I just received an e-mail from a strong Francophone supporter of ADSC from Quebec.
The article is in french but her point is that “we” don’t seem to have the same privacy rights as do traffickers of contraband tobacco.
I know that at least one tax professional firm feels that Canadians who have “obligations” to file an FBAR, and willfully do not, are criminals, but it is really difficult for me to argue that the level of “criminality” is quite the same as that of contraband tobacco traffickers. Others of course might disagree.
Here is her email (reproduced with permission):
“Good morning Stephen,
There was a very interesting article in La Presse this morning, not about us, but about the CRA. I tried looking for a similar article in The Gazette or online, but could not find anything.
Apparently, Canada Revenue Agency has been trying to block Montreal Police from accessing documents about suspects in a Tobacco contraband fraud case. These people are suspected of cheating the federal and provincial governments. The CRA has refused to cooperate and has asked the courts to be exempted from complying.
“D’abord, les avocats fédéraux soutiennent que les renseignements fiscaux obtenus des contribuables dans le cadre de la Loi sur l’accise ne peuvent être transmis à la police tant qu’elle n’a pas obtenu le dépôt d’accusations criminelles.”
Loosely translated, this means, “First, federal lawyers argue that the tax information received from taxpayers under the Excise Act can not be transmitted to the police until criminal accusations have been made. “
“L’ARC affirme aussi que les renseignements demandés font l’objet «d’un haut degré d’expectative de vie privée», mais là encore, le juge de paix s’est dit en «total désaccord», puisqu’il s’agit d’informations d’ordre commercial plutôt que personnel.”
Again, loosely translated, “The CRA also says that the requested information is subject to ” a high degree of expectation of privacy ,” but again, the Justice of the Peace said he was in “total disagreement “, since the information is business related rather than personal information.”
Wow… I don’t even know what to think about all that. People suspected of crimes in Canada have an “expectancy of privacy” but US persons don’t…
Criminal accusations must be made before financial information can be shared, but in our case, financial information can be shared with a foreign government.”
Here’s a book that every person considering US citizenship should read before making their decision.
http://www.amazon.com/About-American-Privacy-Globalized-Economy-ebook/dp/B00IO0GZ4I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413479299&sr=8-1&keywords=american+tax+trap#reader_B00IO0GZ4I
“What you need to know about, American Tax Trip, Loss of Privacy, and how you can join the globalized economy.”
This book only came out in Feb 2014 and written by an Asset Protection Lawyer.
Oddly enough in the preview I didn’t see a chapter on renunciation. You’d think there would be one.
Had the IRS gone directly to the CRA, the CRA would have likely told them the same, but they did need to. Harper’s government intervened and facilitated this and now they must be challenged on it.
This example should help the court case, to be sure.
Petros,
I have sent this info on to Arvay.
Interesting! The folks at CRA are trying to preserve the financial privacy of these accused Canadians. Too bad our present gov’t didn’t preserve ours when our only “crime” was being accused of being a “US person”. . . but it does show that this what the CRA would normally do. Hopefully, when “our” case gets to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court will see it that way, too.
Wow, thanks Stephen for posting this and a special thanks to the Francophone supporter of ADCS-ADSC for passing the relevant article on to you.
It is showing once again that ALL Canadians are NOT equal under Canadian laws and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What makes it all possible is the Conservative government’s new definition of us as “US citizens who happen to reside in Canada”. Were we defined this way before the FATCA IGA was signed behind closed doors and implementation legislated in Omnibus Bill C-31?
@Jan, “The folks at CRA are trying to preserve the financial privacy of these accused Canadians.”
Harper does not consider you to be Canadian.
You are an American living in Canada.
We haven’t even been accused of anything (except of being a US person of course – which is now something that distinguishes us from other Canadians).
I recently received a newsletter from Liberal MP Hedy Fry. She expressed a great deal of concern about Bill C-24 and how it’s passage has devalued Canadian citizenship, but not one reference to Bill C-31, which made discrimination against a specific group of Canadian citizens legal in Canada. This is an incredible opportunity for the Liberals to rally at least 3% of Canada’s population and their families behind them, yet they are silent on the subject, even when it would strengthen their argument that Harper is eroding the value of citizenship.
She wrote: …”Generations of immigrants and refugees have come to Canada, during the course of history, from every corner of the world; fleeing persecution, seeking freedom, bringing skills, and seeking a better life”…
Hedy Fry, with the stoke of a pen, Harper made me a second class citizen in a country where I am a citizen at birth. I FOUND. Persecution in Canada, thanks to him.
Bubblebustin says
October 16, 2014 at 7:26 pm
We haven’t even been accused of anything (except of being a US person of course – which is now something that distinguishes us from other Canadians).
I recently received a newsletter from Liberal MP Hedy Fry. She expressed a great deal of concern about Bill C-24 and how it’s passage has devalued Canadian citizenship, but not one reference to Bill C-31, which made discrimination against a specific group of Canadian citizens legal in Canada. This is an incredible opportunity for the Liberals to rally at least 3% of Canada’s population and their families behind them, yet they are silent on the subject, even when it would strengthen their argument that Harper is eroding the value of citizenship.
She wrote: …”Generations of immigrants and refugees have come to Canada, during the course of history, from every corner of the world; fleeing persecution, seeking freedom, bringing skills, and seeking a better life”…
Hedy Fry, with the stoke of a pen, Harper made me a second class citizen in a country where I am a citizen at birth. I FOUND persecution in Canada, thanks to him.
@George,
“Harper does not consider you to be Canadian.You are an American living in Canada.”
I have to remember to tell this to my Con. M.P. next time he does a mailing, looking for support!
I guess this made me a “second class born in Canada Canadian”
Send that one straight to Joe Arvay. The absurdity of the situation ought to be apparent to all.
Anne, as I mentioned above to Petros, I did send this information to Arvay. Absurdity, yes.
Thanks to the Francophone ADCS supporter who could access the La Presse article and explain the gist of it to me.
She continues to tell me that most Quebecers have no understanding of FATCA. How will they react when turned over to the IRS?
By way of short explanation: the interest of the article for the litigation will be the reference to the written argument of the Federal Government. If Justice are telling the Quebec court that they can’t disclose information because of privacy concerns in one case but then the same department turns around and defends wholesale invasion of privacy at the instance of a foreign government in the case of the IGA/FATCA, they will be hard pressed to dismiss (credibly) the IGA as “just an information sharing” agreement when sharing similar information is so damaging that they are fighting it in court in the tobacco case. It will tend to weaken Justice’s response as being inconsistent. I should think Mr. Arvay will be able to make good use of it once he gets Justice’s response back to his pleading (which I expect ought to be along fairly soon).
@NativeCanadian, “I guess this made me a “second class born in Canada Canadian”
As we learned from the Committee, you are an American in Canada. The Government of Canada has disowned you.
Our Francophone friend just passed me this link to a new english media report on the same incident (mentioned above) dealing with “privacy rights” of contraband tobacco traffickers (vs. those of undeserving people like us), but only the french article she provided really goes into sufficient detail.
If I understand the article correctly, CRA lost the argument to keep information on drug traffickers private but is actually appealing (and spending taxpayer dollars) its case to the Quebec Court of Appeals.
Will CRA be as aggressive in defending our privacy rights? Should we now ask CRA, the new defender of privacy rights, to join our lawsuit?
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1429848/canada-revenue-agency-blocks-police-access-to-information-in-anti-contraband-tobacco-investigation-unacceptable-says-ncact
@Stephen
In the second article, I especially like “… the NCACT encourages the Minister to take serious notice of this situation and question herself and the Canada Revenue Agency on how the public’s safety, finances and interest are best served in this situation.”
This reasoning can also apply to FATCA. But this time, the government should be asking itself how Canadian citizens’ safety, finances and interest are best served through FATCA. The simple answer is, “They’re not.”
I think it’s a great idea to name the CRA as a witness for our side, they have already prepared all the arguments!
Your question is a very serious one. My answer would be YES. As LivingtoRenounce points out, CRA has prepared the arguments to protect our rights as well.