1986-01-22

Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: In 1985, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government left the Atlantic Provinces to fend for themselves. This region was not a priority, and the economic policies of this Government did not include the development of the eastern provinces.
Quite recently the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merri-thew) bragged about a $30 million New Brunswick development agreement. In 1975, under the previous federal-provincial agreement with New Brunswick, the province received a $30.2 million grant. Not only did New Brunswick not rate an increase in ten years, it even incurred a loss. A comparison with another Canadian province reveals that it received $350 million under a 1985 federal-provincial agreement, or 200 per cent more than it did as a result of the 1975 agreement.
Mr. Speaker, how is it that certain Canadian provinces get 200 per cent more while New Brunswick has to make do with less money? In my opinion, New Brunswick deserved and still deserves a comparable increase. It goes to show that the Government is not overly concerned about the Atlantic Provinces, Mr. Speaker, a sure sign of the fact that New Brunswick's Cabinet representation is very weak and definitely insufficient.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Last weekend six policewomen anonymously told a Vancouver newspaper about sexual harassment they face within the RCMP. Their stories of propositions and crude jokes shed light on the shocking resignation rate of women officers, which is five times higher than that of their male counterparts. If this reflects macho attitudes within the RCMP, does it also reflect macho attitudes in the day-to-day performance of police duties?
Our 1982 report to Parliament on wife battering recommended special training of police officers to deal more effectively with wife battering and it called for affirmative action to hire more female officers. RCMP officers must be non-sexist and sensitive to women if they are to intervene effectively in situations involving domestic violence and sexual abuse of children.
If women are being driven out of the force by intimidation and macho attitudes of senior officers, that is intolerable. It is not enough that the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) has asked for an internal investigation into these complaints. He should ensure that this investigation is objective and that former women officers are interviewed about their reasons for leaving the force. Experienced officers as well as new recruits should receive sensitivity training, with emphasis on women's rights as recommended by the 1982 report. Women should be encouraged to lodge complaints and have fair grievance procedures with no fear of recrimination.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on January 22, 1918, Ukraine became a sovereign and independent democratic nation. Two days after the proclamation of independence, the Central Rada in Kiev passed a law establishing national and personal autonomy for minority groups- it was a first in modern history.
On January 22, 1919, Ukraine proclaimed the reunification of western and eastern territories into one Ukrainian state. After hundreds of years of injustice under foreign rule, Ukraine, at long last, entered the Commonwealth of Nations and took her rightful place as an equal.
Ukraine's freedom was short-lived, however. After four short years, her people were once again subjugated under the dominant Russian state led by a repressive Communist regime. When at times we take for granted the liberties we enjoy in Canada, we need only recall the adversity and strife suffered by Ukraine to appreciate our good fortune as Canadians.
It was the promise of freedom and justice that brought Ukrainians to Canada. It is the fulfillment of this promise that makes them proud to be Canadians. Let us join with them in

January 22, 1986
marking this day as one of special significance for all who value freedom and the pursuit of liberty and justice.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guibault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to tell Canadian milk producers about our Government's commitment concerning the new long-term dairy policy. Under that policy, Canada's industrial milk producers will receive close to $300 million in financial assistance over the next five years.
Lasting stability in the dairy sector will be the result of this policy, and consumers will be able to expect affordable prices and quality dairy products.
The latest statistics indicate that revenues from industrial milk production in Canada amount to $3.2 billion and that more than 40,000 farmers earn their living in the dairy industry. The Government of Canada will continue to pay a $6.03 grant for each hectolitre of industrial milk produced for domestic market consumption and the special export program.
At the trade level we are taking measures to limit Canadian imports of powdered milk, and we will make every effort to restore a better trade balance in cheese products during the forthcoming GATT negotiations. Since 1980, milk producers have been asking the federal Government for long-term guarantees. On behalf of the Government of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to inform the Hon. Member that his allotted time has expired.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, this week Americans and people throughout the world honoured the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. From the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 to the Memphis garbage strike in April, 1968, King galvanized an entire generation into action on civil rights. Interweaving his Christian beliefs with Gandhian tactics of civil disobedience, Martin Luther King challenged the doctrine of separate but equal, in every aspect of American life, from white and black drinking fountains to segregated education.
The dream of racial equality and social justice for which King died is a dream all of humanity must embrace. As King wrote in his famous letter from Birmingham: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". King's agenda for change and equality remains an unfinished dream in America,
in Canada, and throughout the world. It is a dream all of us must continue to pursue.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, today, in Winnipeg, while speaking to the annual meeting of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) gave the dairy farmers of our country something they have wanted since 1980. He gave them the commitment of the federal Government to a long-term dairy policy. Dairy Farmers in my riding of Oxford, and in every region of Canada, have waited a long time for a five-year Government commitment. At last, with this Government, they have it.
The new policy represents a federal contribution of nearly $300 million for Canadian industrial milk producers in each- I repeat, in each-of the next five years. Supply management, which has worked so well for dairy farmers, will continue to be a basic element of the policy.
The federal Government will continue to provide a subsidy of $6.03 per hectolitre of industrial milk. There are changes in butter marketing costs also. Measures will be taken to improve Canada's balance of trade in cheeses and to curb imports of so-called dry blends.
This Government has acted on nearly every point in the 16-point agriculture policy which we announced during the last election. Today, with the new dairy policy, we are delivering on another promise. Clearly, the farmers of Canada are, and will continue to be, a high priority with this Government.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: 
Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: That's very clear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: may be, partly in one place and partly in another place, the taxpayer's income or loss for the taxation year from the business carried on by him or the duties performed by him in a particular place is the taxpayer's income or loss, as the case may be, computed in accordance with this Act on the assumption that he had during the taxation year no income or loss except from the part of the business that was carried on in that particular place or no income or loss except from the part of those duties that were performed in that particular place, as the case may be, and was allowed no deductions in computing his income for the taxation year except such deductions as may reasonably be regarded as wholly applicable to that part of the business or to those duties-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEMBER'S ROLE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, today 1 would like to share a few thoughts on the role of the Member of Parliament, whom I would define above all as an ambassador sent by his constituents to legislate on their behalf in Ottawa.
Basically, a Member fulfils his role as a legislator when he votes for or against a Bill before you, Mr. Speaker, here in this House.
A Member who speaks out frankly in defence of a principle and who has the courage of his convictions, will make his sincerity and intellectual honesty official by coming to the House to vote. A Member who, in the course of the legislative process, has organized or taken part in petitions and demonstrations would be repudiating his previous actions if he abstained from voting on that legislation.
Mr. Speaker, on January 20, 1986, the House voted on the Family Allowances Bill. The Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) did not vote for or against the Bill. Mr. Speaker, he was absent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 cannot permit such comments. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


