Excerpt:
There was one side of Freeland, in particular, that McQuaig kept poking: Her supposed un-Canadianness. “Toronto is my home, I’ve lived and worked here all my life,” McQuaig noted in her opening remarks. It was a clear side swipe at Freeland, who’s been abroad for years in Russia, the U.K. and the U.S., and settled down in Toronto Centre only recently. Later on came McQuaig’s straight-out jab: “You’ve been there in Manhattan, hanging out with the rich,” McQuaig told Freeland, speaking, for those in the know, about her competitor’s former gig in New York and her recent book on the ultra-rich.
I suspect Freeland chose not to respond in kind. Because if she’d wanted to, there was an obvious line of attack. For all her fondness of being a true Canadian and disdain for hanging out in Manhattan, McQuaig has publicly praised a controversial U.S. law that might end up encroaching on the constitutional rights of a good many Canadians, including, possibly, Freeland and her family.
The author shows a great amount of insight. Thanks, Tim.
UnCanadian-ness? Is that truly a word?
But the Liberals should be wary on the front b/c this idea that one cannot truly be a Canadian unless one has ancestors going back to the founders is something that the Cons used against Michael Ignatieff to great effect.
It’s a curious thing that Canadians have in common with Americans that the soil you’ve spent the most time on “makes” you in some way (unless you are the USG and then that holds true until taxes are the issue).
Interestingly, the Supreme Court of Canada recently rescinded a grant of citizenship to a young woman who the CIC claimed hadn’t spent enough time in Canada to become one despite the fact that a citizenship judge granted her citizenship (as part of a family package). The girl was in the US at college and claimed that she was learning to be Canadian through – I don’t know osmosis maybe or Skype – but the court countered saying that there is more to citizenship than a piece of paper or a passport. It’s being “in country” absorbing values, language, history, culture (I think that’s called assimilating).
I nearly wrote about the article in a post here. It has merit should anyone want to challenge the US’s right to tag them as a dual by inheritance or even accidental birth. There is now precedence in our legal system that says citizenship is a tad more involved.
But as much as I don’t care for McQuaig, she has a point. Being away from your home country does influence you and in a lot of instances, it gives you a world view that is very different from your fellow countrypeople as many of us here can attest.
Freeland has a very American feel to her. It’s neither good nor bad but it shows and the fact that the job opportunity that lured her home from NYC was a chance to possible be the next Finance Minister is something people should note – if nothing else.
However, neither woman, imo, should lay too much claim to middle class anything. They both reek of privilege.
Petros wrote an interesting post on “Dominant Nationality & Why it Matters”
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/01/07/dominant-and-effective-nationality-and-why-it-matters/
Judging by the article’s comments, I have my suspicions that due to their perception of Stephen Harper’s policies, ‘regular’ Canadians may be suffering from “sovereignty infringement fatigue”.
Tricia, dominant nationality is a valid pov, and there is much to be said for the idea that one’s nationality is more than the country that holds your “title”.
bubblebustin, it has been said (may have been Sir John A) that being Prime Minister of Canada consists mainly of herding cats. Harper, however, does not herd as much as he chokes, stuffs and lines his backbench with them. It furthers the definition of cat-skinning, but unless one can make stuffies of the members of the other parties as well, it’s likely only to earn one the title of “despot”.
Sovereignty in Canada often seems to me to be a province by province thing with each one having their own views on the matter. I think that has worked in Harper’s favor until recently. But my husband tells me that Canadians don’t love any party long enough or “enough” enough to keep one in power for too long. Turning over govts – at least federally – is something the people here can be counted on to do regularly enough to keep any party from getting too smug.
If I can brag, Michael Ignatieff has an office right next door to my kid in Massey College U of T. Laura has these stories. He only uses it during the day. My daughter is doing a MSc in Creative writing and my cat still meows too much.
kermtzii, I am still waiting my turn in the library queue for his book. Does he teach there or is he working on another book, I wonder.
I would love to an office that isn’t in my house. I toy with opening a yoga studio just so I can have an office too. Has to wait til I have shed the USC though. Too complicated to be a dual and own a business, methinks.
healthcareinsider is telling all “duals” to get thee to a US cross border tax specialist as fast as you can!
I’m curious to read, but couldn’t find it by googling. Do you have the link for it?
