Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this important issue and to this motion.
This is part of a larger discussion that needs to happen, and I am very pleased to be talking about it today.
I would like to begin by quoting the great Jim Flaherty when he talked about the 2007 budget and had just recently announced an anti-tax-haven initiative. His words still ring very true today. He said:
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 for our globally successful companies.
There can be no doubt that taxation can be a challenging and difficult time when it comes to paying those taxes, but those taxes are often required. They are required for things such as making sure that we have street lights and paved roads, making sure that our firefighters are well paid and making sure that we continue to have the best education and health care systems in the world. It is critical that we have those.
As the Hon. Jim Flaherty said, when a certain portion of our tax population fails to pay its fair share, it is the rest of us who carry the burden. It is the folks on Main Street who have to subsidize Bay Street, and we do not believe that is right.
What is the size and scope of the issue that we are talking about today? Well, it is hard to put an exact figure on it, because we do not know exactly how much tax is being evaded, but there are estimates out there of anywhere between $5 billion and $10 billion, and even $15 billion. That is a lot of hospitals that could be built and a lot of schools that could be constructed. We need to focus on that, and as I said, when even a small portion of Canadians do not pay their appropriate fair share, that increases the burden for the rest of the taxpayers.
Beyond taxation, often tax havens are utilized not only to avoid paying federal corporate tax or federal individual tax but also to avoid financial regulations and financial liabilities. Some tax schemes have even been used to avoid alimony and support for children, which is obviously not okay in our great country. They have also allowed corporations to shelter income and potentially criminal behaviour. All of this represents an unfair advantage for a small portion of the ultra-wealthy here in Canada.
I will now focus on the actual motion and address some of the concerns that the previous hon. member had in her speech, which was obviously well researched and well thought out, but I think it contained a number of deficiencies. Perhaps I will be able to alleviate her concerns, and maybe we will get members from the other side voting for this motion.
I will go clause by clause for those in the House or at home who have the motion and are ready to read it.
I will start with subclause (a), which is:
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;
While we fully acknowledge that many of these agreements are done through a tax treaty and through international tax negotiation, that does not mean that we cannot have change. In fact, there appears to be a will throughout the world to have change to make sure that people across this world are paying their fair share of taxation. The ultra-wealthy, or a certain portion or them, do not pay it.
I will describe what is going on here for everyone at home who maybe does not eat and sleep tax law.
Generally, a Canadian corporation can set up another corporation in another territory. This is not bad news but great news, because we are bringing more Canada to the world, and I think it is a fantastic thing for successful corporations. We would never want to discourage that. However, unfortunately, there can be a tax disadvantage for the treasury. What happens is that these corporations pay tax on money in these foreign jurisdictions, and then they can repatriate it back to Canada, even to wealthy shareholders, and those wealthy shareholders may not necessarily be paying their full amount of tax.
What is more, there is planning that can be done so that the reality of the income is not really even generated in that foreign company but is just used as a way to avoid taxes. There can be and should be work done.
Do we want to make sure, as the hon. member said, that Canadian businesses are competitive wherever they are? Absolutely, but there is a way to do that. There is a way to make sure that Canadians pay their fair share while Canadian businesses remain competitive. It should be noted that this is not a novel concept. Many countries in the world do such things, including the United States. It does not allow the type of planning that allows the ultrawealthy to avoid taxation.
If we look at (d) in the motion, it states, “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”.
As we look at taxation, a lot of the concepts date back 50 or 100 years. They are very geography-centric. We know that the world is increasingly moving away from being geographically centred. Capital, digital items and all sorts of intellectual property move in seconds from country to country, so we need to revisit this.
When we look at this, the language is “review”. It is not compelling the government to a specific action. It is saying that we need to review it. I think that is absolutely right because, as is the case with a lot of this motion, we need to have multinational treaties changed, which involves collaboration around the world, and I am in favour of that. However, it does not mean that we should not review this.
The world has changed so dramatically. We need to keep up with the speed of business and the speed of innovation. Quite frankly, the Canadian government and the Canadian taxation regime are not doing that. On the same point, we need to maintain Canadian sovereignty and protect the information of legitimate Canadian businesses.
Part (b) of the motion is to “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”.
This gets back to the geocentric version of taxation that made lots of sense in the early 1900s and even in the 1950s. We need to be open to new perspectives. Just because there is a physical location or even an operation in a particular country does not mean necessarily that is where the taxation should occur.
Again, this is a review of the concept. It is not commanding the government to do anything. However, to say we do not need to look at this I think is silly, because the world is changing and the tax code needs to reflect that. We need to look away from the geographic or geocentric view and look at where that income is being generated and where, fairly and rightfully, the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canadian taxpayers have rights. If millions or billions of dollars are being generated in Canada, I think there is an argument to at least have a discussion with respect to reviewing this principle, regardless of where the company operates.
The idea of a permanent establishment has been gamed by tax professionals for years by using trusts. Trusts can have the controlling mind located in a different country, but the remainder of the business operates outside of that tax haven. I think this is an excellent idea and I look forward to a robust discussion on that going forward.
If we look at part (e), it states to “work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion”.
Let us take a step back. I think actual beneficial ownership versus legal ownership is not a really well-known concept among Canadians. Beneficial ownership is the right to benefit from it, and legal ownership is having the title to it.
I see we are getting to the end, Madam Speaker.