2013-05-22T16:57:47-04:00 Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=omar-alghabra Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Omar Alghabra Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2713641 2013-02-19T12:41:13-05:00 2013-04-21T05:12:02-04:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/
Next week, the House of Commons will be voting on a private member bill, C-245, that aims to strip Canadians with dual citizenship of their Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces or commit acts of terrorism.

It appears that the majority of MPs will be supporting this discriminatory proposal.

Understandably, no one wants to be seen defending terrorists, making it awkward for anyone who wants to criticize this bill.

For the same reasons that critics who opposed the now dead Internet surveillance bill were not defending child molesters, critics of this proposal should not be accused of defending terrorists.

As far as I am concerned, judicially convicted terrorists should be thrown away in jail for a very long time.

What this bill does, however, is propose a new second class of citizenships. One for people who have only one citizenship and another for people who legally have more than one.

Notwithstanding the legitimate questions about who is going to be considered a terrorist and convicted by which authority, why would this law only apply to Canadians with dual citizenship but not other Canadians?

Does this mean that a Canadian with dual citizenship is less of a Canadian and has different rights and obligations?

Can this proposed law revoke the citizenship of a dual citizen who was born in Canada or is it really just aimed at immigrants signalling that unlike a Canadian born citizen, their citizenship will forever remain conditional?

No court will ever uphold such law.

The deeper and equally troubling implication of this bill is the fact that it promotes distrust towards Canadians with dual citizenship.

Currently, carrying another citizenship is legal in Canada. If we want to end the idea of dual citizenship, then let us discuss it instead of beating around the bush.

In fact, The Conservative government conducted a review in 2007 of Canada's dual citizenship policy and decided to retain it.

I would rather see the elimination of dual citizenship instead of constantly questioning of the loyalty of Canadians who have other citizenship by choice or by birth.

Citizenship and Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, said in his support of this bill "Canadian citizenship is predicated on loyalty to this country, and I cannot think of a more obvious act of renouncing one's sense of loyalty than going and committing acts of terror."

Sounds persuasive.

It is reasonable to demand loyalty from our citizens. Why wouldn't we have equal demands and accountability of citizens with a single Canadian citizenship just the same?

Why isn't the minister demanding the revocation of the citizenship of Jeffrey Delisle, the Canadian Naval Officer who pleaded guilty to spying for Russia? Delisle's crime sounds very much like a breach of loyalty to his country.

Such contradiction which is targeting only holders of dual citizenship is harmful to the meaning of Canadian citizenship and to the social fabric of our society by constantly questioning the sincerity of their loyalty to Canada.

If you have another citizenship in addition to your Canadian one, watch out! You may not feel threatened by this bill as you may never see yourself in a position where you would be accused of committing acts of terror or war, but this bill is declaring your citizenship to be worth less than your fellow Canadian.

I suspect most Canadians would probably support the idea of revoking the citizenship of anyone convicted of committing acts of terror. That is understandable.

Terrorism is a heinous crime and Canadians rightly want to show little tolerance for those who commit it.

But Canadians have also shown that they oppose laws that create different classes of citizenship. If Canadians fully examined the consequences of this proposal, they would not support a selective application of citizenship revocation.

I am personally uncomfortable with creating reactionary laws in response to extreme cases.

However, if we as a society want to exile citizens who betray their country, we need to apply it equally to all citizens.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2506281 2013-01-18T15:06:33-05:00 2013-03-20T05:12:01-04:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/
In Canada, we pride ourselves on being an open society where we treat everyone equally and respectfully. We consider our diversity to be a sign of strength and richness. We also encourage multicultural communities to break down any self-imposed barriers and to build bridges with the broader community.

Yet, it seems, when members of multicultural communities choose to participate in a political discussion or election, they are viewed with suspicion.They are often accused of being representative of a homogeneous group motivated by foreign or sinister interests.

Therein lies the hypocrisy.

On the one hand, we criticize Canadians who choose to live in silos. We, correctly, argue that societies are economically and socially more productive when all of their members are integrated as full citizens. We call on immigrants to remain proud of their heritage but to abandon any sectarian or ethnic prejudice they may have had wherever they were raised. We stress the importance of individual rights and remind everyone of associated responsibilities.

At times, we even witness some public commentators or politicians lecture immigrants and members of visible minorities to do more to integrate more effectively into society.

Then we see those same voices panic when members of those communities accept their duty and choose to participate in the political process. Suddenly, the accusation of being lazy and disinterested is converted into fear that foreigners are trying to hijack our politics.

Our country is wiser and stronger when we harness the collective experience of our diverse citizens. We should be encouraging every citizen to step forward and offer their perspective.

As a confident and open society that respects each of its citizens and the rule of law, we should welcome everyone's engagement.

It doesn't mean that we blindly and naively adopt every idea proposed. Nor does it mean that every person is to be considered to have equal competence and knowledge.

Each person who participates in the political process brings with them their own perspective, experience and values. Individuals who work in banks will have a perspective shaped by their work experience. Individuals who are male will have a perspective shaped by their life experience. Individuals who emigrate from another country will have a perspective shaped by their home country.

For the same reasons we don't question the loyalty of bankers to their country when they choose to get involved in politics, we shouldn't question the loyalty of members of multicultural communities when they try to offer their input into the political process, even if they appear to be focused on Canada's foreign policy or narrow interests.

We should have more faith in our political process and the filtering effect our political debates have that good ideas will become better and bad ideas will get rejected.

As long as citizens are abiding by the rules, no one should be attacked for wanting to have their voice heard. It is better to engage them than to banish them into their corners which we originally requested that they leave.

Unfair questioning also occurs between "ethnic" communities, when unfortunately one group is suspicious of another just because of its background.

Questioning the loyalty or sincerity of people who look or sound different may resonate with many but it is toxic and damaging to the cohesion of our society. We can always vigorously debate and disagree with each other. But no one should be shunned for wanting to express their aspirations.

That is how Canada was built.

If we truly mean what we say when we say that we are proud of being pluralistic and multicultural, then we should be pleased when Canadians of "ethnic" backgrounds get more involved in politics.

Those who try to plant insidious suspicions between us should be called out.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2239113 2012-12-04T17:30:57-05:00 2013-02-03T05:12:01-05:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/
On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable demand. After all, those challenges are coming at us forcefully and will have measurable and significant impact on Canadians' quality of life.

However, it is precisely because of the nature and magnitude of the questions that are before us as a society, we need to take the matter of electoral reforms extremely seriously.

Inherent in the idea of democracy is a fundamental belief that citizens' participation in the political process leads to wiser decision-making process, greater accountability and better governance. Therefore, the more inclusive our democracy is, the better equipped we are to govern ourselves.

Prosperity is a critical responsibility of our governments, and ensuring citizens' engagement in a meaningful way in our political processes is a fundamental element for governments to fulfill their role.




I have proposed ideas to improve our political system, including the establishment of an association for politicians and mandatory voting.

Another opportunity to reform our system is to address the shortcomings of our current "first-past-the-post" electoral regime.

Currently, MPs (and other levels of government) only need to better their opponent by one vote to get elected. For example, in the recent by-election in Calgary, the winner garnered 37 per cent of the vote while 63 per cent of voters wanted someone else. This arrangement typically produces a mismatch between the number of seats won by a party and their proportion of the popular vote.

In the last general election, the Conservatives won 39.62 per cent of the popular vote but gained 53.90 per cent of the seats -- 166 seats -- in the House of Commons giving them the majority of the seats. Such disproportionality creates a sense that our system is unfair.

There have been many discussions on how to fix that apparent unfairness. One of the most popular ideas has been proportional representation (PR).

A PR system, however, would present some challenges. While it would ensure that the number of seats in the House of Commons allocated to each party reflect the popular vote, it would introduce a new class of MPs who don't represent specific ridings. Each party would have a list of candidates from which non-riding MPs will be selected to balance out their representation within Parliament.

Additionally, if the minimum threshold for winning a seat in Parliament under PR is, let's say, 5 per cent, then a party that collects that percentage would be guaranteed seats, which could encourage regional and single-issue parties.

Both B.C. and Ontario had referenda on implementing a PR system that were rejected because of the many unanswered questions that hover over it.

A more practical proposal would be a preferential ballot system (PB). The PB would require a candidate to win 50 per cent of the vote in their riding before they are declared a winner. Voters would be asked to rank their candidates of choice. If no candidate achieved 50 per cent of the vote then the candidate with the least number of votes would be dropped and their voters' second choice would gain those votes. If that still didn't produce a winner, the same process is applied again until a candidate garnered the coveted 50 per cent.

The PB system would ensure that no voter would be compelled to vote strategically because they would have the ability to rank their preferred candidates. This process would ensure that the winner was the choice of at least 50 per cent of voters. Also, it would preserve our representative parliamentary democracy where each MP would remain accountable to voters in a specific riding.

Political parties already use this method to elect their leaders, and I see no reason why we should not examine its introduction to our electoral process.

A PR system has merit, but it also has some drawbacks. A PB system would not require major and cumbersome changes to our traditional electoral system yet finds a way to ensure that each vote plays a meaningful role in determining the winner and that no winner could be elected without the support of the majority.

Enhancing our electoral system to become more representative sends a clear invitation to Canadians to increase voters' turnout. Such invitation is essential to confronting the massive economical, social and environmental choices we face together as a nation.

Correction: A previous version of this blog started that 73 per cent of Calgary Centre voters did not vote Conservative. This has been corrected to 63 per cent.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2036059 2012-10-29T00:00:26-04:00 2012-12-28T05:12:01-05:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/ decision on the Etobicoke Centre election case revealed how difficult it was for the justices to reach their decision. Four out of seven judges decided that even though information about some voters was missing, the burden of voter's verification should not be placed on the voter. This ruling could mean that the law implemented by the Conservatives requiring voters to show some ID is no longer enforceable.

The Supreme Court judges recognized the awesome weight of their decision. It took them much longer than expected to finalize their ruling. It was also an unusually divided court when it normally succeeds at reaching unanimous verdicts.

The majority of the judges were reluctant to overrule the declared results of the election. They chose to rule on the mechanics of the process and not consider the bigger picture that included serious accusations of voters' tampering.

