One of us — not me — asked a great question tonight in Toronto-Danforth of Thomas Mulcair regarding FATCA. The answer: The NDP caucus has not discussed it but we will and then we will have a position. I believe he also said that any US extra-territorial law would be inappropriate or a word to that effect.
Great job! I don’t suppose you managed to catch that moment on video to share? Be great if we could start recording this activist moments to put up here and maybe start a YouTube Channel for IBS.
But awesome that you guys made it there and got some questions in and answered.
Here is the questionner, IRSCompliantForever — his comment on the event three Brockers attended, followed by relevant comments to his: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/09/19/thomas-mulcair-in-toronto-danforth-tonight/comment-page-2/#comment-544388.
Thanks so much for making inroads into awareness on FATCA and showing the NDP, under Leader Mulcair, for what it really is these days.
I’m very grateful to those of you who went and were able to get a question put directly to him tonight! That lets them know we are watching. It also alerts everyone else in the room to go and find out what this is all about.
I read Jim Flaherty to make announcement of ‘substance’ at 10 a.m. today possibly about FATCA – did that happen?
@ Steve Klaus
The announcement was NOT about FATCA. It was something about a “capital markets regulator”.
@ Steve Klaus
The announcement was a new co-operative National Securities Model, between Ottawa, B.C., and Ontario
Like you, I am eager to know what’s going on regarding the IGA negotiations; I suspect the public will hear nothing until after Parliament resumes on October 16th. As far as I understand, an IGA must be debated and voted on in Parliament. Distressing to hear that Mulcair and the NDP have no position on the issue; I was hoping they at least would stand up for people like us.
I hope that when an announcement about FATCA does come through, Flaherty sticks by his earlier commitment that the CRA will not collect on any taxes or penalties the IRS may incur, so long as those liabilities accrued when the individual was a Canadian citizen.
As an aside, I have a friend who is an Investment Advisor Assistant at one of the major banks who told me that all the Investment Advisor’s in the district attended a FATCA seminar recently. I’m sure similar seminars took place in all the districts across Canada. The banks are rolling things out and getting their employees ready for July 2014.
Dear Mr. Mulcair:
It was a pleasure meeting you last night in Toronto-Danforth as part of Democracy Week. I applaud your commitment to Proportional Representation and your efforts to implement it.
I must say I was shocked to hear — in response to a question from the audience — that you were not prepared to state a position on FATCA and that the caucus had not discussed it. I would draw to your attention that numerous NDP members had stated positions on this issue in the past.
I hope — as a long-time and fervent NDP supporter that you are prepared to stand up for me and my family as well as close to one million Canadian citizens whose welfare is threatened by this legislation.
I look forward to hearing from you and the caucus concerning this matter.
BMO has been sponsoring US tax information seminars with Trowbridge Financial Corporation for a while now. I went to one earlier this summer in my area, and as far as I know one was held in West Vancouver on September 17th. If you would like to know if and when another will be held try Anna Chung at 604-901-1091 or firstname.lastname@example.org. They are open to the public but you will need to register.
Thanks for your excellent follow-up to last night’s NDP meeting. Thanks also to IRSCompliantForever for the lead-in to your action. Excellent work.
Well done IRSCompliant for forcing Mulcair to say something, if even only this waffling babblegab, about FATCA. Mulcair hasn’t even acknowledged at least half a dozen emails from me in the past months, on the subject of FATCA. Nor has my MP, Paul Dewar, been replying. I did get a very nice reply quite some time ago from Denise Savoie, a BC member for NDP who had to resign for health reasons — and I’m not even her constituent. Though I was (until this past week) a party member.
If an MP and a party leader won’t reply to concerns by constituents, never mind party members, seems to me that’s a perfect reason to vote them both out of office at the next opportunity.
And what has the NDP been doing about FATCA the past two years? They’ve been well-aware of it. Hell, Dewar with help from Peter Julian and Huong Mai (then the party’s finance and national revenue critics, respectively) organized a meeting here in Ottawa Centre all about FATCA, which was well-attended by myself and several other prominent Brockers, nearly two years ago. This isn’t consultation with caucus; it’s going to be the leader and national office ramming something down caucus’ throats. Lots of members of caucus have been aware of FATCA and have had interactions with constituents via email, mail and telephone, for months.
The BC caucus of the NDP had no trouble getting their act together and formulating a position letter they all signed and sent to Flaherty nearly two years ago. So what about the rest of the caucus?
And what does this say about Mulcair’s “ideas for remaking democracy” in Canada? The party brass will meet behind closed doors and tell us what the position is going to be, after consulting their Obamacrat campaign strategist, Jeremy Bird, for directions from his masters in Washington? Sounds like “remaking democracy” in Mulcair’s eyes was taken from Eric Honecker’s book on how to remake East German democracy by consulting the Kremlin before meeting with his own government “caucus.”
