Hansard
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 79
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2021-05-06 10:42 [p.6763]
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that in this budget the Liberals made clear they would not tax the super-rich. We know that a few years ago when allegations were raised about KPMG shell companies and offshore tax fraud and tax havens, the Liberals not only shut down the investigation, but brought in one of the top KPMG people to handle Liberal finances. I guess those who run offshore shell companies for the uber-rich are probably great at handing Liberal finances. There are hundreds of millions of dollars hiding in offshore tax havens while working Canadians follow the rules and pay their fair share every day.
I would ask my hon. colleague about the efforts that are needed to force the Liberal government to reopen the KPMG investigation. We need to start naming the names of people who set up these shell companies and of the uber rich who are hiding their money and our taxes in these offshore havens.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay always stands on the side of regular families, whether they are in Timmins—James Bay or across the country.
He pointed out two things. The first is the massive amount of money that the government is ready to ensure can be kept by the ultrarich and profitable corporations. They can take it overseas with impunity. In fact, the Liberals have signed multiple tax treaties with overseas tax havens, which give companies and individuals the ability to take the money offshore. For the second thing, I have good news for the member. The NDP forced a vote at the finance committee, and a study on KPMG and tax havens will be starting this afternoon.
View Andy Fillmore Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Andy Fillmore Profile
2021-05-06 11:15 [p.6768]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his dedication to Canadians.
Clearly, especially in the context of the pandemic, there is a long list of things that we would all love to do right away. We have had to make some tough decisions on what gets funded and still maintain what has just be reaffirmed as Canada's AAA bond rating. Our ability to make those investments does come through some changes, as the member mentioned, in tax fairness.
I want to take this opportunity to touch on the fact that fighting tax evaders in Canada and abroad is a priority for this government. Since 2015, we have invested over $1 billion in the CRA's ability to crack down on complex tax schemes, in increased collaboration with international partners and in ultimately bringing offenders to justice. Changes like that will increase the coffers and allow us to check off more of those things on that long list of very meritorious programs that we need to initiate for Canadians.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague, the member of Parliament for Davenport.
It is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of budget 2021. As I stated during the budget debate, we as a government will continue to have the backs of Canadian workers and businesses as we continue the fight against COVID-19, but we will also take the next steps to position our economy for ongoing recovery and economic growth.
Simply, our ongoing focus is to strengthen Canada's middle class and help those who are working hard to join it. That has been our goal since Canadians, in the fall of 2015, entrusted us with moving Canada forward. As we fast forward to today, that is what we are laser focused on doing as a government. Strengthening a growing middle class, for me, equals a more inclusive and fair society.
It is a pleasure to represent the entrepreneurial and hard-working residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I wish to take a moment to encourage all residents who are eligible to receive a vaccine, to please make an appointment as soon as possible. My riding is home to a number of hot spots, and we need to ensure that all of our families and friends are safe and that life can get back to normal quickly. That can only occur through vaccinations.
I describe the budget as ambitious in attempting to answer the challenges we face not only today, but also tomorrow. Bill C-30 begins to implement this ambitious blueprint to build a resilient and more inclusive Canada.
In 2015, we promised Canadians that we would reduce taxes for millions of middle-class Canadians and raise them for the top 1%, and that is exactly what we did. In 2019, we again promised Canadians we would reduce their taxes by raising the amount of income they could earn without paying federal taxes. Bill C-30 implements that promise.
Bill C-30 will raise the basic personal exemption amount from $12,298 to $13,220 for the 2020 taxation year and, once fully implemented, to $15,000 for the 2023 taxation period. This tax reduction means that hard-working Canadians, including those in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, will see savings at the onset of $2.9 billion. Once fully implemented, it will result in $5.6 billion in lower taxes for 2023-2024 and thereafter.
It is estimated that hard-working individuals will save just under $300 per year, while middle-class Canadian families, on average, will save $600 per year. That is $600 for middle-class families to spend on groceries, kids' after-school sports or arts programs, or to put away as savings for their kids' education.
The increase is estimated to result in an additional 700,000 Canadians, including seniors and young people starting their careers, who will pay no federal tax at all. Just as important is that approximately 40,000 more Canadians will be lifted out of poverty by this measure. That is real progress and that is smart policy. That is how to build a stronger middle class and help those working hard to join the middle class.
Millions of hard-working Canadians will benefit from this tax reduction and hundreds of thousands will be lifted from the tax rolls. It is great to see that the implementation of the basic personal exemption increase will be done. It is an idea that I have long championed and one I put forth in the 2019 platform.
Bill C-30 will extend the current support programs through to September, and will continue to assist Canadian workers and businesses that remain impacted by COVID-19. The CEWS and the Canada emergency rent subsidy are programs that I know literally hundreds of businesses in my riding have used, and continue to use during this difficult third wave of the pandemic. Budget 2021 provides certainty and clarity to Canadian businesses on both of these key support programs. The city of Vaughan is home to over 12,000 small and medium-sized businesses and they know that our government continues to have their backs during COVID-19.
Our goal must not only be to recover the jobs lost because of the pandemic, but to once again create good, middle-class jobs for Canadians. Bill C-30 spurs job creation with a new Canada recovery hiring program that incentivizes the hiring of new workers as we emerge from the pandemic. To build a fairer and more inclusive economy that works for all Canadians, we need to ensure that our tax system is fair and inherently progressive, and that loopholes, unfair tax evasions and tax advantages are prudently closed.
