The National Child Benefit Supplement

Legalese February 10, 2005

LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb Home

Contact Us

This column is not intended to provide legal advice. You should contact a lawyer to determine your legal rights and obligations.

The National Child Benefit Supplement

The National Child Benefit Supplement which was introduced as a measure to prevent and reduce child poverty is not benefiting families in Ontario who most need it.

The Supplement is part of the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) which is the successor to federal child benefits previously known as the Family Allowance and baby bonus. The CCTB is made up of two parts: a Basic Benefit and the Supplement.

The Basic Benefit is currently about $100 per child per month and is paid to families with children under the age of 18, approximately 80% of Canadian families.

The Supplement is currently a maximum of approximately $115 per child per month. The amount of the Supplement goes down as a familys income goes up. A family with an income of less than $22,615 receives the full Supplement while a family with an income of more than $35,000 receives no Supplement. Approximately 40% of Canadian families receive a Supplement.

The theory behind the Supplement is sound - to provide monies to low income families for the benefit of their children. In practice the theory falters. When the Supplement was introduced in 1997, the agreement between the federal and provincial governments required that the amount of the Supplement be deducted from social assistance benefits paid by the provinces to families. The net result of this clawback is that families in receipt of social assistance do not benefit at all from the Supplement as an equivalent amount is deducted for their social assistance benefits.

All provinces, except Manitoba and New Brunswick, clawback some or the entire Supplement from social assistance benefits. In Ontario, the government claws back an amount equal to the Supplement from both Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program recipients.

Although the monies that are clawed back are reinvested in various programs for low-income families, the benefit of these programs pales compared to the benefit of having ones income increased by the amount of the Supplement. In Ontario, approximately 80% of the clawback is invested in provincial programs, such as the Ontario Child Care Supplement for Working Families. Families in receipt of social assistance do not usually benefit from this program because of the way it is designed. The remaining 20% of the clawback is distributed among municipalities and used in a broad range of programs.

Many of the reinvestment programs are important and should be funded but not by taking money away from the poorest families in our communities. For example, a single parent with one child must make ends meet on the $957 per month he or she receives from social assistance. This is a monumental task when the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment is Ontario is $886 per month.

During the last provincial election, Dalton McGuinty promised to end the clawback of the Supplement from social assistance benefits. The governments announced plan falls far short of ending the clawback.

In our next legalese column we will detail the governments plans to address the clawback problem and a court action which has been started in an attempt to force the government to end the clawback.

The National Child Benefit Supplement Part Two

On December 10, 2004 the Income Security Advocacy Centre, the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation and the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues launched a legal challenge to the clawback of the National Child Benefit Supplement (the Supplement) from families on social assistance. The applicants are three single parents who have been struggling on Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program to make ends meet, without the benefit of the Supplement.

In our last column we explained the Supplement, which is part of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, and how the Supplement failed to help children from the poorest families in our communities. The failure is due to the clawback of the Supplement from social assistance benefits.

During the last provincial election, the Liberals promised to end the clawback of the Supplement in its first mandate. However, six months into their mandate, the Liberals announced that, instead of ending the clawback, they would cap the clawback while they conducted a review of the program. The effect of the cap is to allow families on social assistance to keep the July 2004 increase in the Supplement. For a family with one child, the increase amounts to $4 per month, a far cry from the $126 in benefits that is received by low-income families who are not on social assistance.

Governments argue that the Supplement should be clawed back to ensure that working families are always better off than families on social assistance. Also, they argue, the clawback of the Supplement is necessary because parents on social assistance would then have an incentive to find paid work.

The position of the applicants in the court challenge is that the governments view reinforces discriminatory stereotypes about persons on social assistance. The governments position ignores the reality that social assistance recipients face numerous systemic barriers, including disability, access to affordable childcare and lack of jobs. The labour market, they argue, is not structured to provide full employment. In addition, minimum wage jobs, where much of the labour market growth is found, do not provide enough income to allow even a single person to live above the poverty line.

Imposing the clawback on social assistance families also ignores the reality that the same families may cycle between social assistance and precarious paid work. The level of social assistance, reduced by the amount of the Supplement, does not provide the kind of meaningful support that low-income families need to stay out of poverty. This so-called incentive plan of the government does nothing more than punish families, and more particularly, the children of families who rely on social assistance.

