John Bryden

[Income Tax Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the very impassioned remarks of the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, who has proposed a bill that has been given very serious consideration by the House. It is an important bill, but I do have to say with some regret that it is not a bill that I am prepared to support.

I listened to all the arguments in the House and indeed I was here in the House when we had this debate on similar motions before. I find it difficult because I think the bill as written runs on a rock that is very difficult to recover from even in committee.

Very simply there are three questions we have to ask ourselves, about the bill when we look at it. The first question is: what is a mechanic? The second question is: what is a tool? Finally, we have to pay attention to the fact that the bill would allow the rental of tools, whatever they are, to be deducted from taxes.

The member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans said in his original speech that he was referring to auto mechanics, but in fact a mechanic is not defined adequately in the income tax legislation. We rely on provincial governments to define what mechanic means.

Mechanic may extend beyond auto mechanics. It may actually extend to the person who fixes the hard drive in our computer. It may extend to the people who work on ships and make repairs to the sophisticated technology that is now occurring in all areas of transportation.

Second is the definition of tool. Everyone seems to be assuming in this debate that we are talking about socket wrenches, box wrenches, screwdrivers and those kinds of thing. Even in the auto industry, auto mechanics have advanced enormously and it is no longer a question of a mechanic having a box wrench, pliers or whatever else. What it really is a question of is the expensive diagnostic equipment. Not only is it a question that mechanics need things, like the machine that enables them to change truck tires, radial tires and those kinds of things, but automobiles have changed so dramatically that a mechanic now is a person who goes in and replaces sophisticated computerized components. That is what being an auto mechanic is now.

The problem there is that if that is what a tool now becomes, then what we are talking about in the legislation is the tax deductibility of equipment that is worth thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, that any individual mechanic cannot afford to buy himself and is likely to rent.

The legislation shows us what we would be creating. The legislation would have been perfect 20 years ago but it does not fit as written today. I have to say to my own government side and the speaker for the government that this aspect of the bill has been overlooked in the government's speeches on the bill.

The reality is that we have passed the point in time when a mechanic can be viewed as simply a person with a box of tools that he has to renew from time to time or gets renewed when the Snap-On truck comes. The Snap-On truck is an enterprise that goes around to various auto shops and offices to replace their tools.

We are now in the computer age. An automobile is something that requires sophisticated diagnostic equipment just to determine whether the exhaust is working properly. What this would do is create a situation where mechanics would no longer acquire tools whatsoever. What would happen is that we would be indirectly subsidizing those enterprises that rent out this kind of equipment.

I think the House has to carefully consider the legislation and carefully ask itself whether it is something that can be fixed in committee. I do not doubt for an instant the sincerity of the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans in bringing the legislation forward. I also do not doubt for a moment that the House was quite correct in its heart of hearts to want to support it in the times preceding.

However the reality is that the legislation, I am sorry to say, belongs in the past. The auto industry, auto mechanics and all mechanics, including computer mechanics, ought to be covered by the legislation. Times have changed and I think we need to go back to the drawing board on this particular piece of legislation.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in my region the local municipality is allowing developers to group houses together, drill their own wells and maintain their own water supply in their neighbourhoods. There is no scrutiny on this at all. They are required to meet an original or basic standard, but then it is up to that small neighbourhood or community to maintain that water quality and keep testing it.

That is no good. Whether it is one of these small neighbourhoods or individual farms scattered across the country, this is really the enormous problem. Unless we come up with a program whereby the federal government actually requires or provides the funds for free water testing, we are always going to have this danger.

This debate has only been about communities. It has not been about the millions of Canadians who get their water from private sources. This is where the government could act and should act.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I am proposing. I think the federal government should meet with the provinces and set the standards. Once the standards are set, then they should be enforceable, and the federal government should ensure that they are mandatory and enforced.

The difficulty is that in any province there may be a change of government that has a mantra of tax cuts, for example. This is precisely what happened in Ontario. Because of the desire to cut personal income taxes, spending on the environment, water quality and all these things was slashed overwhelmingly.

I believe that we have to give the provinces the opportunity to work in their jurisdictions. Where we go wrong is when we allow the provinces or the municipalities to take actions that actually affect the safety of Canadians.

I would say that yes the government should do what is unpopular. However the reality is, the opposite side and the member who spoke for his party have suggested that the federal government should not intrude into provincial jurisdiction in this matter if there is reluctance on the part of provinces. I say it should, although I do not hold much hope that that is what is going to happen.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.

