> Despite the post gaining significant traction online, with millions of views across various platforms, there is no truth to this claim. No official Canadian government website mentions any such policy.
> Here's a breakdown of why the claim is demonstrably false:
> 💩 Missing Official Source: No credible Canadian government website, including the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) website, mentions any exit fee or penalty for leaving the country. > 💩 Misleading Screenshot: The screenshot circulating online, with a headline stating "Canada Proposes $25K Departure Penalty and Increased Taxes to Curb Emigration Crisis," is entirely fabricated and lacks any official government branding or source. > 💩 Confusing Information: The second screenshot added by the user, supposedly from the Canadian government website, refers to a policy on retaining property and capital gains tax for emigrants, not an exit fee. This policy, outlined on the Government of Canada website (https://www.canada.ca/), applies only in specific situations where an emigrant sells or retains assets like shares, jewelry, paintings, or collections and needs to address potential capital gains tax implications.
the only real "departure tax" sucks to deal with but it's within a normal range of tax policy and not the subject of boomer chain emails:
https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/news/canada/2021-05-31-departure-tax > The moment a resident leaves Canada, the CRA deems that they have disposed of certain kinds of property at fair market value and immediately reacquired it at the same price. This is known as a deemed disposition and you may have to report a taxable capital gain that is subject to tax (also known as departure tax).
Citing anonymous sources about confidential meetings is completely normal reporting, even the bullshit misleading headline is normal for journalism. Maybe it's bad, but this isn't fact-checkable material and doing so holds it to a double standard that doesn't apply for ordinary reporting.
@sun > but this isn't fact-checkable material except that everything i found was found within 30 seconds of googling, discounting the actual time spent reading it to make sure it wasn't saying the opposite of what i thought it was saying
what you're saying about confidential meetings and anonymous sources is true in general in principle, but in this situation a big tax policy like this can't be just unilaterally decided in some backroom somewhere, if this had been formally proposed at all we'd have trudeau, singh and poilievre on record talking about it for months until we were all sick of it
a "reportedly discussing" that can't even reach that level is less than meaningless
EDIT: there's also the context that i've seen
so
many
hoax emails of a similar sort to this, always unfalsifiable in its literal meaning but insinuating something much worse that does turn out to be false, typically namedropping trudeau, that get passed around conservative boomer circles up here that this instantly set off my bullshit alarms even though i knew this might not be as clear to someone unfamiliar with canadian politics