June 18, 2005

Bud Talkinghorn: How low can it go? The Liberals' Gomery play

Update: A new post, "Survivors", has been added after "Saudis import Slaves to America" which I consider to be a "must read" article. I hope readers enjoy the update. NJC




Bud Talkinghorn:

Thanks to CBC's Don Newman, actually, I was able to hear the full contents of the legal letter which the Liberals sent to Chretien's law firm. It stated that the liberals would not oppose Chretien if he wanted to go to the Federal Court to have Gomery declared biased, and hence, the actual report could not be made public. Justice Gomery is incensed by the letter's subtext: "wink-wink, we hope you do go the Federal Court." That could tie up the Inquiry's release for years. As one wit put it, "Martin lives to die another day."

I don't feel it is putting too negative a spin on this story to suggest that the Liberals have a fall-back position. Should the final Gomery Report tar the Liberal Party, in general, then drastic action is called for. This stalling tactic should ignite a bonfire of disgust. However the Liberals know the remedy for placating a furious electorate. Throw billions on that bonfire and the flames die out. If that doesn't work, create some monstruously untrue image of your opponent. It wouldn't be hard to corral the liberal media into pushing that image relentlessly. Anyway, almost everybody already thinks Martin is a liar, so there won't be much reputation damage -- and the government will be saved.

The Opposition found out about the letter's existence about two weeks ago. They hounded Scott Brison and Irvine Cotler about its contents. The Liberals said there was no such letter. Now we know--or are quite certain--that those two are part of the liars club. Almost every day reveals another layer of sleaze in the Liberal Party. It isn't simply about Adscam anymore. Now there are acts of criminality like the Grewal affair, and dirty tactics to thwart justice and a public accounting for their behaviour. Forget the scary Harper hype; what is scarier is that, despite the litany of Liberal corruption, the Liberal stock rises in the polls. Especially in Ontario. Have we come to that apathetic stage where Canadians will keep re-electing this corrupt party? Have we come to expect our elected leaders to be nothing but incompetents, on-the-take grafters, and pathological liars? I sincerely hope not, however, it is drifting in that direction.

© Bud Talkinghorn


Comment:

Bud, IMHO, so many are bought and paid for that we may have a society not fixable if we cannot rid Canada of this climate of corruption and wink, wink, nod, nod complicity, along with the acceptance that this is the way things are done in this best of all possible worlds (liberal/Liberal worlds, anyway). Those who go along with the way things are either cannot add up the true costs and realize how little they are getting for selling out their principles, their souls or the country, but especially for trusting in government's increasing control of all. . . Or, maybe they mean well and are simply deluded by BS and bafflegab, to put the best face on it. Either way, I think democracy and the decent society we used to know are gone forever, destroyed from within and complicity outside the government. While not perfect--none are--past government appeared to be was far superior to what we have in this top-down Liberal-governed one which pays no attention to what the majority want and then feeds us cliched crap about the wonders of it all.

NJC--the Frosted Cynic who would consider drowning her cynicism in some alcoholic libation . . . except that the government taxes alcoholic beverages so highly that death by scotch is impossible. So she lives . . . . to think of these *&#$%&^'s another day . . . and drink milk, politically correct skim milk, of course.


Saudis Import Slaves to America

Saudis Import Slaves to America [New York Sun title: The Problem of Saudi Slavery] Daniel Pipes, New York Sun, June 16, 2005 -- or here

Homaidan Ali Al-Turki, 36, and his wife, Sarah Khonaizan, 35, appear to be a model immigrant couple. They arrived in America in 2000 and now live with their four children in an upscale Denver suburb. Mr. Al-Turki is a graduate student in linguistics at the University of Colorado, specializing in Arabic intonation and focus prosody. He donates money to the Linguistic Society of America and is chief executive of Al-Basheer Publications and Translations, a bookstore specializing in titles about Islam.

Last week, however, the FBI accused the couple of enslaving an Indonesian woman who is in her early 20s. For four years, reads the indictment, they created "a climate of fear and intimidation through rape and other means." [. . . . ]


Search:

* In 1982, a Miami judge issued a warrant to search Prince Turki Bin Abdul Aziz's 24th-floor penthouse to determine if

* In 1988, the Saudi defense attaché in Washington

* In 1991, Prince Saad Bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud and his wife, Princess Noora

* In March 2005, a wife of Saudi Prince Mohamed Bin Turki Alsaud, Hana Al Jader

The rest of the article is, frankly, shocking.

Is this related to a need for oil? Is it not time to develop a new lifestyle?

To begin, I need or will settle for a cheap vehicle--well, something akin to a vehicle--which is small, doesn't cost a fortune to buy nor run, will move a bit faster than a bicycle, but not much more, be adequate for running errands, with enough insulation to keep me warm in winter and maybe a radio -- something that does not require compromising the most basic ideas of human freedoms, security of the individual and independence from others' coercion, because of what powers it. Maybe I would need more if I thought about it, but that is enough to start. We need to end our dependence upon societies like that described in this article because of a need for oil, if that is the cause. If not, someone, enlighten me. Money? How utterly base!


Survivors -- from a reader

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's :


First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while
they carried us.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't
get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored
lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when
we rode our bikes, we had no helmets --not to mention the risks we took
hitchhiking.

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.

Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE
actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar
in it, but we weren't overweight because

WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were
back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride
down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into
the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all,
no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell
phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms...
WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us
forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays,
made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it
would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or
rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't
had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers
and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned

HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!



And if YOU are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS!


You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up
as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our
own good.

And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how
brave their parents were.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't
it? !!!


Thanks to J H-B for this. I do not know the source.


June 17, 2005

Standards & Protocols, Open Source Code, Linux, WAPI -&- Please read and note

Speaking of Control & Hackers

"History can be erased along with free speech -- at the press of a mouse."




Standards & Protocols, Open Source Code, Linux, WAPI and Red Flag Linux

The following may be something to consider. The beauty of the free world is the freedom to search and, perhaps, to learn . . . or to bomb, as I have been known to do. You decide for yourself.

"If you're doing business with Beijing, better bone up on WAPI and Red Flag Linux, too." -- "homegrown Red Flag Linux, based on an open-code operating system."

I have mentioned hackers and/or spammers from a few countries including China, and "Beijing Waei Software Development" before. Subsequently, I searched "beijing waei software development" and found the following which is not current but may be of interest . . . even applicable. Would this have anything to do with current the technology partnerships and other business between Canada and Beijing?

Entry: "posted by minir Scallywag, Aug 2000, Ontario Canada -- The article mentioned is by Stephanie Hoo

BEIJING (AP) -- DVD? China's trying to do it one better -- with a technology called EVD.

CDMA? The digital cell phone standard is so 2003, the Chinese say. Give TD-SCDMA a try instead.

Intel Corp.'s Centrino and Microsoft Corp.'s Windows? If you're doing business with Beijing, better bone up on WAPI and Red Flag Linux, too.

These days, China's dominant message is this: We'll embrace the world -- but on our terms. And nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of high technology, where behind the acronyms is a battle of standards that could have global repercussions.

Pushed by their government, Chinese firms are shunning technological protocols invented abroad and developing their own.


[. . . . ] "Dependency on foreign technology and ways to escape it, I think, have been very important themes in modern Chinese history," said Richard P. Suttmeier, a University of Oregon professor who studies China's technology policy for the National Bureau of Asian Research.

[. . . . ] In some cases, China is tired of paying foreign patent fees for products made and sold domestically -- such as with DVD players, for which Chinese firms must pay $4.50 per machine to the six Japanese companies that developed the underlying DVD technology.

With computer operating systems, the secretive communist government is concerned about relying on a foreign-invented product like Windows. It has been promoting as more secure the homegrown Red Flag Linux, based on an open-code operating system.

While some of China's efforts appear iffy thus far, investors and companies around the world are paying close attention: Nobody wants to miss the boat in selling to 1.3 billion Chinese.

