Finance committee  We've inserted what's selective under the agreement with respect to these accounts. It's made mandatory that they seek to cure the indicia.

Finance committee  Your second question relates to, I believe, subsection 265(5) of part XVIII. An amendment would effectively insert sort of a read as rule into the operation of the IGA to require that where an electronic search of the lower value accounts in particular where U.S. indicia are found there is a mandatory requirement for the banks, for the financial institution, to seek to cure those U.S. indicia.

Finance committee  By repealing that part, you repeal the requirement to retain records.

Finance committee  Thus CRA will not be able to undertake its administration and enforcement duties.

Finance committee  That's my point, sir. The motion would repeal part XVIII of the Income Tax Act. That's where the requirement to retain records resides.

Finance committee  Part XVIII is part of the Income Tax Act and as such it would be subject to administration by the CRA. Under section 267, part of XVIII, financial institutions required to report under part XVIII are required to retain records so that the CRA can perform in its administration and of course its duties.

Finance committee  This is just under Canadian law as a general matter for income tax purposes Canadians need to maintain books and records that the CRA uses to ensure compliance with the Income Tax Act. Part XVIII does contain specific record-keeping requirements and record retention requirements with respect to financial institutions that are required to report to the CRA.

Finance committee  I'll try to explain again. Even if the agreement is terminated, taxpayers or their financial institutions are required to retain records. Even if the agreement is terminated, there would be an ongoing requirement for the records that were created during the period of the agreement being enforced to be retained by those financial institutions so that the CRA could undertake its duties with respect to administering and enforcing the Income Tax Act.

Finance committee  I think the response to the question is the one that I gave when we met on Tuesday, that we're prohibited from discussing any legal opinions or advice that we may or may not have received.

Finance committee  There is a definition of official. I'm speaking about part I of the Income Tax Act. There is, I believe, a definition; we're talking about the GST provisions at the moment. There is a definition of official. It simply provides that an official is a person in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.

Finance committee  Sorry, I'm not sure which circumstance you're referring to.

Finance committee  No, no. It doesn't change the search warrant process. What I've explained is that very often, the kind of information that the CRA would like to turn over to the police is actually information that has been acquired in the course of executing a search warrant. Even though the information has been acquired in the course of executing a search warrant, because it's been extracted, or the import of the information has just been realized, sometime after the execution of the search warrant, the CRA is prohibited, even though it was acquired under search warrant, from providing that to a police organization.

Finance committee  In terms of the process, the CRA has their criminal investigations program, which is responsible for conducting investigations in respect of tax-related offences, and they'll work closely with the RCMP. In terms of the serious offences evidence, in talking to the CRA, evidence of those offences almost always arises in the context of a criminal investigations program investigation, most commonly in the context of a search and seizure.

Finance committee  I'll respond by making a couple of comments. First, in respect of your specific question—and I think the answer is generally the same as the one that's been provided with respect to a similar question regarding part 5—in terms of constitutionality, according to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice shall examine every bill “in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions” of the bill “are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

Finance committee  Well, in response to that, I'm prohibited from discussing any legal opinions or legal advice that the department may or may not have received in respect of any provisions. It's just something I'm not capable of speaking to. I guess what I was thinking—