Some of you have been sending suggestions to the new Liberal Government Attorney General, Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, about our lawsuit against the FATCA IGA enabling legislation inherited from the Conservative Government.
A practical problem is that a “gatekeeper” for the AG has been forwarding the emails to the Minister of Finance, and it is not clear whether the AG actually receives the email.
My suggestion is that when you receive this response (see below) you resend the email and explain to the gatekeeper that you really do want the AG to receive the email.
You can explain that 1) the AG’s office is involved in a lawsuit related to the issues you are raising in your email and 2) it is the AG, in the role of Minister of Justice, who has the mandate to ensure that Canada’s legislation (including the FATCA IGA enabling legislation) passes Constitutional/Charter muster — also an issue you are raising.
Here is an email that some have received:
“Dear [XXXXXX]:
On behalf of the Honourable Jody Wilson‑Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of [XXXXXXXX], concerning the intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the United States under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
Matters related to FATCA fall within the purview of the Honourable William Francis Morneau, Minister of Finance. I have therefore taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to Minister Morneau for his information and consideration.
Thank you for writing.
Yours sincerely,
[XXXXXXXX]
If you receive this response from the gatekeeper, I suggest that you re-send your email with an explanation.
I’ve sent several to the justice minister and never received a response. If I do, I’ll re-send.
I’ve have never received a response either since the start of the new Canadian government — from anyone in that Liberal government to whom I’ve sent correspondence .
If I do get such a response from the Justice Minister’s office which is, to me, a welcome simple courtesy that her office sends such an acknowledgement of receipt, I will thank the Honourable Jody Wilson‑Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada for sending a copy on to the Minister of Finance and confirm that it is addressed correctly — for her awareness and action as well.
Even though it appears like they are ignoring us right now, it’s for certain that FATCA will slip way to the back of their back burners if we don’t keep reminding them about it. They need to see e-mails with FATCA in the subject line — many and often. Snail mails, too, if someone is so inclined (they are postage free). So far I’ve not even received an auto-reply (except from Murray Rankin) but maybe it’s because the PM and MP offices were still in the process of being set up when I sent my e-mails. I’ll try again but it won’t be until the New Year. At this point I’m rather sick of trying to educate them. Maybe I’ll just assume they know something about FATCA and write accordingly. What I’d like is ONE link to the best written, most compelling, easy to read, short as possible, explanation of FATCA that we have. (I’d include it in a PS — In case you are not familiar with FATCA … ) Any suggestions?
Thanks for this alert. I too have not received any type of response from the emails that I have sent to the AG. We are definitely not high on their priority list. She clearly has been busy with other matters such as yesterday’s announcement of the national inquiry into MMIW.
I wouldn’t be surprised if she has not yet studied the C-31 FATCA-IGA legislation closely. I am planning to write an email to Scott Brison, as he knows the situation well from the House Finance Committee last year. I still think that it is worthwhile to keep badgering the government, even if in the end the Liberals prove no more helpful than the Conservatives. However, they will look pretty hypocritical with all their pro-Charter & A Canadian is a Canadian etc. rhetoric and their concerns about FATCA on record when they were in opposition.
It always comes back to being up against two powerful forces: the banks and the US.
@Mr. A
I wrote to Scott Brison. He just forwarded my letter to Diane Lebouthillier/Min of National Revenue.
I received the same letter highlighted by SK in this post….I will follow Calgary 411’s suggestion and send a thank you note to the AG, attaching the same letter again. I did ask for a response in the first letter. Maybe this is why I received a response and others did not?
While none of the Conservatives on Bill C-31 (part 5) were re-elected (isn’t that interesting?), the following are still in Parliament: Scott Brison (scott.brison@parl.gc.ca ) , Nathan Cullen (Nathan.Cullen@parl.gc.ca ), Murray Rankin (Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca) and Guy Caron (guy.caron@parl.gc.ca). If at all reasonable, I think copies of emails RE FATCA should routinely go to them, too, to keep the issue up in their minds, too.
