds and accrued interest	. 398.9 . -386.8	479.8 -468.0	351.3 -326.3	37.0	10.5Balance on deposit with the Receiver General	. 12.1	11.8	25.0	37.0	10.5
(^Formerly the Unemployment Insurance Fund, (until June 27, 1971)
Canada Pension Plan Account
The balance of $5,802 million is $1,023 million higher than the March 31, 1972 balance of $4,778 million.
Credits of $1,252 million to the account include $897 million in contributions under the Act, $350 million in interest from investments and $4 million in interest on the operating balance on deposit with the Receiver General. Disbursements of $229 million include $206 million in benefit payments. In 1971-72 receipts were $1,102 million
and disbursements were $167 million of which $144 million were benefit payments.
The amount by which the operating balance in the account in any month exceeds the estimated amount required to meet all payments in the following three-month period is available for the purchase of securities of participating provinces. Securities of Canada shall be purchased with the excess remaining after purchasing securities of each province as required. It is estimated that securities totalling $979 million will have been purchased bringing the balance to $5,590 million at March 31, 1973.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
CANADA PENSION PLAN ACCOUNT		Fiscal year ended March 31			
	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973 (preliminary)
Receipts-					
Contributions 	. 698.0	745.7	812.4	826.0	897.0Interest on investments	. 84.4	139.7	206.9	272.6	350.0Interest on operating balance	. 2.4	3.8	4.0	3.0	4.0Other	. 0.2	0.4	0.4	0.6	1.0785.0	889.6	1,023.7	1,102.2	1,252.0Disbursements-	Benefit payments	. -15.6	-47.4	-91.9	-144.4	-206.0Administration expenses	. -14.4	-17.7	-20.5	-22.9	-23.0-30.0	-65.1	-112.4	-167.3	-229.0Excess of receipts over payments	. 755.0	824.5	911.3	934.9	1,023.0Balance in account brought forward	. 1,352.8	2,107.8	2,932.3	3,843.6	4,778.5Balance at credit of account	. 2,107.8	2,932.3	3,843.6	4,778.5	5,801.5Less investments in securities held in the Canada Pension	Plan investment fund 	. -2,023.0	-2,832.8	-3,701.3	-4,611.3	-5,590.0Operating balance on deposit with the Receiver General . . . .	. 84.8	99.5	142.3	167.2	211.5
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 (maximum tax $60) on individual incomes and a 2 per cent tax on corporation incomes, and that pension payments of $40 per month be paid to all eligible persons over 70 years of age. Payments were effective from January 1952.
Amendments to the Act have increased these tax rates: on individual incomes to 4 per cent effective January 1, 1964 (maximum tax $120 increased to $240 effective January 1, 1967); on corporation incomes to 3 per cent effective January 1, 1959; and on sales to 3 per cent effective April 10, 1959.
The Old Age Security Act was amended effective January 1, 1972 to provide for the repeal of these taxes and for the crediting to the fund of an amount estimated to be equal to what would have been credited to the fund had those taxes not been repealed.
Pension rates also have 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, to $79.58 effective January 1, 1970 and to $80 effective January 1, 1971. A subsequent amendment in May 1972 provided that the basic pension be
escalated effective January 1973 to reflect changes in the consumer price index and resulted in monthly payments of $82.88 effective January 1973.
The Act was furtner amended to authorize pension payments effective January 1966 to all persons who had 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 1st of each subsequent year until 1970. A further amendment 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 was 40 per cent of the amount of the old age security pension. An amendment in 1970 fixed the maximum basic supplement at $55 per month and the amendment to the old age security program in May 1972 provided for the escalation of the basic old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement to the extent of the full annual increase in the consumer price index which brought the guaranteed income supplement to $67.12 per month effective January 1973.
During 1972-73 pension payments of $2,526 million exceed receipts of $2,226 million by $300 million reducing the balance in the account to $341 million at March 31, 1973. Receipts consist of $770 million from sales tax,

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
		Fiscal year ended March 31			
OLD AGE SECURITY FUND	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973 (preliminary)
Receipts-					
Sales tax	
528.1	577.4	573.8	668.5	770.0Personal income tax 	
915.0	1,026.5	1,132.5	1,237.0	1,190.0Corporation income tax	
183.0	227.1	207.9	212.5	266.01,626.1	1,831.0	1,914.2	2,118.0	2,226.0Disbursements-	Pension payments	
-1,296.8	-1,467.0	-1,634.2	-1,679.2	-1,787.0Guaranteed income supplement 	
-244.5	-263.5	-273.0	-526.1	-739.0-1,541.3	-1,730.5	-1,907.2	-2,205.3	-2,526.0Excess of receipts over disbursements	
84.8	100.5	7.0	-87.3	-300.0Balance in fund brought forward	
536.1	620.9	721.4	728.4	641.1Balance at credit of fund 	
620.9	721.4	728.4	641.1	341.1

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTSO)	Fiscal year ended March 31 1973 Increase or (prelimi- decrease 1972 nary) (-)		
Newfoundland	. 47.2	54.5	7.3Nova Scotia	. 97.1	110.7	13.6Prince Edward Island	. 17.2	19.7	2.5New Brunswick 	. 73.2	84.0	10.8Quebec	. 543.8	628.6	84.8Ontario	. 775.9	882.0	106.1Manitoba 	. 123.5	141.3	17.8Saskatchewan 	. 121.9	139.0	17.1Alberta	. 150.8	174.0	23.2British Columbia 	. 252.7	289.9	37.2Northwest and Yukon Territories .	. 2.0	2.3	0.32,205.3	2,526.0	320.7
('^Includes $739 million in 1972-73 and $526 million in 1971-72 for guaranteed income supplement.
$1,190 million from the tax on personal incomes and $266 million from the tax on corporation income. In 1971-72 payments of $2,205 million exceeded receipts of $2,118 million.
The Public Service Superannuation Account
The balance of $4,929 million in this account is $441 million higher than at March 31, 1972. Receipts of $567 million include employees contributions of $111 million, the government's contribution of $109 million, interest of $165 million, $170 million to provide for additional liabilities arising from salary increases and contributions of $4 million by crown corporations. Contributions by the government and crown corporations are equal to the estimated current and prior service payments by individuals in 1971-72. Disbursements of $127 million include $114 million for payment of annuities and $13 million for withdrawal of contributions.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)

