Evidence of meeting #53 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, I'm advised Mr. Pacetti requires unanimous consent to amend his own amendment.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
It's always your own family that are toughest on you.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
I'm saying no.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Are you joking?
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.
I have Mr. Wallace and then Monsieur Paillé.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I'm happy to support it, based on the new wording. Maybe Mr. Short has a comment.
There's only one other comment I'd like you to make before we move on. In the present system, is the justification or the decision-making done in writing, and is it accessible? That's the question I have.
Mr. Short, what were you going to say to the issue?
December 8th, 2010 / 4:10 p.m.
Edward Short Senior Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Department of Finance
I'm not sure if I'm going to help in clarifying the issues—
4:15 p.m.
Senior Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Department of Finance
—or just raise more issues.
First, on the words “unless justified”, personally I'm not certain what that means. If I were somebody in the Canada Revenue Agency, for instance, trying to apply that rule, I would be asking myself what kind of precedent I have to tell me when I am justified in releasing that information, and I would ask myself what the difference is between that and saying that the minister “may” disclose.
Regarding the motion as it's presented, as I say, I'm not sure that this is going to answer anything, but I want to suggest that maybe using the word “shall” creates quite a serious onus on the minister. That is, it's essentially in all cases that the minister has an obligation to produce this information. The Income Tax Act is a bill that we use to require people to disclose to the government their personal information, and what we're talking about here is largely personal information. Certainly the salaries of individuals are personal information. Many people have a reasonable expectation that this kind of information is going to be kept private.
A question that I'm afraid I can't answer for you is whether or not it's appropriate to have a law that on the one hand requires somebody to provide information and on the other hand requires that information to be made available to the public--requires not just that it be made available to the public, but requires the minister to disclose it.
If, on the other hand, the provision is discretionary—that is, it gives the minister discretion—it can more readily be argued that the minister is able to administratively put limits on the information that can be disclosed, and the minister can argue that those limits are reasonable. In this way the minister would be in a position, on a case-by-case basis, if it's discretionary, to say, “We have our principles. We have some guidelines we have developed internally, and under this particular set of circumstances, we think it is appropriate”--or not appropriate, in the circumstances--“to release the information.”
If you don't give the minister that kind of discretion, I do question whether it could be argued that this provision of the Income Tax Act would not give Canadians a reasonable expectation of privacy of that personal information.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Senior Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Department of Finance
No, I'm an accountant. I work in this area.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I appreciate your point. In the province of Ontario, for example, anyone making over $100,000, not indexed, gets published in the paper, not just on the taxation website. It sounds like a great argument for court, but I don't think it has.... The public expectation is much more in terms of transparency than what that argument may have.
I do appreciate your comment on the definition of the discretion that's being added in here.
To my question about ATIP, do you have any answer?
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Charities Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
The answer is that we receive the requests in writing. My view at this point in time is that it would be protected information, confidential taxpayer information.