This is no longer the NDP that I supported and voted for during the past 40-odd years, and it is no longer a political party I want running my corner convenience store, never mind my country.
Re Canadian MPs who were at Parliamentary committee meetings that touched on or considered aspects of FATCA, see:
‘Scott Michel and David Rosenbloom Cited in Canadian Report on Tax Evasion’
May 1, 2013, Canadian House of Commons – Report on the Standing Committee on Finance
“Scott D. Michel and H. David Rosenbloom were cited several times in a report from the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. The report reflects the findings of a study on tax evasion and the use of tax havens in order to examine international tax planning and ascertain emerging best practices in foreign jurisdictions for combating tax evasion. For the complete report, please go to the Parliament of Canada’s website.”
I very strongly believe now that a large part of the problem and silence that we are currently facing with the NDP on FATCA is that they may – like others, confuse/conflate FATCA with a method to achieve this recommendation they made in a recent report to address tax evasion by Canadians with foreign accounts – (based in part on the Finance committee hearings that Michel and Rosenbloom testified at);
The NDP recommends;
……….#7. That the federal government increase efforts to work multilaterally with international partners to move towards a system of automatic tax information exchange.
‘SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF CANADA’
“The report: Tax Evasion and the Use of Tax Havens, successfully details the linked problems of tax evasion and the inappropriate use of tax havens. Unfortunately the recommendations of the report fail to adequately confront these very serious problems and, for this reason, New Democrat members of the Finance Committee have been compelled to submit this supplementary opinion……”
Read the section on FATCA – which does NOT note any of the problems that FATCA poses, nor the conflicts between US and all other taxation systems, NOR Charter or Constitutional concerns, etc.
Buried in there is a tiny link that if you know what you are looking for, refers to this:
“Mr. Brian Ernewein:
“…………..The other aspect I might identify—if I’m not cutting too much into your time, and it relates to other questions being raised about what more can be done—is that the current TIEA model and the current exchange of information model is on an information on request basis. That is, Canada believes that it may have reason to expect that there’s information relating to a particular taxpayer in another jurisdiction. It makes a specific request to that other jurisdiction. That’s the base model.
What the G-20 and the OECD have been talking about is whether or not that could actually advance to an automatic exchange of information procedure. We have that in place with some of our countries. The best example is the United States, where a lot of the information that we collect on our own forms, when it relates to an American resident, is automatically provided to the U.S. And the same goes for the U.S. in relation to income items that come to Canadians; the information they collect comes to us automatically.
As I say, the G-20 and the OECD have been suggesting that’s the next step and we should move to the automatic exchange of information. I do make the make the point that this is tough to conceive of for countries that don’t have tax systems, in terms of how actually they will exchange information that they’re not collecting in the first place. But the principle of it, the idea of it, is worth consideration, and certainly we’re engaged in that analysis too.” http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5960311&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1#T1020
So, though the NDP and other members of this committee were told by speakers that FATCA had unintended consequences for individuals abroad which were not desirable, and that individuals and entities should be considered separately, and despite a paucity of recognition by the Canadians on the committee that the US citizenship extraterritorial system and the Canadian one based on residency were different, I think that the NDP and perhaps the other parties believe that FATCA is one and the same with this; “multilaterally with international partners to move towards a system of automatic tax information exchange.”.
Which is possibly the result of the FATCA Kool-aid being peddled by Stack and the rest of the US Treasury FATCA propaganda that instead of a true multilateral international approach, and one that would have to confront the essential conflict between the US definition of ‘all the world’s a US taxpayer’ and the system used by the rest of the globe – that FATCA is a precursor or basis to build on.
FATCA cannot be a basis for the rest of the world, because it is ONLY a US domestic law subject to changes without notice to IGA signatories – due to the powers of Congress, and the last in time rule, and the view of the US that FATCA IGAs are NOT treaties and thus binds the other ‘partner’ in a way that the US is NOT bound.
‘The Dubious Legal Pedigree of FATCA intergovernmental agreements (and why it matters) ‘ by Allison Christians McGill prof.
‘Monday, February 11, 2013
What You Give and What You Get: Reciprocity Under a Model 1 Intergovernmental Agreement on FATCA
McGill University – Faculty of Law
April 12, 2013
Cayman Fin. Rev. April 2013
and from Just Me,
So, the real obstacle is the NDP, like others are confused about what a FATCA IGA would actually achieve for Canada – and also do not understand that it is our CANADIAN local legal transparent accounts that the US seeks to capture under FATCA – and that we are already fully compliant TAXPAYERS in Canada, whereas all Canada would want and benefit from is the NON-Canadian accounts held by Canadian resident taxpayers OUTSIDE Canada. It is not at all the same thing. AND, they do not understand Prof. Christians point that the FATCA IGA is a different creature for Canada as a parliamentary system vs. the US who is treating it not as a treaty, and intends to reserve the right to override it without any input from Canada – since they see Congress and the US as having the ultimate power over it.