[Stage Direction]
Receipts-
Contributions-
Employees-
Government	
Crown corporations
Government	
Crown Corporations .
Interest	
Actuarial liability . . . . Other	
Disbursements-
Annuities	
Withdrawals of contributions Other	
Excess of receipts over disbursements Balance in account brought forward .
Balance at credit of account	
Fiscal year ended March 31
1969	1970	1971	1972	(preliminary). 71.6	84.9	88.0	103.8	105.0. 5.1	5.3	7.4	7.9	6.2. 66.0	73.5	85.6	88.8	109.1. 4.8	5.3	6.6	7.1	4.3. 118.0	131.0	147.7	163.7	165.0. 121.0	215.1	161.8	244.2	170.0. 3.0	1.8	1.1	1.7	7.8389.5	516.9	498.2	617.2	567.4. 74.7	-83.3	-95.0	-106.2	-111.0. -10.3	-10.5	-11.4	-10.4	-13.0. 1.9	-2.1	-1.3	-2.0	-2.9-86.9	-95.9	-107.7	-118.6	-126.9. 302.6	421.0	390.5	498.6	440.5. 2,875.8	3,178.4	3,599.4	3,989.9	4,488.5. 3,178.4	3,599.4	3,989.9	4,488.5	4,929.0
Canadian Forces Superannuation Account
The balance of $4,335 million in this account reflects an increase of $375 million during 1972-73.
increases. Government contributions are made at the rate of 1 4/5 times the current and prior service contributions by personnel.
Disbursements of $124 million include $118 million in
Receipts of $499 million include $44 million in pensions and retiring allowances and $6 million in cash contributions by personnel, $79 million in contributions by termination allowances and return of contributions.
the government, $163 million in interest and $213 million In 1971-72 receipts totalled $492 million and dis-to provide for additional liabilities arising from salary bursements totalled $102 million. TABLE 68 (in millions of dollars)					
CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT		Fiscal year ended March 31			
	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973 (preliminary)
Receipts-					
Contributions-					
Personnel	38.7	39.2	41.5	43.9Government	65.6	70.4	73.8	79.0Interest 	124.4	135.6	147.5	163.0Actuarial liability	129.0	107.5	228.9	213.5Other	0.1	0.1	(1)	(1)Disbursements-	362.6	357.8	352.8	491.7	499.4Pensions and retiring allowances	. . -55.2	-67.4	-81.3	-97.3	-118.0Cash termination allowances and return of contributions .	. . -7.0	-7.5	-7.2	-4.7	-6.0Other 	-0.1	-0.1	-0.2	-0.3-62.3	-75.0	-88.6	-102.2	-124.3Excess of receipts over disbursements	. . 300.3	282.8	264.2	389.5	375.1Balance in account brought forward	. . 2,723.3	3,023.6	3,306.4	3,570.6	3,960.1Balance at credit of account	. . 3,023.6	3,306.4	3,570.6	3,960.1	4,335.2
G)Less than $50,000.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account
The balance of $269 million in this account is $45 million higher than at March 31, 1972. Receipts of $47 million include $8 million in contributions by personnel, $9 million in interest, and $13 million in government's
contribution. Government contributions are made at the rate of 14/5 times the current and prior service contributions by personnel.
Disbursements of $3 million consisted of annuities, allowances, cash termination allowances and return of contributions.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT		Fiscal year ended March 31			
1969	1970	1971	1972	1973 (preliminary)Receipts Contributions- Personnel	3.4	4.2	5.2	6.3	7.5Government	6.6	7.4	9.1	11.1	13.2Interest 	4.5	5.5	6.9	8.3	9.2Actuarial liability	12.7	19.2	14.2	17.527.2	36.3	35.4	25.7	47.4Disbursements-	Annuities and allowances	-0.9	-1.0	-1.2	-1.4	-2.0Cash termination allowances and return of contributions . . .	-0.2	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.6-1.1	-1.3	-1.5	-1.7	-2.6Excess of receipts over disbursements	26.1	35.0	33.9	24.0	44.8Balance in account brought forward	104.7	130.8	165.8	199.7	223.7Balance at credit of account 	130.8	165.8	199.7	223.7	268.5
Government Annuities Account
The balance of $1,297 million is $7 million less than the balance of $1,304 million at March 31, 1972.
Undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts
This category records the undisbursed balances of appropriations to special accounts from which disbursements may be made in the current and future years for authorized purposes. They fall into two classes. The first of these, comprising the majority of the accounts, consists of 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 in the current and future years with the authority of parliament, for purposes of the Department of National Defence.
The balance of $186 million is $5 million less than at March 31, 1972.
The main changes are a decrease of $17 million in the reserve for wheat inventory reduction payments and an increase of $10 million in the international assistance account.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
UNDISBURSED BALANCES OF APPROPRIATIONS TO SPECIAL ACCOUNTS	Net transBalance actions at 1972-73 March 31, (prelimi-1972 nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Reserve for wheat inventory payments	26.9	-16.8	10.1Reserve for salary revisions	37.6	-2.6	35.0International assistance account . . .	91.2	9.7	100.9Surplus crown assets	, 12.7	1.0	13.7Railway grade crossing fund	6.4	3.0	9.4National capital fund	12.0	12.0Other	3.9	1.0	4.9190.7	-4.7	186.0
Refundable corporation tax
This account recorded the refundable corporation tax on cash profits of businesses paid 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 $1 million at March 31, 1973 is $1 million less than the balance at March 31,1972.
26314-62
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 $102 million is $45 million higher than at March 31, 1972.
Deferred credits
Recorded in these accounts are amounts due to the government in respect of which payment is deferred. These are contra accounts to corresponding items under the asset categories "advances, loans and investments".
The balance of $263 million is $31 million more than at March 31,1972.
Suspense accounts
These consist of balances where some uncertainty as to disposition exists. The balance of $6 million is the same as at March 31, 1972.
Unmatured debt
The unmatured debt of Canada at $29,038 million as at March 31, 1973 is comprised of $28,704 million payable in Canadian dollars, $260 million payable in U.S. dollars and $74 million payable in German deutsche marks.
At March 31, 1972 unmatured debt was $27,259 million and was comprised of $26,923 million payable in Canadian dollars, $262 million payable in United States dollars and $74 million payable in German deutsche marks.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
(in millions of dollars)

[Stage Direction]
Net	Balance
trans-	at
Balance actions March 31, at	1972-73	1973March 31,	(prelimi-	(prelimi-1972	nary)	nary)
Deferred interest-
United Kingdom Financial
Agreement Act	101.1	101.1The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	91.6	30.9	122.5Northern Canada Power Commission	18.1	18.1Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	0.1	0.1210.9	30.9	241.8Balances receivable under agreements	of sale of crown assets	0.2	0.2Crown Assets Disposal Corporation .	19.0	19.0Unamortized premium on loans ....	1.6	0.2	1.8231.7	31.1	262.8UNMATURED DEBT	Net transBalance actions at 1972-73 March 31, (prelimi-1972 nary)	Balance at March 31, 1973 (preliminary)Payable in Canadian dollars-Marketable bonds	. . 13,353.6	37.4	13,391.0Non-marketable bonds- Canada savings bonds	. . 9,712.1	1,276.1	10,988.2Canada pension plan 	. . 27.3	7.2	34.5Treasury bills 	. . 3,830.0	460.0	4,290.026,923.0	1,780.7	28,703.7Payable in United States dollars!1)	. . 261.6	-1.7	259.9Payable in Deutsche Marks!1) . .	. . 73.9	73.927,258.5	1,779.0	29,037.5
17 ^Marketable bonds payable in U.S. dollars are converted at U.S. $1.00 = CAN. $1.08108 and those payable in Deutsche Marks are converted at D.M. 3.66 = CAN. $1.08108.

