So I just received my 2016 Canadian Census notice in the mail today, complete with a personalized secure access code, presumably to initiate the self-destruct mechanism attached to the few remaining vestiges of privacy I have in my life, and to potentially out myself – and my family – to both the Canadian and US Governments. In the back of my mind I’m thinking, should I really be this paranoid, just because it’s increasingly likely that everyone is indeed out to get me?
While I have so far managed to elude the FATCA police by sheer luck of having never revealed my birthplace to anyone where I bank, I am now confronted with one of the first true conundrums of my post-OMG moment life – how to respond, if at all, to the following census questions:
2016 Census of Population questions, long form (National Household Survey):
STEP B
1. Including yourself, how many persons usually live at this address on May 10, 2016?
1: Number of Persons2. Including yourself, list all persons who usually live here on May 10, 2016.
1: Family Name(s); Given Name(s)STEP C
1. Did you leave anyone out of step B because you were not sure the person should be listed? For example, a student, a child in joint custody, a person temporarily away, a person who lives here temporarily, a resident from another country with a work or study permit, a refugee claimant, etc.1: No
2: Yes. Specify the name, the relationship and the reason.STEP E
Copy the names in step B to question 1. Keep the same order.If more than five persons live here, you will need an extra questionnaire.
1. Name.
In the spaces provided, copy the names in the same order as in step B. Then answer the following questions for each person.
1: Family Name, Given NameSOCIOCULTURAL INFORMATION
12: Where was this person born?
Specify one response only, according to present boundaries.
Born in Canada
1: Nfld. Lab.
2: P.E.I.
3: N.S.
4: N.B.
5: Quebec
6: Ontario
7: Manitoba
8: Sask.
9: Alberta
10: B.C.
11: Yukon
12: N.W.T.
13: NunavutBorn outside Canada
14: specify country13: Of what country is this person a citizen?
Indicate more than one citizenship, if applicable.
“Canada, by naturalization” refers to the process by which an immigrant is granted citizenship of Canada, under the Citizenship Act.
1: Canada, by birth
2: Canada, by naturalization
3: Other country — specify14: Is this person now, or has this person ever been, a landed immigrant?
A “landed immigrant” (permanent resident) is a person who has been granted the right to live in Canada permanently by immigration authorities.
1: No. Go to question 16.
2: Yes15: In what year did this person first become a landed immigrant?
Example: Year 1974
1: Year. If exact year is not known, enter best estimate.PLACE OF BIRTH OF PARENTS
24: Where was each of this person’s parents born?
a) Father
Mark or specify country according to present boundaries.
1: Born in Canada
2: Born outside Canada — specify country
b) MotherMark or specify country according to present boundaries.
1: Born in Canada
2: Born outside Canada — specify country
The bottom of the notice reads:
By law, your responses will be kept confidential.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Didn’t the CRA also recently insist that their handing-over of the financial information of hundreds of thousands of Canadians to the US Government is also being kept confidential? How reassuring.
Now, I’m well aware that there are a million other data points out there already broadcasting every detail of my life to whichever three-letter agency might be interested, but it genuinely concerns me that this very explicit package of personal information is being demanded so unequivocally, right now, when so many of us are still figuratively hiding in the attic, not all that far removed from Anne Frank – and the Canadian Government damn well knows it. The threat is right there on the front of the notice:
Complete the census – it’s the law.
So, that perennial philosophical question: what would Jesus do?
If you are a US Person living in Canada in 2016, what will you do?
@Deckard1138
Should that same stand apply to bank account information, or do we take a stand when we feel relatively reassured that the information won’t require us to suffer repercussions?
Look, I don’t blame anyone for not wanting their bank account info sent to the IRS, but without victims, the IGA is a victimless crime.
Quotes from p. 34 of SSRN-id2407264 (the Christians-Cockfield Feb. 2014 submission on IGA implementation).
“Section 8(2)(b) of the Privacy Act permits a government institution such as the CRA [or Stats Can?] to disclose personal information ‘for any purpose in accordance with any Act of Parliament.’ In addition, at least one court has held that government agencies need not seek full-blown warrants when they access information held by other agencies. For instance, the CRA was permitted to access documents held by the Canada Border Services Agency by showing that the CRA had ‘an interest’ in the documents.”(See Footnote 83)
Footnote 83: “See Canada Revenue Agency v Canada Border Services Agency, 2013 BCSC 594. See also Re Privacy Act, [2000] 3 FC 82 (FCA), aff’d 2001 SCC 89, [2001] 3 SCR 905 (holding that information collected by government agencies can be shared with other departments without consent or notice under the Privacy Act).”
Note: Section 8 of the Privacy Act looks at present to be undergoing revision.
If all depts. are considered equal, some must be more equal than others because being able to share inforfmation with another department would 100% help us achieve our mandate, but we aren’t allowed to because of the Privacy Act.
@WhiteKat
My knickers aren’t even close to being in a knot, but thanks anyway.
I wasn’t going to bring up the conversation you had with your bank friends, but now that you have, I would like you to know how gutsy I thought if was of you to do so and to not care about the fallout.
You have a nice day too.
@BB. For some reason, I took your words as a passive aggressive dis against me, when really they were not. Sorry.
No BB. I was dumb blabbering to the bank ladies, not gutsy. There was nothing to be gained from what I did other than to offload some anger and stress. Being a plaintiff or witness in the lawsuit – those actions have identifiable benefits along with risks and are both gutsy and smart moves.
I got the short form which was quick and easy. But it may help our cause to fill out the long form truthfully. It may be useful to get an indication of just how many “US Persons” are living here in Canada. All US Persons, even those who have renounced/relinquished and are now “former US Persons”, have been negatively impacted by FATCA/IGA.
@Bubblebustin
Truth is, I think that every one of us has to make own personal decisions about how far we are prepared to go with disclosures for the “greater good”, if you’ll allow me to characterize this way what I believe you’re getting at. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I believe it is still possible to argue that providing personal data for a national census does serve a greater good by helping governments to understand the demographics of their citizens and to better set responsible and effective national policies – at least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
On the other hand, bank account disclosures via the IGA process serve no greater good, other than to facilitate the theft and transfer of Canadian wealth to an outlier US tax system based on citizenship, or to simply keep Canadian banks profitable. I therefore don’t see any greater good in willingly disclosing my personal information to a bank when we are fighting to prevent such disclosure in the first place, even if that perceived greater good is to become a willing sacrifice, pawn or martyr to our collective cause. Sorry, but doing the exact opposite of what we’re fighting for in the courts is not for me – I won’t go down to my bank and shout to the tellers and customers lined-up that I am a US Person. My first responsibility is, and will always will be, to my family, and I will remain in the shadows, as far as my bank is concerned, as long as I possibly can.
@Deckard @WhiteKat
I believe Gwen and Ginny would say “send away” to the banks. But that’s what makes them great plaintiffs – they’re fearless and committed. They also don’t have to lie about not being American, because although they have a US birthplace, they don’t think of themselves as Americans.
I still can’t understand why anyone would want to leave their money where the banks can do double injustice to them – profit from your savings while turning your account info over to the CRA to send to the IRS. It’s like you’re paying them to betray you.
There’s a whole lot of barcoding going on with the census this year. I couldn’t find a copy of past forms online to see if that has always been the case. (Wish I’d scanned previous forms.) Anyway, all of the forms (short and long) submitted in paper form are going to be optically scanned (just like in the electronic voting in the USA) and the information digitized (for easy searching and compilation). Everyone’s name gets linked to their current address and the information on their income tax forms too.
NOTE: On the short form it states:
In order to reduce the number of questions in this questionnaire, Statistics Canada will obtain your income information from personal income tax and benefits records.
Stats Can, even with its best intentions, cannot build an unbreachable dam around its census databank and we’ve all read about leaks which have occurred. Strict employee rules mean nothing when accidental leaks happen. Also, it is not unreasonable to worry that Lockheed Martin will pass along whatever it gets from this census (probably through a backdoor built into its software) to whatever 3-letter US agency which demands it — and those demands are done in secret.
As for wanting to be counted as an American to make the case about how many here are FATCA afflicted then I guess a statistician would have to chime in to say how accurate the tally would be coming from 25% of the population. (They say 1 in 4 will get a long form.) BTW, the citizenship-related questions on the long form don’t really give you a chance to record that you are no longer American or that your American born mother/father didn’t live in the USA long enough to pass along their citizenship to you. That would have to be done in the comment section I suppose.
To me, less is more. The less any government knows about me, the more secure I feel.
@BB, I doubt that either Gwen or Ginny are fearless. Committed, no doubt. It is too bad we don’t have more people who are interested in being plaintiffs/witnesses, but I don’t blame anyone or look at them as being less than, for being afraid or unwilling to be part of the lawsuit that ADCS decided to champion. Once again, the blame lies with the Canadian government, not the targets of the FATCA hunt.
@Bubblebustin
Here is the problem I ran into… No problem to deposit funds but when I had to pull cash out to pay for something… it was shy of 3K… the only thing the bank did not do was stick a spotlight in my face & give my a poly test then I had to wait for a few days for them to *pull* it from the vault… it was a special request…. every hear that kind of crap before… u are a bank… your business is to get & send out cash… how is it special? I also told the story about being in the US & was going to deposit some *token* money in the kids’ accounts… less then $10 each… Had to show ID… answer a bunch of stupid qs… I just left & hand out the cash… I use to do this all the time… it was a tiny surprise for the kids… I would be a moron criminal if I was laundering money… $10 at a time…
Having said that though, I think there will be people who end up regretting not deciding to take advantage of the opportunity that ADCS has presented with this lawsuit. If anyone is really on the fence about being a witness and meets all the requirements that Dr. Kish has outlined in his ‘get me witnesses’ post, you might want to do some more risk/benefit analysis – not from an altruistic/greater good perspective, but from a personal perspective. This whole US person FATCA hunt has the potential to get really bad at which point, there may not be a lawsuit on the go, and no legal way to fight this. The ADCS lawsuit may well be the only hope to save yourself in the long run.
@Deckard re: “Sorry, but doing the exact opposite of what we’re fighting for in the courts is not for me – I won’t go down to my bank and shout to the tellers and customers lined-up that I am a US Person. ”
Why not? What are you afraid of? So tempted to wear my ‘born in the USA’ t-shirt into a bank and try to open up an account. Just to be gutsy.
@Deckard…was kidding
I agree with Whitecat. If anyone is on the fence about being a witness, do some more risk/benefit analysis. This trial(s) is our last shot and we need to present our most compelling case. If unsuccessful, we do not get a “do-over” with better witnesses.
@Marie, like Eminem’s ‘Lose Yourself’ lyrics, “You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow. This opportunity comes once in a lifetime”
“Now the census forces parents to out their kids and kids to out themselves and their parents. This would all be no problem if the Government of Canada could be trusted.”
It would too still be a problem, because the data are put in possession of a US military contractor. (Though by now, a US civilian contractor wouldn’t be any better.)
==
“If you fill it out and let them know where you were born/from, you will likely get a 100.00 fine per year for not having a foreign TIN or Social security number. This is the new Canadian law to punish you for being an immigrant.”
It also punishes you for being a Canadian-born child of an immigrant, even if you’ve never set foot in your parents’ countries.
==
“I think the Canadian government needs to know how many US born Canadians they are affecting with their irresponsible decisions”
I think they do know and don’t care, but it doesn’t matter. 1 is too many. Even where the Charter provides for exceptions, there is no excuse to make this an exception.
“Not only that, but they should also be made to see how much of an ongoing fiscal drain to the Canadian economy they have signed up to”
They do know and don’t care. They’re not the ones paying for it. They just had to make sure banks aren’t the ones paying for it too.
==
“This personal information has enjoyed the highest level of security and is only accessible to Statistics Canada employees, and for authorized reasons.”
So Lockheed Martin, and the government that they cooperate with, are Statistics Canada employees? Or is it enough for them to be authorized reasons? And these authorized reasons will protect Canadians just how?
“Statistics Canada is not allowed to share personal information with other government agencies.”
Except when the other government agencies are agencies of another government? Or except when an intermediary is used?
==
“Stat Can is ruthless on these issues, because if they weren’t, no one would trust their census or other data collection, and the numbers they have and that governments and businesses need, wouldn’t be worth the paper their printed on. They know this, and they know they’d be out of business in no time if they didn’t hold to that privacy guarantee.”
That’s exactly why this thread is here, right? Outsourcing to Lockheed Martin is a violation of that guarantee and Stats Can needs to be put out of business in no time.
==
“NOTE: On the short form it states:
In order to reduce the number of questions in this questionnaire, _Statistics_Canada_ will obtain your income information from personal income tax and benefits records.”
_and_Lockheed_Martin_and_all_US_government_agencies_
So why was the IGA even needed?
Perhaps we should all try to convince as many friends and family members as we can to lie on the census and say they were born in the USA. Screw the government right up good with the stats coming out as 10 million Canadians born in the USA. What is the cut off number I wonder where the government will actually start to worry about subjecting a large number of its citizens to: foreign taxation on Canadian earnings, high penalties, expensive, extremely complicated reporting requirements,, risk of identity theft, plantation-exit taxes, etc, solely based on being deemed a ‘US person’ by a country we don’t live in. Who cares whether we are technically US citizens, whether or not we knew we were USW citizens, whether or not we were once proud to be one, or whether we left as babies or young adults? This hunt for US persons hiding outside the USA has got to end!
Rant over for the night…that response (like others) from the social worker turned politician is really upsetting. I hope she reads her. She needs to wake up and realize we are being abused. It is not OK.
@NorthernShrike and Schubert1975
Yes, and it used to be very similar in the US too. I was in the Navy during the early nineties. Anytime we had paperwork to fill out of even the slightest personal nature, it was accompanied with the “Privacy Act Statement’ which we also had to sign after reading. I could not find a copy easily but did find this for US Consulates.
In accordance with the Privacy Act (PL 93-579) passed by Congress in 1974, a U.S. Consular Office cannot release any information regarding you to anyone without your written consent except as set forth in the Act. Please complete the authorization below, specifying whom a U.S. Consular Office may contact and to whom to release information with regard to your case. Please return the completed authorization to a U.S. Consular Office. Local language translations are acceptable to facilitate completion of the form in English.
The U.S. Government, by providing the Authorization for the Release of Information Under the Privacy Act Form, cannot under any circumstances compel an individual to complete and submit the form. PLEASE CAREFULLY CONSIDER TO WHOM, AND WHAT INFORMATION IS BEING DISCLOSED.
IMPORTANT: You are not obliged to grant anyone access to information regarding you but failure to provide the information requested on this form may make it more difficult, or impossible, for the Department of State or the U.S. Consular Office to assist you.
The forms I had fill out in the Navy also specifically said that the information I provided could not be shared with other organizations with in the government except in very limited circumstances and only then for administrative purposes.
These realities from two decades ago are very from the statements I found on my passport renewal application from three years ago, provided below.
“The Department of State must provide your SSN and foreign residence information to the Department of Treasury. If you fail to provide the information, you are subject to a $500 penalty enforced by the IRS.”
“Your Social Security Number will be provided to Treasury , used in connection with debt collection and checked against lists of persons ineligible or potentially ineligible to receive a U.S. Passport, among other authorized uses.”.
The BOLD statement in the paragraph below added by myself for emphasis.
“Your social security numbers will be provided to the U.S. Department of Treasury and failure to provide it may subject you to a penalty, as described in the Federal Tax Law provision. It also may be used for identification verification for passport adjudication and in connection with debt collection, among other purposes as authorized and generally described in this section. PROVIDING YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND OTHER INFORMATION REQUESTED ON THIS FORM OTHERWISE IS VOLUNTARY, BUT FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ON THIS FORM MAY RESULT IN PROCESSING DELAYS OR THE DENIAL OF YOUR U.S. PASSPORT APPLICATION”.
The following bold is from the application, not mine.
“CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION: Failure to provide the information requested on this form may result in Passport Services’ refusal to accept your application or result in the denial of a U.S. Passport.”
This, of course is a “surface inspection” but even so, either the State and Treasury departments are violation the law or the law has been changed.
What was once forbidden is now mandatory.
It was the difference between the legal protections of private data similar to those stated by NorthernShrike and Schubert1975, and current practice of ignoring these protections that caused me look into what was going on and which eventually led me to all of you here.
Please, do not fall for the false sense of security that the law provides. Laws change. Governments ignore laws at will. If this was not so, none of us would be at this site. There would be no need for the lawsuit to prevent Canada from violating Canadian law and sharing your information with the US.
It should also be noted, that as I read the statements by NorthernShrike and Schubert1975, they give penalties for employees of the relevant gov. agencies sharing the data but not for the agency itself. Do these privacy laws protect you if the law or interpretation of the law or regulations change requiring these agencies to provide your data with other gov. agencies which are then required to share it with the US?
I do not mean to scare people away from doing the census, I too believe that, as GwEvil states, that this is the only way to let them know how many you there are. However, I live in a different country and do not personally have the same concerns as those of us in Canada. Additionally, I have never completed my census forms for the two times I was in the States for them. Started but was too busy to complete the silly questions and send it off in time. Why do they need to know my race anyway?
@ND
“So why was the IGA even needed?”
For the veneer of legality, perhaps?
Actually, I believe that those behind this are every bit as knowledgeable as you so often state. The know the damage they are causing and do not care. They have a goal and they will reach it that goal regardless or the number of lives destroyed and the number of laws they break.
They are not stupid. They know that they will fail here and there, thus they have not launched a singular assault against us, but a assault upon many positions and from many directions via many different routes. If/when one attack fails, no matter as they already are attacking elsewhere.
I’d like to know how Stats Can will link up income info without a SIN. There will be enough common names out there to screw that up, especially in Quebec.
All of the above being said, today I had to open a bank account (well not me) for my 16 year old Canadian son who has been polluted by his mother’s birthplace. I warned him in advance, that it is completely morally correct to LIE on any question related to the USA or his mother’s place of birth. Surprisingly, the (I assume) low level teller asked no questions whatsoever on the subject….obviously making basic assumptions re: the Canadian passport presented.
I did reference to him what happened under Hitler etc. and he totally gets it. I also explained that in most other circumstances, fibbing is WRONG!!
What a pathetic statement, but I stand by it. SCREW THE USA!
@ The Mom
They have full name, DOB, phone number and address to make the link. Should be enough.
So fun to watch the statist crowd swarm the virtual water cooler to speculate on the trustworthiness of the state and the perils of census compliance.
Take a look at the 2006 «data» which already looked pretty junky and useless:
https://usxcanada.wordpress.com/perspectives/#howmanyuscan
Then go frothy over the possibilities of how 2016 «data» could bolster truth, justice, and the Canoodlian way.
Again,
One who suggests that governments violating the sovereignty of others and/or breaking the laws of their own lands is nothing to be concerned about is not one who should be trusted.