Evidence of meeting #52 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
No, a recorded vote. It's too early in the morning. Sorry.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Okay, we're back to the main clause.
Is there any further debate on the main clause?
Seeing no further debate we'll go to vote. On division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now going to go to NDP-17.
Mr. Christopherson.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
This amendment is, again, Brian's continuing attempt to have better and further accountability and a timely review. A lot of these initiatives have been tried before and apparently have gone down in a blaze of glory, but it's here again.
I'll just leave it at that, Chair. It's an advisory panel. I know everybody understands the arguments.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
I'd like to propose a subamendment that we take “two years” to “three years.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Okay.
Seeing no debate, all those in favour of the subamendment? All those opposed?
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
We're gaining momentum here; we've got another one.
(Subamendment negatived)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Is there any further debate on the main clause?
Seeing no further debate, all those in favour of NDP-17? Opposed?
(Amendment negatived on division)
(On clause 108)
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
This is a housekeeping amendment. I move that Bill C-25 in clause 108 be amended by replacing line 28 on page 34 with the following:
Order in council (4) (4) Sections 17, 19, 22, 37, 63, 71 and 88 come into force
The only change that we are adding here is section 17. The proposed amendment to clause 17 of the bill amends section 150 of the Canada Business Corporation Act to create a new regulatory authority to prescribe the manner of proxy circulars. This will facilitate the corporation's pursuing the notice and access system without requiring an exemption from the director of Corporations Canada. This will come in only because we had altered LIB-3. So, unless clause 108 is amended to bring clause 17 into the force on the date to be fixed by the Governor in Council, this section will come into force upon royal assent. This will create a gap in the law, as the law would refer to regulations on sending the proxy circulars that do not exist. This amendment is required to bring this action into force when regulations will also come into force.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Is there any debate on LIB-8?
Hearing no debate, all those in favour of LIB-8?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 108 agreed to on division)
Liberal
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Unlike everything else where I'm just kind of dropped in and do my best with the notes I have—we've all been in that position, and if you haven't, you will be—on this one, I do want to take just a second because I do actually know a little bit about it. In fact, we recently had a delegation sponsored by the Treasury Board go to London, England, where we did three things. One of the things we did on the last day was attend the first-ever Global Tax Transparency Summit. This issue that you see here in NDP-18—beneficial ownership—is a major issue that's gaining more and more traction around the world as we see those who can, take every chance they can get to hide money. It's being recognized internationally that until we all work together to ensure this transparency in each of our countries, we have no real sense of where the profits of these corporations are.
I'll take just a moment here, because this will be the only one that I go any length of time about, Mr. Chair.
The Public Accounts Committee in England at Westminster recently hauled in Google executives and demanded to know why it made so much money in the U.K. and paid so little tax. For those of us involved with the public accounts, it's an important arena to get involved in. The U.K. Public Accounts Committee has pushed the envelope in a way that no other public accounts committee has done before, and they're providing the leadership.
I'll tell you, Chair, that we were very impressed with the work that was done there. I was there, along with the parliamentary secretary, as well as another government member, Alexandra—and Chandra knows about what I'm talking about here. We came away so impressed with the work done there and with the importance of this very issue that's right in front of us. At some point, we're going to need to play our role. We need to step up to the plate to show our part in transparency. We came away so impressed that we offered to look into hosting, as part of our 150th celebrations, the second Global Tax Transparency Summit.
Again, it would certainly look good on us if we do hold that summit later this year and we step up to the plate ourselves and play our role internationally. Now I have a hunch that this may not necessarily fly through here today, but I do want to leave colleagues with the idea in the back of their minds that this is a growing issue. Revenue is as important as expenditures for those who care about these things. Hiding money and not paying your fair share of taxes is not on, and it doesn't matter whether you're a New Democrat, a Conservative, a Green, or a Liberal: none of us wants to see anybody get away without paying their fair share.
Mr. Chair, you can appreciate that it's difficult making this attempt of mine, as I sense it's not going to carry here despite the fact we're one of the most progressive countries in the world. This struggle is going on in the leading Commonwealth nations, in particular, and I think we'll be there eventually. It would be nice if we were one of the leaders. I have no doubt that at some point this committee will be sitting here, will be seized of this, and will actually adopt it as part of its international role to ensure that large corporations can't hide profits and avoid paying the taxes they owe just like everybody who gets up every day, schleps off to work, and has taxes deducted from their paycheque. It's important for us as law makers to ensure that the structures, international or domestic, reflect that same premise that if you earn a profit, you owe a certain part of that in taxes. We need to make sure that we as national governments have the ability to impose that. But at the end of the day, if we don't know who owns the corporate entity, how can we do that? Right now, they're playing one country against another because as long as they can show that profit in an offshore company right now, they can avoid paying taxes where they should be. If everybody exposed it, if everybody said, “Hey, here in our country, here's what they're doing: here's the ownership, and here are the finances as we know them,” that would be a huge step in cutting off billions of dollars in taxpayer money staying in the pockets of people who otherwise don't deserve it.
I'm good. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you.
Unfortunately, I will have to rule this inadmissible, as the amendment—
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
I was going to go to five to give the Liberals a chance to respond.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
The amendment infringes on the financial prerogative of the crown.
We're going to move to clauses 109 to 124, which have no amendments.
(Clauses 109 to 124 inclusive agreed to on division)