- 1980? – 2000: the precursor individuals
1998 - 2006: the Detaxer movement
2003 – 2013: the Freemen-on-the-Land movement
2012 – onward: the post-Freemen
The Detaxers emerged largely from Alberta and British Columbia, and focused their efforts pretty much exclusively on avoiding income tax obligation. There was some interest in a broader-based avoidance of government authority, but at least the majority of litigation related to income tax. Prominent gurus include David-Kevin: Lindsay, Eldon Warman, Russell Porisky, Tom Kennedy, Daniel Lavigne, and Gordon Watson. The most successful of these on a commercial basis was Porisky, who at one point managed a large cross-Canada network of promoters who taught his techniques. The Detaxer movement’s collapse was a consequence of its continual failure to actually meet its objective and public prosecution of its gurus and promoters, particularly members of the Porisky ring.
The Freeman-on-the-Land movement emerged during this period, but targeted a much different population, attracting persons with a more general, anti-government perspective. Its lead guru, Robert Menard, promised a combination of free goodies and general immunity from government authority. Later Dean Clifford emerged as a second guru offering much the same promises, but with a somewhat different theoretical foundation. Menard’s status plummeted when his schemes repeatedly failed or, even more commonly, simply disappeared. Clifford’s popularity continued past this point, however as a whole the Freeman-on-the-Land movement has essentially collapsed in the face of clear court and government response.
At present there are multiple gurus-to-be competing over the remnants of both the Detaxer and Freeman movements: Scott Duncan, “Marcus the dead lawyer”, Chief Rock Sino General, Marcel Bessette of the Peace Makers Society, Wally Dove of the Human Rights Defenders League of Canada, and others.
I’m interested in looking further into the past, at what came before the Detaxers. To date have identified a number of key persons:
- David Butterfield (viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9798), a promoter in B.C. who operated through the mid 1990’s (or earlier) into the Detaxer period.
Gerry Hart of Winnipeg Manitoba, who I hope to profile in more detail at a later point.
Murray Gauvreau of Alberta, operating from the early 1990’s to perhaps early 2000s.
My current subject is Murray Gauvreau. He has proven to be a challenging subject to research for a couple reasons. First, he is not the subject of reported case law or media attention, and also his online activities are old and in certain instances, now gone.
Gauvreau has a very interesting link – he is the brother of Glenn Winningham of the House of Fearn (viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9616). Glenn in one of his latest videos (a recorded part of his seminars) was asked about Murray. Glenn’s response was interesting, and wistful – he commented that his brother had become tired of the struggle and now ran an inspection and safety business in northern Alberta.
Of the material I have identified the closest we seem to have to a restatement of Gauvreau’s beliefs is what is described as:
This document until very recently was hosted at what appears to be Murray’s only website (http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/tax.htm). That cite disappeared in the last month or two. Its contents have, however, been reproduced in a number of other locations online, including this one (http://www.slashdocs.com/nrnzsx/canada-taxes.html). In the interests of ensuring this unusual document is preserved I will reproduce it en toto.... excerpts from a paper delivered in October, 1991 by Mr. Murray Gauvreau, of Alberta, at a seminar of the Canadian League of Rights, in Calgary, which was published in the July, 1992 issue of “The Canadian Intelligence Service” (55 – 8th Ave. S.E. High River, Alberta, T1V 1E8)
The document closes by providing Murray’s contact information: General Delivery, Grovedale, Alberta, T0X 1X0, and his phone: (403) 532-6843.I would like to talk with you today about money, interest, debt, and taxation. Thank you for your interest and for coming to hear me speak. I'm sure that all of you are interested in Income Tax, and the GST. I will no doubt give you some enlightening facts. In order to fully understand the problem that we face today in Canada, we will briefly discuss some important aspects of our history.
In addition, I will try to give you an understanding of how the many taxes we now pay have come about. I will also propose some solutions to our dilemma. But please keep this in mind: our problem is perceived to be vast and complex, and it is intended by those in power that you feel exactly that way, so that you will feel helpless to do anything about it. But after today you will know for certain that our problem is not complex at all, and neither is its solution.
1867 - the B.N.A. Act
As a result of having taken advantage of the many career advancement courses offered by the life insurance industry, I became aware that the banks have exclusive right to issue currency in Canada, as determined by the Federal Bank Act. But I didn't see them printing money, so I decided to find out exactly how they do issue currency. My search led me back into the early history of our nation, and into the history of our Province...
So let's go back a ways, to the year 1867, and look into the pages of the Canadian Constitution, commonly known as the British North America (B.N.A.) Act. Therein lies the real solution to the ailments, both social and economic, that our country suffers from today. It is the same document today that it was when it was written so long ago.
The B.N.A. Act was written in order to establish the legal basis for this country. All laws enacted in Canada, whether by municipal, provincial, or federal government, must comply with the terms of the B.N.A. Act. If they do not, they are then unconstitutional, or in legal terms "ultra vires," and can be disallowed as law. The document belongs to the people of Canada, and not to the parliamentarians or the courts, or to the Prime Minister and the Premiers... It belongs to the people.
The Canadian Constitution was not changed or altered when it was brought home by Mr. Trudeau, as some suggest. However, there was a very important addition made to it at that time. That addition was the Canadian Bill of Human Rights. Today the Canadian Constitution, as we know it, is comprised of the original B.N.A. Act, and the Human Rights Act, together...
Direct taxation belongs to provinces
There are two specific sections of the B.N.A. Act that deal with the delegation of authority between the Federal and Provincial Governments. Sections 91 and 92 deal with authority for various types of taxation, who has authority to levy which taxes, and various other areas of jurisdiction.
The Act is very specific in its direction. The right to tax income, known as "direct" tax, was delegated to the provinces; and it was clearly indicated that any monies so raised must be raised provincially, and used for provincial purposes. The Federal Government was denied the right to levy income tax.
But the Supreme Court of Canada goes further. It states that no level or government is allowed to transfer its authority to another level of government, and if transfer were attempted by one level, it could not legally be accepted by another.
On October 3, 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case involving the Lord Nelson Hotel of Halifax, Nova Scotia, against the Attorneys-General of Nova Scotia and Canada. The case involved the transfer of powers from the Provincial to the Federal Government, and was directly related to the income Tax Act. In a seven-judge unanimous decision, the highest court in our land ruled that power transfers cannot legally take place. The Federal Government was given until 1962 to remove itself from all such power-transfer agreements, including the Income tax business, and scrap the Income Tax Act...
Clearly, the Federal Government has no constitutional right to engage in the Income Tax business, or any other type of direct taxation, whether on behalf of itself or on behalf of the provinces. Therefore, the Income Tax Act is, in itself, unconstitutional, and need not to be obeyed...
The Federal Government can create its own currency
It is interesting to note that the same sections of the B.N.A. Act that disallow the Federal Government the right to collect income tax, did however provide for a means whereby the Federal Government could raise capital. Sections 91 (14, 15,16, 28, 29, and 20) give the Federal Government the authority, and the responsibility, for the control and issue of our currency, based upon the resources and wealth of the nation. They were given an unlimited supply of debt-free money with which to operate the contry. All they had to do was print it. And they did just that for the first 46 years of our country.
Government gives banks credit monopoly
Then, some 46 years after Confederation, in 1913, our parliamentarians were poorly advised in committing a grave injustice to future generations of Canadians by passing an amendment to the B.N.A. Act (without referendum!) commonly known as the Bank Act. By this act, the Federal Government gave to the banking system the sole right to create the financial credit (in reality, the "money") of our nation. And for the last 79 years, the private banking system has been exercising this monopolistic prerogative of creating and controlling the Canadian people's financial credit.
Well, banks don't work for free... they charge "interest." They even charge interest to the Government. And interest can never be repaid; it just keeps adding up, and up, and up, until today our national debt alone is approaching $600 billion.
Shipwrecked on an island
(Editor's note: At this point of his speech, Mr. Gauvreau explains in detail the same story related by Louis Even in "The Money Myth Exploded," formerly called "Salvation Islan":)
Let's assume that those of us here this afternoon are shipwreck survivors, and that we are stranded on a deserted island. Our only means of survival are to help each other by each doing those things that are necessary for the betterment of our new community, until we can be rescued. One of us becomes a farmer, one a fisherman, one a carpenter, and so on.
Each of us has his own role to play for the survival of the community. No one has any money, and at least for the time being, there is no need for money, All are contributing equally, and all are on the same economic level. We are satisfactorily exchanging our goods and services by barter. But gradually, as the community evolves, it becomes apparent that money will be necessary. Bob already has a house, and the carpenter doesn't need another hundred pounds of fish. But we do need to associate, cooperate, and continue to contribute to the community. There needs to be an acceptable and equitable means of exchanging our goods and services...
Then one day, as the community is sitting on the beach, talking about their problem, we notice another raft approaching the island. All are happy to see a new face, and we greet the new arrival warmly. As we continue to talk, someone in the community tells the new arrival about our dilemma, about how we started the community, developed it, built it through cooperation, and advanced to the point where we now need some form of exchange to help make the community grow and flourish. The new arrival's eyes light up. "I have the answer to your problem," says the new arrival. "I'm a banker. I'll set to work right now to print you some money."
The next morning, the whole community meets in front of the banker's new house. As the banker distributes the money, he reminds us that the money belong to him, and that we do not "own" it, but that we can only "borrow" it, and that we must pay a small fee for the privilege of borrowing it. We can pay that at the end of the year. And he requests that each person sign the agreement to pay 5%, which is certainly not excessive interest.
