[The following responses are to FATCA Letters to Leaders and MPs (March 2015)]
PART 1 — the NDP Party response
…cross-posted from Lynne Swanson post at MapleSandbox: NDP Party Response to Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS-ADSC)
“I have just received a response to ADCS on the letter we sent to the leaders five months ago. Here is the reply from Murray Rankin.
RE: US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)
Thank you for writing to share your ongoing concerns regarding the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Canada and the United States designed to implement FATCA in Canada.
New Democrats are deeply troubled by the implications of FATCA and the associated IGA, and we are closely monitoring the litigation your organization has commenced against the Government of Canada.
From the beginning, many organizations raised the alarm that the IGA for the implementation of FATCA in Canada may violate the privacy rights of Canadians and could be subject to constitutional challenge.
The NDP has repeatedly raised concerns about the FATCA agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors and rushed through Parliament without proper consultation or examination.
Previously, New Democrats called on the Conservative government to acknowledge the broad concerns expressed by Canadians and civil society organizations regarding the implementation of this IGA. We asked the Conservative government to agree to remove it from omnibus Budget Bill C-31, which granted the Minister of National Revenue sweeping powers to make any regulation necessary to carry out the agreement.
It is my belief that the decision to rush this legislation through Parliament was reckless and, as a result, it lacks the safeguards needed to protect many of the rights that Canadians so dearly value.
New Democrats have repeatedly questioned Conservatives in the House of Commons and at the Standing Committee on Finance. It became abundantly clear that the Conservative government has very little understanding of the consequences of FATCA and has been tone deaf regarding the very real concerns of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
Moving forward, New Democrats remain committed to ensure that Canadians’ voices are heard and that our laws are consistent with the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canadian sovereignty more broadly.
A New Democrat government will order a full and urgent review of the FATCA IGA to identify and address all measures that threaten the constitutional and privacy rights of all Canadians.
We will seek to reopen the IGA for renegotiation with the United States in order to address the serious concerns of Canadians and ensure that their rights are protected. We will do so in an open and transparent manner – instead of the secretive manner pursued by the Conservatives.
More broadly, we will ensure that all proposed legislation is subject to a more robust screening to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives have failed to uphold this duty, with the result that, in many instances, litigation was initiated that could have been avoided.
As noted above, New Democrats continue to closely watch the progress of your litigation against the Government of Canada.
We also understand that many people across Canada are now directly facing the consequences of the agreement. New Democrat Members of Parliament will continue to assist individuals access the information and resources they need regarding how the FATCA IGA affects them.
Please feel free to contact me with any concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
Murray Rankin
NDP Candidate for Victoria
NDP Deputy Critic for National Revenue “
****************
PART 2– the Liberal Party response
…also cross-posted from Lynne Swanson post at MapleSandbox: Liberal Party Response to Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS-ADSC)
“Because I posted the reply from the NDP via Murray Rankin in its own thread, I am doing the same with the Liberal response to ADCS via Justin Trudeau.
Dear Ms. Swanson:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns regarding the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
The safeguarding of personal privacy has become an increasingly important issue to all Canadians. The government’s move to ensure that information is reported 2 the U.S. through Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and not directly from the banks was a positive step; however, the implications of having the CRA report to a foreign government about Canadian citizens are still troublesome. The Liberal Party of Canada believes that the Conservative government’s efforts to safeguard the personal privacy of Canadians have been inadequate.
While the United States has the right to target tax evaders using offshore accounts, targeting hard working Canadians who pay taxes is unfair. The government of Canada has a responsibility to stand up for its citizens when foreign governments are encroaching on their rights. We believe that the deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect affected Canadians.
Thank you once again for writing to me; I always appreciate it when Canadians take the time to share their concerns with me. It is through such exchanges of ideas and opinions that I can best represent not only my constituents, but all Canadians.
Sincerely
Justin J.P. Trudeau “
****************
PART 3 — Additional Clarification needed from Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau re his definitions in *A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian*
I (calgary411) am also putting into this post the email sent yesterday to my Liberal candidate and Liberal MP Scott Brison, asking them to get answers from their Party Leader, Justin Trudeau. Some may agree we need answers to these questions as well:
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 1:49 PM
To: Matt Grant ; Scott Brison
Subject: A question for the Liberal Party Leader and the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship ActDear Confederation Calgary Liberal Candidate and Honourable Liberal Member of Parliament Scott Brison,
Many Canadians were pleased to hear Mr. Trudeau’s new statements regarding Canadian citizenship equality, but some of us need further clarification.
For all *US Persons in Canada*, can you please get an answer from your Party Leader, Justin Trudeau, to the following specific questions. No political generalities please.
Mr. Trudeau — are there differences in *second-class Canadians* — the ones you refer to regarding the Bill C-24, Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act?
As part of the slippery slope now enabled in Canada — the march in legislation
– from Bill C-31 (making *US Persons in Canada* second-class to any others by virtue of place of birth of an individual or the individual’s parent(s)
– to Bill C-51, with definitions of *terrorist*
– to Bill C-24 to exile and banish certain of Canada’s second-class citizens (even if born in Canada),Do you consider US-deemed US citizens in Canada *US citizens who happen to reside in Canada* (including even those born in Canada and have never lived or had any benefit from the USA)?
or,
Do you consider US-deemed US citizens in Canada the very same as any other second-class Canadian as part of your statements
“Liberals will guarantee that all Canadians’ fundamental rights are respected as guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“Canadian citizenship should not be conditional. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”
“All Canadians need to know that their government has their back.”?
Specific and straight answers to the above questions will help determine for many the way we will vote on October 19. I will pass Mr. Trudeau’s answer on to one-issue *US-deemed US Person* Canadians, who are now also deemed second-class citizens in Canada by the Conservative government.
We want to absolutely know from Mr. Trudeau if he will fight for our same rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as those Charter rights of all other Canadians .
Thank you for your help in asking this question on our behalf.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Carol Tapanila
Calgary, AB
******************
Will also include … e-mail that Lynne Swanson sent to Justin Trudeau with a cc to her Liberal candidate.
Last week, you said “All Canadians have to know that the government has their back.”
You insisted the Conservative government’s Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act “devalues Canadian citizenship by creating two classes of citizenship.” You vowed to repeal that Act. You promised a Liberal government “will guarantee that all Canadians’ fundamental rights are respected as guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
So, why aren’t you taking such a strong stand against the FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and the enabling law that supersedes all Canadian laws on the demands of a foreign bully?
Would a Liberal government “have the back” of Canadians born in the United States? Would a Liberal government repeal the IGA? If not, would a Liberal government amend the enabling legislation to protect Canadian citizens and residents born in the U.S.? Would a Liberal government restore full citizenship to Canadians born in the U.S.? Would a Liberal government “guarantee that all Canadians’ fundamental rights are respected as guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?”
I know what your father would have done. He would have stood up for one million Canadians. He would have told the United States “You can’t FATCA Canada or Canadian citizens.” When the media asked how far he would go to have the back of Canadians, he would have said “Just watch me.” He would have guaranteed that Canadians born in the U.S. have their fundamental rights respected under the Charter.
What will you do? Are you ready to stand up to the Americans for Canadians? My vote depends on your answer.
If the NDP is firmly committed they should say; that if elected they will withdraw the defense on the charter of right challenge and agree with plaintiff. In addition they will terminate the agreement according to Article 10 part 2 unless all Canadian resident are protected.
“2.Either Party may terminate this Agreement by giving notice of termination in writing to
the other Party. Such termination shall become effective on the first day of the month
following the expiration of a period of 12 months after the date of the notice of
termination”
http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/pdf/FATCA-eng.pdf
They should make this a major issue at the leader debates and state that USA 30% witholding is a bluff.
