82 thoughts on “April 14, 2016 Canadian Parliament ETHI – Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy & Ethics”

1. Thanks, EmBee. I’ll put that in the body of the post as well so we can continue to gather all relating to the April 14th meeting.

2. @ calgary411
   LOL … “EmBee’s good research” … guess I did a very mini badger dig.

3. Watching all this is disheartening and discouraging. If these are the leaders who represent the people, then there is little hope, very little hope of getting anything done with them. Not one of them, not a single one, even understands the most basic and rudimentary facts about the IGA that they are enforcing and supporting. Not one of them grasps the negative sides to all of this, the harm that it causes to the very economy, country and citizens that they are supposed to be serving. Such incompetence, such amateurism and at the same time, no real intellectual curiosity to try to figure out what all the fuss is about.

   It has been said on this site many times, the error that has been made by those fighting this battle in public, is to have focussed too much, if not nearly exclusively, on the violation of privacy aspect of FATCA. The focus should have been and should now be going forward, on the financial drain that this puts on Canadian citizens, the Canadian economy and how by signing on to FATCA, Canada has allowed another country to enter into its tax base, allowing that other country to tax Canadian property, tax Canadian capital gains, levy penalties on Canadian citizens, on Canadian earned and already taxed income and allow millions of Canadian dollars to be siphoned out of the Canadian economy and sent to the U.S.A. It has allowed open discrimination on a subset of Canadian citizens, against all Charter rules and practices. That is the story that is cut and dry. That is the story that no law maker can sit back and say that they agree and find normal and correct. Privacy is an open ended debate. What is a violation of privacy for one, is fine for another and in full respect of privacy laws. We need to get out of that slippery slope debate, as you now see the result. We need to focus on the loss of Canadian dollars to the economy and the entry, by stealth, of another country, into Canada’s tax base. Privacy is not the issue, especially as it is a nearly non-existent notion in most “developed” countries nowadays. Canada is seeing sums of Canadian earned and already taxed dollars transferred to the U.S.A. That is the story.

4. Jacob: In case you haven’t seen it already, here is a document that has attempted to spell out the cost of FATCA to the Canadian economy. Please send this link to anyone you think could help get the story out. You are right. Neither people nor governments pay a speck of attention to anything that doesn’t involve getting hit in the pocketbook
   http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Costs-to-Canada-of-FATCA-Agreement-Final-copy-2.pdf

5. I am watching this again. I note that Liberal MP Wayne Long Member of Parliament
   for Saint John—Rothesay (New Brunswick) is also a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

   Where does he stand on the US asserting that in order to “protect the integrity of its tax system” that it has the right to extraterritorially tax the Canadian disability benefits and grants belonging to Canadian residents and citizens with disabilities, and paid for by Canadian taxpayers from Canadian tax revenues to support important Canadian social goals and values? And where does he stand on the ETHICS of a foreign nation asserting the de facto ownership of those Canadians if they are deemed legally incompetent – and thus will never be allowed to renounce the US citizenship they had foisted on them without consent?

   Wayne Long is a Member of:
   Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
   as well as the
   Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

   http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Wayne-Long%2888368%29/CurrentRoles

6. What a disgraceful performance by the Committee and by the Minister.

7. Thanks (again – for all you find), badger.

   I’ll try to gather the energy to send another query to Liberal MP Wayne Long Member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay (New Brunswick) who, you point out, is also a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

8. I agree that the focus of the fight should shift away from privacy to the extortion of money from tax paying Canadian residents and citizens, who happen to have had the misfortune of either being born in the U.S., or have some other tenuous connection to that country. Just thinking of this injustice and how it is perpetrated just makes one feel sick.
   On another topic, does anybody here know what has become of the U.S. legal case, launched by Republicans Overseas? They were actively seeking funding and gave updates on their Facebook page awhile back, but now, nothing. Does anybody know if something is happening and if so, when?

9. @calgary, thank you – as always, for bringing this (and many other important issues) to our attention – and keeping it in view. This is a human rights violation.

   What does it say about a society and its members when it is considered acceptable to sacrifice the most vulnerable in pursuit of political and ideological aims?

   What does it say about the values and ethics of the Revenue Minister that she would even defend a law which victimizes minors and those with disabilities based solely on their birthplace or parentage (ironically, she is a SOCIAL worker who the Liberal party says; “…. spent more than 23 years working with the clients of the Rocher Percé Health and Social Services Centre, where her professionalism, versatility, excellent judgement, and respect for others were sought out and recognized time and time again. As part of the team working for the Gaspé MNA, the late Georges Mamelonet, she was responsible for any social issue casefiles…..” https://dianelebouthillier.liberal.ca/en/biography/ – who should know better), the Ethics committee, the Privacy committee, and those who legislated this and enacted it on the backs of their fellow citizens?

