Cross-post from Blaze at Maple Sandbox:
Another significant submission for our side. After I sent him our news release about retaining Joe Arvay, privacy lawyer Michael Power (who was a law school classmate of Elizabeth May) forwarded me a link to an announcement and submission to Finance Canada from the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association on FATCA.
I just posted it at Sandbox and tweeted it.
It’s strongly against the IGA.
Now, I want to know why Canada’s Privacy Commissioner has been quiet since the IGA was announced. I have e-mailed a contact there three times and my messages have been ignored.
Please feel free to cross post at Brock.
*************************
“We oppose (the FATCA IGA) on a number of grounds, but we will restrict our comments to the large scale infringement of privacy rights.”
That is the beginning of a four page Submission by the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association to Finance Canada.
They challenge several aspects of the IGA as well as challenge the authority of the federal government to regulate credit unions.
They also state clearly their agreement with Peter Hogg.
BCFIPA Concludes:
There are considerable difficulties involved in any attempt to implement a FATCA IGA in this country and those will almost certainly result in extensive litigation and damage to people and institutions which are in no way connected to tax evasion in this country or in the United States.
Therefore, we urge you not to proceed with this wholesale infringement of the constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights of Canadians.
Thanks to privacy lawyer Michael Power who e-mailed me the BCFIPA Announcement with the link to the actual submission.
Thanks to Maple Sandbox and privacy lawyer, Michael Power, for the sharing of this submission!
I honed in on these statements in the letter that, although the Stephen Harper government may be able to use enabling legislation to undermine some privacy rights,
“….THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE FOR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR PROVINCIAL LAWS.
UNDERCUTTING THE PRIVACY PROTECTIONS IN THOSE LAWS WOULD REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENTS ALBERTA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND QUEBEC.”
Over and over, you have the shake your head at the audacity of the federal government in bowing to the bully at a cost to 3% or more of Canada’s people.
Nice.
WhiteKat points out at Maple Sandbox that even this submission says
Indeed it does say just that. Thank you for pointing that out *again*, WhiteKat.
“This IGA does not just affect Americans who happen to be living in Canada…” Is this just not the most demeaning description?
There are those who DO think of themselves as “Americans who happen to living in Canada”. They think of them as people who decided to come to Canada to work and DO PLAN TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMELAND to live one day. However…
– WhiteKat was born to Canadian parents and came back home to Canada as a very young child and has lived here ever since.
– I chose to move to Canada in 1969 and chose to become a Canadian citizen in 1975, to live and work here, to pay taxes here for the benefits I receive here, to raise my family here and to be a full Canadian member of this society.
– My son was born in Canada and has never lived anywhere else, including the USA.
We ARE NOT “Americans who happen to live in Canada”. Can I sue anyone for calling me that? We are Canadians who happen to have the UNWANTED indicia of ‘US Person’ stuck on our shoes (as George as so well analogized).
I have really lost respect for our Canadian leaders who cast ‘who we are’ aside, giving more importance to what the US says we are instead of to the Canadians that we are.
Some do not want to fit the description of “Canadian” / do not think of themselves as “Canadian” and that is their right.
How did my choice and my right to be described as anything other than the “Canadian” I became, the “Canadian” my son was born as and never lived anywhere other as or the “Canadian” WhiteKat was born as to Canadian parents and Canada the country she moved back to as a very young minor child and lived the rest of her life in no longer important in this “democratic” country?
How many times must I, my son, WhiteKat and others here be referred to as “Americans who happen to be living in Canada”, as “US citizens resident in Canada” or as “US taxpayers resident in Canada” until that is what we are thought of as by our fellow Canadians in?
Talk about discrimination by brain-washing! Canada should weep that this can happen in our country who has a Charter of Canadian Rights and Freedoms.
