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”.
The Harper government has litany of abuse of constitutional and legislative procedure: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/judicial-legislative-clash-supreme-court-5-harper-0/article18295214/
I’m mostly delighted by the fact that this is some high-profile publicity. Thank you Marc Garneau.
@Petros, @All.
Part of me asks, The Government can get this passed by sheer force in numbers. Why not do it right and not be sneaky about it. The cat is literally out of the bag already so what difference does it make to them anymore.
Practically, does this mean that the opposition could compel this to be a regular debate item?
Sunshine is great for Government and your bathroom, it kills mold and mildew.
The Harper government has shown through this IGA and accompanying legislation that they believe that their majority government should be able to rule Canada without regard to minority rights. This is a slippery slope towards facism. They do not apparently see it that way. They see democracy being thwarted by judicial obstruction. But it is clear that mob rule, where by a minority of voters (because Harper didn’t win with a majority of the popular vote) destroys the Charter rights of certain Canadian citizens is an untenable form of government.
Part of what they don’t see is that they have pissed off loyal voters like myself. Harper must go. He is not worthy of leadership, because he will not protect Canadian citizens in Canada from a foreign power and foreign laws.
Not only does Harper ignore our Constitution and our Charter, he ignores Parliamentary procedure, the right of individual MPs to represent their constituents on non-confidence matters when the interests or opinions of those constituents do not coincide with those of Harper and his PMO (in the opinion of the elected MP who must face those constituents in the next election), and a whole host of other long-standing Canadian and British Common-Law traditions and principles of democracy. Harper and his advisers are nothing but closet fascists (and one must wonder how much longer they’ll keep that in the closet). They are not “conservatives” in any sense of that word that I’ve ever understood. He and they must go, absolutely. They are the biggest threat to Canadian democracy since WWII, IMO. And this goes well beyond the issues of FATCA and the IGA.
“…FATCA and its implementation, particularly as it infringes on privacy rights and the charter, forces the Canada Revenue Agency to do the IRS’ dirty work, and infringes upon our sovereignty, I will save that for a debate for another day…”
A great quote for the ADCS to use!
Anybody catch this week’s West Block? Interesting commentary about the the House of Commons.
Shines more light on the Harper hammer style of politics and the PMO in general. Elizabeth May is again excellent in her comments. She starts at 14:15. http://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-west-block/
Blast off with Marc Garneau!
For those outside of Canada who don’t know his name, Marc Garneau is a former Canadian astronaut, the first Canadian in outer space and the former head of the Canadian Space Agency. He is now a Liberal MP, Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic and Vice-Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
He ran for leader of the Liberal Party, but dropped out when it was apparent Justin Trudeau would be anointed. IMO Garneau would have been a far better leader.
Harper’s judicial losing streak reveals the limits of government action
Thanks, Deb. In part:
It seems if you voice another opinion in the Harper Government or so much as go against Mr. H. himself bingo, you’re fired. We will get rid of him and his government in the next election. His tactics, antics and I’m the boss attitude doesn’t fly in this country. He thinks he’s a hockey expert and writes a book. Now that takes arrogance. Seems he didn’t learn that hockey requires a team effort and you don’t always get to score.
@Calgary411, thanks for that link as it was very encouraging vis a vis the Charter Challenge.
This all goes back to can you treat a Canadian Citizen born in Toronto differently than a Canadian Citizen born in Syracuse? Neither Canadian Citizen had a “choice” in where they were born.
I think the Court will bring up international law and ask what is the the status of a Canadian Citizen in Canada who has lingering/clinging/unwanted nationality of a foreign power. So that question could be rightfully put to rest.
The fact that this is entangled with foreign law imposed by a foreign power adds to the mix. The politics in that are simply juicy.
Judging from the the prior slapdowns of Harper, it looks like at least half the IGA will get tossed and that is with respect to Canadian Citizens. You either hand over the information on ALL Canadian Citizens or none. I would love to see the USofA say hand it all over or face 30% withholding.
But I remain concerned that the Court could find it OK to hand over information on US permanent residents. Or for that matter a Canadian Citizen who “self identifies” as a US Citizen.
Anyways, I think Harper and the US went just too far. Instead of having half a loaf they are going to get no loaf.
They could have had an agreement to rat out all the homelanders which would have been justified. They could have likely had an agreement to rat out US Permanent Residents in Canada and elsewhere.
@George
Those are great points. There are some who believe that RDSP’s, etc, will eventually be carved out under the treaty. On one hand this tax workaround would make it more acceptable, but on the other it defeats the purpose of taxing us in the first place.
With any luck, the US will have fewer and fewer reasons to keep CBT as time goes by.
Hmm. Is it relevant to this objection that the IGA specifically is NOT a treaty under US law?
