More Chicanery, Hypocrisy, & Corruption

Will the Liberals Feature Transparency, Accountability & Honesty in the coming election campaign?

"And we're sure they'll be as faithful to their word this time as they were when they promised to scrap the GST in 1993." Oct. 8, 05, Commentary, Toronto Sun

Look, we all know how Prime Minister Paul Martin and the federal Liberals are going to fight the next election, so can we just cut to the chase right now?

Martin and his minions are going to ask Canadians to overlook years of Liberal political corruption, greed, waste, mismanagement and arrogance.

[. . . . ] Must we all endure this political horse manure, yet again?

Especially coming from a government that, ever since Martin was finance minister, has constantly and cynically manipulated the size of the federal surplus in order to suit its own political needs of the moment. [. . . . ]

Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Study: Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of offence) Standing Committee on Official Languages Committee Report:

Canadian Taxpayer Federation Petition online

Federal Sponsorship Dollars
To the Liberal Party of Canada:

Canadians have the right to expect their tax dollars to be accounted for and spent responsibly in an open and transparent manner. The Gomery Inquiry into the sponsorship program has exposed an orchestrated scheme between several Quebec advertising agencies and the Liberal Party of Canada, whereby tax dollars were directed to the party via government advertising contracts. The Government of Canada has pursued legal action against these ad agencies for receiving tax dollars while providing little or no work of value.

The Liberal Party of Canada has failed to conduct a forensic audit of its financial records to determine whether any “dirty money” made its way into party coffers. Leading forensic auditor and fraud expert Dr. Al Rosen has assessed the Liberal Party’s alleged accounting review as misleading, inconclusive, and “half baked.” The Liberal Party of Canada should not be in receipt of any tax dollars – whether technically legal or not – from the Adscam scheme.

We, the undersigned, therefore demand:

• A complete and fully independent forensic audit be conducted on the financial books of the Liberal Party of Canada and of all monies received by the Liberal Party of Canada between 1996 and 2003;

• All monies found to be “dirty” or any questionable donations stemming from the Adscam scheme be immediately repaid – with interest – to the Government of Canada and;

• Full details of the forensic audit be made public, and all those responsible for fraudulent transactions be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

Because of illness I did not post what follow so you may have seen some of these.

Paul Martin and the PMO Revealing Desperation?

Dinner leaves bad taste for Jean -- She wanted cozy reception but PMO sets up bash in stadium -- here -- here

The Prime Minister's Office has insisted that incoming Governor General Michaëlle Jean nix plans to hold an intimate affair at Rideau Hall tonight following her installation, and instead [threw] a giant dinner party, a Rideau Hall source said.

The dinner [was] in the basement ballroom of Lansdowne Park, Ottawa's football stadium.

"Everyone, including Michaëlle Jean, thinks it's ridiculous," the source said. "She has, and we have now, quietly resigned ourselves to the fact that the PMO wants to make what they think is a big deal out of this dinner." [. . . . ]

Search: PMO informed Rideau Hall , had already signed contracts to rent

Is this not desperation? To say nothing of showing disrespect for the newly installed holder of the office -- telling her what to do? After her installation, Adrienne Clarkson had a small dinner but Paul Martin and his cohort need the show in hopes of gaining votes so . . .

Does this man really think people trade their votes for a peek at a new GG? For attendance at a party? For the illusion of inclusiveness? After they vote they would still be taxed and treated to the condescension of Librano$ social engineering, among other things. The man is shallower than even I had thought.



ACOA expense accounts

ACOA contracts



Governance

It almost seems that we are turning into a tin pot dictatorship rather than being an open democracy when trying to get information from the government is like pulling teeth . via Newsbeat1

When dedicated civil servants like Cpl.Robert Read, Brian McAdam, Staff Sgt Stenhouse, Allan Cutler, Selwyn Pieters lose their careers when they try to protect the public, there is something terribly amiss. [. . . . ]

Education and Political Correctness

"The signs of erosion on our campuses are undeniable, whether we examine declining test scores, spiraling costs, or college graduates' ignorance of basic facts and ideas. or via Newsbeat1

In response, our academic leadership is not talking about a more competitive curriculum, higher standards of academic accomplishment, or the critical need freely to debate important issues. Instead, it remains obsessed with a racial, ideological, and sexual spoils system called "diversity." Even as the airline industry was deregulated in the 1970s, and Wall Street now has come under long-overdue scrutiny, it is time for Americans, if we are to ensure our privileged future, to re-examine our era's politicized university." [. . . . ]

Editorial: Secrecy darkens corridors of power Sept. 12. 05

Ask any smart politician whether Canadians have a right to know what lawmaker and bureaucrats are up to behind closed doors, and the air grows chewy with soothing reassurances. Who doesn't endorse access, openness, transparency, freedom of information, accountability?

The subtext? Please go back to sleep. [. . . . ]

Search: federal Information Commissioner John Reid warned , impedes the media "from playing the watchdog role . . . " , Crown corporations and other agencies



Gamesmanship?- If he hadn't gone through a revolving door justice system -- via Newsbeat1



Do Something Real! -- Address to:Solbm@parl.gc.ca by TonyGuitar @ 09/25/05 - 08:06:12

Dear Monte Solberg,
On behalf of myself, my neighbours and all Canadian taxpayers, could you please do something to restrain the failing Liberal Government from this unending theft and divergence of our public revenues? The latest, a matter of $2.9 Billion.

The Canadian public may be all too unaware of the whole shocking picture, because the mainstream press is reluctant to bring the complete overview to public attention.

The media are content to bring many seemingly disconnected stories to the public eye when in fact, the Main Headline should be that all these financial outrages are one and the same Liberal condemning story.

Thank's for helping Canadians,

Copy, paste and send. "You can now say you have done more than 75% of Canadians to help matters."



Trojan Alert.... En Guard! BendGovt.ca , Sept. 05

Last night I spent some time looking around some Blogsites that I feel certain are China authored. Now there is no way that that I know for sure what happened, I am simply saying that in my net travels…. Three sites were , I feel , backed by China interests among others visited..

Culprit is: Trojan.Downloader.AdMST [Trojan [High threat

There is more on the website if you check.




The Real Meat - No Fluff by TonyGuitar @ 09/05/05 - 21:53:11

MEAT: A thumbnail review of the iceberg tips of Liberal Party mischief:

These are Auditor General findings carried at CBC News Online, . February 10, 2004. Odd, considering CBC is soft on Liberals.

1985 - Canadian High Commission Hong Kong Marina fee $773,500
1986 - CBC accounting system lost track of… $57,000,000
1988 - CIDA has inadequate control over some of it’s spending. $?
- No verification that federal money is used for Native Bands $?
- Military does not have ammunition for a conflict. [. . . . ]

The list goes on. Check for the details.

---

Islam: Is There Something Wrong with This Picture?

Imaginative Insults

Finding Allah in Unlikely Places It is bad enough when Islamists insist that Islam win privileges that no other religion enjoys; worse is when they assert Islamic rights on the basis of imaginative insults.

Now, perhaps even more absurdly, British Muslims demanded that Burger King recall a line-drawing of an ice-cream cone, arguing that it resembles (what else?) the Arabic lettering for "Allah." A customer, Rashad Akhtar, branded the design "sacrilegious" and said he was "humiliated" by the design. He added: "This is my jihad. How can you say it is a spinning swirl? You are offending Muslims."

Do not miss the photos of "the offending ice-cream swirl" and a Nike swirl -- both offensive to Muslims. My word, do they search for reasons to be offended everywhere?

We need a photo of a woman in a burqua for something that really offends Western women. I shall be offended. Then, may we call it square?




Real insults that are offensive

"Arab and Muslim Anti-Semitism in Sweden": Mikael Tossavainen documents the extent of Muslim antisemitism in Sweden and the near-blindness to it in the larger society:

[. . . . ] "Sweden threatened with jihad": Videos showing a jihadi group, Ansar al-Sunnah, training for terror attacks, were filmed in what it claims (and does appear) to be the heavily wooded Swedish countryside.

* August 8, 2005 video: An announcer says that viewers are about to watch a "demonstration of the high explosives device, that we will use in the name of Allah." A large explosion then follows.

