Mr. Chair, not a single company. We are four years past the Panama papers and there hasn't been a single conviction. Those are simply fancy Liberal words saying that a company that has been convicted of tax evasion.... There are simply no companies that this government can give as an example. Why don't we follow what France has done and commit very clearly, not in Liberal fancy words but straight up, if a company is hiding its money by using offshore tax havens, it will not get public help. Will the minister commit to that right now?
Mr. Chair, we've been working with France and other countries to make these rules stricter for businesses. The process around the common reporting standard and the base erosion profit shifting has made it more difficult for firms to move money into tax havens, and it has ensured that we have transparency in seeing when they do so. We'll continue to do that hard work to make sure that businesses abide by the rules and pay their appropriate part of taxes in our country.
Mr. Chair, let's talk about hard work. If a company is not convicted of tax evasion, but is putting its money in Barbados or Bermuda, for example, specifically to avoid paying taxesand we have a similar example of Loblaws doing something like thiswill that company, despite not having a conviction, but clearly having avoided paying their fair share by putting their money in an offshore tax haven, receive help, yes or no?
Mr. Chair, I'd suggest that the member be very careful in accusing companies of wrongdoing. We have a country that respects international rules. We allow our companies to trade and do business around the world. That continues to be important, and that supports Canadian jobs. At the same time, we're trying to make sure those international rules work and get tighter. That's what we've been working on. We'll continue to do that because we know it's important that we can work internationally. It's important that companies pay their fair share here in Canada.