In Bill C-30, our government will move forward to implement measures that will limit the benefit of employee stock option deductions for employees of large and well-established corporations. Stock options are valuable and important incentives for newly funded firms, such as tech firms or start-ups, to pay their employees as they grow the business while cash flow, or as it should be referred to free cash flow, is very low. I know how important entrepreneurs are, and how they create jobs and take on risk, and they should be rewarded. However, for well-established firms the tax advantages offered by stock options should be limited. I advocated for this differential treatment of stock options. It is a large measure for tax fairness, which I am very glad to see in Bill C-30.
In line with our allies such as France, Italy and the United Kingdom, we will move forward with the implementation of a digital tax. Bill C-30 proposes implementing a digital services tax, at a rate of 3%, on revenue from digital services that rely on data and content contributions from Canadian users. The measure would apply to large businesses with gross revenues of 750 million euros or more. It would come into effect by January 1, 2022, and is anticipated to raise approximately $3.4 billion.
We will continue to provide tools and resources to the CRA as it combats tax evasion to ensure everyone pays their fair share.
Our government continues to strengthen the disability tax credit and related programs used by Canadians with special abilities. Bill C-30 proposes to remove the time limit for a registered disability savings plan to remain registered after the cessation of a beneficiary's eligibility for the disability tax credit, and to modify rent and bond repayment obligations. This again fulfills a promise of our government to the disability community. As noted in budget 2021, an expansion of the disability tax credit would take place to provide further support and expansion to the number of disabled Canadians eligible for the DTC.
Bill C-30 implements our budget promise with a major expansion to the Canada workers benefit of nearly $9 billion over six years and $1.7 billion annually. Approximately one million additional hard-working Canadians will benefit, and 100,000 are estimated to be lifted out of poverty with a strengthened CWB. We have a moral obligation to ensure that work allows individuals to live in dignity. We know how important the dignity of work is, but we need to ensure that individuals who are working hard are not falling behind. I have long favoured the Canada workers benefit as an effective income support measure. Along with prior enhancements to the program, namely in budget 2018, approximately three million Canadians will now benefit from this program. The CWB's effectiveness was strengthened with automatic enrolment for the non-refundable credit via the Canada Revenue Agency, which ensures all Canadians who are entitled to the credit will receive it.
In conjunction with the CWB increase, it is great to see that the minimum wage for federally regulated workers will be set at $15 per hour and adjusted upward annually on the basis of the consumer price index in Canada.
Bill C-30 implements a number of measures for seniors and students, both of whom we know have been impacted by COVID-19 in different ways. For students, Bill C-30 amends the Canada Student Loans Act and also the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. These amendments will provide students with approximately $3 billion in relief. In addition, no students will have to begin repaying their loans until they earn $40,000 per year. Combined, these measures will support an additional 121,000 students.
I wish to end by discussing our seniors, including my parents Rocco and Vincenza. These people built our country. They sacrificed, worked hard and built the strong foundations we now rely on. We know that our seniors, including my parents, helped build our country and sacrificed so much. Their fiscal prudence, work ethic and ingenuity continue to inspire me today.
We will fulfill our promise to raise old age security by 10% for seniors 75 years of age and older effective June 2022. This measure will benefit 3.3 million seniors, and is a $12 billion investment in our seniors over the next five years.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 554--
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to the government's estimation, in the Fall Economic Statement 2020, on the Canada Revenue Agency's (CRA) investments to tackle tax evasion, “It is estimated that these incremental investments have already delivered over $3 billion in additional federal tax revenues assessed”, broken down by fiscal year, from 2016-17 to date: (a) what is the breakdown of the $3 billion in additional federal tax revenues assessed by (i) taxpayer categories, (ii) CRA compliance programs and services; (b) what methodology was used to estimate the amount of $3 billion; and (c) does the federal tax revenue estimate of over $3 billion represent the total amount recovered or is a portion of the amount still being appealed in the courts?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the above-noted question, what follows is the response from the CRA.
In response to part (a)(i), the CRA is unable to provide the information as it is not captured in the manner requested.
In response to part (a)(ii), the CRA is unable to provide the information as there is no formal breakdown of the estimated $3 billion in the manner requested.
In response to part (b), the CRA tracks gross tax earned by audit, for federal tax, and gross revenue impact, for federal tax, plus provincial tax, plus penalties, for all of its compliance activities. In tracking additional gross tax revenue resulting from increased audit resources, the CRA formula tracks the relative increase in dollars over the historical baseline of results.
In response to part (c), the estimate is based on the gross federal amounts reassessed, plus audit changes that impact future revenues, and does not include a reserve for amounts that may be reversed on appeal.

