From Ann:
I have a contact for The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Letters or emails should be directed to these people regarding FACTA and IGA.
Clerk: Jodi Turner 613 990 4995
Assistant: Louise Martel 613 990 5285
General Information: 613 990 0088 or 1-800-267-7362
Fax: 613 947 2104
email: nffn@sen.parl.gc.ca
Senate Committee on National Finance
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4
*********************
From Tim:
I think it will be the Senate National Finance Committee instead. Luckily that committee doesn’t look it is moving as fast on Bill C-31 as the Banking Committee so we have some more time. Additionally the chairman of the National Finance Committee is NOT a Conservative so that might be to our advantage.
********You may send your submission in either Official Language to the Clerk of the Committee.
To get the video to work on my MAC, I had to reinstall Flip4Mac. However the fast forward doesn’t work and there is no way I’m going to sit through 2 hrs before getting to the juicy bits.
@ Duke of Devon
Let it load up for 2 hours (go out for a nice walk or something) and when you get back you’ll be able to flip through to any part you want — juice begins at 1:50:00. 🙂
Glad it helped, badger and Em. I’ve now fixed the space before “nathan” and “cathy” for anyone’s copy and paste.
I’m just getting music with a “welcome to senate committee” thing pasted over the video….now what should I do?
@Charl
If you are hearing music that means the hearing has not started yet or has ended. Wait a few minutes.
@Em
Thanks for the info on the transcript. I’ve requested both yesterday’s and today’s transcripts.
I hope someone will post them in a new thread (especially today’s hearing).
@ Hazy
Not sure the transcripts can be posted because of the “citing” with permission thing.
@ Charl
Music is a good sign. It’s the beginning of the session. I enjoyed the music but the going through clause after clause part was boring (up to the 1:50:00 mark). One thing that did catch my attention in that part though was the monkey-see-monkey-do clause whereby Canada will now have a pay-the-snitch law to catch its overseas money laundering miscreants just like Harper’s heroes in the USA. The senators might be stunned if they find out how many hits that video is getting.
OK – I was blessed (or cursed) with the time available to sit in and listen to the Senate Committee hearing (and I was ultimately able to get yesterday to play by switching browsers – no idea why that worked, but I ask no questions!). I don’t know where to get transcripts, but will post a few observations/comments for those who weren’t able to plug in.
1. Clearly a lot of Canadians got busy last night (and in the last few days) and have given the good Senators quite a lot of emails. Their bell has been rung – I won’t say they “get it”, but at least they know it is an issue and a lot of people are concerned.
2. Finance guys (esp. Ernewein) had to check themselves several times to avoid giving too negative a view of the thing. Ernewein in particular knows EXACTLY what our concerns were, but he tried to limit his answers as far as possible so as not to answer more than he had to. By and large he succeeded in failing to convey the real issues that people object to here. He also had to backtrack a bit to avoid having given the impression that the US shoved this down our throat, but his use of the terms “bulldozer” and “we did better than some other countries” left little doubt that this is exactly what happened.
3. Generally I would say that while the comments have been received by the Senators, it is equally clear that they have only a rudimentary understanding of what fears Canadians have. The Finance people were pretty skilfull in answering questions narrowly so as to leave them in the dark. They (the Senators) clearly mean well, but are still not “getting it”. They are beginning to though, and that is a start!\
4. Hats off to Chairman Day who CLEARLY gets (and objects to) the blank cheque this legislation grants to the US. He mentioned several times that this is a CANADIAN law that the US can amend if it wants to. Finance tried to say “that is only so we can take advantage of better rules”, it wasn’t that convincing. As well, Finance/CRA itself wants the power to amend the statute via amending the IGA without going back to Parliament. That is a pretty big deal as far as legal policy is concerned – he is alive to it; we’ll see what hay he makes of it, but clearly he is going to be speaking to someone about getting that amended. Don’t know if he’ll get anywhere though.
