Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 27635
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We'll call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting 55 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, April 27, the committee is meeting to study the Canada Revenue Agency's efforts to combat tax avoidance and evasion.
This meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25. Between ourselves as members and the witnesses on the panel today, I don't think we need to go through all of the further rules.
I should mention to committee members that we will reserve about 15 minutes at the end of the meeting. We have the report on the steering committee to deal with, which members have been sent, and also Mr. Julian's motion. I understand there have been some discussions on it. It shouldn't take too long to dispose of those two items.
With that, our witnesses from the Canada Revenue Agency are Ted Gallivan and Alexandra MacLean. From the Department of Finance, they are Trevor McGowan, Stephanie Smith and Kevin Shoom.
I'm not sure if you each have an opening statement or if it's just one among you who does.
Maybe I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Gallivan, assistant commissioner, to start.
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:33
Good day, Mr. Chair.
To maximize the time for questions, I might just cover some key points of emphasis. The full remarks are filed with the clerk of the committee.
Both the Government of Canada and the CRA are firmly committed to combatting tax evasion. We are also determined to make it much more difficult for all those who intentionally choose not to meet—
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2021-06-10 15:33
I have a point of order.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Hold on, Ted. I don't think we're getting translation.
Is that what it was about, Mr. Falk?
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2021-06-10 15:34
That's right. Thanks, Wayne.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Could we check on the translation again?
Just give us a couple of lines, Ted.
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:34
It must be recognized that international tax evasion and aggressive offshore tax avoidance are very complex global issues.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Are we getting the French, Gabriel? Yes? Okay.
Go ahead, Ted. Thank you.
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Through the government's investments, which have been announced in federal budgets since 2016, the CRA has been able to equip itself with tools and resources that allow collaboration and exchange of data at a global scale and provide much more transparency for Canadians.
Because of these investments by the Government, the CRA has benefited from better data, better partnerships, and ultimately, better results in its fight against tax evasion.
Canada is one of more than 70 countries that exchange information via country-by-country reporting. Since 2015 Canada has participated in the sharing of data related to international electronic funds transfers of over $10,000. Additionally, with the implementation of the common reporting standard in 2016, Canada and nearly 100 other jurisdictions have been able to benefit from data from financial institutions that identify financial accounts held by customers who are non-residents for tax purposes.
Thanks to budgetary investments since 2016, the CRA has observed excellent signs of success. In fact, the agency has identified over $12 billion in gross audit assessments every year, over 60% of which is related to tax avoidance by large multinational corporations and aggressive tax planning by wealthy individuals. While the CRA had committed to finding an additional $5 billion over five years, we actually achieved that goal a year early, despite the pandemic. In addition, our proven results demonstrate that we're taking the right tax cases to the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.
Of course, there is still work to be done, but we have a proven track record to show that we are making it increasingly difficult for non‑compliant individuals to continue their activities.
As part of the fall economic statement 2020, and confirmed in budget 2021, the government committed to investing an additional $606 million over five years, starting this fiscal year. Notably, we are working to close the high-net-worth compliance gap, bolster technical support on high-risk audits and enhance the criminal investigations program. These investments will allow the CRA to fund new initiatives and extend existing programs targeting international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
The Government of Canada's continual investment in fighting tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance promotes an international exchange of information that is both modern and collaborative, and ultimately ensures that all Canadians pay their fair share.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Okay, thank you.
Does anybody else have anything to add? Is it Mr. McGowan with the Department of Finance?
I see quite a number of people have their cameras off—Ms. MacLean, Mr. McGowan, Ms. Smith, Mr. Shoom. You're quite free to leave them on. It's not like what we're doing with Bill C-30. Leave your cameras on if you like. You're quite fine either way, but it's better to see us. I see Ms. Smith is all smiles there.
Is there anybody else? Trevor, did you have anything you wanted to add?
Okay, with that, the lineup for the first round of questions is Mr. Kelly, Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Ste-Marie and Mr. Julian.
Mr. Kelly, you have six minutes
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I'd like to say I am quite disappointed. Perhaps I should have raised this as a point of order earlier. I'm using my time. Where is the minister?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
The....
