Record of Elections Canada’s and the Canadian Revenue Agency’s replies regarding "Longley’s Loophole:"

Participation Premiums

Possible for every individual Canadian taxpayer.

More than 99% of all Canadian taxpayers
have usually not claimed their possible
political contribution tax credits.

Participation Premiums make it legally possible for any individual Canadian taxpayer to obtain after-tax personal profit from participating in registered political activities, when that individual participates BOTH as a financial contributor to a registered political entity, AND when that individual also becomes an Officer and/or an Agent of the registered political entity that the individual made a financial contribution to, since then that individual has BOTH the right to control how their registered political entity’s money will be spent, AND claim their political contribution tax credit with their official receipt for their financial contribution to their registered political entity. By being able to personally direct how the money that they contributed will be spent by the registered political entity that they contributed to, the net result is that they may personally benefit from their participation in registering their particular preferred choices of registered political activities.

By participating, individuals regain control over money.

If they do nothing, then they get no political tax credit!

If they participate, by donating, and becoming an Officer, and submitting a bill of their choice to be paid, then, their right to claim political contribution tax credit will result in a net after-tax personal benefit, which is why this arrangement is for Participation Premiums.

This article is a collection of attempts in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, to get the relevant government officials to admit the truth about the use of the political contribution tax credit. Their four relevant replies, so far, are repeated in this article.

This concerns the on-going development of what may be called "Longley’s Loophole" (or applying Lord Brightman’s Mandate Theory) through the political contribution tax credit provisions. The Canadian political tax credit was first enacted in 1974. Blair T. Longley, the currently registered Leader of the Marijuana Party, discovered that there was a more than ten billion dollar per year loophole through that political tax credit in 1984, when he first ran in a Federal election. Longley became a registered agent of the Rhinoceros Party, in order to work for 5 years to develop a factual basis of processing about $10,000 worth through the tax loophole scheme that he discovered in 1984. From 1989 to 2000, Longley worked on a court case against the Revenue Canada taxation department of the Federal Government. He finally won his case by proving that his use of the political contribution tax credit had always been legal, and that senior officials in Revenue Canada had been dishonest when they had denied his use of political tax credits was legal. A LINK to the judgment in that court case appears near the bottom of Elections Canada’s Web site list of significant court cases.

From 2000 onward, the Marijuana Party has been making full legal use of "Longley’s Loophole" political contribution tax credit scheme. From 2000 to 2003, the Marijuana Party Tax Credit Scheme was wide open. But, in May of 2004, the Federal Government changed the elections law in order to criminalize most of that tax scheme.

Limited versions of making some after-tax profit from political participation are still available to Officers and/or Agents of Marijuana Party Electoral District Associations (EDAs)

TO REPEAT:

The Federal Political Contribution Tax Credit was enacted in 1974.

“Longley’s Loophole” in there was discovered by Longley in 1984.

The original fully legal tax credit scheme through Longley’s Loophole was called the "Contributor’s Choice Concept." (CCC) The currently legal Longley’s Loophole political tax credit scheme is called the "Participation Premium Plan." (PPP)

After fighting against the government LYING
that Longley’s Loophole was not legal UNTIL
winning a court case to establish more TRUTH,
Parti Marijuana Party was the only registered party
that agreed to offer the public Longley’s Loophole.

For a few years, from 2000 to 2003, contributor numbers were increasing.

BUT then, in 2004, the Federal government enacted
legislation criminalizing various external agreements.

All those changes in the elections laws made in 2004
more than decimated what Parti Marijuana Party was.

We had to go back to the drawing board,
to adapt “Longley’s Loophole” to limits
that had criminalized most of what we
had been doing back in 2000 to 2003.

We thought through what was still legally possible!

We had to go back through an administrative process.

We continued to make various financial arrangements,
where financial contributors were also Officers/Agents.

We continued to report the facts to Elections Canada.

We endeavoured to put pressure on Elections Canada!

The conclusions are these crucial admissions below:

THIS IS AN APRIL 17, 2009, REPLY FROM
TREVOR KNIGHT, AT ELECTIONS CANADA:

Subject: Response to questions from Blair Longley

From: "Knight, Trevor" Trevor.Knight@Elections.ca.

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009

To: "Radical Marijuana" info@marijuanaparty.ca

Dear Mr. Longley:

Yours truly,
Trevor Knight
Legal Counsel
Elections Canada

THIS IS AN AUGUST 31, 2012, REPLY BY
TREVOR KNIGHT AT ELECTIONS CANADA:

There are many aspects of the operations of political entities that are not regulated by provisions of the Canada Elections Act. The financial controls, approval processes or restrictions on financial decision-making of an EDA are matters internal to that association and the party with which it is associated.

On April 22, 2009, I sent this Reply to Mr. Knight,
as well as everyone else on the mailing list of all
the registered political parties that attend the
Advisory Committee of Political Parties (ACPP).

Dear Mr. Knight:

I am responding to your April 17, 2009, email below.

During the April 20 and 21, 2009, ACPP meetings.

I presented an overview of this situation to them ...

As well, while there, I spoke directly to the CEO & senior staff about a possibility that

Elections Canada could ask the Canada Revenue Agency to comment on these questions.

(My past experiences lead me to expect the CRA would ignore me as much as possible.)

Basically, I agree with your April 17, 2009, email statements that:

"The arrangements described in your e-mail could be legally valid under the Canada Elections Act depending upon the facts. Genuine transactions in which contributions are made without an agreement concerning their return, coupled with legitimate reimbursements of expenses incurred while acting on behalf of an EDA, would not violate the Canada Elections Act."

However, my ability to tell others about their rights is diminished by leaving other issues unresolved in your answer.

I would describe this as a "throw-away line" that is true, but also may introduce unwarranted uncertainty to readers.

"With respect to whether any transaction gives the right to an income tax credit pursuant to s. 127(3) of the Income Tax Act, you should consult the Canada Revenue Agency."

I will repeat what I said in my earlier emails of Sept. 10th and 13th, 2008, which I have published on our Web site:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=413

On September 10, 2008, I wrote:

I would then like to be able to inform all individual resident taxpayers in Canada that they also have these legal rights to participate,

If the financial contributions are legal, then the official receipts are valid, and the contributor is eligible to claim their political tax credit. ...

I still think mostly the same ways, however,

during the ACPP meetings I thought that the best way to resolve this

would be if Elections Canada would ask the Canada Revenue Agency to confirm their view.

These days, there is more and more use of the electronic filing systems developed by Elections Canada for agents.

Those electronic programs generate official receipts that ARE used to claim political contribution tax credits.

Do taxpayers have to ask the CRA about whether or not those official receipts generate valid tax credits????

After the meetings, in person, I explained my concerns to the Chief Electoral Officer.

We discussed various future possibilities about how we could engage the CRA ...

I would like some assistance from Elections Canada to complete this process.

I continue to have the primary purpose of being able to inform others about it.

As my earlier emails indicated, and as I repeated at the recent ACPP meeting, I believe that the vast majority of individual Canadian taxpayers are ignorant of their full legal rights to engage in registered political activities, which then also generate for them their right to claim political contribution tax credits ...

While the main part of your answer was adequate, I believe that the reference to the CRA would introduce doubts that would mislead people to not be sure.

I look forward to hearing from Elections Canada about how to resolve this.

Yours truly,

Blair T. Longley,
Marijuana Party

THIS IS THE APRIL 27, 2009, REPLY FROM MR. KNIGHT:

Dear Mr. Longley:

I am writing in response to your email of April 22. Please note that Elections Canada does not provide rulings with respect to hypothetical fact situations. Instead, as we did in my email of April 17, 2009, we seek to provide the general principles of the Canada Elections Act that are engaged, as well as provisions of that Act that may be raised by the question. As facts arise, we are able to explain the application of the Act to those facts.

With respect to your request that we consult with the Canada Revenue Agency on your behalf, I can report that we have consulted with CRA concerning this matter, and they have informed us that they are also unable to answer hypothetical questions, and that they prefer to deal with a taxpayer directly.

Yours truly,

Trevor Knight
Legal Counsel
Elections Canada

Below are the earlier emails to
Elections Canada regarding this:

Dear Chief Electoral Officer and Staff:

Particularly attention: Trevor Knight for René de Cotret

This is a follow up to my long email of September 10th.

My original question, which Elections Canada answered below in their email of also September 10, 2008, may be clarified in some ways that might assist us to think about the eventual response.

As you may recall from my September 10 email, I quoted extensively from my article at:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=215:

Electoral District Associations (EDAs)

There, I pointed out a crucial issue:

Canada Elections Act s. 405.21 prohibits that a "contribution would be transferred to a person or entity, other than the registered party or a candidate, or electoral district association."

I have argued that after a person becomes an Officer or Agent of the registered party or electoral district association, then, money that is contributed into the pool of funds of that registered party or electoral district association, when it is spent to pay the expenses of an Officer or Agent of the party or association, is NOT transferred to another person or entity.

The contribution is being spent WITHIN the party or the association, as long as the persons involved are Officials or Agents of the party or association.

I should clarify one particular point to think about with respect to Candidates:

There are clearly two persons who have an official role in a Candidate’s election campaign, during the election period, that is the Candidate, and the Candidate’s Official Agent.

One of the purposes of this email before you now is to ask the thought experiment concerning when a Candidate, or an Official Agent of that Candidate, makes a financial contribution directly to that Candidate’s own election campaign.

In the special case that whenever a Candidate, or the Candidate’s Official Agent, makes a financial contribution to that Candidate’s campaign, then I submit that that is analogous to when an Officer or Agent of a party or an association makes a contribution to their party or association.

As I explained in my September 10th email, regarding my case Blair T. Longley v. Minister of National Revenue,

Paragraph 8, which is part of the discussion of the facts that led to the 1999 decision, reads as follows:

[8] The taxpayer could direct the registered agent or candidate to use the contribution to hire the taxpayer and pay him to campaign for or against any registered political party or candidate, in any manner selected by the taxpayer.

As I explained in my September 10th email, that was what I originally did during my first election campaign, as a Candidate in 1984.

At that time, I referred to the general opportunity as being "Longley’s Loophole" and the facts in para. 8 were "Contributor’s Choice Campaigning"

At that time, the financial contributor, who could take advantage of the arrangements laid out in para. 8, did not have to be a member of the party, nor otherwise be associated with the party in any way,

The contributor had no relationship to the Candidate’s campaign except for two things:

they made a financial contribution, and they were paid to campaign at a fair market rate for the campaigning that they actually did.

(The after-tax result was that they made a modest profit from participating in the election campaign in the particular way they chose to do, and did.)

As I explained in my earlier email of September 10th, my previous email of September 3 was intentionally a kind of soft ball pitch to Elections Canada.

I threw you an easy one, that I expected you could easily knock out of the park, with a home run hit, by applying s. 405.21.

After all, I already knew since May 14, 2004, that Bill C-3 was designed to plug Longley’s Loophole.

Clearly, the original Contributor’s Choice Campaigning went right through the heart of Longley’s Loophole.

Money was being transferred from the Candidate to the campaigning taxpayers, which were outside of the campaign officers.

What I am asking you now to consider is the special case of when the Candidate is the contributor, or the Official Agent is the contributor.

That situation is directly comparable to the situation when a financial contributor to a registered party or association is simultaneously an Officer and/or Agent of that registered party or association.

Philosophically, what I think is happening in this entire situation is that Bill C-3 was attempting to legislate something which is hypocritical to the point of being absurd, which is the idea that political contributions must necessarily ONLY BE GIFTS.

I think this is profoundly wrong view of the reality of politics.

It attempts to make political organizations be the same as charitable organizations.

The question is:

Did the changes in the law made by Bill C-3 in 2004
totally succeed in closing down Longley’s Loophole?

Back in 1984, the highest relevant court authority at that time was:

Conservative Central Office v. Burrell [1982] 2 All ER 1, at pp. 7 e to 8 e,

Lord Brightman, speaking with the agreement of the Court of Appeal, stated:

No legal problem arises if a contributor (as I will call him) hands to a friend (whom I will call the recipient) a sum of money to be applied by the recipient for the political purposes indicated by the contributor, or to be chosen at the discretion of the recipient. That would be a simple case of mandate or agency. The recipient would have authority from the contributor to make use of the money in the indicated way.

"Longley’s Loophole" could have also been referred to as "Lord Brightman’s Mandate Theory."

Some other things I think are relevant can be found on the Marijuana Party Web site, in party history section:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=272:

That has a complete explanation of what was legal between 1974 and 2004.

What THIS EMAIL is about is WHAT HAS CHANGED.

But first, I call attention to things which have not changed.

In McGovern v. Attorney General [1981] 3 All ER 493, at p. 509 a to b, Lord Slade provided a definition of political purposes, to distinguish them from charitable purposes. (Lord Slade’s common law consideration of political purposes has been adopted by the Federal Appeal Court of Canada.) Lord Slade’s definition was not intended to be exhaustive, but included (1) furthering the interests of a political party, or (2) procuring changes in the laws or the government’s policies in our country or in another country. The political purpose delivers benefit to party supporters, or their purpose is intentionally engaging in political activity that protests a policy or law, or the lack of a policy or a law. A rule of thumb is that anything the government spends money on is certainly political.

