Canadian Parliamentary Crisis III

[Fake Boris]

The SC's ruling is simply that the executive doesn't have the power to tax - it's the Parliament's prerogative.

The only thing 'illegal' about what they did is that the caucus diverted away the money without asking Parliament.

The SC also ruled that the violation is fairly minor and that statu quo > triggering a political crisis by forcing the government to refund the unemployed.

[Fake Boris]

Basically, the only thing they needed to do in order to make it legal would have been to adopt a bill that gives the executive the mandate of issuing decrees on what to do with the unemployment fund.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Oh well. There goes any chance of getting rid of it by attrition.

I don't think that would work.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher
Does anyone think this EI Scam **** will hurt the Liberal in the next election?

There seems to be an undeniable pattern of the Liberals illegally ****ing around with Canadians' money over the past decade. Who is to say it will stop? It's a party who thinks they have a God-given right to lead this country, and they constantly abuse their power as a result.

Not really, but maybe a bit.

It was widespread knowledge at the time that the Liberals were pillaging EI for other federal program spending. All the ruling says is they should have had to ask Parliament, and at the time they had a majority and could have passed a motion to make Oerdin the king of hockey.

Of course, it may have been embarassing for them to bring the issues to Parliament, as they then would have been asked about why the rates for deductions were being set as they were.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks the federal government will pay dime one back to the employers and employees who paid these unfair taxes.

What will hurt is that the Liberals have been making noises about how the Tories have blown the surplus they were left with. The Tories will now rightfully respond that they did not play robber baron with EI. The Tories will win that one. I imagine the ads are being worked on as we speak.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


This is all quite true. My only question is why this was not handled by the Tax Court of Canada instead of the provincial courts.

I would guess because it is not supposed to be a tax?

Would a CPP grievance go to tax court?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Basically, the only thing they needed to do in order to make it legal would have been to adopt a bill that gives the executive the mandate of issuing decrees on what to do with the unemployment fund.

Read it again.

It was the rates charged.

You are saying Parliament could pass a law saying cabinet can set income tax rates. I'm not sure that would pass muster.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I would guess because it is not supposed to be a tax?

Would a CPP grievance go to tax court?

Yes.

http://www.tcc-cci.gc.ca/juris_e.htm

The Tax Court of Canada (under section 12 of the Tax Court of Canada Act) has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals and references to the Court on matters arising under the following Acts:

* Income Tax Act
* Employment Insurance Act (formerly the Unemployment Insurance Act)
* Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (GST)
* Canada Pension Plan
* Old Age Security Act
* Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
* Cultural Property Export and Import Act
* Customs Act (Part V.1)
* Air Travellers Security Charge Act
* Excise Act, 2001
* Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[notyoueither]

Well there you go. Tax court is not something I have any familiarity with. My impression was that it was a tribunal where citizens would go when there was a disagreement with CRA over amounts owed.

[notyoueither]

And indeed it seems to be what I thought.

http://www.tcc-cci.gc.ca/about_e.htm

The Tax Court of Canada is a superior court to which individuals and companies may appeal to settle disagreements with the Government of Canada on matters arising under legislation over which the Court has exclusive original jurisdiction. Most of the appeals made to the Court relate to income tax, the goods and services tax or employment insurance. The role of the Court's judges is to decide, for example, whether an appellant must pay a disputed amount of income tax or goods and services tax, or whether an appellant qualifies for employment insurance or Canada Pension Plan benefits.

The Court also hears references from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to provide interpretations of the legislation within its areas of jurisdiction.

It's a panel for citizens to have easy access to the judiciary when they disagree with tax men.

Edit: and keep these disputes away from Courts of Queens Bench, which are very expensive courts to operate and have better things to do than decide if John owes the penalties sought by CRA.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, and I don't understand why this wouldn't be the proper venue for a complaint about the tax system. Just because most of the complaints are minor doesn't mean that they all must be.

I'm simply inquiring. Not arguing.

[notyoueither]

OK.

I would assume it is because Tax Court is akin to arbitration to keep these matters away from courts that have better things to do.

I know accountants who argue for clients in tax court. No lawyer required. They are being silly, but they are accepted. They would not be recognised in a Court of Queens Bench.

[KrazyHorse]

The bit that's getting me is:

"exclusive original jurisdiction"

Meaning that no other court should be able to hear cases based on the acts mentioned.

Anyhow, I'm nothing even approximating a legal expert. But I would like to hear from one (preferentially a Canadian one)

[notyoueither]

True, except that the case was not a matter of a consequence of the act(s).

The case was that the cabinet went beyond their Consitutional prerogatives in administering the act(s).

In short, the federal government was breaking the law. I don't see that in the mandate of the tax courts.

[KrazyHorse]

The case was that the cabinet went beyond their Consitutional prerogatives in administering the act(s).

Yes. And the judgment of precisely what their authority was under the EI act would seem to be a matter for the TCC.

I'm obviously wrong on this because the matter was decided under the superior court -> appeals court -> supreme court track. I just haven't heard a convincing reason for why this was so.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Give us a break.

Basically, what they did is that they cut unemployment benefits in order to manage the deficit and pay off the debt.

It would be simply awesome if Harper started venting against that.

You forgot, you're supposed to be pretending not to care enough about my posts to read them.