As the New Democratic Candidate in Scarborough—Agincourt, I’ve just finished seven debates and many more interviews.

After speaking with thousands of residents, I keep hearing three topics come up as the top concerns here:

Repealing regressive immigration reform (Bill C-50)

Scarborough—Agincourt has one of the largest immigrant populations in all of Canada. Residents have been bringing up Bill C-50 at every debate I’ve attended. It was a very regressive piece of immigration legislation brought in by the Conservatives that the Liberals let pass. The NDP was the only federal party that stood up and united against it. Constituents here are very upset with this bill because it gives arbitrary powers to the immigration minister to pick and choose who goes up and off the waiting list based on his or her own biases, often favouring temporary workers over family-class and economic class immigrants. This has been detrimental to family reunification and is treating new Canadians like second-class citizens. The New Democrats not only opposed this bill and want to repeal it, we have a plan to make family reunification easier, recognize foreign credentials, and provide training and bridging programs for those who need to upgrade or need new credentials altogether. Not only have the New Democrats consistently stood up in Parliament for this kind of immigration fairness, we’re the only party that has allocated funds to these priorities to make sure the services and new programs we are promising will actually be delivered.

Ending the war in Afghanistan

People confirm what Liberal incumbent Jim Karygiannis said in his own survey back in February:

“Seventy-four percent believe we should not extent [sic] the Canadian combat mission beyond 2009”

And yet Mr. Karygiannis voted to extend the war.

A vast majority of residents here are against this war. The recent news of a British brigadier-general saying the war cannot be won only confirmed what residents have been saying here for years. The news today of the overspending on a mission that will now cost up to $18.1 billion ($1500 per Canadian household) now adds another dimension on top of the moral and practical reasons why this mission needs to end.

People see the war as inflaming terrorism in Afghanistan, as confirmed by the Toronto Star’s Thomas Walkom: “In three southern provinces, including Kandahar, terrorist attacks have increased more than 10-fold since 2002. In Kabul and surrounding areas, they have more than tripled” (August 18, 2008). In a riding concerned with safety, residents can’t see why Liberals and Conservatives are continuing a mission that is making Afghanistan less safe.

Poverty is also an issue: “A recent UN report says general indicators such as human development and poverty have worsened [in Afghanistan] since 2004″ (Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail, February 22, 2008). In a riding with 9.2% unemployment (even higher youth unemployment) and more than its fair share of poverty, families can’t understand why they’re being asked to pay $1500 each for a mission that’s increasing poverty overseas and adding to their own economic insecurity at home.

Finding an alternative in the New Democrats

For every vote Jim Karygiannis received last election, another voter stayed home and didn’t cast their ballot. Many people are turning away from Mr. Karygiannis because they believed in the Liberal brand; either Trudeau’s “just society” or Pearson’s commitment to peacekeeping. By abandoning the former with passing Bill C-50 and abandoning the latter with extending the war, people are looking for alternatives. There is a massive anti-Karygiannis constituency that is waiting to hear more about the alternatives so they know what they’re voting for.

With his visibility in the riding (signs and literature), many people were considering Dr. Benson Lau (Conservative) as that alternative. With his medical credentials, many assumed he’d stand up for health care. But after people realized that Stephen Harper’s last job with the National Citizens Coalition included the goal of dismantling universal health care, they began to ask how a doctor can stand up for health care with Harper as his boss. They also don’t understand how Dr. Lau, having immigrated to Canada, could support a party that introduced Bill C-50.

When residents realize the predecessor of the New Democrats (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation) was the party that brought universal health care to Canada on 17 consecutive balanced budgets and that the NDP was the only federal party to stand united against Bill C-50, many anti-Karygiannis voters who were thinking of voting Conservative are changing their intentions and trusting the New Democrats to deliver social justice, peace, and economic security. At a recent debate, one resident (Sharon Adams) echoed what many others have been telling me when she said, “I came to the debate tonight thinking I would vote Conservative to try and get rid of our incumbent, but that would be a wasted vote.” She was later quoted in the Scarborough Mirror which reported: The evening confirmed her leanings toward casting a vote for Dougherty, who Adams noted “was able to hold his own and seemed to know his facts” (October 8, 2008).

The operatives of the “big tent” parties–the Liberals and Conservatives–have been busy flinging unidentified substances at the Greens and the NDP for harbouring candidates of odd and unsavoury views. The latest one of these to drop is Andrew McKeever, whose misogynist and pro-war comments finally forced his resignation. He’ll never be missed–at least by me.

But these same operatives are strangely silent when some of their own are exposed. Take Liberal candidate for York Centre, Ken Dryden. Please.

