THE TRANSCRIPT IS UP!
UPDATED LINKS TO THE VIDEO:
ParlVU site: The original ParlVU video
Isaac Brock Society YouTube channel: The entire meeting, featuring John Richardson’s presentation and interaction with the committee.
[ UPDATE of interest, but possibly not related, for May 14, 2014: Joe Oliver will be before the House tonight according to the CBC — FATCA IGA not indicated as a topic. ]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
2nd Session, 41st Parliament
NOTICE OF MEETING
Standing Committee on Finance
Meeting No. 35
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Room C-110, 1 Wellington Street
(613-947-7776)
Orders of the Day
Televised
Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures
Witnesses
3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
As an individual
John Richardson
Canadian Bankers Association
Darren Hannah, Acting Vice-President
Policy and Operations
Canadian Council of Chief Executives
Brian Kingston, Senior Associate
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier, Interim Privacy Commissioner
5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
As an individual
Sean Bruyea, Retired Captain, Columnist, Media Personality and Academic Researcher
Canadian Bar Association
Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, Chair
Commodity Tax, Customs and Trade Section
Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association
Shannon Coombs, President
Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
Gordon Lloyd, Vice-President
Technical Affairs
Videoconference – Vancouver, British Columbia
As an individual
Dominique Gross, Professor
School of Public Policy, Simon Fraser University
The report from the interim privacy commissioner is online;
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/412/FINA/WebDoc/WD6526468/412_FINA_C-31_Briefs%5COfficeOfThePrivacyCommissionerOfCanada-e.pdf
The Interim OPC didn’t say much and certainly doesn’t help us much, if at all. Basically she said: info sharing is not a new concept, we trust the CRA, we trust our FIs, Charter concerns are beyond our scope, bit worried about over-reporting though … THE END. And for this we held our breath and waited and waited and waited for her to break her silence and finally say something about FATCA.
United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)
Continuing with the subject of information-sharing, Bill C-31 introduces an Agreement to implement the exchange of tax information between Canada and the United States which, we understand, resulted from discussions between Canada and the United States regarding the United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). FATCA requires financial institutions in countries outside of the United States, including Canada, to report certain information on accounts of a “U.S. Person” to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Under the Agreement, Canadian financial institutions will be required to begin due diligence procedures starting July 1, 2014, and to report information to the CRA beginning in 2015. It is our understanding that the first exchange of information between the CRA and the IRS will be in 2015. I would like to note that there is a long-established practice of information sharing between nations for the purposes of taxation enforcement. This isn’t a new concept. That said, we would expect that this and all information sharing activities be undertaken in a way which respects privacy.
We are aware that some hold the view that this agreement violates section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that it discriminates against Canadians based on place of birth or citizenship4; however, this issue is beyond the scope of my Office’s mandate.
Equally beyond our scope is how foreign jurisdictions implement their own tax collecting operations. That said, if Parliament seeks to make this reporting requirement required by law, we would expect that CRA will carry out its new FATCA-related responsibilities in a manner which meets its obligations under the Privacy Act. Similarly, we expect private-sector organizations, such as financial institutions, that may be legally required to collect and disclose customers’ personal information to CRA pursuant to FATCA, to comply with their privacy obligations under PIPEDA. These obligations include the requirement that, among other things, organizations limit the amount of personal information they collect about individuals and safeguard the personal information in their care. To that end, we would expect that education and outreach to institutions affected by this new reporting requirement, should it pass, would be crucial in ensuring that is it done in the most privacy-sensitive manner possible.
The extent to which these two elements of Bill C-31 – expanding the collection of information in the context of anti-money laundering and undertaking information-sharing with a foreign state for the purposes of enforcing a foreign law – represent a gradual expansion of scope is currently unknown. We note that when the PCMLTFA was first introduced in 2002, it had narrowly and clearly defined reporting requirements. As time progressed, the incentive to over-report has gradually increased; Bill C-31 increases it further still. We would strongly urge the Committee to advise the government to proceed with caution to avoid the potential for scope creep.
4 See Peter Hogg’s letter to the Department of Finance, which was referenced by Elizabeth May in the House of Commons. http://elizabethmaymp.ca/wp-content/upload/peter_hogg_fatca.pdf
Holy moly I didn’t put that whole thing in BOLD. What’s up? Did Bold Finger strike Brock again?
4 See Peter Hogg’s letter to the Department of Finance, which was referenced by Elizabeth May in the House of Commons. http://elizabethmaymp.ca/wp-content/upload/peter_hogg_fatca.pdf
I found and fixed — the problem was in the post itself. We’re unbolded.
Thanks calgary411. All’s well again. That much bold print can hurt your head.
I am feeling better……
Kicking the can in the long grass is better than her coming out against us.
Being an Interim Privacy Commissioner means just that interim, will an interim make waves?
The good news is that she referenced Peter Hogg.
And she states it is “disporportionate.”
“this Bill appears to introduce privacy-invasive measures disproportionate to the identified threat.”
Deeeeeeep breaaaaaathhhhhhhhhhhh.
I am feeling better.
I do have this habit of always seeking a silver lining..
I thought someone sometime indicated that Harper could do a Charter override if something was absolutely necessary and it was proportionate.
We now have the Interim Privacy Commissioner on the record that the FATCA IGA is “disporportionate” to the threat.
So how do you justify a Charter override?
@ George
FATCA is almost above all a PRIVACY matter. The OPC (interim or otherwise) is supposed to be safe-guarding PRIVACY. This is a wishy-washy statement and doesn’t make me breathe easier at all. Perhaps the FINA committee members will detain her for questioning. Gotta hope so.
