Jean Chrétien

[Goods And Services Tax, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when it is a confidence vote in the government, it is a confidence vote in the government. It was discussed in caucus last Wednesday and the views of the member were clear.

The member for York South-Weston had a bill in the House on which we permitted a free vote. However, a question of confidence

in the government is something else. He could have waited and on a specific bill he could have voted against the government.

When it is a lack of confidence in the whole program of the government, it is because you do not belong to that government any more.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 22nd, 1996]

We have dozens of free votes in the House of Commons.

When a bill is by a private member, it is a bill presented to the Parliament of Canada. These bills will change the laws of Canada. We have accepted a lot of free votes, even with ministers splitting on some votes. We have never seen that before.

I am satisfied with the experiment. I think it was good and did not cause too many problems. We might have them on other occasions. We had free votes before on capital punishment and abortion. We had free votes on problems of morality or moral decisions.

When it is a question of confidence in the government, government members have to support the government which has helped them to get elected.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have dozens of free votes in the House of Commons that did not exist before.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would repeat to the hon. member that at the time we opposed the GST and we still oppose it. We argued in this House that it would be two systems of taxes with two different types of reports. It is very complicated for the consumers and for the the business people who had to report. There would be two sets of books, two sets of inspectors and so on.

We argued against this complication in the tax system. We always talked about harmonization. At the time of the election we put it in writing on page 22 of the red book. It is very easy to verify and we stand by what is written in the red book.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this party had a program and probably all the candidates read it before they ran. If they had stopped on page 22 they would have seen that we were talking about simplification and harmonization. That is what is written.

Four provincial governments have opted for harmonization. The first government was Quebec. Now there are three more and the others are looking into it.

I can read to the hon. member what the Regina Leader Post is recommending to the Saskatchewan government. It states: ``-would be well advised to rethink its opposition to a harmonized tax. Its concerns are not insurmountable, nor do they outweigh the potential benefits of harmonization, such as reduction in the cost of doing business and operating government in Saskatchewan, thus

improving the business climate and, in the long run, likely generate new jobs and revenue sources".

That is the opinion of a very important newspaper in Saskatchewan. That makes a lot of sense. A lot of people will find that our approach is a very good one.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 22nd, 1996]

He does not want me to repeat it. He has heard it enough. Fine. Read the red book. This is the commitment of this party and we are delivering on it.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my oh my, this member of Parliament cannot read four lines of the red book. I repeat for him: "A Liberal government-

[Goods And Services Tax, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time when private members' bills come before the House we are allowing ministers and members of our party to vote the way they want. That has never happened before in the history of Parliament. It is working. It is a reform that has been appreciated but not noted.

Unlike the member, I have been here for a few years and it is a big departure from what existed before. Members of Parliament voted on private members' bills according to the party line. We have given that freedom. It is a step in the right direction.

However, we live in a system in which we have a responsible government. When the government is defeated on a question of confidence it has no choice but to call an election. When it is a matter of voting non-confidence in the government, it is a question that one does not belong to the party that forms the government. That is all.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, once again, they are trying to scare people. It is not a question of increasing the GST. It is a question of changing the GST, of putting in place a national tax that will apply to everyone. There will be more work to do outside Quebec, because the tax is already harmonized in Quebec.

Right now, the Minister of Finance wants the same taxation level for all Canadians who pay a federal and provincial tax, and that is what he is working out with the provincial governments, who will, over the years, have to forgo a certain amount of revenue. As always, as we have done in other cases, we will help the provincial governments, especially those having the most trouble, the poorest provinces, to adapt to the new national system.

It is a question of being fair to all Canadians and that is what we are aiming for: a clear, simple and fair system for everyone.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have just read the Liberal Party's promise in the red book twice. I do not need to repeat it. We said that we wanted to harmonize with the provincial governments so that there would be a single tax, so that businesses had only one sales tax report to do, and so that we would have a system that was the same for all Canadians, simplifying everyone's operations. That is exactly what the Minister of Finance is in the process of doing.

When the agreements are concluded, the Minister of Finance will have no trouble expressing himself, and indeed is rarely hard put to do so in this House.