Every time I open a newspaper or visit media sites, I find it harder to feel proud to be Canadian. This is the first time in my life I have ever felt that way, but between war crimes and climate change sabotage, this government has destroyed my faith.
Another story on our dirty oil and our dirty government is adding more fuel to fire. I'm also finding it difficult to read comments at the end of some of these articles, not willing to believe that there are Canadians out there who suggest that we shouldn't care about Afghans torturing Afghans, or claiming that climate change is a hoax.
First it was "dirty oil." Now, it's "dirty old man." Canada's environmental reputation has gone from crappy to creepy.
The latest slap comes from the British newspaper, The Guardian, that published a biting "countries to watch" primer for next week's climate-change conference in Copenhagen: "In stark contrast to its cuddly international image, Canada is the dirty old man of the climate world."
The Guardian blames Canada for "missing its Kyoto emissions reduction target by a country mile (by 2007, it was 35 per cent above its target) and showing no signs of reigning in its profligacy." Singled out for particular abuse are "those lucrative tarsands in Alberta."
Albertans might call them oilsands but the rest of the world knows them as tarsands. You can thank Greenpeace for that. Actually, I guess you can thank the fact that the oil-soaked sand--bitumen--is more like tar than oil. That's why bitumen in its natural state is better for waterproofing a canoe than fuelling an SUV.
The Guardian's article might be a simplified view of Canada's record on the climate change portfolio but it is also a measure of how far Canada's reputation has fallen in the eyes of the world, especially to those who look to us for leadership. Our record on climate change is so bad a coalition of scientists and officials from developing countries are asking that Canada be suspended from the Commonwealth.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made no pretence of leading on climate change; he is following Washington. Alberta likes to talk leadership. There'll be more talk today when the Alberta government announces a fourth carbon capture project--this one in Swan Hills worth about$300 million. That means Alberta has now committed almost all of its $2-billion budget for carbon capture projects. It's an impressive amount of money and having four projects announced in quick succession will provide Alberta and Canada with some political cover at the Copenhagen conference.
However, the reality is that there's no guarantee any of the projects will go ahead. The Alberta government has budgeted $100 million to start up the carbon capture and storage projects this year but the projects are only in the "letter of intent" stage and still under discussion.
The only government money being spent on the projects this year is on the cost of printing off news releases breathlessly announcing the yet-to-be-proven projects. Not a nickel will be used to capture carbon. That's probably good news if you're not sold on the sanity or safety of pumping millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide underground every year. But it does tend to undermine the government's insistence that "Alberta surges ahead with climate change action plan."
That was the headline from a government news release on July 8, 2008 that announced the government will invest $2 billion in carbon capture and storage, and $2 billion in public transit.
That second $2 billion was targeted at the province's Green Transit Incentives Program --Green TRIP--which will, in the words of the news release, "promote the use of local, regional and intercity public transit. The program will support new public transit alternatives throughout the province that will significantly reduce the number of vehicles on Alberta roads and reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions."
Green TRIP is a bold idea designed to spur new methods of public transit in Alberta. One model suggested was something akin to metro Toronto's GO commuter train system which brings people from outlying communities into downtown Toronto. Maybe we could do the same here in Edmonton with riders from Spruce Grove and Stony Plain. Calgary could do it with people from communities such as Okotoks and Airdrie.
More public transit, fewer cars, less greenhouse gas. It's all good-- except that 17 months after Green TRIP was announced, the government is still stuck in neutral.
It had budgeted $10 million to spend on the program this year but that money was quietly withdrawn in last week's second quarter fiscal update. In government-speak, the money has been "re-profiled to future years" as a way of trimming this year's expenses.
Premier Ed Stelmach insists he is still committed to Green TRIP and says "there will be money in next year's budget and there will be more the following year."
But how much? Nobody knows. In this year's budget documents released in the spring, the government said it would spend $150 million next year on Green TRIP and $360 million the year after. But the government couldn't even meet its commitment for a relatively paltry $10 million this year.
