From CanadaCausesCancer.ca a little humour driving home a point:

Click on Read or Watch and then Sign the petition.

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.

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.

Local Harper hit-man Hiebert under fire for huge annual expenses

I am entitled to my entitlements

Conservative MP Russ Hiebert (South Surrey - White Rock - Cloverdale) deserves the same sort of scorn and treatment the HST is getting in British Columbia. He is quick to denounce taxation, quick to applaud tax cuts, but even quicker to spend our tax dollars for his own expenses.

Hiebert ran for parliament partly on a campaign against real and perceived corruption during the tenure of prior governments. The Conservative Party of Canada tried to link any Liberal-connected figure to corruption or paint them as being elitist and out of touch with ordinary Canadians. One of the most often-repeated slurs, used even to this day, was handed to the Conservatives by David Dingwall, a former Cabinet minister in the first Chretien government and a Liberal appointee to head the Canadian mint. Under questioning by committee Dingwall had defended the perks of his job. Regardless of the specifics of the issue, Dingwall will forever be known as the source of the infamous quote "I am entitled to my entitlements".

What Hiebert says in his own defence is no different than David Dingwall's claim, and quite frankly neither stand up to the common sense sniff test that most Canadians would apply as to whether these are "fair" arrangements.

CTV British Columbia - B.C. MP defends using taxpayer money to fly family - CTV News

Hiebert told CTV News he was actively encouraged to travel with his family by his peers and he believes he is the only MP with a young family who has to travel a long distance.

"Because my wife and I made a commitment to keep our family together, that means my wife and kids come with me when the house is in session," Hiebert said.

Hiebert believes he is not only entitled to his entitlements but has been encouraged to make use of them. Not very many Canadians have such luxury. Something is topsy-turvy here, who is the master, and who is serving who?

I can attest from long personal experience that there are tens of thousands of Canadians out on the road, far away from home, doing their job each and every week and the vast majority do not have the luxury of shipping our family along with us. Here I find myself agreeing with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation:

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says the auditor general needs to examine whether the spending guidelines are too lax.

"If you have a regular job at a regular company and you want your family or children to travel with you, you pay for it out of your own pocket not out of the company pocket," said Scott Hennig.

For many years I was one of those road warriors, commuting every week from Vancouver to Edmonton, Calgary, or Toronto. For the first year of our marriage I barely saw my new bride, and business travel unfortunately became a regular Monday morning feature for many years to come. I missed huge chunks of the first years of my children's lives, returning tired at the end of the week to try to catch up on what I'd missed. Yes, it was hard on family life, but it was a sacrifice we all walked into knowingly.

Russ Hiebert walked into his job as a Member of Parliament knowingly, too.

After many years of commuting by plane to work in other provinces, we decided that we no longer needed nor wanted to make that sacrifice and I resigned from my position.

Mr. Hiebert: You should make the same decision, as should all MP's who are shipping their families back and forth across the country on the back of the taxpayers. Join the rest of the Canadian public who have demanding work out of town, without our spouses or children by our side -- or move them permanently to Ottawa on your own dime -- or do the right thing and resign your seat.

On CTV's Power Play show Wednesday host Tom Clark asked Brian Wilfert, the Vice-Chair of the Special Committee on Afghanistan (paraphrased) "Did Laurie Hawn contact you regarding participating in committee via teleconference, as he claims?" Wilfert's answer was a categorigal "Absolutely not!". You can choose who you believe.

I hope that a majority of Canadians do not care at all if there are partisan implications, for any party, in the Afghanistan detainee affair. We just want to know the truth.

We aren't getting the truth from our government.

Today in a sixteen page brief (PDF) addressed to the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, Richard Colvin continued to set the record straight. Do read it.

Of the many issues noted, in my mind the most troubling accusation levied is that senior public service staff who both brief and take orders from Ministers and the Privy Council Office (the PM and his anointed) appear to have counselled Colvin and other embassy staff to lie about the situation in Afghanistan.

Think about it - the most senior levels of our government have institutionalized lying.

We aren't talking about some misdemeanor or minor public fraud but an issue of huge public importance, one that can bring down a government or, back then, hobble a new government. We are talking about a war which has cost Canadians dozens of billions of dollars since 2006. The financial and ideological capital tied up in this war are immense, not to mention the human casualties and suffering that are as a direct result of policy decisions made in the comfy confines of Ottawa area office buildings.

Given the obvious attempts by the government to hide the truth, or run from it, nothing less than a full judicial inquiry will do.

The government today released another 130 pages of redacted Richard Colvin documents . Many are redacted so heavily as to be worthless, but even still, these documents paint a clear picture which is in agreement with the testimony of Richard Colvin and contradicts the talking-points the Harper government has been using to attack and discredit Colvin.

I have never before in my 15-year career been told that, internally, we must lie to each other. Richard Colvin

Even a quick scan of the eight megabytes of scanned images (PDF) illustrates ample justification for calling a full public inquiry. Here is a quick extraction from the material:

• Concerns over detainee treatment were reported on by Colvin right from the start of his posting, not only after the Globe and Mail broke the story in spring 2007. Colvin himself alerted Kabul HQ (April 14 2007) that reporter Graeme Smith of the Globe and Mail had been conducting extensive research in preparation for a soon to be released article on torture and Canadian involvement which was "too close for comfort". Still, Colvin's attempts at moving the issue forward appeared to be stonewalled by either DFAIT, the military, or politicians back home or all of the above. For example on May 26, 2006 in memo KANDH0029:

  "[redacted] has been trying for some time to get these concerns taken seriously. [redacted] "very much taken aback by the reaction -- the very strong reaction -- of the Canadian military"

• Colvin's reporting shows a pattern of constant attention to the issue. (Page 10) Sept 19 2006: KBGR0118:

  Afghanistan [redacted] detainee concerns - [redacted] today raised with us an ongoing concern about detainees [redacted]

• Other organizations had reported significant concerns. (Page 13) September 28, 2006 KBGR01

  [redacted] what can only be described as strong criticisms of the Cdn approach on detainee issues. There [redacted] are [redacted.............]

• Concerns about the overall treatment of detainees, including those transferred to Afghan custody by Canadian forces, contradicting comments made by defence minister Peter MacKay, diplomat David Mulroney and three generals who testified before committee (p. 22, p. 24 on page 129)

• More than one year after the Harper government had taken power, detainees still were not being monitored appropriately per agreements with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission -- agreements that were made not with the former Martin government but with the Harper government in February 2007 (page 56); a key section of this document which apparently discusses Government of Canada awareness of abuse reports from the AIHRC is fully [redacted]. Why is this [redacted]?

• Despite a failure of the arrangements established by the Harper government, prisoner transfers from Canadian to Afghan hands continued (spring 2007). The Harper government via then defence minister Gordon O'Conner and also Prime Minister Harper even trumpeted the agreement as being both "recent" and "sufficient". (pages 56, 57)

• Colvin writes on April 24 2007 that a hastily developed "diplomatic contingency plan", developed ostensibly to address media pressure in Canada, ws "insufficient to address the urgent detainee crisis". (page 62) His recommendations include establishing a Government of Canada capacity to monitor detainees, and a suggestion that the military adjust their operations to reduce the number of detainees being captured and handed over in the first place. Clearly no one is recommending that suspects of a high degree of confidence be set free, so this indicates a somewhat wanton approach to taking prisoners.

• The very next day Colvin writes:

  "detainee methodologies in the field are too expansive, resulting in the detention of a significant number of Afghans who are not/ not insurgents or combatants."

• An observation that feedback from the field was not welcomed by HQ in Ottawa

• Many memos regarding detainees circa April 25 2007 and onward are redacted almost completely, yet the subject matter is of direct concern to the special committee inquiring into this matter.

• On or before April 30 2007 Canada's Ambassador to Afghanistan a the time, Afir Lalani, had personally censored the distribution list of a memo regarding detainee monitoring and, it appears, had played a role in censoring other parts of the document. This seems to indicate that political orders from on high have declared Colvin a dangerous liability. (page 76)

• On May 7 2007 Colvin warns HQ/Ottawa that Globe and Mail reporter Graeme Smith will be publishing a follow up piece "within a few months" and that Smith's reportage was likely to raise serious public-policy questions.

• June 6 2007 embassy staff visit a detention facility in Kabul, intent on interviewing detainees which had been captured by Canadian forces in the Kandahar area. Reports of torture and abuse allegations are included in the memo (page 95)

• June 9 2007, a two and a half page memo on detainees, drafted by Colvin, is completely redacted.

• August 27, a Regional Command South brainstorming session is attended by a variety of nation's forces. Apparently many good ideas are discussed, but they are mostly redacted, and the conclusion in the memo is "we all recognize the problems but how are they to be solved?" Here Canada has been at war, but we don't call it war, for many years and still no reliable approach to detainees (not to mention ultimate justice for same) is in place. Clearly it isn't a priority for anyone who is in power.

• October 24 2007 Colvin writes what many might consider as a "career limiting memo", a conclusion of his time in Afghanistan. In his opinion Canada has not "come to grips" with the detainee problem and recommends that we stop handing detainees over to Kandahar-area Afghan forces. Period.

• In that same farewell memo, perhaps the most startling observation made is the Canadian embassy had made it perfectly clear that all personnel were to lie about the situation in Afghanistan, not just to media but maintain such lies even within their own ranks. This is a clear indication of intent - nothing less than full blown institutional cover-up. Within this memorandum written by Richard Colvin entitled: End-of-posting observations, dated 24 October 2007 and addressed to David Mulroney:

  Management of Afghanistan by DFAIT

  The next day, the point was unambiguously made to the whole embassy that henceforth the official embassy view is that things are getting better. This is completely contradicted by the available data, as well as by the careful assessments [redacted]. I have never before in my 15-year career been told that, internally, we must lie to each other. (page 125) Richard Colvin

It is long past time for an inquiry setting into this matter where perjury is punishable by jail time.

Attached: 130 pages of Colvin and related reports (PDF)

The Globe and Mail this morning continues to direct a bright light into the murkier recesses of our country's handling of Afghanistan detainee torture and abuse allegations.

Facts relentlessly rising to the surface of this fetid scandal serve only to buttress an inescapable conclusion: Canadians have been lied to directly and through omission by the Harper government.

Backing up allegations former diplomat Richard Colvin has levied against the government, the Globe and Mail today released a redacted document (attached) said to have been censored by Harper political appointee Arif Lalani, the former Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan.

In the International Committee of the Red Cross's experience, 'a lot of abuse happens in the first days.'

Our own records substantiate ICRC's comments about continued delays in notification. For the four-month period of December 1, 2006, to March 30, 2007, the gap from detention by Canadian Forces to ICRC being informed was as long as 34 days. Text from censored component of report by Richard Colvin

Mr. Lalani, a political appointee of the Harper government, followed Christopher Alexander [1] who was appointed as ambassador in 2003. Alexander is a policy hawk who intends to run as a Conservative candidate in the federal riding of Ajax-Pickering.

There is so much smoke circling this scandal that a roaring fire can't be far below the surface. To get to the unvarnished truth of the matter what is needed is an inquiry venue that ensures perjury is rewarded with jail time.

After pointing to evidence that corroborated Richard Colvin's explosive testimony last week, I concluded My Canada does not condone torture with the question:

Why would they deny such allegations and attempt to hide the truth all these years, rather than take the bull by the horns and actually address the problem?

As these allegations were brought to the surface in 2006 by Colvin and others, the Harper government -- brand new to governing at that point -- could have puffed out its chest and directly faced the allegations and put a stop to either the torture, or bring to an end Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Taking on such an explosive issue in a very public way would elevate the newly minted minority government in the eyes of Canadians and delivered much needed political capital for use in the next election.

I was told this was the titanic issue for Prime Minister Harper and that every single statement that went out needed to be cleared by him personally

But Harper didn't walk that path. Instead he personally took charge of the propaganda campaign to hide these inconvenient truths - that Canada was complicit in the torture of thousands of people in Afghanistan - from the public. Why?

There were very clear instructions for a blanket denial.

Cold political calculation is the only logical answer. Whatever the eventual outcome in Afghanistan - win, lose or draw - remaining heavily involved in the Afghanistan war is far too attractive a political tool for our cold-blooded political animal of a Prime Minister to pass up and thus we shall continue to learn that Stephen Harper was willing to become an accomplice in war crimes in order to further his long term political objectives back at home.

... it was made clear to us that this was coming from the Prime Minister's Office

What does a dusty, arguably un-winnable, foreign war offer of value to Stephen Harper? The answer is: war is a weapon Harper aims at the folks back home. The objective: none other than the permanent realignment of so-called Canadian values towards a set of mores which are more conservative friendly in nature. Stephen Joseph Harper is willing to aid and abet war criminals and in doing so become their accomplice in war crimes, all in the name of long term domestic political considerations. Stephen Joseph Harper is willing to spend our treasury and the blood of our citizens, and of many others, to further his mission to re-engineer the social and ideological fabric of our country.

Torture in Afghanistan is routine. It is matter-of-fact... To pretend otherwise is a fantasy narrative.

In a recent article, A record of conservative achievement, Adam Daifallah (National Post) also asserts that Harper has been working to re-engineer the Canadian psyche since he first formed government in 2006. Among the so-called grand strategist's primary objectives he would list no less than the rebirth (some may rightly argue a birth, not a renaissance) of a militaristic culture in Canada. A country with this blue blood coursing through its veins is fertile land on which arch-conservatives may enjoy planting electoral seeds.

It is medieval, horrific. It is what they do to exercise power and control.

A country at war is also by definition running a high-stakes marketing campaign, and rather like election or "action plan" advertising, we see evidence of this everywhere in our country, from televised recruiting spots to rallies of the faithful to the increasing visibility of our military in every area of Canadian life from hockey arenas to summer and fall fairs and exhibitions across the land.

We are terrified to speak about it openly because it leaves our Afghan staff completely exposed and vulnerable to reprisals.

A senior NATO official of the time lays the case for Stephen Joseph Harper's complicity and future indictment:

"It was highly unusual. I was told this was the titanic issue for Prime Minister Harper and that every single statement that went out needed to be cleared by him personally," said the former official, who is not Canadian.

"The lines were, 'We have no evidence' of coercive treatment being used against detainees handed over to the Afghans. There were very clear instructions for a blanket denial. The pressure to hold to that line was channelled via Canadian military and diplomatic personnel in Kabul. But it was made clear to us that this was coming from the Prime Minister's Office, which was running the public affairs aspect of Canadian engagement in Afghanistan with a 6,000-mile screwdriver." a circa 2006 NATO public affairs officer (Toronto Star)

Harper's direct involvement confirms the stakes were high for him indeed, as does the behaviour of Harper's attack dogs last week as they relentlessly mauled the reputation of Richard Colvin whose blunt testimony has finally brought the crimes of this government and this prime minister under the spotlight.

Richard Colvin behaved as a straight-up-and-down person, completely honest

Stephen Harper made his own personal deal with the devil but sold our country's soul in the process. It isn't too late to pluck Canada from the abyss, but we must act fast and to that end citizens of the country should demand the immediate resignation of Stephen Harper and call for a criminal investigation into his complicity in war crimes.

Furthermore should the government or legal system of this country fail to act, when charges of such a serious nature are levelled at the government and the prime minister himself, now is the time when a minority government should be brought down by Her Majesties Loyal Opposition. That's what they are there for.