China has to plot a careful strategy, though, or it risks creating domestic standards incompatible with the rest of the world.

A classic example of the consequence is Sony Corp.'s failed Betamax video cassette recorders. Though Betamax is the pioneering technology, it lost out to VHS because Sony wouldn't let other firms make Betamax machines.

Chinese policy is already raising concerns.

In December, U.S. businesses reacted with alarm when Beijing said it would require wireless equipment makers to use a Chinese encryption technique known as WAPI, even though it fails to work well with chips based on the popular Wi-Fi used elsewhere. The U.S. government stepped in, and China agreed to delay the requirement.

[. . . . ] Datang, whose majority owner has close ties with the government, is pushing homegrown 3G technology called TD-SCDMA, following on the heels of CDMA standards used in the United States, Europe and Japan.

[. . . . ] As for shunning CDMA, not only is China already behind on its own version, but it risks isolating itself -- and falling behind the rest of the world. For example, the effort might hurt Chinese companies trying to export cell phones.

"It's a risky strategy," Suttmeier said. "It could backfire."


Has China found a way around this?

In the recent past, was it Bulgaria? Albania? that aligned itself with Chinese standards which meant that some countries in the Eastern Bloc were very limited in their reception of television? (I may have the exact details wrong but I do remember something like this; it would require some research and I have no more time.)

Anyway, as for wireless and cell phones, perhaps the Chinese have found a solution in aligning with Canada--think Nortel, RIM and a few other companies. Then, with so much outsourced to India in programming and in other areas, if China aligned itself with India . . . well, if enough countries get together, the open standards which have been agreed upon in the West and which have contributed to our freedoms -- of expression, democracy and the free flow of knowledge could be severely compromised.

Consider that the Big Cheese in operating systems, Microsoft, has already aligned itself with China to thwart those freedom loving Chinese who might use words like democracy in their communications (e.g. emails, blogs). If those with power and clout (think Canada's push to make deals in China) will sell out their and our birthright--openness, transparency, democracy, freedom--for a mess of pottage, what will come next?

Already, Canadian bloggers have noted items disappearing from our own websites
(government, I believe, but check) -- bloggers who post at The Shotgun (westernstandardblogs.com), which is part of that beacon of press freedom out of Canada's West (www.westernstandard.ca )

Additionally, I noted yesterday what appeared to be Microsoft censorship in that, using their search engine to search for websites posted on Google's Blogger were futile -- though I tried only four, so check for yourself. Perhaps, if Microsoft doesn't include bloggers from its competitor, they don't exist? Is it competitiveness or is there an entirely more sinister alignment at work? You figure it out.

If all is simply a glitch, then, if nothing else, it is something to make you check and think. Consider the implications of allowing too much power to reside in:

* one person

* one political party

* one nation

* one hemisphere

* one company (Think of MS hegemony over the pc)

* one world body purporting to speak for most (Think of the UN, in itself corrupt, apparently--or should one say allegedly? Let's say there is compelling evidence of something amiss. Think of our government's turning to this same UN for our refugee policies -- for what to do about questionable "refugees" and the rights accorded aliens who arrive on our doorstep, aliens who have never contributed to attaining nor keeping those rights, and about which the citizenry have not been asked to make their wishes known through a vote. Yet, these same citizens must pay for what arises out of this. )

* one high court (Think of a world court and how that could be corrupted. . . Think of Canada's Supreme Court whose appointees are not subject to Parliamentary oversight before they are appointed -- a Parliament which is in turn subject to the oversight of the people, though that is eroding every day, as we see the PM and his government disregarding Parliament's votes, committees' reports, et cetera. Think of the pool of candidates from which this one group has made its appointments to our SCOC.)

* one standards / protocol setting body which is not free nor subject to oversight, along with openness and transparency (Think of a Chinese IANA -- In Canada, think of the Charter which is not subject to amelioration and improvement. Think of the notwithstanding clause which should have legitimacy but is unusable in effect. . . Received opinion bruited about by the usual suspects has rendered it unusable in most circumstances--PQ excepted in assymmetrical Canada. Think of how received opinion is pushed by mainstream media, our education system, and in myriad other ways -- almost like a Ministry of Truth . . . . . . )



Think of the implications.

The free world's governance and business models need more than one behemoth to keep tabs on the other and a jockeying back and forth so that no one is allowed to assume overweaning power if we are to preserve our freedoms.

Very disturbing.



Booming India buoys Airbus at show -- IndiGo order for 100 jets underscores growth of market June 17, 05

Boeing expects cell phone service to fly June 17, 05


Hansard: June 16/05 & Question Period -- Too Important Not to Read -- & More

These are too important for all Canadians not to read. You may go to Newsbeat1 or read the posts I consider extremely important here. The webmaster has other links, of course. The Hansard excerpts and the post on Canadians' security are essential reading.




Note: What follows is lengthy so I have chosen some search words and phrases if you are pressed for time:

Foreign Aid , Africa , Overtaxation , Auditor General's investigation , closing RCMP detachments , "industry minister's official agent has been appointed as a director of the Business Development Bank" , "the campaign manager of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has been appointed as the lobbyist for the Canadian Wheat Board" , unplanned surpluses , $4.5 billion slush fund , the environment committee , emissions have gone up , an illegitimate meeting in that no-tell motel room , "Was it not the irresponsible spending during the last coalition of these two parties, the NDP and the Liberals, that ran up this massive debt and cost interest charges of $35 billion to $40 billion per year, which Canadians are having to pay?" , increase in spending that started in the Trudeau years



Hansard

Hansard June 16/05 -- the original



Note: All that follows from Hansard has not been placed in blockquotes.

The Excerpt

Debate on C-48 (NDP Budget) Hansard excerpts - June 16/05 newsbeat1

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak on Bill C-48, a budget bill that was introduced by the Liberal government.


What is important about Bill C-48 is the backroom deal that was made by the NDP and Liberals for the government to stay in power. Originally, Bill C-43, the budget bill, had a lot of sense to it, but when the Liberal government felt threatened it suddenly made a deal with the NDP in Bill C-48, which committed $4.6 billion extra as demanded by the NDP.

Without thinking, without consultation and without any kind of plan, the deal with struck. Now we have a bill before the House that has an additional $4.6 billion for expenditures. It is causing concern across the country because we do not know how the money is going to be spent.


Of course there are vague ideas such as housing, foreign aid and things like that, but there is absolutely no concrete plan because this was struck very quickly. Neither did the NDP members ever have an idea about what they wanted to spend the money on, but because there was an opportunity presented to them they signed a deal and said they wanted $4.6 billion to be spent on certain areas, which they identified.

Now Canadians are stuck with it. Today we are debating the bill. It is not possible under any circumstances for any person who is fiscally responsible to support the bill, because this bill, in its generalities, is just about spending money.

Of course one of the areas that has been targeted is
foreign aid, which the NDP keeps thinking is its domain. I have been in Parliament for almost eight years and have constantly heard from the NDP that it wants to increase the foreign aid budget to 0.07%, because this was a figure that was pulled out of the air and now the United Nations is committed to it. I think that is a substantial sum of money.

But the dynamics have changed. I come from the continent of Africa, which has been a recipient of the largest amount foreign aid for years and years and I have seen the effects when foreign aid is given without a plan and how it becomes a completely ineffective tool of development. Today, Africa and Latin America have not--and I repeat, have not--borne any fruit from the money that has been poured into these countries with good intentions. Today Africa has the highest levels of HIV and poverty. It has an education system and a health care system that are collapsing. So does Latin America.

People have the idea that if we throw money at this, which is what this budget is all about and what the NDP came up with, for some reason or somehow the extra money will solve the problem and we do not need to have a plan.

