angrypenguin

This is a silly argument. If I'm negotiating with you, and I know where I'm ahead and how I benefit from you, you really expect me to give away this information to someone else, let alone on national TV? If Harper told the Canadian public, the other sides would use this information against him. Let's play this out logically shall we? Harper goes on national TV to show Canadians how he has managed to eek out a competitive edge that would benefit Canada. Then a competing nation would then watch and then use this info against him. Keep in mind Harper has promised to share the details once they are negotiated and it still has to get through Parliament. He can't sign and approve everything himself here.

I love how Trudeau and Mulcair love saying that Harper's politics of division...they're doing the exact same thing by saying that!

Substantiate this with facts please.

Margin of error is a wonderful thing.

Precisely. The PM did a good job this morning explaining the upsides of the TPP. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/if-monster-trade-deal-is-reached-canada-will-release-details-harper-1.2593440 (The video is what I'm referring to).

Then approach them. At the end of the day, it's all hearsay and is not based on fact. Does the RCMP tase every Polish man? You're grasping at straws here.

Wouldn't the QCers hate any change? I seem to recall something about how they have 25% of the seats in the house and it wasn't representation by pop?

Thanks for sharing!

This is interesting. we were talking about this yesterday. http://signal.thestar.com/ Upper right, they've added in the Nanos poll, and updated as of today. Note the CPC, LPC and NDP party numbers have not changed. Any ideas anyone? Keep on dreaming =P When the NDP started to tank, the CPC benefited more than the LPC, surprisingly.

I deal with the CBSA twice a week. Your comment is a stretch if you are implying this is an issue based on a sample size of 1.

As a (current election) conservative supporter I have no doubt that you are correct.

Sample size of n=1.

The Conservatives are also throwing money to help drive down these attacks against women and children. I agree the hotline is stupid though.

Any party that is willing to address female and children abuse is fine by me. Call a spade a spade but the conservatives are willing to throw money at this and I'm behind them.

Since when is any of that considered a terrorist act?

JT doing that was completely classless and entirely political. How people don't see that is beyond me.

I know full well what the repercussions might be. Firstly, Pakistan does not have this in place, so this argument is moot. If they did, and they forced us to have this convicted terrorist, then fine...I guess we're stuck with that person. On the other hand, if we find someone convicted with a Pakistan and Canadian passport, then hell, I want them in Pakistan and not here.

Did you follow the announcements today?

Because we cannot. He has been raised to oppress women.

Terrorism does not equal to screwing up. A terrorist tries to take the LIFE from people. I cannot believe people have that stance that a terrorist deserves to be Canadian.

I'm sure they would be butthurt, but if they don't have a way of revoking my [insert country here] citizenship, then they should find a way. If they don't have adequate legislation to deal with me, too bad. To me, I am Canadian first, but if I choose to harm Canada and I lose my citizenship as a result, I am for that.

Cross posted below from another thread. New value for this thread: I don't think anyone won. It's all stuff that's been hashed in the other 3 debates. It was repetitive. The only "value add" was the stuff on pot. I was pleasantly surprised at Harper though. He was a good deflector. He found himself in a few moments of..."oh crap". He did well, but that doesn't surprise me. He's an experienced politician. My views on the whole thing. Interesting. Before I answer, I will have to offer full and fair disclosure. I'm an instructor by trade. I travel a lot (225 nights a year) and my job is, essentially to teach, but I watch these French debates because I don't understand French, so to me, I pick up on body movements in a way that I think most people miss. So my view is, different in this regard (so just putting it out there before I share). 1) Harper's movements tonight were similar, if not eerily similar to the other French debate. You can tell he's an introvert, he's not comfortable up there, but you would never be able to tell. His level of nervousness, was IMO, the same as in other debates. 2) Trudeau was put in his place in debate #3, and debate #4. Mulcair was good at keeping him at bay. Tonight, he smiled more (Trudeau) and didn't seem as much of a "cool boy" as debate #3 (note his posture differences). He was more prime ministerial, but he still cut people off. 3) Mulcair was more angry Tom than debate #2. He should have, IMHO, focused more of his attacks on Trudeau, but he took digs at Harper and Trudeau similarly. 4) Re: talking over each other. I think that happened quite a bit. More than a few times the translators mentioned that they couldn't translate because leaders were talking over each other. Re: presenter styles. 1) Look at Harper's hands when he speaks, and look at his head motions. He's speaking "out of experience and out of principle" - it's different than Wynne's approach - palm down (teacher like - demeaning...etc). Harper is by far (unsurprisingly) hands down the most seasoned presenter. He uses words like "look" and "let me be clear here" - it's a very solid style. 2) Tom - Tom likes to point fingers (so does Trudeau), but Tom is either angry, or PMish. He switches between the two. 3) Trudeau can't figure out his identity either. He's either in your face, or he goes "oh F this", and he swipes his hand. He's either too cool or too aggressive. Anyways, that's my take on it. As far as Duceppe, he's just mad all the time To me, Harper's presenting style is bang on. Probably why he ranks the highest in the polls of "most PM like"

As I have mentioned, the position she takes on publicly may not be how she takes it up privately. The point is, when you come to Canada, you show your face. If she is free to remove it, then do it!

I don't disagree with you at all that it's a scandal and that there were some serious accountability issues there. But to me, I look at it this way. "How much money did this cost the taxpayer"? Ultimately that's all I care about, that my tax dollars are being spent most efficiently. Every government has its scandals. Tonight's mudslinging between Mulcair, Trudeau and Harper was an example of that. But hey, out of three smelly turds, Harper wasted the least of taxpayer's money, so he wins in the "which turd smells the least" contest

Interesting. Before I answer, I will have to offer full and fair disclosure. I'm an instructor by trade. I travel a lot (225 nights a year) and my job is, essentially to teach, but I watch these French debates because I don't understand French, so to me, I pick up on body movements in a way that I think most people miss. So my view is, different in this regard (so just putting it out there before I share). 1) Harper's movements tonight were similar, if not eerily similar to the other French debate. You can tell he's an introvert, he's not comfortable up there, but you would never be able to tell. His level of nervousness, was IMO, the same as in other debates. 2) Trudeau was put in his place in debate #3, and debate #4. Mulcair was good at keeping him at bay. Tonight, he smiled more (Trudeau) and didn't seem as much of a "cool boy" as debate #3 (note his posture differences). He was more prime ministerial, but he still cut people off. 3) Mulcair was more angry Tom than debate #2. He should have, IMHO, focused more of his attacks on Trudeau, but he took digs at Harper and Trudeau similarly. 4) Re: talking over each other. I think that happened quite a bit. More than a few times the translators mentioned that they couldn't translate because leaders were talking over each other. Re: presenter styles. 1) Look at Harper's hands when he speaks, and look at his head motions. He's speaking "out of experience and out of principle" - it's different than Wynne's approach - palm down (teacher like - demeaning...etc). Harper is by far (unsurprisingly) hands down the most seasoned presenter. He uses words like "look" and "let me be clear here" - it's a very solid style. 2) Tom - Tom likes to point fingers (so does Trudeau), but Tom is either angry, or PMish. He switches between the two. 3) Trudeau can't figure out his identity either. He's either in your face, or he goes "oh F this", and he swipes his hand. He's either too cool or too aggressive. Anyways, that's my take on it. As far as Duceppe, he's just mad all the time To me, Harper's presenting style is bang on. Probably why he ranks the highest in the polls of "most PM like"