Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendment.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Brian Ernewein  General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Ted Cook  Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Bernard Butler  Director General, Policy Division, Policy, Communications and Commemoration Branch, Department of Veterans Affairs
Suzy McDonald  Director General, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Jason Wood  Director, Policy and Program Development, Workplace Hazardous Materials Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Brian McCauley  Assistant Commissioner, Canada Revenue Agency
Denise Frenette  Vice-President, Finance and Corporate Services, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Soren Halverson  Senior Chief, Corporate Finance and Asset Management, Department of Finance
Wayne Foster  Director, Securities Policies, Department of Finance
James Wu  Chief, Financial Institutions Analysis, Department of Finance
Donald Roussel  Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Kash Ram  Director General, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Department of Transport
Michel Leclerc  Director, Regulatory Affairs Coordination, Department of Transport
Colin Spencer James  Director, Policy and Program Design, Temporary Foreign Workers, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Darlene Carreau  Chairperson, Trade-marks Opposition Board, Department of Industry
Nathalie Martel  Director, Old Age Security Policy, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Thao Pham  Assistant Deputy Minister, Federal Montreal Bridges, Department of Transport
France Pégeot  Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
Ann Chaplin  Senior General Counsel, Department of Justice
Atiq Rahman  Director, Operational Policy and Research, Department of Employment and Social Development

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

This is where I'll end.

In terms of the use of that data, one of the concerns that's been raised, and this has happened, by the way, when health records have been subcontracted to an American company. The American company then is exposed.... Some of the committee members will have constituents that this has happened to. Health records get exposed under the Patriot Act. A Canadian crosses the border; there's a trigger that comes up because the person, under their health information, had—I don't know—accessed mental health services, or some issue, and then they get stopped.

It's a disturbing thing, as you can well imagine, that information like that would suddenly end up in the hands of a U.S. border guard when it has nothing to do with....

Our concern is, what real protections can we have that the IRS, under the Patriot Act or other provisions under U.S. law, completely outside of our control, doesn't allow that financial information, which one might argue is as sensitive as health information? You can learn a lot about a person through their financial records—a lot; more than maybe you should.

Considering the nature of data breaches that have happened both at the CRA and the IRS in the last number of years, how do we control the U.S.? Once that information enters the U.S., it is subject to U.S. law, and we can't control what the U.S. does with that information once it crosses the border.

3:50 p.m.

General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Brian Ernewein

The tax treaty we have with the U.S. stipulates that the only purpose for which this information can be used is for U.S. taxation, and none other.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

My final question, and again, in support of this amendment, what repercussions does Canada have if that is not adhered to under this agreement? If the Americans don't live up to their side of the bargain, we have no reciprocal IGA with the U.S. over tax on this. This is a one-way deal, predominantly. Is that fair?

3:50 p.m.

General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Brian Ernewein

At the moment, there's more information that we're required to collect immediately and provide to the U.S. than they are required to collect immediately.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

That's right.

Without the reciprocity, the question is, if the Americans don't abide by this, for whatever reason, whatever thing that we can't foretell, what recourse would a Canadian citizen have if the IRS then distributes this personal financial information more widely than they say under this agreement?

3:50 p.m.

General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Brian Ernewein

I'll make two points.

First of all, there is reciprocity in terms of the protection of information. The Canada Revenue Agency and the Government of Canada are subject to the same constraints with respect to the use of tax information that it obtains from the U.S. as the U.S. is in relation to information it obtains from Canada.

To your point, if the U.S. does not comply with the agreement, it would be a breach of the agreement. If it were a material breach, it would give the right to terminate. That would be the rights as between governments.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Have you finished that answer?

3:50 p.m.

General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Brian Ernewein

Sorry. That would be the right between governments to determine that the other party was in breach of the agreement. Certainly, I think it would cause information to stop flowing, but it could also be cause for termination of the agreement.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

That was my last question, but my question was very specific. This is the same question repeated. What rights does the citizen have?

This is not about tax evasion, because we have said on the record many times that this is not an agreement to suggest that Canada is a tax haven. Let me use the one example of a dual-citizen Canadian, or a Canadian, who has forgone their U.S. citizenship for decades, and didn't think they were an American. We all have cases in our offices of people coming in saying, “I just found out I'm still American, even though I left when I was five, and I've been Canadian, and I've voted.” I have mayors in my riding.... You can't run for office in another country, and lo and behold, they're still American.

If their information is then distributed more widely, what repercussions do these Canadians—not the government—have under this agreement?

3:55 p.m.

General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Brian Ernewein

I'm sorry; I did mean to answer your question in a sense that the power for us as government is to say that the agreement's not being upheld.

As to your question directly, I don't know the answer, whether or not there's some right of damages or recourse. I think the only action we could take as governments would be to stop providing information.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

In this agreement, we don't have that laid out as far as you can tell.

3:55 p.m.

