Duke of Devon says,
Mr. Morneau’s letter deserves its’ own post so it won’t get lost. He seems to get it. It will be interesting to keep on his case about the lack of reciprocity. He is the first Lib. to confirm they won’t help collect anything the IRS claims against a Canadian and I think his distinction that CRA-IRS transfer of information cannot legally be used by the IRS to impose FBAR fines is a new commitment. Not so sure the IRS would respect the distinction.
Here is the first reply that any of have gotten from the Finance Minister. Thanks for sharing it, Cheryl.
April 26, 2016 Reply from The Honourable Bill Morneau, P.C., M.P.
@WhiteKat: I’m still really skittish about the whole thing. I know that we can probably realistically fly under the radar for a little while longer, so I would rather wait until we get clean and get out before I start showing my hand, y’know?
I also have a job where I have to watch what I say because I can’t be perceived to be going against my boss. My work right now has exactly zero to do with taxes or finance, but one can never be too sure… that’s why I am being cautious 🙂
@Isabelle, re: “I also have a job where I have to watch what I say because I can’t be perceived to be going against my boss. ”
Our Canadian MPs have the same kind of job. So does our new, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” (unless born in the USA) PM, who reports to Obama.
The Finance Minister does NOT get it.
Here’s something you can add to your letter, LM.
He doesn’t get that the indicia method of detecting US persons fails miserably at detecting a great number of US persons due to a lack of US birthplace. As he should know, it also ensnares a great number of people who aren’t US persons into a web designed solely to catch tax cheats. He’s missing a very important step in this scenario, evident by the fact that he suggests we consult with the IRS itself or a tax consultant, rather than someone well versed in immigration laws. He’s directing soley Canadian people to those who have no other ability than to say “comply, comply, comply!”
This omission is grossly negligent on his part, and shows just how LITTLE he knows about the situation. Maybe we should be looking for a witness who having relinquished ended back up into the US tax system by following similar advice.
Is Canada’s policy objective to create new US taxpayers for the US?
They have parliamentary privilege to protect them and they have the recourse to take up dissent from the party line with their party whip (currently Mr. Leslie, I believe? He’s another area MP that I have a past rapport with. Maybe I can engage him…)
I have no such protection, and as the primary breadwinner for the family (especially with my US tax slave husband 😛 ) I cannot afford to be reckless about this.
Isabelle, just in case my comment came across as some kind of dis against you, it was not intended as such. You have every right to your privacy, especially as a target of the FATCA hunt.
Unlike our MPs and PM YOUR JOB is NOT to protect Canadians living in Canada from extraterritorial US law. Our government has no excuse for sucking up to whoever their perceived boss is(obviously not us) by facilitating immoral place of birth taxation and ‘foreign’ bank account reporting of local accounts, all the while knowing that their role in the world-wide FATCA ‘US person’ hunt will ultimately lead to the assessment of penalties by the USA against law-abiding Canadians living in Canada whose only ‘crime’ was not to have been born in Canada. Oh, but don’t worry, your data will be safe and secure after it is sent off to the IRS, and we won’t collect no matter how hard they twist our arms.
From the Directive on Values and Ethics I signed when I joined on:
“Respect For Democracy
Public servants shall uphold the Canadian parliamentary democracy and its institutions by:
1.1 Respecting the rule of law and carrying out their duties in accordance with legislation, policies and directives in a non-partisan and impartial manner.
1.2 Loyally carrying out the lawful decisions of their leaders and supporting ministers in their accountability to Parliament and Canadians.
1.3 Providing decision makers with all the information, analysis and advice they need, always striving to be open, candid and impartial.”
So my real identity can’t really be seen calling out the Fiberals, but Isabelle Brock can.
@Isabelle Brock, now I get fully where you are coming from. Back in the day in the homeland, to use some metaphors, I was a house slave on the plantation, one who had many privileges and great respect.
It came to the point because of what I was that I began to speak out (nothing to do with FATCA) and my voice was slightly unpopular. The master burned the bridge when I left the plantation. My legal bill was five figures……
The advice I would like to give you is find the edge and then put one foot off the edge.
I can understand the preservation desire but it is possible and essential for the soul to take that single step beyond with one foot.
