Seems like the government is always trying to do what's best for criminals rather than protecting honest Canadians

Senator Lieberman..........

"It is no surprise to my colleagues that I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power – a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face.

I am grateful to the American military for the extraordinary bravery and brilliance of their campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. I know we are safer as a nation, and to say the obvious that the Iraqi people are freer as a people, and the Middle East has a chance for a new day and stability with Saddam Hussein gone. "

Andrew McCarthy...........

"American soldiers are sitting ducks in an urban guerrilla war. They follow the laws of war. They wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly. Thus the terrorist enemy knows exactly whom to kill. And he kills in stealth. These enemies are not the Nazis. They are not coming at our guys donned in military array, or in tanks festooned with swastikas. They look exactly like the people our troops are trying to protect. They murder by sneaking up close. They murder by improvised explosive devices hidden in soda cans, or bushes, or cars, or on the booby-trapped bodies of the dead.

We don't know who they are or from which way they come. This is not a traditional foe. We can't conquer his territory. He doesn't have one. He's a nomad who trains in secret then sets up shop among innocents only long enough to kill. We can only desperately seek him out. We can only hope to kill or capture him before he uses the honor of true soldiers against them — before he converts to his advantage their moment's hesitation, borne of dedication to a code that war is to be fought between warriors, not by opening fire on non-combatants.

Superior force and discipline are not enough against this adversary. We need intelligence. Intelligence is the single asset that stands between the terrorist and scores — if not more — of slaughtered civilians. Between the terrorist and murdered American military personnel. In the war on terror, as in no war before it, intelligence will be the difference between victory and defeat."

A lot of interesting information at this site including Town Hall transcript-bookmark

More here


Still no national securities regulator after about 10 years

linked words in text

Fact checking the Old Grey Lady........

They can prepare budgets but can they respect taxpayers' money?-well there was about $2billion down the gun registry black hole.......

which didn't do a thing to stop gunslingers from using handguns across the country.

Congress is supposed to send a clear message on internet governance tonight

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the budget....

Michael Yon- sometimes the right thing actually gets done

Promises in a budget are only as good as the people making the promise..............

"1. You pay into a pension fund with the understanding that the money will be held safely and will be re-distributed to retirees. You do not pay into a pension fund so the money can be diverted into the general coffers of the federal government.

2. On top of taking the surplus away, the employer is now saying that employees need to contribute more to maintain the reserve and that they will cut back their share of the contribution. This adds insult to injury.
3. Other things could have been done with the surplus for the benefit of the active and retired pension plan members rather than the benefit of the federal government’s bottom line. For example, benefits could have been raised for current and future retirees or a cushion could have been created to protect workers and retirees from future economic fluctuations and increases in contributions.

4. The pension surplus grab is another example of the way the federal government operates.

• They use taxpayers’ money to advance their political goals, instead of protecting the interests of their citizens.

• They must be shown that accountability is what taxpayers demand, a message this scandal-ridden government should have been hearing loud and clear.

5. Besides its legal obligations, the employer has an ethical obligation towards its active and retired employees. Plan members contributed a great deal to the surplus, so they should at least be entitled to part of it based on their contributions. But the Government is taking all of it, which, in effect, is stealing money from its active and retired employees.

6. Public sector pension plan members should not be treated differently from private sector members.

• How much outcry would there be if a private company would take money from a pension fund to pay off the company’s debts?

• In fact, there have been court cases, such as those against Conrad Black and Monsanto, that have ruled against employers expropriating pension plan surpluses."

Trust them with your money one more time ?

"Federal unions representing more than 300,000 public servants are in court today for their unprecedented lawsuit against the government to repay the $30 billion it siphoned from workers' pension plans to pay down the deficit."

Non confidence vote 101.................

"In an effort to avoid a Christmas election campaign and pass some politically sensitive legislation, all three parties are set to support a motion designed by Layton asking Prime Minister Paul Martin to call an election in the first week of January for mid-February. A traditional six week campaign would mean an election date of Monday, February 13.

That motion was supposed to be voted on on the Conservative's opposition day on Tuesday, but the Liberals are refusing to give unanimous consent for it to go forward without the required notice. It appears more likely the NDP motion will be presented on the Bloc's opposition day on Thursday. Tuesday will be spent debating a Conservative motion expanding the scope of the Access to Information Act.

If Martin ignores the recommendation, then the three opposition parties will vote the following Tuesday on another motion expressing non-confidence in the government. Such a vote would force the prime minister to call an election. Under this scenario, the earliest election date would be Tuesday, January 3, or the first business day of the year." ...........

Manna from heaven ? They pulled $20 billion from the military, promised to put back $13 Billion over 5 years with the bulk coming in years 4 & 5

It's the usual sleight of hand.When dealing with budgets, you have to make sure they are wearing short sleeves when dealing the cards.Elect us now and we'll maybe give you some of your money back down the road.It's a matter of trust and when it comes to your wallet better keep a close eye on the track record of those trying to pilfer it.Especially when they appoint people that can't pay $1.29 out of their own pocket for a pack of gum.

Free agents- intelligence

Update on PajamasMedia. -it'll keep MSM on their toes and that's not a bad thing

"You really can't prevent every kind of error," Simon elaborated. "The difference is, corrections will immediately come up on the front page [of Pajamas Media], as opposed to the mainstream media, where you need three Talmudic scholars to find the correction."

[pajamas media]

Daniel Pipes..........

Crime's down??- click on - media releases........

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO CONFIRMS PUBLIC ON THE SIDE
OF THE POLICE
(Toronto, ON) – The Police Association of Ontario (PAO), representing over
30,000 front-line police personnel, commissioned a public opinion poll conducted
by Innovative Research Group. The poll is released today in conjunction with the
PAO’s Annual Legislative Day at Queen’s Park, which brings together police
association representatives and MPP’s to discuss community safety issues. Over
one hundred police association representatives from across Ontario will be at
Queen’s Park today to meet with their MPP’s.
In releasing the polling results, PAO President Bob Baltin states, “This poll
demonstrates that members of the public believe that public safety is a priority
issue. Increasing fear of crime, inadequate funding for police services and a lax
court and parole system are all cited as key factors in people’s growing sense of
unease in their community”.
The complete poll is available on the PAO web site at www.pao.on.ca under
Media Releases. Some of the highlights include:
q Over half (51%) of Ontarians expect that they or a family member will
have property stolen as a result of a break-in within the next five years.
q More Ontario residents than a year and one-half ago feel they or a family
member will be physically attacked in the next five years, up 6 points to
32%.
q An overwhelming majority (80%) say that gun violence has worsened in
the past five years.
q Four-out-of-five (81%) Ontarians continue to believe that funding for
police services is one area that should not be cut back despite budget
deficits.
q In fact, a clear majority (58%) of Ontarians believe that municipal
governments should increase funding for police services.
q A decisive 93% of those polled agree that Canadian laws and eligibility for
parole should be toughened to make persons convicted of crimes of
violence and gun crimes more accountable for their actions.
PAO Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Miller added, “The poll results are
consistent with what our members from across the province will be saying when
they meet with their MPP’s today. Violent crime is a problem and the best way to
combat it is to ensure that police have the proper resources they need including
provisions that ensure that violent offenders are dealt with harshly by the
courts”.
- 30 -
For more information contact:
Bruce Miller
Chief Administrative Officer
Police Association of Ontario
Bus: 905-670-9770
Cell: 416-707-3923
For polling methodology contact:
Greg Lyle
Managing Director
Innovative Research Group Inc.
Bus: 416-642-6429

Captain ED reflects on the election goodies

PJMEDIA -Launch Day just around the corner

[PJMedia]

Election-budget= coincidence?

To wit: "You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Bribing the public with their own money-This tripe from the crew that hammered seniors by

"still taxing seniors over 75 after having dutifully paid their taxes for 50 years while
their incomes haven't gone up, in fact if they had any savings , they've been getting about 2% on their savings down over 50% from what they got about 4 years ago.Yet their expenses have gone up-property taxes, home heating bills are higher, gas prices are up-in other words people who helped build the country have had their standard of living
decrease while the government's cronies lived high off the hog.One had the audacity to stiff the taxpayers for $1.29 for a pack of gum that he could have paid for out of his own $277,000/yr pocket, but didn't.That $1.29 attitude will be high on taxpayers' minds in the coming election."

A chicken in every pot............

UN needs to actually reform not just pretend to reform

"During a luncheon with reporters and editors at The Washington Times, U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton said repeatedly that the Bush administration requires nothing less than "a revolution of reform" at the world body, encompassing everything from U.N. Security Council engagement to management changes to a focus on administrative skills in choosing the next secretary-general.
The United Nations, he said, "has got to be a place to solve problems that need solving, rather than a place where problems go, never to emerge."

Hansard excerpts- Question Period-Nov.14,2005

Sponsorship Program

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery's report has clearly established that there was a culture of kick-backs and corruption in the Liberal Party of Canada. Justice Gomery has said that the Liberal Party, as an institution, is inevitably responsible for the wrongdoings of its executive and representatives.

