[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.
@news
I am not sure I really want to reargue the merits of the GST. There are a couple of lessons to be learned from the episode. One is the very carefully listen to what politicians promise to do. Brian Mulroney actually did disclose his intention to institute a GST back in the 1988 election campaign however, very few people including most of the media and opposition parties knew what he was even talking about even though there was an very extensive white paper published in 1987 on the GST. The few people who DID know what Mulroney was talking about were those who paid the goods only 13% manufacturers sales tax who realized it was best to keep their mouth shuts until the services sector was roped into paying federal sales tax.
Second one area that is overlooked and relevant to our situation is Chretien instructed the Parliamentary Finance Committee(chaired by David Peterson’s brother) to “study” what to do about eliminating the GST. The entire committee across all parties came back with instituting the HST as the preferred alternative with keeping the GST as is as second best. So history tells us FATCA will probably back before the Parliamentary Finance Committee.
I know Mulroney is not a popular figure nor is Chretien. However, I give credit for Mulroney calling an election for Free Trade and promising a GST back in the 1988 election and following through on it. Voters need to remember to read the fine print.
http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/1990-mulroney-stacks-senate-to-pass-the-gst
**An interesting factoid in 1988 Elizabeth May and Thomas Mulcair supported Mulroney and supported the GST. Jack Layton’s father was in Mulroney’s cabinet and also supported the GST as did Sinclair Stevens who helped host the original FATCA forum in Toronto.
“So history tells us FATCA will probably back before the Parliamentary Finance Committee.”
actually our hybrid constitutional-parliamentary system means a win for our side will send the IGA pack to parliament. As it happened for same-sex marriage, and an insurance challenge in Quebec, the SCOC will suspend the law and give parliament a year to fix it. The options being to use the notwithstanding clause,
amend the legislation to overcome the objections or allow the law to expire
Patrica
If you win on a Charter of Right Case expect any government to use non-withstanding clause. They may make small changes to the agreement if Obama is agreeable (protect the people mentioned before in article by Roy Berg) Sooner or later I will demonstrate what has happened to Russia & Greece due to non Fatca sanction. Russian bank that do business with USA have to use the original FATCA agreement. Greece who is economy is a lot worse because they had that referendum that the Socialist party then ignored. They have a FATCA agreement in substance waiting to be approve by parliament. Both countries wanted no part of FATCA sanction, The Russian were willing to face sanction when the vast majority of the people supported it. In the Greece case the government quickly folded even though they had a referendum.
I think there would be only a small % of the Canadian populace who would support no FATCA referendum once the effect of FATCA sanctions are explained. What happened to Swiss referendum?
On a successful current court challenge. Canada will rewrite the law and Obama will sign as executive order without 67% Senate approval. He would only need 1/3 of Senate to approve. This would be similar to what he did on Iran deal.
Tim
I am pointing out that party out of power do not keep their promises.
I even at first talked about British Labour Party not living up to promises of proportional representation.
You did not need a parliamentary committee to know that GST/HST had to stay. Paul Marin was honest and apologized. He knew the Canadian public understood that the Liberal promised GST was to gone fully not to be replaced by HST. Ever heard of Shelia Copp and John Nunziata (spelling?).
You needed a GST to replace the hidden manufacturing taxes once free trade was approved.
Chretian promised to scrap NAFTA if it was not renegotiated. Does that sound like the opposition parties on FATCA.
If you ever seen my discussion with Wilton Tisdale you would know that I think sales taxes are best for the economy but Fair Tax would never get passed.
He and I both have corporate background and we have similar opinions, but I think I am more realistic about political support. He also uses fact and logic in his argument. To get anything approve in the corporate world this is the method that you have to use.
@ news
Your inclusion of proposed changes to US tax law is the “safe haven ” or “safe harbour” idea which was roundly damned in these pages. It is not a positive development (even if it were passed). If passed it would give the politicians cover so they could say how compassionate they are…but it would leave out thousands of people who expatriated after age 18, plus legal permanent residents with an old US tattoo that they are too petrified to have removed. It would also force “eligible” candidates to ‘fess up to form crimes, potentially trapping them in the FBAR venus flytrap. It would NOT be positive except for a very few people.
Safe harbor? For SHIPWRECK no such thing can be.
Wallow in chaos! Lock down with Davy Jones! Black spots & bottles of rum!
Sauve qui peut !!!
“(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.”
“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!”
As a matter of fact it doesn’t. Although the intent is to protect some duals, the wording protects every Canadian citizen who resides in Canada and every Canadian permanent resident who resides in Canada. A person who is solely Canadian and never had any tie to the US is protected. A person who had some unfortunate tie to the US doesn’t have to admit having had that tie.
