@LizT1 Some interesting comments by Privacy Commissioner & SCOC ignored b4 passing of the #FATCA IGA https://t.co/t30Ch8SS38

— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) March 20, 2016

 
Some might find it interesting that members of the Canadian Senate had concerns regarding the #FATCA IGA and one of them, Hon. Pierrette Ringuette, moved that Part V be deleted in its entirety. Ms Ringuette lives in a border town and perhaps we should be in touch with her. At the very least, along with Murray Rankin, Nathan Cullen and others, I now link the three Senators supporting a deletion of Part V of the IGA legislation with Canadian legislators who are worthy of their seats.

There are two issues raised in this material that I think need investigation. One is a comment of Hon. Joseph A Day:

I will refrain from talking about what transpired prior to Bill C-31 being received by this chamber and referred to our committee for consideration. It’s now back as a result of the consideration that took place.

I have yet to read all of the transcripts of that time period and have no idea what Mr. Day is referring to. Perhaps it has nothing to do with C-31 but if it does, it suggests something was not as it should have been. I think it probably does given her says “It’s now back.” Does anyone know?

And another by Senator Ringuette, speaking of a statement made by Privacy Commissioner Daniel Thierren:

But now that the Supreme Court has ruled that this information deserves a high level of privacy, the government needs to take C-13 and S-4 back to the drawing board, he said.

This is discussed below. I don’t remember any of this; perhaps I just never saw it and/or it seemed so hopeless given HOC clearly was going to pass C-31. However, now it seems very important.

The focus of this post is simply this last section of the debate (i.e., the portion beginning with Senator Ringuette); our general discussions have tended more toward the HOC FINA meetings and I think it is notable that there were strong objections within the Senate, to the #FATCA IGA legislation.

2nd Session, 41st Parliament,
Volume 149, Issue 74
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker

Orders of the Day
Business of the Senate

Economic Action Plan 2014 Bill #1
Third Reading

I am excluding a very long section that has nothing specific to Section V. I am including the fact that there were two other motions regarding delaying the third reading of Bill C-31.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Joseph A. Day: For that reason, honourable senators, I move:

That Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, on pages 207 to 259, by deleting Division 25 of Part 6.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Therefore, honourable senators, I move:

That Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, on pages 145 and 146, by deleting Division 14 of Part 6.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Continuing debate.

[Translation]

********
Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, at second reading of the bill, we debated trade marks and demutualization. However, today, I want to talk about clause 5 of the bill, which concerns the Canada-U.S. tax information exchange agreement.
On Monday, we discussed the very important matter of people’s privacy. Unfortunately, a few days later, the new Privacy Commissioner said the following which, I believe, is at the heart of what I will share with you later.
[English]

In an interview before MacKay’s comments, privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien said the government treated basic customer data as relatively benign, which may have been reasonable at the time.
But now that the Supreme Court has ruled that this information deserves a high level of privacy, the government needs to take C-13 and S-4 back to the drawing board, he said.
“The premise under which this legislation was constructed has been held to be invalid,” said Therrien.

 
*****
NB: S-4 was an amended version of PIPEDA which is now law.
This enactment amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to, among other things,

“(The bill) extends the ability to disclose subscriber information without a warrant from law enforcement to any private sector organizations by including a provision that allows organizations to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law.”

IMHO, if the SCOC rules that a reasonable amount of privacy can be expected regarding subscriber information, imagine how it would view release of highly personal financial information (that previously could not be shared by banks, not even with the CRA).
*****
(Sen. Ringuette cont:)
Privacy is a very important issue. Colleagues, for three years now I’ve taken a very keen interest in the issue of taxation for dual citizens in Canada. Living in a border community with the U.S., as many of us do, I know that many Canadian citizens were born in the U.S. and vice versa. We have a major issue all along border communities, and I have been working on this for three years now. I have my file here. I’ve been in discussion with the U.S. embassy here that seems to have quite a revolving door in regard to this issue and getting answers for Canadians.
I think one of the things that is kind of funny in this situation is that the U.S. is a country that bases personal income tax on citizenship and not residency like the rest of the world. Their tax policy has always been that way. It’s funny that a country that had a revolution started by the Boston Tea Party based on taxation without services would have legislation to tax citizen non-residents who are not getting services from their government, but I guess that’s it.
The issue is that their income tax law has always been that way. However, a few years back they noticed that a lot of Canadian citizens and residents were not complying with their income tax act. Therefore, they said that what they will do is say to all foreign banks with a banking institution within their territory that they will have to comply in their home country subsidiary to the taxation information and law in the U.S. with regard to information for citizens — not residents, citizens.
That has sparked a lot of discussion throughout the country, and I’ve had a lot of discussions with the U.S. embassy here on the issue. Honestly, how can a Canadian government enforce, directly or indirectly, foreign legislation?
Second, how can this country sign an agreement to give private Canadian citizens’ information via Canada Revenue Agency to the U.S.? From my perspective, that’s a clear breach of our Canadian citizen, whether they are dual or not.
(1800)

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Ringuette: That is a clear breach of their privacy.

I also believe it is a clear breach of our Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms, section 8, which says, “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” and section 15(1), which says, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination” —

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Allow me to interrupt you a few seconds, Senator Ringuette. Is there agreement that we do not see the clock?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette, I’m sorry. I used up one of your minutes, so you can have one more.