   We know very well by know, and it has been proven, that the CON and now the Trudeau governments haven’t even bothered to protect RESPS and RDSPs in the Canada- US tax treaty. Because they are more interested in protecting the stated interests of the US and its tax system than the legal local savings and grants belonging by Canadian law to Canadian families, children and those with disabilities.

   As presumably a member of a regulated profession of social workers, http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=3&file=/C_26/C26R286_A.HTM Mme Lebouthillier should be ashamed of herself. She is working against the best interests of Canadians.

   And she’s got no qualifications to be Minister of Revenue.

10. well said Jacob.

11. @Jacob – I agree completely.

    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/04/18/april-14-2016-canadian-parliament-ethi-standing-committee-on-access-to-information-privacy-ethics/comment-page-3/#comment-7489286

    The error that has been made by those fighting this battle in public, is to have focused too much, if not nearly exclusively, on the violation of privacy aspect of FATCA………….. The focus should have been and should now be going forward, on the financial drain that this puts on Canadian citizens, the Canadian economy and how by signing on to FATCA, Canada has allowed another country to enter into its tax base, allowing that other country to tax Canadian property, tax Canadian capital gains, levy penalties on Canadian citizens, on Canadian earned and already taxed income and allow millions of Canadian dollars to be siphoned out of the Canadian economy and sent to the U.S.A. Privacy is an open ended debate. What is a violation of privacy for one, is fine for another and in full respect of privacy laws. We need to get out of that slippery slope debate.

    The script to follow I sense from the Summary Trial is encapsulated in the expert witness testimonies of Allison Christians and Robert Wood. Christians on Tax Treaty Gaps, and Wood on what the IRS will likely do with the FATCA information. No expert testimony on privacy violations. So then why is not the expert testimony of Allison Christians (or focus on the financial injustices) not referenced more in public?

    In my view the tax treaty also represents its injustices especially in what exemptions are not in there. I might see why the FATCA IGA is targeted over the tax treaty as the FATCA IGA is very much more in your face – in the face of all Canadians – Canadian law requiring discrimination by the banks based on national origin – asking all new account holders etc. to certify if they are US persons or not. The question is why the over focus on privacy and not the highlight of this discrimination by national origin and its financial consequences which, I agree with @Jacob, would “connect” better than claims of privacy violations.

12. The transcript for the ETHI-8 (April 14) meeting is now available.
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8188113

13. @ calgary411
    Could you please update the post to include the direct link to the transcript (comment above)? The waiting is over. That meeting is as irritating in words as it was to watch.

14. Thanks for providing this link, EmBee. The post is now updated.

15. Privacy Commissioner of Canada Therrien, the CRA and the Minister of Revenue’s tepid assurances ring ever more hollow and disingenuous in light of the fast moving growing predations of the US on privacy, now including hacking of personal computers anywhere in the world the US claims jurisdiction.

    “The DoJ wants judges to be able to issue remote search warrants for computers located anywhere that the United States claims jurisdiction, which could include other countries.

    A remote search typically involves trying to access a suspect’s computer over the internet to explore the data contained on it.”

    See the rest of the excerpt below, read the whole article and think of the US demands that it can deem anyone it wants to as a “US taxable person” anywhere in the world, and our Canadian government’s ‘defense’ that those in Canada are subject to US extraterritorial law. Think of those Canadians with local legal accounts in Canada, living and banking and working OUTSIDE the US being ordered to register and create an account with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network FINCEN in order to file FBARs – which it deliberately demands that filers do so only ONLINE now.

    “The US Supreme Court has approved a rule change that could allow law enforcement to remotely search computers around the world.

    Previously, magistrate judges could order searches only within the jurisdiction of their court, often limited to a few counties.

    The US Department of Justice (DoJ) said the change was necessary to modernise the law for the digital age.

    But digital rights groups say the move expands the FBI’s hacking authority.

    The DoJ wants judges to be able to issue remote search warrants for computers located anywhere that the United States claims jurisdiction, which could include other countries.

    A remote search typically involves trying to access a suspect’s computer over the internet to explore the data contained on it.

    It has pushed for a change in the rules since 2013, arguing that criminals can mask their location and identity online making it difficult to determine which jurisdiction a computer is located in.”………………
    from;
    ‘US Supreme Court approves expanded hacking powers’
    29 April 2016

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36169019

    The CRA is increasing being proven deliberately disingenous in purporting to believe that the word of the US government means anything in terms of protecting the privacy and Charter rights of Canadians.

