Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 801
View Ben Lobb Profile
CPC (ON)
View Ben Lobb Profile
2019-05-28 10:28
Sorry, can I interrupt you there?
When you say “sugary consumables”, are you saying everything that has added sugar you would put a tax on? Is that what you're saying?
Andrea Carey
View Andrea Carey Profile
Andrea Carey
2019-05-28 10:29
I think if you were to look across our food system, everything that's inside of the outside aisles of our supermarkets is pretty much laden with sugar. Obviously, there needs to be an investigation into what the balance is within that. We're supportive of a sugar tax and looking at how we can leverage that to create healthier outcomes across Canada.
We also want to highlight a program that we've been working on in B.C. called Appetite to Play. It's an early childhood education program that works with leaders of early childhood programs around healthy eating, and physical literacy development and physical activity. That program gives parents a number of resources, as well as the leaders of those programs, around healthy choices, recipes. It's trying to instill at those really early ages what healthy foods look like, how to create them, how to be engaged in the process of healthy eating.
Jens Zimmermann
View Jens Zimmermann Profile
Jens Zimmermann
2019-05-28 9:37
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to start with Jim Balsillie. You mentioned in one of your six recommendations the question of taxation. As a member of our finance committee, I will say that this is, in many areas, an important aspect. Can you go a little deeper?
You mentioned especially the question of taxation of advertising. Do you see more areas there? Especially in the digital world, we know the problem of the shifting between countries and how difficult it is for countries to do a proper taxation.
Jim Balsillie
View Jim Balsillie Profile
Jim Balsillie
2019-05-28 9:38
Sure. I'm talking about those who are buying the ads. Really, the core problem here is that when they're ad driven—you've heard extremely expert testimony on this—they'll do whatever it takes to get more eyeballs. The subscription-based model is a much safer place to be, because it's not attention driven.
One of the purposes of a tax is to manage externalities. If you don't like the externalities we're grappling with and that are illuminated here, then disadvantage those. Many of these platforms are moving more towards subscription-based models anyway, so just use tax as a vehicle to do that. The good benefit is that it gives you revenue. The second thing it could do is also begin to shift toward more domestic services. I think a tax has not been a lever that's been used, and it's right there for you.
View Pierre Nantel Profile
Ind. (QC)
Still, if suddenly all the old folks like me go to toy stores and buy limited editions of stuff and no kids can play, it's uncool. It's an individual thing, but if it becomes standardized by some company, what does it give us as a country to have an opportunistic company come in here and say there's a percentage on every transaction? Maybe they are robots.
To me, in the music scene, the arts scene, everybody's taking risks, even the government. I think you were right to read these comments from frustrated customers, because they are not customers. They are fans. On that aspect, we're into heritage.
Wouldn't you agree that the first thing to do, besides creating new regulations on these international...is first of all, respect the Income Tax Act. If I want to work in the States, I'll have to have a work permit of some sort. Wouldn't the first thing be to make sure these companies act legally? I don't know your perception of Ticketmaster, but at least they're Canadians, and if I'm not mistaken, they're in the market. They wouldn't be if there was no U.S.-based StubHub. Wouldn't you say that the first thing to do is to take responsibility and ask these guys to at least declare the sales they make in our country?
Jesse Kumagai
View Jesse Kumagai Profile
Jesse Kumagai
2019-05-14 17:09
I certainly can't speak to the tax practices of some of those companies. I know some are multinational, with offices here. Some are based externally. I would assume that companies like Ticketmaster are paying their taxes appropriately in Canada.
View Gordie Hogg Profile
Lib. (BC)
Well, thank you. After hearing this testimony, and testimony from so many others, I am ever more confused than I was when I started. I tried to think of what values we're trying to reflect. In the testimony we've heard over a long period of time—I don't know how many witnesses we've heard from—there's great variance in the values being reflected.
Some were talking about ensuring we have an open marketplace, with supply and demand organizing it, and wanting value for artists and fans, Canadian content and revenue to Canada. Tickets should remain the property of the customer or the owner. Internet sales are important. How do you keep yours safe, and authenticate them? Those are the values I've heard reflected, but the problem, I think, is focused around the sales of tickets that don't exist: the fraud and holdbacks perhaps creating a false marketplace. It is a marketplace that, with the Internet, is broadly expanding to places we can't even anticipate at this time, and bots are a challenge within that.
