GOVERNMENT ORDERS

SUPPLY

ALLOTTED DAY-GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

That, in the opinion of this House, the GST should be ``killed, scrapped, abolished''.

After over two years into the mandate of the government, it is more than past time to have this debate. Sadly it is a debate that has to come from the opposition rather than the government which was proposing it during the election campaign.

It was a major campaign promise. In fact, I would argue that it was probably the most important promise that the government made during the 1993 election campaign. Some members across the way who were on doorsteps throughout this country told Canadians face to face that should the Liberals assume power the GST would be history, that it would be gone.

I am not going to make an elaborate argument against the GST. I do not think I have to. Government members have already made the argument for me. They made the argument during the election campaign and even since then.

I would like to run through a chronology of the different quotes that have been dug up from various members opposite to demonstrate there is a huge weight of evidence that the government did promise to abolish, to axe, to scrap, to get rid of, the GST. Today it is fudging on that promise.

By the way, Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound.

I would like to go back into the public record and point out to the House what was said by hon. members on the Liberal side in the lead-up to the last election campaign and let Canadians judge for themselves and hopefully remind the Liberals and perhaps tweak consciences a bit so that when it comes time to vote they will vote for their constituents instead of voting for the party whip.

Let us go back to 1990. This was in the wake of the GST being brought in by the previous Tory government which had its own undemocratic ways about jamming bills through. I will go back to the Edmonton Journal of March 6, 1990 for the first in a long series of quotes that I am going to use this afternoon.

(1545 )

The Liberal Party would scrap the GST, the current Minister of Human Resources Development pledged in a nationally televised debate with former finance minister Michael Wilson in March, 1990: ``The goods and services tax is a regressive tax. It has to be scrapped and we will scrap it''.

Let us go to the Windsor Star of November 9, 1990. This is a quote by the current Liberal House leader: ``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''.

From an April 4, 1990 article in the Montreal Gazette: ``I would abolish the GST''. That was stated by the current finance minister. The current Prime Minister of Canada said in the Montreal Gazette of September 27, 1990: ``I want the tax dead''.

Let us look at the chronology to see how things change over the course of years. Let us go to the Ottawa Citizen, February 11, 1991: ``I say we will replace the tax. This is a commitment. You judge me by that''. These are the words of the Prime Minister. The words are starting to change.

From the Toronto Star, November 7, 1991:

`Some senators are confused and upset by [the Prime Minister's] inability to consistently say that a Liberal government will scrap the GST', a senior Liberal source said yesterday.

[The current Prime Minister] was accused of flip-flopping after he backed away from a promise to abolish the GST on Monday, saying the tax would be `fundamentally changed' under a Liberal government. On Tuesday [the Prime Minister] was back saying he would scrap the tax after the 88,000 member Canadian Federation of Independent Business released a critical report on the GST.

I think a lot of people will remember this quote from 1993, one week before the election. I know the member across the way will remember this one because these are words that live in infamy in the world of the Liberals. This is from the current Deputy Prime Minister appearing on a CBC electronic town hall meeting one week before the election: ``If the GST is not abolished under a Liberal government I will resign''.

She said ``abolished''. As the hon. member for York South-Weston has been fond of pointing out about his own government, abolish is not synonymous with harmonize, which is what the Liberals are trying to convince Canadians they were saying during the election campaign. However, that is not the case and Canadians know better.

I want to fast forward a little now to 1994 and then ultimately to 1995 and 1996. Here is what the Victoria Times Colonist said on May 18, 1994:

The federal government will replace the hated GST within two years [the current Prime Minister] pledged Thursday.

Revenue minister-predicts that voters will punish any provincial government that fails to merge its sales tax with a revamped goods and services tax.

``Revamped''? That sounds suspiciously like tinkering with the worst tax ever imposed on Canadians instead of trashing it. If the voters are going to punish any government, it will be the federal Liberals for failing to deliver on a clear, specific election promise.

In fact, when [the current Prime Minister] was trying to entice Canadians into making him prime minister, he said it was the only specific promise he was making.

The weight of evidence is overwhelming and in the court of public opinion Canadians are not only trying this government, they are convicting it. I think they will mete out a very harsh penalty at the next election.

Let us go to the Ottawa Citizen, August 10, 1995: ``The hated GST will be replaced with a new national sales tax in next year's federal budget, the Prime Minister promised Wednesday''.

From the same day, an interesting quote from the hon. member for Mississauga West: ``I think the GST is going to become a hot point. I think if we do not do something about it our credibility is gone. People in my riding hate the GST. It is not like one of those mild we do not like it, they hate it. If the GST is merged with provincial sales taxes voters will not be satisfied unless the overall tax take is simultaneously reduced. You cannot just do a little paper switch or move the shell and hide the peanut''.

I think that is a wonderful quote and I think it is a perfect analysis of the situation.

Here is an interesting quote from the Ottawa Sun: ``In 1993 the Liberals promised to scrap the Tories' hated GST but so far have not kept their word. That broken promise, stressed the member for Broadwood-Greenwood, is going to come back to haunt them in an election expected next year. It is one word. It is trust''.

The hon. member for York South-Weston said: ``I hope we do not try to hoodwink people into thinking our commitment was contingent on the provinces agreeing to harmonize their taxes with the GST''. That came from a Liberal member, a member who went to doorsteps along with all the other members across the way trying to convince Canadians that if they voted Liberal they would get rid of the GST.

Now we have some members who are feeling their conscience. They are coming forward to the media and urging their party that the GST must be scrapped, abolished, axed, as they said it should be during the election campaign. Now we are starting finally to get some debate about that in the House thanks to the Reform Party because obviously the Liberals have not brought this forward to this point and it is not in their interest to do it.

This vote is a chance for Liberal members across the way to throw off the fetters of party discipline, to vote with their constituents and to finally fulfil their promise to get rid of the GST.

Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate. It has transfixed the Canadian public since the previous Conservative prime minister, without consultation with the Canadian public, brought in the tax and barrelled it through the

House of Commons. Clearly there are many of us on this side who understand the veracity of opinion with respect to this tax.

As the hon. member opposite selectively quotes, I remember quite clearly in the red book and during the election campaign we as a party in waiting, one that was soon to have been given the trust of the Canadian public, made it extremely and exceptionally clear what our platform was.

Rather than having to wait until opposition members with selective memories misquoted us, we put down in writing, in black and white, what our policies were.

With respect to the GST we had said in opposition that it was the wrong tax at the wrong time. At that point it was the wrong tax, it was the wrong time and it aided and abetted in the deepening of a recession caused by the previous government's misguided economic policies.

At the time of the election it was very clear to us that we would be faced with an enormous task to try to balance the books, to try to put our fiscal house in order. What we said at the time in the red book, in black and white, is that this government would get rid of the GST and that we would replace it with a taxation system which was easier to administer, fairer to small businesses and which took in the same amount of revenue.

I know my hon. colleague from the Reform Party is an avid reader. He quotes the red book often. It is one of his favourite pieces of reading material.

(1555)

Would his party support today the abolition of the GST if it knew it would lead to a $17 billion increase in the deficit? If not, would he specifically tell us which programs would be cut which would amount to that $17 billion? Which social programs would be laid to waste? Which transfer programs would he and his party cancel? What would be the impact of those program cancellations be to, for instance, the people of Labrador who are in the middle of an election campaign and who are wondering which party better represents the future for the people of that riding?

Mr. Solberg: Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a number of issues. Let me underline that the confusion about what the Liberals said is apparent in his own party. I have quoted things which several Liberal members have said in the last couple of months. These are people who campaigned door to door under the impression that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the finance minister meant what they said and intended to do what they said. Obviously they feel they have been let down.