COINAGE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, as we enter 1986 no doubt Albertans, and all Canadians, are looking forward to increased public involvement in preparation for the Winter Olympics two years hence. As a country, and a Government, we will be sending a message to the world about our customs, our values, and our way of life. One of the most tangible ways of supporting our teams is through the purchase of Olympic coins.
Oral Questions
Imagine the surprise of one potential purchaser when she wrote for the coin issue and saw another example of the Government's attidue toward women.
Of the ten specially issued coins, only two include female athletes, one of those paired with a male skater. This Government has talked loud and long about equality. Once again we see the reinforcement of the notion that only our men can compete on the world-class level, and only their athletic endeavours are worth minting for posterity and maternity. It is time we became equal partners on the ski slopes and in the skeet shoots. In the same way, we should become equal partners in the economy, earning 100 cents for every dollar earned by men.
I ask the Master of the Mint, and the Prime Minister of the country (Mr. Mulroney), to revoke the Olympic coin proposal and ensure equal status for world-class men and women athletes so that the world may know in Canada we not only talk equality, we deliver.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last March, the Minister promised five times here in the House that Canadian car owners would soon be paying less for gas. Ten months later, her statements fail to stand up against the facts. My question is as follows: Why should people in Montreal pay sixty cents per litre for gas when people in Boston pay only forty cents?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member, as a former Minister of Finance, knows there are different levels of taxation in different provinces. He is comparing apples and oranges in terms of the different tax regimes in different provinces. Yes, the province of Alberta does not levy a road tax. However, the province of Quebec has a higher tax level than any of the other provinces. Surely the Hon. Member, with his rudimentary understanding of arithmetic, would understand that.


John Napier Turner: The Minister has hit the point when he zeros in on taxes because what has happened in the last 12 months under this Government is that the federal taxes on gasoline have been raised 58 per cent and they have

January 22, 1986
Oral Questions
been raised zero per cent in the United States. That is the big difference.


COMPARISON OF CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES PRICES
John Napier Turner: Would the Minister of Finance explain, in the absence of his colleague, why it costs $10.84 cents more to fill up a mid-sized Chrysler at a gas station five blocks from Parliament Hill than it costs to fill up the same type of automobile five blocks from the White House?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will explain it very clearly, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: The Americans didn't have a Liberal Government.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: On September 4, 1984, we were presented with a $38 billion deficit which was growing and growing very quickly. There were a number of elements we took into account in dealing with that problem. One was the most substantial drop in Government spending which any Government has brought in in the history of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A very large proportion of our policies towards that have been on the spending side, part of which has been in excise taxes. That has had some impact on the price of gasoline. However, let me also add-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary question.


Mr. Gauthier:: We asked a short question; we want a short answer.


FEDERAL TAX
John Napier Turner: The
Minister of Finance, of course, neglects to remind the House that his colleague, when she signed the so-called Western Accord, promised Canadians that gas prices in this country would go down as oil prices went down, and that has not happened. Why do Canadian motorists pay $5 more federal tax when they fill up a tank than does an American motorist?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to what my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said. At the time the regulation was changed on June 1 of this past year, there was going to be a new regime which would allow market forces to operate, and they are operating-


An Hon. Member:: Sure, they are.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 
REQUEST FOR TAX ROLLBACK
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear to the Minister that market forces are not working. World prices are going down and our prices are going up. That is the reality. In Newfoundland today we are paying a minimum of 63 cents a litre for gasoline. That is because federal taxes have gone up 58 per cent in the last 12 months.


Mr. Crosbie:: Nonsense.


Bill Rompkey: The Canadian Automobile Association said that tax is unfair, discriminatory, and a rip-off. Will the Minister roll back those taxes and stop that rip-off of discriminatory taxation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not dumb. During 1980 to 1984 they saw gasoline prices rise more than in any four-year period probably in the history of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It was the result of the National Energy Program, plus intense regulation, which squeezed out market influences in that particular industry. If the Hon. Member wants to go back and read what the NEP said, it called for a price of gasoline which, had we kept the NEP, would have been quite a bit higher than we have even today.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the last 12 months where there was a 58 per cent increase in taxes. That was not to pay for the NEP; it was to pay for the capital gains exemption and the bail-out of the banks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: There are parts of this country where a car is a necessity, not a luxury.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a question, please.


