HERE'S WHAT THE LEADERS SHOULD BE ASKED TONIGHT

Campaign '06 has been chockablock with policy announcements, but none
of the leaders has engaged Canadians in a discussion of where we are
headed as a nation. Rather, much like the television programs that
surround the parties' election ads, the leaders shill for their
policies to bump up what really counts -- the numbers.

These days, the political parties deploy sophisticated marketing
techniques to identify and make direct contact with the same swing
voters in the same swing ridings. Since these voters are assumed to be
in the mushy middle, the policies of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper,
the two men who have a realistic chance of being elected prime
minister, sound increasingly similar.

With the political leaders doing their darndest to stay on the message
they've been fed by strategists, it's left to journalists to demand
real answers. However, few reporters have the skills needed to
challenge the leaders on policy, even if commercial constraints did
not militate against discussing often arcane points.

The centralization of campaigns in the hands of pollsters, marketers
and admen puts a further damper on discussion of sensitive policy
issues. Since these professionals normally return to their lucrative
careers after the election, the political game in their minds is
primarily about winning, not the public interest.

In his report on the sponsorship program, Mr. Justice John Gomery
shone a spotlight on one area, advertising, where pecuniary interests
are at play between elections. However, the role of lobbyists was not
examined and it remains the third rail of Canadian politics. Since the
media have also been penetrated by the many lobbyists who serve as
commentators and analysts, there's been virtually no serious
exploration of this important invitation to corruption in Ottawa.

Some people pretend these and other "consultants" perform a genuine
public service, but the fact that their business suffers with a change
of government suggests that either the client or the taxpayer -- or
both -- is being cheated. Even Stephen Harper's proposals to clean up
Ottawa -- the most comprehensive advanced by any of the leaders --
have been cleverly designed to catch defeated Liberal MPs, not the
lobbyists working on his campaign and all others.

Tonight's debate provides a great opportunity to get at this and
several other substantive issues. Here are five questions I'd like to
see the moderator ask:

1. Mr. Martin, you recently proposed to reverse the onus in bail
applications where guns are involved, and your spokesperson says the
courts would be bound to respect Parliament's will. So let me ask you
the question you've asked Mr. Harper concerning same-sex marriage
where, he too, says the courts would have to respect Parliament's
will: Will you use the notwithstanding clause if the courts strike
down the reverse-onus provision?

2. Mr. Harper, you've vowed not to use the notwithstanding clause on
the issue of same-sex marriage. Would you, however, be prepared to use
it to override the Supreme Court decision legalizing swingers clubs --
as The Globe and Mail has suggested? And, if elected prime minister,
will you commit to appointing Supreme Court justices who are more in
sync with the values of ordinary Canadians?

3. Mr. Layton, your party continues to accept financial and other
support from Marc Emery, B.C.'s so-called Prince of Pot. Yet, in
Britain, the government now says there is a link between cannabis
consumption and mental illness. In France, a government report
recently found that teenagers driving under the influence of marijuana
were twice as likely to be involved in fatal accidents. Do you believe
that marijuana is a benign substance or do you agree that it can have
harmful effects?

4. To the three leaders: All of you have supported the Chief of
Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, who says that Canada's mission in
Afghanistan is to kill "scumbags." Yet the Dutch government has still
not agreed to participate under these rules of engagement. In fact,
some observers argue that the conflict in Afghanistan is actually a
civil war. If you believe we have to help our ally, the United States,
in the war on terror, why would we not have helped them in the past
year in Iraq?

5. Mr. Duceppe, you've said all along that this election is not about
sovereignty. More recently, you've explained that your party is not
running election ads in English because French is the common language
of Quebeckers. Why are you here this evening?