Debates of Oct. 3rd, 1996

Human Rights

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, lately the Liberal members, especially those from Quebec, have accused the sovereignists of all the evils in the world. We are even being accused of violating human rights. Yet, I have been unable to find any mention of Quebec in Amnesty International's latest report.

However, I noticed that some of the countries mentioned in this report-two of which are England and Greece-have always been considered beyond reproach. The report points out that, in Greece, some 350 prisoners of conscience are in jail, eight people are being sued simply for exercising their freedom of expression in a non-violent way, and there are still cases of abuse and torture.

Some members of this House find it easier to see the mote in their neighbour's eye than the beam in their own.

The Death Of Robert Bourassa

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the death of former Quebec premier Robert Bourassa marks the end of one of the most momentous periods in Quebec history.

The youngest ever premier of Quebec had a dream if not an obsession that led him to devote all of his efforts and energy to Quebec's economic development.

Robert Bourassa saw big for Quebec and, inspired by the wealth of ideas born of the Quiet Revolution, he put in place the conditions needed to turn his province into one of the most prosperous and promising industrial societies ever.

In less than 30 years, this visionary succeeded in getting Quebec to take the giant step separating it from the great economic powers. Today, we pay homage and thank him for his unique contribution to Quebec's economic development.

On behalf of all the people of Quebec, thank you and goodbye, Mr. Bourassa.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Robert Bourassa was both a proud Quebecer and a proud Canadian.

Throughout his life, he strove to find ways to express this dual commitment that most Quebecers share with him.

Despite the defeats and constitutional failures he experienced, he never stopped believing that Quebecers were better off within the Canadian federation.

One day after his death, we join with all the people of Canada in expressing our gratitude and admiration for his outstanding contribution to the development of Quebec and Canada.

Tax Evasion

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a ministerial statement, the Minister of Finance implied that he was closing the tax loophole whereby a Canadian family trust was able to transfer $2.2 billion out of Canada tax free. The fact remains that the particular tax loophole is still there.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the $2.2 billion transfer that took place in 1991 would still be possible today, despite the announcement made by the minister yesterday?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, no. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken. There was a loophole in the legislation, and yesterday, with my announcement, it was plugged.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance confirm that the action he took yesterday regarding this problem of tax evasion did not plug the loophole, did not prevent money from being taken out of the country, but, on the contrary, only made things easier than in 1991, because now, with what the Minister of Finance has done, trusts will no longer have to pull a December 23 and obtain special authorization in order to be allowed the huge privilege of taking money out of Canada tax free?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this has nothing to do with trusts. I was very clear in the 1995 budget; we have eliminated all tax advantages for family trusts. The question is how to treat capital gains when someone, whether a trust, an individual or a corporation, wishes to leave the country.

This was precisely the problem dealt with yesterday. In the past, it was not necessary, in certain cases, on leaving the country, to pay tax on gains that had accrued. As I said in yesterday's announcement, emigrants are now required to pay tax on capital gains or give us a security in order to ensure that Canada will receive its fair share.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this is a problem involving trusts and other financial vehicles as well, but the minister cannot say that he has removed all advantages for trusts in his last budget. This is effective 1999, so between now and then, they have the same advantages they had before. I take pleasure in correcting the minister on this point.

When the Minister of Finance says that an emigrant will give securities, he is relying on the signature of a notice of waiver, because sufficient security, under the Income Tax Act, usually takes the form of a notice of waiver. That is the basis on which he says that the taxes will eventually be paid to Canada.

Will the minister confirm that the notice of waiver on which he is pinning his hopes of recovering the taxes due Revenue Canada at some future date has no legal value, but merely a moral one, as the deputy minister of Revenue Canada, Pierre Gravelle, yesterday told the public accounts committee?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken. If there is the slightest risk the Canadian government will not be paid its fair share of taxes, we will require a lot more than a notice of waiver. We will require a bond, a debenture, a valid security for ensuring that the taxes will be paid.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the usual practice at this time, when assets are being transferred and we want to make sure that the trustee does not evade taxes, is that a notice of quit claim is required. That is the only guarantee we require at present, and it has no value in international law and tax conventions. That is the reality.

Yesterday, contrary to what he has claimed, the Minister of Finance did not close up the tax loophole for family trusts. On the contrary, he announced that the interpretation of December 23, 1991, which allowed the tax-free transfer to the United States of a two billion dollar trust will, in future, be government policy for all of the assets of millionaires and billionaires.

Will the minister confirm that, by extending the concept of taxable Canadian assets to Canadian residents, as he did yesterday in his ministerial statement, he has given his blessing to the scandal of 1991, which now becomes the basis of his taxation policy?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc is having a little trouble getting the point. As I have just said, and as I said clearly in my speech of yesterday, the security we intend to require will be far more than a quit claim, if there is any risk whatsoever of the individual's not paying his fair share of Canadian taxes. It is very clear, and I said so in my speech, that it

could take the form of a debenture, a bond, but we will insist upon the security if necessary.

Second, there was a loophole in the legislation in 1991. The legislation was applied as it stood, but there was a loophole.

That loophole was blocked yesterday. We have closed up a great many loopholes, and will continue to do so, because it is our objective to have Canadians pay their fair share of the taxes owing to the government.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see the minister is in a co-operative mood today. If I have understood correctly-and we will see in the bill that will be introduced-he intends to require firm monetary commitments, real binding commitments. That is what we have been asking him to do since the beginning, so we are pleased today that he has just now given us at least part of an answer.