Even this week Mr. Lewis was crying that there needs to be 0.07%. What I do not understand about the 0.07% issue is how the money is going to be spent for these people. As a former critic of international development, I have gone round the world. I have been to Europe and I have seen the foreign aid budget for Ireland and for the Netherlands and the foreign aid budgets for all these countries that are pouring in more and more money, but for what and how are we going to use it?


Let me give a small example. When the tsunami disaster took place, the world responded with generosity. Suddenly there was all that money coming in, but there was no plan for how to spend it. The money was there, but how would we spend this money? That today is the issue of foreign aid.

¼ +-(1835)

The finance ministers at the G-8 have just wiped out the debts of all these poor countriespans. I do not see anything wrong with that because those countries were being burdened by their debts. They could not spend money on education and social services that were required in their countries because they were paying this heavy debt. There was no tangible economic benefit received for the money that had been borrowed because nobody was interested in seeing how development took place in these countries.

Now we have the same scenario. We have cleaned up the debt. Fine, but what have we really done? We have changed the fundamentals. Let me explain.
Yesterday, even the World Bank president admitted there was a serious flaw. Unless we correct the fundamental flaws that cause poverty in these countries, we can throw as much money as we want at them but nothing much will happen. Let us talk about these fundamental flaws that are causing concern around the world.

Trade barriers to these countries are the largest impediments to development.
Farmers in these countries cannot sell their products to us at all because we put artificial barriers on them. The subsidies that we give out, the thousands and thousands of dollars to agriculture, are hurting all those farmers in those countries. If they cannot sell their products, they will remain beggars. We come along and throw a couple of dollars at them and call it foreign aid, but it does not work. That is a fundamental flaw. We need to change that. The WTO is saying that change is required if we want to take Africa and Latin America out of poverty. That is one of the critical factors.


Another factor is good governance, responsible governance. NEPAD has come into place in Africa to provide good governance to Africans. That is fine. One can understand that we would support NEPAD. If Africans can police themselves well and bring in good governance, we would be happy with that, but the case of Zimbabwe shows that NEPAD has a serious flaw. No one is holding Mr. Mugabe accountable for the simple reason that Mr. Mugabe fought for independence in that country when it was under white rule. Out of courtesy to him and out of courtesy for that war that he fought in the bush, nobody is willing to hold him accountable despite the fact that every factor indicates that Zimbabwe is going down.

How could we expect that these kinds of people will be brought to justice? Mr. Mugabe did his job but it was time for him to move on and he did not. These examples keep going on and on. It does not take long for countries that are not sound to fall down.
We need to stand behind the African countries and tell them they have to have those institutions. We need to support those institutions.

Only recently, CIDA narrowed its focus to 25 countries. Prior to that we were in 106 countries giving a few dollars and doing what? I do not understand what we were doing. Today my colleague questioned the Minister of International Cooperation as to why we give aid to China. China itself is giving foreign aid to other countries and Canada gives foreign aid to China. Somebody needs to knock their heads here. In answer to our questions we hear, “No, we do not give aid to China. We give it to the other institutions to help them”. They have the money for their institutions to move forward. WTO negotiator John Weekes is working to help China in the WTO.

¼ +-(1840)

I could go on and on about foreign aid. It is difficult to support this budget because there is no plan. There is no plan on how we want to spend this thing out here. Hopefully, somebody will hold the government accountable because these are Canadian taxpayers' dollars that we are talking about...

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised an excellent point. It has become shameful for us in Canada. He is absolutely right. We have been going around talking about good governance and telling other countries how they should handle their affairs when we do not look at how we handle our own affairs.

We only need look at what has come out of the Gomery inquiry, and let us not mince words about it. The way the Liberal Party operated in Quebec on the sponsorship scandal with all this money
, one would think one was reading a novel about some dictatorship in a third world country where money was flowing around to buy things. Under no circumstances would one expect something like that in a country like Canada. We would expect that people who are in public service would have honourable intentions and would not take the Canadian taxpayers to the cleaners.

What we have heard is extremely shocking. No wonder Canadians are angry. Let us not even worry about what the foreign aid people in other countries are saying, we Canadians ourselves are angry. When I go out in my riding and talk to my constituents, it is unbelievable the amount of anger that exists.

The Prime Minister of Canada went on national television and stated quite clearly that he was sorry. It is not a question of being sorry. What kind of a message are we giving to our children? What kind of a message are we giving to anybody on what has happened here?

One of the good things about this whole issue is that we do have certain safeguards. One safeguard that brought this issue to light was the Auditor General. I am very happy to say that it was the Auditor General's investigation that brought this issue right out in the open. I have been speaking in Parliament about all the government waste that is going on and nobody listens, but when the Auditor General brought it up, that was the safeguard we had. I am happy to say that part of the Conservative Party's platform is to strength that institution to ensure there is accountability and never again will something like that happen in Canada.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague mentioned that the government has no plan. That is very clear in a number of areas. One of the big issues in my riding right now has to do with safety and security.

We just found out in the last couple of days that five RCMP detachments in the southwest corner of Saskatchewan are going to be closed. These are detachments along the border. We have about 150 miles of border with Montana. The RCMP have decided that they are not going to put resources into that area any more. They are going to pull out.

There will be 100 miles of border that will be basically undefended. There will not be an RCMP officer stationed within 50 miles of the border.
Each of the three points have multiple intersections to highways and as people come away from the border, it is a long time before they get to a place where there is an RCMP detachment. I just wanted to point that out.

In terms of no plan, it is kind of interesting as I have called around and brought this up in the House. The Liberal government said, “It is not our fault. We do not have anything to do with this. It is the province's fault”. When I called the provincial justice minister, he told me, “It is not our fault. We work with the RCMP, but it is really their fault. They allocate the resources”. I spoke to the RCMP and they said, “We really don't make those decisions. We kind of leave that up to the local detachment”. I pointed out to them that I was sure that the detachments could make the decisions to reduce staffing but they sure could not make decisions to increase staffing.

A large area of our province is being left completely unprotected along the border. It is interesting that the Liberals seem to have no plan there, but they do have pretty specific plans in other areas.

We heard this afternoon in question period that the industry minister's official agent has been appointed as a director of the Business Development Bank. It seems the Liberals were able to plan that very well. I have been involved in Wheat Board issues. It is interesting that the campaign manager of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has been appointed as the lobbyist for the Canadian Wheat Board.


I would like the member to comment on why the Liberals seem to be so well organized and so able to plan when it is to their own benefit, but they are so unable to plan when it is to Canadians' benefit.
+-

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for pointing out what is going on in our federation. We are blaming each other. The federal government blames the province, and the province blames the federal government. This playing goes on all day.

When I go out in my riding Canadians are saying, “We don't care who you are. Get the job done”. It is as simple as A, B, C. We have provincial agreements and we could easily sit down and talk with each other to find solutions. Our duty is to help Canadians.

This afternoon a colleague asked a question regarding the fiscal imbalance. The federal government keeps taking in money but how much money is it putting back into Canada?

During the election campaign, we saw all the expenditures. The Liberal government says that it is giving money to the cities, but it was the Liberals who starved the cities. The Prime Minister was the finance minister for how many years? Today as we look around, the cities, infrastructure, defence, everything everywhere is crying for money.

My colleague from Saskatchewan has pointed out another example where I am sure that the government decided to take the money out to save the expenditure. Of course, that was not part of the NDP deal and that is why the RCMP does not have the money now. After all, this budget bill is $4.9 billion for the NDP so the Liberal government can survive.

The common sense approach that the member was asking about, I would not expect that from the government side.

Mr. James Rajotte: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member. I know that he has a fine mind, but he is twisting himself into a pretzel to defend this legislation.

The fact is that he and his colleague, the Minister of Finance, defended the first budget bill as a perfect bill and a month later they are twisting themselves into pretzels, saying, “Whoops, we missed $4.6 billion. We are going to have to put this in”. It is a perfect budget now, they say, after they have changed it by $4.6 billion.

