7 minutes in heaven?
April 21, 2005 8:03 PM   Subscribe

Prime Minister Paul Martin addresses the sponsorship scandal with a televised speech to the Canadian people. The Opposition is calling for Liberal blood. Here's some political fun from North of the Border. Will the Gomery Inquiry reveal the Liberals as a crooked party or did they just get caught for something every party does? This is stuff I though only happened to other countries...boy, was I wrong!
posted by LunaticFringe (43 comments total)

 
If only Martin had paid the attention to the sponsorship scanadal that he did purging the party of challengers to his authority, Canada might be in a less depressing situation.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:11 PM on April 21, 2005


beer, eh?
posted by quonsar at 8:14 PM on April 21, 2005


Previously discussed.
posted by docgonzo at 8:32 PM on April 21, 2005


It would have been nice if they had picked a time and stuck with it. I didn't have time to check the news during the day, but in the morning they said 7:45pm, and then? It was at 7. Bloody hell. We got to see Duceppe and Layton's responses by turning on the tv at 7:40, but that's it.

Feels like Martin may have painted himself into a corner, by saying he'll call an election after the Inquiry is finished. If Harper had forced a summer election without Martin saying anything, then the Liberals could have (rightly) claimed that the Tories were jumping the gun.

Don't mind me though, I'm not at all pissed off at the Tories and the media and everyone for forgetting that this is an inquiry and, oh, I dunno, there's a judge who's going to give an opinion and so far it's a lot of uncorroborated testimony. Not that I want another election this year, but after the inquiry gives its results would be best, don't you think? Unless the Tories think they can only win if the public is frothing and uninformed.
posted by livii at 8:33 PM on April 21, 2005


Isn't it dumb of him to go on tv to address this? it draws more attention to it, and makes him look guilty, i think.
posted by amberglow at 8:34 PM on April 21, 2005


Eh. I'd say it's the inevitable conclusion to 12 years of Liberal Party domination of the political process. The decimation of the Progressive Conservative party in 1993 may have made us all feel good but it, I would argue, was bad for the country all around. No viable alternative to the Liberals with the Bloc Quebecois monopolizing the Quebec protest vote and the Reeeeeeeeeeefooooooooorm Party monopolizing the Western protest vote. Absolute power, yada, yada, yada... Now with rise of the bastard step child of the Reeeeeeeeeeefooooooooorm Party [I don't care what you used to call it. It was and always will be the Reeeeeeeeeeefooooooooorm Party] and remains of the progressive Conservative unified into some sort of evil undead Conservative Party there is a viable national, albeit evil, alternative to the Liberals.

Then again you could look at it from a different slant. If Jean Chrétien knew that Paul Martin was going to succeed him despite his wishes maybe he buried some bodies close to the surface in the hope they would take Martin down and leave the chair open to someone else. I suppose that's a little too tinfoil hatish. Just a thought though.
posted by cm at 8:41 PM on April 21, 2005


Why don't people start Bloc (insert province here) parties all over? and agree to always work together?
posted by amberglow at 8:46 PM on April 21, 2005


Um...I know this is minor, but did anyone else think Martin looked odd? I don't think he was framed properly -- there wasn't enough space around him in the shot, as though the person filming him didn't quite know what they were doing.

Or is there some reason for framing him like that?

I found it distracting, and I can't imagine it helped him.
posted by Badmichelle at 8:49 PM on April 21, 2005


The television appearance was probably more for Quebec's sake instead of the rest of the country. The last time the Prime Minister chose to address the nation it was during the last Quebec separation referendum which originally spurred this so-called sponsorship scandal to begin with.

So, from Martin's perspective, this could be some sort of weird continuity.

Also, this issue has been dominating both the press and political circles over the past weeks/months and I think Martin is trying to re-direct attention to other, more important government initiatives (this is the optimist in me speaking).

Layton played his cards relatively well. Other than the same old sound bytes that he's been spouting since the election campaign, the NDP may very well be the linchpin in this whole non-confidence vote and subsequent election call and without actually voicing his support for the Liberal government, he was quite clear on the fact that the NDP are not in favour of another election at this time.

Harper is such a simpering fool. The Conservative government is pissed off because of some the initiatives of the Liberal government (same-sex marriage legislation, the opt-out of the missile defence program) has been making since the election. For some reason, whenever I hear him speak I picture his handlers in the back, smoking Cuban cigars while surreptitiously polishing their monocles.
posted by purephase at 8:51 PM on April 21, 2005


Not that the other options are that great, but good riddance.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:05 PM on April 21, 2005


Isn't it dumb of him to go on tv to address this? it draws more attention to it, and makes him look guilty, i think.

An interestingly American response. In the answer to that question lies much of what I still like about good ol' Canada, and what shreds of respect I still have for its politics (if not the individuals, which are, thank god, transitory), at least in stark opposition to The Big Dummy down south.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:05 PM on April 21, 2005


Can the opposition parties please wait until the Gomery Inquiry concludes before deciding on whether to force another election? Here in BC, we already have a provincial election next month along with a vote on adopting the Single Transferable Vote. We had a municipal plebiscite a few months back on wards and there's another vote next year...
posted by ironisokratic at 9:08 PM on April 21, 2005


stav : P

You make it sound like Canadians are little Mary Sunshines who don't ever read between the lines, and aren't aware of spin, or any modern political media techniques. Him appearing before the nation on his own accord says more about the situation and how he/his party sees it than what he actually said.
posted by amberglow at 9:11 PM on April 21, 2005


As someone who is terrified of the slightest possibility of a Conservative majority, I think this is a good move for the Liberals. The Conservatives could have gotten away with a snap election before, but now it will look too shamelessly opportunistic and they will likely avoid it, as it will turn out less in their favour than it would have before this speech. Martin makes a strong argument here; this government should not be toppled over mere allegations which have yet to be ruled on by Mr. Gomery. The fact that Gomery won't be ruling till December is a delightfully convenient fact, which gives the Liberals time to build up their war chest, which will be sorely needed to keep the Conservatives out of office.

At least Chretien finally has his legacy... poor Martin.
posted by mek at 9:22 PM on April 21, 2005


Rrrrr -- you've dragged me to the new thread -- good comments here and a lot of what we were chewing over in the office today.

If only Martin had paid the attention to the sponsorship scanadal that he did purging the party of challengers to his authority, Canada might be in a less depressing situation.

Bad-a-bing -- he says he wants naysayers but permits only yes-men. good recipe for disaster.

Isn't it dumb of him to go on tv to address this? it draws more attention to it, and makes him look guilty, i think.

An interestingly American response. In the answer to that question lies much of what I still like about good ol' Canada...

I was prepared to give him credit for not sweeping it under the rug... some time ago. These days I'm prepared to believe that he's just incredibly politically naive. I don't think he knows what he's doing, and as for his advisors stopping him... (see above)

Why don't people start Bloc (insert province here) parties all over? and agree to always work together?

Damn straight. Did you get the online questionnaire being circulated around the time of the last election, Amberglow? It was pretty detailed. I (and many, many others) were shocked to discover that our political leanings placed us closest... (drum roll) to the Bloc. That despite the separatism stance, which none of us (that I know of) agreed with in any way. Fact is, a lot of their ideas are very applicable outside of Quebec, so they'd be an awesome provincial-rights party if they'd drop the separatism and campaign nationally on that basis. Won't happen, of course, but wouldn't it be nice to have a non-black-and-white (right and left) option? Plus they reek of intellectual rigour, which I can't say about any other party in Canada.
posted by dreamsign at 9:23 PM on April 21, 2005


Right on, dreamsign.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:36 PM on April 21, 2005


For those of you keeping score at home, here's the current makeup of the House of Commons:

Liberal: 131 (not counting the Speaker)
Tories: 99
Bloc: 54
NDP: 19
Independents: 3 (Chuck Cadman, David Kilgour, and... wait for it... the redoubtable Carolyn Parrish)
Vacant: 1 (Labrador, left vacant by the death of Lawrence O'Brien)

So the Tories and the Bloc, together, have exactly 50% of the sitting members of Parliament... but then the Speaker would break the tie. In other words, assuming the NDP won't vote to bring down the government (as Mr. Layton implied), one of the three independents has to vote with the Bloc and the Tories.

I am currently giggling with how-the-hell-did-this-happen glee at the possibility of Carolyn Parrish getting her revenge in the most glorious way possible.
posted by Johnny Assay at 9:41 PM on April 21, 2005


This Gomery Inquiry, is it something you'd need a Canada to enjoy?
posted by mazola at 9:45 PM on April 21, 2005


You make it sound like Canadians are little Mary Sunshines

We are! We are! *skips and yodels*

I was just kind of woolgathering out loud there. I honestly pay next to no attention to Canadian politics, not having lived there for more than a decade, and more interested in getting apoplectic about America or chagrined about Korea. But what I hear and read, mostly here, to be honest, leads me to believe that although much has changed, much remains the same back home, and not all of it is filth and corruption.

And in politics, 'not all' is a pretty damn good showing.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:52 PM on April 21, 2005


I have been unable to make a single comment on any part of the site today without some kind of grammatical mistake. My brain is borked.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:54 PM on April 21, 2005


If only Martin had paid the attention to the sponsorship scanadal that he did purging the party of challengers to his authority, Canada might be in a less depressing situation. posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:11 PM PST on April 21
Good comment. *Pages Sheila Copps*
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:30 PM on April 21, 2005


I don't care what you used to call it.

Do I remember right that they were briefly the Conservative-Reform Alliance Party? Or is that a myth?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:53 PM on April 21, 2005


The Canadian Conservative-Reform Alliance Party, yes. The newspapers quickly noted that this abbreviated to CCRAP and the name was changed.
posted by mek at 1:38 AM on April 22, 2005


I'm not happy about my hard-earned tax dollars being dumped down the bottomless well of government waste, patronage and inefficiency. But the Liberals would have to be caught red-handed sacrificing children in the House of Commons before I'd even think of voting Conservative.

/ votes NDP
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 5:52 AM on April 22, 2005


But the Liberals would have to be caught red-handed sacrificing children in the House of Commons before I'd even think of voting Conservative.

Damn straight! If the conservatives ever make it in then I'm out (of Canada that is). I also vote NDP but I wish that they would lose some of the socialist doctrines that seem to be part of their party. Its just a little too close to communism for me.
posted by LunaticFringe at 6:45 AM on April 22, 2005


I'm not happy about my hard-earned tax dollars being dumped down the bottomless well of government waste, patronage and inefficiency.

Me too; unfortunately, Harper's just waiting for his turn at the same trough.
posted by transient at 7:17 AM on April 22, 2005


Well, that's the thing. When the NDP were in charge of Ontario a decade ago, there was no shortage of waste and out-of-control spending. But I'd rather put up with waste from the Liberals and NDP than what Stephen Harper and his crew would see fit to spend the money on. *shudder*
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 7:21 AM on April 22, 2005


Isn't it dumb of him to go on tv to address this? it draws more attention to it, and makes him look guilty, i think.

An interestingly American response. In the answer to that question lies much of what I still like about good ol' Canada, and what shreds of respect I still have for its politics (if not the individuals, which are, thank god, transitory), at least in stark opposition to The Big Dummy down south.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:05 PM PST on April 21 [!]



I agree that it makes Martin look guilty, especially to those who haven't been following the scandal too closely. That being said, I would definately have kept the 7:45 or even 7:50 timeslot, so by the time he's done speaking, Harper is up against Survivor - have fun with that. If the network delays Survivor for Harper, hard core TV fans will curse his name regardless of his politics.
posted by jikel_morten at 9:11 AM on April 22, 2005


If the conservatives ever make it in then I'm out (of Canada that is). I also vote NDP but I wish that they would lose some of the socialist doctrines that seem to be part of their party.

First, re: the NDP, I was very marginally involved in Jack Layton's party leadership campaign, and though most now forget that he was the dark-horse outsider candidate, he very much was - he was the only one without really strong union ties - and let me assure you that he's no huge fan of a lot of that kneejerk trade unionism and such. but enough of the party's rank and file and especially its braintrust still lives there that my guess is he's decided to do his modernizing of the party platform slow and steady.

Second, I don't think there's any need to panic about a Conservative majority. In fact, if Canadian history's taught us anything, it's that the fastest way to derail hard-right prairie populists for a generation or two is to give them the reins of power. It killed Diefenbaker dead, left Joe Clark a hollow corpse of his former self (he only really recovered a couple years ago, when - it seemed - he stopped giving a damn), and it'll kill Harper.

