situation. there are many, many in the world where there are divisions based on ethnicity, religion, race, whatever. these fuel differences, fuel conflict. it's the responsibility of governments everywhere to be trying to figure out how to mitigate those decisions and to allow people to be different but to coexist, yes. >> can you elaborate the human right situation in russia with the upcoming elections and the reset is being at the expense of human rights and diplomacy and with regard to belarus which is detailed. the u.s. has imposed visa bands on the senior human rights leaders. is that being considered toward russian human right violators. >> thank you. >> we are concerned about a increasingly negative human rights environment in russia. one of my deputies was there last week. part of what we're seeing is a crackdown on dissenters, the so-called strategy 31 protesters who have on the 31st of the month go out to moscow, st. petersburg and other places. march 31st, there were demonstrations in seven cities and there was a crackdown in particular in st. petersburg. we raised concerns with the government as tom did last week and we're also concerned about some of the more public cases like magnitski who died in prison and we continue to ask for an investigation and others in check in a in monitoring what was happening and was killed because of her advocacy. so there are a range of concerns and we'll continue to raise them. in bella ruse you had an election last december and lucshenco crackdown. there's a very grim scene there now where it's very, very difficult for people to operate which is why we offered these sanctionses. we're working with our european allies on this, the human rights situation there is of grave concern to us. [inaudible] >> we have not discussed that. >> hi, you've list a slew of human rights problems? bahrain. how confident are you to influence in bahrain and the national security concerns? >> we -- i was in bahrain with the secretary in december, again, one of my deputies, cathy fitzpatrick who was out there in january, we are very mindful of what has really been a deteriorating situation over months in terms of the climate for the kind of dialog that the crown prince has asked for. we are very concerned about the continued arrest and detention of peaceful critics including some leaders of the political opposition. the fact that some senior newspaper executives have been dismissed and the alike. those make it harder for the dialog to begin. we're also mindful that on the other side, it's imperative that those who have been demonstrating, not resort to violation themselves. but we're at a point as close as we may have come, you know, six weeks or two months ago to having that dialog started, we really need people on all sides of this to begin thinking about what are the confidence-building measures that will bring people back into a dialog? there are a range of very real issues that said to be addressed. they're not going to be addressed only by security measures and that emergency has been communicated by people here and in other parts of our government. we are eager to work with our allies in bahrain, the government but we're very mindful, the human right, situation is serious. sure. >> do they -- do you get the sense that they're receptive to your message? you need them more than they need you. >> well, i wouldn't characterize it that way. and i also wouldn't say there's necessarily a unified response in the government. i think there is a recognition certainly by some senior people in the government that where we are right now is not conducive to addressing the challenges. and it's important that there be a resumption or a creation of an environment where there can be a dialog to address the fundamental issues that people who took to the streets are asking about. there's -- there are a set of issues that need to be discussed. they have to be discussed at a table where people really need to talk about differences and how to resolve them. we're not there but we're certainly encouraging all sides to try to get there. >> can i ask you two quick questions. one, given the important role that the internet played in the revolutions in northern africa and the middle east, are you worried that governments will crack down even harder on internet access? and secondly, if i may separately, there have been reports of clashes near the iraqi/iranian border. i'm sure you're familiar with that. what have you learned about this and what can you tell us? >> on the internet question, we're spending a lot of time trying to stay ahead of the curve here and trying to keep track of what governments are doing. governments that seek control and that are nervous about dissent are increasingly looking for ways to control the internet. there's a narrative, and it's part of the history of this, that some governments, the chinese would be an example, or the iranians, put up a firewall. and that's true. one of the things we're trying to work on circumvention technologies. we had some review of some funding applications yesterday and there's some fantastictin that we're now supporting financially. but the other piece which i think has been underreported or understood is that most governments aren't going to shut down the internet. they're simply going to go after the people who use it who are dissenters. so they hack into their computers. they take their cell phones when they're arrested and they grab the list of names that are in their address book. they -- they use every technical capacity they have to invade privacy, to monitor what these dissenters are doing and in a lot of cases people who are using the internet in these societies aren't sufficiently mindful either of what