Debates of March 23rd, 1998

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997

[An hon. member]

Order, order. Withdraw.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am listening to this debate. While I am sure there is an amount of respect for each and every member of Parliament, I completely and very strenuously object to the fact that this hon. member is standing in her place and essentially saying that members of Parliament in this House, our Minister of Finance in particular, are crooks.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, I was reading Standing Order 11(2) which has to do with relevancy and the Speaker's responsibilities thereof. I did not hear the hon. member for Yukon. If the hon. member for Yukon did say what the parliamentary secretary has suggested has been said, I would ask the hon. member for Yukon to withdraw either the words or the intent.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I guess what I would say is that I included all of us. If there is any impression of wrongdoing by one, it is wrong for all of us.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If the member for Yukon would just finish her thought then I will be able to respond. Would you finish your thought please.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding. I did not mean to cast any aspersions on anyone in this House. But actions that anyone takes here, whether they are good or bad, reflect on every member of Parliament.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the operative word that the member used was tax evasion. If she withdrew the term “evasion”—

[An hon. member]

Crooks.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

It was crooks as well. Perhaps she could withdraw both of those words.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Will the hon. member for Yukon withdraw the word “crooks”.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

If there are measures such as the tax measure outlined in clause 241 of Bill C-28 which put the Minister of Finance in the light of giving the appearance of going beyond our bounds of ethics, they should be withdrawn. Again it reflects on every member of Parliament. The minister should not have tabled the bill—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am having great difficulty sitting here listening to this member talk about a member of the House going outside the bounds and casting a light of—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The parliamentary secretary is quite right. By tradition and established custom of the House we do not, although sometimes we skate perilously close to the edge, accuse other members of things we would not want to be accused of ourselves.

I would ask the hon. member for Yukon if she would be kind enough not to get this close to the edge of the water. It is pretty thin ice we are on right now.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that I would agree with you. I do not want aspirations cast on any member of this House. There is the appearance of a conflict of interest in this bill and the purpose of the amendment is to delete clause 241 so that there will not be an appearance of conflict of interest. It is a difficult issue to discuss. If you have to go close to the edge, you have to.

It has to be talked about because every member of Parliament then gets painted with the same brush whether it is good or for ill. I will say no more. However, we do support the Bloc amendment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I thank the hon. member for Yukon for her consideration in this matter.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to take part in this debate and particularly to refocus the debate on what really matters. Indeed, in spite of what the hon. member who spoke before me said, this is much more about the beam in the finance minister's eye than about the mote in the eye of the a rookie member of Parliament.

Why debate today a motion asking that a special committee be struck to look at the international shipping legislation to try to resolve an apparent conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance? I think it is important to establish from the start that this situation came about because the Bloc Quebecois found in this bill two clauses, including clause 241, which raise many questions as to a potential conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance.

This apparent conflict of interest has been recognized by the director general of the tax legislation division of the Department of Finance, who stated before the Standing Committee on Finance on February 10, 1998 that the changes to the legislation might apply to those companies the finance minister has put in trust.

Ethics counsellor Howard Wilson went further on February 17, 1998, when he said that “Mr. Martin sponsored this bill and there may be an apparent conflict of interest. However, this prior consideration of our options did not take place as it should have”.

We are therefore facing a problem, an apparent conflict of interest involving the Minister of Finance. Why does the Bloc Quebecois dwell as it does on this issue and why does it have the support of all opposition parties in this respect? Because the Minister of Finance is the one who tabled the budget a few weeks ago. He is partly responsible for the country's financial health and for social equity.

When a decision is made, for example, to tax people in a particular bracket, this decision has economic and social implications for society as a whole. It is therefore important to ensure that the person holding the office of finance minister cannot in any way be accused of an apparent conflict of interest. In the present case, very clear and unequivocal statements were made by the ethics counsellor.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am quite prepared to let the member say anything, but nobody is being accused of anything. I would appreciate it if we went back to the bill, because the comments we are hearing now are a shame.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I believe the Speaker who just left the Chair had already asked the hon. member to stick to the issue before us this afternoon. Resuming debate.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I remind the member for Bourassa that I am dealing directly with the motion under consideration.

