Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 31 - 45 of 461
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
There may have been a problem with the interpretation. I never implied that KPMG had set up strategies that were deemed illegal. That is not what we are talking about. To my knowledge, KPMG, an accounting firm, does not have the authority to refuse to provide such information to a parliamentary committee in Ottawa.
Just to make sure that we understand each other, the clerk can send you the request that I just made and you can provide us with your response within 30 days.
I will also ask you to provide us with the Canada Revenue Agency decision on each client file at KPMG Canada, including refunded taxes, accrued interest and penalties incurred, for each individual.
Thank you.
Lucia Iacovelli
View Lucia Iacovelli Profile
Lucia Iacovelli
2021-05-06 16:25
Okay.
I just want to point out that under my professional code of conduct, I'm not able to provide any details with respect to clients or former clients. Again, if there's a court order or legal order provided, I can provide that information.
We've provided all of the information with respect to the offshore structure to the CRA, along with files.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much.
I'm going to move on to Ms. Iacovelli. As Mr. Ste-Marie has mentioned, when a committee requests information, it's important to follow that request. As you know, there's a non-cooperative tax jurisdiction list, which basically lists tax havens around the world.
I have a series of questions. As well, we'll be following up with a letter that we'd like KPMG to answer.
First off, how many client companies or shell companies—you called them “client companies”—that currently exist in the Isle of Man and in all of the other tax jurisdictions that are “non-cooperative jurisdictions” has KPMG set up? That's my first question.
Second, how many were established since 1999—again, in the same list—by KPMG internationally?
How many have been dissolved or wound up since 1999? That's my third question.
My fourth question is, how many Canadian clients of KPMG invest in overseas tax havens, either offshore bank accounts or shell companies—you've called them “client companies”—and how many out-of-court settlements has KPMG negotiated on behalf of those clients with Revenue Canada?
Those are the questions that we will ask you to follow up on.
I also note that you are here voluntarily. We certainly appreciate that. We will be convening other witnesses from KPMG, I believe, including Serge Bilodeau, who runs your Montreal office, and we appreciate that co-operation.
Can you also indicate, when you receive a notice to preserve documents, how those notices are observed within KPMG internationally?
My final question is around Parrhesia, which you've acknowledged is a KPMG client company incorporated on the same date as the “sword” companies on December 17, 2001. First you said in your testimony that it was a common registrar that KPMG had approached, and then you said that nobody was engaged to actually incorporate Parrhesia. Could you clarify that, please? Who within KPMG actually moved to register that client company?
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
2021-05-06 16:44
Thank you.
Senator Downe, you said in your testimony that the CRA has done a really great job on the domestic tax evasion side, but you've been critical of the agency's ability to address overseas tax evasion. What tools or powers does the CRA need to effectively address foreign tax evasion to the same extent as domestic tax evasion?
Percy E. Downe
View Percy E. Downe Profile
Hon. Percy E. Downe
2021-05-06 16:45
I indicated in my opening statement a suggestion on compensation as well. Some of the people at the CRA are really what I would call unicorns. They have unique skill sets that they have developed over 10 or 15 years working for the Government of Canada, but they bump up against a salary cap that is government-wide. We have to address that. We have to be able to retain these people so that they're not scooped up by those who are working, if you will, on the dark side of tax evasion. You can't blame people for wanting to improve their financial situation, but the government has to take some initiative to keep these people.
The second area—and others have covered it as well—is that some of these international tax units have either been merged with other responsibilities or totally disbanded, so we need a dedicated group, and we're not reinventing the wheel here. The CRA tells us how complex these cases can be, but it's complex for every country. As I indicated, Iceland, with 340,000 people, recovered $25 million through the Panama papers. We have not recovered anywhere near that, if anything, so there's something wrong there with the structure of the CRA, and senior management and/or the finance department should address it.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you very much.
Ms. Daviau, you mentioned how CRA was criticized in the previous decade for focusing audits on small businesses and charities and how that impacted auditing work. You also mentioned in your testimony that the focus should be on wealthy individuals and powerful corporations who do the majority of the cheating. Is there a justification for the fact that CRA appears to be aggressively focusing on small mom-and-pop shops for audits during COVID and ignoring the wealthy individuals and powerful corporations you just identified as the real problem?
Debi Daviau
View Debi Daviau Profile
Debi Daviau
2021-05-06 16:57
I actually don't think they're ignoring them; I just don't think they have the same capacity to address international taxes that they do to address local taxes.
I don't want to reiterate what those drawbacks are again, but certainly employees at the Canada Revenue Agency are up against, as I said, tax giants. These are people who have immense skill, technology, expertise and other big companies on their side. The CRA needs to be on a level playing field.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay.
I don't know who I should direct this to. Maybe it's for Mr. Cohen or even Senator Downe.
We've spent a significant amount of money to try to deal with tax evasion. My sense has been that it's to try to deal with a lot of the international tax evasion. I think it was $444 million in 2016. I know it was $523.9 million in budget 2017. I know that in our fall economic statement, we invested another $606 million over five years to close the high-net-worth compliance gap, to strengthen technical support for high-risk audits and to enhance a criminal investigations program.
Has none of that been helpful to actually deal with the tax evasion issues, primarily internationally, as we've been talking about?
Mr. Cohen—
Percy E. Downe
View Percy E. Downe Profile
Hon. Percy E. Downe
2021-05-06 17:05
I could answer that, Chair.
Of course you made the key point there, which is that it's over five years. When I asked for documentation of how the money was spent—for example, in 2019 I received a written question in the Senate—the government acknowledged that just over $250 million was actually spent from the 2016-17 budget. Then we find that the money was not spent quite where it was said it was going to be spent. The CRA advised us that they had to spend some of the money on funding towards employees' benefit plans. Obviously treating your employees fairly and fulfilling collective agreements is important, but it's not the same as cracking down on tax evasion, which was how the commitment was described in the budget.
I don't have any additional information on the money, although I do note that the revenue minister stated in response to a House of Commons question number 541 that in order to free up CRA resources for pandemic-related programs, many audits have been temporarily suspended as a non-critical service. I'm wondering what that means about overseas tax evasion.
All that is to say it goes back to the point I was making earlier. There's something structurally wrong in governance in the CRA and how they run their operation. That's an area that should be looked at.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you. I would love to give Sean back some time. I will try to be really brief.
I've been troubled for decades by consistent reports from the Auditor General's Office that CRA does not take seriously their efforts to go after fat cats with complicated structures and lots of lawyers as much as they do in going after little guys like my friends or in auditing my daughter as a university student. You have to wonder.
As experts in how CRA operates, going first to PIPSC—either Ryan or Debi—and then to Senator Downe if there's time, is there a cultural problem within CRA that's deep and systemic, which both through resources and culture would make them go after Canadians with limited means rather than pursue complicated files on well-heeled tax evaders?
Debi Daviau
View Debi Daviau Profile
Debi Daviau
2021-05-06 17:28
I personally don't think so. I think it's a question of not having enough resources, not enough supports, not the right organizational structure in place to maximize their ability to go after international tax cheats.
Maybe Ryan has something to add.
Ryan Campbell
View Ryan Campbell Profile
Ryan Campbell
2021-05-06 17:28
My interactions with auditors, which are numerous, suggest that they're driven by a deep sense of fairness and that what they want is a tax system that's defined by integrity and fairness. Nothing would make them happier than having rules and resources that would allow them to go after the “big contact” cheats, the ones who are trying the hardest to avoid taxes.
Percy E. Downe
View Percy E. Downe Profile
Hon. Percy E. Downe
2021-05-06 17:28
Sure.
It's the senior management of the CRA, and I have a long list that I can send the committee, if you're interested.
Let me give you one example of the problem at CRA. They announced in 2017 that 90% of calls to the agency were successfully connected to an agent or an automatic help line. The Auditor General investigated that claim and found out that they blocked 29 million of them. That meant that the overall success was 36%. Now, what agency of government thinks it's acceptable to claim 90%, when they block 29 million of the calls and then don't include them?
There's a long list of the ways in which they conduct themselves. I have not seen anywhere else in my experience in provincial or federal government that an agency or a department of government operates this way.
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 29 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The committee is meeting in public today and is being televised.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), the committee is meeting today to study “Report 4—Canada Child Benefit—Canada Revenue Agency”, of the 2021 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021, and therefore members may be attending in person in the room or remotely by using the Zoom application.
I have a few reminders for you.
Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of “Floor”, “English” or “French”. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please put your mike on mute to minimize any interference. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of headsets with a boom microphone is mandatory for everyone participating remotely.
Should any technical challenges arise, please advise the chair. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes, as we want to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.
Now I'd like to welcome the witnesses who have joined us today.
From the Office of the Auditor General are Martin Dompierre, Assistant Auditor General; Philippe Le Goff, principal; and Lucie Després, director. From the Canada Revenue Agency, we have Bob Hamilton, commissioner of revenue and chief executive officer; Marc Lemieux, assistant commissioner, collections and verification branch; Frank Vermaeten, assistant commissioner, assessment, benefit and service branch; and Heather Daniels, director general, benefit programs directorate, assessment, benefit and service branch.
With that, welcome, all.
I will turn the floor over to Mr. Dompierre for five minutes.
Martin Dompierre
View Martin Dompierre Profile
Martin Dompierre
2021-05-04 11:05
Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our report on the Canada child benefit, which was tabled in Parliament on February 25, 2021.
Joining me today are Philippe Le Goff, who was the principal responsible for the audit, and Lucie Després, who led the audit team.
The Canada child benefit provides a non-taxable monthly payment to eligible families, based on their net family income. In the 2019-2020 fiscal year, the program allocated $24.5 billion to parents in Canada who were responsible for 5.9 million children under the age of 18. The Canada child benefit is a key public policy tool for reducing inequalities and poverty among low-income families.
Overall, we found that the Canada Revenue Agency ensured that the payments to millions of eligible families were accurate and timely. The agency had effective systems and processes to assess the eligibility of recipients.
However, we found opportunities to improve the program's efficiency and prevent its misuse. For example, requiring proof of birth at the time of application for children under the age of 11 months who were born in Canada would help agency staff verify a family's eligibility.
We also found that the agency sometimes lacked the latest information when it determined applicants' eligibility for the program and when it calculated payments. For example, in some of the samples we analyzed, we found that the agency was not always informed of changes, such as when a recipient left Canada. Payments continued until the agency received updated account information or until a parent ceased filing a Canadian income tax return.
Our audit also examined the one-time payment made to support more families at the beginning of the pandemic in May 2020. We found that the modified formula extended the benefit to an additional 265,000 families. The one-time payments were found to be accurate.
Finally, we found that the female presumption concept presented a challenge for the administration of the program, especially because of the diversity of families in Canada today. According to the program's conditions, benefit payments go to the parent who is the primary caregiver. By law, the primary caregiver is presumed to be the female parent. We found that in some cases the parent who in reality had primary responsibility for the care of the child did not receive the payment initially. In our view, the administration of the program would gain in efficiency by enhancing its procedures and communications to mitigate the confusion and sensitivities caused by this concept.
The Canada Revenue Agency agreed with both of our recommendations.
Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you for your attention.
Results: 31 - 45 of 461 | Page: 3 of 31

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

For more data options, please see Open Data