Since he is in a co-operative mood, could he respond to other requests from the official opposition concerning the case of interest to us here? First of all, contrary to what he said yesterday in his ministerial statement, can he limit the use of the TCAs, taxable Canadian assets, solely to non-residents? Second- something he has not wanted to do from the start-could he demand that there be a complete investigation of the 1991 case, which is still somewhat unclear, and which is still an outrageous scandal for Canadian taxpayers?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is no scandal, The auditor general himself has said that there was no scandal of any kind, that the integrity of the public servants concerned was not in question.

The auditor general himself, whom the hon. member has quoted on numerous occasions, has said that there was no scandal.

It is quite important that we understand what has happened here. There was a law in place in 1991, of which certain taxpayers took advantage. The government decided there was a loophole in the law which should be closed.

We gave the matter to a parliamentary committee which made a series of recommendations. Within a month of those recommendations we stood up in this House of Commons and closed that loophole.

Let us understand what the opposition is asking. Because it refuses to deal with the substance of the issue, it wants to make a lot of unsubstantiated charges. Also, opposition members are asking us to act retroactively.

They are asking us to say to the world that Canada's laws do not stand, that we cannot count on them. They would destroy the economy of this country, and we will not do it.

National Defence

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a problem that it cannot avoid. The Minister of National Defence has become a lame duck minister.

The minister has committed so many mistakes, from interference in the Somalia inquiry to personal contracts for political friends, bungling the downsizing of the forces, bungling the base closures, from budget overruns to mismanagement of morale, that nothing the Somalia inquiry finds or the Prime Minister says can rehabilitate this minister.

Does the government believe that it is in the national interest to leave a lame duck minister in charge of the Canadian military?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the point was made yesterday by the Prime Minister that what we are seeing here is the politicizing of the entire hearing process dealing with our deployment to Somalia.

This government has tried to do the right thing. We proposed an inquiry. We created the inquiry. We want the inquiry to do its job. We will hold to that line.

Obviously the leader of the Reform Party does not like those answers, but he is going to get those answers until the inquiry reports.

He says there is one thing that cannot be avoided and that there is a problem. I would say that we could use the same language about him and his party. There is one thing his party cannot avoid. The fact is there is a problem with leadership; it is a problem with his leadership.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and now the minister keep repeating the same old thing, let the inquiry do its work. We agree.

Canadians also want the Prime Minister to do some work. The Prime Minister says do not interfere with the inquiry. The minister says the same thing. At the same time, this minister repeatedly protects and endorses General Boyle, one of the key figures being investigated by that inquiry. The government cannot have it both ways.

If the government is serious about letting the inquiry do its work, why does it not instruct the Minister of National Defence to withdraw his protection and endorsation of General Boyle?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think the public is finding it quite odd that the Reform Party, day in and day out, is going at this issue. It is, in effect, undermining the integrity of the inquiry process.

Canadians want constructive suggestions about the economy, about national unity, about pension reform, about agriculture, about a host of other issues that affect them in their daily lives.

What do we have here? We have a party that ostensibly supported the inquiry process but has done everything, by its behaviour in the House of Commons, to undermine it. That is unacceptable.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this answer from a minister who attempted to influence who sat on the inquiry, who tolerates document tampering before the inquiry and who himself makes statements of endorsation about General Boyle even before he gets off the stand at the inquiry. Who is interfering with the inquiry?

We hear that the government is looking for an election slogan. We have one from a letter from a retired soldier: "Canadians deserve better". Our soldiers have been saddled with a lame duck minister and chief of defence staff.

How long is it going to take the government to acknowledge that Canadians deserve better leadership at the top of the Canadian military?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I really have tried to avoid politics as much as possible in this whole matter.

Canadians want to find the truth regarding what happened with our deployment to Somalia. They want the commission to do its work.

The leader of the Reform Party talks about Canadians deserving better from the government. Canadians deserve better from the opposition. They deserve an opposition that asks constructive, intelligent questions that contribute to the national policy debate, not to come here every day and try to make partisan political interjections on the facts not only of the inquiry but of the Canadian military itself.

The Aerospace Industry

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

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

As the minister knows, our country's major defence industry companies are concentrated in Quebec. These include Expro, Bell Helicopter, SNC and Oerlikon. It is also a fact that, without government support, up to 10,000 jobs will disappear in this sector over the next five years.

Considering that 56 per cent of the aerospace industry is located in Quebec, and that, for ten years now, Quebec has been receiving $115 million annually under the existing program, will the minister pledge to maintain the same level of funding for Quebec under the technology partnerships program?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for mentioning that federal support to Quebec's aerospace industry has been very significant.

Indeed, it is the Government of Canada that established technology centres in the Montreal region. It is also the Government of Canada that set up the base on which was built the industry in Montreal. And now, we are committed to continue supporting Montreal's technology sector.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we take note of the fact that the minister will have to set aside $115 million for Quebec.

I have a supplementary. Does the minister know that the English version of his document on the technology partnership program points out that funding will be exclusively for feasibility studies, while this information is lacking in the French version-

[The Speaker]

I remind the hon. member that he must not use props when putting his questions. The Minister of Industry has the floor.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had reviewed Montreal's economic situation, he would know that it is those sectors relying on the political framework, and the industry sectors supported by the government of Canada that do well, namely the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, telecommunication and aerospace industries.

By contrast, the sectors that depend on the government of Quebec are doing very badly.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know it is this Liberal government that has destroyed the morale of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is this lame duck minister and this government that are playing politics at the expense of armed forces personnel.

Despite what the Liberals think, most military personnel who served in Somalia served with distinction and should be recognized for their often stellar performance.

The Prime Minister and the defence minister continue to support General Boyle but refuse to support the rank and file in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Will the defence minister move his support from General Boyle to our Somalia veterans and strike and issue a Somalia medal?