their possibilities are technically to protect themselves or what the risks are. so we're doing a huge amount of training. we've trained 5,000 people from every region of the world on what are the new opportunities and risks with the internet. i think it's one of the most innovative things we're doing and other governments are coming to us and saying, how are you doing isn't juthis. we want to be involved. this is part of the internet freedom forming. i'm sorry. the second question was about -- >> reported attacks in iraq. >> oh, yes. this morning we got reports of further attacks in iran. secretary gates was in iraq today, expressed concern about the violence. at this stage i know our embassy in baghdad has been in contact with iraqi officials but i don't have more details of exactly what happened or why. but i can assure you that it's something we're very mindful of and secretary gates on the scene was very quick to raise concerns about the -- about the loss of life. yeah, please in the back. >> yeah, how do you view the human rights record in libya, and syria as the report mentioned in last year of 2010? >> well, each -- let me take each of those. libya, obviously, we have for the last 35 years reported on a pattern of human rights abuses by the gadhafi government. and those abuses continued in 2010 and were part of what i would say a large part of what led people to take to the streets and create the beginning of what's now become a very violent and very dangerous situation. we continue to be, obviously, involved both on a military side through the no-fly and so forth but also diplomatically. and i think our greatest hopes as senior officials have started to bail out, we're going to see other defections, and through some combination of the nato operation and these various diplomatic initiatives, including by the arab league, we're going to see some resolution of this. it is not going to be easy but we are, obviously, very mindful of the human rights consequences of this and the humanitarian consequences. there are very real risks to a large number of people in these areas where the fighting is going on. in syria, again, we have had decades of human rights violations, a very restrictive political environment, a very difficult security police which has cracked down on dissent for many, many years. we had reports again this morning of some violence in syria. we're tracking that. our ambassador is raising these issues with authorities. but again, people in the country have said we want something different. and that's part of what we're facing here. the third country you mentioned is yemen. and probably in the region outside of libya is no country where we have greater anxieties over the violence including violence perpetuated by government forces. that violence is not subsiding but we're tracking and monitoring what's going on in an hourly basis. yes, please. >> one of the most concerning facts in regards of human rights in mexico and how do you think the war on drugs is maybe deteriorating this situation of human rights? >> i visited mexico twice last year for of bilateral discussions with the mexican government. we met with senior military officials. one of the challenges mexico faces in fighting the drug violence has been the relative weaknesses of local police and, therefore, the army has come in to play and an effective policing role in the neighborhoods. the army is not thrilled to be in that role and one of the challenges, i think, over the median and long term, how to build up the stronger national police that have particular expertise in how to fight these very violent drug criminals and to allow the army to go back to what it was trained to do. we have raised issues there about some of the excesses by the military. one of the things they've said to us is that local courts aren't very effective in prosecuting people and so there is a real set of challenges there. our embassy there is very involved in these things. the only other thing that concern me quite a bit is that a number of the human rights activists and monitors of themselves have been targeted. and that's a distressing signal. i think it's really important. you have a very vibrant local human rights government who need to speak out even with the government. but we're watching that very closely as well. >> do you believe the military in mexico must be more open and transparent in regards with the information about it? and maybe do you believe the militaries that occur in these type of violations that there must be trial in civil courts? >> part of our dialog and i was part of some of these and a counterpart and dod has also gone. i think there have been three or four of these meetings is exactly on those issues. we are encouraging greater transparency and looking at the particular cases where violations have been alleged and, obviously, you want to break any notion of a cycle of impunity and make sure there are prosecutions or discipline where excessive force has been used. that's the debate but again, i'm not going to go into more detail, yes, please. >> i would like to go to turkey if it's possible. it seems turkey's case needs someone like you, a chronic optimist to look at the freedom of the press issues, you know, in a better lens. my question is, only freedom of press in this turkey report about four to six page about eight, nine pages. and in recent weeks they are not in this report. there are other events that happen, in a draft book or other issues. would you please comment on turkey's situation? thank you. >> again, the report, i think, presents accurately a mixed picture in turkey as it should. as you suggest, in the early months of this year there have been the arrests of several well-known