* August 29, 2005 video: A written message asserts: "Demonstration of real high explosives device, that is filled with gas instead of ammoniate nitrate." Men with blurred-out faces set off mock suicide explosives and roadside car bomb attacks. Men in a forest clearing set off explosions of white smoke. A red vehicle goes down a forest path and is suddenly engulfed in an explosion.

The videos are available for download on infovlad.net, a website that contains blood-curdling threats ("Sweden will suffer in the name of Allah") and shows a bloody knife plunged into the map of Sweden with the threat "We will slaughter all who dared to attack our prophet Mohamed." [. . . . ]

Ice Cream Fortunes September 21, 2005

Now, on the other coast, a Yemeni immigrant, Abad Elfgeeh, 50, has just been found guilty of illegally funneling $21.9 million overseas from his Carnival French Ice Cream in Park Slope, Brooklyn. He faces up to 15 years in prison. This huge amount of money is partly explained by Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad, the Yemeni imam who funded Al-Qaeda and Hamas, having used Elfgeeh's business to move money around. Still, what is it about ice cream and Islamists?

The Open University in Britain has spawned an Arab Open University, based in Kuwait, with students primarily in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The contents of the two institutions' teachings are revealingly different , Ferdinand Mount notes in the Daily Telegraph, with the latter "to a greater or lesser extent, adapted, expurgated and bowdlerised in order to avoid offending the authorities in their target countries." This process, known as "versioning," means that all references to pork, alcohol, homosexuality, and unmarried mothers have to be deleted from texts. "Bizarrely, any mention of football stadia seems to be forbidden, too."

[. . . . ] The university's senate, HEFCE, the QAA, even the DfES itself - the entire educational alphabet in fact - seems to have waved through this wholesale censorship without a second thought. [. . . . ]

"Efforts to integrate Muslims into the West upset a benign status quo"

Enforce Islamic Law in Canada? by Daniel Pipes, New York Sun, September 27, 2005 -- [this version differs slightly from the NY Sun's]

[. . . . ] French nuns for the first time must take off their cowls for identity card or passport pictures because of anti-hijab legislation. Likewise, French schoolchildren may not wear crosses or Stars of David to class.

Large populations – British underground riders, American airport passengers, Russian theater-goers – must undergo extensive security checks, thanks to Muslim terrorists.

Danes marrying foreigners face extensive restrictions to bring them into Denmark because of immigration abuses (the "human visa" problem) involving Muslims.

Santas, Nativity plays, Christmas carols, and Bibles are banned in Western countries so as not to offend Muslim sensitivities.

Unremarked upon by most Westerners, Islam's presence has started to change their way of life.

The "Peaceful" Ones are changing our way of life, negatively.

Why must the rest of society--which worked without apparent problems--change to accommodate the fact that unfair treatment of women and Islam's other excesses do not fit into a democracy and thus must be curbed?




"Evil had become good, wrong had become right"

"proving correct Josef Goebbels’ lesson to Hitler that if you repeat the same lie often enough, people will believe it."

Left-wing Monsters: Arafat By David Meir-Levi, FrontPageMagazine.com, Sept. 23, 2005

Yasir Arafat is the founding father of Palestinian nationalism. He is also the godfather of 20th century terrorism. The nationalist movement that he created ab ovo remains unique in history as the only one throughout the entire world whose defining paradigm is terrorism, and whose raison d’etre is the destruction of a sovereign state and the decimation of its Jewish population. Even after its leader’s death, still loyal to his legacy, the Palestinian Authority remains focused on the destruction of Israel rather than on a healthy nationalism and the building of an economically viable, Palestinian state. [. . . . ]

Arafat resuscitated Jew-hatred and made it the official policy of the UN when the Arab bloc leveraged the passage of a UN resolution equating Zionism with racism in 1975. [. . . . ]

Search: protégé of the Communist bloc , created a massive kleptocracy of cronies and loyalists , Early Years , Guerilla Leader , Black September , Arafat Becomes A Soviet Agent , evicted hundreds of thousands of mostly Christian Lebanese

This is a detailed history tour -- worth reading.



Most people won't admit to even thinking Islam is incompatible with democratic principles and tolerant Western societies. I beg to differ. I think it is time to discuss this quite openly. Why is life in the West pussyfooting around for an intolerant bunch of people who are attempting to take us back to the seventh century?

Well, not me, boys!

Consider that 90% of Austrians have decided they don't want to take the first step to admitting Turkey to the EU. Considering Austria's history and how poorly Muslims have integrated into Europe in this last several years, they seem to know what they're talking about. Perhaps they have been taught more history than guilt in their schools?

---

Brief Tour of Chicanery, Hypocrisy & Corruption -- the Usual

What's Wrong with This?

A who's-who of Canadian Olympians and business elite will join the country's head soldier on a top-secret trip next week into one of the world's most dangerous war zones

[. . . . ] Among other invitees, the passenger log will include high-profile athletes such as speed skater Catriona Lemay Doan, hockey legend Guy Lafleur and wrestler Daniel Igali, as well as CBC comedian Rick Mercer.

[. . . . ] Defence industry representatives have been jockeying to get a much-coveted seat. Only Dew Engineering and Development Ltd. received an invitation to hop aboard the Airbus early next week. [. . . . ]

Anti-American Ambassador Frank McKenna not fit for Prime Minister's Job By Judi McLeod, Wednesday, October 5, 2005

[. . . . ] McKenna, who's been shooting from the lip ever since arriving in Washington, could cost ordinary Canadian citizens significant money.

Spewing his anti-American sentiment at a time when softwood lumber is on the trade table makes McKenna a serious threat to the Canadian economy.

[. . . . ] Handpicked for the job by Prime Minister Paul Martin--the same guy whose job he now seems to covet--McKenna is showing a bias that is unbecoming to the promised diplomacy that comes along with being Canadian Ambassador to Washington.

Waste and cronyism, corruption and abuse Bruce Garvey, National Post, Oct. 7, 05

[. . . . ] When all is said and done, it's all about the money. Millions and millions of it, soaked out of Canada's working stiffs by brutal levels of taxation, washing around Ottawa like a flood tide and dispensed by the governing political party at its discretion, a cheque here, a grant there. [. . . . ]

Behind it all lies the simple philosophy that, shrug, it's not our money. It's the taxpayers' money, your money, my money. And if it barely adds up to petty cash in the multi-zero world of government, where I come from it's big, big bucks.

Yet nobody ever gets fired.

Turning vice into virtue Andrew Coyne, Oct. 6, 05

Svend Robinson, late of the House of Commons, has let it be known that he intends to stage a comeback in the riding of Vancouver Centre. Well, it's not official yet, but you know. "I'm pretty close," Mr. Robinson told The Globe and Mail last week. "It would take something pretty significant for me not to go ahead now. And I just don't see what that would be."

Really? Think hard, Svend. Try to recall: What incident in your past might make you ineligible for public office?

Oh, that: the theft of a $64,000 ring, pocketed in a Richmond, B.C., auction house. [. . . . ]

Search: Dave Dingwall, Andre Boisclerc, Dalton McGuinty

Coyne is worth reading.




Princes of Darkness Jamie Glazov, FrontPageMag.com, Oct7-05

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Laurent Murawiec, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and the author of the new book Princes of Darkness : The Saudi Assault on the West. [. . . . ]

Murawiec: There's been a big problem with Saudi Arabia since, at least, 1973: the Saudis were a prime mover in slapping an embargo on oil on the US and all countries deemed to be friendly to Israel; they embargoed the US Navy in the middle of the tension of the Yom Kippur War; they took the lead in launching the great oil raid on the world economy, the quadrupling of oil prices that nearly tanked the world economy and did tank the weaker economies, those of the Third World. Friends! Allies!

Now there was a time when the deal between the Saudis and us made sense: [. . . . ]

Murawiec: Let's start with Wahhabism. It is not "an austere version of Islam." It's a deadly, simplistic, bigoted, brutal creed which relishes in forbidding everything in sight; it is an Islam that kept itself totally isolated from the great centers of the Golden Age, Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo, Kayruwan, Samarkand and Tashkent. It is a creed which returns to an imagined, and wholly fantastical, 7th century Islam. It makes a claim to being the exclusive repository of Allah's mandate. To Wahhabism, non-Wahhabi Muslims are infidels (kufr). Shiites are apostates who should be killed. [. . . . ]

Britain's Disappearing Pigs Jihad Watch

Pigs are disappearing all over England, but not because of some porcine variant of Mad Cow Disease: rather, the most implacable foe of the swine is turning out to be multiculturalism.