A couple of the government’s tax publications, Information Circular 78-3 and 87-1, have provided some administrative guidelines that defined political purposes and political activities. Political purposes and activities are not defined in the Income Tax Act; however, it is well established in the law that an organization whose purpose is the attainment of a political object is not organized for a charitable purpose. Various activities could be considered political if they will influence or mobilize public opinion, or will embarrass, or otherwise might induce a government to take a stand, change a policy, or enact any law.

Also, in article linked above in the party history section, you can find, under the heading "Tax Credit Rhetoric" as well as under the heading of "Statement of Ideals" there was an abundance of quotes from the legislative record regarding the parliamentary purpose of the political contribution tax credit.

Authoritative statements about the ideals in the tax credit purpose can be found in the Parliamentary material.

The political contribution tax credit enshrined the ideals of a free and democratic society.

Report of the Committee on Election Expenses 1966 "Barbeau commission"

"Parliament should encourage electors to grant financial support to the party of their choice."
  p. 35;

"An effort should be made to increase public participation in politics, by broadening the base of political contributions through tax concessions to donors."
  p. 44;

"The Committee considers the tax credit to be an encouragement to the individual to involve himself in political activity, as well as a fund-raising device."
  p. 47;

"The Committee also believes that one not only has a right to contribute to the party of one’s choice, but a duty in the pursuit of which an elector should be encouraged rather than restricted."
  p. 48.

Commons Debates

"[the tax credit] will also encourage more Canadians of average means to contribute to the party of their choice and become more actively involved in the political process."
  July 10, 1973, p. 5476;

"… a total tax credit of $500. The purpose of doing it this way is to encourage the small contributor and to assist the candidate in attracting contributions from as wide a number of the electorate as possible."
  July 10, 1973, p. 5477;

"As well, it contains a worth-while proposal for a tax credit for those who make contributions to the political party of their choice. In addition to limiting expenses, I am pleased to see that from the tax standpoint the bill provides greater benefits to those on low incomes, inasmuch as people on low incomes who make modest contributions to political campaigns and expenses will benefit more than those who are in a position to make large contributions. This provision will go a long way toward involving the public more directly in the political process in Canada. That is very worth while."
  July 12, 1973, p. 5547;

"We want to broaden the base of public participation in politics. We want to make it respectable not only to work for a political candidate but to make public donations of financial aid."
  July 12, 1973, p. 5565;

"However, I personally hope that the fact that a person gets a deduction on their tax will give their donation a certain air of respectability and acceptance by the public and that it will act as an incentive for making donations to political parties, which is highly desirable. The Barbeau commission spoke about the idea of broadening the base so that we have many people giving smaller amounts of money, and of course the tax credit system is designed for that; it is weighted toward the small donor."
  July 12, 1973, p. 5566;

"… the tax credit … proposal is fair. It treats the man with a low income in the same fashion as it treats the wealthy person. It will encourage public participation. … It will encourage people to donate to the party of their choice."
  July 12, 1973, p. 5571.

Senate Debates

"I could thus summarize the purposes of the bill:
more active participation of the Canadian citizen."
  January 9, 1974, p. 1413.

The tax credit was designed to increase participation in the political process by providing it to encourage people to contribute to the party of their choice.

Judgments from the Supreme Court of Canada provide many eloquent statements about the ideals of democratic participation in the political process.

E. g.: R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136 d:

" … faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society."

Or, R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, at p. 728 a:

"… participation in social and political decision-making is to be fostered and encouraged."

And, Keegstra at p. 764 a - b:

"… participation in the political process is open to all persons.

Such open participation must involve to a substantial degree the notion that all persons are equally deserving of respect and dignity."

As pointed out in Libman v. Québec (A.G.) [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569, in para. 84:

"Freedom of political expression, so dear to our democratic tradition, would lose much value if it could only be exercised in a context in which the economic power of the most affluent members of society constituted the ultimate guidepost of our political choices."

I wrote that:

What the Supreme Court of Canada warned us about in Libman has already happened.

From the beginning of Canada, a tiny minority of the most wealthy have been doing this.

As stated in the Report of the Committee on Election Expenses back in 1966:

"The Committee finds a paradox in the public’s passive tolerance of the dangers inherent in financing political parties by a relatively few large donors."
  p. 46.

My opinion was expressed as:

Throughout the history of the British Empire which created the dominion of Canada, the professional politicians in the big parties were totally funded by the same tiny minority. The real world already is the result of the real contributor’s choice arrangements in the past. The wealthy minority have gotten what they demanded from our political economy.

The political contribution tax credit was intended to be a possible solution to the most important political problem: the power of money, and the relentless corrupt influence of money upon the political process. This is the fundamental political problem that is the source of many other problems.

Almost every institution that already exists now is the product of a long history of violence and dishonesty, and that result is mainly the way that there is a vicious cycle between political power and money that keeps the monetary and taxation systems being as crazy and corrupt as they are.

As an aside, to understand the ideas and history behind WHY I say the Canadian money and tax system IS ALREADY almost inconceivably crazy and corrupt, due to the history of the funding of the political parties, and political process,

I recommend these videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/MoneyAsDebtFullVideo

Money As Debt-Full Length Documentary

Money As Debt II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doYllBk5No

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp7tiySCyb4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7Jjb0cw9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz6emZAsRKo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvwrycQM9eg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQRB2xthXFM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GH4OElpZtM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqeTComdm5A

Money As Debt III

http://www.moneyasdebt.net

http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/Analysis_of_Banking.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFDKr9SnTBg

The Money Masters

In my original article about the Marijuana Party Tax Credit Scheme, before 2004, in the party history section, on our Web site, I also wrote:

The whole of Canadian democracy would profit favourably from more participation.

Our democracy will become much more vigorous.

Of course, the Marijuana Party asserts that Longley’s Loophole is truly a proper use of the political contribution tax credit, and not an abuse of that tax credit. We regard governments as being mostly controlled by professional liars and immaculate hypocrites. We regard almost everything they say and what they actually do as being mostly the opposite of each other. We regard most of the established legislation as amounting to not much more than legalized lies.

The laws were changed to make most of Longley’s Loophole become criminal without that ever being debated or proven by any trial of the evidence or consideration of logical arguments. The government was well aware of what the Marijuana Party Tax Credit Scheme was, and they closed it without ever talking to me about that. However, I am still a registered party leader, with the legal power to authorize associations and to be a Candidate, and therefore, I would like the issues that I raised in this and my September 10th email addressed, rather than them simply continue to have a blind eye turned towards the issues of financial contributors who happen to also be Candidates and the Official Agents, or Party Leaders, and their Registered Agents, or association Officers, and their Financial Agents.

The outcome of my court case Blair T. Longley v. Minister of National Revenue opened up the way to develop my ideas ...

However, Bill C-3 attempted to arrest the development of my ideas.

Between 2004 and 2008, I had been hoping that we would win my second court case: Blair T. Longley et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) regarding the 2% threshold that makes votes for bigger parties be worth millions of dollars to them, while votes for smaller parties are worth nothing.

However, as you know, we lost that case in 2008, when the Supreme Court of Canada denied us leave to appeal, and thus the negative decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which had reversed the trial judgment, became FINAL.

There is NOT a level playing field for all the parties, but rather a vertical cliff at the 2% threshold, regarding both money from votes, and campaign expenditure refunds.

AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE SMALLER PARTIES HAVE NOTHING BUT POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION TAX CREDIT.

We have no other financial advantages, which the bigger parties have given to themselves, but excluded the smaller parties from.

Now that the 40th General Federal Elections are on-going, my mind has been focused on these ideas and issues more intensely!!!

The Marijuana Party Tax Credit Scheme was what the Marijuana Party actually did between when it first became registered in 2000, up until May 14, 2004 when Bill C-3 became law.

Between 2000 and 2004, 90% of the money that ever went through Parti Marijuana Party went through those kinds of arrangements.

We had numerous financial contributors before 2004, that would have liked to do so again, but stopped after Bill C-3 became law, since, after May 2004, Bill C-3 had made almost all of that become a crime.

Philosophically, the problem with attempting to totally shut down Longley’s Loophole, (or Lord Brightman’s Mandate Theory) was that it is fundamentally attempting to make all political contributions have the same legal status as charitable contributions. The Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency still deals with political contribution tax credits through their Charities Directorate.

Assertions that politics is charitable are taking hypocrisy to the verge of insanity! Politics may include charity, but charity does not include politics. But nevertheless, those established presumptions have surrounded the administration of the political contribution tax credits.

I have submitted before that this is immaculate hypocrisy, and results in awful absurdities.

The crucial thought experiment to comprehend that kind of absurdity arises in cases like

where a Party Leader is the financial contributor to his own registered party,

or where the Candidate is a financial contributor to his own campaign ...

and so on, and so forth, in every similar case,

where the financial contributor is INSIDE the entity being contributed to.

Can s. 405.21 be applied when the Candidate or the Candidate’s Official Agent are financial contributors to their own campaign?

Can s. 405.21 be correctly applied to these kinds of cases, where the Party Leader or Chief Agent are financial contributors to their own party?

Can s. 405.21 be applied when the Chief Executive Officer, or Chief Financial Agent, of an association are financial contributors to that association?

In the case of the Candidate and that Candidate’s Official Agent, there are only two possible people in those particular positions.

However, in the case of a registered party or association, there can be an unlimited number of Officers and/or Agents of that party or association.

The answers to my questions do not have as much practical significance and potential during elections inside of only one Candidate’s campaign.

The answers to my questions become much more important between elections, inside of any registered party or association.

However, the legal principles are the same.

The legal principles can be most clearly seen in three special cases.

Those cases are:

the Party Leader or Chief Agent contributing to their own party;

the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Agent of an association contributing to their own association; and

the Candidate or Candidate’s Official Agent contributing to their own election campaign.

I ask you to think about whether s. 405.21 can be applied WITHIN those circumstances.

I have agreed that Bill C-3 shut down the opportunities of the party, or Candidate allowing the contributor to control their contribution, to be spent in any way that is agreed upon to be spent as transferred outside of that party, association or Candidate ...

That works when the financial contributor is NOT the Candidate, Party Leader, Chief Executive Officer, or their respective Agents.

However, HOW can it work if the financial contributor IS the Candidate, Party Leader, Chief Executive Officer, or their respective Agents?

How are they supposed to NOT agree with themselves about how they will spend their own contribution money?

In all three of these various possible cases, and most especially in the cases of the respective Agents, there is an Individual Canadian Resident, who is eligible to make a financial contribution to a party, association or candidate.

That individual, as a taxpayer, is entitled to claim their political contribution tax credit, from having made their legally allowed $ contribution.

HOWEVER, THE QUESTION IS THEN, when that same individual is a monetary contributor to the party, association or candidate, AND

IS the Party Leader, or other party Officer, or IS the Chief Executive Officer, or other Officer, of the association, or IS the Candidate,

or

IS the Chief Agent, or other Registered Agent of the party, or IS the Chief Financial Agent, or other Financial Agent of the association, or IS or the Official Agent of the Candidate ...

Do they violate s. 405.21 if they agree with themselves regarding how their contribution will be spent?

As Lord Brightman said, back in 1982, the financial contributions go into a pool of funds for the party, association or candidate.

If the pool of funds is larger, then the dollars seem to become fungible.

The Officers and/or Agents that direct the spending of money out of their pool of funds do not seem directly connected to the pool of funds.

HOWEVER, CONSIDER THE CASE WHEN THE ONLY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTOR WAS THE PARTY LEADER, OR ETC. ???

In the case of the bigger parties, it is easier for them to get away with their immaculate hypocrisy.

The larger the pool of funds, the easier to avoid thinking about the crucial legal absurdity that arises if s. 405.21 applies to Party Leaders, etc..

However, the law does not depend on the size of the pool of funds.

The law does not depend on the number of financial contributors, nor the amount that they contribute.

I am respectfully submitting that the ONLY way to avoid the absurdities of applying s. 405.21 to the Party Leader, (etc. and all the other similar cases that I have laid out above) is that the funds are NOT being agreed to be transferred OUTSIDE of that entity, the funds are staying WITHIN that entity, when a Party Leader, Chief Agent, and so on and so forth, solicit a contribution from THEMSELVES, that they are going to SPEND BY PAYING SOMEBODY ELSE FOR SOMETHING

Basically, it results in absurd impossibilities, IF s. 405.21 is interpreted to prevent any Party Leader, or Chief Agent, and so on in the other cases, to solicit financial contributions from THEMSELVES, that they are NOT agreeing with themselves about how those funds will later be expended!

How could s. 405.21(2) apply?

Are they colluding with themselves regarding HOW they are going to transfer their own financial contribution when they pay someone else, outside of their party (or association, or campaign, etc.)?

HOW IS ELECTIONS CANADA EVER GOING TO APPLY THIS LAW IF THE PARTY LEADER, ETC. CAN NOT CONTROL THEIR OWN FUNDS?

As I said in my September 10th email, all the other Candidates, Official Agents, Party Leaders, Chief Agents, and so on and so forth, are routinely contributing to their own campaigns, parties, or associations, and deciding how to spend those funds.

IS ELECTIONS CANADA GOING TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO THIS DILEMMA, THIS ABSURDITY, THIS IMMACULATE HYPOCRISY?

Or, are you going to agree with my interpretation that Longley’s Loophole was NOT completely closed by Bill C-3?