So, 17 months after announcing$4 billion to "surge ahead" on climate change, the government has spent nothing. And it has done almost nothing except hold news conferences and organize photo-ops. (Sounds like the Canada Action Plan)
It's a mixed message where the government is trying to have it both ways: Claiming it is moving ahead on climate change while also claiming it is being fiscally prudent by not spending any money.
We can't have it both ways. In a climate constrained world, we will have to take action as a province and a country to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The world will be watching in Copenhagen-- and thinking up even dirtier things to call us.
I was very angry last night after reading Cheryl Gallant's comments about a public inquiry into torture allegations. I couldn't believe that anyone could be so callous, suggesting that Jack Layton was responsible for the death of a soldier because he dared to question our role in Afghanistan. She sunk to a new low, though she really wasn't doing anything different than her boss I suppose; hiding behind our men and women in uniform to save their own reputation.
This whole thing just makes me so incredibly sad, and while I pushed for a public inquiry, to avoid having this story play out at the Hague; I'm not looking forward to the campaign that the Ref-Cons will run now. If Gallant's comments are any indication, this is going to get real ugly fast.
I think it's time to get out. Our troops are still over there and Harper's handling of this sordid affair is only going to put them in more danger. The Afghan people know of the torture, and to hear our government call them liars, will only inflame their anger and distrust.
If the Reformers can't stand up for the troops, by taking this seriously and doing the honourable thing, than Canadians have to demand that they are returned us. Everything they thought they were fighting for, is no longer valid. They were not promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Or at least that will be a tough sell now to those they were trying to protect.
So if anyone is helping the Taliban, it's our government, by destroying the integrity of our soldiers to save themselves. What a legacy.
Opposition MPs have passed a motion in the House of Commons calling on the government to launch a public inquiry into the handling of detainees in Afghanistan.
Defence Minister Peter Mackay appeared in the Commons Wednesday morning to dismiss an inquiry as politically-motivated and unnecessary, but MPs from the three opposition parties, angry at the government's censoring of documents on the issue, appear set to press ahead.
“We're looking at what needs to be established in terms of what happened,” New Democrat MP Paul Dewar, who sponsored the motion, said during today's debate. “Is there any other option than a public inquiry in light of the fact that we have a government that refused to dispense all the documents?”
Even though the Commons passed the motion by a vote of 146 to 129, it cannot force the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to launch the inquiry since that is a decision that rests with the executive branch of government. But it does increase pressure on the Conservative minority, which would then be forced to decide if it will reject the will of the Parliament.
MPs from all three opposition parties expressed support for the motion, with many citing the government's refusal to release information.
Diplomat Richard Colvin sparked a political explosion two weeks ago when he testified that the government ignored his repeated warnings that detainees taken by Canadian soldiers and transferred to Afghan jails faced abuse and torture in Afghan hands.
MPs looking into the matter have demanded copies of reports and records on the issues, including Mr. Colvin's reports from Afghanistan, where he was political counsellor at Canada's Kabul embassy in 2006 and 2007.
And they have been annoyed that retired generals and officials have been allowed access to the documents before they testified at the committee, while MPs have been refused access, or obtained only heavily-censored versions.
“We've been prevented from doing our work, quite simply,” said Bloc Québécois MP Claude Bachand.
I mean seriously. Shouldn't there be some kind of warning, like 'We interrupt this program to warn Canadians to run, and just keep running.' They are both such a disgrace.
The Status of Women critics from the Opposition parties protested Helena's hypocrisy over the ceremony to mark the l'École Polytechnique massacre, saying they couldn't stand alongside Guergis, the Conservative status of women minister. I don't blame them. I couldn't stand to be in the same room with that woman.
The Reformers record on women's issues is abysmal. They are trying to take us back to the stone age, and some one's got to speak up. Guergis voted in favour of scrapping the long gun registry, so she gave up her right to speak for these young women.
Opposition critics boycotted a non-partisan ceremony Tuesday marking the 20th anniversary of the Dec. 6 l'École Polytechnique massacre, saying they couldn't stand alongside Helena Guergis, the Conservative status of women minister.
Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois MPs who sit on the House of Commons status of women committee argued that Conservative policies have rolled back the fight for women's equality and safety.
They pointed to the government's elimination of the court challenges program and to the move to abolish the gun registry — something that some Liberal and NDP members also support.
"We consider this [ceremony] a hypocritical gesture because her government has shown itself from the beginning to be hostile to all women's demands," said Bloc MP Nicole Demers.
'I would just like to think that there are some things in politics that are above partisan games.'— Helena Guergis, status of women minister
Liberal MP Anita Neville said: "I find it difficult to stand beside a minister who chooses not to advocate for women, who chooses to follow the party line, who chooses to endorse the elimination of the long-gun registry."
The sombre ceremony in the House of Commons foyer was led by a senior bureaucrat at Status of Women Canada, and Guergis did not speak.
About two dozen parliamentarians and staff, including NDP MP Libby Davies and Liberal MP Judy Sgro, placed 14 white roses in a vase to represent the 14 women gunned down in 1989. House Speaker Peter Milliken and Senate Leader Noel Kinsella made brief remarks. The Bloc did not send a representative.
Tension on women's issues
The boycott by Guergis's critics was a sign of the tensions that have built up over the past three years between the government and the opposition on the status of women committee.
Within months of coming to power in 2006, Harper redirected $5 million from the administrative budget of Status of Women Canada, closing branch offices and stopping funding for women's research and advocacy groups.
The funds, plus an additional $5 million, were instead earmarked for programs that more directly serve women, such as immigrant integration initiatives in major Canadian cities.
The mandate changes did not sit well with the other parties, who argued that while front-line programs are important, women's advocacy groups still need support to bring issues forward into the public domain.
In 1991, Parliament declared Dec. 6 as National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.
Most days I try to forget that my tax dollars go to pay the salary of someone as obnoxious as Cheryl Gallant, but then she'll rear her ugly head and say something so vile that it's beyond comprehension.
Today was such a day.
Not being too bright, I can forgive the fact that she has no idea about international law and that if we don't hold a public inquiry on the torture of detainees, they will hold one for us ... at the Hague!
Cheryl ... this is not a good thing!
I was glad that the motion passed to hold a public inquiry; by a vote of 146 – 129, but letting this absolutely clueless woman have the last word is unforgivable.
According to Katy O'Malley: " …it turns out that the last speaker today will be — Cheryl Gallant, who begins by stating that she was told by a Canadian soldier that every time the Afghanistan mission is debated in Canada, more soldiers die; according to this unnamed soldier, who may or may not exist, “credits the leader of the NDP with the death of his best friend.” On that extraordinary note, she sits down, and Layton, to his credit, says none of the things that a less temperate soul might utter in response to such a charge, and merely points out that it was actually Gallant’s leader — the prime minister — who has stressed the need to consult parliament when such missions are being considered, and who brought the matter to the House himself." Something else that Gallant might not be able to wrap her head around is the fact that many experts are claiming that our reputation for allowing torture, put our soldiers at risk, and that we are suffering more casualties per capita than any other NATO country.
Torture is a war crime and every time Gallant opens her mouth it's torture for those who have to listen to her nonsense.
Well, turns out they were right. 100 million for Reform Party advertising, 45 million for Reform Party signs, and despite the fact that Harper announced recently that 90% of the funding was out the door, we learn today that a mere 7% has been invested in Canada.
7%. That's it. All that bluster was nothing more than empty rhetoric. So where in hell did our money go? We are now a half a trillion dollars in debt, with nothing to show for it. Billions of dollars of worthless paper thanks to Jim Flaherty.