He talks about the issue of unplanned surpluses. The reality is that the finance minister in the last election stood up and criticized our party when he said that there was no way we could afford those things we talked about because the surplus was $1.9 billion. We all know what he said after the election. He said, “Whoops, I got that wrong too. It is actually $9.1 billion”. Maybe he is dyslexic and he got the numbers mixed up, but that shows what this government is doing with its own surpluses. It has no idea. That is one of the concerns: it has no idea in terms of fiscal forecasting.

Second, on the whole issue of “enabling legislation”, that is a euphemism. This is a $4.5 billion slush fund. That is what this is. After closely watching this government operate for 2000, I have absolutely no confidence whatever in its ability to manage or spend taxpayer dollars.

I will give another example of that. In the budget of February 23--

Hon. John McKay: Eight surpluses in a row.

Mr. James Rajotte: Because the government has been overtaxing Canadians.

In the budget of February 23, the government said that if it spent $5 billion it would implement the Kyoto protocol. Three weeks later, the government said it was sorry, but it got that wrong and it was going to have to spend $10 billion.

At the environment committee, I know that the member for Essex and the member for Red Deer looked at where the money is going. They cannot find out where the money is going. It has gone off into various programs. We cannot find out where it has gone. While the government has actually spent about $2 billion, emissions have gone up.

That is the fiscal record of this government. It is absolutely disastrous. The only reason it has surpluses is that it has been overtaxing Canadians.

That is my final point. The Liberals have no concept of the fact that average Canadians are working harder and harder, even according to Don Drummond, and there is no increase in their take-home pay. That is fundamentally wrong and it needs to change.
+-

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thought the member for Edmonton—Leduc really hit the nail on the head when he talked about the irresponsibility of this Liberal-NDP coalition budget. It is really illegitimate.

I was on the finance committee during the prebudget hearings. We heard from a lot of Canadians about what they wanted. We thought the budget in Bill C-43 set out the priorities that government thought important. We thought that was its agenda for the year. Then we found out that they had an illegitimate meeting in that no-tell motel room in Toronto and produced an illegitimate budget as a result.

The member for Edmonton--Leduc was talking about the debt. I would like to ask him a question. Was it not the irresponsible spending during the last coalition of these two parties, the NDP and the Liberals, that ran up this massive debt and cost interest charges of $35 billion to $40 billion per year, which Canadians are having to pay?
+-

Mr. James Rajotte:
Mr. Speaker, I will address the last issue first. It was the debt; it was the increase in spending that started in the Trudeau years, from 1968 until about 1984, that caused the increase. There was a $200 billion debt at that time because of the way the system was set up.


An hon. member: Mulroney figured it out before that.

Mr. James Rajotte: The member knows there is a lag in terms of when economic policy is implemented and it actually takes effect.

The fact is that the Liberal-NDP coalition set it up so that the Conservatives had a very difficult time in office. Operationally there was a surplus in terms of incoming money, but the problem was what I referred to earlier: the debt was so big at that time. The yearly payments to service that debt were so large that it caused an increase in the debt up to $400 billion.

Those members created the problem and they are making it worse with what they are doing right now.
+-


End of that excerpt from Hansard


Note: Search topics

National Security
Border Security
Government Appointments -- Do not miss this one
Whistleblower Legislation
Firearms Registry
Foreign Affairs



Question Period- Hansard excerpts- June 16/05

National Security

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for some time there has been growing evidence of a large spy network being operated in Canada by the Chinese government. Today the former head of the CSIS Asia desk confirmed reports from defectors that close to a thousand Chinese government agent spies had infiltrated Canada.

The Prime Minister has been evading answering this. I want to ask him very directly. Did the Prime Minister explicitly raise this violation of our sovereignty when he met with leading Chinese government officials in Beijing earlier this year?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I dealt extensively with Canada's interests. I dealt extensively with Canada's sovereignty and the need to respect state sovereignty between countries.

It is also well known that Canada maintains a vigorous counter-intelligence program to safeguard Canada's security. It is also very clear, and Canadians can rest assured, that we maintain a very strong law enforcement and security system that will enable them to be assured of their own protection and security.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, judging from that answer, the Prime Minister did not explicitly raise this issue. Not only does a foreign spy network undermine our security, it is in this case damaging our economic interests.

Today the former head of the CSIS Asia desk has said that the Chinese government is engaged in industrial espionage that costs our economy $1 billion a month.

Would the Prime Minister tell us whether he or anyone in his government has ever issued a formal protest of any kind for this type of activity in Canada by the Chinese government?

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we always take all these allegations very seriously. Clearly, we enjoy a very constructive dialogue with China. We work with the Chinese. We expect from them respect for our sovereignty. When they are here, they are meant to respect our Canadian laws.

When things are brought to our attention, we refer them to the appropriate authorities in our country.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, those are non-answers to a serious question of security and national sovereignty. We should be getting answers and they should be coming from the leader of the country.

It is a matter of public record that a foreign government is spying on the activities of Canadian citizens and engaging in industrial espionage. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether his government plans to do anything at all about this in the future?


¸ (1420)

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear, as I was yesterday. CSIS and the RCMP are engaged in an ongoing basis in ensuring that the collective security and economic interests of our country are protected.

I have said before that I will not discuss operational detail. I can reassure the hon. member that CSIS and the RCMP do everything that is necessary and required, based on the circumstances of any given situation, to protect the collective security of Canadians.

* * *

Border Security

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that the Prime Minister will not get up and answer a question about this file.

Yesterday the Senate committee issued a scathing report about the Liberal government's inaction on securing key border crossings.
Among the problems, border crossings remain vulnerable because of the lack of pre-clearance or reverse inspections. It will be six years after the signing of the smart borders declaration before a pilot project on pre-clearances will begin, let alone be completed.

The report says:

At that pace today’s children will have grey hair before reverse inspection is the norm across the country.

When will the government introduce an implementation plan for pre-clearances at the border crossings as--

The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is very serious about security, which is why we have been working so closely with our American neighbours to ensure that we identify low risk goods and low risk people so they can cross the border in an unimpeded fashion.

The hon. member talks about getting serious about security. We have spent $9.5 billion since September 11, 2001. Another $433 million has been committed in the last budget to ensure the CBSA has the resources to do the job at our borders.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the all party Senate committee, including Liberal senators, said that the government was not serious about security. In fact, they say that security is failing.

Over 1,600 vehicles ran the border last year. RCMP detachments are being closed. In most cases police officers cannot respond in a timely manner to border calls because they are either not there or they are not close enough.

Our border officials have bullet proof vests, but they do not have sidearms to stop dangerous travellers. The Senate committee said they should.

When is the safety of our border officials going to come first? Why have firearms and the appropriate training not been made available to our front line security officers in our country?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, let us go back to the whole question of running the border. I wonder if the hon. member knows how many border crossings there are every year between Canada and the United States. There are 71 million and all but a handful are legal crossings where either the American customs people or our customs people are interacting with those individuals.

In relation to the question of firearms, this is an issue of long-standing debate. I certainly understand the demands of the union in question. We have done numerous job hazard analyses and all those analyses have indicated that--

Border Security

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my constituency borders the United States for 150 miles. The RCMP is closing five detachments along that border. The result is that 100 miles of the international border will be left unprotected.

Why is the government deliberately abandoning my constituents and Canadian border security?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the province, as the hon. member is probably aware, establishes the level of funding for provincial police services in the province.

In relation to the detachments in question, it is my understanding that the provincial government, the attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan, is in agreement with the approach being taken by the force.

These are matters that are left up to the force in discussion with the provincial government because they are in the province under a contract with the government of Saskatchewan

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is not a provincial issue. It is happening all the way across Canada. This is a populated area of 5,000 square miles left without a single permanent RCMP officer or detachment. It will have 100 miles of unprotected border.

In the last two months the government has spent money like drunken sailors. The other night it just approved another $65 million for a useless gun registry.