Sorry, go ahead.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
I have a point of order.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Kelly was intending to raise this as a point of order. I don't think he intended that it would take up part of his time.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Well, that's fine.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Perhaps, Mr. Chair, you have an explanation. I am open to it. I understand that the ministers are busy, but we asked for the minister. We have an expectation, as a committee, to hear from the minister on this study. We haven't had the minister at this committee on anything for a very long time now. I think it's about time she appeared. We expect her to appear on this study.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
On this point, I completely agree with my colleague Mr. Kelly, especially since the minister was present for the whole of question period. She was on Zoom just a few minutes ago. We could see her chewing her gum, as usual. So we would like to have an explanation for her absence.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I don't have an explanation. The invitation was sent. The minister wasn't able to appear. We have also invited officials in her stead.
You've made your point. I will send a note to the minister that the committee was dissatisfied that she wasn't able to appear and that we look forward to her appearance at the earliest opportunity. That's about all we can do at this stage.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will say to officials that we are happy and pleased to have you here. It's great to have the detailed information that officials can provide, but members of this committee likely have political questions about the policies and priorities of this government that officials cannot properly answer.
If I may, then, to the officials.... I'm not even sure where to start.
Let's go back to the Auditor General's report in 2018. I've asked this question before. This was a very shocking report. Canadians were disappointed to hear that the Canada Revenue Agency would automatically disallow expenses as eligible tax deductions. This is for ordinary Canadians who don't have offshore accounts and don't participate in complicated offshore tax avoidance schemes. If you're a regular Canadian, you must provide documents within 90 days or you will automatically have your deduction disallowed and taxes applied.
I'm reading right from the Auditor General's report, “For other taxpayers, such as those with offshore transactions, we found that the time frame to provide information was sometimes extended for months or even years”, and often with no taxes applied. Could the officials tell us if it is still the CRA's practice to grant offshore filers seemingly unlimited extensions? If you're a small business operator in Canada, you have 90 days or you lose your deduction.
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:42
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a broader point and then a specific point.
The broader point is, in the case of regular Canadians, when we're asking them to substantiate a moving expense, it's true that we would allow 90 days. If they contact us, obviously we're open to extensions. However, there is a fairly narrow ask with a fairly tight frame.
Then you'd ask yourself why we would give the multinational enterprise or somebody with offshore...a series of extensions? Why would we appear to be indulging them? The fact is that those cases are going to court. We are sure, at the million-dollar point, that the taxpayer is going to want to litigate, and certainly when you get into the $300-million and $400-million files, there's going to be litigation.
The CRA has an onus at court to prove its case, so the additional time the CRA is putting into those files is actually to increase our chances at being successful at litigation. That's the general point.
More specifically, we have made timeliness one of our three corporate priorities for audit in the branch, and we are going to court to compel large taxpayers to give us the information we need more quickly. Also, in budget 2021 there was another measure concerning oral interviews.
I think I would explain for the committee that sophisticated taxpayers engage in stalling tactics to weaken the quality of our position at litigation as a deliberate tactic. We have tightened our procedures and processes, and through budget 2021, we've started to get ourselves more legislative power.
I think a longer period of time was actually better for taxpayers in terms of maximizing revenue, because it gave us more time to collect the evidence that we were going to need at court. Having said that, we're also taking those same taxpayers to court faster to get the information that we think we're entitled to.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
I still think that answer would give no comfort to a small business owner who gets a letter from the agency with a demand for papers. That small business owner has to immediately drop everything and call their lawyer or accountant, or both, and in many cases for seemingly frivolous items.
Yet, I understand the point that in a large case that will be going to court, you need to gather the evidence, but there's a perfect opportunity there for the large tax filer—the overseas tax filer—to game the system through delay, because it's indulged by the agency.
We've heard about the KPMG case. We were talking about the Panama papers and the Paradise papers here. Have there been any convictions in the Panama papers and Paradise papers cases so far?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:45
Like most countries around the world, we have open investigations, some of which have proceeded to the search phase, but we don't yet have a conviction. At this point in time I wouldn't say that's a cause for alarm.
I would say that our criminal investigations are driven by the facts and the evidence particular to the case. It wouldn't be reflective of a lack of interest in making referrals to criminal investigations.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Do you know how many convictions have been made in Germany?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:46
No, I don't have the specific number for the German convictions.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay. There are reports of convictions and hundreds of millions of dollars being recovered in other jurisdictions, and yet not in Canada. Can you explain that?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:46
Yes. I think a key point on the Panama papers—because there has been media coverage saying there have been zero convictions—is that tax authorities have been reporting the gross amounts or the amount they've identified. In the case of Canada, which is the CRA plus Revenu Québec, roughly $52 million in tax was identified by them, which would place us in ninth place in the world.
