44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 16, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/16/23 10:11:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, corporations, joint stock companies, were conceived almost 150 years back as a means for individuals to pool their resources, de-risk their investments and channel their resources for commercial gains. That is the fundamental reason why these corporations exist. It is not the right of any individual, Canadian or someone outside of Canada, to form a corporation. They do not have this right. They can form a corporation, but the details are not made public.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees that, because it is a privilege offered by the government to individuals to form corporations, the fundamental details of the names of the shareholders and their citizenships should necessarily be made public.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer a few thoughts on Bill C-42, which proposes amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act, or CBCA, and would make consequential changes to other statutes to create a federal beneficial ownership registry. This registry would be, arguably, the most important tool we could utilize to better detect, deter and prosecute money laundering, tax evasion, fraud and terrorist-financing activities.
First of all, I want to congratulate all members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for their hard work. They studied a bill with more than 20 clauses, dealing with a highly complex subject matter, and heard from numerous stakeholders who represent a spectrum of views.
Among other factors, the committee heard that the interoperability of the registry is a key concern and is, in fact, a key ingredient to the success of a pan-Canadian beneficial ownership registry. Certain witnesses appearing before committee emphasized the need to ensure adequate alignment, both domestically and internationally. The need for this is obvious, given the transnational nature of organized crime and the complexity and sophistication with which actors can conceal the true owners of different assets. We need to be able to work together to counter this.
Interoperability has many dimensions, but it generally means that Canada not only respects international best practices on thresholds and uses the best available data standard but is also similarly aligned with domestic best practices. Thus, provinces are enticed to join a pan-Canadian registry and information can be shared seamlessly to trace illicit activities across jurisdictions. That is why Canada has adopted the beneficial ownership open data standard, which is an internationally accepted open standard for modelling and publishing information on the beneficial ownership and control of companies. It is used for collecting, sharing and using data on beneficial ownership. Canada's use of this standard would ensure that our registry could communicate and speak using the same technical language as beneficial ownership registries around the world do, as well as communicating with our provincial and territorial partners.
The standard would also mandate that corporations provide information about individuals who have significant ownership stakes and control in any corporation, thereby empowering law enforcement, the CRA, banks, journalists and the general public to accurately ascertain the true owners of any given company. This will help prevent criminals from using anonymous, numbered corporations, or shell companies, which are sometimes spread across multiple jurisdictions as a shield to conceal the true owners of companies.
Furthermore, I want to highlight the work of the committee in increasing the maximum penalties for those found to have failed to comply with the legislation, with fines now up to $1 million. This will ensure that there is a sufficient deterrent effect for individuals frustrating the important purpose of the legislation.
The provinces and territories have a major role to play here, because the vast majority of companies are in fact incorporated provincially. That is why I am pleased to see my home province of British Columbia taking a leadership role in response to widespread allegations of money laundering in the province. B.C. has tabled legislation to create its own beneficial ownership registry for corporations, and it has already created a beneficial land ownership registry, which is now in effect.
It is easy to see why action is important. A 2018 report estimated that money laundering has played a role in increasing housing prices by approximately 5% in British Columbia. The lack of knowledge regarding the true owners of over half of the top 100 most-expensive properties in B.C. not only worsens the problem of housing affordability but also raises further concerns about potential tax evasion related to the treatment of principal residences. Furthermore, clear ties have been made between money laundering and the devastating health crisis we are facing in B.C., the opioid epidemic, where illicit funds garnered from the sale of fentanyl and other illegal drugs are laundered through real estate and other opaque means, contributing to the problem.
That is why, in addition to Canada's adoption of the beneficial ownership open data standard, the federal government has worked and continues to work alongside its provincial and territorial counterparts to continue to move the needle ahead on ensuring beneficial ownership transparency in Canada. This collaboration began at the officials level in 2016 and was formalized in a 2017 agreement among federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers. They agreed, in principle, to pursue legislative amendments to their respective corporate statutes that would require corporations to hold accurate and up-to-date information on beneficial owners, as well as to eliminate the use of bearer shares.