Given those values and problems, and that the practices we've implemented so far are minimal, I'm not sure what the solutions are. Some of the solutions suggested have been selling the right ticket for the right price, whatever that means, bot legislation and enforcement, simple resales and not holdbacks.
There were attempts from Ontario, which was going to put a cap on prices. I think the newly elected government has withdrawn all that legislation so that there's no cap. They seemed to see that as a solution. Quebec and B.C. have implemented some things.
Given that context—and you've given one example of strategies we could look at, which include tracking sellers' sales and taxation—do you have any specifics and answers we could be turning to? Given the wide range of testimony we've heard—and we're getting close to the end of that—and some of the values you're reflecting, and that we've heard, where does that lead us, in terms of practices and legislation? We've taken this on, and with the stories you've told, and the challenges there, I'm pretty confused. I'd like you to enlighten me.
View Ron Liepert Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, sir. I have one last question and I only have about a minute to go. I wanted to just get Mr. Spencer on the record.
You talked about the increased cost, the head tax. You didn't mention the carbon tax, but I got the sense that you really wanted to make a comment to Ms. Hutchings on the environmental reasons for this head tax.
John Spencer
View John Spencer Profile
John Spencer
2019-05-14 12:19
No, not really. I just feel it's unjustified that I have to pay an extra 18% to get on a ship to go across 96 miles. That to me is insulting as a Canadian. It's not a message to Ms. Hutchings. We've had the discussions and when I have to pay that and plus pay for my fuel at 18% I'm insulted.
Richard Kurland
View Richard Kurland Profile
Richard Kurland
2019-05-06 17:42
Thank you.
Today, the context is derived from pro bono work with Canadian print and electronic investigative journalists from P.E.I., Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario into immigration issues related to our topic.
Here is the key point. Canada has a little-known collection device for taxation overseas called assistance in collection. It appears in Canada's tax treaties with countries like the United States, Germany and Norway. We heard previously today from a government witness that if something occurs overseas, the hands are thrown up. There's nothing we can do. Perhaps, not.
Canada can engage in discussions with other like-minded countries to allow similar assistance in collection agreements for Canada's immigration monetary penalties. Canada sets the penalty and collection can occur overseas in virtue of an assistance in collection agreement. To pursue the overseas wrongdoers in their home jurisdiction, overseas victims can seek justice and exercise their local remedies under their local laws, including seizures before judgment.
This gives the power to overseas victims to seek justice. Overseas enforcement of the Canadian penalty can be done with minimal or no cost to Canada. We're already doing it when it comes with the quiet matrix of enforcement control regarding the monitoring of overseas education agents.
When Canada, Australia or New Zealand flags an education agent, that operation gets shut down. Applications do not flow into the Canadian system. They do not flow into Australia, New Zealand and other like-minded countries. The mechanisms are there. The channels of communication are there. Assistance in collection agreements for Canada's immigration monetary penalties can be very effective.
I have two more points and I won't need the full seven minutes. Penalties should be attached to all persons connected to the particular immigration transaction. This includes any related affiliates or subsidiaries, when they engage in wrongful or reckless conduct. In the field now, related parties—not just the consultant or lawyer—are veiled, not responsible. That cannot be allowed to continue.
Lastly, not all immigration cases are created equal. What's missing here, a big miss, is that monetary penalties should contemplate significantly higher levels for economic class cases where an investment in excess of $100,000 is required. Follow the money.
There are two streams presently attacking the integrity of the Canadian immigration system from overseas. They are, first, in terms of volume, the educational-related applications. In terms of money, these are cases involving investment, either under PNP or our start-up visa program. Second, hundreds of thousands of dollars are being paid directly and indirectly to parties connected to the immigration transaction with Canada, hundreds of thousands for a single case. How effective is your monetary penalty given that threshold? Think ahead. It's not the penalty for deterrence today. This is contemplated to be a penalty for deterrence for the next 20 years.
Those are my opening comments.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We'll call the meeting to order.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 27, 2019, we are looking at Bill S-6, an act to implement the Convention between Canada and the Republic of Madagascar for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
We have, as witnesses, Mr. McGowan, director general, tax legislation division, tax policy branch, who is no stranger to this committee; and Stephanie Smith, senior director, tax treaties, tax legislation division, tax policy branch, who has appeared before us previously as well on this particular bill.