[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.
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.
On the asset side, the non-budgetary transactions consist, for the most part, of loans and advances to, and repayment by crown corporations and other government agencies and funds, national, provincial and municipal governments, international organizations and other borrowers. On the liability side they relate mainly to
receipts and payments in connection with the many deposit and trust accounts, and annuity, insurance and pension funds held or administered by the government.
The following statement summarizes both the budgetary and non-budgetary transactions in 1972-73 and indicates how they affected the government's cash position. For purposes of comparison the corresponding figures for 1971-72 are also shown.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal year ended March 31			
CHANGE IN CASH POSITION		1972-73	
	1971-72 (preliminary)		
Budgetary transactions-			
Revenue	14,227	16,600	Expenditure	-	-14,841	-16,155	-614	445Non-budgetary transactions	(excluding unmatured debt transactions) (net)	Receipts and credits	1,232	1,478	Disbursements and charges .	-2,345	-3,306	-1,113	-1,828Overall cash requirement to be	financed by increase in unmatured debt or decrease in cash balances . . .	-1,727	-1,383Unmatured debt transactions-	Marketable bonds	362	36	Canada savings bonds	1,908	1,276	Canada pension plan 	
Unemployment Insurance	7	7	Account	-315	Treasury bills	95	460	Securities investment account Investments held for	1	-9	retirement of debt 	-9	15	2,049	1,785Net increase or decrease (-) in Receiver General bank balances Receiver General bank balance at	322	402beginning of year	1,278	1,600Receiver General bank balances .	1,600	2,002
In 1972-73 an estimated surplus of $445 million in budgetary transactions and an estimated net requirement of $1,828 million for non-budgetary transactions
(excluding unmatured debt transactions) will result in an overall requirement of $1,383 million. As outstanding unmatured debt is expected to result in an increase of $1,785 million during the year, Receiver General bank balances will increase by $402 million. In 1971-72 the budgetary deficit of $614 million and net requirements of $1,113 million for non-budgetary purposes resulted in an overall requirement of $1,727 million. As there was an increase of $2,049 million in outstanding unmatured debt, Receiver General bank balances rose by $322 million.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
AT END OI MONTH		Fiscal year ended March 31			
1969	1970	1971	1972	1973April 	
609.7	713.0	527.0	1,217.0	1,477.5May	
458.4	804.1	540.0	1,476.3	1,288.5June	
328.6	879.8	311.8	1,373.2	857.9July	
248.4	874.4	345.9	1,378.7	1,075.6August	381.2	841.9	433.8	1,242.5	816.8September	190.8	636.4	296.0	1,021.0	626.2October 	391.8	479.0	262.3	927.8	628.2November	
995.0	1,537.0	1,345.5	2,825.8	2,251.4December	
706.6	1,377.0	1,446.6	2,286.5	2,403.5January 	
853.5	1,440.7	1,629.9	2,506.0	2,625.1February	761.2	1,366.7	1,723.3	2,279.4	2,463.6March	820.1	1,255.8	1,582.8	1,984.8TABLE 75 GOVERNMENT OF CANADA FOREIGN CASH BALANCES (Converted to Canadian Dollar Values) (in millions of dollars)	AT END OF MONTH	Fiscal year ended March 31	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973April 	
13.1	22.7	25.6	6.1	14.5May	
14.6	23.5	32.7	9.3	18.7June	
19.3	22.2	33.3	8.9	19.3July	
20.4	23.3	30.6	1.5	30.7August	
22.9	20.4	27.6	19.3	18.9September	
26.8	16.8	23.1	23.5	21.4October 	
18.2	24.8	28.0	24.9	18.8November	
24.6	25.2	24.7	23.5	11.9December	
14.4	24.8	30.0	26.5	15.0January 	
18.1	23.8	24.5	23.9	18.9February 	
20.7	20.8	27.0	20.3	14.2March	
14.5	24.8	21.9	17.4	17.4
26314-62J
Non-budgetary receipts and credits (excluding unmatured debt transactions)
Non-budgetary receipts and credits of $1,478 million include net receipts of $860 million in respect of superannuation accounts, $59 million in repayments of loans and $558 million from other accounts.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Receipts and Credits (net)	Fiscal year ended March 31 1973 1972 (preliminary)	
Repayments of loans, investments and advances- Canadian National Railways (including Air Canada) 	-228.9	19.3Municipal Development and Loan Board	9.4	10.0Polymer Corporation Limited	30.0Investments in United States securities issued by other than the Government of Canada 	25.8	-193.7	59.3Superannuation accounts-Public service	498.5	440.5Canadian forces 	389.5	375.1Royal Canadian Mounted Police ....	23.9	44.8911.9	860.4Other receipts and credits- Outstanding cheques	106.7	40.3Accounts payable	67.4	32.5Interest accrued	44.2	52.0Interest due and outstanding	233.6	310.9Matured debt	-1.7	27.0Non-interest-bearing notes payable to international organizations	25.1	51.0Compound interest on Canada savings bonds 	38.3	44.8513.6	558.51,231.8	1,478.2
Non-budgetary disbursements and charges (excluding unmatured debt transactions)
Non-budgetary disbursements and charges total $3,306 million and include $1,500 million for loans, investments and advances, $73 million in respect of foreign exchange reserve accounts, $1,587 million in respect of social security accounts and $147 million for other accounts.
TABLE 77 (in millions of dollars)			
	Fiscal year ended		h
	March 31		. v vv;
Disbursements and Charges		1973	
(Net)	1972	(preliminary)	Loans, investments and advances- Atomic Energy of Canada Limited . . .	112.2	76.0	f*Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . .	26.5	22.0	1Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation 	655.9	507.0	Farm Credit Corporation	30.4	45.0	Export Development Corporation . . .	118.0	122.0	National Capital Commission 	-0.3	3.0	%National Harbours Board	3.3	.The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority .	61.1	34.0	Provincial governments 	145.0	193.0	M mYukon and Northwest Territories . . .	21.5	29.0	National governments 	107.1	128.4	International organizations	50.7	84.5	Airport Capital loans	90.4	55.0	Canada Development Corporation . . .	25.0	163.0	Telesat Canada	20.0	15.0	Working capital advances	-22.3	8.7	Other	10.5	14.0	1,455.0	1,499.6	Social security funds- Canada Pension Plan Account	-934.9	-1,023.1	rCanada Pension Plan Investment Fund	910.0	978.7	HiOld Age Security Fund 	87.3	300.0	Unemployment Insurance Account . .	-39.5	26.5	Ssi f*Advances to Unemployment Insurance Account 	183.6	1,305.0	206.5	1,587.1	Foreign exchange reserve accounts- Exchange Fund Account-Advances 	821.0	125.0	7'llvr ' V'VSpecial Drawing Rights in the International Monetary Fund	116.9	International Monetary Fund-Government equity 	-7.6	50.9	Allocation of Special Drawing Rights	-116.9	Non-interest bearing notes	-115.0	-103.0	698.4	72.9	Other disbursements and charges- Cash in hands of collectors and in transit 	-97.9	100.0	Deferred charges	177.9	22.0	Deposit and trust accounts	-161.0	10.5	Other 	65.9	14.0	-15.1	146.5	2,344.8	3,306.1

[Stage Direction]
Gross debt, net recorded assets 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 $51,740 million at March 31, 1973, an increase of $4,017 million over the total at March 31,1972. The main changes are increases of $1,779 million in unmatured debt and $1,555 million annuity, insurance and pension accounts. Unmatured debt at $29,038 million represents 56 per cent and annuity, insurance and pension accounts at $17,131 million represents 33 per cent of the total. At March 31, 1972 unmatured debt at $27,259 million was 57 per cent and annuity, insurance and pension accounts at $15,576 million were 33 per cent of total liabilities.
The government's net recorded assets are estimated to be $34,248 million at March 31, 1973, an increase of $4,462 million over the total at March 31, 1972. The main changes are increases of $1,462 million in advances, loans and

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Years Ended March 31
investments, $979 million in the Canada Pension Plan investment fund and $1,305 million in advances to the Unemployment Insurance Account. Advances, loans and investments at $17,050 million represent 50 per cent, foreign exchange reserve accounts at $6,834 million represent 20 per cent and the Canada Pension Plan investment fund at $5,590 million represent 16 per cent of the total. At March 31, 1972 advances, loans and investments at $15,589 million were 52 per cent, foreign exchange reserve accounts at $6,658 million were 22 per cent and the Canada Pension Plan investment fund at $4,611 million was 15 per cent of the total.
Based on the above figures the net debt of Canada will be $17,492 million at March 31, 1973 compared with $17,937 million at March 31, 1972. The decrease of $445 million is equivalent to the 1972-73 estimated budgetary surplus.

