Premier Alison Redford is a red-Tory. Once thought extinct, this political species truly represents the “Progressive Conservative” brand. Socially liberal but fiscally conservative, these politicians have no desire to restrict human rights, while also want to keep deficits small and let business operate more freely. Redford won her party’s leadership by promising to support teachers and doctors.

Danielle Smith is a pure libertarian, direct from the Fraser Institute, and seems to legitimately have no interest in legislating along morality. Unfortunately for her, her party comes from a combination of fringe far-right parties (Wildrose and the Alberta Alliance) which sought to push these socially regressive policies. Smith, believing that free speech means speech should have no consequences, refused to distance herself or her party from the racist and homophobic views that were all too common in a slate of fringe nutcases, and consequently her party was trounced in the city that recently elected a brown Muslim university professor as mayor and in the other city that has a popular Jewish mayor.

The Liberal Party of Alberta is cursed by their name, despite being entirely independent from their federal cousins who forever tarnished the big red brand in Alberta. Their leader, Raj Sherman, is a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister, who was kicked (or quit, I forget) from caucus for openly criticizing the government over its handling of health care. He joined and then became the leader of the Liberals, but failed to make a break through. Many thought with a PC leader that the Liberals would curve right and attempt to bleed soft PC support from the left while the Wildrose tore in from the right. Instead, he released a platform to the left of the NDP, promising new taxes on the rich (Alberta currently has a flat income tax) and free university tuition.

The NDP doubled its caucus and nearly won in Lethbridge with a popular local candidate. Its leader, Brian Mason, was the only veteran leader, but he has yet to break through in quite the way that Jack Layton did for the federal NDP. They almost sadly consider getting 11% of the vote and 4 seats to be a rousing success.

Finally, the Alberta Party started basically through Twitter and Web 2.0 fads, focussed on “doing politics differently”, nominated and targeted only a few ridings, and failed to even make a dent in any. The Alberta Greens were de-registered after the previous election for failing to file their paperwork, and their former leader was just elected as a Wildrose MLA (basically the Greens were really big on property rights which aligned with the Wildrose). In place of the Greens was the EverGreen Party that failed to even register on the radar (can anyone name their leader?).

Party loyalty and tribalism being what they are, there is little to no chance that the Liberals, NDP, and other left or centre alternatives will make efforts to cooperate or merge. Therefore, under first-past-the-post, these parties will continue to split the vote in many ridings and the best hope for progressive policies in Alberta in this election was in many of the PC candidates.

This past week has seen blow up and scandal plague Alberta politics, as the boobs come off the Wildrose bus. First, we have a compilation of quotes by Danielle Smith shaping her as a Christian Libertarian, then we have her denouncing established climate science, plus she has refused to chasten her candidates for slandering the Edmonton Public School Board and damning homosexuals to burn in “the lake of fire” or for saying that being white is an advantage.

It’s well established that Conservative Party of Canada insiders, like former strategist Tom Flanagan and past Edmonton-Strathcona candidate Ryan Hastman, are working closely with the Wildrose Party. So we shouldn’t be surprised to see the social conservative forces, fresh off their recent Ottawa takeover, are feeling threatened by a new Albertan premier who started to put a bit too much emphasis on the progressive in Progressive Conservative.

Meanwhile, in Ottawa, backbencher Stephen Woodworth will get to argue for rolling back the start of life (and thereby rolling back women’s rights) sometime soon.

It’s therefore encouraging to see Molly Grave’s new YouTube series “Prime Minister Stephen Harper & Canada’s Religious Right”, which has two episodes posted so far:

With luck (and the polls may be starting to turn around), these recent controversies will pull the Wildrose back from majority territory and into a minority situation. It is likely that we will then see (in a cruel irony to their federal brethren) a Wildrose coalition government, supported by either the NDP, Liberals, or both.

Now, like the last UK election where the natural alliance would seem to be between Labour and the Liberal-Democrats, it is very likely that given the balance of power, both the NDP and Liberals would rather see a change in guard then continue to prop up the Tory dynasty. For at very least, it would be easier to fight an election against a relatively new government, then one with such a long history. However, progressive Albertans should heed England’s lessons as such a coalition could still mean harsh, unnecessary austerity and regressive policies, all at the cost of a few minor concessions (like electoral reform).

So I’m a little less pessimistic about Alberta’s future than a week ago, if only because a few Liberal or NDP cabinet ministers could be enough to stave off the harsher portions of the Wildrose social policy. Nevertheless, I’m not envious of my friends and family in Alberta who are faced with these options.

Here’s what a majority Harper Conservative budget looks like.

The Good

This budget will finally eliminate the penny. With prices of just about everything over $1, we don’t need 1/100th of this. While UNICEF may fear for their Halloween collections, in all likelihood they can now count on nickels and dimes to instantly increase their revenue by a factor of 5-10.

We are also promised $275 million and new legislation to improve First Nations education. I’m not sure if this is enough, but we definitely need to provide First Nations with the opportunity for a quality education.

There is also a plan to standardize all government emails to one system. Perhaps they’ll do like the University of Alberta and adopt Gmail. Regardless, this is one of those decisions that just makes sense.

Increasing the duty free limits is a simple and popular choice. It risks some harm to Canadian stores near the border but overall will likely be a good thing.

There are several other issues that I’m not informed enough to know if the funding is adequate but are areas I generally support:

• $205 million over one year for Hiring Credit for Small Business.
• Give $50 million over two years to Youth Employment Strategy.
• Give $150 million over two years on Community Infrastructure Improvement fund
• Give $105 million next year to Via Rail for operational and capital projects.
• Give $101 million over next five years for Esquimalt Graving Dock.
• Give $50 million over two years to protect wildlife at risk.
• Refund $130 million in application and processing fees to skilled foreign workers stuck in immigration limbo.
• Provide $9.6 million over three years to the RCMP to fight counterfeiting.
• Give $ 99.2 million over three years to help the provinces create permanent flood mitigation measures.
• Give $8 million to clean up low-level radioactive waste in Port Hope and Clarington, Ont.
• Provide $44 million over two years to the Canadian Grain Commission to reform their funding model.
• Provide $13.5 million over two years to improve pipeline safety.
• Give $35.7 million over two years to improve tanker safety and inspections, emergency preparedness related to oil spills and updated charts for shipping routes.
• Cut $2.1 billion from the Department of National Defence over the next three years.
• Give $5.2 billion over 11 years to the Canadian Coast Guard.
• Increase employee-contribution levels to pension plans for those working in Canadian Forces, RCMP, Public Service Commission and parliamentarians.

The Bad

While the government talks a good game about creating jobs, they will be destroying nearly 20,000 in three years in the public service. They are also continuing their assault on the public service by raising their retirement age to 65. This, coupled with the much-publicized rising age for Old Age Security to 67, means that there will be far fewer good jobs for my generation and those to come.

Then there’s the red-tape cutting gone mad. For every regulation they remove, we should be asking: Why was that procedure created in the first place? Many may be legitimately over-bureaucratic, but when it comes to sensitive ecosystems and public health, should we not be more cautious rather than less?

The Ugly

Finally, there are the things that really piss me off.

First, we have the attempt to kill our wildly successful fundamental research culture in Canada, replacing it with “business-led, industry-relevant research.” This means more projects like my masters that contribute little to the scientific community but may result in a minor efficiency improvement for mega-corporations like Honeywell, and fewer projects like my wife’s that seek to better understand the fundamental nature of superconductivity in exotic materials (which may have industrial relevance 10-20 years from now). This policy is horribly short-sighted and flies in the face of the long history of fundamental science producing technological breakthroughs.

Then there’s the decision to stop policing health claims on food labels. I’ll need to look more into this decision, but this could be another strike to the skeptic community. Just as the organized skeptic movement is getting ready for a dramatic shift forward, we see the federal government wash its hands of ensuring public health claims are based on evidence. We may soon see Cheerios promising to cure cancer or toxic cleaning solutions falsely labelled as child-friendly, with consumers being expected to make decisions without any independent verification of the claims. It’s a libertarian’s wet dream and a pragmatist’s nightmare.

They also want charities to provide more information about their political activities and their funding from foreign sources (source). While I would say this would be a positive thing in exposing questionably charitable organizations like the Fraser Institute, in all likelihood it’s targeted at those “foreign-funded radical environmental groups” like the David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute who have been at the forefront of opposing the unsustainable development agenda of the Harper Conservatives. At very least this will make filing taxes more painful for organizations already struggling with lower donations due to the recession.

Then there’s the stupid ideological positions (as though the last two weren’t) that make no real sense. Like the firm commitment to no new taxes or tax increases. There’s the plan to make the Governor General pay income tax in 2013, which sounds reasonable until you realize their salary is paid by taxes. Or the decision to sell $80 million worth of foreign residences – which like pawning your CD collection is not a long term solution to revenue issues. Or the shutting down of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada when our birth rate is already bottoming out. Or the scrapping of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, because why should we aim for sustainable development when we can just have good old development? Or cutting the CBC budget by 10% out of spite.

But at least Harper’s finally killing the Public Appointments Commission that was created in 2006 as part of his faux-accountability reforms, only to be scrapped when the opposition refused his partisan appointments to the commission, leaving a million dollar bureaucracy behind.

