Canada won't pause digital services tax despite pressure from U.S., finance minister says
OTTAWA — Canada won't put a hold on the digital services tax on big tech companies set to take effect on June 30, the finance minister said Thursday.
Article content
Article content
Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said Thursday the legislation was passed by Parliament and Canada is 'going ahead' with the tax.
Article content
Article content
'The (digital services tax) is in force and it's going to be applied,' he told reporters before a cabinet meeting on Parliament Hill.
Article content
Article content
The digital services tax will hit companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a three per cent tax on revenue from Canadian users.
Article content
It will apply retroactively, leaving U.S. companies with a $2 billion US bill due at the end of the month. A June 11 letter signed by 21 members of Congress said U.S. companies will pay 90 per cent of the revenue Canada will collect from the tax.
Article content
Canadian and U.S. business groups, organizations representing U.S. tech giants and American members of Congress have all signed letters in recent weeks calling for the tax to be eliminated or paused.
Article content
It's set to take effect just weeks before a deadline Canada and the U.S. have set for coming up with a new trade deal, following months of trade conflict between the two countries.
Article content
Article content
Rick Tachuk, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Canada, said the plan to go ahead with the tax 'undercuts those talks and risks derailing the agreement.'
Article content
Article content
'A retroactive tax like the DST, weeks before a new deal is supposed to be done, isn't a bargaining chip. It would likely be viewed as a provocation,' he said in an emailed statement.
Article content
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have warned retaliatory measures in a U.S. spending and tax bill could hit Canadians' pension funds and investments.
Article content
David Pierce, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce's vice-president of government relations, said in an earlier interview his organization fears Canada could 'aggravate an already very tricky trade discussion with the Americans' if it goes ahead with the tax and the retroactive payment requirement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
38 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
History in reruns
Opinion I've seen this movie already. I don't want to see it again. 'They lied,' said U.S. President Donald Trump in 2016, when he was running for the Republican presidential nomination against the neocons in his own party who had started the 'forever wars' in Afghanistan and Iraq. 'They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none.' Invading the wrong country is generally a big mistake, and everybody outside the United States knew it (except maybe Britain's Tony Blair). However, then-president George W. Bush had to believe in Saddam Hussein's alleged 'weapons of mass destruction' so that he could invade Iraq and expunge the blame for having let 9/11 happen on his watch. (Yes, I know Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't get tangled up in the details. The point is that Bush managed to persuade Americans of a link between Saddam and 9/11.) Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu is in a similar position. He not only failed to prevent Hamas from carrying out the massacre of Oct. 7, 2023; he had previously allowed a flow of cash from Qatar into the Gaza Strip in order to ensure that the Palestinians remained divided between Hamas and Fatah. Bibi must erase his guilt for that failure if he is to have a political future, and even the expulsion of the Palestinian population from Gaza (now being prepared) may not be enough. Whereas the destruction of the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons threat, and perhaps of the entire Iranian regime, could earn him full absolution within Israel. Netanyahu is genuinely obsessed about such weapons, but there is also always a tactical, political element in his warnings. He said Iran was 'three to five years away from a bomb' in 1992. He said it again in 1995. It was allegedly only one year away in 2012, and it has always been 'imminent' since 2019. Which brings us to the congressional testimony of Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's own director of national intelligence, on March 26 of this year. She said that the U.S. intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Finally, an American official who thinks she is working for her country, not for her party — but then she is also a combat veteran (Iraq) and a lieutenant-colonel in the National Guard. She takes her job seriously, and does not fall for all that guff about an Iranian nuclear weapons program. There once was such a program. It began in the mid-1980s, when the fledgling Islamic Republic of Iran was invaded by Iraq (with U.S. encouragement and support). It was cancelled after the U.S. invaded Iraq and found no nuclear weapons there in 2003, and to the best of our knowledge, it has not been restarted since then. All Middle Eastern governments know that they would face a pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike if they ever sought nuclear weapons of their own. (Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960s and now has a hundred or more, deliverable by planes, missiles and submarines.) The idea that Iran is working on such weapons now is frankly ridiculous. The whole show is performative nonsense. Even if Iran had weapons-grade uranium now, fabricating warheads, testing the weapons and devising a reliable means of delivery (it has nothing suitable now) would take years. Whereas if Israel really believed Tehran were close to success now, it would have nuked all of Iran's facilities six months ago. Trump has long known that Bibi was trying to sucker him into a joint war against Iran, and never fell for it before. Why now? Probably because he just can't resist the opportunity to strut around emoting on the stage. Look at his recent tweets. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' And a couple of minutes later: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' They won't surrender. This will be Trump's own 'forever war.' Gwynne Dyer's new book is Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers.