[Stage Direction]
Billions of Dollars

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
Gross public debt	Less	Increase
net	in net debt
Unmatured	Other	recorded	Net	duringAs at March 31___________________________debt_______________liabilities____________Total____________ assets	debt	fiscal year1969	
22,101.0	13,818.3	35,919.3	18,583.4	17,335.9	576.11970	
22,637.2	15,512.9	38,150.1	21,206.8	16,943.3	-392.61971	
25,201.2	17,774.6	42,975.8	25,653.4	17,322.4	379.11972	
27,258.5	20,465.1	47,723.6	29,786.9	17,936.7	614.31973	(preliminary)	
29,037.5	22,702.6	51,740.1	34,248.4	17,491.7	-445.0
Unmatured debt
Total unmatured debt of $29,038 million is $1,779 million more than at March 31, 1972.
The government's holdings of its own securities as at March 31, 1973 are comprised of $56 million in the securities investment account, which represent Canada savings bonds held in respect of the employees instalment purchase plan. This is a decrease of $4 million over the previous year-end total, when holdings were $45 million in the securities investment account in respect of the employees instalment purchase plan and $15 million in investment held for retirement of unmatured debt.
Of the total unmatured debt, $28,704 million is payable in Canadian dollars, $260 million is payable in U.S. dollars and $74 million is payable in German deutsche marks. Securities payable in U.S. dollars are converted at U.S. $1.00 = CAN. $1.08108 and those payable in Deutsche Marks are converted at D.M. 3.66 = CAN. $1.08108.
Summary of security issues, maturities, cancellations, conversions and redemptions
Excluding the refunding of treasury bills, the government will have issued securities in an amount of $4,180 million and will have retired $2,401 million.
Net sales of Canada savings bonds series 27 of $2,003 million exceed redemptions of $727 million by $1,276 million bringing total Canada savings bonds to $10,988 million at March 31, 1973.
Treasury bills of $4,290 million are $460 million more than at March 31, 1972 and consist of $2,795 million in three-month bills, $1,095 million in six-month bills and $400 million in special bills.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	Fiscal year ended March 31			
UNMATURED DEBT TRANSACTIONS	1972	1973 (preliminary)	Balance at beginning of year . . . New issues -Non-marketable bonds- Canada savings bonds	
Canada Pension Plan bonds .	. 2,612 . 7	25,201	2,003 7	27,2592,619	2,010	Marketable bonds 	
Treasury bills (net) 	. 2,220 . 95	1,710 460	4,934	4,180	Maturities, redemptions, cancellations and conversions-Non-marketable bonds-Canada savings bonds . . . Unemployment Insurance Commission	. 704 . 315	727	1,019	727	Marketable bonds	. 1,857	1,674	2,876	2,401	Increase	2,058	1,779Balance at close of fiscal year . .	27,259	29,038

[Stage Direction]
OR CANCELLED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1973 (preliminary)
(in millions of dollars)
	Re-	Can-	
	Matured deemed	celled	Total
Marketable bonds -			
T28	. 455	262	717AT 14	7	7F37	. 235	235CT26	13	13F43	. 110	110F50	. 150	150F53	. 215	215F59	
5% 1962-87	. 225	225N.Y	. 2	21,390 2	282	1,674Non-marketable bonds -	Canada savings bonds (SI 3-26)	727	7271,390 729	282	2,401
Interest rates
The average interest rate on the government's unmatured debt as at March 31, 1973 is estimated at 6.06 per cent compared with 5.89 per cent at March 31, 1972. The
average yield on three-month treasury bills was 4.46 per cent at tender on March 29, 1973 compared with 3.57 per cent at tender on March 29, 1972; on six-month bills it was 4.79 per cent at tender on March 29, 1973 compared with 3.86 per cent at tender on March 29, 1972; and on special bills it was 4.77 per cent at tender on February 8, 1973 compared with 4.39 per cent on February 10, 1972.

[Stage Direction]
NEW SECURITIES ISSUED DURING FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1973 (in millions of dollars)
Total
Amount
Issued
Marketable bonds-
Non-marketable bonds-Canada savings bonds-Nov. 1, 1972 - Nov. Canada Pension Plan . Treasury bills (net) . . .
F 66	485
F 69	150
F 72	225
F 73	200
F 74	650
	1,710
S 27	2,003
	7
	460
4,180

[Stage Direction]
FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31	High	Low	Last issueper cent	per cent	per centThree-month bills-	1969 	. 7.00	5.48	6.581970 	. 7.83	6.54	7.001971	. 7.02	2.99	3.021972 	. 4.06	2.96	3.571973 	. 4.46	3.42	4.46Six-month bills-	1969 	. 7.01	5.43	6.801970 	. 7.93	6.74	6.761971	. 6.82	3.08	3.081972 	. 4.27	3.13	3.861973 	. 4.79	3.72	4.79Special bills-	1969 	. 6.53	5.90	5.901970 	. 8.01	7.46	8.011971	. 6.80	4.77	4.981972 	. 4.39	3.60	4.391973 	. 4.77	4.36	4.77
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 liabilities. 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, advances under the Export Development Act, bank loans under the Canada Student Loans Act and the Farm Improvements Loans Act and bank loans to the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)________________________________________
Amount
of	Amount
Guarantee	Outstanding
Railway securities guaranteed as to principal and interest-
Canadian National 3%% due February 1, 1974	
200.0	200.0Canadian National 2%% due June 15, 1975, U.S. $6,000,0000)	
6.0	6.0Canadian National 5% due May 15, 1977	
75.7	75.7Canadian National 4% due February 1, 1981	
300.0	300.0Canadian National 5%% due January 1,1985	
88.0	88.0Canadian National 5% due October 1, 1987	
139.8	139.8Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company	
5.4	5.4814.9	814.9
Other outstanding guarantees and contingent liabilities-
Loans made by lenders under Part IV of the National Housing Act, 1954 for home extension
and improvement!2)	
30.0	23.5Insured loans made by approved lenders under	the National Housing Act,	1954(2)(3)	
16,000.0	10,056.0Liability for insurance and guarantees under	the Export Development Act(2)	
1,150.0	654.8Loans made by chartered banks and credit unions under the Farm Improvement Loans Act	
1,068.6	272.1Loans made by chartered banks and credit unions under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act	
11.4	2.4Loans made by chartered banks under the Small Businesses Loans Act	
58.1	20.7Loans made by chartered banks and credit unions under the Canada Student Loans Act!4)	
398.0	398.0Loans made by chartered banks to the Canadian Wheat Board	
800.0	436.5Loans made by lenders under the Cape Breton Development Act	
30.0	28.5Loans made by lenders under the General Adjustment Assistance Program	
250.0	24.9Loans made by lenders under the Regional Development Incentives Act and the Regional Economic Expansion Act	
1.0	1.020,612,0	12,733.3
Loans maintained by approved lending institutions under National Housing Acts prior to 1954 Act... Unstated Indeterminate
Guarantees to owners of returns from moderate rental housing projects!5)	 Unstated Indeterminate
(1)	Liability is subject to exchange rate in effect June 15, 1975.
(2)	As of December 31, 1972.
(3)	As reported by approved lenders as of December 31, 1972.
(4)	Includes contingent liability in respect of alternative payments to non-participating province.
(5)	As of December 31, 1972, funds totalling $7,003,991 were held by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purpose of settling claims. In 1972 rental contracts totalled $3,301,000.


