Supreme Court Changes Investment Tax Rules For First Nations

[Shady]

Well, they are acting as such aren't they?

Not at all. Demanding exemptions from taxes as well as access to free social services isn't acting that way at all.

[Shwa]

Not at all. Demanding exemptions from taxes as well as access to free social services isn't acting that way at all.

Sure it is. It is all legal and in accordance with treaty law and such. I mean, what are you - some sort of Indian Giver or something?

Suck it up buttercup, they lost. Get over it.

[WWWTT]

Some would think loopholes opened up for first nations investment companys. with this ruling, first Nations could open up manufacturing plants to provide the production of products tax free, which investors would recieve the benefit of cheap subsidized manufactured product seeing the result through the Stock Market.

If what you are suggesting becomes reality it could cause an economic boom in Canada away from the traditional centers.

I would definetely be interested in investing!

WWWTT

[TimG]

Sure it is. It is all legal and in accordance with treaty law and such. I mean, what are you - some sort of Indian Giver or something?

The tax exemption does not appear to be part of the treaty agreements. It exists only in federal law which can be changed/modified as required.

[charter.rights]

The tax exemption does not appear to be part of the treaty agreements. It exists only in federal law which can be changed/modified as required.

The tax exemption stems from the Royal Proclamation 1763 and before and therefore a right protected under S.25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom

Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band

"In summary, the historical record makes it clear that ss. 87 and 89 of the Indian Act, the sections to which the deeming provision of s. 90 applies, constitute part of a legislative "package" which bears the impress of an obligation to native peoples which the Crown has recognized at least since the signing of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. From that time on, the Crown has always acknowledged that it is honour‑bound to shield Indians from any efforts by non‑natives to dispossess Indians of the property which they hold qua Indians, i.e., their land base and the chattels on that land base."

Edited July 24, 2011 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

The tax exemption does not appear to be part of the treaty agreements. It exists only in federal law which can be changed/modified as required.

It sure can be, and it looks like they are ruling in favour of the First Nations. That is, altering the law to suit the Indians. But I am sure there is a treaty or Constitutional basis in there someone.

Man, for a conquered people, they sure are getting all the breaks aren't they? Heck, I got brutalized on my last last tax return. But I think my tax dollars went to prisons, even though I can't be sure.

[charter.rights]

It sure can be, and it looks like they are ruling in favour of the First Nations. That is, altering the law to suit the Indians. But I am sure there is a treaty or Constitutional basis in there someone.

Man, for a conquered people, they sure are getting all the breaks aren't they? Heck, I got brutalized on my last last tax return. But I think my tax dollars went to prisons, even though I can't be sure.

Ya. I already proved that it was a Charter Right derived from the before the Royal Proclamation 1763 but he prefers to argue his nonsense statements and pretend to himself they are facts.

No tax. No seizures. Superior title to unsurrendered land. All rights they have and we don't.

Pity the whiners, they are so victimized by themselves....

[TimG]

From that time on, the Crown has always acknowledged that it is honour‑bound to shield Indians from any efforts by non‑natives to dispossess Indians of the property which they hold qua Indians, i.e., their land base and the chattels on that land base."

This duty does not confir any right to services without taxation. The intent it to protect natives from fraud - not legitimate operations of the government. Also, I find the paternalistic in that statement to be incredible. But using this rational to justify the tax exemptions you basically arguing that natives are helpless idiots that can't look after their own affairs. Edited July 24, 2011 by TimG

[charter.rights]

This duty does not confir any right to services without taxation. The intent it to protect natives from fraud - not legitimate operations of the government. Also, I find the paternalistic in that statement to be incredible. But using this rational to justify the tax exemptions you basically arguing that natives are helpless idiots that can't look after their own affairs.

You really are dumb. The Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band deals with S. 87 of the Indian Act which the Supreme Court has held that the protection against taxation stems from the Royal Proclamation 1763. You are arguing a lost cause. You have lost the argument already and are still trying to defend it.

Go read the Indian Act and then come back and argue that the Supreme Court got it wrong. Dip.

[Shady]

Sure it is. It is all legal and in accordance with treaty law and such.

Except that it isn't, and has nothing to do with any such treaties There's no legal basis for free social services. Even Lionel Hutz could figure that out.

[Shwa]

Except that it isn't, and has nothing to do with any such treaties There's no legal basis for free social services. Even Lionel Hutz could figure that out.

But...but... Shady, I already asked you and you dodged. It was only yesterday, don't you remember?

What "Canadian social services" - outside of those deemed to be within the treaty agreements - do First Nations people use Shady?

And now you are telling me that the Canadian government is making illegal agreements with First Nations?? OH MY GOD SHADY!!! CALL THE POLICE!!!! CALL THE RCMP! OH MY GOD!

What is worse is that this is a Conservative government doing this! OH. MY. GOD.

They lost, get over it.

[Chippewa]

It sure can be, and it looks like they are ruling in favour of the First Nations. That is, altering the law to suit the Indians. But I am sure there is a treaty or Constitutional basis in there someone.

Man, for a conquered people, they sure are getting all the breaks aren't they? Heck, I got brutalized on my last last tax return. But I think my tax dollars went to prisons, even though I can't be sure.

First Nations were never conquered in war. Infact Chief Pontiac captured 10 out of 12 British Forts without firing a shot in most cases. First Nations defeated General St.Clair, General Hall, won the War of 1812. Made Canada a country. Chief Tecumseh said after the war of 1812 "The British fight like cowardly dogs, they run and hide with there tails between there legs". Since First Nations pretty much had to defeat the Americans on there own.

The only thing that conquered First Nations is the 32 Million Immigrants who ran away from there countrys, and hiding away from there problems. First Nations never had to run away to another country. You would think that the 32 million immigrants or "Canadians" are all conquered people, since they ran and hide away from problems in the countrys they cowardly ran from with tails between there legs. First Nations are still willing to face the problems. Immigrants never will.

[Shwa]

First Nations defeated General St.Clair, General Hall, won the War of 1812.

Thanks for the history lesson!

Made Canada a country. Chief Tecumseh said after the war of 1812 "The British fight like cowardly dogs, they run and hide with there tails between there legs".

Oops. Must have been a different Tecumseh because the famous one was killed at the Battle of the Thames in 1813. You know, in the middle of the War of 1812.

Since First Nations pretty much had to defeat the Americans on there own.

Oops. You mean "on their own" with the exception of British muskets, lead balls and gunpowder?

On second thought, that wasn't such a good history lesson after all Chippewa.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Shwa

[charter.rights]

Thanks for the history lesson!

Oops. Must have been a different Tecumseh because the famous one was killed at the Battle of the Thames in 1813. You know, in the middle of the War of 1812.

Oops. You mean "on their own" with the exception of British muskets, lead balls and gunpowder?

On second thought, that wasn't such a good history lesson after all Chippewa.

Maybe he should have asked TimG before he posted that. TimG likes to makes things up and post them as facts too.

[Chippewa]

Thanks for the history lesson!

Oops. Must have been a different Tecumseh because the famous one was killed at the Battle of the Thames in 1813. You know, in the middle of the War of 1812.

Oops. You mean "on their own" with the exception of British muskets, lead balls and gunpowder?

On second thought, that wasn't such a good history lesson after all Chippewa.

I should have made it a present tense. Tecumseh said 'The British Fight like cowardly dogs. THey run and hide like dogs with tails between there legs."..

That quote you can find in the Canadian Archieves.

[Chippewa]

Maybe he should have asked TimG before he posted that. TimG likes to makes things up and post them as facts too.

The battle of the Thames, also shows that only 16-33 First Nations warriors died, non surrendered who fought with the British.

The British at the time only lost 12-18 soldiers, and 600 surrendered. The battle of the Thames was a 4-1 ratio for the americans in terms of soldiers at the front. So the decisive battle and victory came at the hands of a highly overpopulated brigade of americans.

[Shwa]

I should have made it a present tense. Tecumseh said 'The British Fight like cowardly dogs. THey run and hide like dogs with tails between there legs."..

That quote you can find in the Canadian Archieves.