turkish journalists in connection with the trial. and we are -- we've expressed concern of the turkish government and we've continued to do so and those events will be reflected in our 2011 report. >> a journalist only arrested because of antiterror laws. and turkish just yesterday in the town rejected any kind of suggestion to change this law. >> you know, the antiterror law has both some provisions that cause us concern but also some things that we're pleased about. for example, it's resulted in the release of hundreds of young people from jails. so this is a new law enacted last year, being implemented and we're going to again communicate with the government but we are both trying to encourage the aspects of it that are reform oriented and also be mindful of the things that restrict basic human rights. in the back, please. >> thank you. mr. posner, what does the u.s. expect should happen with the release of this report in the countries -- they were like highlighted for not respecting the human rights? >> well, i guess i would say three things. one is that the report itself gives our diplomats an opportunity to go into other governments and engage in a conversation. we do it all year but here we're now putting out a sort of comprehensive list of things that are the subject of diplomatic bilateral discussion, point 1. second thing, it is for us then as i said at the outset a baseline to figure out what are the things throughout the year that we need to do on a bilateral basis and a multilateral basis? we haven't talked very much about the multilateral side but we're increasingly involved at the u.n. human rights council, in various other intergovernmental bodies. these reports are the basis for these international organizations and we can use those from this effect and the third piece which may be the most important that this -- these documents gives people outside of government, whether they're journalists or human rights activists or others an opportunity to basically take information that's been digested and analyzed by the u.s. government and use it in ways that will help re-enforce a human rights agenda. the fact is that we -- you know, for all the work that goes into this report, the u.s. government is an important audience but there are many, many other audiences. and i think people around the world increasingly find these reports as a very useful departure point for their own advocacy. what's interesting also is that -- clearly, a lot of governments don't like this report. they don't like the criticism. we stand by the facts. this is a report based on facts. and when governments come back and they say you got a fact wrong, we stand ready to correct it. but it's very rare that that happens which is again a credit to steve eisenbrawn and the teams that works on it. we work very hard just to get the facts and to it get straight. and what do you do based on these facts, yes, please. >> in korea, would you say the situation has gotten worse other better over this time a -- over time and what can the u.s. do to help. >> the situation in north korea is grim, grim, grim. it is a highly, controlled society where any notion of dissent, any notion of public debate, any notion of free press or free assembly is simply not tolerated. i don't know that i would say it's better or worse. it's poorer. it's dismal. if there are some positive developments, they're minor. we're really dealing there with a government that has really tried to shut itself off from the world. and in large measure succeeded. and so it's one of the places, you know, when you read these reports, it's one of the places, you know, i look at it and i go, you know, we really have not made much progress. please, in the back. >> would you mention a little bit about the countries that started restricting the use of media inside the country? what secretary clinton mentioned earlier? how many countries or -- can you elaborate a little bit more the list of countries -- >> yeah, i don't have the list in front of me, but it ranges from governments that are using laws and regulations to restrict media or internet. and countries through these various technical means, either the firewall or through, you know, imp decision on people's privacy are really in a systematic way are trying to limit free expression, free assembly, free association. again, our view is that there ought to be an open internet, a neutral platform available to everybody in the world. and there are many, many governments that are threatened by that. please. >> no. can i say that includes north korea, china and the middle east countries? >> it includes all of those and then some. yeah. >> obama, after the release of the hostage and the elects there is, do you see any changes in the human rights situation in that country or just north korea? >> we continue to be very concerned about the situation in burma especially, i would say, the continued dedeposition of more than 2,000 political prisoners. we continue to call for their release. but also the very harsh and unreasonable restrictions on the party. so we have a long way to go there. as you know under the jade act, we are supposed to be appointing a special representative, and i think that's about to happen, although it hasn't been formally announced, but that, i think, will be a signal of a kind of renewed effort on our part to revisit some of these questions and figure out where to go from here. >> on india, your report, does mention about the human rights in 2002. it also has a passing reference them. and have you considered him partially responsible for those rights, a violation to human rights >> i don't think i have anything else to add to that. >> every year you resume to where there's a lot of