UPDATE from Blaze: August 23, 2015
But as `the person in charge of privacy“ for Canada, Therrien is obfuscating on FATCA. Here is my reply to him (with my home address and phone number redacted for posting)
http://maplesandbox.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Privacy-Commissioner-2.jpg
Included in my reply is:
YOU are the Privacy Officer at the organization I am concerned about—the Government of Canada. Aren’t you?…
I am stunned the Privacy Commissioner of Canada who is “the person in charge of privacy” for the Government of Canada is not as alarmed as I am at the signing over the privacy of one million Canadians, their spouses and business partners to a foreign government.
I hope you will stand up for privacy rights of all Canadians as “the person in charge of privacy” for Canada.
**********************
Disappointing Response from Privacy Commissioner
In my letter to the Privacy Commissioner on FATCA, I outlined issues and asked:
I am writing to ask what is your position on FATCA IGA and the enabling act. Do privacy laws prevail over this or does the enabling act supercede over PIPEDA and the Privacy Act? Is there any basis for a complaint to be made?
I also said:
I hope you will be as disturbed at the signing away the privacy rights of one million Canadians to a foreign government as I am. I hope you will be willing to work with me and others to provide redress.
The Privacy Commissioner did not respond himself. But the response from the Information Centre was very disappointing.
“In the interest of all parties, our office strongly encourages individuals to try to resolve concerns directly wtih organizations before filing a complaint with us…We would note that PIPEDA permits organizations to disclose individuals’ personal information required by law.”
In other words, this non-response says:
“Don’t bug us.”
Weasel response from the already suspect Privacy Commissioner Therrien appointed by the Fed CONS over that of the far more experienced previous Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart. At the time, this commentary on the IAPP site said:
‘Harper Pick for Privacy Commissioner “May Not Be the Best Fit” ‘
by Angelique Carson, CIPP/US
The Privacy Advisor | May 29, 2014
“……the buzz isn’t over the fact that former Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart’s replacement has been found; rather, it’s over the fact that no one in the privacy world has ever heard of the newly nominated-for-appointment Daniel Therrien—and what they have heard doesn’t sound good if the end-goal is the protection of Canadians’ privacy rights.
What is known about Therrien is that he’s been a lawyer at the Department of Justice (DOJ) for more than 20 years. His current title is assistant deputy attorney general, public safety, defence and immigration portfolio. And in the midst of an increasing push by the government for surveillance powers and law enforcement access to Canadians’ data—a la bills like the highly controversial C-13 and now-dead-in-the-water C-30—a lawyer who’s worked on helping the DOJ achieve those aims isn’t exactly who privacy advocates had in mind as the chief defender of privacy rights.”……..”…..
Doesn’t that sound as if Therrien has a serious conflict of interest due to his past history with the DOJ doing just the opposite?
Guess that is just another one of Harper’s ongoing attempts to stack the deck against the best interests of ordinary Canadians – and in this case, also taxpayers.
It is far more complex than the response from Therrien’s office to Lynne acknowledges. It appears as if they just don’t want to enter into the controversy despite past acknowledgements from the Privacy Commissioner’s office that FATCA raises substantial privacy issue. The refusal to consider Lynne’s request may prove very embarrassing for Therrien as the ADCS legal challenge continues forward. None of the issues raised by Prof. Cockfield in his report commissioned and funded by the previous Privacy Commissioner ( Cockfield, Arthur J., FATCA and the Erosion of Canadian Taxpayer Privacy (April 1, 2014). Report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, April 2014. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2433198 ) have evaporated, and neither have those raised in the co-authored submission by Cockfield and Christians on FATCA ) Christians, Allison and Cockfield, Arthur J., Submission to Finance Department on Implementation of FATCA in Canada (March 10, 2014). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2407264 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2407264 ). Prof. Cockfield said also; “…In particular, taxpayer privacy appears to be challenged by the digitization of tax records, the maintenance of these records within databases and the transmission of the records across borders via information technology networks. …”… ( see Cockfield, Arthur J., Protecting Taxpayer Privacy Rights Under Enhanced Cross-Border Tax Information Exchange: Toward a Multilateral Taxpayer Bill of Rights (2010). University of British Columbia Law Review, Vol. 42, pp. 420-471, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1705551 ).
See discussions of FATCA and privacy issues here;
https://youtu.be/_VaS7NA4JoA
Published on May 15, 2014
MP Murray Rankin tells the House:
“Speaker, the Conservatives do not understand their own budget bill, which does not surprise me since so little has to do with the budget.
For example, the evidence is piling up that the implementation by the Conservatives of FATCA will harm up to one million Canadians.
Yesterday, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada testified that other clauses to allow CRA bureaucrats to hand over our personal tax information to the police, without warrant, violates privacy law and the charter.Will the minister not pull this bill before it ends up being dragged into the courts?”
and,
https://youtu.be/T8NjUpngfxE
Standing Committee on Finance Meeting 35 re FATCA – May 14, 2014
3:40 p.m.
Testimony of Chantal Bernier
https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/35/chantal-bernier-1/
Compare to the big turnaround since this where both the Finance Minister at the time, AND the Privacy Commissioner expressed reason to believe that FATCA did NOT override Canadian privacy protections:;
“……Mr. Flaherty and federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart have warned the Obama administration that the new U.S. law may run afoul of Canadian privacy and banking laws.
Under Canadian banking laws, customers are typically only required to prove they are residents of Canada, not their immigration status or citizenship..”….
from
‘U.S. tax crackdown has Canadian financial firms on edge’
BARRIE McKENNA
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Oct. 05, 2011 5:33PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Sep. 06, 2012 10:37AM EDT
and then there was also:
Prof. Arthur Cockfield:
“….The Finance Minister correctly pointed out this “would turn Canadian banks into extensions of the IRS and would raise significant privacy concerns for Canadians.” The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has also raised the alarm, since it would permit a foreign government to gather and store detailed financial information about many Canadians..”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-coming-canada-us-tax-war/article556958/
from ‘The coming Canada-U.S. tax war’
ARTHUR COCKFIELD
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Oct. 13, 2011 2:00AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Sep. 06, 2012 10:35AM EDT
The change in Finance Minister Flaherty’s attitude FATCA and privacy was noted by Cockfield and Christians;
“For the first time in Canadian history, our federal government is preparing to provide a foreign government with sensitive personal financial information about hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It is doing so to stave off threatened economic sanctions, and is getting nothing in return…..”…
..”.When FATCA was first put in place, former Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty decried the U.S. legislation as an effort to make Canadian banks an enforcement arm of the IRS. The problem is that, unless Canada plays ball, the United States is threatening to shut down the Canadian financial industry by imposing punitive taxes on financial transfers between U.S. and Canadian banks. Faced with this threatened economic sanction, the Canadian government ultimately capitulated and proposes to implement FATCA by July 1, 2014. The proposed law, which is part of Bill C-31 before Parliament, will override Canadian privacy laws so that our tax authorities can transfer the account information to the IRS.
This move is unacceptable as it gravely threatens Canadian financial privacy…”…
..”Canada should only transfer data associated with U.S. persons who are not Canadian residents. This approach accords with longstanding practice and emerging global information exchange standards. The government should take immediate steps to ensure this standard is codified in the legislation currently in front of Parliament.
This move would prevent the great privacy giveaway and institute in its place a sensible rule for information exchange. It would safeguard the privacy rights of Canadians while enabling Canada to work co-operatively on a global scale to ensure that tax evaders – American, Canadian, or otherwise – do not have a safe haven anywhere.”
from
‘How the U.S. pulled off the great Canadian privacy giveaway’
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Apr. 10, 2014 12:29PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Apr. 11, 2014 7:18AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/how-the-us-pulled-off-the-great-canadian-privacy-giveaway/article17916327/
We’re about to get into the OECD CRS implementation, and the Cons have already given away the Canadian fisc and the legal local savings and personal and financial data of all Canadians along with Canadian sovereignty and autonomy. The CRA is now a Canadian branch plant of the IRS and the NSA.