The Bloc Quebecois' motion, which is supported by the opposition parties, says that the Minister of Finance put himself in an apparent conflict of interest. A solution must be found. What we are saying is that a special committee should be set up to settle the issue. This, I believe, is something that should have been done in the first place.

Had the government wanted to show openness, it would have said “We are in a rather unusual situation. The Minister of Finance has a great deal of experience in the shipping sector. He is a shrewd businessman, he is successful and he is wealthy. His assets are being held in trust while he is acting as Minister of Finance. He is making sure that his position cannot put his company at an advantage. But now we must legislate on international shipping”. If the government had been open, it would have informed the Standing Committee on Finance, or any other appropriate parliamentary authority. A solution to the problem could then have been found.

But the government did not do that. It tried to hide two paragraphs in a clause of Bill C-28. Had it not been for the vigilance displayed by the Bloc Quebecois, this would have gone unnoticed. We started asking questions in the House. The Bloc Quebecois raised the issue, and as the weeks went by, people realized the seriousness of the situation.

I say this because the Minister of Finance is a key member of the government. It is he who, at the time of the budget, hands out equity and wealth, decides who will be taxed and who not and establishes the tax tables for businesses. This person must appear beyond reproach and infallible in delivering the budget speech. He must be able to show clearly that his decisions were made honestly and in the best interest of Quebeckers and Canadians.

This is not the case in the present situation. Our fellow citizens are wondering whether in the decisions made in Parliament some things are inappropriate and whether there is not a double standard. The Bloc Quebecois wants this corrected. We want to find a fair solution that will appear just and be appropriate to the level of debate we want in this House.

In the current situation, if only the Bloc members had raised the issue, it could have been said it was something raised by one party, which is entitled to its opinion. If there were only the opposition parties, it could be said that it was something between the opposition and the government.

However, the director general of the tax legislation division at the Department of Finance, Len Farber, and the ethics counsellor, Howard Wilson, are people outside politics. As public servants, their opinion should be neutral. In any case, what they have both said is that there does in fact appear to be a conflict of interest.

The government would do well to support the Bloc Quebecois' motion, which is very dynamic and which would enhance the finance minister's credibility in this situation. Let us put the whole situation on the table. Let us look for a solution with all those involved. Together, we could find a solution that would preserve the finance minister's integrity as well as allow international shipping legislation to be implemented properly to the benefit of the Canadian economy.

But today, and for several weeks now, because it has stubbornly stuck to its guns, the government itself is feeding into this appearance of conflict of interest. The government itself is creating doubts in the minds of all Canadians as to whether or not the Minister of Finance is in a situation where he is creating an undue advantage for himself, one he would not have had if he did not occupy his present position. It is essential that this situation be clarified.

It must be clarified in this particular situation, but it must also be clarified for all the future actions of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has decisions to make every day concerning many Canadians.

It is important that there be a situation in which these decisions can be defended, in which it can be said: “Yes, it is a good decision” or “No, it is not a good decision”, but based on underlying arguments, on the relevance of decisions, and not on undue influence, which should have no place in such a bill.

The Bloc Quebecois' motion deserves the House's attention. It deserves serious consideration, so that this special committee that will review the situation can make a recommendation on how to go about resolving the matter. Instead of passing a lengthy bill with a very specific clause quietly slipped in, the situation could instead be clarified.

When the situation is drawn to the attention of all Canadians by the Bloc Quebecois, it will be possible to say: “Yes, the solution recommended by the special committee restores the finance minister's integrity, enables him to avoid the appearance of unfairness, of conflict of interest”. Such a decision would enhance the reputation of Parliament as a whole.

All members of the House must realize how important it is to pass the motions introduced by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

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—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it objectionable that members of the Bloc Quebecois are attempting to attack the integrity of one of the greatest parliamentarians we know, as well as his family. When a party like the Bloc Quebecois erases tapes in order to conceal information concerning Quebec's Ministry of Revenue, its members should not—

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That is false.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

On the contrary, I honoured the memory of Paul Martin Sr., saying that he had a responsibility toward the public, toward his own career, but also toward the lineage he—