If we can’t get the NDP to see the complexities (which I did not see reflected in the Parliamentary report) then those not immersed or versed in this will sell us down the river – possibly due to ignorance of FATCAs implications.
We need experts like Allison Christians, and Arthur Cockfield. And to send the NDP caucus copies of the anti FATCA paper by Scott Michel and Rosenbloom – since Peggy Nash and Murray Rankin were present at those committee meetings.
Send this to Peggy Nash, Murray Rankin, Thomas Mulcair, and others
‘FATCA and Foreign Bank Accounts: Has the U.S.
by Scott D. Michel and H. David Rosenbloom
READ that over in full http://www.capdale.com/files/4178_FATCA%20Article.pdf
Forget the others — Badger for Prime Minister!
Aaah calgary411, thanks for the vote, but just trying to make some sense out of the senseless!
Am curious if others see the same potential explanation for the mystery of the unofficial non-position by the NDP, and perhaps also the Liberal Party? Who knows about the others – except we know where the Greens stand. You would think that the Bloc and PQ might also find FATCA a threat to Quebec sovereignty. And, what has shifted the Conservatives? What does each party feel is on offer with FATCA and what do they perceive as the downside of opposing it, or even of talking about it in public? If they support it, then why not say so? Would be good if some journalists actually asked the parties where they stand. Why haven’t they?
Indeed, why hasn’t the media asked the hard questions rather than ‘copy and paste’ the IRS / US Treasury words?
badger, my guess is the NDP and the Liberals don’t want to take a stand until the Conservatives actually sign the IGA and maybe the wording of the IGA isn’t as set in stone as the US and the parasites in the compliance industry want us to think. That might explain why there is such a hard sell to get people to line up and bend over now rather than wait and see what a Canadian IGA might actually mean in terms of how much info will be handed over and what will be officially off-limits.
Might be that for those who haven’t any business south of the border might be able to simply go forward without having to file backwards and that much of what is now being targeted for fines, won’t be under an IGA.
I think David might call that wishful thinking but unless he has been sitting in on the IGA talks, he doesn’t know any more than we do. But if you are “out of compliance” by basically a whole adult lifetime, what’s another six months or year to simply wait and see what the IGA will bring in terms of liability?
If there was a real issue for the LIbs and the NDP to be hammering Harper with right now, wouldn’t they be using it?
Of they could all be staying silent because this is a real time bomb and it doesn’t matter who the sitting government is or who signed the IGA because it will have to be enforced regardless.
Sitting on the fence is not acceptable. What do they think of our rights being equal to that of any other Canadian? A bunch of cowards not to discuss this out in the open — and with us. Not behind closed doors!
re; ..”If there was a real issue for the LIbs and the NDP to be hammering Harper with right now, wouldn’t they be using it?
Or they could all be staying silent because this is a real time bomb and it doesn’t matter who the sitting government is or who signed the IGA because it will have to be enforced regardless….”
I thought the first re hammering the Harper government when we first saw the Finance Dept. notice that signing an IGA was ‘imminent’. Especially because it was so clearly and dramatically at odds with the Minister’s words and letter in the media.
But then, I thought maybe the opposition didn’t want to be seen to oppose the US – or maybe specifically the Obama government – with which they have some ties – personal and political and perhaps see as an ally should they come to power after Harper. Witness the hiring of “Jeremy Bird, national field director for the 2012 re-election campaign of U.S. President Barack Obama” http://o.canada.com/2013/04/13/blog-ndp-convention/ or the marriage to an Obama supporter “Obama attends wedding of Toronto Liberal MPP’s son” a wedding to one of “President Barack Obama’s closest friends and advisers” http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/06/20/obama_attends_wedding_of_toronto_liberal_mpps_son.html , and at least one Canadian attended either the inauguration or some similar event.
Other political connections between Obama Democrats and Canadian Liberals http://www.ctvnews.ca/obama-has-personal-professional-ties-to-canada-1.370645 and at least one MP attended the DNC convention http://www.vancouverobserver.com/world/united-states/what-canadians-hope-hear-obama-tonight-2012-dnc
Often, one government signs on to something, the opposition hammer them, and then when they come to power – they do nothing to ameliorate the issue – just deflect criticism by blaming it on the previous government and claim their hands are tied. I’m thinking about NAFTA. So, maybe they are waiting for the Harper government to sign, and then later will claim that their hands are tied.