UPDATE SEPTEMBER 19, 2015: SEE ALSO DISCLAIMER AND LITIGATION UPDATES.
[This post, which began in May and having over 1000 revisions and 2000 comments, is being retired from service and updates. It lived through the success of reaching a total of $500,000 in donations from our kind, dear supporters who had little money to give, the hope and disappointment with the summary trial decision, and the certainty that we are now finally moving on to the Charter trial.]
CANADIAN CHARTER TRIAL UPDATE:
— We have instructed the Arvay team to prepare for the “Constitutional-Charter” trial. This means that our focus now, as it was in the beginning of our lawsuit, is on the Charter trial.
Unless there is a new expense in the future that we have not anticipated, the monies from your donations will be sufficient to take us through the “constitutional-charter” trial in Federal Court. However, to pay other legal bills we will need additional donations from our supporters, and a request for donations will appear on another post soon.
OUR LITIGATION HISTORY:
One year ago, on August 11, 2014, Litigator Joseph Arvay filed a FATCA IGA lawsuit in Canada Federal Court on behalf of Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (en français), and all peoples.
Because of a Government delay we initiated a “summary trial”, using a portion of the arguments, which offered the possibility of preventing private banking information from being turned over to the IRS before September 30, 2015. See Alliance’s Claims, our Alliance blog, and AUGUST 4-5 SUMMARY TRIAL FILINGS in LITIGATION UPDATES.
FuriousAC,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbHwT21aNNU&spfreload=10 Lecture by General (Ret.) David H. Petraeus: The Coming North American Decades
Is this one reason for media silence and many other happenings regarding our issues?
Coastal Community and other credit unions:
Please see George’s comment today under YOUR EXPERIENCES BANKING which may explain getting two different answers about CCCU’s FATCA status:
“@PatCanadian, “I called them today and now they confirm they are fully reporting for FATCA!”
I have been looking at this very closely in the EU where language is key….
A “Local Client Base” will BE “fully reporting” but you have to understand what that means.
Get the document here;
https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/pdf/FATCA-eng.pdf
Go to page 40 and you will see what a Local Client Base firm MUST do reporting and due dilingence with respect to FATCA;
“Beginning on or before July 1, 2014, the Financial Institution must have policies and procedures, consistent with those set forth in Annex I, to prevent the Financial Institution from providing a Financial Account to any Nonparticipating Financial Institution and to monitor whether the Financial Institution opens or maintains a Financial Account for any Specified U.S. Person who is not a resident of Canada (including a U.S. Person that was a resident of Canada when the Financial Account was opened but subsequently ceases to be a resident of Canada) or any Passive NFFE with Controlling Persons who are U.S. residents or U.S. citizens who are not residents of Canada;”
AND
“Such policies and procedures must provide that if any Financial Account held by a Specified U.S. Person who is not a resident of Canada or by a Passive NFFE with Controlling Persons who are U.S. residents or U.S. citizens who are not residents of Canada is identified, the Financial Institution must report such Financial Account as would be required if the Financial Institution were a Reporting Canadian Financial Institution (including by following the applicable registration requirements on the IRS FATCA registration website) or close such Financial Account;”
——
So YES, a Local Client Base credit union or other FI WILL report any US Person to the USA the moment they become non-resident in Canada.
Personally I believe the best way to flesh out the situation is what mettlemen went through.
1. Do they ask a “simple” question on citizenship and you are able to say Canadian.
2. If they ask Country of birth, I would be very cautious based on EU experience.
3. Is a drivers license all thats needed?”
We need to be very careful out there and we need to keep donating .
Since the lawsuit involves information exchange between the CRA and IRS, and how that information is used and shared, I was interested to see that even within the US itself there is a lack of clarity as to who and why and how widely the IRS shares information.
See this;
Aug. 7, 2015 09:20 AM EDT
‘A Look at Information Sharing Agreements Between the IRS and States’
by Cara Griffith
“In September 2014 Tax Analysts sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the IRS for a list of all states and localities currently participating in IRS taxpayer information sharing programs, and all taxpayer information sharing agreements entered into between any state or territory of the United States and the IRS. It took nearly a year, but on July 20 Tax Analysts received over 1,200 pages of responsive documents, including the requested list and 88 information sharing agreements.
The IRS shares taxpayer information with federal, state, and municipal government agencies with the goal of improving overall compliance with tax laws. The IRS is authorized by IRC section 6103(d) to disclose federal tax information to state and local tax authorities for tax administration purposes. IRS and state and local agencies share data such as audit results, federal individual and business return information, and employment tax information. (Separate agreements permit states to disclose taxpayer information to other states, but those were not the subject of this FOIA request.)
Tax Analysts has begun to examine the agreements in the hopes of being able to shed light on what taxpayer information is shared, how it is shared, who is receiving it, and whether it is being properly protected. While the IRS has always acknowledged that it must carefully protect confidential taxpayer information, there are many unknowns regarding how information is shared. ……”
http://www.taxanalysts.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-9Z6HEQ?OpenDocument
So, if it took an FOIA request by Tax Analysts to even start to identify “…what taxpayer information is shared, how it is shared, who is receiving it, and whether it is being properly protected…” and that is WITHIN the US, then how could the Canada Revenue Agency, and the Justice Dept. defence and defendants possibly assure anyone of us that the financial and personal information that they are fighting us in order to send to the US is subject to any constraints whatsoever – and that is quite apart from the subjugation of our information to the US Patriot and Homeland Security laws which we already know strip the information of any protection or limitations whatsoever once it crosses into the US (See for example the paper by Prof. Arthur Cockfield . That Canada has no control over the FATCA information once crossed into US hands is even acknowledged Brian Ernewein (General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance) in an exchange with MP Murray Rankin: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6562065&Language=E&Mode=1#Int-8334534 .
See the exchange below from FINA-31 (May 1, 2014)
Standing Committee on Finance
NUMBER 031 , 2nd SESSION, 41st PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE Thursday, May 1, 2014
Mr. Brian Ernewein:
Well, I’ll answer that question first, and then if you’re still interested we can talk about how the rules work in relation to entities. It’s the same restrictions on the use of taxpayer information that I talked about earlier that would apply there. There is a question of reliance and reliability of the foreign country with which we are exchanging information that comes into play on this.
The conditions for provision of information—whether it relates to individuals or to entities—is that the information can only be used for tax purposes, and not otherwise.
(1715)
Mr. Murray Rankin:
That’s what the document says, but once it’s in U.S. hands, Canada has no control over how it may be used in the United States.
Mr. Brian Ernewein:
Discussed Topics:
Budget 2014 (February 11, 2014)
That’s right. There’s a question of—as I say—the reliability of our treaty partner. We do take the view that we can rely on the U.S. to limit it’s use of the tax information as, indeed, they rely on us.
Mr. Murray Rankin:
Indeed, so it might be that information could well find itself…as we’ve seen in other contexts with the United States taking our information. There’s the USA PATRIOT Act, there are a number of other statutes where the information on Canadian/U.S. persons could well find its way into other entities. We’re just relying on their statement that they’re not going to do that.
Mr. Brian Ernewein:
Yes. That would be inconsistent with their commitments to us and their legislation, so it would only be on the basis that they were violating the agreement that it could happen.”
Above I refer to a paper by Arthur Cockfield regarding the issue of FATCA data and the US Patriot Act, and the link is here for download:
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
See also with Prof Allison Christians;
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
Let me add something to what PatCanadian quoted, which partly ties into the summary trial and Ginny and Gwen.
I believe that everyone needs to personally determine their citizenship status based on their circumstances, where they are resident, the actions they have taken, the actions they have not taken and their understanding of the law.
I MAY be a Canadian Citizen. It looks like it based on everything I read. I have bits of paper with local seals on them that points that way, but the Govt of Canada has not stated to me personally that I am one of her own.
Unless and until the Govt of Canada provides me with personal documentation of same, I am not Canadian.
Besides all that, I am a citizen and resident of a Country that is a signor to the master nationality rule.
Where I am getting at?
You can open up an account noisily.
You can open up an account quietly.
If a FI asks questions that you are not comfortable with, then do not open an account with them.
If a FI asks for identification type documents do not give them anything that you might consider embarrassing.
Having said all that, I have been a noisy A-Ho___ of late in going to FIs and making them squirm in opening accounts. I have taken the cue from the LGBT community. In that regard, I think we need to make posters of lets say 12 ordinary people. The caption reads “Eleven of these people are pure blooded Canadian, one of them was born in the USA.”
I relinquished ten years ago. I resented from day one when people would call me American because of the way I talked. And that was pre-FATCA.
