NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess they're worried to death about the sponsorship scandal causing the government to fall.
This will be interesting because its rare for this to happen I cant recall any time when it has.


==============================
Martin to address 'nation's business' tonight
CTV.ca News Staff

Hours before he was set to speak to Canadians in a direct address, Prime Minister Paul Martin defended his intention to deliver the rare message.

"I think it's a question of accountability, of responsibility. I think it's a question of telling Canadians what we have done," he said when asked about his message to Canadians that is scheduled for tonight.

"For instance, my very first act as prime minister was to cancel the sponsorship program, and I also think it's important to talk about the Parliament and the nation's business," he said.

With all signs pointing to the Liberal minority government's defeat sometime in May, Martin is set to discuss the sponsorship program and the paralysis in Parliament.

PMO aides say Martin is not planning to resign, nor is he planning to call an election himself.

Martin's scheduling request follows an extraordinary move by the House Public Accounts Committee.

The committee, dominated by opposition MPs, put forward a non-confidence motion Wednesday that could bring down the government as early as May 3.

Martin has not demanded airtime, and it's up to the networks to decide whether to carry it. (It will run at 7:02 pm ET on CTV's main network and CTV Newsnet, followed by a response from Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.)

The speech was originally scheduled for 7:45 p.m. ET, but was moved up at the request of television networks, said the Prime Minister's Office.

Such a politicized broadcast is common in the United States but rare in Canada. The unusual nature of the primetime spot has opened Martin up to further criticism.

"This isn't a national crisis," said Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay. "This is a Paul Martin, Liberal Party crisis he is dealing with."

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe called it "absolute panic.''

In the past 30 years, prime ministers have taken to the airwaves during times of national crisis: Pierre Trudeau to introduce wage and price controls; Brian Mulroney during the Meech Lake negotiations; and Jean Chretien on the eve of the 1995 Quebec referendum.

The Globe and Mail's Jane Taber said what Liberals want to do with tonight's address is "get control of their agenda" again. "Conservatives have the upper hand when it comes to election timing," she said Thursday on CTV's Canada AM.

She said there is speculation that Martin wil lay down "some markers of what he's going to do for Canadians" in anticipation of an election call.

CTV's Mike Duffy says the need for such an address arose from Wednesday's caucus meeting, where Liberal MPs expressed frustration at not being able to get their side of the sponsorship story out to Canadians through the news media.

Duffy said Martin would use the televised address to suggest that the opposition is pre-judging the information arising from the sponsorship inquiry hearings in Montreal, and he will ask Canadians to await the results of a full report from Justice John Gomery in the fall.

With public opinion polls showing Conservative support on the rise in many parts of Canada, and Bloc Quebecois support even higher in Quebec, the opposition appears unwilling to wait that long.

Although Martin was the one to call the inquiry, and the revelations mostly involve officials from the government of his predecessor, Jean Chretien, Martin seems to be the one suffering from the fallout.

Liberal MP John McKay defended Martin in Wednesday's question period onslaught, and said Martin's politically "courageous" decision to hold the sponsorship inquiry may cost him his job.

If the Martin TV address doesn't do the trick, Liberal strategists have a "Plan B" in the works.

Senior Liberal party strategists, including Trudeau-era cabinet minister Ed Lumley, met last weekend to discuss getting former prime minister Jean Chretien to speak publicly again on the sponsorship scandal. It was suggested Chretien admit no wrongdoing but accept responsibility for what happened under his watch.

Chretien is reported to have heard the proposal and hasn't ruled it out.

Yes, Martin is now on par with Mulroney- a speech to the nation solely to advance his political longevity. At least Chretien, when he went on air, talked about national unity- an important subject.
It won't matter, though. Harper will win a minority government next election.

OF course Harper will win, if the Liberals had managed to save the government till November, Paul Martin would be exonerated from these charges and they could safely go to the polls. He wasn't friends with the Cretein(sp is wrong) Liberals and he was the one who called the inquiry. Why in god's name would he call the inquiry if he knew he'd be implicated and proven guilty? I honestly think he will discuss national unity though as this next election allow Quebec to become 100% Bloc Quebecois. A disaster if there ever was one.

