Canadians, the ones paying attention including US Persons in Canada worried about compromise of all financial information of their and those related to them being turned over to the US:
Bank fraud, computer security top survey of Canadians’ privacy concerns
The poll suggests two-thirds of Canadians are concerned about the protection of their privacy — with a quarter of respondents saying they are “extremely concerned.”
“There is a growing sense amongst Canadians that their ability to protect their personal information is diminishing,” the report says.
Many Canadians feel a growing sense of helplessness when it comes to protecting their privacy. Seven of every 10 people think their personal information has less protection today than it did a decade ago, the report suggests.
…
The survey also suggests most Canadians are concerned about bank fraud, credit-card fraud, computer security and identity theft.Despite these concerns, the poll found most Canadians remain largely unaware of their privacy rights. Some 63 per cent rated their knowledge of privacy laws either low or in the neutral range. That said, Canadians’ knowledge of their privacy rights is higher now than in previous years, the survey suggests.
Canada Privacy Breaches: More Than A Million Canadians May Have Had Data Compromised
Prompted by a question from NDP MP Charlie Angus, the government was forced to acknowledge this week that at the very least, there were 1,072,999 instances where a Canadian’s private information held by various departments and agencies was lost, stolen or accessed by an unauthorized third party.
In a stack of documents tabled in the House of Commons Monday, the government admitted it has recorded more than 3,134 data and privacy breaches between 2002 and 2012 across all departments — although many departments only counted data breaches within the last two to five years. Of the total breaches, only 399 were reported to Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart.
…
The Conservative government said Tuesday that it takes the privacy of Canadians seriously.
Watch those lawyer fees 🙂
Fraudulent Transfer Leads To Punitive Damages And Attorney’s Fees Equal To Six Times The Amount Of The Underlying Judgment In Renbolt
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2013/04/24/fraudulent-transfer-leads-to-punitive-damages-and-attorneys-fees-equal-to-six-times-the-amount-of-the-underlying-judgment-in-renbolt/
Ironic to think that even though Canadians are concerned about privacy of their personal information, that they still have their heads in the sand about FATCA – quite possibly the largest invasion of their financial privacy that has ever been perpetrated on them by a foreign nation. But then again, Canadians have been famous for their “head in the sand” approach to problems and attacks on their sovereignty. We make a big deal about being Canadian, but when there is an attack their response is “Why would the US do that to us? We’re their largest trading neighbour. The US is our friend.” Yeah? Bulls***!!! —>on the “friend” part.
A true-blooded Canadian 100% with his EYES OPEN!
I mentioned in a comment on the 31st anniversary of The Charter that most Canadians I know are quite ignorant of the rights it affords them in general, so this isn’t a surprise.
Part of it, I think, is that first worlders are a bit naive in terms of privacy, what it is and how the lack of it truly impacts them, but also because we are schooled from early ages to hand over all sorts of real personal info via schools, doctors, banks, credit card companies and finally – social media.
Animal, I don’t know where you live but where I am in Alberta, there is a rather universal distrust and disdain for Americans (expect for the ones you know personally). However, most don’t understand American politics or how the vicious clique nature of it there works. They also don’t seem to understand that Americans are the epitome of “us and them” in terms of clannishness and worldview.
I was wandering around the Privacy Commissioner’s site trying to figure out whether or not it is possible to do a pre-emptive complaint on what would be FATCA’s obvious and egregious assault on an individual’s privacy. I don’t think it is. I think an individual would have to wait for the FATCA IGA hammer to fall, possibly even have to wait for demonstrable damages to be incurred, before the commissioner would be able to step in on his/her behalf.
Looking over the types of complaints dealt with by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) regarding individuals and their private financial information it looks like in most cases harm was perceived to have been done whereas at this point we can only complain about harm we perceive WILL be done IF an agreement is signed. There is the stress of waiting for a FATCA IGA announcement, whatever form that may take, but that’s not going to be grounds for a complaint I’m afraid — should be but won’t be. However, I think we should be prepared to absolutely flood the OPC if FATCA becomes a fact in Canada. There’s no doubt FATCA will cause harm if it is fully implemented in Canada, therefore we should prepare to complain loud and long and to everyone, including the Privacy Commissioner when the time comes.
An individual pre-emptive complaint is not feasible (probably) but I would still like to see a FATCA blip on the radar of the Privacy Commissioner right now, not as a formal complaint but more as information to be considered. I don’t know if anyone has tried contacting the OPC. The site says individuals can no longer submit complaints by e-mail. The only e-mail address I could find was to be used by organizations submitting complaints. I guess the Isaac Brock Society is not technically an organization but it kind of sounds like one so do you think IBS could send an e-mail listing all of the privacy concerns regarding FATCA? This is something our Badger could type up with one hand tied behind her back (hint, hint). The current Privacy Commissioner is Jennifer Stoddart and her commission ends in December. Does anyone know if there is an alternate e-mail address that could be used instead of the one below?
E-mail address for complaints by organizations only: notification@priv.gc.ca
http://www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.asp
http://www.ndp.ca/news/privacy-catastrophe-remix
The Federal NDP laudably alerts Canadians to privacy breaches that occurred as a result of the Harper government.
Notably absent is any public notice about the impending privacy breaches that would be made by Canadian banks, financial institutions, and Canada’s federal government if Harper signs a FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement with the US.
Where is any statement re FATCA by our NDP leader Thomas Mulcair?
The BC Caucus, and several individual NDP MPs have been supportive and vocal about opposition to FATCA.
But the silence from Mulcair is glaring.
Nothing on the Federal NDP site, or the Ontario NDP site. No official party statement.
The Greens can do it, but not the NDP?
Why not?
Here is the breakdown of the Harper government’s privacy breaches – information obtained by MP Angus of the NDP:
http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/2013-05-02/2013-05-02-Privacy-Breaches-Analysis-EN.pdf
@Em,
You ask whether individual formal privacy complaints, pre-emptive or otherwise, on FATCA can be made to the OPC in Canada and whether there would be any value in filing. I feel that there is value but only if the Ministry of Finance knows that formal privacy complaints are being made.
This in part is what I posted yesterday in the “FATCA Discussion thread ” :
“…I have not yet received a decision on my two separate [online] complaints to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) of Canada: one dealing with privacy breaches of US persons in Canada that will occur when Canada approves FATCA and the second dealing with [FBARS] privacy breaches now occurring when non-US Canadian spouse refuses to disclose joint accounts with US person to IRS–but is forced to comply.
My [online] discrimination complaint re FATCA to the Canada Human Rights Commission (which confirmed to me awareness of FATCA issue) was denied, as CHRC explained that FATCA is yet to be signed off and actual discrimination has not yet happened.
Have any other Canadian IB commenters recently filed such privacy/human rights complaints?…”
(I like very much your idea of the IBS sending soon something along the lines of a “formal complaint” to OPC— as long as the Ministry of Finance is advised when the complaint is sent.)
@ IRSCompliantForever
That was what I suspected regarding a pre-emptive type individual complaint but good for you for trying. However, maybe eventually the OPC will respond to your complaint about the existing problem of non-US spouses having their privacy invaded by FBARs. I too would like to see something submitted by IBS (still think our Badger could do a great job of putting this together). Your suggestion of notifying the Finance Ministry of this OPC “complaint” is very good. There would only be a few Brockers who could actually sign a statement of support for such a submission using their real names (Petros for instance) but I would at least be able to pseudo-sign with a statement such as … I am a Canadian by birth, formerly a US green card holder and married to a US citizen. I fully support this statement. I am known as “Em” on the IBS website. I think it would be obvious to the OPC why there is a need for anonymity. Or, perhaps since IBS is a group there would be no need for any signature(s). Any other thoughts, anyone?
@Em, I’m thinking about your comments.
@ badger
Thank you. Good! Now everyone shhhh so badger can think. 😉
@Em,
I think that there could be some impact just by having an organization make the privacy complaint-submission. The extent of impact might also be related to the number of Canadians “signing” the IBS statement irrespective whether any names are disclosed.
I keep mentioning cc’ing all complaints to the Minister of Finance because I actually feel that he is the only individual in power who has some sympathy for US persons in Canada–and who might be able to help somewhat before (not after) FATCA is signed off.
It is three in the morning and I too will be very, very, quiet so that …..
Tiger and I wrote to the Privacy Commissioner over a year ago at the advice of the constitutional lawyer we had consulted about FATCA. Initially., we were told in a telephone conversation it was not a privacy matter, but rather a trade treaty with US.
We knew that was not correct and someone else here (perhaps Wondering or Watcher) received a very different reply.
