House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 61% of the vote.
Members Of Parliament Office Inventories November 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the record to show that there is a cheque, not in the mail but deposited with the government, for my wife's portion of anything that was personal on that public accounts conference.
By the way I take great exception to the accusation-
Members Of Parliament Office Inventories November 29th, 1994
Who paid her way.
Members Of Parliament Office Inventories November 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, we are having fun in here today because those people over there do not understand what we are talking about.
The motion my colleague put before the House is a solid motion on accountability. It is really unfortunate that members over there do not understand about this stuff. We are trying hard.
Perhaps in the next three years we will teach them how to spell the word accountability, will teach them how to think the word accountability and will even teach them how to act the word accountability because they really do not know what it is about today.
Members Of Parliament Office Inventories November 29th, 1994
It took me quite a while to fight this. We finally did get it all back.
The fact is there should be something in place to assure there is accountability.
I understand the concern of these Liberals across here. It is all too often that we hear: "Shame, shame, shame". It is all too often that we hear: "Yes, we should do something about it". It is all too often that we know nothing is done. That is unfortunate.
This is not an isolated case. This has happened time and time again. All we are asking in the House of Commons is that it stop, that something gets in place and we take care of it. That is not too difficult a thing to ask.
It is not about trouble. This issue is not trouble. One member said just recently that the Reform Party was looking for a witchhunt in this motion, again my friend from Kingston and the Islands. I am not sure what the reference was to the witchhunt but again they have to get beyond witchhunts. They have to get beyond all of this lack of credibility in their statements and get on to what the issue is all about.
I tell you what I would not do with the member for Kingston and the Islands. I would never let the hon. member run my store. The way it is described here is: "Well, somebody is walking off with the equipment; somebody is walking off with my inventory but that it is okay. It is only a couple of people, so let us not bother with it". It could be your whole profits going down in the store.
We resolve this situation by taking a motion like this and saying that is the way to deal with it. Let us put it on the books. Let us dig in here and say even one instance like this is unacceptable because where there is one there are others. Indeed we have heard two of them today and there are more in line.
Members Of Parliament Office Inventories November 29th, 1994
The Liberal member is saying "shame". Yes it is a shame. It is a shame they do not understand what accountability is and what the issue is.
What happened was that the member had purchased the new equipment and kept it at his home and replaced that equipment with old stuff.
Members Of Parliament Office Inventories November 29th, 1994
There you go.
The question is: Who owns government property? The fact is that the taxpayers own it. Regardless of which incumbent comes into the job, the facts are the equipment is only on loan. Although we purchase it doing our time or we may take some from a member who preceded us, it always belongs to the taxpayer. It is much like leasing property; it has to be given back in some shape or form.
In my case after I was elected I went with my predecessor to look at the inventory in the cold storage. I did not know whether it was the right or wrong inventory but I went through the facility. I said we would ship it out to my new office. It came a couple of weeks later. There was no problem at all. I opened the door to my new office. The fellows on the delivery truck came and I actually sent some of the equipment back. I said: "This stuff is in terrible shape. Take it back and I am going to have to deal with it some other way, but bring in the television and the VCR. They look a little old but bring them in anyway. Bring in the old cellular phone and we will make use of that".
A while later I thought we should check off the inventory. As the member for Kingston and the Islands has said, an inventory sheet is given to us. I checked the VCR off, no problem at all. What bothered me was that the inventory list indicated that these were recent purchases and they were high dollar items. The amounts were in the several thousands of dollars, even for the television and the VCR but I would not have given very much for what I received. The value of those items I received might have been $200 or $300 in total.
I thought that perhaps there was something wrong. Digging into it we did find that yes, all this new equipment was bought but it was not sitting in my office; it was somewhere else.
Members Of Parliament Office Inventories November 29th, 1994
That is right. There, they half shot my whole argument down. It is not votable, but will they support it?
Members Of Parliament Office Inventories November 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk to a motion like this since I was one of those people personally involved in some of the bad dealings that happened after the election.
Of course, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands says these are only isolated cases so why bother. That is not what this is about. This whole issue is about accountability.
I know that some members on the other side may have a problem with that issue. We do not have a problem talking about this in the House of Commons. Accountability is something everybody in this land has to live with, particularly members of the House of Commons.
I wonder if the government members are going to listen to this. After all they do have a majority government. We found out today that the Bloc will support our member's motion, and I am sure the vast majority of colleagues, all of the Reform colleagues, will support it as well.
In talking about accountability and assets belonging to the taxpayer the question is: When it comes to a vote next week on Wednesday or Thursday, how will the government members vote on this issue? Will they find a very small technicality? Will they find as the member for Kingston and the Islands says, that perhaps this is not really as bad as we think? Will they say that since it is not that bad they will vote it down? Or, will they say that perhaps there is an issue of accountability and perhaps therefore they should vote for it? That remains to be seen.
Petitions November 23rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the petitioners ask that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
Petitions November 23rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present and table with the House petitions asking that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide.