52 thoughts on “NDP”

1. We were out all day but I just checked my e-mail box and I got the same letter from Mulcair. It was a reply to my September 20th e-mail. I might have something from my PC MP in a bit too. I got an e-mail from his office recently requesting my mailing address so they could send me a reply to an e-mail I sent on July 4th. That seemed odd but apparently his office doesn’t have a scanner so whatever the reply is it will have to come by snail mail. My e-mail was pretty blunt so I’m curious as to what is coming.

2. Oh yeah, and also note, the reference in the comment to:

   IsaacBrockSociety dot ca or Maplesandbox dot ca.

   Marie, is that you?

3. @YogaGirl, Canada would never let countries other than the US define Canadians. They would never let anyone but the US elevate a non-Canadian birthplace or parentage transmitted status over the Canadian citizenship – particularly when we are talking about what is most salient for those actually inside Canada, on Canadian soil. And a Canadian permanent resident was granted formal legal permission to live in Canada, and there will be many who have been here for years, and many who are en route to naturalizing.

   What does it mean to be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident if the Harper government cedes to another country the power to define or qualify it?

   What does it mean to allow a foreign government to enforce extraterritorial laws that will apply to certain groups of Canadian residents and citizens, and not others?

   What subset of Canadian citizens and permanent residents is next?

   Probably none, because Canada would never grant Eritrea or Afghanistan for example, the right to tax Canadian citizens and residents on Canadian soil and demand the regular and automatic reporting of account numbers, locations, balances, deposits, withdrawals, joint holders and beneficiaries of legal, local Canadian bank accounts and assets. I doubt Canada would ever do that for any other classes of Canadian citizens and residents based only on country of origin or parentage and no economic connection.

4. @badger,

   You just made me cry.

5. Again, you put the ‘bad’ in badger. I really hope that you correspond with our elected officials.

6. badger, I am going to choose to believe that you are correct and that all the hidden drama is basically leading to a big fat middle finger from Canada to the US on FATCA.

   So far, we have the Greens and the NDP coming out against an IGA. We need to put the heat on the Libs and JT to do the same.

7. “WhiteKat says
   October 4, 2013 at 10:25 pm
   Re:above post, I was pleased to see the anti-FATCA comment to the news article.

   I know I am not the only Brocker with a ‘Soo’ connection, and it was good to see that we have many Canadians with a ‘US connection’ in the Soo who are paying attention!”

   Guilty as charged. LOL

8. I actually wanted to go down to that meeting this morning, but had an appointment. I plan on sending some information to that news website, as soon as I can find some time to get something together. We’re pretty starved for true news stories here, and I think there are a few online reporters that have no problem doing multi-part pieces. The interest should be huge, being a border town.

9. My only quibble with their letter is they keep talking about American-Canadians and landed immigrants. That’s fine but, the larger group affected are people related to us who are not even American at all. Nor have they ever been American. I don’t know why the pols keep obscuring this fact but, when we add up populations affected by FATCA the larger group are our relatives who are now and always were ONLY Canadian or French, or German.

   Canada needs to recognize their own citizens who never have been American who are going down with the rest of us if Canada signs an IGA with our dysfunctional neighbour to the south.

10. It’s sickening when you see the way the Canadian government kisses up to the United States.

    http://www.cartoonsof.com/images/illustrations/xsmall2/43470_patriotic_uncle_sam_beaver_waving_an_american_flag_on_independence_day.jpg

    And the absolute blatant truth of why the US is going after FATCA – guess…it’s not after “tax cheats”.
    “Mo money!”

    http://canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/STOOS021413.jpg

11. @YogaGirl, I’m not at all certain that what is hidden from us is meant to or will result in giving the US the finger on FATCA. I only meant that we the public and those affected are left to interpret the shadows and the glimmers and have no way to see the actors and hear them directly as this all plays out.

