HST Dies!

[Ben Kenobi]

if anyone actually cares about the HST read THIS http://www.law.ubc.ca/files/pdf/ncbl...etter_2010.pdf -- Its a newsletter from the Fall of 2010 largely about the constitutional validity of the HST and raises the s91 vs s92 argument that is at least somewaht interesting but ultimately was rejected as they predicted. Its a little dated but a good review

Rejected by whom? I don't believe that the case has been taken up. At least not in the BC supreme court.

That's actually a good article. However:

As such, the HST exceeds the limits of s. 92(2) because it is not confined “within the Province,” and is for national rather than strictly “Provincial Purposes. In our view, the HST does not violate provincial exclusivity.

Fails, because, HST has both a Federal and a Provincial component. The Federal component is constitutional, while the Provincial component is not. Unless of course you want to bring in severability....

[Ben Kenobi]

His paleo-Philly attitudes towards women pretty much ensure that he'll never get laid.

And what exactly, are my attitudes to women, Thoth? I'm not Albert.

I'm sincerely curious. Since you seem to know about my love life, you should have no problems naming the name of my first girlfriend, when I met her and how long we were together.

[Ben Kenobi]

THis is just one exampl;e of where you are demonstrably and provably wrong-- but you are now boring me and besides Mrs Flubber will be home soon so I think I will go for some family time-- maybe tomorrow you can try to instruct me on fatherhood and family life LOL

Still haven't actually, y'know *refuted* my main argument. I see I forgot that part of the notwithstanding clause. My bad, it was a tangent anyways and not at all concerned the central issue, whether or not HST is in fact constitutional. Even your article not only acknowledges my argument, it goes out of it's way to state that their opinion is merely y'know their opinion.

Pretty nifty how a know-nothing like me actually managed to come up with an argument that the legal scholars of UBC actually had to address. Not like you know, you actually bothered.

[Flubber]

Rejected by whom? I don't believe that the case has been taken up. At least not in the BC supreme court.

The case was decided in Sepember of 2010 by the BC supreme court. The link is in an article I pasted in here earlier. The profs were right and thew court determined HST was valid. Again I am a bit surprised you did not know that considering your heavy involvement and passion for the issue and in particular the constitutional side of things. I would have though a recent Supreme court decision directly on point would have been relevant to you

[Flubber]

Oh and Ben THIS was part of somethiung I quoted YESTERDAY around noon

The constitutionality of the HST was confirmed by Justice Bauman of the B.C. Supreme Court in Vander Zalm v. British Columbia, 2010 BCSC 1320. In accordance with previous Supreme Court of Canada decisions, Justice Bauman noted at paragraphs 35 and 36 that the “HST represents an exercise in cooperative federalism …. [and] the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the importance of cooperation to ensure that federalism operates flexibly”.

[Flubber]

ben-- SO TRADE is the power where we should discuss fedeal authority for a GST???? Fine LOLOLOL I would have instead talked about the 91(3) power --- The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation --

your assertions on trade appear wrong as well. 91(2) gives the FEDS power over -- "The Regulation of Trade and Commerce"--- thats the only place the word "trade" appears in sections 91 1nd 92. So where does the provincial trade power come from?? are you asserting the power under subsection 10, 13, 16??? some other section????


My problem is that the GST/HST is a tax and as such I would tend to discuss it as 91(3) The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation. or 92(2)--"Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes" but since you still want me to address trade, I am asking for your direct cite respecting trade as a provincial power.

Oh and Ben I have yet to see you cite ANYTHING other than an irrelevancy about the charter which was at a llevel of grade school constitutional law. I have named the provisions I see that apply but hey maybe those three law school tax courses and two constitutional law courses I took were a waste and all 5 professors were wrong-- Maybe taxes are constitutionally authorized under some sort of trade power and not the provisions that have the word "tax" in them. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

So the question before you is where YOU see the "trade" power arising from and how that links to a sales tax in a way that would preclude the two taxation powers. Pick a number Ben from 1 to 16 ?? Or perhaps somewhere outside section 92??

