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.

Luckily, we have representatives like NDP foreign affairs critic Hélène Laverdière, who continue to work to uncover answers. Specifically, she submitted an Order Paper question on the Office of Religious Freedoms that has been mired in mystery since Harper’s election promise and subsequent founding.

According to CBC correspondent Kady O’Malley (who you must follow on Twitter), these are designed to ask “all manner of questions on the administration of government – specifically, questions that, by their very nature, were simply too technical or otherwise unwieldy to be answered during [question period].” Basically, boring stuff that still merits some investigation. It’s less theatrical than question period but often equally important.

So here’s what Laverdière asked:

With regard to the Office of Religious Freedom:
(a) when did the government decide to establish an Office of Religious Freedom and at whose request;
(b) what is the mandate and the objectives of this office;
(c) what is the budget breakdown of the office for

(i) staff,
(ii) programs,
(iii) operations;

(d) what is the reporting structure of the office;
(e) what will the office produce;
(f) how many people will be employed in this office and what will be their level;
(g) what are the hiring criteria and salary levels for each person employed in this office;
(h) how will this office work differently from other sections of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) already working on human rights issues;
(i) who was consulted regarding the creation of the office,

(i) when did the consultations take place,
(ii) what are the names and affiliations of those who were consulted;

(j) what are the names, positions, and religious affiliations of the guests who attended consultations on a new Office of Religious Freedom in October 2011,

(i) how many people from religions including, but not limited to, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Buddhism were invited to the meeting,
(ii) how were the panellists and participants chosen for the meeting with Minister Baird,
(iii) who made the final decisions on panellists and participants chosen for the meeting,
(iv) what discussions were held at DFAIT about inviting Amnesty International and why was this organization not invited;

(k) who are the employees responsible for the development of the Office of Religious Freedom within

(i) the Prime Minister's Office,
(ii) the Minister of Foreign Affairs' Office,
(iii) other Ministers' offices,
(iv) DFAIT,
(v) other government departments?

Pretty thorough, no? My only complaint would be to add under (j-i) something to the effect of “how many non-religious or secularists were invited to the meeting,” although I already likely know the answer.

Unfortunately, the Harper Government^TM responded with little more than the standard promotional speech about the Office, answering none of the specific questions asked. This follows the saying “they call it Question Period, not answer period.”*

So on the one hand, it’s good to see the NDP continue to pushback against the subversive religious agenda of the Harper Cons. However, it also exposes another way they seem to be able to skirt accountability and democracy. Hopefully the NDP will continue to pursue this cause in the House. Consider sending Laverdière an email of support at helene.laverdiere@parl.gc.ca

*I’ve heard this attributed to Jean Chretien, but can’t find the source. The best I found is this article quoting Stockwell Day as saying it to mock the Prime Minister.

But until then we can make up all kinds of metrics to see how well everyone is doing. For example, Google offers their search insights which lets you track how many people are searching for different terms. By comparing the leadership contenders over the course of the race, we can see who has momentum and is generating interest.

Unfortunately, the chart limits me to only 5 terms at a time, so you’ll have to view these results in two separate graphs.

First, the “frontrunners”: Thomas Mulcair, Brian Topp, Nathan Cullen, Peggy Nash, and Paul Dewar. [Click to enlarge]

Here we can see Mulcair' leads the search results – primarily due to a large bump back in October. We see that he and Nathan Cullen are in a tight race for first, with Cullen just overtaking Mulcair in the last week. Peggy Nash isn’t far behind and Brian Topp seems to have maintained a consistent interest, albeit lower than when he lead from November until mid-January. Finally, after a low-searched campaign, Dewar has fallen off the chart.

Google allows us to further break these results down by region (see inset). These show that Mulcair holds a lead in Quebec, while Cullen has a strong lead in BC. In fact, Mulcair is fourth in BC, behind Cullen, Nash, and Topp. Dewar doesn’t appear in Quebec or BC, while Cullen doesn’t appear in Quebec.

To get the rest of the competitors, I’m going to replace Paul Dewar and Peggy Nash with Niki Ashton and Martin Singh for comparison, keeping as many colours constant as possible.

Here we see a big jump for Niki Ashton when she launched her campaign in November, followed by a fairly quiet campaign until early March before it crashed. By raw numbers, Niki Ashton is only slightly behind Paul Dewar and Martin Singh is trailing very close behind. What’s potentially more interesting is Martin Singh’s late jump ahead of Brian Topp in at the end. Directly comparing the numbers, he still falls just behind Peggy Nash. Singh’s jump is likely related to recent allegations of a pact between him and Mulcair.