Ken wants to seal off Gaza, the largest open-air prison in the world. Here he is, on the record:

“In front of a split audience in the sanctuary of the Beth Emeth synagogue on Wilmington…the ex-hockey guy’s eyes hardened as he advocated no truck or trade with the ‘terrorists’ in the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza.

“Then he offered this shocker: ‘Stop all aid that flows into Gaza. While that may seem a harsh measure that will hurt Palestinian civilians… it is the right thing to do at this time.’”

[H/t Alison via PSA]

80% of Gazans rely on humanitarian assistance to survive. The implications of Dryden’s words are very clear. We have heard no howls of outrage by Jason Cherniak as yet. Maxed out, Jason?

Dryden joins Conservative hopeful in Thornhill, Peter Kent, an executive official of an extremist anti-Muslim organization, Canadian Coalition for Democracies. His colleagues there have called for bombing Iran and wiping Islam from the face of the earth. “Muslims,” declares his CCD President, Alastair Gordon, have “small minds” and “no humanity.”

The article in Toronto’s NOW magazine continues:

“One reason the Liberals probably won’t pay a price for the Tories’ dedicated loyalty to the Israeli government is that the Grits hold exactly the same position now. Aside from Michael Ignatieff’s musing – and then step-down – about Israel committing “war crimes” in Lebanon, the Libs’ policy has generally morphed from bipartisan to Israel-positive.

“Sure, Dryden did some hand-wringing at the meeting about how awful it is that Canada is no longer seen as the exponent of diplomacy and the honest broker it once was.

“But as even B’nai Brith exec VP Frank Dimant admits, the parties have no real differences. Dimant points to his friend Irwin Cotler, the Lib MP for Mount Royal and former justice minister, as a case in point.

“‘His positioning on Middle East and Jewish issues in general is very close today to where the Conservative party is,’ says Dimant, described by Embassy Magazine as one of the top foreign policy influencers in Ottawa.

“But this consensus on Israel is a worry, says former ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker, particularly because of international law. “We tend to accept the argument that Israel is a democracy – ‘Who are we to criticize what the Israelis do? [Whatever] the Palestinians do is ipso facto wrong’ – I’m thinking of Hamas. This is not an approach that leads anywhere except to more deadlock.”

“But pushing for a more complex view of the Mideast isn’t for the faint of heart. Steve Scheinberg, a retired Concordia history prof and Canadian Friends of Peace Now activist, laments that his group lacks the resources to lobby politicians for a view counter to mainstream Jewish orgs.

“‘I don’t think the Conservatives are that interested in the Middle East per se,” he says. “What I think they are interested in is winning some Jewish votes and money.’” [Emphases added. --DD]

Vile comments and questionable associations might be seen as mere political pandering, in other words. But I have no reason to think that the personal beliefs of Ken Dryden are not in sync with his public utterances, nor that those of Peter Kent are in opposition to the organization that he helps to lead.

There is a further issue here, however–perhaps the key one–that needs to be spelled out. Do Liberals and Conservatives really think that the significant complement of Jewish voters in York Centre will be swayed by calls for crimes against humanity? Is the Thornhill candidate’s leadership position in an extremist organization expected to appeal to them? Do these voters, en bloc, want to starve a civilian population to death, or throw Islam into the rubbish-bin of history, or bomb Iran?

Isn’t this selling Jewish voters a little short, in fact–indeed, a lot short? Isn’t the implicit assumption that Jewish electors lack humanity and tolerance–anti-Semitic? Come on, Cherniak, get on this. We can’t clean up the darker corners of the establishment parties all by ourselves.

In my typically even-handed way, I now turn to the Conservative candidate for Thornhill, Peter Kent, who happens to be a senior member of an outfit called the Canadian Coalition for Democracies.

What is the CCD?

It’s a group that appears to enjoy fomenting anti-Muslim hysteria. The organization even sucked in that indefatigable anti-Muslim campaigner and promoter of campus snitch lines, Daniel Pipes. Pipes was forced to retract comments he made about Liberal MP Omar Alghabra, which had been based upon misinformation received from CCD. (Pipes refers in his screed to Ezra Levant’s further smears of Alghabra, which I dealt with some time ago, and makes additional defamatory remarks that need not concern us here.)

CCD’s legal counsel has been none other than David Harris, whose inflammatory anti-Muslim commentary is notorious in its own right, and who has recently been fussing out loud about “out-of-control immigration.” Harris was in the news last year making some credulous public comments about a hilariously silly “bugged money” story emanating from the US Defence Security Service.

