Mr. Chevrier:

Early in 1950 the Hamilton harbour commissioners requested the government to amend their present act so that they could conduct amusement, recreational and other facilities on their lands in the city of Hamilton. At that time they forwarded to the Department of Transport a resolution passed by the city of Hamilton asking that the commission's act be amended so that they could take over and administer the filtering basins bathing beach lands, subject to easements for municipal services, and the land to be used as a public bathing beach.

The Hamilton Harbour Commissioners Act was passed in 1912. Under that act they were given the powers that are usually given to similar bodies authorized to operate

harbours. I do not think there has been an amendment to the act since, but in view of the fact that there was no authority in the act of 1912 to provide for this particular operation it is necessary to amend the act in order to give the commissioners the required authority. That is what the bill seeks to do.

Bill No. 196 seeks first of all to give to the commissioners powers to conduct amusements, recreation grounds, playgrounds and bathing beaches on certain lands therein set out, and also to borrow money for that purpose. Of course the other provisions of the act will remain in effect. There is also a clause in the bill which extends the provisions of the 1912 act relating to jurisdiction to the present bill. It is a very simple amendment. Similar authority was requested on one other occasion by the Toronto harbour commissioners who some time ago decided they would like to operate certain facilities for recreational purposes. They have done so, and I am told quite profitably. The city of Hamilton seeks the same advantage and facilities. I would think this is a very simple measure which would obtain the consent of the house.

Mr. Green:

I understand from the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) that the authorities of the city of Hamilton are very anxious to have an amendment of this type put through. I also understand she has been discussing the bill with the minister, and apparently approves the terms. Therefore the official opposition has no objection to the bill.

Mr. Chevrier:

It is true that the city council has requested this amendment. I have a letter to that effect. I also know that both members for Hamilton have evinced a great deal of interest in the bill.

Mr. Coldwell:

I presume that the land is now used as a sort of public recreation ground, and possibly there are some bathing beaches open to the public. I notice that the bill authorizes charges to be made by the commissioners for the facilities. Has any opposition to this proposal been brought to the minister's attention, particularly with respect to the charges being made for the facilities? I am not opposing the bill. I ask the question only because I think we should know whether there is any opposition, particularly whether the ground of the opposition is that the charges would deprive persons of the opportunity to use the beaches who are now able to use them free.

Mr. Chevrier:

With respect to that, I have no evidence of any opposition. On the contrary I would think this would be a very

excellent thing. So far as the powers are concerned the commissioners have the right to make a charge, but I should think they would use their discretion. If they follow the practice that is followed in Toronto, as I understand they intend to do, then I think it will be operated in the interests of the public with no charge, or only a very nominal charge.

Mr. Coldwell:

That is a very satisfactory explanation. I am glad the minister has heard of no opposition to this step. It seems to be acceptable to the citizens of Hamilton, and that was the only interest I had in asking the question.

Mr. Speaker:

When shall this bill be read the third time?

Now.

Mr. Knowles:

By leave.

Mr. Chevrier moved

the third reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-

493. To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1951-52 to the Canadian National Railway company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1951, $1,280,000.

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):

I think I should explain that some time ago a motion was made to refer three of the votes, 493, 501 and 495, to the' committee on railways and shipping. They have been dealt with there and are now returned to the house. I wonder if we could not dispose of them now. Item 493 is the Prince Edward Island car ferry deficit vote; item 495 is the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships deficit vote, and 501 is the maritime freight rates vote, all of which have been considered by the committee on railways and shipping.

Supply-Transport

The Deputy Chairman:

Is it the pleasure of the committee to carry these three items now-493, 501 and 495?

Mr. Diefenbaker:

When discussion on this subject was adjourned on April 13 I had brought to the attention of the minister the whole question of Canadian National Railways pensions. In answering me on that occasion, and following certain questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the minister said the matter was receiving the careful consideration of the government. Then he went on to use these words, as reported at page 2036 of Hansard:

I have to say that the government thus far has not been able to recommend or direct the Canadian National Railways to increase the basic pension upwards until such time as the matter of its own civil servants receives similar or adequate consideration. Then there is also the question of other groups that are in the same position as that of the Canadian National pensioners.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Which are they?

