Thanks for sharing, it gave me that warm-fuzzy conservative feeling inside.

a lot of people seem to think lpc or ndp would support each other, i doubt it. especially lpc supporting ndp, they might as well fold up shop if they were to do that. theres really only room for one party on the left and i think its going to get even more cutthroat between lpc and ndp

VitaminG, I am not disagree with you. What I mean by my above statement is, I expect the Cons to take the most MP seats in this election, but with only enough to form a minority government. At that point, the Libs and NDP can only face the vote results with 2 options. Either,

1) they stay content with each being the opposition parties, or
2) they join forces and try to form a coalition government

If I were Trudeau or Mulcair, Option #2 seems a heck of a lot more attractive than just being the leaders of the opposition parties, even if it means putting up with each other for the next 3 - 4 years. When you are the leader of a political party, you gotta have the ambition and hunger to go for the top job. When the top job is totally within reach -- all you gotta do is to form a coalition with your secondary "enemy" -- you go turn that competitor into your frienemy and topple the #1 bad guy for the win.

If you were to look back to the early days of the Cons when Steve Harpy could only form a minority government, he was constantly wooing Jacky Layton to get their bills done. The Cons and the NDP are as far apart as they can be on the Canadian political spectrum, but you do what you need to do to stay in power. I would highly recommend Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair to consider the same.

Traum, what makes you think the Libs and Cons won't want to work together and leave Mulcair on the outs?

IMO that's a far more likely scenario, Mulcair is a brash dickhead, gives Trudeau zero respect... I'm sure that gets old.

(Not suggesting Harper gives Trudeau oodles of respect, but the debate exchanges between Trudeau and Harper have been far more civil than Mulcair with either IMO)

+ there is a factor where Politicians know a formal coalition Gov. might seriously rub a massive portion of the voting population in a bad way.

27 yr old Canadian born and raised guy is facing deportation to Pakistan simply because his parents are Pakistani, thanks to Harpers insane law

EXCLUSIVE: Tories move to strip citizenship from Canadian-born terrorist

i don't care if he's a terrorist, this is bigger than him, it's fucking insane


And Harper wants to do it to all criminals... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09..._hp_ref=canada

i just dont see a scenario where mulcaire is prime minister and trudeau is just happy to help him. if things fall apart then libs get blamed, if things somehow last 4 years, then NDP did a good job and liberals helped out. either way makes the NDP seem more legit and the liberals fall further into 3rd place.

meanwhile conservatives sit on the outside and just take potshots at all the stupid shit the coalition will inevitably do. just makes them look like geniuses and puts them in great position for the next election which wont be far away.

Traditionally, the Canadian Prime Minister has always come from either the Conservative Party or the Liberals (we will casually ignore how the parties evolve over time, and aren't really exactly the same thing as they are today). More importantly, until the current administration, the Liberals and the Conservatives have almost always been the Official Opposition party while the other serves as the governing party. So suffice to say, I view the Libs and the Cons as more of the rivals for each other. So to me, it seems less likely that they will work together.

Also, current polling seems to suggest the Cons are at the top (in terms of popular support) with a slim lead, followed by the Libs in 2nd place, and the NDP in 3rd. Generally with situations like this, the 3rd place finisher will more often play the kingmaker role. So unless Libs' support drop back to 3rd place -- this seems unlikely to me -- I don't expect them to team up with the Cons to leave the NDP out.

But hey, anything can happen in politics. I certainly don't expect a Cons-Libs coalition / cooperative agreement happening, but if it does, I would not be super surprised.

What about Trudeau as PM and Mulcair as some sort of deputy? That is really the scenario that would make the most sense from what I can see.

This is INSANE

I'm born and raised in Canada, and I can be freaking deported to Hong Kong/ China if I'm a terrorist

We need to vote Steve out of here ASAP

in the case like Omar Khadr, dont understand what cad.govt was thinking. a kid brainwashed by his parents to fight in Afghanistan. and harper govt. totally against releasing him wasting tax payers $ to fight him in court regarding parole etc

im glad Elizabeth may said that he had more integrity than Harper..

it was amzing how Omar answered reporters, when asked about what harper would say about him.

Omar Khadr says will prove he's a good person | Reuters.com

So you'd rather keep a charged terrorist in Canada with a Canadian citizenship?

The issue here is, the act to strip him of his citizenship is very likely unconstitutional, not whether we would rather keep a convicted terrorist in the country or not.

EXACTLY.

This is ridiculous. We let foreign criminals like Conrad Black into Canada but we are now trying to deport a Canadian citizen. One problem with Harpers plan. Pakistan will not take him.

Blah blah blah. Harper is trying to suck up to public service staff like me. I can't wait to vote to try to get the Tories out of office. Stop lying to me! :troll:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper?s Open Letter to the Public Service | Conservative Party of Canada - Protect our Economy

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Open Letter to the Public Service

October 1, 2015

For Immediate Release


Ottawa, ON – Prime Minister Stephen Harper released the following open letter to Canada’s public service:


Since coming to office, our Conservative government has made life more affordable for Canadian families and protected Canada’s fragile economy in the midst of the most severe global recession in a generation. We have worked to lower taxes on individuals and job-creating businesses, increase Canada’s economic opportunities around the world through new trade agreements, and protect Canadians here at home and from threats abroad.


We have accomplished all of this because of our partnership with, and the hard work, dedication and integrity of you: Canada’s public servants. Canadians are well-served by our world-class public service, and I have seen this first-hand as Prime Minister. During our time in Government, we have worked with you to ensure your efforts are focused on the things that matter most to Canadians, and to create a healthier workplace where good work is recognized, red tape is removed, and benefits meet real needs.


Unfortunately, in the current election context, misleading statements are being made about certain issues that matter to you and your families, including sick leave and pension entitlements.


I want to give you the facts to correct this misinformation.


Sick Leave


A new round of collective bargaining between the Government of Canada and federal public service bargaining agents began in 2014 to renew the Government’s collective agreements. The Government’s overarching goal in these negotiations is to reach agreements that are fair and reasonable for both employees and taxpayers.


The Government’s priority in the current benefit negotiations is to ensure public servants have a disability and sick leave program that is modern, comprehensive and actually meets your needs. The current, antiquated sick leave system is failing everyone. Here are the facts:

•Over 60 per cent of public servants do not have enough banked sick leave to cover a full period of short-term disability (13 weeks).
•25 per cent of employees have fewer than 10 days of banked sick leave.
•Many employees, especially new and younger employees, have no banked sick days at all.
•In contrast, a select few long-tenured individuals, including many executives, have far more banked sick days than they will ever reasonably need.


The current sick leave system leaves gaps. The Government wants to fill those gaps so that, if you get sick, you have seamless support. Canadians are best served by a healthy and productive public service. You want a healthy workplace and peace of mind knowing that, if you face a serious illness, you will have the support you need. Our Conservative government wants the same.


Some of you have accumulated sick days, but are being told that these will all disappear as though you are starting your career in the public service all over again. This is not true and has never been true. These days will be assigned an extra value under the new system, and will be available to those who need them. Discussions are ongoing about how best to integrate banked sick days into any new plan.


Pensions


Recently, some public sector union executives have alleged that the Government wants to take away your pension, in whole or in part. This is false.


In 2012, we moved to modernize and secure the public service pension plan by ensuring employees and taxpayers both pay a fair share towards pension contributions for public servants. Since 2012, the Government has not proposed any other changes to the public service pension plan nor are any contemplated. We will not be moving away from the current defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, target benefit plan, or any other shared-risk model. The public service pension plan is solid and fully-funded, and there is no need to make any such changes. These are the facts.


Our Conservative government has been proud of the good work done by Canada’s public servants as we navigated the global economic recession, cut taxes on families and job-creating businesses, and balanced the budget. Like other families across Canada, we know our public servants want Canada’s economy to grow and thrive, despite the continued economic turmoil we see around the world. We have protected Canada’s fragile economy, and our positive low-tax plan for the next four years will do even more, with your help, to make our country strong and prosperous.


Sincerely,


Rt. Hon. Stephen J. Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
Leader, Conservative Party of Canada

like i said the issue is bigger than him, we're talking about our rights as Canadians here, you cant be blinded by this stepping stone case (that's what he's hoping); and yes it is a stepping stone, look at the subsequent article/interview with Harper, he wants to expand the scope

Conrad Black is not a foreign criminal, he was born in Canada and is a Canadian Citizen.

Muhammad Aqeeq Ansari was born in Pakistan and is NOT a Canadian citizen, he only has a Canadian PR card.



Get your facts straight.

Countries do not deport their native citizens, there would be nowhere to deport them to.

Edit: Just saw you are talking about Omar K, which from my googles I could not determine if he holds more than one citizenship, but yes he was born in Canada.

Ok, so what part of the constitution is this in violation of? If you're going to make that suggestion please back it up.

He has a dual citizenship unless the article I read was wrong.

We're talking about the rights of people with multiple citizenships who are convicted terrorists, last I checked acts of terrorism aren't particularly Canadian things to do. The only "expansion" I've heard of so far is to include other people who have moved here, have a dual citizenship, and have been convicted of a serious crime. That seems like a reasonable enough response to someone who has brought nothing but a negative impact to Canada.

did you ignore the article that i posted? the guy they want to deport ISN'T a dual citizen, Harper wants to consider him a dual citizen because his parents came from Pakistan 30+ years ago

as for the expansion of citizenship revocation, it's in the very next article i linked... again, stepping stones, you can assume or hope it stops at serious offenders but to allow the loosening of your rights based on hopes and dreams that a corrupt government will keep their word is far too big an ask

Sure.

So you and CRS I'm in for. $200 is probably enough to wager on an election lol.

Sorry for late reply I'm out in the bush hunting

A member of the the party of family values in big trouble.

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/201...43724718-8.jpg

http://www.buzzfeed.com/paulmcleod/c...de#.kmXKPXko9l

Coles notes.

Con PM goes clubing.
goes VIP and gets 6 bottles of Ciroc @ $170 each.
Takes pictures with with a bunch of girls.
Girls post pics and tweet they where parting with them and he was buying them drinks.
Girls are in high school so under age.
Brand manager for the company who sells Ciroc and is the MP's friend try's to bribe them free bottle service for life if they shut up.
One of them does not.
Cut off date for people running is the 28th. So if this guy resigns or Harper kicks him out no one can take his place.

If you read the newspaper just a bit, you would have known why advocates against the bill are calling it unconstitutional. For your convenience, I have the following resources for you:

Journalist group and civil liberties association start constitutional challenge to anti-terrorism Bill C-51 | Toronto Star

https://bccla.org/2015/02/bill-c-51-is-unnecessary/

:lol

I was a little worried when you said 'anyone' and the two of us jumped in so quickly. Was thinking a couple of other members would jump in.

The argument is that the bill itself is not fair. In this particular case, you want to kick him out of Canada because he's eligible to another citizenship. What if this terrorist were a Canadian pure and simple? Does that change your opinion about whether he should be deported and strip of citizenship?

If so, do explain.

If not, then you are on the same ground. You think bill C24 was BS.

If you think that's unconstitutional, and not fair have a peek at Bill C-51. Way worse.