We've refused 36 VDPs, which would add to that number, and we have about another $60 million under audit. At the end state, we're looking at perhaps $100 million in taxes from people listed in the Panama papers.
I think there's a semantical issue around, “Have you identified it? Have you collected it?” We've gone to the details. All other countries are reporting what they've identified, and they're not yet able to land on what's actually been collected. I'd also add that a lot of other countries higher up on the list—Italy and Spain, for example—have received voluntary disclosures in the range of $100 million.
Canada, I think, has taken the Panama papers list seriously. I think we've made a strategic choice to restrict VDPs and refuse some voluntary disclosures, because the consequences have to be there.
I think you have to look at the CRA results and the RQ results together. We're not in a competition, but we're two tax authorities in the country. Ninth place is maybe not where we'd hoped to be at the end, but it's not at zero.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you for those answers.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I let that go on substantially, because I think that's pretty good information.
Ms. Dzerowicz.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gallivan, thank you for your presentation and remarks.
Thanks, everyone, for being part of this panel today. I really appreciate your spending the time here.
Mr. Gallivan, one of the narratives that's put forward at this committee is that the federal government has done nothing to combat tax avoidance and tax evasion. Would you agree with that statement?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:48
No, I wouldn't. In fact, I would say that successive governments have made significant investments and significant legislative changes, and have signed on to significant international initiatives, first, to tighten the rules, and second, to have a greater flow of data. I mentioned country-by-country reporting for multinationals. The common reporting system is worldwide banking information. Domestically in Canada we have the electronic funds transfer. We have a new paid informant program that was launched in 2013. Three or four years in, there was only $2 million collected. People were very critical of that. Well, we're approaching $200 million in unpaid taxes that would have been identified through that program.
I think there's been a broad range of things done both operationally and legislatively.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Gallivan, I'll be a little more specific, just because I have the numbers here from the 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 budgets.
In 2016 we invested $444.4 million. In 2017 we invested an additional $523.9 million. In 2018 we invested another $90.6 million. In 2019 we invested another $150.8 million. That's just dollars; it doesn't count some of the other things you had talked about to modernize Canada's AML/ATF framework or providing more dollars for the court's administration and some of the other measures you had talked about.
Would you say that this was a significant investment, over the last four years, to combat tax avoidance and evasion?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:50
Yes. The $1-billion figure that people have talked about as an investment that was to yield $5 billion was a very significant investment. We identified that $5 billion a year early, despite being disrupted by COVID for two years.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Can you just tell me, of all that investment, how much we have captured in terms of tax avoidance? Can you give us that number, please?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:50
It is over $5 billion.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
So we have identified that it's $5 billion.
Mr. Ted Gallivan: That's correct.
Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Thank you so much.
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:50
That's a tactical result. In terms of outcomes, though, there are other positive indicators. We're getting roughly 4,000 people with offshore assets trying to come through voluntary disclosure every year. We've tightened it to make it less generous, but those are taxpayers speaking with their actions.
A second is complex legislation. From 2012 to 2020, the volume of complex legislation before the Tax Court roughly doubled, from 994 to 1,987. You see twice as much more complex legislation. Again, those are taxpayers who we've taken on, who are not rolling over and complying but are taking us to court.
Finally, there's form T1135, the disclosure of your offshore assets. Again, from 2012 to 2020, we've grown from 200,000 people disclosing their offshore assets to 400,000. Again, that's roughly a doubling.
I think you can see in these trend lines that taxpayers are reacting to the crackdown in two ways. Some of them are trying to do voluntary disclosures and disclose their offshore assets. They got the message and they'd like to comply. Others are taking us to court.
I think largely now there is a very well-populated court record at the Tax Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, and three tax cases at the Supreme Court right now that kind of lay out where the state of play is in terms of aggressive tax planning in Canada. Again, I'd refer you to budget 2021. That had a number of measures, in part reacting to adverse court decisions and reacting to this reaction by taxpayers to CRA's increased efforts.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
Next, you were talking about Canada's being ninth in the world. Is that in terms of investment in combatting tax evasion and tax avoidance, or in being successful going after it? Could you clarify that?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:52
Absolutely. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the people who kind of broke the Panama papers story, have a bit of a ranking where they're tracking public pronouncements by tax authorities around the tax that they've identified.