The latest assault came in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, where employees were told that they were no longer allowed to have any representations of pigs at their desks. Some had little porcine porcelain figurines. Others had toys or calendars of cute little pigs. One had a tissue box depicting Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. All of this had to go, not because of new some new anti-kitsch ordinance, but because Muslims might be offended — particularly now, what with Ramadan beginning. [. . . . ]

When will Muslims be offended enough to act over this activity?

Arabian Sex Tourism by Daniel Pipes, FrontPageMagazine.com, October 7, 2005

Indian media have been publishing exposés documenting the foul behavior of Gulf Arabs in the southern Indian town of Hyderabad "Fly-by-night bridegrooms," by R Akhileshwari in the Deccan Herald and "One minor girl, many Arabs," by Mohammed Wajihuddin in the Times of India are two important examples. Wajihuddin sets the stage:

[. . . . ] These Viagra-enabled Arabs are perpetrating a blatant crime under the veneer of nikaah, the Islamic rules of marriage.

(I have silently corrected some typos). Wajihuddin then specifies the problem:

Misusing the sanctioned provision which allows a Muslim man to have four wives at a time, many old Arabs are not just marrying minors in Hyderabad, but marrying more than one minor in a single sitting. "The Arabs prefer teenage, virgin brides," says Jameela Nishat, who counsels and sensitises young women against the malaise.

The Arabs usually "marry" the girls for short periods, sometimes just a single night. In fact, Wajihuddin reports, marriage and divorce formalities are often prepared at the same time, thereby expediting the process for all involved. Akhileshwari notes that "their girl children are available for as little as 5,000 rupees to satisfy the lust of doddering old Arab men." Five thousand rupees, by the way, equals just a bit over US$100. [. . . . ]

RCMP Watchdog

Do you see much difference in this and what appears to happen with much government hiring? Check the very specific qualifications necessary in job advertisements -- seemingly tailored to fit . . . oh, the one intended to get the job.

Audit finds RCMP watchdog rigged job contests -- Qualifications tailored to favour selected candidates Glen McGregor The Ottawa Citizen; with files from The Canadian Press, Oct. 7, 05

The probe conducted by the Public Service Commission (PSC) found "significant staffing irregularities" at the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, with managers deliberately tailoring job requirements based on chosen candidates' resumes and manipulating government hiring rules to bring temporary workers on to permanent staff.

[. . . . ] The managers manipulated the competitions with tailor-made qualifications for the jobs, ensuring pre-selected employees won.

---

Where Has Mainstream Media Been During Several Scandals?

And WHY have they not investigated?

White knights and whistleblowers have a short shelf life in Canada. The real question that should be asked is where was Canadian MSM while the government's friends were plundering the Sponsorship program?

Why haven't Canadians heard much about the UN oil for food scam? Some of the major players are friends with the Liberals. Instead of worrying about bloggers they should be worrying why their press has been neutered.

Canadian Bloggers Are Not 'Pussies' -- "Siri Agrell, writing for the Canadian site Maisonneuve, wonders why the Canadian blogosphere has not uncovered a major scandal or exposed political shenanigans in the national government." Captain Bob who leaked Jean Brault's testimony to the Gomery Inquiry, Captain's Quarters, October 06, 2005 -- trackback

Captain Bob mentions Kate MacMillan, Stephen Janke, Neale News -- and another:

John at Newsbeat1 has already built a following doing the kind of reporting that Agrell wants, and he does so with some risk, if readers pay attention to the nature of his prolific links.[. . . . ]

The comments below Cap'n Bob's article add a little to our knowledge of why the MSM journalists do not investigate as they should.

---

Scam the Taxpayers, Get Half a Million -- But RCMP Get Fired for Doing Their Jobs -- Perhaps Too Well

Compare how ex-RCMP Cpl. Robert Read and ex-Staff Sgt. Robert Stenhouse were treated with the treatment accorded David Dingwall. Even the suggestion that Paul Martin's government would give him half a million dollars sticks in Canadians' craw.

Reports hint at fear that Dingwall, a Chretienite, might turn on Paul Martin & Team. The suggestion is that he was paid off after being fired.


Licia Corbella on Dingwall

Why would the feds agree to pay severance to someone who willingly quit their job?

The feds didn't pay any severance to other Crown corporation heads even after they were fired, and they never feared being sued. So why pay someone who left willingly?

Last night, Shane Diaczuk, director of communications for the Minister of National Revenue, more than hinted at the real reason: Dingwall, a Chretien crony, didn't quit -- he was pushed by the Martin regime. [. . . . ]

Search: Francoise Boivin, a former labour lawyer and now a Quebec Liberal MP

There is more about Dingwall's case and whether severance is required on Jack's Newswatch today.




Ex-RCMP Staff Sgt. Stenhouse

Stenhouse v. Canada (Attorney General) (FC) Reference: [2004] 4 F.C.R. 437

T-1174-02
2004 FC 375
Robert G. Stenhouse (Applicant)
v.
Attorney General of Canada (Respondent)

Indexed as: Stenhouse v. Canada (Attorney General) (F.C.)

Federal Court, Kelen J.--Ottawa, February 9, 10 and March 12, 2004.

Public Service -- Termination of Employment -- Whistleblower defence -- RCMP member ordered to resign or be dismissed for providing author with confidential police documentation regarding motorcycle gangs -- Freedom of public servants (including police officers) to criticize employer's interests protected at common law, by Charter -- "Whistleblowing" recognized as exception to common law duty of loyalty but defence not granting disgruntled employee licence to breach loyalty duty, secrecy oath -- Must be used responsibly -- Defence inapplicable on facts of case.

This was an application for judicial review of a decision by Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Zaccardelli confirming the External Review Committee recommendation that applicant should resign or be dismissed for having breached his oath of secrecy and office as well as the RCMP Code of Conduct. Applicant had faced disciplinary action for disclosure to an author of confidential police documentation regarding policing strategies in respect of outlaw motorcycle gangs. The author published these documents in his book Hells Angels at War.

Applicant was a sergeant, and later a staff sergeant, with the Edmonton drug section of the RCMP. He had served on the Force for some 18 years, and had been granted several promotions and a bravery commendation. Working undercover, he managed to infiltrate the Hells Angels. In view of his experience and interest, he was chosen to represent the RCMP on the Organized Crime Working Committee. It was at this time that he drafted briefing notes for Force officials recommending improvements to what he saw as flawed models for dealing with outlaw motorcycle gangs. Applicant said that he released the confidential information out of his frustration at the Force for conducting a media campaign for increased funding whilst failing to carry out adequate investigations of the criminal activities on the part of the Hells Angels. [. . . . ]

[26]The External Review Committee acknowledged that a "reasonable man" would have a reasonable apprehension that the Commissioner was biased, but said that there is no legal requirement for the Commissioner to be an independent, impartial decision maker under the RCMP Act. The External Review Committee said at paragraph 93 of its decision:

Here was someone with expert knowledge of the HA's, doing the job he was supposed to do and he lost his job. I haven't been able to find out yet whether he also lost his pension.


Undercover Mountie -- a copy of an article published in Maclean's from Nov. 26, 01 by Robert Sheppard

One was a memo Stenhouse himself had written, arguing for more coherent, targeted investigations into suspected gangs -- instead of the turf-based system that divided the force into intelligence gatherers and criminal investigators.(And further divided the drug squad into units based on commodities such as marijuana and heroin, with the result that cops were chasing after small-timers with drugs in their possession rather than focusing on the kingpins.)

Check here for whether Stenhouse was onto something -- lengthy and full of information. Do not miss this article.




