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.

Updated with new documents and links to relevant articles from the press and concerned Canadians

Evidence continues to mount that Canada was complicit in hiding the facts of Afghan detainee torture allegations. Implicated are senior officials and politicians in the federal government which include former and current Ministers of Defence Gordon O'Connor and Peter MacKay and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

... individuals held him to the ground [redacted] while the other [redacted] beating him with electrical wires and rubber hose.

Maybe Harper's Canada condones torture, but mine does not.

Backing up Richard Colvin's testimony that senior Canadian officials were alerted to credible allegations of torture among those detainees originally captured by the Canadian military is this redacted email. I've transcribed the scanned and redacted email to the best of my ability as follows (highlighting is mine):

The detainee indicated that he was never visited by a representative of [redacted]. He indicated that he believes the facility received a visit by representatives of [redacted]. He indicated that he was not provided with any legal representation nor was clearly informed of the charges against him.

When asked about his interrogation the detainee came forward with an allegation of abuse. He indicated that he has been interrogated on [redacted] occasions by a group of # individuals. He could not positively identify the individuals [redacted]. He indicated that he could not recall the [redacted (first?)] interrogation in any details as he was allegedly knocked unconscious early on. He alleged that during the [redacted (second?)] interrogation [redacted] individuals held him to the ground [redacted] while the other [redacted] beating him with electrical wires and rubber hose. He indicated a spot on the ground in the room we were interviewing in as the place where he was held down. He then pointed to a chair and stated the implements he had been struck with were underneath it. Under the chair, we found a large piece of braided electrical wire as well as a well as a rubber hose. He then showed us a bruise (approx. 4 inches long) on his back that could possibly be the result of a blow. [While we did not ask, after the interview was completed and before we left, [redacted] told us that [redacted].

The detainee specifically asked that these allegations be kept confidential (Not shared with NDS officials). Report from Canadian inspection of Afghan prison

The report was compiled by a Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAIT) official, one of Richard Colvin's colleagues, following an inspection of an Afghan prison.

Other reports also filed by personnel in theatre also corroborate Colvin's testimony. Attached 4 page report KANDH0138 contains reports of abuse including:

• He alleged that he has been beaten while at NDS and [redacted]
• He claims that he was interrogated on [redacted] occasions while at NDX (approx. [redacted] and that he was beaten on [redacted])
• He alleged that he was beaten several times with a cable and was told that he would be [redacted]. He alleged that [redacted][redacted][redacted]

One can only imagine what sort of threats are being thrown at detainees while they are in the process of being beaten.

The Conservatives have unleashed their complete arsenal of attack dogs on this issue, striving to undermine the credibility of Colvin by painting him as a lone individual whose allegations are backed up by no one else.

But that isn't the case, as the attached documents clearly show. Clearly we've not learned the last of this sordid affair.

Who knew what and when are the key questions and there seems to be plenty of evidence circumstantial and otherwise to suggest that politicians right to the very top of the heap have known of these allegations for some time. If we take Colvin at his word, and increasingly it appears there is no reason not to accept his findings, the Harper government has known of these troubling issues since virtually the start of their tenure in government back in 2006.

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? That is a subject for an upcoming post, and the conclusion I come to is almost as troubling as torture itself.

Attached: Redacted documents provided to the CBC this Thursday by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran.

Now any Canadian can at least pretend to spend public money from the comfort of their own homes, Tory riding or not

It's the home version of the Stephen Harper's Conservative Party spending scandal, dubbed the Cheque Republic and now you can make your own cheques too!

PS: Stephen Harper, if you are paying attention, please send some real funds to Vancouver--Kingsway as anyone here knows we got nothing out of your pal David Emerson.

Conservatives are engaged in a tawdry game of your money, their re-election.

Call it cheque-gate or promogate but when a normally Conservative-friendly columnist starts writing about your shiny tory-blue party in an objectively negative way, clearly something is wrong.

