Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Get FATCA Out of Budget Bill, NDP Urges

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 108 Comments

With the concerns of constituents filling up their inboxes and voicemail, on Monday the NDP repeated their demand that the Conservatives remove a recently-signed tax agreement with the United States from the omnibus budget bill.

Read more:  http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/05/05/get-fatca-out-of-the-budget-bill-ndp-urges/

108 thoughts on “Get FATCA Out of Budget Bill, NDP Urges”

  1. May 5th: http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/5/5/peter-van-loan-2/

    Mr. Speaker, I am rising to supplement my comments on a point of order in response to the point raised by the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie on Monday, April 28, respecting Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. You will recall this was an issue of the elements of the legislation dealing with what is called the FATCA treaty with the United States that has to do with taxpayers with an American association and its implementation. His concerns were the government’s treaty tabling policy.

    The hon. House leader of the official opposition had indicated he would reply that afternoon so I did defer making this supplementary submission until I was in a position to respond to his as well if necessary. However, given that no NDP position has been set out, I did want to put these comments on the record now in the event that the Chair is soon ready to rule.

    First, on the argument I put to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, on the jurisdiction of the Chair, I wish to offer a few citations. This is on the notion that the treaty tabling policy is not a matter of the Standing Orders of the House or the procedures and practices of the House, but rather it is a government policy relating to the government and a department’s activities themselves. As such, I suggested that it was beyond the reach of the Speaker or the House. There are several citations that support that principle.
    …
    That may be explained by turning to the Library of Parliament background paper, which I believe was quoted by the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, which also states, at page 3, that:

    Passing treaties through the House of Commons remains a courtesy on the part of the executive, which retains full authority to decide whether to ratify the treaty after the parliamentary review.

    In fact, of what the hon. gentleman quoted to the House, there was one sentence in the middle of the passage which he somehow omitted. It is important, so I will add it here:

    Very little authority is explicitly laid out in the law or the Constitution — much relies on royal prerogative, tradition and policy.

    I would suggest that the Standing Orders could easily be added to the first half of that sentence.

    This parenthetical note is attached to paragraph 6.6(a) of the Policy on Tabling Treaties in Parliament:

    The Executive under the constitutional treaty-making power exercised by the Federal Crown under the Royal Prerogative remains responsible for undertaking any international obligations of Canada.

    My second area of argument relates to my comments about the ability of, and the experience of, the House of Commons to consider this proposed international agreement. I have some details to add.

    Clause 99 provides for the enactment of the Canada-United States enhanced tax information exchange agreement implementation act. Clauses 100 and 101 make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act.

    Schedule 3 of Bill C-31 contains the text of the Agreement between the Government and Canada and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance through Enhanced Exchange of Information Under the Convention between Canada and the United States of America with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital.

    On April 8, the House adopted, by a vote of 149 to 125, Bill C-31 at second reading and, thereby, concurred in the principle of the bill.
    etc.

  2. We are, indeed, more influential than we think! Thank you, Mr. Rankin and Mr. Cullen, for listening to our cries for help and our shouts of righteous anger! Thank you, northernstar for posting the video which has given me a big shot of hope. (I enjoyed meeting you last Friday!) And I enjoyed the Swiss Chalet chicken, too!

    I always start my day with Isaac Brock. Today will be a good one!

  3. http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/5/5/joe-oliver-1/

    Additional May 5th:

    Canada-U.S. Relations
    Oral Questions

    2:45 p.m.

    NDP

    Murray Rankin Victoria, BC

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative deal to implement FATCA in Canada will hand over personal financial information to the IRS in the United States, violating the privacy of up to one million Canadians and exposing them to aggressive fines and penalties. Experts have warned that this deal may not even be constitutional, but the Conservatives are rushing it through, once again burying it in yet another omnibus budget bill.

    Can the minister explain why this complex bill must be hidden from proper scrutiny? Is it because he knows it is a bad deal for Canadians?

    Canada-U.S. Relations
    Oral Questions

    May 5th, 2014 / 2:45 p.m.

    Eglinton—Lawrence
    Ontario

    Conservative

    Joe Oliver Minister of Finance

    Mr. Speaker, FATCA has raised a number of concerns in Canada. The new agreement addresses these concerns, relying on the existing framework under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty.