Em; She does state-
“this Bill appears to introduce privacy-invasive measures disproportionate to the identified threat.”
Thats the money statement and headline. The Interim Privacy Commissioner has publicly stated this is a disproportionate bill.
But upon my first reading I was hyperventilating, heart palpitations and blood pressure was up, seriously.
So to get a Harper appointee reference Peter Hogg and declare it is disproportionate.
Disappointed she did not reference the previous Privacy Commissioner funded via a grant to Prof. Arthur Cockfield of Queens University (which was only posted at SSRN on May 6, 2014:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2433198
‘FATCA and the Erosion of Canadian Taxpayer Privacy’
Hat tip to Badger over at Maple Sandbox.
@ George
Guess it’s just me but if PRIVACY and Canadian PRIVACY specifically, is your raison d’être and the reason you are getting a pay-cheque from Canadian taxpayers then I expect you to be more forceful and “appears to introduce” just doesn’t cut it. It’s like those young-uns who speak in interrogative cadence when they making a statement. It makes you think they just aren’t sure of their statement at all.
BTW, I just got a call from the Conservative Party asking for support. My response: “Please don’t ever call me again. The Harper Conservative Party has sold out 1 million Canadians by capitulating to the US FATCA law. I will never have anything to do with that party, ever again. Good bye!” I regret saying “please” but the rest was as forceful as I could manage having been taking unaware and aback by the call.
@EM, I am a glass half full guy. I am also someone influenced by Clausewitz and Sun Tzu.
With this battle we have to find the bits and pieces that will allow the dam to break. A single drop of water will bust open the mightiest dam if it flows into the right crack.
I am rather confident that FATCA will either die the death of a thousand cuts or simply a single straw will break the camels back.
This could occur when the next election takes place in October next year and a new Minister can do great change.
The Charter Challenge will be very deep by then and that will affect the next government.
Or………if enough pressure can be brought to bear on a few Conservative politicians this item will need to be defended in the daylight.
In less than thirty days;
1.) Charter Challenge Fund, is funded.
2.) Lawyer paper issued.
3.) Lawyer hired.
4.) NDP has taken on the cause.
5.) The USA has extended the compliance deadline for good faith efforts.
6.) We have people like John Richardson and Blaze going to testify!!!
7.) People like Calgary411 have told their story in major media articles.
When I look back all I can say is WOW, yet because of FATCA I am now an assorted meds and never ever plan to return to the USofA.
I will not renew my CCLA membership when it expires.
@ George
Wow you are right. That’s a darn good list of accomplishments for 30 days. I’m not on meds and vowed ages ago (pre-FATCA) to never go to the USA again but this whole FATCA fiasco certainly knocked me for a loop. I don’t think the OPC is that single drop of water but there will be others. Enough to break a dam — perhaps — hope so. Enough to put my glass of water over the halfway mark — undoubtably. I am so looking forward to watching Lynne, Allison, Arthur and John testify tomorrow and Wednesday.
Whoa Joe!
That letter was from the Privacy Commissioner–not from CCLA. They are NOT the same organization. CCLA is completely separate from the government.
I have asked Murray Rankin’s office if CCLA has been asked to testify. Please don’t punish them for the weakness of Privacy Commissioner–unless I have missed something else here.
Some of you may wish to read this very bad blog post.
http://uscrossbordertaxblog.com/will-fatca-implemented-canada/
Oops… I conflated CCLA with the Privacy Commissioner… It was the conference at U of T!!
I read only negatives and warnings in the privacy commissioner’s statement. Isn’t she a Harper appointee? That may have something to do with the tone.
@Tim
RE: “crossbordertaxblog”
Wow – that’s like a Babelfish translation of a North Korean government press release.
“For US persons resident in Canada, FATCA is another reason that you should comply with your US filing obligations or at least put yourself in a position so that those obligations no longer exist.”
Is the author suggesting lawyer-assisted suicide?
Joe, I just checked with Abby Deshman. They were not invited to testify. She is out of town doing presentations this week, but she and I will touch base later this week or next week so I can update her and see if there is anything CCLA might be able to do to help.
Strange that a Canadian Privacy Commissioner can speak of privacy and sending data to the US – under FATCA or via any other avenue, in the same breath. Even without FATCA, the effect of sending Canadian data over the border is to extinguish all accountability and all recourse – due to the provisions of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. Which Bernier should well know, as prior to being named interim PC, she was “… Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada from December 2008 to December 2013.” https://www.priv.gc.ca/au-ans/bio_cb_e.asp
Perhaps someone should mention in the committee about privacy issues that today Google lost in the EU Court of Justice.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27388289
EU citizens will now have the right to ask Google to remove data concerning them off their search engine.
It’s called the “Right to be Forgotten.”
I wonder how much our “privacy commissioner” was paid for that statement. When these statements make no sense, usually it is because of a pay off!
For the Finance Committee to consider at tomorrow’s, May 14th, meeting:
IRS program hands out billions in bad payments for earned income tax credit, watchdog finds
By Kelly Cohen | MAY 13, 2014 AT 11:30 AM
The IRS gave out between in improper payments last year,…
Despite a law requiring federal agencies to crack down on fraudulent payments, the Internal Revenue Service still paid out billions of dollars in fraudulent payments last year.
Under the Earned Income Tax Credit — a refundable tax credit for poor individuals and couples — the IRS gave out between $13.3 billion and $15.6 billion in improper payments last year, according to the agency’s inspector general.
These fraudulent tax credits accounted for almost a quarter of all EITC payments last year, the IG said. Some of the money went to people who shouldn’t have qualified for the credit; in other cases, an eligible person was paid the wrong amount.
———————————————————————————-