54 thoughts on “Two Person FATCA Protest Reported In Globe and Mail

  1. Atticus and I are thrilled that we were able to generate a bit of publicity!
    I think we all need to do a lot more protesting in multiple cities across Canada, to keep reinforcing to our political leaders that Canadians do not want FATCA in any form.

  2. Absolutely! Now is the time to mobilise. Heading it off at the pass would be much better than have it slip into law., come into effect, and have to take legal action later.

  3. I am sorry to be so late getting to this today. I have company coming and I was up very late after I got a wonderful call from another person affected by this. Wow! What a day! What a night last night. Brainstorming and LOTS of great ideas about where to go from here.
    White Kat is right and I completely agree. It’s time to put a face to this issue for other Canadians and other people around the world. “Citizens For Tax Justice” and other such word twisters cannot paint us as renouncing billionaires when other citizens can SEE us. Can clearly see, we’re average people. We are teachers, stay at home moms, artists, people retired on modest incomes.
    The reason I believe Bill Curry was interested enough to question Flaherty yesterday was because he could clearly see we were not “rich tax cheats” We were two average Canadian moms who were harmed enough by this to go right to where Flaherty was.
    The RCMP officer was very nice. He was joking about us being there as he just found out ten minutes before that he needed to go see after Flaherty…he said and “Here you two are! I think I can handle it!” LOL! Really nice guy just doing his job.. He did take my full name and as is usually their way at a protest he probably ran me to see if I was okay to be around our official. That’s fine, he was really VERY nice to talk to and we got the impression he didn’t think FATCA was so hot either! I hope he went to Brock and read there later on. We also were approached by other concerned Canadians who really want to know more. Every single one of them was against the idea after talking to us. I think they all went home and brought this up around the kitchen table.
    Because the effect of such a small face to face protest can have such quick and positive results I think it’s time to at the very least start paying attention to where Harper or Flaherty are going to be and always have protesters there from now on.
    I also want to propose *some ideas from another Brocker brainstormed last night that I liked* such as video taped testimonies about this. “How did you learn about FATCA?” How has it affected you and your family?” “Are you a tax cheat?” Aren’t you just worried about this for tax reasons?” and “Have you had any negative physical or emotional issues over this?” People don’t have to use full names if they are still scared but, let people SEE us.
    I think people need to see our faces, hear what this has done to our lives and then we can put a full stop to the rich, over seas tax cheat propaganda around FATCA.
    Yesterday was just lovely from start to finish. I’m so happy to have been able to meet White Kat!

  4. Is it time for that organization Hazy talked about recently?
    I think we will have more credibility if we link to a formal organization, but keep it is as informal as possible. Maybe called Not Tax Cheats (joking–just a suggestion).
    @WhiteKat and Atticus: You Go Girls!
    Too bad you didn’t get a photo with RCMP officer.

  5. Deckerd and I were talking about the benefit of an organization last evening. Meetings to discuss next steps, places to advertise, making fliers, planning protests, keeping track of where and when our government officials will be speaking and making sure we are showing up. All of this and more. Every pol from your local MP to Harper should not be making public speeches without a Brocker there. For that to happen we will have to get organized.
    This is going to sound SILLY I know but, one thing White Kat and I noticed was how hard it is and how time consuming to get signs made at the last minute. I’d say it took me about three and a half hours to do one sign! I know Who’d have thought? I suggest that everyone get one made now and stash it. That way you won’t be trying to deal with all your other responsibilities while rushing round finding poster board the next time we find out last second that someone we want to influence is speaking publicly. Crafting lettering and filling it in..lol. Have it ready to go, bring it home from protest, stash, rinse repeat. Also print off some fliers, have ready to hand out. That way say your town is having a fall event, well you just show up sign and fliers ready to talk to people.
    It’s a small thing but, it’s a big thing. I think White Kat and I under estimated how much time was going to be spent making signs! lol

    1. Does this mean I have to cross out the extra ‘s’ and replace it with a ‘a’ on the url at the bottom of my sign…lol?

  6. LOL!! White Kat! That was hilarious and I didn’t even notice until I got home. I think it will be okay as long as we aren’t standing right next to each other the way we were! But, don’t forget my Isaac was on the back of my sign so maybe we didn’t look too silly. lmao! That was funny though.

