John Solomon

[Federal Transfer Payments, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal government claims that it wants standards for health care, education and social programs, but federal standards are meaningless without adequate core funding. The federal Liberals have cut back over $7 billion or 25 per cent of the budgets for health care, education and social services, yet they have cut back only 8 per cent on other government programs.

The implications on provincial governments are devastating, particularly Saskatchewan. The province of Saskatchewan will lose $200 million in federal transfer payments in 1996.

The impact of these cutbacks means savage reductions in social programs in some provinces, forcing Canadians to relocate. They go to where better jobs and better social programs exist, putting extreme pressure on those very provinces.

Weak national standards and the absence of adequate core funding means that provinces like Ontario and Alberta can punish those that need the help most. Pitting one province against another is wrong. So is a lack of funding for national standards.

[1995 Grey Cup, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 6 the leader of the NDP, Alexa McDonough, and I had the honour of touring the site of the 1995 Grey Cup, Canada's national football championship. The Grey Cup is being held at Taylor Field in my constituency of Regina-Lumsden on November 19. It is already a huge success with over 52,000 tickets sold.

From November 15 to November 19 the citizens of Regina welcome all Canadians to the best Grey Cup celebration the country has ever seen. Thanks to thousands of volunteers, Grey Cup 1995 is expected to be a tremendous success. Special thanks go to the Saskatchewan Roughriders football club, the Grey Cup committee and its executive director, Ken Thomas, along with the Grey Cup board of directors and executive committee members.

The theme of this year's Grey Cup is "Huddle up in Saskatchewan". I invite all members of Parliament and all Canadians to catch the spirit of Saskatchewan and experience our famous western prairie hospitality. Join us in the huddle for one terrific celebration in Regina. If they cannot make it to the celebrations-

[Grandparents Day, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is cutting costs and reducing services in our medicare system. In the last budget it drastically cut transfer payments to the provinces and will continue to do so each year over the next three years, reducing health care services further.

Why will the Liberals not enact cost cutting measures that would not reduce services to Canadians yet save taxpayers a billion dollars a year or more? This could be done by repealing Bill C-91, the Drug Patent Act, passed in the last Parliament. Bill C-91 catered to foreign drug companies that wanted to make more money by extending drug patents to 20 years for prescription drugs, in essence a 20-year monopoly to charge whatever price they want for certain prescription drugs.

In opposition Liberal members of Parliament, such as the current Minister of Health and the Minister of Industry, were present in the House on December 10, 1992 to vote against Bill C-91. Now that they are in government they support the legislation, which is a very major flip-flop.

Bill C-91 has had the effect of costing Canadians billions of dollars in their prescription drug costs. In the past eight years drug prices have increased 13 per cent every year for an accumulated total of 220 per cent. For example, the cost of Tagamet, a drug to treat ulcers, is 78 per cent cheaper when a Canadian generic drug is used instead of the brand name product. This is why our prescription drug costs are skyrocketing. Bill C-91 prevents the generic drug companies from producing cheaper cost copies of prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies have a 20-year monopoly on their patents and a monopoly pricing situation exists to the detriment of the health of Canadians.

Prescription drugs represent over 15 per cent of the total cost of health care in Canada. This amounts to over $11 billion every year. It is a fact that drugs are the fastest growing cost to medicare. It is also one of the most controllable costs to our medicare system because Parliament has the power to put forth legislation that will control the cost of drugs and end price gouging by pharmaceutical drug companies.

Pharmaceutical drug companies employ roughly one sales representative for every three doctors in Canada and spend $10,000 per doctor on promotions. Canadian taxpayers are paying for these promotions while hundreds of millions of dollars of profits are leaving the country and jobs are being cut by the drug companies. These prices have increased 13 per cent each year over the past eight years due to Bill C-91.

