Bill Gilmour

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. However the bill increases the numbers. We are saying the $100 billion already in the pot created the numbers the member just stated. They are absolutely correct.

We are opposed to increasing that amount by another $50 billion. We are not opposed to having the $100 billion or CMHC doing business as it is presently doing. We are opposed to increasing the liability limit.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I guess any accountant can make figures talk and I can certainly talk to members opposite.

CMHC has been self-sustaining in the past few years. It was losing buckets of money until it got its house in order. If there is a downturn in interest rates it will cost us more buckets of money. Clearly they are talking out of both sides of their faces.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, of course there is a cost. CMHC has nearly 3,000 employees. They are not counting the cost of running the operation. A private insurance company does not have that cost. The cost to the Canadian people is clearly there.

I have difficulty with a member's comments earlier when she said there really was not any cost to the government. She said they were going into areas that were not viable. They cannot have both. It is either viable and we are making a profit, or if CMHC is going in there and it is not viable somebody is losing money. Guess who? It is the Canadian people.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the amount will depend on exactly how bad the downturn in the market is. When people walked away from their mortgages in the early eighties, the difference between the value of the house and the mortgage is what CMHC had to pick up.

I cannot give a number. It is going to depend entirely on how much interest rates go up and how many people walk away from their mortgages. It could be a very large number, in the billions of dollars.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I shall certainly go through the Chair.

People will remember the number of people who walked away from their mortgages back in the eighties. The government, CMHC, had to pick up the tab. That is what will happen in this case if there is a market downturn.

To say that there is no cost to the government is completely wrong. There may not be today, but with the volatile interest rates and with the Quebec situation the money markets are very unstable. There is an excellent potential that this could end up hurting Canada, hurting the government, and costing us money.

Another point in the bill that concerns me is paragraph (b), which refers to "any additional amounts authorized by Parliament for the purposes of this section under an appropriation act or any other act of Parliament". This concerns me, because I am not sure whether additional funds would come back to this House or whether in fact we are talking order in council. That concerns me greatly. If it comes back to this House, that is fine. If it goes to cabinet, that is not fine. Then we are not sure what is going on behind closed doors.

I would like to conclude by saying that I do not believe this government is listening. We are broke. CMHC is already in to the tune of $100 billion. We object to putting Canadians further in debt. That is the reason Reform will oppose this bill.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act. This is a very brief bill, just four lines long, but the impact is significant.

I listened to my colleague's debate, and her argument is basically that CMHC is going to turn off the tap. That is not true. This bill is about raising CMHC's loan limit from its present $100 billion to $150 billion. We are not talking about limiting what is already there. The pot is huge, $100 billion. That is $100,000 million that CMHC has to deal with presently. This bill would raise it by another $50 billion.

We object to that because of the state of the country. This country is now $564 billion in debt. We cannot continue to carry on programs that are going to cost the government money. I object to my colleague's statement that this does not cost the country. It does indeed cost the country.

If we are going to address our debt, the first thing we must do when we are in a hole is stop digging. Right now this bill continues to dig the hole. We cannot increase our debt any more. The country is broke. Let me repeat that: we are broke. This bill is going to add more liability to the country. It does not stop anything. It does not stop the $100 billion that is already in the pot. It is an increase.

I would like to comment on the experiences of New Zealand. We were briefed on this bill by CMHC and I asked what is CMHC's ongoing liability, because it is into mortgages 5, 10, 15 and 20 years ahead. It does not know. Current accounting practices say that you only have to be five years ahead. That is the window. I find

it incredible that a corporation dealing with this amount of money does not know its total liability.

New Zealand put in legislation which states that every year the government has to publish all liabilities of the government and all crown corporations. It was a real eye opener, because a number of areas like CMHC had to disclose exactly what their liability was. Right now CMHC is not doing that.

Another concern we have is that the government is sending mixed messages. It wants to decentralize. The Prime Minister has said that. We had a referendum in Quebec the other day that was about decentralization. Yet the bill goes in exactly the opposite direction. It enshrines more power into the federal government at a time when the federal government should be passing its powers down to the provinces.