Mr. Chevrier:

There are other groups affected' by inflation. There are a number of them. There are the pilots, other pension groups, the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway employees, the provident fund group and, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs says, the old age pensioners themselves. It appears to me that this question cannot be disposed of piecemeal. and that until such time as it is possible to find a solution for the whole problem the government does not feel disposed thus far to direct the Canadian National Railways to deal with a portion only of the problem.

I rise again at this time to bring to the attention of the minister the need of doing something on behalf of the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, and also on behalf of those who are at present employed and who come within the ambit of the pension system. At the risk of repetition I say the basic rate is $25 per month, which is being received by hundreds of pensioners and which no one today can seriously contend is a fair and reasonable basic pension. That amount was fixed in 1935. Since then the cost of living has increased by almost 100 per cent, and many of the former employees of the Canadian National who are in receipt of that basic pension find themselves unable to carry on. That is also true of those who have retired within the last few years. Among railway employees everywhere across this country there is a demand that the Canadian National Railways do something

Supply-Transport

about a pension system that is inadequate and ineffective. Something must be done, and without delay.

The answer given by the minister does not meet the situation. There is no reason at all why these pensioned employees of the Canadian National Railways should be placed in the position today of trying to get along on $25 a month. According to reports, over

7,000 former employees receive less than $40 a month, including 1,700 who receive only the basic pension of $25. I realize that an amendment is being considered at the present time, in agreement with the provinces, which will permit the assumption by the dominion of complete responsibility for old age pensions, and making provision for a pension at seventy without a means test. These two plans, the present Canadian National Railways plan and the prospective old age pension scheme, should be worked in together, to render the pension system more equitable.

My second suggestion is that something be done about rewriting the pension fund rules and regulations. As they are now constituted they do not meet the case of many needy individuals. The strict interpretation of the rules with respect to seniority and continuity of employment deny to many a fair and reasonable pension. I point out that these rules are unjust to the railway employees who are veterans of world war I, who joined up immediately upon demobilization in 1918 or 1919. These men are given no credit for the time they were in the armed forces, and as a consequence many are denied the pension to which they would have been entitled had they made contributions for the period during which they were in the armed services. I make an appeal particularly on behalf of those who have been discharged from the service of the Canadian National Railways by reason of their approaching the age when they are required automatically to retire.

There is another aspect of the matter to which I wish now to refer, and I do so with some diffidence. I first called attention to this question in 1947, and throughout the years have contended that the $25 a month is. unreasonable and cannot be justified. Today private corporations are setting up pension schemes. I can well understand that when the government decides to bring in an overall pension plan for the retirement of aged people the difficulty will be to bring the national plan in line with those that are now being introduced by private corporations. Recently I was very much disturbed when, having brought this matter up, I received a great deal of correspondence-I mean just

that-from railway employees, and also from retired employees who are now living on this meagre pension. In no instance did any one of them say that he did not wish action taken before parliament and everything done that could be done to interest the government in taking the necessary action.

I have here a copy of the record of the debate when I brought the matter to the attention of the minister on July 2, 1947. At that time the minister pointed out the difficulty of doing anything, and gave little or no hope that the basic pension of $300 per year would be increased. After the matter had been brought to the attention of the house again by myself and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I was astounded to find the president of the Canadian National Railways placing on the records of the railway committee the very letter that was forwarded to me, and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, by the chairman of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers. I cannot understand that. I am surprised that the chairman of the order gave permission to the president of the railway to use that letter, which was written to me personally.

Mr. Chevrier:

Mr. Chairman, the letter was written not only to the hon. member personally but also to the president of Canadian National Railways, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and to me.

Mr. Knowles:

No.