    Always remember that FATCAnatic Levin and FATCAfather Harvey wanted FATCA information to NOT be restrained by any existing limits placed on the sharing, storage, dissemination, and use of tax information.
    http://maplesandbox.ca/2013/carl-levin-fatca-for-law-enforcement-national-security/
    http://bsmlegal.com/PDFs/CarlLevin.pdf

    Never never forget this recommendation of Richard ‘Dick’ Harvey:
    “… Harvey suggests that tax authorities may want to increase coordination with the anti-money laundering/terrorist financing arms of government. Detailed customer due diligence may be easier to justify if it is being done for both tax and anti-terrorist/money laundering reasons.”….
    See;
    http://ssrn.com/abstract=2122491
    ‘FATCA – A Report from the Front Lines’
    Tax Notes, p. 713, August 6, 2012, Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2013-3001

    Now couple that with Canada’s Bill C-51
    http://globalnews.ca/news/2597637/federal-agencies-already-using-new-bill-c-51-information-sharing-powers/

16. Thank you for posting here, badger, and for finding this BBC piece, King of the Road.

    What the US will get away with and other countries allow be done to them becomes more and more unbelievable. I thought civilized people agreed that rape was reprehensible. Does this Liberal government think not?

17. I thought the US already claimed jurisdiction over the entire world and already hacked any computer that they felt like hacking, no matter where it was. What difference does it make if the Supreme Court now rubber stamps what they have been doing for many years? As long as other countries continue to put up with this crap, the US will keep on doing it.

    I did hear on the news that Hong Kong just refused to let a US aircraft carrier enter their harbour; that’s a small step in the right direction.

18. More evidence that no matter the empty words of our CRA, Finance and Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the IRS is not capable of securing taxpayer data;
    http://federalnewsradio.com/management/2016/04/tougher-security-taxpayer-transparency-delicate-balance-irs/

19. This is related, badger and others:

    http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/tax-practice/saying-no-to-outside-agencies-in-tax-collections-77965-1.html?utm_medium=email&ET=webcpa:e6630795:2531408a:&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily-may%202%202016&st=email&eid=fb961c62ae0186d9f1654fb49dc009db

    “We think it’s a bad idea,” said Mankowski, who recently testified at a hearing of the House Committee on Small Business on “Small Business and the Federal Government: How Cyber Attacks Threaten Both.” His prepared remarks described the risks faced by businesses in general and CPA firms in particular to guard against ID theft. During the questions that followed his presentation, he made the point that the collections issue added further risk to taxpayers whose personal data would be open to the collection agencies.

    “The education we’ve been providing to our clients that the IRS won’t phone them or send out e-mails is going by the wayside,” he said. “So many of them have received scam phone calls and spoofing e-mails that we constantly remind them that the IRS doesn’t do these things – but now it will.”

    “They’re still working out the parameters of the process,” he said. “They need to determine which accounts will get sent out to collectors, and what information on the taxpayers the collectors will have. There are a lot of gray areas to work through. For example, if you get a phone call from a collector will you have the right to say, ‘I’m not dealing with you, I want to deal with the IRS’?”

    “Taxpayers may be required to deal with the collectors,” he said. “It can be a scary time, especially with ID theft rampant. People will have no idea who the collectors are. The outside collectors will have access to personal tax information, and the data to support what the IRS claims the taxpayer owes.”

    “At least we got it on record that there were concerns from the ID theft perspective on the outsourcing of collections,” he added.

    Mankowski noted that ID theft has been growing exponentially for years. “It seems that no matter what controls are put in place, criminals have better and more focused resources to circumvent these safeguards,” he said.

20. I just received this email:

    From: “Min.Mail / Courrier.Min (CRA/ARC)”

    To: Carol Tapanila
    Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 3:38:14 PM
    Subject: the Canada–U.S. intergovernmental agreement

    Ms. Carol Tapanila

    Dear Ms. Tapanila:

    Thank you for your correspondence about the Canada–U.S. intergovernmental agreement to implement the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act provisions, and U.S. taxation of U.S. citizens who are residents in Canada and are unable to renounce their citizenship because of mental incapacity. I apologize for the delay in replying.

    I would first like to mention that I am sympathetic to the difficulties regarding U.S. filing obligations that have been expressed by many Canadians who are residents of Canada, but are also considered U.S. persons.

    With respect to the U.S. tax-filing obligations of Canadian residents who hold U.S. citizenship, the agreement does not impose any new taxes, penalties, or tax return filing obligations, and does not affect any U.S. domestic laws related to citizenship. It relates only to the sharing of information. The U.S. policy of taxing its citizens, even those who are not residents, has been in place since 1913. While this is different from the approach followed by Canada and most other countries, Canada respects the right of the U.S. to tax on this basis.