The dissenting minority believed that the court should include the broader question of the system's credibility.

If you were expecting the court to rule on the question of voter suppression tactics, you were disappointed. One of the main reasons why former MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj chose to take this case to court was to ensure that political actors don't get away with such ploys.

BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW



The much-debated subject of questionable campaigning tactics that are meant to discourage opponents' supporters from voting remain unaddressed.

It is understandable why the Harper government is not rushing to propose policies that would combat such ploys. After all, they are accused of being the architects of these methods.

Unfortunately, methods such as misleading robocalls, inaccurate advertising and selective targeting have been significantly eroding Canadians' confidence in our democracy and electoral process.

If these shady tactics remain unchallenged, not only will they persist, but parties will compete to game the system accelerating an ugly downward spiral. When political campaigns care very little about substantive public policies and concentrate on sinister methods to suppress voters, we all lose.

Suppressing opponents' voters is much easier than trying to convince Canadians why they should vote for you. In fact, it encourages campaign strategists to avoid serious debates and concentrate on demonizing opponents, misleading voters and undermining confidence in our institutions.

One effective way to prevent against cynical gamesmanship is to implement mandatory voting.

Removing the question of voters' turnout will turn political campaigning on its head.

Currently, political campaigns focus on identifying their supporters and then devise ways to increase their supporters' turnout and decrease the turnout of their competition. When turnout percentage is no longer in question, political campaigns will become more about persuasion and vote conversion than pulling/suppressing voters.

There are some who philosophically oppose the idea of requiring citizens to vote. They argue that informed citizens will go out to vote on their own and that compelling misinformed or disinterested citizens to vote would lead to poorer choices. Some also don't want the government to keep records of who votes and who doesn't. They fear that such information come be abused. The pure libertarians oppose any measure that compels citizens to perform almost any act, including voting.

If voting becomes mandatory, citizens, who may otherwise not make an effort to vote, will accept their civic duty and do their best to inform themselves before election day. As for keeping records, Elections Canada already records who shows up to vote to protect against double voting. In fact, political parties currently also keep records. However, if mandatory voting is implemented, political parties will no longer need to keep record of voters' turnout as they will assume that ALL voters will come out.

Instead of dedicating campaign resources to identify voters' affiliation, encourage supporters to vote and discourage the supporters of opposition from voting, political parties will then focus their campaigns on discussing policies and voters' persuasion.

There is nothing more fundamental in a democratic society than the act of voting to select their government. It is a basic principle that ties citizens together, no less important than paying taxes. When all citizens participate together in choosing their government, there is an empowering sense of collective ownership.

Other measures need to be considered as part of a comprehensive electoral reforms package, but mandatory voting could be an answer to the rising trend of troubling voters' manipulation.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1880523 2012-09-13T10:00:49-04:00 2012-11-13T05:12:01-05:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/
More than 25,000 people have died so far, hundreds of thousands have been injured and detained and more than a million have been displaced. One cannot have an ounce of heart and not be horrified by these numbers.

Because of international political lock-jam, the rest of the world has been watching and all it has been doing is utter ineffective words of condemnation.

The situation in Syria has descended into a full blown civil war. A brutal regime with no sense of decency or respect for human life is willing to do whatever it takes to retain its 40 plus years hold on power. A fragmented opposition that started a peaceful uprising 18 months ago has become desperate in their desire to defend themselves and to remove the regime that they occasionally have been resorting to deadly and arbitrary violence. Amidst the chaos criminal elements have been exploiting the lack of order, robbing homes and businesses, kidnapping people for ransom and intimidating neighbourhoods.

This trend of death, lawlessness and cruelty is leading not just Syria but the whole region if not the whole world towards a dark unknown.

It is in the best selfish interest of everyone to act quickly to end the violence.

The longer the violence persists, the more entrenched hatred and hostility will become, the more difficult Syria will find peace even after the eventual collapse of the regime.

There is no consensus on military intervention among Syrian opposition, neighbouring countries and UN Security Council members. However, everyone including the regime emphasizes how committed they are to ending the violence.

The most effective way to stop the violence quickly would be to deploy a multinational peacekeeping force. Unlike the military intervention in Libya, a peacekeeping force proposal would require the consent of all parties on the ground before arrival. And unlike the previous UN monitoring mission in Syria, this contingent would be armed and in the thousands with the mandate to enforce peace if the ceasefire agreement is violated.

The ceasefire agreement would also suspend the regime's ability to detain people for getting involved in protests or political activities. Political prisoners should be released.

In 2006 after the Israeli military invaded Lebanon, both Israel and Hezbullah realized that they were stuck in an endless violence that would lead nowhere. An international peacekeeping force was then deployed to separate both sides and ensure protection of civilians. It worked.

The proposed multinational peacekeeping force for Syria should be made up of mostly soldiers from Arab countries. They would have a one-year term.

Peace, policed by an independent force will remove any excuse the Syrian regime uses to justify its excessive force. The regime should then focus on preparing the government for a genuine and inclusive transition. The opposition would also start focusing on articulating a vision for the future instead of expending its energy on fighting and/or defending itself from aggression.

