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.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
We understand the logic of what Mr. Saxton has said, but of course, this all revolves around our opposition to including the FATCA provisions in this so-called budget act, and we'll come to those provisions later.
This essentially is consequential to our opposition to that part of the budget implementation act, so we stand by the position we have articulated in our amendment.
We would seek a recorded vote on this measure.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, we'll have a recorded vote on amendment NDP-1.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will move to the question on clause 27.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We could always pass some on division. That's just a suggestion. It's an option.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, it's a recorded vote .
(Clause 27 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
(On clause 28)
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We have two amendments.
We have amendment NDP-2. I'll ask someone from the NDP to address that.
We'll go to Mr. Rankin.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
This is a clause that has been the subject of enormous debate in the media and of course with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada talking to us and testifying before this committee. The notion of warrantless disclosure of taxpayer information to police under this sweeping set of circumstances is something that we utterly oppose.
The purpose, therefore, of our amendment would be to introduce court oversight of information that is turned over to the police. This, of course, is the Canadian way. This is reflected in countless statutes, in the Income Tax Act and in a variety of other measures.
First of all, we certainly support cracking down on corruption and terrorist financing, but this is way beyond that. It would of course apply to anyone suspected of any offence with a mandatory minimum, and there is a very long list, since the Conservatives came to power, of offences with mandatory minimums.
We have proposed this amendment to provide court oversight of those transfers to ensure that these powers are not abused.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Mr. Chairman, I'm a little surprised by the NDP motion, quite frankly. It's obvious that they have not read the clause nor really looked at their amendment.
What the clause actually does is it allows an official with information that may afford evidence of a serious offence to submit that information to a Federal Court judge, not to police forces.
So I'm a little bit surprised.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Well, it's certainly not how we read the clause, nor is it how the Privacy Commissioner read the clause.
As I understand it, it says that an official may provide law enforcement information to police organizations on a variety of offences. I see no reference to the courts in this provision. That is of course the basis of her concern. Editorials across the land have stated very powerfully the reason this is out of sync with Canadian privacy laws and indeed the Constitution.
It's only a matter of time before it's struck down. Let's do the right thing here.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
The issue here is really quite simple, Mr. Chairman. When CRA officials uncover evidence of serious criminal activity, they should be able to share it with law enforcement. We have to find a mechanism to do that. That's what I think all the Canadian public expects. There have been occasions when CRA officials in the course of ordinary duties have uncovered evidence of drug trafficking, of child pornography, of contracts for the commission of murder, and have been restricted from conveying that information to law enforcement.
Contrary to what they're saying, the police will not be able to direct the CRA. CRA will turn information over for a serious crime to the police department, which is only proper.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
The chair has to recognize the speakers.
We'll go to Mr. Brison first, please.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
To Mr. Keddy's point, CRA would still be able to provide the information to police, if a judge felt it were warranted. This is the point at which we have placed the safeguard currently. We would recommend maintaining a safeguard that would require a judge's engagement, a warrant.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Yes, we agree.
Mr. Keddy talked about serious criminal activity identified by the CRA. Of course, that begs the question who the CRA are to know what is a crime. The whole purpose of the safeguards in the Constitution is to require our judges, as independent officers, to assess whether or not there are appropriate grounds for that to occur. To simply say that a CRA official in some office somewhere in the land could say, “Ah, I see a crime; I think I'll tell the cops about it”, is outrageous, and that is why all the editorials across the land have said it.
It's not contrary to what others are saying; it's what the Privacy Commissioner has told us is, in her opinion, a problem. I just don't understand why we would break with our Canadian traditions in such an obvious way.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Further to Mr. Rankin's point, if in fact it is not even clear that CRA has within itself a governance mechanism to deal with this, who would make that determination? At what level within the public service would the authority be vested to make that decision to engage the RCMP or police directly in a file due to suspected criminal activity? It's a very dangerous decision, empowering the CRA in a way that I don't even believe the CRA would welcome.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
This is probably not the final word, but it will be the final word from me on this, Mr. Chairman.
Let's be clear. Section 241 of the act prohibits the use of communication of taxpayer information except as otherwise permitted in that section and other certain provisions of the act. Clause 28 will allow CRA officials to pass over information that they have not been allowed to pass over before only when it's dealing with a serious crime—nothing more and nothing less. You can try to make this into something that it's not, but this is for serious crimes only to be passed over to a law enforcement agency.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Well, we may agree on what would constitute a serious crime, but can Mr. Keddy define what threshold or trigger would provide enough evidence that it ought to be turned over to the police? Who makes that determination within the CRA? Those are important questions. That's why a judge and a warrant is a tested and true approach to this.
