Conservative Beacon in the Liberal Fog

More Liberal Sleaze and Corruption

2006-06-09T07:47:00.000-07:00

Fri Jun 9 09:25:42 2006

By: Alexander Panetta / Canada.com

OTTAWA (CP) - A number of Liberals are using taxpayer-funded parliamentary offices to promote party leadership bids and would be breaking federal election laws if they fail to refund the public purse.

Supporters of at least eight of the 11 leadership candidates have used MPs' offices on Parliament Hill to distribute partisan campaign material, according to e-mails obtained by The Canadian Press.

During parliamentary business hours, offices have churned out invitations on campaign letterhead to meet candidates, attend leadership launches, or get together with campaign staff.

One Liberal MP called the practice unethical and said it runs deeper than just e-mails.

"This is the tip of the iceberg," he said. "There are interns being used to do (campaign) work, there's the odd phone call to twist a colleague's arm.

"But that's not traceable."

The Canada Elections Act declares it illegal to make campaign contributions when ineligible, and sets out maximum penalties of a $1,000 fine or three months in jail for violating Section 497 of the act.

A spokeswoman for Elections Canada said MPs' staffers are ineligible to work on campaigns while being paid for their time from the public purse.

"These rules are very similar to those applicable to MPs during an election period," said spokeswoman Diane Benson.

She said any work done during business hours should be paid by the individual leadership campaign - not by the taxpayer.

"If a member of an MP's staff engages in leadership campaign work for the MP or for any other leadership contestants during normal working hours, then a proportionate share of that person's salary . . . must be included as a leadership campaign expense," she said.

"The same applies to the use of the member's office facilities or supplies."

Liberal party officials pointed out that leadership candidates still have a year to disclose their campaign expenses. They will be in full compliance with the law if they refund the government for the public resources they use.

One Liberal leadership campaign forwarded at least 17 e-mails to The Canadian Press from different parliamentary accounts that suggest campaign work is being done during business hours.

The e-mails were sent from supporters of Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy, Stephane Dion, Hedy Fry, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Ken Dryden and Carolyn Bennett.

At the very least, those e-mails indicate that the leadership campaigns have used a few hundred dollars' worth of office time and equipment.

However, any campaign using office hours on more time-consuming pursuits - writing leadership speeches, lobbying supporters, updating websites, producing press releases - could be using tens of thousands of dollars in public resources.

The e-mails forwarded to CP were mainly brief, poster-style invitations for Liberals to attend campaign events.

One memorable e-mail invitation to join Hedy Fry this week for a campaign event in Ottawa promised an evening of "dancing with drag queens."

Liberal brass weren't amused by the accusations being levelled from within their own ranks. They said it's too early to rush to judgment on any of the candidates.

The leadership race ends in December, and candidates will have an additional six months to file their expense claims.

"We expect that all leadership campaign activities be fully disclosed and the expenses incurred to undertake those activities be fully disclosed," said Steven MacKinnon, the party's national director.

"Once (candidates) do that . . . they've complied with the law and the rules."

MacKinnon also pointed out that the Liberals have an internal complaints mechanism to deal with alleged transgressions. The party can impose fines of up to $100,000 or disqualify leadership candidates who break the rules.

The news comes on the heels of a controversy involving candidate Joe Volpe.

Volpe accepted $54,000 in 10 separate donations from the top two executives at generic drug manufacturer Apotex Inc., their wives and their six children - including 11-year-old twins.

He insisted he had done nothing wrong but agreed to return the money donated by the five donors under age 18.

Some of Volpe's rivals are still grumbling, however, that his continued presence in the race is harming Liberal efforts to rebuild the party's image following the sponsorship fiasco.

The latest leak of memos from MPs' offices will not help Liberals attain another precious objective for the coming months: party unity.

Most candidates have repeatedly said the party must move on from years of infighting between its Jean Chretien and Paul Martin factions.

The internal leaks, and the complaints about Volpe, suggest the party has slipped back into full-on, back-stabbing mode.

Liberal Plan To Cut Greenhouse Emissions a Dud: Researchers

2006-05-30T08:17:00.000-07:00

By DENNIS BUECKERT

OTTAWA (CP) - The Liberals' $12-billion plan to implement the Kyoto Protocol over seven years would have been largely ineffective, says an as-yet unpublished report by the C.D. Howe Institute.

The report, marked "do not cite or circulate," was written before the current government axed Project Green, as the plan was dubbed, and may have been a factor in the Conservatives' decision to scrap it.

Project Green largely relied on voluntary measures and incentives which have been shown not to work, says the study, which sarcastically calls the package "Project Dream."

"This policy approach will fail dramatically to meet national objectives and yet will entail a substantial cost," says the report, whose lead author is Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University.

The study was written in April and obtained by The Canadian Press on the weekend. It is finally expected to be made public this week.

The report says Project Green would have cost $12 billion by 2012, with much of that money being spent outside Canada.

It would have reduced emissions by 175 megatonnes compared with a business-as-usual scenario, far short of the 230 to 300 Mt. reduction required to meet Canada's Kyoto target.

Efforts like the One Tonne Challenge advertising campaign, which urged individuals to reduce their own greenhouse emissions through lifestyle changes, have "negligible effect," says the study.

"The policy approach of Canada since 1990 and continued with Project Green is clearly ineffective in causing the disconnection of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from the economic output that must take place if these emissions are to be reduced and their atmospheric concentrations stabilized at low risk levels."

Canada's domestic emissions remain on a path that would miss its Kyoto target by at least 270 Mt. in 2010, equivalent to almost a 30 per cent emissions gap, the study says.

"Indeed, the policy approach epitomized by Project Green allows emissions to continue to grow at close to their BAU (business-as-usual) rate."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper could use the report to buttress his claims about the ineffectiveness of the Liberal plan, but he probably won't like the alternatives it recommends.

The most effective policy would likely be a gradually rising tax on greenhouse gas emissions, combined with reductions in other taxes to ensure no net tax increase, says the report.

The main Conservative response to climate change so far has been to make transit passes tax deductible, which experts say will have little effect on emissions.

My Comments - We all knew this was coming, the liberals did nothing on this file, actually emissions went up by 35% inthe last 10 years, so the liberals have no credibility when it comes to saying they are an environmentally sensitive party. they signed onto Kyoto without consulting the provinces, this has just become another gun registry.

The last time I looked, the Sydney tar ponds are still there, and Paul Martin's company CSL is being investigated by DFO for dumping heavy metals in the Great Lakes - this sure ain't Mike Pearson's liberal party, more like a bunch of mafia bagmen.

Media Double Standard

2006-05-30T06:45:00.000-07:00

Where was the outrage over Martin’s press policy?

By Lorrie Goldstein

My own view is that both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Parliamentary Press Gallery (PPG) have been behaving like a couple of horse’s butts in their ongoing confrontation.

But since the PPG is insisting Harper is entirely wrong and it is entirely right in the many news reports and media panels devoted to this issue by various PPG members, I do have some questions about the credibility of the PPG’s position.

This ongoing war between the PPG and Harper over access to the new Conservative government re-ignited last week when Harper gave a television interview in which he accused the PPG of being biased against the Conservatives, adding a Liberal prime minister would never face this kind of opposition from the PPG. Harper’s comments were made in the aftermath of a recent walk out staged by PPG members during a news conference with the PM on Parliament Hill.

The PPG said this walkout was to protest Harper’s insistence that his own staff will choose who in the PPG gets to question Harper and the order in which they will do so, as opposed to past practice where a member of the PPG made these decisions.

The PPG argues Harper’s format will limit the ability of its members to aggressively question him, since his aides might deliberately ignore certain reporters.

But if this is the PPG’s most pressing concern about Harper’s relations with the media, why didn’t it just as strenuously object when former prime minister Paul Martin instituted precisely the same format for taking questions from the media during the last two federal election campaigns?

As Maclean’s Ottawa columnist Paul Wells wrote on his political blog (weblogs.macleans.ca/paulwells) on March 28:

“The biggest problem with our complaints that it’s the PM’s staff, not our fellow journalists, deciding who gets to ask questions is that that’s not new. Paul Martin innovated, in this matter, during the 2004 campaign when he answered only reporters his paid, partisan press aide, Melanie Gruer, acknowledged during daily news conferences. This practice continued for the duration of the 2006 campaign.

“I, for one, was pretty damned surprised to learn, in the second week of the 2004 campaign, that we were letting a Liberal decide who got to put questions to a Liberal prime minister. And during the entire 2004 campaign I didn’t get to put a single question to Martin in any formal news conference. (Grand total for 2006: one question, plus one follow-up.)

“But for the life of me I couldn’t get any of my travelling colleagues to show an ounce of concern about the practice. It sucked then and it sucks now, but it is a bit rich for everyone to start complaining only now.” Indeed.

Here’s David Akin, a parliamentary correspondent for CTV National News, commenting on the same issue in his political blog (davidakin.blogware.com) on May 18.

“During the last election campaign, incidentally, Prime Minister Paul Martin’s communications staff kept a list of reporters who wanted to ask questions and then they would call out a reporter from that list — just like the current PM is doing. During the week I was with him, covering Martin for CTV News, I got all of two questions ...”

If the PPG cares so much about this issue now as an infringement on press freedom, why didn’t it object just as publicly and loudly when the precedent was established by Martin and his staff in the 2004 and 2006 federal election campaigns?

Never mind Harper’s allegations that the PPG are closet liberals. Surely the more relevant point is that the PPG has undercut its own credibility in this confrontation — and lent credence to Harper’s charge that a Liberal PM would not be subjected to the same attack as he has been because ... well ... because that appears to be what happened.

Liberal Gun Registry Like Another Adscam

2006-05-20T09:28:00.000-07:00

By DOUG BEAZLEY, EDMONTON SUN

Good journalism cuts through the crap. Bad journalism just piles it higher.

Days before the release of Auditor General Sheila Fraser's latest report on the federal gun registry, certain news outlets (they know who they are) were reporting on an Ipsos-Reid poll which allegedly suggested most Canadians opposed the Conservatives' plan to scrap the registry.

"In Alberta, 51% of the people surveyed indicated the government should keep a registry system in place," read one press report.

Actually, that report was spinning the original poll so hard, it hovered. The poll actually found 54% of Canadians wanted the registry scrapped, and 56% blamed the previous government for blowing nearly a billion bucks on the project.

What was being spun was the fact that 67% of respondents supported the idea of having "some type of gun registry." One that actually keeps track of weapons. One that doesn't cost too much. An imaginary one.

I've been writing about the gun registry for six years now, and I've gotten pretty shy about predicting its pending demise (I've done it twice). The registry is harder to kill than a kitchen full of cockroaches.

The main political obstacle to killing the registry has always been that peculiar strain of sunny utopianism that is so, so Canadian. From an editorial in the Toronto Star, the last friend the registry has in the media: "Police use the registry to investigate gun crimes and determine if they might encounter firearms when responding to emergency calls."

Time to gut this particular red herring. Gun registry supporters love to talk about how it's receiving 6,500 police hits a day. But they won't break the numbers down by type of search or region.

In fact, according to the feds, any time anyone in the Toronto or Vancouver municipal police forces, or the RCMP in B.C., consults the CPIC database - to, say, run a plate number - the search automatically links to the firearms database.

Each of those CPIC searches is recorded as a separate search of the firearms database. The Toronto Police Service alone employs about 7,000 people.

Unless the registry has information it's not sharing with the rest of us, that 6,500-hit figure is completely meaningless.

"Now that Canadians have spent the money to put the gun registry in place, the real waste would be if Harper dismantles a program that is generally working well," the Star lamented.

"Working well"? Where did that come from? That bogus 6,500-hits-per-day estimate? They didn't get it from Fraser, who clearly stated in her report she did not "examine the effectiveness of the program or its social implications."

In fact, Fraser states that while the Canadian Firearms Centre claimed 90% compliance with licensing regulations in its 2003-04 report, it wouldn't offer a compliance figure for the following year because the information was "becoming outdated." It didn't know, in other words. That's telling.

"The centre does not show how (licensing and registration) help minimize risks to public safety," Fraser wrote.

More than a decade after its establishment, the registry still doesn't check its information against other federal and provincial databases. Half of the restricted and prohibited firearms listed in a pre-1995 database still haven't been reregistered with the CFC.

It gets worse. Much of the money wasted on the registry went into computer systems that either didn't work or couldn't keep up with constantly mutating federal regulations. The first system, CFIS I, was supposed to cost $85 million to develop. Actual price tag: $190 million.

The contract for CFIS II was inked before the contractor even had project specifications. No surprise, the system is two years overdue and set to cost about $90 million.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Fraser found that registry contracts funnelled through a branch of Public Works Canada were being directed to incumbent contractors - no competition. Frequently, she wrote, the CFC paid Public Works, which paid a consulting firm, which paid a subcontractor, which paid the contractor.

That's two extra commissions paid by taxpayers in exchange for nothing in particular. If that sounds familiar, it's because the same practice was used by the feds in the sponsorship program to pay out commissions in exchange for no services. This arrangement, Fraser wrote, drove up contract costs by an average of 25%.

"It has the look and feel of another Adscam," said John Williamson, head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Final point: the government estimates a yearly saving from killing the registry of roughly $75 million. That'll buy you 700 Mounties to chase the people bringing smuggled guns, crystal meth and child pornography to your neighbourhood.

Sounds like a bargain.

Liberal Cowardice Demonstrates Their True Colors

2006-05-19T14:34:00.000-07:00

Windsor Star
Published: Friday, May 19, 2006

On a day a female Canadian soldier was killed taking a courageous stand in Afghanistan, the Liberals that sent her there didn't have the guts to make a stand in the House of Commons.

The Liberals refused as a party to support or oppose an extension of the mission by two years and allowed MPs to vote their conscience or lack of it. It was a calculating, cowardly move that gives the party room to wiggle in the future depending on how the winds of war shape public opinion.

The Bloc Quebecois and New Democratic Party voted against extending the mission, and while that sends a deflating message to the troops abroad, the stance of both parties was at least principled and firm. The Conservatives voted in favour of extending the mission and 24 Liberals, including interim leader Bill Graham and leadership hopefuls Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison, joined them. The motion to extend the mission passed by a margin of 149-145.

Not only did the Liberals fail to take a position on this vital issue but several Grits, including former prime minister Paul Martin, didn't even bother to show up for the vote. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper rose in Parliament to argue in favour of the extension, only 26 of 102 Liberals MPs were there to hear him. Martin led the Liberal party when it sent our troops to Afghanistan without a parliamentary vote.

The Liberals maintained their indifference and indecisive fence-sitting wasn't a reflection of their support for the mission or the troops but a reflection of their disapproval of Harper for calling the vote on such short notice. Soldiers mourning the loss of Captain Nichola Goddard, the 17th Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan since 2002 and the first Canadian woman soldier killed in combat, can be forgiven for missing the distinction.

Media flunking out in Harper 101

2006-05-17T07:54:00.000-07:00

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN,

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Now that the media are finished grading Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first 100 days in office, let's grade the media on their coverage of Harper's first 100 days in office.

In a word, it's been terrible, starting with the fact the media couldn't even agree on which day marked Harper's first 100 days in office.

Indeed, if you seem to recall reading pieces about Harper's first 100 days in office for two weeks now, that's because you have been.

Some media decided Harper's 100th day in office was Tuesday, May 2, the day Harper brought down his first budget, marking 100 days since the Jan. 23 election.

Others decided Harper's 100th day in office is today, the day Federal Auditor-General Sheila Fraser is expected to eviscerate the Liberal gun registry (again) marking 100 days since Harper took power Feb. 6.

For failing to agree on which day marks Harper's first 100 days in office, a rather significant point when you're writing about his first 100 days in office, the media get an "F."

Further, the fact Harper is in office at all means the media get another "F" for political prognostication.

Remember how we in the media killed entire forests writing about how Harper would never become prime minister because he was (a) too scary (b) too emotionless (i.e. wooden) (c) too emotional (i.e. angry) (d) a lousy people person (e) unable to get along with the media (f) unable to get along with Belinda Stronach, and (g) because Canadians feared his "hidden agenda?"

Well, as it turned out, these predictions were wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

In fact, a poll released at the start of the last election campaign showed more Canadians thought Paul Martin and the Liberals had a "hidden agenda" than Harper and the Conservatives. But when have the media ever let what Canadians think get in the way of making bold predictions? Wrong, but bold.

Speaking of Martin, the media get an "F" on predicting his political future, too.

Remember when he finally won control of the Liberal party from Jean Chretien in late 2003?

Remember how the media told you Martin might win more than 200 of Parliament's 308 seats in the next election? Well, Martin certainly captured more than 200 seats. Only thing is, it took him two elections to do it, not one, which is why he's now an opposition backbencher instead of prime minister.

The reason media predictions are usually so wrong is that we generally believe the next election will always be fought like the last one. This is the same logic employed by stupid military generals (and Martin election strategists) who always predict the next war will be fought like the last one.

In the Liberals' case, since Jean Chretien won three majority governments in a row (1993, 1997 and 2000), the media expectation when Martin became PM, especially since the media had anointed him Canada's political messiah, was that he would win an even bigger majority in 2004. Oops.

Then, after Harper held Martin to a minority in 2004, the conventional media wisdom heading into the 2006 vote was that Martin would win either (a) another minority or (b) a narrow majority. Double Oops.

Now, since polls taken following the Jan. 23 election show Harper's Conservatives about 10 points ahead of the Liberals and hovering around 40% of popular support -- the minimum needed for a majority -- the conventional media wisdom is that Harper is poised to win a majority next time.

This from the same folks who told you he was unelectable two years ago.

Maybe an "F" is too generous.

More Decisive Conservative Government - Crime Legislation

2006-05-04T08:09:00.000-07:00

Updated Thu. May. 4 2006 10:57 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Tories put forward two new anti-crime bills today -- aimed at toughening the country's justice system.

One of the bills seeks to impose mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking, weapons offences, crimes committed while on parole, and for repeat and violent offenders.

The other looks to ban conditional sentencing for serious and violent offences and end house arrest for serious offences.

Federal Justice Minister Vic Toews tabled the new crime bills in the Commons today.

He said tougher crime measures are needed to crack down on violent, dangerous and repeat offenders.

"We wanted to focus on specific types of crimes, these are guns and gangs," Toews told reporters outside the Commons Thursday.

Critics, however, have suggested the legislation will overload prisons and cost the federal government millions of dollars.

"Criminologists do not support his analysis," legal analyst Julian Falconer told CTV Newsnet Thursday.

"We have no proof that jailing more people stops crime. What are we doing by way of preventative measures?"

The Conservatives have pledged to create a mandatory DNA data bank for sex offenders, and end "defence loopholes" for child pornography.

They have also promised a third anti-crime bill this spring, which would raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.

Government officials say that bill is still being developed.

Today's announcement follows Tuesday's federal budget pledge of $1.4 billion over two years to increase Canada's security -- including increasing the number of police officers on the streets.

Conservatives promised to hire 1,000 more Royal Canadian Mounted Police with a $161 million increase in funding to the force.

The budget also pledged $37 million to expand the RCMP National Training Academy to accommodate the new officers, and $20 million for communities to prevent youth crime, with a focus on guns, gangs and drugs.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said he will increase prison spaces to accommodate any increase in sentencing.

At a speech in Winnipeg last month, Prime Minister Stephen Harper outlined the criminal justice reforms his government was planning to take led by Toews.

"The safe streets and safe neighbourhoods that Canadians have come to expect as being part of our way of life are being threatened by rising levels of gun, gang, and drug crime," Harper said on April 19.

Harper promised to "completely overhaul" the criminal justice system by increasing police forces across the country and by toughening up sentences during last winter's federal election campaign.

The pledge to "prevent crime by putting more police on the street and improving the security of our borders" was also repeated in last month's throne speech.

My Comments - The critics to this legialstion are obviously happy with the status quo where child predators and serious offenders are treated like royalty and victims rights are not protected.

The liberals did nothing to protect Canadians in their coddling and weak justice system, Harper and the Conservatives stated in the election - if you do serious crime, you will do serious time.

It looks like Harper and the Conservatives are actually leading this country after 13 years of liberal dithering, corruption, and fence-sitting.

Budget Highlights - More Money In My Pocket Is a Good Thing

2006-05-02T14:52:00.000-07:00

Kirsten Smith, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, May 02, 2006

The budget calls for about $30 billion in new spending which includes the reallocation of $3.6 billion in current expenditures. Here are the highlights.

Personal Income taxes

- Reduce the GST from 7 per cent to 6 per cent at a cost of $8.6 billion over two years.

- Create a new Canada Employment Credit worth up to $1000. This will cost $2.7 billion over two years.

- Reduce the lowest tax rate from 16 per cent to 15.5 per cent. This will cost $3 billion dollars over two years.

- The basic personal exemption, the amount you can earn tax free, will increase slightly to $8,839. This change will cost $1.58 billion over two years.

- Changes to the rules to allow for the family transfer of fishing property at cost of $120 million over two years.

Education and Training.

- Creation of the Apprenticeship Job Creation Tax Credit for employers to offset the cost of hiring apprentices. This will cost $390 million over two years.

- Creation of the Apprenticeship Incentive Grant of $1,000 per year to encourage people to enter the trades. This will cost about $110 million over two years.

- A $500 deduction for the cost of new tools over $1,000. This will cost $155 million over the next two years.

- Elimination of federal income tax on scholarships, bursaries and fellowships. This program will cost $95 million over two years.

- Creation of the Textbook Tax Credit, which will cost $260 million over two years.

- Expanding the number of students who can use the Canada Student Loans Program

- Investing in research and development at a cost of $200 million over two years.

New Canadians

- Reduce the right or Permanent Residence Fee from $975 per person to $490. This will cost of $224 million over two years

- Increase in immigration settlement funding to $307 million over two years

- Progress on foreign credential recognition. $18 million over two years.

Jobs and the Economy

- Elimination of the federal capital tax at a cost of $1.02 billion

- Reducing taxes for small business, which will cost $90 million over two years.

- Repealing the excise tax on jewelry will cost $80 million over two years.

- Reducing excise duties for small vintners and brewers at a cost of $35 million over two years.

- Eliminate the double taxation of large corporate dividends will costs $685 over two years.

- A mineral exploration tax credit will cost $65 million over two years.

- Modify the minimum tax on financial institutions will cost $45 million over two years.

Security and policing

- $204 million to the RCMP for hiring and expanding the training depot.

- $20 million for youth crime prevention

- $15 million for the DNA databank

- $26 million for victims of crime

- $38 million for emergency response

- $95 million for passenger rail and urban transit security.

- $133 million to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

- For various programs to enhance border security, national emergency response, a no fly list and arming border guards will cost $404 million over two years.

- Preparing for a pandemic, $460 over two years

The military

- $1.125 billion for the Canadian Armed Forces. This will hire more troops, buy unspecified equipment, improved base infrastructure and Arctic sovereignty and restore a regular army presence in British Columbia.

Aboriginal Canadians

- Over the next two years the Government will spend $450 million on education, women, water and housing

- There is already $2.2 billion set aside for payments to residential school survivors.

- There is a further $600 million for off reserve and northern housing but it is contingent upon a large enough budget surplus for 2005-06. The final figures will not be released until the fall of 2006.

Environment

- A tax credit on the purchase of public transit passes to encourage the use of mass transit. This will cost $370 million over two years.

- Accelerate capital cost allowance for forestry bioenergy. This will cost $30 million over two years.

Infrastructure

- Highways and border fund will cost $585 million over two years.

- The Pacific Gateway Initiative at $91 million over two years.

- $181 million over two years for the Strategic Infrastructure Fund

- $532 million over two years to renew the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund.

The Arts

- Eliminate capital gains on donations to charities will cost $110 million over two years.

- The Canada Council of the Arts will receive $50 million extra in the next two years.

Families

- Universal Child Care Benefit to children under six. This measure will cost $3.7 billion in the next two years.

- $250 million over two years to create new childcare spaces.

- Physical fitness tax credit for children under 16 will cost $200 million over two years.

- An increase the to Child Disability Benefit will cost $80 million over the next two years.

- $104 million over two years for a national cancer strategy.

- Tax assistance to pensioners will cost $895 million in the next two years.

Agriculture

- $400 million over two years to combat the pine beetle infestation, mostly in B.C

- Improving farm support programs will cost $2 billion in the next two years.

The Provinces

- One time extra funding of $255 million for equalization.

Conservatives Lead Separatists: Poll

2006-05-02T14:43:00.000-07:00

Tue May 02, 08:12 AM EST

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Conservatives are rapidly gaining support in Quebec and are now more popular than the province's separatist party, according to a new poll published on Tuesday.

The CROP poll for La Presse put the Conservatives at 34 percent in Quebec, up from the 25 percent the party won during the January 23 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois, which a few months ago was flirting with 50 percent backing, dropped to 31 percent from 42 percent on January 23.

The Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, unexpectedly took 10 of Quebec's 75 seats in the election, helping them win a fragile minority federal government and thereby ending 12 years of Liberal rule.

"Thanks to his attitude, his gestures and his speeches, Mr Harper has clearly succeeded in getting closer to Quebec since the January 23 election," CROP's Claude Gauthier told La Presse.

The poll contained more bad news for the Liberals, who once dominated the province but were brought down last November by a corruption scandal which centered on Quebec. The party sank to 15 percent support from 20 percent on January 23.

CROP also found that 56 percent of Quebecers were satisfied with the federal government, an enormous jump from the 22 percent recorded in a CROP poll from January 11 to 16 this year.

The survey of 1,002 people was carried out between April 20 and 30 and is considered to be accurate to within 2.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Harper Shows Decisive Leadership - Softwood Lumber

2006-05-02T08:48:00.000-07:00

Edmonton Sun Editorial

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his team pulled off quite the coup by reaching a solution with Washington last week on the decades-long exhausting softwood lumber dispute.

Under the new seven-year agreement, Canadian lumber companies will get back $4 billion of the $5 billion the U.S. imposed on duties on our softwood exports.

It's true that in future, Canadian softwood exports will be limited to 34% of the $10-billion U.S. market, but at least we have a guarantee of that market share without fear of new sanctions.

Over the past decade, hundreds of Canadian workers have lost their jobs and smaller companies have fallen victim to the sanctions and shut down operations.

Now there'll be long-term stability, and the industry will know the rules of the game.

Evidence of just how hard-won a fight this was came at the 11th hour, when Canadian negotiators were still trying to pull the governments of B.C., Ontario and Quebec onside and their U.S. counterparts were still trying to sell it to their special interest groups.

Politically, this is a coup similar to Harper's astonishing visit to shake hands with our men and women in uniform on the front lines in Afghanistan.

Perhaps that's why interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham and NDP Leader Jack Layton feign such outrage.

Graham's arm-waving stance is a charade. For the best part of the 13 year Jean Chretien-Paul Martin era, the Liberals tried to negotiate a solution with Washington and failed.

Layton charged that Harper has settled for 80 cents on the dollar.

Perhaps the NDP leader would rather have 100% of nothing than 80% of $5 billion. If so, he better try explaining that to the working men and women who depend on the softwood lumber industry for their livelihoods.

Another winner is beleaguered International Trade Minister David Emerson, who crossed the floor to join the Conservatives within days of being re-elected as a Liberal MP in Vancouver. Emerson can now ask his constituents whether they prefer a representative at the Harper cabinet table or not.

Harper's growing friendship and influence with President George W. Bush was obviously the final key to bringing this controversy to a close.

The Liberals insulted Bush at every touch and turn. The Conservatives know this is not the way to get results from the Americans. Winning is what it is all about.

Harper has done more in his almost three months in power than Martin did in almost two years.

This lumber deal is what leadership looks like.

My Comment - The liberals did nothing on the softwood countervail issue since it started in 2000, since then dozens of mills closed and the Canadian softwood sector took a huge hit. The liberals did not support the industry with loan guarantees(but they had money for a $2 billion useless gun registry)

Harper is getting the best deal for the softwood industry, and because of the liberals inaction, the industry had to take this deal because they are in desperate economic times. Is this the best outcome possible? No, but its sure better than anything we've seen from the liberals in 6 years.

Yet Another Liberal Failure - Obsolete Submarines

2006-05-01T09:33:00.000-07:00

Updated Fri. Apr. 28 2006 11:38 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Defence Department announced Friday that repairs to the fire-ravaged HMCS Chicoutimi, will be delayed until 2010, leaving the navy short by one vessel.

The department said delaying repairs to HMCS Chicoutimi for another four years has the potential to save the department millions of dollars that can be spent on other vessels, including two other subs in the fleet.

"This will improve our ability to get Victoria and Corner Brook back into service and better position the navy to have two boats fully operational in 2009," Chief of the Maritime Staff Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson said in a one-page written statement released Thursday.

Victoria and Corner Brook are also currently out of commission.

Chicoutimi was supposed to be back in operation by September 2007 following repairs caused by the blaze in October 2004.

The Victoria-class submarine caught fire following an electrical malfunction during its maiden voyage to Canada from Scotland.

Lieut. Chris Saunders, a 32-year-old father of two from Halifax, died a day later of his injuries.

The Chicoutimi has been sitting in dry dock at Halifax Shipyards Ltd. since last spring and will be placed in an extended limited maintenance period until the two-year refit process begins in 2010.

The military has already spent about $25 million assessing the damage and removing some materials destroyed in the blaze.

The Defence Department, which hasn't confirmed the cost estimates, said the repairs are expected to take two years to complete, allowing the sub to rejoin the fleet in 2012.

The department also sought to assure that the Victoria-class fleet's operational capability will not be negatively impacted because of the delay.

The deferral is the latest setback for the fleet of four used diesel-electric vessels the Canadian government obtained from Britain in 1998 in an $891-million lease-to-purchase deal.

The vessels have been plagued by a number of problems, including rust, floods, faulty valves and a dent in a hull.

Only one of the subs, HMCS Windsor, is now able to go to sea.

The latest decision isn't surprising, a defence analyst said, as Ottawa has been trying to rein in spending in the days leading up to the federal budget.

Peter Haydon of the Centre for Policy Studies in Halifax told The Canadian Press on Friday the repairs to Chicoutimi will be done at the same time as the scheduled refit.

"You might look at it as quite a positive sign because they're not going to can the whole program, which was one of the rumors going around," he told CPA.

"It confirms the continuance of operating submarines."

My comment - The liberals purchase these obsolete and useless subs for $1 billion from the British, and now we have to sink even more money into HMCS Chicoutimi to get her operational by 2012?

Obviously the liberals decided to buy these subs for political reasons rather than our sailor's safety, so they bear the entire responsibility of our Navy's inability to protect our interests, what a national embarrassment.

I think Harper should scrap them and get a couple of new Canadian-designed nuclear subs to patrol our coastline, the three British subs we currently have are useless and falling apart, and they do little to protect our country's sovereignty - yet another example of liberals failing our military.

More Liberal Adscam Sleaze - It Never Ends

2006-04-26T12:39:00.000-07:00

By STEPHANIE RUBEC,

SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, OTTAWA SUN

OTTAWA -- In their final hours, Paul Martin's Liberals secretly cut a $40,000 cheque to cover the costs of a longtime Liberal's challenge of the AdScam report.

And ex-PM Jean Chretien's right-hand man Jean Pelletier has appealed to the Conservative government to dip into federal coffers for more.

Only hours before losing his seat to the Conservatives Jan. 23, former Treasury Board President Reg Alcock signed off on a $40,000 payment to help Pelletier cover some of his legal fees in his challenge of Justice John Gomery's findings.

Treasury Board President John Baird chastised his Liberal predecessor for sticking taxpayers with Pelletier's legal fees.

"This is nothing more than the Liberal party lining up for one more pass over on the gravy train," Baird said, adding Alcock had the option of turning Pelletier down.

Pelletier announced his intention to challenge the findings of the AdScam report in the first week of the election in December -- shortly after Chretien launched a legal challenge on his own dime.

Pelletier is arguing that Gomery erroneously believed former sponsorship head Chuck Guite, who testified that the PMO had a stranglehold on sponsorships and used it to funnel funds to Liberal-friendly ad firms and into sovereigntist ridings.

Alcock directed Pelletier's lawyer Guy Pratte to submit his bills directly to the justice department for payment, indicating that the federal government would cover the hourly costs of the lawyers to a maximum of $40,000.

The payment is in addition to the $600,000 in legal fees taxpayers have already picked up for Pelletier's lawyers during the Gomery commission.

Baird said the only people who should have their legal fees picked up by taxpayers are working public servants.

"This has got to end and it disturbs me, and if anything can be done legally about it, I'll do my best," Baird said.

NDP Pat Martin accused Pelletier and the Liberals of using the treasury as an ATM.

"It speaks to an appalling lack of judgment by Reg Alcock," Martin said.

Soldiers Agree With Conservative's Media Ban

2006-04-26T12:37:00.000-07:00

Tue Apr 25, 07:44 PM EST

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - The grief of war widows and families is an intensely private matter that doesn't need to be on display for the whole country to see, a number of Canada's fighting troops said Tuesday.

Still raw from the events of last weekend, when four Canadian soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb, the Conservative government's decision to ban the media from covering the arrival ceremonies of war casualties back in Canada was greeted with cautious approval.

"They already know when someone dies down here," said Bombardier Hugo Girouard, a gunner from Shilo, Man.

"Why dramatize more what is already dramatic?"

The bodies of Lieut. William Turner, Cpl. Matthew Dinning, Bombardier Myles Mansell and Cpl. Randy Payne arrived at an eastern Ontario military base Tuesday afternoon.

Live television coverage from afar showed a military aircraft land at CFB Trenton, with a long line of military brass and family members waiting on the tarmac.

A camera mounted on a satellite truck caught images of a bagpiper and honour guard among those waiting for each flag-draped coffin to be lowered from the aircraft.

Four times, eight pallbearers carried a coffin on their shoulders to a waiting hearse, their solemn march led by a white-robed clergyman.

Media couldn't go near enough to identify officials nor relatives participating in the procession.

Earlier in the day, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor announced a reversal of the former Liberal government's policy that for years allowed the media to cover the sombre arrival ceremony.

When asked what their biggest concern would be should something happen to them, very nearly all the soldiers who agreed to speak Tuesday said they preferred grieving family members be shielded from what they consider to be the sometimes ruthless intensity of the media spotlight.

In late March, when Pte. Robert Costall was killed in a possible friendly fire incident in nearby Helmand province, many soldiers reacted with horror and disgust when specifics of his autopsy made headlines in a national newspaper.

"All of the details shouldn't be given to the Canadian public because I don't think they need to know everything," said Girouard.

Whenever a soldier dies overseas, there are usually two so-called ramp ceremonies to which the media have open access.

The first is the departure, a stoic final salute from comrades in arms, most of whom line an airfield tarmac as the casket is loaded onto an aircraft for the final journey home.

Upon arrival in Canada, the solemn observance is repeated, with the grieving relatives there to receive their loved one.

"I believe that should be a family and private moment," said Cpl. Greg Gorecki, of 1 Combat Engineering Regiment.

"I support the decision."

If a family member chooses to talk to the media, that's their prerogative, but they should not be put on display, complained several soldiers.

"All of the coverage the media has here on Kandahar airfield is all the coverage the media has to have," said Gorecki.

"I think once the event has been covered, it doesn't need to be exposed any more."

Following recent departure ceremonies at Kandahar airfield, for both Costall and the latest casualties, many soldiers openly grumbled about the presence of journalists and cameras. They considered such time to be their private farewell and cited how the Americans bar the media altogether from both services.

In more even-tempered moments, most troops readily admit that coverage of the ramp ceremonies in southern Afghanistan has been important because it reminds Canadians of the sacrifices they and their comrades have made.

Closing off media access to those events would be far more disturbing, soldiers said, because not showing caskets would imply that this conflict has no cost, or worse, had become an embarrassment.

An army spokesman said there is no plan to shut down the access of journalists to the departure ceremony.

"In the first place it is for us to say au revoir to our fallen comrades," said Maj. Marc Theriault. "But it is also a testimony that can be brought to the public about the kind of job Canadian soldiers are doing here."

When did our media become such whiners?

2006-04-26T12:35:00.000-07:00

National Post
Published: Wednesday, April 26, 2006

The media in Canada are no longer simply reporting on the story, they have become the story. For weeks, Canadian media consumers have been spoon-fed an endless series of lamentations from some members of the Ottawa press corps over media access.

First, it involved efforts by the Prime Minister's Office to vet what Cabinet ministers say, then over the government's decision not to permit scrums after Cabinet meetings and again recently over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's insistence on choosing who can ask questions at his news conferences. The latest auto-furor has erupted over the government's decision to safeguard the privacy of family members mourning four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan by refusing to make the return of the bodies to CFB Trenton into a photo op.

No matter that Canadians have already been treated to four days of blanket coverage of the deaths, or that the ceremony on Monday in which their comrades paid their moving last respects and the soldiers' coffins were loaded on to a military plane was open to the media. The gang here want a piece of the action, too. They want to have access to the grief of the wives, parents and children of the dead soldiers. But they should ask themselves, what conceivable public interest would be served by facilitating their demands? At what point does the legitimate need to cover the story of fallen soldiers cross the line into paid voyeurism?

We would argue that in the case of the four soldiers, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has struck the correct balance between openness, with swift release of the sad news of the deaths and the identities of those killed followed by access for the media to the ceremony held at the base in Afghanistan, and privacy. As the minister said in a statement, "There is a time to mourn ... The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces." This was intended as a show of respect, but many in the media prefer to characterize the "media ban" as a cynical ploy to manipulate public opinion, or worse, an assault on fundamental freedoms.

Get over it, guys: the world does not revolve around your need to file 800 words for tomorrow's edition.

Canadians may well be wondering how it is that the working conditions for reporters in Ottawa have suddenly become one of the nation's most pressing concerns. The answer is, of course, they are not, and all will return to normal once Belinda Stronach or Don Cherry or someone else does something goofy in coming days, so these people have something to write or talk on-camera about.

Until then, expect more whining.

Big Government Liberalism Does Its Damage

2006-04-26T12:33:00.000-07:00

Updated Wed. Apr. 26 2006 2:55 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The government has been reaching deeper and deeper into taxpayers' pockets since 1961, with the total tax bill for the average family increasing by 1,600 per cent or $26,792, according to a new report from The Fraser Institute.

The report, dubbed Tax Facts 14, was released Wednesday, and takes a hard look at how taxation is affecting the pocketbooks of taxpayers.

It comes just one week before Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government releases its first budget, which is expected to include a promised 1 per cent cut to the GST.

The government has defended the cut as the fairest way to ensure all Canadians benefit from a tax break, but critics say they fear it will displace reductions to personal income tax that were planned by the previous Liberal government.

The Fraser Institute study finds that Canadians now pay more annually in taxes than they spend on shelter, food and clothing combined.

In 1961, the average household earned $5,000 and paid $1,675, or 33.5 per cent, of that in taxes. The average family in 1961 spent $2,824 on food, shelter and clothing per year.

In 2005, the report found, the average family earns $60,903, and spends $28,467 of that, 46.7 per cent, on taxes. The average family now spends $22,167 on food, shelter and clothing per year.

The increase in spending on shelter represents a climb of 1,006 per cent, while spending on food has jumped by 481 per cent and spending on clothing has increased by 439 per cent.

The report indicates that income tax accounts for the largest portion of the tax Canadians pay, at about 32 per cent. Other taxes, however, such as contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance premiums, and a variety of other taxes including motor vehicle fees and property taxes add up to round out the remaining two thirds of the tax bill.

The Fraser Institute report also underscores the disparity between earners and taxpayers at both the high and low ends of the spectrum.

In 2005, 60.3 per cent of all income in Canada was earned by the top 30 per cent of families, who also paid 66.3 of the taxes.

In contrast, the lowest 30 per cent earned only 7.8 per cent of all income and paid 4.3 per cent of all taxes.

Niels Veldhuis, the co-author of the report and senior research economist at The Fraser Institute, pointed out that the distribution of income is less polarized than it appears at first glance, because earners are consistently moving through the income grid.

"Income mobility data has repeatedly shown that there is not a permanent underclass in Canada stuck in a low income group," Veldhuis said.

The report found that most young people entering the work force start out in the low-income bracket and work up to the middle or high-income group, with their incomes peaking in middle age before beginning to drop as they age towards retirement.

Another interesting phenomenon illustrated by the report is the way the Canadian taxation system penalizes ambitious earners who climb the income ladder.

In one example, a fictional Canadian who earned $2,750 in 1961 paid $960 in taxes, equaling 34.9 per cent.

In the following 44 years, however, his income rose steadily until it reached $122,657 per year in 2005. At that point, he would pay $62,278, or 50.8 per cent, in taxes.

Between 1961 and 2005 the subject's income increased by 4,360 per cent, but his tax rate increased by a much higher rate of 6,387 per cent.

"Canada's progressive tax system imposes an ever increasing burden on people as they earn more income," stated Veldhuis, "Clearly our tax system is sending the wrong message when it penalizes people for being successful."

Liberal Filled Senate to Stonewall Conservative Accountability Act?

2006-04-17T20:33:00.000-07:00

As I recall in the recent election, Stephen Harper was slammed by the leftist media and the opposition parties for stating the obvious....the senate is filled with liberals. He indicated that getting legislation passed would be challenging - as usual Harper is right.

Last week, the Conservatives released the new Federal Accountability Act to Parliament (#1 promise fulfilled), but already the majority of liberal senators have indicated they will fight the bill tooth and nail.

So lets get this straight, the Conservatives bring legislation before parliament to clean up liberal corruption which nearly destroyed the country, and now the liberal hacks in the senate will stonewall this legislation?. So they basically want to ignore the will of the people in Parliament, not really surprising considering we are talking about the libranos here.

The Conservatives are justified in being outraged, the liberals,the Bloc, and the NDP will have no choice but support this legislation because the public is demanding it.

After 13 years of massive systemic liberal corruption, it is time for the Conservatives to clean house, and they are doing so because Canadians voted for Conservatives to form government. (something the CBC and the Red Star still haven't figured out.)

The liberals don't like this bill because it limits corporate and union donations to political parties. The Conservatives raise all their funding by normal Canadians like me sending in $20, but the liberals rely on handouts from Bay Street, and all their other mafia-connected revenue streams.

If the senate stops the passage of the Accountability Act, the public will be outraged and this will validate Harper's statements in the election.

If this bill is stopped by the senate, then all Canadians better take a good hard look at our government and demand changes and subsequent abolishment of the senate.

The senate is right now is a liberal filled cash trough where cast-offs and liberal party bagmen are rewarded, a national disgrace that needs the Accoutability Act more than any other government institution in Canadian politics.

Should Military Service Be Mandatory?

2006-04-17T09:04:00.000-07:00

By RACHEL MARSDEN, Toronto Sun

While Canadians soldiers were busy “peacekeeping” (i.e., fighting terrorists) in Afghanistan last weekend, a Taliban spokesman told The Canadian Press: “We think that when we kill enough Canadians, they will quit war and return home.”

He’s talking about the country that sent 600,000 troops into World War I, and captured Vimy Ridge from the Germans 89 years ago this week after both the French and Brits had failed. The same nation that saw 15,000 Canadians fight alongside their Allied cousins on D-Day in World War II.

What has caused our international image to become so tarnished? Decades of weak-kneed, pansy-fannied liberalism, that’s what. My solution: Two years of mandatory military service for every Canadian, right out of high school.

Here’s the rationale:

Too many of our spoiled kids go straight from mom and dad’s basement into the ivory tower of academia, where they hone their skills in the fine art of leftist BS. Noam Chomsky didn’t give these kids their freedom — soldiers did. That’s who they should be learning their politics and history from, along with some useful trades and skills.

Too many Canadian youths are fat and lazy. Just look at basic training as one big ParticipAction program.

Nothing says “gender equality” better than a woman who knows her way around an M16 assault rifle. I suspect violence against women in Canada would decrease dramatically.

PM Stephen Harper says he wants to recruit 23,000 new soldiers. Young people won’t even vote unless they can speed-dial it in, a la American Idol. Unless Harper plans to fight and defend our interests using PlayStations, good luck with those recruitment goals without mandatory military service.

The ripple effect on immigration: If all immigrants knew Canada’s “freebies” had to be earned through mandatory military service by their children, it would screen out any leeches. Also, those hell-bent on killing “infidels” would think twice about coming here if their kids had to fight alongside said infidels to defend western democracy.

Toronto Mayor David Miller has said young people need jobs so they don’t shoot up the city. Here’s a job that will redirect their misguided enthusiasm.

Of course there will be those who “conscienciously” object to military service and those who are so psychologically incompetent or just plain inept that you wouldn’t want them handling a sharp pair of scissors, let alone a weapon. These people will become experts at peeling potatoes and various other domestic tasks. Those who master the cheese grater can graduate to babysitting polar bears in the Arctic for the duration of their service term. Establishing a military presence up there is one of Harper’s goals anyway.

A final clarification for lefties about to go into convulsions: Mandatory military service isn’t a wartime “draft.” The former increases the talent pool, whereas the latter can weaken a country’s military might — and we wouldn’t want to ruin Canada’s reputation as a worldwide military superpower as seen by people like, say, that Taliban spokesman, would we?

Quebec As Usual Wants Everything

2006-04-10T15:10:00.000-07:00

Mike De Souza, CanWest News Service

Published: Monday, April 10, 2006

OTTAWA - A new battle is brewing between Quebec and Alberta over booming oil and gas revenues.

With provincial and territorial premiers meeting in Montreal this week to talk about transfer payments, Quebec is demanding changes that would make Alberta share more of its riches.

Quebec says it's being shortchanged under the system, which redistributes wealth between the have provinces and have-nots.

But Alberta's newly appointed Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Gary Mar says the province is already happily paying its membership fees to Confederation.

"Overall, Canadians should recognize that resource revenues generated here in Alberta already benefit the rest of Canada fairly dramatically," said Mar, who was sworn in last week.

"Alberta is a very proud part of Confederation. We are willing to pay our fair share ... ."

Ottawa collects more taxes generated by oilsands than the Alberta government does, Mar stressed.

Meanwhile, Albertans paid $29 billion in taxes to Ottawa last year, and received only $17 billion in government services in return, he said.

"It's a tremendous benefit to all of Canada to ensure that the proper exploitation of the resources in Alberta continues to go on."

Studies done by an environmental policy think-tank and the Library of Parliament, however, suggest federal government assistance to the oil and gas industry is giving Alberta an unfair advantage.

"Canadians across the country are providing billions of dollars in tax subsidies, tax breaks to the upstream oil and gas industry," said Matthew Bramley, climate change policy director for the Pembina Institute.

The study, released last year, concluded that the oil and gas industry had received $8.3 billion in direct or indirect government aid from 1996 to 2002.

Overall, the oil and gas industry across Canada has received about $66 billion in aid from the federal government from 1970 to 1999, according to a Library of Parliament study released by the Bloc Quebecois.

While some of the programs have since been cancelled, Bramley said the industry still benefits from hundreds of millions of dollars in government programs. Industry officials in Alberta say most of the money was spent on offshore drilling incentives in the Maritimes and northern territories.

Quebec says it wants the transfer- payment system changed so that all natural-resource revenues are included in calculating a province's wealth.

While Quebec's revenues from its renewable resources such as hydroelectricity are factored into its wealth, the revenues from the oil and gas industry are now left out of the calculation in the complex equalization formula, says Hugo D'Amours, spokes-man for Quebec Premier Jean Charest.

Bloc environment critic Bernard Bigras said Ottawa should also take steps to reward Quebec for meeting Kyoto protocol targets in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong said Ottawa will begin negotiations with the provinces to settle his party's promise to resolve the fiscal imbalance once it has a look at three different discussion papers, including one to be released in the next budget.

My Comment - Since 1961, Alberta has paid $201 billion more to Ottawa (and mostly to Quebec)than it has received in transfer payments, so Quebec can go to hell. That province in its wacky leftist policies has created its own problems, let them dig themselves out for a change...

Liberal Hypocrisy

2006-04-05T08:15:00.000-07:00

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

So let's get this straight. According to Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have a big fight on his hands from the Grits if he does either of the following things:

(a) Fails to implement the national daycare plan that the Liberals promised in the 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004 federal elections and never, ever delivered.

(b) Cuts the GST from 7% to 6% even though former prime minister Jean Chretien promised to scrap the GST entirely in the 1993 federal election and never ever delivered.

So what's the Liberals' logic here? That Chretien can fib about scrapping the GST but Harper can't shave one lousy point off it?

Goodale's argument is that the Grits won't allow Harper to pay for his GST cut by scrapping income tax cuts the Liberals promised. That's rich. Perhaps the Liberals can show us the law they passed authorizing those income tax cuts?

What really happened is that two weeks before the Liberals fell on Nov. 28, Goodale introduced a desperate "bribe us with our own money" economic statement that retroactively lowered income tax rates to Jan. 1, 2005.

Harper is honouring the 2005 cuts, but not the ones the Liberals introduced at the last minute for 2006, just before they lost a non-confidence vote. That's Harper's right. Why should he have to deliver a Liberal election promise? Would Goodale have implemented Harper's GST cut if the Grits had won the election?

That said, I agree with John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that Harper should cut both the GST and deliver the Grit income tax cuts, not because he has to dance to Goodale's tune, but because the !@@!?! Liberals had so much of our money stashed under the mattress that we all deserve a big tax break.

As for the Liberals' so-called "national daycare program," as long as they and the pro-daycare lobby, who might as well be Liberal shills, keep pretending that's what the Grits delivered just before they fell from power, the more important it will be to keep setting the record straight.

It was not a national daycare program. All it was, was a promised money transfer of $5 billion to the provinces over five years (which either side could bail out of with a year's notice) for daycare-related -- often vaguely related -- programs. It set no national standards. It was a series of one-on-one deals with the provinces. If any Liberal tells you it was a "national daycare program," ask them this: "What guarantees did you receive when you made the deal with Quebec that it would spend any of this money on daycare?" Watch them stutter.

The truth is, a real national daycare program would cost about $10 billion a year and would send Canada plunging back into deficit. Harper's plan to give parents $1,200 (taxable) annually per child under age 6 to help defray the costs of child care isn't a national daycare program either. But unlike the Liberals, he never pretended it was.

And while we're on the subject of Liberal horse manure, here's a handy quote for future reference.

Remember, when the Liberals were in power, how they accused Harper of plotting to wreck the country every time he talked to the Bloc? Remember how Belinda Stronach said she bolted from the Tories to the Grits because of it?

Well, here's Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham, quoted by The Canadian Press this week, about how the Liberals now intend to work with the Bloc to "moderate" the Tory government. Said Graham: "There are many things in politics where the Liberal party and the Bloc Quebecois are on the same wavelength." Really? You mean like hypocrisy?

By the way does Stronach know about this? Does she have any comment? Is she now going to re-rat to the Tories?

Alberta PC Convention Results

2006-04-03T10:29:00.000-07:00

Voting PC Party delegates (I would be one of those 1,200 people) stunned the cabinet, party caucus and all Canadians by only giving Premier Klein 55% approval rating as leader.

Why did the grassroots party members decide this was the best course of action?

Several reasons, which include:

1. An eighteen month leadership race is ludicrous and would've fractured the party greatly. (same thing happened to librano Jean Chretein)

2. Since the 2004 election, Premier Klein has coasted on his past fiscal record, with little or no clear plan of where the province and the party was going. (this would not change with a further eighteen month leadership race)
With a province projected to post $8-12 billion in surpluses in the next two years, we need bold decisive leadership, not reliance on past achievements.

3. Premier Klein has opened his big mouth when he should be quiet, in the last federal election (prior to January 23rd) he predicted a liberal minority, and cost Harper an election by creating healthcare controversy allowing the liberal mafia to attack the Conservatives. (even though the libranos gutted healthcare transfers to the provinces by $30 billion)

4. Premier Klein and his red tory cabinet have not listened to the grassroots about policy formulation, arrogance is rampant in his cabinet. They had better listen now, because they work for the party, not the other way around. This is what Ralph did not do, listen to his own party.

5. Premier Klein is a tax-and-spend liberal, he has blown billions that has not been in the throne speech and annual fiscal budget. This gives the public the impression that planning is done on the cuff and fiscal Conservatives cannot stand for that.

6. Premier Klein refused to implement Healthcare reforms even though he has openly talked about it for years, once again giving the impression of weak leadership.

Its safe to say Ralph Klein has done Alberta proud by making tough decisions a decade ago, the province is in far better shape because of his leadership.

However, Alberta now needs new dynamic and strong leadership as it becomes the economic powerhouse in Canada, and around the world.

Will Liberals Serve Time Too?

2006-03-28T09:22:00.000-08:00

Crown recommends 2-3 years jail time for Brault
Updated Tue. Mar. 28 2006 11:29 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Crown is recommending that advertising executive Jean Brault serve between two and three years in prison for his role in the sponsorship scandal.

Crown prosecutor Jacques Dagenais says Brault needs to go to jail because he abused public funds.

Brault, the founder of Groupaction Marketing, pleaded guilty to five of six fraud-related charges earlier this month.

Each fraud count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

At his sentencing hearing, which began Monday in Quebec Superior Court, Brault said he was not proud of his role in the sponsorship scandal.

"I'm not looking to excuse what I did,'' Brault told Justice Fraser Martin after laying pictures of his deceased parents on the witness stand in front of him.

"I'm not proud,'' he said again later.

Brault told the court that he was naive when he was asked to contribute money to the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party in exchange for government contracts.

He admitted to defrauding the government of $1.6 million and when asked why he did it Brault blamed his own greed.

"It wasn't an accounting error,'' Brault testified.

"I committed it (the fraud) to accede to the requests of the Liberal party and to compensate for legal work I had done that I had not been paid for.''

Brault said members of the Liberals' Quebec wing told him that by putting key people on his payroll he would get government contracts in return.

"I was intelligent enough to build a business from zero to a value of $140 million. I must have been intelligent enough to know what I was doing.''

Brault is one of three communications executives to face criminal charges in the sponsorship probe, including advertising executive Paul Coffin and retired bureaucrat Chuck Guite.

In September, Coffin was sentenced to two years less a day, to be served in the community, and was ordered to give speeches at universities about ethics in business.

Coffin had pleaded guilty to a long list of more than 15 charges for defrauding the government of $1.5 million through the sponsorship program.

A Quebec Superior Court judge let Coffin avoid jail time because of his clean record, his repayment of more than $1 million to the federal government, and his remorse.

The Crown is appealing the community sentence.

Guite is also facing fraud and conspiracy charges for his alleged role in the scandal, and he plans to represent himself when his trial begins May 1.

Together, Guite and Brault are accused of defrauding the government of more than $2 million.

During his trial, Brault pleaded not guilty to a remaining charge of conspiracy, and is expected to go to trial on that charge at a later date.

My Comment - If Jean Brault has to serve jail time, then Chretein and Martin should as well, they were the two idiots "leading" Canada at the time.

Yet another case of liberals getting caught stealing and not being punished for it, I can't wait to see the AG's report on the useless gun registry.

Go Ahead, Liberals. Make Canada's Day

2006-03-23T12:07:00.000-08:00

David Asper, National Post
Published: Thursday, March 23, 2006

Brace yourself Canada. The Liberals are huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the Conservative house down when Parliament resumes in early April. The crime? Prime Minister Stephen Harper may not implement the former government's expensive, intrusive day-care plan -- a plan designed to gild the cradle part of Canada's cradle-to-grave left-wing ideal.

But Canadians never rallied to this issue in the first place. Nor did we re-elect its main proponent. In fact, we elected a government with a very different view about how to assist families with children. Rather than creating a bloated equivalent to the health-care system, Stephen Harper thinks the government should give some money back to us and let us decide how best to spend it.

What a radical idea, eh? A political leader giving us credit for being at least a half-wit.

This idea, you will recall, inspired Liberal attack dogs to ridicule voters on the basis that if Harper gave us some of our money back we wouldn't provide for our kids but rather blow it all on "beer and popcorn." Liberals apparently believe that we have no wit, and it is only they who can spend our money properly.

These are the same politicians who blew so many billions on ill-conceived and woefully mismanaged programs that it's hard even to keep track. And now they're making noises about bringing down the government we just elected and forcing another election.

Even if it's just huffing and puffing, one has to wonder whether the Liberals have learned anything from being dispatched to the opposition benches. It takes a certain arrogance to get thrown out of power in late January and then, not 60 days later, start talking about trying to seize it back.

With no leader, $4-million in party debt, no guiding political direction and lingering internal divisions left over from the Martin/Chretien wars, the Liberals would have to be utterly stupid to force an election.

On the other hand, maybe it would be a good thing for Canada if the Liberals gave us another shot at them. While the vast majority of us wanted change, when it came right down to it we waffled and got ourselves change-lite in the form of a minority government.

Many of us would like to finish the job and establish stability in our government by electing a Conservative majority. In the relatively short time since the federal election, Harper has done more to improve Canada's image on the world stage than Paul Martin did during his entire reign. The PM's support for our armed forces and show of solidarity by joining our boys and girls in Afghanistan has done more for national unity than anything in recent Liberal memory. In a workman-like manner, Harper is restoring the Canada we knew and loved to Canadians.

The David Emerson non-scandal aside, Canadians like what they've seen from the Conservatives. A majority government would allow the Prime Minister to implement his vision, which Canadians could clearly judge come the next election. Moreover, it would finalize the message to the Liberals that they must go away, refresh their leadership and ideas, and only then come back to seek our vote.

So go ahead, Bill Graham. Bring down the government. It would be the dawn of a new political reality in Canada.

Just not the one you want.

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Confirms Saddam Possessed WMD

2006-03-21T19:56:00.000-08:00

By Francis Harris in Washington

(Filed: 22/03/2006)

Saddam Hussein's foreign minister was recruited by the CIA to spy on the regime, a US television network said.

Naji Sabri told the intelligence agency that Iraq possessed secret stocks of chemical weapons.

If confirmed, the claims made yesterday by NBC's Nightly News help to explain why President George W Bush and Tony Blair were so confident that Saddam was lying about weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Sabri reportedly said Saddam had around "500 metric tonnes of chemical warfare agents", that production of the agents had been renewed and that Iraq had additional stockpiles left over from the Iran-Iraq war.

As a senior member of Saddam's inner circle and a friend of his son, Qusay, Mr Sabri would have seemed an extraordinarily good source. He also claimed that although Saddam desperately wanted a nuclear device, he was years from building one.

According to NBC, Mr Sabri was recruited in 2002 when he visited the United Nations headquarters six months before the outbreak of war. The relationship ended when the Americans pressed him to defect.

My Comment - I wonder if all the socialists still think Saddam should still be running Iraq?, this man was brutal dictator who killed 200,000 of his fellow citizens.

Jim Prentice Achieves What Dithering Liberals Couldn't Do In 13 Years

2006-03-21T13:39:00.000-08:00

Updated Tue. Mar. 21 2006 2:49 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice outlined the clean water plan for native reserves today, saying residents of First Nations communities should feel as safe about their drinking water as all Canadians.

"It is unacceptable that many First Nations communities across Canada continue to face ongoing risk to the safety of their drinking water," Prentice told a news conference in Ottawa.

The government has a five-point plan for improving water standards on native reserves, and said work would begin right away in 21 communities identified as most at risk for waterborne health hazards.

Under the plan, natives will be in charge of making sure reserves live up to federal standards for design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of drinking water.

That is the long-term plan. In the short term, the federal government will temporarily contract out water services to private companies.

According to Prentice, the problem with drinking water on reserves is not money. It has to do with accountability and standards, he said.

Bad drinking water on First Nations made headlines last October when 1,000 residents of a remote northern Ontario community were evacuated while their water treatment plant was cleaned up.

Many residents of Kashechewan needed treatment for skin rashes and illness blamed on dirty water and poor sanitation.

A report released in November 2005 found that more than half the operators running water treatment plants on Ontario reserves lack the training needed, and many aren't certified.

The federally funded Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corp. said operators at only 60 of the province's 134 reserves have been provided personal training by the advisory group.

In 2001, Indian Affairs found a significant risk to the quality or safety of drinking water for three-quarters of reserve systems.

NDP's Witch Hunt Ends

2006-03-20T13:33:00.000-08:00

Ethics czar clears PM, Emerson over floor crossing

Updated Mon. Mar. 20 2006 2:47 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The federal ethics watchdog has cleared Prime Minister Stephen Harper of any wrongdoing for wooing former Liberal David Emerson to his cabinet shortly after the federal election.

Ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro also ruled that Emerson was within his constitutional rights when he crossed the floor to join the Conservatives, even though he was elected on Jan. 23 as a Liberal in the B.C. riding of Vancouver-Kingsway.

Shapiro said he accepts the international trade minister's explanation that he believed he could best serve his constituents from within the presiding cabinet, rather than the Opposition.

"In addition, there is no reason, and certainly no evidence, to contradict Mr. Emerson's own claim that accepting Mr. Harper's offer seemed, at least to him, a way to better serve his city, province and country," Shapiro said in his report.

Shapiro ruled that it is the prerogative of the prime minister to choose who is in his cabinet.

And despite the outcry from Opposition benches claiming Harper lured Emerson -- dangling the proverbial carrot of chauffeur-driven cars and a higher salary -- Shapiro ruled that it was not an improper inducement under the conflict of interest code.

"I am satisfied that no special inducement was offered by Mr. Harper to convince Mr. Emerson to join his cabinet and his party," he said.

The commissioner pointed out; however, that the practice of floor-crossing leaves some Canadians with the impression that their vote was somehow devalued.

"I believe that the discontent expressed by Canadians on this matter cannot be attributed merely to the machinations of partisan politics," said Shapiro.

"Fairly or unfairly, this particular instance has given many citizens a sense that their vote -- the cornerstone of our democratic system -- was somehow devalued, if not betrayed."

Shapiro said he can only follow existing rules, but added there should be a debate in Parliament and the public should have the right to address the practice of politicians crossing the floor.

Indeed, many of Emerson's constituents in Vancouver-Kingsway -- as well as those who worked on Emerson's campaign -- have demanded he face a by-election or step down.

At the request of three Opposition MPs, Shapiro launched an inquiry on March 2 into whether Harper's recruitment of Emerson contravened the rules of conduct, as set out in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

It was a decision which resulted in a full-blown face-off between the commissioner and the prime minister.

Harper said Shapiro -- a target of Tory criticism in the past -- had no authority to dictate his cabinet choices.

Tories have questioned Shapiro's refusal to investigate whether former prime minister Paul Martin broke the rules when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and was offered a plum cabinet position.

PMO spokesperson Sandra Buckler stated that the prime minister is "loath to co-operate with an individual whose decision-making ability has been questioned and who has been found in contempt of the House."

Calls for Mission Debate Hypocritical

2006-03-15T14:22:00.000-08:00

Wed Mar 15, 2006

By: Paul Stanway / The Edmonton Sun

The hypocrisy of opposition politicians and media armchair generals who suddenly want to debate the involvement of Canadian troops in Afghanistan is cynical beyond words, but unsurprising.

It was a non-story a year and a half ago when I first wrote about Liberal plans to expand Canadian operations in Afghanistan to include a "provincial reconstruction team" tasked to pacify the Taliban heartland around Kandahar. Most of the troops were coming from Alberta.

It was a non-story last November when the House of Commons debated this expanded role, by then fully public. Just a handful of MPs showed up. NDP Leader Jack Layton wasn't there, but now apparently he believes a new debate is fundamental to Canadian democracy.

"We're a democracy, after all, and we're trying to establish a functioning democracy in Afghanistan as the stated purpose of the mission," Layton blathered this week. "It seems ironic that we wouldn't want to have a discussion here about such a mission."

We had it, Jack. Where were you? In Paul Martin's back pocket is where. Back then it didn't suit Layton's agenda to highlight Liberal plans to deepen Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Not when he was propping up the Martin government.

Same for the Bloc Quebecois, which has shown absolutely no interest in the deployment of Canadian Forces. Now? "The debate isn't finished," insists Bloc MP Francine Lalonde. "The conditions that (the PM) wants to create - so the soldiers are supported - comes as a result of a debate and information."

Funny how all this insistence on debate and information comes after the Liberals are replaced in Ottawa by a Conservative government that did surprisingly well in Quebec in the recent election. Just a coincidence, though, right, Francine?

The Grits, who created the Kandahar operation, are understandably taking a softer approach to demands for a debate - but they still want one. "We should build stronger support through a debate," says Liberal foreign affairs critic Stephane Dion.

Perhaps he's forgotten last November's informational debate, during which he explained Canada's role and fended off calls for more parliamentary approval of overseas military missions.

The Harper Tories would be wise to avoid any second-guessing of the Kandahar operation, and to be suspicious of opposition promises not to undermine support for Canadian troops in the field. Playing with the lives of soldiers has a long and dishonourable tradition in Canada.

In the First World War we sent inadequately-trained troops into combat armed with redesigned hunting rifles (supplied by a pal of the defence minister) that routinely malfunctioned in battle. In the Second World War, our armoured troops were originally sent to Europe equipped with tanks reclaimed from a U.S. dump.

When it comes to risking lives for political expediency, Ottawa could give lessons. Ask the survivors of Dieppe, or the veterans who were shipped to Hong Kong in a futile attempt to defend the colony from the Japanese.

With rare exceptions in the 1950s and '80s, giving Canadian soldiers the tools to do the job has never been high on Ottawa's list of priorities. And for the most part that's been fine with the Canadian public.

The fact Canadian troops usually perform well and are invariably a credit to their country owes nothing to either government or public support, and everything to the integrity and self-sacrifice of men and women in uniform. Given our history, this is nothing short of a miracle.

Giving parliamentary approval for overseas military operations has never been the Canadian way, but ironically the Harper government might be more likely to support such a change, philosophically, than any administration in our history.

But they buried Grande Prairie's Tim Wilson on Tuesday after a funeral at Manitoba's Camp Shilo. And now the opposition wants to tell Master Cpl. Wilson's wife and two kids that we need a do-over to re-examine the need for her husband's sacrifice? Just so the opposition can have the opportunity to harass a vulnerable Tory minority government? For shame.

A PM We Can Be Proud Of

2006-03-14T08:24:00.000-08:00

National Post

Published: Tuesday, March 14, 2006

The previous federal government deserves credit for ramping up Canada's commitment to Afghanistan. But the Liberals deployed our troops without a vote, full parliamentary debate or even frequent statements of support. As a result, Canadians have little understanding of why we've taken on this risky mission.

Since assuming office, the Conservatives have been more vocal. Unlike the Liberals, they are not burdened by pacifists within their own ranks -- which means they can be gratifyingly unapologetic about the good work being done.

This explains our prime minister's trip to Afghanistan this week. Even a brief visit to our men and women in Kandahar would have been a stronger endorsement of our military than anything Paul Martin did in his two years in the Prime Minister's Office. But Stephen Harper's surprise appearance this week -- with Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor alongside -- was no quick photo-op, along the lines of the drop-in by then-PM Jean Chretien in 2003. Instead, having arrived Sunday, the PM spent a full day on the base yesterday meeting with troops and touring their facilities.

None of this should be unusual. But after years of wilful neglect of the military from the highest level of government on down, Mr. Harper's decision to devote his first international trip as prime minister to showing solidarity with our troops was an enormously powerful statement.

So, too, were the words Mr. Harper delivered while visiting the base. Recent opposition at home called for strong reassurances to our soldiers that the country is behind them, and Mr. Harper delivered that, pointedly noting that "you can't be a leader from the bleachers" and proclaiming that "cutting and running is not my way and it's not the Canadian way."

Mr. Harper has had a tumultuous first five weeks in office. But the image that will linger of his early prime ministership will be his arrival in Afghanistan. It has been a while since we've had a PM we could truly be proud of -- one who makes us believe in ourselves and our country. The wait may be over.

Harper Gets it Right

2006-03-14T07:28:00.000-08:00

Pictured - Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Afghan President Hamid Karzai

By ALEXANDER PANETTA

KABUL, Afghanistan (CP) - With military helicopters swirling overhead, Afghanistan's president told Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday that he is willing to visit Canada to convince Canadians their help is essential to building his country's burgeoning democracy.

"I've said to the president I hope to see him in Canada," Harper said at a joint news conference with President Hamid Karzai, the first head of state the prime minister has met face-to-face since coming to power in January.

"I'll be there," Karzai interrupted.

He said he was willing to come to explain to Canadians why their presence is so important, a message he asked Harper to take home to a Canadian public that has grown somewhat skeptical of a mission that has taken the lives of 12 Canadians since 2002.

"Please convey to your people, to the people of Canada, the immense gratitude of the Afghan people for what your country, your people have done for us," he told Harper after an hour-long meeting.

"For giving the lives of your sons, for contributing in money, for contributing in soldiers and for being one of the biggest helpers in Afghanistan."

Harper's meeting with the Afghan leader marked the end of the prime minister's surprise two-day visit to the troubled country.

In a stark reminder of the instability that still threatens the country, the news conference at Karzai's president compound was interrupted for 30 seconds while U.S. helicopters swirled overhead to check security at the palace.

The setting was perhaps an unusual inaugural foreign meeting for the prime minister, but Harper has made it clear throughout the two-day visit that Afghanistan is a high priority for the Canadian government.

He came to boost morale among the 2,200 Canadian troops serving in the country, but also used the trip to send the message back home the mission is indispensable - and that the government is not backing down.

Karzai said Canadian financial aid in rebuilding has already gone a long way to helping the country economically.

He gave the example of trade with neighbouring Pakistan. Bilateral trade with the country was $25 million per year under the Taliban, he said, noting that rebuilding efforts have increased the amount to $1.2 billion annually

While other foreign leaders have visited Afghanistan - U.S. President George W. Bush came for four hours earlier this month - Harper's trip was touted as unprecedented in its length and scope.

He arrived under tight security Sunday and spent two nights at the base of the Canadian-led mission in Kandahar. He ate a military lunch with soldiers and gave around 1,000 Canadian troops a pep talk, emphasizing the importance of their mission.

Harper told the troops that Canada will not run away from its commitments in Afghanistan, and that the mission will enable Canada to become a leader on the world scene, rather than a follower.

Harper also visited a nearby base where Canadian troops are training Afghan police.

Insurgents sympathetic to the deposed Taliban government abound in the area, and Canadian troops have been targeted by suicide bombs and roadside attacks.

My Comment - I wonder why the cowardly NDP doesn't support the Afghans and our troops trying to rebuild their fragile democracy and tattered country. The Afghan people had no rights and freedoms under the Taliban, maybe the NDP are not socialists afterall, but cowards that hide when anything becomes challenging. Thank god the NDP were not running Canada in WW1 or WW2.

For the first time in 13 years, Canada has a Prime Minister who we can be proud of and give us back our diginity and pride.

The Liberal Hits Keep On Coming

2006-03-12T20:48:00.000-08:00

By JIM BROWN

OTTAWA (CP) - Taxpayers are picking up the tab for more than $1.3 million in legal fees to help Jean Chretien and two top aides, Jean Pelletier and Jean Carle, defend their actions in the sponsorship affair, government documents show.

Just over $700,000 is earmarked to pay legal counsel for Alfonso Gagliano, the former public works minister, according to the documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

And more than $170,000 is going to cover legal bills for Chuck Guite, the disgraced former bureaucrat who ran the sponsorship program and now faces criminal charges.

But the numbers for those targeted by Justice John Gomery pale next to the fees run up by lawyers who worked for his public inquiry into the scandal.

The three top commission counsel had signed contracts calling for a combined $3.89 million in fees by the time hearings ended last year. That included:

-Chief counsel Bernard Roy, who listed his fees at $1.56 million.

-Co-counsel Neil Finkelstein, who filed for $1.16 million.

-Associate counsel Guy Cournoyer, who billed for $1.17 million.

The documents show a further $4.1 million in fees payable to 27 other lawyers - about 10 of whom worked full-time for the inquiry, while the rest had short-term contracts.

Altogether, the Public Works Department and Privy Council Office listed their sponsorship-related legal fees - including activities other than the Gomery inquiry itself - at more than $14 million.

And that doesn't count the seven per cent GST that applies to legal services. The tax works out to an additional $996,000.

It appears it's taking some time for the complex billing process to be completed.

For example, Hali Gernon, a Privy Council spokeswoman, said the latest figures show about $2.79 million actually paid so far to Roy, Finkelstein and Cournoyer, although their contract figures were higher.

"There may be more working its way through the system," said Gernon.

Cournoyer, who put in 20 months with Gomery - the fourth commissions of inquiry he has worked on - said he knows the public will see the figures as enormous.

But his pay rate of $250 an hour was far less than he would have charged a private client for similar work, he said in an interview.

Beyond that, the wear and tear of the job was enough to make him think long and hard about ever serving with another commission of inquiry, said Cournoyer.

"It was the professional experience of a lifetime, but it took a toll on my family. You wake up at quarter to five, you get to work at six and you rarely come back home before eight or nine at night."

Peter Doody, one of Chretien's lawyers, agreed the rates were well below market values.

"This is difficult to sell to the public, but there was a substantial discount," said Doody. "It would top out at about 60 per cent of normal."

The hourly pay for various participants was set by the government according to a scale based largely on each lawyer's years of experience.

Pierre Fournier, the lawyer for Gagliano, said the base rates - in his experience at least - were not negotiable. The final bills were largely a reflection of the hours put in.

"It's a function of how much work you're prepared to do for your client," said Fournier. "It was my view that my client was in jeopardy and needed someone to be there all the time."

Documents released by Privy Council show lawyers for Chretien had billed for $550,971 as of last November.

Counsel for Pelletier, the former prime minister's chief of staff, billed for $590,623. Lawyers for Carle, the former operations director for Chretien, received $210,208.

Other figures from Public Works show lawyers for Gagliano got $685,405 for work at the inquiry, and another $16,457 for advising their client at the House of Commons public accounts committee.

Guite's lawyers got $159,616 for the inquiry and $10,547 for public accounts.

The payments were in keeping with a longstanding government policy of reimbursing ministers and civil servants for legal fees arising from their public duties.

That doesn't apply, however, to Guite's forthcoming trial on fraud and conspiracy charges. He's on his own there, and recently declared he can't afford a lawyer and intends to represent himself.

Chretien is also footing his own legal bills for a Federal Court challenge of Gomery's findings. The judge found no evidence of personal wrongdoing by the former prime minister but held him politically responsible for not ensuring the program was better run.

Legal bills make up only part of the money spent over the last two years to cure Ottawa's sponsorship hangover.

The full operating budget of the Gomery inquiry - including administrative expenses, equipment, rental of office and hearing space, and a host of other items - has been estimated at between $32 million and $35 million.

Various federal departments report another $39 million in associated spending, pushing the total for cleaning up the liberal scandal to over $70 million.

Idiot of the Week - Scott Brison

2006-03-12T20:37:00.000-08:00

This two time winner of this prestigious award is about as smart as my left boot.

First he lies about his involvement with the Income Trust Scandal, and then says he did have some email correspondence with one of his bath-house buddies from the CIBC.

I have to ask the people of his riding, how stupid are you to elect this moron again?, he has a big mouth and no brains and should be charged with conduct unbecoming a cabinet minister. He was privy to privileged information, and could not keep his mouth shut.

The idiotic liberals policies on Income Trusts cost Canadians billions and once again being a liberal or one of their hacks proves to be profitable.

The damage of the liberal party continues......

The NDP Double Standard

2006-03-12T20:28:00.000-08:00

So now the NDP are fans of Bernard Shapiro, the entrenched ethics commissioner that is about as effective as the national gun registry.

Ironic that the NDP six months ago called for Shapiro's resignation for the Judy Sgro scandal in immigration, and somehow they are currently his biggest fan.

The ethics commish and the NDP did not want an investigation when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to save a scandal-ridden government, but now when Emerson crosses over they want one? What a joke the NDP and this ethics commissioner are..

No wonder Harper does not want to cooperate, Shapiro is another partisan liberal hack and lacks all credibility.

Why investigate Emerson's crossing and not Stronach? There is no defensible answer to that question Mr Shapiro.

Emerson did not maintain a government in power, his crossing has far less of an impact than Belinda Stronach, this is why the ethics commissioner should be replaced for the sake of all Canadians.

Harper is Everthing Paul Martin Wasn't

2006-03-12T20:12:00.000-08:00

Here is is Prime Minister Harper flying a Hercules in his way to Khandahar, Afghanistan to support our great men and women of the CAF.

This PM is decisive and is sending a clear message that he supports our troops and their valiant effort to rebuild democratically fragile Afghanistan.

Unlike Mr. Dithers who really did depise the CAF, Harper is making decisions and does not dither and lament about every decision he has to make.

Harper has been PM for less than eight weeks and he has already visited a place where Paul Martin would never go. That is the true sign of a leader, and all the forces appreciate the support Harper is giving them.

Harper is going to help rebuild the CAF, Afghanistan and all the foreign alliances Canada has, by leading in this mission.

The NDP (and the liberals to a lesser extent)would do everything to tear apart our relationship with our allies, pretty stupid and nieve considering the new global threats of terrorism where there are no borders.

Finally after thirteen long years, Canada has a Prime Minister that Canadians can be proud of.

Instead of spending all his time deflecting the latest scandal as was the case with Paul Martin, Stephen Harper can focus his attention on being a leader of a country - he's off to a great start in my opinion.

There is nothing the NDP, the CBC, or the Toronto Star (aka Red Star) can do to stop that.

The NDP - Party of Cowards

2006-03-12T03:09:00.000-08:00

Jack Layton thinks Canada needs to have a parlimentary debate over our military forces fighting in Afghanistan.

The NDP think we should be a peacekeeping country and should not be there, what a typical left-winged cowardly viewpoint.

First of all, peacekeeping defined as acting as a mitigator between two warring factions, the current situation in Afghanistan is not that at all.

Afghanistan now has a democratically elected government, but its fragile as the territorial warlords who control the world's opium supply refuse to relinquish their stranglehold over the country and its people.

This drug money was used to train and house Taliban and Al-Queda extremists who wish to continue the trend of chaos, anarchy, and spread of drug money.

Canada fought in two world wars so hippies like Jack Layton can cower and run away from noble causes like rebuilding a nation like Afghanistan, Jack Layton dishonors all Canadians by not supporting our troops.

Jack Layton like other socialists would rather run cowardly away from NATO and other international committments, Harper (and the liberals for that matter) were right to send our troops there to kill insurgents and radicals while stabilizing the country.

The war on terrorism requires force, and unlike Jack in his little ivory tower in downtown Toronto, he would rather our troops stay home and refuse to help other country's in the world. If not for Canada fighting for what's right, we would all be speaking German right now.

To leave Afghanistan now would show weakness and make innocent people there feel abandoned, which plays right into the warlords hands.

People in Afghanistan have two choices, grow opium for the warlords to feed their families, or work with Canadians and other allies to actually build a country worth some respect and diginity.

Canada has never refused its duty to help other countries in time of need and unlike the NDP I support this mission and the troops unconditionally.

The only reason any Canadian can walk through Europe with a mapleleaf on their pack and be received as a hero, is because Canada did not cower and run when things get bad - its called courage Jack, and unfortunately the NDP doesn't have any.

The old saying is definately true in this context, "when the going gets tough, the tough get going" but the NDP are cowards and think the global war on terroism will blow over with a few love-ins singing "Cumbyah" and "give peace a chance."

Sorry Jack, but Islamic extremists understand one thing - power through violence and terrorism.

Prime Minister Harper does not need debate on this issue, he is showing leadership in a difficult time, and that is what Canada is all about.

Liberal Party is a Wreck

2006-03-12T02:57:00.000-08:00

The liberal Party of Canada is $30 million in debt, is still hounded by the sponsorship scandal, Options Canada investigation, income trust scandal, the gun registry, Toronto water front cover up, and dozens of other boondoogles yet to be named.

There is a reason why Frank McKenna, John Manley, Allan Rock, and Brian Tobin declined to run as the party leader, they can see the writing on the wall.

These men know the liberal party is going down in flames and there is nothing they can do about it, unlike the intellectual midgets Stronach and Brison.

I hope Stronach or Brison becomes the next liberal leader, this could lead to 13 years of Conservative government.

Liberal Gun Registry a National Disgrace

2006-03-12T02:46:00.000-08:00

EDITORIAL:

Toronto Sun

While guns have their usefulness, we believe the pen is mightier. And it's certainly mightier than the gun registry. As evidence, we note two fine columns published yesterday -- one in the Sun, and one by one of our competitors -- that once again shot the rightly discredited registry full of holes.

Our own Mark Bonokoski, who has diligently covered a disturbing number of recent stories involving legitimate gun owners having their legally stored weapons stolen, offered a devastating argument that the nearly $2-billion registry itself could actually be contributing to these crimes.

Citing numerous examples of breaches of the federal government's other (supposedly) secure databases -- the RCMP-administered CPIC system; even top secret defence department security computers -- Bono argued that the bungle-plagued gun registry is just as vulnerable.

Proving the point, he quoted former firearms registry webmaster John Hicks, who says he reported flaws in the system to his superiors: "It took some $15 million to develop it, and I broke into it in about 30 minutes," said Hicks. "A 16-year-old kid could have broken into that system in a heartbeat."

Sophisticated computer hacking aside, Bono has also reported how would-be thieves can track gun owners through ammunition sales records kept by retail stores, or other means. But most registry proponents prefer to ignore these troubles and blame the victim -- gun owners who've been burgled -- while demanding laws to ban all innocent people from owning guns.

Meanwhile, over at the National Post, columnist Lorne Gunter ripped apart a recent Star editorial (you can see why we like the guy) that insisted dismantling the unconscionably expensive gun registry -- which Stephen Harper's Conservatives were elected to do -- would be a "national tragedy."

Gunter skewered claims that the registry is oh-so-useful because police computers check it thousands of times a week -- explaining that such checks are built into the system. The fact remains, all the registry can do is tell police if someone is, or isn't, a legally registered gun owner. It can't tell them if a suspect has an illegal gun, and it has done absolutely nothing to stop them flooding our streets.

Even the most adamant gun-haters among us should recognize that that is the national tragedy. The sooner the registry is scrapped, the better.

Politically Correct Canada Relents Again

2006-03-02T09:34:00.000-08:00

Updated Thu. Mar. 2 2006 12:33 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Canada's top court ruled Thursday that a Montreal school went too far when it barred a Sikh boy from wearing his ceremonial dagger to school.

In a unanimous 8-0 judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a Quebec Court of Appeals decision that had banned teenager Gurbaj Singh Multani from wearing the dagger, known as a kirpan, to class.

"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron wrote in the decision, adding that a total ban infringed Multani's guarantee of religious freedom under the Charter of Rights.

Orthodox Sikhs, who make up about 10 per cent of the estimated 250,000 Sikhs in Canada, are required by their religion to wear the kirpan at all times.

Charron said the boy had no history of violence, and rejected the idea that kirpans are inherently dangerous.

She also noted that schools had other objects which could also be used for violence, such as scissors and baseball bats.

However, the court did leave room for some restrictions to be imposed on the carrying of kirpans in the name of public safety.

Gurbaj Singh, now 17 and in his last year of high school, told reporters that the five-year battle had been worth it.

"I feel very good that we won our rights. Everybody should stand for their rights," he said, surrounded by numerous Sikh supporters outside the court.

Palbinder Shergill, counsel for the Canadian branch of the World Sikh Organization, told reporters that she hoped the decision "will put that matter to rest once and for all."

The final ruling in the long-running case -- which pitted religious freedom against school safety -- is likely to resonate across the country and could give some direction to provincial governments on how far they must go to accommodate religious beliefs.

Dispute

Gurbaj Singh's case goes back to 2001, when, at the age of 12, he accidentally dropped his kirpan in the schoolyard of Ste-Catherine-Laboure school in LaSalle, Que.

The school's principal ordered him to remove the kirpan, but the young boy decided to leave the school rather than remove the 10-centimetre dagger.

Gurbaj Singh's family then took the case to court, and in May 2002, the Quebec Superior Court ruled the boy could wear his kirpan to school, but only if it was wrapped in a cloth and hidden inside a wooden case underneath clothing.

However in 2004, the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down the decision completely, instead ruling that community safety was more important.

In the court's view, the kirpan violated a student conduct code that prohibited the carrying of "weapons and dangerous objects."

