A Conservative Canada? OMG!

[Harry Leg]

Minority parliamentary governments ARE unstable, are they not? And I doubt that you are a world economic superpower, although your natural resources give you the means to become one.

We are not a world econmic superpower and thanks to NAFTA among many other reasons, we will never be one.
What I meant was, that I would expect some instability in the USA as the balance of economic power shifts to China and they supplant you as the largest economic force in the world.
A minority government in Canada is nothing new and not inherently unstable.

 

[amicus]

We are not a world econmic superpower and thanks to NAFTA among many other reasons, we will never be one.
What I meant was, that I would expect some instability in the USA as the balance of economic power shifts to China and they supplant you as the largest economic force in the world.
A minority government in Canada is nothing new and not inherently unstable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Harry Leg....hello...Canada has almost untapped natural resources and vast unused timber and mining assets. You could be, but never will be an economic power because of your form of government, because of your confiscatory tax rates and anti industrial social philosophy as a nation.

Canada is slowly dying on the vine, minimal poplulation increase except for asian immigrants, high suicide and drug rate as the people are crushed by social ineptitude and business repression. Even the peaceniks and consciencious objectors, the dregs of society are looking else where.

I think with the proper finesse, a decent offer could convince you to sell the entire nation to America. We could show you how to grow it into and economic world power and influence around the world.

Any takers?


amicus...

 

[Harry Leg]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Harry Leg....hello...Canada has almost untapped natural resources and vast unused timber and mining assets. You could be, but never will be an economic power because of your form of government, because of your confiscatory tax rates and anti industrial social philosophy as a nation.

Canada is slowly dying on the vine, minimal poplulation increase except for asian immigrants, high suicide and drug rate as the people are crushed by social ineptitude and business repression. Even the peaceniks and consciencious objectors, the dregs of society are looking else where.

I think with the proper finesse, a decent offer could convince you to sell the entire nation to America. We could show you how to grow it into and economic world power and influence around the world.

Any takers?


amicus...

Wow. Thats one of the most misinformed perspectives on Canada I've ever seen. There are so many flaws and inaccuracies in what you've said I wouldnt even know where to begin to refute it.
Oh, I almost took your bait there didnt I? Still, your unabashed arrogance never ceases to amuse me.
Think I'll go back to the dying vine here and let you cling to your delusions about Canada.
Happy hunting Amicus

 

[amicus]

Wow. Thats one of the most misinformed perspectives on Canada I've ever seen. There are so many flaws and inaccuracies in what you've said I wouldnt even know where to begin to refute it.
Oh, I almost took your bait there didnt I? Still, your unabashed arrogance never ceases to amuse me.
Think I'll go back to the dying vine here and let you cling to your delusions about Canada.
Happy hunting Amicus

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, a fella can't catch a fish unless he has a line and a hook in the water.

But it is amazing, if you think about it, that bordering the weathiest nation in the world are two, basically, third world nations whose economic systems stifle industrial and business growth.

It, of course, is not as simple as all that...but my firm opinion is that both mexico and canada have ample natural resources and access to technical skills to develope them and exploit them.

Why do you not?


amicus...

 

[Harry Leg]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, a fella can't catch a fish unless he has a line and a hook in the water.

But it is amazing, if you think about it, that bordering the weathiest nation in the world are two, basically, third world nations whose economic systems stifle industrial and business growth.


It, of course, is not as simple as all that...but my firm opinion is that both mexico and canada have ample natural resources and access to technical skills to develope them and exploit them.

Why do you not?


amicus...

I can't speak for Mexico, but in Canada we do cultivate our natural resources as well as we can given our relatively small population. There is no such thing as old growth forest anymore in Ontario. Absolutely none. Every tree you see here has been replanted. There has been widespread clear cutting. Not enough to damage the ecology noticably simply because of lack of manpower and the relatively small size of the industry. Moreso in Ontario than in British Columbia.

But it's not the mere existance or exporting of natural resources that make a country wealthy. Its the ability to utilize thoses resources and create a large manufacturing and industrial industry. We simply aren't large enough to do that. So we export natural resources and buy back the finished products. And we are now completely limited because of NAFTA. And dont get me started on softwood lumber tariffs. We can no longer control the economics of our natural resources.

Having said that, we are by no means a third world country. We are still members of the G8 and have statisticlly been rated as one of the best countries in the world to live in. We are, in loose terms, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I suspect much wealthier than Mexico.

Canada also had one of the largest militaries in the world after WW2. Greater even than the USA. While its true that we have almost completely dismantled our military, we still have more UN peacekeepers abroad per capita than any other nation. It's easy to poke fun and belittle Canada and we ourselves are better at it than almost anyone. But don't make the mistake of thinking that we are completely harmless and poverty stricken. We did after all kick your ass in a war once before and we even burnt down your white house.
Besides, you're almost finished as an economic superpower. The Chinese are about to dominate the world.

Americans often forget about their neighbour to the north and have little or no education as to what really is going on up here and quite frankly I hope that trend continues. You belong to one of the scariest and most aggressive empires the world has ever seen. The military industrial complex is frighteningly powerful. The propaganda machine is well oiled and extremely effective. Just ask Noam Chomsky. I would be very happy if Canada stayed off your radar for as long as possible.

 

[JamesSD]

But it is amazing, if you think about it, that bordering the weathiest nation in the world are two, basically, third world nations whose economic systems stifle industrial and business growth.

Ummm... have you ever set food in Canada? It's no where near 3rd world.

Mexico's primary problem is corruption.

 

[Liar]

But it is amazing, if you think about it, that bordering the weathiest nation in the world are two, basically, third world nations whose economic systems stifle industrial and business growth.

A third world nation on the top ten list of GDP per capita? Yeah, that's a novel idea.

If anyone ever went about with the delusion that ami's claims could be taken for anything even close to factual, that misconception should now be eradicated.

 

[Ootpic]

If Amicus’ trolling has fished out the waters, I would like to go back to a point made earlier:

Minority governments in a parliamentary governing system require statesmanship and diplomacy, while a majority government in such a position can get by (for a while) on bellicosity and lung power.

The last time the Progressive Conservatives held a majority, they managed to so piss off the Canadian electorate, that after the following election (which they finally had to call) their elected representatives could call quorums in a telephone booth.

Only the future will determine whether these Progrssive Conservatives have absorbed that lesson.

 

[CharleyH]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Harry Leg....hello...Canada has almost untapped natural resources and vast unused timber and mining assets. You could be, but never will be an economic power because of your form of government, because of your confiscatory tax rates and anti industrial social philosophy as a nation.

Canada is slowly dying on the vine, minimal poplulation increase except for asian immigrants, high suicide and drug rate as the people are crushed by social ineptitude and business repression. Even the peaceniks and consciencious objectors, the dregs of society are looking else where.

I think with the proper finesse, a decent offer could convince you to sell the entire nation to America. We could show you how to grow it into and economic world power and influence around the world.

Any takers?


amicus...

ROFLOL Way to tease a newbie, Amicus. LOL

 

[Harry Leg]

ROFLOL Way to tease a newbie, Amicus. LOL

Who you calling a newbie?

 

[amicus]

It was related on some news program following the recent Canadian elections, that the former prime minister once told the US, that if a missile were coming over Canadian territory, towards America, that the US would have to ask Canadian permission before shooting it down.

The punster went on to say that perhaps with a conservative in office, Canada might be more appreciate that the United States has basically been providing a military umbrella for Canadians for a good long time.

So I felt it only proper poetic license to jab up north and shuffle the maple leaf ex colony just a tad, all in good fun, ahem.

The entire world identifies Canada as a 'left wing' nation, with heavy taxation, heavy business regulation and a great deal of socialist style social amenities.

So, yes, while technically, Canada is not third world, in terms of development, it is not influential in world affairs in any realm.

And I have been to Labrador, good ole Goose Bay for 15 months, a long time ago, although not technically Canada, I suppose...and been to Montreal and Ottawa, briefly, and Vancouver BC and 600 miles up the Frazier River and to Esquaimalt for a date with 400 Canadian nurses on a Navy cruise, also a long time ago, and up the inland passage, with stops in Ketchican, Juneau, and Kodiak, mostly Alaskan, but still, I know the countryside. It is beautiful and isolated and pretty much unused.