I am sure I could. But let's not forget those British muskets, lead shot and gunpowder right?

[bush_cheney2004]

....The British at the time only lost 12-18 soldiers, and 600 surrendered. The battle of the Thames was a 4-1 ratio for the americans in terms of soldiers at the front. So the decisive battle and victory came at the hands of a highly overpopulated brigade of americans.

No...'twas sea power that sealed Proctor's fate. The American's counter-blockade starved the British and Tecumseh's warriors of food and powder. The rest was easy....

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Oliver Hazard Perry

[Chippewa]

No...'twas sea power that sealed Proctor's fate. The American's counter-blockade starved the British and Tecumseh's warriors of food and powder. The rest was easy....

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Oliver Hazard Perry

The continental lines still remained the same, and the result was the americans were driven back 120 miles from the point of the war, extending Canadian territory.

The only thing that happened in the Battle of the Thames was 600 British Soldiers surrendered, with no real casualties. That wasn't a war, it was simple a British (Canadians) surrender of 600 soldiers. The fact, the British never won a war in Canada on their own, tells how important First Nations were when they faught and made the Continental lines of this country. British (Canada) never defeated anybody without First Nations help.

The last flat out war between the Americans and First Nations was against General St.Clair. St.Clair suffered the largest defeat of any American Army sent to war with Tecumeh's people. St.Clair lost 623 Soldiers, while First Nations lost only 50. First Nations only went in with 500 Warriors, back in 1791. 30 years prior to that Chief Pontiac captured 10 British Forts. So your information about being defeat in war is false.

The rest that was easy was the fact 32 Million out of the 34 Million in Canada are all immigrants. I am not sure that many countrys in the world have a 94% immigration population. Then the other easy part that happened, was First Nations have been oppressed by immigration for centurys.

General Arthur St. Clair -- "Indians don't fight fair, they fight behind trees, and rocks".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the Investment Tax Laws.

The Investment Firms may have a loop hole.

If somebody has invested money into operations that are taxable, or have levels of tax per trade and operations. A publicly traded First Nations company who makes larger returns on tax free investments, would show a larger return on investments, through the Stock Market. An example may be, a large return in Oil, Gold, and Diamond industry, that see's large tax free returns. So if the stock value is doubling, and tripling in value. The value of stock will be worth the investment.

[William Ashley]

Freedom from taxation stems from the Royal Proclamation 1763 which is an inalienable aboriginal right.

Royal Proclamation 1763:

"And whereas it is just and reasonable....that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed..."

and,

"And we do. by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever."

The second part has nothing to do with taxes, I think it more so means there is no monopoly on trade. For instance hudsons bay monopoly, east indian company monopoly etc..

I think what it is suppose to mean is village.. no sorry what I think it is suppose to mean is that anyone can trade with them, rather than a charter given to a specific company, as charters were common in europe for trade with indiginies.

Hower the same premise says that australians or UK, or irish or indians or any commonwealth realm can trade direct with aboriginals in Canada bypassing the Federal Government. However the "protection clause" still states that the Crown has veto on any trade that endangers them.

However the problem is that only old people who are British subjects still so only natives who are British Subjects would have those royal proclamaition protections and priveleges.

The federal government as discovered with communications with CIC Canada through aides of Jason Kenney doesn't recognize British Subject status anymore... so protections in the Proclaimation wouldn't apply to First nations members with Canadian Citizenship for dealings with the federal government.

We want you to be aware of tax benefits that apply to you as an Indian under the Canadian Indian Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

Read the prior to 1949 part.

http://www.danielnpaul.com/CanadianCitizenshipAct-1947.html

It is basically saying that if you take it to the Canadian Citizenship then the relationship is with the crown of Canada.. and thus protection denotes rule of law.. meaning they can make the laws. Parliament can revise any law, however constitutional law now ought to require the amending formula.

Oddly the provinces and federal government breached the proclamation by saying what business can occur on native lands.. The indian act itself breaches the proclaimation.

http://www.danielnpaul.com/CanadianCitizenshipAct-1947.html

It is a problematic issue as first you need to question the identity prior to the citizenship... the land was annexed the people seemed to have been both under protection and the option not to be under the protection... this means that natives were both under sovereignty of the crown.. and not.

History says why. But arguing for self determination from a perspective of being within the sovereignty of the crown is not a strong position but the other one may not get you very far.. I think that I can say what was then, and what is now, may not align.. since natives joined Canada by taking Canadian citizenship. They could renounce that... and declare independence again.. but that is a crap shoot. I've done it myself.. and it met with.. must be a recognized state to transfer citizenship from the list of countries.. so even if by your law you are independent by Canadian law you arn't.

Renouncing my citizenship even though it is covered up by some other things.. got me drugged and violated against my will and my Constitutional rights ignored and my removal from court process. First nations may be a slightly different story but the government ain't a bunch of nice people, they are A$$holes who will kill and ruin people that stand against them. They only do what they want to do not what they are say or are suppose to do.

Edited July 29, 2011 by William Ashley

[charter.rights]

The second part has nothing to do with taxes, I think it more so means there is no monopoly on trade. For instance hudsons bay monopoly, east indian company monopoly etc..

I think what it is suppose to mean is village.. no sorry what I think it is suppose to mean is that anyone can trade with them, rather than a charter given to a specific company, as charters were common in europe for trade with indiginies.

Hower the same premise says that australians or UK, or irish or indians or any commonwealth realm can trade direct with aboriginals in Canada bypassing the Federal Government. However the "protection clause" still states that the Crown has veto on any trade that endangers them.

However the problem is that only old people who are British subjects still so only natives who are British Subjects would have those royal proclamaition protections and priveleges.

The federal government as discovered with communications with CIC Canada through aides of Jason Kenney doesn't recognize British Subject status anymore... so protections in the Proclaimation wouldn't apply to First nations members with Canadian Citizenship for dealings with the federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

Read the prior to 1949 part.

http://www.danielnpaul.com/CanadianCitizenshipAct-1947.html

It is basically saying that if you take it to the Canadian Citizenship then the relationship is with the crown of Canada.. and thus protection denotes rule of law.. meaning they can make the laws. Parliament can revise any law, however constitutional law now ought to require the amending formula.

Oddly the provinces and federal government breached the proclamation by saying what business can occur on native lands.. The indian act itself breaches the proclaimation.

http://www.danielnpaul.com/CanadianCitizenshipAct-1947.html

It is a problematic issue as first you need to question the identity prior to the citizenship... the land was annexed the people seemed to have been both under protection and the option not to be under the protection... this means that natives were both under sovereignty of the crown.. and not.

History says why. But arguing for self determination from a perspective of being within the sovereignty of the crown is not a strong position but the other one may not get you very far.. I think that I can say what was then, and what is now, may not align.. since natives joined Canada by taking Canadian citizenship. They could renounce that... and declare independence again.. but that is a crap shoot. I've done it myself.. and it met with.. must be a recognized state to transfer citizenship from the list of countries.. so even if by your law you are independent by Canadian law you arn't.

Renouncing my citizenship even though it is covered up by some other things.. got me drugged and violated against my will and my Constitutional rights ignored and my removal from court process. First nations may be a slightly different story but the government ain't a bunch of nice people, they are A$$holes who will kill and ruin people that stand against them. They only do what they want to do not what they are say or are suppose to do.

You are out to lunch on this one.

It is the Supreme Court of Canada that has held that the tax exemptions stem from those two articles of the Royal Proclamation 1763.

Tax exemptions are far reaching.

I was discussing this case with an Aboriginal Constitutional lawyer this afternoon and she concurs that this is more than just a simple tax case. It can be used to argue that the paternalistic approach the government has taken in the past is no more - that native people have a right to encourage investment in their own financial institutions and industry without interference from CRA. It also provides a perspective that interference with aboriginal rights will no longer be tolerated. CRA had their butt handed to them.

The dominion that the British took under the Royal Proclamation and reserved for the Indians was ONLY the land surrendered by the French in the Treaty of Paris 1763:

R V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta and others British High Court 1982

"By a royal proclamation on 7 October 1763 George III declared that there would be reserved for the Indian peoples of Canada such territory described therein which was not ceded to or purchased by the Crown, the territory concerned being substantial parts of the North American territories ceded to England by France under the Treaty of Paris 1763, but excluding Quebec and territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company."

Thus Southern Ontario all the western provinces and northern territories were excluded from the Royal Proclamation 1763. What was included was Louisiana and the Mississippi watershed areas that the British had a hard time controlling. These were the only lands under which the British took dominion, sovereignty and reserved for the Indians......Most of those Indian lands had already been surrendered by the Indians in treaties brokered by Six Nations under the Nanfan Treaty 1701, so there was no big surprise there. Great Britain had no interest in the lands north of the Great Lakes Ontario or Erie.

First Nations are not Canadians. That is a simple fact. Some native people might consider themselves to be Canadian, but their First Nations are not. There is no legal process that changed that fact ever, in history.

R V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta and others British High Court 1982

"In view of it, and later cases, I think that the Indian title (by which I mean 'the personal and usufructuary right' of the Indians in respect of ' lands reserved to the Indians' was a title superior to all others save in so far as the Indians themselves

surrendered or ceded it the Crown."

"Apart from the ceded lands, ceded under the treaties, there were Indian reserves, not ceded to the Crown, in which the Indian peoples still retained their 'personal and usufructuary right' to the fruits and produce of the lands and to hunt and fish thereon."

However, the British did not take sovereignty over Indians. The nation to nation relationship exists in the historical Treaties as well as the approach taken in negotiating modern treaties.

In fact just last year June 2010 the Queen renewed the Covenant Chain Treaty with Six Nations by making a gift to each of the Six Nations Chief and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Chief in commemoration of 300 years of Peace and Friendship. This is a longstanding treaty between 2 sovereign nations.

As the Supreme Court progresses the question of Canadian law applying to First Nations is waning. Under S.88 of the Indian Act the following limits were placed:

"Subject to the terms of any treaty and any other Act of Parliament, all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with this Act or any order, rule, regulation or by-law made thereunder, and except to the extent that those laws make provision for any matter for which provision is made by or under this Act."

However, the Supreme Court has struck it down where it concerns hunting and fishing rights (Regina v. Taylor and Williams) and struck down the ability of provincial courts to issue orders on any reserve (Derrickson v. Derrickson). They struck down provincial liquor laws applying on reserve (Regina. v. Drybones). In criminal law the SCoC issued the Gladue ruling which requires the lowers courts to consider all other penalties to avoid incarceration, and required them to prepare Galdue reports identifying the aboriginal and personal issues specific to the accused. That negates for the most part provincial laws of general application applying and has started to test many of the federal laws as well.

IN another tax court case last fall (CRA v. Robertson and Saunders) the court ruled that native fisherman are not required to pay tax on income earned off reserve on a commercial fishery. In that case, the Court held that the commercial fishery identified in Treaty 5, and that "Supreme Court of Canada had ruled that the taxation exemption was “designed to protect Indians in various ways from the erosion of their economic base, namely reserve lands and personal property there belonging to an Indian.”.

[Chippewa]

You are out to lunch on this one.

Thus Southern Ontario all the western provinces and northern territories were excluded from the Royal Proclamation 1763. What was included was Louisiana and the Mississippi watershed areas that the British had a hard time controlling. These were the only lands under which the British took dominion, sovereignty and reserved for the Indians......Most of those Indian lands had already been surrendered by the Indians in treaties brokered by Six Nations under the Nanfan Treaty 1701, so there was no big surprise there. Great Britain had no interest in the lands north of the Great Lakes Ontario or Erie.

The only problem with the 1701 treaty was the fact 6 nations just suffered a huge defeat at the battle of skull mound in "Saugeen" area to the Chippewa/Ojibway/Potawatimi/Odawa people over the Fur and Flint trade in the 1690's, and they were run back to New York State, Penn State. Since the 3 Fires confederacy were considered hostile towards the British, the British made the "Nanfan Treaty 1701", over lands in southwestern ontario with a tribe who didn't have any control or people located in southern ontario. So basically the British made a treaty over lands either governments had control over, and with each other. The battle of skullmound, is a famous battle, where some 700 warriors were killed off, with the exception of 1 skull, and each skull was placed into a large mound. The one remaining Mohawk survivor was left to see the skull mound, and tell his people of this defeat. This was the largest defeat of the Mohawks in there history.

