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.