The history is interesting, what with the French and the Indians and the Russians, we bought out the spanish in Lousiana, kicked spanish ass in Texas and California, bought land from the Russians and by rights, should have occupied Canada and it was a very close thing that we did not.

I do not like left wing socialist governments because they oppress people, limit freedom and free choice and usually collapse of their own corruption.

The proximity of the United States, in regard both to Canada and Mexico, has postponed the inevitable in both countries, but border and trade problems could easily irritate that sleeping bear and without us and our factories and industrial plants, Canada basically would not have an economy.

I will browse about and substantiate some of these things and discover a few more about Mexico and Canada when the mood strikes me, but at the moment, I need a beer.


amicus...

 

[Liar]

It was related on some news program following the recent Canadian elections, that the former prime minister once told the US, that if a missile were coming over Canadian territory, towards America, that the US would have to ask Canadian permission before shooting it down.

Huh. They better have a guy on standby by a phone 24/7 for this purpose then.

"Yo."

"Yo, this is the US. We gonna shoot."

"Cool, shoot away."

"Funky. Bye."

"Later, bro."

 

[amicus]

Huh. They better have a guy on standby by a phone 24/7 for this purpose then.

"Yo."

"Yo, this is the US. We gonna shoot."

"Cool, shoot away."

"Funky. Bye."

"Later, bro."

~~~~~~~~~~~``

Thanks for the chuckle....funny...

amicus...

 

[Liar]

~~~~~~~~~~~``

Thanks for the chuckle....funny...

amicus...

I mean what WOULD they say? "Na, we don't wanna."

And would the US give a rat's ass if they did?

 

[Ootpic]

If one defines “influence” only as something that can be bought, or demanded at gun point, then Amicus is probably correct; Canada is not influential in world affairs.

If you define “influence” as an equal partner, found mostly in the vanguard of progressive international movements — sometimes even leading them — then Canada is not so lacking in influence.

American observers of Amicus’ ilk, who cannot see beyond the glare of their own effulgences, often overlook that there exists differring ways from theirs to define “influence.”

 

[Liar]

If one defines “influence” only as something that can be bought, or demanded at gun point, then Amicus is probably correct; Canada is not influential in world affairs.

If you define “influence” as an equal partner, found mostly in the vanguard of progressive international movements — sometimes even leading them — then Canada is not so lacking in influence.

American observers of Amicus’ ilk, who cannot see beyond the glare of their own effulgences, often overlook that there exists differring ways from theirs to define “influence.”

Canada is a small country. Population wise. I wonder if it would be possible to measure world influence per capita, like you measure GDP.

The Vatican would kick ass.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I can't speak for Mexico, but in Canada we do cultivate our natural resources as well as we can given our relatively small population. There is no such thing as old growth forest anymore in Ontario. Absolutely none. Every tree you see here has been replanted. There has been widespread clear cutting. Not enough to damage the ecology noticably simply because of lack of manpower and the relatively small size of the industry. Moreso in Ontario than in British Columbia.

But it's not the mere existance or exporting of natural resources that make a country wealthy. Its the ability to utilize thoses resources and create a large manufacturing and industrial industry. We simply aren't large enough to do that. So we export natural resources and buy back the finished products. And we are now completely limited because of NAFTA. And dont get me started on softwood lumber tariffs. We can no longer control the economics of our natural resources.

Having said that, we are by no means a third world country. We are still members of the G8 and have statisticlly been rated as one of the best countries in the world to live in. We are, in loose terms, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I suspect much wealthier than Mexico.

Canada also had one of the largest militaries in the world after WW2. Greater even than the USA. While its true that we have almost completely dismantled our military, we still have more UN peacekeepers abroad per capita than any other nation. It's easy to poke fun and belittle Canada and we ourselves are better at it than almost anyone. But don't make the mistake of thinking that we are completely harmless and poverty stricken. We did after all kick your ass in a war once before and we even burnt down your white house.
Besides, you're almost finished as an economic superpower. The Chinese are about to dominate the world.

Americans often forget about their neighbour to the north and have little or no education as to what really is going on up here and quite frankly I hope that trend continues. You belong to one of the scariest and most aggressive empires the world has ever seen. The military industrial complex is frighteningly powerful. The propaganda machine is well oiled and extremely effective. Just ask Noam Chomsky. I would be very happy if Canada stayed off your radar for as long as possible.

Actually, it was Great Britain that burned down the White House. The War of 1812 was more of a draw than a victory or loss. Also, try to take Noam Chomsky with a grain of salt. The man is so far left that he doesn't have a right side to his brain, I suspect. I am saying this as a quasi-centrist with Libertarian leanings, NOT as a neo-con. I doubt that we are finished as an economic superpower. I just think that we are headed toward a police state, which will make our fate irrelevant to the cause of freedom. When that happens, our alliances will be living on borrowed time and our choices will be to either decline immediately, or impose a pax Americana and THEN decline. Most tragic.

 

[amicus]

Ootpic]If one defines “influence” only as something that can be bought, or demanded at gun point, then Amicus is probably correct; Canada is not influential in world affairs.

If you define “influence” as an equal partner, found mostly in the vanguard of progressive international movements — sometimes even leading them — then Canada is not so lacking in influence.

American observers of Amicus’ ilk, who cannot see beyond the glare of their own effulgences, often overlook that there exists differring ways from theirs to define “influence.”

[/I]

welcome to the forum///Ootpic I think or Oort Cloud and Anne McCaffery, when I look at that SN...

Well, one is often told to take that lantern out from under the basket and let the line shine forth, our effulgency is well earned, I think and does not blind us.

'progressive international movements, eh' whazat, something like the Kyoto Protocols? the darling of the left?

I am not much into Canada bashing but I do detest socialism and you folks have a fatal dose I think.

I suppose it is the French influence, all the the wind direction should carry the stench away from most of Canadians...

I will take a break later this evening when I get too drunk to type properly and browse the web and see what dirt I can discover, such as comparative GDP's industrial output, average annual wage, tax rates, savings rate, suicide rates, all of which have buzzed by my radar from time to time and which I refer to offhandedly, but I will maybe post some links to support my contention that Canada is more on a par of equivalency to North Korea or Puerto Rico, rather than being competive with western industrial nations.

cheerio...


amicus...

 

[simulacre]

Well it's been an entertaining read! With a few good laughs along the way! It's always interesting to see how we are perceived, although I doubt some of the opinions expressed here are a reflection of the majority but I find it always interesting to see how little the Americans know about us and what misconceptions they have.

Pure: you're right, we havent elected any conservatives here in Montréal. Mostly Bloc québécois with a few liberal on the west side of the island.

As for the fragility of a minority government, Harper used that argument to his advantage in his campaign, especially here in Québec (the province, not the city although it's only around Québec city that his argument was effective). Harper needed representation in every province so he used again and again the argument that a minority government wouldn't be in a position to do what it wants, that a minority government would need to negotiate and tone down it's opinions and actions. He ran a good campaign, even I have to admit it, he was very much aware of the will of the people to be rid of Martin and adressed directly the fears and reservations the population had towards the conservative, putting forward the fact that he would be on a leash.

What Americans might not realise is that we knew we were electing a minoriting government (the risk of it turning out differently was minimal) and that this minority is perceived by most as being a kind of "safety feature". Note also that almost each province has a different agenda and that this negociation is widely believed to serve the overall (the country) best.

An interesting and funny note, although Harper said he would hold a free vote on gay marriage (it is hardly an issue it will stay in place), since Martin has resigned I've heard the name of Martin Cauchon mentionned many times this week as one of the possible candidate for leadership of the liberal party. Cauchon is the one that fought hard and long for the gay marriage, it would be interesting to see him as the opposition leader! Now I don't know if Cauchon has responded on that possibility yet, if he has I haven't come upon it but it would make for very interesting debates I believe.

Oh and we are very proud of our reputation as peace keepers and negotiators and we tend to believe that the fact that we have acquired that reputation shows that we actually have some influence on other nations. True, it's not the kind of influence the US aims for, but it's the kind we tend to be very proud of. As for our natural ressources, we tend to speak about what goes wrong and not mention what's going well... you might want to take a closer look (Hydro-Québec among others might be of interest)!

 

[Pure]

?

Hi Harry,

While many of your postings make sense, and you are encountering this forum's resident 'know nothings', I did have one question regarding your comment to me:

As a Canadian I find it interesting that you describe the Bloc Quebecois as QuebecSovereignists and the New Democratic Party as New (Social) Democrats.

