Pro-lifers in B. C., on the other hand, decided to adopt a different approach. Building on the success of their compassionate Focus on Life television campaign, they made some creative changes last June. They adopted a new name, Signal Hill, and featured a woman-and family-friendly look to their Web site and printed material. It all goes along with a new educational and service-oriented approach to help women make informed choices when they are in a crisis pregnancy.

The real news in O’Neill’s piece is that Reform wiseman Preston Manning, currently of the Manning Centre in Alberta, has leaped on board to advocate for the group, including giving a speech to supporters.

But there’s a hitch. What O’Neill dances around in that quote, without really saying, is that Signal Hill is not a new group per se, but simply a new mask for an old one, Pro Life BC. At some point they might even have thought about making the link explicit, judging from the tattered remnants of their old website. But no longer! Their new site scrupulously avoids references to the organizational roots.

Dammit Janet!, which opened the blogging world’s criticism of the O’Neill piece, made the connection immediately, and helpfully linked to some previous work done by that blog and by Unrepentant Old Hippie in January when Signal Hill first announced its existence to the world. Put briefly: this is little more than a re-branding effort

McDonald explores the connections between the Christian right, a growing array of think tanks and advocacy organizations in Ottawa, and – somewhat disturbingly – the Reform elements now present in the Conservative Party of Canada.

Her analysis delves specifically into the religious background of Stephen Harper, who, despite years as our Prime Minister, remains something of an enigma on the personal level. Harper is a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance church, having seemingly moved into evangelicalism through the influence of Preston Manning and other colleagues in the Reform Party. In 2003, he suggested at Civitas that the road to power lay through the cultivation of his friends in the religious right, whom he labelled the “theo-cons” – religiously motivated social conservatives.

McDonald hits many of the major highlights, including Charles McVety, the Manning Centre, Focus on the Family’s Institute for Marriage and Family Canada, the Canada Family Action Coalition, and the National House of Prayer. She also touches briefly on the role of Christian zionism and alliances between the Christian and Jewish right – such as McVety’s decision to have Orthodox Jew and B’nai Brith veteran Joseph Ben-Ami head up the Institute for Canadian Values.

At this point the greatest fault in McDonald’s account is really no fault of hers: the work is becoming seriously dated. A lot has happened in the last three years. However, her article still remains, in my mind, the best starting point for beginning an exploration of the Canadian religious right.