Was House Opposition United in Support of Latest VAT Amendment or was Pierre the Exception?

Just over a month after parliament amended the VAT Act to benefit local producers of educational supplies and other manufacturers, the government brought forward on Tuesday yet another amendment to the law. Prime Minister Allen Chastanet introduced it this way: “The Bill before parliament seeks approval for the waiver of the VAT on funeral home expenses, on electricity and water reconnection fees, on services under the contract agreement between SLASPA and the OECC for the HIA Redevelopment Project, on the services under the contract agreement between GOSL and OECC for the Road Improvement and Maintenance Programme Phase 4, and on imported goods and services under the Road Improvement and Maintenance Programme phase 4.”

Moreover: “At present funeral homes in Saint Lucia are subject to a VAT at the standard rate of 12.5% on all transactions related to the provision of funeral services. This includes the cost of a coffin or a casket, storage and preparation of the body for the funeral, transportation and hearse services and the division of other variable funeral services. Burial costs in Saint Lucia are, on average, $8,000 but can range from $2,700 to upwards of $80,000. 

“It is the intention of this government to bring some relief to the people of Saint Lucia as it relates to funeral-related expenses. Our government believes a waiver of VAT on funeral expenses will be passed on to the customers and this will provide much-needed relief for the families of the deceased as they make preparations for the burial of the dead, their loved ones, at a very critical time.”

Chastanet spoke similarly regarding the relief that a VAT waiver on electricity and water reconnection fees would bring to Saint Lucians.

House opposition leader Philip J. Pierre, in his response, neglected even to acknowledge these stated aspects of the Bill during his 18-minute contribution to the day’s debate. Instead, he launched into what he described as the incumbent party’s failed promise. “Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are back on the VAT wagon,” he said, “and the government has failed again to meet its promise to the electorate to eliminate VAT.” 

The VAT Act was brought in by the Kenny Anthony administration following the 2011 elections. The then prime minister had earlier decried the proposed VAT bill as “anti-poor, anti-worker and oppressive”.

On Tuesday Pierre returned to the current government’s pledge when campaigning for office in 2016: “It made a solemn promise to the people of Saint Lucia, several times: the reduction and the gradual elimination of VAT. So we are here today to do the normal piecemeal. The last time we were here we had a waiver of VAT on educational supplies; now we are here with another waiver, all because the government has failed in its promise to the electorate to eliminate VAT, and I will be holding them to account for its failure to eliminate VAT.”

He announced that he would not be commenting on the first part of the motion relating to the waiver of VAT on funeral services and the waiver of VAT on electricity and water reconnection fees. He said the House was being called upon to forego revenue on a contract agreement between the Saint Lucia Air and Seaports Authority and the OECC for the HIA Redevelopment project.

“But Mr. Speaker,” he said, “what is even more striking—and I hold no issue with the company [OECC], I don’t know anything about them and I am not questioning their competence—but the point is, Mr. Speaker, the public of Saint Lucia will have a debt in excess of $600 million for an airport redevelopment programme and the public does not know how the contractor was chosen. We have no idea. We’ve never seen any tender document for how the contractor was chosen. So I have to take the word of the government that the contractor was chosen in an open and transparent manner.”

He asserted that the day’s government refused to accept blame. “They live in a world of fantasy and in a world of self-praise. Any time you refer to something that’s wrong, their response is, ‘You did it too.’ That is the only excuse. But the people of Saint Lucia wanted a change. They wanted to stop the wrong things that they thought the Labour Party was doing. We have taken our place in the opposition. But you cannot commit these sins and fall back on ‘You did it too! You did it too!’” 

He returned to his earlier theme: “I still await the elimination of VAT. I await it. I await the government’s promise to eliminate VAT. Unless they eliminate VAT, the government has failed; failed the people of Saint Lucia. They made a solemn promise and that promise has not been delivered to the people of Saint Lucia.” 

In short, the former deputy prime minister in the government that had introduced the “oppressive” VAT law regardless, was now warning he would campaign for the Chastanet government’s removal because of its failure to eliminate VAT!

Again he flipped: “In all good judgement, Mr. Speaker, I cannot sit in this honourable House and allow this government to put the country in that level of debt for an airport and road maintenance without the people of Saint Lucia having any say in how the contractors are chosen.” And with that he took his seat again.

Not once in his 18-minute contribution did the Castries East MP state, allude to or indicate his position on the motion for the proposed VAT amendments. Remarkably, every other opposition MP voiced his support for the first part of the amendments to the Bill Pierre had decided to “not comment on”. 

Contrast Pierre’s no-comment comment with the contribution of the Castries South MP Ernest Hilaire: “I want to start off by saying that it is difficult for one to disagree with a measure which will make it, to some extent, cheaper for persons to be buried and to meet their funeral costs. I welcome the reduction because it will make life that less onerous.” Presumably he meant for relatives of the dearly departed!

No surprise that the conflicting positions of the two opposition MPs was not lost on Mr. Guy Joseph, the MP for Castries Southeast. Referencing Hilaire’s expressed support, he said: “Tell that to Philip! Tell that to Philip!” Hilaire attempted a defence of his leader, however feeble: “I do not think the Member for Castries East opposed the motion.”

“But he did not say he supports it,” Joseph persisted, an undeniable truth that the House record supported, which could be the reason Pierre chose to leave well enough alone and say nothing in his own defence!