Visit beautiful PEI this summer

Scroll to -Noriegas of the North?-via Jack's Newswatch

Illegal human trafficking

Instapundit recommends this post by Belmont Club

Democracy in action?

Finale

Update-first vote
250 yes 54 no to pass original budget (Bloc voted against)

The crucial vote is next


Update: second vote

Cadman voted with the government.Kilgour voted with the Opposition. Looks like no election since the Speaker will vote with the government.

Final Vote to pass the amended budget 153-152

Walid Phares on the "spontaneous" riots

Looks like it's up to Chuck Cadman- we'll know shortly folks

Justice Gomery keeps his eye on the ball

Who's replacing Syria in Lebanon.....?

Iran filling void Syria left in Lebanon
Military sources said the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command has poured agents, funding and weapons into Hizbullah strongholds around southern Beirut and towns near the Israeli border. Iran has sought to ensure that Hizbullah remains the key military force in the south following Syria's military withdrawal. "There is a vacuum left by the Syrian withdrawal and Iran intends to fill it," said a military source.

Still trying to get Justice Gomery removed from the inquiry

Just when the forensic guys are about to show up

UNSCAM incendiary letter-Witness betrayed? via Roger L Simon

Question Period today- run up to the vote

Getting ready for the BIG VOTE........

"Earlier in the day, there was a burst of activity on Parliament Hill amid reports Independent MP Carolyn Parrish might miss the vote. The reports said she was suffering from appendicitis and may not have been able to vote.

But, later, CTV's Robert Fife was able to report that Parrish had been checked by a doctor and will in fact, be well enough to attend.

"She doesn't have appendicitis," Brian MacDonald, a spokesman at Parrish's Mississauga, Ont., constituency office, told CTV.ca.

"She's not in the hospital. She's resting in her apartment in Ottawa. She's just in a lot of pain (from a stomach ache)."

For a while, though, the possibility of Parrish's absence had the Liberals in "panic mode," said Fife."

Today's confidence vote......

Bulletin: CTV reports Independent Carolyn Parrish may have appendicitis and may not be able to vote later today

More later............

Police Report 33 current investigations into financial crimes

will there be an election ? stay tuned

The drama ramps up

".....The federal Liberals are optimistic about winning tonight's budget vote although a dramatic scene in the House of Commons when a Liberal MP was rushed to hospital with chest pains left many fearing for their own political lives.

Several hours after his collapse, Scarborough-Agincourt MP Jim Karygiannis emailed CanWest News from the hospital to say he had merely suffered heartburn and that "there is no way I will be kept away" from today's vote."

Recapping the last couple of months in Parliament

...."Together the Conservatives and Bloc passed a motion in the house that called for the resignation of the Prime Minister. All three opposition parties agreed that the passage of the amendment represented a vote of non-confidence, but the government hid behind legalistic interpretations and refused to settle the question by calling for a vote of confidence.

For the rest of the week the opposition parties shut down the House of Commons, keeping it open just long enough to give the government another chance to prove (if they could) that they still had the confidence of the house. Rather than do so, the Liberals promised a budget vote on the 19th of May.

The government tried to pass off the idea that a week's delay would make no difference, but in reality they bought themselves time to finish working out a deal with Belinda Stronach to bring her across the floor into Martin's cabinet. Now British Columbia MP Gurmant Grewal and his wife reportedly have a tape recording of similar attempts to buy their votes.

If the Liberals manage to survive the budget vote today, it will only be because they defied the will of Parliament long enough to use taxpayer funds to buy votes they would have never gotten otherwise. A Liberal victory would represent the end of responsible government in Canada. We would be left with nothing but an empty shell of democracy where the only virtue is power and the only vice is getting caught.

The Liberal party has raided the public purse, violated electoral law, limited opposition in the House of Commons, defied the will of Parliament and now appears to be bribing Members of Parliament. If that isn't enough to justify an election, what is?"

Paul Albers is a freelance columnist living in Ottawa

Hansard excerpts- May18/05

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government lost a vote which obliged it to create a trust fund for the dirty sponsorship money. So far, it has not done so. Elections Canada is now preparing to pay $2 million back to the government.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he is going to put that dirty money into a trust account, or fund a fourth election campaign with it?
+-

The Speaker: I have the same reservations on this question as on the previous one. The question must be asked in other terms. Calls have often been made in this House for the Liberal Party to reimburse the government. I trust that the hon. member will be able to use acceptable language for his second question.