The Jamaica Gleaner has chose to remove the 6 posts that I made following their article
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/business/20150807/fatca-takes-effect-september-30-jamaica
The six posts are consolidated in the following – others may choose to offer their comments to the Gleaner or elsewhere. Moderators really do set the Agenda and outlook of on line debate and indeed censor the news that the public receives far too often.
_______________________________________________________________________
I hope that ALL persons (including the Banks and the TAJ) are monitoring what is happening with Challenges in courts elsewhere to stop FATCA.
The cases are occurring in Federal Court in Vancouver BC Canada and in Federal Court Dayton Ohio USA. I will follow this post with a number of quotes from elsewhere re these cases.
It seems to me that due to the irreparable harm that can be done to
Jamaicans and Jamaica, our Government should NOT turn over any data whatsoever until the aforementioned cases are finally resolved.
To Pt ii
Pt ii
The first such challenge was heard in Federal Court in Vancouver BC Canada this week. The Govt side sought to delay the proceedings yet again and the Justice refused to allow that. The Justice has said that he will do his very best to make his ruling by September 13th which if it favours the Plaintiffs will block the Canadian Government from sending data to the US.
Whichever way the ruling goes there will doubtless be an appeal. I cannot see Canadian data being sent to the US until that case gets through the Canadian Legal System (as) the irreparable violation of the rights of the people affected and the irreparable harm done to them would be too much. You can read comments on the 2 days of hearings (the video of the proceedings is not yet available) at http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/ (there is much blow by blow reporting in the extensive comments) and at http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/20…
To Pt iii
Pt iii
A few comments arising in the links noted above regarding the Canadian Case (all highly relevant to us here in Jamaica and anywhere else that has a Charter of Rights in our style and a Legal System based originally in British Law) include :
“The Judge (Justice Martineau) appears to be very sensitive to the date your banking information may be transferred to the IRS. He has given (in various contexts) indications that he realizes that his decision needs to be rendered prior to the “CRA to IRS Turnover Date”. This realization has influenced the proceedings in various ways (including denying the government’s motion for an adjournment).”
“Justice Martineau began by asking the lawyers to explain where, in the Constitution of Canada, the Government of Canada received the authority to enter into the IGA. In others words what precise section of S. 91 of Canada’s Constitution allowed the
Government to do this at all.”
To Pt iv
Pt iv
Further extracts from the links referred to above:
“There were two moments when the language/suggestions/statements of the Government of Canada lawyer – resulted in audible commentary (laughter/snickering) from the audience. They were:
The suggestion that nobody forced Canada to sign the IGA, that it was signed voluntarily. “Nobody had a gun to Canada’s head”.
Incidentally as part of this submission the lawyer argued that Canada received significant benefits under the IGA. Q. What significant benefit? A. Well, clearly the agreement of the USA to not impose the 30% FATCA sanction. As I was listening to this, I remembered the scene from the Godfather, when Don Carleone informed somebody that “either his brains or his signature would be on the contract“. But, hey this is what passes for diplomacy in the FATCA world. ”
“Explaining that Eritrean citizenship taxation was offensive only because Eritrea was
using its tax revenues to finance its military and prosecute wars. As you know, the United States does NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES use taxes to finance it’s military. Obviously the United States military must be financed through “local bake sales of brownies, coffee and cookies”. But no matter.” ”
To Pt v
Pt v
More exerpts from links referred to above:
“Justice Martineau asked about the treatment of “joint bank accounts” where one of the account holders was NOT a U.S. citizen. In other words, he appeared to appreciate that the primary impact of FATCA in Canada was on Canadian citizens who were resident in Canada.” ”
“After the two day hearing it was amply clear that FATCA, CBT, the IGA are examples of U.S. territorial overreach IN THE EXTREME and a clear interference with the fiscal
sovereignty of Canada.”
“Question: Could the information disclosed under the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty (which would now include the FATCA IGA) be used for purposes beyond “Taxes on Income and Capital”?