There are still $40 million not yet accounted for. When will the Prime Minister institute proceedings against the Liberal Party of Canada in order to locate those missing millions?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the Gomery report said is that there were individuals who had done inappropriate things and that the Liberal Party as an institution was responsible for these individuals. After the report was released, the government handed the document to the RCMP, so that it might look at these responsibilities at its discretion. We acted exactly as we should have in connection with the small group named by Justice Gomery.

[English]

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister were serious about holding people responsible, getting those millions, he would go after the Liberal Party. He has said that he wants to run on that.

The Privy Council Office has received an “F” from the Information Commissioner for the Prime Minister's first year in office. The commissioner said, “There are so many major deficiencies that a significant departmental effort is required to deal with their resolution”.

I am asking the Prime Minister about his own office. It has been almost two years. Why has he failed to deal with the aspect of the democratic deficit in his own office?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the PCO or any government department will certainly conform to the law and all questions of access to information.

* * *
David Dingwall

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will ask a third question.

David Dingwall was apparently promised a severance when he resigned from the Mint. Everyone knows people normally do not get a severance when they quit their job, but Dingwall apparently is entitled to it.

Could the Prime Minister give us an update on the negotiations between the government and David Dingwall? Does he think David Dingwall will get paid before an election is called?

¸ (1420)

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dingwall retired because he said that it was in the interests of the Mint. As for matters of legal obligation, these are under discussion between lawyers. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that he is to receive the legal minimum.

* * *
Sponsorship Program

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here is another one that hits close to home.

Seats were won by Liberals who received stolen sponsorship money, yet they cannot be touched under election laws because the time to investigate and the time to charge has expired.

The sum of $8,000 in ad scam cash was used to pay campaign expenses of the Prime Minister's principal secretary, Hélène Scherrer. Her reward for being a losing Liberal candidate was that she was entitled to an appointment to one of the highest paid positions in the PMO.

Why is Mme Scherrer still in this position in the Prime Minister's Office? When will the Prime Minister take action to punish those who used dirty money to win elections in Canada?

[Translation]

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to repeat those same words outside this House. His statement that Hélène Scherrer got $8,000 is a total falsehood, and he knows it.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member might want to learn that he has to answer questions in the chamber. There is nothing like the enthusiasm of a recent convert.

Justice Gomery's report says that there is over--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Central Nova appreciates all the advice and assistance, but I cannot hear the hon. member. Somebody will get a question and may want to hear it so a response can be given. The hon. member for Central Nova has the floor.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery reports that over $40 million is still unaccounted for. The Prime Minister nor his justice minister cannot credibly say that the agreement between the Liberal Party and the Liberal government to pay back the paltry $1.14 million, to which they have committed, was all the stolen money that came from Canadian taxpayers, stolen by his party.

When will the Prime Minister sue the Liberal Party of Canada to get a judicial determination of the full amount that his party stole, pay back every red--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every penny that was received by the Liberal Party inappropriately has been repaid to the Canadian taxpayer. Beyond that, we based that analysis on the facts in Justice Gomery's report. We know the Conservative Party and the Bloc have been pulling numbers out of the air in terms of what the appropriate figure is. We prefer to base our analysis on the facts in Justice Gomery's report.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his report on the sponsorship scandal, Justice Gomery wrote, and I quote, “Treasury Board no longer considers its oversight function to be an important part of its overall responsibilities”.

As for Jean Chrétien, speaking of the sponsorship program, he said he had instructed the Treasury Board to conduct the appropriate audits and it was confirmed to him on several occasions that he had nothing to worry about.

My question is very simple. Is it true that the Prime Minister, who was vice-chair of the Treasury Board at the time, was instructed by Jean Chrétien to report? If so, is it true that his answer to Jean Chrétien was that he had nothing to worry about?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is frivolous and unfounded. I can say, as I have said previously, that in my opinion, there were deficiencies at Treasury Board at the time. These are precisely the deficiencies that the President of the Treasury Board addressed through reforms.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, he admits that there were deficiencies. As vice-chair, he could have acted earlier.

Second, my question is simple. Jean Chrétien said that he instructed the minister responsible for the Treasury Board to audit the sponsorship program. On several occasions, he was assured that there were no problems. This is a very simple question. That statement was made after the Gomery report was published.

Is it true that the Prime Minister, who was vice-chair of the Treasury Board at the time, was so instructed? Is it true that his answer was that there were no problems? The question is simple. He should answer it.