Will you admit, in a form that can be clearly communicated to all citizens, and other Candidates, Parties and Associations, that individuals who take upon themselves the registered positions of Candidate, Candidate’s Agent, Party Officer and/or Party Agent, and Association Officer and/or Association Agents, have the legal right to make financial contributions to their own Campaign, Party, and/or Association, and nevertheless, still legally participate in directing how those contributed funds will later be spent?

When it comes to the idea of Contributor’s Choice Campaigning, I agree that s. 405.21 applies to contributors who are NOT the Candidate or Agent.

When it comes to everything else between elections, I agree that s. 405.21 applies to financial contributors who are NOT Officers or Agents.

However, it generates an astronomically large amount of absurdity if s. 405.21 applies to all Party Leaders, etc., that contribute to their own party.

It generates an awesome amount of immaculate hypocrisy if Elections Canada deliberately ignores every case where a party Officer or Agent, association Officer or Agent, or Candidate or Candidate’s Agent, contributes money to their own party, association or campaign.

Is the way out of this dilemma to interpret s. 405.21 in a way that permits this absurdity, but then it is deliberately ignored and never applied?

Is this going to be another case of extreme prejudice and bias against smaller parties, or smaller associations, or small budget Candidates, in favour of the larger budget, bigger parties, bigger associations, or Candidates?

Is Elections Canada going to perceive that, as long as there are more contributors contributing more money, to make a bigger pool of funds, then, when the Party Leader, etc., or Chief Agent, etc., dips into that pool of funds, they are NOT deciding how their own contribution will be spent?

But, when a Party Leader, Chief Executive Officer, or Candidate was the ONLY financial contributor to their party, association or campaign, THEN, that violated s. 405.21, because they colluded with themselves to solicit financial contributions that they were going to control how they were spent?

As I said, deep at the bottom of this is the absurdity of attempting to make political contributions be the same as altruistic charitable donations.

What we are faced with is the issue of how to apply s. 405.21 when the funds are donated from people within the entities they donated those funds to, and those people are in official capacities that empower them to decide how to actually spend the funds that they have originally contributed.

As I said in my September 10th email, my September 3rd email was merely the soft ball pitch to start this game of legal interpretation.

I wanted to get a quick response to an easy question, which I expected Elections Canada would answer with alacrity in a negative way.

However, in my September 10th email, I threw you a harder to hit curve ball.

And, in this email of September 13th, I am throwing you the straight across the plate fast ball.

I am waiting and interested to see how Elections Canada might, or might not, swing at the information presented this email and my September 10th email.

The government said the purposes of the 2004 Bill C-3 provisions were:

Clause 17 protects against the solicitation or receipt of a contribution on behalf of a registered party, registered association or candidate if the contribution would be transferred to a person or entity other than the registered party, candidate, leadership contestant or electoral district association. This provision defends against a political party falsely created as a front to feed money elsewhere.

In the case of a Party Leader, or Candidate, etc., who donates money to their own party or campaign, are they violating the provisions of Bill C-3?

Is Elections Canada going to assert that Bill C-3 TOTALLY CLOSED Longley’s Loophole, or is there still a little opening left?

That opening, I submit, is when, but only when, the financial contributor is ALSO the Candidate, or the Candidate’s Official Agent, or when the financial contributor is an Officer, and/or and Agent, of a registered party or association.

Before I end this email, I will also repeat two points I made in my September 10th email:

Elections Canada’s September 10th reply stated:

Whether that type of transactions is still acceptable for purposes of the Income Tax Act is a question you should address to the Canada Revenue Agency.

That is a disingenuous dodge that is ducking my questions.

Nothing relevant has changed in the Income Tax Act since 1999, except that the tax credit amount was increased.

Otherwise, the income tax law regarding the political contribution tax credit is the same now as it was back then.

There was NOTHING in the income tax law to stop Longley’s Loophole before or after 1999.

The ONLY relevant thing that has changed was changes to the Canada Elections Act taking force in 2004.

Before 2004, Elections Canada had already recognized and admitted that Longley’s Loophole was perfectly legal.

The only thing that changed that matters to answer my questions were changes in the Canada Elections Act.

And so, PLEASE, do not give me the bureaucratic run-around telling me to go ask the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency!

The tax credit is simply based on a valid official receipt, which is generated by a valid political contribution.

What has changed, and the only relevant things that have been changed, were the provisions in the Canada Elections Act limiting contributions.

Specifically, s. 405.21 and s. 402.5, as Elections Canada’s email reply to me on September 10th, 2008, pointed out.

THE ONLY ISSUE HERE IS THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THOSE PROVISIONS.

Nothing relevant has changed in the income tax law (except a more generous tax credit formula than before).

IF Elections Canada recognizes that the financial contributions were legally made, and did not violate the Canada Elections Act, THEN, those legally valid financial contributions generate VALID official receipts for income tax purposes, and thus the tax credits are valid.

The Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency accepts the view of Elections Canada regarding the interpretation and application of elections law.

If the financial contributions are legal, then the official receipts are valid, and the contributor is eligible to claim their political tax credit.

My questions are primarily about the interpretation and application of s. 405.21, by Elections Canada, in those unique cases where the financial contributor is ALSO an officer or agent, as detailed above ...

While I am at it, I will also direct some attention to

405.2 (4) No person or entity shall enter into an agreement for the provision for payment of goods or services to a registered party or a candidate that includes a term that any individual will make a contribution, directly or indirectly, to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate, a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant.

about which your September 10th email said:

... s. 405.2(4) ... prohibits entering into an agreement for the payment of goods or services to the political entity in exchange, directly or indirectly, for a contribution.

My September 10th email said that did not apply to the kinds of arrangements I have outlined above.

I will briefly elaborate on that.

Consider again the thought experiment where the only financial contributor to a Candidate’s campaign was that Candidate himself.

First of all, nothing in what I am proposing requires that the Candidate must use the money contributed to pay himself to provide goods or services.

That is, the Candidate is not necessarily making an agreement with himself, through his Official Agent, to pay himself to provide goods or services to his own campaign.

(EVEN IF the Candidate was, that still raises the abstract dilemma of making an agreement with YOURSELF!)

However, what I am saying is that s. 405.2(4) does not necessarily have to have any direct relevance at all.

Longley’s Loophole would still be a little bit legal, even without the issue of any Officer or Agent of a registered party or association, entering into an agreement to use their contributed funds to buy goods or services from themselves ...

While s. 405.2(4) might have a tangential effect upon some possible arrangements, i.e., those where the Candidate, Officer and/or Agents paid themselves for goods and services with money they contributed, there is NO NEED for that to ever have to be the case ...

It would be reasonable that the individual who became an Officer and/or Agent, and who contributed money to a registered party or association, could be paid to provide goods or services, as long as the payment was for real goods and services provided at a fair market rate, since, then, the contribution is not refunded.

To quote from the April 17, 2009, reply from Elections Canada:

Genuine transactions in which contributions are made without an agreement concerning their return, coupled with legitimate reimbursements of expenses incurred while acting on behalf of an EDA, would not violate the Canada Elections Act.

Therefore, If real goods or services are delivered, and paid for at a fair market rate, then the Officer and/or Agent who donated the money to be able to pay that bill, can themselves be paid to have provided those goods and services, and may have decided which goods and services to provide, as long as the transactions are real exchanges taking place at a fair market rate in the time and place and circumstances.

Such transactions can NOT be a sham.

The documenting and reporting of these transactions must be about real goods or services which actually existed. The people involved in those transactions must place a reasonable fair market price on those real goods or services that were provided. However, given those conditions, then the goods or services may be provided by the financial contributor, and that financial contributor may be an Officer and/or Agent that has the legal right to decide how to spend the funds that were donated.

What is crucial to both s. 405.21 AND s. 405.2(4) is the issue of an individual making a contribution making AN AGREEMENT WITH THEMSELVES ...

Is Elections Canada going to assert that Candidates, Officers, and/or Agents to their Campaigns, parties or associations, CAN NOT CONTROL how the money in the pools of funds for their Campaign, Party, or Association could be spent?

If you do that, then you must turn a blind eye to what many Candidates, Parties, and Associations have been routinely DOING!

If you do that, then you must be enforcing the Canada Elections Act with extreme prejudice, because, in principle, either every Candidate who makes a financial contribution to their own campaign can direct how they spend their campaign money, or else, NO Candidate who makes a financial contribution to their own campaign is allowed to direct how they spend their funds.

The same concerns, of course, apply to the Candidate’s Official Agent, as well as to Party Leaders, and the Chief Agents, as well as all other Party Officers and/or Registered Agents, and, as well, to Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Agents of any association, as well as to all other association Officers and Agents.

I say that, in principle, either you take the path towards absurdity and biased application of the elections law, by saying that no Candidates, Officers and/or Agents that make financial contributions can control how they spend funds in their pool of funds, and yet deliberately ignore that is routinely done by many Candidates, Officers and/or Agents of many Campaigns, Parties and Associations, or you follow out my line of reasoning regarding the interpretation of the relevant provisions, that does legally permit that.

The government deliberately never consulted with me when they drafted and enacted Bill C-3.

The government never discussed any of these concerns.

I have no reason to believe they ever thought it through.

However, the law was proclaimed, and Elections Canada has a duty to interpret and apply it, and a duty to honestly inform the relevant stakeholders, like me, about the way that they will.

These things have been bubbling away in the back of my mind ever since 2004.

I let them slide while I still had hope we might win the court case against the 2% threshold.

However, now that the 2008 General Federal Elections have focused my mind, I have decided to try to push this issue forwards, in one way or another, as much as I can, to some resolution ...

I have had this kind of material published on Parti Marijuana Party’s Web site for several years.

In the party history section of our Web site, you can see the history of my articles archived at:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=237

which links through to:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=387

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/300/marijuana_party-ef/index.html

which are snap shots, about every six months,
taken of our Web site contents, & saved by the

LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES OF CANADA ...

If you care to, you can see the history of the evolution of my articles there, which from 2005, onwards, has had revised versions of my article entitled "Making Electoral District Associations" which have been saved since back then.

As I said in my September 10, 2008, email, several times in the past few years, I have pointed this article out to several various Elections Canada officials, both in emails, on the telephone, and once in person at an ACPP meeting.

So far, I have never had any comments or reply in return to that ...

However, I am now at the point where I am going to INSIST!

PLEASE take the time, at your convenience, to study my questions, and examine my arguments, and provide a useful reply to me ...

I would greatly appreciate it if your reply was also in a form that I could show to anyone who might want to employ my ideas.

AFTER ALL, IF I AM RIGHT, THEN THIS WORKS FOR ALL CANDIDATES, AND THEIR OFFICIAL AGENTS, DURING ELECTIONS ...

or, if I am wrong, then that also applies to all Candidates, and their Official Agents, that are currently making financial contributions to their own campaigns, and directly deciding how to spend those funds,

AND, IF I AM RIGHT, THEN THIS WORKS FOR

ALL REGISTERED PARTIES & ASSOCIATIONS

AND ALL THEIR OFFICERS AND/OR AGENTS,

or, if I am wrong, then that also applies to all parties, and associations, and their Officers and/or Agents, that have made any financial contributions to their party or association, and then subsequently have either directed how those funds were spent, or, subsequently used those funds to pay themselves for providing any goods or services to their party or association.

One way or another, I am going to attempt to continue to press these issues.

Either it is legal for all Candidates, Parties and Associations to make what I have called,

Radical Marijuana "Participation Premiums,"

or else it is illegal for all of them to do similar arrangements through their campaign, party or association.

If you disagree with my views that EVERYONE has the legal RIGHT to do that, AFTER BECOMING A CANDIDATE, OFFICER AND/OR AGENT,

then it follows that nobody has the legal right to do that, and you should inform them all of such problems.

On the other hand, if you agree with my views that, Candidates, Officers and Agents have a unique legal right to make financial contributions, and control how they are spent, then I would sincerely wish you told me that, and I would like to tell EVERYONE ELSE.

I have conceded that Bill C-3 closed 95% of the old, wide-open Longley’s Loophole. Bill C-3 greatly restricted the original range of Lord Brightman’s Mandate Theory.

Before, the financial contributor did not have to be any kind of party Member, Officer or Agent.

Therefore, any individual could donate to a Candidate, through the Candidate’s Official Agent, and participate in Contributor’s Choice Campaigning arrangements that made an after-tax benefit.

However, now, during elections, I am saying that ONLY the Candidate or the Candidate’s Official Agent can do that.

No other individual would be legally allowed to do that, except for the Candidate himself, and his Agent.

When it comes to registered parties (and associations, which barely existed before Bill C-24) between elections, I used to be able to say that any financial contributor could tell the party’s agent how to spend the funds.

Now, I am saying that ONLY financial contributors who ALSO are certified Officers and/or Agents of the registered party, or association, can control their contribution.

That is the essential difference, that I have been pointing out in my article on "Making Electoral District Associations" for a while ... and which difference I am again calling directly to your attention in this email.

I will also submit a copy of this email directly through your Web site.

I hope to have the opportunity to discuss this more later.

I would dearly like to know how you are going to interpret and apply the law in these kinds of cases!

Yours truly,

Blair T. Longley Marijuana Party Leader.

P.S. Perhaps, next week, I might speak directly on the telephone about these issues with an appropriate Elections Canada’s lawyer?

IN PRINCIPLE, I THINK THERE ARE SOME PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT AND PERVASIVE LEGAL ISSUES BEING RAISED ABOVE,

AND THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, AND HIS STAFF, HAVE TO GIVE THEM CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO ANSWER ME ...

