2,208 thoughts on “CANADIANS AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORTERS: Thank you for $594,970 donated and overdue legal bill paid off — Next step is Federal Court Constitutional-Charter trial”

1. EmBee, the Samson quote might be especially important because it actually begins with the title:

   “Liberal Party Position on U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)” and expresses concerns over the legality of the “agreement”.

   The “Position” (!) of the party that now has been elected to power.

2. This looks like a good place to find contact information for Liberal MPs.
   http://www.liberal.ca/mp/

3. Similar to what EmBee posted (re. Scott Brison & Ted Hsu comments), the video of the House Finance Committee deliberations could be examined for all of Scott Brison’s comments.

   I remember him saying that the government grants to RESP/RDSP’s are not supposed to end up in the US Treasury.

4. Let’s see now, Daylight Saving Time was extended by federal law in the United States, and Canadian politicians quickly followed suit. After all, CONGRESS HAS SPOKEN.

5. @ Mr. A.
   You remembered right …
   https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/34/scott-brison-1/?page=4

   Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS
   We have concerns that earnings from RESPs, and RDSPs, and contributions made by the Canadian taxpayer to those accounts were not intended to go into the U.S. treasury. Those contributions from the Canadian government were supposed to help people get an education, or help people with disabilities.

6. Thank you EmBee, you found it before me (I’m still searching through the video!)

7. Questions from the Liberals: many, many unanswered: https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Canadian-Parliament-FATCA-Questions-121-and-127-Oct-2528-2013.pdf

   Liberal commentary take from: https://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-31/?tab=mentions&singlepage=1, Bill C-31 (Historical)

   Scott Brison:

   There has been a lot of discussion on FATCA. Members of the business community are not the only ones who are being squeezed by Bill C-31. Canada-U.S. dual citizens are left out in the cold. The minister and even some finance officials could not actually answer the question of how many Canadians would be affected. The reality is that it is about a million Canadians who are caught in this dragnet.

   Bill C-31 includes the intergovernmental agreement, or the IGA with the U.S., to implement FATCA. This should not be in a budget bill; it should be before the justice committee. There are strong foreign policy implications and issues of extraterritoriality. The agreement reached by the government is flawed. There are a lot of Canadians living in Canada with a connection to the U.S. They do not even know they are considered by the IRS to be taxable as Americans, in many cases.
   The list includes persons born in the U.S. or born to an American parent, even if they have never lived in the U.S. While there are some exemptions for Canadian banks in terms of reporting, there are no exemptions for the Canadian citizens who happen to, in some cases almost by accident, be considered American taxpayers under this legislation.

   One of the concerns that we have is that registered programs, for instance registered disability savings plans and registered education savings plans, these types of programs into which the Canadian government contributes matching grants to the investments made by Canadian citizens and taxpayers, those matching grants, we were told at committee and it was confirmed, will actually be considered taxable income by the IRS.

   The intention, of course, of those matching grants by the Canadian taxpayer is to help young Canadians get an education or to help disabled Canadians benefit. It is not to effectively subsidize the U.S. Treasury.

   These are some of the challenges in this legislation. Unfortunately with an omnibus bill, we have not been given the opportunity as parliamentarians to do our jobs properly and, at the appropriate committee, to scrutinize this massive, complex and unwieldy omnibus legislation by the Conservative government.

   *********
   Mr. Speaker, I have a question on Part 5 of Bill C-31, specifically on the issue of FATCA and its application to registered savings plans, RRSPs, registered education savings plans, and registered disability savings plans. Those plans have matching grants provided by the Government of Canada, funded by the taxpayers of Canada, that are intended to go to people with disabilities or to young people to save for their educations. Under FATCA, earnings from those deposits made by the Canadian government would be taxable by the IRS.

   Does the Minister of State (Finance) believe that this would be consistent with the intentions of those programs and that it would be appropriate for the Canadian taxpayer to be funnelling money to the IRS and the U.S. treasury?

   Second, has the government calculated how much money would be going to the IRS from the Canadian treasury as a result of FATCA and the provisions of this bill?
   **********
   The bill also includes new rules around FATCA, the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Under the bill, Canadians effectively are going to be doing the dirty work and becoming tax collectors for the IRS. Canada-U.S. dual citizens are going to be punished if they do not provide their U.S. tax number to the CRA.

