Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 16 - 30 of 196
Marta Morgan
View Marta Morgan Profile
Marta Morgan
2021-06-07 20:05
The Five Eyes is an intelligence-sharing operation, but I think the broader issue here is all the various ways in which we can work together in the various forums. Our Five Eyes counterparts are very close allies to us. They share our values. They share our commitment to democracy. They are among our closest allies, but there is also the G7. Working with the G7 through foreign ministers and through leaders is a critical alliance for us, as are our allies who work with us on the UN Human Rights Council. We need to broaden our allies. We need to have as many allies as possible.
View Jack Harris Profile
NDP (NL)
I understand that, but doesn't the minister have a point when she says that there are two different types of alliances, and one doesn't always include the other?
Marta Morgan
View Marta Morgan Profile
Marta Morgan
2021-06-07 20:06
We have a very strong intelligence-sharing relationship among Five Eyes partners. They are also strong allies in other regards.
View Joël Lightbound Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Since I am taking the floor for the first time this evening, I just want to say to all the committee members and certainly the witnesses that my thoughts and prayers are with the London community, which was today the target of a hateful and completely unjustifiable crime in Canada. Our thoughts and prayers are with the London community and with every Muslim community in Canada, which should not have to suffer that kind of an attack in a country like ours.
My first question is about the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State–to–State Relations, launched by Canada in February. Mr. Oliphant and the minister discussed it a little bit. So far, unless I am mistaken, 63 countries have endorsed the declaration.
Ms. Morgan, could you give us an update on the progress made in that respect?
Are any steps currently being taken to obtain the support of more signatories for that declaration, which I deem very important?
Marta Morgan
View Marta Morgan Profile
Marta Morgan
2021-06-07 20:16
Thank you for the question.
Canada has really shown international leadership when it comes to ending that unacceptable practice of using arbitrary arrests and detentions to apply diplomatic pressure. The 63 countries that have endorsed the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State–to–State Relations account for one-third of the countries in the world. So we are very proud of the work we have done at the department.
Recently, on May 5, we released the partnership action plan with full G7 support, to turn words into action and put an end to that practice worldwide. We continue to talk to other countries, and I hope we could come back before this committee at some point to tell you that more countries have shown their support for the declaration.
It's something that I raise regularly in my bilateral conversations with colleagues, as does Minister Garneau.
View Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Minister. I hope you are well on this Monday, as we approach the end of the parliamentary session.
First of all, I congratulate you on all the work you have done on Bill C‑10. Of course, I am very disappointed with what is happening right now. In December, the committee made a point of meeting with witnesses to get to the bottom of everything that was going on with child pornography. However, because we are on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we had to address other issues.
Today, I would like to shed some light on all of the testimony that we have heard. Initially, our motion was to invite Pornhub executives. We've heard a lot of comments, and I'd like to express a concern that I have.
We talked about the Five Eyes group and how this is a global issue. That being said, our current position is unfortunately not at the forefront. As you said earlier, other countries have already introduced similar legislation or are in the process of doing so. Canada does not have any concrete bills in the works on this topic.
How is Canada positioning itself? How do we position ourselves internationally in terms of protecting our fundamental rights?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau. Good morning. I wish you a good Monday as well.
I am as disappointed as you are to see the lack of ambition of some of the other parties in the House with respect to the passage of Bill C‑10. However, we are not here to talk about that.
Canada is among the lead countries in addressing this issue. The countries I named earlier, which can be counted on the fingers of one hand, are among the only ones that are currently taking action.
It was at Canada's initiative that a coalition of countries was created that are committed to working together, not only on the issue of hate speech and other online harm, but also on cultural issues. Several countries are very interested in what we are doing with Bill C‑10 and with respect to media compensation. This sort of informal coalition of countries is working collaboratively at Canada's initiative. In a few weeks, an announcement will be made about this joint international work.
Of course, a country like ours needs to have legislation that addresses the issue of online harm. However, this is indeed a global problem, and it needs to be addressed on a global level. That's why we formed this coalition of countries. Right now, there are only five of us, but I suspect that before long, many more people will be around the table.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Your Excellency, you have clearly demonstrated that the Normandy process and the Minsk agreements have no impact or effect on the situation in Crimea.