cases of violations that should condemned. but every year this reporter is questioned by many countries because there is no chapter about united states violations, and i could mention as an example guantanamo. and the other point is, the legitimacy of united states should bring forward this type of document should answer this question also because most of the countries say that it's political views of the united states about this subject of human rights. i wanted to ask you, what should you say about this. and what i would like to ask but the situation of brazil in this talk. >> on the first question, as i said at the outset, the absence of a u.s. chapter on this report in no way suggests that we're not willing to be scrutinized or to scrutinize ourselves. last year i led an effort here to undertake the first ever look at the united states through this u.n., universal periodic review. we went to 16 cities. 18 sessions. we talked to probably 1,000 activists. we went to the muslim community in dearborn, michigan. we went to the border states to talk to mexican-americans. we talked about prisons. we hawked here with the national security advocates about guantanamo and about dedeposition issues at bagram and we produced a report which is as good as anyone has done. we subjected ourselves in november, i was there, to countries. so we are not in any way unwilling to hold ourselves accountable. i worked outside of government for a lot of years so i was one of those who was very critical of guantanamo and the torture policies, inside the government, i continue to be along with president obama who says we've got to close guantanamo. we've ended the policy of ep-hans interrogation techniques. we're very mindful and again as secretary clinton has said, we're determined to lead by example. if somebody else would do this report, the united nations or some other agency and do with the same commitment to the truth, we would be delighted. frankly, it would free up a lot of time in my office for us to do other things. but nobody else is doing them. and this is a valuable, valuable piece of work that provides information that otherwise wouldn't exist. it helps us do our work. it helps our government make intelligent decisions. and somebody else figures out how to do it, we're going to keeping doing it. >> last question. >> the report, i think, reflects a mixed picture, a central government, a newly elected president with a clear commitment to these issues. but at a local level a range of issues that still need to be resolved. >> pakistan is a close ally of the u.s. and we were here yesterday and we are here today. a minister has lost his life and thousands of people, what are we going to do? we have been pumping billions of dolla dollars. so next year again we'll have a report. do you have anything about walking the walk instead of just talking the talk? >> no. the issues you raise are of great concern. i was in pakistan in january. i met with the governor's family three weeks after he was assassinated. i continue to be in contact with him. i met with minister batti and again here. secretary clinton and i met him together several weeks before he was killed. the issues of intolerance in pakistan trouble us greatly and i think they trouble most pakistanis. i'm particularly concerned about the urdu press and the role it plays in that. again, we can't force that change but we are very mindful our ambassador cameron munther is very, very attuned and very sensitive to the real challenges that we and the pakistani government face in trying to tamp down the intolerance that is now so persuasive. >> another ally -- >> i think that's enough for today. assistant secretary posner is going to be have another meeting this afternoon. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> canadian voters go to the polls on may 2nd to elect a new parliament. cbc showed its program. this is a half hour. >> the smackdown in steeltown. check out the turnout. good evening, i'm peter. and this is the national. ♪ >> hamilton plays host to duel campaign stops. why the conservatives and the liberals need to win here. another powerful earthquake hits northeast japan rattling buildings and nerves. plus, on the country's most watched political panel, has anyone, politicians or media, talked about your issue on this campaign? alan, andrew and chantal on that. and analyzing campaign photo ops. >> the imagery is better than i've seen and about the same price as cameron's avatar. >> rex murphy calls them like he sees them. ♪ >> well, hamilton, ontario, was apparently the place to be this evening. steven harper and michael both held events there. both going after voters who overwhelmingly supported the ndp in the last election. hampering harper's mental, though, was the question of who would be let in to hear it. senior correspondent was there to see how it all went down. terry? >> well, peter, it's not just that ontario has the most seats. it has tempting seats. the ones that switch back and forth in elections. steven harper needs to get a majority. michael needs to stop him. and tonight they're both in hamilton gunning for the ndp. hamilton's all three seats are held by new democrats so it's not friendly turf for harper and there must be some liberals there because there were two chicken seats who could harper. >> why are you here today, sir? >> okay. thank you very much. [applause] >> inside, harper did not vary his regular pitch with lower taxes. >> and to keep our country moving forward, a strong, stable national majority conservative government. >> still harper's campaign keeps from tushence and not just from crying kids and turbulence. an ndr got in his rally and did a media as a rule during harper's speech. and for once the party did not shut out all about the party faithful. complaints about that also forced harper to finally apologize to voters who have been kicked out on suspicion of disloyalty. >> if anybody is kept out of our events that's there to hear our mental we obviously apologize to them. our interest is in having as many people out to hear our mental as we can. >> but his apology only came after his hand was forced by the rcp that month jest have been ejecting people for political not security reasons. michael is not dropping the matter. >> this is this isn't about apologies. towards the citizens of the country. it's not just a problem about, you know, student in western ontario. >> he contrast his own convention, a town hall which was open to the public. >> we're going to take questions. yeah, that's how democracy works. that's how it works. that's how it works. >> tomorrow, still in ontario, the conservatives plan to release their full platform but there will be few surprises. the budget is no secret and there are no new spending programs. but that will be their argument. that they're not spend the way the other guys do. peter? >> thank you very much, terry. well, the chickens weren't the only ones to cross the road to get to the hamilton events. another crowd showed up at both to make sure the leaders don't overlook their votes. >> are you coming to the rally today? >> it may be a lonely voice but it is getting louder. on university campuses across the country, an awakening of sorts as students plan the latest surprise rally. >> there are a lot of us and if we wanted to make a change in the voter turnout, we could. and i don't think students realize that as well. ♪ >> it all started on monday when university students showed up outside a tory event. they weren't allowed inside with their message directed to all politicians and to their fellow students. >> the message to young people is to get out there and vote. >> like the last event, today's was organized in facebook in a couple days. >> 285 say they're participating. >> a meeting place set up and it was off to the rallies. [cheering] >> the idea of a vote mob or surprise rally is new but seems to be gaining moment skwlum there are at least six more of these in the works in the next couple days. >> i don't talk about it because we're ready to listen. >> within moments of arriving at the harper event, students tried to get inside. they hadn't registered ahead of time but with cameras rolling tory organizers bent the rules. >> come on in. >> it's a way to get educated. we're getting out we're students and we want to hear what they have to say. no one got close enough to hear much or to say much but the students' point was made and later some students did get a chance to chat briefly with harper. then it was off to the liberal event where once again they got in and got even closer. >> we want to know how you would realistically to implement this and even got a chance to ask a question about tuition fees. >> we would vote if they would target us. >> in the end it was more than what they expected. >> for the second day in a row michael was throw off track by the words of a liberal candidate. michael says the comments by the former judge about victims of sexual assault were disgraceful. but he's keeping him on his team. rosemary barton is covering the liberals. >> for the second time in as many days, michael left his daily event to be briefed about the comments of one of his candidates. this time it was former judge john reilly, now a liberal candidate in the alberta write-in of wild rose. wiley says he went into politics after 33 years on the bench because he was disgusted by the conservatives mandatory minimum sentencing laws. and on a talk radio show he had not all crimes require jail time. >> you shouldn't go to judge for a sexual assault. >> well, you know, there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults. >> reilly went on to describe how some are different from others. >> these remarks are utterly, totally unacceptable. >> he said the comments personally disgusted him but he said context matters too. >> he has served a long word. he's made one remark he's going to regret for the rest of life. he made a apology and i accepted it. >> even before he was asked about it, this statement was issued on reilly's behalf by the party. i deeply regret any distress they may have caused and any misunderstanding about my own and my party's zero tolerance for sexual assault of any kind. as for iganaiff crime and justice questions, he won't say whether he would undo conservative crime legislation because he says he doesn't know all the costs. he does say, though, that there needs to be a better balance between prevention and punishment. rosemary barton, cbc news, hamilton. >> there were a couple of promises made on the trail to tell you about today. steven harper announced a plan that would change the popular tax-free savings account. >> a re-elected conservative government will double the annual contribution limit to the tax-free savings account from $5,000 to $10,000. [applause] >> now, there is a hitch. this change wouldn't come in to effect until the budget is balanced. and that's not projected to be until 2015. jack leighton met community leaders in surrey bc attack about tackling gangs and gang violence. he said he would spend $100 million a year on a series of crime prevention measures. >> i'll make gang recruiting illegal. i'll create new stand-alone offenses for home invasions and carjackings. and i'll enact a comprehensive correctional antigang strategy to ensure that prisons don't just serve as crime schools to train gang-involved offenders. >> leighton will approve more officers for $150 million a year. green