We'll leave that as a comment.
Evidence of meeting #54 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was research.
Evidence of meeting #54 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was research.
Conservative
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Smith, again, going over your proposal, in your brief you talk about “reducing the source deductions”. Would that mean CPP, EI, and deductions at source?
As an Individual
Well, not EI, as we said, but only because I believe it has its own purpose.
As an Individual
Well, yes, and not CPP; it would be basically the income tax portion of it.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Then what would you do? Would you just hire an additional employee and then decide not to remit his source deductions?
As an Individual
It would be administered however the Receiver General decided to administer it. In essence, it would either be rebated or just not remitted, but it would be recorded, certainly.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
That's the problem right there. You have to find a way to make it....
In the past, there were programs where, at the end of the year, when you filed your T4, you were eligible to get a portion of your EI premiums that you had paid...more than the year before. That was the true test. There could be some type of program in that fashion.
I'm from Quebec. The federal government has outsourced its employment training. If you were to hire an employee, you could go to see Emploi Québec. They'll give you a grant, if you're eligible, for hiring new people. That would be better structured.
I'm wondering; is there not that type of facility in Ontario?
As an Individual
There are currently some programs that you need to apply for, need to register for. I don't think it's effective right now, because most people cannot be bothered, or it simply doesn't apply to them, whereas if it's right across the board for everybody, then it's a simple matter of every additional employee.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I understand. The only problem I see is the abuse whereby people just won't submit their deductions at source. At the end of the year you're caught, because you haven't submitted your deductions at source.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you.
Just quickly to the people from McMaster, either Mr. George or Mr. Elbestawi, you're asking for money for investment in new innovation. I think Mr. Menzies stated that there seems to be universities competing against universities.
Université de Montréal has put tons of money into our university. I'm just wondering, why should the Government of Canada give $10 million—I think it's $10 million—for innovative products? Why not ask for a loan and let the fact that it's going to generate income force you to generate that income, turn it into a commercialization—the universities seems to be weak in that aspect—and force you to have a return on investment, if you are going to come up with some innovative product?
I would like you to comment on that.
President and Vice-Chancellor, McMaster University
Well, I think it's a strategic investment in the prosperity agenda for the federal government.
Second, when we acquired our property for the McMaster Innovation Park, 37 acres of a former industrial site, we received a $10 million grant from the Province of Ontario and a $5 million grant from the City of Hamilton in support of that project, but we acquired it too late to participate in the federal program to support research and innovation parks. We are asking for a federal grant for much-needed infrastructure investment to match the provincial grant of $10 million that we received a few years ago. We did have this as one of the priorities on our knowledge infrastructure program list, but since the province had already contributed its $10 million, it didn't, I think, qualify for the joint nature of the program.
We think it's a good investment for the federal government, particularly given the economic circumstances in which Hamilton finds itself and the great expectations of the city and of our community for the future activity on the innovation park as a catalyst of economic revitalization of our area.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
If you're not able to get it as a grant, would you not be interested in requesting it as a loan?
President and Vice-Chancellor, McMaster University
We'd be quite happy with a loan on reasonable terms--especially if, in the end, it was converted into a grant.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I think you're ready for a career in politics, Mr. George.
I want to clarify a couple of issues or ask a couple of questions.
One question is for the Canadian Media Guild. The proposal of a seven-year memorandum of understanding is an interesting idea, and I think there is some merit to it. The one challenge for us as parliamentarians, though, is with CBC's accountability to Canadians themselves, and I'll give you an example.
When CBC Radio changed their programming with respect to reducing the amount of classical music, I got a lot of phone calls and e-mails from a lot of Canadians in my area who said they were big fans of CBC Radio, they loved it the way it was, and they didn't like the change. I said, “I'm a parliamentarian. I don't determine programming, so talk directly to CBC.” Their response to me was that they had, and that they hadn't got much of a response.
This memorandum of understanding between the government and the CBC is a good idea, but how do you ensure that Canadians themselves have some input or get some response from CBC directly?
President, Canadian Media Guild
Your answer was right, in that the government isn't here to.... Nobody would propose that the government tell the CBC what to do and how to program. The CBC does, in my view, a mixed job about responsiveness to the audience, but that's not a function of its funding.
In terms of accountability, there are two kinds of accountability it needs to have. One is accountability to the government, and I believe it can be done through a memorandum of understanding. In this case the CBC says they will do X, Y, and Z, and that you will pay them x, y, and z dollars for seven years. Then they know where they're coming from, and you know what you're getting. That's the relationship between the CBC and the government. It makes perfect sense. They get predictability.
Now, in terms of the CBC and its audience, in that document you can tell them to beef up their responsiveness to their audience and to make sure their board of directors is functioning in that regard. The board of directors is supposed to be the link between the audience and the CBC.
If that's an important issue for the government that is providing this contract, it can say to the CBC that this is important: if you're going to engage in a contract with us--
President, Canadian Media Guild
--this is it.
On the whole topic of Radio 2, people field a lot of complaints about a lot of stuff, whether it's The National, Radio 2, program X, or program Y, on whatever platform. This issue about funding your public broadcaster and my public broadcaster and Canadians' public broadcaster is much bigger than program X or program Y. It really is. You have to--
Conservative
President, Canadian Media Guild
I know, I know, but I really urge people--because I've been around for awhile on this--not to weigh in to--