Next stop?
Changing the Canadian flag to incorporate the Stars and Stripes. Or vice versa.
In the meantime, if EU laws are enacted that give more protection to personal data, and it conflicts with FATCA, then what?
I don’t know exactly where things stand in the negotiations on the “umbrella agreement” between the EU and the US,
but here is a sampling of materials on some of the data and privacy issues raised between the EU and the US;
NEGOTIATIONS ON DATA PROTECTION
June 2014
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/umbrella_factsheet_en.pdf
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-15-5257_en.htm
http://www.statewatch.org/Targeted-issues/EU-USA-dp-agreement/eu-usa-dp-info-exchange-agreement.htm
http://www.bna.com/eu-justice-nominee-n17179895731/
What happens if revised EU laws protect EU citizens and residents and Canada’s laws don’t, in the arena of FATCA? What about the terms of the IGAs that say that if a more favourable one is negotiated, that other signatories are able to get the same terms? So, if FATCA is in conflict with EU laws, then how would that change what is demanded from Canada under the same type of IGA as more favourable EU country terms in say Germany, or France under stricter privacy and data protections?
@ Lynne,
You wrote:
He replied:
This strikes me as a particularly inappropriate boilerplate brush-off, as the “organization” responsible for the IGA and enabling law is the government, and he’s the government’s “Privacy Officer.”
Actually the Canadian government is getting something in return from the FATCA IGA, or at least the CRA is, in that for the first time in Canadian history, our federal government is preparing to provide IT’S OWN government with sensitive personal financial information about hundreds of thousands of Canadians. By their own admission – and presented to Justice Martineau at the summary trial – the CRA could quite possibly use this information for its own purposes.
Yes, I was wondering too who might be the government’s privacy officer, Pacifica. I think Blaze should throw that back at them.
Thanks for again pointing that out, bubblebustin.
CRA will now get this information exclusively for *US Persons in Canada* — discriminatory in that they are not getting the same information from Canada’s own US-deemed *foreign financial institutions* for any other Canadians (those first-class ones).
“To that end, we would suggest that you communicate with the person in charge of privacy, often referred to as the Privacy Officer, at the organization, to outline your concerns.”
Yes, thank you very much for nothing, privacy commissioner. We will resolve concerns directly with the Supreme Court of Canada!
It looks to me like the Commissioner is doing his job perfectly, protecting the Privacy of all information about his opinion.
“Looks like a job for a Privacy OFFICER – I’m just a lowly Privacy COMMISSIONER!”
Where does Harper find all these idiots?
In reading the response from the Privacy Commissioner’s office, I noticed PIPEDA is for PRIVATE sector privacy.
Off to search on PUBLIC sector/government privacy legislation. If a Canadian filing a Canadian tax return must check a box to allow CRA to give the name for the electoral rolls, privacy legislation between gov’t agencies must be pretty tough, right?
@Bubbles
incredibly disturbing esp when added to the fact the US will clearly not protect any info it receives.
Re-reading May 2014 Standing Committee on Finance transcripts..I think it was Brian Ernewein who indicates if the US does not honor the privacy stipulation, the agreement can be ended. And then of course, hopefully at some point, when the US does not provide reciprocity, the agreement can be ended. LOL
The Mom,
The letters says that PIPEDA sets out how that private sector subject to PIPEDA is to collect, use or disclose our private information in the course of their commercial activities.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner puts out this publication: OPC Guidance Documents – A Guide for Individuals Protecting Your Privacy
The letter to Lynne Swanson is another robo-letter sent to all. These government organizations seem not there for the good of the people. Customer service has gone to hell.
Newest Privacy Commissioner Therrien manages not to say anything at all about FATCA or even data exchange between governments in general or the US in his speech summarizing his accomplishments and priorities to date:
‘Meeting Canadians’ privacy priorities’;
Remarks at the Access and Privacy Conference, University of Alberta
June 12, 2015
Edmonton, Alberta
Address by Daniel Therrien
Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I guess ’cause he’s been told by the DOJ and Harper Cons that FATCA only effects those darn pesky “Americans residing in Canada”, and his priorities are Canadians (which ones?), he doesn’t have to pay any attention at all to the CRA sending off personal and financial information to the IRS and US Treasury, subjecting them to the Patriot Act – sooooo very well known for its respect for privacy and other rights eh?
And the OECD CRS and TPP aren’t mentioned either. Guess we shouldn’t worry our tiny citizen, legal resident, taxpayer, voter, consumer, assetholder, stakeholder heads over things that the Harper government decides aren’t our concern.
And lets just see if FATCA and our issues fit into Therrien’s identified priorities from 2015-2020;
‘The OPC Privacy Priorities 2015-2020’
‘Mapping a course for greater protection’
June 2015
https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/pub/pp_2015_e.asp
Nope, nothing there about FATCA, TPP, CRS. Actually not much of anything there at all.
I guess the Privacy Commissioner hand picked the Canadians in their focus groups;
“…We set out to hear from a wide range of individuals and organizations about what privacy issues were important to them. We reached out to individuals by conducting focus groups. We held meetings in locations across the country, with public and private sector stakeholders, academia, civil society organizations, and consumer groups. ..”…….
https://www.priv.gc.ca/media/sp-d/2015/sp-d_20150612_e.asp
Meeting Canadians’ privacy priorities
Remarks at the Access and Privacy Conference, University of Alberta
June 12, 2015
Edmonton, Alberta
Address by Daniel Therrien
Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Seems to me that Therrien’s unconcern is the opposite of the comments by interim Privacy Commissioner re FATCA:
https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/35/chantal-bernier-3/
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
Okay. That’s excellent.
Now I have a question for Madam Bernier, from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. We had testimony from Mr. Ernewein, of the Department of Finance, who said, “Our understanding is that in relation to Canadian law, the Privacy Act and its various provisions are subject to other laws of Parliament.” We’re led to believe that this agreement could supersede the Privacy Act. Is that your opinion as well?
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
The Privacy Act has been declared to be quasi-constitutional by the courts. He was perhaps referring to section 8 of the Privacy Act; that section does mention “subject” to other laws. However, in general, the Privacy Act has quasi-constitutional status.
https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/35/chantal-bernier-2/
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
Therefore, what that means, in lay terms, is that if the intergovernmental agreement or the provisions of Bill C-31 are in conflict with the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act would prevail.
May 14th, 2014 / 3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
That would be my view, certainly.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
Okay.
I’d like to ask you about something else you said just now. I’m very pleased to see that you’ve also drawn this committee’s attention to the provisions of the Income Tax Act that allow CRA officials to tell the police about things that concern them, without any warrant. You’ve said that this information would be shared between the CRA and law enforcement authorities without “judicial oversight”. I take it that you think that would be an aberration. What word would you use to describe that situation?
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
I would describe it as an exception, and that exception needs to be justified as necessary and proportionate, so I urge you to seek the demonstration that indeed it would be necessary to have this exception.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
Necessary? Do you mean in terms of compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
Yes, absolutely. Obviously you have section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which speaks of necessity “prescribed by law” and “justified in a free and democratic society”. That is the test to meet, and I think evidence should be gathered from this committee as to why this provision is felt to be necessary.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
So it’s of concern to the Privacy Commissioner?
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
It is of concern to us, yes.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
Thank you very much.
@badger
We are in sync! Just posted that exact conversation (Rankin-Bernier) on another thread. I originally took her testimony as being important and overlooked however in retrospect, I don’t think Madame Bernier understood that the Privacy Act was automatically overridden by the IGA.