With all that spending, why is there not enough money to provide my constituents with the same basic services that are granted to other Canadians?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member perhaps talk to the provincial government in Saskatchewan. These decisions, as it relates to the deployment within the province where they are policing under contract, are dealt with in conjunction and consultation with the provincial government.

The hon. member should probably talk to the government of Saskatchewan.........

Government Appointments

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last year during his “mad as hell tour”, the Prime Minister promised to condemn to history the politics of cronyism and patronage.

Now we learn that the industry minister's official agent in the last election campaign, Mr. Bracken-Horrocks, has been appointed to the board of directors of the Business Development Bank of Canada. Why did the Prime Minister break his promise to end patronage and cronyism?

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is a classic example of where an appointment that is made purely on the basis of merit is brought into disrepute.

Mr. Bracken-Horrocks is one of the top accountants in this country. He has never been a federal Liberal. He is regarded by the chairman of the board and the board of directors of BDC as one of the best appointments made to that board.

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that this appointment clearly demonstrates that the Prime Minister broke his promise. The industry minister appointed his own official agent, according to Elections Canada, his top volunteer, the person who signs off on his election returns, to the Business Development Bank of Canada, a government bank that reports to the minister himself.

Does the minister not see anything wrong with appointing his own official agent to a bank for which he himself has responsibility?

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, some of the members opposite could learn a few lessons from the practices that we have applied here. We brought in one of the top accountants in this country, an accountant I met through my professional associations on boards of directors, an experience, I am sure, that none of the members opposite have had.

We brought pure competence into the political process to make sure it had integrity.........

Whistleblower Legislation

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as it stands, the Liberals' whistleblower legislation does more to discourage than to protect whistleblowers.

Without an independent commissioner to hear their disclosures, whistleblowers have no protection.


The Conservative Party has a challenge for the Liberals. Give us an independent body to protect civil servants, or the bill will die in committee. Will the minister choose independence or death?

¸ (1450)

[English]

Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member will be patient for another 40 minutes he will have his answer. He knows full well that I will be going before the committee to discuss that very issue.

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party, along with every stakeholder and expert, has consistently demanded an independent office to protect whistleblowers and investigate their disclosures.

The dithering has to end now. I have an ultimatum for the minister: either he amends his bill to create an independent commissioner who reports directly to Parliament, or the Conservative Party will make sure the bill dies in committee. Independence or death, which will it be?

Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly how those who would govern conduct themselves. The reality is that the other parties in this House have struggled hard to make a bill that is the best possible protection for public servants while that party has played games. We will talk at the committee.....


Firearms Registry

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is an even bigger scandal waiting for Justice John Gomery to investigate.

The government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on computer contracts to implement the gun registry and plans to spend hundreds of millions more on computer contracts in the years ahead.

To put this spending into perspective, we can register 40 million cows for $8 million.

Will the minister please explain why it has cost $1 billion to register only seven million guns?


¹ (1500)

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this program has an $85 million cap. The operating budget for the entire program in 2005-06 is $82.5 million.

As it relates to the gun registry component of the program, we imposed a $25 million cap in 2005-06. In fact, the registry component of the program will cost only $15.7 million. In fact the costs of this program, since 2000, have gone down consistently.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that the minister still refuses to take responsibility for her role in this federal firearms fiasco.

The cattle industry can locate a cow in any barnyard in Canada in seconds. The gun registry still cannot locate hundreds of thousands of gun owners and is still missing millions of guns.

How many lives could have been saved if we had spent this wasted billion on DNA analysis, cancer research or more police on the streets?

The gun registry is either a huge scandal or gross incompetence. Which is it?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, the costs of this program are under control and going down.

Let me also share with the hon. member that since December 1, 1998, more than 13,500 individual firearm licences have been refused or revoked. The program is accessed over 2,000 times a day by front line police officers.

In spite of the ongoing protestations of the hon. member, it is time he pulled his head out of the sand and understood that--

Foreign Affairs

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga—Erindale, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, four million Palestinian refugees have been living under dire conditions for over 50 years. They subsist on voluntary yearly donations from some UN countries. This year's budget of $350 million is grossly inadequate.


As a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees, is Canada willing to initiate talks at the UN to ensure Palestinians get the same treatment as convention refugees, guaranteeing basic human rights, adequate funding and international protection until such time as UN resolutions, such as 194, are implemented?

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian refugees are in a unique political and humanitarian situation.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees, the UNRWA, was established prior to the refugee convention relating to the status of refugees. It was given specific authority to provide assistance to Palestinian refugees.

Reflecting this unique political situation of the Palestinian refugees, the international community, through the UN General Assembly, requires UNRWA to continue to provide humanitarian assistance pending a political situation.


That ends the Hansard excerpts.





Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness -- EVIDENCE -- CONTENTS Wednesday, May 4, 2005 -- or read the excerpt: Chinese spying- rest assured?- government takes these matters very, very seriously? newsbeat1, June 17, 05



John Podhoretz: Over the line June 17, 05 -- Durbin



Feds set to add to Adscam lawsuit tally CP / Toronto Sun, June 17, 05

Chretien 'kept in the dark' -- "Jean Chretien urged the judge he once accused of bias to preserve his reputation by declaring him blameless in the sponsorship scandal." June 17, 05

Is anyone from the ADSCAM / Sponsorship fund / slush fund government ever responsible?

What bothers Canadians is that they have to pay for the lawyers.


June 16, 2005

Speaking of Control & Hackers

Update added at the bottom of this post. NJC


I just heard from a friend in California who informed me that he cannot view any of Frost Hits the Rhubarb after May 8, 05. I have no idea why, but I just checked Microsoft's search engine and guess what? No way could I find anything current. I could find old webpages but today's? No. Then I checked Dogpile search engine and, guess what? Same thing. Yet, with Google, I can find it easily.

Bud Talkinghorn's posts do show up, apparently, but none of mine. How very intriguing and how very controlled we seem to be! History can be erased along with free speech -- at the press of a mouse. Incidentally, Microsoft has been trying to entice me with numerous emails to start a Microsoft blog and I've not had the time to do so. Now, guess what I'll do.

Obviously, something is wrong. Or is Microsoft practising for its new deal with China and censorship? Scroll down for today's post on that. This is VERY DISTURBING! Of course, if Microsoft is willing to help China censor and hence control its populace, what would it do for Canada's powerful ones? For dictatorships around the world?

Also, I just now heard that Asian hackers are wreaking havoc in the UK. See whether you too can see a pornographic female on your television. Also, breaking news: Equifax has been hit by hackers mostly affecting BC.




http://www.freedominion.ca

I have a really [sic] problem with the fact that we have people on welfare that are disabled and cannot work and have never contributed to things like CPP. They have the added cost of their disability and receive a welfare payment that puts them in the predicament of not being able to feed them selves properly or live in reasonable housing. This reminds me of a not well know [sic] fact that I read that was I think in an article by the Star a while back.........

Quote:

The federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890 and each can also get an additional $580 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.



Pay pensioners same as refugees? the Star...May 28th 2004

[. . . . ] I found the story I was referring to [. . . ]

Re New refugee plan eyes small cities March 11 2004. [. . . . ]

I also found it interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890 and each can also get an additional $580 in social assistance for a total of $2,470. This compares “very well” to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement.


The source: I WANT TO BE A REFUGEE.....AIN'T THIS THE TRUTH International Edition Issue 01/2004, Passage, Colonel J.G. “Tony” Poulin DSO, CD, R22eR



Governance 1: Hansard June 15/05, Whistleblowing, Arar, Gomery-Spin, Blind Trusts, Grewel Tapes, Public Accounts--AG, Inuit, Scandal, Global Warming

Question Period- Hansard excerpts-June 15/05

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery has written to the government demanding that it reverse its deal with Jean Chrétien. Through his lawyer, Justice Gomery says that the arrangement is not in the public interest. In fact, his lawyer says that “the ability of Justice Gomery to complete his work will be put in jeopardy”. He asked the government directly to either expedite Mr. Chrétien's accusations of bias or have them withdrawn.