My second foot went off the edge and I would not tell anyone to do that, but a decade later I have no regrets and everything I stated was correct having now been vindicated.
Should this letter go to our litigators?
Cheryl,
Stephen has passed your letter on to our litigation team — http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/04/26/reply-from-the-finance-minister-the-honourable-bill-morneau/comment-page-1/#comment-7507646.
Or, another look, you may be referring to the Isabelle Brock letter. That and the earlier email correspondence with *Phil* should as well. And, perhaps Phil should check with his boss on what the CURRENT party line really is — which may differ than for this Liberal MP who has been able to represent his constituents. .
I meant Isabelle Brock’s liberal MP’s letter.
If you want me to forward the copy of the email, let me know which address I should send it to.
@Isabelle Brock. It used to be that civil servants worked for elected officials.
Based on what we have seen with FATCA, it appears the elected officials now work for civil servants. LeBouthillier and Morneua are spouting off words written by civil servants while others who spoke strongly against FATCA in Opposition have clearly been told to keep their mouths shut. This includes the Prime Minister.
I wouldn’t quite put it that way, Blaze.
There’s the fearlessly advise part, where, behind the scenes we say “WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ARE YOU NUTS? YOU CAN’T DO THIS.” In the most polite, bureaucratic language, of course.
And then it comes back with the Minister’s notes – and they say “Sorry, this is what I want to see happen. Make it happen. And I want speaking notes to go with it.”
That’s the loyally implement part.
We are still working for our political masters.
@Isabelle Brock – RE Is it worth following up with him.
My answer is “YES”.
Even if he moves to the Liberal right (the current Trudeau government stance on FATCA) he will be faced with his own shame at his party taking this position. Good to have one’s MP face the horrible reality of his party’s stance. And find out what influence he can bring to changing the “Liberal right” position to his more noble stance.
@Blaze
I hate to say but I told you so although I take no pleasure in saying it. I remember having a big fight with several people including yourself here at Brock about “targeting” members of the civil service for retribution over FATCA. I was roundly criticized for “politicizing” the civil service and NOT focusing on the truly guilty parties i.e. Harper and Flaherty.
One of my favorite political videos below(The “Fourth” branch of government):
I have to disagree with him. He sounds like a Conservative shill before Stephen Harper came to power.
Also, we do have oversight of the parliamentary budget: the PBO.
And as civil servants, our duty is to propose policy in the best interest of Canadians. If the person at the top nixes it (the Minister), we have to go by what they say. (Yes, Minister.)
@Isabelle Brock
So do you think civil service “proposed” compliance with FATCA and Citizenship Based Taxation as being in the “best” interests of Canadians or did the Minister(plural) at the top decide it on their own. I highly highly doubt the later and in fact have some proof(from various access to information requests) that is was the former.
If it was the former how does this comport with obligation of civil servants to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
To be quite honest, I’m not sure. I would like to hope that the civil servants dealing with the files are smart enough to understand the implications for Canadians. As I stated before, I would love to see an ATIP request to obtain all of the behind-the-scenes back-and-forth on FATCA: emails, correspondence, briefings to senior officials.
It’s my understanding (from an unnamed source) that the focus was not so much minnows like most of us, but the big whales with accounts and tax liabilities surpassing the $1M threshold, but I wasn’t given any more details than that. I can’t be sure of anything else without seeing what an ATIP request would produce.
and HINT HINT. Anyone can make an ATIP request, and it only costs $5. Just putting that out there.
I think by and large most civil servants are not involved in FATCA. I’ve been lucky to have had jobs that didn’t conflict with my personal convictions. If somehow that situation came up, I know that I would personally resign or go elsewhere where my values weren’t in conflict.
I can tell you that under the Harper government, quite a few people resigned because they were forced to go along with things that they felt were not in the best interest, including the Chief Statistician over the cancellation of the long form census.
And I just looked into the fellow from your video: John Robson. He writes for the Toronto Sun and National Post, and he’s married to a woman that I’ve got a 6 degrees of separation to. I’m more of a moderate, but his spouse is definitely running with the Conservative/conservative crowd that I have a few dealings with. Suspicions confirmed 🙂
@Isabelle Brock
My understanding is Blaze is the one who has been working on the ATIP requests. Two issues she has ran into are the government refuses to turn over documents based on solicitor client privilege and cabinet confidentiality privilege.
Fair enough, I was not aware that Blaze was pursuing that avenue. There should still be numerous documents that aren’t covered by either solicitor-client or cabinet privilege, though. I used to work with really sensitive files back in the day and absolutely, the stuff that was discussed without departmental legal team was excluded but even the most inane emails from people who had nothing to do with the file (I was often cc’d on stuff but I was/am a lowly admin) had to get sent over.
The link below has some PDF’s from Finance Canada ATIP requests. As you can see much of the information was blacked out on privilege grounds.
http://maplesandbox.ca/2014/finance-canada-244-pages-access-to-information/comment-page-2/
13 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information that was obtained in confidence from
(a) the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof;
(b) an international organization of states or an institution thereof;
(c) the government of a province or an institution thereof;
(d) a municipal or regional government established by or pursuant to an Act of the legislature of a province or an institution of such a government; or
(e) an aboriginal government.
Advice, etc.
21 (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
(a) advice or recommendations developed by or for a government institution or a minister of the Crown,
(b) an account of consultations or deliberations in which directors, officers or employees of a government institution, a minister of the Crown or the staff of a minister participate,
(c) positions or plans developed for the purpose of negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Government of Canada and considerations relating thereto, or
(d) plans relating to the management of personnel or the administration of a government institution that have not yet been put into operation,
if the record came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request.
All of the information that I have been reading thus far seems to indicate that the civil servants responsible for briefing the Minister and the DM are covering all of the angles we talk about here regularly (in that last document, they discuss a letter from constitutional lawyer Peter Hogg that argues that the IGA “offend[s] section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, which is the section that discusses discrimination on the basis of national origin, among others.
http://www.greenparty.ca/sites/greenparty.ca/files/attachments/peter_hogg_fatca.pdf
I note that Blaze has this on her website too.
I can’t be sure, because like you pointed out, so much of it was redacted. But reading between the lines, I think they did “get it” they did warn against it, but in the end, the Minister had few options and probably said “This is what I want to see happen. Make it so.” That’s the impression that I get based on the language that I am seeing in the correspondence.
Do we have any more recent ATIPs? Did we just contact Finance at the time? Would it be worthwhile to ATIP the Minister of Revenue / the CRA?
@Isabelle Brock
…and a few were unceremoniously let go. Here’s A former lawyer with the Department of Justice who’s brought a lawsuit against the Attorney-General for greatly reducing the degree laws need to pass Charter muster. Note his former legal councel is ADCS’s.
http://www.nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/November/The-whistleblower.aspx
@Tim Isabelle: That information from Finance only had a fraction o information redacted in comparison to what I got in print from Justice.
I submitted a request to them. I got about 20 pages of which about 12 or 14 were blank. The ones that did have information gave only legislation, policy or information I had already seen.
Their response was provided on legal size paper so I have not been able to scan it to post it.
I also did an ATI request for copies of the submissions Canadians made about the IGA.
It took months to receive it. You can read the submissions and the government’s (civil servants) stonewalling, delays and denials at Maple Sandbox.
http://maplesandbox.ca/2014/here-is-what-canadians-said-on-fatca-iga-the-cons-didnt-listen/
I asked if MPs would receive the submissions. The answer was no.
I asked for the submissions before my testimony at Finance Committee. That request was denied.
I asked for the submissions before the Finance Committee voted,. That request was ignored.
I asked for the submissions before Parliament voted. That request was ignored.
I received the submissions a few days after Parliament voted.
I filed a complaint with whichever government agency deals with complaints about ATI. I received a letter that the delay in responding was unreasonable. They made a note of it and advised Finance, but it was too late by then. Finance was not reprimanded or experience any consequences for delaying as long as they did,
I currently have ATI requests at CRA (2) and Privacy Commissioner. I have no idea how much information I will receive or when.
I did not ask for Briefing Documents. Isabelle, is that something you think I should do? If so, I would like to work with you to be sure I use the right lingo. I remember from my first submission to Finance that terminology in the federal government is different than it is in provincial government, so I want to be sure I don’t mess up the request by using the wrong terms.