If I were still a dual I wouldn’t be protected by it during my absence from Canada. FATCA still has problems even if the ADCS lawsuit wins, and I don’t benefit from the ADCS lawsuit, but I donated because it’s right. Anyway, the NDP’s proposal is a good one, not at all a Catch-22.
@Norman Diamond,
The *Catch 22* that bubblebustin refers to, I believe, is what *news* says in:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/08/31/how-will-us-deemed-us-persons-in-canada-vote-on-october-19th-there-is-now-an-adcs-adsc-reply-from-the-ndp-party-to-compare-to-the-reply-from-the-liberal-party/comment-page-4/#comment-6474592
As a postscript to the proposed terms of that Proposal, my son and others without *requisite mental capacity* the DOS says cannot renounce (or relinquish?) US-deemed US citizenship, as they do not / would not understand the concept of citizenship and must have no influence or assistance from anyone else, including a parent, a guardian or a trustee — all of whom do not have the right to act on behalf of such a person.
Yes, Calgary411, my comment was in response to that comment by news that refers to the Obama proposal for accidentals. I realized after I posted it that it wasn’t clear what I was referring to. Sorry for any confusion. Thanks for the clarification.
This is more for people who are thinking of renunciation, people who have renounced and have not become tax compliant. If hard core Issac Brock fans think the majority of Canadian will watch their economy being badly damage because some American who may be found out by FATCA guidelines will not renounce. That is their opinions How well did the Swiss referendum go? Even the Greek ignored their referendum on their biggest trading partner. This referndum was not about a tiny minority of people keeping their special sataus..
First
Norman Diamond says
September 5, 2015 at 1:35 am
“(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
This was written in May 2014
The Canadian USA FATCA only mentioned USA citizen and resident individual not US person for tax purposes. So if you are ex US citizen who has not done their exit taxes, snowbird with to many day in USA, Green Card holder in Canada, you thought you renounced when you became a Canadian citizen you are protected from Canadian FATCA IGA. I do not know what the rules in other countries
The NDP now will not say they will support plaintiff and cancel FATCA. This would be unequivocal.
They know that if this was brought up as a major campaign issue they would be smashed on it. You do realize that the banks will just pass along the 30% withholding to all Canadians.
THE NDP supported the Paul Martin Liberal minority government in 2004. The liberal government in 1995 reversed the revenue rule in Canada and recognized USA tax laws in Canada but the CRA said they will only collect from USA citizen. There was not even a 30% withholding threat. Why did the NDP in 2004 not demand the Liberal party to cancel that?
This convention is called “the revenue rule.”221
“Effective November 8, 1995, the Canada-US treaty was amended to override the revenue rule and provide for each government to assist in the collection of taxes owing to the other government.222 For the CRA to accede to a request by the IRS in respect of US taxes owing by an individual,
n the taxes must be “finally determined” (not subject to further rights of appeal), and
n the individual cannot have been a citizen of Canada during the period in which the tax debt was incurred.”
Expatriation: The American’s Tax Experience in Canada
Kevyn Nightingale and David Turchen*
The vast majority of US duak citizen would be protected. If you are under 50K as long as you did not use a birth certificate that says USA on it you are safe. The vast majority of people use their driver license to open an account. Over 1 million they look for any US indices more than 5 years old. How many will be effected by that.
So if you want keep information private you can try to relinquish or renounce. If you did this a year ago it would have only cost you 450 instead of over 2000k. If you knew about this a year ago and thought the lawsuit was going to protect you the Canadian general public will have little sympathy.
If you ever use your US citizenship to return to USA, you will have to be tax compliant. So FATCA has no real effect in that case.
The Canadian charter of right has both a non withstanding clause plus a provision about the (greater good harm to others). You think that the 30% withholding will not effect the vast majority of Canadian. If the Supreme Court of Canada does not recognize the effect of 30% withholding. The vast majority of Canadian would making the non withstanding clause an easy route.
If you were English speaking Canadian and were not born in Quebec you could not send your kids to an English language school. Mr Trudeau and the Charter of rights had no effect on these people rights
Obama may agree to small changes to FATCA for Calgary 411 son or for accidental americans.
Thanks, bubblebustin.
And what I was trying to say is that what *shoulda / woulda been* if Canada’s Members of Parliament had been responsible legislators — approval of Murray Rankin’s NDP proposed amendment…
as he went on to say:
But, no, the Harper Conservatives marched in lockstep to their Leader’s and *Congress’s* orders.
There was also reference on Brock somewhere of *when pigs fly*.
No one like my son (our sons or daughters or anyone else with a US taint and with some *mental incapacity*) or any Accidental American should have to go hat in hand to request a small individual change from Obama or any other US government official / department. Whatever happens should fairly be set in legislation, Canadian or US, that makes sense for everyone / anyone. There should be no *gotcha’s* if someone is not aware of any of this and is because of that ignorance ENTRAPPED into the absurdity and injustice of not having a CHOICE / a CLAIM, an OPT-IN to US citizenship, never an OPT-OUT of an unfairly acquired status.
exact wording on English education in Quebechttp://www.emsb.qc.ca/en/services_en/pages/registration_en.asp
3. Did one Parent attend English Elementary School in Quebec before August 1977?
If yes,
Parents must clearly indicate elementary schools attended.
Provide child’s Long Version Birth Certificate showing parents’ names.
4. Did one Parent attend English Elementary School in Canada?
If yes,
Provide letter (on official school letter head) of proof of majority of primary education in English (100%) or percentage of English and percentage of French if applicable. (Parents must have minimum of four years, except Ontario, which must have 5 years)
Provide proof of Canadian Citizenship of parent who was educated in Canada.
Provide child’s Long Version Birth Certificate showing parents’ names.
@news
*If you were English speaking Canadian and were not born in Quebec you could not send your kids to an English language school*
Statement is incorrect… If a parent, either one, was educated anywhere in Canada in english… In Quebec, they can go to an english or french school. If a child’s sibling was elementary educated in english in Canada… the other children can either go to english or french school. French school is usually down the street, english school can be over 1/2 hr or more away by car or bus.
In regards to Charter of Rights… its majority vs minority and culture…. that comes into play. What everyone takes for granted, is a special right granted to the minority for their education in english
Having to go to a consulate and proactively renounce/relinquish (to opt in to opt out) is absolutely counter-intuitive for someone who doesn’t consider him/herself American!
‘No one like my son (our sons or daughters or anyone else with a US taint and with some *mental incapacity*) or any Accidental American should have to go hat in hand to request a small individual change from Obama or any other US government official / department. Whatever happens should fairly be set in legislation, Canadian or US, that makes sense for everyone / anyone.’
In fact that kind of small individual change is expected and not rare.
For one example, I can’t find the full article online now, but here’s the first paragraph:
http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20090917/NEWS/909170350/Proxy-wedding-means-widow-baby-unwelcome
A US marine married a Japanese person and had a baby, but the marine was killed in Iraq and the marriage didn’t qualify the widow and baby for immigration to the US. Congress passed a special law to permit the widow and baby to immigrate to the US. (I don’t know why the baby wasn’t a US citizen by birth, and I don’t know why the widow wanted to move to the US. Although Japanese law makes a marriage when a city hall employee approves a registration document and any ceremony has no legal force, US immigration law requires a ceremony and requires either that both parties be present at the ceremony or consummate after the ceremony (consummation before the ceremony doesn’t count)).
The US has had special laws to permit other individuals to immigrate too, and to grant citizenship to individuals.
Pardons of individuals are decided by the president. That’s how Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and helped cause problems for all non-resident US persons.
Consuls make up decisions for individual applicants all the time, and it’s expected.
Thanks, Norman Diamond.
The US Consulate in Calgary, correspondence from the US Department of State/Legal and advice from a Washington, DC immigration/nationality lawyer* after discussions with DOS in Washington gave me the same information — all regarding citizenship, not immigration.
I can only say that I don’t want any other family to go through what I have for the same potential bad result for any amount of money like I spent on US professionals — I don’t have any more *mad money* to lose and most such families don’t have any in the first place to lose. I had saved retirement funds to help do a fruitless chase. Many families just do not. I’ll stick to my own conclusion : needed legislation, Canadian or US, that makes sense for everyone / anyone to find the same exit to the maze.
‘Even though there is the risk that a person’s financial resources could run out before his/her life was over,’
Calgary411, that is going to happen to your son. I have to repeat a suggestion I made earlier. Take your son for a walk across the bridge, tell the US immigration inspector that you’re not going to enter the US but your US-citizen son is, and disability programs such as Social Security and Medicare are going to take care of him. Better that you do it while you’re still capable of walking.
Besides, your son is well qualified for a job in the US Department of Justice.
