Michel Gauthier

[Tax Evasion, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this is a problem involving trusts and other financial vehicles as well, but the minister cannot say that he has removed all advantages for trusts in his last budget. This is effective 1999, so between now and then, they have the same advantages they had before. I take pleasure in correcting the minister on this point.

When the Minister of Finance says that an emigrant will give securities, he is relying on the signature of a notice of waiver, because sufficient security, under the Income Tax Act, usually takes the form of a notice of waiver. That is the basis on which he says that the taxes will eventually be paid to Canada.

Will the minister confirm that the notice of waiver on which he is pinning his hopes of recovering the taxes due Revenue Canada at some future date has no legal value, but merely a moral one, as the deputy minister of Revenue Canada, Pierre Gravelle, yesterday told the public accounts committee?

[Tax Evasion, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance confirm that the action he took yesterday regarding this problem of tax evasion did not plug the loophole, did not prevent money from being taken out of the country, but, on the contrary, only made things easier than in 1991, because now, with what the Minister of Finance has done, trusts will no longer have to pull a December 23 and obtain special authorization in order to be allowed the huge privilege of taking money out of Canada tax free?

[Tax Evasion, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a ministerial statement, the Minister of Finance implied that he was closing the tax loophole whereby a Canadian family trust was able to transfer $2.2 billion out of Canada tax free. The fact remains that the particular tax loophole is still there.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the $2.2 billion transfer that took place in 1991 would still be possible today, despite the announcement made by the minister yesterday?

[Homage To Robert Bourassa, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today Quebec mourns the passing of the former Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, a man who spent nearly 30 years of his life serving Quebecers to the best of his ability.

In 1960, Mr. Bourassa started to make his mark as a professor at the University of Ottawa, Laval University and the University of Montreal. Elected for the first time in 1966 in the riding of Mercier, Mr. Bourassa embarked on a long and brilliant political career.

In 1970, his perseverance, his talent as a communicator and his energy made him, at the age of 36, Quebec's youngest premier. He was an excellent politician, and was responsible for a number of impressive achievements that remain today as symbols of Quebec society. The decisive role he played in building a modern Quebec is reflected, as the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, in our health insurance system and the James Bay project, for instance.

Mr. Bourassa was always concerned about Quebec's future. He was responsible for the signing of the Meech Lake Accord, whose demise was certainly not his fault. He did everything to save the accord. His efforts to renew the Canadian federation were praiseworthy, even if they were to no avail.

I had the pleasure of sitting with Mr. Bourassa in the Quebec National Assembly when I was elected for the second time as a member of the Parti Quebecois in 1985. I soon realized he was a very human person who profoundly respected his opponents. In fact he taught me a very useful lesson in politics when I was the energy critic and stood opposite him: he taught me that in politics one must never underestimate one's opponent.

A man of consensus and discipline, Mr. Bourassa was until the very end an enduring benchmark in the political history of a province that is gradually evolving towards political sovereignty.

On my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues and the people of Quebec, I wish to extend my most sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Bourassa. Today, Quebec has lost a great man.

In concluding, I would like to quote something that Mr. Bourassa said, in which there is a lesson for us all: "Happiness is being able to fight for one's convictions".

[The Somalia Inquiry, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, given the absolutely incredible situation we are facing, I would like to ask the Minister of Defence this: How far is the minister prepared to go to save his friend, General Boyle? How far?

[The Somalia Inquiry, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gonzales testified he met with General Boyle in person to get his approval to tamper with the information, which is no insignificant matter.

My question is for the Minister of Defence. I can see that he wants to keep General Boyle in his position at all costs, but in the light of the numerous allegations condemning the chief of defence staff, does he not consider he should be relieved of his duties at least-and I think people would consider this the minimum-until the investigation is complete?

[The Somalia Inquiry, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in his testimony before the Somalia commission this morning, Roberto Gonzales, the former director of public affairs at National Defence, made a shocking revelation, stating that not only was General Boyle, the chief of defence staff, aware of a plan to tamper with information to be released but that he had actually approved this plan.

In light of the fact that Mr. Gonzales states unequivocally that final approval for the cover-up operation came from General Boyle himself, how does the Minister of Defence intend to react to such a damning revelation?

[Reference To The Supreme Court, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely astonishing to hear the Prime Minister say that he did not mention the House of Commons resolution before the Supreme Court because the Leader of the Opposition voted against it. I had no idea I was so powerful. I would remind the Prime Minister that this was not a bill, but a resolution of the House of Commons.

With respect to the Supreme Court's opinion, the government is using this reference to create a false sense of security in the rest of Canada, telling people not to worry because it will be a powerful tool against sovereignty. In Quebec, he says that it will not stand in the way of sovereignty, but will merely provide a legal framework.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his reference to the Supreme Court not only gains him time and allows him to pave the way, but that it also allows him to change his tune, depending on whether he is in Quebec or in the rest of Canada?

[Reference To The Supreme Court, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can talk about the distinct society resolution, but the best proof that this resolution of the House of Commons is not worth the paper it is written on is that at no time has the government asked the Supreme Court to consider it in the opinion it is going to give the provinces.

If the Prime Minister believes in what he is doing, there is still time to ask the Supreme Court judges to consider the resolution passed in the House of Commons recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. Let him do it.

Will he at least admit that not only will the reference to the Supreme Court gain him time, but that also, in his mind, it will allow preparations to be made for a possible federal intervention in Quebec's next referendum, an intervention that would otherwise be viewed as completely unacceptable by Quebecers, and that the Prime Minister wants the Supreme Court to pave the way for?

[Reference To The Supreme Court, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just realized that he is unable to

keep the referendum promises he made to Quebecers, and is therefore hoping to gain time by seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on the question of Quebec's sovereignty.

Will the Prime Minister admit that a reference to the Supreme Court will take 12 to 18 months, until after the next federal election, and that this will gain him enough time to be able to appear before voters without having kept his promises, using the excuse that he is waiting on this opinion?