Agreed, the Bloc will profit immensely if an election were called :(

OF course Harper will win, if the Liberals had managed to save the government till November, Paul Martin would be exonerated from these charges and they could safely go to the polls. He wasn't friends with the Cretein(sp is wrong) Liberals and he was the one who called the inquiry. Why in god's name would he call the inquiry if he knew he'd be implicated and proven guilty? I honestly think he will discuss national unity though as this next election allow Quebec to become 100% Bloc Quebecois. A disaster if there ever was one.

Actually, Quebec will still have a few non-Bloc MP's. Perhaps Ms. Josee Vernier?
Martin isn't worried about national unity- he's worried about the Liberal Party. If he was worried about national unity he wouldn't practice "assymetrical federalism", or have Jean Lapierre as his Quebec lieutenant. Besides, even if Martin were to be exhonerated, which I grant is likely, key Liberals would not be. And as finance minister, he should have been aware of what was going on.

Agreed, the Bloc will profit immensely if an election were called :(

Well, there is one upside- more Gilles Duceppe! Seriously, he's the only national leader who doesn't irritate me incessantly. Too bad he's a seperatist.

Hey, I can vote Liberal (okay, I never did...), I refuse to vote Harper and the NDP seems to be lacking somehow. Of course I'm going to vote BQ, not because I endorse their separatist ways, but come on, who else is there? This election is important, I don't want to waste my vote on the Flying Yogis, and may finally bring a breath of fresh air to Parliament. God knows it needs it.

Hey, I can vote Liberal (okay, I never did...), I refuse to vote Harper and the NDP seems to be lacking somehow. Of course I'm going to vote BQ, not because I endorse their separatist ways, but come on, who else is there? This election is important, I don't want to waste my vote on the Flying Yogis, and may finally bring a breath of fresh air to Parliament. God knows it needs it.

I don't like Harper. But, I figure if the Liberals get thrown out, they'll gget John Manley as leader, and straighten out their act, hopefully having lost some of their condescending complacency along the way.

So, they've all had a say...

What do you think about all the pretty speeches?

Martin Should have also spoken directly to quebecers

Harper was a bit anal

Gilles said nothing that i wouldnt expect

Jack said nothing that i wouldnt expect

Hey, I can vote Liberal (okay, I never did...), I refuse to vote Harper and the NDP seems to be lacking somehow. Of course I'm going to vote BQ, not because I endorse their separatist ways, but come on, who else is there? This election is important, I don't want to waste my vote on the Flying Yogis, and may finally bring a breath of fresh air to Parliament. God knows it needs it.

How will voting BQ bring a breath of fresh air to parliament? A predominance of Bloc politicians just means same old, same old, as whoever is in power scrambles to appease Quebec, while the separatists hold the country hostage to their whims.

Isn't that what got us into trouble in the first place?

Besides, a Conservative government with the Bloc in opposition gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies.

I've never voted Liberal and certainly won't start now. I have no problem giving seats to the NDP or Greens.

Martin Should have also spoken directly to quebecers

Harper was a bit anal

Gilles said nothing that i wouldnt expect

Jack said nothing that i wouldnt expect

Martin did speak to Quebecers, in French. It was a separate tape that aired on French stations. The speech was the same, though.

How will voting BQ bring a breath of fresh air to parliament? A predominance of Bloc politicians just means same old, same old, as whoever is in power scrambles to appease Quebec, while the separatists hold the country hostage to their whims.

Isn't that what got us into trouble in the first place?

Besides, a Conservative government with the Bloc in opposition gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies.

Harper scares me. What other choice to I have?

I think Canada is in the same situation as the UK.. no good choices, same as America in the last election, no good choices. So, you pick the lessor of the evils. The Liberals may have messed up but they are also cleaning it up. I would think most Canadians after seeing what Bush has done for America would be scared to death of Harper. Looks like Canada should go with the Liberals again, even with all their short-comings. Better to go with the evil you know, than the one you don't.

Harper scares me. What other choice to I have?

You know, there are other options than Conservatives, Liberals, and BQ.

You know, there are other options than Conservatives, Liberals, and BQ.