Bill Rompkey: Will the Minister stop this discriminatory taxation and stop syphoning money out of the pockets of Canadian motorists?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Hon. Member from Newfoundland is forgetting one thing which has happened this past year, that is, the Newfoundland Accord. If he wants-


Bill Rompkey: How about a consumers' accord?
January 22, 1986


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 think what the people in Newfoundland want are jobs. It is jobs that will be created by the Newfoundland Accord, jobs will be created by the development of that resource, and jobs will be created by the policies of this Government which brought in the Newfoundland Accord, and which will bring the Hibernia oil field onstream.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INSTRUCT PETRO-CANADA TO REDUCE PRICES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday his colleague said it will take months for Canadians to experience lower prices for gas which the Americans are now taking for granted. This delay is costing Canadian consumers $8.5 million a day.
My question is this. Petro-Canada was created not to act like Shell, Gulf and Esso simply to maximize its profits. It was created to act in the consumers' interest as well. Will the Government use the authority it has and instruct Petro-Canada to bring down its prices now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, deregulation, which was brought in by the Minister of Energy six or seven months ago, is designed to take advantage-


Mr. Marchi:: Where did she go?


An Hon. Member:: Oh, shut up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is a cheap shot from the cheap seats in the back row.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York West, order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead, Mike.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question.


CABINET'S AUTHORITY
John Edward Broadbent: The Minister chooses not to answer the first question. I will put another, but related, question to him. Section 7(2) of the Act set up to create Petro-Canada gives Cabinet the authority to instruct Petro-Canada how to behave. Therefore, will the Minister of Finance tell the House why Petro-Canada was instructed to maximize its profits instead of acting in consumer interests as well? Will he use that same authority in the Act to tell Petro-Canada to start acting in consumer interests and reduce its prices now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada was taking $300 million to $400 million a year from the federal Treasury and we thought that was an exces-
Oral Questions
sive amount of money for that company to take. We told it to act as a commercial organization and that is what it is doing now.
I have been hearing from some of my constituents, and maybe the Hon. Member has been hearing the same thing from his constituents, that Petro-Canada is undercutting some of the oil companies in market pricing. Therefore, in some cases Petro-Canada is bringing the prices down, and I think the Hon. Member should be pleased with that.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF PETRO-CANADA ACTIVITIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister, who knows perfectly well that Government instructions were the exact opposite. I want to ask the Minister why the Government asked Petro-Canada to model its activities on those of the multinationals in Canada instead of making decisions in the interests of Canadian consumers.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member heard the answer to the first question. I will answer it again for his benefit.


John Edward Broadbent: I heard it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I indicated that I have heard from a number of constituents that Petro-Canada has been undercutting the market and leading the price wars. Surely the Hon. Member should be pleased when that sort of activity takes place.


WATER RESOURCES-ALLEGED STATEMENT BY CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Mr. Simon Reisman, our chief negotiator with the United States, issued a statement to a Vancouver Sun reporter on Monday in which he once again reiterated his support for fresh water exports to the United States. In the statement he said: "I believed in it then, I believe in it now".
Why is Mr. Reisman still issuing public statements of this kind on such a very sensitive issue, knowing the important consequences it has for the discussions with the United States? Does he not believe that it seriously impairs the credibility of Mr. Reisman's role in negotiating a new trade agreement with the Americans?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am assured by Mr. Reisman's office that no such statement was issued.

January 22, 1986
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE INQUIRIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am assured by the Vancouver Sun reporter who had the statement-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I know the Government side has no belief in the veracity of the press, but this reporter said that Mr. Reisman's office issued a statement in which Mr. Reisman reiterated his point of view-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern. What is his question?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister determine, from independent sources and not from Mr. Reisman himself, whether Mr. Reisman did in fact make that statement? Will he examine the question of whether continued statements of this kind seriously impair the credibility of Mr. Reisman as a negotiator?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will ask Tom Axworthy.


Lloyd Axworthy: There's a stupid answer.


PETRO-CANADA PRICE OF GASOLINE-ROLE OF CORPORATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance, who today has obviously succeeded in hiding the Minister of Energy, which is no mean feat.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame! Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Mr. Blaikie:: It's no worse than what the Prime Minister said about Malepart.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway just ask a question, please.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is the Minister of Finance aware that Petro-Canada has in fact recently tried to stop stations from undercutting prices? Is the Minister aware that as recently as December the Director of Combines pointed out that Petro-Canada has not been acting on behalf of consumers, but has
been acting passively like the other oil companies? Why will he not accept these kinds of reports and direct Petro-Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the third question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, not being the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am not aware of that particular report. If he would like to send it to me I will look at it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Stand up.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -given that the real issue is to force the oil companies to follow declining world oil prices, as I think the Minister would agree, is he prepared to accept the principle that Petro-Canada must be instructed to do this on behalf of the consumers of Canada who are saying "Enough is enough"? Is he prepared to instruct Petro-Canada to take that lead and in fact make the major oil companies start to reduce prices?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think Petro-Canada has been aggressively trying to expand its market-place in the last little while. I believe it is in its own interest to do what the Hon. Member is asking for. We do not have to instruct Petro-Canada. It has been doing that itself, as I indicated to his Leader in answer to the same question that his Leader put to me twice.