Question No. 559--
Ms. Christine Normandin:
With regard to spousal sponsorship and visa applications, the staffing and operation of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) visa offices (VOs) abroad, with responses broken down by the Accra, Mexico City, Dakar, New Delhi, Port-au-Prince, London, Paris and Cairo offices: (a) since January 1, 2019, how many spousal sponsorship applications were received each month, broken down by the applicant’s country of residence; (b) of the applications in (a), how many (i) were processed, broken down by the applicant’s country of residence, (ii) had to redo a medical exam because the original exam had expired in the process, (iii) had to redo their police or security clearance because the original clearance had expired in the process; (c) of the applications in (b)(i), how many (i) were accepted, (ii) were rejected, (iii) are in process; (d) of the applications in (c)(iii), how many are awaiting an interview, either virtually or in person, with an immigration officer; (e) how many officers (i) were hired for each of the VOs as of September 24, 2020, (ii) have been hired since the IRCC Minister’s announcement of September 24, 2020; (f) of the number in (e)(ii), broken down by month from March 2020 to date, how many officers (i) were working on site, (ii) were working from home, (iii) could not work due to COVID-19; (g) during the COVID-19 pandemic, were these VOs closed, and, if so, on which date did they reopen; (h) do these VOs have the equipment required to conduct virtual interviews; (i) on what date did the spousal sponsorship application digitization pilot program announced on September 24, 2020, officially begin and what percentage of the applications have been digitized since then; (j) since January 1, 2019, how many visitor visa applications linked to a sponsorship application have been received each month, broken down by the applicant’s country of address; (k) of the applications in (j), how many were processed each month; (l) of the applications in (k), how many (i) were accepted, (ii) were rejected, (iii) are in process; (m) how many sponsorship applications have been finalized, broken down by month since January 2019; and (n) of the applications in (m), how many were rejected?
Response
Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. IRCC concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No. 563--
Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas:
With regard to the Prime Minister’s new website and new official portrait: (a) what is the total cost of the Prime Minister’s website redesign project, including the (i) amount spent on writing biographical content about the Prime Minister, (ii) graphic design, (iii) website development, (iv) migration of the content from the old website to the new one, (v) Prime Minister’s new official portrait, (vi) translation and language editing costs; (b) what is the number of full-time equivalents assigned to the Prime Minister’s website update project; and (c) has the Privy Council Office used external suppliers for this project, and, if so, what are the (i) dates of contracts, (ii) value of contracts, (iii) names of suppliers, (iv) reference numbers, (v) description of the services provided?
Response
Mr. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the response from the Office of the Prime Minister is as follows.
The recent updates to the Prime Minister’s website, which were adapted from the site created to support the new Deputy Prime Minister, have improved usability for site visitors and provided a fresh code base that is much faster and easier to maintain from an operational perspective. The changes not only help our developers and publishers do their work more efficiently, but the fresh code base also provides for future maintainability of the health and security of the site.
The Prime Minister’s website has features that allow users to subscribe to and unsubscribe from specific news products via email, request celebratory greetings from the Prime Minister, submit correspondence, and view videos that are both captioned and accompanied by full transcripts for accessibility reasons.
These changes will allow developers and editors to do their work more efficiently, while also allowing for future maintenance of the website security.
Information pertaining to contracts over $10,000 is available by department through the following proactive disclosure of contracts web page: https://search.open.canada.ca/en/ct/.

Question No. 564--
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille:
With regard to the disposal of lands along the St. Lawrence Seaway that began in 2013, particularly in the Municipality of Beauharnois (Melocheville sector), and the appraisal of these lands by the Canada Lands Company: (a) what is the timeframe that the Department of Transport has set for the Canada Lands Company to complete this appraisal; and (b) what are the next steps, as well as the timelines for each of these steps, to complete the disposal process?
Response
Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a) and (b), discussions with Canada Lands Company are ongoing, with the outcome to determine the precise next steps and the timing. It is not anticipated that any of the surplus Seaway properties in Quebec will be disposed of prior to fiscal year 2022-23.
The surplus Seaway properties in the Montreal area are part of a larger portfolio of such properties that also includes lands in Ontario, in Cornwall and the Niagara region. Pursuant to Treasury Board policies regarding the disposal of surplus federal properties, Transport Canada has engaged Canada Lands Company regarding the divestiture of the entire portfolio. For the properties in Quebec, Transport Canada has completed due diligence activities, including survey work, appraisals and the canvassing of potential interest in the properties from all three levels of government for public purpose.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 555--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard fleet renewal and the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS): (a) what is the list of each vessel, including the (i) name, (ii) region, (iii) home port, (iv) area of operations, i.e. north or south or both, (v) year commissioned, (vi) notional operational life, (vii) current age, (viii) percentage of operational notional life, as of 2021, (ix) planned end of service life (EOSL), (x) age at the end of EOSL, (xi) percentage of notional operational life at EOSL, (xii) confirm whether funding has been provided for a replacement or not, (xiii) how much funding has been provided or allocated, including taxes and contingencies for each vessel replacement, (xiv) date funding provided, (xv) date on which a replacement vessel is expected to be (A) designed, (B) constructed, (C) commissioned; (b) what are all the reasons why the polar icebreaker was removed from the Seaspan’s umbrella agreement in 2019 and substituted by 16 multi-purpose vessels; (c) what are all the risks identified with building a polar icebreaker at the Vancouver Shipyards; (d) what are the proposed scope, the schedule and the draft or anticipated budget for the replacement of the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent and the CCGS Terry Fox polar icebreaker; (e) what is the summary of risks, including the (i) scope, (ii) budget, (iii) schedule, related to building the offshore oceanographic science vessel and the multi-purpose vessels; and (f) what are the anticipated benefits for the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard of adding a third shipyard to the NSS?