The prospect of real tax reform in Canada just got a lot dimmer. Today's release of the Paradise Papers suggests why.
CBC News is reporting this about Justin Trudeau's chief fundraiser, Stephen Bronfman:
In the early summer of 2015, Justin Trudeau was the star attraction at a private fundraiser in Montreal hosted by philanthropist and financier Stephen Bronfman.
Bronfman, an heir to the Seagram family fortune and a close Trudeau family friend, was revenue chair of the Liberal Party. That day, according to news reports, the two men raised $250,000 in under two hours.
Within weeks, the Liberals would launch their federal election campaign, sweeping to power on a "Real Change" platform that focused on the middle class and a promise to tax the rich.
"Our government has long known — indeed, we got elected — on a promise to make sure that people were paying their fair share of taxes," Trudeau said shortly after his election victory. "Tax avoidance, tax evasion is something we take very seriously."
But an investigation by the CBC, Radio-Canada and the Toronto Star has found that Bronfman and his Montreal-based investment company, Claridge Inc., were key players linked to a $60-million US offshore trust in the Cayman Islands that may have cost Canadians millions in unpaid taxes.
It's a 24-year paper trail of confidential memos and private records involving two prominent families with Liberal Party ties that experts say appear to show exploitation of legal tax loopholes, disguised payments and possible "sham" transactions.
“We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”
-Leona Helmsley
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
- Mark 10:25
This morning's Star gives comprehensive and very comprehensible coverage of the latest peak behind the tax curtain controlled by the ultra wealthy, and it is not a pretty picture, unless you think that greed and tax evasion make for a pleasing tableau.
Distilled to its essence, if I understand the situation correctly, the Bronfman family, through trusted consigliere Leon Kolber, established an offshore trust in the Cayman Islands in Kolber's name. All monies sent were deemed to be 'loans' by the Bronfmans, thereby allowing them to invest in Israeli interests tax free. Kolber's son Charles, now a citizen of Israel, handled things from that end and was rewarded lavishly for those efforts through trust disbursements.
Some will insist, as do the Bronfman lawyers, that there was nothing illegal about this but merely an astute use of extant tax loopholes. However, that explanation doesn't wash because the decisions about the trust (i.e., investment decisions) were made in Canada, not the Caymans, and thus should have been taxed as a Canadian trust.
Why should any of this matter to us? Well, the obvious reason is that our federal coffers were denied much-needed tax revenue, but unfortunately the implications of this scheme, no doubt practised by many of Canada's elite, go well beyond lost tax revenue. What the Paradise Papers essentially show is that the days of the Family Compact are far from over, and that the real levers of power are still being exercised behind closed doors.
To get a sense of that power, one has to go back to the nineties, when Edgar Bronfman was allowed to take $2 billion out of Canada tax free:
...a controversial tax ruling by Revenue Canada in 1991 ... allowed the Bronfmans to move more than $2 billion worth of Seagram Co. stock, held in two family trusts, to the United States without paying capital gains tax. The decision allowed the family to avoid as much as $700 million in taxes.
If you go to the 39-minute mark on last night's National, the disturbing mechanics behind this scandalous ruling are revealed, as Revenue Canada's efforts to block the deal gave way to pressure from the Bronfmans, who threatened to "go over their heads." The stench of political interference and corruption by the Mulroney government of the day is hard to ignore:
The revelations now in the public arena thanks to the collective efforts of hardworking journalists reinforce a perception that many, many people have held for a long time: the tax system is gamed, and talk of tax fairness is simply convenient posturing that ultimately means nothing. This perception/reality is very damaging to public morale; those who believe in paying their taxes are now being shown that they are, in fact, the patsies for their betters.
Nothing could be worse for those who believe in a society where all of us pay to maintain a social safety net, programs to help the disadvantaged, and a public medical system where no one is turned away because their wallet is too thin. Just more fodder for the rabid right wing, and governments have no one but themselves to blame.
I began this post with two quotes. The one by Leona Helmsley encapsulates something far too common amongst the monied: an abject contempt for the larger society within which they prosper, and a complete absence of any sense of obligation toward that society. They really believe that they are our betters.