P.P.S.

Is Elections Canada’s Web site ever going to post a mention of, and a link to Blair T. Longley et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) on your Web page that lists "Major Court Cases ..." ?

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/court&document=index&lang=e

(THAT COURT CASE LINK IS POSTED THERE NOW.)

This was my September 10th email to Elections Canada:

Dear Chief Electoral Officer and Staff:

Particularly for the Attention of Michèle René de Cotret

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I am not surprised at your answer.

I did not bother to ask this question during the 2004 and 2006 elections, since I expected this kind of answer from you.

I had originally thought that you would answer in the way you did, and so I never bothered to ask those questions before.

However, during the ACPP teleconference, I decided to raise the issue, by putting out a position that you could respond to.

The very first use of Longley’s Loophole was during the 1984 General Federal Elections to do what I then called

"Contributor’s Choice Campaigning"

It went straight through the heart of that loophole.

Sections 405.21 and to a lesser extent, 405.2(4), were designed to plug Longley’s Loophole.

I am not going to dispute your interpretation below, in your September 10, 2008 email, as being a correct statement of the law.

The Contributor’s Choice Campaigning outlined in paragraph 8 of the 1999 trial judgment is now illegal.

I think that has politically absurd results, and results in making sure that 99% of taxpayers never claim the political tax credit, and that 99.8% of the dollar value of the political tax credit continues to be never claimed.

The political contribution tax credit provisions were
supposed to "encourage more public participation."

99.8% of its dollar potential is never claimed!

I keep on beating that social fact to death because I think it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

For several years, I have several times pointed out the contents of an article on Parti Marijuana Party Web site to Elections Canada officials, but, I have never had any reply or comments back in return.

That article is found at:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=215

the title is:

"Electoral District Associations (EDAs)"

The relevant section is at the end of that article.

During the past couple dozen years, I have found that when government officials can respond negatively, they tend to do so quickly.

However, when they would have to respond positively, then they usually either do not respond, or only do so after a long time ...

Therefore, I am not surprised that I have pointed out my views expressed in that article several times before, without any response.

Unlike my question regarding the original "Contributor’s Choice Campaigning," that I expected you could and would respond negatively to, my questions NOW are whether or not my public statements made in the article on making Electoral District Associations are correct?

That is about issues that I feel far more confident about that I am right, than my earlier September 3 email assertions, that I knew were dubious.

I will copy from that last part of my Web site article, and rework it to ask the serious question I am now asking.

(You could also read that article directly on our Web site by clicking on its link.)

I call this idea "Participation Premiums" to distinguish it from the original "Contributor’s Choice Concept."

It is the tiny percentage of what was originally legal through Longley’s Loophole that I STILL think IS legal.

I agree with your views expressed in your email that the original "Contributor’s Choice Campaigning" has been made invalid since 2004.

I was only rolling the dice by raising the issue during the 2008 elections, to provoke some response, and see if we could get a discussion going.

I expected you would answer negatively to that, but if I did not put forward the proposition strongly, then there may be no forthcoming reply.

I thank you again for your prompt response, and I confirm that I think you are correct in your statement of the law made below in your email.

HOWEVER, between elections, I still believe that a registered party as a whole, or an electoral district association may legally arrange these Participation Premiums for contributing taxpayers that also formally become Officers, and/or Agents of the whole party or an EDA.

I do NOT think that

405.2 (4) No person or entity shall enter into an agreement for the provision for payment of goods or services to a registered party or a candidate that includes a term that any individual will make a contribution, directly or indirectly, to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate, a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant.

is relevant to these possible "Participation Premiums."

There seems to me to be no issue about money flowing that way.

The money flows the other way.

The agreement in Participation Premiums is not starting with payment of goods and services, on the condition of a subsequent contribution.

The issue is that AFTER the contribution money is put into the pool of funds of the party as a whole, or the EDA, then individuals who are recorded as Agents and/or Officers of the party as whole, or the EDA, may bill the party as a whole, or EDA, and be paid for that bill, out of the money in the pool of funds held by the party as a whole, or held by the EDA.

IF THAT IS NOT TRUE, THEN NO ONE WHO CONTRIBUTES TO THE PARTY AS A WHOLE, OR TO AN EDA, COULD BE PAID FOR GOODS OR SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE PARTY AS A WHOLE OR TO AN EDA.

This is always why I regarded Bill C-3, since 2004, as an expression of immaculate hypocrisy.

I am looking at what other parties and EDAs do all the time.

I am simply formalizing that into a statement of legal arrangements.

How can it be legal, if you do it, but never talk about your right to do it, but it becomes illegal if you talk about arranging to do that?

I would then like to be able to inform all individual resident taxpayers in Canada that they also have these legal right to participate, AND TO CLAIM A VALID INCOME TAX CREDIT.

I DO NOT THINK THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CANADIAN CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY.

The income tax law merely sets out the tax credit formula generated by valid official receipts for legal political contributions.

IT IS THE CANADA ELECTIONS ACT PROVISIONS THAT DEFINE AND LIMIT WHAT LEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE.

THEREFORE, EVERYTHING I AM TALKING ABOUT IS SOLELY WITHIN APPLICATIONS OF THE ELECTIONS ACT.

The most relevant legal arguments I lay out below, as follows:

The fundamental principle of the law is:

Whatever is not prohibited is permitted.

One can not connect one’s contribution amount given to an EDA Agent with a demanded direction on how the EDA must transfer that contribution money to another person or entity, OUTSIDE of the EDA.

A contributor that is not an Officer or Agent can not ask an Agent to transfer money out of the EDA to pay personal expenses with money contributed to an EDA, as a condition of donating.

However, one may become an Agent or Officer of an EDA and submit part of one’s home/office bills through the EDA to be registered as paid by that EDA, within that EDA.

When one becomes an Officer or Agent of an EDA, money transferred through one stays in the EDA, thus the contribution is not transferred to "a person or entity, other than the electoral district association."

An EDA provides a way for people to participate.

... consider again what the government did

to make Longley’s Loophole (mostly) illegal ...

Canada Elections Act s. 405.21 criminalized most of that Loophole:

with this prohibition against soliciting contributions,

as quoted:

405.21 (1) No person or entity shall solicit or accept a contribution on behalf of a registered party, registered association or candidate if the person or entity made a representation to the contributor or potential contributor that part or all of the contribution would be transferred to a person or entity, other than the registered party or a candidate, leadership contestant or electoral district association.

(2) No person or entity shall collude with a person or entity for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition in subsection (1)."

The key phrase is

"transferred to a person other than ..."

(or other than the registered party as a whole, or an association, or the Candidate)

Agents can NOT make a political contract with the contributor, that includes any transfer to a contribution solicitor as a private person.

Therefore, one’s EDA can not agree, nor allow, someone to solicit contributions for an EDA, which contributions come with conditions to transfer any part of those funds to another person outside of the EDA.

Hence, it is now illegal to promise to pay a commission to any solicitors who are not EDA Officers or Agents.

However, s. 405.21 does not apply while still WITHIN an EDA.

Therefore, if an individual is appointed to be an Officer or an Agent of the EDA, then money from out of their EDA’s pool is given to an individual within the EDA, who is acting as an EDA Officer or Agent, meaning what the individual does inside the EDA is not a transfer to another person.

EDA Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) have discretion to appoint more Officers in an EDA, giving them whatever titles and/or duties that the CEO sees fit to then do.

The Chief Financial Agent (CFA) of the EDA can also appoint any number of electoral district Agents, each of whom has the power to open bank accounts, issue receipts, and spend money on particular things.

The same individual may be an Officer and an Agent at the same time, although their legal roles are different.

The individual may donate to the EDA, while the same individual, acting as an Agent of the EDA receives the contribution and issues an official receipt for that. Then the individual, acting as an Officer, may submit a bill for home/office expenses incurred while acting as an Officer, and then that same individual, while acting as an Agent, may pay that bill with money from the pool of EDA funds. The final result is that the individual has registered these series of transaction, which generated a legal official receipt and tax credit for that participating individual.

One motivated individual can deliver to themselves their own political contribution tax credit, by registering their own activities through an EDA.

The same individual can have someone else be acting as the Agent of the EDA, (including that the Agent of the EDA may be a corporation), or that individual could become the Agent, to do it for themselves directly.

An individual may be appointed an Officer by the CEO of the EDA, and/or the same individual may be appointed an Agent by the CFA of the EDA.

The CFA of the EDA must supervise all other electoral district Agents to make sure that the EDA completes its annual financial reports in a proper way.

The particular things paid for are still within the EDA, and not transferred outside the EDA, if the individual is acting on behalf or within the EDA.

The particular things may include typical home/office expenses necessary to do any political research or activities by the EDA.

There is an infinite variety of possible political purposes, and possible expenditures that are related to being able to express those purposes.

The EDA may subsidize its activities by political contribution credits for those people who were active in the EDA.

An individual may become as active as they want to be, including becoming an Officer and/or an Agent of the EDA.

The minimum required participation is that an individual must sign a consent to be an Officer of the EDA.

There are many more possible levels of participation after that, including becoming an Agent, and thus able to make the arrangements directly for one’s self, as well as other individuals who also became at least Officers of the EDA.

Transfers of money between and within EDAs (and candidates, and the party as a whole too) are not contributions, and thus, not subject to s. 405.21 that criminalized political contracts between the contributor and the EDA (or party) to transfer some of their contribution funds to another person or entity, (including the donor).

Funds contributed must go into EDA pool of funds as gifts.

But, when EDA money is transferred inside the official structure of an EDA, then there may be collateral benefit for Officers and/or Agents inside that EDA.

I believe that we can tell anyone that wants to associate with an EDA that they may be appointed to be an Officer, and/or an Agent, & then they have the legal power to do it themselves that way.

S. 405.21 was designed to plug Longley’s Loophole in 2004, and thus stop the original Marijuana Party Tax Credit Scheme that was legal before May 14, 2004, but was criminalized by Bill C-3 being proclaimed on that day.

However, there still are legal ways to obtain personal benefits from participation that are not collusions to break s. 405.21 because it is not collusion with a person or entity for the purpose of agreeing to transfer funds to another entity or person outside the EDA.

Spending the funds freely WITHIN the EDA is ALLOWED.

The fully open Longley’s Loophole is now illegal.

But, the effect of an after-tax benefit from registered participation within an EDA is still legally available in a different way.

There is still some residual Longley’s Loophole to go through within the EDA, or within the registered party as a whole.

The full Contributor’s Choice Concept potential has been mostly closed down.

I would estimate that at least 95%, or more, of what used to be legal between 1974 and 2004 is now illegal.

The main difference is that, through the original fully legal Longley’s Loophole, the contributor did not have to become an Officer of an EDA, etc..

Contributors did not have to associate with the party in any other way to enjoy their freedom to control how the party spent their contribution.

However, after May 14, 2004, to take advantage of the new Participation Premiums, a contributor must also become at least an Officer, who has signed a letter consenting to that appointment by the Chief Executive Officer of the EDA.

The CEO and/or CFA must inform Elections Canada of the new officers or agents in their association, and should keep a copy for their record of the signed consent to accept their appointment of new Officers and/or Agents.

That new way allows for citizens
to associate with EDAs to create
to enjoy Participation Premiums.

All taxpayers should act in their own interest to participate.

An EDA Officer should try to persuade individual resident Canadian taxpayers to also accept appointment to become an EDA Officer, so that they may contribute to the EDA’s pool of funds, which may be dipped in to pay for their home/office expenses incurred for them to act as EDA Officers or Agents.

The CEO is appointing the Officer, and the Officer is signing their consent to accept that appointment.

(The CEO has the power to unilaterally terminate that appointment, while the Officer may resign at any time. Whenever that happens during a month, then the CEO and/or CFA must inform Elections Canada about the change in the registered information regarding their EDA.)

By registering that official appointment, the Officer may bill for home/office expenses, or any other legal expenditures, within that EDA, and be paid for those expenses by an Agent of the EDA.

The Officer may have contributed the funds that the Agent was able to pay the Officer’s expenses with.

The Officer may claim their political contribution tax credit for the Officer’s financial contribution to their EDA.

As long as the person or entity attempting to solicit donations is within the official structure of the EDA registration, then money may be paid to them for their work or to reimburse their home/office expenses.

Any Officer or Agent of an EDA is free to register any of an infinite creative set of possible activities.

The same legal principles would apply to the party as a whole, and its Officers and Registered Agents too.

A reason it is better to do it through EDAs, rather than through the party as whole, is that the government pays the EDAs initial auditing fee, if the EDA does more that $5,000 per year business, up to a maximum auditing fee of $1,500, while the party as a whole has to always be audited, and pay its own auditing fee.

In these Participation Premiums, the Officer or Agent of the EDA directs the operations of the EDA and bills the EDA for their expenses that are documented and reported on.

"Documents and records" are simply generated by the Officer or Agent by stating a written and/or electronic explanation of where the money came from and where it went.

What the law requires is documented records.

That law permits freedom over what to decide to do, that will later be reported upon, according to the laws that require documenting, recording, in order to be able to be audited, and reported upon.

After being "registered," these flows of money may give tax credits.

MODEST, AFTER-TAX BENEFITS MAKE
PERSONAL PARTICIPATION PREMIUMS

This is a material benefit to being able to register and participate freely ...

A central point is that there is more than $12 BILLION worth of yearly Federal potential.

