Tag: NDP

Cabinet appointments

George Heyman, MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, and Selina Robinson, MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, were elevated to cabinet. (photos courtesy of George Heyman and Selina Robinson, respectively)

Two Jewish members of the B.C. Legislative Assembly were elevated to cabinet when the new provincial government was sworn in Tuesday. George Heyman, MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, was named minister of environment and climate change strategy. Selina Robinson, MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, was named minister of municipal affairs and housing. Both New Democrats were first elected to the legislature in 2013 and were reelected in the May 9 election with increased pluralities. The Independent interviewed both new ministers before the election. Premier John Horgan was sworn in on Tuesday, more than two months after B.C. voters returned the first minority legislature since 1952. The Independent’s interview with Horgan is also online. Judy Darcy, who first publicly shared the story of how her father hid his Jewish identity with the Independent, was named head of the new ministry of mental health and addictions.

NDP values in kishkes

Selina Robinson, current MLA and NDP candidate for Coquitlam-Maillardville. (photo from Selina Robinson)

Coquitlam is not known as a hotbed of Jewish life, yet Selina Robinson notes that the area has been represented by three Jewish members of the legislature over the past few decades.

Riding boundaries frequently change, but the area was represented by Dave Barrett, when he was premier of the province, later by Norm Levi and, since 2013, by Robinson, in the riding now called Coquitlam-Maillardville. She appeared initially to lose last time around, but won by 41 votes in a recount. She’s not counting on a landslide this time, she said – she’ll be happy just to win on election night.

Robinson’s roots run deep in the Jewish community. Moving from Montreal to Richmond as a teen (she was Selina Dardick then), she remembers standing in the school hallway with a boy in a turban – two non-Christians excused every morning while their classmates recited the Lord’s Prayer. After high school, she went to Israel for a year, where she did an ulpan and Livnot U’Lehibanot, a program exploring Israel and Jewish heritage through hiking, community service, seminars and interactions with Israelis.

Returning to British Columbia, she was an administrator for Habonim Camp Miriam and later ran Lubavitch’s Camp Gan Israel. Meanwhile, she was studying at Simon Fraser University, obtaining a master’s degree and beginning a career in family therapy. She was headhunted to become director of counseling at the Jewish Family Service Agency and later served as associate executive director there. Her political career began on Coquitlam city council. In the legislature, she has been the New Democratic Party spokesperson for local government, sports and seniors.

She understands issues of affordability, she said, because she and her husband were on the Jewish cutting-edge putting down stakes in Coquitlam when they married 30 years ago. Part of the solution to affordability, she said, is providing more diversity of housing. Now that her kids are grown, they do not require the single-family suburban family home and could free it up for a larger family. They want to stay in the neighbourhood, where they are longtime active members of the Burquest Jewish community, but there are no townhouses or other appropriate options for them.

Different kinds of housing, such as the co-op model that is more secure than rental and not as expensive as individual homeownership, could improve the situation, she said. “We need to look at purpose-built rental and how to influence and encourage market-built rental.”

Affordable, accessible daycare in the province is also a pillar of affordability, according to Robinson, who calls daycare expenses “another mortgage payment every month.”

Another issue where Robinson has a personal perspective is her party’s promise to reinstate the B.C. Human Rights Commission, which the B.C. Liberals disbanded more than a decade ago.

“It speaks volumes that we take this seriously and there is a place for you to go to if you believe you’ve been discriminated against,” Robinson said. She was a surrogate mother for a friend’s baby and, in 2001, went to the Human Rights Commission over the legal definition of who was the baby’s mother.

“I had to register the birth under my name as the mother,” she said, even though she was not genetically related, as the baby she carried was conceived from the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm.

“Fatherhood is determined based on genetics but motherhood is based on from whom the baby was ‘expelled or extracted.’ That’s discriminatory. It should be based on genetics. So we took the government to court and the Human Rights Commission accepted the claim and then the government caved.”

Without the commission, someone who feels discriminated against would be required to go to court at their own expense, she said.

Robinson commends the provincial government for providing $100,000 to the Jewish community for increased security, and she recently signed a letter of support for a mosque in her area that is also seeking security funding.

“I think we have to address immediate risk,” she said. “But I think there’s a lot of work for us to do around making sure that people understand that this isn’t tolerated and to challenge discriminatory practices that do exist.”

Cuts to education over the past 16 years, she said, have led to reductions in things that might be considered “extras,” like taking opportunities to explore other cultures. Combined with these reductions, there are more families in which both parents are working, so few can get involved in providing extracurricular activities, as Robinson did when her kids were young, inviting classes to their sukkah and visiting to discuss Jewish topics with their public school classes.

“Those are the things that went by the wayside,” she said. “It allows for ‘others’ to be unfamiliar and, therefore, to be not trusted. And, therefore, hate can grow because of that gap.”

As NDP spokesperson for seniors, Robinson visits facilities and appreciates the role ethnocultural communities play in the delivery of social services.