The hon. member raised a good question. What would the Reform Party do? The Reform Party would wipe out the deficit and eliminate the GST in stages, unlike the government which is leaving a $17 billion deficit out there. The only thing that can happen when we have a deficit that large is that the government would move toward eliminating all kinds of services to seniors. It is talking about making more cuts to social programs, which it said during the election campaign it would never touch.

We see more broken promises. Quite frankly, we are seeing hypocrisy from that side equalled only by the government before it.

Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Madam Speaker, Reformers do not really know how the Liberals can or will deliver on their red book promise to scrap the GST. However, it is their problem, not ours.

I remember vividly discussions about the strategy which Reform should follow during the election campaign. The suggestion came up that the idea of scrapping the GST is very popular; it would gain us lots of votes. However, cooler rational heads prevailed and said we could never deliver on that. It is not responsible to go to the people of Canada during an election campaign and say we will get rid of tax revenue worth $17 billion when the country is going bankrupt. Appropriately, we did the responsible thing and said we would eliminate the GST, as the people of Canada want, once the budget was balanced.

The difficulties in which the Liberals find themselves could not have happened to nicer guys.

I will address a question which has not been raised. The defence on the other side is: ``We did not say we would get rid of it; we said we would replace it with something else. We would harmonize it''. Harmonizing sounds like a good and interesting idea. However, it does not meet the requirements I believe the people of Canada have for a taxation system.

The general idea of a value added tax is supported widely in academic circles. It is a tax which encourages savings and investment. At a low tax rate it would not be too onerous and it would catch people in the underground economy who do not pay taxes. Whenever they spent their money, they would end up paying taxes.

(1600 )

The political process so destroyed the basic idea of a value added tax that it is appropriate it is not called a VAT like in Europe, but that it is called the GST. It is ironic that the cause for this abomination, the GST, this caricature of a value added tax was caused by the Liberal opposition members who sat on this side of the House. I have heard it told repeatedly how it all came about.

In a heated attack by the rat pack, the Minister of Finance of the day, Michael Wilson, without thinking through what he did, gave in to the incessant demands that at least food should be exempted from the value added tax. All the experts who have studied the history of the tax have told us that from that moment on we ended up not having a good GST, not a good value added tax. We ended up with the current abomination because he opened the floodgates

on exemptions which resulted in all kinds of difficulties which now exist. It is they who made it such a hated tax.

I sat through many, many weeks of hearings. Nearly a thousand witnesses told us what an abomination this tax is. Some episodes of how terrible a tax it is stand out in my mind. These difficulties will not be eliminated by harmonization; they will be aggravated.

The most memorable event was when a gentleman came to testify before the finance committee with a shopping bag full of cancelled receipts from his store. He runs a used goods store in Toronto. His business had shrunk by over one-half. He said: ``People see a price of $100 on a used refrigerator. They say that is what they want and to ring up the sale on the cash register. The sales attendant hands a bill of $107 to the individual who says that he wants it for $100. We tell the customer there is GST on it. After a long debate which really irritated and made all the customers in the store mad, the individual gave up and said to cancel the sale and take back the refrigerator''.

It was a most dramatic representation. The store owner said it was not an isolated incident. The receipts he had in the bag all had been cancelled within six weeks. He said: ``It has been going on like this. My business is being wiped out. Where do these people go? They go next door, to smaller stores, to entrepreneurs who are less honest than I am and they end up not paying the GST''. This is just one example.

We remember the difficulties of paying GST when we buy five muffins but not if we buy six. There were representations from restaurant owners who told us they cannot stand the competition. When they sell a pizza they have to charge GST on it. However, someone can go next door to a supermarket where the pizza is all made for them and all they have to do is pop it into an oven and they do not have to pay GST. That is highly unfair.

There are other things that are not very well known. The municipal sector is given special treatment. That sector does not have to pay GST. Fine, but consider that it has been found that some functions carried out by municipal workers can be achieved more efficiently and cheaply by contracting to the private sector. Lo and behold, when municipal employees collect the garbage there is no GST but when it is contracted out, there is GST. There is a tax on privatization. Is this right? This is highly inefficient.

(1605)

We heard horror stories about the way in which the GST encourages the underground economy. Many conferences have been held and papers have been written on this subject. There are stories.

We hear about people who order a wing built on their house. They are given two prices, one with GST and one without. They

can pay by cheque if they wish or alternatively, they can pay by cash which will cost 7 per cent less. As we heard again and again in the finance committee, the people who offer these dealings not only fail to pay the GST, but they probably do not report the income from their work either.

We heard horrible stories about businesses being affected by a strange ruling. Natives are not subject to the GST. A store located outside the border of a reserve used to be quite profitable selling candy to children from the native reserve. It was doing fine, thank you. Children coming home from playing baseball would buy candy. Now the store is not able to compete any more. Somebody has opened a store on the other side of the border and does not pay any GST.

To summarize my point, the government is holding out the hope that all the difficulties existing with the GST, which the people hate so much and which we heard so much about in the finance committee, can be wiped out by harmonization. That is not going to be possible because of the abomination of having so many different exemptions to the tax. It is a terrible tax that cannot be saved. That is the conviction I have reached.

I therefore move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the word ``should''.

Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am really baffled. It used to be said about communists that the hardest thing about being a communist was predicting the past because of revisionist history. I see this going on in the Reform Party. It is incredible.

(1610 )

In 1990 the hon. leader of the Reform Party said that his party would repeal the GST. In 1991 he reversed and said that it could not be repealed immediately because that would increase the deficit. In 1992 his party changed its position again, that it would reduce the GST but in stages and after the budget was balanced.

In 1994 in a minority report appended to the finance committee's report on the GST, the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound said: ``We commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces. While we support the much needed harmonization, this would be a very difficult political objective to achieve''. I recall he offered his help to achieve that.

Now there is a motion that states we should scrap it, end it, abolish it. We had a Reform Party alternate budget last year but

there is no Reform alternate budget this year. There is no provision for replacing the revenue from the GST that would not come after scrapping it.

I ask the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound, what is the position of the Reform Party today on the GST? What will it be tomorrow, the day after and the day after that? We have been through five different versions.

Further, would the member explain what was meant in last year's minority report when he and his party said: ``We believe that a broadening of the tax base would address many concerns placed before the committee. That would also require an increase of the current GST rebate''. He was clearly willing to talk about a broadening of the base to get a lower rate, including food, drugs, all manner of things.

Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, at stake today is not the Reform position on the GST. At stake today are promises made during the election campaign which were very influential. When knocking on doors I heard all the time: ``Why are you not promising to eliminate the GST? Why are you not doing this?'' I said that we could not do so responsibly. People said that nevertheless they would vote for the people who would get rid of it. I won in my riding but I wonder in how many ridings the Liberals squeaked by, especially in Ontario, because they made this promise which they knew they could not keep. That is the issue. It is not an issue of how we m

Co-operative as we are with the finance committee, we are trying to understand what is best for Canada given what we have known all along but what the Liberals had denied during the election campaign: We cannot get rid of the GST but how can we make it better? Harmonization will be better but it will not solve the fundamental problems which are documented in the examples I have given. That is the issue.

The Liberals continue to claim that they did not say they would get rid of it. They have twisted it and said they would harmonize it and do something else, as if that would solve the problem. After studying the GST more than I ever wanted to, I can say that harmonization will not solve the problems that have made Canadians unhappy enough to tell me they would vote for the Liberals because I would not promise to get rid of it.

Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, perhaps I will be better able to get a straight answer from the hon. member opposite.

My colleague indicated quite clearly that it is extremely unclear what the current position of the third party is with respect to the GST. We heard the previous speaker from the Reform Party indicate that his party's platform during the election campaign was to eliminate the GST after the federal deficit was eliminated.

If the motion before us were adopted it would have the GST eliminated before the elimination of the federal deficit. Is the hon. member trying to tell us that his party would eliminate the GST, as was the case in its campaign platform, after the deficit has been eliminated? Or, in spite of the deficit, which is going down the right way but is not quite there yet, would he still eliminate the GST and add $17 billion a year to the deficit?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Debate. The hon. Minister of National Revenue.

