I don't see anywhere in that quote where he says he is not going to call an election.

Maybe I need to read it backwards or flip it upside down and backwards, or use a mirror or something.

Or, maybe Martin assumes he will win that election and therefore, she WILL be implementing the recommendations.

Honestly, your post is quite a stretch.

From the story:

The significance is that on Thursday, Members of Parliament will stand and be counted in the most-watched vote of the past 25 years. And Belinda Stronach has chosen to stand for what she believes is best for Canada.

She believes it would be wrong for the country if the Conservative Party combines with the Bloc to kill this budget and force an early election. And she's doing something about it.

Sounds like he does not plan on calling an election to me - unless forced to.

Again, that's dishonest. He said he'd call an election after Gomery. What does the vote have to do with that? If the government is defeated, the election will come earlier.

Seriously, you're making up a story here. You're so anxious to get one, you'll actually make it up.

A l-i-e.

Good thing you aren't in charge of Newsweek folks!

I agree with Michael - and in light of the Newsweek debacle, where people died because an overzealous 'newsmagazine' decided to report untruths, I should think you'd all be a lot more careful

If the government is defeated, the election will come earlier.

The government was already defeated, as some of us remember from -- what was it, last week?

Does that mean that Ari Fleischer was right when he said that people should watch what they say?

Funny, I thought that was a sign of looming fascism, thought control, and government censorship at the time....

of course people should watch what they say, didn't your mother teach you that?

Has anyone quoted the referenced statement back to the PM and asked whether he means to call an election after Gomery concludes, as previously promised?

Mark is naive if he buys the argument that Belinda Stronach crossed the floor of Canada's House of COmmons because of principle.
If her principle was that she rejected Stephen Harper's deal with the separtist Bloc to bring down the government, Belinda could have simply sat as an independent. She did not do that; she angled for and accepted a position of major privilege as a Cabinet member in an invented portfolio.
Ergo, Ms Stronach sold her vote and made a personal gain at our expense (a job and a salary and a ministry budget that are paid by taxpayer dollars). Don't tell us she stands for anything except Belinda. Especially don't tell, Peter MacKay, or William Clinton or Johann Olav Koss.
What's most bothersome is that she's also going to be in a position of applying her "ethics" when the Gomery recommendations are made.