Jagmeet Singh

JSA takes stock of the year

The Jewish Seniors Alliance of Greater Vancouver’s annual general meeting took place on Sept. 23, with a few board members in the sukkah at Congregation Beth Israel and many others participating on Zoom.

Gyda Chud, co-president of JSA, welcomed everyone, acknowledging that the meeting was taking place on unceded Indigenous territory and expressing hope in the moving forward of truth and reconciliation. She also called for a moment of silence for JSA supporters who had passed away during the past year.

This being the second year that JSA members were unable to celebrate together with a dinner and the recognition of volunteers who have contributed to the well-being of older adults, Chud expressed the wish that, next year, we would all be able to break bread together.

Rabbi Adam Stein, associate rabbi of Beth Israel, who is on the board of JSA, said the blessing for sitting in the sukkah and spoke about Sukkot. Pointing to the different parts of the lulav and etrog, he said the myrtle could be compared to an eye, the willow to a mouth, the palm to a human body and the etrog to a heart. This personifies the work of JSA and its volunteers, he said, helping them physically and spiritually, to be seen (myrtle), to be heard (willow), to stand up tall (palm) and to have heart in all they do.

The minutes of the past meeting and the agenda for the present meeting were accepted. Treasurer Alan Marchant presented the financial report, prepared by J. Stein & Associates, noting that the wage subsidies from the government had been helpful.

Larry Shapiro, JSA co-president, presented the presidents’ report. JSA continued to deliver services in spite of the difficulties of COVID, and re-organized as necessary, he said.

He and Chud look forward to a third year of working together, Shapiro added, and he thanked the board, staff, committee chairs and all of JSA’s supporters for their work.

The chairs of the various committees then presented their reports, which are available in full on the JSA’s website, jsalliance.org.

The report of peer support services, which is chaired by Rita Roling, was presented by Chud. All of the services had to be delivered by phone or online. Staff were trained on Zoom so that weekly webinars for volunteer development could be provided. Peer services also held three picnics in the park, as an outdoor barbecue. Margot Beauchamp was thanked for the quality assurance reports to Vancouver Coastal Health.

Tammi Belfer spoke for the communications committee. She thanked Rochelle Garfinkel, Jenn Propp and Liz Azeroual for their help in producing a monthly newsletter with the goal of informing and educating the community of the ongoing work of JSA.

Lyle Pullan then reported for the membership committee. JSA has 550 supporters, he said, as well as 146 life members.

In discussing the fundraising, Serge Haber emphasized the help that various foundations have given to JSA over the years.

I gave the report for the program committee. As in past years, this committee is once again co-hosting the Empowerment Series with other seniors organizations in the community. This year, the theme is “Be Inspired.” The committee also puts on two forums, one in the fall and one in the spring.

Editor Dolores Luber noted that Senior Line is now a 40-page magazine, completely written by volunteers. She thanked Propp for her graphic design work and all of the writers and readers. Anyone can sponsor a page in the publication, she said.

Tony DuMoulin of the advocacy committee highlighted the paper they produced on long-term care, as well as the all-candidates meeting that JSA co-sponsored with a number of other seniors groups. He thanked Beauchamp for her work with the committee. And one of the committee’s initiatives for the coming year – a seniors advocacy council to combat ageism – was put to a vote and the resolution passed.

This was followed by the nomination committee’s report, presented by Ken Levitt. Motions to fix the number of directors at 21 for the coming year and approve the nomination slate were passed.

A short video about the peer support program concluded the meeting, which was organized by Tamara Frankel and Tammi Belfer, with technical support from Marchant and other help from JSA staff.

Shanie Levin is program coordinator for Jewish Seniors Alliance and on the editorial board of Senior Line magazine.

Vibrant democracies

On Monday, Canada and Israel each embarked on a new adventure in governance. Here at home, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party had a surprisingly robust showing in the federal election, winning the irrefutable right to form a minority government, or to form a coalition of some description.

The Liberals’ relatively strong showing – 157 seats to Andrew Scheer’s 121; just 13 short of a majority – opens the door for a government with Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats holding a balance of power. Just a few days before the election, polls suggested a race so tight, and with the Bloc Quebecois and NDP taking so many seats, that any configuration to reach the magic 170 number would have required not two parties, but three. That complicated scenario was averted, leaving the Liberals free to face the House with either a formal agreement with the NDP or a tacit knowledge that the now-fourth party is in no financial position to return hastily to the election battlefield.

In Israel Monday, President Reuven Rivlin called on Blue and White leader Benny Gantz to attempt to form a government after incumbent Binyamin Netanyahu failed to do so after the second inconclusive election this year. Gantz has said he hopes to form a “liberal unity government,” but that is as challenging as Netanyahu’s failed effort to coalesce a majority. He may be hoping that, if Netanyahu is indicted in the coming days, Likud under a new leader might be a viable partner – or perhaps some MKs unfettered from Netanyahu’s long years of leadership will break away and form a faction to join Gantz. Another plan has Gantz propping up Netanyahu unless and until Netanyahu is charged, at which point Gantz would stand up as prime minister, which seems a strange compromise with a tarnished leader. As usual in Israeli politics, there are a vast number of moving parts.

