"These assumptions should be well-established in a newsroom committed to watchdog journalism:
* Watchdog reporting is essential to the value of the newspaper * We are a pit bull, not a poodle * Watchdog reporting is a daily event * Everybody has a stake * Collaboration: The work is co-owned * Watchdog journalism reporting is our franchise
News organizations interested in creating a watchdog culture should promote the following values:
* Fairness, truth-telling * Trust but verify * Collaboration between editors and reporters * Smart risk-taking * Transparency in newsroom and with readers * Learning from failure * A sense of urgency * Intellectual honesty * Setting a specific goal and assigning it a high priority * Hiring investigative editors and reporters * Caring about your community"
"Beijing's increasingly close ties with Moscow and Tehran will thwart Washington's foreign policy goal of expanding US security footholds in the Middle East, Central Asia and Asia. However, the primacy of economic stability will most likely prevent a proxy-style military confrontation, in Iran or North Korea, between China and the US."......
"In early spring 2002, American intelligence agents tipped off authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina that something wasn't quite right with the "Benevolence International Foundation." Their reaction was swift; special forces stormed eight offices of the Islamic foundation in Sarajevo and in Zenica. They found weapons and explosives, videos and flyers calling for holy war. More importantly, however, they discovered a computer with a mysterious file entitled "Tarich Osama" -- Arabic for "Osama's Story."
After printing out the file -- close to 10,000 pages worth -- the intelligence experts quickly realized they had stumbled upon a true goldmine. They were looking at nothing less than the carefully documented story of al-Qaida"..................
"With the exception of balancing the budget, the former prime minister, ably assisted by his finance minister, routinely put off until tomorrow decisions that should have been made yesterday. Along with leaving the provinces to cope with impoverished health and education, three successive Liberal majorities left essentially untouched problems stretching from a military in steep decline to a rising democratic deficit.
Ottawa responded then much the same way it's responding now: Knowing controversial decisions are politically charged, and in the absence of credibility as well as public trust, it unloads its responsibilities on others."
Well aware of the demographics of an aging population( and aging doctors and nurses) they decided to cut off funding for spaces in med and nursing schools a number of years ago in order to save money.Consequently there is a shortage of doctors and nurses today- what a surprise. Knowing what we know now about the way certain monies were bandied about, they couldn't find $50- $100/yr million to make sure there were sufficient doctors coming out of med schools?Meanwhile they toss out figures like $41 billion for healthcare.Compared to this ,$50 million would have been a drop in the bucket to maintain a certain consistency in the number of doctors available.
For additional background, here are some reports.There are no shortages of Reports in Ottawa , just action.Reports are a good way for stalling for time.One really didn't need reports to know there was a shortage of doctors and nurses and hence the waiting times would grow.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no one in Canada is more responsible for the declining state of health care than the Prime Minister. The unilateral cuts to health care that he inflicted a decade ago do not come close to a fix for a generation that he boldly proclaimed last September.
Dr. Albert Schumacher, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said that the financial commitment was not nearly enough to provide the kind of quality health care patients deserve.
While the Prime Minister waits for his generational fix to kick in, what should Canadians do about their personal, lengthy wait times for surgical procedures, just pull out their credit cards like he does?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister provided an additional $41 billion last year to ensure there is strong health care in Canada over the next 10 years.
The members on the opposition benches have spliced out their own history on health care. They cut out the fact that they left Canada as a financial basket case and a candidate for the third world. They spliced out the fact that they called for deeper spending cuts, and are trying to erase the fact that they have been the strongest enemies of the Canada Health Act and the greatest champions of health care privatization.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence had to say:
To save our medical system, we must embrace new ideas, such as allowing a separate, parallel, private system to augment and enhance our public system.
The Supreme Court said that as a result of wait lists, patients in Canada are dying. The Liberal government's cuts caused the crisis in health care, the loss of doctors and nurses, and the growth of private health care clinics. Wait times doubled on the Prime Minister's watch.
Did the Prime Minister not foresee the growth in private health care as a result of his cuts or is it, as Sheila Copps said recently, that the Prime Minister's hidden agenda was to have a two tier health care system?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will read the hidden agenda. The Leader of the Opposition said in 2002:
Our health care will continue to deteriorate unless Ottawa overhauls the Canada Health Act to allow the provinces to experiment with more market reforms and private health-care delivery options.
That party is the enemy of health care. It is that party that wants to privatize health care.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is what the foreign affairs minister had to say about private health care:
If some provinces want to experiment with private delivery options, my view is that as long as (provinces) respect the single, public payer, we should be examining these efforts and then compare notes between the provinces.
He went on to say:
I'm saying that the Canada Health Act does not preclude delivery of services by private elements as long as there is a single public payer.
This is a government member, a minister of the Prime Minister's own government, saying that we are going down that road. How does he explain this basic, blatant hypocrisy within his own government?