@Bubblebustin, “With any luck, the US will have fewer and fewer reasons to keep CBT as time goes by.”
In a sane world each Dual Tax Treaty should have a provision that says “A US Citizen that is tax resident in the non-US partner jurisdiction shall be considered deemed compliant with all US tax obligations.”
The US could have agreements with a solid third of the world and then apply CBT to low tax jurisdictions where homelanders sometimes venture to.
Its insane to export CBT to Canada and the EU.
@Jim, “Is it relevant to this objection that the IGA specifically is NOT a treaty under US law?”
I was thinking the same thing and that would provide the weasel excuse for Harper.
How many Canadian MPs think it is a treaty?
Ditto in the EU Countries.
@George
RBT and a departure tax like Canada’s would work in preventing those rich scoundrels from leave too, wouldn’t it? That’s one of the proposals being considered.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
It is highly desirable to get the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal caucus in Parliament to oppose FATCA. There will be an election in 2015 and there is a strong likelihood that there will be a Liberal government, whether majority or minority government. I hope that the party’s opposition to FATCA is so uncompromising that they cannot back-pedal if and when they form the government.
Treaty means different things in different legal systems. In Canada – if Bill C31 is enacted – the IGA will be law of the land. Not so in the US where treaties must be ratified by the Senate. Essentially, the US can take one of three roads with an international agreement: 1) ratify by the Senate in which case it is a “treaty” in the constitutional sense and its edicts have status of law potentially in priority to other statutes or state law (complex issue); (2) simply enact the contents in a statute (takes both Houses of course – I don’t think this is done very often). The outcome is simply a statute like any other even if the origin of it was an international agreement. 3) do nothing in which case it binds only the executive power within the scope of powers reserved to the executive (until they change their mind and decide to ignore it). This is what the IRS has done and it does not, for example, secure any legal protections to the data transferred to the US. That is my understanding but of course I’m not a US lawyer (although I play one on tv….): )
As far as backpedalling goes, recall the LPC’s position on the following prior to forming government, and what happened afterwards:
– wage and price controls
– gas tax
– Free Trade
– GST
Colour me cynical.
At least 4 comments have mysteriously disappeared from this thread (one from Australia).
Christians & Cockfield say the IGA is a new treaty in Canada’s view (new legislation).
But it is merely an extension of the 1995 treaty to the US (no new legislation).
Different views lead to legal “incoherence”.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2407264
See pages 46 to 50
So the incoherence begins. Re: Garneau, will Harper take the US view, or the Canadian?
@ Shovel,
Don’t know what happened or why, but comments posted from between approx 4:30 and 6:15 disappeared.
I’d seen one the about the Australian IGA (can’t recall who posted it, but thanks) and I followed the link in that comment to the Australian Treasury’s page. So, I’ll post them here.
Signing of Tax Agreement with the US
http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/017-2014/
Text of Australia-US FATCA IGA
http://treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/Taxation/Tax-Treaties/HTML/Intergovernmental-Agreement
Thanks to everyone who commented between 4:30 and 6:15, sorry your comments were lost, and if you are able to, I hope you will re-post.
It was me that posted the comment about the Aussie IGA, highlighting that they clearly think the IGA is a “treaty”.
@Jim Jatras and @ all:
Clearly the IGA is NOT a treaty because the US Treasury has NO authority to negotiate with sovereign nations on anything, let alone a tax treaty.
Senators in the US have repeatedly said this is illegal. Which made me wonder WHY the Canadian government would even entertain an IGA under those circumstances.
Also, as stated by US Senators, Rand Paul among them,who has a bill before the senate to repeal FATCA and a lawsuit on 4th amendment grounds against the NSA. ( warrant less searches , Probable cause)
Meaning all these penalties in place are for REAL tax dodgers not people living their lives and paying taxes in their country of residence.
The IRS is not authorized to delve into peoples privacy, especially banking. without PROBABLE CAUSE and without a WARRANT)
Now, if the Harper Government had consulted Constitutional and Charter experts instead of cross border tax ‘experts’ they might have come to the proper conclusion.
The IGA is a violation of all of these issues in the US Constitution and against 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights. We are owed an explanation.
Instead we get subterfuge and sneaking. around to hide it’s presence in Bill C-31. The Budget Bill. This is deliberate and intentional on the part of the ruling party and they need to be made ashamed.!
Sorry to leave this one the wrong thread, but KPMG Canada is on another planet with regard to FATCA. This guy says FATCA is the same as FDRs ‘nothing to fear but fear itself.’ What tosh.
Complete accountant likely unemotional ‘follow the regulations’ speak and throw dual US / Canadian citizens to the lions without a second thought. He fails to mention threat of IRS penalities and taxes to hard working resident dual US / Canadian citizens.
KPMG wake up and stop rubbing your hands with all those extra FATCA fees.