Nassagaweya Hall is one of those places where people coming for a meeting have to unstack chairs and fold out tables. When they’re finished, the chairs and tables have to be put away again. The thing about Nassagaweya people is, they all help. Just what you do.
This is the top end of Halton, the piece that runs north from Highway 401 for 15 clicks or so, where the layout of lines and sideroads has not changed since they were surveyed with chains and marked off with stone columns almost two centuries ago, and where each concession is dotted with limestone homes and rubblestone barns that have stood there since before the telephone, before electricity, before Confederation.
It’s horse country, since the land is too rocky in most places to grow much of anything. There are a few swishy rural subdivisions, two of them in Brookville, where tonight’s meeting took place, and you can lay down a million and a half dollars, easy, for the privilege of planting a mail box there. But that kind of commutershed wealth is not the norm in Nassagaweya, which wears its Indian name with pride. Most people here are solidly middle-class. They also tend to the rebellious – survivalists on one hand who eschew the southern suburbanite lifestyle and get off on dissing Toronto, but who also desperately long for high-speed access. I like ‘em. A lot.
This was my first Town Hall meeting as a newly-reincarnated MP, set up to get more input for Jim Flaherty’s coming budget, and I knew it would be the smallest, here in the board-and-batten clad rural hall. But it was lively, engaging, spirited, frank and worthwhile. People spoke to each other freely, even uninhibited by your Mark, the volunteer, sticking his tape recorder out to each person who took the floor (our first, reasonably incompetent attempt to podcast a public meeting).
We talked about what these folks want the Conservative government to do, which ended up being income-splitting; eliminating capital gains tax completely; allowing retired couples lower-tax access to their savings; and coming up with better ways to build retirement savings. They also spent some serious time on the health care system (give people tax credits for not getting sick, and stress preventative care instead of reactive care) as well as agriculture (support the farmers, at, apparently, all costs).
There was also some dismay, some disquiet, that Tories now in power might lose their way, forgetting what those people who voted for them really wanted. To this crowd, that meant running no budget deficit, not falling for the failed Liberal trap of the Kyoto climate change agreement, while bringing true fiscal control and common sense back to the nation’s finances.
We talked for 90 minutes, and then everyone sat there and filled out the questionnaire/survey sheets I’d provided, taking the multiple choice questions seriously and leaving me with a new clutch of comments to ponder. Then back into the snow, with two dozen vehicles ending up being just so many ruts in the night in a parking lot off the Guelph Line.
This was not a big event. There were no memorable speeches. Nothing remarkable happened and the hall was as devoid of life and furniture when it was over as when it started. It was simply a gathering of plain people, strangers actually, on a Tuesday night to talk about the federal budget, political ethics, national taxation policy, wellness medicine, climate change, demographic pressures and agricultural sustainability.
Hey, happens all the time.
9 comments ↓
Garth,
As an American expatriate living in Canada (and a CPC contributor, that’s the least I can do given I can’t yet vote), I do have strong opinions about mortgage interest deductability.
Consider the economic consequences: would you not anticipate a bigger proportion of the population taking out interest-only mortgages? Do you want this to be a housing bubble economy, like California currently is? That’s the direction that such a policy would encourage. Canadians renting their houses from the bank. Are we really better off in such a scenario?
We already get free capital gains on housing as compensation. Be happy with that. That’s not necessarily the case in the U.S. And they pay a lot lower income taxes anyway.
Count the number of G8 governments that are reducing their national debt levels. Umm, one? I like the idea of having a debt-free federal government. In the priority list of things to cut, mortgage interest doesn’t come up on my radar. How about axing 50,000 public servants and reducing everyone’s income tax instead? (That would certainly help loosen up the real estate market here in Ottawa!) And it would be fair to renters or homeowners alike.
Distortion of the free market. The free market operates best when the rules aren’t being interfered with or constantly changed. Markets are efficient, and will react in such a way that any benefits will be neutralized. Again, would this make everyone better off, or would the housing price curve just shift up, and the federal government would be left with less in its purse?
Canada doesn’t have a problem with home ownership. This idea is best reserved for third world countries where people are living in huts with no running water or electricity. They need incentives to buy a home to improve their living conditions. People in Canada already know that it can be beneficial, judging by the home ownership trends in the last 5 years.
Lastly, and you know this already, there is a much bigger problem with retirement savings in Canada than there is with housing. I suggest channeling your energy toward starting a Roth IRA equivalent program in Canada and increasing RRSP contribution limits. Forget about mortgages and housing. Forget about it entirely.
And make this damn citizenship process much easier to go through. I think my all my years under a NAFTA work visa (where I paid over $150,000 in taxes) should count toward citizenship, not just the last two of the six I’ve been here.
Keep up your writing.
I would like to see are tax deductions for fees paid for children up to age
of 18 for outside school courses or activities that contribute to their
overall education. Both my daughters were elite level athletes in soccer and
field hockey and it would have been nice to able to deduct team levies as
they traveled all over BC and the United States. The same goes for kids
involved in music and dance. Lessons, camps and travel to competition all
add up. Who knows , it might encourage Canadian kids to be more active.
The other area that needs attention is around post-secondary education. The
$400 monthly deduction for full time students is a joke. For students living
away from home; rent, food, transportation easily come to $1000 per month.
Bring in a actual deduction for textbooks. Some students are lucky and get
way with a couple of hundred dollars while others such a medical or
engineering students are looking at annual bills of over a $1500. Why is
only the first $3000 of scholarship earnings tax deductible? Winning a
scholarship is a lot like winning a lottery these days and you are not taxed
on lottery winnings. If there is a limit make it $25,000. Revenue Canada
will get their fair share from these scholarly students when they are in
high paying jobs!!
I really enjoy your weekly column in our community newspaper and hope that
being an MP doesn’t mean you will give up writing it.
Good luck on the finance committee.
Barb
Middle Class Canadian
Glad to have you as an MP. By profession I’m an economist but I don’t know much about financial markets – I’m a health economist and researcher.
My thoughts on the budget:
- Child care costs – The #1 problem for MOST families is that the deduction/credit for child care has been capped at $4,000 per child forever, when the actual cost of licensed daycare is $5,000-$6,000 for kids 3-5 years old, and well over $10,000 for babies and toddlers (ages 0-3). There should be a limit on the deduction, but only to stop the richest families from hiring a nanny (cost $25,000/year) for one child. Nanny care can actually be cheaper than daycare with 2-3 young children. (This will not benefit me as my only child is now 14, but it is good policy and should be adopted! I served on several daycare boards when my boy was young, and know the system pretty well.) PLEASE tell the Minister of Finance to raise the deduction limit and link it to actual child care costs by age. It differs by province, but generally ages 0-3 have one set of rules (1 caregiver to 3 or 4 children, high training/licensing requirements for caregivers) and kids 3-6 have another (often 8-10 kids per caregiver, lesser training requirements).
- Camp costs – For some reason residential summer camp (which per hour is cheap child care) isn’t allowed to be claimed as child care. This is crazy and needs to be changed.
- Child deduction/credit – The second biggest problem for most families is that what they actually spend on their kids, and what they are recognized to spend, are miles apart. I think this deduction needs to be doubled, if not tripled, and tied to the real costs of raising kids. Basically, parents raise their kids mostly with after-tax dollars. Wonder why families are getting smaller???
- Private schools – Here is BC we are pretty lucky, there is some provincial support for private students. Across the nation it varies a lot. We need to create a voucher system for schooling – make every family equal and allow choice!! This will improve quality in the public system, and allow those who can to supplement the voucher and choose private school.
- Income-splitting – I disagree with you. Our two-income family doesn’t get the benefit of an at-home spouse/parent, which means we pay (with after-tax dollars) for thousands of dollars of professional services (cleaning, meal preparation, yard & home maintenance, child care, the list goes on) that one-person-at-home families don’t. If you allow income-splitting, then to be fair you’d need to allow deductions/credits for the professional-service replacements, or value (and tax) the services provided by the at-home spouse. Overall, I think it would be a wash, with high administrative costs – leave it as it is and let people choose.
- Family tax return – Again I disagree, similar problem. Unless you find some fair way to value (and tax) the services provided within the family, it isn’t fair to families (now the majority) where both parents work for pay and are taxed on everything they have.
- Property tax credit – I like this one – maybe the general principle could be extended and more taxes recognized? Right now, when doing federal/provincial taxes, all of the other taxes we pay are ignored.
- Stable mortgage rates – really not a tax policy but who can argue with this? Not only good economics but also good politics.