[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT OF REVENUE FOR THE LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS (in millions of dollars)
Tax revenue-income tax-
Personal!1)!2)	
Corporation!1)!2)	
On dividends, interest, etc., going abroad
Social development tax	
Excise taxes-
Sales tax!1)!2)	
Other taxes-
Cigarettes, tobacco and cigars	
Jewellery, watches, ornaments, etc. . .
Matches and lighters	
Television sets, radios and phonographs
Toilet preparations	
Wines	
Sundry commodities	
Interest and penalties	
Less refunds	
Customs import duties	
Excise duties-
Spirits	
Beer	
Cigarettes, tobacco and cigars Lew refunds	
Estate tax	
Miscellaneous tax revenue . . .
Total tax revenue	
Non-tax revenue-
Return on investments	
Post office-net postal revenue Other	
Total non-tax revenue . . . Total revenue	
(^Excluding credits to old age security fund-
Personal income tax . . Corporation income tax Sales tax	
			1972-73
1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72 (preliminary). . . 3,356.4	4,085.1	4,696.5	5,582.0	7,190.0. . . 2,030.0	2,612.0	2,218.5	2,183.1	2,620.0. . . 205.6	248.5	258.2	287.7	289.45,592.0	6,945.6	7,173.2	8,052.8	10,099.4476.5	566.3	408.4	5.6. . . 1,569.8	1,716.9	1,707.5	1,984.7	2,305.0. . . 304.2	295.8	319.4	330.1	354.3. . . 9.5	10.4	10.2	11.2	12.4. . 1.1	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.2. . . 35.3	40.8	38.6	10.2	0.1. . 18.6	19.7	21.4	22.0	27.0. . 5.9	7.0	8.1	9.4	10.8. . 1.7	2.6	4.0	1.9	1.5. . 2.4	2.2	2.1	3.4	3.0. . 0.8	-1.2	-1.7	-1.0	-0.3377.9	378.4	403.2	388.4	410.0. . 761.7	818.3	814.5	988.6	1,200.0. . 185.4	194.7	209.4	235.3	245.0. . 135.0	139.4	149.1	160.6	169.0. . 196.6	193.8	212.2	221.4	233.0. . 7.7	-9.1	-9.7	-10.7	-12.0509.3	518.8	561.0	606.6	635.0.. 112.4	100.6	119.9	132.0	59.6. . 0.3	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.4. . 8,986.4	10,955.4	11,345.9	12,561.9	14,715.0. . 697.2	860.0	1,000.2	1,133.3	1,275.0. . 288.4	354.8	337.6	403.8	475.0. . 182.0	144.0	119.3	127.6	135.0. . 1,167.6	1,358.8	1,457.1	1,664.7	1,885.0. . 10,154.0	12,314.2	12,803.0	14,226.6	16,600.01968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73 (preliminary). . 915.0	1,026.5	1,132.5	1,237.0	1,190.0. . 183.0	227.1	207.9	212.5	266.0. . 528.1	577.4	573.8	668.5	770.0
U)Net after deduction of refunds and drawbacks as well as transfers to the old age security fund.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
Agricultural commodities stabilization account-net
operating loss	
Wheat inventory reduction payments	
Canadian Livestock Feed Board	
Farm Credit Corporation-net operating loss....
Canadian Dairy Commission	
COMMUNICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
Prices and Incomes Commission....

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
Atomic energy	
Dominion Coal Board	
Minerals, energy and earth sciences	
National Energy Board	
ENVIRONMENT

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
Assessments, contributions and other payments to international organizations and international multilateral economic
and special programs	
Canadian International Development Agency	
International Joint Commission

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
EXPO 1967-deficit	
Grants to municipalities and provinces in lieu of taxes . . . .
Public debt charges	
Fiscal transfer payments to provinces	
Tariff Board	
Auditor General	
Insurance

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
Conservation program	
Indian and Eskimo affairs	
Northern development	
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE Statistics Canada	
1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	(preliminary)115.5	114.7	120.8	134.1	168.6145.4	136.3 100.0	126.4	122.0	118.618.2	22.2	20.8	20.6	22.06.0	8.7	8.6	8.9	8.60.3	0.4	0.4	0.5	0.7285.4	382.3	277.0	286.1	318.512.9	13.4	13.9	21.7	33.913.8	16.1	18.1	22.3	29.50.6	2.1	1.6	0.513.8	16.7	20.2	23.9	30.04.9	6.5	7.7	7.8	7.972.6	74.9	76.7	89.4	87.97.2	8.8	6.0	54.8	56.7	56.7	75.5	72.01.5	1.9	2.4	2.9	3.6141.0	148.8	149.5	175.6	171.4159.2	164.8	156.7	200.7	239.353.7	59.7	58.6	77.8	88.715.3	13.3	15.5	17.6	20.6156.8	168.7	209.9	218.7	271.20.4	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5226.2	242.2	284.5	314.6	381.023.7	19.3 122.9	29.2	44.3	67.545.1	49.5	54.1	57.2	62.01,480.0	1,716.9	1,822.8	2,009.6	2,176.8867.1	932.4	1,228.9	1,425.5	1,462.20.4	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.52.4	2.9	3.1	3.9	4.30.4	0.6	0.9	1.1	1.32,419.1	2,844.9	3,139.5	3,542.1	3,774.61.0	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.35.8	7.5	8.2	9.2	11.430.6	32.2	33.5	49.3	65.1165.2	204.1	222.0	261.7	271.555.0	57.5	86.9	106.4	132.4256.6	301.3	350.6	426.6	480.4179.2	263.7	208.7	293.4	355.024.0	32.4	39.0	69.2	59.0203.2	296.1	247.7	362.6	414.0

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
JUSTICE	
LABOUR	
Information Canada

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
Development and utilization of manpower
Immigration	
Municipal winter works incentive program
Program development	
Unemployment Insurance Commission-
Administration and general	
Government's contribution to the fund .

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
Canadian forces superannuation account-
Government's contribution	
Amortization of deferred charges	
Additional interest	
Defence services	
Defence research	
Mutual aid to NATO countries	
Civil emergency measures organization

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
Health insurance and resources-
Health grants to provinces	
Government's contributions under the Hospital Insurance
and Diagnostic Services Act	
Health resources fund	
Medical Care Act	
Other	
Health services	
Medical services	
Welfare services-
Family allowances	
Youth allowances	
Unemployment assistance	
Canada assistance plan	
Other	
Medical Research Council	
NATIONAL REVENUE-Customs and excise . . Taxation	
PARLIAMENT-House of Commons . .
The Senate	
Library of Parliament .
					fv '
				1972-"73	
1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	(preliminary)	17.2	20.0	23.1	28.7	36.4	u-11.1	12.1	13.5	17.3	18.5	1.5	7.0	8.1	10.2	11.1	13.6	20.5	25.4	28.7	23.4	10.0	12.4	14.6	17.1	337.4	399.4	529.5	575.9	678.8	29.4 21.5	24.3 0.4	22.8	22.7	31.9	||4.4	5.4	6.1	6.3	7.3	is -*38.8 86.6	45.0 98.4	79.0 99.0	81.3 92.1	14.1	541.5	582.9	748.8	792.9	749.2	24.9	26.8	29.9	32.6	34.8	57.0	65.6	70.4	73.8	79.0	* r>;v,'104.5	92.2	89.4 45.7	66.3 58.7	89.2 78.5	1,507.7	1,540.6	1,517.2	1,598.1	1,635.0	.44.1	44.1	45.9	47.0	47.5	15.3	14.1	14.4	13.8	14.4	.6.3	5.0	5.0	4.9	5.6	S'v"Sv''i1,759.8	1,788.4	1,817.9	1,895.2	1,984.0	4.2	11.0	12.3	20.6	28.6	44.0	69.1	19.6	15.2	11.3	[DOT]'fife561.9	635.9	734.3	844.6	950.8	33.9	34.4	37.5	37.0	37.0	33.0	181.0	400.5	576.5	630.8	1.6	1.2	1.4	2.6	3.5	15.8	19.2	22.1	24.3	30.0	39.2	40.6	45.4	50.0	52.7	560.2	560.1	557.9	554.4	548.9	52.4 1.1	55.1 0.7	58.0	59.7	59.4	iS-256.8	293.6	391.6	457.1	489.6	30.2	22.6	23.0	28.0	36.2	27.2	31.2	34.4	36.1	38.0	1,661.5	1,955.7	2,338.0	2,706.1	2,916.8	59.5	70.1	74.4	84.9	94.8	[DOT] '60.2	74.2	84.1	100.4	125.9	119.7	144.3	158.5	185.3	220.7	If®14.3	17.6	21.0	25.7	27.3	3.6	4.6	5.1	5.7	5.8	0.7	0.8	1.1	1.2	1.6	ssjpi18.6	23.0	27.2	32.6	34.7	.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72 (preliminary)
POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
Privy Council	
Economic Council of Canada . . . .
Chief Electoral Officer	
Commissioner of Official Languages Public Service Staff Relations Board