This particular debate is an excellent occasion that illustrates the kind of conflict and ideology that political parties get into from time to time, because what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a motion calling on the government to act essentially in an area of provincial jurisdiction. I think we would all agree in this House, on all sides of the House, that the right to clean water is something that should be shared by all Canadians. All Canadians should be entitled to obtain clean water, to use clean water anywhere in the land. It is fundamental in the same sense that every Canadian should expect the same standard of justice, the same standard of safety and the same standard of health care. The government over the years has provided in those areas.

But in fact, when it comes to the safety of water, this has been something that has been mostly under provincial jurisdiction. We are now faced with the problem where we have had several tragic incidents where the water supply in communities has been dangerously polluted and it has led to some deaths. Quite rightly, in my view, we have a motion before us calling on the government to be in the forefront of establishing enforceable standards of water quality.

Here is the rub. Three of the opposition parties who have been stressing the need for enforceable national standards for water quality today, those three parties, when you press them, are not willing to have those standards imposed upon the provinces because those three parties, part of their ideological structure is that they believe that fundamental political life should begin with the lowest common denominator, normally the provinces, certainly in the case of the Bloc Quebecois, but also in the case of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservatives with the municipalities.

In Ontario, and I cannot speak for all of the nation on this issue, but in Ontario I can remember when the average citizen could test his water for free. Mr. Speaker, you would take it from a tap, take it to your local medical officer of health who would have given you a proper container, and that water would be tested. Indeed for many, many years in Ontario the province was responsible for ensuring that municipalities had their water tested properly.

But in 1996 the current Conservative government in Ontario basically downloaded the obligation of water quality on the municipalities, on the one hand, who had to look after maintaining such standards as there were, and the province basically privatized the testing of water and took away the free program of water testing through municipalities that up until 1996 led to I think 400,000 tests per annum in Ontario of water quality. All that disappeared.

The problem with this motion and particularly with the amendment to the motion, particularly the amendment that is indeed supported by our side, is if you cop on national standards to protect citizens, then you have to have a way of guaranteeing that those national standards are acted upon.

In response to a question I posed earlier in this debate, the leader of the Conservative opposition said well, yes, we can have enforceable standards, but he believes that we can come to agreements with the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, what if you cannot come to an agreement with a province? What if a province decides it does not want to spend the money on water quality? What if you have a case, as you have in Ontario, when the province downloads the responsibility of water quality to the municipality?

We talked for a little bit about infrastructure. This is not just a question of drinking water. This is a question of the proper treatment of sewage and that kind of thing. What we have in my own municipality, we have a situation where the province downloaded the responsibility for sewage treatment and that kind of thing to the municipality and it has privatized it.

In Hamilton a private corporation runs the sewage treatment plant and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence indicating that that sewage treatment plant is in a lot of trouble. The problem is because the province downloaded to the municipality who privatized it. No one knows whether that sewage treatment plant is functioning properly.

I submit that all across Ontario and indeed all across the country that no one knows for sure that the water treatment plants in communities like North Battleford or communities like Collingwood or other communities across the country, that they indeed are looking after their water quality to a standard that guarantees the safety of the people using it.

The other thing that is overlooked in this debate is we have talked only about municipal water supplies. I do not think I have heard a single person mention the tens of thousands of Canadians who get their water from wells. Again, Mr. Speaker, in Ontario it used to be possible to test water in your well. As a farmer or a cottage person, you could take it to the local officer of health and you could have that water tested. That no longer exists.

Now that we have the industrial farm where there is an increased risk of truly deadly bacteria getting into the water table, we do not have free water treatment even though two decades ago or 15 years ago we did have. So we are regressing, not progressing. My difficulty with this motion is not the original motion. It is the amendment to the motion that says that we must respect jurisdictions.

We are afraid in the House to stand up as members of parliament and say that when it is a case of national safety, when it is the safety of Canadians, whether it is a criminal code, a justice, a law or a medical issue, we are afraid to stand up in this House and say that we should have national standards for water quality across this country, and we have to impose them upon the provinces if they are not willing to do it.

I do not think that is going to happen. Today I heard the Prime Minister say in the House that we had to respect provincial jurisdictions. It is going to be very difficult to turn that around considering what we have heard from the opposition. I note that only the NDP was prepared to suggest that the water quality standards that were being proposed should be mandatorily enforced.

If we are not going to intrude on provincial jurisdictions, then I suggest this national government has to do something, and it has to do something practical. Quite frankly, this is a feel good motion and does not do a darn thing. It just makes it look as though we MPs on both sides of the House are taking action when in fact I do not believe real action is being taken.

Therefore, I would like to suggest something to my own government. The government should invest in free testing for all communities and individuals across the country. If we cannot enter into provincial jurisdiction to fix the water treatment plants, then at least give Canadians, whether they are on a farm or in a municipality, an opportunity to test their water to see whether it is safe. If they find the water is unsafe, then they can go to their local politicians, be they municipal or provincial, and demand action. However right now it is a complete darkness, a complete void. People are drinking water and have no idea whether it is safe, and of course they are unwilling to test it themselves and often cannot afford to.

My suggestion, my contribution to this debate is that as far as the motion is concerned I am not at all happy with it. I just do not think it goes anywhere. However I am delighted to at least have had the opportunity to offer what I think is a constructive suggestion to the government, and that is to institute a nationwide free water testing program.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question several times during the debate and almost everyone has prevaricated in their answers, so I would like to put this very simple question to the member who just spoke.

Is it the federal government's responsibility to impose national water quality standards on all provinces so that all Canadians are guaranteed that the water they drink is safe to drink anywhere in Canada? It is a simple question.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite was the first one so far in the debate who has said that the national standards should be binding.

One of my problems in the debate, as I have heard it thus far, is in Ontario the provincial government withdrew from the programs that provided free water testing for Canadians and withdrew from many other programs that guaranteed good water for people in Ontario.

Should we, when we consider legislation for guaranteeing clean water for all Canadians, be considering ways in which we can prevent provinces withdrawing their support for clean water when they have the responsibility to provide the funds to maintain clean water?

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I quite agree with the previous speaker that the infrastructure program is not delivering federal money directly to this type of infrastructure, sewage or water treatment. The reason is the infrastructure programs has always been set up so the municipalities have the primary decision making on how the money will be spent. If a municipality decides to infrastructure money on their arena for example, or in my riding on a nature path, instead of on sewers or water treatment, then always the federal government has bowed to the right of the grassroots, shall we say, to determine how federal money is spent.

Is the member suggesting that perhaps we should deviate from this practice, we should turn our back on it and propose that the federal government impose or require the municipalities and the provinces, for that matter, to spend money, the money they should be spending in co-operation with the federal government, on clear drinking water?

It seems to me, Madam Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that the federal government is not doing its job, if the decision making is left to the provinces and the municipalities and they are not making the right decisions. Surely the answer is for the federal government, if it is using federal dollars, to impose upon the provinces and the municipalities to spend money on good water for Canadians.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

On just a point of clarity, Madam Speaker, I wish to understand from the member who just spoke: Does he mean that if we set national standards we should force compliance on the part of the provinces?

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke and the opposition party that has introduced this motion should be congratulated because this is an important issue and we should debate it.

I will put a very quick question to the member for Fundy—Royal. He is proposing national standards brought in by the federal government, which I presume he means should be legislated standards. There is resistance in Ontario to any imposition of federal standards in just about any area of provincial jurisdiction. Is he proposing that we should bring in legislation setting national standards for water quality and provide penalties that will force the provinces to comply?

[Patent Act, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, beneath the rhetoric that you are hearing today lurks a very, very serious issue. The member opposite has asked why members of this party have changed their attitude toward giving patent protection to drugs, why they have changed their position in 10 years.

I can tell her why they have changed their position in 10 years. It is that in 10 years there has been an enormous advance in antibiotic resistant bacteria. The classic case is tuberculosis. We now have a strain of tuberculosis out there that is resistant to every known antibiotic but one. There is a great number of these old diseases that have developed resistance to the drugs that we counted upon in the past. Much of this has occurred in the last 10 years. What is happening is that we have to, as a government, do everything in our power to encourage private industry or anyone else to develop new drugs to resist these diseases that have developed resistance to the antibiotics that we have had to date.

This is a serious problem. It is a deadly problem, Mr. Speaker. It is a problem in the scientific and biological communities. They regard it with great trepidation. If we do not do something very quickly about it, if we do not develop new drugs as fast as possible by encouraging the incentives of the marketplace, we are going to be in a lot of trouble and some people, and I do not want to sound overly dramatic, are going to die. We actually have to develop new drugs and if we have to encourage manufacturers by extending the patent protection law, then we had better do it.