Il est assez connu que l’impôt est anticonstitutionel aux États-Unis mais pourrait-il l’être aussi au Canada. Je suis récemment tombé sur un article qui dit que oui. L’article 92 de la constitution canadienne définit les pouvoirs exclusifs provinciaux et y inclu notemment « [l]a taxation directe dans les limites de la province, dans le but de prélever un revenu pour des objets provinciaux». L’impôt étant une forme de taxation directe, l’article conclu que l’impôt fédéral est anticonstitutionel. L’Agence du revenu du Canada (ARC) répond quant à elle que l’article 91 de la constitution qui établi les pouvoirs du fédéral dit que «(nonobstant toute disposition contraire énoncée dans la présente loi) l’autorité législative exclusive du parlement du Canada s’étend [au] […] prélèvement de deniers par tous modes ou systèmes de taxation», et que l’ARC a le droit de prélever l’impôt fédéral. Le problème c’est que c’est pas trop claire comment doivent être intérpretés ces deux articles. Je vois 3 possible intérprétations:
- L’article 92 a précéance sur l’article 91 (vu le «nonobstant» de l’art. 91 et le fait qu’il n’y a pas de «nonobstant» à l’art. 92) et donc le Canada ne peut pas prélever de taxes directes dans les limites des provinces. Le Canada peut donc seulement prélever destaxes indirectes dans les provinces et s’il prélève des taxes directes il ne peut le faire que dans les territoires (Yukon et TNO). Autrement dit les taxes directes sont exclusives aux provinces dans ces dernières.
- L’article 92 a précéance sur l’article 91 (vu le «nonobstant» de l’art. 91 et le fait qu’il n’y a pas de «nonobstant» à l’art. 92) et donc le Canada ne peut pas prélever de taxes directes dans les limites des provinces s’il dépense ensuite cet argent pour «des objets provinciaux». Autrement dit, le prélevement de taxes directes pour des objets provinciaux est exclusif aux provinces.
- Le fédéral peut utiliser tous les modes ou systèmes de taxations ce qui inclu l’impôt.
Personnellement, en relisant ces deux articles plusieurs fois il me semble que l’intérprétation 2 est la plus logique. Evidemment la 3e interprétation est possible car il y a un impôt fédéral. La première intérprétation semble aussi possible car elle semble avoir reçu l’appuie d’un tribunal l’an dernier.
Mais, comme on le sait tous, le fédéral dépense des milliards dans les champs de compétence provinciales et donc dans les faits l’interprétation 1 et 2 reviennent au même. Il me semble que ces deux interprétations possible sont une arme considérable pour les souverainistes. Si l’on souscrit à l’une ou l’autre, les québecois(es) sont en droit de ne pas payer leurs impôts au fédéral et que ferait le fédéral sans l’impôt du Québec?
Voici le texte original que j’ai vu, il parle un peu de l’histoire du sujet aussi:
Canada’s Federal Income Tax is unconstitutionalThe constitution gives the Federal Government the right to issue its own currency
Here are excerpts from a paper that was delivered in October, 1991, by Mr. Murray Gauvreau, of Alberta, at a seminar of the Canadian League of Rights, in Calgary, which was published in the July, 1992 issue of « The Canadian Intelligence Service » (55 – 8th Ave. S.E., High River , Alberta T1V 1E8):
by Murray Gauvreau
I would like to talk with you today about money, interest, debt, and taxation. Thank you for your interest and for coming to hear me speak. I’m sure that all of you are interested in Imcome Tax, and the GST. I will no doubt give you some enlightening facts. In order to fully understand the problem that we face today in Canada, we will briefly discuss some important aspects of our history.
In addition, I will try to give you an understanding of how the many taxes we now pay have come about. I will also propose some solutions to our dilemma. But please keep this in mind: our problem is perceived to be vast and complex, and it is intended by those in power that you feel exactly that way, so that you will feel helpless to do anything about it. But after today you will know for certain that our problem is not complex at all, and neither is its solution.
1867 – the B.N.A. Act
As a result of having taken advantage of the many career advancement courses offered by the life insurance industry, I became aware that the banks have exclusive right to issue currency in Canada, as determined by the Federal Bank Act. But I didn’t see them printing money, so I decided to find out exactly how they do issue currency. My search led me back into the early history of our nation, and into the history of our Province…
So let’s go back a ways, to the year 1867, and look into the pages of the Canadian Constitution, commonly known as the British North America (B.N.A.) Act. Therein lies the real solution to the ailments, both social and economic, that our country suffers from today. It is the same document today that it was when it was written so long ago.