The court challenge of the Supplement clawback is based on the legal argument that the clawback is contrary to both Section 7 (right to life, liberty and security of the person) and Section 15 (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The applicants will be relying on case law to support the argument that the clawback violates the Charter by discriminating against parents and children because they are in receipt of social assistance.

A recent government report on social assistance reform recommended that Ontario move towards elimination of the clawback of the Supplement. It is hoped that the legal challenge will convince the government of Ontario to take immediate action to eliminate the clawback and the federal government to take steps to eliminate the clawback across Canada.

Peter Graham, Lawyer

Feature article,April 14, 2005

Feature article April 14, 2005

LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb Home

Contact Us

The Liberals are delivering good government, really

If you thought this would be a refreshing defence of the Federal Liberals in the midst of their trials and tribulations over sponsorship, you were wrong; those bums should indeed be thrown out.

The Provincial Liberals, on the other hand, the ones that were elected when the Tory bums were thrown out about 18 months ago, have actually started to turn an unresponsive provincial government around. Lets cite a few examples that are relevant to our little corner of the Province. Recently, the Minister of the Environment has received a proposal for a replacement water regulation that would increase the safety of drinking water without forcing the closure of rural institutions and businesses. If the Environment Minister can strong arm this proposal through cabinet and her own department, she will have delivered on a promise she made to fix the water regulation.

Sticking with the Ministry of the Environment. There is a proposal to overhaul the Environmental Protection Act that has also come forward, which is long overdue.

The government has also recently announced a new way of transferring money to rural municipalities to help cover shortfalls created by the previous government when they downloaded services to municipalities and left the municipalities footing the bill. The first thing the new plan does is come forward with money that was owing, but never paid, under the old plan, and then it puts more money forward for a new plan. While no one seems to understand the new plan yet, it looks like it will increase transfers, helping to halt the spiralling increase in municipal taxes.

Although things have not been settled yet, and a teachers strike is not out of the question, indications are the government will be able to patch things up with the provinces teachers as they have with the provinces doctors, and reforms of both the education and healthcare systems are underway. This is a fair weather view of the government to be sure, but the point is that after 18 months they seem to be finding their feet, and are working towards improving things.

Contrast this with what happened in Ontario over the last term of the previous Ontario government, when things just slipped further and further downhill and a hidden deficit was created.

Contrast this with the Federal Government; well, lets not talk about the Federal Government. JG

Feature article, May 26, 2005

Feature article May 26, 2005

LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb Home

Contact Us

Re: Why Medicare must change (Frontenac News, May 12, 2005)

At the risk of starting a family feud between the South Frontenac Sutherlands and the North Frontenac Sutherlands, I feel I must air some dirty laundry. My father, Dr. Ralph Sutherland of Plevna, and I disagree on the state of health care.

In a recent article in the Frontenac News, dad argued that Medicare needs to be changed. Certainly, there are changes that would help make the system more comprehensive and public: but undercutting it will not help.

Our disagreements, like all policy debates reflect different choices. The use of facts reflects a viewpoint, and there will be winners and losers. Dad argues that health care spending is out of control, that it is the cause of the debt and the reason why there is no money for other programs. Not only do his arguments rest on a dubious understanding of the facts, but they primarily serve to benefit those that can afford to pay privately for their health care, and those who own health care corporations.

The losers, in my fathers interpretation, are those who depend on health care being provided as a right of citizenship, most of the population.

Admittedly, there are many factors contributing to our public debt, and lots of considerations in health care spending, but two key points show that public health care costs are not the major problem.

To quote Canadas pre-eminent health economist, Robert Evans, relative to provincial revenues, both Medicare and total provincial health spending are now at or below their levels in the early 1980s.

Health spending is not the problem. What has changed dramatically is that governments have undertaken large tax cuts, mainly to the benefit of big corporations. While the Conservatives were in power in Ontario, tax cuts resulted in a loss of revenue that increased our provincial deficit and debt - a significant part of the reason for our high interest payments. Similarly there is not enough money for other programs because we have reduced our provincial revenue.

But this is only part of the story. Health care spending has increased as our economy has increased, but we are spending our tax dollars less effectively.

The government has steadily increased the for-profit involvement in healthcare. Drugs, the fastest growing segment of health care costs, is dominated by a few trans-national pharmaceutical companies who enjoy very generous patent protection, meaning less money for health care and more money for profits.

Similarly, the recent drive by the provincial Liberals to build for-profit hospitals will cost significantly more. The new Brampton hospital alone will cost at least $167 million more due to extra private sector financing charges. Home care is 20 % more expensive because of the competitive bidding system.

The increases in health care spending have gone to private corporations and we are getting less service. Once again, the wealthy are gaining and the broad public is losing.

I am sure this debate will continue in the kitchen at our next family dinner, but there it is - the Sutherland dirty laundry. Is health care a commodity, like buying a car; or a public service for all Canadians?

Maybe we will have to have a wood splitting contest at dawn in Sharbot Lake to settle the issue.

Ross Sutherland

Feature article, June 23, 2005

Feature article June 23, 2005

LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb Home

Contact Us

COMRIF Part 2 - more of the same?by Jeff Green

The second intake for the Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Program (COMRIF) was announced last week, and it will address the same infrastructure priorities: local bridges and roads, waste management, water and wastewater, as were highlighted in the first round of funding which was allocated earlier this year.

Criteria for project selection will also be the same as the earlier round: health and safety, public policy priorities, and value for money.

None of the projects proposed by townships in Frontenac County received funding from intake one, and Addington Highlands did not receive funding either.

Mayor Bill MacDonald of Central Frontenac, who is also the Warden of Frontenac County this year, says that he has been encouraged to submit an application for the same project Central Frontenac was promoting in round one - repairs to Road 38.

MacDonald, who expressed bitterness at Central Frontenac being passed over for funding in round one, said I have been encouraged to apply for the same project in round 2. This time, there will be support from the Joint COMRIF secretariat at the applications stage so we will be in a stronger position as far as how our case is presented.

MacDonald also pointed out that there were applications for $1.1 billion in funding in round 1, and only $350 million was available, so the Frontenac townships were not alone in losing out.

If Road 38 was our number one priority last time around, there is no reason for that to have changed in the past few months. We need to highlight the health and safety aspects of the project more in order to hopefully be successful this time around. At least thats what Ill recommend to Council.

Central Frontenac Council has applied for provincial funding to complete repairs to Road 38 at least three times since the road was downloaded to the township, the SuperBuild fund, the OSTAR program, and now COMRIF.

Each time the township has come up empty.

Coincidentally, Bill MacDonald also points out that Highway 7, which remains a provincial highway, has been repaired in recent years right to the edge of Central Frontenac from the eastern direction, and from Kaladar west, leaving the part that runs through Central Frontenac in a state of disrepair.

COMRIF applications can be submitted from July 25 until September 30.

Although COMRIF is called a rural infrastructure funding program, communities with as many as 250,000 people are eligible to apply.

According to a media release from the Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Green infrastructure is COMRIFs top priority, with 55 per cent of funding for projects involving water quality, sustainable communities, climate change, and innovation.

Feature article, August 4, 2005

Feature article August 4, 2005

LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb Home

Contact Us

Waterfront property taxes

Commentary by Mike Wise

I have considerable difficulty with WRAFT's (Waterfront Ratepayers Association for Fair Taxation) approach to the problem of escalating waterfront property values, as recently reported in the Frontenac News. My concerns are, firstly, their failure to relate to the many urban residents also experiencing this problem and, secondly, their proposed solutions.

Property values in some city neighbourhoods are increasing at a very much faster rate than the average for their city as a whole. Look at Ottawa or Toronto where neighbourhoods that were out of favour a few years ago are now very desirable. I have no problem with WRAFT, as the child of concerned cottage owners, being primarily concerned with waterfront property but why do they choose to ignore the urban dweller facing similar problems? Surely WRAFT must realize by now that they are barely on the political radar and that, when they are seen, it is often as the representative of those rich cottage owners who can afford to pay. Would it not be both fairer and more politically astute to bring the urban dweller living on a low or fixed income into the picture? The government has to be more considerate of those struggling to keep their homes than those struggling to keep their vacation properties.

As for WRAFT's proposal that a separate class be created for waterfront properties - do they seriously expect this to be seen as anything but the privileged trying to reduce their taxes? Why are they presenting a proposal that deliberately excludes those experiencing similar problems in our cities and towns?

Capping annual assessment increases is a useful way of cushioning the effects of sudden large increases in market value, it was used when taxation based on current market value was introduced a few years ago, but it must be carefully managed. If increases are capped at too low a rate, it has the potential to maintain large differences in the taxes paid on properties of comparable value for a very long time. An annual cap of 10% over and above the average increase in property values would be more appropriate than the 3% proposed by WRAFT. Also any cap should be lifted when a property is sold or transferred to a new owner. These measures would be required so that others in the taxation area were not subsidizing the owners of capped properties for an extended period.

The problems associated with our property taxation system will not be solved by applying such bandaid solutions. More often than not these solve one person's problem at the expense of someone else and they usually create more problems than they solve. We need to look at the real causes. Most of our property tax is used to fund social (e.g. education, policing, welfare, recreation) rather than property related services. The value of a property is not only unrelated to the value of these services, it is, all too often, also unrelated to the owner's ability to pay. We must press our provincial representatives to seek a more appropriate means of funding such services. We must press them to take another look at the consequences of downloading, particularly with regard to roads - a major expense for a rural community. We must also seek a more equitable sharing of industrial and commercial taxes between the urban and rural communities.

Turning now to the property value reassessments we expect to receive from MPAC this fall. Waterfront property values have risen sharply in the last couple of years. No doubt the temperatures of the owners of these properties, myself included, will similarly increase as we contemplate next year's tax bill. What can we do?

We can, and should, be vigilant in monitoring and lobbying our Mayor and Councillors to ensure that the Township delivers the services we require in the most cost effective manner - taxpayers are free to attend council meetings, including budget deliberations. But, as we do so, our actions and expectations must be tempered by the fact that the Province imposes strict requirements relating to the services to be provided and the manner in which they are to be funded; it has not given Council the authority to make the fundamental changes needed to bring equity and affordability to property taxation.

In the longer term, we can best help ourselves, and help our Council help us, by more vigorously lobbying our provincial representatives to make the changes required for an equitable funding of local services - provincial acceptance of a greater responsibility for the funding of social services, the downloading of only those services which are truly local responsibilities, the imposition of reasonable conditions on the provision of those services, funding based on a consideration of both the services received and the property owner's ability to pay, and an equitable sharing of industrial and commercial revenues. By addressing these issues we will be attacking the fundamentals of the problem, rather than the symptoms. And we will be embracing the problems and concerns of many more taxpayers than just those rich waterfront property owners.

How do you think we can get the Province to listen to, and act on, our concerns?

Mike Wise

Legalese - October 6, 2005

Back toHome

Legalese - October 6, 2005

Thinking of starting a business? Part II

by Peter Graham, staffLawyer

I now have some idea of how Sylvester Stallone felt as he finished Rocky, Rocky 2, Rocky 3.... Upon the completion of last week's column on starting a business, I was just warming to the task. There was so much more to say.

Last week we reviewed the basic forms of business ownership. Deciding which form is only the beginning of the legal part of the planning process required before you open your doors.

If you decide to operate as a sole proprietor and the name of your business is other than your own name, you must register it with the provincial government. Depending on the type of business you may also require a licence from the provincial government (e.g. plumbers, mechanics etc.) and a municipal licence (e.g. restaurant, beauty parlour etc.). You must also check such things as local zoning to ensure that the location of the business does not contravene local by-laws.

If you decide to operate as a partnership, you and your partners must register the partnership name with the provincial government. The licensing requirements and zoning must also be reviewed. In addition, from a practical point of view it is important to decide what role each partner will play in the partnership. What are the expectations of each of the partners? Details should be worked out as to how the profits and losses will be divided. What happens if one of the partners wants to leave the partnership, or is unable to continue? Careful consideration of these issues before the business starts will avoid many potential problems. It is recommended that these arrangements be written out in a formal partnership agreement to avoid any misunderstanding.

If you decide on operating the business as a corporation, an application must be made for Articles of Incorporation. The name of the corporation must be searched and evidence supplied that it is not confusing with the names of other businesses.

The key element to remember in incorporation is that you have created a separate legal entity. This artificial “person” makes its decisions differently than a sole proprietor. Staff is hired to carry on the day to day operations of the business. Major decisions are made by the Board of Directors (the "guiding mind of the corporation"). The Board is responsible to the shareholders. In many small businesses, the staff, the Board and the shareholders are the same people. Even so, corporate formalities must be followed. Board decisions and annual shareholders meetings must be properly documented. An annual return must be filed setting out such things as the location of the current head office of the corporation and the members of the Board.

