I would disagree with you. I’m not at all impressed with the OECD’s efforts, insofar as Pascal Saint‑Amans’ approach is to say that the issue is technically complicated to an unimaginable degree, that 200 different tax regimes need to be harmonized, that it is a real headache, that there is such an enormous amount of synthesis work to be done that it will never be finished, and so forth.
Small measures are introduced that undoubtedly result in progress here and there. However, we need to keep in mind that we are dealing with multinationals that have armies of lawyers, accountants and tax specialists to circumvent the structures we are trying to put in place.
I am talking about something that is quite different. It is not good enough to say that the problem is technical and that tax regimes need to be harmonized. There needs to be a discussion at a political level, saying; you have passed laws on how a company operating in our country will be taxed. You have created a kind of buffer between traditional states and tax havens, where the money ultimately disappears and is no longer formally in the state where it was generated because it has been transferred to an entity in Bermuda and Bermuda does not want it in its country. There is this kind of no-man’s land, which is problematic.
Canada has to do more on the political front, and, I would say, on messaging. It must stand up and say things loud and clear.
All western heads of government spoke out when the major leaks including the Paradise Papers, the Panama Papers, LuxLeaks and SwissLeaks came out. The German Chancellor, the British Prime Minister, the President of the United States and the President of France all made statements. Who spoke about the leaks in Canada? Ms. Lebouthillier, the Minister of National Revenue, who was in office at the time. The Prime Minister did not get involved, as if the issue were minor and technical.
Canada has a lot of work to do in this area.