Thomson Reuters presents:
‘Identity for FATCA’
http://fatca.thomsonreuters.com/resources/media-library/identity-for-fatca/
What does Ms. Freeland think of this as applied to Canadian citizens and legal residents?
Pacifica,
are you asking for link to the comment from healthcareinsider. If so, it is at the top of this post or: http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/11/18/on-being-canadian-and-how-freeland-could-have-responded-to-mcquaig/, the latest Macleans FATCA-related article.
@Calgary,
Thanks. I thought Bubblebustin’ was referring to an article on a website called healthcareinsider.
I’d last read the MacLean’s article’s comments before that person “healthcareinsider” had commented.
Thank goodness Bubblebustin’ posted right after “healthcareinsider’s” dangerous “advice”, and warned people not to run a cross-border tax specialist, but to instead learn about the situation before doing anything and to check out to Brock, Sandbox and ACA.
@pacifica777
Sorry I didn’t mention that! Who’s ‘spooky’?
Oh, you were too fast! 🙂 Spooky’s a cat. I made that account to do some testing with the site, and forgot I was still logged in as Spooky. I re-posted as Pacifica a couple of minutes later and deleted “Spooky’s” post.
The CBC’s World At Six did an item on FATCA tonight. I’m not sure how long this edition of the World At Six will be available but here’s a link for now:
http://podcast.cbc.ca/w6/worldatsix.mp3
The item starts at about 14:48 and goes to 17:37
@Hazy
Thanks for the head’s up. Nice to hear Allison Christians speak to this issue again.
@pacifica777
Thanks for the explanation. It was kind of spooky 😉
LOL, pacifica and bubblebustin!
From that CBC podcast Hazy posted … the banks will ask you if you were born in the U.S.A. or ever held a green card … if you answer yes they will forward your information to the CRA … if you refuse to answer they flag your file and still forward your information to the CRA. Then, according to a Model 1 IGA, the CRA passes your information on to the IRS. The question is … will the CRA then, despite the infamous Flaherty promise and by “virtue” of new Canadian legislation (or just some convoluted interpretation or application of some existing legislation), go back to the flagged individuals and collect whatever the IRS demands of them? When the CRA “collects” it doesn’t necessarily just ask you to write a cheque; it can actually confiscate your assets I believe. This is positively beyond Orwellian. And one can let one’s mind race off into these sinister scenarios because the Canadian government is “negotiating” IN SECRET (except for the Canadian FI’s obvious input) and we don’t have a clue what will happen to us!!!
@Em
Imagine hearing about this for the first time, whether you’re a USP or not? So glad CBC’s covering this.
@ bubblebustin
Sad to say but it will take panicky people to swell our opposition ranks into the thousands that we are going to need to continue this fight. Of course, many will simply not believe it; others will freeze up in horror and be incapable of taking positive action. I can only hope there will eventually be enough of our types to demand the Canadian government do the right thing.
The sob in Gwen’s voice will get to a lot of people. It got to me. I’ve been close to sobbing but I’m still too mad.
@ bubblebustin
The CBC’s 3 minute FATCA piece (compare that to the Rob Ford piece) is way too short to do justice to the topic but I suppose it will get some people thinking. I just hope if/when they do a search on FATCA they end up here.
@Em
In my opinion–and of course this is really difficult to do in just a 3 minute segment–the message needs to be getting out far, far more clearly that these penalties are not only draconian but are being applied to very ordinary middle class people in ordinary situations. When someone–who isn’t familiar with any of this–hears about someone potentially losing everything, they probably think that person is a criminal tax evader. I don’t think the message is being delivered very well that, in most cases, this is affecting ordinary law abiding people–not people who are tax evaders.
There really needs to be a website that lays out the facts of this whole situation in a very clear manner so that the message is a lot more crisp. The Isaac Brock Society website is more of a blog for a small group of angry people. Are they justifiably angry? Absolutely. But there needs to be a website that lays things out more clearly because I don’t think the message is getting across.
@ Dash1729
You could be right about that. The information is all here at Brock but finding it would be an overwhelming task for someone who comes to this site directly from his/her OMG/WTF moment. Trouble is, when you just search for FATCA without a modifier on the internet you are likely to be directed to the IRS site first and then the compliance condors. That’s not good. So what’s to done about this? Darned if I know.
@Em
It’s significantly better if you search “FATCA Canada”.