John Solomon

[Trans-Canada Highway, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal's elimination of the Crow benefit and rail abandonment will have a devastating effect on western farmers' pocketbooks and on our road system.

The Trans-Canada Highway system is already overloaded with tourist traffic. Increased traffic compromises safety and efficiency on our national highway system. The Liberals have a responsibility to ensure that the Trans-Canada Highway meets these growing demands.

The Trans-Canada No. 1 West Association, headed by Regina Mayor Doug Archer, presented a transport brief outlining the importance of twinning the Trans-Canada from Kenora, Ontario to Vancouver, B.C. The Trans-Canada West Association makes the point that investing in Canada's Main Street will pay for itself in job creation by bringing more trade and tourism dollars to the west.

The Liberals have handed out an $87 million interest free loan to profitable Bombardier in Quebec. The New Democrats challenge this government to invest in twinning the Trans-Canada west to bring jobs and growth to the west. This can be done in the next budget by dedicating 2 cents a litre for one year of the 14 cents a litre in gas taxes the federal government collects in excise and GST in gasoline sales.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the NDP whip, New Democratic members in the House will vote no on this motion.

[Taxation, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to respond on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

The Minister of Finance and many members of this House know that Canadians want a society in which the costs of maintaining a stronger community are distributed fairly with those who have gained the most from the community paying their fair share of taxes.

Instead, Canadians are getting a society in which rich and powerful individuals and corporations get away with paying less than their fair share, leaving the rest of us to pay the freight on reduced public services.

With respect to harmonization, it is the New Democratic Party's position that harmonization is not a fair way to deal with some of the tax situations in this country.

Members will recall that in the 1950s federal government revenues were shared 50 per cent by individuals and 50 per cent by corporations.

By 1996 those shares have changed from 50 per cent by corporations down to 6 per cent by corporations, with individuals paying about 94 per cent of the tax revenues in this country.

Corporate tax revenues in Canada, combined federal and provincial, right now are the lowest of all the G-7 nations. In fact, corporate taxes amount to 6 per cent of the gross domestic product in Canada, with the G-7 average being around 10 per cent.

The Liberals in opposition promised to abolish the GST. In fact, the GST is not only remaining, but they have expanded it to include harmonization.

Members will recall that when the federal sales tax was in place, corporations paid about half the federal sales tax and individuals paid for about half the federal sales tax. When the GST was incorporated, we saw with respect to the harmonization of the GST corporations paying zero GST and individuals paying 100 per cent of the federal sales tax, which is now the GST.

It amounted in very simple terms to about a $7 billion or $8 billion tax increase under the former Conservative government, which is now not only embraced by the Minister of Finance and by the Liberal government but supported and expanded to include harmonization of this tax.

We are very concerned about this effort because the harmonization, if taken across this country, would be yet a further tax increase. This is not a very fair way to deal with Canadians who are in many ways either underemployed, unemployed or facing significant personal challenges when it comes to personal financial conditions.

To expand the GST and the PST into a harmonized program really is a shortsighted effort by the government to give corporations a very significant tax cut.

In summary, I just want to say that New Democrats and many Canadians whom we have talked to across the country believe in fair tax reforms based on the two fundamental principles of fairness: fairness to those who are participating in our economy, and also on the ability to pay.

Those who can pay their fair share should be paying their fair share. We have seen 35 tax increases under the Minister of Finance. We have also seen Bill S-9 being passed which contained significant tax cuts for corporations and significant tax breaks for very wealthy Canadians which the Minister of Finance agrees is really an unfair tax but he embraces it and supports it.

What the minister is doing here is really unfair to Canadians. It is something I think his party and his government will have to account for once an election is called.

[Taxation, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, I would like to have unanimous consent to say a few words in response to the minister's statement.

[Post-Secondary Education, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I joined students from the University of Regina at the Canadian Federation of Students National Day of Action to protest Liberal cutbacks to post-secondary education.

The Liberals' cutting of $2 billion to post-secondary education represents a $2,000 per student cut, a straight offload of federal debt to those who can least afford it: young Canadians.

The Liberals have chosen to declare war on students with major cuts rather than reform the tax system to make the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share. This is another broken promise in a litany of Liberal broken promises. Once again the Liberals have sided with corporate interests over the interests of middle class families. A tax system based on fairness and ability to pay is what Canada needs now.

Today the crisis facing students in Canada because of the Liberal cutbacks is every bit as destructive as any war. Unfair Liberal tax policies support the wealthy and big corporations and threaten the future of Canada.

The Liberal red book has become a red faced book that is killing off future opportunities for today's students.

[Pledge Of Allegiance, October 9th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, last May 29, I asked the Prime Minister two questions, why did the federal government stand by and allow Hollinger Incorporated to acquire over 60 per cent of all Canadian newspapers, and what further threats to democracy and freedom will there have to be before the government takes action to ensure competition, freedom of speech and the public's right to know in face of this concentration of ownership in the Canadian newspaper industry.

The reply stated that competition law deals with economic impact only. The fact that the Hollinger takeovers have had an economic impact on small independent newspapers in Saskatchewan was ignored. These papers have complained that Hollinger has threatened to drive them out of business if they choose to work co-operatively to advertise. This complaint was not addressed.

The Minister of Industry ignored the fact that Hollinger Incorporated fired 182 people two days after taking over the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon Star Phoenix . These papers were making a healthy profit but according to Conrad Black they were not making enough profit.

Hollinger Incorporated now controls all daily newspapers in Saskatchewan. When one person controls 60 per cent of the papers in Canada and 100 per cent of daily newspapers in a province, competition is diminished if not completely eliminated. It is certainly eliminated in provinces like Saskatchewan and Newfoundland where Conrad Black's Hollinger owns all daily newspapers.

In 1981 the Liberal sponsored Kent commission made a recommendation that no more than 20 per cent of Canadian circulation should be owned by one individual or corporation to allow for competition in the newspaper industry. The Liberals are now ignoring these recommendations.

The Bureau of Competition Policy has formally stated that it will not deal with these takeovers. Yet the bureau admitted that corporate concentration in the media has an effect on the newspaper quality, interference in editorial views and a significant decrease in editorial diversity across Canada. The bureau was quoted as saying: "Although these are valid social concerns, it would not be appropriate for the director to comment on editorial diversity and newspaper quality".

The government is using this as an excuse not to do anything on this issue. This is a cop out and a flip-flop of the Liberal's position from their days in opposition.

Concentration of ownership in the media must be dealt with immediately. In the past month three Hollinger newspaper editors have quit. All three have cited significant differences with their new employer Conrad Black as the reason for their departure.

This is unprecedented but not surprising. Mr. David Radler, president of Hollinger, has said that Hollinger papers will not even bother reporting fairly on issues. He stated that he will not report on issues raised by New Democrats, who stand up for working and middle class Canadians, or any other organization that believes in the importance of social programs, fairness, community or co-operation.

Conrad Black's extreme political views are well known. He is quoted as saying that the Tory defeat in 1993 was because they were too socialist, if we can believe that. None of the three newspaper editors who quit could be described as socialists but they were enough out of step with the narrow, big business agenda of Conrad Black that they were forced out of their positions.

The Prime Minister appeared agitated and very uncomfortable when I asked him questions concerning Conrad Black's buying binge. I wondered why. Two days after I raised this concern of concentration of ownership in the newspaper business, the Prime Minister spent three days partying, golfing, riding horses with

Conrad Black at an estate north of Toronto owned by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Of course the weekend was off limits to the media, but the fact is that Conrad Black is an influential friend of the Prime Minister and a financial contributor to the Liberal Party. He gave $13,000 to the Liberals and $11,000 to the Reform Party in 1995.

Canadians are asking that the Liberal government do the right thing and establish an inquiry on the recent acquisitions by Conrad Black's Hollinger to ensure that Canadians receive balanced reporting in their newspapers.

[Patent Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Now that we have heard the debate on this bill I was wondering if we could have unanimous consent to refer the bill to committee.

[Patent Act, October 8th, 1996]

There's a 4 per cent royalty.

[Patent Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the motion is not votable, could I have the unanimous consent of the House to refer the bill to committee?

[Patent Act, October 8th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-311, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to extend my appreciation to my colleague in our NDP caucus, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway, for seconding my bill.

Bill C-311 is a very important bill with respect to prescription drugs in this country. The bill will limit the life of patents for medicines to 17 years and allow for compulsory licences to be granted for the manufacture and sale of medicines after the original patentee has had the medicine approved for marketing for four years.

