Debates of Feb. 10th, 1997

Excise Tax Act

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do that. The Deputy Prime Minister used the money of the rest of Canadians to enforce the GST, to entice the Atlantic provinces to accept this GST.

Canadians cannot trust this government. That member is one of the reasons why. Think for a moment about what $1 billion could do for the hospitals that are closing down in this country and for the

students who cannot go to school because their tuition is too high. Such is the price of a broken promise.

I know the finance minister apologized about breaking his GST-

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to stand on a point of order again, interrupting the speaker across the way. That is not my intent.

However, he referred to an individual member. I am not certain whether he is referring to my colleague who just spoke on a point of order with regard to comments that were made or if he is speaking about some other colleague. I would like to have clarification.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Incidentally, this time will not come out of the speaker's time. He will recapture the time that has been lost with points of order.

I was listening carefully this time to the hon. member and I do not think he was accusing the member for Mississauga South or any other member of doing something that was beyond the pale. I appreciate that the member for Carleton-Charlotte thinks he was but I am sorry, your Speaker cannot find anything that was said that is not within what happens here every day-the member may say unfortunately-all day in debate.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with perseverance we shall endure. I know the finance minister apologized about breaking his GST promise, but saying "I am sorry" does not pay the bills. It does not help the sick. It does not help the most vulnerable in society.

The federal legislation for the harmonized sales tax is before this House today, Bill C-70. It should not be called a harmonized sales tax but perhaps a coat-tail tax or a tax that entices provinces with other people's money.

Bill C-70 is a reminder to all Canadians that the Liberals cannot be trusted to keep their word. Bill C-70 is a symbol of broken trust.

Why cannot Canadians trust this government? The Prime Minister leaves us with a third and final reason. In October 1990, during an interview with the Toronto Star , the Prime Minister said: ``The Liberals will scrap the goods and services tax if they win the next election. I am opposed to the GST, I have always been opposed to it and I will always be opposed to it''.

In October 1993, just before the election, the Prime Minister spoke again about the GST: "Yes, I will abolish it". In May 1994, after winning the election, he said about the GST: "We hate it and we will kill it".

However, just yesterday in the Toronto Star , the Prime Minister said: ``I have always said we want to replace the GST with a harmonized tax''. Come on, let us speak the same language.

The Prime Minister not only told the Canadian public that he would scrap, kill and abolish the GST, he told the Liberal caucus the same thing. The member for York South-Weston told the House on December 12, 1996, from page 7467 of Hansard :

Mr. Speaker, I think what is compounding the problem is that the Prime Minister refuses to recognize what his promise was. He has now had the opportunity to review both the audio and video tapes. Not only did he promise Canadians that he would scrap the GST, he also promised caucus on a number of occasions that he would scrap the GST.

After being elected the Prime Minister changed his tune. He started to say that he had always promised to replace and not abolish the GST. This got him into big trouble at a CBC town hall in December. When asked at the CBC town hall why he did not scrap the GST, the Prime Minister said: "That is not what we said on that. We never said in the red book or directly that it was to be scrapped". It was clear to everyone that the Prime Minister broke his word to Canadians.

Compounding the problem over the next couple of days, the Prime Minister denied ever saying he would scrap, kill and abolish the GST. He said: "We have not lied. We have always said there would be a replacement tax. I recognize that it is not always been clear and has remained a problem in public opinion". It seems the Prime Minister at this point was trying to pass the blame for his broken promise on to the Canadian public but it would not fall for it. It knew he had broken his word.

Therefore the Prime Minister tried to set the record straight a couple of days later by saying the following: "If I and others left the impression with anyone that we would be able to do away with the tax without replacement, I want to tell them I am sorry". Only after experiencing incredible public pressure was the Prime Minister willing to admit he was wrong. Canadians can no longer trust this Prime Minister or believe his words.

This truth is reflected in public opinion today. Let me quote from a letter sent to me earlier this year: "The CBC town hall meeting with the Prime Minister is the best of what CBC is all about. The Prime Minister again was not honest with Canadians. I don't trust the Prime Minister. I don't believe a word the man says". This is what average Canadians are saying about the Prime Minister. Canadians cannot trust this government.

