"NBC interviewed me again last night - good stuff, but they harped on the casualties. I told them it was war; they wanted to know if a whole squad was killed in the track. As I told them a squad’s worth of Marines were killed/hurt (6 KIA,14 WIA) but it was NOT the catastrophic loss of a squad (it was a HQ track). NBC wanted to know how to refer to them, as a squad, company, etc. I told them, pretty bluntly, ”refer to them for what they will always be - US MARINES!" They continued to push (I was starting to become a bit agitated) - they wanted to know how we considered this a success with the deaths (I nearly lost it), and how would we remember them, would there be a ceremony? You know what happens when I get into this mode - thought you might appreciate the answer:
We can never replace a fellow Marine or best friend but I can attest that he died doing what we all hope to be doing as Marines, they were advancing, leading, and setting the example - they were being MARINES! It may not matter in the grand scheme of things to anyone but us, but we are singularly proud that we have and know Marines that fought and died like these. We remember and memorialize them and keep them alive every single time we put on this uniform — we are just honored to wear the same eagle, globe, and anchor as these warrior/heroes. We don’t make policy, we don’t decide on the fight, but we do fight and win. And when we win, it is because every one of these Marines fight with us in sprit - and we will not, we cannot let them down. To we Marines, Semper Fidelis is more than a motto - it was to them, and to us who were privileged to fight with them, a way of life.
Not sure that will get on the tube. Unfortunate, because I think we should all be such Marines when our time comes.
"But I do not agree that any good has come of this woman’s extraordinary act of treachery. The Conservatives are no closer now, to understanding that they cannot win by offering a more naïve, less crooked version of the Liberals’ feckless policies. For the corruption runs much deeper than what has been alleged before the Gomery Inquiry; even deeper than what we are likely to find, if the finances of Canada’s innumerable, large crown corporations are ever opened to an honest accounting."
"Yet there has been little or no effort by Muslim leaders within the Arab-Muslim world, or in the West, to protest the widely witnessed mounting horrors perpetrated by some Muslims who have done irreparable harm to Islam's reputation.
The shameful silence of most Muslims in respect to regular kidnappings and murders -- e.g., Margaret Hassan, an aid worker in Iraq; Danny Pearl, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal in Pakistan -- or over the destruction of the Bamiyan statues of Buddha in Afghanistan, reveals their twisted thinking and selectively hollow sense of outrage concerning the desecration of Islam.
It is violence done by Muslims under whatever pretext, politics or religion, that continues to cause greater harm to Islam than any real or imagined insult hurled by non-Muslims towards Muslim faith or culture.
As a Muslim, I find exceedingly abhorrent the continuing silence of the Muslim world in respect to the genocide unfolding in the Darfur region of a Muslim-majority Sudan".
Any Corporation that has all yes men at the top,will sooner or later be in hot water.In order to improve a company or the government, opposite views have to be heard in order to make sure their product or systems change for the better.
"But Mr. Van Loan says as more people get to see and know Mr. Harper, the more they realize "he is the leader who is right to address the challenges that the country has right now."
James Moore, a Conservative MP from Port Coquitlam, B.C., agreed.
"Stephen is a mainstream, national, moderate voice for all Canadians who want change in this country," he said."
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, David Dingwall, the man who is now paid to print money at the mint, was hired by Vickers & Benson to use his influence with former colleagues to lobby for more sponsorship money for a television program that aired only in China. Now there is a good use of sponsorship money.
This was in direct violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act. The former public works minister was so successful that in March 1999 he received $60,000 in reward money.
The Prime Minister did not wait for the Gomery commission report to fire Chrétien cronies like Jean Pelletier, André Ouellet, Marc LeFrançois or Alfonso Gagliano. When is he going to fire David Dingwall?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, as with any allegations before Gomery, we will investigate and we will ensure that prudence is taken and that the interests of Canadians are served. At the same time, we will not conduct a witch hunt based on unproven allegations.
At the end of the day we will do the right thing, and we will ensure that both the reputations and interests of individuals are protected and that we at the same time defend the interests of the Canadian taxpayer.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): I note, Mr. Speaker, that today the face of the government is yellow.