“The fact that we have the Louis Brier and that it’s so established, and the Weinberg [Residence] … it’s so important,” she said, “for this community and not all communities have that.… I think government should support that, in helping ethnic groups make sure that their seniors have the comforts that they need and they can live their lives as the people that they are and how they’ve lived their entire lives.”

On the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, Robinson said she has “real problems with it.”

“My understanding of the BDS movement is to destroy the state of Israel,” she said. “I think that’s not OK. I support the state of Israel. I think the idea of not having a state of Israel is destructive and I do think that’s antisemitic.”

While she opposes BDS, she emphasized that people are free to make choices about where they invest or spend, and she defended the right of people to criticize any government.

“I didn’t like what [Stephen] Harper was doing. It doesn’t make me anti-Canadian, it just makes me an engaged person, an engaged Jew who is paying attention to what’s going on in the world around me.”

As British Columbia addresses economic development issues, Robinson urges them to look to Israel.

“When people talk about resource development here in Canada, particularly here in British Columbia, and they say, ‘Well, what else would we do?’ I say, ‘Well, take a look at Israel.’ They have no resources except people and they invest in their people and their people are amazing.… I want to see British Columbia take parts of that model – yes, we have resources and we should develop them wisely – but we have people and, when we invest in people, anything and everything is possible, and I think Israel’s an excellent example of that. I think we have a lot to learn from Israel. I would like to see a lot more of that.”

As Jewish voters ponder their options for the May 9 election, Robinson insists the NDP is the natural choice.

“I think that, in our hearts, our Jewish hearts, in our kishkes, we are New Democrats,” she said. “Jewish values are New Democrat values.”

MLA seeks out positive solutions

George Heyman is the member of the B.C. legislative assembly for Vancouver-Fairview. (photo from George Heyman)

George Heyman is one of numerous British Columbia residents who owe their lives to the Japanese diplomat Chiune Sugihara. Though born after the Second World War, Heyman is the son of a Polish Jewish couple who were among the estimated 6,000 Jews aided in fleeing Nazi Europe by the acts of Sugihara, who was the vice-consul for the Empire of Japan in Lithuania.

“That’s a story my parents didn’t spend a lot of time telling me about, which I’ve since found out is actually very common – parents don’t tell their story,” Heyman told the Independent. “But I learned much about it in recent years and it has been well-documented with a number of exhibits telling the story in Vancouver and the United States and other parts of Canada and in Japan.”

Sugihara risked his career – and his life – issuing transit visas to Jews. An estimated 40,000 descendants of “Sugihara Jews” are alive today because of his actions.

Once they had escaped Europe, Heyman’s parents were sponsored by family in Vancouver.

“Canada was certainly not falling over to welcome Jewish refugees,” said Heyman. “But they had distant relatives who were from Austria, who had already established here before the war started, seeing the writing on the wall. They sponsored them. My dad enlisted in the reserves, worked as a machinist in a boiler factory – even though he had an engineering degree – until he could get his credentials recognized in Canada, and eventually went on to work in the profession in which he had been trained.”

Heyman was born at Vancouver General Hospital, in the riding he now represents in the B.C. legislature, Vancouver-Fairview. The New Democrat says his family’s experience – and his own experience with casual antisemitism – helped shape his approach to the world and politics.

“I think, as a young child growing up in Canada, I just wanted to be what most children wanted, which was to be accepted,” he said. “I remember the normalization of what we would now recognize as clearly antisemitic jokes or comments or generalizations or characterizations. As a young boy, I had a hard time speaking up against it. It took a lot of courage to say, ‘you can’t talk about Jews that way’ or ‘why are you using the term Jew, my religion, in that way that is clearly not a good one?’”

These experiences, Heyman said, helped him recognize injustice and learn to value other people regardless of their economic class, ethnicity or religion, “to embrace people, not categorize them or shun them.”

“As part of that, I was also learning to stand up for who I was,” he said. “Like many young Jews, I was torn between looking for my identity and wanting to fit in. It’s been a lifelong journey.”

These experiences also helped lead him to careers in the labour movement and public office. Heyman served as head of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, then executive director of the Sierra Club of British Columbia, before being elected to the B.C. legislature in the 2013 election.

One of the reasons he has taken the opportunity over the years to speak up about his own experiences, Heyman said, has been “to try to deepen understanding and let people know what casual and thoughtless racist comments do to people who are the recipients of them.”

Antisemitic rhetoric and threats in North America and the murder of six Muslims in a Quebec mosque have had a range of unintended consequences, he said. They have ensured that people do not take security for granted and they have caused a coming together of disparate religious and ethnic groups.

“When Muslims at prayer in a mosque in Quebec are murdered, members of the Jewish community stood with Vancouver Muslims at the mosque and expressed their own solidarity as well as horror at the actions,” he said. “And Muslims have come to the [Vancouver Jewish Community] Centre for peace circles, to express their solidarity.… What makes us strong is when we work together, understand each other, support each other, build institutions together; not when we live in isolation or fear, because then we just give encouragement to those people who thrive on creating fear and hatred because it’s the only answer they have for what’s missing in their lives. I’d rather find a positive, constructive answer to those things that are missing in people’s lives, whether it’s spirituality, faith or some measure of economic equality, and build community solidarity that way.”