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
Accommodation services	
Marine services	
Trans-Canada highway-contributions to provinces
REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION Cape Breton Development Corporation
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

[Stage Direction]
Administration and general	
Bilingualism development program . . . .
Education support program	
Canada Council	
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . . . . Canadian Film Development Corporation Canadian Radio-Television Commission .
Company of Young Canadians	
National Arts Centre Corporation	
National Film Board	
National Library	
National Museums of Canada	
Representation Commissioner	
Public Archives	
Public Service Commission	
SOLICITOR GENERAL-Administration and general . . .
Correctional services	
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
SUPPLY AND SERVICES-Administration and general . . . .
Services	
Supply	
Public Printing and Stationery . . Canadian Arsenals Limited . . . . Canadian Commercial Corporation
319.5	340.5	368.6	413.3	474.16.3	6.9	7.2	7.4	10.01.5	1.6	1.7	2.1	2.613.5	0.3	1.2	1.2	23.60.4	0.4	0.9	1.01.1	1.2	1.3	1.5	1.822.4	10.4	11.8	13.1	39.043.4	38.2	38.1	42.1	49.6172.0	190.5	218.4	259.4	298.032.1	31.3	34.6	34.4	28.437.3	26.8	39.6	2.3	284.8	286.8	330.7	338.2	376.0125.7	179.4	260.5	308.6	320.930.1	32.7	37.3	37.8	52.7155.8	212.1	297.8	346.4	373.60.4	1.2	1.2	2.4	4.324.5	16.4	26.6	70.1	87.21.7	53.4	78.1	83.3276.6	301.4	388.2	450.5	480.620.6	23.7	24.2	26.3	34.0148.3	166.0	166.0	181.0	205.00.2	0.4	1.0	1.8	0.41.9	2.8	3.3	4.7	5.41.9	1.9	1.9	1.9	2.0l.l	2.5	2.6	3.0	3.710.0	10.5	10.4	12.0	14.51.7	2.0	2.5	3.7	5.07.1	7.3	8.2	11.2	19.90.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	1.22.2	2.4	3.7	3.7	5.712.9	14.1	15.8	19.4	25.2509.1	553.2	707.9	867.5	973.10.5	0.9	1.4	1.9	2.463.6	70.0	75.1	85.5	94.7101.8	113.2	146.3	172.7	211.9165.9	184.1	222.8	260.1	309.04.3	4.0	4.2	4.2	5.434.6	40.7	36.5	42.6	51.121.6	28.2	21.6	23.0	25.23.5	4.0	0.3	0.5	1.5	1.9	2.22.1	3.4	3.8	3.9	4.266.4	80.8	67.6	75.6	88.1

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73 (preliminary)
TRANSPORT-					
Administration and general	
7.9	7.4	8.5	13.7	23.0Air transportation program	
115.4	109.0	139.2	159.4	170.9Marine transportation program	
91.5	95.6	92.5	103.0	124.5Surface transportation program 	
41.1	47.3	49.6	71.8	65.7Canadian National Railways-deficit 	
29.2	24.6	29.7	24.3	17.8Canadian Transport Commission-	Administration and general	
4.2	10.3	10.5	15.4	21.7Payments under the National Transportation Act 	
93.7	79.6	65.7	65.5	122.0Contributions to the railway grade crossing fund	
15.0	15.0	20.0	20.0	20.0Maritime Freight Rates Act	
13.9	14.6	14.0	13.1	13.0Steamship subventions	
12.2	6.0	6.0	6.3	7.0Subsidies to air carriers	
1.3	3.4	1.8	1.4	2.0National Harbours Board	
6.6	8.6	2.5	3.7	2.3The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	
11.4	10.5	10.1	13.5	13.2443.4	431.9	450.1	511.1	603.1TREASURY BOARD-	Administration and general	
43.2	45.4	55.6	62.2	84.7Reserve for salary revisions 	
120.5	58.7	65.0	Public Service superannuation account-	Government's contribution	
66.0	73.5	85.6	93.0	109.1Amortization of deferred charges	
84.8	91.8	84.8	87.4	81.0Additional interest	49.5	65.3	102.0National Research Council	
117.8	121.7	122.9	130.8	142.0432.3	391.1	463.4	438.7	518.8URBAN AFFAIRS-	Ministry	
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation	
29.7	43.6	47.0	1.9 82.2	10.2 92.2National Capital Commission	
25.0	24.0	28.4	45.8	31.254.7	67.6	75.4	129.9	133.6VETERANS AFFAIRS-	Administration and general	
10.1	4.7	8.6	6.7	6.8Welfare services	
112.9	112.6	108.5	99.2	110.0Pensions	
223.3	222.3	216.4	235.3	246.3Treatment services	
71.6	72.1	66.4	70.8	73.0Veterans land administration	
9.7	10.7	10.1	11.3	11.3427.6	422.4	410.0	423.3	447.410,730.1	11,921.6	13,182.1	14,840.9	16,155.0

