A world without friends?

Many Canadians have reveled in a feeling of schadenfreude when it comes to the recent debt ceiling debate in the United States. As a descendant of United Empire Loyalists writing within months of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, I understand the sentiment, even if it is somewhat unsightly and can easily venture into being undignified.

Much printer’s ink has been spilled over the economic – and political - fate of the US, with a smaller amount set aside for divining the impact on the loonie and our exports south. One can only venture that the prevailing attitude is some combination of fear for one’s self and the rather morbid curiosity of rubbernecking past the scene of a horrible car crash.

At present, the Congress has appeared to find enough of a lowest common denominator as to appease enough interests, and punch a breathing hole through the box they have placed themselves in. While many in the heartland are breathing a sigh of relief, wiser minds understand that this is not clemency, but a delay. When one has maxed out their credit card and cannot afford the monthly minimum payments, increasing their credit limit merely postpones the pain.

The prospects for Canada may be tenuous and challenging at first blush, but they foreshadow a debate that no-one has begun to initiate – one that will be as familiar to our children and grand-children as it is foreign to us.

From that moment in 1534 when Jacques Cartier landed at Gaspé and planted the French Royal Standard, Canada has always been connected, associated, or partnered with an empire or power. French seigneury ended in 1759, only to be replaced by British imperial rule. 1867 would bring a form of independence, but one that was still clearly within the confines of Empire. The Second World War destroyed fascism, but it also dealt a mortal blow to the British Empire. Almost seamlessly, however, Canada became part of a broader American led economic, political and military coalition of interests.

Canadian foreign policy has always reflected this reality, with initiatives designed either to buttress those relationships, or to assert some selective independence for national political expediency.

The shift in the global economy, and the recent financial turmoil spread through Europe, North America, and parts of Asia, reflect a change in power structures. In many respects, this is natural, and can be healthy. It is the result of more people entering the free market economy, and being lifted from relative levels of poverty.

It is also a shift into the unknown.

A major decline in US power would mean that for the first time in its history as a modern nation-state, Canada could find itself without a senior partner or discernable network of interests in the world. Economic, political, and demographic considerations will lead to both Europeans and Americans becoming more introverted, more concerned with domestic stability than international statecraft.
While predictions of the future are always problematic, it is fair to assume that American foreign policy will be far less interventionist, and may possibly be constrained by the need to maintain stability. A weaker United States combined with a stronger China would necessarily, for example, change the power relationship in South East Asia. The status of Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, and China’s declared maritime ‘economic zone’ will garner more attention than it does today. Indeed, when one considers Beijing’s call to have observer status on the Arctic Council, and a ringside seat on matters relating to an area of the world where it has no territory, one can only surmise what the policy would be in areas closer to its borders.

It is important to appreciate that the rise of China relative to other nations is not a prima facie negative. Every nation has the right to work to improving the lives and conditions of its people. Also, it would be unfair to presume that China would be an aggressive and destabilizing force in the world. In addition, there is nothing inherent in the character of the Chinese people that would be anathema to the overall peace and security of the world.

Having said that, while governments to a one always purport to be a representation of the will of the people, they often follow paths that diverge. If, as former American politician Tip O’Neill once asserted, that “all politics is local,” then there is always an inherent bias of treating foreign policy as an extension of domestic prerogatives. If those prerogatives lend toward a heavy-handedness, and – arguably – a newfound haughtiness and conceit, then we can only presume that a nation of over 1 billion people, with a nuclear armed military that has more personnel than the population of North America, a thirst for more natural resources than it possesses, and a political system with a history of reprisals and retributions will have a particular style of dealing with others.

One can rightfully argue that power corrupts, and that the ‘unipolar moment’ for the United States has presented some regrettable excesses. Nevertheless, those excesses are mild compared to those of other nations who enjoyed an advantage over their peers. Replacing the primacy of Washington with that of Beijing only serves to trade one set of issues for another – and if those issues are connected to a nation that suppresses human rights and liberty at home, and is beginning to display a nascent amount in arrogance toward other states, we will not have improved our lot.

A weakened United States and a crippled Europe, combined with an ascending totalitarian regime is the future that we face. Canadians will enter this brave new world with the real possibility that no-one will have our backs.

A generation of Liberal politicians have knelt at the altar of multilateralism – chiefly through the United Nations. Regrettably, this has meant that policy by the lowest common denominator. When one considers that Iran can serve on a human rights committee, and North Korea can be entrusted to chair the group promoting disarmament, we can see that the protection that this type of policy offers is no protection at all.

While Canada should endeavor to be a good and trustworthy partner to all, we need to acknowledge that some nations work better together than others. With the possible decline of existing global relationships, we must be at the forefront of forming new alliances and new partnerships.

Canada should therefore commit itself to a retooling of its foreign policy.

First, we should place a clear bias toward those nations that embrace those values that we hold dear. That means working to develop deeper ties with countries that promote human rights and freedoms, free market economies, and respect for the rule of law.

Canada is an Anglophone nation, a Francophone nation, and a power in the Western Hemisphere. This means that our trade, human rights and development aid should be specifically targeted toward the nations of the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, and the Organization of American States. Not only do these relationships tend to be the most successful and mutually-beneficial we have, but building on this approach – a “Three Sphere” strategy – we also fashion a system where we would serve as the nexus point between all three networks. Commonwealth nations wishing to tap into markets in la Francophonie and the Americas would use Canada as the trade and investment conduit, and so on.

The Prime Minister’s actions in this regard are encouraging, but may be too timid, given the rapidly changing complexion of the global economy and geopolitical structures. Stephen Harper is correct to pursue strategies to strengthen our military capabilities, develop our energy infrastructure, diversify our trade, and promote our values. What is needed, however, is the synthesis of a more holistic policy – one that specifically identifies what kind of international role Canada sees for itself, as well as the kind of international architecture it is keen to help develop.

The world is changing. In two decades, we will enter a world with multiple centres of power and influence, where no particular political philosophy is dominant, and where competition for resources and markets for a growing population will mark relations between states. Building deep and enduring alliances with the like-minded and similarly oriented is the only way that Canada will ensure its relevancy in the global community. More importantly, it is the only insurance policy for Canadians to live in a society influenced by its own values and prerogatives.

Fear v. Love

The air has a decidedly warmer feel to it, and despite the often heavy spring rains that April brings, one senses that summer is on its way.


One can smell change everywhere, and the current federal election is no exception.

Yours truly did scrutineer duties at a local advance poll, and even before the news media crowed about high turnout, the phenomenon was noticeable there. Some quipped that election day would be quiet as everyone had gone ahead and voted already.

High voter turnout. In an age of declining attendance, it does stick out like a sore thumb when it happens. The political scientists and aged campaign veterans will tell you that it means only one thing – a concerted will to turf the party in power.

In this world, anything is possible, but there is a difference between possibility and likelihood. Usually high turnout coincides with a series of polls over a period of time that telegraphs a spanking for the governing party. This time, however, the Tories have maintained an 8 to 14 point lead consistently during the campaign. Some polls are better than others (and yours truly follows one particular poll produced by a former colleague and personal friend) but even if the numbers are not identical, the relative position of each party and the overall trend appears to be consistent. The trend ceteris paribus leans to a particular scenario, of a Tory government straddling the 155 mark - a strong minority or a tenuous majority.

That, of course, fits with my earlier prognostication. What does not, however, is the recent positioning of Jack Layton’s New Democrats in the catbird seat.

Some random thoughts on the situation lend themselves to being teased out.

Conventional wisdom would contend that Jack Layton could become anything from Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to Prime Minister. Clearly the trend, at first blush, left unabated would deliver such results.

Being a natural contrarian, I believe that regardless of what drove the turnout at the advance polls, that surprising result will almost assuredly guarantee a high turnout on May 2nd. Tories are so close to a majority that they can smell it, the New Democrats smell blood in the water, and the Liberals can look to the old adage that “nothing sharpens the mind like a hanging in the morning.”

The NDP support should, however, be taken with an enormous grain of iodine. Overall popular vote does not equal seats. In 1993 the Progressive Conservatives received over 2.1 million votes and got two seats for their trouble. Conversely, the Bloc garnered 54 seats on nearly 400,000 fewer votes. Votes count, but where they lie is just as important. While the NDP is showing growth in all regions, the lion’s share of the phenomenon is in Quebec, and at the expense of the Bloc.

Outside Quebec is more interesting. First, while young voters are excited by Layton and his team, anyone in Ontario or BC over a certain age remembers NDP provincial governments – and not necessarily with great fondness. People in Ontario over 35, politically motivated or not, remember what “Rae Days” were. Secondly, Layton’s commitment to open the Constitution may have put his Quebec candidates in the driver’s seat, but it may have also served to throw Ontario, Western and BC candidates under the bus.

One also has to consider that, like in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Surging NDP poll numbers plus record turnout at the advance polls equals a full court press from both Tories and Liberals. The Conservative message is that only a strong majority will act as an insurance policy against an NDP coalition, while the Liberals will argue that upping the NDP vote does nothing but place ridings in the hands of Stephen Harper.

The Liberals are, by the situation, the most disadvantaged. While fighting head-on with the NDP for the liberal-left of the spectrum, they must also convince their right-wing to hold fast and not defect to the Tories in order to guarantee that Jack Layton gets nowhere near the front door of 24 Sussex.

In this instance, we will learn next week what is a stronger phenomenon – the passionate idealism of young NDP supporters disenchanted with the other parties, or the cold-blooded fear of those who lost four years of their lives and property the last time a New Democrat government held sway in their part of the country.

If you believe Machiavelli’s dictum that “it is better to be feared than to be loved,” and you recognize the demographic profile of the likely Canadian voter, then expect the over-35 crowd to line up around the block in order to nullify every ‘vote mob’ organized on every college and university campus in the Dominion.

From the shore of Cole Lake right this moment, it seems likely that the three opposition parties may end up with roughly the same number of seats, and the Tories somewhat short of their majority target.

So, we’ll have a coalition, right?

Uh, no.

The assumption with the coalition scenario was that the Liberals would be the senior partner. Any distribution that makes the Liberals co-captains or second fiddle to the NDP would be DOA – after all, the only thing more important than the temporary leadership of the government would be the permanent leadership of the centre-left. Add to that the fact that the Liberal and NDP caucuses may still not equal the Tory contingent.

Make nice with the Bloc? Not likely. Kiss of death for federalists, and the Bloc would be hard pressed to play nice with a party that had just dropkicked half their MP’s to the unemployment line.

So, while yours truly is feeling punchy, let’s throw out something really off the wall. Lets assume that the Tories are a half-dozen short of a majority, and the NDP have taken over the number two spot. The Liberals will no doubt be reduced in many ways – in representation in the House, in hard cash, and most likely a leader. What remains of the Liberal caucus may be caught in a squeeze. Some left-leaning Grit MP’s might consider a move to the NDP. Conversely, some “Paul Martin” Liberals may decide that crossing the floor to shake hands with Stephen Harper is a small price to pay to stop a socialist future. What if ten Liberal MPs – who may be fiscally conservative, or pro-life, or anti-gun registry – decide to make that trip? What starts out as a minority could very well become a majority before the House adjourns for the summer.

Life, by its very character, is unpredictable. As much as politics excites and motivates, your truly can only tolerate the sudden twists and turns knowing that some things never change – like the lapping waves and cooling breezes by the shore of the lake.

Tell them that Michael Ignatieff says "Bob Rae sleeps with the fishes"

Leadership conventions.

There have been many of them in our nation’s history. Each party has renewed itself through these events which are, in essence, a celebration of grassroots democracy. Many have provided some of the more dramatic moments in our nation’s political history. Party members drawn from every corner of the country, whether it be from downtown Toronto, fishing outposts in Newfoundland, or small towns on the prairies, decend upon a central location to meet and discuss the impending succession. Canadians from all walks of life, bound only by their party ties and commitment to democracy, put prospects to the test, and prepare themselves for yet another generation.

It never used to be this way. Parties, similar to the British model, would simply hole up their MP’s and Senators in a room, and pick one from among them to be their champion.
It was the Liberal Party of Canada that broke from this practice, and invited its rank-and-file members to be part of the process. In 1919, they elected Mackenzie King as their new leader, and, over time, every major political party in every province has adopted the same means of selection.

Some have delegated conventions, with a dozen or so people from each riding. Some have an open popular vote, while some apply some equal weighting to constituencies. The point is that for almost 90 years, the expectation of card-carrying members of Canadian political parties is that they personally, or a dozen of their friends and neighbours, will vote to select a person who could very well be Prime Minister, or Premier.

Now, ironically, the same party that first subjected national leadership to a grassroots vote, has decided that a conference call among some MP’s and Senators will suffice in the ratification of Pierre Trudeau…I mean, Michael Ignatieff, as Leader of the Liberal Party.

Sure, it wasn’t going to be much of a race with only one candidate in the running. Mind you, we had three eager beavers last week, and one of them, Bobby Rae, was talking tough as recently as the weekend. How do you go from criss-crossing the nation, doing the rubber chicken circuit and pressing the flesh, to saying “on second thought, no thanks.”?

Rae, ever the team player, isn’t saying much, but what he has been saying gives me the impression that the problem wasn’t one of desire or motivation.

I get the impression that the people on Iggy’s team are fans of the Godfather movie trilogy, because I see in Bobby Rae someone who was politely told that pushing things any further would result in the political equivalent of waking up with a horse head in your bed, or getting a shot like Moe Green when his rubdown was so rudely interrupted.

So, it appears that there is happiness in the land as the Grit-erati all line up to kiss the ring of Michael ‘Corleone’ Ignatieff, and declare and end to the truce between the three families…Oops, I mean, parties.

There are doubtless many in Liberal Land who are ready to uncork the sparkling cider and celebrate the beginning of their triumphant return to 24 Sussex. While such scenarios are not outside the statistical possibility, let’s be a bit more pragmatic.

First, your party is flat broke. Pledge drives for PBS stations bring in more cash, and what you do get is largely due to the stipends you receive from Elections Canada.

Second, you screwed up big time with the amateur hour putsch, and the PR damage will take more than a couple of months to repair.

Third, you burned your grassroots by making the leadership convention a moot point. You made your peace with Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc, but I can’t imagine their supporters don’t feel like they just got screwed over.

Fourth, you have vacated the high ground, because you can’t wax philosophical about democracy when you rear-end your own rank-and-file to obtain power.

Fifth, you are twenty points back, and will probably have to contend with all of the above – less money, fewer foot soldiers, and diminished status – while at the same time answering why your leader, in his writings, identified himself as ‘American’, not Canadian. Of course, don’t get me started on his published views of Ukrainians (read ‘Blood and Belonging’) and how that will bump up the Grit vote in the West.

A new name on the doorplate, or a new logo, or an new PR stunt will not save the Liberal Party. An commitment to old ideas like democracy and accountability might, in the long run.

Come to the Liberal BBQ, and bring plenty of gasoline!

Former British Prime Minister Ted Heath coined the observation that “a week is a lifetime in politics.” Nothing that has occurred in Ottawa this past week served to refute this bold statement.

At the beginning of last week, it was the call that “the Conservative government is dead. Long live the coalition.” Today, that sort of statement is supported by those who were out of the country for the last seven days, and those who - well, we won’t go there.

Stephane Dion’s YouTube moment, which easily would have gotten any Grade 9 student an ‘F’ in computer class, only served to reinforce the view that the gap between his ambition and ability is greater than the chasm between Liberals and Tories.

This weekend, of course, we had the display of support for both sides.

The pro-coalition forces turned out about 3000 people to Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto, while at least 3500 came to Ottawa to oppose the deal. In other words, public support is overwhelmingly anti-coalition.

Think of it, you have people like Mary Walsh, of 22 Minutes fame, rock bands like Broken Social Scene – who appeal heavily to a particular demographic – and all organized with money and material from the Canadian Labour Congress, as well as Liberal and NDP riding associations. What’s more, you hold it in the middle of Canada’s largest city, where coalition partnered parties hold virtually every riding. They get 3000 brave souls.

The anti-coalition people, devoid of the backing of CanCon celebs, trade union coffers, and enjoying the support of only one party – not three – hold an event in an urban area less than a fifth the size of the GTA, and they turn out 500 more people.

So, now that the cracks in the Thousand-Year Coalition are starting to form and widen, what comes next, you may ask? Actually, plenty more, and far more interesting than what we’ve seen so far.

Now, we hear that Dion’s retirement is being fast-tracked. The “Natural Governing Party” seems so eager on this point, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ignatieff and Rae backers heading over to Stornoway and throwing Stephane’s suits out onto the snow-covered front lawn, just like the wronged spouse in some bad Hollywood romatic comedy.

Unfortunately, haste makes waste. Get rid of Dion today, and you better have someone in place ASAP.

Grit flunkies think that Iggy should get the job, and they argue that the caucus and the party’s inner sanctum can rubber stamp that move. Apparently Dominic LeBlanc has already fallen on his sword for the erstwhile MP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, which is just as well. His bid for the Liberal leadership had the lief expectancy of one of those no-named red shirted crew members on the original ‘Star Trek’ series – the ones that got vapourized before the first commercial break.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party had already set in motion a leadership convention, slated it for May in Vancouver, and got people like Bobby Rae all excited about the prospect of becoming the Defender of Confederation.

Saving money on renting a convention centre, subsidizing delegates, and using up all that political donation tax room for a love-in when it would be better used for an election battle is, under the circumstances, pretty smart – except for the fact that hundreds of Liberal party members signed on for a convention, not a coronation.

Thus, Iggy has his own version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Accept the crown, and you can no longer be the defender of democracy. The champion of the 28%+17%+10%+6% coalition will have become leader on the support of less than 1% of the party membership.

Beyond that, I am not sure that the people who signed on to back that Champion of Democracy, Bobby Rae, are going to want to join hands and sing kum-by-yah any time soon – including before the next election.

Burning Liberal voters is bad enough. It makes the difference between winning, or losing, a competitive election. Burning Liberal party members is fatal. They are the folks that man your phone banks, put up signs, and give you money. Tick them off and you are “Dead Man Campaigning.”

Dion made several egregious mistakes, and the consequences will play out for quite some time. That is done, and cannot be undone. What comes next, however, could be a good dose of kerosene on an already large campfire.

Luckily for Tories like me, we are close enough to get warm, but not enough to get sent to the emergency room…

I see your Johnson, and raise you a Dickens...

The 3 Stooges, and their surrogates, throw out the oft-used quotation by the learned Samuel Johnson, that "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."

They argue that due to 26% plus 18% plus 10% plus 6% of Canadians who scattered their vote among the 4 platforms, the law allows them the right to conveniently gloss over the internal distinctions, and rule as a unified front.

Indeed, it does, and not withstanding the prorogation, they may still legally get their chance at the end of January.

To this end, might I offer another quote - this from the character Mr. Bumble from Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist" :

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass- a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience- by experience."

We can only hope so much...

And the winner is...

Robert Fife of CTV News!

"Huh?", you ask?

Well, like many Canadians, the boob tube in Cole Lake was turned on to see the sales pitches from the various leaders over the current crisis.

Even if I am biased, Harper looked professional and poised. He even indicated that he was open to input from the opposition parties. I see Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail characterized it as mean-spirited. I guess unless Harper is willing to lay down on the centre line of Rideau Street and let all manner of traffic run over him, he's not showing enough contrition for them.

Anyhoo, great move by Dion - air a grainy YouTube styled video that looks like it was produced by a Grade 9 student in their parents basement (my apologies, they would have had better production values) and have it sent to the networks at least 10-15 minutes late - lots of time for the various anchors and reporters to ad-lib until somebody finally mentions that this doesn't look very good on Dion.

They all said that, and it was painfully obvious to anyone exposed to it.

The award goes to Robert Fife because he was the first journalist to point out the thing that made my wife and I laugh...The spine of a book on the shelf to the upper left of Dion's head that read in bold letters "HOT AIR".

I wondered who would mention it, and indicate that it wasn't very smart to have that sitting within the gaze of the cameras.

Hat's off to you Bob. You said it loud, and you said it first!

A Moment of Truth for some...

I am not a particularly religious man, but I am often struck by the simple philosophy that many religions offer. In particular, the events in Ottawa over the last couple of days reminded me of an oft-cited verse that asks “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

Democracy is a messy business, and the design of our institutions does allow for the kind of arrangement that the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, in conjunction, have conceived. That is not the question that Canadians must ask themselves, unless they wish to adopt another form of government that prohibits this possibility.Whether or not such an arrangement should take place is the real question that Canadians must grapple with.

The idea to alter the public funding arrangement for political parties may, admittedly, have been hamfisted and lacking in a cooperative spirit, but the sheer opportunitstic and cravenly self-aggrandizing response by Messrs. Dion, Layton, and Duceppe appear to be both conveniently rapid and massively over-reactive.

The coalition partners, to be sure, cannot sell a government led by Monsieur Dion, and backstopped by separatists solely on the grounds that their parties cannot survive on the voluntary political contributions of Canadians, and that they need government money to exist. Unfortunately, that appears to be the excuse, even if the ‘cri de coeur’ is economic salvation.

The fall of a Conservative government is a transitory event. Governments rise and fall numerous times in a democracy, and at some point in the future, those who sit in opposition eventually get their chance to demonstrate leadership. As disappointing as it may be for many, it will pass, and they will take stock. What may not be so temporary, or fleeting, is the damage done to those parties that have assented to this scheme.

Those who count themselves as Liberals, either as card-carrying members, or as voting supporters, must now ask themselves just what that means. What distinguishes a Liberal from a New Democrat when that party will possess Cabinet Ministers within a Dion government, and have the right, by signed agreement, to determine policies that you voted against just two months ago? What does national unity mean to you, as a Liberal, when your party has struck a faustian bargain with those who seek to vivisect the country? What is the definition of leadership in the Liberal Party when a man who has lost the confidence of the Canadian people a mere two months ago, and the confidence of his own colleagues even more recently, can still become Prime Minister?

People join parties for a myriad of reasons – for personal profit, or personal beliefs. Depending upon what rationale led some of you to become Liberals, you may not be bothered in the least. On the other hand, you may wonder whether or not the Liberal Party you see today is the one you have supported in good faith in the past.

Although I continue to be a Conservative partisan myself, it would be a lie for me to deny that I have considered what the limits to my loyalty are. Long ago, I decided the conditions under which I would willingly tear up my membership card, and declare to my colleagues that being a party member was no longer compatible with my core beliefs or my conscience.

Whether or not Liberal supporters agree, I would argue that such is the moment of truth for them. Each supporter of that party needs to ask themselves whether or not this is the kind of leadership that they can accept in good conscience. They need to ask themselves whether or not the accommodations to the NDP and to the Bloc Quebecois are a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, or do they reflect a base desire to hold power whatever the moral cost.

The bottom line is that if the Liberal Party of Canada represents nothing more than a cadre of political insiders keen on wresting power for its own sake, is that a party you can be proud of? Is that a party that you can vote for, campaign for, and – more importantly – defend over the course of the coming months?

If not, there is no disloyalty in walking away from a party that abandoned you first.

The Stephen Harper "Hidden Agenda" Challenge

Now that the dust has settled, we are left to contemplate the results of this recent federal election – the third in four years. Surely there will be a great deal of discussion on the fates of the respective leaders, as well as the wisdom of the strategies they employed for various effects. Some will speculate on the future direction of the government, and, by extension, the relative congeniality among the assorted parties during this mandate.

These are not questions I would dwell upon as they will be answered for us in the fullness of time – whether it be a year, or two or three.

As a partisan, I am more concerned about what, despite being a theme of the last three elections, remains stubbornly unanswered. That is, the ‘secret agenda’ of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

This ‘secret agenda’ is so secret that neither I, as a Tory constituency board member, nor any of my colleagues have ever been privy to it. Surprisingly, though, it is public enough that every Liberal and NDP candidate knows it intimately.

In frustration, I have attempted to ask these people for details of this sinister subtext, but am left with a string of anecdotes and observations united not by any coherent narrative, but simply by the sympathies of those who broadcast them.

As a rhetorical tactic, the allegation of a ‘secret’ or ‘hidden’ agenda is absolutely superb. Denying you have one is even more deadly that fessing up to it. Of course you would deny a ‘hidden agenda’ – after all, it’s hidden, silly. Denials are as much an admission of guilt as a confession.

In the Middle Ages, enterprising prosecutors had an ingenious device for identifying witches known as the dunking chair. You simply strapped the accused sorceror to the chair and submerged them in a pond for a period of time. If they survived, they were guilty, because how could you stay alive under water for so long without the benefit of the Dark Arts? On the other hand, if they hoisted your lifeless body from the depths, your next of kin could rest assured in the knowledge that you were innocent of the charge and your soul could pass through St. Peter’s pearly gates.

No one can accurately predict the future. I know not when the next election will be, or who will be leading the fight for what party. I don’t even know what defining issue will grab the imagination of the Canadian public. I am, however, pretty confident that the Conservative ‘hidden agenda’ will once again be resurrected to the light of day.

That is why I, for my own piece of mind, as much as for anyone else, would like to seek closure on this vexing issue. Just as rewards are offered for undisputable proof of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, I wish to offer $100 of my own money to the individual who offers clear and unassailable proof of the Tory ‘hidden agenda.’

My terms are simple. The evidence must be substantive, and well documented, and reach the same burden of proof that one would find in a court of law. Anyone wishing to make quick money by simply copying Liberal and New Democratic blogs and passing innuendo and suggestion for fact need not apply. Dates, times, references to individuals and actions must be both documented and support the broader narrative of a conspiracy for me to open my wallet.

So here it is, Canada. The challenge has been set, and the prize is there to be won.

If a winner is found, I will award the money in however public a fashion the recipient chooses.

If the challenge has not been met before the next election, however, I trust that the Tory ‘hidden agenda’ be filed with the Protocols of Zion and every other scurrilous conspiracy that serves only to slander without proof.