¸ (1425)

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, what Justice Gomery said above all is this. “[The current Prime Minister]... is entitled, like other ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct”. Such is Justice Gomery's finding.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Jean Chrétien was quite clear. He said, “I had given the order to Treasury Board to carry out the necessary audits. They confirmed to me on several occasions that I had nothing to worry about”. For the edification of our viewers, the Prime Minister was vice-chair of Treasury Board. So, he took orders from Jean Chrétien.

What we want to know today is whether he did well and truly receive such orders and whether he replied that there was nothing to worry about.

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois want to conduct the inquiry for Justice Gomery, because they are not happy with his findings. Each of their questions aims to continue the smear campaign to their discredit. That is why they should be happy with the findings of Justice Gomery himself and stop trying to go beyond his report because they are not happy with its findings. They should blame Justice Gomery, if they dare.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not see how quoting former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien constitutes a smear campaign against the government. Perhaps the Minister of Transport is in disgrace and will be even more so.

My question to the Prime Minister is as follows. Jean Chrétien, his predecessor, said that he had asked for an update and was told that everything was fine. He was a member of Treasury Board. Is it true that Jean Chrétien asked him this? If so, what answer did he give? It is not complicated.

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Gomery inquiry into the facts has concluded. Justice Gomery heard all the witnesses, including Mr. Chrétien, who told what he knew about this matter. So, the Bloc Québécois does not need to try to do the judge's job. He has done it and he has drawn his own conclusions. They may not like them but they should be ashamed of trying to prolong the matter. I understand they are not happy that the Prime Minister was exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct. They do not like this conclusion, but that is what Justice Gomery found.

Aboriginal Affairs

Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Keeseekoose is a small first nation in Saskatchewan. In the time between 1995 and 2001, over $600,000 was systematically looted from its education fund. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has known about this since 2002 and this minister has known since he was appointed, but the minister refuses to help the new chief and council get to the bottom of this.

What is the minister hiding? Why will he not produce a forensic audit that shows who stole the Keeseekoose children's trust fund?

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, audits are conducted routinely. If those audits find things that should go to the RCMP or other agencies, that is exactly what happens.

Mr. Jim Prentice (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all we hear from the minister is excuses and obfuscation. The current chief and council want to find out who stole their education money. The minister will not help them.

Will the minister admit today that he is trying to protect the former chief because he was the chief when the money was stolen and because he was the Prime Minister's Liberal candidate in the last federal election? Is this why the minister will not produce a forensic audit?

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that allegation is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Quewezance, the former chief, was president of the St. Phillip's Rangers hockey team when it received repeated direct transfers from the school account. He knew what was going on and the Liberals recruited him to run as their candidate in 2004 while failing to investigate complaints made to Indian affairs about this matter in 2002.

The Liberals have hit a new low in stealing money from schoolchildren while protecting one of their own from investigation. Is this the new standard of ethics the Prime Minister promised us in 2004: nominating candidates who steal money from schoolchildren and then covering it up?

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new low is across on the other side. That is a ridiculous and scandalous thing to say.

Mr. Jeremy Harrison (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that over $600,000 was looted from the St. Phillip's school account of the Keeseekoose First Nation while a former Liberal candidate was in charge. We have the records for the school's bank account, which document a long list of charges made directly from this account to places like Zellers, Bata Shoes, Athletes World, Mark's Work Wearhouse and the Regina casino.

Why is it that Liberal candidates can get away with taking money from schoolchildren to spend it at the casino?

The Speaker: Order, please. I have serious reservations about the questions. This started with questions about funds that the government had some responsibility for getting back. These questions now appear to have gone beyond the recovery of moneys that would be either government money or money for which the government is responsible. In the absence of such a statement in the question or a question on that subject, I am going to rule it out of order

Canada Post

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the last 13 months Revenue Canada has completed over 330,000 audits on ordinary Canadians, but on André Ouellet, none. Today the revenue minister trumpeted a taxpayer alert initiative to ensure “a level playing field for all taxpayers”. How ironic.

How level is the field when former Liberal pork master general Ouellet pays himself $2 million in lavish expenses, does not provide receipts and after 13 months still has not been audited? I would like the minister to tell the House and Canadians what other non-Liberal Canadian gets a deal like that.

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that the hon. member persists in asking me to break the law when it is clearly against the law for me to comment on the audit of Mr. Ouellet. As I have told him before, to do so I would be breaking the law and may end up in jail. Now--

The Speaker: No, the minister will not be alone; I can tell there is a lot of enthusiasm. The hon. Minister of National Revenue has the floor and we will want to hear the rest of his response.

Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, other than the obvious possibility that they are so desperate to have one less vote on this side, and they would like that outcome, my preferred explanation is that they are clearly disdainful of the charter of rights, and that extends to the rule of law in general.

David Dingwall

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is public money and it should be a public audit. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister seems to agree that Liberals are entitled to their entitlements, including Ouellet. He continues to reward Liberals by appointing old cronies to the Senate or ambassadorial positions.

Now he wants to reward David Dingwall with a severance package. It is unbelievable. In the wake of the sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister pretends to punish Liberals by revoking their party memberships. That is actually a reward, I think, to most Canadians. Will the Prime Minister finally drop the idea of cutting a severance cheque to David Dingwall?

Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having answered that question many times, I will return to the first question about the new Canada Revenue Agency taxpayer alert. I was glad to have the opportunity to explain this to Canadians this morning. One example is that there are many scams out there for RRSPs and if people are told they can get out of their RRSPs tax free, they should look into it. If people think it is too good to be true, it probably is. This is the kind of information the government is providing to the Canadian taxpayer.

Airport Security

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been in power for 12 years and any excuses for inaction are absolutely hollow.

[Translation]

A few days ago, an investigation revealed a number of security breaches at Pearson airport, particularly with cargo loaded on board without ever being checked. A security expert said the situation is worse now than it was before September 11.

With all the money it spends, how could the government neglect airport security in such an appalling and careless way?

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would not want hon. members to make air travellers worry. The Canadian system is very safe. In some cases, such as Pearson, for example, access to various doors is the responsibility of the airport and not at all of our Canadian airport safety agency. However, I took the television documentary very seriously and have asked Transport Canada to investigate. As soon as we know all the facts, I will be pleased to get back to him on this.

[English]

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what makes travellers nervous is the fact that in the four years since 9/11, virtually nothing has changed in terms of airport security or the government's oversight of the changes that it has said it has put in place. This year the government will tax Pearson Airport $144 million in airport rents and charge Pearson Airport travellers roughly $80 million in air security taxes. That is roughly a quarter of a billion dollars in taxes from Pearson Airport and yet its security system, according to reports, is leaking like a sieve.

Why is Canada's largest, most important airport getting third rate security from the government?

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member did not watch the same program because the main problem was the doors which are the responsibility of the airport authority. He knows that CATSA has nothing to do with the doors and access at the airport.

We will be having a review of the CATSA process because it is part and parcel of the law. I will be announcing in the next few days the people who will be part of the review panel. We will do our best to provide the best security in the world. We already have one of the most secure systems in the world and the member should not make passengers nervous about security.

Access to Information

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in his annual report, the Information Commissioner gave the PCO an F, and with good reason.

Last year, partly because of the sponsorship scandal, the number of requests the office received increased by 60%, while it refused to respond to nearly 30% of them.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What is his corrupt government trying to hide and why is it refusing to provide the information requested?

¸ (1455)

[English]

Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. The reality is that it is the Privy Council that led an unprecedented release of documents to Mr. Justice Gomery. It is the Privy Council that was absolutely forthcoming with the committee when it came to Bill C-25, giving all manner of documents.

It is the Prime Minister who led the proactive disclosure program that is putting more information on public view than ever before.

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the cover-up continues.

In his annual report, Privacy Commissioner John Reid gave the Liberal government an F when replying to access to information requests. Mr. Reid noted that the government flatly refused almost 30% of the 480 requests received by the government in 2004. These 480 requests represent a 60% increase, mostly due to the sponsorship scandal of course.

On behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, I would like to ask the Prime Minister once again, what is the corrupt Liberal government trying to hide?

Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 12 million pages of documents, many of them confidential cabinet documents, in an unprecedented move, were made available to Mr. Justice Gomery by the government under the leadership of the Prime Minister.

Justice

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice wants Canadians to believe that his recent legislation will cut down on the rate of house arrest for violent criminals but his legislation says that in exceptional circumstances convicted rapists can avoid jail time.

Under what circumstances does the minister believe that criminals who rape women should get house arrest?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we met with all the provincial and territorial ministers of justice in Whitehorse last week they all supported and praised the proposed conditional sentencing reform. I will take their views, with respect, to that of the member opposite.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister may support house arrest for rapists but Canadians do not.

The minister believes that the struggle for the illegal drug trade is fueling gun violence in Canada. The minister's recent bluster about cracking down on gun crime is meaningless unless he is also prepared to eliminate house arrest for those who are killing our youth with drugs.

Why is the minister willing to allow repeat drug dealers to qualify for house arrest?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the member opposite insists on rewriting the Criminal Code, on rewriting the recommendations that are being proposed in the conditional sentence reform. Serious and violent offences will not be the subject of a conditional sentence.