While in opposition the Liberals opposed the bill. While in government they are now supporting it. The government must immediately abolish the automatic injunction clause of the patented medicines regulations. The automatic injunction clause adds two more years on top of the twenty years that a drug pharmaceutical company can charge rates and prevent the generic industry from competing. This clause, if abolished, would save Canadians $750 million right off the top.

By repealing Bill C-91 in its entirety Canadians could save $3 billion to $5 billion each year on health care costs through reduction in prescription drugs, equivalent by the way to the Liberal government's cut to medicare funding over the three years proposed in its budget.

Why will the government not do this? Why is the Liberal Party allowing pharmaceutical drug manufacturers to set the agenda? It is a fact that the Liberal Party receives thousands of dollars in donations from foreign drug companies. Is this the reason?

The Liberal Party's inaction to rein in the outrageous brand name price increases is costing Canadians and threatening our health care system. It is time for action. The Liberal government must act immediately to abolish the automatic injunction on prescription drugs and make a commitment to abolish Bill C-91.

[Petitions, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to Parliament a petition from the professional teaching staff of Martin Collegiate Institute in the constituency of Regina-Lumsden.

The teaching staff strongly object to the present status of Canada's Young Offenders Act. They feel the Young Offenders Act has failed to address the issue of youth crime and its negative results in our schools, communities and society in general.

They call on Parliament to enact legislation to significantly toughen the Young Offenders Act as quickly as possible, with a view to making young offenders responsible for their actions, making names of young offenders public and increasing severity of consequences for repeat offences.

[Pharmaceuticals, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Prescription drugs represent 17 per cent of the total cost of health care in the country. These prices have increased 13 per cent each year over the past eight years due to Bill C-91, which the Liberals opposed in opposition but seem to support in government.

The government can save Canadians nearly $1 billion yearly, simply by doing one thing: repealing Bill C-91 or, at the very least, abolishing the automatic injunction clause of the patented medicines regulations.

Why will the government not stop the pharmaceutical drug manufacturers from ripping off Canadians with usury pricing of prescription drugs?

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I wish to inform the Speaker and the House that when this arrangement was made for the sake of speeding up the vote it was assumed that all members would remain in the House during the course of the speeding up of the vote.

I support the contention of the hon. member opposite that if this precedent is set it would be unfavourable and unacceptable to the NDP caucus.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all New Democrats present in the House this afternoon will be voting yea on this motion.

[Points Of Order, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to something that happened in question period. I referred primarily to the fact that prescription drugs represent 17 per cent of the cost of health care.

The question put to the government was why the would government not repeal Bill C-91. I perhaps elaborated more than I should have but I was attempting to give the minister a multiple choice with respect to his answer.

[Pharmaceuticals, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Prescription drug costs comprise 17 per cent of the cost of health care. These prices have increased 13 per cent each year over the past eight years due to Bill C-91 which the Liberals opposed in opposition.

The government can save hundreds of millions of dollars yearly by doing one thing, by repealing Bill C-91 or at the very least abolishing the automatic injunction clause of the patented medicines regulation.

Why will the government not do this? Is it because pharmaceutical drug manufacturers contribute too much money to the Liberal Party?

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Bill S-9 and in support of the amendments put forward by the hon. member opposite, the member for Gander-Grand Falls.

Since 1988 the Americans have required all non-residents to pay a 55 per cent estate tax on all U.S. property worth more than $60,000. However, the agreement before our House which is not yet ratified means that Canadians with less than $600,000 in U.S. assets will now be exempt from American estate taxes. That also means that Canadians with more than $600,000 in assets will pay the American tax and then will be allowed to claim a portion of it in foreign tax credits here in Canada. This means a $600,000 U.S. exemption which is a $900,000 Canadian exemption in real dollars. This is a tax bill which is helping the very rich.

I want to say a couple of things about this bill. Members of the Liberal Party opposite, including the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, talk about how important this bill is to education. It is very peculiar that medicare, the health care system and the education system in Canada are being squeezed by these very Liberals through the drastic cuts in this time bomb budget which is before our country now.