[English]
+-

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, while I did ask if they would return it as a government, the Liberals have rigged every rule in the book to benefit themselves. They have laundered thousands if not millions for ad scam. They rewrote election financing laws to get millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

The only way Canadians can be sure the Liberals are not campaigning with dirty money is to put the Elections Canada subsidy in trust. Maybe it is their intention to buy another election campaign using that dirty money.
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister has always been clear on this and the party has been clear on this, that if funds were received inappropriately they will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer and we will do that when Canadians have all of the facts.

Any interim step to establish goodwill is a step in that direction but it does not achieve that transaction until we actually have all of the facts from Justice Gomery's own audit process. He is working with party auditors to achieve that.

We are cooperating fully because we want to ensure that justice is done on behalf of the taxpayer and on behalf of all Canadians.....

Sponsorship Program
+-

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government continues to suggest that things must wait for the Gomery report before people can make up their minds about ad scam wrongdoing. Clause k of Gomery's mandate prevents him from telling who is responsible.

Yesterday government bureaucrats admitted they were not waiting for Judge Gomery's report to implement reforms to the system. Why should Canadians have to wait to make a political judgment on the government?
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the circular logic over there is almost laughable. I know I am not allowed to say that was a stupid question because you chastized me once. That was an obtuse question.

The fact is that if we were not taking action, Canadians would have every right to be angry at us. We are doing the right thing by taking action and changing our processes to ensure better value for Canadian taxpayers, more open and competitive processes and accountable and transparent ones.

She is out to lunch if she actually thinks she makes any sense with a question like that.
+-

The Speaker: I encourage hon. members to be judicious in their choice of language. The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill.
+-

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians would like to make some changes too in the government over there and they need the opportunity to do that.

The Prime Minister told Canadians on national TV that only Gomery could tell who was responsible for the organized ad scam scandal, but all the while he knew that clause k explicitly prevented Gomery from naming names.

Day after day televised evidence leaves no doubt that the stain on our nation's honour was put there by the Liberal Party. Gomery's report will just be a summary of facts we already know.

Is it not true that the government is just inventing excuses to hold off the day of reckoning?
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those members are attacking the mandate of Justice Gomery in another attempt to try to smear the work that he is doing. They realize that when he reports to Canadians, Canadians will have a balanced review and analysis of all the facts and that will be exactly the opposite of what they provide to Canadians on a daily basis on the floor of the House of Commons. Those members amplify and magnify the testimony that suits their particular partisan position.

Canadians want the whole truth and they trust Justice Gomery to give them exactly that. His mandate provides him with every opportunity to do that........

Justice
+-

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a top Liberal has given sworn testimony at the Gomery commission that many court appointments in Canada have been based on political consideration and merit plays a secondary role. As long as the Liberal government controls the process, the political pedigree of any candidate will be the overriding consideration.

The Minister of Justice has stubbornly refused to turn the matter over to an independent body for examination when he knows Gomery has no jurisdiction. What is he afraid it will uncover?
+-

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the body is not controlled by the Liberals. It is an independent body. It was the same body that the hon. member presided over. It was good enough for him when he was the attorney general of Manitoba and it is good enough for us when we are the Government of Canada.
+-

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister understands perfectly well the distinction between an independent body and the body that controls federal judicial appointments. The denials of the minister are simply not enough. An independent investigation is needed to clear the air. It is more than a coincidence that predominantly Liberal Party loyalists get appointed to the bench, including the minister's former chief of staff.

Why does the minister refuse to put into place a transparent public process that actually limits political patronage?
+-

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member earlier referenced Gomery and the work of Justice Gomery. It is important to realize that recently constituents of the hon. member started receiving householders that he sent out. In that householder he said:

--we in the Conservative Party, believe that more testimony must be heard. And we believe that the Canadian public deserves a chance to hear, understand, and evaluate this evidence. This will obviously take some time. Our party is not interested in the electoral calculations of the Bloc Québecois, nor do we wish to have any part of pre-empting further evidence...We will not allow the separatists’ dangerous, narrow electoral agenda to dictate that of the entire country.

That is what he said--.....

Sudan
+-

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unilateral action is not the way to resolve the crisis in Darfur. Last week the Prime Minister did not consult with African Union leaders, NATO leaders or even the head of the Sudanese government before rushing to make an announcement that he was sending Canadian military into Darfur without our allies, without the Sudanese government knowing, and without even the means to protect themselves.