- Interest rate deductibility – I like this one too but I disagree that you need to phase out or reduce the sheltering of capital gains. There probably should be a lifetime limit on principle-residence capital gains – $1 million? – but didn’t we have that at one point and then drop it? Point being, you shouldn’t be taxed on the ordinary lifetime appreciation of one house, but we want to catch the people who make a career of flipping houses (while briefly living in them). The US handles this with minimum ownership time…can’t remember the rules now but worth looking into.
- After-tax retirement savings – Well we don’t have any (it’s all real estate and RRSPs and private/gov’t pension plans in this family) and I don’t think I understand what you’re suggesting…please provide more detail and I could give a better comment. Hardly anyone we know (and we’re pretty well off) has after-tax financial investments. And I know you have given good advice to those with little money – don’t do RRSPs as it will just disentitle you to other help later!!
- RRSPs for caregivers – I thought we had this with spousal RRSPs. Am I missing something? (Of course not everyone who should use a spousal RRSP does…)
- Capital gains tax reform – again not sure I understand the proposed change. Deferring taxes may be good – ditto re/ farms etc., deferral may be the way to go. But this mostly benefits the wealthy so may be hard to sell as middle-income help!
- Hybrid vehicles – As an economist I have to point out that prices should reflect real opportunity costs. If there’s long-term harm from carbon-fuel-consumption, we should tax that appropriately – there is good research to help here. A consistent, evidence-based carbon tax would be better than piece-meal solutions (like subsidizing hybrids).
Keep up the good work!
Rebecca
Victoria, BC
Dear Garth Turner,
Thanks for your invitation to tell you what’s on our voter minds. I liked the tone of your writing, forward looking, thoughtful, and not self-aggrandizing. Let’s go! Here are my thoughts in order of importance:
1. PRACTICAL ASSISTANCE TO ASSIST US ALL TO REDUCE EMISSIONS, REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON OIL, AND REDUCE GREEN HOUSE GASSES. What initiatives are possible?
(a) Federal tax credits to encourage folks to buy HYBRIDs. Be sure to restrict that to hybrids getting more than 40 mpg. (Sadly GM, Ford, and even Honda and to some extent Toyota in new models are using the hybrid technology not to improve gas mileage but to add to already ridiculous engine power and to clip a few more seconds of their 0 to 60 mph acceleration) My Pruis gets a consistent 55 mp gallon and has more than adequate pickup.
(b) Generous tax credits for installing SOLAR PANELS AND WIND POWER for power generation, houses, cottages, pools, and farm use. I read recently that wind power at large scale is achieving about 6.5 cents cost per kw, down from 70 cents per kw in 1980, which is certainly competitive with coal and gas and absolutely beats nuclear if you take the no-charge subsidy of federal insurance on nuclear plants into the equation. If we legislate tax credits for individual taxpayers to install solar and wind, with mandatory ability to sell their surplus to the power grid, I believe thousands of us who are ready to make the experiment would move ahead with it.
(c) We should re-introduce tax credits for insulating your home, hot-water heater,higher insulation levels in new construction, and for geo-thermal heating as well as solar panels and wind generators mentioned in (b) above.
2. INHERITANCE TAXES
Parents should be able to pass to their kids a reasonable maximum level of inheritance free of tax.
3. GIFTS UP TO $10,000 A YEAR, or even $5000., should be made free of tax to the recipient, esp. children or close relatives.
4. GUN CONTROL LAWS AND MINIMUM SENTANCES, SHOULD BE TIGHTENED, AND EARLY RELEASE OF HARDENED CRIMINALS SHOULD BE BETTER CONTROLLED.
5. CAP GAINS TAX could be gradually reduced.
6. INTEREST RATES? I am puzzled by this item on your list. Everybody knows that the Bank of Canada sets the rates, which are inevitably aligned fairly closely to US rates, and it would not be lawful or proper for Parliament to get its political fingers into this well-administered area.
7.NON ELECTED CABINET MEMBERS: I think you were wrong on this one. So long as they seek election later, there’s nothing sinister about a PM selecting the best person for the job. Remember the brilliant performance of CD Howe in WW2?
Good luck with your parliamentary term. You have a serious charge, and a wonderful responsibility.
Douglas
Campbellville ON
Garth, the canadian dollar hit 88c based on the gdp figures out and continued strength in commodities. What are you predicting in this regard? Do you think we’re headed to 90c?
Also given this steep rise in currency, do you think the bank of canada will continue to tighten, perhaps 50 basis points in the next few meetings?
