Proposition 54K2344

Proposition visant à instituer une commission d'enquête parlementaire chargée de finaliser la mission de la commission spéciale "fraude fiscale internationale/ Panama Papers".

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn
Ecolo Georges Gilkinet
LE Benoît Dispa
LDD Robert Van de Velde
MR Vincent Scourneau
Open Vld Luk Van Biesen
PS | SP Stéphane Crusnière
Vooruit Peter Vanvelthoven

Submission date

March 7, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Panama tax authorities tax evasion tax avoidance committee of inquiry parliamentary inquiry

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PVDA | PTB PP VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 16, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The floor is yielded to Mr. Van Hees.

I would like to emphasize the importance of this commission of inquiry. The special commission is transformed into an investigative commission following false statements from banks. It can be said that some banks made a double false statement: false statement before the special commission, saying that everything was clean today; false statements for some of their clients. This requires a commission of inquiry.

I would like to express both my surprise and my satisfaction with the composition of this commission of inquiry. Initially, the proposal was formulated in such a way that only members of recognized groups were appointed as members of this committee. You obviously understand my wonder, after actively sitting for months in the Panama Papers Special Commission, that I was excluded from it when it would become an investigative commission. Imagine my astonishment, dear colleagues, in the Finance Committee, when discussing the creation of the Inquiry Committee, when I saw that an amendment had been introduced by the opposition, but also signed by the majority, to allow me, and the other members of the unrecognized groups, to sit in this Inquiry Committee.

I do not know the background of this miracle, nor what led to this change of position, but in any case, I thought to understand that our colleague Mr. Laaouej had probably played a role in this evolution. If so, I thank him. I am satisfied, I repeat, but suddenly I ask myself questions about the other parliamentary committees: committee Attempts, committee Optima, committee Criminal Transaction. There, the majority of us ejected us with rather weak and futile arguments, when there were. I even remember that, for the Optima Commission, which had been discussed in the Finance Committee, there was no argument. Finally, I find that by signing this amendment that allows unrecognized groups to sit in the Panama Papers investigation committee, the majority has itself deconstructed all its thin argument that excluded us, and that still excludes us from the three previous investigation committees.

I deduce from this that, behind technical and regulatory reasons that didn’t hold the way, there was simply a political motivation to exclude us. Here, I take note that there is a gap and that, from now on, small groups, unrecognized groups, have a place in parliamentary investigation committees. I would like to express my satisfaction with this development.

So you say you are happy, Mr. Van Hees.

Yes, it is that!

I wasn’t sure I understood it correctly.

As the first editor of the amendment, I would like to refer the previous speaker to the justification of this amendment. It was simply, as we had decided, within the Panama Papers committee, to have, for the very punctual but very important investigation committee that will be held, the same composition as for the special committee, referring to what had been said by the chairman of the House when the Panama Papers committee was set up. I proposed that we repeat exactly the same terms that provide that the other political groups, those that are not recognized, can each designate a member who will participate without voting right in the work of the commission of inquiry. This is very well so, since the Ecolo group has always advocated the broadest opening of these important places that are the investigation commissions.

That said, we are pleased that this latitude – which was provided by the Rules of Procedure or the text establishing the special committee – of transforming it if necessary into an investigative committee has been implemented. Indeed, a commission of inquiry is a more powerful tool than a special commission. You know that you cannot refuse to appear there. One must swear before speaking, and when one is bound to a professional secret, whatever it is, one is released from it, if one wishes, in the face of an investigative commission.

This is above all the important element. I invite those who sometimes prefer special committees to investigative committees to think about it. It is sometimes better to set up the investigation committee directly to be even more effective than the special committee has been so far, which has not worked badly.

In this case, the very punctual object of this commission of inquiry set up on the suggestion of our excellent colleague Vanvelthoven is to hear some representatives of the tax administration, including the ISI and the Service for Early Decisions, hoping that they will give us this time the answers that they did not want to give us in the name of professional secrecy, in particular with regard to the intermediaries who are complicit in the assembly of tax fraud revealed by the Panama Papers. What are the banks? What are the possible consultancy offices that are usually cited in regularization files? This is indeed an important information to complete the work we have begun and to continue trying to get answers to the questions we have asked the various interlocutors who have moved in front of the special commission.

So, if we vote on this text just now – and I think that will be the case since it has been the subject of a great unanimity – I think that we can move towards a greater efficiency in the fight against financial crime, which is in any case the goal of the Ecolo-Groen group that has no monopoly on it.