The hon. member across the way says he did not say that. The Prime Minister in a town hall meeting denied that he said it too. "I did not say that. Show me where I said it". Unfortunately, for him the public record is very clear because minutes later the CBC showed clips of the Prime Minister saying on national television: "We will kill it. We will scrap it". A clip was shown of him in a radio station during the election campaign saying that the GST would be gone.
I remember very well how the Prime Minister tried to dress down the young woman from Montreal for having the audacity to try and hold him accountable. What a terrible thing to do. That has become a common theme. I will explain a little more about that in just a moment.
During the months that followed the election, members of the government tried to downplay their election promise. They tried to say that what they really said was they would replace the GST. However, they knew that statement was not resonating very well with the public. The opposition was making yards here in the House when we kept pointing out that the government made a promise and it was not being fulfilled.
Finally, the Deputy Prime Minister conducted a poll to see if she could resign and still get re-elected in Hamilton East. She did, indeed, conduct the poll at great expense to the taxpayers. Then a byelection was held that cost a lot of money and, of course, she was subsequently re-elected.
Canadians were expecting more. When members say they are going to resign, it does not mean they are going to resign and run again right away. Nevertheless, that points once again to a lack of accountability in the House of Commons. People want members of Parliament to be responsible for what they say.
A little further along we get to the point where we are having discussions about the harmonized sales tax because the government said: "To get us out of this, we are going to give Atlantic Canada $1 billion". That is what it did. Atlantic Canada had no interest in a harmonized sales tax at all until the $1 billion was slapped down on the table. To get the government out of this promise it slapped down the $1 billion and Atlantic Liberal premiers said: "Maybe we are interested after all". Just show people the colour of money and it is amazing what they will do.
We had that incident. What followed? Ultimately legislation came down and hearings were held. Were hearings held in Atlantic Canada where this was going to affect people? Reform members moved an amendment during the hearings and Liberal MPs said: "We are not going to extend the hearings. We are not going to have hearings in Atlantic Canada," despite the hue and cry from people
in Atlantic Canada who were saying there were all kinds of flaws with the bill.
We heard dozens of witnesses who said: "We have big problems with tax in pricing and big problems with many components of the bill". The fact that people had many problems with the HST and the fact that the government acknowledged there were problems with it and tried to make some changes along the way, points out that Atlantic Canadian MPs were not listening to the people of Atlantic Canada.
Why were the people of Atlantic Canada not allowed to have hearings in Atlantic Canada? This is one of the most fundamental tax changes in the history of Atlantic Canada. Certainly it is taxation without consultation. I would argue it is taxation without representation.
Business group after business group, all kinds of people representing provincial jurisdictions, came before the finance committee and said: "Here is a problem". If Liberal MPs in Atlantic Canada had been representing their constituents that would have never happened because the Liberal MPs would have gone to the finance minister and told him that people have raised these concerns and they should be dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what happened? They did not do that. They were mute. That is bad enough, but they allowed businesses to close in Atlantic Canada because of this legislation. They said nothing and people in Atlantic Canada lost their jobs. They lost their livelihood.
Debate is ongoing in this country about child poverty. The children in the homes of the people who have lost their jobs already or who probably will, according to business people who appeared before the committee, are going to be in a situation where their parents do not have an income. I would argue that is one of the biggest reasons why we have child poverty. In this case the government is actively encouraging unemployment by not being sensible about the tax in pricing component of this bill. The Liberal MPs in Atlantic Canada have done a horrible job of representing their constituents.
Where were they when all the negative aspects of this bill came forward? People from around the country were forced to come to Ottawa to make their case. That was the job of the Liberal MPs but they were silent. They were mute. Some Atlantic Canadian MPs are cabinet ministers. They sit around the cabinet table. They did nothing: the fisheries minister, the defence minister. Many of them sit around the cabinet table and they were absolutely silent.
Not only is that regrettable but in a modern democracy that is unforgivable. In a modern democracy when people are expected to make very difficult decisions every day in their lives, those same people certainly have the ability to be involved in the debate about the future of their tax system, something that is a fundamental part of everybody's economic well-being. I want to make a strong argument that the Liberal government has completely failed the people of Atlantic Canada in giving them the type of representation that all Canadians deserve.
I have one final point because my time is running short. The government led physicians and the providers of private ambulance services to believe that it was truly interested in restoring tax fairness in the taxation system. It led them to believe that perhaps under this legislation it would amend the act so that physicians and providers of health care would be given equal treatment under the taxation system with many others.
The problem is that physicians and private ambulance services are not allowed to pass on GST costs like other small business people are. Therefore, they have to bear those costs themselves. For doctors it amounts to something like $1,500 per year per physician.
I heard the finance minister yesterday say that he is very concerned about tax fairness and how the government has closed this loophole and that loophole. Is it not interesting that the government is only concerned about tax fairness when it means more money for the government, when it means taking more money out of people's pockets? But when it comes to treating people equally and perhaps having to give a little money back, it does not want to hear about it. Tax fairness? That is not tax fairness. Tax fairness is only when we take money away, and I think that is wrong.
I make the point that again that the government has an obligation to treat everybody equally under the tax code, including physicians and private ambulance services.