Confidence in Newspaper and TV news at all time low

"Those having a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in newspapers dipped from 30% to 28% in one year, the same total for television. The previous low for newspapers was 29% in 1994. Since 2000, confidence in newspapers has declined from 37% to 28%, and TV from 36% to 28%, according to the poll."

Perhaps they should concentrate more on news and less on spinning stories in order to bring their numbers back up.When credibility is lost , it's tough to restore.

Panel votes to reduce funding for public broadcaster

Mark Steyn.......

"That's tougher than another spasm of feelgood agitprop aimed at that brave band of guilt-ridden Western liberals who got such a frisson out of wasting their money on the tsunami appeal they're itching to waste a ton more. (One quarter of all the tsunami aid sent to Sri Lanka has been sitting on the dock at Colombo since January, unclaimed and/or unprocessed. Maybe St Bob could do Sitting on the Dock of the Bay for his next charity single.)"

Duceppe will probably make his announcement on Monday

OECD:- Comparison of health data by country

Canada, for example..............

Health spending and financing

Total health spending accounted for 9.9% of GDP in Canada in 2003, more than one percentage point
higher than the average of 8.6% in OECD countries. Health spending as a share of GDP is lower in
Canada than in the United States (which spent 15% of its GDP on health in 2003), in Switzerland and
Germany (which allocated more than 11% of their GDP on health), and in Iceland, Norway and France
(which spent between 10.1-10.5% on health in 2003).
Canada also ranks above the OECD average in terms of total health spending per capita, with spending of
3003 USD in 2003 (adjusted for purchasing power parity), compared with an OECD average of 2307 USD.
Health spending per capita in Canada remains nonetheless much lower than in the United States (which
spent 5635 USD per capita in 2003) and in Norway and Switzerland (which spent about 3800 USD).
Between 1998 and 2003, health spending per capita in Canada increased in real terms by 4.2% per year on
average, a growth rate comparable to the OECD average of 4.5% per year. Following a period of strict
cost containment measures between 1992 and 1997, health expenditures in Canada has risen steadily since
1998, reflecting improvements in the budgetary situation of governments and deliberate policies to relieve
pressures which arose from earlier restraint measures...............

Tories' audio expert says Grewal tapes are clean

"An audio expert hired by the federal Conservative party says the final full versions of Gurmant Grewal's tapes have not been altered.

The Tories released a letter from audio engineer Randy Dash that says the tapes, which have been handed over to the RCMP, appear to be clean and unaltered."

the Multi Million dollar 9/11 insult

Victor Hanson

"We seem to enjoy the best of both worlds, symbolized by our two coasts that look on both east and west. Our European traditions ensure the rule of law and the vibrancy of Western civilization. Yet decades ago, unlike the EU, we understood the Asian challenge and kept our markets open and our economy free, often requiring great dislocation and painful adjustment. The result is that for all our bickering, we continue to remain competitive and flexible in a way Europe does not.

If we have avoided the state socialism of Europe that stymies growth, we have also already passed through all the contradictions of a breakneck capitalist transition — the dislocation of rural people, industrial pollution, unionization, suburban blues, ubiquitous graft, and petty bribery — that will increasingly plague both India and China as they leave the 18th century and enter the 21st."

MEMRI: This guy should be teaching fiction instead of history......

"Host: "You mean to say that the World Council of Churches delegated the mission of Christianizing of the world to the US."

Abd Al-Aziz: "Yes. And how could the US win legitimacy for this without anyone saying that they are perpetrating massacres and waging a Crusader war? It fabricated the 9/11 show. I call it a fabrication because much has been written on this. We are also to blame. Why do we accept a single perspective? Countless books were written, some of which were even translated into Arabic, like Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 – The Appalling Fraud [2] and Pentagate. "Pentagate" like Watergate… He brings documents to prove that the method used in destroying the three (sic) towers was "controlled demolition.

"This is an architectural engineering theory, which was invented by the Americans. They teach it in their universities. They make movies and documentaries about it. They incorporated it in movie scenarios and then carried it out in real life. Why do we accept this?"

Host: "My God, doctor. This is unbelievable! You're saying that this destruction…"

Abd Al-Aziz: "...was a controlled demolition. The building collapsed in its place, without hitting a single building to its left or right. The three towers fell in place."

Host: "In the same method they use in movies and plays?"

Abd Al-Aziz: "Yes, Exactly like that. That is how the US won international legitimacy. You could sense the (9/11) operation was pre-planned because many things were revealed in the days that followed. For example 4,000 Jews caught influenza on that exact day. They set a timer, and all 4,000…"

Host: "By God, you crack me up! They all set a timer and got influenza on the same day. So the building was completely empty of Jews."