The debt cannot be paid back
The first year goes by. The community functions and prospers during the year; then at the end of the year we return to the banker, to pay him back what we had borrowed. But we find, to our dismay, that we cannot repay the loan, because we do not have enough money. We find that we now owe all that we had borrowed, plus 5%, which is the interest. The $1,000 that we had borrowed has now become $1,050. Since there is obviously no way to pay back the $50, which is the interest, the banker suggests that we leave the loan on the books as a $1,000, leaving a lesser amount of $950 for each of us to operate on for the next year. Seeing no other real answer, the community agrees to the new terms, and attempts to operate with less money for another year.
At the end of the second year, the community faces a similar, but greater, problem. In buying down the loan, we find that our operating capital has now been cut by 10%, to $900. We realize that if the plan is allowed to continue, the banker will own the island, in its entirety, having contributed nothing but the paper and ink (bookkeeping) that was used to monetize the community's real credit in the first place. Some of the islanders protest.
But the banker has now had a couple of years to prepare for this day. To counter the objection that is inevitable, he has taken evasive steps. He has used the time to develop credibility in the community to educate us as to how valuable his service is, and what a fine contribution he has made to the community. He established colleges and universities majoring in economics, and teaches our children and our educators all about his money system. He ensures that few, if any, in the community are aware that there is another way; and he encourages the community to discount as ridiculous any suggestion that there could be a better way to finance a community...
The solution: Social Credit
Then one day, one of the islanders decides to take a walk along the beach and deliberate upon what has happened to the community. As he strolls along, head down, thinking, he notices what appears to be the corner of a book sticking out from the sand. He kneels, and picks up the book and brushes it off. The title, though tarnished from time, wind, and tide, is still readable - "The Meaning of Social Credit." The islanders had never heard of this before, but he has not had a book to read for a long time, so he sits down on the beach to read it. And as he reads, he becomes more and more interested and excited. He realizes that this book holds the real answers to his island's financial problem. The book describes how a community can function very well by simply creating a Balance Sheet, a system of debits and credits...
He runs back to relate the exiting news of his discovery to the rest of the community. As he gathers the islanders to discuss his find, the banker watches with concern. Is his jig up? Has he been found out? Is the community finally ready to take back its property, and reconstruct it, and once again have prosperity and cooperation?
Friends, only you can answer these questions, because the island I talk about is your country, and the community I refer to is all of us.
The story paints a rather dismal picture of the banking system in our country. Please understand, the average bank manager, teller or loans officer, has absolutely no knowledge of what you have just learned. They are merely pawns in a much larger game. But rest assured, those in the upper levels of management in the finance industry are absolutely certain of what they are doing, and how it affects the citizens of this country... Any system that enslaves and controls a population in the way that our finance system does, cannot possibly be from the Lord. So there is only one other place it could come from...
Banks do not lend out depositors' money
Does anybody here know where the banks get the money that they lend out? Actually, most people assume that they lend out depositors' money. But the Bank Act specifies that the bank must retain the depositor's money on account, and must pay him interest on it.
So, where else might the bank get the money?
The Bank Act also specifies that the bank may create, out of nothing, new credit ("money") through loans, but that it must have a relationship to the deposits. Originally, the banks were allowed to lend out six times their deposits, but today banks are allowed to issue new credit up to 26 times their deposits. That means that if I deposit my $1,000 in a Canadian bank, then that bank can issue loans to the tune of $26,000... Go to the bank, get a loan, and ask for the loan proceeds in cash. No matter the size of the loan, you cannot get it in cash - it must be deposited to your account, and cheques written in order to access the money. No tangible money is ever created; only debits and credits (figures) are created...
Today in Canada, the only source of money, whether private, corporate, or governmental need, is a loan from a bank. But you can never borrow your way out of debt. You can only borrow your way into bankruptcy, at which time you turn your back on your assets and your hard work, and give up possession of it to those to whom you owe money, but who gave absolutely no vested interest in your property...
1917: the Federal Income Tax
Now that we understand that the national debt can never be fully repaid using the current system of finance, the question arises: How, then, does it get paid? In 1917, after finding out that the debt was beginning to build, the Federal Government usurped the powers of the provincial governments and, under the guise of the War Debt, instituted the War Debt Income Tax Act. The Act was unconstitutional then, and it is still unconstitutional today. When it was enacted, it was on a voluntary basis, at a rate of 10%, and applied only to those earning $10,000 or more per year. In 1917, the average yearly salary was about $250.
The Income Tax Act could have more appropriately been named the Bank Interest Debt Income Tax Act; but then, people would have fought to the death to keep it out of effect. Since that time, the Federal Government has seen fit to increase the tax rate as high as 65% on high-income individuals, and has also seen fit to remove the lower limits to the point that, as you know, everyone is required to pay...
And now we have had the GST, which in my opinion is equaly as unconstitutional, rammed down our throats by a group of MPs that brashly and boldly declare that they are smarter than we are, and they know best...
Facing up to reality
Our Federal Government has gone so far away from the Constitution, in nearly every area of jurisdiction, that it now conspires to change it altogether. But that is not the solution. Getting back to the way it was written is the solution...
Each one of us selects his mode and method of doing battles with oppressive government. Some of us do it by speaking out... some of us join non-party political groups, some of us pray, and most of us do nothing. We have a condition called the "ostrich syndrome." If we ignore it and don't look at it, it might go away! But remember this: if your head is in the sand, your butt is an open target!
The Hart System: tax avoidance Federal Income Tax is illegal
I handle my fight personally using a system called the Hart System of Effective Tax Avoidance. Gerry Hart passed away recently in Winnipeg, but not before becoming Canada's undisputed champion No. 1 tax fighter. Mr. Hart for many years opted to take an aggressive and active position against oppressive government, and he has not paid income tax in nearly 50 years. During that time, he has been imposed upon, charged, harassed, his privacy invaded, and his person subjected to illegal search. But he has never given an inch. He has been to the Manitoba Court of Appeal 22 times, but has never lost.
In 1950 Gerry Hart received a copy of a Vancouver newspaper article which reported on a recent ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada. He then requested a copy of the ruling itself, from the Supreme Court Chancery in Ottawa. He also requested a copy of the B.N.A. Act, because the ruling quoted various sections of that document. He found, just as the newspaper had reported, that Section 91 and 92 of the B.N.A. Act do not allow for the Federal Government to be in the Income Tax business.
The two documents - the Supreme Court ruling and the B.N.A. Act - have been the basis of his battle, and the only two documents he has needed. He has never had the benefit of legal counsel, and has chosen to appear in court by himself. His only evidence has been those two documents. Charges against him have been thrown out of court 22 times. The last time, some twelve or so years ago, Revenue Canada was told that if it ever brought Gerry Hart back into court, that Revenue Canada itself would be charged with contempt of court.
Gerry Hart has never been convicted under the Income Tax Act. As he says, "Income Tax is illegal. Therefore the collection of it is also illegal. Since Revenue Canada has no legal method of collecting income tax, they must resort to illegal means." Those illegal means include harassment, intimidation, illegal search, illegal seizure, violation of privacy, extortion, coercion, and complete ignorance and contempt for the human rights of Canadian citizens...
We have various books and booklets available to help to educate on how to prepare to stop paying these illegal taxes. If our "Tax Kit" can help you to avoid several thousands of dollars of tax, it is certainly worth its small investment. Be sure to protect yourself from Revenue Canada before you get involved in this tax fight. Read the books, and find out how...
If you still have questions after you have read the books, then call me. I'll try to help you. I have not paid income tax since 1978, and I have used Gerry Hart's System of Effective Tax Avoidance. I know it works; I'm living proof.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I've talked for a long time. But I cannot overstress the lateness of the hour. We all know what needs to be done, so let's get busy and get to it!
Murray Gauvreau
This is the only known example of Murray Gauvreau’s materials of which I am aware. My research has identified two possible additional print items that were written by Gauvreau:
- 1) An essay entitled “Canada’s Federal Income Tax is Unconstitutional”, in an unidentified 1994 issue of the “Michael Journal” (michaeljournal.org/). This may in fact be the same document quoted above. Unfortunately, the Michael Journal archives only run back to 2000. This sounds like a colourful issue of the publication since another story written by Gilberte Cote-Mercier is entitled “The Beast of the Apocalypse: 666, a Gigantic Self-programming Computer; One Will Need the Number of the Beast to Buy and Sell”. Debit cards are also identified as a mark of the beast!
2) a publication entitled “Declaration of Freedom” (http://www.librarything.com/author/gauvreaumurray), however I have not been able to obtain any further information beyond that this text may exist.
- Grande Prairie (City of) v. Gauvreau, 1998 ABQB 95: http://canlii.ca/t/5qlt
This obviously tells us nothing useful about Murray’s anti-tax stance, but it certainly offers a window into his ‘litigation strategies’ and perspective on government actors.
I have also identified a number of older decisions that do not appear to be available on free public services that could involve Gauvreau. The earliest is R. v. Gauvreau, [1988] A.J. No. 1360 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), and is a criminal action against a “Gavreau” or “Gauvreau” who had refused to answer certain Canada Census questions. The court found Gauvreau innocent as the questions related to activities that fell outside the strict boundaries of census information. This was an unwarranted search and seizure under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other information sources (see below) indicate this lawsuit did not involve Murray but instead the “Gauvreau” was his brother, Gary.
In 1995 Murray Gauvreau was the defendant in an unreported Grande Prairie Queen’s Bench lawsuit, R. v. Gauvreau, docket 9404-0009S20101. It appears this was Murray being tried for failing to file tax returns – we’ll return to that in a bit.
Chronologically Murray next potential involvement is in St-Laurent v. Canada, [1995] T.C.J. No. 809. In this litigation St-Laurent either failed to file tax returns or filed inaccurate tax returns in 1985-1988. St-Laurent stated he was an osteopath and "natural products" salesman: para. 1. (That certainly is a pattern, isn’t it?). The failure to file was allegedly tax evasion, the incorrect filings represented gross negligence: para. 7. St-Laurent disputed many of the alleged facts: para. 8.