Canada in many ways is the same as the US. It's a two party system. Canada either elects the Liberals or the Conservatives. I don't see that changing, do you? So you've really only got two choices. Because no other party could form the government.

You know, there are other options than Conservatives, Liberals, and BQ.


Yeah, the problem is they never get any votes where I live, so basically, my vote is always wasted. I'd rather pick a lesser evil.

I don't like Harper. But, I figure if the Liberals get thrown out, they'll gget John Manley as leader, and straighten out their act, hopefully having lost some of their condescending complacency along the way.

NO NO NO Pierre Pettigrew will be the next leader seeing as the next leader HAS to be French.

I think its funny how foolish harper makes himself look saying he will call an election before the Gomery verdict in November. Thats like saying "I want to exploit Canadians blind rage to further my party"

Martin promised an election 30 days after, and if the Liberals are to fall so be it. BUT WAIT TILL NOVEMBER

Martin did speak to Quebecers, in French. It was a separate tape that aired on French stations. The speech was the same, though.
Well then, I stand mostly corrected.

It all starts with one, vote NDP.

Ok, listening to those speeches Duceppe by far had the best speech, seconded by Martin. I don't want an election and I bet most people here don't want one either. If there was election and the NDP pick up two more seats, which will give them the balance power, I'd be happy. Again, there shouldn't be an election over this mess, the inquiry should be finished first.

As long as the PM can speak both official languages, I don't care where he comes from.

And I agree, we should wait until after the Gomery Inquiry has presented its final report.

Well then, I stand mostly corrected.

He couldn't really address Quebecers directly and change his speech to win their confidence. That's what started this whole mess in the first place...

What im saying is since his message was the same in both english and french, I do think he should have made a portion of his speech directly to the Quebecers alone, since the whole scandal originated and is getting most attention in that province.

What im saying is since his message was the same in both english and french, I do think he should have made a portion of his speech directly to the Quebecers alone, since the whole scandal originated and is getting most attention in that province.

I can tell you, living in a Quebec liberal stronghold, most people I know are not interested in anything he has to say.

I guess they're worried to death about the sponsorship scandal causing the government to fall.
This will be interesting because its rare for this to happen I cant recall any time when it has.



1926 it would have but King asked Byng to dissolve Parilament, Byng didn't, King was ticked, Meighen held office for 3 days, Parliament fell.

1872/73 MacDonald was involved in a sponsorship scandal involving the CPR. Without an election Alexander Mackenzie was given charge over the CDN population...


PS: I do not remember these for the record lol Just studied them in history class :)

Canada in many ways is the same as the US. It's a two party system. Canada either elects the Liberals or the Conservatives. I don't see that changing, do you? So you've really only got two choices. Because no other party could form the government.

It's that kind of thinking that forces us into a mock two party system.

And just because other parties haven't formed the government doesn't mean that they haven't had a profound effect on the government.

I've never voted Liberal or Conservative, and I don't intend to start now. Are you implying that the MPs I and others have voted into parliament are somehow a waste of space?

It's that kind of thinking that forces us into a mock two party system.

And just because other parties haven't formed the government doesn't mean that they haven't had a profound effect on the government.

I've never voted Liberal or Conservative, and I don't intend to start now. Are you implying that the MPs I and others have voted into parliament are somehow a waste of space?

No, certainly not. No vote in my opinion is wasted except for the vote that isn't cast. However, you have to be realistic about it also. Do you really want Harper as a leader? Because that's who it's between, Harper and Martin. I would love to see the NDP pick up votes from the Bloc & the Conservatives. But you don't want Harper. Say good-bye to Canadian values as you know them if he wins. He will be kissing Bush's ass faster than he can say "God Bless Canada" (if you catch my drift)

Pierre Elliott Trudeau is probably rolling in his grave. I'm happy he didn't live to see this.

Actually, I don't have a problem with Liberal voters who stick with their party because (despite the scandal) it still best represents what they believe in. Hell, I can even accept Conservative voters who vote Conservative for that same reason.

My problem is Liberal voters who leap to support the Conservatives because they want to punish the Liberals for the sponsership scandal. They're turning their backs on everything they've voted for in the past, and the Greens or the NDP are much closer to those ideals than the Conservatives are.