The second quote, from The Bible, is reflective of the distance that great wealth can create from "the kingdom of God," that kingdom, in my interpretation, being a state of spiritual attunement with our fellow human beings. If we are not aligned with other people and have a sense of shared humanity, we cannot hope to have access to transcendent reality, whatever it ultimately is.
The ultra rich may have great wealth, but in other ways they are deeply and fatally impoverished.
Liberal Party fundraisers held family millions in offshore trust, Nov. 6
Coverage of the Paradise Papers’ celebrity tax evaders has tended to revolve around the potential illegality of their actions. For example: how “blind” the offshore trusts of Stephen Bronfman and Leo Kolber actually are. I imagine most Canadians could care less whether Bronfman’s $60-million, tax-free snowball is being managed from home or from offshore. The real issue is, why is it legal in the first place?
The answer, which these leaks are revealing, is that our federal leaders are so beholden to Canada’s richest men — their chief fundraisers — that substantive crackdowns on these schemes are being prorogued. [Emphasis added]
These tax evasions are a spit in the eye to the Liberals’ fabled “middle class,” let alone to the 12 million Canadians who collectively own less than our richest 100 families.
Jeremy Withers, PhD student, University of Toronto
Thank you again for enlightening us on the machinations of the 1 per cent to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. An outstanding editorial. Surely, I am not the only one thinking of voting for the NDP in the next federal election.
Norma Martinez, Toronto
One of the main reasons for U.S. President Donald Trump’s victory was the snail-pace change to the status quo. People are fed up with the failure of governments to act. Whether the Paradise Papers news is based on legal or illegal actions of wealthy people or organizations is irrelevant. We must find ways to finance the needs of the populace and it is evident that this must come from those who have. Unless the current government acts decisively to outlaw these types of actions, Canadians, too, will either not vote or seek alternative populist methods. Justin Trudeau, be warned. [Emphasis added]
Harry Coupland, Etobicoke
This four-page article about offshore tax havens proves the point of American billionaire hotelier Leona Helmsley, who famously said: “We don’t pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes.”
It seems that democracy is on sale. The rich families finance politicians to fight elections and, as a quid pro quo, politicians protect their wealth through favourable legislation.
The article shows how Leo Kolber, a wealthy man who had accounts in offshore money centres, was appointed senator and then became chairman of the Senate’s powerful banking committee. He held back proposed unfavourable legislation on offshore trusts for 14 years.
These multimillionaires are not paying their share of taxes, forcing government to cut back on social services, health care, education, affordable housing, etc. It is estimated that the Canadian government is losing $6 to $8 billion per year in tax revenue. [Emphasis added]
Is it too difficult to force countries like Panama and British protectorates like Grand Cayman, Isle of Man and the British Virgin Islands to stop hiding money for wealthy Canadians.
Anis Zuberi, Mississauga
It is in the public’s interest to take tax avoidance seriously because we now know this is not a one-shot deal carried out by the odd, cunning billionaire, but rather a widespread scheme common among the wealthy.
We can no longer consider tax dodging and offshore accounts to be trivial, when everyone from the Queen to U.S. President Donald Trump’s cabinet are benefitting from them.
It is especially important for lower- and median-income households to care about this epidemic because it is they who suffer from the increased taxation and lack of public funding caused by the millions lost in tax revenue from offshore holdings. [Emphasis added]
It is the vulnerable and the poor who get the short end after this game is played out and it is time they force this issue into the public sphere and demand it be made a talking point.
In her latest iPolitics article, Kady O'Maley offers the view that the revelations of The Paradise Papers do not constitute a scandal for Justin Trudeau and his government. And while the Scheer-led Opposition is making every predictable effort to connect non-existent dots, few are suggesting that Trudeau had any personal knowledge of the alleged offences committed by chief fundraiser Stephen Bronfman, who has stoutly denied any wrongdoing.
However, to assert Trudeau's blamelessness in all of this is to look only at the immediate situation, one that Justin undoubtedly made worse with his unseemly and ready acceptance of Bronfman's innocence, about which I posted last evening. The larger implications of the ease with which the ultra rich transfer their money to jurisdictions beyond the reach of the tax man constitute the real threat to our democracy and our way of life.
