Finance committee  It would reduce it to a single option; that is, they would not be able to collect that information on account opening if the account was less than $50,000. That might entail higher costs for them and for their customers if they only are able to do it later on.

Finance committee  Well, if a particular financial institution seeks to have a certification of some sort from their customer when they open the account, that, in some circumstances, I would surmise, would be at a fairly low cost. There may be more costs in trying to find them later and have this e

Finance committee  I don't know the answer to that; I'm sorry. It may be the case, but I can't answer it immediately.

Finance committee  I understand your point. As a practical matter, if Parliament passes a law saying that information of American residents receiving income from Canada is going to be required to be provided to the Canada Revenue Agency, as is already the case—

Finance committee  Maybe I'll start. To the first question that was asked, yes, and I'm sorry I don't mean to bore anybody or to take too much time of the committee, but there's a clear reference in the intergovernmental agreement itself to the scope of the agreement and it's to apply to U.S. per

Finance committee  Certainly. I think the proposed amendment, which currently as proposed allows the financial institution to designate certain low-value accounts, would change the nature of it to require a financial institution to make that designation, to effectively exclude all accounts below $

Finance committee  I'm sorry, but I'm not certain that I understand the question, but perhaps I could just make an observation and an attempt to guess at it. It would be termination of the agreement, I believe the motion that is involved.... So would it be a situation where Canada treats the agree

Finance committee  Then perhaps I'm not understanding the question, sir.

Finance committee  I apologize for being thick, but I think my colleague can respond to the question.

Finance committee  With respect to constitutional questions and other questions as well, though in the privacy world, we are certainly interested in sharing at least for their benefit and possible feedback with the Privacy Commissioner those issues.

Finance committee  I was going to say all, but I should be careful not to do that. I think it's certainly the case that at least most of our tax treaties and their implementation legislation provide that their terms are to apply or to prevail over any other inconsistent legislation. It's not my und

Finance committee  I know you said specifically that your earlier comment wasn't applicable to me, but may I just say that what we do in our tax treaties is what's been done in the proposed legislation, not the motion that's been proposed. In answer to your question, I don't know that. I can only

Finance committee  Oh, I think they may, in fact, tell us what the assessment is, but it's not something I think I'm in a position to share.

Finance committee  I think that is discussed no matter the content of the opinion.

Finance committee  I haven't considered all those points, and in fact they are not for me to consider. The Department of Justice has the standing responsibility for constitutional matters. The privacy question was obviously of interest to us because of the issues that FATCA itself raised, and so th