General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Brian Ernewein

Not for the taxpayer or persons themselves.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Thank you.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

I have Mr. Rankin, Mr. Allen, and then Mr. Hsu.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

I just wanted to respond to Mr. Keddy's comments with respect to my proposed amendment. He said, and I agree with him entirely, that this is really a function of a U.S. tax law and a citizenship-based taxation. I totally accept that. But Canada is a sovereign country. Canada has rights at international law. Canada has chosen through this agreement and this budget implementation act to treat some of our fellow Canadians, even those who are born here of U.S. persons, as second-class citizens.

That, of course, is going to be the thrust of a charter challenge which is being prepared right now. I just want to put that on the record.

Mr. Keddy, it's not just dual-citizens. It's people who are married. That is through you, Mr. Chair, but in response to his comments.

Dual citizenship is a smaller category than what we're subject to in this intergovernmental agreement and BIA. We're talking about people who are married to U.S. persons; we're talking about people born here of U.S. persons, and they are now different from other fellow Canadians.

The purpose of the amendment is just to say that we are all the same in Canada and that our government ought not to have sacrificed our sovereignty just because of a U.S. citizen-based taxation regime.

I think Mr. Keddy also said, and I agree, that the purpose of this bill appears to be to protect our banks from a withholding tax in the United States. I'm here, in this amendment, Mr. Chairman, to protect our fellow citizens from this law.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

I'll go now to Mr. Allen, please.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB

Mr. Chair, through you, I just have a couple of comments and clarification questions for our witnesses.

Mr. Ernewein, you did indicate that there is a narrower level of information that is being contemplated under the IGA than what would have been contemplated under FATCA, or what would be in place under FATCA if we did not have an IGA.

I think this is one of the questions we seem to be arguing: the IGA or not an IGA. We have an IGA, but we could be in a situation where we don't have an IGA, but FATCA is going to apply to Canadians and to banks even if we don't have an IGA. It's going to happen anyway.

There were two factors that you talked about. One was a narrower level of information. I also understand that the due diligence procedures that you just commented about with respect to the electronic checking of low-value accounts, those actually less than $1 million, require basically a much higher level of information and less scrutiny than most other countries have received.

I think it's important because there are a number of these amendments that we're going to be looking at. I think a lot of them are going to try to accomplish the same thing, but I think the answer to most of them is the same. Under this case and this amendment that's being proposed, and which Mr. Rankin talked about, if not dangerously, we would be in non-compliance with the IGA if we started restricting their U.S. citizens, and they talk about permanent residents as well.

The question is, if we invalidate the IGA, what situation will we be in? The U.S. may say, “Fine. No problem. You're too restrictive, and that's not what we're going to have any more. We're going to come back with FATCA, and we're going to negotiate one-on-one deals with your banks”, which is what they would have done.

There would not only be a 30% withholding on the banks, but also on transfers of dollars to individuals in Canada as well. I could imagine the sputtering that would be going on in our offices if 30% withholding was based on transfers coming to individuals.

In that context we have to be very cautious about looking at any amendments to this. I look at this amendment as being one that would potentially invalidate the IGA in the mind of the U.S.

Can you give that context for us right here?

4 p.m.

General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Brian Ernewein

Yes, I'll try to be succinct.

To the point first of all as to whether or not U.S. citizens are intended to be captured in the agreement, I think without hesitation the answer has to be yes. The agreement describes a U.S. person as including a U.S. citizen or resident individual.

If we were to say that U.S. citizens or a class of U.S. citizens resident here were not captured or were exempt in whole from the reporting obligation, I know that the U.S. would consider that inconsistent with the obligations that we were thought to have accepted under the agreement itself.

To your point about the scope of the agreement, yes, there is a narrower scope or field of accounts that have to be reported or are subject to reporting under the intergovernmental agreement as compared to FATCA itself. I won't list them all, but we've talked before about all the registered accounts that are kept out of this reporting obligation as a result of this. There are also exemptions for small financial institutions and the like. All of those slice reporting off of what has to be done as compared to FATCA.

Finally to your point, if we didn't do this and if instead we went to FATCA, then yes, we would be back in that sort of hard world where either banks would be trying to find a way to cope with U.S. compliance by sending information to the U.S. directly in relation to a much wider range of accounts than the IGA would contemplate, or facing withholding tax on their behalf and on behalf of their clients, which I think would probably shut them out of the U.S.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB

I have just one last point on some of the procedures as well.

Under the U.S. FATCA, if we didn't have an IGA, would that also contemplate account closings for U.S. citizens, for example, and banks may potentially have to close accounts?

4 p.m.

General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Brian Ernewein

Yes, it would. Under FATCA, the financial institution is charged with the obligation. It is required to agree to collecting this information. If it doesn't collect it, then one of the penalties that can be imposed—or the incentives, if you can put it that way—on the client to make them compliant with the financial institution's request is account closure, in addition to or in opposition to, as an alternative to withholding.

The IGA takes that away. It's all about account reporting. If the client comes up with only so much information and no more, then the financial institution provides to the CRA what it has, and that's what goes to the U.S. The U.S. can make further inquiries through the CRA under our exchange of information procedures in that event.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB

Thank you very much, and thank you, Chair.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Hsu , we'll have your remarks, please.

May 29th, 2014 / 4 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you mentioned, Liberal amendment LIB-2 is the same as NDP amendment NDP-6. Because this amendment is being moved by the NDP, I won't be moving Liberal amendment LIB-2, but I will be making some remarks.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to group all my remarks for the next three clauses. I will put all my remarks on the record now, and I will not be making extensive remarks for the next three clauses.

This legislation regarding the Conservative government's FATCA deal with the United States should not be part of an omnibus budget bill that is being rushed through Parliament in the last few weeks of our sitting in June. This deal will affect a lot of people, approximately a million or so deemed Americans living in Canada. Many of them are Canadian citizens. There are examples of people who are accidentally Americans; for example, Canadians from Canadian border towns who were born in a U.S. hospital because that was the closest hospital. I know a priest from New Brunswick who is in exactly that situation. He lived right on the border in New Brunswick. Then there are parents who mistakenly thought they lost their U.S. citizenship upon becoming a Canadian citizen. Their child, who was born in Canada, has never been to the United States, but finds out they have U.S. citizenship and are subject to the obligations under the legislation that we're debating today.

There hasn't been an information campaign from the government to let Canadians know how the Conservatives' FATCA deal with the United States will affect them. Perhaps that should have been done even before this legislation was considered so that we parliamentarians, as their representatives, could hear from them after they had been properly informed. That's the way accountability of the government to Parliament, to the Canadian people through Parliament, should work. I think informing Canadians first is very important.

What limited information is out there has sometimes been misleading. For example, the government has boasted that registered accounts such as RESPs and RDSPs are not reportable. In other words, the CRA will not be reporting them to the United States. But even though Canadian banks won't report those accounts, Canadians who have U.S. citizenship will still have to fill out forms to report those accounts to the IRS in the United States if the total aggregate value of all accounts exceeds $10,000. It's unfortunate that wasn't dealt with in the negotiations leading to the IGA. If these Canadians don't report their accounts to the IRS, they face U.S. penalties of up to $100,000, or 50% of the balance of the account, whichever is greater, per violation.

Under this deal, Mr. Chair, the CRA will share personal tax information on Canadians with the IRS, but our officials, our government, have been unable to tell us and the Canadian people on a granular level exactly what information will be shared. We know that under this deal the CRA will punish Canadians who don't provide the Canadian government with their U.S. tax identification number. In most cases, it will be the social security number in the U.S. When Canadians do provide this information to the CRA, the CRA will then hand it over to the IRS.

The CRA already collects information on Canadians' income, of course—it's part of filing taxes—and all our information about all our registered accounts, but we don't know in detail how much of this information the CRA will then pass on to the IRS.

The Conservative government claims that the government will not use this information to help the IRS go after U.S. taxes on Canadian assets and Canadian income earned by Canadians. However, the government is introducing a $100 penalty for Canadians who don't provide their U.S. tax identification number to the CRA, but the CRA has no use for a U.S. tax identification number, except to pass that number over to the U.S. government under the IGA.

It's clear, unfortunately, that our Conservative government has signed a deal with the United States that has the Canadian government doing work for the U.S. government, namely, collecting information for the IRS. Our officials have been unable to give Canadians granular details on how this deal will financially impact Canadian citizens, so they've been unable to give a full response to their representatives here in Parliament.

There's another example. We know that RESPs, the registered education savings plans, and the RDSPs, will be subject to U.S. taxes under this deal, but we don't know how much Canadians will have to pay in U.S. taxes on these accounts. One example where that's a problem is that if these accounts are being used by Canadians to help pay for a child's education or help disabled Canadians avoid poverty. These accounts were not created to help the U.S. Treasury pay down its debts across the border.

We know that Canadian spouses of so-called U.S. persons in Canada will also be affected if they have joint accounts and that these joint accounts will be subject to U.S. taxation, but Canadian officials haven't been able to tell us if the entire account would be subject to U.S. taxation or just a portion of it.

There's a lot about this deal that will be put into practice that we don't know.

Parliament's study of the Conservatives' FATCA deal has been rushed. We haven't been afforded the time or the resources to write proper oversight, listen to constituents who are informed, and fulfill our responsibility to them. If this section of the bill passes, we will have passed an agreement into law without properly understanding how it will work and how it will affect Canadians. That is why the Liberal Party opposes part 5 of this bill.

I will wait until we get to the point of the agenda where we reach the other Liberal amendments, and at that time I'll simply move those amendments.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you for your comments.

We'll go now to Mr. Keddy, please.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to try to correct the record here a tiny bit, and I'm sure it'll need correcting again.

To be clear, RESPs and RRSPs are not subject to American taxes under this, and we have experts here if you want to follow up with them.