PS — In fact I (or my son, or WhiteKat) cannot even be described as Canadian snowbirds who choose to be “Canadians who happen to be living in the US” for a big part of the year and who might choose to live there much longer were it not that we could lose our Canadian provincial healthcare by being “Canadians who happen to be living in the US” for too long.
With all the so called “US persons” involved ( not to mention the rest of the Canadians FATCA affects) I`d say its up around 9% of the total canadian population if not more who will be treated as “US persons” and this is exactly why Canada is so aversely affected and the one country which can make a difference. Other foreign countries have minimal numbers of US persons to deal with so they just don’t care. But for Canada- this is a major financial drain on the whole country. And that is besides all the topics of morality involved.
Seems to me that we live in a world where money rules. That is why I am for emphasizing the financial detriment of FATCA even for the USA as it will harm businesses from expanding in a world with global competition.
Fantastic to know that at least one privacy body in this country is coming to our aid. I truly appreciate BCFIPA’s stance on our behalf and what I have to say below in no way detracts from that.
But I share Calgary’s and WhiteKat’s concern about the constant misunderstanding of who FATCA is targeting. I feel it is *the* major reason that the media and the public have not latched onto this issue as the public scandal of the decade. I’m a Canadian living in Canada. I’ve been here for well over half a century and a citizen for 40 years. I know no other home. If the Canadian Parliament actually passes the FATCA abomination I will feel like I have no home at all, nowhere I can feel truly secure and safe.
If the media and the public could only realize that this is coming down on the heads of their friends, neighbours, co-workers, business associates, the people with which they share the streets and the buses, people as fully integrated into Canadian society as any other Canadian. We are not foreigners! How in the world are we to get this message across if we are not already doing so?!
Nice to have them in our corner.
@calgary411
First, thank you for standing so out front in public. That is something I could not do but I respect your decision and THANK you for that courage.
Next, its racist for anyone to call you or your son anything other than Canadian. I know Canadian Citizens with roots in Asia. Do you know what I call them? Canadian! I know Canadian Citizens from the Caribbean, do you know what I call them? Canadian!
Other than Canadian, someone can call you and your son, Commonwealth Citizens which is likely to give you a smile.
Again thank you and God Bless to you and your son.
Regarding the Privacy Commissioner of CANADA. We now have an interim Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Chantal Bernier, who was previously the Assistant. “On November 27, 2013, Chantal Bernier was appointed Interim Privacy Commissioner of Canada beginning December 3, 2013.
She was Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada from December 2008 to December 2013.”
See Chantal Bernier’s;
‘Appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance on 2013-2014 Main Estimates’
February 25, 2014
Ottawa, Ontario
Opening Statement by Chantal Bernier
Interim Privacy Commissioner of Canada
http://www.priv.gc.ca/parl/2014/parl_20140225_cb_e.asp
Of note is;
“Let me begin by thanking the Library of Parliament for arranging this opportunity to discuss the urgent need to reform the federal Privacy Act.”…
“…our PIA reviews of every major federal initiative having impact on Canadians’ personal information as well as our audits, policy guidance for the public and private sectors and research…”
[Where is there a PIA review of the “major federal initiative having impact…” i.e. the FATCA IGA? And any audit or policy guidance regarding same?]
“..One of our Office’s key objectives is to raise awareness of privacy issues among all Canadians, as well as public and private organizations. ..”
[Where is there evidence of the Privacy Commissioner’s efforts “to raise awareness of privacy issues…” re the FATCA IGA?]
