See below March 9, 2016 response of new Liberal Canadian Government to January 21, 2016 FATCA questions raised by NDP Revenue Critic Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke).
Response comes from Canada Revenue Agency, Minister of National Revenue (who we are suing), Finance Canada, Stephane Dion, and Attorney General (who we are also suing).
SEE THE LINK. The text is in both english and french.
Bottom line: 1) We are still second class — our lawsuit continues; and 2) WE NEED MORE WITNESSES.
— I am amazed that the Prime Minister of Canada allowed this statement to be included in the response, asking Canadians to recognize the public interest of the United States at the expense of the sovereignty of our country:
“…we must resign ourselves to the fact that we are faced with a requirement from the United States and that the requirement corresponds to the public interest of the United States, meaning the integrity of their tax regime.”
— The OPC privacy review was passed on to CRA in January 2016 AFTER the September 2015 turnover of your bank records. In other words, Canada does the privacy assessment AFTER the turnover of private confidential data. See below statement:
“Part (aa): The CRA consulted with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC). A privacy impact assessment (PIA), which is a policy process for identifying, assessing, and mitigating privacy risks, was completed and submitted to the OPC for review on August 27, 2015. The CRA received the OPC’s recommendations on January 4, 2016 [AFTER THE TURNOVER]. The recommendations do not prevent the CRA from exchanging the required information. A response to the OPC’s recommendations is being prepared.”
Mr. Dusseault is now considering his next step. If you have follow-up questions you would like him to ask Mr. Trudeau (e.g., “…But Mr. Trudeau, what about that pre-election statement you made that Canada’s FATCA IGA legislation is insufficient to protect Canadians? What changed your mind?”) you can email him at Pierre-Luc.Dusseault@parl.gc.ca
United States Secretary of State John Kerry offers this accurate assessment of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “It’s clear that the Prime Minister has begun to make his mark on Canada’s future.”
USCitizenAbroad comments on Government response:
“The disappointment is understandable. That said, the Trudeau Government is behaving exactly as expected. The truth is the the previous Conservative Government and various opposition MPs (at least in the initial stages) did more to oppose FATCA (think Flaherty, think Murry Rankin, think Scott Brison, think Elizabeth May and others) than the Trudeau Government will ever do.
In fact, this is much worse. Not only is Mr. Trudeau NOT protecting Canadian citizens, but what he is actually doing is socializing with the Obama Government. He is being friendly to the biggest bully on the block.
Would this be an appropriate analogy to describes Mr. Trudeau’s behavior? An intruder breaks into the family home one night and attacks your teenaged daughter. Instead of protecting the daughter, the father is having a beer with the intruder. That’s Justin!!
At least the previous Prime Minister did not spend his time trying to ingratiate himself to the United States.
But, what is clear is the following …
The attitude of the Trudeau Government is that it its perfectly okay for the United States to use the IGA to claim ANY Canadian citizen that it wants, at ANY time, as the property of the United States of America. That’s the attitude of the Trudeau Government. Now, this has a historical analogy to the “slave trade” where European powers would go to other nations and say “I’ll take this one and I’ll take that one”. The time has come to stop the politically correct BS and tell it like it is.
It’s simple. U.S. citizenship is nothing but a modern day form of slavery. That’s all it is. The U.S. claims a property interest in all its citizens – their only purpose is to serve the Homeland in some way or another. Some on this blog call it “taxation based citizenship”. That’s fine, but how about “slave based citizenship”….”
Brison, Goodale, Trudeau et al. A duplicitous horde of liars.
“Prime Minister Trudeau went to Washington, for tea and cake.”
For a tea and cake PARTY, not to be confused with tea party.
Deckard1138 –
His father must be rolling in his grave by now, knowing what an obsequious hypocrite his son turned out to be.
Pierre perfected hypocrisy, veneering his perfidies with vapid style and capitalizing on contrast with Nixon. Now Justin starts off obsequious to boot — and to bootlick.
Below is now part of my post. Am I reading the response correctly? Was the OPC privacy report received AFTER (i.e., not BEFORE) the bank account data were turned over to CRA/IRS last September?
— I am amazed that the Prime Minister of Canada allowed this statement to be included in the response, asking Canadians to recognize the public interest of the United States at the expense of the sovereignty of our country:
— Note also this statement and the carefully worded: “do not prevent”. Also, the OPC privacy review was conducted AFTER the September 2015 turnover of your bank records to IRS/CRA in January of THIS year? Is that correct?:
@Stephen. Wow!!!! I did not notice the date. I did notice “the integrity of their tax regime” I just don’t understand how I can still be shocked after all that’s happened. I guess that’s why I go into rabid rants like yesterday….not good.
Thanks, Stephen, for those eagle eyes to point out what to me is betrayal toward my Canadian family and every other Canadian family with the Liberal’s honouring the integrity of the US tax regime and the well-being of *foreign financial institutions* over the people that reside in this country.
Media needs to pick up on that statement and headline it in an article, juxtaposed against all the JT/Obama bromance articles of late. A well written article highlighting the disgusting way that Canadians with the red,white and blue tattoo are being treated while our sexy leader is smoozing it up with his new BFF couldn’t come at a better time.
I threw up a little in my mouth at this one out today: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hall-trudeau-obama-bromance-1.3486409
You know what they say, “once you go Barack, you never go back”…guess JT thinks so too.
@ The Animal,
Quasi-Constitutional Act means an Act that is not part of the Constitution, but still has more power than a regular law in the sense that it’s difficult for Parl to pass a law overriding it. (Well, Parl can pass whatever they want — more like if an Act runs counter to a quasi-constitutional Act (as opposed to a regular Act), it makes it harder for the govt to get a Court to uphold it.)
Here’s a link to a Privy Council doc explaining the different types/levels of Acts:
@stephen maybe @ginny can chime in.
You knew about the charters notwithstanding clause,yes?
Trudeau has simply introduced you to the *we must resign ourselves clause*
Now that we have the we must resign ourselves clause seriously this is a treasure chest and can be used in court and with the media.
I really think someone like Lynn needs to write an article explaining how the IGA strips you of your Canadian citizenship citing the we must resign ourselves clause and show the slippery slope.
To be blunt if this stands selective service registration is next on the table for the same reason.
And we thought being Canadian meant something. Silly us.
Just sent a note off to Patrick Cain (who interviewed me in past) to try to encourage him to write another article.
Stephen, I read it differently. The OPC reviewed it Aug 27/15 but the CRA did not get that report until after they had released the account info to the IRS. Once they did get it ( Jan 01/16) they were very happy it confirmed their authority for the release. Because, you know.
I still can’t believe they included Bernier’s comment. Yes George, the *we must resign ourselves clause* is an example of a quasi-constitutional amendment. Guess it just covers everything very neatly. To me it means: you must put the noose around your neck but the government will kindly supply you with one. We recommend you apply your own noose first before helping your tainted children with theirs.
What I noted was the CRA provided answers to how and when the account info was turned over. The Justice Dep’t’s response was to claim solicitor-client privilege.
See you in court.
@WhiteKat…good for you. I hope you can start introducing some of the new rhetoric like Clinging Nationality, Stripped of Citizenship……..
In my “other life” long long ago……I did some psychology work and part of that was word useage, something I had forgotten about for decades due to not being used.
Is being a second class citizen offensive or repulsive? We may be repulsed but I think many are not. Landed immigrants I am sure would view being second class as a step up!! When I fly, I fly second class (coach), so I am a second class traveler and thats OK.
Lets look at the campaign to restore the citizenship of terrorists.
The campaign was focused on preventing the stripping of citizenship NOT stopping the administrative revocation of a naturalization certificate. Stripping a human being of citizenship is evocative while administrative revocation of a certificate is neutral.
Look at the rapid gay marriage turn around. Did the parties campaigning have anything material to gain? No. The gain was dignity and dignity is what we are fighting for.
If you go to TD down the street, show your Canadian Passport as ID, state you are Canadian, if they do not treat you as Canadian then they have stripped you of your dignity as a Canadian Citizen.
@Ginny……is there some way you could get yourself on the stand in open court!!!
These affadavits are too sterile and clean. Its like referring to human beings as “slips.”
I have evolved in my thinking on the IGAs from a technical viewpoint to a philosophical viewpoint.
You have been stripped of your dignity as a Canadian Citizen and clothed in the dirty garb of an american interloper……in your own country…..by your own countrymen. History is filled with such events.
This is so clearly a violation of the Charter in both actual word and also in spirit.
You have the RIGHT to be treated no better and no worse than any Canadian Citizen when you step foot into a bank.
Ginny, my point is only that CRA turned over account info to IRS in September 2015 before CRA received the OPC privacy assessment (irrespective of what was contained in the privacy assessment). Am I reading this correctly?
@George
Will you start a fund raising effort to bail me out of jail when I am held in contempt of court for my testimony?
I have always viewed law in two categories: a) the rule of law b) Philosophy of law.
The IGA would be rule of law, and the Charter represents Philosophy of law to me. Oh, and before George x 3 asks, yes, we actually have a course in law school called Philosophy of law. And heads up, I actually took it 😉
@Ginny…..I would be on the steps of the Court with a banner Free Ginny!!!
I bet there is so much you would like to say if given the chance!!!
Serious, when this is all over you could/should write a lengthy peer article on this matter. I knew a cancer surgeon who did that after he was diagnosed with cancer and then became the patient.
I am thankful that I now know the argument fully….but the problem is that most of the public and politicians do not get it. You want to be treated no better/worse than any other Canadian Citizen with no self imposed foreign taint.
Canada must hand over to the USA all financial account records on all Canadian Citizens or hand over none at all.
Absolutely, George!
Maybe then other Canadians will become a whole lot more interested!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stephen, yes that’s what happened. And note they patted themselves on the back because it complied anyway. I want a copy of the assessment.
“…we must resign ourselves to the fact that we are faced with a requirement from the United States and that the requirement corresponds to the public interest of the United States, meaning the integrity of their tax regime.”
There is a real contradiction here because the US tax regime totally lacks “integrity”. Their CBT tax regime is functionally unenforceable so the enactment of FATCA is an attempt to coerce other countries to assist them in implementing a failed policy. Canada would have been much served by telling the US “When you Americans decide to finally get on the same page as the rest of the world and switch to RBT then we can talk about helping you out with enforcement. Until then, leave our citizens alone.”
The US tax system is stuck on stupid and even with more stupid (FATCA) no amount of assistance from other countries will make it enforceable.
@ George, funny you should mention that. I have already prepared the chapter tittles for my very wordy article.
Chapter !: Why and How I Became a Plaintiff
Chapter 2: What Was I Thinking?
Chapter 3: My Court Testimony and Contempt of Court Charges
Chapter 4: Why I Failed My Bail Hearing: Lack of Repentance
Chapter Five: When Your Friends Carry Banners but Fail To Raise your Bond
Chapter 6: My Life in Prison as a result of Quasi- Constitutional Criminal Charges
Chapter 7: How I Became a Jail House Lawyer
Chapter 8: The Day I was Disbarred
That’s a far as I got, but I expect great sales which might be sufficient for my second Bail Hearing.
Yes Maz57. And what about the integrity of the Canadian government with respect to how it treats its own citizens with ‘clinging US nationality’ (was listening George)? There is none when it cares more about the “public interest of the United States” than the rights of Canadian citizens.
Chapter 9: Extradited to the USA or How I Became A Homelander
Chapter 10: I Do Love Me Some Cuba, Tales from GBay