The following idea can easily be denied or accepted to move on to next steps….from a SR&D perspective

-STATEMENT OF INTENTION-
As the economy becomes more and more global, there is a need for a global currency facilitating simply and only the exchange of food items, without exchange rate fluctuations.
Countries can apply to participate and food items produced by the member country will not be subject to exchange fluctuations.
Benefits:
I can list many….one of which it will help reduce world hunger in many countries…another is that it will help producers, particularly farmers, compete on a fair global scale.
Obstacles:
I can list many as well.

The reader can simply now put themselves in the position of accepting and or denying the above INTENT based on the rules and objectives laid out in the program.

Before anyone critiques my simplicity, I fully understand and appreciate that the request for pubic money would require more details that I have presented above…..

We in Canada have the creative minds, the skilled people and the resources to be a global leader in this so called knowledge economy. Do we have the will and the courage to overcome the fear of failure?

By the way…it is not the SR&D program that my company has been granted…YET!
For now, we’re simply trying to create Canadian jobs by building a Global Credit Bureau and being quite successful, I may add, thanks in part to SR&D support but mostly to the brilliant people I work with.

Ted, your first recommendation is “to require companies to notify the Canada Revenue Agency within three months of the start of a project …”

Perhaps a more restrictive approach would be even more effective with regards limiting (eliminating?) SR&ED trolling by consultants.

Having worked for four decades as a consultant in the IT sector, I was involved in many programs that were at least partly funded by one or more level(s) of government. In practically all cases, projects were eligible for support ONLY if ‘approved prior to any expenditures being made.’

Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but it seems to me that any organization, regardless of size, could easily submit a “statement of intention and brief description of expectations” in ADVANCE of any expenditures (investments) being made. Once submitted, the process would move forward as you have suggested. Would this approach tighten up the process and reduce (eliminate) the illegitimate claims?

1) If it was not for the SR&D reporting companies I would have never heard of the program. A a matter of fact, the first one that approached us declined to work with us because our “program was too small and not worth their while”. No question they make money on our backs but then again, we small business owners are busy building the business and keeping the banks happy to have time to check out the details of government initiatives. The second company has worked with us for over 4 years and yes, has benefited more than any other stakeholder. The business and community has benefited as well.

2) SR&D has assisted in paying for the equivalent of 1 employee out of 12, but was instrumental in giving me the courage to hire 2 additional spin off professional. Without SR&D, my company of 12 employees would have had 3 less for the past 4 years, not to mention the spin off employment of the people prepping the claim. In other words, the community got back what it invested in my business through payroll taxes etc…

3)The R&D we were able to finance through the SR&D claim has permitted us to compete against US multinationals and actually carve out a presence in the Canadian credit information industry. While the multinational have actually shrunk Canadian operations and jobs and repatriated those jobs to their US operations, we have been able to grow Canadian jobs. Is that all attributed the SR&D? No, but it has had a very positive influence on getting us to where we are a a little sooner.

4) Is there abuse with SR&D? I don’t have time to prove it, but I imagine like many government programs, there are those benefiting for the wrong reasons, giving the rest of us a bad reputation.

5)I believe SR&D money should also be granted for marketing the innovation that a company has developed. The claim only permits IT or technological innovation and limits any other expenditures.
What is the point of spending a ton on money on developing a new mouse trap if you don’t help the company tell the world what it has developed? Additional marketing assistance helps the companies promote their discoveries which creates new customers which creates new Canadian jobs. Is that not the goal of the program in the first place?

I agree with Ted’s idea that having to notify the government within 90 days will reduce the “trolling” by reporting companies, but then again if that rule was in place, we would not have been a success story of the program. Pros and cons I guess…

I also agree with reducing the time to process the claim. While we are waiting for the refund, the companies have to finance the payroll for the R&D people involved and that puts a heave burden on small business who are already challenged to raise capital.

I can’t speak for the big players in the program of whether the community benefits from the investment we collectively make in SR&D, but I fully support it for firms in the 5 to 50 employee range. There is no question of being able to tangibly prove the benefits to the business as well as the ROI back to the community.

The low number of comments or interest in this topic and posting maybe speaks for the program itself????

I do, however, want Canada to be a place where innovation is burgeoning — in a variety of sectors — and where science can be applied to both bring about economic prosperity and responsible social/ecological action.

I fear (perhaps wrongly, please comment) that we are ‘missing the boat’ on the green-economy revolution (decisions like last week’s cancelling the retro-fitting program don’t help); that our current government is not interested in us being anything other than a country that supplies raw materials to other nations’ value-addeed economies; and that we have stifled innovation in our country through either a) too much bureaucracy, b)lack of education, or c) lack of access to funds once a good idea has been secured through research and experimental development.

People have to be able to get on the ground running. And it will not be enough to just ‘tweak’ the current system — as with all the issues we are facing, we have to look at a paradigm-shift.

a) Bureaucracy: I agree with your suggestions above. I also fully agree that you cannot limit SR&ED credits to labour costs! This would only favour the largest innovators who have already secured venture-capital (yes? no?). That seems to make sense to me.

b) Education: If you really want innovation in this country (and that is a federal issue, yes?), then you need a National Education Plan for it. OUr current education systems, laudable as they may be, do not stress (indeed some would say cannot stress) experimental approaches, observation and free-thinking. I live in Ontario. Mike Harris’ curriculum does not prepare students to be innovators.

c) Fund-Access: Issues like access to venture-capital come up as well as the ones you mentioned about SR&ED. These are broader than SR&ED (no?). This is very ‘political’ territory, especially where large corporations hold sway without government regulation. My brother-in-law (US) came up with wonderful technology for the reward-card system; he waited months for venture-capital, it did not come through, and he had to declare bankruptcy (letting go 25 workers). Then the technology was ‘bought up’ by a large corporation (that shall go unnamed). This is unjust. People should be able to reap the rewards of their efforts.

Deeper questions for the paradigm-shift:
What is research?: I would like to see your understanding of scientific research include things like action-research (in the field). Also our understanding of science needs to shift in order to accommodate the new understandings that are emerging The German concept, Wissenschaft comes to mind — beyond just controlled experiments.

Thank you for reading. I take my responsibility as a citizen seriously, so I offer what I can and what is thought out.

We also bring in many temporary foreign farm workers, and while some say we are giving them a chance to live better when they go home, I say we are taking advantage of them when we do not treat them better, and if we raised our rules for them and the minimum wage we would hire more of our own, and train them for the skills that are needed. We are using them and we are creating unemployment here, people here would be glad to have those jobs if they paid fair wages and benefits. Businesses here should not get a cheaper deal to hire temporary foreign workers.

As for native workers and education, most places in Canada have good home schooling for high school and even university and college degrees, only the student must be motivated. You can not teach someone who sees no matter what they learn will, it be useless in their community, and many do not want to leave their remote communities to work. Already native students get substantial free help to get advanced education.

I personally have tried to enrol native students in programs that were free, with free accommodation and meals, and mostly it was a struggle to get enough students to fill the program, they wanted to be paid while they were learning. I heard some say they would take the course if they got paid, but would not work at the job afterward. I also know some very skilled natives who took advantage of all that was available to them and they have the degrees and jobs they wanted. The problems are far more complex then just offering education.

I owned a town in Ontario once, a non native town, one that was the left over of a large saw mill of the late 1800’s, it closed in 1929, and most employees left, but a few remained and the descendents of those who stayed were still renting from me 50 years later and the majority were 3rd generation welfare recipients. I asked one young fellow what he was going to do now that he was graduating from high school and he said he and his friends had talked about it and decided that welfare was good for his dad and granddad, so it was what they were going to do, after all he said, there is not much money, but one can live on welfare and has a lot of free time so who really wants to work.

So I submit that we should save the money we spend on immigration and spend it on the people in Canada who do not have real work ethics with some forced schooling and trade training that is required if one is to collect welfare, or any type of government hand out, strings must be attached. Most of these people would be more them happy once they were out of the rut, and in the workforce, only many have never experienced anything except the ruts they were brought up in, it should be our job to create the opportunities so they can. It is very hard to break out of a social structure you lived in since birth, this is part of the education we have to provide.

“While [Stephen] Harper has not promised to raise pro-life or pro-family legislation he has promised to allow such legislation to be introduced by others and to permit free votes….” – Anti-abortion Web site LifeSite.net, March 22, 2004.

http://jeansansum.shawwebspace.ca/blog/post/quotes_by_and_about_stephen_ha_1/

Oh, SR&ED is providing jobs all right, for the SR&ED reporting companies!