There have been no amendments received, so we'll go to the clause-by-clause decisions.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.
(Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to on division)
(Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Shall the short title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall the Chair report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I think that's it for Bill S-6.
Mr. McGowan, today was a much easier run than yesterday.
We do have another matter that's just come up that we don't necessarily have to deal with, but to save time later.... This note has been sent to you electronically, so I'll read it. It deals with Bill C-97.
Dear Mr. Easter,
In response to your letter dated Tuesday, April 9, 2019, I would like to inform you that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has accepted to study the subject-matter of Part 4, division 15 of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019, and other measures.
The Committee has also adopted a motion to study the subject-matter of Part 4, division 16 of the Bill and would invite the Standing Committee on Finance to consider any proposed amendments from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, pertaining to this division, deemed to be proposed during your Committee's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-97.
Please find attached motions adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration regarding the consideration of subject matter, Part 4, division 15 and Part 4, division 16 of the Bill.
As requested, the Committee will send the Committee's recommendation, including any suggested amendments, in both official languages no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 17, 2019.
Sincerely,
Rob Oliphant
Chair
What they're basically saying in the letter is that, beyond what we agreed in our motion to send them, they would also like to deal with the additional subject matter of part 4, division 16, of the bill, which relates, I believe, to asylum.
Are we in agreement? Do we want to say we accept their motion and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration can deal with that matter and report back to us? Are we agreed on that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Mr. Dusseault.
Mark Laroche
View Mark Laroche Profile
Mark Laroche
2019-04-30 12:18
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
I am also chair of the Canadian Airports Council's large airports caucus.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the future of security screening service delivery in Canadian airports, and seize with you the unique opportunity that is being given us to implement positive changes for our clients and the air transport industry as a whole.
In fact, we collectively subscribe to the Airports Council International and International Air Transport Association's vision where passengers will one day have an uninterrupted journey from curb to aircraft door, where passengers pass through the security checkpoint with minimal need to divest, where security resources are allocated based on risk and where airport amenities can be maximized.
Former transport minister, Lisa Raitt, also raised the issue in 2014 when she asked that Mr. Emerson opine on the ability of CATSA to meet the challenges of increasing demands with limited resources.
The problem this bill aims to solve is not new. Several governments have in turn attempted to find a solution to the problems posed by CATSA and its funding model. In the Canada Transportation Act review report tabled by David Emerson in 2016, there are several recommendations on the CATSA model.
We are pleased that Minister Garneau has taken these recommendations to heart and intends to make security screening more responsible in the context of reaching an internationally competitive service standard and providing sustainable funding that is better adapted to the situation, while seeking to improve safety and passenger experience.
Obviously the security screening service commercialization act does not go into detail on how a new DSA will become a world leader in security, service and value for money that will support the overall, long-term competitiveness of air transport in Canada.
We raise the following concerns regarding the charging principles as written in the proposed act and therefore require some clarifications.
The first is uncertainty of the DSA's obligation or right to impose charges on non-passenger persons required to undergo screening. The second is that the principle that DSA must observe to establish, revise or terminate charges is somehow contradictory and appears to preclude the DSA from innovating and fostering innovation. In order for the new DSA to succeed, airports will be relentless in demanding that passenger screening service standards be world class.
Our ability to achieve such standards will depend on many factors that will require further discussion and concurrence before we can agree upon a transfer date. Notably, the first is that Transport Canada, the regulator of DSA, commit to undertake a review of all current aviation security regulations pertaining to security screening of passengers, non-passengers and baggage, and report back to this committee in government within a timeline to be agreed upon with the industry.
We need to ensure that regulations will move security screening to an intelligence-driven, risk-based approach that will permit the DSA to leverage proven technologies and existing trusted traveller programs such as Nexus and Global Entry to achieve performance standards in security and customer service that are comparable to the best international aviation practices.
We also need to ensure that the price asked by Finance or Transport Canada for the transfer of assets from CATSA to a new DSA will not be a debt burden that impedes the DSA's ability to provide, within 12 months, a world-class service standard at a cost to passengers no greater than the current air travellers security charge; and that the air travellers security charge should no longer apply, thereby ensuring that a new funding source of the DSA will not contribute to increasing the cost of flying in Canada.