Abd Al-Aziz: "Much has been written about this. 150 Congressmen demanded an inquiry."

Outsmarting the terrorists

"In America, some of our smallest freedoms are also some of our most cherished. The people of Iraq are beginning to experience privileges shared by citizens in democracies around the globe. The opportunity to invest money in the stock market, to send their children to school, to cheer their athletes in the Olympics, to fly domestically, to surf the Internet, to read independent news and to complain to their neighbors about their government leaders are all freedoms that are emerging in communities throughout Iraq.
The progress in Iraq is real. Our soldiers and the Iraqi people will continue to defeat the terrorists and establish a flourishing democracy. When I return to the country in the future, I'm certain I'll see more examples of the innovation and determination that exists today at "Bob's Truck Stop."

CIA didn't tell FBI about the 9/11 hijackers in the country

Iranian regime jamming satellite signals

Who's got the best face in politics?

Question Period- Hansard excerpts- June 9/05

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today's decision from the Supreme Court opens the door to further deterioration of the publicly funded health care system in Canada. The Canadian Medical Association stated, “medically necessary health care delayed is health care denied”.

Due to the cuts imposed by the Prime Minister for over a decade, Canadians' timely access to health care was the victim of political decisions of the Liberal government. As minister of finance, he was the architect of those cuts.

Further court actions could destroy the underpinnings of the Canada Health Act. What will the Prime Minister do to ensure that Canada's universally accessible, publicly funded health care system is preserved?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise as the leader of the party that brought medicare into being.

The focus of the Supreme Court decision was on wait times. That was what we brought forth during the election campaign and that was the principal subject of the federal-provincial conference which we convened.

At that time, we set out a wait times fund. We set out a human resources strategy. We set out national benchmarks and accountability by individual governments to their citizens. All this is because we want to maintain the publicly funded, universally accessible health care system.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the reality is the Prime Minister and that party brought medicare into peril. The Prime Minister himself may benefit from a parallel health system but most Canadians cannot.

Ten years ago the Prime Minister, then finance minister, took $25 billion out of the health care system. Downloading of costs to the provinces and increasing the wait times for patients are the direct result of his actions. The Prime Minister said that he brought in a health care fix for a generation. In reality, Canadians may suffer lengthy wait times for another generation to fix health care.

How could Canadians possibly believe the Prime Minister has solutions when he is the perpetrator of the problem?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate and really does not require a great deal of historical revisionism.

I happened to have been in the House when that member's party day after day stood up and said that the transfers to the provinces should be cut far greater than they were. Take a look at the scorched earth policy that his party recommended.

What we should now do is understand that we have a very complex decision. That complex decision should be debated, not be subject to the kind of catcalls that we now are hearing, the kinds of inane statements that we are hearing from the opposition.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a stranger to the truth. He knows he cut $25 billion from health care.

The Supreme Court's decision today says:

The evidence shows that, in the case of certain surgical procedures, the delays that are the necessary result of waiting lists increase the patient’s risk of mortality or the risk that his or her injuries will become irreparable.

Wait times have doubled under the Liberal government. There is no plan and with the Prime Minister's one-off deals with the provinces he has created the potential for a 10 tier system of private-public health care.

What will the Prime Minister do to address this patchwork system of health care for Canadians and how does he respond to Quebec's demands today?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has called a one-off province by province was an agreement for $41 billion over 10 years, signed by every province and territory. It is an agreement that sets out a detailed wait time strategy. It also demonstrates the absolute urgency of establishing the benchmarks. We have met with the Wait Times Alliance and the medical profession. There is a meeting going on now of deputy ministers of health to deal with this very urgent problem of wait times..........

¸ (1420)

Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, under 12 years of Liberal rule, the health care system has deteriorated. The Prime Minister, who goes to a private Montreal clinic, does not care that wait times have doubled for the average Canadian.

Today's landmark court decision is an indictment of the Liberal neglect and mismanagement. Will the Prime Minister admit that the Liberals have seriously damaged the health care system?

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should remember that there was a meeting of all first ministers in September 2004. An additional $41 billion was provided over the next 10 years. He should also remember Roy Romanow said at that time that the money far exceeded his recommendations.

We have put in place issues around benchmarks, comparable indicators, a national pharmaceutical strategy and expansion of home care. This is an overhaul of our system to make it better.

Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member remembers anything. We have heard health care promises from the Liberals for 12 years. They have had a record of broken promises. They have not fixed wait times and no one believes they ever will.

The court has stepped in because of a decade of Liberal mismanagement. Will the government simply admit that it is the Liberal mismanagement that brought us to this point today?