Will the government end the arrangement with Mr. Chrétien as Justice Gomery demands, yes or no?

[. . . . ] Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these answers by the Prime Minister are simply not factually correct. Here is what the Prime Minister is doing. He had an exchange of letters, call it what they will, behind Justice Gomery's back. Justice Gomery was not even informed about this. It was contrary to the undertaking the Attorney General had made.

Now Justice Gomery is demanding, in his correspondence of June 6, very specific action by the government. Is the government willing to take that action or is it going to continue to work hand in hand with Chrétien's lawyers? [. . . . ]

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, when we raised the possibility of Chinese espionage in Canada . . . .

[. . . . ]Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the government why it was giving aid to China . . . .

[. . . . ] Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on May 23, Judge Gomery said that government officials had “leaked” misleading information about the cost of his commission. . . .

What they did was...put together the fees of everyone in the Justice Department that worked on the file, the photocopies...and God knows what other expenses that were totally beyond the commission's control.

Will the public works minister confirm that it was his communications director who phoned the media with this misleading information to discredit Judge Gomery?



Check this one out. Note the empty answers -- e.g. from the PM, one of which includes reference to "The South Beach Diet"

Search: China Feed Industry Centre , the development programs taking place in China , Why did he use his communications director to undermine

Scroll down newsbeat1 and do not miss reading "Whistleblower Legislation" with its links.

Question Period provides few answers but you may find out a few very important aspects of what has been going on.




Mountie wants to be free to tell full Arar story

A senior RCMP officer wants the federal government to waive its national security claims before he testifies next week at the inquiry into Maher Arar's deportation to Syria.


Is this a case of needing effective whistleblower legislation to protect the whistleblower, as opposed to protecting the government?



Judge Gomery: "the word is spin."

Federal lawyers ask Gomery to clear PM -- Attempt to 'exonerate' Martin from sponsorship fallout 'improper,' Tories charge

[. . . . ] The government's written submission, which has yet to be made public, aims to clear Mr. Martin of any involvement in the now-defamed program, arguing he wasn't aware of the problems with the program until 2001.

But lawyers for the Conservative party said the government's claims are tantamount to asking Judge Gomery to "exonerate" Mr. Martin, an "improper" request that goes beyond the commission's mandate. Judge Gomery's mandate does not allow him to lay blame. Rather, his fact-finding report is aimed at chronicling what went wrong and how the sponsorship program went off the rails. [. . . . ]


Search: contract for research work


Chretien, Pelletier, Gagliano lawyers cost taxpayers $1M before clients testified

Lawyers for Jean Chretien, Jean Pelletier and Alfonso Gagliano cost Canadian taxpayers more than $1 million before the trio had even testified before the Gomery commission, documents obtained through the Access to Information Act reveal.



Editorial: How can we trust them? -- on blind trusts

Given the recent controversy surrounding Transportation Minister Harinder Takhar, we'd like Premier Dalton McGuinty to explain to Ontarians exactly what a "blind trust" is.

How is it "blind" when Takhar knows . . . .

How is it "blind" when his wife is . . . .


Are there any other blind trusts that would bear checking?




COMMITTEE URGES GOVERNMENT TO CLARIFY FOUNDATION ACCOUNTING ISSUES; $7.6 BILLION IN ASSETS AT STAKE News Release, Ottawa, June 02, 2005

Mr. John Williams, Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, today tabled a report recommending that the federal government clarify its accounting practices for transfers to foundations. At stake is some $7.6 billion in foundation bank accounts (as of March 31, 2004) that presently is not included in the federal government’s balance sheet.

In its twelfth report, the Committee also praised the government for acting on its longstanding recommendations to allow the Auditor General to conduct performance audits of foundations. Specifically, Part 7 of Bill C-43 amends the Auditor General Act to extend the Auditor General’s audit power to foundations and certain Crown corporations.

If Bill C-43 does receive parliamentary approval, the Committee recommended that the Auditor General immediately conduct a performance audit of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). Between 1996-97 and 2003-04, the CFI received some $3.65 billion from the federal government and paid out $1.23 billion in grants, accumulating $740 million in interest on investments in the interim. The CFI’s funding agreement requires the foundation to commit all of its funds by 31 December 2010.

Elsewhere, the Committee recommended that the government amend foundation funding agreements to allow the government to align foundation policy with major policy changes. Presently, the government can only affect foundation policy when it establishes a new foundation or transfers additional money to an existing foundation. [. . . . ]




Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, June 2005, John Williams, MP, Chair




Tories offer deal over same-sex bill -- Won't stall budget bill if Liberals delay controversial legislation Alexander Panetta, CP, Jun. 16, 05

[. . . . ] The Tories have threatened to put up 90 speakers to oppose and delay the budget bill, said sources in another opposition party.

Such a tactic would force the Liberals to make a politically sensitive decision: suspend debate, extend the Commons session into the summer, or delay a budget vote until fall.

[. . . . ] "If we can get that, it'll be worth our while to see (the budget bill) C-48 go. Because eventually they're going to get C-48 anyway."

Earlier this month, Prime Minister Paul Martin seemed to promise the Commons would not rise for the summer until the same-sex bill had passed. [. . . . ]





House clears historic land claims deal -- would give Inuit control of a major portion of northern Labrador-- must now be approved by the Senate CP, June 16, 05



Bloc demands $5.4M Liberal repayment June 16, 05


A Scandal So Immense: An excellent summary of what has been happening in Canada via Western Standard / The Shotgun

[. . . . ] And, if you think the [David] Frum article is just about Gomery then you did not read it. It is about the stench of a corrupt regime that does not respect democracy for YOU as a citizen. If you are not concerned then one would have to surmise that you are somehow part of the payola crowd who defends this mob for the indefensible.




More than 30% of teens fail national science test

I believe NB scored the lowest. Isn't that sad? Check out these kids' self-esteem.




Global Warming

Arctic natives: U.S. warming policy is abuse -- Inuit, who rely on ice, preparing human rights petition -- ice cap has decreased -- 1979 to 2003 photo comparisons Jun. 15, 05

OSLO, Norway - Inuit hunters threatened by a melting of the Arctic ice plan to file a petition accusing the United States of violating their human rights by fuelling global warming, an Inuit leader said on Wednesday. [. . . . ]


Is the Kyoto Accord going to change this or simply allow other countries to use our pollution credits (if that is what this is termed) to pollute from their areas? Check previous posts for scientists' views which present another side of this debate -- views that are not part of our government's "allowable" dialogue nor discussion points. Is there a hidden agenda when certain views are not promoted--or is it not allowed to be promoted--in the MSM and in other ways, film, etc.?


Related: here

Aid-Africa, UN & Communist Bloc, Pakistan-Iran-Nuclear, China-US-Canada & Spy Companies, Microsoft & Censorship

U.S. taking harder line toward China — on all fronts Sol Sanders, June 9, 05

Sol W. Sanders, (solsanders@comcast.net), is an Asian specialist with more than 25 years in the region, and a former correspondent for Business Week, U.S. News & World Report and United Press International. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.

In a speech to strategists gathered in Singapore, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld asked the big question. “Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases? Why these continuing robust deployments?” Rumsfeld went on to talk about the failure of Chinese leadership to offer political participation to its people. That, he said, has proved in other parts of the world to be the only way to produce stable and friendly relations with other powers. But, in fact, Beijing has begun a new crackdown on dissidents and internet communications.





3,500 Chinese spy companies identified in Canada and U.S Aug 7, 2003, Asian Pacific News Service

[. . . . ] The FBI is warning lawmakers that China has more than 3,000 "front" companies in the US whose real purpose is to direct espionage efforts. In Canada, similar warnings involving an estimated 500 firms have fallen on deaf ears. The situation is now being called the most significant threat to North America's security.