That is not going to happen to my son unless the US takes what I have put away to assist in my son’s well-being after I am gone, with the help of the Canadian Registered Disability Savings Plan I hold for his benefit, and what will go to my children with the sale of the Calgary home I live in, hopefully administered seamlessly to replace his Alberta provincial *Assured Income for Severely Handicapped* income when, due to the assets I will leave, that support is no longer available. I will continue to support litigation and hope for some changes that make sense for every Accidental American, including those with some disability.
(And, no, I cannot hand my son over to the US. They deem he is US. I just beg to differ — at the most, he has a meaningless US-deemed relationship with the US.)
Calgary411. I so support your position regarding your son. FATCA (and CBT and such deemed citizenship) and CRS are just plain evil. I respect your fight for Justice.
Thanks, nervousinvestor, as always.
Norman Diamond points out the absurdity that any one of us would think it a strategy to take our child with some disability to the US border, drop that child off there for the US to take care of. Absurdity reigns with US citizenship-based taxation and US-deemed US citizenship of Accidental Americans who have no choice / claim / OPT-IN to US citizenship if facts permit, further exacerbated for someone without *requisite mental capacity* and thus entrapped into year after year after year US tax and reporting compliance to add to their and their families’ lives already not quite the norm as those in other families because they cannot OPT-OUT of that US-deemed US citizenship.
Another brick in the wall.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11848172/Chinas-new-oil-contract-signals-shift-from-Brent-and-US-dollar.html
This afternoon, I sent Nathan Cullen the following email in response to his email back to me from an earlier one I sent …
***************************
From: Carol Tapanila
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:23 PM
To: Nathan Cullen
Subject: Re: FATCA in Canada
Thanks very much for getting back to me. I really appreciate that.
All Canadians affected need to know what the NDP will do. FATCA has never been covered adequately in the news media.
We need your assurance in the NDP Policy Platform so that the media WILL better communicate the important information to ALL *US-deemed US Persons* in Canada.
This will be a very important issue in the election if ALL who will be affected learn of FATCA and know who will be the Parties that will protect their Canadian rights. As well, all other Canadians need to know as well. Sovereignty of Canada should be an important, if not the most important, issue.
I and all who know what has gone on behind the backs of Canadians would appreciate anything you can do, a continuation of your standing up for us in Parliament. Litigation could have been and should have been avoided and I will be forever grateful for your and others’ actions in Parliament.
Many families want their Canadian lives back, protected by Canadian laws and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many others do not know what will hit them with FATCA.
This is an important opportunity for NDP to match what the Green Party has stated in their Platform.
Sincerely,
Carol Tapanila
Calgary, AB
*******************
*********************
From: Carol Tapanila
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:06 PM
To: Nathan Cullen
Subject: FATCA in Canada
The message / Le message:
The Green Party stands up for so much get back the Canada we knew and loved … including a plank in their platform on FATCA and on Canadian sovereignty: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/09/09/green-party-platform-includes-their-pledge-to-repeal-fatca-in-canada/.
At last, one of the parties has promised to repeal FATCA if elected. The Green Party platform (http://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform/good-government) pledges:
In addition, the Green Party vows:
The Green Party says It’s Time to Restore Democracy. Amen. …
We now absolutely know Elizabeth May and the Greens are in our corner and still fighting for us. *US Persons in Canada* need a firm commitment from Thomas Mulcair, even though we have the fine promise in Murray Rankin’s letter on the subject of FATCA in Canada to the Alliance for Canadian Sovereignty .
Best regards and my continued thanks,
Carol Tapanila
Calgary, AB (Calgary Confederation)
(I still have not heard from my NDP candidate, Kirk Heuser, or any representative in my riding.)
@Calgary, thats a beautiful letter you sent. I will seek to emulate it on my side of the world.
Inch by inch, foot by foot, yard by yard………….
It is going to be sad when we all go our separate ways when this matter becomes settled.
I can now see the light at the end of the tunnel and this matter is going to become settled.
Bad stuff is happening.
Read http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/business/20150911/barclays-says-jamaicans-too-risky-closes-accounts
“Barclays Plc confirmed Thursday that the UK bank has removed Jamaicans from its client rolls, saying that a new initiative to close out accounts for those having Jamaican addresses was in line with its push to reduce risk and shore up core business.”
My comment presently in moderation is:
____________________________________________________
People get ready for the train is coming !
This is gross Discrimination based on matters including National Origin and Residence. This is a part of the whole FATCA / CRS nonsense that is in process of being imposed on the world and contravening our Human Rights. PLEASE read the links at isaacbrocksociety.ca to legal actions being taken in Canada, the US and the UN to fight these things. The more people become aware of these matters the greater the resistance can be to such abuse.