The B.N.A. Act was written in order to establish the legal basis for this country. All laws enacted in Canada, whether by municipal, provincial, or federal government, must comply with the terms of the B.N.A. Act. If they do not, they are then unconstitutional, or in legal terms « ultra vires, » and can be disallowed as law. The document belongs to the people of Canada, and not to the parliamentarians or the courts, or to the Prime Minister and the Premiers… It belongs to the people.
The Canadian Constitution was not changed or altered when it was brought home by Mr. Trudeau, as some suggest. However, there was a very important addition made to it at that time. That addition was the Canadian Bill of Human Rights. Today the Canadian Constitution, as we know it, is comprised of the original B.N.A. Act, and the Human Rights Act, together…
Direct taxation belongs to provinces
There are two specific sections of the B.N.A. Act that deal with the delegation of authority between the Federal and Provincial Governments. Sections 91 and 92 deal with authority for various types of taxation, who has authority to levy which taxes, and various other areas of jurisdiction.
The Act is very specific in its direction. The right to tax income, known as « direct » tax, was delegated to the provinces; and it was clearly indicated that any monies so raised must be raised provincially, and used for provincial purposes. The Federal Government was denied the right to levy income tax.
But the Supreme Court of Canada goes further. It states that no level or government is allowed to transfer its authority to another level of government, and if transfer were attempted by one level, it could not legally be accepted by another.
On October 3, 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case involving the Lord Nelson Hotel of Halifax, Nova Scotia, against the Attorneys-General of Nova Scotia and Canada. The case involved the transfer of powers from the Provincial to the Federal Government, and was directly related to the income Tax Act. In a seven-judge unanimous decision, the highest court in our land ruled that power transfers cannot legally take place. The Federal Government was given until 1962 to remove itself from all such power-transfer agreements, including the Income tax business, and scrap the Income Tax Act…
Clearly, the Federal Government has no constitutional right to engage in the Income Tax business, or any other type of direct taxation, whether on behalf of itself or on behalf of the provinces. Therefore, the Income Tax Act is, in itself, unconstitutional, and need not to be obeyed…
The Federal Government can create its own currency
It is interesting to note that the same sections of the B.N.A. Act that disallow the Federal Government the right to collect income tax, did however provide for a means whereby the Federal Government could raise capital. Sectons 91 (14, 15,16, 28, 29, and 20) give the Federal Government the authority, and the responsibility, for the control and issue of our currency, based upon the resources and wealth of the nation. They were given an unlimited supply of debt-free money with which to operate the contry. All they had to do was print it. And they did just that for the first 46 years of our country.
Government gives banks credit monopoly
Then, some 46 years after Confederation, in 1913, our parliamentarians were poorly advised in committing a grave injustice to future generations of Canadians by passing an amendment to the B.N.A. Act (without referendum!) commonly known as the Bank Act. By this act, the Federal Government gave to the banking system the sole right to create the financial credit (in reality, the « money ») of our nation. And for the last 79 years, the private banking system has been exercising this monopolistic prerogative of creating and controlling the Canadian people’s financial credit.
Well, banks don’t work for free… they charge « interest. » They even charge interest to the Government. And interest can never be repaid; it just keeps adding up, and up, and up, until today our national debt alone is approaching $600 billion.
Shipwrecked on an island
(Editor’s note: At this point of his speech, Mr. Gauvreau explains in detail the same story related by Louis Even in « The Money Myth Exploded, » formerly called « Salvation Islan »:)
Let’s assume that those of us here this afternoon are shipwreck survivors, and that we are stranded on a deserted island. Our only means of survival are to help each other by each doing those things that are necessary for the betterment of our new community, until we can be rescued. One of us becomes a farmer, one a fisherman, one a carpenter, and so on.
