2) Address the democratic deficit: By this I do not mean that the Liberals should pursue senate reform or any such nonsense borrowed from the Conservatives. Senate reform was born of Western alienation and as I said many times before Western Canada, defined as a voting bloc is gone. The new cleavages, at least as far as BC is concerned, are between rural and urban voters, old and young and social conservative and social liberals. Only in Alberta does regionalism still define federal politics in large part. In this sense that issue is no longer ripe. But then again Martin does have yin for ideas that are 10 years out of date.

The notion that the lack of an American style senate, sorry I meant to say triple E Senate, in anyway constituted a democratic deficit in the first place is patently absurd. As is logically implied by the very notion of a triple E senate, the Senate in its current form is ineffective body devoid of any real powers. The Senate adds nothing to the genuine democratic process of the House of Commons and so can not take away anything either.

Lastly the a triple E senate is a terrible idea that makes as much sense, as Benjamin Franklin put it, as tying two equally matched horses to either end to buggy and having them both pull. The name of Britain’s second house, the House of Lords, says it all. The purpose of a second house was to check the democratic will of the people. The US system is not designed for that said purpose – at least not anymore. However, in actual fact that is what it does to a certain extent. Pork is the only way to prevent political deadlock. The whole system is lobbyist’s dream and regional interests make out like bandits and legislation is frequently watered down. Alaska, for example, has 1000 fold the political clout of, say, PEI even though Alaska makes up a small portion of the US population than PEI Canada’s.

A Triple E Senate is but one measure the Conservatives would introduce. Whether putting more power in the hands of individual MPs or “effective” senators the affect of such measures would be to increase the cost of running a political campaign and make governmental figures more susceptible to the influence of lobbyists. There is something to be said about party discipline. Lobbyists can not as easily play divide and conquer. All and all, far from curing any “democratic deficit” this would only create one.

If the Gomery scandal has taught us anything it is that we as Canadians must free the political process from its dependency on big money. The best way of doing this would be to vastly increase the amount of money each party receives per vote cast. I would say the figure be increased from $1.75 per vote to, say, $5 a vote. On the flip side of things the amount of free advertising available to political parties during an election campaign on the CBC should increase. I believe political parties receive free air time on CBC radio. This should be extended to CBC television and internet based services. Spending caps on the amount of advertising a party or candidate could do should also be looked at.

Media concentration is another issue that must be dealt with. It is simply not healthy for a functioning democracy for a company such as Canwest Global can be virtually the only game in town in the city the size of Vancouver. The company owns both major news papers, virtually all local newspapers and the number one television station. At one time it also owned the number one radio station, the number one TV station and the two major newspapers. The homogenization of voice is one issue, but so too is the lack quality reporting and the immense influence these organizations gain over the political process as they continue to grow. If I am not mistaken Canwest circulation numbers continue to circle the boll even as profits are up again. Profits have come at the expense of news. Why hire more local reporters to collect news stories when one can just as easily use filler from one vast corporate empire? Concentration makes economic sense for media companies; it makes no sense for Canadians to let such a process continue any longer.

The notion that the news departments at the major networks should be a major money makers has not always be taken as a given. We are all the worse for the change. What is and is not newsworthy is complex question with no definitive answer. However, more so than ever before profitability has played a greater role in how people in the business approach the question. Crime as it turns out sells and so even as Canada’s crime rate continues to drop, the number of crime stories on the nightly news is up nearly 150 to 200% over the course of the last decade. The number of stories, meanwhile, filed by foreign correspondents has plummeted. Covering foreign stories is just not profitable. Media concentration is one half of the coin the other factor behind the homogenization of news. The other half is that only certain kinds of news stories are profitable and hence newsworthy.

The CBC is one way of countering such issues. However, CBC news should be more than a vehicle for saying commercials during, most notably, the National. For this reason, no commercials should be shown during the National. In order for it to provide Canadians with solid news reporting a number of other steps must be taken. One, funding for the news division should be restored. As it is unrealistic to expect the whole of CBC would return to its pre Mulroney hatchet job days, the news division should be funded separately than the whole of the CBC. Two, the CBC should appoint entirely from within. No position inside the CBC should be appointed by the government.


3) Legalize marijuana: I hate to beat a dead hoarse to death, but this one is a winner. The political situation is very fluid right now and some issues are just waiting for a champion; once championed Canadians will take to such a policy proposal like ducks to water. Alas, wedded to polling by policy, the Liberals, especially under Martin, are loath to step outside of narrow comfort zone defined by Martin’s corporate worldview. The three Liberal wise men were part of the advant guard. Martin and crew, on the other hand, are bringing up the rear. In marketing speak you, Mr. Martin, are a late adapter.

Now, if Martin ever wanted to make a splash on the international scene this is the issue. Martin and crew seem blind to this though. They have fallen for the laughably silly notion, implicitly put forth by the Conservatives, that Canada’s international standing is proportional to its military spending on a pre capital basis. First things first. Nation building is dead. It was not well for a very long time, but Iraq killed it. All that is left is peace making air campaigns a la Serbia coupled with peace keeping operations were ground troops keep apart two or more geographically isolated groups from tearing each other to bits. More often then not, though, the kinds of state conflict that are suitable to peace keepers (9 time out of 10 open war fare between two states) being sent in are fewer and far between these days. For this reason alone it is plain wrong to think that Canada could build an international reputation as a peacekeeping nation. As far as Canada goes, it is all about “soft power”.

The legalization of pot would make a big impact for two reasons. One, marijuana is one of the main cultural fault lines in the West. So too for that matter is gay marriage; this partly explains the large interest shown the gay marriage debate in Canada by the international press. Two what one thinks of Bush is probably the single biggest cultural fault line in the West today. Needless to say, most do not like the man or his policies or the long time US policies he has aggressively championed (e.g., the war on drugs).

The legalization of marijuana in Canada would probably sound the death nail for US war on Drugs. Not only would Canada’s proximity to the US give the US drug warriors problems both ideologically and logistically, but the international legal matrix that has traditionally checked any thought other western nations have had about legalizing marijuana would collapse overnight. Martin would be lionized in the international press for striking a blow against America’s “war on drugs”,

4) Euthanasia: Terry Shivio brought this issue to the forefront. However, it did not do so in a way many might expect. The issue at hand is not whether Canada should allow euthanasia, but what form euthanasia should take in Canada. People are euthanized all the time and the vast majority of Canadians and Americans approve of this. The problem is as in the Shivio case, dehydration and starvation is allowed to do what a strong dose of morphine could more humanly do. (Shivio might not have felt any pain, but watching a loved one whither away to nothing is an extremely unpleasant process.) This issue is ripe for the picking and would be popular in urban Canada, particularly in the big three, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto.

5) 5 weeks vacation: In the last BC provincial election a new party emerged, The Work Less Party. Martin should take heed of what the Marijuana Party has done here. Marx once said that history repeats itself. The first time as a tragedy and second as a farce. In BC politics history also repeats itself. The first time as a farce the second as a serious issue.

In Europe the amount one is required to work has continued to be a serious political issue as it was during the fight for a the 5 day week, 10 hour day and then an 8 hour day. Conversely, in North America the issue does not jive with puritan individualism and for this and other reasons is considered a private matter. Only unions take the issue seriously and many idiots on the right mock the Europeans for not working as hard as us macho North Americans. Such slave morality dressed by in the hegemonic language of necessity must be confronted and will be defeated if challenged. Having to work 50 to 60 hours a week 50 weeks a year and feeling ill at ease during one’s vacation should not be a source of pride, but rather a bone of contention. Every European is afforded at a minimum 4 weeks vacation a year and many receive upwards of 6. They also work much shorter weeks. Canadians should expect no less.

6) Public dental care: This one is a no brainer. A base level of dental care is something that every Canadian should be afforded