Russell Wangersky: A Conservative wolf in sealskin clothes
In St. John’s on Thursday morning, Tory leadership candidate Kevin O’Leary slipped into an apparently borrowed sealskin coat to make one more connection when speaking with the locals.
To the editor,
Our Constitution sets parameters for the federal government and provincial legislature regarding direct taxation, to whit under sec 91 the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over indirect taxation while the provincial legislature has exclusive jurisdiction over direct taxation under sec. 92. 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 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, 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 even though that is completely unconstitutional.
During the 4th 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 message was to provide for the provisions of the war. The income war tax act expired in the 1920 session, but was enforced 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 instructed 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 & 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. 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.
Queen Elizabeth II is quoted as saying, “I do not give you laws or administer justice,” so WHO then is taking me to court and under WHO’s authority are bills given royal assent?