Connect with us

Community

Councils Salary Increase, nothing to see here. ?? Move along please.

Published

8 minute read

City Hall

I have been doing some research regarding council pay and the purpose of the 1/3rd tax deduction… Please bear with me on this post as it is a little lengthy.

The First screenshot is from the Council Compensation & Benefits form. It specifically outlines that the compensation is deemed to be an “allowance” for expenses that are incidental to the discharge of their duties and is, therefore, not taxable. This tax credit allowance ads up to a $5801.50 to the councillors pay check that they would not otherwise recieve. (Photo 3). Some background. Council has proposed to increase their salary by a whopping 13.48% and the Mayors salary by 18.65% to cover the elimination of this tax credit. Council believes the additional taxes they will have to pay should be covered by the taxpayers. Just a side note, I have done what I can with the limited data that I could collect from the city, If i have made any errors in my research I welcome the corrections.

Lets be clear: this tax break is for EXPENSES. The purpose of this tax break is not to provide a salary relief but rather to be used for expenses that are not receipted. Now, that could be fair if not for the fact that councillors already have a expense budget (photo two) which is the budget and Expenditure Summary that each councillor recieves. Let me ask you, if the councillors have $5801.50 of tax relief specifically because they have expenses yet they also have a budget specficially for expenses then something is wrong here. There is a system in place that allows councillors to double dip and councillors have done nothing about it!

The purpose of the Councillors budget – expenses
The purpose of the 1/3rd tax deduction – expenses

Councillor Handley is correct when she says the exemption was to make up for public officials not charging for some of their expenses, however she says she doesn’t submit an expense claim unless she drives out of town for a meeting… Why? You have a budget, why not use your budget for legitimate expenses? That way we can track the expenses and keep council accountable. The 1/3rd tax exemption for “expenses” is clearly a roundabout way that council does not have to be accountable. And you can tell by all of their responses that council wants to hold on to the slush fund so they can continue to not be accountable.

Beyond that Mayor Veer’s statement that “councils take-home salary would stay the same”(after the 13/18% increase) prove once and for all that this tax deduction which had a specific purpose was in fact being used as a personal slush fund rather than being used as an legitimate expense account. “The take home salary would stay the same” Veer said. Remember, the purpose of this tax credit is not actually supposed to be part of the take home salary. It is separate. I’ll say it again: it’s specific purpose, according to the government’s own documents (document # 1201862), is for expenses not salary.

I will also add that, as a business owner, this would never fly. If I claimed that I had $5801.50 worth of expenses that I could not prove with receipts the CRA would laugh and laugh and laugh and then promptly fine me and charge me interest on everything I should have been paying in the first place. This is not how business operates and our government officials should be held to the same, if not a greater, standard. Red Deerians clearly feel the same as the Red Deer Advocates poll currently shows over 92% of people don’t buy what council is selling here. (picture 4)

So what do we do Red Deer?
-Council says this tax credit removal is a salary decrease. This has been proven wrong by the Government’s own documents.
-Council already has an expense budget where they should be claiming all items, nothing should be “hidden”.
-Red Deerians greatly disagree with this move by council.
My proposal is simple

1. The tax credit should have been removed years ago and should continue to be removed.
2. The salary “adjustment” should not go ahead as the 1/3rd tax break was not supposed to be part of the salary.
3. NEW* All incidental expenses should be submitted as part of their base budget.
4. NEW* All receipts that are submitted NEED to be provided online. This is standard for both the provincial and federal government and it is an absolute disgrace that the municipalities think they don’t need to be held accountable in this way.
5. NEW* I have always said that If I were elected to council I would NEVER vote a salary increase for myself as it is simply unethical. I propose the current council always votes for the next council’s salary. That way you are never voting for your own salary in your own term and the electorate has the option of kicking you out if you make a mockery of the system.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is a reputable organization that had been successfully advocating for lower taxes, less waste and accountable govt for 3 decades. I am pleased that they saw some flaws in this situation and made a recommendation to have citizen councils set wages for civic politicians. The fact the CTF made a comment in the Red Deer Advocates article is a big signal that council has no leg to stand on here and I hope they take this situation seriously.

What to watch for going forward.
Council may bow to public pressure here but increase their base budget and add perks such as a housing allowance, vehicle allowance, clothing allowance etc etc… Watch closely to see if they try to get this money out of taxpayers through roundabout methods…

Lastly, let us remember that every person who submits their papers to run for councillor does so on their own cognition, recognizing the roles, responsibilities and renumeration that they will receive if they are successful in their election bid. Every Councillor knew these changes were coming. This was not a surprise but rather a long overdue needed change to ensure that all expenses are accounted for.

Please join with me to and tell council to do the right thing. No to this salary increase.

Follow Author

Community

SPARC Red Deer – Caring Adult Nominations open now!

Published on

Red Deer community let’s give a round of applause to the incredible adults shaping the future of our kids. Whether they’re a coach, neighbour, teacher, mentor, instructor, or someone special, we want to know about them!

Tell us the inspiring story of how your nominee is helping kids grow up great. We will honour the first 100 local nominees for their outstanding contributions to youth development. It’s time to highlight those who consistently go above and beyond!

To nominate, visit Events (sparcreddeer.ca)

Continue Reading

Addictions

‘Harm Reduction’ is killing B.C.’s addicts. There’s got to be a better way

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Susan Martinuk 

B.C. recently decriminalized the possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. The resulting explosion of addicts using drugs in public spaces, including parks and playgrounds, recently led the province’s NDP government to attempt to backtrack on this policy

Since 2016, more than 40,000 Canadians have died from opioid drug overdoses — almost as many as died during the Second World War.
Governments, health care professionals and addiction experts all acknowledge that widespread use of opioids has created a public health crisis in Canada. Yet they agree on virtually nothing else about this crisis, including its causes, possible remedies and whether addicts should be regarded as passive victims or accountable moral agents.

Fuelled by the deadly manufactured opioid fentanyl, Canada’s national drug overdose rate stood at 19.3 people per 100,000 in 2022, a shockingly high number when compared to the European Union’s rate of just 1.8. But national statistics hide considerable geographic variation. British Columbia and Alberta together account for only a quarter of Canada’s population yet nearly half of all opioid deaths. B.C.’s 2022 death rate of 45.2/100,000 is more than double the national average, with Alberta close behind at 33.3/100,00.

In response to the drug crisis, Canada’s two western-most provinces have taken markedly divergent approaches, and in doing so have created a natural experiment with national implications.

B.C. has emphasized harm reduction, which seeks to eliminate the damaging effects of illicit drugs without actually removing them from the equation. The strategy focuses on creating access to clean drugs and includes such measures as “safe” injection sites, needle exchange programs, crack-pipe giveaways and even drug-dispensing vending machines. The approach goes so far as to distribute drugs like heroin and cocaine free of charge in the hope addicts will no longer be tempted by potentially tainted street drugs and may eventually seek help.

But safe-supply policies create many unexpected consequences. A National Post investigation found, for example, that government-supplied hydromorphone pills handed out to addicts in Vancouver are often re-sold on the street to other addicts. The sellers then use the money to purchase a street drug that provides a better high — namely, fentanyl.

Doubling down on safe supply, B.C. recently decriminalized the possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. The resulting explosion of addicts using drugs in public spaces, including parks and playgrounds, recently led the province’s NDP government to attempt to backtrack on this policy — though for now that effort has been stymied by the courts.

According to Vancouver city councillor Brian Montague, “The stats tell us that harm reduction isn’t working.” In an interview, he calls decriminalization “a disaster” and proposes a policy shift that recognizes the connection between mental illness and addiction. The province, he says, needs “massive numbers of beds in treatment facilities that deal with both addictions and long-term mental health problems (plus) access to free counselling and housing.”

In fact, Montague’s wish is coming true — one province east, in Alberta. Since the United Conservative Party was elected in 2019, Alberta has been transforming its drug addiction policy away from harm reduction and towards publicly-funded treatment and recovery efforts.

Instead of offering safe-injection sites and free drugs, Alberta is building a network of 10 therapeutic communities across the province where patients can stay for up to a year, receiving therapy and medical treatment and developing skills that will enable them to build a life outside the drug culture. All for free. The province’s first two new recovery centres opened last year in Lethbridge and Red Deer. There are currently over 29,000 addiction treatment spaces in the province.

This treatment-based strategy is in large part the work of Marshall Smith, current chief of staff to Alberta’s premier and a former addict himself, whose life story is a testament to the importance of treatment and recovery.

The sharply contrasting policies of B.C. and Alberta allow a comparison of what works and what doesn’t. A first, tentative report card on this natural experiment was produced last year in a study from Stanford University’s network on addiction policy (SNAP). Noting “a lack of policy innovation in B.C.,” where harm reduction has become the dominant policy approach, the report argues that in fact “Alberta is currently experiencing a reduction in key addiction-related harms.” But it concludes that “Canada overall, and B.C. in particular, is not yet showing the progress that the public and those impacted by drug addiction deserve.”

The report is admittedly an early analysis of these two contrasting approaches. Most of Alberta’s recovery homes are still under construction, and B.C.’s decriminalization policy is only a year old. And since the report was published, opioid death rates have inched higher in both provinces.

Still, the early returns do seem to favour Alberta’s approach. That should be regarded as good news. Society certainly has an obligation to try to help drug users. But that duty must involve more than offering addicts free drugs. Addicted people need treatment so they can kick their potentially deadly habit and go on to live healthy, meaningful lives. Dignity comes from a life of purpose and self-control, not a government-funded fix.

Susan Martinuk is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of the 2021 book Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health Care Crisis. A longer version of this article recently appeared at C2CJournal.ca.

Continue Reading

Trending

X