    The CRA will not assist the IRS in collecting U.S. taxes, and no new taxes will be imposed. In our negotiations, we obtained a number of concessions, including exempting certain accounts, such as RRSPs, RDSPs, and TFSAs, from FATCA reporting.

    Canada-U.S. Relations
    Oral Questions

    2:45 p.m.

    NDP

    Guy Caron Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

    Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand the minister’s attitude. Canadians deserve more information than that on the implementation of the Canada-U.S. agreement on bank accounts.

    Financial institutions will now be required to identify which of their clients have American citizenship, in addition to actively monitoring their bank accounts off U.S. soil. Citizens want to know whether the agreement will apply to them and whether their personal information will be protected. At this point, we still do not even know whether the agreement is constitutional. This is a very complex issue.

    We want to know why the minister refuses to take this agreement out of the budget implementation bill.

    Canada-U.S. Relations
    Oral Questions

    2:50 p.m.

    Eglinton—Lawrence
    Ontario

    Conservative

    Joe Oliver Minister of Finance

    Mr. Speaker, without an agreement in place, our financial institutions would still have to comply with FATCA. This would have required banks to report information directly to the IRS, and deny basic banking services to clients. Furthermore, both banks and their clients would have been subject to a 30% withholding tax. With an agreement in place, this will not happen.

    Taxation
    Oral Questions

    2:50 p.m.

    NDP

    Nathan Cullen Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are helping the Americans target law-abiding Canadians, but they are doing nothing to catch the fraudsters who are breaking the law by abusing tax havens. Last year alone, tax evaders diverted $170 billion. Canadians abide by the law and pay their share of taxes, but friends of those in power benefit from the Conservatives’ inaction. The Conservatives promised to take action in the latest budget.

    Was the diversion of $170 billion part of their action plan?

  4. @Calgary411
    Joe Oliver said. “Mr. Speaker, without an agreement in place, our financial institutions would still have to comply with FATCA. This would have required banks to report information directly to the IRS, and deny basic banking services to clients.”

    Without the IGA, Canadian laws and human rights codes would have prohibited Canadian Banks from compiling with FATCA. That is very important point. FATCA created a conflict of laws between Canadian law and US law. And the Van deMark vs TD Bank case already established the precedent that Canadian law shall prevail over foreign law.

    So the banks could not have acted as Joe Oliver claimed they would, it would have been unlawful.

  6. @bubblebustin
    “How do you know when a politician is lying?”

    Choose one…
    a. Their lips are moving
    b. They are not snoring

    Seriously though, I believe the Harperites’ predigested talking points are symptomatic of
    poor briefings, lack of insight, ignorance of underlying issues, ignoring constituents, atrophy of independent thought due to disuse, carelessness, apathy, and reckless disregard of duty of care.

  7. @Bubblebustin, “How do you know when a politician is lying?”

    If their lips are moving.

  8. Thanks for re-visiting, Wondering, the Van deMark vs TD Bank case already establishing the precedent that Canadian law shall prevail over foreign law which would have had to be followed, thus banks would not have been required to report information directly to the IRS and deny basic banking services to clients.

    https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/10/07/time-to-protest-fatca-by-protesting-canadian-banks/comment-page-1/#comment-569108 gives previous discussion:

    Here’s links to some comments made on Van deMark, 16-17 July 2012, a WSJ blog article, and the High Court of Justice decision.

    https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/07/16/canadian-bankers-association-maura-drew-lytle-responds-to-the-isaac-brock-society/comment-page-1/#comment-35898

    https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/07/16/canadian-bankers-association-maura-drew-lytle-responds-to-the-isaac-brock-society/comment-page-1/#comment-35898

    http://blogs.wsj.com/privateequity/2012/06/14/fatca-the-irs-very-big-stick/

    http://uniset.ca/other/cs6/68OR2d379.html

  9. Calgary411 – you are COMPLETELY correct. Miinister Oliver’s suggestion in Parliament that, absent an IGA, Canadian banks would have turned over the data or closed accounts of Canadians is simply wrong. I frankly couldn’t believe he said it. The banks WOULD have had a Catch 22 in that they could not comply with US law in Canada and that might have opened the BANKS up to sanctions IN THE US. The only people with their heads on the block were ALWAYS the Canadian banks. They could not have had the option of breaching Canadian law at home to satisfy the Americans. As I have repeatedly said, the threat to the Canadian banks was and is exaggerated since it is at least equally a threat to the US banks. Neither scorpion lands on the other side of the river if they both start stinging.