At a Supreme Court hearing in April 2005, Julius Grey, lawyer for the family, noted that schools in other Canadian provinces have permitted the wearing of kirpans and there had never been a case where one has been used to stab a student.

That adds up to "overwhelming empirical evidence that the kirpan is not a dangerous weapon," said Grey.

However, Francois Aquin, lawyer for the Montreal school board, retorted that there had never been any school assaults with kitchen knives either. "That doesn't mean we will allow students to carry kitchen knives in school," she told the hearing.

Compromise

Other provinces, including schools in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, have solved the issue with a compromise.

They permit the wearing of kirpans with certain restrictions -- such as a limit on size or a requirement that they be worn hidden under clothing.

Sikh MPs are allowed to wear kirpans in the House of Commons, but trial judges in some provinces have banned them from courtrooms.

Most airlines once routinely allowed passengers to wear kirpans with blades no longer than 10 centimetres.

However, after the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S., Transport Canada imposed a total ban on all "knives or knife-like objects," which included religious ones.

Thursday's Supreme Court of Canada ruling focused specifically on wearing kirpans in schools.

My comment - Welcome to Canada, where you can literally get away with possessing child porn, drunk driving, or possessing weapons because its a charter right.

That idiot Trudeau and the liberals in general have damaged this country for generations to come.

Harper And the Main Stream Media

2006-02-22T18:03:00.000-08:00

The main stream media now has to dig up story material, for the first time in the last 13 years they don't have one liberal scandal after another to report on.

Oh the horror - actually having to do investigative journalism for a change.

So of course they have been unable to help their buddies in the liberal party, I'm specifically talking about the CBC and the Red Star - aka Toronto Star

The corrupt liberals were the main stream media's easy meal ticket, this is why they are not happy with Harper right now.

The main stream media basically has no clue why Harper is not embracing them, Harper does not see the media as a way to form a majority, which is what the liberals counted on, but it backfired on them when the liberals hate campaign hit full force in late January.

Why would Harper talk to the media if he has nothing to declare or publically state as policy? He is absolutely right, he doesn't.....

This was the problem with Paul Martin, he loved the media mostly because he wanted to see his picture in the paper and observing himself on the evening news. Always just another photo-op with those hundreds of liberal priorities, probably announcing spending that's already been allocated or budgeted for. The media viewed Paul Martin as a clown to make a headline here or there, but never taken seriously.

The media played an instrumental part in keeping the liberals in power for all these years. They bear as much blame for the decline of Canada as the corrupt and inept liberals.

Harper's Conservatives will allow solid policy releases and good governance make their statements rather than a bunch of on-the-liberal-payroll hacks from the CBC and the Toronto Star.

Harper is not embracing the main stream media, this is a good thing. The media holds far too much power in swaying Canadians opinion, its about time the federal government took the self-centered and arrogant main stream media down a peg or two.

This last election belonged to the bloggers, this is the future, not some liberal loving spinmaster employed by the CBC or the Toronto Star.

Startling Revelations - Russians Moved Saddam's WMD - Lefties Now Have Their Answer Where They Were

2006-02-21T14:33:00.000-08:00

Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006

A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org).

"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.

Shaw has dealt with weapons-related issues and export controls as a U.S. government official for 30 years, and was serving as deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security when the events he described today occurred.

He called the evacuation of Saddam's WMD stockpiles "a well-orchestrated campaign using two neighboring client states with which the Russian leadership had a long time security relationship."

Shaw was initially tapped to make an inventory of Saddam's conventional weapons stockpiles, based on intelligence estimates of arms deals he had concluded with the former Soviet Union, China and France.

He estimated that Saddam had amassed 100 million tons of munitions - roughly 60 percent of the entire U.S. arsenal. "The origins of these weapons were Russian, Chinese and French in declining order of magnitude, with the Russians holding the lion's share and the Chinese just edging out the French for second place."

But as Shaw's office increasingly got involved in ongoing intelligence to identify Iraqi weapons programs before the war, he also got "a flow of information from British contacts on the ground at the Syrian border and from London" via non-U.S. government contacts.

"The intelligence included multiple sightings of truck convoys, convoys going north to the Syrian border and returning empty," he said.

Shaw worked closely with Julian Walker, a former British ambassador who had decades of experience in Iraq, and an unnamed Ukranian-American who was directly plugged in to the head of Ukraine's intelligence service.

The Ukrainians were eager to provide the United States with documents from their own archives on Soviet arms transfers to Iraq and on ongoing Russian assistance to Saddam, to thank America for its help in securing Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union, Shaw said.

In addition to the convoys heading to Syria, Shaw said his contacts "provided information about steel drums with painted warnings that had been moved to a cellar of a hospital in Beirut."

But when Shaw passed on his information to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and others within the U.S. intelligence community, he was stunned by their response.

"My report on the convoys was brushed off as ‘Israeli disinformation,'" he said.

One month later, Shaw learned that the DIA general counsel complained to his own superiors that Shaw had eaten from the DIA "rice bowl." It was a Washington euphemism that meant he had commited the unpardonable sin of violating another agency's turf.

The CIA responded in even more diabolical fashion. "They trashed one of my Brits and tried to declare him persona non grata to the intelligence community," Shaw said. "We got constant indicators that Langley was aggressively trying to discredit both my Ukranian-American and me in Kiev," in addition to his other sources.

But Shaw's information had not originated from a casual contact. His Ukranian-American aid was a personal friend of David Nicholas, a Western ambassador in Kiev, and of Igor Smesko, head of Ukrainian intelligence.

Smesko had been a military attaché in Washington in the early 1990s when Ukraine first became independent and Dick Cheney was secretary of defense. "Smesko had told Cheney that when Ukraine became free of Russia he wanted to show his friendship for the United States."

Helping out on Iraq provided him with that occasion.

"Smesko had gotten to know Gen. James Clapper, now director of the Geospacial Intelligence Agency, but then head of DIA," Shaw said.

But it was Shaw's own friendship to the head of Britain's MI6 that brought it all together during a two-day meeting in London that included Smeshko's people, the MI6 contingent, and Clapper, who had been deputized by George Tenet to help work the issue of what happened to Iraq's WMD stockpiles.

In the end, here is what Shaw learned:

In December 2002, former Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, came to Iraq and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Primakov supervised the execution of long-standing secret agreements, signed between Iraqi intelligence and the Russian GRU (military intelligence), that provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian and Iraqi military personnel to remove WMDs, production materials and technical documentation from Iraq, so the regime could announce that Iraq was "WMD free."

Shaw said that this type GRU operation, known as "Sarandar," or "emergency exit," has long been familiar to U.S. intelligence officials from Soviet-bloc defectors as standard GRU practice.

In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.

The Russian "clean-up" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."

Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achatov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003.

Shaw says he leaked the information about the two Russian generals and the clean-up operation to Gertz in October 2004 in an effort to "push back" against claims by Democrats that were orchestrated with CBS News to embarrass President Bush just one week before the November 2004 presidential election. The press sprang bogus claims that 377 tons of high explosives of use to Iraq's nuclear weapons program had "gone missing" after the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, while ignoring intelligence of the Russian-orchestrated evacuation of Iraqi WMDs.

The two Russian generals "had visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times in the preceding five to six years," Shaw revealed. U.S. intelligence knew "the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq's WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad."

The Baku conference, chaired by Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, "laid out the plans for the Sarandar clean-up effort so that Shoigu could leave after the keynote speech for Baghdad to orchestrate the planning for the disposal of the WMD."

Subsequent intelligence reports showed that Russian Spetsnaz operatives "were now changing to civilian clothes from military/GRU garb," Shaw said. "The Russian denial of my revelations in late October 2004 included the statement that "only Russian civilians remained in Baghdad." That was the "only true statement" the Russians made, Shaw ironized.
The evacuation of Saddam's WMD to Syria and Lebanon "was an entirely controlled Russian GRU operation," Shaw said. "It was the brainchild of General Yevgenuy Primakov."

The goal of the clean-up was "to erase all trace of Russian involvement" in Saddam's WMD programs, and "was a masterpiece of military camouflage and deception."

Just as astonishing as the Russian clean-up operation were efforts by Bush administration appointees, including Defense Department spokesman Laurence DiRita, to smear Shaw and to cover up the intelligence information he brought to light.

"Larry DiRita made sure that this story would never grow legs," Shaw said. "He whispered sotto voce [quietly] to journalists that there was no substance to my information and that it was the product of an unbalanced mind."

Shaw suggested that the answer of why the Bush administration had systematically "ignored Russia's involvement" in evacuating Saddam's WMD stockpiles "could be much bigger than anyone has thought," but declined to speculate what exactly was involved.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney was less reticent. He thought the reason was Iran.

"With Iran moving faster than anyone thought in its nuclear programs," he told NewsMax, "the administration needed the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and was not interested in information that would make them look bad."

McInerney agreed that there was "clear evidence" that Saddam had WMD. "Jack Shaw showed when it left Iraq, and how."

Former Undersecretary of Defense Richard Perle, a strong supporter of the war against Saddam, blasted the CIA for orchestrating a smear campaign against the Bush White House and the war in Iraq.

"The CIA has been at war with the Bush administration almost from the beginning," he said in a keynote speech at the Intelligence Summit on Saturday.

He singled out recent comments by Paul Pillar, a former top CIA Middle East analyst, alleging that the Bush White House "cherry-picked" intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq.

"Mr. Pillar was in a very senior position and was able to make his views known, if that is indeed what he believed," Perle said.

"He (Pillar) briefed senior policy officials before the start of the Iraq war in 2003. If he had had reservations about the war, he could have voiced them at that time." But according to officials briefed by Pillar, Perle said, he never did.

Even more inexplicable, Perle said, were the millions of documents "that remain untranslated" among those seized from Saddam Hussein's intelligence services.

"I think the intelligence community does not want them to be exploited," he said.

Among those documents, presented Saturday at the conference by former FBI translator Bill Tierney, were transcripts of Saddam's palace conversations with top aides in which he discussed ongoing nuclear weapons plans in 2000, well after the U.N. arms inspectors believed he had ceased all nuclear weapons work.

"What was most disturbing in those tapes," Tierney said, "was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission."

In addition, Tierney said, the plasma uranium programs Saddam discussed with his aids as ongoing operations in 2000 had been dismissed as "old programs" disbanded years earlier, according to the final CIA report on Iraq's weapons programs, presented in 2004 by the Iraq Survey Group.

"When I first heard those tapes" about the uranium plasma program, "it completely floored me," Tierney said.

Old Hercules Aircraft - Yet Another Liberal Failure

2006-02-20T10:21:00.000-08:00

Feb. 20, 2006
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—Old age has claimed another Hercules transport aircraft — considered the lifelines for Canadian troops abroad — fuelling fears the military may soon "fall flat on its face" when called on to respond to an international crisis, experts say.

Air force officials confirm that for the second time in the past year, they've taken a decades-old Hercules out of service because it has "run out of hours," meaning it cannot fly without a costly, time-consuming retrofit to its airframe.

The military also expects two more Hercules, also known as C-130s, will be grounded for the same reason over the coming year, leaving just 28 of the transports for flying duties at home and abroad.

Already, the Canadian Forces rely on leased civilian transports to ferry the tonnes of supplies needed by Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Deterioration of the Hercules fleet only adds to the pressure on the new Conservative government to find a replacement for the venerable C-130s, and fast.

"The problem is becoming acute," said retired Gen. Paul Manson, a former fighter pilot who served as chief of the defence staff in the late 1980s.

"The government of the day has got to solve this problem and solve it pretty darn fast or Canada will be faced with a situation where it falls flat on its face when called upon to take part in some operation around the globe," he said in an interview.

Add in the fact that the remaining Hercules are available for flights only 60 per cent of the time due to necessary maintenance and Canada's air force has the makings of an airlift crisis, experts say.

The Liberal government announced last fall that it would spend upwards of $5 billion to purchase 16 new transports. The newer-model Hercules, the C-130J, is considered the frontrunner but Airbus is pushing to have its A400M considered, while Boeing has been touting its C-17, a jet able to haul gear long distances.

Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the defence staff, has conceded the current fleet would be "almost completely inoperational" by the time the replacement aircraft arrive in about three years.

Even that timeline is optimistic, given it typically takes upwards of 15 years for the Forces to acquire new equipment.

Manson said the air force can ill afford a long, drawn-out selection process for new transports.

"A decade from now who knows if any of those Hercs could still be flyable," said Manson, who is president of the non-partisan Conference of Defence Associations Institute, which promotes defence discussion.

Canada's Hercules are the oldest in the world. Industry sources say the military can expect to lose two of the aircraft a year to old age.

The air force is looking at "all the options" to see what can be done to ease the pressure on the fleet, said Lt.-Cmdr. Nathalie Garcia, a military spokesperson.

C-130s are also on constant standby at air bases in Trenton, Greenwood, N.S., and Winnipeg for search and rescue work.

One option has been to rely on civilian transports, as it is doing now in Afghanistan. Two ships carried the Canadians' equipment to Turkey from Canada. From there, leased IL-76s — Russian-built transports — have flown the supplies to Kandahar. Officials expect it will take 135 flights to move what's required by more 2,000 Canadian troops moving into the region. The IL-76s will also carry out weekly resupply runs from Trenton.

Yet Another Liberal Failure - Navy Submarine Repairs

2006-02-18T14:41:00.000-08:00

By CP

HALIFAX -- The cost of making HMCS Chicoutimi seaworthy again is expected to reach $100 million, a Halifax newspaper reported yesterday.

An unnamed source told the newspaper the amount was far more than originally expected to rehabilitate the fire-ravaged sub.

"I was utterly stunned," the source said of the massive price tag navy experts have placed on getting the fire-damaged submarine sailing again.

The military admits it has already spent about $25 million assessing the damage and removing some materials destroyed in the Oct. 5, 2004, blaze that killed Lieut. Chris Saunders of Halifax.

But the navy has refused to confirm or deny the projected $100-million cost of getting the submarine sailing again.

"We're still negotiating with the different contractors, and that's one of the reasons we're not going to give an estimate at this point because that sort of shows our hand and makes the negotiations more difficult," said Lieut. Paul Pendergast of navy public affairs.

The new estimate is more than six times the $15 million the navy initially estimated fixing the Chicoutimi could cost.

"That's outrageous, that this leaky sub is going to cost that much money to repair," said Steve Staples, a defence analyst with the Polaris Institute in Ottawa.

Canada announced the purchase of four mothballed diesel-electric submarines from Britain in 1998. Only one of the subs, HMCS Windsor, is now able to go to sea.

The total cost of the four subs is now estimated to be $891 million.

Pretty heavy price to pay for obsolete submarines, yet another example why the liberals should never be allowed to govern this country again, I can't wait for the auditor general's report on the gun registry....

Lets' Get This Straight, Quebec Can Experiment With Private Healthcare But Not Alberta?

2006-02-17T09:38:00.000-08:00

Quebec opens the door to private health care
Updated Fri. Feb. 17 2006 8:14 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Quebec government says it's committed to a strong public health care system, but it's opening the door to some private sector involvement.

Patients will be allowed to use private providers for their health care in the province if they wait longer than six months for knee replacement, hip replacement or cataract surgery.

"When they access the system we will ensure that they receive their health care within time frames that we've agreed upon," Quebec Premier Jean Charest said at a press conference in Quebec City. "And, if not, that the system reacts."

Life threatening situations such as heart surgery or cancer care would still only be available under the public system.

The news came as the province announced a proposed commitment to health care access in Quebec that will guarantee established wait times for vital services like cancer and heart surgery as well as knee and hip replacement operations.

"We are today re-affirming our faith in the public health care sector, and exactly explaining what we mean by a public health care sector in which the private sector plays a role," said Quebec Health Minister Philippe Couillard at a press conference.

The policy document was developed in response to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling last June that said the province's ban on private health care violated the rights of patients who were forced to wait for treatment.

Charest says the plan ushers in a "new era" for health care in the province which is "based on values that we hold dear."

"(The government) again committed itself to a health care system that is public, strong and accessible to each and every one," Charest said, speaking through an interpreter.

The private sector will contribute to Quebec healthcare by remaining at the service of the public system, said Charest.

"It won't be the private for the private."

It will be a tool for solidarity, a partner and an ally for the public regiment to compliment it and support it and to contribute to its sovereignty and at the same time to preserve its values."

The proposal guarantees that Quebecers won't have to wait longer than six months for procedures such as cataract surgery, hip or knee replacement.

The government would ensure this promise by outsourcing treatment to private clinics if the wait list was three months longer than the guaranteed six-month waiting period.

If wait times were longer than nine months, the government would send the patient out of the province or out of the country for the necessary treatment.

Wait times for cancer and heart surgeries will be enshrined in law, but those procedures will remain the sole responsibility of the public health system.

Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, who originally brought the case to the Supreme Court, responded to Charest' announcement Thursday afternoon. While he welcomed some parts of the proposal, he said it doesn't go far enough to protect the rights of patients.

"Some patients will say that's not enough. I don't want to suffer for six months. I want to have the freedom to choose to use my own money to relieve my suffering," Dr. Chaoulli told CTV News. "That was the spirit of the judgment of the Canadian Supreme Court."

Chaoulli maintains there still needs to be a much greater role for the private sector to play in the delivery of health care. And he said the number of medical procedures covered by Charest' wait time guarantee needs to be much larger.

Chaoulli and George Zeliotis had brought their case to the Supreme Court, arguing that spending months waiting for surgery amounts to a violation of Quebec's constitutional guarantee to life, liberty and security of person.

Zeliotis had spent more than a year in pain waiting for a hip replacement in 1997.

He argued that he should have had the right to pay for the surgery himself.

More than 100 doctors in Quebec have already opted out of the public system.

Dr. Nicolas Duval is one of them. He operates a private orthopedic surgery clinic where patients may more than $12,000 for knee and hip replacement surgery.

"I don't think there will be many that will opt out," Dr. Duval told CTV News when asked how many more doctors will go private. "There will be probably a few more, some surgeons mostly."

Under Quebec law it is illegal to pay for health services covered by medicare.

The Supreme Court ruled in their favour last June, and Charest was given one year to respond.

British Columbia and Alberta are also taking steps towards a mixture of private and public health care delivery.

The B.C. government wants to introduce the principle of sustainability to the Canada Health Act, and this spring Alberta Premier Ralph Klein plans to introduce "third way" legislation he has been touting for more than a year.

But, Klein's plans are facing some opposition.

On Thursday, a group called Friends of Medicare launched a campaign to fight the "third way".

"It's just another term for the privatization of our healthcare system," Friends of Medicare's Harvey Voogd said.

The campaign will be called "Will you be covered?" The group says that's the question Albertans have to ask themselves as changes are proposed to the health care system in that province.

NDP Didn't Complain This Much When Belinda Crossed the Floor

2006-02-17T08:46:00.000-08:00

Jack Layton of the NDP sure didn't raise this much ruckus when Belinda Stronach defected to the liberals. Why doesn't Jack and the liberals merge and get it over with. I can't tell the NDP from the liberals anymore. Organizing rallies against a former liberal MP, man the NDP are desparate these days..

Layton calls Emerson move 'slap in the face'
Updated Fri. Feb. 17 2006 7:51 AM ET

Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — NDP leader Jack Layton chose a school Thursday in David Emerson's riding that was used as a polling station in the federal election to accuse him of slapping voters in the face by defecting to the Conservatives.

"They (the voters) cast their ballot, something they value, and now they find that it doesn't mean much to the person who's elected,'' Layton said outside the elementary school in Vancouver-Kingsway.

"They (politicians) can simply abandon everything they said in the campaign and walk across the floor, and get a cabinet post and a salary and a limousine. That's not right.''

He said Emerson took the job as the Tories' trade minister for selfish reasons.

"I think what we're seeing here is opportunism of the worst type and it's not right, it's not fair,'' he added.

Layton spoke outside the school before a public meeting organized by the NDP on Emerson's switch from the Liberals to the Conservatives. A similar meeting held Saturday by the NDP attracted about 700 people angered by Emerson's move.

Layton didn't spare the Liberals in his criticism of Emerson's defection, saying their reaction is a little late considering they have voted against bills that would have required MPs to face byelections before changing party allegiances.

"Now we have (former prime minister Paul) Martin complaining about it. He had the opportunity to put a stop to it when the NDP bill was in front of the House.''

Layton said he will present another bill at the earliest opportunity that would prohibit members of Parliament from crossing the floor for convenience. It will be presented as an opposition day motion, ensuring it is voted on by the House.

He acknowledged that such a bill would not apply to Emerson.

"I would hope that Mr. Emerson would respect the will of Parliament, he doesn't seem to respect the will of his voters. That's the most disturbing thing,'' he said.

Emerson said Monday he would support legislation that forced MPs who switch parties to run in a byelection.

Without such a law, Emerson said he will not face voters in his riding upset by his switch. Emerson could not be reached for comment on Thursday.

Layton's criticism of Emerson echoed hundreds of voters in Emerson's riding who have staged several protests against their MP.

Emerson received 43.5 per cent of the vote as a Liberal in the riding, a working-class area known for voting Liberal or NDP. New Democrat Ian Waddel finished second with 33.5 per cent of the vote, while Tory Kanman Wong got 18.8 per cent.

Even Liberals are Slamming Their Party

2006-02-15T10:35:00.000-08:00

Wed Feb 15 09:39:26 2006

By: JESSE SEMKO / The London Free Press

The man some describe as a front-runner to lead the federal Liberals describes his party as "deeply factionalized and divided."

Michael Ignatieff, the rookie Liberal MP from Etobicoke-Lakeshore, met this week with about 25 members of the Western Liberals, a student political group at the University of Western Ontario, seeking advice on renewing and improving the party.

Over cold nachos, the world-renowned academic offered a sharp critique of his party and its recent tactics.

"We've got to stop this trite and shallow anti-Americanism" and avoid negative campaigning, he said.

"Our campaign ads were a disgrace, an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian voter. We went negative and we had no business doing that. We can't do that again.

"We should appeal to the best in Canadians and not the worst."

Ignatieff said finding an effective leader will be a challenge.

"There are aspects of our party that are sick as hell. We are a deeply factionalized and divided party. The test of things will be to find a leader who can bring us together."

Ignatieff didn't hide his own interest in leading the party.

"Of course, I'm thinking about the leadership," he said. "I'm thinking about it as a possible candidate. But when I say I'm thinking about it, I mean just that. I'm not being coy. I don't know if I've got the language that lights the Prairies on fire."

Finding that language might be difficult for Ignatieff. His last involvement in Canadian politics was working for former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, as a youth delegate, during the 1968 Liberal party leadership convention.

Since then, Ignatieff has spent most of his time in the U.S., where he was a human rights professor at Harvard University. He has written several books on nationalism and human rights.

But Ignatieff insists his "plumb line" -- the place where his political allegiances on social justice, medicare and pensions line up -- has always been Canadian.

Emerson and Fortier Appointments

2006-02-11T20:58:00.000-08:00

My opinion is that this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion.

If I was PM, would I have appointed these two people? No - but that doesn't make it wrong.

Harper is doing what he can to bolster his party's chance in the next election which could come sooner rather than later. Bottom line, these appointments are good for Canadian representation and the party, so Harper will take it on the chin for a little while, but like Belinda's defection, all will be forgotten in time. (Canadian voters have a notoriously short memories)

The optics of coming across into a cabinet position does not sit well with most Canadians (and members of the Conservative caucus as well), but Canada's cities needed cabinet representation.

When Belinda crossed the floor to prop up the libranos, she was hammered for it. Ironically they are pounding Emerson for doing the very same thing. Emerson's defection has far less impact than Belinda voting to keep the corrupt liberals in power.

Fortier was a very sucessful lawyer, so he had nothing to gain either than trying to help the Conservatives win a few seats in Montreal in the next election. In light of the Public Works scandals, maybe having it run from outside parliment is a good thing.

Harper did his best to get back-door representation in Vancouver and Montreal, and in that endeavor he succeeded.

As far as Toronto feeling left out, well that's good, because that city of idiots has let the liberals nearly destroy the country by voting for them year after year.

So like their hockey team, Toronto are a bunch of two time losers.....

Paul Martin Wanted to Make Taxpayers Pay For CSL's Mess

2006-02-11T16:32:00.000-08:00

Paul Martin, the former CEO and owner of Canadian Steamship Lines (CSL) has been alleged to massive dumping of metal in the Great Lakes. This a clear contravention of the federal Fisheries Act.

The libranos in the recent election announced a substantial financial package to clean up the Great Lakes, maybe Paul Martin was trying use taxpayers money to clean up his dirty business dealings. Thank god the libranos got voted out, or this story would've been been shredded or swept under the rug just like all the other liberal scandals.

The question is whether DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) will investigate and charge Paul Martin and his fellow "environmentally friendly" liberals with environmental destruction under the Fisheries Act and all the other applicable laws.

Source : This Magazine

The dirtiest job on the ship was understandably the one Jim Macdonald dreaded most. During his years as chief engineer for Canada Steamship Lines (CSL), aboard carriers including the CSL Tadoussac, Macdonald oversaw the offloading of 25,000 tons of iron ore at the Port of Hamilton on each journey. Now 70 and retired, Macdonald recalls his voyages aboard the 730-foot-long Tadoussac—how, in the late 1980s, the Tadoussac would head back to the far end of Lake Superior to pick up a fresh ore load at Thunder Bay. After a short catnap while the vessel eased through the locks of the Welland Canal, it would be time to clean out the ship. This meant dumping into the water tens of thousands of marble-sized ore pellets that didn’t make it off at port.

Before the Tadoussac arrived in Thunder Bay, the holds had to be spotless. All the stray pellets—which mariners call sweepings or spillage—had to be cleaned out and dumped. The excess pellets would coat the bottom of each of the five enormous cargo holds. Below the holds was a 650-foot tunnel. Inside it, two giant conveyor belts would carry the cargo down the length of the ship, up the unloading tower at the stern, out over a 250-foot discharging boom and into a concrete well on the Hamilton dock.

Half a dozen deckhands would start washing the pellets out of the holds and into the tunnel. In the bowels of the ship, the tunnelmen had the nastiest task. Squeezing into the narrow work space between the conveyor belts, their job was to shovel the stray pellets onto the belts and make sure the machinery in the tunnel ran smoothly. The tight spaces in the tunnel would be choked with iron-ore dust; Macdonald says the tunnelmen wore artificial breathing devices.

By the time the tunnelmen were done, the Tadoussac would be in Lake Erie. The ship’s master would swing the boom out over the water and pass Macdonald the word to have the electrician start the conveyor belts. The belts would whir into motion, and the sweepings would pour off the boom into the waters of Lake Erie for half an hour, leaving a trail of iron-ore dust in the ship’s wake—the only visible sign of the environmental degradation.

It was a routine task but, even though he was a seasoned sailor, it never sat right with Macdonald. He is certainly no tree-hugger, but thinks there must be an alternative. “It’s been a bone of contention for me for years,” he says. “They call this spillage. I love the term.”

CSL is only one shipping company dumping sweepings into the Great Lakes. Ships have discharged cargo residue there ever since armadas of ore carriers started criss-crossing the lakes in the 1870s. No one knows how much has collected on the lakebeds travelled by major carriers, but cargo sweeping is routine for the 130 lakers that ply those waters today. Fourteen of these lakers are owned or operated by CSL, the company held by Paul Martin from 1981 to 1993, when he became finance minister and transferred management duties to a trustee.

Muslim Hypocrisy

2006-02-05T21:18:00.000-08:00

After 9-11, muslims everywhere asked for tolerance of their people and their religious beliefs, they didn't want to be compared or connected with Osama Bin Laden.

Somewhat ironic and hypocritical that muslims are now burning embassy buildings to the ground, and boycotting Danish products for one person's opinion.

Some obscure Danish newspaper has some satarical cartoons about Mohammed and Allah and somehow the Danish government is directly reponsible?

How does an independent paper reflect the Danish government's policies? Well it doesn't at all, that is why the Danish government will not apologize for anything.

The problem here is that in most muslim countries, the media and the state are one in the same instituition, so the fanatics think that the cartoons must be how the Danish government and its people view the Islamic religion. How utterly mis-informed these people are.

