Alas, the sponsorship scandal and Martin government's tendency to water down policy and discussion has dampened the enthusiasm, the post US election buzz aside, of the most avid Canada watchers in the States and in Britain.

Gay marriage is the one exception. Although, loath to come out too strong, the Martin government has succeeded, despite of itself, in painting the Conservatives into a corner. In this regard, they have benefited from the media coverage. The media has slowly come to realize that the arguments put forward by the opponents of gay marriage are entirely devoid of merit. As it stands, Gay marriage is the one thing holding up the Conservative march to the middle storyline playing out in the MSM.

All that being said, the tentative nature of many Liberal pronouncements on gay marriage have all the passion of someone trying to convince themselves to go to the dentist to get an achy tooth looked at. As such, the leadership, a la Kerry, has hardly endured itself to the base even though it has rallied it. The Liberal party does not believe, as its base does, that this legislation will help birth a new age.

When it comes to pot decriminalization, things are not going nearly as well. The Martin government mistakenly believes that it can have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he does not want to anger the Americans and on the other he does not want to see anyone end up with a criminal record for possession of substance the majority of Canadians believe to be pretty innocuous. Chrétien: “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” As such, he has tried to put forth a plan to please both parties, but in reality has succeeded in doing neither. The problem at least with regard to Canadians is this: in a free and democratic society the law must be seen to be legitimate and marijuana prohibition is certainly not seen as such. Yes, Canadians understand that the Americans would not be pleased about legalization. However, that does not make marijuana prohibition in a general sense legitimate in their eyes; it just means that Canada is tailoring its own laws to meet the illegitimate demands of the Americans. There are certainly practical advantages to doing so, but the perception that Canada is enforcing laws to please a bullying third party is simply poisonous to the health of a functioning democracy.

The current plans for decriminalization are a particular affront to Vancouverites, people whom the party wants desperately to appeal too. Not only is opposition to Canada's marijuana laws particularly strong in Vancouver, but in many respects ticketing people for possession would represent something of a crack down. Yes, the number of people charged for possession in BC is higher than anywhere else in Canada. However, that reflects the sure magnitude of the marijuana industry here. As Vancouver police spokesperson Ann Drenan has said "In Vancouver, we very rarely arrest for simple possession of marijuana. There would have to be exigent circumstances." Put differently, Vancouver police use possession almost exclusively to nail dealers and not casual users.

As a recent study shows, since 1997, the police and the courts in BC are slowly but surely opting out of the drug war by failing to pursue more and more cases to their conclusion. (The study was mentioned a few weeks ago in the Vancouver Sun. I was not able to locate it online and, of course, the Sun story is behind a Canwest subscriber wall.) Tougher sentencing guidelines are unlikely to change attitudes regarding enforcement.

Now, the two of the most discussed political topics in the last couple years or so have been the Iraq War and Gay marriage. In both cases, discussion has benefited the Liberals. It is time the Liberals add marijuana legalization to that list.

As with the other two, what the party says will be quickly droned out by the political discussion that will follow. The government has no need to manufacture legitimacy; the Canadian people, in discussing the issue, will do that for them. The issue is already pregnant; the government is no more than a midwife.  Two added bonuses are that the Conservatives will be put into a position of having to defend the US’s war on drug.  All parties will have an increased ability to paint Stephen Harper as a Republican toady.  The second bonus is that the government will be able to drive a wedge between the two wings of the Conservative Party.  The Right wing Fraser Institute, for example, solidly backs marijuana legalization.  I doubt this is a position held by Canadian Christian Coalition.   

That said, although the Liberals will be loath to talk too plainly about the subject, the Liberals could learn a thing or two from George W Bush. Namely, nothing inspires respect and loyalty among your supporters like conviction -- or least the perception of it. Using focus groups to design arguments to please everyone may sound like good politics, but, as the Gore campaign in 2000 showed, what is good on paper does not always work out in practice. There is often no substitute for a good argument.

The two political advantages to introducing would be this.

It will be popular in Vancouver. Just a few years ago Mayor Campbell was given the biggest mandate in Vancouver municipal history by capitalizing on another controversial issue, viz., safe injection sites. Change was in the air, Campbell sensed this and offered Vancouver voters a new solution to an old problem. The Liberals should capitalize on Vancouver's emerging image of itself, which Larry Campbell tapped into, as being the next Amsterdam.

The Vancouver media is warm to the idea.  The Vancouver Sun ran a four part editorial calling for marijuana to be legalized.   

On the other side of the country, marijuana legalization is about the only issue big enough to offset some of the affects of the Gomery inquiry in Quebec. I think it was a Macleans poll that pointed out that no province was more pleased with the direction the country was taking, pre sponsorship scandal, than Quebec. It may yet be possible to pick up where this left off and again foster the perception, true in many respects, that Quebec’s values are becoming Canadian values. The best way of doing this is by not being afraid to pass controversial legislation on issues Quebec and Canada as a whole are trending towards. We value what you value, child care, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, harm reduction policies and no to George Bush’s conservative revolution. Values convergence and not asymmetrical federalism, favored by Martin and that clown Jean Lapierre, is the key to taming separatism. Quebecers will go with the party that is able to address their concerns and only the Federal government can offer socially liberal Quebec this. The Bloc can not. The Liberal party would benefit by willingly taking on the role of midwife.

Needless to say, no more scandals would also help.

Legalization of marijuana will also do something else. It will, obviously, bring Canada, and by extension Paul Martin and his Liberal Party, international notoriety. And this underscores a little noticed truth, the key to increasing our presence aboard does not lie with what we will do in the area of foreign policy, but rather with what will do domestically. Break open the emerging cultural fault line by introducing progressive policies and the world, especially the Americans, will take heed.  (The excitement about Canada expressed in the cited articles is no accident.  These Canadian measures have given many Democrats a sense of hope and provides them with a legislative agenda their own party is unwilling to submit. The problem with the Democrats is that their whole approach to the cultural wars has been defensive and larger defeatist. In 8 years of war what did Clinton give his base? Next to nothing. They let the social cons set the agenda at every turn.

Although, the affect of such a stand pat policy may not have been evident over the short term, over the long term the affects were devastating. “liberalism” if it is to mean anything at all to average American must represent a vision for American society that weaves together a series of legislative proposals. What is more, this vision has to be updated to meet changing realities. Since Johnson the Democratic Party has had no such vision. The party has gotten to the point where its identity is based solely upon what it is not, viz., the Republican Party. 

The Liberal party of Canada risks becoming a Northern version of the Democrats (defined solely by what they are not, viz., the Conservative party) if it does not set forth a new liberal policy agenda.)