In 2019, finance ministers further agreed to “cooperate on initiating consultations on making beneficial ownership information more transparent through initiatives such as aligning access through public registries, while respecting jurisdictional responsibilities with respect to corporations.” The ongoing collaboration has resulted in, among other things, the majority of the provinces making amendments to their corporate statutes to create and maintain a beneficial ownership registry of their individuals with significant control. These amendments largely emulated the 2019 legislative amendments made to the CBCA. This means that, for most businesses operating in Canada, there will be information available on their beneficial owners.
Our ongoing collaboration with the provinces has also culminated in the establishment of a common platform called the multi-jurisdictional registry access service, or MRAS for short. MRAS is a common front-end portal that provides access to all the corporate registries in the country. It was a project adopted many years ago among the provinces, the territories and the federal government, and it represents one of the options to build on in creating a pan-Canadian registry.
Our efforts to harmonize federal and provincial beneficial ownership regimes are an ongoing initiative. To illustrate this, it is notable that, on June 5, Minister Champagne and Deputy Prime Minister Freeland sent a joint letter to their respective provincial and territorial ministerial counterparts, asking them to once again join the federal government's effort to create a pan-Canadian beneficial ownership registry and seeking specifically to understand each—
1025 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 10:27:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is Canada's number one riding.
I will just note that, during the witness testimony, we heard from Transparency International and the RCMP that the standard practice the government keeps talking about was not actually a standard practice; it was just a norm that became adopted.
I fail to see why the government sees such an impediment to decreasing the threshold, as if it were going to suddenly stop us from doing more work. The RCMP wants it. The leading experts in Canada on money laundering think lowering the threshold is a good idea. As well, in conjunction with lowering the threshold, more businesses, under the federal corporations act, would be included. I should point out that we did not even have a chance to discuss the stacking of corporations in conjunction with the change in thresholds as well.
I do not know why the government is so stuck on not doing this. The RCMP thought it would be a good—
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as previously stated, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-42. This bill will reveal who is really behind shell corporations. The bill will make it easier to fight tax evasion, money laundering and the financing of illegal activities.
Furthermore, the process that resulted in this legislation is beyond reproach and respects the jurisdictions and autonomy of Quebec and the provinces. This approach is becoming increasingly rare in Ottawa, and we applaud it in this case. Finally, I would like to remind the House that Quebec already has its own registry.
However, for anyone who believes in tax fairness, surely it is high time we cracked down on tax havens. As members know, by using them, the ultra-wealthy are evading taxes like never before, and so are the big banks, multinationals and web giants. These companies justify their actions on the grounds that their schemes are legal, even though their greed is completely immoral.
I would now like to refer to two economists, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who clearly illustrate the method in their book The Triumph of Injustice.
First, they explain that the legal framework for multinationals has changed little since they were first developed in the 1920s. Subsidiaries of the same multinational are treated as autonomous entities. For example, “Apple Ireland must be considered for tax purposes as a firm of its own, distinct from Apple USA.” Since Ireland's tax rate is half that of the United States, it is in the multinational's interest to transfer its profits there to pay half the tax.
In theory, subsidiaries must exchange goods and services at market value, on an arm's-length basis, as if the entities were independent of each other. In practice, however, they have considerable leeway to shift profits to tax havens.
The principle, which has barely changed, was developed in the 1990s by tax optimization consultancies. It involves the sale between subsidiaries of assets that have no market price, such as logos, brands, management services or financial services.
The economists give some examples:
What's the price of Apple's logo? It's impossible to know: This logo has never been sold in any market. What's the price of Nike's iconic “swoosh”? What's the price of Google's search and advertisement technology? Since these logos and trademarks and patents are never traded externally, firms can pick whatever price suits them.
The firms sell all-in services, that is, a creative intragroup transaction accompanied by a certified “correct” transfer price. Saez and Zucman explain what this means:
Thanks to the proliferation of intragroup transactions conducted at doctored prices, high profits [in the hundreds of billions of dollars] end up being recorded in subsidiaries where tax rates are low, and low profits in places where they are high.
The economists estimate that $800 billion U.S. in multinationals' profits is transferred to tax havens. That represents 40% of their global profits and 60% of the profits of U.S. multinationals.
Variations on these schemes are made available throughout the world by the Big Four accounting firms, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
It is always the same thing. Here are two examples provided by the authors:
In 2003, a year before it was listed as a public company in August 2004, Google sold its search and advertising technology to its own “Google Holdings,” a subsidiary incorporated in Ireland but for Irish tax purposes a tax resident of Bermuda, an island in the Atlantic where its “mind and management” are supposedly located.
Transfer pricing was kept secret, but it was certainly low. Otherwise, it would have had to be declared to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Saez and Zucman estimate the figure at $700 million U.S., tops, when the same algorithms have, for example, enabled Google Holdings to report $22.7 billion U.S. for doing business in Bermuda in 2017 alone. That is 30 times more for a single year. Talk about the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Economists have pointed out that, in Asia, Singapore is the location used instead of Bermuda. Its tax rate for multinationals is also nil, or zero.
Here is the second example. In 2004, Skype, which was founded by a Swede and a Dane, transferred the better part of its technology to its Irish subsidiary. However, thanks to LuxLeaks, the leak of confidential documents from PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2014, we know the details of that transaction. The cost of the technology transfer was estimated at 25,000 euros, which is scandalous, given that Skype was bought by eBay a year later in 2005 for $2.6 billion U.S., over 100,000 times the price of the transfer. Saez and Zucman explain that corporate tax dodging schemes are quite simple. They said the following:
At its core, it involves manipulating the price of intragroup transactions in goods (like iMacs), services (as when a US firm buys “management advice” from an affiliated party in Switzerland), assets (such as Google selling its search and advertisement technology to its Bermuda subsidiary), or loans (as happened during the Netherlands Antilles frenzy of the early 1980s).
In that regard, the Netherlands Antilles frenzy was a sort of dress rehearsal for the use of tax havens. It started in the late 1970s and was banned in the late 1980s. This new corporate tax evasion industry fits within the context of the emergence of the neo-liberal ideology, which occurred at the same time as the boom in tax havens for individuals. Saez and Zucman illustrated that as follows, and I quote:
Here is how it worked. A US firm would set up a subsidiary on the island of Aruba, Bonaire, or Curaçao. It would then have this affiliate borrow money from a European bank at the prevailing interest rate, around 3%, and lend it back to the US parent company at a much higher interest rate, around 8%.
The difference in rates helped shift the profits from the United States to the Caribbean.
As we know, the use of tax havens really took off in the 1990s. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, neo-liberalism triumphed. The new generation of executives focused their corporate role on serving the shareholders exclusively. In the meantime, the share of profits earned overseas doubled from 15% to 30% for American multinationals.
The response from wealthy states was to lower the corporate tax rate, which did not help repatriate their profits. Between 1985 and 2018, the average corporate tax rate was halved, going from 49% to 24%. As the two economists point out, in the early 1950s, corporations paid as much in taxes as individuals. Today, with the tax cuts and the use of tax havens, this ratio has changed dramatically. Businesses contribute 10 times less than individuals. Back home, in Quebec, this imbalance has been documented extensively by Professor Lauzon.
Multinationals now reign supreme; they artificially relocate their profits to tax havens to avoid paying taxes. The profits they do not relocate are taxed at half the rate they were 30 years ago. Not to mention that they outsource their real activities to countries where the people are underpaid, allowing their profits to swell even more.
The solution to this injustice is first and foremost political. In fact, that is the pretext that multinationals use. According to their rhetoric, all of this is legal. What is more, they undertake a colossal amount of lobbying to keep it that way. Saez and Zucman take issue with that:
It's a weak defense: nothing of substance happens in Bermuda, so it stands to reason that Google has booked $22.7 billion in revenue in that island to avoid taxes, in violation of the economic substance doctrine.
The authors conclude it will take a revolution in how things are done if we want to change the game, saying, “In need of a Copernican revolution, [the OECD has] been busy refining the Ptolemaic model”.
I therefore invite the House and this government to be the revolution the world needs.
1374 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/23 10:42:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my riding of Nepean has two rivers, farmland, a greenbelt and a high-tech processing and testing facility. Best of all, we have the best people in Canada, who speak 120 different languages. It is not only beautiful but it is also a mini-Canada.
These days, with the number of corporations being set up, sometimes there is no difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. The hon. member mentioned the tax havens around the world. I want to pick his brain and get his comments on the global corporate minimum tax that is being proposed, and which would be implemented soon.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