Answer: Yes, in fact former Senator Carl Levin, in a letter written to the IRS on January 11, 2012 urges the IRS and Treasury to use “FATCA” information for all purposes. Yes, it’s true. Here is the letter: https://adcsovereignty.files.w… ”
“Is the use of the FATCA information to assess FBAR penalties outside the scope of the IGA and therefore a breach of the U.S. Canada IGA? Justice Martineau asked the Government lawyer this very question, to which the Government lawyers responded with (you can’t make this up): “Justice, I feel sorry for you having to resolve this issue.” ”
It seems that there was quite an early exchange in the Vancouver Court that essentially may be summarized / paraphrased as : Justice Martineau to Govt Lawyer “do you want me to stop asking questions,would that be simpler for you” ”
To Pt vi
Pt vi
And then there is a second law suit now in court, this time in the US. This case seeks to stop FATCA in its tracks. The Judge hearing the case has just refused to give Govt lawyers more time vide this post from the Facebook page of some of the plaintiffs
“”DOJ’s Delay Tactic Failed! Great News for 8.7 million overseas Americans! The Dayton Federal Court orders the following:
1) the U.S. Treasury, IRS, and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network aka Defendants’ responses to Republicans Overseas Action’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction remain due on August 12, 2015 (which is about one week from the conference date of August 4),
2) Republicans Overseas Action seven Plaintiffs’ reply to Defendants’ responses is due on August 26, 2015 (Republicans Overseas Action gets two weeks for replying), and
3) a Preliminary Injunction hearing will be held on Friday September 4 at 1:30p.m. in Dayton.” “
@Blaze. Thank you for responding to my question. I am sorry the response from CCLA has not been helpful.
A person would think, once learning of this court case and the importance, that if the CCLA has no interest in helping these Canadians, why donate to them or even be a member? It seems they have turned their backs on the very reason they are here in the first place. They have paid some lip service to our inquiries but it seems clear, they will do nothing. This case and this whole issue is incredibly large in the way it is educating all of us as to who really cares about Canada and Canadians. In my wildest dreams, I never thought that something so inhumane would get the silent treatment from those who advertise that they are here for us. At least we have each other.
I agree with you, NativeCanadian. I have discontinued any contributions to CCLA until and if they take our issue seriously. Similar to where I show support for any party — I want to know exactly a Leader’s / Party’s position of the FATCA IGA that Canada signed that makes this segment of Canadians second-class to any others no matter where the others were born or their parent(s) were born. (I got a brush-off from the department in Canada who is supposed to represent discrimination based on disability as well, somewhere in all of this information at Brock.)
As well, I will never understand the almost (though some have really tried) complete lack of this issue in the media so it can become common knowledge to the many aspect of just what is happening here. In the meantime we get a plethora of news articles that entertain rather than educate / inform us of things we do need to know.
[ In a similar context regarding the definition of *who is a Canadian*, Ontario Premier Wynne says:
“We need provincial and federal leaders working together to make sure that decisions that are made benefit their shared constituents, because Ontarians are Canadians, they’re not a different group of people.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/wynne-implies-transcontinental-railway-wouldnt-have-been-built-if-harper-was-prime-minister-then ]
Okay bystanders who support the cause but who haven’t donated!
Let’s clear up the remainder of the legal fees still showing on the thermometer for the most recent portion.
Maybe in addition to the recent very tangible accomplishments of this legal challenge – manifested in part by the recent hearings on August 4 -5 in Vancouver – with more set to come, you might be fired up to send ADCS an appreciative donation after reading the *article below. Consider that while we ordinary people already paying a full set of taxes to Canada and the other non-US countries where we actually live, work and save, – all this pain and energy to fend off FATCA is due to this manifestation of US extraterritorial efforts at financial domination – basically the US is setting the stage to be the last or biggest tax haven standing, while we and our fellow taxpayers pay the tab for the US free lunch forever and ever. Canada is an important domino in the US extortion of the rest of the planet. Not because Canada is a tax haven, but because the US FATCAnatic plans never intended and had no intention of crafting unique exceptions – even for its closest geographic neighbour and major trading partner.
See;
*
http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/spring2015/tax-haven
‘The Next Rising Tax Haven’
By Andres Knobel
“UNITED STATES OF HYPOCRISY
While Switzerland hides behind myths and shenanigans, the United States is crystal clear—and this is where the future unknown may be paramount in tax and banking concealment. Despite protests to the contrary, the United States is eager to become the top tax haven in the world. What about all that monitoring and pointing fingers about money laundering, finance of terrorism, and tax evasion? They are still valid—as long as they apply only to everyone else.
Regarding banking secrecy, the United States is even more straightforward with its double standard. Washington enacted FATCA rules to oblige foreign banks to send the IRS information about Americans holding bank accounts abroad. It also imposed a 30 percent withholding tax against any financial institution in the world which failed to participate or remained non-compliant with FATCA’s reporting obligations. It had little concern for all the businesses’ costs and domestic legal changes every other country had to undertake to allow its banks to provide this information to the United States. But when other countries, such as Germany, showed interest in receiving information about their own residents with accounts in American banks, the United States offered instead only basic and partial reciprocity. The United States would report information about fewer types of accounts, cover fewer types of income, and most importantly, there would be no look-through provisions to identify (German) individuals trying to avoid reporting by hiding behind some company or trust. In some agreements, the United States did commit to achieving equal levels of reciprocity, but cleverly forgot to set a timeframe for such conformity. Some smaller countries, in fact, were only offered the Hobson’s choice of providing all requested information to the United States or being subject to the confiscatory withholding tax.
FATCA then inspired the OECD’s own standard on automatic exchanges of financial account information, called the Common Reporting Standard or CRS, which was basically an adapted copy of FATCA, though carrying no sanctions. Given their similarities, many were led to believe that the United States would also commit to the CRS so that eventually all countries applied only one standard. To make the offer even more tempting, the CRS allowed special provisions in favor of American banks—and this despite Swiss bank opposition.
But Washington saw an opportunity it couldn’t afford to pass up. It decided instead simply and exclusively to apply FATCA. This way, while all countries would have to exchange information with each other pursuant to the CRS, and send information to the United States under FATCA, the United States need not fully reciprocate to anyone. This way it could offer foreigners the option to open accounts in American banks as a way to limit the disclosure of information to their own authorities. It was a classic tax haven service, but only available in the United States. Though not widely recognized, with an enormous dose of irony, it would appear that by stealth, the United States is quietly en route to becoming the next big unknown—or barely known—among international tax havens.
And there’s a cherry on top. As if Delaware’s anonymous corporate registration process and U.S. banking secrecy weren’t enough, such American flag territories as Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands offer an entirely tax free environment. Why go anywhere else?…….”……….
Donate now to keep this challenge going!
Deny the US the free lunch it is demanding at the expense of the rest of the world’s taxpayers and our civil, human and constitutional rights.
http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/
@badger
because the US FATCAnatic plans never intended and had no intention of crafting unique exceptions
This aspect of things is a big part of the reason why I–a dual citizen living in the USA–am supporting the ADSC-ADCS against the IGA, etc. I am, frankly, embarrassed by the behavior of my adopted country (USA) and feel I need to take a stand against it. And it is very true that the traditional kinder, gentler exceptions that the USA has in the past extended to Canada (and to a lesser extent other close US allies) have not been in evidence at all with FATCA and its enforcing IGA’s.
The USA has always had a reputation for bullying behavior but Canada has traditionally–not always but a high percentage–supported (some might say enabled) this behavior. And the IGA is the only “thanks” that Canada has gotten. Like I say, I’m embarrassed for the USA and almost as embarrassed for Canada and the decisions Harper has made.
This is getting bad when we can’t make the final payment…. All the donors who give all they can…. thank u…
People who have not donated…
Do u really want the US and Canadian govts to win… we are called 2nd class citizens world wide… because we can’t raise the funds to pay the excellent lawyers who are doing their best to represent us to the best of their ability? The previous 3 payments were paid in a timely manner…. this 4th payment is way over due… like people have given up the fight… As a group we will stand up strong… as a single person… we have no chance . We all have to stand up & make the gov’ts stop treating us like we don’t matter & we have no means to fight back… Just because there is a lawsuit in the US… realize it will not help us at all unless we can slam as many doors in the govts faces to protect ourselves & our privacy.
So please… donate what u can… we have to take one lawsuit at a time… slamming as many doors as we can along the way…. if we stand there & not fight back…. they have won… Everything we have will be known to everyone… Many are relying on the fact the US can’t collect yet… don’t fool yourself…. once they have a road map… the US may demand payment from the banks who will just hand it over… it will take a long time for u to recoup the payment back & to sue.
Please open your wallets & donate what u can…. if u stand on the side & expect others to carry the load… many donors have done what they can… its time for u to do your best… so please donate…. We need to make this payment ASAP so all will see… we are serious as a heart attack by suing the crap out of the govts
http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/
@US_Foreign_Person
I assume (?) that the ADSC-ADCS team is now back in Toronto and have had a chance to check the mail box–so the remaining amount due reflects donations that arrived during the time in Vancouver (?) If so–I’d hoped we would get more of a boost from snail mail donations once the team had a chance to pick up their mail.
