Hansard May 4, 05: Justice--Unmitigated Liberal arrogance in the face of revelations about the "appointment" of justices!

Hansard: Debates May 4, 05

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a top Liberal official has admitted that the Liberal Party rigs the appointment of judges. In fact, Benoît Corbeil says that members of the judicial advisory committee in Quebec actually did the partisan screening process for the Liberal Party.

Having heard these revelations, what steps has the Prime Minister taken to ensure the integrity of Canada's judicial system?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be very proud of their judiciary and I do not really believe that the Leader of the Opposition should try to bring their integrity into question.

The fact is that there is a longstanding practice, one that has been substantially improved by the government, in terms of seeking the advice of the judiciary of the Canadian bar, and the provincial bar that is involved, to ensure that the appointments that are made to our judiciary are of the highest quality. If one takes a look at our courts, from the Supreme Court through to the provincial courts, one can see that has benefited Canada
immensely.

(1425)

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is not this party that has brought this process into disrepute. It is a top official of the Liberal Party of Canada that has done that. A top official, a man in the know, has revealed that the Liberal Party of Canada has corrupted the system of nominating, vetting and appointing judges.

The Prime Minister knew about these allegations two weeks ago, yet he has done absolutely nothing in terms of reacting, according to his answer.

Is this not a perfect example why that party should be removed from office?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the minister appreciates the support, but he is rising to answer a question and we have to be able to hear the answer.

Hon. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to take yes for an answer. There is an independent peer review process in place. We make appointments on the basis of merit and we will continue to make appointments on the basis of merit. If members of the opposition want any other process, that is their choice. We will base our process on merit.

(End of Hansard excerpt)


My Comments:

I suppose that, just as taxpayers' money has been given to CSL--"based on merit", we can rest assured, or can we? Do you remember this?

February 03, 2004: Ah, Question Period! Paul Martin, CSL, $161-million Taxpayers' Dollars

Of course, our government behaves honourably and with the best intentions for Canadians -- doesn't it?. . . . Hogwash!

---

Hansard May 4, 05: The Budget -- NDP tail wags Liberal dog

Hansard May 4, 05

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a top official in his own party says that process is a fraud and he has done nothing to look into it.

According to the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, the Liberals are funding their backroom budget deal out of money that has been set aside for first nations. He said:

I've gotten a very clear message from first nations leadership and from Liberal cabinet ministers that the money...has been redirected to form part of the NDP budget. If that's the case, it's even sleazier than I had ever imagined.

If that is how NDPers feel about the budget deal, how are Canadians supposed to feel about it?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is simply wrong.

Canadians have indicated that they strongly support improvements to the environment, housing, post-secondary education and foreign aid. Indeed, I have letters from members of the opposition supporting those things. So, the hon. gentleman is just totally mistaken.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP tail is wagging the Liberal dog.

How incredible that Liberal cabinet ministers are now lobbying NDP members to get things included in the new budget. I guess that Liberal dog must be a lapdog.

The finance minister may be getting really good at
retrieving the NDP leader's slippers, but he is irrelevant as a minister. When will he resign?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Speaker: Order, please. The minister has risen to answer a question, not to receive cheers. The Minister of Finance has the floor.

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the hon. gentleman's question is, no time soon.

When we have a budget that totally respects the principles of fiscal responsibility, that keeps the debt repayment clearly on track, and responds to principles and priorities that Canadians have said they want to see implemented, I will stand for that any day. And if I have to, I will run on it.


Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, he will run; he will run and fetch that stick.

The finance minister said his budget could not be touched. Then he let the NDP ravage it. Now his own colleagues are going to the NDP to get more budget changes. If his own colleagues do not think the finance minister has any credibility, then why should Canadians? When will he resign?

(1430)

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!


The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind hon. members that in question period it is one question and one response, not 100 questions at once. We are now going to hear a response to the last question before the other 99.

The Prime Minister has the floor to answer the member for Medicine Hat.

Right Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been seven, eight, nine, and another projected one, ten surpluses in a row. There has been unprecedented job creation, low inflation, and money set aside for Kyoto and climate change. Money has been set aside for housing, a dynamic economy, foreign aid, research and development, and education.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the finance minister can run on this budget and this government will run on this budget. I am proud to say as a Liberal that this is one of the--

(End of Hansard excerpt)

My Comments:

You might notice how much of your money Paul Martin is going to spend to be re-elected. Is that what you want, bearing in mind how much sticks to the sticky fingers of . . . . . . . ? By the way, do read about Claude Boulay's house/mansion in the US which was sold to a Bahamian company, I believe, but he and his wife, Diane Deslauriers (to whom PM wrote a letter which was the subject of some ribaldry.) are able to live in it. It's in the May 7, 05 National Post.

Now that he has a deal with the NDP, PM appears in the House of Commons, instead of sending in Scott Brison -- and PM speaks! How much will Kyoto cost?

---

Hansard May 4, 05: Judicial Appointments -- "independence" of the courts -- hanky panky? -&- Coyne via McMillan

Hansard: Debates May 4, 05

[Translation]
Judicial Appointments

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the former director general of the Liberal Party has admitted that he was involved in the process of selecting judges by confirming candidates' allegiance to the Liberal Party. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice said he did not need to take any action because we already had the Gomery inquiry. The minister is well aware that Justice Gomery does not have the authority to investigate political interference in the process of appointing judges.

When is the Prime Minister going to take this scandal seriously and demand an inquiry?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote directly from Justice Gomery's mandate:

--to investigate and report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons with regard to the sponsorship program and advertising activities of the Government of Canada...to make any recommendations...to prevent mismanagement of sponsorship programs or advertising activities in the future--

That is a very broad mandate. Justice Gomery has the mandate to get to the truth for Canadians. The only reason that Conservative Party members are questioning Justice Gomery's mandate recently is because they want to discredit Justice Gomery's work. They fear that his report will demonstrate to Canadians that our Prime Minister has acted honourably.

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we get an answer from a minister that confirms we are right: Justice Gomery has no authority to look into the judge appointments.

The guy who ran Liberal headquarters has admitted that a Liberal loyalty litmus test was a regular step in the appointment of judges. He provided confirmation of candidates' Liberal credentials to the appointment council.

This is a very serious matter with alarming implications. The Minister of Justice says it is up to somebody else to look into the matter of shocking admissions of political interference. Gomery is not allowed to inquire into it.

Why is the Prime Minister refusing to act and to do something to protect the independence of the courts?

(1440)

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that Justice Gomery is not allowed to look into it, yet the very person whose allegations he is referring to is about to appear before that very Gomery commission. So it appears that the Gomery commission is looking into allegations in that regard.

With respect to the way we make appointments, I do not know how Benoît Corbeil makes appointments, or anyone else, but I know we make those appointments on merit, without regard for any political affiliation.

[End of excerpt from Hansard]



Andrew Coyne: Judicial Appointments

Sponsoring A Few Judges? Apr. 20, 05, Kate McMillan, The Shotgun / Western Standard Blog, which leads to an Andrew Coyne article.

I'm so tired of feeling like a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, it's not about to go away for some time. As Andrew Coyne puts it, the birdies are starting to sing, and it's getting uglier and uglier . . . .

Related: A good way to run the government in dealing with the taxpayers' money? No Paper Trails -- & -- A How To Primer on Judicial "Appointments"

---

Hansard May 4, 05: Sponsorship Program -- PM and Chrétien's vaudeville act

Hansard: Debates May 4, 05

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last winter the Prime Minister spoke glowingly about Mr. Chrétien's ball-juggling routine before Justice Gomery. Spring came, the Prime Minister saw his shadow and denied he had ever applauded Mr. Chrétien's vaudeville act. But wait: the Prime Minister popped up again, juggled his opinion once again, and said yes, maybe he had led a round of applause for his mentor.

The Prime Minister says Canadians must wait for Justice Gomery to reveal the facts. Having been a cheerleader for Mr. Chrétien, having already indicated he does not think that Mr. Chrétien is responsible for this, how does he know that? How do Canadians know his position will not change again when Mr. Justice Gomery and an election heat up?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether there was a question there, but the fact is that what is beyond question is the Prime Minister's commitment to supporting Justice Gomery, such that Canadians have the truth. We have supported Justice Gomery from the beginning. The Prime Minister appointed Justice Gomery, has provided resources to Justice Gomery, in fact about $72 million worth of resources, and has provided over 12 million pages of documents, including cabinet documents, to Justice Gomery.

We will continue to support Justice Gomery because we believe Canadians deserve to have that report and deserve to have the truth, not allegations and unproven testimony.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is sworn testimony, and the Prime Minister has never once taken the opportunity to deny that this happened.

The Prime Minister chose deliberately not to give Justice Gomery the mandate to say who was guilty for the sponsorship scandal. The Minister of Public Works parrots that, of course, and says Justice Gomery's mandate is clear: he is fact finding.