(1615 )

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was fascinated by this motion which has been presented for us to debate here in the House by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. It states: ``That, in the opinion of this House, the GST should be ``killed, scrapped, abolished''. Period. End. Full stop. Nothing more.

There is no indication here about how the third party would replace the GST; if it would replace the GST; how it would deal with the $17 billion in net revenues the goods and services tax brings in to the federal government. There is nothing that talks about that in this motion, this current, the fourth or perhaps the fifth iteration of the Reform Party platform on the GST.

I can only conclude that what Reformers must be saying is they do not care about those funds. They are taking the position that we can walk away from $17 billion and they are prepared to face the critics who say that this approach is foolhardy and irresponsible.

I said I was fascinated that Reformers would propose such a motion for debate today. However, I am really not surprised. Here again we have members of the Reform Party using political grandstanding to make some kind of point. I am not sure what it is. I am sure the last laugh is going to be on them. When we look at this, here again they are providing simple answers to very complex problems. Their political naivete is showing through yet again.

Also, the motion is intellectually dishonest. I sat on the finance committee with those members opposite. I listened as they did to Canadians right across the country about their concern for this tax, their hate for this tax.

We heard from large businesses which said: ``If you do not harmonize this tax with the 10 provincial sales taxes, we will never have interprovincial trade that is free and open''. We listened to small and medium size businesses which said: ``If you do not harmonize this tax, the administrative nightmare we face daily is never going to go away''. They said to us: ``If you do not change this tax and make it more flexible so that we do not have to go through the same process as large companies do when we do not have accounting departments to do that, it is going to kill us''.

We listened to individual Canadians who said: ``This tax is driving us crazy''. Yes, I remember that very individual, the retailer who came to our committee with his bags of tax receipts, showing the number of customers that had walked out of his store and not completed their transactions because they were not prepared to pay the final price. He said to us: ``When you change the tax, make sure that the tax is included in the pricing on the floor''.

We heard from advocates of social groups, social organizations, poverty organizations who said: ``We understand that the government needs the $17 billion. We understand that you want to have a mix of tax regimes: corporate, personal income tax, and yes, a consumption tax. But for goodness sake, make sure that the notion of progressivity, that the rebate continues on''.

I would point out at this time, Madam Speaker, that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Willowdale and will look to you for a cue as my time runs out.

Let me continue by saying that as a committee we responded to these concerns. We made recommendations. As my colleague from St. Paul's pointed out, the third party said in its minority report: ``We commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces. While we support the much needed harmonization of the tax, this will be a very difficult political objective to achieve''. We agreed that harmonization was important, that including the tax in the pricing was important, that changing the tax so it was more responsive to individual companies depending on their size was important.

I bring out the red book and quote directly from our platform, the platform we took to Canadians in 1993. It states: ``A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and small business, minimizes disruption to small business and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization''. We went beyond that. We presented a complete package to the people of Canada. We told them that we recognized this was a poor tax. It was poorly strategized, poorly conceived, poorly implemented. It is hard to administer.

(1620)

We recognized, as I read from the red book, the answers. We said that in the first 12 months of our mandate we would talk to Canadians and confirm this with them, which we did as a finance committee. Lo and behold, the answer that came back was reflective of the position we took in our platform.

We know we have to replace the GST. We are committed to replacing it. We know that Canadians across the country support the strategy the finance committee put forward and which the Minister of Finance is working at achieving.

We are taking a responsible position here. We need to work with the provinces in order to make them understand that their constituents are the ones we talked to. The answers the provinces would get from the people in Ontario, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island are the answers we got as we crossed the country.

The answer is to come together, to have a single tax, to respond to the needs of the country, to improve our interprovincial trade, to respond to small and medium size businesses, which we know are the engines to our economic future, and to respond to individual Canadians. They do not want a tax but are prepared to pay taxes to support our social programs and our seniors benefits, those things that make this country unique and which are so important to us.

I admire the Minister of Finance for the work he is doing in his discussions with the provincial finance ministers. I will work as closely with him as I can to ensure that we have success in this regard.

In the Ministry of National Revenue we have come to the very clear conclusion that there is but one taxpayer and we want one tax administration. Therefore, in the budget and in the speech from the throne we have identified the importance of moving toward a single Canada revenue commission. We will consolidate the work of the department even more so than we have.

I would like to recognize the work of those members of my department who have consolidated very disparate branches of endeavour and brought them under one administration. We will continue to work with other federal departments such as agriculture, immigration and transportation to consolidate our work, reduce duplication, save money and reduce overlap.

We will then, with this agency, go forward and ask the provinces to work with us and consolidate the administrations that are dotting our country in each province and territory.

I am hopeful as we proceed along that agenda that we can clear the path and assist the Minister of Finance and draw to the attention of the finance ministers in all of the provinces how important the harmonization of this tax is, how important including the tax in the pricing is and how important it is to ensure that the tax regimes we have in effect in Canada are responsive to Canadians and to Canadian business.

That is the commitment we made as a Liberal Party. That is the commitment we continue to maintain and work toward as a Liberal government. I would ask members of the third party to remember the comments they made in their minority report, the support they gave to this position. I ask them to begin to work with us instead of continuing with this political grandstanding and flip-flopping to position themselves in whatever they view to be in the best view of the Canadian public at a certain point in time.

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the revenue minister that I will be addressing the minority report when I give my speech.

(1625 )

Concerning her comments and speech, the issue is twofold: what politicians or candidates say when they run for election versus what they do once they get into government. That is what is at issue here. When the Deputy Prime Minister ran as a Liberal candidate she said that if elected, the Liberal government would abolish the GST or she would quit. She believed it was time politicians kept their promise. She said words to that effect. Now, as Deputy Prime Minister the difference is: ``If we do not replace the GST I will resign'' and there is nothing about politicians keeping their promise.

At issue here with the GST is the language and rhetoric used is stronger at the door and implies or suggests so that people who are listening infer a different concept than what is in the red book. I will acknowledge that what is in the red book and always has been there is replace, replace, replace.

Now let us go to the next promise. In 1993 the current Prime Minister said: ``We will replace it by 1995''. What year is it now?

Mr. Thompson: It is a lot later than that.

Mr. Silye: I think 1995 has come and gone. The government has had two years. There are 170 members in the government. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he said he would get rid of the GST in a day. Well he has been Prime Minister for two years and he cannot even keep the promise to replace the GST. He cannot keep the promise of the deadline. He has had two years. He said he could do it in a day. That is the issue.

With that short, short, very factual preamble, my question is: When will the Liberal government keep its red book promise and replace the GST?

Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, I assume there is time to answer after that very short preamble. I would just point out that we on this side know it is 1996 and not 1950 like members opposite.

The member is talking about what people said at their doors. I remind the hon. member that in 1990 it was the Reform Party leader who said while his party was trying to get a new senator and its first member of Parliament elected, that the Reform Party would rip out the GST if it has been imposed against the will of the people. That was in the Reform Party's election campaign.

As I said in my comments this tax was conceived of and implemented poorly. It is now very difficult to administer as a result of the work of the previous government. The last thing I want to do is to inflict another ill-conceived replacement on the Canadian public. We will take the time needed to get this tax right because we are a responsible government. We have listened to what the people of Canada have said.

[Translation]

Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank the hon. members for Capilano-Howe Sound and Calgary Centre, who worked very hard with the finance committee in preparing the report on the future of the GST.

We worked very closely together. We travelled across Canada and they really supported our position that the amendments suggested by the committee were valid.

[English]

In part of the process we went through we looked at 20 different alternatives to the GST. It would do us well to recall very briefly those tax alternatives we looked at. At the time everybody on the committee, Reform, Bloc and Liberals said that we had to replace that tax. We could not just abolish it because we needed the revenue. So what tax alternatives did we look at? There were probably five different categories.