In the regional data we can see neither candidate gets a hit in Quebec, and Singh is tied in BC with Mulcair. Ahston pulls ahead of Nathan Cullen in Ontario.

Unfortunately, our country is still too sparsely populated for Google to give us much deeper information (like the other provinces). Furthermore this represents search terms, which can be conducted by anyone. This doesn’t necessarily mean NDP members are searching for these people, although it’s likely a safe bet that more NDP members are searching for the leadership candidates than anyone else.

I’ve only included clips of the automatically generated graphs here, but you can follow the links above to the searches and play around with the parameters yourself or download the spreadsheet file.

While I had some worries about the potential for his leadership, I still somewhat agreed with the general consensus that he looked the most prime ministerial and would be one of the strongest to take on Harper. He seemed to have pretty good odds at winning, so my hope was primarily for him to win later on the ballot, which might require him to soften his stance a bit.

Mulcair’s awful video and unequivocal denunciation of any (pre or post) electoral cooperation have made me quite worried though. In addition to this, after watching the Vancouver debate yesterday I have a few more thoughts on the race that have affected my rankings:

• Mulcair is bad at giving speeches. He talks eloquently enough, but he read from his script in his opening and closing statements. He only looked up two or three times during the entire speech. It’s amateurish at best, disrespectful* at worst. He was also almost boring in his responses. He speaks softly and seemed to lack passion.
• Mulcair has no clue how to win the West. He stands firm on his plan to “adapt the language” to local campaigns, but seems to have no concrete proposals for what that would be. He says he’s travelled the country more than any other candidate – but has he actually listened to anyone in his travels?
• Brian Topp was far more charismatic than at the start of the campaign, and seems even more so in French.
• Paul Dewar’s French was almost painful to listen to.
• Peggy Nash was more inspiring than I’ve seen her. I’m still not sure she can connect well with individual members or with Western issues though.
• Martin Singh sounded like a Liberal when he criticized Niki Ashton for using “out-dated ideology” (re: creating a generic drug Crown corporation).
• Singh seriously ended the debate, in Vancouver – the country’s most secular city – with “God bless Canada.”
• Singh sounded more like he was running for class president than leader of the opposition. He tried to channel Jack by talking of “running for prime minister” but just came off insincere.

I would say the best performers of the debate were Ashton, Topp, and Nathan Cullen.

With all of this (and various other conversations and news items), I’m revising my rankings:

1. Niki Ashton
2. Brian Topp
3. Nathan Cullen
4. Paul Dewar
5. Peggy Nash
6. Thomas Mulcair
7. Martin Singh

Were I to mark my preferential ballot (rather than voting round-by-round electronically during the convention), Singh and Mulcair would not appear on my ballot. I’m still undecided whether to keep Nash on there though.

Despite my continued opposition to Cullen’s specific joint nomination proposal, his heart is in the right place. He wants to see a progressive Canada built on positive messages of cooperation rather than divisive talk of “attacking Harper”. Hence, his movement up my ballot and Mulcair’s fall.

The only final comment I will make is that I do hope to see all of these candidates (except maybe Singh) in the first NDP government cabinet. They are all intelligent and committed people who want to make this country a better place.

*Disrespectful since he didn’t feel like preparation was necessary for a debate in the province with 1 in 3 NDP members.

Take Thomas Mulcair versus Nathan Cullen. Cullen was initially very low on my ballot for his joint nomination proposal, his overall focus on cooperation has wide appeal. Meanwhile, Mulcair talks about expanding the orange tent, but has taken a very different stand on cooperation – even post-electoral. Buried within a Huffington Post interview he takes his stand:

One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party.

“N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.

The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition.

“The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

This is exactly the opposite of what Jack Layton talked about. His 2011 message in Quebec (I shouldn’t have to tell Mulcair) was travailles ensemble – working together. This message was able to rise above the partisan rhetoric and fit with Jack’s promises to “fix Ottawa” and to “make Parliament work.”

Instead Mulcair is flat-out stating that he wants to take the NDP to where the Liberals are, hoping to win at “Old Politics of division” (as some might say).

The sad irony here is that Mulcair currently holds the lead in opinion polling in Quebec, giving the false impression that he is best positioned to maintain the Orange Wave in 2015.

I say false because the 2015 election is still 3 and a half years away. Any new leader will have time to make or break their national personae in that time, and given what I see in Mulcair, I don’t see him maintaining that position.

