Debates of June 22nd, 1995

Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act

[An hon. member]

It is a five-letter word.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

That is what I should have said, five. I am only an accountant. I guess these things do not add up for me. That is how one gets out of it. That is why I have colleagues here. Accountants kind of get off track.

What really irritates in the whole discussion is when government members opposite have been known to say that the member for Beaver River is opportunistic in opting out or not opting into the plan. That is about as low as we can get from members opposite.

The individual is personally going to be out probably a couple of million dollars. That is not opportunistic. That is real commitment. That is the kind of commitment and principles one gets from this side, not the hogwash we have been hearing over there. They were the very people, when the Conservatives were over there, who stood over here and said: "You don't have any ethics. You don't have any integrity".

What is happening today? It is the same old story. Liberal, Tory, the same old story. The two words I want to talk about in the final analysis are my five-letter word and I do not even want to say how many letters are in retroactive. It does not matter.

The word retroactive will be indelible in the minds of Reformers. When we move opposite we will make a change. There will be changes to Bill C-68. There will be changes to Bill C-41 and there will be changes to Bill C-85. They had better remember the word retroactive.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that the issue of members' pensions is of interest to every member of Parliament as well as to Canadians in general.

Many have strong opinions as can be seen by the debate in the House today with members speaking both in support of and in opposition to Bill C-85.

There is one thing all members of the House can agree on: the bill before the House is an improvement on the existing pension plan. It is a step in the right direction. I understand hon. members opposite think it should go further, but it is a step in the right direction.

The basics of it are that we are living up to our red book commitment. Our red book commitment in the election campaign said that we would end double dipping: the practice of members leaving the House or leaving the Senate and getting another job on the federal public payroll or an appointment and being able to collect their pension and a salary at the same time. That is now over. That is over with the bill and it is over with the practice the Prime Minister instituted in Parliament in an

informal fashion prior to the bill formally being adopted and coming into law. That is covered.

Canadians are concerned that there be a minimum age, that members of Parliament leaving in their forties not be collecting a pension at such a young age. The age was reviewed by a commission of Parliament, the Lapointe commission which recommended age 55. A consultant study that was commissioned by the previous federal government also recommended age 55, and that is what is being implemented in Bill C-85. Again we have lived up to the commitment that was made in the election campaign to deal with the matter of a minimum age.

We have gone beyond that because we have recognized in this time of fiscal restraint, this time of needing to reduce the cost of government, that we should take a leadership role and therefore we have by reducing the benefit rate for pensions collected by retired members of Parliament. In doing so I have been able to cut the cost to the taxpayer by some 33 per cent. A 33 per cent reduction in the cost of the pension plan for members of Parliament is again an improvement, a step in the right direction.

We also have to look at the pension plan in the context of overall compensation for members of Parliament. That has been raised not only by the Lapointe commission and by the consultant study which said that we should go up in the salary and down in the pensions, keeping the overall remuneration level the same. Not only has it been suggested by them and by various witnesses who have appeared before the Lapointe commission, but it has also been a point that the Reform Party through its whip has particularly highlighted. The whip of the Reform Party was suggesting that we should perhaps be going up in salaries far in excess of what they are today, which would amount to increases in the neighbourhood of 100 per cent to 130 per cent.

We just cannot afford to do that. For the Reform Party to suggest in this time of fiscal restraint that we should have those kinds of salary increases is a terribly unreasonable position and not one that I am sure would be supported by the taxpayers at all.

We have to look at the total context of the compensation package here. Members of Parliament have chosen to pay more for pensions, for having that kind of benefit when they leave the House, and to sacrifice a higher salary level than the Reform Party whip and others have recommended.

While they talk about the pension being greater than what other people may get in the private sector, they fail to point out that members of Parliament pay a lot more. With any pension plan, whether it be private sector or public sector, one gets according to the amount of money one invests in it. Members of Parliament invest a substantial amount more. That is something they conveniently overlook.

In putting this matter in the context of total compensation, there are some words that are particularly important to note because they were used by a member of the Lapointe commission, Professor C. E. S. Franks from Queen's University. He later appeared before the standing committee of the House reviewing Bill C-85. I think he put the matter in a good context and it is relevant to quote his words. He said:

The majority of ex-MPs have served too short a time, in fact less than six years, to receive any parliamentary pension whatsoever. In fact a great many ex-members not only do not have a pension but have a difficult time in finding employment and re-establishing themselves after serving as a member.

Professor Franks went on to say:

The issue of MP pensions should more appropriately be considered in the context of overall remuneration of elected representatives. Members of Parliament are significantly less well paid than other Canadian professionals. International comparisons prove Canadian MPs to be among the lowest paid. If other factors were to be taken into account, like the length of sessions, the opportunities for other income generating activities, the likelihood of serving long enough to make a career as a politician and to earn a pension sufficient for support in old age, then Canadian elected representatives are even worse off than those of other countries. This low remuneration has effect on representation in Canada.

Professor Franks went on further in his testimony to indicate:

A higher proportion of Canadian MPs choose voluntarily to retire from the House and not to run in an election than leave by any means, death, defeat or desire, than in Britain, than the United States or continental Europe.

There is something deeply dissatisfying in the work world of the Canadian member of Parliament to create such a rapid turnover and desire to leave. It might be argued that this turnover does not matter and that a steady influx of new members is a good thing in the House, but what happens in Canada goes beyond what is a good thing.

Comparative studies of legislatures and the legislative process have shown that a necessary requirement and precondition for a strong legislature, independent and effective representation, and strong legislative committees is a body of experience, experienced long term members who make a career in the legislature.

The Canadian Parliament does not have this sort of long serving membership. The Canadian Parliament is correspondingly weakened in its ability to hold government accountable, in its efforts to obtain redress of grievances for citizens, and in its debate and investigation of important issues.

The important point illustrated by his words is that the failure to appropriately compensate members of Parliament weakens the institution and in turn is detrimental to Canadians.

He also noted, as did other witnesses, that half of former MPs go without any pension. We are talking about a situation where half the people in the House will never collect a pension. There is not an enormous cost to the Canadian taxpayer when we consider that. Members put in a lot of time and effort and do not receive any pension or contribution from the government.

The Reform Party prefers to point out that there are some members who might do well with a pension because of their length of service. They have even used some figures they obtained from the National Citizens' Coalition. I have looked at those figures and they are wildly out of line with reality. They are just not true at all.

For example, they used one figure of $2.5 million relevant to one member of the House when the actual figure is almost half that in terms of the accumulation of a pension collection over a great number of years. The assumption is that the member would be leaving now and collecting a pension until age 70. There is also the assumption that the inflation rate is 5 per cent. The inflation rate is actually less than half of that. The figures were grossly exaggerated. Again I point out that only half the members who leave the House receive a pension.

Professor Franks' comments, the Sobeco, Ernst & Young report, the Lapointe commission and the hon. whip of the Reform Party have all raised the question of why we do not raise the salaries. We just cannot. Members of Parliament have had their salaries frozen for some six years now. Public servants' salaries have also been frozen. In this kind of climate it would be a bad message and bad point of leadership to suggest that we should increase our salaries. I am sorry, I say to the whip of the Reform Party and other members who support him. We just cannot in this context deal with a salary increase.

Meanwhile, we have indicated strong leadership in terms of moving in the right direction, living up to our commitments made during the election campaign as printed in the red book, and reducing the cost of the pension plan to the taxpayers by some 33 per cent.

It is anticipated that the amendments proposed in Bill C-85 will result in annual savings of some $3.3 million.

This bill is a move in the right direction. It reduces the overall cost of the MP pension plan to taxpayers.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

I point out to the House at the outset that I am not pleased with the method the government is using to force this particularly biased legislation through the House.

The government cannot be at all comfortable with this legislation or it would allow members of Parliament free debate. That is not happening. What do we see? We see a government slipping this through as quickly as possible during the last day in an attempt to hide it from public scrutiny.

Canadians are not stupid. They will see through this strategy, through the government's attempt to put one over at the very last minute. They will not be fooled by this undemocratic strategy.

The Liberals, like the government before them, are underestimating the Canadian public. The new plan does not address Canadians' demands for a fair system of MP pensions. The new plan is hardly any better or any different from the old plan.

It provides for a few adjustments by taking from one area and adding somewhere else, all at taxpayers' expense of course. This plan simply raises members' take home salary by reducing MP contribution rates.

Liberals in the committee on procedure and House affairs excluded witnesses from coming forward to speak on the bill. The government claimed it would allow witnesses only who could prove they were experts in MP pensions in an effort to eliminate groups such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which has been very outspoken in its efforts to push the government into bringing MP pensions in line.

The government's exclusionary tactics have denied ordinary Canadians the right to appear before committee to express their views. Who does the government think pays the MP pensions? The Canadian taxpayers do and they deserve a right to be before the committee and have their views heard.

The Liberals in committee also objected to witnesses who refer to the trough goers in derogatory terms unless they jammed all the witnesses into a one-day session. It appears when it comes to the greedy personal interests of members across the floor, there simply cannot be any discussion.

Regardless of general consensus against the new plan by witnesses, the Liberal majority on the standing committee after just 12 minutes of deliberations pushed the bill through with not one change at all, what a sham.

We now see why the ethics commissioners is only a figure-head. It is because there are no ethics regarding policies of the members opposite. Why should taxpayers have to continue to pay this ridiculous subsidy to members of Parliament?

One witness to the standing committee estimated the new pension plan is seven times more generous than the typical public sector plan and four times more generous than the typical private sector plan.

MPs are in a very privileged position. Unlike most working Canadians, they can set their own remuneration. MPs set their salaries, their perks and their pensions. This is a heavy responsibility which few are entrusted with, and with that responsibility comes a great deal of trust and expectation for fellow Canadians.

The very nature of this pension plan is an abuse of not only MP privileges but also an abuse of the legislation that governs Canadians. The plan is out of line with regulations and rules governing pensions in the Income Tax Act.

I make reference to the accrual rate. The Income Tax Act allows only a 2 per cent accrual rate. The previous MP pension plan allowed for a 5 per cent accrual. This plan drops it to four, still twice that of the Income Tax Act.

Why are MPs different? The Liberals say they are proposing to reduce the amount of pensions, raise the minimum age for collecting pensions and eliminate double dipping. They will not say the full extent of the plan and why it is so distasteful that 52 Reform MPs, all Reform MPs, and a few ethical Liberal MPs will have nothing to do with it and will volunteer to opt out of the plan.

In addition, the Liberals in their amendments to this plan have taken the liberty of giving themselves a better deal by reducing MP contributions from 11 per cent to 9 per cent. In doing so what have they done? They have actually given themselves a raise as their take home pay will be increased by the reduction in the contributions-here we go again.

It is obvious the self-serving interests of some members on the opposite side have dictated the contents of the bill. It would be far better for MP pensions to be set up by an independent body at arm's length to the government.

Obviously many members cannot handle this responsibility themselves. At least at arm's length the agency would be better able to make an objective assessment of MP pensions.

Members on the opposite side are arguing the new MP pension plan is fair just because they feel they work hard and deserve fair compensation. For many MPs it appears their definition of fair compensation should be much more fair than for other Canadians.

I am sure many Canadians would be more than pleased to receive such generous compensation packages they were allowed, but they cannot play by the same rules.

This plan is not realistic and cannot be extended to the public because if it did we would bankrupt the country. Members with any conscience will think twice before gorging into this tax trough and will opt out. Members here to serve Canada and not themselves will and should do the right thing.

It is not easy to give up a hefty sum of tax dollars but if members think this over carefully and weigh it in their conscience, those who have one, they will do the right thing and opt out of the plan.

This newly revised trough plan will become very evident to Canadians and they will demand their MP take the decent course of action and stop robbing their tax dollars. They will demand their MP take the high road and opt out. Many will see why the Liberals are attempting to push the bill through. This plan will make many of these politicians millionaires. These MPs do not want to give up such a lucrative fortune, let alone negotiate a normal pension. They refuse to be pressured by the electorate to get their hands out of the cookie jar and start doling out taxpayers dollars fairly.

However, the Liberals have failed to gauge the mood of the voting public, just as the Conservatives did. The Liberals will suffer the same fate for not listening. This is what the Liberals fear, reprisals from their own constituents. That is why the government will not allow a simple provision in the bill for MPs to opt out at any time, not just a once only window but any time.

The Liberals clearly want to protect their fortunes. They have no scruples to lay off public servants, cut back on medicare funding or social services as long as they can protect their own greedy little self-interest. They tell Canadians to cut back and make sacrifices, but sacrifices are easy when they are in somebody else's backyard or come out of somebody else's pocket.

It is time for the government to look in its own backyard and do what Canadians expect, offer an MP pension plan similar to that available in the private sector.

I support an MP pension plan comparable to those which Canadians receive in the private sector and which meets all the requirements for registration under the Income Tax Act. The bill does not accomplish this as it stands. I, along with most Canadians, will have no part of it. All 52 Reform MPs will be opting out of the plan and it will save Canadian taxpayers $38 million.

I want the members opposite to clearly understand that when Reform forms the next government, the Liberals can kiss their extravagant pension plan goodbye. Reform will retroactively adjust all present and past pensions for any living MP to reasonable levels. We will remove the porkers from the trough because the government, as reflected in Bill C-85, is incapable of doing what Canadians expect. Old style politics lives on. The Conservatives paid the price for not listening and the Liberals are about to suffer the same fate.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Madam Speaker, I remind my friend from Comox-Alberni his accusation of the government's not reading the mood of the people is quite interesting. The latest polls came out this morning, showing the Reform Party at a resounding 10 per cent. That is a drop of about about half from what it was at the time of the election.

I ask the hon. member if he has ever terminated employment at some time and tried to resume a career after that termination? The hon. member is probably not as old as I am and so he is probably more marketable as a commodity in the private sector than I am at my age.

A large number of his colleagues in the Reform Party will be facing that onerous challenge at the end of this term, the challenge of resuming a career in the private sector. Members of the Reform Party for the sake of the people who will follow them, some will be Reform members, should think seriously about that.

I have had that experience. Being self-employed I thought it would be the easiest thing in the world to terminate my career in Ontario politics and resume my previous career. It took four years to resume that income level, that level of activity. When I went back I was a different person. Many of my colleagues I have worked with and worked for prior to that time had gone on to other things and some had even died. It was a matter of starting all over again.

I respectfully ask the member, whose righteousness reflects his colleagues', if he has ever had that experience and if he really knows what it is like to go back.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the first point on the polls, only one poll will count. The Conservatives found that in the last election and it will be the same poll for these people. They are on a downhill slide. Self-serving legislation like this will not do them any good at all.

On the second point of the hon. member's question, the purpose of coming to Parliament as an MP is not to set yourself up because you cannot get a job when you go out. If you were good enough when you came into this place you will find a job when you go back out.

I do not expect any guarantees when I go out of this place. I will not set myself up and use this place as a big trough to get in knee deep so that I can set myself up on the way out.

I will go out with a normal pension or I will go out with no pension at all. This is not the place to set ourselves up for the future.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about our ramming it through. I wonder how he can say that when the bill has been around since the end of April. Prior to that Reformers questioned us for some period of time, when would we bring in the bill. They were so anxious to have it that when we finally brought it in they asked why we are putting it through.

The issue has been around since the last election. It was around during the last election. It has certainly been around through this Parliament. I do not understand how they can say we are ramming it through. As well, at committee they did not even move any amendments. I do not understand that. Perhaps he could explain that a little further.

Also on the question of the Income Tax Act, I do not understand it because this complies with the act. There is additional compensation but it is paid for by the members. I do not understand the member's-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, there is barely any time, 30 seconds. The hon. member Comox-Alberni.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, if we are not ramming this legislation through why are we standing here on the last day of the session talking about it? If it has been around for so long, explain why we are here on the last day.

Good grief, that answers it right there. Give me a break.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak to Bill C-85, the government's bill to amend the pension plan for members of Parliament.

The Reform Party of Canada in response to pre-election demands of Canadians promised to make changes to the MP pension plan one of our highest priorities. We promised radical change to the plan.

The Liberals have waited a very long time. They are merely tinkering with this plan.

In my recent householder I conducted a poll of my constituents. Seventy-seven per cent of the respondents believed that members of Parliament should have a pension plan. Eighty-nine per cent said that the current MPs pension plan should be reformed so it cannot be collected until age 60. They also said that the rates and contribution levels should conform with private sector plans.

I would like to make this point very clear: I am opting out of the new plan, and it makes me very angry that this has to be done. Bill C-85 does not go far enough. It does not reflect what Canadians wanted. It is poor legislation.

In the 1990s job security has virtually disappeared across all sectors of the economy. MPs should not have a pension plan that tries to make up for periods of time when an MP becomes unemployed. The Liberals either do not understand that or they simply do not care.

The Reform Party was elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility. We will continue to pursue the Liberals in order to force them to respond to the desire of Canadians for leadership by example.

Bill C-85 does not propose a fiscally responsible pension plan. The opting out clause the government has provided can only be interpreted as an admission of a flaw in the new pension plan the Liberals have proposed. If the government had provided a pension plan that would allow members to contribute to their own registered retirement savings plan or a private sector company type of plan with a contribution system of one to one, everyone from all sides of the House would have supported that plan. All Canadians would have supported such a plan.

The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act requires members of Parliament to contribute 11 per cent of their earnings. Seven per cent of the contributions go to the MP retirement compensation arrangement. Four per cent of contributions go to the retirement allowances account.

The opting out clause proposed by the Liberals is a facade. It is a no win situation for individual members of Parliament. If a member chooses to opt out he or she can roll over their entitlement, which is the 4 per cent, which is the contribution to the retirement allowances act, into a personal pension plan, an RRSP. That seems fair enough. However, the 7 per cent contribution to the retirement compensation arrangement must be taken by the member in a one time payout, a cheque, plus 4 per cent compounded interest. That one time payout is treated as taxable income in the year in which it is received by the member. Any accountant in the country would shudder at this punitive measure.

The Liberals are punishing members of Parliament for opting out of the plan. They can do this because the previous plan was one of mandatory participation, which is normal in any company pension plan. Under the previous plan members were unable to pay into their own RRSPs. Therefore, the opting out becomes a double whammy: number one, the 7 per cent is added to the member's annual income and is taxable in the year it is received; number two, the members lose the amount of time they spent in the old plan in terms of not being able to make up the lost contributions to their RRSPs.

As I said before, Bill C-85 is poor legislation. Again I will state very clearly that I am opting out of the plan. However, I am angry at the ramifications of opting out. The opting out clause is inequitable and unfair. There is no reason why it has to be this way.

Let me make it very simple for the Liberals across the way. Number one, make the MP pension plan reflect private sector standards. Number two, make the MP pension plan available to MPs upon their reaching the age of 60. Number three, if it is too difficult for the government to change the pension plan, simply scrap it. Let members contribute to their own registered retirement savings plans.

Where is the government's sense of responsibility? Where is their sense of morality in this proposed scheme? Where is their leadership? Where is the red book commitment?

Bill C-85 is a broken promise made to Canadians during an election campaign by the Liberals. This plan has not been changed in the way ordinary Canadians would have changed it. The government is putting this legislation on a fast track. The Liberals have placed a time limit on debate on this matter. But this issue is not going away.

It does not matter that the Liberals tried to sweep this one under the rug along with their sexual orientation bill and their gun registry bill. In their haste to dispose of the MP pension plan they have shown Canadians how careless they are with respect to this matter.

The Liberals will try to forget what they have done, but in their nightmares in the next election campaign they will be seeing their constituents vividly in technicolour holding up an MP pension placard and shouting "You broke your promise".

Ordinary Canadians are astounded that they supported the Liberals in the last election. The Liberals have not even come close in delivering on a promise of integrity and restoring confidence in the government.

When I look back to the image of the Conservative Party as pigs at a trough and remember the trouncing that party took at the ballot box, I have no sympathy for the Liberals. They are behaving in the same way as their predecessors. The Tories had two consecutive majority governments reduced to two seats in this Parliament because they would not respect the desires of ordinary Canadians. This Liberal government has not learned the lessons of the Canadian electorate taught by the Tories. This government has the gall to pass pathetic legislation by limiting debate. I can hardly wait for the next election.

The House of Commons, by its name, by its very nature, and by the history that has created this Chamber and our parliamentary system, is supposed to be an arena for the common person to voice his or her concerns before the state. All of us in this place are commoners. The Liberals do not understand that we are representatives of the people and at the same time we are one with the people.

The policies and programs coming from this place should be in line with the common will of the people. Bill C-85 continues to provide members of this Chamber with million dollar pension plans. There is nothing common about such a policy. The Liberals are continuing to ensure that this House of Commons remains a manor of millionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I do not support this legislation. I thank you for your time today.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke has misled people listening to the debate because he suggested the Liberal government in introducing this bill failed to honour the commitments and promises it made in respect of the pension plan in this country for MPs.

As he will acknowledge, I am sure, in his answer to this comment, the Liberal government promised two things in the red book: to end double dipping for members of Parliament and to install a minimum age for the pension plan so that members under a certain age could not collect. He knows the minimum age provided in the bill before the House is 55; he knows this bill ends double dipping. He should come clean with Canadians and admit that not only has the government fulfilled all of the commitments it made in the red book in respect of the pension plan, but it went further. It reduced the cost of the pension to Canadian taxpayers by one-third by reducing the contribution rate so that members are ineligible to receive the full pension after 15 years and now it will be 19 years. Why does the member do that?

Besides suggesting that, he is also pretending to be outraged on the part of the Reform Party with his pension and claims that he is not going to collect his pension. He will not for the very good reason that a member has to be elected twice to this Chamber to collect, and he will have grave difficulty doing that. He knows that in his heart of hearts.

Is he not doing what the other Reformers are doing, opting out of the pension in order to squeeze out of the required contributions and put that money in their pockets instead of facing reality and acknowledging that what other people are doing here is right, honest, and fair?

[The Speaker]

The hon. member has about one minute.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

I knew what I was getting into when I ran for election for the good people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. If I do not win in the next election, that will not be a decision made by you but by the good people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. member will please address his remarks to the Chair.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Of course I meant you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

That is even worse. You have 30 seconds to wrap it up.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in respect to the pension plan itself and the Liberal commitments, I would like to make a few comments regarding the new pension scheme.

Under the current pension scheme members of Parliament pay approximately 11 per cent into their plan and under the new scheme they will pay 7 per cent. The witnesses who came before the committee were quite clear: they reported it should be 26 per cent. We should actually be putting in approximately $19,000 to make it actuarially sound.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I regret to intervene, but it being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members.

Peacekeeping

[Harry Verran, Liberal, South West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the recent opening of the Lester B. Pearson Canadian International Peacekeeping Training Centre at the former military base in Cornwallis.

All of Canada should be proud of the centre and the ability it has already demonstrated to draw an international multidiscipilinary clientele to the Annapolis Valley and to the riding of South West Nova. We hope this centre will continue the tradition of peacekeeping established by former Prime Minister Lester Pearson.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, visiting us in the gallery today are the following dignitaries from South West Nova: the MLA for Argyle; the warden of the municipality of Argyle; the warden of Yarmouth County; the mayor of the town of Yarmouth; and the chairman of the Yarmouth Development Authority. I welcome them to this House.

Quebec Sovereignty

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was five years ago today that the Meech Lake accord was dealt a death-blow. The member for Churchill and Clyde Wells, the current Prime Minister's accomplice, refused to ratify the accord.

"Thanks for the job", said the current Prime Minister of Canada to Clyde Wells, when he clutched him in his arms after becoming leader of the Liberal Party in Calgary.

On that day, thousands of Canadians told Quebecers: "No, you are not a distinct society. Even your most basic demands are unacceptable. You are a province just like the others. Shape up or ship out".

This has now become the Prime Minister's slogan. The choice for Quebecers is to either resign themselves or take control of their destiny. Quebecers will have to make a decision this fall, with the referendum on sovereignty.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I requested information through the Access to Information Act concerning a briefing note to the Solicitor General from the RCMP officer who mishandled my request for an investigation into the Canadian Wheat Board.

The briefing note merely explains how my claims were mishandled, which includes the officer's error in not opening a separate file, and subsequent reports. No file or report exists.

The Canadian Wheat Board, on the other hand, insists on laying charges against individual farmers exporting grain without an export permit.

Farmers are merely trying to eke out a living and draw attention to the fact that somebody is ripping them off, yet the RCMP maintains an extensive file and reports on these farmers.

I ask: What is wrong with this picture?

Antique Cars

[Ivan Grose, Liberal, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Automotive Museum in Oshawa will be hosting for the next year the McDougall collection of 21 antique cars. This collection has been declared Canadian cultural property by the Canadian Property Export Review Board.

It includes a rare supercharged 1928 Mercedes-Benz, the same year as the first car I had only it was a Ford which went for $15 scrap. I always buy the wrong model. Also included is an Issotta Fraschini once owned by the King of Spain.

For car buffs this provides a rare opportunity to see a priceless collection. For everyone else, come see us in beautiful Oshawa, the city that "motovates" Canada.

Veselka Ukrainian Culture And Heritage Church

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that the Veselka Ukrainian Culture and Heritage Church in my constituency of Prince Albert-Churchill River is celebrating its fourth annual summer festival on July 7 and 8, 1995.

For many years this church has promoted, fostered and maintained the Ukrainian legacy and culture in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and area. Its festival comes at an especially important time as the Prince Albert city council has declared the first week of July Ukrainian Festival Week. During this week there will be many events capturing the spirit and traditions of the Ukraine.

I would like to extend my most sincere congratulations to the Veselka Ukrainian Culture and Heritage Church for its commitment to excellence. Its members have proven through their hard work the benefits of a multicultural and diverse Canada.

On behalf of the House, I would like to wish them all the best for this festival and in the future.

Quebec Regions

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage showed a lack of respect in this House for Quebec regions by using the expression "reculées", which means out of the way. The words used by the minister clearly show his lack of knowledge regarding Quebec regions, their vitality and their pride. People who live in distant regions, particularly in the Abitibi region, which I represent, cannot accept the message conveyed by the minister that these regions are backward.

The regions form the very core of Quebec's identity, an identity which is promoted on the international scene. To say that these regions are out of the way is to offend hundreds of thousands of Quebecers, particularly when that statement comes from another Quebecer who is supposed to represent them.

I urge the minister to show respect to Quebec regions by retracting the very derogatory comments he made yesterday.

Lac Barrière Band

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in early May I asked some questions in the House regarding allegations of sexual abuse and misappropriation of funds at the Lac Barrière band. I got no answers on the first occasion and inaccurate responses on the second.

Therefore, my colleague for North Island-Powell River and I met with a segment of the band in late May and then visited the reserve yesterday.

Despite the minister's knowledge of concerns regarding sexual abuse of young band members and financial irregularities involving members of the Liberal Party at Lac Barrière for the past year, no apparent progress has been made in confirming or denying these allegations.

If there is substance to the allegations, they should be dealt with as soon as possible. If there is no substance, they should be thrown out to prevent further division in the community.

I demand that the minister initiate a judicial inquiry to shed light on the whole issue, so that members of the band can finally get on with their lives. These people are tired of the government's rhetoric: they want to see results.