If facts revealed by Justice Gomery or anyone else find that public money made its way through government departments through ad agencies in Quebec to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, I want to hear from the Prime Minister not whether he will call an election, but whether he will tender his resignation immediately.

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every single penny that I raised in the leadership race is a matter of public record. I wish that the Leader of the Opposition or the member who just spoke could stand up in the House and say the same thing, but they cannot.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Speaker: Order, please. We are now ready to hear the next question. The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean.

---

Hansard May 4, 05: Government Contracts -- Saved by the Speaker -- "not entitled to ask"

Hansard May 4, 05

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, L'Actualité has printed a list of the transport minister's clients before he got into politics. They include Onex, Loblaws, Imperial Tobacco, and Réno-Dépôt/The Building Box. He also acknowledged having worked for Cossette Communication.

My question for the Minister of Transport is quite simple. When he was working for Cossette Communication, was he paid on a fee-for-service basis or was he paid on retainer, in other words, did he have a fixed-rate contract?

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that during my 12 years in the private sector, I never billed anyone for any meeting.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has a problem because he earned his living by counselling, as he called it, for a series of companies.

What I want to know is, when he worked for Cossette, was he paid on a fee-for-service basis or was he paid on retainer, based on a fixed-rate contract?

(1445)

The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean knows full well that questions regarding an hon. member's business are not admissible during oral question period. The question has to concern the administration of the Government of Canada. What someone did before being a minister is not a question about that administration.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport said in this House that he was not paid for that work.

With respect to that statement made in this House, I am asking him how he was paid when he worked for Cossette. I want him to answer. It is important to those watching. He swore—

The Speaker: The hon. member is not entitled to ask an unacceptable question triggered by the response he got to an acceptable one.

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

---

Hansard May 4, 05: Sponsorship Program

Hansard May 4, 05

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in May of last year, just before calling the election, the Prime Minister said that Canadians knew enough about the sponsorship scandal to form an opinion when the time came to cast their ballots.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why, last year, he felt that citizens knew enough to vote and why, this year, he thinks just the opposite? Let us hear the Prime Minister's explanation.

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing that unites Canadians is a desire to have the truth, the whole truth, before an election. Our Prime Minister stands with Canadians in their desire to have the truth. That is why it is important for Canadians to have Justice Gomery's report and to not be making an important decision based on unproven allegations, on testimony that members opposite have in fact criticized and attacked, testimony that has been contradicted by testimony on other days.

That is why it is so important that all members of the House work together to support Justice Gomery and to support the desire of Canadians to have the truth.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are referring to a statement made by the Prime Minister before he called the election. It is not the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who called the election.

Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's comments that his assessment of the relevancy of waiting until the Gomery commission has completed its work is directly related to his chances of getting elected, and to nothing else?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the Bloc, the separatists, would like to have an election based on unproven allegations, not on fact. Clearly, Canadians understand that what is good for the separatists is rarely good for Canada. What is good for Canada, what is good for all Canadians, is that Canadians have the truth and that they have Justice Gomery's report before an election.

Our Prime Minister is absolutely committed to ensuring that Canadians have the truth they deserve.

---

Hansard May 4, 05: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Hansard May 4, 05

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a bad habit of race-baiting. Yesterday, he accused a huge group of Canadians, including me, of being members of the KKK. I have heard about being colour blind, but that is outrageous. Does the minister take pride in inciting hatred against Canadians?

When will the Prime Minister demand that minister's resignation?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already expressed the context in which these remarks were made. He has said that he wished--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. The Prime Minister has the floor. The right hon. Prime Minister will continue.

Right Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already given the context in which these remarks were made. He has already said that he wished he had not said those remarks in the way that he did. I would also hope that the members of the opposition who engaged in attacks on Canadians of Italian origin and offended would also apologize. If I might--

(1450)

The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the Prime Minister will defend the actions of that minister. His record is appalling. Last week he was forced to apologize after slurring a Sikh member of this House. He also told the Sikh community to shut up about ministerial permits. Now he is slandering all of us. He is not fit to represent Canadians in this portfolio.

Does the Prime Minister agree with that minister or will he fire this embarrassment to Canadians?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the remarks on both sides of this issue were intemperate and unfortunate. What I would now say to the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties is that if one takes a look at what is happening in this House, at the lack of civility, the accusations and the allegations that are not allowed to be made outside--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order. Members have to listen to both sides. We have a question. We are hearing an answer. Members will listen to both. We will have the Prime Minister, who has time remaining for his answer.

Right Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the opposition parties to understand that no one looks good in this House with the lack of civility, the allegations, the accusations, the kinds of intemperate remarks that are heard. What I really believe is that Canadians expect better of us. I would hope that the opposition would give the opportunity for civilized debate-- [No answers will be forthcoming, whatever the style of debate in the House, unfortunately. NJC]

The Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.

Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, they applaud when they call the kettle black. As a member of the official opposition, I have been called an extreme racist by the immigration minister. No one in this House, never mind the millions of Canadians who voted for the Conservatives, should be subjected to such a low act of desperation. The Liberal Party will not deny in this House its own corruption and is flailing about with extreme accusations to deflect the truth.

Will the Prime Minister remove his immigration minister?

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but my voice will not carry as well today. I have already indicated that I had an intemperate use of language, prompted by my
abject anger at the racial slur and the ethnic slur directed my way. I gave an indication, and I thought I already made that statement publicly. For me, I am saddened by the fact that I have to learn yet again that there is no
depth to which some of these people will not descend when they want to--

The Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.

Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister, I remind the House, has already been forced to withdraw comments attacking a Sikh member. To have a minister, particularly the immigration minister, who has a propensity for racial slurs is unacceptable.

They are not racial slurs if the public and the media believe that there are characteristics of that party that are similar to a popular television program. If the shoe fits, wear it. Will the Prime Minister demand his resignation or--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my record of the last three months as a cabinet minister for immigration will speak for itself.

As I said earlier on, I was deeply saddened by the response of the member for Edmonton—Strathcona and the member for Durham who missed the opportunity to condemn the actions and the member for Kelowna and his colleague from Calgary Centre who perpetuated a stereotypical image of 1.5 million members of our Canadian family.

I have given an indication already of my intemperate use of language, but I think the shame should be right--

(1455)

The Speaker: The hon. member for Thornhill.

---

Hansard May 4, 05: Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Hansard May 4, 05

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the opposition justice critic attacked the integrity and independence of the RCMP. His attack suggested the RCMP was nothing but a third rate country's third rate police squad.

Could the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness assure the House that the RCMP remains as committed as ever to its mandate to protect Canadians?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the attack on the RCMP commissioner yesterday made by the member for Provencher is an abuse of parliamentary privilege and is shameful. It is all the more shocking because that man was a former provincial attorney general.

More concerning is the fact that members of his own party, with the separatist Bloc, are the ones asking the House to overturn the RCMP's deployment plan. They want to reverse an independently made operational
decision of an agency which must and does operate at arm's length from the government of the day.

The member's outrageous comments are undermining the integrity of our national police force.

(End of Hansard excerpt)

My Comments:

This is the minister who is still underfunding, undermanning and hence, undermining our RCMP. This is the Minister who has seen several RCMP detachments closed in areas of Quebec where they should be open. Did it ever cross her mind that the Bloc may be fed up with the feds for reasons other than separation. I would think that Quebeckers feel their security has been compromised and that the corruption was Liberal corruption involving some Quebeckers, not Quebeckers' corruption. The political process has been abused by the federal Liberals.

---

Hansard May 4, 05 Sponsorship: Prime Minister prohibits Gomery from telling who was responsible -- PM "caught"

Hansard May 4, 05

(1500)
Sponsorship Program

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his emergency TV broadcast begged Canadians to wait for the Gomery report because “only Gomery can tell us who is responsible”. Yet the Prime Minister prohibits Gomery from telling who was responsible.

Clause k of Gomery's mandate reads, “without expressing any conclusion...regarding the...liability of any person or organization”. The Prime Minister brazenly misled Canadians. How can he be trusted on anything?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should look more closely at Justice Gomery's mandate. His mandate clearly says, “to investigate and report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the of the Auditor General” and furthermore, in a second report, to provide prescriptives to prevent it from happening again.

In addition to that, there are RCMP investigations, there are criminal charges currently before the courts and there have been civil proceedings against 19 firms and individuals to recover $41 million. We are clearly taking action and we are also supporting the work of Justice Gomery to get the truth.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Good bafflegab, Mr. Speaker, but the words read quite differently.

The Prime Minister told Canadians Gomery would tell them which Liberals are responsible for ad scam corruption, but told Gomery he must not tell who was guilty. Gomery himself states, “The commission may not establish...responsibility...nor does it intend to do so”.

The Prime Minister has been caught. How can he possibly claim the moral--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note the recent approach of opposition members to attack the mandate of Justice Gomery. They were not doing that before. Instead of that, they were sullying his work by commenting on daily testimony. That did not work, so now they are trying a new approach.