Some elements in the opposition may reject the idea of a one year truce because they are keen on bringing the regime down today before tomorrow and would be reluctant to give the regime what may appear as another year in power. They also will distrust the objectives of the peace-keeping mission.

Those are legitimate concerns, but the intensity of violence, the rising number of dead and injured and the daily dangerous environment compels everyone to think creatively to find a way to immediately pause this hellish descent into chaos.

There are some supporters of the regime who are unhappy about the escalation of violence by both sides and are searching for a plan that would preserve Syrian blood and the integrity of Syrian sovereignty. Those voices should consider this proposal as a reasonable option that most could rally around.

From what I know about the Syrian regime, they will probably reject the deployment of such peacekeeping force. They will claim that it will be an infringement on Syrian sovereignty.

If they reject this proposal, it should reveal once and for all to those who are backing the regime that the regime is insincere about their desire to end the violence and protect civilians.

Canada could champion the idea of deploying a multinational peace-keeping force. Canada could work with the UN-Arab League new envoy and its allies to promote the proposal.

The Syrian regime needs to understand that such a proposal would be the last attempt to obtain their consent. If this proposal fails to gain traction then the international community can no longer stand by idly witnessing the slaughter of thousands of human beings.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1832918 2012-08-27T09:32:19-04:00 2012-10-27T05:12:03-04:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/
I have a proposal that will help restore faith in the profession of politics.

For a variety of real and perceived reasons, people feel that politicians have very little credibility. There is a belief that politicians at all levels of governments have no accountability and lack a moral compass.

It is not a new phenomenon that people in positions of power are viewed with skepticism whether in politics, at work, or in school. However, the magnitude of distrust that the public has towards politicians is reaching unprecedented levels. This trend should alarm politicians and the public alike.

The job of a politician is supposed to be one of the most noble in our society where candidates compete to gain our permission to make decisions on our behalf to govern and protect our interests.

We need to find creative ways to rebuild confidence in our politicians, and by "we" I mean both the general public and the political class.

Most professionals like doctors, accountants and engineers belong to self-regulating associations that govern their members and define professional standards. I believe that creating a similar association for politicians could go a long way in helping rehabilitate their reputation.

Here is how it could work.

An independent, non-partisan, non-governmental association -- let's call it the Canadian Association of Accountable Politicians (CAAP) -- is established for all politicians to join. The association would require members to sign on to a code of conduct that includes commitments to always tell the truth, avoid inappropriate language, reject personal insults, pledge honest public service and to always behave according to highest ethical standards. The association would also have an independent Ombudsman where alleged violation of the code of conduct and other complaints would be investigated.

CAAP could also offer its members professional development courses on campaigning, policy development, human resources management, communication, public speaking, campaign financing and provide legal advice.

Politicians, which include political candidates and workers, would be eligible to join CAAP. The only membership requirements would be to sign the pledge and to accept the Ombudsman jurisdiction. If a member is found to have contravened the pledge, they can be censured, suspended or have their membership revoked.

A political candidate will not be required to join the association in order to run for office. Membership is optional. The public, however, will have the right to ask why a candidate is refusing to join the association and take up the pledge.

Candidates who are members in good-standing of CAAP would be allowed to use its logo announcing to their voters that this candidate has pledged to honour its code of conduct and subject themselves to its standards.

The proposed CAAP has to be and be seen independent and non-partisan. Its board of directors can be comprised of individuals elected by the membership and respected former politicians and/or retired judges. The association would have a credible Ombudsman to examine alleged infractions. Annual reports would publish trends and incidents in the political landscape.

This association could become financially sustainable through membership and professional courses fees. Thousands of politicians across the country would benefit professionally and politically by joining.

The first few years would require financial assistance until CAAP reaches a sustainable momentum. Non-governmental organizations and/or civil society foundations could incubate the start-up phase and provide it with the initial credibility and resources it needs to succeed.

The creation of a professional political association would inspire its members to do better and enhance the public confidence in one of the most important profession in our society.

This model would generate a win-win situation. It would be a win for politicians to have a resource centre offering support and it would allow them to campaign on their commitment to conduct themselves honourably and responsibly. It would also be a win for the public knowing that politicians would be held to a high standard with measures of accountability.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1665461 2012-07-12T07:45:20-04:00 2012-09-11T05:12:10-04:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/ historic Supreme Court hearing. The Court is currently examining a precedent-setting legal case where the spirit and the letter of the Elections Act are being tested.

The three-time Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre, Borys Wrzesnewkyj has won an Ontario Superior Court judgment that voided the last election result in that riding. Justice Lederer has ruled that Elections Canada failed to demonstrate that at least 79 voters lived in Etobicoke Centre in an election with a 26-vote margin. Keep in mind that the court only examined 10 polls out of 240 polls in the riding.

The Ontario Judge recognized the weight of his decision. He challenged Wrzesnewkyj's lawyer repeatedly expressing discomfort with second-guessing an election result and the message that may send to future defeated candidates. However, after examining all of the facts, it was clear to him that there were enough irregularities to cast a shadow over the election result.

The Conservative MP Ted Opitz decided to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.

During the Supreme Court hearing, the Justices were engaging and probing. Lawyers representing the Liberal and Conservatives candidates had an hour each to argue their case. Then each of Elections Canada, Elections Alberta and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association had 15 minutes to present their point of view.

On the surface, the case appears simple.

Documents (Registration Certificates) that were required by law were missing. Those documents were essential to verify that voters, whose names were not on the local voters list, were entitled to vote in that riding. Those voters could have lived anywhere or may have voted in other places. The number of questionable (irregular) ballots was greater than the margin of victory. Therefore, the result of the election is put in doubt and another election must be called.

In reality, the Justices during their deliberation will be considering other and bigger questions.

That the rules set out by the Elections Act were breached is not in dispute. Elections Canada and the Conservatives concede to those facts. What the Justices will be deciding is if breaking those rules violate the spirit of the law.

Some of the questions the Justices will be asking themselves: Why should we assume that voters who couldn't prove their place of residence don't actually live in that riding and are entitled to vote there? What kind of message will we be sending to future elections if we choose to ignore those violations? Is Elections Canada justified in its nonchalant attitude towards the occurrence of voting irregularities? Voices who are urging the Supreme Court to ignore those irregularities are basing their arguments on two major reasons:

1) If the Court decides to void the election results and to call for a new by-election it will disenfranchise the thousands of Canadians who voted by the rules. Disenfranchisement is a major sin in a democracy and must be avoid it at all times. However, that argument crumbles quickly when responding with the following question: How is asking all voters to re-vote again because of major errors constitute a disenfranchisement?

2) If the Court calls for a by-election, it will set a precedent where defeated candidates will seek a decision from the courts every time there is a tight margin. That is also a weak argument. No matter what decision the court makes, it will be a precedent setting. It will either tell Elections Canada, political parties, candidates and voters that strict enforcement of the rules are optional, which could be seen as an invitation to all kinds of questionable practices -- individuals could flock to ridings with expected tight margins to vote there instead of their own ridings. Or it will send a message that such rules are critical to the integrity and fairness of the election process and when those rules are not followed and where the margin is very tight, the Court cannot look the other way.

The irony here is that it was the Conservative Party who introduced stricter rules to the Elections Act to ensure fairness.

Watching the Justices in action on Tuesday, one could not help but be impressed and inspired by their intelligence and power of reasoning. The Supreme Court Justices will examine all facts and aim to find a balance that will respect Canadians right to vote and their right for a fair election.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1648797 2012-07-04T11:19:48-04:00 2012-09-03T05:12:07-04:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/
Mississauga is on the cusp of transforming into an urban centre from a suburb so-called bedroom community. The new downtown development needs to lead that transformation and set a new direction.

The City released its "Downtown21" report and hosted a public townhall last week to showcase the plan. Almost the entire downtown core has been designated as "Mixed Use," meaning that it can be used for commercial or residential development. Much of the in-process new development in that area is high density condominium buildings.

For a city to mature and blossom, increasing population density is necessary. After all, the city has limited available land space and in order to keep up with needs of the residents, the tax base needs to keep growing. Funding for city services like road paving, schools, community centre facilities, garbage pickup to name a few, is not sustainable given that much of the revenue generated from development levies is shrinking dramatically.

If we want a world-class city with respectable education system and community services, we need to come to terms with the fact that increasing density is the way to go.

Unfortunately, many associate high density with annoying traffic jams. There were several letters in the Mississauga News that expressed that frustration.

High density has a negative connotation to many Mississaugans. Many neighbourhoods frequently lobby their city councillor against high rises thinking it will bring traffic congestion and lower the value of their property.

The reality is that high density is the only logical policy for Mississauga as it transforms and matures. Intensification development will not be planted randomly and arbitrarily throughout the city. There are certain pockets that lend themselves well for that purpose and the downtown core is certainly one of them.

If high density communities are planned properly, they will alleviate traffic jams instead of exacerbating them.

High density neighbourhoods solve many problems when designed to be self-sustained. The idea is that residents barely need to use their cars when going to work or shopping. However, if the high density community contains only residential development where residents need to exit that community to get to work or to shop that is when high density may cause more congestion than it solves.

Mississauga's downtown will benefit tremendously from a high density community. In addition to residential buildings, the area needs office and commercial space where residents can work and shop locally. There is no shortage of shopping spaces where Square One among other stores makes up a prominent part of the downtown core.

However, there appears to be a glaring absence of office space.

When I asked a city staff as to why there hasn't been much interest by developers to build office space in the area, I was told that perhaps the parking space requirement for commercial buildings makes it cost-prohibitive where real estate outside the downtown core comes at a less of a premium.

Whatever the reason is, the city should create incentives for office space development in the downtown core. It is essential for the success of the intensification of downtown.

There is still much available land space in the downtown core that hasn't been spoken for and can be designated for office space with smart incentives.

High density is a great model for building vibrant and prosperous communities. However, these neighbourhoods need a wholesome plan with proper infrastructure that includes work and shopping space where these communities can flourish. The downtown core represents an ideal opportunity for building a world-class community where people can work, play and shop in the same neighbourhood.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1533075 2012-05-22T07:38:35-04:00 2012-07-22T05:12:24-04:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/ Canada is suffering from the "Dutch Disease" has caused a national stir. Mulcair is arguing that Canada's natural resources sector's boom has artificially elevated the value of the Canadian dollar which in turn made Canadian manufactured goods more expensive, placing downward pressure on our manufacturing sector.

