I’ve provided a sample below, but it’s worth the time and effort to personalize your letter.

A few general points of advice when communicating with Canadian authorities:

• Be courteous. Never threaten. A cordial relationship keeps the door open.
• Be constructive. Rely on the facts and avoid threats of political influence or demands.
• Be direct. State the subject of your letter clearly, keep it brief and address the issue.
• Be accurate. Beware of false or misleading information. Always double-check if you aren’t sure.
• Be informative. State your own views and support them with knowledge. Your personally written letter is more highly regarded than pre-printed materials or postcards.
• Personalize your message. Cite examples from your own experience to support your position. Give personal examples of how the issue will impact you and others like you.

You can also reach Dan Miles, Director of Communications Office of the Minister of Finance, at 613-996-7861 or David Gamble, Miles’ assistant, at 613-996-8080. In addition, if you’d like to receive automatic e-mail notification of all news releases, please visit the Dept of Finance Web site www.fin.gc.ca/scripts/register_e.asp.

Here’s a sample letter:

The Honorable Jim Flaherty
Minister of Finance
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6

Dear Minister Flaherty:

I’m a [retiree, pensioner, individual investor, working person saving for the education of my children] and a US resident. I write to express concern over your recent decision to tax the distributable cash generated by income trusts.

Back in the days of the 1990s’ tech bubble, the financial media spoke often of the “democratization” of investing, playing up the fact that more and more people were participating in financial markets through mutual funds, etc.

The story paid no attention to the quality of that participation. Imagine, then, my joy at discovering Canadian income trusts: an investment vehicle that allows me–the owner–to share the fruit of my investment. What a concept.

I certainly appreciate your concern for “tax leakage,” but I’ve read a great deal on the subject. And I must say that the jury, it appears to me, is still out. Reasonable, informed minds disagree on the impact; some, including Jack Mintz, say government coffers will suffer, while others–including those who prepared a study of the Telus conversion for RBC Capital–report that a trust conversion could produce more revenues. And I was also struck by the comments of Andrew Sharpe, described by the Toronto Globe & Mail as “one of Canada’s foremost productivity experts and the head of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards based in Ottawa.” Mr. Sharpe said, “I don’t really think there’s any strong evidence that income trusts are hurting Canada’s productivity.”

The same Globe & Mail article stated, “[T]he evidence on productivity points elsewhere: to traditional companies in Corporate Canada, whose records on investing profits in innovation and competitiveness are on shaky ground.”

The transparency of income trusts and the degree to which trusts share cash with owners is something we in the US ought to emulate. We can certainly take many lessons from this form of financial-market democracy, particularly in light of our recent experience with Enron.

I fear your action has set back the cause of working people, retirees and others hopeful for a new investor-centered financial universe. That fear was made more acute as I read reports of your consultation with corporate elites on the matter of income trust taxation.

The distributions paid by Canadian income trusts have helped secure my [retirement, family’s future, provided additional income to help make ends meet, child’s education; be specific, but brief]. And I can only imagine the impact of the trust-tax selloff has had on similarly situated Canadians.

In this case, if ordinary Canadian investors—retirees, pensioners, working people—win, we all win, and Canada can send a message that democracy has truly prevailed in the financial markets.

Very truly yours,

(Signature)