Equalization is unfair to Ontario

[Jay]

Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures.


2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html

Direct Taxation Definition

Taxes which are imposed directly on the individual paying them. Examples of direct taxation are income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax.

http://glossary.global-investor.com/terms/direct-taxation.htm?id=413&ginPtrCode=00000&PopupMode=


The Feds have NO buissness being involved in Direct Taxation. That is where I would start.

 

[FiveParadox]

Jay, the Parliament Assembled of Canada, based on the principles of the imperial parliament inherited from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has the right to enter into areas of the jurisdiction of the Provinces of Canada, provided that such an action would be in the best, and the exigent, interest of the country. I would argue that ensuring that citizens in some Provinces are not forced into a "substandard", or sub-expectations so to speak, category of services, is both necessary and exigent.

 

[Jay]

Well then why all of this constitutional crap then?

These are exclusive powers and the word exclusive is pretty strong language to use if it is meaningless.

And that sure isn't the argument the Feds use to claim they have a right to direct taxation. If they did, the question would never come up again.

 

[FiveParadox]

RE: Provinces' Powers

Jay, I can assure you that notwithstanding whatever the Government of Canada may argue otherwise, my post above is quite sound. When I get home today (I am at school, at the moment), I could put together a more elaborate post on the topic of the division of powers (the division is not a "division" in terms of the constitution, so much as it is a "guideline" — hence the role of the Supreme Court of Canada in acting as an arbiter between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces — each situation may have a new interpretation of the division).

 

[Jay]

I look forward to it.

 

[FiveParadox]

Jay, if you would not mind, if you see me posting in another thread this evening before I have posted a response in this thread (if I am posting around 8, or 9 o'clock EST), could you remind me about making a post here, please? I don't trust my memory at the moment. Grad was yesterday, and my head... is swimming. Haha.

 

[Jay]

Congrats on Grad!

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Separation of Powers in Canada

Thank you, Jay! Grad was awesome fun. Parties are neat!

I was about to embark on a longer post to describe my opinion (and my own assessment) of the separation of powers between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces; however, instead of posting an entire essay (since I have other things to do tonight, but the opinion would require something rather elaborate), I thought that perhaps it would be more prudent to post my arguments as they relate to direct taxation, exclusively, as brought up by an above member.

:arrow: Direct Taxation

The Act provides that the Parliaments of the Provinces do indeed have the exclusive right to legislate in relation to the raising of money through taxes for the uses of the Provinces of Canada, as per Section 92(2). However, the Parliament of Canada has the right to legislate as to the raising of money through any mode or taxation system (as per Section 91(3) of the same Act)¹. At first, this appears to present us with an apparent dispute between the powers of the Parliaments of the Provinces, and that of Canada. However, this is not the case.

Cliquetez içi pour lire la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867.
Click here to read the Constitution Act, 1867.²

:arrow: Supremacy for Taxation Purposes

Section 91 of the Act states that the Parliament of Canada is given the powers described there "notwithstanding anything in this Act." Due to this sentence, given the force of the constitution, this section would override Section 92, where one would come across a disagreement between the Parliament of a Province and the Parliament of Canada.

Moreover, one must consider the convention of paramountcy, whereby Acts out of the Parliament of Canada take precedence in their interpretation over the Acts out of the Parliaments of the Provinces, where there is a disagreement between the Acts. This would mean that any direct taxation methods set up by the Provinces which would be derogative of any taxation methods set up by the Government of Canada would be "read down" by the Supreme Court of Canada, if the Government were ever to attempt to ascert its right to legislate in terms of this matter.

:?: Sources
1. Click here for the Web site of the Department of Justice Canada.
2. Click here for the Web site of the Wikipedia®.

:!: Revisions : (1) Corrected a typo; (2) added a source.

 

[Jay]

These are exclusive powers. If the Constitution didn't mean exclusive, it wouldn't use the term.

 

[FiveParadox]

Jay, Section 91 also uses the term "exclusive" — however, that section also says that Section 91 applies notwithstanding Section 92. In addition, one must keep the paramountcy convention in mind when considering the division of powers between the Parliaments of the Provinces and Canada.

 

[Jay]

I don't get what your saying here.

Here is the langauge used.

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

The word exclusive is used to define the role of the province. I believe they used the word exclusive to keep the feds out of these jurisdictions, not to allow them in when ever they feel like it.

 

[FiveParadox]

However, Jay, the matters within Section 91 can be enforced notwithstanding Section 92. Besides, even if one ignores the delimiting factors of both Sections 91 and 92, I would contend that paramountcy would give the ultimate authority in terms of a disagreement to the Parliament of Canada.

 

[Jay]

If what your saying is true, there would be little reason to define the roles of each jurisdiction, and the provincial - federal relationship would be reduced to the same relationships cities have with the provinces.

 

[FiveParadox]

I don't think so, Jay. There would only ever be disagreements between the Parliaments of the Provinces and the Parliament of Canada on matters that could be construed as coming within the jurisdiction of both of them — taxes would be one of those things, in general.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Equalization is unfair to Ontario

It's great McGuinty is taking some stand on this issue, much to his credit and he needs it.