Each of us has his own role to play for the survival of the community. No one has any money, and at least for the time being, there is no need for money, All are contributing equally, and all are on the same economic level. We are satisfactorily exchanging our goods and services by barter. But gradually, as the community evolves, it becomes apparent that money will be necessary. Bob already has a house, and the carpenter doesn’t need another hundred pounds of fish. But we do need to associate, cooperate, and continue to contribute to the community. There needs to be an acceptable and equitable means of exchanging our goods and services…
Then one day, as the community is sitting on the beach, talking about their problem, we notice another raft approaching the island. All are happy to see a new face, and we greet the new arrival warmly. As we continue to talk, someone in the community tells the vew arrival about our dilemma, about how we started the community, developed it, built it through cooperation, and advanced to the point where we now need some form of exchange to help make the community grow and flourish. The new arrival’s eyes light up. « I have the answer to your problem, » says the new arrival. « I’m a banker. I’ll set to work right now to print you some money. »
The next morning, the whole community meets in front of the banker’s new house. As the banker distributes the money, he reminds us that the money belong to him, and that we do not « own » it, but that we can only « borrow » it, and that we must pay a small fee for the privilege of borriwing it. We can pay that at the end of the year. And he requests that each person sign the agreement to pay 5%, which is certainly not excessive interest.
The debt cannot be paid back
The first year goes by. The community functions and prospers during the year; then at the end of the year we return to the banker, to pay him back what we had borrowed. But we find, to our dismay, that we cannot repay the loan, because we do not have enough money. We find that we now owe all that we had borrowed, plus 5%, which is the interest. The $1,000 that we had borrowed has now become $1,050. Since there is obviously no way to pay back the $50, which is the interest, the banker suggests that we leave the loan on the books as a $1,000, leaving a lesser amount of $950 for each of us to operate on for the next year. Seeing no other real answer, the community agrees to the new terms, and attempts to operate with less money for another year.
At the end of the second year, the community faces a similar, but greater, problem. In buying down the loan, we find that our operating capital has now been cut by 10%, to $900. We realize that if the plan is allowed to continue, the banker will own the island, in its entirety, having contributed nothing but the paper and ink (bookkeeping) that was used to monetize the community’s real credit in the first place. Some of the islanders protest.
But the banker has now had a couple of years to prepare for this day. To counter the objection that is inevitable, he has taken evasive steps. He has used the time to develop credibility in the community to educate us as to how valuable his service is, and what a fine contribution he has made to the community. He established colleges and universities majoring in economics, and teaches our children and our educators all about his money system. He ensures that few, if any, in the community are aware that there is another way; and he encourages the community to discount as ridiculous any suggestion that there could be a better way to finance a community…
The solution: Social Credit
Then one day, one of the islanders decides to take a walk along the beach and deliberate upon what has happened to the community. As he strolls along, head down, thinking, he notices what appears to be the corner of a book sticking out from the sand. He kneels, and picks up the book and brushes it off. The title, though tarnished from time, wind, and tide, is still readable – « The Meaning of Social Credit. » The islanders had never heard of this before, but he has not had a book to read for a long time, so he sits down on the beach to read it. A nd as he reads, he becomes more and more interested and excited. He realizes that this book holds the real answers to his island’s financial problem. The book describes how a community can function very well by simply creating a Balance Sheet, a system of debits and credits…
He runs back to relate the exiting news of his discovery to the rest of the community. As he gathers the islanders to discuss his find, the banker watches with concern. Is his jug up? Has he been found out? Is the community finally ready to take back its property, and reconstruct it, and once again have prosperity and cooperation?
Friends, only you can answer these questions, because the island I talk about is your country, and the community I refer to is all of us.
The story paints a rather dismal picture of the banking system in our country. Please understand, the average bank manager, teller or loans officer, has absolutely no knowledge of what you have just learned. They are merely pawns in a much larger game. But rest assured, those in the upper levels of management in the finance industry are absolutely certain of what they are doing, and how it affects the citizens of this country… Any system that enslaves and controls a population in the way that our finance system does, cannot possibly be from the Lord. So there is only one other place it could come from…
Banks do not lend out depositors’ money
Does anybody here know where the banks get the money that they lend out? Actually, most people assume that they lend out depositors’ money. But the Bank Act specifies that the bank must retain the depositor’s money on account, and must pay him interest on it.
So, where else might the bank get the money?