   If these Canadians provide their U.S. tax numbers, the Canadian government will hand over all this information, together with information on the Canadians’ bank accounts, to the U.S. This will help the U.S. collect tax on registered Canadian savings accounts, including RDSPs, registered disability savings plans; RESPs, registered education savings plans; and tax free savings accounts.

   The other night when we were at the briefing by the Finance Canada public servants, they could not answer a very simple question, and that was whether the contributions made to RDSPs and RESPs by the Canadian government as matching grants would be considered taxable by the Americans. They could not answer that basic question.

   It was never the public policy intention of RDSPs and RESPs to subsidize the American treasury. They are for helping Canadian families with members with disabilities and for helping young Canadians get good educations. Yet the Conservatives are incapable of answering that question. They have not stood up for Canadian interests during these negotiations.
   **************
   I would like to speak again about something in this budget implementation act, and these are the measures regarding FATCA. The Conservatives want to actually turn Canadians into American tax collectors through this budget implementation bill. Earlier this year, when the Conservatives signed an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. to implement FATCA, we had hoped that some of the concerns we had would be addressed.

   Canada and the U.S. had previously achieved an agreement to exchange information on suspected tax cheats, but FATCA goes a step further than any other tax-sharing legislation has. It requires Canadian banks to give the CRA the account information of every U.S. citizen living in Canada. The CRA will then give this information to the IRS, and those U.S. persons will have to file taxes in the U.S.

   The problem is that there are many U.S. citizens living in Canada, and they do not even know that they are considered Americans for tax purposes. These include any person born in the U.S. or born to an American parent, even if they have not lived in the U.S. since they were toddlers. The Canadian government has agreed to help the IRS find these individuals.
   This will also affect Canadians who are not even U.S. citizens but are married to one, because their joint accounts will now be reported to the IRS. This is a remarkable breach of Canadians’ privacy by their own government. Not only will the CRA provide the IRS information with tax identification information and the account balances of U.S. persons without their knowledge, it will impose a $100 penalty for each instance of non-compliance. Why are Conservatives prepared to do Uncle Sam’s work in this case and potentially penalize Canadians with dual citizenship or their Canadian spouses?
   U.S. persons living in Canada would be required to report and pay taxes to the U.S. on their RDSPs and RESPs. These accounts are supposed to help Canadians pay for education or help disabled Canadians avoid poverty. The Canadian government money was not intended to be used to subsidize the U.S. treasury. Why are the Conservatives allowing this to happen, when it so clearly is inconsistent with the objectives of RDSPs and RESPs?

   The other night, as I mentioned earlier today, we asked the public servants at the briefing whether Canadian government contributions, the matching grants to RESPs and RDSPs, would be considered taxable by the Americans, by the IRS. They could not answer the question. The idea that we would sign an agreement when we do not know something as basic as this speaks to the way the government has lost influence, power, and authority in negotiating with the Americans.

   The FATCA agreement is very important, and it should be a stand-alone piece of legislation. We should be doing a more thorough evaluation of the agreement the government has signed, and it should not be part of a budget implementation bill, an omnibus bill. Constitutional law experts such as Peter Hogg have raised concerns about whether the agreement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are real issues around this that will be given short shrift through the process by which a budget implementation act, which is such a massive omnibus bill, has been given to Parliament.

   Marc Garneau:
   

   Mr. Speaker, my question relates to part 5 of Bill C-31. The government says it is doing a lot for Canadians. There is a significant number of Canadians who happen to be dual nationals who are not getting very much out of this, in fact, they are being abandoned, because the government is caving in to American pressure and, as my hon. colleague said, it is doing the tax collecting for the IRS. Banks in Canada would have to report to the CRA about client information for those who happen to be dual nationals. That would then be passed on to the IRS.
   In finance committee, when officials were asked what kind of information would be passed on to the IRS, they could not answer, which means the government does not know either.
   This is an attack on our privacy. I would like to hear my colleague on this.
   **********

