1. How many civil servants, under the Civil Service Act, over 65 years of age, were employed on April 1, 1939?

2. What are the names and ages of such civil servants, and in what departments or branches were they on above date?

3. How many years of service had each, and what salary did he receive?

4. What amount of superannuation was payable to each if retired at April 1, 1939?

5. For what reasons was each retained in service, and by whom was such extension of time recommended?

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day yesterday the member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) inquired whether in view of statements made in the British House of Commons with reference to the possibility of a ban on the export of nickel from empire countries to aggressor countries the government would wish to make a statement in regard to the attitude Canada would take on this question.

I Mr. E. Lapointe.]

The whole question of control of exports of commodities such as metals, wheat, wool, oil, timber and other commodities which may be used for war as well as industrial purposes, was reviewed fully in a statement which I made in the House of Commons last year. Reference was then made to the increased importance of Canada's output and consequent export of base metals, the predominant industrial rather than military use of such materials, the very wide range of other commodities required by a country for military purposes, and the exaggerated importance attributed in some quarters to one or two such commodities, including nickel. It was stated that experience had shown the necessity, from both the economic and the military standpoint, of joint action rather than action by any single country, if restriction of any such commodity was to be made effective.

It is not necessary to go further into that statement of policy. I need only say that the Canadian government regards the whole question as one of importance and that it has been continuously under review.

As regards the statements by members of the British House of Commons to which the member for Weyburn refers, they do not present any new facts or considerations which require a restatement of Canadian policy. The statements were to the effect that Germany had imported in the first two months of the present year nearly five times the quantity of nickel and nickel ore as in the same period last year. The implication given was that this supply was drawn mainly from Canada, Both the statements of fact and the implications are highly erroneous.

The facts may be briefly stated: First,

Canada, while the dominant, is not the sole producer of nickel, other sources being New Caledonia, Burma, Norway and Greece. Second, Canada has not in recent years exported and is not exporting at the present time any appreciable proportion of its nickel production to Germany. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1939, of some forty-nine million dollars worth of nickel matte, nickel oxide and fine nickel exported to all countries, only a fraction over one per cent went from Canada to Germany, the great bulk being shipped to the United Kingdom and the United States. An appreciable amount of nickel of Canadian origin is imported by Germany, but it is imported from, and in part processed in, other countries than Canada. Third, there has not been an increase in the shipments of nickel from Canada either to the world as a whole or to Germany in particular. Canada's exports of nickel to all countries in the fiscal year ended March 31,

The Budget-Mr. Church

1939, were $12,000,000 less than in the previous fiscal year. As regards Germany in particular, exports of nickel from Canada were less in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, than in the fiscal year 1938, and the exports in 1938 in turn were less than they had bee^ in 1937. It may be added, also, that the exports were less in 1939 than in 1938 to adjoining countries, such as the Netherlands. Fourth, the increase in recent months in imports of certain forms of nickel from all sources into Germany, which was the basis of the question in the British House of Commons, is apparently true only as regards nickel ore. So far as can be ascertained at present, none of the nickel ore in question came from Canada. Canada's exports of nickel to Germany are in the form of matte or speiss, nickel oxide and nickel fine. Nickel in matte was shipped only in July, 1938; nickel oxide in June 1938, and nickel fine in the summer of 1938. No nickel of any kind was exported from Canada direct to Germany from October 1938 to March 1939, inclusive. Practically no nickel ore is exported from Canada to Europe.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade stated in the British House of Commons on May 1 that he understood that the ore imported into Germany this year was of low nickel content and that there was some ground for believing that these imports show that Germany was endeavouring to establish an alternative source of supply. In other words, so far as the statements of increased importation of nickel in the form of ore into Germany have any significance, it is not that Canada is contributing to that increase, but on the contrary that alternative sources of low grade supplies are being sought in other countries.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few minutes. In fact, I should not have spoken in this budget debate had not the government forgotten about the consumer. The consumer is the forgotten man in this budget.

I do not agree with those who criticize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). Far from it. I believe h' will leave behind him

a record like that of my previous leader and of my present leader, the leader of the government and others-a record of unselfish service devoted unsparingly to the welfare and happiness of his fellow-countrymen.

