REGINA: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) has won "leave to intervene" in an important federal court case between the federal government and Treaty 8 Indians set to begin in May 2001 that could determine whether Canada is forced to adopt racially-based tax policies.
"It is very important that taxpayers' voices be heard. If the plaintiffs win, it could lead to 'taxpayer apartheid' with hundreds of thousands of Native people being exempt from taxes because of their race," says Richard Truscott, Director of the CTF.
The plaintiffs say that a universal tax exemption was promised in Treaty 8 (which covers parts of northern Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C.) while the federal government disagrees. The CTF argues that real issue is one of equality, and that Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms overrides any discriminatory laws or agreements.
On July 29, 2000 Justice Campbell had dismissed the CTF's case for intervenor status, claiming that the CTF had not demonstrated that the Crown was limited in its ability to argue equality issues. But late last week at a hearing in Vancouver, three judges from the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the earlier judgement and granted the CTF intervenor status.
"A race-based tax policy would violate Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees the equality of Canadians. The Federal Government has failed to make the equality argument, perhaps for political reasons. But it is important that this argument be heard. We are pleased the Federal Court of Appeal agreed," says Truscott.
Currently, only Natives living and working on reserves are exempt from taxes. Natives living or working off reserve pay the same taxes as other Canadians. The plaintiffs in this case are arguing that all Treaty 8 Indians should be exempt from all taxes for all time everywhere in Canada. The case will set a crucial precedent about the tax status of Canada's Native people.
When the actual trial begins on May 7th, the CTF will have the right to receive all evidence, make arguments, and participate in any future appeals. The Alberta government is also intervening in the case and did not oppose the CTF's efforts.
--30--
Excerpts from the Federal Court of Appeal's Decision:
"The Applicant [the CTF] has a fundamental objective in its public activities and in this action, to seek to uphold the principle that all Canadian taxpayers should be treated equally in taxation matters before and under the law with the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion
The Appellant and its members are concerned that if the Federal Court upholds the Plaintiffs' claim that, as Indians they are exempt from imposition of any tax on them by Canada and the Province of Alberta, the effect of a judgement affirming such claim would be to amend by necessary implication every federal land Alberta statute dealing with taxes or tax-like charges so as to exempt on racial grounds a particular class of people and impose, on racial grounds, such taxes and charges on the remaining classes of people.
The Appellant wishes to intervene in this action so as to raise this issue because The Queen has not raised it. The Appellant says that its membership will be affected by the outcome in this case, and that there therefore, it has a genuine public interest. It says that this issue will not be raised unless the Appellant is allowed to intervene and that there is an important public issue involved.
The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Finta (1993) 150 N.R. 370 said one criteria for allowing intervention is if the intervenor has submissions which will be useful and different from those of other parties. That would seem to be the case here.
We are of the view that if in a case where important public interest issues are raised, an intervenor wishes to raise a related public interest question which naturally arises out of he existing [dispute] between the parties, and which none of the other parties has raised, it is appropriate to permit the intervention.
We would therefore allow the appeal, set aside the Order of the Motions Judge, and grant the Appellant leave to intervene in the action-"