There are many government programs available to assist you in preparing business plans and obtaining financing for your business. An excellent source of information is the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade's web site at www.ontariocanada.com. Following the link “Starting Your Own Business” will take you to information on this topic including Your Guide to Small Business and links to the Ministry’s Business Advisory Services. The Business Advisory Services may also be reached by telephone at 1-800-461-2287.

To bring your business idea to reality takes much study and planning. Detailed planning greatly improves your chances of success. Good luck.

A column of general information and opinion on legal topics by the lawyers of Rural Legal Services, Box 359, Sharbot Lake, ON, K0H2P0, 613-279-3252, or 1-888-777-8916. This column is not intended to provide legal advice. You should contact a lawyer to determine your legal rights and obligations.

Other Stories this Week View RSS feed

Feature Article - September 29, 2005

Home | Local Weather | Editorial Policy

Feature Article

September 29, 2005

. | Navigate | .

ArchiveImage GalleryAlgonquin Land Claims

Gray MerriamLegaleseGeneral information and opinion on legal topics by Rural Legal ServicesNature Reflectionsby Jean GriffinNight Skiesby Leo Enright

Letters to the Editor: September 29, 2005

Re:Sydenham Water will leave a political legacy

Your editorial “Sydenham Water will leave a political legacy” (Sept 22) was very timely and raises a number of serious questions.

1. Who made the decision that Sydenham needed a communal water system back in 1998? The Provincial Government mandated that the four townships be amalgamated. I am certain that they did not demand that the water system be a condition of the change. I am equally certain that it was not the property owners in Sydenham, as over 90% of them opposed the plan. So that leaves the councils of the four former townships. Why would they make a decision that effectively undermined the total concept of amalgamation as your editorial so gently put it?

2. Why does the decision to have the property owners of Sydenham pay the whole cost of the water system appear to be written in stone (if it is written at all)? And if by chance it was written, why can it not be changed? Our council has no problem changing other by-laws.

3. Why is South Frontenac so afraid of the concept of amalgamation? The process of change is so slow that it challenges the proverbial turtle. Is it, perhaps, that with amalgamation the districts (former townships) would be expected to do what all other municipalities do in financing major projects and spread the cost over all property owners in South Frontenac as your editorial has suggested?

4. Why is the current council so committed to an old verbal agreement? Amalgamation is the future for the township. It is very difficult to understand why the past and current councils have stayed so committed to an agreement that freezes the districts into a decision making process where councillors spend all their time protecting their turf.

It’s not too late to rectify this paralyzing situation. If the current council has the courage and will to stop hiding behind this infamous agreement and spread the cost of Sydenham’s water project over the township, then South Frontenac will finally come into the 21st century. We could then start behaving like an amalgamated township using responsible long term financial planning to benefit everyone in South Frontenac.

- Bob Forbes, Sydenham

Absurd regulations threaten our Farmers' Markets

For many people in rural Ontario, the local farmer’s market is a long-standing tradition. In the days before grocery stores, it was the only place to purchase farm products. Today, many consumers are turning to farmers’ markets for products they can’t find at the stores, and for many family farms, the sales they make at the local market represent a vital supplement to the family income.

This traditional economic hub has been placed in jeopardy by a series of poorly designed provincial regulations. Ontario Regulation 562 prohibits vendors from selling prepared products—everything from muffins to preserves—beyond the farm gate unless it has been produced in a government-inspected kitchen. That’s right – every time you buy a few cookies or a dozen eggs from your neighbour at a farmer’s market, chances are you’re buying an illegal product. Unless it’s been prepared in a government-inspected kitchen, or (in the case of eggs) inspected at a government-approved grading station, provincial inspectors are mandated to shut down vendors.

Lest anybody think that this has anything at all to do with public safety, I want to point out that the government doesn’t ban farmers from selling uninspected eggs from the end of their laneway, or homemakers from preparing pies and raffling them off at a bake sale at the high school auditorium. If uninspected products actually represented a genuine health risk, it would be irresponsible—or even criminal—to allow people to poison their neighbours with uninspected food, including food sold from the farm gate or at the high school bake sale. If the health risk really existed, I’d be the first person to demand that every single Ontario muffin—with no exceptions!—gets that life-saving stamp of bureaucratic approval prior to being sold.

But of course, there’s no danger to you or me at all, regardless of the location at which we purchase farm produce. Which means that it’s preposterous to think that the farmer down the road whom you’ve known for years can drop off a home-baked pie or Christmas loaf at your house during the holiday season, but cannot sell that same product to you on a Saturday morning at the local farmer’s market. What’s even more bizarre is the fact that the provincial government draws an imaginary line between products sold at the end of a farmer’s laneway, and those that he takes to the market a mile down the road.

It’s time for the federal and provincial government to stop enacting laws and regulations to micromanage every aspect of a rural way of life. Regulation 562 is just the tip of the iceberg. It is a foolish attempt to protect us from a threat that never existed, by guarding us from the safe products we’ve always enjoyed. Worse yet, it threatens producers in our community and discourages the buying of local goods.

Regulation 562 must be amended to allow local producers to bring to farmers’ markets the same products they can sell at the end of their driveway. It is the only respectful thing to do, for our farmers, our communities, and rural Ontario.

For more information on Regulation 562, or to sign my petition calling on the provincial government to end the restriction on farmers’ markets, please drop by one of my offices; call 1-866-277-1577; or visit www.scottreid.ca.

- Scott Reid, MP

Sydenham Water – What Can We Do?

In response to the letter from the Sydenham Safe Water Association (Sept 15, 2005), I would like to focus on one comment. The idea of spreading the costs for the Sydenham water system across the whole Township of South Frontenac is a good one.

The skeptic may say, “Why should anyone other than the people getting the water pay for this?” My response is the whole township benefits from the water. For instance, we have been told by our council that our properties will go up in value because we have water. If that is true, then our property taxes will go up as well. The whole township benefits from this increase in taxes.

Also, we have been told by our council that water will bring growth. And with growth, there are more taxpayers, both commercial and residential. Again, the whole township benefits.

But the biggest reason we should spread costs out over the township is because this problem is just around the corner for Harrowsmith, Verona, Inverary, and many other small concentrations of houses in the township.

And when those villages need water and/or sewage, who is going to be there to help them? These infrastructure projects are incredibly expensive. Look at the history of the Sydenham project costs. The initial estimate from the consulting engineer was $5.6 million, with a projected 85% funding from the provincial and federal governments, leaving an $850,000 cost to the people. Well, four revisions of that number later, we are looking at a projected cost of $8.2 million, and the people’s share is a whopping $3.4 million.

So how about a little progressive thinking here. If Sydenham is the first of many villages to need these infrastructure projects, why not think a little further ahead than the end of next week? If we had created an infrastructure fund, like the SSWA suggested to our council over two years ago, and increased taxes by a mere $50 per household, we would be more than half way to paying off the costs of the Sydenham system.

And if we made this special fund an ongoing thing, imagine the resources we would have as a township to address things like the current issues with our landfill sites, as well as future water and sewage needs for the township.

It’s time our council started acting like an amalgamated township and stopped perpetuating the incredibly archaic view of independent fiefdoms.

- David Waugh

Feature Article - September 15, 2005

Home | Local Weather | Editorial Policy

Feature Article

September 15, 2005

. | Navigate | .

ArchiveImage GalleryAlgonquin Land Claims

Gray MerriamLegaleseGeneral information and opinion on legal topics by Rural Legal ServicesNature Reflectionsby Jean GriffinNight Skiesby Leo Enright

NorthFrontenac appoints new Fire Chief:North Frontenac Council report

by Jeff Green

Steve Riddell, a long time member of the Snow Road Fire Crew, and a current Deputy Fire Chief with the township department, will take over as North Frontenac Fire Chief on September 24, replacing Cor Bakelaar.

Cor Bakelaar recently completed a one-year contract as Fire Chief, which was extended for one month in order to give the township time to find a replacement.

There were several applicants for the post.

Looking for a Festival - Following up from a public meeting back in the spring with consultant Jan Bonhomme, North Frontenac Council is seeking a grant from the Frontenac Community Futures Development Corporation (CFDC) to help with a “Finding Our Festival Project”.

Jan Bonhomme, in her role with Festivals Ontario, helped get the Pumpkin Festival in Battersea up and running.

“At the meeting with Jan Bonhomme there was a great deal of enthusiasm expressed by many people who felt we need a Festival in our community, and we have a history with the Ompah Stomp, which ran successfully for many years, but no one has the time to do the legwork to make one happen,” said Councillor Will Cybulski.

The grant, which would be for $8,000, with the township kicking in $2,000 if the grant application is successful, would pay someone to come up with a concept that is unique to North Frontenac, and that could be supported by the community groups that would ultimately ending up organizing such an event.

The Local Initiatives Program umbrella of the Eastern Ontario Development Fund, for which the FCFDC will be accepting applications until later this month, is set up to support projects that “include community strategic planning on a local level, research and feasibility studies, tourism initiatives, and events, seminars and workshops along with small scale technology or capital projects,” according to the application form.

Putting a roof on the rink at Clar/Mil Hall – With a grant deadline approaching, Councillor Betty Hunter asked for Council’s approval last week for her to apply for $25,000 from the Bell Community Sports Fund. In researching the fund, Hunter found out that the monies are to be allocated solely to soccer or hockey-related projects. She has contacted the Plevna ‘Hockey Moms’ who have done some fundraising themselves over the years, and are more than willing to lend their support to the idea of putting a roof on the outdoor rink.

In the past few years, winter maintenance of the ice surface has been a problem, and a roof would alleviate the need to shovel the rink. It would also make the entire Clar/Mil facility more functional, as the rink surface would become a large adjunct to the Hall for summer events that are weather sensitive. A resolution was passed giving Betty Hunter the authority to apply for the grant.

More on grants – The next deadline for Trillium grants is coming up on November 1, and townships are now eligible for this wide-ranging program. The application process is complicated, however, so Councillor Hunter, who chairs Council’s Economic Development Committee, requested that a task force be set up to work on Trillium Applications for one or more projects. This was approved by Council.

Speaking on behalf of township staff, Chief Administrative Officer Cheryl Robson thanked Coucil for all the work they have been doing in applying for grants. “Staff does not have the time to do this work,” she said, “so it’s great that Councillors have taken much of it on.”

“Smallest Rural Municipalities” resolution – North Frontenac’s Mayor Ron Maguire has been active of late putting together a resolution about the fiscal fate of very small municipalities in Ontario, those with under $10,000 residents, for the consideration of all municipalities in Ontario through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO).

The resolution points out that these smaller municipalities make up 60% of all municipalities within the province. Because of their small tax base, these municipalities are less able than larger municipalities to shoulder the burden of maintaining roads and bridges, and funding social programs that were downloaded by the provincial government. As well, transfers from the provincial and federal governments are often calculated on the basis of population, to the disadvantage of smaller municipalities.

The resolution then proposes that “minimum capital program funding thresholds” be established for the smallest rural municipalities.

Maguire was aided by County of Frontenac Chief Administrative Officer Elizabeth Fulton in developing the resolution, which was endorsed by North Frontenac township and has since been endorsed by Central Frontenac as well. Maguire is hopeful that the proposal included within the resolution will gain credibility with the provincial and federal governments if the resolution is endorsed by the majority of Ontario’s municipalties.

Feature Article - January 19, 2006

Feature Article

January 19, 2006

Would you like to be notified bye-mailwhen new articles appear on the NewsWeb?

Please send a note to The Frontenac News and your e-mail address will be added to our notification list.

Will rural daycare be the biggest loser on January 23?

Editorial by Jeff Green

At the all-candidates meeting that the Frontenac News sponsored in Verona on Monday night, the usual range of questions were asked of the seven candidates for the Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington seat in the next federal parliament. Among them were a couple of questions about daycare, focusing on the difference between the Liberal and Conservative proposals.

The tone of the questioning tended to turn daycare policy into an ideological issue. The much-publicized Conservative promise to pay $25 a week for every child under six directly to parents was understood by many to be a commitment to the concept of the family in contrast to the Liberal proposal to “institutionalize” children in state run daycare centres.

One of the questioners went so far as to explain how upset he is with the way children are talked about by government, as human capital, potential economic assets or liabilities, etc.

The reality, in this riding particularly, and in the Province of Ontario generally, is that daycare advocates, such as members of the “Coalition for Better Childcare” and others, after many years of lobbying the provincial government for improvements to daycare and early learning opportunities in the interest of children and their families, have finally made some headway. Plans are being developed, based on a funding agreement between the provincial and federal governments, to bring affordable childcare to portions of the population who have been left out for many years.

In Sharbot Lake, for example, The Child Centre has been offering daycare since 1990. It is a not-for profit entity, and subsidies have been available, financed by provincial and municipal taxes, for children of low - income families to receive daycare. Since the Child Centre also provides a range of early childhood services, children in the daycare also receive other kinds of supports.

Because of the way subsidies have been calculated, many families have not been able make use of the daycare at the Child Centre. They earn too much money to receive subsidy, but not enough to be able to afford the service. Home-based private daycare service providers in the area might be able to provide service at a lower cost to parents, but families who make use of private daycare services are not eligible for subsidies whatsoever, no matter what their income level.

So, families have been scrambling to find care for their children. In many cases, low rural wages mean that both parents need to work, at least on a part-time basis, in order to pay the bills. It is not a matter of choice.

Finally, after years of foot dragging, the Ontario Provincial Government has committed to increasing the number of daycare spaces in the next couple of years, and to opening up the subsidy process, so families with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 will be eligible for partial daycare subsidies. And, these subsidies will be available for families that use daycare centres such as the Child Centre in Sharbot Lake and the Frontenac County Child Centre in Sydenham.

After years of lobbying, the funding and the political will have finally been developed to support middle income families who need daycare on a full or part-time basis. This is progress.

Scott Reid said two interesting things in Verona about the Conservative daycare policy. First, he likened the $100 per month payment to families for daycare to other direct transfers for parents, and said that a Conservative Government trusts that parents will use money to do what is best for their children.

This point is well taken; families can be trusted to use federal income supports wisely for their families. However, such payments are not really part of a daycare policy; they are a family support policy.

His second point was that rural Ontario is too sparsely populated to benefit from a national daycare program, and so the Conservative policy of providing $25 a week is better than a daycare strategy which serves only urban families.

This point is not so well taken. Throughout the riding creative solutions for rural families have been and are being developed. Not-for-profit, licensed daycare centres serve many parts of the riding, and a system of private, licensed home daycares, which will also be eligible for subsidy, are also being developed.

For the many parents who need to work and who use these daycares, or who would like to be able to afford to use them, there is not much comfort in the Conservative proposal to stop supporting development of this system.

If the Conservative proposal to pay families $1,200 each year for childcare were coupled with a commitment to maintain support for the advances that are being planned for children in Ontario, then it would a good thing.

But if, as is indicated, it is tied to an incentive program that is primarily directed at developing workplace daycare options, which will clearly not work in a rural context where there are no large employers, it will be a bad thing for rural Ontario.

Feature Article - February 23, 2006

Feature Article

February 23, 2006

Easy come easy go: County loses closeto$1 million a year in provincial funding

by Jeff Green

Frontenac County Treasurer Marion Vanbruinessen has taken a very cautious approach to a provincial money transfer under the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF), and it turns out this caution has saved the county from a potential fiscal nightmare.

When the OMPF funding formula was announced in 2005, Frontenac County was slated to receive $935,000.

But the county did not include that money in their 2005 budget, partly because it was not to be transferred until the end of the year, but also because Marion Vanbruinessen was unclear about how the funding had been determined, so the $935,000 was placed in a reserve fund.

Under the previous funding formula the county received no direct funding, although its member townships did.

In 2006, the county was also slated to receive a small increase in Ontario Municipal Partnership funding, to about $950,000, as reported in the Frontenac News on February 9. However, at that time Vanbruinessen told the News that she considered that the funding was not certain, because it was based on information that the City of Kingston had supplied to the province about shared programs with the county, and that information was incomplete.

When complete information was forwarded from the city to the province, it was determined that the allocations to the county were faulty, and the county will only be eligible for a small amount of money, at best.

When County Council meets on March 1 to hammer out their 2006 budget, they will not be able to use the $935,000 from 2005 that had been placed in a reserve account, because the province will be asking for that money back. And the promised $950,000 for 2006 has simply disappeared.

They are still better off, however, than they would have been if they had already started spending the money.