@LizT1 Some interesting comments by Privacy Commissioner & SCOC ignored b4 passing of the #FATCA IGA https://t.co/t30Ch8SS38
— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) March 20, 2016
Some might find it interesting that members of the Canadian Senate had concerns regarding the #FATCA IGA and one of them, Hon. Pierrette Ringuette, moved that Part V be deleted in its entirety. Ms Ringuette lives in a border town and perhaps we should be in touch with her. At the very least, along with Murray Rankin, Nathan Cullen and others, I now link the three Senators supporting a deletion of Part V of the IGA legislation with Canadian legislators who are worthy of their seats.
There are two issues raised in this material that I think need investigation. One is a comment of Hon. Joseph A Day:
I will refrain from talking about what transpired prior to Bill C-31 being received by this chamber and referred to our committee for consideration. It’s now back as a result of the consideration that took place.
I have yet to read all of the transcripts of that time period and have no idea what Mr. Day is referring to. Perhaps it has nothing to do with C-31 but if it does, it suggests something was not as it should have been. I think it probably does given her says “It’s now back.” Does anyone know?
And another by Senator Ringuette, speaking of a statement made by Privacy Commissioner Daniel Thierren:
But now that the Supreme Court has ruled that this information deserves a high level of privacy, the government needs to take C-13 and S-4 back to the drawing board, he said.
This is discussed below. I don’t remember any of this; perhaps I just never saw it and/or it seemed so hopeless given HOC clearly was going to pass C-31. However, now it seems very important.
The focus of this post is simply this last section of the debate (i.e., the portion beginning with Senator Ringuette); our general discussions have tended more toward the HOC FINA meetings and I think it is notable that there were strong objections within the Senate, to the #FATCA IGA legislation.
2nd Session, 41st Parliament,
Volume 149, Issue 74
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
Orders of the Day
Business of the Senate
Economic Action Plan 2014 Bill #1
Third Reading
I am excluding a very long section that has nothing specific to Section V. I am including the fact that there were two other motions regarding delaying the third reading of Bill C-31.
Motion in Amendment
Hon. Joseph A. Day: For that reason, honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, on pages 207 to 259, by deleting Division 25 of Part 6.
Motion in Amendment
Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Therefore, honourable senators, I move:
That Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, on pages 145 and 146, by deleting Division 14 of Part 6.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Continuing debate.
[Translation]
********
Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, at second reading of the bill, we debated trade marks and demutualization. However, today, I want to talk about clause 5 of the bill, which concerns the Canada-U.S. tax information exchange agreement.
On Monday, we discussed the very important matter of people’s privacy. Unfortunately, a few days later, the new Privacy Commissioner said the following which, I believe, is at the heart of what I will share with you later.
[English]
In an interview before MacKay’s comments, privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien said the government treated basic customer data as relatively benign, which may have been reasonable at the time.
But now that the Supreme Court has ruled that this information deserves a high level of privacy, the government needs to take C-13 and S-4 back to the drawing board, he said.
“The premise under which this legislation was constructed has been held to be invalid,” said Therrien.
*****
NB: S-4 was an amended version of PIPEDA which is now law.
This enactment amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to, among other things,
“(The bill) extends the ability to disclose subscriber information without a warrant from law enforcement to any private sector organizations by including a provision that allows organizations to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law.”
IMHO, if the SCOC rules that a reasonable amount of privacy can be expected regarding subscriber information, imagine how it would view release of highly personal financial information (that previously could not be shared by banks, not even with the CRA).
*****
(Sen. Ringuette cont:)
Privacy is a very important issue. Colleagues, for three years now I’ve taken a very keen interest in the issue of taxation for dual citizens in Canada. Living in a border community with the U.S., as many of us do, I know that many Canadian citizens were born in the U.S. and vice versa. We have a major issue all along border communities, and I have been working on this for three years now. I have my file here. I’ve been in discussion with the U.S. embassy here that seems to have quite a revolving door in regard to this issue and getting answers for Canadians.
I think one of the things that is kind of funny in this situation is that the U.S. is a country that bases personal income tax on citizenship and not residency like the rest of the world. Their tax policy has always been that way. It’s funny that a country that had a revolution started by the Boston Tea Party based on taxation without services would have legislation to tax citizen non-residents who are not getting services from their government, but I guess that’s it.