No steam in stimulus Only 7 per cent of infrastructure projects begun across country By STEPHEN MAHER The Chronicle Herald and GLEN McGREGOR The Ottawa Citizen December 1, 2009
Shovels were in the ground on only seven per cent of the projects funded by the Harper government’s largest infrastructure stimulus program by late September, newly released data show.
The revelation from the government’s own numbers is likely to add weight to opposition claims that the bulk of the unprecedented wave of government spending won’t hit the street until the construction season of 2010, when the worst of the global economic downturn may have passed.
The database detailing spending under the $4-billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund shows that construction has started on only 201 of 3,034 projects – building, water, road and sewer ventures across the country.
The figures were compiled on Sept. 22, a week before Prime Minister Stephen Harper held a carefully choreographed event in Saint John, N.B., at which he trumpeted that 90 per cent of the money in his economic stimulus package had been committed.
At the time, opposition critics scoffed that he was refusing to announce the number of projects actually started, emphasizing the high percentage of projects approved.
But the database detailing the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund spending includes only $2.8 billion of federal spending commitments, which is about 70 per cent of the $4-billion two-year fund, a figure substantially lower than Mr. Harper’s assertion that 90 per cent of infrastructure spending had been committed.
However, there are several other funds in the federal government’s two-year $12-billion infrastructure investment program, meant to inject some gas into the economy struggling to cope with a global recession.
It is possible that shovels had hit the ground in more projects than the database shows, because the federal government’s reporting regime lags significantly behind actual construction starts. The database shows that 66 per cent of projects were scheduled to start by the time the database was assembled.
Other projects have begun since then. For instance, a $38-million tunnel between Algonquin College and the Baseline Road transit station in Ottawa broke ground Oct. 16 with Infrastructure Minister John Baird on hand.
Federal government spokespeople did not immediately respond to requests Tuesday to explain the low number of construction starts. Opposition critics have complained that the government has tried to hide the number of construction starts, because it shows the Harper government hasn’t been acting quickly enough.
The database was prepared for MPs on the government operations committee and obtained by The Halifax Chronicle Herald and Ottawa Citizen.
The results show that in most provinces no projects have been started. Only projects in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan are underway.
Most of the projects actually underway – 169 of them - were in Quebec, all but one were water main projects under the province’s PRECO program. The federal government announced a $350-million contribution to the program in April.
The approval process for projects in Quebec - where the federal government is forbidden by law from dealing directly with municipalities – is different from those in other provinces, where municipalities file applications, which must be approved by civil servants, then politicians.
The database gives some indication of the difficulties that the federal civil service faces as it struggles to get projects approved quickly without violating regulations designed to safeguard taxpayer dollars. There are 30 fields of information for each project, with boxes to be checked off for permits from three levels of government, environmental approval and aboriginal consultation.
One civil servant familiar with the approval process who requested anonymity said it was not surprising that so few projects had actually been started.
“These things take a long time because there are multiple levels of intermediaries, thanks to provinces and municipalities,” the civil servant said.
“So by the time the negotiations go through and a contribution agreement is signed it normally takes a year and a half.” More than 1000 projects are still waiting for the necessary permits or environmental approvals to begin work, the data show, even though the government acted to streamline environmental approvals in the 2009 budget.
I'm quite appalled that Stephen Harper is trying to make these torture allegations political, by accusing the Opposition of attacking our men and women in uniform. In fact, ignoring the claims of torture in 2007, may have actually put our troops at greater risk, since the Afghans would rather kill than risk being taken by a Canadian soldier, when they faced certain torture.
So in fact, Stephen Harper may have blood on his hands ... Canadian blood ... and that is not how you support the troops. We've suffered more casualties per capita than any other nation involved in the war. That should tell you something.
I was also surprised to learn that when Rick Hillier signed the new agreement he didn't care what happened to the detainees, so long as any information obtained was passed to him. I used to respect that man, now I think he's just horrible.
"Distant events spiral out of control, secrecy silences truth and the messenger is humiliated, then shot." (James Travers, The Toronto Star, Nov. 21, 2009).
The purpose of this piece is to outline the set of tactics used by the Harper government to try to cover up serious errors (and possibly worse) relating to the turnover of prisoners captured by Canadian troops in Afghanistan to local authorities who are believed to have routinely tortured prisoners.
The cover-up has come to light largely as the result of testimony in October and November 2009 by diplomat Richard Colvin who spent 17 months in Afghanistan and sent many messages up the line to many senior persons starting in 2006.
The tactics are listed in roughly chronological order:
Bury Bad News "In Jan. 2007, the government also tried to bury a human rights report on Afghanistan—an annual requirement of all Canadian embassies—that included a section on the abuse of Afghan detainees. It was later released, but still with all references to prisoner abuse blacked out," (Greg Weston, Ottawa Sun, Nov. 22, 2009).
Write Your Own Truth A "former [NATO] official, speaking on condition his name not be used, told The Toronto Star that Harper's office in Ottawa 'scripted and fed' the precise wording NATO officials in Kabul [ in 2007] used to repudiate allegations of abuse 'at a time when it was privately and generally acknowledged in our office that the chances of good treatment at the hands of Afghan security forces were almost zero,' " (Mitch Potter, The Toronto Star, Nov. 22, 2009).
Use the Courts to Try to Derail/Contain Public Hearings The Harper government went to court to try to quash or severely limit an inquiry by a quasi- independent body, the Military Police Complaints Commission [MPCC]. "A judge [ of the Federal Court] ruled early last week that the probe can examine the conduct of military police but that it cannot delve into broader issues of public policy....The inquiry has been delayed by a series of court challenges, including a government bid to block the probe [launched after a complaint was filed by Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association] on grounds that it could unfairly damage the reputations of Canadian Forces members, inadvertently divulge military secrets, and turn out to be a waste of money during tight economic times," (Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service, Oct. 1, 2009).
Refuse to Hand Over Documents and Stonewall Military Police Complaints Commission chairman "Peter Tinsley shut down the hearings indefinitely [on Oct. 9, 2009], saying he had no choice because the government has refused to hand over any documents to help implicated military police mount their defence....The commission, the political opposition and human rights advocates have persistently accused the government of trying to stonewall the commission, after losing a court challenge to stop the public proceedings. Tinsley said the government has not produced a single new document since the commission decided last year that its probe would be public.... Alain Prefontaine, a Justice Department lawyer, blamed the commission for casting its net too wide in its quest for documents, given the relatively narrow mandate of the probe to investigate the actions of military police," (Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service, Oct.14, 2009)
Invoke National Security "The Justice Department's argument is [that] the testimony of the 22 public servants [to the MPCC] is not relevant and, even if it was, they wouldn't be able to publicly testify because it could breach national security. In their motion to quash the subpoenas, Justice lawyers have invoked a section of the Canada Evidence Act that protects national security," (Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service, Oct.1, 2009)
Deny Getting Any of the Many Warning Messages Gen. Walter Natynczyk, chief of defence staff, said "he's working to get to the bottom of what happened to reports from a senior Canadian diplomat in Afghanistan[ Richard Colvin]. [He said] he did not yet know where the [many] reports landed back in Ottawa, who read them, and what was done with the information." In mid-October 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper "told reporters in Toronto he didn't see the reports from diplomat Richard Colvin 'at the time,' which said, among other things, he had seen first-hand evidence of abuse and torture while visiting Afghan detainees in jail in June 2007. Earlier this week, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and his predecessor, Gordon O'Connor, said they'd never heard a word about Colvin's reports," (Norma Greenaway, Canwest News Service, Oct. 16, 2009).
Note that in his affidavit unsealed on Oct.9, 2009, Colvin said he "wrote and widely distributed his formal and informal reports to top bureaucrats at the departments of foreign affairs and national defence, as well as to the senior military chain of command."(Ibid) Retired defence chief Rick Hillier said Thursday "he cannot recall reading a 2006 Foreign Affairs report that first warned of 'serious, imminent and alarming' risks associated with transferring battlefield combatants to Afghan custody.... Hillier said his main focus in 2006 was on Canada's rising military death rate as the Taliban insurgency reared its head in earnest and began inflicting the first major casualties on the Canadian Forces,"(Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News, Oct. 22, 2009) "
In all 76 reports e-mailed to the most powerful people in the Canadian government. Today none of them can remember seeing or reading any of the e-mails. Memory loss is such a sad thing," (Richard Cleroux, The Westmount Examiner, Nov. 22, 2009).
The position of various persons to whom Colvin communicated his memos is summarized a CBC News report, Nov. 20, 2009.
Threaten Witnesses Public servant Richard Colvin"has been told to shut up on this file or risk being charged under the Canada Evidence Act," (Don Martin, National Post, Nov. 20, 2009). "
On July 28[2009], the federal Justice Department wrote to 28 high-ranking government and military officials with knowledge of the Afghan detainee file, warning that their testimony could damage their reputations and potentially put their colleagues' careers at risk. The letter 'strongly' recommended they all retain the Justice Department as their legal counsel," (Greg Weston, Ottawa Sun, Nov. 24, 2009).
Stop the Emails; Block the Paper Record Richard Colvin, whose emails are at the centre of the cover-up, was ordered to stop putting certain kinds of information into writing. "While serving in Kandahar, [Colvin] was told his insights were too sensitive to be put in writing, he says. His emails have been declared off limits on national security grounds," (Don Martin, National Post, Nov. 20, 2009).
Columnist Chantal Hébert (The Toronto Star, Nov. 20, 2009) notes that "according to Colvin, the clampdown order came from the very top, from officials who reported directly to Prime Minister Stephen Harper or his ministers, often on a daily basis." "There was a phone message from the DFAIT assistant deputy minister suggesting that we should not put things on paper but instead, use the telephone," (quoted in The Ottawa Citizen, editorial, Nov. 21, 2009).
There is No Proof The Minister of Defence, Lawrence Cannon, said " 'There were a lot of allegations, but there is no proof to what Mr. Colvin had to say,' in testimony to a parliamentary committee ...during a telephone interview," (Matthew Fisher, Canwest News Service, November 19, 2009).
Smear the Messenger The Conservatives' tactic of choice has been to "smear" Richard Colvin. "The attack script written this week for Conservative MPs by the Prime Minister's Office and party research office impugn Mr. Colvin for (a) wanting to assist the Taliban, (b) undermining the morale of the Armed Forces, and (c) making recruitment difficult," (Jeffrey Simpson, The Globe and Mail, Nov. 21, 2009.)
The Harper government devoted the day [of Colvin's testimony] to a public-relations counteroffensive against Mr. Colvin through phone calls and e-mails to reporters, as well as Mr. MacKay's attacks. It painted the career diplomat's testimony as groundless and "ridiculous" and suggested his reports of torture ultimately stem from Taliban propaganda," (Steve Chase et. al., The Globe and Mail, Nov. 20, 2009).
"Defence Minister Peter MacKay called [Colvin's ] testimony [before a Commons Committee] 'not credible.' 'What we're talking about here is not only hearsay, we're talking about basing much of his evidence on what the Taliban have been specifically instructed to lie about if captured," (Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press, Nov.19, 2009).
"MacKay claimed that his comment were "not attacking the individual." Chantal Hebert (The Toronto Star, Nov. 20, 2009) noted that MacKay "did not say the government had not been apprised of Colvin's reports." "The awkward fact for the Conservatives, however, is that Mr. Colvin is trusted by the Canadian government on sensitive matters. He is currently working for Ottawa as a senior intelligence officer at Canada's embassy in Washington," (Steve Chase et. al., The Globe and Mail, Nov. 20, 2009).
(For more detail, see, Tonda MacCharles, The Toronto Star, Nov 21 2009; note that the title wrongly implies that Colvin is a whistleblower. See The Ottawa Citizen editorial, Nov. 24, 2009) "Conservative MPs at a special House of Commons committee called [Colvin] a Taliban 'dupe' after he provided an account this week of how government officials ignored or played down his reports of the torture of Afghan detainees," (Ditchburn, The Canadian Press, Nov. 19, 2009).
Rick Hillier [former head of Canadian Forces] "derisively compared the political uproar that surrounded Mr. Colvin's Parliamentary testimony to people 'howling at the moon' and said nobody ever raised torture concerns with him during the 2006-2007 period in question," (Steve Chase et. al., The Globe and Mail, Nov. 20, 2009).
Pollster Nik Nanos said that going on the offensive from the start—as the Tories have done—can be remarkably effective. "It muddies the narrative of anyone trying to criticize the government, [the] Tories know the power of first impressions. [A sort of negative framing ]. It sends a signal to anyone else who's thinking of doing that, that if you're thinking of taking this government on, be prepared for a full-on offensive. It's a clear media strategy and an effective deterrent for future problems." (Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press, Nov.19, 2009).
"The instinct to attack is part of a larger Conservative Party strategy that is consumed with controlling all messages as tightly as possible," (Jeffrey Simpson, The Globe and Mail, Nov. 24, 2009).
No Public Inquiry "The Tories have already dismissed calls for a far more thorough public inquiry into detainees" (Steve Chase and Campbell Clark, The Globe and Mail, Nov. 24, 2009).
"So far, the deny, delay, disparage strategy has worked. There seems little chance of any inquiry until after the government pulls Canadian combat troops out of the fight about 18 months from now," (Paul Koring, The Globe and Mail, Nov. 24, 2009).
Conclusion:The newspapers of late have been filled with overwhelming evidence of the Harper government trying to conduct a cover-up with great energy and no scruples. Has no one told the Tories that almost all cover-up tactics are supposed to be conducted in secret. A cover-up conducted in public is a farce—produced at taxpayer expense.
Stephen Harper is currently trying to hide behind our soldiers, as part of a massive cover up of torture allegations and war crimes. But in 2007 we were warned that by condoning torture, we were actually putting our soldiers at greater risk of being killed or tortured themselves.
This is how Stephen Harper supports the troops?
Canada has suffered disporortionate losses in Afghanistan, and it would appear that our government may be in part responsible for that.
Since the Reformers have clearly indicated that their careers are job one, and are erroneously implying that the Opposition parties are attacking our men and women in uniform, it's time we pulled out. We have lost our moral authority and our troops have been abandoned by a government playing politics. This war must end now for us, because ...
OTTAWA – It's "reprehensible" for the Conservative government to label critics unpatriotic for questioning Canada's policy of transferring prisoners to Afghan jailers, Liberal MP Bob Rae said Monday. Rae was reacting to comments from Prime Minister Stephen Harper while onboard a Canadian ship in the Caribbean where he accused critics of undermining military personnel.
"That's beyond the pale," Rae said. "It's reprehensible." Besieged by questions over the government's handling of the detainee issue for a third consecutive week, the Tories mounted a full frontal offensive Monday. They accused their critics of maligning Canada's soldiers – even though no one has done so. That prompted an immediate opposition counter-attack.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff called it a "disinformation campaign" and accused the government of "hiding behind our soldiers. " Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said the Tories are pushing an argument of "astounding simplicity" that is beneath a prime minister. And NDP Leader Jack Layton accused the Conservatives of "trying to change the channel." "This has never been about troops," he said ....
Let me just say this: living as we do, in a time when some in the political arena do not hesitate before throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform, based on the most flimsy of evidence, remember that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are proud of you and stand behind you, and I am proud of you, and I stand beside you.
That’s your prime minister talking, folks, accusing members of Parliament who raise legitimate questions about Canada’s policy on the transfer of prisoners in Afghanistan of smearing “our men and women in uniform.” There is no sense in which this is true. There is no interpretation you can give it that draws it near to the truth. It is not even close ...