Right now the Canadian reporting approach has been very conservative. We have tended to get hung up on collected versus assessed. Canada, if you take CRA and Revenu Québec together, has just upwards of $50 million in additional tax already identified, which would put us in ninth place. If we look at our inventory, our open Panama papers audits that the auditors are working on right now to document, so that they survive court challenges, we know that we have another $60 million yet to come.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
This is your last question, Julie.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
That's great.
Is it ninth out of 300 countries?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:53
It's out 80 countries. Roughly 80 countries have said they're aggressively pursuing the Panama papers.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
We're among the top.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I would say to any other witnesses here that if you have additional information, put up your hand. If I don't see you, just yell.
Next we have Mr. Ste-Marie followed by Mr. Julian.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a brief comment on what was just said.
Canada is still behind Colombia, and the amounts targeted or recovered have nothing to do with what is being done in Germany or the United Kingdom. According to the Radio‑Canada article, even Revenu Québec has managed to recover more money and identify more files than the Canada Revenue Agency. In my opinion, there is a problem. To say that everything is fine is to keep playing the song Don't Worry Be Happy.
First, the purpose of today's meeting was to ask the Minister of National Revenue about tax evasion and to get her explanation as to why the Agency signed a lenient amnesty agreement with KPMG and its clients. The purpose of the meeting was to ask her what she is doing, as minister, to address the fraud and embezzlement in the case involving Mr. Weinberg and executives of Norshield and Mount Real, where a Ponzi scheme defrauded thousands of small investors of their savings.
Five hundred million are missing, and most are still unaccounted for. The purpose of the meeting was to ask her how she was going to ensure that the small savers who were robbed could get their money back. The minister has the power.
Will she use her ministerial power to call a public inquiry as she alone has the authority to do under subsection 231.4(1) of the Income Tax Act?
The purpose of the meeting was to ask her what she is doing about the sword companies, which is what I wanted to ask her.
However, the minister chose to go AWOL. She chose to bury her head in the sand. She was invited last week and now she is running away. This is deplorable and I can assure you that we in the committee will continue to hold her accountable. We will not stop there. Hiding like this may help save her skin once, but not twice.
Mr. Chair, let me tell you that I'm sure we'll come back and find a way to hear from the minister on this. As I told you during the point of order, she was at her desk all through question period. Blowing off such an important study is honestly unacceptable.
We are talking about tax justice and fairness for individuals and taxpayers. Justice must be done for small savers like Ms. Watson, who came to the committee for this study. Honestly, I find the minister's attitude unacceptable.
Having said that, I welcome the presence of the senior officials. My thanks to them for being here to answer our questions, and I appreciate that. Of course, my questions were primarily for the minister to address the points I raised.
My first question is for Mr. Gallivan.
Mr. Gallivan, thank you for your presentation.
On the issue of KPMG and the clients who used their scheme with the shell companies in the Isle of Man, can you confirm that there were 16 clients, 14 of whom agreed to identify themselves and two of whom refused?
Is that correct, Mr. Gallivan?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:57
No, the numbers are a little higher. From memory, there are 25 clients, and two are apparently still in the process of being verified. I think you're talking about the ones that have reached a voluntary agreement to identify themselves.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Yes, that is correct. Thank you for the clarification.
With respect to the cases where clients chose to disclose their identity, I would like to know why the Agency did not follow the usual process. Under the process, amnesty or the possibility of partial amnesty is offered upon voluntary disclosure, not when the investigation is already under way, as was the case here.
Why did the Agency not follow the usual process?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 15:58
First, when there is a dispute, negotiations are always carried out to reach a settlement. Settlement discussions are not unusual when there are disputes. It is a normal process.
The legislation that the Canada Revenue Agency used to force KPMG to disclose the identity of taxpayers had only just changed. When we went to court, the wording of the legislation had not yet changed. Once in court, we were told that it was not certain that we would be able to obtain the identity of those taxpayers.
The first factor was a legal opinion asking that the Canada Revenue Agency would never know the identity of those taxpayers.