Canadians want a smaller federal government. We are overgoverned, overregulated. Business is telling us to get out of their faces and let business do what business does best, run their business. The best thing the government can do is get its house in order. This bill goes in exactly the opposite direction.

I offer to my colleagues across the way a 20-point plan to decentralize the federal government. In fact Preston Manning spoke at the Canadian Club last week and got a standing ovation from the business people who recognized that a number of points of duplication between the federal and provincial governments have to end. Environment, natural resources, culture, and housing should all be done at the provincial level.

Private enterprise is already into the mortgage business. CMHC is already into it to the tune of $100 billion. There is no need to increase it by another $50 billion. One hundred billion dollars is just fine, thank you very much. Let private enterprise do what it does best and deal with this issue.

My colleague was saying that this does not cost the government any money. Let me remind you about the downturn in the early eighties. We can all recall that people in the housing market in Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg were walking into their banks, dropping the keys on the desk and saying: "Take it". Because of the downturn in the market, their mortgage was worth more than their house. If that happens, ladies and gentlemen, guess who is going to carry the can? The Canadian government.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following petition which comes from all across Canada and contains 1,183 signatures, making a total of over 6,200 signatures to date.

The petitioners request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a six-year old girl who was murdered in my riding of Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of Parliament.

The petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to ensure the conviction of offenders.

I fully concur with the petitioners and endorse this petition.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite was asking a question. The whole purpose of interrupting the proceedings was to ask a question of my colleague. This is not a question. This is a statement.

[Claude Bennett, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Prime Minister stated in the House:

Any citizen can request information from government departments. It is in keeping with our government's policy of openness to provide as much information as possible.

Why then is the government denying access to information requests regarding the severance package for Claude Bennett, the former chair of CMHC. Mr. Bennett agreed to step down last August after a back room cabinet deal sweetened his severance package.

It is time the government came clean with its backroom deals. Either we have a policy of openness as the Prime Minister states or we do not, or perhaps the policy is opaque as recently stated by the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Bennett's severance package was paid for with taxpayer's dollars, yet now the government is blocking requests to divulge the details of the deal. So much for open government.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is refreshing to hear a Liberal talk about some of the concerns in a bill rather than just glowing over the top saying there are no problems at all. I applaud the member for putting forward his comments with the moral fortitude of speaking his mind.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-64, an act to implement employment equity. Bill C-64 aims to legislatively entrench employment equity for the federal public service and businesses of 100 or more employees doing business with the federal government by setting up racial and sex based hiring quotas.

Canadians have several concerns with the proposed bill and so they should. It is contradictory. It is discriminatory. It is patronizing. The underlying principles undermine the values in which Canadians take the most pride, fairness and equality for all.

In my view, public service hiring and promotion should be guided by one principle and one principle alone and that is merit. The government clearly has a role in ensuring equal opportunity and employment competition based on merit. In this bill hiring and promotion based on race or sex is in direct conflict with merit. If the best candidate is to be hired, race or sex should not matter.

The bill patronizes designated groups. It assumes their mediocrity and presupposes that certain groups of individuals will not be hired or promoted in the workforce on their own merit, so the only way they are going to get hired or promoted is to give special favour to their race, gender or disability. This is nonsense.

Employment equity assumes that if people fall within a particular category they need assistance. This is not the case. Whether a person is male or female, a visible minority, disabled, does not define a person's need for assistance and when we jump to such conclusions it is called racism or sexism. Clearly entitlement to government positions should be based on individual merit, not the colour of the applicant's skin or gender.

In addition, race and sex based policies can be detrimental to the workplace. They create tension and bad feelings among co-workers. Equal opportunity means allowing the same opportunity to each individual regardless of race, sex or religion, not rewarding one group over another because of basic characteristics.