Heyman said he and the rest of the NDP caucus want to see the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report implemented, including educational components about the history of First Nations.

“The commission talked about ensuring that there is a healthy education component in schools, right from the earliest stages, about the history, what was wrong with it, how we can grow beyond it and heal,” he said. “The same is true of the racist laws that existed in Canada that impacted Chinese, South Asian, Japanese and other immigrants, who actually did the hard labour, in many cases, of building this country that other people weren’t willing to do. The same is true of understanding the history of the Holocaust that happened in Europe, which obviously was overwhelmingly targeted to Jews, but not only. How that connects to other aspects of racism, hatred and genocide, [and to] recognize the genocides that have happened in other parts of the world, as Jewish speakers at Holocaust memorials in the legislature have consistently done.

“We need to educate young people, both about the horror of the past and what it leads to, about the impact of thoughtless words or actions that promote or embody racist thought, but also about the benefits to us all when we live and work together and appreciate each other and embrace each other.… Government has the resources and the authority to both legislate against hatred and racism, but also to animate the actions that can ultimately, if not wipe it out, shrink it to the minimum amount that we would hope.”

On the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Heyman said he supports a two-state solution and does not support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

“I’ve never chosen to personally support or even quietly implement on my own behalf a boycott of Israeli products,” he said. “I also think it’s important in this context that we distinguish between tactics that some people choose to make a political point and whether or not that tactic is synonymous with antisemitism. I think, for instance, there are antisemites who express their views through a variety of mechanisms, and I also think there are Jews and other people who are legitimately concerned about government actions and want to find a two-state solution and peace that brings an end to the conflict and brings security to both Palestinians and Israelis who may support that tactic without being antisemitic. Personally, while I support a two-state solution, I very much want to see the hatred and conflict in the Middle East solved and that means, for me, opposing terrorism as well as opposing actions that block the road to peace.”

He added: “I think it’s important for people to recognize that those who call for a just peace and a two-state solution may be calling for justice for Palestinians and justice for Jews and Israelis, and they are not incompatible.”

As voters prepare for the May 9 election, Heyman said there are plenty of topics on the agenda.

“There are issues of affordability, issues of fairness and services for communities, for people needing healthcare, for seniors, for children, for working families, issues of housing and very important issues of, how do we build a modern, diversified economy that doesn’t threaten our children and grandchildren with an unliveable future due to climate change?” he said. “We can’t put off the choices of transitioning to a supportive society, a society that takes care of seniors and kids, as well as a society and economy that employs people productively while respecting and protecting the environment – those are the choices we need to make today.”

The Jewish Independent’s provincial election coverage continues with interviews with other candidates in future issues.

Leaders meet with Horgan

From left to right: Ezra Shanken, chief executive officer, Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver; Jason Z. Murray, chair, Local Partner Council, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs; Penny Gurstein, volunteer leader, JFGV; Candace Kwinter, member of the CIJA LPC; Stephen Gaerber, chair of the board, JFGV; John Horgan, MLA, leader of the Official Opposition; Yael Levin, manager of partnerships, CIJA Pacific Region; David Berson, member of the CIJA LPC; Shelley Rivkin, vice-president, allocations and community relations, JFGV; and Nico Slobinsky, director. (photo CIJA Pacific Region)

On Nov. 28, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver (JFGV) hosted discussions with Jewish community leaders and British Columbia Leader of the Official Opposition John Horgan and Selina Robinson, member of the Legislative Assembly for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

The discussion underscored the Jewish community’s relationship with the provincial New Democratic Party (NDP) and provided Horgan with details regarding issues faced by the approximately 30,000 members of British Columbia’s Jewish community.

Lay leaders and professional staff representing a wide range of perspectives discussed such priorities as antisemitism, community security, affordable housing, elder care, Jewish education, ethno-cultural cooperation and the centrality of the state of Israel to the Jewish community.

Horgan expressed his appreciation for the Jewish community and recognized the importance of working with them to confront hatred and intolerance wherever it exists.

“British Columbia’s Jewish community cherishes the historic, enduring and constructive relationships existing with both the B.C. NDP and B.C. Liberal parties,” said Nico Slobinsky, CIJA’s Pacific Region director. “CIJA is committed to strengthening our relationship with all provincial parties to affirm our shared values and work together on the challenges facing B.C.’s Jewish community and other ethnic and religious minorities.”

Reflecting on election

In the last federal election, Mira Oreck was the NDP candidate for the riding of Vancouver Granville. (photo from Mira Oreck)

Nearly one year after the Canadian federal election, I had a chance to sit down with Mira Oreck (by phone), the NDP candidate for the riding of Vancouver Granville. I had knocked on doors with Mira during the early days of the campaign while I was visiting Vancouver that summer and I was eager to hear her reflections, particularly from a Jewish community standpoint.

