Canada's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland speaks at a press conference about changes to capital gains tax legislation, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on June 10.Patrick Doyle/Reuters
Accountability problem
Re “Canada has 99 problems but a high tax regime ain’t one” (Report on Business, June 10): It is argued that tax happiness is linked to trust in government. Only 50 per cent of Canadians trust their government compared to 78 per cent in Finland and 70 per cent in Sweden. However, only service satisfaction is mentioned and not issues of accountability and unproductive practices.
For instance, the Auditor-General’s 2022 report revealed that the government could not account for funds spent on chronic homelessness. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., which leads the National Housing Strategy, spent about $4.5-billion and committed $9-billion without knowing who benefited from it. Where did this money go? The Auditor-General suggests that government lost the thread owing to lack of data and an inability to co-ordinate.
The federal government should fix the system first before raising taxes. Otherwise tax increases can become an empty excuse for spending, with diminishing results, at a time when ordinary Canadians face an increasingly dire affordability crisis.
Lydia Kawun Edmonton
Taxing situation
Re “By raising capital-gains tax, Ottawa gores the wealthy and middle class together” (Report on Business, June 11): Chrystia Freeland’s passionate egalitarian plea likely resonates with many Canadians. Her one-time U.S. counterpart Lawrence Summers would also agree.
In his context, he would be right. But unlike in the United States, the problem I see in Canada is less the division of the pie than its size. Our anemic productivity numbers and low GDP per capita mean we can’t distribute what we don’t have.
Ensuring the public sphere is not degraded requires a thriving private one. The increase in capital-gains tax is hardly going to incentivize the investment needed to address those issues.
Chris Stoate Oakville, Ont.
Why do people opposed to the new capital-gains rate say that our productivity will decline? At the current 50-per-cent inclusion rate, our productivity is already middling in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
A good business is a good business. Stop harping on paying “a little more tax.” Collectivism beats individualism in maintaining stable societies.
Nathan Stoffman Toronto
When Paul Martin was in office, he lowered the inclusion rate on capital gains because he realized that the 21st century was going to be the century of innovation. There had to be an incentive for Canadians to invest in the future.
I find it shameful that the current Finance Minister, who I have supported, is using such divisive rhetoric to excuse the government’s lack of innovation and fiscal discipline and punish regular Canadians – citizens who don’t have private planes nor live in gated communities, who would have a hard time paying excessive taxes on quaint and simple inherited family cottages.
Jimmy Molloy Toronto
Much of realized capital gains do not represent an increase in value but are owing to the effects of inflation. Even a modest 2-per-cent rate of inflation, compounded over many years or decades, results in substantial gains that do not necessarily represent any increase in purchasing power.
If the government has any interest in “fairness” (rather than just generating additional revenues), indexing capital gains to inflation would be the fair way to go, just as income tax is indexed to inflation.
Jeffrey Green, MD St. Thomas, Ont.
For Chrystia Freedland to suggest that only 40,000 people a year would be affected by the capital-gains tax inclusion-rate change confirms to me how out of touch the Liberals are.
Professional corporations, business owners (yes, employers), small investors and retirees should not all be categorized as well-off. Furthermore, a one-third increase in the inclusion rate can hardly be seen as “a little more tax.”
What will they propose next when they run out of Canadians to pay for government spending?
Gordon Young Toronto
While the Finance Minister attempts to play politics regarding taxation, I believe this is really a tax on Canadians who strive to be fiscally responsible.
Saving and making intelligent investments, while not succumbing to instant gratification, is hard work and takes discipline. This is a tax, then, on fiscal responsibility.
Or to politicize it myself, a tax on the smart.
Stephen Gill East Gwillimbury, Ont.
Re “Freeland’s futile capital gains gambit to embarrass the Conservatives” (June 11): If the Conservatives win the next election, I doubt they would reverse this decision on the capital-gains inclusion rate. They would be quite happy to have additional revenue.
The Liberals would cry foul at the hypocrisy of having fought an election against the tax, only to keep it once in power. They would also conveniently forget that this is exactly what they did regarding free trade and the GST.
Government loves when previous ones expend significant political capital on an unpopular decision, from which it subsequently benefits.
John Rankin Burlington, Ont.
Healthy pay
Re “Freeland says provinces should use capital-gains windfall to give doctors a raise” (Report on Business, June 11): When at least part of the need for this increase in compensation results from the imposition of the increased capital-gains inclusion rate in the first place, why not leave it as is and cut out – or at least not increase – governments’ middleman role in income redistribution?
Neville Taylor Toronto
I see the logic for doctors just starting out. Give them a raise to compensate for the capital-gains tax.
But for several decades, my doctor has been taking a “reduced” salary and saving for retirement inside his corporation, thinking he would pay a lower tax when he cashed out. Adjusting his salary between now and his projected retirement date, to compensate for the hit, would tax the wisdom of Solomon, let alone that of a finance minister.
Daniel Thornton Kingston
Old ways
Re “Federal Health Minister tables bill designed to improve patients’ access to health data” (June 7): It is difficult for me to celebrate the tabling of this bill. It was 24 years ago that Canada Health Infoway was launched with an investment of $500-million to promote interoperable health records.
The process codified in Bill C-72 seems cumbersome. Provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan have already created electronic health records with patient portals.
Regrettably, Ontario focused on digitizing physician patient records with no requirement that the multitude of vendors ensure their systems would be interoperable. The failure of our largest province to require an interoperable system should be inexcusable.
How much longer must Ontarians live with a highly fragmented system that every day undermines timely and appropriate patient care?
Gary Dickson Rideau Lakes, Ont.
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com