"In order for the RCMP to dedicate resources to an investigation, they need some information that the investigation will be successful, particularly in Canada's three largest cities where the prioritization of investigative sources results in numerous potential investigations being terminated at the early stages."
"A major cause of hospital-acquired infections can persist for days and even weeks on environmental surfaces found in healthcare settings, including bed linens, computer keyboard covers and acrylic fingernails, according to research presented today at the 105th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology."
"Bush, and Blair, and the prime minister of Japan, and Berlusconi, these people are criminals, and they are responsible for mass murder in the world, for the war, and for the occupation, through their support for Israel, and through their support for a globalized capitalist economic system, which is the biggest killer the world has ever known. It has killed far more people than Adolph Hitler. It has killed far more people than George Bush. The economic system which these people support, which leaves most of the people in the world hungry, and without clean water to drink. So we're going to put them on trial, the leaders, when they come. They think they're coming for a holiday in a beautiful country called Scotland; in fact, they're coming to their trial".
Why do print media hold up a tape recorder when a politician speaks in the corridors of the House of Commons? -- When they are writing their stories, they want to make sure they get it accurate and they don't forget some of the details when writing their stories.Is it possible Grewal wanted to make sure he had evidence of the conversations since he knew his veracity would be challenged without any back up to his statements?
When some of the media had audio experts give their opinions on whether the copies of the tapes were altered, why didn't they verify at the same time if the people talking on the tapes were Grewal,Murphy and Dosanjh or was that a given? Obviously there are many recordings of the individuals available from previous interviews so they could match up the voices on the tapes they know with the voices on the Grewal tapes.
If they were the people talking on the tape, then the issue should be the 2 + hours of their talking about switching or abstaining than a couple of minutes or less of technical glitches. Apparently trying to reward someone for changing their vote wasn't that important to the media but it is to the way the country is governed.Political popularity with the media shouldn't interfere with obtaining the truth for Canadians.Spinning the major story to the minor story does not bode well for the credibility of the media.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, David Stewart Patterson, vice-president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, is critical of the government's budget deal with the NDP, stating, “it is nothing more than a postdated blank cheque that would give the cabinet blanket authority over a $4.5 billion slush fund”.
With over $26 billion in unbridled spending announcements, there seems to be money for everything except tax relief.
The Prime Minister's do anything, say anything, cling to power strategy will hurt Canada's competitiveness in the global market. The Prime Minister has cleverly sent his own tax bills offshore.
Having bought members of Parliament votes, when will he stop trying to buy Canadian voters with their own money and give them meaningful tax relief?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister, when he was the minister of finance, who introduced over $100 billion worth of tax reduction for Canadians.
In every budget since we balanced the books in 1997, the government has reduced the tax burden on Canadians. We have steadily moved down that burden in order to increase the competitiveness and the productivity of the Canadian economy, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Just ask Canadians if they think they are getting a fair tax deal, Mr. Speaker.
The limp deal-making Prime Minister promised the NDP to increase government spending in exchange for support for his corrupt government. Now the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is criticizing his recklessness with the finances of the nation. The chamber says, “The government has done a complete flip-flop. Despite the importance of having a competitive tax structure...the government's focus has turned away from tax reform”.
Like so many of his previous red book reversals, why has the Prime Minister again abandoned his commitment to future tax relief for Canadians to preserve his own political future?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, even with the revisions proposed with respect to Bill C-48, there remains over $7 billion worth of tax reductions in Bill C-43, particularly aimed at lower and middle income Canadians.
I would point out that Bill C-48 itself calls for the government to avoid a deficit. It calls for the federal budget to be in surplus. It calls for $2 billion per year to be applied on debt paydown. That is all consistent with the fundamental principles of fiscal responsibility.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is having nightmares about the Prime Minister's excessive spending. Its president, Catherine Swift, said, “Such irresponsible pre-election spending is a blatant breach of the commitment on financial prudence.”
Why has the Prime Minister engaged in this bout of reckless spending that could result in a significant tax increase for Canadians?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the difference in spending that is contemplated in Bill C-48 works out to about a 1% difference in profile. That spending is devoted toward more affordable housing, toward more post-secondary education, toward a cleaner environment and toward enhanced foreign aid. All those things are in perfect sync with what Canadians want.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister's chief of staff, whose conversations are not subject to the ethics commissioners' inquiry, negotiated at length with the member for Newton—North Delta and that a criminal offence may possibly have been committed during those negotiations.
On June 2 in this House, the Deputy Prime Minister answered as follows: “It is quite clear that the only thing the Prime Minister knew was that in fact the member for Newton—North Delta had approached our side of the House, interested in leaving the official opposition.”
Did the Prime Minister also know that a criminal offence might have been committed during the negotiating back and forth between his chief of staff and the member for Newton—North Delta?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I believe we ought to follow the recommendation read by the Speaker of the House concerning the request from the ethics commissioner.
All I can tell you is that, according to the experts who have examined these tapes, we are dealing with altered tapes. Their credibility, along with that of the member for Newton—North Delta, is open to question.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we did in fact consult the Speaker of the House as to whether we could ask questions about Mr. Murphy. For the Prime Minister's information, the answer was yes.
My question is, therefore, justified and I will ask it again. Did Mr. Murphy notify the Prime Minister that a criminal offence had been committed? Mr. Murphy's line of defence in support of the fact that there was apparently no actual offer was that the member had approached them about selling his vote. That is his line of defence.
Was the Prime Minister informed by Mr. Murphy that an MP wanted to sell his vote? That is the question. I have the right to ask it and he has the duty to answer it.
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is basing his questions on tapes that have been proven by many audio experts to have been manipulated. Mr. Jack Mitchell, the forensic sound expert hired by the Globe and Mail, said:
These tapes have been edited. This is not a maybe. This is not something that's unexplained. This is not, “Oh, this is odd”. This is a definitive statement. The tapes have been edited.
That is what the hon. member is basing his questions on, on tapes that have in fact been edited as has been stated by experts.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is based on these same tapes that Tim Murphy contends he made no offer, but that requests were made, which is an offence under the law. That is Mr. Murphy's version. The Deputy Prime Minister responded last Thursday that Mr. Murphy had never told the Prime Minister there were requests constituting a criminal offence.
I would ask the Prime Minister whether what the Deputy Prime Minister told me is true, that is, that Mr. Murphy never informed him? Let him answer me. It is his duty.
¸ (1430)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon. leader of the Bloc Québécois what I said. I said the Prime Minister was aware that the member in question was interested in crossing the floor. The Prime Minister at that point made it absolutely clear that no offer was to be made.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, they are pretending to not understand. What I am saying is very clear. The Deputy Prime Minister says no offers were made. That is not the question.
Mr. Murphy said that there were requests to sell the MP's vote, which is a criminal offence. That is the version of Mr. Murphy, who is the Prime Minister's chief of staff. His principal advisor.
The Prime Minister has a duty to inform this House whether his chief of staff in fact informed him that a criminal offence was being committed. The question is clear. Let him answer it.
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very clear. He was aware that the member had said that he wanted to cross the floor. The member did not cross the floor, as we can see. The Prime Minister gave his chief of staff one instruction and that was to not make any offers. Frankly, if the hon. member has any information that he would like to provide to the RCMP then he should do exactly that........
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff uses the tape to support his comment that a reward was requested by an MP to cross the floor of the House. This sort of thing constitutes a criminal act.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Normally, when an officer as important as the Prime Minister's chief of staff is aware that a criminal act is being committed, he informs the Prime Minister.
Was the Prime Minister informed by his chief of staff that a criminal act—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is basing his question on tapes that have been proven by many audio experts to have been manipulated. I can quote from many. John Dooher, a forensic audio engineer hired by the CBC, said:
This sounds to me, not only that this is an edit, but an edit done with something very crude.
The hon. member is asking that people step aside based on a tape that has been altered, which is very clear from the information that has been provided. I would ask the hon. member that if he does have information that he wishes to provide, that he provide that information to the RCMP if he believes an investigation is required and the RCMP will decide.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is getting ridiculous. The Prime Minister's chief of staff based his remarks on the same tape when he said that a request was made by the member of Parliament and that no offer was made by the government.
If we believe the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who is basing his claim on the tape, should we not, based on that same tape, admit that this was a criminal act? The chief of staff himself said a criminal act was being committed. Did the Prime Minister's chief of staff inform the Prime Minister that a criminal act was being committed?
¸ (1440)
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, if the hon. member believes that he has information that should be relayed to the RCMP, the RCMP will decide whether an investigation is required. Other than that, I can only point to the fact that there are numerous audio experts, such as Randy Dash, an Algonquin College professor and sound engineer, who said:
It appears that, on one of the recordings, an edit could have been done. It sounds like an audio edit. I'm saying that based on the millions of audio edits I've done.
Mike Murphy said:
--definitely an obvious edit here. It cuts off in mid-sentence.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, as soon as we learned there was a potential criminal offence, as soon as we heard the remarks on television, we communicated with the RCMP.
My question to the Prime Minister is quite simple. I give Tim Murphy the benefit of the doubt. I am saying that Mr. Murphy must have told the truth and that no offer was made. However, he claims to have received a request from an MP wanting to sell his vote. That is the version given by his chief of staff. I am not making it up; this is his defence.
I am simply asking the Prime Minister the following question, and it is his duty to respond. Did Mr. Murphy inform him that an MP wanted to sell his vote, warning him that this was a criminal offence? Did he tell him—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the government in the House in Commons.
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the question the hon. member actually said he had called the RCMP and asked it to conduct an investigation. I would also suggest that if he has already done so, he should wait and see whether the RCMP does in fact launch an investigation.
If he has any further information to provide the RCMP, he should do exactly that. He felt confident enough to ask the RCMP to investigate, so now if he has any further information I would certainly invite him to provide it to the RCMP so that the RCMP can decide whether there is a basis on which to conduct an investigation or not.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking the Prime Minister to confirm what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, in other words that the Prime Minister knew simply that no offer had been made and that an MP wanted to cross the floor. When I asked her if Mr. Murphy had informed the Prime Minister that requests had been made, which constitutes an offence, she said no.
Can the Prime Minister confirm this? Otherwise, we are led to believe that he may have acted with his chief of staff and that he allowed the commission of a criminal offence. That is what we are led to believe.
[English]
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister was aware of was that the member had said he had wanted to cross the floor. The member did not cross the floor. The Prime Minister gave his chief of staff one instruction: to not make any offers.
There are serious questions being raised about the authenticity of the tapes and whether they were manipulated. I do not know why the hon. member cannot take yes for an answer. He can provide the information to the RCMP. He can pursue any further information with the RCMP. The RCMP will ultimately decide whether an investigation is actually warranted.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, business groups from across Canada have criticized the government's direction on fiscal policy.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council Chief Executives, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have all criticized the Liberal Party's spending extravaganza. All of these well-respected business groups warn that the government's actions are threatening our future economic growth and our standard of living.
Why have the concerns of these groups been ignored? Why have tax cuts for Canadians been thrown out the window in favour of the Liberal government's spending spree?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the tax reductions for individual Canadians continue to be a part of Bill C-43. In terms of two particular tax reductions with respect to corporations, they will be proceeded with by means of separate legislation.
I point out to the hon. gentleman that Canada has now the best fiscal record of any country in the G-7. We have accumulated over the last eight years the best fiscal performance of any Canadian government since 1867. That will continue to be the government's approach.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I remind the finance minister that those tax cuts amount to about $16 per Canadian.
The Prime Minister is growing more and more reckless with taxpayers' money. The voice of small businesses across Canada, the CFIB, has called the Prime Minister's spending nightmarish and irresponsible. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives stated last week, “Gimme, gimme, gimme does not qualify as a national economic strategy”.
Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the concerns of large and small businesses across the country? Why will he not admit that he has overspent this country for the next five years and overpledged and overpromised?
¸ (1435)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those very same groups have from time to time made a number of other representations. They have called for no deficit. That is the policy of the government. They have called for a continued paying down of debt. That is the policy of the government. They have called for support for things that will improve the competitiveness and the productivity of the country such as more investment in post-secondary education, and that too is the policy of the government...........
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we all knew that the Liberals made taxpayers pay millions in rent for a vacant building, but last week the public works minister admitted that the $100 million deal violated the Parliament act.
The violation carries a fine of $200 a day for the offending party, for a total of over $100,000 in fines. When will the government force its Liberal friend to pay up these fines to taxpayers?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we became aware of this situation, in fact, our department wrote to the company. The letter said specifically:
We would like to know...what arrangements...you have taken to ensure that you are in compliance with the Lease...Please inform us...of what corrective measures you have taken to arrange your affairs in such a way that you are not in breach of section 25.10 of the Lease.
Further, section 25 refers to section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Section 14 has been repealed and in fact there is a new code of conduct for senators. If the hon. member has any complaint to make in terms of a senator's code of conduct, he ought to contact the ethics commissioner in the Senate.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Is that not handy, Mr. Speaker? After the Liberals got caught breaking the law, they merely cancelled the law. Only days after, section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member said anything that was out of order. He did not say that a member of the House had broken the law.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: He did not say that either, but the hon. member might watch his code; he must avoid creating a disturbance in the House. I would invite him to continue with his question.
¸ (1455)
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, after the Liberals got caught breaking the law, they used a loophole to cancel the law. Handy, is it not? Only days before section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act forced them to stop paying rent to the Liberal-tied company, the Liberal cabinet just cancelled section 14, meaning that taxpayers will continue to pay big bucks.
Is it not true that the Liberal cabinet gave a $500,000 escape hatch to its Liberal friend with cancelling this law?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is an outrageous statement and the fact is--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services has the floor. I cannot hear a word he is saying.
Hon. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there is a new Senate code of conduct and section 14 has been repealed and supported by the Senate of Canada.
If the hon. member has a complaint or suspicion about the conduct of one of the senators, I would suggest he speak to some of his Senate colleagues who can make the complaint to the Ethics Commissioner on the floor of the House of Commons, many of whom support the new code of conduct and believe it is the appropriate way to deal with any of these types of issues in the Senate.
"It's time for the United States and all countries committed to winning the war on terrorism to tighten the slack on terrorism financing. We must insist that all identified terrorist financiers be put out of business. Only by making the penalties for terrorism financing clear and severe will other well-heeled supporters of terrorist groups be persuaded to stop funding them. We must also hold those responsible for administering charitable funds to the highest standards of accountability. There can be no impunity for permitting charitable funds to flow into the hands of terrorists. The Patriot Act and the Bank Secrecy Act provide considerable leverage to press financial institutions in other countries to fully implement high standards of due diligence and "know your customer" requirements. Getting them to do so would lessen the burden on our banks and facilitate the tracing of money flows through the international banking system. These were the goals laid out at the 2003 Evian G-8 summit and reconfirmed at the 2004 Sea Island summit. We must begin to realize them."
Blogroll Me!