  7. Unless/until Blaze cross-posts it here, I urge everyone following this thread to go to Blaze’s verbatim transcription of what Flaherty was asked, and what he said, in the What’s New thread.
    I made some comments about that in that other thread, which I won’t repeat here, as they need to be taken in the context of that transcription.
    Please read/watch/listen to what Flaherty actually said, and in response to what. Maybe your conclusions differ from mine, which is your right of course. But my conclusions aren’t quite the same as others’ on this thread, never mind at Brock; whether I’m right or wrong in those conclusions, only time will tell, at least in my eyes.

  8. I awoke this morning to e-mails screaming “Canada selling out…throwing Canadians under the bus…It’s over.”
    My reaction: What?!?
    It was all related to the Globe and Mail article. Again, my reaction was What?!? Did I miss something?
    JustMe found one of my e-mails helpful. He asked if I would post it at Brock or if he could post it there.
    There is a dialogue going on at Brock right now and I don’t think my e-mail comments would add to it.
    Then, Schubert asked if I would cross-post my transcription of Flaherty’s comments from the What’s New thread here.
    So, I’ve decided this would be the best place to post my e-mail comments, including the transcription.
    @Schubert: Once I have done this, I hope you will cross-post some of your comments.
    After all of this, I am going to take the advice of someone far wiser than I am (I will let that person decide to if he/she wants to be outed as the source).

    I think it’s time we all take some valium and cut Flaherty and Finance a bit of slack.

    I don’t believe in valium, but I think I will take a virtual valium for a while.
    In any case, here is what I said in the e-mail Just Me found helpful:
    I think a lot of the angst around the Globe and Mail article that led some people to conclude Canada is “selling out” and “throwing Canadians under the bus” came from the lead in the article:

    Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said a deal is near that could see Canadian authorities begin collecting financial information on Americans living in Canada and remit it to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

    Flaherty said no such thing. He did NOT say Canadian authorities would begin collecting information on Americans living in Canada and remit it to IRS.
    Some people have not been able to hear or see the CTV video or audio. Here is my transcript:

    Reporter: Minster Flaherty, I wonder if I could get an update on where things are at with FATCA given that the deadline is approaching and Canada is not one of (or among?) the countries so far that that have signed…This concerns many Canadians who might be married to Americans or that type of thing or dual nationals..You have expressed concerns about this in the past. Where are things at with it?
    Flaherty: I have expressed a lot of concerns about, I have discussed it with the different Secretaries of the Treasury in the United States. I understand, I know that we will have continuing discussions with the United States Treasury on this issue. We’ve made some progress. We do not have an agreement yet, but they clearly understand the Canadian position that we want to avoid any disadvantages to persons who happen to be citizens of both countries.
    Reporter: So, I guess what would you say then to Canadians who are concerned they might not have been filing U.S. tax returns for a long time and could face penalties for that? What is your response?
    Flaherty: I think we’ll have some news before too long on the issue. Having said that, people have to take care of their own financial affairs. We (or I?) can’t deal with people’s individual tax returns.

    So, there you have it. Do you see anything in there that says Canada is about to collect information and remit it to IRS? I don’t.
    I think Barry McKenna, the reporter who wrote the FATCA article, jumped to his own conclusion about what “some progress” and “some news” and “before too long” means and then inserted his assumption into the lead of his story (very irresponsible journalism!). He has done this several times in the past.
    He was not the reporter who asked the questions. That was Bill Curry. Barry McKenna’s article says it was written “with files from Bill Curry in Ottawa.” Barry McKenna is based in Toronto and I don’t believe he was at the Ottawa news conference.
    Barry McKenna has, unfortunately, been singing from the “Tax Cheat..Come Clean” IRS hymn book since this whole nightmare began–and has contributed greatly to our nightmare. Fortunately, many of us had already viewed the CTV video before the Globe article was posted, so we didn’t go into the same frenzy others may have.
    I think the quotes from the “two person protest” made it into the article only because Bill Curry submitted them to Barry McKenna. McKenna doesn’t often like to tell our side of the story. It seems easier to regurgitate IRS press releases.

