A message from Stephen Harper: I've got big cuts in mind for Canadians but not for me and my buddies. Suck on it Canada.

Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper illustrated very clearly his priorities: cuts for Canadians, but not for Stephen Harper, his family, and Conservative Buddies.

At 4:32pm ET the Prime Minister's office issued the following:

Not disclosed in the advisory is the fact that James Moore (Twitter), and Harper's daughter, are going along for the trip. Also not highlighted is the cost to Canadian taxpayers for this junket.

When Stephen Harper was Leader of the Official Opposition one of his M.P.s, Jason Kenney [1], calculated that it cost $11,000 an hour to run the government's Challenger jets, the same jet that will ferry Stephen Harper and his party down to Boston. That cost does not include the additional costs for security which will be incurred. Using Kenney's own figures a conservative estimate of the cost of this joy ride will run to some figure between thirty and fifty thousand dollars.

That's your government at work, closing down programs because they are deemed inessential but spending up to fifty thousand dollars to send two men and a child to a hockey game in Boston.

Ron Cannan (Twitter), a B.C. Conservative MP, is attempting to defend the indefensible on CBC's Power & Politics right now. Mr. Cannan, you are failing miserably at the task, but you know that already of course because there is nothing you can say in defense of this wasteful spending by your leader, Stephen Harper.

Every single lay off, every single program cut, every single "no" issued by the Treasury Board should now be evaluated in this light.

Great work Prime Minister, you just made the opposition's job much easier.

What you can do:

• Write a letter to your paper
• Visit the Twitter links for Cannan and Moore and let them know how you feel
• Vote in the CBC Question of the Day poll ("Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to attend tonight's Stanley Cup game in Boston?")

PS: To the opposition, official and otherwise, you might also recall that in September 2009 Jim Flaherty used a government jet to fly him and his wife from Ottawa to Montreal to go to a party for Brian Mulroney. Please do you jobs and hold these jokers to account. Canadians of all political stripes are angered by politicians living high on the hog at our expense.

Question: Pretend you are a candidate for election and you feel that you embody the character and spirit of a local well loved former politician. Wouldn't you first check with the politician's widow before weaving a narrative for yourself that borrows if not steals the coattails of her husband's career?

Apparently if you are Ryan Hastman, the Conservative candidate for Edmonton-Strathcona, you don't feel so obligated. Rabble.ca carries the story:

At an all-candidates' meeting Tuesday on the University of Alberta campus, Decore's widow emotionally stood up and took Hastman to task for using her husband's name in an attempt to advance Prime Minister Harper's neo-con agenda.

"It's insulting. He's a man who is nothing like you," Anne Marie Decore told the 200 students at the forum. "To try and ride the coattails of a man who has been dead 12 years is repugnant.

"My husband's ideals and beliefs were not like this Tory government of Mr. Hastman's!"

Given the orange crush sweeping the country, will we next find Stephen Harper channeling Tommy Douglas?

The Liberal Party has obtained a hard copy binder of material representing what was known within the Canadian Alliance party as the Harper Quote Database. In the collection of three files attached to this article, there are almost 500 pages of scanned images in PDF format. You can also obtain the files from a higher speed download link provided by the Liberal party here.

A quick scan through Part 3, the largest collection of quotes and comments, located a number of my favorites which I have extracted and published here as well to a group Twitter stream #harperquotes. You can also find a sizable selection of quotations and references to the original files compiled by CBC News reporter Laura Payton: the Harper quotes dossier: a sample.

Note: I've edited the following down to fit the limited scope Twitter permits.

On the NDP Harper was at least somewhat prescient:

"... obviously Mr. Layton's leadership poses some interesting dynamics for the federal political scene." (2003)

On MPs in general:

"In fact, most MPs are bit players in today's parliamentary system"

"Why are MPs so supine? You might as well ask why cows are so passive. They are bred that way."

Certainly Harper's MPs and cabinet ministers are cowed. Bullied even. That's just how Stephen rolls.

On women in politics:

"Obviously the government thinks it's being clever by appointing women"

A comment directed at former PM Jean Chretien appointments to senate.

On Democratic Deficit and Reforming Parliament:

"I will get rid of the lobbyists, the spin doctors and the bagmen..."

He never did it, never got the job done. In fact, he put some of these bad folks into the Senate!

"what Canada needs is a system that separates the two branches of government along the American model"

Engaging in secret negotiations with David Emerson to 'cross the floor' less than 24 hours after Election 06, appointing Fortier to the Senate and into cabinet, are precedents both newly set and reinforced which push Canada closer to the U.S. model of an unelected cabinet. Look at Iraq, look at the U.S. financial system, look at their inability to provide health care to all their citizens and ask yourself "how is that working out"?

On Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"I agree that serious flaws exist in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

You can read the Charter here.

On Coalitions:

"alliance of separate regional parties rather than a unitary national party is the most desirable and attainable goal"

"... make more sense is the gradual construction of an explicit alliance of opposition elements, or 'sister parties'"

As has been proven time and again, when it suits his purposes, Stephen Harper has no issues whatsoever with coalitions of parties working together to gain power.

On Education:

"I think we've vastly over-invested in universities."

Students: he's just not into you. If you look further at the relevant quote, Harper declares that the "vast majority" of Canadian students are unfit for a university education. Sorry.

On immigrants in mostly urban western ridings:

"people who live in ghettoes"

Immigrant communities Harper now courts for votes.

On Gun Control:

"I voted for [the gun bill] in principle at second reading."

Yes, Harper once voted for the long gun registry, but now he uses the registry as a scare tactic aimed at mostly rural voters; the strategy has proven to be so useful a tool for fund-raising that one wonders what the party will do when it finally does kill the registry.

On the Canada Health Act:

"the Canada Health Act has to change."

But how? Why won't you ever discuss?

"what we should be doing is not figuring out how we can have the most equal system..."

Harper has long argued that 'universality' is not desirable.

"co-payment, prepayment and all kinds of options that are frankly going to have to be looked at"

And he's open to anything including US-style user-pay health care.

"... having a system where you have as many tiers as possible"

No 2-tier health care system? Well how about 3-tier? 4-tier? 5-tier? The sky is the limit with Stephen Harper!

"Those who like an existing policy know why they like it... That's the welfare state."

Here Harper seemingly aims at most Canadians.

"I like my job as President of the National Citizens Coalition"

Where he agitated against "medicare"?

On joining George W. Bush's war in Iraq:

"security council members who are wavering on whether there's sufficient authority to use force are just completely wrong."

Only they were completely right.

"I don't give a damn about the polls [views of Canadians]."

Only 15% of Canadians thought we should be in Iraq; Stephen Harper doesn't give a damn about what the majority of Canadians think about any issue, especially not an issue as important as war. Harper would have committed Canada to that war if he were Prime Minister:

"we support the [Iraq]war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them"

On BC's anti-smoking laws, if enough people ignore it:

"will simply break down, and it should."

On Keeping Politics Out of the Church:

"[Church] is not to promote a particular political party"

Odd, given Harper was recently campaigning at Vancouver's Broadway Alliance Church. But he isn't kind to all churches:

"After all, the Moderator of the United Church has nothing to do with religion."

Wow. Just wow.

Insulting broad swaths of Canadians:

"we will not stand for a second-tier country (Canada) run by a third-world leader with fourth-class values."

He's just not in to Canada, either.

"The real problem is the dogmatic and extreme agenda of the looney left".

The looney left? Who are you referring to? The 62% of Canadians which did not vote for you?

In period of on-going deficits:

"I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts" (1995)

Wait one. We are in a period of on-going deficits, yet Harper is willing to spend even more on planes, trains and automobiles?

If there ever was a story that needed to be headlined and talked up at every possible opportunity it is this one:

Conservatives ask Elections Canada to nullify votes cast at University of Guelph (April 14, 2011 - Guelph Mercury)

Elections Canada media advisor James Hale said this was the third election during which the University of Guelph held a special ballot on campus. And this is the first time it's ever been challenged, Hale said.

"Part of our mandate is making the vote as accessible as possible. So, we look at outreach programs," Hale said.

Hale said special ballot polling stations are often held for groups of people who consistently display less-than-average voter turnouts, such as students, First Nations, seniors and the disabled.

"It's never been challenged, not to my knowledge," Hale said.

However, it was Wednesday and then again Thursday by the Conservatives.

Several University of Guelph students claim Michael Sona, the communications director for Guelph Conservative candidate Marty Burke, attempted to put a stop to voting at the special ballot held Wednesday.

The students say Sona approached the Elections Canada balloting site claiming that the process unfolding at the location was illegal and at one point reached for but never took possession of a container with ballots.

"He tried to grab for the ballot box. I'm not sure he got his hand on the box, but he definitely grabbed for it", said Brenna Anstett, a student, who at the time of the reported incident was sealing her second of two envelopes containing her vote.

Student Claire Whalen was just about to receive her ballot just before 5 p.m. when the episode unfolded.

"That's when a guy came up and said it was an illegal polling station and that he was confiscating the ballots. And then he tried to take (the ballot box)," Whalen said.

Whalen also identified the man as Sona.

See also:

Ignatieff slams Tory attempt to annul votes at University of Guelph Conservatives’ attempt to disqualify votes unacceptable: NDP Press Release

Mr. Sona can be found on Twitter as @MichaelSona. Given he is self-identified as a partisan he cannot be an Elections Canada official and therefore has no right to confiscate ballots.

Those committed to restoring our democracy might want to have a word or two, or 140 characters at least, with Mr. Sona. Don't be too harsh. Sona appears to be a student himself and like all of us, has many lessons yet to learn in life. Hopefully Mr. Sona will in the future put more value on the principles of democracy than trying to play the game hard for his team. The two are not equivalent. Unfortunately for us all, political parties and notably Team Harper have as an effect of their gamesmanship turned our democratic process into something of a farce.

A lot of us just felt disrespected as voters and as young people. Yvonne Su, Vote Mob Organizer

We can and must do better. Perhaps Mr. Sona will learn a lesson from this unfolding experience and become an advocate for a truly democratic process rather than a willing and complicit destroyer of democracy.

Should anyone wonder why I care so much about this issue, I'm one of the 46,168 electors in Vancouver-Kingsway who had their votes invalidated - stolen in essence - by the undemocratic actions of David Emerson and Stephen Harper. A senior cabinet minister in the last Paul Martin Liberal government, Emerson was re-elected in Election 2006 on January 23rd. In his acceptance speech Emerson vowed to constituents to represent them well as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and exclaimed that he'd be "Stephen Harper's worst enemy" when he got back to Ottawa.

A politician has two loyalties here: a loyalty to his party and a loyalty to the democratic system. I'd like to see some loyalty to the democratic system from the prime minister. Michael Ignatieff

On January 24th, the very next day -- less than 24 hours after the votes had been counted -- Emerson was in negotiations with the Conservatives to join Stephen Harper's new, first, government. Constituents would only learn of his treachery on February 6 2006 when Emerson stepped out of a limo at Rideau Hall to the surprise of everyone.

Their vote - the cornerstone of our democratic system - was somehow devalued, if not betrayed. Bernard Shapiro, Ethics Commissioner (2006)

In 2006 Harper and Emerson conspired to steal the votes of the electors in my riding. In 2011 we must not allow Harper and his minions to steal the votes of any Canadian, but especially we must protect the votes and voices of our youth who we must encourage at every turn to become involved in the political process rather than jaded because of it.

Let's all stand with the students at University of Guelph.

I am @confute on twitter.

I'm not a Liberal, nor am I a New Democrat, Green, Marxist, Pirate, Progressive Canadian, or Rhino. I'm a independent but politically active Canadian that was once involved in politics as an organizer and contributor to "small c" conservative politics in the tradition of the Red Tory which is something of an extinct species, officially at least, these days.

Why the preamble? Each election brings new readers to my humble blog and I feel a little uncomfortable publishing partisan materials and links without having introduced myself.

