can borrow an additional loan. The pro- ceeds are invested in stock market funds to generate aſter-tax returns in excess of deductible interest, leading to long-term financial success. The Mutual Fund Dealers Association,


in Member Regulation Notice MR-0069, states that there should be no need to rely on the investment portfolio to meet loan payments. If you are still paying off your home purchase mortgage, it is not likely you have any free cash flow; if so, maybe you should seek guaranteed returns by paying off the loan more quickly. Aſter that, look at leveraging and its suitability for you. In my opinion, as a fee-for-service reg-


istered financial planner, the Smith Ma- noeuvre is inappropriate in the case I de- scribe. People should use their free cash flow to rid themselves of debt, not borrow more money to invest it in the stock mar- ket with no guarantees. A bear market or significant interest rate increases could result in margin calls and foreclosure action. Leveraging is only for those who understand the stock market, can afford to lose some of their investment and still repay their debt. As Stefanac suggests, leveraging may


be appropriate. However, I do not believe her advice to use the Smith Manoeuvre is appropriate without a lot more disclo- sure in her article. Unfortunately, I have seen more than


one complaint filed with the provincial securities commission in this type of sce- nario.


Blair Corkum CHARLOTTETOWN


Challenge assumptions and processes


I AM GLAD TO SEE “Ready, Willing and Able” (Workplace, December). We who are disabled have to eat too. We need ways to bridge to employment that don’t come with unreasonable, unfair barriers.


It took much for me to be considered


employable. I have a high IQ. I was on the dean’s list. If I put out a resumé, there was a 50% chance I would be called for an interview. But, once they saw me, there was a 0% chance to get the job. Sometimes it was a legitimate mismatch. But other times, it was clear that my ap- pearance was the problem. Interviewers need to challenge their assumptions and their processes. The article discusses changing how


you interview the applicant. I have heard many questions that didn’t have a pur- pose or an answer. Asking a person who already feels challenged, “Why should we hire you and not someone else?” is a tough one. Such a question becomes, “How does your disability affect your self- esteem?” In order to work I have accepted low


pay. In order to have a job I have accepted being in a toxic smoking environment. I needed experience. For every champion there is a discrimi-


nator. When you are a hard-working dis- abled person you can have one supervi- sor who expresses that the organization needs to clone you and another one who tells you you aren’t trying to improve and that you are using your disability as an excuse. Given enough time, discrimina- tors can sour champions. In an interview it may be that they have a veto right; in a job, it might be that you have to stick up for yourself in a way that no one else would have to. Even champions some- times cannot see the why, because they aren’t the target of it. There is also accommodation jealou-


sy — accommodations are requested so that a person with a disability can do his or her job. Such accommodations may be nice-to-haves for everyone else, but not having them would not prevent ev- eryone else from doing their job. If you need something badly enough, you will go get it for yourself. And, honestly, the


employer is not always the one you need the accommodation from. Name withheld on request


Online Comments


Childcare program should be BC priority


(“A Daycare Caution,” Canadian Issues, October) WE RECENTLY visited Sweden, where there is a national childcare program that could be emulated in Canada. Upon researching childcare in Cana-


da, and BC specifically, we learned that Quebec provides childcare subsidies to families that are significantly greater than those in BC and other provinces; as well, we understand the Quebec program is ad- ministered in a way that provides uniform care with province-wide standards. We are at a loss at how this can be fund-


ed in Quebec; Quebec is a net receiver of federal transfer payments from provinces such as BC. It can be argued that BC tax- payers (and those in other “have” provinc- es) are paying for Quebec’s childcare pro- gram. This is not equitable; all Canadians should be entitled to the same benefits regardless of where they live. According to Global News, a Quebec family pays an average of $2,000 to $3,000 a year for childcare compared with more than $23,000 in BC. Budgeting for a prov- ince-wide standardized, licensed and sub- sidized childcare program in BC should be a priority. Gary Brush


FEBRUARY/MARCH 2018 | CPA MAGAZINE | 5


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64