Senator Ringuette: If you want to give me more time, Mr. Speaker, I will take it.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: We will start with one minute.
[English]

Senator Ringuette: I will repeat section 15(1)of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
In my opinion,Part 5 of Bill C-31 is a clear violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also, from my perspective, a clear violation of our Canadian citizens’ right to privacy.

Senator Moore: Sure it is.

Senator Ringuette: The Canadian government has not signed such an agreement with the Chinese government, the Russian government, with France or with the U.K. This is doneparticularly for Canadian citizens who also are U.S. citizens, and this has all been done in order to help the Canadian banks that have branches in the U.S. That is the basis of this agreement. It’s to save Canadian banks from this U.S. legislation.

By the way, the way the act is written, it removes any kind of court challenge for that information within the Canadian banks. It puts all the onus on the Canada Revenue Agency. That’s phenomenal. As a government, you say that you pride yourselves with regard to private business and competition and so forth, and you would remove that onus of responsibility from these banking institutions.

I will tell you again that many of the citizens from my area of the country are very upset with the U.S. legislation, and they are doubly upset with the fact that the Canadian government is acting against the fact that they reside in Canada. They are Canadian citizens, just like anyone else, and they are being targeted by this agreement and the current bill we have in front of us, and it is not right. If the Americans want to collect personal income tax, that is their responsibility. They are not given facts that someone might be corrupt or there must be money laundering or something else. There’s no criminal intent here, none whatsoever. It’s not like talking about the FINTRAC issue. That is not the purpose. The purpose of this bill is to give personal financial information about Canadian citizens to a foreign country. I have been through that issue before in the case of Tepper in New Brunswick. I know what can happen when that kind of misleading information is provided to a foreign nation.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Therefore, honourable senators, I move:

THAT Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) on pages 72 to 83, by deleting Part 5; and
(b) on pages 316 to 357, by deleting Schedule 3.

Senator Ringuette: I’m willing to answer questions.

Senator Cordy: They don’t want questions. They don’t want the answers.
[Translation]

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, for those who need more details, I would like to add a few comments as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and vice-chair of the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee.

To begin, clause 99 refers us to a section in the agreement signed with the United States earlier this year that must be enacted through legislation. It should be noted that Canadian banks will be charged a 30 per cent penalty for undeclared funds. That is a major penalty.

Canadians who have been living here for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have not renounced their American citizenship and who have a bank account worth less than $50,000 — I’m talking about general bank accounts — with various terms and conditions or an insurance contract under $250,000 will not be affected. Everyone else is.

We have received letters from distressed Canadians who have been here since the 1970s and 1980s. They retired in Canada and are worried about losing their home because of these retroactive contributions that go back decades.

Canadians who have accounts in the United States are also targeted. Many Canadians, including a large number of Quebecers, spend a good part of the winter in Florida. Usually they do some shopping, have some fun and have a bank account. These people are required to declare their bank account. In this case, Revenue Canada deals with the files of Canadians in the United States. They have to fill out a form. There is a process in place for that. They don’t have a choice because they won’t be able to return to the United States if they don’t complete the required documents.
(1810)
I must say that the government has a lot of nerve taking money out of Canadians’ pockets in this way, given the wrongdoing that occurred on Wall Street and the impact of the financial collapse in the United States. It is therefore obvious that I support my colleague’s motion regarding clause 99.

Hon. Maria Chaput: The only thing I will say about the other parts and divisions of Bill C-31 is that I support the honourable senators who presented amendments today. The thing that bothers me, honourable senators, is the flagrant lack of consultation, the potential for constitutional consequences, the threat to privacy and the fact that the onus seems to be on the individual, to name but a few of my concerns.
[English]

In conclusion, I invite all of you to go back in time by approximately 20 years, when Stephen Harper, an opposition MP, got up in the other place to say:

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

I quote again:

Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.
This was Mr. Harper’s reaction to a 21-page budget bill. The one he has submitted to us today is 380 pages long. We have certainly come a long way from 1994.

I, for one, cannot stand in conflict with my own principles. Bill C-31 is not a good thing for our country. We should not be forced to vote in a block when we agree on some of the measures but are opposed to others.
**********

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question before the house is it was moved by Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif:

That Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) on pages 72 to 83, by deleting Part 5; and

(b) on pages 316 to 357, by deleting Schedule 3.

Motion in amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Callbeck Jaffer
Campbell Kenny
Chaput Massicotte
Charette-Poulin McCoy
Cordy Mercer
Cowan Merchant
Dawson Mitchell
Day Moore
Downe Munson
Dyck Ringuette
Eggleton Rivest
Furey Smith (Cobourg)
Hervieux-Payette Tardif—27
Hubley

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Andreychuk Marshall
Ataullahjan Martin
Batters McInnis
Bellemare McIntyre
Beyak Mockler
Black Nancy Ruth
Boisvenu Neufeld
Buth Ngo
Carignan Ogilvie
Champagne Oh
Dagenais Patterson
Demers Poirier
Doyle Raine
Eaton Rivard
Enverga Runciman
Fortin-Duplessis Seidman
Frum Seth
Gerstein Smith (Saurel)
Greene Stewart Olsen
Housakos Unger
Johnson Verner
Lang Wallace
LeBreton Wells
MacDonald White—49
Maltais

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nolin—1