[Reverend Blair]

You'll notice that Prentice never addressed the FACT that the Conservatives were in violation of copyright law.

That's the funny thing about the Conservatives...for all of their blather about law and order, they feel that they can break the law with impunity.

[ridenrain]

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

Nice claim there, Uwish. What proof do you have that the Liberals had connections to terrorists?

RCMP Sidewinder showed direct connections between the Chinese criminal industries and Chrétien's government. It also showed how the Hong Kong embassy was the most compromised and how immigration management was rife with corruption.

[Reverend Blair]

Nice spin, Ridenrain, but there was no evidence that the Chretien government had any knowledge of the criminal involvement of those they were dealing with or that they did anything criminal.

[DerbyX]

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:

Nice spin, Ridenrain, but there was no evidence that the Chretien government had any knowledge of the criminal involvement of those they were dealing with or that they did anything criminal.

Exactly. Any possible connection is all they need to out and out lie but when you point out all the terrible things we westerners have done then "terrorists" and "criminals" becomes a whole new ball game and the cons are up to their necks in dirty deeds (done dirt cheap to save the taxpayers natch).

[ridenrain]

"lalala , fingers in my ears.. I can't hear you. lalalal!"

$1:

Jean Chretien and the Sidewinder Report
By Ann Jane Gray

In this WatchDog article, I will examine Prime minister Jean Chretien's connections to those companies and individuals mentioned in the Sidewinder Report. The Sidewinder Report, as readers recall, examined links of Chinese-triads and the Chinese government to Canadian-based corporations.

Jean Chretien's employment by Gordon Capital from 1986-1990 was his first public association with individuals identified by the Sidewinder Report as a threat to Canada's public security. Chretien's position as an advisor was a lucrative one and left him a wealthy man.

Chretien's ties to Gordon Capital continue to this day, in the person of Marc Fung, son of Gordon Capital's former vice-president during Chretien's tenure, Robert Fung. Marc Fung travelled with the federal Liberals on Team Canada trips to Asia and was, as of May 2002, an aide in the Prime Minister's Office.

Gordon Capital is one of the financial companies used in the Sidewinder Report as a case study on the links between China, Hong Kong billionaires and Canadian financial institutions that are "clearly worrying for Canada's national security". The RCMP's concern arose over Li Ka-Shing, the father of the owner of the company, Richard Li.

Li Ka-Shing is a Hong Kong billionaire who, during the 1970s, was recruited by the Communist Party of China to teach capitalism to the ruling class. American defence departments have long known that Li's business empire is a military and intelligence arm of China. Al Santoli, a national security" advisor to U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, has called Li a "stalker for the PRC (China) whose "close ties to the People's Liberation Army intelligence (arm) are well known".

Jean Chretien's ties to China have become more indirect, but no less troubling, since his ascendancy to the Prime Minister's Office. During the course of his reign, China's leadership has embraced his son-in-law, Andre Desmarais, and his company, Power Corporation. Andre is the son of Paul Desmarais senior, Director of Power Corporation and a close friend of Jean Chretien. Andre is married to Chretien's daughter France and serves as the President of Power Corporation's Executive Board.

China's welcoming of Andre Desmarais is evident in his appointment to two very prestigious boards, the Chief Executives Council of International Advisors to the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the International Advisory Council of the China International Trust Investment Company (CITIC). CITIC is China's largest conglomerate and is 42 percent owned by the government of China. The Communist government of China has given Power Corporation extensive access to the Chinese market and even formed a number of joint ventures with Desmarais.

Power Corporation, through its Hong Kong Subsidiary Power Pacific Corporation, has a growing portfolio of investments in China and Hong Kong, including a joint venture with Bombardier and China's Sifang Locomotive and Rolling Stock Works in Quingdao. Power Pacific has also joined CITIC and Shanghai Hi-Tech Park development Corporation to create CITIC-Power Zhangjiang Co. Ltd.

The Communists appointed Andre Desmarais, in 1999, as a director of CITIC Pacific, a subsidiary of CITIC. Mr Desmarais, upon becoming a director, was permitted to acquire 4.2 percent of CITIC Pacific--a rare privilege given the Communist Party's history of reserving company ownership for the children of its ruling elite. With the appointment to CITIC Pacific's board, Jean Chretien's son-in-law became associated with people and companies who have a history of abetting China's arms dealing and intelligence activities.

The three founders of CITIC Pacific's parent company CITIC--Li Ka-Shing, Henry Fok and Robert Kwok--are all suspected of ties to the Chinese army, Triad gangs and China's leader, Deng Xiaoping. Li has a lengthy history with the Communist Party of China that has already been discussed in previous WatchDog articles. Henry Fok has been labelled by the Hong Kong Police Department and British and American intelligence as a prominent member of the 14K Triad and a recipient of Chinese army patronage. Robert Kwok is reported to be a Triad member and has engaged in the Burmese heroin trade.

Congressman Rohrabacher has noted that other CITIC board members are also prominent members of the Chinese military industrial complex.

If China is conspiring to gain political and economic influence in Canada, as the Sidewinder report states, are Desmarais and Power Corporation's success in China the result of a calculated campaign by China to cultivate influence with the Prime Minister? Jean Chretien has already demonstrated, in the Shawinigate scandal, his willingness to breach conflict of interest regulations to preserve the value of his golf course. Would he do any less to preserve contracts with the government of China that are possibly worth millions of dollars to his son-in-law's company?

(Published in The WatchDog, April-June 2003 edition)

[ridenrain]

ridenrain ridenrain:

"lalala , fingers in my ears.. I can't hear you. lalalal!"

$1:

Jean Chretien and the Sidewinder Report
By Ann Jane Gray

In this WatchDog article, I will examine Prime minister Jean Chretien's connections to those companies and individuals mentioned in the Sidewinder Report. The Sidewinder Report, as readers recall, examined links of Chinese-triads and the Chinese government to Canadian-based corporations.

Jean Chretien's employment by Gordon Capital from 1986-1990 was his first public association with individuals identified by the Sidewinder Report as a threat to Canada's public security. Chretien's position as an advisor was a lucrative one and left him a wealthy man.

Chretien's ties to Gordon Capital continue to this day, in the person of Marc Fung, son of Gordon Capital's former vice-president during Chretien's tenure, Robert Fung. Marc Fung travelled with the federal Liberals on Team Canada trips to Asia and was, as of May 2002, an aide in the Prime Minister's Office.

Gordon Capital is one of the financial companies used in the Sidewinder Report as a case study on the links between China, Hong Kong billionaires and Canadian financial institutions that are "clearly worrying for Canada's national security". The RCMP's concern arose over Li Ka-Shing, the father of the owner of the company, Richard Li.

Li Ka-Shing is a Hong Kong billionaire who, during the 1970s, was recruited by the Communist Party of China to teach capitalism to the ruling class. American defence departments have long known that Li's business empire is a military and intelligence arm of China. Al Santoli, a national security" advisor to U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, has called Li a "stalker for the PRC (China) whose "close ties to the People's Liberation Army intelligence (arm) are well known".

Jean Chretien's ties to China have become more indirect, but no less troubling, since his ascendancy to the Prime Minister's Office. During the course of his reign, China's leadership has embraced his son-in-law, Andre Desmarais, and his company, Power Corporation. Andre is the son of Paul Desmarais senior, Director of Power Corporation and a close friend of Jean Chretien. Andre is married to Chretien's daughter France and serves as the President of Power Corporation's Executive Board.

China's welcoming of Andre Desmarais is evident in his appointment to two very prestigious boards, the Chief Executives Council of International Advisors to the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the International Advisory Council of the China International Trust Investment Company (CITIC). CITIC is China's largest conglomerate and is 42 percent owned by the government of China. The Communist government of China has given Power Corporation extensive access to the Chinese market and even formed a number of joint ventures with Desmarais.

Power Corporation, through its Hong Kong Subsidiary Power Pacific Corporation, has a growing portfolio of investments in China and Hong Kong, including a joint venture with Bombardier and China's Sifang Locomotive and Rolling Stock Works in Quingdao. Power Pacific has also joined CITIC and Shanghai Hi-Tech Park development Corporation to create CITIC-Power Zhangjiang Co. Ltd.

The Communists appointed Andre Desmarais, in 1999, as a director of CITIC Pacific, a subsidiary of CITIC. Mr Desmarais, upon becoming a director, was permitted to acquire 4.2 percent of CITIC Pacific--a rare privilege given the Communist Party's history of reserving company ownership for the children of its ruling elite. With the appointment to CITIC Pacific's board, Jean Chretien's son-in-law became associated with people and companies who have a history of abetting China's arms dealing and intelligence activities.

The three founders of CITIC Pacific's parent company CITIC--Li Ka-Shing, Henry Fok and Robert Kwok--are all suspected of ties to the Chinese army, Triad gangs and China's leader, Deng Xiaoping. Li has a lengthy history with the Communist Party of China that has already been discussed in previous WatchDog articles. Henry Fok has been labelled by the Hong Kong Police Department and British and American intelligence as a prominent member of the 14K Triad and a recipient of Chinese army patronage. Robert Kwok is reported to be a Triad member and has engaged in the Burmese heroin trade.

