Evidence of meeting #37 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We've dealt with part 1. I want to thank our officials for part 1.
We'll call the officials for part 2.
Colleagues, regarding part 2, amendments to the Excise Tax Act, (GST/HST measures), I have no amendments for clauses 40 to 49. Can I group them together?
5:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
On clause 50, we have amendment NDP-4.
Can I have someone speak to amendment NDP-4?
Mr. Rankin.
May 27th, 2014 / 5:05 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Chair, amendment NDP-4 is virtually identical, certainly in intent and perhaps in text, to what we had moved in the context of one that was defeated just a moment ago. That is the same provision that we dealt with on warrantless disclosure of taxpayer information in clause 28, which was defeated.
The language is very, very similar. Once again, it would allow an official to provide a law enforcement officer with this information with absolutely no court oversight. Our concern is the same here as it was there, and indeed, I should foreshadow that we have another one with the same intent later, Mr. Chair.
We don't know who this official is. The term is not defined. It could be anybody. I guess it could be somebody who's working temporarily in some regional office of the CRA some night, giving the police some information which this person, who has no law training and no knowledge of criminal law, considers to be a serious offence of some sort, providing confidential taxpayer information for that purpose. It is so contrary to the way we do business in Canada that people are lining up to take a run at this in court. It seems so unnecessary and so contrary to our traditions to proceed in this way that we make the same amendment with the same goal to defeat this, really, un-Canadian approach that the government is taking.
Conservatives have really stepped out on this one. It's not the way we've done business in Canada. It's an infringement of civil liberties. That's why so many people across the country and our Privacy Commissioner have blown the whistle on this.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Mr. Chairman, we have to keep things in perspective here. This is not an infringement of civil liberties. When a criminal offence has been committed, it brings that criminal offence to light and allows the police to take charge and intervene and lay charges.
To say that this is some type of nefarious piece of legislation that allows highly trained civil servants, whether they be CRA officials or police officials, to run amok is simply not fair to what this clause does.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We don't often get to use our officials, so let's do that.
Regarding the constitutional checks, one of the questions we're raising here is around that balance between preserving the rights of the individual and protecting Canadians writ large.
Mr. Cook, you're nodding your head, so I may put the question to you for no other reason than that you're nodding your head.
5:05 p.m.
Ted Cook Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I understand the question.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Do you understand the discussion we're trying to have here in terms of that balance and the definition, as Mr. Rankin has talked about, of that potential of infringement and the potential of future court cases? Has the government gone through what you used to call a charter test, seeking out advice from Justice in terms of the percentage of—it's always done by a percentage—hopefulness in defending it against a charter challenge?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I'll respond by making a couple of comments.
First, in respect of your specific question—and I think the answer is generally the same as the one that's been provided with respect to a similar question regarding part 5—in terms of constitutionality, according to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice shall examine every bill “in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions” of the bill “are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. That obligation has been discharged in respect of this bill.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If I may, sir.... Sorry.
There was a specific test that has been suggested; there's always a percentage used. As for my specific question, I appreciate what you're saying in terms of the process that gets used. The government typically seeks a percentage chance; that's the advice from the department that comes back. Was there any on this particular issue that was sought? Was there a deemed percentage that was given back from the Department of Justice?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Well, in response to that, I'm prohibited from discussing any legal opinions or legal advice that the department may or may not have received in respect of any provisions. It's just something I'm not capable of speaking to. I guess what I was thinking—
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Well, it's just that if it would be useful to the committee, I can talk a bit about the CRA process.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We had a specific question that Mr. Rankin raised around what deemed official would be the one citing this and the training capacity or professional ability to deem that an offence has been taking place.
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
In terms of the process, the CRA has their criminal investigations program, which is responsible for conducting investigations in respect of tax-related offences, and they'll work closely with the RCMP.
In terms of the serious offences evidence, in talking to the CRA, evidence of those offences almost always arises in the context of a criminal investigations program investigation, most commonly in the context of a search and seizure. Those are actually done by way of search warrants. What happens is that the criminal investigations program approaches a justice of the peace and demonstrates reasonable grounds to believe that a tax offence has been committed. The justice of the peace will issue a search warrant. Then the CRA will go to the search location with the RCMP. The RCMP accompanies them in order to ensure the safety of the CRA officials.
If, for example, the RCMP sees illegal firearms or drugs at the search location, they may be seized immediately. What most commonly happens is that the CRA will search on site. They'll look at the computers there, and if they have evidence that relates to the offence for which the search warrant has been obtained, then the CRA will be able to seize the computers. When they return to the CRA base, they'll search, and that may provide—
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you. Just for brevity, let me focus on the question a little bit better.
You've described a scenario in which the RCMP is doing a potential criminal investigation and the CRA tags along. Under the changes in this bill, is that the only way this can happen? Is there another scenario in which the CRA, of its own volition, can initiate some response without that warrant process that you just talked about in the scenario you've described?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
It's possible. The CRA is implementing an agency-wide mandate, that before any information will be provided, what will happen is that it will go to the criminal investigations program. It will be provided to the headquarters of the criminal investigations program. They are used to dealing with the Criminal Code and things like that and will make an evaluation of that evidence. If it satisfies the requirement of reasonable grounds to believe, then at that point it may be provided almost entirely to the RCMP.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Cook, as you perhaps heard when I was speaking to my amendment, I talked about the section that says an “official may provide to...an appropriate police organization...confidential information, if the official has reasonable grounds to believe” this and that. I said that it could be a low-level official in the CRA talking to a police organization of any description.
Have I read this section properly? There's no reference, for example, to the criminal investigations division. There's no reference to oversight by the commissioner. There's no kind of chain of command within the CRA that's alluded to. Any official of any description could speak to any police organization, and Mr. Keddy said that's where a criminal offence has been committed. It doesn't say that, of course; it says that's where that official has “reasonable grounds to believe” that there will be information to “afford evidence” that there was a crime.
My question is, was I wrong in the way I portrayed it? Is that your reading of the statute as well?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative