P7E 1K7
March 19, 2008
Honourable Dwight Duncan Honourable Michael Gravelle
Minister of Finance Minister Of Northern Development and Mines
7 Queen’s
7th Fl
M7A 1Y7
Subject:
Dear Honourable Minister Duncan and Honourable Minister Gravelle
This letter is written on behalf of the Northern Light Lake Local Roads Board (NLLLRB) and our ratepayers to express our concerns and opinions on Bill 151 and provincial land tax reform. While it is a bit lengthy, and we do apologize in advance for this, the facts and details contained are rather important so please bear with us. The history of our local roads board and the geographic are we serve with vast tracts of Crown land and provincial parks are the foundation of our case and our request for fair taxes. We feel we have not been treated fairly thus far and that Bill 151 could very easily add to this already unfair tax burden.
First some
background information. Our local
roads board, the NLLLRB, is located at the terminus of Highway 588
approximately 80 kilometres south west of the City of
Our LRB was formed in May 1995 by a free and fair vote of ratepayers after it became apparent through lengthy negotiations with the Ministry of Natural Resources and three ministers of the Crown that the government of the day was no longer prepared to maintain the existing Northern Light Lake forest access road much less live up to their written promise to upgrade the road to highway standards and have it become an extension of Highway 588. This decision was made in spite of the fact that hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars had already been spent on upgrades of the NLL road to MTO highway standards. The MNR at the time was financially crippled by the government and could only commit to spending at best $5,000.00 a year to maintain the road. To put this amount in perspective our LRB currently spends in excess of $200,000.00 per year on annual maintenance and even this level is not sufficient so you can well imagine how far the MNR’s amount would go, not very far at all. Our ratepayers realized they had to take the initiative even though we are, as mentioned earlier, a minority user group. We also could not stand to see all the tax dollars already spent on fixing the road up to MTO highway standards thrown away so we voted overwhelmingly (85%) in favour of forming our NLLLRB and took on responsibility for the NLL road. As well an existing roads board, the North West Arrow Lake Roads Board, voted to dissolve their roads board and amalgamate with the newly established NLLRB even though they were under no obligation to do so and under the full understanding that this would result in an increase in taxes paid. It was the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. These actions very clearly show a sense of responsibility by our ratepayers and a firm belief that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and that significant tax increases should only be undertaken after full and open debate followed by a true democratic vote. Indeed to this day this process is still followed whereby our ratepayers at our annual meeting get to vote for minimum taxation levels that are binding. They can also make and pass resolutions to establish mill rates, that while not binding, can only be ignored by elected trustees at their own peril with the danger of not being re-elected, something that voters for other levels of government may find rather interesting to say the least.
Our decision to establish our LRB and to amalgamate were based on the many assurances received from the various Ministers and ministries involved that the current cost sharing levels of 2:1 (the MTO puts in $2.00 for every $1.00 our ratepayers put in plus there is an allowance for Crown lots) would remain in place because only a change in provincial legislation could do this and this had never ever been done before. This seemed rather reassuring and the risks seemed low. Who would bother changing things for small fry such as local roads boards? We also had a vested interest in that our camps were rather tough to relocate elsewhere and our properties even tougher to move so even though we were only 15% of the user group of the road, it seemed close enough, especially if you didn’t focus on the math for too long. Boy were we ever wrong! The situation changed very shortly after we formed our LRB and all our plans and good intentions were overthrown by the “Common Sense Revolution” and Bill 26, The Savings and Restructuring Act, which changed it all in 1996. Cost sharing was no longer guaranteed by legislation because among many other things Bill 26 changed one word in the LRB act. The word was “shall” and it was changed to “may” so the MTO no longer had to match at 2:1, they could if they chose to, or it could be anything, even zero. The levels were in fact reduced to 1:1 arbitrarily immediately thereafter with no consultation whatsoever. Our roads have suffered ever since and we have been forced to increase our taxes by well over 300% in just over 10 year’s time. Even at this rate our roads are continuing to deteriorate.
The present government stated in its election platform in the fall of 2007 to restore local roads board funding to the previous level of 2:1. Indeed this information was relayed to our ratepayers in September at our annual meeting just before the provincial election. We’re not quite sure why it would take four years to simply change one word in the LRB act or simpler still to start matching 2 to 1 and forget the change in legislation, since this wasn’t a real guarantee anyway, and while the timing just before an election is somewhat suspect perhaps it all had to do with priorities and we do realize in the big scheme of things we are certainly never going to be anyone’s number one priority. Nevertheless it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing so we’re still pleased to see it on the platform. To make ourselves feel better we’d like to think that maybe this addition to the platform had something to do with the many letters and emails our LRB and I’m sure others had sent to our MPP’s, various ministers of the Crown and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM). I know that our own local MPP was quite sympathetic to our situation and had lobbied hard on our behalf. For this we are very thankful for his help. He of course managed to get re-elected, but it was very, very close and although it may be a bit bold to point this out, we are still waiting for the official notification of 2:1 funding and would like to bring attention to the fact that small groups sometimes do make a difference just like the most interesting novel about “tipping points” suggests. Perhaps the most recent provincial budget will help address this but we need a permanent fix with funding guarantees so we can repair the damages already done and work towards the future. A promise made should be a promise kept, enough said…...
So what does this all have to do with Bill 151 and provincial tax reform? How can we possibly be against reform especially in light of the ridiculously low rates that we’re being charged today? Indeed the taxes collected probably don’t even cover the costs of sending out the bills, collecting the money and keeping track of it all, how can we possibly be against fixing this up? Well, we’re not, we’re all in favour of fair and equitable taxes and I’m sure you’ll agree that our actions are proof enough of this fact. We just want to know what we’re paying for and where the tax money will go. Is this unreasonable? I suspect it isn’t. What services are we getting today in our LRB area and what should we pay for received elsewhere? How about if we go through some of them right now.
Roads, should we pay for these? Yes we should and we pay today. Indeed we are the only one’s paying for our LRB roads directly while everyone else gets to use them for free.
Do we pay our fair share? No we don’t, we pay more than our fair share. Remember we only at best comprise 15% of the user group and at the 2:1 level it was close but we still paid more and at the 1:1 level today we’re paying much more than our fair share.
Okay in real dollar terms how much have the ratepayers paid? Well since 1995 our ratepayers have paid approximately half a million dollars of our own money into the NLLR. Remember we didn’t have to. We discussed it and then voted on it because the government of the day was going to walk away from it. Was this fair? With only 6 of 225 properties lying on NLLR of course not. Half a million dollars is also not chicken feed by the way.
Police Protection, shouldn’t you pay for this? Yes we should but there really isn’t any protection in our area. This is no fault of the OPP, they simply don’t have the manpower or resources. Remember we’re 60 kilometres of LRB road plus a couple of hundred kilometres of camp and forest access roads plus we cover over 730 square kilometres of territory. It simply isn’t practical. What we do have however is a very good crime reporting system and now that Bell has put phones into many of the lakes in our area we can now conveniently call in to the OPP and tell them that a break in and thefts have occurred and we can get an incident number for our insurance claim, …..that is if any insurance company still chooses to cover us in our area.
Well there has to be some protection isn’t there? Well sort of, at least once a year and sometimes twice and generally on the May 24th long weekend the OPP come out and try to do their best to keep underage drinking, impaired driving and general public mischief under control. Virtually all of this occurs on Crown land camping areas by non ratepayers. We of course have some interesting ratepayers, we’re not perfect, but the issues that typically need dealing with are from the non residents. I think they view our area as the Wild West where anything goes.
Okay so there is some police protection even if it’s just once a year shouldn’t you pay? Well maybe but who are we protecting ourselves from, fellow ratepayers, our friends and neighbours? I think not, rather it’s folks from the larger urban centres and surrounding municipalities who view our camps as easy targets and these are the ones doing the break ins and public mischief. So to sum this up, you want us …to pay you …to protect us ….from you? Somehow this seems somewhat akin to buying “protection” and when the mob does it it’s illegal but when the government does it it’s called tax reform. Forgive us if we’re not exactly convinced on this point.
Garbage collection and recycling, shouldn’t you pay for this? Yes we should and we do. Of course there is no pickup in our area so we have to take it to one of the MNR disposal sites and we have to pay a user fee to do so. So we do pay for this already. By the way and since we’re on the topic we would appreciate it if the non ratepayers would take their garbage home with them when they leave our area as we’re getting a bit tired of picking up their empty beer bottles, pop cans, garbage and following their RV’s down our roads and watching them dump their sewage…..on our roads. Most of us do have digital cameras now and there are phones in the area, not a threat, just pointing out the obvious.
Fire protection, surely this is important. Yes it is very important; we’d hate to see anyone hurt or killed and/or their property destroyed. Unfortunately we really don’t have any year round protection not even the MNR fire crews work year round but only in the spring, summer and early fall if required. There are no municipal or volunteer firefighters in our area to help us save our buildings. The MNR fire crews do an outstanding job of protecting “assets” in the event of a forest fire. They perform dirty, hard and dangerous work and we appreciate their efforts. Are we willing to pay our fair share for this, of course but at the same time please realize that the MNR is protecting a lot more than just our assets, they protecting the forest industry and it’s equipment, tourist outfitters and their guests, plus the general public and of course the forest which in our area 98 % of it is owned by the Crown. When it comes to individual camps and/or sauna fires we’re basically on our own. If we and our neighbours can’t get these types of blazes under control ourselves then all the MNR will be able to do by the time they get out to us is to hose down the remaining embers of what is left of our camps and make sure the fire doesn’t spread any further. Our place is history. By the way if you do have a fire and are hoping the MNR will help, you better plan for it during the warm half of the year when fire crews are around because in the late fall and winter your snow shovel is all the help you’re going to get. Should we nevertheless pay, yes of course but it has to be fair.
Ambulances and
So why doesn’t your local roads board and
others not have 911, you have phones now right? Good question, our LRB knew that phones
were going to be in place across the north and we also knew that provincial
land tax reform was happening and changes to taxes might be based on the
premise of services. We thought we
would test this and see if the Ontario government would provide any new
services to our area for the additional taxes they would soon be collecting so
we starting lobbying for 911 service.
We went to our MP, Ken Boshcoff, rather than
our MPP because telecommunications is a federal jurisdiction. Once we briefed
our MP he came on board immediately.
Ken saw the true value of 911 and he started writing letters to the CRTC
and then to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. The chairman of the
CRTC no less, Konrad von Finckenstein,
responded to our question and I quote from his letter received June 14, 2007 “
Okay so 911 isn’t there yet you can still call an ambulance can’t you? Yes you can but we have done such a good job training our citizens to call 911 they now don’t know what else to do and don’t have a clue what the alternate emergency number is. If you’re not sure about this ask anyone on the street what number they would call in an emergency if 911 didn’t work or wasn’t available, you’ll get blank stares. Now try this in a life and death situation. You probably will get the death rather than the life result.
Okay so if you can keep your wits about you, you can still call for help right? Yes you can but the odds are you’ll get a call centre somewhere else in the province and even if it’s the OPP they probably aren’t local and don’t know where you are. Try giving directions to someone on the other side of the province to find you, good luck, you’ve now become the ambulance driver or your family member or neighbour is one and the ambulance is your boat or half ton truck. Not looking too good is it?
Sounds serious how come they wouldn’t know where you are? Well you need 911 with proper addressing and the MNDM says they wouldn’t do it. We suspect it has something to do with cost but if the government can pay to go around to each and every property in unorganized territories and find us to apply current value assessments for taxation purposes, and now they know where each and everyone of us are, how difficult and expensive could it be to come up with addressing and signage as required for 911? If you can come looking for us to tax us you should be able to come looking to save us! Once the province starts getting serious about 911 and emergency services for our area we’ll be more than happy to pay our fair share. As to our test, to try to receive additional services for the increase in taxes we will be paying, I’d say the provincial government failed this test…. I’d give them an “F minus”. Good thing it wasn’t for anything real important, right?. On the bright side we do have a new minister now in the MNDM and I know the Hon. Michael Gravelle has worked very hard for Northerners in the past and we hope that going forward he can review the previous decision and reverse it. We’d be very happy to work with the minister and his officials to see this through to its proper resolution that would result with the rollout of 911. We know it’s not an easy or inexpensive thing but it is important. It will certainly be of benefit for all in unorganized areas and First Nations and would give some credibility to the whole notion of provincial land tax reform based on service delivery.
What about the rest of the services provided that you don’t pay for such as social housing, homes for the aged, libraries, schools, hospitals, etc, etc. Well first of all we don’t have any of those in our area. Also most of these are by and large provincial responsibilities which we do pay for in our income, sales and gas taxes. For the remaining services we pay for these at our primary residences through our property, sewer and water taxes. With less than 1% of our ratepayers being year round residents is it fair to make the other 99% pay for the same services that they have already paid for? No of course it isn’t fair. We shouldn’t pay twice for services received only once. Also municipalities already have the power to levy user fees for non residents so we’re really not sure what the issue is here except it’s probably a lot easier to ask the province to tax an unorganized group and give the money to the larger northern municipalities than to set up a user pay system. It’s easier but is it fair? No it isn’t fair. Is there any representation and input from the unorganized areas for the tax dollars collected? No there isn’t. Taxation without representation, sound familiar? I think the folks south of the border may have started a revolution over this issue in the past but Canadians are too polite for this I suppose……nope we’ll just write lengthy letters and hope someone who cares listens and does something to help. Still listening? Good, there’s still a bit more.
Well wouldn’t provincial land taxes based on
assessed value be fair and help look after this? No it wouldn’t,
unless you have a tax rebate system to guarantee you only pay for your core
services such as health, education, social services, etc, only once. If you receive other services such as
roads, policing, sewer, water, etc you should pay for these at all properties
but to repeat myself, only if you receive them. We don’t think it’s too
difficult to set this up especially when in the past we have gone to great
pains to rebate sales taxes to visiting American tourists and even advertised
this with full scale billboards at border crossings. We should at least look at making things
fair for our own citizens. As far
as the concept of assessed value taxation goes we also don’t think
it’s fair and it certainly isn’t based on the services you receive.
It’s based on the premise that if you can afford to build or buy a nice
place you can afford to pay the taxes and by the way please be quiet and go
along with it, everyone else is stuck with it. As they say misery likes
company. It’s as plain and
simple as that. What applying this concept results in is a disincentive for our
own citizens to invest in either their primary or seasonal residences because
the more you buy and invest in
If it seems we’re a bit hesitant about embracing the proposed reforms to provincial land tax, well we are and with good reason. We have been down this road before with the Northern Services Improvement Act, 1998. The presentations and arguments we made on Tuesday August 11, 1998 to the Standing Committee on General Government (available on Hansard via the internet) are very similar to those given in this letter. They are still valid and applicable today. The government of the day back in 1998 actually listened to our arguments and those of others and made that legislation permissive so that the various municipalities, townships and roads boards could decide themselves through a democratic process as to whether or not to apply the options available in this legislation. We hope that the present government will listen to us now, especially when one of the 1998 committee participants, the Honourable Michael Gravelle, then in opposition and now Minister of NDM wrote to our LRB on August 27th, 1998 commending our LRB and our position presented to the committee and I quote from his letter “ Your presentation was excellent. As Northerners I believe we have every reason to be concerned about what this bill could mean to people in our part of the province. I certainly intend to bring your suggestions forward during clause by clause consideration, the next stage of the legislative process, so that this government incorporates changes and improvements that will reflect the voice and the will of the North. Thanks again for your tremendous input”. I’m not sure if our LRB ever formally thanked Michael Gravelle for these very kind words or for his tireless efforts that resulted in positive changes to the legislation back in 1998. I know getting changes through when you’re in opposition is a very tough, challenging and frustrating process so I’d like to thank Mr. Gravelle for his efforts in the past and hope we will be able to call on him for help now with this new legislation. If our arguments made sense back in 1998 then I suspect they should be still valid today. The main thing that has changed since then is the seating plan in the legislative assembly. It should be easier to make positive changes in Mr. Gravelle’s new seat…. I would think.
In summary our
roads board and its ratepayers believe in fair and equitable taxation and do
not object to any tax reform that follows these two basic tenants, fair and
equitable, words worth repeating, fair and equitable. I believe we have shown
by our actions that we are more than willing to assume our fair share; indeed
we have carried more than our fair share for well over a decade without any
public outcry until now. We want
and deserve answers before we start paying any more taxes. What are we going to receive for our
hard earned dollars and where and how will these funds be
managed? Will the unorganized areas
and roads boards have a voice and how is this to be guaranteed? We are requesting and deserve the
opportunity to put our case forward in a public forum to a government committee
as we were able to do so back in 1998.
The public forums held so far have been woefully inadequate with little
opportunity for those directly impacted. This is not fair or acceptable. We have worked hard quietly and behind
the scenes for many, many years to try to get many different governments to
listen but by and large this has fallen on deaf ears. Being eternal optimists,
and perhaps some would say foolish, we are still however willing to work with
any government, at any level, to help ensure that the past wrongs of the
provincial tax system including land taxes are not morphed into more serious
wrongs going forward. This Bill
certainly has the potential to do just that. Our ratepayers, while willing to
work with the government for positive changes, are neither willing nor able to
take on any large provincial land tax increase based on assessed values for
services not delivered and to continue to pay more than our fair share for the
Northern Light Lake Road. The
government has a choice and so do we. It is our legal right under provincial
legislation to either stop maintenance or disband our roads board. If we are to
be taxed unfairly for provincial land taxes we will no longer be able to
maintain the
Bill Pilot P.Eng
Chairman
Northern
CC Premier Dalton McGuinty
Bill Mauro MPP
Ken Boshcoff MP
If you wish to PRINT this page, either right click and select the
Print option (if your browser supports this option), or press Control + P
(Windows) or Command + P (Macintosh) to open the print dialog box.