Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham) moved:

Motion No. 2.

That Bill C-42, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be amended in Clause 11 by deleting subclause (4) at page 6 and by renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.

He said: Mr. Speaker, as we travel through the labyrinth of the various stages of this bill, I must say that 1 am astounded at the two-faced attitude, double-faced attitude, of members of the government with respect to this matter. On the one hand they put forward the face that they need to have this bill through before an election can be called-this bill and at least one other-and yet at just about every stage of the proceedings-in the committee, at second reading, and here again following the remarkable bit of theatrics just a moment ago by the minister-measures are put in the way of the speedy passage of this bill through the House. I can only come to one of two conclusions, and I will leave it to the Chair to decide. Either the government is afraid to call an election and therefore wants to use this bill as one means of saying to the people of the country that the bill did not get through even though it was needed before an election, or the government is not really interested in seeing this legislation get through the House.

In moving this amendment I feel that there are some very basic democratic and parliamentary principles involved with respect to this matter. First, as hon. members are well aware, we have two ways by which the government of the day can choke off further discussion of a motion, a bill, or other matter in this House. One is the old and cumbersome method of closure. With respect to a measure having to do with the oil industry many years ago, the Liberal government of the day eventually was defeated by the people of this country because of its abuse of the closure provisions of the rules of the House of Commons at that time.

Since that time there has been a smoother, easier and more effective way of choking off valid, in some cases invigorating, and in other cases deadly boring discussion in this House, and that is the use of the guillotine provisions in the rules of this House. I think that provision is Standing Order 75C under which, if the government of the day really wants to choke off discussion, it can, within a minimum period of time of, I believe, about three days. It can limit debate to one or two hours on each of those three days. The government can choke off discussion and limit the total length of time to three days and only a few hours on each day.

The clause of this bill which I suggest should be deleted by virtue of my amendment provides a special closure. There is a special form of guillotine. There is a special way of limiting debate on a motion respecting an order in council proclaiming that a national emergency in the energy field exists in this country. I think that that provision is entirely needless. There

Energy Supplies

seems to be a growing trend within the government to want to have, in a number of the bills which are coming forward and which have come forward in the last little while, an additional procedure by which to gag parliament. There is no other word for it. This procedure would limit free and open discussion of a very important order in council which would proclaim that a national emergency exists. Why do we need that type of limitation, that type of restriction, that type of closure or that type of guillotine in a bill such as this? There are already two other means of choking off discussion under the rules of the House.

I asked a question of the minister the other night in committee. As usual, we were dealing with a very taciturn minister who is not at all forward about giving explanations for what is going on. Certainly the other night in the committee the minister displayed that same type of attitude. There was no answer given as to why we really need the third way to gag parliament which is in this bill.

It is this specific clause which I suggest should be deleted. There is no need for it. It even extends the period of debate. If the government really wanted to stop debate, it could move under the guillotine provisions in our rules because, under the guillotine provisions, debate would be limited to three days, and only one to two hours at the most on each of the three days. Here there are three days of full and formal debate in the House of Commons on a motion of the government with respect to an order in council, and I just fail to see the need for this provision. There has been no defence put up. There has been no justification.

This bill contains very few guidelines and very few restrictions. There is very little laid down with regard to what would actually constitute a national emergency in the energy field, and I just feel that clause 11 (4) is completely redundant. I therefore ask the members of the House to consider this matter seriously. We really would be stripping parliament of its right to discuss this matter if that subclause were left in the bill. If there is no question that a national emergency in the energy field exists, then surely we can leave it up to the good sense, if not of the members of this House then of the citizens of this country who eventually have to judge whether a member of parliament or a party within this House should hold up the passage of a bill or the approval of a motion validating an order in council declaring a national emergency.

We simply do not need this additional gagging procedure in a bill of this importance, especially when, for instance, there is no definition in the bill of a national emergency. There is absolutely no provision or authority in the bill for any compensation to be paid with respect to the very extradordinary measures which might be taken by the proposed allocation board in the event that a national emergency exists, or an apparent one as far as the government is concerned.

There is another matter which has not yet been raised in the House. This bill has in it an additional defect. We will not necessarily even know what the allocation system or basis is, or the system that the government has approved. There is no

4130

March 13, 1979

Energy Supplies

requirement in the bill that the actual terms of the allocation order itself be tabled, published, released or approved by members of the House. The only order that need be published under the terms of this bill is the actual order in council by the cabinet indicating that a national emergency exists or is apprehended. The board then has the power given to it under the act to allocate energy supplies in this country.