I wrote again and received a very prompt telephone call from the Director of Communications in the Privacy Commissioner’s Office apologizing for the inaccurate information we had received. Both Tiger and I received letters with the correct information.
That letter is posted at Maple Sandbox.
http://maplesandbox.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PrivacytoBlaze.pdf
Of particular note, is the following from the letter: “We note that many of the Canadian organizations that mayvoluntarily enter into FATCA agreements are subject to Canada’s private-sector privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Accordingly, organizations seeking to comply with FATCA requirements would also be expected to comply with their obligations under PIPEDA.Among these obligations are organizations’ requirements to limit the amount of personal information they collect about individuals, obtain consent for collection, uses and disclosures of individuals’ personal information and safeguard the personal information in their care.”
I will see if I can find the letter which I sent to the Privacy Commissioner and try to post it here.ere
I believe there is also a thread somewhere here Canadians, Write to the Privacy Commissioner. I was not able to locate it. In fact, I have been away from Brock for so long, I was not even able to locate the Search box. Perhaps someone else can locate that thread.
Badger also posted at Maple Sandbox (and I think here at Brock) that Queen’s University professor Art Cockfield–who has been outspoken against FATCA–has been funded for a project about FATCA and privacy.
When Tiger, Somerfugl and I consulted the constitutional lawyer recommended by Tim, he advised if banks violate Canadian privacy, human rights and banking laws, we may have grounds for a lawsuit against the banks. If the government changes those laws to accommodate a foreign government, we may have grounds for a Charter Challenge against the government. However, he advised “Don’t lawyer up now” as there are no grounds for legal action until we know exactly what banks and government will do.
I have been in contact with him more recently. In an e-mail, he said: “FATCA has been on my mind but I remain of the view that unless and until the Canadian government enacts legislation giving effect to it, there is nothing to challenge in the courts.”
In another e-mail, he said: “Let’s do stay in touch and if a lawsuit is required then I would be pleased to act for you.”
He is one of Canada’s leading constitutional lawyers. I understand he and Peter Hogg have often been on opposite sides in court cases, but they are of like mind on FATCA.
Walrus Magazine called him Civil Warrior. Peter Hogg was quoted in that article as saying: “If Joe loses a case, which must happen from time to time, I think everyone will assume that there was just no way to win it.” I am confident we will not lose this one if it comes to that. I have advised Joe I am certain I could get hundreds or even thousands to join in a lawsuit if one is necessary (which I hope it won’t be).
Joe has advised he has been contacted by another individual regarding FATCA.
You can be assured I have submitted information from the Privacy Commissioner, CCLA, Peter Hogg and Joe Arvay to Canadian Bankers Association.
Canadian Civil Liberties Association has advised me in all of my contacts with them it is “premature for court action.” As you know, they have also written to Finance Canada. So, we have the Privacy Commissioner, two of Canada’s leading constitutional lawyers and Canadian Civil Liberties Association in opposition to FATCA. Together, we can make a difference.
This paper is helpful in thinking about Canadian privacy rights in the context of international taxation:
Protecting Taxpayer Privacy Rights under Enhanced Cross-border Tax Information Exchange- Toward a Multilateral Taxpayer Bill of Rights Arthur J. Cockfield1.pdf
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yzOJkyl6zQMJ:www.law.ubc.ca/files/pdf/ncbl/papers/Cockfield.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
Arthur Cockfield ( http://law.queensu.ca/facultyAndStaff/facultyDirectory/cockfield/resumewebJuly2011.pdf ) is the same academic researcher from Queen’s University, that was just awarded a (small) grant by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner https://www.priv.gc.ca/resource/cp/2013-2014/cp_bg_e.asp on the topic ‘The Privacy Implications of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)’.
Just as an aside, you’ll notice that the Privacy Commissioner also gave a grant to research the privacy implications of the use of drones in Canada.
@ Blaze and Badger
Thank you for all the additional information and the reminder of previous great efforts re: OPC. The volume of work here and at the Sandbox is getting so large that what goes into one’s head often seeps out as time passes (my head at least). I know Arthur Cockfield will do a fair job with his project for the OPC. I wonder when that will happen? I wonder why it was the lowest funded of all the projects? Anyway, I still think a comprehensive letter from IBS to the OPC at this time is a good idea (cc’d to Finance of course). It would be grist to the mill, so to speak, and we could make sure there is not a single privacy issue stone left unturned. For myself, the privacy aspect of FATCA is the most important. Brockers and Sandboxers are the most familiar with this issue and you, Badger, are a genius at bringing a vast number of thoughts together with amazing coherency. I wish I could do it but it would end up looking like a song parody. 🙂 Something like this …
From Expats to the IRS
(sing along to “Please Release Me” by Englebert Humperdinck)
Please release us, let us go,
So you can’t tax us anymore.
To waste our lives would be insane.
Release us and let us live again.
We have found a good home here.
And we will always hold it dear.
Two tax masters is all wrong.
Release us, dark agents, say so long.
Please release us, let us go.
The harm you’ve done you’ll never know.
You’ve taxed our wealth beyond belief.
Release us and give us some relief.
Please release us can’t you tell,
Your tax injustice is sheer hell.
To keep us bound would bring us pain,
So release us and let us live again.
@Em et al.,
I just received two negative responses from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada for my privacy complaints, one FATCA-related and one dealing with privacy breach of non-US Canadian spouse forced to disclose joint accounts with US spouse. (The timing of the response relative to that of my email to IBS forum on privacy is interesting.)
The FATCA response was:
“Thank you for your correspondence to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in which you express concerns regarding the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
Our Office has been following this issue closely for more than a year. We are aware that the Department of Finance is engaged in this issue via both consultation with Canadian stakeholders as well as discussions with U.S. government officials.
Many organizations that may have FATCA obligations are subject to Canada’s private-sector privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).
As a result, they will need to be continually mindful of their PIPEDA obligations to, among other requirements, limit the amount of personal information they collect, use and disclose about individuals and safeguard the personal information in their care.
We understand that the federal Department of Finance is engaged in this issue and has undertaken discussions with appropriate U.S. government officials in this matter. We will, however, continue to follow developments on this issue as they arise.”
The separate non-US spouse complaint was denied as PIPEDA, as mentioned above, applies only “to businesses and organizations” and my argument that the Privacy Act was relevant because of some involvement of the federal government was not accepted.
I am disappointed, especially on the non-US spouse disclosure issue, but not entirely surprised.
I do not feel that this was a meaningless exercise as the Ministry of Finance (which may be influenced) knows that I was sufficiently concerned to have filed privacy complaints to the OPC on issues for which the Ministry is responsible.
Comments on the text and responses?
Thank you, IRSCompliantForever, for taking action in contacting the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on the two issues of FATCA and non-US spouse privacy of financial information from the US.
Regarding FATCA, it is consistent with what others have said regarding contacts on this issue, including “don’t lawyer up yet”. I don’t think your filing the complaints were for naught; it gives even more awareness of the issue for US Persons in Canada (as does the non-US spouse separate complaint). It is positive that you have their word that they have been following the FATCA issue.
I finally have a one-on-one meeting with my MP, Michelle Rempel, next Tuesday — alas only for 1/2 hour (I couldn’t get the hour I had requested). I will have to use that time wisely.
Yours; the issue of “there will be lawsuits;” the situation of Accidental Americans for whom Parents, Guardians, Trustees cannot renounce on behalf of due to a mental incapacity (my son’s situation); Patricia’s submittal to the Ways and US Means Committee will be examples of what I present for what is going on for Canadian citizens and residents who happen to have a US status. Besides wanting to get a feel of her support for US Persons in Canada, I want to better know the actions of the Federal Government with their negotiations re FATCA — beyond the “fact sheet” information we all have been given.
I welcome any other suggestions on most important topics to discuss, given I will have to prioritize what I discuss for lack of time — and long she talks within that 1/2 hour.
@calgary411, I don’t want to murkify, but:
I think your son’s case is so compelling and so little known that it functions to demonstrate that Canada should not be complicit in either exposing him to further harm, or in aiding US enforcement via FATCA.
That is information that you can speak to so compellingly at firsthand, that perhaps that is the most pressing.
– Strategic to assertively and pro-actively debunk any notion the MP may have that the current treaty prevents double taxation – which is a very very common misconception. And to establish that even with ZERO US taxable income, there is still the confiscatory and draconian financial reporting forms and penalties. Which threaten your laudable attempts to provide for your child.
