Preston Manning has spoken so often of the need for public policy to be backed by a clearly articulated vision that his mission is becoming synonymous with the legend of Sisyphus, the mythical Greek king condemned to spend eternity rolling a boulder up a hill only to have it roll down again. Having led a political movement -- Reform -- that never gained power but effectively dictated the fiscal agenda of the 1990s, he must now watch as Alberta's balanced budget boulder tumbles relentlessly back to exactly where it started a generation or so ago. Whether that is necessary, wise or unwise, is another debate but on Manning's dark days, it must seem as if it has all been for naught. The need for vision, a word the host of the Conference on Alberta's future held on the weekend of Feb. 5, has been used so relentlessly that many of us now hear it in Manning's unique accent, must remain a task as eternal as the boulder's inevitable return to the base of the hill. While the tendency among politicians at the Edmonton event (Calgary MLA Kyle Fawcett of the governing Progressive Conservatives and Danielle Smith, leader of the suddenly popular conservative Wildrose Alliance) was to articulate vision through policy, most participants of all inclinations still similarly struggled to meet Manning's challenge of an intellectual core purpose: a set of shared and deeply held beliefs beyond the desire to hold and maintain power. Whether you agree or disagree, these motivations have from time to time existed only to eventually fade into the fog of those who find core ideas too, well, lacking in the moral flexibility required to deviate from them when expedience demands. They have, however, produced some notable hits when adhered to and, when they are pushed aside, some notable misses are evident. Choice, introduced confidently and boldly in the 1990s, has produced an education system that has room for two publicly funded systems (one secular and one separate/Catholic), private schools, charter schools, faith-based schools and, for those who prefer none of the above, publicly funded home-schooling. This was implemented because those who did so believed that choice creates better outcomes and, if the performance of Alberta students in international tests is anything to go by, it works. According to the provincial Education Ministry website, Alberta students scored the highest marks in the world in international testing of their reading skills and were among the top three in science and mathematics. Unfortunately, the chief miss is the other primary area of provincial jurisdiction -- health care. Here is where, when it came to the opportunity for the sort of systemic reform that many agree is required to ensure a sustainable system into the future, Alberta's confidence in its belief system crumbled and the opportunity for sustainable, productive reform was lost. Not only is there little if any choice in Alberta's system, its failure to articulate and communicate its beliefs in this area have led to a system that is, of all the provinces, by far the most expensive (Alberta spending per capita is 30 per cent higher than in Quebec, which is the most innovative province when it comes to health-care choice) yet appears to produce no better outcomes. Alberta will increase its health-care spending this year by 17 per cent. In 20 years, health-care spending in Alberta has grown from 27 per cent of total provincial spending to 44 per cent. At that pace, health care will consume 71 per cent of total provincial spending by 2030. Alberta had the strut of a high school quarterback when it came to education reform. But when it came to health care it showed all the confident grace of a chess club Trekkie stammering in the presence of the popular girls at the high school dance. At Manning's Edmonton conference, Fawcett, Smith and others spoke of the need for Alberta to worry less about what the popular girls think and more about what it believes to be right; to become fully mature, "think big" and -- as they say in Alberta -- "cowboy up" to its role as a leader on the national, if not the international stage in the 21st century. No doubt it will. The question is: which party's leader will be holding the reins? Ray Pennings is a senior fellow and vice-president of research in Calgary for Cardus -- a think-tank based in Hamilton, Ont.

Guelph Mercury covers the new Cardus book, Think Different. Read the entire column here.

