At best 5 months??? How about at best less than 2 months - Your sometime after February renewal report in reality looks more like late June and came only after Lalli had declared he was going to run.

He could have held his 2006 membership for 5 months, 2 months or 1 hour, and he'd be protected by the exception...

What is the source for the "party rules" that you quote? They aren't on the CPC website . . .

So the party has nothing to disqualify Lalli. Why, nobody knows? However before Lalli submitted his application they could have made him aware of this. The president of the party made it clear that all ridings across Canada would be open and transparent.

I do not think that a small technicality would keep a party supported hopeful from running for the nomination. This is about other "politics" according to a host on Radio India, AM 1600, the Conservative Party was put in the position of choosing between the Grewals and Lalli. In a minority government I guess you do not want to lose a vote. There were hard working big names behind Lalli: Gardner, Metcliff, Falcon and Watts.

After chatting with a lot of folks out in Surrey, I think it is clear that the Conservatives are running the risk of making this a story which will not only extend the controversies surrounding the Grewal name but also one which will take away any moral high ground they were claiming about openness and transparency in how political parties are run.

My earlier comments on Paul Lalli were far too harsh. Yes, he would have been better off seeking internal Party support and getting a better grasp on how the Party was really viewing challenges to MP's, rather than putting his hopes on some superficial comments made by the President of the Party.

In the end, we all suffer when any political party, whether NDP, Liberal or Conservative, manipulates the democratic process to favour one candidate over another.

After all, this is about choosing someone to represent voters in Parliament - this is not some university club race.

The process has been cheapened - incidents like this do nothing more than to reinforce in the minds of the general public that our system is often manipulated by a small group pursing a self-interest agenda.

The winner - no one. The loser - all of us who care deeply about civic affairs.

As a person who accidently let my own membership expire myself, I can't express how much this angers me that the party could stoop so low in order to protect those opportunist gasbags in Surrey. Granted they had good reason why not to let McCallum run in January given his recent swift kick in the arse by the very same Surrey voters, but if this theory is true, this is a complete insult to the true Conservatives in Fleetwood-Port Kells and sad day for democarcy in general in the Lower Mainland.

What is the source for the "party rules" that you quote? They aren't on the CPC website . . .

They are rules set by the party in "Candidate Nomination Rules and Procedures", written by headquarters and given to the EDA's. Not everything in regards to the Party is on the public website.

With the federal Liberals, there's little specific in regards to candidate membership requirements.

The Leader appoints the candidates
in many instances.

With Lali, he was aware of the rules, and should done his homework. The rules were set quite a long time ago.

Another good candidate gone pfft because of sloppiness, if that what it was that led to his cancellation.

EXCUSES...:)...
They never do anyone good. Good luck next time Lalli. Grewals are going to walk over liberals once again..just like always.haha.

How sad!

A pack of reformist Conservatives, trying to justify using a technicality and the brute force of the executive to trump it's own membership and the democratic process.

"How sad!

A pack of reformist Conservatives, trying to justify using a technicality and the brute force of the executive to trump it's own membership and the democratic process"

The fededral Liberals allow their leader to appoint candidates and
bypass the democratic process for the membership.

How democratic is that?

The whole reasoning behind Lali's nomination cancellation is not known. If he - because of igorance or sloppiness contravened the rules, blame him not the party. The Party would not just cut him out just to save Nina. There has to be far more reasons for him to be cut off than just not renewing his membership.

Just because rules are in place, they're not necessarily well-written nor just. Take for example the NHL's skate in the crease rule circa 1999. That rule was so poorly written that countless good goals today were disqualified due to technicalities. With Lalli, perhaps some CPC suit disqualified him because he filled out the forms in blue ink instead of black, or something inane of that nature.

And FHK, even as a longtime Conservative myself, I must say that's an awfully bold statement to make considering Nina *barely* won her safe CPC riding last time, and Eidsvik lost even with Germant toiling behind the scenes.

Paul Lalli's nomination was not rejected because of expired membership. He has been a member for over 15 years, and even if his membership had expired for a brief time without renewal, he can still seek nomination if he has been a member for 6 months of the previous calander year. I hope both sides come to a amicable conclusion to this fiasco. If not, and the whole story comes out, this could have national consequences.

"I hope both sides come to a amicable conclusion to this fiasco. If not, and the whole story comes out, this could have national consequences."

The public does not care about nomination races.

The CPC party activists don't care about following rules, or technicalities, or the public interest... only about getting their candidate to win.

i.e. the public interest and CPC party activists' agenda are two entirely different things. Why do you think the CPC cabinet is so shallow... nothing put forward from the party apparatus worth very much.

don't cha know?

Borys or excuse me Eugene - what would you know, as far as everyone knows you are not a member of the CPC with all your bantering against the party

Hi Neo Con,

What everyone knows is that I'm a repentant ex-CPC member - sorry and ashamed to have been involved - because I saw the beast and it was ugly.

My views have matured since being involved and the CPC has continued further down destructive path... I'm proud to have moved on.

Did we say we want you?..lol. We dont want Joe Clark either, and where is he now?

Yowsa, you are right, Nina received intense criticism on her loyal to our party. But that's a thing of the past and with such a strong support within EDA and likely strong support from the local residents who want to see a majority tory government to rid all this fuss with the present minority government, take my word, we will walk over the liberals all over Canada.

FHK writes, "Did we say we want you?..lol."

Yup... you didn't want me. 9th generation French Canadian not wanted. Aborignal... not wanted. 9th geneation NA UEL from Ontario not wanted. Anglican, nope not wanted. Canadian and nothing but Canadian... nope not wanted.

"We dont want Joe Clark either, and where is he now?

Steve Harper may not last that much longer than Joe... we don't need a war-mongerer as PM.

Steve Harper may not last that much longer than Joe... we don't need a war-mongerer as PM.

How is Stephen a war monger. Joe Clark supported the Gulf-War and in the Iranian Caper - he was fully behind hiding Yankees from the Islamic fundamentalists. This pissed off Iran.

Just come out and admit the Liberals and you support Hezbollah and if Bill Clinton was leading the charge you would be all for going into Afghanistan.

Mr. Neo-Con,

Joe Clark was PM 25 years ago. Bill Clinton is no longer in power... that was 6 years ago. As for Afghanistan, the US has mostly abandoned it. Your Neo-Con perspectives are a touch out of date.

But you asked how is Steve Harper a war mongerer? He cannot tell the difference between third party civilians - even when they are third party Canadian Civilians - and combatants. He is spending $15 billion on armourments without a review of what are our strategic needs. He joined the US in expanding war in the Middle East� Steve Harper is no man of peace... and somewhat brainless when it comes to foreign policy.

As for Afghanistan, Steve Harper has increased the risk level to our troops� and to what end? Osama Bin Laden has been dead for years, war lords still sell opium from Afghanistan, and the locals are siding with the insurgents - heck the Soviet Union slaughtered a million Afghani insurgents and got nothing out of it... but there we are getting our own killed even though none of the recent terrorist attempts were from Afghanistan (or the Middle East) and were handled by police action. At this point, Canada's approach to military action in Afghanistan is partisan military posturing - costing lives → that is war-mongering in action.

FHK writes, "Yes, and when we form the majority government next year, we wont want you in it either, thank you very much."

And in good conscience I could not and would not want to be a part of any Steve Harper government. I have values that go beyond individualism, mammon, war-mongering, and capriciousness towards real environmental and social issues.

So you want to choose elitism over "individualism/liberty".
So you want to choose sodomite over "mommon/God fearing".
So you want to choose defeatist-pacifist over "war-mongering/anti-terrorist".
God ahead and be my guest.....at least I know I am choosing the winning side, which you will not be a part of.

FHK writes, "So you want to choose elitism over "individualism/liberty"."

No, I choose to value both the individual and community, both together, over the combined attitude of selfishness and the view that a person is an island.

FHK also writes, So you want to choose sodomite over "mommon/God fearing".

No, I choose faith over mammon (averice, which is the love of money)

FHK further writes, "So you want to choose defeatist-pacifist over "war-mongering/anti-terrorist"."

No, I choose to point the way to the path of peace of reconcilation and decry all those that target, or speak for those that target, third party civilians and non-combatants, which now includes Steve Harper.

FHK concludes, "God ahead and be my guest.....at least I know I am choosing the winning side, which you will not be a part of."

Ugliness always has its day and can win the moment but the path to peace and reconcilation is ultimately the only course that can build a future.

Value and faith are words taken to be oxymoron when used together with the liberals (expected to be losers in the next election). I expect a long-lasting victory over the liberals for the next decade.