Ex-RCMP Cpl. Robert Read

$500,000 Golden handshake?-Compare the way they want to treat Dingwall who billed the publicy $1.29 for his gum and the way ........... RCMP Cpl. Robert Read was treated


See also No effective whistleblower legislation

---

Dinging Dingwall, Lobbyists' Privacy, Coffin's "Punishment", Property Rights

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 ORAL QUESTIONS

Technology Partnerships Canada

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It has been admitted that, besides his extravagant spending, David Dingwall was involved in unregistered lobbying and in instances of breach of contract to the tune of $350,000.

Could the Prime Minister tell us why, instead of calling in the RCMP and instead of trying to go after Mr. Dingwall for the money, he is praising him here in the House and trying to negotiate a golden parachute for him? [. . . . ]

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): [. . . . ] Would the Prime Minister explain? We know David Dingwall received $350,000 he should not have received. Why, instead of trying to recover that money, is the government actually contemplating giving him perhaps up to half a million dollars more? [. . . . ]

¸ (1420)


Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the severance package, the government lawyers have been asked to advise the government on what is the minimum separation package that the government can pay given the relevant laws and given the policy framework.

I can list the relevant laws if the members will listen. They are the Royal Canadian Mint Act, the Financial Administration Act, and the crown corporation general regulations.

Note: the "laws" excuse has been refuted in several articles, one of which is in the National Post, Oct. 6, 05

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know that a couple of days ago in the House this minister liked to quote the common law. There is no common law saying the government has to pay severance to someone who voluntarily quits. That may be the common practice of the Liberal Party, but it is not the common law.

Once again, given that there is no requirement to pay severance to someone who quits voluntarily, and given that Mr. Dingwall received hundreds of thousands of dollars he should not have received, why is the Prime Minister contemplating giving him any money at all?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition ought to take some legal advice, because according to the government's legal advice, his facts of the law are wrong. Indeed, it is the case that without a mutually agreed separation package, even when somebody resigns voluntarily there is most definitely the risk of a long and expensive lawsuit.

[Translation]

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, David Dingwall hired Chuck Guité, the man behind the sponsorship scandal. He has broken the rules governing lobbyists and the awarding of contracts for his own personal gain. He ran up quite a few expenses on his expense account at the Royal Mint.

Does the Prime Minister really think that buying David Dingwall is the way to put an end to corruption?

Search: The use of Challenger jets




Is it the Speaker's job to protect Paul Martin from touchy questions?

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 David Dingwall

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the waiting list for leadership gets longer all the time.

When the Prime Minister replaced Jean Chrétien, it was out with the old and in with the old. Canadians were hopeful that we would have Mr. Clean but what we have instead is Sergeant Schultz, “I know nothing, I see nothing”. That wilful ignorance is costing Canadian taxpayers.

The Privy Council's own rules stipulate that appointees are entitled to one week's pay for each completed year of service, but that is only for terminations not for spendthrift quitters.

David Dingwall does not deserve one penny. Will the Prime Minister admit—


The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Revenue.



Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): [. . . . ]

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he is for a rules based system but if there is one thing David Dingwall has taught the people of Canada, it is that the government believes in two different sets of rules: one for Liberal patronage appointees and one for everybody else.

When working Canadians quit their jobs there is no golden parachute for them. In fact, there is no unemployment insurance either. When the minister rules that Dingwall's golf club memberships are acceptable while Revenue Canada's own rules say that they are not, then there is a problem of a double standard that exists here.

Could the minister, who is also the revenue minister, tell us whose rules apply to Dingwall, his or his? [. . . . ]

Lobbyists Being Investigated

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is taxpayer money. The government should be showing some leadership instead of passing the buck to the companies.

We further learned today that six lobbyists connected to this scandal have been referred to the lobbyists registrar for further investigation. My question for the industry minister is simple. Has the RCMP been called in to investigate any of these lobbyists and when will taxpayers finally get their money back?

¸ (1435)

Hiding behind the "the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act."

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 11 companies have reportedly paid lobbyists commissions for grants obtained under the Technology Partnerships Canada program, a kickback for successfully securing grants, which is prohibited.

My question to the minister is very simple. Could he table before this House the list of companies at fault and the names of the lobbyists, registered or not, involved in this affair?

[English]


Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): . . . . when we have completed the audits and we have satisfied the requirements of the privacy laws . . . . the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. [. . . . ]

---

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 Liberals' Challenger jets cost $11,000 an hour to operate

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have learned today that the Liberals have been hiding the real cost of their flying limousines from Canadian taxpayers, claiming that the luxury jets cost only $2,000 an hour when in fact these jets cost $11,000 an hour to operate.

On top of that, Liberal ministers have abused their luxury jets dozens of times, spending over $1 million on unnecessary flights, rather than rubbing shoulders with average Canadians on much cheaper commercial aircraft.

Is all of this not just more proof of the culture of Liberal arrogance and waste?

¸ (1440)

---

Volpe's Pizza

Citizenship and Immigration -&- Liberal Minister Volpe's $138 pizza dinner

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the pizza flyers at our doors, two for one pizza, $19.99 pizza, pizza with chicken wings, and the list goes on, but I have never heard of a $138 pizza like the immigration minister spent for him and a guest on July 4 at Camarra Pizzeria in Toronto. I have heard of extra toppings, but this is ridiculous.

---

Coffin's "Punishment" vs that of a Young Shoplifter

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 -- CPC Bill C-11

Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): . . . .

I would like to complete my speech on Bill C-11. Before the interruption, I was talking about the fact that among Canadians there is an increasing lack of trust in their politicians and their government. I think Bill C-11 at least partially addresses this. We must first and foremost change the whole culture, the whole way of thinking. That is what is important here. Hopefully, with people knowing that somebody else can blow the whistle on them, it will mean that we will have many fewer instances of people abusing the public trust.

I would like to point out that one of the reasons for this is that even under the present law when people are found out and found guilty, the penalties seem to be quite disparate from what other Canadians face. I want to share with members an observation made to me by the editor of the Sherwood Park News, which I think is very appropriate here.

She and I were talking about the sentence Paul Coffin got for stealing, which he admitted. He confessed to it. He stole millions of dollars from the Canadian people. His penalty is that he has to give speeches on ethics, but he must be finished by nine o'clock. The editor of the Sherwood Park News said she has covered the local court there a lot and has seen way more stringent penalties for young people who have been picked up for shoplifting in the local mall. So here we have one person who is picked up for shoplifting a $50 or a $100 item and who gets a more stringent penalty than somebody who steals from the taxpayers in the amount of millions of dollars. This needs to be corrected.

I suppose we could say that our case is with the judge who handed down that particular sentence, but it is also with the government of the day. This Liberal government has set up a culture in which this type of thing is tolerated. It must come to an end. This must be stopped. Otherwise, we are going to land up with even less trust and respect for government, for Parliament and for our institutions in this country. It should not surprise us that people increasingly object to having to pay their income taxes when there is so much misuse and abuse. . . . .

¹ (1510)

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member correctly pointed to several instances of Liberal theft, Liberal fraud, Liberal corruption and Liberal crime. These instances are becoming so frequent that they scarcely even make news any more.

We had a Liberal government that systematically stole over $100 million over the period of seven years, shovelling much of it back into Liberal Party coffers, a criminal conspiracy in which up to 600 different individuals are implicated. . . .

Once again, there was a criminal conspiracy involving 600 people over a seven year period and not a single person has gone to jail. Two and a half years after we learned about this massive criminal Liberal conspiracy, not one person has gone to jail. An individual is caught red-handed stealing $1.5 million and he does not receive a jail sentence. Only in the Liberal wonderland can such a thing occur. That member cannot obstruct that truth from coming out in this House or anywhere else. [. . . . ]

---

Property Rights

Hansard Oct. 4, 05 -- Property rights (1740)

Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Motion No. 227 put forward by my colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville.

Private ownership of property and the development of that property is the basis of our national economic growth and prosperity and yet the proclamation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 did not include property rights.

Property rights should include the right to buy, maintain, sell, bequeath or enjoy one's properties. As a Canadian citizen, one's right to own property is not guaranteed. It sounds outrageous but it is entirely true. The right to own property was intentionally left out of the Charter of Rights. Consequently, today Canadians can have their property expropriated by the government and receive nothing in return. [. . . . ]

There is more information if you link.

