Proposition 54K3146

Projet de loi portant assentiment à l'Accord entre l'Union économique belgo-luxembourgeoise et la Barbade concernant l'encouragement et la protection réciproques des investissements, fait à Bruxelles le 29 mai 2009.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 4, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Barbados Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union international agreement investment

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 18, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Peter Luykx, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, on 4 July last in the Parliament of Wallonia, Ms. Simonis mentioned a note from the Wallonian Government regarding the new model investment treaty of the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union (BEES) concerning, in particular, the exit from the ISDS system and the preservation of the capacity of public authorities to legislate for the general interest.

Mr. Minister, I would like to know your reaction and that of the federal government regarding this new model of treaty. Have you received feedback, in particular, regarding this new template text? Has Luxembourg amended the text? Will this text be presented to the House and, if so, when?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I will begin, in a first comment, by reminding that Barbados was a country that, seven months ago, was still on the list of tax havens of the European Union. In the meantime, it has disappeared but Barbados is still a state considered by the Financial Action Group (FATF) as a tax haven. The GAFI is an intergovernmental body responsible for the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism, of which Belgium is entirely part. It is therefore politically inappropriate today to agree to an investment protection agreement with a tax haven.

A second observation and question common to that of Ms. Grovonius: it is Ms. Simonet of the CDH and not Ms. Simonis of the PS who, in the Walloon Parliament, announced a new model of investment treaty of the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union. It would be interesting to summarize here, in a concise way, your new model project in order to know where it is.

Third, why have we presented today this rather unwelcome agreement with a tax haven according to an old model while the new model will soon be submitted to us for ratification for other agreements of this type with other countries that, I hope, are not tax havens.

Mr. Speaker, as clearly stated in the statement of reasons, this agreement with Barbados aims, in addition to encouraging investments, to offer investors the guarantees of maximum protection, the obligation to compensate in the case of measures depriving ownership, the free transfer of income, etc. This is an agreement that is made only for the benefit of investors, i.e. mainly multinational companies.

What is even more appealing is that this agreement is concluded with what I continue to call a tax haven. Barbados is a tax haven in Belgium. For example, from the Offshore Leaks Belfius has been offering for years products passing through the island of Barbados. A subsidiary of AB InBev, a company belonging to the families of Spoelberch, Van Damme and consorts, which are among the largest fortunes in Belgium, is located in Barbados. Given its name Banks Holdings Limited, it is not, in my opinion, a company that produces beverages.

Barbados is considered a ⁇ harmful tax haven. It appears as such on many lists. It is thirty-third in the list of fifteen worst tax havens used by companies around the world established by Oxfam International. The Oxfam report mentions the following negative aspects about this country: low corporate tax, 0% tax retention, and lack of participation in multilateral initiatives to combat abuse of transparency.

The Tax Justice Network report, which measures the financial opacity of tax havens, scores 73.85 to Barbados, ranked 33rd on a list of 112 tax havens with scores ranging from 41 to 88. Barbados is also on the list of the 28 tax havens cited in the Paradise Papers. It is even the only country that has appeared both in the Paradise Papers and on the European Union’s blacklist. Barbados is also on the list of the Financial Action Group (FATF).

The European Union found at the end of 2017 that Barbados had a detrimental preferential tax regime. It is true that, in January 2018, Barbados left the European Union’s blacklist to find itself on the grey list. Therefore, I do not believe that this country is no longer a tax haven. Certainly, this country was removed from the blacklist, but on what basis? A simple commitment: a letter signed by the Barbados authorities saying that they will change their way of acting. Nothing has been demonstrated about this so far!

The best proof that this country is a tax haven, is it not under the pen of our Foreign Minister that we can find it? On page 8, the explanation of reasons presented to us today presents the legislation of Barbados; it reads, regarding taxation, what could almost pass for a prospectus praising the "paradisiac" taxation of this country with regard to investors who would be interested in this agreement. For offshore financial services companies (more than 1,000 are registered on the island), the main tax benefits are 1% tax on ⁇ profits above $15 million. In addition, the expatriate staff benefits from a salary partially exempt from local taxes. Companies must belong to non-national entities and their activities are directed exclusively to the provision of services intended outside the CARICOM area. In this category with the ⁇ advantageous tax regime, foreign investments intended exclusively for the export of manufactured goods are also included. These institutions benefit from a total exemption from their profits for 15 years and a very light regime subsequently, or 2.5%. They also enjoy non-customs import opportunities for their inputs. Investments in the tourism sector: the possibility of deducting up to 150 % of the interest charge, rapid capital depreciation, non-customs imports, etc.

As you can see, in the end, of all these lists, all those analyses that conclude that Barbados is a tax haven, which is the most convincing? It is the exposition of the Minister’s motives, which shows us how much Belgian investors will fully benefit from a tax haven and also the benefits of this investment agreement.

It’s quite intriguing that this government so favors a tax haven and arranges an investment deal with it, while it seemed to me that the international trend was to fight tax havens.

Mr. Speaker, we agreed at the Interministerial Conference on March 2 with the representatives of the Regions to move forward in the ratification of the agreements already signed. We have been more restrictive than we thought in the past by not wanting to move forward on paraphed agreements. This agreement is one of the agreements signed and is subject to ratification at the federal state level.

Regarding the reasoning on the tax haven, Mr. Hellings himself recalled, we have waited for this partner to come out of the EU list before taking action. However, the text has already been ratified by Flanders since 6 May 2011 and by Wallonia since 12 January 2012. At one time, there was no doubt about the listing on the list. You should ask your group leader who was vice-president of the Wallonian government why he wanted the Wallonian Parliament to ratify this agreement. I have already said to Mrs. Grovonius in the committee: depending on whether you belong to the majority or the opposition, it would seem that you change very strongly in attitude. I repeat: this agreement has already been ratified by Barbados, of course, but also by the Parliament of Wallonia in 2012, as well as by the Flemish Parliament. We are simply trying to move forward.

Compared to the document mentioned in the Parliament of Wallonia, I am in parliamentary debates throughout our country, but I have not yet received a document from the government of Wallonia on the subject. We will look at it with pleasure. For the rest, we have effectively submitted to our Luxembourg partners the documents of model texts, which are the subject of an agreement on the Belgian side. We will hold these discussions until the parliamentary return and then we will return to a committee meeting with this new model text. On these different texts, there is an agreement between governments at the federal and regional levels to move forward.

It is true that we have waited for this evolution regarding the list of tax havens before proceeding to the ratification. This has not been the case for all Regions but everyone freely assumes their will to move forward or not, when a country is on a blacklist.