Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 01 May 2022

On December 14, 2021 the Town of Newmarket gave a tax receipt for $14,290,000 to the developer, Marianneville, in exchange for a "charitable donation" of 16 acres of land at Glenway West. (see plan below). 

The land was professionally valued but the appraisal is a work of pure fiction.

The valuers landed on their Fair Market Value of $14.2M by making (in their own words) an “extraordinary assumption” that the two stormwater ponds in the donated land could be filled in and the land could be used for a townhouse development.

The Town did not challenge or query this but accepted the valuation report and its conclusions at face value when they were – and are - plainly invalid.

Inflated valuation

The tax receipt overstates the value of the land.

The “tax receipt” issue was touched upon by Kathryn Morton, a deputant to the Town’s Committee of the Whole on 31 January 2022. She was assured that the issuing of the tax receipt to the developer came at no cost to the Town, direct or indirect. The Chief Financial Officer, Mike Mayes, explained:

“We issued a tax receipt. Actually it is a donation receipt that can be used for tax purposes. The cost was just basically the cost of printing off the piece of paper.”

That is true. But there is, of course, a cost to the Canada Revenue Agency in the shape of foregone revenues. The tax receipt can be used by the developer to offset tax otherwise owing.  

Pond 3 features in two different scenarios:

Scenario "A": Tomorrow, when councillors are considering giving draft approval for Marianneville’s 189 unit development at Glenway West, Pond 3 will be part of the discussion. The stormwater pond which was included in the 16 acre charitable donation to the Town is an integral – though small – part of the infrastructure supporting the new development. Water will discharge from the development into Pond 3.

Scenario "B": On 14 December 2021, the Town gave a Tax Receipt to the same developer for $14,290,000 in exchange for a "charitable donation" of land. The Town did nothing to test the "extraordinary assumptions" of a warped Valuation Report which concluded that Pond 3 and its sister to the West could be filled-in and the land used for a townhouse development.

So, to be clear, Marianneville’s new Glenway West development will discharge water into the same storm water pond that their own Valuation Report (commissioned jointly with the Town) says should be filled-in and developed for townhouses if at some stage the land is not required for public open space.

Discharge into stormwater ponds

The report before councillors says: 

“storm flows from the proposed development will discharge to three existing stormwater management ponds”

Two of these ponds are owned by the developer. They will be reconstructed and conveyed to the Town. Pond 3, as we know, lies in the donated land.

No other stormwater ponds in the Glenway East or West developments have been filled in.

Compatibility

The staff report looks at the so-called “Compatibility Interface Plan” which is designed to ensure that new developments for infill and intensification fit in and are 

“compatible with the existing physical character of the surrounding neighbourhood”

A stable residential neighbourhood wraps around the donated land on three sides. It is characterised by single detached houses. A townhouse development could not be shoehorned into the eastern two-thirds of the donated land without breaching the principles set out in the Compatibility Interface Plan.

I do not believe for one moment the Town’s Director of Planning or its Director of Engineering would approve a townhouse development sitting on top of two filled-in stormwater ponds.

And I don’t believe the ward councillor, Christina Bisanz, would approve either.

But the Town’s senior management clearly believes the tax receipt comes at no cost to the Town and that's all that matters. If the developer gets undeserved millions through the tax system as the result of an artificially inflated land valuation, then so what?

They will look the other way.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This note added on 3 May 2022: Pond 3 is known as Pond 13 in the Town's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Master Plan (2017). As explained in my earlier post, Pond 13 is a permanent wet pond providing water quantity and quality control. It has a design volume of 9,409 cubic metres. An Olympic size swimming pool holds about 2,500 cubic metres of water. The catchment area of pond 13 is almost 8 acres. Text also updated to make clear that Pond 3 is part of the infrastucture supporting the new development. Ponds 3, of course, lies outside the development itself.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 25 April 2022

As a member of the UK’s House of Lords Conrad Black is obliged to file a tax return with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs every year even though he lives in Canada. 

Black has been under this obligation for more than a decade – ever since the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act was passed into law in 2010 at a time when he was in jail in Florida.

So when Black’s private wealth manager tells him that certain financial information is required because he is a member of the UK legislature he shouldn’t huff and puff and rail against “obsessive transparency”. He should grin and bear it and fill in his tax return like everyone else.

In his column in the National Post on 9 April 2022 he fumes:

“My bank’s private wealth manager replies to my occasional questions with Job-like patience and exquisite courtesy that that information is required because I am a legislator, a member of the British House of Lords. There is no reason for legislators to be subjected to closer scrutiny than anyone else and in my case, I have not been a very active peer for many years (though that may change soon). There’s nothing even slightly controversial about any financial activity of mine, but lurid official curiosity about it is annoying.”

He goes on:

 “It is no one else’s rightful business what individuals or corporations do privately unless they are violating valid statutes or regulations. What we need is a fiscal equivalent of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau’s famous statement that, “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” Nor is there any place for it in the wallets or bank accounts of the nation, apart from what is needed to verify justifiable tax collection.”

S41 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is a valid statute and, as a member of the UK Parliament, Black must comply with its terms.

I think there is every reason for legislators to be subjected to close scrutiny by the tax authorities.

But I say that as someone with no criminal convictions under his belt.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 23 April 2022

Candidate vetoed by the Liberals joins the NDP but so what?

What should we make of Shameela Shakeel’s decision to leave the Liberal Party and join the Newmarket-Aurora NDP? 

One moment she is the bright, new Parliamentary hopeful for the local Liberals, coasting towards the nomination and then a challenger, backed by former Liberal MPP Chris Ballard, appears out of nowhere. His unexpected arrival perplexes and disappoints Shakeel who tells Newmarket Today she would have preferred acclamation. She says she had spent months as the only prospective candidate.

Wrong candidate

Then, in a stunning reversal of her fortunes, the all-powerful Provincial Liberal HQ strikes her name off the list of approved nominees, declaring she no longer meets all the requirements to be a Liberal candidate. No reasons are given. Which requirements were not met? No-one speaks out publicly in her defence. Not even those timorous Liberals who initially supported her nomination. (Photo: Shameela Shakeel and her successful rival, Sylvain Roy)

Why didn't she stay to fight her corner inside the Liberal Party, demanding to know why she had been blackballed? Instead she meekly accepts the decision and decamps to a new home in the local NDP - as their campaign manager no less for the 2 June Provincial election. Seems to me she would have been more useful to the NDP if she had stayed inside the Liberal Party, rattling the bars of the cage and telling it as she sees it.

"Strong vetting"

This turn of events allows Newmarket-Aurora Provincial Liberal Association president Cathy Gapp to tell Newmarket Today that Shakeel’s defection to the NDP

“reinforces for me how strong the Liberal vetting process is.” 

This is the same Cathy Gapp who persuaded Shakeel, a political neophyte, to make a pitch for the Liberal nomination in the first place.

Personally, I think this kind of cross-dressing encourages cynicism. People (unfairly) think all politicians – or aspiring politicians – are in it for themselves, changing their beliefs and their parties as often as they change their shirts. 

Swapping parties is, of course, nothing new. 

Winston Churchill

One of the most famous party-swappers was Winston Churchill who went from Conservative to Liberal to Independent to Constitutionalist and back again to Conservative. 

Closer to home, in 2005 Newmarket-Aurora MP Belinda Stronach left the Conservatives to join Paul Martin’s Liberal Cabinet. In 2018 the Aurora Oak-Ridges-Richmond Hill MP Leona Alleslev left the Liberal Party to join the Conservatives. She lost her seat at the 2021 Federal election and, incredibly, is now running for leader of the Conservative Party. (She must figure this will give her a profile because she is not going to win.)

There is, of course, a long-standing convention that members of Parliament who change their allegiance are not obliged to resign their seats and fight a by-election under their new colours. MPs are regarded as representatives rather than delegates and between elections they are free to act according to their own beliefs.

Products of the Party system

These days, that seems to me very quaint. Our politicians are, almost universally, products of the Party system – vetted, approved and often selected by the central Party machine, and sometimes by the Party Leaders. True independents are few and far between. 

Of course, we live in a free country and people can swap parties if they want to (and if their new party will have them).

But will Shameela Shakeel's defection to the NDP help their campaign?

I rather doubt it. 

No-one will notice.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Here in Newmarket-Aurora we shall see a candidate in June from the zany New Blue Party of Ontario, a spin-off from the Progressive Conservatives, founded by former Conservative MPP Belinda Karahalios and her husband Jim. She was removed from the Conservative caucus for voting against Bill 195 which kept various Covid-19 safeguards in place.

Update on 29 April 2022: From the Toronto Sun: Shameela Shakeel was a volunteer and is no longer part of the NDP team

Update on 30 April 2022: From Newmarket Today: NDP boots Shameela Shakeel

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 20 April 2022

Ontario’s Liberal Leader, Steven Del Duca, deserves a round of applause for pledging to ban handguns within a year of taking office if the Party wins the  Provincial Election on 2 June. 

The Provincial Liberals say they would ban the sale, possession, transport and storage of all handguns in Ontario. 

Research on public attitudes to firearms, commissioned by Public Safety Canada and published last year, shows that 63% of Canadians want a complete ban on handguns.

A substantial majority of Canadians (70%) support moves to give municipalities the right to further restrict on prohibit handguns. (The Government though has now abandoned the idea of giving municipalities the power to ban handguns in their area. The Liberal 2021 Federal Election platform instead pledged to give Provinces the power to ban handguns within their jurisdictions).

Del Duca’s announcement will put gun violence into the heart of the campaign, drawing a sharp distinction between the Provincial Liberals and Doug Ford – who says he will never ban handguns.

Few details

However, the Toronto Star says the Liberal leader offered few details on how this would happen

No surprises there. 

The Federal Liberals have been working on their handgun policy for years, unwilling or unable to explain in simple, straightforward terms how the ban would operate in practice. We have all been treated to the dance of the seven veils.

Personally, I am strongly in favour of a national ban but the Liberals won’t go that far, preferring to download responsibility to the Provinces and Territories who would decide if they want a ban to apply in their patch.

No answers

In his December 2021 taxpayer-funded flyer, Newmarket-Aurora Liberal MP Tony Van Bynen told his readers the Federal Government would:

“Work with the provinces and territories that want to ban handguns”

Over three months ago I asked him if this would require Federal legislation and, if so, when we could expect it. I asked him to explain the process. Would the Minister of Public Safety reach out to the Provinces and Territories or does he expect them to approach him? 

Van Bynen – who sees his job primarily as a conduit between the government and the governed – couldn’t explain the process but said he would get in touch with the Minister. Now - weeks away from the start of the Provincial election campaign - I am none the wiser. 

The Minister of Public Safety, Marco Mendicino, is keeping his cards close to his chest just like his predecessor, Bill Blair, who was useless. As a former police chief, Blair's deeds never matched his words when it came to gun violence. (Photo right: Danielle Kane left paralysed by the Danforth killer, Faisal Hussain)

"Reinforcing the commitment"

On 1 March 2022 Mendicino told a meeting of the Commons Public Safety and National Security Committee that he was committed to working with the provinces that wanted to ban handguns but offered no details other than the promise of new firearms legislation:

“I want to reinforce the government's commitment to collaborate with the provinces who want to take action in banning handguns, an issue I discussed with my provincial and territorial colleagues last week at our federal, provincial and territorial conference.”

“While this committee studies the issue of gun control, illegal arms trafficking and the increase in gun crimes committed by members of street gangs, I look forward to your consideration and debate on new firearms legislation that we will table soon.”

Neither the Government nor the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Conference released a transcript of Mendicino’s update which was presented to the meeting on 23-24 February 2022. The most we have is this note from conference staff:

"At the request of provincial and territorial ministers, the federal government provided an update on its commitments to implement a mandatory buyback of banned assault-style weapons, and its intention to collaborate and provide financial support to provinces or territories that implement a ban on handguns." 

Where on earth is the sense of urgency?  The Federal Government endlessly kicks the can down the road when people - including Steven Del Duca - are hungry for the details.

Despite the foot-dragging in Ottawa, Del Duca has made it a campaign issue in Ontario.

Good for him.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update on 21 April 2022: Toronto Star editorial: "A step in the right direction"

Click “Read more” to see the exchanges in Committee which touch on the proposed handgun ban.

Read more: Del Duca pledges a handgun ban across Ontario within a year if he wins election