Ben the funny thing is that you appear to have no freaking clue how out of your league you are-- without looking it up do you even know what the POGG powers are? Do you have any sense of the history of constitutional ointerpretation AT ALL ??

Ben YOur argument was about TRADE somehow-- you didn't realize that the provisions I was citing weree the applicable ones until hours later.Even after THIS post above, you again demanded I address your trade argument when there is no trade power for the provinces- THats why I was asking you to cite the applicable power

[Flubber]

Ben never change-- you cite authority for something inapplicable to buttress your argument LOL

ben the funny thing is that there is a somewhat interesting legal point in the conflict between s 91(3) and 92(2). Given these direct provisions, anything you are saying about trade is just malarkey. Bottom line though is that the courts have held that the GST/HST is legal so unless you have a new twist , the HST as drafted was constitutional;

This is where we where a day ago-- So you saying I have to address the conflict between 91(3) and 92(2) is bullcrap as

1. I was telling you about this argument AGAINST the HST while you were still talking about trade and the notwithstanding clause AND
2. I was already citing a the case where these arguments were rejected AND later cited the UNC profs prior analysis as to why the HST challenge WOULD FAIL as it did

I have a decided case and the UBC law faculty saying the argument which I first TOLD YOU ABOUT ( see my quote above) was interesting but ultimately losing. You did not COME UP WITH THE ARGUMENT. My quote above was as it is because you were still talking about trade and in fact later even demanded I address your trade argument

[Flubber]

I should post your PM here, Flubber. I'm not, but I have to say that's the biggest load of **** I've seen.

You really think that intimidating me in a PM is going to work?

Intimidating ??? LOL Hardly-- I see you mischaracterize everything

[Flubber]

, I see I forgot that part of the notwithstanding clause. My bad, it was a tangent anyways and not at all concerned the central issue, whether or not HST is in fact constitutional. Even your article not only acknowledges my argument, it goes out of it's way to state that their opinion is merely y'know their opinion.

It was a tangent but yet the Charter was the very first thing you cited after saying the constitutional question was worth your time. And you mentioned the Charter again in later posts . The part of the notwithstanding clause that you "forgot" was merely key to fundamentally understanding it. I agree the Charter is irrelevent-- I told you so yesterday but you kept bringing it up

Still haven't actually, y'know *refuted* my main argument.
Pretty nifty how a know-nothing like me actually managed to come up with an argument that the legal scholars of UBC actually had to address. Not like you know, you actually bothered.

Again -- you DID NOT COME WITH THE ARGUMENT. I cited it as an interesting argument , already knowing it had lost , before you ever adopted it. I see no need for me to refute it. Go read some caselaw

[Flubber]

So Ben lets summarize

1. You did not know the rate of GST applicable to BC before harmonization
2. You did not know there is a decided case on the constitutionality of the BC HST
3. You now admit your Charter arguments that are in error (with a "my bad" and "it was a tangent")


4. You have not yet admitted your 91(29) analysis was completely wrong-- please re-read the provision in its entirety-- it grants NO provincial powers-it grants federal ones
5. You have not yet admitted that your citing some form of provincial trade powers was absurd (provincial regulation of trade exists but comes under other powers like property and civil rights -- I have previously mentioned where those powers could be found but they are inapplicable to taxation)


6. You will probably never admit that the 92(2) argument was first raised by me even though that is quite clear in the chronology of the thread since I was the first to raise it in posts mocking your comments on "trade". When I raised it I knew it had already failed so it was amusing to see you adopt it and ask for my refutation.


I rest MY case Your honour


Like the HST or hate it, it matters not to me. But if you want to delve into the constitution, please know SOMETHING.

[Ben Kenobi]

Intimidating ??? LOL Hardly-- I see you mischaracterize everything

Since I can't post the PM, I'll paraphrase. "Stop posting because you suck" is about the most hilarious PM in a long time.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. You did not know the rate of GST applicable to BC before harmonization

One, yes, it was 7 and then dropped to 5. Yes I knew this. Yes, I also forgot that it was the Feds who dropped, not the province, got them switched around. A honest person would have understood a honest mistake. Instead you are using this as evidence as something that I didn't *know*. Which is a terrible argument. You can't really know what I do know, Flubber, you could argue that I got it wrong, but then that would be contrary to your argument.

2. You did not know there is a decided case on the constitutionality of the BC HST

There isn't. That's not what the case was about.

3. You now admit your Charter arguments that are in error (with a "my bad" and "it was a tangent")

Uh, again, I said that the reference to the notwithstanding clause was a tangent, which you said as well.

4. You have not yet admitted your 91(29) analysis was completely wrong-- please re-read the provision in its entirety-- it grants NO provincial powers-it grants federal ones

Christ. Yes, it grants provincial exceptions. Plain as day.

5. You have not yet admitted that your citing some form of provincial trade powers was absurd

Trade powers are where authority for direct taxation came from in the first place. Income taxes haven't always been in place here in Canada, and here did not require a constitutional amendment as they did in the US.

6. You will probably never admit that the 92(2) argument was first raised by me

Yes, you brought it up, but then you're assuming that I was unaware of this previously. Again, information you simply don't know, that you are speculating on. Yes, I was aware of 92-2 prior to you bringing it up. I made the exclusivity argument, before you cited it too.

When I raised it I knew it had already failed so it was amusing to see you adopt it and ask for my refutation.

Then why did you cite, not the 'decision' but the opinion of the UBC law folks. This particular question hasn't been taken to court. The ruling concerned something else altogether.

[Ben Kenobi]

It was a tangent

Thank you.

Again -- you DID NOT COME WITH THE ARGUMENT.

Did I ever say it was my argument. NO! Did I ever claim this, NO! Is it relevant, NO!

Three for three Flubber. At least the UBC folks actually bothered to discuss the argument and admitting that their legal opinion suggests that it is, but that it is, in fact, their opinion.

I see no need for me to refute it. Go read some caselaw

I can't actually refute a dumbass like Ben Kenobi. Gosh, I hope I'm not an actual paid lawyer. That would be embarrassing.

[Ben Kenobi]

The case was decided in Sepember of 2010 by the BC supreme court.

A case on the HST was decided, yes. But it did not answer this question. Yes, the HST is and was valid in how they went about and did it but it isn't constitutional. That would have gone to the supremes.

The link is in an article I pasted in here earlier.

Which unfortunately doesn't say what you want it to say which is why you didn't bother y'know, actually citing the case.

Again I am a bit surprised you did not know that considering your heavy involvement and passion for the issue and in particular the constitutional side of things. I would have though a recent Supreme court decision directly on point would have been relevant to you

It was, as one of about 5 different strategies at the time. But the ruling did not say what you claim it says. Never discussed constitutional merit of it, simply concerned the legislature passing it not as a bill.

[Flubber]

Then why did you cite, not the 'decision' but the opinion of the UBC law folks. This particular question hasn't been taken to court. The ruling concerned something else altogether.

The ruling did not concern constitutionality ??? LOLOL

From the case itself at paragraphs 29-30

29] I begin by reaching the critical conclusion that the HST imposed by the Excise Tax Act in British Columbia is not taxation for provincial purposes such that it represents an intrusion on British Columbia’s constitutional taxing power under s. 92 of the Constitution Act.

[30] I accept that the HST is taxation for a national purpose with the aim, as submitted by the respondents, of building a stronger economic foundation for Canada and achieving administrative efficiencies

Excuse me for thinking this was a decision on constitutionality. The judge must have meant something else when he cited the constitution etc etc.


Yet you said

Never discussed constitutional merit of it, simply concerned the legislature passing it not as a bill.

so how again is this not discussing constitutional merit-----