in corporate finance, when a company identifies a means of maximizing profit, and does not do so, it is considered lost revenue. it's a part of the trade agreements built into the new world order; if a province passes an environmental regulation that prevents future profits, the province becomes liable for "lost profit" - and merely demonstrating the potential for lost profit is enough to win a settlement in these clown courts set up by the agreements.

the liberals are reversing this logic, here - they're claiming that not implementing spending increases is the same thing as implementing cuts. and, while your average pleb may scratch their head at this, it is entirely consistent with the type of logic utilized in corporate finance.

i'm not sure if it's going to connect with voters, who may find the argument a little too abstract.

that being said, there's something a little bit unsettling about the provincial ndp using the same fiscal arguments that stephen harper used against a very similar, if admittedly somewhat convoluted, attack from the corresponding liberals.

the takeaway is that the liberals are in fact going to spend more money on these particular programs, and the ndp admit that.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-liberals-attack-on-ndp-platform-error-a-graze-not-a-direct-hit