|
The Paul Martin for dummies test Lorrie Goldstein
Sun, June 26, 2005
Lorrie Goldstein has a quick quiz to find out if you know where the PM stands on the issues -- don't worry, nobody fails
|
GOOD MORNING class, and welcome to Comfy Fur University and our summer seminar, "Understanding Paul Martin, 101." During the next six weeks we'll be studying what the prime minister of Canada says and then trying to figure out what he means. As you can imagine, we have loads of course material to cover and very little time to do it in, so if you don't mind I'm going to start things off by giving you a quick quiz to see how familiar you are with the inner workings of Paul Martin's mind. Don't worry, this won't count toward your final mark and there are no wrong answers. This is just a get-acquainted session. Ready? Let's begin. (1) When Paul Martin said in response to a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling, "We're not going to have a two tier-health care system in this country" did he mean that: (a) We're not going to have a two-tier health care system? (b) We're not going to have a two-tier health care system, other than the one the Supreme Court says we already have? (c) We're not going to have a two-tier health care system, other than the one I helped to create as finance minister by gutting transfer payments to the provinces for health care in the 1990s? (d) We're not going to have a two-tier health care system, other than the one we Liberals helped to create by ignoring the proliferation of private clinics across Canada, including those run by my family doctor? (2) When Paul Martin said, "Let me speak plainly: What happened with the sponsorship file occurred on the watch of a Liberal government. Those who were in power are to be held responsible and that includes me," did he mean that: (a) I should be held responsible for AdScam? (b) I should be held responsible for AdScam, unless you actually want to blame me for it? (c) I should be held responsible for AdScam, but if you actually want to blame someone, blame Jean Chretien. (d) "Responsibility" is such a vague term. (3) When Paul Martin voted in favour of the following motion in Parliament, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of the public debate about recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada," did he mean that: (a) Marriage is the union of one man and one woman? (b) Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, unless I have my fingers crossed? (c) "Marriage" is such a vague term? (d) What motion? DEFINE 'OFFER' (4) When Paul Martin said of the Gurmant Grewal-Tim Murphy-Ujjal Dosanjh controversy, "Offers were solicited and offers were turned down," did he mean that: (a) Murphy and Donsanjh turned down offers from Grewal? (b) Grewal turned down offers from Murphy and Dosanjh? (c) We already gave away the store to Belinda Stronach? (d) Define "offer"? (5) When Paul Martin said, "if missiles are going to be going over northern Canada, as an example, I think it's very important that Canada be at the table and we understand what's going on, so we can control our own sovereignty," did he mean that: (a) Canada should sign the treaty on Ballistic Missile Defence with the U.S. in order to preserve its own sovereignty? (b) Canada should not sign the treaty on Ballistic Missile Defence in order to preserve its own sovereignty? (c) Who said anything about Ballistic Missile Defence? (d) "Sovereignty" is such a vague term. Okay, class, that's enough for today. Tonight's reading assignment is the 1993 Liberal Red Book of election promises which Paul Martin co-authored, so, as you can imagine, we're going to be very, very busy tomorrow. Please try to show up on time. |
