I received this from “Disgusted” who, for some reason, isn’t able get a comment to take at Isaac Brock:
Ottawa slyly expanding its power to invade our privacy
…Bill C-13 is the child of C-30, which was abandoned by the government after previous public safety minister Vic Toews said his Liberal critic could “either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”
Unlike C-30, C-13 does not require service providers to hand over personal information to police without a warrant, but it allows them to do so, which, in practical terms, is the same thing.
This will provide legal cover for what they are already doing. Last month the privacy commissioner reported that in 2011, government agencies requested data from telecoms and social media companies more than a million times.
What kind of data? The government won’t say. Conservative MPs recently voted down an NDP motion to make public the number of warrantless disclosures from telecom firms. When asked about this in the House, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney and Justice Minister Peter MacKay give misleading answers, blathering on about warrants when none are required and giving assurances that contradict the legislation. This week, Revenue Minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay joined with them in disingenuity when she responded to a question in the House about a clause buried in C-31, a massive budget omnibus bill.
The bill will allow Canada Revenue Agency officials to give taxpayer information to police if officials have “reasonable grounds to believe” that certain offences have been committed.
Blacklock’s Reporter, an Ottawa-based website that covers the federal government, reported that, according to lawyers and police, this would allow any clerk at the CRA to hand confidential information to any police officer on a fishing expedition with no paper trail.
Currently, tax information can only be released by a judge. If the Tories pass this clause unamended, it will no longer be judges making that call, but CRA officials, which is scary.
When NDP MP Murray Rankin asked Findlay about this in the House, though, she scoffed.
“Let me be clear,” she said. “Information cannot be shared on the mere suspicion of criminal activity or based on a request initiated by law enforcement authorities.”
That’s not what the bill says.
When the Chronicle Herald sought an explanation, the Finance Department pointed to the threat of child porn, which just doesn’t make sense.
The government is stealthily expanding its legal authority to secretly invade Canadians’ privacy on a massive scale. When called on to explain, it is disingenuous. When cornered, it points to child pornography.
The potential for abuse is shocking. The only thing preventing dirty tricks is the good character of our police, spies and politicians.
Your computer and phone are open to secret warrantless intrusion without oversight or accountability.
I did not realize that we are living in a police state at the behest of a foreign government. When will the rest of the country wake up to this? Blood pressure is through the roof again.
American born, former Stephen Harper strategist, Tom Flanagan, got himself in hot water tor the for the comments he made concerning those who view internet pornography. Flanagan felt he was baited into answering the question, not unlike the situation Donald Sterling or Cliven Bundy find themselves in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flanagan_(political_scientist)
http://www.macleans.ca/general/politicians-condemn-tom-flanagan-for-suggesting-child-porn-viewing-is-ok/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51938443/Stephen-Harper-and-Tom-Flanagan-Our-Benign-Dictatorship-Next-City-Winter-1996-97
Is this the result of the internet, or are people trying to emulate America and consider America to be the shining leader of the world? Sometimes I think that the problem is that we don’t have ANY leader we would be proud to emulate, or speak our loyalty to because he is honourable. We certainly don’t want to Muslim way of life, nor do we like what China or Russia is doing. Where is the shining light of how to get it right?
How horrible, Polly, if other countries and their people are trying to emulate America — the dumbing down of its people. For an example, one thing I wouldn’t want to emulate in education of our children is what is in progress in the mass education system of “Common Core” http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/05/17/frontline-documentary-on-the-program-powerfully-reveals-our-fate/comment-page-1/#comment-1773101 and determine if that is).
Outside of “education”, I see the problem as most people just are more interested in their own little world, their entertainment in whatever way. (I wonder if US citizenship-based taxation is part of the “Common Core” curriculum for America’s children.) I think we need more than some shining light.
Sid, that’s a very interesting article you found at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51938443/Stephen-Harper-and-Tom-Flanagan-Our-Benign-Dictatorship-Next-City-Winter-1996-97
It’s very strange now to hear this coming from Stephen Harper then:
“Many of Canada’s problems stem from a winner-take-all style of politics that allows governments in Ottawa to impose measures abhorred by large areas of the country.The political system still reverberates from shock waves from Pierre Trudeau’s imposition of the National Energy Program upon the West and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms upon Quebec. Modernizing Canadian politics would not only be good for conservatism; it might be the key to Canada’s survival as a nation.”
How his views have changed. He has converted completely to the dictatorial style he criticized.
When I clicked on the link at the top of the story, “Ottawa slyly expanding…” I got a Calgary Herald article from November, 2008, about the Tories withdrawing a proposal to end public subsidies of political parties.
The second paragraph of the quoted section makes a point that seems to have been ignored by the apologists for the FATCA IGA:
“Unlike C-30, C-13 does not require service providers to hand over personal information to police without a warrant, but it allows them to do so, which, in practical terms, is the same thing.”
Proponents of the IGA say that it protects Canadians by saying that financial institutions will not be required to close accounts of uncooperative U.S. persons. As I have repeatedly emphasized in my letters to MPs and my brief, the Government must PROHIBIT financial institutions from closing accounts of Canadians suspected of being “U.S. persons”.
@Calgary411
Yep. I agree. I never understood all the Batman movies either. :))
And then we have the guns etc – not much one would want to do in a similar way.
Thanks for the heads-up, Queenston. I have updated the link with the correct May 17th article.
Worth a look
https://protonmail.ch/
@ All for those of you in agreement with AnonAnon’s comment, me being one of them, I’d like to draw your attention to this Democracy Watch campaign letter
http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/voter-rights-campaign/
I agree with AnonAnon. Canadian voters interests are not served by the “first past the post” system. Elizabeth May has called for proportional representation, we must as well.
@ Sid
I agree and dare to say that John Richardson does too. This is from his FINA brief:
“Bill C-31 comes from the Conservative Government, a government that (courtesy of the “first past the post principle”) enjoys a “legal majority”, but not a “moral majority” in Canada. Why not a “moral majority”? In the 2011 Federal election, only 18% of Canadians who were eligible to vote, voted for the sitting Conservative MPs. These figures are taken from the Elections Canada site, which provides information confirming, that the sitting government received 4.38 million votes from 24.25 million eligible voters in Canada. To put it simply: 82% of eligible voters did NOT vote for those “sitting Conservative MPs” which compose the Conservative Government. Yet the Conservative government is attempting to impose the U.S. FATCA law on Canada and Canadians.”
I think it’s disingenuous to use the number of eligible voters, to compare with a party’s votes, when determining legitimacy. Number of ballots cast should be used, including spoiled ballots. If people are too lazy to vote, they don’t deserve to be considered in that calculation. Also, there’s likely a good chunk of “eligible voters” being counted, that can’t vote due to age/illness/dementia. My father is one of them.
I will admit to more than 20 years of conservative voting. I no longer have anyone to vote for, with the federal PCs having become USA Lite.
@Calgary 411
Western media, owned and operated by the elites, is intent on producing a society whose citizens are in chronic state of “arrested development.” Free time is drawn to Stanley Cup Play Offs, The Super Bowl, the Masters or Dancing with the Stars. What is more newsworthy than Beibers latest meltdown, which Royal baby will one day rule the world, or did Kim Khardashian have her butt lifted?
The motive, of course, is to prevent an enlightened society, knowledgeable enough to fight for their own interests. Mel Hurtig has sounded the alarm bells for some time
An interesting article in the following link about the upcoming Constitutional Challenge to FATCA in the US in the New American.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18253-critics-mount-constitutional-attack-on-dreaded-fatca-tax-regime
Will FATCA be delayed again beyond 2015 once the legal stuff kicks in? Also the 2016 Presidential election will be closer by then, could this become a US Presidential campaign issue as well?
” an 8th Amendment Excessive Fines Claim”
Hmmmmmm anyone look into this? New to me
@Don.
This is the best thing I’ve read yet and offers real hope. At least their lawyers have made a statement unlike ours. Anyone? Where is the long awaited public announcement by Joe Arvay? We paid for it so where is the action?
@Don
I agree. Very encouraging. What I`d like to know is does Bopp plan to do this before the first of July? Is that possible?
@Polly I suspect it would have to be after 1 July because at present no constitutional rights have been ‘broken’ by FATCA. However it does raise another question, would legal action have to actually wait until a financial institution actually enforces FATCA.
There are many old laws on the books that haven’t been enforced or not enforced in today’s world that haven’t been contested in court.
Not sure what the answer would be without some research.
In my opinion this deserves its own discussion thread lest people miss this monumental development
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18253-critics-mount-constitutional-attack-on-dreaded-fatca-tax-regime
Chears: The link has been posted on another thread. I think the one titled $10,000 fine, etc.
Other links there too regarding Alex Newman’s excellent writing about both FATCA, the court challenge by Bopp and the OECD and their GATCA intentions for Sept 2014.
@Don @Polly
Mr Bopp can file an injunction since the thing is law even though info is not being collected from most countries yet but I read that info has been sent to them… not sure which countries. Someone mentioned funds need to be raised for this. I am sure they will have an easier time then we will to raise the funds. Unlike Canada… nothing can be done until the bill has been passed… once it is passed… then there is a clear violation of our charter rights and legal action can commence. Right now the US is celebrating their so called win against a bank in Switzerland…. touting it as being effective in off-shore reporting.. with the same.. blah… blah….
@US_person_foreigner
Yes- talk about a “twist your arm” confession by Credit Suisse. This is debatable, but the bank employees never did anything that was against SWISS law.
As for the bill being “passed” – I thought FATCA already was a law and that it is only waiting for implementation? I read somewhere that Bopp wanted to nip it in the bud before the first of July? But also- what does this mean for the people who have already paid such horrendous penalties? Can they sue to get their monies back because it was deemed “unconstitutional” in the first place? And if so- how will this affect the collection process right now? Could it cause them to rethink their concept as Nina Olsen from TAS has already tried to tell them as well?
@CheersBigEars
There is definitely a provision in the constitution against excessive fines. Interestingly, the only Supreme Court case involved moving money overseas. A U.S. citizen born in Cyprus was found transporting $357,144 out of the U.S. and was fined the entire amount because he hadn’t filled in the form that is required when transporting more than $10,000 out of the country. All of the money had been legally obtained and was being used to pay off debts to family in Cyprus. The justices said that the fine was completely out of keeping with the fine that he would have received if he had been convicted. Sounds promising, but I haven’t looked into it that much.
Interesting deal between Russia and China. Big 30 year gas deal announced today. However what wasn’t mentioned was the settlement currency in the deal.
Odds on favourite it wasn’t the US dollar. A modest event but it weaknesses the future of FATCA. If other energy producing countries begin to settle in Yuan or Euros, the petrodollars is on the slippery slope.
Without the petrodollars the US Dollar’s role as sole reserve currency is seriously undermined along with the USG’s ability to bully other countries into FATCA as per US demands.
Prediction – As the gas flows from Russia to China beginning in 2018 (they’ve got the pipeline to build), other commodities will be settled in other currencies than USD.
We’re witnessing the continuing economic centre shift to the Far East as we speak.
The day for the USG is getting closer when that OMG moment happens, foreigners won’t settle in USD but we now have to purchase Yuan or Euro to settle the payment for imported goods.
Goodbye US Treasury unlimited country credit card line.