September 10, 2008

ELECTION PAMPHLET

We are now in the midst of a federal election. This comes as no surprise as this has been on the front burner for nearly a year.

We are very pleased, therefore, to attach our pamphlet called, "Strengthening Our Nation", in both Word and PDF format, which sets out the positions of the three major parties on current issues. Because of space limitations, we were able to include only the policies of the three major parties that currently hold seats in the House of Commons.

You will note that we have not included the abortion issue in this pamphlet, which, until full protection of the unborn in law has been achieved, will always remain an issue in any Canadian election. Since none of the three major parties has seen fit to stand up for life, no comparison can be made on this issue, as a result it was not included in the pamphlet. This does not mean that abortion does not matter, as it is important that each of us question the candidates on this issue. There are individual candidates within the major parties, both Liberal and Conservative, who do stand up for life and they should be supported.

Please distribute this pamphlet as far and wide as you can. Don’t hesitate to make copies of it. Download your choice of file type, PDF or Word. 

Strengthening Our Nation (Election 2008) PDF doc.         
Strengthening Our Nation (Election 2008) word doc. 

Back to top of page

August 21, 2008

CRTC APPROVES ANOTHER PORNOGRAPHIC CHANNEL

The CRTC approved a Canadian pay-television pornography channel called "Northern Peaks" last week on the basis that 50% of its pornographic content would be produced in Canada. This implies that the Canadian content was one of the main reasons for the approval of the channel.

The result of this CRTC decision is that, not only will Canada have yet another pornography channel, but, also, it will lead to the creation of a pornography industry in Canada. This is scarcely of benefit to society, and only benefits the owners and controllers of this new pornography industry. The latter will be making an easy profit on a very questionable activity, because the more disreputable the content, the greater the profit.

Pornography is not a victimless procedure. It is addictive and leads to changes in behaviour that undermine women, children and society as a whole.

In justifying its decision, however, the CRTC argues that it never takes a moral perspective on the contents of the applications it reviews. This explanation is not credible because the CRTC has been noticeably reluctant over the years to license any religious broadcasting. Even today, there are only two or three religious broadcasting channels in Canada.

The CRTC also claims that it received no objections to the pornography channel from the public. However, the CRTC only advertises applications on its web site. Unfortunately, few review the CRTC’s web site on a regular basis. Clearly, if REAL Women and other groups had had knowledge of the application for the pornography channel, objections would have been submitted to the CRTC. It seems, however, that the CRTC is not particularly concerned about public input. If it were, it would publicize applications much more widely, especially in major newspapers, as was its former practice.

What To Do About this New Pornography Channel

In making its decision on this Canadian content pornography channel, the CRTC specified that the channel would only be given its formal license if at least one cable or satellite provider agrees to add the channel to its service list. The channel has three years to obtain such a contract or else the license will expire.

1. Write to your own cable provider (name and address available on your monthly bill) and advise it that if it includes this pornographic channel on its service list, you will immediately switch providers. If the cable provider believes doing so will harm business – the Company will refuse the pornography channel.

2. Write to the CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2, Fax: 819-994-0218, raising your objections to its approval of this channel – Canadian content or not.

3. Write to Prime Minister Stephen Harper requesting that the CRTC, established in 1968, has failed to fill a useful role and should be disbanded. This conclusion is based on the fact that one of the major purposes of the CRTC was to maintain a balance of views, on matters of public debate. In short, the CRTC is deciding, unilaterally, what is good and bad for Canadian viewers and has, as a result, become an "arbiter" of what is considered acceptable viewing for the public. It has no right to do this. The CRTC’s approval of the Canadian content pornography channel is a most alarming example of the CRTC’s failure to consider the views of the Canadian public in its decision, and, unelected and unaccountable as it is, it has made decisions it should not make.

 

Back to top of page

May 13, 2008

THE VANCOUVER DRUG INJECTION SITE MUST BE SHUT DOWN

The supervised drug injection site in Vancouver was established as a “pilot project” by the Liberal government in 2003 for a three-year period.  It was intended to be a precursor for sites in other major cities across Canada.  Fortunately, this plan died when the Conservatives took over the government.  

In September 2006, Health Minister Tony Clement gave the injection centre an 18-month extension to June 2008.  

In the meantime, in October 2006, Mr. Clement appointed an Expert Advisory Committee to summarize evidence-based research on drug injection sites, with particular reference to the Insite in Vancouver.   On April 11, 2008, Mr. Clement released the final report of the Expert Advisory Committee.  The Task Force found that:

Only 5% of injections take place at this site and 95% of drug injections take place outside the site;
The site prevented only one death from overdose last year. (According to the Government of British Columbia Selected Vital Statistics and Health Status Indicators, Annual Report, 2005, the number of deaths from drug overdose has increased each year since the site was opened, going from 49 in 2002, to 50 in 2003, to 64 in 2004 and to 77 in 2005).
There is no evidence that this site has reduced rates of HIV or other infections.
There is no evidence that the crime rate has decreased in the downtown east side of Vancouver where the site is located.
There is no evidence that the site has reduced the rate of drug addiction.

The main argument used by those who support the injection site is that so-called “scientific” research has found that the drug injection site is worthwhile and that the Conservative government is ignoring this “scientific” research for ideological reasons.  In fact, these so called “scientific” findings, although published in reputable journals, have been found to be deeply flawed and are not an accurate portrayal of the impact of the injection site.  Other scientific papers published in reputable journals have disputed the findings and have found that they are based on the ideology of the supporters of the injection site, rather than hard scientific fact.

The supporters of the injection site believe in harm reduction policy, which supports normalization of drug use.  They also believe that since drug users are going to use drugs anyways, then they should do so in a government supervised clean, medically supervised environment.  Hence, the drug injection site.  This excludes, in practice, the possibility of addicts receiving treatment and being rehabilitated so as to live a productive stable life.

The Vancouver injection site must be shut down.  Please write to Prime Minister Harper and to Health Minister Mr. Clement insisting that the site be closed down when its license expires at the end of June.  Their addresses are as follows:

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa  ON   K1A 0A2
pm@pm.gc.ca
Fax: 613-941-6900

The Honourable Tony Clement
Minister of Health
Minister's Office - Health Canada
Brooke Claxton Building, Tunney's Pasture
Postal Locator: 0906C
Ottawa, Ontario    K1A 0K9
Email: minister_ministre@hc-sc.g.ca
Fax:  613 - 952-1154

Back to top of page

April 15, 2008

TO MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA
CONSERVATIVE PARTY NATIONAL POLICY CONVENTION
NOVEMBER 13-15, WINNEPEG

The Conservative Party national convention will be November 13 - 15th in Winnipeg. Delegates will debate and vote on policy proposals. It is crucial that pro-family conservatives attend this convention to make our voices heard. Each riding association (Electoral District Association / EDA) must hold a Delegate Selection Meeting on a date from May 1, 2008 to August 15, 2008 to elect up to ten convention delegates, including one youth (under 23 years of age) delegate. The following information outlines how you can get involved to ensure pro-family delegates are elected to represent your riding (EDA) at the national convention.

1. Make sure your Conservative Party membership is up-to-date.

All party memberships expired at the end of 2007, except for those paid after October or multiple year memberships. If you have not renewed your membership in 2008, do so immediately. To renew or purchase a Party membership, go to the party web site at www.conservative.ca and click on the 'Become a Member' button. Membership fee is $10.00 per year. If you have questions about your party membership, call the national office at 1-866-808-8407.

In order to vote at the delegate selection meeting, a person must be a party member for at least 21 days prior to the meeting date. In order to stand for election as a convention delegate, a person must be a member in good standing for at least 90 days prior to the delegate selection meeting.

2. Contact your local EDA president to get involved.

Indicate your support of the Conservative Party, ask how you can get involved, and ask if there are any upcoming membership meetings that you could attend. If you do not know how to contact your local riding association, call the national party office to find out, or, if your MP is a Conservative, call the MP constituency office to ask for the contact information for the riding association president.

3. Criteria to be eligible to stand for election to become a convention delegate

A person must be a member in good standing and have been a party member for at least 90 days prior to the date of the Delegate Selection Meeting. A person must fill out a delegate information form (ask EDA President for form) including the signature of a mover and seconder. The form must be submitted to the EDA President prior to the commencement of the Delegate Selection Meeting.

4. Voting to elect convention delegates shall be by secret ballot.

To register at the Delegate Selection Meeting, you must have two pieces of identification, one with a photo and one showing your residence address.

5. Convention delegates must pay their own convention registration fees.

Elections Canada requires political party convention delegates to pay their own convention registration fees. Riding associations, if they choose, can help with travel and accommodation expenses.

6. Report contact information for pro-family delegates

After your local riding Delegate Selection Meeting is held, report contact information for pro-family convention delegates to the national REAL Women of Canada office to facilitate future communication. Please send delegate's name, address, phone, email and the name of their riding by Email to realwcna@on.aibn.com or by fax to 613-236-7203.

Back to top of page

February 18, 2008

CANADIAN MUSEUM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CMHR), WINNIPEG, MANITOBA

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in April 2007 that the federal government will contribute 100 million dollars toward the building of the Human Rights Museum in Winnipeg.

He also stated that the federal government would contribute $22 million annually to cover its operating costs.

The Advisory Committee for the Museum, selected by the former Liberal government, consisted mainly of feminist, homosexual and regular Liberal stand-bys, such as a former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner, former Liberal MPs, Cabinet Ministers and some Senators. The museum was intended to be a monument to former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his Charter of Rights.

This has raised concerns that the museum, with its left-wing Advisory Board, would be used as a powerful tool to champion the Liberal government’s interpretation of human rights, such as abortion rights, feminism, homosexuality, etc. with only some legitimate exhibits sprinkled here and there to give the museum the appearance of legitimacy.

Fortunately the Conservative government changed the Advisory Committee in October to include individuals, mostly business men and women, with no known bias on human rights issues.

This new Advisory Committee now wishes to take the views of the public into account in reaching its decisions on the scope and content of the Museum. As a result, a public consultation on the Museum is being carried out between February 5th and March 15, 2008. To further this project, the Advisory Committee has prepared a public consultation document that can be found at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/index_e.cfm. In the left bar, under the heading, Department, click Public Consultations. The document includes a number of questions which are intended to stimulate ideas for the Museum for Human Rights. The Committee also invites views not covered by the questions.

It is important that as many of us as possible, with a conservative perspective, provide input into this Museum as it will remain a part of the Canadian culture for many years to come. We want it to reflect basic human rights, not the trendy rights contributed by recent court decisions.

Back to top of page

October 10, 2007

ONTARIO REFERENDUM ON MMP VOTING PROCEDURE

The Ontario election on October 10th will be important not only because it will determine who will run this province for another few years, but also perhaps even more importantly, will determine, by way of referendum, whether the province should adopt a new voting procedure, called the Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP).

Surprisingly, the referendum vote on the proposed voting system has not received much news coverage. As a consequence, the public may not fully understand the system and its implications.

Attached is an article on the proposed MMP system, which hopefully clarifies what it is about and also will encourage debate on the subject. If you wish, send this article to your local newspaper for publication and also share it with your friends and neighbours in your community and your Church, synagogue, temple, etc. If is important that voters be aware of the implications of this referendum.

ONTARIO REFERENDUM ON MMP VOTING PROCEDURE

A provincial election will be held in Ontario on October 10, 2007. On election day, there will be two ballots handed to the voters. One will be to choose a candidate for the riding. The other ballot will be to ask the voter to respond to a referendum question on a new voting method proposed for the province.

As important as the election is to determine who will represent the riding for the next four years, perhaps the referendum question is of even greater importance because of its lasting impact on democracy.

The referendum question will ask: which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?

The existing electoral system (first past the post), i.e. the party, which receives a simple majority, forms the government, or

An alternative electoral system, called the Mixed Member Proportional Vote (MMP).

The latter voting system is used, for example, in Germany and New Zealand.

