Jim Flaherty

[Government Contracts, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite refers to me as a “walking ATM”. I am at best a fire hydrant, I would think. I would like to be an ATM. Someday I look forward to growing into an ATM.

We have been open and transparent about these contracts. They are listed on the finance website as part of proactive disclosure for anyone to see.

The people who were hired on contract were skilled professionals who did good quality work for the money. These people worked on highly confidential documents, budget documents. They were people I could trust.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, angel investors are high net worth individuals, usually with an entrepreneurial background, who make very early stage equity investments in small private companies.

The Conference Board of Canada’s Leaders Roundtable on Commercialization endorsed a proposal by the National Angel Organization, NAO, for an innovation and productivity tax credit, IPTC, that would provide a combined federal-provincial 30% tax credit, up to a maximum $250,000 credit, on such investments.

Based on estimates by the Canadian Angel Investment Network, which suggest that angel investors invest approximately $3 billion in Canadian businesses annually, a federal-only credit of 30% would cost $900 million per year.

Introducing such a credit would largely subsidize existing investments that would have occurred in the absence of the credit, thereby reducing the cost effectiveness of the proposed measure. The Government of Canada currently provides a number of generous tax incentives that benefit angel investors and to improve access to capital for small business, such as: a 50% inclusion rate for capital gains; the capital gains rollover for small business investments, whereby the tax on capital gains on small business shares is deferred to the extent that proceeds are reinvested in other small businesses; the $750,000 lifetime capital gains exemption for small business shares; and deductibility of capital losses on small business shares against all income sources.

[Homelessness, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the views expressed by the hon. member do not reflect what is happening.

As the United Way of Greater Toronto said, with respect to the working income tax benefit, WITB is a positive change “that will help to improve the situations of low-income families”.

That is what the United Way report stated about that important social program.

What this is not about is idle talk, like the former government did. This is about bringing forward important programs to help people get to work. We got it done.

[Homelessness, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget, as I am sure the hon. member will recall, we created and funded the Canadian Mental Health Commission, which is now headed by Mr. Kirby. This is a very important body that will help address important issues in Canada, including homelessness, which, as members know, relates, to a significant degree, to mental illness and mental challenges faced by people living on the streets.

These are important measures that we have taken.

We have also gone forward with the working income tax benefit to help low income Canadians who are capable of working to get to work. That is something the member's party looked at but--

[The Economy, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into a debate with the hon. member on Viagra. It is something that he can consider in his own questioning.

Like the Bloc Québécois, the member for Markham—Unionville would increase spending by $7 billion. That would mean a deficit for our country in 2008-09. That would mean we would be going back to the bad old days of big deficits by Liberal governments in Canada and not reducing taxes for Canadians and paying down public debt.

On jobs, more than three-quarter of a billion jobs have been created--

[The Economy, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, Tory times are balanced budget times in Canada. Tory times are paying down debt in Canada. Tory times are reducing taxes for individuals in Canada. Tory times are reducing the GST by two full percentage points. Tory times are supporting families in Canada. We did not do what the member's government did which was to reduce health and education sharing with the provinces. That is what the Liberals did to Canada.

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the proposals that come from the Bloc would mean that the government would run a deficit in 2008-09. The assumption is that there will be a $10 billion surplus, at least, in 2008-09, which is unlikely. That means we would go back to the bad old days of running deficits and running up public debt in Canada. We are not going to do that.

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is suggesting is that his party would run a deficit in 2008-09. It would have to be in government to do that.

We intend to continue to balance the budget, as we committed to do. We are going to continue to reduce the public debt. Every time we reduce the public debt, we reduce personal taxes in Canada by the tax back guarantee; that is, the interest saved on that public debt goes back to the people of Canada.

[Manufacturing Industry, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would want to take notice of the stimulus that has been provided to the Canadian economy for 2008 by the government. The cumulative effect of the stimulus is 1.4% of GDP in Canada. She can compare that with the proposal in the United States, which is about 1% of GDP.

This is an enormous stimulus being delivered now to the manufacturing and other business sectors in Canada.

[Finance, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know, if he bothered to review the material, that the work done was extensive. It was done by two people over an extensive period of several months. It related to policy and communications and not as the member just suggested. It is plain that the member has not bothered to review the documentation which is publicly disclosed.