Debates of Sept. 18th, 2003

Canadian Grand Prix

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Quebec in this government stated that no stone would be left unturned to save the 2004 Montreal Grand Prix.

Given that time is of the essence, that amending the Tobacco Act is out of the question and that the government has not come up with any options, will the minister seriously consider the Bloc Quebecois' suggestion to set up, for a maximum of two years, a transitional fund into which both the public and private sectors would pay in order to save the Montreal Grand Prix?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first, the Canadian government has already taken positive steps on the issue of the Grand Prix. It will be remembered that, a few years ago, at the time when implementation of section 24 of the act was being discussed, a report was prepared specifically on this matter of sponsorship.

As we speak, I have already rejected on a number of occasions in this House the idea of public funding.

If everyone in the private sector wants to contribute, I think we would be prepared to sit down and see how far they are prepared to go. But once again, the level of funding required to have a race without brand names is extremely high.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is serious about wanting to save the Grand Prix without amending the Tobacco Act—and we agree with him on that—or spending any public funds, we have a suggestion for him.

Could the federal government, which spends 75% of the Canada Day budget in Quebec, set its obsession with visibility aside for two years only, and use the $5 million annual budget to establish the transitional fund and preserve the $80 million a year in spinoffs from the Montreal Grand Prix for another two years only?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we are all very proud to celebrate Canada Day, not only in Quebec but also across Canada, the same way we are proud of celebrating Quebec's national holiday on June 24. A great deal of money goes into such events.

We must respect that. But that having been said, we cannot say no to a good thing.

If the private sector, which shares our view that the F1 Grand Prix is a vital economic activity, is prepared to invest in it, it is more than welcome to do so.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government says it wants to save the Grand Prix, but no one in the government has so far come up with the tiniest idea that would bring this about.

How can the federal government simply dismiss the idea of creating a temporary fund, lasting just two years, by using the $5 million or so it spends on celebrating Canada in Quebec?

It would be money well spent.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes the importance of the Grand Prix, not only for Montreal, but also for Quebec and Canada.

This government, and the previous one, were able to obtain a delay in the implementation of section 24 of the act. That came from members of the Liberal caucus.

That being said, we are not going to commit public funds. But, as I mentioned just now, if the private sector is prepared to invest money and wants to meet with us, we will be pleased to sit down with them.

Of course, we cannot say no to a good thing. I think it is an interesting idea which has already been raised.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Justice seriously think that Canada would be a lot worse off if, instead of spending $5 million on pins, flags, t-shirts and fireworks, it put that $5 million into saving the Montreal Grand Prix, investing the taxpayers' money wisely and saving the $80 million in economic spinoffs and all the related jobs?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first, I said we are proud to celebrate Canada Day, and we are also proud to celebrate Quebec's national day. There are investments in both cases but there is no need for demagoguery.

The fundamental question is that some people want to shut down the Montreal Grand Prix because of the issue of the use of tobacco products. That is because of a contractual clause. The Canadian government has made a social choice in the name of public health. Are we to go back on our principles and our public health objectives?

As I said, it had already been delayed for several years. Still, we have to be serious about enforcing the law. Once again, if the private sector could contribute—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

Government Contracts

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works must know that a senior procurement officer in his department invited a Royal LePage vice-president on a Caribbean cruise.

Will the minister also confirm that the RCMP is investigating allegations that public works employees accepted gifts from that same company that won a $1.4 billion contract?

Will the minister finally assure Canadians that his department's cruise for contracts procedure practice has ended?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, but I am certain he knows from the many years he has sat in the House that we do not comment on RCMP investigations.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

That is not the question, Mr. Speaker. I am asking about an internal audit. Scandal, corruption and conflict of interest have become synonymous with the way this government handles the country's business.

These serious allegations of misconduct in awarding a $1.4 billion contract for employment relocation to Royal LePage have sparked an investigation that resulted in the contract's cancellation.

My question for the minister is this. Will public works table the internal investigation outlining these allegations of wrongdoing, the most recent wrongdoings in this department?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows there were issues related to possible conflict of interest on the file. The minister and the department have decided to retender that contract.

Government Programs

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and others in the camp of the member for LaSalle—Émard have suggested that the next Liberal prime minister might not be as committed to progressive aspects of the Prime Minister's legacy as we in the NDP are, for instance.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How does he intend to ensure that these progressive aspects of his legacy, the things that he has accomplished on human rights, on Kyoto, on Iraq and on electoral reform, are not undermined by his successor?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that the NDP are so impressed with the Liberal Party that I am afraid they will want to join us very soon.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was the Prime Minister who had secretly taken out an NDP membership.

I would like to ask him about another aspect of his emerging progressive legacy and that of course has to do with the decriminalization of marijuana. I wonder if he could tell us whether or not he thinks this aspect of his legacy is safe. Will we have this legislation passed before his successor takes office?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that this element is part of the program of the government. It is that we want to make sure that the laws are modernized. We will proceed in due course. It is part of the agenda that is in front of the House of Commons.

I am not interested in becoming the leader of that party because it changes leaders too often.

Voyageur Colonial Pension Funds

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. Those bus drivers paid into the Voyageur pension plan and were promised a certain level of benefits. Then there were a bunch of backroom shenanigans involving the former finance minister's political staff, the former finance minister's company pension trustees, and the former finance minister's employees at OSFI. Talk about covering your bases.

Then all of a sudden we find out that the Voyageur employees get stiffed 30% on their pension plan. The minister is not fulfilling his obligations. When are we going to get a full inquiry into this mess and when are we going to get some justice for those bus drivers?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the accusation is without any foundation because the minister of finance at that time was not in charge of the file. It was the secretary of state attached to his department.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should know better. OSFI is a schedule one, a full departmental agency. The finance minister has direct control over it.

Today I sent a letter to OSFI requesting a complete review and a fully independent audit of the Voyageur Colonial pension plan. The act says OSFI is under the direction of the minister.

Will the Prime Minister direct his finance minister to get OSFI to hold a truly independent audit of the Voyageur Colonial pension plan?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that he wrote a letter to the organization so he should wait for the answer.

Taxation

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance said there was no need to go after tax havens because Ottawa had been able to cut taxes.

In the year 2000 alone, companies like Canada Steamship Lines—owned by the member for LaSalle—Émard at the time—that transferred money from Barbados without paying a cent in taxes, would have paid the federal and provincial governments over half a billion dollars, were it not for the infamous tax convention the former Minister of Finance himself negotiated.

Will the government explain why it insists on taking from the general public to give to the rich?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows that the government believes in taxation which is fair, that we believe in people paying taxes and that we have over 70 tax treaties with other countries.

The member also knows that there are 1,700 companies working in Barbados and we have updated our tax treaties.

In 1995 we dealt with the anti-avoidance issue. We dealt in 1996 with foreign reporting requirements. In 1997 we dealt with the transfer cross-border issue. In 2002 we were dealing with foreign investment issues.

I find it interesting that this is a tiresome question which we have heard over and over again and the answer stays the same.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary seems to be the only one who thinks so. The Auditor General and the OECD have said that Canada must not sign tax conventions with tax havens like Barbados.

Since the government's position is contrary to public interest, whose interests is this government serving?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we work through the OECD with regard to the administration of these issues.

The member also knows that the government has been very vigilant in terms of dealing with tax treaties. When they do come into effect they are monitored all the time, including the tax treaties with Barbados.

I might point out to the hon. member that we are continuing to review, so to suggest somehow that we have been sitting on our hands is utter nonsense.