And yes, I can say “ass”, because Canada, at least at one time, did stand for freedoms, did stand for rugged individualism, and did stand for free speech.

• $10,300 on a 2008 trip to Dublin and Copenhagen

• $8,893 squandered on airfare alone for a 2008 trip to Malaysia

• $8,323 blown on a 2007 trip to Geneva

• $7,140 minimum on a 2008 trip Vienna, of which the actual figures are not yet released

Canada’s chief censorship bureaucrat Jennifer Lynch has been busted by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) for wasting taxpayers’ money on expensive flights to international meetings of arguably little, none, or even negative value.

Using Access to Information & Privacy (ATIP) requests, the CTF has learned that Chief Commissar Lynch spent $8,323 on accommodations, meals and a business class flight for a junket to Geneva, Switzerland in 2007. The purpose of this was to meet with the likes of “human rights” officials from Algeria and Morocco as well as the Asia Pacific Forum, which is an umbrella organization that includes the likes of Jordan & Palestine.

In 2008, Lynch made another trip to Geneva at the cost of $8,083 for her business class airfare alone. Including her other costs, that trip cost more than $10,400. The purpose of her trip in this instance was a committee meeting linked to the UN “Human Rights” Council, which includes: Bangladesh, Cameroon, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and most importantly, Saudi Arabia. One must wonder why Canada would spend its money on and lend its reputation to a body made up of some of the world’s worse human rights violators.

If these countries have anything to learn from Lynch, it is only how to subvert human rights with more tact and subtly than their own traditional methods (guns and ropes).

Lynch had a busy year of meeting with other human rights defenders in 2008 however; also traveling to Kuala Lampur, Malaysia with a business class airfare of $8,893, plus all other expenses. This confab was hosted by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, which is a part of a government that – according to the US State Department – restricts freedoms of the press, speech and religion, including “barring Muslims born into Islam from to converting to another religion,” allowing religious courts to enforce apostasy cases under Shariah law. This country’s human rights example was on display just this summer when a woman was convicted by an Islamic Shariah court in Malaysia for drinking a beer, sentencing her to “six beatings by cane”.

But that’s little more than a transparent application of the same law that she used to prosecute Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.

In what was an ironic travel destination, Commissar Lynch traveled to Dublin, Ireland and Copenhagen, Denmark at the cost of $8,087 for her airfare (business class), totalling more than $10,300 after expenses. For those who need their memories jogged, Denmark is where a set of innocent cartoons were originally produced and printed that sparked world-wide riots by religious extremists. Joining the extremists in calling for the prosecution of any who dare reprint them, “Human Rights” Commissions in Canada attempted to censor Ezra Levant, who had them printed in the magazine for which he was editor.

The information (above) did not come easily to CTF researches however; as the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission stalled, blocked and dodged its several ATIP requests beyond the regular legal bounds. By law, government entities must provide the information within 30 days of the request being filed. Lynch and her gang only coughed it up after 51 days, but not without trying to put it off even longer, complaining that providing the information on time would “unreasonably interfere” with their operations. To date, an ATIP request filed in August for a Lynch flight to Vienna – for which Proactive Disclosures indicate she spent a minimum of $7,140 on airfare alone – has yet to be released.

Sizable inconsistencies were found in the costs of two of Lynch’s flights provided to the public through Proactive Disclosures, and the actual costs of the flight as discovered through Access to Information Requests.

With the cooperation of some officials, the CTF was able to confirm that much of the inconsistencies in this reporting – at times over to $3,000 difference – were due to Lynch only posting the Canadian portion of what was paid for her tickets, omitting the total cost. The difference in total cost was largely made up of reimbursements from international organizations that Canadians taxpayers fund, thereby allowing Lynch to only post the direct cost to the Canadian taxpayer and fly under the radar. That is until the CTF began to snoop.

Canadian taxpayers should be up in arms over any bureaucrat spending this kind of money and playing tricks – however legal – to minimize what the public sees in costs. That it is being done by bureaucrats that censor Canadians and feel the need to meet with tyrannical regimes for international confabs is even more outrageous. If the federal government is serious about curtailing its record deficits that have now pushed our national debt over the $500 billion mark, grounding censorship bureaucrats like Lynch would be a great place to start.

Contacting the CHRC’s ATIP Coordinator , the folks at Canada’s enlightened censorship bureaucracy reacted with hostility upon learning who was calling (the CTF), refusing to discuss the documents outside of a formal complaint process on paper.  As some readers will know, a complaint was already filed against the CHRC for failing to respond on time and its excuse that providing information would “unreasonably interfere” with its business (namely, censoring the opinions of free Canadians).

Normally, government outfits have up to 30 days to respond to an ATIP request.  The CHRC took 51 days.  With every other department which was contacted by the research wing of the CTF, the respective ATIP Coordinator has been willing to discuss the documents to ensure that all is included and clear.

Not so with Jennifer Lynch and her lackeys.  Normally however; the CHRC only tries to block information from coming from Canadians.  Now it appears that it is trying to block information from its organization to taxpayers.

The Thought Police can block, bob, weave and duck as long as they like, but we’re not going to give up any time soon.

Click on image to view the complaint wording

So it seems that Jeniffer Lynch and her “Human Rights” thugs are not only above the law when it comes to censoring innocent Canadians for their opinions, but that they are also above basic government accountability as well.

In a post yesterday, I indicated that the CHRC was not able to provide receipts for Commissar Lynch’s travels to Vienna , Geneva, Dublin, Copenhagen and Kuala Lampur within the normal timeline.  After reading yesterday’s post  however; I believe that I left out a critically important element of the Thought Police’s excuse for not providing the information.  According to ATIP Coordinator Ginette Bastien, providing a few mere receipts within the statutory 30-day limit would “unreasonably interfere with the operations” of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

While the CHRC might unreasonably interfere with the rights to freedom of speech, assembly and conscious of free-born citizens, I hardly think that such a modest and straight forward request will put any undue stress on our Dear Leaders.

Have you ever wondered what it feels like to have the KGB knock on your door, ask for directions to the corner store and walk away?  The other morning I had what I imagine to be a similar experience when I received this (see below) envelope in the mail.

After staring at it on my desk, wondering what the Lynch-mob had in store for me, I opened it only to find that it was an acknowledgement of an Access to Information Request.  As they say, in “Soviet Russia, Lynch watches you.”

Randy Hillier

• Introduce a ‘Tax & Expenditure’ constitutional amendment to:
  • To make the pre-McGunity Taxpayer Protection Act less easy for politicians to get their hands on;
  • Cap spending at combined growth in inflation and population; and
  • Prevent government from increasing spending during the fiscal year
• Abolish municipal property taxes in favour of a revenue sharing formula with the province
• Eliminate corporate welfare, including the auto bailouts
• Hold Senate elections
• Supports in principle, but will not include in his platform, the ability to ‘recall’ MPPs
• Allow Ontarians the right to purchase private health insurance
• End public funding of non-medically necessary procedures
• Overhaul the LCBO
• Protect property rights through a bilateral constitutional amendment
• Make unions voluntary while maintaining the right to join as a matter of choice

Tim Hudak

• Strengthen the Taxpayer Protection Act, but will not push to entrench in the constitution
• Cap spending at growth and inflation, but not make doing so mandatory in legislation
• Devote all end of year surpluses to debt repayment
• Eliminate corporate welfare, but stipulates that since the auto bailouts are going ahead regardless, the most excessive aspects must be reined in.
• Hold Senate elections
• Rejects ‘recall’
• Allow for the private delivery of health care, but does not directly touch on private insurance
• End public funding of non-medically necessary procedures
• Allow wine sales outside of the current regime in a system comparable to ‘The Beer Store’
• Introduce a ‘Property Owners Bill of Rights’ and support federal initiatives to protect property in the constitution
• Does not directly commit to the right to opt out of unions as a matter of choice, but does commit to restoring the secret ballot

Christine Elliott

• Overhaul Ontario’s tax regime with a flat tax
• Reform EI
• Freeze the minimum wage
• Reform voluntary overtime laws

Frank Klees

• Make the pre-McGunity Taxpayer Protection Act less easy for politicians to get their hands on
• Use restraint in spending, but does will not make limiting spending to growth and inflation mandatory in legislation
• Will not eliminate corporate welfare
• Hold Senate elections
• Allow for the private delivery of health care, but does not directly touch on private insurance
• Will not commit to ending the public funding of non-medically necessary procedures, but promises a “review and reassessment”
• Will not commit to reforming the LCBO, but proses that an “efficiency review” be undertaken
• Protect property rights through a bilateral constitutional amendment
• Does not directly commit to the right to opt out of unions as a matter of choice, but promise to work with PCPO grassroots on developing policy on freedom of choice in unions

Cross-Posted at www.taxpayerblog.com

Results from other candidates are expected soon and will be posted as they come in.

Cross-Posted at www.taxpayerblog.com