I rarely do this, but since we're talking about regional media and the survival of written media, I will read you an article. It's an editorial by Paul Journet that appeared on Monday and is titled “E-commerce: the scandal that no one cares about”:
There is no reason to tolerate foreign digital companies like Netflix paying no sales tax. In a normal world, this should be obvious. This article would even seem clumsy, like smashing into an open door with a bulldozer. But we don't live in a normal world. We are wading into a new astonishing ecosystem, the digital age, where injustice is disguised as innovation. Club Illico (Vidéotron), Tou.tv (Radio-Canada) and CraveTV (Bell) have to charge sales tax. Netflix does not, a windfall of about $85 million. The reason? The legislation is outdated. If a foreign digital company does not set up an office in Canada, it is not required to charge sales tax, even if its goods and services are consumed here and are taxable.* Foreign giants can therefore place their starting blocks ahead of the line. And what does the referee say? Almost nothing. After all, consumers love the show! If the debate has gone astray, it is primarily because of the Harper government. His remarks were no longer addressed to the citizen, nor even to the taxpayer. They were intended for the consumer. The message? We will not ruin your shows by taxing them. So the Conservatives created a taboo, the “Netflix tax”. During the last election, the Liberals and the New Democrats in turn promised not to impose it. It's a sneaky expression because it can mean two different things. The first is that the giant should contribute to the Media Fund to finance Canadian productions. The second is simply to require Netflix to charge sales tax as well. Participation in the Media Fund is both a burden and a benefit (if you fund it, you can also be funded in return to pay for local productions). It is a legitimate debate, but the one on the sales tax is not because there is nothing to debate. There is no justification for submitting to unfair competition. If you accept it, it is also because of some fuzzy techno-speak. People claim that the Internet is something that wants to be free. It's impossible to regulate it. Yet, tax fairness is not a 20th century idea, doomed to go the way of the fax machine. Resignation, however, is not the only choice. Australia is proving that with its new law that will require foreign digital companies to charge sales tax. The European Union and Japan, among others, have already moved in this direction. In Canada, people are finally speaking out and demanding the same thing. There was the Godbout report on Quebec taxation, the heartfelt cry of entrepreneur Peter Simons, and finally, this fall, the recommendation from the Chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The ball is in Ottawa and Quebec's court. It is the very start of the fight for tax fairness. The first step is the easiest. If we do not dare to take it, how can we claim to be fighting tax avoidance by tackling more complex problems, such as the transfer of corporate profits to other countries or to dozens of bilateral treaties? Charging sales tax is not a technical issue. It's a moral test.
The author added the following at the bottom of the page:
* The $85 million estimate was made by Marwah Rizqy, a professor at the School of Management at the University of Sherbrooke. If the foreign digital company does not have a significant presence on Canadian soil, such as an office, a bank account or employees, it is not required to register with the GST and QST or charge these taxes. It is therefore up to the consumer to remit sales taxes to the tax authorities.
This is what the author says here.
Self-assessment is extremely rare. Revenu Québec received only six self-assessment forms in 2011 and five in 2012.
I was keen to read this article.
According to your presentation, Mr. Keenan, we have been in international negotiations since 2015. Where are we now and why is it taking so long?