Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Regarding the closed Canadian border and the impact on the beef industry - Hyrum, Utah -

That brings me to an announcement I'd like to make. It is time I believe for us to come together and present the cold, hard facts about the beef industry and talk about the safety of beef, both in Canada and the U.S., and to examine the economic impact of the closed borders on the U.S. beef industry.

"So today I'm announcing that we are going to do just that on June 9 when I host a roundtable discussion on BSE in North America and the economic effect on the U.S. beef industry.

"The roundtable will bring together experts from the USDA, producers, packers, academia and others, to discuss the safety of North American beef and the economic impact of border closings. The topics of the roundtable will include current science behind the safety of the beef supply, economic activity including markets and job losses, and the shifting infrastructure with an eye toward the long-term effects on the global beef and cattle market.

"Now the details of the roundtable are this. It will take place on Thursday June 9 from 9:30 to noon at the Andrew Boss Laboratory on University of Minnesota's St. Paul campus. We are sending invitations to representatives from a broad sector of the cattle industry to participate in the roundtable. The discussion will be held before an open audience, so anyone is welcome to attend. In fact we encourage it.

"It is important that we bring together the science behind the safety in one place clearly and concisely so there can be no doubt. USDA's enhanced BSE surveillance program provides significant data and it proves beyond a doubt that beef is safe. And as you know, USDA stepped up surveillance in June.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to report today that we've now tested about 354,000 cattle, and we have not found a single case of BSE, not a single new case of BSE out of almost 350,000 tests.

"As countries like ours have taken key proactive steps to deal with BSE, and that includes Canada, the most important being the implementation of a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, we have seen an obvious and dramatic decline in the number of BSE cases worldwide.

"We have reason to be proud of the steps we've taken and the results that have been achieved. We can't sit back though. We still have a responsibility I believe at USDA to be an advocate for the little guy and right now the little guy in this industry is in trouble.

"That's why I'm eager to bring the science together with information about the industry changes.

"Some refuse to look beyond the short-term economic benefits of keeping the Canadian border closed. They don't see the long-term harm to this industry. We cannot ignore the fact that Canada is expanding its capacity. Canadian cattle inventory as of April 1 jumped more than 2 million head compared with January 1, 2003. The number of federally inspected slaughters in Canada rose 24 percent last year and climbed another 5 percent this year compared with the same period in 2004.

"By comparison, slaughter in the U.S. is down 8 percent in 2004.

"The market is restructuring before our eyes. American producers and processors will be left out in the cold if the border is not reopened soon. My concern is that as more and more processing moves to Canada, production follows. Those same folks will then be asking why we didn't do more to get the border open.

"Well, on June 9 we're going to do everything we can to bring publicity to this very difficult situation. We will present irrefutable evidence about the safety of the beef supply, the North American beef supply and the devastating effects of border closures on the mom and pop cattle ranchers and processors in our country.

The thirst for energy

They could also use another 2000 officers-

Since the government says it has $10 billion in the security envelope and is tossing billions more across the country, perhaps they can drop a few hundred million on our National Police to protect Canadians-they deserve it -after all -as we've seen in the past few weeks ,money is no object.

Now that Stephen and Peter have removed the knives from their back, they can concentrate on looking forward instead of behind their backs

