Roy Cullen

[The Economy, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before the government could deal with productivity, we had to get our fiscal house in order. That is why we eliminated the deficit. We are paying down the debt. We are cutting taxes. We have low inflation. We have low interest rates.

Business is responding to this positive environment. In fact machinery and equipment investments were up 18.9% in the year 2000, the fifth consecutive year of strong growth. Corporate taxes will be 5% lower than the combined U.S. state taxes in about nine of the bordering states. We are making the biggest tax cuts in Canadian history and our productivity is turning around.

[The Economy, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, improving labour productivity is a complex, long term problem that requires long term solutions, not the kind of quick fixes they are used to over there. In fact they cannot even get their own management regime sorted out.

That is why the government introduced policies that would get our fiscal house in order, and we have made tremendous progress acknowledged the world over.

Following that, the government has made a lot of investments in research and development and in policies that encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. Businesses are responding big time with investments in machinery and equipment.

[Food And Drugs Act, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport, has the right motivation in bringing forward Bill C-287. However let us reflect for a moment.

The Government of Canada asked the Royal Society of Canada to examine how we should prepare to regulate food biotechnology in the future. The Royal Society came to the conclusion:

There are not currently sufficient reasons to adopt a system of general mandatory labelling of GM foods.

The Royal Society came to this conclusion after examining whether food biotechnology causes health or environmental risks that would warrant general mandatory labelling. The panel concluded that such risks do not exist.

That is not to say labelling of biotechnology foods should go unregulated. The Royal Society concluded that labelling should be mandatory in certain circumstances, such as when the food could cause allergic reaction or where the modified food has a different nutrient profile than the original.

These conditions for mandatory labelling, recommended by the independent experts, match the rules Health Canada already has in place. If a genetically modified food is potentially allergenic it absolutely must be labelled. If a food's nutrient profile is significantly changed it absolutely must be labelled.

In short, both the Royal Society and Health Canada agree that if there are health or safety reasons to label biotechnology foods then labelling will continue to be mandatory.

This takes us to the next question, the question of voluntary labelling. Here again it is useful to refer to what the Royal Society panel of experts concluded in its report to the government. The report reads:

The Panel believes that strong government support for voluntary labels is an effective way of providing consumer input into these issues, and (the Panel) encourages the Canadian regulatory agencies responsible to establish guidelines for the regulation of reliable, informative voluntary labels.

What the Royal Society is calling for is already well underway. The Canadian General Standards Board has a comprehensive process in place to develop a national labelling standard for foods from biotechnology. This is an excellent approach to the biotechnology food labelling issue. By working together the stakeholders will develop a national labelling standard that will meet the needs of consumers and be workable.

The European Union rushed to put labelling regulations in place. It was among the first in the world to have a mandatory regime in place. However the result of rushing has not been positive. Few products are actually labelled because the scheme is not practical.

The virtue of the Canadian General Standards Board process now underway is that the participants intend to come up with a practical approach. A dialogue is taking place among all the players so that everyone clearly understands what is practical and what will meet the needs of consumers.

One final issue needs to be addressed. Public opinion polls are telling us that the vast majority of Canadians want mandatory labelling rules for foods from biotechnology. We have an obligation to consider the views of our electorate. At the same time, however, the people most intimately involved in the labelling debate are coming to a different conclusion.

We have a split between informed opinion and opinion as measured by opinion polls. Canadians are concerned and they have a right to be concerned. When people become more knowledgeable or engaged in an issue they often change their minds. I submit that we need to listen to informed views. We need to listen to Canadians. We should let the Canadian General Standards Board complete its work. We should not pre-empt informed debate on this topic. We should not quash the work they are attempting to conclude.

[The Economy, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the standard accounting principle is that any surpluses left at the end of the year automatically go to pay down the debt, but last fall in an economic update the Minister of Finance said he would proactively decide what would be paid down on the debt. This year he announced a minimum of $10 billion against the debt.

As a result of the actions of the government we have reduced the amount of revenue dollars from 36 cents per revenue dollar down to about 25 cents per revenue dollar on servicing the debt, and we will go further, faster.

[The Economy, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is very characteristic of the party opposite. It wants its cake and to eat it too. It wants investments in Chalk River and it wants to pay down the debt.

The government is paying down the debt. In fact we have exceeded the targets that were set by the Alliance Party. We are paying down debts faster than any G-7 country, and we will continue to do so.

The member opposite did not listen to the finance minister last year when he said that every fall he would proactively decide whether we would pay down the debt. We will have paid down more than $30 billion by the end of this fiscal year.

[The Economy, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the report as well and the member opposite is very selective in his quotes. In fact what John Porter said was that Canada's positioning on macroeconomic policy had shown tremendous progress on the macroeconomic front.

What he did say was that at the microeconomic level, which includes local governments, provincial governments and businesses, we need to have smarter business strategies. We need to take advantage of the strong economic position in Canada.

We have low unemployment. We have low inflation. We have low interest rates. We have eliminated the deficit. We are paying down debts and we are cutting taxes.

[The Economy, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the tax cuts are the largest in Canadian history. Combined with provincial tax cuts, it is approximating 2% of GDP and most economists agree that this is hugely stimulating.

The finance minister will be meeting with Canada's leading economists in the very near term. After that he will be presenting an economic and fiscal update to the finance committee.

Of course we are concerned about Canadians who might be losing jobs. I should point out that by combining provincial tax cuts with the tax cuts that are in place, personal disposable income will increase 5.6%.

[The Economy, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government and the Minister of Finance have always said that we will do the right thing at the right time. We cut taxes by $100 billion last fall. That is working its way through the economy. The minister is monitoring the situation. Of course we are concerned.

We are getting mixed messages, but I should point out that both the OECD and the IMF expect Canada's economy to grow 2.3% this year compared with 4.7% last year. At the same time the OECD and the IMF know that the finance minister's tax cut strategy has been well timed to provide further strength to the economy.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

What about the $700 million?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for St. John's West speaks on behalf of many Newfoundlanders who have raised the concern about equalization. I would like to go over some of the data.

The government recognizes that equalization is a very important program. It is meant to help those provinces that are the so-called have not provinces in order to deliver a roughly equal level of services and programs to their residents.

In 2001-02, Newfoundland and Labrador will receive almost $1.6 billion in equalization. That includes the CHST and equalization. It will account for about 40% of Newfoundland and Labrador's estimated revenues. It is expected to total about $2,930 per person, which is more than twice the national average and the highest of any province.

If we look at those per capita receipts, which are twice the national average, one intuitively reaches the conclusion that it is supposed to work that way. On a per capita basis Newfoundland and Labrador will receive, by this formula, twice as much on a per capita basis as the national average.

Does the member feel that it is not sufficient for Newfoundland and Labrador to deliver the same quality of services and programs to its residents?