I feel that USCitzenAbroad’s comment on Eric’s post is deserving of its own post.
The (former) Premier of New Brunswick David Alward, born in Massachusetts (who previously expressed frustration over his IRS tax compliance obligations) has renounced his U.S. citizenship.
USCitizenAbroad now alerts us to the possibility that another Premier, Premier-Elect Rachel Notley of Alberta, may also be a U.S. person.
For the protection of these hapless U.S. persons and that of the Canadian people, should proof of non-U.S. citizenship status be a requirement for accepting public office in Canada for all those who have a U.S. taint?
THE ORIGINAL COMMENT:
@Eric
Thanks for your continued research and attention to detail on this important topic.
Thanks in particular for including the chart of “some” recent renunciants. I note that “David Alward”, (the former premier of New Brunswick), is on that list. I note also that the reason given was his acceptance of his new role as Canadian Consul General in Boston. [I (SK) personally believe that there are other reasons; see below].
This may be a bit of a “homecoming” for Mr. Alward. A Wikepedia entry says that was born in Beverly, Massachusetts and moved to Canada at a young age (a familiar narrative).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Alward
Alward was born in Beverly, Massachusetts. The son of a minister, Alward moved to Atlantic Canada in his youth where he graduated from high school in Nackawic, New Brunswick.[4] Alward received his post-secondary education in psychology in the United States at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee.[5]
Mr. Alward’s renunciation of U.S. citizenship is of possible interest for another reason. It was reported in 2011, (and apparently confirmed by Mr Alward) that he was having the usual “U.S. tax compliance problems”. See the following blog post (which appears to have been based on news articles in 2011):
https://expatsinca.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/new-brunswick-premier-david-alward-caught-in-fatca-nightmare/
At least we’re not alone; New Brunswick Premier David Alward is caught in the same broad net that is causing so much stress and lack of sleep for American expats the world over.
Alward, who was born in Massachusetts and spent a few years of his childhood in the US before his family settled in New Brunswick, has issued a statement that he understands the frustration we feel as we sort through years of records to bring ourselves into compliance with the US Treasure Department’s draconian regulations.
“I’ve had to scramble like thousands of other people,” Alward said, adding that he is complying with the U.S. demand for tax returns going back years and detailed disclosures.
“This is a difficult situation for a lot of people. I can tell them I am going through the very same thing they are going through.”
FATCA – which was enacted in an attempt to catch and punish tax evaders, drug lords, and money launderers – casts too broad a net, and is instead causing a great deal of fear among honest, law-abiding Canadian residents who do not owe money to the US. Many, like Alward, have only distant ties to the US.
“I don’t know where it will lead or what our success will be – they have the right to tax American citizens. But the fact is a lot of these people that are in Canada, and I think it’s over a million, most have never lived in the United States and it’s just happenstance they were born there,” added Keith Ashfield, Canada’s former revenue minister and the senior cabinet minister for New Brunswick.
We are not criminals, and we are not tax evaders. We’ve merely committed errors of omission and we do not deserve to lumped in alongside wilful tax evaders.
Such is part of the story of the former premier of the Canadian province of New Brunswick. I wish him luck in his new job.
Mr. Alward is one example of the many Canadians with some kind of U.S. connection in their past. A connection that they clearly regret.
Moving on to current premiers:
As you know, Rachel Notley has just become the NDP premier of Alberta. The following Wikipedia entry includes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Notley
Notley was born on April 17, 1964[4][5][6] in Edmonton, Alberta, and was raised in the town of Fairview, Alberta, the daughter of Sandra Mary “Sandy” (Wilkinson) and Alberta NDP Leader and MLA Grant Notley.[7][8] She is the sister of Paul Notley and Stephen Notley (author and illustrator of Bob the Angry Flower).[9] Her mother was born in Plunkett, Massachusetts.[10]
It appears that Rachel Notley “may” (further details would be required) have been born to a “U.S. citizen” mother. This of course leads to the tantalizing question for Ms. Notley of:
“Are you, or have you ever been a U.S. citizen?”
The Obama Legacy is such that one of the most interesting things to know about a person has become, is the degree of their “USness”.
Even if you were born in the US, grew up there, and then moved to Canada and later becoming a Canadian citizen. The US still has no right to tax you. The IRS can jump off the Boston Tea Party ship.
@Don – 100% AGREE!!
“The Obama Legacy is such that one of the most interesting things to know about a person has become, is the degree of their ‘USness’.”
With respect, “interesting” should be replaced by “consequential” in the statement above.
Accepting employment in the Canadian government relinquishes USA citizenship if it was done with that intention. Now, prove the Premier didn’t have that intention.
@ Tom
Here’ the “gothca” (presuming Ms Notley is a U.S. person and non-tax compliant):
The IRS on the one side can say, “If you knew, you were wilfully non-compliant. Gotcha.”
State on the other side can say, “If you didn’t know, how did you have the intent? Gotcha”
@Shovel
Can even the IRS assume that a relinquishment is tax motivated? There are millions who can attest to the fact that you can know you’re a US citizen, but not know about US tax filing obligations.