The issue is that their income tax law has always been that way. However, a few years back they noticed that a lot of Canadian citizens and residents were not complying with their income tax act. Therefore, they said that what they will do is say to all foreign banks with a banking institution within their territory that they will have to comply in their home country subsidiary to the taxation information and law in the U.S. with regard to information for citizens — not residents, citizens.
That has sparked a lot of discussion throughout the country, and I’ve had a lot of discussions with the U.S. embassy here on the issue. Honestly, how can a Canadian government enforce, directly or indirectly, foreign legislation?
Second, how can this country sign an agreement to give private Canadian citizens’ information via Canada Revenue Agency to the U.S.? From my perspective, that’s a clear breach of our Canadian citizen, whether they are dual or not.
(1800)
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Ringuette: That is a clear breach of their privacy.
I also believe it is a clear breach of our Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms, section 8, which says, “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” and section 15(1), which says, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination” —
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Allow me to interrupt you a few seconds, Senator Ringuette. Is there agreement that we do not see the clock?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette, I’m sorry. I used up one of your minutes, so you can have one more.
Senator Ringuette: If you want to give me more time, Mr. Speaker, I will take it.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: We will start with one minute.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: I will repeat section 15(1)of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
In my opinion,Part 5 of Bill C-31 is a clear violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also, from my perspective, a clear violation of our Canadian citizens’ right to privacy.
Senator Moore: Sure it is.
Senator Ringuette: The Canadian government has not signed such an agreement with the Chinese government, the Russian government, with France or with the U.K. This is doneparticularly for Canadian citizens who also are U.S. citizens, and this has all been done in order to help the Canadian banks that have branches in the U.S. That is the basis of this agreement. It’s to save Canadian banks from this U.S. legislation.
By the way, the way the act is written, it removes any kind of court challenge for that information within the Canadian banks. It puts all the onus on the Canada Revenue Agency. That’s phenomenal. As a government, you say that you pride yourselves with regard to private business and competition and so forth, and you would remove that onus of responsibility from these banking institutions.
I will tell you again that many of the citizens from my area of the country are very upset with the U.S. legislation, and they are doubly upset with the fact that the Canadian government is acting against the fact that they reside in Canada. They are Canadian citizens, just like anyone else, and they are being targeted by this agreement and the current bill we have in front of us, and it is not right. If the Americans want to collect personal income tax, that is their responsibility. They are not given facts that someone might be corrupt or there must be money laundering or something else. There’s no criminal intent here, none whatsoever. It’s not like talking about the FINTRAC issue. That is not the purpose. The purpose of this bill is to give personal financial information about Canadian citizens to a foreign country. I have been through that issue before in the case of Tepper in New Brunswick. I know what can happen when that kind of misleading information is provided to a foreign nation.
Motion in Amendment
Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Therefore, honourable senators, I move:
THAT Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,
(a) on pages 72 to 83, by deleting Part 5; and
(b) on pages 316 to 357, by deleting Schedule 3.
Senator Ringuette: I’m willing to answer questions.
Senator Cordy: They don’t want questions. They don’t want the answers.
[Translation]
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, for those who need more details, I would like to add a few comments as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and vice-chair of the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee.
To begin, clause 99 refers us to a section in the agreement signed with the United States earlier this year that must be enacted through legislation. It should be noted that Canadian banks will be charged a 30 per cent penalty for undeclared funds. That is a major penalty.
Canadians who have been living here for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have not renounced their American citizenship and who have a bank account worth less than $50,000 — I’m talking about general bank accounts — with various terms and conditions or an insurance contract under $250,000 will not be affected. Everyone else is.
We have received letters from distressed Canadians who have been here since the 1970s and 1980s. They retired in Canada and are worried about losing their home because of these retroactive contributions that go back decades.
Canadians who have accounts in the United States are also targeted. Many Canadians, including a large number of Quebecers, spend a good part of the winter in Florida. Usually they do some shopping, have some fun and have a bank account. These people are required to declare their bank account. In this case, Revenue Canada deals with the files of Canadians in the United States. They have to fill out a form. There is a process in place for that. They don’t have a choice because they won’t be able to return to the United States if they don’t complete the required documents.