Congressman Rohrabacher has noted that other CITIC board members are also prominent members of the Chinese military industrial complex.

If China is conspiring to gain political and economic influence in Canada, as the Sidewinder report states, are Desmarais and Power Corporation's success in China the result of a calculated campaign by China to cultivate influence with the Prime Minister? Jean Chretien has already demonstrated, in the Shawinigate scandal, his willingness to breach conflict of interest regulations to preserve the value of his golf course. Would he do any less to preserve contracts with the government of China that are possibly worth millions of dollars to his son-in-law's company?

(Published in The WatchDog, April-June 2003 edition)

Is that why Chretien silenced that report?
Rev: I don't have a problem with the "anyone but Harper" attitude but refusing to see obvious corruption for political points is frightening. No one benefits from this, except the crooks who are in on the deal.

[uwish]

Liberals Conjure Administrative Magic – Again

by Bruce Gold (goldb@telus.net)

The Liberals have happily launched a new political initiative that demonstrates their continuing belief that there is no discernible difference between a press release and a policy. This “Green Shift” carbon tax initiative can be criticized because the science beneath “global warming” is getting increasingly dubious. (1) It can be criticized for the disconnect between their “save the world” rhetoric and reality. (That Canada’s small impact will achieve global significance when China’s greenhouse gases are formally excluded from compliance. (2)

Indeed, one might even imagine that a “serious” political party planning the imposition of a surcharge on energy use in Canada would want to think it through, just a little. Energy use and the cost of energy use in a big, cold country, impacts households, the economy, international competitiveness and everything in between. Yet the Liberal plan changes almost daily, as each new criticism is met with a new and previously unknown “adjustment.” Such goings on indicate an opinion poll driven agenda with little or no economic analysis behind it. The blatant fact that the specifics of the “energy efficient,” “carbon reducing” technologies that produce the “environmental payoff” are largely relegated to “let George do it” platitudes is a confirmation that this is a Liberal spin campaign masquerading as a policy.

This re-organization of our tax codes, and our economy, will require a massive and massively complicated exercise in applied bureaucracy. The carbon tax will bring in a new taxation scheme, which will, among other things, require the government to (3):

administer a complicated rewriting and re-administration of the tax code;
administer the Green Rural Credit;
administer an expanded Northern Residents Reduction;
administer “accelerated” Capital Cost Allowances for business;
administer new, partially refundable “Science, Research & Experimental Development Tax credits;
administer an increased use of the Renewable Power Production Incentive;
administer the Advanced Manufacturing and Prosperity Fund; and
administer complementary regulations and incentives to Canadians for home retrofits, energy-efficient appliances and vehicles, low-carbon farm and forestry practices.

Happily, this tax will be “revenue neutral” where “by law, every penny that is raised in pollution taxes will be returned to Canadians through tax cuts.” (3) Unhappily, we have seen this sort of “so much good at so little cost” policy before. The plan is a textbook example of the sort of policy one gets from a political party that is either breathtaking ignorant of the cost of governance or blatantly willing to lie for votes. The scale of the Liberal disconnect can be seen by comparing the Green Shift to programs of comparable scope and size.

The Liberal's gun law, bill c 68, was an administrative wonder that mandated no fewer than three licensing systems, (one for owners, one for guns, and one for permission to transport). This controversial law, which tried to restrict violent crime by regulating the law-abiding, was forecast at a mere $2 million a year in administrative costs. Its actual cost has risen to $2 Billion and that figure does not include costs to the Provinces, industry or gun owners. (4)

The GST, another program of comparable complexity and size, cost Revenue Canada $678 million in start-up costs. If expenditures by the other departments are included, the start up costs increased to $820 million. The tax costs $518 million a year to administer (1992-93). (5) It should be noted, that these costs do not include administrative costs to the Provinces, business or the public.

Perhaps the first question a would-be government should answer is how this “revenue neutral” policy with “every dollar” “returned to Canadians in tax cuts” will be administered and supported. After all, requiring a modest and passing knowledge of governance and its costs doesn’t seem like an unfair requirement.

Doubtless, the Liberal Party, Canada’s “natural ruling party,” is fully prepared to answer this modest and unassuming question.

Reference

(1) Global cooling effect, Terence Corcoran, National Post*
http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...6-8af9cf743c95

Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling*In
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/1...al-cooling-in/

Climate facts to warm to
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-7583,00.html


(2) The Kyoto Protocol
http://climatechange.sea.ca/kyoto_protocol.html

China's Growing Emissions The growth in China's emissions from 2006-2010 is equivalent to adding the 2004 emissions of Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to China's 2006 total.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...wing_emis.html


(3) Green Shift Book, Liberal Party

(4) First, they promised Parliament that they would implement the gun registry for $85 million over five years and that the net cost would be only $2.2 million. And remember when Justice Minister Anne McLellan wrote to the Toronto Star on July 19, 2001, saying that "user fees will cover the entire cost of the program”? http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breit...ss/guns132.htm

Gun registry cost soars to $2 billion, CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2004/02...rdi040213.html

(5) The Goods and Services Tax: The Government’s Administration Costs, Govt of Canada
http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collectio...p377-e.htm:D:D

[uwish]

Here is how your liberal will pay for the 10's of billion of dollars of campaign promises.

Again likely at the expense of the military as per liberal style

Posted: September 24, 2008, 11:33 AM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, Kevin Libin, canadian election, Liberals

Someone in the Liberal camp isn’t happy with the party’s new platform, it seems. On Monday, just hours before it released its official platform -- "Action Plan for the 21st Century -- the party held a conference call, an “insider briefing,” for party workers and activists. In it, MP and finance critic John McCallum explained how the Liberals would manage to afford its spending promises.

Somebody in on the call taped the conversation. Then they leaked it. Blogger Steve Janke, who put the recording on his website. In an interesting study in contrasts, McCallum made some frank comments to insiders that didn’t show up later when unveiling the platform to the public.

As CBC’s Political Bytes website reported, McCallum admitted in not as many words that the party did not, as supporters had apparently expected, really have a national housing strategy, but rather had some targets for upping affordable housing units. “Well, I suppose you could call it a national housing strategy . . .” McCallum said -- and you can almost hear him shrugging.

Another voice elicited laughs when he chimed in "We definitely have a strategy,” after which it sounds like another participant cried: “Thank God!” When asked what the whole platform’s package will cost, McCallum first gives the official answer -- that it’ll cost “$15.5 billion dollars over five years”-- but added, “that's a little bit misleading,” without elaborating on exactly how Canadians were being be misled.

What the CBC didn’t mention may be a more interesting revelation about how the Liberals wish to reconstitute the federal deficit contingency reserve (to cushion the government against slipping into the red): a total of $12 billion over four years. The former Liberal cabinet minister and Bay Street economist is careful to explain that the party is “committed to find $12 billion over four years through more efficient delivery of programs to Canadians. . . If we cant find savings of that magnitude than we’re not good economic managers.”

You’d certainly have to be: $12 billion is a lot of money to squeeze out by just delivering programs with more efficiency. At least one Liberal thought so too, and asked McCallum for some examples of where those “efficiencies” might be found, or more bluntly, “what will we be accused of cutting?”

Here’s the interesting part: McCallum (a former defence minister, by the way) suggests that one of the first things he’d tighten spending on is the Canadian Forces. “I think the defence budget in recent years has gone up at a very dramatic rate and that for us to continue . . . without further ramping up is responsible, particularly at a time of shortage of money.” (Arts funding, however, will get more money from the Liberals).

Military cuts, of course, have long been top on the Liberals’ hit list when it comes to finding money for, as McCallum put it “new priorities.” The military was “burned out during years of Liberal cutbacks,” as the party’s own Senator Colin Kenny once put it. Canada’s budget for national defence was lacerated by 23% between ’93 and ’98 as Liberals closed bases, cut staff and cancelled equipment upgrades. Whether you’re Liberal or Tory, it’s hard to dispute that Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been dealing with some of the repercussions of those decisions with, among other things, a lack of transport aircraft.

That Liberal era of military shrinkage was, arguably, a different time: Canada was in need of emergency financial intervention with out-of-control debts and deficits, and the social democracies of the world had anyway decided to cash in their peace dividends, convinced Huntington’s end of history had come to pass. Soft power was then the Liberals’ calling card.

The world is plainly a much different place today. The federal Conservatives prefer at least posturing a more muscular approach, as demonstrated in their insistence (till this election campaign, anyway) on staying in Afghanistan and their bluster over securing Canada’s North using military means. To prove it, they have indeed ramped up spending (though critics claim not nearly sufficiently) and unveiled plans to bulk up on ships and planes. No surprise that the Tories are reported to be actively targeting the military vote this election. What is surprising, though, is that the Liberals are said to be doing the same. McCallum’s confession that he expects the military to deliver a key part of his program efficiencies may indeed be one way to go. Maybe not.

Either way, a return to softer power certainly isn’t a position destined to rake in votes from Canadians in uniform. No wonder it’s the kind of thing Liberals prefer discussing off the record, in the comfortable confines of what was supposed to be a conversation strictly among friends.

National Post