Oddly enough, shortly after Therrien took over, I remember reading a rather startling and unexpected reversal of attitude on some decision….wish I could remember what it was……
Yes, Trish, without reviewing all the video, I clearly remember that should the US use any of the information ‘given’ by the FATCA IGA for purposes other than those stipulated by the IGA, the US would then be in breach of the agreement. This struck me as a leap of faith on the part of the Canadian government at the time, kind of a ‘Hail Mary’ approach to the whole endeavour, don’t you think?
With the Patriot Act at play, where will this lead us? Down a slippery slope, I’d say. With our so called representation neutered, will they have the balls to call the US out on any transgressions? Somehow I doubt it. Gwen and Ginny have more cajones than the entire Canadian government combined!
“In the interest of all parties, our office strongly encourages individuals to try to resolve concerns directly with organizations before filing a complaint with us. To that end, we would suggest that you communicate with the person in charge of privacy, often referred to as the Privacy Officer, at the organization, to outline your concerns.”
My God, we’re in a never-ending loop of circular un-reasoning! Canada’s Privacy Commissioner *is* the “person in charge of privacy” of the “organization” directly with which we have been attempting to resolve our concerns for the past four and a half years! I agree with Deckard: “Where does Harper find all these idiots?”!
@Deckard1138: “Where does Harper find these idiots?” Fatal Attraction!
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/06/15-jha-data-protection/
There are 3 questions I have about EU legislation.
1. Is anything to do with tax collection exempt from this EU wide data protection?
2. Would searching for ‘US persons’ contravene one of the EU’s data protection by using ‘profiling?’
3. In mid / late 2016 new EU regulations will come into force making it a right to have basic bank account for every resident EU citizen. What is the bank going to do if an EU citizen refuses to fill in a W9 form and provide a US Social Security number? So the bank either breaks FATCA rules or breaks EU law.
I hope if the judge rules in favour of the plaintiffs on 13/9 that it features as a main headline on the CBC’s The National or CTV news. Hopefully that will recruit new donors.
@Tricia, re; “.. I don’t think Madame Bernier understood that the Privacy Act was automatically overridden by the IGA..”.
I thought I remembered something more about that “quasi-constitutional” status of the Privacy Act being noted. Can’t find it now. I’m not sure that it is clear that Bernier was incorrect. It not be so very clearcut what “quasi-constitutional” entails vis a vis the IGA. It might be something that the lawyers might argue about.
At the time, watching the testimony, I thought there was a hint to something that could be pursued re the Privacy Act and why the IGA might not automatically and clearly be able to trump it. I will try to find what tweaked that perception. I think the ADCS legal team will know or sense whether that is a fruitful angle, or a long slog to address with an uncertain outcome. I think that lawyers from the CCLA might have some experience with that area as well if they choose to become involved.
In the early quotes from Flaherty and Jennifer Stoddart, they had to have known or perceived something about the Privacy Act that would have been an impediment – though before the IGA, the impediment from FIs and non-FIs collecting and remitting the FATCA info directly to the US is a different situation from having the CRA in the middle.
OR, is the IGA only a partial fix that just APPEARS to circumvent the Privacy Act, but doesn’t clearly or completely give that it is “quasi-constitutional”? We know very well that a lot surrounding FATCA (like the imaginary numbers the US – ex. Elizabeth Warren in her correspondence posted recently here) are lent the air of legitimacy only because they are repeated and recycled and requoted over and over. Which does not actually make them true.
Is it possible that the assertions that are issued up repeatedly in the public rhetoric of the Treasury Dept. and in the public rationalizations (often copied verbatim) of the governments signing the IGAs implementing FATCA enabling legislation to circumvent “all” their own domestic laws that are in conflict with enforcing FATCA at home are in fact full of holes? It is agreed that the IGAs were meant to circumvent local laws – including those regarding privacy. Is it possible that this is a fiction or only an aspirational claim that is lent legitimacy only with repetition, and which could be challenged on that ‘quasi-constitutional’ basis?