(1810)
I must say that the government has a lot of nerve taking money out of Canadians’ pockets in this way, given the wrongdoing that occurred on Wall Street and the impact of the financial collapse in the United States. It is therefore obvious that I support my colleague’s motion regarding clause 99.
Hon. Maria Chaput: The only thing I will say about the other parts and divisions of Bill C-31 is that I support the honourable senators who presented amendments today. The thing that bothers me, honourable senators, is the flagrant lack of consultation, the potential for constitutional consequences, the threat to privacy and the fact that the onus seems to be on the individual, to name but a few of my concerns.
[English]
In conclusion, I invite all of you to go back in time by approximately 20 years, when Stephen Harper, an opposition MP, got up in the other place to say:
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.
I quote again:
Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?
We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.
This was Mr. Harper’s reaction to a 21-page budget bill. The one he has submitted to us today is 380 pages long. We have certainly come a long way from 1994.
I, for one, cannot stand in conflict with my own principles. Bill C-31 is not a good thing for our country. We should not be forced to vote in a block when we agree on some of the measures but are opposed to others.
**********
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question before the house is it was moved by Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif:
That Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,
(a) on pages 72 to 83, by deleting Part 5; and
(b) on pages 316 to 357, by deleting Schedule 3.
Motion in amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
Callbeck Jaffer
Campbell Kenny
Chaput Massicotte
Charette-Poulin McCoy
Cordy Mercer
Cowan Merchant
Dawson Mitchell
Day Moore
Downe Munson
Dyck Ringuette
Eggleton Rivest
Furey Smith (Cobourg)
Hervieux-Payette Tardif—27
Hubley
NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
Andreychuk Marshall
Ataullahjan Martin
Batters McInnis
Bellemare McIntyre
Beyak Mockler
Black Nancy Ruth
Boisvenu Neufeld
Buth Ngo
Carignan Ogilvie
Champagne Oh
Dagenais Patterson
Demers Poirier
Doyle Raine
Eaton Rivard
Enverga Runciman
Fortin-Duplessis Seidman
Frum Seth
Gerstein Smith (Saurel)
Greene Stewart Olsen
Housakos Unger
Johnson Verner
Lang Wallace
LeBreton Wells
MacDonald White—49
Maltais
ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
Nolin—1
Amazing to see the corruption in our government at the “senator” level….. Canada needs a completely re-written constitution and complete and clear laws for senators.
Thank you for that very very valuable commentary by Senator Ringuette.
I see she is;
Current Member of the following Senate committee(s):
Banking, Trade and Commerce
………
and
“On December 12, 2002, she was appointed to the Senate by the Rt. Honourable Jean Chrétien to the Senatorial Division of New Brunswick. As a Senator, she has been or still is: member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, member of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, member of the Joint Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, member of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration………………”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsBio/senator_biography.aspx?senator_id=2753
https://twitter.com/JCDoubleTaxed/status/711709836791062529
“..a provision that allows organizations to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breach or possible violation of any law.”
And yet, an Ontario court recently refused a request by Peel Regional Police for access to 40,000 cell phone records for a fishing expedition, saying it violated the Charter. So, PIPEDA may have been altered, but that did not allow such a fishing expedition.
How many ways can we say — we’ve been S H A F T E D ?
Thanks for the post, Tricia.
In US, Apple will not give up info on single cell phone. Wasn’t there a warrant for that?
Imagine having to pay US taxes without representation! Well….let’s try this…but, first some background.
Donald Trump is a disgrace to everything decent. He’s an embarrassment to even those of us who disdain the united states government but still love what’s good about America. We expats living in Canada are on his radar for helping him make “America great again”; he’ll help us lose jobs and increase unemployment, and try to influence change in what’s decent about our Canadian citizens. We expats have a duty to help prevent him from becoming president.
And Clinton is a crook.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is Canadian by birth. Even though he renounced his Canadian citizenship, I bet he’s still Canadian at heart. And if he isn’t, we’ll help him re-appreciate his roots for decency and a country of fair play (despite Harper).
So…here’s what I’m thinking…a CANADIAN EXPATS FOR CRUZ – WE TRUST TED campaign.
What would happen if we expats got behind Ted Cruz to help our American friends defeat Trump? What would happen if, by some proxy, we influence Ted Cruz to become our “representative”? What would happen if Ted agrees to our expat support subject to his commitment to end FACTA in exchange for our support and publicity and,,,and…and what else?
