"All of the social research indicates that folks that come from stable families tend to do better in terms of their economic prospects," Kenney said.

technically, that could very well be true. the causality is likely a bit more complex than implied. i'm more concerned about the logic, here. in kenney's style of social darwinist thinking, that means they should be rewarded through various policy initiatives, like targeted tax breaks.

further, the data that indicates that people from other types of families are less economically prosperous means they should be punished by less preferential tax breaks.

if i was a free market economist, i'd say something about picking winners and losers. i'm not. i'm more concerned about the fascism inherent within it. it's a style of thinking that openly favours creating greater disadvantages and systemic inequality, based on a cut throat and entirely wrong concept of natural selection.

they seem to openly view government as a tool to stamp out the weak. but, i don't think most of their supporters would adhere to that kind of thinking.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/jason-kenney-says-income-splitting-is-for-stable-family-units

one of the core ideals of "liberal democracy" is that those who are struggling ought to have some resources reallocated to them to give them better opportunities, not that those that have greater opportunities ought to be rewarded for taking advantage of them.

there's a long history of evangelical, right-wing and pseudo-fascist eugenics movements in the western provinces, going back through social credit and united farmers. this has it's own history in the western united states.