Sa'adoni

6 years later, lets just take a hunch. One fraud is enough, out with them!

yeah they cheated. people shouldn't be able to cheat pay 50,000 dollars and keep 15 seats they cheated to win. Embezzlement of tax payer dollars is still embezzlement even if you pay it back after you get caught. People went to jail when the liberals did it.\\\ 486. (1) Every candidate who contravenes subsection 83(1) (failure to appoint official agent) or 83(2) (failure to appoint auditor), section 87 (failure to appoint a replacement official agent or auditor), subsection 92.2(1) (accepting prohibited gift or other advantage) or 92.2(5) (failure to provide statement within required period) or paragraph 92.6( (providing incomplete statement) is guilty of an offence. Marginal note:Offences requiring intent — summary conviction (2) Every person who contravenes subsection 81(1) (refusal to give access to building or gated community) or subsection 81.1(1) (refusal to give access to place open to the public) is guilty of an offence. Marginal note:Offences requiring intent — dual procedure (3) Every person is guilty of an offence who (a) contravenes section 89 (signing of nomination paper when ineligible); ( wilfully contravenes subsection 90(1) (ineligible person acting as official agent) or 90(2) (ineligible person acting as auditor); © contravenes section 91 (making false statement re candidate); (d) contravenes section 92 (publication of false statement of withdrawal of candidate); (e) being a candidate, wilfully contravenes subsection 92.2(1) (accepting prohibited gift or other advantage); (f) being a candidate, wilfully contravenes subsection 92.2(5) (failure to provide statement within required period); or (g) being a candidate, contravenes paragraph 92.6(a) (providing statement containing false or misleading information) or knowingly contravenes paragraph 92.6( (providing incomplete statement). 2000, c. 9, s. 486; 2006, c. 9, s. 56; 2007, c. 21, s. 37. Previous Version just before the next set of rules they broke this past election... and it is criminal... Strict liability offences — summary conviction summary convictions are actually considered crimes, just like indictable offences. with real jail 92.6 No candidate shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a statement referred to in subsection 92.2(3) that (a) the candidate knows or ought reasonably to know contains a material statement that is false or misleading; or ( does not substantially set out the information required by that subsection. 2006, c. 9, s. 40. Yet a reasonable person, including candidates both checked this, and contacted the conservative headquarters to verify. Meanwhile the conservative headquarters provided information which was not legally accurate or intentionally provided false information. But a reasonable person would know that it was illegal. Those reasonable people should have contacted their lawyers not party headquarters for legal advice. Anyone with half a brain could tell that moving money around to make it look like you are underspending is illegal, for elections. (The party exercised willful negligence in not verifying with elections canada on the issue - they were complicit with election fraud the party must be disbanded. Allowing the party to exist and continue to commit electoral fraud will only further destroy democracy, they must be smitten.) This is yet another reason why parties should have no legal standing or financial benefits. They broke the law end of story. They committed election fraud multiple times. BOOT THEM OUT AND DON'T LET THEM BACK! It is undemocratic to let them stay in office. Anyone who was complicit in these electoral frauds including the party as an organization - its board and candidates who were should be locked out. Anyone legally responsible for what happened should be locked out. This is true of the election fraud in 2006, the election fraud in 2008 and the election fraud in 2011.

6 years later and we know now, they cheated. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/tories-drop-supreme-court-appeal-over-2006-dispute-with-elections-canada-141688623.html According of this a number of MPs are ineligible for office as of 2006.. and they are still ineligible. Including the defence minister I believe. They were legally ineligible to run in 2008 due to election fraud in 2006. Likewise every election since then since ineligibility is for life. And the party should be de-registered for this massive election fraud. ILLEGITIMATE!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXwm_P6TKIo How the hell can the governor general continue to let them sit, they ARE ELECTION FRAUDSTERS IN A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WE CANNOT LET ELECTION FRAUDSTERS RUN THE GOVERNMENT. DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT AND BAR THOSE WHO COMMITTED THE FRAUDS FROM RUNNING AGAIN. LIKEWISE DISSOLVE THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY THEY ARE CRIMINALS. IT TURNS PRISON BUILDING PROGRAMS INTO HOME BUILDING PROGRAMS FOR THE PARTY. ILLEGITIMATE!!!!

I looked didn't see it, it is there now..

6 years later and we know now, they cheated. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/tories-drop-supreme-court-appeal-over-2006-dispute-with-elections-canada-141688623.html According of this a number of MPs are ineligible for office as of 2006.. and they are still ineligible. Including the defence minister I believe. They were legally ineligible to run in 2008 due to election fraud in 2006. Likewise every election since then since ineligibility is for life. And the party should be de-registered for this massive election fraud.

That will take time, but I do advocate this for the "national information grid" this would be a citizens internet that is only accessable by approved secure devices. secure sales would be required to be done via this network, government transactions, any companies subject to laws such as financial institutions etc.. it would not be connected to the internet - anyone who did so would be liable to major penalties like life in prison/ or hard labour etc... canadian credit cards wounldn't work on the "old internet" public libraries and educational material, etc.. would be provided for free on this network. and citizens given "templates" to make webpages from. foreign addresses and non residents would be blocked from accessing the information. Information would only be 1 way to the "authorized" user. individuals would be given access to things based on their security clearance level. --- "the old internet would be turned into an unregulated no mans land" but noone should expect security on it, or continuity of service. there would be two modes for the old internet "the free net" and the "safe net" safe net would only be approved websites, while "free net" would be anything goes. Free net accounts however would be registered for - only adults would be given access to the "free net"

I support this measure. Canada shouldn't be having the public taxed to fund any foreign groups. Usually it is connected with corruption and political interference. Canada as a state has no business meddling in other countries affairs. If people want to pay for overseas organizations they should be free to do so, but people shoulnd't be getting taxed by force to do it. The environment is a public interest so it should have charity status. money into Canada is good, if they provide false information or violate the law in doing so, that is what the courts are for. I agree 150% Charities need more support not less. It needn't be money but it should be in the form of making it easier for charities to operate - afterall charities serve the public benefit through education, alleviation of poverty and improving the public benefit.

They should completely remote MP salaries and political aid salaries. Likewise they should only allow not allow currently serving legislators to serve on the executive. Legislators could always be "appointed up" to the executive but they should abandon their seat if they do, so they can focus on their job. The government shouldn't be paying for support staff that isn't "government owned". If we need more representatives make more ridings, not more paid assistants to divert communications from the actual representative. Only a modest service pension should be provided if the MP is in hardship. Likewise residence costs and work related transportation should be taken into consideration. Weeding out the people more concerned about their paycheck than public service is a good first go at improving the system. For running a deficit and debt they sure have a greater sense of entitlement than they should. Competent people don't run a productive and growing public economy into massive debt. They should have their payments and pensions after hardship considerations adjusted to pay down the debt they racked up. I'm really surprised the general public is paying for business people to watch sports games? http://www.canada.com/sports/Flaherty+rejects+Ontario+sports+ticket+break/6255008/story.html Funding sports and athletics is one thing, but it is pretty sad when the sports poeple say no one in their right mind would pay to watch our sports. You know some people don't make enough for tax deductions.. Wouldn't it make more sense to give the free tickets to people who can't payfor them, than those who make enough not to need to pay for them? Why fill the stands with people who really couldn't be bothered to a buy a ticket if it ain't free? What they arn't good enough for sponserships? Fundraising? Why not just give direct subsidy rather than free tickets andmake the stands open first come first serve, rather than only letting the rich have access to games? Or nationalize it so that these subsidies don't serve as a funnel to pay already very wealthy people a margin on the ownership of their multimillion dollar sports team. Maybe the public should be getting the profits back... afterall the teams are profitable right? Why are the rich tycoons getting the cheese from the public udder, shouldn't it be the starving youth.. why the hell are we paying public tax dollars to make people rich for providing a luxury service to the weathly.. it ain't just the wealthy who pay taxes. Have the FING leauge pay for your freetickets the NHL actually makes money have them pay for your charity. It should be a loan, if people don't want to support it it dies,welcome to the real world. The world faced by thousands of not for profits that go in debt. Businesses fail, why the hell are we floating yours? Why the hell obsesse at the commercial level, there is plenty hockey to go around. I don't want a future debt to pay for a commercial business to operate.. with no expectation to operate on anything but charity. Why the hell are we going in debt for ottawa to have a hockey team they won't pay to go see play? Plenty of rich people in ottawa.. but hold on they don't like hockey? .. but don't all canadians like hockey. BOO MR. FLAHRETY you are squandering tax dollars. If there is no money in it for the public purse why the hell are you supporting it, corruption much? But wouldn't you and Mr. Harper play for the ticket, you could probably fill 150 or so paying seats from your caucus alone. If people don't support it from their pockets, why should we support it from ours.. that is DEBT INTEREST BEARING DEBT. You are being an irresponsible hack. This is why tax write off fail, it should only be a consideration on the basis of hardship, these are nothing but engineering support for non supported busiesses by general corruption. The public should not be paying for business perks. Only health social welfare and basic needs that are unmet. END CORPORATE WELFARE CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE BASIC NEEDS! END THE WRITE OFFS. PAYDOWN THE DEBT RUN 0 DEFICIT AND END INCOME TAXES!

I find it funny people are still supporting the party when they have shown themselves to be corrupt and completely ignorant of rule of law. You people should be asshamed of yourselves for supporting a party that so flagrantly violates the basic principles of democracy.

At present them admitting to violating Elections Canada's request not to give out polling location information is compelling. If you didn't know, that's what Elections Canada does not the parties, know why? 43. No person shall (a) wilfully obstruct an election officer in the performance of his or her duties; ( without authority, use identification simulating that used by a revising agent or intended to replace that prescribed by the Chief Electoral Officer for that purpose; or © having been replaced as an election officer, fail to give to their replacement or to an authorized person any election documents or other election materials that the person has received or prepared in the performance of his or her duties. Directly refusing a directive not to give out polling information is complicit in that since it is their duty to do so, and giving out NOT UP TO DATE information or incorrect information directly obstructs duties of the elections official. IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES TO ADMINISTER THE ELECTION, ONLY OBSERVE IT! If people ask about polls they should be referred to elections Canada, and the correct electoral officials. They violated the law again. one should also question the consideration of broadcasting vs. telecommunications, if that telecommunications is a prerecorded message that is sent to masses of people.

One step closer.. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203458604577263463423624778.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Human error, the major parties (top 2 in the previous elections) control the polls, and nominate elections the staff, making it a potentially biased an partisan cotrolled process, not an unbiased process. There are many potential issues with human oversight of elections, only overshadowed by the fact judges are politically appointed not voted into office. The only way voting will be known to be fair is to make it public and have people confirm their votes as correct. A public roll, that is able to be verified is the only way elections can't be directly rigged. There is no reason in a free and democratic society that Canada is suppose to be that voting cannot be public.

Official parties get tax rebates for expenses... ducks lined up..

In part the reason electronic voting hasn't gone ahead is the exact opposite reason, it can be detected through the machines electronic emissions, meaning peoples votes arn't secret with most voting machines.And tempest systems are cost prohibitive ususally. There is no vote secrecy. Also the systems can be hijacked.

CSIS does security certificates all the time. This involves investigating you, talking to your neighbours etc.. these clearances can be more intensive than getting a firearms license. Also if someone gives a "tip" they may do it. Unfortunately some people both in and out of government arn't nice people and will abuse the reportig process as a weapon against people. I know one person who had links to the Canadian military who didn't like my political philosophy so he harassed and defamed me on an ongoing basis includig reporting my lawful actions to the police, and making up stories about me, this is someone whose buddy was a cop. There are many more like that scum. https://www.csis.gc.ca/nwsrm/bckgrndrs/bckgrndr09-eng.asp BTW some companies do work for the government and employees may not even realize they need clearance for their "civilian jobs" to do their work, and that the government will spy on them to determine their ability to do so. There are many other types of situations, and anyone and everyone can be effected by it, even knowing the wrong person can get you into trouble. Lots of times these stories involve political aids/csis agents unbeknownst to the public. eg. The Government Screening Program provides security assessments for all government departments and institutions, with the exception of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Service also has a site access program for airports, the Parliamentary Precinct and nuclear power stations. For instance your neighbour works for an airport.. guess who shows up at your door asking questions.. 1 in a hundred people work for the military that is potentially 1 in 30 who get a csis agent at their door. There are other examples. The problem arises when CSIS field agents don't inform the person they want to interview the interview is optional, and persist in trying to interview the person or not arranging an interview and just showing up unannounced. It becomes even worse when it is a typical criminal harassment act against the person, as it is an indictable offence and CSIS agents do not have immunity for criminal acts. The same is true for police. If they don't have an arrest warrant, and don't believe an indictable offence is occurring they have no right to interrogate people or even question them without their permission and persisting to do so is unlawful harassment. If repeated then the person could lawfully move to arrest the police officer as it is an idictable offence, and use any means required including lethal force if the officer responds with force or attempts flight. That same CSIS agent would face the same context of commiting an indictable offence in that they would be lawfully a target of arrest by a citizen. That is the law, and the protection against GESTAPO and Police state actions agaist the public. Use it or support a police state that suppresses freedom, we are no better than the terrorist states in the middle east if we support those abuses by the government. Police have no right to breach the peace unlawfully and either does CSIS