[Stage Direction]
Date of	Rate	Amount	Annualmaturity per cent	of loan	interest
Payable in Canadian dollars -
Loan of 1936	P
Loan of 1968	F
Loan of 1970	F
Loan of 1970	F
Loan of 1965	CT
Loan of 1967	F
Canada savings bonds, 1958	S
Loan of 1967	F
Loan of 1971 and 1972	F
Loan of 1972	F
Loan of 1969	F
Loan of 1971	F
Loan of 1968	F
Loan of 1970	F
Loan of 1969 and 1970	F
Canada savings bonds, 1964	S
Loan of 1967 and 1971	F
Loan of 1971	F
Loan of 1968	F
Loan of 1970	F
Loan of 1975	F
Loan of 1959	T
Loan of 1965	CT
Loan of 1967	F
Canada savings bonds, 1963	S
Loan of 1970	F
Loan of 1960	T
Loan of 1954	T
Loan of 1971	F
Loan of 1971	F
Loan of 1971	F
Canada savings bonds, 1962	S
Loan of 1972	F
Loan of 1972	F
Loan of 1970	F
Canada savings bonds, 1965	S
Loan of 1953 and 1958	T
Loan of 1969	F
Special replacement series, 1968	SRS
Canada savings bonds, 1969	S
Loan of 1971	F
Loan of 1954	T
Canada savings bonds, 1966	C
Loan of 1971	F
Loan of 1971	F
Loan of 1962	AT
Loan of 1966	CT
Loan of 1966 and 1967	F
Canada savings bonds, 1967	S
Canada savings bonds, 1971	S
Canada savings bonds, 1970	S
Canada savings bonds, 1968	S
Conversion loan, 1958	T
Canada savings bonds, 1972	S
Loan of 1969 and 1970	F
Loan of 1963	AT
Loan of 1964	CT
1 Perpetual	3	55,000,000	1,650,00025 1973 Apr.	1	7	475,000,000	33,250,00054	July	1	6	1/2	150,000,000	9,750,00058	July	1	6	3/4	200,000,000	13,500,00017	Oct.	1	5	275,000,000	13,750,00011	Oct.	1	5	200,000,000	10,000,00013	Nov.	1	4	1/4	12,805,000	544,21222	Dec.	1	6	1/4	224,875,000	14,054,68869	Dec.	1	5	1/4	300,000,000	15,750,00073 1974 Feb.	1	5	3/4	200,000,000	11,500,00038	Apr.	1	7	1/4	125,000,000	9,062,50062	Apr.	1	5	350,000,000	17,500,00028	June	15	7	250,000,000	17,500,00060	June	15	6	200,000,000	12,000,00046	Oct.	1	8	424,457,000	33,956,56019	Nov.	1	5	1/2	43,386,000	2,386,23014	Dec.	1	5	1/2	175,000,000	9,625,00070	Dec.	1	4	1/4	125,000,000	5,312,50032 1975 Apr.	1	6	1/2	200,000,000	13,000,00051	Apr.	1	7	1/4	225,000,000	16,312,50055	July	1	7	1/4	260,000,000	18,850,00036	Oct.	1	5	1/2	310,361,000	17,069,85524 1975 Oct.	1	5	1/2	50,000,000	2,750,0009	Oct.	1	5	1/2	70,000,000	3,850,00018	Nov.	1	5	1/2	46,106,000	2,535,83056	Dec.	15	7	1/4	450,000,000	32,625,00038 1976 Apr.	1	5	1/2	436,198,000	23,990,89011	June	1	3	1/4	247,046,500	8,029,01165	June	1	5	3/4	125,000,000	7,187,50067	Aug.	1	6	1/4	350,000,000	21,875,00063	Oct.	1	5	1/2	395,000,000	21,725,00017	Nov.	1	5	1/2	72,044,000	3,962,42072 1977 Apr.	1	6	1/2	225,000,000	14,625,00074	July	1	7	650,000,000	45,500,00052	Sept.	1	7	500,000,000	35,000,00020 1977 Nov.	1	5	40,961,000	2,048,0505 1978 Jan.	15	3	3/4	207,911,500	7,796,68141	July	1	8	125,000,000	10,000,000Oct.	1	7	202,229,000	14,156,03024	Nov.	1	8	1/4	4,105,235,000	338,681,88866 1979 June	1	6	1/2	585,000,000	38,025,00013	Oct.	1	3	1/4	343,246,500	11,155,5113	Nov.	1	5	1/2	199,598,000	10,977,89071	Dec.	15	5	3/4	225,000,000	12,937,50064 1980 Apr.	1	6	1/4	200,000,000	12,500,00014	Aug.	1	5	1/2	97,546,000	5,365,03026	Aug.	1	5	1/2	60,848,500	3,346,6683	Aug.	1	5	1/2	158,271,000	8,704,90522	Nov.	1	5	1/4	103,743,000	5,446,50826 1980 Nov.	1	6	3/4	2,068,621,000	139,631,91825 1981 Nov.	1	7	3/4	1,644,688,000	127,463,32023 1982 Nov.	1	6	3/4	438,427,000	29,593,82329 1983 Sept.	1	4	1/2	1,992,679,450	89,670,57527 1984 Nov.	1	5	1/2	2,010,395,000	110,571,72547 1986 Oct.	1	8	543,000	43,44021 1988 June	1	5	100,000,000	5,000,0009	June	1	5	50,000,000	2,500,000

[Stage Direction]
Date of maturity	Rate per cent	Amount of loan	Annual interestLoan of 1971	F	61	1989	Feb.	15	6 3/4	* 150,000,000	$ 10,125,000Loan of 1964 and 1965 	CT	12	1990	May	1	5 1/4	225,000,000	11,812,500Loan of 1967 	F	12	May	1	5 1/4	125,000,000	6,562,500Loan of 1966 and 1967 	F	6	1992	Sept.	1	5 3/4	225,000,000	12,937,500Loan of 1967 	F	23	1994	Dec.	1	6 1/4	125,000	7,813Loan of 1968 	F	33	1995	Oct.	1	6 1/2	100,000,000	6,500,000Conversion loan, 1956 	T	15	1998	Mar.	15	3 3/4	197,045,000	7,389,188Three-month treasury bills	3.99	2,795,000,000	111,520,500Six-month treasury bills	4.30	1,095,000,000	47,085,000Special treasury bills	4.77	400,000,000	19,080,000Canada Pension Plan bonds	various	34,473,000	2,492,39828,703,864,450	1,741,108,557Payable in United States dollars-	Loan of 1949 	1974	Sept.	1	2 3/4	48,755,627	1,340,780Loan of 1950 	1975	Sept.	15	2 3/4	30,301,591	833,294Loan of 1962 	1987	Oct.	15	5	72,648,576	3,632,429Loan of 1968 	1988	June	1	6 7/8	108,108,000	7,432,425259,813,794	13,238,928Payable in German deutsche marks	1973	June	1	6 3/4	73,844,250	4,984,48729,037,522,494	1,759,331,972
The interest shown is a projection for one year on the principal amounts outstanding at March 31, 1973. Where various rates of interest are applicable during the term of a loan the interest rate in effect at March 31, 1973 has been used. Bonds payable in foreign currencies have been converted at official parity rates.

