2,207 thoughts on “We are now preparing for the 2016 FATCA IGA Charter trial in Canada Federal Court”

1. @EmBee

   I am not that sure I trust the NDP any better then the other parties… I am sure as heck, I am no longer Con & Libs are too close to being another Con party under a different name… We need strong leaders for Canada… ones who stand for Canada… not move over so other countries can tell our gov’t what to do… so far… I see a glimmer here & there but nothing solid…

2. Embee, About two weeks ago I sent an email to NDP Murray Rankin (who many of us have met personally) cc Cullen and Mulcair thanking them for their support and requesting a definitive statement on whether an NDP majority government would repeal the FATCA IGA legislation. As expected, no response.

   Regarding litigation vs. (failed) political process, I have to go with litigation and hope that our supporters will continue to donate.

3. @Stephen Kish

   I don’t expect any of the top three parties to repeal FATCA on their own.

   Where I AM hoping for some difference between them is in how they will respond to a court victory by our side. I believe the Conservatives would try to cynically rewrite the legislation to get around the court’s order. I’m more optimistic that the NDP would recognize their obligation to respect the court ruling and make the politically difficult decisions–regarding Canada’s relationship with the US–that such a ruling would imply. The Liberals I’m not sure about.

   None of these options come into play until we win in court first IMHO.

4. @Dash: I also have thought about that Trudeau Sr. dichotomy. The Charter was his greatest gift to Canada. But, I was in Montreal during the War Measures Act of 1970.

   In his “Just Watch me” debate with two reporters, he spoke of how far he would go to suspend civil liberties.
   ********************

   Three days later he invoked the War Measures Act and suspended the Bill of Rights. He said:

   The criminal law is simply not adequate to deal with systemic terrorism…Police have therefore been given certain extraordinary powers…

   *********************

   Twelve years later Trudeau Senior signed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with Queen Elizabeth. He said:

   We now have a Charter which defines the kind of country in which we wish to live and guarantees the basic rights and freedoms which each of us shall enjoy as a citizen of Canada

   **********************

   Thirty two years after the Charter was signed, his son was silent as we pleaded with him to stand up for all Canadians, for Canada and for his father’s cherished Charter.

   Thirty three years after the Charter was signed, Trudeau Junior and the Liberal Party voted for Bill C51.

   On that historic day in 1982, Trudeau Senior also said:

   It must however also be recognized that no Constitution, no Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be a substitute for the willingness to share the risks and the grandeur of the Canadian adventure.

   Without that collective act of will, our Constitution would be a dead letter and our country would wither away.

   We need to fight our collective act of will so the Constitution does not become a dead letter and Canada does not wither away,

   Donate to help Gwen and Ginny defend our rights and protect the Charter..

5. EmBee,

   I would add Bill C-24 (2014) into bills that need to be repealed. (BTW, I just got back from *a funeral procession for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms* with Bill C-51 (and C-31 for me), a silent march from Calgary’s Olympic Plaza to Prince’s Island Park / Eau Claire (if anyone is familiar with downtown Calgary). Most Calgarians were / are, though, unaware of its demise.

   Globe and Mail Editorial: Bill C-24 is wrong: There is only one kind of Canadian citizen..

   Now in effect: New Citizenship Act allowing revocation of Canadian citizenship takes effect Law could revoke citizenship for those found guilty of terrorism, treason and foreign spying. To me, the effects of Canada’s Bill C-31 (2014), Bill C-24 (2014) and Bill C-51 (2015) are or could be in the future related even to us, *US citizens who happen to reside in Canada*.

6. I’ve been following the New Citizenship Act mostly through Andrew Griffith’s site Multicultural Meanderings. https://multiculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/. I understand that Australia and the UK are on the same path. And, of course, lawmakers in the US are making noises about it.

   In Revoking Citizenship by Herzog (a good read but not nearly as good as Sovereign Citizen by Patrick Weil) he argues that these measures are just the latest in a long line of efforts to control or eliminate dual citizenship.

   Fun fact from Herzog’s book: in the 1982-1985 period where the US Board of Appellate Review heard loss of nationality cases (cases where US cits asked for their citizenship to be reinstated) where the expatriating act (naturalization) was in Canada the Board reinstated US citizenship 56% of the time. So a Canadian-American who ostensibly lost US citizenship prior to the 1990’s by taking the oath in Canada had a better than even chance of getting her US citizenship back.

7. With an increasing number of Brockers talking about C-51, I must confess from a purely selfish perspective that I hope we don’t lose any Brockers to the fight over C-51. The fight against C-51 is just as important as the fight against C-31, but there seem to be far more Canadians who “get it” with regard to the evils of C-51. There are 225,000 Canadians who have signed petitions against C-51. That may be small compared to the total population of Canada, but it is huge compared to the tiny opposition (thus far) to C-31. C-31 is just as serious and needs just as serious support in opposing it.

   Any cycles that I have for activism I’m putting into the fight against C-31 because it is clear I’m more needed there.

   BTW I hope it was not the “funeral march” for the Charter as I’ve invested a fair bit of money–and come August will invest some time as well to attend the trial and support Gwen and Ginny–in keeping the Charter alive. On life support maybe–but I certainly hope I’m not investing my personal resources to keep a dead horse alive.

8. I have to be honest about Trudeau Sr. and the Charter. Back then I was opposed to the government writing the guidelines and supported a lobby to have them written by a citizen committee instead. Would such a committee have done better? Who knows? I believe property rights would not have been omitted at least.

   Anyway the Charter is what it is and now it takes constant vigilance by the people to attempt to keep the government from overstepping and smudging the boundaries that it created in the first place. These days, even very vocal opposition is unable to stop Harper from abusing the Charter, so the court system is practically our only recourse. Hoping for the right party to win the next election and then do the right thing on its own without a judicial nudge seems awfully iffy to me. BTW, yesterday I spotted a stop sign in BC with a Harper sticker neatly applied below the word STOP. Yes PLEASE!

   @ calgary411
   Yes, absolutely Bill C-24 too. Thanks for participating in the silent march. I wonder if it will get any Calgary TV air time?

9. The commenter commented wisely:

   I am very disappointed and concerned about revocation from dual citizens and about giving the right to decide on revocation to individual persons.

   Having had my own citizenship stripped for what, I believe, were totally unjustified and, in fact, ridiculous reasons, I do not trust either politicians or the bureaucracy with such power. They can twist anything into a perceived threat, as they did with the 12 reasons used which created the Lost Canadians. Often, in the course of trying to get my citizenship back, | have met people in the offices of CIC and political offices who did not seem to know Canadian history in regards to citizenship or their own laws: they had never heard of the legislation which gave citizenship to families of returning veterans in 1945, or the Legitimization Act which was enacted in 1921. I had persons in positions who should have known better but asked me what a War Bride was, in what year did WWII end and to what was I referring when I used the term Home Child.

   I do not agree that those with dual citizenship should be treated any differently from those with single citizenship: such status does not define one’s sense of responsibility as a citizen of Canada and, in fact, may enhance it. And many more Canadians may be unaware that they have, or could be entitled to, dual citizenship. Rather than appreciate the diversity brought by our immigrants, we are now deemed less worthy of respect than those who were born here with no other citizenship possible.

   Since this appears to be a :”done deal” then I would think there needs to be very much more education of personnel. But I don’t know what could be done to improve the level of trust by our own government in the many Canadians who are dual citizens and not about to cause harm to this country.

   I keep thinking the statement I’ve read over and over that a US citizen’s allegience is to the US:

   …But in his letter to CARP, Mr. Flaherty has written that the government of Canada will not protect Canadians living in Canada who are of US national origin:

   Our Government fully understands the separate, but important, issue of U.S. citizenship-based taxation on dual Canada-U.S. citizens. The U.S. government’s system of citizenship-based taxation is different from the residence-based approach generally followed most of the rest of the world.

   This creates unique challenges for U.S. citizens who reside in other countries – especially Canada. However, as these are U.S. laws that apply to U.S. citizens, they can only be addressed by the U.S. government – not Canada. In that regard, I would encourage U.S. citizens in Canada to share their concerns with the U.S. government.

   These words are stunning. Canadian citizens complain about the FATCA IGA and Flaherty tells them to take up the matter with the US government. In other words, Flaherty is telling those who need and have asked for the protection of the government of Canada to seek redress in the USA. This effectively removes them from the protection from Canada and effectively makes them subject to the laws of the USA: thus, Flaherty has rendered them Dominant and Effective US nationals–a sort of extraordinary rendition while they still remain in Canada. The Harper government, in one fell swoop, has removed Dominant and Effective Canadian Nationality from as many as one million persons in Canada. Thus, the crime of being of US national origin is equal, in the eyes of this government, with terrorism, high treason and spying.

10. @Dash, Canada has most certainly had terror attacks within the last 20 years. In fact, within the last year. Two service members run down in a parking lot, and an attack on Parliament, killing a Reserve member.

11. A funeral procession for the Charter is exactly what Harper wants. He is trying to murder the Charter with the Liberals as accomplices on C51.

    Help the Charter survive the assault. Donate to ADCS.

12. Harper already devalued my Canadian citizenship–even without regard to whether I’m a dual citizen–because I was born abroad to Canadian citizens who lived outside Canada only for about a year. I have fewer rights as a Canadian citizen than someone born in Canada or someone naturalized in Canada. Many of the “lost Canadians” referred to by @calgary411 got their citizenship back but in the process Harper created new categories of “lost Canadians”.

13. @ Dash1729
    I am primarily focused on the ADCS lawsuit and nothing will keep me from sending my monthly donation to the fund but I also know that Bill C-51 is serious stuff so I’m grateful that a significant number of Canadians are aware of it and still protesting.