The proposed MMP procedure raises concerns because, if implemented, it will undermine our democratic system of government.

What is the Mixed Member Proportional Vote?

This voting system will produce two classes of politicians: those elected by the voters (90 MPP’s) and those appointed by the political parties (39 MPPs). That is, the 129 seats in the Ontario legislature will be divided between those elected by the 90 individual ridings, and 39 seats chosen by the political parties themselves, according to the percentage of votes each party obtains in the election. Those appointed by the parties will obviously adhere to the party’s ideology because their appointment will be dependent on it. Consequently, these MPPs will not be interested in the views of the public or any of the public’s lobbying efforts: such concerns will be irrelevant to them as their role will be to support their party’s policies only.

The political parties’ lists are expected to alternate male and female candidates and provide a “balance” based on such attributes as gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. As a result, despite the fact that there may be a superficial diversity among the appointed candidates, i.e. gender or colour, etc., there will be absolutely no diversity in regard to their political views, since they will identify and promote only the policies of the party which appointed them as provincial members of the legislature.

The MMP system is the dream of the small parties, which is why the NDP and Green parties are pushing it. Any party with 3% of the popular vote will get a chance to be part of a coalition with the larger parties. Not surprisingly, the MMP system usually leads to more political parties. For example, before MMP was introduced in New Zealand in 1993, it had two political parties. Now it has six different political parties.

In the MMP system, elections are usually followed by weeks of closed-door deal making among parties to form a government – exactly the reverse of what happens after the first past the post elections, where the results are immediately announced.

A result of this secret deal making is that it creates unstable coalitions in order to form a minority government, often with a brief shelf life – inevitable with this voting system. The latter is one of the reasons why Italy, which has used a form of the MMP system since World War II, has just experienced its 62nd government and is now looking at ways to return to the more stable first past the post voting system.

The greatest beneficiaries of the MMP system, apart from the small parties, will be those from special interest groups, such as feminists, as the major parties will certainly place them at the top of their list for appointments. This is because feminist activists have constantly bemoaned the lack of “women” in the legislature, despite the fact that women are all different and have no commonality of experience. It is significant that it is not the gender of a candidate that matters to the male or female voters, but rather, his/her values and perspective on issues. Feminists, as part of a special interest group, have worked long and hard for the introduction of the MMP voting system, knowing that it will strengthen their special interest voice in government, since they often have difficulty getting nominated and elected on their own. With the MMP system, feminist activists will be assured of appointments to the legislature by the major parties, but they will not represent “women” at all, but only their own feminist perspective and that of their party. That is, the MMP system neatly by-passes the inconvenient fact that voters base their votes on the candidate’s views and platform, rather than on gender. This voting preference also applies to women voters who, as do men, vote according to their social, economic, cultural, educational and religious backgrounds, etc., not on gender.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has stated that in order for the referendum to pass, it must have 60% approval from the votes cast. Hopefully, this troublesome referendum to change our voting system will not succeed.*

September 5, 2007

Back to top of page

October 4, 2007

FAMILIES WELCOME GOVERNMENT’S DRUG STRATEGY

It is fitting that the federal government should announce its anti-drug strategy during National Family Week. The family pays the heaviest emotional and social price when drug addiction victimizes one of its members. Whether a parent’s child caring abilities are harmed by drug abuse, or whether a child’s development is irreparably damaged due to drug use, drug addiction is a terrible tragedy for families.

Canadian families welcome the $64 million anti-drug initiative and believe that it is long overdue. With two thirds of the funding directed toward prevention and treatment, the harmful effects on young lives is finally being recognized by the federal government and concrete action is being taken.

REAL Women of Canada has long advocated a multi level approach to this serious social and medical problem: education, enforcement, protection and treatment. The federal government’s strategy meets these basic requirements and offers hope for a better future for Canadians as we move towards a drug free and more productive society.

