Politician quits after sting operation

Slaughter in Sudan is genocide

"President Bush said Wednesday that the violence and death in Sudan's Darfur region constitute genocide, a break with the United Nations and some administration officials who in recent months have carefully avoided using the term.

Under pressure from members of Congress and human rights groups to speak out more forcefully against the rising death toll, Bush said he concurs with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had previously "declared the situation a genocide."

China flexes chipmaking muscles

"From 2001 through 2004, the Chinese IC market registered a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 46% as compared to a 14% CAGR for the IC market in the US during the same time period. And in 2005, China is expected to account for 20% of the world's $175.4 billion IC consumption, up from only 8% in 2001. The growth rate of Chinese IC production is predicted to be very strong until at least 2010, when it is expected to peak at $14.5 billion annually. Despite this high growth rate, China-based IC production would only represent 5% of the total worldwide IC production forecast for 2010. "

Rosett- never forget

"Also on the list would be the corrupt and craven crew at the U.N., who hid the rebuilding of Saddam's resources, who preferred to give Saddam an 18th chance. It is important to understand that while the U.N.-approved investigation into Oil for Food, led by Paul Volcker, has focused narrowly on questions of whether anyone administering the program violated U.N. procedure, the deeper horror was the assurance of the U.N. that all was well--while Saddam skimmed billions and used some of that to buy weapons and restock the war chest that certainly helped fund his military in 2003, and is very likely funding terror in Iraq today. Federal prosecutors have mentioned two unnamed high-ranking UN officials alleged to have taken bribes from Saddam; this is a matter not only of venal and corrupt behavior among those entrusted with serving the public good, but of U.N. officials with blood on their hands."

Omar thanks the men and women of the U.S. military

Taheri-Iraq-The caravan will continue its journey even if the wolves howl along the way

Time for change in Syria?

"Given the dynamics of Syrian society today, this Syrian regime will not last another six months. Can the United States be fully prepared for the fall or are we asleep at the helm like we were in 1979 during the Iran Revolution? The United States must, in order to cushion the fall of the Assad regime, take immediate action today to prop up the opposition, to help its image by supporting human rights in Syria and to call for freedom and democracy for the people of Syria. Syrians are ready for a revolution and democracy whether we like it or not. "

Iranian smuggling ring busted near Mexican border

John Crosbie

Editorial on Grewal tapes

Gomery Commission Yesterday

"The government moves in mysterious ways and it's difficult to explain".

Who is protecting investors?

"One person told the panel she'd invested 15 years' worth of savings in mutual funds through her bank. Within two years, she said, she'd lost $170,000, one third of her savings. After reaching a settlement with her bank, she was reimbursed the amount she paid in fees: $30,000.

Panel members repeatedly suggested investors contact one the regulatory groups represented at the meeting. Mr. Oliver noted the IDA can impose fines, and has imposed lifetime bans on 32 financial professionals. However, both he and Mr. Brown repeated several times that the OSC and IDA do not have the authority or mandate to get investors' money back...."

Question Period- Hansard excerpts - May 31/05

"Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims he was unaware of negotiations between his office and opposition MPs. Yet the records show that his chief of staff and his health minister make it clear that the Prime Minister wanted to meet with the member for Newton—North Delta.

How can the Prime Minister say that he was unaware when he was prepared to meet with the member for Newton—North Delta the evening before the vote?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both statements are untrue.

First, yesterday in the House I said that when the member approached the government, I was obviously informed. Second, at no time, however, did I ever say that I would meet with the hon. member. In fact, if one looks at the newspapers, they have said that the hon. member's story is totally false.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government keeps claiming it did not try to buy opposition support, but the records released today show that is not true.

How does the Prime Minister explain that his government's representative called the member for Newton—North Delta no less than 23 times in the 3 days preceding the vote?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how does the opposition explain that Mr. Sudesh Kalia, who describes himself as a friend of Mr. Grewal and who was the intermediary, said that Mr. Grewal asked him, according to the paper, to set up the meeting?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. The Prime Minister knows he must refer to hon. members by the names of their constituencies rather than by name. I know he will want to make that correction and avoid that problem.

Right Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the third party, who was asked by the member for Newton—North Delta to set up the meeting, said that Mr. Kalia called the member's version of the events totally false. He said:

He gave me a few demands (about) what he's looking for... He's looking for his wife...(to get) a Senate post or UNO representation and himself in cabinet.

The third party said that the member's version was totally false.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think the records will show that Mr. Kalia is no third party. He was speaking on behalf of the government.

It is quite clear from the records that the government was prepared to make offers to members in the House in exchange for their vote.

Is the Prime Minister denying that the voices on these tapes are those of his chief of staff and his health minister?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I have not heard the tapes.

What I have done is read the transcript from the third party who was asked by the member to set up the meeting. I have also talked to the ministers of the government and the statement is absolutely clear that no offer was made, that an offer was solicited. No offer was made and that is the truth.

* * *

¸ (1420)
Sponsorship Program

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as so famously quoted, the Prime Minister would not know the truth.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: I did not hear the first part of the hon. member's comments, but I wish hon. members would refrain from personal attacks. There is no need for it and I think we can avoid this kind of disorder if hon. members would show a little better behaviour in terms of personal attacks on each other. There is no need for it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, last year before shutting down a parliamentary inquiry into the sponsorship scandal and calling a pre-emptive election, the Prime Minister said that there had to be political direction into the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

He also said that Gomery would get to the bottom of it and it would have no limits. Yet the terms of reference deliberately disallow Justice Gomery to name names or identify political direction.

