John Solomon

[Division No. 12, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present this evening will vote yes.

[Division No. 12, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present this evening vote yes on this motion.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough talked about what the Liberals want. He said that Liberals want long term jobs.

It is interesting to hear that is what the Liberals want. When we look at their actions and hold them up to the light of day they just do not wash. Their desires and their actions are two different things.

For example, in the last parliament Bill S-9 was passed. That bill was supported by Liberal members, by Reform members and by Bloc members. The only party which opposed it was the NDP. Bill S-9 has done for the country the opposite of what the Liberal member has just talked about, that is creating jobs.

Bill S-9 did a number of things. Primarily it gave Canadians, retroactive to 1988, a refund of estate taxes paid in the U.S. on wealthy estates. Their estates were reimbursed eight years back. It gave Canadians tax deductions in Canada for making contributions to U.S. charities.

The scandalous point I want to emphasize today is that it gave Canadians who make contributions to U.S. universities like the University of Arkansas and so on tax deductions in Canada from Canadian income.

On the other hand the Liberals take money away from education, creating great hardships to our students. They give hundreds of millions of dollars in tax deductions to wealthy Canadians who can afford to send their children to the States. If we look at the numbers there are 30,000 Canadian students in the U.S. right now and only 3,000 American students in Canada.

We see, with a ratio of ten Canadian students to one American student, where the money is going to flow. It is going to flow south. Yet the Reform, the Bloc and the Liberal government embraced and supported the bill to the detriment of Canadian youth and Canadian education.

I have a letter I want to raise with the member. It reads:

I am writing to you about an issue that is of concern to me. I am in my second year at the University of Regina and have just recently finished paying my tuition fees. The price of going to university is getting outrageous. I am only taking four classes and it is costing me $1,300, plus the price of books on top of that.

Here is the point:

Within this last year, I have noticed that the cost of tuition has gone up dramatically. Talking to people who went to university five years ago, I have found that the price of one semester now would have been the price for two semesters when they were going. If this rate of increase continues, it will be very hard for me to be able to continue my education and achieve my degree since I am paying for it myself and only working at a minimum wage job.

Eventually, I can see only the rich or academically gifted attending university while the rest of us serve them food at McDonald's. It seems that every time a new budget comes out there are more and more cuts to school funding. I am not sure how this problem can be fixed but I know that something must be done. I do not want to spend the rest of my life working for very little money at a job that is going nowhere.

A high number of students writing to me say they need jobs. Education expenses are increasing and are out of control. The member says he wants to talk about how they desire long jobs, but every action the Liberals take is contrary to what they wish.

I have a question for the member for Hillsborough. What does he think of Bill S-9? Why does he think it is something we have to continue to support at the cost of the Canadian youth in our education systems?

[Privilege, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is on this point that I want to relay some information to the House with respect to this issue which may help the deliberations in solving this problem.

I want to point out to the member for Yorkton—Melville that his colleague, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has been reported on Saskatchewan's CBC provincial radio as saying that he has a lot of leftover budget and that he calls other members of Parliament who require more budget to staff their offices to meet the increased workload inefficient. Perhaps the member for Yorkton—Melville could go to his Reform colleague for Cypress Hills—Grasslands and ask for some of his money he has left over.

[Petitions, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition this morning from many constituents of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and other parts of Saskatchewan.

The petitioners are very concerned about the pricing of gasoline in this country. They feel that the price of gasoline is set by all companies in an unjustified manner. They believe that since energy is a key component and the most fundamental component of our economy, there should be some control of its pricing.

They call on Parliament to set up an energy price review commission to keep gasoline pricing and other energy products in check.

[Patent Act, October 20th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-248, an act to amend the Patent Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my appreciate to my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, for seconding this very important bill.

I am pleased to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Patent Act. The bill will limit the life of patents for medicines to 17 years and allow for compulsory licences to be granted to the manufacture and sale of medicines after the original patentee has had the medicine approved for marketing for four years.

It also states that the royalty rate is to take into account the amount of medical research carried out in Canada by the applicant and the patentee. There is a provision for refusal or deferral of a licence if a patentee has been unusually delayed in comercializing the medicine.

In essence, this bill will reduce prescription drug costs to Canadians, create more jobs for Canadians, provide competition from Canadian generic drug manufacturers and reduce the rising cost pressure high drug costs have created in our health care system.

The bill addresses Bill C-91, the Drug Patent Act, which has caused prescription drugs to skyrocket in costs. It has affected our medical care system by driving up the cost of prescription and hospital drugs and other drugs to individual users.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Points Of Order, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order refers to question period and a question raised by the Liberal member for Oak Ridges and directed to the Minister for International Trade.

Could the Speaker rule whether the question was in order? He asked the Minister for International Trade how Canada compared to other countries with respect to investment and jobs.

Everybody who reads their own briefing notes and papers that all members get would know that we compare quite favourably. I wonder what the purpose of his question is. Perhaps he did not read his briefing notes.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the member by saying that since the last time he was a member in the House of Commons things have changed a fair amount.

The member who is now a member of the Reform Party changes his politics like a dirty shirt. He was a Conservative member of Parliament. He was a member of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. He was a good friend of Bill Van der Zalm, that upstanding fundraiser. He was a good friend of Bill Bennett, that upstanding fundraiser who has been before the courts for the last 15 years.

Now he is a member of the Reform Party. I wonder what he will bring to the Reform Party in terms of integrity, in terms of fundraising, in terms of cleaning up the system which exists now, which quite frankly is not in tune with contemporary politics and contemporary thinking in society.

We are saying to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada that the system we have now which provides financing to political parties has to be revisited. It has to be cleaned up. Here is an opportunity which was provided to us by the Bloc. I congratulate the Bloc for the motion. I believe all members should focus on it and work toward that objective.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, members will know that political parties were originally established to advocate ideas based on principle. They are tied together as political parties on the basis of principle. We put forward the world view on issues important to people who support our particular philosophies.