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my memory is neither erased, nor doctored, nor spliced. What the hon. member should remember is that we have provided more than enough money and resources across the country to make our health care system-.................

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this government is claiming that Quebec does not have a two-tier system. The Supreme Court ruling is again sounding the alarm we first raised in this House. There is, for instance, a private clinic in Gatineau where patients can pay only with VISA. Operating rooms in Montreal are up for bids, and patients can be operated on sooner if they can pay.

This is my question for the Prime Minister. If this is not two-tiered medicine, than what is it?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our objective is to have the best public, accessible and universal system possible, which is why we called the federal-provincial conference. That is why we invested in excess of $41 billion over 10 years. That is why, in conjunction with the provinces, we created an entire strategy to reduce waiting times. That strategy is to increase the number of physicians and nurses, and to create a $4.5 billion fund, strictly with a view to reducing waiting times.

[English]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is some history and some facts to be corrected here. The fact is that medicare was brought to this House by Tommy Douglas not in a minority government but through the NDP.

Also, there is not a single word in the health accord of last fall to stop two tier medicine in Canada. There are clinics operating in Vancouver and Toronto where a person has to pay $2,300 just to get started. In Alberta it is $600 for an MRI. In Quebec now, people can get an operation faster if they pay.

Are those not examples of two tier medicine? Why will the government not actually act to stop it?

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have written to several of the provinces where there are clinics that are operating possibly in contravention of the Canada Health Act.

I want the hon. member to know it is not the words that stopped two tier from development. It is the money and the resources which we have provided over the next 10 years, $41 billion for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, $4.5 billion of that to reduce wait times across the country.

Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner's mandate is to administer the Prime Minister's conflict of interest code for public office holders. Public office holders are defined as “a person other than a public servant who works on behalf of a minister”. This definition would include the Prime Minister's chief of staff, and Mr. Murphy has in the past filed reports with the Ethics Commissioner stating he has complied with the code.

The Prime Minister refused to contact the authorities, on one hand, and on the other hand, the Ethics Commissioner says he cannot investigate the chief of staff.

Just who is responsible then for the unethical behavioural of ministerial staff?

¸ (1430)

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that I have said right from the very beginning that my staff and I will corroborate fully. We want all the facts to come out. Nothing will be held back. We will work completely in any way, shape or form that the Ethics Commissioner requests.

Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would agree it appears that they do not hold anything back in getting votes.

Tim Murphy has filed conflict of interest compliance reports with the Ethics Commissioner as recently as May 31, 2005.

In the Prime Minister's message attached to the conflict of interest code, he states, “Our government must uphold the public trust to the highest possible standard, and this responsibility falls uniquely on all of us as public office holders”.

As the holder of the highest public office in Canada, does the Prime Minister believe that having his ministers and his chief of staff discuss illegal vote buying schemes is upholding the public trust to the highest possible standard?

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said, the Prime Minister was informed that the member for Newton—North Delta wanted to cross the floor. The Prime Minister said that no offer was to be made. The hon. member did not cross the floor and no offer was made. In fact, as the Prime Minister said, the government will cooperate fully with the Ethics Commissioner.

The difficulty with the member opposite is that he cannot accept yes for an answer.........

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the health minister and the chief of staff of the Prime Minister were caught red-handed trying to buy votes in order to save that corrupt government.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast, I am sure, has heard my admonitions in respect of discussion on these matters in the House. Given the Ethics Commissioner's investigation and the letter I received from him, I have given two admonitions on this subject. I would have thought the hon. member would have paid very close attention to both. I think he knows that while he may get away with mentioning one of the names he mentioned, the other is out of order. He will want to confine his remarks and be very careful in what he says.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, what I would like is for the immigration minister to be careful in what he says, because having tried and failed to buy the support of a member of the opposition, the government's approach is then to try to destroy that person. The immigration minister then speculates about deporting that member.

Does threatening to deport a member of Parliament whom the Liberals have failed to buy not reflect more the politics of a banana republic than a modern democracy like Canada?

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I find really unfortunate is that the member gets up every day and smears members' reputations in the House and does a disservice to this institution itself.

I find it unbelievable that the member, along with the leader of the official opposition, continues to make assertions based on tapes that have been proven by numerous audio experts to have been manipulated, and not only supports the member, but according to reports, actually condones the taping by the member for Newton—North Delta.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that member stepped aside from his parliamentary responsibilities until this matter is clarified. Why have Liberals not taken similar responsibility?

What we want to know is this: Is it not profoundly irresponsible of the immigration minister to publicly speculate about deporting an elected member of the House of Commons for the crime of not being buyable by the Liberal Party of Canada?

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what type of tea the hon. member has been drinking.

I have already said in scrums that I have removed myself from any consideration of that member's case, in part because it has now become a specific case and in part because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I have already submitted something to the Ethics Commissioner on another related matter. I have, in the process, said I will remove myself from any consideration.

Most people went to lunch an hour ago; the hon. member is obviously still there........

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP are outraged with the Liberals on the one hand and prop them up on the other.

Bill C-48 is now before the finance committee. The Conservative Party has asked that the ministers responsible for foreign aid, housing, infrastructure, post-secondary education and the environment appear before the committee to explain how the money would be spent. Seven ministers in all and they all refused to come. We asked for officials to come and they also all refused.

Is this not just an admission that Bill C-48, the NDP budget deal, is so poorly designed that the government cannot even defend it?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for other ministers but I know I am scheduled to appear before the committee. I think it is on Monday or Tuesday. I will be happy to be there and go through all the details of Bill C-48 with any of my cabinet colleagues who would care to attend with me.

The fact is that this is good legislation. It is delivering on important commitments. I hope the opposition party will ultimately support it.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is great that the leader of the NDP has allowed the minister to come before the committee.

We want to point to the Auditor General's report when it talked about the sponsorship program. She said, “We would have expected the government to provide Parliament with at least a description of the program and its objectives”.

None of that is in Bill C-48. This is an expenditure of $4.6 billion and yet the government refuses to bring forward the minister who would actually have to implement the bill.

Is this not just an admission that the government cannot stand scrutiny on Bill C-48?

¸ (1450)

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is absolutely false. In fact, there are ministers who have already agreed to appear before the committee. The committee is the master of its own destiny. If it is going to request that ministers appear before the committee, they will.

In fact, I know that ministers would be very pleased to go in front of the finance committee and defend not only in form but to convince the Conservatives to support the legislation because it provides additional money to post-secondary education, affordable housing and foreign aid. It is good policy and they should support it.....

Public Safety

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a drug trafficking ring has been uncovered in the Eastern Townships. At the same time, the Liberals are seeking to decriminalize cannabis and open the door to organized crime. In addition, this government keeps reducing the budgets for the RCMP and border security.

When will this government recognize that withdrawing RCMP officers is a threat to our safety and encourages drug traffickers?

[English]

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a great example of the success of the reorganization of the RCMP. The RCMP was reorganized in the province of Quebec to work more closely with the sûreté and more effectively with the sûreté on national law enforcement issues. Clearly, drug interdiction is one of those.

This speaks to the kind of partnership among the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec and the Drug Enforcement Administration. It is a wonderful example of how law enforcement agencies should work together to keep people safe.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful example of how easy it is to get grass across the border and how hard it is to get cows across the border with the government in charge of things.

As a result of this drug bust, weapons, hundreds of thousands of dollars and even a helicopter were recovered, all to be used in the export of drugs. This activity heightens the fears of law-abiding Canadians.

Organized crime continues to grow. Rather than sit on organized crime, the government continues to sit on its hands.

When will the minister recognize the importance of a stronger Canadian border and the role it plays in combating organized crime?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since September 11, 2001, the government has recognized the importance of that border. We do not want the border to be a barrier to low risk goods and people, but we do want to work together with our American counterparts. This is why we have put in some $9.5 billion since that tragic day on September 11, to ensure that we are able to work in partnership so the border is not a barrier and we are able to identify those who may be a risk and those goods which may be a risk.........

Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to its own documents the government gave at least $33 million to the government of China last year. Sadly, this came as a surprise to the minister when she was shown the information. What is more shocking for Canadians are reports that a Chinese spy network has been operating in Canada. This news comes several months after CSIS warned of this activity, yet the federal government has done nothing about it.

Has the government discussed the issue with Chinese officials?

¹ (1500)

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we take those who would do harm to this country, either here or abroad, very seriously. I want to reassure everyone in the House that we do everything we can to ensure that we deal with those who might do harm or involve themselves in economic or industrial espionage.

Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know when the government will start standing up for human rights. It has been 16 years since the Tiananmen Square massacre and human rights in China have yet to improve. China has the world's largest army, the world's second largest economy, nuclear weapons, and 700 missiles pointed at Taiwan.

When will the minister stop giving money to the undemocratic and repressive communist Chinese government?

Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will answer really slowly, so the hon. member and new critic can understand. I explained to her predecessor and I explained it very well, so that most people in the House and in committee were able to understand. The government does not give money directly to the government of China.

Instead, we work with a valuable partner such as the Canadian Bar Association in building governance and in building the very basis of human rights that the member wants us to do. In that regard, we are building just the rules-based society that we need with a very important partner like China.

* * *

[Translation]

Take back the Memorial