I just received the official invitation to appear before the Finance Committee as part of a panel. I will try to find out who the other panel members will be. I am also trying to determine if I am able to participate via video or if I need to be in Ottawa in person.
Dear Ms. Swanson,
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance would like to invite the Maple Sandbox Blog to appear before the Committee, on May 13, 2014, from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. (Ottawa time) in relation to its study of Part 5 of Bill C-31 entitled An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
Your participation, as part of a panel, consists of an opening statement of up to five minutes, followed by rounds of questions from the members of the Committee. You are invited to review the attached document entitled Guidelines for Witnesses prior to your appearance before the Committee. You could, if you choose to do so, submit a 5-page brief to the Committee. It will be translated as soon as possible, distributed to the members and published on the Finance Committee Website.
Please confirm your presence by responding to this email, by May 6 at noon. Upon confirmation, we will provide you with further details regarding your appearance.
Here is the link to Bill C-31
Cross posted from Maple Sandbox
Related (not from Maple Sandbox)
Additionally, John Richardson will testify before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, on May 14, 2014, from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. (Ottawa time) in relation to its study of Part 5 of Bill C-31 entitled An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
Awesome! Go get ’em!
Wow!! Good for you and certainly good for us — thanks!
As I said on Sandbox this is wonderful and it bears saying again! Thanks for doing this Lynne! Go get em!
I really hope that Arthur Cockfield was invited to appear as well to talk about his invaluable research (I’ve posted the link elsewhere on IBS also);
‘FATCA and the Erosion of Canadian Taxpayer Privacy’
Arthur J. Cockfield
Queen’s University – Faculty of Law
April 1, 2014
Report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, April 2014
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2433198
Wow, that’s awesome! Congratulations! It seems that you guys in Canada have a government that really listens to the people. Now if only the US Finance Committee would do the same…
Go Blaze go, …
I am taking the liberty of posting Patric’s advice (and I am sure you will get lots of others) which was transmitted by email.
Great Lynne! – Shine the light of truth and force the bugs to run for cover!
Yowza! Oh that is GREAT, Lynne. Looking forward to hearing about it.
DO SOMETHING DRAMATIC. YELL, SCREAM, HOLD UP A SIGN, SMOKE A JOINT, whatever. Remember the adage “there is no such thing as bad publicity”. what we are missing is media coverage so do something the media will report on!
No advice from me just a big thank you, Lynne. You have so much material and only 5 minutes but I know you’ll work that out. I’m so grateful the committee will finally get to see the other side of the FATCA issue. FATCA affects people. It isn’t just an inconsequential procedural change.
“[T]he IGA and the Implementing Act do not protect the privacy rights and interests of Canadians. Bill C-31, the proposed law to implement FATCA that at this writing is before Parliament, needs to be amended to account for these privacy concerns. Until the privacy and other concerns are studied and addressed by Canadian lawmakers, Canada should only transfer FATCA required data associated with U.S. persons who are not Canadian residents.”
Concluding recommendation (p.36), from:
FATCA and the Erosion of Canadian Taxpayer Privacy
by Arthur J. Cockfield, Queen’s University Faculty of Law
A Report Prepared for the Office of the Privacy Commission of Canada, April 2014
@putin2whitehouse
This is so SERIOUS. Smoke a joint? Puleeze. Dramatic?
This is serious governmental and human rights business that calls for nothing less than a sharp, clear mind and pointed rational arguments.
Good luck and do you best! Get the points across!
Excellent advice from Patric, especially the parallel with Russia and the Ukraine. Sums it up very neatly!
Finally democracy in action!
@Polly
Yes, it’s serious and we’ve been serious for months and now years. But let’s be honest with ourselves, it’s falling on deaf ears and the banksters have all the power. This is not about being serious, it’s about getting on the front pages, and we’re barely even on the back pages now. I guarantee you that if Lynne goes there and burns an American flag (which she won’t anyway), it would be on the front pages. Otherwise, no one will notice Lynne is there but us (who really pays attention to these committee hearings anyway.)
Thanks for the comments everyone. I am scurrying to reduce my comments to five pages and five minutes! I hope you will understand I won’t share any of my presentation until after I have testified.
It will be testifying via video instead of traveling to Ottawa. Native Canadian is going to be with me at the video location, but he will not be able to testify.
I expect to have the written brief to the Clerk of the Finance Committee by noon today. My speaking notes must be provided before the session.
I have an idea of who the other panelists will be, but I will not know for certain until after everyone has confirmed.
Five Minutes to tell the story of the three year nightmare of one million Canadians and their families. Yikes! I will try to do my best.
Lynne Swanson (aka Blaze)
Go get ’em, Lynne! We couldn’t ask for a better spokesperson. I have the utmost confidence in you… But I will still be praying for you!
@putin
you’ve got a point that it’s not about who has the best arguments. if that we’re the case, we’d have won long ago.
I suggest Lynne take a page out of the politician’s playbook and rather than just talk policy, tell stories: about the 80-year old grandmother, about the canadian cop, etc
For the record, I’m not going to smoke a joint.
All the best Blaze, you know that you have the support of many.
You expressed concern in another thread about possible tough questioning re. “following the rules” and filing US tax returns. This would be my response:
The United States feels that it has the right to tax and penalize people who live, work, earn income and pay taxes in other countries. People who receive no services or benefits from the US government. People who have no economic ties to the US. This is unjust. I am following the wisdom of a great man who spent his life fighting injustice. Martin Luther King Jr. once said “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”. I will therefore not obey an unjust law.
That’s great news. Best of luck. I hope you will be able to testify via videoconference, to make it easier for you.
If I may, one point that I’d like to counter from all the BS we’ve been hearing from finance this week is this one: They claim it is not about taxes. No new taxes. THIS IS ABOUT taxes and penalties for the Canadians they’re going to rat out. What do they expect the IRS will do once they get those names? Store them in that brand new shiny facility in Utah?
This IS about discrimination based on national origin.
@Blaze, haha. If you change your mind, wait until afterwards at least.
@putin2Whitehouse, yours is plan B or C or D. If we get desperate, maybe we can try something like that, but not during Lynn’s 5 minute presentation 🙂 Hey, it works for Rob Ford.
@putin
Smoking a joint would be the WRONG type of advertisement for our cause. In addition to being a negative message, it makes what we have to say seem trivial, IMHO.
I’ll take good care of you Lynne. I’ll be there to support you and make sure you have no stage fright hehe . This is what make us proud Canadians. When we all stand up for people’s rights, we all win.
@polly
Ok, no Rob Ford tactics, I agree.
But @Bronte has the right idea. You start the speech by saying “There is an 80 year old grandma who spent her whole life in Canada, and now she’s going to lose her life savings, etc.” Then you weave in the policy argument. But bottom line, you have to make this a human story, a human tragedy. Because that’s what gets people’s attention, not just making the legal points.