And why is that 'interesting'? Both are well known facts.

But what really amuses me is the amount of Canadians that have posted on this thread.

I'm not sure why that's amusing, since you're contributing to the influx of Canadian postings??

Of course amicus, judging everything by the degree of regulation of business and the amount of taxation, is going to say Canadian people are poorly off-- like the citizens of Holland, Norway, Sweden, and France.

One has to remember he's not actually in favor of democracy, since these
'social democratic' governments are elected and re-elected. I suppose, to use an old metaphor, he's in favor of 'guided democracy,' where an elite of philosopher-king-Randians keep the public from enacting any social legislation, unemployment insurance, provision for building public roads etc., national educational standards, etc.

As several posters have mentioned, quality of life in Canada is good, and Canada often makes the 'top ten' among countries it's great to live in.
From all over the world, people try to come to Canada, including some from the US. This rating has prevailed notwithstanding occasional minority governments at the federal level. It IS a parliamentary system.
That's going to happen, as it does in England or Israel or Norway.

One could debate the merits of the system, but without going into detail, it's not bad, where districts are drawn properly and evenly, and where, as in some countries, a degree of proportional representation is incorporated. IT's clear, by contrast, that the US system is moving to an Imperial Presidency, where the P overrides (or ignores) Congress and the Courts.

Somehow the US 'checks and balances' are not working, and freedoms are being lost. Oddly, amicus, supposed proponent of liberty is busy cheerleeding the imperial transformation, including fascistic measures like warrantless searches, and jailings without charge or lawyer access.

Indeed, in the area of citizen 'freedom', the US is rapidly falling behind Canada and some other advanced nations. (Although France, for instance, with its Presidential variation of parliamentarism, also has some *very ferocious anti-terror measures in place, where the prosecutor needing judicial authorization is also the judge!). But historically, many relatively 'free' countries have devolved into authoritarian, even tyrranical states.

Anyway those are my thoughts, and I hope you find them amusing!

 

[Ootpic]

"see what dirt I can discover"

I was right the first time.

Because I am English-speaking, I would like to respond you slur against French-speaking Canadians, but will not, as I never feed the Trolls.

I assume you reside on a smut board because you are not sufficiently up on the subjects you attack to cut it on a political board.

 

[amicus]

"Smut board?"

You are far too kind to most here.

the always amicable amicus...

 

[Harry Leg]

Hi Harry,

While many of your postings make sense, and you are encountering this forum's resident 'know nothings', I did have one question regarding your comment to me:

As a Canadian I find it interesting that you describe the Bloc Quebecois as QuebecSovereignists and the New Democratic Party as New (Social) Democrats.

And why is that 'interesting'? Both are well known facts.

But what really amuses me is the amount of Canadians that have posted on this thread.


I'm not sure why that's amusing, since you're contributing to the influx of Canadian postings??

Of course amicus, judging everything by the degree of regulation of business and the amount of taxation, is going to say Canadian people are poorly off-- like the citizens of Holland, Norway, Sweden, and France.

One has to remember he's not actually in favor of democracy, since these
'social democratic' governments are elected and re-elected. I suppose, to use an old metaphor, he's in favor of 'guided democracy,' where an elite of philosopher-king-Randians keep the public from enacting any social legislation, unemployment insurance, provision for building public roads etc., national educational standards, etc.

As several posters have mentioned, quality of life in Canada is good, and Canada often makes the 'top ten' among countries it's great to live in.
From all over the world, people try to come to Canada, including some from the US. This rating has prevailed notwithstanding occasional minority governments at the federal level. It IS a parliamentary system.
That's going to happen, as it does in England or Israel or Norway.

One could debate the merits of the system, but without going into detail, it's not bad, where districts are drawn properly and evenly, and where, as in some countries, a degree of proportional representation is incorporated. IT's clear, by contrast, that the US system is moving to an Imperial Presidency, where the P overrides (or ignores) Congress and the Courts.

Somehow the US 'checks and balances' are not working, and freedoms are being lost. Oddly, amicus, supposed proponent of liberty is busy cheerleeding the imperial transformation, including fascistic measures like warrantless searches, and jailings without charge or lawyer access.

