24 thoughts on “Help Me Keep My April 5 Promise”

1. @Tricia,
   I’m in. Out here in Past Beyond I will look into the Mennonite community to see if many from the US migrated or married here. I do know the Mennonite Credit Union is FATCA reporting. (Maybe I should even go to the credit union and leave handouts). When the winter passes I can meet up with LM and hit some more populated areas.

   What will you be leaving for handouts?

2. I think this is a superb idea. But I think ALL Canadians of whatever national origin, if they care about Canada as we used to know and recognize it, and about democracy and Parliament, should vote ABC in their ridings in the next federal election. For all sorts of other excellent reasons besides FATCA.

   In case anyone doesn’t know: ABC means Anyone But the Conservative. But not just Anyone. If you live in a riding held by an opposition MP (no matter what his or her party), vote for that incumbent, even if that party might not be your first choice. Incumbents have an advantage and are more likely to win than another opposition candidate, unless the incumbent has really screwed up.

   If you live in a riding held by a conservative MP, vote for whichever opposition party is most likely to defeat that MP in that riding (forget about what you might think about the national party leaders in this calculation). If in doubt, check the voting results (go to Elections Canada website) and find out which opposition party got the most votes in your riding in 2011, and (unless that party’s candidate is an utter moron) that party is probably the best-positioned to defeat the Conservative incumbent.

   ABC means the opposition parties and their supporters should concentrate on taking seats away from the Tories, NOT from each other. If the opposition parties steal seats from each other, when the governing party has a majority of seats going into the election, stealing seats from each other is tantamount to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. No opposition party will defeat Harper by stealing seats from other opposition parties, given that Harper has a majority going into the election. And, as Canadians learned to their horror in 2011, if the opposition voters split their votes in close ridings, guess what, we can end up with a majority government that more than 60% of us (or even more) didn’t vote for. Unless and until we replace the first-past-the-post idiocy we have in Canada with a system of proportional representation, “strategic voting” is essential when we have a majority government we all hate. (Some of us long-time NDP supporters did exactly that in 1993, I know I did.)

   ABC, but not quite “anybody;” it all depends on who is best positioned in your particular riding to beat the Tory. Which is probably the incumbent if that incumbent isn’t a Tory.

3. @Charl

   Great! At this point, no idea what passing out. I have my fingers in way too many pies to figure that one out. Perhaps somebody can design one?

   @Schubert

   You are totally right. Strategic voting no?
   Perhaps a bit later, we can actually post a list to help people be aware of what you are describing. I do not think Canada’s sovereignty could possibly survive another round of Harper. We may not have anything left at this point. 🙁

4. @Tricia

   Strategic voting YES!

   E.g., in 1993 I wanted Campbell and the Mulroney leftovers OUT. At that time I lived in a riding in which the NDP (my favourite party) had always come in a pretty distant third. The incumbent that year was a Tory. The NDP ran a lacklustre no-hoper, and sick to death of muttering “another ‘moral victory'” after voting for a string of NDP losers in my riding, I voted Liberal that year for the first and so far only federal election in my life. So did a fair number of other NDP voters, across Canada. And in 1993 the Tories went from 156 seats to two (yes 2) when the dust settled. Let’s do that again, Canada! (Whoever forms the next government, as long as it isn’t Harper or anyone else in his caucus in the unlikely event he decides not to run.)

   FTR I voted for a Liberal incumbent in my riding in the recent Ontario election, for the first time ever voting Liberal provincially, because a) I sure as hell didn’t want Hudak (Harper-like Conservative) as my Premier, b) the NDP candidate in my riding was hopeless and the Liberal incumbent was and is popular, and c) Andrea Horvath (NDP leader provincially) stupidly pulled the plug on arguably the most progressive budget (put forward by the Liberals) in Ontario history, loaded with stuff the NDP has always wanted, at a time when many polls suggested a possible Hudak majority government, and then waffled when asked in a scrum whether she would support a Hudak minority if Hudak got the most seats. I won’t vote NDP provincially again until the Ontario NDP gets itself another leader with more sense. But that’s a different rant, sorry…

   So that’s twice in my life I’ve voted strategically. But I am voting NDP this year federally, because Paul Dewar (my NDP MP) is an excellent MP, is the incumbent, and Paul and the NDP stood by us on FATCA. No way would I vote Liberal in Ottawa Centre in 2015. But if I were still living in my 1993 riding (in which the NDP still has never done better than third place), I almost certainly would vote Liberal in 2015. My opinions about Mulcair vs Trudeau are irrelevant to that calculation (and yes I do have opinions on that score).

   Enough said.

5. Wikipedia also has the federal election results for all ridings in 2011. My riding results indicate my strategic Anybody would be from the NDP in 2015 BUT there’s practically no chance that person would beat a Con candidate. (The 2014 byelection result indicates Liberal but still no chance.) Everyone should check though to see if they live in a close riding and do their best to swing votes to their strategic Anybody. And, of course, if your riding is non-Con make sure your vote goes to the incumbent or whoever is running from his/her party. Watch the pre-election polling to make sure you’ve got the right strategic Anybody because elections don’t always follow the previous results. Let’s give Harper the FATCA Finger at the ballot box.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_by_riding_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011

6. I want to bring to your attention Leadnow, a relatively new, progressive organisation, which in fact is organising a campaign in support of strategic voting.

   The About Leadnow page has information on the leaders, almost all of them young people. Not surprisingly, they are very much oriented to social media such as Facebook for organising campaigns. Leadnow has not taken an interest in our issue. (I have tried). Nonetheless, we have common cause. To the extent that we as individuals become involved — and that means embracing progressive issues — we create opportunity to educate and inform. In any case, signing on with their campaign for strategic voting does not require agreement with their other issues.

   Leadnow is organising strategic voting.

7. I feel no great love for Stephen Harper, but if this site gets partisan,support will drop off…sides will form etc. The overall vision will become blurred, which is the lawsuit, CBT, and FATCA. You could spend hours and hours getting the Libs elected, but I would bet a box of Cuban cigars that they would not help our cause one iota. The NDP has no chance forming a govt. Personally I love politics but to focus on election issues would introduce a time vampire for all of us and accomplish nothing. Just sayin’ 🙂

8. There are many different projects going on. One could argue that since we don’t operate under some perfectly organized plan, we will end up wasting precious time and energy. Instead, that has turned out to be our greatest asset and the reason we have accomplished so much over the last year. People do what they feel moved to. Anybody who wants to spend time being involved in the election is free to do so. The Cons are directly responsible for signing the IGA. Not a single one of them showed any concern for our situation. Some of them even mocked us. Some of them insisted we didn’t “understand.” It is more than obvious that even those on FINA did not understand the ramifications of signing the IGA. We have nothing to gain by standing idle and letting them get re-elected. It may be possible to get lost in discussions but those who are committed to working have a very clear idea of what we are doing and why. Partisanship hasn’t any place there. Some come from very different viewpoints and under normal circumstances might be pitted against each other but this situation is anything but normal. For example, Stephen and I come from very different sides of the table. But we have no issues related to political ideas. We are united in our goal to get the suit to court. And all the other projects as well. I really don’t see any problem here.
   My main goal is more about taking action to reach out to concentrated areas of Americans. We have a tool to use. We can make good use of it by getting flyers out in those areas to build awareness and hope for more help.

9. As a Conservative voter, I haven’t seen the other three parties jump all over this issue, and I really doubt they wouldn’t have signed the IGA had they been in power.

   I cannot vote strategically in the upcoming election. I WILL, however, continue to donate to the lawsuit, with the belief it will be successful.

10. @TheMom

    Just curious. Did you watch the various FINA meetings with not only “our guys” (Lynne Blaze, John Richardson & Allison Christians as well as Prof Cockfield) but the amazing comments/speeches bty Murray Rankin, Nathan Cullen & Elizabeth May (among others)? Maybe they wouldn’t have been able to avoid signing the IGA but they at least tried to stand up for Canadians.

    Your support is appreciated and we also feel we will be successful. Thank you!

11. @NorthernShrike

    Those are interesting links. Thanks.

    Also very useful to know about those 40-60 swing ridings. This will help us focus only where necessary should strategic voting make sense.

12. Great idea!
    Aggrieved “US persons in Canada” must be seen as a “single issue” constituency that will vote accordingly. Stress that the Harper Cons are vulnerable on this issue. The FACTA IGA – and the harm caused by it – MUST be linked to the Harper Cons. As more people are harassed by their banks about their nationality, the constituency of the aggrieved will grow. They need to know where to focus the blame.

    A few suggestions:

    1) Set aside certain days (Maybe once a month) as “Days of Action” when everyone makes a co-ordinated mass outreach to their Liberal or NDP MP (or candidate) via email or phone call ON THAT DAY. I believe it is more impressive to get 100 email on topic in one day, as opposed to being spread out over a month. Unions use this tactic to good effect.

    2) Is is possible to have a download link of the leaflets that LM is using for outreach (maybe this exists already)?

    3) Make a 2015 contribution to the non-conservative political party of your choice (even a small contribution). In all correspondence refer to yourself as a contributor – and state why. Be specific, citing the actions of supporters such as Murray Rankin (NDP) or Ted Hsu (Liberal).

13. @ Wondering,
    You can get LM’s brochures at Anti-FATCA Publicity and Protest Materials. The brochures are at point (10). Also can get them from the Sidebar under “Take Action!”

14. @Tricia, I did watch. I was so thankful to have those MPs stand up for us and Canada. I wish their parties could have made this a huge deal nationwide, but they didn’t or couldn’t. Media plays such a big part in that too, I think WE’VE made more headway in that area than they have.

    My voting, likely like the above-named MPs, relies on more than this issue alone. I’ve only once been a single issue voter, to scrap Mulroney. I’ve voted for four different parties, moving from left to right in the common progression on the political spectrum, as related to aging.

    While I have my CLN, I am still here multiple times a day…every day. I will not even begin to feel this may be over until we win the lawsuit. I just don’t think the party in power will have much, if anything, to do with our success. Just look at the flavour of all the governments world-wide that have either signed an IGA, or have an agreement in principle.

    Doesn’t mean I won’t fight, though.

15. @Tricia Moon

    Happy new year @All.

    “Stephen Harper is probably the most dangerous human being ever elevated to power in Canada.”

    In quoting this in the current context, there is an implication that the major opposition leaders–Mulcair and Trudeau–are materially better and less dangerous when it comes to FATCA/CBT/FBAR issues. Is there tangible evidence to support such a belief? Do we have good reason to believe Mulcair and/or Trudeau would handle this differently? Note that I am asking specifically with regard to FATCA/CBT/FBAR–Harper’s record on other matters is irrelevant in the present context.

    The general sense I’ve had is that, although individual NDP and to a lesser extent Liberal members have shown some sympathy for the ADCS position, the positions (or non-positions) of the leaders have been a disappointment to Brock/ADCS people. Has that impression changed recently?

    Note that I do tend to believe that Elizabeth May would be substantially better than Harper, and I’m leaving the BQ out of the equation because by their very nature (electing members only in Quebec) they can never be “elevated to power in Canada”.

16. @The Mom

    “I just don’t think the party in power will have much, if anything, to do with our success.”

    Agreed.

    I do think that if the government of the day is, in essence, forced by the courts to stand up to the USG, then which party is then in power may affect how that “standing up to the USG” will actually go. I do not, however, expect any of the “Big Three” to stand up to the USG on their own, though.

17. Actually the BQ does raise an interesting question, though.

    If you were an English speaking Canadian, but a Quebec separatist party (BQ/PQ/etc) stated that–among other things–an independent Quebec would take a strong stand against FATCA and refuse to sign an IGA–would you support Quebec separatism?

    It is largely a hypothetical question because Quebec separatism doesn’t seem to be a front burner issue right now but I was curious as to people’s reactions.

18. Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society | $42,760 more needed in 26 days to make the February 1 2015 payment for Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit/ Il nous reste 42 760 $ à ramasser pour notre poursuite judiciaire

19. @Dash1729

    Actually in the past before the BQ was blown to smithereens in the last election it was in SUPPORT of FATCA and critical of the Conservatives efforts(such as Jim Flaherty newspaper op-ed) to lobby against it.

20. @The Mom & Dash

    When I first saw this tweet, my immediate attention was drawn to the word “dangerous.” And the very first thought that came to mind was my concern for the Beyond the Border Action Plan. Not our issue or my “promise.” Though I did choose, to pull up this post from “Drafts” and finish writing it.

    I actually do not see this election only in the context of our issue; i.e., I only do/do not support someone based upon whether they would have signed the IGA or not. The situation is far more complex and even to expect such an outcome is likely naive. That said, there are a number of perhaps more important and tangible reasons to consider why Mr. Harper should not get our vote and that come to light during the process of ratifying the IGA.

    Consider the comments of Professors Cockfield, Christians and emphasized by John Richardson in their testimony before the FINA committee May 13-14, 2014. The IGA had been signed. There was NO NEED whatsoever, to rush the implementing legislation. As Scott Brison said, “We could have negotiaged a better IGA, given our relationship with the Americans.” This is actually, huge, when given some thought. Time would have given the possibillity for more debate. More debate, particularly as a standalone bill, could have raised more awareness. Time also could have provided a space for talking to other Finance Ministers, consideration of a balanced plan to include sanctions of our own should the Americans have the audacity to apply a 30% nonrefundable tax against its main trading partner and ally. It was clear that even members of FINA (what to say of many of the other CONs) did not truly understand the implications of this.Consider a simple example. Mr. Keddy’s famous statement: “I’ve never heard the term “American person” before. You’re either an American citizen or you’re not an American citizen.” He didn’t even get that correctly, the term was “US Person.” He also, in response to proposed amendments repeatedly stated that the opposition was “confused” and so on. In the IGA, pp 7-8 there are 4 distinct definitions for the term “US Person” and no less than 13 for the term “U.S. Specified Person.” I doubt he actually read this and instead, relied upon his past knowledge/experience (I believe he has US family members) rather than consider the fact things have changed or take the time to find out how they have changed. The IGA, including the Annexes, is a mere 47 pages. Far less than a regular weekly chapter reading required in any college course. I do not think it is too much to expect the Parliamentary Secetary to the Minister of National Revenue to read and comprehend 47 pages of material particularly when he is aware that serious Charter issues have been raised by someone of the caliber of Peter Hogg. It was openly discussed that ADCS intended to bring a lawsuit against the government. Is it not totally irresponsible for someone in his position to be so ignorant of what was involved? Multiply that by the number of CON MP’s (163) who have the reponsibility to make law that is in the best interests of all Canadians.

    Then there is the issue of considering, who, by their behavior througout all these meetings, best exemplifies the proper attitude to be taken, regardless of whether his/her party would have been able to defeat the IGA. I cannot imagine anyone listening to the eloquent and passionate pleas Murray Rankin made, particularly during the very long May 29 amendment debate, and not walk away thinking that ALL MPs and Canadians should have such respect for what the Charter is supposed to be. Nathan Cullen, who repeatedly (and skillfully) brought to light, many statements made by witnesses to be pure bunk and even, dishonest. Elizabeth May, who deserves so much more respect than she is given in that arrogant setting, who simply stated the obvious, that this will “go to the Supreme Court.” And Guy Caron, Charlie Angus, Mike Sullivan, Peggy Nash, Ted Hsu, Scott Brison. The fact that all 3 parties are listed here (there was not a single CON I am aware of who ever even acknowledged sovereignty, rights etc were part of the issue) is EXACTLY why any expat might consider strategic voting. One could argue the CONs have to side with the party but do they really? There is such a thing as taking the high road. Certainly MPs cross the floor on exactly such issues. How many had the guts (or even the concern) to do that?

    I bellieve there is simply too much involved to make it as black-and-white as “no party could stand up to the US” which leads to therefore, no consequences for the CONs. Why not acknowedge those MPs/parties who demonstrated right action in spite of the known outcome, and they did it anyway?

21. The Conservatives have displayed an unforgivable amount of arrogance in this vote. If they think Congress speaks to them, they have no business being in our Parliament. Canada is not governed by US Congress and Harper needs to know this at the polls October 19/15. “Congress has spoken” will haunt me for the rest of my life as a Canadian. It is a lazy man’s way out! I’m still mad as hell!

22. @ Ann
    Mad as hell, eh? Me too. There’s no beating the Cons in my riding but I’m still going to do some revenge voting and now my husband can too. So that makes two sure votes for an opposition party here. Furthermore, if we’re still here for some future elections, we’ll do the same.

23. I am posting this comment/video that LM posted earlier in the ADCS-ADSC thread always on the top at Brock.

    This is a very powerful video with some very clear indications of why it is important to be involved in this election; at least in terms of making an informed decision.

    LM says:
    In relation to how the Harper government deals with things, gird yourself and take a look at the following most forthright presentation by journalist and author Michael Harris:
    Whoops, seems like this link didn’t get sent: here it is (from journalist & author Michael Harris):

24. Not sure how this fits in the Canadian picture but just off the press…

    http://www.tax-news.com/news/Canada_Launches_AntiEvasion_Electronic_Funds_Transfer_Initiative____66935.html