EDAs enable freedom to participate that will generate an after-tax personal profit.

EDAs can offer after-tax Participation Premiums to Officers or Agents of that EDA.

EDAs may arrange modest after-tax benefits for individuals to participate as Officers & donors.

Since more than 99% of taxpayers never claim any political tax credit, there is room for increase.

To repeat, I am asserting that:

Anyone participating inside of an EDA may be appointed an Officer and/or Agent, and have their expenses paid with money that came from a pool of EDA money that was also the pool of funds they contributed to.

This legal theory applies to everyone.

Any Canadian taxpayer could, in theory, be the leader of a registered party, and the leader is allowed to give money to the party, and decide how that money is spent, and claim a tax credit for that. Any Canadian taxpayer that registered with Elections Canada through their association via EDAs, or the PMP, can obtain after-tax profit by participating as registered Officers, with some expenses paid with money out of pool that they also donated to.

At the present time, (revised to 2012)

any resident of Canada could contribute

a maximum of $1,200 per year to any EDA.

Taxpayers who contribute that to an EDA, and become appointed an EDA Officer, derive a $624.85 after-tax benefit, by filing the fact they contributed to a registered political party EDA proven with an official EDA receipt.

The 4 corners of this registered participation would be:

1) Donate money to the EDA (up to a maximum of $1,200 per year) & receive an official donation receipt.

2) Sign a consent to be an EDA Officer (and/or Agent)

3) Submit a bill of particulars to an EDA Agent for payment.

4) The donor/Officer (and/or Agent, that might be the same person) may claim their political tax credit.

The EDA is free to negotiate their payment
for goods or services at some total less
than the amount that was gifted to EDA.

The EDA Agent may charge a fee to register an Officer.

(Net after-tax benefit could be reduced by that fee.)

Alternatively, an Officer could donate $1,200 to an EDA, & then that Officer could bill the EDA, for their work within that EDA, for $1,000, which would leave $100.

Many variations of such schemes would be possible.

Full credit is $624.85 reduction
in federal tax payable by a donor,
from a financial donation of $1,200.

(As the contribution limit is indexed to inflation, but rounded off to the nearest $100, therefore, the maximum donation became $1,200 in 2011, & then, later, may become $1,300.)

At present, the maximum possible tax credit is $650 from a $1,275 total donation, to registered entities. To get the maximum tax credit during one year now requires a taxpayer to donate $1,200 to any EDA, & an additional $75 to the party as a whole, or any similar kind of variation on the theme of addition.

(However, it may be a while until the maximum contribution allowed to one EDA becomes $1,300 ... which would then enable a maximum tax credit claim, from one donation to an EDA or to the party as a whole.)

The following link is to the whole of the ending of the relevant article, as found at:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=215

Below is the start of the most relevant text that currently appears on our Web site ... which has embedded within it the crucial points I have already made above.

There is nothing new there that is legally relevant, merely more of my talk about the astonishing social facts that 99% of people never participated!!!

If I receive a reply from you, I shall surely change that article on making EDAS, depending on your answer. That article could use some serious editing and rewriting! Perhaps your answer will give me motivation to do that?

The whole article on EDAs sets out my overview of the legal theory that now applies to Electoral District Associations, as well as to a registered party as whole. The relevant last part, that talks about tax credit potential, starts with:

Very strange, but true,

PARTICIPATION PREMIUMS

People could reduce the taxes they pay.

However, to do that they have to register their political activities.

Yours truly,

Blair T. Longley
Marijuana Party Leader.

P.S. I have also submitted a copy of this email
directly through Elections Canada’s Web site.

This was the September 10th reply from Elections Canada:

René de Cotret wrote:

This is in response to your e-mail of September 3, 2008 to the Chief Electoral Officer regarding the statement you made at the ACPP teleconference of the same date. You asked about the application of s. 405.21 of the Canada Elections Act, given the 1999 decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the case of Blair T. Longley v. Minister of National Revenue.

The decision of the B.C. Supreme Court dealt with the Income Tax Act, not the Canada Elections Act. Whether that type of transactions is still acceptable for purposes of the Income Tax Act is a question you should address to the Canada Revenue Agency.

Elections Canada does not agree with your assertion that the transaction arrangements described in paragraph 8 of the above decision are legally permitted and are not prohibited by section 405.21 of the Canada Elections Act.

Paragraph 8, which is part of the discussion of the facts that led to the 1999 decision, reads as follows:

[8] The taxpayer could direct the registered agent or candidate to use the contribution to hire the taxpayer and pay him to campaign for or against any registered political party or candidate, in any manner selected by the taxpayer.

Such an arrangement appears to directly contradict section 405.21 which prohibits a person seeking or accepting a contribution on behalf of a political entity from making a representation to the contributor that part of the contribution would be transferred to someone else than the political entity.

405.21 (1) No person or entity shall solicit or accept a contribution on behalf of a registered party, registered association or candidate if the person or entity made a representation to the contributor or potential contributor that part or all of the contribution would be transferred to a person or entity, other than the registered party or a candidate, leadership contestant or electoral district association.

(2) No person or entity shall collude with a person or entity for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition in subsection (1).

This arrangement could also run afoul of s. 405.2(4) which prohibits entering into an agreement for the payment of goods or services to the political entity in exchange, directly or indirectly, for a contribution. That section reads as follows:

405.2 (4) No person or entity shall enter into an agreement for the provision for payment of goods or services to a registered party or a candidate that includes a term that any individual will make a contribution, directly or indirectly, to a registered party, a registered association, a candidate, a leadership contestant or a nomination contestant.

Yours truly,

Michèle René de Cotret
Avocate générale et directrice, Politique et analyse législative
General Counsel and Director, Legislative Policy and Analysis
Direction des services juridiques / Legal Services Directorate
Élections Canada / Elections Canada
tel.: (613) 990-7239; fax: (613) 993-5880

Mayrand, Marc wrote and forwarded documents to us:

Regarding: September 3, 2008 ACPP Teleconference:

> 2.1 Key reminders regarding election expenses

> 2.2 Legislative and administrative framework – political financing

> 3.1 Fundraising activities

I submit in writing what I already said at the conference:

Dear Chief Electoral Officer:

Regarding those points above, during the telephone conference, I made comments.

During the conference, I pointed out a paragraph written in a court judgment posted & linked to on Election Canada’s Web site:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/99/11/s99-1135.txt

"Uses of Political Contributions"

Longley v. Minister of National Revenue

(British Columbia Supreme Court, June 30, 1999)

Hiring Back the Contributor

[8] The taxpayer could direct the registered agent or candidate to use the contribution to hire the taxpayer and pay him to campaign for or against any registered political party or candidate, in any manner selected by the taxpayer.

To Elections Canada, and representatives from all parties, I made comments that, during these 40th General Elections, probably 99% of taxpayers would not participate in funding.

I asserted that was still the law in Canada today.

I would appreciate Elections Canada explicitly admitting this section below does not prohibit, or else, explain ramifications of interpretation that says that paragraph 8 statement is wrong.

Is para. 8 impacted by Elections Act ss. 405.21(1) & (2)???

Those sections since 2004 have stated:

Prohibition – soliciting or accepting contribution

405.21 (1) No person or entity shall solicit or accept a contribution on behalf of a registered party, registered association or candidate if the person or entity made a representation to the contributor or potential contributor that part or all of the contribution would be transferred to a person or entity, other than the registered party or a candidate, leadership contestant or electoral district association.

(2) No person or entity shall collude with a person or entity for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition in subsection .

Regarding what the court has called "Longley’s Loophole"

Does s. 405.21 prohibit what paragraph 8 said in Longley?

In my Web site article on making Electoral District Associations, as well as other publications, appearing through our Web site, I have said that the addition of ss. 405.21(1) & (2) has closed approximately 95% of the previous potential arrangements, that were possible to claim political tax credits, under the law, before this s. 405.21 was passed, back in 2004 ...

However, there yet is 5% of Longley’s Loophole still open, as explained presently on our Web site,

E.g., see discussion of the impact on s.ss. 405.21(1) & (2) on the currently legal use of political tax credits by EDAs:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=215

I asserted that the transaction arrangements stated in para. 8 of Longley are still legally permitted, and are not prohibited by ss. 405.21(1) & (2).

DO YOU AGREE???

Yours truly,

Blair T. Longley
Marijuana Party

> I have copies of the emails and I will review them as soon as I can and get back to you.

> If there are additional documents to send me, please feel free to do so.

My email reply of 2008-09-15

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I have also published all these
amended, & appended emails,
in their chronological order at:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=413

I have nothing new to add.

Rather, you will see that I repeated
all vital points several times,
in different ways.

My emails may be redundant,
but they certainly made
the essential points.

I will wait to learn your reply.

Yours truly,

Blair T. Longley
Marijuana Party

BELOW IS THE HISTORY OF EMAIL EXCHANGES
WAITING FROM SEPTEMBER 13, 2008, UNTIL
APRIL 17, 2009, FOR THE ANSWER ABOVE ...

I sent the following email February 14, 2009:

Dear Elections Canada:

I would like to add to the agenda of the planned ACPP meeting on April 20, 2009.

I would like to raise questions that I submitted by email about four months ago.

I have published those questions in an article appearing on our party Web site, at:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=413

"Requesting Elections Canada ruling."

Yours truly,

Blair T. Longley.
Marijuana Party

P.S.

Parti Marijuana Party plans on sending Blair Longley and
John Akpata as representatives to April 20, 21, meetings.

The email above is a response to this email below regarding the next ACPP meeting:

I would like to inform you that the first meeting of the Advisory Committee of Political Parties following the 40th general election will be held on Monday, April 20, 2009. This meeting will be devoted to the 40th general election and to the ACPP renewal.

Marc Mayrand Chief Electoral Officer

April 2, 2009, I sent this email:

Dear Chief Electoral Officer:

Blair T. Longley
Marijuana Party

Trevor Knight, in a telephone conversation April 14, 2009,

told me that Elections Canada would try to reply to me,

BEFORE the APRIL 20th, 2009 meeting in Ottawa.

That April 17 answer is above in this article.

I used that reply when I was at that 4/20/2009 ACPP meeting. And, followed by my reply to Mr. Knight, on April 22, 2009. And, his second reply of April 27, 2009.

The process of attempting to get
government officials to comment
appeared to had reached an end?

The only way to continue was to
CONTINUE TO REALLY DO THIS!!!

I do that one thing, rather than nothing.

I proposed these possible tax credits.

But, I have no practical solutions ...

We already made transactions
since 2004 and those resulting
political tax credit claims were
honoured by the CRA, without
questions or objections raised.

The problem is not what I knew,
or what I and the small circle of
my associates have been doing.

The problem is 99% NEVER participated.

The first question that potential
participants would usually ask
is about the legality of doing it.

I had been attempting to get the
government officials to help with
this problem of informing citizens
about all the rights to participate.

When it came to past transactions,
Elections Canada & CRA continued
to treat them as being legally valid.

We have been proving that this legally works.

However, reading the above is what it takes to understand that!

Even worse, it is ONLY the Leader of the Marijuana Party asserting it!

After the changes to the elections law in 2004,
the Marijuana Party has been rebuilding some of
what we had before those laws decimated us then.

We have gone back through an administrative process
by actually doing transactions and proving that works!

I have done as much due diligence as seems possible.

It is up to the individual taxpayers
to use their legal rights, and fight
for their rights, when necessary.

I offer abilities to register EDAs.

I make it legally possible for all Canadian taxpayers
to profit from participating in political activities
that they can legally choose and control.

Through Marijuana Party EDAs are distributed
the legal powers for any taxpayers to
do it directly for themselves.

They could make an after-tax profit
from learning about money & taxes.

Political contribution tax credits
are at the nexus & thus symbolic.

There are no rational reasons to not participate.

There are no rational reasons for citizens
to continue to never participate, while
they are robbed blind in ignorance.

However, 99% plus have a list of reasons,
which seem to make sense to them, inside
of their personal circumstances, for why it
makes more “sense” for them to continue
to never participate in registered politics.

Most of them pay huge amounts of taxes
to a crazy and corrupt monetary system,
and yet, they do not want to learn how
it really works, and they do not want
to begin to attempt to change it at all.

Rather, they had personal reasons why
they continued to act like they actually
were incompetent idiots, and they will
actually be treated like silly sheep,
& will be fleeced by the banksters,
who have controlled governments
to privatize most Canadian money.

Talk about from the sublime to absurd!!!

There are deeper mysteries in humans.

After working on this since 1984,
I have nothing to show but that
information above, and the sad
and dismal conclusion that,
so far, it seems hopeless.

Canadians, in ignorance, tolerate their
privatized fiat money-as-debt systems.

Year after year, again and again, all
Canadian taxpayers are treated like
brain dead sheep, when their taxes
go to pay down public debt interest.

However, in a money-as-debt system that is never possible.

The money and taxation systems
depend upon the vast majority
of “citizens” continuing to be
incompetent idiots that do
NOT use their own power
and do NOT participate.

I have managed to make & maintain
legal ways for citizens to be able to
participate in registered politics,
that result in an after-tax profit.

I have general ways to to distribute
those legal powers to other citizens.

As the possible election fever, in 2011, built,
I again was provoked to send these emails:

Dear Mr. Knight:

I send you a copy of an email that I recently wrote back
in reply to the ACPP Distribution, with a copy to the CEO.