I do not agree with those from the prairie provinces who have all their lives stood for a policy of free trade. That was one of the agencies which refused to enable the grain grower on the prairies to get a fair share of the profits of his labour, and aided middlemen and profiteers. The Conservative party has always been a consistent protectionist party from Vancouver to Halifax, and I believe that a right application of the doctrine of protection, brought up to date to meet modern conditions, would solve the economic problems of all the provinces-protection for all the people all the time, and not for some of the people some of the time. The old Liberal free traders on the prairies to whom the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) referred the other evening were real free traders whose policies were responsible for disaster to the grain grower. They believed that the grain growing industry was a north and south industry and not an east and west and oversea industry to the markets of the world in Britain, France and Italy. But they have veered around to protection now; they have become the most advanced protectionists in the country, wanting all kinds of it, and advocating stabilization funds, quotas, bonuses, subventions, subsidies and other forms of assistance for the great grain growing industry. The success or failure of that industry has a great deal to do with general conditions throughout this country. But when we on this side of the house asked for the application of these protectionist measures fifteen years ago, and when 'we asked for a subsidy on coal and a nalional coal policy, the idea was ridiculed in the house, although our coal supply is one of our main problems. The poor and needy are suffering untold hardships through the lack of a national fuel policy. The United States conservation commission report shows that that country will run out of fuel in a very few years; and it is the duty of the government of Canada to do all that it can to develop a national coal supply, from Wales and Alberta and the maritimes, so that sooner or later all the coal fuel used in this country will be mined and coked under the British flag. When I first put forw'ard that policy in this house in 1923 it was ridiculed. I was told by Sir Henry Thornton, regarding a bill and the resolution I brought forward, which went to a committee, that I was proposing a "lunch-counter system of freight rates" for

The Budget-Mr. Church

the maritime provinces. It would be far better, I told him, to have a lunch-counter system of freight rates than to send down

856,000,000 a year to the United States coal barons to build up another country. Yet to-day under that policy three million tons of maritime coal are being moved from the maritimes to the head of the lakes economically and successfully.

The policy of the Conservative party as regards all the provinces is that of equal rights to all and special privileges to none. I believe in the old doctrine that what is for the benefit of the maritimes is for the benefit of Ontario, what is for the benefit of Ontario is to the advantage of the west, and what is for the benefit of the west is good for the rest of the country. We should adopt for confederation the policy of the old Cornish battle-cry, "Each for all and all for each."

Last night I referred to the absence from this budget of any provision for reduction in taxation, or any effort to solve the problem of over-government. We have not had a balanced budget since before the war; that is one of the main reasons why we have unemployment in this country, and it is a drawback to industry. I have referred to certain public buildings in the city of Ottawa, not because I wish to criticize Ottawa; I am glad to see them secure them-it i3 a very fine city, and liberal expenditure in its behalf will be approved by the rest of the country

but because of the extravagance in times like these of spending $8,000,000 on public buildings here. Part of that money should have been used in Ottawa to provide some relief for the poor people on both sides of the river for proper housing and slum conditions. Some of the newspapers do not like the word "slums," so I will speak of the "mansions" in which the working classes have to live in this particular district. The government should have made some provision in the budget to relieve unemployment by providing money for slum clearance in certain centres of population in all our large cities where housing conditions, as every health officer knows, are a menace to the public health. I believe that this money should be given direct to the municipalities to enable them to carry out their local program in a local way according to local needs, on a standard plan approved by the government, and as an aid to reconstruction and unemployment. Let us make a start on it.

There is little consideration in this budget for the consumer. We have had many years' experience of regulatory bodies doing absolutely nothing. Although the high cost of living in Canada is a public scandal it remains uninvestigated and unregulated; nothing is done about it.

IMr. Church.]

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. I wish to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that there is too much noise in the chamber, and that hon. members who are conversing should speak in a lower tone of voice. Although the hon. member who has the floor is speaking loudly, I can hardly hear him.