I assume that President Zelensky intends to unveil a Crimean Platform in order to address that gap. It is supposed to be unveiled this summer, hopefully on August 1.
Of course, I am not asking you to reveal intimate secrets, but what is the plan with this platform in terms of diplomatic, military, economic and other actions, in order to have Crimea returned to the fold of Ukraine some day?
Andriy Shevchenko
View Andriy Shevchenko Profile
H.E. Andriy Shevchenko
2021-06-01 17:15
Monsieur Bergeron, you have given a very good assessment of the reasons we want to go ahead with the Crimean platform.
I can give you a very practical example. It's about sanctions. At this moment, both the European Union and our major allies outside of the European Union have applied sanctions against Russia and those individuals responsible for the occupation and human rights violations.
However, the way we apply sanctions is so different. We assess the situation in different ways. We apply sanctions in different ways, and we have very different ways to monitor the implementation of the sanctions.
The coordination of this effort is long overdue. If we share our practices, if we bring our efforts together in monitoring the situation on the ground, and if we monitor together how the sanctions are implemented, they can have a much greater impact on the ground.
Canada will be a rock star among those nations, because you're quite good at actually following up on those policies.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
Your Excellency, am I to understand, between the lines of your answer, that the core of this strategy, this international Crimean Platform, is that you would like to see coordinated measures taken by a large number of nations against Russia, to ensure that the impact is laser‑focused, so to speak, and ultimately produces results, including Donbass and Crimea?
Andriy Shevchenko
View Andriy Shevchenko Profile
H.E. Andriy Shevchenko
2021-06-01 17:17
That is very fair, and that should be very efficient if we think about the different avenues of co-operation, security, human rights, economic policy and so on. We hope this will bring us closer to a good, successful, strategic vision.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for that.
I do want to ask you a general question about three specific things, which are espionage, foreign interference and cyber attacks.
To what extent is Canada actively working in concert with other countries—middle powers in particular—to counter any impact of those on our democracy? What can you share with us on that?
View David McGuinty Profile
Lib. (ON)
I think it's fair to say that in our 2019 foreign interference review, we indicated that we have a lot of work to do on improving co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal orders of government on this front. As one of the speakers on your other panel said earlier, we also have a lot of work to do to enhance Canadians' understanding of the threats.
One of the things that we did do was to join with the G7 to create a rapid response mechanism in 2018 and a summit in June 2018. We're now co-operating amongst the G7 to have a rapid response mechanism to follow and get informed about things that might be occurring in each of our respective jurisdictions. There's a significant amount of co-operation going on.
We believe there's much more progress to make from a whole-of-government perspective in the Canadian context.
Alexander Douglas
View Alexander Douglas Profile
Alexander Douglas
2021-05-28 13:57
Thank you very much for the invitation to appear today. I hope I can be of some help to the committee's study on this very important topic.
I will provide some background first. I'm a university employee and researcher, but I'm speaking in a personal capacity today. I have a conflict of interest to declare in that I may receive income as an inventor of a patent application relating to the manufacture of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
My role in the Oxford COVID vaccine program has primarily been to develop the manufacturing process and lead the initial technology transfer, both to sites within the U.K. and to overseas sites, including the Serum Institute of India. I have subsequently worked closely with AZ, but I can't speak for AZ at all. I understand that your remit includes Canada's domestic vaccine supply, but I've had no involvement with AZ's arrangements for supply to Canada.
Equity of access to our vaccine has been a really key driver for me and our team from the beginning. We transferred manufacturing to low-income countries at the same time as setting it up in the U.K. We prioritized willingness to pursue equitable access in our choice of pharma partners and pushed very hard for terms to promote equitable access when we entered the partnership with AZ. The outcome really has been quite radical on that, in terms of both pricing and distribution.
Clearly, though, the world is now in exactly the situation we were worried about when we were taking those decisions. Personally, it's important to be clear. It's outrageous that some countries are vaccinating 18-year-olds while the global rates of COVID-19 deaths are pretty much as high as they have been, and health workers and 70-year-olds are unprotected and dying in many parts of the world.