Even the prairie parts of Canada aren't as solidly pro-Harper as they might look from Upper Canada. Edmonton's as much Liberal as it is Harperite, and Calgary (where I live) has grown so much that the massive demographic shift here (young professionals from Eastern Canada and tons of immigrants) is, I suspect, eventually going to start showing itself at the voting booth. In my downtown Calgary riding - Joe Clark's old riding, note - an extremely amateur Green Party candidate (it was the first office he ever ran for, and the first time the Greens fielded a candidate in this riding) finished a strong second in the last federal election, mostly based on the groundswell of anti-Conservative sympathy looking for a place to live. (Calgarians, even transplanted ones, appear to be terminally incapable of voting Liberal.)

As for Martin, he was never much more than a technocrat, and we'll be better with him gone. Let the once-a-generation Liberal housecleaning commence.

Whaddaya think the Vegas line would be on a Justin Trudeau leadership run before 2010?
posted by gompa at 10:26 AM on April 22, 2005


I don't think it makes Martin look guilty. I got the impression that he's seriously pissed about the scandal and wants to make sure the culprits pay for it, and hard.

What I like about Martin is that he seems to value the essential social-good aspect of Canadian society, while at the same time has the ability to manage government spending such that we don't go broke doing all that good.

His plans for the military rock. Actual funding! My god, what a concept. Reduce our global commitments to the top two dozen areas in which we are the primary resource and are being most effective. Awesome! I think that sort of thing really sets us up to hit our stride in this century as the country that sets the leadership standard for the world.

He's also made huge strides in resolving the Native land claims and support issues once and for all. Even the First Nation leaders are pleased with him. It would be so good for all of Canada if we could finally settle fairly and honestly with the First Nations.

And I think he's making smart moves toward reducing Canada's reliance on trade with the USA. There's recent talk of building a pipeline to Prince Rupert, so we can efficiently sell oil to China. After the billions of dollars -- an amount that completely dwarfs the scandal money -- the USA has stolen from Canada in the way of unjust and illegal tariffs, it's pretty damn clear we need to look elsewhere for trade.

All in all I feel pretty hopeful about Martin's ability to get us moving in all the right directions.

Canada can and should become the most influential country in the world. We do so much that is so very, very right. We can be a model nation, leading all nations toward a fair, just, and caring global society.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:38 AM on April 22, 2005


Canada can and should become the most influential country in the world.

Wow.
posted by TetrisKid at 10:55 AM on April 22, 2005


Canada can and should become the most influential country in the world. We do so much that is so very, very right. We can be a model nation, leading all nations toward a fair, just, and caring global society.

Leaving aside whether all of this is true (and/or viable), do you really think Paul Martin - a guy who made his fortune dodging international shipping regulations, a guy who was either too ignorant (which I doubt) or too spineless (my guess) to take note of the millions of dollars Chretien's cronies were pilfering from the federal coffers on his watch, a guy whose single genuine claim to political greatness was balancing a budget - you think this man is the visionary leader to take Canada to new heights of international prominence?

Accountants of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your deficit spending!
posted by gompa at 11:07 AM on April 22, 2005


I don't think I'd mark Paul Matin down as spineless. He held on in the Liberal Party for 10 years while Jean Chrétien desperately cast about for a worthy successor that wasn't Paul Martin. He built support, mobilized the grass roots and took control of the Liberal Party despite the obvious efforts Chrétien made to ensure that wouldn't be.

During those 10 years of Liberal financial misdeeds did he look the other way, sacrifice personal integrity, fiscal and ministerial responsibility in his quest to achieve leadership of the Liberal Party and Prime Ministerhood? I think so. Does that make him spineless? Not so certain.

Re: Canada as beacon to the world?

Don't get me wrong. I love Canada* but it's far from perfect. From our embarrassing treatment of First Nations to our fraying social safety net to the the constant bickering between provincial governments and the federal governments about fiscal and social responsibilities we have a lot of things to clean up before we don haloes, white robes and wings to lead the world into glorious canadian-salvation.

Though, to forestall those who would accuse me of libeling the country; Canada does have much to teach the world, but then again Canada has as much to learn from the world. No one is perfect and those who think they are suffer from a hubris that will only taint any good dead they perform.

* This love of Canada is of course in the canadian style: quiet, unassuming and understated. Anything else would be un-canadian.
posted by cm at 12:01 PM on April 22, 2005


a guy who made his fortune dodging international shipping regulations

Did he do it within the letter of the law? Because if so, he was being a good corporate businessman, though perhaps a lousy human.

Canada is indeed far from perfect. But from the bits of talk I've heard from Martin and from those he is working with, it sounds like he is prepared to start actually dealing with those imperfections. There are times I really feel we could collectively get Canada shipshape, and then the sky is the limit for us.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:26 PM on April 22, 2005


During those 10 years of Liberal financial misdeeds did he look the other way, sacrifice personal integrity, fiscal and ministerial responsibility in his quest to achieve leadership of the Liberal Party and Prime Ministerhood? I think so.

Yeah, that's kinda what I meant by spineless. But to avoid a semantic argument, how's about "unprincipled" or "cowardly" or "opportunistic" or "obviously lacking in any real integrity" (or all of the above) instead?

Did he do it within the letter of the law? Because if so, he was being a good corporate businessman, though perhaps a lousy human.

Again, sort of my point. Global leadership I can actually get behind is going to require a bit more than "the letter of the law" and savvy corporate stewardship.

I'm inclined to agree with you that Canada has a lot to show the world - but mostly by example. The great strength (perhaps the greatest strength) of my home and beloved native land is that it is viewed by most of its citizens as a constant work in progress. It learns, adapts and grows. Its history is littered with phrases like "historic compromise." Previous generations have viewed these as signs of its intrinsic weakness, but I see them more and more as the foundations of a free, fair and just society. (The folly of codified creeds and deified founders is aptly demonstrated by, for example, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and the fallout from same.)

And all of that said, I'm still waiting for a leader worthy of this country. And Paul Martin emphatically ain't it. Though maybe the lack of cults of personality is part of the Canadian bargain. I look at the mini-UNs that our urban schools have become, though, and I feel hopeful that they may produce a Kennedy- or Churchill-sized statesperson in time.

And in the meantime I lend soft support to Jack Layton, who at the very least has worked his entire life for the public good.
posted by gompa at 1:04 PM on April 22, 2005


fish, if we did get our house in order a series of questions to ponder would be: Should we go out and try and fix the world? Would it be the Canadian thing to do? Is it the smart thing to do?

Remember, just because we can, doesn't mean we should. I mean fixing|remaking the world in their image hasn't done America much good of late. Perhaps once we had our house in order we could make it known to the world we'd be happy to help out any country that asked us. That might prove the winning strategy: Only go where you're invited? Problem with that rule is what do you do in places like Iraq were the people are oppressed by a powerful minority? Or in places like Rwanda?

As always with international politics|ethics, no easy answers.
posted by cm at 1:11 PM on April 22, 2005


In Canada the networks control the PMO.
The second link has a better explanation on the time change, check bugmenot for login info
posted by phyrewerx at 2:01 PM on April 22, 2005


Should we go out and try and fix the world? Would it be the Canadian thing to do? Is it the smart thing to do?

Remember, just because we can, doesn't mean we should. I mean fixing|remaking the world in their image hasn't done America much good of late.


We're not going to do it by force, cm, nor for the sake of cheaper oil. And that will make all the difference in the world.
posted by orange swan at 7:03 PM on April 22, 2005


Broadly: I thought Martin acquitted himself rather well. this issue's gonna get stink all over a lot of people, and now he's come out in public and said he's going to act on Gomery's report. Just please give him time to do that (i.e. don't "no-confidence" my ass out of here just yet)
It's kind of telling that the three opposition leaders all stuck to prepared speeches that couldn't directly reflect or comment upon what Martin had said. Harper (a snake) chose to spend his speech campaigning (as if the election race had already begun); Duceppe at least stayed on-topic, even if it what he said wasn't that engaging or useful; and Layton (whom I like) seemed to be dropping sound-bites, hoping that something would stick in our consciousness...without really addressing the issue at hand (his was more of a soft campaigning speech than Harper's, but a campaign speech, nonetheless)

It's kind of sad that our party leaders can't get up and extemporize well anymore. Have you ever heard Robert Kennedy's speech the night that MLK was assassinated? He makes a few slips here and there, but mostly the man delivers a really cogent, heartfelt speech. Why? Perhaps because television hadn't yet completely framed public speaking into 30 second sound-bites and catchphrases. Perhaps because he had a kind of public awareness and intelligence that could enable him to speak sensibly and yet off-the-cuff...I find it so disappointing our modern politicians have lost this skill...