Mr. CHURCH:

The poor and needy are the people who suffer through this neglect. There should be an investigation of the high cost of living in Canada. Ever since the session started I have been trying to find out why something is not done, because I represent one of the industrial ridings of toilers and workers, who constitute in Canada fifty per cent of the people of this country, and who are complaining not only of the high cost of living but of high telephone rates, interest rates, which were investigated by the banking and commerce committee, and insurance rates of all kinds-fire, life and gasoline. The city which I come from provided a high pressure system in downtown Toronto, giving a better water supply, and modernized the fire department, yet insurance rates were reduced little or not at all. Consider the revenue from lapsed policies in this country; they are comparable with those in the United States, where from half to three quarters of a billion dollars was confiscated in this way from the workers because they were out of work. We had an investigation of this matter ten years ago. I moved a resolution that these companies should not be permitted to invest in common stocks the world over. It is unfortunate that that proposal was not adopted. It would have saved huge losses later. Our system is good, but rates should be lower by far. In New York city the New York Life Company two years ago loaned $25,000,000 to aid housing and slum clearance, to clear out some of the slums of Brooklyn, at Gravesend Beach, but in this country the companies have been a little tighter and have rendered very little national assistance to the construction industry on these lines or as an aid to employment.

Then take the tariff board. After all is said and done the tariff will always be in politics. It is said that the tariff should not be in politics. It is a good thing for this country that the tariff is in politics. It has been in politics since confederation, and it always will be. What is our tariff board doing? Reference after reference has been mentioned, relating to the high cost of domestic services such as kitchen supplies, also of motor cars, motor trucks, radios, all kinds of things; yet up to the present we have had no report from the board. Something should be done about it, and the board should function more efficiently.

The Budget-Mr. Church

The principle of the budget seems to me to be, "To him that hath shall be given, and to him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." The return from the three per cent excise tax amounted to about $18,000,000; it was all the protection which the small man got, and now it has been wiped out altogether and the small business man in the industrial provinces has been sold down the river. The people of those two provinces pay eighty per cent of the cash taxes of the dominion, yet they can get nothing in the way of protection for home industry and a real share of their home market.

There has now been proposed a measure of assistance to the western farmer. I do not object-far from it-to proper aid to the grain industry in a national emergency, but it should apply to all Canada. Every good citizen would like to see that industry on a proper basis. The government began by abandoning the wheat board altogether; they wanted to escape from the responsibility of pegging and bonuses. The aid they gave the farmer the past three years was going to be only a temporary measure, but it went on from 40 to 50 to 60 cents a bushel, and now, after a great lobby down here-that is what it was: I have been in Washington and never have I seen there a lobby worse than we have had up here-the government is increasing the guarantee to 70 cents, probably to 80 cents or a dollar, and before they stop it will be $1.10, the amount paid to the returned man a day when he fought in France and Flanders. Where is the government going to stop? Where is the money to come from? It will come out of the pockets of the income tax payers of this country in the central provinces. On Saturday in the city I come from I saw thousands of them lined up at the wickets at the national revenue offices in Toronto paying their income taxes. If the newspapers would only do something to give the facts, as did one paper-the Telegram-to these 236,000 individuals and 14,000 companies and corporations who pay the income tax; if they would tell the people that the cost of the pegging of all this grain must come out of their pockets, if they would tell them that all the income we have collected since 1917, when income tax began, right up to last year would not pay annually the deficits of a certain agency-the National Railways even- which you and I know about, it would be a very serious thing for this government. How will wheat bonuses be paid, by whom, and where will the money come from?

I believe it is the duty of the government to submit some consistent policy on wheat and defence. Government members seem on

the budget to be everything by fits and starts and nothing long. They have one policy on the prairies, another in Ontario, yet another in the maritimes. But the chickens on the prairies seem to be coming home to roost. The free traders at last have been smoked out, and now they are the most ardent of protectionists. It was contended by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in a treatise of which he was the author that the east was getting a subsidy of $47,000,000. I should like to know where that fable of a "subsidy" comes from, and where it is, because as a result of this tariff nibbling and all that kind of thing there is practically no tariff left. We have so many trade treaties we have almost free trade to the ruin of our domestic industries.

One of the main things of which business men complain is the failure of the government to maintain a steady and stable tariff on which business can depend. We have been making these favoured nation treaties and pursuing a course in quotas in this connection which was condemned in the Van Zeeland report. To please the United States as an appeasement policy we made a political treaty-for that is all that it is-by which we have destroyed the effects of the Ottawa agreements. We have lost the benefit of the British grain preference of six cents a bushel, with the advantages it conferred on Canadian shipping and the British carrying trade; and once we lose such important items of the preference it means that the preference as a whole is on its way out forever, because Great Britain will make other arrangements and we shall never get back our former position of such splendid preferences. By this treaty we have given the United States the power to function as an economic unit and we have denied to the British empire that same right to function as an economic unit. Continued tariff nibbling and tinkering between 1921 and 1930 by hon. gentlemen opposite drove 600,000 Canadian citizens to the United States to look for jobs. Many of them were ex-soldiers who had fought for this country at the hazard of their lives.

There is over-taxation in the country and over-government as well, and there is the favoured nation provision. All these agencies have combined to cause unemployment and injure industry and business, and the result is that no business man will invest any further money in expansion owing to the heavy load of taxes he has to carry already, the artificial burdens imposed upon him by this government, the restraints on trade and all the other barriers in his way. The two industrial provinces, which are bearing the brunt of taxation, are up against it; they are the goat of confederation, and I do not know where it will all end. It seems to me that the

The Budget-Mr. Church

government, judging from this budget, ignored the business men of the country, labour and the industrialists. They have failed to consult industry and labour on questions of such great magnitude affecting trade and commerce in Canada. The tariff board is no longer functioning or consulted but little on important matters, although it was supposed to have been created for that among other purposes; its jurisdiction is nothing. As it is conducted now it is nothing but a farce. It was given regulatory powers, but those powers have been either interfered with or taken away from it. Let me read what one of our great industrialists is reported to have said last night at a meeting of the Toronto branch of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association:

"It is difficult to understand why, in order to make trade agreements with other countries, it is deemed necessary to embarrass Canadian industry, disturb confidence, and diminish opportunities for the employment of Canadians in their own country," said C. R. Conquergood, retiring chairman, addressing Toronto branch, Canadian Manufacturing Association to-day.

"There is ample capital available for investment in business ventures if a reasonable earning opportunity is assured.

"The recent budget invites capital investments in industry by offering a measure of reduced taxation, but if the products of such industries are not given adequate protection from foreign competition in the home market, those in a position to invest are not likely to accept the invitation."

Is it any wonder we have unemployment in Canada when all these burdens and artificial barriers are thrown up in the way of the business man, so that business cannot function? The budget offers no help whatever to the Canadian municipalities. Revenue from income tax has been denied the municipalities; that source has been taken away from them and they are hard pressed. Today all the relief charges are bearing down upon them. At a meeting of the mayors it was asked that the municipalities be relieved of this burden, and I suggest that the government would be well advised to give them some real assistance by removing some of the load that real estate has to carry now. To this end I submit that the social services should be paid for in the proportions of 45 per cent by the dominion government, 45 per cent by the provinces and 10 per cent by the municipalities. The mayors asked for bread and they were given a stone. They were told to wait for the Rowell commission's report. Well, if that report is ever received it should be relegated to the archives, because any information that we shall be given in that report will be fifteen or twenty years old. Nothing has been done so far as that

(Mr. Chureh.l

body is concerned. Its report will be ancient history; it will be received after the election.

With regard to public works, I think that the government should first of all consider in each particular work the revenues that are to be obtained in order to provide these services before they are acted on. Take the Toronto post office. Really, we have no post office there, and yet 28 per cent of the country's cash revenues from that source is obtained in Toronto. Over $92,000,000 in taxes all told are collected there each year. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) was asked two months ago by order of the house to bring down the papers with regard to the post office in Toronto but up to the present time he has failed to give them. In my opinion, the Minister of Finance should have some say with regard to these expenditures; he should have a veto power. Instead of a committee of 245 members considering estimates we should have a very much smaller committee and the principle followed by the municipalities should be adopted of forcing officials to make reductions. If that were done there should be a reduction of $250,000,000 in maintenance charges and capital charges should be one-third less. If the Minister of Finance is responsible ultimately for the raising of the money, as in fact he is, he should be given the power of veto. We should not have the policy of lobbying, with all its consequences.

The people had expected some reduction in the income tax and in the sales tax as well. The sales tax should have been reduced by two cents at least in order to help the business man as well as the consumer, because all these nuisance taxes are passed on to the consumer anyway If it had not been for another branch of parliament the provinces would have been given, by a bill that passed this house two years ago, the right to impose a duplicate sales tax by way of indirect taxation and direct taxation in the provinces. The bill sponsored by the government at that time, had it been adopted, would have resulted in this strange state of affairs; in some provinces there would have been three sets of income tax, and in some provinces a duplicate sales tax.