In closing, I want to say what a Reform government will give Canadians. It will give four tools to keep its elected officials accountable to their promises. These four tools are the following. First, free votes in Parliament so that MPs ultimately take their voting instructions from their electors, not the party whip. Second, the right to binding referendums so that Canadians have a direct say in issues affecting their interests. Third, the right to citizen initiatives so that Canadians can force an issue on to the referendum ballot if the government chooses to ignore it. Fourth and most important of all, the right to recall, to fire MPs who fail to keep their commitments to the people and lose their trust.

The GST fiasco has taught Canadians that they cannot trust this Liberal government. In fact, Canadians have learned that they can only trust themselves. If we give Canadians the tools that I just mentioned they will continue to build this great country. They will build a strong country, built not only on the foundation of peace, order and good government but on the foundation of integrity, responsibility and accountability.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-70. Despite the diatribe that has been heard before me, this debate is really about harmonization. This debate is about the new single harmonized tax system. This debate is about a simpler, fairer and more economically efficient harmonized tax system. This debate is about benefits that would be realized by individuals, communities and groups.

I will speak about five different areas in which the new single harmonized tax system will benefit consumers and businesses. I want to talk about the economic benefits it will have for all Canadians. I want to talk about the lower administrative costs. I want to talk about organizations such as colleges, schools, hospitals, universities and the registered charities which will benefit from this system.

My colleague spoke about consumers. He spoke about the benefits which will be realized as a result of the tax inclusive pricing rules inherent in Bill C-70. Those rules will ensure that consumers know the full price of a good or a service before paying for it, while keeping the rate of sales tax visible on receipts.

Another of my colleagues spoke about businesses which will have to deal with only one set of sales tax forms. There will be one set of operating rules. There will be one tax administration.

There is a business in my area run by Mr. Cinelli, a hairdressing salon. He has spoken about the time and the effort which he has to expend because of the GST. It is complicated and it affects his business.

There are benefits for Atlantic Canada. Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada have spoken about the benefits the new system will have for business.

Would we in Ontario have such benefits? All Ontario members of Parliament are awaiting Premier Mike Harris' pledge to harmonize the system. We appeal to him at this point in time to get onboard and to consider the harmonized system which he knows will benefit the province of Ontario. It will benefit the businesses of Ontario, especially the businesses that currently have to deal with so much administration.

We have also heard from members across the way a whole series of difficulties they see with the system. They do not seem to understand the intent of harmonization. Or maybe they refuse to understand the benefits which a single, harmonized tax will provide for businesses. Economic benefits will flow from the removal of tax on business inputs. There will be lower administration costs.

A lot of time has been spent talking about the Prime Minister and individuals who spoke while in opposition without fully considering the low administrative costs which businesses will realize. The intent must surely be to ensure that Canadian businesses survive and grow and that administrative and economic benefits are provided to those businesses so they can provide jobs.

We have in Canada 73,000 to 75,000 registered charities. Four thousand of them are comprised of hospitals, universities, public colleges and schools. They are not for profit organizations engaged in charitable activities.

In my riding there are several hundred registered charities. They vary from small relief organizations, anti-poverty groups, benevolent groups, the cancer society to others like the children's aid society, the YMCA and YWCA. Those charities are small. They have unsophisticated accounting systems and rely heavily on volunteers. Those organizations will benefit from the harmonized sales tax system. The administration of those organizations and the workload of their volunteers will be simplified as a result of the harmonized sales tax.

Bill C-70 is designed to significantly simplify that burden for charities. What I consider to be the four or five important measures that will assist those organizations-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, on a point of order.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's eloquence is being wasted here. There are only nine people in the Chamber. I call for a quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Yes, the hon. member is correct. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since there are 20 members in the House, we can proceed.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-70, the new single harmonized tax system is designed to significantly simplify the sales tax rules for charities. The legislation includes measures to streamline the definition of charity to make the application of sales tax rules simpler. In speaking with several of the volunteer organizations and charities in the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, those measures in Bill C-70 please them greatly.

The bill raises the existing small supplier thresholds applicable to taxable supplies and gross revenue, reducing the number of charities required to register for sales tax purposes. The measures the small charities in my riding see of benefit consolidate and simplify the rules governing the charities' taxable activities. These

measures within Bill C-70 are designed to assist charities. They are designed to ensure that volunteers can work productively within those charities without spending administrative time. These are benefits within Bill C-70. Another measure simplifies the requirements for filing returns and claiming rebates. Again we know the volunteer hours that are spent doing those two important tasks.

The overall effect of the changes are really what we should be focusing on; that is, simplifying the rules, reducing the workload that volunteers give of their time and effort. All of this would seem to be outside pure accounting and economic lines. Those are reasons that Bill C-70 needs to be supported.

It is also important to note in this debate that Bill C-70 speaks about efficiency, fairness and simplicity in the tax system. It calls on every one of us in this House on behalf of our constituents to ensure that we are providing them with the ways in which they are able to respond to bureaucracy, government measures, revenue issues and taxation. We are providing them with those measures.

It is important that this is supported. All members on all sides of the House must realize the discussion is one that speaks to a harmonized system that would benefit our entire country. They too have spoken about a difficulty with the old GST, the difficulty in the system, the labour intensity in the system and the fact that it is a tax that stands in the way of businesses doing what they should do and could do for all Canadians.

I call on all members on all sides of the House to recognize that this debate is about harmonization. This debate is about a single harmonized tax system. This debate is about simplicity, fairness and an economically efficient tax system. I call on all members to focus on the debate and support the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville-national gun amnesty; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-agriculture.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate on the Group No. 3 amendments to Bill C-70.

The issue here is not the GST or the HST in debating the harmonization of the GST. The real issue here today in this House is accountability, integrity and responsibility. The issue here is damage control, damage to this Liberal government for a failed broken promise.

Earlier today, and I think it is the 27th time, this Liberal government brought in closure to cut off debate. Time allocation is the nice term that is used but it is a violation of the democratic process which would allow a full debate on an issue that is so important as this one.

This is one of two major broken promises made by this government. There may have been 170 or 180 promises in the red book but there are only two promises in that red book that counted heavily with about 90 per cent of Canadians who put their trust in this government. One of course was jobs, jobs, jobs and the other was the fact that the Liberals were going to scrap, abolish and get rid of the GST. We do not have the jobs and we do have the GST. We have the old campaign of say whatever to get elected and then once elected do whatever.

Let us talk about jobs before I get back to the GST. This government cannot run and hide from its failure in jobs. The UI stats prove monthly its ongoing failure to create the jobs that our children and grandchildren are looking for. The government cannot avoid that.

Three years have been spent trying to deal with that problem and with no success and still no understanding of what has to be done. This Liberal government has still failed to connect the fact that high taxes are what contribute to high levels of unemployment. The Liberals ran on a $6 billion infrastructure program that was supposed to kick start the economy and create the jobs that they had promised in the red book and they failed.

As a matter of fact the auditor general has criticized the $6 billion infrastructure program as a waste of tax dollars and a failure in creating the jobs. Unbelievably, the Liberals are looking at another one, only this time instead of being $6 billion which failed, apparently they believe that something less than that will be successful. Is there no one in the government asking the question: What we are doing is not working, why should we be looking for a better way?

The Prime Minister got up in the House today and talked about jobs. The only jobs that we can take credit for in this country right now really have come about because of free trade and NAFTA, two programs the Liberal government strongly opposed when in opposition. As a matter of fact, another red book promise was that the Liberals were going to rewrite NAFTA. Thank God they did not because it is creating a few jobs in this country.

Let me come back to the GST, the other major broken promise. I would like to quote the member for Mississauga South who in debate in the House on February 6 said that the Liberals had wrestled with this GST problem, debated it at great length, held

hearings and lo and behold, what did they discover? They discovered that the best replacement for the GST is the GST. Yes, the best replacement for the GST is the GST, as far as the member for Mississauga South is concerned.

The member for Mississauga South is a new member, like myself, new to this place and new to the debate. However, I would point out that there are 19 members in the cabinet of this government who were here in opposition when the GST was introduced. They knew what the chances were of harmonization. As a matter of fact the current finance minister opposed harmonization. He said it would be a terrible mistake.

We should look at some of the quotes from the Liberals when they were in opposition. Here are some of the things they said. I do not think we need to talk about the Deputy Prime Minister again. Canadians from coast to coast know very well what she said and then failed to keep her promise, or at least she failed to keep it until a poll was taken to show that she would be re-elected if she did keep her promise.

Back in 1990 the then finance critic, now the defence minister, said the Liberal Party would scrap the GST. The Liberals pledged that in a nationally televised debate with the then finance minister, Michael Wilson. He went on to say: "The goods and services tax is a regressive tax that has to be scrapped and we will scrap it". There was nothing about harmonization. There were no weasel words in there. It was very clear.

Here is a quote from the current Liberal House leader. Again back in 1990 when in opposition he said: "Not only do the Liberals oppose the GST now, that opposition will continue even if the bill is passed. We are not interested in tinkering with the GST. We do not want it at all". What is harmonization? Those are very strong words. No weasel words there. It is very clear. Of course the current finance minister said: "I will abolish the GST".

The leadership of that party when in opposition knew very well the problems they were facing in dealing with the GST. Now that we have heard quotes from the Liberals, let us look at what the provinces are saying about harmonizing the GST. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore talked about support in Ontario, which I have yet to identify.

Certainly the premier of Ontario has consistently claimed that the federal harmonization plan will cost Ontario consumers between $2 billion and $3 billion a year. With figures like that I do not know how it is going help charities in Ontario with a $2 billion to $3 billion tax increase because of harmonization. The premier of Ontario also went to say that the subsidization package given to the three Atlantic provinces represents a bribe and warned that more and more provinces are going to be disenchanted by this kind of bribery and this kind of government.

The finance minister of Ontario, Ernie Eves, said: "It really offloads about $3 billion annually from businesses to consumers. This is not acceptable. I would say the issue is dead".

Let us talk about the almost a billion dollars that was going to flow to the provinces to encourage them to harmonize. The federal government receives 41 per cent of its revenue from Ontario. One could make the argument that 41 per cent of any amount of money the federal government spends is Ontario taxpayers' money. It could be argued that Ontario will be subsidizing the $961 million bribe to the tune of $400 million. I do not think that is appropriate and I do not think that is fair to the taxpayers of Ontario.

The cost of harmonization to the typical Ontario family that earns $30,000 to $40,000 a year represents an additional $185 in taxes. I do not know how the members from Ontario who sit in this government can defend this very unfair tax grab.

This government was elected on restoring integrity. It knew the problem. I am sure its members heard of it at the same doors I knocked on. They even devoted a chapter in their red book to that subject. I will quote from one paragraph on page 95 where they recognized the problem and said they would deal with it by appointing an ethics commissioner: "In particular, a Liberal government will appoint an independent ethics counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day to day application of the code of conduct for public officials". The ethics commissioners was to report to Parliament.

That is what it says in the red book. In fact, the ethics commissioner reports to the Prime Minister. What was to be a watch dog has become a lap dog. From that point on the promises in this red book went right down the drain.

This coming election will be about integrity. Canadians are looking for a party with a vision for the future. They know the government has no credibility, whatever it promises.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-70. We are focusing on the harmonization of the provincial sales taxes and the GST in most of the Atlantic provinces.

It is important at this time, in view of some of the comments we are hearing from the other side, to review the big picture again. If we step back we can understand why harmonization of the GST and the provincial sales taxes where they exist is a laudable and extremely important objective.

It was a very interesting experience for me as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance to take part in the many weeks of

study and hearings on options and alternatives to replace the GST. This was in the spring of 1994.

The finance committee is an all-party committee. It listened to Canadians from coast to coast, here in Ottawa and in each of the provinces. They were asked some tough questions and in all cases they gave very honest and frank responses to the challenge of what was the best alternative to the GST.

Members of the other parties know that over 20 alternatives to the GST were studied. The vast weight of the evidence provided by the witnesses indicated that there was no other alternative that could be better than harmonizing the provincial sales taxes with the federal GST. The weight of that evidence was so great that even in the provincial campaign of 1995, the then leader of the Ontario PC party, now premier, Premier Harris, indicated his strong support for harmonizing in Ontario the PST and GST. The story we hear from Ontario now is a little different.

I do not want to impute motives, but the fact is I agree with its campaign promise that harmonizing the PST and GST in Ontario would have many benefits for small, medium and big businesses, for consumers and for provincial and federal governments that I do not know why we are hearing such a fuss from the opposition.

Among the many things we heard in the testimony, much had to do with red tape. We all hear from taxpayers and businesses that there is too much government red tape at all levels. Therefore, the fact that the government has taken the initiative to tackle a challenging problem, the harmonization of these two levels of sales taxes, is something for which all Canadians will be grateful. Certainly the witnesses we heard from at the finance committee told us in no uncertain terms that it was the goal to aim for.

There was no question that there were going to be some challenges along the way. As my colleague from Carleton-Charlotte reminds me, when that finance committee, ably led by the MP for Willowdale, reported, the Reform Party was on record as supporting the notion of harmonizing the provincial sales taxes and GST.

[An hon. member]

That was piecemeal, ad hoc bullshit and you know it.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

I am very sorry that he is leaving. I am very sorry that he will not be with us after the next election by his own choice. I have a great respect for him. However, his memory is as good as mine. He knows what the minority report of the Reform Party stated. It stated that Reformers supported the concept of harmonization. However, one cannot believe in a concept if one does not always believe that one has to go through tough steps to get to that final resolution.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

No subsidization in three provinces.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

We cannot get from A to B all the time by drawing a straight line. That is the simple way to look at problems. Sometimes one has to go over hurdles and around obstacles. That is what we are doing as a government. We are tackling the issues that face us each step of the way as we move toward the goal of harmonizing these two levels of taxes.

What are the benefits to Canadians? Let us start with the business sector, particularly small and medium size business. Now each of these businesses faces reporting both federal and provincial sales taxes, two sets of records and the possibility of having to be audited by two separate levels of government. Many businesses are operated by one or two people. They are very small operations where every hour spent on government red tape is an hour taken away from productivity, an hour taken away from selling more goods or providing service to their customers. To the extent that we can reduce the time commitment that any business person, especially the small business owner, has to government paperwork is something that we are adding toward the productivity of this country.

Therefore, I do not understand how the opposition can argue on one side, as it said in its minority report, that we should get to a harmonized situation, but on the other side it says that we should not tackle each step along the way with bigger creativity and determination. That is what leadership is all about and that is why I believe Canadians give us their support in October 1993. I trust when they look at the government closely again in the next election campaign they will feel that our leadership is what this country needs.

No government is perfect, there is no question about that. If we were perfect it would be the first time, I am sure, that any government in the world was perfect.

Besides the elimination of red tape, consumers will not only benefit from the fact that the costs of running a business will be reduced, but over time it will be reflected in the prices because the small business operator will be able to cut down his or her costs.

I happen to be one who believes in tax included pricing at the retail level, but tax included pricing with full disclosure on the receipt at the cash register. We heard, over and over again, that the concept of sticker shock or counter shock was hurting consumption. Canadians will like the idea that they can see something on the shelf that is priced at $10, go to the cash register, put down $10 and know that they have paid the full amount due for that commodity.

On the receipt will be disclosure of the amount of harmonized GST and PST that is in the product. That is fair. It will have the

positive impact on consumers that we need to have in this country to ensure the fullest level of employment possible.

We have been accused of saying that we would totally abolish, scrap the GST. I refer colleagues across the way to page 22 in what I call the well read book. Page 22 says that we will move toward harmonization of the provincial and federal sales taxes. That is what I said in my campaign. That is what I said door to door. I never varied from that commitment. As a member of the finance committee, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, we are taking steps in that direction.

It is the job of the opposition to try to divert attention but the fact remains that a responsible government knows that people cannot take $15, $16 or $17 billion of revenue and throw it out the window. A responsible government also does not promise to have a broad base tax cut that it knows cannot be afforded at this time-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed as I watch the government when it gets itself into a sticky political situation. To find its way out, it creates a scenario and then all members can unabashedly go out with a straight face and sell that story line.