Some of us might have to hold our noses but what have we got to lose? A movement in Canada by expats and other Canadians that grasps the attention (and hearts) of the American voting public in the United States to prevent Trump from the presidency? What would happen if this movement took hold in Europe and elsewhere where US expats are being attacked by their government?
Hey…what about this?…CANADAIN CITIZENS FOR TED – WE TRUST HIM, but before we do this, we (our delegation) meet Mr. Cruz, offer our support via every form of media we can hook into, and try to influence him and every America citizen who loves freedom while living (not hiding money) in Canada to consider what their neighbors to the north can do for them and decency in government. Heck, I know some supporters of Cruz’s PAC have financial interests in Canada.
Look…Brock didn’t die for nothing. Canadians have American’s respect. We might be able to prevent Trump for taking control and help free ourselves through Mr. Cruz who believes in freedom from tax (Tea Party people). And if Cruz, after he is elected, screws us after he promises us to kill FACTA, then we march, once again, on the White House.
What do you think?
@JohnCanuck
I remember during the trial the issue of “bulk reporting” and “fishing” came up and there was the standby-everything about the IGA is okay because of the Treaty.
Well, I am on a soapbox lately and all I can hear is Allison in Dec 2012-it’s a tax-treaty override. They wouldn’t need it if it was in the Treaty. And though Judge Martineau claimed it was not the court’s job to determine the validity of the IGA, I think it very much IS relevant, at least on a Charter level.
This whole thing has simply got to implode. It is based on wrong principles all the way down the line. I am going to keep digging because, nothing may have worked so far but things constantly shift. Somewhere down the line………..
@Tricia, there is valuable food for thought there – in the Senator’s words. She obviously understood a lot about the Charter and other issues. And re “all I can hear is Allison in Dec 2012-it’s a tax-treaty override. They wouldn’t need it if it was in the Treaty. And though Judge Martineau claimed it was not the court’s job to determine the validity of the IGA, I think it very much IS relevant, at least on a Charter level. ” I think you’re absolutely right.
Something really stinks re the CRA ” ….In its response to iPolitics, CRA officials downplayed the decision to proceed with the transfer of 155,000 records to the IRS before it received an assessment from the Privacy Commissioner’s Daniel Therrien’s office (OPC), saying it consulted Therrien’s office and “received valuable input.”
“The recommendations do not prevent the CRA from exchanging the required information. Action plans in response to the OPC’s recommendations are being prepared.”…….. https://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/17/trudeau-liberals-reverse-position-on-controversial-irs-information-sharing-deal/
How can the CRA be developing “…. Action plans in response to the OPC’s recommendations..” yet they have already sent one set of Canadian’s data. If all was kosher, then what is there for them to do to respond re the OPC?
As Arthur Cockfield https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/60r4kgrxxtjd84g/24%20panel%204%20speaker%203%20Arthur%20Cockfield.mp3?dl=1&token_hash=AAEq-FGCh2XKKlaQeihquw8wyLnJO5OH2zPcfOHG6pyTYQ and also Murray Rankin note, https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/31/murray-rankin-25/ when the data crosses into the US, all bets are off in terms of control of it, dissemination, use, etc. because the US Patriot Act and Homeland Security laws then apply – and no-one from the Federal government or CRA has ever even tried to claim that the IGA will trump those US laws – they just keep silent – and sin by ommission.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
“Indeed, so it might be that information could well find itself…as we’ve seen in other contexts with the United States taking our information. There’s the USA PATRIOT Act, there are a number of other statutes where the information on Canadian/U.S. persons could well find its way into other entities. We’re just relying on their statement that they’re not going to do that.”
Finance Committee on May 1st, 2014
Evidence of meeting #31 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session.
“Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is Canadian by birth. Even though he renounced his Canadian citizenship, I bet he’s still Canadian at heart.”
Like the way some Canadian politicians[*] and Ginny are still American at heart? I hope you lose your bet.
“Hey…what about this?…CANADAIN CITIZENS FOR TED – WE TRUST HIM”
What about this? Canadian citizens for Canadian sovereignty — we trust it.[**]
[* The irony in this statement excludes Harper, Trudeau, and their colleagues who really are American at heart.]
[** Well actually we don’t, which is why there’s a lawsuit which we hope will make it that way.]
https://twitter.com/JCDoubleTaxed/status/711764738808487936
So it looks like we’ve had some friends in high places all along who stood up for us and for what is right. As usual, however, they were outnumbered by those with lily livers who were too afraid of the USA to remember that their salaries are paid by the *Canadian* people to protect them from harmful legislation.
Perhaps we should begin a letter-writing campaign to send letters of thanks to Senators Ringuette and Hervieux-Payette as well as all the other senators who voted to remove Part V from Bill C-31. Theirs was a heroic attempt to stop the FATCA train in its tracks. Even though they were unsuccessful I am very glad to know that they tried.
Thank you for this post, Tricia!
@Dave
Cruz is a narcissistic, ultra-religious, control-freak intent on sending the entire free world back about 150 years.
Imho, go Sanders
And I note that in terms of the Liberal back peddling on the FATCA IGA and now the Liberal government taking up the Con position in defending it http://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/17/trudeau-liberals-reverse-position-on-controversial-irs-information-sharing-deal/ , both Senator Hervieux-Payette and Ringuette are members of the Liberal Party.
Too bad that Wikipedia says that Senator Hervieux-Payette is about to reach mandatory retirement age for the Senate:
“Céline Hervieux-Payette, PC (born April 22, 1941, L’Assomption, Quebec) is a Canadian Senator and the former Leader of the Opposition in the Canadian Senate (2007-2008), the first woman ever to hold this position. She was previously a Liberal Member of Parliament from 1979 to 1984 and a cabinet minister in the government of Pierre Trudeau in the 1980s. She will retire from the Senate on April 22, 2016 upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9line_Hervieux-Payette
Senator Ringuette still has a ways to go before the mandatory retirement age. She must know this issue of being deemed a US person very well because she is from New Brunswick. No doubt she saw the coverage of Alward, and knows that there has historically been lots of border births and cross border travel and immigration (in the past, informal in nature).
See this for a reminder of French-Canadian emigration to the US, and returns:
“…Between 1840 and 1930 roughly 900 000 French Canadians left Canada to emigrate to the United States. This important migration, which has now been largely forgotten in Quebec’s collective memory, is certainly one of the major events in Canadian demographic history. According to the 1980 American census, 13.6 million Americans claimed to have French ancestors….”.
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/readings/leaving.htm . This is cited also in the above paper re Quebec duals form a certain period “Leon TRUESDELL, The Canadian Born in the United States, New haven, 1943, p. 77; as given in Yves ROBY, Les Franco-Américains de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, Sillery, Septentrion, 1990, p. 282.”. Another source; http://www.educ.ualberta.ca/css/Css_38_2/BRcrossing_parallel_migration.htm http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100674680 . There were other instances of Canadians becoming US residents via adoption, for ex. see http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=37127 .
Note that Chretien’s father lived in the US for a time, such that Chretien (joking or not?) recently claimed he could qualify to run for US president via his parentage https://twitter.com/CABC_co/status/676420346753318913 https://youtu.be/UlduvpvAPn4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrette_Ringuette
Anyone who thinks that emigration/immigration and cross border flows between the US and Canada is straightforward. Even the Con MP Gerald Keddy understood something about the magnitude of people in his region that the Cons were betraying when he opposed any amendment to the FATCA IGA which would exclude Canadian residents https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/39/gerald-keddy-1/ .
Maybe Senator Hervieux-Payette would be willing to go out on a limb re this issue and take a last position on FATCA in Canada before she leaves the Senate?
@Patricia Moon,
“all I can hear is Allison in Dec 2012-it’s a tax-treaty override.”
There’s no other way to read it. She rightly pointed out why– it had to be implemented ON PURPOSE. There’s no way the authors of this didn’t know.
The questions are: 1) who is gaining if this passes w/o a grumble or care? And 2), who is NOT covering it in the press & why (see #1)?
I’m generally NOT a conspiracy-theorist, but you can only have reality “rearranged” so many times before it becomes obvious. I believe we’re looking at global “law-fare” as Assange put it. Why waste money with war when you can bully your way to what you want? What’s next? “Do what we say or we drone/bomb you”?
