Gilles Duceppe

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was just on a radio show with the Auditor General. She said on the air that she had some doubts about no one in government being aware of this. She went on to say that she could not understand how that could be the case. She wondered how certain people in government—the Prime Minister, for instance—could not have known. She had doubts about that. This is what she said, and the minister heard her as well as I did.

The Prime Minister is buddy-buddy with the Liberal family, which includes his friends in charge of crown corporations, of groups such as—

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was Jean Chrétien's finance minister when the sponsorship program was created in the aftermath of the referendum. The Prime Minister was the keeper of the public purse when the worst spending excesses were taking place in the name of Canadian unity and to benefit the Liberal Party and its cronies.

How can the Prime Minister say today that he knew nothing of the sponsorship scandal, when he was the number two man in the Chrétien government?

[Auditor General's Report, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in no way am I casting any aspersions on the integrity of the judge; rather I have some serious questions about that of the Prime Minister.

I would ask him this. Will he try to sweep the question under the rug, or will he agree to assure us that this commission of inquiry will not interrupt its proceedings during the next election, that it will get started promptly and, if need be, hold hearings even during the period leading up to the election? That is what I would like to know.

[Auditor General's Report, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today some disturbing facts were revealed by the Auditor General, facts raised some months ago by the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition parties, and refuted by this government and ministers in the former government who are still in cabinet, including the Prime Minister. Today we are being told that a commission of inquiry, under a judge appointed by the government, has been established. If this body is to have the necessary credibility, it must be neutral.

This is what I am asking the Prime Minister. Is he going to create a commission of inquiry along the lines of the one headed by Lord Hutton in Great Britain, or one along the lines of the Cliche commission in Quebec some 25 years ago, with commission members approved by the parties in opposition?

[Canada Steamship Lines, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting answer. On the heels of the 1994 budget, when the Arthur Andersen accounting firm asked the federal finance minister if the tax treaty with Barbados was still valid, it received the answer, in July 1994, that the proposed change was designed so that a foreign subsidiary based in Barbados would remain eligible for an exemption.

In other words, the Prime Minister closed a number of tax loopholes but left one little gap through which his ship was able to sail, and that gap was Barbados. Will he please explain this?

[Canada Steamship Lines, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in his 1994 budget, the Minister of Finance at that time said, and I quote, “Certain Canadian corporations are not paying an appropriate level of tax. Accordingly, we are taking measures to prevent companies from using foreign affiliates to avoid paying Canadian taxes which are otherwise due”. It was a fine objective that had no effect at all on the current Prime Minister, since he left a door open, that being Barbados.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, because of the loophole he left in place, a loophole tailored to fit his own company, CSL International was able to leave Liberia in 1995 and sail to another tax haven, namely Barbados?

[Canada Steamship Lines, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely incorrect. It is an attempt to shirk responsibility. Changing the rules for shipping companies means changing the rules for shipping companies.

When Canada Steamship Lines International, now headquartered in Barbados—where the tax rate is roughly 2.5% for the first few million, compared to 37% here—suddenly moves from Liberia to Barbados and then the legislation changes twice, what is that called? It is called taking care of one's own business by using one's position. That is what it is called.

[Canada Steamship Lines, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to understand then is why CSL Vice-President Préfontaine tells us he moved to Barbados because of the changes to Canadian tax rules, while the spokesperson for Canada Steamship Lines tells us that Canada Steamship Lines International would never have made such profits in Canada. She described Canadian taxes as too high. “Subsidies and contracts are good, but the taxes are too high”, she said. According to the Prime Minister, they had to do the same as everybody else if they wanted to make any money.

So let him explain that to us, if it really made no difference.

[Canada Steamship Lines, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to debate the $100 million at any time. Let him open the books, and we will.

The Prime Minister is saying that he worked at the international level with regard to tax havens. It is true. He worked with other countries to ensure that Barbados, one of the main tax havens, no longer appears on the OECD's list. That is what he did to save face. In that country, the tax rate is 2.5% for $1 million. That is what he did. He would have paid a great deal more here, as he well knows. It is to save face. That is what his great international initiative was all about.

[Canada Steamship Lines, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister boasts about being the biggest fighter of tax havens on earth. This is mind-boggling. Not only did the Prime Minister sponsor Bill C-28 and maintain the treaty with Barbados, but, on four occasions, he ignored the Auditor General's recommendations for tighter controls. The result: his company, CSL International, headquartered in Barbados, saved $100 million in taxes.

Will the Prime Minister, who is clearly in conflict of interest, admit that his fine speech on tax havens should be entitled, “Do as I say, not as I do”?