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 556--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS): (a) what is the full budget for the Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC), including (i) design, (ii) construction, (iii) licences, including intellectual property (IP) licences, (iv) spares, (v) taxes, (vi) contingencies, (vii) any specific infrastructure required for building the CSC in Halifax and all associated costs and considerations; (b) what is the total expected cost or value of the Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Policies on each vessel built under the NSS, including an explanation of how these costs are calculated and how the ITB costs are validated; (c) what is the list of estimated costs that the ITB policies is adding to each vessel under the NSS, and the summary of any discussion had at the NSS Secretariat, Privy Council Office or at the deputy minister level regarding costs of the ITB policies as it relates to NSS; (d) what is the summary of any analysis conducted on the ITB policies, and a comparison in relation to any similar policy existing in the United Kingdom or in the United States frigate programs; and (e) what is the full costing of the first Arctic and offshore patrol ship, including the cost of (i) design, (ii) IP licences; (iii) construction, (iv) commissioning, (v) taxes, (vi) profit, (vii) contingencies?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 557--
Ms. Raquel Dancho:
With regard to data breaches involving Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), including data breaches that may have involved IRCC facilities or subcontractors abroad: (a) how many data breaches have occurred at IRCC or CBSA since January 1, 2020; (b) what are the details of each breach, including the (i) description or summary of the incident and the date, (ii) number of individuals whose information was involved, (iii) whether or not individuals whose information was involved were contacted, (iv) whether or not the Privacy Commissioner was notified, (v) whether or not the RCMP was notified; (c) how many RCMP investigations related to data breaches involving IRCC or CBSA have either been initiated or are ongoing; and (d) what were the results of the investigations in (c)?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 558--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), since January 2020, broken down by month: (a) how many phone calls did the CRA receive from the general public; (b) what was the average wait time for an individual who contacted the CRA by phone before first making contact with a live employee; (c) what was the average wait or on hold time after first being connected with a live employee; (d) what was the average duration of total call time, including the time waiting or on hold, for an individual who contacted the CRA by phone; and (e) how many documented server, website, portal or system errors occurred on the CRA website?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 560--
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to the government’s quarantine requirement for travellers arriving by air, broken down by point of entry (i.e. airport where the traveller arrived in Canada): (a) how many travellers have been (i) arrested, (ii) charged in relation to violations of the Quarantine Act; and (b) how many individuals have been charged with a Criminal Code offence related to an incident at a quarantine facility, broken down by type of offence?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 561--
Ms. Elizabeth May:
With regard to the defrauding of many Canadians, including CINAR, facilitated by the Isle of Man offshore trust scam: (a) what steps have the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), and any other government agencies taken to track and trace funds obtained illegally and held in offshore accounts; (b) what efforts have the CRA, the RCMP, the CSIS, and any other government agencies taken to recover the funds defrauded from CINAR and other Canadian investors; (c) what were the specific roles of respective government departments and agencies in the secret KPMG amnesty deal relating to the Isle of Man; (d) what role, if any, was played by the Department of Justice in aborting a Standing Committee on Finance study into the matter; and (e) what specific lobbying activities occurred with the Prime Minister or others in the federal government relating to the Isle of Man scam, including by the Liberal Party of Canada treasurer and retired KPMG partner, John Herhaldt?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 562--
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to the government’s commitment to address the practice of conversion therapy in Canada: (a) what steps are being taken, at the federal level, to prevent this practice from taking place; (b) how, and through which programs, is the government proactively promoting and applying the Canadian Guidelines on Sexual Health Education, as an upstream prevention strategy, for affirming the sexual orientation and gender identities of LGBTQ2 young people before they may be exposed to conversion therapy; (c) what resources will the government be providing to survivors who have experienced psychological trauma and other negative effects from conversion therapy, through interventions such as counselling and peer supports programs; (d) how is the government planning to work with faith leaders, counsellors, educators and other relevant service providers to equip individuals with tools to identify and stop conversion therapy; and (e) what steps is the government taking to address numerous recommendations received from the United Nations to harmonize sexuality education curricula across jurisdictions in Canada?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 565--
Mr. Denis Trudel:
With regard to federal government investments in housing, for each fiscal year since 2017–18, broken down by province and territory: (a) what was the total amount of federal funding allocated to housing in Canada; (b) how many applications were received for (i) the National Housing Strategy (NHS) overall, (ii) the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, (iii) the Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (iv) the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, (v) the Rapid Housing Initiative under the projects stream, (vi) the Federal Lands Initiative, (vii) the Federal Community Housing Initiative, (viii) Reaching Home, (ix) the Shared Equity Mortgage Providers Fund, (x) the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive, (xi) the NHS's Solutions Labs Initiative; (c) of the applications under (b), for each funding program and initiative, how many were accepted; (d) of the applications under (c), for each funding program and initiative, what was the amount of federal funding allocated; (e) of the amounts in (d) allocated in the Province of Quebec, for each funding program and initiative, what is the breakdown per region; and (f) of the amounts in (b)(xi), what criteria were used for project selection?
Response
(Return tabled)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-04-30 13:34 [p.6485]
moved:
That, given that the pandemic and the pressure it is putting on public finances has created the urgent need to close the loopholes being taken advantage of by some taxpayers through the use of tax havens, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
(a) amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;
(b) review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;
(c) require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;
(d) review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;
(e) work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion; and
(f) use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how happy I am to speak to this motion today. I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for supporting me in this presentation.
As we face a major public finance crisis, we must look at how we could eventually balance our public finances. Two options are always available to governments: increasing taxes or reducing services. This means taking more money out of taxpayers’ pockets or imposing austerity measures. However, while we are thinking of ways to make the people take their medicine, some people are avoiding doing their duty and not contributing according to their means.
In his speech to Congress this week, President Biden said that, according to one study, 55 of the largest businesses in the United States did not pay a penny in federal income tax last year, although they made some $40 billion in profits during the same period. How can that be?
There are two mechanisms that allow companies to shelter income from taxes. First, there are tax loopholes, which are measures provided for by law. When people have enough money, they can hire an army of accountants and tax experts to find the best ways of avoiding paying their fair share. It does not matter whether we are talking about an individual or a business. President Biden referred to the wealthiest people in the U.S., whose tax rate is lower than that of the middle class. That is unacceptable, despicable and scandalous. We need to look at tax loopholes.
There are also tax havens. What is a tax haven? It is a territory where income tax is almost non-existent. Businesses create satellite companies, and sometimes fictitious subsidiaries, in these territories to shelter their profits from the taxman. These subsidiaries exist only to enable companies to shelter their assets from taxes. They do not engage in any business activities or operations. They are empty shells that enable companies to avoid paying their fair share to society.
However transparent or opaque tax havens may be, everyone knows about them and about their impact on public finances. These schemes set up by accountants and other financiers or tax experts can go as far as tax evasion, simply hiding their clients’ income and wealth from the tax authorities. All these mechanisms are ways that some people use to avoid paying their fair share to the government, while other taxpayers continue to pay.
What makes this even more troubling is that, in many cases, these tax havens allow for tax avoidance or tax evasion and often become essential links in international criminal activity, making it possible for organized crime to launder money. Governments are powerless in the face of these tax havens, which create, or are complicit in, tax inequity among countries.
With advances in technology it is very easy to instantly transfer information and money, which makes it much more difficult to track operations.
In 2016, economist and legal expert James S. Henry calculated that a mind-boggling total of more than $36 trillion U.S. was in tax havens. We are talking about 36 trillion American dollars.
In 2017, no less than 40% of international financial transactions allegedly passed through tax havens, in one way or another, according to economist Gabriel Zucman.
The International Monetary Fund estimates that the use of tax havens cost governments a staggering $800 billion. This represents approximately $600 billion a year in corporate taxes and $200 billion a year in personal income taxes.
Tax havens are therefore a political issue that the House must absolutely address. Eliminating them is in the interest of our citizens. We must no longer give a free ride to profiteers, who have a vested interest in keeping these tax havens in place.
Canadian companies are far from being above reproach, since one-third of all Canadian foreign investments are in tax havens. According to Statistics Canada, Canadian businesses invested $381 billion in the 12 main tax havens in 2019.
That same year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that these were not really investments, but actually accounting operations aimed at avoiding paying tax. The Canada Revenue Agency estimated that Canadian businesses' investments in tax havens deprive the government of $11.4 billion in tax annually, and that large companies are responsible for 75% of this amount. That is four times more than the CRA estimated it loses to investments in tax havens by individuals in a report published a year earlier. I think that we need to recognize that there is a certain laxity, and that we need to react.
In 2018, the Minister of National Revenue boasted in the House that the Canada Revenue Agency was going to recover $15 billion as a result of its international tax investigations. The CRA's annual report indicates a far more modest result. It mentions a paltry $25 million, 600 times less than the minister estimated.
We recently learned that, five years after the Panama papers leak, the Canada Revenue Agency had yet to lay charges and had only claimed $21 million in unpaid taxes for the entire country.
Revenu Québec, however, recovered $21 million in addition to the $12 million it claimed and that remains unpaid, for a total of $33 million, for Quebec alone. It did so without the benefit of the international tax information the Canada Revenue Agency has access to.
It therefore appears that the Canada Revenue Agency and the federal government are among the most lax when it comes to prosecuting tax fraud. Moreover, the federal government is complicit in the increased use of tax havens because it literally legalized their use.
In 1994, Jean Chrétien's Liberal government allowed companies to repatriate the income earned in Barbados without paying a penny in tax. Paul Martin, who was finance minister at the time, took advantage of the regulatory change to register his company Canada Steamship Lines there.
Stephen Harper's Conservative government went even further, making a regulatory change that legalized 18 new tax havens. Five more have been added since then, 3 under the current Liberal government's previous mandate, which makes it 23 tax havens legalized through regulation.
The House of Commons never had a word to say about it. This major change was made by simple regulatory amendment, which the government tried to hid in a mishmash of documents.
As I said earlier, all of these changes were made by way of regulation. The House of Commons was never asked to consider the matter. Canada therefore plays a major role in international tax havens, but we wonder whether it is doing so for the right reasons.
There is a close connection between the federal government and certain West Indian tax havens, since Canada speaks not only on its own behalf, but on behalf of some of these tax havens. I am talking about countries like Barbados, Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Saint Lucia, for which Canada speaks at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund. That is unbelievable.
It appears, then, that tax havens have decided that Canada should defend their interests before international financial institutions, but who is defending the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians?
In addition to this highly questionable situation, we see that the digital multinationals have VIP passes that allow them to do business in Canada without paying a cent in taxes. The budget contained some indications that this will change, but why did the government wait so long, when businesses in Quebec and Canada pay their taxes?
The federal government, with its careless and cavalier attitude, has been complicit in allowing this loss of revenue for our public purse. Quebec has no fiscal leeway because it needs to know an income exists to be able to tax it. However, it is the federal government that signs the tax agreements and information-sharing agreements so it is the only one authorized to request tax information, pursuant to the Income Tax Act.
Quebec, in particular, is losing out on revenue because of Ottawa's complacency, and, as I was saying, Quebec does not have much leeway. All of this lost revenue could be put towards much-needed investments in health care, education and infrastructure.
It is also unfortunate that the single tax return bill was not passed, because it would have given Revenu Québec direct access to foreign tax information. That would have been a good thing, because Revenu Québec has proven much more effective than the Canada Revenue Agency in recovering money hidden in tax havens. If Revenu Québec was able to do better than the CRA using only the information it obtained from media leaks, imagine what it could do if it had direct access to foreign tax information.
Motion No. 69 proposes several solutions. It proposes to:
(a) amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;
We would also need to repeal subsection 5907(1) of the Income Tax Regulations, which I talked about earlier. The motion also proposes to:
(b) review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;
We are talking about “shell companies” that do not engage in any real business activity but should be paying taxes in Canada. The motion also proposes to:
(c) require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;
In 2019, Canada's big six banks generated record profits of $46 billion, 50% more than five years before. In 2020, despite the pandemic, they made $41 billion. Their profits are going up, but they are paying less tax. We can only assume this is because they are investing in tax havens.
(d) review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;
(e) work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion; and
(f) use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2021-04-30 13:49 [p.6487]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Montarville for that very inspiring speech.
I wonder if he could comment on this. The revenue minister boasts about investing $1 billion in the fight against tax avoidance and tax evasion. As we know that has had only so-so results.
From my colleague's perspective, I would like to know what message that sends about the government's true intentions. Maybe it does not really want to crack down on companies that engage in tax evasion and tax avoidance. It could use regulations to do so at no added cost, after all.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-04-30 13:50 [p.6487]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Jean just raised a very good point.
The government does like to brag about wanting to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance. It invests huge amounts of money, with mixed results, as I have talked about in the past. All it needs to do is simply outlaw what was legalized through regulation. The first step would be simply to amend the regulations that made Canada an accomplice to 23 tax havens simply via regulation, meaning that parliamentarians in the House of Commons could not even vote on the matter.
All it took was a quick cabinet meeting, and then they tried to hide it in a mishmash of documents to get it through. That would be a step in the right direction towards combatting tax avoidance and tax evasion.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2021-04-30 13:51 [p.6488]
Mr. Speaker, the government has a tendency to measure its success in any matter of public policy by how much money it spends on it. Of course it is not a matter of what is spent; it is a matter of what results are achieved. In the last Parliament, the Auditor General remarked that the government's expenditures in the area of combatting tax evasion really did not bring in anywhere near the amount of money that it had promised or claimed it would.
Would the member comment on the rhetoric that we hear about money spent on fixing a problem versus actually addressing a problem?
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-04-30 13:52 [p.6488]
Mr. Speaker, that question seems to complement the one from my colleague from Saint-Jean.
As I was just saying, the first tangible move would be to amend the regulations that helped make it legal for Canadian companies to use 23 tax havens. Rather than combatting them, we are literally being complicit in these tax havens. The government can brag about investing $1 billion, but as we have seen, the results do not justify the investment.
There is another thing we could do. The Biden administration is proposing a global minimum tax. Unfortunately, it would take unanimous agreement from member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, to proceed. Will Canada speak up for countries, like the United States, that want to get rid of tax havens, or will it continue to speak for tax havens at the OECD?
That is a good question that we should be asking the government.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Montarville, for his initiative.
We sometimes have differences of opinion on certain issues, but I believe that we will fully agree on this one. The NDP has also been fighting against tax havens for years.
My thoughts are similar to those of the member for Saint-Jean. As the title of Alain Deneault's book Legalizing Theft implies, a good part of the problem is that what we are condemning is not illegal. We are being robbed of money for our social programs and public funds. This has all been organized by Canadian governments, both Conservative and Liberal, and the big banks in large part. The Minister of Revenue can boast all she wants about having more inspectors, but when it is legal to rob a bank, putting more police in front of the bank will not make much of a difference.
What would my colleague say to the Liberal government about its hypocrisy on this issue?
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-04-30 13:54 [p.6488]
Mr. Speaker, I will just say that I completely agree with the member.
The government cannot claim to be combatting tax evasion and avoidance while at the same time creating all of the measures and mechanisms that allow this to happen.
That is what the federal government did, however, first under Jean Chrétien's Liberal government, then under Stephen Harper's Conservative government, and now, under the current Prime Minister.
The only way to stop tax evasion and avoidance is to get serious and take the bull by its horns, instead of grandstanding and claiming to be investing however many millions or billions of dollars to combat these practices.
As my colleague from Saint-Jean pointed out, a simple change to the regulations could address much of the problem with one stroke of the pen.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate on Motion No. 69.
Shutting down tax evasion and avoidance is a major priority for the government, and it is a priority we have made and been able to take great strides in advancing. It is only in its execution that Motion No. 69 would raise concerns. Canadians expect and deserve a tax system that is fair and effective in supporting their highest priorities. Canadian businesses should pay their fair share of taxes, but they should also be able to compete on a fair and equal footing with their international counterparts so they can grow, create jobs and pay taxes here in Canada.