And;
The EU appears to be much further ahead than Canada re privacy protections. Harper is busy doing everything he can to neuter any protections and civil rights that Canadians have. Jennifer Stoddart had repeatedly noted that the Privacy Act, PIPEDA, etc. were woefully behind in providing protections and needed to be revisited and revamped. If the FATCA IGAs were to fail an EU privacy protection test due to their stricter conditions, then what of the Canadian IGA? This is where we need people from the EU to explore it, and why I harp on the efforts that MEP Sophie in’t Veld has made in terms of the EU vs. US incursions into the rights of EU citizens (AND residents).
@Don, unfortunately, though I’ve been trying to explore some of the EU issues re US demands for data vs. EU privacy and other laws, I don’t know much about it. I am hoping that EU readers will try to research and explore that. Much of the EU Commission info is online, and perhaps after watching the video link into that EU public hearing on FATCA and going back into public records as to who voted how, it would be possible to identify which MEPs might be potential allies on different aspects of this.
Perhaps another reader here might chime in to answer. I am also hampered in that I am unilingual and it may be that many of those affected in the EU are less likely to read an English language website like IBS tends to be (we have some multilingual readers and authors).
@badger
I do not mean that it is necessarily so – that the IGA trumps the Privacy Act. What I mean is, that with regard to anything conceived of as a “tax” matter, it is so that a treaty does trump domestic legislation. Of course the issue is the problem of the “dubious” nature of the IGA and so on.
This is what Ms Bernier said with regard to the Privacy Act being “quasi-constitutional.”
I will put this up in the next hour or so but connected to the testimony of Nathan Cullen on May 29 was a discussion of whether Justice examined the constitutionality of the IGA and how likely (in terms of percentage) was the possibility of challenge. One of the comments made, I believe by Brian Ernewein was that it was not standard to obtain the Privacy Commissioner’s advice prior to legislation, only Justice. The problem became that nobody will clarify just exactly whether/how Justice actually did that. Cullen was completely frustrated that it was shrouded by the usual CON BS about confidentiality…..
@Tricia;
I found this re the “quasi-constitutional” category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-constitutionality (not really completely robust and reputable as is only very general and is Wikipedia). Interestingly, the first footnote refers to Peter Hogg’s text “Constitutional Law of Canada”.
You’re right though, there are so many things unclear – ex. is the IGA really a ‘treaty’, the tax issue (vs. an information ‘exchange’ agreement?), is it really building on the existing Canada US tax treaty, etc. Are privacy rights and some of the other civil/constitutional/Charter issues raised by the IGA unable to be ceded to the IGA or do they trump it? Complex.
But I still wonder that originally the Privacy Commissioner Stoddart flagged the privacy issue. She did however commission the study by Cockfield. It and the submission to Finance with Christians does still raise privacy issues despite the IGA. Still might be useful.
@Tricia: Was the case the cyberbullying law?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyberbullying-bill-raises-alarm-for-privacy-commissioner-1.2842034
Then the Cons would not allow Therrien to testify on C51.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-51-privacy-watchdog-daniel-therrien-blocked-from-committee-witness-list-1.2991265
But as `the person in charge of privacy“ for Canada, Therrien is obfuscating on FATCA. Here is my reply to him (with my home address and phone number redacted for posting)
http://maplesandbox.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Privacy-Commissioner-2.jpg
Included in my reply is:
YOU are the Privacy Officer at the organization I am concerned about—the Government of Canada. Aren’t you?…
I am stunned the Privacy Commissioner of Canada who is “the person in charge of privacy” for the Government of Canada is not as alarmed as I am at the signing over the privacy of one million Canadians, their spouses and business partners to a foreign government.
I hope you will stand up for privacy rights of all Canadians as “the person in charge of privacy” for Canada.
Great response Blaze. Keep us posted. Their reply was asinine. They may live to regret sending it without thinking through the consequences of such a facile reply.