CTV News “Andrew Scheer has dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship, party confirms”
TORONTO — Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship but is in the process of renouncing his American citizenship, a spokesperson has confirmed to CTV News.
The Globe and Mail first reported on Scheer’s dual citizenship Thursday.
Once Mr. Scheer became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, he decided he would renounce his U.S. citizenship before the election,” the leader’s spokesperson Brock Harrison told CTV News in an email.
“In August, he informed the United States government that he was renouncing his citizenship. He has submitted his paperwork and is currently waiting for confirmation from the embassy that he is no longer a dual-citizen.”
Harrison said Scheer and his sisters received U.S. passports as children through one of their parents. He said Scheer has not renewed his American passport as an adult, and has not voted in any U.S. elections.
Thanks to Calgary411 for posting this on the Media thread. There’s been a lot of discussion on this, so I’ve created a separate post for it and moved the comments here.
I agree with Ron Henderson. Canadians can very easily avoid FATCA should they choose to. There’s really no current practical reason for Canadians to get all bent out of shape over it, and there very likely never will be.
Why is it that all these politician, BJ,AS, Elizabeth May , seem shy and embarrassed about their US citzenship. They run behind a rock when confronted. As for May , I would ask for some clarity as to her revocation. Did she file US income tax ,used /renewed her US passport , after becoming Canadian ?
The DOS applied the INA in its own particular way and I would not be surprised that if a person , knowingly or unknowingly “revoked” , would have receive a passport upon reapplication during that period,no questions asked.
All to say that ,yes ,one’s citzenship was revoked, at one time or other, but could still have it today.
Strange , loss of citzenship is mentionned in the INAs . Revocation suggests court or DOS imposed action with accompanying documentation as to that fact.
I would not want Canada run by an american, dual or not ,and do not
accept any professing of loyalty on face value ,especially one from a politician. Anyone running for public office should have their citzenships clearly indicated and not camouflaged.
What is good enough for the US should be at least good enough for us.
The DOS applied the INA in its own particular way and I would not be surprised that if a person , knowingly or unknowingly “revoked” , would have receive a passport upon reapplication during that period,no questions asked
We went through the process at that time. They most certainly asked questions and made it extremely difficult for anyone reapplying for a passport . Before Vance v Terrazas, they would not have issued a passport to anyone who had chosen another citizenship.
Elizabeth May was not hiding her citizenship. Scheer was.
Jagmeet Singh might very well be a citizen of India:
Citizenship by Descent
Persons born outside India on or after 26 January 1950 but before 10 December 1992 are citizens of India by descent if their father was a citizen of India at the time of their birth.
Unless I’m mistaken, Andrew Scheer was a member of the Conservative caucus in 2014 when the Harper government voted to adopt the FATCA IGA. Ergo, Scheer must have voted for it, thus assisting the US to exercise it’s power over the Canadian financial system, as well as over a group of Canadian citizens that included himself!
If Scheer had been dutifully filing for years (which is quite possible) then he may have been perfectly happy to vote for the IGA. If he hadn’t been filing maybe that’s what got him started, which is fun to imagine. We’ll never know.
There are probably six people left who care about this issue, and we are all right here.
The idea of disallowing dual citizenship for politicians is fine in principle but can lead to chaos If put into practice – Australia. I’m not so bothered by the duals in high office provided there’s no chance of leverage. Citizenship does not equal allegiance. I would not lift a finger to meet any obligations of US citizenship, for example. Won’t even give them money to renounce, when there’s no danger in not doing so.
I’m actually having an interesting discussion of Facebook centred around NDP leader Singh’s potential of having “dual” (hate the term) Indian-Canadian Citizenship.
It start out with a FB friend posting a picture of Singh with the caption that he’s 100% Canadian, whereas Scheer is 50% Canadian and 50% American – like Scheer is some kind of hybrid.
Australia’s ban on dual citizenship is particularly problematical because the wording in their law goes so far as to even ban people who might be “entitled” to a second citizenship even though they have never applied for it and are not even aware they could qualify. They had a recent spate of people researching their opponent’s lineage and “outing” them if it was thought that they fell afoul of the rules. Resignations galore. No wonder it created chaos.
I’m perfectly OK with Canada’s present silence on the subject. If Scheer winds up as Prime MInister, I’ll be interested to see what (if anything) he does about the lawsuit. Actions speak louder than words.
I’ve been wondering about Scheer. Would he as PM help, hinder or ignore? He has “the problem” so he should be empathetic to our cause but even in non-FATCA matters he doesn’t exhibit a high degree of empathy (e.g. Palestine) which in my mind takes a potential plus into minus territory. I haven’t seen (so far) anything specific about his views on US CBT and the Canadian acceptance of the FATCA IGA so that just creates a big question mark. Since Scheer was Speaker of the House in 2014 he didn’t vote on Bill C-31 but he being a Conservative would no doubt have voted Yea as did all of them. In this election It boils down to I don’t like anybody very much.
” I don’t like anybody very much.”
That sums it up nicely. We really do need a “none of the above” option. Postpone the election, get some new faces, and try again.
“We went through the process at that time. They most certainly asked questions and made it extremely difficult for anyone reapplying for a passport . Before Vance v Terrazas, they would not have issued a passport to anyone who had chosen another citizenship.
Elizabeth May was not hiding her citizenship. Scheer was.”
Not to belabour a old story, Vance v. Terrazas (1980) introduced “intent ” to lose citzenship and before that ,Afroyim vs Rusk (1967) disallowed involunary loss of citzenship. During that period ,1967 to aprox 1986,
when intent finally was written into the INA, the DOS would send out a standard ” uniform loss of citzenship letter”, which rquested a response within 60 days if the acquired citzenship was voluntary if no response came then the action would be considered as voluntary and citzenship would be lost . I never received such letter,as many others didn’t either and much later requested if my citzenship was still in force. Never got an answer. All to say, that issues then weren’t all that clear about the legal application,as far as I see it.
As for May, I’ve only seen ‘ loss ‘ mentionned anywhere in the INAs
Revoking is much stronger term implying a legal/ court decision.
Unless she means self -revoking ,which doesn’t make sense. Yes,it certainly needs explanation. Personally, I wouldn’ t want somene running my country who may face a possible threat of the US having their hands on their wallet.
EmBee: Thanks for the reminder that Scheer was Speaker of the House in 2014. I completely forgot about that!
Happy to report Minister of Revenue Diane LeBouthillier was defeated in today’s federal election. No clue yet which party is going to form the government.
(1) I got the news about Minsiter LeBouthillier from Global TV, but have now noticed that CBC still has that riding up for grabs between her and the Bloc Québecois candidate, with the BQ candidate leading by a slim majority. (And now, at 23.05, I see that Global now has undeclared the winner and has the riding once again up for grabs.)
(2) Finance Minister Bill Morneau has been re-elected.
CBC now projects Liberal win, but “it remains to be seen if it will be majority or minority government.” Majority requires 170 seats. Currently the Liberals have 142 seats and the other parties have 155 combined, with results in quite a few ridings still undetermined.
Update 20:43. CBC and Global News have projected Liberal minority government.
I bet Scheer is regretting his decision to renounce US citizenship. Is it too late to cancel?
“I bet Scheer is regretting his decision to renounce US citizenship. Is it too late to cancel?”
I assume you’re being tongue-in-cheek here, but I’ve never heard of anyone who regretted their decision to renounce US citizenship. In today’s world, unless you actually live in the US (or have plans to do so), having US citizenship is nothing but a PITA.
Merely implying that a US passport might be useful for a post-politics career
” I bet Scheer is regretting his decision to renounce US citizenship. Is it too late to cancel? ”
Not if he intends to try again in a few years.
For whatever PITA means , I would imagine that for someone ,like Scheer , who simply divested (or is going throught the process) himself at the last minute for political reasons and has sisters and brothers in the US , and possibly a sizable stock or property investments there ,and no doubt having his butt covered by any number of cross border tax and investment advisors, he may indeed be interested in retaining US citzenship.
Today the Toronto Globe and Mail published an article about U.S. citizenship renunciation (with Andrew Scheer in the title) written by some Canadian tax professionals that exhibits shocking incompetence. Those Brockers who are so inclined, might post some comments:
The article is little better than an infomercial. However it is mostly accurate. The inaccuracy arises from the emphasis on ‘must’ do this and that in order to ditch US citizenship. As we all know, the correct term is ‘are supposed to’. The only thing one must do is show up, renounce and pay up.
There is no point commenting. Almost all of the comments are inane.
There are only two interesting reasons for dual nationals living outside of USA to keep their US citizenship. Firstly if the USA finally adopts UBI as proposed by Andrew Yang: if one ultimately believes MMT will lead to helicopter money, then some form of UBI will occur for US citizens. Secondly, if the USA adopts Medicare for All: as people age, they are better off with more free medical care than less. Being able to join two different queues for the same medical procedure is a good hedge for an older person.
Andrew Scheer must feel like he’s walking around with gum on his shoe.
Or in light of his defeat and real possibility of losing his leadership may be full of regret.
Personally, I’d love to see much made of the FBAR reporting requirements on all accounts he’d have signing authority over. Wonder if that might make our reality a bit more real to others.
Back when this first hit the news someone pointed out that government accounts are exempt from FBAR/FATCA and all that, so it’s not like he would have been required to report the federal government’s annual high balances had he won the election. As amusing as that is to imagine.