[The following responses are to FATCA Letters to Leaders and MPs (March 2015)]
PART 1 — the NDP Party response
…cross-posted from Lynne Swanson post at MapleSandbox: NDP Party Response to Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS-ADSC)
“I have just received a response to ADCS on the letter we sent to the leaders five months ago. Here is the reply from Murray Rankin.
RE: US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)
Thank you for writing to share your ongoing concerns regarding the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Canada and the United States designed to implement FATCA in Canada.
New Democrats are deeply troubled by the implications of FATCA and the associated IGA, and we are closely monitoring the litigation your organization has commenced against the Government of Canada.
From the beginning, many organizations raised the alarm that the IGA for the implementation of FATCA in Canada may violate the privacy rights of Canadians and could be subject to constitutional challenge.
The NDP has repeatedly raised concerns about the FATCA agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors and rushed through Parliament without proper consultation or examination.
Previously, New Democrats called on the Conservative government to acknowledge the broad concerns expressed by Canadians and civil society organizations regarding the implementation of this IGA. We asked the Conservative government to agree to remove it from omnibus Budget Bill C-31, which granted the Minister of National Revenue sweeping powers to make any regulation necessary to carry out the agreement.
It is my belief that the decision to rush this legislation through Parliament was reckless and, as a result, it lacks the safeguards needed to protect many of the rights that Canadians so dearly value.
New Democrats have repeatedly questioned Conservatives in the House of Commons and at the Standing Committee on Finance. It became abundantly clear that the Conservative government has very little understanding of the consequences of FATCA and has been tone deaf regarding the very real concerns of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
Moving forward, New Democrats remain committed to ensure that Canadians’ voices are heard and that our laws are consistent with the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canadian sovereignty more broadly.
A New Democrat government will order a full and urgent review of the FATCA IGA to identify and address all measures that threaten the constitutional and privacy rights of all Canadians.
We will seek to reopen the IGA for renegotiation with the United States in order to address the serious concerns of Canadians and ensure that their rights are protected. We will do so in an open and transparent manner – instead of the secretive manner pursued by the Conservatives.
More broadly, we will ensure that all proposed legislation is subject to a more robust screening to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives have failed to uphold this duty, with the result that, in many instances, litigation was initiated that could have been avoided.
As noted above, New Democrats continue to closely watch the progress of your litigation against the Government of Canada.
We also understand that many people across Canada are now directly facing the consequences of the agreement. New Democrat Members of Parliament will continue to assist individuals access the information and resources they need regarding how the FATCA IGA affects them.
Please feel free to contact me with any concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
Murray Rankin
NDP Candidate for Victoria
NDP Deputy Critic for National Revenue “
****************
PART 2– the Liberal Party response
…also cross-posted from Lynne Swanson post at MapleSandbox: Liberal Party Response to Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (ADCS-ADSC)
“Because I posted the reply from the NDP via Murray Rankin in its own thread, I am doing the same with the Liberal response to ADCS via Justin Trudeau.
Dear Ms. Swanson:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns regarding the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).
The safeguarding of personal privacy has become an increasingly important issue to all Canadians. The government’s move to ensure that information is reported 2 the U.S. through Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and not directly from the banks was a positive step; however, the implications of having the CRA report to a foreign government about Canadian citizens are still troublesome. The Liberal Party of Canada believes that the Conservative government’s efforts to safeguard the personal privacy of Canadians have been inadequate.
While the United States has the right to target tax evaders using offshore accounts, targeting hard working Canadians who pay taxes is unfair. The government of Canada has a responsibility to stand up for its citizens when foreign governments are encroaching on their rights. We believe that the deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect affected Canadians.
Thank you once again for writing to me; I always appreciate it when Canadians take the time to share their concerns with me. It is through such exchanges of ideas and opinions that I can best represent not only my constituents, but all Canadians.
Sincerely
Justin J.P. Trudeau “
****************
PART 3 — Additional Clarification needed from Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau re his definitions in *A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian*
I (calgary411) am also putting into this post the email sent yesterday to my Liberal candidate and Liberal MP Scott Brison, asking them to get answers from their Party Leader, Justin Trudeau. Some may agree we need answers to these questions as well:
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 1:49 PM
To: Matt Grant ; Scott Brison
Subject: A question for the Liberal Party Leader and the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship ActDear Confederation Calgary Liberal Candidate and Honourable Liberal Member of Parliament Scott Brison,
Many Canadians were pleased to hear Mr. Trudeau’s new statements regarding Canadian citizenship equality, but some of us need further clarification.
For all *US Persons in Canada*, can you please get an answer from your Party Leader, Justin Trudeau, to the following specific questions. No political generalities please.
Mr. Trudeau — are there differences in *second-class Canadians* — the ones you refer to regarding the Bill C-24, Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act?
As part of the slippery slope now enabled in Canada — the march in legislation
– from Bill C-31 (making *US Persons in Canada* second-class to any others by virtue of place of birth of an individual or the individual’s parent(s)
– to Bill C-51, with definitions of *terrorist*
– to Bill C-24 to exile and banish certain of Canada’s second-class citizens (even if born in Canada),Do you consider US-deemed US citizens in Canada *US citizens who happen to reside in Canada* (including even those born in Canada and have never lived or had any benefit from the USA)?
or,
Do you consider US-deemed US citizens in Canada the very same as any other second-class Canadian as part of your statements
“Liberals will guarantee that all Canadians’ fundamental rights are respected as guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“Canadian citizenship should not be conditional. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”
“All Canadians need to know that their government has their back.”?
Specific and straight answers to the above questions will help determine for many the way we will vote on October 19. I will pass Mr. Trudeau’s answer on to one-issue *US-deemed US Person* Canadians, who are now also deemed second-class citizens in Canada by the Conservative government.
We want to absolutely know from Mr. Trudeau if he will fight for our same rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as those Charter rights of all other Canadians .
Thank you for your help in asking this question on our behalf.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Carol Tapanila
Calgary, AB
******************
Will also include … e-mail that Lynne Swanson sent to Justin Trudeau with a cc to her Liberal candidate.
Last week, you said “All Canadians have to know that the government has their back.”
You insisted the Conservative government’s Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act “devalues Canadian citizenship by creating two classes of citizenship.” You vowed to repeal that Act. You promised a Liberal government “will guarantee that all Canadians’ fundamental rights are respected as guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
So, why aren’t you taking such a strong stand against the FATCA Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and the enabling law that supersedes all Canadian laws on the demands of a foreign bully?
Would a Liberal government “have the back” of Canadians born in the United States? Would a Liberal government repeal the IGA? If not, would a Liberal government amend the enabling legislation to protect Canadian citizens and residents born in the U.S.? Would a Liberal government restore full citizenship to Canadians born in the U.S.? Would a Liberal government “guarantee that all Canadians’ fundamental rights are respected as guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?”
I know what your father would have done. He would have stood up for one million Canadians. He would have told the United States “You can’t FATCA Canada or Canadian citizens.” When the media asked how far he would go to have the back of Canadians, he would have said “Just watch me.” He would have guaranteed that Canadians born in the U.S. have their fundamental rights respected under the Charter.
What will you do? Are you ready to stand up to the Americans for Canadians? My vote depends on your answer.
I would hope my little chat with Thomas Mulcair’s right hand man might have sped up this response. Being in front of these people is much better than writing them sometimes. I want everyone who possibly can to head out to gatherings, candidates debates and public campaign events and voice their opinions. I certainly will be there and you can bet on that!
Murray Rankin’s response is thorough, thoughtful, and absolutely correct in my opinion. It is exactly what I’d have expected from him, based not only on his performance on the House of Commons committee but also based on the personal attention and concerns regarding Charter and other constitutional issues I’ve received by email from Paul Dewar, my own NDP MP.
Rankin’s response simply solidifies my very firm belief that in this election, the best choice to replace the current Conservative government (which absolutely must be thrown out, if we are to keep Canada a free and democratic society and country), would be an NDP minority government. (I’m never a fan of majority governments; Canada and Canadians are so diverse that we need a government that understands and is forced to listen and compromise, and majority governments historically have been horrible at that, Harper’s being by far the worst example.) We can’t vote for majority or minority governments, however. But given the way the polls are running, the best option IMO is to vote ABC, whoever in your riding is most likely to defeat the Conservative candidate, and the best hope is for an NDP minority. Failing which an NDP/Liberal coalition to unseat a Harper minority, under the nightmare scenario if he manages to get more seats than the others. He certainly won’t get anything near half the votes.