At the beginning of the week Jonathan Bartley argued here, as he routinely does via his Christian think-tank Ekklesia, against recognising churches' legal right to hire staff according to their own beliefs. He didn't frame it in that unflattering way, of course. Instead he tried to justify the significant curtailment of corporate religious freedom his view implies by appealing to an unanswerable claim: that Christian love mandates treating people inclusively, with equal regard. Well he's right about that. But he simply bypasses the question of what equal regard actually means in practice. A moment's thought reveals that equal regard can't possibly mean treating every individual identically. Jesus certainly wasn't being very "inclusive" in castigating the oppressive religious leaders of his time as "whitewashed sepulchres", or turfing out the corrupt money-changers from the temple. Acts of justice are acts of discrimination and exclusion. Anti-racist laws rightly exclude racist behaviour: that's their particular way of showing equal regard love to people of colour. A coherent idea of discrimination requires a substantive account of justice, and that includes defining what legitimate rights individuals and organisations actually possess. All British citizens properly possess the prima facie individual right not to be discriminated against, in matters like employment, housing and social services, on grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation. This is because these involuntary markers of identity are completely irrelevant to such matters. I said "prima facie" because even here there exist widely recognised and uncontroversial exceptions, often arising from the rights of organisations. A rape crisis centre surely has the right to discriminate against men when hiring its counselling staff (perhaps any staff). An African-Caribbean community centre obviously can't be compelled by law to hire a white guy like me as its director. The Labour party is evidently entitled to discriminate on ideological grounds in hiring its research staff. These are all examples of what the law calls a "genuine occupational requirement" (GOR). The idea is simple and compelling: every independent civil society organisation has a prima facie right to maintain its identity and mission by hiring staff who will support the distinctive purposes of the organisation and uphold its raison d'etre. This isn't a "privilege", as is often tendentiously suggested, but merely a condition of meaningful self-government. Why then cry foul when religious organisations exercise their right to invoke the GOR provision? Why single them out and deny them the same rights enjoyed by others? Yet when they claim such a right, critics like Bartley routinely accuse them of seeking to claim "the right to discriminate". But this is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy concealing a conceptual sleight of hand. Of course churches are defending their right to discriminate in hiring, but this is nothing other than the right his own organisation would claim if a militant atheist sued Ekklesia for refusing to hire her. Bartley is fully entitled to argue that, from a Christian point of view, churches should not restrict staff positions to those who, for example, maintain traditional views of sexual ethics. That's an argument to be conducted within (or at least addressed to) the churches. But he is not entitled to call upon coercive law to force churches to conform to his views of sexual ethics, getting the state to succeed where he has failed. It's incredible that such a position should be advanced in pursuit of the principle of equal regard. So, unpalatable though it may be for some, Benedict XVI turns out to be right on this one: the equality bill, exemplary in many ways, should not be used as a Trojan horse to undermine the right of religious organisations to govern their own internal affairs. As political theorist Michael Walzer has argued, justice is complex, not simple; equality requires many things not just one thing. At least, it requires both equal individual rights against irrelevant discrimination and equal organisational rights to self-government. Happily, the House of Lords has seen sense on this and amended the bill in a way that brings these two classes of rights back into the balance established in 2003 (which was already quite restrictive). Contrary to what Terry Sanderson wrote on 26 January and as Ekklesia has also claimed, it has not granted an extension of rights to religious organisations. It would be foolish, mean-spirited and wrong-headed for the government to seek to overturn these modest and sensible amendments.

Jonathan appeared live on BNN (Canada's Business News Network), January 27th at approximately 2:45pm. The segment was archived on BNN's website www.bnn.ca for those of you who are interested and could not watch the live segment. Jonathan was asked to comment on the Federal Reserve's statement which was released at 2:15pm the same day. This is a particularly important time for the Federal Reserve given the historically low interest rates, the record levels of 'quantitative easing' (code words for printing of money) and the fact that Chairman Ben Bernanke only has a few days left to be confirmed before his first 4 year term as Fed Chairman expires. Watch Jonathan Wellum's comments here.

Read the entire article here .

As Canada adapts in the year ahead to the conflicting priorities of emissions management, industrial development, fiscal prudence and sustenance of pension and health-care commitments, the nation's culture of generosity is at risk of achieving endangered species status and shifting an even greater social burden to governments. As the recent Cardus study, A Canadian Culture of Generosity, shows, 85% of adults say they donate to charity annually, and between a quarter and a third of us volunteer in organizations engaged in the ground-level street battle against homelessness and other social scars. However, fewer than 30% of us now account for 85% of total hours volunteered, 78% of total dollars donated and 71% of all civic participation. Dig a little further and we discover that there is a primary civic core of about 6% of the population that does about five times its proportionate share and a secondary group of 23% of the population that does about double its share. They carry the remaining 71% of the population. While some measure of disproportionality is expected, given the different stages of life, resources and aptitudes that make up the population mosaic, these patterns are not sustainable. Researchers tell us the features that distinguish the civic core are not the sort of characteristics which will automatically replenish themselves but rather are founded in certain habits of the heart that incline them to the common good. Unless action is taken by governments to support these behaviours and the charitable institutions that underpin them, the work they perform will increasingly fall to governments that deliver them at a much higher cost to taxpayers. The sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance that was filed earlier this month in the House of Commons touched on these key areas with references to general requests made of it to enhance the percentage of charitable giving that may be deducted for tax purposes, and also to a raise the basic $200 exemption. The report also recommends that the government investigate incentives to levels of giving by businesses and individuals and consider hiking the charitable tax credit to 39% for incremental annual giving, provided that giving is more than $200 and less than $10,000. Further, it suggests the creation of a corporate structure for not-for-profits that would allow the issuance of share capital and other securities as well as the elimination of capital gains tax on donations of real estate and land to public charities. These are practical suggestions to address a concern that will not be resolved simply by a moralistic campaign, or by privatization. All stakeholders are needed to do their part to create a new culture of giving, to improve the social environment, to mobilize citizens to become part of the civic core and to strengthen Canada's charitable sector. Although the issue is much broader than politics, the importance of leadership cannot be overlooked. We recommend highlighting the importance of the charitable sector by increasing the charitable tax credit for donations over $200 from 29% to 42%. Since Alberta and British Columbia increased their provincial tax credits for charitable organizations, donations to charities have increased in each province by more than 5%. Initiatives should include seeking an understanding of faith-based organizations and their role. Dealing with faith and its implications in a multicultural country has its challenges, but pretending that faith is not a motivating factor is self-deluding. Even when we factor out everything people of faith give to faith-based institutions, people who are active in their faith communities give more and volunteer more in general, too. Canadian society today thrives in large part because of the culture of giving and civic investment that is practised routinely by a small minority of the population who comprise Canada's civic core. If trends toward disengagement deepen and become entrenched, it will be much more difficult to reverse these patterns in the future. Strategic action is required now if Canada's culture of giving is to survive the next generation. -Ray Pennings is senior fellow and director of research for Cardus.

Cardus discussion paper "A Canadian Culture of Generosity" was cited in the Dec 21 Montreal Gazette article We can afford to give much more. Follow the link below to read the article. http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorials/afford+give+much+more/2365697/story.html

Cardus' Comment magazine is singled out as part of the leading edge of an emergent intellectual evangelical movement in the Wall Street Journal. Read the whole article at the Wall Street Journal, here.

Many secular humanists argue as if faith-based ideas should play no role in democratic discourse, religion should be privatised and the public square secularised. They make three main points. None of them stand up. The first is that faith-based discourse will cause religious views to be legally imposed on secular citizens. To see why this is misconceived, just consider the nature of democratic lawmaking. When parliament passes any law it is necessarily imposing a particular view on its citizens. The issue is not whether citizens should be imposed on by law but what should be imposed on them. Many laws rest on definite moral standpoints; they are not simply technical administrative devices. They assume a specific view on some important human good or value. This is as true of so-called progressive laws, such as those proscribing race or sex discrimination or curbing excessive banking bonuses, as it is of so-called conservative laws opposing euthanasia or resisting easy divorce. And while the moral standpoint behind a law may sometimes be widely shared, in many cases it is deeply controversial. More and more laws today leave significant numbers of citizens feeling that their deepest convictions have been ignored and some alien moral standpoint "imposed" on them. If some future government builds a third runway at Heathrow I will experience having been imposed on by a secularist moral viewpoint I profoundly reject – an irrational faith in endless economic growth held in defiance of scientific findings about climate change. That wouldn't make me want to exclude that secularist viewpoint from political debate, only argue more strongly against it. The second objection is that faith-based arguments are unintelligible or inaccessible to most citizens, whereas secularist moral arguments can be embraced by everyone. But given that polls suggest over 70% of British people hold to some kind of religious faith, it seems quite likely that most will be able to make some sense of political arguments appealing to faith. When Desmond Tutu called for the abolition of apartheid legislation because every human being is "made in the image of God", I don't recall secularists scratching their head in puzzlement. The third objection, the weakest, is that religious faith is just irrational and so can never be the basis of democratic reasoning. The objection comes in cruder positivist forms, such as "belief in God is like belief in invisible unicorns": if you can't experience it through the evidence of the five senses, it doesn't exist. This 19th-century view was discredited ages ago by philosophers of science who recognised that human experience is a rich and complex phenomenon yielding reliable knowledge through many routes. There are more sophisticated versions, but all of them fail to see that faith is not an alternative to reasoning but its precondition. All chains of reasoning get going on the basis of presuppositions which cannot themselves be proved rationally. The objection also fails to see that secular humanism is itself a faith standpoint, resting on similarly unprovable assumptions such as the primacy of rational autonomy, the supremacy of natural scientific knowledge, or the self-creation of the cosmos. If we want a truly pluralistic democracy which builds consensus by honouring difference rather than suppressing it, we should ensure that democratic debate remains open to as many moral and faith-based standpoints as possible. In a pluralist democracy pretty much everyone at some point is going to feel imposed on by some legislated moral standpoint they deeply repudiate. So for exclusivists to single out just one class of moral standpoints, religious ones, as unacceptable cannot be justified.