    Like others, I don’t like the comments Flaherty made about he can’t be responsible for everyone’s income tax returns. Does this mean I think he’s “throwing Canadians under the bus,” or “selling out” or “it’s over”? No.
    Now, I’m going to go take some virtual valium in the form of ice cream.

    1. Blaze, in the light of your transcript, what did you think about the fact that Canadian permanent residents weren’t mentioned, only Canadian citizens?
      For Charter of Rights, and Canadian Constitutional purposes, discrimination would not be allowed between permanent residents and Canadian citizens right?

    2. So, should we just sit by idly and wait until there is an actual agreement on the table before we get organized and take a more active stance?
      Regardless of his words in that particular meeting, we know that our government is telling the banks to expect an IGA, we know that certain people at CRA have slipped up and told at least one member of the public that an IGA is a done deal, and we know our government has not said ‘NO’.
      We can no longer afford to wait for our government to do the right thing.

  9. @Badger: I found it concerning that Flaherty’s comments did not seem to include legal permanent residents. I have no idea if that was intentional or an oversight.
    My personal understanding is, however, they would also be protected under the Charter. Schubert has said in another thread that the Charter does not mention citizenship.
    This is true. However, the Supreme Court has clearly included citizenship as a protected ground. In fact, the very first Charter Section 15 decision issued in 1989 was relating to citizenship.
    In Andrews vs. Law Society of British Columbia, Mark Andrews challenged the Law Society’s refusal to admit him to practice law simply because he was not a Canadian citizen.
    The Supreme Court ruled:

    The Court finds that s. 15, as well as protecting individuals and groups from discrimination on the basis of the named grounds, also protects them from discrimination on grounds which are not named but which are analogous to those named. Citizenship is considered an analogous ground, and s. 15 therefore protects Andrews and others from discrimination because of citizenship.

    So even though the Charter does not specifically mention citizenship, it is an analogous protected ground (similar to sexual orientation which is also not mentioned in Section 15).
    I believe this would mean banks and the government could not discriminate based on citizenship or permanent resident status (personal–not legal–opinion!)
    However, I am also aware CRA will collect tax liabilities (but not penalties) for IRS on Canadian residents who are not citizens. This is provided in the Tax treaty. I am not aware if it has ever been challenged in Canadian courts. I also don’t know how CRA would know if someone is a citizen or a legal permanent resident.
    I don’t know how residency vs. citizenship would be covered in an IGA. I still think there would be a problem–and I think Peter Hogg’s assessment supports that view.
    In addition, if an IGA did allow for reporting of Canadian residents but not Canadian citizens, I wonder if residents born in U.S. could make a case of discrimination based on national origin because non-citizen residents from China, Eritrea or Iran or India are not being reported to their country of birth or national origin.
    Finally, Canadian banks cannot ask for place of birth or citizenship under Canadian banking, human rights or privacy laws.
    I wish I was a law student so I could take this on. I have said I could have done a Master’s degree in the time and energy I have spent on FATCA. A much better use of my time would have been to spend it in law school focusing on constitutional law.
    Maybe Joe Arvay could hire me as a research assistant if we need to challenge this in the courts. Actually I think many of us could fill that role!

  10. I wasn’t aware that anyone was freaking out. I actually thought it was a good sign there was a response. Wasn’t that thrilled with the second part of what he said but, the first part was good! I still think protesting is a good. I feel pretty calm about doing it as a pro active type of thing and just see it as a next step. I’m not even protesting against Flaherty whose efforts I think over all have been far, far better than what many in the rest of the world have done. I feel he’s between a rock and a hard place but, he is trying to hold off and hold out for the best he can get. I am not wanting to protest against him but, just to raise this issue to a more public place so others can see what this is about.
    Maybe some of you got emails that were freaking out? I missed that…don’t like Valium but, Valerian from health food store and chamomile tea is good.

  11. @Atticus: Yep, “freaking out” is a good way to describe a few e-mails this morning.
    Just Me said he found my comments helpful and asked me to post them at Brock.
    By the time I went to Brock, there was a very balanced conversation going on. I felt my comments would not add anything to it.
    When Schubert asked me to move the transcript here from What’s New, it seemed like a better fit.
    Interestingly, the people “freaking out” were not in Canada, but are very supportive of us and are watching Canada closely. They had not seen the CTV video, so only read what was in Globe.
    It is intriguing how that led them to a very different conclusion than the reaction of many Canadians in Canada who had seen the video.
    This all reminds me of the game Secrets which we used to play in Brownies. The leader whispered a “secret” in the first girl’s ear. That girl whispered it to the next until it worked its way around the circle.
    By the time it was finished, the “secret” bore little resemblance to how it started.
    That was often the story of my life as a Human Resources Manager. My internal response to many situations was “What?!? Where did that come from?!?” I, of course, couldn’t say it, but had to maintain calm and get correct information out as quickly as possible.
    “A lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” (Winston Churchill)
    That was way before Internet, Twitter, cell phones, e-mail, etc. I wonder what Winston would say today!
    We all need to keep the pants on truth while fighting to make sure lies and demands of United States don’t become reality.

  12. I am confused. I don’t see how they got from the article that Flaherty said he was folding. Even though they only used the somewhat negative part of his comment. The rest seemed encouraging because it is press pointing out that people in Canada are starting to go live against FATCA. As you say though they didn’t get the entire context.
    Btw, I wrote to Bill Curry asking for the photo he took. Glad to know folks have calmed down some. I cannot say I blame them if they mis read the article.

  13. As I said in my post, I think they took it from the lead in the article:

    Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said a deal is near that could see Canadian authorities begin collecting financial information on Americans living in Canada and remit it to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

    We know Flaherty didn’t say that. But, if you hadn’t seen the CTV video, that lead certainly sounds like Flaherty said an agreement was close for CRA to collect information to send to IRS–a typical Model 1 IGA.
    That’s why we need to keep the pants on the truth. This is bad enough without making it worse.

  14. Hi Blaze. Sorry for the delay in replying, but life does get in the way of these things.
    First, thanks for the interesting legal reference; I’d forgotten that, if I’d seen it before. Who knows what a court in Canada would say on the citizenship and charter issue in the context of a FATCA IGA, but it’s certainly an interesting point. If I weren’t a Canadian citizen, I’m not sure I’d want to hang my financial future on that hope, though … or think of what the legal fees might run for a court challenge.
    I have to own up to the “take a valium” advice, which was a comment I made yesterday in a private email chain. No offense intended, but I think some people (perhaps more so on the other website) are over-reacting a bit to the Flaherty interview.
    At Blaze’s request, here is the gist of my other post (with edits to incorporate the fact that the transcript is now in this thread):
    In fairness to Flaherty (and to the people who are conducting the negotiations), I think it’s important that everyone have an opportunity to see precisely what Flaherty said, and in what context. FWIW, I happened to view that part of the interview live in a rec centre, but the sound was turned off, so I read the close-captioning. I also listened carefully to the clip on CTV News website later. I think Blaze got the transcription verbatim; well done.
    When I read that transcript, and also when I view and listen to the clip, I don’t get any sense that our government is contemplating throwing people under the bus. I don’t know precisely what Flaherty means by not disadvantaging citizens of both countries, but I suspect that Flaherty may be pushing for the final IGA to respect and stick within the limits of the current tax treaty. That treaty has been approved both by Parliament and by the US Senate; please note the US Senate has the constitutional responsibility of ‘advising and consenting’ to treaties, as does our House of Commons. If by not “disadvantaging citizens of both countries,” I would take that to mean that any exchange of FATCA information would not be permitted with regard to Canadian citizens resident in Canada, whatever other citizenship they might or might not have. That might not be good news for Canadian residents who aren’t Canadian citizens and are US citizens, but it certainly could get a lot of other people (including accidental citizens of the US) off the hook. That also would finesse the Charter issues, because there is nothing in the Charter section 15 about citizenship – just about national and ethnic origin. If the question to be asked of us is, are you a Canadian citizen (and, if so, then we don’t report anything on you), I have no problem with that personally nor in Charter terms, though I would very much have a problem with “where were you born” never mind “where were your parents born.”
    I am beginning now to hope the final IGA will avoid the birthplace issue and focus on the citizenship one, which has been there all along in the tax treaty and hasn’t created any treaty problems that I’m going to get excited about. That may, I hope, be what Flaherty is saying with his reference to not disadvantaging citizens of both countries, but we won’t know under we see the actual agreement, if and whenever there is one. Hence, for now and for me, “guarded optimism.”
    I don’t think it’s realistic to expect the IGA to be stronger in its protections than the tax treaty already is (and it’s quite strong, IMO), but I do think it’s realistic to expect our government to insist that those protections remain and not be over-ridden by anything in an IGA. My wild guess is that’s one of the things over which our government is digging its heels in, but that’s not based on any insider information and may be wishful thinking. However Flaherty’s wording isn’t inconsistent with that interpretation, as I read and hear him.
    These discussions have been going on now for about a year and half, if my memory is correct. I think it’s fair to say that our government has been standing its ground on something, probably several somethings, otherwise it wouldn’t be taking this long. That comes across IMO both in Flaherty’s words and in the tone of his voice on the actual clip.
    Finally, please notice that Flaherty’s final comment about tax returns was in response to a follow-up question by the same reporter (I think). Reading the question and what Flaherty said in reply, I frankly can’t see how a reasonable person can expect him to have answered that question other than how he did. The Finance Minister of Canada isn’t going to make statements about whether, or how, citizens of another country living in Canada should file tax returns to that country, across the board and off the cuff in what was essentially a media scrum. At least, I certainly wouldn’t expect him to.
    So I am guardedly optimistic that, at this point, no one is being thrown under any buses, and I personally am prepared to wait until I see an IGA text and read it carefully, before going ballistic or hitting the pavements. That’s me and not everyone else, but it is me. I’ve been sending emails to Flaherty and a lot of other Mps (and also an MP-wannabe in Toronto) pretty often for the past two years. I think it’s time for me to wait and see what, if anything, develops before taking my own activism on this to another level, if and when I feel that’s necessary. So I, at least, am taking a deep breath, if not a valium (I don’t take them either), and am going to wait and see.
    Full kudos to Attitcus and WhiteKat for having triggered the questions and answers from the Globe and Mail reporter, on the public record … that’s more of a response than I’ve had from my emails to Flaherty recently. Thanks for the feisty action at the event, and the effort and courage it took. Well done!

  15. @Blaze, yes I will tweet it.
    Shubert, spot on as usual. I really had not noticed people being overly upset about Flaherty and was just happy he responded at all to the best of his ability. He could have said “I cannot comment on that at this time” and let that be the end of it. Instead he was thrown an unexpected question and attempted to answer it. The second part was a little snarky perhaps but, the first part was good in that he still seemed very concerned. He’s taking this quite seriously at the very least. He could have just told us from the get go the same as some other pols have or ignored us and caved to the U.S.
    The poor people in the U.K. have not had someone to push back for them as we have. As his car was going by yesterday I said so I hoped he could hear. “Thank you for your efforts.” or something to that effect.

  16. So why then, has Canada not just said ‘NO’?
    Sorry, but, although our government is between a rock and a hard place, I am not hearing that it has our backs. I think many are being too kind to Flaherty, and he is not paid to be spoken kindly to. IMHO.
    Of course, Flaherty is not in this alone.