True to form, instead of engaging in a thoughtful discussion about this subject, the current Canadian political landscape does what it does best: It flattens the debate and turns it into simple sound-bites that avoid the crux of the matter. The replacement debate has now become whether you are pro-oilsands or anti-tarsands.

This is quite unfortunate. The original question is worthy of an informed and intelligent conversation.

Is our dollar over-priced? Is increasing international demand for our natural resources adding upward pressure on our dollar? What is the real impact of an inflated dollar on our economy including our manufacturing sector?

It's reasonable to conclude that the Canadian dollar is experiencing increased international demand which is raising its value. Much of that demand comes from the fact that the world needs our natural resources. Not just oil, but minerals and potash among others. It's also reasonable to conclude that the stability of our financial sector is also increasing demand for our dollar; meaning that there are other factors that influence the price of our dollar beside the natural resources sector.

But let's assume that our dollar is higher due to our natural resources sector, should our government do anything about it?

Here is where Thomas Mulcair fails. His prescription is to make "polluters pay" and that the natural resources industry should fully account for its pollution.

And then what? How is that going to reduce pressure on the dollar? How does that help other industries? Does he want to implement a selective "polluter pays" policy that target only the natural resources sector and exclude the manufacturing sector?

Frankly, Mulcair has little credibility on this issue. In the 2008 election campaign he campaigned against the idea of placing a price on carbon and against "polluter pays." But I digress.

The economically and environmentally sound policy idea of "polluter pays" will not suddenly decrease international demand for Canadian natural resources and will not automatically reduce the value of our dollar. "Polluter pays" would also cover all industries, not just natural resources. It will place smart incentives to reduce emissions and create a marketplace for energy efficient products but it will not reduce global oil prices.

Unless Mulcair is advocating to isolate Canada from international markets and stop all exports, the "polluter pays" policy will not relieve pressure off our dollar.

Mulcair is correct though when he calls for "polluter pays" to be implemented today before tomorrow. It is regrettable that the Conservative government keeps stalling its implementation. Not only for moral and environmental reasons, but also as a fair economic policy.

But what about the pressure our natural resources exports is placing on our dollar and by extension on our manufacturing sector? "Polluter pays" is as effective to help other industries as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubblegum -- to quote the famous sunscreen song.

Some will argue that the government shouldn't do anything and let the market determine what industries succeed or fail.

Along with implementing a "polluter pays" policy, a wise federal government would take advantage of the probably cyclical success some sectors are experiencing by investing tax revenues from those sectors into education, infrastructure and other investments that would prepare other sectors in the economy and enable them to become more competitive.

Regional economic successes is not a zero-sum game. The success of one region should not be seen as taking away success from another. As a country, we succeed and fail together. The government's job is to ensure the creation of a sound and sustainable business framework that protects the interests of its citizens and invests in their future.

A visionary leader would see this as an opportunity, not a disease.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1397486 2012-04-03T07:52:57-04:00 2012-06-03T05:12:01-04:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/
I was raised between Saudi Arabia and Syria. I lived as a member of the majority sharing similar faith, sect, language, culture, and heritage. Minorities mostly kept their identity private and avoided drawing attention to their background.

It wasn't uncommon to hear generalizations and negative stereotypes about minority groups. There was a sense of superiority over minorities and it manifested itself in different ways: comments belittling other people's faiths and cultures; whispers questioning people's loyalties; jokes mocking their "unusual" traditions.

No wonder most of them kept to themselves.

Such conversations were had by well-meaning people who didn't know any better. There was no effort to understand different cultures.

If a member of a minority would ask for accommodation they would hear reactions like "What more do you want?" "You are doing very well for yourself in 'our' society." "I wish I enjoyed your success." Sometimes comments like "If they can't adapt to our values maybe they should find another place to live," were commonplace. It was as if members of a minority were visitors and not equal citizens.

As a young teenager, I don't recall pausing to reflect on the unfairness of how minorities were treated. Such subtle and not-so-subtle narrow-mindedness had no impact on my life. My interaction with members of minority groups was limited to superficial pleasantries. I did not learn about their lives, culture, heritage, and history.

I moved to Canada when I was 19, where I became a member of a small minority and was exposed to other cultures and lifestyles that were alien to me.

I was struck by how surprised and sometimes offended I was by questions and comments I faced when people displayed ignorance or dismissive attitudes towards my culture. Much of the curiosity was genuine and well-intended, but it was frustrating when tainted by misinformation.

That was when it became clear to me: During my childhood I was sheltered believing in simple black-and-white absolutes, ignorant of other shades. The comments I found disturbing today were the comments I used to tolerate yesterday. It was a transformation from the simplicity of being part of a homogeneous dominant culture to the humility of having to explain who you are.

The old saying "Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoe," became more sobering than ever.

This journey allowed me to question everything I thought was accurate. Any assumptions I had that could not withstand the test of logic and justice were discarded and replaced by informed ones. Going through that exercise solidified my understanding of my identity and humanity.