(h/t Greg Fingas)

With that, Thomas Mulcair has released a new YouTube video to declare “why we need a strong opposition.”

This is tragically disappointing. Nearly everything in the video is the exact opposite of the ads the NDP released during the last election with Jack Layton. Layton stood in front of a Canadian Flag, wore a shirt and tie with the sleeves rolled up, presented a positive message, and produced a slick production. By contrast, Mulcair wears a black suit in front of a black background, talks about what is wrong with Harper, and features really awkward cuts with needless text strewn in. The cuts are even discontinuous as Mulcair switches positions multiple times through the video.

Furthermore, you may note the use of words like “structured opposition”, which begs the question of how top-down and heavy handed a Mulcair administration might become. Even simply noting that comments are disabled on his video shows the unwillingness to engage a wider audience (although to be fair the official NDP YouTube channel has comments disabled and YouTube commenters are notoriously trollish).

The other video, What happened in Quebec, is no more inspiring. He continues to offer a minimal strategy for the rest of Canada, making the unproven and likely erroneous assumption that what works in Quebec will work in the West.

Mulcair is sounding more and more like a Stephen Harper for the NDP: a centralizing and controlling leader who will do what it takes to amalgamate power. As Niki Ashton might say, these are “the Old Politics of division” and I don’t see Mulcair connecting with the two-in-five Canadians who are not voting.

One final note, I didn’t manage to catch the debate here in Vancouver today due to the BC Humanist meeting but I will try to watch it later. I also may be moving Nathan Cullen up my ballot depending on his performance today – but more on that later.

Each candidate has their strengths and weaknesses, many of which were obvious at the start of the campaign, some have been exposed through the race, and a couple have tried to counter their weaknesses . To determine my ranking I compared each candidate to each of the other candidates, determining subjectively which I would rather see lead the party.

My key issues for leader are:

1. They must be able to grow the party in Western Canada. We need to win seats in Saskatchewan and Alberta and build on our strength in BC and Manitoba. We also have to break into Ontario. These are where the new seats are coming, and its where any future government will need its base. This means understanding rural and western issues and reaching those voters where they are.
2. Obviously we also need to hold Quebec. Polls are starting to show that wave of support simmer down. While we’re still competitive, we can’t slip much further. I want a leader who can hold 30-60 seats without costing ones in Western Canada. Nothing alienates Albertans more than extra deference to Eastern issues.
3. Our leader must be able to articulate a positive, progressive vision for Canada. We won’t beat Harper by going negative and we don’t need to be Liberals – there already is a party for the mushy middle. This includes reaching out to non-voters and those disaffected by the poisonous partisan rhetoric.
4. A strong commitment to keeping Canada secular.

Before I get to my rankings, here’s what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate:

Brian Topp

Strengths: Well developed progressive policy, establishment support, strategic experience, provincial government experience

Weakness: Lacks a seat

Improving: Charisma

Martin Singh

Strengths: Pharmacy, small business, and reaching new Canadians.

Weaknesses: Inexperience, his association with the Faith and Social Justice committee, and his willingness to use religious organizations for partisan purposes.

Peggy Nash

Strengths: Progressive and union bona fides, urban Ontario issues, social media reach

Weaknesses: A number of debate gaffs, not sure she understands Western or rural Canada, I didn’t find her very personable, most likely to take NDP back to the 90s

Thomas Mulcair

Strengths: Name recognition, Quebec organization, caucus support, environment, a shrewd politician, provincial cabinet experience

Weaknesses: Vague policy that mostly mirrors the 2011 platform, not clear how he will build Western strength by “repeating the success in Quebec” (the politics are quite different), most centrist, no commitment to electoral reform.

Paul Dewar

Strengths: Experience, intelligence, ability to connect with the grassroots, policy, support across Western Canada

Weaknesses: Weak French raises flags in Quebec,

Improving: French

Nathan Cullen

Strengths: Positive message, progressive values, definitely gets rural/Western Canada, best sense of humour, willing to question the monarchy

Weaknesses: the Cullen plan, lack of support in Quebec

Niki Ashton

Strengths: Positive and progressive message, cares and understands Western issues, appeals to young non-voters, intelligent

Weaknesses: campaign fundraising numbers point to organizational weakness,

Now, with no further ado my tentative Rankings

1. Niki Ashton
2. Brian Topp
3. Paul Dewar
4. Nathan Cullen
5. Thomas Mulcair
6. Peggy Nash
7. Martin Singh

Were I to fill in a ballot today, I would potentially reserve my right to omit Martin Singh and potentially Peggy Nash from the list. Singh singlehandedly knocked himself off my preferences on day one when he discussed his desire to use the leadership race as a platform for his Sikhism. While totally within his right, such a flagrant disregard for the unwritten secularism of Canadian politics causes him to lose my vote. Nash drops to the bottom from what might have been a much higher ranking because of her consistently poor showing through the entire race. Examples of her missteps are numerous including some serious concerns about her adamant support of the hated gun registry. She lacks passion and her Toronto-centric feel would drive alienated Western voters back to the Conservatives.

Niki Ashton on the other hand has a deep understanding of Western Canada as Canada’s only opposition MP from the rural prairies. She is smart, quick, and has demonstrated through this campaign that age should be no barrier to becoming leader of the Official Opposition. My few concerns about her are easily negated by the growing strength of the NDP and her demonstrated experience in her own constituency. While she is still a long shot in this contest, a strong showing will serve her well for the next leadership race when people may be more willing to grant her the respect she has already earned.

The rest of my rankings are fairly close and are subject to some shuffling up to and on the day of the convention. I see Mulcair as having slightly better than even odds of winning the race, but I remain concerned about his lacklustre policy announcements and his unclear plan to apply the success he (at least claims to have) crafted in Quebec to the rest of Canada. I also wonder about his previous stances on Israel and his curious doubts over photos of bin Laden’s death. While likely the best placed to hit the ground running toward an election, it bears remembering that with a majority government and the Liberals in interim leadership for another year, there is time for any of the candidates to craft their public image enough to be a strong contender against Harper in 2015.

So until the convention I will continue to watch for the subtle differences, announcements, and signs that could shift any of these candidates. I think any of my top 5 choices would be a strong contender and I would continue to support the party under the leadership of any of them. I’ll let you know if this ranking changes significantly (and will likely be on Twitter on convention day).

In a typical election there is one or two days when you have to make your way to the local community centre, school, or (begrudgingly) church where officials check your identity, give you a ballot and a little cardboard cubicle to mark it in.

The NDP leadership contest, on the other hand, is done by mail-in or electronic ballot – or live at the convention.

So it’s very interesting to see this release from Martin Singh’s campaign about “easily accessible voter polling stations” in Ontario, which happen to be his Mississauga campaign office and a local Gurdwara.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing against this practice in the NDP Leadership rulebook [pdf here] or the Canada Election Act. In some ways it’s a creative way to ensure that every member gets a chance to vote.

Of course the timing for what might be considered a shady electoral process couldn’t be worse for Singh. But in a race where every last vote is likely to make the difference between an early ballot loss and a late ballot victory, I guess every candidate has to exhaust every option they have.

In which case, it becomes increasingly hard to justify that whoever wins will have a sweeping mandate to implement their personal platform. Perhaps in light of the attack ads during the last election, no candidates are talking about how they would view a late ballot win. What would will they compromise to attract voters from other camps?

For most candidates, I wouldn’t argue that this is an issue. There are (at least) two candidates though that I see this being an issue.

First, and most obvious, is Nathan Cullen and his plan for joint nominations. I’ve heard and read a number of people who really like Cullen and his approach to politics but are very wary of him winning and implementing a strategy that might compromise the party and throw the next year into wild media speculation.

There is currently little evidence that Cullen has the first-ballot support to win on the first or second ballot. In which case, if he manages to pull off a win, it seems most likely that it will come from other supporters who maintain some reservations about Cullen. This leads to the obvious question: Will Cullen claim to have the mandate to implement his plan if he wins on a late ballot?

On the other hand, there may be enough ballots remaining (in person and online) on convention day for Cullen to discuss what parts of his plan are negotiable to gain support for later ballots.

The second candidate facing a similar issue is Thomas Mulcair’s plan to “bring the middle to us.” His social democratic bona fides have been routinely brought into question during the race as many (I believe justifiably) fear he will move the party more to the mushy middle to win over soft Liberals.

The question for Mulcair at this stage is if he doesn’t win on the first or second ballot (and he is probably the only one with the chance to), what will he offer those remaining sceptics to join his camp?

I’ll try to offer up my final thoughts and endorsements in the next day or two, which will be subject to change until I get to voting (electronically) on election day. With luck the Vancouver Point Grey constituency association will be organizing a pub day viewing and voting session if you want to hang out (if we can ever get the schedule from the NDP). For now, I encourage you to check out Greg Fingas’ comments on his blog (which I mostly agree with).

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.