(1630)

The first category of tax replacement was that maybe the tax could be abolished without replacing it and three scenarios under that category were looked at.

The first was that maybe the stimulus to the economy from getting rid of the tax would be so enormous that the economy would prosper simply by eliminating the tax. If that worked, why not eliminate more? It was the old supply side, trickle down Reaganomics that does not work. It was rejected unanimously by the committee.

The second alternative was to reduce government expenditures. However, to reduce expenditures by $17 billion in one year would have been too much for even this economy to swallow. We have made tough cuts and have been able to reduce program spending over a four year period by about $14 billion. That would have been even more dramatic and it would have had a terrible effect on the growth of the economy at that time.

The third alternative was to cut transfer payments to the provinces. At that time the transfers in cash were about equal to the net take on the GST. However, look at the implications that would have had on spending programs in the provinces. Look at the implications that it would have had for the programs that members on all sides of the House have asked us to support as a federal national government.

The next category of replacement was income tax alternatives to the GST. We had five of those: a personal income surtax, an exchanging of tax bases with the provinces, a flat tax, an additional flat tax add-on to the personal income tax, and a corporate income tax increase.

In essence, abolishing the GST and putting it all into personal income tax would have meant a 21 per cent increase in federal

personal income tax, which would be unthinkable when the top marginal rate in Ontario is 54 per cent.

There are many who said it could be done with corporate taxes. That would have meant an increase of more than 150 per cent in corporate taxes in that year.

Those are eight of the alternatives at which we looked.

The third category of replacement was revenue taxes. The first of these was a turnover tax. A tax of 1 per cent to 2 per cent could be imposed on every financial transaction, every business transaction, every sale which took place. The trouble is that it had been tried for many years in Europe. Although the rate is low, it cascades. Every time a transfer of goods or services takes place within a corporation it would be added on. It would not take account of efficiencies. That is why every European country which has used it rejected the turnover tax.

Then there was the payroll tax. It would take about a 3.5 per cent payroll tax to replace the GST. Some people advocated it. It would have been simple but who would have been paying it? Only the workers. Only the people who are already taxed by way of payroll levies and income tax. It would not have hit those who were retired. It would not have hit those who were living off enormous incomes which were not earned. It would not have been fair. It would have been a killer of jobs. We had to reject it.

The fourth category involved miscellaneous proposals for replacing the GST. We looked at a wealth transfer tax. We looked at green taxes. We looked at taxing gambling and lottery winnings. However, even if we could get the maximum out of those three different taxes, in their total they would not have accounted for more than about one-fifth of the GST. A lot of these were taxes which had been rejected in the past for very valid reasons.

The fifth category of replacement taxes which was looked at were the consumption based taxes. Six alternatives to the GST were looked at.

The first was the manufacturers' sales tax. Parliaments had unanimously rejected that in the past. It only applied to about 70,000 taxpayers. There were hundreds of thousands of exceptions to it. It was a very narrow base and it hurt manufacturing. It made manufacturers non-competitive.

(1635)

A wholesale tax was looked at. It would have had somewhat the same impact, although not as bad as the manufacturers' sales tax. However it still had many anti-competitive aspects to it.

Next we looked at going to a straight federal retail tax, a single stage tax. But when we examined all of the provincial retail sales taxes which are single stage, a lot of testimony was given about how unfair these taxes were and how non-competitive they made businesses. Businesses ended up paying all sorts of retail sales taxes when they should not have.

Also there were certificates of exemption so that if a farmer wanted to buy a hammer to fix his barn he did not have to pay the sales tax on it. Many of these sales slipped through the net and businesses were being unfairly penalized. No one suggested that we go to the retail sales tax.

The next one was an addition method value added tax. This is where we started to look at the value added tax concept.

The 18th alternative that we looked at was a theoretical proposition, but only the academics have ever supported it, no one ever said it could work in practice and we rejected it.

The nineteenth alternative was one that had considerable merit potential. It was the business transfer tax. This would have been a value added tax that could have possibly worked in an ideal world where you did not have a federal state but a unitary state, only one level of government, where all governments could come on board at the same time, where you tax all the same base but you had a real problem accounting for imports and exports which are fundamental to our economy.

Universally tax experts, the business groups, the small business groups, the big business groups, the chambers rejected the business transfer tax which had previously looked as if it could have been the panacea.

The next alternative was to keep the GST the way it is. We could not because it imposes such a burden on small business and all Canadian taxpayers because they are supporting 10 different taxes at the retail level which is totally unfair. We could not support it even in terms of big business.

The system in Canada is the only system in the world where there is more than one tax at the retail level. Canada has 10 different taxes. Any party that stands in this House and argues that this is good for consumers, good for business, good for jobs, good for our competitiveness is absolutely insane.

We concluded that this system would not work. The only thing that could work was a national value added tax where the federal GST is eliminated, the nine provincial retail sales taxes are eliminated and they are replaced with one national value added tax under one administration.

This has such benefits for consumers, for ease of compliance by small businesses, for doing business across this country, for making every business, small and large, competitive. This is why we have supported this proposition. This is why we look forward to seeing it come in.

It is why I wish to move an amendment to the amendment put forward by the Reform Party. The motion reads: ``That in the opinion of this House the GST be killed, scrapped, abolished''.

I ask that the period be removed out after that and include the following words ``and be replaced with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and small business, minimizes disruption to small business and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization''.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that any amendment has to be addressed to our amendment which was to remove the word ``should'' from the original motion.

(1640 )

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I accept the point of order of the hon. member and move that this amendment is not receivable.

Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member who is a well known, famous, most competent tax lawyer whether during the deliberations of the Liberal Party of which he is an influential member, he ever advised his colleagues that it would not be possible to get rid of the GST.

Was he totally unaware of the difficulties which exist in harmonizing and doing all the other things that we had proposed? Did he warn his colleagues about this? Was he ignorant about it? Did he just say it to himself and not tell them? Was he simply rejected? How could a distinguished tax lawyer, with as much influence as he has, get his party to accept a resolution which any informed tax lawyer would have known could not be kept?

Mr. Peterson: Madam Speaker, it is quite evident that the member for Capilano-Howe Sound is quite right. We realized as did he when he was working with us on the committee that the essence of getting a streamlined tax system for all Canadians is co-operation at the federal and provincial levels.

All of us knew this. We do not have the authority to dictate what the provinces do. However that does not mean we should not endeavour in all parties to try to make our country work better. All of us agree. I know the member who just asked this question agrees with us that it would be a significant improvement to the system if we could get rid of the 10 different existing tax systems and replace them with one tax system under one administration.

The saving in cost of compliance to small and big businesses would probably be in the neighbourhood of $400 million a year. The cost to all taxpayers by getting rid of 10 different systems and replacing them with one would probably be in the neighbourhood of $400 or $500 million each year.

The cost in aggravation to consumers of not having tax included pricing when they go into the store about which he spoke most eloquently would be enormous. Of course it requires the agreement of the provinces, as many things in this country does, in order to make it the type of country we want it to be. He knew that and we knew that when we spoke of it in the red book.

We said that we wanted the tax to be harmonized with the provinces, that is, we needed their compliance. We needed their co-operation. We needed their agreement. That has always been part of the understanding and he knows it.

While I still have the floor-

Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought I saw you rise after the member sat down. I saw you rise and begin to recognize someone, and now he is getting up to move a motion. I would think he is out of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That is not a point of order. We were on the five minutes allowed for questions and comments.

Mr. Peterson: Madam Speaker, because the hon. members opposite objected to the way I had worded my amendment earlier-

Ms. Clancy: What?

Mr. Peterson: What I wish therefore is to do it in such a way that it does respect the amendment they made, which is what they have asked that I do. I will comply with their wishes and yours, Madam Speaker.

