Host: "Mr. Manley, you have only found $1 billion to cut out of a $140 billion spending budget Is that your final answer Are you sure you don't want to use a lifeline (call an opposition leader perhaps) How about asking the audience You know, Canada's 15.4 million taxpayers or its 31 million citizens Are you sure $1 billion is your final answer.

John Manley: "Yes, that's my final answer."

Host: "Sorry John, that sound means you gave the wrong answer, thanks for playing, good luck in Toronto this November. Who is our next contestant."

Studio voice: "Well it's none other A. Cdn. Taxpayer."

Host: "Welcome to the show, tell me a bit about yourself."

A.C. Taxpayer: "Well, I work hard to give almost half my income to all levels of government in Canada and I'm pretty frustrated as I continue to see literally billions of dollars wasted while core public services suffer. And boy do I wish I would have had that last question you gave to John Manley, eh. I would have aced it and won the grand prize of a more responsive and focused federal government, not only for myself but for my fellow Canadians."

Host: "Well we only have a few minutes left in the show anyways, so we'll start a new game next time. I'm curious, tell me where you would trim the federal budget."

A. C. Taxpayer: "To start, I'd tell Canadians that the government can't do everything and at the end of the day it's about setting priorities. Then I'd launch a core service review - similar to the program review of the mid-1990s - but this time with better and enduring results."

"This means that some programs will get axed while others may receive more money - but the overall goal would be to reduce the size of the federal government in the national economy. When total government activity accounts for almost 45% of our GDP, we have a problem and the federal government must show some leadership here. Even Keynes - whose prime the pump schemes in economic downturns that resulted in epidemic annual deficits which in turn created huge national debts - postulated in his early writings that total government activity should only be between 25% and 35% of GDP."

"Failed regional development and industrial subsidy schemes to the tune of $4 billion annually would be the first to go. Not far behind, there would be comprehensive overhaul Canadian Heritage and its granting activities. As well, in a 500-channel universe a clear choice has to be made, either the state is in the broadcasting business or not, but not this quasi-commercial venture that now exists. My preference would be to get out of this - it is not a core government activity. These two measures would save $1.5 billion."

"Further regulatory streamlining and opening of a variety of protected markets to competition would also result in savings. A review of the crown assets portfolio with an eye to selling some to either be reinvested in health technology and/or reduce the national debt would also occur. Finally, I'd be honest and look at how we can sustain our social programs in the long run by casting a critical eye at entitlement benefits and reforming them so those most in need receive help. To avoid this exercise is truly selfish."

Host: "These seem like common sense suggestions, why haven't they been tried before."

A. C. Taxpayer: "Good question. Mostly due to lack of political will and forging a national consensus that bold, new fiscal choices are needed. You see, it's far easier and much more politically expedient to simply replicate the mistakes of the past and once again pass on the costs to future generations than to try something new."