But no, the majority of Canadians can't get out of this mock two party rut, and I swear it drives me insane.

In Canada we live in a dictatorship. Either way we have someone in power who does not represent what Canadians want. Until we can rank our votes so that whoever wins gets 50% of the vote (such as they do in Australia) we will always live in a non-democratic country here in Canada :(

Well, I won't argue that our first-past-the-post system can't be improved. In fact, I live in BC, so I will be voting to change to the Single Transferable Vote system on May 17.

But I draw the line at calling Canada a dictatorship. I know that extreme exaggeration is a popular way of making a point, but we don't even compare to a dictatorship.

If you want a good example of a dictator, go read up on Pinochet or someone like that.

Well, I won't argue that our first-past-the-post system can't be improved. In fact, I live in BC, so I will be voting to change to the Single Transferable Vote system on May 17.

But I draw the line at calling Canada a dictatorship. I know that extreme exaggeration is a popular way of making a point, but we don't even compare to a dictatorship.

If you want a good example of a dictator, go read up on Pinochet or someone like that.

I am familiar with Pinochet and Stalin for that matter, I teach history, and true, dictatorship is an exaggeration at times it may seem compared to Pinochet. I therefore ask what would you call Canada since it is not what Locke would view a democracy

Anyone else think that bringing down the government would be the biggest gamble of Harpers Carrer. I the conservative party forces and election and then loses to the liberals by even on seat, Harper could go the way of Stockwell Day, and the red torries will crusify him.

Anyone else think that bringing down the government would be the biggest gamble of Harpers Carrer. I the conservative party forces and election and then loses to the liberals by even on seat, Harper could go the way of Stockwell Day, and the red torries will crusify him.

Harper's speech was poor. He should have noted that he would do what CDNs would deem best for the country, then he would have won, however he showed himself power hungry.

Martin's speech was good considering the circumstances.

Duceppe as usual was probably the best of them all, thankfully he spoke English too since the interpretor on CTV forgot how to interpret.

Layton sounded like his usual 'used car salesman' self and I turned him off once he started talking about Kyoto etc. I agree with Kyoto, just am angry at him since this was his best opportunity to change the election system from a first past the post to 50% +1 and he did not do anything to address that which in my view, in light of where his party is gonna be after the next election, is pure incompetence on his part (not that I care for his party but I am sick of the Liberals and Conservatives and want another option).

Canada is a democracy. It just uses first-past-the-post. It's not like we're the only ones. As far as I can tell, Locke would not have liked any of the current systems, including STV. He probably would prefer no representatives, just direct votes via telephone and internet on specific issues.

...I would love to see the NDP pick up votes from the Bloc & the Conservatives.
.....Pierre Elliott Trudeau is probably rolling in his grave. I'm happy he didn't live to see this.

You may get your wish. Remember all the fear-mongerring urging NDPer's to vote Liberal to stave off a Conservative minority last election? I myself got two calls last time around from my Liberal MP asking what my voting intentions were, then urging me to 'vote strategically'

According to the Glib and Stale, 6 seats in Parliament went to Tories after a close 3 way race where the NDP came in SECOND in those ridings by a narrow margin...

Do you think those people are going to vote 'strategically' this time?

Jack will be the Kingmaker next time around.

Oh, and for the record (first post on this thread), the inquiry should run it's course before anyone is hanged. Innocent 'till proven guilty right? Right.
As much as it pains me to agree with any member of the Corporate Party, Paul Martin, the Prime Millionaire is right to urge patience.

Canada is a democracy. It just uses first-past-the-post. It's not like we're the only ones. As far as I can tell, Locke would not have liked any of the current systems, including STV. He probably would prefer no representatives, just direct votes via telephone and internet on specific issues.

We should use the 50% +1 like they use in Australia. Just cause we are not the only ones does not make it correct. Apologies if I sound bitter but I am fed up of a system that is not truly representative of the people. The last 15 years of voting for me has been where I vote not for the party I wanted but for the party I thought was the least likely to bother me the most. As one comic once said, my choices were what would I rather have for the next four years: migranes, ulcers, ...

