Finance committee  I would agree with that. I think for them and their clients it's certainly not, in their view, something perfect from the financial institutions' perspective, but I think it's much better.

Finance committee  Well, it doesn't raise the conflict of laws issue that we talked about earlier. I believe that's true.

Finance committee  As opposed to FATCA itself applying, there would have been many more issues and a much higher compliance burden in that circumstance. So on that measure, yes, they were much better off. We are much better off as a result of this agreement.

Finance committee  Actually, this question only came up quite recently, and we hadn't considered it before. As a result of subsequent discussions, we've learned that the U.S. hadn't considered it before either. But having received the question, it was good to try to sort through the answer. The second thing I will say is that, yes, U.S. citizens are subject to U.S. tax, which means that if you are a U.S. citizen resident in Canada, you're essentially exposed to both the Canadian and U.S. tax systems.

Finance committee  It wasn't clear. You said we had not received an opinion.

Finance committee  Yes. I'm sorry. It was probably I who said that, and that was true then, and it is true now. It's not our understanding that the Privacy Commissioner offers opinions on proposed legislation.

Finance committee  We've kept the Office of the Privacy Commissioner informed and involved in discussions throughout this, including sharing the draft legislation with them.

Finance committee  It is our understanding that the FATCA would have raised potential privacy issues because that involved a foreign law ostensibly requiring the provision of information from Canadian financial institutions in relation to Canadians. There certainly seemed to be a privacy issue there and a potential conflict with our privacy law.

Finance committee  My understanding is that the Privacy Act allows for other laws of Canada, other acts of Parliament, to be read together.

Finance committee  My understanding is that another law of Parliament can be read together with the Privacy Act so that the Privacy Act will not be in conflict with it.

Finance committee  Thank you. I think it's a very important question. To be clear to this committee, I don't think it is the case that it was a question of whether to do this intergovernmental agreement or nothing. It was a question of how this intergovernmental agreement would compare relative to the U.S. congressional act, or the higher act, and the provisions of FATCA within it.

Finance committee  That's what we were told or that's what we were given to understand. You referred also to “accidental Americans”.

Finance committee  Thank you for the question. The answer is yes. I think the question you're asking, though, is whether others have had sufficient opportunity to consider its implications, and we believe the answer to that is yes as well. I would make the point that, yes, the agreement was signed on February 5 of this year, so a couple of months ago, but our intention to negotiate such an agreement was announced in November of 2012.

Finance committee  Well, I very much take that as two separate questions. In terms of how many.... It's not limited to dual citizens to start.

Finance committee  U.S. citizens who are living here, even if they are not Canadian citizens, can be affected by the obligation to identify themselves and to be reported on, because the U.S. tax base includes taxation on the basis of citizenship. In terms of how many U.S. citizens are living in Canada with dual citizenship—that is, Canada-U.S. citizens or otherwise—we don't know the number.