As noted on other threads, on November 6 I sent an email to five Toronto Centre candidates concerning our current demonstration outside the Metro Convention Centre in Toronto. Yesterday I sent emails to the same candidates, transmitting to them the joint Brock/Sandbox letter to CBA and reminding them both about our demo and about the FATCA-centred debate being organized by Toronto Centre Debates for November 18.
I received yesterday (but only got to my email today) a reply to these emails from the Green candidate. Several days ago I got a reply from the Progressive Canadian candidate, who has been in touch with IRSCompliantForever and who I understand may attend our demonstration. At this moment, I have received no replies at all to either email from the Conservative candidate (Geoff Pollock) nor the Liberal candidate (Chrystia Freeland), and all I have from the NDP candidate (Linda McQuaig) in reply to my second email is a standard robo-reply thanking me for my email, promising it will be forwarded to an appropriate person, and asking me for a donation. Conclude from all this as you will, Toronto Centre voters. And pass the word around.
The full text of the reply from John Deverell, the Green candidate for Toronto Centre, is as follows:
Thank you for the extensive documentation you provided on the US Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (FACTA) and the attempt to embroil Canadian financial Institutions directly in its administration.
As Green Party leader Elizabeth May indicated in January of this year, we do not approve of the extraterritorial enforcement of US tax law by Canadian financial institutions, nor do we approve of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Canada and the US to produce that effect.
Information exchanges between Revenue Canada and the IRS, and shared investigations by them where warranted, are in our view a more acceptable approach to combating transborder tax evasion while at the same time protecting the privacy rights of Canadian citizens and residents and the sovereignty of Canada.
I presume you understand, however, that the Toronto Centre by-election is unlikely to have much bearing on the resolution of the FACTA/IGA question. No matter which candidate wins, the power balance in Ottawa will be unaffected. I hope you and your supporters will give attention to other significant issues, such as the need for positive federal action to prevent climate change, and the need for democratic voting and proportional representation in the House of Commons, when deciding how to cast your ballots.
John Deverell, Green Party candidate, Toronto Centre
His rationale for ignoring FATCA is in this sentence:
“I presume you understand, however, that the Toronto Centre by-election is unlikely to have much bearing on the resolution of the FACTA/IGA question. No matter which candidate wins, the power balance in Ottawa will be unaffected.”
This rationale leads to the conclusion that there is no campaign issue that could be relevant including electoral reform or climate.
Given his rationale, I hope that Mr. Deverell will give some attention to a more significant issue – that is to determine why his candidacy matters at all.
In my past experience, Green Party candidates usually are more logical that the mainstream party candidates. I do not know Mr. John Deverell, however, his statement indicates that he has already thrown in the towel. If we all follow his philosophy, then we should stop trying, and hope for a miracle! I have only one question for Mr. Deverell, and that is why is he running, if he believes he cannot make a difference?
Thank you for commenting here Mr. Yazdanfar. Your opinion on FATCA as expressed in the link below was very much appreciated. The Green Party was the first official party to come aboard the anti-FATCA train but unfortunately Mr. Deverell doesn’t seem to be as committed to the cause as Elizabeth May has indicated herself to be in the past. I wish you good luck in the Toronto Centre byelection.
The previous posts raise an excellent question and point. One that in fact could be applied to all the so-called mainstream candidates, especially any and all who are avoiding the all-candidate debates invitations.
I’m not sure whether Mr. Deverell or his staff are monitoring this thread. I suggest you might address these questions directly to his website.
I will forward this link by email to the campaign manager (which is the only link I have, a private email address so I don’t want to post it here), suggesting they read these comments.d
To my critics may I point out the difference between “winning” and “making a difference.”
We are talking about a contest for one seat (or four if you will) using the winner-take-all voting method which will leave more than half the electorate unrepresented.
The seat has been Liberal. The second party is NDP, the third Conservative, the fourth Green.
A Green trumpeting the expectation of victory in Toronto Centre would be even less credible than Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair when they declare their intention, for 2015, to replace Harper’s undeserved Parliamentary majority with their own undeserved majority.
What this Green by-election candidate is saying is that, unless the opposition leaders find some way to cooperate before 2015, they are likely to achieve the same result as their parties did in 2006, 2008 and 2011 — the election of Stephen Harper as PM with less than 40 per cent of the popular vote.
Some people call this representative democracy. I am not one of them. What the country needs is three opposition parties all committed to enact democratic voting reform — equal effective votes and proportional representation. The Green Party is one. The NDP is there with an asterisk — it is leaning toward a referendum rather than promising to enact the reform. The Trudeau Liberal party remains opposed to democratic voting — but still has time to change its tune.
Watching Liberal votes move to the Green Party in Toronto Centre is just the stimulus the Liberal Party needs to abandon its go-it-alone strategy for 2015.
That is not “throwing in the towel.” That is how your Green candidate expects to make a rather important difference without necessarily winning the seat — although winning would be very newsy indeed.
“Information exchanges between Revenue Canada and the IRS, and shared investigations by them where warranted, are in our view a more acceptable approach to combating trans-border tax evasion while at the same time protecting the privacy rights of Canadian citizens and residents and the sovereignty of Canada.”
So you are OK with the IRS demanding Canadian spouses’ bank information from those who are married to US citizen or dual citizen spouses? In essence what you’re saying is that you’ll look the other way. I find that inexcusable. I believe that in that morass of information that was sent to you, there was information indicating the 30% extortion of financial levies unless Canadian financial institutions give up information on their Canadian resident bank accounts with “ties” to the United States. That’s like someone pointing a gun at someone telling them “Give me your money or else!” I believe it is high time that Canada told the United States where they can go and how to get there. If you’re not prepared to step up to the plate, then we’ll locate someone else who will.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society
Pingback: Thoughts on @TorontoCentre Nov. 18 #FATCA #TorCen All Candidates Debate | Toronto Centre Debates - All candidates debate