Chippewa's would even say that they were never fairly compansated for the Haldimond tract, since that was Ojibway terroritory, and they never lost a war over that land. Onieda First Nations still owns 1/6th of Six Nations, and the moneys that came with that war prize.

Every Chippewa/Ojibway still laughs this Nanfan treaty out of the room. The majority of the people in Ontario were all 3 Fires Confederacy nations.

So I disagree with that part of the treatys.

Then after chief pontiac, treaties started to pop up. The Niagara Treaty, then the BNA act. The BNA act was made in a foriegn country, for a foriegn country, and has never been legal. The BNA act never had any of the nations who it effected involved with the act. It would be no different then Canada passing legislation for Lybia.

[CANADIEN]

They are a conquered people and should act as such.

They are Canadians, and should be treated as such.

Or should I be petitioning countries in Europe, tracing back my ancestry and suing for land claims for land taken in war.

Under the rules WE set (Royal Proclamation 1763), First Nations own the land until it has been transferred to the Crown. WE conquerors Them conquerred, our rules remember?

I'd be more sympathetic, if they were actually indigenous to North America. They conquered a land with no defender after coming across the ice bridge. Ancestrally, they share common genes with mongolians.

First humans here, ancestors here for a few hundred generations. If that's not being indigenous, what would be? Having a continuous line of ancestors on the same square kilometre in Africa for millions of years? Because after that, everyone came for somewhere else.

[Chippewa]

They are Canadians, and should be treated as such.

Under the rules WE set (Royal Proclamation 1763), First Nations own the land until it has been transferred to the Crown. WE conquerors Them conquerred, our rules remember?

First humans here, ancestors here for a few hundred generations. If that's not being indigenous, what would be? Having a continuous line of ancestors on the same square kilometre in Africa for millions of years? Because after that, everyone came for somewhere else.

So let me guess, your ancesters were monkeys and they lived in Africa.

DNA is whats is indigenious to North America. Nobody else can claim that.

[CANADIEN]

The only problem with the 1701 treaty was the fact 6 nations just suffered a huge defeat at the battle of skull mound in "Saugeen" area to the Chippewa/Ojibway/Potawatimi/Odawa people over the Fur and Flint trade in the 1690's, and they were run back to New York State, Penn State. Since the 3 Fires confederacy were considered hostile towards the British, the British made the "Nanfan Treaty 1701", over lands in southwestern ontario with a tribe who didn't have any control or people located in southern ontario. So basically the British made a treaty over lands either governments had control over, and with each other. The battle of skullmound, is a famous battle, where some 700 warriors were killed off, with the exception of 1 skull, and each skull was placed into a large mound. The one remaining Mohawk survivor was left to see the skull mound, and tell his people of this defeat. This was the largest defeat of the Mohawks in there history.

Chippewa's would even say that they were never fairly compansated for the Haldimond tract, since that was Ojibway terroritory, and they never lost a war over that land. Onieda First Nations still owns 1/6th of Six Nations, and the moneys that came with that war prize.

Every Chippewa/Ojibway still laughs this Nanfan treaty out of the room. The majority of the people in Ontario were all 3 Fires Confederacy nations.

So I disagree with that part of the treatys.

Then after chief pontiac, treaties started to pop up. The Niagara Treaty, then the BNA act. The BNA act was made in a foriegn country, for a foriegn country, and has never been legal. The BNA act never had any of the nations who it effected involved with the act. It would be no different then Canada passing legislation for Lybia.

Thanks for the background to Nanfan. Allow me to add that it was signed mere weeks after the French had scored a major diplomatic coups in Montreal. Sourds to me like the Five Nations were anxious to re-assure the English about their relationship.

Edited August 1, 2011 by CANADIEN