By Alec Bruce, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Guysborough Journal
GUYSBOROUGH: The Municipality of the District of Guysborough (MODG) council has voted to hire an independent tax consultant to help resolve a long-running dispute over municipal tax rates in the Canso area.
At its committee of the whole meeting on May 7, council approved a motion to seek external professional advice on the issue, which stems from the 2012 amalgamation of the former Town of Canso with MODG and has stirred frustration and division among residents ever since.
District 4 Councillor David Hanhams, who led the discussion, said the matter had become too complex for council to resolve on its own and required objective, expert input. “Personally, I don’t know where else to go with it,” he told his colleagues, “so I would like advice and direction from an independent person. What I want to propose today is that we [vote on] hiring an independent professional tax consultant that would look at all sides of this and come up with suggestions or solutions.”
Following his remarks, District 8 Councillor Fin Armsworthy formally moved the motion, which Hanhams then seconded. All six of the eight-member council in attendance voted in favour. District 1 Councillor and Warden Paul Long and District 2 Councillor Mary Desmond were absent.
The dispute has centred on perceived tax inequities between District 8 – which includes the former Town of Canso – and other parts of MODG. Currently, residential and resource properties in District 8 are subject to an area rate of $1.5145 per $100 of assessment, while commercial properties are charged $1.3470 per $100. These rates are in addition to MODG’s general municipal rates of $0.77 per $100 for residential and resource properties and $2.74 per $100 for commercial properties.
Municipal staff and several councillors have argued that the additional levy helps fund enhanced services specific to the Canso area, including sewer infrastructure and RCMP support. The surcharge was retained in the 2025-26 budget approved by council in March, drawing sharp criticism from Eastern Guysborough County Ratepayers Association President Bill Bond, who described the decision as “a slap in the face” in an interview with The Journal last month.
Bond, who was unable to attend the May 7 meeting, said in a follow-up interview on May 9 that he welcomed the shift in direction. “It’s a very good start, and I’m glad that the council seemed [to see] it that way,” he said. “We’ve got to start somewhere, because it’s not going to go away.”
He also praised the turnout from residents who were present at the meeting and visibly supportive of the motion. Roughly 20 people seated in the gallery held placards protesting what they called the “Canso Triple Tax” and applauded when council voted to proceed. “The support of residents has been very important, and I thank them for that,” Bond said. “If it wasn’t important to the public, they wouldn’t be there. But they are here.”
Though he does not represent Canso, Hanhams said he had met with Bond and other residents and felt compelled to act.
“Five months ago, I brought up the idea [at council] of getting an independent consultant to try to ask all the right questions and come to some kind of suggestions and conclusions and some answers,” he said. “I also met with Mr. Billy Bond last week [and] told him that I’m trying to get a resolution.”
Hanhams’ remarks received broad support from council. District 7 Councillor Hudson MacLeod said the issue had dragged on too long and was undermining municipal unity.
“It’s time we get this straightened up. It’s gone on too damn long,” he said. “We don’t want to be fighting over taxes, water and sewer. It should be one set rate across the board.”
MacLeod added that resolving the dispute would require full participation from the community.
“If the group from Canso would agree with it… we have to have an agreement by everybody and sit down and set up [terms of] references and go through the process.”
Chief Administrative Officer Barry Carroll estimated the cost of the study could range from $50,000 to $100,000, with funds likely to come from municipal reserves.
“We would put out a terms reference, and then companies would bid and come back with a price. Council would say whether you would want to go with it or not, depending on the prices – same as everything else,” he said.
No funds were allocated for the work in the 2025-26 budget, but councillors agreed the cost was warranted. “This is not just on my mind; it’s on everybody else’s mind,” said Armsworthy.
Final details – including the project scope, consultant selection and delivery timeline – will return to council for approval at a future meeting.