The revelations now in the public arena thanks to the collective efforts of hardworking journalists reinforce a perception that many, many people have held for a long time: the tax system is gamed, and talk of tax fairness is simply convenient posturing that ultimately means nothing. This perception/reality is very damaging to public morale; those who believe in paying their taxes are now being shown that they are, in fact, the patsies for their betters.
Nothing could be worse for those who believe in a society where all of us pay to maintain a social safety net, programs to help the disadvantaged, and a public medical system where no one is turned away because their wallet is too thin. Just more fodder for the rabid right wing, and governments have no one but themselves to blame.
... tax havens have proved so embarrassing that they put the entire government revenue-raising machine at risk.
The cost to Canada’s federal treasury of offshore tax havens is estimated at between $6 billion and $8 billion a year. While that may seem a lot of money, when compared to the roughly $300 billion that Ottawa pulls in each year, it is relatively small.
Most tax revenue comes from the broad middle-classes — people who are willing to pay as long as they deem the system fair. Revelations, like those in the Paradise Papers, which detail at an individual level how the wealthy and well-connected get special treatment, break that trust. This threatens the entire fiscal basis of the state.
Put succinctly, no one wants to be played for a fool. And it is that fact that makes the cossetting of the utra rich by governments so dangerous.
The latest revelations from the leak of the Paradise Papers raise troubling questions, not only about government’s failure to collect what’s owed, but also about the power of money to subvert our democracy.
They serve as a reminder that those who can afford to hide income from the taxman can also afford to hire the very best lobbyists to help ensure that, whatever the public interest, governments don’t close the loopholes that allow tax avoiders to get away with it.
There is, of course, a solution to all of this, one that I am not holding my breath waiting for:
The Paradise Papers are doing nothing to soothe those who worry about the unseemly intertwining of money and power in politics or about the extent to which the economy is rigged by the few against the many. The government can do something about that. It can, for instance, close unfair and ineffective tax loopholes and collect what’s owed. Or it can sit back, defend the current arrangements and watch the cynicism grow.
It would be nice to believe that The Paradise Papers will lance the massive carbuncle of complicity that exists between government and business, but like its predecessor, The Panama Papers, it will likely last only for a few more news cycles before being replaced by a feat of political legerdemain that suggests we just move along, as there is nothing to see here.
The title for this post I took from the online flurry of letters that brought out the usual voices in The Star. I will reproduce a number below that both support and demonize the movement to sanction Israel for its depraved mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories. I remain convinced that words will accomplish nothing in this long and ongoing heartache. Only strong and principled action has a chance of success. For that reason alone, no concerted effort to label people like me and others who support the cause as anti-Semitic will have any effect whatsoever.
Re: May shouldn’t run away from boycott, Opinion Aug. 22
Thank you very much for your publishing Linda McQuaig’s powerful piece. As a Jewish-Canadian, I am deeply concerned about our collective failure to hold Israel accountable for its war crimes, human rights violations and ongoing military occupation of Palestine. Support for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) is not only growing among campuses, church and union groups, it is also increasing in our Jewish communities.
Why have we been silent? Why have we not understood that it is not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel. It is, in fact, pro-human rights and taking the collective wisdom of our peoples’ histories of being persecuted. Tragically, we know the impact of global silence in the face of state terror.
Those of use who care deeply about Palestinian human rights were thrilled to see the Green Party take a courageous stand in support of BDS. I am very hopeful that Elizabeth May will support this position. This is not a radical position. It is simply taking a very obvious, peaceful stance against violence.
Unfortunately, people who publicly criticize Israel (including journalists and Jewish people) are subject to violent threats and accusations of anti-Semitism.
Much gratitude to Linda McQuaig for her excellent commentary and her courage to speak out about such an important issue. And thanks to the Star for printing this. Although you will likely receive pushback from pro-Israel folks, please know you that you are giving voice to a position supported by many of us.
Alisa Gayle, Toronto
Canada needs a principled position that respects Canadian values of human rights and the rule of international law. If BDS is one efficient way to lead to that end, then there is a well-justified reason to support this movement.
Dr. Nabil Tabbara, professor, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario
The problem with Ms McQuaig and her fellow travelers’ support of BDS is that it singles out Israel, not just in the region but amongst the nations of the world, and does nothing to move along the peace process. To say that the solution to the 100-year conflict lies solely on one side can only be rationalized by someone wearing blinders.
Ms May’s thoughtful rejection of supporting this movement should be praised. Ms McQuaig is the one to be admonished for her stance.
Morris Sosnovitch, Toronto
I agree with writer Linda McQuaig. The leader of the Green Party should not only stay but work as hard as ever that her party does not become the hijacked home base of the anti-Israel bashing club that singularly focuses on Israel and excludes all others.
The solidarity with Palestine is all well and fine except that there is only silence for the people of Sudan and Syria who we see slaughtered daily on a scale that is horrific and cruel.
The military occupation over Palestinian lands will end when there is trust and a true commitment in place to build peace based on a two-state solution by both sides. Peace will never flow by punishing and demonizing one side in a complicated two-sided conflict.
Elizabeth May needs to stay to fight for the soul of her party. She needs to ensure that the Green Party remains committed to real principles and not false narratives.
Martin Gladstone, Toronto
Linda McQuaig’s article presents several incorrect statements and a false narrative. BDS is not a “peaceful way to protest” Israel’s perceived misteps – it is an odious attempt to delegitimize the State of Israel. Palestinians live under Israeli occupation because Jordan refused to stay out of the Six Day War, forcing Israel’s hand to take the West Bank from Jordanian occupation. And the author fails to state that West Bank Palestinian Arabs enjoy far more rights than anywhere else in the Middle East.
David E. Bronfman, Toronto
I see the Star has stooped to a new low. This article exposes your proclivity to show your anti-Israel bias. To defend the BDS movement is exactly the same as calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, the only country of almost 200 in the world that is censured for destruction.
Marek Machtinger, Thornhill
The suggestion that the BDS movement is anti-Semitic is rooted in a narrative created by those who support the 49-year-long illegal occupation of Palestine. The ongoing violations by Israel of international human rights and humanitarian laws, the Fourth Geneva Convention and UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions are why the majority of Green Party members and others support BDS.
The desperate situation in Palestine has been thoroughly documented by reputable human rights agencies such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Defence for Children International.
This year the Israeli government has significantly reduced the water supply to Palestinians. In addition, in comparison to 2015, the Israelis have increased the rates of arrests of Palestinian children and youth and increased their destruction of Palestinian homes leaving Palestinian children homeless.
Those in the media have the responsibility to read the evidence regarding the situation in Palestine compiled by internationally credible non-governmental agencies before they accuse the BDS movement of anti-Semitism.
Rev. Steve Berube, co-chair, United Network for a Just Peace in Palestine and Israel
Justin Trudeau has rightly earned severe criticism for his holiday in Tofino on National Truth and Reconciliation Day. However, in my view there is another very important story here as well, one that imparts a lesson we would all do well to bear in mind, especially in light of the new revelations made in the Pandora Papers.
My contention is a simple one. When you have friends in high places, when you associate and identify with them, you are likely to handle them with especially soft kid gloves and certainly be wary of offending them by tax measures that may capture a scintilla of their wealth.
What does any of this have to do with our prime minister? Justin Trudeau is of the financial elite, and those he considers friends breathe the same rarified air as he does. One remembers his ill-fated holiday on the private island of close family friend, the Agha Khan. Then there was his impassioned defence of his good friend and major fundraiser Edgar Bronfman over his unsavoury involvement in an offshore scheme. As well, although perhaps a minor example, consider where he stayed during his B.C. sojourn, an abode called Surfer's Paradise, which is currently on the market with an asking price of $18,750,000. While I do not know what rental he paid for the house, it would likely be beyond the budget of most.
Does the fact that Trudeau can afford such an indulgence impugn his leadership? Of course not. But it is yet another reminder that the truly wealthy are different from the rest of us, and that the filter of wealth is often an impediment to being in touch with the rest of us or seeing us on the same level of humanity as they are. In other words, empathy is compromised, one of the subjects Chelsea Fagan addresses in her video, 6 Secrets I Learned Working For Rich People, which I recommend you view as time permits.
Accompanying the video are some very useful links to articles she cites in the video:
Articles on rich people and empathy can be accessed here, here, and here.
An article on rich people and philanthropy can be accessed here.
Now, it would clearly be an offence to the ideal of critical thinking to suggest that any of this directly indicts the sensibilities of Mr. Trudeau. But, as they say, actions (or in this case inactions) speak louder than words, something I shall return to in a moment.
I am thinking anew of the financial elites in light of the release of The Pandora Papers, a kind of successor to the Panama and Paradise Papers, all of which reveal the off-shore dodges the rich use to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Those using these tax avoidance measures range from world leaders to prominent Canadians, and it is estimated that there is more than $14 trillion squirrelled away by the entitled.
Now, I am not suggesting for a moment that Mr. Trudeau or any of his family makes use of such havens. However, as I expressed in a series of posts in 2017, I am concerned that his identification and affiliation with the truly wealthy has prevented any meaningful reforms that would close the loopholes that allow for such selfish behaviour. Particularly damning is the fact that since the 2016 release of the Panama Papers, which showed the magnitude of off-shore tax-avoidance havens, not one Canadian has been charged, and it appears no money has been recovered. This stands in sharp contrast to his campaign avowals in 2015 to close such loopholes. And in the 2021 campaign, he made similar promises which, even if some were to be enacted, would result in mere tinkering around the edges and would do nothing to advance lofty goals such as pharmacare and $10 a day childcare.
Mr. Trudeau is very well-known for talking a good game. His rhetoric even soars at times. But it is absolutely essential that Canadians demand more than words if we are ever to become the country that history shows us we are capable of becoming.
PM Justin Trudeau says he's satisfied with Liberal fundraiser Stephen Bronfman's explanation of his ties to offshore accounts, but Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer calls those remarks inappropriate.
The Prime Minister is either tone deaf, intellectually challenged, or truly and inextricably linked to the values represented by the world of the Bronfmans that he can so facilely accept the reassurance of scion Stephen that everything is above board.
Surely the Conservative Opposition, which I loathe, has a valid point here:
The seeming public consensus is that the end times beckon for Justin Trudeau and his party. Althia Raj writes:
The Liberal party has the support of about just one in five Canadians, and more than eight out of 10 Canadians say it’s time for a change, according to Abacus Data. Polls suggest the Tories are headed for a massive majority government.
On doorsteps and in meetings across the country, Liberal MPs report a crescendo of dislike for the prime minister. “They disliked him in 2019, they hated him in 2021, and now they despise him,” one MP, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Star.
“I do not have a meeting or a conversation with a business, a constituent, a stakeholder, a non-profit where Justin Trudeau really supersedes the conversation,” said Wayne Long, the outgoing Liberal MP for Saint John—Rothesay. “When people are telling me consistently that, ‘You know, your party’s done some great work, Wayne, but the prime minister needs to move on.’
While I don't really understand the personal animus that so many express for Trudeau, I do understand their disaffection. It is one I have felt for some time, not because of the prime minister's style of leadership, but because he so quickly fell into perpetuating the party's tradition of arrogance.
There was, as I have written before, his early betrayal of his promise of electoral reform. While the proposal itself was modest, a form of ranked ballot that was easy to understand and might have encouraged more voter participation, it became a step too far once the party had regained power under the FPTP system. Canada's 'natural governing party' had regained its rightful place, and all was once again well in the Liberal world.
Scandals ensued, too numerous to recount here, each chipping away at the "sunny ways" the earlier Trudeau had promised. Perhaps the biggest one was the SNC Lavalin debacle, which I wrote about in 2019. Here is an excerpt:
The latest allegation is that Trudeau tried to influence former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to help SNC-Lavalin avoid a criminal prosecution for bribery of Libyan officials in order to secure business contracts.
And so, an old pattern re-emerges. Coupled with Trudeau's stout defence and dismissal of allegations regarding his good friend and fundraiser Stephen Bronfman over what was revealed about offshore accounts in the Panama Papers, as well as the CRA foot-dragging in going after the big corporate cheats who operate such accounts, one can justifiably wonder whose interests the Prime Minister really is protecting.
But perhaps the biggest fault of this government I can cite is its absence of a coherent vision. I am aware that many may disagree with such an assessment, but saying that you want a more fair and equitable society is far easier than working steadily toward one. Some may counter with such nascent programs as dentalcare and pharmacare, but despite what Mr. Trudeau may assert, they were not Liberal initiatives as much as they were forced upon the party thanks to the leverage that Mr. Singh and the NDP exerted upon them. Parenthetically, that leverage has earned Mr. Singh no credit, the media narrative being it was a mistake to enter into the supply and confidence agreement, a view with which I heartily disagree.
The Liberals, were they who they claim to be, could have done much more, in a much more methodical fashion, had they possessed real vision as opposed to a propensity for expedience that achieved little. One case in point would be the housing crisis that confronts us. Instead of empowering the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation to get back into the home-building business, as they did post-WW11, Trudeau was content to throw money at the provinces to give to private builders to achieve decidedly uneven results. However, as I have said before, Mr. Trudeau worships at the altar of private enterprise, the result being that many, many more people cannot ever hope to own a house.
I could go on, but allow me to end by noting that my dismay with the Liberals does not mean, as it does for so many others, a vote for that repository of bilious, belligerent rhetoric, PP. When voters go to the polls at the next election, they should ask themselves whether or not their perceived cure for their disaffection is worse than the disease itself.
In some ways, it is hard to believe that the old Liberal propensity for corrupt coziness with corporate chums has reasserted itself so quickly, barely three years into Mr. Trudeau's tenure. In other ways, it is not hard to believe at all. After all, old habits die hard.
Th latest allegation is that Trudeau tried to influence former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to help SNC-Lavalin avoid a criminal prosecution for bribery of Libyan officials in order to secure business contracts. It is an allegation the Prime Minister stoutly denies, but the fact is that Wilson-Raybould was recently demoted to Veterans Affairs.
Cause and effect? The smell of a smoking gun is in the air.
First, there is what has been described as Trudeau's legalistic denial in response to reporters' and House of Commons' questions:
“The allegations in the Globe story this morning are false,” Trudeau told reporters Thursday in Vaughan. “Neither the current nor the previous attorney-general was directed by me or anyone in my office to take a decision in this matter.”
The new justice minister, David Lametti, repeated Trudeau's words in answering the charge of interference in the House.
So, are we simply jumping to judgement, based on little or no evidence? The Toronto Star doesn't think so.
And what communications, if any, did members of Trudeau’s office have with Wilson-Raybould and her office on this issue? These are questions that can’t simply be waved away with a carefully worded blanket denial. The Globe reported that the company lobbied federal officials more than 50 times since 2017 on “justice” and “law enforcement” issues, including 14 times with Trudeau’s closest advisers in the PMO.
What exactly did they discuss? Did it include the possibility of SNC-Lavalin benefitting from a so-called remediation agreement that would allow the company to avoid a criminal trial on serious fraud and corruption charges (and therefore remain eligible for lucrative government contracts)?
And what communications, if any, did members of Trudeau’s office have with Wilson-Raybould and her office on this issue?
These are questions that can’t simply be waved away with a carefully worded blanket denial.
... she didn’t have a thing to say in the wake of the Globe and Mail’s explosive story of how the former justice minister reportedly stood in the way of a deal to let SNC-Lavalin detour around prosecutions that could have blocked it from receiving government contracts for years to come.
“That is between me and the government as the government’s previous lawyer,” Wilson-Raybould was quoted as saying in the Globe’s scoop, as well as a cryptic, “I don’t have a comment on that,” in reply to more pointed questions about how she handled the SNC-Lavalin case.
Pro tip: “No comment” only works as a clever misdirection in fictionalized political journalism. In real life, it is often regarded as confirmation.
