Information & Ethics Committee on April 14th, 2016

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

So we're satisfied, then, that members of your caucus are in support of this legislation now? I guess we'll hear more from them here, but you're satisfied that they are?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Yes, I am satisfied that I have the support of my colleagues on this.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Okay.

The one last quote I just want to bring up before I pass on my time reads:

We believe that the deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect affected Canadians.

That is also from a member of your caucus. It is attributed to the Right Honourable Prime Minister, back on June 25 of 2015.

Is he now satisfied that the deal, which is the same as the previous deal, is now sufficient to protect Canadians?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

The current agreement adequately protects the rights of Canadians. As I mentioned, the action needed would have been more about the process of implementing the agreement with the United States. We would have worked differently by involving all parliamentarians in open and transparent discussions and by providing information that was fair and equitable for all Canadians.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

You have a couple of minutes left on this side, if you have anything else; otherwise, we can move on.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I'm good. I can keep going.

I do believe that these are important questions that we're asking on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of our constituents. I just want to make sure that we're putting on the record that previously a number of members of your caucus—and there are a few others that I won't go into now—and the Prime Minister were earlier not supportive of this legislation. Now what you're indicating is that because you've had more time to review it, you, the Prime Minister, and members of your caucus are now supportive of this legislation.

Is that a correct synopsis of your statements?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

That is true, but I must repeat that the difficulty was much more related to the process. If the process had involved all parliamentarians, we would probably not be here today discussing FATCA.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I guess that would allow me to question your positions, then, on other legislation that you may have opposed in the past. I guess if this is an example of where we're going in the next four years, I will be eager to see how much of the previous Conservative legislation you now support.

With that, Mr. Chair, I am done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Perspectives do often change when roles change.

Now we'll move on to members of the NDP. I believe Mr. Dusseault will lead us off with questions.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to let you know that I will be sharing my time with Mr. Boulerice.

Madam Minister, thank you for joining us today. I am happy that you are here this morning to discuss this very important matter.

The transfer took place on September 30, meaning that the previous government was still in power. So that was before you took office as the minister. That said, I am happy that you are here to assume your responsibilities. I hope that that will also be the case at 11 o’clock, at the Standing Committee on Finance, about another matter.

I have a lot of trouble understanding that you asked for an assessment or recommendations from the Privacy Commissioner about the transfer of information to the American government, but that you did not wait until you found out what the assessments were. In my opinion, that was why it was worth studying this matter.

What drove the Canada Revenue Agency to action even before it received the recommendations and assessments from the Privacy Commissioner?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I think that Ted Gallivan will be able to answer that question.

[Ted Gallivan]

Protecting Canadians' personal information is really a process. The Privacy Commissioner confirms in his letters that meetings took place in December 2012, in August 2013, and in January 2014. Other unofficial discussions certainly took place before the document was produced. So the document, submitted in August 2015, was not made public overnight. Extremely cooperative work had been done to adequately protect the information.

The agency then checked files that were before the courts to make sure that no legal injunction had been issued to prevent the information being exchanged. I also want to make it clear that the agency and the United States have exchanged information for a very long time and it fits well with Canadian legislation. So we were comfortable with the situation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would like to go back to the commissioner’s assessments.

On February 10, 2016, Forbes magazine reported that 700,000 IRS files, files of American citizens, but of Canadian citizens too, had been hacked. The IRS has major and recurrent problems in terms of the confidentiality of information. Some came to light recently.

What mechanisms have you put in place to make sure that, once the transfer is done, the information remains confidential and that the United States will comply with what Canada and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner have established?

This whole situation is dangerous. We have to be able to protect that information once it is in American hands.

[Ted Gallivan]

I’m sorry, but I am going to answer in English so that I don’t make any mistakes in my remarks.

We conduct what's called a threat and risk assessment, which is a very technical information technology-driven document that looks at the specific IT systems encryption protocols that are in place from an information technology perspective. That was conducted specific to the information we are exchanging under FATCA.

In addition, there's something called the global forum on information exchange. It's a global network of over 100 countries that focuses on exchange of information and also the protection of the privacy rights of the people whose information is being exchanged. That group uses third-party evaluations. There are three levels of maturity in terms of protection of information, level 1, level 2, and level 3 being the best. Canada is very careful in terms of who it exchanges what information with in terms of that grading. Those gradings are provided by independent peer review; they're quite detailed, somewhat like an OAG audit. We therefore feel all reasonable steps are being taken to ensure the protection of Canadians' private information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Boulerice is next.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Minister, thank you very much for joining us this morning. It is a pleasure to be able to ask you questions in French.

I have before me a letter dated June 25, 2015, that states that the Liberal party of Canada believes or considers that the Conservative government’s efforts to guarantee the privacy of Canadians have been inadequate. The letter is signed by Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal party of Canada.

Since there have been no legislative changes since you came to power, can you explain to us why you have completely changed your mind about the legislation that the Conservatives adopted?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

As I mentioned a little earlier, we clearly would have done things differently in terms of what the previous government did when the time came to have the agreement approved. There would have been discussions in Parliament in which everyone would have been involved.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Previously, you disagreed with the content of the act. I even have a tweet from Marc Garneau, dated July 3, 2014, saying that he and Scott Brison had spoken out against the measures on several occasions in the House of Commons and that they were going to continue to do so.

Besides the process and the inclusion of parliamentarians, why are you not changing the basics of the legislation, given that you were previously opposed to it?

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

The NDP is loudly clamouring for measures to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance. However, the automatic exchange of information such as we have with the United States allows us to cross-reference information.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

This is about tax avoidance for the Americans, Madam Minister.

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

We can also identify inconsistencies in tax avoidance and tax evasion internationally.

Are you telling me that you are against measures that allow us to fight more effectively against tax evasion?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I want there to be measures to fight tax avoidance and tax evasion in Canada, but I am pleased that the Americans are doing their part.

In terms of tax avoidance, I would really like the opportunity to ask you questions about the bilateral agreements with tax havens, such as Barbados, where avoiding Canada tax is legal. I hope that you are going to look at that again.

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I am here today to talk about protecting personal information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Yes, that is the scope of the study today.

Mr. Boulerice, your time is close to its end. I don't think there's enough time to ask another question.

We'll now move to Mr. Erskine-Smith, please.