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
UK lawmakers to vote on allowing terminally ill adults to end their lives
FILE -Banners are held by pro-assisted dying campaigners as they gather outside Parliament ahead of Fridays report stage in the Commons on The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which is expected to see MPs vote on further amendments, in Westminster in London, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, File) KW flag wire: true flag sponsored: false article_type: : sWebsitePrimaryPublication : publications/toronto_star bHasMigratedAvatar : false :
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
UK lawmakers to vote on allowing terminally ill adults to end their lives
LONDON (AP) — British lawmakers are set to vote Friday on whether to back a bill to help terminally ill adults end their lives in England and Wales, in what could be one of the most consequential social policy decisions they will ever make. Members of Parliament supported legalizing assisted dying when they first debated the issue in November by 330 votes to 275. Since then, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has undergone months of scrutiny leading to some changes in the proposed legislation, which is being shepherded through Parliament by Labour lawmaker Kim Leadbeater rather than the government. Leadbeater is confident lawmakers will back the bill. 'We have the most robust piece of legislation in the world in front of us tomorrow, and I know that many colleagues have engaged very closely with the legislation and will make their decision based on those facts and that evidence, and that cannot be disputed,' Leadbeater said Thursday on the eve of the vote alongside bereaved and terminally ill people. Proponents of the bill argue those with a terminal diagnosis must be given a choice at the end of their lives. However, opponents say the disabled and elderly could be at risk of being coerced, directly or indirectly, to end their lives to save money or relieve the burden on family members. Others have called for the improvement of palliative care to ease suffering as an alternative. The vote is potentially the biggest change to social policy since abortion was legalized in 1967. What lawmakers are voting on The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow terminally ill adults aged over 18 in England and Wales, who are deemed to have less than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death. The terminally ill person would have to be capable of taking the fatal drugs themselves. Proponents of the bill say wealthy individuals can travel to Switzerland, which allows foreigners to legally end their lives, while others have to face possible prosecution for helping their loves ones die. How the vote may go The outcome of the vote is unclear, as some lawmakers who backed the bill in the fall only did so on the proviso there would be changes made. Some who backed the bill then have voiced disappointment at the changes, while others have indicated Parliament has not been given enough time to debate the issues. The vote is a free one, meaning lawmakers vote according to their conscience rather than on party lines. Alliances have formed across the political divide. If 28 members switched directly from backing the bill to opposing it, while others voted exactly the same way, the legislation would fail. Timeline if the bill passes Friday's vote is not the end of the matter. The legislation would then go to the unelected House of Lords, which has the power to delay and amend policy, though it can't overrule the lower chamber. Since assisted dying was not in the governing Labour Party's election manifesto last year, the House of Lords has more room to maneuver. Any amendments would then go back to the House of Commons. If the bill is passed, backers say implementation will take four years, rather than the initially suggested two. That means it could become law in 2029, around the time the next general election must be held. Changes to the bill Plenty of revisions have been made to the measure, but not enough for some. Perhaps the most important change was to drop the requirement that a judge sign off on any decision. Many in the legal profession had objected. Now any request would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Changes also were made to ensure the establishment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and the creation of a disability advisory board. No involvement of health care practitioners It was already the case that doctors would not be required to take part, but lawmakers have since voted to insert a new clause into the bill extending the provision to anyone. The wording means 'no person,' including social care workers and pharmacists, is obliged to take part in assisted dying and can therefore opt out. The government's stance There is clear no consensus in the cabinet about the measure. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated he will back the bill on Friday. His health secretary, Wes Streeting, is opposed but said he will respect the outcome. There are also questions about how it would impact the U.K.'s state-funded National Health Service, hospice care and the legal system. Nations where assisted dying is legal Other countries that have legalized assisted suicide include Australia, Belgium, Canada and parts of the United States, with regulations on who is eligible varying by jurisdiction. Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, allowed in the Netherlands and Canada, which involves health care practitioners administering a lethal injection at the patient's request in specific circumstances.