Please write to the Prime Minister thanking him for his government’s very firm and compassionate approach to this devastating problem:


The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister
Office of the Prime Minister
Langevin Building, 80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2
Fax: 613 941-6900

Back to top of page

October 11, 2006

SUPPRESSION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OPINION IN THE MEDIA

Media coverage of the same-sex marriage issue has been horrendous. The public has been deprived of valuable information as the debate has been deliberately framed in terms of human rights and Charter rights only. Coverage of the Parliamentary Committee that studied the issue was inadequate as the Committee, after hearing over 500 witnesses, dealing with over 250,000 letters from the concerned public and traveling thousands of miles across the country, was not permitted to table its report in Parliament. Concerns for the well-being of children, presented before the Committee by REAL Women, Dr. Margaret Somerville, and others, were ignored.

The traditional position on marriage did not receive fair exposure except for columns by a few stalwart journalists who put their careers on the line to report the facts against the promotion of same-sex marriage. Some columnists were and continue to be harassed by their editors for doing so. Many have received nasty hate mail and threats to their lives and safety. Journalists who dared exercise their right to freedom of expression by opposing the redefinition of marriage were abandoned by their fellow journalists who feared for their own status in the media industry.

Journalists who uphold the integrity of the profession today need our support. When you read their articles we ask that you encourage them personally. Write letters to the editor defending their point of view. These journalists often stand alone, never knowing when the axe will fall to end their employment as a result of a complaint from a reader whose feelings are hurt. We have our own effective network of information on pro-life, pro-family issues but the public at large is often misled if they are not tapping into this network. Brave journalists writing for major media outlets serve their country well during these difficult times for the family, and they need our support.

Whenever a columnist writes in support of life, family and traditional marriage, i.e., a man and woman united together to the exclusion of all others, please write in support of them. We can do no less in these troubling times where freedom of speech and opinion, although being a “Charter right” is being trodden on by media obsession with political correctness.

A.10.06

Back to top of page

Aug. 7, 2006

COUNTER-ATTACK BY FEMINISTS

Since 1973, the federal Status of Women has given millions of dollars to feminist only groups and promoted feminist policies on the false premise that women in Canada are victims of a patriarchal society. Although some women may be victims, the vast majority of Canadian women are perfectly able and are capable of making their own decisions about their lives. They do not need nor want the Status of Women to speak on their behalf.

With the election of the Conservatives in January 2006, REAL Women believed that the time had come to examine this serious abuse of taxpayers' money, as well as the hugely unnecessary House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. (The latter had recommended that there be a 25% increase in funding to feminist only group.)

REAL Women sent a letter dated April 4, 2006, addressed to the Prime Minister as well as to "friendly" MPs from various political parties requesting that this entire matter be objectively examined.

REAL Women's efforts to disband the Status of Women and its outrageous policies and funding, however, has recently been met by a massive counter offensive with letters pouring in to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and individual MPs from across the country expressing concerns about the disbandment of the Status of Women.

Although we have no way of proving it, we are confident that this well-coordinated campaign has been instigated by the Status of Women itself, whose future is on the line, since its efforts may no longer be required.

There is no one better placed administratively to coordinate this counter offensive than the Status of Women which has first-hand information on the developments and has on record all the feminist groups and shelters across the country. Further, an application has been received under the Access to Information Act for a record of all correspondence received by the Status of Women on this issue. The purpose of this is to expose (and pressure) MPs who have written to the agency to support REAL Women and its perspective on the Status of Women.

The theme of these many letters is that "shelters for abused women and children protect them from the violence." (No mention of the studies which indicate that half of domestic violence is instigated by the women.) The letters also claim that women need the support of the Status of Women to work for pay equity, marital property and senior women's income, etc.

Never is it mentioned that the Status of Women, including women's shelters themselves, are matters of provincial jurisdiction only. They do not fall within federal jurisdiction and there is no reason why the federal government is funding so generously these provincial issues and organizations. Further, there is no reason why the Status of Women portfolio is included in the Cabinet.


In order to offset this national feminist effort to protect feminist control in Canada, it would be appreciated if you would write immediately to the Prime Minister, relevant Members of his Cabinet (list below), and your MP and the opposition leaders who are all being inundated with letters to support feminist policies and funding of the Status of Women.

Please write to the following:

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, PC, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Building, 80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2
Fax: 613 941-6900

The Hon. Beverley J. Oda, PC, MP
Minister of Status of Women
Jules Leger Bldg.
12th Floor, 15 Eddy Street
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0M5
Fax: 819 994-1267

The Hon. Rona Ambrose, PC, MP
Minister of the Environment
Environment Canada
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière
North Tower, 28th Floor
10 Wellington Street
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3
Fax: 819 953-3457

The Hon. Diane Finley, PC, MP
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Place du Portage, Phase IV, 14th Floor
140 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0J9
Fax: 819 994-0448

The Hon. Josée Verner, PC, MP
Minister of International Cooperation and
Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages
Place du Centre, 12th Floor
200 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0G4
Fax: 819 953-8525

The Hon. Carol Skelton, PC, MP
Minister of National Revenue and
Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Connaught Building, 7th Floor
555 MacKenzie Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5
Fax: 613 952-6608

The Hon. Bill Graham
Interim Leader of the Liberal Party
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Fax: 613 996-9607

The Hon. Jack Layton
Leader of the NDP Party
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Fax: 613 947-0868

Back to top of page

April 25, 2006

UPCOMING VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

REAL Women of Canada is part of a coalition called Defend Marriage Coalition consisting of twelve pro-family groups across Canada. This Coalition was established in order to influence the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage that was promised by Prime Minister Harper during the 2006 federal election campaign.

Prime Minister Harper stated, during the campaign, that if he were elected, he would re-visit the issue of same-sex marriage in Parliament. Subsequent to the election, he stated that he would raise this issue, not right away, but “sooner, rather than later.”

The delay in calling for this vote in Parliament provides us with a window of opportunity to ensure a winning vote in support of traditional marriage.

The Coalition has decided, therefore, as part of its strategy, to write to all the religious leaders in Canada requesting that they become personally involved in this crucial issue.

Back to top of page

JANUARY, 2006

EARLY VOTING IN THE 2006 FEDERAL ELECTION

In most parts of Canada we cannot depend on good weather either on voting day, January 23rd or at the time of the advance polls, January 13th, 14th and 16th to encourage supporters to cast their ballots.

The key to any hoped for success on our part, in the forthcoming election however, may be in getting our supporters to the polls. We do have the numbers, in supporters - but it is getting them to cast their votes that is a major concern and a hurdle to overcome.

Fortunately, this problem has been greatly resolved for this forthcoming winter election, due to a little known amendment to the Canada Elections Act. This amendment now allows voters to cast their ballot on any day including Saturdays and Sundays (even Christmas day and New Year's day) up until 6:00 pm Tuesday, January 17, 2006.

This amendment stipulates that in order to allow voting by way of a "special ballot", all 308 local Elections Canada offices must be opened every day until Tuesday, January 17, 2006, during the following hours:

Weekdays (Monday to Friday) 9:00 am - 9:00 pm
Saturday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm
Sunday 12:00 pm - 4:00 pm

Voting by "special ballot" requires only that a voter whose name is on the voters' list shows up at his or her riding's electoral office and present identification, preferably photo ID, such as a driver's license or passport, in order to vote. Even if that person's name is _not_ on the voter's list he / she can still vote if 18 years of age and a Canadian Citizen and can provide suitable identification.

This provision is particularly helpful for those who will be out of the country on election day or on the advance polls, or for those who, for health reasons, cannot sustain the crowds and the line-ups on election day.

This "special ballot" provision also permits voting by mail. The registration kits to vote by mail can be picked up at your local riding's Canada Elections office or alternatively, by writing to or faxing toll free in Canada and the United States:

Your completed registration form and "special ballot" can then be faxed to Elections Canada at 613-998-8393 or toll free in Canada and the United States at 1-800-363-4796 or mailed to the Elections Canada address above.

The completed registration form and ballot however, must be received by 6:00 pm January 17, 2006. The earlier one acts the better.

These relatively unknown provisions in the Canada Elections Act may be a key to our electoral success in this federal election.

For further information, please go to the Elections Canada web site www.elections.ca

Back to top of page