Did she speak truth to power?
Delacourt attended a Robbie Burns dinner last week in which Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes took jabs at her own government:
One of those jabs was aimed squarely at the ouster of Wilson-Raybould from the justice job, and a joke about how an Indigenous woman lost her post for doing it well and unsettling the “white man.”
None of which 'proves' these allegations. However, it is worth noting that SNC-Lavalin, a Quebec company, has had a long relationship with the Liberal Party of Canada, even when it was out of power:
SNC-Lavalin, many were reminding us on Thursday, was the same firm that was detouring around election laws for much of that decade to put roughly $110,000 in the party’s pocket in those lean years.
And so, an old pattern re-emerges. Coupled with Trudeau's stout defence and dismissal of allegations regarding his good friend and fundraiser Stephen Bronfman over what was revealed about offshore accounts in the Panama Papers, as well as the CRA foot-dragging in going after the big corporate cheats who operate such accounts, one can justifiably wonder whose interests the Prime Minister really is protecting.
This may rankle those who believe a Liberal government should never be criticized, given the poor alternatives, but to take such a position is to be willfully and woefully ignorant.
Most people, I think, understand that proper taxation is essential to a viable society. All they ask is that the burden be shared equitably.
However, the CRA does not appear to share that philosophy of fairness, if the following is any indication:
Sometime in the first six months of 2018, the agency wrote off more than $133 million in taxes owed by one taxpayer. It's not clear whether the recipient of the writeoff was a person or a corporation.
The amount was for unspecified excise taxes or excise duties; the CRA has offered no further details.
The massive writeoff is cited in a Sept. 14, 2018 internal CRA memo to explain a big jump in the total tax dollars declared uncollectible, compared with the total for the same period a year previous.
"The above total amount submitted for writeoff represents an increase of $209M in comparison to the first submission of the 2017-2018 fiscal year," says the memo, obtained by CBC News under the Access to Information Act.
"The increase is attributable to a few large writeoffs, including one for $133M."
The federal government applies excise taxes on fuel-inefficient vehicles, automobile air conditioners and some petroleum products.
Despite the fact that this writeoff is tantamount to a subsidy the rest of us must bear, the CRA will not identify the offending entity, citing confidentiality provisions under the law. Apparently, however, this is not an isolated incident.
The Canada Revenue Agency in 2017-18 wrote off $2.7 billion in taxes owed. That's the largest single-year sum written off by the CRA since the $2.8 billion it abandoned in both 2014-15 and 2013-14.
The agency says that writing off a tax debt does not relieve a taxpayer of the obligation to pay — but it does mean no legal action will be taken unless the taxpayer's situation improves.
Only the very naive would believe that the CRA operates independently of government direction. One has only to recall how Stephen Harper sicced the agency on non-profits whose activities challenged his policies.
Now, all of Justin Trudeau's stout defenders need to start asking some hard questions about their man. His sympathies clearly lie with the corporate agenda, and he has a habit of going to extraordinary measures, both covertly and overtly, to meet his masters' needs. One need only look to the SNC-Lavalin affair to appreciate that sad fact.
For further evidence, consider that since the release of the Panama Papers, $1.2 billion in fines and unpaid taxes have been collected worldwide, while the CRA has revealed it should recoup more than $11 million in federal taxes and fines from 116 audits. In other words, a mere pittance compared to countries like the United Kingdom (more than $252 million), France ($136 million), and Australia (more than $92 million). Even tiny Belgium puts Canada to shame (over $18 million).
The critical thinker must ask why Canada lags so egregiously behind. Some of those thinkers may very well see a pattern of our government running interference for some very powerful interests, as Trudeau apparently did in accepting the word of Edgar Bronfman, a Liberal fundraiser, when the latter stated he never funded nor used offshore trusts. This, despite the fact that an investigation linked him to a $60-million US offshore trust in the Cayman Islands that may have cost Canadians millions in unpaid taxes.
I could go on, but I trust I have provided enough food for thought here.
The play Hamlet states that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. It would seem that Scandinavian country now has ample company in Canada.