From Lynne at Sandbox: http://maplesandbox.ca/2015/murray-rankin-passes-ndp-anti-fatca-torch/
Yesterday, I spoke to Mr. Dusseault’s Assistant, Harun Jasarevic. He said both he and Mr. Dusseault are learning about FATCA. They had no knowledge of it until my e-mail was forwarded by Murray Rankin’s Assistant.
Consequently, Mr. Dusseault will not be raising this in the House of Commons before the Christmas break which begins the end of this month. The House does not reconvene until January 25.
@Calgary411 – – thanks for this information; we all may want to help with Mr. Dusseault’s and Harun Jasarevic’s education! His riding (Sherbrooke) is not that far from Stanstead, Quebec (recall that the Mayor of Stanstead was interviewed about FATCA on the Quebec CBC late last March) – it may be interesting for them to contact these close neighbors.
BTW, for all, I am getting close to making the 2015 MP CHART fully filled in (tho some MPs still do not have email addresses or Ottawa phone numbers). In the next few days I will provide this updated/ more completed version to Pacifica to post here on IBS. The chart now has the list of current government and critic names/roles and brief info on past roles (for those who were in Parliament before – – or “NEW TO PARLIAMENT” for those who have not – – there are many newbies!!!!! – – Many who might benefit from “education” RE FATCA…….). Plus I’ve added a page with a list of ridings along the US Border (and the MPs who serve these ridings ).
Hope this will be helpful to all.
…and thanks for the 2015/and ongoing into 2016 MP Chart, LM.
Related,
I just received acknowledgement of an email sent directly to Minister of Finance Bill Morneau:
@ calgary411
I was thinking about waiting until the new year but decided to e-mail MP Dusseault today.
@ LM
Your updated spreadsheet will be greatly appreciated. Thanks to you and your partners on this project for making it easier for the rest of us to assess and address our MPs.
Response today from NDP Revenue critic who we want to pose question to Liberal Government.
Thanks for the update on this, Stephen.
I will forward MP Dusseault my emails to the Liberal gov. to help him learn about FATCA and US CBT.
@Marie
My email to Minister Brison will be cc’d to Minister Lebouthillier (and my emails to the AG were also cc’d to her). Mr. Brison may well be taking the position that FATCA is not his responsibility anymore but I want to let him know that we have not forgotten his comments from 2014 (ex. “we could have negotiated a better IGA”) and his vote to exclude Canadian residents from the definition of a US Person.
@ Mr. A.
I PS’d the letter you wrote to Justin Trudeau (as name unknown ) in my e-mail to Mr. Dusseault and attached the “FATCA: An Introduction for Canadians …” pdf. Repitition won’t hurt a bit as we bring Mr. Dusseault up to speed. It’s good to know he is in contact with Murray Rankin re: FATCA too.
The return email from the Minister of Justice’s office said that a “copy” of the correspondence was sent to the Finance Minister. It did not say that the Minister of Justice did not also receive the correspondence addressed to her. I think the “gatekeeper” in the Justice Minister’s office was actually doing us a favour by sending it on to the Finance Minister. From reading this response I didn’t get the impression at all that he or she was passing the buck.
Muzzled,
You could be right (and I hope that you are), but it was not absolutely clear to me from the response that the AG’s assistant actually sent the email on to the AG. Was my original email just read only by the assistant and then forwarded on as a copy to another Minister?
To increase the likelihood that the AG reads the email, I sent a follow-up email to the AG’s assistant making the explicit request that the AG read my email/letter. I don’t see any downside to a polite follow-up email aimed at removing this uncertainty. A follow-up email also expresses our concern.
I am very focused on the AG, in part because she (as Minister of Justice) is the Minister responsible for “signing off” on the constitutionality of Canada’s legislation. Our emails, specifically questioning the Constitutionality and Charter legitimacy of the FATCA IGA enabling legislation, places the AG in a “tricky” situation.
anne boleyn, who previously received the same correspondence from the office of the Minister of Justice as was received by Stephen (http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/12/09/emails-sent-to-the-new-liberal-government-attorney-general-need-to-be-received-by-the-attorney-general/comment-page-1/#comment-6939447), sent me a letter she received today from the office of the Minister of Finance…
Thanks Embee,
I have sent Mr. Dusseault and his assistant my emails to the PM and AG, and asked him to question and hold the gov. accountable about FATCA and the lawsuit.