Helping people in Darfur is too important to ignore these things. Why did he not at least warn the African Union leaders that he was about to take unilateral action in Darfur?
+-

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely wrong. There have been the appropriate consultations. The Prime Minister and I have conducted consultations with the government in Iran, the United Nations, the African Union and the government of Sudan.

I spoke again with the secretary general of NATO two days ago on the telephone. The catalytic leadership that the Government of Canada is providing when there are thousands of people who are dying, who are being raped and who are starving is very much appreciated.
+-

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is not catalytic leadership; it is catatonic leadership.

I have a statement which was released today by the leaders of Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea. They said that they reject any foreign intervention in the Darfur problem. Today in Brussels the African Union president, Alpha Konare, said that there will be no troops on the ground unless they are exclusively African. The Sudanese ambassador to Canada said that her country will not allow Canadian military into Darfur.
+-

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have always been very clear that we will be complementary to what the African Union is doing. We will be supporting the African Union exercise. We have always said exactly that.

What we do know is that where the African Union has been in Darfur it has been helpful, but more boots on the ground are needed in the region, more than the 3,000 they have now. They need better communications equipment. Canada can do something about that. They need better transportation vehicles. Canada can help with NATO to do the right thing in Darfur.........

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

The House resumed from May 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.
+-

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today. We look across the floor at a government that is corrupt and ruining our country's finances. We have seen this corruption exemplified by the Liberal ad scam, the $2 billion gun registry and the $1 billion boondoggle of HRDC. However, in the latest effort of the government in its NDP budget, we find a more egregious waste of tax dollars.

I suggest that perhaps the most outrageous example of hidden costs contained in the budget are found in its seemingly altruistic promise to bring in a government day care bureaucracy. Liberals are telling the Canadian people that they can bring in a government day care bureaucracy, applicable to every child, at the cost of $1 billion a year. In reality, we know the cost of this program is approximately 10 times that amount.

The government day care bureaucracy will impose a $10 billion a year burden on taxpayers and take away choices from women and families. I will demonstrate that today irrefutably with the evidence I have on my desk. However, better than that, I will bring hope to Canadians by proposing an alternative that gives choice to women and families. The Conservative Party and its leader believe in a woman's right to choose how to raise her children. That right we are prepared to defend on the floor of the House of Commons.

Let us start by demonstrating that the Liberals' plan is 10 times more costly than they are prepared to allow Canadian people to understand. Recall that the Liberals said that the gun registry would cost only $2 million. It is now 1,000 times over budget. We on this side of the House gave warnings, which were unheeded. Thus, today we have a $2 billion monstrosity that not only harasses duck hunters and farmers and takes choices away from them, but imposes greater burdens on taxpayers.

Likewise, we have before us the government day care bureaucracy. I will look at the evidence. The government tells us that the program will cost only $5 billion over five years, in other words, approximately $1 billion a year. However, let us look at the words of minister responsible for social development. I do not know if he realized that he was being recorded when he made this promise at a community event. He said:

And the nice thing about it all $5 billion over five years does not create a system. What it does is set things in motion.

He went on to say that the $5 billion would only be enough to create bits and pieces and fragments of a system. If it is going to cost $5 billion over five years to create bits and pieces and fragments, how much is it going to cost to make universal the government day care bureaucracy?

It is not just a rhetorical question. I have with me a list of organizations, most of them government funded, that support the day care bureaucracy proposed by the minister and the Liberal government. I have visited their research studies on the cost of the program. Remember that all these organizations are supportive of a government day care bureaucracy. Let me give an example of what they have said.

I have here a document from the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. It indicates that the full cost of a government day care bureaucracy, the kind that the Liberals are proposing, is 1% of GDP. That does not sound like a lot, but that 1% is deceptively large. We are talking about $10 billion per year, not $1 billion as the government claim. This means there is a $9 billion black hole in the government's day care bureaucracy promise.

¹ +-(1535)

Where will the government get that $9 billion? It cannot merely be pulled out of thin air. It will have to be taken from the pockets of parents through higher taxes. A $9 billion obligation, whether it is borne partly by the provinces and partly by the federal government, there is only one source of revenue from which that $10 billion can come and that is out of the pockets of taxpayers. If the government claims otherwise, it has to demonstrate which other programs it is prepared to cut, health care perhaps, or whether it is willing to run a budgetary deficit.

