30 thoughts on “Free Vote, Party Vote or No Vote at All for Canadian MPs on the U.S. FATCA IGA? or What is it that really matters?”

1. Is there a time table? The current session ends on June 20th but they have only 10 weeks of sitting days between now and then. I would assume it has to come to a vote before they break for the summer because they don’t come back until Sept 15th and that is well after the USG’s FATCA start date.

   And I am curious about the “tweaking”. What does that mean and can Canada simply make changes unilaterally? If that were the case, Canada could decide its own FATCA terms and present them to the USG, which simply doesn’t seem likely.

2. They’re leaving it for the courts.

3. NO legislation comes law without being passed in identical form by both houses of Parliament and given royal assent. That being said, I have no idea whether the intent of the law might be achieved in some other way.

   Assuming it goes to Parliament, the next opportunity for input is at the legislative committee. Here’s how it works (for those of you unacquainted with the process):

   First reading: at first reading the bill is introduced and ordered printed. There is no debate

   Second reading: the bill is debated in the House on its overall purpose and merits. There is a vote, and if passed the bill is sent to committee

   Committee: the bill can be considered in detail by the House sitting in committee (rare these days) or referred to a standing committee (in this case probably Finance) or referred to a special legislative committee created for this particular bill. (My best guess is it will go to the Finance committee) The committee can call witnesses and review submissions. It will go over the legislation in great detail and recommend changes, never straying however from the original intent of the bill. The committee sends its recommendations in a report to the House

   Report stage: the House reviews and votes on the individual recommendations coming from the committee. There is then a final vote, the bill is given third reading and referred to the Senate

   Senate
   The bill goes through a similar process in the Senate. If the Senate changes the bill in any way, the changes must go back to the House for approval.

   Once the bill is passed in identical form by both houses, it is referred to the Governor General for Royal Assent.

   Coming into force: the bill comes into force upon royal assent, or on a date specified in the bill, or on a date determined by order-in-council (i.e. cabinet). The latter is most common these days, as it allows the government to have any necessary regulations drafted and in place when the bill, now an act, comes into force.

   The best point for our intervention is at the committee stage in the House.

   Membership in the committee is here:
   http://www.parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/CommitteeMembership.aspx?IncMem=1&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&Cmte=FINA

   The Conservatives have six of the ten permanent members of the committee, so they can get what they want. The NDP members are:

   Peggy Nash
   Murray Rankin
   Guy Caron

   The lone Liberal member is Scott Brison

   I wouldn’t bother with the “associate members”. They serve as alternates, I believe.

4. It’s very possible we’re talking about two different things. One is the IGA. I don’t know if that can be passed by Executive Order without a vote in Parliament or not.

   Then, there is the law to enable the IGA. The proposed law–which is what we all made submissions on is The Canada–United States Enhanced Tax Information Exchange Agreement Implementation Act, http://www.fin.gc.ca/drleg-apl/2014/can-us-eu-0214l-eng.asp

   Note especially:

   4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act or the Agreement and the provisions of any other law (other than Part XVIII of the Income Tax Act), the provisions of this Act and the Agreement prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

   I was told by four lawyers that this means where existing laws–i.e. banking, privacy and human rights–are in conflict with this law for the IGA, this law will prevail (i.e. override) those laws.

   If this law is passed, a Charter challenge may then be our only hope.

   However, I have always understood that laws must be passed by Parliament.

   Thank you Norther Shrike for that detailed description of the process.

   My personal opinion looking at these mixed messages is we may be dealing with two different, but very related issues. One is the IGA. That may or may not require the approval of Parliament but perhaps can be passed by Executive Order.

   However, the Act or law to implement the IGA is a different matter. As an Act, I believe that must be voted on by Parliament.

   There is someone far more knowledgeable than I am looking into this. I hope we may be able to get some clarification from that source.

5. @Blaze – precisely. The IGA requires statutory amendments to be effective and thus the Act. No Act, no IGA (at least not in this form). The process is as described above (post-tweaks, 2nd reading then off to committee). The first time there will be any substantive opportunity to debate the thing in Parliament will be Committee. When Committee is done, back to Parliament for 3d reading. Senate can potentially hold things up – and they have in the past where there are serious issues not being examined. This WILL be examined by Parliament, I just wouldn’t hold my breath and it being a serious in-depth look. It will get more attention that the FATCA ever did by Congress, but not a whole lot more. That being said, bombarding the Finance Committee with emails and letters will have some effect – if nothing else alerting them that there is more to an otherwise sleepy technical bill than meets the eye.

6. Just a note to further my conversation with Jim Flaherty’s office today. The person who answered the phone did not have the answer to my IGA “free vote” question. She had to place me on hold and make a phone call to someone to get the right answer. She then came back to the phone and said it was a “free vote”

7. @Native Canadian

   A free vote (conscience vote) ? Oh, is that right? A rare occurrence and I’ll believe it if I see it in writing rather than somebody’s assistant over the phone. I’d love to believe this because if it is a conscience vote then at least we will get to see who in our government actually has a conscience and who doesn’t. If there isn’t a substantial showing of common sense, morality and……conscience then I’m outta here. I will forsake this country gladly in that case and shift to some other country that won’t have anything to do with the US and it’s baloney. It’s a wide world out there and most countries that signed on so far do not have the support of their citizens but even so there are 196 countries in the world and only 25 or so that have made themselves an occupied territory. In that case I will never feel comfortable in Canada again. I don’t now anyway.

8. Just FYI Organizations subject to the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act [2](PIPEDA), must comply with PIPEDA when recording calls.[3]

   In order to comply with the PIPEDA, organizations should take the following steps when recording conversations:[3]

   The individual must be informed that the conversation is being recorded at the beginning of the call. This can be done by an automated recording or by the customer service representative.[3]
   The individual must be advised of the purposes. The organization must be clear about the purposes; an organization should not state that it is recording the conversation for quality assurance purposes if, in fact, the recording will be used for other purposes. Informing the individual of the purposes can be done in a variety of ways – verbally, by pressing a number on the keypad (in the case of automated messages) or with clear messages on monthly statements. (For example: If you have any questions about your bill please call 1-800-XXX-XXXX. Please note your call will be recorded for…) If the individual proceeds knowing the conversation is being recorded and the purpose of the recording, consent is implied.[3]
   If the caller objects to the recording, the organization should provide the caller with meaningful alternatives. The alternatives might involve not taping the call; visiting a retail outlet; writing a letter; or, conducting the transaction over the Internet.[3

9. Sheesh, here….CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA: PART VI: INVASION OF PRIVACY:

   Section 183.1: Where a private communication is originated by more
   than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be
   received by more than one person, a consent to the interception
   thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the
   purposes of any provision of this Part. [1993, c.40, s.2.]”
   http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.183.1.html

   Definitions:
   “A one party state means one party to the telephone conversation has
   to have knowledge and give consent. In a two party state, all parties
   must have knowledge and give consent.”
   “In Ontario, Canada… it is only legal to tape a conversation when at
   least ONE of the people involved in the conversation is aware that it
   is being recorded.”
   http://www.telephonemagic.com/call_recording_equipment.htm

   Legal Considerations of Voice Logging By Peter DeHaan, Ph.D. Fall, 2003:
   “Some states and countries require ?one-party notification? in which
   only one of the two individuals needs to be made aware that the call
   is being recorded.”
   “At least thirty-seven US States, the District of Columbia, the US
   Federal law, Canada, and England only require one-party notification.”
   “Regardless of this information, be sure to consult a local attorney
   before recording any phone calls.”
   “Again, obtain legal counsel before recording any phone calls. Voice
   logging is best used for quality assurance, training, self-evaluation,
   verification, and dispute resolution.” Now, can we move on???

10. Let the impasse pass and let’s put our passion into persuading parliament to NOT pass FATCA enabling legislation and try to keep ourselves focused on our passage along the long road to the Charter Challenge. Sorry … couldn’t resist. 🙂

11. …and thanks, everyone, for trying to really stay on track in discussing the issues of United States citizenship, extra-territorial taxation, FBAR, and FATCA — the purpose of Isaac Brock Society.

    May not one person who needs the information and support here be turned away. I sent several to this site yesterday evening — several at the Liberal MP Ralph Goodale reception and a statement made that started this thread. I hope we all stay in this fight and not lose track of our goal, which includes bringing others to this table and able to “hear” what we are saying.

12. @All, I think we need to keep in mind, that a lot of us are under a fair bit of stress, feeling like the objects of a witch hunt. It is all a bit surreal, and at times I almost want to pinch myself to be sure I am not in the midst of a bad dream.
    Who ever would have thought that average CANADIANS living in CANADA, paying taxes in Canada, and basically just going about ordinary lives would find themselves considered to be tax evaders of the United States?! AND even worse, that our Canadian government would apparently being helping the IRS hunt us down? This sure isn’t something I ever thought about as a young person, when people would find out about my US birth place, and tell me how ‘lucky’ I was to have the option of living and working in the ‘greatest country on earth’. I’ve never even vacationed in the USA, have no memory of the few months I lived there as a baby, yet what I always thought was potentially a lucky accident of birth, has turned into a major curse. Someone, please WAKE ME UP!

    Rant over…anyway, I think we all need to cut each other some slack, not mind the occasional outbursts, and remember that misery loves company. The March full moon is almost here. 🙂

13. WhiteKat, I feel just like you do. It’s crazy. Let’s hope that one day the nightmare will end, for all the good people who are suffering through it.

14. @all
    Eyes on the prize please; the last thing we need now is fight on our own bench…

15. THIS IS SPECULATION FROM AN OPPOSITION MP AND IS NOT FACT:

    Someone just called me from Liberal MP Irwin Cotler’s office re: possible time frame for Canada Parliament to vote on bill to enable the FATCA IGA.

    This person, sympathetic to our cause, suspects that the bill to enable the IGA will be introduced mid-April and buried in 400 pages of the “Budget Implementation Act” with final reading 6-8 weeks later. What’s left of the Senate will vote on bill later.

    She is skeptical that there will be a “free vote” on this issue. The opposition parties can stall for some limited time with amendments, but the bill will pass.

    Again, this is speculation, probably reasonable, from the opposition party.

16. IRSCompliantForever,

    For speculation, there has to be at least a GLIMMER OF TRUTH!

    Will the “act to implement the IGA” being passed in the middle of the night buried in the Budget Implementation Act spur outrage with the Canadian public – and help with the Charter Challenge or would it be too late?

    Our government counts on the sheeple it leads.

17. At this point, you have to pick your spots.

    The lawyer will decide whether to recommend starting a Charter case now based on the bill (at the very least, I suspect he will want to see what gets tabled for 2nd reading as they very likely WILL make technical – not substantive – changes based on comments received through the consultation process). That will likely garner some publicity and provide some opportunity to apply a bit of pressure on Parliament. Given July 1 implementation, I expect this will be on the fast track for Parliament so I wouldn’t count on legal and Parliamentary calendars being in perfect synch. My thought would be keep them on separate tracks and if the opportunity comes to co-ordinate, great.

    As far as Parliament alone goes, two tracks:

    a) continue to educate any and all MP’s on this story (see below); and
    b) plan on a focused effort of letter/fax/email writing from as many concerned people as can be rounded up as soon as the bill is tabled and sent to committee (very, very likely to be Finance).

    The message needs to be tight and focused. I know there are a lot of bruised and hurt feeling represented on this site, and justifiably so, but the message will be most effective if focused on things that will resonate. Canada doesn’t care if the US allows you to be a dual citizen – they do care if you are being subjected to threats and discrimination in Canada as a Canadian. Too many talking points and the message is lost in the weeds. From my point of view at least, the compelling points to highlight are:

    1. Approximately 1 million Canadians are potentially impacted as “US Persons” by this bill – they are invisible just as the 800,000 “Canadian Persons” in the US are, but present in every riding in the country;

    2. Almost ALL of the 1 million are Canadians – many are Canadians from birth, many others have been tax-paying, law-abiding Canadians for decades. These are not “Americans resident in Canada” as the Minister of National Revenue maligned them. These are Canadians the bulk of whom do not consider themselves to be American and have not for years. The US has changed their laws numerous times over the past years to confer unwanted citizenship on many of them. Affected Canadians include disabled children of American-born parents who are deemed incompetent to renounce US citizenship and yet have their Canadian disability cheques taxed in the US.

    3. This is NOT about helping to stop tax evasion. There are Canadians with no US income living and paying taxes fully in Canada. Most would owe no taxes in the US in any event given various tax credits available. It is a vast fishing expedition designed to catch only a few fish but the costs of compliance are in the billions and provide Canada with NO benefits whatever. We don’t allow the police to search every house in a neighborhood to look for a single drug dealer but we are proposing to allow a foreign country to search ALL of our most confidential financial records to find “cheats” that very likely to do not even exist as Canada is hardly a tax haven jurisdiction.

    4. No Canadians are required to disclose national origin as a condition of obtaining services in Canada. Now Canadians with US origins will be singled out for discrimination. In Europe, banks are closing accounts of thousands of long-time residents of American origin – the same can happen here. This is a clear Charter violation.

    5. The law will see private confidential information of Canadians who are in no way “US Persons” handed over in bulk to the IRS: joint account holders with “US Persons”, business partners of “US Persons”, even former “US Persons” who appear as if they MIGHT be “US Persons” all with neither consent nor notice. Once handed over, there are virtually NO safeguards as to the confidentiality of the information when it is out of our jurisdiction.

    6. The “exemption” negotiated for registered accounts is a mirage. The IRS will be notified of all other accounts held by the holders of such accounts and will them to be reported directly anyway under threats of prosecution and confiscation. It will simply take two steps instead of one.

    7. This information will be used by a foreign government to attempt to threaten and extort billions in fines, penalties and double taxation from Canadian citizens. in almost no cases are any taxes actually owing, but the IRS will be able to demand fines and penalties for years of non-reporting of “foreign” bank accounts held by Canadians in Canada. Canada recently expelled a diplomat from Eritrea for such activity – Eritrea being the only other country on earth that seeks such intrusive long-arm jurisdiction.

    8. This is an incredibly one-sided deal. The IRS promises NO additional cooperation for Canada’s benefit and will not even present the Agreement for ratification by Congress. Canada will be asked to ratify and make the Agreement paramount over all other laws of Canada and it will be of no force or effect in the United States. Even the government does not hide the fact that this is the product of US pressure, pure and simple. This is no way for a sovereign nation to behave.

    9. Canada cannot sacrifice the Charter rights of its citizens to cave into extortion threats made against Canadian banks. As the largest trading partner and home of targeted “US Persons”, Canada can say “no”.

    Already the piece appears too long to me, but those are, I think, the highlights that any MP should be able to understand.

18. @Anne Frank – You summarize this so well. These are the main points ALL Canadians need to understand. This ‘agreement’ is so lopsided one can only conclude it was signed simply to avoid the ‘30% assault’. That makes it coercion and extortion, certainly NOT an agreement.

    Thanks for you summary. It should be repeated many times by many persons.

19. Only a Canadian, Anne Frank,

    I agree — do we have permission to use your summary of the absurdities and injustice for US Persons in Canada? Good work.

20. @Calgary411: Please: cut, paste, copy – as you wish. No copywrite in anything posted under a pseudonym on a public blog! More seriously, I DO think that we should all be ready to send out our own emails with much the same message to the entire Finance Committee (now or very soon). By now I expect everyone has send something to their own MP’s and the added effort of showing up at meet and greet’s such as Calgary411 the other day all serve the purpose of raising the profile of the issue and educating the MP’s who need to get on top of it.

21. @ Anne Frank
    Thank you. Exactly what I need. Would this be the correct list of people on the Finance Committee?

    Conservatives: james.rajotte@parl.gc.ca (chair) — Mark.Adler@parl.gc.ca — shelly.glover@parl.gc.ca — randy.hoback@parl.gc.ca — Brian Jean (resigned January 17, 2014) — cathy.mcleod@parl.gc.ca — dave.vankesteren@parl.gc.ca

    Liberal: scott.brison@parl.gc.ca (vice-chair)

    New Democratic Party: Peggy.Nash@parl.gc.ca (vice-chair) — Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca — peter.julian@parl.gc.ca — wayne.marston@parl.gc.ca

    Did anyone replace Brian Jean?

22. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca and follow links to FINA (Finance Committee). There are links there for the committee membership and a guide for submitting briefs to the Committee.

23. Okay, this looks like the CURRENT list of Finance Committee members (as per http://www.parl.gc.ca):

    Conservatives: james.rajotte@parl.gc.ca (chair) — Mark.Adler@parl.gc.ca — mike.allen@parl.gc.ca — gerald.keddy@parl.gc.ca — andrew.saxton@parl.gc.ca — dave.vankesteren@parl.gc.ca

    Liberal: scott.brison@parl.gc.ca (vice-chair)

    New Democratic Party: Peggy.Nash@parl.gc.ca (vice-chair) — Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca — Guy.Caron@parl.gc.ca

    Contact for FINA:
    Christine Lafrance
    Clerk of the Committee
    Tel.: 613-992-9753
    Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street
    House of Commons
    Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
    Canada
    Fax: 613-947-3089
    E-mail: FINA@parl.gc.ca

24. @AnneFrank,

    You have presented a wonderful summarization of the issues, but with all due respect many of us have been saying the same thing in letters and emails to our respective MP’s, the Finance committee members, Flaherty, party leaders, Harper, etc. for months and even years. How loud do we have to scream before they listen? Maybe there were too few of us before, and the critical mass is starting to form. Let’s hope.

25. OK, I don’t know where to post this but here I am…..just about ready to burst an aneurysm!

    Just home from a dinner party and one of the guests was a Wealth Management Advisor for the Royal Bank, Main Branch downtown Toronto. I asked her what she thought about FATCA and she looked at me like I had six heads………she HAD NEVER HEARD OF IT!
    (Well, I’ll tell ya, she knows about it NOW. I guess it is one person at a time…UGH).