Here is the Question posed by Dusseault yesterday:
Q-352 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke) — With respect to the September 2015 announcement of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that it would effectuate a transfer of information to the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS): (a) how many records has the CRA transferred to the IRS to date; (b) on what dates did information transfer occur and how many records were transferred on each date; (c) how many records of individuals have been transferred in total; (d) by what means were the records transferred; (e) how much did it cost the CRA to compile the records for transfer; (f) how much did it cost the CRA to complete the transfer; (g) how were the costs in (e) and (f) calculated and what is the breakdown of those costs; (h) who made the decision to transfer the records; (i) when was the decision made to transfer records; (j) when did the CRA become aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline for such transfer; (k) how was the CRA made aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline; (l) what steps were taken to assess and respond to the notice of deadline extension in (j); (m) what was the policy reason for transferring records despite the deadline extension; (n) when is the next transfer of records scheduled to take place; (o) what analysis was conducted to assess whether the transfer of records during the writ period for the 42nd General Election complied with the “Guidelines on the Conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, Exempt Staff and Public Servants During an Election”; (p) what records exist with respect to any analysis conducted in relation to (o); (q) was information concerning the transfer of records from the CRA to the IRS included in any transition materials prepared for a potential change in government or the Ministers responsible for CRA and Foreign Affairs; (r) what documents exist in relation to (q) and what are their file numbers; (s) has the new Minister responsible for CRA been informed of information transfers to the IRS and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (t) has the new Minister of Justice been informed of the information transfer and been provided with any analysis of its legal implications and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (u) have Canadians who will be affected by the transfer been informed of the transfer of their records; (v) what plans exist with regard to informing Canadians about the transfer of their records; (w) has any proposal to inform Canadians of the transfer of their information to the IRS been evaluated by the government and, if so, with what conclusions; (x) what documents exist in relation to (w) and what are their file numbers; (y) what legal challenges does the government anticipate with respect to information transfer, and how is it preparing to respond; (z) what measures are in place to ensure the security of record transfers to the IRS; and (aa) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted or involved in any way in the preparation or planning of record transfer to ensure conformity with applicable laws regarding the exchange of Canadians’ personal information and, if so, to what extent? Q-352 — 21 janvier 2016 — M. Dusseault (Sherbrooke) — En ce qui concerne l’annonce faite en septembre 2015 par l’Agence du revenu du Canada (ARC) quant au fait qu’elle allait transmettre des renseignements à l’agence du revenu des États-Unis (IRS) : a) combien de dossiers l’ARC a-t-elle transmis à l’IRS jusqu’à maintenant; b) à quelles dates la transmission d’informations s’est-elle produite et combien de dossiers ont été transmis à chacune de ces dates; c) combien de dossiers de particuliers ont-été transmis au total; d) de quelle façon les dossiers ont-ils été transmis; e) combien la compilation des dossiers à transmettre a-t-elle coûté à l’ARC; f) combien la transmission a-t-elle coûté à l’ARC; g) comment a-t-on calculé les coûts visés en e) et en f) et comment sont-ils ventilés; h) qui a pris la décision de transmettre les dossiers; i) quand a-t-on pris la décision de transmettre les dossiers; j) quand l’ARC a-t-elle appris que le Trésor américain avait prolongé le délai pour la transmission d’informations; k) comment l’ARC a-t-elle appris que le Trésor américain avait prolongé le délai; l) quelles mesures a-t-on prises pour évaluer l’avis de prolongation visé en j) et y réagir; m) quelle était la politique à l’origine de la décision de transmettre les dossiers malgré la prolongation du délai; n) quand la prochaine transmission doit-elle avoir lieu; o) quelle analyse a été effectuée pour évaluer si la transmission des dossiers pendant la période de la 42e élection générale était conforme aux « Lignes directrices sur la conduite des ministres, des ministres d’État, du personnel exonéré et des fonctionnaires en période électorale »; p) quels sont les éléments de l’analyse visée eno); q) quelle information concernant la transmission des dossiers de l’ARC à l’IRS a été incluse dans les documents de transition préparés en vue d’un éventuel