We respectfully request that the enabling legislation required to effect the transfer of CATSA to a DSA proceed. This legislation is a critical first step if we are to meet our collective goal, which is the creation of a nimble, innovative, customer-service-driven organization that ensures a safe and secure, efficient and professional experience for all travellers.
Once this law has been passed, we commit to working diligently to set up a dedicated screening administration that will correspond to what Canadian air passengers, airlines and airports have been asking for for years.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We'll come to order.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 27, 2019, we are considering Bill S-6, an act to implement the convention between Canada and the Republic of Madagascar for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. We have Department of Finance officials with us to start. Mr. McGowan is the director general, tax legislation division, tax policy branch, and Ms. Smith is senior director, tax treaties, tax legislation division, tax policy branch.
Mr. McGowan, I believe you have an opening statement, and then we'll go to questions from there.
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2019-04-02 11:04
Thank you, Chair.
We're appearing before the committee today to speak about Bill S-6, an act to implement the convention between Canada and the Republic of Madagascar for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. This bill is intended to enact into law the Canada-Madagascar tax convention, or simply, the convention.
The substantive provisions of the convention are largely based upon the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital. The OECD model represents the collaborative efforts of the member states of the OECD, including Canada, and is intended to provide a uniform basis on which to conclude tax treaties.
Bill S-6 would build on Canada's extensive network of tax treaties which includes 93 comprehensive tax treaties currently in force.
These tax treaties, including the convention, are intended to benefit Canadians by encouraging cross-border trade and investment. As a trading nation, Canada has implemented tax policies that are designed to assist individual Canadians and Canadian businesses in taking advantage of the opportunities that international trade and investment can offer.
The convention contains a number of specific provisions that support the overall objective of encouraging trade and investment. ln particular, it provides greater certainty to taxpayers regarding their liability to tax in the other country. It prescribes a method for the elimination of double taxation. It ensures that taxpayers will not be subject to discriminatory taxation in either country. It contains a mechanism to resolve disputes involving cases where a taxpayer may have been subjected to taxation not in accordance with the convention. Finally, it reduces the risk of burdensome taxation that may arise because of high withholding taxes.
With respect to withholding taxes, payments originating in one country and paid to a resident of the other country of certain passive forms of income, such as dividends, interest and royalties, may be subject to withholding taxes as high as 25% of the gross amount paid. Because the withholding tax does not take into account the expenses incurred in generating the income, the recipient of the payment may be subject to an effective rate of tax that is higher than the rate that would be applicable if such expenses were taken into consideration.
The convention alleviates this potentially burdensome taxation by setting maximum levels of withholding tax that each country may impose. For example, the convention limits the rate of withholding on direct intercorporate dividends to 5% if the recipient controls 25% or more of the voting power of the payer. It limits the rate of withholding on interest to 10% and eliminates withholding entirely in respect of interest paid to certain pension, retirement, and employee benefit plans. It also limits the rate of withholding on certain copyright royalties and royalties paid in respect of computer software to 5%.
ln addition to encouraging cross-border trade and investment, tax treaties such as the convention play an important role in preventing tax evasion by facilitating the exchange of information for tax purposes between the tax authorities of the two contracting states.
ln this respect, the convention allows the respective tax authorities of Canada and Madagascar to exchange information relevant to the administration of each country's tax laws, in conformity with the standards developed by the OECD for the effective exchange of information for tax purposes.
These standards provide that the exchange of tax information between the two countries is not impeded by bank secrecy laws or domestic interest requirements—that is, a country's need to have a domestic interest in the information requested by the other country before providing the information.
ln summary, the convention contained in Bill S-6 is intended to improve the economic links between Canada and Madagascar. lt is intended to promote certainty, stability and a better business climate for residents and businesses in both Canada and Madagascar and to assist both countries in addressing potential cases of tax evasion.
This concludes our introductory remarks. My colleague, Stephanie, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. McGowan and Ms. Smith, for coming before committee today.
Could you go into a little further detail on the withholding taxes aspect of the legislation and on the way this agreement compares with other similar types of agreements?
Results: 1 - 15 of 801 | Page: 1 of 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data