  17. @Atticus. I’m glad to know I’m not the only person who read him the way I did. Flaherty isn’t my favourite-ever politician; no member of that Harper cabinet is going to go down well with me completely. But I have developed a grudging admiration for the guy. And say what you will about the letter he sent to those US papers two years ago, but — I don’t recall ever reading or hearing of any Canadian Finance Minister doing something like that before, and I don’t for a second believe that he’d have done that without Harper’s knowledge and at least tacit approval, and still be in cabinet today and making announcements at an RV sales lot!
    My take on the facial expressions and body language in the photos I’ve seen of Obama and Harper standing next to each other suggests they can only very marginally stand the sight of each other. That may work in our favour; I don’t think either Harper or Flaherty is anyone’s patsy or pushover, especially not for Obama or either of his Treasury secretaries, as Blaze has also alluded to on earlier occasions.

  18. @WhiteKat. Much as I’d love to hear and see it, I don’t think it’s realistic or likely that any Finance Minister in any government I can imagine getting elected (include NDP or even Green, which is even more unlikely in my lifetime) saying “NO” and walking out. I think the approach will always be to stay calm, try to reason with the $@#$$%^ and whittle them down to something liveable. I keep remembering the Peter Gzowski contest winner, “as Canadian as possible under the circumstances.” (Sorry Blaze, I know you’ve seen that one from me before, privately …)

  19. @Whitekat, I assume there are so many irons in this fire. Obama is a bully and perfectly made to do this type of pressuring of other nations. Chicago pols always know how to do the lowest of the low to get their way.
    I assume part of this is tied to approval for pipeline’s future, it’s also tied to problems for our banks AND trying to defend our Charter. Frankly, I think Harper and Flaherty were insulted from the get go that Canada should be a part of this FATCA issue at all. Ever since then there has been holding out for what they can get. The problem is that even though yes, they should just say NO and stick to that it’s very difficult to do when an elephant bully is making you offers you can’t refuse.
    If the U.S. was our friendly neighbour they would have backed off when Flaherty released the letter and that would have been that.
    Don’t get me wrong. I want him to say “I’ll defend our laws and our Charter and that is my only concern.” I am sure the banks are pleading for some sort of relief from the issue since they can’t not go along and if they do go along they can be sued and they know it. I just wanted an update. Something, anything.

    1. Atticus, I am confused by your statement ‘I just wanted an update’.
      Is this the same Atticus that protested with a sign that said ‘STOP FATCA’?

  20. Yup. Don’t get me wound up on the chartered banks and why they have branches in the US, which is the main reason why our government isn’t telling Obama to go pound sand, I think (can’t endanger that 30% of the banks’ assets, just 30% of Canadians’ US source assets). I’ve been in credit unions for years, and I’ll never ever go back to a chartered bank after this … But that’s for another thread and probably another website. We all, on both sides of the border, have already bailed the f*****s out big-time and I’m sick of that.

  21. @ Atticus and Schubert,
    I hope I am misinterpreting, but it sounds like you both have accepted the inevitability of some sort of FATCA deal, yet the fight has barely started.

    1. The only acceptable form of an IGA is the one that Peter Hogg suggested. I.E. apply FATCA to Americans residing in America who have accounts in Canada.