Employees should have the right to be free of discrimination in the workplace. This right should be protected by government, not withdrawn as the bill attempts to do. The bill is not about equality, fairness or hiring the most qualified people for the job. It is about giving special status to one group over another based on race or sex.

All Canadians should be equal before and under the law. This bill violates those basic Canadian rights. On that basis alone, the bill should not be allowed to pass.

Rights and privileges should not be based on race or gender. These ideas went out in the 19th century with the growth of universal democracy and individual rights and freedoms. The government talks about equality of opportunity but at the same time is introducing affirmative action legislation that is fundamentally opposed to equality. How can Canada claim to be in the forefront of human rights legislation with such discriminatory legislation?

Governments have mandated preferential policies toward designated groups in the past. Bill C-64 establishes laws and regulations that mandate Canadians treat people differently, to consider race and gender when hiring or promoting. In so doing, the government

takes away individual respect and dignity and replaces it with a racist or a sexist hiring policy. This is going the wrong way.

No one should be accepted or rejected for a job based on race or gender. It is simply wrong to classify an applicant on the basis of these characteristics. Employees should be judged on the merit of their individual day to day accomplishments.

Blanket hiring of employees on the basis of race and gender is simply not acceptable to Canadians. More fundamentally, it is not the business of government to influence employment decisions in the private sector. Governments should not be imposing their bill on private business. Canadians do not need or want the influence of a big brother government watching over the private sector. Once again, the Liberals have underestimated the Canadian public. Canadians do not want this big brother approach meddling in their hiring practices.

In addition, I am concerned with the cost of the legislation. The government is proposing a program that could cost taxpayers billions. The total cost both direct and indirect of employment equity could amount to over $6 billion or nearly 1 per cent of the gross domestic product because it is going to affect a lot of businesses and people.

Where are the priorities of the government? It cannot guarantee seniors' pension funds, but it is prepared to throw $6 billion into employment equity. That is fundamentally wrong.

The legislation is misplaced by a government priority. Canadians will be most concerned by the enormous amounts of money that are going to be poured into this program because employment equity is unnecessary. The government claims it is eliminating barriers with this bill. It does not eliminate barriers, it creates them.

Obviously no one should discriminate against women, visible minorities or the disabled in hiring practices. I fail to see why we have this over reaction on the part of the government in an attempt to correct a problem that Canadians agree simply does not exist.

The Ontario election was fought on the issue of employment equity and the Liberals were defeated because they tried to force it down the throats of the electorate. In addition, this legislation is contradictory.

Bill C-64 states that no person should be denied employment opportunities for reasons other than ability. Yet the very essence of this act contradicts this statement. The bill promotes discrimination and legislates race and sex bias in the workplace.

All Canadians must be able to compete equally for jobs irrespective of race, gender or disability. Canadians should not be denied employment opportunities for reasons that have nothing to do with their abilities.

I must also point out that two wrongs do not make a right. Many young people today have enough strikes against them as they search the job market for whatever employment they can find. Employment equity will freeze out more opportunities for young people who do not fit into the preferential hiring practices, not because they lack the skills or ability but because of their personal hereditary characteristics. Any young person who has the misfortune of not falling into those categories is left out in the cold.

Applicants should not have to disclose the colour of their skin, their ethnic background, their gender or their religion. It is illegal to ask a person's age or marital status but to ask a person's race is all right? What is wrong with this picture?

Recently a Gallup poll showed that 74 per cent of Canadians oppose employment equity. If we were to poll Canadians today I am sure we would get the same results. In fact, the Ontario election is the latest and strongest indication that Canadians reject employment equity and are prepared to reject any government that proposes it. When will the government stop listening to special interest groups and start listening to Canadians?

In conclusion, I have to ask why the government insists on pushing legislation which is contrary to the views of most Canadians. This is the same mistake the last government made. We all know the price it paid for not listening. The real question is: Are the Liberals listening or are they going to force unwanted legislation on Canadians and suffer the same fate as the Conservatives? Time will tell.