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 provision for refusal or deferral of a licence if a patentee has been unusually delayed in commercializing a medicine.

What is compulsory licensing? Compulsory licensing is allowing generic drug companies to produce a copy of a brand name drug. Generic drug companies pay a royalty of 4 per cent to the brand name company. Compulsory licensing can only occur after the patent set by the federal government has run out.

Before Bill C-91, passed in the previous Parliament, the length of drug patent was seven to ten years which was set by Bill C-22. Bill C-311, my bill, would shorten the length of a patent to four years. Bill C-311 does not set a royalty rate to the brand name drug companies but states that factors such as the amount of research money spent in Canada be rewarded under the royalty system. A name brand drug company that does original research and development in Canada would receive a higher royalty. This would increase job opportunities in the industry by encouraging drug companies to do their research in Canada.

Every opinion poll that has been conducted in this country in the last 10 years in terms of important concerns for Canadians has listed health care. We have seen the cutbacks to health care. We have seen a great deal of problems with respect to the federal government's offloading to the provinces. This is a major concern for poor families, for middle class families and for working families.

Rather than address the concerns of these families, the Liberal government in Ottawa has turned a blind eye to the anxieties of these people. In fact, the Liberals have taken a simplistic approach by cutting back billions of dollars from health care and transfer payments and offloading to the provinces. There are better ways to address rising costs to health care. Prescription drug costs, for example, are the fastest growing component of costs to health care in Canada. Bill C-311 offers a better way to curtail some of the rising costs.

Since the introduction of Bill C-22 in 1988, the average prescription bill has gone from $12.48 in 1987 to about $24 in 1993. This average prescription drug bill represents a 93 per cent increase as a result of providing these manufacturers with a 20 year monopoly to charge whatever they want for these prescription drugs without competition.

If we look at the increase of the licensed drugs alone during that period the average prescription has gone from $16.92 in 1987 to $43.42 in 1993. This represents on the licensed drug alone an increase of 258 per cent. Prior to Bill C-22 and Bill C-91 of the last Parliaments, drug costs amounted to 8.9 per cent of total health spending in Canada. In 1993 it had risen to 15.1 per cent of total health spending. That is a 70 per cent increase with respect to health care costs in the drug component alone. Rather than address this particular problem the government cuts back health care further. My Bill C-311 deals with this issue of rising costs in the health care programs in this country.

In total, Bill C-91 will cost the Canadian health care system between $4 billion and $7 billion according to research by respected U.S. health economist Stephen Schondelmeyer. The financial impact of Bill C-91, which my bill in effect repeals, will accelerate dramatically during the years 2000 to 2010.

The passage of Bill C-91 was supposed to increase employment as well in the brand name pharmaceutical industry. Since the passage of these bills we have seen not an increase in R and D jobs but in fact a decline. We have seen a 1,200 job cut in the R and D sector of the pharmaceutical industry in Ontario alone, and about 800 jobs in Quebec have been cut as a result of these bills.

This was on the promise by the pharmaceutical companies when they came to this Parliament and asked for protection for up to 20 years. They promised jobs; we have fewer jobs. They promised stable cost in terms of pharmaceuticals; we have seen those costs sky-rocket.

We have also seen some very important developments with respect to what the generic drug companies have done for our health care plans and for our country. Here are examples of some of the drug costs that are generic brands which are cheaper brand drugs, which my bill would encourage in terms of production in Canada. An ulcer drug, brand name Zantac, costs about $1.10 and the generic price is about 42.5 cents, which is a 61.1 per cent saving on a generic drug. An asthma drug, Ventolin, is $12.27 for 15 millilitres versus $4.95 for the generic price. That is a saving of nearly 60 per cent. On blood pressure drugs as well, brand names are roughly 41 per cent to 45 per cent more expensive than generic prices. Anybody who has children will know that with the antibiotic Amoxil there is about a 44 per cent to a 45 per cent saving when purchasing a generic drug.

Bill C-91 and some of these bills prevent those sorts of generic companies manufacturing generic drugs under a licence and a royalty fee for up to 20 years. That is why my bill is very important. It basically rolls back that period from 20 years to 17 years, but after four years generic companies can license and manufacture drugs in competition.