If the following story being pitched by the Liberal war room is essentially accurate, it makes my non partisan blood boil; no doubt it will affect most Canadians, even big C Conservatives, in much the same way:

Abuse of Power: Jim Flaherty's secret personal joy ride in a government jet (Liberal.ca, April 14, 2011) The flight manifest for Transport Canada jet C-FKEB - obtained through Access to Information - shows that on September 17, 2009, Mr. Flaherty, Conservative candidate for Whitby-Oshawa, flew from Ottawa to Oshawa with his wife Christine Elliot, MPP, then flew immediately to Montreal for the gala, and then back to Ottawa the same evening. Mr. Flaherty and Mrs. Elliot used these taxpayer-funded flights solely to join their fellow Conservatives for the 25th anniversary of Brian Mulroney's 1984 election victory.

Mr. Flaherty also billed taxpayers $294.98 for a hotel room in Montreal but, according to the flight manifest, he and his wife returned to Ottawa without spending the night in that hotel.

Mr. Flaherty did not report the Oshawa trip in his proactive disclosure of travel and hospitality expenses, which leads to further questions about what activities he and Ms. Elliott undertook there on the taxpayers' dime, said Mr. Holland.

While the cost of the flight is unknown, Conservative Jason Kenney once pegged the cost of running the Challenger Jet at $11,000 an hour.

What say you Canada?

I am @confute on twitter.

In case it gets pulled, I'm reposting here (with some refinements) a response I've made to the National Post article: Q & A: Are the Conservatives screening the audience at its events?

Tamsin: Sparrow is being disingenuous in his responses and that's being polite.

He will be very familiar with the Conservative Party of Canada data collection / data warehouse / profiling application called CIMS. This tool collects a monstrous amount of information on Canadians without their permission. It is possible to take note of every contact, every lawn sign spotted, every relationship made. When telephone canvassers ask for your support or money, the response is noted. Does your record have a "happy face" beside it? Are you linked to opponents? Did you once have a lawn sign for the opposition? This information and much more has been collected for many years dating back to the Canadian Alliance. If a Liberal or NDP or CPC or GPC lawn sign was spotted on a lawn during a riding canvas, it can be recorded and entered into CIMS and many ridings do. MP offices collect data even while election campaigns not running and even though their constituency offices are supposed to be run as apolitical government services.

The CIMS system is hugely invasive with respect to personal privacy and the collection and use of this data is never disclosed to those being monitored, willing or not. In the private sector such data collection and use would make the organization doing the collection subject to serious violations of federal and provincial personal information and privacy laws and this really should be the case when it comes to political profiling.

I'm a former CIMS user and had also received a technical briefing on CIMS back during the CA-PCPC merger days when I was chair of the PCPC's national technology committee (a very small committee).

CIMS will have evolved much further since then. Twitter and Facebook didn't then exist. Application program interfaces to these public warehouses of personal information make it possible for the developers of CIMS to extend the application by automatically retrieving data from these sources and others. Have the developers done this? I don't know, but if I were working on the application it is what I would do - and more.

Even without such innovations a Friend or Foe report from CIMS is trivial to generate if you have email addresses and names to cross reference. In Harper's tightly scripted bubble world, there is no doubt that they would use CIMS as one of their tools to filter out "undesirables".

See also an older article on CIMS: Member information is... private. Related to Canadians being excluded from Harper events see also (via @CBCPolitics on Twitter) unedited newsfeed of Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas managing to not answer a simple question repeatedly over several minutes. [Full Video]

Love it! Direct link.

Before perusing this article I would encourage readers to check out this excerpt from Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, the excerpt itself published last October long before the Carson saga became real news. Consider how prominently Bruce Carson has fit into the daily life of Stephen Harper over the years and then read the latest revelations and ask yourself: is Harper credible?

Earlier today Stephen Harper went on at length before the press to claim that he knew of some of Bruce Carson's criminal past but not about "revelations that we're finding out today".

Yet in breaking news the subject of the controversy, Bruce Carson, declares that everything about his past was fully disclosed in the process of applying for security clearances necessary to work in Harper's office and that he specifically made then Chief of Staff Ian Brodie aware of his past and concerns regarding the impact to his application.

Something doesn't smell right. Today in 2011 Harper says, no, I didn't know:

Harper in the dark on ex-aide Carson's past problems (April 4, 2011 Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News) "The fact is, I did not know about these revelations that we're finding out today," the Conservative leader said. "I don't know why I did not know. Obviously, we're going to have to go back and look at our system. Stephen Harper, April 4, 2011

Yet when Carson was first hired on to the Harper inner circle in 2006:

Carson says no one balked at his criminal past upon joining Harper's PMO (April 4, 2011 - Jim Bronskill and Joan Bryden, Today, Canadian Press) Bruce Carson says no one raised a red flag about his criminal past when he joined Stephen Harper's newly minted government as a top adviser. [...] Carson said in an interview he mentioned his criminal history in early 2006 to Ian Brodie, then Harper's chief of staff, when completing an application for a Secret-level security clearance. And Carson says he hid nothing when filling out the extensive form.

"Certainly, my belief is that I listed all of the criminal offences to which I had been convicted. I had a discussion with Ian Brodie about this," Carson told The Canadian Press.

In an appearance today on CBC's Power & Politics journalist Jim Bronskill of The Canadian Press relayed a conversation he recently had with Bruce Carson about the circumstances of his application for work in Harper's office. Carson explained his past to then Chief of Staff Ian Brodie and asked Brody "so, is this the end of it?" meaning are his opportunities in the PMO over. Brodie is said to have responded "No, go and fill out the form."

In 2006 Carson says he fully disclosed all of his past in a declaration in order to obtain both a job working for Harper as well as obtain the necessary security clearances. Carson further says that he had a specific conversation with Harper's Chief of Staff, Ian Brodie, about his past and whether it would affect his work opportunity in Harper's office. In 2011 Harper claims that they learned of "these things afterwards".

There are two issues that matter here.

The first issue is Carson is currently under investigation by the RCMP regarding a new set of allegations related to his work as a government insider. Mr. Carson is innocent until proven guilty, and if not for his past perhaps the public could simply take note of the current allegations, serious as they may be, and wait for due process to work out.

The second issue is whether Stephen Harper demonstrated good judgement in knowingly hiring someone with a criminal record - five fraud convictions and disbarred from the Law Society - and allowing that person to become part of his inner circle and carry a high level security clearance.

The impression left regarding what was known about Carson's past is that the PM must have known much more than he is letting on but won't admit it due to the even more serious context of the new allegations Carson faces over events that happened on Harper's watch, not to mention that Harper is engaged in an election campaign.

Canadians will have a hard time believing that Stephen Harper, famous for micro-managing everything, did not know about Carson's past and these latest revelations will not help him as he attempts to change the channel.

Harper's new campaign talking points are focussed on labelling Election 2011 as The Unnecessary Election. Standing on a stage in P.E.I. he's just said "this is not where I should be", blaming the "coalition" for dragging him from Ottawa, forcing him to endure a campaign, answer reporter's questions.

At least Harper won't be forced to talk to a real random Canadian, for anyone that gets close to him is pre-vetted and ordered to keep quiet unless spoken to directly, rather like the Canadian media are muzzled by Harper and his team.

The other end of Harper's plank is to paint himself as a great fiscal manager. This simply isn't true. Readers will recall that during the last "unnecessary election" -- the one in 2008 which Harper called, breaking his own fixed election date law in the process -- Harper claimed that if Canada were to be faced with a recession it'd already be happening. He promised he'd never engage in "deficit financing" of federal government operations. (YouTube) A few short weeks after the election he acknowledged that Canada was facing a recession of significant depths and would turn on the deficit spending spigot.

What many Canadians did not realize back in 2008 is that the Harper government had already started to push Canada deep into deficit spending before he'd even called the election. He lied to us all then. We all know how it turned out. What lies is he telling now?

Hopefully Canadians won't be fooled.

There is no "coalition". Stephen Harper is no great fiscal manager. There is no such thing as an unnecessary election. Going to the polls again is not something to fear or loathe but is an opportunity for Canadians to speak their mind again. But they need to be armed with facts, not vitriol from either side.

One of Harper's political appointments to the Senate, Michael L. (Jake) MacDonald is apparently not a fan of reporters asking questions of his beloved master. Not cool:

Check it out and voice your thoughts.

Milewski is an equal opportunity issue prober. Just ask Jean Chretien what he thinks of Terry's coverage of the APEC summit affair. And Ditchburn? An attack dog? Thorough and competent yes, biased no. A CBC employee? Not for years.