    The Canada–U.S. tax treaty offers relief in many areas, for example, for income earned in a registered retirement savings plan. However, income earned in a registered disability savings plan or registered education savings plan is taxable in the U.S., while it is exempt in Canada. An amendment to the treaty would be needed to provide for an exemption from, or deferral of, tax in the U.S. on these plans. The Department of Finance Canada is responsible for tax policy, including tax treaty negotiations. Therefore, I have forwarded a copy of your correspondence to the Minister of Finance.

    I am also sympathetic to your frustration regarding the inability to renounce citizenship in the U.S. due to mental incapacity. I understand that the intention is to protect those individuals, however, I cannot comment further on a U.S. domestic law issue.

    I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

    Sincerely,

    The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, P.C., M.P.
    Minister of National Revenue

    c.c.: The Honourable Bill Morneau, P.C., M.P.

    Sympathy from The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Revenue is not enough for me and other families like mine — or the sum total of *US Persons in Canada*.

    I want to know now what The Honourable Bill Morneau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance, is working on regarding the US-Canada Tax Treaty in regard to, among other issues, the Registered Education Savings Plan and the Registered Disability Savings Plan – how soon will we see a result? Until then, will the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Revenue issue a warning so anyone with any kind of *US taint* will not in the first place enter into these investments that were intended to benefit ALL Canadians? Will there be a statement issued that *All Canadians* does not include *Americans who happen to reside in Canada* even though they took their first breath on Canadian soil? We tainted *US Persons in Canada* need clarification that our Liberal Prime Minister’s pre-election statement, *A Canadian is A Canadian is A Canadian* is not inclusive after all.

    I also want to know from the Prime Minister of Canada why my Canadian-born son’s (and other Canadian *Accidental Americans*) Canadian rights do not take priority over any US-deemed US citizenship. How can a person who has never lived a day of his or her life in the US and has had no benefit from the US, but because of lack of requisite mental capacity, be so entrapped into complex and costly US compliance by the barriers placed by the US, including the fact that such a person’s Canadian’s parents, guardians or trustees cannot act on such a person’s behalf — especially in light of the consequences of US citizenship-based taxation? There was an amendment offered that the Conservatives and now the Liberals ignore, thrown to the winds, government officials never even attempting to negotiate the rights of Canadians with the US, the government who our own government representatives now seemingly take their orders from without question or negotiation on behalf of their own country’s citizens.

21. Calgary411, it’s somewhat nice to see that the MNR finally read your letter. Please follow up and ask her why Canada didn’t do the same for Eritrea.

22. I’m really sick of being lectured by our MPs about how US tax law is the law is the law. F-them! It’s not the law in Canada. Why the hell are they not more strongly defending residency based taxation as the ONLY sensible way (given the choices) to tax citizens and telling the US what idiots they are for maintaining such an abomination? I hate this shoulder shrugging, their “gee shucks” attitude and the implication that we should be filing anyway. That’s not the point!

    Simpering wimps, all of them!

23. Changing the tax treaty so that RESPs and RDSPs are no longer taxable by USA doesn’t help those of us who after decades of thinking we were Canadian taxpayers only (and why wouldn’t most of us think any other way) we find ourselves facing a complicated, expensive US tax compliance nightmare, not to mention the amnesty programs (with potential penalties) as if we are some sort of criminals.

    The young ones starting out can maybe work around things relatively easily especially if the tax treaty is changed. But, what does she expect those of us ‘of a certain age’ as Dash describes the over 40’s (or thereabouts) to do at this point in our lives? Will the Canadian government help us with this financial nightmare and information gathering nightmare (thinking PFICS) we are facing? It’s not enough to renounce US citizenship, as if that is not expensive enough. The compliance is a fucking nightmare. I have PFICS coming out of all orifices in several so-called ‘foreign trusts’ cause that is what the nice lady at the bank told me to do way before any of this FATCA shit was on the radar. And all the MNR can say is she has sympathy for US slaves (err I mean US persons) but that she respects the USA’s right to fuck us up the ass. A social worker? Really? Obviously she was in the wrong job before and is in the right one now as she is doing exactly as told by the powers that be, and not thinking about the social implications of what she is agreeing with.

24. A social worker, who throws hundreds of thousands of Canadians to the US wolves. For shame.

25. @Calgary411

    The NRM seems to be cognizant of the fact that we should not be referred to as “Americans abiding in Canada” and the like.

    It still doesn’t change the fact we’re being treated as such, however. For shame, indeed.