Your thoughts/outlook appreciated.
Timothy – unfortunately, yes to both questions. We are viewed asa petro nation with a petro currency, and the loonie seems bound to continue appreciating. 90 cents is entirely possible, and more Bank of Canada tightening is all but certain. The prime could be three-quarters of a point higher by the fall at this rate, and perhaps a full point. Both are not good for economic growth, since higher borrowing costs stifle investment and a high loonie hurts exports and costs manufacturing jobs. However, we could well see things levelling off within a year, especially as the US economy slows. — Garth
Dear Garth,
I happened upon your weekly financial column several years ago and been a loyal reader ever since. While I still consider myself somewhat financially inept, I am no longer blissfully ignorant of the financial realities of the world we live in. As a facilitator of adult learning, my philosophy is that knowledge needs to be shared. My reason for sending this e-mail is two fold. First I want you to know that I have been pro-active in informing others about your weekly financial (advice) column and secondly, to congratulate you on being elected. Finally, a politician with a track record for integrity, consistent values and ethics in Ottawa, what a breath of fresh air! Never stop “telling it” like it is Garth. The electorate in Halton are indeed fortunate to have you representing their interests in Ottawa.
Sincerely
Kirk Canning
Garth:
I see where Alberta, Quebec & B.C. are going their own way with Medicare. This can only be the tip of the iceberg. Who in their right mind can believe a doctor can work in both the private & public health system?
I have been paying for Medicare since the first day it was implemented. I fully expect all that money to be used towards the care I need now because I’m at a time in my life where having private insurance coverage is not going to be available.
Our Medicare mess is the result of complete mismanagement by various Federal & Provincial Governments.
I fully expect your Government to put an end to the efforts of those who do not follow the spirit of the Canada Health Act. Get to the root of the Medicare problem & fix it – yes, it needs money but it needs management even more. There are other solutions to the abuses of our health system (by patients and management) that do not have to be as dramatic as tearing it apart.
Terry F.
Burlington, Ontario
Glad to see SH finally get involved diplomatically with the tragic deaths in Mexico…Hopefully the government can exert some pressure on this case to get it moving.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060301/ca_pr_on_na/mexico_cdns_harper
Dear Mr. Turner,
Congratulations on being elected as an MP! We need some ethical people in Government who are willing to take action in areas directlly relevant to the general public.
My husband and I read your articles each week in our Peninsula Review newspapaer and are pleased to be given the opportunity to respond.
1. We have long wondered why the use of Solar heat has not been promoted. It is available all daylight hours, is free and the technology to engage it for heating water for home use is not over-complicated or costly. (I know, because my friend in South Wales, U.K. had solar panels put into her roof many years ago now and it is obvious that most of the populated areas in Canada get much more sunlight than does South Wales!). We feel that solar panels should automatically be built into every new house. We would not then be so dependent on the Asian countries for oil!
2. Another idea for saving energy is to have small tanks of water sited above kitchen sinks, connected to a gas line, which fires up as the tap is turned on. (I saw this system operating in England when I was a child, so the equipment and expertise for it is available.) Both of these ideas would effect a tremendous saving in many ways. If the Government were to offer a subsidy to homeowners willing to invest in such appliances, as they do here in B.C. for low-flush toilets and water-saving shower-heads, I suspect many homeowners would take advantage of them.
3. We strongly agree with your comments on Property tax credit. As you must be aware, the cost of housing in Victoria, B.C. has risen dramatically over the last few years and it seems grossly unfair to have seniors being forced to sell the house they may have lived in for over 20 years because they can no longer, with a limited pension, afford the taxes as they increase in huge leaps from year to year.
4. We most certainly support the use of hybrid vehicles and feel the Government should be supporting both the production of these and offering some incentives to the public wishing to purchase them. Why has production of the electric car been suppressed for so many years? I believe such a car would be ideal for a ‘town’ car, leaving the gas/electric model for longer distances. (The ’smart’ car is certainly a step in the right direction.)
5. We also believe more emphasis should be put on Automated Light Rapid Transit in areas where this would be feasible. (Pat. Bay Highway in Victoria would seem like an ideal place for this, for example.)
I realise you will probably receive a great deal of input from readers to your article. I hope this response hasn’t been too ‘wordy’! Again, many thanks for the opportunity to respond!
Ruth in Victoria