If muslims want tolerance, they have to practice what they preach.

More Liberal "Entitlements"

2006-02-04T14:01:00.000-08:00

Canadian Press - OTTAWA

The federal government has paid a compensation package to David Dingwall.

It says that following binding arbitration, it's paying the former president of the Royal Canadian Mint $417,780, as well as associated pension benefits.

Back in October, then-Revenue Minister John McCallum had said the government would pay Dingwall only that which is legally owed him. When the two sides couldn't agree on a figure, they sent the matter to an independent third party.

Arbitrator George Adams has ruled Dingwall's departure as head of the mint was involuntary and the government has a legal obligation to pay him. The government says it has respected the decision.

Dingwall resigned last September during a furor over his office's six-figure spending. There'd been reports that his office squandered $748,000 on everything from lavish foreign travel to a $1.29 pack of gum in 2004 and early 2005.

Update - It turns out that Dingwall was fired and did not resign as the liberals lead us to believe. The liberals lied to Parliament, the public accounts committee, and more importantly to Canadians about Dingwall.

The election definately would've had different results had Canadians known the liberals were planning on paying off Dingwall for his silence in the Sponsorship Scandal.

Strange how they cut the cheque just before the election and just today we find out the real truth. Someone knew off this settlement at the beginning of January, because the lawyers had to consult and reach a deal.

Why did the liberals lie? hopefully the truth comes out soon......

Final Gomery Report Fails to Impress Taxpayers

2006-02-02T10:39:00.000-08:00

Ottawa –

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) reacted to Judge John Gomery’s report on the sponsorship scandal, released yesterday, and its recommendations to restore accountability in our nation’s capital.

The first Gomery report, released in November, revealed to Canadians that of the $355-million spent on the Quebec sponsorship program approximately $150-million went to Liberal-friendly ad agencies, many of whom charged the federal government for work of little or no value.

“Judge Gomery first volume did a good job detailing the mechanics of Adscam to Canadians, but his second is disappointingly narrow in its sweep,” said CTF federal director John Williamson. “There certainly are some good recommendations. Yet in some cases he identifies real problems, but fails to make specific reform measures. Elsewhere, he simply ignores longstanding troubles altogether, as he did with Ottawa’s dysfunctional Access to Information Act.”

Judge Gomery writes in Restoring Accountability – Recommendations, “I have become convinced that we need to rebalance the relationship between Parliament and the Government in order to attain better accountability within government.”

“Unfortunately, the Gomery Commission addressed only one specific scandal and suggested narrow recommendations related to it,” observed Williamson. “But taxpayers expect reforms that will change Ottawa’s culture of secrecy, entitlement and lawbreaking that rarely results in penalties or sanctions being imposed. Yes, such a change will require greater accountability within government. But it also mandates accountability outside government, between public servants and citizens.”

Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper re-affirmed his promise to pass the Conservatives’ own Federal Accountability Act. The proposals include specific measures to reform how political parties and candidates are financed, strengthen the Lobbyist Registration Act, ensure appointments are merit-based, reform the government’s procurement process so it is free from political interference, legislate an effective whistleblower law, increase the powers of the auditor-general as well as those of the ethics and information commissioners, dramatically expand Ottawa’s freedom of information law, improve government auditing, and establish an independent director of public prosecutions. Similarly, The New Democratic Party proposes reforms to fix government and make it more transparent to Canadians.

“If voters had to choose between Judge Gomery’s recommends and the Conservative and New Democratic accountability packages, the choice is an easy one. If the goal is to clean up Ottawa, taxpayers are further ahead with what was promised on the campaign trail. That’s the measuring stick the CTF will be applying in the months and years before us,” concluded Williamson.

How History Will Remember Mr. Dithers

2006-01-30T05:52:00.000-08:00

So all the liberal strategists are touting Mr. Dithers financial record as something for the ages. I think history will remember him as a reckless finance minister and even more dangerous as a Prime Minister.

To sum it up, Mr. Dithers gutted Healthcare transfers to the provinces by $30 billion, reduced the already neglected military's budget by 25%, reduced education transfers by $20 billion, and stole $48 billion from the EI fund and rolled it into general revenue. Hence why we have no military capability, wait times have doubled, etc....

In addition, he received $30 billion a year from the GST, basically giving Mr. Dithers far too much money, so a monkey could've slayed the deficit and balanced the budget with those conditions.

When the federal government is swimming in surpluses, transfering no money to the provinces, and is grossly overtaxing Canadians, its easy to see how Mr. Dithers performed his so called economic miracles.

History will write that Paul Martin was the most indecisive and weak Prime Minister in Canada's history. He dithered on missle defence, repeal same sex marriage, etc.. all of which he publically supported until he changed his mind when the public changed their minds.

Canadians elect a Prime Minister to be a leader, not some puppet who forms policy based on the latest public opinion poll, Paul Martin never got that point.

In addition, this liberal party will go down as running the worst campaign of fear, smear, and slander that has ever been seen in Canada.

Rather than talk about his own party's platform, Mr. Dithers was content on slandering everyone else, hardly a sign of strong visionary to lead the country.

Not much of a legacy hey Mr. Dithers...

More liberal Stupidity - Helicopter Procurement

2006-01-30T05:48:00.000-08:00

David Pugliese, CanWest News Service

Published: Monday, January 30, 2006

Stephen Harper's new government could face a $1-billion legal penalty after a European aerospace firm filed a claim for damages, citing political interference by the Liberals during the 2004 purchase of naval helicopters.

Aerospace giant Agusta-Westland recently filed the $1-billion claim for damages in Federal Court, alleging its EH-101 helicopter didn't win the competition to provide Canada's military with a maritime chopper because of political interference by the Liberal government. The company is also asking for $1 million in punitive damages. Some Conservatives have privately voiced concerns their government will get stuck with the bill if the company wins its case.

Agusta-Westland contends the Liberals designed the $5-billion program to buy 28 maritime helicopters in such a way as to prevent the selection of its EH-101 chopper. The firm lost out to its American rival Sikorsky, which was awarded the contract in 2004 to provide a replacement for the military's aging Sea Kings.

Pierre Teotonio, a spokesman for Public Works and Government Services Canada, said the government has until Feb. 17 to file its defence in court. He declined further comment.

In the past, Public Works and Department of National Defence officials have said the procurement was fair, open and transparent.

With the lawsuit now underway, the EH-101 saga appears to be coming full circle, since it was a Conservative government which originally selected that helicopter in 1987 as the best chopper for the Canadian Forces. But during the 1993 election campaign, Jean Chretien highlighted the purchase as a waste of taxpayers' money and vowed to scrap the deal if he became prime minister.

Cancelling the EH-101 contract was one of the first things Chretien did when he came to power in the fall of 1993. At the time his government paid more than $470 million in cancellation fees to scuttle the deal.

But in 1998 the Chretien government was embarrassed when the EH-101 was once again selected by the Canadian Forces as the best chopper for its search-and-rescue operations. Fifteen of those helicopters were bought for that role.

Agusta-Westland lawyer Gordon Cameron said no timetable has yet been set for the legal proceedings, but the firm is hoping to start the process of questioning government officials for the lawsuit sometime this summer.

"We're aiming for a September trial," he added.

Agusta-Westland had filed a previous claim in Federal Court alleging government bias in the helicopter selection process. This latest move adds the $1-billion claim for damages.

In its statement of claim, Agusta-Westland contends the Liberal government wanted to ensure the EH-101 didn't win the Sea King replacement contract because it wanted to avoid political embarrassment. The firm alleges the Liberals were worried that if the EH-101 did win, the government would be accused of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in cancelling the first deal.

The company also claims the government made serious errors in evaluating the bids and knew in advance that Sikorsky would not be able to deliver choppers on time.

Sikorsky officials have defended their helicopter, saying that not only is it the best aircraft for the Canadian military, but that it will be delivered on schedule. Delivery of the new aircraft is set to start in 2008.

Agusta-Westland also alleges the government reduced the performance criteria of the new helicopter in order to allow the Sikorsky aircraft to be selected. Agusta-Westland has complained over the years the helicopter program was rigged to favour any aircraft other than its EH-101.

Military and government officials have responded that there has never been any kind of political interference in the program. Defence department officials maintain they came up with the requirements on their own, without any political direction.

But during the procurement process the government acknowledged it had set up a special committee, led by then-deputy prime minister Herb Gray, to monitor the helicopter procurement. It denied, however, that the committee ordered any changes to the program.

In addition, Agusta-Westland alleges the government violated its own procurement rules by ignoring the extra costs of operating two different fleets of helicopters. Company officials say that since the military already operates the EH-101 for search-and-rescue missions it would have made financial sense, in terms of training and maintenance, to select the same chopper for its maritime operations. Defence officials, however, have argued there are little savings to be had.

Turning A Minority Into A Majority

2006-01-27T20:31:00.000-08:00

How does Harper and the Conservatives lay the ground work for the next election in order to get a majority government?

Quite simply, ram as much legislation in the intial stages of this parliament. My logic is this:

1. The Canadian public has had two election in 19 months, any opposition party that forces an early election will pay a hefty price at the polls.

2. Push through legislation that the other parties have no choice but to support, bills like the Accountability Act, and the crime prevention measures. This will soldify Harper as a true leader who can get things done. The brilliance of his platform is that the other parties would very likely have to support most of the Conservatives agenda items.

3. The opposition parties are in deep financial troubles (especially the liberals), only the Conservatives can afford another election tomorrow, they are debt free and have loads of cash. The brilliance of the Accountability Act is that it eliminates large corporate donations to political parties - something that will hurt the liberals and not the Conservatives since they get all their revenue from average Canadians donating $50.

4. The liberals are leaderless and in completely directionless (pretty much sums up the last 13 years) so they will be embroiled in their internal wars for awhile.

So, the Conservatives have to quickly bring as many bills to Parliament as possible, this will illustrate that Harper can run the country effectively in a minority and will avoid having to go into another election with nothing to show Canadians.

I think the libranos, the dippers and the Bloc treasonous scum will give Harper a year or so and then look at opportunities to take him down, so Harper should try and push his agenda. That way, he can go into another election saying, "I got more done in one year than the liberals did in 13."

You add in all the liberal skeletons that Harper will uncover soon, the liberals days of justifying massive systemic corruption are not over by a long shot.

Thanks America

2006-01-26T08:58:00.000-08:00

Edmonton Sun Editorial

It was a heroes welcome on Tuesday night for the soldiers injured by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan last week that also killed Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry. Cpl. Paul Franklin was the only one of the three conscious for the trip, and he declared himself happy to be home. We're glad to have him home.

The more seriously wounded soldiers, Pte. William Salikin and Cpl. Jeffrey Bailey, were heavily sedated for the nine-hour flight from Germany, where all three were sent to start the long road to recovery from their injuries.

And a long road it will be. Franklin will likely have the easiest time getting back to a normal life - though that is quite the understatement. He had his left leg amputated and his right leg was shattered. Bailey and Salikin, on the other hand, suffered major head trauma, and for a while, it was touch-and-go on whether Bailey would be stable enough to make the trip back to Edmonton.

So our thoughts and prayers remain with all three families as they adjust to the harsh new realities they must face.

But we feel it is only right and fair to express our appreciation to an organization that went above and beyond the call of duty to help our wounded soldiers: the American military.

It's a damn shame that the United States has been so vilified by many politicians and citizens in this country, because it was the Americans who helped save the lives of our three soldiers, and we don't think that our American friends have gotten the credit they so rightly deserve. In fact, it's almost as if the national news media in this country has gone to great lengths to downplay the important role the U.S. military played in this story.

According to the Canadian Defence Department, after the suicide bomb went off, all the casualties were first transported out by a military ambulance. Soon after, they were picked up by a U.S. Army Blackhawk helicopter, which flew the wounded soldiers to the American military field hospital in Kandahar for immediate medical attention.

After that, our soldiers were taken to an American military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, a top-notch medical facility that is the largest American hospital not located in the United States. Our soldiers received excellent care there until returning to their home here in Edmonton this week.

In short, then, one of the primary reasons our soldiers are in as good of shape as they are is because the American military went to the aid of an allied country fighting for freedom in Afghanistan.

Our Liberal politicians won't say it. Many Canadians won't say it.

But we'll say it: Thanks to the American soldiers, pilots, and medical personnel who helped save our soldiers' lives. They are all heroes, too.

Election Results

2006-01-24T10:50:00.000-08:00

Am I disappointed at a minority government?

Yes, but this election will massively help the Conservatives in the next election.

The liberals are broke ($30 million in debt) and are leaderless, so they don't want a quick election. This will allow Harper to show Canadians he is a far better PM than Mr. Dithers.

There are many more issues that will reveal more liberal corruption soon:

-David Dingwall "entitlements" has to be resolved

-Auditor General's report into the useless gun registry is coming soon

-Andre Ouelette's lawsuit

-Alphonso Gagliano's lawsuit still pending

-Missing sponsorship scandal money ($40 million still missing), Harper will get to the bottom of this and get real answers for Canadians and put a dagger into the liberal party once and for all.

Now we all know, that for a month now, the shredders in the liberal offices have been goin 24-7 trying to hide coruption, but they can only hide so much.

Once again, Toronto and the maritimes failed Canada, Harper will have a hard time getting through his policies in a minority, but this will illustrate he can work in this parliament which should help him even more.

The liberals will be in trouble now that Harper has made huge gains in Quebec and Ontario, but clearly the liberals basically only represent Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal which is scary indeed.

Paul Martin Personified

2006-01-22T18:00:00.000-08:00

He's a real nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
For nobody.

Doesn't have a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
...
He's as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see...

- The Beatles.

If this doesn't describe Mr. Dithers, nothing does. Paul Martin will go down in history as the most pathetic, indecisive prime minister in history.

Stephen Harper for PM ! Its time Canada had a real leader and can actually make a decision, Harper realizes that you can't be all things to all people. This is something that Paul Martin never learned as he believed his own bravado.

218 Reasons NOT to Vote for the Liberals

2006-01-22T13:15:00.000-08:00

By LINDA WILLIAMSON, TORONTO SUN

After 12 years, we at the Sun think it's self-evident that the Liberals have to go, and polls show most Canadians agree.

But just in case you're still not sure, we've compiled a list of the lowlights of Liberal rule since 1993.

There's plenty more where these came from, but we've narrowed it to 218 reasons not to vote Liberal. Take your pick: You really only need one.

THIS ELECTION -- WE DID NOT MAKE THIS UP

1 Pre-election spending: $22.2 billion, according to Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

2 Pre-election tax relief: $30 billion -- about $323 per taxpayer; up from May budget total of only $16/year.

3 Attack ads. Smearing Stephen Harper. And our soldiers. Approved by Paul Martin himself. In Canada.

4 "Soldiers" ad pulled in English but French version continues in Quebec. Several Liberals say the ad is appalling.

5 TV journalist Mike Duffy accuses Liberal strategist John Duffy of trying to intimidate him into not discussing the ad.

6 Jan. 9: Martin suddenly vows, mid-debate, to scrap the feds' ability to use the "notwithstanding" clause in Charter cases. Even senior Liberals are shocked.

7 Conservatives accused of planning to "take away a woman's right to choose," despite promises to the contrary.

8 Grits charge Conservatives won't keep promises. Hmm.

9 Courting Toronto votes in the wake of record gun murders, Martin promises to ban handguns -- which have effectively been banned since 1937.

10 Also promises to ban weapons in outer space.

11 PM pledges mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes, despite Justice Minister's assertions they don't work.

12 Promises "heroes" fund for injured firefighters and rescuers -- an idea 57 Grits earlier voted against.

13 Spokesman Scott Reid declares parents would only blow the Tories' child care subsidy on "beer and popcorn."

14 Ontario VP Mike Klander resigns over blog comparing NDP's Olivia Chow to a dog and blasting Jack Layton.

15 Industry Minister David Emerson says NDP Leader Layton has a "boiled dog's head smile."

16 Oakville riding association president quits after telling anti-gun-registry voter to take her "gun-loving ass back to the U.S."

17 Martin blasts Conservative plan to cut GST; in 1993, he co-wrote Red Book promising to get rid of it.

18 Ex-Harvard prof and would-be leader Michael Ignatieff's nomination engineered over protest in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

19 33% of voters believe Liberals have a "hidden agenda," as opposed to Conservatives (25%), according to Ipsos-Reid.

20 Chinese head tax: Liberals refused to apologize; PM suddenly offers "personal regret" on Chinese-language TV.

21 Separatism: Martin calls this a "referendum election."

22 80% of Quebecers dislike Martin (Strategic Counsel poll).

23 Martin vows to fight Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe on "every street corner" but later refuses to debate one-on-one.

24 Martin criticizes U.S. on Kyoto at climate conference -- even though Canada's emissions record is worse than theirs.

25 When U.S. ambassador points this out, Martin declares he won't be "dictated" to and will "stand up for Canada."

26 Martin stages photo- op with ex-U.S.-prez Bill Clinton.

MINORITY MADNESS, SPRING FEVER 2005: 27-37

27 April: Martin pleaded on TV to be allowed to govern until 30 days after Justice John Gomery's final report on AdScam.

28 Grits then announced $23 billion in pre-pre-election spending.

29 May: Opposition days suspended so they can't call non-confidence vote.

30 NDP deal: Backroom deal to buy NDP support forced budget changes -- adding another $4.6 billion in spending.

31 Martin reversed sensible stand on U.S. missile defence.

32 Aid to Darfur boosted in bid to buy support of Independent MP David Kilgour.

33 Promised Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty $5.75 billion to fix "fiscal imbalance" over five years.

34 May 10: Grits lost vote 153-150 calling for them to resign, but refused to do so.

35 Secret health deal proposed to NDP; Layton rejects it.

36 May 17: Belinda Stronach wooed into Liberal caucus -- and cabinet -- just in time to win non-confidence vote.

37 Post-Belinda, Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal revealed tape recordings of PMO staffer Tim Murphy and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh discussing possible incentives if he crossed the floor. Grits said tapes were doctored.

PAUL MARTIN'S LEGACY -- MR. DITHERS TAKES THE HELM: 38-63

38 Worked with loyal team for more than a decade to take over party from Jean Chretien.

39 Only rival left for leadership was Sheila Copps.

40 Put his company, Canada Steamship Lines, in a "blind trust" that wasn't. As PM, was allowed to transfer ownership to his sons, keeping it in the family.

41 Registered several CSL ships under foreign flags to avoid Canadian taxes.

42 Used U2 singer Bono for his star power; left him "mystified" and "crushed" by failing to deliver on world poverty.

43 Extended term of big-spending Gov.-Gen. Adrienne Clarkson; appointed Michaelle Jean without thoroughly checking out her past association with separatists.

44 Promised to "fix health care for a generation" with $41-billion deal with the provinces in 2004. Some fix!

45 Made separate side deal with Quebec on health care, calling it "asymmetrical federalism."

46 Agreed on "wait times strategy" with provinces in 2004. Still waiting for it to be implemented.

47 Personal doctor runs a private clinic.

48 Promised to change the way Supreme Court judges were appointed -- but only allowed MPs to question Justice Minister about them, after the fact.

49 Promised to diminish Western alienation or "I will have failed."

50 Slow to return from vacation after the South Asian tsunami, and dithered on sending Disaster Assistance Response Team.

51 February 2005: The Economist magazine immortalized "Mr. Dithers" nickname for his "faltering leadership."

52 May 2005: 63% told Strategic Counsel poll Martin was most dishonest party leader; 61% felt he was most likely to lie.

53 Sent controversial same-sex marriage bill to Supreme Court; didn't insist on a ruling on traditional marriage.

54 Invoked closure to ram same-sex bill into law June 28; cabinet members not allowed to vote their conscience.

55 Gave $2.2 billion in gas tax revenues to public transit, but none of it to repair crumbling roads.

56 Cut capital gains tax on charitable donations of securities to 50% in 1997, refused to eliminate it.

57 2004: Feds shamed over plan to send 70 bureaucrats to 60th anniversary D-Day event -- but only 60 veterans.

58 Tolerated Carolyn Parrish ("Damn Americans -- I hate those bastards") in caucus until she dissed him personally.

59 Blamed America for Canada's gun problem.

60 Before becoming PM, opposed the Clarity Act.

61 Ditto same-sex marriage.

62 And the Kyoto accord.

63 Also publically endorsed joining the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

MARTIN'S TURNCOAT MINISTERS: 64-67

Each of these converts to Paul Martin's Liberal team just happened to score a cabinet post:

64 Belinda Stronach (ex-Conservative leadership contender) -- in charge of Human Resources and, yes, ethics reform.

65 Scott Brison (ex-PC leadership hopeful) -- Public Works.

66 Ujjal Dosanjh (ex-NDP B.C. premier) -- Health.

67 Jean Lapierre (co-founder of Bloc Quebecois) -- Quebec lieutenant and Transportation.

LAST ELECTION, JUNE 2004, MAJORITY TO MINORITY: 68-75

68 Pre-election spending: $8 billion for everything from health care to highways.

69 Martin shut down Commons AdScam committee, announced Gomery inquiry -- then promptly called the election before it could start.

70 Attack ads against Conservatives accused them of wanting to recriminalize abortion, send troops to Iraq, and govern like Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris.

71 Accused Harper of plotting with Alberta's Ralph Klein to destroy medicare.

72 Called Conservative forecast of $50-billion surplus over five years a "black hole"; Grit surpluses now exceed that.

73 PM's handpicked Winnipeg candidate Glen Murray lost to quadriplegic Conservative Steven Fletcher.

74 Mid-campaign, Martin promised Newfoundland premier Danny Williams an oil and gas revenue deal; then reneged post-election until Williams went ballistic.

75 Ministers Judy Sgro and John McCallum dispatched to heckle Harper at events.

Promises, Promises -- Grit Moments in Dithering: 76-85

76 1993: Red Book promised an independent ethics commisioner reporting to Parliament. Not implemented until 2004.

77 1993: Promised national daycare program: Signed first deals with provinces to begin implementing it in 2005.

78 1993: Promised to boost immigration levels to 300,000 per year: Announced the same target twice last fall -- despite a current 700,000-person backlog.

79 1993: Promised to reform Young Offenders Act. Youth Criminal Justice Act finally took effect in 2003, and is even worse.

80 1993: Promised national pharmacare program. No action.

81 Ditto for their 1993 promise of national home care.

82 1994: Justice minister Allan Rock promised national sex offender registry: Finally established in 2004, but had to be amended in 2005 to include Karla Homolka. Ditto for national DNA databank -- finally passed before this election.

83 1995: Martin imposed 1.5c/litre "deficit-fighting" tax on gasoline. Deficit was eliminated in 1997, but tax is still there. Now Grits justify it as part of the gas tax "deal" for cities.

84 1999: Justice minister Anne McLellan told the Commons: "The government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages."

85 20 years after Air India bombing, after years of resisting calls for an inquiry, Grits announced a limited one before this election.

Patronage, Piggery and 'Entitlements': 86-98

86 Martin appointed Francis Fox, who worked in his PMO and on his leadership, to the Senate.

87 Also Dennis Dawson, another staunch Martin backer.

88 And James Cowan, his leadership head in Nova Scotia.

89 Ditto Liberal fundraiser Rod Zimmer.

90 And Art Eggleton, who stepped aside in 2004 for Martin protege Ken Dryden.

91 October: Feds refused to cut gas taxes, but raised MPs' and staff travel allowances 4.6c/km due to high gas prices.

92 2001: MPs gave themselves pay raies of 20% -- retroactive to January. Cabinet ministers got 22%; PM Jean Chretien 42% -- boosting his pension 82%!

93 Among Chretien's many patronage appointments: Former PMO spokesman Jim Munson to the Senate.

94 Same for former chief of staff Percy Downe.

95 And longtime adviser David Smith.

96 PMO crony Jean Pelletier went to head VIA Rail (from which Martin has now fired him twice over AdScam).

97 Andre Ouellett got Canada Post, where he once cashed over $300,000 in expenses with no receipts (fired by Martin).

98 David Dingwall got the Mint; was fired over expenses but is fighting for severance: "I'm entitled to my entitlements."

INTEGRITY -- FAMOUS GRIT WORDS: 99-103

99 "The government will restore the public's faith and trust in the integrity and good management of government."

-- Martin government's first throne speech, Feb. 2004

100 "We are going to condemn to history the practice and the politics of cronyism ... No longer will the culture in Ottawa be one of entitlement."

-- Martin speech, March 2004

101 "Perhaps there was a few million dollars that might have been stolen in the process; it is possible."

-- Jean Chretien, 2002, defending the sponsorship program

102 "Cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians, and the political process is at an all-time high ... Honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored."

-- 1993 Red Book, co-written by Paul Martin

103 "Screw the Red Book. Don't tell me what's in the Red Book. I wrote the goddamned thing. And I know that it's a lot of crap."

-- Martin as quoted in the 1996 book Double Vision: The Inside Story of the Liberals in Power

MINISTERIAL AND MP MISDEEDS: 104-125

104 Joe Volpe expensed $138 for a "pizza dinner for two."

105 Pierre Pettigrew took his chauffeur on $10,000 worth of trips, even though he didn't need him to drive.

106 Judy Sgro said the ethics commissioner "vindicated" her in the foreign strippers scandal, when he found her in "clear violation" of parts of the conflict-of- interest code.

107 Ralph Goodale said in 2004 the surplus would be $1.9 billion -- it turned out to be $9.1 billion.

108 Don Boudria spent a weekend at the luxury ski chalet of Quebec advertising honcho Claude Boulay.

109 So did Denis Coderre.

110, 111, 112, 113, 114: Allan Rock, Claudette Brashaw, David Anderson, Jane Stewart and Bob Thibault all accepted free fishing trips and/or flights from the wealthy Irving family of New Brunswick.

115 Hedy Fry falsely claimed racists in Prince George, B.C. were "burning crosses on lawns."

116 Herb Dhaliwal called U.S. President George Bush a failed statesman.

117 Lawrence MacAulay lobbied the RCMP and Corrections Canada to fund training at a college his brother headed.

118 Art Eggleton lost his post as defence minister for giving a contract to an ex-girlfriend.

119 Scarborough MP Tom Wappel refused to help an 81-year-old blind war vet because he didn't vote for him.

120 John Manley proposed subsidizing Canadian NHL teams up to $3.5 million each; scrapped the idea two days later.

121 Andy Scott was overheard on a plane saying he would have to "cover" for Chretien at the 1998 APEC inquiry.

122 Sheila Copps' Heritage department spent $15 million on "free" Canadian flags for all.

123 Copps kept her promise to resign when the Grits failed to scrap the GST -- and was promptly re-elected.

124 Michel Dupuy attended a 1995 dinner with Liberal lobbyists and others who ended up receiving federal grants.

125 Jag Bhaduria was expelled from caucus over revelations that he falsified his background and wrote threatening letters.

ADSCAM, THE MOTHER OF ALL SCANDALS: 126-137

Justice John Gomery's November report is reason alone not to vote Liberal. Here's just a tiny taste of why:

126 Gomery inquiry testimony drove separatist support to highest level in a decade.

127 Gomery summed up AdScam: "A story of greed, venality and misconduct" featuring "a complex web of financial transactions among Public Works ... Crown corporations and communication agencies, involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to (the Liberal) party."

128 Gomery on the Liberal party (Quebec wing): "The (party) as an institution cannot escape responsibility for the misconduct of its officers and representatives."

129 Jean Chretien openly taunted the judge by bringing golf balls to the inquiry, saying they weren't "small-town cheap."

130 Martin led cheers in caucus for Chretien the next day.

131 The forensic accountants who exposed the Enron scandal said even they couldn't tell where all the AdScam cash went.

132 Among the things sponsorship money paid for: 1,200 golf balls bearing Chretien's signature;

133 $46,300 worth of maple-leaf neckties;

134 Montreal Grand Prix tickets for senior Grits;

135 $100,000 worth of Christmas decorations;

136 A TV series airing in China.

137 A $16,000 plaque and flag in a store in Chretien's riding.

Speaking of Scandals: 138-158

138 Gun registry: Supposed to cost $2 million, now at nearly $2 billion (even AG can't fathom it), with gun crimes rising.

