Madam Speaker, it is important that this motion by the Bloc Quebecois be adopted. I will try to convince my Liberal colleagues and, if the finance minister himself were here, I would try to convince him also that it would be in his best interest.
This motion is designed to suspend section 241 of the bill before us until a committee has examined and shed some light on this matter. Section 241 would allow shipping companies with foreign interests to benefit from tax rebates. That is all we are saying.
A lot of people know that, in his previous life in the private sector, the Minister of Finance owned a very successful shipping company. We can applaud the fact that he has chosen to go into politics, a career which certainly does not pay as much as his previous career. We can applaud that fact, but in the bill before us, the finance minister appears to be acting in his own interest. He appears to be favouring the interests he put in trust. Until we get to the bottom of this, the minister and all politicians will suffer the consequences.
The Minister of Finance had the courage to tell this House that he had made a mistake when the Liberal Party announced that it would scrap the GST. He had the courage to make this admission even though the Prime Minister did not follow in his footsteps. He had the courage to do it.
The finance minister has a reputation, but I would also remind him that he is very much identified with the cuts in social programs, including the first drastic cuts in unemployment insurance in 1994. That first reform, which was followed by the 1996 reform, was the toughest. The 1994 reform was the one that hurt Canadians the most.
In 1995, the Canada social transfer also brought drastic cuts to social programs in health, education and welfare. These cuts have been maintained. The government says it is investing in these areas when it is in fact cutting back.
The money invested in the CHST has dropped from $19 billion to about $11 billion. The government has raised the floor to $12.5 billion, but that still leaves a huge gap.
The same finance minister who has made these cuts, and written, sold and promoted the budget is granting fiscal benefits to himself. For ordinary taxpayers, this makes no sense. It is detrimental to their perception of politics.
The minister was not happy because the media did not jump on the bandwagon. The minister has a great deal of personal prestige, and we are ready to admit that, although we do not approve of his policies, he deserves our respect. But with this bill, we have to ask whether he really is the person he appears to be.
He has the obligation to clear up this matter, both for him and in the interest of Canadian politics. It is of the utmost importance.
But there is another consideration, and I know it means a great deal to him. His father, Paul Martin Sr., is very much associated with the creation of our social programs. He was an important progressive figure in the history of Canadian politics. I am sure it would be unthinkable for him to have his son involved in something that is less than transparent and on which, for some obscure reason, he refuses to shed light.
Maybe he was not aware of these provisions. But then it would be a matter of concern if the finance minister did not know what is in his bills. He should have the fortitude to admit it. It would lay to rest a matter that will not go away, but only get worse. In politics, it is much easier for people to believe in wrongdoing than in the opposite. Everybody has a responsibility to avoid this.
To preserve people's trust, because people cannot accept that the minister who has cut social programs and unemployment insurance should appear to line his pockets through a bill he has introduced himself, and for the sake of his father, the minister should clear up this situation, and that is why—