   Switching over to something that is international in scope, the Canada-United States enhanced tax information exchange agreement implementation act, which we tend to call FATCA, is in the budget implementation bill, Bill C-31, at this point.
   I would like to ask a question. Of course, it deals with the fact that we are going to be helping the United States, specifically the Internal Revenue Service, with information so that they can collect taxes from close to one million dual nationals in this country, I believe, who happen to be Canadian and American. This will very clearly involve Canada spending quite a bit of money to accomplish this, whether it’s in the financial institutions themselves or through the CRA.
   I would like to ask you, Minister Baird, why it is that Canada is accepting to do this at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. What is in it for Canada to help in this particular case—and possibly there may even be privacy issues—to help the United States Internal Revenue Service collect tax from Canadians with dual citizenship?

   And a bonus – I’ve never seen it before, from Elizabeth May, who echoes what so many of us said about what was happening decades ago when we came to Canada and became Canadian citizens:

   Elizabeth May:

   As I say, it is poignant and bittersweet to pursue in adjournment proceedings at 12:15 a.m. the matter of the constitutionality of something that many Canadians have probably never heard of: the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, otherwise called FATCA, which is buried in Bill C-31, the current omnibus budget bill.

   What this Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act does is this. We know that sometimes we call the United States “Uncle Sam”. In this instance, Canada bent over until we said “uncle”, and that is on the matter of the U.S. doing something quite extraordinary. It has passed a domestic law and insisted that the rest of the world bow down and allow a U.S. law to apply extraterritorially all around the world.

   As a former U.S. citizen myself, I find it ironic. When my family first moved to Canada, it was very clear that going to Canada and becoming Canadian citizens was something to which the U.S. government said, “Okay, forget it now; you cannot come back here and pretend you are Americans. We know you are Canadian now; no coming back here”. The laws were very clear that we were not U.S. citizens anymore. That was fine with me, because I was Canadian and that was all I wanted to be.

   Now that the U.S. seems to find itself a little short of money, it is almost like people going around and trying to lift up the sofa cushions and reach for loose change under the seats where they had not looked before, in case they might find some money. Maybe a more appropriate visible image is of grabbing people who have any connection to the United States by their ankles and shaking them upside down to see if any loose coins fall out of their pockets.

   The reality of this is that we have, under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, acceded to the United States as if we were subject to a binding treaty with it, something called the “intergovernmental agreement”. In point of fact, the U.S. Congress has not ratified this so-called treaty, so it should not be binding on Canada at all. On top of this, we know that no less a constitutional expert than Peter Hogg has advised the Government of Canada in his letter, which I obtained through access to information, that the provisions under this act “…are discriminatory in a way that would not withstand Charter scrutiny”.

   In other words, we are being forced through an omnibus procedure and into committee tomorrow at clause by clause, and unless my amendments are accepted, we will once again have passed a piece of legislation that is discriminatory, treating Canadians of different classes in different ways, which offends section 15 of the Charter. We will have done that to accede to something that is not even accepted by the United States as a treaty, because it has not ratified it.

   There is a solution to this, and this solution has come from many legal experts. We should remove this from Bill C-31.

   (This likely duplicates some of what others have already found and posted.)

8. @ calgary411
   That’s an awesome quote from Elizabeth May and I’m certain I’ve never seen it before. (Well as certain as someone with a swiss cheese memory can be.) The imagery is perfect.

9. Finance Meeting, May 14, 2014, http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6601885&Language=E&Mode=1

   Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):
   Mr. Hannah, you’ve just described FATCA as enormously complex. This IGA is effectively a treaty between two governments. Should something so enormously complex be part of an omnibus bill with a couple of hours of study allocated to it?

   Mr. Darren Hannah:

   Well, it’s interesting. I’ve heard…. People have raised questions about the timing in all of this, and the process. From my perspective, actually, I view this as a relatively transparent and long process. The U.S. legislation came into place in 2010. The initial set of U.S. guidance came into place in 2010. The subsequent U.S. guidance came into place in 2011. The original model agreement, the original framework upon which the intergovernmental agreement was created—

   Hon. Scott Brison:
   Just to be clear, the ratification of this, in our Parliament—

   Mr. Darren Hannah:
   Right.