Funny how this became an issue when Ontario has a problem, but for years when Alberta complained about the exact same thing in the exact same way, we were told to quit whining, we had to help the rest of Canada.

What are you blabbering about? It's been an issue for Upper Canada/Ontario since before Alberta even existed. "Y'all" just don't hear anything but what you want to way up and out there.

You know, I don't really think there was equalizaation before 1905, but it appears S-Ranger, of all things holy and right in Ontario, must think otherwise.

Just so we are clear, too, until Ontario pays the same amount PER CAPITA that Alberta does, their problem is not as bad as Albertas when it comes to this. Albertans pay almost $3000 per person into this program, and Ontario residents pay around $1900, per the last report I saw.

Screw your "per capita" with no people to speak of and 40% more revenues per capita than Ontario has.

You've got a puny 3,306,359 people in all of the Albertas compared to 12,599,364 in the Ontarios (Jan 1, 2006 pop estimates, Statistics Canada - The Daily, March 28, 2006).

Alberta has no debt. Ontario's debt was about half of your pathetic GDP last year. Alberta has no provincial income tax, Alberta has over $30 billion in "conservative surplus" sitting around in its various slush funds and could do just fine with no returns of its revenues.

Well, lets poke some holes here, okay. Alberta has no debt because we bit the bullet in the early nineties. When will Ontario bite the bullet, or for that matter, when will the rest of the provinces bite that bullet? Gee, looking at my paycheque every two weeks I see provincial tax being deducted. You are mistaken, we do have a provincial income tax. We have no sales tax. The surplus is simply due to resource revenues, not having to pay any interest on a debt, and other sources of revenue. We are not overtaxed. In fact, for your information, Alberta puts more into equaliazation than it earns from resource revenue, so get over it, you already get every bit of Albertas resource revenue, and then some. Quit bitching about the resource revenue, hell, you all get it all now.

As is, Alberta pays out less than the municipality of Toronto alone does, in the only revenues that matter: never to be seen again, here or there.

Alberta started this "equalization" mess.

Hardly, that is such a stupid statement. Alberta has not been a recipient since the late fifties, as I recall. Alberta has wanted a review of equalization for many years, but only now that poor old Ontario HAS THE EXACT SAME COMPLAINTS does this become an issue. If you were not so hateful in your posts, you might actually realize that Alberta, for the most part, agrees with you about this issue. Why you continue to want to slag Alberta is beyond reason. Perhaps it is simply jealousy that the economic engine of Canada has shifted slightly west, and Ontario, for all its good things, no longer can call ever shot for the entire country. Get over it.

Edit: S-Ranger, you are quite capable of making your points without insulting other members. Please refrain from such. Thank you - Kreskin.

 

[bluealberta]

Okay, hands up, who thinks they understand equalization? The feds are not robbing Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, or anybody else, to subsidize others. Federal tax rates are the same everywhere. Whatever your income, you pay exactly the same amount of federal tax on your taxable income (except for some minor differences like the isolated post allowance) and purchases no matter what province you live in. The principle of equalization is that the federal government will disburse funds to provincial governments from its general revenues to enable them to provide a roughly equal level of public services everywhere. That's all. Nobody's paying more or less than their share, everybody's paying the same. McGuinty's argument really (and Ralph Klein's, when he tried it) is that if the feds charged lower tax rates in his province then his province's taxes would be lower and every citizen of his province would thus be richer. It's a typically specious provincial bash the feds argument. It's selfish and ignorant, and it's crap. But it plays well, because so many voters are also selfish and ignorant.

Actually, Dex, part of the problem is having revenues from other provinces transferred to other provinces who are then allowed to maintain lower provincial tax rates, and enables other provinces to provide services over and above the norm. For instance, everyone talks about the Quebec daycare program which is heavily subsidized, and which no other province has. Would Quebec be able to continue this massive subsidy without equalization? No one has a problem with funds being disbursed to ensure health and education are kept consistent, but to transfer money so another province can fund additional programs is a bit irritating.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Equalization is unfair to Ontario

I don't think so, Jay. There would only ever be disagreements between the Parliaments of the Provinces and the Parliament of Canada on matters that could be construed as coming within the jurisdiction of both of them — taxes would be one of those things, in general.

I'm sorry Five, but I believe that is why the word exclusive is used; so there won't be any confusion...the confusion only comes in when the Feds start eyeing up provincial money and other jurisdictions.

 

[FiveParadox]

But Jay, the word "exclusive" is used in Sections 91, and 92!

 

[Numure]

RE: Equalization is unfai

Read up when and why the federal government started using income tax as a source of revenu, five. It wasnt quite legal, but the provinces we're forced to accept, given the circumstance. The Federal government though, just continued doing it even though the war was over.

And that moment, is when unity sudenly became a problem for Canada.

 

[FiveParadox]

If it "wasn't quite legal", Numure, then the income tax legislation would have been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada at anyone's request. As per Section 91(3), the Parliament Assembled of Canada has the right to raise revenue through taxes, through any mode or method.