This is damaging for all of us, not least because of the ongoing economic disruption. The IMF has published an excellent study showing massive economic benefits to high-income countries of fast and equitable global vaccination.
What can be done now? In particular, is a TRIPS waiver the right thing to focus on?
It's critical to understand how different the situation is now from the problem of HIV drug access 20 years ago in low-income countries, for which patent waivers were very effective. That was a problem of price. There was potential manufacturing capacity sitting idle, and the patent was the main block. Now, we're in a much more complicated situation. The manufacturing capacity itself needs to be expanded as quickly as possible, and that requires removal of multiple non-patent constraints, such as raw material supplies, skills and non-patent know-how.
Removing patents implies new entrants with less experience competing with the innovating companies for those resources and duplicating efforts on developing know-how. That would be really quite inefficient. Having governments work in a critical but constructive partnership with innovators to expand that effort and improve equity of supply is likely to be a much better solution. It's clear that the status quo isn't working. Some of those innovating companies are not currently feeling that it's in their interests to prioritize low-income country supply. We need to examine and address the reasons for that, and countries like Canada can play a really positive role in that.
First, we need to be clear that the current situation on the distribution of vaccines that exist is intolerable. We need moral pressure on Pfizer, Moderna and governments that are vaccinating young adults to donate a proportion of their supply immediately.
Second, we need to see whether we can make the supply we have cover more people. It may well be that half doses of the existing vaccines are adequate, which would double supply at a stroke. That could be established very rapidly if clinical trials of low doses were set up urgently, but I don't see the companies rushing to do that without governmental intervention.
Third, we need to expand the supply, and with a G7 meeting coming up, we need an international, G7-led version of the operation warp speed effort. Rather than focusing on initial vaccine development for one country, this time it would be focused on manufacturing capacity expansion for the world.
That needs governments to really constructively engage, not just donate money. That effort can and should echo the features that made Operation Warp Speed and the U.K. vaccines task force effective. That means bringing together technical expertise, getting into the detail, understanding the different bottlenecks facing each manufacturer, and creating solutions.
It needs to use the clout of government to compel, but deploy it smartly, and it needs to act not just as a passive or even a pushy customer, but like a venture capital investor, as a partner and an enabler for industry.
We're dealing here with transnational supply chains, so this has to be an international solution to an international problem. However, increasing output should help everyone too. It's a huge win-win. I hope that you and Canada consider picking up on the positive motivation behind the patent waiver idea and driving things forward in a really effective, equitable direction.
Thank you.
Debi Daviau
View Debi Daviau Profile
Debi Daviau
2021-05-06 15:50
Thanks for having us.
My name is Debi Daviau, and I'm the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, or PIPSC. It's the national union that represents some 12,000 auditors and other tax professionals at the CRA across the country. Our members are skilled professionals and knowledgeable tax experts who ensure that powerful corporations and wealthy individuals remain just as accountable as the rest of us.
With me today is Mr. Ryan Campbell, our union economist and my technical adviser today.
We'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this critical issue. Together we'd be happy to answer any and all questions you may have after our presentation.
We've researched this issue from the point of view of tax professionals at the Canada Revenue Agency and produced three reports on tax avoidance and evasion. You can find them on our website at PIPSC.ca. I'd be happy to forward copies to the committee members as a follow-up to this meeting.
Few Canadians enjoy paying taxes, but they understand that it's important to do it. Taxes fund the public services that make us healthier and safer, protect the environment and nurture a stable economy in which businesses can thrive and compete.
A healthy tax system is defined by fairness and integrity. The rules must apply to everyone. Unfortunately, many wealthy individuals and corporations use their superior resources to look for a shelter or haven where the tax rules don't apply. While these privileged few get a reduced tax bill, governments lose revenue for public services, resulting in either service cuts or tax hikes for everybody else.
In February 2018, we conducted a survey of professional staff at the CRA, including auditors, managers, forensic accountants, economists, statisticians and actuaries. Their responses were eye-opening.
