Jim Hart

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for not answering my question.

The interesting thing is that my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, has one of the highest percentages of senior citizens in the country. The hon. member should study that and pay attention to when the west speaks, because we do know what we are speaking of.

The hon. member spoke of consultation. No other party in this House has spent more time in consulting with the people of Canada than the Reform Party of Canada. Recently I held a series of townhall meetings in my riding. These are not just townhall meetings where we go out and speak; they are interactive workshops where people participate back and forth. In these series of meetings we identified the deficit and debt as the number one enemy in Canada right now.

We are looking at a social program system that spends some $80 billion a year. We are looking at interest payments of $40 billion to $44 billion a year. That is what is robbing the social safety net. I support some of the items in the bill wholeheartedly. I can say that we have to improve on the administration but I want specifics.

I will ask the member the same question. What can he and his party suggest that will save some money on social programs, specifically old age security?

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments on Bill C-54 which is before us today. He is talking about very technical but really minor housekeeping items to the social programs.

I am not sure if we can tackle this minor housekeeping with a whiskbroom. A farmer once said that after the cows have been in the barn for a long time, you cannot use a whiskbroom; sometimes you need to use a front end loader to clean up the mess. Maybe that is what we should be looking at today.

The member talked about old age security. The Reform Party has put forward proposals on several occasions during the election campaign and in this House regarding old age security. It has made some recommendations and shown actual savings in the area of $3.5 billion, keeping in mind that we feel very strongly that the program should be directed to those most in need in this country.

Can the member give us a specific example of what he thinks would be a way we could actually show some savings with that program?

[Petitions, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, both on the same subject. I would like to add that there are a growing number of Canadians who continue to be concerned about the proposition of more gun legislation in this country.

These petitioners call to the attention of the House that current legislation allows law-abiding citizens of Canada to own firearms and that current legislation regulates the acquisition and possession of firearms through a complex, expensive and rigorous regulatory scheme. In the vast majority of serious crimes in which firearms were involved those firearms were illegally acquired or were illegally possessed.

Therefore, the petitioners call on this House of Parliament assembled to oppose further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession and to provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentences for the use or possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime. I concur with my petitioners.

[Petitions, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present two petitions signed by 60 residents of Kaleden and Oliver in my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I would like to point out that to date 413 people from my riding have signed petitions regarding the same subject, gun control.

The petitioners oppose further gun legislation. They call on the government to provide strict enforcement of existing statutes governing the use of firearms in the commission of a criminal offence, with particular emphasis on the rigorous use of section 85 of the Criminal Code. Further restrictions on law-abiding citizens will not solve the problem of crime in Canada. Government must deal with the real problem and not punish law-abiding citizens.

I support my petitioners.

[Petitions, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions.

The petitioners call on Parliament to reject any proposals which might add to the existing regulatory restrictions for firearms. These restrictions clearly punish law-abiding gun owners and do not address the real problem in Canada which is a crime problem.

The petitioners go on to urge government to provide strict sentencing guidelines and mandatory sentences for anyone convicted of a crime while in possession of a weapon or a firearm. Their message is get tough on criminals, not on law-abiding citizens.

I agree with these proposals.

[Petitions, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting two more petitions today bringing the total to six petitions that I have presented this week on the subject of gun control.

An increasing number of Canadians are concerned the government has not recognized that we have a crime problem in this country and not a gun problem.

The petitions are coming into my office on a daily basis and the petitioners ask for strict enforcement of existing statutes governing the use of firearms in the commission of an offence, with particular emphasis on the rigorous use of section 85 of the Criminal Code.

The petitioners oppose further legislation on firearms acquisition and possession, and I agree with my petitioners.

[Petitions, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in my place pursuant to Standing Order 36 to deliver two more petitions on the subject of gun control.

The petitioners are seriously concerned about the lack of respect the government is showing for the integrity of law-abiding responsible gun owners. They are opposing further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession and call for strict guidelines and mandatory sentences for the use or possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

I concur with my petitioners.

[Land Engineering Test Establishment, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public is demanding accountability from the government; it wants the facts.

The remarks of the parliamentary secretary do not represent the facts. The facts are that DND is sending some of LETE's sophisticated equipment as a gift to the United States army test and evaluation command, according to their fax which I have in my possession dated September 22.

Will the Prime Minister tell us how defence can justify LETE's closure as a cost cutting saving when we will now have to pay the Americans to use our own equipment?

[Land Engineering Test Establishment, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for 50 years the land engineering test establishment, known as LETE, has provided one-stop shopping for Canadian army design, development and testing.

In 1993 the chief of defence staff gave LETE a departmental commendation for the completion of 50 high priority tasks supporting peacekeepers in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia.

LETE has saved Canadian soldiers. Will the Prime Minister confirm that in fact there are no real savings in the closure of LETE and that others will fill LETE's crucial role at the potential expense of Canadian lives?

[Petitions, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, both on the same subject matter of gun control.

The petitioners from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt are outraged at the prospect of additional gun control legislation. They oppose further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession and urge the government to provide strict and mandatory sentences for the use or possession of a firearm in the commission of a crime.

I agree with the petitioners.