Policy Forum: A Critical Analysis of Property Taxation Under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act as a Self-Government Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) delegates the power to levy property taxes to band councils. The purpose of this article is to describe and analyze the effectiveness of the legislation as a self-government tool. Section 5(1) of the FMA allows band councils to levy property taxes both to increase their economic capacity—providing them with a source of income—and to improve self-government. However, this grant of power is subject to numerous conditions. These include compliance with the financial management requirements set out in the act, as well as approval of property tax laws by the First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC) (the majority of the members of which are appointed by the federal government). Also, the taxes imposed must comply with regulations set by the governor in council, which currently cover the property assessment process (including an appeal process), interest and penalties, and inspection of property. There have been two attempts by property taxpayers to overturn the decisions of the FNTC by way of judicial review. The fact that both were unsuccessful has somewhat mitigated criticism of the constraints on First Nation self-government imposed by the FMA. Overall, the federal government maintains significant control over the law-making process by which First Nations levy property taxes, both directly through regulations and indirectly through its dominant presence on the FNTC. Reform is needed: real powers need to be delegated to meet the stated objective of creating meaningful self-government for participating First Nations. The power to impose property taxes was first delegated to band councils by the Indian Act in 1951. Therefore, it is high time that First Nations be granted the right to exercise that power without federal intervention. Constitutional protection of the right to self-government must be the ultimate goal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".