The Reform members who are chirping from their seats are concerned about being brought into this debate. They have track records with respect to some of the issues before the House today. It reminds me of the old saying that when you throw a rock in the dark and a dog barks, you hit a dog. I think we have a problem here. I think the Reform is barking because it has been hit with the same allegations as the Liberal Party.

We have a political process that is still tied to the old slogan of he who pays the piper calls the tune.

The NDP believes there must be an inclusive, fair, transparent political contribution system to include as many people as possible in our democracy. In a certain way we are on the right track. We have a political tax credit system which includes average, ordinary Canadians. They can contribute money to a political party and obtain a tax break on their income taxes.

We think there must be an extension of that system. There has to be a ceiling of contributions from businesses and other organizations so that he who pays the piper indeed calls the tune. We want Canadians to pay politicians. We want Canadians to be involved in supporting political parties so that we are accountable to the taxpayers and not to the banks or the oil companies that now run the country.

Government must be the balance to the economic powers that run our economy. The Liberals, the Reform and the Conservatives all believe they should be funded by huge corporations so they can continue to tip the balance against ordinary Canadians and in favour of the large corporations that run our economy already.

I want to provide some evidence with respect to what I say on he who pays the piper calls the tune. We are not only talking about tollgating, influence peddling and political patronage on a riding or regional basis. We are also talking more insidiously about political parties financed by corporations doing their bidding in the House of Commons on issues that hurt Canadians.

The best example is the banks. In 1996 the banks gave a total of $544,000 plus to the Liberal Party. What does this mean? We can look at the bank tax rates, the bank services charges and their flexibility in charging interest rates to their customers.

The Bank Act, passed by the House of Commons and supported by the finance committee made up of Liberals, Reform members and former Conservative members, allows banks to do whatever they want. Why? It is because $544,000 in 1996 went from the banks and other financial institutions to the Liberal Party. The Reform only received about $68,000. Obviously Reform bag persons were not doing their jobs. They have been doing the bidding of the banks since 1993 when they came to the House.

I have raised the issue of energy pricing and fair gasoline pricing. The Liberals, the Reform and the Conservatives opposed it. Why? It was because the oil companies contribute to their parties. They support the big oil companies. Imperial Oil is owned 70% by Exxon in the States. They do the bidding for Imperial Oil, Shell Oil and all other huge corporations. This is patronage. It is political influence peddling. It is worse. The NDP oppose that 100%.

We wonder why Bill C-91, the drug patent legislation, has not been changed. We wonder why the Reform and Liberals embrace huge international pharmaceuticals in gouging Canadians on prescription drugs prices. It is because they get huge contributions of $26,000 from Merck Frosst and $33,000 from Glaxo. That is patronage and political party fund raising at their absolute worst.

We in the NDP are committed to ensuring that is ended and ceilings are put on contributions by those organizations. We will continue to fight in parliament for taxpayers as long as we are here.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Bloc motion which condemns the attitude of the government in that it refused to introduce complete reform of legislation on the financing of federal political parties, even though the existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.

Before I get into the substance of the debate I wish to take this opportunity, my first opportunity, to thank the constituents and the voters of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for electing me to this assembly.

They voted for me in the majority because they felt the work I was doing was important to them and to our country. I acknowledge their support over the last four years, in particular in the last election, that returned me to this assembly.

I pledged during the campaign to work hard on their behalf to make sure that their voices were heard in parliament. I will continue to do that as long as I am a member of Parliament.

I also wish to take this opportunity to thank the workers in my constituency who worked hard for me, those who put up signs and made political contributions to my campaign. I would like to extend my appreciation to my family who sacrificed a fair amount of time, energy and money to see me re-elected.

The issue we have before is a very important one. It is on the floor of the House of Commons because of developments in Quebec where there were suggestions or allegations of influence peddling.

This is not a first. We have seen allegations and actually substantive proof and convictions in other provinces of influence peddling and of patronage, whether it is constituency patronage or politicians doing things for money provided to them by sources other than the taxpayers.

We in the NDP believe the regulations which govern party financing in Canada are like hunting dogs that will not hunt. They are there but they do not do the job they were intended to do. We believe there must be extensive reform in that area.

We have seen across the country, in particular in Quebec lately, a practice in backroom politics called tollgating. Tollgating is when a company is either on a list to bid for contracts or is actually receiving government contracts and is visited by a bag person. They used to be called bagmen. We call them bag persons. The bag person points out that the company received a contract from the government and now it wants a contribution for its political purposes.

That kind of politics is bad politics in Canada. It is bad politics anywhere. It is frontier politics that have not seen the light of day very frequently except for Quebec recently. We have seen examples in Nova Scotia and in Saskatchewan.

The Liberal Party is not the only guilty one. The Conservatives were very guilty of these practices in the past. As a matter of fact we have a Reform member of Parliament, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, who was a member of the former Conservative Party and Conservative Government of Saskatchewan. Some 20 Saskatchewan MLAs that governed the province of Saskatchewan have either been charged or convicted on practices that are unacceptable to public and party financing and for other reasons.

The Reform Party is guilty. The Conservatives and the Liberals are guilty of influence peddling, tollgating and doing all sorts of illegal things with respect to people's money.

We even have former members of the Socred Party who would know what this is all about because they practised it in B.C. Now they belong to the Reform Party. We also have members from the Western Canada Concept Party who are now members of the Reform Party that do the same sorts of things.

We want these issues on the floor of the House of Commons to be transparent. We want political party financing to be changed so that it is transparent and open; so that constituency patronage and regional patronage end; and so that tollgating and other such issues end.