Debates of Nov. 21st, 1996

Supply

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

I do not think it was Reform. We are not government yet.

[An hon. member]

And never will be.

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

It must have been these caring, sharing Liberals who gutted medicare, hung the provinces out to dry, cut the total federal contribution down to 23 per cent and in effect told the provinces to go out and get it wherever they could find it because they were through with meeting their obligations.

Would the hon. member comment on that and perhaps tell us how they can at the same time be caring, sharing and gutting a national program which incidentally started under a Liberal government?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciate the last comment from the member when he pointed out that public health care was put in place by a Liberal government. He is darned right it was put in place by a Liberal government and maintained by the Liberal government all of these years because Canadians wanted it.

The member opposite pointed out something that is very important, something Canadians understand and, most important, something the Liberal government understands: that as a government we have two responsibilities and not just the one of fiscal responsibility the Reform talks about all the time.

Our record on the fiscal side has been one of achievement. The deficit has been reduced. When the budgetary plan of the Minister of Finance flows out it will have been reduced 80 per cent. We will reach a point with the latest budget plan where we will no longer need to borrow. It will be the first time in 30 years we have been able to do that. There have been a 21 per cent reduction in departmental spending and a 14 per cent reduction in program spending.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I am sorry but I would at least like to hear what the member is saying.

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

But we don't.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government has done a good job on its fiscal responsibility. It has made the reductions that were necessary. It has reduced the deficit without having to raise personal income tax rates.

In stepping up to that fiscal responsibility, something the government had not done for 10 years prior to this party coming to power, we understood we had a social responsibility to Canadians, a responsibility to make sure that when individuals go to hospital they are not first asked how much money they have or, if we were to follow the Reform plan, which insurance company they are insured with. That is not what Canadians are asked when they go to a hospital today. They are asked how sick they are and how they can be helped.

That is the kind of nation we have been able to form because we understand that government has a dual responsibility. We understand the government has a fiscal responsibility to ensure that each and every taxpayer's dollar is spent in the most efficient manner. We have been doing that as a government. The results are there for everybody to see. The 94 per cent of Canadians who do not support the party opposite understand that. At the same time we understand our social responsibility to individual Canadians and the basic fabric of this nation that is Canada.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could help us understand something. He is very proud of the fact that the Liberal government set up medicare. At that time the irrevocable promise never to be broken was that it would always be funded on a 50:50 basis: 50 per cent by the federal government and 50 per cent by the provincial governments.

Now he turns around and says: "We are the protectors of medicare". They removed $6 billion or $7 billion over the last couple of years and are down to 20 per cent of the funding, not 50 per cent. This is one of the best kept secrets in Canada. The Liberals are getting away with it wholesale.

I know the member is a very honourable gentleman. He certainly would want the Canadian people to know and to understand that it was he and his colleagues who removed $7 billion from health

care. Only 20 per cent of the funding for health care is covered by the federal government. He knows that.

Would he be prepared to admit in the smallest way that maybe some of the Liberal talk about being the protectors of health care is perhaps a little thin? In actual fact it is the federal Liberal government that is destroying health care funding, forcing provincial governments to make very hard and very difficult decisions, and letting provincial governments take the fall when it is the Liberals who are short-changing them.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has and will continue to ensure through the sound fiscal management we have applied in the last three years that social programs will be sustained for the future.

It is interesting to look at the questions framed on this issue. As I said in my speech, where is the vision or where is the view? It is to the past. It is back to the good old days, whenever those were. The vision is backward. It is back there, and back there happens to be right across the way.

They do not have a plan for today. They do not have the fiscal management tools and plans we have put in place. Even worse, they do not have a vision for the future because they do not understand the fabric of Canadian society. They do not understand that Canadians recognize they are more than individuals, that we are a society of individuals, that we have a collective responsibility to each other, and that it is through government we exercise that collective responsibility, understanding both the need to be fiscally prudent and the need to exercise social responsibility.

That is what Canada is all about. That is what Canadians are all about. That is the type of government the Liberal government is bringing to the country.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, how does the member feel about the fact that his party is building up a $10 billion surplus in employment insurance funds at the cost of jobs to Canadians? His party is not lowering what has now become a job tax. Does he support his party's trying to lower the deficit of Canada on the backs of companies and workers by enlarging the surplus to $10 billion?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am proud of the fact that our government has cut the UI premiums three years in a row. They have been cut three years in a row.

I was pleased to see that we put in place a program to help companies and encourage them to hire employees. Most important, I am absolutely glad that we understand as a government the importance of having a UI surplus so that if the economy goes into a recession, unlike last time when we had to raise premiums at exactly the wrong time, we will have a surplus there so increases will not be necessary and jobs will be protected.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Call in the members.

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

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the House would agree I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]