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.

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.

I’ll be starting the feed at 10:00 AM PDT on Friday and ending on Saturday afternoon when the voting ends.

As a special preview before the convention begins, here’s the updated Google Insight graphs, showing Mulcair’s interest peaked, while Cullen and Nash continue to rise. Meanwhile, in the second graph, we can see Singh blew his coverage about the time he endorsed Mulcair for second. Furthermore, we see Mulcair owning Quebec with Topp a bit behind. Cullen owns British Columbia and Topp has a slight lead over Nash in Ontario. Finally, Niki Ashton actually outpaces Cullen (who ties Singh) in Ontario.

If the above frame doesn’t work, just follow me on Twitter.

23 March 2012 – 4:35 PM – I’ve been thinking about it this afternoon and I am starting to think that Cullen backed off of his joint nomination scheme in his showcase. While cooperation was still prominent, he talked about “an open, respectful, democratic conversation about cooperation,” which sounds less like he’d use a win as a signal that he’s allowed to force through his proposal, but rather that it would be approval to begin the dialogue within the party on whether it was a route we wanted to take. This would still take time away from actively campaigning about the kind of country we want (and most Canadians too). This potential retreat from controversy allowed Cullen to speak on his strengths – building coalitions to fight for social justice, the environment, and equality. Perhaps it may just be the move to get him the later round support to win.

As for the rest of the showcases, it appears podiums make people worse speakers. The best speeches were Cullen, Ashton, Singh, and Nash. I was most impressed by Singh’s flash video. It was catchy and told a story that every other video lacked. It’s good to have this guy in the party and hopefully someone makes him Health Minister one day, but he still ended with “God bless Canada”, a phrase that silenced an otherwise predominantly godless crowd.

I’ve already cast my first round vote for Niki Ashton. There are far too many naysayers who discount her because of her age.

I don’t know who I will vote for in the next round but am leaning back and forth between Topp and Cullen if Niki drops off. I suspect anyone with less than 10% support will drop. After Mulcair’s pompous performance today, I don’t see myself supporting him in this race. Nash was better than I’ve seen her but I’m still hesitant.

Check back here tomorrow for more updates.

But I’ve never seen anything where an MP from across the country takes the time to read my concerns in their entirety and responds in kind to each point.

Last week, I mentioned that the NDP are still chasing down leads on the Office of Religious Freedom and after writing the post, I sent an email to Hélène Laverdière, NDP MP for Laurier – Ste-Marie, and Official Opposition Critic for Foreign Affairs. My email and her eloquent and detailed response are below the fold.

Dear Hélène Laverdière,

I was glad to read that you have continued to make inquiries into the Harper Conservative’s Office of Religious Freedoms. It concerns me that the government continues to stonewall any attempts to be held accountable and I want to strongly encourage you to continue your investigations.

While I, the NDP, and most Canadians, are strongly committed to human rights, including religious freedoms, this office has raised much scepticism over its secrecy. Many like myself are also worried that this office will be used to push a narrow religious ideology into Canada’s foreign policy and will threaten our implicit separation of church and state. We also see this office as more likely to promote freedom of religion while ignoring the equally important concept of freedom from religion. This concern is highlighted by the fact that no secular voices seem to have been included in the discussions around this office.

So again, I urge you to continue your investigation, and also question whether non-religious, secular humanist, and other secular viewpoints have been or will be included in discussions around this office.

Sincerely,

Ian Bushfield

Her response:

Dear Ian Bushfield,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the establishment of an Office of Religious Freedom by the Harper Conservatives. As you noted in your email, the response I received recently from the government to my question on the Order Paper regarding the Office of Religious Freedom was wholly unsatisfactory.

Like you, I have concerns about the mandate, structure, and purpose of this office. New Democrats believe that Canada does and must continue to play an important role internationally in promoting the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. At the same time, we believe the question of religious freedom has to be understood within the broader context of freedoms and fundamental rights.

Aside from its narrow focus, concerns have surfaced around the consultation process during the development of this Office. We understand from media reports that faith leaders consulted on this initiative were invited primarily from Western religions, with the near-exclusion of representatives from Eastern religions. There are also practical concerns that the mandate of the Office is ill-defined, which may lead to difficulties in implementing this initiative within a broader departmental framework.

New Democrats would rather see the Canadian government focus on the important areas of institution-building, democracy promotion, and human rights. In the 2008 Speech from the Throne, the Harper government pledged to create “a new, non-partisan democracy promotion agency … to support the peaceful transition to democracy in repressive countries and help emerging democracies build strong institutions.” This initiative could have been an important way to share Canadian expertise on human rights, transparency and the rule of law with emerging democracies – and, in turn, ensure religious freedoms. It might have been used as a key part of Canada’s reaction to the Arab Spring. Unfortunately, the Conservatives broke their promise to establish this agency, and Canada lost an opportunity to provide international leadership in helping these emerging democracies.

The NDP’s position is reflected in comments made by Jinny Sims, our Deputy Foreign Affairs Critic and Critic for International Cooperation, during a debate in the House of Commons in October 2011. As Ms. Sims said on October 27^th in the House, “I am not sure spending $5 million on another office would actually get us where we need to go. I would like to see those resources put toward a non-partisan agency that would promote democracy. The NDP and I are very committed to religious freedom. There is no magic agency that is going to fix this.” (Ms. Sims’ comments can be found here)

Mr. Bushfield, thank you also for raising an important point about the inclusion of secular voices. We will be sure to consider this as we continue to monitor this issue over the coming months. I want to assure you that we will continue to encourage the Canadian government to focus on the more important international issues, rather than those that are politically expedient for the Conservative Party.

Sincerely,

Hélène Laverdière
MP, Laurier – Ste-Marie
Official Opposition Critic for Foreign Affairs

I emphasized the bit that made me happiest in there. Feel free to add your voice in support of uncovering the motivations behind this Office by emailing [email protected]

The NDP leadership convention kicks off tomorrow (early in the morning out here on the left West coast), so I’ll either be blogging or Tweeting the action as it happens. Then on Saturday, I’ll be joining Vancouver Point-Grey New Democrats at the Sunshine Grill in Kitsilano for brunch and to vote and watch the results live. Of course because the first round will be announced at 7 AM, we will be voting for the first 2 rounds before meeting there at 10 AM.

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 [email protected]

*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).