-I can vote for the Liberals and though medicare might continue, I have to worry about Homolka etc walking the streets

-I can vote for the Tories and they might take care of the crime problem and corruption however medicare is gone (I like Harper but Harris and Manning have friends in the party who will push for that) and we will fund a missile shield that is the Maginot Line all over again (1932 France builds a wall to stop invading Germans too bad WW2 new technology war strategies were introduced - bombing, likewise the first nuclear device to hit North America shores will not be a missile but a dirty bomb so we should be worrying about spending money on border security not a missile shield that does not work).*

-I can vote for the NDP but seeing how the Ontario NDP doubled the debt in 5 years, and Clark in BC had a mess of his own I do not trust them unless Broadbent or Romano are running the party and even then I doubt I would trust them

-The BQ actually might run the country well except they want Quebec to separate so oh well

Nice democracy :(

Hey, I can vote Liberal (okay, I never did...), I refuse to vote Harper and the NDP seems to be lacking somehow. Of course I'm going to vote BQ, not because I endorse their separatist ways, but come on, who else is there? This election is important, I don't want to waste my vote on the Flying Yogis, and may finally bring a breath of fresh air to Parliament. God knows it needs it.
if you don't support any of them, then don't vote for any of them

We should use the 50% +1 like they use in Australia. Just cause we are not the only ones does not make it correct. Apologies if I sound bitter but I am fed up of a system that is not truly representative of the people. The last 15 years of voting for me has been where I vote not for the party I wanted but for the party I thought was the least likely to bother me the most. As one comic once said, my choices were what would I rather have for the next four years: migranes, ulcers, ...

-I can vote for the Liberals and though medicare might continue, I have to worry about Homolka etc walking the streets

-I can vote for the Tories and they might take care of the crime problem and corruption however medicare is gone (I like Harper but Harris and Manning have friends in the party who will push for that) and we will fund a missile shield that is the Maginot Line all over again (1932 France builds a wall to stop invading Germans too bad WW2 new technology war strategies were introduced - bombing, likewise the first nuclear device to hit North America shores will not be a missile but a dirty bomb so we should be worrying about spending money on border security not a missile shield that does not work).*

-I can vote for the NDP but seeing how the Ontario NDP doubled the debt in 5 years, and Clark in BC had a mess of his own I do not trust them unless Broadbent or Romano are running the party and even then I doubt I would trust them

-The BQ actually might run the country well except they want Quebec to separate so oh well

Nice democracy :(

Let me get this straight. You're willing to demonize the federal NDP even though they've never run the government and had a more balanced budget in their policy platform than the Conservatives did in the last election. You point out NDP provincial budget overruns without considering any of their successes - like the current NDP gov't in Saskatchewan. You like Broadbent, but fail to mention that Broadbent is one of the NDP's current and influential MPs.

Well geez, you might as well talk about the Liberals having bad budget deficits by pointing out that things aren't going so well in Ontario right now. Or how Trudeau devalued the dollar. Or how they must all be working with organized crime because some of Campbell's Libs in BC got busted for dealing methamphetamines.

I grant you that Canadians have a tendency to vote for the 'least bad' candidate -- but that's not going to change by 50% +1 or STV. In the meantime, why don't we put some force behind some parties that haven't crashed and burned at least once while governing Canada?

I hope the liberals die in this election

Let me get this straight. You're willing to demonize the federal NDP even though they've never run the government and had a more balanced budget in their policy platform than the Conservatives did in the last election. You point out NDP provincial budget overruns without considering any of their successes - like the current NDP gov't in Saskatchewan. You like Broadbent, but fail to mention that Broadbent is one of the NDP's current and influential MPs.

Well geez, you might as well talk about the Liberals having bad budget deficits by pointing out that things aren't going so well in Ontario right now. Or how Trudeau devalued the dollar. Or how they must all be working with organized crime because some of Campbell's Libs in BC got busted for dealing methamphetamines.

I grant you that Canadians have a tendency to vote for the 'least bad' candidate -- but that's not going to change by 50% +1 or STV. In the meantime, why don't we put some force behind some parties that haven't crashed and burned at least once while governing Canada?
The NDP are a bunch of commies with wonderful hippie ideas with no plausible means to implement them.

Duceppe as usual was probably the best of them all, thankfully he spoke English too since the interpretor on CTV forgot how to interpret.

).

That guy was a riot! I had to change channels to understand what he was trying to translate!

The NDP are a bunch of commies with wonderful hippie ideas with no plausible means to implement them.

I see you didn't actually read their party platform. Glad to know you get your opinions from the National Post and the Sun line of newspapers.

Harper's speech was poor. He should have noted that he would do what CDNs would deem best for the country, then he would have won, however he showed himself power hungry.
That's what I like about Harper!! He only has to open his mouth and he reveals himself for what he is,:D Remember the last English Debate when he said his advisors told him not to speak about health care? They do it every time. I love it when he discusses Tory policy.
Martin's speech was good considering the circumstances.
I missed it. Did he look like a drunk suddenly woken, as is his wont?
Duceppe as usual was probably the best of them all, thankfully he spoke English too since the interpretor on CTV forgot how to interpret.
It's a sad fact that the best political speaker in federal politics is the one who wants leave.
Layton sounded like his usual 'used car salesman' self and I turned him off once he started talking about Kyoto etc. I agree with Kyoto, just am angry at him since this was his best opportunity to change the election system from a first past the post to 50% +1 and he did not do anything to address that which in my view, in light of where his party is gonna be after the next election, is pure incompetence on his part (not that I care for his party but I am sick of the Liberals and Conservatives and want another option).
Ah, man. I admit his speaking style is a bit offputting. Thing is he really IS that enthusiastic. Check out the NDP platform, you'll be pleased to see that electoral reform is one of their main planks. If you get the chance, watch Question Period on CBC. If you are sick of all the Gomery bullshit drowning out all the other issues facing the country you'll be pleased to note that Jack isn't marching in lockstep with the Bloc and Tories. The Liberals released their foreign policy review on Tuesday morning. In QP the B-T's were on about Gomery and Jack was actually critiquing the Foreign Policy. Imagine that.

Odd question: Why is he the only Canadian politician I can refer to by first name and everyone knows who I'm talking about?

Ah, man. I admit his speaking style is a bit offputting. Thing is he really IS that enthusiastic.

It's sad when enthusiasm makes us uncomfortable. I think that slimy used car salesmen have a lot to answer for. :D

I see you didn't actually read their party platform. Glad to know you get your opinions from the National Post and the Sun line of newspapers.
acctually I read the party platform, it was a joke

It's sad when enthusiasm makes us uncomfortable. I think that slimy used car salesmen have a lot to answer for. :D
Well said. ROFL.

I've been a fan of Jack since he was on Toronto City Council. He did a big job coordinating work with councillors of all political stripes. Introduced and implemented a great deal of progressive policies and proved very adaptable and creative. His retrofitting scheme for buildings was brilliant in it's simplicity and practicality.

If you ask me, the Bloc is having the wrong strategy.

Duceppe should be sqeezing as much as possible out of the Liberals right now and should ask for concession for the province of Quebec. The Bloc can keep the Liberals in power as long as they like, they've got enough MPs.

Duceppe should be calling Martin and telling him to add a few buck in the Quebec pie and he'll let him live for a few weeks. Instead, he allies himself with his antithesis on almost every issues (the Conservatives) to bring down the government. I mean why? What can he possibly expect from another election? The best he can hope is a similar result: a minority government with enough MP to make or break the government. He has that right now. Why not use it?

That is why I will not vote for the Bloc. Why send to Ottawa a representative that is not working in the best interest of your region?

acctually I read the party platform, it was a joke

What part didn't you like?

They advocated:

* Portion of gas tax to municipalities (oh look, now the Liberals are trying to do that!)
* Restarting the National Housing Program to build affordable and co-op housing units -- with tax incentives to developers to get them on-side.
* Reinvesting in national and municipal infrastructure, especially clean water and sewage treatment plants (something the municipalities have been calling for quite a while, since cutbacks were made in the early 90's)
* Building retrofit program (similar to the very popular and successful program in BC) where tax and rebate incentives help individuals and businesses renovate buildings to save energy and money in the long run.
* Increasing funding for scientific research
* National training and life learning strategies to help get the unemployed back into the job market
* Increase child tax benefit
* Raising the non-taxable personal income limit to $15,000, so the poorest don't have to pay income taxes
* Implementing strategies from the Romanow report
* National Health Care Agency/Disease Control Center
* tax rebates on cars with higher fuel economies
* ban imports of toxic waste
* Encourage renewable energy research
* Meeting international development obligations
* changes to the electoral process
* Providing better equipment to the Canadian Armed Forces (helicopters, for instance)
* Raises for Armed forces personnel