Indeed, in the area of citizen 'freedom', the US is rapidly falling behind Canada and some other advanced nations. (Although France, for instance, with its Presidential variation of parliamentarism, also has some *very ferocious anti-terror measures in place, where the prosecutor needing judicial authorization is also the judge!). But historically, many relatively 'free' countries have devolved into authoritarian, even tyrranical states.

Anyway those are my thoughts, and I hope you find them amusing!

I'm sure if my posts make sense it's only due to serendipity as for the most part I've just been talking out of my ass.

To answer your question I find your description interesting not because I believe it to be anything but the truth, but simply because I'm just not used to hearing the Bloc Quebecois described as sovereignists. It is indeed a fact that they are but without the support of people of Quebec its no longer a platform for election and thus moslty a non-issue for the time being.

It is also true that the NDP are among the most extreme of socialist parties in Canada but since most parties have a definte socialist leaning, it seems moot to call them the social democrats, again not because it's inaccurate, but because I don't hear them described as such in these parts.

I found it amusing that so few Canadians had, at the beginning, posted because this is indicative of the stereotypical Canadian attitude towards Canadian politics. This is of course a generalization, but many Canadians are somewhat quiet when it comes to open discussion about our countrys' politics.

I agree whole-heartedly that there does appear to be some erosion of the freedoms once championed in the USA. Because of our close proximity and the incredible might of the American empire, I find this to be a most frightening development.
Amicus it would appear has some peculiar views on many things but I suspect this only contributes to his skill as a fisherman.

I find your thoughts to be intelligent, informed, and articulate rather than amusing.

 

[Pure]

Ed Broadbent, social democrat

Hi Harry,
I do not find the NDP to be [among the] 'most extreme of socialist parties', but the term 'social democrat' is common. (For note the areas of convergent views, cited by Mr. B, below.) You have to remember that although for Amicus, it's synonymous with "satanist" "Stalinist", it's a perfectly ordinary descriptive term in Canada and W. Europe, among other places.

Harry said,
It is also true that the NDP are among the most extreme of socialist parties in Canada but since most parties have a definte socialist leaning, it seems moot to call them the social democrats, again not because it's inaccurate, but because I don't hear them described as such in these parts.



One Budget – Two Canadas

By
Ed Broadbent, M.P., Ottawa Centre

Notes for a speech by the Honourable Ed Broadbent, MP Ottawa Centre, delivered in Toronto, March 5, 2005, at a dinner held in his honour.


One Budget - Two Canadas


I am delighted to be here for three reasons. First, to share some thoughts with you about the state of the nation. Second, to be with old friends, many of whom I haven’t seen for a number of years. And third, possibly most of all, to hear nice things said about me. It’s like listening to your obituary without having to take the normal prerequisite step.

I want to talk about where we are going in Canada and why we need to change directions. About why we need to put ordinary people back on the agenda and make fairness and opportunity for all the number one political priority.

Let me put it in historical context. In my first years as leader, I had as my opponents Pierre Trudeau and Bob Stanfield. The former was a progressive Liberal and the latter was a “Red Tory”. As a social democrat I had some serious disagreements with both of them. But I will tell you that on three key matters we thought alike. On these beliefs or values, our differences were more about speed and detail than about direction. What were these common beliefs?

1) We understood that for Canadians as for others in the world, having more real freedom and opportunity in our lives meant we needed more positive action by government. We knew that legal freedom for a young girl or boy means little unless they have adequate housing and good schools, have a public health care system - and ready access to university education.

For most of our material needs we believed a market economy serves us well. The private sector is innovative, provides jobs and responds to demands. No one wants the government to make computers or design dresses. However, for much in our lives we cannot rely on the market. Indeed, for much that makes life worthwhile - health, education, the arts, the environment, volunteerism - the market either doesn’t work at all or works very unfairly.

This leads to the second point of agreement.

2) In choosing between a market-based solution and government activity for many options, the government option is not merely a different choice, it is the best choice. The task of democratic leadership is to keep the balance right. Real leadership means having the courage to change the status quo. We did it in Ottawa with the Canada Pension and Medicare. Let me give you a current example. Two weeks ago we learned insurance industry profits are up 70%, to over $4 billion. The lowest car insurance rates are in B.C., Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Why? Because NDP premiers had the economic sense and political courage to take on the status quo and bring in public auto insurance. They were right and they saved their citizens millions of dollars. And for the same reason I say we need public auto insurance in Ontario today.