At the end of this copy, I extend it with my further reply to your original reply.

& I submitted this following
through Elections Canada’s
Web site just to repeat that:

On February 1 & 2, 2011, in reply to

acpp-ccpp@elections.ca

and also with a copy to

Marc.Mayrand@elections.ca

And,

I have added post scripts to that second email too.

The email which I sent to the above 3 Elections Canada places
was slightly changed at the last moment, but mostly the same:

On 01/02/2011 ACPP - CCPP Distribution wrote:

"Please find attached the Summary of Proceedings of
the Annual General Meeting of the Advisory Committee
of Political Parties (ACPP), held on June 21 and 22, 2010."

Although it is probably pointless, I protest the way EC glibly publishes these assertions:

"The current federal political financing rules are anchored in the core values of
transparency, integrity, fairness and accountability. Canadian legislators have
recognized the need to regulate the role of money in the democratic process."

in "Chapter 2 on Political Financing" in the summary of proceeding that your email forwarded.

The current political financing rules are anchored in the triumphs of bigger political parties.

THERE IS NO FAIRNESS!!!

The financing rules are deliberately set up to favour the big parties over the smaller & independents. Since the judges are appointed by the big parties, they agree with maintaining extreme unfairness! I will not repeat my arguments regarding that, since it is probably pointless to beat that dead horse. But, I again communicate to you how annoying I find it whenever I read Elections Canada repeating these hypocritical and delusional LIES that our electoral system is somehow based on substantial fairness.

I noticed that Elections Canada was going to spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to research why youth are not voting. They may only intuitively tell you that the system is bullshit, and there is nobody worth voting for. I could give you more substantiated details for why democracy in Canada is dwindling and dying. However, I have learned that it is almost pointless for me to attempt to do anything like that now.

I expect Elections Canada shall continue to publish the same old outrageous propaganda and hypocrisy that Canada’s electoral systems are actually "fair!" ... That the social facts are plainly obvious that that is NOT true will not matter.

For an essay on where I think Canada is at, due to my personal perspective about that:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=161

THE SOCIAL FACTS ARE THAT CANADA IS IN A RUNAWAY FASCIST PLUTOCRACY!

Every time Elections Canada promotes propaganda that that is “democracy,” it backfires!

Youth do not vote because they intuitively know the system is bullshit & voting pointless!

I do not blame Elections Canada for that situation.

I understand that you only can administer the laws.

I appreciate that you can not change the laws at all.

However, I do not like it when you publish propaganda about Canada, as if those were facts.

The funding of the political process was the historical keystone and a lynch pin to everything.

That history has resulted in our monetary and taxation systems being almost totally insane!

Canadians gave away their power to make their own currency to private banks, that then lend Canadians back that money made out of nothing at interest, and Canadian taxpayers keep on paying $trillions and $trillions, decade after decade! Around those banks, then grew up corporations, and, in particular, various media empire conglomerates that totally dominated flows of the information to voters, through "news" broadcasts, which are mostly huge lies by omission, that are misleading voters into vicious spirals of more lies.

Therefore, the deep structure of Canadian society is already DISTORTED!!!

Established systems were legalized lies, giving themselves every advantage ... Reality was nothing remotely close to the values of people being free and equal. There were billionaires and homeless, and that was automatically getting worse!

Mainstream parties may make money from elections, while there were smaller parties that only go broke when attempting to present actual alternatives, outside of the mainstream, that was totally dominated by its systems of huge lies!!!

Since the real systems run on lies, backed up with violence, and the elections are mostly entertainment business puppet shows, put on by the fascist plutocracy, to quite ignorant people, I have no practical ways to change any of those realities.

But nevertheless, I bothered to send you this email.

Yours truly,

Blair T. Longley
Marijuana Party

P.S.

Of course, my attitude and interpretation of

Longley v. Canada (Attorney General) (Ontario Court of Appeal, December 6, 2007)

is primarily based on the personal point that

MY VOTING RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!

But, the courts decided that is justified.

My analysis of that justification comes down to the courts using the idea of "accountability" to justify the violation of my voting rights. Basically, since there was nothing to stop small parties from wasting their allowance, therefore, it was justified that they not be given any, despite the fact that there was nothing to stop the bigger parties from wasting their allowance. However, like I said, those arguments are now only beating a dead horse.

See Longley v. Canada (Attorney General), particularly paragraphs 45 to 84.

To quote from paragraph 71:

Political parties provide a linkage between the state and civil society.

Parti Marijuana Party attempts to stop cannabis being criminalized.

That is obviously a bona fide political purpose!

It is especially accentuated by the criminality!

Consider the actual political situations we face.

For several years, these have been social facts:

The Conservative Party wants to criminalize more.

The Conservative Party has more money
than all of the other parties combined!!!

Parti Marijuana Party had the least money.

The Conservative Party has about 10,000 times more money
than Parti Marijuana Party!!!

The Conservative Party wants to put more of the people in the Marijuana Party in jail. The Marijuana Party wants to stop more of its people being put into jail. Votes for the Conservative Party are worth money. Votes for the Marijuana Party are worth nothing. When the Conservatives campaign that more people should be put in jail, they get most of those campaign expenses refunded after the elections. When the Marijuana Party campaigns against that, we get nothing we spend refunded. But nevertheless, the courts have decided that situation is justified overall to make sure Canada has fair and free elections.

52 ... The objective is to safeguard against the misuse of public funds, thus preserving the integrity of the process and its public financing mechanism.

77 ... In some cases the thresholds may disqualify small political parties with genuine political goals from receiving the quarterly payments. They may therefore catch some political parties that do not fall within the scope of the mischief the thresholds are designed to address, i.e., the misuse of public funds in a way that reflects adversely on the integrity of the electoral system and its financing regime. However, given the level of electoral support for most of these parties, almost any threshold would have that impugned frailty.

Marijuana Party Candidates were able to get an average of about 1% of the vote. Parti Marijuana Party had by far the most to potentially gain from winning Longley v. Canada. We would have received almost two hundred thousand dollars in back payments, if the higher courts had upheld the trial judge’s decision. Also, if the threshold had been 1% instead of 2%, we might have been able to succeed. However, AFTER our votes became worth nothing, we were totally wiped out from being ever able to try to get above 2%. But nevertheless, the courts decided that was a justifiable violation of my voting rights, and those of everybody else associated with Parti Marijuana Party.

81 Here, there are two primary salutary effects of the impugned thresholds. First, they guard against the subversion of the electoral process by groups that register as political parties for commercial, satirical or other non-political purposes. The integrity of the electoral process and of its electoral financing regime is enhanced because public money is directed towards genuine electoral and political endeavours. Secondly, as the expert evidence suggests, public confidence in the electoral process is increased when these objectives are attained. In short, the two main salutary effects of the s. 435.01(1) thresholds serve to strengthen a core component of Canada’s democratic process: free elections.

82 The deleterious effects of the thresholds, on the other hand, are less compelling, in my view. The thresholds somewhat exacerbate a pre-existing disparity in the capacity of smaller political parties to communicate their messages in competition with larger parties, as I have concluded above. This impacts upon the ability of the individual respondents, and others who are also members of such smaller parties, to participate meaningfully in the electoral process. These party respondents, moreover, have been deprived of public funding in the form of the quarterly allowances, despite the fact that they genuinely seek to participate in the electoral process and have something to contribute to that process.

My voting rights are being violated now.

So-called justifications did not cut it ...

I suppose others may indulge in a tautological hypocrisy to assert that, since Canada is a free and democratic society, therefore its election laws must be fair. The courts decided that the violation of my voting rights was justified, and therefore, that violation is O.K.. Right, it must be "fair?" Accountability can trump fairness, even though all the accountability was a one way street, so that the big parties did not have to become accountable, but since the smaller parties would then also not have to be accountable, therefore, it was justified to make those small parties’ votes worth nothing, while the votes for the bigger parties were worth something.

The majority of Canadians, after being informed of the facts that votes for big parties are worth money, while votes for small parties are worth nothing, think that is NOT FAIR. However, I can not overrule our judges, conveniently appointed by the big parties to rule in their favour.

Politics is as fair as a sports league where the team that wins the last season gets to change the rules and appoint and pay the referees in the next season ... and so it went, season after season, as the game got more and more fixed and boring, so that less and less people were interested in watching or playing in that long game of politics.

P.P.S.

It was the combination of your email "Summary," as well as with a recently published news story,

that both provoked me to write this email to you.

That story stated:

“Surveys are showing us that if we don’t capture them and get them interested and engaged at their first opportunity to vote, we’ve likely lost them forever. They’re going to remain disengaged throughout their lives.” It’s possible the survey results could influence how Elections Canada communicates its message during the next election campaign, Enright says. ... The reasons for the drop in youth voting remain elusive. “We do not know much about the causes of this decline,” admits the 2009 paper by political scientists Andre Blais and Peter Loewen. The new survey is part of Elections Canada’s effort to better understand those causes. Bidders have until Jan. 28 to submit proposals, with a final report expected by June.

ELECTIONS CANADA IS ASKING:

WHY IS DEMOCRACY DYING?

I wished I believed that you actually wanted the answers!

To ignore the real fascist plutocracy, while asking why democracy is dying?

Doing that is to covertly help kill it!

Elections Canada, not surprisingly,
continues to be unhelpful assisting
taxpayers to understand their rights
under political contribution credits!!!

The funding of politics has always been
extremely lopsided ... so much so that
it is way past the ratio of 99 to 1 ...

It is so lopsided, that most people
do not even notice that social fact.

Basically, in every real way I observe,

Elections Canada is maintaining a charade
that Canadian democracy is basically ‘O.K.’
when, in fact, it seems disappearing faster!

Like I had said, I did not blame you for
the reality of the situation, however,
I do blame you for pretending that
the situation was somehow "fair."

How may that distortion be justified?

Do you think that truly justified it???

And so, Mr. Knight, inside the above context, I will yet again repeat my opinions of your two replies.

Elections Canada is tasked to spout the big bullies’ bullshit about how Canada is free and democratic.

However, the facts are that democracy in Canada is dwindling, and there is no reason it could not die.

Elections Canada is not primarily responsible for that overall situation, but nevertheless, EC assists it.

Elections Canada is actually maintaining a fake "democracy" that hides the actual fascist plutocracy!!!

Elections Canada is assisting the suicide of Canadian democracy by the way you answered my questions.

Your answers are the minimum possible to justify the fact that all tax credit claims are actually honoured.

You deliberately prevaricate and give me bureaucratic run around in ways that could not be pinned down.

You finally give me nothing useful I could show to ordinary taxpayers to encourage more participation!!!

Elections Canada’s real goals in administering these laws appear similar to those Revenue Canada had:

Make sure that people continue to be ignorant & afraid, so that they will not start exercising their rights!

Do NOT provide them with a clear and coherent statement of legal principles, illustrated with examples.

Instead, refuse to discuss dozens of pages of examples and analysis of the legal principles, EXCEPT with your couple of paragraphs ...

You want to know why democracy in Canada is dwindling and dwindling?

My answer is that government institutions, run in contradictory ways, by civil servants who are forced to serve 2 masters, the people & banksters, end up more and more serving the international banksters than Canadians. Generally speaking, the higher up in those institutions, the more hypocritical, because the more severe the conflict and contraction between two masters.

Elections Canada appears to me, as is everything trending in Canada today, to be more and more serving international banksters and fascist plutocracy. You help keep Canadians ignorant about their rights, and afraid to start enjoying them. You help keep Canadians out of the loop. You help keep Canadians unaware of their real benefits from participation, and thereby help keep Canadians unaware of how their lack of participation has resulted in this vicious spiral:

The money systems generally control money inside politics, and the money systems inside politics feedback to control the money systems that controlled society generally. The control of the political process establishes the money system that controls society, which then loops back to control the political processes. The heart of the heart of darkness is the funding of the political process. After the greatest frauds were already accomplished and legalized, the elections laws were frozen into patterns of hypocrisy that would be barely able to talk about, much less actually change the monetary system generally. The money inside politics has the maximum possible leverage over the money systems in society generally, which then overwhelmingly reinforced the money system generally. The money systems inside of politics have been designed to perpetuate the already established triumphant political corruption in the foundations of the monetary and taxation systems.

It is obviously extremely important that more than 99% of Canadians do not claim their own political contribution tax credit, and mostly are clueless about almost everything regarding the election laws outlined in my earlier emails.

You replied to my previous questions & real transactions with replies which admitted I was right, and confirmed that by tacitly continuing to treat what was actually been done as if it were legal. But nevertheless, despite KNOWING that more than 99% of Canadian taxpayers never participate, your reply was designed to make it still be mostly useless information!!!

Consider how Elections Canada works to inform voters about how they can register to vote, and lists all the primary and secondary identification means, and so on and so forth, to enlighten voters as to how to be able to take advantage of their right to vote.

Then consider how Elections Canada only informs Canadians of the most rudimentary facts about political contributions, and has done nothing else to inform them about their rights and the various ways that they could take advantage of their rights.

It is as if you were only willing to inform voters about their primary identification, but were not interested in telling them any of the alternative ways that they could legally qualify. Elections Canada seems to not care whatsoever that more than 99% never participate, and that rate is actually going down, not up.

Elections Canada only will state the bare facts about political contributions. Despite government officials being able to get away with lying about that for decades before, and therefore, the vast majority of people still implicitly believing and presuming upon the basis of false information, Elections Canada has refused to help Canadians be able to fully understand and enjoy their legal rights to contribute to registered political entities.