The budget fails to take any cognizance of the defences of the country. After all, what we are doing here amounts to little if there is no security-security is better than opulence. But that question seems to be sidetracked by the government. This is the seventy-eighth day of the session and we have heard little or nothing about it, we do not know exactly where we are. Canada has been criminally negligent on defence matters. We have none except dependence on Britain.

The Budget-Mr. Church

I should like to see the government introduce a policy of conferring with the municipalities with a view to having all employees allowed off to attend a military camp with pay and urge all employers to do the same. The municipalities should act as agents and the government should give bonuses on these lines to a certain amount or help to make up the difference in pay of the militia and their civilian pay. It would also help unemployment for those unemployed.

So far as the fleet is concerned-well, we have no fleet. I saw one of our ships in the Chateau Laurier lock of the Rideau canal. A crowd of people were standing at the retaining wall gazing upon a magnificent scow being replanked, because that is all the navy we have here in Ottawa at present. We do not know where our admiralty are, but in the meantime the government, by these scow repairs, is no doubt preparing a party platform so that when the fleet does take to the high seas we shall see fulsome advertisements of our magnificent army, navy and air forces. We are completely dependent upon the mother country, although it seems that we do not credit them for it but only criticize Britain. Our first line of defence is Britain and France. If they fail, there will be no such thing as defending our own homes or such a myth as defences of Canada. I do hope that this question will not be sidetracked any longer. What is the use of talking about the work that will be done by means of the$63,000,000 we are going to vote? It will be anywhere from one to three or four years before some or all the equipment provided by that expenditure is delivered. And as regards the limitation of five per cent in profits, well,, hardly any manufacturers will undertake the work. I am not criticizing theminister, far from it>-all governments cut down on defence-but I am criticizing thegovernment's defence policy, criticizing them for not telling the country the facts and

passing their estimates and taking action at once.

South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have all ordered registration of national resources. At the opening of parliament I asked for a national register of Canada's man power, Canada's industrial and economic power, but nothing has been done in that regard. It is heart-breaking to find in these days of extreme difficulty that the official voice of Canada is so lukewarm. The British government have no doubt made mistakes, because we all make mistakes. Even so there is no reason why Canada should not sustain Great Britain in her difficult period. It is a strange loyalty which will support the mother 71492-221

country only when she is in no trouble. I know that is not the real spirit of the people of Canada; we underestimate the great patriotism of the Canadian people. What can Great Britain say to the German dictator and the other dictators? If Britain falls, the whole world will go into utter darkness. So I plead with the government that this question should not be kept in the background any longer, because Britain's armament is the most important factor for peace at the present time, and the statement that the United Kingdom's rearmament program is to be concluded, whatever may happen elsewhere, is most reassuring. The prospect grows more certain every day that Britain, is becoming so strong that she will be again the dominant force in the world. This will mean peace with Hitler and Mussolini, instead of perpetual fear and ruin, and will stop the march of the Hun which began when he crossed the Rhine, in the course of which he captured Austria; it will put a stop to his bluff and his march. It will show him that an armed Britain means business, and will stop any further bandit raids of his on weaker nations for world hegemony. .

I have frequently brought to the attention of the house the frightful submarine menace and the drastic reduction in merchant shipping. We have two thousand fewer ships of the merchant marine than before the great war, or 1,500,000 gross tons less than in 1914. Britain's tanker tonnage has increased during the same period from 500,000 tons to 2,500,000. This means that she is weaker in ships to carry food and materials to the extent of about 3,500,000 tons. Britain had 17,500,000 tons of such vessels in 1914 and has only 14,000,000 now. And Britain now has four and a half million more people. She imports ninety per cent of her food and ninety-six per cent of her raw materials, and could be starved out in a month as she almost was in Easter week of 1918. Further, every merchant ship is now in practice a belligerent and can be fired on. The navy depends mainly not on coal but on foreign oil supplies, from Africa, Persia and South America, and its supply can be intercepted by an enemy. Add the sudden-shock diplomacy of the dictators, their suddenness of attack, their ferocity and swiftness, and think of Canada without any aircraft to protect us.

Time.

Mr. CHURCH:

I believe that this budget, the more you read it and consider it, add it up and subtract, will be linked with the United

The Budget-Mr. Young

States treaty. All this tinkering with the tariff, all these appeasement features, have caused the ruin of industry in this country and before the year is out will bring widespread unemployment in Canada.

Mr. A. MacG. YOUNG (Saskatoon): I

should like in the first place to join with those who have already spoken in saying how pleased we are that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has been restored to good health and will be able to continue to devote his great abilities to the service of his country.

To-day I wish to bring before the house one or two matters which are of special importance to the part of the country in which I live. We have heard a great deal about bonuses to wheat, and protection to other industries in this part of the country. I have never been one of those who believe in special privileges to anyone. I trust, however, that these words may not be misinterpreted. As long as the condition continues in western Canada with respect to drought and other difficulties of the kind, it may be necessary, indeed I believe it is necessary, that some compensation be given. I have always opposed the special privileges which were given to manufacturing concerns throughout Canada,

Points [DOT]Wholesale price inch sales tax Refined at:Vancouver.. .. cts. .. 15.00 loco, B.C.Edmonton.. .. .. 18.50 Calgary 'Calgary .. 15.50 CalgaryRegina .. 18.00 ReginaSaskatoon.. .. .. 20.30 ReginaMoose Jaw.. .. .. 18.00 ReginaWinnipeg.. .. .. 19.50 ReginaBrandon .. .. .. 20.10 ReginaToronto .. 14.00 SarniaHamilton . . .. .. 14.00 SarniaOttawa .. 14.50 Montreal EMontreal .. .. .. 13.00 Montreal EQuebec City .. .. 14.50 Montreal ESaint John.. .. .. 13.50 Imperoyal 1Halifax .. 13.50 Imperoyal

and I still oppose them. My view is that we should, so far as it is possible to do so, reduce the cost of the production of all our goods. To-day I want to discuss a matter in connection with which I believe it is possible to help reduce the cost of production in western Canada, indeed in all parts of Canada

I refer to the crude oil production of this country, and the gasoline industry.

I have here a statement of the prices of gasoline and crude oil throughout this dominion. This statement was prepared by the Imperial Oil Company; therefore I assume it is accurate. It is a short table, and with the consent of the house I should like to have it -placed on Hansard for the benefit of all.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member cannot place the statement on the records of the house except with the unanimous consent of the house.

Agreed.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Do I understand that the hon. member has the consent of the house?

Agreed.

Mr. YOUNG:

I put on the record the

following table:

Normal Prices at Costs atcrude source wells refineriesCalifornia, U.S.A. $1.1089 $1.4249Turner Valley, Canada 1.24 1.3942Turner Valley, Canada 1.24 1.9926Mid-Continent. U.S.A. Illinois, U.S.A. 1.0283 1.15 1.7461 1.6087Petrolia, Ontario 1.9002 2.1660Colombia, S.A. E. Venezuela, S.A. .9250 .64 1.2944 1.0271East Texas, U.S.A. 1.10 1.6735East Texas, U.S.A. Peru, S.A. Colombia, S.A. E. Venezuela, S.A. 1.10 1.121 .9250 .64 1.5848 1.5759 1.1947 .9264

Wholesale price represents undivided dealer's price.

The Budget-Mr. Young

The table shows that the price of gasoline at Vancouver, that is the wholesale price including sales tax, is 15 cents a gallon; at Calgary, 15-5 cents; at Regina, 18 cents; at Saskatoon, 20-3 cents; at Moose Jaw, 18 cents; at Winnipeg. 19-5 cents; at Ottawa, 14-5 cents; at Montreal, 13 cents; at Saint John, 13-5 cents, and at Halifax, 13-5 cents.

Hon. members will notice that in Saskatoon we have the unique distinction of paying a price for gasoline higher than that paid anywhere else in Canada on the main lines of railway from coast to coast. In the older days, when we got our crude oil from the United States, the situation was quite different. To-day we get the crude oil almost at our back door, but in spite of that the price is not reduced as it should be. The price at Calgary as I have just read is 15$ cents, at Montreal 13 cents, and at Halifax 13$ cents. But the crude oil used in the refineries at Halifax and Montreal is carried across half a continent, whereas the crude oil used at the refinery at Regina is carried only a very short distance.

In addition to this we are under another difficulty. Some years ago the Canadian National Railways reduced the freight rate on crude oil from Calgary to Moose Jaw and Regina to 18$ and 19 cents respectively. That applied to tank car shipments of 25 carloads. Objection was taken to this by a small refinery in Regina; they said it was discrimination against the cooperative plant and the consumers it supplied unless the same rate applied on one tank car. An appeal was made to the board of railway commissioners, and after hearing the case the decision was that this price should apply not only to trains of twenty-five cars but to one car of crude.

In Saskatoon we have a small refinery. The freight rate from Calgary to Saskatoon was not reduced. Let us look at the distance and the rates. The distance from Calgary to Regina is 475 miles; from Calgary to Saskatoon it is 400 miles. The freight rate on 100 pounds of crude from Calgary to Regina is 19 cents; to Moose Jaw the rate is 18$ cents. The Canadian Pacific railway, having the short line, hauls it over that line, but the Canadian National, coming through Saskatoon to Regina, also gives the rate of 19 cents from Calgary to Regina. The distance from Calgary to Saskatoon is 400 miles and from Saskatoon to Regina is 160 miles, making a total haul of 560 miles. In other words the Canadian National railway hauling crude oil from Calgary to Regina via Saskatoon hauls it 560 miles at a rate of 19 cents, but if that same car were stopped at Saskatoon, travelling 71492-221 i

a distance of only 400 miles, the rate would be 24 cents. That is to say, the railway which charges 24 cents per 100 pounds oq crude oil to Saskatoon will haul it 160 miles beyond Saskatoon for 5 cents less per 100 pounds.

Appeal was made to the railways to have this state of things corrected. The matter was taken up with the board of railway commissioners, and I wish to quote what they said. This is from the judgments, orders, rules and regulations of the board dated Ottawa, February 1, 1935. The first thing they say is this:

It is important that, as occasion occurs, these should be carefully considered and defined in order that they may be well understood and, if found advisable, enlarged or diminished by parliament. To assume jurisdiction which we do not possess and to shirk the exercise of that given us, would equally be breaches of duty.

That is in regard to the duties of the board. Then in discussing the matter further they say that parliament has not amended or changed the provisions in question. I wish those words to be noted. Section 317 of the act, which deals with discrimination, provides:

The board may determine, as questions of fact, whether or not traffic is, or has been, carried under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, and whether there has. in any case, been unjust discrimination, or undue or unreasonable preference or advantage, or prejudice or disadvantage within the meaning of this act-

Then in a judgment of the board they go on to say:

A difference in rates may be discrimination, but not unjust discrimination of the character forbidden by the Railway Act. The interpretation of the act in this respect, and the position taken by the board on the broad issue of unjust discrimination, has been set out in a great many decisions of the board and may be summed up by the following citations from two or three cases, which position has been uniformly followed in all other cases coming before the board.

One judgment is as follows:

The Railway Act, as I understand it, authorizes and justifies discrimination. It is only an undue, unfair or unjust discrimination that the law is aimed against.

Another judgment states:

Mere mileage comparisons do not afford criteria of discrimination, but all facts material must be given weight. In other w'ords, under the body of regulation which is developed under the Railway Act, mileage is not a rigid yardstick of discrimination; discrimination, in the sense in which it is forbidden by the Railway Act, is a matter of fact to be determined by the board.

Then another judgment:

In dealing with the question of discrimination, ilie matter of detriment, if any, to which the applicant is subjected by the alleged unjust

The Budget-Mr. Young

committee last year, which had to do with agreed charges by the railways, I asked the representative of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company who was on the stand at the time if the allegation made by the truck drivers that the railroads would give a rate so ridiculously low that the trucks could not compete was correct. I referred to the rate of 19 cents per 100 pounds for transporting crude oil between Calgary and Regina, and I asked him if they were hauling that product below cost. He replied that that was a profitable rate to receive for carrying crude oil *om Calgary to Regina. If a rate of 19 cents per 100 pounds is profitable for hauling the product 475 miles, it should be more profitable to haul the same product from Calgary to Saskatoon. Twenty-four cents per 100 pounds is charged in that instance, but the distance is only 400 miles.

The board of railway commissioners suggested that they could do nothing unless there was undue discrimination. A little later they stated that undue discrimination would mean that one locality was being placed at a disadvantage to another. In spite of that, Mr. John Stoneman, who was previously a farmer in Saskatchewan and who wrote the judgment, did nothing whatever to see that northern Saskatchewan was protected.

Mr. HOWE:

What is the size of the daily movement from Calgary to Saskatoon?

Mr. YOUNG:

It is much greater between Calgary and Regina, but the rate charged in that instance is based on one car. They cannot ship much less than a car, no matter where it is going.