[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73 (preliminary)
Domestic-					
Loans to, and investments in, crown corporations-
[Stage Direction]
Air Canada
[Stage Direction]
. . . 50.1
[Stage Direction]
71.3
[Stage Direction]
111.3
[Stage Direction]
27.2
[Stage Direction]
-14.4
[Stage Direction]
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
[Stage Direction]
. . . 68.5
[Stage Direction]
136.0
[Stage Direction]
160.9
[Stage Direction]
112.2
[Stage Direction]
76.0
[Stage Direction]
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
[Stage Direction]
. . . -5.9
[Stage Direction]
7.0
[Stage Direction]
-19.1
[Stage Direction]
-1.4
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Arsenals Limited
[Stage Direction]
-0.5
[Stage Direction]
-0.5
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
[Stage Direction]
. . . 18.3
[Stage Direction]
19.6
[Stage Direction]
-1.0
[Stage Direction]
26.5
[Stage Direction]
22.0
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Commercial Corporation
[Stage Direction]
. . . -1.0
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition
[Stage Direction]
. . . 57.0
[Stage Direction]
-148.0
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Dairy Commission
[Stage Direction]
. . . 19.8
[Stage Direction]
3.2
[Stage Direction]
-21.8
[Stage Direction]
-23.4
[Stage Direction]
14.0
[Stage Direction]
Canadian National Railways
[Stage Direction]
. . . 150.3
[Stage Direction]
102.0
[Stage Direction]
92.6
[Stage Direction]
201.8
[Stage Direction]
-4.9
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation
[Stage Direction]
. . . -3.1
[Stage Direction]
-3.4
[Stage Direction]
-3.6
[Stage Direction]
-2.3
[Stage Direction]
-2.0
[Stage Direction]
Cape Breton Development Corporation
[Stage Direction]
. . . 4.8
[Stage Direction]
-2.0
[Stage Direction]
-4.0
[Stage Direction]
4.0
[Stage Direction]
7.0
[Stage Direction]
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
[Stage Direction]
. . . 385.2
[Stage Direction]
481.2
[Stage Direction]
596.3
[Stage Direction]
655.9
[Stage Direction]
507.0
[Stage Direction]
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
[Stage Direction]
17.2
[Stage Direction]
9.8
[Stage Direction]
9.0
[Stage Direction]
13.0
[Stage Direction]
Export Development Corporation
[Stage Direction]
. . . 32.5
[Stage Direction]
41.9
[Stage Direction]
80.9
[Stage Direction]
118.0
[Stage Direction]
122.0
[Stage Direction]
Farm Credit Corporation
[Stage Direction]
. . . 128.2
[Stage Direction]
77.8
[Stage Direction]
49.1
[Stage Direction]
30.4
[Stage Direction]
45.0
[Stage Direction]
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
[Stage Direction]
2.2
[Stage Direction]
2.6
[Stage Direction]
5.2
[Stage Direction]
-1.0
[Stage Direction]
National Capital Commission
[Stage Direction]
. . . -9.2
[Stage Direction]
1.3
[Stage Direction]
-5.6
[Stage Direction]
-0.3
[Stage Direction]
3.0
[Stage Direction]
National Harbours Board
[Stage Direction]
. . . 11.1
[Stage Direction]
4.5
[Stage Direction]
4.6
[Stage Direction]
3.3
[Stage Direction]
Northern Canada Power Commission
[Stage Direction]
. . . 8.5
[Stage Direction]
2.6
[Stage Direction]
4.7
[Stage Direction]
3.0
[Stage Direction]
2.6
[Stage Direction]
Northern Transportation Company Limited
[Stage Direction]
. . . 2.0
[Stage Direction]
8.0
[Stage Direction]
6.1
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
Polymer Corporation Limited
[Stage Direction]
-30.0
[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Mint
[Stage Direction]
2.0
[Stage Direction]
-1.0
[Stage Direction]
1.0
[Stage Direction]
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority(l)
[Stage Direction]
. . . 28.8
[Stage Direction]
41.5
[Stage Direction]
55.9
[Stage Direction]
61.1
[Stage Direction]
34.0
[Stage Direction]
Uranium Canada Limited
[Stage Direction]
11.4
[Stage Direction]
Other
[Stage Direction]
. . . 0.3
[Stage Direction]
1.3
[Stage Direction]
2.0
[Stage Direction]
0.6
[Stage Direction]
-4.6
[Stage Direction]
832.2
[Stage Direction]
866.7
[Stage Direction]
1,120.7
[Stage Direction]
1,242.5
[Stage Direction]
789.7
[Stage Direction]
Other loans and investments-
[Stage Direction]
Loans to provincial governments
[Stage Direction]
. . . 82.6
[Stage Direction]
49.3
[Stage Direction]
40.3
[Stage Direction]
144.9
[Stage Direction]
193.0
[Stage Direction]
Municipal Development and Loan Board
[Stage Direction]
. . . 1.6
[Stage Direction]
-8.5
[Stage Direction]
-9.2
[Stage Direction]
-9.5
[Stage Direction]
-10.0
[Stage Direction]
Veterans Land Act advances
[Stage Direction]
. . . 38.7
[Stage Direction]
50.4
[Stage Direction]
20.2
[Stage Direction]
10.5
[Stage Direction]
Advances to Unemployment Insurance Commission
[Stage Direction]
183.6
[Stage Direction]
1,305.0
[Stage Direction]
Airports-capital loans
[Stage Direction]
5.1
[Stage Direction]
41.2
[Stage Direction]
90.5
[Stage Direction]
55.0
[Stage Direction]
Canada Development Corporation
[Stage Direction]
25.0
[Stage Direction]
163.0
[Stage Direction]
Development of space and terrestrial communications
[Stage Direction]
9.9
[Stage Direction]
-9.9
[Stage Direction]
20.0
[Stage Direction]
15.0
[Stage Direction]
Investment in shares of Panarctic Oils Ltd
[Stage Direction]
13.6
[Stage Direction]
6.8
[Stage Direction]
8.0
[Stage Direction]
6.0
[Stage Direction]
Loans to manufacturers of automotive parts in Canada ....
[Stage Direction]
. . . 1.1
[Stage Direction]
12.1
[Stage Direction]
6.5
[Stage Direction]
-2.4
[Stage Direction]
Other
[Stage Direction]
. . . 15.6
[Stage Direction]
39.4
[Stage Direction]
53.7
[Stage Direction]
28.8
[Stage Direction]
37.0
[Stage Direction]
139.6
[Stage Direction]
171.3
[Stage Direction]
149.6
[Stage Direction]
499.4
[Stage Direction]
1,764.0
[Stage Direction]
971.8
[Stage Direction]
1,038.0
[Stage Direction]
1,270.3
[Stage Direction]
1,741.9
[Stage Direction]
2,553.7
[Stage Direction]
External-
[Stage Direction]
Loans to national governments-
[Stage Direction]
United Kingdom
[Stage Direction]
. . . (2)18.1
[Stage Direction]
-20.0
[Stage Direction]
-20.4
[Stage Direction]
-20.8
[Stage Direction]
-21.3
[Stage Direction]
Export Credits Insurance Act
[Stage Direction]
. . . -2.3
[Stage Direction]
-2.3
[Stage Direction]
-15.3
[Stage Direction]
-15.4
[Stage Direction]
-15.2
[Stage Direction]
Loans to India for the purchase in Canada of aircraft and
[Stage Direction]
associated spare parts and equipment
[Stage Direction]
. . . -1.3
[Stage Direction]
Special loan assistance-developing countries
[Stage Direction]
. . . 48.5
[Stage Direction]
81.1
[Stage Direction]
114.0
[Stage Direction]
143.1
[Stage Direction]
164.9
[Stage Direction]
Other
[Stage Direction]
. . . 0.1
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
-0.1
[Stage Direction]
0.2
[Stage Direction]
63.1
[Stage Direction]
58.7
[Stage Direction]
78.2
[Stage Direction]
107.1
[Stage Direction]
128.4
[Stage Direction]
Subscriptions to capital of, and working capital advances
[Stage Direction]
and loans to, international organizations-
[Stage Direction]
Canada's subscription to capital of-
[Stage Direction]
Asian Development Bank
[Stage Direction]
. . . 2.7
[Stage Direction]
2.7
[Stage Direction]
2.6
[Stage Direction]
Caribbean Regional Development Bank
[Stage Direction]
1.1
[Stage Direction]
0.7
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
0.6
[Stage Direction]
Inter-American Development Bank
[Stage Direction]
14.2
[Stage Direction]
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development . . .
[Stage Direction]
16.1
[Stage Direction]
International Development Association
[Stage Direction]
. . . 27.1
[Stage Direction]
27.0
[Stage Direction]
24.9
[Stage Direction]
50.1
[Stage Direction]
53.6
[Stage Direction]
Working capital advances and loans to international
[Stage Direction]
organizations
[Stage Direction]
. . . -0.3
[Stage Direction]
-0.2
[Stage Direction]
-0.2
[Stage Direction]
-0.2
[Stage Direction]
29.5
[Stage Direction]
30.6
[Stage Direction]
28.0
[Stage Direction]
50.7
[Stage Direction]
84.5
[Stage Direction]
92.6
[Stage Direction]
89.3
[Stage Direction]
106.2
[Stage Direction]
157.8
[Stage Direction]
212.9
[Stage Direction]
Net total of changes in loans and investments
[Stage Direction]
. . . 1,064.4
[Stage Direction]
1,127.3
[Stage Direction]
1,376.5
[Stage Direction]
1,899.7
[Stage Direction]
2,766.6
[Stage Direction]
(1)
[Stage Direction]
Includes deferred interest.
[Stage Direction]
(2)
[Stage Direction]
Deferred interest.
[Stage Direction]
4367
[Stage Direction]
Monday, dune 4, 1973