Multiple moving parts is less typical of Canadian politics, where our tendency toward majority governments typically sequesters any moving parts in the all-powerful Prime Minister’s Office. Not so during a minority Parliament, when individual MPs on all sides are able to wield power in ways they can only dream of in a majority scenario.

In what must be a jagged pill for the once and future prime minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, whose testimony about Trudeau’s treatment of her was the single most detrimental arrow in Trudeau’s reelection armour, was herself reelected as an independent in Vancouver Granville. A large number of Jewish British Columbians, now, are represented in Parliament by an individual who belongs to no party. This will be fascinating to watch in many respects, not least how she pursues politics from the opposition benches as the SNC-Lavalin affair continues to percolate.

Other sidebars in the result include the scuttled effort by a leading anti-Israel figure to re-enter Parliament. Svend Robinson, who, during 25 years in Parliament, was one of Canada’s most vociferous voices against Israel, threw his hat back in the ring but came up short in Burnaby North-Seymour – being narrowly defeated by the incumbent Liberal despite this being ground zero in the battle over the Liberals’ Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

More notably, Maxime Bernier, leader of the nascent People’s Party, lost his own seat in Quebec. His party made effectively no impact anywhere, sending the hopeful sign that messages of populist xenophobia that seem to be resonating elsewhere in the world still fall largely on deaf ears, at least electorally, here.

Canada will almost certainly have an easier time forming a government than Israel will but, in both cases, the drama plays out against the backdrop of healthy, vibrant, disputatious democratic systems. No matter what the outcomes, we should be thankful for that.

Religion and politicians

In an interview with the CBC last week, federal Green party leader Elizabeth May was asked who her personal hero is. She responded, “Jesus Christ.” Almost immediately, she apologized, saying that she had responded while failing to “self-edit.”

Canadians, by and large, are not so open to publicly discussing matters like religion, politics or other things that could be perceived as controversial. But political leaders should be prepared to discuss things in their lives that have shaped them. In fact, religion seems likely to be more central in this election than it has been in decades.

New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh felt compelled to address his religion in an ad (notably aimed at Quebec voters) about how his identity as a Sikh influences his worldview.

While Quebec’s Bill 21, which bans the display of religious symbolism in the public service, means Singh would not be permitted to teach in the province or hold certain roles in the civil service, he managed to finesse the issue quite neatly. He found a sort of common ground by acknowledging that Bill 21 is an effort by Quebecers to protect and preserve their identity, the importance of which he acknowledged paralleled his own pride in his identity and the importance it holds in his life.

Over the weekend, he also managed to continue discussing the topic while having a few laughs, which rarely hurts. Singh, who has struggled to connect with voters in the pre-election period, may come out of this round a winner by making Quebec voters and other Canadians take a good look at him for the first time.

Meanwhile, Liberals are trying to portray Conservative party leader Andrew Scheer as having a hidden agenda, based on his Catholic religious beliefs, on issues like reproductive freedom and equal marriage.

Scheer and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, both Catholics, have taken similar approaches, asserting that their religious views will not dictate party or government policies. However, there is probably a different calculation being made on each side. Trudeau’s policies are probably more liberal than the teachings of his church, so segmenting the two prevents an undesirable schism with his church. Scheer is probably calculating that his beliefs in the teachings of his church are not shared by the majority of voters; therefore, segregating his political and religious positions may have a hint of political expediency. In both cases, Trudeau and Scheer have been vague and both have attempted to move past the topic. (This is tougher for Scheer, whose grassroots supporters, in many cases, are more religiously conservative than the average voter. Working on not alienating them while courting middle-of-the-road voters places him in a bit of a bind.)

The reticence by Trudeau and Scheer to enthusiastically discuss their religious views, and May’s odd flip-flop on Jesus, may be a consequence of a root misunderstanding around the separation of church and state: the concept is that religious institutions should not unduly influence, or be influenced by, governments. It does not mean that individual elected officials should neuter their religious views as they cross the threshold into the legislature. If one’s deeply held religious beliefs and values are what make up a person’s identity, worldview and morality, these are things that should very much be on the table for people seeking the public’s trust. By example, there is plenty in biblical literature that May could have cited as motivators for her environmental priorities. That kind of openness would be refreshing. Singh tried it. We’ll see what happens.

If religious adherence is an important part of who a candidate is, it would be nice to think that they would not be embarrassed or shy to share these perspectives with us. Canadians would perhaps understand our leaders better – including when they say that they personally believe one thing but would not legislate it on the country, which is an entirely legitimate position.

What likely makes voters suspicious or skeptical is when a politician seems to be hiding something, is ambiguous about how their beliefs might guide policy positions, or is ashamed of who they are.