  10. @Everyone: Remember, this is a government battling scientists, environmentalists, the present and former auditor general, voters, murdered and missing aboriginal women, native education, Stats Canada, Elections Canada, and judges. More recently they attacked the professional integrity of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, resulting in eleven past Presidents of the Canadian Bar Association writing an article in the Globe and Mail. The only person Harper seems to have any support or empathy for is Rob Ford. Enough said.

    I think we should anticipate an assault on us, on our loyalty to Canada and our tax compliance. It began when Kevin Sorenson called us “Americans abiding in Canada.” It continued last week when Gerald Keddy said we aren’t Canadian citizens, we are American citizens living in Canada. He also stressed many of his constituents are “following the rules.” Expect the next ssue to be whether we are following the rules. I am fully prepared for some aggressive questioning when I testify next week.

  11. Ooops. I left veterans off the list of people the Cons are battling with. At least, we are in good company on their enemies list.

  13. @ ChearsBigEars
    “Do you still have money in transnational banks and if so why?”

    No, everything I’ve got is here in Canada in non-transnational banks. This has been the situation for me for over 15 years. Furthermore, I will never invest in nor spend a dime in the USA in the future. My aversion to sending anything south started before my FATCA awareness. I had a family member who became a victim of Bush’s wars.

  14. Turn on ParlVu if you are not already watching. First, Keddy and Oliver insisted FATCA only applies to American citizens, not to Canadian citizens. Rankin pushed Oliver on that and he conceded it does apply to dual citizens.

    He says there is not much risk on the constitutional issue (Hmmm. Seems the Cons have said that on a lot of things that the Supreme Court saw very differently.) :

    On the issue of removing FATCA from C31 Oliver said: It`s important to move ahead with the agreement to avoid the negative consequences…For us there is not really any reason to delay this now because I don`t have much time.“

  15. Listening to the first part of the Finance Committee with Joe Oliver. The Hansard quotations above in this thread were pretty much repeated by him WORD FOR WORD. In particular, he keeps repeating the rather annoyingly false statement that absent the IGA, banks would be complying with FATCA and turning over information, denying services and withholding tax from “American citizens in Canada”. Utter nonsense. Canadian law would prohibit them from doing so and he – or at least his officials – should certainly have known that. The format did not really permit Cullen or Rankin to cross-examine him on this statement. It is however completely wrong and I am still fuming that this is being repeated.

    It IS true that the banks would face a US law at their place of business in the US that would purport to require that of them. However, they are incorporated under the Bank Act (Canada) and they don’t get the right to break Canadian law at the behest of a foreign country.

    Also found the Minister’s continual reference to this “doesn’t affect Canadians”. Offensive.

  16. @ Anne Frank
    I’m tired of hearing the-devil-made-me-do-it-and-gave-me-a-deadline nonsense. And I’m tired of Oliver’s reliance on his crib sheets. He needs to get up to speed on FATCA. I think feet will be held to the fire eventually but I’m learning that “process” doesn’t always allow that to happen as quickly as I would like it to. Unfortunately I can’t get the meeting to download without installing a microsoft program. I might have to request a transcript.

  20. Calgary ,when it ‘s available, I’d be grateful if you would point me in the right direction.

  21. I’ll be looking for that, KalC, as I missed part of the FATCA IGA portion. As soon as I see it, I’ll post.

  23. If someone posts the URL of the actual video when ParlVu archives it I might be able to watch it using Flip4Mac. (It’s worked before.) I really don’t want to install SilverLight. Thanks!

  25. Con Mike Kelly Allen (New Brunswick) said the message from US Treasury was clear: “Congress has spoken.“

    That settles it. No need for a Canadian Parliament. No need for me to testify next week. “Congress has spoken.“

    Someone please get me a transcript of this!!!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *