Our position has been that the cost of being wrong about climate change is so much greater than being right that action is imperative. The Economist has two outstanding pieces that set out this case that are required reading for anyone interested in the fate of the planet. Ok, a little over the top, how about anyone who would like to sound very convincing at dinner parties. The US and Russia are on the verge of an agreement to make big cuts in their nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Now its Canada's turn. Typically smug Canadians watching the to-and-fro and occasional crash-and-burn of the US health care debate confident that all Canadians have health care coverage need to be reminded that Canada's system is not sustainable. A combination of prevention, funding, and delivery solutions that will eventually include more private delivery (already about 25% of Canada's health care is privately delivered) needs to be put on the table for action. We'll soon see that this debate in its own way is as divisive in Canada as elsewhere.

The United States comes to an important crossroad on Sunday with the health care bill vote. The moral imperative alone of extending health care coverage to all the country's citizens ought to be the reason for a successful vote. The economic imperative of reining in health care costs ought to be the reason for a successful vote.

There are three central premises behind Canada's Excellent Future. First, that the international system has evolved to respect the legally equality of nations. Second, that the United States (Canada's only continental neighbour) will always respect Canadian sovereignty except when Canadian territory could be used to threaten American life and liberty. Third, that the combination of these two facts gives Canada enormous domestic policy space to craft its own future, excellent or otherwise.