I think it is clear that they do not want Justice Gomery to succeed. They want to discredit the work of Justice Gomery because they fear his report will show to Canadians that the Prime Minister has acted honourably in his work.

---

Hansard May 4, 05: Senior Quebec Liberal . . . Checking Liberal Credentials of Judicial Candidates

Hansard: May 4, 05

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a senior Quebec Liberal, Mr. Corbeil, has admitted that members of the justice minister's so-called independent panel told him to see about the Liberal credentials of judicial candidates. The Minister of Justice may not believe these serious allegations, but owes it to the independence of the judiciary to refer this matter to the Judicial Council for a full review. It is a prudent thing to do.

Why will he not take the steps to prove these allegations wrong, unless he knows them to be true?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice I never inquire into the political affiliation of any candidate. I could not care less what the political affiliation is of any candidate. We make merit based appointments and that is it.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the point is this so-called independent panel does the screening for the minister. It checks Liberal credentials before he gets to see them. The minister may say that he has no knowledge of this, but the system has been set up to ensure that it is Liberals who make it to this final panel.

If there is no truth to these allegations, why does he not refer the matter to the Judicial Council for a full hearing? This is a clear way to clean up this cloud on Canadian judges.

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice were to refer allegations made by any private citizen at any time for any reason, we would be
referring allegations all the time. That would be an assault on the principles of the rule of law in this country.

* * *

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Benoît Corbeil said recently that a member of the judicial selection committee had called him on a number of occasions to find out whether a lawyer had indeed worked for the party. He said, “He asked me whether a certain lawyer had devoted a lot of time to the party. When it was the case, I said so. A few weeks later I discovered that the lawyer in question had been appointed a judge”.

Why is the justice minister refusing to act on these very serious revelations, which cast doubt on the integrity and the independence of the judicial system?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because I want to protect the independence of the judiciary.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Justice refuses to recognize is that these revelations were not made by some observer. They were made by the director general of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec who said that he received calls from members of what the minister calls an independent review panel to ask if these people had done sufficiently good work for the party to qualify for the bench.

Canadians have never before heard more serious accusations, questioning the integrity of the judiciary. It is incumbent upon the minister to look into this matter now and to do it seriously. Why will he not act on this?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because the director general is due to appear before the very Gomery commission process. This House is supposed to respect its proceedings. That is what I intend to do.

---

Strange Case of the Missing Menu of Posts May 3 and May 1 -- Don't miss!

Note: May 4, 05 with Hansard items for May 3, 05 is just below this post.



This is not the first time that strange things have happened to posts which the government, and particularly certain present and ex-power figures in it / close to it might prefer people NOT read. This may happen when I post anything on China, as well.

Usually, the html code is altered; this time, the menu at left for the week beginning May 1, Sunday, which normally includes all the posts for a week, had some missing. The list is below. Do you suppose the missing titles will be replaced later?

Missing menu list of items follow: Scroll down past the May 4 posts for the posts.

May 3, 2005 with several posts from Hansard May 2, 2005 & More

* Hansard--Justice Gomery's Hands Tied: "Gomery is not allowed to say who the guilty parties are"

* Hansard--Rewarding Disgraced Cabinet Minister Eggleton's Dodgy Ethics with Senate Appointment

* Hansard--Canadians paid nearly $10 million to rent a vacant building from one of the Prime Minister's Liberal friends in the Liberal Senate

* Contact David Kilgour and Chuck Cadman to Support a Conservative Non-confidence Motion -- No Charge / Toll Free Line 1-866-599-4999

* Sustainable Development, Poverty, Sovreignty, Law of the Sea, Toward Global Governance & Diminished Sovereignty

* Avoiding Monkey Business -- The Hotline Asks Pollsters: What Validates a Poll? Don't miss!

May 1, 2003

* Compilation 2: Chairman Mo -- The UN, Maurice Strong & His Network -- Kyoto, the Environment, Global Governance & More

* Compilation 1: Tsunami $ DART CIDA, PM Power Corp, Oil-for-Food, Cordex Petroleum, Strong, Chretien, Loopholes & More

Bloggers Hot on the Trail of the Polling Firm that Released the Latest Liberal Friendly Poll

Bloggers Hot on the Trail of the Polling Firm that Released the Latest Liberal Friendly Poll posted by Michael @ 7:36 PM 16 comments, The Blue Maple Leaf

A new poll by CTV and The Globe and Mail was released today. Already the poll’s results and the firm that conducted it have come under question. Brent Colbert has found three really good articles on the polling firm that conducted the poll, the GPC.

The first article is from Conservative Life . This article details the dubious history of GPC in Canada. One of the highlights was a poll commissioned by the University of Western Ontario which was so deeply flawed that its results were boycotted.

Next, the fine people at Occam’s Carbuncle ran the name of this polling firm through the Elections Canada database. It turns out they have been a big, long term supporter of the liberal party of Canada. This should come as no surprise.

Another article was written today in the Cannuckistan Chronicles . This article links to a Commons paper that details how the GPC polling firm provided stats for the botched gun registry. It also draws a link to this polling firm and many liberal friendly supporters including former premiers, cabinet ministers, senior bureaucrats and political advisors. It also includes a list of big names in liberal politics associated with the GPC and it includes work the GPC has done in other areas of international political activism. The article provides links to back up all its claims and provides evidence that it received money from the public works department, the same department that oversaw the scandal plagued sponsorship program.

Angry in the Great White North adds more research to the GPC poll with a breakdown of political contributions to the liberal party by senior members of the GPC polling firm. The breakdown of their contributions since 2003, when Paul Martin came to power, shows 100% of contributions going to the liberals. Furthermore, Otto Lang (senior counsel for GPC) was named co-chair of the Manitoba chapter of the National Liberal Campaign Committee.

This poll is not yet twelve hours old and already it is putrefying.

Check the comments and another post above this, "Unofficial Liberal Election Campaign Continues with Letter to Supporters ".

Hansard May 3, 05: Government Contracts--PM--Earnscliffe "received $615,000 in irregular contracts in 1995 alone"

Hansard: May3/05 Question Period

Government Contracts

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Earnscliffe matter, Warren Kinsella's notes are quite specific.

In October 1994, David Dingwall informed the Prime Minister's Office of what he referred to as the finance minister's “problem”. In November of that same year, David Dingwall spoke directly to the Minister of Finance to tell him that he knew about the contracts illegally awarded to Earnscliffe. In the end, following intervention by the current Prime Minister, Earnscliffe still got the contract.

Warren Kinsella's description is highly detailed. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that Earnscliffe is his own personal sponsorship scandal?

(1425)

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a simple repetition of the same old allegations does not make those allegations true. The fact of the matter is there is nothing new in what the hon. gentleman has referred to.

All the evidence on the public record would indicate that the appropriate procedures at the time were followed and the arguments made then by the then minister of finance were to increase competition, not reduce it.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the response from the Minister of Finance reminds me of the answers Alfonso Gagliano used to defend Jean Chrétien.

The Prime Minister is the one who defined the terms of reference of the Gomery commission. He is the one who voluntarily restricted the scope of the inquiry solely to the sponsorship and advertising program, excluding public opinion research contracts, which just happens to be Earnscliffe's specialty.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he himself ensured that the Gomery commission would not review the contracts awarded to Earnscliffe, in short, that he was careful to prevent the public inquiry from considering his own personal sponsorship scandal?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I would refer the hon. gentleman to the external audit conducted by Ernst & Young in 1996, and the internal audit conducted by the Auditor General of Canada reported in the year 2003, both of which indicate that the polling activities of the government were handled properly and that the appropriate procedures were followed.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has referred to two incomplete reports, but according to Warren Kinsella, the former finance minister and his office had a major role in the awarding of contracts to Earnscliffe, and they intervened numerous times to force other ministers to favour Earnscliffe too.

How does the Prime Minister explain the fact that Mr. Kinsella confirmed in a memo that Earnscliffe, which was partially owned by Michael Robinson, who co-directed the current Prime Minister's first leadership campaign, received $615,000 in irregular contracts in 1995 alone?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would challenge the hon. gentleman on the facts. There is nothing in the information that he has referred to and nothing on the public record that would indicate anything but the fact that the appropriate rules were followed. Where the office of the former minister of finance made representations, they were made to increase competition, not to decrease it.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many of the former finance minister's friends and collaborators have ties to Earnscliffe, a company which received favours from the finance minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and which was headed at the time by the current Minister of Finance.

Does the Prime Minister deny that his numerous ties to Earnscliffe and his heavy involvement in the awarding of contracts led to his being nicknamed the octopus by David Dingwall, former minister of Public Works?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would make the point to the hon. gentleman that simply passing along personal insults and repeating allegations does not in fact make those insults or allegations true. There is nothing on the public record referred to today or previously in the House that would indicate that any rules were violated.