Schubert 1975
“It is imperative that a new government replace the current first-past-the-post electoral system we have, with a system that will not ever again give a majority of seats to a party that doesn’t get a majority, or very close to a majority, of the votes nationally. The NDP, Greens and most lately the Liberals have publicly committed to reforming the electoral system from first-past-the-post to either proportional representation (not my favourite, because some MPs would be chosen by party hacks and not by voters) or preferably a preferential-voting system, which is what Justin Trudeau endorsed recently and which in fact is how the NDP chose its current leader, though the party curiously thinks the country should go with proportional rep instead (which is one of several policy issues on which I disagree with the NDP, but then I’ll never completely agree with any conceivable political party …). The Conservatives, surprise surprise, are happy with first-past-the-post and oppose changing it (which rather surprises me considering what happened to them and Wildrose in Alberta’s provincial election this year).”
So If NDP/Green gets 40% and Conservatives/ Liberal get 60%. The Liberal can side with the Conservative and approve FATCA . They both oppose corporate tax increase. I ignored Bloc Quebec % do they have a position.
On other “socialist” pushing proportional representation.
“Tony Blair entered Downing Street in 1997 having promised in Labour’s manifesto to hold a referendum on changing the electoral system for the House of Commons.
To the surprise of few, it never happened.
It is in entirely in keeping with political tradition that in the end, the no-change camp has held sway
The rule of political parties’ interest in electoral reform held true: warmth towards PR rapidly cools with the onset of power won under the old system. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/voting_system/newsid_1216000/1216185.stm
Out of power part makes claim that they will not live up to.
Do you remember Chretien and GST elimination?
Do you think it is a possibility with NDP eliminating FATCA IGA?
How about Alberta increasing Petroleum and Natural Gas royalty?
Even the Canadian Petroleum Association said do not delay the review.
“The president of the country’s major oilpatch lobbying group says the energy industry doesn’t want the NDP government to put its planned review of Alberta’s energy royalties on hold.
.
He told the Herald’s editorial board that the review is causing apprehension in Alberta and he wants to see it completed quickly, rather than put off and possibly stunt future investment.
“Industry knew this was going to happen and putting certainty back in the market will be helpful,” said McMillan, a former provincial energy minister in Saskatchewan.
“A delay means … the uncertainty of what the rules will be into the future are just pushed out even farther.
”http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/capp-president-doesnt-want-royalty-review-delayed
‘
Also it is extremely rare for any party to win the popular vote majority
The last time a Liberal government won was 1953. Just 50.00%
The PC won majority in 1984& 1958
The last Liberal majority government had 40.8% only 1.2% more than the the Conservative in 39.6% in 2011
Trudeau mania was only 45.5%
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Compilations/ElectionsAndRidings/ResultsParty.aspx
@EmBee, @All
Please email as much information as you see fit to the Australian Broadcast Corporation’s The Drum, editor Chip Rolley. We need as much media attention worldwide to the problems associated with FATCA and CBT.
@news What you say the NDP should say is what I was hoping they would say. “Closely monitoring” the lawsuit is very different from directing the Department of Justice to reach an agreement with us, which is what we asked in the ADCS letter.
Murray Rankin also did not say whether an NDP government would adopt the exact amendment that he put forward at Finance Committee to protect Canadian citizens and residents.
It took them over five months to respond.
Those are some of the reasons why I was disappointed in the NDP reply. But it was still stronger than the Libs. The Cons and Greens have not replied.
Calgary 411
The NDP knows the issue are just feeding you malchary.
Canada is too dependent on US to ignore the sanctions.
Consider what happens with the Canadian Autoworker with 30% withholding it will effect GM cash flow. The bank will withhold 30% of US sales for GM. Auto union owned a substantial share of GM
Another example of Obama being a bully
“Even more disturbing: The government’s proposed restructuring plans benefit one class of retirees at the expense of another. I understand that we each have equal claims in bankruptcy. However, under the current plan GM’s union retirees will receive 39% of the restructured company and $10 billion in cash in exchange for $20 billion in claims. Bondholders, however, receive a mere 10% for $27 billion in claims in the form of stock (and no cash).”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124338330278956585
What the NDP may get is a provision not to report your son but his disability account is all ready protected and you report any way so you can cross the border.