@bb
Yes, there is a knife edge to walk between the Gotchas. But you have to know (probably be told: think Bad-Advice Boris) of that knife edge’s existence.
I’m envisioning the (remote) possibility that Notley might go south to negotiate oil deals and i) be charged with entering the US on other than a US passport, or ii) being hauled up on some charge that as a US citizen(?) her first obligation is to the interests of the US while she’s inside their borders.
JC says:
and my comment to that:
This really, really, really, really needs to be absolutely resolved — especially in light of now another Canadian person in the media affected by the absurdity.
It needs to be resolved for Rachel Notley, Premier-Elect of Alberta, who has broken the back of the Progressive Conservative 44-year dynasty in Alberta (if it is an issue for Ms Notley; i.e. she may have resolved her US-ness problem and we don’t really know for sure the facts of her US mother — one reference has her mother born in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts, and Ancestry.com reports obituary information as *NOTLEY KREUZER, Sandra Mary Wilkinson (WILKINSON); 59; Concord MA>Fairview AB; Edmonton J; 1998-10-17; gjm* — and we are discussing something here that is very personal to that family, not something any of us would like so discussed online) as well as every other Canadian-born child to US parent(s) who has no relationship to the US and who did not have any choice in the matter of where they were born or to whom. I made my decision to become a Canadian citizen. My children and others like my children (and Rachel Notley) should have a CHOICE / a CLAIM to US citizenship if their facts allow, NOT an AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION of US citizenship with all the consequences of US citizenship-based taxation compliance and reporting. If not CLAIMED, it should be Null & Void. (This question is especially obscene for one who may also have some lack of *requisite mental capacity* to never be able to renounce for any amount of money — coupled with the fact that a parent, a guardian or a trustee cannot act of such a person’s behalf, even with a court order.)
As brought forward in https://www.facebook.com/ADCSovereignty?fref=nf / https://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/blog/cook-v-tait-the-book/ in reference to:
https://renounceuscitizenship.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/cook-v-tait-10-those-born-outside-the-us-are-not-automatically-us-citizens/
I don’t want to continue to lie low. Who makes this determination — is it just through litigation? The US, DOS – Legal and Immigration / Nationality, say one thing. The law may be interpreted to say something else. This is not my children’s fault — born to *US citizens* in Canada. If there is a fault, it is mine, their mother (who would have used better birth control until I was fully Canadian) — but I knew NOTHING of US citizenship-based taxation and my son’s acquired US citizenship when he was born on Canadian soil and I was a landed immigrant, waiting to become a Canadian citizen. I want this absolutely clear. No parent would knowingly subject their children to this absurdity.
Since there is no common sense in play, is expensive litigation the only way to sort this out for many *Accidental Americans* (on whichever side of the US border such *accidentalness* took place)?
My god, one gets weary!
Dr. Stephen Kish,
It was not lost on me that you used the correct reference for your post…
I wonder whether the Constitution of Canada and those of the Provinces might forbid Persons sitting in Parliament if they hold Citizenship (dual or otherwise) in non Commonwealth countries. Thus no Yankees, no Venezuelans, no Russians, no Cubans, no North Koreans, no Eritreans and so on. Another Commonwealth country’s Constitution (Jamaica’s) makes such a prohibition on persons sitting in Parliament if also holding citizenship in non Commonwealth countries. A few years ago this was a major scandal in Jamaica and the Court ruled that the persons were illegally in Parliament and thus a number of MPs resigned their other non Commonwealth Citizenship (some US and at least one Venezuealan).
@nervousinvestor
There is no such restriction:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dion-among-a-dozen-mps-with-dual-citizenships-1.574134
Australia requires politicians to renounce all foreign citizenships (including Commonwealth citizenships) assuming those citizenships can be renounced. For example, former Australian PM Julia Gillard had to renounce her foreign (British) citizenship to enter Australian politics. However there is an exception if a politician tries to renounce the foreign citizenship but can’t. I’m not sure how they would handle the case of US citizenship given the regime of increasing burdens to be able to renounce it.
There is a tendency on IBS to jump all over politicians who might have the “US taint” but are running for or elected to office outside the USA: Chrystia Freeland, Boris Johnson, David Alward, and now Rachel Notley. This is something I’ve never understood because it seems completely at odds with the general purpose here of protecting Canadian sovereignty. If you require a politician to prove their “non US ness” then you give the US control over internal Canadian affairs, because the US can decide to whom to grant or withhold the “privilege” of renunciation or relinquishment.
In my view a CLN should play no role for a Canadian citizen in Canada regardless of whether we are talking about the House of Commons or their local bank–or anywhere else in Canada.
@Calgary411
Have you considered that if the US didn’t consider those unregistered Americans born abroad as US citizens, any child registered by a parent without that child’s consent, could sue the parent for subjecting them to a lifetime of tax servitude to a foreign country?
Basically in principle (I don’t know how it works out in practice) I like Australia’s approach here: it is best that an elected politician be a citizen of (in that case) Australia only but if the other country behaves unreasonably when it comes to imposing dual citizenship on an Australian against their will, then that isn’t held against the prospective Aussie politician:
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_v_Hill
At paragraph 176, the High Court makes the point that a person must take reasonable steps to renounce their non-Australian citizenship. If renunciation is not possible, for example by either the laws of the foreign power not permitting it or the process being unreasonable, then the person will not be disqualified by operation of s 44(i).
@Dash1729 Much as I dislike the idea of any willing-dual-American-Canadian holding political or federal office in my country Canada, I also agree with you that the existence or not of a CLN issued by the US State Department should play no role for the treatment of any Canadian citizen in Canada, and for the excellent (and sovereignty-related) argument in your second paragraph.
All Canadian citizens should be treated the same by Canada. That’s what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is all about (though, with perhaps a couple of exceptions ,it also applies to all non-citizen legal residents of Canada; e.g., the Charter specifically notes that only Canadian citizens have the right to vote in Canada, so on that score non-citizen residents are treated differently under the Charter, there may be another exception which escapes my aging memory at the moment, but voting is the main one that I recall).
bubblebustin,
And, perhaps they well should. We would have a lot to say in our defence to the lawsuits many of our children might bring upon us.
I also agree with another point above that Rachel Notley’s status, if any, vis-a-vis the US and FATCA, as well as the status of any other federal or provincial politician of whatever party, is really none of our business but is their private matter to deal with as they deem necessary or appropriate. Same as for anyone participating in this forum. If we start drilling into the genealogy of every Canadian politician we can think of who might have a “US taint,” I have to wonder whether we aren’t becoming too much like the US IRS and State Department. One might, with reluctance and trepidation because the implications for the victims aren’t remotely comparable, draw a philosophical parallel with the so-called Nuremberg Law in Nazi Germany concerning the “taint” of Jewish parentage or even grandparentage. Or the “pure laine” notion implicit among some of the nastier elements in Quebec separatism, if carried to extremes. No one should be toying with tarring anyone for their parentage or earlier ancestry; it’s nothing anyone can control, and it’s not a just basis for any sort of public policy. Loyalty should be judged on behaviour and not on birth, family trees or DNA.
@calgary411 @Bubblebustin
The one group that should sue the crap out of the Canadian gov’t… are the border babies… its the fault of the Canadian gov’t that no facility was available for their birth… They have been screwed all over by the Canadian gov’t…
@Dash @Schubert
Thank you for those perspectives.
Interesting info re Australia.
Yes, US_Foreign_Person — no Canadian facility available for their births and the (Conservative) government labels them, as it labels the rest of us affected, *US citizens who happen to reside in Canada*.
And to think ALL of this angst could have been avoided by one simple sentence in the IGA. Offered SIX times and rejected by that bunch of scared rabbits we call Conservative mps.
The information (although possibly incorrect in detail) about Rachel Notley’s background is available on Wikipedia for all to see. We, here at Brock, just happen to recognize something in her family biography that is familiar and significant to us, hence this discussion.
My question is, could not our recognition of Ms. Notley’s possible US personhood be given a positive application? She is a member of the party who actively supported us throughout the parliamentary Finance Committee hearings last year. Could she not be approached to lend her voice to help get the word out on this issue prior to the upcoming federal election?
Canadians are aware of a lot of the unconstitutional things the Harper government has tried to pull off but I think we all know that most Canadians have no idea of what he’s done to *us*. Many of *us* may still not have a clue either. I spoke with the president of my local NDP riding association a couple of days ago. She had heard of FATCA but didn’t really know what it was … so I told her. I’m hoping that the local candidate will help spread the word. Couldn’t Ms. Notley do the same?
@US Foreign Person. The other group that should SUE the HELL out of the Canadian government is those who married a US person. There was NO warning to us at all that the Canadian government was going to allow our personal information to be sent to a foreign government if we married someone who was born in the US no matter if they were a CANADIAN Citizen at time of marriage.
@NativeCanadian
U are right… because of this nice issue… not only does one think about if they can make a life with someone… now u got to weigh the US person factor cause it can taint your off-spring…. then to top if off… if said off-spring has developmental issues… u can’t help them rid the taint… which I don’t understand… u can help a developed challenged person get a US citizenship but u can’t help them rid it… makes no sense to me
“Should proof of non-U.S. citizenship be an absolute condition for accepting public office in Canada?”
The answer is YES.
Let me speak from across the pond. Boris Johnson is about to enter Parliament again and we do not know if he intended THIS TIME to voluntarily relinquish his USC.
Let me cut to the chase, the United States is a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
Boris Johnson is subject to pressure and possibly blackmail from a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
This WOULD be different if we were talking about a Commonwealth Country which has allegience to HM QE II.
The United States DEMANDS Allegience from Boris Johnson as stated on the State Department website which must not be tolerated!!!
this is from Victoria’s blog this morning
“Strenuous AARO advocacy helped to abolish in 1978 the law requiring that a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen married to a non-American reside in the U.S. for a specified period of time in order to keep the American citizenship the child was born with. In 1986, largely through our efforts, the period of residence in the U.S. required to transmit citizenship to children born abroad was reduced from ten years to five.”
If my interpretation is correct, Rachel Notley born in the early 1960’s and never lived in the US did not retain the citizenship she acquired at birth