OPEN LETTER TO ONTARIO SPECIALISTS

This is to formally announce the creation of the Ontario Specialists Association to represent those specialists who believe their interests and those of their patients would be better served by an organisation focussed on specialist issues.  Several sections have communicated their strong support for a specialist organisation following a round of consultations with leaders.

It’s clear that a one-size-fits-all organisation no longer works in Ontario.

The decision to create an Ontario Specialists Association has been made. Work on producing draft Charter and Governance documents has begun to reflect the bottom-up approach that so many doctors have sought.  While nothing is carved in stone, founding sections will have the opportunity to shape the governance and direction of a specialist entity staying true to the principles of self-determination, fairness, equity and transparency.  We encourage you to read these draft documents.

Discussions have occurred at the highest levels in government that confirm support for the self-determination efforts of specialists who care for the sickest and most acutely ill patients across the province. Productive meetings have occurred involving specialist leaders and more are planned.

Other key developments include:

  • Corporate lawyers and other advisors are being engaged to formally establish the OSA
  • An OSA website will be launched this week at www.specialistsontario.com .
  • Facebook and Twitter accounts have been created to facilitate communication and organisation.
  • FAQ documents will be produced and distributed to all doctors.
  • Companies have been short-listed to hold a double-authentication and anonymous referendum to determine if 50.1% of a section’s membership is committed to joining the OSA.
  • OSA-sponsored Town Hall teleconferences are planned for each section to discuss and consider the OSA referendum of their specialty members.
  • A professionally run referendum to permit all interested specialty sections to cast their vote is being planned
  • Many other organisational activities are under way.

OMA President Nadia Alam has candidly acknowledged the serious issue driving the creation of the OSA and that the OMA Board will not stand in the way of any section wishing to join the new specialist organisation.  We are calling on the OMA Board to proactively provide all specialist sections with their membership lists with emails this coming week so that self-determination can occur in a positive and constructive environment.

Why an OSA?

  • New options must be considered to meet the unique needs of specialists.
  • A decade has passed, and the circumstances of specialists have deteriorated by every metric we can think of.
  • Doctors have been repeatedly put on the defensive by an empowered hostile bureaucracy that recognises the vulnerabilities of the status quo and works it to their advantage.
  • The recommended relativity model is widely seen to be flawed by all sides within the profession that exacerbates internal professional conflicts and makes a new approach essential.  A more focussed organisation like the OSA can undertake the process of repair to yield more productive results.
  • A new specialist corporation will happen.  It is preferable that it occur through a participatory means with the support of all stakeholders, including government.
  • A new and more progressive government has been elected at Queen’s Park that has said it is committed to fixing the relationship between government and doctors.
  • The new government is aware of the OSA and is seriously monitoring the need to find a partner to bring about change that will be positive for all parties.
  • Some specialty sections may prefer to remain with the OMA and that is fine.
  • The OSA is the only vehicle that is seen to bring the dramatic renewal and freshness to the discussion; and that has the unmatched ability to take a bold step forward to begin the tremendous task of addressing the needs of specialists and the patients they serve.
  • The OSA is committed to working with a progressive government and respectful dialogue.
  • OSA is confident that all of the rights that have been secured to date such as binding arbitration will be extended to the OSA.
  • Specialists will not have their insurance coverage impacted in any way by joining the OSA.  Carriers will not want to interrupt and cannot cancel owner-occupied insurance contracts already in place.  In time, the OSA will review the possibility of other benefits for specialists without having costly overhead we now pay for.
  • The OSA wants to get each participating specialty’s longstanding issues on the front burner for direct government discussion and resolution.
  • The OSA is committed to a membership bottom-up approach tied to problem-solving with the new government and to move the needle to secure real accomplishments for Ontario specialists.

The bottom line message is that only by creating an OSA will specialists begin the tough job of fixing the large, unresolved issues of no increases, fee cutbacks, no agreements, disrespect and improving our collective ability to deliver important patient care services in a more stable and respectful environment.  If as a specialist you believe this is overdue, choose the OSA to be your representative organisation.

Download OSA CHARTER

Download OSA Governance Principles

Download Open Letter To Ontario Specialists

Contact us atinfo@specialistsontario.com

Twitter: @SpecialistsON

Facebook:Closed Group: Ontario Specialists Association OR https://www.facebook.com/SpecialistsOntario

An Open Letter from David Jacobs – Why I Resigned From the OMA Board

Dear Colleagues,

I regret to inform you of my recent resignation from the OMA Board.

In my time as an OMA delegate and my short time on the Board, I have seen the defeat of the tentative 2016 PSA, the resignation of much of the Executive, and an attempt at corporate renewal.

Our OMA is unfortunately burdened by a history that dates back almost to Confederation. That history has resulted in deep and seemingly unshakeable foundations. The foundations are bolstered by mandatory Randed dues and the OMA’s representation rights. The steady stream of income and the lack of options for representation have allowed the OMA’s bureaucracy to burgeon while diminishing the Association’ accountability to members. The failed PSA was a reaction to these shortcomings. The fundamental problems however, remain unchanged.

Now we, as physicians, approach new perils. Our negotiations with the Ford Government have reached their end and we return to arbitration. Premier Ford has been very clear in his support of frontline doctors, yet we are still unable to bridge the gap between our Association and government.

Soon we will be facing yet another Special Council Meeting that will further divide the Association. The outcome of the meeting has the potential to be far worse for some members than many of the deals proposed by government over the past several years. I cannot be a party to this.

My solution to our challenges is change; real change. 

Since my resignation from the OMA Board, I have been in discussions with my specialist colleagues. Of the 25 sections that I have reached out to, 24 have shown interest in following a Quebec or BC model of separate representation for specialists and primary care.

This Wednesday a small group of 10 from the 24 sections was chosen to meet face to face with the Premier’s representative. The conversation was frank and the message was well received. Specialists of Ontario need to be heard. They need to be able to freely choose who represents them, just as the primary care physicians should be able to do the same.

In a free and democratic society, the right to self determination is paramount. In the weeks to come, further information will be provided as to the mechanism for this historic opportunity for change. The decision to stay or go will rest in the hands of each individual member. Democracy is messy, but over time, it is never wrong.

Best regards,

David Jacobs

Download PDF: David Jacobs: Why I have resigned from the OAR Board

OPEN LETTER TO OMA PRESIDENT SHAWN WHATLEY RE: OMA CHARTER CHALLENGE

OPEN LETTER TO OMA PRESIDENT SHAWN WHATLEY RE: OMA CHARTER CHALLENGE

 

April 20, 2018

Dear Dr. Whatley:

Late last week the Coalition checked the court record and was shocked to discover that no further action appears to have occurred with respect to pursuing the OMA’s Charter Challenge since its initial October 2015 filing and the OMA’s October 2016 assurances to the Coalition that it was being pursued “as quickly as possible”.

Since then, the OMA has repeatedly stated publicly that the Charter challenge is an ongoing priority for the organization, has merit and is being pursued vigorously. You are now the third OMA president since the Charter Challenge was announced in October 29, 2015 and yet there is an apparent lack of information available to OMA members as to what exactly is happening.  Soon you will be handing the OMA president’s reins over to Dr. Alam.  Before that happens, we ask the OMA to provide a full divulgence as to what members can expect will happen and when. Hundreds of millions of dollars of illegitimately confiscated members money is at stake.

You will recall Dr. Toth announced the Charter Challenge in October 2015 and it was greeted with strong and broad support from OMA members.  We wrote to Dr. Walley in September 2016 inquiring about the status of the Charter Challenge and our deep concern that nothing had happened over the course of almost one year.  We pointed out a number of specific things that one would have expected to occur if the Charter Challenge was being actively pursued.  Dr. Walley responded saying that we had misinterpreted the OMA’s convictions with respect to pursuing the Charter Challenge and made available a letter from the OMA’s external legal counsel a couple of days later indicating that they, on behalf of the OMA members, “will continue to take all necessary steps to move the OMA Charter Challenge forward as quickly as possible”.  No specific answers were provided to the questions contained in the Coalition’s September letter.  Copies of the correspondence are attached.

Since Dr. Walley’s letter, 18 months have passed and there has been little concrete information communicated to the members with respect to the status of the Charter Challenge.  On the surface it again appears that nothing has happened.  We can appreciate that there may be things happening in the background but frankly our lawyers are at a loss to explain how nothing new is registered on the official court record despite the lengthy passage of time and Dr. Walley’s assurances this matter was being actively pursued.

Doctors are asking important questions about the OMA’s sincerity and honesty with respect to the handling and pursuit of the Charter Challenge.  Those questions include:

  1. When is the OMA filing documents in court to launch the Challenge so that a judicial decision may be rendered on the important questions contained in the Charter application?
  2. Why has the OMA apparently failed to push forward with appropriate legal manoeuvres to expedite the Charter Challenge as promised in the face of continued MOH intransigence towards all Ontario doctors so that we would have had some leverage during the unsuccessful mediation phase of negotiations and more so now that it is openly apparent that the MOH has not changed its hostile approach towards doctors as we begin binding arbitration hearings?
  3. The OMA CEO’s secret April 2016 agreement with MOH has never been disclosed to doctors despite the former Health Minister’s willingness to make it public.  There continues to be concern that the former OMA leadership may have signed a deal with the MOH that agreed to drop the Charter Challenge if a PSA could be successfully negotiated.  The tPSA was broadly rejected in August 2016.  More importantly, we know the failed tPSA contained no binding arbitration powers and no re-payment of unilateral cuts suffered by Ontario doctors as sought in the OMA’s Charter Challenge application. To avoid needless speculation, the secret April 2016 agreement must be disclosed and if the speculation is accurate, the OMA must remedy the conditions that permitted this weak position from occurring again.

From our vantage point, it appears that the OMA has allowed this critical litigation to sit dormant.  The OMA dropped its previous 2012 Charter Challenge in order to get the Representational Rights agreement from the MOH that later backfired and created the circumstances that placed doctors in the 2014 unilateral cuts mess that continues to today.  Many doctors are wondering about the OMA’s seriousness about pursuing the Charter Challenge and believe this view is shared by MOH thereby explaining in part their disregard for Ontario doctors.

Failure to expedite the Charter Challenge appears to have hurt doctors because:

  1. Ontario doctors have been denied due representation in a timely manner.
  2. Ontario doctors have not received potential recoveries of hundreds of millions of dollars from the claim for damages and re-payments of unjustified fee cuts.
  3. Doctors have obtained no leverage from the looming prospect of a court decision that censures the Ontario government’s behaviour towards doctors.

Please provide Ontario doctors with a fully transparent response to its position on the Charter Challenge and its real position with respect to pursuing the Charter Challenge, including the actual position it may have taken on this matter in the secret April 2016 agreement and any other legal advice regarding the viability of the Charter Challenge.

Sincerely,

Coalition of Ontario Doctors

Attachs.

COALITION LETTER RE CHARTER CHALLENGE FINAL

OMA PRESIDENT’S UPDATE TOTH CHARTER CHALLENGE OCT 22-2015

COALITION LTR OMA ISSUES SEPT 21-2016 FINAL

VW-DJ RESPONSE TO CHARTER CHALLENGE LTR

FASKEN MARTINEAU LTR TO VW RE CHARTER CHALLENGE ISSUES OCT 6-2016

Lack of details on small business tax changes a concern for business coalition

Business coalition opposing tax changes continues to grow, even after changes announced

Ottawa, November 22, 2017 – Despite the federal government’s partial adjustments to its small business tax changes, business groups are still troubled about the potential negative effects the revised proposals will have on small and medium-sized firms.

The concerns are spelled-out in a new letter to Finance Minister Bill Morneau by the Coalition for Small Business Tax Fairness, a unified voice of now almost 80 organizations representing hundreds of thousands of business owners across the country.

“It’s been one month since the government provided any details of its revised proposals. And, in just a few weeks, some of the new tax provisions are supposed to come into effect,” said Dan Kelly, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. “We continue to urge the government to slow down and allow time for genuine stakeholder input to help minimize any unintended consequences. The fight against these proposals is not over.”

“For our businesses to succeed, we need to reform our complex, cumbersome and uncompetitive tax system, and we need to do it right,” said the Hon. Perrin Beatty, President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. “There has been some improvement, but business owners are still alarmed since much still remains to be defined. Businesses from across the country are prepared to work with the government to find ways to make our tax system simpler, less burdensome and fairer.”

In the letter, coalition members praise the government for reinstating its promise to reduce the small business corporate tax rate to nine per cent by 2019. They are also pleased that the government has stepped back from measures relating to the conversion of income into capital gains and that they have recognized the importance of passive income to a business.

The Coalition for Small Business Tax Fairness, however, is still concerned about the tax changes in their current form:

Income sprinkling rules

While the government has offered to simplify the proposed “reasonableness test” for business owners paying dividends to adult family members, they have not provided any further details. The coalition recommends that the government postpone the implementation of this change, by one year, to January 1, 2019 to provide small businesses with sufficient time to implement required changes to existing business structures.

Passive investments

The revised proposal allowing incorporated businesses a passive investment income threshold of  $50,000 is insufficient for those who are saving to grow and create more business opportunities. The coalition therefore recommends that the government drop the passive investment rules until a full economic impact assessment has been completed.

Coalition recommendations

The Coalition for Small Business Tax Fairness is encouraging business owners and other concerned Canadians to contact their Members of Parliament and use the hashtags #unfairtaxchanges #taxesinéquitables on social media. For the full list of Coalition members, please visit smallbiztaxfairness.ca.  

QUOTES:

“The difficulty with adopting or advancing a series of proposals without a preliminary consultation is the risk – evident from the reaction to the July 18 proposals – of a substantial backlash. The key is to have the government understand that the determination of fairness is a societal principle and not a public service employee determination. Without a common definition of fairness, and application of this definition to all groups you create distrust and conflicts of interest. Such an approach is simply not sustainable, defensible nor is it good public policy.” — John Reid, Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance

CLICK HERE TO READ LETTER TO HON. MORNEAU: RE TAX FAIRNESS FEEDBACK

Why is Finance Minister Morneau Hiding from the People Affected by his Tax Proposals?

Mr. Morneau’s advertised direct consultation with affected Canadians has all the appearance of being smoke and mirrors. Morneau is not listening or taking affected Canadian small businesses and professionals seriously. It started with the Liberal’s 75-day consultation process in the dead of summer when people were away. This was not accidental timing but rather a tricky effort to slide one by Canadians.

This sly approach continued today when Morneau’s office announced a Facebook town hall-style meeting only 2 hours before it took place. With such short notice, attendance was poor as those affected by potential tax changes are busy running their businesses and professional practices. Doctors’ offices are packed with patients needing urgent attention. Only 180 people managed to attend this most recent sly effort to palm this off as a public consultation.

Questions from teleconference guests appeared to be screened. There was little open discussion about the true affects on small business owners and professionals, their staff and Canada’s economy.

Another example of the mischievous approach to their style of consultations is this coming Friday’s town hall at a union facility in Oakville.  The location is undoubtedly not accidental as unions are unaffected by the tax proposals and have supported the federal Liberals’ proposals.

If you practice in the Oakville area try to attend as space is limited. Even if means standing outside to show solidarity, we urge physicians who live and work in the west par of the GTA to attend. We recognise that this is very difficult for most doctors due to their patient demands, but it is important for Mr. Morneau to understand that there is real concern to his poorly thought out proposals.

REGISTER HERE FOR TOWN HALL MEETING 

Details:          Friday, 29 September 2017 at 8:00 AM – 9:30 AM EDT

DATE AND TIME

Fri, 29 September 2017

8:00 AM – 9:30 AM EDT

Add to Calendar

Growing coalition confirms tax proposals will affect middle-class business owners

Leading tax practitioners say that business owners with income as low as $50K will be affected

Ottawa, September 27, 2017 – The Coalition for Small Business Tax Fairness, a unified voice of more than 70 organizations representing hundreds of thousands of business owners across the country, has written a new letter to Finance Minister Bill Morneau with professional analysis confirming that Ottawa’s tax proposals will affect middle-class business owners, resulting in higher tax rates than other Canadians with similar income levels.

“We are alarmed by the huge gap between the government’s statements about the impact of their proposals and the detailed analysis by Canada’s tax professionals,” said Dan Kelly, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) and member of the Coalition. “Tax practitioners are united in the view that these changes have the potential to affect all small business taxpayers, no matter their income.”

“It is the farmers, mom and pop shops, and entrepreneurs, who invested everything into their businesses, that will be most affected by these changes, instead of targeting the real problem. The government needs to go back to the drawing board, hold a real consultation and listen to what tax professionals, provincial governments and the business owners who fuel the growth of our communities are saying,” added Perrin Beatty, President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

The government has claimed that these proposals would not affect business owners with incomes under $150,000. Tax practitioners disagree.

One of the new rules introduced by the government would restrict small business owners from sharing income with family members. Tax practitioners say that this can affect business owners with incomes as modest as $50,000. Also, as two-thirds of Canadian incorporated businesses are majority owned by men, the restrictions on sharing income with a spouse are likely to remove a disproportionately higher number of women from benefiting from their family’s business.

The government is also proposing changes that would discourage small business owners from holding certain types of investments in the incorporated company. According to tax practitioners, business owners retain business earnings in the corporation to safeguard against economic downturns, secure bank financing and invest in other start-up companies.

Tax practitioners have confirmed that the proposed tax changes would result in higher combined corporate and personal taxes for business owners across the board and in many cases, small business owners would incur tax rates far greater than what an employee with a similar level of income would pay.

The Coalition, which has doubled in size since August 31, is asking the federal government to review carefully the analyses of tax professionals across the country, take these proposals off of the table, and launch meaningful consultations with the business community to address any shortcomings in tax policy.

The Coalition for Small Business Tax Fairness is encouraging business owners and other concerned Canadians to contact their Members of Parliament and use the hashtags #unfairtaxchanges #taxesinéquitables on social media. For the full list of Coalition members, please visit smallbiztaxfairness.ca.

Read Second Letter to Minister Morneau on Tax Changes

For media enquiries or interviews, please contact:

Andy Radia

Media Relations Specialist

647-464-2814

Quotes:

“The agriculture equipment manufacturing sector represents 12,000 Canadians and their families predominantly in rural areas; as entrepreneurs who have put their lives on the line to invest in and grow their family business, the sector consistently exports more than $1.8 billion of farm equipment to over 150 countries. The scope and complexity of the proposed tax changes puts a lot of this at stake, and we must fight to ensure that fairness prevails for our members.” — Leah Olson, President, Agricultural Manufacturers of Canada

“Franchisees are the backbone of the communities they serve, by employing people of all backgrounds, supporting local initiatives, and helping grow the economy. As business owners, they assume significant risk, but have been able to achieve success through hard work and support from family members. Simply stated, CFA believes the changes being proposed by the Minister will hurt Canadian franchisees.” — Ryan J. Eickmeier, Vice President, Government Relations & Public Policy, Canadian Franchise Association

“The residential construction and renovation industry has always largely consisted of family-run businesses that help build the communities they operate and live in, many over several generations. These are hard-working Canadians trying to earn a middle-class living, hire local workers, and create a future for their families. The government’s proposed tax changes threaten the very existence of these businesses, posing a threat to small local companies in every community and the jobs they create.” — Kevin Lee, CEO, Canadian Home Builders’ Association

“We look forward to working with the Minister of Finance to ensure that any changes help secure the future of agriculture and not hinder it.” — Mark Wales, Chair of the Canadian Horticultural Council’s Business Risk Management Committee

“We are fully supportive of the government’s pledge to advance evidence-based policy-making. Our members are concerned that the government’s proposed changes to small business taxes are not sufficiently informed by the level of research, analysis and consultation required to ensure a full appreciation of the impacts this will have on Canadians – not just entrepreneurs and small business owners but also on the overall health of the Canadian economy and competitiveness in the short and long term.” — Leigh Harris, Vice Chair (Interim) National Board of Directors, CMC-Canada

“Canadian business families are scared, confused, and demoralized. Years of planning for business succession will potentially go up in smoke! And we’re being called tax cheats along the way. Canada can do better, we must do better—our economy depends on it.” — Allen S. Taylor, Chair, Family Enterprise Xchange

“These egregious proposed tax changes would negatively impact the family farm in ways that are both profound and complex. The federal government needs to reverse course on their ill-advised tax hike attack on our middle-class family farms. — Levi Wood, President of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, grain farmer

Liberal Tax Proposals Creates Uneven Playing Field

Income Splitting for Bureaucrats but not for Small Business

According to Statistics Canada, there are 3.6 million public sector employees in Canada who enjoy guaranteed salaries, group benefits, paid sick leave and paid vacations. Civil servants are also guaranteed defined benefit pension plans at retirement, which is a lifetime compensation that is not reported on their tax returns. There are 1.2 million small business owners and professionals who do not have those benefits.

Defined benefit pensions plans provide a guaranteed income during the retirement of a civil servant based on the average of their five consecutive years of highest paid service.  Upon retirement, they know what income they will receive, as the funds are guaranteed and paid for primarily by taxpayers. Unlike with an RRSP, TFSA or corporate investment portfolio, bureaucrats with indexed defined benefit plans don’t have to concern themselves with market volatility, portfolio risk, asset allocation or management fees.

Morneau’s Income Splitting Contradiction

In 2007, the government announced those with a pension can split the pension income to reduce the overall tax bill. This means, when a public servant retires he/she can split his/her pension with their spouse (married and common law).  If they have no other income at retirement they will have a joint tax bill after 60 in the range of 20 per cent. This ability to income split, referred to as income sprinkling, is one of the benefits Mr. Morneau wishes to now eliminate for incorporated individuals, but not civil servants.

While the Trudeau Liberals attack small businesses and professionals about income splitting, they decline to disclose that civil servants are permitted to income split. It plays out far better for the 3.6 million government employees who receive pensions vs. the 1.1 million small business owners who don’t. Review the case study for a further analysis of the difference.

CASE STUDY: CIVIL SERVANT VS. INCORPORATED INDIVIDUAL

Take Action & Voice Your Concerns 

Proposed federal tax changes will impact doctors at all stages of their careers. The federal government has proposed three changes to the tax code that could seriously hurt your professional practice. With very little explanation or opportunity to consult, these proposals have left business owners with more questions than answers.

The Coalition of Ontario Doctors urges all physicians to invest an hour to meet or write your local MP.  The Federal government is feeling the heat. We must continue to stand up for our small businesses.  

Questions to Ask Your MP:   Demand Answers!

Voice Your Opinion. Meet Your Local MP

Organise with medical colleagues in your area to meet your local MP at his/her local constituency office. Find your MP and schedule a meeting with your colleagues to discuss how tax proposals affect you and your patients. Doctors are among the hundreds of thousands of small business owners sideswiped by the Trudeau government’s recent announcement impacting family businesses and incorporated professionals.  Proposed tax reforms will have significant impacts on all small businesses and also hurt their middle income staff and Canadians.  Let your MP know how this will impact their constituents and ask the following questions.  

Tax Resources

Learn how the proposed federal tax changes will impact you. Watch Managing Tax Risk Within Family Businesses an in-depth video by Evelyn Jacks, a DFA tax specialist and President of the Knowledge Bureau. Visit with your tax accountant and lawyer to understand what this will mean for your business, family and staff.

Download Questions to ask your MP

Tax Proposal Questions to ask your Member of Parliament

Take Action & Voice Your Concerns. Let your MP know how this will impact their constituents. Contact Your MP Here.

Download Questions to ask you MP

Compensation:

  • How does the proposed tax plan compare to benefits MPs get while working and later when they are retired to that of an incorporated individual?

Passive Investments:

  • As a business owner, how am I supposed to save for new office and medical equipment if I am heavily taxed on funds inside my corporate savings plan? Physicians rely on specialized medical equipment and we need to re-invest regularly in them to keep equipment up-to-date to provide the best care that we can. We rely on the capital that we save in the business to re-invest in our business. Is the government considering the realities of running medical offices?

Income Sprinkling

  • The narrative of “fairness” come into play with income sprinkling? Government MPs can income sprinkle their pension with their spouse when they retire, but now the government doesn’t want to let incorporated individuals income sprinkle while working and we don’t have pensions? How is this fair?
  • The Prime Minister and Finance Minister are referencing TFSAs and RRSPs as savings vehicles, but those aren’t the appropriate comparisons for small businesses. This isn’t just about retirement. We need to save capital in the business to prepare for unforeseen events, business fluctuations, unilateral fee reductions imposed by a provincial government, or for an absence from the business of the principle. Do you understand the difference?

Tax Cheats

  • Minister Morneau has called incorporated individuals tax cheats, yet the federal government website says “Business corporations are taxed separately from their shareholders. The corporate tax rate is generally lower than the individual tax rate. In some cases, incorporation offers some fiscal benefits.” I find it offensive to be labelled as doing something wrong that the federal government encourages, how is that fair or accurate?

Timing / Consultation Period

  • What type of planning was put into, the most significant tax overhaul in 50 years that was introduced in the summer with only a 75-day consultation period when in fact, the Carter Commission on Taxation took over 2 years with 150 accountants, lawyers and economists on board in 1962 to re-do the Canadian tax system.
  • Are you telling me that Minister Morneau did a comprehensive investigation on his own without a full Royal Commission and only a 75-day consultation period?
  • Since the response to these measures is more negative than was expected, will your government re-set the consultation? Do you plan to proceed with the 75 days concluding after October 2nd?
    • Given the complexity of these changes, what’s the rush?
    • Do you personally fully understand the proposed changes?
    • Why was this tax proposal put forward in the middle of summer?
    • Will changes be passed?

Job Security for Middle Income Staff

  • Why does the federal government believe changing the small business tax provisions is a way to help middle income Canadians? Economists and small business owners believe the suggested changes will be detrimental to employment, specifically to middle-income jobs.
  • Was an impact analysis on middle-income workers undertaken? If not, why not?

Liberal MPs Challenging Tax Proposal

  • Some Liberal MPs are challenging the tax proposal calling it a ‘strategic misdirection’ and siding with small-business owners who warn the changes will have a much broader impact and will harm the economy. What are your thoughts?
  • Will you stand up for small business owners in your riding and across Canada and tell the Finance Minister to withdraw these proposed changes?

The Reality for Small Business Owners

  • Would you acknowledge that the comparison that the government is attempting to make between salaried employees and self-employed small business owners is itself not fair? Salaried employees receive many benefits that small business owners do not, including RRSP-matching or pensions, health and dental benefits, paid vacation, sick leave, personal leave, parental leave, severance pay
    • What’s more, small businesses pay for those benefits for their employees.
  • The rationale for these changes is the growing number of CCPCs. However, the annualized growth in the number of CCPCs between 2000 and 2014 was 2.74 percent. This comes at a time when many professions only began to receive the right to incorporate. Moreover, after the 2008 recession, many people went from being unemployed to being independent contractors. Does that level of change really necessitate these changes?

Coalition For Small Business Tax Fairness Letter to Minister Morneau

 Coalition for Small Business Tax Fairness letter on proposed tax proposals

Read: Letter to Minister Morneau on Tax Changes

Dear Minister Morneau,

We are the Coalition for Small Business Tax Fairness. Together, our organizations represent hundreds of thousands of independent businesses, professionals and taxpayers across a wide range of sectors and regions. As you and your colleagues frequently say, small businesses are the backbone of the economy and responsible for the majority of job creation in Canada. Read more here.

1 2 3 4

Coalition of Ontario Doctors
145 King St. W, Suite 2750
Toronto, Ontario M5H 1J8

www.coalitionofontariodoctors.ca