An interesting but peripheral twist is that St-Laurent claimed significant costs resulted from a “personal investigation”, which involved a dispute over an anti-pollution carburetor system and “an ampere-inverter system” invented by a Vietnamese engineer. St-Laurant has a complicated tale as how the related patents were stolen from him: paras 10-19.
St-Laurent also had a legal argument:
The three articles from “Vers Demain” (“To Tomorrow”) duplicate in part the table of contents of the 1994 “Michael Journal” issue identified above, so I think we’re perhaps looking at the same source. The third item is the Supreme Court of Canada case identified by Murray in the paper cited above – so we’re definitely seeing an attempt to use Murray’s tax denial technique.29 The appellant filed the following documents with the Court:
- (1) three articles published in the August and September 1993 issue of the newspaper "Vers Demain":
(2)a work published in March 1972 entitled "Doit-on me fusiller" by R. Rogers Smith;
- (1) "L'impôt fédéral sur le revenu, inconstitutionnel" by Murray Gauvreau;
(2) "Les banquiers internationaux dominent le globe terrestre" by Rolland Tessier;
(3) "La Bête de l'Apocalypse : 666" by Gilberte Côté-Mercier;
(3) a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Nova Scotia (appellant) and Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and Lord Nelson Hotel Company Limited (intervener), S.C.R., 1951, pp. 31 ff.
St-Laurent also makes the neat argument that since osteopathy is not a recognized medical discipline any income he made from that can’t be taxable. That’s rejected by the court as even income from illegal activity is still income: para 34. St-Laurent’s attempt to claim his cigarette costs as an expense were also rejected: para 36.
The Gauvreau 'tax is illegal argument' is rejected because Murray has mis-stated the actual meaning of that case.
St-Laurent was found guilty of tax evasion for 1985-1987. There is no indication in this case that Gauvreau was personally involved in any way. It may be St-Laurant simply attempted to use Gauvreau’s arguments that he had extracted from documentary sources, and nothing more.38 This issue was settled definitively by the British Privy Council in 1924, confirming the Supreme Court of Canada which had confirmed a judgment of the Exchequer Court (4.02(2)1)).
39 The fundamental argument is that subsection 91(3) of the Constitution gives the Government of Canada the power to collect monies by any mode or system of taxation.
40 Consequently, the Income Tax Act's constitutionality may not be doubted.
41 In the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Nova Scotia (4.02(1)(3)) referred to by the appellant, the point at issue was whether a mutual delegation of powers between the federal government and certain Maritime provinces was constitutional. The Court concluded that it was not, stating that such a practice would render useless the division of powers provided in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution.
42 That decision is therefore not relevant in the instant case.
43 4.06 The Court also considered the other documents filed by the appellant (4.02(1)(2)). It concludes that they are not relevant to the years in issue.
The next occasion where Gauvreau appears is R. v. Strang (1997), 207 A.R. 72, 53 Alta. L.R. (3d) 100 (Alta. Q.B.). In 1992 Stang failed to file an income tax return, which led to a 1996 conviction and fine of $2500 or 4 months in jail.
Stang now appealed that result on three grounds (para 4):
The first issue is disposed of very briefly by reference to that unpublished 1995 Murray Gauvreau decision mentioned above (para 6):1. The federal Income Tax Act is ultra vires the federal government under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982, and is thus unconstitutional, and
2. The charge and the demand made upon the Appellant are both made under the wrong section of the Income Tax Act, and should have been made under section 150(2) of the Act. This is because there was no proof tendered at the trial of an ongoing investigation into the tax liability of a person or persons. The Appellant argues that such an investigation is a prerequisite to the making of a demand under Section 231.2(1), but would not be a prerequisite to a demand made under section 150(2). The failure to prove the existence of an investigation as an element of the offence under Section 231.2(1) is fatal to the conviction, and
3. Assuming that there is a requirement under the Income Tax Act that the Appellant file an Individual Income Tax Return, and that proper demand was made for this information, the document filed on June 30, 1994 qualifies as a tax return on the basis of the evidence because there is no provision within the Act which defines what constitutes a "completed" tax return.
We won’t worry about the second issue. The third one is fun; Stang sent in a nonsense return, and argued that satisfied his Income Tax Act obligations!On argument number one, the argument was that the Income Tax Act and any action taken by Revenue Canada and the Department of National Revenue under the Act are unconstitutional. Although this argument was raised in the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, it was abandoned by counsel in oral argument. While it is therefore not necessary to respond to this argument, had it been necessary, I would have upheld the trial judge's application of Mr. Justice Cooke's decision in Her Majesty the Queen v. Murray Gavreau (19 June 1995), Grande Prairie 9404-0009S20101 (Alta. Q.B.), wherein Cooke, J. states, at p. 6:
I am bound by the decision in Caron v. The King and a long line of similar authorities including, Winterhaven Stables Ltd. v. A.G. (1988), 53 D.L.R. (4th) 413 and Re GST (1992), 138 N.R. 247. These authorities recognize the power of the Federal Government to impose direct taxes.
Justice Fraser concludes this does not satisfy the requirements to file a tax return (para 18):16 In response to the demand served on the Appellant on June 3, 1994, a unsigned typewritten T-1 form of the return was filed with Revenue Canada in the Appellant's name. The evidence before the trial judge included, inter alia, the following answers by the Appellant to questions included in the return in question:
In response to Revenue Canada's demand for a Statement of all Assets and Liabilities and a Statement of all Income and Expenses, the Appellant states:
- Line Question - Appellant's Answer
10 Commissions - I WISH
10 Other employment income - NOT A WAITER
11 Old Age Security pension - NOT THAT OLD
11 Canada or Quebec Pension Plan benefits - LIKEWISE
12 Interest and other investment income - CAN'T AFFORD
12 Partnership income - NO PARTNERS
12 Net - FROM WHAT
12 Alimony or separation allowance income - CAN'T PAY
12 Registered retirement savings plan income - CAN'T AFFORD THOSE
13 Other income - WHAT OTHER INCOME?
14 Workers' Compensation payments - WHY PAY FOR NO COMPENSATION?
14 Social assistance payments - ALL ASSISTANCE WELCOME
14 Net federal supplements - DREAM ON
15 Total income - NO BEADS ON ABACUS
15 Disability benefits - NONSENSE
16 Business income - Gross - MY BUSINESS, NOT YOURS
16 Professional income - Gross - NOT A PROFESSIONAL
16 Farming income - Gross - NOT A FARMER, IF SO, LESS THAN ZERO
17 Fishing income - Gross - NOT A FISHERMAN EITHER, SEE ABOVE
26 Taxable income - HARD DRIVE NOT HARD ENOUGH
30 Basic personal amount - I THINK I'M WORTH MORE
30 Age amount - NOT THAT OLD YET
30 Married amount - n/a
30 Amount for dependent children - n/a
30 Additional personal amounts - AMOUNTS OF WHAT?
30 Canada or Quebec Pension Plan - JUST ABOUT BANKRUPT
31 Contributions payable on self-employment earnings - CONTRIBUTE TO REV. CAN BENEVOLENT FUND?
31 Unemployment Insurance premiums - NON-CONTRIBUTOR
31 Pension income amount - NO PENSION
31 Disability amount - NO DISABILITY
31 Disability amount transferred from a dependent other than your spouse - WHAT???
32 Tuition fees - KNOW LOTS
32 Education amount - PREVIOUSLY EDUCATED
32 Tuition fees and education amount transferred from a child - DON'T TAKE MONEY FROM KIDS
32 Amounts transferred from your spouse - AMOUNTS OF WHAT?
33 Medical expenses - NO MEDICINE
33 Allowable portion of medical expense - n/a
33 Total of 300 - 326 - TRY CRYSTAL BALL
33 Multiply 335 by 17% - 17% of CRYSTAL BALL
34 Charitable donations - CAN'T AFFORD DONATIONS
34 Gifts to Canada or a province - GIVE ME SOMETHING FOR A CHANGE
34 Total donations - WHAT IS ZERO PLUS ZERO
34 Enter amount from line 344 - SEE ABOVE
34 Multiply that amount by 17% - 17% OF ABOVE
34 Subtract line 345 from 344 x 29% - SEE ABOVE 29 PER CENT
35 Total non-refundable tax credits - GUESS WORK
- ASSETS: NEGLIGIBLE; ... MORTGAGED UP PAST THE HIGH WATER MARK ON MY STANFIELD'S. MAY NEVER SEE DAYLIGHT AGAIN.
LIABILITIES: VIRTUALLY LIMITLESS; ... CPI TOO HIGH RETAIL INFLATION TOO HIGH, (WHO CAN BUY AT WHOLESALE LEVEL? ... I CAN'T)!! TOO MANY TAXES.
INCOME: NOT ENOUGH ... NOT EVEN HALF ENOUGH! REQUIRE MINIMUM 48 HOUR DAYS. HAVE PARLIAMENT MAKE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION.
EXPENSES: TOO MANY ... (TOO NUMEROUS TO MENTION) TOO MUCH ... (CAN'T AFFORD MOST) NOT FAR ENOUGH APART ... (GET NEW ONES BEFORE OLD ONES ARE GONE).
Interestingly, this is also an issue that came up at the 1995 R. v. Murray Gauvreau Grande Prairie decision (para 17):I do not agree with the Appellant's argument that the finding of the trial judge is contrary to the evidence which was put before him, and was thus an error in law. I have no difficulty finding that the Appellant's use of words such as "ZILCH", "ZERO", "n/a", "NIX", and "NIL" in response to some of the questions on his return are adequate answers of sufficient clarity to the questions involved. However, other answers, such as "FROM WHAT", "MY BUSINESS, NOT YOURS", "NO BEADS ON ABACUS", and "TRY CRYSTAL BALL" do not answer the question asked. As a result, all of the Appellant's answers taken together do not provide Revenue Canada with enough information to assess the Appellant's income. Although there may be no definition of a "complete" T-1 Form in the Income Tax Act, logic indicates that the purpose for filling out an Individual Income Tax Return is to provide Revenue Canada with information adequate to permit it to determine an individual's tax liability. If information is not provided to Revenue Canada in a tax return as required by the return, or which is otherwise adequate to permit an assessment to be made, then the tax return provided will not in law constitute a return. The information provided by the accused was not adequate for this purpose. The trial judge was therefore correct in my view in holding that the Appellant did not file a completed tax return as required by the demand. That view does not however answer the Appellant's argument which was that the Income Tax Act did not require him to file a "completed return".
This hints that Murray also used the ‘fill in any old nonsense’ approach to evade his tax obligation.The trial judge reached the conclusion "that the tax return submitted by the Appellant did not qualify as a tax return at all as it was completely incapable of being assessed". I agree with that opinion. I do so on the basis of agreement with the opinion of Mr. Justice Cooke in Gavreau that "The information contemplated by [Section 231.2] must simply be of sufficient clarity and completeness that the Department can develop a Notice of Assessment".
The reference by Justice Fraser to the 1995 Gauvreau reasons suggests that it exists in some documentary form, somewhere, but where? I don’t know. It’s a point on which I will continue to do some more research.
So, in brief, it appears that the Murray Gauvreau anti-tax scheme has two parts:
- 1) cite Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1951] S.C.R. 31 (http://canlii.ca/t/22rw9) as an authority that the Federal government of Canada has no authority to administer income tax, and
2) file nonsense income tax returns.
This is one of those awful UK-style appellate judgments where each of the judges feels it’s necessary to make their own decision, leaving the reader to sometimes wonder just what the heck the message is. (Canada’s appellate courts quit doing that a few years ago – a blessing to all humanity.) I’ve reread this horrible and turgid bit of jurisprudence a few times, trying to sift out any passage that would be misconstrued to mean not only that the Federal government cannot transfer to a province its indirect tax authority, but that the Federal government never had an income tax jurisdiction at all. And I just don’t see it. This is a horrible, wordy, pompous, gratuitously lengthy piece of writing – but it just doesn’t say anything like that.
So how did this scheme ever get off the ground? It makes no sense that a Supreme Court of Canada decision that said “no income tax” would linger, undiscovered, for 40 years? It’s just weird anyone would find that explanation makes any sense at all. So – my only very weak explanation is that when Gauvreau was active there really was nowhere near the current access to legal information, even such basic things as a Supreme Court of Canada judgment. People might believe because they could not easily check out the accuracy of an apparently preposterous claim.
So that’s the legal side of Murray Gauvreau and his activities. Not much of a footprint. Attempts to learn more about him and his activities were generally unsuccessful. There are numerous reports that Gauvreau had links to white supremacist/racist groups, particularly an entity called the “Canadian League of Rights” (http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/3105) (http://onepeoplesproject.com/index.php/ ... e-deceased) (http://memebee.com/vancouver/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23843). The most detailed review of that organization appears here, in a review by David Lethbridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lethbridge), a psychology professor and head of the Bethune Institute: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/087.html
Gauvreau is also linked with Paul Fromm’s “Alternative Forum”, also known as a forum for racist beliefs (http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/cafe/ ... s?start=18).
There is only one other source I have identified that offers more insight into Murray Gauvreau, his history, beliefs, and litigation. A now long defunct weekly news magazine, “Alberta Report”, published a series of articles in 1993-1994 which appear to track Gauvreau’s income tax litigation. At this point I think it’s only appropriate to put in a colossal thanks to my local public librarians to whom I turned to try to find excerpts from this obscure publication. They delivered, after only a minimum of grumbling about “How are we going to get ahold of a regional publication from Alberta over here? And do you know how many times this stupid magazine changed its name?”
Rather than have anyone else go through the struggle of locating this material, I’ll reproduce it in full:
Alberta Report, 1993, Vol. 20, Issue 47, pp. 24-25
Alberta Report, 1994, Vol. 21, Issue 11, p. 43Taking on 76 years of taxation
Ottawa tangles with an Albertan who hasn’t paid up for 15 years
In 1978, small businessman Murray Gauvreau concluded that federal income taxes are unconstitutional. Since then, the resident of Grovedale, just outside of Grande Prairie, has sent his tax return directly to Ottawa’s “Minister of Extortion” – without revealing how much he’s earned or paying anything. “I just give ‘em more legal verbiage. That’s all they have a right to,” declares Mr. Gauvreau. “I’ve been daring them to take me to court for 15 years now.”