This is a very pivotal point in our human history (I agree with John Richardson).
From the office of Senator Pierrette Ringuette
New Brunswick
Harper government’s implementation of FATCA raises grave concerns over Canadian privacy and sovereignty
July 8, 2014
For Immediate Release
July 8th, 2014
Harper government’s implementation of FATCA raises grave concerns over Canadian privacy and sovereignty
OTTAWA – On June 19th, the Parliament of Canada passed legislation as part of the budget implementation act C-31, that incorporates the United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) into Canadian law.
This new law forces Canadian banks to share the information of US citizen who have accounts in Canadian banks. It will also mean sharing information of other citizens of Canada who are in financial arrangements with dual citizens, including those with joint bank accounts and business partnerships.
It is a new law in Canada that enforces a US law within our own borders.
It should be noted that there has been no reciprocal agreement; Canadians’ information will be sent south with no tangible benefit in return.
This builds on existing US law requiring Canadians with U.S. citizenship to file income tax returns with the U.S. government, regardless of their current residence status or where they earn the income.
In fact, the U.S. is the only country that bases its income tax filing requirements on citizenship, instead of residency. As Senator Pierrette Ringuette noted in a speech in the Senate; “It’s funny that a country that had a revolution started by the Boston Tea Party based on taxation without services would have legislation to tax citizen non-residents who are not getting services from their government.”
This is an issue that Senator Ringuette has been following closely for several years now. There are a number of dual citizens that live along the New Brunswick-Maine border and they have contacted Senator Ringuette’s office to express their deep concerns over this and other practices related to American gathering of their information.
Senator Ringuette introduced an amendment to the budget implementation act to stop this absurd violation of Canadians’ privacy and sovereignty, but it was voted down by the Conservative majority in the Senate.
In a letter in 2011, the late Minster Jim Flaherty referred to FATCA as “extraterritorial” and that “It would turn Canadian banks into extensions of the IRS and would raise significant privacy concerns for Canadians.”
Concerns over possible violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were raised repeatedly during the committee hearings and in the media, but the government refused to address these concerns. Specifically, it potentially breaches sections 8 and 15(1) of the Charter, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.
Section 8 grants the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure and section 15(1) grants the right to equal protection under the law. This law also allows for significant privacy violations without due causes and treats dual citizens as a separate class.
A recent Supreme Court decision has created precedent that even the most basic personal information that would be shared under this law potentially requires a search warrant.
In addition to privacy and sovereignty concerns, FATCA may also have steep consequences for the financial sector, including supressing cross border investment. The complexity and lack of firm guidance is costing Canadian financial institutions. The high compliance requirements may be absorbed by larger institutions, but could prove to be a large burden on smaller ones, like credit unions.
Senator Ringuette released the following statement; “Why are we taking action to enforce American laws in our own country, using our resources, all to benefit US tax collection and work against the privacy interests of our own citizens? It makes no sense; we are the representatives of the Canadian people, not the IRS.
I don’t think this law has been thought out; there remain deep concerns and consequences that need to be further explored and addressed. I would urge the government to delay implementation until we can be assured that this will not have a largely negative impact on Canadians.”
For more information:
Tim Rosenburgh
Office of Senator Pierrette Ringuette
timothy.rosenburgh@sen.parl.gc.ca
(613) 943-2248
Amendment tabled by Sen. Ringuette on June 18th, 2014
THAT Bill C-31 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,
(a) on pages 72 to 83, by deleting Part 5; and
(b) on pages 316 to 357, by deleting Schedule 3.
Transcript:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/412/Debates/074db_2014-06-18-e.htm#59
*A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian*
Hypocrisy is Hypocrisy is Hypocrisy (for the Liberals who used the slogan pre-election but not post-election.
A lie is a lie is a lie? — https://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/19/as-a-senator-andre-pratte-hopes-to-avoid-the-trap-of-lying/
Someone just sent me this article from CBC News, March 10, 2016:
6 independent senators form ‘non-partisan’ group
“Half a dozen senators say they are forming a working group to promote an “independent, non-partisan” Senate, days after two of them quit the Conservative caucus to sit as independents.
“Partisanship that has been blindly one-sided and lacked impartiality, has seriously eroded the credibility and reputation of the Senate,” said senators Diane Bellemare, Jacques Demers, Elaine McCoy, Pierrette Ringuette, Michel Rivard and John Wallace in a joint statement on Thursday.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/independent-senators-form-non-partisan-group-1.3484900
Ms Ringuette may be more approachable than we think.
@ Norman Diamond
This is indeed a notable day for you and me. We finally agree on an important principle and thank you for these comments:
Norman Diamond says
March 20, 2016 at 11:44 pm
“Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is Canadian by birth. Even though he renounced his Canadian citizenship, I bet he’s still Canadian at heart.”
Like the way some Canadian politicians[*] and Ginny are still American at heart? I hope you lose your bet.
“Hey…what about this?…CANADAIN CITIZENS FOR TED – WE TRUST HIM”
What about this? Canadian citizens for Canadian sovereignty — we trust it.[**]
[* The irony in this statement excludes Harper, Trudeau, and their colleagues who really are American at heart.]
[** Well actually we don’t, which is why there’s a lawsuit which we hope will make it that way.]
___
You can bet your bootie that I am not an American at heart. I don’t have that historical, emotional or loyalty that others feel. That’s not a criticism of those that do it’s just not my experience.
Nor will I ever believe Cruz has any Canadian identity in his heart. Besides which, I have no dog in the fight with however the American election goes. Opinions yes, but my opinions are not important and the last thing I would ever do is start acting like an expat.
I really enjoyed this comment you made and couldn’t have said it better: How about Canadian citizens for sovereignty.
That’s my whole focus and it’s the point we Canadians are making.
Is there a full moon? Norman and Ginny on the same page!! You just made my day. Thanks.
@ Canadian Ginny
“Nor will I ever believe Cruz has any Canadian identity in his heart.”
I agree. Even if someone discovered he had a tiny smidgen of Canadian identity, he would adamantly deny it since his quest is to be yet another American president who would, if elected, continue on the same path as the previous presidents (possible exceptions being made for Kennedy and Carter). Americans in the homeland tend to be very squinty-eyed leery of anything or anyone “foreign” and that’s what Canada, Canadians and our ever elusive Canadian identity are to them. Cruz does not want his past connection to Canada to hamper his campaign.
But back to this Senate debate that Tricia found. I wished I’d known back then about these good Senators — Ringuette, Hervieux-Payette and Chaput — who tried to at least have Part 5 taken off the Omnibus and debated separately. I would have thanked them.
You bet, kudos to Tricia, what a great find.
.But back to this Senate debate that Tricia found. I wished I’d known back then about these good Senators — Ringuette, Hervieux-Payette and Chaput — who tried to at least have Part 5 taken off the Omnibus and debated separately. I would have thanked them.
Senator Ringuette released the following statement; “Why are we taking action to enforce American laws in our own country, using our resources, all to benefit US tax collection and work against the privacy interests of our own citizens? It makes no sense; we are the representatives of the Canadian people, not the IRS.
Bazinga, or as Hamlet would say, that is the question. Meanwhile we have to fight for the answer and witness the Liberal capitulation.
“Is there a full moon? Norman and Ginny on the same page!!”
Hey, I made 3 donations, meagre as they were. I didn’t make any this year because my income in 2015 was negative, but I thought we already were on the same page.
I understand we have different opinions of judges because we have different experiences. I bet you’d change your mind if you had things like the US Federal Circuit ruling that it’s frivolous to fail to fabricate a US social security number for someone who hadn’t been able to get either an SSN or ITIN, not for lack of trying. Now mind you, I obeyed the court after they made that ruling, and the IRS accepted the fake SSN, but that doesn’t mean I consider the judges sane.
It’s all good Norman. Your support, financially and in other ways is appreciated. And yes, we are formed to an extent by our past experiences. It’s part of why we are survivors I guess.
And frankly, I too have run across some judges in my time and questioned their motives and perspectives.
Having said that, coincidentally as I was letting the best dog in the world out tonight, I noticed a pretty bright if not totally full moon shining its little heart out. It shines equally for you and me!
Have a great night, Norman and best to you. I like your fighting spirit. We have more in common than our differences.
We can thank those senators now. My letter is almost finished and ready to go. It’s an opportunity to remind them we’re still here and need their continuing support. If they’re becoming more independently minded that’s all to the good, and our benefit.