The government said yesterday that the Liberal Party intends to put money in a trust fund in the very near future. Of course we also believe in the tooth fairy, another mythical figure who drops off money. In reality, promises like this and others from the government are as empty as the rhetoric in the account. There is another order from the House that the Commons voted on and the government continues to ignore: to set up that fund.
The Liberal Party is going to receive over $2 million from Elections Canada. When will the Prime Minister honour that motion from the House? When will he put these funds in a trust account? When will the government show us the money?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear and the party has been clear. Any inappropriate funds will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer. The establishment of a trust fund and the placement of $750,000 in that trust fund is an offer of good faith. That is an interim step.
Again, it is important to recognize that we cannot actually complete the transaction, the repayment to the Canadian taxpayer, without all the facts. That is why it is important that we allow Justice Gomery to complete his work.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): What would that member know about good faith or trust, Mr. Speaker?
[Translation]
Will the government commit today to putting the money that Elections Canada refunded the Liberal Party into the trust fund it claims to have created?
Will it finally show us the money or was that just another empty promise?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat once again that if the party has received inappropriate funds, it will reimburse the taxpayers.
[English]
It is not possible to do that without having all the facts. The establishment of a trust fund is an important act of good faith from the party that is doing the right thing to ensure that we get to the bottom of this issue and that the Canadian taxpayer is treated fairly.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, only when a possible election stared them in the face did the Liberals bow to an order of the House to put ill-gotten gains by the Liberal Party into a trust fund.
No, wait, there is no fund, because the balance in the account is zero, maybe to match Liberal credibility. Will the government explain how an empty account complies with the House order for a trust fund?
Á (1120)
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would draw the hon. member's attention to today's National Post editorial. It states:
Leading up to the vote, the Conservatives indicated that they would live with the result either way. Now, it's time for them to make good on their word. Rather than trying to create the winning conditions for a non-confidence vote in the next few weeks, all opposition parties should do their best to contribute productively to the business of Parliament.
Asking the same question over and over again is a waste of time on the floor of the House of Commons. They should be talking about health care, about education, about investing in housing, about some of the positive major changes--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if Canadians are waiting for a straight answer from this minister, they are certainly wasting their time.
Let us try again. The government should actually have called this a “trust us” fund, but this House ordered the fund because trust was broken in the dirty ad scam money mess, which the Auditor General said broke every rule in the book. Is it not true that the recent bogus trust fund announcement amounts to nothing more than an empty PR exercise?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, the party has been clear from the beginning that any funds received inappropriately will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer. Beyond that, the party has cooperated fully with Justice Gomery. We are working with Justice Gomery's auditors. We are looking forward to cooperating with him and to achieving a result that is in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer.
Again, these are serious allegations, and anybody who used the brand of the Liberal Party for financial gain inappropriately ought to face and will face the full extent of the law.
* * * Sponsorship Program
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals repeat daily that they are waiting for the Gomery report before they finally act. At the same time, they are doing everything they can to discredit the work of the commission. They are wrongly intimating that the commission will cost more than planned and question Justice Gomery's impartiality.
Why is this government trying to discredit and put an end to the inquiry by Mr. Justice Gomery into the Liberal scandal?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statements by the member opposite are completely false. Not only did this government establish the Gomery commission, it is supporting all of the work done by Justice Gomery. The government is prepared to assume all the costs required to put the facts on the table for Canadians before they decide on what went on in the sponsorship file.
Á (1130)
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the facts. The Liberal government is engaged in another round of smearing reputations and this time it is Judge Gomery.
During yesterday's testimony, Justice Gomery made it clear that he was coming under budget despite leaks from the government complaining about the inquiry costs. In fact, the government exaggerated the cost by $40 million. This is clearly an attempt to hurt the credibility of Justice Gomery.
Why is the government trying to undermine the sponsorship inquiry?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that I am on the record as saying that the cost of Gomery is well worth it for the Canadian taxpayer because we are changing a culture of government. We are able to pay for generations of dividends to Canadians by getting to the truth and making fundamental changes to governance for Canadians.
I support, our Prime Minister, our entire government and our party support the work of Justice Gomery. The fact is that there is about $40 million of additional costs contributed by Public Works, Justice, the Treasury Board and the PCO to cooperate with Justice Gomery, which explains the discrepancy.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Alfonso Gagliano, the Prime Minister's friend, is now joining forces with the former prime minister to shut down Gomery.
It seems some Liberals are not as anxious as some other Liberals to get to the truth. The Prime Minister has sung the praises of Mr. Gagliano in the past. Will he now ask him to stop this attempted cover-up?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the government's position has been clear. We want to see Justice Gomery complete his work and reach his conclusions so that Canadians have the truth.
Yesterday's Toronto Star said that Ontarians welcomed the Prime Minster's decision to cancel the sponsorship program, to fire people linked to it and to appoint Gomery. It went on to say:
[The Prime Minister's] budget, too, was well received, even by [the Leader of the Opposition] initially. And Ontarians recoil from the Conservative-Bloc Quebecois alliance....Few beyond politics-mad Ottawa relish an election now. Many just want Parliament to get on with the job of governing, by first passing the budget.
They voted against the interests of Ontario yesterday when they voted against that budget.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while Canadian and Ontario voters are told that Justice Gomery will get to the bottom of the Liberal scandal, behind the scenes the Prime Minister's friend is making all efforts to silence Gomery, as is the former prime minister.
While the Prime Minister has in the past shown his admiration for his buddy, Alfonso, has he picked up the phone to tell this disgraced minister and the former prime minister to back off?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is also important to recognize that this was the Prime Minister who fired Alfonso Gagliano. This also is the Prime Minister who established the Gomery commission and supports, unequivocally, the Gomery commission.
There are allegations against other parties, including the Conservatives, including the Bloc or the separatists in Quebec. Those parties have ignored those allegations and are not taking them seriously.
We are taking these allegations seriously. We are addressing them thoroughly. We will ensure both our government and our party does the right thing while that party simply tries to make cheap political points on the floor of the House of Commons.
* Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week in the operations committee, former Canada pork-master general and CEO, André Ouellet, admitted under oath that he had failed to forward almost $200,000 in receipts to Revenue Canada auditors. Any other Canadian who claimed expenses without receipts would be immediately assessed a taxable benefit by Revenue Canada authorities.
I would like the minister to tell the House today why there are different rules in place for Liberal patronage appointees than there are for all other Canadians?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been said before in the House, the Canada Revenue Agency is in the process of conducting an audit on the office of the president of Canada Post. The agency will perform its duties and, as it would with any taxpayer, will take necessary steps and actions, if required, to ensure there is compliance with the law.
Á (1140)
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, every burglar needs a good inside man.
The rules are tough for Canadian taxpayers, but they are easy for patronage pals of the government. According to Revenue Canada rules, we are guilty until proven innocent. If we do not have receipts, we do not get a claim, except apparently André Ouellet.
The minister has been hiding behind this smokescreen audit now for a running time of eight months. For eight months, he has been an accomplice in Mr. Ouellet's tax avoidance.
Why should every other Canadian be subjected to a different set of rules than André Ouellet?
[Translation]
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not an auditor, and neither is my hon. colleague. But I know that it takes time. I think that auditors have to put in a great deal of effort in completing their work.
Justice
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a recent report by the RCMP and immigration department paints Canada as a preferred target for smugglers because of our generous immigration system. Many people unwittingly sell themselves into a life of sexual or economic slavery to pay off the $20,000 to $50,000 fees their captors charge.
Canada can no longer turn a blind eye to this victimization. When will the government quit its dithering and fast track effective legislation that would put a stop to human smuggling?
Hon. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact, just the other day the attorney general from the United States, Mr. Gonzales, was here in Ottawa and the two governments reaffirmed their commitment to fight this terrible scourge of trafficking in human beings.
We are going to build on the cooperative efforts of this government by working with our partners in the United States and internationally on law enforcement issues, including this very terrible and heinous crime of trafficking in humans, which is what we call the new slavery.
Á (1145)
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada has emerged as a preferred destination in the human smuggling marketplace. There is growing evidence of a connection between human smuggling and transnational organized crime groups, terrorist organizations, and the movement of individuals who pose direct threats to the security of Canada and the safety of Canadians.
Rather than toothless measures that will probably never see the light of day, will the government commit to laws with teeth that would put an end to human smuggling?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite does not appear to appreciate that we in fact introduced comprehensive legislation with respect to combating trafficking in humans.
