Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1  Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute and thank my neighbour and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her intervention and her wisdom in pointing out the FATCA provisions in the bill. We already know those provisions will go to the Supreme Court of Canada. We already know

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1   of this one bill that my friend raises around FATCA, witnesses at committee reported that up to one million Canadians might be exposed to this agreement. What it would do very explicitly, with no notice whatsoever, is affect people suspected of having some sort of relation or experience

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1  Mr. Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. Mr. Flaherty spoke up compassionately against these accidental Americans who would be caught in what I call the FATCA web. There are a million of them and the government is standing by and waiting for an inevitable lawsuit because

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1   that the steps we have already taken completely vouchsafe Canadian business and protect Canadian banks. We do not need to push FATCA through, and we certainly should not be pushing it through in an omnibus budget bill. Their recommendation I think is worth reading into the record

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1   something as egregious as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, known as FATCA, as well as changes to the trademark regime, which will hurt Canadian business, as well as changes to the Hazardous Products Act and the WHIMS system are all wrapped up into one piece of legislation. Does

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1   an American initiative called FATCA. This is a budget that most tellingly would do little or nothing to address the almost 300,000 Canadians who are unemployed, 300,000 more than after the recession of 2008. Those people are not back to work. Nor would it help to replace the 400,000

Privacy  Mr. Speaker, there is no clearer example of Conservative disregard for the privacy rights of Canadians than their rush to hand over personal financial information to the American IRS under FATCA. Last night, Conservatives even voted against an NDP amendment that would ensure

Finance committee  I think I'll speak to each separately, Mr. Chair, because they do speak to different issues, unlike the last ones that dealt with FATCA more or less at once. This is what I'm proposing to do here, Mr. Chair. At clause 115 on page 97, there's an opportunity to do something

Finance committee   account at least 60 days before sending the information concerning the account under the agreement. It's very straightforward. It would require our banks or financial institutions to provide 60 days' notice to those people who were caught in the FATCA web. There can be no doubt

Finance committee  , but give them the indication that they may be in this FATCA net. That seems a passive way to go about this. If privacy laws are of any interest, and sovereignty is of any interest to my friends across the way, then this simple notification measure here requiring the banks to notify

Finance committee   are also a citizen of another country. If that country happens to be the United States, then you fall under the rules of FATCA and that's not anyone's making but the American tax law. Unfortunately, there will be some people who are caught up in this who may be caught in a larger net

Finance committee   to the comment about restrictions within the IGA that would ultimately make the IGA non-implementable, which would ultimately lead to the U.S. imposing FATCA on Canada itself in the absence of an IGA. I can't support that and just to confirm that with the official.... Also, if you wouldn't

Finance committee  ” as a matter of law. There are many ambiguities, many questions here that make it particularly inappropriate, as my friend Murray Rankin has already said, to deal with FATCA in the body of an omnibus budget bill that is being moved rather rapidly through this House. Let me go to just one

Finance committee  I'm bringing this up somewhat in assistance to Mr. Keddy as he was talking about if the U.S. side of FATCA is terminated, there is a consequence obviously on this side. Why would we uphold an agreement that we were forced into somewhat unwillingly and maintain it except

Finance committee  Is this completely exclusive of FATCA? This is just statutes under Canadian law and the tax act.