The Bank Act also specifies that the bank may create, out of nothing, new credit (« money ») through loans, but that it must have a relationship to the deposits. Originally, the banks were allowed to lend out six times their deposits, but today banks are allowed to issue new credit up to 26 times their deposits. That means that if I deposit my $1,000 in a Canadian bank, then that bank can issue loans to the tune of $26,000… Go to the bank, get a loan, and ask for the loan proceeds in cash. No matter the size of the loan, you cannot get it in cash – it must be deposited to your account, and cheques written in order to access the money. No tangible money is ever created; only debits and credits (figures) are created…
Today in Canada, the only source of money, whether private, corporate, or governmental need, is a loan from a bank. But you can never borrow your way out of debt. You can only borrow your way into bankruptcy, at which time you turn your back on your assets and your hard work, and give up possession of it to those to whom you owe money, but who gave absolutely no vested interest in your property…
1917: the Federal Income Tax
Now that we understand that the national debt can never be fully repaid using the current system of finance, the question arises: How, then, does it get paid? In 1917, after finding out that the debt was beginning to build, the Federal Government usurped the powers of the provincial governments and, under the guise of the War Debt, instituted the War Debt Income Tax Act. The Act was unconstitutional then, and it is still unconstitutional today. When it was enacted, it was on a voluntary basis, at a rate of 10%, and applied only to those earning $10,000 or more per year. In 1917, the average yearly salary was about $250.
The Income Tax Act could have more appropriately been named the Bank Interest Debt Income Tax Act; but then, people would have fought to the death to keep it out of effect. Since that time, the Federal Government has seen fit to increase the tax rate as high as 65% on high-income individuals, and has also seen fit to remove the lower limits to the point that, as you know, everyone is required to pay…
And now we have had the GST, which in my opinion is equaly as unconstitutional, rammed down our throats by a group of MPs that brashly and boldly declare that they are smarter than we are, and they know best…
Facing up to reality
Our Federal Government has gone so far away from the Constitution, in nearly every area of jurisdiction, that it now conspires to change it altogether. But that is not the solution. Getting back to the way it was written is the solution…
Each one of us selects his mode and method of doing battles with oppressive government. Some of us do it by speaking out… some of us join non-party political groups, some of us pray, and most of us do nothing. We have a condition called the « ostrich syndrome. » If we ignore it and don’t look at it, it might go away! But remember this: if your head is in the sand, your butt is an open target!
The Hart System: tax avoidance Federal Income Tax is illegal
I handle my fight personally using a system called the Hart System of Effective Tax Avoidance. Gerry Hart passed avay recently in Winnipeg, but not before becoming Canada’s undisputed champion No. 1 tax fighter. Mr. Hart for many years opted to take an aggressive and active position against oppressive government, and he has not paid income tax in nearly 50 years. During that time, he has been imposed upon, charged, harassed, his privacy invaded, and his person subjected to illegal search. But he has never given an inch. He has been to the Manitoba Court of Appeal 22 times, but has never lost.
In 1950 Gerry Hart received a copy of a Vancouver newspaper article which reported on a recent ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada. He then requested a copy of the ruling itself, from the Supreme Court Chancery in Ottawa. He also requested a copy of the B.N.A. Act, because the ruling quoted various sections of that document. He found, just as the newspaper had reported, that Section 91 and 92 of the B.N.A. Act do not allow for the Federal Government to be in the Income Tax business.
The two documents – the Supreme Court ruling and the B.N.A. Act – have been the basis of his battle, and the only two cocuments he has needed. He has never had the benefit of legal counsel, and has chosen to appear in court by himself. His only evidence has been those two documents. Charges against him have been thrown out of court 22 times. The last time, some twelve or so years ago, Revenue Canada was told that if it ever brought Gerry Hart back into court, that Revenue Canada itself would be charged with contempt of court.
Gerry Hart has never been convicted under the Income Tax Act. As he says, « Income Tax is illegal. Therefore the collection of it is also illegal. Since Revenue Canada has no legal method of collecting income tax, they must resort to illegal means. » Those illegal means include harassment, intimidation, illegal search, illegal seizure, violation of privacy, extortion, coercion, and complete ignorance and contempt for the human rights of Canadian citizens…
We have various books and booklets available to help to educate on how to prepare to stop paying these illegal taxes. If our « Tax Kit » can help you to avoid several thousands of dollars of tax, it is certainly worth its small investment. Be sure to protect yourself from Revenue Canada before you get involved in this tax fight. Read the books, and find out how…
If you still have questions after you have read the books, then call me. I’ll try to help you. I have not paid income tax since 1978, and I have used Gerry Hart’s System of Effective Tax Avoidance. I know it works; I’m living proof.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I’ve talked for a long time. But I cannot overstress the lateness of the hour. We all know what needs to be done, so let’s get busy and get to it!