Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 232
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2020-02-19 16:04
I would like it to specify that we would like a francophone representative and an anglophone representative to be present. The report has two excellent spokespeople. Ms. Simard is one but there are perhaps others. Whatever the case, it would be appropriate for a francophone representative of the group to be present.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2020-02-19 16:05
Forgive my ignorance on the subject. This is the first time I have sat on a committee. I don’t know the precise way to make an amendment like that. My goal is simply for it to specify that there should be francophone representation when this very lengthy report is studied.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2020-02-19 16:06
Actually, I would like to make sure that there is francophone and anglophone representation.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-02-19 12:55
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Minister, I would like to draw your attention to one point in the mandate letter that the Prime Minister issued to you. It reads as follows:
Modernize anti-avoidance rules to stop large multinational companies from being able to shop for lower tax rates by constructing complex schemes between countries.
When I read that, I gather that it is about something immoral being made illegal, namely the legal use of tax havens by large companies. I am referring to what the IMF calls offshore financial centres. In those countries, companies pay no taxes, or they pay peanuts, and then they use the principle of non-double taxation in order to pay nothing here. That is one example of a complex tax scheme and, for me, it is so unfair as to be despicable.
In Canada, two paragraphs in section 5907 of the Income Tax Act Regulations make this scheme legal. The first is paragraph 5907(11.2)(c), which specifies that the exclusion of companies that enjoy a special tax benefit in Barbados simply does not apply. It invalidates article XXX of the treaty between Canada and Barbados. As a result, despite what the treaty says, despite what the legislation says, Canadian companies will be able to repatriate the profits from their affiliates in Barbados without paying tax.
In 2009, in a schedule attached to one of the mammoth budget implementation bills, the government included a section called "tax credit for medical expenses". It had nothing to do with a tax credit and contained a proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act Regulations that had nothing to do with medical expenses. Subsection 5907(11) in the Income Tax Act Regulations was amended to specify that, although information exchange agreements are not treaties, and although the Income Tax Act exempts only income and companies protected by treaty, income is exempted if it comes from a country with which Canada has entered into a comprehensive tax information exchange agreement.
It was put into effect retroactively, as of 2007. We therefore ended up with 22 new tax havens, and another three have been added subsequently. For example, in the last Parliament, Grenada was added, where the income tax rate is 0%. As it is 0%, the country does ask companies to provide an annual report or declare its income. So no information can be found. This is just so the provision can be used.
Here's what I want to ask you: in order to address that point in your mandate letter, do you plan to drop those provisions in the Income Tax Act Regulations that allow tax havens to be legally used? If so, can we expect to see that in the budget?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-02-19 12:58
I do not agree.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-02-19 12:59
Thank you.
Before Mr. Marsland comments, let me remind you that Canada is always behind other countries in applying the measures proposed by the OECD. So there is a lot to do in that respect. It is like the fight against climate change. It will have to be done together with other countries. But we have to start somewhere, and not wait for everything to be settled elsewhere and for everyone to be in agreement. Otherwise, nothing will ever be done.
Moreover, those two regulations could well be totally illegal, in my opinion, given that they violate the act. However, since they have never been challenged, they remain in effect. So let me invite you to turn your attention to those regulations.
I am now ready to hear from Mr. Marsland.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-02-19 13:31
Okay.
Mr. Minister, in the United States and in Europe, the aerospace sector is heavily subsidized by the state. European countries and the United States have policies to support aeronautics, because it is a very lucrative sector. However, it takes time to design models and make them profitable. Canada has no national aeronautics policy. Do you plan to develop such a policy?
Let me remind you that the aerospace sector is crucial for the economy of Quebec. When our aviation company needed assistance, it had to turn to the Government of Quebec and that kept its lights on. When the economy in the west needed help, investments totalling almost $20 billion were announced. In Ontario, the automotive industry needed about $10 billion. We can also think about the national shipbuilding strategy that helps the Maritimes and British Columbia, or even the hydroelectric dam project in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Do you plan to develop a serious aeronautics policy?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2020-02-19 13:33
The industry is asking for a policy.
View Louise Chabot Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
View Louise Chabot Profile
BQ (QC)
I want to make one comment to ensure that I fully understand this issue. Do we want to eliminate subcommittees and keep carrying out our work in the committee? Is that the meaning of the proposal?
View Louise Chabot Profile
BQ (QC)
I misunderstood, and that's why I want some clarification.
View Louise Chabot Profile
BQ (QC)
No. Thank you.
View Louise Chabot Profile
BQ (QC)
Perhaps my question relates more to our housekeeping rules.
View Louise Chabot Profile
BQ (QC)
Based on what we just passed regarding motions, a 48-hour notice is required. We've added the clarification of Eastern time. Right now, we've received a motion that we're debating. However, is now the time to debate the motion or should we postpone the debate? My question also concerns the future. Since we've adopted a 48-hour notice rule, how can we move a motion on the spot and pass it? That's the first point.
I mean, as far as the second point is concerned, I don't have any objection. However, I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that we should be holding public meetings as much as possible. I also thought that, as committee members, we had the prerogative to request an in camera session, depending on the situation. Unless I'm persuaded to do so, I don't see any point in passing this motion.
View Louise Chabot Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
Results: 1 - 15 of 232 | Page: 1 of 16

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

For more data options, please see Open Data