Sen. Coleman's opening statement at this morning's UNSCAM hearing

.....The evidence obtained by the Subcommittee shows that the Hussein regime granted Russian Presidential Council allocations for 90 million barrels of oil. The allocations were given to Voloshin, and his close confidant, Sergey Issakov.
- The Iraqi Ministry of Oil estimated that the Council’s allocations, granted from 1999 to 2003, were worth in excess of $16 million.
- Vice President Ramadan recognized Mr. Voloshin as the head of Russia’s presidential administration and stated that the oil allocations awarded to him had been approved by Saddam Hussein.
2
- The Hussein regime granted Russian official Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his political party (the LDPR) allocations for 75.8 million barrels of oil – enough to supply the entire U.S. for 4 days.
- The Iraqi Ministry of Oil estimated that Zhirinovsky’s allocations were worth $8,679,000.
- Saddam Hussein’s Vice President, Taha Yassin Ramadan, confirmed to the Subcommittee that Zhirinovsky did receive oil allocations from the Hussein regime. Another senior official of the Hussein regime that was interviewed by the Subcommittee confirmed not only that Zhirinovsky received oil allocations, but that he profited from the transactions, saying: “Of course Zhirinovsky would make a profit. That’s the whole point.”
- Among the evidence are 6 letters signed by Zhirinovsky himself that openly discuss the allocations and more than 30 documents of the Iraqi Ministry of Oil that expressly identify Zhirinovsky and his political party, the LDPR, in connection with oil allocations.
- The evidence shows that the Hussein regime granted Charles Pasqua allocations for 11 million barrels of oil and George Galloway was allotted 20 million barrels.
- Saddam Hussein’s Vice President, Taha Yassin Ramadan, verified that Pasqua received allocations and that Galloway was granted allocations “because of his opinions about Iraq” and because he “want[ed] to lift the embargo against Iraq.”
- Among the evidence are documents of the Iraqi Ministry of Oil that expressly identify Pasqua and Galloway in connection with oil allocations. One document shows that Saddam Hussein personally approved an allocation to Pasqua and also indicates that Pasqua refused to write a letter to the Iraqis about the allocation because he “fear[ed] political scandals.”
- The process of monetizing the Pasqua and Galloway allocations appears to have followed the same pattern as the Zhirinovsky and RPC allocations – the allocation recipient would nominate a purchasing agent to sign contracts for the allocation, that company would sell the oil to an oil company and the oil company would pay a hefty commission – typically amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars – to the nominal purchasing agent for the benefit of the allocation holder.
- In one of Mr. Galloway’s transactions, surcharges of more than $300,000 were paid to the Hussein regime. Senior Hussein regime officials informed the Subcommittee that the allocation holders – in this case, Galloway – were ultimately responsible for the surcharge payment and therefore, would have known of the illegal, under-the-table payment.
This Subcommittee is not a court of law. This Subcommittee has a long history of bi-partisan, thorough and substantive factual investigations. The reports released over the past week contain 99 pages of text and 452 footnotes that detail compelling evidence describing how Saddam abused the Oil-For-Food Program to garner political influence around the globe. I want to thank my friend and ranking member Carl Levin for participating in and supporting this investigation.

heh

Stronach crosses floor to the Liberals

UNSCAM- senate hearing live

UNSCAM-hearing at 9:30- this is just one report

IX. CONCLUSION
Despite Galloway’s denials, the evidence obtained by the Subcommittee, including
Hussein-era documents from the Ministry of Oil and testimony from senior Hussein officials,
shows that Iraq granted George Galloway allocations for millions of barrels of oil under the Oil
for Food Program. Moreover, some evidence indicates that Galloway appeared to use a charity
for children’s leukemia to conceal payments associated with at least one such allocation. Lastly,
according to senior Hussein officials, the oil allocations were granted by Iraq because of
Galloway’s support for the Hussein regime and his opposition to U.N. sanctions.

Newsweek's malfeasance

The UN threatens to move if it doesn't get its way ?

Still a long way to go in any peace process

John Bolton

Auditor- General attended the Gomery Commission yesterday

Canadian blogs and politics

For whom the bell tolls - Thursday

Question Period- Hansard- May 17/05

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the executive directors of the Liberal Party appearing before the Gomery commission agree on one thing: thanks to the sponsorship scandal, a great deal of dirty money went to the Liberal Party.

Since the testimony by Béliveau, Corbeil et Dezainde on the dirty money all points to the Liberal Party coffers, will the Prime Minister create the Liberal dirty money trust fund before the next election campaign? Time is of the essence.

[English]

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear about this. If in fact the party has received any inappropriate funds, those funds will be reimbursed in full.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the testimony of the three Liberal Party executives is quite clear. Benoît Corbeil acknowledged that Jean Brault, of Groupaction, gave him dirty money for the Liberal Party. Michel Béliveau admitted taking dirty money from Jacques Corriveau, and this friend of Jean Chrétien acknowledged creating a kickback system benefiting the Liberal Party, according to Daniel Dezainde. The testimony provided by all three points to the Liberal Party coffers.

