Like I said, we need to talk; and now I've said my piece.
I argue that a global famine threatens, and that to prepare for it we must explore and develop new crops and other sources of food now. I argue that we need to diversify our food supply, and maintain a store to see us through the famine.
I argue that defence against a military threat is a waste of money, and that we need to prepare for natural disasters that threaten Canada and the rest of the world. I suggest that we form, train and maintain a military-type force able to help us and others survive and recover from natural disasters.
I argue that because we consume physical goods but don't produce them ourselves, we are selling our country to buy them. Even if we are willing to sell our country, I argue that the global market is a danger to humanity because it spreads pests and disease around the world.
I argue that Canadians who hide fortunes in tax havens shirk their responsibility to the country, and should not be considered responsible citizens.
I argue that the tourist industry does more harm than good to the nation as a whole, and should not be subsidized.
I suggest a benefits tax which would give Canadian industry a chance to recover, and enable it to compete in Canada and abroad.
I argue that most big companies are started by tradesmen, not businessmen, and that our government should offer encouragement and incentives to Canadians who want to start something new.
I argue that our financial industry inhibits, rather than promotes, economic growth. I suggest that banking regulations should be revised to prevent the creation of new money to buy existing goods and property. I also suggest the creation of new deposit banks which would not be allowed to create new money or move money from province to province. Between them, I argue, these changes would inhibit inflation and enable economic development across the country.
I argue that the national debt should be financed by the Bank of Canada, rather than by private banks.
I argue that we should not use aircraft for mass transport that could better be provided by trains. I suggest the replacement of Toronto's streetcars by buses and jitneys, and regulation changes that would allow the sale of more-efficient private motor-cars.
I argue that it would be better to save energy than to produce more of it. I suggest that small, privately-owned power plants located in big buildings could supplement large publicly-owned stand-alone installations.
I argue that our housing shortage and the high cost of housing are both created largely by regulations and the bureaucracy that administers them. I suggest that while we need to protect cropland from development, we also need to relax construction codes and zoning in some areas to allow the construction of affordable housing.
I argue for the establishment of free medical schools. Doctors trained in these schools would pay for their education with a specified term of public service, wherever they are needed in Canada. Existing medical schools would continue operations, and doctors who pay for their own education would be allowed to practice where they choose.
I suggest that some of the organizations that call themselves charities are actually tax scams, and that some appear to be frauds. I suggest a public inspector of charities to insure that when Canadians give to the poor, the poor receive those gifts.
I argue that some ecological problems have been created by ill-advised regulations. I suggest that ecological regulations should be based on science and common sense, rather than propaganda.
I note that the propaganda that surrounds us affects and misleads even the people that create it. I argue that mass entertainment and professional sports are part of a propaganda machine that is running out of control and that threatens to overwhelm us. I suggest that because we can't afford to let private interests control our information, we should not allow anyone to own more than one media outlet.
I argue that day care creates problems that are now becoming apparent and that universal day care presents a threat to the nature of our society. Rather than subsidize day care, I suggest that we should make it easier for mothers to raise their own children. I argue that we need more apprenticeships and trades training, and less university education.
I argue that our legal system has convicted dozens of innocent people. I described some of the problems that lead to false convictions and some measures that might reduce them. I suggest changes that would eliminate some wrongful convictions, and I argue that we need to punish people whose perjury, negligence, incompetence or malfeasance cause them.
I argue that most of the harm done by the "drug problem" and, in fact, most of the problem itself, are created by the police and the laws rather than by drugs. I suggest that we adopt the approach that virtually eliminated the drug trade in Holland, rather than the American approach that actually creates the problems it pretends to solve.
I argue that gambling does serious harm to our society. I suggest that we tax casinos and other gambling organizations to pay for the harm they do.
I argue that the Canadian gun registry is a grotesquely expensive boondoggle that has already increased the number of guns in Canada and made our cities into shooting galleries. I suggest that while it will take years to undo the damage, we can start by dumping the misguided program that caused it.
I argue that the War on Terror is actually a war on civil rights and freedom. I concede that we can't stop this war in other countries, but we can and must stop it in Canada.
I argue that our government is not democratic. I suggest that, like most democratic nations around the world, we develop or adopt a more workable and democratic proportional representation system.
I argue that confederation serves federal politicians and civil servants better than it serves Canadian citizens, and that it serves Quebec better than other provinces. I argue that Quebec uses the threat of separation against the rest of the country.
I suggest that we split off any parts of Quebec that want to stay with Canada, then allow the remainder to separate. Any parts of the province that choose to remain within Canada would remain as equals, with no special privileges.
I suggest that the rest of Canada could then form a more workable partnership that would allow all areas to develop.
I don't expect that any political party will develop the ideas I suggest here, because politicians have to work within the bounds of conventional wisdom and, by definition, new ideas are not part of conventional wisdom.
But individual people can accept new ideas and, if enough of them do, the new ideas become the conventional wisdom that politicians have to accept.
In my lifetime I've seen major changes in conventional wisdom about pollution and womens rights, and I've seen American colleges students force the United States to abandon the Vietnam war.
Politicians can't change the world but people can and, for the sake of our future, we must.