When the congress agrees to reach a budget with the President the provision to protect people like Ginny and Gwen will be approved The NDP will claim they they negotiated that provision even though it would apply to ever other country. It sort of Like Chretian in the 1990s that he fulfilled his campaign pledge to get rid of GST. Paul Martin apologize Chretian did not.
The Liberal government in 1995 gave in to revenue rule when there was not even a threat of sanctions. Foreign friends of the Democrat party do worse in negotiation. The original European IGA is a lot worse than what we ended up with. The USA did recognize RDSP, eliminated the closing of basic bank account that are recalcitrant and eliminated the 30% withholding for US person. They also changed the definition from US person to US citizen which means if you renounce and are not tax compliant you can ignore FATCA.
” 19. Does the agreement require Canadian financial institutions to report to the CRA on any individuals who relinquished their U.S. citizenship?
No. Canadian financial institutions do not have to report on any individuals who have relinquished their U.S. citizenship and are not residents of the U.S.
Financial institutions may ask individuals who have relinquished their U.S. citizenship for documentation to this effect. ”
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/nhncdrprtng/fq-eng.html#q2-5
Also even if you gave your bank a birth certificate with New York, New York that is not considered a USA birth certificate. Of course you only need a driver license or provincial photo ID.
8.28 In the context of an electronic record search, an “unambiguous indication of a U.S. place of birth” must include identification of the U.S. as the country of birth. Identification of a city and/or a state as the place of birth, without identification of the country of birth as the U.S., is not considered to be unambiguous.
Calgary 411
See if the NDP bring up this point at leader debates?
Calgary 411
I think that the provision to eliminate USA tax reporting for Ginny and Gwen will be reached this year. Would that protect your son from FBAR reporting?
@News, “Canada is too dependent on US to ignore the sanctions.”
The sanctions are a bluff.
If the US went insane and imposed them, Canada would impose counter sanctions to net to zero.
What do you mean, news — *you report any way so you can cross the border*? (I report nothing to the US since my own obligations have ceased and I have a CLN that would get me across the border in the event I had any reason or desire to do so, which I don’t unless it would be for a medical or death event of one of my US siblings (my parents having already passed).
This is not about MY SON or MY FAMILY. What I would like from the Canadian government is for them to say that my son (and others like him) are CANADIANS for all intents and purposes with the same rights as any other CANADIAN, that their non-meaningful US-deemed US citizenship is only, as George says, clinging – *gum on the shoe*. His laws, including taxation and release of private financial information, are Canadian / to Canada, not US. My son has never been registered as a US citizen, does not have a US SSN or a US passport. He has not filed any US tax or reporting (FBAR) forms. He and his Canadian bank accounts, including his RDSP, are though identified on the FBAR forms that I filed prior to my renunciation of US citizenship in 2012. His RDSP is not protected — it is only *said to be protected* in as far as his/my Canadian bank does not have to report that Canadian Registered Disability Savings Plan to the CRA. As a US-deemed US citizen, my son (or someone on his behalf) would have to file US tax returns and bank reports (FBAR/FINCEN114) with the qualifying income and bank account balances.
The core problem is that the US DOS says that my son (and others like him) cannot renounce / GET RID OF an acquired US-deemed US citizenship — nor can a parent, a guardian or a trustee act on such a person’s (one without *requisite mental capacity*) behalf. What is needed is a way to GET RID OF that extraneous, unasked for US-deemed US citizenship — either the Canadian government say that he is Canadian (born in Canada, raised in Canada, never lived in the US, never had any benefit from the US) — not a *US citizen who happens to reside in Canada*. OR, I need / he needs / every such affected Canadian and their family need — US Resident-Based Taxation as the rest of the world.
news,
Not necessarily — my son and others like him are not plaintiffs in the Canadian litigation. It will depend on just what is decided / how any decision is worded. Successful U.S. litigation against US citizenship-based taxation would, I feel, solve all of our problem, which is just that: CBT.
@calgary411 @news
The Tax and FBAR issues are indeed severe … I understand and respect this …. but these are not the entire problem.
The abuse of Sovereignty, elimination of Privacy, abuse of Rights and endangerment of people around the world are the more severe issues to my mind. These matters concern lives and personal safety beyond taxation.
@ALL
If Constitutions, Sovereignty and Charters of Rights are matters to be discarded at will then there is no such thing as Just Rule of Law.
@Nervousinvestor I agree. If laws are not “solid” and can be changed at will, then what exactly does “law” mean? This is an incredible time for Canada to show the world that it’s laws are not really laws, they are just guidelines for people and governments can enforce whatever they want. I noticed that here in Ontario, the provincial government just gave the police a 9% raise in pay just when jobs are leaving and we are in a recession. does that tell you anything? The government needs the police for protection from the public… simply put!
nervousinvestor,
You are, of course, correct!
All,
I think the “politics” of this issue will change significantly after we get a court ruling(even if we get a court ruling affirming the government’s position as a matter of law but criticizing the practical effects of it). So my advice would be to hold tight on the political angle until after the 13th.
In terms of past promises I am quite aware that governments do break promises however, I would not necessarily be totally of the belief that all politicians lie. Jean Chretien will say to this very day that he “replaced” the GST with the HST at first in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec then later on in Ontario(delayed due to the opposition of Mike “the knife” Harris until long after Chretien into the Harper/Mcguinty era). I guess I would not be of the opinion that either the NDP is 100% lying or 100% telling the truth. I personally am somewhere in the middle.
**Chretien claims to have in writing have promised only to replace the GST with the HST in 1993 and yes those written statements are still in the public domain. His verbal comments in my opinion were very misleading. Thus I actually have more faith in written statements by politicians than verbal. Chretien originally wanted to call the HST the BST but dropped this idea(i.e. didn’t want b**sh*t sales tax).
Also remember that the courts ruled the GST constitutional right around the time Chretien pledged to abolish it. Highly likelihood that absolutely the opposite will happen in our case.
http://www.ownlife.com/tax/refgst1.htm
Neither Trudeau or Mulcair would lift a finger if elected. What would happen would be them trotting out all of numerous excuses as to why they can’t. The only solution to this is the courts delivering a verdict forcing the government to back down. Let’s hope.
I was on CBC in 1993 asking why the lies were being told on television regarding the GST. The televised ads were saying that the gst was “not an additional tax” When we all knew it was an additional tax placed on services and items that were never taxed before.. Linda Leatherdale and I were in a televised discussion with Peter Kormos. It was a tax on a tax. Back then, my girlfriend was a property management book keeper. When she had a property with several units, the land tax was paid per unit based on square footage. When the gst came in, the property tax that was calculated had additional gst on it because my girlfriend did a “service” by separating the bill and calculating everyone’s share. This was a tax on a tax. The government lied clearly and always gets away with it. That is because Canada has nobody to protect it from High Treason!
According to the latest polls…
Will British Columbia decide the election’s outcome?
…”That’s a responsibility the province has not had in 36 years.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-bc-sep1-1.3211266
SCOC rules Ecuadorian villagers have the right to use an Ontario court to sue Chevron Canada to enforce collection of billions from oil giant Chevron based on Ecuadorian court order over environmental damages.
http://infotel.ca/newsitem/scoc-chevron-ecuador/cp34445496
Hmmm … I wonder how this might impact cases where the IRS gets a US court order for payment of a sum by a Canadian taxpayer (who happens to be defined as a US Person in Canada). Might the IRS get an enforcement order from a Canadian court against the Canadian’s assets in Canada?
@nervousinvestor
The US will have a road map of all your goodies… that u or CRA handed over to them… what is going to stop them from just helping themselves and worry about the legality of it later? How about ID theft… Once u are screwed over… every gov’t will wash their hands of it… we are on our own to clear up the mess…
Do I sound bitter… sure… elders who survived the war warned us about it.. we blew them off for being paranoid… history once again repeats itself… never ever trust any gov’t…. hmm… I wonder what logo they will make us all wear so we can be id quickly this time around…
Calgary 411 below is this the propose change to tax law. I think it will eventually pass. This will exclude Ginny and Gwen so they could even enter USA without exit taxes, if they relinquish/renounce. That was why Steve Kish was thinking of joining the lawsuit as plaintiff. You may even have the Canadian government recognize your son (and other like him) as Canadian, so non registered accounts will not be passed on. This would be a minor change to FATCA like Ginny and Gwen. The problem is USA government I do not think USA CBT will be killed. Why have the responsibility of citizen, who do not pay taxes and have the right to vote. The Ontario supreme court upheld the ban on long term non resident Canadian citizen from voting. If these long term non resident Canadian citizen got the right to vote I think that various Canadian political party would consider CBT.
The lawsuit in USA is against FATCA not CBT, I am pretty certain that the 4 Liberal Judges will vote against the lawsuit. Recent Supreme Court challenges against Obama are unsuccessful. In addition the Republican are wimpy.
It may be possible that the USA may allow a case by case renounce/relinquishment for people like your son. This legislation will probably get approved as long as people like your son will never apply for any benefit as USA citizen. If you can find congressmen or senator with a disabled child contact him/her/it to sponsor this legislation. It may be even included with the below mention changes to tax law.
“Some Canadian dual citizens who wish to renounce US citizenship may qualify
In the Green Book under the heading “Simplify the Tax System: Provide Relief for Certain Accidental Dual Citizens,” individuals who became dual citizens of the US and another country at birth, remain a dual citizen of that other country, and have minimal contacts with the US would be able to renounce US citizenship without having to file delinquent US tax returns and escape the US exit tax, and other negative consequences of being considered a covered expatriate.
Specifically the Proposal provides:
…an individual will not be subject to tax as a US citizen and will not be a covered expatriate subject to the mark-to-market exit tax under section 877A if the individual:
1. Became at birth a citizen of the United States and a citizen of another country;
2. At all times, up to and including the individual’s expatriation date, has been a citizen of a country other than the United States;
3. Has not been a resident of the United States (as defined in section 7701(b)) since attaining age 18½;
4. Has never held a U.S. passport or has held a U.S. passport for the sole purpose of departing from the United States in compliance with 22 CFR §53.1;
5. Relinquishes his or her U.S. citizenship within two years after the later of January 1, 2016, or the date on which the individual learns that he or she is a U.S. citizen; and
6. Certifies under penalty of perjury his or her compliance with all U.S. Federal tax obligations that would have applied during the five years preceding the year of expatriation if the individual had been a nonresident alien during that period.
This is a positive development because it represents an official acknowledgement of one unfortunate result of citizenship based taxation: US citizens are taxed on their worldwide income regardless of whether they have ever set foot in the US or availed themselves of US citizenship.
As drafted, the Proposal would apply to a certain subset of individuals who had citizenship foist upon them without the benefit of ex-ante counseling as to their choice of parents or place of birth. And that of course includes everybody who was ever (or will be) born. However, these individuals are unique because as US citizens, by parentage or place of birth, they are then taxed on their worldwide income.”
http://www.moodysgartner.com/us-proposes-relief-for-some-who-renounce-us-citizenship-is-fatca-a-motivating-factor/
” Sept. 27, 1990: “I want this tax dead.” – Liberal Leader Jean Chretien
Oct. 29, 1990: “I am opposed to the GST. I have always been opposed to it, and I will always be opposed to it. It is a tax that is both regressive and discriminatory.” – Liberal Leader Jean Chretien
Nov. 19, 1990: “We will continue to oppose the GST and the tax won’t be long in place when the Liberals win the next election.” – Opposition Leader Herb Gray
Feb. 11, 1993: “I say we will replace the tax. This is a commitment. You will judge me by that. If the GST is not gone, I will have a tough time the election after that.” – Liberal Leader Jean Chretien
1993 – Liberal Party Red Book: “A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.”