---

Hansard May 3, 05: Justice Gomery--"there will be no legal consequences arising from the commission's findings”.

Hansard: May3/05 Question Period

Sponsorship Program

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): I sense a lover's spat, Mr. Speaker.

[Translation]

On April 11, the Prime Minister told a reporter that all those involved in such dealings would be punished. We do know, however, that under the Gomery inquiry's terms of reference, the judge cannot name the responsible parties.

How does the Prime Minister intend to punish the guilty parties when he has not given Justice Gomery the mandate to identify them?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Judge Gomery's mandate is very clear: he is fact finding. His report will be a fact-finding one that will tell Canadians what in fact happened and give the truth about it. Second, he will report back to us with prescriptives to prevent it from happening again.

That has been his mandate from the beginning and his mandate is clear. Our mandate as members of Parliament in a minority Parliament is clear as well. Canadians want us to work to make this Parliament work, which is exactly what we ought to be doing. When we make Parliament work we should be letting Justice Gomery do his work.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference for the Gomery commission specifically prevent recommendations on criminal culpability or civil responsibility for the millions of taxpayer dollars lost or stolen in ad scam.

In fact, Justice Gomery has said himself on this limitation that “there will be no legal consequences arising from the commission's findings”. The Prime Minister himself said there was political direction in the scandal and yet he does not allow Justice Gomery to make that determination.

Why is he and his dupe now trying to dupe Canadians into thinking that this report will provide answers when he knows it will not? Will he just admit that it is Canadians who will judge who is morally and politically responsible--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that there are in fact criminal investigations and there are charges against some of the individuals, like Jean Brault, who they present as being sacrosanct in terms of his testimony. In fact, Mr. Brault is facing fraud charges.

Further to that, the government has launched civil charges against 19 firms and individuals to recover $41 million worth of funds. So there are several processes. One is on the recovery side, one is on the criminal side where charges are being pursued vigorously by the RCMP through the courts, and Justice Gomery is doing his work, which is exactly what Canadians want him to do.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are misconceptions about the Gomery inquiry, so here are the facts. Gomery can hear evidence even during an election. Gomery can only make recommendations aimed at preventing mismanagement of future advertising activities. Gomery cannot say who is guilty.

Canadians already have more than enough evidence of Liberal corruption. The government no longer has moral authority. Is that not why the Liberals are afraid to face the voters?

(1435)

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid of the truth. We want to have Justice Gomery's report so that Canadians have the truth. The people who are really afraid of the truth are in that party over there and the separatists because they do not want Canadians to have the truth and to have Justice Gomery's report before an election. They would rather Canadians make a rash decision based on allegations.

What is good for the separatists is not good for Canada, and that party ought to remember it.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the truth is that clause k of Gomery's mandate is Liberal no-fault insurance. Clause k prohibits Gomery naming anyone as the guilty party. Gomery can watch the surveillance camera and he can confirm the bank was robbed but he cannot disclose who grabbed the cash or who drove the getaway car.

Kickbacks, money laundering, bribes, extortion, all involving Liberals. The Prime Minister does not even try to deny Liberal corruption. Why are the Liberals still clinging to power?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP were called in to investigate and to pursue legal action.

It is important to recognize that the member for Newmarket—Aurora said in today's Globe and Mail that “Voting against the entire budget will impact negatively. We cannot jeopardize the funding for infrastructure programs which include transportation, roads and public transit”.

She is right. Let us invest in Canadian communities. Let us invest in child care. Let us invest in education. Let us invest in the Canadian Forces. Let us pass the budget, and let Justice Gomery do his work. [....]

---

Hansard May 3, 05: "$615,000 in government contracts were given to the Prime Minister's friends at Earnscliffe in violation of cabinet guidelines."

Hansard: May3/05 Question Period

Government Contracts

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, long-time Liberal Warren Kinsella sent a memo in 1995 to the public works minister stating that $615,000 in government contracts were given to the Prime Minister's friends at Earnscliffe in violation of cabinet guidelines.

David Herle, who was the Prime Minister's campaign manager, worked at Earnscliffe and received this money after the Prime Minister as finance minister insisted that David Herle and Earnscliffe receive the contracts.

The Prime Minister has two choices: rise in his place and admit that he directed cash to his friends, or rise and call Warren Kinsella a liar. Which is it?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new in the allegations that the hon. gentleman has made. Just repeating them does not make them true. The fact is that all of the evidence on the public record indicates that the appropriate procedures at the time were indeed followed and that any intervention by the office of the former minister of finance was intended to increase competition and not decrease it.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with answers like that it is no wonder Bono has quit the Liberal Party.

[Translation]

According to Mr. Kinsella, this Prime Minister granted contracts to his friends—his friends at Earnscliffe, in particular—in the 1990s, people like Scott Reid, who today is his director of communications, and David Herle, who ran his leadership campaign.

How can the Prime Minister continue to manipulate the truth on the granting of contracts?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to assessing the veracity of the Prime Minister compared to the other witness to whom the hon. gentleman refers, I will put my money on the Prime Minister every day of the week.

---

Hansard May 3, 05: Appointment of Judges -- "calling into question the independence of the judiciary"

Hansard: May3/05 Question Period

[Translation]

Appointment of Judges

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, serious allegations have been made with respect to the appointment of judges. The former director-general of the Liberal Party has said he regularly received calls from a member of the judicial selection committee to find out whether candidates had done enough work for the party. When the answer was “yes”, the candidates were appointed judges.

Can the Minister of Justice tell Canadians whether he has called for an inquiry into these serious allegations?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there are allegations of corruption, the police can be contacted. The Gomery commission is proceeding. Another process can be launched. However, I do not want to start interrogating people solely on the basis of allegations.

[English]

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Minister of Justice would take more seriously his obligation to defend the independence of the judiciary.

We now know that a step in the process of appointing judges is for a member of the supposedly non-partisan appointments committee to confirm with Liberal headquarters how much work nominees have done for the Liberal Party. This is a very serious matter, calling into question the independence of the judiciary. At a time when Canadians are looking to the courts to deliver justice to sponsorship players facing criminal charges, this news corrodes public confidence in the courts.

In light of these additional revelations, does the Prime Minister still deny that there was partisan involvement in the judicial appointment--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what erodes public confidence in the administration of justice in the judiciary is any kind of guilt by unfounded association, any kind of trafficking in innuendo, and drive-by smears. We will not indulge in those things before the House.

---

Hansard May 3, 05:"No person who is a member of the Senate shall...be a party to...any contract under which the public money of Canada is to be paid."

Hansard: May3/05 Question Period

Government Contracts

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal Senator Massicotte would have us believe that he broke no rule in signing a $100 million contract with the federal government. But subsection 14(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act states, and I quote, “No person who is a member of the Senate shall... be a party to... any contract under which the public money of Canada is to be paid.”

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to punish this Liberal senator who has broken the law?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the contract was signed well before the individual was a senator.

Further to that, yesterday, prior to question period, a letter was delivered to the hon. member fully explaining the situation. The fact is that the lease was awarded through a fair and open tendering process that was overseen by KPMG, and the winner of the competitive contract, on the basis of least cost, was Alexis Nihon, a large, publicly traded company.

The occupation of the building took time because of the amalgamation of two units into one entity within government and the set up requirements. The hon. member knows the truth because he received the truth. He is just plain--

(1450)

The Speaker: The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act bans senators from participating in government business, whether they were appointed before or after that government business started. That means the Liberals broke the law and paid millions to a Liberal senator's company for an empty building.

What will it take for this Prime Minister to stand in the House and announce what he will do to punish this Liberal senator who has broken the law?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would urge the hon. member to go outside and make that exact allegation. I think he would require some legal representation from members of his own caucus, perhaps, and God forbid for his sake, because I do not think he would get very far in that sense.

This contract was tendered fairly and openly. It was overseen by KPMG and the company that won the contract is a large, publicly traded, commercial real estate company that owns over 50 commercial properties in Canada.

Members opposite are engaged in another drive-by smear campaign because they are not interested in the truth. They are only interested in attacking reputations under parliamentary privilege.

---

Hansard May 3, 05:CBC--"Can the Prime Minister justify...his decision to put his pal ...on the CBC board?....he owns the building the CBC leases."

Hansard: May3/05 Question Period

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal patronage and cronyism has hit a new low. The Prime Minister has named Mr. Sahi to the CBC board.

Who is that? A close personal friend of the Prime Minister, a former business associate of Canada Steamship Lines, and a donor to the Liberal Party who owns the building the CBC leases as its head office in Ottawa. One would think it was enough that he gets the rent cheque from the CBC every month.

Can the Prime Minister justify to Canadians his decision to put his pal and supporter on the CBC board?
[Translation]

Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the appointments we have made to the CBC and Radio-Canada. I am referring to Peter Herrndorf, Trina McQueen, Guy Fournier, Johanne Brunet, Yasmin Jivraj and Mr. Sahi. Why? Because Mr. Sahi was named entrepreneur of the year. We need a businessman who is also able to grasp the administrative complexity of the CBC and Radio-Canada. He has been chosen for his competence.

