Jim Flaherty

[Retail Industry, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burlington for the very timely question.

There is clearly room to reduce prices in Canada, given the increased purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. This is important, not only for Canadian consumers, but it is also important for Canadian retailers so that they can maintain their sales volume.

I have encouraged retailers to reduce their prices as soon as possible. Many already have. More are doing so. This is valuable for Canadian consumers. I encourage Canadian consumers to shop around so that the market will work well.

[Finance, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member believes in price controls. We do not. That is not the type of interference in the market that we are interested in doing.

With respect to ATM fees, I might remind the member, and he might not be aware of it since he was not here at that time, that we now have better arrangements for ATM fees for seniors in Canada and better arrangements for students in Canada. We have a network being developed by the credit unions in Canada involving about 2,000 ATM machines that do not have any surcharge at all. This is all good for Canadian consumers.

[Finance, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the issue the hon. member raises, that of the increased value of the Canadian dollar vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar and resulting pricing policies in Canada, is very important to Canadian consumers. That is why I have raised the issue on behalf of the government publicly. I have spoken to many of the retailers directly in the course of the past month.

We are encouraging the retailers to reflect as quickly as possible the increased purchasing value of the Canadian dollar, for the sake of Canadian consumers and, quite frankly for the sake of Canadian retailers as well, so that they will have the business volumes they would like to have.

[Goods and Services Tax, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to his portfolio as finance critic. I think the question was about the GST, at least the first question.

I remind him that a very learned member of the NDP said, “I just as soon that they got rid of the GST and do something else. I haven't given up on Mr. Jean Chrétien keeping his promise and keeping his word in getting rid of the GST”. That was Bob Rae in 1994 who was NDP then and who now I think is a Liberal. It is very confusing when it comes to GST and the opposition parties.

[Goods and Services Tax, October 17th, 2007]

I knew, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals are against reducing the GST. I did not know that the NDP is also against reducing the GST, which after all is a tax cut that benefits every Canadian who makes purchases across Canada, including Canadians who do not pay income tax.

[Securities, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I say, I certainly intend to respect the constitutional powers of Quebec and the other provinces but what is called for is a common securities regulator. When one deals with a common securities regulator we are not dealing with constitutional issues because the provinces and the federal government would agree.

I would remind the member opposite also that the Minister of Finance in Quebec has called for national enforcement with respect to securities which necessarily involves the Government of Canada.

[Securities, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. He said that our government believes that the constitutional authority of each level of government must be respected.

Our intention is to act within the federal constitutional power with respect to all matters relating to trade and commerce in Canada. Certainly we intend to respect the constitutional authority, as it is, of the various provinces with respect to various issues.

I remind the member opposite that the call is not for a federal securities regulator but for a common securities regulator.

[Equalization Formula, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I just pointed out, the Liberal minister of finance for New Brunswick does not agree with the suggestion that was just made.

Let me say that under the new formula all provinces will be better off in Canada to the tune of $39 billion over seven years. That is $39 billion in transfers for health care, for education, for infrastructure and for environmental progress in all the provinces and territories in Canada. It is a great step forward as we move away from the mess that was created by the Liberals over 13 years.

[Equalization Formula, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of finance in New Brunswick said the following about the report:

So far Premier Graham has had a very positive working relationship with [the] Prime Minister...and we intend to continue on that same route.

Indeed, the premiers have been asking for a principle based, predictable, long term formula for equalization in Canada. We had an experts panel look at that. Yes, it is necessary that the national government act on this because the premiers could not agree. We have and we are continuing--

[Equalization Formula, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as all members know, the premiers had many meetings with the Council of the Federation and they were unable to come to an agreement with respect to the equalization.

The premiers, including all the premiers of the receiving provinces, have been asking for more than two decades for fiscal equity in terms of equalization in Canada and for a 10 province, principle based formula. That is what we have been able to arrive at.

There are some unique situations in Nova Scotia because its accord runs to 2019 and we have had some constructive discussions with the premier on that subject.