And lastly, did anyone else think there was a mild "dig" at George W. Bush? At one point in his speech he declares "I committed to acting on the recommendations of Judge Gomery when he brings forth his final report. And I myself testified before his commission, answering any and all questions." Perhaps a reference to Bush not publicly testifying before the 9/11 committee and not answering all questions put to him? Hmmm....

[also, what badmichelle said: whoever was operating the camera on Martin didn't know the first thing about framing. there was no headroom above him, and his hands were semi-chopped-off, which was bad, because he used his hands at various points in the speech]
posted by Al_Truist at 8:52 PM on April 22, 2005


Perhaps a reference to Bush not publicly testifying before the 9/11 committee and not answering all questions put to him? Hmmm....

As a non-American, this didn't occur to me at all when reading the transcript (missed the airing). I don't see that being the case for him either. I just think we have different standards over here with regard to the accountability of public figures. Or at least, the particular people in power right now in our two countries have different ideas about it.

Paul Martin - a guy who made his fortune dodging international shipping regulations

I'm trying to remember which country he used for flags of convenience. Might have been Malaysia. Anyway, anyone in shipping will tell you that this is absolutely de rigeur for avoiding national taxes and national environmental standards. But then, not everyone in shipping goes on to become Prime Minister, do they?

Regarding this recent turn of events, though, his insistence on waiting for the inquiry to finish does make him look pretty good. I mean, either he has faith that they'll never find out the truth (if it's bad) or that the truth will come out (and it is good -- as far as he is concerned). At worst, he now looks like a dupe.
posted by dreamsign at 9:54 PM on April 22, 2005


Should we go out and try and fix the world? Would it be the Canadian thing to do? Is it the smart thing to do?

But we do go out and try to fix the world. It is the Canadian thing to do. And, yes, it is the smart thing to do: there are many, many people we privileged few can assist so very much.

We're currently engaged in financial and military support for something like 130-odd countries. Martin's plan, as I understand it, is to focus on the two dozen or so that we are most effective in... and to do that without reducing the amount we're spending. I think that is a fantastic idea: by concentrating our limited resources, I think we'll do much, much more good over the short and long term.

And, yes, we'll do it like we've always done it: on invitation, and with the intent of helping them get back on their feet and walking on their own.

It's a very mature sense of power that comes from having an abundance of everything. We have so remarkably much in this country, that we don't need to seek more for ourselves -- in fact, can help others become abundant, and even give away our excess, and it doesn't harm us at all!

Hmmm. Maybe we're also becoming very mature within our borders, too, as shown by our recent movements toward further equality and further freedom. We don't need to stop people from smoking dope. We don't need to repress the queers. In fact, we can let our fellow citizens do what makes them happy, and it doesn't harm us at all.

You know, the more we talk about Canada, the more I appreciate what we have going on here. It would be damn difficult to top us if we keep on being so damn good at being sensible.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:14 PM on April 22, 2005


We're currently engaged in financial and military support for something like 130-odd countries.

Our international involvement should be a wellspring of pride for Canadians, but we're so damned reticent about advertising it. For instance, take a look at our UN involvement, it is simply fantastic and makes me incredibly proud to be a citizen of this country.
posted by purephase at 11:38 AM on April 24, 2005


We're currently engaged in financial and military support for something like 130-odd countries. Martin's plan, as I understand it, is to focus on the two dozen or so that we are most effective in... and to do that without reducing the amount we're spending. I think that is a fantastic idea: by concentrating our limited resources, I think we'll do much, much more good over the short and long term.

Aaaaaaaahhhh, nooooo!

This is the rhetoric, to be sure, but listen to Martin as he talks about this. This isn't about helping more people, or helping less people more effectively. This is about Canada making a contribution to a country which then receives bigger contributions from a half dozen other countries. This is about nobody waiving Canadian flags.

We should NEVER be sad when we see a worthy cause and someone else gives more than we do. They're getting help, and that's what counts, not getting top billing.
posted by dreamsign at 11:24 PM on May 3, 2005


« Older While blaming Democrats...  |  Research at Purdue University... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments