Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Liberals Stroke the Base with A Letter Full of Garbage

The liberals sent yet another letter to party faithful in an effort to pick the pockets of its supporters. The liberals continue to stress that they have important work to do, but so far the only thing they are doing is clinging to power any way they can. Below is the content of the letter:

June 28, 2005

Dear Michael,

It was one of the most intense sessions of Parliament in Canadian history. Last month, Stephen Harper and the Bloc Quebecois almost got their wish for an election by putting their personal ambitions ahead of the needs of the country.

Canadians almost faced an election to further a neoconservative and separatist agenda.

When parliament resumes this fall, Mr. Harper will try to bring the house down once again - even when Prime Minister Paul Martin has committed to an election 30 days after the final report from Justice Gomery.

Because of the ongoing Conservative – Bloc threat, we have to ensure our readiness to mount a winning campaign at any time. Your donation today will keep Canada working and moving forward under the leadership of Paul Martin’s Liberals.

We are fortunate not to be going to the polls today. There is important work yet to do. But we also have to be ready to fight an election at a moment’s notice.

Please respond before Canada Day with your gift and help us keep Canada working.

Thank you in advance for supporting the Liberal Party’s Campaign for Canada today.

Happy Canada Day!

Mike Eizenga
President

P.S. Summer’s here – and we need your support to keep our Campaign for Canada moving forward.


Is it not ironic that the liberals continue to try and portray Conservatives as being in bed with the separatists after the liberals themselves made a deal with the seperatists to invoke closure on Bill C-48 and save their necks once again?

Monday, June 27, 2005

The Sick Reality of Socialism – When the Government Takes Control of Your Life

Imagine you are 47-years-old. You live at home with your mother and 80-year-old father. Your father is getting pretty old and a nurse comes by once per day to care for him. Being a good son, you also care for your father when you can.

Then one day your socialist government declares your father not mentally competent to run his own affairs. The government then appoints an official to take control of your father’s life without the consent of your mother or yourself. The government starts by withdrawing $900 from your dad’s bank account to cover its costs. This government official now owns all your father’s assets and can force him to move into any living arrangement he chooses.

Because this is a totalitarian state, there is no appeals process. The government official has no knowledge of your father’s circumstance before he is appointed to take over. You are not consulted even though you live with your father. Your mother is also not consulted even though she has the power of attorney over her husband. The government official is simply appointed and then takes over your father’s life immediately, without ever scheduling a home visit or meeting with your dad. He simply comes in and takes control.

Once the government official has stepped in and taken all of your father’s money and seized all his assets, you have one chance to appeal. Unfortunately, the cost of the appeal will run into the thousands and you don’t always win. As well, the official gets a 3% cut of your income which puts him in a conflict of interest.

You would imagine that this kind of scenario is common in socialist countries like North Korea, China and the former Soviet Union. Would it surprise you to know that this is exactly what happened in the socialist NDP province of Manitoba?

Above is the true story of the Hanaway family who live in Winnipeg’s North End. Manitoba’s Public Trustee Anne Bolton has triggered a firestorm of controversy in the power her office wields when she took control of the life of Thomas Hanaway on June 6th.

The more clients the Public Trustee has, the higher their revenue. This agency currently has 3,500 living ones now. To read more about this unbelievable story, please read the Tom Brodbeck article in the Winnipeg Sun.

This is just one sick reality of the kind of socialism that the NDP is bringing to Canada.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

CBC to Portray a Conservative as Something Other Than Scary

Conservative Health Critic Steven Fletcher will be featured on the CBC’s Moving On program Sunday, June 26th at 2:00 pm.

Moving On is a documentary program about people with disabilities who are developing ways to live more independently. The people seen in the program are neither victims nor heroes, but human beings striving to lead as full a life as possible. Moving On depicts people with disabilities at work, receiving healthcare, using and developing technology, forging relationships, producing art and entertainment and playing sports. In the process, the program challenges stereotypes and provides useful information about disability issues.

Steven Fletcher is an MP from Winnipeg who was left a paraplegic when his car crashed into a deer. He won his seat in the 2004 federal election beating out a very popular Winnipeg Mayor named Glenn Murray.

When you consider that the CBC cannot portray a Conservative as anything other than scary, this special on Steven should be interesting.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Understanding the Logic of Same-sex Advocates

Have you ever debated the issue of same-sex marriage with someone who is in favor of same-sex marriage? If you have, you have no doubt been frustrated by the lack sense that comes from these people. On most issues people have at least one positive and sensible thing to say that makes you wonder if maybe you are wrong. On the issue of same-sex marriage, nothing the left says holds any water.

For those of us that oppose redefining marriage there are a multitude of solid reasons why we believe changing the definition of marriage is wrong. Dr. Charles McVety, President, Canada Christian College and Canada Family Action Coalition gives us 31 Reasons to Vote "No" to Changing the Definition of Marriage. For another seven, you can visit Enshrine Marriage Canada.

On the issue of why heterosexual couples deserve marriage benefits, Conservatives point out the obvious. Heterosexual couples create and raise children. In fact, the same scientists that say there is a gay gene are unanimous in pointing out that in spite of this, the opposite sex mother/father/child relationship is still the best environment for children. They all agree that this is the ideal scenario in which to raise the next generation. As a result, governments have every right to create laws and give beneficial treatment to people in order to promote this ideal.

The same-sex marriage advocates argue that not every opposite sex couple has children. While it is true that not every opposite sex couple has children, virtually all do. In contrast, not one single same-sex couple is capable of having children of their own. And while it is possible for same-sex couples to raise children not their own into happy vibrant members of society, every child still has the right to claim the love of both their biological mother and father. Again, this is the ideal which governments have every right to promote while discouraging alternative relationships.

What same-sex marriage advocates always overlook is that marriage is not about equality. Civil marriage is not about equality. All government policies are preferential on purpose. If you want welfare, veteran’s benefits, child support or marriage benefits, then you have to qualify for them. In all cases government, for its own good, discriminates in favor of some people, and some relationships, and not others.

The absence of equality is not really a good argument against these kinds of policies. Same-sex partnerships already receive the same benefits as married couples, but something else is at issue for same-sex marriage advocates. They want to persuade the public that such partnerships are of the same value to society as marriages. But the only way they can do this is by denying the unique contribution of marriage as a biologically-uniting, child centered institution.

When women gained equal rights in Canada, they were not renamed men and there is no reason why homosexuals need to use the term marriage.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Vote on Bill C-48 Tonight

The vote on the $4.6 billion NDP budget deal is less than 15 minutes away. The last time this bill was voted on the result of the vote was a 152-152 tie with the liberal speaker breaking the tie to keep the liberals in power. That vote was also taken after Belinda Stronach had crossed the floor to accept a cabinet position.

Since that vote, the liberals picked up one seat in a byelection and lost one caucus member, Pat O'Brien, who vowed to vote against the liberals in a vote of non-confidence to topple them before same-sex marriage can pass. Without Pat O'Brien the liberals do not have the votes to remain in power.

Grewal, Stinson and Chatters appear to be missing from the Conservative side. A Conservative motion to the bill was defeated 93-205.

Chuck Cadman also appears to be absent, leaving only Parrish, O'Brien and Kilgour in the independent chairs. Parrish is voting with the government on all ammendments, while O'Brien and Kilgour are opposing government.

The vote on bill C-48 passes 152-147.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

The Battle Against the NDP Budget Bill – Next Week

Next week is when Bill C-48 is expected to come up for a final vote. This is the bill that includes the extra $4.6 billion of spending the liberals added to buy the votes of the NDP and keep their corrupt government alive. Defeating this bill is the last opportunity the Conservatives have to bring down the liberals before summer.

The mainstream media is pumping out stories today that the Conservative Party is trying to trade support for the NDP budget if the liberals will delay a vote on same-sex marriage. According to the liberal press, the liberals are not willing to make any deals with the conservatives to delay same-sex marriage. The idea that Conservatives offered a deal like this seems very unlikely for two reasons.

First of all, we are talking about an NDP budget bill that is filled with spending. The spending initiatives included go against everything Conservatives stand for. As well, it allocates money for things with no plans on how to spend it. This is exactly the kind of wasteful spending bill Conservatives loathe. If the Conservatives will not stand up for the Canadian taxpayer, then who will?

Secondly, the Conservatives are the only ones standing up to preserve the traditional family. Once the budget bill passes, there will be nothing stopping Canada’s left-wing extremists from rewriting a six thousand year old definition of marriage. The Conservatives have the votes now to topple the liberals with the defection of former liberal Pat O’Brien. Pat O’Brien has said he will vote against the government in a vote of non-confidence if he believes it is necessary to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Now is the time for Stephen Harper to rally the troops for next weeks vote. This is the last chance we have to stop this liberal juggernaut and the idea that he is making a deal to sell out the Canadian taxpayer the way socialist NDP leader Jack Layton did seems ridiculous.

For the sake of the Canadian taxpayer and the traditional family which forms the cornerstone of society, Conservatives need to make this next opportunity to defeat the liberals count.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Doer Government Circling Wagons on Crocus

Manitoba is living through the biggest provincial investment scandal ever. The socialist NDP government of Gary Doer mismanaged a provincial investment fund and ignored all the warning signs along the way. Winnipeg lawyer and political activist Jeff Niederhoffer weighs in with some insight into this socialist boondoggle.

How the mighty have fallen! Crocus Investment Fund, a Manitoba-based investment fund that was once an industry leader, is now a brand name synonymous with plummeting share values, managerial incompetence, alleged criminal conduct, and pending litigation.

If Auditor General Jon Singleton’s recent report on Crocus has done nothing else, it has provided a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the anarchy and ineptitude that until recently characterized the management of the fund. Of course, as the report also makes clear, there was plenty of anarchy and ineptitude to go around. The provincial government was empowered by statute to supervise the fund – but despite warning signs that Crocus was in trouble, the Doer government made no attempt to investigate, did not even make the most basic inquiries.

And there were certainly ‘warning signs’. Over the past four years, at least, the provincial government received a steady drumbeat of warnings about Crocus from officials in the Industry and Finance Departments. In 2001, the Industry Department provided the government a detailed analysis of Crocus’ cash-flow problems, going so far as to predict that the fund would eventually face a liquidity crisis. And in January 2002, an official in the Finance Department independently wrote an email memo warning of possible mismanagement at Crocus. On top of all this, at some point in 2002, then Industry Minister Maryann Mihychuk had been briefed by Industry Department officials as to the difficulties they were having in monitoring the fund. Throughout 2002 and 2003, as Mihychuk now recalls, she and her staff had repeatedly discussed the need for new legislation to improve provincial monitoring of Crocus.

In the face of these warning signs, the Doer government’s response was to do nothing. Tory Industry Critic John Loewen has criticized the Doer government on its failure to monitor the fund. “Quite clearly here, we see they had warnings,” Loewen rightly notes. “And for some reason which they’re going to have to justify, they refused to act.” Loewen speaks for a good many Manitobans; he is certainly reflecting the concerns of the nearly 34,000 Crocus shareholders who have seen their investments decimated. Manitobans have every right to wonder why the government dropped the ball in terms of its oversight responsibility.

It is difficult to believe, as Doer & Co. want us to believe, that these warnings about Crocus never made it beyond a handful of bureaucrats and an Industry Minister. It is laughable to suggest that Mihychuk, as her department was making plans to draft legislation, would not have brought Cabinet up to speed. Nevertheless, past and present members of the Doer government maintain that Cabinet was collectively out of the loop, and, in particular, that Premier Doer was never informed. This is, to put it mildly, difficult to swallow. What is far more likely is that Premier Doer’s Ministers and advisors, much like ‘the President’s Men’ of three decades ago, are instinctively hunkering down. They are circling the wagons. In the final analysis, Doer’s ‘men’ seem prepared to be the quintessential loyal soldiers who will do whatever it takes to protect their boss – and, not incidentally, their own political futures.

Jeff Niederhoffer is a Winnipeg lawyer and political activist.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Live Blogging of Non-Confidence Vote Marathon

Tonight at 10:00 pm. EDT (15 minutes from now) Parliament will be voting on 18 bills. Fifteen of these are considered confidence motions by liberal House Leader Tony Valeri. Pat O'Brien, the independant liberal MP that defected from the liberal party this month, has said that he will vote to bring down the liberal party unless they delay their plans to implement the same-sex marriage bill. His vote could be the tipping point. Tonight is the best chance Canadians have to bring down the most corrupt federal government we have ever known and call a new election for this summer.

Here is a link if you want to watch the action live on C-PAC.

The first vote of the night was a BQ ammentment dealing with older workers. The vote was not one of non-confidence. The vote passed 301-0.

The MPs are now voting on a motion introduced by Conservative Rona Ambrose. This vote deals with the liberal desire to socialize babysitting for pre-school children in Canada. This is vote is also not one of confidence. All three of Canada's left-wing parties are lining up against this one. The final tally is 95-205.

Voting is now being done by unanimous consent of party whips. The Conservative and Bloc parties are voting against the government. The unholy liberal/socialist NDP alliance has lined up to push the wasteful spending bills through. Carolyn Parish and Pat O'Brien are siding with the government. David Kilgore is voting against. One such motion passed 153-149.

Bill C-43, an act to implement the 2005 budget is now being voted on. The liberals are are standing up in support. Not surprisingly, the NDP are standing up in support. The Conservatives are also supporting this bill since this budget bill does not include the $4.6 billion dollars of pork that was added to buy NDP support.

The liberals survive to rule until another day.

Good night.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Liberals Caught in another Lie – Working to Postpone Election

Former liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has long been arguing that Justice Gomery has a political bias. Justice Gomery has done an excellent job of uncovering the wide spread corruption that permeates the liberal party. On May 30th of this year, lawyers for Jean Chrétien ended their efforts to have Justice Gomery removed from the commission looking into the sponsorship scandal. That same day, these same lawyers received a letter from the current liberal government who advised that if they ended their attempts to stonewall Gomery they would be free to reintroduce a challenge to Justice Gomery in an effort to delay the Commission’s final report. Paul Martin has said he will call an election within 30 days of that report’s release which is expected in December.

When knowledge of the letter surfaced last week, Conservative deputy leader Peter McKay asked the liberal government if this meant they would be trying to postpone the final report in an attempt to delay the election. The liberal reply was that no such letter existed and lawyers for the liberal government had not been advising the lawyers of Jean Chrétien on the subject.

This is another obvious liberal lie since members of the Conservative party are in possession of the letter which has been widely circulated. Once again the liberals have been confronted with evidence of their lies and cover-ups and once again the liberals are changing their story.

The liberal party now says that a letter did change hands, but that no deal was made to delay the final report of the Gomery Commission or the election. The fact remains that, according to lawyers for the liberal government, if Jean Chrétien decides to challenge the partiality of Justice Gomery again; the election will again be postponed.

Given what the liberals have done to avoid that election until now, it would not be a surprise if the liberals backed out of a deal Paul Martin made to Canadians during a televised address.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Book Tagged by Canadi-Anna – The Blue Maple Leaf Responds

Canadia-Anna is a Conservative blogger from Toronto, Ontario. She is the author of a site called Canadianna’s Place. It is worth noting that The Blue Maple Leaf was originally born and raised close by in Mississauga, but moved to Winnipeg in October of 1990.

On Tuesday, The Blue Maple Leaf published an article titled ‘More anti-American propaganda from the CBC – Liberal Hypocrisy in Story of Sovereign Airspace. In the comments section of that article Canadi-Anna applied a book tag.

The Four Questions of the book tag with my answers are as follows:

1. How many books do you own?

I own less than 10 books. I have two books on computer networking that I bought and never read. I have Tom Clancy’s novel ‘Rainbow Six’. I have two textbooks on instrument flying, since I hold a commercial pilot’s license with all the important ratings, including an IFR rating. I have an encyclopedia of airplanes that a good friend, Dr. Al ‘the man’ Jones, bought for me. I have a copy of the ‘NIV study Bible’ that was a gift of Sheldon Loeppky and Paul Martins, two of the nicest, old school countries boys I have ever known. I have a copy of H. Norman Schwarzkopf’s biography, ‘It Doesn’t Take a Hero’ (General Schwarzkopf was the four star General in charge of allied forces during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the first Persian Gulf war against Iraq in 1991). And finally, I have an autographed copy of David Earle Johnson’s book The Land is Still Mine which I won in a contest from Israel National Radio’s Tovia Singer Show.

2. What is the latest book you bought?

‘The Land is Still Mine’ is the latest book I received, but ‘Rainbow Six’ was the last book I actually paid for.

3. What is the last book you read?

The last book I read was ‘The Land is Still Mine’, but I was not able to finish. The last book I finished was ‘It doesn’t take a hero’ and it was the fourth time I read it in full.

4. Which 5 books mean a lot to you?

The Bible is the one book that means the most to me, because it is the one book that has had the most impact on my life. The Bible also has a lot of clearly written end time prophecy. When people say things like, “the way things are going in Canada with the liberal MSM and Ontario voters, the liberals are destined to retain power until Kingdom come,” it is reassuring to know that this is not such a long time.

‘It doesn’t take a Hero’ is my next favorite book, because there are so many life lessons in it. There is no questioning the fact that war is profane, but for sake of peace, we must always be prepared to wage it and win decisively. Since we (Canada) are not prepared, it is good to know that our closest friend and trading partner (The United States) is.

Thank you Canadi-Anna for taking the time to book tag me.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Liberal MP Pat O’Brien Leaves Party to Sit as Independent

Liberal Member of Parliament, Pat O’Brien, left the liberal party to sit as an independent today. Mr. O’Brien is one hundred percent committed to killing the same-sex marriage bill C-38. His strong opposition to this bill nearly led him to leave the liberal party over a month ago, but he received personal assurances from the Prime Minister that there would be full, fair and meaningful public hearings on bill C-38. This has not happened.

According to Pat O’Brien, the legislative committee looking into redefining the definition of marriage has been anything but full, fair or meaningful. Instead, the liberals imposed an artificial and unnecessary June 14th deadline to pass the same-sex marriage bill as fast as possible. Witnesses at the hearings that oppose same-sex marriage have been berated, lectured and insulted. The committee has shown little respect for witness by giving them less than 24 hours notice to appear in some cases.

All this adds up to liberal contempt for the Parliamentary process. The liberals are trying to ram same-sex marriage down the throat of Canadians without hearing what the people of this country have to say.

Pat O’Brien went on to explain how liberal activist judges were used to impose same-sex marriage on Canadians. For over two years, Mr. O’Brien served as Pierre Pettigrew’s Parliamentary Secretary for international trade. At this time he was appointed to the Justice Committee. The first topic of that committee was same-sex unions and the possibility of redefining marriage.

Mr. O’Brien served on this committee until June of 2003. At that time, the Ontario Court of Appeal led the way in declaring that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. Pat O’Brien called this the most insulting and arrogant judicial decision of all time, anywhere in the world. This court instantly usurped the democratic role of Parliament in imposed same-sex marriage on the people of this country. No other court in the world has instantly rewritten the definition of marriage in this way.

Since the liberals had their will imposed on Canadians by judicial decree, the committee’s work was shut down and no committee report was written. Following the Ontario Court decision, Pat O’Brien introduced a motion to recommend that the government appeal the Ontario Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. However, the motion was turned down and the liberals refused to appeal this decision.

The liberals narrowly survived a recent non-confidence vote when the liberal speaker of the House broke a 152-152 tie. When Pat O’Brien was asked how he would vote in the next vote of non-confidence now that he will be sitting as an independent, he would not say for sure. However, he did make it very clear that he would bring down the government if it was necessary to defeat the same-sex marriage bill.

This author agrees fully with Pat O’Brien when he says, “I cannot accept the headlong rush of this government to redefine marriage.”

Thursday, June 02, 2005

More anti-American propaganda from the CBC – Liberal Hypocrisy in Story of Sovereign Airspace

Last night, the CBC delivered a story about a security measure proposed by the United States. The proposal would require information on passengers flying through American airspace to be given to American security services. Many flights including Montreal to Halifax, or Toronto to Calgary, cross U.S. airspace to save time and fuel. Under current rules, America only requires passenger lists when a plane will be taking off or landing at an American airport. Now the Americans are proposing that any flight flying through American airspace provide this information even when no stop in the US is scheduled.

For now it’s just an idea, draft legislation in the US, but if passed it would affect plenty of flights because so much of Canada’s population is close to the US border and the fastest way across Canada is often through American airspace. More than 2,000 domestic flights a week go that way.

The CBC’s Paul Hunter began his story using the infamous man on the street interviews to portray the anti-American attitudes we are supposed to have in this country. One person interviewed said, “I think that that’s my business, not the American government’s business.” Another person said, “I’m for fighting terrorism and stuff like that, but there are certain lines I just don’t agree with yet.”

According to the story, the Minister responsible calls this a matter of sovereignty. Liberal Transport Minister Jean Lapierre said, “We don’t think it’s a good idea that Canadians traveling from one city to another would have to be checked under the American no-fly list.”

Paul Hunter continues by saying, “The thing is, it’s their air, leaving Canada with little more than its own persuasiveness with which to convince the Americans to back down. If not, the simple apparent options: comply or use longer, costlier, but fully inside Canada routes instead.” The insinuation Paul Hunter makes is obvious. America is a big evil dominant country imposing its will on poor defenseless Canada once again.

Paul Hunter went so far as to use an expert to convince Canadians that we deserve special treatment in this country despite the anti-American attitudes we show our southern neighbor. Paul hunter put it this way, “Canada, says this air industry analyst, ought to get a break.”

Referring to the Americans, the air industry analyst said, “It’s really a matter in my feeling of being caught up in a larger policy that they’re trying to invoke on the world, forgetting that Canada perhaps has a special circumstance because we share the continent with them.”

Is it not amazing that just a short time ago the tables were turned and the propaganda wing of the liberal party, the CBC, was doing a story about Canada’s sovereign airspace?

Remember when Paul Martin and the liberals turned their back on America and said on behalf of our country that they would not support ballistic missile defense? And the liberals did this within days of the Canadian Ambassador to the US saying we are already committed to supporting the missile defense system.

It was at that time Prime Minister Paul Martin himself rebuked America at the thought they would dare defend themselves from missile attack by shooting any incoming missile down in Canadian airspace. This was when Paul Martin gave his infamous rant and said, “This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission.”

Liberal bloggers and the entire liberal mainstream media screamed bloody murder when America brushed off the notion that it would have to ask Canada for permission before shooting down incoming missiles targeting American cities. The left in this country really believed that America had some obligation to consult with us before daring to defend the lives of its own people. And this is the same sickeningly selfish anti-American left that is disgusted with the idea of divulging so much as their name to America, even if that information could, again, be used to save the lives of the American people.

The anti-American garbage and blatant hypocrisy that continues to flow out of the CBC is sickening beyond belief.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Question Period – Stephen Harper Exposes Liberal Lies

The liberal party was facing a vote of non-confidence only two weeks ago. In the days leading up to that crucial vote, the liberals were at work bribing Conservative MPs with offers of senate seats, cabinet posts and diplomatic appointments. These acts of influence peddling are criminal in Canada. Yet, the whole time the liberals were trying to buy more time in power, they were also lying to Canadians by denying that these offers were being made.

The liberal friendly mainstream media took the side of the liberal party the whole time this was going on. When the liberals denied they were soliciting Conservatives, the left-wing journalists of this country demanded that Conservatives offer proof. Eventually, one lone Conservative named Gurmant Grewal decided to tape conversations he had with senior liberal party members who had begun to target him. The Gurmant Grewal tapes were released to the public yesterday and copies have been given to the RCMP to help them with their criminal investigation.

When Gurmant Grewal first notified the public that he had been offered a cabinet post, the liberal party, including the Prime Minister, denied that anyone had ever talked to Gurmant. When Gurmant said that he had been recorded his conversations with liberal party members, the Prime Minister changed his story and said that liberal party members were negotiating with Gurmant, but that Gurmant initiated the negotiations. Paul Martin added that at no time did he ever agree to meet with the Conservative MP.

However, the audio tapes clearly show that the chief of staff for Prime Minister Paul Martin said, “The Prime Minister is prepared to talk to you directly both by phone and in person.” During question period in the House of Commons Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper asked the Prime Minister why he said he was unwilling to meet with the Conservative MP when clearly he was.

Paul Martin answered by repeating his previous lie, that Gurmant initiated discussions with the liberal party. The Prime Minister also said that he gave specific instructions to senior party members that no offer could be given to entice a defection and at no time was the Prime Minister prepared to meet with the Conservative MP. Then Paul Martin ended his answer by saying, “obviously anyone would meet with somebody that was interested in crossing the floor.”

Stephen Harper then said, “The Prime Minister is shifting his story, because now he admits he did authorize his senior people to engage in discussions. Now yesterday in the House, I repeat, the Prime Minister said this, ‘at no time did I ever say that I would meet with the Honorable Member, yet his Health Minister is on tape saying, I talked to the Prime Minister moments ago. He will be happy to talk to you over the phone or in person. Why did the Prime Minister not tell the truth in the House of Commons?”

Paul Martin again changed his story by saying that he would not be willing to meet with the Conservative MP unless he joined the liberal party with no preconditions or offers from the liberals.

Stephen Harper pointed out this new story when he said, “Well this is another story, because the Prime Minister said he would never meet with him. Now he says he would meet with him under certain conditions. When the government was courting the member for Dauphin – Swan River (Inky Mark), the president of the treasury board said, ‘Only the Prime Minister has the authority to make an offer. Is not the reason the Prime Minister wanted to meet the Member from Newton – North Delta (Gurmant Grewal) is so that he could make him an offer, just as he did in several other cases that we are aware of?”

Treasury Board President Reg Alcock replied by saying, “The Prime Minister gave his chief of staff one instruction, not to make any offers and that was the case. The Prime Minister has been very clear about this.”

So the question remains, if the Prime Minister was so clear about not offering any deals to Gurmant Grewal for him to cross the floor and join the liberal party, why do the tapes reveal that this is exactly what happened?

When Gurmant talked to Sudesh Kalia, discussions were made about a senate seat. The transcripts also talk about a diplomatic position in India. They talked about procedure involving a hand shake to seal the deal, with a delivery on promises one to two months in the future. When Gurmant talked to Ujjal Dosanjh, the liberal Health Minister, the conversation involved an offer of a cabinet position, which could be arranged right away. A cabinet position is what former Conservative MP Belinda Stronach was given when she joined the liberal party. Scott Bryson, another former Conservative also sits in the liberal cabinet. The Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Tim Murphy, is also on tape coaching Gurmant Grewal in what to say to the media in the event he was to join the liberals. “Am I being offered anything? You say ‘NO’,” is what Mr. Murphy said.

Oh what tangled web Paul Martin is weaving, by lying, lying about his lies and telling more lies in the hope it all go away.