A search of the website using their search engine and the search term “FATCA” yields only 2 results:
http://www.priv.gc.ca/search-recherche/index_e.asp?ss_1=%22foreign+account+tax+compliance+act%22+FATCA&ss_2=&ss_3=&ss_4=&sdp=&edp=&lg=e&rc=1
Now, see the parting remarks of Bernier’s predecessor:
On another part of the website, previous Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart (December 1, 2003 – December 2013) had already underscored in a parting speech, just how badly the current Privacy Act had fallen into disrepair – in desperate need of updating:
“..The Privacy Act meanwhile has barely been maintained and also needs to be reborn. A wide public debate and a holistic review of the Act’s shortcomings should give Canadians a modernized Privacy Act. Just as important, however, that process would also send a strong signal to public servants and citizens that the federal government takes seriously its responsibility to protect personal information. To maintain legitimacy, credibility and trust, the government’s stewardship of personal information must respond to the heightened privacy concerns and expectations of Canadians… ”
,,,
“.When the Act was proclaimed on July 1, 1983, Canada instantly became a world leader in privacy law, with our legislation coming ahead of national privacy laws in countries such as Ireland, Australia and the Netherlands, to name a few.
That, however and decidedly, was then. So how did we get to today where our Privacy Act has stood still amidst fast moving times and stands as an outdated model for no one?….”
“…No Privacy Act reforms have yet been legislated and no such in-depth comprehensive review has been initiated by the government….”…”To summarize, during the past 26 years there have been numerous attempts to modernize the Privacy Act with no appreciable movement..”…..
“Governments routinely send torrents of personal information across borders with the click of a button, a far cry from the days of fax and snail mail back when the Privacy Act was born….”
…”Perhaps the time has come to be more ambitious. In much of the world, privacy is viewed as a human right. It’s recognized as a human right by the United Nations and in Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
What if privacy had been included as a named right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms back in 1982? Would we still be reliant upon political will to address the privacy challenges of the 21st century?
And now, I will leave that as a thought for our panellist to consider, just as I must leave the push for the rebirth of the Privacy Act in the hands of my successor along with the privileged people who convene within these walls everyday, serving the interests of their more than 30 million constituents….”
from ‘The Necessary Rebirth of the Privacy Act’ Remarks at the Library of Parliament
November 29, 2013
Ottawa, Ontario
Address by Jennifer Stoddart
Privacy Commissioner of Canada
http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/sp-d/2013/sp-d_20131129_02_e.asp
Read the whole speech with FATCA in your mind. Note that nowhere does FATCA get raised. Rewatch Flaherty’s disingenuous misdirection in his ‘answer’ to MP Elizabeth May regarding FATCA http://youtu.be/fT2nnMFgUFk . One reason why the Harper government might have felt that they could sign the FATCA IGA and claim that it was at least in part, congruent with Canada’s privacy laws – is as the Privacy Commissioner Stoddart describes; “…. the urgent need to reform the federal Privacy Act…”
So to me they appear to be taking advantage of the gross insufficiency of the federal Privacy Act – which they will be fully aware of. It is possible that there are documents or correspondence which would establish that the Harper government knew that the insufficiency would pose little or no barrier to signing the FATCA IGA.
Asking for FATCA related materials from the Privacy Commissioner’s office re FATCA might be fruitful. It is a glaring ommission that there appear to be no readily obvious public materials on their website given the signing of the FATCA IGA (after saying that they were monitoring FATCA ).
In a parting interview, http://o.canada.com/news/exit-interview-privacy-commissioner-jennifer-stoddart-on-her-tenure-continuing-issues/ Jennifer Stoddarts was asked: “Why do we not have tougher privacy laws?
Her answer,
“Stoddart: It certainly isn’t because I haven’t advocated for it. I’ve had a lot of support for the public sector changes (such as creating a test for departments to pass before collecting personal information, and institute a mandatory five-year review of the Privacy Act). The business community is happy with the law as it is. When PIPEDA (which oversees privacy rules in the private sector and the health-care sector in some provinces) came in, we were concerned about the federally regulated industries (such as) banks. We’re dealing with a new creature that didn’t even exist. In that context, we need a tougher law.”
She goes on to acknowledge problems with privacy breaches and misuse of data in the public service – including the CRA.
And of course, the CRA is the very agency who will handle the automatic reporting to the IRS and US Treasury of all the comprehensive financial records of millions of Canadian citizens, resident and accountholders – to be collected and sent by Canadian FIs, ex. banks, and NON-FIs under FATCA.