What we have with this legislation is reflective of a very worrisome trend that we are seeing in legislation coming forward from this administration. Some words that come to mind are: responding to political events, balkanization, dividing the country, willy-nilly, knee-jerk, no vision, no principles, ad hoc.

The reason I say that is because this is not the only bill where the government is responding to a political situation, responding to a half-baked promise, responding to special interests that are promoting a particular point of view with the government.

I have been looking at two pieces of legislation that are going to be coming before the House. They have both been tabled. We have what has been called by some, Indian Act II. This is parallel legislation, if members have ever heard of such a thing, where people can opt in but they cannot opt out.

[Ron Fewchuk, Liberal, Selkirk—Red River, MB]

What are you making fun of the aboriginals for?

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I am not sure what that comment was, but I am not making fun of anybody. I am stating a fact about two pieces of aboriginal legislation before the House.

The other bill before the House that has the same balkanization trend is the First Nations Land Act. Once again, it is national legislation from a national government that will deal with 14 bands only.

What do we do the next time there are 12 or 14 bands that want something different? We have over 600 bands in the country. Are we going to have 35 pieces of legislation to deal with all of them? This is a very worrisome trend.

We have had a whole set of negotiations in this country dealing with an attempt to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers. In my view this BST bill is actually contributing to interprovincial trade barriers. It is adding to the cost of businesses in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland in doing business with other provinces. Why we would want to go in this direction is absolutely beyond me. There is only one overriding reason, and we know what it is. The government got in trouble, it got hung on its own statements and in order to extricate itself it entered into this special agreement. Why else did the government have to come up with $1 billion to encourage people in those three provinces to participate?

The three provinces which are the net contributors to equalization in the country are B.C., Alberta and Ontario. Those three provinces do not want to have anything to do with this proposal. That is interesting.

The minister of finance for the province of Ontario has said that this way of arranging things would cost the province $3 billion in extra taxes. It is comforting to see that there is someone who cannot be bought.

There is a circumstance in the bill which would force federally regulated industries like the airlines and the banks to bury GST in their pricing across the country. I find that most interesting with the current transparency of taxation.

I have relatives who live in the United States. They have looked at ticketing from the United States through Canadian airspace to Canadian destinations. Travel agents in the U.S. are absolutely horrified at the level of taxation in Canadian air travel as compared to U.S. air travel. At least they know it is taxation which is creating the pricing. With this kind of provision no one will know. Is that not wonderful for the government's agenda of out of sight, out of mind?

There is another parallel. If they cannot blend it, then maybe they can obfuscate it. We can always see in the actions of this government where it is trying to maintain federal leverage but it wants to obfuscate how it achieves the leverage because it wants to do it at minimum cost. We have seen that in the blending of the transfers to the provinces for health, education and welfare during the term of this government. They were rolled into one transfer. It is much harder to delineate what is going where. Then the $18 billion transfer was reduced by $7 billion, but it cannot be tracked because it has a new name and it is blended. That is quite a parallel.

We have the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and scores of Liberal cabinet and caucus members who all made election pledges to eliminate and not blend the GST. We have a Deputy Prime Minister who said on this issue: "A promise made by a politician seeking election is not really a promise". Is that not wonderful?

[An hon. member]

What is it then?

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I would like to know what it is also.

The Retail Council of Canada estimates that by forcing stores to bury the tax the harmonization tax regime will cost retailers $100 million a year. What on earth is the government trying to do? I heard Liberals in this House say it will make business more competitive.

I will tell the House what will make businesses more competitive. A $95 billion federal government, not a Liberal $110 billion government. The Reform Party proposes $95 billion spending, excluding interest on the debt.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

What are you going to spend it on?

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Read our fresh start program and you will know what we are going to spend it on.

The western world is moving in new directions. The public is demanding balanced budgets and the provinces are getting there much faster than the feds. There will be a reduced incentive for provincial sales tax relief with the BST. There will be more leverage from the federal government on the provinces.

We have seen 36 tax increases from this government, taking $24 billion more from the taxpayers. If the feds really want to come to grips with a rational, focused, central government, they could indeed contemplate the end of GST. At least let us not put roadblocks in the way of eliminating the GST, and that is what the BST does.