Á (1120)
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said this many times and obviously the opposition does not remember. In September 2004 all of the first ministers individually signed a health care accord. That provided $41 billion in new additional money over the next 10 years to ensure that the kind of privatization that members opposite are looking for does not continue to happen in Canada, does not happen in Canada, and that we make our health care system stronger than ever for all Canadians.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Canadians in the past have been most proud of is their public health care system. In fact, every survey in the last 40 years says this is one of the things that helps define them as Canadians. Liberal cuts all the way through the 1990s have jeopardized this. That is why we are in this situation today, where the public health care system has been jeopardized by Liberal cuts.
Will Liberals get up now and apologize for all those cuts, and for threatening one of Canada's cherished institutions?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this from the sanctimonious opposition which in 1995 actually wanted deeper cuts than were made by the then finance minister. Those cuts had to be made. The government was compelled to make those cuts because when the opposition was in government, it left this country in the shape of a banana republic.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that group of people loves to quote other people. Let me quote the Prime Minister. He said, “For too many Canadians, care delayed is care denied”. It is too bad he did not do anything about it in all those years when he could have. Now all the Liberals' huffing and puffing is not going to change the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Why do they not just get up and admit that they didn't fix it for a generation, but may have screwed it up for a generation?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, using the words of the member who just stood up, they not only screwed up health care, they also had screwed up the economy when this government took over in 1993.
The fact is the 2003 accord provided $21 billion additional and the accord in 2004 provided $41 billion additional. We are on our way to setting benchmarks. We are on our way to setting comparable indicators. We are on our way to expanding home care. We are on our way to training more health care professionals in Canada. We are on our way to including more international medical graduates so that--.......
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): More talk, no action, Mr. Speaker. Over the past several weeks we have been so busy looking at a single tree that we have ignored the rest of the corrupt forest.
Why does the government continue to ignore and not answer questions on why the Prime Minister's chief of staff and right-hand man was involved in an illegal vote buying scheme to keep the Prime Minister in control of the public purse?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated quite clearly in the House yesterday that he and everyone who worked in the Prime Minister's office would cooperate fully with the Ethics Commissioner in terms of his work.
That is on the record, and I do not see where the problem is.
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals can sing and dance anywhere they want, but it is what is on tape that matters.
It appears that some of the most senior members of the government are involved in unethical and illegal behaviour. Yet they continue to ignore the questions and deflect blame on adversaries.
If the Prime Minister, his chief of staff and one of his senior ministers were actually aware that these actions were illegal, why did one of them not report it to the RCMP?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was not singing and dancing and I am sure the hon. member would not want to see me singing and dancing.
It is quite clear that the member for Newton—North Delta indicated he wanted to cross the floor. The Prime Minister was aware of that. The Prime Minister said that no offers were to be made. None were made and that is that.
If the member has any information that is contrary or additional to that, he is welcome to and he should send it over to the RCMP or to the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner and the RCMP will do what they have to do according to their mandate.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff and closest adviser, Tim Murphy, has gone into hiding as tapes of his illicit conversation with an opposition member have been fully released and fully authenticated.
Tim Murphy has offered no explanation, no documentation, nothing to dispute apparent Liberal offers to poach an opposition member's vote.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why Murphy's silent treatment? Is it a guilty conscience?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is someone who has gone into hiding, it is certainly not the Prime Minister's chief of staff. It may be someone else on that side of the House.
However, there is mention of tapes. I still wonder how these members subscribe to the theory of pristine tapes when five independent experts, not partisan experts, have testified that these tapes have been altered, doctored, spliced, sliced and reduced from four hours to two hours.
To ask for anybody to step aside on the basis of such tapes is ludicrous.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is time they updated their talking points. A leading audio expert has confirmed that the full recordings are “clean and unedited”. What is not clean is the Prime Minister's right-hand man, Tim Murphy, who apparently offered plum government positions to poach an opposition member for a crucial vote. The government will stop at nothing to stay in power.
Will the Prime Minister finally admit his right-hand man was caught red-handed in these recordings?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will admit to no such thing because it is not the truth.
The truth is the member for Newton—North Delta sought to cross the floor. The Prime Minister was aware of that. He advised his chief of staff and the Minister of Health not to make any offers. None were made.
Now those people would want the Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Minister of Health to step aside on the basis of tapes that have been doctored, spliced, sliced and shrunk from four hours to two hours. Even their partisan experts recognize that they have been tampered with.
* Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister could save everyone a lot of trouble and make the RCMP's job easier by simply answering our questions about the timing of when he became aware of a member of Parliament trying to sell his support.
Could the Prime Minister tell us why he is stubbornly refusing to answer this very simple question? When exactly did he learn that a member wanted to get something in return for supporting the government?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was informed of the intention of the member for Newton—North Delta to cross the floor of the House and join the Liberal caucus. He told his senior adviser and the Minister of Health that no offer was to be made, and none was made. If members opposite have any other information at this time, it should be provided to the RCMP, which will decide whether or not an investigation is required and will act accordingly.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member confirms that the Prime Minister was informed, but what we want to know is when.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by refusing to answer this very simple question, he is himself raising questions about what really happened in this matter?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was informed that the member for Newton—North Delta wanted to cross the floor of the House and join our caucus. He gave instructions that no offer was to be made to this member. No offer was made.
If the members opposite, who, incidentally, have already referred the matter to the RCMP, have anything else, they should contact the RCMP. In the meantime, they should let the RCMP do its job.
Child Care
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Development has admitted many times that the $5 billion promised for child care over the next five years represents only a tiny portion of the total cost anticipated. Using Quebec as a cost model, this national day care scheme could easily top $12 billion a year.
It is easy for the minister to wax poetically about the next great social program but Canadians want to know, overtaxed Canadians want to know, who does the minister expect to pick up the tab, the provinces, the municipalities or parents themselves?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, many years ago people decided to invest in education. They decided to invest in health care. They knew it was important. They knew it was going to matter a lot to Canadians in the present and to Canadians in the future.
What Canadians have an opportunity to do in an early learning and child care system is to decide for themselves, now and in the future, how important early learning and child care is for this country.
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, cash-strapped provinces and municipalities deserve to know what is further down the road on which the minister wants to take them.
I am glad he raised the issue of health care. When the Canada Health Act was introduced, Ottawa agreed to pay 50% of total health costs. Today that contribution has been slashed to less than 15%, mostly by the Prime Minister.
With the federal contribution starting at less than 10% for day care, how long until Ottawa totally abandons provinces and municipalities to carry the entire cost of this program themselves?
Hon. Ken Dryden (Minister of Social Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member that the commitment of $5 billion over five years represents an increase of 48% on what all governments are currently spending on child care in this country.
If we look at individual provinces, for the province of Ontario by the third year it will represent a 69% increase. For Saskatchewan it will be a 95% increase. For Nova Scotia it will be a 90% increase. For Newfoundland and Labrador it will be a 130% increase. For New Brunswick it will be a 132% increase.
Government Contracts
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when the minister admitted before committee that the Liberal rent for nothing scam broke the law and the lease, he used ignorance as the defence. No one in the government realized that the company's CEO had become a senator. Nice try, but not true.
Yesterday we learned that the Prime Minister's office reviewed the deal and decided that this Liberal friend should get his money even if it violated the law and broke the lease.
Why will the minister not just admit that this Liberal rent for nothing scam went right to the top of the Liberal Party?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is wrong in the same way that he was wrong when he said there was no contract prior to lease payments because there was an irrevocable contract going back to 2001, two years before lease payments began.
The fact is that the contract said that when the building was completed and ready to be moved into, the lease payments ought to begin. They did because the government honours its contracts and pays its bills.
The hon. member makes grievous errors every day on the floor of the House of Commons and he never says that he is sorry or that he is wrong.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am not sorry for exposing a scam that had taxpayers pay 10 months rent for nothing.
As part of the Liberal rent for nothing scam, the minister admits that his Liberal friend broke the law. His solution was to just cancel the law, but there is a glitch. He could not cancel the law retroactively, meaning the fines for the period of the infraction when the law was still in place still applied.
Next week I have a solution. I am bringing forward a motion that would force the government to collect the fines of $100,000-plus from its Liberal friend.
Will the Liberal government--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 2003, two years ago, the House passed a new code of ethics for the Senate. The fact is that part of that code of ethics involved the repeal of section 14.
The hon. member either does not understand parliamentary procedure or he is knowingly misleading people with these types of attacks on the other place.
Senate bashing was part of the old Reform-Alliance Party. Canadians did not buy it then and they do not buy it now. I would urge the hon. member to talk to his Conservative senators about some--
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said that she would speak very slowly for me. Today I am going to speak slowly for her because after 18 months on the job she still does not get it.
Her Liberal government is using taxpayer money to fund the Chinese government. The minister claims that this money is to set up a legal aid system, this in a country where people are tortured and disappear off the street. What good is legal aid when one cannot get a fair trial?
When will the minister stop giving money to communist China?
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the connections between a legal aid system and better protecting women and the poor, the connection between that kind of capability and exactly the point the member is trying to make is eluding her.
We are helping China build human rights. The manner in which we are doing that is through the very strong programs that we are running.
I will repeat this again. The Government of Canada is giving no money to the government of China. I hope that with this explanation she will be able to comprehend the situation.
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister should check her website for the description of the program she is talking about.
In March of this year, CIDA released a document entitled “Statistical Report on Official Development Assistance Fiscal Year 2003-2004”. On page 41 under the heading “Government to Government”, it states that China received over $33 million in total net disbursements from Canada.
Let me repeat that. CIDA says that it gives money directly to the Chinese government. Who is telling the truth and who is incompetent, the minister or her staff at CIDA?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I am sure the minister appreciates the continual help with her answers but we have to be able to hear the answer. The minister is seated very close to me and in spite of that I often cannot hear her during her answer. I would urge hon. members on the other side who are helping her to ease up and let us hear the answer.
The hon. Minister of International Cooperation has the floor.
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question was brought forward from the statistical analysis that has been described by the critic's predecessor. That question was answered by my department.
I will repeat very clearly for the House, for that party and for the people of Canada that the Government of Canada does not give money directly to the government of China through our development programs.