Regarding the CRA:
https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/pub/ar-vr/ar-vr_cra_2013_e.asp
http://o.canada.com/news/national/ndp-urge-probe-of-privacy-breaches-at-canada-revenue-agency/
http://globalnews.ca/news/933317/privacy-watchdog-raises-issues-about-snooping-at-canada-revenue-agency/
This is very good news re the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy. Perhaps they and other provincial Privacy groups and officials can join together to find out why we are not hearing anything from the FEDERAL Privacy Commissioner about FATCA.
In my post above, I was trying to underscore how glaring I felt the silence from the federal Privacy Commissioner’s office is and has been re FATCA. Particularly after the announcements that the IGA was being negotiated, and then after it was signed.
Is the Commission being muzzled by the Harper government somehow? Have they given their comments only in private to Flaherty and Harper? Does that office not feel that the Canadian PUBLIC is best served when the Privacy Commissioner is proactive about alerting us to privacy issues that do NOT best serve our privacy information and the control of our personal data? Particularly given that it is to be uploaded into a US IRS/Treasury portal – belonging to a foreign goverment, stored and shared without any accountability, recourse, and subject to US domestic laws out of the control of Canadians and the Canadian government?
The silence from the Privacy Commissioner should be a media story in itself.
Would someone please cross-post Badger’s Privacy Act’s comments to the Christians/Cockfield IGA submission post, as their submission covers how inadequate the Privacy Act is in protecting Canadians.
I appreciate all the comments about “Americas living in Canada.” I too find that phrase abhorrent.
But for this piece, I’d like to focus on what to me is another big chink in the IGA’s armour — and that’s the need to change provincial law to get provincially-regulated FFIs (e.g. credit unions) off the hook. That is a very big point, because I can’t see provinces introducing legislation to allow federal control of their institutions. Can you see Quebec going along with that?
As a result, having a large number of robust and growing credit unions in the country open for business to “US persons” and unable to comply with the IGA because to do so would violate the provincial statutes that regulate them — that’s going to completely undermine the IGA.
You can bet US Treasury Dept. is aware of this potential — they may be evil but they are not stupid. I wonder what the US reaction would be if Credit Unions all over the country (but particularly in BC) decided not to comply with the IGA for those reasons — citing the BCFIPA position as their justification. The typical US reaction to some slight (kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer) tells me they would see this as a serious breach of the IGA, and all those nasty provisions that call for drawing and quartering Canadian banks would be applied immediately with no notice. THAT would be a big story. And the IGA might blow up in Harper’s face.
I wonder, too, if a focus on provincially regulated institutions might bring relief much more quickly than a Charter challenge. Not in any way suggesting that be abandoned, but would there be a bigger bang for the buck, and a quicker resolution, by targeting someone like Vancity or Coast Capital?
I’m very tempted next week to take a copy of that BCFIPA submission to my credit union and ask directly what are their intentions; see if I can smoke out a policy. They’ve had the IGA decision now for nearly six weeks and I can’t believe they haven’t at least got a direction they want to go in. I’ve also sent a note to Gary Rogers at CUCC, with a copy of the BCFIPA submission attached.
I’m really excited about that BCFIPA submission — it documents and supports just about everything we’ve all been saying about FATCA. And if provinces balk at changing privacy regulations, then credit unions really are caught between a rock and a hard place. Remember, too, that they hate FATCA anyway. One would hope that they haven’t been lobbying their respective provincial governments to go along — but I guess that’s to find out.
@Arrow;
re; “the need to change provincial law to get provincially-regulated FFIs (e.g. credit unions) off the hook. That is a very big point, because I can’t see provinces introducing legislation to allow federal control of their institutions. Can you see Quebec going along with that?”
I think there is a big problem coming in that respect – and I wonder if it was created by Flaherty with the FATCA IGA in mind:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/n14/14-010-eng.asp
Minister of Finance to Provide Temporary Transitional Support Under the Federal Credit Union Framework
January 24, 2014 – Ottawa, Ontario – Department of Finance
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty today announced the Government’s intention to enhance the federal credit union framework by providing temporary transitional support to eligible provincial credit unions that have provincial acceptance to move to the federal framework.
To help credit unions move from provincial regulation to federal standards, the Government of Canada will provide temporary transitional support by offering extended deposit insurance and a short-term funding facility, as well as an extended transition period to comply with federal insurance networking rules. The Department of Finance will work with the credit union industry to develop terms and conditions for these support measures as the continuance process advances.
Minister Flaherty has written a letter to the Credit Union Central of Canada, the national trade association for credit unions, to inform it of the temporary transitional support under the federal credit union framework, and to invite it to participate in the consultation process.
Quick Facts
* The federal credit union framework, which came into force in 2012, is designed to promote competition, efficiency, innovation and stability by giving credit unions the option of transferring to federal regulation and operating seamlessly across provincial borders.
* As part of the feedback process, a number of credit unions highlighted challenges in moving from provincial regulation to federal standards, stemming from differences in federal and provincial deposit insurance coverage, as well as insurance networking rules.
Quotes
“Canada’s financial system is widely considered by many to be one of the most resilient and best regulated in the world. Credit unions represent an important part of the financial sector in Canada, with almost one third of Canadians belonging to either a credit union or caisse populaire.”
“The enhancements being made to the federal credit union framework will make it easier for eligible provincial credit unions to transition into the federal system, and give them the opportunity to offer their innovative products and services to Canadians nationwide.”
– Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance
further to my comment above and Arrow’s points.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/n14/data/14-010_1-eng.asp
“Letter to the Credit Union Central of Canada
David Phillips
Chief Executive Officer
Credit Union Central of Canada
151 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M5C 2W7
Dear Mr. Phillips:
I am writing to update you on the recent developments related to the federal credit union framework (“the federal framework”).
Canada is home to a strong financial sector, including credit unions that want to offer Canadians innovative products and services and support their members across Canada. The federal framework, which came into force on December 19, 2012, was designed specifically for that purpose.
A number of credit unions have expressed interest in using the federal framework. They have also indicated that there are challenges in moving from provincial regulation to federal standards, stemming from differences in provincial and federal deposit insurance coverage. Some provinces also have different rules relative to the federal regime pertaining to insurance networking.
To mitigate these challenges, the federal Government will provide temporary transitional support to eligible provincial credit unions moving to federal regulation by offering extended deposit insurance and a short term funding facility, as well as an extended transition period to comply with federal insurance networking rules.
The Department of Finance will work with the credit union industry to develop terms and conditions for these support measures as the continuance process advances.
I look forward to working with your organization as we calibrate federal support.
Yours sincerely,
James M. Flaherty “
Thank you, George, for your support and definition of Canadian government-induced RACISM in deeming ‘US Persons in Canada’ anything other than CANADIAN.
(You do know I am considered “notorious” for speaking out?
— and, yes, likely not best choice. I just asked myself ‘when should one not be allowed to speak out?’ We’re all being gagged in protecting ourselves and our families.)
@badger
I didn’t know about that. That would unfortunately change the dynamic if they all became federally regulated.
But — Gary Rogers just posted a newsletter on CUCC website that makes it look like their FATCA obligations are not too onerous. e.g. if their client base has fewer than 2% non-resident accounts they don’t have to report anything. It’s here:
http://www.cucentral.ca/SitePages/Publications/Connections.aspx
In still think this is fertile ground — not every credit union wants to go federal and those that remain provincial will still have the privacy issues on a provincial basis. It would be good to know what the BC Privacy Commissioner thinks about this — I’m sure she was copied on the BCFIPA submission
Sorry — I said they don’t have to report anything. Truth is they report only US persons who are not residents of Canada. I dunno — most of us will be much safer in a credit union than a bank regardless.