Search:

Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC):
the greenbelt legislation
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC):
Bill C-279, which seeks to entrench property rights in a meaningful form in Canadian law.
Canada-U.S. Border

---

Your Privacy, Foreigners, Influence, Priorities, Ownership & RADARSAT 1 & 2

Taxpayers should own a large amount of RADARSAT -- but don't, it seems. How did it become private? Is it similar to taxpayer support of Bombardier? When do taxpayers get in on the ownership since they contribute so much?

Remember what happened to the AECL reactor design? Check News Junkie Canada, October 24, 2004, section 5, I think. Find out whether China is involved or likely to be with RADARSAT -- working on any aspect. If so, . . . . You figure it out.



Privacy Concerns: RADARSAT 1, RADARSAT 2

Hansard Oct. 4, 05 -- "Canadian taxpayers have funded approximately 75% of the development of the satellite. That is $450 million of Canadian tax dollars that were invested in the satellite that will be 100% commercially owned."

Remote Sensing Space Systems Act

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act governing the operation of remote sensing space systems, be read the third time and passed. [. . . . ]

Some hon. members also questioned the protection afforded under Bill C-25 against foreign acquisition of Canadian licensed remote sensing satellites. The approach adopted in Bill C-25 in this regard draws no distinction between domestic and foreign investment in Canadian remote sensing space systems. All potential licensees, from whatever country, must meet security standards established to protect Canada's national security against injury, whether from a Canadian or a non-Canadian investor. [. . . . ]

º (1600)

Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's questions and his good comments. He has reflected on some of the areas I raised. His last comment, however, does not satisfy the question I had in terms of delegation of powers.

I was talking about the powers under clause 12, which are the powers for a minister to actually order that a certain service be performed and are not the powers referred under clause 21. In answer to my question the parliamentary secretary was quite correct. He referenced clause 21 but he referenced paragraph 21(1)(a) which says that the minister “may not delegate the exercise of the Minister’s powers under subsection 4(3) or 14(1)”. It goes on to say he or she may delegate to his or her deputy minister. That is understood. The question I raised was on paragraph 21(1)(c) which says “may delegate to any officer or class of officers—or, with the consent of the Minister of National Defence, a member or class of members of the Canadian Forces—the exercise of any other powers of the Minister under this Act”.

In fact, the way it reads, clause 12, which is the minister's power to tell a satellite operator what service he or she has to perform, that appears to be able to be delegated even to a member of the armed forces. That is the question I have in response to his very good question. I do not know if he is able to comment on that in my question about his question to my question.

[Translation]


Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask two questions of the member, the Conservative Party critic for foreign affairs, who, to my surprise, supports this bill.

First, nothing in this bill provides for the licence to be revoked if the satellite operator ever becomes a foreigner. Does this not worry him a little, especially in view of the fact that MacDonald belonged to the Americans for a few months? Would it not have been better to state very clearly that RADARSAT-2 and any other satellites that the Canadian Space Agency might design must be operated by companies that are 100% Canadian-owned? That is my first question.

Second, in view of the fact that this is a private operator, should they not also have ensured that federal departments, provincial governments and departments as well as the scientific community have priority access to the remote sensing images? Since this is a private company, it will obviously try to sell the images to whoever offers the most. What was standard procedure with RADARSAT-1, namely a certain priority in the use of the remote sensing images for the federal government, the provinces and the scientific community, no longer applies. Nothing in the bill ensures this priority. I think there should have been a provision like this in it.

[. . . . ]
º (1605)

Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his questions. I do not want to defend the federal government's bills, but I can answer his questions all the same.

In the case of a company like this, or other companies, there are no regulations at the present time in Canada requiring the company to be fully owned in all cases. [. . . . ]

º (1610)


Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): [. . . . ]

One key aspect of that is the privacy of citizens. Everyone will notice that when I read out the summary of the bill it outlined many of the causes of concern that this bill was intended to address, but the privacy of individual Canadian citizens was not part of that list. We think that is a serious omission from the legislation.

I want to be clear that RADARSAT-2 is a commercially owned satellite. It is billed by its manufacturer, MacDonald, Dettwiler & Associates, as incorporating state of the art technology, featuring the most advanced commercially available radar imagery in the world. That is a pretty dramatic claim and technology that we understand is not over-embellished. This satellite will do what it is billed as capable of doing.

We also want to be clear that the Canadian taxpayers have funded approximately 75% of the development of the satellite. That is $450 million of Canadian tax dollars that were invested in the satellite that will be 100% commercially owned.

You might want to re-read the above paragraphs.

I know that raises other serious concerns. What is the involvement of the Canadian Space Agency or why is there not any involvement of the Canadian Space Agency in the control and development of this satellite? I know other opposition members have also raised that concern with regard to RADARSAT-2.

We agree with the government that Canadians need to be reassured that information collected by RADARSAT-2 would not be used against our national interest and that is why we agree with the overall necessity of this legislation. However, as I said, we are concerned with the way it has been presented.

We want to make sure that the purchasers of RADARSAT-2 imagery are subject to licensing requirements but within that we also believe some clarity was desperately needed. To that end, the NDP put forward 18 amendments that would have helped clarify the intention of this bill and the requirements of the use of this technology and the information that it provides.

In committee, the NDP proposed that we define vague and unaccountable terms like “international obligations” and “international relations” more clearly and definitively. The NDP supports the government in having priority access to RADARSAT-2 images, but the vagueness of the two terms “international obligations” and “international relations” leaves the door open so wide that apparently even RADARSAT International, which was consulted several years before parliamentarians had access to the bill, requested that these terms be better defined. When RADARSAT International believes that there is a vagueness in the legislation and a vagueness in the proposal it behooves us to be very clear and respond to that concern.

º (1615)

[. . . . ]

The NDP also proposed that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of International Cooperation have the same privileges as the Minister of Foreign Affairs since the majority of RADARSAT-2 images would be used in cases of national disasters at home and around the world.

We wanted to make sure that the ministers who had direct responsibility in the situation of responding to a natural disaster had equal call on the information provided by this technology and that they did not have to work through another department an all that it implies.

The NDP also suggested that we subject the sale of RADARSAT-2 images to export control guidelines to ensure that images are not sold to nations that work against Canada's best interest. [ . . . . ]

---

Celebrating a Year of Broken Promises -&- Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mr. Pierre Poilievre CPC MP: Celebrating a Year of Broken Promises

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 Liberal Government -- Anniversary 1405 - 1410

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate a year of broken promises on the anniversary of the last Liberal throne speech.

First, the speech promised to reduce Liberal corruption, yet Technology Partnerships Canada has lost nearly two billion tax dollars, partly to illegal Liberal lobbyists and millions more are wasted on Liberal ministerial excesses. Promise made, promise broken.

[Translation]

Second, the Prime Minister promised to stop the waste and the excessive spending, but the agreement between the Liberals and the NDP cost an alarming $4.6 billion. Promise made, promise broken.

¸ (1410)

[English]

Finally, the Liberal leader promised a grand state day care scheme. A year later there are no new spaces, stay at home parents are excluded, and the scheme will cost at least $10 billion a year to implement. Promise made, promise broken.

---

Mandatory minimum sentences on indictable gun offences

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 -- Justice

Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the past year Canadians have watched as families have been torn apart by rising levels of gun violence in our communities. Over the summer, I met with criminal defence lawyers, municipal leaders, heads of national police associations and local law enforcement officials to discuss Bill C-215, my private member's bill, which would introduce mandatory minimum sentences on indictable gun offences.

Support for this initiative is growing in this country, both at the grassroots and among provincial attorneys general. Yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss these and other issues with the chief of the Toronto Police Force, Bill Blair, a man who has had to deal with over 40 gun deaths in his city alone. He joined numerous others in identifying the links among gangs, guns and drugs.

It is time for this government to send a clear message to the criminal element that their actions will no longer be tolerated. The first opportunity to do this is on October 18, when Bill C-215 comes up at the justice committee. I urge my colleagues to demonstrate clearly their commitment to the ultimate responsibility of parliamentarians, which is to provide for the health and safety of their constituents.

