Finance committee  Well, yes, and not CPP; it would be basically the income tax portion of it.

Finance committee  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.

Finance committee  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.

Finance committee  Well, not EI, as we said, but only because I believe it has its own purpose.

Finance committee  I suppose that could happen.

Finance committee  Yes. It would be an incentive. It's strictly the employer's portion; it wouldn't be EI or anything like that, because that obviously needs to be used for other issues. It would strictly be the employer's portion of the source deductions.

Finance committee  We're talking about, say, probably $500 on a $3,000 payroll or something like that. If you're paying something like $3,000, you're looking at about $500. Yes, it would be clawed back—basically scaled back—over a three-year period. All it's doing is allowing people to re-enter the workforce.

Finance committee  No; that is why it would be key on the additional employees on your payroll. That's why it's easy to measure: the Receiver General has that information. They know how many employees I have today, and they'll know how many I have tomorrow. If I just replace somebody, that's not an additional employee.

Finance committee  Good morning. My name is Chris Smith. I own a small business in Uxbridge, Ontario. I may be out of my element here. I'm clearly not as prepared as everybody else, but after discussions with my MP and a consultation with the Minister of Revenue's office, I was asked to present this idea.