It is imperative that a new government replace the current first-past-the-post electoral system we have, with a system that will not ever again give a majority of seats to a party that doesn’t get a majority, or very close to a majority, of the votes nationally. The NDP, Greens and most lately the Liberals have publicly committed to reforming the electoral system from first-past-the-post to either proportional representation (not my favourite, because some MPs would be chosen by party hacks and not by voters) or preferably a preferential-voting system, which is what Justin Trudeau endorsed recently and which in fact is how the NDP chose its current leader, though the party curiously thinks the country should go with proportional rep instead (which is one of several policy issues on which I disagree with the NDP, but then I’ll never completely agree with any conceivable political party …). The Conservatives, surprise surprise, are happy with first-past-the-post and oppose changing it (which rather surprises me considering what happened to them and Wildrose in Alberta’s provincial election this year).
Whatever you do, VOTE in October, if you’re a Canadian citizen, and don’t vote Conservative. And not only because of FATCA, there are lots of other reasons to throw the Tories out. Best summary currently is here
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/10/Harper-Abuses-of-Power-Final/
Murray Rankin’s letter is the closest thing we’ve gotten for a policy statement from the NDP to date. Being the Deputy Critic for National Revenue makes it almost official.
I’m voting to replace my MP, John “thrilled about the FATCA IGA” Weston, in the riding of West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – Sea to Sky Country. That means voting strategically.
@Bubblebustin’ I was told the reason Murray Rankin was doing the reply is because he is the lead for the NDP on FATCA. So, I think he was replying on behalf of the NDP and not just as an individual candidate. That would seem to get it as close to NDP policy as we can get.
It would be nice to hear it directly from
Mulcair – but I’ll run with it and send it to our Liberal candidate, Pam Goldsmith-Jones. She is well aware of the situation and was the one who asked me to help her come up with a policy statement on this, which I did with the help of others here. Maybe Justin’s priming the pump to say something about it?
“It” being the IGA.
I would like to vote NDP. However, I will vote Liberal if my local liberal candidate has a better chance to defeat John Weston. Remember he was the founder of the ultra conservative Canadian Constitution Foundation.
@Duke of Devon
You mean the same Canadian Constitution Foundation whose current executive director said:
Ottawa is violating our constitutional rights in order to help the U.S. collect taxes,
http://theccf.ca/articles/ottawa-violating-constitutional-rights-order-help-u-s-collect-taxes/
Both letters.
I am glad that these two political parties have responded at long last. I am concerned that their letters be read very carefully indeed and, in Americanese, “parsed” to discover the depth of their commitment to repealing FATCA in protection of Canadian Sovereignty and the Charter of Rights.
I hate to say this but, at first read, the letter from the NDP is a far better response than the one from the Liberals.
Trudeau’s Letter is a smarmy spread. For example:
T: “The safeguarding of personal privacy has become an increasingly important issue to all Canadians.”
NI: True
T: “The government’s move to ensure that information is reported 2 the U.S. through Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and not directly from the banks was a positive step; however, the implications of having the CRA report to a foreign government about Canadian citizens are still troublesome.”
NI: What exactly was positive about the step to cause reporting to transit the CRA ? Limiting the first line of Discrimination to within Canadian Borders ? Discrimination is abhorrent ab initio.
T: “The Liberal Party of Canada believes that the Conservative government’s efforts to safeguard the personal privacy of Canadians have been inadequate.”
NI: Inadequate or non existent?
Trudeau still does not get the part that gathering this much personal data in the Banking System and then in the CRA is a danger to the physical, mental and financial safety of ALL Canadians … worldwide.
In Australia, customers are now signing away there privacy rights.
Collection, use and disclosure of information
ANZ may use and disclose the information we collect about you for the following purposes:
to assist in providing information about a product or service;
to consider your request for a product or service;
to enable ANZ to provide a product or service;
to tell you about other products or services that may be of interest to you;
to assist in arrangements with other organisations (such as loyalty partners) in relation to the promotion or provision of a product or service;
to manage accounts and perform other administrative and operational tasks (including risk management, systems development and testing, credit scoring, staff training, collecting debts and market or customer satisfaction research);
to consider any concerns or complaints you raise against ANZ and/or to manage any legal action involving ANZ;
to identify, prevent or investigate any fraud, unlawful activity or misconduct (or suspected fraud, unlawful activity or misconduct);
to identify you or establish your tax status under any Australian or foreign legislation, regulation or treaty or pursuant to an agreement with any tax authority; and
as required by relevant laws, regulations, codes of practice and external payment systems.
http://www.anz.com/australia/apply/Privacy-Confidentiality.asp
It looks like the war needs to be brought to the banks in future as well. It’s obvious banks are expecting these IGAs eventually to get struck down. My question, with the IRS setting up a direct transfer website, what is going to be the real difference uploading a file to a local tax authority or to the IRS direct in future?
Obviously striking down an IGA will increase pressure on a Government to have a political debate, but what is going to stop the banks? What course of action needs to be taken to stop the banks from discriminating against its customers?
ANZ doesn’t even hide the fact it’s on the witch hunt for US citizens. The question is there for all the world to read – YES or NO. It doesn’t ask if you’re an Australian citizen or not.
Where do we go with this problem in future?
Forgot here’s the bit where they say they can pass your information on to anyone –
Providing your information to others
ANZ may provide your information to:
any related entity of ANZ which may use the information to: carry out ANZ’s functions and activities; promote its own products and services; assess your application for one of its products or services; manage your product or service; perform administrative and operational tasks (including debt recovery); or comply with regulatory requirements and prudential standards;
Scotiabank is at it as well now.
http://www.scotiabank.com/ca/common/pdf/scotiamcleod/T_and_C_EN.pdf
Read the bottom of page 42. –
The can disclose your personal information “to any person or organization,’ “to satisfy legal and regulatory requirments,” and on the top of page 43 it’s has language saying they can pass your information to third parties and accessible to regulatory authorities outside of Canada.
Seems to me that the relevant Privacy Commissioner needs to get involved or for a bunch of Citizens to file suit to stop this abuse … sign away your Rights by signing this document or lose your account ….
Kill the IGAs and start New Banks that do NO business with the US. Use every other currency they like EXCEPT the US Dollar.
I can see it now. Refugees from X country … call it Sudan … open an account in ignorance with Scotia in Toronto to be able to participate in Canadian life. Sudan asks all banks in Toronto for information on Mr X. Scotia then provides that information to Sudan who then trumps up charges in Sudan and seeks extradition of Mr X or, in more American FATCA fashion, uses force and threatens to persecute the relatives of Mr X remaining in the Sudan unless Mr X “voluntarily” returns to Sudan. How civilized (not).
Calgary and Blaze: Thank you both so much for bringing these letters to our attention. It leaves little doubt as to which party intends to actually *do* something substantive for us should they form the next government. In my riding (staunchly Conservative with little hope of change) my best strategy is to vote my conscience and put a big X beside the NDP.
So it seems that the Banking industry understands that the IGAs cannot stand and and doing their own “pseudo legal” work arounds. So Right On sez me. Pressure the Politicians more to get them to deny renewal of Banking Licenses to Institutions who put customers under this sort of pressure and fine them significant % ages (5%, 10%) of their total balance sheet assets each year that such abuse has continued. Of course with no Banking License the Bank will be out of business. Perhaps it is the Regulatory Authority that grants Banking Licenses that a suit should be directed against to build that pressure.
@nervousinvestor This is very true. When we sign our rights away with the current system, how does anyone know what laws are buried in the books of other countries? What if Sudan or Pakistan or Syria finds laws to collect taxes on their citizens no matter where they live. We have NO idea that other countries do that as of yet. This opens the floodgates to abusing people based on where they were born. Other countries can clearly DEMAND private data on their citizens by birth and Canada will have to oblige them and provide the data based on the Canada-USA agreement. The simple answer is that when you become a Canadian, you are only one citizenship. Most were led to believe that and now, we are allowing the USA to walk into Canada and tell Canada who is and who is not a Canadian citizen. This opens up an incredible can of worms and no matter which country you came to Canada from, you should start worrying now…..
In case you haven’t seen the “Harperman” song video, here’s a link to where Avaaz has posted it.:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/harperman_loc/?aRNqdab
It doesn’t explicitly mention FATCA or the IGA, but it does condemn Harper’s use of omnibus bills.
I agree that the NDP seems to be the best bet for reversing the IGA, but the important thing is to get rid of the Conservative government. In my riding that seems to require voting Liberal.
The banks are also doing this for the Common Reporting Standard as well. So they have two reasons – FATCA and CRS. However, it has to be said that the CRS respects residency in its current form. So if the guy from Sudan is resident in Canada, Canada wouldn’t report to the Sudan.
A Canadian bank needs to defend a case in open court and explain how they don’t use discrimination to form their ‘shopping list’ of US persons. The process needs to be explained from the KYC process through to the final draft database without discriminating / and treating a like for like Canadian citizen differently.
The greater Canadian public needs to also understand it does affect everyone. If a bank cocks up and reports, nobody has any form of recourse. it’s a case of tough luck.
@nervousinvestor
Signing of documents in the bank… People do not really read it… they just sign what is put in front of them because they trust the bank… they know there are strong privacy laws but who would have thought the banks would play dirty like this… they know people do not read all the paperwork in front of them… they just want to open the account and leave quickly… Its also a canadian thing… I don’t like to waste peoples’ time… I figure… what harm can happen… Now I read everything as carefully as possible since the start of this crap… my eyes are open to things I never realized before… they want u to sign away every basic right u have so the bank is not held responsible for anything they do wrong
MuzzledNoMore and others,
The letter from Murray Rankin IS substantive and I believe his integrity in making those statements on behalf of the NDP.
Still, we need NOW to require the NDP Party AND the NDP Party Leader, Thomas Mulcair, to take it that essential step further so it will be thoroughly understood and reported by the Canadian media.
Coverage by the media = awareness of FATCA and the Canadian IGA that implements US citizenship-based taxation consequences in this country for those Canadian citizens and Canadian permanent residents who would be *US-deemed US Persons in Canada*, including letting those affected and in hiding (the pity of that having to be a consequence because their Canadian government will not protect them and their families as any other Canadians, no matter their or their parents’ national origin) to know which of their countries’ governments will respect their full Canadian rights.
Full coverage in the media = also alerting all other Canadians to the blank cheque signed by the Conservative government, the terms of the Canadian IGA which can (and will if history repeats) be changed by the US to further siphon treasury from Canada.
Awareness = better fully-informed decisions by Canadian voters, including those individuals and families most affected by US citizenship-based taxation laws that make them second-class to any other Canadians.
Most importantly, as NativeCanadian points out, what is allowed to happen in regard to *US-deemed US Persons in Canada* is a precedent for other countries asking the same of Canadians and our country. Are we a sovereign country or are we ruled by other countries?
@Don
The danger seems to be “to identify you or establish your tax status under any Australian or foreign legislation, regulation or treaty or pursuant to an agreement with any tax authority; and
as required by relevant laws, regulations, codes of practice and external payment systems.”
@Don
Your Scotia Bank Information is equally distressing. I wonder if this is evidence of an International Conspiracy to conduct commercial behavior in a monopolistic manner such as will deny Freedom of Choice and Privacy to the Consumer ? Should every Consumer Watch Dog organization on earth not be growling at this?
@NativeCanadian
I believe Columbia has already started the process to impose a tax on assets (including homes) held in the US by Colombians … as I recollect 30% of the value if they come forward now and 70 % if they are found out later. This was discussed and linked to news reports on Brock some time ago. I also understand that Ghana has such a law in mind. Doubtless others will follow and the targets will expand beyond those with assets in the US to assets in other G20 countries I am sure. Floodgates are indeed being opened and chaos shall reign.
Can I use parts of the points and questions raised in Lynne’s and calgary411’s excellent letters in my correspondence with my local Liberal candidate and Mr. Trudeau?
The local candidate knows something about FATCA, as much as I’ve told him and sent to him, but he also knows that my husband and I have CLNs and are supposedly no longer directly affected. So does the local NDP candidate. They both seem to think that only “Americans” would be concerned about FATCA. I’ve tried to explain that , 1) the U.S. could change its definition of “U.S. person” at any time, and 2) this is a civil and human rights issue that should concern all Canadians. The NDP candidate had that dog-in-the-headlights stare when I tried to explain this when he came to the door. The Liberal candidate is more understanding, but still thinks that this is an issue mostly for Americans or dual citizens. I’d like to motivate him to become more concerned, since I think that he may have a better chance in this riding than the NDP professional union economist.
@NativeCanadian
Yet all this removes the ability of persecuted persons to sequester some of their assets in safety out of the purview of their persecutors. Blood will flow and it is almost always the poor and middle class who will shed this blood. Since some people are sensitive to the Jewish situation in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany. Consider the plight of Christians today in the Middle East and North Africa. Too much data in insecure databases is an invitation to slaughter (or financially deprive) the targeted person du jour in every location.