changement de gouvernement ou de ministres responsables de l’ARC et des Affaires étrangères; r) quels sont les documents visés en q) et quels sont leurs numéros de classement; s) la nouvelle ministre responsable de l’ARC a-t-elle été informée de la transmission de dossiers à l’IRS et, dans l’affirmative, (i) quand, (ii) comment, (iii) par qui, (iv) avec quels documents produits ou préparés à cette fin; t) la nouvelle ministre de la Justice a-t-elle été informée de la transmission de dossiers et a-t-elle reçu un avis juridique de ses implications et, dans l’affirmative, (i) quand, (ii) comment, (iii) par qui, (iv) avec quels documents produits ou préparés à cette fin; u) les Canadiens dont les dossiers ont été transmis en ont-il été informés; v) quels plans existent pour informer les Canadiens de la transmission de leurs dossiers; w) le gouvernement a-t-il évalué les plans pour informer les Canadiens dont les dossiers ont été transmis à l’IRS et, dans l’affirmative, quelles ont été ses conclusions; x) quels documents concernant w) existent et quels sont leurs numéros de classement; y) à quelles contestations judiciaires le gouvernement s’attend-il au sujet de la transmission d’informations et comment entend-il se défendre; z) quelles mesures sont en place pour garantir la sécurité de la transmission des dossiers à l’IRS; aa) a-t-on consulté ou impliqué la commissaire à la protection de la vie privée d’une façon quelconque quant à la préparation ou à la planification de la transmission des dossiers pour s’assurer qu’elles sont conformes à la législation en vigueur concernant la communication de renseignements personnels de Canadiens et, dans l’affirmative, dans quelle mesure l’a-t-on consultée ou impliquée?
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=NoticeOrder&Mode=1&Language=E&Parl=42&Ses=1&File=11
Just for easier reading (English part only)
Q-352 — January 21, 2016 — Mr. Dusseault (Sherbrooke) —
With respect to the September 2015 announcement of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that it would effectuate a transfer of information to the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS):
(a) how many records has the CRA transferred to the IRS to date;
(b) on what dates did information transfer occur and how many records were transferred on each date;
(c) how many records of individuals have been transferred in total;
(d) by what means were the records transferred;
(e) how much did it cost the CRA to compile the records for transfer;
(f) how much did it cost the CRA to complete the transfer;
(g) how were the costs in (e) and (f) calculated and what is the breakdown of those costs;
(h) who made the decision to transfer the records;
(i) when was the decision made to transfer records;
(j) when did the CRA become aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline for such transfer;
(k) how was the CRA made aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline;
(l) what steps were taken to assess and respond to the notice of deadline extension in (j);
(m) what was the policy reason for transferring records despite the deadline extension;
(n) when is the next transfer of records scheduled to take place;
(o) what analysis was conducted to assess whether the transfer of records during the writ period for the 42nd General Election complied with the “Guidelines on the Conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, Exempt Staff and Public Servants During an Election”;
(p) what records exist with respect to any analysis conducted in relation to (o);
(q) was information concerning the transfer of records from the CRA to the IRS included in any transition materials prepared for a potential change in government or the Ministers responsible for CRA and Foreign Affairs;
(r) what documents exist in relation to (q) and what are their file numbers;
(s) has the new Minister responsible for CRA been informed of information transfers to the IRS and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose;
(t) has the new Minister of Justice been informed of the information transfer and been provided with any analysis of its legal implications and, if so,
(i) when,
(ii) how,
(iii) by whom,
(iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose;
(u) have Canadians who will be affected by the transfer been informed of the transfer of their records;
(v) what plans exist with regard to informing Canadians about the transfer of their records;
(w) has any proposal to inform Canadians of the transfer of their information to the IRS been evaluated by the government and, if so, with what conclusions;
(x) what documents exist in relation to (w) and what are their file numbers;
(y) what legal challenges does the government anticipate with respect to information transfer, and how is it preparing to respond;
(z) what measures are in place to ensure the security of record transfers to the IRS; and
(aa) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted or involved in any way in the preparation or planning of record transfer to ensure conformity with applicable laws regarding the exchange of Canadians’ personal information and, if so, to what extent?
Hypocrisy at its finest by Jody Wilson-Raybould… see the embedded video.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.3780771/b-c-chief-calls-out-muzzled-justice-minister-over-site-c-dam-silence-1.3781129
@Shovel;
A now familiar Fibbin Lib hypocritical refrain, “the Conservatives made us do it”:
“……..This week, Wilson-Raybould remained largely silent on the issue, letting other members of the Liberal Party field questions directed to her by the NDP during Question Period.
When asked about the project by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network on September 24, Wilson-Raybould shifted focus to the previous Conservative government. ….
“”To be clear this was a decision by a previous government, and we have been handed a number of decisions where we would have done things differently.”…..”…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justin-trudeau-accused-of-bulldozing-aboriginal-rights-with-site-c-1.3776792
‘Justice Minister blames previous government for Site C project’
http://aptn.ca/news/2016/09/22/justice-minister-blames-previous-government-for-site-c-project/
“…..As B.C. regional chief for the Assembly of First Nations, Wilson-Raybould once opposed construction of the $9 billion dam, the largest industrial project in B.C’s history. But since becoming a Liberal cabinet minister she has concurred with both the federal and B.C. governments’ decisions to approve the project.”….
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/09/20/bc-dam-tests-trudeaus-promises-to-first-nations-steward.html
‘Site C dam not in keeping with constitution, UN declaration: Bellegarde’
…..”..The federal government’s approach to the Site C dam project in British Columbia is not in keeping with Canada’s constitution nor with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, says Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde…”…..
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/site-c-dam-not-in-keeping-with-constitution-un-declaration-bellegarde-1.3066535
And as we know, Minister of Revenue Lebouthillier also claims that she and the Trudeau Liberals ” ….. would have “done things differently “on another issue (FATCA) …” ;
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/diane-lebouthillier-7/
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/diane-lebouthillier-10/
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/diane-lebouthillier-13/
But now that they’re in power, they claim that the Conservatives made them do it.
Which the Conservatives present obviously found amusing- and enjoyed being witness to her twisting into pretzel shape in order to ‘splain away the Liberal hypocrisy – which is clearly on official record;
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/matt-jeneroux-1/
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/matt-jeneroux-2/
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/matt-jeneroux-3/
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/matt-jeneroux-4/
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/matt-jeneroux-6/
https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/matt-jeneroux-7/
Despite being from the Conservative party who abused their majority to force the FATCA IGA through and impose it on Canadian citizens, and resident taxpayers and accountholders, the Chair MP Calkins looked particularly jolly at the prospect of seeing a Liberal minister ‘splainin away clear hypocrisy on the part of a Liberal Minister reversing the previous Liberal position – and now defending the Conservative actions – which spectacle was to be recorded forever, in Hansard, and not only in print, but on video for posterity http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/Redirects/ParlVuMeetingPage?MeetingId=8845494 . He even cheers her on in his comments ( https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/the-chair-2/ ) and gets her and Ted Gallivan to agree that the Cons made the right call in succumbing to FATCA ( https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/the-chair-16/ https://openparliament.ca/committees/ethics/42-1/8/the-chair-17/ ).
And that is when Lebouthillier actually answered instead of turning agape to direct Ted Gallivan Assistant Commissioner, International, Large Business and Investigating Branch, Canada Revenue Agency to answer for her after she had recited and repeated her memorized set piece over and over.