(1645)

I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word ``should'' a comma and inserting thereafter ``be replaced with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small businesses, minimizes disruption to small business and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization and be killed, scrapped and abolished''.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, he is absolutely right. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Willowdale is out of order, as he had finished his speech and we were in the midst of question and comment period. Therefore, I cannot recognize this amendment.

Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, the motion put forward by the Reform Party reads, and I quote: ``The GST should be killed, scrapped, abolished''. The Bloc Quebecois will support this Reform Party motion, because the GST should

purely and simply be abolished, although our reasons are different from those set forth by the Reformers.

How much money does the federal government make with this goods and services tax? When it was first established in 1991, it brought in $2.5 billion; the following year, in 1992, $15.2 billion; in 1993, $14.9 billion; in 1994, $15.7 billion; and last year, 1995, $16.8 billion. This is a tax that puts $15 or $16 billion in the federal coffers year after year.

Our position on the GST is not new. It was elaborated upon in the minority report presented by the Bloc Quebecois members of the Standing Committee on finance in June 1994. As far as we are concerned, this position is still valid, and I welcome this opportunity to outline it for the hon. members.

Madam Speaker, would you please ask the hon. members to let me speak in peace? I notice that certain members are in deep conversation in the back.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Will the hon. members who need to discuss matters in this House, thereby interfering with our listening to the member who has the floor, please withdraw behind the curtains to have their conversations.

Mr. Bélisle: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The liberal government is still reneging on its promise to abolish the GST. Let me quote a few lines from the March 11, 1996, issue of the Globe and Mail, which are very enlightening in that regard. First: ``I have already said personally and very directly that if the GST is not abolished, I will resign''. That statement was made to the CBC by the current Deputy Prime Minister on October 18, 1993, one week before the federal election.

As for the current Prime Minister, he is quoted as saying, also in 1993: ``We will scrap the GST''. The red book, published in 1993, states as well, and I quote: ``A Liberal government will replace the GST''. Again, in March 1996, the Deputy Prime Minister stated: ``If we do not replace it, I will resign. I really do not have much choice. It will be replaced''.

You probably remember that the GST and its abolition where big issues during the election campaign in 1993.

(1650)

It was a major issue and it greatly helped the Liberals get elected. Since then, the Liberal strategy has been to downplay the importance of that issue, so as to make it easier to renege on their election promises.

During the election campaign, the Liberals made no bones about the fact that they were going to abolish the GST. Now, they talk instead of replacing it, of harmonizing it with provincial taxes. The Liberals are doing that because they are quietly paving the way for a national sales tax. Instead of abolishing the GST, they will make it even more pervasive.

The Liberal government, with its commitment to harmonize, now stands exactly where the Conservatives were. Indeed, before disappearing from the political map in 1993, the Conservatives were thinking of the same thing, harmonizing the federal and provincial sales taxes.

You have to admit that the Liberals and the Conservatives are pretty much one and the same. In addition to proposing a hybrid GST which in no way solves the management problems created by the GST, the Liberals want to impose this rigid tax to the provinces.

In view of this all-out attack against the provinces' authority, the Bloc Quebecois totally distances itself from the Liberal position and proposes instead to abolish the GST and to transfer to the provinces the tax field currently occupied by the GST. We feel this is the only way to implement a single tax system that would benefit the provinces.

As for Quebec, such a transfer would reflect its specificity and its fiscal autonomy. Quebec and other interested provinces could thus define the parameters of the new tax field, such as the goods and services that are taxable and not taxable, as well as the type of tax to be applied. This single tax would be administered and collected by each provincial government. Finally, this single tax should not take more out of taxpayers' pockets than do the current provincial sales tax, the QST in Quebec, and the GST together.

The Bloc Quebecois understands that the transfer of this tax field to Quebec could result in a significant loss of revenue for the federal government and that the latter should be compensated for that loss. Without touching transfers of tax points and special abatements-a tax field already occupied by the Government of Quebec-the federal government could reduce the transfer payments it makes under the various provincial transfer programs by an amount equivalent to the current GST revenues collected in Quebec.

This would also reduce federal interference in certain sectors of exclusively provincial jurisdiction, thus helping to cut back on duplication. In addition, as long as Quebecers pay their income taxes to the federal government, an equalization program should be maintained, without additional cuts, in order to offset the differences in the provinces' fiscal capacities.

In practical terms, our proposal would eliminate the duplication resulting from the existence of two parallel taxes and would reduce administrative costs for businesses, which would have only one tax to keep track of.

What is the context in which alternatives to the GST have been analysed?

It is a difficult context financially and economically. Middle and low income taxpayers have reached their threshold of tolerance. Unemployment rates are high and public finances are in such a

poor state that they are resulting in a risk premium on interest rates that is detrimental to investments.

The labour market is in a sorry state. Remember that with the increase in the population, we need several hundreds of thousands of jobs more in Canada, just to return to the level of employment at the beginning of the recession in the second quarter of 1990.

If we look at the tax statistics by income brackets published by Statistics Canada, we see that the increase in the tax burden of middle and lower income citizens is indeed real. Between 1972 and 1992, taxpayers saw a jump in real tax rates of 22.7 per cent. During the same period, taxpayers in lower income brackets saw their real tax rates go up by 42 per cent.

(1655)

The increased tax burden has triggered the emergence of a flourishing underground economy. As the Liberal majority report states, analysts estimate the underground economy to represent somewhere between 2 and 20 per cent of the GDP. Only a total revision of the taxation system could make it possible to contain and reduce the size of the underground economy, because it is linked to the overall tax burden or, in other words, is dependent on all taxes paid by the taxpaying public.

The question of abolishing the GST and transferring it to the provinces arises in this context. All the commotion focussing on replacing the GST illustrates, more clearly than anything else could, the necessity of a total review of the federal taxation system. An examination of that system shows that high income individuals and major corporations have the financial means and the legal expertise to take advantage of a number of tax loopholes which save them considerable amounts of tax.

Think, for example, of the family trust scheme by which rich families can put off, virtually forever, having to pay capital gains tax on the assets held in trust. It is hard to estimate what the tax losses are on such tax deferments, because the Department of Finance keeps the figures hidden. According to a study commissioned by the Canadian Association of Family Enterprise in 1990, however, tax losses can be estimated at several hundred million dollars.

In 1993, when the Liberals were the opposition, they-the present Minister of Finance included-voted against reinstatement of the tax breaks associated with family trusts. Now the Liberals are refusing to abolish those same breaks, but they show no hesitancy in the least to dump on the unemployed, couples with child support agreements, and the pensioners of the future.

In fact the Liberals, just like the Conservatives in 1993, have given in to the lobby of rich influential families who want to keep their assets safe from taxes, while the tax burden on low income families continues to spiral endlessly upward.

Another example of unfairness are the tax havens. In the Auditor General's report in 1992, it was pointed out that the Income Tax Act and the tax agreements made it possible for foreign affiliates of Canadian companies to avoid paying tax in Canada and to take advantage of the lower rates of taxation available in a number of countries considered tax havens.

In fact, the auditor general estimates that more than $16 billion were invested by Canadian companies in tax havens, thus avoiding paying millions of dollars in taxes to the federal government every year. This means that, in a roundabout way, several Canadian companies are declaring abroad revenue earned in Canada.

Taking advantage of tax loopholes, many high income earners as well as big profitable firms do not pay a cent in taxes. It is to put an end to this kind of inequity that the Bloc Quebecois is demanding a comprehensive review of the Canadian tax system, not this business taxation committee comprised mostly of advisors working for firms using tax havens and contributors to the Liberal election fund.

The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that, in order to prevent big profitable firms from using complicated schemes to pay ridiculously low taxes, the government should impose a real minimum tax on the business profits made by large corporations instead of an easily avoidable capital tax.