14. But now I am somewhat buoyed regarding *dual citizenship* and allegiance as I’ve found: http://canada.usembassy.gov/consular_services/dual-citizenship.html saying (emphasis mine)

    …
    The U.S. Government acknowledges that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

    That shows me the disregard of this Canadian government for its citizens who are also US citizens or *duals* as we are now referred to as *US citizens who happen to reside in Canada*. That doesn’t sound like Canada cares a whit about my allegiance to Canada (as I chose to become a Canadian citizen) or that of my children (born in Calgary, AB, Canada).

15. @The Mom

    And that is where we will have to respectfully disagree. It is possible that I’m forgetting some things but I was aware of those crimes and they are–although very serious crimes–not acts of terrorism. Serious crimes? Yes. Should they be punished severely under existing criminal statutes? Absolutely. But terrorism? No way.

    But see–when I hear the word ‘terrorism’ I recognize it for what is–a code for attempting to take away MY civil liberties based on someone else’s crimes. That is why I am trying to define it as narrowly as is possible–because I recognize that others are trying to define terrorism as broadly as possible not with my best interests at heart but to curtail my civil liberties.

    The acts you referred to are the acts of murderers, not terrorists. I prefer to use the language of traditional law enforcement because I recognize that when the word ‘terrorist’ is used the intent is not to protect me or bring the murderers to justice but to restrict my civil liberties.

    I’m strongly in favor of bringing murderers to justice but I want them dealt with using the standard tools of the criminal justice system. Using the ‘t’ word has a different meaning entirely.

16. @The Mom

    Let me put it this way: I’m not a huge fan of the death penalty because of the risks of executing an innocent person.

    But given the choice, I’d prefer to bring back the death penalty and have them hanged after due process of law in an open criminal court than have them declared a ‘terrorist’ and whisked off under cover of dark to some secret tribunal on Guantanamo. And the word ‘terrorist’–to me–is code for the latter, not the former.

17. A couple comments from those who participated, with the intent to make people think about what is happening with the passing of Bill C-51 (of course few know anything of Bill C-31 or Bill C-24) / an attempt to lessen the apathy of Calgarians. Some woke up for the provincial election just past that changed the history of PC dominance in Alberta. Little by little, other Calgarians need to be awakened before the next federal election.

    – I found the march in silence profound (but yelling later was good, too)! Good job Melissa and volunteers!

    – I think the public was more intrigued when we were marching silently and more intimidated when we were chanting. That was powerful! Thanks organizers!

18. @EmBee

    Great to hear! I think it is especially important–given that we are most of the way to this first hearing–to stay committed until we get over that hump because people are relying on our support. That is true even though there are other really important fights going on simultaneously.

19. The Mom and Dash,

    I agree with Dash. We here *could* just as easily, given the right set of circumstances, be tarred with the too-often used word *terrorist* — just as we are now all being painted with the term US *tax evaders*. In my mind, it is fear-mongering and I agree that the latest video release of the criminal shooter in Ottawa should not be used to condone the passing of Bill C-51.

20. @Blaze

    Thank you for posting your memories and thoughts on 1970. The only time when I think the ‘t’ word (terrorist) is justified is when the traditional tools of law enforcement are not up to dealing with the crime as an ordinary crime. It sounds like Trudeau, in 1970, was claiming just that. Since I was very young at the time I’m not sure whether he was or was not justified in such a conclusion at least not based on my own memories.

21. I’m right there with you, EmBee — not leaving this fight even though I have been fighting against Bill C-51 — another that I can’t NOT DO. Drip, drip, drip will continue my little monthly donations to ADCS-ADSC.ca.

22. I disagree. Were not people in the 70s, hijacking Israeli planes terrorists? how is that any different than what happened in Canada?

    People who kill for a cause, with ideology linked to a group openly calling for attacks, not terrorists? Is ISIS not a terrorist organization? If their ideology and uriging puts attacks in motion, is that not terrorism?

    It is to me. That’s not *just* murder, it s terrorism. If it was a nation, it would be war.

23. Dash,

    Additional absurdity, your plight…

    I have fewer rights as a Canadian citizen than someone born in Canada or someone naturalized in Canada.

24. If he is labelled a terrorist rather than a radicalized person with mental and addiction problems (who, surprise surprise happens to also be a Muslim) who has turned into a criminal thug murderer, then perhaps we do need to ask ourselves the hard question one commenter posed

    …we ought to ask ourselves what it is we are doing half a world away causing our own form of terror on people we have little to do with. Maybe we should learn from Bibeau’s actions and ask ourselves could we be more effective to millions of people by spending our money on diplomacy and humanitarian efforts instead of bombs we don’t even know how they actually work or the destruction they actually cause. I don’t care what Bibeau was, I care about what we have become.

    This is not acceptable to me what this country is becoming, this Ottawa *terrorist* act a lot of the reason for sanction of Canada’s Bill C-51, the Conservatives pushing it through despite the advise of so many experts, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) who have confirmed that Bill C-51 violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which Canada has ratified.

25. Oklahoma bombing April 19, 1995. I guess technically it’s more than 20 years ago.