When Canada‘s Nortel Telecommunications based in Brampton, Ontario wanted to do business in China, they hired Katrina Leung‘s company — Merry Glory Ltd.

Little did they know that 49-year-old corporate matchmaker would be in the limelight several years later accused of having have slept her way into the good graces of two FBI agents while stealing secrets for the Chinese government.

Leung, who was paid $1.2 million in 1995 and 1996 for negotiating the Nortel-China deal, has strong connections to Canada‘s Chinese business associations.

Around the same time, the modern day Matahari was greasing the way for Nortel, the Canadian spy agency — CSIS — was conducting an investigation in the offices of Ontario Hydro regarding the theft of information in the nuclear technology field by ‘an individual of Chinese origin‘.

According to a secret intelligence report obtained by The Asian Pacific Post, the individual sent unauthorized faxes, some containing hours worth of data, to a telephone number in the offices of the State Science and Technology Commission of China.


The report said that there were two other cases where Canadian companies have alleged that their employees had been selling industrial secrets to China.

Like other ambitious young men who based their businesses in Hong Kong, James Ting was a citizen of the world, an entrepreneur who constructed a universe of interrelated companies and finances from Toronto to Tokyo to New York.

Ting was a darling of the Chinese-Canadian trade lobby. Even the Prime Minister‘s Office website lists Ting‘s Semi-Tech, once ranked as the nation‘s 10th largest employer, as a member of Team Canada?s [sic] business deals with China.

On the flip side, spy watchers were warning Ottawa without much success, that Ting was China‘s frontman to acquire high and medium technology and engage in economic and industrial espionage.

Among the companies Semi-Tech showed as part of its organization were several Chinese state-owned companies, related to military and intelligence activities obviously using what seemed to be a Canadian consumer based company as cover.
[. . . . ]


Check: Do you recognize those in the photos accompanying this article?

Thanks to Jack's Newswatch for posting a link to this yesterday.




Microsoft censors Chinese portal blogs Curt Woodward, AP, Jun. 14, 05

SEATTLE (AP) -- Microsoft Corp. is cooperating with China's government to censor the company's newly launched Chinese-language Web portal, a spokesman for the tech giant said.

The policy affects Web logs, or blogs, created through the MSN Spaces service, said Adam Sohn, a global sales and marketing director at MSN. [. . . . ]

MSN China is a joint venture with Shanghai Alliance Investment Ltd., an investment company funded by the Chinese government. Shanghai Alliance invests in new economic development in Shanghai and other parts of China.

China's estimated online population is 87 million, second only to the United States.


The Canadian government is encouraging business with an authoritarian and oppressive regime such as China's. While, admittedly, free trade eventually acts like the tides in that it raises all boats, in the meantime, many of our own boats are being swamped, along with the rowers. (e.g. Canada's textile industry)




Mounties uncover 'Al Qaeda' cache -- Plans, tapes diaries seized at Pearson --Zaynab Khadr denies they belong to her Michelle Shephard, June 14, 05

OTTAWA—The RCMP and Canadian military believe they've discovered a vital cache of information on Al Qaeda that includes the whereabouts of wanted members and details of attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The information is allegedly contained in a laptop, dozens of DVDs, audiocassettes and the pages of diaries, seized by the RCMP officers who met Zaynab Khadr at Pearson airport with a search warrant as she arrived back in Canada in February, court documents state. [. . . . ]





Sheikh Palazzi on CAIR and CAIR-Canada Posted by IsraPundit on 21:56:42 2005/05/31 -- or check IsraPundit

An IsraPundit e-interview with Prof Palazzi

Recently, the press reported about three issues related to Islam: the State Department representative talk to CAIR, the Oriana Fallaci affair, and the desecration of the Koran in Guantanamo. I asked Sheikh Palazzi to comment on the three issues, and with his permission, I am posting his responses below.

[. . . . ] IsraPundit: Similarly, is there an established connection between CAIR Canada and terrorist organizations?

Sheikh Palazzi: In contrast with what happened with CAIR U.S., no criminal charges have ever been filed against CAIR Canada or any of its officers. Even so, the links between the two organizations do exist, and are not limited to the name. On its Web site and in its publications, CAIR lists CAIR Canada as one of its local affiliates, giving it the same status as a state or regional CAIR chapter. On December 30, 2004, both CAIR and CAIR Canada were named as defendants in 9/11 Terror Lawsuit. One reads therein: "Council on American Islamic Relations and CAIR Canada [ ] have aided, abetted, and materially sponsored and al Qaeda and international terrorism. CAIR is an outgrowth of the Hamas front group the Islamic Association of Palestine. The FBI's former associate director in charge of Investigative and Counter-Intelligence Operations described the Islamic Association of Palestine as an organization that has directly supported Hamas military goals and is a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants. It has produced videotapes that are very hate-filled, full of vehement propaganda. It is an organization that has supported direct confrontation []. CAIR and CAIR-Canada have, since their inception, been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism. These organizations play a unique role in the terrorist network. They emanate from the notorious HAMAS terrorist organization and like so many of the terrorism facilitating charities named and indicted by the United States government they are engaged in fund raising under the guise of assisting humanitarian causes they are, in reality, a key player in international terrorism."

I hope the related trial will contribute to make the connections between CAIR, CAIR Canada, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood even more evident and documented.
[. . . . ]





Aid and debt relief won't help Africa, head of pro-business think tank says

Sending billions in aid to Africa is like pouring water "into leaky bowls," says the head of an African pro-market think-tank.




UN & the Communist Bloc

Bolton's Bravery by Ion Mihai Pacepa -- or the original article here

[. . . . ] I spent two decades of my other life as a Communist spy chief, struggling to transform the U.N. into a kind of international socialist republic. The Communist bloc threw millions of dollars and thousands of people into that gigantic project. According to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, all employees from Eastern Bloc nations were involved in espionage. The task of this espionage army was not to steal secrets but to use the U.N. to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred for Israel’s main supporter, the United States. The U.N. became our petri dish, in which we nurtured a virulent strain of hatred for America, grown from the bacteria of Communism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. [. . . . ]





Iranian nuclear chief admits ties to Pakistan -- Promises more uranium enrichment if EU talks fail Preston Mendenhall, NBC, Jun. 15, 05

[. . . . ] In an exclusive interview with NBC News, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, acknowledged Pakistan's help.

[. . . . ] U.S. intelligence says those intermediaries were part of a network headed by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program. Officials believe Khan earned more than $50 million selling nuclear expertise as well as equipment to Libya, North Korea and Iran. All are on the U.S. terrorist list. [. . . . ]



Unacceptable in a Civilized Society!

Montreal police bust child prostitution ring -- Girls as young as 12: Six people charged for targeting naive runaways

[. . . . The ] gang targeted runaway teenagers who were vulnerable, naive and impressionable.

[. . . . ] "They seduce young girls who have been conditioned by society that beauty is everything," he said. "The pimps profess their love for the girls and they end up doing anything for them."


Search: "The girl's pimp had his name tattooed on"

Combine this with our government's dereliction of a duty to support the best upbringing for children, which includes optimally, two opposite sex parents supported by society's legal structures, that is, married -- and parenting, one parent at home actually looking after the children while the other works. How far would a child get in running away if a parent were there watching, involved, aware, and ready to pounce to prevent greater harm to the child?

Instead, our government has been supporting and encouraging:

* the family where two parents are working -- They then pay higher taxes which government decides how to use -- hence government is growing ever larger and looming ever larger in everyone's lives -- and hence two incomes are becoming essential. Then, the children are raised by others or on their own too much. Children need parental supervision and training.