"In the pursuit of unethical equivalency, all smarmy activity done by this government can be justified as having its genesis in previous administrations. Little wonder the public is so cynical about Ottawa. The changing of the government guard is nothing more than new dogs learning old tricks."

"The partisan handouts are just the latest game played with your tax dollars by a government that promised to do things differently. It has blanketed the airwaves with government-promotion ads at a pace six times the rate of any H1N1 public education blitz." October 16 2009 - Don Martin, National Post

Hundreds of images of Conservative MPs and Conservative cabinet ministers are showing up all over the internet this week depicting smiling Conservative partisans handing over cheques - your taxpayer dollars - which inappropriately carry either the Conservative Party logo, or the signature of the MP, or their boss Stephen Harper. These people do not sign Government of Canada cheques.

Back in July Susan Delacourt exposed in a Star article what might be called Promogate. Yet today Stephen Harper meanwhile maintains that the inappropriate and highly partisan marketing of what should be non-partisan efforts on behalf of the Government of Canada was an isolated act by Gerald Keddy.

Not so. Keddy also maintains that he doesn't even remember signing the fraudulent cheque/sign.

Here is Minister of Finance caught in the act of signing one of the partisan marketing cheques:

Not only is Gerald Keddy breaking the rules but so are dozens of other Conservative MP's and Conservative cabinet ministers. In this growing flickr photostream alone there almost 200 images of Conservative cabinet ministers and MPs breaking the public trust.

Here's the forgettable Tony Clement who was Minister of Health at the time of this mug shot:

Or how about a junior player, Minister of State (Science & Technology) Gary Goodyear flaunting a cheque which unabashedly includes the Conservative Party slogan, more than once.

Goodyear's actions are a misdemeanor compared to serial offender Cheryl Gallant who signs fraudulent Government of Canada cheques in her own name over and over (and over - note the Olympic logo / Conservative logo conspiracy/inspiration in the background in that last link) again.

Backbencher Barry Devolin, Conservative MP for Haliburton--Kawartha Lakes--Brock, perhaps is the most profligate offender of the rules. His shiny face appears in dozens of inappropriate cheque presentation photos. Shame on you Barry. As a former Reform party stalwart you used to pledge to do politics differently but near as I can tell you have reinterpreted that to mean do politics that benefit Barry Devolin.

Minister of Environment Jim Prentice, once described as Harper's right hand man, was caught in the act this summer passing out road sign-sized cheques bearing his signature, as was his predecessor, the totally inept former Minister of Environment Rona Ambrose.

Flaunting and Breaking the rules

Beyond being ethically wrong to tie government funding closely to partisan activities, what rules have been broken?

The Government of Canada has what is known as the Federal Identity Program, or FIP, which lays out when and how communications to the public should be made. FIP governs what should appropriately be the non-partisan "marketing" of our government to Canadians and the world at large. (FIP Manual - PDF)

As noted in the policy overview section Fields of Application, signage (a huge cheque is a sign) must adhere to FIP prescriptions, as must everything from advertising to stationary.

Institutions must ensure that an appropriate corporate signature and the "Canada" wordmark are applied wherever an activity of the federal government is to be made known in Canada and abroad. This means the identification of products, material, equipment and real property. The fields of application include: stationery, forms, motor vehicles, signage, advertising, published material, audio-visual productions, expositions and personnel identification. Federal Identity Program, Section 6: Fields of Application

Apparently they think they can get away with it is the straightforward answer to the question why? Treasury Board even has a document which illustrates a number of reasons why officials fail to comply with the rules, and I think our Conservative overlords fit most of them to a "T":

• no sense of accountability or little concern for accountability;
• lack of expected consequences for not complying;
• officials show no qualms about breaking rules that apply internally to government, with many believing there is no obligation to follow a policy;
• a sense of entitlement (officials seek benefits or restitution);
• a belief that government rules are inherently unnecessary and stifle innovation; and
• a sense of being (or of a situation being) above rules and their application.

The most powerful people in Canadian government - cabinet Ministers in Stephen Harper's government - are not following the rules. It isn't the first breach of ethics we've seen from this government (check out the news section of Democracy Watch) and it surely won't be the last uncovered.

A gracious hat tip to Warren Kinsella for pointing out a number of the image links found in this article.

Prime Minister's Office Implicated in Partisan Spending Scandal Dubbed Shovelgate

The charge is simple: federal spending is politicized. Canadians might be forgiven for yawning with apathetic boredom but instead we should be shouting.

You may recall Gord Landon, a former York area regional councillor who was until very recently a candidate for Stephen Harper's Conservative Party of Canada. Mr. Landon was dumped for being honest about what his party is doing with public funds: playing political games by spending federal infrastructure dollars for the Conservative Party's partisan benefit.

"One of the things we have been trying to get for a long time is a medical testing centre for Canada. They won't give it to this riding because it's held by a Liberal." Conservative Candidate for Markham-Unionville Gordon Landon

Chronicle Herald columnist Stephen Maher sums up this tempest neatly with the observation 'you're not supposed to say that kind of thing right out loud. You're supposed to hint at it. You're supposed to say that it helps to have someone "at the table"'. Gerry Nicholls - arch-conservative and former buddy of Stephen Harper - exclaimed in the National Post that "Politics is no place for honesty".

I'm not in the habit of quoting press releases from the Liberal Party web site but bear with me on this one as this is very relevant to this story.

Liberal Infrastructure Critic Gerard Kennedy today revealed explosive findings of Conservative political favouritism in British Columbia, where the Harper government is funnelling 325 per cent more taxpayer dollars to Conservative ridings compared to non-Conservative ridings.

Courtesy of the Liberal Party, a PDF document summarizing the spending allocation by riding party affiliation is attached to this article for future reference.

The Prime Minister's Office has of course denied the allegations.

Yet in an interview published yesterday Gordon Landon reiterated the charges which led to him being pushed out of the candidacy.

At the end of the interview they asked me, if you had a choice, what would you do for the riding and I said the medical instrument testing centre... I was sort of the head man to get Conservatives to participate and when I went to a number of functions and met with ministers and I talked to a lot of, many of the bureaucrats in Ottawa and the main feedback I got was it would never happen as long as John McCallum was in the riding. And I answered the question, I made the mistake of saying Liberal instead of saying John McCallum. Former Conservative Candidate for Markham-Unionville Gordon Landon

Mr. Landon also confirms that he met with people from the Prime Minister's Office and was told he couldn't speak to the press without their permission. According to Landon the PMO would prevent him from responding in an honest manner to issues. "I couldn't work with the media the way they wanted to work with the media. I'm the type of person (who) likes to respond to issues honestly ... They want you to vet everything through Ottawa and that kind of stuff. I just can't work under that".

According to the summary document, as of September 26 2009 only one riding in Vancouver (population more than half a million) - the third largest city in Canada - was blessed with infrastructure dollars from Stephen Harper's Conservative government, a party which purports to represent all Canadians. Somehow Langley (population 93 thousand) pulled in more than two times the spending dollars than Vancouver managed to earn with its more than a half million residents.

Of course not all ridings that saw significant spending are Conservatives, but the partisan nature of the investments is there nonetheless. Esquimalt-Juan-de-Fuca (population 121 thousand), currently held by Liberal (and former Canadian Alliance/conservative) MP Keith Martin, is a big prize the Stephen Harper's Conservative Party would like to bag. Harper's slush fund allocated more than four times the spending given Vancouver to, presumably, try to nab Martin's riding for the blue crew. A similar story plays out in Skeena-Bulkley Valley (population 91 thousand) where NDP incumbent Nathan Cullen, a past target of the Conservatives, has seen his riding receive six times more funding than Vancouver.

Shovelgate.