Thank you for your email. While it is unfortunate you are not renewing your membership we respect your decision — however there is one point of misinformation. We have spoken on FATCA in the past. This year we retained a major Canadian law firm to research this issue for us — we do not intervene or weigh in on every single civil liberties issue — but when we feel we can contribute effectively the first step is to ensure we have the best research. on FATCA we outsourced the research to ensure we had a complete picture of all the issues on both sides of the border. We had expected this research earlier this year , and have received replies from the firm that we will get the memo this fall. I am not sharing this information with you to change your mind, only to let you know that we have not ‘chosen not to address’ the issue.
OK, as of next week, Fall is OVER. Have they gotten a report? Will they write us again after they get this (rather delayed) report to let us know their thoughts? What ARE they willing to do if their report says that “US PERSONS” living in Canada are being inappropriately discriminated against? This letter seems pretty “fudgy” and “keeping our cards close to our chest”, but I suppose they have to be circumspect prior to full information. Any chance of reviewing/rebutting the information from these lawyers (who knows what hidden interests they have in dismissing these concerns).
Not very helpful to 1 million Canadians and their families…..
Lynne has tried to get answers from CCLA for quite some time.
Good communication with stakeholders and donors at each step is the soul and integrity of any organization. It would have been so easy and respectful to have done this in answer to our queries.
” … a major Canadian law firm” — Moodys Gartner perhaps? Just wondering …
Well the response in more encouraging than discouraging. Good for you that you got a response, Joe Smith. Would it benefit you to renew your membership if it helps keep the channel of communication open?
Abby Deshman’s replacement has not returned one of the many phone messages I I left for her or one of the e-mails I sent to her.
Sukanya Pillay has given me the same song and dance Joe got.
http://maplesandbox.ca/2015/update-from-ccla-on-fatca-lawsuit/
Since my last posting in that thread at Sandbox, I followed up again and got the same non response that was not worth posting.
Schubert was right in January when he did not renew his membership. I have never been a member so I don’t have a membership to refuse to renew.
http://maplesandbox.ca/2015/why-i-am-not-renewing-my-membership-to-canadian-civil-liberties-association/
While waiting for the law firm, CCLA could at least be doing updates. The last time CCLA “spoke” on FATCA was three years ago. They did not make a submission when Finance Canada asked for them. They did not testify at Finance Committee. They did not mention FATCA in their #CharterFirst initiative.
CCLA has betrayed us just like all the others.
I hope they will prove me wrong. But I’m not optimistic.
In case anyone cares, here is what I sent to Sukanya Pillay, Execuitive Director of CCLA on October 22.
When she did not reply, I sent this on October 28:
Ms. Pillay replied on October 29.
@Blaze:
It would appear CCLA have wet noodles for spines.
I remember the presentation Abby Deshman made years ago. It certainly appeared Abby had a firm grasp on the issues and didn’t need endless lawyer consultations to arrive at a position.
Somewhere along the line since Abby’s departure, focus and commitment seem glaringly lacking.
What good is a Civil Liberties organization if they IGNORE abuses of Civil Liberties??
They have had time to consult on any and all the issues FATCA represents even if their consultants were on MARS!
As CCLA’s involvement seems lacking in both concern and initiative it would appear their pronouncements concerning their attention to charter issues are selective at best!
@Furious There has also been a change in Executve Directors. Sukanya’s Pillay replaced Nathalie DesRosier.
Abby is on maternity leave until March. Based on Ms. Pillay’s non-response to me, I am not optimistic Abby will be able to do anything on FATCA after she returns.
I think if we had been born in Eritrea and the Canadian government had surrendered our rights to the Eritrean government, CCLA would be up in arms–and without needing to consult a law firm.
It appears to be progress.
Can we influence them to make the research report available online? Or, open for comment and input online?
I have tried a little this Human Rights angle in Australia. Tax Servitude appears to be on another dimension or even in a parallel universe compared to what constitute “human rights abuse” that has previously drawn attention. Perhaps when the usual sorts hear about this in the same sentence as human rights abuse the reaction is like a deer in the headlights – not knowing what to do, and not meeting their preconceived definition of what constitute a human rights abuse and the types of people on the receiving end of such abuse.
Outsourcing a research report sounds promising. Hopefully more thought will be put into it than the IGA impact statement in Australia.
@Embee
I cannot imagine Moody’s being the firm mentioned. Not trying to be negative here but Moody’s is not a firm involved in determining issues outside of what they do. What’s that slogan/phrase they use….about focusing on what they do best-tax? I can think of several times Mr Berg has said his responses don’t address issues outside of tax law.They don’t focus on rights issues or anything other than tax compliance. I would think a firm that focuses on civil liberties would be a better fit. Just my $0.02
I did contact a Human Rights organisation in Dublin, but it fell on dears ears. At the time they were heavily involved with the Gay Marriage Referendum – they lived and breathed it.
Also contacted Senator Zappone in the Irish Senate, who is American born, once again fell on deaf ears. It has to be said that she’s a member of the ruling party which did sign the IGA so it was not totally unexpected.
There needs to be more publicity on this issue.
@Don, I think that there is a river of folks who do not think their lives will change because of the IGA and FATCA.
Let me use the Selective Service Act as an example. The penalties are huge. But the prosections could fit on the tip of a pin.
So you have people that register because “a draft will never happen.”
And you have people that do not register because “they never prosecute anyone.”
I think we are facing that mentality here with FATCA and IGA.
When the IGAs first came out I LIKED the language that forced closure of recalcitrant accounts! But that was largely written out so people would come in easy.
How do you boil a frog? Put it in a pot of cold water and slowly turn the heat up.
Next year overseas young USC women will likely need to register for selective service. I honestly believe that needs to be tacitly linked in our talking points.
“Civil liberties” groups is just an Orwellian term for far left-wing groups with their own agenda.
Protecting overseas “Americans” who are English teachers, Canadian cops, graphic designers (otherwise referred to as “fat cat tax cheats”) is not part of their agenda.
Maybe if you tell them you are an African-Syrian-Muslim-Transgender person being persecuted by the taxman, they may help you.
@George – FATCA is more like an iceberg. All the bad stuff remains hidden from public view.
My biggest fear is what is the point of the IRS collecting all this data and having to fight tooth and nail with angry ex-pats through foreign legal systems?
This question of reporting needs to be settle in the next few years. Otherwise the US will then push these IGA governments to enter into ‘collection agreements,’ allowing the US to tap into a country’s tax collection system. In other words treating the IRS the same as the CRA in terms of collection.
The we’ll start to see bank accounts frozen, liens on property, etc, etc.
That’s what I’d do if I was the IRS.
If all that does come to pass, it’ll be too late and certainly much more difficult to change.
That’s why this question needs to come in front of European Courts NOW.
I do NOT believe that these people have retained any Canadian law firm to seek an opinion on this. Why would they incur the huge expense with all the free information available?
No, they are not being honest.
And why didn’t the CCLA need an “informed” opinion from a “leading Canadian law firm” before concluding that implementing FATCA in Canada created significant enough injury and negative consequences within their scope and purview to feature Arthur Cockfield’s research http://ssrn.com/abstract=2433198 at their 2014 Symposium; http://ccla.org/oldsite/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FATCA-and-the-Erosion-of-Taxpayer-Privacy-U-of-T-2014.pptx. “Pathways2Privacy/Parcours2Protection de la Vie Privée proceedings (Toronto, March 20 and 21st, 2014” https://ccla.org/pathways2privacy/ http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/02/08/free-ccla-symposium-of-privacy-with-facta-session/comment-page-1/#comment-1246251 (report commissioned by Canadian Privacy Commissioner https://www.priv.gc.ca/resource/cp/2013-2014/p_201314_02_e.asp ) and additional commentary?