5 thoughts on “What We Leave Behind”

1. Although not the same stature on the world stage, some of the same warnings still apply. Glenn Greenwald on the passing of Margaret Thatcher:

   “Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.”

   http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette

2. I remember the good, including Mr. Flaherty’s role in the creation and implementation of the RDSP especially and personally — and other contributions to those with disabilities. I think he was a man of real empathy and I’m sure he really considered all of my concerns on the RDSP for US Persons before his correspondence to me. It must have torn him that “US Persons” with disabilities would NOT get the same benefit of an RDSP as any other Canadian. He certainly communicated with us on what Canada WOULD NOT do to collect penalties and tax for the US and I think was stronger re FATCA extra-territoriality than any other government representative the world-wide, though not enough .

   I am disappointed and wonder just where Mr. Flaherty stood in agreeing to the inclusion of the FATCA IGA, income splitting*
   and other issues into an omnibus budget implementation bill and if anything other than health issues had effect on his sudden resignation.

   *see http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/12/jim_flaherty_backtracks_on_incomesplitting_tax_break_promise.html:

   In question period in the Commons on Wednesday, Harper confirmed the Conservatives would go ahead with tax cuts for families once the deficit is wiped out.

   Openly questioning a committed Conservative policy is rare in Harper’s government, and Tory Members of Parliament appeared split about how to handle the growing controversy over the tax proposal.

   “We keep our election promises. We made this commitment to do this policy in the next budget,” Employment Minister Jason Kenney said.

   Kenney didn’t answer directly when asked if Flaherty should resign if there’s a split with the prime minister on policy. “Of course there’s always going to be issues around how exactly you deliver it because there’s a lot of different ways of doing that,” he said. “But the bottom line is we’re committed to tax relief for Canadian families.”

   Conservative MP James Rajotte, chair of the Commons finance committee, said it’s a matter of looking closely at income-splitting. “My understanding is what has happened is the campaign commitment is still there, what the minister is asking for is a full costing, a full analysis, prior to doing so. That’s my understanding of what he has said.”

   NDP MP Peter Julian said Flaherty’s comments appear to contradict what was a clear election pledge.

   “The Conservatives made a commitment. They ran on that issue in the last election campaign and now they seem to be backing off or maybe there is a split,” Julian said.

   Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said that Flaherty makes some “good points” in raising concerns about who will benefit from income-splitting.

   “The various reports out about income-splitting suggest that it is more beneficial, in general, to richer families rather than middle families,” Trudeau told reporters.

   Did his strength and resolve give way to his health? (I, too, was taking prednisone off and on for many years and know personally the damage to the body and the mind, as higher and more frequent doses are needed to get the same results in slowing a progressive, chronic disease.) I have no way so I’ll never know if it was just too difficult for one person to give and continue to stand by opposing views to the Party Plan for inclusion of unrelated-to-the-budget issues into another omnibus bill vs separate bills and thorough debate for each. I am left with questions, the answers to which I can now just guess.

   I only know what I felt and conveyed to many:

   To have watched / listened to the Credit Suisse hearings, Part 1 and Part 2, on Wednesday was more than I could bear to know we are all lumped in with those who really are out for US fraud and tax evasion. I don’t consider myself or my son or most of the whatever 7 million figure of US expats around the world are those persons. We are painted with the same exceptional US brush. To now see Finance Minister Flaherty’s words, makes me finally realize that my Canadian born son (as all other ‘US Persons’ in Canada) is now deemed second class to any other Canadian no matter where they are from or their parents’ “national origin” and not to be protected by the country of his birth. Two-tiered Canadian citizenship :

   Our Government fully understands the separate, but important, issue of U.S. citizenship-based taxation on dual Canada-U.S. citizens. The U.S. government’s system of citizenship-based taxation is different from the residence-based approach generally followed most of the rest of the world.

   This creates unique challenges for U.S. citizens who reside in other countries – especially Canada. However, as these are U.S. laws that apply to U.S. citizens, they can only be addressed by the U.S. government – not Canada. In that regard, I would encourage U.S. citizens in Canada to share their concerns with the U.S. government.

   That the Government of Canada has signed an IGA with the US to allow our local CANADIAN “foreign financial institutions” to turn confidential financial information for persons identified as US Persons over to the CRA for them to then be able to turn the information over to the IRS and now the Finance Minister of that government makes that statement gives me no peace. I am no longer a US citizen and my son, being born and lived all his life in Canada and never registered with the US, would have no US representative to share his concerns with if he were able to do that.

   The IGA “exemption” the Conservative government boasts about is for the banks – they do not have to turn Canadian registered account information for US Persons over to the CRA, but there is no exception for US citizens in still having to report that to the US. So many so-called one million (or however many) US Persons in Canada and their families (many “Accidental Americans”) knew nothing about US citizenship-based taxation and their US tax responsibilities and the US did a very poor job of educating us (or for that matter all the new immigrants to the US who, with joint accounts with family back in their ‘old country’, are now caught up in this – and they, unfortunately, live within the boundaries of the US). I believe many who will be deemed US Persons in Canada still do not know – until they are faced with the new requirement for opening a Canadian banking account to certify they do not have a “national origin” of or relationship with anyone who is “US”. Not ALL Canadians will have the same rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

   ******************

   Indeed, Mr. Flaherty is a man who was liked and respected by many, if some didn’t agree with his politics. Mine is just speculation. I’ll never know.

3. Why is it that conservative politicians only become sensitive to issues of disability when it strikes them personally? Think Flaherty with disability, Wilson with mental illness? In contrast those on the left concern themselves with the vulnerable even if they have not experienced it personally. Tell you much about their ability to empathize with others.

4. Judas Iscariot an Apostle of Christ, but how is he remembered in his final act?

5. Joe Smith,

   It may not be only but it is human nature. Positive when a member of any political stripe is sensitive and understanding of issues of mental or other disability or medical issue because it affects a loved one in some way is then more receptive to political ways to improve that issue. There is surely that better incentive involved. For so many, such issues are peripheral to our experience and don’t get our full attention even when we understand there is a need.

   Because of my limited disposable retirement income and my time, I concentrate on giving time and money to those things that personally affect my family or friends, supplementing when a huge emergency like a natural disaster that impacts so many needs immediate help. Most of us cannot afford to give to every worthwhile cause or support every issue so we have to pick and choose.

   I’m sure this same dynamic will apply when we searching for the big bucks to help with the actual Charter Challenge (pray it goes ahead). That’s why we have to engage Canadian donors to want to give for other than just the ‘US Person’ problem. We need them to know that is happening to persons defined “US Persons” but this could next happen to any other Canadian and Canada is handing its sovereignty over to our neighbour to the south if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not to protect ALL Canadians.