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.