I plan to donate this coming week at similar levels to what I’ve done most months–and the ADSC-ADCS team know what that level is.
I’m not too concerned about the actual dollar amount still remaining. We’ve paid about 97% of the bill at this point–I assume the last 3% will come in during the ordinary course of events. I’m more concerned about the message we are sending. Our attorneys, our plaintiffs, and the ADSC-ADCS team are all clearly doing their parts. This apparent slowing down in donations just as we hit our first court date risks being interpreted as a lack of commitment on the part of donors just as the visibility of the case increases.
Yes, press coverage remains slow. But people are clearly watching–Roy Berg’s attendance at the trial made that VERY clear–and paying the bill sends the right message to those people: that we are serious about this matter. Also, it may have been just a joke the “elevator rumour” that the judge will delay his ruling until the final bill is paid. Yet if Justice Martineau does happen to check out this blog, it definitely wouldn’t hurt if he gets the message that people remain committed to this effort including its financial side.
Well said, US_Foreign_Person and Dash!
@ US_Foreign_Person and Dash1729
Hear, Here!
As one of many regular donors I am hoping some new donors will pitch in. Let’s get this last $15K done so we can all wait in good conscience for Justice Martineau’s decision.
@Calgary411
Yes, I suspect that your links to Petraeus and the issues surrounding the North American Union go a long way towards explaining such things as FATCA the IGAs and let us not forget the bail in written into the 2013 budget just before the IGA was written into the 2014 budget.
The full explanation of the larger picture and what those in power ( and I do not mean our respective government representatives around the world) have planned for their global dominance can be gleaned from the excellent writings of Alex Newman at the New American. He has been covering this for years, from the OECD intentions to TPP , which Canada is a signatory to if they get a final agreement any time soon.
FATCA ,Agenda 21,Climate Change,OECD guidelines, bail-ins written into budgets of sovereign countries are for a reason.
And the reason is certainly not in our interest.
Just looking at Canada and the one two punch to an individual’s rights brought in by the bail-in in the budget and the implementation of the IGA tells an enormous story of intent on a country basis and a global one.
Does anyone know why the Canadian government saw the need to write in a bail-in for banks in the budget? -You know, budget, money from taxpayers : US to make sure that our money goes to banks if they get themselves in trouble. If they are in trouble they can go out of business, but these things were not discussed in Parliament openly seeking Canadians opinions. They were just written in. Same with the IGA. IF there had not been aware and impacted Canadians fighting back there wouldn’t have been even a whisper about it. Written in and then unsuspecting Canadians get the whammy , aided and abetted by our own government, with our tax dollars to steal from us. And that is what it is : Theft. The banks get protected and those who can ill afford it get hammered. ( Exactly what is happening in Greece right now)
Does it seem somehow that our elected representatives are doing things and implementing laws that have nothing to do with what Canadians want and need from a government? No consultation just implementation? WHOSE interests are being served?
Because it damn sure isn’t Canada and Canadians.
Petraeus attended the Bilderberg Conference last year and elaborated on this NAU then, as well as others have made it clear they intend this. One of the main reasons the US southern border is being flooded. They intend the borders to be eliminated and all three countries melded into one preferably without our knowledge or consent.
They make it clear that is their motive in stating that the greatest danger to their plan is the people themselves, who for’ some stubborn reason cling to desire of autonomy and sovereignty and independence.’
TPP if signed will seal our fate and end sovereignty.
FATCA and IGA’s are the ropes with which they hope to bind us. TPP is the stake through the heart.
One of the slingshots in young David’s arsenal against Goliath is the Lawsuits. Canada’s lawsuit , if successful, will seal a protective barrier around her citizens and the same for citizens of the US in their suit.
Ours is more important, in my view, because it defies the power of the US to impose draconian measures against people not of their jurisdiction. And it shows the world that someone, somewhere is standing up to the US and by association the global interests as well.
Now trying to emphasize to our elected government officials that the citizen’s wishes must be paramount to their legislative initiatives requires we keep a watchful eye and a steadfast vigil against betrayal, especially making it clear on all fronts that they are not to undertake to sign a TPP ( Elizabeth May was outstanding in the debate on this very subject) For if we are successful in the Summary Trial and the Charter challenge and the government signs the TPP it will have all been for naught.