– Your MP needs to know that your son and tens of thousands of others with cognitive or mental health disabilities are held in US tax bondage for life – and can never renounce or be free of the US – a very compelling but little known situation – and describing it helps to dispel the myth that the problem can be solved through ‘giving up’ US status. Canadian-only parents or guardians will always have to either file for your son, or be prepared to counter any potential IRS enforcement claims in the future.
Added to the fact that the US reserves the right to tax disability grants and income means that it is levying taxes on those who are most vulnerable – and provides no assistance or services to them.
A backgrounder provided either before, or as a handout for reading afterwards is imperative – since there is no way to get through or explain things in 1/2 hour.
@IRSCompliantForever, thank you for sharing that. I do agree, that even if the Privacy Commissioner’s answer is not helpful, the fact that they are being sent expressions of concern, and that Finance gets copies is important. We can always point to the fact that the privacy concerns were raised repeatedly, and we have documented proof. If there is no remedy, that does not meant that there is no problem. It is their job to see problems in their arena that need addressing, not to hope that if they draw in the parameters tightly enough, they can say that there is nothing to be done.
I don’t buy their dismissal of the complaint re non-US spouses. And further, under the US Bank Secrecy Act, as reported on FBAR – data subjected to the Homeland Security and Patriot Act, what about the non-familial accounts of non-US business partners, Canadian employers, and voluntary organizations where we merely have co-signatory powers? Some of those workplaces and employers are federal and provincial and municipal departments, or schoolboards, or other quasi-governmental bodies. Some of the employees with an FBAR burden will also be Canadian civil servants with signing authority over non-personal government accounts, and the accounts of clients – as in the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. I don’t see how the Privacy Commissioner can ignore that there are significant circumstances where if Canadian federal, provincial and other government and civil sector employees obey US Bank Secrecy and FBAR US tax law, there is an essential conflict with a fiduciary duty and duty of care to clients and fellow Canadians – via the breach of financial and personal privacy. It occurs to me that if the Privacy Commissioner is hiding behind any shortfalls of PIPEDA – and what they say it does not cover, there is still the onus – because this is an important breach of privacy – that if there is a existing gap in Canadian laws to address it, then the Commissioner should be on that – helping to craft something or advocate for something to plug that important gap. They can’t just throw up their hands.
Is the Canadian government going to allow a civil servant with co-signatory powers to disclose the account information of federal government departments? Are the provinces? Somebody has to sign off on cheques. You can’t tell me that there are zero Canadian-US duals who have signatory authority in civil servant and public service roles.
That might be another angle?
@Em, thanks for the kind words. And greatly admire your ability to create topical scathing anti-FATCA verses so readily.
Just a p.s.
Well, if the Privacy Commissioner said that “PIPEDA, as mentioned above, applies only “to businesses and organizations..”
Then doesn’t it follow, that:
Whereas the FATCA reporting involves a privacy breach that hasn’t happened yet – because as far as we know, there is no IGA yet, the provisions of the US Bank Secrecy Act FBAR ARE, and have been in force for decades now – and although not well known before, is currently being enforced with vigor by the US. And the FBAR applies also to a wide range of non-personal accounts – including those of “businesses and organizations”.
Canada has to take a stand on this – or forbid all civil and public servants with US taxable status and the concomitant FBAR reporting obligation to have co-signatory powers on government and quasi-governmental accounts. The federal government might take the position that FBAR reporting is between us and the US – under the guise of refraining from comment on how another country chooses to tax ‘its citizens’, but it is indefensible for them to try and say that it is none of their business that thousands of civil and public servants who have signatory or co-signatory powers as an essential part of their job descriptions and duties are supposed to be reporting on those government accounts annually under the terms of the US BSA. There is no exception in the FBAR rules for public and civil servants of non-US countries is there?
That doesn’t even touch on all the Canadian workplaces – which are ‘businesses’ and ‘organizations’. Or of the impact on the voluntary or NGO sector.
Thanks very, very much for your input, badger.
I am working on building a “backgrounder” — sort of a “Fact Sheet” as the Conservatives provide to us. I want to keep that as concise as I can. I will “borrow” heavily from information here at Isaac Brock, much of yours, badger.
I sent my MP an email recently as at her first April 23rd telephone town meeting. That went for an hour; my turn did not come up in the time allotted to ask my questions / make my comments. I want to discuss more than in that email though.
