Michel Gauthier

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

I trust that they will heed what the Prime Minister wrote in his book entitled In the Lion's Den . In it, the Prime Minister of Canada wrote that if they lost, they would respect Quebecers' wish and accept separation. That is what the Prime Minister of Canada wrote.

My question then-

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the federal government's plan to prevent Quebecers from having a democratic say in their future.

My question is, therefore, for the Prime Minister, or one of the other referendizers, although I see none of them around either. So I will ask somebody to answer for them because Quebecers are waiting for a government answer.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is no minister present and the Prime Minister is not here, how are we supposed to have a question period in this House?

[Taxation, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully remind the Minister of Finance and all his colleagues that nothing he has just said in any way alters the situation criticized by the auditor general.

Since finance department officials, as the auditor general revealed, acted very quickly one December 23, after a series of meetings on December 23, to permit this tax loophole to be used, could the Minister of Finance not tell people watching us that his officials will get to work and act equally quickly to prevent the flight of capital out of Canada at great cost to the Government of Canada?

[Taxation, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly clear, in addition to family trusts, all shares of public companies may now be transferred out of the country without Revenue Canada being able to collect a single cent. The minister has not mentioned this.

Since Revenue Canada's decision was published on March 21 and since a tax evasion rush is probably underway, why has the minister not suspended the decision of Revenue Canada to put an end to this huge risk of billions of dollars being lost abroad?

[Taxation, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the report he tabled this week, the auditor general said that Revenue Canada has perhaps totally eliminated Canadian income tax on capital gains on goods of enormous value for the future. Before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, he confirmed that all capital gains realized on shares of public companies could leave the country tax free.

My question is for the Minister of Finance, since he is responsible for the government's tax policies. Does the Minister of Finance agree with the comments of the auditor general to the effect that, in addition to the capital gains in family trusts, all capital gains on publicly held shares may now be exported without Revenue Canada collecting a single cent of tax on them?

[Family Trusts, May 8th, 1996]

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance will not dispute the fact that, ever since the Bloc Quebecois was elected to the House of Commons, as everyone will recall, we have always condemned the unfair advantages attached to family trusts. The minister will also recall repeatedly turning the official opposition's claims to ridicule, saying that family trusts are no big deal.

But the auditor general cited examples. After reviewing two cases, just two, he found that $2 billion in assets had been transferred. That does not seem insignificant to me.

Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge today that the carelessness he has displayed over the past two and a half years, while we were demanding aggressive action on his part, is costing a small fortune to ordinary Canadians, who do pay their taxes and do not benefit from family trusts? If only two cases led to the discovery of $2 billion in capital being tax-sheltered abroad, you can imagine what the overall amount could represent for Canadian taxpayers.

[Family Trusts, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not wish to play cat and mouse with the finance minister on a question such as this. He knows full well that the very minimal measures he has put in place do absolutely nothing at all toward resolving the case we have mentioned here. His measures will not resolve this case. It could happen again, it could have happened again yesterday. We need some clear answers, some real answers.

We will simply ask him how he can explain that senior officials of the finance department, his department, who are still there, according to our information, applied very strong pressure on Revenue Canada to allow this tax free transfer of $2 billion in assets to the United States. How does he explain that these officials still have their jobs and that they work in his department?

[Family Trusts, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when governments table their budget, and at a time when taxpayers are convinced that the fiscal burden could be better shared, we learned from the auditor general that some family trusts are believed to have transferred assets of $2 billion to the United States, free of tax, with the government's approval. In fact,

senior officials from the Department of Finance made Revenue Canada reconsider its position and grant these exemptions.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. How can the minister justify the fact that two family trusts were allowed to transfer over $2 billion worth of assets to the United States, without paying any tax on capital gains, this with the government's approval?

[Referendums, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the Government of Quebec may be extraordinary, but the responses of the minister are very ordinary indeed.

I would like to know from the Prime Minister why he is suddenly so concerned about the legality of a referendum in Quebec, when he took part in those of 1980 and 1995 without ever questioning their legality or the right of Quebecers to decide their future. Why suddenly now has it become so important for him, unless his back is up against the wall and he knows it?