5. Shoom (another Finance guy) tossed off a line near the end that picks up on one of my beefs, but nobody caught it. We have all these lovely exemptions we are so proud of – no reporting on registered accounts or accounts under thresholds, etc. However, the banks can simply ignore all that and report anyway if it is easier. The exemptions from due dligence are optional. This is less of an issue than you might things (see next point).
6. We CAN be pretty happy that Finance DID listen to our comments back in March. A significant issue raised back then was the optional nature of this stuff – banks can simply opt out and report all if they want to and customers would not even know it. The Act requires banks to notify customers who are flagged with indicia and given them a chance to clear the indicia. That, at last, is a start.
7. Finance KNOWS how intrusive this is. Ernewein flat out told them that most people won’t have told their banks anything about their citizenship and, depending on how banks act in future, they may not be asked in future either. They are counting on this being “nudge nudge, wink wink” and nothing gets reported. They practically said as much.
8. The bad news is they clearly have NO understanding of the extend of the “tax and punish” regime of the US. They did mention the 1 million Canadians may be affected. They did mention that many Canadians will have been surprised to learn they are considered US citizens and/or that the US taxes them on citizenship. They minimized pretty dramatically the penalty risk, the double taxation risk etc. To their credit, though, they did mention that many have a very heavy compliance burden and owe nothing.
9. it was interesting to see a lot of attention paid to Snowbirds. There is a discrepancy between the Act and what Finance was saying that the Senators picked up on. The US may consider Canadians who spend more than x days in the US over 3 years to be a resident of the US. The tax treaty, however, has “tie breaker” rules designed to prevent one person from being resident in two places at once (they don’t do this for citizens, of course – too bad!). Finance recognizes that lots of snowbirds will have US addressed and phone numbers on file at their Canadian banks. Their answer seemed to be – well, they’ll get flagged in due diligence, but if under the Treaty they are Canadian resident, they don’t get reported. That’s not what the IGA says – it directly incorporates US tax rules without reference to the Treaty.
10. One of the Senators mentioned that a lot of Canadians are pretty upset that the turn over of information will result in a lot of Candians owing taxes and mentioned some letter form a retiree with a bill of $180,000 (apparently – or confusingly – related to a US investment? Didn’t make a whole lot of sense). At any rate, Finance dodged this one pretty dramatically by hiding behind the tax treaty for snowbirds (no point in making demands of them or turning over data because nothing owing under the treaty). They then hid behind the “no new taxes” and “this is just data, not collection of penalties” and “nothing to do with FBAR” finally “they” (meaning duals) will need to consult their advisors to see what can be done about penalties. It was all very annoyingly evasive and shallow and the poor Senators didn’t really understand the problems well enough to dig deeper.
All in all, I’d say not bad. The Senators need a focused “talking points” summary to help them get to the meat of the issue. I will try my hand at something very concentrated. Not sure when this next comes back on their agenda. They are moving forward to Part VI tomorrow.
@ Anne Frank
Great summary and without the benefit of the transcript too. See my previous comment for where to get transcripts (April 30, 2014 at 1:16 pm).
I think what the senators don’t get is really:
– Compliance, even with the narrow streamline procedure will be really expensive. Noone mentioned any data here.
– A lot of people WILL be double taxed
– no one guarantees that the US will not go after FBAR penalties. Noone mentioned how expensive they are.
– no one mentioned the place of birth issue and the fact that you might need a CLN which requires 5 years of tax compliance.
So yes, still a lot of teaching to do, but instead of focusing on the privacy effort, I would focus on the monetary impact to the people and Canada.
@ Anne Frank
Now I’m having trouble finding a link to the ParVu video from today’s meeting (the meeting page doesn’t have a “view this clip” message on it like yesterday — just says “adjourned”). Can you post it? Thanks for tackling that talking points piece. They have got to see the other side of the FATCA/IGA coin. Hopefully they will revisit this part of Bill C-31 with testimony from someone other than Fin. Can. Tim thinks that’s possible. I sent each member suggestions of whom they might invite, including Lynne.
Thanks Anne Frank, for the summary.
I couldn’t get the video to work for today, and yesterday’s wouldn’t play with the sound. I’d really like to actually hear and see the speakers and the reactions of the Senators.
If anyone is interested, you can request the UNREVISED transcripts from: Louise Martel
which are sent to you via email – probably quite quickly (however, apparently, the unrevised transcripts cannot be quoted without permission from the speaker of the words – “If you wish to cite an unrevised transcript, please obtain the consent of the person who spoke.”” I don’t know whether the unrevised could be paraphrased or summarized?). The revised official version can be requested as well, but it may be a few weeks delay to receive them apparently (see below).
You can ask for:
The unrevised transcript for the meeting Wednesday April 30, 1:45 ‘Standing Senate Committee on National Finance’
http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/Notice.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&comm_id=13&Language=E&meeting_id=15039
and,
the unrevised transcripts from yesterday’s proceedings for the same committee, as below; ‘Standing Senate Committee on National Finance’
Tuesday April 29, 2014.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/Notice.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&Language=E&comm_id=13&meeting_id=15038
I presume you can ask for the unrevised version now, and for the revised version to be sent later – I’m not sure. You can see here that they are only up to April 9th for the official ones available online http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeBusiness/CommitteeTranscripts.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&Language=E&comm_id=13
‘Transcripts & Minutes’
“A committee’s issues are the printed edited transcripts, available in both English and French, of the testimony received by the committee. While separate issues are often prepared for each meeting of a committee, at times a number of meetings may be contained in one issue. Also, a single issue will sometimes deal with more than one order of reference.
The fully translated and edited copy of the evidence is posted on the committee’s site within a few weeks of a hearing. If you wish to receive a copy of testimony before the committee sooner, please send an e-mail message to the clerk and a copy of the unrevised floor transcript for the meeting will be sent to you by electronic mail as it becomes available. Please note that the transcript you receive will only be in the language actually used during the meeting. If you wish to cite an unrevised transcript, please obtain the consent of the person who spoke.”
@ badger
If you have the URL for today’s video would you mind posting it? I’ll give it a try. Meanwhile I’ve already sent a request for the April 30th transcript to Louise.Martel@sen.parl.gc.ca who responded very quickly to my request for the April 29th transcript.
Never in my pre-FATCA’d life did I ever imagine watching a parliamentary meeting of any kind, let alone requesting a transcript. I am one stunned Alice falling down a very deep rabbit hole.
@Em,
the active video link is gone from here;
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&eventid=9412&Language=E
I don’t know whether they archived it or not, or where it is accessible if archived. Probably they can tell us:
I see this email on that video page under;
Contact Information
Information Send an email to the information email address ctm@sen.parl.gc.ca
Visit the information website
Support Send an email to the support email address ctm@sen.parl.gc.ca
Visit the support website
Well @Em, FATCA has created one silver lining – we’re learning about tools and resources we didn’t have a clue about. Now we can apply it to other issues as well!
Perhaps they’d prefer we hadn’t learned all this and I sincerely hope both the US and Canada will rue the day they stirred up the citizenry with FATCA.
@ badger
They did turn over a hornet’s nest with FATCA didn’t they. I just sent an e-mail to the address you found to try to find out what’s up with the video.
Senators need to understand that those who are affected – who spend zero time in the US – unlike the snowbirds, will be outraged to have the Finance Department refer to them as ‘Americans in Canada’, or US citizens with Canadian accounts – we are every bit as Canadian as the spokesperson from Finance considers himself. Many born in Canada or naturalized, or born of Canadian parents, or permanent residents on Canadian soil – whose taxes are good enough for the CRA to collect as Canadian resident taxpayers and for the Harper government to spend, but when the inevitable problems start, we’re cut loose, deemed only secondclass ‘US citizens in Canada’ – not simply Canadians. So we’re advised to grapple with the IRS on our own and now have to fend off the CRA’s implementation of FATCA as well as those of the compliance industrial complex and the Banksters.