@calgary, good luck. I emphasized the inability of those deemed incapable due to cognitive or mental health disabilities to renounce in a meeting with an MP recently. It is hard to know what is absorbed by our representatives, as it is so complex to explain – dispelling the myths they’ve absorbed about the Canada-US tax treaty preventing double taxation, and educating them about what FBARS cover, and what FATCA is takes so much effort and time. I do think that they are more interested in the impact on those who are and always have been ONLY Canadians. But the effect on thousands or tens of thousands like your son, and on seniors – having US imposed capital gains tax on their principle residence nest egg, (their funding for retirement and longterm care) may just push them into being indignant enough to care.
@Calgary 411,
My experience in “30 minute” (you will speak for 15 minutes or less, depending) discussions with higher- ups is that you will be able to make only two, perhaps if really lucky, three points.
You need to decide what you want the MP to do for you. Is preventing FATCA really a top choice? It would not be mine as the harm continues with or without FATCA.
I cannot put myself in your place, but might concentrate, along the lines of what Badger has suggested, almost exclusively on 1) solving the issue with your son; and 2) addressing the related IRS taxation and nonsense filing issues with the RDSP. Here you would ask for the help of your MP in convincing the MOF to amend by negotiation with US or override (like US does with us) the US-Canada tax treaty to solve the RDSP problem. [If the issue with the RDSP, for which the most compelling case can be made, can be addressed, then others will follow.]
As you say, the backgrounder should be concise. I would use bullet points with not much text. For me, all is focused on the tax treaty and I would ask for the help of the MP in convincing the MOF to amend/override the tax treaty to prevent the following X number (list each one) of harms to US persons in Canada. This should be in the form of a directive-solution rather than a complaint.
However, I might ignore all of the above and just ask the MP to take 10 minutes only to read, as backgrounder, the submission of Patricia to the House Ways and Means Committee. I strongly recommend that you ask the MP to focus on her submission and then to figure out how she can prevent this from ever happening again.
Not easy. Good luck.
@ badger
“I don’t see how the Privacy Commissioner can ignore that there are significant circumstances where if Canadian federal, provincial and other government and civil sector employees obey US Bank Secrecy and FBAR US tax law, there is an essential conflict with a fiduciary duty and duty of care to clients and fellow Canadians – via the breach of financial and personal privacy.”
That’s why we are all so grateful to have you here. That is another example I would not have thought of. It would be perfect if there was a dual working in OPC with signing authority on an account there. That would bring FATCA right to the OPC’s doorstep in a very direct way.
@ IRSCompliantForever
Don’t worry about the rejection slips regarding your complaints. You put some blips on the OPC’s radar screen and that is very important. The trick is to keep the blips from fading away. That “continue to follow developments on this issue as they arise” is typical bureau-speak but that is why, despite the apparent brush-offs and pass-offs to Finance, it is important to let OPC know that we will continue to follow them to make sure they continue to follow those developments. Your submissions did just that. Thank you.
@ calgary411
Great effort regarding your communications with your MP. Excellent idea to use Patricia’s Ways & Means submission and of course your son’s case is every bit as compelling. Good luck with that interview! We all understand how difficult it is to present such a complex issue in a brief period of time. I no longer try, even with friends and family.
Thanks, IRSCompliantForever,
I really like your suggestion to ask my MP to read Patricia’s submission and ask her how she and the Canadian government will prevent anything like this ever happening again. It is a “best example” of what is happening. How can anyone, anyone! reading Patricia’s submission not be aghast at what was done to that family in the name of the US citizenship-based taxation?
Thanks, Em, for your “good luck” and your latest verse!
@Em, I was thinking that it would be unlikely to find a dual currently working in the federal or provincial or other level of the Canadian civil/public service who would come forward to describe what this would mean in a practical sense. On the other hand, perhaps some of those who safely relinquished decades ago and are no longer working for the public service, might be able to think of concrete examples from knowing more about some of these workplaces and roles – and what they entail – in order to flesh out a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner that complying with the US Bank Secrecy Act FBAR provisions would conflict with their duty to Canada and Canadians. I have never had such a role so I can only pose the scenario and point out how widespread this problem could be within different levels of government, non-profit and private sector. Hopefully PIPEDA would cover at least some of that.
Does anyone think that is a valid basis for a complaint to make to the Privacy Commissioner? Anyone see any problems? Any suggestions?