To prevent the Liberal Party from running another election on dirty money, which could happen as early as this week, will the Prime Minister demand that all this money be put into trust?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, these are allegations, not facts. If the party has received any inappropriate funds, it will reimburse the taxpayers. This, however, cannot be done until we have all the facts. That is why we need to wait for the Gomery report.

[English]

It is also important to recognize what Justice Gomery said last week on May 11. He said that the Liberal Party acts in a lawful manner, that it is not a criminal organization or one that knowingly breaks the law.

Anyone who committed wrong, anyone who used the brand of the Liberal Party to commit malfeasance, ought to face the full extent of the law, and we are committed to doing that.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government did not wait for the outcome of the Gomery inquiry to sue the firms involved in the sponsorship scandal. It has already done so, with these suits totalling over $40 million for work paid for but not performed.

How can the Prime Minister sue these firms and refuse to admit that the money they donated to the Liberal Party is dirty money that has to be put into a trust account?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member, in identifying some of the positive action the government has taken, is finally giving the government the credit it deserves for actually establishing legal action against 19 firms and individuals to retrieve $41 million for the Canadian taxpayer. That is the right thing to do. Those suits are before the courts and we are looking forward to a resolution that will be in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer and that will get to the truth.

Frankly, there are also allegations about the separatists in the province of Quebec. I would urge the hon. member, in fairness to the Parti Québécois, his provincial cousins, and to all people involved in politics to wait for the Gomery report to get the truth.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will remind the minister that the Parti Québécois created a trust account, even though the allegations have not been proven. It knew that it had been given the money. So, it created a trust account in Quebec.

Sponsorship money was donated to the Liberal Party by firms that have made very generous contributions to the Liberals during the years they abused the sponsorship program.

How can the Prime Minister feel comfortable with the money from these firms in the coffers of the Liberal Party instead of in a trust account, as requested?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, there are allegations about the Parti Québécois having received funds inappropriately, that in fact receipt of those inappropriate funds led to specific contractual actions that were inappropriate with external contractors.

I think the hon. member ought to clean up his own separatist house and actually give some respect to Justice Gomery's work. The fact is until we have Gomery's report, we will not have the full truth, and until the Parti Québécois actually has the courage to do its own inquiry, Quebeckers will not have the truth about separatist activities there.........



Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for over a year the opposition has been urging the Prime Minister to put together a meaningful and coordinated response to the crisis in Darfur. Last Thursday he rushed out with an announcement that we will be sending troops and cash. The whole announcement immediately began to unravel when the head of the regime in Khartoum said nobody had talked to him about foreign troops coming to Sudan.

I would like to know precisely, within the last week, did the Prime Minister talk to the head of the regime in Khartoum? If he did, why is the leader there saying that he did not? Why is there so much confusion over helping people in Darfur?

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express to the House again that the government has been committed to the Darfur situation for a long time. We have exerted some leadership over the last few years. Senator Jaffer was appointed in 1999 to look into this issue.

We put together a very sound package last week. We have carried out consultations. The Prime Minister was in touch with President al-Bashir on May 11 again. We have been in touch with the United Nations, United States and NATO headquarters. We have been working with a number of partners and the catalytic leadership of Canada is well appreciated.

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, nobody else seems to know that Canada is talking to them. Darfur is one of the most dangerous places on earth.

Thousands of people have been murdered. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced. Women are being raped in a systematic way. We have now found out that the Canadians troops that are going there will be unarmed. The regime has said that they are not allowed to enter with the ability to protect themselves.

Did the Prime Minister know that our troops were going there unarmed when he made this announcement on Thursday? If that is not true, again, why the confusion? Why is the regime saying nobody is entering there with arms?

¸ (1450)

Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was at the committee meeting this morning when General Hillier, who is the head of our forces, said clearly he has been in the region. He has been negotiating with the African Union.

We are providing exactly the support that the African Union members have requested. Everybody recognizes that it is their obligation and duty. They are the only ones who can effectively supply the support that is needed for the problem in Darfur. We are giving them the backup they need.

We will not send any troops into Darfur or into any region of any country if they are not properly protected. The chief of our defence staff made that very clear to everyone at the committee meeting.

Peter Worthington

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS!- THANKS GLENN!