Tell me, what is the point of even a pseudo ‘treaty’ if the government who negotiated it walks away and leaves their citizen individuals bound by it – extraterritorially held in the injurious grip of a punitive and arrogant foreign country – one who admits that the extraterritorial application of the FATCA law will contain inevitable glitches – which translate to injuries for Canadian taxpayers and accountholders? What makes Harper think that his responsibilty for FATCA ended when it was signed? FATCA is intended to be permanent – unlike the reign of successive governments – who will leave all of Canada holding the bag with no recourse. And no repercussions for those who sign away the data, the rights and the implementation funding via our tax monies and account fees – which belong to Canadians – not to the IRS and US Treasury.
The Finance Department is serving the US a free lunch – actually a free pass for free meals on the tab of Canadians forever and ever. Would the US Treasury like fries with that?
And that there is a creepy invasion of privacy condoned by the US — and Canada
So just what does or did Canada’s Privacy Commissioner have to say about the IGA Canada signed with the US?
@Calgary: I sent four e-mails to a contact in the Privacy Commissioner’s Office asking what the position of the Privacy Commissioner is.
I have not even had the courtesy of a reply. That and no submission to Senate tells us all we need to know. No response is a response.
Yet, just a few months ago on CBC Radio, she was threatening to take the banks and/or government to Federal Court if they compromised our privacy.
@calgary, I think they were pretty dodgy on the wording of the reply when asked about the opinion of the Privacy Commissioner. I think that alone warranted some additional pointed questioning by the Senators. And the wording of the answer on whether due diligence was done as to the constitutionality or Charter compliance as per the Department of Justice. Hope that more pointed questions get back to that – I remember that the Harper government refused to even answer whether they had requested an opinion from Justice in their answers to the Parliamentary questions posed by MP Hsu – they cited attorney-client privilege for even the question of whether they had consulted or asked for an opinion – which they wouldn’t confirm. If it is constitutional, they should be prepared to make any such opinion or report public. Instead, they play games. Who can respect or ever vote for a government and a party who is so obviously obstructive and looks to be deliberately hiding information from the public and Parliament?
The Senators don’t know about the full scope of CBT and the issue of Canadian joint account holders and business partners – or the effects on small businesses, and the interplay between FATCA and FBARs and other US financial reporting demands – where every mistake or failure to report or file properly nets potential fines in multiples of 10,000 and opens up the Statute of Limitations, etc or the 3520 and 3520A abuses of our Canadian RESPs, RDSPs, TFSAs, etc. or the US punishment of Canadian mutual funds as PFICs (a potential trade issue) and the confiscatory capital gains on the sale of our CRA exempt Canadian principle residence. The answers from the Finance department are not full and frank. And we know that at the very least, Kevin Shoom knows all of this because of all our several rounds of submissions.
The Finance guys take on privacy: privacy commissioner is just enforcing the privacy laws. If we pass a law saying “violate privacy” then presto, there is no breach of privacy laws and no issue for the privacy commissioner. They are, literally speaking, correct, even if only one of pigs in Animal Farm could explain why. You see, it’s not a breach of privacy law if I pass a law requiring me to breach your privacy. Four legs good….
To his credit, the Committee Chair did point out that what they were trying to do was simply skirt round the prohibitions on breaching privacy by having the CRA do it since they have a free pass. It’s called “doing indirectly what you can’t do directly” and usually gets your wrist slapped or worse. Unless, of course, you whitewash it with a special statute!
@Em
Well Alice I hope that rabbit hole is HUGE as I’m falling in with you. Bet we could get a whole new country with all of us down there. Also had the same thoughts watching the meeting…me watching a senate meeting, not on your life. Boy have things changed.
@Ann Frank…reckon that retiree owes $180,000 in FBARs alone. Was delighted they could possibly have read our submissions. (Hope it does some good).
The one overwhelming feeling I was left with while watching was abject rage over how bland, laid back, no big deal the attitude was by the senators and presenters when FATCA was discussed. I only wish is they would ask one of our team leaders to make a presentation, not just hear the gov side or rely on written submissions they either may not read nor are able to ask for clarification if needed.
This whole process is just so frustrating I want to scream! Leaving for the US at the end of the week. I’m anxious already, scared of the crossing, sad it may be my last trip ever. My son and family is there, it just breaks my heart.