The GST is not the only component of public revenue that needs to be reviewed and changed. In the minority report on the GST tabled by the Liberals in 1989 while they were in opposition, it is recommended that the Conservative government abandon its plans to introduce a goods and services tax and immediately initiate consultations with Canadians and the provincial governments on a fair and integrated reform of the tax system as a whole.

Now that they are in power, the same Liberals are content with trying to harmonize the GST and bring down three consecutive budgets that do nothing to eliminate unfairness. It is wrong to believe that all federal tax problems can be resolved by merely reforming our sales tax.

(1700)

Several examples show that the Liberals are victims of their own policy of analyzing the GST separately from the other sources of federal revenue. Chapter 2 of the report of the Liberal majority on the finance committee, tabled in June 1994, states that wealth transfer tax cannot be considered as a replacement for the GST as it would not generate as much revenue.

This kind of reasoning rules out alternatives like a real minimum tax on large corporations making profits, the taxation of family trusts, the elimination of tax shelters, and so on. They rule out all partial solutions that, together, could do the job.

Finally, the Liberals are making exactly the same mistake as their predecessors by changing their minds about reviewing all sources of government revenue. By tackling only one aspect of the problem, the Liberals will never arrive at a lasting decision, because the tax system is a complex and delicate equation in which fair taxation and a balanced budget cannot be achieved by imposing a new tax in isolation.

The Bloc Quebecois' proposal would allow the Quebec government to put in place a tax that really meets Quebec's needs and avoid the mess that would inevitably be created by 11 parties trying to negotiate the base, administrative details and characteristics of the tax.

Our proposal would also make the Quebec government less vulnerable to the federal government's unilateral cuts in transfers to the provinces. At the operating level, it would eliminate the duplication resulting from two parallel taxes, improve control and reduce administration costs for businesses, which would have only one tax to manage.

Some may argue that our position would encourage consumers to take advantage of provincial rate differences. In this regard, we would like to repeat what the Liberal majority on the finance committee wrote in its report, namely that the committee recognized that the national VAT might encourage consumers to take advantage of rate differences, but no more so than today's provincial sales taxes.

It must be understood that the Bloc Quebecois' proposal derives from the basic principle guiding our policies: Quebec sovereignty. Indeed, sovereignty means, among other things, that the Quebec government would have full control over all these budgetary and economic instruments. It would then be free to use these tools based on Quebec's specific needs and Quebecers' aspirations.

The Bloc Quebecois makes this proposal from a Quebec perspective. However, it could also apply to any other province wishing to take control of the tax field currently occupied by the GST.

For these reasons, we will support the Reform motion to abolish the GST. The Minister of Finance wants to harmonize the GST with provincial sales taxes. This is a new centralizing attempt by the federal government. Why not harmonize that tax with the support of every province? As for Quebec, our proposal seeks, as I said, to abolish the GST and to transfer to the province the tax field currently occupied by that tax. Abolishing the GST does not mean merely changing its name, as the government might think.

[English]

Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member from the separatist Bloc party. His speech contained many interesting comments.

However, we have to get the debate back to the original intent of the motion put forward by the member for Medicine Hat to force the Liberal government to live up to the promises it made during the campaign prior to the writ period.

(1705 )

We want to address the very deceptive campaigning promises the government made prior to the election. Its members went around door to door, meeting to meeting, rally to rally and unabashedly told Canadians that if they were elected they would abolish, kill, remove, place six feet under, get rid of the much hated GST which they railed against in the House when the Tory government brought it in. I do not know how those members can sit here with such righteous indignation at our request that they simply live up to the promises they made.

There is one thing about Liberals that we all must know by now. If they say something verbally, we had better get them to write it down. They never used the words ``replace'', ``harmonize'' or ``change'' during their campaign, the verbal part of their campaign.

We have a couple of extremists in the Liberal Party, particularly the hon. member for York South-Weston. He remembers the campaign promise the Liberals verbally made to the people of Canada that if the Liberal government did not live up to its promise to abolish, kill, get rid of the GST he would vote against the budget. We support that member. It is too bad the government will not support its members who heard the promises with the true intent they were made.

The motion of the hon. member for Medicine Hat calls on the government to live up to the promise it made to the Canadian people before the red book was written and the words magically changed. We are asking the Liberals to live up to their promise, do the honourable thing and scrap, kill, abolish, get rid of, bury the GST like the Canadian people were led to believe they would do before the infamous red book came out and magically changed it.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member who just spoke, because we in the Bloc Quebecois are simply asking that the GST be abolished and that this tax field be transferred to the provincial governments, and in our case, to the Government of Quebec.

I suspect that when the Minister of Finance tells us that he wants to harmonize this tax with provincial sales taxes, what he really wants is a single federal sales tax. He is going to change the name of this tax, call it something else. I also suspect the government of wanting to conceal this tax in the sales price so that it will no longer be noticed by customers. I think that as elected representatives, as parliamentarians, we must remain very vigilant, because I am

certain that the government will never abolish it. It will just give it another name and bury it in the price of goods and services sold.

The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, it is my duty to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Laval East-securities.

[English]

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member-

Mr. Discepola: Resuming debate.

Mr. Silye: Are we on debate or are we still on questions and comments?

The Deputy Speaker: There is time remaining for questions and comments.

Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, that is why I appreciate the impartiality of the Chair. Government members were yelling at me that I was on debate. I wonder why they were yelling that.

Mr. Discepola: It is because the Chair said ``resuming debate``.

Mr. Silye: I stand corrected.

I thought the member's speech was very pointed. I thought it was an excellent speech and an excellent commentary. It shows us it does not matter which part of the country we come from. It shows us it does not matter which political party a person supported. The members of the Bloc Quebecois stood for something. They went door to door and told their people there needed to be change in Ottawa and they are here trying to put forth that change.

I do not agree with the change they are pushing for. I do not want the country to separate. I want them to reconsider. I want them to be a part of Canada. Nevertheless, they are here and they are doing what they have to do.

(1710)

When we told the voters out west and in Quebec what we wanted they woke up, smelled the coffee and knew how bad the federal government was. They knew we needed to change the system so they sent us and the Bloc here and we have kept our promises. We backed out of the pension plan, as we said we would. We can be trusted to keep our word.

We presented a budget to the government and it laughed and scoffed at us. It is now whining that it does not have one this year that it can throw in our face when it cannot defend its own.

It does not matter where you are from in this country, what you say you should mean and you should keep your word. I would like the hon. member to comment on how his constituents react to what was said at the door by Liberals in his riding versus what they are doing now in government.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélisle: Mr. Speaker, I am completely in agreement with the remarks of the hon. member who just spoke. I think that the government should permanently abolish the GST and, in addition, transfer this tax field to the provinces. The government should streamline the bureaucracy, as the Bloc Quebecois has been asking it to do for two years. Military spending should be further reduced; the boom should be lowered on family trusts; a committee on business taxation should be created whose members are parliamentarians, not specialists in tax havens; a minimum tax should be set on the profits made by corporations and something should finally be done about the $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes not recovered by Revenue Canada that the auditor general has been complaining about for the last two years.

If the government did all these things, it would be able to make up the $16 or $17 billion it is now collecting in the form of the GST.

[English]

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I quote the current minister of fisheries, promoted to his job, from February 11, 1993, a man who I believe keeps his word, a man who believes in what he says: ``Our alternative to the GST is that we are not going to have one. We are not going to have a tax that burns the individuals and the small businesses which then go broke because they cannot afford the people and computers to do it''.

The red book states ``replace''. If the Liberals replace it through harmonization have they provided an alternative to GST, because we will still have the same hierarchy, administrative work and the valued added tax in place that we have to collect, get credit, pay back, collect, get credit, pay back? Will this problem be solved? Will it still burn individuals in small businesses? They will still go broke because they cannot afford the people and computers required to do the work.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

I have another quote by the member for Broadview-Greenwood, whom I respect a lot because he stands up and says things he believes in and he believes what he says. He wants the government to consider tax reform. He wants the government to introduce a simplified system of taxation. He submitted to the Standing Committee of Finance ideas and suggestions supported by 17 of his colleagues on a way to keep their election promise, the promise he made at the door, because he is a man who keeps his word, to get rid of the GST and replace it with a flat tax.

We just heard the chairman of the Standing Committee of Finance talk about how that was impossible because there was not enough time to consider it. What a foolish statement to make when the Prime Minister sat in opposition and said: ``I would get rid of the GST in one day''. He has been here for over two years and has not replaced it. In 1993 he said he would replace it by 1995. It is now 1996 and he still has not replaced it. To me this is all about trust, integrity and being held accountable. That is what this debate is all about.

(1715)

The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood said: ``It is no secret that we as Liberals, if we are given, and I say it humbly, the trust of the people in the fall, the GST will be scrapped''. The Liberals have received that trust. They made those promises to replace the tax. They have not achieved, they have not engineered, they have not accomplished trust.

I have another quote from the current national revenue minister who I worked with in the standing committee. She is a person who I know has conviction, who believes in what she says and who will do what she says. In the Winnipeg Free Press, March 24, 1994 she said: ``As Liberals we were elected to change the tax, abolish the tax, scrap it''. She said this as an MP.

We know that certain members of the Liberal government, one for sure, has said publicly that because the government is not keeping its promise on the GST, he is going to vote against the budget.

There is a difference between what Liberals said at the door to get elected and with the phrasing in the red book which they are now hiding behind. The current minister of revenue, no matter how much she tries, and I heard her speech, said that they will change the tax, abolish the tax, scrap it or replace it. They still have not done it.

Now they throw back quotes in our face and say that when the Reformers worked on the Standing Committee of Finance this is what they said but they are all selective quotes out of context.

Let me put it back in context. In our executive summary, and this is after the first year we were here, we were trying to show Canadians that we were a constructive alternative. If we were going to criticize we would come up with some suggestions on how to make it better. Of course the government never listened.

We have heard bits and pieces of quotes for the last week in question period. The master of myth, the Minister of Finance, has used little parts of it. The member for Capilano-Howe Sound, the member for Lethbridge and myself were responsible for the minority report. We said the majority finance committee report on the replacement of the GST cannot be fully endorsed by the Reform Party. While the replacement goes part of the way in responding to concerns presented to the committee, many of the concerns will only be addressed by future negotiations with the provinces. Even that the Liberals are not doing in good faith.

If they really want this harmonization to work, if they really want to meet their commitment to replace the GST, they should be giving the provinces an incentive. But they want their 7 per cent. They want to leave the provinces with 8 per cent and still charge 15 per cent.

If they really want to have it they should reduce the federal rate by 2 per cent. Give the taxpayers a reason, an advantage and show that those efficiency costs can be passed on. This government does not pass savings along to the taxpayers because it is a tax and spend government.

The majority report recommendation merely tinkers with the current GST and does not live up to the Liberal promise to scrap it. That is in the report, that is quoted but then they stop.

Reformers are of the view that value added taxes are incapable of responding to a significant portion of the concerns raised during the hearings. The hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound pointed that out very well in his speech. That is in Hansard if any of the members would like to check it out.

The third thing the Reform Party recommends is spending cuts be the government's first priority. It took the Liberals two years to even make a cut when they should have done it two years ago. This country would be $10 billion better off in terms of debt and $1 billion better off in lower costs in terms of interest.

As well, the entire current system of personal, corporate and value added taxes should be replaced. Here is what the Reform Party would do. It would use a simple, visible and fair system of taxation that incorporates the principles of fairness at the lowest rate possible.

In the interim the party will support reforms to the current regimes that move in this direction. I am adding today, with the staged elimination of the GST once the budget is balanced.

We have positions. We have suggestions. This government's strategy is to blame the provinces because they will not harmonize the tax systems. The government will not even be able to replace the GST. It does not want the provinces to agree with it otherwise it would have given them an incentive. It would have lowered the rates. There is no incentive. Therefore, there is no real desire.

(1720)

The Liberals' strategy is to try to convince Canadians. The master of myth, the finance minister, says: ``Let's put this deal out there. We'll blame the provinces. Let's throw it in the face of the

Reform members. We will select sentences from their executive summary, put them on the defensive, show that they support our harmonization and then we get out of it. We don't have to do it. We'll just make that promise, re-elect us and then we'll do it''.

I predict that is what the Liberals are jockeying for. That is what they are trying to do, put themselves in a position so they do not have to keep that promise. Even in that promise of replacing the GST, Canadians will not be fooled. Canadians are smarter than the government thinks they are. Canadians should be given more credit than what the government gives them. They are not going to be fooled. They are going to see through this duplicity.

Talk about the intellectual dishonesty, of which the revenue minister accused us, of saying one thing to somebody face to face at the door: ``If you elect me, I'll scrap something, I'll abolish something, I'll get rid of something, I'll kill something'' and then not really point out to them that all they really said was they would replace it with something that generates equivalent revenue. That is not the rhetoric they used.

The Liberals said: ``Elect me. I'll replace the GST''. How would it have sounded if they had said: ``Elect me. I'll replace the GST with something that gets just as much money out of your pockets as we are now''. Would that not sound great? Would that not be the best way to get elected? That is why they will not keep this promise. That is why they cannot keep this promise.

I know I have a minute left, but I have said enough. I am sure everyone gets the message. I am sure the Liberals now realize that their intellectual dishonesty is going to come back and haunt them.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the constituents in my riding would not forgive me if I did not tell a story about what happened in my riding, in answer to the member for Calgary Centre.

A meeting was held there. There were 6,000 people in the Centrium and the message they gave to their member of Parliament at that time was: ``Do not vote for the GST. The GST is a bad tax''. That message came through loud and clear. Their member came back to this House and said: ``The people of my constituency support the GST''.

I remind the government about that. I remind government members that the same fate could befall them when they promised they would get rid of the tax. They said they would kill the GST. They said they would get rid of it and they did not deliver on their promise. Canadians know that and will reward them accordingly.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, ``axe the tax''. That was mantra of Liberal members before they were elected.

Who am I? I am opposed to the GST. I have always been opposed to it and I always will be opposed to it. Who am I? I am the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Jean Chrétien, on October 29, 1990.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will know that none of us is to refer to another member by his or her name.

Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Who am I? We hate it and we will kill it. The hon. Prime Minister of Canada, May 2, 1994.

Here we are in March 1996. When we go to the store, what do we pay? We pay the GST. It may as well be called the ``get stuffed tax'' because that is what the Liberals are saying to the Canadian public. They did not get rid of this reviled tax.

When I talk to the people of this country, when I talk to the people of my riding, when I talk to the businesses, no single tax is more reviled than the goods and services tax. It is complicated, it is expensive and it is inefficient. It was misleading for the government before it was elected to promise the people something that they so desperately wanted but which it has not given them. This tax provides $18 billion to the public coffers every year. How much of that actually gets to be used? Two-thirds. One-third of the tax goes into administration. How inefficient can we get? That is completely inefficient.

(1725)

What the Canadian public needs and wants is tax relief. Reform members want the GST to go and we have a plan. What is that plan? The plan is to balance the budget. We simply cannot provide tax relief and get the GST down without doing that.

What has the government done? When I was elected two years ago, the government had $120 billion to spend on programs such as health care and education. What has it done? It has dropped it to $103 billion because it cannot balance the budget, something everybody here has to do in our private lives. Otherwise, we would go bankrupt. That is what is happening to Canada. We are going bankrupt.

It does every Canadian a great disservice to continue with the mythology that we can spend more than we take in. Two years ago Reformers put forward a specific, sensitive plan that would preserve the core of our social programs, that would preserve the core of health care and education to get the deficit down to zero and bring the debt down which is the true ogre.