3) The third matter Trudeau, Stanfield and I would have agreed upon is that the social justice goal of Canadian citizenship should be one of increasing equality, that the gap between the rich and the poor should be narrowed. Today’s Liberal and Conservative leaders simply do not share in these beliefs. Our differences on equality today are not about speed and detail. They have become fundamental.

Today the leadership of Canada’s other federal parties, most of the media, and the economic elite are united in offering Canadians false choices. We are told that we must choose between social justice and economic efficiency: that spending on our children or health care or the arts or the environment must be traded off against the economy; we are told such concerns must be on the back burner. In short, they say choosing public goods can only come at the expense of having an inefficient economy. This is where we have come with the Conservatives and a Liberal Party lead by Paul Martin. Stephen Harper was right. Last week’s budget was a Conservative budget. It had $4.6 billion tax cuts for corporations. It had nothing for the 60% of workers who pay EI but can never collect. Nothing for poor children, nothing for housing, and nothing for university students.

I say to you: This is wrong. We now have over $61 billion in accumulated surpluses. We have the money. It is time we took the public needs of our kids, our families and our workers, off the back burner and put them at the top of the political agenda.

What Went Wrong?

How did we get where we are? Where did this kind of narrow and dogmatic market-based fundamentalism come from? It began in Canada a few years ago with Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Very soon Ralph Klein in Alberta and Michael Harris here in Ontario picked it up. And after Paul Martin arrived on the scene as Finance Minister, the federal Liberals, step-by-step, decision by decision, moved in the same direction. Pierre Trudeau once called for a just society. This was a phrase deliberately chosen to raise expectations about that balance in our lives - between a market economy and social justice, between private benefit and the public good. As a country we have moved away from the healthy balance most Canadians want. It is not what Stephen Harper and Paul Martin want. It is not their vision. Even after an unprecedented seven budget surpluses in a row, Martin rejected this balance once again in last week’s budget.

And we Canadians have paid the price. Instead of becoming more equal as citizens, the divisions have never been greater. We have been creating two Canadas.

I want to talk about these two Canadas. Families in one Canada, the Canada at the top, have never had it so good. Increasingly, they send their kids to private schools. They own summer homes in France. They holiday in five-star hotels. When buying a car they choose between a BMW and a Mercedes. When sick in many provinces they can now simply jump queues and with a credit card purchase the best health service money can buy. Under Paul Martin, first as Finance Minister, now as Prime Minister, Canadians who are part of this Canada have the greatest share of national income for any period in the past 50 years. They never had it so good.

Then there is another Canada – mainstream Canada – made up of the middle class, ordinary workers and the poor. This Canada, the majority, depends for their well-being on a balanced mixture of reliable pay from steady jobs and good social programs. On the one hand they need a reasonable income to put food on the table, buy a new computer, or have a holiday with their family. But, they also need for their well being good public programs in health, education, pensions and the environment. However, today the typical income for this Canada (adjusted for inflation) remains what it was in the 1980’s. And because of ten years of program cuts, this Canada now mortgages its homes to finance the ever-increasing cost of their kids’ university education. This Canada has over-crowded public schools and long delays in emergency wards. In this Canada, over a million of our children go to school hungry in the morning and go to bed hungry at night.

Why has this happened? Because of Paul Martin’s policies, that’s why. As Minister of Finance he was right in 1995 to take on the deficit. That needed to be done. Within two years the deficits were eliminated. What did he do then?

He simply refused to restore the social funding he had promised. Instead of hospitals and schools and housing we got more tax cuts for the rich and seven surplus budgets, adding up to $61 billion. Instead of reducing child poverty the numbers increased. Instead of building more equality in our lives in the 1990’s, we have been creating two Canadas. We have been moving backwards.

My friends, the point is that this is not inevitable. It did not happen in the ‘90’s in Norway or Germany or Sweden or Finland or Denmark or the Netherlands. These countries kept the balance. They have innovative market economies and they have maintained strong social programs. They have shown year after year you can have economic efficiency and social justice.

My friends, the growing inequality in Canada need not be – it must not be - and, with the NDP, it would not be!