We have had support from a number of organizations, provinces and individuals across this country. The minister of social services in Saskatchewan, Mr. Lorne Calvert, who was the associated minister of health when this bill was being reviewed in the House of Commons, represented Saskatchewan at the Senate hearings on Bill C-91. He brought all of his research on the prescription drug program in Saskatchewan and warned at that time that the bill would drive up Saskatchewan drug costs $6 million to $10 million a year.

We have had about a three year passage of time since this warning was made by the provincial Government of Saskatchewan and this has proven to be more than accurate because we have seen not a $7 million to $10 million increase but something much more substantial.

Mr. Calvert gave the example of generic drugs and the savings they provide: "Generic drugs save the provincial government drug plan millions of dollars yearly. Enalapril, a commonly used prescribed heart drug, would have been available as a generic in 1994 prior to the introduction of Bill C-91. The bill delayed the proposed entry of Enalapril until the year 2007". As a result of a drug dispute this drug was available for a short time as a generic and in one year saved the province alone $2 million. That is on one drug. Yet we see members in this House are concerned about protecting their own position with respect to drug companies and patents.

We have had thousands of letters and calls. In this House as the New Democratic Party we have done a number of things. I have tabled thousands of petitions calling for the repeal of Bill C-91 in support of my Bill C-311. I have had hundreds of people write letters to me. We have had motions raised and debated in this House. We have had questions raised with the government with respect to Bill C-91. They seem to fall on deaf ears.

I have some letters I want to share with my colleagues in the House of Commons today. One says: "You have my heartiest agreement on your attempt to rescind the legislation on Bill C-91. It is my profound belief that this perpetrates a distinct hardship on

those who pioneered our country, suffered through world wars and a traumatic depression and now in their latter years are held ransom by the greedy drug corporations. I can personally attest to the horrendous gouging because my mother in her last two years of life was paying monthly bills in the hundreds of dollars for prescription drugs".

This is an example of many that I have received. I have another one here which I think is really important for members to pay attention and listen to: "My wife and I are senior citizens on fixed income and it costs me approximately $100 per month for prescribed medication. The only thing we have to cut back on to pay for our drugs and our prescription drugs is food and clothing".

Bill C-91 and Bill C-22 have resulted in sky-rocketing prescription drug costs and many people in the country have to make a choice between a life sustaining prescription drug or a life enhancing prescription drug and purchasing food. What kind of a government is this that would not pay attention to these problems in our communities, particularly to those pioneers, those seniors who have built our country? I think we have to get to the bottom of this.

Perhaps we have some information which will provide the House with a bit of insight in terms of why the government is not taking any action. In contrast to the letter from Mr. Nord who wrote saying that he is making a choice between prescription drugs which are necessary and food which is absolutely necessary, the Minister of Health of the Liberal government says that it is more important to protect patents and the big multinational pharmaceutical corporations.

I quote from an article on "the surprise the minister gave to the brand name drug manufacturers who are pushing for maintaining a 20 year control over the sale of pharmaceutical drugs that they have developed". The minister said this at a pharmaceutical convention: "I have not come here tonight to talk about Bill C-91 because no one wants to hear about that. This government believes that intellectual property rights are important and they ought to be protected and enhanced at every opportunity in this country".

The article goes on: "One industry spokesman said the minister's comments were a `victory' for the pharmaceutical research companies".

This is a problem with this government. It does not seem to have its priorities straight. It would rather embrace and protect the multinational oil companies, protect and embrace the multinational pharmaceuticals than look after people like Mr. Nord who has to make very crucial decisions on a daily basis about whether he can continue to live because of his medical condition. What kind of empathy is that?

I hear the Liberals all the time in the House and it makes me want to puke. We close our eyes and listen to all the wonderful things they say. Then when we open our eyes and see what they have done, they have always done the opposite. They get up and talk about the great things they are doing for social programs. When we look again they are slashing health care and encouraging pharmaceuticals to gouge Canadians for prescription drugs. It makes people absolutely sick. The Minister of Health is a nauseous part of this entire Parliament as far as I am concerned.

Members are probably saying the member for Regina-Lumsden is on a bit of a crusade here and does not have much support. I have support from the Consumers' Association of Canada, seniors organizations, the National Health Coalition, a number of organizations from across the country. The CLC is another sponsor and supporter along with many organizations and individuals from the province of Saskatchewan and other parts of the country.