FISHERIES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Will the Minister explain why a four-month test licence for a clam fishery was issued to Mother Snow's Fine Foods Ltd. when the vessels it needs may only be available for a two or three week period in April, and may not even be available at all? Why was this licence issued when Mother Snow's may not even have the vessels with which to conduct the test fishery?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is speaking hypothetically. In fact there is a tremendous economic opportunity and employment potential in developing clam resources off the coast of Nova Scotia and several licences are to be approved to that end.
January 22, 1986


LETTER ALLEGEDLY SENT FROM MINISTER'S OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys): Mr. Speaker, if this is an economic opportunity, why did Mr. David Wegenast of the Minister's office send a letter to Mr. Robert Van Eyk, President of Mother Snow's, telling him the licence had been approved, thanks to the intervention of the Member for Cumberland-Colchester and the Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso?
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the facts presented by the Hon. Member are untrue.


WATER RESOURCES-POSITION OF CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister made it clear in the House some time ago that the export of Canadian water was not a subject of the free trade negotiations. It is clear that Mr. Reisman has been musing about his favourite subject again. Will he tell Mr. Reisman to either shut up about water exports or resign?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, to repeat to the New Democratic Party what I have said to their representative in the Liberal Party-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -I am advised by Mr. Reisman's office that no statement on that matter has been issued by Mr. Reisman since his appointment as chief negotiator. I and the Minister of the Environment, and others, have made it very clear that we regard the water question as separate from the possibility of negotiations on trade matters with the United States.


GRAND CANAL PROJECT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Could he indicate whether he has given up his early enthusiasm for the Grand Canal project and, if so, could he tell the House why we keep paying Mr. Reisman a thousand dollars a day to talk about something which the Government says should not be discussed any more?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is reaching back to statements that were made by Members in the House or persons in the Public Service before they assumed their present responsibilities. I remember, to my great regret, when he used to be a Progressive Conservative.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have been slandered.


INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses.
Most small businesses are now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the House will let the Hon. Member have his question heard.


Alfonso Gagliano: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most small businesses are in a crisis situation due to a lack of liability insurance.
The Minister of State for Small Businesses has not made a single announcement or statement to the effect that he is going to help small businesses. I am now giving you a chance to explain your position.
Are you going to help small businesses?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to answer questions I do not often get from my hon. colleague.
Yesterday and the day before, the Minister of State for Finance answered your questions. She gave clear answers and we discussed them together. And the answers she gave you were entirely to the point.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister does not have an answer, I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance.

You said in the House on Monday that there is no guarantee for insurance. Will you explain to the House how you could pay over a billion dollars to uninsured depositors in the bank fiasco when you cannot ensure insurance for small business?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member has his facts wrong. I said that life has no guarantees.

January 22, 1986
Oral Questions
I have been meeting with the industry this week. Throughout the past two weeks we have adopted a very important role in this area and we are developing a long-term policy. We have rolled up our sleeves and helped people because we recognize that the whole purpose of having insurance is to help consumers and small businesses. We have met with small businesses and the industry. We are banging heads in order to get a solution to this problem on behalf of small businesses and consumers.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Chrysler Corporation has announced a $12 billion capital investment plan, including $3.9 billion in the first year, none of which is going to be invested in Canada. Will the Minister initiate discussions with Chrysler to ensure that Canada will not be the odd one out and there will, in fact, be a fair share of that investment in Canada for the production of jobs and cars here?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that it is not a question of initiating discussions. We have had discussions with the Chrysler Corporation, including with Mr. Iacoc-ca himself. I can assure you that their attitude with respect to possible investment in Canada is very positive.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That is encouraging.


WINDSOR ENGINE PLANT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, in pursuing these discussions I hope the Minister will ensure that the idle engine plant in Windsor, with its one thousand workers, will resume production in Canada in the future, rather than continue the circumstances in which hundreds of thousands of engines are being imported into Canada from Japan, Mexico, and the United States.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will clearly take the Hon. Member's comments as a representation. Let me assure him that the Canadian automobile industry is doing very well at the present time and it is the Government's intention to ensure that its viability and prosperity will continue for many years to come.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. 1 have learned this moring that there may be another PCB leak at the CP Express yard in Digby, Nova Scotia. Will the Minister inform the House what action the Government is taking in order to ensure the safety of my constituents?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed of the incident to which the Hon. Member has referred. My understanding is that there were some 12 transformers being transported by the Nova Scotia Power Corporation, one of which appears to be leaking. The dangerous goods representative from Transport Canada is en route to inspect this accident. As well, the provincial Department of the Environment officials and officials from Nova Scotia Power Corporation are on their way to take samples and determine the percentage level of PCBs.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Solicitor General to initiate an independent investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination in the RCMP. The Solicitor General refused.
Therefore I, on behalf of the Liberal Party, had no alternative but to file an official third party complaint under the Human Rights Act.
Will the Solicitor General co-operate and facilitate this independent investigation by the Human Rights Commission into the very serious allegations of sexual harassment in the RCMP?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting with interest to see whether the Hon. Member would have the nerve to raise the issue again today in light of his behaviour yesterday.
The House will recall that yesterday the Hon. Member, quite improperly in the House of Commons, used the name of one constable and alleged that she was alleging that she was a victim of sexual harassment.
Unlike the Hon. Member, I have had a chance to speak to that individual who is a well respected member of the Force, who certainly did not give her consent to be used in this way by the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I want to indicate, and the Hon. Member is free to talk to this constable if he would like to, that the constable
January 22, 1986

told me today that she has certainly not been a victim of sexual harassment.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for York South-Wes-ton and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to withdraw the false allegations they made yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A supplementary question. Just a question. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