Here is part of CCD’s statement of purpose:

“At CCD, we believe that our foreign policy should reflect our respect for life and liberty. If we want peace, we must support beleaguered allies who share our Canadian values. Instead, many in our past governments have made it their career to condemn and criticize the United States and Israel, while being apologists for terrorists who celebrate the killing and maiming of men, women, and children. [emphasis mine --DD]”

CCD does not name those “many” in previous Canadian governments who have “been apologists for terrorists.” But this kind of shrill, defamatory, McCarthyite rhetoric is par for the course. Check out these CCD media topics for yourselves, and take particular note of the often hateful rhetoric in which they are couched.

Does Peter Kent’s association with this extremist group merit some attention from bloggers and the media–and from Muslims in the Thornhill riding?

[Thx to Firebrand for the suggestion.]

UPDATE: Reader Buckets reminds us that CCD was one of the infamous “42 organizations” demanding the firing of Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin for chairing the committee that awarded the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler. Read all about that bogus complaint here.

UPPERDATE: A reader pointed me to this press release from CCD (David Harris), urging political and diplomatic relations with the Indian state of Gujurat. Why Gujurat? Could it have anything to do with the militant anti-Islamism of the government there–documented by Human Rights Watch?

In previous elections, I provided democraticSPACE with non-partisan analysis, particularly on my home riding of Scarborough—Agincourt in Toronto. My intention was to do the same this election.

In the 2007 Ontario Provincial Election, I ended up endorsing the NDP candidate, Yvette Blackburn. Coming from a strong second-place finish in Windsor West, Yvette moved to Scarborough—Agincourt and ran the most organized campaign by the NDP I had ever seen since this riding was created in 1987. It was so impressive that she drew this non-partisan into the fold. It was on that campaign I met and canvassed with another New Democrat, Stacy Douglas.

Stacy was the NDP’s provincial candidate before Yvette (2003), and was nominated about a year ago as the NDP’s candidate for this 2008 Federal Election. She was also a Masters Student and an accomplished artist providing critical political analysis on her blog, “no time for metaphors.” At the time, I was finishing my Film BFA at York and applying some of my own critical analysis in the blogosphere, here at democraticSPACE and elsewhere.

Finding two strong local candidates all in one day was too good to resist. In addition to supporting Yvette, I committed to help Stacy in the next (this) election.

When Harper started beating his war drums, signaling an immanent election, I contacted the NDP to see how I could help out with the local campaign. I soon found out the timing of the election wasn’t right for Stacy; she had been accepted to do a PhD in England. That’s when local NDPers started throwing around the idea that I should run. I gave it some thought, checked with my family and friends, and when I realized there was enough support to run a credible campaign, I accepted the nomination about as soon as the writ dropped. The transition from Stacy to me was so smooth that I even got registered as a candidate with Elections Canada before Liberal incumbent Jim Karygiannis.

To be honest, this should have been a really innocuous story. You might be wondering if I’m only writing this as some kind of self-indulgent announcement to the blogosphere that I’m running as a New Democrat. I am a little happy, to be sure, although it was my intention to briefly foreground this information in order to make my transition from a non-partisan blogger to an NDP analyst clear to my readers. I never thought this little blip on the election radar would be wrapped up in a smear campaign, originating in the blogosphere and perpetuated by a major local paper, the Scarborough Mirror (Toronto Community News).

What?!? Yeah. Let’s back up to explain that one. The story basically goes like this:

(more…)

Just out in time for this election and available FREE online, The Harper Record, edited by my trusted friend Teresa Healy.

Here’s the summary from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

This book is one in a series of CCPA publications that have examined the records of Canadian federal governments during the duration of their tenure. As with earlier CCPA reports on the activities of previous governments while in office, this book gives a detailed account of the laws, policies, regulations, and initiatives of the Conservative minority government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper during its 32-month term from January 2006 to September 2008.

The 47 writers, researchers and analysts who have co-written this book probe into every aspect of the Harper minority government’s administration. From the economy to the environment, from social programs to foreign policy, from health care to tax cuts, from the Afghanistan mission to the tar sands, from free trade to deep integration, and to many other areas of this government’s record, the authors have dug out the facts and analyzed them.

The Harper Record was necessarily researched and written long before an election was called, but its publication does coincide with an election campaign and thus may help citizens to make informed choices about the future of their country. Regardless of the election outcome, its contents will continue to be relevant between elections. In detailing what a minority Conservative government really did, or failed to do, it may serve as a guide and model for future elections.

For now. And that’s great, I feel for them and I don’t think he should be deported.

But I would really appreciate it if the government would stop trying to send my talented and hardworking friends from Rwanda and Iraq back where they came from as well.

 Earlier today, another blogger commented that none of the leaders will address immigration out of fear of public backlash.

Yeah… it’s time everyone got over that fear. This immigration system is something we need to deal with now.