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.
@Calgary re: “cosying up”
We see again the appearance of Madame Lebouthillier and Ted Gallivan. This was just on The National (story is at 12:20) Peter Julian provokes Minister (!)
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2687095467
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kpmg-canada-revenue-agency-receptions-conferences-1.354028
How refreshing to watch the government be outraged at suggestions of impropriety-rather similar to how we feel about being presumed to be tax evaders…….
Big lobbying — *Follow the Money* — who stands to profit?
@Tricia. I know it’s in the Treaty.
Nothing prevents a change in the Treaty. We may want to think it won’t happen.
But I never believed Canada woukd pass a law overriding all other Canadian laws for a foreign country. Yet that is exactly what happened.
A FOREIGN government now supersedes long-standing Canadian laws like Human Rights, Privacy and Banking.
It would only take an amendment to the Treaty.
Why hasn’t a single Fiberal made that statement about non-collection? Why didn’t the Revenue Minister make that statement in her testimony to reassure Canadians?
Instead, she spouted off from her notes (likely prepared by CRA officials) about stopping tax evasion.
I don’t think it is imminent. But I fear the stage is being set.
Minor issue but answering a comment above (I think it was by @EmBee ?)
Because FATCA is a US law, there’s no official French translation like there would be here in Canada. Therefore it remains (to my great annoyance) “le FATCA”
I was so disappointed that Alexandre Boulerice brougth up Baby Elle and it barely made a ripple during the committee meeting.
And referring to those affected as “tax evaders”… if only she knew. Nate won’t even download a song from a free service or steal cable. He’s very into giving people what they are due – in this case he just disagrees that there is anything due to a foreign government.
I missed the Revenue Minister’s comments last week and will not be watching any time soon. Mr. Theirren’s comments were upsetting enough. I just have two comments:
1. We knew from the beginning that once Canada signed the IGA, the only relief would come through an amendment from Parliament, or a judgement from the Supreme Court of Canada. These hearing are great to raise awareness and to push the government for clarification, but they will not change the law.
2. I agree with Blaze on the collection issue. “The stage is being set.” For whatever reason, the government could not or would not amend the Treaty to allow for collection, but I think at some point in the future that will happen. I just don’t understand why that did not happen from the beginning.
Apparently, this message is on the Treasury site;
“The IRS Oversight Board does not currently have enough members confirmed by the U.S. Senate to make up a quorum and as a result has suspended operations. The Board will reconvene once it has a quorum. In the meantime, please contact the following offices with your concerns:
•If you are a taxpayer with a question about your service or your legal rights, please call the National Taxpayer Advocate Service: 1-877-777-4778
•If you are looking to report fraud, mismanagement or abuse of IRS programs and operations, please contact the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Hotline: 1-800-366-4484”
So, if there is a problem with the US FATCA treatment of Canadian taxpayer data, who would Daniel Therrien, the CRA and Revenue Minister Lebouthillier complain to? There is already no recourse under the FATCA IGA. Yet Minister Lebouthillier and the Liberals and Cons are happy with the IGA.
This is where the message appeared;
https://www.treasury.gov/irsob/Pages/default.aspx
I saw it mentioned in some sites which may or may not be reputable so I’m not citing those secondary sources.
I don’t want to distract from this post, but was just struck by the statement above by the US Treasury, re the IRS “Oversight Board” – and how all evidence points to how utterly empty and devoid of substance or sincerity any assurances are from the CRA and Revenue Minister Lebouthillier, and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada Therrien regarding any protection of the rights of Canadians and their data under the US FATCA IGA. There is no oversight on the Canadian end, no mechanism to hold the US accountable, no way to verify what happens to the data on the US end, and no recourse – we know this and so do they. The Patriot Act alone, plus the last in time rule would mean that the US does not have to prove anything to Canada, and we know that US law will control the data when it enters US hands, not Canadian law.
I watched this entire gong show live on the 14th so won’t be watching it a second time. I ditto the frustration and anger of all of you who have commented. I am beyond dismay that our lives and our futures are in the hands of these people who have been elevated by law to positions of control.
Agreed, MuzledNoMore.
Somewhat related, here is a response I got yesterday, again proving to me what an utter waste of time it is to try to communicate with my government representatives. Who would even know which of my emails this might be in response to? It seems so one-sided. No wonder the populace is so disconnected and apathetic about what goes on in our countries and our world. Seems to me also that the gagging of the mainstream media is also part of this.
Has anyone of us heard from The Honourable William Francis Morneau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance, or anyone from his office? I, at least, early in the game, got a letter from former and now-deceased (and I’ll always think this issue hastened his death – I believe he understood) that referred specifically to my family’s situation with the Canadian RDSP (that he had a hand in initiating).
Why are we still punting these to Bill Morneau when he is still in budget selling mode?
I wish I could just collectively knock all of these correspondence heads together and set them straight.
Up to 30 minutes on the video and ready for some BP lowering deep breathing exercises.
Our inglorious Revenue Minister is not above using what became universally recognized during the McCarthy era as one of the dirtiest tactics in an attempt to discredit an opponent. In the same fashion that those who opposed the McCarthy hearings were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers, her response to NDP MP Boulerice’s hard questions about the PM’s change in position on FATCA was to ask him if he supported tax evasion. He clearly found it amusing. Me not so much.
Couldn’t bear to watch beyond 15 minutes. Ignorant question from a Lib MP who had no idea what information was being turned over . Soft lobs from the Cons. Repetitive blather from the Minister. We don’t actually know whether or not she will be up to the task once she finds her feet. ( strongly nsuspect she won’t be) In the meantime she’s parroting the line given by her officials-they are the ones to blame at this stage. She’s in greater hot water over the KPMG fiasco.
I haven’t watched the video– I trust the feedback that I am reading here. I will only be wasting my time and seeing my blood boil.
We’ve been sold out by two consecutive governments here in Canada. While I plan to use social media to continue mocking the current government over its #FlipFlop, I am realistic. A solution will not be political– redress will come from the courts. I look forward to Gwen and Ginny’s day in court. I am hoping Justice (and the justices) are on our side!
@Blaze
I put that in case there are newer members who may not be aware of the reason Min. Flaherty was so adament on the point.
I cannot judge how easy or not it would be to make that level of an amendment. I would hope a number of things would come into play and that such a move could provoke those who have remained silent and unwilling to join us, into some kind of action. The only hope is litigation and/or massive civil protest. I would think those who stand to lose 5 figures and up would start DOING at some point.
That said, I think there is simply no option but to renounce. I came to that conclusion within one month of finding out about this in Oct 2011. And my first appt was Nov 30. My distrust at the time was solely of the US govt but you are right, there is absolutely no point in thinking OUR government sees us as Canadians and will do a thing.
Why are the Liberals silent about not collecting?
The IGA came by treaty over-ride.
Maybe they have wind of the treaty over-ride forcing collection coming soon.
Silence now insulates them from being accused of flip-flop when collection starts.
First Flaherty and the Cons spoke out against FATCA. Then they went silent. Then they announced the IGA.
The Liberals spoke out against FATCA. Then they were elected. Then they went silent. Then they endorsed the IGA.
Not once that I am aware of has a Fiberal uttered a word about non-collection. Does anyone see a pattern?
Minutes of the April 14th ETHI meeting have been added to the body of this post.
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.
Can’t find any transcript.
Regarding the issue of privacy, consider the comments of Brian Ernewein [General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance Canada] speaking before the Senate in April of 2014 (in answer to the very astute questions of a few Senators who showed varying degrees of understanding the significance of the FATCA IGA – including Senator Mockler (and former New Brunswick MLA )who says of those affected; “…That are living in Canada. An example could be dual citizenship. I will give an example like my wife. She has dual citizenship, so that means that she would have to file to the U.S.”), and then below that, compare the answers of Ernewein regarding the issue of privacy law, and see how they differ in substance and in style from May of the same year;
Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance:
Issue 10 – Evidence – April 30, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 30, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 1:47 p.m. to study the subject-matter of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/412%5CNFFN/10EV-51378-E.HTM
…….”Senator Eaton: There is something I don’t understand, Mr. Shoom. We’re not breaking Canadian privacy laws by the banks passing the information to the CRA, and then the CRA will give it to the IRS. How does filtering it through the CRA make it less invasive?
Mr. Ernewein [General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance Canada]: If I may return to that, we talked about this briefly yesterday, and I want to make it clear I’m not usurping the role or trying to take on the role of the Privacy Commissioner, but in terms of a legal analysis, my understanding is that the Privacy Act and PIPEDA are subject to other laws of Parliament. So it is open for Parliament to enact a law, as this bill seeks, to require Canadian financial institutions to collect information concerning the residence and, potentially, even citizenship of taxpayers.
In terms of the ability to transmit that information under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, I would suggest there is existing authority for that. First of all, we have the treaty with the U.S. saying that it’s possible and setting out what the safeguards are. We also have an exception in section 241 of our Income Tax Act today which is used in terms of sharing information under tax treaties.
That provision allows information that has been collected by the Canada Revenue Agency to be shared with our treaty partners and, indeed, our tax information exchange agreement partners. There are two parts: the standing authority that already exists to use our treaties for sharing information and new authority that this bill would seek to require the collection of that information by our Canadian financial institutions.”……….
Then, in the next month (May 2014)see appearance of Ernewein – as he disingenuously answers before the Standing Committee on Finance as if the questioner (Liberal MP Brison) is asking about the privacy provisions vis a vis the Canada/US tax treaty as it existed in the decades BEFORE the IGA. (Which actually is an interesting and open question in terms of privacy law perhaps, since the treaty has evolved – and so have privacy laws – federally AND PROVINCIALLY – think about potential conflict with provincial provincially regulated credit unions and each province’s privacy laws and questions of jurisdiction ).
See Ernewein
before the;
Standing Committee on Finance
NUMBER 032, 2nd SESSION, 41st PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, May 6, 2014, 4:55 p.m.
…………..
Liberal
Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS
“Has the government sought and received an opinion from the Privacy Commissioner regarding the sharing of personal information with the U.S. government or the IRS?”
4:55 p.m.
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Brian Ernewein
Is your question, again, about what they’ve been doing for the past 50 years?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS
Has the government sought an opinion from the Privacy Commissioner in terms of sharing this information?
4:55 p.m.
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Brian Ernewein
I don’t believe so. As I say, it’s been going on for a long time.
@ calgary411 RE: transcript
Looks like we have to wait. The transcript will likely appear here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/PublicationSearch?targetLang=&Text=ETHI+&PubType=40017&ParlSes=&Topic=&Proc=&Per=&com=&oob=&PubId=&Cauc=&Prov=&PartType=&Page=1&RPP=15#
Tricia has highlighted more about this here; https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/04/01/an-extraordinary-debate-in-the-canadian-senate-part-ii-the-consultation-of-the-privacy-commissioner-an-exercise-in-futility/ . Chantal Bernier, the then acting Privacy Commissioner and NDP MP Murray Rankin had this exchange – and as Tricia notes, it refutes what Ernewein told the Senate Finance Committee and the Finance Committee:
Mr. Murray Rankin: “… 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?
Ms. 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.
Mr. Murray Rankin: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.
Ms. Chantal Bernier: That would be my view, certainly.”
and then an exchange with Liberal MP Brison:
Hon. Scott Brison:”…….Madam Bernier, in an earlier response to Mr. Rankin, you seemed to indicate there may be a concern regarding a potential charter challenge around the privacy issue. I want you to expand on that. Is there a potential charter challenge inherent in this?
Ms. Chantal Bernier: I would urge you, in your studying of this bill, to ask for a demonstration of the necessity of the provision whereby an official out of the Canada Revenue Agency could provide to law enforcement authorities without a warrant information about a taxpayer on the basis of reasons to believe that perhaps there was criminal activity. That is exceptional and therefore should be buttressed by an empirical demonstration of necessity, and I would encourage you to seek it. ”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&DocId=6601885
Standing Committee on Finance
NUMBER 035
l
2nd SESSION
l
41st PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Perhaps Brian Ernewein, General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance Canada should be called before this Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy & Ethics to explain and defend his prior assertions.
@Bager Prior assertions mean nothing. A Hypocrite is a Hypocrite is a Hypocrite.
Many of us received the assertion from the U.S. Consulate that we were “permanently and irrevocably” relinquishing American citizenship by becoming citizens of other countries. Turns out that assertion didn’t mean anything either.
@ Blaze
We still have two things left — the Charter Challenge and DEFIANCE. I’ve decided to LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose). In other words, if they seek and then find, they will have to do ALL the work to steal my bank accounts … no help from me.
The Treaty is based upon a Model OECD template.
Here is what exists for creating Articles regarding collection of tax by a Treaty Partner. I simply do not have the clarity of mind to wage through this right now.
http://www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/39261225.pdf
Treaty smeaty — dense, gullible, inept officials of our other-country governments (perhaps especially those now *leaders of* Canada) almost deserve to be hoodwinked and monies stolen from their treasuries. My thoughts as I try to get my head around this new advice / opinion: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/private-eyes-they-re-watching-you-33957/