Over and over again, Elections Canada has replied to my questions with the most minimal and useless answers possible. EC has certainly never been willing to generate a comprehensive background document, in French and English, that would authoritatively inform Canadians about their full political contribution rights.

If Elections Canada was actually concerned about participation dying, then you would give me an honest and complete answer, including an explicit confirmation from the CRA, regarding the real relevance of an interpretation of the Elections Act that recognized the legal principles.

Every time the election fever builds generally, this bothers me more!

However, every time I find that I am usually even more disappointed.

Yours truly,

Blair T. Longley
Marijuana Party

This is the third message I have sent Elections Canada during February, 2011.

Usually, I receive a confirmation from Elections Canada that my message has been received. However, so far, I have received no confirmation acknowledgement regarding my previous two email messages.

This third message is also related to news that provoked the first two:

Elections Canada takes aim at disengaged young Canadians

By Don Butler, January 29, 2011.

... Turnout by young voters has been dropping steadily since the 1960s, when about seven in 10 of those eligible to vote for the first time went to the polls. The drop-off in youth participation is largely responsible for the overall decline in Canadian voter turnout over the past two decades. Just 58.8 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots in 2008 — a record low. While young voters are more likely to vote as they get older, “They are beginning at such a low level of participation that overall turnout can only be expected to decline,” ... “That’s a major concern,” says Elections Canada ... “Surveys are showing us that if we don’t capture them and get them interested and engaged at their first opportunity to vote, we’ve likely lost them forever. They’re going to remain disengaged throughout their lives.”

I point out my views on that topic, as were published on our Web site since the Supreme Court of Canada decided, December 23, 2003, to defer to allowing the Canadian Parliament to continue criminalizing cannabis:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=202

No "Harm Reduction" by Supreme Court of Canada

By Blair T. Longley, August 1st, 2006,

In particular, I jump into that article that I quote and copy below:

... After considerable efforts by Elections Canada to increase young people voting, the rate in 2004 increased by 1 in 10 more young people voting than the 1 in 4 that voted in 2000.

This is similar to deep structural social facts, like about 20% of Members of Parliament are women, which is generally similar in ratios of electable candidates for all political parties. So too, about 80% of the Marijuana Party members are male, and so too we are deeply sexist in the real world.

Objective assessment of predicaments that young people are in must conclude that it is a waste of their time to vote. Nothing that they can do is going to really change the way that the system is set up to screw them. Systems are set up in such a way that the only votes that make a real difference are the votes for the big political parties. Voting for a smaller party is actually a pointless protest vote, since the electoral laws are deliberately set up to be that way.

There seems nobody worth voting for that youth can vote for. The bigger opposition parties are still mostly liars and hypocrites that have way too superficial a set of policies. If they did gain power, they would probably make things worse, because they are such immaculate hypocrites that they refuse to face the fact that if they actually become the government, then they end up taking over the established system of robbery. As long as they pretend that they will provide better government, without ever being really honest about the fundamental nature of government, then they can only make things worse with their silly ideals about how "good" they will be.

Those bigger parties that promise better treatment for youth and the future are not willing to face the fundamental facts, and therefore, will not make a better future. Only more truth and justice would work, but the other alternative bigger political parties have "values" and "principles" that are divorced from the reality of government.

There is no good choice for youth to vote for. They mainly have a range of liars and hypocrites to pick from. The bigger the party, the better the liars and the more hypocritical they tend to become. There is a deliberate refusal to face any of the fundamental social facts, and to talk realistically about human and industrial ecology. Therefore, youth are faced with nothing but bad choices, and nobody they can vote for would really be worth voting for.

There is no practical plan for the future, and the parties that claim to be environmentalists are almost always pandering to superficial prejudice, not facing the real problems that have to be resolved. All of the mainstream political parties deliberately deny and suppress the fundamental facts about human ecology. As well, most cannabis advocates which campaign to end prohibition by making marijuana become normalized within the mainstream of society tend to also operate with "ideals" that deliberately deny and suppress the necessity that there must be some kind of human ecology.

Almost all mainstream political debate is an absurd and insane exercise within the bullies’ bullshit view of the world, that is based on lies and hypocrisy, which only were able to become the dominant social stories that people repeat to each other because of the long history of coercion and violence that got them going and kept them going. That intense paradox was driven by the history of war, which resulted in societies being controlled by those who were the best at being dishonest. Those attributes were gradually institutionalized in governments which, in fact, are organized systems of robbery, that evolved to legalize and enforce astronomically sized frauds.

The society that our youth live in does not really care about their future. Our society is devolving into such a deep pit of dishonesty about itself, that there is no reasonable hope for the future, and no way to tell how far down the bottom is going to be.

Society is more and more in breach of duty to youth.

Youth, more and more, feel no duty to their society!

Encouraging youth to vote should include criticisms of the established elections law. Whether Canadian youth vote or not, the system is going to keep on screwing them. It is sensible for youth, in their objective situation, to refuse to vote, rather than show support or acceptance of the established system operated by any of the bigger political parties. When 75% of young people decide not to bother to vote, they are making the best protest vote that they can. Liars and hypocrites say they want to encourage young people to vote, but the system is deliberately designed to discourage youth. What is happening in the real world is what is really intended to happen.

If the electoral laws were changed to make it worth something to vote for a smaller party, then it may be worth it to vote for a smaller political party. It might begin to be possible to build a party for the future that will really face the social facts and respect something different than the kinds of bullies’ bullshit that works the best now in the short-term.

A secret vote could be a way people could protest legally against the established system. If the electoral system made votes more equal, and the funding of the political process more equal, then there might be some hope for the long-term future. However, the established system has already been built and is running automatically now to make votes be unequal, and to make the funding of the political process be extremely unequal.

Under the present system, none of the big parties have any realistic plan for the future of younger people. For the minority of maybe 10% or 20% of young people who are somehow going to really benefit in the short-term from the continued operations of a fascist plutocracy, then they may decide to vote for some bigger parties that will keep that system going. But, for a majority of 80% to 90% of young people, the systems are destroying their future. For the majority of young people, their statistics are that things are getting worse & worse. They find it harder to find work, that pays them less wages, and have to pay more taxes, and get less benefits in return.

Since none of the big parties have realistic plans to retool the fascist plutocracy, those parties are not worth voting for. Moreover, in truth, at present, voting for any small party is practically a worthless gesture. Instead, to not vote is as effective a way to protest as voting for a protest party. Thus, it makes sense that the vast majority of young people do not vote, because the system is designed to screw them, & there is nothing that young people can do to stop that. (It is not a co-incidence that pot prohibition is enforced against young poor people the most.)

People are born ignorant and afraid, and hence, it is easy to keep them that way. Babies know little and start life by crying. All our knowledge and courage have to be grown. It is much easier to subvert an education process, than to make education work. It is especially facile for the education process in a fake democracy to also be a fake.

A central principle of democracy is education of all citizens.

A central principle of a fake democracy is a fake education.

This is an obvious fact about the fascist plutocracy, they do not have to be too remarkably competent, but merely stop most other people from becoming competent. There is no evidence to show that taking advantage of the path of least resistance to keep our system going takes any superhuman abilities.

The general principle is that once any part of society starts to get away with a profit from their fraud, we then are lost in a runaway feedback system. After any group in a society begins to get away with fraud, they then automatically become more wealthy and powerful. They are even more able to continue to be fraudulent. The usual way that this vicious cycle stops is after a whole society suffers the consequences of a huge fraud in the greater real world, as that society devolves into chaos and collapse. All of the "practical" people maximizing their own short-term benefits inside their system eventually destroys the future of their system as a whole.

The old, smug, and complacent mainstream of society does not really care about what will happen after they will be dead anyway, and the younger people have no way to stop the future from being eroded by the mainstream flow. Many young people intuitively know that the system is bullshit, and therefore, it is a waste of their time to bother to vote. Unfortunately, there are few known examples in history of a society pulling itself up by its own bootstraps to stop these vicious cycles of dishonesty within it. We must hope that there may be a first time for anything.

There is only one real way to encourage youth to be interested in politics and participate in the democratic process, and that is to stop them being taught a fake education inside of a fake democracy. If there was a real education in a real democracy, the vast majority of people would really participate. However, we are now trapped in the deepening ruts of vicious cycles of fake education and fake democracy.

Given that the established system has created billionaires, and homeless, there is never anything even remotely close to being truly free and fair elections in the real world. People who own multi-billion dollar media empires are so far ahead in their ability to control the flow of information received by voters, that there is no reasonable hope left. The small percentage of young people who do vote mostly end up voting for established political parties that have nothing in the way of a long-term plan for youth. The bigger parties trick and fool young people into believing that they will change things to make the future better, when, in fact, they will not, and could not unless they were to be honest about how bad the problems really are now.

Because truth and justice mean almost nothing to a system established by violence and perpetually run by liars and hypocrites, we are very limited in what we can do. All of our so-called “public health” policies are debated in these crazy contexts created because we are living in a real and on-going fascist plutocracy that is run by the best liars and hypocrites that money can buy. Canada does not have a genuine health care system, but a profit from disease system paid for with public money.

Overall, we are forced into an objective retreat predicament and the prospect of leading a retreat is paradoxical. The Marijuana Party as whole must try to operate in this paradoxical context of attempting to lead in this retreat. We can not advance, in any real way, in the foreseeable future. Instead, the most we can do is face these facts that we are forced to retreat, and attempt to stop that real retreat from turning into an even worse rout.

Yours truly,

Blair T. Longley
Marijuana Party.

P.S.

I will also send this to

"Mayrand, Marc" Marc.Mayrand@elections.ca

ACPP - CCPP Distribution acpp-ccpp@elections.ca

"Knight, Trevor" Trevor.Knight@Elections.ca

And, of course,

I CONTINUE TO BE INTERESTED IN ISSUES RAISED IN MY PREVIOUS 2 EMAILS TO YOU!

AS PUBLISHED AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE:

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=413

Regarding how Elections Canada continues being too complicit in
keeping Canadians ignorant and afraid when it comes to
exercising their legal political contribution rights.

On 11/02/2011, Deguefé, Belaineh wrote:

> Mr. Longley,

> We have taken note of your comments.

> Regards,

> Belaineh Deguefé
> Deputy Chief Electoral Officer

AND

> From: Montreuil, Mark On Behalf Of ACPP - CCPP Distribution<

> Sent: February 10, 2011

> Subject: RE: Follow up article to issue of youth voting rates and political funding.

> Dear Mr. Longley. Thank you for your three emails detailing your points of view regarding Elections Canada. The first and second emails received automatic replies, as they were sent to the info@elections.ca email address. The third email has just been received, and we acknowledge it and will respond shortly.

> Regards,

> Mark Montreuil

> Manager, Stakeholder Engagement Services

And yet another email to Elections Canada on February 22, 2011.

Dear Elections Canada Officials:

With respect to my previous emails, and especially the 2 past legal replies,
the HYPOTHETICAL nature of transactions has always been problematic!!!

For your convenience, I also copy and paste below those 2 replies from Mr. Knight.

I wish to point out and clarify an existing example of political contributions ...

I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Nanaimo-Cowichan Marijuana Party (NCMP)

The Chief Financial Agent in that electoral district association is Huguette Plourde.

We have forwarded our registration confirmation and 2010 financial reports on to EC.

We have mailed in the paper copy, and received a confirmation back in the snail-mail.

We also emailed in a copy through the EFR which EFR-RFE@elections.ca confirmed.

THE EXISTING SITUATION:

Huguette Plourde has made a $100 donation to the NCMP.

As the CFA of her EDA, she issued a receipt to herself, & she has legally signed it, and may use it to claim tax credit.

As Mr Knight wrote:

"Genuine transactions in which contributions are made without an agreement concerning their return, coupled with legitimate reimbursements of expenses incurred while acting on behalf of an EDA, would not violate the Canada Elections Act."

SHE IS FREE TO SPEND THAT $100 ANY LEGAL WAY!

She may act on any political purpose she makes a priority.

She should supervise spending money in the NCMP pool.

She has to continue to document, keep records and make the legal reports to EC and CRA about all her transactions.

However, I emphasize that her legal rights and freedoms regarding political contributions, expenditures and credits are NOT hypothetical issues ... and, those do not solely concern only the CRA or EC, but both of them together.

However, as I outlined at length in earlier emails to you, the central legal issues are, obviously, in elections laws.

It is Elections Canada that is primarily responsible for the interpretation of the laws that arise in these cases,

SUCH AS AN EXISTING EXAMPLE BEFORE YOU :

THE FREEDOMS OF HUGUETTE PLOURDE WHEN SUPERVISING & SPENDING THE NCMP’S FUNDS.

She has donated $100 and issued an official receipt, to herself, which she could use to claim a $75 credit.

As CEO of the NCMP, as well as party leader who has been writing these emails to Elections Canada, I assert that Huguette Plourde would be quite free to spend the money in the NCMP bank account.

Do you need Huguette to write to ask you directly?

She could write you a nice letter, in French, to ask you the same questions as I have asked!

Should she write directly to ask the CRA too?

She is both the agent and the taxpayer. It would be similar if she was both the officer of any EDA and a contributor.

Her particular existing case applies throughout.

You should answer my questions forthrightly!!!