    I am very pleased that the letter from MP Rankin acknowledges that all this has been deliberately kept secretive, hidden from Canadians – taxpayers, citizens and residents. He acknowledges too that there has been no real opportunity or avenue for input. There has been no public conversation with Canadian citizens and residents. Perhaps that will start to change now that NDP MP Rankin, and NDP Leader Mulcair has written so unequivocally, in addition to the NDP BC caucus, and the other individual MPs we’ve heard from. I will never forget that it was Elizabeth May who proactively put the anti-FATCA statement and backgrounder and Peter Hogg’s letter on her website. Other parties could have made that FOI request and made it public. But it was the Green party who did. And it was NDP MP Mai who got those FATCA and CBT and FBAR questions into the parliamentary record – and managed to get at least some answers on public record too. For that I think we should all be very grateful.

    I am in no way certain or confident that there will be no Canadian IGA, though the more public this becomes, the better. The more delayed, the better. The more it is obvious that FATCA is flawed, the worse it would look if Harper signed on – because there is plenty of publicly available evidence to contradict any claims that it is merely an adjustment to the current tax treaty. There is now lots of firsthand evidence that many of us warned MPs and the Department of Finance of the effects of FATCA and US CBT on Canadian residents and citizens.

    I agree, we must hammer on and pursue the Liberals too. Where is their official party position? They know this is happening. You can see that Scott Brison participated in the 41st PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
    Standing Committee on Finance meetings where FATCA came up several times.

    @bubblebustin, I have sent emails to various members of several parties (provincial and federal), called some, and spoken with some. Some sent a form response to my emails. A few asked for more details. Some delayed replying for months. Some were receptive, showed they understood and opposed FATCA. Others didn’t deign to reply at all.

    Sorry @WhiteKat. Lets hope we can make some of our fellow citizens and politicians feel like crying too (either from shame, or from empathy) when they contemplate the significance of creating a second class of Canadian citizens and residents that FATCA would disenfranchise.

    I think there is a certain amount/combination of public shaming, moral suasion and self /party interest that might motivate Canadian politicians who have not yet declared their intent to oppose FATCA, especially if there is lessened chance of believable deniability that they did not know what was at stake or the size and pervasiveness of the ‘unintended’ consequences.

12. Looking at results like these can give us a better idea of the thinking of some of the MPs we correspond with, and who has been present when FATCA has come up. It might be helpful to note their participation on committees and the specific sessions where they asked questions or made comments on FATCA and US CBT.
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/Search/Results.aspx?Language=E&search_term=fatca

    @ Joe Smith;
    thank you for sharing those letters with us and for your efforts.

13. @badger

    Thank you, I only asked because any resistance to your persuasion would be futile!

14. RE:
    …”the larger group affected are people related to us who are not even American at all. Nor have they ever been American.”…

    I agree @Atticus, and I think that this is the most glaring FACT that Stack and the US would really really like to keep obscured. We already face that with the FBAR – extending even to non-US employers, estates, POAs, charitable and community organization accounts, joint accounts, business accounts held with partners, etc. How can the US explain the overreach?

    That and the substantial compliance costs to put FATCA in place in Canada and to continue it forever and ever. Paid for by ALL Canadian taxpayers.

    And, the banking fees that will have to go up in order to pay for the initial and ongoing costs of searching US indicia and reporting. Probably imposed across ALL clients.

15. Thanks, for the link, badger, which I will look into sometime today or this evening. Should be interesting reading, at least for “us all.”

    Thanks to everyone who so thoroughly pushed the NDP to now have this result. Excellent, excellent work from all of you good people.

16. Has anyone forwarded Mr Mulcair’s letter to Kevin Shoom?

17. Pingback: How #FATCA will enslave the world in 2 easy steps | U.S. Persons Abroad - Members of a Unique Tax, Form and Penalty Club

18. Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society

19. Received same letter from NDP’s Mulclair. Wrote back with following policy research action suggestion. Maybe others could press for this as well…

    “There are a many reasons to object to FATCA. These (this letter’s) comments are focused on an very worrisome aspect of any Canadian FATCA IGA. It would be the first Canadian law to create two distinct classes of Canadian citizens based upon birthplace: those born in the U.S. vs. Canadians born anywhere else.

    These objections are based upon the Canadian Charter and the dubious legal standing of “U.S. personhood” thrust upon unwilling Canadian citizens. The concept of a “U.S. person” has no legal standing or precedent in Canada; it is a remote claim based upon the law of a foreign state.