We gave the plan to the Liberals and said, use it. Take it for all Canadians. Did they do that? Absolutely not. They continue to mortgage the future of all Canadians and compromise the lives of their children. That is reprehensible.

We have been accused of being the slash and burn party. I submit that we are the only political party that is committed to preserving social programs. We are the only party that has a plan on getting the deficit to zero, bringing the debt down so that we can preserve spending and give the public the desperate tax relief that they demand.

I challenge the members opposite to go into their communities, to speak to people about how they are overburdened by taxes. The GST is but one. Before they decrease the GST, we should get our spending down.

There are actions that the government can take today, and that includes simplifying this odious tax. It is absolutely absurd that the GST in its complexity exists. We can simplify it by businesses only putting in one submission every year. It would also diminish the amount of money that has to be spent on administration which is a complete and utter waste of money.

It shows a deplorable lack of trust and integrity on the part of the government that it will promise things purely to get elected. Reformers have not done that and the public finds it absolutely reprehensible that any political party does that. They will see through this at the time of the next election.

My hon. friend has put forward a brilliant way of simplifying the tax system. The government has done absolutely nothing to simplify a tax system so that the average person can fill out the tax forms.

Reformers are going to provide this year a simplified tax system for all Canadians to use so that they can fill out their own tax forms. Ultimately we will provide a way in which all Canadians will be able to get tax relief. That is the name of the game. We will provide it through a simplified tax system.

Once again I feel it is falling on deaf ears for some strange reason. Tragically for all Canadians the government failed to co-operate and use our constructive solutions to help all Canadians across the country.

Once again I challenge members across and I challenge the government to use our good suggestions. Nobody has a monopoly on suggestions for the country. However, we have a lot of good ones but the government has ignored them, to its peril. These suggestions come from the grassroots of the country.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

[Translation]

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The vote is on the amendment by Mr. Grubel. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

Some hon. members: On division.

(The amendment is agreed to).

The Deputy Speaker: The next vote is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 16)

YEAS

Members

Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Venne
Williams-76

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

(1800 )

[English]

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion as amended defeated.

ALLOTTED DAY-BUSINESS TAXATION

The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot relating to the business of supply.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

[Translation]

If you were to seek it, I think the House would give its unanimous consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion currently before the House, with Liberal members voting nay on this motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote in favour of the motion.

[English]

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, Reform members, except for those who might wish to do otherwise, will vote no on the motion.

Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrat members in the House will vote yes on the motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I take it there is unanimous consent to all of those motions made.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Ianno: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded with the government side on the preceding vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 17)

YEAS

Members

Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guimond
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Venne -47

NAYS

Members

Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Williams
Young
Zed-161

PAIRED MEMBERS

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion negatived.

[English]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B)

That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 be concurred in.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to.)

Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-21, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1996, be read the first time.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)

Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-21, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for

the financial year ending March 31, 1996, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.)

(1805)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Order, please. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-21, act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1996.

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.)

The Chairman: Shall Clause 4 carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Clause 4 agreed to.)

The Chairman: Shall Clause 5 carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Clause 5 agreed to.)

The Chairman: Shall Clause 6 carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Clause 6 agreed to.)

(Clause 7 agreed to.)

(Schedule agreed to.)

Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Chairman, before carrying on, can the minister assure this House that the bill is in the usual form.

Mr. Massé: Mr. Chairman, this bill is identical to bills passed in previous years.

The Chairman: Shall Clause 1 carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Clause 1 agreed to.)

The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Preamble agreed to.)

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Title agreed to.)

(Bill passed.)

(Bill reported.)

[English]

Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Williams: Are we not voting at this time, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: The matter has been carried so there is no debate.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Massé moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

* * *

INTERIM SUPPLY

That this House do concur in Interim Supply as follows:

That a sum not exceeding $28,036,537,062.88 being composed of:

(1) seven-twelfths ($21,324,082,274.22) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 which were laid upon the Table Thursday, March 7, 1996, and except for those items below:

(2) eleven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 140, Natural Resources Vote L15, Public Works and Government Services Vote 25 and Treasury Board Votes 5 and 10 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates, $487,697,833.33;

(3) ten-twelfths of the total of the amount of Finance Vote 20, Justice Votes 15 and 20 and Transport Vote 1 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates, $1,286,805,833.33;

(4) nine-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 35, Finance Vote L25, Human Resources Development Vote 40, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 15 and 45, Industry Vote 120 and Transport Vote 45 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $3,183,909,750.00;

(5) eight-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 65, Citizenship and Immigration Vote 10, Human Resources Development Votes 5 and 10, Industry Votes 65 and 110, Justice Votes 1 and 5, and Public Works and Government Services Vote 15 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $1,754,041,372.00;

be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent that the members who voted on the opposition motion with regard to the GST be recorded as having voted on the motion presently before the House and that the members are recorded as having voted in the reverse way.

(1810)

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition will vote against the motion before the House.

[English]

Mr. Ringma: Agreed.

Mr. Solomon: Yes, we agree with that motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 18)

YEAS

Members

Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Young
Zed -132

NAYS

Members

Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Venne
Williams-76

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-22, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)

Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-22, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we have moved from Bill C-21 to Bill C-22. Can you confirm that we are now on Bill C-22?

The Deputy Speaker: The member is absolutely right. We are on Bill C-22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.)

[Translation]

The Chairman: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-22.

[English]

(Clause 2 agreed to.)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Shall Clause 3 carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Clause 3 agreed to.)

[English]

The Chairman: Shall Clause 4 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

(Clause 4 agreed to.)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Shall Clause 5 carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Clause 5 agreed to.)

[English]

The Chairman: Shall Schedule A carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a very important point. I would like the minister to tell the House if the presentation of this bill is exactly the same as in previous years?

Mr. Massé: Mr. Chairman, the proportions requested in the bill will be used for all essential requirements of the federal administration until October 31, 1996. The bill does not release the total amount of any of the items. The bill is in the usual form of interim supply bills.

Passing the present bill will not prejudice the rights or privileges of members to criticize the items in the estimates at committee stage. The usual commitment is hereby given that these rights and privileges will be respected and that they will neither be abolished nor limited in any way through passing the present bill.

(Schedule A agreed to.)

[English]

The Chairman: Shall Schedule B carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

(Schedule B agreed to.)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Shall Schedule C carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Schedule C agreed to.)

[English]

The Chairman: Shall Schedule D carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

(Schedule D agreed to.)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Clause 1 agreed to.)

[English]

The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

(Preamble agreed to.)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Title agreed to.)

[English]

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we should be paying better attention. It is my observation that on most of these motions the nays have been much louder than the yeas, and I do not think it is correct for you as the chairman to say that it carries on division. It should be defeated on division unless the Liberals wake up and actually say yes.

(1815)

The Chairman: I thank the hon. member for the point.

Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Title agreed to.)

The Chairman: Is the bill adopted?

Some hon. members: On division.

(Bill reported.)

Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

On division? I ask the hon. member for Elk Island, is it acceptable to carry it on division?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, if we can be assured that the members of the governing party who are asking us to give authority for all this borrowing are awake and know what they are doing on behalf of the Canadian people, then yes.

The Deputy Speaker: I think that was a yes. I declare it carried on division.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. By your own admission you said the nays carried the day. Therefore unless there is a recorded vote in the House this motion is defeated.

The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member profoundly for that very correct observation. May I do it again?

All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

Some hon. members: On division.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Massé moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent to carry it on division?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Deputy Speaker: On division.

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we wanted this vote recorded, not on division.

The Deputy Speaker: I will have to do it again.

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. We do not have to call in the members.

(1820 )

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent that the vote applied to third reading of Bill C-21 be applied to third reading of Bill C-22, presently before the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 18]

_____________________________________________