CBRM Taxes Trending Upwards While HRM Trends Downwards.

Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness Follow Me

Posted this 2024-11-07 12:25 PM AST

Maybe simple visuals will help us understand the taxation and equalization situation we have going on here in this province. You can clearly see that the HRM’s property taxes are trending downwards while the CBRM trends upwards. Now here is what the constitution says why equalization is provided to a receiving province: “Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation” The CBRM, Provincial and Federal representatives had better start to provide explanations to the residents who are paying some of the highest property taxes in North America while we watch the HRM pay less than half what we do in the CBRM. It is time that our elected representatives, who are paid handsomely to represent us, started doing their job and earning their pay.

Posted by Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW

Like 3 Dislike 0

FOLLOW 9

3,499 17

17

Depth
Charles Sampson Follow Me 2024-11-10 11:28 AM AST Reply 0 0 The provincial government’s corruption scandal apparently is too embarrassing for it to explain why the federal Equalization funding this year of $3.284 billion has a municipal category that generated over $650 million. Despite this enshrined constitutionally connected funding, the provincial government equalization grant to all its municipal governments still is only $30 million! Meanwhile, municipalities are seriously financially struggling and five towns have already ended and dissolved. This fact was established in the Federation of NS Municipalities’ 2005 report, “A QUESTION OF BALANCE.” That report stated the provincial equalization grant funded approximately only 40% of a municipality’s normal expenditures and municipal governments could not comply with their obligation pursuant to section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982. CBRM’s municipal taxes are constitutionally far too high and our MLAs appear to have been read the riot act regarding any form of questioning government about the federal Equalization funding’s disbursements within this province. Unless the residents of the CBRM take this issue seriously and demand those running for public office to state publicly that they are going to demand from government full transparency and accountability for the federal Equalization transfers, your entitlement from this government created law will never be fulfilled. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2024-11-10 12:16 PM AST Reply 2 0 Charles, I hope you don't mind me sharing a thought here as I'm only trying to be helpful to your cause. When NSEF supporters keep mentioning the $30 million number, it doesn't help the cause. The reason is that informed people and the politicians know that the Province of NS certainly invests much, much more than that in CBRM. They know that the $30M is intended to be a topup amount, not the entire amount. Investments in schools, hospitals, roads, etc. are all part of equalization in one way or another. I totally agree that the $30 million topup is nowhere near enough to balance everything out. The unusually high property taxes are clear evidence that something is wrong. And I support the NSEF fight for fairness. But I can tell you, with certainty, that the $30 million messaging hurts the cause because it makes NSEF and the request for more funds seem unreasonable. When politicians get it in their minds that a citizen or group makes an unreasonable request, then they tune out. Politicians deal with lots of unreasonable people and requests every day, so they are conditioned to tune those out. The better messaging, which you and the NSEF have used as well, is the request for a financial audit. Requesting that the government provide ballpark data on where and how much money is being spent throughout the Province is a very reasonable request. In fact, it should be data provided to the public every year for transparency — citizens shouldn't even have to ask for it. I've heard some people, who are crticial of NSEF, say that it's impossible for the government to gather such data. Hogwash I say to that. There are countless highly-paid employees in the Department of Finance whose jobs are to track money in one way or another. And if our government is not tracking money closely enough to know how and where it is being spent, then it's reasonable to assume that the money is very likely being mismanaged. Show me the money, I say! [comment deleted] Posted 2024-11-10 1:46 PM AST
Charles Sampson Follow Me 2024-11-10 4:42 PM AST Reply 2 0 And Matthew, no problem with your observation or criticism. Some unexplained government actions the NSEF had to deal with: This issue of accountability can be managed as a separate account instead of hiding it in general revenues, to answer the person who mentioned government cannot gather that data. The federal government transfers it “unconditionally” but cannot provide the legal reference that authorizes this practice. The NS Appeal Court ruled this section 36 can only be actioned by the two levels of government who were privy to what is represented by s.36. That ignored a prior 1950 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that the constitution does not belong to Parliament or to any of the Legislatures; it belongs to the country, and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled. However, the federal minister of justice has not answered this legally bizarre development. Is the Supreme Court’s legal supremacy in question. Then there is federal MP MIKE KELLOWAY, when we met in his office, he provided us with a legal opinion which was published in the Dalhousie Law Journal that DOESN’T support an unconditional federal Equalization transfer. Mike told us this legal scholar did support an unconditional transfer. Mike either didn’t read this article or if he did read it, he tried to misinform us. Apparently, government transparency and accountability is not automatic in this “democracy.” Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2024-11-10 5:32 PM AST Reply 4 0 Lack of transparency and accountability have been ongoing problems in NS and Cape Breton and contribute to all sorts of our problems.
Charles Sampson Follow Me 2024-11-11 10:14 AM AST Reply 3 0 Matthew, your earlier comment, “Investments in schools, hospitals, roads, etc. are all part of equalization in one way or another.” is significant and important to note that section 36(1)(c) covers these and because these essential public services are noted to be “provided” to “all Canadians” precludes this federal funding from being a provincial constitutional responsibility. Because of the wording, this funding is a federal responsibility and therefore requires the transfer to be a “conditional” one to ensure a national standard is maintained to all Canadians. Thanks for mentioning this point. This is another reason why the government’s lack of transparency about these federal Equalization funding is not helping. And when the NSEF citizens committee confirmed “the fact” of the federal Equalization formula has a municipal funding category, which represents a significant portion of the yearly total federal Equalization total, it provided the committee with a constitutional funding reference to focus on. Focussing on this one category of the five in the formula this year alone means this category has funded the province’s municipalities over $650 million. That is why the NSEF committee mentions the inadequate provincial government’s equalization grant of $30 million. Since this is a constitutional requirement enshrined by government, citizens are provided with the legal and constitutional authority to question their government on its compliance with this part of the supreme law of this country. The 1950 Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the constitution of Canada belongs to the country and NOT to the government. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2024-11-11 11:53 AM AST Reply 2 0 Charles, it's certainly important that NSEF members like you know these details to help support the cause and counter arguments from the other side that are baseless in fact. For the public, a simplified message is needed, I will post that in another comment.
Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2024-11-11 11:58 AM AST Reply 2 0 [Here is how I would communicate this issue] [1 of 2] Did you know that our very own federal government of Canada incentivizes Halifax bureaucrats and politicians to keep Cape Breton economically depressed? Sounds crazy, but it's true. Here's how — every year, the federal government transfers billions of dollars from financially strong provinces to the provinces in need. It's called Equalization and it’s intended to make sure that all Canadian citizens across our vast country are provided the same level of public services no matter where we live. Equalization is about fairness, since some parts of Canada have more natural resources and other benefits that belong to all Canadians and should benefit everyone. Nova Scotia is one of the provinces that receives Equalization funds, recently in the range of $3 billion dollars. Only Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan have not received Equalization funds. [1 of 2]
Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2024-11-11 11:58 AM AST Reply 2 0 [2 of 2] The problem is that the federal government gives this money to the Province of NS with no strings attached and no oversight. This means that the Halifax bureaucrats and politicians can spend the money however they want (and they do). With most of the 49 municipalities in NS struggling to survive and provide services to citizens, it seems clear that the Equalization money is not being spent in the spirit in which it is intended. Cape Breton citizens, in particular, are taxed much, much higher than other parts of Nova Scotia and Canada — yet our roads, infrastructure, and other public services are greatly lacking. But, if the Halifax bureaucrats and politicians make things better for Cape Breton, then it may result in NS receiving less Equalization money. So our very own federal government, through its lack of oversight, is incentivizing our government leaders to keep Cape Breton economically depressed. Equally bad is that our government leaders refuse to provide an accounting of how and where Equalization money is being spent. What are we to do?
Charles Sampson Follow Me 2024-11-11 1:37 PM AST Reply 1 0 Matthew, do you remember when mayor Morgan was reported to the Bar Association by another local lawyer for making a comment on the CBC that there are no tree shakers in the N.S. Judicial system? Therefore, it was necessary to go outside the legal system of N.S. Just prior to the CBRM’s appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, a recent appointment to this court was from the superior court of N.S. and he was also on the Gatekeeper Committee of three of the SCOC, which decides which cases are to go forward to be heard by the full court. It is not difficult to image how much discussion was given to the CBRM’s case. Morgan’s concern had arrived at the highest judicial level. And many people mistakenly conclude the CBRM lost its appeal. The court instead decided not to decide in my opinion.. Under a different court application it still could move forward. So far, lawyers are aware of this situation, but like the elected politicians are cautioned against taking on this case. IMO, the N.S. Appeal Court ruling was overkill, as I believe the judge received a call to make a ruling that this equalization issue will be forever put to rest. Then the earlier Supreme Court of Canada case was discovered by the NSEF committee, which no one will discuss its legal impact on the lower court ruling in NS. In trying to explain this government manipulation of these federal Equalization transfers, comments about the legal process are introduced as already having been lost. Personally, I think enough time has been spent trying to pressure government to be transparent. The sooner a lawyer can take on this issue and present the government’s own data before a trial judge, is the quicker way to go. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2024-11-11 2:30 PM AST Reply 1 0 Yes, I remember. I also remember a reported $0.5 million spent by CBRM on legal fees to even get to that point. I'm sure there are shenanigans at play behind the scenes. I can also see why most NS lawyers won't take this case on as they fear losing business in our tiny province. If we were in the USA, there would be many lawyers/nonprofits/interest groups lining up to challenge the government. But we don't have much of that in Canada and certainly not NS. In any event, if NSEF believes the one and only route to success is through the courts, then I might suggest that NSEF exclusively invest all time and effort into finding a lawyer somewhere in Canada to take on the case pro bono who wants to make a name for themselves. Or find a foundation or special interest group to fund it. I'm not convinced that the legal route is the best option. Certainly, it's probably the only option that could possible offer a home-run result. But the chances of the stars aligning for that to happen any time soon is tiny. The only other option is a combination of pressure and negotiations. This is more likely to result in hitting a single or a double, maybe even a triple if the stars align. This has already proven to work in some way. With better strategy and execution, I think the double is achievable within a reasonable time frame. But for those who will not accept anything but a home run, then I think the legal route is the only option. Charles Sampson Follow Me 2024-11-11 5:35 PM AST Reply 3 0 The legal fee of $0.5 million I was told was lowered by the lawyer because he wanted the case since it was the first legal case to test this issue and he was hoping to win it. The message from other lawyers at the time was he was the best constitutional courtroom lawyer for hire. There is no slam dunk win by the courts either. Even a Declaration from the court that the evidence accepted in court is sufficient to issue this Declaration that the provincial government presently is not in compliance with its constitutional obligation pursuant to s.36 of the Constitution Act, 1984 woul be a win. The Declaration can say it is up to the province to rearrange its financial affairs to comply with the Constitution. Charles Sampson Follow Me 2024-11-11 8:59 PM AST Reply 1 0 The date should have been 1982, not 1984.
Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness My Post Follow Me 2024-11-11 4:06 PM AST Reply 4 0 Great conversation gentlemen. Mathew, feel free to speak directly to our board anytime. We encourage the input and opportunity to hear your thoughts on equalization. We could set up a conference call and send you a sign in code. It's quick and simple and we are sure our board would love the opportunity. Go Cape Breton is a platform that is well respected and we appreciate what you have built for the community and welcome your suggestions. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2024-11-11 9:33 PM AST Reply 2 0 Thank you. I'm happy to offer my observations to your board if you think it would be helpful. Although they are going to be basically what I've written here. My view is from a communication and strategy perspective rather than legal or legislative. Barry Smith Follow Me 2024-11-12 8:37 AM AST Reply 2 0 The first issue which should be addressed....is the CBRM living beyond it's means.most people who I talk with agree it is. So why is it never mentioned by NSEF? Also has poor planning put us in a bad situation...example look what happen to the $15 million that was given to CBRM. I showed with a letter to the editor to the Cape Breton Post that we could have leveraged that money to have a new library. Poor or no planning will do you in every time. Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness My Post Follow Me 2024-11-12 10:05 AM AST Reply 3 0 Hi Barry. We have heard this before and we are not saying that is not happening, but the CBRM has been running the municipality on $160 to $170 million per year for many years now. A similar size municipality in Canada, of roughly the same population, operates on $300 to $450 million per year on average. We did a study in the past few years on this and posted it. Peterborough, Ontario was one that was closest to us except it was a tight municipality and not spread out as wide as we are in the CBRM. Has money been wasted in the CBRM? absolutely and it seems that Halifax does not want to give us funding because it never seems to reach the people of our municipality but always ends up in the hands a few businesspeople around here. The feasibility study was one example. We attended and we were looking for the actual report and they told us we had it in our hands. It was about 5 pages long and had balloons with writing in it saying police services were costing too much, etc. A lot of money was wasted on that report that any person who watches what is going on, could tell them that. We need to demand complete citizen oversight in the CBRM to make sure that we are not only getting our fair share but that it is being spent correctly to benefit ALL residents of the CBRM. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2024-11-12 11:52 AM AST Reply 4 0 Barry, I'm sure we could find many inefficiencies in CBRM operations. But I doubt it would save enough money to afford us the investments needed for a community of our size. The decision to apply the $15 million equalization top up to tax reduction for one year was dumb. Not only did it do nothing for us collectively, but it made our leadership look too foolish to trust with any more money. CBRM needs better leadership, efficient and transparent operations, and more money.