While my infallibility stats will take a hit, I have no choice but to admit that last week’s item on the “Ward vs. At Large” issue contained at least one inaccuracy. As well, another statement I made requires clarification. Before I begin though, I’d like to thank Jeff Manley, North Glengarry’s councillor for the Kenyon ward, for pointing out the discrepancies.
We’ll start with the clarification. When I opined that alternating between representatives residing in north Kenyon and south Kenyon would result “in every second Council having a Kenyon representative who knows where Dunvegan is,” I was speaking hypothetically. I was not suggesting that Mr. Manely was cut from this cloth.
As an active member of Dunvegan’s Glengarry Pioneer Museum, he attends many events in our hamlet. As well, he has often helped set up for the Harvest Fall Festival. Jeff has also taken part in annual meetings held by the museum and the DRA, and has been spotted enjoying the DRA’s Winter Carnival breakfast on at least three separate occasions. In short, Jeff Manley knows where Dunvegan is. I will stop there.
As well, I’m grateful to Mr. Manely for pointing out a huge gap in the ward system of which I was not aware. Apparently, there’s nothing in North Glengarry’s rulebook that requires councillors to live in the ward they represent. In other words, under the present system, someone residing in Alexandria can run for the office of Kenyon ward councillor. If we want to put a referendum item on the ballot, closing this glaring loophole might be a good place to start.
Now for the part where I led you astray. It turns out my statement that “the vast majority of the tax dollars contributed by rural ratepayers go toward providing services like water (and) sewage… for Alexandria residents,” was totally incorrect. The truth is that anything to do with North Glengarry’s water and sewer systems is, to quote Mr. Manely, ”paid for by the users of the system, and this includes major infrastructure upgrades or additions.” In other words, whatever is spent on the Loch Garry watershed improvement project, the infrastructure to pipe the water to Maxville, the Maxville water tower, etc. will NOT be reflected on the tax bills of Kenyon and Lochiel ratepayers. Maxville and Alexandria residents are the ones solely responsible for whatever part of the tab isn’t covered by Queen’s Park and Parliament Hill.
2003’s looking real good
Given that the price tag for the 2018 Alexandria/Maxville water project is estimated to be around $30 million (plus the de rigueur cost overruns that are the bane of government projects), the water pipeline from the St. Lawrence to Alexandria studied by the Thompson Rosemount Group back in 2003 is looking like a real bargain. Back then, the hydrological engineers at TRG pegged the cost of this option at around $12 million. In today’s money, that works out to about $15.5 million… almost a bargain. Especially, when you read the conclusions section of the TRG’s 2003 study entitled Alexandria Water Supply Study.
“Increased water demand and… (annual precipitation) conditions have contributed to near critical source water shortages for the Town of Alexandria in the recent past. In addition, development around Loch Garry and, to a lesser extent, Middle Lake has constrained the operational practices of the Raisin Region Conservation Authority with respect to controlling lake water levels for reservoir storage… Over the years, residential development has been permitted to take place around Loch Garry and to a lesser extent Middle Lake. That residential development has somewhat limited the operational practices of the Conservation Authority including the target water levels in order to reduce the risk of flooding homes and properties. Without the constraints associated with development, the operational practices and particular the target water level(s) could be adjusted on Loch Garry to increase storage volumes without any significant environmental impacts. The lake system could then be operated as a reservoir system as opposed to a recreational lake system.”
If you’d like to read the 2003 Thompson Rougemount study for yourself, simply click here.
While a bit of a slog, it sure is an eye opener. The comprehensive report explores the hydrological feasibility of twelve separate alternatives… from doing nothing and looking for sources of supplementary groundwater to piping water from either St. Isidore or the St. Lawrence River. What’s more, it does so in a surprising amount of detail. It’s almost like they knew what they were talking about.
Church skips breakfast
If you, like me, have been wondering when this year’s Spring Breakfast fundraiser will be held at the Kenyon Presbyterian Church in Dunvegan, the sad answer is that it won’t. The Kenyon Presbyterian Church Women’s Association has opted to focus on their annual Ham Supper instead. The Ham Supper is planned for Saturday, May 26th. I’ll have more information on this lip-smacking event, as we get closer.
Ottawa’s definition of temporary
When checking the March 22, 1918 issue of the Glengarry News to see what my counterpart was writing about a century ago, a substantial front page ad caught my eye. Topped with the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada and a big bold headline, the public notice explained Canada’s brand new Dominion War Tax Act, an allegedly temporary measure introduced to pay for the debts racked up during “the war to end all wars.” As we subsequently learned, WWI didn’t end all wars. And the government of Canada’s love affair with income tax was far from short lived.
Up until the First World War, Canada had managed to meet its financial obligations through levies like customs duties on imported goods and excise taxes on commodities produced or sold within a country… for example, the excise tax on tobacco and cigarettes. As you can tell, Canada’s civil service and government programs were far skinnier then than they are today.
After reading the 1918 ad, I wondered if its authors realized their “temporary” measure would continue to dog us a century down the line. Or that the labels they coined to differentiate the various tax forms — T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 — would survive into the twenty-first century.
Another feature that the Commissioner of Taxation’s office in 1918 shares with today’s Canada Revenue Agency is the obvious delight it took in the absolutes of power. To quote from the 1918 ad, “the Dominion Income War Tax Act requires you to fill in one or more of the five special Forms provided before 31st March, 1918. In order to assist the public to understand just what is required of them, information on each form is given below. Read carefully, then get three copies of the form that fits your case and fill them in. Answer all questions fully and accurately. For making false statements, a penalty of $10,000 or six months imprisonment, or both, is provided.”
If you’re curious, neither the March 22nd, 1918 nor the March 29th, 1918 editions of the Glengarry News had reports from the Dunvegan correspondent of the day. She or he was no doubt furiously filling out the new tax forms in triplicate.
Turn history into tax savings
While we’re in an income tax frame of mind, I wanted to remind private individuals and businesses that the Glengarry County Archives may be able to issue a tax receipt for the historical items you donate to the collection.Not only will your records be preserved for future generations and be kept in a secure environment by knowledgeable archival staff, but you could also enjoy significant tax savings.
When I asked archivist, Allan J. MacDonald, what he meant by “significant” he said the tax credit could range from hundreds of dollars to over a hundred thousand dollars… depending on the value of the collection. Allan also stressed that an independent professional does the evaluations. For more information, please contact Allan at 613-209-0202 or glengarrycountyarchives@gmail.com.
-30-