Does this sound familiar?
From the 15 October Globe and Mail.
Louise Arbour
Louise Arbour is former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, former international war-crimes prosecutor, former UN human rights commissioner.
“When he retires from his post, the Governor-General of Canada will have his bank accounts subjected to heightened scrutiny. So will his parents, his spouse and his children, for the next 20 years. So, too, will the Chief Justice of Canada, all Supreme Court and appellate court judges, ambassadors, counsellors, deputy ministers, generals, past and present, and all their family members. They should expect calls from their bankers asking questions about the sources of deposits and other transactions. And if one of their children happens to have a joint account with a third party, all that would have to be explained to the bankers who are required by law to exercise such vigilance.
“Why is this happening? Because all of these people have been designated as “politically exposed domestic persons” (PEDP) under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. Why should they be subjected to this intrusive procedure for 20 years after they leave office? No idea. And why should their children also be under this regime for 20 years? Equally puzzling.
“In fact, I can think of an answer. It’s because all this was put in place with no one having any idea it was happening. This is hardly surprising given that it was buried in the massive omnibus budget bill of 2014 known as Bill C-31. Equally troubling, most people wouldn’t care anyway…”
Full article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/caught-in-a-useless-bureaucratic-nightmare/article26813887/
More Canadians run over by the C-31 omnibus. I wonder how many Supreme Court justices are USP’s too…
For once I actually feel a bit sympathetic for Stephen Harper. I actually feel a bit bad for him that he is about to become a victim of his own laws.
On the bright side, the provisions seem to sunset 20 years after leaving office so in Mr. Harper’s case he has a mere 20 years and 4 days to wait until he is exempt!
I’m especially appalled by the fact that this has retroactive effect on people who have already left office as well as the immediate family members of office holders. It could be argued that this law serves some role t prevent corruption and current office holders have chosen to remain in office and should be affected. But this is being imposed on former office holders as well as family members who had no choice in the matter. People who live in the same household as a current office holder possibly should be affected. But not adults who live elsewhere.
Well…join the crowd in having your bank information scrutinized! You’re in good company!! (8.5 million others are in the same boat but for different reasons!! ) It’s a nightmare, isn’t it????
Europe enacted the same, except that the questions are asked when they have indicia of foreign-ness
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/10/24/sweden-one-ups-usas-fatca-fbar-assumes-all-of-its-expatriates-to-be-corrupt/
Perhaps someone should drop her a note – she may be sympathetic to the IBS campaign. She may be able to help with the Supreme Court if retired judges are allowed to offer advice.
@Don, you and I are thinking the same. The Supreme Court should have sympathy now that these justices and their children are caught up in a law sneaked into the big omnibus that puts a spotlight on their private financial information and bank accounts (and bank accounts closes if the questions go unanswered).
I like how this woman explained that some things are private not because you have something to hide, but because they are private matters and it’s no one else’s business.
I wonder what scrutiny and expert testimony, etc. this portion of the C-31 omnibus budget bill received?
How did Parliamentarians not give more effective consideration to their fate and that of their other family members?
@Don
Perhaps someone should drop her a note – she may be sympathetic to the IBS campaign. She may be able to help with the Supreme Court if retired judges are allowed to offer advice.
If–as she claims–she is not “politically exposed” she will refuse to get involved.
Of course it still doesn’t hurt to drop her a note. But I expect–and hope–that if she has any current influence over Court proceedings that she won’t take a political stand.
It looks to me as if Steven Harper (and his family) may be poised to get a tit caught in a wringer of his own construction. If so, there will be a certain pleasure in savoring the irony, although based on my own experience it is not something I would wish upon anybody.
Unfortunately laws like this make it even less likely quality people will choose to serve in public life.
Bill C-31, the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you Prime Minister.
Will this be another self-certification question to be answered when opening up a bank account?
Are you or have you ever been a US person?
Are you or any member of your immediate family a supreme court justice?
How about?
Have you or any member of your immediate family ever been the Prime Minister?
. “It feeds into the perception that people who have nothing to hide should not be concerned about such things (such as Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism law passed in May)”
She gives examples about why she thinks that thinking is wrong, I’ll like to put it another way that I heard on a podcast.
It’s OK to say if you have nothing nothing to hide, then you should not fear these measures that may invade your privacy.
OK that’s fine. But what if the day comes the Gov’t passes a measure you wish to protest against? Is it really in your interest for the Government to have all that additional data about you? I’m afraid Louise realises this first hand now.
That’s the real reason privacy is important. The more the Gov’t ‘easily’ knows about you, the less effective your protests may become.
No doubt existing Supreme Court members will hear/know about this. When the ADCS lawsuit rolls in there could be a bit more sympathy.
‘I was not, and had never been “a judge in a foreign country” or anything else falling under the definition of a PEFP.’
Yes she was. Every financial institution except US financial institutions is foreign, every country except the US is foreign, and every judge except a US judge is foreign.
Just like every person who lives outside the US is foreign (except if they’re a US person whose foreign residence proves they’re a traitorous tax evading terrorist).
Canadians living in Japan register with the embassy. This is because the Canadian government wants to help protect us against terrorists after Aum gassed the subways in 1995. There haven’t been any further acts of terrorism in Japan since 1995 so that has to be the explanation. The fact that Canada started these registrations after 2001 when an incident took place in a third country nowhere near Japan, obviously that’s just coincidence.
Fascinating. The slow (rapid, actually) erosion of the notion of privacy.
The worse thing is that true criminals will thrive in this new world. While the rest will have to trample on through the mudfield of invasive and useless regulations.
Is there no cost-benefit analysis of these regulations?
The Harper government’s legislation seems to be more than an adminstrative inconvenience for many Canadians:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/10/14/new-law-makes-canadian-jews-second-class-citizens.html
Between this and the IGA/FATCA, I wonder how many Canadians can possibly be left who can justifiably sleep well?
How soon before this sort of insidious policy spreads to the lawbooks of other supposedly enlightened democracies?
@JC, “No doubt existing Supreme Court members will hear/know about this. When the ADCS lawsuit rolls in there could be a bit more sympathy.”
This was a gift to ADCS.
When the hearing rolls around this will be in the background.
I wonder if Arvey can make a brief mention/small footnote of this to rekindle the spark.
Native Canadian: your brilliant T-shirt seems to have multiple potential markets?
Bill C-24 sounds like fun. How will the justice (?) system determine one’s eligibility for other citizenships? What if the condemned decides he is no longer Jewish? Or explains he has, by taking up Canadian citizenship, performed a relinquishing act, and is no longer a US citizen? How will the prosecution go about documenting that a criminal could claim, say, Irish or Italian citizenship? What if that country refuses? Could Canada make people stateless? I hopey you all vote these crazies out of office soon.
@Fred
You are assuming loss of citizenship under Bill C-24 would be determined in the justice system. Unfortunately, that is wrong. A naturalized citizen who is found guilty of certain serious crimes could have citizenship revoked by a bureaucrat, and (if I am correct) without appeal to the courts. This legislation is being challenged on grounds of equality rights, i.e. much the same grounds as our challenge to the legislation implementing the FATCA IGA in Canada.
Here is an article, if you are interested:
http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/08/20/court-challenge-slams-new-citizenship-act-as-anti-canadian.html
Wow! We’ve got friends in some very high places who know exactly what *we* are going through. And just as I was unaware of what *they* are going through (and am now educated on their situation) these affected people can be made aware of us and perhaps help us in our cause. Wow!
@NorthernShrike: Thanks. Indeed, from what I read you appear to be right. Jeez.