Second, because the schemes went on for a number of years, we found a way to backdate the review of tax returns to 13, 15 and 16 years for some participants, which increased the amount of the bill. We then decided that all taxes had to be paid.
To avoid the risk of losing in court and never knowing the identity of those taxpayers, we agreed to take all the tax returns back 15 to 20 years, which is very rarely done, to get that money and move on, instead of running the risk of getting nothing.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Gallivan, in my opinion, this is still a bargain‑basement agreement, especially when we see that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the federal agency in the United States, demanded that KPMG and its clients provide names, and obtained them. The IRS even threatened KPMG in the U.S. with being classified as a criminal organization if it did not hand over its documents.
As for the Canada Revenue Agency, the agreements it has reached are to ask the offenders to pay back unpaid taxes and interest, but at rates lower than those charged to small and medium‑sized businesses and the average person, without imposing any form of penalty. In my opinion, this is borderline illegal and should be considered criminal. That is my beef.
I think there is too much accommodation in the deals being made, and the way KPMG and its clients are being treated sends a message internationally that “Folks, if you feel like defrauding, come try it in Canada, because the worst that can happen to you, once there is an investigation, is that we are going to make you pay your taxes, maybe even for the last 15 years.”
In my opinion, a lot more should be done. Again, this is a political issue that I would have liked to discuss with the minister, but she chose to duck out.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Gabriel, we'll have to get to the question.
Go ahead.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
Is the KPMG case with the Isle of Man shell companies, in which some people refused to disclose their identity, still before the courts? Is it active?
What stage is it at?
What is the Canada Revenue Agency doing?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 16:01
In terms of the core group of participants, we have determined that $24 million is owed in taxes. As I mentioned, two files are still open.
We also found 70 more participants, represented by other accounting firms, whom we asked to repay $7 million.
We then reviewed all e‑transfers between the Isle of Man and Canada over a two‑year period. We found 90 records of Canadians of interest. Of those, we found 45 files that, when audited, resulted in the recovery of an additional $17 million.
In total, the Isle of Man file audits recovered $48 million in taxes. There are 15 non‑KPMG audits and two KPMG audits still open.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
I would like to finish this block—
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Sorry, Gabriel. You're way over the time. You'll get another round down the road a little ways.
We'll go to Mr. Julian next, followed by Mr. Lawrence.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to all the officials who are here today. We hope their families have remained healthy during the pandemic. We also thank them for their service.
I, too, am flabbergasted that the Minister of National Revenue chose not to come to this committee meeting. She has a responsibility to answer our questions and explain why there has never been any follow-up on the fraud cases where Canadians watched their retirement savings vanish.
She had a responsibility to be here today.
I am very surprised and, quite frankly, profoundly disappointed that the Minister of National Revenue chose to avoid the committee today and decided not to come to answer questions about what has been a massive fraud that has deprived thousands of Canadians of their entire retirement savings. The case around the Isle of Man scam and KPMG is something that the minister needs to come to committee to explain. I hope that happens in very short order. I'll join my voice to colleagues' about this.
I have a number of questions about KPMG, but first off, Mr. Gallivan, I'm very happy to see you again. A year ago you came to committee, and I asked you a series of questions. I want to get a very brief update.
I'll start with the Panama papers. How many of the corporations named in the Panama papers have now been charged by CRA?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 16:04
As was explained previously, given the point we're at in terms of our investigations, we are—
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 16:04
Yes, that's correct.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Okay. How about the Paradise papers? How many of those corporations have been charged?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 16:04
Again, the Paradise papers was a very different case from the Panama papers. It was publicly available information that people would have already had. I don't think we've confirmed any investigation of criminality around the Paradise papers.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Still none, one year later.
How about the Bahamas leaks? Again, these are publicly listed; the information's available online. How many of the corporations involved in tax evasion and have been named in the Panama papers have been charged?
Ted Gallivan
View Ted Gallivan Profile
Ted Gallivan
2021-06-10 16:05
Mr. Chair, to get at the root of the question, the facts of the case will decide whether criminal charges will be relayed or not. It's not a discretionary choice on the part of the Revenue Agency. In the case of the Bahamas leaks, it is zero.
Results: 1 - 60 of 27635 | Page: 1 of 461

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

For more data options, please see Open Data