Mira’s Jewish community affiliations run deep. She attended Beth Israel Hebrew School and Camp Ramah, she was president of her United Synagogue Youth region and served on the USY international board. She later went on to serve as regional director of Canadian Jewish Congress. Today, she is a member of Or Shalom Synagogue. Mira recalled being “overwhelmed” by how “members of the Jewish community connected with the campaign. People were genuinely curious and excited by the idea that someone from our community could be in Parliament.”

Unlike many other Canadian ridings, Mira said, the riding of Vancouver Granville was “primed for the conversation” around Jewish and Israel issues. And, since she already knew many Jewish community members and leaders personally, she said didn’t need to make cold calls to introduce herself. So, she was intrigued by a snippet of advice she heard someone give to one of her opponents who would indeed be making those rounds. The advice? The candidate should never mention the word “peace.” Apparently, to more conservative Jewish ears, “peace” is code word for being anti-Israel.

It’s a fascinating tidbit to me, since my reference point in academic circles is the reverse: many on the “far left” of the Israel-Palestine debate understand peace to be problematically “pro-Israel,” which is to say representing a complacent adherence to the status quo, without the hard work needed to challenge injustice. Whatever the correct referent is, this suggests how loaded is the discourse around Israel. It’s hard for candidates to speak their mind, knowing that every phrase could be a landmine.

But, on Israel, Mira insisted she kept her message consistent: against BDS, pro two-state solution. Her goal, as she put it to voters, was to “see peace in my lifetime … and not try to perpetuate ingrained ideas of the ‘other.’”

As much as she didn’t shy away from using the term “Zionist” to describe herself – despite some on her campaign preferring she not – Mira tried to emphasize that single-issue voting (for example, on Israel) has its limits. “I would say to voters that we are having an election in Canada and, first and foremost, my role as MP is to be concerned with the country we are governing.” For that matter, Mira said there were not “distinguishable differences on party platforms regarding Israel and Palestine. I wanted to know from [voters] what they thought the significant differences were; often people couldn’t name any.” Still, the topic of Israel came up “a lot less” than she expected. Instead, people in the Jewish community, she said, talked “about Bill C-51, refugees, climate change, child care … overwhelmingly more than I heard them talk about Israel.” The campaign, she said, “was a really good reminder” that “our community is not at all homogeneous.”

Sometimes, aspects of how politics played out as she engaged with members of the community saddened her. She recalled talking to a group of Jewish seniors, some of whom had been her Hebrew school teachers. They were Conservative party backers. “There was no amount of knowing me, coming from the Beth Israel synagogue and my connections to Israel, that enabled them to give me a fair hearing.” It was hard, she said. “I felt like they weren’t willing to know me for who I was, or the values that I hold.”

And there were times in the campaign where Mira had conversations that alarmed her but left her feeling hopeful. When she met with students at King David High School, she was shocked by some inflammatory descriptions of Palestinians. These students said things “that didn’t make sense, but were clearly coming from a very fear-based place,” she said.

Mira stood her ground. “I was really tough with the kids; really challenging them. I wasn’t trying to win over their votes; I was trying to have a real conversation with them about issues.” Later that afternoon, Mira recounted, two kids showed up to volunteer on her campaign. “It was a reminder,” she said, “that, while there were a few loud kids with strong opinions, others were thinking critically.”

Currently on maternity leave from being director of public engagement at the Broadbent Institute, a non-partisan think tank that describes itself as “championing progressive change through the promotion of democracy, equality and sustainability,” Mira – to me – represents the best our community has to offer when it comes to the sort of critical thinking she describes, and trying to make a difference, even if the nature of the electoral game means that one doesn’t always come out on top.

Mira Sucharov is an associate professor of political science at Carleton University. She is a columnist for Canadian Jewish News and contributes to Haaretz and the Jewish Daily Forward, among other publications.

A London lesson

Britain’s Labor Party is going through a crisis as successive low-level and, more recently, senior members of the party express antisemitic attitudes.

Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and a Laborite familiarly known as “Red Ken,” told television audiences last week that Hitler was a Zionist, repeating a common and despicable theory usually limited to musty corners of the internet, implying that the Holocaust was all a ploy to engender sympathy that would lead to the creation of the state of Israel. Livingstone apologized if people had taken offence to his words but did not apologize for what he said.

Around the same time as Livingstone – a stalwart of the party’s left for decades – was getting in hot water, so was Naz Shah, a party rising star. The MP accused Israel of behaving like Nazis and suggested that Israel be relocated to the United States, an explicit call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the last refuge of the Middle East where they have not yet been eliminated.

The conflict broke into the open, at least in the international media, in February, when one of the co-chairs of the Labor club at Oxford University resigned, declaring that a large proportion of club members have “some kind of problem with Jews.”

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labor Party leader whose own record of allegiances leans more toward Hamas and Hezbollah than it does toward democratic, Jewish Israel, has called an inquiry into antisemitism in his party. Yet, this did not stop one of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet members and closest allies from dismissing allegations that the Labor Party has a problem with Jews as a “smear.” And some have declared the condemnations of antisemitism in the party a “new McCarthyism.”

While all of this sounds like bad news – and it’s hard to argue that the presence of antisemitism in one of the Western world’s major political parties is anything but – there is a silver lining.

The fact is that ideas like these have been percolating on the left and elsewhere for years. They are expressed daily in certain forums on the internet and pop up in private conversation even among people who are respected and trusted on other topics.

In recent years, we have seen individual eruptions of outlandish accusations against Israel – indeed, “apartheid,” “genocide” and accusations of Nazism and the perpetration of a holocaust are accusations thrown routinely at the tiny outpost of democracy. That antisemitic outbursts in Britain’s Labor Party have reached a critical mass that could no longer be dismissed as the unrelated rantings of misguided individuals has led to a much-needed confrontation over the topic. Now, the party must confront and address the problems in its ranks.

From a Canadian perspective, this has particular interest, because our New Democratic Party, in some ways a child of the British parent party, is entering into a period of reflection and reinvention. Its last two leaders, the late Jack Layton and the recently defenestrated Thomas Mulcair, tried to eradicate from their party not-uncommon expressions of anti-Zionism that sometimes relied on anti-Jewish prejudice as an accelerant. The spectacular failure of the Mulcair-led NDP in the last election is leading some to say that a turn to the more extreme left is, if not an electorally advantageous move, at least an ideologically pure way forward. Such recidivism would almost certainly involve some rehabilitation of old anti-Israel fixations.

Yet, it is always better to shine light under these rocks than to allow these ideas to mutate. In Britain right now, we are seeing the predictable illogical extremes to which unchecked anti-Zionism can lead. It will be informative to watch the public discussion that transpires. Though differences are vast, the political cultures of Canada and Britain still have some strong parallels. Perhaps, if Britain confronts in this matter now, Canada will not need to later.

Will the NDP survive?

While there were signs that the New Democratic Party’s rank and file were somewhat ambivalent about Thomas Mulcair’s leadership, the magnitude of the party’s rejection of him Sunday was stunning. Fully 52% of delegates to the party’s national convention in Edmonton voted for a leadership convention, in effect ousting Mulcair as leader.

The NDP, having almost never been a serious contender for government, has generally been accepting of a leader’s inability to win federal elections. But never had the party been so tantalizingly close to power as it was after Jack Layton’s 2011 result, which catapulted the party into official opposition for the first time. In last October’s election, under Mulcair’s leadership, the party returned to its historic levels: a poor third place.

Mulcair’s ability to remain as head of the party after that showing was destined to be a challenge. Many New Democrats never viewed Mulcair as ideologically pure, coming as he did from the Quebec Liberal party. He became leader in part because many believed he had the experience and capability to build on the Layton legacy and lead the NDP into government for the first time. His failure last October to realize that dream was, in retrospect, the end of the story.

The coup was fairly bloodless. There was little overt campaigning against his leadership and each delegate seems to have made their individual decision, which led to a collective rejection unprecedented in federal politics.

In his short speech to the delegates after the vote results were announced Sunday, Mulcair urged the party to come together in unity behind whoever is to replace him. Yet that seems like extraordinarily wishful thinking.

Mulcair, because he embodied the prospect of electoral success, was able to keep a lid on some of the most extreme elements in his party, including the far-left and the anti-Israel extremists (between which there is a great deal of overlap). At the convention that ousted him, the party gave a thumbs-up in principle to the so-called Leap Manifesto, a hard-left document that could probably guarantee electoral failure for a generation. The party also divided sharply between those who see climate change as a priority challenge and those who believe the party must continue to support workers above all, including those in the host province of Alberta whose industries often contribute to global warming.

So, the question may not be whether the party will now take a left-leaning lurch, as the U.K. Labor party has done, or whether it will pursue the more pragmatic path set by Layton and Mulcair, but rather whether the hard-core leftists and the pragmatic centrists can coexist at all. Especially with the Liberal party sucking the air from the centre-left of the political spectrum, whether the NDP can maintain any sort of cohesion is a bigger question than who will be the next leader.

BDS condemned

The House of Commons this month voted overwhelmingly to condemn BDS, the movement that aims to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel.

The motion, put forward by Conservative members of Parliament Tony Clement and Michelle Rempel, reads fairly simply: “That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the BDS movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the state of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.”

The Liberal government backed the motion while the New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois opposed it, leading to a lopsided 229-51 victory.

A handful of Liberal MPs abstained and two voted against, but the vast majority of government members backed the Conservative motion. Two NDP MPs abstained from their party’s otherwise monolithic opposition to the motion. Both are Vancouver-area MPs – Vancouver Kingsway’s Don Davies and Port Moody-Coquitlam’s Fin Donnelly.

Supporters of the motion expressed views that have been prominent in these pages in recent weeks: that BDS unfairly targets one side in a conflict, that it is counterproductive and possibly based on bigotry. Opponents of the motion took a more novel approach.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said, “This goes against the freedom of expression we hold so dear in our society … to call upon the government to condemn someone for having that opinion, that’s unheard of.” He said the motion “makes it a thought crime to express an opinion” and contended that it is fair to disagree with BDS and still debate its arguments.

We like to think that you would be hard-pressed to find a more thoroughgoing defence of free expression than has appeared in this space over the past 20 years, and even longer. We have routinely taken a stand for open expression when some readers and community leaders urged variations on censorship. Yet the NDP leader’s defence of free expression is confused at best.

The motion does not make it illegal to support BDS. If it did, we would be out with our figurative pitchforks and torches opposing it. What the motion does is condemn a despicable idea. And here is where so many people who claim to support free expression in principle actually screw it up in the execution.

Mulcair argued that we should be able to debate BDS. That is precisely what Parliament did through this motion. He argued that his party does not support BDS, merely free speech. Leaving aside that several unions that support the NDP also support BDS, and that the NDP is the natural home in Canadian politics for anyone else who believes in BDS, his circumlocution on our sacred freedoms provides a tidy cover for avoiding the real issue that could paint his party into a corner: some – a few? a lot? a majority? – of his party members and MPs do, in fact, support the BDS movement. So, to avoid condemning BDS and perhaps alienating party members and supporters, he cloaked himself in a non sequitur of free expression, debasing the very value he claimed to be defending.

Too often, when unpopular views are expressed, those who might be counted upon to contest them abdicate that responsibility, defaulting to the argument that bad ideas are protected by our values of free expression. Indeed, they are. But so, too, are good ideas!

Supporters of BDS absolutely have a right to express their views. And, although it seems difficult for Mulcair to comprehend, so do its opponents. Every Canadian has a right to express their opinion within limitations around which our society has largely developed a consensus. Elected officials not only have a right, but an obligation to do so. A parliamentary motion condemning a terrible idea does not detract from anyone’s right to express and support that bad idea. In fact, it is the embodiment of free speech in action.

Liberals sweep into power

Justin Trudeau schmoozes after a speech to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce in July. (photo from Justin Trudeau’s Office)

As Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party swept to a majority victory Monday night, it was British Columbia that finally made a difference. Without the 17 seats the Liberals took here, Trudeau would have won, but with a minority mandate – albeit a big one.

The Liberals swamped Vancouver and its suburbs, winning some seats that few, if any, observers anticipated they were even competitive in, particularly in the eastern suburbs. The North Shore was a Liberal sweep. In Vancouver South, the Conservatives lost their only foothold in the city as incumbent Wai Young lost to Liberal Harjit Sajjan.

Liberals Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra) and Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre), the only two Liberals elected from British Columbia in 2011, trounced their respective opponents. Murray more than doubled the votes of her nearest competitor, a Conservative, and Fry almost tripled the vote of the second-place New Democrat.

The new riding of Vancouver Granville, slicing through the centre of the city north to south, is a microcosm of what appears to have happened locally and nationally. Several organizations had formed to encourage Canadians who opposed Harper’s Conservatives to vote strategically for the candidate most likely in their riding to defeat the Conservative. In Granville, Leadnow, probably the most prominent of the anti-Harper organizations, urged voters in the riding to back New Democrat Mira Oreck. This drew a backlash from Liberals, who said their candidate was either tied or ahead of the New Democrat in the available public opinion polls and the Vancouver Sun noted the friendship between Oreck and the head of Leadnow. In the end, so-called “change voters” seem to have looked at the national polling trends – which, by the end of the campaign, showed the Liberals slightly ahead of the Conservatives and NDP support dissipating – and turned red. In the end, Liberal Jody Wilson-Raybould took nearly 44% of the vote, with Oreck and Tory candidate Erinn Broshko effectively tied at 26%, Oreck edging out the Tory by 38 votes for second place; Green candidate Michael Barkusky took about three percent. Oreck and Barkusky are members of the Jewish community.

There were no clearly evident trends in ridings across the country with concentrations of Jewish voters. In the Montreal riding of Mount Royal, held until the election by retiring Liberal Irwin Cotler, Anthony Housefather, the Liberal candidate and mayor of the suburb of Cote-Saint-Luc, beat Conservative Robert Libman by a comfortable margin. Both Housefather and Libman are Jewish.

In Thornhill, the Toronto-area riding with the country’s largest concentration of Jewish voters, Conservative incumbent Peter Kent trounced Liberal Nancy Coldham. In Eglinton-Lawrence, incumbent Conservative finance minister Joe Oliver, the most senior Jewish official in Ottawa, lost by a significant margin to Liberal Marco Mendicino. In York Centre, another Toronto riding with large numbers of Jewish voters, Tory Mark Adler was narrowly defeated by Liberal Michael Levitt. Adler is known nationally mostly for his foibles, such as calling out to advisers of Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Western Wall in Jerusalem to be included in a photo opportunity and, several weeks ago, for seeming to exploit his family’s history in the Holocaust for political gain.

In 2011, post-election surveys indicated that Jewish voters supported the Conservative party by large margins. Though such indicators are not yet available for this week’s election, it appears that Jewish voters are far from being a monolithic bloc.

Mulcair talks about choices

New Democratic Party of Canada leader Tom Mulcair. (photo from Tom Mulcair’s office)

“I think the values of the community that you’re writing for are very similar to the social values of the NDP historically, and I think that’s a strong connection that we have,” New Democratic Party of Canada leader Tom Mulcair told the Independent in a phone interview last week.

He added that his wife Catherine’s “family connection means that I’m the only person in this race who has a deep understanding of the Jewish community and of its history, and I’ll always be a strong stalwart based on that understanding.”

Even before the election campaign started, Mulcair always has been clear in his support for Israel.

“My position is very comfortable within the NDP,” he said, “because the party’s position has, for a long time, been in favor of a two-state solution. Essentially, we believe we have to be working with partners in the Middle East, in particular, in Israel and Palestine, within a framework of respect for UN resolutions and international law, that’s important. And, we always talk about working towards peace in the region, starting from a base where it has to be mutually agreed borders and, frankly, everyone free from attack of any kind: peace and security, in other words, within established and negotiated borders.”

He defended his strict enforcement of this view, which has included the dismissal of candidates who hold alternate opinions.

“I’ve tightened the reins in making sure people respect our position, and I think that that’s the key thing,” said Mulcair, adding that the NDP is “still the only party political party in Ottawa to have ever had a Jewish leader, in David Lewis [federally] and, of course, in Ontario, Stephen, Lewis’ son. And I’ve had a chance to visit Israel a couple of times and look forward to going back. I daresay that I’m the only leader in this campaign … who can count family in Israel, as well.”

“I think that free trade with a democracy is a good thing. We also backed the trade agreement with Jordan because we know that it’s also a very strong voice for stability and peace in a very tough region with a lot of problems.”

With respect to the expansion of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement earlier this year, Mulcair said, “I think that free trade with a democracy is a good thing. We also backed the trade agreement with Jordan because we know that it’s also a very strong voice for stability and peace in a very tough region with a lot of problems.

“As you know, the NDP takes a pretty strong view that free-trade agreements have to represent dealings with countries that have values similar to ours, and that’s why in both cases we had no problem with it.”

The NDP also has no problem with the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany) nuclear deal with Iran.

“I think that the P5+1 deal shows that diplomacy can achieve real results even after decades of hostility,” said Mulcair, who described himself as “very clear-eyed about the Iranians,” noting that the antisemitism there “is at a level rarely seen in the world today.”

He said, “I don’t have any illusions about what I’m dealing with … no Israeli government can ignore the threat of a nuclear Iran…. At the same time … as long as it is enforced rigorously, the deal shows the possibility of making sure that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are hemmed in.”

About security closer to home, and specifically Bill C-51, Mulcair said, “I think that it’s a question of approach and priorities. Don’t forget Mr. [Stephen] Harper’s approach is always about stark, false choices. He would have you believe, for example, that a government has to choose between the economy and the environment. Of course, that’s a false choice; you have to do both. He would have you believe that you either keep your communities safe or you respect your rights or freedoms. Well, the prime minister’s job is to do both: respect Canadians’ rights and freedoms, and keep communities safe. So, C-51 is a breach with that.”

Offering an example from the party’s history in balancing security and freedoms, Mulcair noted, “The NDP, you might recall, is the party that had the courage politically to stand up in 1970 against the imposition of the War Measures Act that put hundreds of Canadians in jail without trial, without accusation, and the NDP had the courage to stand up against that.

“When Mr. Harper came in with Bill C-51, I was told that I was being foolhardy to oppose it, that the vast majority of Canadians were in favor of it. Well, you know what? I don’t take that as the starting point in these issues. I am more than willing to stand up to Stephen Harper when he’s compromising Canadians’ rights and freedoms, and we did that. We did that with an articulate stance that explained to Canadians why it was a mistake, and you know what? At the end of that process, most Canadians agreed with us, so I’m proud of that.

“There are things that can be done here in Canada to help fight some of the situation there,” he said, referring to the conflict in Syria, as well as others in the region. “There are a couple of concrete things that I think Canada can and should be doing.

“First of all, Canada is the only country in NATO not to have signed the Arms Trade Treaty. Well, that’s something that’s easy to fix, and that can help stop the flow of arms to some of those conflicts right now.

“Deradicalization is entirely absent from Bill C-51 and that is, again, a mistake. Most of our partners in the world who are dealing with these issues realize that the flow of foreign fighters into those regions is one of the biggest problems and, instead of coming to grips with that, Mr. Harper completely ignores the problem.”

“There’s also an important element of deradicalization. And, again, Mr. Harper just doesn’t know how to get this right. For example, he doesn’t talk about going into houses of worship, as you hear President [Barack] Obama talk about. What Mr. Harper will talk about, specifically, are mosques. Now, of course, in that case, he’s finger-pointing a single community. That’s a mistake. Deradicalization is entirely absent from Bill C-51 and that is, again, a mistake. Most of our partners in the world who are dealing with these issues realize that the flow of foreign fighters into those regions is one of the biggest problems and, instead of coming to grips with that, Mr. Harper completely ignores the problem.”

Other problems that Harper has ignored, or about which he has been mistaken, according to Mulcair, concern the budget and jobs. The NDP’s approach to these issues, including its focus on the middle-class, has drawn some criticism that the NDP has strayed from its roots – a point with which Mulcair disagrees.

“We’ve been really clear all along, especially under my leadership, that Canada wants a government that knows how to deal with the big issues of the day in the interest of the population,” he said. “When we [the NDP] were in power in Saskatchewan, we ran 17 consecutive balanced budgets because we had taken over a province that was bankrupt after years of Liberal rule…. After those balanced budgets, we were able to bring in free, universal, public medical care – that was an NDP priority.

“This time around, I’m talking about the importance of bringing in quality, affordable, maximum-$15-a-day child care, and we’re going to do that on the basis of a balanced budget. There are some who would say, well, that’s not a very social-democratic thing, but if you look at the history of the NDP, we have a history of being very prudent public administrators. We know that we have that burden on us – that we’re always going to have to be the ones who have to be the most prudent because, if we’re not, people will judge us more harshly than the others.

“Some of the other parties are taking a different approach,” he continued. “Mr. Harper talked a good game but ran up $150 billion in new debt while he was in power. Mr. [Justin] Trudeau is promising to spend at least $10 billion a year more than what he takes in and, in the fourth year, he’s going to start cutting with, quote, everything will be on the table, in terms of cuts – that was the exact quote from Mr. [John] McCallum when he was asked how he was going to be able to cut $6.5 billion in the fourth year of his budget. So, that’s where the Liberals are, that’s where the Conservatives are.”

“Economically, we’re talking about balanced budgets, but we also want to create opportunities for good-paying jobs. There were 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost on Mr. Harper’s watch, and he wants to kill off tens of thousands more with this recent trade deal.”

Mulcair said the NDP are prudent administrators in other areas, as well. “I have a strong personal track record as a former environment minister as a strong enforcer of environmental legislation and I’m strong on principle on those things,” he said. “Economically, we’re talking about balanced budgets, but we also want to create opportunities for good-paying jobs. There were 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost on Mr. Harper’s watch, and he wants to kill off tens of thousands more with this recent trade deal,” meaning the Trans-Pacific Partnership. On Oct. 5, the 12 countries involved, including Canada, reached an agreement, which still has to be ratified by each country’s parliament.

“On the environment, on the economic issues, on social issues, we’re very different from the other two parties who, more often than not, are of one mind,” Mulcair said, giving three examples.

“Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Harper agreed with tens of billions of dollars of tax reductions for Canada’s richest corporations – we disagree, we’re going to start making them pay their fair share.

“We disagree with the Keystone XL Pipeline. We think that you don’t export your natural resources raw. Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau are of one mind, they think that it’s a good idea to send 40,000 Canadian jobs to the U.S. – we disagree.

“We’ve had a different approach on C-51. Mr. Trudeau was afraid of Mr. Harper. He said at the University of British Columbia that he was too afraid of Mr. Harper to stand up for what he thought was the right thing to do in that case. Well, I think that that’s sad, and I think that Mr. Trudeau has shown a lack of leadership and, frankly, a lack of experience.”

While the NDP would increase the corporate tax rate, its platform includes “supporting innovation and investment in companies.” When asked if this was not just a different way of subsidizing business, Mulcair responded, “No. For example, the Conservatives have continued to subsidize companies in the oil patch. We will remove subsidies. What we will do is bring back certain innovation tax credits because we know that the manufacturing sector is, and can be, a hub for innovation and technological jobs in the future that will be knowledge-based.

“We’ll also propose a small-business tax cut, so we’ll bring their taxes down from 11[%] to nine, which we think is a smart way of stimulating the creation of jobs by job creators because small- and medium-sized businesses in Canada create more new jobs. We don’t shy away from saying that government can play an active role in creating the conditions for the private sector to create jobs.”

“This is the first time in Canadian history that we actually have a choice. For 148 years, we’ve been told we have no choice but to alternate. When we get tired of the Liberals and the sponsorship scandal, we’re supposed to go back to the Conservatives. We get tired of the Conservatives and the Senate scandal, we’re supposed to go back. This time, the first time, there is a choice.”

Looking ahead to the last days of the campaign, Mulcair said, “This is the first time in Canadian history that we actually have a choice. For 148 years, we’ve been told we have no choice but to alternate.” For example, “When we get tired of the Liberals and the sponsorship scandal, we’re supposed to go back to the Conservatives. We get tired of the Conservatives and the Senate scandal, we’re supposed to go back. This time, the first time, there is a choice.

“For the first time in Canadian history, the NDP is forming the Official Opposition, we’re seen as a government-in-waiting. We’re doing great across the country but we’ve got very strong support in certain regions that are going to allow us to form a government, and we know that.

“B.C. is a good example of a province where we’re doing super well,” he said. “I just had an event there yesterday morning that showed me that the energy and the strength of the team and the campaign that we’re running are resonating … so we’re going keep that going.”

The Independent has interviewed Liberal leader Justin Trudeau (July 31), Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism Jason Kenney (Sept. 18) and Green party leader Elizabeth May (Oct. 9). The federal election is on Oct. 19.