party leader elizabeth may laid out her party's platform today acknowledging she will never form another government. margaret mcdermott has more. >> the green party held its platform rally in a downtown urban setting trying to move beyond its tree-hugger image and to show it has a practical focus on the environment. [applause] >> we have a platform that sets out the stepping stones. they're practical. they're sensible. there's a budget shows how we can afford them toward a better world. it includes a carbon tax to make polluters pay. some of that revenue with fund a national retrofund for homes and schools. there's a long list of renewable energy program. the party is trying to appeal to a wider range of voters so it's promising to eliminate the deficit in three years, set up a special fund for cities, and provide income splitting for all families. >> i think everyone here knows we're not going to form government tomorrow. our goal is to be that voice of conscience, that voice of reason, the voice for our future, for our children, for our grandchildren. >> but the green party may not be able to afford all it ideas according to this economist who gives it marks for trying. >> probably a c plus might be the number. not because it's not short some of good ideas. but i think just simply that it's not affordable and the actual numbers look way optimistic. >> the green party got almost a million votes in deviating -- in a debate and they hope they will send one mp to the house of commons. cbc news, ottawa. >> we've asked all the national leaders to appear on this program during the campaign, so far all have accepted except steven harper. elizabeth may is first up in an interview that discusses among other things the possible impact of vote splitting. is the green party actually helping conservatives win seats when they're dragging votes primarily, not exclusively, but primarily from the liberals --? >> as you'll recall it was steven harper who first told them in 2008 if i was included in the debates he wouldn't come. so clearly the conservatives don't think that the greens are helping them out there. >> but what do you think? >> i don't think we should be so obsessively with vote splitting. the crisis in our democracy is vote abandoning. >> now, you can see the may interview tomorrow night right here on the national. ♪ >> so week 2 is almost in the and an what a serious discussion of the issues it has been. candidates dumped, voters turfed and the first protesters showed newspaper chicken. chantal is in montreal and alan and andrew are here in toronto. you start us off, was this a typical week 2 of a campaign. >> typically, i mean, what this referred to is the phony war period and rarely anything happens in the first two weeks in terms of voter preference shifting. there have been lots of activity. there's lots of news but what we haven't seen is any big heated political debate. and we're not going to see any because we're not going to see any major policies announced in this election. we're not going to see any major policies announced because there's no appetite on the part of the population for any new great gesture of national enterprise and so you're going to see the politics of incrementalism throughout. and that's basically what the population has asked for. >> chantal, a no substance week because that's what the population asked for? >> i thought there was more wasted week than second weeks usually are. second weeks, yes, aren't as intense as the first one and then the campaign takes a beat of its own but this one fizzled and while last week we were talking about, you know, stuff that people were getting engaged in, debates stuff, coalition versus stable government, i suspect this week has turned off more voters and, yes, there's not an appetite for big policies but the people i spoke to that went to rallies -- many of them were disquieted by the fact that they were being told about the other guy and wasn't letting people in and that was the kind of rhetoric and they were wanting to hear more about policy. now, if you're going to have a platform on a sunday probably it would be a good idea to promote it sometimes in the week? >> andrew, should people be turned off because i heard the same thing people sending viewers, sending emails these are not partisans. people who really want to believe in the process and we're very disappointed -- i would say not with the politicians but with the media. >> i don't know how we know the public has no appetite until summon proposes them. we talk about this being substance free and you would think there would be all kinds of substance to talk about. but it is kind of incrementalism. they are taking baby steps. the liberals are moving to the left but really in very, very small amounts. and the tory budget was this kind of buffet of microcredits. i think there is substance there if you look deep enough is the problem. the tories have some pretty meaty tox policies that don't quick in for four years and the liberals have a serious period of cap-and-trade. and we in the media are certainly not helping because we're obsessed with the process with the campaign than the election we're obsessed with strategy, photo ops and what went wrong on the bus yesterday and we're certainly not helping. we spent four days it seems like talking about a couple of people being turned away from a tory rally. that was worth a news item. it was not worth four days of discussion. >> i think also in the media certain bias that the population is not interested in policy and, therefore, it becomes a self-fulfilling kind of cycle. if you give a big policy speech, if you're a politician and no one discusses it and it's too boring to interest the audience then