Much of the criticism levelled at Canada's tax system is that while it is designed to be fair, it's easier for some to get around the rules than it is for others. In our survey, nine out of 10 tax professionals at the Canada Revenue Agency agreed that it's easier for corporations and wealthy individuals to evade and/or avoid tax responsibilities than it is for average Canadians. Environics Research put that same question to the general public and found that eight out of 10 respondents felt the same way.
You should find it troubling that CRA professionals with special knowledge of the inner workings of the tax system were more likely to agree than an average Canadian. Over eight out of 10 also agreed that tax credits, tax exemptions and tax loopholes disproportionately benefit corporations and wealthy Canadians compared to average Canadians.
When asked if multinational corporations shift profits to low-tax regions, even when there is little or no corresponding economic activity taking place in that jurisdiction, three out of four respondents agreed. When asked if the CRA has adequate audit coverage capacity to ensure tax laws are being applied fairly across the country, only 16% of respondents agreed. When asked if training and technology advancements within CRA have not kept pace with the complexity of tax avoidance schemes, 79% of the respondents agreed.
All of these survey results confirm one basic fact: Canadians deserve a rigorous examination of the tax system.
Our CRA professionals are among the best in the world at what they do, but they face great challenges. Their job is to go after individuals and entities that in effect have unlimited resources and can aggressively exploit legal and international grey areas for their own gain. The CRA employees, by comparison, often feel outdone by those trying hardest to avoid taxes.
In 2012, sweeping budget cuts were introduced to the agency. Even with the more recent government reinvestments, it still doesn't have all the tools and staff it needs to get this job done
Does this make any sense when the Parliamentary Budget Officer's own numbers show a $5 return for every dollar invested in combatting international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance? Does this make sense at a time when government spending has skyrocketed to deal with the social and economic impact of the pandemic?
We need to fix this now. More than ever, Canadians need the tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue, if not more, that are sitting in offshore tax havens.
We believe that a number of steps can be taken to correct the situation.
First, we need better enforcement of existing tax laws. One of the simplest ways to make the system fairer is to ensure that the same rules apply to everyone.
Second, we need to prevent political interference at the CRA. This was particularly visible during the previous decade when the CRA was accused of shifting its focus away from big tax cheats to individuals, charities and small businesses.
Third, because CRA officials are frequently put in precarious situations in which they are asked to hold powerful players to account in a high-stakes setting, whistle-blower protection is crucial to ensuring that professional integrity is paramount during the tax assessment process.
Fourth, while government investments in the CRA have increased in recent federal budgets, Canada's population continues to grow, and so do the amount of commerce and the complexity of tax evasion schemes. The CRA needs to hire more technical advisers and to invest in technology and training to deal with these factors.
Fifth, the CRA must enhance the capacity of its regional offices. The Auditor General has found that taxpayers receive different treatment from the CRA depending on where they live and who they are. Its regional offices need the appropriate resources to ensure that laws are applied fairly from coast to coast.
Finally, a number of policy reforms need to be undertaken. Budget 2021 announced initiatives that when implemented will take tangible steps in the direction of tax fairness. These include a digital service tax for companies like Netflix and Amazon and the creation of a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. These are both important initiatives long championed by PIPSC members and our allies in civil society.
While these changes are welcomed, we still have work to do. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that as much as $25 billion of corporate tax revenue is lost to tax havens every year. We must do more to end the transfer pricing and profit shifting that facilitate this destructive practice.
As of now, some incremental steps are being taken, but there are a variety of additional actions that could be put in place. The end result would be a new, simplified view of the global commercial landscape, one in which corporations can be prevented from pitting countries against each other and are taxed fairly everywhere.
In conclusion, CRA professionals must receive the training, tools and resources they need to do their jobs. The CRA must receive appropriate funding to ensure that tax laws are enforced equitably and that wealthy individuals and powerful corporations are just as accountable as any other Canadian.
Additionally, there needs to be international co-operation and updates to legislation so that those who try the hardest to avoid taxes end up paying their fair share anyway.
Thank you for your time. Mr. Campbell and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Results: 16 - 30 of 196 | Page: 2 of 14

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

For more data options, please see Open Data