Mr. Knight also wrote:

"Elections Canada does not provide rulings with respect to hypothetical fact situations. ... we have consulted with CRA concerning this matter, and they have informed us that they are also unable to answer hypothetical questions, and that they prefer to deal with a taxpayer directly."

Mr. Knight did state:

"we seek to provide the general principles of the Canada Elections Act that are engaged, as well as provisions of that Act that may be raised by the question. As facts arise, we are able to explain the application of the Act to those facts."

And, I repeat, Mr. Knight admitted that:

"Genuine transactions in which contributions are made without an agreement concerning their return, coupled with legitimate reimbursements of expenses incurred while acting on behalf of an EDA, would not violate the Canada Elections Act."

That is correct. It is consistent with the fact that all Parti Marijuana Party’s actual transactions generated valid receipts since 2004.

However, I continue to protest that Elections Canada’s replies through Mr. Knight were practically useless to inform the general public.

That is why I have written another follow-up email to point out explicitly and particularly the existing facts.

NCMP has made the arrangements that go through "Longley’s Loophole," or Lord Brightman’s Mandate Theory of political contributions, in order to generate the possible legal "Participation Premium" for Huguette Plourde.

Huguette Plourde’s real situation exemplifies & illustrates the legal issues that I am attempting to be able to inform all Canadians about.

I say that Huguette Plourde is now free to receive "legitimate reimbursements of expenses incurred while acting on behalf of an EDA."

More generally, she should have freedom not only to repay herself for efforts and expenses incurred while acting on behalf of her EDA, but also freedom to spend the money in the NCMP in any legal way, which she could freely choose to do, and directly control by doing.

Throughout are "Genuine transactions in which contributions are made without an agreement concerning their return."

That is, her contribution is NOT being refunded to her in any way that would cancel it, and therefore, cancel her official receipt.

As an individual taxpayer, she has donated to the NCMP, and she is entitled to use her valid official receipt to claim tax credit.

As the Chief Financial Agent of the NCMP, she issued herself her own official receipt for the $100 that she donated in 2010.

That money is still there, in the NCMP bank account.

Obviously, as the Chief Executive Officer of the NCMP, I have deliberately set this whole situation up to exist.

I am able to ask you questions, and point out that they are not based on hypothetical fact situations, but exist.

I would like for Elections Canada to answer my questions about political contributions in a comprehensive way.

I want Elections Canada to fully enlighten the general public about political contributions, like EC does on voting!

(For instance, Elections Canada offers information in all official languages, including even in Nunavut, and so on.)

The same way as you should answer my questions, and in particular address the real issues regarding Huguette!

Yours truly,

Blair T. Longley
Marijuana Party

On June 27, to 28, 2011, at the ACPP meeting in Ottawa,
I again presented my complaints about their "answers."

I spoke quite directly and personally
to the Chief Electoral Officer, and
senior Elections Canada lawyers,
at breakfasts and lunches ...

I waited until November 22 and 24, 2011, to remind them ...

On July 4, 2012, I emphasized another TEST TRANSACTION:

CLICK for July 4, 2012 letter from Huguette Plourde to Elections Canada (Word, 68.5 kb)

CLICK for July 4, 2012 letter from Blair Longley to Elections Canada (Word, 81.5 kb)

On July 9, 2012, I emailed copies of those to the
Deputy Chief Elector Officer and to Trevor Knight.

Also on July 9, 2012, the Manager of Correspondence Services
at Elections Canada sent Huguette Plourde & Blair Longley
an acknowledgement of receiving those two letters ...

August 31, 2012, reply from Trevor Knight is now added below:

17/04/2009

Trevor Knight Legal Counsel Elections Canada

On 25/02/2011 Knight, Trevor wrote:

Yours truly,
Trevor Knight

THIS IS THE AUGUST 31, 2012, REPLY BY
TREVOR KNIGHT AT ELECTIONS CANADA:

... There are many aspects of the operations of political entities that are not regulated by provisions of the Canada Elections Act. The financial controls, approval processes or restrictions on financial decision-making of an EDA are matters internal to that association and the party with which it is associated. ...

April 17, 2009, email from Elections Canada to Longley (JPEG, 133.1 kb)

Page 1 of August 31, 2012, letter from Elections Canada to Longley (JPEG, 244.8 kb)

CLICK to see Page 2 of August 31, 2012, letter from Elections Canada to Longley (JPEG, 139.4 kb)

The downloadable version of the Elections Canada software, which is provided for the use of Official Agents of Candidates, as well as the Agents of Electoral District Associations, and Registered Parties, was up-dated during 2013, to Electronic Financial Return - v3.14 (2013.11), to reflect changes in the Canadian Income Tax Acté

Federal political contributions Line 409 - total contributions Line 410 - tax credit:

"Under proposed changes, the eligible amount is the amount by which the fair market value of your monetary contribution exceeds any advantage that you received or will receive for making it. Generally, an advantage includes the value of certain property, service, compensation, use, or any other benefit. This applies to any contribution made after December 20, 2002."

The Political Contribution Tax Credit appears as Subsection 127(3), BETWEEN the "Logging Tax Credit" in subsections 127(1) & 127(2), and "The Investment Tax Credit" which is subsection 127(5):

The political contribution tax credit provisions are:

127.

(b) a monetary contribution in respect of which a taxpayer has received or is entitled to receive a financial benefit of any kind (other than a prescribed financial benefit or a deduction under subsection (3)) from a government, municipality or other public authority, whether as a grant, subsidy, forgivable loan or deduction from tax or an allowance or otherwise.

As explained in the article on this Web site regarding making and operating Marijuana Party Electoral District Associations, when EDA Agents are using that Elections Canada software to generate official receipts in Participation Premium arrangements, where individual financial contributors are also Officers and/or Agents of their EDA, who direct or control how their contribution is spent on behalf of their association, that they are acting within, then the Amount per CEA is the full amount of money that they donated to their EDA, and the Monetary Amount Given by the contributor is the same amount of money that they donated via their check, or electronically. The Advantage Received per ITA is $0.00, and therefore, the Advantage Description is "none."

The technical amendments in the Income Tax Act made by Bill C-48 have NOT have stopped Longley’s Loophole Participation Premiums from continuing to be legal transactions.

The absurd ideal that politics should be charitable drove the government to attempt to plug Longley’s Loophole by changing the election law in 2004. (It appears that they also maybe attempted to do that by clarifying the language in the income tax laws, in the changes made in 2013?) However, that absurd idea could not be enforced unless nobody who donated to any Candidate, Electoral District Association, or Registered Party, could participate in directing or controlling how that Candidate, or EDA, or registered party, spent their funds. IF that absurdity was to apply, then a Candidate could not legally donate to their own election campaign, and an Officer or an Agent of an EDA, or a registered party as a whole, could not donate to their own EDA or registered party. Despite that kind of legal absurdity, and blatant contradiction, since it has always been routine, and is still being commonly done by various Candidates, Officers and Agents to donate to their own campaign, EDA, or registered party, the government has continued to suppress the legal truth about political contributions, and attempted to discourage more people from participating. Therefore, the real money and tax systems continued being operated by a tiny, tiny minority, in ways that benefit them astronomically, while the vast majority continued believing in Huge Lies, and doing nothing!

Through the original fully legal Longley’s Loophole, before May 14, 2004, the contributor did not have to become an Officer of an EDA. Under the original Contributor’s Choice Concept, the contributors did not have to associate with the party in any other way to enjoy their freedom to control how the party spent their contribution. However, after May 14, 2004, to take advantage of the Participation Premium Plan, a contributor MUST also become at an Officer, and/or Agent. That way still allows for citizens to associate with EDAs to create PARTICIPATION PREMIUMS via political tax credits. That has NOT been prohibited by changes in the income tax laws made in 2013. An individual MUST become associated with an EDA or with the registered party as a whole, in order to be able to direct or control how the funds of that EDA or party are spent. After those individuals become associated within that EDA or party, then any advantages while they act on behalf of their association or party do not result in refunding or cancelling their contribution to that association or party. They continue to have the legal right to claim their tax credits, despite them being able, when acting as Officers or Agents, to direct or control how the funds they contributed to their association or party are subsequently spent. The advantages that they personally enjoy, while acting as Agents or Officers of the association or party that they are acting within, are legally NOT advantages which result in legal refunds of their contribution amounts, in ways which cancel their contribution, and so, cancel their official receipt, and their political contribution tax credit claims. The full amount that they contributed to their EDA is the eligible amount with respect to the issuance of their official receipt, to use to claim their political contribution tax credit.

The technical amendments made to the Canadian Income Tax Act, as quoted above, only clarify what was already the formal legal situation which existed since 2004. The individual who is acting as an Officer of the EDA, or the individual, (or corporation) who is acting as the Agent of an EDA, is NOT personally receiving the legal advantage of spending money on behalf of the EDA, unless their contribution money is refunded to them in a way which cancels their contribution. Any advantage by an individual directing how to spend the money contributed to an EDA is an advantage to the EDA, which does not cancel the contribution, nor cancel the consequent tax credit that an individual taxpayer who donates to that EDA, while also simultaneously acting as an Officer and/or and Agent of the EDA, who may direct or control how the money that the EDA has is spent, since the primary advantage then is to the EDA. All of the same legal arguments regarding "Longley’s Loophole," which have been made since way back in 1984, continue to hold. It continues to be absurd to interpret the Income Tax Act in any ways which meant that no individual who contributes to a registered party, or an electoral district association of a registered party, can not control or direct how the money that they contributed is spent. Individuals who are taxpayers that contribute to an EDA have a legal right to claim their political contribution tax credits. Individuals that become Officers and/or Agents of an EDA have the legal right to direct or control how money that the EDA has is spent. When those Officers or Agents direct or control how the EDA money is spent, the advantages from doing so are gained by the EDA that they are acting through, because they are associated within that EDA. Only expenditures which effectively cancel the contribution, by effectively refunding it to the individual taxpayer, also then cancel the validity of their official receipt, and thus cancel their right to claim their political contribution tax credit. Any other expenditures which benefit the EDA, in any way that provides any advantage to that EDA, may be directed or controlled to be done by individuals who donated to that EDA, which originally provided the money that that EDA had to spend. Despite all the statutory changes since 2004, and again in 2013, "Longley’s Loophole" is still basically legal. Individual taxpayers who become Officers and/or Agents of an EDA may contribute financially to that EDA, and then direct or control how that contribution money is spent, on behalf of that EDA, which they are associated within, in any ways which provide any advantages to that EDA, without that resulting in cancelling nor reducing their contribution amount, due to any personal advantage that they may have also indirectly obtained through those series of transactions, by them being able to direct which particular political activities they directed to become registered through the registered political entities that they officially participated within.

SEE AGAIN THESE LINKS:

The Political Contribution Tax Credit is Subsection 127(3), BETWEEN the "Logging Tax Credit" in subsections 127(1) & 127(2), and "The Investment Tax Credit" which is subsection 127(5):

The regulations regarding issuing official receipts for political contributions are 2000 to 2002:

Of course, looking at the history of the political tax credit for several decades, it is most reasonable to expect that the officials within the governments, such as Elections Canada and Canadian Revenue Agency, will probably continue to "answer" questions about the political contribution tax credit in the most minimal, and therefore misleading, ways that they can, which "answers" will continue to be practically useless to inform the ordinary individual Canadian taxpayer about their rights and freedoms to participate in funding registered political activities. (The LINKS to those sections of the LAWS tend to be deliberately broken, by changes in those LAWS that make it extremely difficult for anyone but paid professionals to keep up with.) But nevertheless, since there are no good alternative paths which follow from accepting that democracy is already dead, therefore, irrational hopes for some series of political miracles continue to be the only straw to cling to, while we drown in a dying democracy. In that context, promoting more public activities through registered electoral district associations may well be regarded as a kind of political science fiction, or political fantasy.

ANYWAY, THE PRACTICAL POINTS ABOUT OPERATING AN ELECTORAL DISTRICT ASSOCIATION REVOLVE AROUND THE PROPER USE OF ELECTIONS CANADA ELECTRONIC FINANCIAL RETURN (EFR) COMPUTER SOFTWARE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE PRACTICAL WAY THAT THERE IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE ELECTIONS LAWS AND INCOME TAX LAWS, IN THE CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT.

On January 4, 2014, Blair T. Longley mailed a letter to:

Manager, Technical Publications and Projects Section,
Income Tax Rulings Directorate, Policy and Legislation Branch,
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Ottawa ON K1A 0L5

calling this Web site article to their attention & asking them
about proper uses of the EFR by EDAs to generate receipts.

January 4, 2014, letter from Longley to CRA (PDF, 1.1 Mb)

January 4, 2014, Emails between EC & Longley, page 1. (PDF, 1.3 Mb)

January 4, 2014, Emails between EC & Longley, page 2. (PDF, 916.8 kb)

The first acknowledgement reply, dated January 13, 2014, from Jenie Leigh, Manager, Financial Industries and Trusts Division, Income Tax Rulings Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency. As the attached pdf indicates, they would reply to the substance of my request after a few months.

January 13, 2014, acknowledgement of letter from Longley from by Canadian Revenue Agency (PDF, 1.8 Mb)

That CRA April 25, 2014, reply was VACUOUS & USELESS!

CRAreplyApril25,2014,p1 (JPEG, 136.9 kb)

CRAreplyApril25,2014,p2 (JPEG, 150.9 kb)