I don’t want to divert this thread, but those who have accounts at Canadian credit unions might want to find out when their mandatory AGMs are coming up (ex. see another large one, Alterna in the Greater Toronto area https://www.alterna.ca/AboutUs/Governance/AnnualGeneralMeeting/ ), what statements they’ve made re FATCA, and where they stand regarding opting for the federal regulation framework described in the links to Federal Finance/Flaherty’s statements I posted above. Federal regulation might remove the provincial regulatory obstacles for the Feds to force FATCA on them? I think staying provincially regulated makes them more ‘locally’ responsive – and seems to add a layer of barrier regarding international meddling in local Canadian accounts. Caveat – I don’t have any special knowledge of this issue.
VanCity is a large BC credit union. (Largest in Canada by assets? -see ranking in Canada here http://www.cucentral.ca/SitePages/Category.aspx?SiteURL=http://www.cucentral.ca/&Section=largest100creditunions;&DocumentLibrary=Facts+%26+Figures&Year=2013😉 .
Here is VanCity’s response to the signing of the FATCA IGA:
https://www.vancity.com/AboutVancity/News/AdditionalNews/FATCA/
“FATCA: Vancity’s response to Canada-U.S. intergovernmental agreement on the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act”
February 18, 2014
Vancouver, B.C. – On February 5, the federal government announced an intergovernmental agreement with the United States that paves the way for the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, commonly known as FATCA.
The intergovernmental agreement outlines FATCA requirements including specific exemptions for Canadian entities. The agreement is designed to improve international tax compliance through enhanced exchange of information. FATCA requires financial institutions around the world to create information collection and reporting systems for accounts held by American taxpayers residing outside of the United States.
Over the past years, our Board of Directors spoke out against FATCA, and took a leadership role among Canadian financial institutions to express our opposition, based on FATCA’s wide-reaching and potentially negative impact on:
* personal privacy and freedoms
* due process
* financial well-being and
* national sovereignty.
Our Board’s continuing concern is that issues regarding privacy, human rights and other interests of Canadians remain fully protected under existing Canadian laws.”…………………….
This also refers to the change the federal government is making to allowing credit unions to expand and operated nationwide but with federal regulation rather than provincial:
“…..Credit unions were granted a key regulatory change last summer when new rules were introduced to allow them to expand beyond provincial borders and operate as national financial institutions.
Such changes will pave the way for the more aggressive credit unions to expand. However, they also come as the sector was dealt a significant blow in last week’s federal budget when Ottawa eliminated a key tax break designed to help them compete with banks. Since credit unions can’t access the stock market to raise capital, as banks do, they have been taxed less since the 1970s. Ottawa has decided to phase that out……”……. Published Sunday, Mar. 24 2013, 7:15 PM EDT http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/credit-unions-get-feisty-with-big-six-banks/article10273416/
Arrow, I too support credit unions over banks. But as members, perhaps we’re going to have to get more educated and involved and find out whether our local credit unions plan to go federal.
It all sounds so helpful, doesn’t it?
Regarding some Credit Unions ‘wanting’ to move to a Federal system.
Underlying all the ‘unctiousness’ is the reality that provincial regulation prohibits a lot of Credit Unions from doing what the government wants regarding FATCA. Not only that, Credit Unions in certain provinces cover ALL deposits, not just up to $100,000.00 as the CDIC does and their provincial privacy laws, as we see, supercede Federal in strength.
It seems there is something else going on here.
The fed privacy commissioner states it needs updating. Feds want Credit Unions ‘who have requested’ to move smoothly into the federal system.
Thereby : ‘Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly’
Regardless of the privacy regulations in the provinces in which each Credit Union resides, they seem to be intending that the federal system will supercede any provincial laws the Credit Union might be compelled to comply with.
This will put all financial institutions under the control of the federal government regardless of provincial jurisdiction.
This could set up a frenzy of protests from no less than Quebec and BC and Alberta. A jurisdictional fight that could split Confederation apart should it gain enough ground.
Why would the Conservative government risk such detriment to the confederation as a whole while aiming to bring all financial institutions under one umbrella along with investment firms and insurance companies?
So they are easily forced into compliance with IRS without the government being seen as facilitating that for the US.
But that is exactly what the result would be.
For after FATCA comes GATCA
And while we are at it, the CRA has little credibility regarding respecting privacy rights as it is right now. So, we are to believe we are better off with the devil we know rather than the devil we do not know.
“here take this poison pill says the familiar ‘friend’ while the stranger waits in the shadows to take the dead body away!”
@badger
VanCity doesn’t sound at all “thrilled”.
I sent a letter to my local Conservative MP about a week ago expressing my concerns with the FATCA IGA (sovereignty, privacy, jurisdiction) and requesting that he vote against it (ha!). I received a boiler- plate response yesterday which didn’t address any of these concerns. It read like it had been cut and pasted from somewhere else. It stated the IGA fit with the OECD info sharing model being brought forward by the G20.
I suspect the passage of the IGA is a fait accompli. Part of me suspects the Cons are passing it knowing that the Supreme Court of Canada will strike most of it down. Canadian rights are being sold out by the current government.
@FuriousAC, further to your comments, I agree. I think it is far healthier to be skeptical of any of the current Federal government’s moves re our credit unions. I believe that they represent the interests of the Banksters over those of cooperatives and credit unions and the ordinary Canadian consumer. And we’ve seen how with FATCA, the Banksters and their ilk meant us no good – and elevated their profits over the wellbeing of Canadians and lobbied accordingly. I think the Banksters would like anything that would make credit unions less of an option/competitor for depositors/accountholders.
See this October 2012 report:
http://www.cucentral.ca/Publications1/SYSTEM%20Brief_Policy_Final2_29OCT12.pdf
The opening quote says: ”
‘CREDIT UNION CENTRAL OF CANADA SYSTEM BRIEF;
IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT FEDERAL POLICY CHANGES FOR CANADA’S CREDIT UNIONS’
OCTOBER 2012
“…Over-and-above narrowing
the gap between federal and
provincial financial sector policy,
the new federal policy direction
also appears to be moving
towards increasing regulatory
oversight. This new direction
could be construed as furthering
the commoditization of loan
products and undermining long-
standing credit union practices
of lending based at least in part
on character, membership in a
community, or other intangible
or “soft” information.”
”
and,
“……Credit unions should also understand the new federal policy framework because there is reason to believe that the policy distance between the two jurisdictions, insofar as it concerns financial sector matters, is likely to narrow substantially in the future. There are three major reasons to support this conjecture. First, the federal government has clearly signaled that it will do what it takes to ensure a stable financial system, including reaching into provincial jurisdiction. The recently-introduced federal credit union legislation is, itself, some evidence for this proposition because it gives federal policymakers a window into the credit union system that they did not have before. Moreover, the mere fact of having this new legislative responsibility means that the Department of Finance now devotes staff time to monitoring the health of the credit union system. It also means that the Department has been courting credit unions to jump to the federal level, engaging in direct talks with some credit unions, but also querying provincial government officials about other potential candidates. …”………
It looks as if the International Monetary Fund also has an opinion on our provincial credit unions and for its own reasons wants Canadian federal oversight of larger provincial credit unions – see pages 12-14 of this http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2014/cr1470.pdf
March 2014
IMF Country Report No. 14/70
CANADA
FINANCIAL SECTOR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
INTENSITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL BANK
SUPERVISION IN CANADA—TECHNICAL NOTE
I am sticking with my credit union. Renounce relationships with Banksters!
I think this ties together in this thread the strong statements from the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, and the largest Canadian Credit Union – which is in BC. Now, will we see the same from the equivalent organizations and credit unions in the other provinces?