[English]

Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not get it. Mr. Sahi was appointed to the CBC board. A close personal friend of the Prime Minister, he owns the building the CBC leases. A landlord cannot be trusted to make the best decisions for the CBC on matters of leases and capital assets.

The Prime Minister claimed he would condemn to history the practice of cronyism. How can he justify to Canadians this appointment, a blatant conflict of interest?

[Translation]

Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to put on trial a man who, in 1994, was named turnaround entrepreneur of the year, who joined the Bank of Montreal in 1977 and, in 1982, while working for the bank, purchased businesses which he developed.

He was appointed simply because he is an entrepreneur and because the CBC needs people like him. He is a member of an exceptional community, yet people are trying to put him on trial here, in this place. That is beyond me.

---

Hansard May 3, 2005:Foreign Affairs--"will the Prime Minister confirm or deny reports that the third investor in Cordex is...his family business CSL?"

Hansard: May3/05 Question Period

Foreign Affairs

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars have been stolen from the Iraqi people in the UN oil for food program. If Canada really cares about the United Nations, it will insist that all of its officials participate fully in any investigation.

Maurice Strong, the close friend and long-time business associate of the Prime Minister, has recently stepped aside from his UN duties because of a million dollar cash infusion into his company Cordex.

We want to know, will the Prime Minister confirm or deny reports that the third investor in Cordex is in fact his family business CSL?

The Speaker: Order, please. I am afraid that question is out of order. The hon. member knows it does not concern the administrative responsibility of the government. The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla may have a second question.

[Translation]

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's reputation at the UN is very important. Each time I ask the Prime Minister a question about Maurice Strong, he refuses to answer. My question is quite simple, however.

Has the Prime Minister already discussed with Mr. Strong the involvement of his company, CSL, or any other Canadian company in the oil for food scandal.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would someone like to answer this question? The Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[English]

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a question that we believe was out of order. It is not that there is no member of the government ready to respond. I am ready to respond.

Mr. Maurice Strong is not a Canadian government employee. Mr. Maurice Strong works for the United Nations. He has denied all of the allegations and this government believes that as long as there are allegations, we need inquiries which the United Nations is conducting right now.

This government is ready to respond, but this is not the kind of question we should have on the floor of this House. This is not government business [. . . . ]

---

Hansard May 3, 05: Sponsorship Program--"a smear campaign to try to besmirch Mr. Gomery's reputation"

Hansard: May3/05 Question Period

Sponsorship Program

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in this week's Hill Times, the Liberal member for Lambton--Kent--Middlesex called the Gomery commission “stupid”. We all know that the daily confessions of corruption have not made the Liberals across Canada very fearful of Gomery, so here is my question for the Prime Minister. Does he agree with his Liberal colleague that the Gomery commission is in fact stupid or is this not in fact merely a smear campaign to try to besmirch Mr. Gomery's reputation before he has a chance to table his final report?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our government has remained absolutely committed to supporting Justice Gomery's work. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Canadians who want the truth from Justice Gomery, who want the report from Justice Gomery.

The fact is that within this House the only people who really want to see Justice Gomery kneecapped and not given an opportunity to report to Canadians before an election are the separatists and their bedfellows, the Conservatives, who want Canadians to make a decision based on allegations, not on the truth.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister opposite speaks the talk but he does not walk the walk, particularly with respect to his other colleagues. Here is what one of the other colleagues he is talking about says in today's Globe and Mail in reference to Gomery. The member for Victoria said that this is rather small potatoes. He said, “Other countries have serious problems...and we worry about a seven-year-old ripoff of government money”.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that he has an orchestrated campaign to besmirch the reputation of Justice Gomery and divert Canadians' attention from the real issue, the issue that this is a corrupt government desperately trying to cling to power?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the same direction, let me quote some of the hon. member's colleagues, and in fact the member for Newmarket--Aurora, who said that “voting against the entire budget will impact negatively”. She said, “We can't jeopardize the funding for the infrastructure programs, which include transportation, roads and public transit”. Or perhaps I will quote the member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley, who said that “people want to wait until we hear all the evidence from the Gomery commission”.

He ought to listen to his colleagues over there who are saying to let Justice Gomery do his work. That was before they were muzzled by their leader when they returned to Ottawa and were told to forget about what their constituents told them last week.

---

Terror Financing: Emasculated Hearing -- Arab Bank, Suicide Bombers, Families Collect -- Alleged

The embattled Arab Bank Joel Mowbray, Washington Times, May 4, 05

This one is very interesting. Do link and read the whole.

When a House Financial Services panel today takes up the issue of Islamic charities and terror financing, what won't be seen is far more interesting — and important — than what will.

The story of how what had promised to be an explosive session was gutted is a tale of international lobbying, partisan protection and misplaced animosity. And of course, it wouldn't be genuine intrigue without loads of Saudi cash.

[. . . . ] Though there have been dozens of hearings on the general topic of terror financing, this one was special: The sole focus was to be the suddenly embattled Arab Bank. The bank earlier this year suffered the partial closure of its New York branch — it can no longer establish new accounts there or accept deposits — after the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reportedly found gross violations of money-laundering and terror-finance regulations. [. . . . ]

Search: Mr. Osen learned of Arab Bank's alleged terror financing not through , Palestinian newspapers told families of "martyrs" — suicide bombers — to collect money , The "Saudi Committee" referenced , the public will never learn most of the contents of

China-Japan-UN-EU-"foreign policy implications of possible European Union arms exports to China"

Who wants a strong China? William R. Hawkins, Washington Times, May 4, 05

William R. Hawkins is senior fellow for national security studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.

On April 14, an unusual joint hearing was held by the House International Relations and Armed Services committees. At issue were the national security and foreign policy implications of possible European Union arms exports to China.

The clear concern of the assembled members of Congress was the enhanced threat from China to U.S. and allied forces if it gained advanced European weapons technology.

[. . . . ] As recently as last January, Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan stated, "The past 15 years have shown China's decision was correct" to order troops to massacre students in Tiananmen Square. And the regime has committed aggression against nearly all its neighbors since World War II, as well as supported world revolutionaries, terrorists and rogue states. [. . . . ]

Search: Japan , status at the U.N. , double-digit percent annual increases in Beijing's , large off-budget allocations hearing on U.S.-China economic relations , the consequences of international economic relations , perilous for national leaders to ignore . . .

Hansard--Justice Gomery's Hands Tied: "Gomery is not allowed to say who the guilty parties are"

Hansard: Question Period May 2, 05

Sponsorship Program

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is going to court to shut down Justice Gomery's commission in the same way the Liberals shut down the APEC and Somalia inquiries.

The current Prime Minister claims that his government will defend Gomery, but it turns out Gomery wants his own lawyers because, as Gomery's lawyer said, he cannot trust government lawyers to defend the commission.

Why can Justice Gomery not trust the government's lawyers to defend his commission?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has consistently supported the work of Justice Gomery. Our government has consistently supported the work of Justice Gomery. The only people I know who want Justice Gomery to fail and who want Canadians to make a rash decision based on unproven allegations and not on the truth of the Gomery report are the Conservative Party and the separatists who want this Parliament to fail because the Bloc wants Canada to fail.

I do not know why the Conservatives are supporting the separatists in their desire to make this Parliament fail when Canadians want to--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Provencher.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, only in public does the Prime Minister say he wants Justice Gomery to continue the work that Mr. Chrétien is trying to shut down. Behind closed doors, the Prime Minister led a standing ovation in applauding Mr. Chrétien for his arrogant behaviour in front of the Gomery commission.

How can Canadians trust the government if Justice Gomery cannot trust it to defend his commission?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister appointed Justice Gomery. Our Prime Minister ensured that Justice Gomery had access to the resources he needed to succeed, in fact to provide over 12 million pages of documents to Justice Gomery, including cabinet documents dating back to 1994. We want the truth. We want Canadians to have the truth. That is why we support Justice Gomery.

It is the Conservative Party that is afraid of the truth. It is the Conservative Party that would rather fight the election based on unproven allegations than respecting Canadians and ensuring they have the truth to make a good rational decision.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government repeatedly promises to be open and transparent but behind closed doors it is a different ugly reality.

The Prime Minister recently admitted that fellow Liberals pushed to hide the sponsorship scandal. He confessed that he had received “tons” of advice to “put it under the rug”. Who are the tons of people in the PMO and in the cabinet counselling deceit and cover-up?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand by a Prime Minister who is willing to do the right thing and put country before party, to put principle before partisan strategy and to put Canadians first in his support for Justice Gomery so Canadians have the truth.