    ACTION ITEM: I urge the NDP to seek counsel and opinion of legal experts regarding the legal status and conflicts with Canadian law of a FATCA IGA. The NDP’s Craig Scott is a human rights law expert. Peter Hogg has expressed strong opinions on this matter. And leading constitutional litigator Joe Arvay is aware of FATCA issues as well. Ask their legal opinion on this.”

20. Wondering says…

    I just forwarded this to Craig Scott.

21. @ Joe Smith
    FYI, here’s the entire text of the letter
    (in for penny; in for a pound)

    To: Hon. Thomas Mulcair, Leader of the Official Opposition
    CC: Hon. Murray Rankin; Hon. Craig Scott

    Dear Minister,

    Thank you for response regarding FATCA. I am pleased that Murry Rankin wrote to Minister of Finance James Flaherty regarding FATCA and a possible Canadian Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). I’m glad the NPD is taking a strong stand on this pressing but under-reported and opaque issue.

    There are a many good reasons to object to FATCA. My comments are focused on an especially worrisome aspect of a Canadian FATCA IGA. It would be the first Canadian law to create two distinct classes of Canadian citizens based upon birthplace: those born in the U.S. vs Canadians born anywhere else. My objections are based upon the Canadian Charter and the dubious legal standing of “U.S. personhood” thrust upon unwilling Canadian citizens. The concept of a “U.S. person” has no legal standing or precedent in Canada; it is a remote claim based solely upon the law of a foreign state.

    Action item: I urge the NDP to seek the counsel and opinion of legal experts regarding the legal status and conflicts with Canadian law of any FATCA IGA. The NDP’s own Craig Scott is a leading human rights law expert. Peter Hogg has expressed strong opinions on this matter. And leading constitutional litigator Joe Arvay is aware of FATCA issues as well. Ask their opinion on this as a matter of law.

    The administration of FATCA – specifically discrimination in banking and finance based upon indicia of U.S. birthplace – is currently unlawful in Canada under the Charter and Human Rights laws. Only an act of Parliament can enable FATCA here. However, a Canadian IGA to enable FATCA would be the first law in Canadian history to discriminate against an entire class of Canadians based upon birthplace. Canada’s estimated 1,000,000 so-called “U.S.-persons” are a significant constituency – this issue could directly effect a significant percentage of Canada’s population.

    Those discriminated against include many long-term Canadian citizens who do not consider themselves “dual citizens”. According to US law they relinquished their US citizenship by swearing the Canadian citizenship oath, only to be considered repatriated ex post facto by FATCA. It also impacts Canadians who were born in the US while their parents were visiting, or through cross-border hospital arrangements, and even the Canadian-born children of US-born Canadians. At the heart of this matter is the issue of considering American citizenship to be the dominant and defining nationality of many long-term Canadian citizens whose ties to the U.S. are actually very remote.

    Noted constitutional expert Peter Hogg has spoken strongly against FATCA. In a letter to Department of Finance Mr. Hogg warned that a FATCA agreement with the United States would likely be unconstitutional and in violation of Section 15 of the Charter. He wrote: “To the extent that any implementing legislation adopts provisions similar to those found in the Model IGA, in my opinion, the legislation would violate S. 15 of the Charter… The source of this problem is the fact that the Model IGA requires financial institutions to treat people differently based on such innate characteristics as place of birth or citizenship…” His full letter is here: https://www.greenparty.ca/multimedia/2013-03-13/peter-hogg-letter

    The U.S. government is asking the Canadian government to create two classes of Canadian citizens and residents. The first class: those who have a right to private banking information, and a right to not be discriminated against because of their national origin. The second class: Canadian citizens and permanent residents who are also so-called “U.S. Persons”, who would lose these rights. And the selection of the people for the second class (in other words, who is a “U.S. Person”) is made in a foreign state.

    The attribution of “U.S.-person-hood” or “U.S. tax residency” based solely upon a U.S. place of birth is the “fruit of a poisoned tree” – and that poisoned tree is national origin discrimination. It is dubious and remote to claim that a Canadian citizen who was born in the US decades ago, and subsequently has no concrete tie of residence or economic activity in the US, is somehow a “U.S. tax resident”. It is a remote and unusual claim because it is based solely on foreign law, and it is imposing this foreign definition upon certain citizens of Canada, and is not it based not upon economic nexus or residency. The concept of “U.S. person” put forth by FATCA is built upon a foundation of sand: national origin discrimination.

