I am a citizen already. Been so for 21 years.
You complying with laws in exchange for rights is called a Social Contract. People don't follow laws to because they don't want to be in jail. They follow laws because there are more reasons to be outside of one. If the state gives you nothing in return for following its laws, you leave, because it's a losing trade. If prisoners had more rights and freedom then citizens, everyone would be murdering everyone. Canada isn't a punitive state but one built on positive affirmation - that the individual is left alone to their own designs so long as they follow the laws, which includes paying taxes.
There is no other duty that the Canadian citizen must do more flawlessly and religiously every year than to pay taxes. You don't do your taxes right, you get audited, lose your healthcare, get fined or go to jail.
Your whole argument - that taxes are defined by laws, that laws are not an instrument of duty, and that the duty to pay taxes isn't an wealth transfer as part of the social contract - falls apart in the real world. People leave Nigeria, China, Russia or Burkina Faso because their social contracts suck. They pay taxes and get nothing in security, rights or protection in return. So they take their money and sign a new contract with a country that guarantees their rights like UK, US or Canada. Taxes are absolutely a foundation of exchange for you to purchase your rights whether you like it or not. If you lose your freedom because you don't pay taxes, it means the state doesn't care about your rights because you have failed to fulfill your end of the social contract. These contracts come with more than just enshrined laws. They also come with environments for you to enjoy political stability, free enterprise, intellectual property protection, healthcare, security of environment and many others. The implicit rights the state gives you are financed by your duty to pay taxes.
Theories and political philosophy are the reasons that legitimacy of rule exists. You take things out of context and then slap broad spectrum arguments on them. You're arguing from the point of political philosophy while saying political philosophy is wrong. What?
Laws also, by definition, cannot guarantee you rights. The rule of law isn't about making sure you have all the rights you want. It's about limiting how much you can exercise your rights given to you by the Charter, which isn't law, but a constitution and an enshrined guarantee. The SCOC then interprets that constitution based on laws.
I don't wanna argue with you over what essentially is a non-issue and your interpretation of our charter, of which you are less than qualified to do so. Your definitions of so many terms here are either technically wrong or categorically wrong and trying to correct them is just moot. You also make strawman arguments over and over. Derailing fun posts and jests over stupid things like this benefits no one, like you claiming carbon taxes tax emissions rather than carbon content when the levy is on weight and not aerosol volume.
So we agree to disagree.