COMMITTEE REPORT
Sheila Maureen Copps: First of all, it is impossible-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -to withdraw the contents of a document that was tabled before the equality sub-committee and an all-Party committee of this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the Hon. Member's dilemma, but just a supplementary question now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If the Minister does not choose to believe that letter-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -which was appended to the report, does he believe a second letter from Constable E. D. Genoway, number 33724, who states:
That female officers problems centred on a theme termed Women Not Wanted. Several pressures are listed, negative comments about women, etc. I have often heard such comments just as I have heard-


Charles Joseph Clark: Question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -derogatory comments about French Canadian members, natives-


An Hon. Member:: Racist.


Mr. Andre:: Speech. This is debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Member has asked a long question now.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the Hon. Member would raise the issue now. I have had a chance to read the committee report. This report was made by divisional staff representatives. The Hon. Member was there at the time that was done and she did not feel it was sufficiently important even to ask a question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I wasn't there.


Henry Perrin Beatty: According to the minutes, she was Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Rossi:: She wasn't even there.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 wasn't there. Get your facts straight, Boy Wonder.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Order, please.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, if the vice-president of the student council would let me finish, I would like to complete my answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This should stop on both sides. Next question. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns Cana-dair. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has refused to consider our requests for parliamentary consideration of the sale of Canadair because, according to him, it is a hypothetical question. Today, I read in the Toronto Star that the Government is now examining six offers for Canadair. Since these are concrete offers and since a decision has been made to sell Canadair, why can't the Government make a concrete decision to put the sale of Canadair before a parliamentary committee?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, once again let me try to convey the facts to the Hon. Member.


John Edward Broadbent: That will be a change.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We have no offer in hand from a would-be buyer with respect to part or all of Canadair. We have nothing to refer to any committee at the present time. That is where the matter stands.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question.


Michael Morris Cassidy: This is the same answer which the Minister has given before. I regret the Prime Minister will not answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: I have a supplementary. Since Mr. Marshall of the CDIC says that he is under no special orders to make sure the new order is Canadian, why, having sold de Havilland to a foreign company, is the Govern-

January 22, 1986
Oral Questions
ment letting the other major aircraft manufacturer in this country go out of Canadian hands?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, once again, as I have indicated, we have no firm offer from anybody, Canadian or non-Canadian. The Hon. Member is obviously not well informed.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister responsible for Investment Canada. It centres around the purchase in December, 1984, of Prentice-Hall Canada by Gulf Western.
As the Hon. Minister knows, Prentice-Hall employs nearly 250 people and pays out over $1 million in royalties. When can Canadians and concerned employees anticipate approval or, heaven forbid, disapproval of that purchase?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me asssure the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that it will be sooner rather than later.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In his discussions with Chrysler, will he remind the company of the role played by the Canadian Government and Canadian workers in ensuring Chrysler's survival and, therefore, of its obligation to spend a fair share here in Canada of its capital budget of $3.4 billion for 1986, and especially to ensure there is a new manufacturing project in Chrysler's former engine plant in Windsor, something that could create as many as 1,6000 new jobs?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as you have already presumably recognized, we are well ahead of the Hon. Member. We have already drawn that to Chrysler's attention.


WINDSOR ENGINE PLANT-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister now commit to give equivalent assistance to Chrysler to re-establish that engine plant as a manufacturing project in Windsor, assistance equivalent to that already committed to Hyundai and Toyota? Will the Minister do at least that to ensure some balance in the development of the Canadian auto industry with jobs for Canadian workers in the southwestern Ontario region?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to assistance to Hyundai and Toyota.
To keep the record straight, any assistance from the federal Government in the case of Hyundai was with respect to the ERDA agreement that now exists with the Province of Quebec.
As far as Toyota is concerned, no assistance was requested and no assistance was given to Toyota.


TOURISM
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Tourism. The now Prime Minister in 1984 acknowledged the effect that the price of gasoline was having on tourism in Canada. His "Tourism Tomorrow" paper points out that we are losing both market share and American automobile tourists.
Will the Minister make the strongest possible representations to his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and ask her to exercise her legal power and, in fact, responsibility to the people of Canada by directing Petro-Canada to reduce its prices?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing in the area of tourism is to be commended, I think, by all sides of the House. We are setting out to market Canada in a very positive and aggressive fashion. In my opinion that will prove successful.
As far as any marketing approach in the United States is concerned, and the Americans have been asked about the price of gasoline in Canada, price has not had a significant impact on American's intentions to holiday in Canada.


