Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Liberals Break the Law Again – Gurmant Grewal Releases Taped Audio Conversations with Liberals

The most corrupt federal government in history of Canada continues to hang on to power any way it can. In the run-up to the budget vote only two weeks ago, the liberals were hard at work influence peddling. Bribing opposition Members of Parliament with government appointments and senate seats is against the law in this country and that is exactly what this liberal Prime Minister and senior members of his party did.

Today Gurmant Grewal, the Conservative MP for Newton – North Delta, released taped telephone conversations and recordings of in person meetings with senior liberal officials as they tried to buy the absence of Gurmant and his wife (also a Conservative MP) in the key vote.

The liberals had denied that any offers were made to influence the vote of Gurmant and his wife when he first went public with details they had tried to bribe them. After listening to the liberals lie and deny that any offers were made, Gurmant released information to the press that he had audio tapes to back up his claim. Once the liberals knew that Gurmant had them on tape, the liberal story changed from one of “it never happened” to “it happened, but Gurmant initiated it”.

In the meantime, the media pressured Gurmant for weeks to release the tapes he said he had. When asked why the tapes had not yet been released, Gurmant told the press they were being translated, since much of the conversation is in his native Indian language of Punjabi.

Now that the tapes have been released, the public is getting another first hand look at the criminal behavior of our federal liberal government. The RCMP is also in possession of some taped conversations and criminal indictments of senior liberal Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, may follow.

What will it take to finally put these liberals in the jail cells they belong?

Saturday, May 28, 2005

What were you thinking?

The Winnipeg SUN recently ran a story about a grade 9 student that was being bullied at school. This 15-year-old student named Darci Voss has a mild form of cerebral palsy and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In the last eight months of school, Darci has been beaten up, taunted and threatened. This is the kind of unfortunate scenario many of us have had to deal with growing up.

The Winnipeg SUN printed a cover story about this young man’s problem with a photo on the front page of the city paper. The photo showed the bully victim cuddling with his mommy and his head was resting on his mommy’s shoulder. The photo was as humiliating as it could be for a young 15-year-old man.

This author could not resist writing the Winnipeg SUN to point out how a photo like this would only embolden bullies. The letter to the editor was published in Saturday’s paper and said the following:

What were you thinking?

You ran a cover story in (yesterday's) paper about a Grade 9 student who was being bullied at school. As if attending school with a disability is not challenging enough, the mother of this 15-year-old let her son get both ears pierced and dye his hair some goofy rainbow color. What was most infuriating about your article is that you idiots at the Sun published a photo with this kid cuddling his mommy, his head on his mommy's shoulder and you published it on the front page of your paper!

Imagine you were in his shoes and that article was about you being bullied. Now imagine that is a photo of a 15-year-old you cuddling your mommy on the front page of the city newspaper. Are you trying to get him killed? What the hell were you thinking?

Michael Napier
Winnipeg


As is always the case, the editor gets the last barb. In his rebuttal he said, “The Voss family showed real courage by going public on this serious issue. Your attitude shows what we're all up against.”

Well Mr. Editor, this is something that Darci Voss is up against and we support him, but publishing a photo that makes him look like the ultimate momma’s boy will not help his cause.

Friday, May 27, 2005

Deveryn Ross is the President of the Brandon-Souris Liberals and a Convicted Criminal

Travis Smith is the author of The Smyth Report. He recently published an article on his website that gave details of Deveryn Ross’ 1995 criminal conviction for fraud. Deveryn Ross was a lawyer bofore being convicted, but has since been disbarred by the Law Society of Manitoba.

Deveryn Ross currently serves as the Riding Association president for the liberal party in Brandon-Souris. The point of the Travis Smyth article was that Mr. Ross portrays an excellent example of the types of people you will find in the Liberal party; those who care not for a greater cause, but who are willing to compromise good morals and values to achieve their goals.

Travis Smyth wrote, “I and many others tend to think this website does a fine job of portraying many Liberals as they truly are: corrupt, arrogant, wasteful, and mismanaging. Surely not every Liberal would fall into all of these categories, but I would bet that every Liberal falls into at least one.”

After publishing the article, Travis Smyth received an e-mail from Deveryn Ross. The e-mail included a comment you would expect from a washed up, disbarred lawyer. Deveryn Ross wrote:

“I sue people for fun and recreation, and can easily have a statement of claim filed against you by the close of business tomorrow. You have until then to delete your post, as well as all of the responses.”

What a wonderful life Deveryn Ross must live to be the president of a criminal party of Canada riding association, himself a convicted criminal and disbarred lawyer, who served jail time and sues people for fun and recreation.

These were the worst of times – These were the worst of times

It is hard to be an optimistic Conservative these days. Canada’s minority liberal government is mired in a scandal that involved blowing our money and rigging elections. A member of the Conservative party sold out the country for a cabinet seat, by propping up this corrupt government on a budget vote. And the icing on the cake, the liberals won a by-election this week.

The Gomery commission continues to reveal more details of the sponsorship scandal. This week we learned that the liberal party lied when they said that only $250 million was spent buying elections. A crack team of investigators testified that the actual number is closer to $355 million. Groupaction president Jean Brault’s revelation of money kicked back to liberal party in brown envelopes was again confirmed, this time by Joe Marcelli, a key player in the scandal.

Belinda Stronach, the Paris Hilton of Canadian politics, crossed the floor to accept a cabinet position with the liberal party. This former founder of the CPC and former leadership candidate of the Conservative party helped the liberals survive a vote of non-confidence and stay in power. You would expect some humility from people who just survived a near death experience. Instead, the liberals were grandstanding the same day, with Belinda Stronach and the Prime Minister's chief of staff dancing on a speaker in an Ottawa bar to the tune of Madonna’s ‘Material Girl’. Naturally the liberal friendly mainstream media spoon-fed Canadians on what a wonderful victory for Canada this was.

Then came news this Tuesday that the liberals won a by-election in Atlantic Canada. Canada’s newest Member of Parliament is Todd Russell, a liberal candidate from Labrador. He replaces another liberal MP, Pat O’Brien, who created a vacant seat when he died in December of 2004. The people of this riding replaced one liberal with another despite everything that the liberals have done until now.

These may be the worst of times, but the bright side is, things can only get better from here.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Bjornson Deserves Failing Grade on Seven Oaks Land Deal

The following article e-mailed to us by Jeff Niederhoffer. Jeff is a Winnipeg lawyer and political activist. Here is what he had to say:

Since 2002, the Seven Oaks School Division in Manitoba has arguably been breaking the law. As has been reported, the School Division spent $2 million of taxpayers’ money to develop vacant land into 70 residential lots, which the school division then sold for $2.7 million. Since the provincial Public Schools Act expressly forbids school divisions from developing and selling residential property, this is not a difficult legal question to resolve. Impartial observers would generally agree that the school division has violated the Public Schools Act.

All of this would have made an interesting story in its own right, but what makes it more interesting is the fact that officials in the Manitoba Department of Education not only knew about the land deal but, incredibly, gave formal approval to the school division to proceed.

It is interesting, to say the least, that provincial education bureaucrats were not familiar with the Public Schools Act. Then again, there was nobody who told them they had to be. Throughout this whole episode, the Minister of Education, Peter Bjornson, was invisible. For two years, neither Bjornson nor his staff was aware there even was an issue with the land deal. In mid-2004, bureaucrats finally brought Bjornson up to speed – and provided him the inexplicable opinion that the school division's actions were legal. As Bjornson later publicly admitted, he passively accepted what his officials told him. He made no effort to scrutinize what he was told, nor did he ever follow up on it. Even after the Public School Finance Board provided its own legal opinion in February 2005 that the school division was breaking the law, Bjornson took no action.

We might well wonder what Peter Bjornson was doing when he should have been running his department. The Minister, to put it mildly, does not run a tight ship. He has shown that, to a large extent, he lacks basic managerial instincts.

On top of all this, Bjornson put a large chunk of his credibility in question when he was first confronted on this issue by Opposition MLAs in early May. During Question Period, Bjornson’s initial response was to claim that he had no prior knowledge of the land deal. A day later, Opposition MLAs produced a copy of a year-old letter, signed by Minister Bjornson and sent out to a private citizen a year ago, addressing some very specific issues relating to the Seven Oaks land deal. When confronted with this letter, Bjornson was forced to admit that yes, he had been informed about the land deal a year ago. Does this letter prove that Bjornson was lying when he previously stated he had no prior knowledge of the deal, or does it simply indicate he was the victim of a memory lapse? In a way, the answer doesn’t matter. The enduring lesson is that, whenever you deal with Peter Bjornson, be sure you get it in writing.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Reg Alcock Needs to Resign – Please Sign the Petition

The time has come to sign a petition calling for Reg Alcock to resign. Reg Alcock is the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South. He is also the president of Canada’s Treasury board. When Reg first accepted this position he bragged that as president he would manage the government’s financial, personnel and administrative responsibilities with an unwavering commitment to fiscal disapline. He said he would ensure greater accountability to Parliament.

Since 1998-1999, government spending has increased from $106.5 billion to well over $150 billion next year. Under Reg Alcock’s watch, government spending has grown exponancially.

In the last few weeks the gvernment has embarked on a multi-billion dollar spending spree. $4.6 billion worth of spending was added to the budget to buy the votes of 19 socialist NDP Members of Parliament. Other spending promises have been made to buy the votes of Canadians directly in the form of greater payouts to provinces like Ontario and Saskatchewan. The spending spree this government has begun is unprecedented and the implications to the country's economy should cause alarm. As Treasury Board president, Reg Alcock is directly responsible for this travesty, by spending without restraint.

For Reg Alcock to engage in this kind of spending spree is a betrayal of all that he said he stood for. Ultimately, this spending spree is a betrayal of the Canadian taxpayer. Reg Alcock has let us down and the time has come for him to step aside.

Please join the rest of Canada in signing this petition to ask for Reg Alcock’s resignation.

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Live Blogging of Budget Vote 2005 - Vote Ends in a Tie 152-152 - Speaker Breaks Tie To Preserve Corrupt Liberal Government

[4:45 pm CDT] All members of Parliament are now taking their seats for the budget vote. Bill C-43 is up first. This is the original budget bill that the Conservatives have said they will support. This budget bill does not include the additional $4.6 billion of spending that the liberals agreed to add to buy the votes of the 19 socialist NDP members.

[4:53 pm CDT] As expected the full slate of Conservative MPs are voting with the government to implement the original 2005 federal budget.

[4:55 pm CDT] The members of the socialist NDP are now being counted and all three independents have joined in to pass the original budget.

[4:57 pm CDT] The entire separatist caucus is being counted. They are voting against this budget.

[4:49 pm CDT] The bill passes with only 54 votes against coming from the seperatists

[5:00 pm CDT] Vote for the bill to add $4.6 billion of spending to please the socialists is underway. This is it Canada...

[5:06 pm CDT] Parrish and Cadman voted for the budget. The government now has until an opposition day before it can be voted out of office. Assuming Jack Layton keeps his word about bringing the government down now that he got his $4.6 billion of extra spending.

The liberals and socialists all voted in favor of the extra $4.6 billion in spending. This unholy alliance of left-wing zealots got the support of turncoat Belinda Stronach and two independents: Carolyn Parrish and Chuck Cadman.

The Conservatives and separatists all voted against the bill. Independent MP David Kilgore also voted against the liberals.

As a result, the vote ended in a 152-152 tie. The speaker of the house, sighting precedent, cast the deciding vote in favor of the budget bill. That is the story Canada.

The most corrupt liberal government this country has ever known just spent $4.6 billion of taxpayer money and gave a plum cabinet position to an incompetent blonde bimbo in order to buy their way out of a vote rigging scandal.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Robbing Peter to pay Paul – Why Belinda Stronach left the Conservative Party

Belinda Stronach and Paul Martin held a press conference to announce Belinda’s betrayal of the Conservative Party yesterday. Belinda Stronach said her reason for leaving amounted to a disagreement over that party’s policy of toppling the liberals before the Conservatives had enough of a presence in Quebec. Following short statements, the pair stayed to answer a few questions. One French speaking reporter put an excellent question to the Paris Hilton of Canadian Politics. He asked Belinda:

“You said that the Conservative party is basically non-existent in Quebec. In what shape is the liberal party in Quebec in your opinion?”

Belinda was shocked to hear the question. The answer according to every poll in the country makes the answer to that question rhetorical. Fumbling for an answer, Belinda replied, “Well I think that is for the Prime Minister to address that question and not for me to address.”

Every poll for the last month has said that the liberal party is essentially Quebec’s public enemy number one. It is small wonder she dodged this question.

Belinda then continued by saying, “What I don’t want to see is that we hand or we give a larger deck of cards to the Bloc Quebecois. I don’t feel comfortable lining myself up to defeat this budget. I don’t feel comfortable lining myself up with the Bloc to do that.”

What she does not say is that even if the budget passes, this minority liberal government is on its last legs. Jack Layton, leader of the socialist NDP, has already gone on the record. He specifically said that his support for this corrupt liberal government is only to get the budget passed along with its $4.6 billion of extra wasteful spending. Once the floodgates of government spending are fully opened, Jack Layton will vote to topple the government. This will happen as soon as the liberals allow an opposition day, something they are obligated to do six more times this Parliamentary cycle.

Consider what Manitoba Conservative MP Inky Mark must be thinking. Last week, Liberal Treasury Board Minister Reg Alock said that if he wanted to buy the vote of a Tory MP he would go higher up on the gene pool than Inky Mark. It makes you wonder just how far down on the gene pool the liberals think Inky Mark is after buying the support of Belinda Stronach.

Then there is the issue with Peter McKay. Belinda Stronach, already divorced twice, just stomped on the heart of this upstanding, loyal Conservative. For years the liberals have been beating up on the Canadian taxpayer only to tell voters, “Please take me back. I really mean it this time.” Who could imagine a better election script than one that involves a loyal Conservative who gets his heart broken by a shameless liberal?

This takes the saying ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ to a whole new level.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Letter to Liberal Faithful – We Need Your Money for an Election

Today Belinda Stronach crossed the isle and joined the liberals. This should come as no surprise. One of this author’s favorite comments about Belinda is, “the only Conservative bone in Belinda Stronach’s body comes courtesy of Peter McKay on Saturday nights”. For a long time she has been the necessary evil. She put a moderate liberal face on an otherwise morally sound party. The fact that she had no loyalty to the Conservative party was there for all to see.

In spite of this bad news, the liberals still feel an election is immanent. The sound of desperation in their most recent letter to party faithful says it all. Below is what they had to say:

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Dear Michael,

In 48 hours – through this one pre-campaign e-blast - we need to raise $48,000 and be ready to hit the pavement and run a winning campaign.

At 10:30 this morning, Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and joined the Liberal Party of Canada stating disappointment in the Leadership of Mr. Harper over his intention to throw this budget out the window and all the important investments for Canada with it.

Prime Minister Paul Martin praised Ms. Stronach’s demonstration of leadership this morning as he appointed her to Cabinet.

In 48 hours, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives with the support of Gilles Duceppe’s Bloc Quebecois will still attempt to force Canadians into an unwanted election.

You can show your leadership right now by supporting the Liberal Party with an online donation.

If each of you donate now a gift of $48 – this goal can be easily achieved. But we need much more to mount a nation-wide campaign. Please consider $50, $75, or whatever you can afford.

Time is running out, and we can only rely on the support of caring Canadians, like you.

Thank you so much!

Mike Eizenga
President

Did you know…

• A $41 donation represents $41-billion that the Liberal government has committed to a 10-year investment in healthcare.

• A $62 donation is equivalent to the $62-billion in national debt that has been reduced under the Liberals.

• A $500 donation equates to $500-million that Budget 2005 invests over the next five years to fund global peace and security initiatives.

In 48 hours – Harper and Duceppe could just toss it out the window, wasting an entire year of progress. There are many Canadians like Ms. Stronach who see the only solution to a strong Canada is a Liberal solution. Tell Harper and Duceppe “no election now, pass the budget”!

Please be as generous as you can with a gift today!

Friday, May 13, 2005

National Citizens Coalition Says Elections BC is Trying to Censor Political Speech on the Internet

“Elections BC officials want bloggers who post `partisan’ message on their sites during the provincial election to register as advertising sponsors,” says NCC vice president Gerry Nicholls. “That’s a ridiculous infringement on free speech. Why should anyone be forced to register with the government just to express a political opinion?”

Nicholls says government bureaucrats are trying to control the free flow of information over the Internet.

“What’s next? Will Elections BC require newspaper columnists and talk show hosts to register with the government too?” asks the National Citizens Coalition vice president. “How do these bureaucratic barriers to free speech help the democratic process?”

Nicholls also points out the registration regulations are the remnants of an election gag law which the courts declared unconstitutional five years ago.

“The registration requirement was supposed to help the government police an election gag law that limited how much money private citizens or independent groups could spend on election advertising,” says Nicholls. “That law was overturned so why keep the registration regulation?”

The National Citizens Coalition helped to overturn the B.C. election gag law in 2000 and has also battled federal election gag laws.

Manitoba NDP's Foray Into Film a Flop

The following article was written and e-mailed to The Blue Maple Leaf by Jeff Niederhoffer. Jeff is a Winnipeg lawyer and political activist. Here is what he had to say:

Perhaps the least noticed - because the least reported - story of the past month is that the Manitoba provincial government has gone into the movie business.

You heard right. As of a few weeks ago, "Today's NDP" took a step closer to looking like yesterday's Dominican Republic when the Province of Manitoba announced it would bail out and assume ownership of a money-losing film studio.

The red-ink-drenched studio in question is Prairie Production Centre. The Manitoba NDP government initially claimed that the cost of the bailout/buyout was around $1.78 million, but then admitted that, because the province had also agreed to forgive certain loans it made to the studio, the real cost to taxpayers was actually over $3 million.
Culture Minister Eric Robinson justifies the provincialization of Prairie Production Centre by arguing that the studio is "very valuable" and that, were the province not to inject public funds into the studio, "Opportunities would be lost."

Uh huh.

While Carole Vivier, CEO of Manitoba Film and Sound, is on record as being understandably "thrilled" at the NDP government's spending plans, Manitobans may well wonder why their hard-earned tax dollars are being funneled into a movie studio that has a track record of failure. Adrienne Batra, director of the Manitoba Taxpayer's Federation, rightly blasts the bailout of Prairie Production Centre as corporate welfare. As Batra has said: "The fact the industry wasn't viable on its own doesn't mean tax dollars should be spent bailing them out." Certainly, the onus should be on Eric Robinson and Today's NDP to demonstrate to taxpayers what "opportunities" will accrue to the province by keeping this insolvent film studio in business. Having Prairie Production Centre absorbed into the provincial bureaucracy will do nothing to improve the studio's profitability or marketability. On the contrary, the security offered by public subsidy will take away any incentive for the studio to innovate or to develop a new business plan. The effect of this government bailout will only be to insulate the studio from commercial reality - and to give it a license to keep on losing money indefinitely.

Another effect of using taxpayers' money to bail out Prairie Production Centre will be to divert money and resources away from legitimate priorities such as health care and education. Tory MLA Jack Reimer, who acts as the Opposition watchdog on culture-funding issues, condemns this bailout as "frivolous" and argues that the money "could be well-spent in other areas." Eric Robinson and the provincial NDP government would do well to heed Reimer's advice. There is only so much money to go around in the budget. Even taking into account the tolerant attitude of this government toward debt, the $3 million being splashed on Prairie Production Centre necessarily means that, at some point, there will be $3 million less to spend on other things. The decision by the NDP government to provide $3 million to prop up this film studio is effectively a decision not to use that money to reduce emergency-room waiting times, or to cut Pharmacare premiums, or to hire more Crown prosecutors.

In the end, that is what this issue boils down to. The money a government spends, like the money a household or business spends, reflects its priorities. It is difficult to believe that the silent majority of Manitobans would agree with Eric Robinson (and Premier Doer) that there is no better use for $3 million of taxpayers' money than to buy a money-losing film studio. Is the continued existence of Prairie Production Centre really so pressing to Manitobans? Would the average Manitoban miss it if it were to close its doors? It is doubtful that the average Manitoban would even have heard of Prairie Production Centre had not the provincial government suddenly decided the studio had to be saved from itself. While artists and film-industry types in Winnipeg have undeniable cause to celebrate the Doer government's plans, and likely will benefit enormously from them, most taxpayers will feel nothing but resentment at the fact that part of their paycheques will now be going to support a movie studio they could not care less about.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Parliament Adjourned a Second Time in Two Days

For the second time in as many days the opposition has shut down Parliament. Today, with a vote of 152-144, a motion to adjourn Parliament was passed which closed the House of Commons. The message of these votes is clear. The majority of the House has lost confidence in the minority liberals and no longer feels they have the moral authority to govern.

These back to back adjournments come on the heels of a vote of non-confidence that also passed two days ago. The minority liberal government ignored the result of that vote and is continuing to hold on to power any way it can. Prime Minister Paul Martin has said he will hold a budget vote on May 19 and his government will recognize that vote as one of non-confidence. The opposition has already said that this is not good enough.

Paul Martin has used the last few weeks to spend the taxpayer’s money wildly to retain power. The liberal finance minister added $4.6 billion in spending to the budget to buy the 19 votes of the socialist NDP. In total the liberals have announced almost $23 billion in spending promises to buy votes from the public. The Prime Minister himself has been crisscrossing the nation, signing deals and giving pre-election speeches and photo opportunities at the taxpayer’s expense. Next week the Queen will be visiting Canada and Paul Martin will again use the opportunity to get free pre-election exposure.

The events of the last three days in Parliament make it clear that the liberals have lost the moral authority to govern. They have lost one vote of non-confidence and two votes of adjournment.

Past precedent dictates that the minority liberals have a moral obligation to call a vote of non-confidence immediately. In 2001 when the Saskatchewan government lost a vote on a supply bill, they immediately introduced a vote of non-confidence to test their moral authority to govern. Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson also lost a supply vote and immediately called a vote of non-confidence in 1968. In both cases the incumbent government won the vote, yet this liberal government dodges its constitutional responsibility to ensure it has the confidence of Parliament.

The desperation of this minority liberal government is becoming more obvious with each passing day.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

The Confidence Convention and the May 2005 Vote on the Public Accounts Committee Report

Mike Riordan sent an e-mail to The Blue Maple Leaf yesterday. In the e-mail was a link to an essay by Andrew Heard. The essay outlines some of the precedents on non-confidence motions in Canadian history. Here is an excerpt of what he wrote:

Canadian parliamentary democracy is hinged upon the fundamental principle that the government of the day must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. The principle of collective responsibility provides the basis of deciding who has the right to form a government after an election. Canadians do not vote for a prime minister or for a cabinet, they vote in general elections to elect 308 individual members of parliament. The leader of the party who is able to command a majority on confidence votes in the House of Commons is the person who has the right to be prime minister. It is a firm constitutional convention that prime ministers must either resign or call an election if they lose a vote of confidence in the House. The May 10, 2005 vote on the public accounts committee report is essentially a vote on whether the government should resign, and as such it should be considered a clear vote of confidence.

The confidence convention

There are three generally-agreed categories of confidence votes:

• a motion that explicitly states the confidence (or lack of it) of the House in the government of the day
• votes on the main budget motion and on the address in reply to the speech from the throne
• any other matter that the government states to be a matter of confidence before a vote

If a government loses a confidence vote it has only two choices: to resign or to call an election. Generally speaking a government would only resign if it lost a confidence vote within a few months of an election. For example, Ontario premier Frank Miller resigned in 1985 after losing a vote on the first speech from the throne right after provincial election, and the Lieutenant Governor appointed the leader of the opposition as the new premier (who then won a subsequent vote of confidence).

Occasionally a government is defeated on a vote that calls into question whether it still enjoys the confidence of the legislature. In the most prominent of these loses, governments have introduced their own explicit motion of confidence for the House to vote on; this is an important response which is needed to settle whether the government still has a right to govern. For example, the Saskatchewan government introduced (and won) a confidence vote in 2001 after their legislature's finance committee had defeated a supply motion. Prime Minister Pearson introduced (and won) a confidence vote in 1968 after losing a supply vote.

The May 10, 2005 Vote

The House of Commons vote on the Conservative Party's motion has generated considerable controversy over whether it is a vote of confidence. The question is whether the vote constituted one of the first categories of confidence motions listed above. The motion passed by a 153-150 vote reads:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

"the First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Thursday, October 28, 2004, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the government resign because of its failure to address the deficiencies in governance of the public service addressed in the report.”

At first glance the motion appears to be simply a procedural matter, sending a matter back to the finance committee with an instruction to amend its report. However, it should not matter what procedural context a vote of confidence occurs in.

What makes a vote one of confidence is the content of the motion. In order to qualify as a confidence vote, a motion has to contain wording that states the lack of confidence explicitly, calls upon the government to resign, accuses the government of gross impropriety or incompetence, or questions the authority of the government to remain in office. However the motion is worded, the essence of a confidence motion is to embody the House's judgment that the government is unfit in some way to govern. That specific wording can take many forms, and examples of this variety are found in Canadian provincial and federal precedents.

The fundamental basis of a confidence vote is that the elected members of the legislature express their collective view of the government. If that view conveys a loss of confidence or states that the government should resign, then the government must either resign or call an election.

The wording of the motion passed on May 10, 2005 indicates that it should be considered a clear vote of confidence. What is important in this motion is that the House had to collectively is express its view on whether the government should resign. One could not vote for the motion without agreeing that the government should resign, which is the essence of a non-confidence vote. While the wording of the motion is convoluted, the essential content is a clear expression of non-confidence.

The current motion is also strikingly similar, in procedural terms, to that proposed by H.H Stevens on June 26, 1926. That motion also recommended that a committee report be amended and precipitated the whole King-Byng crisis, when the Governor General refused a dissolution to King on the grounds that he should not avoid a confidence motion then before the House but not voted on; this was the Stevens' motion. For information on those events, see: House of Commons Debates, 1926, Vol.V, June 22 to June 25.

In light of the past precedents, and especially the relevance of the 1926 motions on the Customs Affair, the current motion appears to be clearly a vote of confidence which would normally require the government to resign or call an election after losing the vote. It is a fundamental blow to the government's authority for a majority of the House to agree on a motion that it should resign.

This all adds up to the fact that this minority liberal government has lost the moral authority to stay in power.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

The Flame of Democratic Freedom in Canada is Dimming in Canada

At 5:45 PM today, a vote of non-confidence was held on the floor of the House of Commons. The motion recommended that the minority liberal government resign because of its failure to address deficiencies in governance of the public service. This motion was a clearly worded vote of non-confidence.

This motion passed 153 – 150, but liberals have vowed to ignore the results. Canada’s minority liberal government, mired in the worst political scandal in Canada’s history, will instead continue governing in defiance of the vote.

Since 1993 when the federal liberals came to power under Jean Chrétien, they have been rigging elections by using taxpayer money to buy votes with the sponsorship scandal. They engaged in a money laundering scheme that funnelled hundreds of millions in taxpayer money through liberal friendly ad firms and back to the liberal party. They used taxpayer money to pay people working on liberal election campaigns and they used taxpayer money to pay bills directly for election campaign expenses. Since 1997, the liberals have gained power in Canada illegally.

Now that the details of liberal corruption have surfaced through the Gomery Inquiry and support for the liberal party is at an all time low, the liberals are doing everything to hold onto power.

Recently, Paul Martin included an extra $4.6 billion of spending in order to buy the 19 votes held by the socialist NDP in Parliament. The Prime Minister has been criss-crossing Canada at the taxpayer expense to sign childcare deals before the budget has even been passed. The liberals have racked up almost $23 billion in spending pledges in the last three weeks alone in an effort to buy their way out of this scandal.

Now the liberals have dimmed the light of democracy in Canada by refusing to recognize a vote of non-confidence in a minority Parliament. The legitimacy of this liberal government to stay in power is now gone.

The need for Canadians to begin a peaceful protest until elections are called and democracy is restored is fast approaching.

Liberals are Desperate for Campaign Cash – Another Letter Released

The liberal party released another letter to supporters today. The purpose of this letter was to raise money for the election that the liberal party is doing everything to avoid. Here is what the liberals had to say:

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Dear Michael,

All the great initiatives this government has planned are about to be tossed out the window – thanks to Mr. Harper and Mr. Duceppe. It is their self-interest driving them to bring down a government that is committed to strengthening our healthcare, environment and child care.

Canada is working under the strong leadership of the Paul Martin Liberals. And as Liberals – we remain steadfast in our commitment to passing the budget and moving our agenda forward – not back.

Next week could start the beginning of an election – one that Canadians do not want right now – one that we’ve promised within 30 days of Justice Gomery’s final report.

Elections cost money – and with one behind us only a year ago – we need you to step forward today with your most generous donation possible.

It’s a double-edge sword – taxpayers pay for the election process – and as Liberals, we donate funds to help mount campaigns that express Canadian values and win elections.

Donations to political parties have changed since 2004. Corporations cannot contribute anymore. Only individuals can donate to federal parties. And individuals can only donate a maximum of $5,200 this year.

You are key to our ability to mount a campaign to keep Canada working.

Please donate now with the most generous gift possible. Canada is working. The only option to keep it working – to keep it progressive - is a Liberal government.

Thank you,

Mark Marissen
Co-Chair, British Columbia, National Campaign

Brenda Kurczak
Co-Chair, Ontario, National Campaign

Prime Minister Paul Martin recently stated, “As Liberals, we believe in a Canada that is generous and just; prosperous and proud. We believe that the government must eliminate obstacles to success; that it must help people help themselves. We know that Canada is a wealthy nation, not only in terms of material goods, but also rich in talent and potential. Liberals are united by an unshakable belief in the values that have made our country one of the fairest, most respectful and most progressive in the world.”

Yes, elections are a double edged sword; either you give your money to the liberal campaign voluntarily or they just take their campaign money out of your taxes.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Paul Martin Wants Canadians to Know the Truth before an Election – Don’t You Believe It

Last year Paul Martin made a promise to Canadians that he would not call an election until Canadians knew the truth about the sponsorship scandal. Instead, he broke that promise. He shut down the Public Accounts Committee that was looking into liberal corruption and called an unnecessary early election in June of 2004.

In a passionate plea to the committee Chair, Member of Parliament Jason Kenney told the committee what information would be suppressed by Paul Martin’s decision to pass a motion and call that early election.

Here is what Jason Kenney said on May 11, 2004, twelve days before Paul Martin called last year's election:

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that my colleagues opposite, for whom I have considerable regard, believe any more than I do that this committee is coming to the end of the process. Yes, we have had hearings for some ten weeks, but I would point out that the judicial inquiry plans to begin holding hearings in September of this year and not to issue its final report until December of 2005, a 14-month period.

I would not hope this committee would take that long to examine these matters, but clearly it's going to take longer than the ten weeks we have been working to hear, for instance, from the some 90 witnesses on the prospective witness list from whom we have not yet heard, beginning, for instance, with former minister Boudria, the former Minister of Public Works.

If this motion passes this morning, we will never hear from Don Boudria, the Minister of Public Works immediately following Mr. Gagliano. He inherited the department; he inherited the sponsorship program. I don't know whether he was given instructions to clean it up. What I do know is that Mr. Boudria had a very close working relationship with Claude Boulay, and that raises all sorts of reasonable questions, which we should want to put. We do know that Mr. Boudria disclaimed any personal knowledge of or any relationship with, Charles Guité; but Mr. Guité testified, effectively, that Mr. Boudria was very, very familiar with him and his activities. But we won't hear from Don Boudria if this motion is passed.

We won't hear from Art Eggleton, who was President of the Treasury Board for three years during this program's operation. If we are, indeed, pursuing the question of ministerial responsibility, we might want to know what the presidents of the Treasury Board knew during this period, when they knew it, and what they did about it. We won't hear from Marcel Masse, who was the President of Treasury Board for two and a half years, the critical years during this process. We won't hear his testimony about what he knew as Treasury Board president, including the audits that were received, the internal audits, and the external audits. We won't hear from the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, who was President of the Treasury Board for another three and a half years. She's on the prospective witness list, but if this motion is passed and an election is called, we'll never hear from her in this regard.

We won't hear from ministers such as Anne McLellan or Andy Scott, who were sitting on the cabinet communications committee, chaired by Alfonso Gagliano, which met and discussed issues related to the sponsorship program. We won't hear from David Anderson, who was also on the ad hoc communications committee, and whose constituency office intervened to ensure that constituents received favorable attention from this program, and whose constituency staff said to the media that this sponsorship program was “a secret slush fund”.

We will not have an opportunity, if this motion passes and an election is called, to hear from Denis Coderre, whose name has come up at virtually every one of these meetings, who apparently was a frequent caller to the sponsorship office and who communicated frequently with the senior managers of that office, who of course had a relationship with several senior ad agency personnel.

We won't hear from the industry professionals that Dennis Mills wanted us to interview, such as people from the Advertising Standards Association of Canada. We won't hear from the Institute of Communications and Advertising. We won't hear from the association of Quebec advertising agencies, who Liberals had asked be put on the witness list, should this motion pass and a whitewash report be tabled in the House.

We'll never hear at this committee from Robert Scully, the president of L'Information essentielle, who was a key player in the Rocket Richard series that was highlighted so clearly by the Auditor General. Nor will we hear from Claudette Théorêt, who was the senior staffer at L'Information essentielle, about the financial transactions between the various crown corporations and the CCSB.

We won't hear from the various experts on ministerial accountability, which Mr. Murphy says is a key issue. I agree with him. And the Liberals have added to the prospective witness list a dozen leading academic and former political experts, like Professor Donald Savoie, from the University of Moncton, probably the leading expert in this field in Canada; like John Roberts, former Liberal cabinet minister; and like David Zussman, professor at Carleton and a leading adviser to the government on these questions. They won't testify and we won't have the benefit of their expertise.

If this motion passes, we won't hear from key ministerial staff on our witness list, such as: Steve VanderWal, special assistant to David Anderson; and Tony Chang, Minister Anderson's constituency assistant, who told Jamie Kelley, a constituent in Victoria, that they could help him access money from a “secret slush fund”, which turned out to be the CCSB. We won't have heard from Mario Laguë, the Prime Minister's communications director, who was the secretary to the cabinet communications committee chaired by Alfonso Gagliano, and who attended meetings to sanitize the publication of audit reports on the sponsorship program.

We won't hear from Bruce Hartley, the gatekeeper to former Prime Minister Chrétien, on what information passed his desk with respect to the program. We won't hear from Carl Littler, whose name is cited in the retail debt strategy memos that were brought to us by Allan Cutler. We won't hear from Terrie O'Leary, former executive assistant to the current Prime Minister, who was deeply involved in seeking a sole-source contract for Earnscliffe and pushed that Groupe Everest receive government advertising contracts. We will never hear from her.

Warren Kinsella is a key witness, and we won't have heard from him, Mr. Chair. We can't draw any conclusions from testimony from him that we haven't heard. He's the former executive assistant to David Dingwall. Mr. Guité has said that he had meetings with Warren Kinsella. I mean, we've probably had over a dozen witnesses testify to the central role of Warren Kinsella in the office of David Dingwall, on the knowledge he had. Mr. Kinsella came up even in Allan Cutler's testimony.

And there's Jean Carle, Mr. Chair. I'm advised by the clerks that they've been trying to contact Mr. Carle to arrange possible testimony this week. Again, Mr. Carle was an absolutely key player. Not only was he the right-hand man to Jean Chrétien, but Jean Pelletier himself, former chief of staff to the former Prime Minister, said that Jean Carle attended meetings, including meeting with Chuck Guité about the sponsorship program. Here is one of the two key links between Guité, the sponsorship program, and the top level of the Prime Minister's Office. We haven't heard from him, and we won't if this motion passes and an election is called.

Nor will we have heard from Pierre Lesieur, who was special assistant for Quebec to Alfonso Gagliano, who worked directly with Jean-Marc Bard and Pierre Tremblay in that office. He was responsible for political files in Quebec and clearly would be a source of very pertinent testimony.

Nor will we have heard from Albano Gidaro, who was legislative assistant to Alfonso Gagliano as Minister of Public Works, who had a long-standing relationship with former Minister Gagliano and could shed light on the very peculiar workings of that office.

We won't have heard from Elly Alboim, one of the principals at Earnscliffe, who of course benefited from sole-source contracts that bent the rules, whose name was raised by Allan Cutler, the chief whistle-blower, etc.

We won't have heard from Jacques Hudon from Groupaction. He was a registered lobbyist, Mr. Chair, for Groupaction, hired by Jean Brault, a man now under criminal charges. It also happens that he was a former speechwriter to the current Prime Minister, Mr. Martin. I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to hear his testimony.

We won't have heard from Senator David Smith, a man I have a lot of regard for. Now, he was a lobbyist for the former Canada Communication Group and attempted to extend the privilege of administrative arrangement provided to that company to provide a monopoly over most federal printing contracts.

We won't have heard from a number of key players in the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec who could testify about the fundraising activities of the party as they relate to the ad agencies. We know there have been criminal convictions of former officials involved in the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec with respect to influence peddling, and it would be extremely relevant to hear from such people as Raymond Garneau, Daniel Dezain, Stephen LeDrew, Senator Paul Massicotte, Buryl Wiseman, Giuseppe Morselli, and Françoise Patry, just as an example of key players in the Parti libéral du Canada au Québec who could testify about what they knew and whether there was any mutual back-scratching going on between the ad agencies and the Liberal Party.

Mr. Chair, it is a key question whether money found its way back into the Liberal Party. It's not just a partisan point. I know the Prime Minister has said he wants to get to the bottom of that question, which is why the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec has appointed its own forensic auditor to pursue these critical issues.

If this motion passes and an election is called, we won't have heard from Pierre Brodeur, former political assistant to Alfonso Gagliano, who worked in the office and would have interesting light to shed.

Mr. Chairman, what about Vincenzo Gagliano, son of Alfonso Gagliano, who obtained printing contracts from Groupaction and Groupe Everest? There have been very interesting questions raised about whether he was given preferential treatment and what happened to the money he received from those contracts.

We won't have heard, if this motion passes, from Senator Wilfred Moore, chair of the Bluenose II Preservation Trust, who can give us a full accounting of the very questionable Bluenose sponsorship program.

We won't have heard from Roger Collet, former head of the Canada Information Office established by former Minister Copps, which eventually became the CCSB; he's a critical witness.

We have asked--I think members opposite have asked--that the prospective witness list include a certified fraud examiner or money-laundering expert from the RCMP who could help us to deepen the knowledge we gained last week from KPMG on the nature of money-laundering transactions and how they're executed.

And of course, Mr. Chairman, we will not have heard from the Right Honorable Jean Chrétien about what he knew and when he knew it. We heard from his chief of staff that he, the chief of staff, had regular and ongoing meetings with Chuck Guité. We've heard from every senior witness that such a relationship between the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and a mid-level bureaucrat was extremely unusual. We've heard that Jean Chrétien made the visibility of the federal government of Canada one of his top priorities. We've heard him boast about how in the 1980 referendum he bought up all the billboard space in Quebec for the Government of Canada, a tactic eerily reminiscent of what Mr. Guité testified to.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe this committee's work will be complete until we hear directly from Mr. Chrétien under oath about what he knew, what instructions he gave, and what advice he received from Jean Pelletier and from Jean Carle. Mr. Pelletier said he heard rumors about potential fraud in the program; we'd like to know if Jean Chrétien heard similar rumors.

We will not, if this motion passes and if an election is called, have an opportunity to hear for a second time from Mr. Gagliano, David Dingwall, and Diane Marleau, all of whom are former Liberal ministers responsible for Public Works. All of their testimony has been contradicted by other witnesses appearing before us, most spectacularly that of Mr. Gagliano. David Dingwall, for instance, testified that he basically didn't know who Chuck Guité was, and we've heard from at least three witnesses that Mr. Dingwall in fact had met with Mr. Guité with some degree of frequency. Mr. Guité claims he never had the discussion with Madam Marleau where she told him he wasn't welcome to report directly to her. These are central questions.

You can see, Mr. Chairman, I've just gone through a small selection of the list of prospective witnesses yet to be called. There are more than twice as many witnesses from whom we have not yet heard as witnesses from whom we have already heard. In that respect we are roughly a third of the way through this inquiry in terms of the number of witnesses on the witness list.

Now that Canadians know what Paul Martin suppressed from Canadians last election, it is time for a do over at the ballot box.

Friday, May 06, 2005

The Undeniable Link between Paul Martin and the Sponsorships Scandal

Here is a startling revelation about Jacques Hudon. Jacques Hudon was a speechwriter for Prime Minister Paul Martin. This revelation came out on May 11, 2004, from the public accounts committee that was looking into the sponsorship scandal before last year’s election. Fearing that damning evidence about liberal corruption was starting to leak, Paul Martin had his government dissolved twelve days later (May 23rd) and called an election while Canadians were still in the dark about liberal corruption.

Before Jacques Hudon began crafting speeches for Paul Martin he worked as a lobbyist for Groupaction. Groupaction is the ad firm which received millions in sponsorship contracts and was headed by President Jean Brault. Jean Brault was the one who told the Gomery Inquiry that he paid kickbacks to the liberal party with cash stuffed in brown envelopes. He also testified that in order to get contracts from the liberals he would have to pay money directly to the party and hire liberal campaign workers to do campaign work.

This is the testimony that was under publication ban, a ban which bloggers (including the Blue Maple Leaf) defied. Justice Gomery eventually lifted that ban in part and Jean Brault’s testimony was revealed.

As recently as this week, Jean Brault’s testimony was confirmed by Chuck Guité. The testimony of Chuck Guité was also under publication ban, until his testimony was partially lifted this week. Guité testified that back in 2000, he was told that then-finance minister Paul Martin had intervened to ensure a Liberal-friendly ad firm wouldn't lose its lucrative contracts with the federal sponsorship program.

Paul Martin has denied that he knew anything about liberal corruption and he continues to deny that he intervened on sponsorship contracts.

Now it is revealed that a key lobbyist, who lobbied on behalf of a major player in the sponsorship scandal, was also a speechwriter for the Prime Minister himself. A fact, which when it came to light last year, prompted Paul Martin to dissolve government and call an early election.

Jacques Hudon no longer writes speeches for the Prime Minister. Instead, he has been appointed to a government position at Industry Canada. He is now the Regional Manager that oversees the awarding of government contracts in Quebec.

The noose that is around this government’s neck is growing ever tighter.

Life is Precious – Drive Carefully

Mary Stansberry is a good friend who lives in Kentucky, USA. She is a Conservative American who goes to church regularly and has two daughters. She works very early mornings in a daycare and the e-mails she sends often makes you consider how precious life is. Sometimes she sends a story, sometimes a poem, but always she sends words from the heart. The following is a story she sent today.

Jack took a long look at his speedometer before slowing down: 73 in a 55 zone. It was the fourth time in as many months. How could a guy get caught so often?

When his car had slowed to 10 miles an hour, Jack pulled over, but only partially. Let the cop worry about the potential traffic hazard.

Maybe some other car will tweak his backside with a mirror. The cop was stepping out of his car, the big pad in hand.

Bob? Bob from Church? Jack sunk farther into his trench coat. This was worse than the coming ticket, a cop catching a guy from his own church.

He was a guy who happened to be a little eager to get home after a long day at the office. A guy he was about to play golf with tomorrow.

Jumping out of the car, he approached a man he saw every Sunday, a man he'd never seen in uniform.

"Hi, Bob. Fancy meeting you like this."

"Hello, Jack." No smile.

Guess you caught me red-handed in a rush to see my wife and kids."

"Yeah, I guess." Bob seemed uncertain. Good. "I've seen some long days at the office lately. I'm afraid I bent the rules a bit -just this once."

Jack toed at a pebble on the pavement. "Diane said something about roast beef and potatoes tonight. Know what I mean?" "I know what you mean.

I also know that you have a reputation in our precinct." Ouch. This was not going
in the right direction. It was time to change tactics. What'd you clock me at?"

"Seventy. Would you sit back in your car please?"

"Now wait a minute here, Bob. I checked as soon as saw you. I was barely nudging 65." The lie seemed to come easier with every ticket.

"Please, Jack, in the car."

Flustered, Jack hunched himself through the still-open door. Slamming it shut, he stared at the dashboard. He was in no rush to open the window.

The minutes ticked by. Bob scribbled away on the pad.

Why hadn't he asked for a driver's license?

Whatever the reason, it would be a month of Sundays before Jack ever sat near this cop again. A tap on the door jerked his head to the left.

There was Bob, a folded paper in hand Jack rolled down the window a mere two inches, just enough room for Bob to pass him the slip.

"Thanks." Jack could not quite keep the sneer out of his voice.

Bob returned to his police car without a word. Jack watched his retreat in the mirror. Jack unfolded the sheet of paper. How much was this one going to cost?

Wait a minute. What was this? Some kind of joke?

Certainly not a ticket. Jack began to read:

"Dear Jack, Once upon a time I had a daughter. She was six when killed by a car. You guessed it- a speeding driver. A fine and three months in jail, and the man was free. He was free to hug his daughters, all three of them. I only had one, and I'm going to have to wait until I get to Heaven before I can ever hug her again.

A thousand times I've tried to forgive that man. A thousand times I thought I had. Maybe I did, but I need to do it again. Even now. Pray for me.

And be careful, Jack, my son is all I have left."

"Bob"

Jack turned around in time to see Bob's car pull away and head down the road. Jack watched until it disappeared. A full 15 minutes later, he too, pulled away and drove slowly home, praying for forgiveness and hugging a surprised wife and kids when he arrived.

Life is precious. Handle with care. Drive safely and carefully, and remember, cars are not the only things recalled by their maker.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Unofficial Liberal Election Campaign Continues with Letter to Supporters

The liberal election campaign is well underway. The letters have gone out to liberal supporters in an effort to distort reality and raise money for the left-wing agenda. The most recent e-mail from the federal liberals tries to portray Stephen Harper as the uncooperative Opposition Leader with a lust for power. The liberals continue to portray Conservatives as unfairly toppling the government before Canadians can see the final report from Justice Gomery. Liberals say this in spite of the fact that Paragraph K of Justice Gomery’s mandate specifically forbids the commission from expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization.

Remember Canada, it was Paul Martin and the liberals that shut down the public accounts committee last year when evidence of liberal corruption was starting to surface. It was the liberals that tried to hide their corruption from the public as they called an unnecessary early election in June of 2004 in a bid to reaffirm their grip on power, while Canadians were still completely in the dark about the sponsorship scandal. Now that the evidence is out in the open, the liberals want ten months to campaign, raise funds, and spread lies about Conservative hidden agendas before Canadians can get rid of them.

Below is the letter:

Friday, April 29, 2005

Dear Michael,

Since being elected, Paul Martin’s Liberals have delivered on their commitments to Canadians. In less than one year they have negotiated a 10-year health care agreement, started a nation-wide early childhood development program and are committing gas tax revenues to ensure Canadians have vibrant communities to live and work. Paul Martin’s Liberals are committed to making this government work. But today this progress is being threatened.

Paul Martin’s Liberals need your support today.

On Thursday, April 21, Prime Minister Paul Martin spoke directly to Canadians – accepting responsibility and claiming accountability as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada – and encouraged us to allow this government to continue moving forward with an ambitious agenda still to be accomplished in the House of Commons.

He also promised an election call within 30 days of Justice Gomery’s final report on the Sponsorship Program.

It wasn’t so long ago that Mr. Harper was threatening to bring the government down if the Liberals obstructed the work of the Gomery Commission

Now, sensing opportunity, with his perception skewed by visions of increased political power, Mr. Harper is threatening to pull the plug on Parliament and hold an election before Judge Gomery can complete his work!

Mr. Harper feels this would be in his own personal best interest, and that of the Bloc Quebecois. But it is certainly not in the best interest of the majority of Canadians who want Justice Gomery to complete the job entrusted to him.

Mr. Harper has made it clear that an election is coming – because he wants one. The Liberal Party is gearing up to be ready if the Conservatives and Bloc gain the votes needed to dissolve Parliament.

It takes time and effort from tens of thousands of volunteers - and it takes money to mount a winning campaign across this great country. Your support today is critical to our success.

Please donate now with the most generous gift possible. Canada is working. The only option to keep it working is a Liberal government.

Thank you for your past, current and future support. We will keep you informed of the progress we are making together.

Sincerely,

Honourable Marc Lalonde
Member, National Campaign Committee

Honourable David Smith
Member, National Campaign Committee

*P.S. We can no longer accept corporate donations. We can only depend upon your personal support to be ready at any time. Please don’t delay – and make your gift today.

Reading this letter from the liberal party reaffirms the notion that liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.