Keepitsimple

But how does that change the life of everyday Canadians? It doesn't.

Secret trade deals? That's just opposition hooey that you've obviously swallowed. The Conservatives were elected on a mandate that involved Free Trade - and to negotiate the best deals for Canada. You cannot "negotiate" a deal in public - or you'd never have any trade deals - because there will always be groups that are ideologically opposed - Unions being a big one. That's why you never hear the details of company mergers and divestitures until the deals are done. As for making "you" more prosperous.....I'll leave that one alone.

What's the two biggest specific changes (not generalities, perceptions, opinions or platitudes) that you've noted - the ones that concern you the most......because I know that people can validly not like his personal style. but I'm having trouble seeing how individual Canadians are worse off under Harper - even economically.....in spite of all the Global troubles.

I guess when you think about it, there will always be a vocal minority that complains when "their guy" is not PM. It was Chretien the Dictator back then and now amusingly, it's Harper the Dictator.....and I can guarantee that if Mulcair ever became PM, the cries of Mulcair the Dictator would ring out. What has changed over the years is the ease and multitude of formal and social media. The squeaky wheels have gotten progressively more grease over the years. But hey, it's all part of a healthy democracy.

The opposition vote-splitting that seems to terrify you is because Liberals and the NDP have different value sets that people vote for. Contrary to breathless anti-Harper rants, they are not a united, monolithic bloc representing 60% of Canadians. As has already been stated, people should vote for the party that best aligns with their values. Period. That said, good luck with your ABC dogma.

Please refrain from such posts. Common Sense is not permitted in this forum.

If you have to ask that question - then you don't understand the voting system.

VK was rightly pointing out that your "preface" was wrong.....because there's a traditionally larger turnout of Conservative voters that exceed poll estimates by 3, 4 or even 5 points. Under-estimate it at your own peril.

There are plenty of other topics on that......

Now you're just embarrassing yourself......

But who will be the wizard behind the curtain? Honestly - who will that be? We know it's not Trudeau - who will be pulling the strings - Gerald Butts for example?

I didn't comment because it's not worth commenting on. Your graph was conveniently based on oil prices that at the time, were well over $100 per barrel. With the drastic drop in the price of oil and a lack of pipelines, many of those projects will be/are delayed - and may in fact die on the vine. Or again, maybe you didn't know that?

I thought this was Trudeau's best showing - no substance but at least he was passionate, especially in French. That said, whenever he was forced off-script, he was very shaky - like a deer in the headlights. Full of platitudes and anti-Harper venom - but very little substance on anything......but his best showing. Mulcair clearly showed his dislike for Trudeau and he was just too deliberate in his delivery - almost like he was trying to control the Angry Tom that seemed to be simmering just below the surface. Harper had the advantage of talking substance about what his government had done and planned to do - and it all fit together quite well - the various pieces of the ISIS containment, the multi-pronged approach to the North, the reasoning behind an aggressive Ukraine/Putin approach. I'm a bit surprised but I would speculate that Conservatives will continue to edge in front. Some of the NDP vote may go to the LIberals but I have an inclination that some of the Blue Liberals will start returning to the Conservative fold. It really is an interesting clash of personalities and abilities.

Why do you need a cite? Do you not believe/don't know that there are only a handful of actual projects that are operational? If you don't, I'd be pleased to find a cite for you.

What's your point Waldo - more infuriating nonsense? To my knowledge - after decades of development, there are only 5 or 6 operational in-situ wells under your 97% oil sands area......a miniscule pinprick.

What's that supposed to imply? What does that have do with the separation of the as-yet unquantifiable human-induced Global Warning.......and clean water, clean air (CO2 is not a pollutant - but plenty of other crap in the air is), increased parkland....?

Yes there is a need for that (Blah, blah, blah). Your constant carping of the 60% "opposed" is a direct slap at how Canada has been governed since its inception - arguably the most successful democracy in the world.

What's upsetting to some is the kidnapping of the term "Environment". Clean air, clean water, expanded parkland and all the associated rules and regulations that have reduced smog in Toronto (for example) and made Lake Ontario swimmable again - all these good things are ignored as the Global Warming alarmists hold the term "Environment" hostage.

Ain't that the bold truth.

There's a wild card in play in Ontario - and it's Kathleen Wynne. Ontario voters may have parked their vote elsewhere but will more easily return to the Conservative fold because of Wynne's unpopularity - as well as that of the party itself. She has stumped for Trudeau so overtly that her failed policies and corruption can't help but tarnish the overall Liberal brand.

What does something that happened in the 90's have to do with Stephen Harper? In your zeal, should you not be calling for the police to arrest Jean Chretien?

As with the other fairy tale, if this topic has any credibility at all, it should be in the Canada/US Relations category.

If there's any credibility to this topic at all, it should be in Canada/US Relations.

Good on Trudeau. If it serves to expose Suzuki for the wild-eyed Kook that he is, great. He, and his environmentalist zealots continue to breathlessly rant on about the dangers of extracting all the oil in the Athabaska Oil sands - when in fact - of the total area of 141,000 square kilometers - less than 4% is commercially viable to be mined. It's infuriating to see such wild exaggerations that serve only to hamper our economy - while Obama continues to rip open mountains to mine coal and export it overseas. What hypocrisy. 1) Alberta's oil sands underlie 142,200 square kilometres (km2) of land in the Athabasca, Cold Lake and Peace River areas in northern Alberta. 2)Reserves shallow enough to mine (up to 75 meters) are found only within the Athabasca oil sands area. Surface Mineable Area (SMA) equals to about 4,800 km2 and accounts for about 3.4 per cent of total oil sands area. 3) In 2012, oil sands accounted for about 8.7 per cent of Canada's GHG emissions and about 0.1% of global GHG emissions Link: http://www.energy.alberta.ca/oilsands/791.asp

As with many in the small minority who would allow the Niqab at the citizenship ceremony, you are missing the gut feeling of Canadians - as Jean Lapierre summed up the feeling of Quebecers when he paraphrased their attitude that "enough is enough". Even the Charter says that rights are not absolute - they have to be interpreted in view of several things - including religious accommodation. It's a simple fact that's what's going on with Canadians - they feel they've been overly accommodating with the culture and traditions of newcomers - but there is a limit.....and they are thankful that Harper is drawing a line in the sand. You can argue until the cows come home but that's how the vast majority of everyday Canadians feel.