it's not too look. we're in a vicious cycle with the population appetite for certain things is dictating and structuring our political classes' behavior and it's driving further cynicism among the politician. >> go ahead, chantal. >> i in part blame the social media to tell you the truth because i think there was always a danger and it's happening now that the media that covers the politicians, the politicians who are covered and the junkies all get this sense of engagement from the very instant gratification of twitter, facebook and et cetera. and it's an illusion. it's a bubble versus what is happening on the ground and so while they think there's a lot of engagement because this is happening really quickly, they are talking amongst themselves and i think people are dropping off because of it rather than becoming more engaged because of the social media. >> i think there's an interesting point that chantal is making the immediacy of social media, meimmediacy in ou debate and large in our own mind the significance of trivial moment to moment events. >> whose hand does it play into in terms of the campaign. >> you may well the tory with the 10-point lead they may not have in their record and substantive questions and they might not have difficulty answering not because they're the tory but they're a front running party. yeah, i'm not saying it's all part of a tory plot but it's not entirely displeasing -- >> but it is policy that is lost in this. i mean, we mentioned 11:00 one of the things that was surprising about this particular campaign, it is driven by social media is how rapid the news cycle is and how this increases the prospect of gaffes. chantal made the point, yes, and it means these gaffes are forgotten and that's exactly what we've seen all this week. we're picking up all kinds of stuff that never would have made it to the national media in the past. much of it is local in nature. >> let's not let the opposition either. they would have more attention if they had more substantial policy departs and it's not about having policy. it's policy that will make a difference. you got to be prepared to put out things that respect just motherhood. it's things that actually will be worthy of reporting, frankly. >> i want to switch the topic and move us to next week. one assumes the debate will at least make it a very kind of week next week than this week has been at some level. now, usually we get criticized for always going back to the, you know, the '84, '88 debates and that's the example that was used and our friend said they will trod out the same old clips this week. i got a different clip to show you the first televised candidate in canada. it was in 1968 and a lot of thing was going on and how that debate night shaped up and there were four parties and the fourth party was another party. they didn't let him in until end but he did like the last half hour of a two-hour debate and this is one of the moments in it. listen to see what their talking about. and the question coming from problem in 1968. we talked on the opening of the debate because it's so classic. >> the national debate live and in colorful from confederation hall in the west block of the parliament buildings in ottawa. >> mr. douglas says he doesn't expect to win and you cannot win because you're not fielding enough candidates. in view of the record of political instability that seems to go with the minor parties, are not all minorities is parliament one. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: it can certainly receive the support in the house of members who are there, not for the pleasure of playing politics but for the general good of the population. >> i think in fairness we have to realize that the kind of parliament we've had in the past have prevented the government from making as much progress as it would have liked to on many of these bills. all i can say is that we will, if elected of the government party, we will govern as best we can. we're asking for a mandate, a strong mandate. our ideas are there. the people will vote for them or not but whether the result will be a liability or an asset are really an irrelevant question as far as i'm concerned. >> he could really put you down on those questions. chantal, there are some similarities there. the whole discussion of minor parties and what role they play, you know, in holding up -- holding up parliament. what do we learn from something like that? >> well, that pierre won a stable government. and using the same narrative that steven harper will be bringing to the debates and if you got to three people, just the optics of these three versus one that basically sends the mental about hammering stability and a stable government but also there's a difference. they admitted that they weren't going to win. our do i unanimousics that they all want to be number two. and they are even less productive even at that point. >> allan, someone would say what have we learned and i would look at that what have we forgotten? at that point in time minority governments were a real aberration. there's an argument that minority governments are going to be the norm certainly as the bloc quebec is around. they disappeared after that and you had a long period of stable governments say for the 1972 to '74 period. but, you know, in addition you really have to ask whether these, you know -- whether they remember how productive those parliaments were. and, in fact, how much cooperation was, based on an ad hoc basis but also kind of on a permanent alliance basis and that's the kind of system i think we're going to have to start adopting in canada if we're going to have some stability and we're not going to have parliaments always run through a lens of potential elections. >> and feel if, there's nothing wrong with minor parties. if people choose to vote for their parties that's their parties and they shouldn't have let down the side. second the problem is not that we have too many parties. we have a system that's not designed for it. we have an electoral system that's designed for two-party politics and it works tollbly well when you have two parties when you start getting three, four, five the green party not being represented in parliament yet, it breaks down. and it produces not the stable majority governments that people always boast of first the poll system it's producing endless minorities of a particular kind paw first past the post also rewards regional parties. if you can punch your votes gregraphically you get wide results than the party like the greens which spread evenly across the country. >> it's interesting it got to be only in part of the debate. >> i couldn't possibly comment on that. >> i wouldn't think you would. okay. we've only acting couple minutes left. when we look towards next week and the debate, tell me what at least one of these leaders has to do in light of the kind of campaign we're doing, in light of the stakes that seem to be out there in terms of the various polls that we've seep, what you will be looking for, chantal, first? >> well, it's his last best chance to showcase himself as the alternative prime minister. and he's going to have a lot of competition and a lot of fighting to do to get that then. >> allan? >> yeah, truth be told, michael iganaiff needs a knockout on this to really, really change things. at the very, very least -- >> what is a knockout? >> it's hard -- it's often when you see it you don't even know it's happening. we've seep that many, many times where, you know, people have said, oh, this thing was kind of a draw and then two days later, they're going wow because the media starts playing clips over and over again that selectively starts reinforcing a particular narrative. >> and most voters only see the clips. >> but i think the other thing that iganaiff has together surprise the electorate. he has to put on a performance that basically puts a lie to the caricature that the negative advertising has painted him. >> i wonder if he is, in fact, going for the knockout. everything about his campaign so far to me suggests they're actually just trying to hold the tories to a minority. it's a very inert not particularly adventurous cane. i think if we see them in the debates trying to appeal to center right voters then he's still trying to win this thing but if he pitches this to ndp voters and take the tories down in the election. >> chantal, what about harper? will he have to glide through that. >> anything beyond that makes him especially him too aggressive. plus, he is debating three versus one and that suits their message so perfectly. that there's nothing he needs to do beyond turn himself into a punching bag, i think. >> yeah, he arguably has the easiest job because what really he has to do he has to be prime ministerial and he has been in the job and people -- even if they don't like them they accept he's got the qualities and the competence that job. if he can make the guys that are irresponsible or not ready for prime time but that would be a bonus. >> okay. we're out of time but you will be here on tuesday night. and so will the insiders panel so we'll get a good review of what happened on the debate on tuesday night. and it will also be live and in color, just like that one in '68. the man himself, give us is hint of what you have for us tonight. >> well, peter i could call it pictures at a exhibition. it's actually scenes from our current election. that's coming up on the national. >> so this is the election week. couldn't wait to have. the election that could not be put off for another minute. i suppose the question we all have to ask is, do you think it's worth 300 million? well, from where i sit it surely is. the imagery alone is better than anything i've seen and about the same price as, well, cameron's avatar. here, for example, is michael iganaiff lugging around a 6 pack of beer in a newfoundland convenience store and what a giddy politico he is especially around a plate load of hot dogs. who would have thought that the count would have such an earthy taste, beer, hot dogs, heavy on the ketchup. if we catch him loading up on boston creams we should at least make him an honorary serf. i'm going with these two harper pictures as the most informative of the campaign so far. the first one, who knew that steven harper had a little piece of an extremely embarrassed dale earnhardt trapped inside homework -- in him, they are going to say with one voice going to say that's a guy we've got to keep indoors. in an office, full-time, away from anything with wheels or a carburetor. and this, i'm really not sure what to make of this picture. is he signaling with that collapsed smile that has been kidnapped? possibly by the greens? or is he suiting up to do a little bit of security work at one of his own rallies? may i see your facebook id, young lady. and please, stop twittering. what a see his anguished look. and maybe he just found out horror the vino came from ontario. a slap in the face to quebec. a bold pert presumptuous slap in the face for vineyard. and a slap in the face for quebec nonetheless. there's a group of jack layton his quiet manner. he appears to be questioning this paying of oranges or having a zen moment with the fruit though i'm sure he's really just trying to figure out why his handlers have brought him to a fruit stall and what possible political point he's supposed to make of it? well, mr. layton consider you're not in a bowling ball helmet on board a