   Hon. Scott Brison:
   —is allocated a few hours of committee as part of an omnibus bill, for something you describe as enormously complex.
   Mr. Kingston, you’ve said that the “overwhelming majority” of Canadians aren’t affected by this.
   Mr. Hannah, you’ve said that the “vast majority” of Canadians aren’t affected by this.
   How many Canadians do you estimate will be affected by this? Are you even aware of the number?

   Mr. Darren Hannah:
   No, I’m not aware of the number. It’s not going to be very many.

   Hon. Scott Brison:
   Really? A million?

   Mr. Darren Hannah:
   Well, be careful. First off, I don’t know if there are a million U.S. persons in Canada, but bear in mind, what is being reported—

   Hon. Scott Brison:
   Okay, but I would suggest…. Look, this IGA gets Canadian banks off the hook from reporting. It does not get Canadian citizens who happen to be considered American persons off the hook. That’s very important. You used the term “vast majority”.
   Mr. Kingston, you used the term “overwhelming majority”.
   What about the million Canadians who are affected? That’s the concern. None of us disagree with the idea of negotiating an IGA, but the reality is that you can negotiate a better IGA, given our relationship with the Americans.
   Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Clinton had a remarkable relationship that enabled them to do deals that were not available to other countries. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Mulroney had an exceptional relationship. In fact, Mr. Reagan wasn’t exactly a big environmentalist, but he agreed to an acid rain treaty with Mulroney at that time. Relationships do matter.
   We don’t quarrel with the idea of having an IGA, but we think there could have been a better IGA had we had stronger relationships in Washington.
   Madam Bernier, in an earlier response to Mr. Rankin, you seemed to indicate there may be a concern regarding a potential charter challenge around the privacy issue. I want you to expand on that. Is there a potential charter challenge inherent in this?
   Ms. Chantal Bernier:
   I would urge you, in your studying of this bill, to ask for a demonstration of the necessity of the provision whereby an official out of the Canada Revenue Agency could provide to law enforcement authorities without a warrant information about a taxpayer on the basis of reasons to believe that perhaps there was criminal activity. That is exceptional and therefore should be buttressed by an empirical demonstration of necessity, and I would encourage you to seek it.

   The Chair:
   You have one minute.

   Hon. Scott Brison:
   Okay.
   There’s an issue…. I’m just taking this from your testimony, Mr. Hannah.
   For financial institutions, non-compliant would effectively mean that they would no longer be able to do business in “the U.S. capital markets or with any institutions that do business…”. Those were your words. Are our banks not significantly important to U.S. capital markets? Do they not, particularly post-financial crisis, carry significant weight within the U.S. capital markets and the oversight of the U.S. capital markets? Do we not have significant influence as a result of that?
   (1600)

   The Chair:
   A brief response, please.

   Mr. Darren Hannah:
   Are we significant players? Yes. Are we significant enough players to get the U.S. to change its mind? No.

   Hon. Scott Brison:
   If they did what you were saying they would do, it would effectively compromise and shut down large parts of their capital markets. Do you really think they would do that?

   Mr. Darren Hannah:
   Well, let me answer it this way. There are 33 OECD countries and 30 of them have taken a look at the same math we’ve looked at and come to the conclusion that it is the best course of action to engage to get an intergovernmental agreement—

   Hon. Scott Brison:
   One of them is the global use of banking in Canada—

10. “Seeing as we are plaintiffs, direct communication with the defendants is appropriately conducted by our legal counsel. […] So you could call it by convention, not law.”

    Your lawyer ought to be informed of everything that’s going on (which seems reasonable to me), wants to control everything that’s going on (sometimes reasonable), and wants to collect a fee for everything that goes on. I agree that’s convention not law.

    “Also, by convention a defendant does not directly communicate with a plaintiff who has legal representation.”

    I think that is a legal right in some countries. If a party has counsel then the opposing party has to communicate with the counsel instead of the party.

    The Canadian Department of Justice told me that when they were representing the former Revenue Canada. Matters were complicated because the former Revenue Canada continued to communicate with me about later tax years which were not in court, I continued to reply directly to the former Revenue Canada, and the Department of Justice didn’t answer my question about whether I should do so.

    By the way, unlike the US, the Canadian Department of Justice essentially told the truth in Tax Court, so I even got my filing fees refunded.

    When the IRS had its own counsel in US Tax Court, some IRS employees other than its counsel continued to communicate with me about some matters which were in court and some which weren’t. One time I got 5 letters in one week, 1 from their counsel and 4 from others, and had to reply to all of them at the weekend. As usual, my replies to the 4 were ignored. I don’t recall if their counsel ignored the 1; he ignored some of the stuff I wrote (pretending that I had not answered his questions which I had answered) but read some of it.

    “For example, it could be seen as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute among other things.”

    That’s the judge’s job. There’s a reason why judges don’t swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth before they make their pronouncements.

    […]

    “Gwen and I say we are doing this for all of you (and ourselves).”

    You’re doing it for those who haven’t renounced yet ^_^

    I admire you for doing the right thing, even though I’m not among the beneficiaries.

11. “Mr. Darren Hannah:
    Well, be careful. First off, I don’t know if there are a million U.S. persons in Canada”

    Mr. Hannah should hope there are. Here’s why.

    Congress has spoken. Canada doesn’t even have to enact its own law. Canada can enforce the Expatriation Act of 1868, on which Congress has spoken.

    Canada can charge a fee of $100 for every Canadian who voluntarily requests Canada to administer the law on which Congress has spoken.

    That might yield $99,000,000 because there might be 10,000 Canadians who can’t afford the fee, who need the law to be administered for free, on which Congress has spoken.

12. @Norman Diamond
    “For example, it could be seen as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute among other things.”

    That’s the judge’s job. There’s a reason why judges don’t swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth before they make their pronouncements.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I suspect you and I may have a very different idea on the roles of judges in Canada. Or perhaps even lawyers. I swore an oath when I was called to the bar of Ontario to uphold the administration of justice. I took and take that oath very seriously to this day.
    Thank you for your expression of appreciation for what Gwen and I have taken on even though you say you are not a beneficiary. Though some may have renounced or relinquished, we’d like to believe we represent everyone so affected who had to either make that decision under great duress, or quite voluntarily, as is their choice.
    We each have our individual stories in terms of how this has impacted us. Collectively, I believe we can make a difference.
    I place my trust in the many generous supporters who have donated and worked so diligently on this cause. I shall always be grateful to them.
    This whole venture is about justice, and we shall prevail. Hang in there, Mr. Diamond. It’s a long road to Tipperary.

13. Ginny Hillis:”For example, it could be seen as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute among other things.”

    Norman Diamond: ‘That’s the judge’s job. There’s a reason why judges don’t swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth before they make their pronouncements.’

    Ginny Hillis: “I swore an oath when I was called to the bar of Ontario to uphold the administration of justice. I took and take that oath very seriously to this day.”

    But you weren’t a judge, right?

    The only judges I heard lies from in Canada were Ontario Small Claims Court judges. In one case I was standing holding an insurance policy with a bookmark in it and simplified publication from the same insurance company with a bookmark in it. I had read them. The judge lied about them, and refused to let me show him. In the other case, the judge said that the Warsaw Convention (limiting airline liability for certain kinds of events) overrode laws on ordinary business practices. I did not seek a liability payment, I only sought a refund for a service which I paid for but which the airline through its fault had not provided.

    Judges I heard lies from in the US were federal and their lies were more severe. Maybe the most egregious example is three judges of US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit who ruled that the IRS had rejected the refiled return which I had mailed in October 2010 for tax year 2005 after the IRS finally told me what changes to make. The IRS continues to insist that the IRS accepted that return. Another very clear one is a US Tax Court ruling that two of the IRS’s letters were duplicates of each other — one IRS letter refused to refund withholding that was paid in 2006 and the other refused my FOIA request for documents, and the only parts I saw duplicated were my name and address and the name (not even the address) of the recalcitrant agency.

14. The gathering of quotes from the parliamentarians prior to the IGA signing is *such* an important work. To those of you who have undertaken this work, “Thank You!”

    Stephen, Pacifica: will there be a link posted in the sidebar containing all these quotes? In our continuing fight, a link for instant access to these quotes would be invaluable.

15. @2TerrifiedToSleep, Embee, HeartSick, MuzzledNoMore, and Ginny, thanks so much for your kind words.

    @All, I hope that everyone puts the pressure on the new Liberal government now, while we still have a chance to get them on our side. Together, it is possible that we can put an end to this lawsuit sooner rather than later. Wouldn’t that be wonderful!

16. A good idea, thanks, MuzzledNoMore!

    I created a page and put a link under “Take Action.” I copied yesterday’s comments to the new thread.

    I’ll get back to this and copy the previous relevant comments later today — probably good to take a break anyway, because each comment transfer shows up as a “recent comment” in the sidebar and I don’t want to hog the entire “recent comment” box with one thread. (For anyone who’s wondering, we can’t do an automatic copy from one threat to another.)

    Also, NoName, I see you suggested having people’s letters accessible in one visible place. Also a good idea! I’ll create that later today, too. It will also include the contact links which have been posted. Thanks.

17. Here is something that is not a statement of Liberal position, but shows that another Liberal MP was made aware of some of the FATCA issues very early on.

    Came across this exchange while searching openparliament.ca for statements by Liberal MPs against FATCA. Shows that MP Szabo heard firsthand the CBA acknowledge that re FATCA;
    “there are potential conflicts of laws–access to basic banking services, account opening requirements, privacy issues, withholding tax issues–all the complexities that are being created by the approach that has been taken to this issue by the U.S. Congress. And a number of other countries have raised and are raising the same issues.”

    Standing Committee on Finance
    NUMBER 063
    l
    3rd SESSION
    l
    40th PARLIAMENT
    EVIDENCE
    Thursday, March 10, 2011
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5040752
    https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/40-3/63/paul-szabo-15/

    10:05 a.m.

    Liberal
    Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

    “Let me move on, because on November 1, 2010, you wrote an *e-mail and copied Ms. Fung, and it had to do with a CBA submission regarding the IRS matter to do with this.

    One of the things you recommended to the IRS in the information you transmitted was that a risk-based approach to accounts be used so that you would skew resources to the higher suspicious activities, etc., and cut off on the others. This report went on for dozens of pages.

    10:10 a.m.

    Director, Banking Operations, Canadian Bankers Association
    Darren Hannah

    Fourteen. I wrote it.

    10:10 a.m.

    Liberal
    Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

    You wrote it. You wrote 14 pages on tax evasion in the United States that states the position of the CBA to the IRS. Can you share with us the thinking on that? Because obviously it’s relevant to our situation, but we haven’t heard you mention this, and I’m curious as to why.

    10:10 a.m.

    Director, Banking Operations, Canadian Bankers Association
    Darren Hannah

    Point number one on it is that Canada and the U.S. have a very substantial information exchange agreement and tax treaty already in place, and we think that should be the conduit through which information should flow. Everything else that followed after that was in the instance that they simply did not go that way. A number of issues need to be resolved to try to be able to comply with this piece of legislation. And it talks in there at length about places where there are potential conflicts of laws–access to basic banking services, account opening requirements, privacy issues, withholding tax issues–all the complexities that are being created by the approach that has been taken to this issue by the U.S. Congress. And a number of other countries have raised and are raising the same issues.

    And it’s because what they have done is try to bypass the exchange of information between authorities and go directly to foreign financial institutions, and that’s creating problems.

    10:10 a.m.

    Liberal
    Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

    Okay. ”

    Read the whole exchange for context.

    (On a side note, the specific *email referred to from the CBA to the IRS is available to read here in full; “Canadian Bankers Association 11/02/2010 General FATCA Issues” http://www.bsmlegal.com/PDFs/FATCA_CanBankers.pdf . The contents of the email referred to, and the 14 page report from the CBA Darly Hannah might be useful as it repeatedly refers to privacy, access to banking and other identified issues with FATCA – and cites specific references. Also the CBA notes problems with denying bank accounts is a problem with FATCA as applied to Ireland, Norway, and other parts of the EU who have similar legislation guaranteeing access to at least basic banking services. See CBA (and many other authored submissions in general to the IRS re FATCA) here http://www.bsmlegal.com/fatca-comments.asp )

18. Good news for attempts to reach out to the Liberals about repealing the FATCA IGA – if the cabinet predictions below from the Toronto Star opinion piece today are true (see ‘How Justin Trudeau picked his new cabinet’ Toronto Star, Bob Hepburn Sun Nov 01 2015) in that those two MPs are familiar with the issues that FATCA (and US extraterritorial CBT) raise for Canadians. MP Brison submitted Parliamentary questions re FATCA ( http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/ted-hsu-and-scott-brison-have-questions-about-the-coming-u-s-foreign-account-crackdown-good-questions/ ) and very ably raised many issues during the Bill C-31 Finance Committee hearings re the FATCA IGA enabling legislation ( https://openparliament.ca/search/?q=Party:+%22Liberal%22+fatca+Person:+%22Scott+Brison%22 ).

    “……Ralph Goodale, a veteran Saskatchewan MP and former cabinet minister, is expected to be announced as deputy prime minister and House leader.

    Scott Brison is expected to become finance minister. Brison is a Nova Scotia MP and former cabinet minister who was the Liberal finance critic in the last parliament and is the party’s main spokesman on economic issues….”
    http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/11/01/how-justin-trudeau-picked-his-new-cabinet-hepburn.html

19. @BC_Doc,
    This might help you in writing to MP Garneau;

    “…While I and the Liberal Party of Canada have strong and profound disagreements with FATCA and its implementation, particularly as it infringes on privacy rights and the charter, forces the Canada Revenue Agency to do the IRS’ dirty work, and infringes upon our sovereignty, I will save that for a debate for another day. My concern giving rise to this point is that proper procedure has not been followed and the customs of the House have been infringed upon, thus creating a procedural irregularity to be remedied….”…
    https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/4/28/marc-garneau-4/

    and other FATCA comments;
    https://openparliament.ca/search/?q=Party:+%22Liberal%22+Person:+%22Marc+Garneau%22+fatca

    Worth reading the entire comments in context.

20. @heartsick;
    Yes, the Cons and the banks crafted and controlled the information and messaging on the FATCA IGA. And reading the statements by the CBA to the IRS (ex. http://www.bsmlegal.com/PDFs/FATCA_CanBankers.pdf http://www.bsmlegal.com/fatca-comments.asp ) tells you that they and the Cons were fully aware of many/all of the serious issues that FATCA implementation posed for Canadians. Nowhere in it is concern for Canadian citizens, taxpayers, residents and accountholders. Our fate should not be controlled by the policies and positions crafted and pursued by the private interests of Banksters and their investment sector kin ( ex. ‘ Feds should implement FATCA law, says IIAC ‘ http://www.advisor.ca/news/industry-news/iiac-urges-feds-to-pass-law-implementing-fatca-152592 “…The IIAC commends the work of the Canadian government to execute an intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the United States to improve cross-border tax compliance through enhanced information exchange under the Canada-United States Tax Convention…” http://iiac.ca/wp-content/uploads/IIAC-FATCA-Response.pdf )

    @Bubblebustin, “trauma” is right. And we were and are left to deal with it on our own as individuals, and it was individuals left to mount and fund this legal challenge in order to get some redress. If despite the statements we’ve gathered, Trudeau and the Liberals force us to continue using our own efforts to get justice and remediation – and do not cease the Con defence against the ADCS lawsuit and repeal FATCA then they are cowards and hypocrites of the first order. They’ll be the ones continuing the funding of the indefensible; using our own Canadian taxpayer funds against us, wasting Canadian tax resources, trampling on the Constitution and the Charter, and sucking up to the US at the expense of Canadian citizens and residents.

    I like that Goodale got and stated that we are ‘law-abiding’, CANADIAN citizens, and Canadian TAXPAYERS, NOT second class Canadians characterized as “US taxpayers residing in Canada” like the FATCACon chorus did in singing the tune Harper wrote.