It is in this regard that the deficiencies of this motion are most apparent. It includes elements that are poorly targeted at achieving their desired results and that could carry negative consequences for businesses and taxpayers. Moreover, the objectives it seeks to achieve would be better addressed through the government initiatives to address tax evasion and avoidance that are already under way.
I would like to discuss some of the consequences of Motion No. 69.
The motion proposes, for example, that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada. In short, it would change what is known as the “exempt surplus treatment” within the income tax. These provisions allow foreign active business income earned by foreign subsidiaries of Canadian corporations to be repatriated to the Canadian corporation as dividends free from Canadian tax, provided the subsidiary is resident and earns the income in a jurisdiction with which Canada has a tax treaty or a tax information exchange agreement.
By changing these income tax rules, this proposal would represent a major change in Canada's international tax policy. At the same time, it would be well targeted toward achieving its apparent objectives and it could potentially have several other negative consequences.
First, the proposal would put Canadian tax rules out of step with international norms. Canada's exempt surplus treatment is long-standing and is consistent with the tax treatment that most other developed countries apply to active business income earned by foreign corporations owned by their residents.
Second, the proposal could adversely impact the competitiveness of Canadian businesses. Exempt surplus treatment is applicable only to foreign active business income. It ensures that foreign subsidiaries of Canadian companies carrying on business in tax treaty countries or countries with which we have a tax information exchange agreement face similar tax rates and compete on an equal footing with other businesses active in those countries. Restricting exempt surplus treatment could therefore undermine the international competitiveness of Canadian companies operating abroad.
Third, the proposal may not generate significant revenues, if any, and may at the same time reduce the amount of profits repatriated and invested in Canadian businesses. It would do so by encouraging Canadian companies that do not require access to their foreign profits in the short term to keep those profits offshore in order to avoid paying Canadian taxes on repatriation. This would result in less foreign profit being repatriated and invested in Canadian businesses, which would reduce taxable Canadian income generated from such investments or from distributions to Canadian shareholders.
It could also result in some Canadian companies paying more tax on their foreign profits to foreign governments and not to Canada. This would occur because the proposal would require setting a threshold foreign tax rate below which exempt surplus treatment would no longer be available. This would incentivize companies that need to repatriate their foreign profits in the short term and wish to benefit from exempt surplus treatment to earn those profits in subsidiaries located in foreign jurisdictions whose tax rates are higher than this threshold rate, but still lower than the Canadian rate.
This would leave less after-tax profits to be repatriated and reinvested in Canadian businesses, which would in turn reduce the taxable Canadian income that is generated when these profits are reinvested or paid out to shareholders. Moreover, the Canadian tax system already has a set of rules that are better targeted at shutting down the kind of tax avoidance at which this proposal appears to be aimed. These rules, known as the foreign accrual property income, or FAPI, rules, are designed to prevent taxpayers from avoiding Canadian taxes by earning investment income or certain types of highly mobile active business income, offshore in low-tax jurisdictions.
The FAPI rules subject these types of income to Canadian tax when it is earned by foreign corporations that are owned by Canadian resident individuals or corporations, thus ensuring that the tax treatment is the same as if the income had been earned in Canada. By targeting more mobile income, rather than active business income in general, the FAPI rules largely avoid the sort of adverse competitiveness effects that Motion No. 69 would entail, so what the motion is offering is a bad solution where a better one already exists.
Our government already recognizes the ongoing risks arising from tax planning arrangements used by multinational enterprises to minimize their taxes. The solutions we continue to implement are achieving their goals without hobbling Canadian businesses. Our government is currently working with the 138 nations of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting, to develop a multilateral approach to modernizing the international tax rules. Part of this work involves the development of a global minimum tax regime, commonly referred to as “pillar two”. This new tax regime would ensure that large multinational enterprises pay tax at an agreed minimum rate by allowing countries like Canada to tax their foreign profits when they are earned, as opposed to when they are ultimately repatriated to Canada, if the profits have been taxed at a low rate in the foreign jurisdiction in which they are located.
Our goal is to discourage base erosion and profit shifting by reducing the benefits of earning income in low-tax jurisdictions, but do so through the multilateral consensus-based approach that is more effective than a unilateral action. That would mitigate many, if not all, of the concerns identified within this motion.
In conclusion, I have expended my allotted time addressing the serious problems related to just one element of this motion. This should be enough to give hon. members pause about supporting this motion. Should this debate continue, I would be pleased to present many more.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2021-04-30 14:04 [p.6489]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montarville for moving this motion, even though I find it a bit odd that he is asking for the support of members of the House while criticizing the work that the Conservatives have done to fight tax evasion.
Today, we have another opportunity to show Canadians that the Conservatives are firmly resolved to combatting tax evasion. We believe it is important to maintain a sense of tax fairness at all levels. Simply put, those who avoid paying taxes, which is illegal, should not be allowed to get rich at the expense of honest, hard-working Canadians.
The world is still fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. As we know, economies have been hard hit and that has created a lot of financial uncertainty. It is therefore more important than ever that measures be taken to guarantee the security of our tax systems and the collection of taxes by governments.