Mr. Gauvreau is finally getting his wish. On October 13, he entered a not guilty plea in Grande Prairie provincial court on two counts of failing to file a tax return.
Victoria lawyer Doug Christie, who defended both Jim Keegstra and Ernst Zundel on hate charges, is handling the case. Mr. Christie says he’ll likely pursue Mr. Gauvreau’s contention that federal income taxation is unconstitutional. “I don’t generally discuss my plans before the trial,” the lawyer comments. “I’ll just say that the BNA Act gives power of indirect taxation to the feds, and direct taxation only to the provinces.” Some question whether courts would even consider a defence that, if successful, could mean dismantling the entire federal revenue structure. “The may not like it,” counters Mr. Christie, “but they’ll have to hear it.”
Mr. Gauvreau says Mr. Christie is happy to take the case. “He wouldn’t tell me what he was going to do either,” he chuckles. “But then I showed him my materials, he just laughed and said “We’re going to have fun on this one.”
According to Mr. Gauvreau, the 1917 War Income Tax Act, which first granted Ottawa income tax powers, had a “sunset clause” limiting it to two years. Nevertheless, the government kept on collecting income taxes without legal authority until the 1941 Tax Rental Agreement between Ottawa and the provinces “redistributed” some direct taxation powers to the federal government. But in 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada rules unanimously that Ottawa and the provinces cannot simply trade constitutional powers back and forth. Mr. Gauvreau says that decision was simply ignored. “We’ve been duped,” he insists. “Canadians always assumed their government obeys its own law. They’re just staring to realize it doesn’t.”
Over the last decade, anti-government crusading has become a consuming passion for Mr. Gauvreau’s family. Brother Gary, a Ponoka-area service station operator, waged a two-year battle with Statistics Canada in the late 1980’s before winning the right to ignore census questions that go beyond simple head counting. In 1991, Gary’s wife Myra began deducting the GST from her utility bill payments and refusing to collect it on her video store’s sales. Three other Gauvreau brothers in the Peace River area have also taken part in tax protests.
“We’ve spoken to over 400 meeting across the country, over 50,000 people,” Murray Gauvreau says. “And we’re publishing a newsletter now called Let’s Take our CountryBack. But we’ve got to do more. We’ve got to be prepared to go to jail, if that’s what it takes to fight an illegal government.”
Mr. Gauvreau believes Canada’s fundamental problem is an excessive faith in government. Over time, that has led citizens to accept the state’s claim that it really is the country. “So now we’ve got complete consolidation of power in the hands of politicians,” he laments. “And you know how the dictionary defines a politician: ‘Someone who holds office for his own gain.’ It’s got to stop. We need to stand up against illegal government. Our grandfathers did.”
-Joe Woodard
Alberta Report, 1994, Vol. 21, Issue 26, p. 51Tax challenge goes to court
Murray Gauvreau of Grande Prairie was in court two weeks ago to defend his argument that federal income tax is unconstitutional (“Taking on 76 years of taxation,” Nov. 8, 1993). The self-employed businessman faces two charges of failing to file income tax returns. Mr. Gauvreau, who is defended by Victoria lawyer Doug Christie, could receive a fine between $1,000 and $25,000 on each charge.
These reports seem to relate to Gauvreau’s initial and unreported Provincial Court trial. Alberta Report does not provide any parallel reporting on Murray's subsequent 1995 appeal in Queen’s Bench. The scheme explained in the Gauvreau Alberta Report interview does appear different from the available reported case law, but not in any legally meaningful way. For example, whether or not the original Canadian tax provisions had a sunset clause is irrelevant provided subsequent legislation was constitutionally valid.Revenue Canada still rules
Murray Gauvreau of Grovedale, near Grande Prairie, lost his bid to have federal income tax declared unconstitutional. Judge A.P. Demong last week fined Mr. Gauvreau $1,000 per year for failing to file tax returns in 1990 and 1991 ( “Taking on 76 years of taxation,” Nov. 8, 1993). The tax-fighter had sent in returns covered with sardonic remarks but no information on his return.
So that’s what I have identified to date. Gauvreau’s scheme is, frankly, crude and artificial. His legal argument is nothing more than a total misreading of a (less than erudite) Supreme Court of Canada decision. His alternative approach of filling out income tax returns with gibberish is an obvious attempt bypass his legal requirements to file returns in a frivolous manner.
I have occasionally encountered ‘echos’ of Gauvreau’s scheme in more recent OPCA litigation and citation of Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1951] S.C.R. 31. I think it’s fair to say that if this legislation is cited as the “Lord Nelson Hotel” case then that we can assume Gauvreau’s ideas were at least a contributing influence.
My research did not identify any activity by Gauvreau post 2000. It will be interesting to see if Gauvreau re-emerges given his brother, Glenn of Fearn’s, ongoing litigation.
SMS Möwe