I want to share with members today an experience I had meeting with an Argentinian parliamentarian, Ernesto Algaba, a national congressman who came to see me because he heard about the work I had been doing in the past three years with respect to Bill C-91 and the pharmaceutical patent protection.

He told me: "In Argentina we are very concerned. We are being pressured by the American Pharmaceutical Association to institute a drug patent law like that in Canada, the United States and Mexico. The American Pharmaceutical Association came to us, promised us jobs, promised us low cost, stable price prescription drugs. We are kind of worried about this because we said no initially. Then the U.S. ambassador came to our Parliament and met with some of the parliamentarians and threatened us on behalf of the American Pharmaceutical Association saying either we pass this legislation or they are going to pull out some of their economic supports and maybe they will pull their embassy out of our country". He wanted to check and see what was going on.

Mr. Algaba said that they went to Chile. He told me: "Do you know what they found in Chile?" The Chilean government was given the same garbage that the government was given about Bill C-91. "Pass the legislation, Mr. and Mrs. Chilean Parliamentarians. You will have jobs galore in R and D and you will have stable prescription drug prices".

Do you know what happened? The Chileans passed legislation. Their jobs are gone and their drugs are almost more expensive than they are in Canada. That is what we hear from Argentina and other countries. The government has to pay attention to some of the very serious charges by other parliamentarians.

There is also some confusion about profits with respect to the pharmaceuticals. I have some information here.

From 1987, when Bill C-22 was passed, to 1992-it looks pretty darn good for the pharmaceuticals-the revenue of Miles Canada Inc. grew 52 per cent. The revenues of Merck Frosst MSD AGVET grew by 111 per cent. The revenues of Burroughs Wellcome Inc. grew 172 per cent. The revenues of Merck Frosst Canada Inc. increased 185 per cent and Abbott Laboratories had a 1,120 per cent increase in revenues as a result of these drug patents and the jacking up prices and gouging consumers.

I want to save my last few comments to talk about what the Liberal Party did in opposition. The NDP was the only party that spoke and voted unanimously in opposition to Bill C-91 when it was passed. The Liberals joined with the New Democrats in 1992 and voted against Bill C-91. They said: "If we are elected, Bill C-91 will be repealed".

We even have some reference in a famous red book of broken promises-this is just one more-which is found on page 81. It speaks of a national forum on health which the Liberal Party would undertake to institute. It says: "The forum must be part of a thorough study of the health of Canadians and of our health care system. It will be mandated to consider questions such as the goals, results and evaluation of our system as well as the costs of care, including prescription drugs". That is what the red book says. That is what will be done on the national forum on health.

I have here a speech from the Prime Minister. They are opening remarks by the Prime Minister to the national forum on health, his Liberal baby in the red book. There is not one reference, inference, suggestion or idea about the words drugs, prescription drugs, pharmaceuticals or anything of that nature. There is not one reference in the speech with respect to some of the action they were going to take.

I wonder why. I think he who pays the piper calls the tune. It seems to me when a former Liberal cabinet minister, Judy Erola, is the chief lobbyist for the international pharmaceutical corporations lobbying the government, it is going to be pretty easy to get their attention.

What about some of the contributions? Bristol-Myers Squibb gave the Liberals $4,800. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. gave the Liberals $5,200. Burroughs Wellcome Inc., to which I made reference in terms of its huge increases in revenues, gave $8,700 to the Liberal Party and Merck Frosst, to which I also made reference, gave a paltry $11,000.

These guys are getting billions of dollars in revenue. I think the Liberals are missing an opportunity. They should be gouging them a little more. Get a few more bucks from your buddies in the pharmaceuticals. That is the only thing that is going to happen.

The last straw is when the Liberal members of Parliament sent out letters to their friends in the pharmaceuticals. I note that a member from Winnipeg sent a letter out trying to collect some money from pharmaceutical companies. Of course, the pharmaceuticals are more than happy to comply, although it looks almost like a bribe. Who knows? We have seen these sorts of articles appear in newspapers, particularly in the

Hill Times.

I am going to wrap up my comments but I want to underline the importance of this bill as I have stated in my remarks today. I want to ask members here who believe that this is an important bill-we should address the concerns of Canadians with respect to prescription drugs and their skyrocketing costs-that this bill be designated a votable item.