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  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.

Finance committee  Is this trying to prevent the law of unintended consequences? I'm just trying to clarify Mr. Keddy's concern. I'm sure some of this originated in your department. If this is a redundant amendment, an amendment that suggests that the Americans renege on FATCA and we obviously

Finance committee  . citizenship. He didn't apply in the United States before his 19th birthday. He's deemed to be a U.S. person under a foreign law. He's a fellow Canadian, and he's caught up in the FATCA web. I don't understand why we as a sovereign country have to simply go along with this law, presumably

Finance committee  Thanks. At this committee, Department of Finance officials testified about the estimated costs to the CRA associated with carrying out the implementation of the intergovernmental agreement on FATCA. They said, I think, that the cost would be $5.7 million “not including

Finance committee  That's good. How many Canadians are you reckoning will be affected by FATCA? I think we had some discussion before about a figure of a million people being affected by its implementation. Has the CRA done its own estimate of how many Canadians are expected to be affected by this?

Finance committee  I think we're coming up to the clock. We're just about to get into the meat of part 4 here on FATCA.

Finance committee  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

Extension of Sitting Hours   of things goes completely out of whack. Things that are deeply important, like FATCA, the agreement with the United States to disclose up to one million Canadians' tax information to the IRS, get minutes of discussion. Yet we have prolonged hours on things that we agree to. That is all

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives do not understand their own budget bill, which does not surprise me since so little has to do with the budget. For example, the evidence is piling up that the implementation by the Conservatives of FATCA will harm up to one million Canadians

Finance committee  Is it your view that this has had sufficient study, that FATCA, in all of its complexity, has had sufficient study? If not, do you agree with our position that it ought to be taken out of Bill C-31 and given further study?

Finance committee  Thanks again to all of our witnesses for being here. My first question is for Professor Cockfield. The constitutionality of FATCA and hence our IGA in Bill C-31 has been questioned by many constitutional lawyers, notably Peter Hogg, Joseph Arvay, and others. The Minister

Finance committee  Thank you, Chair. Thank you to our witnesses. I want to pull back from the 50,000-foot level for a moment. Under this agreement, who defines who is caught up by FATCA? Who decides who's in and who's out? Whose information will be sent to the IRS? Who decides? Is it Canada

Finance committee  I will now ask Mr. Berg a question, but I would also like Ms. Christians and Mr. Pigeon to comment afterwards. Mr. Berg, the argument used by the government to convince us to finally implement the agreement is that we would have FATCA anyway and, therefore, the current