Debates of Sept. 25th, 1996

Michel Bellehumeur Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Justice tell us whether he intends to go to the courts to settle the family trust scandal and check if Revenue Canada did indeed misinterpret the Income Tax Act, as Choices and eight academic experts claim it did?

Allan Rock Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the preamble was so erroneous that I was prepared to answer it. But I will go beyond that and answer the question. Some hon. members said "for a change", which I think is quite unfair.

It is important to remember that after the auditor general delivered the report in question, this government referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Finance which heard from a number of legal experts, the vast majority of whom agreed with the legal issue that was in question.

Second, it heard from justice officials that the course taken was consistent with justice advice given over the years from whichever government was in office. It also heard evidence from which it concluded that the officials from revenue acted in good faith.

Against that background the committee formed its conclusion. I believe that represents a thorough analysis of the issue and a conclusion with which we should be entirely comfortable.

Michel Bellehumeur Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, by refusing to let the courts rule on the family trust scandal, is the Minister of Justice not admitting in fact that the decision made by Revenue Canada was rather questionable and that any judge called upon to rule on this issue would not hesitate to overturn such a twisted decision without giving it a second thought?

Allan Rock Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot agree.

The reality is that it is for the very reason that the ruling was challenged that the government referred the matter to the standing committee. That committee heard evidence, including expert evidence, on the very question.

After having examined the evidence, which I urge the hon. member to look at, if memory serves, six of the eight legal experts who testified supported the approach taken.

I do not agree that a court would take a different view. I think we have had a full airing of the issue. It was before the committee for public discussion and I believe the matter should rest there.

Beth Phinney Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The minister has been accused of flip-flopping several times on the payment of GST on membership dues to non-profit organizations. There is still a lot of confusion out there. What is the situation? Do they have to pay or not?

Doug Peters Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)

Mr. Speaker, the member has taken a considerable interest in this subject.

I am pleased to report that the changes issued last April have been altered and that memberships in certain non-profit organizations are no longer subject to the GST.

Preston Manning Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, the government is always talking about fairness. It professes that no one in the country and no party in the House can match the Liberals in their commitment to fairness.

Yet when we have the poorest province in Canada being exploited by one of the largest, the Prime Minister will not even admit there is a problem, let alone seek a solution.

Then the Minister of Natural Resources has the gall to say in this House that the question of fairness is not a matter for the federal government.

Why should the people of Canada believe that the Liberal government is committed to fairness when it consistently ignores the injustice of the Churchill Falls project?

Preston Manning Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, we are not suggesting anything of the kind. We are talking about one particular project.

The minister administers the National Energy Board Act. Surely she has read the words fair and reasonable, fair and reasonable, fair and reasonable, time and time again.

Quebec Hydro has made profits of over $500 million annually from Churchill Falls in recent years, while Newfoundland gets only a fraction of that amount.

If Newfoundland received a fair portion of those profits its dependence on federal-provincial transfers and equalization would be significantly reduced to the benefit of all Canadians.

Why will the federal government not simply ask the National Energy Board to ascertain-we are not asking it to give an order-what would be a fair and reasonable division of returns between the provinces involved under present economic conditions?

Art Eggleton Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, the government is proceeding with Bill C-29 for many different reasons. We will defend our position with respect to NAFTA. Just because they put in a claim does not mean they will be successful.

Benoît Sauvageau Terrebonne, QC

Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that, if the federal government goes ahead with Bill C-29, in spite of his department's warnings, it could end up having to pay Ethyl Corp. $275 million coming from Canadian taxpayers?