    I like these parts of his quote;
    “…The Americans are trying to enforce their laws beyond their borders and are threatening Canadians to that effect….”….”Will the government do something a little more tangible……..”………..and assist Canadians who are unfairly being put upon by the extraterritorial excursions of the U.S. IRS?” https://openparliament.ca/debates/2011/9/30/ralph-goodale-1/

    But will the Liberals will honour their previous positions? I can only hope that MPs like Hsu, Brison, Goodale and a few others will stay the course and act congruent with their previous convictions.

21. @Stephen,
    Here is another that was previously posted at IBS;
    http://saskatchewan.liberal.ca/news/goodale-commentary-fighting-long-arm-taxman/

    ‘Goodale Commentary – Fighting the “Long Arm” of the U.S. Tax-Man’

    Posted on October 7, 2011
    ….”But the Americans go way too far when they start harassing Canadians,
    even to the point of asking Canadian banks to seize assets like RRSPs
    to compensate the US for the alleged tax liabilities of certain
    customers.

    MPs from all parties (including me) have raised this issue in Parliament. We all agree the US-IRS is extremely off-base!

    The government says it has protested to Washington. But more needs to be done.

    Our government must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with innocent citizens
    and taxpayers – to inform and assist them in fending-off abusive
    American tax enforcement proceedings.“….”

22. Comment on FATCA by Liberal MP Emmanuel Dubourg Bourassa, QC
    http://emmanueldubourg.liberal.ca/en/

    Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1
    Government Orders

    June 11th, 2014 / 8:35 p.m.

    Liberal
    Emmanuel Dubourg Bourassa, QC

    “Mr. Speaker, first, let us start with the last point. The member mentioned FATCA and the information exchange with the Americans. He did say “information exchange”, but no provision is made for any exchange in the agreement that was signed. The Canada Revenue Agency will give the information of taxpayers who have dual citizenship to the IRS in the United States. That is not an information exchange. We do the work for the Americans. I should also mention to the honourable member that the Canada Revenue Agency already exchanges information with other countries……..”
    https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/6/11/emmanuel-dubourg-3/

23. Another series of statements from a Liberal – this time, MP Regan
    http://geoffregan.liberal.ca/ re FATCA

    https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-1/32/geoff-regan-1/

    Finance Committee on Dec. 1st, 2011
    Evidence of meeting #32 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session.
    11:15 a.m.

    Liberal
    Geoff Regan Halifax West, NS

    “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to the witnesses for appearing today.

    I’m going to ask about a special category of Canadians. Thousands of Canadians who have been paying taxes in Canada for many years are now being pursued by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for back taxes, because they also happen to be U.S. citizens or children of U.S. citizens born in Canada and considered by the U.S. to be American citizens. What are these Canadians to do?”

    and,
    “11:20 a.m.

    Liberal
    Geoff Regan Halifax West, NS

    I will do that, Mr. Chairman. But to say that the Government of Canada doesn’t have any responsibility to act and defend these Canadian citizens who are being affected by this is appalling, if you’ll forgive me for saying so.”
    https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-1/32/geoff-regan-8/

    Read the whole exchange, including those of Cons James Rajotte and Shelly Glover. (Thank the powers that be that they are no longer MPs – neither ran in 2015).

24. @ badger
    Last night I lauded your digging expertise in an e-mail I sent and you certainly proved worthy with all the quotes you are digging up … worthy in spades! Great work … as always. Thank you.

    I’ve been tweaking my letters which are set to go as soon as JT announces his cabinet. Goodale and Brison in there would be double good plus plus. If Dr. Hsu had only decided to continue serving into the 42nd Parliament we might have had a trifecta of FATCA aware cabinet ministers. Dr. Hsu was a gem. One of my latest tweaks is this:

    They [ADCS] seek the repeal of the implementation of this U.S. law in Canada. If this is done swiftly it would prevent further litigation costs to both the Canadian plaintiffs (funded by donations) and the government defendants (funded by Canadian taxpayers).

25. @Embee, thank you. I will look for the email further – must have missed it in my cluttered inbox. Perhaps send it again? The admins have the current one I use.

    And as always, I very much appreciate your work too, and all those doing heavy lifting here.
    I am only trying to do what I understand badgers do.
    : )

    I agree, it is too bad that MP Hsu did not run again. I admired and appreciated his sincere efforts on this issue.