* the emphasis on government--even corrupt government--as a better provider than the individual and the family making personal decisions and plans on their own and responsible for the results

* the failure to curb that which denigrates the family:

* what appears to me to be pornographic material in the media, e.g. on television -- Children are drawn to this because it is there -- instead of not there at all. It is "sort of -- kind of" forbidden territory they are naturally curious about and they don't need the media to add to decent parents' woes.

* a strong sex-offender and pimp registry to protect children by allowing families to learn of predators in their area and to act on this

* legislation which would support parents or those acting in loco parentis (where parents don't / won't act) to take children/teens off the streets and off drugs -- e.g. glue sniffing children from Labrador returned to the same situation, uncured of their habit -- e.g. a drug or alcohol addicted mother allowed to continue to reproduce -- In this case, I think a society has a right to see that she does not produce more drug or alcohol damaged children and a right to act for the child already produced.

* advertising which objectifies women and emphasizes beauty and independence from men instead of the complementarity of the relationship between women/mothers and men/fathers -- When did you last see a strong father portrayed? Enlist the aid of the advertising council. My favourite solution would be for parents to note the brand and product and refuse to buy it.

* advertising which overwhelmingly shows men as stupid dupes and women as intelligent or dominant -- the lesson? Who needs fathers, strong fathers or traditional marriage?

* promoting games, fun, winning, chance, lotteries, something for nothing -- instead of study, work, responsibility, et cetera -- a host of homely, but essential virtues for individual, family and societal health -- along with play outdoors, community-centred inexpensive games and exercise which include all, not just the promising athletes


* allowing the taxpayer funded CBC to join in talking about and treating as "news", items about celebrities or those related to someone who once had power, as though to imply that these are worth the amount of attention given. This tells children that the worst examples are news worthy -- Michael Jackson springs to mind. Whether guilty or not, he's not exactly a role model for children and why the emphasis in all of our mainstream media? Why is our government not promoting the best of people as examples? They use the MSM for their own purposes by virtue of their clout so, for the good of the family, this is an area in which to exercise power for good.

* the extreme effort to equate SSM with traditional marriage -- marriage which has been the legal and societal framework that, according to research, best supports and protects children -- Add SSM to the government's decision to make divorce easier and to recognize common law "marriages" as having legitimacy after--is it a year?--and we are witnessing the government's work in destroying the framework which has supported children over centuries.

* the laxity in according the two parent, male-female family all the support necessary to maximize this best setting if our children are to be protected from predators

* the funding of and according status to feminists / feminist groups while refusing funding and status to groups more traditional in nature, groups that argue against what they see happening to the family -- e. g. Real Women (I suspect, but do not know, whether that lack of funding covers United Mothers, anything connected to religion, that kind of thing.)

* the refusal to encourage open discussion of practices such as partial birth abortion,which might lead to recognition of the foetus as having rights, along with pushing abortion as a right to choose (to kill an unwanted foetus) -- What does this do to the idea of sacrificing oneself for the good of anything else?

* the lack of pressure to ensure predators be punished severely -- while bending over backwards to protect the 'rights' of criminals, especially for the criminals who prey on children


There are probably many more ideas I cannot think of at present but the upshot may be, I fear, the breakdown of the family and our society if this does not change.

Related: an article on crystal methamphetamines from the National Post, June 14, 05, A17, by Todd Klinck: The party drug that kills


Governance 2, Identity Theft, Gays' Agenda? Hansard June 13/05. Grewel Tapes, Immigration

Security: Identity Theft

Don't print full card numbers on receipts David Canton, Jun. 14, 05

[. . . ] searching through garbage. . . assume your identity.

[. . . ] One of the most obvious answers is the truncation of credit and debit card numbers on receipts. Truncation is the practice of not printing all of the card numbers on transaction slips.

[. . . . ] Once the transaction has been authorized at the checkout, there is no need for the business to retain complete card numbers on any document or system.





Question Period-Hansard excerpts- June 13/05
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed last week's health care decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It did not question the public health care system in our country. However, it did question how the government has managed that system. In particular, it has pointed out that the health care wait times are at an all-time high under the Liberal government.

Could the Prime Minister tell us why, after 12 years in office, there are no national benchmarks for wait times in the country?

[. . . . ] On May 31 and June 1, the government categorically denied in the House that it had concluded a secret agreement with Mr. Chrétien. However, the day before, the government had in fact signed a written, official and secret arrangement with Mr. Chrétien's lawyers.

Why did the Prime Minister allow his government to mislead this House?



[. . . . ] Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that the minister denied there was any arrangement of any kind between Mr. Chrétien and the government.

Now he admits, because we have all got it, that an exchange of letters between lawyers has taken place that does constitute an arrangement, an arrangement that Justice Gomery was apparently unaware of and is quite concerned about.


Why did the public works minister not divulge the details of this when he was asked about it? Why did he cover it up? [. . . . ]


Who said this in the House? -- "he is enjoying the spankings"




Grewel Tapes

Law society complaints filed against Liberals Jun. 14, 2005

[. . . . ] In separate letters of complaint written yesterday, Tory John Reynolds says the three — all lawyers — offered Conservative MPs compensation in exchange for their support in key confidence votes on the Liberal minority government’s budget.

Reynolds alleges the actions of Peterson, Dosanjh and Murphy compromise the integrity of the legal profession.

He says they also could violate Section 119(1) of the Criminal Code, which prohibits people from offering members of Parliament ``valuable consideration, office, place or employment” to influence their work in any way. [. . . . ]





Immigration

One Nation, Out of Many Samuel P. Huntington

America's core culture has primarily been the culture of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century settlers who founded our nation. The central elements of that culture are the Christian religion; Protestant values, including individualism, the work ethic, and moralism; the English language; British traditions of law, justice, and limits on government power; and a legacy of European art, literature, and philosophy. Out of this culture the early settlers formulated the American Creed, with its principles of liberty, equality, human rights, representative government, and private property. Subsequent generations of immigrants were assimilated into the culture of the founding settlers and modified it, but did not change it fundamentally. It was, after all, Anglo-Protestant culture, values, institutions, and the opportunities they created that attracted more immigrants to America than to all the rest of the world.

[. . . . ]

The continuation of high levels of Mexican and Hispanic immigration and low rates of assimilation of these immigrants into American society and culture could eventually change America into a country of two languages, two cultures, and two peoples. This will not only transform America. It will also have deep consequences for Hispanics--who will be in America but not of the America that has existed for centuries.


Lengthy and worth reading



Academic Standards, R.I.P. Michael Rubin, FrontPage Magazine, June 14, 2005 -- also here, at Campus Watch

Princeton University continues to consider hiring embattled Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi for its newly-endowed Robert Niehaus chair in Contemporary Middle East Studies. Khalidi, a specialist on Palestinian politics and history, has become controversial for his highly politicized mix of polemics and history. He has sought to rebut criticism, arguing that questioning his scholarship infringes on his first amendment rights. Speaking at Columbia University on April 4, 2005, for example, he said, "Freedom of speech and academic freedom are particularly necessary for unpopular and difficult ideas, for conventional ideas, for ideas that challenge reigning orthodoxy."

Khalidi is right about the importance of freedom of speech, but he misses the point. Academic freedom is meant to protect scholarship, not replace it. For any history professor, the core of scholarship is the ability to uncover and interpret primary source material. High school students might select sources uncritically in order to prove their thesis, but history professors must evaluate not only what the source says, but also its veracity and perspective. Judgment matters. Next to plagiarism—of which Khalidi has also been accused recently—deliberate omission, failure to judge sources, and eschewing primary source and field research are the greatest academic sins a professor can commit. [. . . . ]





This was sent to me so I do not have the link for it: "Gay advocates fight churches' charity status -- Institutions fear losing tax breaks if they oppose same-sex unions; Rightly so, gay-rights group says" by Alex Hutchinson, The Ottawa Citizen, June 12, 2005

Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights advocate is warning.

"If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," says Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings, and is behind www.equalmarriage.ca.

"We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry." [. . . . ]


No hidden agenda with gay marriage?