MINUTES of Proceedings: Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) 42nd Parliament, 1st Session Meeting No. 8, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 8:45 a.m. to 10:49 a.m.
and
There has been comment on the Revenue Minister’s qualifications for her post. Here, as well, is some discussion (brought forward by EmBee) on Daniel Therrien’s qualifications for Privacy Commissioner:
From *The Privacy Advisor* – May 29, 2014 *Harper Pick for Privacy Commissioner “May Not Be the Best Fit*
News that the Harper government has nominated a new federal privacy commissioner is sending shock waves through the Canadian privacy community. But the buzz isn’t over the fact that former Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart’s replacement has been found; rather, it’s over the fact that no one in the privacy world has ever heard of the newly nominated-for-appointment Daniel Therrien—and what they have heard doesn’t sound good if the end-goal is the protection of Canadians’ privacy rights.
What is known about Therrien is that he’s been a lawyer at the Department of Justice (DOJ) for more than 20 years. His current title is assistant deputy attorney general, public safety, defence and immigration portfolio. And in the midst of an increasing push by the government for surveillance powers and law enforcement access to Canadians’ data—a la bills like thehighly controversial C-13 and now-dead-in-the-water C-30—a lawyer who’s worked on helping the DOJ achieve those aims isn’t exactly who privacy advocates had in mind as the chief defender of privacy rights.
In fact, NDP Leader Thomas Mulclair has outright told the Harper government that Therrien has “neither the neutrality nor the necessary detachment to hold this position,” CBCreports, and has asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reconsider the nomination, which, by mandate of the Privacy Act, the House of Commons and the Senate must approve.
The argument that the USA has had CBT on the books since 1913 is meaningless.
First of all, most never knew about CBT cause no one would even dream of it cause it makes no sense to tax or require an inventory of financial assets every year from people who do not live or earn in the USA. Surely the MNR must get this.
Second of all, CBT (where citizen is not what most people view as a citizen) is at the very least, very unfair, punitive, and anti-social (for those who don’t like it described as immoral or abusive) thus to have respect for the USA to subject Canadians living in Canada to it, is to condone harm of a subset of Canadian citizens.
What she is in effect saying is that while we don’t agree with financially raping our own Canadian citizens, we respect the USA’s decision to do this to our own citizens, and we will give them the names and addresses of Canadians USA has not raped yet, in order that it may attempt to do so. But hey, our hands our clean though, cause although we will pull your pants down, we are not directly the ones who are fucking you with laws we would never inflict on Canadians who leave Canada. It is your fault for not revealing your bank accounts, reporting and paying taxes on your passive foreign investment companies (i.e. your Canadian mutual funds)and ‘foreign trusts’ (i.e. your RESPS, RRSPs, RDSPs). It is your fault you did not exit US personhood the way US says you are to do or face financial ruin.
Whitekat 10:42pm….I LOVE your comment below. I promise you I’ll be sharing your words (permission please) with whatever US based in laws I have. Well said!
“What she is in effect saying is that while we don’t agree with financially raping our own Canadian citizens, we respect the USA’s decision to do this to our own citizens, and we will give them the names and addresses of Canadians USA has not raped yet, in order that it may attempt to do so. But hey, our hands our clean though, cause although we will pull your pants down, we are not directly the ones who are fucking you with laws we would never inflict on Canadians who leave Canada. It is your fault for not revealing your bank accounts, reporting and paying taxes on your passive foreign investment companies (i.e. your Canadian mutual funds)and ‘foreign trusts’ (i.e. your RESPS, RRSPs, RDSPs). It is your fault you did not exit US personhood the way US says you are to do or face financial ruin.”
@Pierre…lol. Please do share.
Mr. Murray Rankin:
Okay.
I’d like to ask you about something else you said just now. I’m very pleased to see that you’ve also drawn this committee’s attention to the provisions of the Income Tax Act that allow CRA officials to tell the police about things that concern them, without any warrant. You’ve said that this information would be shared between the CRA and law enforcement authorities without “judicial oversight”. I take it that you think that would be an aberration. What word would you use to describe that situation?
[Expand]
Ms. Chantal Bernier:
I would describe it as an exception, and that exception needs to be justified as necessary and proportionate, so I urge you to seek the demonstration that indeed it would be necessary to have this exception.
[Expand]
Mr. Murray Rankin:
Necessary? Do you mean in terms of compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
[Expand]
Ms. Chantal Bernier:
Yes, absolutely. Obviously you have section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which speaks of necessity “prescribed by law” and “justified in a free and democratic society”. That is the test to meet, and I think evidence should be gathered from this committee as to why this provision is felt to be necessary.”
Has the above test and evidence gathering ever been done by Parliament or this committee as Chantal Bernier advised?
“…I think evidence should be gathered from this committee as to why this provision is felt to be necessary.”
Budget 2014 (February 11, 2014)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&DocId=6601885#Int-8361819
Admins, please delete my previous post above, of May 7, 2016 at 12:02 am and insert the text below instead (older one was incomplete):
Contrast the contents of this committee meeting with the comments by then Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier at the time the FATCA IGA implementing legislation was hidden inside the OmniBill C-31, and see exchange below:
Finance Committee on May 14th, 2014
Meeting #35 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session
On the agenda: Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament
https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/35/murray-rankin-5/
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
“Okay. That’s excellent.
Now I have a question for Madam Bernier, from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. We had testimony from Mr. Ernewein, of the Department of Finance, who said, “Our understanding is that in relation to Canadian law, the Privacy Act and its various provisions are subject to other laws of Parliament.” We’re led to believe that this agreement could supersede the Privacy Act. Is that your opinion as well?”
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
“The Privacy Act has been declared to be quasi-constitutional by the courts. He was perhaps referring to section 8 of the Privacy Act; that section does mention “subject” to other laws. However, in general, the Privacy Act has quasi-constitutional status.”
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
“Therefore, what that means, in lay terms, is that if the intergovernmental agreement or the provisions of Bill C-31 are in conflict with the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act would prevail.”
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
“That would be my view, certainly.”
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
“Okay.
I’d like to ask you about something else you said just now. I’m very pleased to see that you’ve also drawn this committee’s attention to the provisions of the Income Tax Act that allow CRA officials to tell the police about things that concern them, without any warrant. You’ve said that this information would be shared between the CRA and law enforcement authorities without “judicial oversight”. I take it that you think that would be an aberration. What word would you use to describe that situation?”
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
“I would describe it as an exception, and that exception needs to be justified as necessary and proportionate, so I urge you to seek the demonstration that indeed it would be necessary to have this exception.”
https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/35/chantal-bernier-5/
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
“Necessary? Do you mean in terms of compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?”
May 14th, 2014 / 3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
“Yes, absolutely. Obviously you have section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which speaks of necessity “prescribed by law” and “justified in a free and democratic society”. That is the test to meet, and I think evidence should be gathered from this committee as to why this provision is felt to be necessary.”
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
“So it’s of concern to the Privacy Commissioner?”
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
“It is of concern to us, yes.”
…………………
So, why is the current Privacy Commissioner Therrien not raising these issues?
Read MP Goodale’s assurances re another data sharing agreement with the US. Similar phrases used to pretend that our data and privacy and rights are being protected:
ex.
“….“If we find that the information is being abused, we can withdraw from the arrangement,” Goodale responded when asked how Canada can prevent the U.S. from sharing information with other U.S. government departments such as the Internal Revenue Service.
“We expect countries to behave honourably and if we find that our arrangements are being abused, we will exercise our authority to protect ourselves.”
Asked whether Canada would be prepared to scrap the deal should the deal be abused, Goodale said he would.
“If the misuse is egregious, that is our recourse, yes, to terminate the arrangement.”……”
….
…”Goodale assured MPs that the government is working closely with the office of Canada’s Privacy Commissioner to ensure that any concerns about privacy are addressed. The information that will be exchanged will be the basic information found on page two of passports, he said.
“The legislation that we will introduce in the House – when it applies to Canadians it does require legislation – that will lay out the parameters surrounding the use of the information and we will insist that the use be very strictly within the terms that are laid out in the legislation,” he later told reporters.
“The arrangements between Canada and the U.S. will be very precise in terms of definitions and each country will agree that the information is used precisely for those purposes and no others.”..”…..
http://ipolitics.ca/2016/06/02/canada-u-s-deal-would-be-scrapped-if-privacy-infringed-goodale/
(thanks to Tricia for tip off about this article).
More, recently from Therrien on FATCA;
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/32/daniel-therrien-4/
November 1st, 2016 / 11:15 a.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
” Daniel Therrien
I’ll put it at the level of policy objective. That issue, of course, was raised in the context of FATCA, as an example. The first step, I think, is to determine whether the agreement between Canada and another state—here the United States—for tax purposes is trying to achieve a legitimate purpose. In the case of FATCA, the objective was to avoid tax evasion, which is a legitimate purpose.
In general terms, first, the purpose must be identified. Is it a legitimate purpose? Then, ensure that the information that being shared is consistent with that purpose and does not go beyond that purpose. If you follow these rules, yes, the information of certain Canadian individuals or companies may be shared, but it will be because an analysis will have been made that there is a valid policy objective to be achieved and that no more than what needs to be shared for that purpose is shared.”