The disproportionate deficit that the Liberal government is currently running only reinforces the urgent need to put an end to tax evasion. The money that is flooding into tax havens will be needed to help our children's great-grandchildren pay off the no-limit credit card the Liberal government has in its hands.
Various estimates suggest that Canada loses between $5 billion and $10 billion annually to tax havens. For instance, a November 2020 report by the Tax Justice Network suggests that Canada loses $7.9 billion annually to tax havens. That is equivalent to the annual salaries of about 100,000 nurses. That is a lot of money.
A report published by the Quebec National Assembly in March 2017 estimated that tax havens have prevented the Province of Quebec from collecting between $0.8 billion and $1 billion in taxes. According to the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine, Quebec is actually losing between $1 billion and $2 billion. According to some estimates, the number could be even higher.
The Tax Justice Network report estimates that Canada is responsible for $10 billion in losses in other countries. Although Canadians have a lot to lose because of tax evasion, it is important to realize that other countries are also significantly affected by these illegal and fraudulent practices. We should note that the poorest countries tend to suffer more from problems related to tax evasion.
Between April 2014 and March 2020, Canadian courts found 263 people guilty of tax evasion. Is that a lot of people or not many? We do not know. According to the sentencing, these 263 people hid $118 million in federal taxes. Collectively, they were fined $32 million and sentenced to 230 years in prison. That may seem like a lot, but if we compare this to the real figures on tax evasion in Canada, we realize that it is very little. This is no small matter, especially since we have not yet managed to reach the objective of having everyone pay their taxes.
We must continue to take measures to ensure that taxes are paid and that people who unfairly try to avoid their obligations are held accountable. Fraudulent companies established in tax havens have not only avoided paying taxes but have also stolen money from Canadian workers' personal funds. In a recent case, more than $500 million was siphoned from Canada to the Isle of Man, in order to hide that money from creditors. This case involved massive amounts of money, including entire retirement funds, which were lost as a result of fraudulent activities.
Although the executives of the companies involved were found guilty of fraud, the majority of the money they had earned from their illegal activities was never found. The contributors to these pension funds were swindled. Unfortunately, these Canadians and many others were robbed of their savings, and they will never see that money again. We need to implement measures to ensure that fraudsters are never able to exploit Canadians like that again.
The Conservative Party believes that individuals and businesses must pay their fair share of taxes. Corporate tax evasion entails significant economic and social costs. It is unacceptable for the largest companies in the world and the wealthiest individuals to thumb their noses at Canada's tax system or any other system.
Billions of dollars in revenue are being stolen from governments, and inequality is growing. In the end, the biggest victims are consumers, small businesses and the economy in general.
Throughout its history, the Conservative Party of Canada has maintained a strong record when it comes to combatting tax evasion and cracking down on tax havens. In fact, the former Conservative government introduced more than 85 measures to close tax loopholes and improve the fairness and integrity of our system.
For example, budget 2013 introduced changes to the Canada Revenue Agency's compliance programs, which enhanced the effectiveness and integrity of the tax system by targeting tax evaders who were considered high risk. These changes generated over $1.5 billion in additional annual revenue.
To go back a little further, as minister of finance, the late Jim Flaherty announced an initiative to crack down on tax havens in budget 2007. At the time, he said, and I quote:
When multinational corporations use this tax loophole, Canadian taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing their international operations. Our goal is to improve the fairness of our tax system and further reduce taxes for hard-working Canadians while preserving Canada's overall tax advantage...
This anti-tax-haven initiative was launched to prevent multinational corporations from using tax avoidance structures to generate two expense deductions for only one investment. This initiative also sought to appoint an advisory panel of experts to look for ways to generally improve and leverage the fairness and competitiveness of Canada's international tax system.
I also want to remind members that the Conservatives supported a 2016 report from the Standing Committee on Finance on tax evasion and tax loopholes. That report specifically recommended that the Income Tax Act be reviewed and that steps be taken to improve coordination between the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Justice in the investigation and prosecution of cases of tax evasion.
The Conservative Party has always stood strong in the fight against tax evasion in order to ensure fairness and prosperity for all Canadians. We will always continue to do so.
We still have a long way to go, though. A 2019 CRA report revealed that 20% of respondents believed the benefits of tax cheating outweighed the risks, 13% felt that tax evasion was no big deal, and 26% did not think they would be caught trying to evade taxes. In other words, it is going to take a lot of work to fight tax evasion. The government needs to send the public a clear message.
Getting back to Motion No. 69, I want to tell my hon. colleague that passing laws on these issues must be done with care and attention. Some parts of his motion call for more thorough consideration. That is for another day, however. Today, the Conservative Party also believes that, during a crisis, the government must ensure that all taxes legally owed by Canadians are duly paid. To do any less would be inappropriate.
I hope my colleagues will soon be able to thoroughly examine these issues during a Standing Committee on Finance study on tax evasion. Our party has an impressive record when it comes to fighting tax evasion. We will always stand up for the best interests of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
In conclusion, our party will support the motion so that it may be studied in committee. Fighting tax fraud and tax evasion is a tough task because the perpetrators have almost unlimited means to avoid paying the Canadian government what they owe. Parliamentarians have a clear role to play. They have to send a clear message that these practices are illegal, unjust and unfair and will never be tolerated.
Results: 16 - 30 of 79 | Page: 2 of 6

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data