Why did the Prime Minister hide information before the last election and why is he now limiting Gomery's findings of responsibility of political direction by his party?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on February 20, 2004, the hon. member for Central Nova said this about Justice Gomery's mandate:

Well, they're certainly broad. There's no denying that the early indications are that the terms of reference will allow people to go where they have to go.

The hon. member was right then, but his party is wrong today with its opposition day motion. The fact is Justice Gomery does have the right and the ability, through section 13 of the Inquiries Act, to name names and to assign responsibility.

I would urge the hon. member to go back to planting potatoes and stop planting seeds of doubt about the work of Justice Gomery.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. I urge my previous statement about personal attacks on all hon. members and would ask that we perhaps refrain from this sort of comment in the House. It does not help maintain order in this place.

The hon. member for Central Nova now has a supplementary question.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, at the end of the Gomery commission Canadians want to know who was responsible for the largest political scandal in Canadian history. The Prime Minister states that only Gomery can do that. That is not true.

The terms of reference prevent Justice Gomery from indicating criminal or civil liability and nowhere else is he specifically empowered to name names or assign responsibility. That is a curious fact. The justice minister maintains that expanding the terms might interfere with other processes. That is not true either.

Can the Prime Minister tell us if there are past or present members or employees of the Liberal government or his party currently under investigation by the RCMP?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, Justice Gomery describes his mandate in his own words. He said:

According to s.13 of the Inquiries Act, which will be discussed in more detail later, I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it.

Further, Justice Gomery said:

--whether there was political influence involved in the activities and, if so, by whom, to what purpose, and to what effect;

whether any person or organization in the Government of Canada gained an advantage financially, politically or otherwise from the activities and, if so who, to what purpose, and to what effect;

Justice Gomery is right. He does have the mandate to name names and assign responsibility.

* * *

[Translation]
Member for Newton—Delta North

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that, in the matter involving his chief of staff, I do not need any kind of parliamentary immunity to make the same remarks, both inside and outside this chamber. That having been said, it is absolutely unbelievable that, two weeks later, the Prime Minister continues to maintain that he has not heard the compromising tape.

At a time when full explanations are required, will the Prime Minister admit that, in the matter involving his chief of staff, he has been absolutely and totally negligent?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I did not hear the tape, it is because I do not have it.

¸ (1425)

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that he has a radio or a television set in his office. Because it has been aired on radio and TV, and a translation has been published in newspapers.

In his address to Canadians and Quebeckers, the Prime Minister made the following statement about the sponsorship scandal. “I am sorry that we weren’t more vigilant, that I wasn't more vigilant”. If proven, the actions of his chief of staff may be actionable under section 119 of the Criminal Code.

Will the Prime Minister learn from past mistakes, stop being deliberately blind, show vigilance and suspend—

The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, I would ask the leader of the Bloc Québécois to just take a look at what Mr. Kalia said. He was the third party, between the member and the government. Mr. Kalia said that no offer was made by the government, that the member was the one who made demands, which were refused outright.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is protecting his chief of staff by claiming that it was the Conservative member himself who approached his government and offered his vote in exchange for some compensation.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, regardless of who made the initial move, what matters before the law is what was said and, in this regard, his chief of staff may have contravened section 119 of the Criminal Code?

[English]

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he was in fact informed that the member for Newton—North Delta approached his office about crossing the floor. He also said that he was very clear that there would be no deals offered.

The hon. member was making an accusation that there has been some type of criminal intent here. Certainly, the RCMP, as an independent body, determines what it will investigate and based on what evidence.

If the hon. member has any information that would suggest that an investigation is merited, I would suggest that he provide that information. In fact, he has an obligation to provide that information.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff said “--you can stay home, stay back where you are or if you like, we can make an arrangement that allows you to move”.

How can the Prime Minister deny that the content of this recording is suspicious enough to warrant swift action regarding his chief of staff? Let the Prime Minister suspend him immediately.

[English]

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member is making accusations. I understand that the transcripts have now been made public. I do not understand why it took so long for the official opposition to make them available.

Nonetheless, as the Prime Minister has said, there was no offer and no deals made. In fact, it was the member for Newton—North Delta who approached the government. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we in no way look to entice anyone to join this party.

[Translation]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, over the past six weeks, two Liberal ministers, one parliamentary secretary, the lawyer representing the Liberal Party at the Gomery commission and the Prime Minister himself have all boasted about calling on the RCMP. However, when the issue involves the Prime Minister's chief of staff and a Conservative member, their enthusiasm for the RCMP seems to wane. Could the Prime Minister tell us why?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the NDP leader would not know about the ethics involved in all this. The government does not have the right to give instructions to the RCMP. It can provide information, as any individual can, but the decision to act on this information rests with the RCMP.

¸ (1430)

[English]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I believe we can all recall previous instances where the RCMP was called in by the government.

It is funny because on sponsorship the Prime Minister did nothing because he claimed that he did not know anything. In this case, he is doing nothing because he does not want to know anything. It is not a funny matter. The RCMP needs to investigate this. It is going to need all the relevant phone logs, e-mails, letters and meeting notes.

My question for the Prime Minister is, will they be provided to the RCMP?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the government will provide the RCMP any information it requires. I would hope that if the leader of the NDP has any such information, he would provide it.

What I find most surprising is that the Leader of the Opposition seems to imply that Canada is a police state, that in fact we will dictate to the RCMP what it should do. That is not the way it works. It would be most improper if the government were to tell the RCMP to initiate an investigation. It should be provided with the information and then an independent decision of the RCMP is taken on whether or not to act."

Wolfowitz takes helm at World Bank