139 Income trusts: Suspicious trading before Ralph Goodale's Nov. 23 announcement now under RCMP investigation.

140 Option Canada: Secret 1995 unity fund now being probed by RCMP.

141 HRDC boondoggle: $1 billion blown on dubious job-creation projects (including a fountain in Shawinigan).

142 Helicopters: Cancelling contract to replace aging Sea Kings in 1993 cost $500 million and put troops at risk. New contract finally issued in July 2005.

143 Submarines: $750 million to buy used British subs that leak and, in one case, caught fire, killing one submariner.

144 Home heating rebate: Finance minister Martin doled out $1 billion in pre-2000-election cheques to people who didn't need them, including 7,500 who were dead.

145 Shawinigate: Chretien lied about intervening to secure a federal business loan for an associate in his riding. Later said such interventions were "the normal operation."

146 Francois Beaudoin: Raided, intimidated by Liberal operatives and forced from his federal bank job after questioning the loan to Chretien's Shawinigan associate. Judge Andre Denis later called it "an unspeakable injustice."

147 Hepatitis C: Liberals, under Chretien's orders, voted in 1998 against compensating excluded victims of tainted blood scandal; changed their tune in 2004 -- no money has flowed yet.

148 Airbus: Feds apologized in 1997 and paid $2 million to former PM Brian Mulroney for false kickback allegations.

149 Challenger jets: Chretien made secret, rushed, untendered $100-million deal to buy two from Bombardier in 2002.

150 Somalia inquiry: Grits shut it down prematurely in 1997.

151 Agent Orange: Feds dithered on compensating soldiers exposed to the toxic Vietnam-era chemical in Gagetown, N.B.

152 Zahra Kazemi: Canadian's murder covered up in Iran; Canada's response was weak.

153 Bill Sampson: Canadian wrongly imprisoned and tortured in Saudi Arabia for 3 years; Canada's response was weak.

154 Maher Arar: Canadian wrongly imprisoned in Syria for a year; Canada's response was weak (inquiry is now pending).

155 Tobacco suit: $1-billion civil suit in the U.S. against a Canadian tobacco giant for allegedly evading billions in taxes by smuggling cigarettes was thrown out. Cost: $17 million.

156 Air security fee: Imposed excessive $24/round trip tax in 2001, raking in $1 million/day (since cut to $14/round trip).

157Ads: AG Sheila Fraser said on top of AdScam, some $800 million in ad contracts since 2000 were questionable.

158 Canada "wordmark": Feds paid ad firms $1 million to "develop" it; later conceded it's existed since 1965.

OVERALL LIBERAL RECORD 159-183

159 Increased spending 37% since 2000; 55.8% since eliminating the deficit in 1997, says Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

160 Increased federal staff 10% since 1999, the CTF says.

161 Tax Freedom Day in 1993: June 6. Last year: June 26, according to Fraser Institute.

162 Average family income increase since 1993: 37%. Average increase in that family's taxes: 50%, according to CTF.

163 Spending predicted (in November) to rise 25% by 2010.

164 In past two budgets, stashed $9 billion in untouchable "foundations" -- AG warned of lack of accountability.

165 1998: Martin, as finance minister, reduced EI premiums 15c/$100 but hiked CPP premiums 30c/$100, costing taxpayers $59 a year.

166 1999: AG found EI surplus excessive.

167 1996: Spent $1 billion getting Atlantic provinces to "harmonize" GST and PST.

168 2000-2005: Fiscal surplus forecasts understimated by a total of $35.3 billion.

169 Promised to decriminalize marijuana, satisfied no one.

170 Encouraged Corrections Canada to release inmates as early as possible -- prisons boss said goal was 50% release rate.

171 1996: Brought in conditional (house arrest) sentences for violent crime, including homicide.

172 1997: Tightened notorious "faint-hope clause" that lets murderers appply for parole after just 15 years -- but only to exclude serial killers, and only those who kill after 1997.

173 2005: Established $3.7-million pilot project to set up tattoo parlours in prisons.

174 1994-97: Refugee backlog doubled.

175 1997: Wasted more than $300 million a year paying social benefits to backlogged refugee claimants, AG found.

176 1998: Lost track of 4,613 refugee claimants up to August.

177 2003: Lost track of 36,000 immigrants ordered deported, AG found.

178 2002: Senate Committee on National Security and Defence said Armed Forces were so overstretched they should step down from all peacekeeping operations for two years.

179 2005: Same committee found Canada not equipped to handle a major disaster.

180 1997: Low-paid soldiers resorted to using food banks.

181 2001: Troops sent to Afghanistan in forest-green uniforms.

182 Ottawa too secretive, Information Commissioner reported.

183 10 years after the 1995 Quebec referendum, 48% of Quebecers told Strategic Counsel pollsters they would vote "Yes" to separation again; 47% said "No."

JEAN CHRETIEN'S LEGACY -- 'A PROOF IS A PROOF' 184-199

184 1993: Kept campaign promise to cancel Pearson airport privatization deal. Estimated cost of cancellation: $1 billion.

185 1993: Broke campaign promise to get rid of GST.

186 1993: Embraced NAFTA, 27 days after winning election promising to fight it.

187 1995: Almost lost the country in Quebec referendum.

188 1995: Created sponsorship program in response.

189 1996: Throttled a demonstrator at Flag Day event.

190 1996: Claimed he had regular chats with a homeless man.

191 1998: Joked about RCMP pepper-spraying demonstrators at APEC summit in B.C.: "Pepper, I put it on my plate."

192 1998: Called 64c dollar "good for exporters."

193 2001: Did nothing for 25 Canadians killed in 9/11, delayed visiting attack site. 194 Blamed U.S. "greed" for terrorism.

195 2002: Staffer Francie Ducros called George Bush a "moron."

196 2002: Responded when asked what kind of proof he'd need to join the invasion of Iraq: "A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven."

197 2002: Refused to join Iraq war, or to confirm Canada had 31 soldiers serving there with U.S. and British forces.

198 2002: Announced his retirement -- for 2004!

199 Refused to declare Ontario SARS crisis a disaster; offered paltry aid.

2000 ELECTION -- CHRETIEN'S LAST LAUGH: 200-207

200 Pre-election spending: $2.248 billion in week before vote called, according to Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

201 Premature election ended shortest majority mandate in 90 years (three years) -- cost $200 million.

202 Lifted Canadian Alliance platform promise: $100 billion in tax cuts.

203 $100 billion tax cut really $55.4 billion when other things like CPP increases are factored in, CTF calculated.

204 22 RCMP investigations ongoing into Grit grant and loan programs, including four in Chretien's riding alone.

205 Elinor Caplan, immigration minister, told voters supporters of the Alliance were racists and Holocaust deniers.

206 Alliance accused of supporting "two-tier" health care.

207 Chretien openly talked about quitting post- election.

1997 ELECTION -- LIBERAL MAJORITY SHRINKS: 208-210

208 Pre-election spending: $8 billion.

209 Vote called despite Manitoba flood crisis.

210 35% of voters said June 2 election call was premature.

WHERE CANADA STANDS NOW: 211-218

211 Economy: 12th among industrialized nations, according to Conference Board of Canada (down from 3rd in 2003).

212 Competitiveness: 14th, according to World Economic Forum (down from 4th in 1997).

213 Health care: 30th in efficiency, according to World Health Organization.

214 Ethics: 14th, says Transparency International, due to "marked increase" in corruption (down from 5th).

215 Military spending: 153rd out of 192 countries, based on percentage of GDP; 14th in per-capita spending.

216 Peacekeeping: 36th, according to UN.

217 Personal income tax burden: Highest in G-8, says OECD.

218 Marginal tax rates: Second only to China, says C.D. Howe Institute.

Why Canada Needs a Conservative Majority

2006-01-19T19:51:00.000-08:00

For many obvious reasons, Canada needs a majority Conservative government. Here are my opinions on the matter:

1. Gve the country economic stability in relation to world markets and how they affect the TSX and the liberal insiders on Bay Street. (Rememeber that little Income Trust scandal RCMP investigation?)

2. Avoid having all the leftist parties change and alter the bills coming before Parliament, in other words don't let "we-will-tax-everything" Jack Layton get his mitts on legislation. Anytime Jack touches something, my taxes go up.

3. Send a clear message that the last 13 years of liberal corruption and scandal must be punished significantly.

4. Avoid having another election, 4 years of conservative government is just the medicine this country needs to heal itself, the liberals have done far too much damage already.

5. Will succeed in reducing the separtists in Quebec (enraged and increased by liberal corruption)

6. Provide real tax relief to Canadians, the liberals are swimming in cash and claim to be good fiscal managers, what a joke.

7. Provide parents with childcare choices rather than another NDP/liberal ministry that does nothing but cost money.

8. Fnally overhaul the weak and flawed justice system and get control of the streets again.

9. Abolish the wasteful and useless gun registry.

10. Rebuild our decimated military capable of protecting our sovreignty

10. Most important - Restore the dignity that Canadians have in their country, the liberals have disgraced us all - Canadians should be proud of their country not hanging their heads in shame because of all the liberal scandals.

Mini-budget Put Liberal Government $3B in Deficit

2006-01-19T18:35:00.000-08:00

Eric Beauchesne

CanWest News Service

Published: Thursday, January 19, 2006

OTTAWA - Liberal income tax cuts announced in the November mini-budget plunged the government more than $3- billion into the red during the month, according to figures released yesterday by the Finance Department.

The cuts, which were made retroactive to Jan. 1, 2005, would be cancelled by the Conservatives if they are elected, but there would be no effect on the 2005 returns.

But the deficit they caused didn't stop the Finance Minister Ralph Goodale from promising a further $55-million a year in new tax breaks to encourage charitable giving.

A Liberal government would eliminate capital gains tax on charitable gifts of publicly traded shares and of ecologically sensitive land, countering a similar promise already made by the Conservatives.

The Liberal tax break will be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2006, to allow Canadians to make their tax-free donations immediately.

At present, 25% of the capital gain on such donations is subject to tax.

Mr. Goodale's announcement of the tax break came only minutes after the Finance Department reported the government posted a $3.1-billion deficit in November, reflecting the cost of cutting the rate of the lowest tax bracket to 15% from 16% and the increase in the basic personal exemption.

Were it not for the tax breaks, the government would have had a $500-million surplus, although even that would have been less than the $1.7-billion surplus posted in November, 2004.

For the first eight months of the 2005-06 fiscal year, which runs until the end of March, the surplus was $6.3-billion, down $4-billion from a year earlier.

The lower cumulative surplus again reflected the impact of the income tax cut, the department said, adding that there will be further tax-cut costs as well.

"These monthly financial results are only partial-year results," it noted. "In particular, they do not reflect the remaining cost of the tax cuts announced in the November, 2005, Economic and Fiscal Update for 2005-06, amounting to $1.4-billion."

However, the Conservatives have said they will reverse the tax cut in the lowest tax bracket this year and reduce the personal exemption if elected.

The Two Fools

2006-01-19T07:24:00.000-08:00

Buzz Hargrove is not too bright. First he drops his support for the NDP and changes to the libranos.

Next he tells Quebecers to vote for the separtist Bloc to fight off Conservatives.

Hargrove always had more mouth than brains (kind of reminds me of Scott Brison and Scott Reid).

The CAW membership thinks Buzz is an idiot and the only reason he is backing Martin's liberal mafia is because he wants a senator seat.

The Conservatives will win the election, and Hargrove, like the the libranos will hopefully become a distant memory to Canadians.

New National Poll Results

2006-01-18T09:38:00.000-08:00

It looks like the libranos are in a free fall, after 13 years of liberal corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence, its good to see Canadians wake up and decide to change the government.

Harper for PM !

Time For Change Canada

2006-01-17T08:43:00.000-08:00

This says it all, considering the sponsorship scandal which is organized crime, its time for Canada to turn the page on 13 years of corrupt liberal government.

The liberals have eroded Canada's pride to its very foundations, separatism has increased, and all of Canada's social programs have been decimated because of liberal incompetence and mismanagement.

Lets not forget the useless gun registry, HRDC boondoogle, $48 billion EI theft, purchase of obsolete British submarines, Income Trust Scandal, Strippergate, Shawinigate, and all the other failures of this liberal party. The list goes on and on...

Thankfully Canadians now have the ability to punish this corrupt liberal party for all these failures.

Harper for PM !

A Liberal Vote Helps Separtist Bloc

2006-01-16T08:11:00.000-08:00

The Conservatives are making substanital support gains in Quebec, pulling votes for both the Bloc and the liberals.

This is great news for national unity, because the dullards in Ontario after 13 years in slumber are being forced to realize what Western Canadians have known for awhile - Canada needs a change in government.

The liberals cannot defend national unity, if anything, the liberals have created and encouraged this concept of separtism.

Voters have to realize that casting a ballot for liberals helps the separtist Bloc.

Harper was strategically brilliant to agree to work along side federalist premier Jean Charest, instead Mr. Dithers waged a war with the Bloc and PQ (assuming Boisclair won the next provincial election) Charest is still the premier in Quebec for another two years, so Paul Matrin's phony unity war lacks all credibility.

So federalists in Quebec realized that they do have an alternative, and its the Harper lead Conservatives. This comes back to the liberals refusing to acknowledge a fiscal inbalance between Ottawa and the provinces.

Now its finally clear to all Canadians that the liberals don't deserve support, they should be removed from the House of Commons and relegated to the history books as a disgraceful time Canada's history.

We have seen the true liberal party, with all its corruption and scandals, hate advertising, extorion, money laudering, lies (remember promising to scrap the GST), and deceit, the liberal party has failed and disgraced all Canadians.

Criminals Vote For The Liberals

2006-01-15T05:25:00.000-08:00

Convicted Criminals have clearly indicated they will vote liberal.

This is great news for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, you know when criminals vote for liberals its clear why Canadians should vote Conservative.

My personal view is that you break the law, you should lose certain rights as a citizen. Convicts should not be able to vote.

If you lose your license, do you get to drive? Percisely why criminals should not be able to vote.

The Conservatives new justice measures will make criminals do the time they are supposed to, under the liberals serious criminal behavior across Canada has increased.

Liberals want to rehabilitate and always forgive, tell that the families of Paul Bernardo and mounties killed in Mayerthorpe. Dangerous people should be in jail, not in half-way houses free to roam.

Criminals want the liberals in power, under their watch, serious crimes are met with a slap on the wrist and plea-bargaining has reached a whole new level under the liberal justice system.

I find it hilarious that Irwin Cotler (liberal justice minister)has for months denounced manditory minimum sentences, but since public opinion now favors this, he completely flip-flops and now supports this concept.

The Conservatives have been pushing for manditory minimum sentences for years, but it fell on deaf liberal ears, hopefully Canadians punish the liberals for yet another failure.

Off-Reserve Natives to Back Conservatives

2006-01-14T14:34:00.000-08:00

CanWest News Service

Saturday, January 14, 2006

OTTAWA -The Conservative party will today receive an official endorsement from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, a group that represents off-reserve natives, sources have told CanWest News Service.

The endorsement comes one day after the Tories released their full platform on aboriginal issues and after a week of criticism from the Liberals and the Metis nation.

The endorsement is expected after a meeting between Tory aboriginal affairs critic Jim Prentice and Chief Dwight Dorey, the head of the organization, which claims to speak for 800,000 Indian and Metis people who live off-reserve.

The Conservative party put closure to a debate on its approach to aboriginal policy Friday with the release of its platform, but a failure to attach any specific funding initiatives for Canada's natives had the Liberals claiming the high ground on which government would be a champion for First Nations.

The deal between the federal government, provincial governments and First Nations groups set targets to improve native housing, health, education and economic conditions over the next five years. The deal, signed in Kelowna, B.C., was worth $5.5 billion and was hailed by all sides as a historic agreement with the potential to greatly improve the lives of aboriginals.

But while the Tories, Liberals and New Democrats have all endorsed the targets established in the Kelowna accord, each party has different ideas on how to get to those goals as well as how much it will ultimately cost.

The Conservative platform commits to the targets set out in Kelowna, but the party disputes how the funding has been allocated and does not offer its own price tag.

"I made inquiries at the time ... and there was some confusion about whether it was new money or old money," Tory aboriginal affairs critic Jim Prentice said in an interview this week of the $5.5-billion Liberal deal. "The Liberals created an enormous amount of confusion about where the money was coming from."
Prentice said a Conservative government will sit down with the provinces and native groups to hammer out how much it will cost to meet the targets on the five-year plan that has been set out. He suggested it could cost less than what the Liberals estimate.

In addition, the Tories are promising to re-write the Indian Act to give "full legal and democratic responsibility" to aboriginals for their own affairs under the Constitution.

More Liberal Entitlements - Canada Day Funding

2006-01-14T14:30:00.000-08:00

Glen McGregor
CanWest News Service

Saturday, January 14, 2006

OTTAWA -- A disproportionate share of federal funding for celebrations of Canada Day and other national holidays was given to organizations in ridings held by Liberal MPs, according to an analysis done by the Ottawa Citizen.

A little more than 79 per cent of the $7.5 million provided since the last election through Canadian Heritage's Celebrate Canada program funded projects based in Liberal ridings, the newspaper says.
As well, projects based in Quebec received more than half of the total amount spent by the national program.

The government approved funding for more than 1,600 projects to mark Canada Day, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, and the lesser-known holidays of Canadian Multiculturalism Day and National Aboriginal Day between the end of June 2004 and last October.

The Citizen matched the addresses listed for the holiday projects to their electoral districts. Those based in Liberal ridings received $5.9 million, or about four times the $1.5 million for those in ridings held by all opposition MPs combined.

Before the federal election was called, the Liberals held 133, or about 43 per cent, of the 308 seats in the House of Commons.

The government says political considerations do not factor into the approval of Celebrate Canada events and anyone can apply, regardless of where they're located.

"This is not something that we look at," said Canadian Heritage spokesman Donald Boulanger. "We do invite all Canadians from coast to coast to apply for the funding. It is attributed based on the scope of the project."

Boulanger said applications are sent to provincial and territorial Celebrate Canada committees, which make recommendations on funding. Their recommendations are passed on to the department for review and approval. The volunteer committee members are appointed by the minister of heritage.

Many of the larger projects funded by Celebrate Canada were run by organizations based in urban areas, where the Liberals typically have stronger representation. For example, the program put up $160,000 for Vancouver's Canada Day event at Canada Place, in the downtown riding held by Liberal Hedy Fry.

But even excluding larger municipal and regional projects that received $10,000 or more from the government, most of the money -- 53 per cent -- still went to Liberal ridings.

In some cases, money appeared to flow more freely to ridings represented by Liberals while opposition ridings in the same city received less. The Toronto riding held by Liberal MP Tony Ianno received $257,000 for 12 projects, including an Aboriginal Day peace walk and a street party in an area called Liberty Village. But across town, the riding held by NDP Leader Jack Layton saw only $3,000 for one holiday celebration, called Neighbours Together on Canada Day.

Quebec also received a disproportionate share of the program funding, with $4.3 million or 57 per cent of the total provided since the last election. That compares to the combined total of $2.2 million for projects in Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Activities in Ontario were allotted a little more than $1 million.

The Heritage Department says the cost of putting on Canada Day musical performances in 29 Quebec municipalities skewed the numbers.

The concerts were part of a $3.2-million project, called Celafete 2005, that was based in the Montreal riding held by Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Lucienne Robillard.

But even excluding the Celafete, Quebec Liberal ridings received dramatically more for their projects than Bloc Quebecois ridings -- $774,000 compared to $304,000 -- even though the Bloc held 53 of the province's 75 seats.

The funding for Quebec was approved by the provincial Celebrate Canada committee, for which former astronaut Marc Garneau served as president until recently. Garneau is now a Liberal candidate in the riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

The Liberal election campaign said it was a matter for the government to comment upon.

In British Columbia, the program gave $260,000 for events in the Liberals' eight ridings, compared to $202,000 for those in the 22 Conservative ridings. The five NDP ridings in B.C. got $36,000.

Community groups, charities, corporations, school boards and municipal governments are all eligible to apply for Celebrate Canada funding. Application kits are usually sent out to MPs and senators in December for the coming summer's projects.

The program provided funding that ranged from $100 for a Canada Day party at a retirement home in Conservative Chuck Strahl's B.C. riding, to the $3.2 million allotted Celafete 2005.

The Citizen analysis used electronic records obtained from Canadian Heritage through the Access to Information Act. Of the projects funded since the election, a small number could be not linked to federal ridings because their exact location could not be determined from data provided. They received a little more than $36,000 from Celebrate Canada, or about half of one per cent of the total funding.

The election last year was the first run under the new electoral boundaries which were used by the Citizen to analyze the funding, but data from Celebrate Canada projects dating back May 2003 reflect a similar pattern. Of those 4,659 projects, 74 per cent of the $17 million in funding went to ridings that last year were won by Liberals.

Liberal Attack Advertising

2006-01-13T19:09:00.000-08:00

The liberals are turning this campaign into a smear and fear fest. This all the liberals can do at this point, they are free falling in the polls and they know it..

All these ads did was once again attack the fine people of the military and try to portray that the Conservatives would impose marshall law, which is complete and utter nonsense.

Thankfully most intelligent Canadians saw this and soldified their vote with the Conservatives. The levels to which this liberal government will sink to maintain power is disgraceful.

The sooner January 23rd comes to vote out this corrupt, disgraceful liberal party the better.

Its hard to believe some people would still vote liberal, obviously these people are intelluctually challenged.

Harper Wins Support in Quebec-French Debate

2006-01-10T21:28:00.000-08:00

Obviously everyone knew that Duceppe would excel in his first language, he clearly won, but Harper was right behind him. Even a former PQ deputy indicated she thought Stephen Harper conducted himself well and managed to deflect everything and still make Paul Martin look like a stammering fool.

Martin had fists in the air, hands girating, clearly angry and frustrated that people do not find and his corrupt party relevent anymore. (and for good reason)

Harper and the Conservatives are making staggering gains in Quebec and finally Ontario seems to be waking up after 12 years of liberal slumber.

If the Conservatives run the same style campaign along with some hard hitting advertising, the Conservatives will win a strong minority or possibly even a slim majority.

To counteract the slanderous and outrageous liberal ads, the Conservatives need to point out the following:

From M.K Braaten, I have to absolutely agree with these points.

-Use footage of Paul Martin from the past contradicting his current positions;

-Use clips of former turncoats (Stronach/Brison) criticizing the Liberal party and its policies;

-Use money flow charts to insinuate unproven accusations with certain Martin linked lobby groups;

-Question whether Paul Martin gave contracts to his friends, then ask if those same friends used tax payer dollars to donate and funded his leadership drive;

-Show clips depicting CSL Ships polluting the Great Lakes, then show last weeks environment announcement by Paul Martin and insinuate that he is trying to make tax payers foot the clean up bill;

-Show clips of Paul Martin denouncing tax cuts last spring, and GST in 1993;

Harper can also discuss why there is no one in jail yet and $100 million was stolen and money laudered in the sponsorship scandal.

He can also discuss the gun registry, HRDC boondoggle, Strippergate, and all the other scandals in the liberal party over the last decade.

The Conservatives should also hammer home that the liberals have been criminally investigated 33 times in the last 3 years..

My English Debate Observations

2006-01-09T21:24:00.000-08:00

This debate was a mix of arguments, theatrics (mostly from Mr. Dithers), and a love-in from the Toronto hippie (Jack Layton)

NDP's Jack Layton - Sounded fairly concise, responded well to questions, but according to the majority of Canadians and myself included, the NDP are wrong on the issues, not the Conservatives. He started talking about kids with wings and stuff, what are you smoking Jack? Everyone knows that the NDP are just liberals in orange suits, and basically a Toronto based party.

Bloc's Gilles Duceppe - Hammered the libranos effectively over corruption and the Conservatives because Harper is taking away Bloc voters in Quebec right now.

Libranos Paul "Mr. Dithers" Martin - Looked tired, desperate, and stammered a fair amount. This guy is a pathetic joke and to announce he would cancel the non-withstanding clause in the Charter is obviously trying to get a headline or two. No one in Canada cares Mr. Dithers, we want tax cuts, an end to liberal corruption, capable military, and choice in child care to name a few things. Interesting that Martin did say in the last debate he would use the non-withstanding clause to protect religious freedoms from same-sex marriage. Talk about a flip-flop...

Conservative's Stephen Harper - Looked like a Prime Minister, remained composed even when getting non-factual grilling from Mr. Dithers and the NDP. I would say Harper easily won the debate, he articulated his point and the cruical quote was when he asked Mr. Dithers if he knew how many RCMP investigations the liberals are in now, that was classic. The answer is 34 criminal investigations into liberals in the last 3 years.

Grits Lose Quebec Card - Yet More Liberal Corruption

2006-01-09T12:41:00.000-08:00

Mon, January 9, 2006

By Ezra Levant

Three weeks ago, when it appeared the Tory campaign was going well, I predicted the Liberals would make their final campaign sprint in January all about Quebec.

It probably breaks the pundit's code of conduct to do so, but I'd like to retract that prediction.

I wrote the Liberals would play the Quebec card to scare Ontario away from the Conservatives. First, they'd ask how the Conservatives can form a government without a single MP from Quebec. Second, they'd claim that an anglo prime minister from Alberta couldn't credibly lead the "no" side in a Quebec referendum.

I thought the Liberals would paint the Tories as a threat to national unity. They still might. It's just that it won't work now.

Part of that is because the Liberals are too busy jumping on live grenades exploding in their own bunker to have a chance to lob any of their own. First it was the RCMP investigation into the income trust leak -- a leak that let a handful of Liberal-connected stock brokers fleece thousands of investors out of millions of dollars.

Then last week, the RCMP revealed they were investigating another Liberal scandal -- this one involving an old aide to Paul Martin, named Claude Dauphin.

Dauphin led a group called Option Canada that received $4.8-million from the government. The RCMP is investigating whether that money was funnelled to the "no" side of the 1995 referendum campaign, which was led by the Liberals.

And yet another scandal brews: The RCMP has been asked to investigate Kim Doran, deputy national director of the Liberal party. Doran also is a lobbyist whose firm received more than $380,000 from the government to lobby ... the government! The justice minister, a Liberal, paid Doran, a Liberal, $380,000 to lobby the solicitor General and other Liberals.

Why couldn't the justice minister just pick up the phone? Why did $380,000 have to be spent on an outside "lobbyist" to pass a note to a friend, like giggling kids in gym class? Is the answer because Doran's lobby firm has donated more than $100,000 back to the Liberals? We'll find out.

So what does any of this have to do with the Liberals scaring voters away from the Tories using the Quebec/national unity card?

Everything.

Because, when the Liberal war room is busy trying to defuse another scandalous time bomb every day, there's not a lot of time for shooting at the other side. And when the Liberals do fire at the Tories, it's increasingly regarded by the media and the public as a desperate attempt to distract from the Liberals' own follies.

Martin imperiously announced last week he refuses to answer any more questions about the income trust scandal, and he called the RCMP investigation "offensive."

That typically arrogant Liberal play might have worked when the Liberals could wait out the media's attention span and when voters were powerless. But neither of those things will happen when an election is just two weeks away.

But there is another, related reason the Liberal attacks on the Tories won't work -- especially on the Quebec card. It's the polls. In Quebec, the Liberals and the Tories are in a statistical dead heat, 22% to 20%.

Both are weak, compared to the Bloc. But no longer can the Liberals call themselves a party that understands Quebec better than the Tories.

Quebecers themselves don't believe it anymore, and neither do the rest of us.

Conference Board Endorses Conservative Fiscal Platform

2006-01-09T07:47:00.000-08:00

So when Ralph Goodale says the Conservatives will run a deficit, I almost fell off my chair laughing.

Here is a government that has hidden or miscalculated over $60 billion in surpluses over the last decade. Last year Goodale said the surplus would be $1.9 billion this fiscal year, but it turned out it was $9.1 billion. This is massive over-taxation.

So Mr. Goodale, I will take the Conference Board's opinion over yours anytime, in addition, you have an RCMP criminal investigation into your department right now over the income trust scandal, so you have no credibility.

Organized Crime - Liberal Style

2006-01-07T20:40:00.000-08:00

This displays the entire web of liberal corruption in the sponsorship scandal. This is organized crime, there is no other way to describe it.

Why are Canadians still voting liberal?

Either they are on the liberal payroll (as is the case of all those folks working at the federal gun registry) or are intrinsically connected to the liberals (as is the case with Earnscliffe)

This country has been severly damaged by the liberals and Canada badly needs a change to a Conservative government.

Only when a Conservative government is running Canada once again so citizens can take pride in their country and end the last 12 years of liberal waste, mismanagement, incompetence, and massive systemic corruption.

Yet Another liberal RCMP Criminal Investigation

2006-01-06T13:02:00.000-08:00

By JANE TABER AND DANIEL LEBLANC

Thursday, January 5, 2006 Posted at 7:07 PM EST

Ottawa — The RCMP is looking into a controversial $4.8-million grant that was awarded to a pro-Canada group at the time of the 1995 referendum on Quebec sovereignty, officials have told The Globe and Mail.

The money went out more than 10 years ago in three disbursements to a little-known group called Option Canada, which has since been disbanded.

On Dec. 23, 2005, the RCMP quizzed two officials at the department of Canadian Heritage about the 1995 expenditure. It remains unclear to how the entire grant was used, but a source said that there are questions surrounding the distribution of an amount, believed to be $300,000.

The RCMP review is the latest bad news for the Liberal campaign. Last week, the Mounties launched a criminal investigation into whether the government's November announcement of a tax change favourable for income trusts was leaked.

The RCMP would not confirm or deny any activity on the file.

However, an official at Canadian Heritage said the department called in the police after hearing that Option Canada was the focus of an upcoming book by Quebec investigative journalist Normand Lester.

“Various information led us to believe that there were possible irregularities in the management of federal funds and it's in that optic that we asked the RCMP to look more closely at the matter,” Heritage spokesman Jean-Guy Beaupré said.

Mr. Beaupré said the RCMP has yet to determine whether it will launch a full criminal investigation.

The Canadian Unity Council, which is a non-profit organization devoted to “strengthening Canada”, is aware of the RCMP's interest in Option Canada, a group that the CUC set up shortly before the referendum to promote federalism in Quebec. The council couldn't undertake certain political activities because of its charitable status.

“A bit before Christmas, we were told that there had been a request for the RCMP to look to see if there were grounds for an investigation,” said CUC spokesman Peter Cowan. “That's essentially what we were told. We have not heard anything that changes that to this point.”

Mr. Cowan said no one at CUC has been contacted about the investigation.

Option Canada was created on Sept. 7, 1995, and started receiving federal funds within a few weeks. It obtained a total of $4.8-million in three payments dated Sept. 24, Oct. 2 and Dec. 20.

An internal review at Canadian Heritage criticized the disbursements, saying the process “lacked the rigour and scrutiny one would expect for such large sums of money being given to an unproven client.”

Option Canada has been disbanded and its former president, Claude Dauphin, is on holiday and could not be reached for comment.

Still, Mr. Dauphin has hired a spokesman in advance of the publication of Mr. Lester's book, The Secrets of Option Canada, which is due to be released next week.

Through the spokesman, Mr. Dauphin said he is unaware of any allegations of wrongdoing, and that even though Mr. Dauphin signed the applications for funds, he did not oversee the federal money.

“He was not involved in the day-to-day management, so he does not know how the funds were distributed and to whom, other than what he read in the media,” said spokesman Jonathan Goldbloom.

Mr. Dauphin is a city councillor in Montreal and a member of the city's executive committee. Before going into municipal politics, Mr. Dauphin worked in the late 1990s as an aide to Prime Minister Paul Martin, who was minister of finance at the time.

In his report into the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Justice John Gomery said that an advertising agency called BCP Group Inc., which worked on the federalist side, received some of the Option Canada funds.

“From September 15 to October 5, 1995, shortly before the referendum, BCP invoiced Option Canada for a total of $2.6-million (including taxes) for media purchases and advertising related services,” Judge Gomery's report said.

Senior government officials have asked for a briefing note from Canadian Heritage in anticipation of the RCMP interest in Option Canada becoming public, a source said.

Heritage Minister Liza Frulla said in an interview that she is unaware of any developments on the file. Ms. Frulla said she has recused herself from the Option Canada issue because she was involved in the NO campaign in 1995 as a provincial representative.

The Bloc Québécois has always been extremely critical of the grant to Option Canada, saying it likely bypassed Quebec's electoral law.

Martin's Liberals Are the Scary Ones

2006-01-04T08:29:00.000-08:00

Wed Jan 4 09:36:37 2006

By: TOM OLESON / The Winnipeg Free Press

Paul Martin's greatest hope and only apparent strategy in this election campaign is to do what he did so well in the last election campaign -- to scare the bejeezus out of New Democratic voters.

In the 2004 election he needed NDP votes in Ontario. To get them, Martin portrayed Tory leader Stephen Harper as some kind of bogeyman who would rob Canadians of their Charter rights, persecute homosexuals, force women to bear unwanted children and strip Canada of its culture and sell the carcass to the Americans.

He did it so effectively that NDP voters swung to the Liberals in sufficient numbers to give Martin a minority government. As this election campaign enters its second half, Martin is trying the same trick, but who should Canadians really be afraid of?

Perhaps Mr. Martin's strategy will work again -- certainly it has NDP leader Jack Layton worried enough that he has been reduced to pleading with New Democrats to actually vote for their own party rather than the Liberals. It is not a very dignified spectacle. Selling that argument is all the more difficult since Mr. Layton himself made it clear NDP votes are for sale, available in the last Parliament to prop up a morally bankrupt Liberal government for the firesale price of $4.5 billion. Layton curiously argues today that the more NDP members of Parliament elected on Jan. 23, the higher the price he can charge for maintaining in power another minority Liberal government, one even further reduced in political and moral equity.

If you think of Canadian politics as a horror story -- and it is hard not to sometimes -- Layton is not really very scary. His party can only play Igor to the Liberals' Dr. Frankenstein. And despite the worst efforts of Martin and his party, the Conservatives aren't looking particularly scary either. Compared to the Liberals, Harper and the Tories look benign. Almost every time Martin or one of his senior cabinet ministers opens his mouth, I get so scared I want to jump into my editor's lap. In this election, the only credible threat to rights comes from the Liberals. In Winnipeg yesterday, Martin continued his assault on the presumption of innocence that is so fundamental to the rights of Canadians accused of crimes -- a Liberal government would institute "reverse onus" in bail hearings.

When the Liberals look for a brain to get their economics in order, they usually use a Conservative's. Today, however, Martin tells Canadians that the Tories, whose policies of fiscal responsibility he appropriated to reduce the deficit when he was finance minister, would now bring the country to financial ruin. Where will they get the money to keep their election promises, he wonders? Perhaps the Tories could use the secret surpluses that Martin and his finance minister, Ralph Goodale, found to finance the tens of billions of dollars in promises they made to Canadians when it became clear that the government could no longer dodge an election.

Martin says that we can't trust the Conservatives to handle the national unity file, but if the separatist Bloc Québécois breaks the 50 per cent barrier in the Quebec vote this time, Canadians can thank the Liberals and their as yet unresolved sponsorship scandal. Speaking of which, Martin asks Canadian to believe that the Liberals have put behind them that exercise in corruption, that extraordinary moral lapse. He thinks Canadians should put it behind them, too, at a time when the finance department is under criminal investigation by the RCMP and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale refuses to step aside because, he says, he has investigated himself and found himself blameless.

All that, when you combine it with a pervasive Liberal arrogance and sense of entitlement to power and privilege, is pretty frightening to any voter who cares about democracy, who wants to be able to look in a mirror without blushing on Jan. 23, but it is not the scariest part of the whole business.

When the Liberals go to their cupboard these days, they find that it is pretty well bare. It is completely bare of principles, running really low on policy and almost out of voters, which is why, having squandered their own support after four elections and innumerable scandals, they need to corral New Democrats

Almost exactly 100 years ago, G.K. Chesterton described a phenomenon in his own political life that should resonate today with Canadians: "As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in liberals."

The Liberal party today demonstrates an obvious contempt for ordinary Canadians.

They do not believe that Canadians should organize their own affairs. They do not believe Canadians can raise their own children -- the Liberal sneer of "beer and popcorn" is a comment that should live in political infamy.

They do not even seem to truly believe that law should apply to them. As Chesterton said, if you do not believe in those things, you do not believe in democracy. And that should scare the bejeezus out of every Canadian.

Harper Wants to Dig Deeper in Liberal Corruption

2006-01-03T10:59:00.000-08:00

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper looks over at a briefcase containing $132,000.00 representing the amount spent by the Liberal government on a specific advertising contract during a news conference in Quebec City, Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2006. (CP PHOTO/Paul Chiasson)

By MURRAY BREWSTER

QUEBEC (CP) - Stephen Harper put more fuel on the fire of the Gomery commission in Quebec on Tuesday by promising a Conservative government would launch a wide-ranging, independent review of federal spending on public-opinion polls.

He made the pledge in Quebec, hoping to further exploit resentment of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, which played throughout the province like a soap opera.

Harper pointed to the practice of government departments asking consultants for oral reports on their research, which leave no paper trail that could potentially surface later on.

That procedure as well as the habit of asking partisan political questions as part of surveys would end under the Conservatives, he said.

Harper denied that the review, which could lead to a judicial inquiry similar to the Gomery probe, amounted to a witchhunt of alleged Liberal misdeeds.

"We are only proposing an independent inquiry or review," he said. "We have not decided on the nature of that review."

The Conservatives are also proposing to routinely publish the results of all government-sponsored polls and to open up the bidding process in order to prevent political friends from receiving sole-sourced consulting contracts.

In unveiling his reforms, Harper said the Liberals have so badly managed their own party funds that they've become reliant on taxpayers to pay for partisan research.

"We all know about the terrible debt problem of the Liberal party, which only seems to get worse," he said.

"They essentially rely on taxpayers to backstop them and that's why these things keep occurring."

In comparison, Harper said, the Conservatives are well financed and paying their own bills.

As a demonstration of that, the Conservatives laid out a suitcase containing $132,000 - all of it party funds used as prop by Harper.

Before the cameras, he stood behind the open bag, as an armed security guard looked on from the sidelines, and said the cash represented a recent research contract involving the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

In February 2005, the department hired a consultant which presented an oral-only report.

To make his point, Harper snapped open an empty red file folder, saying it shows what taxpayers got for the suitcase full of cash.

"No published reports, no written reports, just talk," he said.

"That is not value for money and it has to stop."

In her review, which launched the Gomery inquiry, Auditor General Sheila Fraser criticized the practice of government signing contracts that specified no written reports were to be received.

As he has in the past, Harper accused Prime Minister Paul Martin of deliberately limiting the scope of the inquiry by Justice John Gomery.

By not looking at government polling contracts, he said the prime minister made sure that the actions of the Finance Department, while Martin was minister, were not investigated.

"I'm suggesting it's always been awfully convenient for Mr. Martin to set up a commission to investigate his political opponents in the Liberal party," Harper said, referring to supporters of former prime minister Jean Chretien, "but not necessarily his own actions, which may have been dubious."

Scandal and Corruption - Thy Name is Liberal

2006-01-02T10:21:00.000-08:00

Ezra Levant
January 2, 2006

The RCMP investigation into Finance Minister Ralph Goodale and his office is surely not surprising -- it is the 33rd criminal investigation targeting the Liberal government in the last three years.

If anything, the surprise is the RCMP acted before the election -- increasingly, that venerable police force has become politicized itself.
The nightly tracking polls showed public opinion jumped at the news. According to pollster SES, the Liberals lost 3% overnight and the Conservatives picked up 2%.

Could it be this 33rd criminal investigation changed voters' minds, where the first 32 hadn't? Perhaps it jolted voters long ago turned numb to news of corruption out of Ottawa.

Listening to Liberal pundits, that numbness is their hoped-for salvation. Liberals don't seriously try to refute charges of corruption, anymore. Their first line of defence is to vigourously deny everything; then they attack their critics; then, after the allegations are proved, they claim the whole matter is "old news" and not worth discussing "any more."

That's why the constant theme the Liberals spin is "all political parties are corrupt" or some version thereof. It's not true, first of all -- it is not even possible for an Opposition party to reach a fraction of the corruption a governing party can, for the obvious reason they have little power or wealth to abuse. After nearly 13 years of Liberal rule, the charge "everybody does it" is especially hollow.

But it's worse than untrue. It is also a statement of what the Liberals want Canada to become: A political jurisdiction such as Louisiana or Chicago, where cheating is regarded as normal, and everyone from union bosses, to mayors, to the police are in on the deal.

The world has noticed. Transparency International, the non-partisan think tank that measures corruption around the world, has moved Canada down a couple of notches in the wake of AdScam.

Perhaps one reason the polls moved so strongly in the wake of the Goodale scandal is Canadians sense this is different than AdScam -- it threatens the integrity of our stock markets, not just our government.

Even Liberal voters who accept the "everybody does it" spin for AdScam are repelled by the notion such lax standards should be applied to the stock exchange.

The more than $300-million blown in AdScam is a disgrace, but many Canadians had psychologically written off that money the moment it was deducted from their paycheques in taxes. Not so their investments on the TSX, including their pension fund or RSP.

Reports say alleged leaks gave Bay St. titans a few hours warning about Goodale's promise not to impose new taxes on income trusts, so countless little investors were swindled out of potentially much more than AdScam cost. When Liberal-connected brokers knew the price of income trust shares would jump after Goodale's announcement, they could buy those shares cheaply from chumps who didn't have a Liberal on their speed dial. The next day, those sellers -- pensioners, entrepreneurs, ordinary folks -- would wish they hadn't sold so cheaply before the news.

They were ripped off -- not 30-million taxpayers who shared the AdScam burden, but thousands of investors who thought they were in a fair stock exchange.

That's what's new. The corruption has leapt from government into the private sector, like an exotic disease crossing from monkeys to people.

If the polls are right, Canadians don't like it one bit -- and they aren't willing to accept that level of corruption as the new normal.

Working With Three Socialist Parties - No Easy Task

2005-12-27T20:04:00.000-08:00

Nothing sounds better to me than Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but he will in tough in a minority government situation if he wins the election. Old Steve will have to deal with the likes of the following:

The liberals - Corrupt, morally bankrupt party, will do anything to regain power if they lose. This includes organized crime, extortion, money laundering, and anything else that gets them into power. The liberals make the Hell's Angels look like saints.

The NDP - These extreme left-wingers can be bought off (especially by liberals) just so they get media attention and spend billions on things that Canadians don't view as a priority (hence only sending 19 of them to Parliament last time)

The Bloc Quebecois - Will agree to anything as long as Quebec gets more than everyone else, and that there are no strings attached to the money. Also a very left-winged party.

So Steve has his work cut out for himself, having to work with three left-winged parties who believe that bigger government is better government. (All sensible people realize this is not the case, but not left-wingers)

If he can do it, the man can walk on water, I for one think those other parties will do everything to sabotage the next parliament if Stephen Harper wins.

Another problem is the liberal-filled senate, piles of hacks that will stone-wall every piece of legislation the Conservatives would try to put through the house.

This is why the Conservatives need to spend huge on ads that blanket Ontario, because that is where this election will be won or lost. (Ontario has failed Canada in many elections)

My perfect election outcome? - A majority Conservative government with an NDP opposition with every liberal voted out.

Like the Liberals, Main Stream Media Damages Canada

2005-12-27T18:28:00.000-08:00

You remember J. Jonah Jamison from Spiderman? The one thing that motivated him was more selling papers and magazines.

This is the same as the main stream media in Canada, they love the corrupt and inept liberals because they are good for their business. Maybe the liberals have bought off the media as well, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

That can be the only reason for the media to support and always cheer for Mr. Dithers and his cadre of criminals.

Why else would the media support a scandal ridden party that has failed Canada in every aspect over the last 12 years?

The Red Star (aka Toronto Star), CBC, and the CTV all love the liberals to a point of outright saying they endorse Paul Martin, even though the guy is a pathetic PM (and you thought Chretein was a joke)

Do you think that the beer and popcorn statement by that liberal lapdog Scott Reid and the racist blog by Mike Klander would be forgotten by the media if a Conservative had said those things?

The liberal-loving media would've vilified the Conservatives until January 23rd, and basically decided the election for Canadians.

The liberals have done serious damage to Canada, but the media is just as guilty for always cheering them on, shame on them.

Idiot of the Week - Mike Klander

2005-12-27T13:07:00.000-08:00

Mike Klander, executive vice-president of the federal Liberal party's Ontario wing, resigned after photographs of Olivia Chow, the NDP candidate for the Toronto riding of Trinity-Spadina, and a chow chow dog were posted on his blog dated Dec. 9 under the heading "Separated at Birth."

The blog also contained an offensive reference to NDP leader Jack Layton.

This clearly shows that liberals are arrogant and obnoxious people. To call the liberals tolerant is laughable.

2005-12-25T13:10:00.000-08:00

Merry Xmas and Happy Holidays

My wish for the new year?

A country where Canadians can be proud again, where scandal, corruption, and theft is punished and not rewarded.

Only a new Conservative government can get back Canada's credibilty, pride and honor.

The liberals have failed and disgraced Canadians in so many ways in the last 13 years that we are disillusioned and apathy has increased to a point where citizens would rather not vote anymore.

The people who died in WWI and WWII for this country have been dishonored and failed by this liberal "government" which has systematically destroyed all of Canada's proud traditions and institutions - such as Healthcare and Defence.

Stephen Harper for Prime Minister !

The liberals have done enough damage to this once proud country, time for a change Canada.

Liberal Neglect Has Taken its Toll on the Military

2005-12-25T06:53:00.000-08:00

By PAUL JACKSON

Shipping tycoon Paul Martin slashed our country's defence budget 25% and chopped the number of our men and women in military uniform by the same percentage.

Now, the man who also razed CFB Calgary to the ground wonders why an American submarine could apparently sweep through Canadian territorial waters in the Arctic without asking his permission.

There's a big shout that Washington and the nuclear-powered attack submarine the USS Charlotte have breached Canadian sovereignty.

Well, the legitimacy of our sovereignty in the high Arctic has been under question for some time, and, as the adage goes, if a country doesn't defend its sovereignty, it loses it.

Way back when Brian Mulroney was our prime minister, his defence minister Perrin Beatty urged we build a fleet of nuclear attack submarines to defend both our coastal areas and assert our sovereignty in the North.

Back then, the Soviet Union was still an aggressive world power, and Beatty, a good friend of mine going back years, felt we simply had to put up a show of force against both the Soviets, who had a huge submarine fleet, and not let our claim to northern sovereignty be nibbled away.

Mulroney felt the same, which is why, while seriously pondering Beatty's request for nuclear subs, he also ordered a batch of topnotch EH-101 search and rescue helicopters.

The EH-101s were the envy of the world, but after Jean Chretien became prime minister in 1993, out of pure spite he scrapped the helicopter contract and forced Canadian taxpayers to cough up $500 million in cancellation fees.

That $500 million was money that was stripped out of an already perilous inadequate defence budget.

Martin's gutting of the overall defence budget, and of CFB Calgary, came at a time when the spectre of Islamic world terrorism was already on the horizon.

American embassies and other facilities had been attacked overseas -- with a frightening loss of life -- and in 1993 came the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City.

Yet the Chretien/Martin duo's response was to cut back our defence budget to a point that within the NATO ranks only the tiny Duchy of Luxembourg spends less of its GNP on defence than does Canada.

On the day Chretien and Martin sabotaged CFB Calgary, I toured the regimental bases and spoke with our men and women in uniform, their husbands, wives and children, and still recall the shock they were in.

For CFB Calgary wasn't shut for budgetary -- and least of all military -- reasons, but to be relocated in Edmonton to prop up Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan's sagging popularity.

Yes, the men, women and children were herded to Edmonton at a cost estimated at $1 billion so McLellan could boast about bringing new activity to her city -- and damn Calgary.

That's $1 billion that could have been spent on new armaments -- but as AdScam showed, when it comes to boosting Liberal party fortunes anything goes.

That Calgary's Marda Loop area was economically devastated by the loss of CFB Calgary meant nothing to the Grit power brokers. Or that we lost some of the most famous regiments in our Armed Forces.

As I recall, not a single Liberal in our city stood up in defence of CFB Calgary and the men and women in it, and our mayor at the time, Al Duerr, simply regarded it as political postering.

Duerr, who was then being touted as a potential high-profile Liberal candidate with a guaranteed cabinet seat, kept his mouth shut.

The rusting out of our military clout -- what little we have of it -- has continued unabated under Martin's term as PM, just as under Chretien's term

Even the recent promise of $12.8 billion for the military is spread over five years and just $1.1 billion is earmarked for the first two years.

The "rehabilitation" process won't even get started until 2008-'09.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate committee on national security and defence, warns our defence spending as a percentage of GNP since 1990-'91 has fallen by a disastrous 63%. and the defence budget of $14 billion in 2005-06 should be at least double that.

Not going to happen with the self-serving Paul Martin at the helm.

Liberals in Financial Troubles

2005-12-24T15:48:00.000-08:00

According to Elections Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada is $34,818,257.32 in debt, by way of 13 bank loans. The Bloc Quebecois has more than $10 million in outstanding loans. The NDP has several modest loans outstanding, totalling a little more than $3 million.

The Conservatives are debt-free.

So, the question that now requires answering is how exactly the liberals are financing this election?

There is still roughly $40 million missing from Gomery Inquiry even though a team of forensic auditors went through everything in the sponsorship program.

Where is this money? who currently has it?

Are the liberals using this missing stolen money to finance this election, Paul Martin promised Canadians would have all the answers, but there is still no one in jail and millions are still missing.....

Liberal Tax Cuts Smoke and Mirrors

2005-12-21T10:18:00.000-08:00

Wed, December 21, 2005

By LICIA CORBELLA, EDITOR

A lot gets said during an election campaign. Promises are made and so are claims. During the leaders' debates last week, Prime Minister Paul Martin said something like, "I said taxes would be lowered and they were."

Hmmm. Funny, said a reader who watched the debates, but if taxes have gone down, why is it more of a struggle to pay my bills than it was 12 years ago?

So I checked into Martin's claim. Are Canadians paying less taxes or more since the Liberals came to power in 1993?

To help me with this task, I called the experts in the field, the tax gurus of the country, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) and read a few reports from other number-crunching organizations.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Canadians' personal income tax burden is the highest of all the G-7 countries and has been for almost one decade.

The Fraser Institute -- which calculates Tax Freedom Day -- says taxation by Canadian governments at all levels accounts for 48% of total household income.

In 1993, Tax Freedom Day -- that being the day you stop working for government and start working for yourself and your family, was June 6.

In 2005, Tax Freedom Day fell on June 26. In other words, we're all working an extra three weeks to feed the ravenous (and in the case of the feds, corrupt and thieving) government machines that are recording record surpluses every year. While Tax Freedom Day calculates all the taxes Canadians pay, fully four months of the six months we toil for taxes is spent fuelling the federal government.

John Williamson, federal director of the CTF, says while it's true the Liberal government cut taxes in 2000, what they gave back to Canadians with one hand, they removed with the other via CPP premium increases and other tax hikes.

What's more, that tax cut in 2000 was overbilled in a big way. The Liberal government claimed their five-year tax cut added up to $100.5 billion.

The CTF checked that claim out and discovered it was exaggerated by more than half. In reality, the five-year tax cut plan devised in 2000 delivered a $46-billion cut.

Since the Liberals have taken office, the amount of government revenue collected from the GST has nearly doubled.

The Liberals, of course, campaigned in 1993 that it would "scrap" and "abolish" the GST -- the hated 7% consumption tax. Of course, it's still here and only the Conservative Party vows to reduce it first to 6% and then to 5% within five years.

The total amount of income taxes collected have doubled, including personal income taxes, which are up by 82%.

Indeed, since 1993, total taxes and other revenues collected by the federal government have risen by $2,233 per person.

So, while the cash income of the average family has increased 37% since 1993, that same family is paying 50% more in income tax to government.

That's why you never feel like you have more cash in your jeans. You don't. You have less. Taxes increase at a faster rate than your salary.

Of course, just last month, the federal Liberals made more promises of more tax cuts, as have the Conservatives.

Williamson said while any tax cuts are great news for the economy and tax-weary Canadians, the federal Liberals' latest tax cut promises are really too little much too late.

"Taxes are headed in the right direction but the pace is very slow," said Williamson.

"And as we saw with the last NDP budget amendment, these things can change. The feds have proven they will sacrifice tax relief for more spending if it keeps them in power."

Ultimately, voters need to ask the following question: Can you believe a federal Liberal government's promise to lower your taxes by 2010?

Can the federal Liberals, who have made and broken so many promises and exaggerated so many claims, be trusted to follow through on what is already a glacial pace on tax cuts?

Their record speaks for itself. Their record screams: NO!

Paul Martin's Hidden Taxation Agenda

2005-12-20T14:52:00.000-08:00

By MICHAEL HARRIS

I used to think that the funniest thing that Paul Martin ever did was sending Christmas cards to a dead dog in Victoria who had somehow managed to get on the corporate mailing list.

But then he went one better: He said that Stephen Harper wasn’t fit to run for the office of prime minister.

The occasion for that remark, a difference of opinion on same-sex marriage, is not the interesting part of the assertion. Paul Martin has been slicing political bologna for so long I’m sure he thinks it’s foie gras.

But his comment about the Conservative leader implies that he, Mr. Martin, is fit to run for the highest office in the land. It got me to wondering what he could mean.

Could it have been the way he handled the built-in conflict of interest of being the owner of CSL at the same time as he was finance minister? I guess it depends on how you view the facts.

Here they are: When Barbados created a new class of offshore companies back in 1991, Canadian companies who routed their business through Barbados qualified for a corporate tax rate of between 1% to 2.5%. The comparable rate in Canada, including provincial corporate taxes, was approximately 40%.

As you might imagine, Barbados proved pretty popular with the monied classes. Between 1990 and 2001, Canadian investment in Barbados went up 1,453%. It was a deal that cost Canada $1.5 billion in lost revenue but saved companies like Mr. Martin’s $2.5 million in taxes for every $10 million of taxable income.

Not such good news

This was not such good news for Canadian merchant mariners. As a matter of fact, the crew members of one Canada Steamship Lines vessel were replaced by Ukrainians. Ukrainians, it turns out, are cheaper than Canadians. There were other changes. The flag of Barbados was raised where the Maple Leaf used to fly.

As CSL explained, it was a dog-eat-dog world; any ship registered in Canada was required by law to have a fully Canadian crew. So the company had no choice but to move its international subsidiary Barbados, where it would continue to pay 2% tax on its corporate profits.

In 2002, the auditor general called on the government to amend Canada’s treaty with Barbados, which was originally aimed at protecting companies that did business in both states against double taxation, but which was now attacking the integrity of our tax base.

It was an awkward moment for Paul. On the one hand, he was finance minister of Canada and on the other CSL International was saving millions by paying taxes in Barbados. Increasing Martin’s dilemma, Canadians who paid their taxes in Canada at a rate somewhat higher than 2% had coughed up federal contracts, grants and other contributions to CSL totaling $161 million over the period of a decade.

Then-finance minister Martin took decisive action in his very first budget back in February 1994. Thanks to him, Canadian companies would no longer be able to bring dividends from foreign affiliates back into Canada tax-free.

Rich guys, including Paul Martin, had to face the Canadian taxman. There was only one exception to the new regulations: Barbados. And that’s where Martin moved seven of his Liberian-registered CSL International ships and continued to enjoy a 2% tax rate.

Blind trust

Did Canada’s finance minister for a decade ever make decisions that benefited his own company? The way politicians normally deal with that issue is by either selling their assets or putting them in a blind trust run by a trustee who manages them without input from their owner until such time as he becomes a private citizen again.

But Canada’s finance minister did not place CSL in a blind trust. Instead, he set up a “blind” management agreement with 20/20 vision. Under the agreement, he was allowed to meet with corporate officers of CSL on a dozen occasions with the full approval of that paragon of public virtue, ethics poodle Howard Wilson.

Fortunately, we have it on Mr. Martin’s word that he never used those meetings to instruct CSL’s officers how to conduct the business. At least now, we no longer have to worry about Mr. Martin’s conflict of interests as he has divested CSL to new owners — his sons.

Still, if I were Paul I wouldn’t start a vigorous debate over who is fit to run for prime minister, unless of course, he is talking about Barbados.

Why Trust Paul Martin?

2005-12-19T19:10:00.000-08:00

I find it hilarious that people actually still believe this liberal party and all their election platform promises.

From removing GST to eliminating child poverty by the year 2000, the liberal party have never delivered on any of their promises, so Paul Martin has no credibility at all. Not to mention they are destroying Confederation with massive amounts of corruption, entitlements, and patronage.

For the sake of the country I hope Ontario does not fail Canada again and reward the libranos with another mandate. If they do, I say the rest of Canada cut Ontario out of country for sheer and utter stupidity

Liberals Fail to Defend Canadian Territory

2005-12-19T18:55:00.000-08:00

Canadian Press

CAMBRIDGE, Ont. (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin says the federal government will take the "necessary measures" to stop American submarines from passing through Canada's Arctic waters.

He offered no specifics but cast a wary glance at reports that at least one U.S. military submarine had recently patrolled the Arctic and likely passed through Canadian waters.

The prime minister has repeatedly drawn attention to his differences with the United States as part of a re-election strategy designed to benefit his Liberal party. But he chose his words carefully when asked whether Canada would accept U.S. subs under its coastal waters.

"No," Martin replied.

"Arctic waters are Canadian waters, and Canadian waters are sovereign waters. Canada will defend its sovereignty."

He used stronger language - but offered no additional details - when asked in French how Canada would stop such incursions: "We will take the necessary measures," he replied.

The comments came after news an American nuclear submarine, the USS Charlotte, visited the North Pole last month, and likely passed through Canadian waters in the process.

The Conservative defence critic, retired general Gordon O'Connor, said the apparent breach of Canadian sovereignty by a U.S. submarine betrays the phoniness of Martin's war of words with the United States.

"The Liberals have failed to enforce our sovereignty and increase security in the North," said O'Connor.

"The Liberal government has been undermining Canada's sovereignty over our northern territory and its vast natural resources by failing to properly defend the far North for many years."

He demanded to know what, exactly, the Liberal government is doing about the issue and asked how many other unauthorized voyages by foreign naval vessels have occurred in Canadian territorial waters without Ottawa's permission or knowledge.

"It has been common knowledge for more than a decade that nuclear submarines from the United States, Russia, China, France, and Great Britain pass through our territory without necessarily seeking permission from the government of Canada," he said. "In international law, sovereignty must be enforced to be recognized. A Conservative government will enforce our sovereignty in the North.

"Paul Martin's record of failure in standing up for Canada's Arctic sovereignty is proof that his war of words with the United States is just more phoney election rhetoric."

Arctic sovereignty is becoming more coveted as global warming melts the ice and opens new areas for oil and mineral exploration.

Canada has also been engaged in a sovereignty dispute with Denmark over remote Hans Island, a 1.3-kilometre windswept rock in the Kennedy Channel between Greenland and Ellesmere Island.

The rock was discovered by the British, ceded to Canada at Confederation, and was briefly home to a Canadian scientific station in the 1940s. It is listed as part of Nunavut in the National Geographic Atlas.

Since there are more working submarines in West Edmonton Mall than in the Canadian Navy due to liberal incompetence and massive waste, how the hell does Paul Martin propose Canada takes the "necessary measures"?

All other countries will explore this area of Canada as their own because they know liberal Canada does not have the capability to defend its sovereign territory.

Yet another example of liberal failure......the decline of Canada continues under this pathetic and corrupt party.

Idiot of the Week Award - Scott Reid

2005-12-17T15:31:00.000-08:00

The Idiot of the Week Award goes to none other than Scott Reid, lapdog communications director for the Libranos.

This intellectually challenged moron thinks that parents can't be trusted with their own money and the government must take of Canada's children, not their parents.

He figures parents would blow their money on beer and popcorn rather than take care of their kids. This is the ultimate insult to parents, who under crushing liberal taxes have to work 80 hours a week just to afford the basics in life.

The longer the Libranos maintain power, the more and more state-run communist Canada becomes.

This is the not the first time this individual should receive this award, like Scott Brison, Scott Reid has more mouth than brains.

What Paul Martin Really Said About Iraq

2005-12-17T15:29:00.000-08:00

"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible,"
(North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003)

"Once the war in Iraq began, Canada was far from neutral. The only
satisfactory outcome was a defeat of Saddam Hussein and his removal
from power." (Speech in Toronto, April 30, 2003)

"Canada's strongest desire was for a swift and just victory by
coalition forces. Thankfully, that occurred." (Paul Martin Times, May
1, 2003)

"I don't think there is any doubt, if there ever was . . . that he does
have weapons of mass destruction. Biological weapons that they
discovered were very clear evidence of not only the fact that he had
them, but that he had lied and that he is continuing to lie." (Calgary
Herald, March 7 2003)

"Canada's position was Saddam Hussein should be disarmed. Now, to be
quite honest, I had a lot of difficulty understanding how he was going
to be disarmed without being replaced." (Ottawa Citizen, April 28,
2003)

"The fact that now we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear
weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for
example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists
have access to all that." (Globe and Mail, May 11, 2004)

"Canada should be there." (Halifax Daily News, January 15, 2003)

David Kilgour Ashamed He Was Ever a Martin Liberal

2005-12-13T12:13:00.000-08:00

By JOAN BRYDEN

OTTAWA (CP) - Maverick MP and one-time cabinet minister David Kilgour says he's ashamed to have ever been part of Paul Martin's Liberal team.

"I'm appalled by the way the Liberal campaign (is going) and the way Martin and (top aide Scott) Reid and so many of them are conducting themselves," Kilgour said in an interview Tuesday. "Actually, I'm ashamed to have a been a part of them."

Kilgour quit the Liberals to sit as an independent last April, saying he was disgusted by the sponsorship scandal and the government's failure to provide what he deemed sufficient aid to war-torn Sudan. He is not seeking re-election.

The Edmonton MP started his political career in 1979 as a Progressive Conservative but was kicked out of Brian Mulroney's caucus in 1990 after he voted against the GST. He joined the Liberals in 1991 under Jean Chretien, who later made Kilgour a secretary of state responsible for Latin America and Africa and, eventually, for Asia Pacific.

When Martin took over from Chretien, he did not keep Kilgour in cabinet, even though he held one of only two Alberta Liberal seats.

Kilgour has not endorsed any other party in the Jan. 23 election but he said he is endorsing two Conservative candidates on their individual merits - Winnipeg MP Steven Fletcher and Montreal candidate Temzin Dargyal.

In his own riding of Edmonton-Beaumont, Kilgour predicted Conservative candidate Mike Lake will win handily "because people overwhelmingly want a change in government." He has not endorsed Lake but said he tells anyone who asks that they should not vote Liberal.

Kilgour said Reid's weekend gaffe, in which he said parents will "blow" a proposed Conservative child care allowance on "popcorn and beer," is symptomatic of Liberal arrogance. And he denounced Martin as "a prime minister who has no scruples at all. He's prepared to say anything, anything."

In particular, Kilgour derided Martin for spending billions on "any bridge he thinks will bring him a few votes," while refusing to honour Canada's longstanding commitment to devote 0.7 per cent of GDP to foreign aid.

Given the separatist Bloc Quebecois' massive lead in Quebec, Kilgour also said it's "particularly imprudent" for Martin to be casting the campaign in that province as a "referendum" on secession

Moreover, Kilgour said Martin has little credibility in promising to ban all handguns, weapons which "to all intents and purposes are already banned."

"In terms of taking a tough stand on crime, that's an area where the Liberals are particularly vulnerable," Kilgour said.

Liberal Scott Reid Thinks Gov't Should Raise Kids, Not Parents

2005-12-13T07:54:00.000-08:00

Tue Dec 13 08:43:03 2005

By: News Staff / The National Post

Some commentators have described Scott Reid's controversial comments on a weekend television panel as nothing more than a "gaffe." Far from it. The suggestion by Paul Martin's most senior spokesman that parents would use the child-care benefits being proposed by the Conservatives to buy "beer and popcorn" was more than a mere slip-up. In fact, it was a rare look through the Liberals' glasses -- a chance to see how they view Canadians, and why they favour such a paternalistic mode of government.

The two major parties' differing philosophies on child care have laid bare a larger philosophical divide. By providing parents with $1,200 per child per year to spend as they see fit, the Conservatives have shown they trust Canadian parents to make their own decisions about how to care for children and manage a family budget. But not the Liberals. Rather than leaving it up to parents to decide among daycare, nannies, stay-at-home parenting or care by relatives, Paul Martin insists only one option should be favoured: a top-down network of state-approved daycare centres. According to this view, bureaucrats know better than parents what is best for children. Just think, Mr. Reid, told viewers: If child-care money were under the control of parents themselves, they would simply "blow [it] on beer and popcorn."

The comment was a gross insult to Canadian parents, and the many sacrifices they make so that their children can have better lives. One of the largest obstacles families face in making ends meet is Canada's heavy tax burden, which feeds the government's ballooning slush-fund surpluses. Yet rather than return some of that money to taxpaying parents so they can spend it on priorities, Liberal social engineers want to reward only the 13% of families for whom institutional daycare is the favoured form of primary care. The other 87% are apparently making the "wrong" choice by the Liberals' lights -- no doubt thanks to the inebriating effect of the booze they are quaffing with their children's lunch money.

Sadly, this condescending theory of government extends well beyond child care. On health care, the Liberals refuse to permit personal choice -- insisting that Canadians either sign on to their Soviet-style health monopoly or flee the country to get more timely care in the United States. Rather than trusting most Canadians to be self-sufficient, they continue to create a culture of dependency through regional subsidies. In a purported effort to protect us from ourselves, the Liberals established a $2-billion gun registry that served little purpose other than to harass and humiliate law-abiding firearms owners. And in general, they continue to tax us at a far higher level than is needed to provide the basic services expected of government -- because in their view, a dollar in the hands of government will be better spent than a dollar in the hands of the average Canadian.

Within hours of Mr. Reid's "beer and popcorn" comments, he admitted they were "dumb," and Mr. Martin did his best to distance himself from them. But tellingly, Mr. Reid's take on parents was endorsed the same day by John Duffy, one of Mr. Martin's senior aides. As a result, any notion that this was an isolated view on Mr. Reid's part was erased.

But then, based on the Liberals' longstanding policies, it would be hard to fall for that defence anyway.

Liberals View Canadians as Beer-Guzzling Neanderthals

2005-12-11T18:56:00.000-08:00

Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:31:08 EST

Canadian Press

A top aide to Liberal Leader Paul Martin apologized on Sunday shortly after suggesting on national television that Canadians might spend child-care money on beer and popcorn.

Scott Reid, Martin's director of communications, was attacking a Conservative plan to give families of young children $1,200 a year for child care.

"Don't give people 25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn," Reid said during a panel discussion on CBC News: Sunday.

The Conservative on the panel called the comment "an insult," and said it proves that the Liberals don't trust families to make their own choices about what's best for their children.

Reid quickly issued an apology.

"It was dumb," he said. "No way around it. I regret it."

Meanwhile, when asked about Reid's comment at a campaign stop in Beamsville, Ont., Martin said: "There's no doubt in my mind that parents are going to use (the money) for the benefit of their families."

The Conservatives will give money to parents and set aside $250 million a year for tax credits to create more spaces – 125,000 over five years, Harper has said.

I am a parent, and I think that the Conservative plan of giving parent's a choice and money to afford childcare, is far more sensible than another bloated liberal social program.

You thought the useless gun registry was an example of insane liberal waste?, this so-called liberal childcare program will create a whole new class of waste and mismanagement.

I'm tired of liberals trying to dictate and run everything, Canada is sure turning into a socialist nanny state. (Thanks to Ontario)

More Liberal Income Trust Corruption

2005-12-11T12:40:00.000-08:00

Martin linked Medisys Income Trust stock volume increased 3400% the day before Goodale trust announcement

by M.K. Braaten

According to STOCKTRENDS.ca, the day before the Goodale income trust announcement, the trading volume of Medisys Income Trust was 226,500, with a value of $2,604,750, average trade was $37,750, and a total of 68 transactions. According to StockTrends.ca, this stock was listed as trading at “Unusual Volumes“.

The volume of shares traded for Paul Martin linked Medisys Income Trust shares the day before the Income Trust announcement seems way to high to be a ‘co-incidence’. The volume increased 3400% from the prior day, and the following day, dropped back down about the same amount.

Its said that Paul Martins personal doctor started a medical company called Medisys Income Trust, a chain of private health care clinics located across Canada.

The day before the Goodale income trust announcement, the volume of Medisys shares traded for the day went from 5,714 on November 21, to 203,953 on Novemeber 22. On November 23, the shares traded dropped back down to 6,220.

This is a huge red flag; someone has some explaining to do. Why would the trading volume increase that much? It’s not like they discovered the cure for cancer that day.

However, beyond speculation, one has to open the possibility that this stock market activity is pure co-incidence. There is no way to make a connection between this share activity and the income trust announcement and the Liberal Party unless there is hard evidence of a leak.

These questions should be answered by the proper authorities. Huge spikes in trading, similar to this, are flagged by agencies of the markets which specialise in looking for this. Nonetheless, I think the Ontario Securities Exchange commission’s reputation could be irreparably harmed if they do not commence an investigation into this issue. The red flags are everywhere; the evidence is far too suspicious.

From Angry in the Great White North

In fact, in 2005, from a peak $15.21 in the summer, Medisys was on a downward trend, dropping 30% of its value until late November, earning another negative report on November 21, just two days before the income trust announcement.

I can only assume no one from Ralph Goodale’s office called Jennings Capital Inc.

Whoever decided to ignore that negative report and picked up an astonishing 200,000 shares really picked exactly the right time.

I bet Dr. Elman will have a big smile on his face when Paul Martin comes for his next visit.

By the way, who owns Medisys? Well, when they converted into an income trust in November 2004, 45% of the issued and outstanding shares were owned by directors and senior management at Medisys.

Who are these people? One is former Liberal Senator Leo Kolber. Leo Kolber has donated nearly $60,000 to the Liberals since 1993, including $17,500 in 2002 through his company 87215 Canada Ltd.

Paul Martin's Hidden Agenda and Anger

2005-12-04T12:44:00.000-08:00

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
Sun Media
December 4, 2005

Media bias isn't only revealed by the kinds of questions party leaders are asked during an election campaign.

It's also revealed by the kinds of questions they are never asked, or that the media never even think to ask them.

In Wednesday's column, I talked about how the media covering Prime Minister Paul Martin tossed him a series of lob ball questions during his election kickoff, such as ''are you going to use negative campaign ads"?

In contrast, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper was hit with such stink bombs as "do you love this country?"

Today let's examine why Martin hasn't been asked, at least as far as I can determine, why so many Canadians now believe the Liberals have a "hidden agenda."

First off, yes, you read that right. Despite Liberal spin doctors constantly insisting -- and the national media routinely and dutifully repeating -- that most Canadians fear Harper's "hidden agenda," it turns out they're ... well ... wrong.

As reported by The Strategic Counsel in a national poll released last Tuesday (the first morning of the campaign), more Canadians believe the Liberals have a "hidden agenda" (33%) than the Conservatives (25%).

In Ontario, there's been a 10-point drop in fears the Conservatives have a "hidden agenda" since May.

The Strategic Counsel, headed by pollster Allan Gregg, says this "may be the most dramatic change since the 2004 election -- the Conservatives don't look as scary to Ontario voters going into this election."

Even with the pollster's qualifiers that these results are driven "largely by partisan support" and that the Conservatives "have yet to demonstrate they are a government-in-waiting," you would think this finding would have gone off like a bombshell on day one of the campaign.

After all, it fits the definition of real "news." It is new information on a major issue (Stephen Harper's so-called "hidden agenda"), coming at a timely moment (the election kickoff) that flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

Or, to be more precise, conventional media wisdom supplied by Liberal spin doctors. Alas, that's probably why you haven't heard much about it, with the exception of the Globe, which, having commissioned the poll, featured this finding prominently on its Tuesday front page.

That said, one would have thought that such a startling finding by a credible pollster, featured prominently in a national newspaper on the first day of the campaign, might have prompted at least one question to Martin during his opening media scrum, in between all the lobs.

Alas, no one asked Martin about it then, or, as far as I can tell, since then. Even if it has been asked, it's clearly not a big deal for our national media.

And I'd argue that's because they know that if they raise this issue, they would then have to explain why they've been telling us for so long (along with the Liberals) that most Canadians fear the Conservatives have a "hidden agenda," when it now turns out even more of them think the Liberals have one.

Some pundits have suggested Canadians are getting used to Harper. But that's not the point. The point is that to be fair and consistent, they should explain why so many Canadians now find Martin to be "scary" and "angry" -- the same loaded terms they tagged Harper with in explaining why Canadians feared the Conservatives' "hidden agenda."

I haven't seen a lot of coverage like that. Have you?

Liberals Can't Claim Credit for Economy

2005-12-02T08:38:00.000-08:00

Fri Dec 2,2005
Canadian Press

Think-tank: Group says Martin has held back growth with excessive taxes.

Despite Paul Martin's claims, the Canadian economy's good performance is not a result of the Liberal government's actions, says a new report by a private-sector think-tank that has helped the government prepare its budget forecasts.

While Mr. Martin's Liberals have claimed credit for the economy's performance, which most analysts agree is at or near its full non-inflationary capacity, with unemployment at a 30-year low, the government has been acting as a drag on growth, says the report by Global Insight.

That's because, largely through taxation which can slow economic expansion, it has been taking billions of dollars a year more out of the economy than it needs, the report says.

"Given the strong linkages between the Canadian and U.S. economies, one of the best tests of the impact of our economic policies on our economic performance is how we are doing relative to the U.S. economy," the Toronto-based research firm says.

"In fact, since 2003 Canada's growth has been weak relative to growth in the U.S.

"Since we are running fiscal surpluses, on net, the federal government is acting as a drag on our economic growth," the report says.

The report, however, notes that the health of the Canadian economy is largely determined by forces beyond the federal government. Presently the economy is doing well based on Alberta's robust resource development sector.

It calculates that the $39 billion in new spending and tax cuts announced in last month's pre-election mini-budget, plus the $15 billion or so in spending that has been announced since, will wipe out most of the remaining surpluses over the coming half decade.

Meanwhile, it forecasts that economic growth next year will be 2.9 per cent, unchanged from this year, and below that in the U.S.

Still, that will be strong enough to prompt the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates by another full percentage point over the rest of this year and into next year, it says.

The risk of the economy overheating is minor, it adds.

But because economic growth here will not keep pace with that in the U.S., living standards here will slip further to 84 per cent of that in the U.S.

Organized Crime Defined

2005-11-30T06:21:00.000-08:00

The Criminal Code of Canada states:

467.1 (1) The following definitions apply in this Act.

"criminal organization" means a group, however organized, that

(a) is composed of three or more persons in or outside Canada; and

(b) has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any of the persons who constitute the group."

Harper got it right, the liberal party is involved in organized crime, and the Criminal Code of Canada and Gomery clearly indicate that.

I Smell a Liberal Rat - Dingwall

2005-11-29T10:59:00.000-08:00

David Dingwall a no-show before committee
CTV.ca News Staff

Former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall was a no-show before a Commons committee on Monday, when he was expected to give an accounting of his lobbying activities.

Dingwall, who resigned in September after questionable spending practices during his tenure as head of the Royal Canadian Mint, failed to show up at the committee on government operations and estimates.

His no-show may have spared the Liberals further scandal-tinged embarrassment on the eve of an election campaign.

But his absence angered opposition members enough that the committee voted 9 to 1 to issue a summons for Dingwall to show up at 9 a.m. today -- half an hour before Prime Minister Paul Martin is expected to visit Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean to request that she dissolve Parliament and call an immediate election.

"I don't care if we have to drag him here in handcuffs in the back of a paddy wagon," said NDP MP Pat Martin, who introduced the motion to issue the summons.

Although the government was defeated last night in a vote of non-confidence in the Commons, this 38th Parliament and its committees continue to live until the Governor General formally declares dissolution.

But the committee may not be able to enforce its summons if Dingwall runs out the clock.

Opposition MPs want to ask Dingwall about a $350,000 contingency fee he sought in helping companies get money from the federal Technology Partnerships Canada fund.

Last month, Dingwall said he wrote the contingency fee clause out of a lobbying contract after he found out that the fund didn't allow such fees.

Dingwall's lawyer, Ivan Whitehall, told The Globe and Mail Monday night that he's aware of the summons, but that he didn't know where his client could be reached.

Three of four Liberals on the government operations committee voted with the three opposition parties to issue the summons. One Liberal member abstained, while the one remaining Liberal voted against issuing the summons.

But if Dingwall fails to show up this morning, it doesn't mean he's off the hook. Committee chairman Leon Benoit, a Tory, and other committee members said the next Parliament could pick up on the issue and call for Dingwall to appear before it.

Dingwall was appointed president of the Mint in 2003. He resigned in September after an audit revealed an office expense account in the six figures.

But in October, an independent audit found that Dingwall's expenses did fall within Royal Canadian Mint guidelines, backing the former crown corporation president's claim that there was nothing wrong with his spending during his tenure.

Liberals Must Be Punished

2005-11-29T07:47:00.000-08:00

Editorial-Toronto Sun

After 12 years, four governments and two prime ministers, it's not just time to boot the federal Liberals out of office.

It's time to drive a stake through their hearts, before they rise up again and bleed this country dry.

After losing a historic non-confidence motion in the Commons last night by a vote of 171-133, Paul Martin and the Liberals must now be driven from power by Canadians.

They must be defeated -- and not just because of the Liberal venality, arrogance, greed and theft exposed in AdScam.

They must be defeated because patients are dying in hospital emergency rooms, while the Liberals boast of piling up record surpluses of our money.(aka overtaxation)

Because Liberal corruption is directly responsible for the revival of the separatist threat in Quebec.

Because the Liberals' naive belief in mollycoddling criminals has left them paralysed and unable to respond to the ongoing gangs and guns crisis in Toronto.

Over the past 23 days, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Liberals have made $24.5 billion in election promises -- more than $1 billion a day or $44 million per hour! They hope this brazen vote-buying will somehow make voters forget the brazen corruption of AdScam.

But does anyone really believe that any of that money is going to improve the lives of average working Canadians? After all, the Liberals have made big promises and bribed us with our own money in election after election after election.

Ask yourself, after 12 years of Liberal rule, is our health care system better or worse? Are waiting lists for surgery and diagnostic tests longer or shorter? Is our military stronger or weaker? Do our immigration and refugee system, and our criminal justice system, inspire more confidence, or less?

No wonder Martin launched his campaign last night with the same old tired fearmongering about Stephen Harper and the Conservatives taking the country "backward." The Liberals have scarcely moved anything forward except spending and drastically increasing the intrusion of the federal government into our lives.

Twelve years of Liberal scandal, boondoggles, cronyism, corruption and theft have corroded our democracy.

Their long, shameful rule is over. It's now up to voters to seize this precious opportunity and make sure they stay history.

Two Great Days

2005-11-28T21:41:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the Edmonton Eskimos beat the Alouettes in one of the greatest Grey Cup games ever to be played. Hats off to the Al's they played one helluva game.

Then today, the opposition brought down the corrupt and inept liberals (Jack you kept this government in for far too long)on a pure non-confidence motion.

But overall, two great days for this level-headed Conservative.

For the sake of this country, I hope the liberals are voted out, this kind of massive and systemic liberal corruption must be punished, not rewarded with another mandate.

The liberals as far as I'm concerned have lost all rights to contribute to Canadian society, they broke the most fundamental rule of democracy - Using public money for the public good.

But as Gomery found, the libranos stole and used the sponsorship fund for their own kickback slush fund. $40 million is still missing, where is it Paul Martin?

Harper nailed it - liberals are organized criminals, if not why is there no one in jail yet?

Liberals Disgrace the Flag

2005-11-28T21:15:00.000-08:00

Mr. Dithers once again wraps himself in the Canadian flag. This is disgraceful because through corruption and criminal behavior, the liberals have drastically increased the separtist movement in Quebec (and Alberta). In addition to that, they pretty destroyed most of Canada's institutions like Healthcare, Defence, and Education.

The liberals have damaged Confederation and have disgraced all Canadians with their attitude that they alone represent Canadian values.

Well Mr. Dithers, liberals do not speak for me and never will. If there is any party in Canada with a hidden agenda, its the liberals.

Hey Paul, where is the missing $40 million that Gomery pointed is still unaccounted for by a team of forensic auditors, that my friends is a hidden agenda, and is organized crime.

More Liberal Corruption - Income Trusts

2005-11-28T07:57:00.000-08:00

CTV.ca News Staff

Days after Finance Minister Ralph Goodale made a highly-anticipated announcement on income trust tax policy, the Conservative Party says the move smacks of corruption.

At a press conference in Ottawa Sunday, Conservative deputy house leader Jason Kenney demanded the Government answer allegations that Liberals who knew the announcement was coming may have spurred insider trading.

Following similar accusations from NDP finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis, Kenney conceded that Goodale's announcement was made after the markets had stopped trading on Wednesday.

But, quoting forensic accountant Al Rosen, the Conservative MP said the heavier-than-usual stock exchange trading volume earlier in the day, "smells like a leak."

"So far, Mr. Goodale has been dismissive of these very troubling questions of insider information having been leaked from his office, refusing to answer questions," Kenney told reporters at the hastily-convened press briefing.

He asked Goodale whether anyone in his office knew of the policy change before it was announced, and whether anyone spoke to Bay Street traders. Kenney went on to demand that Goodale ask the RCMP to investigate the matter.

The allegations come the day before the Liberal-led minority government is expected to fall in a non-confidence vote.

Kenney told reporters he has written to the Ontario Securities Commission to ask for an investigation, although he has no evidence aside from the high levels of trading last week before Goodale's announcement.

The NDP's Wasylycia-Leis has also asked whether insider trading took place, and raised her own suggestion that the RCMP investigate.

Income trusts are popular because they allow companies to pay most of their profits to investors as monthly distributions, while avoiding any corporate taxes.

Goodale's tax guideline changes forced by the Conservatives will reportedly cost the federal treasury $300 million a year in foregone tax revenue, according to The Canadian Press.

The changes will reduce personal income taxes on dividends. Goodale also announced that Ottawa will resume giving advance tax decisions on how the government treats pending trust conversions. The Finance Departments said this will make it easier for companies who want to restructure into a trust.

Paul Martin booed at the Grey Cup

2005-11-28T07:50:00.000-08:00

As Prime Minister Paul Martin was introduced Sunday afternoon in Vancouver for the Grey Cup, the sellout crowd of 59,195 greeted him with resounding boos.

Martin and CFL commissioner Tom Wright then walked to midfield where the prime minister tossed a coin to determine who would start the game with the ball.

Just before Martin was introduced the crowd gave a warm welcome to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean.

It looks like everyone in BC is not a fan of Mr. Dithers and his cadre of liberal bagmen.

Liberal Damages to Canada - Some Accounting

2005-11-25T21:22:00.000-08:00

The liberals have destroyed almost every institution in Canadian society by wasting money, here are just a few examples, I'm sure I've missed many more:

Useless Gun registry: $2 Billion

Jane Stewart HRDC Scandal: $1 Billion

Jean Chretien Shawinigate: $1 million

Employment Insurance Theft: $40 billion

Failure to report the occurring GST fraud: $1 billion

New Helicopter Cancellation charges: $500 million

Obsolete and useless British submarines: $1 billion

Un-tendered contract for Bombardier: $100 million

George Radwanski - Privacy Commissioner double billing expenses : $250,000

Paul Martin's CSL contracts: $161 Million

Gov.Gen. Adrianne Clarkson: $41 million

Gomery Inquiry in liberal corruption: $100 million

Quebec Sponsorship Scandal: $350 million

Kyoto: $10 BILLION (aka NEP #2)

So thats roughly $56.3 billion dollars wasted by liberals and still they managed to gut Healthcare by $25 billion in the last 12 years.

Right now separtists in Quebec are ready to tear Confederation apart because of liberal corruption, when will Canadians decide that the liberals have damaged this country long enough.