---

LNG Terminals NB-Passamaquoddy

38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 131 Tuesday, October 4, 2005 À (1005)

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with me today I have a number of petitions signed by literally hundreds of people in and around Passamaquoddy Bay. There is a proposal by a U.S. proponent to build an LNG, or liquid natural gas, terminal on the U.S. side of Passamaquoddy Bay. We believe that this is not a smart location and some members on the other side of the House agree.

These petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to do what it did 30 years ago and say no to the transport of tankers through Head Harbour Passage, the most dangerous passage in all of the east coast of Canada. This would stop the construction of those LNG terminals, which would endanger our citizens, our environment and our economy.

---

Whistleblower Legislation Amended, Still Flawed -&- Prominent Whistleblowers

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-11, the public servants disclosure protection act. Bill C-11 creates a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoing in the federal public sector. If enacted, this bill would finally give Canada whistleblowing legislation, something other nations have had for decades.

When we look into the background of the bill, we see that this government has had 4,350 days to fulfill its promise and introduce effective whistleblowing legislation. That is how long this government has had.

The former government House leader, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, said in 1992, while in opposition, “Public servants must be able to report about illegal or unethical behaviour that they encounter on the job without fear or reprisal”. In his speech, the hon. member then went on to quote a Liberal caucus-approved document, “Public Sector Ethics”, calling for whistleblowing legislation.

However, once secure in office, the Liberals quickly forgot about their promises. In the end, it took the sponsorship scandal for this weak-kneed government to dust off its decade-old promise.

Meanwhile, we have witnessed billions of taxpayers' dollars disappear. The sponsorship scandal could have been avoided or at least quashed years ago if whistleblowing legislation had been in place. The same holds true for the HRDC boondoggle, the George Radwanski affair, the gun registry cost overruns and so on.

Public service integrity officer Edward Keyserlingk, referring to the sponsorship program scandal, said that whistleblowing legislation could have saved taxpayers millions of dollars by giving public servants “the confidence to come forward”.

It is little wonder no one blew the whistle on this scandal. In the absence of any whistleblowing legislation, even well-meaning public servants are reluctant to come forward because they know that making trouble will be a career ending move.

This government claims to support whistleblowers, but its actions indicate otherwise. Let us look at the case of the three scientists from Health Canada who were fired in June 2004: Margaret Haydon, Shiv Chopra and Gérard Lambert.

They were among this country's most outspoken whistleblowers. They raised issues such as the safety of a bovine growth hormone proposed for use in dairy herds to boost milk production, the influence of corporations in government drug approvals, and the need to keep animal parts out of the feed supply to keep beef safe. All three were fired on the same day for undisclosed reasons, which, Canadians were told, had nothing whatsoever to do with their whistleblowing. The government must think Canadians are hopelessly naive.

The Liberals have been boasting about Bill C-11 and everything they are doing for public servants who disclose wrongdoing. However, firing dissenting research scientists sends another message. It tells public servants that debate is discouraged in the federal government and no one's job is safe.

As far as Bill C-11 is concerned, in its original form the bill would have done more harm than good for whistleblowers. However, after a lot of hard work by Conservatives in committee, some of the major flaws have been corrected.

À (1010)

I do not want anyone to get me wrong. The bill is still far from perfect but thanks to the pressure applied by the Conservative Party, the government has relented and tabled amendments to create an independent commissioner to hear and investigate disclosures of wrongdoing. This was an essential change to the proposed legislation.

Other amendments have not been forthcoming, including: having the commissioner report directly to Parliament instead of to a minister; prohibitions of reprisals against those who make disclosures of wrongdoing to the public, media, police or anyone outside the narrow process prescribed in the bill; elimination of provisions to change the Access to Information Act to allow departments to refuse to release information about internal disclosures of wrongdoing for five years; and, the bill would still allow cabinet to arbitrarily remove government bodies from protection under Bill C-11.

The bill represents an improvement over the status quo but it remains clear that the government is more interested in managing whistleblowing than protecting and encouraging public servants who uncover evidence of wrongdoing.

It would be interesting to know if there could have been a better way to protect whistleblowers. Like the members for New Brunswick Southwest and Winnipeg Centre, as well as Senator Kinsella, I have for years been lobbying for a strong whistleblower protection. In October 2000, I introduced Bill C-508, the whistleblower human rights act, which was probably the first bill introduced in that session about whistleblowing protection.

My legislation, drafted with the help of actual whistleblowers, including Joanna Gualtieri, Brian McAdam, Robert Reid and many others, would have given people the confidence to come forward but the Liberals could not muster up the courage to support an opposition member's bill.

When the bill finally came to a vote in February 2003 as Bill C-201, because I had reintroduced the same bill, government members refused to lend their support to my initiative. If the government had been sincere about whistleblowing, Liberal members would have voted differently that day. We know the government did not want to pass the bill at that time. Instead, it revealed how phoney its promise had been.

The last time I participated in the debate on Bill C-11, I highlighted a good comparison of my bill, which was drafted by whistleblowers, to Bill C-11 at that stage. There was a big contrast. Many members on the Liberal side were nodding their heads in favour of some of the things that I was proposing in my bill.

The government needs to do more to encourage the reporting of wrongdoing and should stress that it is an important civic responsibility. In fact, it should be the stated duty of every employee to disclose any wrongdoing that comes to their attention.

Based on the experiences of the whistleblowers I have met, their careers and personal lives have been devastated. I believe an employee who has alleged wrongdoing and suffers from retaliatory action as a consequence should have a right to bring a civil action before a court. As well, allegations of wrongdoing should be rewarded like in California where whistleblowers are entitled to 10% of the money government saves as a result of their vigilance.

It is vital that the threat of employer retaliation be eliminated to encourage government employees to speak up. This will assist in curtailing the misuse of taxpayer dollars. Every day there seems to be new reports of corruption and scandal with the government that could be eliminated.

À (1015)

When I blew the whistle on whistleblowing, the Liberals had their ears plugged. Four years ago, in the face of government opposition, I introduced legislation which the Liberals refused to support at that time. Now is the time they should be serious about making this bill effective. Since it was first introduced some important amendments have been made but it is still flawed. I think we will let it pass so that a Conservative government will have the opportunity to make it stronger.[. . . . ]

MP Nina Grewel, CPC, on Whistleblower Legislation

Hansard: Oct. 4, 05 Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act

Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to speak to Bill C-11, an act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings.

Canadians have been waiting for a long time for effective whistleblower legislation. Countries around the world have had whistleblower legislation for decades, protecting public servants who take their oath of protecting the public interest seriously.

Indeed, one wonders that if there had been whistleblower legislation years ago, we may not have had a sponsorship scandal. Who knows how much taxpayers' money could have been saved. Instead, it ended up in the coffers of the Liberal Party.

Unlike the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party has always supported effective whistleblower legislation for public servants who expose wrongdoing, corruption, waste and mismanagement.

Bill C-11 fails on a number of levels, including its enforcement apparatus, its procedural scope and its transparency mechanisms. Before voting to support this bill, I would like to see amendments made to correct these glaring deficiencies in the bill.

First, as it stands, the bill's creation of an independent commissioner to oversee whistleblowing complaints is flawed.

As was the case with the previous Ethics Commissioner, the independent commissioner will report to a minister and not the House of Commons. Past experience with ministerial reporting has not endeared anyone to the process. In fact, in the case of whistleblowing, which could easily implicate political appointees, party workers and/or elected government officials, there is nothing worse than having the commissioner report to a cabinet minister who is often beholden to these interests. An enforcement apparatus must be put in place that avoids reporting to cabinet.

This is clearly a case of the fox guarding the hen house. An independent commissioner reporting to Parliament would be freer in his or her assessments and also more likely to avoid the subtle and structural procedures and biases of cabinet and ministerial authority. Why after 12 years of Liberal rule would we trust a system that furthers ministerial power over whistleblowing?

Rather, we should be making every attempt to make the independent commissioner's office truly transparent. Quite frankly, why should Canadians trust these Liberals to guard themselves, when in the past, they have proven themselves so capable of being untrustworthy?

Second, an independent commissioner responsible to Parliament would further decentralize power from the Prime Minister's Office. As we saw in the sponsorship scandal, power concentrated in one area tends to be abused. Or as Lord Acton most famously said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Lord Acton's words are just as applicable today as yesterday.