Even now, Nestle’s is threatening a lawsuit against Canada if they dare constrict their ability to make a profit. Not just a profit, but one that they deem appropriate.
If TPP gets signed, Corporations will determine what is law and what is not, no longer elected governments.
@Badger:
“Mr. Murray Rankin:
Indeed, so it might be that information could well find itself…as we’ve seen in other contexts with the United States taking our information. There’s the USA PATRIOT Act, there are a number of other statutes where the information on Canadian/U.S. persons could well find its way into other entities. We’re just relying on their statement that they’re not going to do that.”
IT is called GET A WARRANT for Probable Cause!!!
Every time that Finance Committee meeting comes up I want to throw up and throw something!!
These idiots were so infuriating!!
I should qualify that I think Murray Rankin is a hero!
Along with Profs Christians and Cockfield, Lynne Swanson, John Richardson et al.
FuriousAC,
It is to weep.
While we slept,
and while we (including other US-deemed US Persons in Canada and Abroad and all other Canadians) sleep or are so totally distracted (purposely?), we do not easily fund this litigation. Again, it is to weep!
http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/
@ FuriousAC
Right on! TPP must be stopped and let’s not forget Paul Hellyer’s warning about CETA.
https //www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v7Aifz0hbs (replace the colon)
And I would add that Steven Harper was vetted by the Bilderbergers prior to his becoming PM.
@FuriousAC
They intend the borders to be eliminated and all three countries melded into one preferably without our knowledge or consent.
“They” want capital to be able to move freely across borders but IMHO they don’t necessarily want people to be able to move freely across borders. I think borders will remain but the risk is that borders will increasingly become simply tools that big corporations use to manipulate people rather than defining countries with a real national identity.
@Dash:
Oh, they indeed do intend the borders gone.
It specifically states that the borders are to be the perimeters of North America. TPP , if signed ENDS sovereignty, period. Within the TPP, parts of which have been leaked ( God only knows what else is in there even Congress is not allowed to see) it is clearly intended that laws that corporations do not like will be challenged in court with a three lawyer tribunal. NOT a Canadian or other country court. These lawyers who sit on the tribunal will move back and forth. Tribunal, then litigator , then tribunal, depending. Costs? To the country being sued. Meaning taxpayers.
And laws that corporations do not like will be many since any hint of threatening the profit margin is subject to litigation.
A country may think Monsanto and GMO’s are dangerous. TOO bad. They intend no labeling to reveal the presence of GMOs and if any legislation is passed that ends Monsanto’s ability to both fudge the labels and/or threatens it’s profit margin that country will be taken to court by this three judge tribunal. And there IS NO appeal.
And that is just one example of their plans.
Now in the States they have made a big deal out of TPP but there has not been one word, one SERIOUS word about it. Except for Elizabeth May in the debate. She made a definitive statement that clearly defined the issue.
I am not a Green but I have to say I admire Elizabeth May for two things. She vigorously fought the IGA at the Finance Committee meeting and her statement in the debate clearly shows she knows exactly what danger TPP poses for Canada.
Our defense against this horrendous assault on our liberty from all sides IS the lawsuit. It is a gawdawful shame there is still an outstanding bill!!
Please donate. Now! This is not just for so called ‘US Persons’ , it is for all people who value their freedom and privacy.
For if we win the Summary Trial and get some relief until the Charter Challenge is heard it WILL be noticed and it WILL be fought.
This is OUR slingshot. It needs a couple of good rocks right now!
http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/
@FuriousAC
Oh, they do intend to have the borders gone.
That would empower a lot of people–including both illegal immigrants from Mexico who would no longer be illegal and ‘US persons’ in Canada who would no longer be sitting on ‘offshore’ accounts. I see it as highly unlikely that they will give their power away so easily. I’ve been hearing rumours of the NAU for at least 15 years and I prefer to focus on what is real–FATCA is clearly real but NAU still seems stuck in the conspiracy theory zone even after all these years.
Yes–absolutely–they intend to do away with borders for corporations. For individuals? I don’t see it happening any time soon. For private individuals of small pocketed means the borders will remain in place.
Like I say I’ve been hearing these NAU rumours for 15 years and yet the Canada–US has only gotten thicker for small pocketed private individuals over that time.
@ Furious AC, Dash, Calgary et al
These are scary times indeed.
Read this report on the EU version of TTIP from the Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html
@heidi