    The Canadian Human Rights Act governs chartered banks in Canada. “Ethnic or National Origin” is a prohibited ground for discrimination. Canadian banks clearly should not be asking their customers where they were born, or treating Canadians born in a one certain country differently from any others.

    Additionally there is a strong precedent in Canada that when foreign laws conflict with Canadian law, a Canadian bank must comply with Canadian law. Also, the effect of foreign law is a business risk that Canadian banks take on voluntarily.
    In Van deMark vs. Toronto Dominion Bank [1989], a Canadian high court decision established two important principles:
    – in a conflict of laws, Canadian law has primacy over the laws of foreign jurisdictions where the bank also does business; and
    – Canadian banks may not act as foreign revenue collectors or enforcers.

    On behalf of all Canadians – no matter where born – I urge the NPD to continue to press our government for transparency and accountability on this urgent matter.

22. I sent Mulcair’s response to Kevin Shoom with Canada’s Dept of Finance (for what it’s worth) today.

23. Re: my comment on October 4, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    The snail mail response from Ted Menzie’s office regarding an e-mail I sent on July 4th turned out to be quite infuriating. Apparently my MP passed along my e-mail to the Minister of National Revenue (Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay). Ms. Findlay’s letter to Mr. Menzie was ever so non-enlightening and here are some excerpts:

    “Thank you for your correspondence of July 25, 2013, on behalf of your constituent asking to clarify various elements of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.” (Note: THAT was NOT what I was asking.)

    “This U.S. law is intended to improve U.S. tax compliance involving foreign financial institutions assets and offshore accounts …” (Note: THAT and the following description of FATCA could have been as easily provided by Wikipedia.)

    “On November 8, 2012, the Honourable James M. Flaherty, Minister of Finance Canada, announced that Canada and the U.S. were negotiating to improve cross-border tax compliance through better information exchanges under the Canada-U.S.. tax convention …” (Note: THAT was then so what about the IGA negotiations going on right now?)

    “While the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is responsible for administering Canada’s tax system, the Department of Finance Canada is responsible for tax policy, including negotiating tax conventions.” (Note: THAT is obvious but who cares about who does what when it is what is being done that is important.)

    “The U.S. government has the authority to tax its residents and its citizens no matter where they live and to ask them to provide the information needed to verify the amount of tax they owe. It has the authority to charge penalties if an individual does not meet the U.S. filing requirements.” (Note: THAT is exactly what Canada should be challenging for the sake of its own sovereignty and on behalf of its own citizens.)

    The rest of the letter was how to contact the IRS and where to find information about OVDP. The letter concluded with:

    “I trust the information I have provided is helpful.” (Note: THAT was not helpful in the least.)

24. @Em

    It’s those helpful ways to get in touch with the IRS that really irk me. Like how the Canadian Banker’s Association provides them on their website, directing us directly into the jaws of the beast. It would be more appropriate to suggest we contact TAS or seek legal advice before contacting the IRS! Compare it to someone suspected of a crime talking directly with the prosecutor, if you prefer.

25. @ bubblebustin

    Exactly and it also bothered me that it didn’t answer a single concern that I had. My letter to Ted Menzie’s is too long to post but the key points were:

    I would appreciate a statement from you regarding the accuracy of the information given to this commenter by a “competent authority” at the CRA. (Note: This refers to one of our Brockers who was told that the CRA essentially considers IGA a done deal and is geared up for implementation.)

    Has the Canadian government capitulated to the threats made by the USA to exact a 30% withholding penalty on non-compliant financial institutions? Is SAVE THE BANKS BUT SKEWER THE PEOPLE the new Conservative motto?

    I would also like an explanation as to why the Canadian government has built a cone of silence around the FATCA “negotiations” when there are so many people who simply cannot proceed towards a normal financial life until they know what they are up against.

    Did I mention my July 4th letter was pretty blunt?