The point is that in every other jurisdiction I have been able to research in respect of domestic provisions 'as a result of the 1974 treaty, the allocation order itself must be released, must be published and must be debated in the national parliament, congress or legislature of the country involved. So far as I know, Canada is the only country in which the actual allocation order need not be released or published so that the people of this country know about it. I do not know if members opposite fully understand the distinction I am trying to make. I see a look of real puzzlement on the face of the parliamentary secretary to the minister.

The point is that the only order that need be laid on the table of the House, the only order that will be debated, is not the order indicating what the basis of the allocation is. The only order is the order in council of the government which indicates that a national emergency exists. In other words, no one in the industry, no one in the provinces and no one in the municipalities-do not laugh about municipal powers in regard to utilities in this country because they are fairly extensive-and no member of this House nor any member of the public at large, under the terms of this bill need have any idea whatsoever as to what the allocation order is or may be. I think that is a defect that should be rectified and, what is more important, it is another reason why there should not be a special gagging provision in this bill in the form of subclause (4) of this clause.

There are some members in the House who still have the vague idea that this bill only applies to petroleum supplies or products or, for that matter, even alternate energy supplies. If they believe that, they should take a much closer look at the bill itself, because this bill could apply to almost every field of endeavour in the energy field. Indeed, a technical interpretation of the act could carry its powers well beyond the energy field. It could apply to any field of exploration, of drilling, of development, of production, of transportation, of refining, of storage, of distribution, of consumption, of usage, of retailing, of pricing, of financing, and even into the manufacturing stage of products even remotely or dimly connected with the energy field, not just petroleum products. This bill sets up a dictatorial regime in the government. One clause of it even extends this dictatorial control to any product made even in part from a petroleum product.

I just ask you to take a look, Mr. Speaker, at what you are wearing tonight. Take a look at what you ate for dinner tonight. Take a look at the roof above you. Take a look at the textiles on your bed. In these days of synthetics, we have synthetic foods, textiles and fibres. We have synthetic building products, plastics, papers, gasses, liquids, not just fuels. It is

really hard to envisage a product or a manufacturing material, or, for that matter, almost any goods today that could not be touched upon by the control powers included dn this bill.

I say this is a very bad and a very sweeping bill. On the other hand, we believe that in times of a real national emergency-I emphasize "national emergency", and there should be a definition of what that is-respecting petroleum energy supplies, the Government of Canada, in consultation and with the co-operation of the provinces and of industry, and perhaps even of the municipalities because, as I said, in some areas there is municipal supervision of utilities, should have the necessary legislative framework to take charge and to show national leadership especially when, as is the case now, the defects of our energy industry are the result of a complacency and lethargy and the lack of a national policy on energy, especially of a policy on the distribution or delivery system of our own home grown domestic energy supply.

When we have, as we now have, a lack of Canadian policy to ensure that Canadian demands are met by Canadian supply, when that is compounded by the potential or real problems in our offshore supplies such as are occurring in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico or other places, when we are precariously dependent, or a large section of this country is precariously dependent on this interruptable supply of oil, then the federal government unfortunately needs the legislative framework to enable that self-imposed emergency to be met.

What is the dilemma for members of the House, and especially for the conscientious members of the House who may not be bound by the iron discipline of the government party? Should we hold up a bill such as this in the dying days of a useless parliament and a decadent government, with possibly no emergency powers therefore during an extended election period, or do we consent to give the government this bill, arbitrary, sweeping, and bad though it is? On this side of the House we have opted for the latter, secure in the knowledge that this government will not be in power long enough to harm the economy and the energy industry that much longer, and that a new government will obviously start a comprehensive review of the energy field and the jurisdictions in the industry and put into place policies which would mean that such powers are simply not needed.

In getting back to the amendment of this clause, the deletion of the clause called for in the amendment in no way harms the operation of any other clause of the bill. I suggest to you, sir, that unless the members on the government side are determined to come up with a third procedure to gag open and decent discussion in the House on such a matter, which will obviously affect everybody, they should agree tonight to the deletion of subclause (4) of this clause.

Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the comments of the energy critic of the opposition party I could not help but wonder whether he was dealing with the amendment which he has placed before us in his own name. Very few of his remarks dealt with the substance of the amendment or the need for it. I think it would

March 13, 1979

be helpful to members to recall the particular clause he would amend. It is Clause 11 in Part I of the bill, on page 6. It sets out the basic question of declaring a national emergency. Subclause (1) states:

When the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in the petroleum markets that affect or will affect the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and that it is necessary in the national interest to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada, the Governor in Council may, by order, so declare and by that order authorize the establishment of a program for the mandatory allocation of petroleum products within Canada in accordance with this Act.

I have read the clause because the hon. member spent part of his time saying that there was no reference or no way of gauging what was a national emergency. It is quite clear from the manner in which I have read the clause that there are at least four sections: national security, and welfare, and the economic stability of Canada, and that it is necessary in the national interest to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada. Those are "ands". They are separate and additional tests in each case. They are not "ors". For example, it is not economic stability or welfare; it is not the national interest or the necessity of conserving. In each case it is "and". Clearly it places upon the government the onus to determine the nature of the emergency against those tests.

Clause 11 (2) reads as follows:

A notice of motion to concur in an order made under subsection (1) shall be laid on the Table of each House of Parliament by or on behalf of a minister of the Crown within seven days after the order is made if parliament is then sitting.

Clause 11 (3) reads as follows:

A notice of motion laid before the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (2) shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration as the first government order on the sitting day next following the sitting day on which the notice was laid on the Table of that House and, until it is disposed of, no other government order shall be considered.

Quite clearly there is a built-in procedure which protects the rights of parliamentarians. It gives the elected representatives of Canadians an opportunity of dealing with the order, debating it and disposing of it under a time frame which reflects the very nature of an emergency and the very nature of the reason why it would be necessary to declare a national emergency for the purposes of this bill. That must be placed before parliament within seven days after the order is made if parliament is then sitting. Subsequently parliament must deal with that particular motion, and the wording provides that parliament would have three sitting days to deal with the order, and that no other business would be before the House. Thus, parliament would be able to place its full attention on a particular emergency order.

I acknowledge that an order which declares a national emergency exists for these purposes is a very important matter which should be dealt with. The procedure provides that it would be dealt with in an expeditious manner. It sets out that parliament would devote three days, and if the Parliament of Canada had not by then dealt with it or disposed of the particular motion, it would come to a vote.

Energy Supplies

There has been a suggestion that this is stripping or gagging parliament. If the language of the bill is read, that is absolute nonsense. It is quite clear the opposition have never focused on the nature of an emergency. They seem to think an emergency is something which will never happen. In reading and listening to some of their speeches, that came through-that there never is any emergency and there is no possibility of an emergency, so why do we need an act at this time; why not wait until an emergency comes? Also that was the burden of the government of Ontario when it appeared before the committee- there was no emergency, so we do not need an emergency act at this time. That was the attitude of the government of Ontario.

The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker) said, "Suppose there is an emergency, suppose an emergency does come. We do not need this kind of authority. It is far too great. Why couldn't the government use the War Measures Act?" That was a serious suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Eglinton. Incidentally, it was not a particular suggestion of which the government of the province of Ontario thought very highly.

The point I am making is that opposition members have not really addressed themselves to the nature of the bill or to the need for the protections built into the bill for parliamentarians. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) in his amendment indicated that we should eliminate clause 11(4), and that in this way we would somehow reduce the gagging effect of parliament. I draw the hon. member's attention to clause 11(8). It provides that if parliament has been dissolved when it is necessary to declare an emergency, parliament would deal with the bill when it came back as the first order of business. The clause reads as follows:

Consideration of a motion of which notice has been given under subsection (7) shall commence at eleven o'clock in the forenoon of the day fixed, and the House shall sit continuously until eleven o'clock in the afternoon of such day or until such earlier time as the House of Commons is ready for the question, when the Speaker shall put the question forthwith without further debate.

The hon. member has not objected to this particular provision. It would put the question within a day of parliament's return, and the hon. member is objecting to a provision which would give parliament three days for debate, seven days after the order has been made.

The energy critic, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, is confused in another important area. He made some astonishing statements a few moments ago about the fact there was no need for the government to place before parliament an order made respecting the allocation program. If the hon. member had read the bill he would have noticed clause 12(1), which reads as follows:

Where an order is made under section 11, the board shall immediately prepare a mandatory allocation program in respect of petroleum to assure sufficient supplies of that product in various parts of Canada-

It goes on. That is the subsection the hon. member would amend.

March 13, 1979

Energy Supplies

Clause 12(6) reads as follows:

An order approving or amending a mandatory allocation program or adding any product thereto-

These are the important words:

-shall be laid before parliament forthwith upon the making thereof, or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.

Again we see the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has not done his homework. He is far more interested in attempting to make cheap shots or political capital. He has not addressed himself to the nature of the bill. The hon. member has relied on silly, extraneous comments, some of which perhaps were picked up from the brief the Ontario government presented before the committee. The brief was far more concerned with making it a media event than informing parliamentarians. Incidentally, the brief was made public to the press before it was made public to parliamentarians.

Shame! Shame!

Mr. Gillespie:

It shows complete contempt for parliamentary tradition. I would have thought the parliamentary secretary to the minister of energy for the province of Ontario could be cited for contempt by this parliament.

Oh, oh!

Hear, hear!

Mr. Gillespie:

The amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is badly thought out. It does not address the question. It is based on a false premise, as many of his arguments have been this evening.

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):

Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us has some interesting aspects to it. The Conservative party for almost the past two hours has been castigating the government for its failure to devise an energy policy which protects Canadians from the point of view of supply and price. In that sense I join it in agreement. Indeed, the history of the energy policy of this Liberal government has been not much short of actual disaster. Certainly consumers in eastern Canada who are facing cutbacks at the moment will know what I mean, and other Canadians who are experiencing high energy prices know the folly of some of the policies or the lack thereof of this government.

The bill before us, of course, deals with an emergency situation. We in the NDP argue that the government must have the tools at its disposal to deal with emergencies. The amendment that seems to be quite contentious at the moment deals with the closure provision within the bill. Once the government introduces a motion delineating an emergency, the debate is limited to three days and then it must automatically stop. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has moved an amendment to remove the closure provision that is built into the bill. I have some sympathy with the amendment or the motion that is before the House. I

would have to ask for the reasoning behind the government for building in a closure provision when the government already has authority under our Standing Orders to impose closure at any time it deems necessary.

One wonders also at the government's need to have a closure motion built right into the bill if we are in an emergency situation, because surely any opposition that is in any way responsible would be committing gross negligence by trying to delay the implementation of emergency procedures if we did, indeed, face a genuine energy crisis. Surely it would also be almost akin to political suicide for an opposition party to continue to filibuster the implementation of emergency provisions in the face of a real emergency as perceived by the Canadian electorate. Therefore it seems to me unnecessary to have this automatic closure provision in the bill.

We have safeguards, it seems to me, in respect of both sides of the House. The opposition has to act responsibly. It cannot filibuster the implementation of emergency measures when there is a real emergency. Secondly, the government already has the power of closure. If it is to use that power arbitrarily, and it is perceived as an arbitrary measure, then not only do we have the obligation in opposition to point this out to the Canadian public, the government has to answer to the Canadian public if it has imposed closure in an irresponsible manner.

I think we already have enough safeguards in our parliamentary procedure that we should not have this automatic cut-off of debate. There may be a dispute in respect of some future declaration by the government that a real emergency exists, and we might need more than three days to debate the issue fully and draw out the actual facts and figures from the government if the government puts up speakers from its side, using up time and preventing opposition members from getting down to the bare bones of an issue. Therefore, it seems to me, that we do need safeguards, that the debate may conceivably take more than three days-not much more, maybe a couple of days-and we would want to have a thorough airing of the issue in the House of Commons before taking some of the extraordinary measures allowed for in this bill.

I reiterate that I have a great deal of sympathy for motion No. 2. I do not know what the government is afraid of in wanting to have this automatic closure. It already has powers at its disposal should it need to cut off a debate. On balance, I think the reasonableness of an opposition would prevent members from carrying out a filibuster in light of a real emergency, so I would certainly be inclined to support motion No. 2.

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, in the remaining four minutes or so of this delightful twilight evening, when we have been hearing so much nonsense from the other side of the House, I would just take a few minutes to make some comments on this issue.

Hon. members should take into account the fact that this House has been far too weak and lax in granting authoritarian powers of this kind in the past to the government. We should look at exactly what we are doing by this bill. We are giving the power to the government to call an emergency; not parliament, but the government. That probably runs contrary to the

March 13, 1979

litigation falling from the anti-inflation bill. Apart from that, we are giving the government the power to establish a mandatory allocation program, to bring in alternative fuels, to deal with the matter of electricity, to deal with imports and exports, and to deal with rationing. I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, to members of this Elouse, that lying like a cocoon surrounded by this bill is the germ of a perfect scheme for wage and price controls. You cannot have allocation unless you have controls, and you cannot have controls unless you control prices. As my friend, the hon. member for Northum-berland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), has said, this includes manufactured goods, and there are very few manufactured goods today which do not have some element of origin in petroleum products, in addition to the fact that fuels and energy are used as well in their manufacture.

What we are looking at or envisaging is a situation in which the government, having an obedient majority, would get its allocation order through, would then establish a rationing program, and that rationing program would inevitably lead to price controls, and price controls would lead to wage controls. This is what this bumbling, bungling, ineffective, inept government has brought us to.

The other day I was reading some old English history and ran across a name that struck a familiar chord, "Ethelred the Unready", an apt description of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and an even more apt description of the minister. I took some notes about Ethelred the Unready, a Saxon king who lived almost 1,000 years ago. Brief notes show that he got rid of his enemies by bribing them. He engaged in acts of political treachery. He was woefully weak in policy, and so incapable of governing that he left the land disorganized and without hope. In the last resort, in a series of crises, each of which demanded a concentration of the national energy, the king could neither give direction to his people nor hold his best advisers firmly to their allegiance. All he had left were the incompetents such as we see in the front benches of the government today. As a result he either left, was pushed, or he fell off the throne, and fled to France. That is what is going to happen in this parliament to this government very shortly. This is what this government has brought us to.

Some five and a half years have been lost since the fall of 1973. During those years the government should have been engaged in preparing to deal with issues of conservation, alternative fuels, and the provision of renewable energy. This government has wasted and dissipated its energies and the energies of this country, and today we are brought back to the same position we were in back in 1974 with a stupid, bumbling, stumbling, bungling government. Yet these are the people who have the unmitigated gall to say they cannot call an election because they have important things to do in this House. If that is the case, God help this country. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?

Adjournment Debate

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):

Mr. Speaker, on March 1 I asked a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell). Part of the preamble to my question as it is reported at page 3713 of Hansard reads:

The International Labour Organization meeting in Geneva has expressed very deep concern at the rapidly increasing, aging labour force which will put a severe strain on resources, social security and pension systems, and have recommended that older workers should be free to choose when to retire, depending on their health and capabilities.

I wanted to know if the Department of Labour had made any study in this regard and if they sent anybody as a labour representative to Geneva to learn what the reports were and to bring them back to this House. The minister, in his reply to me, indicated that an interdepartmental committee had been established two years ago to examine pensions both in the public and the private sector, but I believe that it was established last December.

I would like to ask a question of the minister and I do not want it answered by a long tirade of paper-filling words. I would like to know if the minister was aware of this labour organization meeting and of their great concern over retirement at age 65. There are two reasons why I want an answer, and I want only direct answers. If the minister or his parliamentary secretary cannot answer my questions tonight, then let him answer them tomorrow in the House. I want answers to these questions as to what they propose to do, because I feel that this is one of the most serious problems facing the future of the Canadian people.

I wonder if the minister knows what happens to retired people within a few years after they have retired. The individual either dies, deteriorates, or ends up in an institution. There is the odd one who escapes this fate. This is the story of what is happening to the average Canadian after retirement.

I would also like to ask the minister why, if this individual is physically or mentally fit, he or she is not allowed to go beyond the age of 65 in their work? This individual not only contributes to the economy but is happy and contented with himself. He has an incentive to get up every day because he is doing something which he feels is useful. The individual usually remains stimulated, bright, alert and happy.

In cases where the job becomes too heavy for the individual who reaches age 65, that individual should have the option to be transferred within that organization or factory to a job which is easier, but in the line of work which he has previously known.

March 13, 1979

Adjournment Debate

People who have skills are needed in this country, simply because we do not have enough labour to meet the demand. Approximately three out of every four skilled workers in Canada were born outside this country. I would also like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that we are an aging population. In 1900 less than 5 per cent of the population was 65 years of age. Today it is almost 10 per cent, double the figure of 1900, and by the year 2000 it will be 12 per cent of the population which will be over 65 years of age. On the present scale, by the turn of the century there will be three workers for every retired person. Such a situation could cause a complete breakdown of our social security scales and pensions. Even the parliamentary secretary may not receive his pension.

Those who are fit and able should be allowed to work beyond age 65 into their seventies and even beyond that. They should also be given a preference in any other position that is open which may mean easier work, if they have the skills to perform that work. The United States has been wise enough to raise the retirement age to 70 years for the worker, and the white collar gentleman or professional in that country may work until he wishes to quit or is forced to quit through physical or mental illness.

The lifting of the retirement age is a must. The arbitrary age retirement cuts off many retired people at a time when the person being retired is at his most productive age. When was this nonsense of retirement at age 65 brought in? It was brought in in 1890 by Bismarck. It was all right then because Bismarck was smart enough to know the average age at death at that time was 42 years of age. The situation has changed today. Statistics show that the respective ages are 74 for men and 80 for women.

This is a situation we have to look at, and the minister must take it seriously. I want answers. I do not want a lot of paper garbage. The United States has already made this move. Canada needs something done right away if we are to save our pension scheme.

Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's very legitimate concerns, and the government is aware as much as he is of the aging process of the Canadian population, and it is also concerned with the future of Canadian pension plans. There is also the fact that among people 65 or over, there is a growing concern for the right to work which is almost perceived as a part of human rights. The hon. member raised a very important question in my view. I would, however, apologize to him at this point, because I am not in a position tonight to give him a clearcut answer by yes or no. But if he will allow me, I would like to review briefly the history in the International Labour Organization on this matter, and the Canadian legislation as it now stands.

During the coming annual conference of the International Labour Organization, to be held in Geneva next June, discussions will include the issue of work and older workers retirement. As a member nation, Canada has already been consulted on this by the International Labour Organization. We made our position known by answering the ILO questionnaire based on the views of a number of federal agencies. Representatives of the Canadian government will take part in the discussions in Geneva, further to which the International Labour Organization could implement in 1980 a new international instrument aimed at protecting employment and retirement opportunities for older workers anxious to retire early.

Concerning this specific issue of retirement age in Canada, first I would state that in Canada there is no statutory obligation for workers to retire at a specific age. There has always been a consensus for retirement age to coincide with the age at which workers can start receiving social security benefits, or old age security pension as commonly called. Therefore, the hon. member does not need to be remembered that starting in 1966, pensionable age has been lowered one year per year from 70 to 65 years. I would call his attention to a fact.

The increased incidence of early retirement provisions and the added cost of maintaining the real value of early pensions has placed great pressure on the private pension system, as the hon. member mentioned.

In addition to the growing pressure for early retirement, the elimination of mandatory retirement based on age has emerged in the last few years as an important human rights issue. These complex problems related to mandatory retirement age are being considered by a special Senate committee on retirement age policies, chaired by Senator Croll. The committee has already received several briefs of interest but has not yet completed its work.

In addition to the study by Senator Croll, the whole issue of retirement from the labour force has been examined by the interdepartmental task force on retirement income policy. The report is now being considered by the ministers of the participating departments.

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):

Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 1978, I presented a motion in the House calling for a firm of independent auditors to review the CNR pension fund and to report annually to parliament. To date we have not been informed which firm of auditors has been chosen or when they will be reporting to parliament.

I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to inform us this evening of the name of the firm auditing the CNR pension fund and when they will report to parliament. This fund is in complete disarray at this time.

March 13, 1979

I directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on February 14 asking him who were the auditors and when they would be reporting to parliament. He said he would check into the progress. I also asked if he would be making representations to the CNR asking them to make arrangements for a cost of living adjustment to the CN pension fund to assist their pensioners. He informed me that he would not be doing anything in this regard.

I wrote to the president of the CNR asking what he would be doing to assist CNR pensioners in 1979. He informed me he would not be doing anything. He further informed of what they had done in the past. In 1972 there was a flat monthly increase of $4.60 for pensioners and $2.30 for widows. That is almost unbelievable with an inflation rate today of 8 per cent to 9 per cent and spiralling food costs. It can only be described as inhumane treatment that there are no plans to do anything for CNR pensioners in 1979.

CN and CP pension representatives have not been idle. On March 6 they appeared before the Senate committee. Miss C. S. Wishart, president of the Toronto branch of the Canadian Railways Employees Pension Association, was the spokesman for the CPR, and Mr. Earl White the major spokesman for the CNR before the Senate committee dealing with the retirement age policy.

