House of Commons Hansard #3 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was beef.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I for one will not engage in the kind of spurious allegations and insinuations that tend to characterize the type of question period we have had in the last couple of days.
With respect to the tax treaty arrangements with other countries, I answered that question yesterday in a very detailed manner, saying that they were under review.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister who demands such high ethical standards is the sponsor of Bill C-28, allowing foreign subsidiaries of Canadian shipping companies to avoid paying Canadian income tax. This legislation, coupled with the tax treaty with Barbados, has made it possible for CSL International to avoid paying a minimum of $100 million in taxes.
Since this bill did so well by CSL International, and since he himself sponsored it, will the Prime Minister admit that this is a case of flagrant conflict of interest?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will know, under the rules applicable at the time, there was indeed no conflict of interest.
With respect to the matter of the tax treaty arrangements between Canada and other countries, as I answered yesterday to his colleague, that is a matter that I am examining in the context of the integrity of our tax system, fairness to taxpayers, and the fact that all taxpayers should pay their fair share.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-28 was sponsored by the Prime Minister. Maintaining the tax treaty with Barbados is also the Prime Minister's doing. I am quite prepared to believe that the Minister of Finance is going to ensure that equity is restored, but if there is none at present, that is the doing of his predecessor. And he benefited from it. He saved $100 million in taxes.
What more do we need before this can be called a conflict of interest? If this is not a conflict of interest, what is? When a person sponsors a bill, maintains a tax treaty with Barbados, asks others to pay taxes but arranges things so as not to have to pay any, what is that, exactly?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the loudness of the hon. gentleman's question does not make it any more valid.
The point I am making is that in relation to the tax treaties with certain countries around the world, those are matters that we need to constantly review in the context of the integrity of our tax system and the fairness to all taxpayers. They must all pay their fair share and I will examine that as I prepare my next budget.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, the law in question applied to only eight companies, including the Prime Minister's. That law allowed him to avoid at least $100 million in taxes. On February 10, 1998, a director general at Finance suggested that, with a few structural changes, CSL could indeed take advantage of the new provisions in Bill C-28.
How can the Prime Minister maintain he was not in conflict of interest, while sponsoring legislation which, even according to an employee of what was his department at the time, would benefit him and a company like his?
Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, CSL is a Canadian company, headquartered in Montreal. The vast majority of its employees are Canadians. The vast majority of its vessels are Canadian. This is very clear. If there is anyone who has fought against tax havens on the international level, it is I. We have debated this issue here in this House, I have debated it at the OECD, and I will continue to debate it.
Canada Steamship LinesOral Question Period
The Speaker
It is very hard for the Chair to hear the answers when there is so much noise. I would ask for a little more order in the House, if you please.
The hon. member for Joliette.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, not only was this legislation tailored so as to allow companies, such as his CSL International, to save millions of dollars in taxes, but furthermore, it is retroactive to 1995.
Does the Prime Minister know many taxpayers able to benefit from tax legislation that is retroactive, as Bill C-28 was for companies such as his?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the opposition continues to perpetuate a line of reasoning that is absolutely devoid of logic. It is also false.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a three line whip on applause for the Prime Minister today no matter what he says.
The Prime Minister has asked the Auditor General to look at the government spending with respect to CSL. Given what we have now come to know about the $21 million related to Hibernia, would the Prime Minister be willing to ask the Minister of the Environment to investigate all the ways in which CSL is involved in exploration of fossil fuels? Perhaps this is the reason we do not have a plan for Kyoto yet.
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting that our NDP colleague is asking a question about Hibernia. Were he better informed, he would know that Question No. 37, asked by the hon. member, dealt with crown corporations, government departments or agencies.
Hibernia was never a government contract.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, there was government money involved. It is the Prime Minister who gives orders to the Minister of the Environment, not the government House leader.
I am asking the Prime Minister a question. Is he willing to have the Minister of the Environment look into all the ways in which CSL is implicated in the fossil fuel industry? Why is the oil patch happy? Why are those who opposed the Kyoto accord happy with the election of the Prime Minister? What is, after all, happening to the Kyoto accord?
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, the matter referred to the Auditor General deals with issues relating to Question No. 37. What my hon. colleague opposite is asking has absolutely nothing to do with Question No. 37.
James Rajotte Canadian Alliance Edmonton Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there are astronomical errors in the government's accounting for the Prime Minister's companies and the money they received from the Canadian taxpayer.
I would like to give the government House leader an opportunity to cut through the fog and explain how the final amount was so massively underestimated a year ago. How does the government explain the huge difference between the original figure of $137,000 of February 2003 and the apparently final figure, which now appears to be growing, of $161 million last week and counting?
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is rather strange because it is addressed in the specific answer I provided him in a letter. It is also on the Internet site. It is very clear.
First, there was a longer period; second, crown corporations were exempt; and third, serious errors were made, for which I have apologized.
The errors of which I speak were purely administrative and were never made in bad faith. They can be explained, and I have taken steps to ensure that they never happen again.
James Rajotte Canadian Alliance Edmonton Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, the government cannot hide behind administrative errors and mistakes made. That is simply a slap in the face to Canadian taxpayers. This is an issue of trust.
The government said the gun registry would cost $2 million. It is a billion dollars and counting. The government said that there was $137,000 in contracts to the Prime Minister's companies. Now it is $160 million and counting.
How can Canadians trust anything the government says with respect to their tax dollars?
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for giving me the opportunity to detail some of the measures we have taken.
From now on, before a minister can reply to a written question, the most senior public servant involved in the file will have to guarantee the minister that all the work has been done accurately.
There is something else. When a number of departments are involved in the same question, one department will be designated responsible for collecting information.
Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, they are not interested at all in the facts: I am speaking, and they are talking at the same time.
What this means—it all boils down to one thing—is that the truth does not interest them. They are only interested in politics.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, that was a truly pathetic answer. Canadians want to know what happened when the government was asked a serious question about the contracts that the finance minister got at the time from the government.
We get garbage such as $137,000 when the actual figure was $161 million. Now we find out that does not include potentially millions of dollars in subcontracts. These are subcontracts that are registered with the federal government.
We would like to know, how much money has the government given to CSL through subcontracts on top of the $161 million?
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I said a few seconds ago that the government has no role and had no role in this contract with Hibernia. It was not a government contract.
The Hibernia oil project is a joint venture managed on behalf of its owners by Hibernia Management Development Corporation. It has hundreds of supply contracts for the construction of the Hibernia project, including one with a Dutch engineering firm. It was this firm that selected its own suppliers and subcontracted with CSL.
I cannot answer a non-question.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, we are not really interested in the House leader's hair splitting about what is a subcontract and what is a contract. We want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is what we want from the government.
The question the public has and the public's right to know trumps the Prime Minister's desire to keep hidden his business dealings with the government. We want the answer. What are the subcontracts that went to CSL for government work?
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, all the contracts and subcontracts given directly to CSL by the government, as indicated in the documents we have available, have been presented in the report. That report has been submitted and is on my Internet site.
I think that is about enough.
That is not a new party; it is only by name. It is an old party casting aspersions in the same fashion that it used to do, throwing mud, not caring about the rest.