However for the government to claim that it can bring in a universal day care bureaucracy for only $5 billion over five years is deceptive, as has been admitted by the minister responsible who says that $5 billion over five years “does not create a system”, and who then goes on to say that it will merely create bits and pieces.

The organization I quoted gave us this document entitled, “From patchwork to framework: A child care strategy for Canada”, which is the same strategy that the Liberal government is proposing. Actually the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada is very accurate because if we take the cost of the Quebec day care bureaucracy and calculate it over the size of the entire Canadian population, the cost would be in the neighbourhood of $10 billion.

We have evidence that the Liberal Party is trying to hide $9 billion worth of costs associated with its latest election promise. That is the Liberal hidden agenda on child care.

Now that we have addressed the enormous cost with which taxpayers will be faced by this Liberal day care bureaucracy, I would like to address an aspect of this issue that is even more troubling yet.

I have before me a quote that illustrates the very unfortunate attitude of the social development minister, the misogynistic attitude, the paternalistic attitude, the attitude that borders on sexism. I want to read this to the House. I was here when these words were stated on the floor of the House of Commons on February 15. He said:

A recent study, as was cited by the Vanier Institute of the Family, has found that most moms and dads with pre-school children would prefer that one parent stay home and take primary responsibility for raising the children. Again, that is not surprising. As parents we all feel guilty about the time we are not spending with our kids. However, if we asked the same group of people or any group of people if they would like to lose weight, 90% would say yes. If we asked them if they would like ice cream once a week and chocolate twice a day, about the same percentage would say the same. The question, as in all of these matters, is not what we would like to do, but what we will do, and what we do.

Let us review. The fact that the Vanier Institute demonstrated that the vast majority of parents prefer an at-home child care option over the day care bureaucracy could merely be explained away by feelings such as guilt and the desire of a parent to stay in the home with the child is akin to nothing more than a frivolous desire for ice cream or chocolate. That is the attitude that drives the Liberal commitment to this day care bureaucracy.

¹ +-(1540)

This is an outright contempt for a woman's right to choose how to raise her own children. The government would take away that choice by imposing higher taxes on families that make the sacrifice to keep a parent in the home or pursue another child care option.

We in this party pursue a more hopeful and choice driven option. We would put child care dollars right into the pockets of parents to let them decide how to raise their own children. We would work our way toward income splitting that takes away inequities that are imposed on families with a stay at home parent.

This is all in the interest of choice and economizing taxpayer dollars and I am proud to stand for these values.
+-




Mr. Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, I am saddened by the hon. member's extremely intolerant approach and the fact that she is suggesting that this is not an issue that affects women. She is suggesting that I was wrong to point out that this is a matter that is deeply concerning to women, particularly young women.

In my constituency I probably have the highest percentage of young families of any constituency in Canada. They are telling me that they do not want to pay higher taxes to afford a $10 billion day care bureaucracy. They are telling me that they would rather have the dollars put right into their pockets.

The hon. member asked about the cost of our program. Because our program puts dollars directly in the pockets of parents, we cut out all the bureaucracy. Second, it is easily calculated because the amount that we will put directly into the pockets of parents is merely multiplied by the number of children for whom that credit is provided. We can provide these dollars without bureaucracy and we can allow parents and women to decide for themselves how those dollars are spent.

The United Nations has recognized that the system of taxation that the government has in place is discriminatory because it does not recognize the economic and social value associated with stay at home parenting. The United Nations points out that it is an offence to basic human rights that the government taxes families with single incomes at a higher rate than families with dual incomes.

We would put an end to that human rights violation. We would put child care dollars directly into parents' pockets and let women and families decide for themselves. I am proud to say that.

¹ +-(1550)
+-

Peter Worthington

Should Canada have a one Party state and rule in perpetuity similar to a dictatorship?

Irshad Manji re: Newsweek

"So Newsweek has retracted its report about the defiling of Islam's holy book, the Qur'an, by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.

But it's too late. Muslims everywhere are questioning America's respect for all religions. Journalists are wondering what standards allowed the charge to be printed without proof. Foreign policy analysts are asking how the riots incited by the charge will affect the war on terrorism.

Still, at least one more question needs to be asked: Even if the Qur'an was mistreated, are violent riots justified?"............