No Taxation Without Representation!

I have been reading up on the Canadian constitution and it`s quite clear, section 53 of the constitution clearly states that the executive branch cannot impose taxes without a vote in the legislature or parliment.....In a case launched against the New Brunswick Government, the plaintiff won, New Brunswick had to repay taxes back to the public, the argument was upheld by the Supreme court of Canada...New Brunswick lost.......

In fact it was a very interesting case, British Colubia was an intervenor in the case, what that means is this, BC stuck it`s nose in this case and fought the ruling, this case was in 2006/ 2007, Why did BC stick it`s nose in this case, the answer is obvious, BC and Gordon Campbell were already plotting to bring in illegal taxes.

It`s almost like Gordon Campbell knew in 2007 that he was going to HST us!

.....Never the less, New Brunswick Finance lost, the Supreme court of Canada ruled in favour of the plaintiff, the precedent is there, no taxation without representation!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The below is some of that court case cut and pasted .....For anyone wanting to view the entire case and you can click here and here



Holding Governments Accountable
to Canada's Constitution


Comparing the Canadian Constitution Foundation’s Factum
and the 2007 Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in
Kingstreet Investments Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Finance)
Introduction


In January 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that governments – like people – should
be held accountable for their actions. In Kingstreet Investments v. New Brunswick, people earning a
living in the hospitality and entertainment industries successfully challenged an 11% provincial “user
charge” on alcoholic beverages. Under Canada’s Constitution, only the federal government may
impose an indirect tax, such as an import duty, paid by one person (e.g., a bar owner) in the
expectation that it will be repaid by another (e.g., a bar patron). Provinces may not do so. Handing a
significant victory to taxpayers, the Court ordered the New Brunswick government to repay one
million dollars of illegally collected taxes to taxpayers. The user charge was an illegal tax, so the
Court rightly ordered the government to repay the money.
The B.C., Alberta and Manitoba governments intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada in
support of New Brunswick, to argue that governments should not be required to repay illegal taxes that
are collected in violation of Canada’s Constitution. Before the Supreme Court of Canada, these
provinces claimed that having to repay illegal taxes would inflict financial shock and fiscal chaos,
forcing governments to reduce services or to raise taxes. This claim is a self-serving justification for
illegal activity, and it assumes that there is no waste, mismanagement or inefficiency in the public
sector. This claim also assumes that every tax dollar, without exception, is spent to advance the
common good. According to the governments, when a court rules that a particular fee or charge is
illegal, the court should simply tell the government “stop doing that” – but not order the government to
repay the money. The Court rejected these arguments and unanimously accepted the principles put
forward by the Canadian Constitution Foundation: that governments must be held accountable to the
constitutional principles of federalism, representative democracy, the rule of law, and “no taxation
without representation.” The Kingstreet decision highlights the importance of court challenges to
restrain greedy governments from doing whatever they please to feed their never-ending appetite for
money.
As an intervener before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian Constitution Foundation
submitted the following arguments:
1. The Constitutional principle of “no taxation without representation” should be respected. Taxes
collected in breach of constitutional principles should be recoverable.
2. There should be no bars to the recovery of unconstitutional taxes. The “Immunization Rule” should be
rejected.
3. The Government’s “passing on” defence should also be rejected.
4. Governments should be required to repay unconstitutional taxes regardless of whether or not the
taxpayers protested.
5. The legislatures, not the courts, are the best forums for changing unconstitutional laws and dealing with
potential ‘fiscal chaos.’
1. The Constitutional principle of “no taxation without representation” should be respected.
Taxes collected in breach of constitutional principles should be recoverable.
Paragraph Canadian Constitution
Foundation Factum
Paragraph Supreme Court of Canada
Decision
15
19
Any tax collected without lawful
authority, whether by virtue of
begin beyond the constitutional
authority of the legislature or by
simply being beyond the express
authority of the legislation, violates
the constitutional principles
enunciated in section 53, and there
is no basis for the government to
retain the tax.
The Foundation submits that the
right to recover taxes collected
without authority flows from the
constitutional status of the principle,
“no taxation without
representation.”
“[T]he constitutional principle that
ought to dominate all others in this
context is the principle that the
Crown may not levy a tax except by
the authority of Parliament or the
Legislature. This principle...ensures
not merely that the executive branch
is subject to the rule of law, but also
that the executive branch must call
the legislative branch into session to
14
22
The Court’s central concern must
be to guarantee respect for
constitutional principles. One such
principle is that the Crown may not
levy a tax except with authority of
the Parliament or the legislature:
Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 53 and
90. This principle of “no taxation
without representation” is central to
our conception of democracy and
the rule of law. As Hogg and
Monahan explain, this principle
“ensures not merely that the
executive branch is subject to the
rule of law, but also that the
executive branch must call the
legislative branch into session to
raise taxes” (P. W. Hogg and P. J.
Monahan, Liability of the Crown
(3rd ed. 2000), at p. 246. See also
P. W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of
Canada (loose-leaf ed.), vol. 2, at
pp. 55-16 and 55-17; Eurig, at para.
31, per Major J.).
Professor Hogg has explained that
“[T]he constitutional principle that
ought to dominate all others in this
context is the principle that the
Crown may not levy a tax except by
the authority of Parliament or the
Legislature. This principle...ensures
not merely that the executive
branch is subject to the rule of law,
but also that the executive branch
must call the legislative branch into
session to raise taxes (and vote
supply). To permit the Crown to
retain a tax that has been levied
without a legislative authority is to
condone a breach of one of the most
20
raise taxes (and vote supply). To
permit the Crown to retain a tax that
has been levied without a legislative
authority is to condone a breach of
one of the most fundamental
constitutional principles.”
[emphasis added]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well folks, it is my belief that Joe Arvay is correct, the Zalm is correct, Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen do not have any authority to impose taxes through the executive branch, it violates our most fundamental law...."No Taxation Without Representation" period, no exceptions.......

You want your HST Campbell, call the legislature and vote on it, you gutless, spineless BC Liberal MLAs stand up and vote in the Legislature for the HST.....Show your faces......

"Recall in the Fall"

The Straight Goods

Cheers-Eyes Wide Open