Let me try to find some of them.
In other words, he is breaking down the items included in the table. He continues:
May I pick out some of the major items? First we have the net rents received by individuals-
These are rents received by individuals, not by corporations, because the income received by corporations is included under the corporate profits section of the table. The second item is investment income of life insurance companies, including pension funds. Then there is bond interest, interest on bank deposits, trust and savings deposits, credit union deposits, mortgage holdings by individuals- not by corporations-government annuities, dividends from abroad, profits on mutual nonlife insurance companies, royalties, etc.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, many of these items are not the type of income-producing item which it can be said accrues to the large corporation or big businessman. Much of it is income which is received through pension plans, credit union interest and so forth and has been received by the little man. So in this respect I think it was misleading for the leader of the N.D.P. to try to imply that there was an increase of 17 per cent among the members of the upper economic echelon of our society, whereas labour and wages income increased by only 7.7 per cent.
With regard to farm incomes the table which appears at page 95 of the report shows an increase of 1.7 per cent during the period from 1949 to 1965, which is a very low percentage. According to the following table, table 6, farm income is only 3.8 per cent of the gross national product, which again is a rather low percentage. The hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam seemed to be implying that there was some inequity here, but an examination of the evidence given under crossexamination of the witness demonstrates that
Increased Cost of Living the situation is not what the hon. member would have us believe. On the subject of farm income the hon. member for Medicine Hat asked Mr. Bryce from the Department of Finance some questions. The hon. member for Medicine Hat asked about some years when there had been a significant decline. He said:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Does that account for why we come up with an average of 1.7 per cent?
Mr. Bryce said:
The reason for the 1.7 per cent growth is that agriculture is a diminishing part of the economy as a whole. A great deal of manpower has left agriculture and has gone into other fields. The increase in productivity in agriculture has been quite high. This income of 1965 is distributed amongst a far smaller number of farmers than the income of 1949 was.