EXPO 86
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, intention is one thing and action is another.
If the Minister is not prepared to try to get a reduction in the price of gasoline, what is he prepared to do for Expo 86 and the tourism industry in British Columbia?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, in the context of Expo 86 in British Columbia, the Government has spent many many millions of dollars not only promoting Expo 86, but in building infrastructure in Vancouver, of which I am sure all Canadians will be proud when they attend Expo 86 and see it.
January 22, 1986


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: My question is directed to the Minister of Communications regarding the song "What's It Like To Be Dead". I understand from talking to phychiatrists this song, under certain circumstances, could encourage a troubled or unstable juvenile to commit suicide, yet the CBC continues to air it. Yesterday I asked Mr. Juneau to accept responsibility and resign. Will the Minister tell the President of the CBC in no uncertain terms that he should improve his judgment immediately? Will the Minister ask the CRTC to determine whether the song should be banned from all airwaves?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members know perfectly well that according to the Broadcasting Act, broadcasters themselves are responsible for program selection and content, subject to the general rules and surveillance of the CRTC. Consequently, responsibility for CBC programming lies entirely with the executive of the corporation and its board of directors. As Minister of Communications, I have no direct power of intervention in such matters. However, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I will inform the CBC and CRTC executives of the concerns expressed in the House.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On January 1, despite many protests, the Minister cut the unemployment insurance benefits for those receiving early retirement pensions. On Monday this week a member of the Forget Commission described that action as premature and insensitive. Will the Minister now withdraw those proposals and refer them to the Forget Commission which is studying the entire unemployment insurance system?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked a number of times in the House of Commons and I have pointed out the regulation change was first announced on November 8, 1984. It was subsequently reannounced when the Government allowed one year's lead time for implementation of the regulation. That gave employers and employees a chance to adjust to this change in regulations before it came into effect on January 1, 1986. That has taken place.
Oral Questions
We have also referred the whole question of premiums, who pays premiums, under what circumstances and when, to the Forget Commission, and I look forward to having their report.


PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, nothing the Minister said justifies the proposal, and it has not consulted widely with the people it affects. They are finding out about it now. Since many of these people have to retire early, why is the Minister forcing them to pay premiums if they can never benefit from the program? Why should they pay premiums for unemployment insurance which they can never receive even though they are under 65 years of age and looking for work?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the basic premise of the unemployment insurance system in this country, as enlarged upon by the former administration, was that universality of payment into the unemployment insurance fund is required for practically all paid employees. There are many who pay into that fund who never draw upon it. Indeed it is for that reason that I have asked the Forget Commission to take a specific look at this issue.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF GAS LEAKS IN STONEY CREEK, ONT.
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he act now to co-ordinate with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of the Environment a comprehensive study into the operations of Chipman Chemicals Limited, located in Stoney Creek, Ontario, in particular to determine the effect of three organophosphorus gas leaks in the last ten months on the employees of that plant and the residents in the surrounding area? The last leak took place yesterday and hundreds of people had to evacuate their homes.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the issue that the Hon. Member raises has also been discussed in some detail with the Member in whose riding the plant is located, namely, the Hon. Member for Lincoln. Not only has the Hon. Member taken a very close interest in it but the Hon. Member has also had staff at the site. It does fall somewhat into provincial jurisdiction. We are looking at what other action should be taken, whether the suggestion that he makes is the one that should be followed. Our over-all concern, regardless of jurisdiction, is the safety of the workers and the citizens in the surrounding area. I take his point, as well as the one from the Hon. Member for Lincoln very seriously, and we are following it up.

January 22, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. As the Minister knows, the Canada Labour Relations Board has ruled that CP Rail broke the law when it arbitrarily abolished rail passenger train passes for its pensioners. In view of this ruling, what action is the Government able to take to make CP Rail comply with its legal and moral obligations to its pensioners?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the ruling of the Canada Labour Relations Board did not make any recommendation as to actions or remedies toward the company. What the ruling does is that it enables the bargaining unit on behalf of the pensioners to bring that question to the bargaining table. I am sure, knowing the interest of the representatives within the unions and their concern about the pensioners, a concern the Hon. Member has, and I also have, it will be a point of negotiation between the two parties.


PROTECTION OF RAILWAY PENSIONERS
B. Keith Penner: The Minister has pointed exactly to the problem. CP Rail argues that the pensioners cannot be represented at the bargaining table. I want to ask the Minister can he suggest what action the Government can take with the support of Parliament to protect the retirement package of those 27,000 CP pensioners who depend on this small privilege as a part of the retirement deal that was negotiated for them in the past.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the Hon. Member that the representatives, through their bargaining unit, and the former employees who were members of that bargaining unit, have been recognized by the Canada Labour Relations Board to be able to have that issue negotiated between the two parties. I do not think it would be incumbent upon the Parliament of Canada to interfere between negotiations that are now legitimate on this point which impacts upon pensioners in Canada.


PETRO-CANADA'S GASOLINE PRICING PRACTICES
John Edward Broadbent: I have a question directed to the Minister of Finance which relates to an earlier answer he gave to the House. I suggest he misinformed the House-I am not saying deliberately-but I would like him to comment. Considering a report issued by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission just last month points out the following with reference to the testimony of the Chairman of Petro-Canada: "Even more telling was his frank admission that Petro-Canada, despite becoming the largest refiner-marketer
in Canada, would continue to be a passive price follower." In other words, Petro-Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a lead question. Just a question, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the Minister tell the House where he gets this information when he says to the people of Canada Petro-Canada is leading the petroleum companies in bringing prices down when this report says the opposite?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member reads the "blues" he will see I was referring to comments by people in my riding, by service station owners who were complaining about the pricing practices of Petro-Canada. That is the sum and total of the statement that I made in the response to the earlier question.


REQUEST THAT PETRO-CANADA BE INSTRUCTED TO REDUCE PRICES
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would like to ask the Minister, since she is given the authority in the Petro-Canada Act to instruct Petro-Canada to bring prices down if it is government policy, will she now act to save Canadian consumers some $8.5 million a day by instructing Petro-Canada to set an example and lower gasoline prices?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we have asked Petro-Canada to act as a commercial operation in the private sector, as he referred to in his report. Petro-Canada is not a leader in gas-pricing policies, it is usually a follower. It would be detrimental to the company's interest on behalf of Canadians, because we own it, to give it that kind of direction.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, January 21, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Order, please. I am in receipt of notices of a question of privilege and a point of order. I will deal with the question of privilege first.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I realize that many comments are made in the heat of debate. However,
January 22, 1986

a Member from the government side of the House called me a racist during Question Period. I believe the Hon. Member knows who he is and I would like to give him this opportunity to withdraw that comment.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has put the Chair in some difficulty. First, it is clearly not a question of privilege but a question of language, and I therefore take it the Hon. Member meant to raise a point of order on the matter. The Chair heard nothing along those lines, so if the Hon. Member is making an allegation that a particular Hon. Member said something-


Sheila Maureen Copps: He stood up and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know which Member the Hon. Member is speaking of.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He stood up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have seen no Hon. Members rising on this matter.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, while the Chair may not have heard the comment clearly, the Hon. Member who has raised the point of order did hear a remark. That remark was unfortunate but it was made in the context of the document from which the Hon. Member was reading and the statement made by a witness rather than directed at the Hon. Member, whose facility in both languages is well understood and commendable.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know why it is that 1 do not feel less confused. Is the Hon. Member saying that he made the remark and is withdrawing it? Is that what he wishes the House to understand?


Robert Hylton Brisco: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. Yesterday, as I was attempting to point out some economic flaws contained in a speech delivered by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), an interjection was made, an interjection which I myself did not hear at the time. However, I think if you will check Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will discover that there was an interjection made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and that that Hon. Member owes the House an apology. I ask for this apology not for me personally since I have been insulted by experts. I do not need any lessons from him. However, he does owe the House an apology.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Hon. Member makes it difficult for me to withdraw remarks. I will certainly withdraw that which I
Petitions
called him. I must say that there was a lot of motivation behind it.


An Hon. Member:: What did you say?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 will not repeat what 1 called him. I would like to withdraw that word, and while 1 am on my feet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do appreciate that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) will sit down and allow me to recognize him on another point of order.


WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENT RESPECTING MINISTER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, while we are all being so generous, gentlemanly and womanly, I would like to withdraw a comment I made at the beginning of my question regarding the difficulty in finding the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). I see her in the House now so obviously there is no difficulty. I had just hoped that she would come in at the beginning of the day.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House and the Hon. Member that the Hon. Member's own Research Office was told that I would be in the House late.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighteenth Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings. ]


PETITIONS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as the Member for Abitibi to table a petition signed by firemen at the Val-d'Or airport, concerning twelve firemen who have been without a contract since July 1984.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present two petitions, one from the Kamloops Women's Resources Centre speaking out against a

January 22, 1986
Order Paper Questions
number of the provisions in the federal Budget that discriminate against women and families, and another signed by a number of women from Kamloops, British Columbia, asking the Government to rescind a number of unfair tax increases in the Budget, particularly those that impact most specifically on women and families.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, a bit belatedly, I would like to present a petition from citizens of my constituency who are protesting against the decision which the House has now taken to deindex family allowances. This petition and many others will stand as monuments to the Government's failure to be responsive in this matter.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the privilege and honour to present a number of petitions from people from across Canada who, among other things, call upon the Government of Canada not to deindex family allowances and also point out that there is a very real need for tax fairness in this country.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 403 and 410.


Mr. Cassidy: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,484 of the 1st Session of the 32nd Parliament, how much of the $209.3 million decrease in liabilities that was experienced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account (RCMPSA) for past service by the decision that was taken to carry out an actuarial valuation of the RCMPSA under a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario, arose because inflationary interest earnings on RCMPSA assets in respect of pensioners and other beneficiaries were committed to reducing past service employer pension costs in respect of current employees?
2.	How much of the decrease in employer pension costs from 19.8 per cent to 11.2 per cent of contributory payroll for future service that was experienced by the RCMPSA resulting from the decision that was taken to carry out an actuarial valuation of the RCMPSA under a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario, arose because inflationary interest earnings on RCMPSA assets in respect of pensioners and other beneficiaries were committed to reducing future service employer pension costs in respect of current employees?
3.	Were representatives of RCMPSA pensioners consulted on the action taken to commit inflationary interest earnings on RCMPSA assets in respect of pensioners and other beneficiaries towards reducing past and future service employer pension costs in respect of current employees and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1 and 2. Before 1974, the actuarial valuations of the RCMPSA were based on a 4 per cent interest
assumption. Rates of future salary increases and inflation were not projected.
In the 1974 valuation, the rate of interest was assumed to be 5.6 per cent per annum. Salary increases were assumed to be 5.5 per cent annually. These rates included an implicit assumption of 3 per cent inflation.
If no implicit assumptions for inflation had been used, the other economic assumptions could be regarded as being 3.5 per cent for real interest rates and 2.5 per cent for real salary increases. The effect of using an implicit inflation assumption of 3 per cent, and therefore interest and salary increase assumptions of 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent, respectively, instead of 3.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent was to:
(a)	decrease RCMPSA liabilities by $209 million, which included a decrease in pensioner liabilities of about $163 million; and
(b)	reduce the full employer annual current service cost that would have been required from 19.8 per cent to 11.2 per cent of contributory payroll. Of the 8.6 per cent of pay decrease, about 6.3 per cent of pay is attributable to using a discount rate of 6.5 per cent interest rather than 3.5 per cent during the retirement period of plan members.
3. Representatives of RCMP pensioners were not consulted about the change in economic assumptions used to value the RCMPS Account. The benefits of pensioners were not affected by the change in these assumptions. The assumptions were changed to enable realistic cost comparisons with private sector plans. Also, pensions are not negotiable with plan members.


Mr. Cassidy: 1.	Since 1952 by year, what employer pension plan contributions and other payments, expressed as a percentage of payroll, has the Government made to finance pension plan benefits and their indexing for public servants, members of the Armed Forces and members of the RCMP?
2.	For the same years, what proportion of employer-employee pension plan contributions and other payments made to finance pension plan benefits and their indexing for public servants, members of the Armed Forces and members of the RCMP have been made by the Government as the employer?


Paul Wyatt Dick: 1. Employer Pension Plan Contributions and other Payments, as a Percentage
of Payroll, made to finance Pension Plan Benefits and Indexing for Public
Servants, Members of the Canadian Forces and Members of the RCMP
Year	Public Service Plan	Canadian Forces Plan	RCMP Plan1952-53	13.6	11.9	7.51953-54	16.3	12.1	9.91954-55	6.9	10.6	8.11955-56	5.8	11.0	9.21956-57	12.1	11.3	15.11957-58	11.8	10.9	11.81958-59	5.4	10.7	10.81959-60	5.8	11.0	9.11960-61	5.7	8.3	14.9
January 22, 1986

Divorce Act
Public Service	Canadian Forces	RCMPYear	Plan	Plan	Plan1961-62	6.2	10.4	8.61962-63	6.4	10.7	9.71963-64	6.6	115.3*	34.1*1964-65	49.5*	12.9	13.01965-66	8.6	13.0	11.41966-67	10.9	18.5	14.31967-68	10.4	18.9	15.31968-69	11.7	24.1	19.21969-70	11.3	22.4	20.5**1970-71	10.6	22.4	20.91971-72	9.2	19.4	17.51972-73	9.4	21.8	15.81973-74	8.7	29.6	14.81974-75	11.4	31.8	14.51975-76	10.7	33.7	15.31976-77	10.3	30.7	16.31977-78	10.4	28.1	17.21978-79	11.1	20.6	21.61979-80	10.0	16.6	17.31980-81	11.0	16.9	14.51981-82	13.2	19.3	12.81982-83	10.9	18.3	12.41983-84	10.8	19.0	12.81984-85	11.0	19.5	12.9Year	Public Service Plan	Canadian Forces Plan	RCMP Plan1981-82	66.6	76.2	65.91982-83	61.7	74.9	65.51983-84	61.6	75.6	65.41984-85	62.3	76.5	66.4
* In this year all outstanding deferred charges for actuarial deficiency credits were charged to budgetary expenditures. Commencing in 1964-65, actuarial deficiency credits were paid off over five years in equal instalments.
** Indexing Benefits established effective April 1, 1970.


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

*In this year all outstanding deferred charges for actuarial deficiency credits were charged to budgetary expenditures. Commencing in 1964-65, actuarial deficiency credits were paid off over five years in equal instalments.
**Indexing Benefits established effective April 1, 1970.
2. Proportion of Employer-Employee Pension Plan Contributions and other Payments made by the Government as the Employer to Finance Pension Plan Benefits and Indexing for Public Servants, Members of the Armed Forces and Members of the RCMP
Year	Public Service Plan	Canadian Forces Plan	RCMP Plan1952-53	70.2	64.1	55.51953-54	59.2	64.7	62.21954-55	54.2	61.9	57.31955-56	50.0	62.8	60.61956-57	67.8	63.9	71.51957-58	67.1	63.3	66.21958-59	48.5	62.4	64.41959-60	49.7	63.1	60.31960-61	47.0	56.0	69.61961-62	47.9	62.5	57.01962-63	48.3	62.8	59.91963-64	48.8	94.8*	84.0*1964-65	88.3*	67.2	66.61965-66	56.7	68.9	68.51966-67	66.8	82.1	78.31967-68	63.7	79.9	77.71968-69	67.6	82.7	80.91969-70	65.2	80.2	80.0'1970-71	64.1	79.3	73.41971-72	61.3	76.2	73.91972-73	61.2	78.3	72.91973-74	59.8	82.2	70.91974-75	66.3	83.9	70.61975-76	64.6	84.9	71.31976-77	61.7	83.4	71.81977-78	60.4	81.2	71.21978-79	61.9	76.2	75.81979-80	59.9	72.3	72.11980-81	61.6	73.0	68.6


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.