Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 138
Steve Oldham
View Steve Oldham Profile
Steve Oldham
2020-03-12 17:22
Yes, and that plant pays a royalty back to us in return for the technology that we invented.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
Right, it's a royalty to you, but it's going to be taxed there.
Steve Oldham
View Steve Oldham Profile
Steve Oldham
2020-03-12 17:22
We'll pay tax in the U.S. too, yes.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
You'll pay tax in the U.S.
We see this—sorry; you're shaking your head now. Do you want to change your answer?
Steve Oldham
View Steve Oldham Profile
Steve Oldham
2020-03-12 17:22
It's hard because every time I speak, it cuts out your mike.
To be crystal clear, the plant in Texas will be a U.S.-owned entity, and it will pay U.S. taxes. It also pays a royalty back to us in Canada, and we pay Canadian taxes on that royalty, just like any other Canadian business.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
Does your office, Mr. Giroux, have any models that correlate the tax burden to the number of jobs in the economy?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2020-03-10 16:47
We do have models that are macro models that simulate the impact of certain tax policies or certain policies generally speaking. They show the impact of taking certain elements down or putting certain elements up to determine the impact on the economy.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
Does your model on the amount of taxation for each job loss...? Can you tell us, for example, if the government increased taxes by $1 billion, how many jobs that would cost, if the money were to be generated through increased business taxes, for example?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2020-03-10 16:49
It's something that could probably be generated, but obviously, I don't have that number off the top of my head.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
The reason I'm asking is that, sometimes when the government gives these grants to companies, it does so as though the money is falling from the heavens rather than being raised out of the hands of workers and entrepreneurs in the real economy. If the government gives out $1 billion, it first had to take that billion dollars away from a disparate group of people spread across the entire economy. When we have officials come here and claim that their grants have created x number of jobs, they never tell us how many jobs they killed to take that money out of the economy in the first place.
Could your office provide us with a model to explain how many job losses we have for, say, every million dollars of extra tax the government collects, for example?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2020-03-10 16:50
I can get back to you probably in writing with an estimate. For example, if we can provide you with a rule of thumb, we will get back to you on that.
The other alternative.... You mentioned taxation. The government can also spend money or invest—whatever words we choose to use—through borrowing. It doesn't necessarily have to raise taxes, but eventually there will have to be some payment of interest on that, so it's—
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
We know the lender wants more back than he gave in the first place. The lending option might be even more damaging, because if the government's paying for its corporate handout through the deficit spending, then that corporate handout will have to be paid off over time by taxpayers. That could be even worse. That's not to mention the fact that it had to be borrowed out of the economy in the first place, to whatever extent it was raised through domestic lending. That was money that will not be lent to a private business. It will be lent to the government.
There's no free lunch, as economists like to remind us. I think that's one of the reasons we need to have this study. We continue to hear from the bureaucracies and the recipients of these government corporate welfare programs how many benefits they are bestowing upon us, but nobody can tell us—we had the departments here, and you're here now—the damage it does to take the money out of the economy in the first place.
I would take you up on your offer that you would provide us with a report listing how many dollars of taxation it takes to kill a job. Then secondly you would provide us with your inventory of the number the government is spending on these corporate subsidies, because it will say the government is spending $5 billion on corporate handouts. How many jobs did it kill to take $5 billion out of the economy in the first place and then put it back into the hands of a select and favoured few?
Are you able to provide us with those two parts?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2020-03-10 16:53
If that's a motion of the committee, I would be happy to consider that.
View James Cumming Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Giroux, I'll start with you or Mr. Jacques. Either of you can probably deal with this.
We heard from other witnesses today on some specifics, For example, BlackBerry received money from the federal government towards subsidy of a larger program that they put capital into. The argument was that, in the work plan or the application that was put forward, there would be jobs retained or added. It strikes me that this would be difficult to determine because the private sector had already put money into the project. Which was responsible for which? Did it really add that much value?
I get to Mr. Julian's point of view on a study of the use of public dollars towards these sorts of events. The list of departments within the government that are in the business of handing out money for a variety of different programs is enormous. I went through it in preparation for this meeting, and I was shocked by the depth of it.
Within the study, would there be the opportunity to look at...? We could look at the efficiency of those programs, whether there were jobs created or whether the loans were repaid and the efficiency of that.
I want to come back to my colleague's observation. Would there be a way to study if that capital was made available to the private sector through a reduction in taxes or a reduction in burden and the potential job creation of having that money back in the economy rather than picking companies or picking sectors? It strikes me as incredibly dangerous. We have a lot of small businesses that do not partake in any types of subsidies. They're just trying to make a living, and without having measurables or being able to figure out the efficiency of these programs, perhaps we'd be better off just coming up with a tax strategy that creates investment and brings investment in.
Do you have any comments on that?
Results: 121 - 135 of 138 | Page: 9 of 10

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data