    2. WhiteKat, I totally agree with you and Peter Hogg on that point.
      The curious problem is, as I understand it anyway, there ALREADY is in place a provision for that reporting. For about ten years, charter banks and investment firms dealing in any US securities have had “Qualifying Intermediary” agreements with the IRS which I believe require reporting information to the IRS by the FFIs in Canada on all accounts showing a US address for the owner of the account. I think I also read somewhere that it is difficult, if not impossible, for someone to get a bank account or investment account in Canada if they don’t have a Canadian permanent residence. Hence Flaherty’s comment in his 2011 letters to the US papers about how this whole thing is a waste of resources and needless, in Canada’s case. At least if you buy any US pretence this is about catching “true” tax cheats, i.e. people resident in America who are hiding their money from the IRS in accounts outside the US. They’d have to be terminally stupid to pick Canada as a hiding place, and most folks who play that game aren’t terminally stupid, or if they are their legal and accounting advisers aren’t, or shouldn’t be at the rates they charge.
      And I suspect Flaherty and his officials have repeated pointed this out to the bonehead US negotiators, noting that the QI agreements make the IGA redundant unless the REAL target is to rob all “US persons” outside the US of their wealth and double-tax them, something which is inconsistent with all the principles both in the Canada-US Tax Treaty and in the OECD agreement I think in November 2011 (which the US signed, as did Canada, I believe with reservations against a provision that was inconsistent with our treaty with the US).
      Now, the US’ problem is they want a world-wide one-size-fits-all FATCA/IGA template (don’t get me started on the stupidity and impossibility of one-size-fits-all in anything I’ve ever come across in my life). The QI agreements between Canadian FFIs and the IRS don’t, as far as I know, exist for other countries. So there is a logical justification and compelling reason for Canada NOT to have the same IGA as anyone else, or any IGA at all because it would be a waste of paper and space, but the IRS doesn’t want to go there …
      Just one more example of the stupidity and futility of trying to pound square pegs into round holes, something most of us (but not the truly exceptional geniuses in the US government and congress) somehow managed to learn back in kindergarten.
      It’s good I’m not on Flaherty’s negotiating team … diplomacy and tact have never been my strong suits, nor frankly anything I care about much, and I’d probably spark a war if I were in the negotiations.

  22. @WhiteKat, no, no, no! When I said I wanted an update, what I meant was that I wanted Flaherty to have to speak to this issue. For months the government has been talking to the U.S. and NOT to us! I wanted him to have to say something to Canada about this so the people who will be affected by it could get some idea of what is going on. I really wasn’t sure if we’d get that but, we did. So good. That doesn’t mean I agree with Canada signing an IGA and it doesn’t mean I won’t continue to go against such a thing. I am just saying I do not hate or envy Flaherty. I think if he could he would have told them “NO” and “GET LOST” some time ago. Canada is going to have their arm twisted. He’s held out this long when the U.K. practically begged for that country to be able to please the gods of the U.S. At LEAST Flaherty fought and is fighting for us for something. He may end up with crumbs but, we’re not as bad off as some other countries.
    And yes, it’s the same one. I wanted him to have to say something. He didn’t have to. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to get out there to keep bringing awareness to how bad FATCA is for Canada and the world. I am not mad at Flaherty though as a person. I’m mad at what the U.S. is doing to every other nation on earth. If Flaherty is made to fold, and I do think it will be a case of being made to, then the next step is looking at that Charter challenge. I like the protests. It brings awareness to other Canadians who are interested in this AND yes, it puts pressure on Flaherty if he knows we are gaining momentum. Other Canadians may start writing him the more they know about it.

  23. @White Kat, no I haven’t accepted the idea of an IGA in Canada. I’m just saying Canada may have to sign something since they aren’t just dealing with our problems. The banks will lean on them to sign because they know they can be sued. Harper is also likely being told that the pipeline issue will be looked upon more favourably if Canada signs. It doesn’t affect how I feel about it or what I’ll do.
    I still agree with Peter Hogg too.

  24. And the reason why Atticus hid part of her face face behind her sign!
    I wondered if RCMP Officer was cute. So disappointed there is no picture of Two Mom Protest with him.

  25. @Hazy, that is a horrible picture of me not White Kat, I am standing so far down hill from her with my eyes closed and the sign half way up my head. I look like a munchkin from Wizard of Oz along side a tall model! LOL!
    @Blaze, naughty! Our officer was handsome too! Should have thought of getting a photo with him. He was super nice to us.
    Yes, I kind of wondered if my photo was going through the NSA computers as we speak and being sent to Justice,Treasury, and IRS. I wouldn’t put it past them even though I owe zero tax. Lucky for me I am in Canada. I’m done being scared of their penalty threats. Over and out. I just cannot live that way so Jimmy Crack Corn and I don’t CARE.

    1. Re: photo, you shouldn’t have left your sunglasses in my car!
      Seriously though, the fear factor is to our detriment.

  26. I am kind of tired this evening so this is one comment I will make. According to public information Flaherty is scheduled to travel to Washington in mid October. If he is going to sign something in the immediate future that would be the time to do it. Not anytime sooner. That is still almost a month away. A month is a long time in politics. Lets try to make something happen between now and then.
    Note: I am not at all saying it Flaherty will sign something on that trip. For one thing it will be while Parliament is prorogued which I think is dubious constitutionally. However, the odds of anything sooner are extremely remote in my opinion.

  27. Flaherty has picked a turbulent time to visit Washington. Any clue as to purpose of his visit?
    The Washington Post today reported: “With a government shutdown looming in less than three weeks, Republican House leaders conceded Wednesday that they have yet to muster enough votes to approve a plan to keep federal agencies open. A vote on the measure… was postponed until at least next week after conservatives balked, demanding that any deal to fund the government include a provision to cut off funding for President Obama’s signature health-care initiative. Unless Congress acts, the government will shut down Oct. 1. The Treasury also faces a potential default as soon as Oct. 18…”
    Maybe he’s there to co-sign a short-term loan?

    1. I would not be surprised if he does sign the IGA there where he is guaranteed not to be ‘harassed’ by any Canadian soccer moms.

  28. @White Kat, I have protested in Washington D.C. before a few times for one other issue quite a while ago but, I wouldn’t want Flaherty to count on not being protested in D.C. After all most of my family in the U.S. are not but, a few hours drive from there. So there’s no hiding from this issue. If he does that and I find out about it, I will do nothing but, contact every one I know in the U.S. with family affected by FATCA and try mightily to drum up a gathering there.
    I understand the pressures Canada faces here but, the government needs to fully understand the pressures we will face will be ongoing and forever until FATCA is over turned. If they sign, we are the ones on the hook immediately.

  29. Flaherty will likely be in D.C. October 11 to 13 for the annual meeting of World Bank Group and IMF.
    I think it’s important we follow Flaherty closely, but it’s equally important we don’t jump to conclusions every move he makes is about FATCA.

  30. Oh, the IMF and World Bank, don’t get me started! lol…Jamaica sits in poverty today and many other places because of the way those two illustrious organizations have handled things around the world. Utterly, without conscience.
    I’m not jumping to any conclusions as to why Flaherty is meeting with them in D.C. I assume it will be discussed. I actually really do not envy the position Flaherty is in! The strength of the powers that are leaning on him right now is not to be under estimated. He’s also got to protect Canada. He’s got forces leaning on him who care not at all for the sovereignty or rights of nations if they want to get something or gain something. What IMF and World Bank have done in the past to poor countries is vicious opportunism. I hope Flaherty is able to stay strong.
    If this isn’t about FATCA at all perhaps he will use the opportunity to mention Canada’s concerns. I am still worried that we are not kept in the loop at all as to what our government is doing? How are the talks going? What points are being made? Who is listening to our concerns and who is not? I’m gob smacked actually that such important decisions are going to be made and then just announced to those most affected without us having a seat or a view to the table very much at all.

    Finance Minister’s Jim Flaherty’s top aide hired by Scotiabank
    Kevin McCarthy, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s chief of staff is leaving the federal government to go to a new job at Scotiabank
    OTTAWA—Kevin McCarthy, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s chief of staff and one-time chief policy adviser on the banking sector, is leaving the federal government to go to a new job at Scotiabank, the Star has learned. Sheena Findlay, a spokesperson for the bank, confirmed it has hired McCarthy as “a director in our Canadian Banking business, effective Nov. 1.”
    see today’s Star for more info

  32. @Wondering: Well, isn’t that cozy? Just like
    the former U.S. Ambassador going to work for BMO. Has Nigel Wright landed a new job yet?
    @Atticus: As horrific as this is for developed countries, what is it like for other countries. The ones where all those American tax cheats stash their cash–like Ethiopia, Bolivia and Bangladesh.
    Do you think WBG and IMF will consider that? Silly question.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *