Mayoral Candidates Must Face The Harsh Reality About Equalization

Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness Follow Me

Posted this 2024-10-11 12:17 PM ADT

I attended the mayoral debate the other evening at Center 200. I was pleasantly surprised at how many times “equalization” was mentioned and at the same time very concerned. Equalization was mentioned as a solution to a lot of our problems and that is where my concern lies. A few of the candidates mentioned that they intend to negotiate with the province for an increase in equalization to solve our many problems such as housing, homelessness and excessive taxation. I am here today to tell you that will not happen. I have been at the equalization battle for over 30 years, and we tried that approach for the first 20 years with zero success. We were cordial and respectful in our approach, but no elected politician would come to the table to discuss equalization once elected. You see, the money interests in Halifax run the show and until we see a premier who works for the people and not the elite, there will be no negotiations. To quote former Finance Minister Graham Steele in his book, What I learned About Politics, “All substantial decisions on bills and budgets are made elsewhere, the truth is that Province house is not the place from which Nova Scotia is governed. The real decisions-making about everything-health, education, support for the poor and disabled, justice, transportation- happens behind closed doors in office buildings scattered around downtown Halifax”. The candidates of the 2024 mayoral race are only fooling themselves, and us with them, if they believe for one second that when they are successful in their bid to become mayor of the CBRM that the Premier of Nova Scotia is going to open up his door and offer up the funding that they are now 100% addicted to. They have kept the CBRM in a poor fiscal capacity situation to generate more equalization, why would they give us more? Tim Houston saw the need to double our payment from $15 million to $30 million. Once elected and when the negotiation of bill 340 were completed, we will see even less than $15 million. I believe it will be $13 million next year while the province receives $3.284 billion because of the CBRM and rural Nova Scotia’s poor fiscal capacity situation. We even saw 5 Cape Breton MLAs (Brian Comer, Keith Bain, John White, Allan McMaster and Trevor Boudreau) vote against amendments presented by the opposition to see a separate deal for the CBRM. Our own MLAs voting against us with a better deal with the province is disgusting. Party politics has become the worst enemy of Cape Breton. Cecil Clarke said “we get our fair share” in 2004 when he was a high-ranking minister in the PC government and now wants to be your mayor again. The next mayor of the CBRM should consider rallying the people to protest and demand fairness. The legal route should also be considered and perhaps a Charter of Rights and Freedom challenge or possibly a Human Rights complaint but to think the province is going to be open to negotiation is delusional. They have never treated us fairly, so why would they start now? When we started to protest and demand fairness, we saw the provincial government spend a billion dollars in the CBRM. Perhaps more of the same is needed. Rev. Dr. Albert Maroun

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 2 Dislike 0

FOLLOW 9

1,327 14

14

Depth
Joe Ward Follow Me 2024-10-11 2:23 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Hi everyone, the NSEF have been tireless in their efforts to bring more resources to the CBRM. When I saw there post, I immediately offered the following reply: Part I: Father Maroun, it was great to get to say hello to you at the debate. You and the NSEF must be incredibly tired of listening to the platitudes about equalization—during election time, but scarcely mentioned afterwards. I am a supporter of the pursuit of more resources, and said resources whether it's cash in, or provincial expenses removed, come from equalization funding—without which our province would be bankrupt. It doesn't matter what they call it, that's where it comes from. With that said, I also clearly advocated for a multi-faceted plan to fix taxes that is based on negotiations. I hear your doubt, and the ground that we broke with Houston doubling the grant seemed to have taken a backslide with Bill 340. The grant itself declined, while any net that resulted will quickly be consumed in a few years. Joe Ward Follow Me 2024-10-11 2:24 PM ADT Reply 2 0 Part II: You and the board of the NSEF will have open access to me as the next mayor of the CBRM. Would you be willing to give me an 18-month window of opportunity to demonstrate progress on negotiation, of which you will be kept abreast of, and a key stakeholder to? I believe there is a path to negotiation, because housing has amplified a problem that will be very difficult for Houston's government to navigate during the next provincial election. This is the PEAK window of opportunity to secure another advancement. If that window passes, and he shuts out the CBRM or is rigid in any motion for these needs, then we can consider alternatives. The people of the CBRM want a solution. They respect resilience and standing strong. But, many are also wary of getting involved into lengthy delays of legal entanglement that could set us back a decade. I want to make sure we seize the opportunity to make an attempt at a solution in a way that, if successful, transforms the CBRM in the matter of a year, setting us on the path to fixing the distortions we've faced over the decades.—Joe
Raymond Mac Donald Follow Me 2024-10-11 4:06 PM ADT Reply 1 0 Right on Joe.The NSEF recommendation of protest/demand/legal action for a new administration whoever is successful is total nonsense.I negotiated daily with every walk of life in my past life.Negotiations don't go too well when you put a gun to someone's head.Common sense,diplomacy and finding common ground always prevail.Oh.just a side note....the new crew don't need permission from NSEF to do anything they see as bringing success. Joe Ward Follow Me 2024-10-11 9:59 PM ADT Reply 2 0 I see the NSEF as key allies, though I respect and understand the separation of roles should I be elected as mayor. The NSEF and I have a great relationship and speak openly and honestly. I respect Father Maroun, Russ Green, and the rest of the board, and I hold them in high regard. I am very focused on negotiations as a key strategy, but I fully understand why the organization is skeptical—having witnessed this repeatedly over many election cycles. I believe they should always be prepared to use all of their tactical levers when necessary, and that they should seek out all candidates to understand what they stand for and the various approaches they advocate. I will let them know where I'm at with negotiations, and I am confident that if I feel like we're in a position for a break through, the NSEF will support me in securing more resources for the CBRM—even if they ultimately still have larger objectives of ensuring that equalization resources are accounted for and fairly distributed to municipalities in a way that meets the constitutional intention. My approach will be to initiate negotiations, but also to continue to seek responses from all relevant government organizations and representatives on questions that the NSEF have raised, to help better understand how the program is being managed and distributed. And, I have let the NSEF know for full disclosure.
[comment deleted] Posted 2024-10-15 9:13 AM ADT
Charles Sampson Follow Me 2024-10-15 9:39 AM ADT Reply 0 0 Raymond, you continue to make comments that are more reflective of a government troll. When has the NSEF or anyone else “put a gun to someone’s head” to negotiate? When has the government of any stripe been willing to come to the negotiating table to explain its own data? The optics of the decades of the refusal by government to be accountable and transparent regarding an enshrined constitutional obligation involving these federal yearly Equalization transfers suggest your idea is a complete waste of time. The fact that the 2009 N.S. Appeals Court ruled that s.36 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is “only” actionable by the two government levels who were privy to what is represented by s.36, should make residents of the CBRM more aware about the 1950 Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on who constitutionally owns our constitution. That 1950 SCOC decision states: “The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to 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.” And this is just one very important legal issue to correct. Raymond Mac Donald Follow Me 2024-10-15 9:47 AM ADT Reply 0 0 More of your "DRIBBLE" that most people won't read and those that do won't understand.By the way...I got a question for you guys.....if your whining/groaning/complaining/tactics haven't worked for 30 years and most people in power won't give you the time of day why do you persist???????? Isn't it time to give it up? Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness My Post Follow Me 2024-10-15 9:59 AM ADT Reply 0 0 You call it "DRIBBLE" when you do not understand and that just shows your level of intelligence and how ignorant you are. We relish the day when the new mayor is ignored in Halifax so we can tell you we told you so. You sir are a typical troll who hides behind your keyboard. Come out in puiblic and debate or keep your half baked, argumentative comments to yourself. Raymond Mac Donald Follow Me 2024-10-15 10:02 AM ADT Reply 0 0 Good answer. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2024-10-15 11:37 AM ADT Reply 1 0 Gentlemen, I've watched your back and forth now on many posts for a long time now, so I'm jumping in to offer some thoughts. Apologies for wearing my dad hat and offering some tough love here for both of you — I'm not looking to make enemies, but we need to keep goCapeBreton.com a safe place for discussion. RAYMOND — You do need to stop constantly criticizing NSEF while at the same time saying you do not know much about the issue because it's too in the weeds for you and everyone. You can't have it both ways. If you are not willing to go deep in the weeds, then let it be as you have already shared your opinion multiple times. But, if you choose to learn about the issue more deeply and still don't like it, then post a fair rebuttal using respectful language. Better yet, provide suggestions for improvement. Regardless of what anyone may think of NSEF, their efforts did result in Houston providing CBRM with $15 million (I know this for a fact through my private meetings with government officials). And I think the Province would have done more if CBRM council did not make such a poor decision with the money. In addition, consider the motivation — NSEF is doing this voluntarily for the benefit of Cape Breton, I cannot see any other agenda at play. CHARLES/NSEF: You can see that I support and respect your efforts. But Raymond is not wrong when he says that NSEF's messaging does not resonate with the wider population. It is too in the weeds and often too black and white when the issue is very grey. I'm not defending all of the politicians and bureaucrats who have been unwilling to share how public money is spent — that's unethical for sure. And that Cape Breton is being shortchanged, that too is happening. But how we frame all of this is just as important. Updating your communication strategy makes sense after all of these years. I hope you will all accept my feedback here in the positive spirit in which it is intended. Raymond Mac Donald Follow Me 2024-10-15 11:43 AM ADT Reply 1 0 With you 100% Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness My Post Follow Me 2024-10-15 1:06 PM ADT Reply 1 0 Understood Mathew and we are just going to change the lastest posting that we are currently working on and are currently taking out the "troll" comments as we speak. As long as Raymon does not comment on our postings, we will remain 100% respectful.
Charles Sampson Follow Me 2024-10-15 5:38 PM ADT Reply 1 0 Matthew, I did try not to come down too hard on Raymond. I try to use it to point out another problem with this program. I agree with you that the subject matter is not for everyone, but given the subject matter it is hard to make it any more entertaining. As the property taxes keep increasing, it appears more people are being adversely affected, and this may be what it taxes to get more people interested. I may be wrong, but I think Raymond is playing a role here; others have done so in the past and it had nothing to do with their inability to comprehend the subject matter. Mathew Georghiou Follow Me 2024-10-15 6:23 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Thanks Charles. I understand your concern that some people may be plants who are trying to cast doubt on certain causes. I have personally experienced this with community initiatives I was leading in the past. I don't have evidence of this happening on goCB but it's certainly possible. Regarding the equalization subject matter, I don't think it has to be made entertaining. Instead, I think it has to be presented in a way that anyone can understand and feel as though the initiative is altruistic and fair and that the end goal is rational and achievable. It has to be brief. And it has to be repeated everywhere using the same language. Charles Sampson Follow Me 2024-10-15 8:33 PM ADT Reply 0 0 Thanks for your reply. Regarding the Equalization formula, the difficult mathematical calculations are already done by the government, as you are aware of. So for most of the public, the amounts presented every year by the government are available to most of the public who have access to a computer. Perhaps what adds confusion for some of the public is the part the courts have played, and how both the governments and the courts continue to hide behind the 2009 N.S. Appeals Court decision I previously mentioned that, in my opinion, ignored a 1950 Supreme Court of Canada’s constitutional decision that it overturned or overruled as to whom the Canadian constitution has to belong to, and that is not to any government! The governments continue to transfer these Equalization transfers “unconditionally” but are unable to provide the constitutional reference for the authority to do so. In fact, s.36(1)(c) demands a “conditional” transfer, according to constitutional scholar Aymen Nader in his paper published in the Dalhousie Law Journal. These are some of the issues forwarded to the last three federal Justice Ministers who have not yet responded. This legal manipulation and the silence of the government, rather than any alleged formula complexity, is more a contributing factor to properly explaining this serious issue. And that adds to the difficulty of making it easier understood.