Bill Gilmour

[Petitions, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from constituents on Vancouver Island which contains over 1,000 signatures.

The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline.

[Government Contracts, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Fenco MacLaren Inc. is a 100 per cent owned subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin which is in Quebec.

We all remember the CF-18 contract. Then there was the Canadian Space Agency. Now we have this. Not surprisingly there are many unanswered questions regarding the awarding of this contract and this has brought the department's selection process under a great deal of scrutiny.

The standing committee on government affairs is currently reviewing the contracting processes and procedures of the government. Does the minister support a review by the standing committee on government affairs of the awarding of this contract?

[Government Contracts, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the department of public works recently awarded a $35 million contract to maintain 12 maritime vessels to Fenco MacLaren, a Quebec company that does not even own a shipyard. Halifax Shipyard submitted the lowest bid and the best technical bid. It was the shipyard recommended by the Department of National Defence yet it did not get the contract. Obviously this government has put regional patronage above the interests of taxpaying Canadians.

Could the minister of public works explain to this House why a company that does not even own a shipyard and whose bid was over $1 million higher than that of Halifax Shipyard received the contract against the wishes of the Department of National Defence?

[Nisga'A Land Claim, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a agreement in principle takes Canada on a journey down two separate paths to a country where equality of natives and non-natives no longer applies.

Bureaucrats and politicians have designed a compensation package for natives that is far too generous. Compensation should deal with loss of aboriginal interests as has already been determined by the courts and is limited to aboriginal rights to hunt, trap, fish and gather sustenance. It does not include interest in land or resources, or priority rights to engage in commercial activity.

This was all done behind closed doors. The bureaucrats have had their say, the government politicians have had theirs. Now it is time for the people of B.C. Their voices must be heard through a provincial referendum and the Nisga'a agreement should not be signed until after the provincial government receives its mandate through the upcoming provincial election.

[Petitions, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in this petition the petitioners request that Parliament recognize the right of conscientious objectors to not pay for the military.

[Petitions, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first contains 1,500 signatures of constituents from the riding of Comox-Alberni, largely from Port Alberni.

The petitioners request that Parliament allow Canadian citizens to vote directly in a national binding referendum on the restoration of the death penalty for first degree murder convictions.

[Patronage, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister informed Canadians that the Liberals had done their part in catering to business. Now let me clarify the Prime Minister's statement because clearly patronage is alive and well in the Liberal Party.

On the Team Canada trade mission to southern Asia last January one in five corporations travelling with the Prime Minister made contributions to the Liberal Party. These corporate sponsors gave over $1.2 million to the Liberal Party of Canada over the past two years.

For example, a company whose CEO is a former Liberal cabinet minister gave over $154,000 to the Liberals. It received an excellent rate of return with a $700 million contract.

Canadians are fed up with old style partisan politics. Paying off their corporate buddies is no way to endear the Liberals to the taxpaying public.

[Petitions, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present petitions from constituents on Vancouver Island.

The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and that the government strongly consider reallocating current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national highways network. There have been a number of petitions on this subject and I hope the government is listening.

[National Housing Act, December 12th, 1995]

The taxpayer pays. Let me make that perfectly clear to members on the government side because there was a great deal of confusion with government members on the Reform position on the bill. We are not advocating an end to CMHC mortgage insurance. We are saying that $100 billion worth of liability is enough. The government does not need to add another $50 billion in liabilities.

The fact that the government is asking for the additional liability to be retroactive to 1994 indicates that CMHC has already overextended its liability limits. Canadians should be concerned that CMHC needs to increase its liability funds, not only because there is no guarantee outstanding liabilities will not cost taxpayers but because there are obvious problems with government management of CMHC programs and funding.

I mentioned earlier that CMHC does not know what its outstanding liabilities are. This should concern many Canadians because CMHC does not appear to be keeping records of its outstanding liabilities to the expiry of its term 10, 15 or 20 years into the future.

To illustrate, access to information requests reveal, first, that CMHC does not have records of how much money it has forgiven under its residential rehabilitation assistance program. Second, it does not keep records of past contracts, only of current contracts. Third, it has no centralized records of the financial subsidy amounts and operating agreements for many of its programs, including its public housing program. Fourth, no centralized records were kept of moneys going into its aboriginal programs, which is a major component of CMHC. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

If the government through CMHC is to be doling out money and insuring loans, surely it should keep track of what it is spending, how much it owes and how much it is liable for. If the corporation cannot keep track of its fiscal activities, we should not be increasing its liabilities, especially by another $50 billion. This is not only irresponsible. It is absolutely ridiculous, particularly when we consider our debt situation.

The bill is not only a step toward deeper fiscal uncertainty. It is clearly a move in the wrong direction. The government should not be leaning toward a greater federal role in housing but rather toward a more decentralized government role.

Whatever happened to the Prime Minister's promise to decentralize federal powers? It has obviously gone out the window with many other Liberal promises.

Canadians do not want a bloated federal government. They do not want the federal government meddling in every level of provincial, municipal and private enterprise affairs. Canadians want a leaner, more efficient federal government.

The minister responsible for CMHC claims that his department is moving toward a smaller organization. Yet if the federal government is downsizing and moving away from the housing market, why is it asking for another $50 billion in mortgage money? It does not fit.

This will not downsize federal responsibilities. On the contrary, it will strengthen and increase the federal role. It is time for the federal government to realign its responsibilities with other governments. Canadians are taxed beyond belief from all levels of government. They have simply had enough.

The federal government is long overdue in easing out of a number of responsibilities duplicated at the provincial level. Canadians want a clear separation of responsibility between levels of government. They want a shift of power away from bureaucrats toward the people who pay for the programs in the first place. Canadians want an end to federal interference in the private sector. They do not want or need big brother meddling in their affairs, and Bill C-108 allows CMHC to significantly increase its presence in the mortgage market.

It is time for the government to allow private industry to do what it does best: offer consumers competitive mortgage rates. It is time for the government to stop interfering in the housing industry. Canadians want a clear separation of responsibility between levels of government and they want responsibility toward the people.

It is time for the government to get out of the face of private industry. Reformers are saying we do not want an increase of the $50 billion. We are not saying CMHC should get out of the market, but $50 billion is too much and because of that we will oppose this bill.

[National Housing Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act.

Bill C-108 proposes to increase the aggregate amount of outstanding Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, loan insurance from $100 billion to $150 billion, plus any additional amounts that may be authorized by Parliament. Put simply, Bill C-108 increases CMHC's liability limit by $50 billion.

Many members on the government side seem to think that $50 billion in liability is not a big deal and they are affronted that Reform is questioning the bill. They are in such a hurry that they pushed clause by clause consideration of Bill C-108 through standing committee in a record 30 seconds, a record 30 seconds for $50 billion. This is hardly the fiscally responsible approach that Canadians expect from their government.

Our deficit continues to be a reality that will not go away until something constructive is done. The debt load that each taxpayer has to carry is immobilizing the nation. Yet the Liberals continue to overspend. The Liberals are not cutting back; they are spending more. For example, last year alone their spending increased by $2.8 billion.

The national debt is presently at $566 billion and is increasing every second. Canadians are so strapped with debt that they cannot move forward. It is little wonder, given this situation, that the housing market has slowed to a crawl in Canada. The average person simply does not have the money or financial security required to invest in a long term mortgage. Increasing the loan liabilities for CMHC will not change the hard financial reality that many Canadians are facing today.

The government promised jobs and it promised deficit reduction. Yet Canadians are facing higher unemployment and more taxes. Things are not getting better, and the government refuses to make the changes necessary to turn things around.

The Liberals are still practising the same old politics that got Canada into this deficit in the first place. Liberals are spending, buying jobs, artificially propping up private industry and messing up private markets. All this does is drive us deeper into debt.

Increasing the CMHC liability limit for insuring mortgages is nothing more than government speculation without money. The government has done this on several occasions. For example, Bill C-91 expanded the loan liability of the Federal Business Development Bank from approximately $4 billion to $22 billion.

Bill C-75 increased government loan liability for farm improvement and marketing co-operative loans from $1.5 billion to $3 billion. Outstanding loans under the Small Business Loans Act rose from $3 billion to $6 billion in 1995 and is now up to $12 billion. This is only a small segment of Liberal initiatives to increase federal loan liability.

Although liabilities may not involve borrowing money, they are a risk that if defaulted will cost taxpayers money. The government has grown accustomed to handing out grants left, right and centre. Accordingly government liability simply increases our chances of going deeper into debt.

In addition, Canadians should be particularly concerned that the government does not know what its outstanding liabilities are at this time. CMHC could not tell me its outstanding liability at this time or 10 or 15 years down the road. This is not acceptable.

Liabilities are risks. When mortgages are defaulted these liabilities fall back on the taxpayer. When the bill was in the House for second reading a few weeks ago, Reform members asked the Liberals again and again who pays on defaulted mortgages.