They went into great detail regarding the problems of trying to obtain increased pensions from both the CNR and CPR. Mr. White pointed out many of the problems regarding the mishandling of CNR pension funds. He was advised that he should apply for legal aid to challenge that mishandling. There is certainly no way the pensioners can afford to hire a law firm to deal with something as complex as a pension fund. It would cost up to a quarter million dollars for a law firm to take on the study and research into the mishandling of the CNR pension fund or, in fact, any federal government pension fund as well as many of the private schemes. It is absolutely ludicrous that the chairman of that Senate committee, Senator Croll, advised a group of pensioners involved with a Crown corporation to apply to legal aid for assistance in order to find out why they cannot get an increase in their pension.

At the present time there are committee meetings on Bill C-12 dealing with the indexing of pensions. Daily the fallacy and weaknesses are being exposed regarding all pension funds in Canada respecting this unfunded liability. This means that the government, Crown corporations and private corporations have been spending and using every single cent that goes into every pension fund for other purposes. Very little of the contributions to pension funds are being used properly, or invested in order to allow for inflation, indexing and so on. It is morally wrong for the Government of Canada to spend all superannuation contributions each year and maintain only a ledger account showing how much money would be in the superannuation fund if there were such a fund. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, and it is just an entry figure. Only last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said

Adjournment Debate

we should be investing the $30 billion held in the funds of private pension schemes so as to stimulate the economy. There is no money there, not a red cent. It just shows how ludicrous it is for the Senate committee to say pensioners should go and seek legal aid, on for the Prime Minister to try to convince people that there is $30 billion in these funds with all the Crown corporations misusing pension funds. It is just abominable what they are doing.

We hear the CNR stating recently that a $220 million profit is possible. If the CNR is working toward a profit of that kind,

I suggest it start investing some of it in the pension fund, investing it properly so that it can allow for an increase in pensions paid to its retired employees. We hear continual boasting from the president of the CNR, Mr. Bandeen. He says the earnings of the company have doubled again. Also, we hear the CPR stating they are expecting a record profit for 1978. So I would suggest the CNR and the CPR appropriate some of these profits for the pension fund, begin an indexation plan immediately and start investing pension moneys properly so that we can give some assistance to these pensioners who have been so improperly treated.

Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon. member's first question I should like to tell him that the CN pension fund has been audited for 1978 by the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand. In addition, the Superintendent of Insurance has completed an audit on the Canadian National pension fund.

The second question was: when will this report be made public? I am a little surprised at the hon. member's comment in this connection. He should know that the annual report of the CNR is automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. We have a tool there which we can use to put questions to the administration of Canadian National with regard to pension funds and pension plans.

I was also surprised at his reaction as a member of the Conservative party to the announcement that the CNR expected to make a profit. He seemed shocked. For my part, I am very happy that the CNR issues a balance sheet on the positive side. He should know, however, that even a profit of $200 million, when compared with the investment and assets of Canadian National, represents a return of about 4 per cent, which is not a very important return on investment.

[ Translation]

Mr. Speaker, since 1956 the pensions of CNR employees are calculated on the basis of a 2 per cent formula for a period up to 35 years of service. That formula is the same as the one used for other pension plans of the civil service.

Thus an employee who, for example, would leave the CN after 30 years of service with an average annual income of say $15,000 would receive about $700 a month in addition to his old age security benefits and those paid under the Canada

March 13, 1979

Adjournment Debate

Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. Mr. Speaker, that plan can be favourably compared with any other comprehensive plan in Canada.

The benefits paid under the CN plan have been increased to compensate for the higher cost of living. In 1971, all pensions which were in effect before 1970 were cumulatively increased by 2 per cent yearly with retroactive effect from 1935. Thus someone who had retired in 1935 received a 70 per cent increase in his pension.

Mr. Speaker, in 1972 all pensions begun before 1971 received a flat 4 per cent increase, and 1971 pensioners received a 2 per cent increase. All pensioners before 1973 received a 2 per cent increase in 1973, and pensioners before 1974 were given a 4 per cent increase in 1974. I could go on, because there were other pension increases for CN workers who retired in 1975, 1976, and onward.

Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask some questions this evening about a project called Cloverdale. I asked questions about this project in the Elouse last November. The Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation owns the Cloverdale complex. The project was to be sold, and the sale was not completed. Some time has elapsed and I would like to find out what happened to the proposed sale to Grado. We on this side of the House, and parliament in general, should know what happened to the deposit and what legal costs were incurred. What has happened to the deposit? I think this is very important because this was a very strange and secret transaction about which we should know more.

The second thing I am concerned about is what has happened to the 2,000 persons who live in the 748 units in that complex. I am concerned about three questions. What has happened to those wonderful tenants? Have there been any meetings with the Cloverdale people and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as to whether this excellent complex could be broken up into co-ops? Have there been any attempts to make another sale? Have the tenants been kept informed?

The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation promised that it would have meetings with the Quebec Housing Corporation. Have there been meetings to ascertain what will happen to these people? One thing we must remember about this wonderful project is that in over 20 years a very healthy, homogeneous community has developed. The complex is part of the social fabric of the community. It is an excellent place. Many senior citizens and many people with low incomes live there. I feel that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a responsibility to maintain this housing project in some form. Perhaps it should be sold to another organization or broken up into co-ops, or perhaps some solution can be arrived at with involvement by the Quebec Housing Corpora-

tion. The minister and his officials promised to get back to us to tell us about subsequent meetings which would be held.

I hope the parliamentary secretary will clarify what happens to assets which are being disposed of by the CMHC. I have asked this question repeatedly. The newspapers today talk about the Pestalozzi Tower being sold for $3.5 million. The cost to the Canadian taxpayer is probably over $5 million. I have repeatedly asked for clarification-and I hope I can get it-as to how they dispose of the assets of CMHC.

1 have very grave questions about the appraisal situation. Who does the appraisals? Under what guidelines are the appraisals made? There is a very real question as to whether an organization such as CMHC should dispose of these things. Should another Crown agency take care of this type of thing? Naturally, sometimes one might not want to disclose fully the fact that some mistaken judgments have been made in some of these areas, but we hope there will be some clarification by the minister as to what is being done about the portfolios of real estate held by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

We have a great concern in this area, but the real concern is what will happen to the people in Cloverdale, what will happen to these 2,000 people, and what is their future. This is what I want to ask, and I hope the parliamentary secretary can satisfy us tonight.

Mr. Hal Herbert (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's real estate portfolio has been acquired as a result of its lending programs or insured loans operation and ensuing default on mortgages by borrowers. The objective of the corporation is to sell the housing accommodation within expressed priorities. The corporation's policy of disposing of real estate in Quebec is the same as in other provinces. The first priority on sale is to provincial housing corporations. If they are not interested and, where the development is suitable, the next priority is to non-profit housing corporations. If the sale is not made under these priorities, then open market sale is considered. The sales are higher in the province of Quebec than in other provinces because the majority of the corporation's real estate portfolio is located in Quebec.

Bill 113 as enacted by the National Assembly of the province of Quebec on December 22, 1978, provides for the fractioning of a unit into smaller components for sale. This allows CMHC to break down projects and to sell to some of the tenants in a co-operative or non-profit group.

In September, 1978, CMHC accepted an offer for the Cloverdale complex in the amount of $3,600,000. Grado Developments was the highest bidder on a public tender called by CMHC for the sale of Cloverdale Park, a 748 unit residential development in Pierrefonds, Quebec. The sale did not materialize because the buyer did not come up with the funds. The security deposit of $180,000 has been retained by CMHC.

March 13, 1979

The tenants living in Cloverdale were pleased that the sale did not go through. In the case of Cloverdale, the average rent is $135 a month. The estimated loss for the next five years, not including subsidies, exceeds $2 million. A policy that came in force on January 1, 1979, provides that CMHC offers to all tenants benefiting from grants the possibility to enter a new lease for a period of one year from the date of the sale and at the same condition. I could add that subsidies to low income tenants have been granted in amounts ranging from $17,286 in 1975, to $49,166 in 1976, to $77,735 in 1977, to $91,426 in 1978.

Every investor who makes an offer must pledge that all the grants be extended for an additional period of one year.

Adjournment Debate

It should be understood by all concerned that CMHC's purpose is not to manage property and it has never been the intention of the government to have CMHC as a large property owner. This is why CMHC is returning projects to the market. I should interject here that the federal government is well aware of the fact that in this case in holding these properties it is intruding on the provincial jurisdiction.

I should also advise the hon. member that I have personally offered in writing to meet the tenants of Cloverdale at a time suiting their convenience.