We are hurting the education system in Canada as a result of it, yet we are going to give the very wealthy an opportunity to make contributions to the education system in the United States and we are going to subsidize it through our tax dollars. My colleague, the member for Kamloops, clearly delineated and outlined the outrage of Canadians with respect to the approach of this government cutting back on education in Canada but providing an opportunity for wealthy Canadians to get tax credits for making contributions to the American education system.

Now we see whose interests this government is working on behalf of in this House of Commons. It is not for ordinary Canadians, not for unemployed Canadians who require unemployment insurance or who require some assistance with respect to health care and education. They are not the interests of the Liberal federal government. The interests are those who feed the Liberal government, those who make substantial financial contributions to the Liberal Party. The very wealthy in this country, the large corporations, the wealthy families are getting their interests high on the agenda of the House of Commons because they own the Liberal Party, they contribute millions of dollars to it every year.

As a result, their agenda is what is on the agenda of Canada. Their agenda is to accumulate more wealth. That is the agenda of the wealthy, the individuals, families and corporations in this country who bought and paid for the Liberal Party. This is a bill the Liberal Party is putting forward in the House of Commons which will thank them in spades for their generosity over the last couple

of years. The Canadian population is going to be paying for this generosity by the Liberal Party to their wealthy friends.

Bill S-9 is an absolute disgrace for the Liberal Party. The Liberals should be embarrassed out of their shorts with respect to this bill. I hope they are feeling as bad as some of the members opposite look like they are feeling because this bill is a wrong priority for Canada. It is a wrong priority for the House of Commons.

What about the farmers? This bill gives the wealthy families a break with retroactive tax breaks back to 1988, but what about the farmers in the prairies? What has the government done for the farmers? It eliminated the Crow benefit, which is a transportation subsidy. In effect 25 per cent of Canada's farming population will be eliminated from earning a living using their farming skills, yet the government is going to give the very wealthy additional hundreds of millions of dollars. This is tax reform of the very worst kind.

What about a fair taxation system where Canadians who are earning a living feel confident that their load is being shared by the very wealthy? The Liberal government is not providing that sense of confidence to the ordinary Canadians, to those who are working and to those who are looking for jobs.

This is an issue on which typically, Liberal members have mastered speaking out of both sides of their mouths. The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls did an exceptional job of articulating the pitfalls of the legislation and the lack of priority it has with the Liberal government. That is common practice in the Liberal Party. Whenever it has a bill which is embarrassing, which will hurt the majority of Canadians at the expense of the very few wealthy, it always tries to have a few members of Parliament say: "What we are doing is not the right thing, but we are not going to vote against it. We are not going to make any public contention that it is a bad bill. However, we are going to put it on the record that we are not happy with what is going on".

It is time for Canadians to recognize the fact that members of the Liberal Party of Canada speak out of both sides of their mouths. They do it effectively. I want them to understand that Canadians will not accept that very much longer.

This is not the first piece of legislation to help wealthy Canadians. In the budget last February the government dealt with family trusts. Family trusts are costing Canadian taxpayers millions and millions of dollars each year in terms of lost revenue, hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of the last four or five years. A family trust allows very wealthy families to shelter their income and their assets from Revenue Canada. Therefore, they do not contribute in a fair way to the revenues of our country.

In the last budget the Liberals said they would do away with the family trust situation to obtain more money for the population of Canada. When? In 1995? No. 1996? No. 1997? Well no, it takes a bit of time to unwind these things. Maybe in 1999, a year or two after the next federal election is when the Liberal Party will address the issue. It is helping the very wealthiest families and corporations in Canada.

The New Democrats are four square against this sort of priority when there are a large number of people who are unemployed, when the unemployment insurance program is under attack, when education is being cut back and when there is a vicious, unrelenting attack on medicare. The New Democrats will continue to stand up for ordinary Canadians on these issues, including fair taxation. We are asking the government to reconsider the bill, to make amends and to return it to the Senate, telling the Senate that we will not pass the bill.