Darren Martin's "Letter To The Editor" re: Income Tax

Letter to the Pictou Advocate Feb 8 2012 by: Darren Martin

INCOME TA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Posted on February 8, 2012

Share

To the Editor:

"Our Constitution sets parameters for the Federal Government and the Provincial Legislature regarding direct taxation, to wit under sec. 91 the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over indirect taxation (excise tax) while the Provincial Legislature has exclusive jurisdiction over direct taxation under Sec. 92 (income tax). An example of the application of this law can be found in Vol. 1, 1926 House of Commons Debates where the leader of the Opposition, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen has stated, “because I say emphatically that the special war taxes now collected by this country exceed by many millions the sum required to take care of war expenditure, and in so far as income tax is applied to purposes other than special war purposes it is ultra vires (non–constitutional) of the parliament of Canada, parliament having no power to impose direct taxation for anything other than war purposes.”

Further to that quote, in the 1917 Senate debates the Hon. Mr. Cloran states, “The Parliament of Canada is acting under a written constitution and must remain within the four corners of that statute. So far as they are within the four corners of the statute, they are entitled to exercise all the rights and privileges which are given to them by that statute.” What is going on in this country is the Federal Government has infringed on the provinces’ exclusive right to direct taxation and, even though it is completely unconstitutional for this to happen, if you make mistakes on your income tax or challenge it, expect a phone call from their enforcer, the CRA.

During the fourth session 20th parliament of 1948 the GG’s instructions were to revise the current tax law, (the income war tax act was the only one “on the books”), not create a new one . And they did, it was bill 330 which once passed, is recorded as Chp 53 Statutes of Canada. All bills that utilize funds from the consolidated revenue fund must enter the House with the Governor General’s approval (financial regulations of the Parliament of Canada), that’s the law, making the number of readings it received in the House and Senate redundant. Bill 338 was not authorized by the GG.

In 1917, the GG’s message to the House was “to provide for the provisions of the war”… The income war tax act, expired in the 1920 session, but was kept on the books by the Liberal government until Jan. 1, 1949, all the while the opposition was wondering when it will be removed as it was ultra–vires to the Parliament of Canada. In fact, a Supreme Court ruling in 1950 directed the provinces to develop their own tax collection procedures and had until 1962 to do it. So is the BNA Act a valid piece of legislation? If so, then where is the case law overriding sec. 53, 54, 91 and 92, allowing money bills to slip into the house without the GG approval and for the Federal Government to enlist itself in direct taxation? If there is no case law, then where are the amendments to the BNA for not following this procedure? Is it law or not? Only an honourable man can answer that.

If you were planning to raise constitutional issues in court, it is the law (The Constitutional Questions Act), that you must first notify the proper authorities, so they may have an opportunity to attend, or send a representative. Why would the Government pass this legislation? Not only does the Federal Government and the CRA stomp on OUR constitution, they make sure YOU and I cannot do anything about it." (snip) ...

Darren Martin

NOTE: The Letter is also posted at this website with comments from readers:
http://www.ngnews.ca/Opinion/Letters-to-the-Editor/2012-02-10/article-2892716/Take-a-look-at-Constitution-and-history-of-tax-law