Marc Garneau, “Tabling of Treaty” Points of Order, Routine Proceedings, April 28, 2014
…This agreement is indeed a treaty, and is even housed in the “treaty” section of the Department of Finance’s website.
With a treaty before us, our attention turns to the Government of Canada’s “Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament”. I turn the attention of the House to part 6.2 of that policy, which states in part (b):
For treaties that require implementing legislation before the Government can proceed to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession…the Government will:
Observe a waiting period of at least twenty-one sitting days before the introduction of the necessary implementing legislation in Parliament…
I have made a search of the Journals and I am unable to find any notice of this treaty being tabled before this body prior to 21 days before the introduction of Bill C-31. This leads me to believe that the government may have sought to use the exception to this part of the tabling policy, but that stipulates:
If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification.
That is from 6.3, part (b), of the government’s “Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament”.
and MR. KPMG looks SO compassionate does he not?
He looks like the German authority stamping papers for the cattle train he intends to put you on.
@Furious
You are only half right in your 9:48 pm comment, because you address only the US position (to the US the IGA is NOT a new treaty).
To Canada, the IGA IS a new treaty, because it is being enacted as such through parliament.
You have missed Christians and Cockfield’s point about legal “incoherence” because of the differing status the IGA will have in Canada and the US.
I am grateful to Mr. Garneau for his advocacy. A voice of reason in the parliamentary babble of nonsense.
I neglected to say that I particularly appreciate Mr. Garneau’s mention of the necessity to have Minister Baird’s involvement on this issue. I wrote to Minister Baird months and months ago, twice, in fact, urging him to take note of FATCA and treat it is the “international incident” that it surely is. I have heard nothing from him.
Thanks @bubblebustin for picking that quote out by Garneau
http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/4/28/marc-garneau-4/
Read further exchanges about FATCA in that session:
For example, from the NDP’s Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/4/28/peter-julian-1/
“……Therefore, when the government House leader stands and says that we have to look at the objective or the purpose, the objective or the purpose, I imagine, of hiding this tax information exchange agreement inside a larger omnibus legislation is simply to hide it from the million Canadians who are profoundly impacted by the government’s action.
The reality is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that bilateral tax information exchange agreements are filed in the House. It is quite correct to say that the practice has been to bring it forward to the House and not to hide it in omnibus legislation…”….
Tabling of Treaty
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings
3:40 p.m.
(Note, in openparliament.ca to the right of the beginning of the entry, there is a chain icon which generates a permanent link if one wants to bookmark the comment, or cut and paste it for others to go to).
We could send emails of thanks noting (and quoting) these MPs comments against FATCA so that they know that someone is indeed watching. We don’t have to be their constituents to do so. And cc a copy to the Finance, Privacy and other shadow cabinet MPs who deal with portfolios that FATCA touches and the Party leaders, so that they see that we appreciate their opposition to FATCA.
Maybe this can grow into an election issue or at least get more public and media attention to FATCA and CBT. It helps to educate anyone reading the transcripts, watching the debates, or the other MPs attending too.
It occurs to me that Marc Garneau http://marcgarneau.ca/about-marc/ might have special understanding of how the FATCA IGA might raise unique sovereignty and other issues in Quebec because of Quebec’s historic concern with areas of sovereignty – which include taxing powers and treaty powers, and any possibly unique aspects of Revenu Quebec’s relationship with the CRA (who will administer FATCA in Canada).
As noted here for example; “……..The PQ definition of sovereignty was first set out in a white paper before the 1980 referendum. It was subsequently accepted by the Bélanger-Campeau commission and the National Assembly used it in the 1991 referendum legislation. According to this definition, Quebec sovereignty means:
all taxes in Quebec are collected by the Quebec government;
all laws in Quebec are drafted by the National Assembly; and
all international treaties and agreements involving Quebec are negotiated by the Quebec government and ratified by the National Assembly.
The flip side of the coin is that the Canadian government would no longer collect taxes from a sovereign Quebec. Canadian laws wouldn’t have legal force anymore in Quebec. And Canadian treaties and agreements would no longer bind Quebec……” http://www.global-economics.ca/dth.chap2.htm
Here is MP Garneau’s contact information:
marc.garneau@parl.gc.ca
http://marcgarneau.ca/contact/
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/constituencies/Westmount-Ville-Marie%28396%29
Contact information for NDP MP Peter Julian re his comments about FATCA http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/4/28/peter-julian-1/
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parliamentarians/en/members/peter-julian
http://openparliament.ca/politicians/peter-julian/contact/
peter.julian@parl.gc.ca