The Rest

Of course there’s a few remaining tidbits that I’m just not sure about.

I feel $450 million for sports facilities in the GTA is unnecessary, but it’s likely more political than ideological and likely any party in power would give something to them. I only hope the facilities add to the local community.

I’m not informed enough about the EI premium rate or its deficit to know if its increases need to be capped at 5 cents a year. And I also don’t know what the $5.2 billion in savings the Citizen is reporting includes.

Conclusions

It’s a Conservative budget. Ideological, harsh, and out of touch. There’s nothing in it to really be excited about as a progressive. I’d definitely deal with pennies in my pocket if it meant science would get the respect it deserves in this country.

*Newsworthy meaning devoid of real content but sure to generate water cooler gossip that overshadows real events.

Guelph staffer Michael Sona took that fall today, despite a lack of any “public evidence” that he was involved.

I doubt this will be enough to quiet the opposition, Elections Canada, or the RCMP. Let’s hope the pressure stays on – perhaps we can get a do-over in some of these ridings.

Finally, for all the flack thrown at Postmedia, I am quite impressed by the quality journalism done by the Ottawa Citizen here, as well as the rest of the media’s latching onto this story. A CTV piece on TV the other night even did the amazing thing of tying this scandal to the growing narrative of Conservative dirty election tricks – like the in and out scandal and the recent guilty plea.

Justin Trudeau betrays his political immaturity and narcissism in suggesting that his commitment to a united Canada is dependent on whether the Conservative government validates his personal values, say prominent political analysts.

And just who are these “prominent political analysts”?

First, we have Calgary School professor and (un)Friend of Science Barry Cooper. Ever the expert on talking about Quebec separation, in 1991 Cooper argued that Canada would be better off if Quebec separated in his book in Deconfederation: Canada without Quebec.

Second, we have Carleton philosophy professor Tom Darby. I couldn’t find much on this “prominent” analyst other than an obscure dystopian e-novel he wrote last year and another article by the journalist same person who wrote the above Sun article. In standard Conservative rhetoric, Sibley quotes Darby:

The most conservative people in this country right now are Liberals and New Democrats. Politics is all about change. Conservatives are supposed to be the ones afraid of change, but now those who fear change the most are the people who like to think of themselves as progressive.

Third, breaking the trend we have University of Ottawa political science professor Robert Asselin. His bio from an iPolitics article he wrote

Robert Asselin is the Associate Director of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. He has served as an advisor and speechwriter to the prime minister of Canada, communications director to the Leader of the Official Opposition, policy advisor to the minister of intergovernmental affairs as well as chief of staff to the associate minister of National Defence. He was a senior adviser and speechwriter for the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada for three national election campaigns.

The only other source they quote is a Conservative back bencher decrying the situation.

I wonder how many professors Sibley called before he got enough trash-talking Trudeau to fill an article or if he just has the same guys on speed dial.

The abortion debate

From the CBC:

A Conservative MP is calling for a special committee to examine when human life begins, a call opponents say is an excuse to reopen the debate over abortion.

Stephen Woodworth, who ironically likens himself to be morally equivalent to a nineteenth century feminist (his ideas are definitely situated in that era), believes that “It's simply not legitimate — not even to achieve some important or desired result — for Parliament to accept a law that says that some human beings are not human beings when they are.”

Stephen Harper says his government won’t open the abortion debate but do we really believe this man – known for his tight caucus control – would freely let these motions hit the press if he wasn’t hoping to score at least a few points with Canada’s wingnut fringe?

Liberals are Nazis now

Whoops goes the tongue:

[Bruce Grey-Owen Sound MP Larry] Miller, an opponent of the [long-gun] registry, quoted former Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs as saying that "the registering of hunting rifles is the first step in the social re-engineering of Canadians."

"Mr. Speaker, can you believe that statement? The social engineering of Canadians. Mr. Speaker, that is what Adolf Hitler tried to do in the 1930s," he claimed, over a chorus of catcalls in the Commons.

"The long gun registry is at its core solely about an idea that the Liberals had that guns are inherently evil and must be taken out the hands of the general population. Again, who does that sound like?" Miller said.

Harper and Baird are trying hard to be the world’s best friend to Israel – even if it means dragging us first into World War 3 with Iran – to court the Jewish and wingnut Christian fringe. Too bad for them their caucus occasionally speaks.

Torture away, CSIS

Continuing our government’s pastime of ignoring the evidence, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has advised CSIS that information acquired under torture is useful:

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews quietly told CSIS the government now expects the spy service to "make the protection of life and property its overriding priority" and may under exceptional circumstances share information based on intelligence that may have been derived from the use of torture.

"Information obtained by torture is always discounted. But the problem is, can one safely ignore it when Canadian lives and property are at stake?" Toews said in question period.

YES. Ignore the crap out of it.

Not just because torture is horribly inhumane, but because we know people will say anything under torture. There is no moral, ethical, or practical argument that holds up to justify torture. Of course, that only applies if we assume we have a government that operates with reason at its core.

Speaking at a Muslim Canadian Congress event honouring his “courageous decision,” Mr. Kenney said polling shows that eight out of 10 Canadians agreed with the decision while only 14% were opposed.

Sadly, neither Kenney nor the National Post provided any evidence for this statistic, so we can’t actually verify it ourselves.

Regardless, I’m still mixed on my own feelings about these decisions. Obviously forcing women to conceal their skin is an affront to feminism and equality but forcing them to undress can be equally offensive to one’s freedoms. I’m not really comfortable with a government that tells its citizens what they can and cannot wear.

Arguments aside, this opposition always seems to come down as a political distraction. It always seems to be presented as a solution that’s looking for a problem.

How many Muslim women were taking the oath while wearing a veil?

One per year? Two?

Without numbers and evidence – which we know that this government despises – all I can chalk these announcements up to is blatant fear-mongering and Islamophobia. Recall that Harper thinks Islamicism is the major threat to Canadian security.

Either case will be better then what we have now, obviously, but in either case we’re still stuck with these schmucks in our chamber of “sober second thought.”

Some of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s newly-appointed senators are emerging as global-warming skeptics in the wake of aggressive government positions to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, slam environmentalists and downplay potential damage caused by Canadian oil and gas exploration.

“I felt like it is kind of an insult to be a denier for a long time,” said Sen. Bert Brown, last month at a parliamentary committee studying energy policies. “It feels pretty good this morning.”

…

“I have to admit that what I read tells me that there is not a consensus among scientists,” [Senator Nancy] Greene Raine, another senator appointed by Harper, told the committee when it heard from Environment Minister Peter Kent, earlier last fall. “There are many different points of view and different kinds of research happening out there. One of the things that I am starting to see now is quite a few studies showing that we may be heading into a period of global cooling, which would maybe be a lot more problematic for Canada than global warming. Our country is on the cool side.”

Imagine for a second that a progressive government gets in to the House of Commons and passes the Jack Layton Climate Change Accountability Act. Once again, we’ll have to suffer through this ineffectual body blocking the legislation that could actually put some science-based targets on our emissions.

The only thing that may save our country is Harper’s own Senate-reform legislation that may force these senators to resign after 9 years.

Of course, then we may run into the situation where the senators realize the law has no teeth without a constitutional amendment and they refuse to step aside.

I don’t have much else to add. Basically we’re screwed.

He rightly doesn’t trust the Harper Government’s numbers (if they collect any) and wants to know the effects on the average farmer.

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz responds in typical Conservative fashion:

Ritz dismissed Goodale's call.

"When Mr. Goodale was the Liberal agriculture minister, western Canadian grain farmers were thrown in jail for selling their grain," said Ritz in an emailed statement. "In contrast, our government trusts farmers and knows that farmers do their own cost-benefit analysis of their farm business every day and that is why we have given farmers the freedom to choose how to market their grain."

While sounding like an exaggeration, in 2002, thirteen Alberta farmers were arrested for illegally transporting grains into the USA in 1996. Rather than pay the fines (the largest was $7500), they chose to make a political statement and spent between 24 and 180 days.

Nevertheless, Ritz chose to go on the attack when he was offered the chance to practice some actual evidence-based leadership. But as with InSite and the Census, we see that the Harper Conservatives are no friend of evidence.

Paul Sims at New Humanist worries that this diagnosis will take the onus off extremists for their own writings

While paranoid schizophrenia may have led to Breivik's murderous actions, many on the far-right share a number of the views that make up his "delusional universe", as, indeed, do several more mainstream commentators in the European and American press. Whatever conclusions the Norwegian courts may reach about Breivik, such people should not be allowed to sidestep the questions raised by the appearance of their ideas in his "manifesto" by simply dismissing that document as the work of an insane criminal.

It’s obviously an ad hominem to just dismiss someone as insane because they believe Islam is suddenly dominant in Canada or Europe, but we do need to recognize that with the right to free speech comes the responsibility in speech. Making wildly outlandish claims to the point where someone with a mental illness acts on them should not be criminalized but the columnists and commentators who put absurdities out there have some moral connection to these actions.

We must all continue to actively denounce hatred and fear-mongers who can contribute to this discord.