The list is of course longer, since the platform is 63 pages long. But there is a lot to like in it. Mind you, it depends on there being an 8 billion dollar surplus, but as I recall, we had a 9.1 billion dollar surplus last year. Besides, the Conservatives needed a 12 billion dollar surplus to meet their goals.

Edit: I should add the following:

The Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives crunched the numbers for the Libs Cons, and NDP platforms before the last election. They concluded the following:

The Conservatives:
When the impacts of the Conservative platform are added to our status-quo base case, the Conservative party platform costs a cumulative total of $89.4 billion. Since our status-quo budget projects only a cumulative surplus of $78 billion, the Conservative party would run a cumulative deficit of $11.4 billion over five years. The Conservatives cannot pay for what they say.

The Liberals:
When the impacts of the Liberal platform are added to our status-quo base case, we generate the following projection for federal finances: Between 2004/05 and 2008/09, the Liberal party platform would produce surpluses of $24.2 billion. This is consistent with the Liberal party’s practice while in
government of generating sizable surpluses to provide
a windfall for debt reduction.

The NDP:
The cumulative cost of NDP spending measures is $79.4 billion, while they propose to increase revenues by a cumulative total of $16 billion. Thus the net cumulative cost of the NDP platform is $63.4 billion. By our calculations, the NDP would run a cumulative surplus of $14.6 billion, which is considerably in excess of the $5.3 billion in cumulative surpluses that they claim in their platform. This affords the NDP the opportunity to use this additional buffer to 1) enrich program spending, 2) increase tax cuts or reduce tax increases, or 3) pay off federal debt.

lol

Can you tell that I have last year's party platforms from the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, and Green party saved on my computer?

God, I really am a political nutcase sometimes.

My dream government?

An NDP government with a Conservative opposition and the Liberals as the balance of power. Or the Bloc, but I would prefer the Liberals. Just to give them a taste for consensus.

lol

Can you tell that I have last year's party platforms from the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, and Green party saved on my computer?

God, I really am a political nutcase sometimes.

My dream government?

An NDP government with a Conservative opposition and the Liberals as the balance of power. Or the Bloc, but I would prefer the Liberals. Just to give them a taste for consensus.

You have a creepy level of preparedness for debates like this. I mean creepy in that it's only ever demonstrated by Libertarians on this board. You really have to admire thier work ethic -- until you realise it's motivated by fear.

Anyways, assuming a minority gov't my dream is:
a) NDP w/ Bloc as Kingmakers (it's a dream, right?)
b) Lib's w/ NDP as kingmakers

The reason I don't want the Libs as kingmakers for an NDP minority gov't is that they are a bunch of sleazy unprincipaled twisters who are extremely adept at political manipulation. They'd set the NDP up for a complete knock down, i.e. Support bills that would cause a deficit, defeat bills that would prevent a deficit.

The reason I don't want the Libs as kingmakers for an NDP minority gov't is that they are a bunch of sleazy unprincipaled twisters who are extremely adept at political manipulation. They'd set the NDP up for a complete knock down, i.e. Support bills that would cause a deficit, defeat bills that would prevent a deficit.

You know, you're probably right. They have considerably more experience than the NDP that way - and I can see Jack falling prey to naivite in his excitement.

You have a creepy level of preparedness for debates like this. I mean creepy in that it's only ever demonstrated by Libertarians on this board. You really have to admire thier work ethic -- until you realise it's motivated by fear.

I hope you don't think my preparedness is creepy or motivated by fear! :O I saved all that info on my computer because I did take a long hard look at the party platforms, and how experts crunched the numbers. I thought it was the right thing to do. I don't support a party unless I know what it's policies are, and I generally agree with them. Even if it's a losing proposition.