Phrases like "this is conventional wisdom" and "this is common sense" were no longer as persuasive as they used to be. Does "common sense" include everyone's perspective? Not always.

I learned that fundamental rights should not be conditional, dependent on the mood of the majority or bestowed through tradition. Human rights are universal, non-negotiable, and to be applied equally.

The letter and the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms defined Canadian culture. That unique Canadian attitude is visible in our schools, workplaces, and neighbourhoods. It nurtures respect and accommodation for everyone even if they look and sound different.

This is not to say that racism and systemic unfairness don't exist in Canada, but the Charter makes it hard for them to prosper.

Becoming a minority provided me a perspective that I would never have had had I remained a member of a majority. Canada and the Charter provided me with the space to belong as a full citizen with equal rights.

I was once debating a friend about the lack of equal rights for minorities in the Middle East when he told me that I appear to have forgotten everything I learned in the first 20 years of my life. My response was that I never have, but that I also learned from the next 20.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1342129 2012-03-14T17:14:42-04:00 2012-05-14T05:12:01-04:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/ expected to include major immigration reforms. The reforms are aimed at refining and expediting the immigration selection process. The ultimate goal is to increase the odds of success for new arrivals by matching Canada's needs with potential immigrants.

Canada is in a global competition for talent and skills. We need qualified immigrants to enhance our labour force and expand our tax base. Most of the medium- to long-term challenges our country is grappling with can be addressed to a considerable extent with immigration: Skilled labour shortage, aging population, and fiscal pressure on shrinking government revenues can be mitigated to a large degree with smart immigration policies.

Ratna Omidvar, the President of the Maytree Foundation, offered valuable input on how the government can improve the immigration selection process: "We must remember that immigration selection is not simply about headhunting, but about nation-building." We can't stop there though. In addition to overhauling the selection process, we need to ensure that our immigrant integration methods are modernized and reformed as well.

Over the last 30 years, immigrants' success rate has been dropping dramatically. This should be a major concern for policy makers.

During the early 90s, under a Liberal government, Canada adopted major reforms to the immigration selection process where greater emphasis was placed, as it is now, on recruiting more skilled and educated immigrants. At that time it was done, as it is now, as an important step to help Canada emerge from an economic downturn and to fuel economic growth. What the evidence suggests is that while we have been successful at attracting educated immigrants, we need to increase the efficiency of their integration.

Currently, much of the immigration settlement resources are directed at funding language training classes and job search workshops. We need to rethink conventional methods deployed to help new arrivals.

The biggest challenge immigrants face today is finding employment that utilizes their skill. Mentorship programs have proven incredibly valuable in helping immigrants find permanent employment within their field of expertise. The government needs to expand existing mentorship programs. This initiative will help immigrants attain their first "Canadian experience" job, removing the biggest obstacle many face.

The government can take a leadership role by identifying mentorship opportunities within the federal bureaucracy, the largest employer in Canada. The government also needs to strike partnerships with professional associations and regulators to create a transparent roadmap for each profession in each province making it clear to immigrants early on what steps they are expected to follow if they want to convert their foreign credentials.

Currently, there is a lack of clarity and transparency for such steps and the federal government can quarterback the creation of a standardized process for accreditation. The federal government needs to also work with post-secondary education institutions and the regulatory bodies to ensure that pre-packaged programs are ready and affordable for new arrivals who want to update their credentials.

Positive social integration is an essential component of successful economic integration. The government should encourage new immigrants to be involved in Canadian society by requiring volunteer hours with accredited social organizations. Getting involved with credible social organizations will exponentially increase immigrants' understanding of Canadian society and facilitate valuable networking opportunities. Volunteer hours can be rewarded by waiving citizenship exam requirements or other incentives.

Overall, the federal government needs to create an independent commission that would gauge and monitor how well immigrants are economically and socially integrating into Canadian society. The "Immigrant Success Commissioner" would annually report to Parliament trends and facts and also recommend policies insulated from political rhetoric and manipulation.

The federal government can also embark on an educational campaign that promotes stories of successful immigrants and their value to employers and local communities. The government can help improve perceptions the public may have of the skills and experience immigrants bring to Canada.

Successful immigrants are happy immigrants. Successful and happy immigrants are productive members of society. Unhappy and desperate immigrants will search for jobs elsewhere or may resort to finding ways to game the system.

The process of selecting immigrants is incredibly important. We also need to modernize our settlement methods if we want to ensure overall success for immigrants and Canada.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1279639 2012-02-16T13:47:42-05:00 2012-04-17T05:12:01-04:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/
Regrettably, very few meaningful social and political reforms were introduced. While some economical reforms were implemented, they benefited mostly an exclusive group of individuals with close ties to the regime. Corruption reached epidemic levels where citizens were bribing public servants just to be spared harassment. Syria has become a country where citizens have no sacred rights and anything could be subjected to arbitrary state control.

After more than 40 years of draconian control, the inevitable happened. People started demanding air to breathe. The proliferation of independent media and open access to the rest of the world exposed the regime. Syrians realized that other governments around the world permitted intense debate and criticism and at the same time kept advancing and growing, while Syria continued to deny pluralism and freedom of thought. Eventually, the public was going to stand up and say enough is enough. And they did.

There are very few people who would dispute the fact that the Syrian government is a military dictatorship. Even supporters of the regime are not able to deny the absence of democratic institutions and the lack of checks and balances.

The world is sympathetic to the plight of the Syrian people. They are inspired by their courage and horrified by the brutality they are facing. Syrian opposition leaders must not squander away that goodwill.

The Syrian opposition in all of its political colours must recognize the awesome burden it carries. The organic revolution that started almost a year ago was initiated by noble principles demanding freedom and dignity.

It's difficult to fully grasp what it feels like to be living in Homs, Hama, or any of the other Syrian cities being subjected to brutal military attacks by their own government. Watching one's family member being killed or have their house being destroyed is beyond outrageous. Living in my comfortable home in Canada doesn't qualify me to fully comprehend the anxiety and terror.

The sustained and deliberate brutality by the regime is pushing anxiety to unprecedented levels among many Syrians. That anxiety is occasionally being expressed through irrational calls for violence and revenge. Leaders of the Syrian opposition must be cautious not to let themselves be dragged into a world that loses sight of the honourable objectives of their revolution.

Opposition leaders must resist letting legitimate anger turn into hate. Apologists for the regime should not be threatened with violence or revenge. Sectarian generalizations, where groups are identified as enemies, must be avoided. Personal attacks and petty labels cheapen the discourse and undermine the moral high ground the opposition occupies.

Opposition leaders need to set a high standard in defining their revolution. They need to emphasize their goals of building an inclusive, respectful, lawful, and democratic society for all Syrians. They need to condemn any verbal or physical attacks against civilians just because they are assumed to be supporters of the regime. They need to reach out and comfort anyone who raises questions about the future of Syria beyond the Assad regime instead of ridiculing them or question their loyalty.

The opposition has history and justice on its side but needs to be aware that that alone is not enough. The Syrian regime will do everything in its power to distract people from its record and attack the credibility of the opposition. Demonstrating competence and statesmanship to Syrians and the international community will strengthen the opposition's credibility and expedite transition in Syria.

Fair-minded people and defenders of human rights want to see an end to the dictatorial regime that has suffocated Syria for decades, but they will be less enthusiastic about that change if they felt it would lead to chaos or further violence. The language and rhetoric used by opposition members needs to be reassuring instead of inflammatory.

Courageous Syrians who are risking their lives on a daily basis seeking dignity deserve leaders who will rise up to the occasion and honour their sacrifices.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1260355 2012-02-07T13:27:37-05:00 2012-04-08T05:12:01-04:00

Omar Alghabra http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alghabra/
However, if Liberals don't tackle the fundamental question that Canadians will keep asking: "What do Liberals stand for?" we will miss a golden opportunity to redefine who we are and what Liberalism means.

It has become fashionable over the last few years for some Liberals to brag about how the Liberal Party is the party of the political centre and that both the NDP and Conservatives are ideological parties.

It seems like an attractive proposition. This claim may appear to help the Liberal Party to project pragmatism and to leave enough ambiguity to be flexible when it comes to policies. However, this strategy is inadequate in today's political climate.

When Liberals were in power, we were able to articulate our values through policy implementation. Canadians had a sense of our vision for Canada. In today's highly polarized political landscape, Liberals can no longer rely on the slogan that we are the party of the centre. It means little to Canadians. Canadians are unsure what the Liberal Party stands for and how they are relevant to the questions our country is facing.

We, as Liberals, need to clearly redefine what Liberalism means and what values and principles are fundamental to our vision.

I am a Liberal because of the following ideology/beliefs:

• Individual liberty is a fundamental component of Canadian society;
• A government has a facilitator role in society to reduce barriers for individuals to reach their optimal potential. This is in contrast to Conservatives who believe in individuals without a role for government or the NDP who believe in government making choices on behalf of individuals;
• Canadian identity is unique by its evolving and inclusive nature. Canada is a nation built on multiculturalism and immigration that is a world leader in a post-multicultural era;
• Brokerage politics that empathizes with competing views yet able to bring them together while remaining anchored to the above mentioned values. A complicated and diverse federation like ours runs more efficiently that way. This approach applies to domestic and foreign policies.

The Liberal Party is not a party void of ideology. Liberals, though, need to reacquaint Canadians with that ideology.

Those are not new Liberal values. They are values that informed Liberal policies and helped shape modern Canada. Liberals are ready to do the hard work required to redefine those values in today's context and fight vigorously for them.

Ideology is not a bad word. It informs Canadians that a party has a set of values that guide its policies. However, blind ideology is when a party defers to their gut assessment instead of the evidence presented before them. Blind ideology is a terrible and unhealthy way to govern a country.

A compelling leadership requires a relevant vision. That's what the Liberal Party historically has provided Canadians. In the last few years, many Liberals have let their memories become greater than their dreams. Canadians want to hear about our dreams more than they want to be educated about our past.

I am not proposing something dramatic or revolutionary. I am not trying to invent something that doesn't exist. I am suggesting that we reframe our conversations with Canadians away from "the party of the centre" to the party that promotes its ideology for the need for smart and focused government in our society.
]]>