@Blaze, I note that the current interim Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier, was previously the deputy, and Jennifer Stoddart left before the formal signing of the FATCA IGA. Stoddart now works for the IAPP https://www.privacyassociation.org/publications/stoddart_joins_iapp_board .
“27 November 2013
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the appointment of Ms. Chantal Bernier as Interim Privacy Commissioner, to serve pending the completion of the publicly advertised selection process for the next Privacy Commissioner. The appointment is effective December 3, 2013” http://blog.privacylawyer.ca/2013/11/notice-of-vacancy-privacy-commissioner.html
http://o.canada.com/news/exit-interview-privacy-commissioner-jennifer-stoddart-on-her-tenure-continuing-issues
Was a PIA done for FATCA?
http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/sp-d/2013/sp-d_20130926_cb_e.asp
“1. PIA Reviews
In Canada, any federal government institution that adopts a new initiative or modifies an existing one in a manner that may impact on privacy, must submit a PIA for our review.
The risks at issue in this context relate both to democratic values and to individual data protection, particularly in the case of public safety or national security initiatives. Because the ground is shifting in this area, we felt the need for a solid anchoring to assess and address risk and to calibrate compliance action risk. Consequently, we have issued a reference document entitled A Matter of Trust: Integrating Privacy and Public Safety in the 21st Century, which we use to review PIAs or any policy or legislative proposal. It breaks down risk assessment into four steps:
* First, we challenge legitimacy: Is there empirical evidence that the measures are necessary, proportionate, likely to be effective and the least intrusive option?
* Secondly, we verify whether the organization assessed privacy risks and developed appropriate risk mitigating measures.
* Thirdly, we assess program accountability, particularly in cases of outsourcing.
* Fourthly, we assess oversight: As applicable, we call for external review structures, an “architecture of protection” to use Daniel Solove’s terms, that ensure proper checks and balances.”………..
How can the Office of the Privacy Commissioner issue this report http://www.priv.gc.ca/information/research-recherche/sub/sub_pcmltfa_1203_e.asp about the serious concerns it had about some of Canada’s own financial reporting regime – including OVER-REPORTING which it admits it cannot monitor, but not express any about FATCA – which sends the data over to a foreign power to be subject to the Homeland Security and Patriot Act – and shared as widely as the US Treasury wishes – without recourse – which is what Senator Levin intends, which he urges in this letter of January 11, 2012, to then IRS Commissioner Shulman http://bsmlegal.com/PDFs/CarlLevin.pdf “…Finally, one additional issue is critical to successful implementation of FATCA’s disclosure obligations:
treating FATCA offshore account information as non-tax return information to ensure its accessibility
to law enforcement and national security communities combating crimes other than tax evasion. …” and “…Foreign account information
is too important to a wide range of civil and criminal law enforcement and national security efforts to be
designated as tax return information bound by Section 6103’s severe restrictions on access. FFI forms,
like FBARs, provide account information rather than tax return information, and should be made
available to the larger law enforcement and national security communities. Similarly, FFI Agreements,
auditor verification forms, copies of actual account documentation, and similar materials should be
treated as non-tax return information available to the larger law enforcement, regulatory, and national
security communities.
…” .
Talk about lack of transparency and accountability. No recourse, no remedy, no oversight, no Canadian power over the data.
How is it possible that the previous and current Privacy Commissioners – Bernier and Stoddart, did not and do not have any formal FATCA reports or commentary available on their website, and have not made any public reaction known after the IGA was signed?
How is it possible that they were not consulted, and they did not provide any reaction, feedback, etc.?
badger, Anne Frank, Blaze,
Thanks for your comments re my question:
I included my comment with the question, with Furious AC’s comment in a follow-up email to the members of the National Revenue Committee as additional thoughts they might reflect on in determining their vote for or against the implementation of the FATCA IGA signed by Canada.
And does anyone know where Prof. Cockfield’s report got to? The one which he was given a $10K grant from the OPC to produce? It’s possible I missed it. Is it buried somewhere on the OPC site?