Amid his party’s plummeting polling numbers, Progressive Conservative Premier Jim Prentice needed to re-connect with voters and rebuild trust for his party during the leaders debate last night.

Instead, he told the only woman on stage that “I know the math is difficult…” in a discussion around tax increases. Very soon after #MathIsHard started trending in the province and NDP leader Rachel Notley was able to remind viewers that this is the leader who doesn’t want Albertans to “worry their pretty little heads.”

There’s an adage that governments typically lose elections, rather than opposition parties win them. In this case, I think Prenctice just lost it and Notley has a truly unexpected chance to win it.

For more on the debate, read Don Braid’s analysis in the Calgary Herald.

• He doesn’t believe in evolution
• He’s a chiropractor
• He’s claimed there’s a link between vaccines and autism
• He doesn’t believe the climate is changing

In his surreal press release (dated March 31, not April 1), he states that he will address his religious beliefs in Parliament at his next opportunity, which sounds like it will be a hoot. Lunney claims that Christians are being persecuted in Canada, a claim that is thoroughly debunked by the excellent Ottawa Citizen editorial:

Add MP James Lunney to the list of people who somehow have come to believe they’re being persecuted — that indeed, their fundamental human rights are under threat — when people disagree with them on Twitter.

Lunney is standing down before the election in October so we’ll only have a few more of his public gems of wisdom.

Good riddance.

The Christians are coming!

Originally published in The Peak, 31st May 2010

He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth.
Those who dwell in the wilderness will bow before Him,
And His enemies will lick the dust.

Psalm 72: 8-9

From this passage, Marci McDonald begins her argument in The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada that a Christian Dominionist movement has been growing in Canada. She purports to show how this Northern Christian Right has subtly gained an alarming amount of influence in the government in a short span of time.

In the first chapter, McDonald outlines Stephen Harper’s personal religious history, a taboo in the media. After moving to Calgary and joining Preston Manning’s Reform Party, Harper became a born-again Christian. Harper, unlike Manning and his ilk, preferred keeping his faith and politics separate. McDonald notes that it was only later when, as leader of the new Conservative Party, Harper reached out to other evangelicals.

McDonald has some difficulty measuring the level of influence the Christian Right has had on the Harper government. Few socially conservative policy changes have passed. Those that have passed have generally disappointed the very factions McDonald seeks to expose. Harper has repeatedly turned away from the abortion debate. Upon winning his first minority government, he quickly held his promised free vote on same-sex marriage – earlier than many evangelicals had wanted, as it provided them less time to mount a defence. Similarly, by breaking his fixed-election date law in 2008, Harper killed several of his caucus’ private members bills, including an unborn victims’ bill that was called the “first winnable abortion bill” in years.

However, McDonald does point out that perhaps Harper’s greatest success has been in his “incremental” changes, evidenced by his numerous appointments of partisans and born-agains to the courts, the senate, and the civil service. Within the Prime Minister’s Office, Harper counts many evangelical leaders, including the former leader of Focus on the Family Canada, Darrell Reid.

Similarly, Harper has been able to make many changes by the mere stroke of a pen. Harper cut funds to Status of Women Canada and KAIROS, a social justice charity that apparently represented the wrong-type of Christian – a charge levelled against McDonald herself. He has also provided tens of millions of stimulus dollars to Bible colleges and has cut funding to abortions provided as foreign aid.

McDonald also briefly discusses the so-called “Christian Left,” which included Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian medicare. She points out how both former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and the late NDP leader Jack Layton reached out to various faith communities through acts like the revival of the NDP Faith and Social Justice committee.

The Armageddon Factor is an enlightening read, regardless of one’s personal views, but the book strays from objectivity enough that it reads as a bit more than just a who’s who of the Christian Right. I had initially hoped that it could have let the subjects speak for themselves, like the documentary Jesus Camp.

Regardless, the book does shed light on what has been taking place in the dark. No democracy is served by secrecy and backroom lobbying. At the very least, this book will hopefully force Canadians to decide what kind of country we want this to be, because if we do not, there are those who have a scripturally-inspired version of what they think it should be.

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your email and for sharing your views with regards to Humanist marriages. My apologies for the delay in getting back to you but I was waiting for a clarification of the situation on this issue.

What I feared became reality: it was reported on Sunday 14^th December that the Conservatives will be blocking the legalisation of humanist weddings because they see it as a ‘fringe’ issue that could muddy their key messages ahead of the General Election.

As you know, Liberal Democrats believe that two consenting adults should be able to marry, and in a ceremony that reflect their personal values and beliefs. This is why we are in favour of the legalisation of humanist ceremonies in England and Wales.

I appreciate that humanist weddings appeal to an increasing number of couples who are non-religious, but who are not attracted by the option of a civil marriage ceremony. As a Liberal Democrat, I strongly support the principle of individual freedom and personal choice.

The current law in England and Wales means that anyone who has a humanist wedding must have an additional ceremony, in a registry office or another approved venue, before their marriage can be recognised. We want humanist weddings to be legally recognised.

When the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was debated in the House of Commons last year, several of my Lib Dems colleagues suggested amendments that would have allowed this to happen. Unfortunately, these amendments did not get enough support to be included in the Bill. However, the Coalition Government did agree to give this issue further consideration.

Section 14 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2014 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review into whether belief organisations, including humanist celebrants, should be allowed to solemnise marriages. The Act stated that the outcome of this review has to be published no later than 1st January 2015.

I have now written to the Prime Minister on your behalf, highlighting your concerns and asking for them to be addressed. Please find attached a copy of my letter for your information.

I shall of course come back to you as soon as I receive a response. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to get in touch again if you would like to discuss this further or if I can be of any other assistance as your MP.

Kind regards,

Lynne Featherstone MP

Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Hornsey and Wood Green

Here’s her letter to the PM:

Dear David,

RE:  Humanist weddings

I am writing on behalf of a number of my constituents who have expressed concerns regarding the legal recognition of humanist weddings.

My constituents are concerned that the Government has not published the promised review with recommendations over this issue yet. They are worried that there is very little time left before the General Election and that this short timetable could slip leaving them in the same unequal situation.

My constituents outlined that if the state can recognise the weddings of an unlimited range of religious organisations as marriages, there is no reason for it not to similarly recognise those conducted by a humanist organisation. They believe that the legal recognition of humanist marriages would be simple, popular, and would remove unreasonable disparities between different parts of the UK.

I would be most grateful if you could comment on the specific issues that have been raised. Thank you for your kind attention in this regard and I look forward to your response.

Kind regards,

Lynne Featherstone MP

Labour and the Greens also support extending the marriage act to humanists. The Sunday Times revealed on December that Number 10 has intervened to block humanist marriages.

In other news, my biased Canadian-politics Twitter was ablaze over the pomp and circumstance that was Stephen Harper’s (or I guess it was David Johnston’s) latest Speech from the Throne. Look, it even got it’s own domain: http://www.speech.gc.ca/

That website contains the full text, which I’ll analyze below, and numerous ads dedicated to  the never-ending Canada’s Economic Action Plan and “Seizing Canada’s Moment.” As far as I can tell, a speech from the throne has never gotten it’s own marketing material (beyond a press release or early leak), let alone branding. Such is Canada’s current political climate that routine procedures are marketable moments.

So what does Harper promise for the second half of his majority government? How will we “not recognize Canada when [he’s] gets through with it?”

Following the preliminary rah-rah Canada remarks, we get to his first goal: “Creating Jobs and Opportunities for Canadians,” the first point of which is “Balanced Budgets and Reducing the Cost of Government.”

The big promises here are to balance the budget by 2015 and reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. These would both be easy had Harper’s first actions as Prime Minister not have been to devastate the country’s revenue base by cutting taxes and the GST across the board but that’s in the past, these Conservatives are ironically forward looking.

He also promises to introduce a neo-con favourite: the balanced budget law. Only this law will only require balanced budgets “during normal economic times,” which basically means that any government that deems a deficit necessary will have an out. In simpler terms, it’s an empty promise and a waste of legislation. Expect it to come with some pomp and threats but then do absolutely nothing.

Additionally, there are promises to continue to try to reduce the size of the government (probably to the point where they can drown it in a tub). These include a freeze on the operating budget, reforms and reviews of spending, another fire-sale of federal assets, cuts to disability and sick-pay (because rationally self-interested individuals wouldn’t choose to be sick or disabled), and merging all of the email systems. I must admit that I like the idea of merging email systems but many technical challenges and some risk to doing so, on top of the security concerns.

Next come promises of Jobs for Canadians. I assume the heading Jobs for Albertans was rejected by the speech-writing committee.

Overall, I actually like a lot of the promises in this section. I’m not a labour economist, so I don’t know if there might be better approaches but this does have a number of appealing ideas. First, there’s a Canada Job Grant to help employers fill vacancies. Second, there is a focus on raising employment for aboriginals, youths, and people with disabilities – three groups with higher than average unemployment. There also may be some changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which I would ideally see scrapped in favour of providing jobs to Canadians or true immigrants. Time will tell if the TFW changes end up improving labour conditions or continue suppressing wages.

Trade is up next, with more promises for free trade agreements. Perhaps the best thing in this section is a promise to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act to let people travel with alcohol across provinces.

Alberta Resource Development and Farms, Fisheries, Forestry continue the right-wing agenda of drilling and piping oil to foreign markets to be refined. There is a nod to environmental concerns here but only in terms of pollution and oil spill dangers. I wouldn’t expect more from a government who’s Environment Minister considers climate change to be “debatable.” The government will also continue to support supply management – an arguably socialist policy from the 1930s that keeps milk and egg prices high but ensures farmers receive a living wage.

Priorities in Infrastructure and Shipbuilding and Manufacturing include a number of existing promises, such as subways in Toronto (good news for mayor Rob Ford) and Vancouver’s Evergreen Line. I don’t think anything is new in either of these sections.

The Science and Technology section notes that the Harper government has invested over $9 billion in “science, technology, and innovative companies,” which sounds impressive until you realize that is since 2006 and that the government’s approach has received wide criticism from scientists and the New York Times. Indeed, the speech promises no action to restore freedom of speech and research to Canadian science. Instead there will be a “transformation of the National Research Council,” an agency that is publishing 70% fewer articles than it did when Harper came to power.

Everything in this section should come as a disappointment to the majority of those who support primary research in Canada. The focus is business and profit, not research and pure science. If your idea isn’t profitable, Canada’s government isn’t interested.

Finally, under Small Business and Tourism, we are told that the “One-for-One Rule” will become law – meaning that every new regulation introduced must replace an existing one. This seems like a reasonable idea until you reach the inevitable point when every regulation still has a purpose and the government is forced to remove useful regulations. Additionally, this rule, designed to make regulations simpler for small businesses, means that for every regulatory change introduced, small businesses now have to figure out two new ways of doing things. Having dealt with some bureaucracy in non-profit, I would rather see consistency than an ever-changing regulatory landscape that you have to relearn every year. This absurd policy doubles the work for everyone.

Oh but there’s more. The next big section is Supporting and Protecting Canadian Families.

And what are the big threats to Canadian families? Taxes, corporations, and criminals.

First up, Harper will continue Keeping Taxes Low. There are no new promises here, just a reminder of how much revenue the government pissed away.

Second comes the much-ballyhooed section on Defending Canadian Consumers. Here we get the promises to reduce mobile roaming costs, unbundle TV packages (which will likely lead to higher cable bills), and more rural broadband. Overall, these are useful promises, many of which are lifted from the NDP’s 2008 and 2011 platforms.

Under Supporting Victims and Punishing Criminals we continue the “tough on crime” even when it’s falling to historic lows approach. This includes a Victims Bill of Rights, ending early release of violent offenders, defending the constitutionality of prostitution laws, and making “a life sentence mean a sentence for life”. To their credit, there are promises to address cyber-bullying and violence against Aboriginal women.

Finally, we get a splattering of promises under the title of Safeguarding Families and Communities. It’s not clear what they need safeguarding from but the more vague the danger, the better for Conservatives. This is why we get weird statements like: “That’s why our Government took money from bureaucrats and lobbyists and gave it to the real experts on child care—mom and dad,” which seem to deliberately ignore non-traditional families such as single parent homes or homosexual parents.

As for promises, expect better food and drug labels, more targeted tax breaks, and some vague promises relating to seniors and healthy living. Gattaca must have also been on Harper’s summer movie list, as genetic testing will be banned as grounds for discrimination by employers and insurance companies.

Squeezing social policy into the middle of a section here, Harper reminds us that he will continue to fight against evidence and try to prevent more safe injections sites from being opened through the Respect for Communities Act and promises to crack down on “the growing problem of prescription drug abuse” and “feeding addiction under the guise of treatment.”

Existing efforts to promote housing and conservation will continue and the government will continue reducing greenhouse gases while remaining competitive (no word on how much or what means will be used here). Finally, there are a few promises to make rail transport safer, relating to the recent Lac-Mégantic disaster.

The third, and final, major section is Putting Canada First. In short this is good news if you like the Army and the North and hate immigrants.

Supporting Our Armed Forces promises to continue using Canada’s military in the 21st Century to protect the nation from unnamed threats. Remember, this is the government that asked whether the Vancouver Olympics should be “concerned about any aerial incursions by the Russians.” Maybe the USA will collapse under the partisanship and the Tea Party will storm North to escape Obamacare – we already know Ted Cruz was born in Canada…

Anyway, there’s nothing about Peacekeeping here, Canada doesn’t do that anymore, just vague promises about reducing military bureaucracy and maintaining readiness for those unspecified threats.

The code-word for Arctic oil, Canada’s Northern Sovereignty, is next with promises to continuing the militarization of Santa’s workshop. At least this will mean some investment in Arctic communities, including health, education, housing, a new highway, and a research station. Naturally, this all makes it easier to continue “responsible resource development” of the North and defending the traditional seal hunt.

There is also an oddly specific promise to find out what happened to Sir John Franklin’s Arctic expedition. I had to look this up, Franklin was an explorer who died in 1847 after his ship, Terror, became trapped in ice during an expedition to explore the Northwest Passage. I take it that if Harper (personally) fails to find Franklin’s ship, his leadership will be remembered as a failure.

The next string of promises comes from Promoting Canadian Values. In his own words, these are that Canadians are “honourable in our dealings, faithful to our commitments, loyal to our friends. Confident partners, courageous warriors and compassionate neighbours.”

The only two foreign countries to be mentioned in the speech are America (with respect to trade) and Israel, who Canada’s government will continue to defend. The government will also defend freedom – freedom of religion foremost. Foreign aid will be filtered through the private sector and will be tied to results. Malala Yousafzai will receive an honorary citizenship and efforts will be made to fight early and forced marriages in Canada.

Referring to the the “broken immigration system,” Harper lays out what he’s done to make life worse for those trying to find refuge in Canada and promises to keep at it. Perhaps most worrying is a promise to introduce major reforms to the Citizenship Act. Remember that this is a government that has threatened to strip citizenship from people, something not done in large practice since racist laws before the Second World War.

Finally, closing out the speech we get a list of promises for the 2017: Anniversary of Confederation. Making the ballsy assumption that the Conservatives will still be in power after the 2015 Election, or at least wanting to force their successor to host a militaristic party, celebrations will include a bunch of war memorials, including the Memorial to the Victims of Communism. The Memorial to the Victims of Capitalism will undoubtedly be unveiled next year.

Also in honour of the anniversary comes promises to continue treaty dialogues, a change to the Senate (dependent on the Supreme Court’s ruling) and amendments to the election laws that the Conservatives can’t seem to follow.

In Conclusion, no real surprises in this speech with some policies I could actually support. In general though, it’s far too punitive, narrow, and militaristic for my Canada. And instead of “God Bless Canada,” we got the more Canadian:

May you be equal to that trust in all things and may Divine Providence guide you in your deliberations.

Canada’s official commemorative plan leading up to the country’s 150th birthday highlights an arsenal of battles and wars, a smattering of sports and a nod to the Arctic, newly obtained documents show.

…

University of Ottawa history professor Michael Behiels said the list represents a traditional and exceptionally narrow approach that excludes much of Canada’s social, medical and technological history.

"You have to build a broader base here … for it to be really meaningful," Behiels said.

There is no mention of settling the west, the trials and tribulations of working people or legal landmarks that transformed Canada’s social landscape, he noted.

Under budget cuts during the Chretien 1990s and a shift toward militancy, Canada has fallen to historic lows from its once noble tradition of being the world’s peacekeepers.

By Ottawa’s count, there are only 42 Canadian military personnel currently serving in seven UN peacekeeping missions. The UN says the count is even lower. Its most recent monthly report, issued at the end of the April, registered only 33 Canadian military personnel in UN missions. Another 130 Canadian police – some from the RCMP, others from provincial and municipal forces – are also serving with the UN.

The demand remains high though, as the UN now deploys more peacekeepers then ever, with rising powers like India and Bangladesh filling Canada’s role. Canadians are still strongly supportive of peacekeeping, even more so than Conservative priorities such as arctic sovereignty and counter-terrorism interventionary wars like Afghanistan.

There’s little prospect for change though. The current government is bent on continuing to transform Canada’s foreign policy and history toward militarism, while the Trudeau Liberals have no current foreign policy and were responsible for drastic cuts to peacekeeping missions during the 1990s. The NDP is a bit better with its 2013 Policy Book calling for a focus on peacekeeping, summarizing:

New Democrats believe that defense policy should focus on Canada’s rights as a sovereign and effective world citizen – including defending the Arctic and our territorial waters for the benefit of all citizens and future generations. Peace building will be the top military priority of a New Democrat government.

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.