We are not as interested in partisan strategy over here. We are interested in getting to the truth for Canadians because Canadians deserve the truth.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the inquiry came about because it was far too late for the Liberals to bury their misdeeds. The Auditor General had already sounded the alarm. The Prime Minister did the next best thing. He tied Gomery's hands.

The terms of reference prohibit Gomery from “expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization”.

Why is the government hiding from Canadians the fact that Gomery is not allowed to say who the guilty parties are, as the Prime Minister promises?

(1435)

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is there are criminal charges against some individuals, including Mr. Brault, their much flaunted friend over there. The fact is we have launched civil actions against 19 firms and agencies to recover $41 million from those individuals.

Beyond that, there is a parallel process to the Gomery commission that is aimed at accomplishing two things: first, providing Canadians with an analysis of what happened in the fact finding part of his work; and, second, prescriptives to ensure it does not happen again.

His mandate is clear and the mandate of all parliamentarians in the House is clear: to make this Parliament work [. . . . ]

Justice Gomery's mandate is extremely limited, clearly.

---

Hansard--Rewarding Disgraced Cabinet Minister Eggleton's Dodgy Ethics with Senate Appointment

Hansard: Question Period May 2, 05

Government Appointments

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Art Eggleton was removed from cabinet for giving his girlfriend a questionable contract.

After losing his cabinet position, and then his seat in the House of Commons, Eggleton is now being rewarded with a comfy seat in the Senate.

Could this Prime Minister's ethics actually be worse than those of his predecessor?

How can we trust this Prime Minister to clean up the sponsorship scandal, if he continues to reward Liberals who break the rules?

Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the method for appointing senators is well known; it is a prerogative of the Prime Minister. The last time appointments were made to the Senate, they were made on the basis of merit.

In fact, for the first time, members of the Senate were appointed from opposition parties, such as the Conservatives and the NDP. I would therefore suggest that my hon. friends welcome their new colleagues as we did, with open arms.

[English]

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal definition of marriage is different from any I have ever heard.

The biggest difference between the Prime Minister and his predecessor is that the Prime Minister sends disgraced cabinet ministers to the Senate
instead of Denmark.

He has endlessly been saying that Liberals implicated in the sponsorship scandal will be punished. If the Prime Minister awards Art Eggleton with a Senate appointment, is that the kind of punishment Liberal sponsorship offenders can look forward to?

How can Canadians trust the Prime Minister to deal with sponsorship wrongdoing when he rewards those who break the rules?

Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing. The prerogative of appointing senators belongs to the Prime Minister. Appointments are done on merit.

In the recent series of appointments, members were appointed from the party opposite as well as the NDP.

I would suggest to the members that they welcome the new members, as we have welcomed them, with open arms. [. . . . ]

---

Hansard: Foreign Affairs--Maurice Strong-PM's Mentor, Cordex, Paribas Bank, Power Corp, UN Oil for Food Program

Hansard: Question Period May 2, 05

Foreign Affairs

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Maurice Strong is the Prime Minister's mentor, long-time intimate friend, long-time business associate at Power Corporation, and special adviser. Cordex Petroleum is now being investigated under the Iraq oil for food scandal for a $1 million injection from two agents of none other than the former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Mr. Strong has stepped aside while this investigation is going on.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, as Mr. Strong is his special adviser, has he ever discussed with him the possibility of any Canadian implications in the oil for food program?

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an investigation that is being done on the whole oil for food program at the United Nations. I can say that Mr. Strong has absolutely denied these allegations. This country should be very proud of the role Mr. Maurice Strong has played over the years in his work in systematically making progress at the United Nations institutions. We should certainly respect Mr. Strong, who has absolutely denied these allegations and not resonate them across this country.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, just this weekend it has come out that Mr. Strong has failed to comply with the United Nations hiring guidelines. It has also come out that Paribas Bank, affiliated with Power corporation, has made over 400 payments under the oil for food program to companies that are not on the United Nations approved list, including Canadian recipients.

Will the Prime Minister, to clear Canada's name and to fix Canada's international reputation which is being hurt by the sponsorship scandal, ask for an investigation of any Canadian implication in the oil for food program?

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Strong has been absolutely clear. He has denied these allegations. We in this Parliament should respect an eminent Canadian who has worked very hard and very well at the United Nations.

There, as in the sponsorship inquiry since the member raised it, we should take allegations for what they are, and that is, allegations which are not proven. Let the people at the United Nations do their investigation, as we are saying that Gomery should be doing his report on allegations here. Let us bring back some sense in this House

---

Hansard--Canadians paid nearly $10 million to rent a vacant building from one of the Prime Minister's Liberal friends in the Liberal Senate

Hansard: Question Period May 2, 05

Government Contracts

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a lease contract between Liberal Senator Paul Massicotte and the Liberal government once again turned into a taxpayers' nightmare.

I am trying to understand the logic. The government paid Senator Massicotte's company $10 million over one year for a building that was serving no purpose, except perhaps that of squandering public funds.

Why did this government pay millions of dollars to the Liberal senator's company to rent a vacant building for no apparent reason?
[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the lease contract was awarded under a fair and open tender process and was overseen by a fairness monitor, KPMG. The winner of the competitive contract on the basis of the least cost was the firm of Alexis Nihon, which is a large, publicly traded firm that owns over 50 commercial properties across Canada.

Occupation of the building took time because of the amalgamation of the National Archives and the National Library into one entity. Because of the fit up requirements to meet specialized technical requirements it did take longer.

However I am pleased to say that the building is 70% occupied and will be 100% occupied by July.

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, where I come from people start paying rent when they move into the place.

The government has been paying half a million dollars per month to the company of a Quebec Liberal senator for a building that was totally empty for an entire year, and half empty for the last six months. Only in Liberal wonderland would that be considered a good deal.

Will the Prime Minister stand in the House and explain to us why Canadians paid nearly $10 million to rent a vacant building from one of his Liberal friends in the Liberal Senate?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is referring to the fact that the building is located in Quebec. It is interesting that he should do that given that his riding is on the border on the Ottawa side, but perhaps it speaks to his opposition to the 75:25 rule where we are working to ensure that 25% of the employees of the federal government are in Quebec.

Why is he attacking our efforts to ensure equity in the national capital region? Why is he playing petty politics with a genuine effort by the federal government to ensure equity within the national capital region and that Quebec is treated fairly on this issue? [. . . . ]

Note: Mr. Brison has a hearing problem, it appears. Or did he deliberately misunderstand the topic?

The Liberals "ensure equity" with this kind of deal?

---

Contact David Kilgour and Chuck Cadman to Support a Conservative Non-confidence Motion

If you wish to contact David Kilgour and Chuck Cadman to request that they vote in support of a Conservative non-confidence motion, read this.

House of Commons Main Switchboard

No Charge / Toll Free Line

1-866-599-4999

Simply Ask For the Specific MP's Office

---

Sustainable Development, Poverty, Sovreignty, Law of the Sea, Toward Global Governance & Diminished Sovereignty

"there is a strong counter-trend. It's not called socialism, but it's called sustainable development, which calls ... for the eradication of poverty. There is that trend and that is the trend that I am working on."

Socialist was behind U.N. sea treaty -- Author of Bush-supported pact that cedes U.S. sovereignty

One of the main authors of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST, not only admired Karl Marx but was an ardent advocate of the Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order, according to a new report.

Supporters of LOST – now before the U.S. Senate and backed by the Bush Administration – depict it as a pact that merely guarantees freedom of navigation on the high seas. But a new report issued by Cliff Kincaid of the public policy group America's Survival Inc. identifies Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World Federalists of Canada, as having played a critical role in crafting and promoting LOST. [. . . . ]

Search: "Mother of the Oceans" , ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick , when the U.N. is under fire for mismanagement, corruption and scandal, LOST establishes , seven-tenths of the world's surface , world government , "Committee to Frame a World Constitution." , test-bed for , organizing the conferences that "served to lay the foundation" , a global tax scheme , giving Third World countries , "It's not called socialism, but it's" , The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource , reserved for peaceful purposes , World Federalist Movement

There are several related links of interest at the bottom of the above article:

Related stories:
Sovereignty-sapping U.N. accord gets new life
Grass roots force hearing on U.N. treaty
Related columns:
Getting LOST
Should the U.N. be lord of the oceans?
Warning: LOST again
Sovereignty-sapping treaty getting scrutiny
Treaty by stealth – again
Global Nightmare: Saving the LOST

---

Avoiding Monkey Business -- The Hotline Asks Pollsters: What Validates a Poll? Don't miss!

I have some concerns about Canadian polls. This is a guide so you may interpret Canadian polling, along with how to make certain pollsters provide their methodology--not just headlines--whenever polls are used.

To minimize the monkey business, voters need to know who pays for the polls and some of the results the polls get. Voters need to demand that pollsters reveal as much information as possible, not just the minimum. Government spends more than any other business on advertising. It behooves the electorate to remember there is an incestuous relationship between some political parties, pollsters and the mainstream media. It is incumbent upon the reader to be informed of:

* the methodology
* who is paying for the poll
* whether the one paying has government work / contracts

The following article pertains to the US but it is relevant to Canadians to know about polling before this election. The more voters know, the more they are able to cut through the media spin.


Mystery Pollster -- Demystifying the Science and Art of Political Polling - By Mark Blumenthal, April 22, 2005

This week, the hard working folks at The Hotline, the daily online political news summary published by the National Journal, did a remarkable survey of pollsters on the question of how they check their samples for accuracy. The asked virtually every political pollster to answer these questions: "What's the first thing you look at in a survey to make sure it's a good sample? In other words -- what validates a poll sample for you?" They got answers from six news media pollsters and thirteen campaign pollsters (including MP and his partners).

Now, MP readers are probably not aware of it, since few can afford a subscription to Washington's premiere political news summary, but The Hotline has been closely following MP's series on disclosure of Party ID. [. . . . ]

---

Compilation 2: Chairman Mo -- The UN, Maurice Strong & His Network -- Kyoto, the Environment, Global Governance & More

Chairman Mo Peter Foster, National Post, April 22, 2005

Paul Martin hardly needs another scandal, but the news that Maurice Strong has stepped down from his UN post as special envoy to Korea in the wake of allegations related to the Iraqi oil-for-food debacle is potentially damaging on several fronts.

This week, Mr. Strong, a long-time mentor and associate of Mr. Martin, admitted . . . .

[. . . . ] A year ago, Time magazine declared: "Not since Lester Pearson has a Canadian Prime Minister devoted so much intellectual energy to the UN" which, allegedly, is "what really winds Mr. Martin's clock." Mr. Strong was instrumental in Mr. Martin's appointment as co-chairman of a UN commission on Third World development while the future PM was waiting to be crowned Jean Chretien's successor. And who was the first international VIP guest of the new Martin government? Kofi Annan.

Related links:

Maurice Strong steps down from UN post 20 Apr 2005, CBC News

UNITED NATIONS - Maurice Strong, a long-time Canadian businessman and currently the top UN envoy for North Korea, will suspend his work for the United Nations while investigators look into his ties to a South Korean businessman accused in the UN oil-for-food scandal in Iraq. [. . . . ]

Scandal looming in promised $425 million for Sir Lanka tsunami victims that never arrived? Judi McLeod, Editor, April 20, 2005

Search: Maurice Strong . IDRC (International Development Research Center)




Next Crisis at U.N. May Involve Ties Of Volcker, Strong Benny Avni, Staff Reporter of the NY Sun, April 22, 05

UNITED NATIONS - The next chapter in the United Nations crisis may erupt over U.N. investigator Paul Volcker's membership on the board of one of Canada's biggest companies, Power Corporation, since a past president of the firm, Canadian tycoon Maurice Strong, is now tied to the oil-for-food scandal.

[. . . . ] Yesterday, Mr. Strong acknowledged that Tongsun Park, the Korean accused by federal authorities of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, in 1997 invested in Cordex, a Denver-based company owned by Mr. Strong and his son, Fred. Mr. Strong has voluntarily stepped down from his U.N. position as adviser to Mr. Annan on Korean affairs for the duration of the investigation. [. . . . ]

The Company He Keeps Apr. 21, 05, Kate McMillan, The Shotgun (http://westernstandard.blogs.com/)

From a profile of Maurice Strong. [. . . . ]

Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future! Henry Lamb, January, 1997 -- via Kate MacMillan of small dead animals and the Shotgun

Shortly after his selection as U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan told the Lehrer News Hour that Ingvar Carlsson and Shirdath Ramphal, co-chairs of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance, would be among those asked to help him reform the sprawling, world-wide U.N. bureaucracy. His first choice, however, announced in the Washington Post on January 17, 1997, was none other than Maurice Strong, also a member of the Commission on Global Governance.

Strong's appointment as Senior Advisor, "to assist planning and executing a far-reaching reform of the world body," is seen by U.N. watchers to be a masterful strategic maneuver to avoid political opposition while empowering Strong to implement a global agenda he has been developing for years. More than 100 developing nations coordinated a "Draft Strong" movement in 1995 to replace Boutros Boutros-Ghali. But Strong's name was never presented publicly as a candidate. [. . . . ]

Search: a global agenda , National Council for Soviet-Canadian Friendship , Anna Louise Strong , Earth Council , fur trader in Hudson Bay , Petro Canada and Hydro Canada , the continent's largest fresh water aquifer , assistant pass officer in the Identification Unit of the Security Section , founding director of the Canadian International Development Assistance Program (CIDA) , Identification Unit of the Security Section , idea of global governance , Dome Petroleum , in Nairobi and took a job with CalTex , to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government , Director General of Canada's External Aid , Canada's YMCA , SNC-Lavalin , "mentor, Lester Pearson" , International Development Research Center (IDRC) , "Earth Summit I, in Stockholm" , NGO's (non-government organizations) were funded by , Strong visited China to persuade them to , as the instruments through which government could , UNEP , Adnan Khashoggi , World Wildlife Fund (WWF) , Rio Conference , Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) , Business Council on Sustainable Development , cloaking the agenda in the perception of public grassroots support from NGOs , "has served, or is currently on the Board of Directors of" , "Commission's final report, Our Global Neighborhood" , Costa Rica , Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992 , Strengthening the role the United Nations can play , concept of national sovereignty

Do not forget to check the Endnotes

Read, think and judge for yourself.


Scandal looming . . . Judi McLeod, Editor, April 20, 2005

[. . . . ] "The IDRC was a quasi-government agency that had unique authority to receive charitable donations and issue tax deductible certificate--and give money directly to individual governments and private organizations. Strong became its head in 1970."
[. . . . ] Martin’s mentor Strong has been a director on the ZENON board of directors since October, 2003.

Strong is on the public record for predicting that water will have to be rationed by armed guards as soon as 2031. [. . . . ]

Search: Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin

Editor's Note on the CFP website at the bottom of the above article:

Still to come: Garth Pritchard's explosive account of Prime Minister Paul Martin's photo-op in tsunami-ravaged Sri Lanka.




The Power behind the thrones 14 February 2005, Mark Steyn -- via The Key Monk Mar. 15, 05

I always love the bit on the big international news story where they try to find the Canadian angle. A couple of months back, every time I switched on The National, there seemed to be no news at all and Peter Mansbridge was in the middle of some 133-part series of reports on “Canadians making a difference in the world,” which at least three nights a week seemed to be an “encore presentation” of the same worthy soft-focus featurette about some guy helping with an irrigation project in Sudan.

[. . . . ] And yet, throughout this period, there has indeed been a Canadian making a difference in the world-and if The National wanted to do a 133-part special report on him, for once they’d have enough material. Most of us know Paul Desmarais as the [. . . . ]

---

Compilation 1: Tsunami $ DART CIDA, PM Power Corp, Oil-for-Food, Cordex Petroleum, Strong, Chretien, Loopholes & More

Posting will be very sporadic for a while. Too many commitments, too little time. NJC


Money Tsnunami DART CIDA

"But even before DART was deployed, its soldiers knew full well they were being set up by the bureaucrats in Ottawa to fail."

What happened to our tsunami aid? by Garth Pritchard, Canadafreepress.com, Monday, April 26, 2005

Garth Prtitchard, now a columnist with Canada Free Press, is an award-winning documentary filmmaker living in Alberta.

Given the lack of interest in a federal election over the revelations from Judge Gomery's inquiry, one wonders how Canadians will react when they learn that Ottawa is sitting on more than $400 million in tsunami relief.

[. . . . ] All 200 of us realized very quickly that the money promised on Jan. 3 by the Prime Minister of Canada was not going to arrive, even though the interest alone on the original $80 million would have accomplished miracles.

What we received instead were . . . . This was not going to be a joint effort. [. . . . ]

Search: CIDA , two days' interest , NGOs and CIDA have an automatic response


Justice Gomery needs his own lawyer for representation; after all, how impartial would the government's lawyer be after all that has gone on? Is it possible the game has been rigged for a long time? Would the judge they are going before be impartial or was he a Liberal appointee?

Check here and here .


PM Power Corp Oil for Food Cordex Petroleum Maurice Strong

Chairman of Paul Martin company that accepted Saddam’s million worked for Power Corp. by Judi McLeod, Canadafreepress.com, Monday, April 25, 2005

The former chairman of the Prime Minister Paul Martin-owned company that accepted $1 million from Saddam Hussein, worked with Martin at the Paul Desmarais-owned Power Corporation.

William Turner was chairman of Cordex Petroleums Inc., an oil and gas exploration and production company based in Alberta with an American subsidiary in Denver, Colo. [. . . . ]

Search: Martin’s Public Declaration of Declarable Assets , Tongsun Park, the Korean accused by , former Power Corp. President Maurice Strong , Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum , Banque Nationale de Paris-Paribas , evidence that BNP Paribas , replaced by Maurice Strong , Exsultate

Canada Free Press has several related stories:

Other CFP Stories about Paul Martin and Maurice strong

Saddam invested one million dollars in Paul Martin-owned Cordex

Scandal looming in promised $425 million for Sir Lanka tsunami victims that never arrived?

'The Maustro' admits connection to `Koreagate Man'

Pandemic vaccine in hands of global depopulation advocates

Welcome to Canadian-inspired Kyoto

Hidden Paul Martin firm linking leftwing activists to Information Highway

Welcome to the Peoples' Republic of China on Canadian soil

Message in a bottle: Paul Martin's ZENON purified water photo op

Tête à têtes with terrorists

Jolly Roger better flag for Canada Steamship Lines

Did Martin fall on his head?

How Montreal's Power Corp. found itself caught up in the biggest fiasco in UN history

Operation Sidewinder: In Canada spies are us

Ghosts in the wine and brandy cellar

Canada's global connections

Paul Martin doing China duty for Maurice Strong

Prime Minister Paul Martin signs Canada up for one world order United Nations

Hidden Paul Martin firm trained UN weapons inspectors in Ottawa

The real Maurice Strong, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation style

Martin reinvents himself

Oil-for-Food scandal: The French connection

Just check that website.




Mauled by China Inc. April 23, 2005, Jacqueline Thorpe, Financial Post

[. . . . ] After a slow and painful unravelling over the past five years, the company her family founded on the banks of the Grand River in this southern Ontario town closed shop yesterday for the last time.

Casualty of a 20% surge in the Canadian dollar, the incredible price-lowering power of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and China's unstinting competition, the story of Tiger Brand Knitting Co. is the story of globalization hitting home. [. . . . ]

Search: buoyed by the low Canadian dollar , And all the while China was tooling up to , severance packages , do it for $7 an hour , lost 35,000 jobs , textile industry fallout , World Trade Organization scrapped , Cambridge, which once housed companies such as , straight out of the management textbooks , Tiger's own labels

This article details how, even when a North American company does everything right, it can still fail. Is it not time to start buying Canadian?




Jean Chretien has been defending himself and his "saving" Canada, so I read this weekend.

Whither art thou Jean? -- Where have you gone, Jean? Apr.24. 05

[. . . . ] Surely, Chretien understands that even if, as he says, he did not know what was happening in the sponsorship program -- meaning he was incompetent -- that he is ultimately responsible for what it became?

And that what it became is looking more and more like an an elaborate money-laundering scheme to pass public money into the private, grasping hands of the Liberal party and its many friends in the advertising industry in Quebec.

Surely Chretien is aware that according to a recent Environics poll 84% of Canadians hold him either "very responsible" (52%) or "somewhat responsible" (32%) for AdScam, compared to only 9% who think he bears no responsibility. [. . . . ]

Loopholes

They'll be lucky if they can do damage control trying to just contain things to the sponsorship scam -- only the tip of the iceberg

Whistleblower: Taxpayers on hook for empty building Apr. 21, 05, Kathy Tomlinson, CTV News

It was supposed to be a sparkling new showpiece for the federal government in the old City of Gatineau, just across the river from Parliament Hill. But instead the 10-storey building -- designed to hold 900 civil servants -- sat empty for almost a year with taxpayers picking up a tab of $575,000 a month for a vacant building.

The company collecting the payments for the empty building is the Montreal based Alexis Nihon Group. In 2002 it won a $99-million contract from Public Works and Government Services Canada to develop the federal complex on Boulevard de la Cite in Gatineau. The company's CEO is also a Liberal Senator -- Paul Massicotte.

Unlike Members of Parliament, there are no rules preventing Senators from bidding on, or obtaining government contracts.

[. . . . ]

Search: planning and priorities in Public Works , Public Works Minister Scott Brison , below the radar , 20 per cent too much , $1.7 billion a year , Auditor General Sheila Fraser





Are the media shilling for Martin? Apr. 28, 05

Did you know that an Environics Research poll released last week found that a startling 73% of Canadians surveyed believe Prime Minister Paul Martin is either "very responsible" or "somewhat responsible" for AdScam?

[. . . . ] But you wouldn't know any of this from the highly selective reporting of this poll last week by the CBC, which commissioned it, and by other media, who, incredibly, portrayed it as a positive finding for Martin. (For alerting me to this controversy, I'm indebted to blogger "Michael" of Winnipeg, who first wrote about it Sunday on his website, bluemapleleaf.blogspot. com). [. . . . ]

Search: Canadian Press , the way the Environics findings were reported




Lax laws invite corruption -- AdScam-type scandals are nothing new for Canada, writes Lorrie Goldstein, and 'throwing the bums out' every few years isn't enough. we need laws with teeth.

LET'S FACE facts. Even if we throw out Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Liberals in the next election -- as we should -- that's not going to end patronage, payoffs and political corruption.

It may seem hard to believe today, but Jean Chretien came into office in 1993 promising to clean out the corruption of the previous Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. Voters were as furious at the Tories then, as they are at the Liberals now.

The problem is, changing parties doesn't end corruption.

[. . . . ]

Search: Democracy Watch notes , none of the people identified as possible violators can be charged, able to retain ownership of Canada Steamship Lines , existing election financing rules? , allows big-time donors to make unlimited , politicians don't have to report , federal ethics commissioner? , only 135 of 306 MPs' disclosure statements , refused to disclose to the committee the names of two MPs , key recommendations by Democracy Watch:

This is a good article; don't miss reading it.




Saudi chief justice urges fighting U.S. -- Comments caught on tape encouraging battle in Iraq Apr. 27, 05

Is Saudi Arabia an ally or enemy of the United States in the war on terror?

The question is raised with the disclosure of secretly recorded comments from the kingdom's chief justice encouraging young Saudis to travel to Iraq to wage war against Americans.

"If someone knows that he is capable of entering Iraq in order to join the fight, and if his intention is to raise up the word of God, then he is free to do so," says Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan in Arabic on the October audiotape from a government mosque, obtained by NBC News. [. . . . ]

"Yes, this is my voice," the sheik confirmed in Arabic. [. . . . ]

Salim Mansur: Liberals' ethnic exploitation to be tested 2005-04-27, London Free Press

An unstated proposition of recent Canadian politics is that ethnic voters help the Liberals hold onto power as the country's natural governing party. [. . . . ]

Ethnic voters are now cultivated assiduously by giving undue weight to their concerns pertaining to politics in their native lands, or their ethnically-based demands here in Canada.

The recent federal announcement -- timed to a looming election campaign -- about relaxing immigration requirements for family unification, irrespective of merit, is an example of blatantly courting ethnic voters.

The anticipated election, when it comes, will test as never before this unstated rule of ethnic voters supporting predominantly that party most opportunistically exploitative of ethnic voters.

EDITORIAL: Confirm or deny, Mr. Martin Apr. 26, 05

Prime Minister Paul Martin, a straight answer, please.

Did you or did you not lead the Liberal caucus in a standing ovation for Jean Chretien on Feb. 9, the day after Chretien appeared before Judge John Gomery to testify about AdScam?

According to what you told the CBC's Rex Murphy on Sunday and the Globe Monday, you now say you didn't. You now say the caucus cheered and you were an innocent bystander.

Really? So does that mean all of the following media accounts of that caucus meeting that appeared Feb. 10 were wrong? [. . . . ]

Andrew Coyne (National Post, Apr. 30, 05) is worth reading on Martin also.

Paul Martin is a disaster, willing to spend any amount of your money to retain power. Are you going to let him?





Lust led to Liberal demise Janet L. Jackson, Apr. 27, 05, Calgary Sun

[. . . . ] Cools also explained how people associate lust with sex, but the lust for power and dominion is just as powerful:

"It makes people act in pretty strange ways," she said.

"When any political organization reaches a stage where its primary drive is ambition and the need for and the holding on to power -- it is most unhealthy. It means the primary drive is no longer actuated by principles of governance. The opinion of the people and caucus are no longer heeded." [. . . . ]

Did you know Anne Cools had left the Liberal Party? Some things don't get much air time on the Liberal Propaganda Channel. This must have been one of those items.




NDP-Grit deal is pointless Apr. 27, 05

The last time NDP Leader Jack Layton got this much media attention was in last year's election campaign -- when he rashly blamed PM Paul Martin for the death of homeless people on Toronto's streets.

[. . . . ] In other words, Layton is temporarily propping up a compromised government in exchange for spending promises that are likely never to become reality -- certainly not under this government. How does this help ordinary Canadians?

As for Martin, he still has no guarantee his budget will pass or his government survive -- plus, he's further established his reputation as a guy who caves in under pressure. What are all those voters who supported him because he was such a fiscally conservative finance minister to think of him scrapping tax cuts and raiding surpluses, however ficticious they may be?