Part of the need for whistleblowing legislation is that power has been centrally concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office, leading to cronyism and control. By having the independent commissioner report to the House of Commons, we can further erode the incredible power of the Prime Minister's Office, promoting greater transparency, accountability and democracy.

However, democracy has not been this government's strong point. In fact, the Prime Minister came into office promising to slay the democratic deficit. We have seen in this House the exact opposite: confidence votes ignored, excessive nannying of the Prime Minister's Office, appointing Liberal hacks to the patronage appointments and absolutely no movement on democratic and electoral reform.

Bill C-11 furthers this trend by not prohibiting reprisals against public servants who bring their complaints through procedures other than the ones spelled out in the bill. Those who go through the media, police or Auditor General all face the possibility of disciplinary action under this bill. Far from opening up government, this aspect of the bill places undue restrictions on public servants and could continue a climate of secrecy in the public service.

 (1245)

A Conservative government would provide broad protection for civil servants in all areas of disclosure, including the media. The media's role in any democratic society is to act as a check and balance against excessive government authority and control. While we would all think that at various times the media has failed in its role, by eliminating the ability of public servants to go to the media we further erode the checks and balances of a free and democratic society. Accountability and transparency demand that public servants be allowed media disclosure.

There is nothing to keep politicians more accountable than the prospect of headlines screaming scandal and corruption, as the former head of Canada's Mint has recently discovered. Accountability through the media is a key component of any whistleblowing legislation and a Conservative government would ensure that it was included in the bill.

Transparency is further eroded by the scope of the bill, which excludes several crown corporations. There is simply no excuse not to include all government agencies. As we saw at the Mint under former Liberal MP David Dingwall, crown corporate heads often feel themselves outside the purview of Parliament and end up spending taxpayers' dollars wildly. We cannot allow this to happen by excluding certain agencies.

Transparency is also jeopardized by the time allowance for departments to refuse to release wrongdoings for over five years. Frankly, five years is too long. With such a provision in place, the sponsorship scandal would still have taken place even if it had been reported by dutiful public servants. The Liberals could have continued to keep a lid on the scandal while claiming to be ethical in government.

Such a scenario is completely unacceptable. It seems the Liberals have learned nothing about ethics in government over the last two years. While the Prime Minister is good at ethics rhetoric, when we look below the surface we see the same Liberal solutions to Liberal-made problems. It is not surprising that the solutions turn out to be no solutions at all.

Whistleblowing legislation is an important component to any reform agenda. However, it is one piece of the puzzle. Well crafted whistleblowing legislation provides transparency and accountability, but it does little to address the systemic and structural problems inherent in our present parliamentary system. For that we need a clear focus on system-wide reform measures, such as parliamentary confirmation of judges and heads of crown agencies, electoral reform, and Senate reform.

What we clearly need is leadership on both democratic reform and ethical government. We have had leadership on neither issue from the Prime Minister and I fear we never will. The only way to truly bring honest government to Canada is by implementing a broad range of democratic reforms, something a Conservative government will be more than happy to do in the not too distant future.

 (1250)

Search this site for whistleblowers mentioned below; earlier this year some testified before Parliamentary Committees. Mainstream media are not likely to publicize their stories.

Prominent Whistleblowers  (1250)

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): . . . . Rather than rewarding whistleblowers, like governments do in the United States and many other countries, the Liberals have bullied whistleblowers, intimidated them, harassed them, fired them, and ruined their professional and personal lives. The Liberals have always believed in secrecy, confidentiality and cover-ups rather than transparency, accountability and corrective actions.

Let us take a moment to remember some well publicized whistleblowing cases. Bernard Dussault, the chief actuary of the Canada pension plan, reported that he was asked to modify numbers to paint a more positive state of the CPP. He was fired from his job.

Michèle Brill-Edwards, senior physician in Health Canada's prescription drug approval process, was pressured to approve medication that had caused deaths in the United States. She went public. She had to resign from her job.

Joanna Gualtieri, DFAIT portfolio manager for Latin America and the Caribbean at the time, blew the whistle on waste and lavish spending on diplomatic housing and embassies. The inspector general and the Auditor General later supported her allegations. She was harassed and marginalized within the department. Finally she had to quit and go through the expenses of court, her career completely ruined.

Marilla Lo, senior analyst at the Treasury Board, claimed abuse and harassment, including discrimination for promotions, layoffs, and abusive management practices. She was ultimately fired from her job. Of course she later won a wrongful dismissal suit, but was then forced into retirement.

Brian McAdam was a 25 year veteran foreign service officer, an honest officer in Canadian diplomatic missions in the Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East, South America and Asia. In 1991 he documented evidence of corruption at Canada's foreign mission in Hong Kong, real evidence, which I have mentioned in my earlier speeches. He was demeaned and ostracized by his colleagues. He finally gave up and had to take early retirement.

 (1255)

Michael Sanders, a financial analyst with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, blew the whistle on the absence of sufficient safeguards to protect taxpayers against the collapse of major financial institutions. His fate was to be fired from his job.

Dr. Shiv Chopra, a senior veterinary drug evaluator in Health Canada's therapeutic products and food branch, blew the whistle on the drug approval process for bovine growth hormones, saying that human health concerns were being completely ignored due to pressure from drug companies. His fate was to be fired from his job.

There are many other cases, including those of Corporal Robert Reid of the RCMP, Dr. Margaret Haydon of Health Canada, Bob Stanhouse, again of the RCMP, and Dr. Barry Armstrong of the Canadian armed forces. The list goes on and on, but my time is limited.

Canada is well served by professional and independent public servants, who are often the first to spot problems such as those in the sponsorship scandal. They know when their department has been told to suppress test data. They know when someone is submitting inflated travel expenses or phony invoices or when the work is not being done but the invoices are being submitted. They know what laws they are supposed to enforce and they know when they are not being enforced.

However, federal public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the workplace have little or no recourse if their manager chooses to retaliate against them. Bill C-11 proposes an improvement over the status quo, but it is far from protecting the real whistleblowers and it is not nearly as effective as legislation in other countries.

Five years ago, in the face of government opposition, I introduced legislation to protect bureaucrats who reveal wrongdoing in the workplace. In 2003 the Liberals refused to vote in support of my private member's bill because they did not have the political will to introduce any effective whistleblower legislation. They simply lacked the political will, and that is well reflected in Bill C-11.

When I blew the whistle on whistleblowing, the Liberals had their ears plugged. My private member's bill, Bill C-201, was debated in the House. It was written with the assistance of real-life whistleblowers, many of whom I have named before. They have suffered harassment and reprisals for doing what was right, for doing what was in the best interests of this country but not the Liberal Party.

One whistleblower, Joanna Gualtieri, was of great assistance. She founded the institution called FAIR. Ms. Gualtieri has highlighted a number of points that must be included in whistleblowing legislation if it is to be effective. The following points were included in Bill C-201 but are not found in Bill C-11.

First is full free speech rights. Protected whistleblowing should cover any disclosure that would be accepted in a legal forum as evidence of significant misconduct or would assist in carrying out legitimate law enforcement functions. There can be no loopholes for this one.

Second is to permit all disclosures of illegality and misconduct. Whistleblower laws should cover disclosures of any illegality, gross waste, mismanagement, abuse of authority, substantial and specific danger to public health and safety, and violations of policies, rules and conventions. They are missing from this bill.

Third is the duty to disclose illegality. It is also missing from the bill.

Fourth is that the coverage under the bill should extend to all personnel and affected communities. This is also missing.

Last, and of course, there should be safety from harassment after blowing the whistle.

Bill C-11 serves more as a tool to manage whistleblowing and rein in potential whistleblowers than it does to encourage disclosing wrongdoing. We need effective legislation that would really protect whistleblowers.

· (1300)

---

Crystal Meth, Our Children, Liberal & Court Laxity -&- MP Vic Toews on Crystal Meth

Hansard Oct. 3, 05 Crystal Meth (1450) -- (1455)

Justice Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have obtained a copy of the justice minister's position paper regarding private member's Bill C-313, an act to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. In this document, as hard as it is to believe, the minister argues against raising the age of consent because of potential costs associated with increased prosecution of such cases.

Why does the government have millions of dollars for golden handshakes for patronage hacks, but does not have enough funds to protect our kids from predators? [. . . . ]

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a recent survey found that 10% of high school kids in Surrey use crystal meth, North America's most dangerous drug. This highly addictive drug is cheap and easy to get. As a result of the Liberals' inaction, the crystal meth crisis is getting out of hand.

When will the government introduce mandatory prison sentences for drug pushers and a national drug strategy to help people, especially children, before their lives are devastated by crystal meth?

Vic Toews: A Generation in Danger

The negative effects of methamphetamine, commonly known as “crystal meth” are becoming increasingly evident as this illegal drug sweeps across Western Canada. This drug arrived about five years ago on the West Coast, landing first in the clubs of Vancouver and Victoria, and has quickly spread throughout both urban and rural regions across the country.

. . . easy to buy. . . easy to make. . . . .

The damage that the drug does is serious. Not only is crystal meth highly addictive, but causes irreparable damage and often death to users. Crystal meth is also often intermixed with other popular drug agents such as ecstasy, heroin or even marijuana in order to hook users and create a dependency on the suppliers. This drug also has significant adverse effects on non-users in our communities, with police advising us that crystal meth use is directly associated with an increase in property crimes, identity theft, mail theft, and assault.

This is a drug that is especially popular in small rural communities in Western Canada that are also facing severe shortages of RCMP officers. As well, because it is easy to produce, the drug is also becoming popular with local organized crime groups. It has devastated entire communities in the United States and now is threatening to do the same in Canada.

In an attempt to curb criticism for not addressing the exploding crystal meth problem, the federal government announced last month [August] it would be raising the maximum penalties for trafficking and manufacturing in methamphetamines to life in prison from 10 years, and for possession to seven years from three. Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said in reference to increasing maximum penalties, ''We are making a clear statement today about the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.'' However, neither [Justice Minister Irwin Cotler] nor Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, who flanked him during the announcement, could think of a case where anyone in Canada had been sentenced to 10 years in jail for a crystal meth offence.

It is evident that the courts are not imposing the current maximum penalties, and we have seen consistently in the past that when maximum sentences are raised, there is no corresponding increase in penalties.

Raising maximums is not enough. Accordingly, the Conservative Party is calling on the federal government to introduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for these criminals who are profiting by destroying the lives of Canadians. And until the Liberal government institutes a serious, cohesive National Drug Strategy, the wide-ranging implications crystal meth has on health, society, and crime will remain a problem. Canadian communities need more than simply window dressing to save their youth and to keep their streets safe.

---

Paulus Martinius AdScamus, UN & Whistleblowers, Toews: Protect Canada's Waterways, Islam & Tolerance, Sample: Media Bias, CBC & PM

Paulus Martinius AdScamus, successor to Jeanus Chretienius AdScamus.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF A PLACE CALLED CANADA, BEFORE THE DESTRUCTION OF HURRICANE GOMERY Lorrie Goldstein, Oct. 2, 05 -- via Being An American in T.O. and Newsbeat1

[. . . . ] While most records were destroyed following Hurricane Gomery, which struck Canada's capital in the late fall of 2005, here's what we've been able to piece together from the partial records that have been recovered in the 2,000 years that have passed since then.

[. . . . ] In any event, it appears that at this time, Canada was ruled by Paulus Martinius AdScamus, a minor political figure about whom not much is really known, save that he came to power after years of plotting against his predecessor, Jeanus Chretienius AdScamus. But despite promising the people great changes from Chretienius AdScamus' reign, the historical record shows little in the way of actual accomplishment by Martinius AdScamus.

Vic Toews: Liberals Fail to Protect Canada's Waterways

STEINBACH - Provencher MP Vic Toews is calling on Liberal Cabinet Minister Reg Alcock to explain why his government has failed to protect Canada's waterways relative to the Devil's Lake project. According to recent media reports, the Devil's Lake outlet in North Dakota has been closed only weeks after opening due to increased sulfate content, despite Alcock's previous assertions that his government had solved this contentious environmental issue.

[. . . . ] Toews observed that many Manitobans worry that pollution and parasites from Devil's Lake could enter Lake Winnipeg and do irreparable harm to the environment and specifically the commercial fishing industry based on Lake Winnipeg. "These fears are well-grounded. Owing to the pollutants present in the Devil's Lake water, even the State of North Dakota does not allow that water to be used for the irrigation of farmland," said Toews.

"The Conservative Party has been calling for the institution of proper safeguards to prevent our waterways' pollution since the outlet's inception, yet despite Minister Alcock's assurances our worse fears have been confirmed," concluded Toews.




The value of unasked questions -- on the UN, whistleblower protection, Louise Frechette, Volcker, Annan, PM, Selwyn Pieters and more



Tolerance -- not exactly a strong value in the Muslim world

Moderate Muslims 'ridiculing the Koran' Oct. 6, 05

TORONTO -- A controversial Islamic leader has accused moderate Muslims who campaigned against Shariah law in Ontario of "smearing Islam, ridiculing the Koran [and) badmouthing Muhammad," allegations some believe are tantamount to a death sentence [. . . . ]

The Dhimmi: An Overview -- or Dhimmi.com: Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights: An International Civil Rights Movement for the Victims of Jihad and Islamization Toba, www.dhimmi.com

DEFINITION: The status of People of the Book (Jews and Christians) unders Islamic rule.

DHIMMI HOTSPOTS:
Pakistan: anti-Christian legislation
Iran: Systematic oppression of the Bahai community
Sudan: Murder and enslavement of Black Africans
Saudi Arabia: Apartheid for all non-Muslims
Indonesia: Terrorizing of Christian minorities
Egypt: Oppression of Coptic Christians
Bangladesh: Terrorizing of Hindu and Christian minorities by Islamic radicals

DHIMMI: A BRIEF OVERVIEW [. . . . ]

But Christians are not the only targets; the Hindus of Bali would agree.




Excellent Photographic Example of Media Bias with Text Explication

Anatomy of a Photograph via How the liberal media lie Ted Belman 19:52:57 2005/10/01

An analysis of a single seemingly innocuous photograph, and the pervasive media bias it reveals.

My photo essay of the anti-war protest in San Francisco on September 24, 2005 was not the only report done about the event. A few other outlets ran their own coverage. But the one photo from the rally that was seen by the most people was this:


Why? Because the San Francisco Chronicle, which had the only mainstream media coverage of the rally, published this photograph on the front page of its Web site as a teaser for their article about the event.

Now, let's take a closer look at this image. [. . . . ]

Islam is not a religion of peace -- "Through the above revelation, Allah has made it compulsory for the Muslim leaders to fight the non-Muslims until they acknowledge Islam and to agree to pay higher taxes with willing submission (to Islam) and feel themselves subdued (dhimmitude is the other name of subduedness)."



Liberal bias? It's not just the CBC -- "According to a recent study by two Ryerson University journalism professors:" Posted by By LORRIE GOLDSTEN on 11:46:18 2005/10/03 -- In Reply to: How the liberal media lie posted by Ted Belman

[. . . . ]These findings are contained in "The Canadian News Directors Study", an informative survey of the political leanings and demographics of TV news directors, conducted by Marsha Barber and Ann Rauhala. The results were published in the May 2005 issue of the Canadian Journal of Communication. [. . . . ]

Last month, [Peter Kent, federal Conservative candidate in the Toronto riding of St Paul's.] alleged most Canadian journalists are small "L" liberals and that as a result, Conservatives face the constant hurdle of "getting past the filter of liberal media apologists", particularly in the all-important Toronto market.

Kent has since written to Canada's journalism schools, which he also considers hotbeds of liberal bias, challenging them to study this issue in the next election. [. . . . ]

Worth reading.




Paul Martin and his team could not be expected to go into an election without their trusty mouthpiece, the CBC, could it?

CBC: Now is a Good Time to Consider -- Maybe CBC isn't worth its cost, MP Bev Oda says -- Tory heritage critic calls for review of public broadcaster's value to taxpayersn -- "MPs should launch a debate on the CBC's future" Bill Curry, Sept. 8, 05

I wonder if the typical CBC employee read what people thought of CBC and its biases while they were on strike? Did the managers? Maybe it is time for that now.

---