May 2, 1994: “We hate it and we will kill it.” – Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Aug. 11, 1995 – The Canadian Press: “On Wednesday, [Prime Minister Jean]Chretien said the replacement for the GST will be announced in the federal budget, though he didn’t provide details.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/then-now-liberals-on-the-gst/article4303372/
It was pretty clear that Chretian was not talking about combing a 7% GST with a 10% Nova Scotia provincial (sales tax on less items) to have a 15% HST. How many people would have voted for him on that issue.
It sound like Chretian was using slimy lawyer word like Mr Rankin who was a law partner of Mr Avery.
Yeah Mr. Avery really need a review.
Both the Liberal and NDP have US Democrat help in election.
Former Obama aides advising NDP, Liberals on campaign strategy
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-liberals-using-grassroots-mobilization-tactics-from-obama-campaigns/article22216447/
Did anybody send a letter to Block Quebecois?
@news,
I sure don’t know about what will be decided in Canada or the US (and I’m not referring to the present US Bopp litigation when I refer to CBT litigation).
I only know what I think *coulda / shoulda* happened in Canada to protect all of us so affected here:
https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/39/murray-rankin-1/
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I’d like to set the context before I move the first of several amendments to part 5 of the budget implementation act pertaining to the implementation of the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, as it’s more popularly known.
I’d like the members across to carefully consider the serious issues that have been raised at this committee concerning the implementation of this deeply flawed agreement. I hope they’ll carefully consider and support our NDP amendments that address some of the serious problems that have arisen.
It has become increasingly clear through departmental and witness appearances at this committee that the Conservative government simply has failed to adequately study the implications of FATCA and the implementation agreement with respect to privacy, constitutionality, and cost.
Rushing it through in an omnibus bill without proper study is not only reckless, but it’s also entirely unnecessary. The U.S. has recently delayed the application of FATCA sanctions until January 2015. Canada is already deemed in compliance with the U.S. law, and legal experts have testified to this committee that there’s ample time, therefore, to properly study and amend this agreement.
More than one million Canadians could be negatively affected by this deeply flawed agreement. So, we’re simply asking, yet again, that the Conservatives slow it down and remove FATCA from this budget bill, so it can be properly scrutinized and amended, and so we can ensure that Canadians’ privacy and constitutional rights are protected. Surely that’s of concern to every member of this committee. It’s more important, we say, to fix this and protect those many Canadians who are going to be affected than it is to ram this through in an omnibus budget bill, in which this agreement has no place being in the first place.
The first amendment, Mr. Chair, is NDP-6, which simply would say, in clause 99, that it be amended by adding after line 11 on page 73, the following:
“(2) Despite any other provision of this Act or the Agreement, for all purposes related to the implementation of this Act and the Agreement, “U.S. Person” and “Specified U.S. Person” does not include any person who is (a) a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and (b) ordinarily resident in Canada.”
This amendment is intended to address one of the most central issues pertaining to FATCA and perhaps its greatest flaw, that this will impact Canadian citizens who are deemed to be U.S. persons and targeted by this agreement, but who are in every other way our fellow Canadian citizens and permanent residents of this country.
I’d like to thank Lynne Swanson, who appeared before this committee, Dr. Stephen Kish, and so many others for their dedicated work to advocate for those who will be undeservedly caught in the FATCA net. Many experts have analyzed the agreement, and it was really negotiated with the protection of banks in mind, they have told us, not the people who will be affected.
I ask the members opposite to carefully consider and support this amendment which, if passed, would protect our fellow Canadian citizens who, for all practical purposes, should not be affected by this agreement, and who should have the same rights as every other citizen. We should not create a second class of Canadians with a second set of rights just because American law deems them to be U.S. persons. Even those born in Canada can be caught in the FATCA net.
Finally, this would help the government avoid an inevitable charter challenge, which I hope they would be interested in avoiding.
That is the purpose and intent of NDP-6, Mr. Chair.
Catch-22, the proposal requires someone who doesn’t consider themselves to be a US citizen to acknowledge they are one to partake in it!