Thomas Mulcair

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.

Israel and the election

The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP have all expressed strong support for the Jewish state. Is there any difference between them?

Line up the platforms of the three main political parties and, despite the rhetoric, they are all solid allies of Israel.

The federal Conservatives, Liberals and NDP all profess support for Israel’s right to exist, for the nation’s right to defend itself and for a two-state solution. All three leaders have visited Israel, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper being the most recent to visit, in January 2014.

Indeed, Canadian political support for Israel has been consistent since the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948, said McGill sociology professor Morton Weinfeld.

It is rooted in a strong and shared Judeo-Christian tradition but has gotten a boost recently, as Canada and the West confront groups such as the Islamic State and other forms of militant Islam, he said.

The perception, especially among Jewish voters, however, is different.

photo - Stephen Harper — Stephen Harper *(photo from sv.wikipedia.org)*

“I think the perception is that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are the most committed to Israel’s security,” Weinfeld said. “They [voters] would probably say the NDP would be less committed to Israel, not because of [NDP leader Thomas] Mulcair, but because of elements in the party. I would think the perception that the Liberals under [leader Justin] Trudeau would be in the middle.”

That perception is based in reality, since the Harper government has made clear and forceful statements about support for Israel, Weinfeld said.

However, Liberal MP and foreign affairs critic Marc Garneau pointed out that it is simply because Harper occupies the highest office in the country that his decisions have greater visibility than statements by other parties.

“There are no differences [between the Conservatives and the Liberals] in terms of a lot of the positions [on Israel], and I try to get the message across. I don’t get to do it in the public way that you do when you’re the prime minister and the government of Canada.”

Meanwhile, in what is shaping up to be a close three-way race, foreign policy, once only of interest to wonks and Ottawa insiders, is coming under closer scrutiny by voters.

The amplified attention being paid to foreign policy is being driven by a more sophisticated and diverse electorate that is more globally connected, said Chad Rogers, a partner in public affairs agency Crestview Strategy.

But it would be wrong to assume that the Tories’ especially vocal support of Israel is a ploy to woo Jewish voters. The electoral math, with Jews concentrated in a handful of ridings, doesn’t add up, said Rogers, who has worked on several Conservative campaigns.

Rather, the Tories’ support is part of a consistent worldview that is reflected in its defence of Ukraine and on issues such as opposing the persecution of gays in Iran or protecting Syrian refugees, he said.

“The mistake is to look at this and say it’s a political issue and it’s about Jews and Israel,” he said. “It’s a worldview that says we will side with democracies over countries that are not democracies.”

While Harper is portrayed as being in lock step with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, that’s not accurate, Rogers said. Harper “has been very frank” with the Israeli government on its policy on settlements.

photo - Justin Trudeau — Justin Trudeau *(photo from en.wikipedia.org)*

For the Liberals, the greatest challenge is a political platform that’s identical to the Tories’ on support for Israel, but is perceived by some voters as weaker.

Trudeau “won’t make the issue of Israel a wedge issue. He believes Canada should support Israel because it is the right thing to do,” said Irwin Cotler, Liberal MP for Mount Royal and a former minister of justice and attorney general, who is not running for reelection.

“I welcome Harper’s support for Israel, but when Harper says if you care about Israel, you must vote Conservative, then he politicizes it,” Cotler said. “When you do that, it undercuts support for Israel.”

In previous elections, brochures were distributed to Jewish voters in his riding and others alleging that Cotler and the Liberals had not been forceful enough in countering antisemitism and terrorism and in supporting Israel. Cotler believes this type of negative campaign cost the Liberals seats in heavily Jewish ridings, partly because the allegations seemed so absurd that the candidates did not mount a strong defence, but he believes it won’t be successful this time around.

In recent weeks, guests invited to a Toronto fundraiser for the Liberals, hosted by pharmaceutical magnate Barry Sherman, received an email from a Jewish Conservative supporter charging that Trudeau was less than the staunch ally of Israel he professes to be.

Sherman countered with another email which, like the original exchange, has been distributed beyond the initial circle of invited guests. Cotler said this is the tack that Liberals need to take.

“What Sherman did was to fight back with the facts and the truth, rather than letting those allegations take hold,” said Cotler.

While elections are usually fought on domestic issues, Cotler believes foreign affairs concerns “have come to the fore” in this election, spurred by the instability in the Middle East.

Many Jews are not single-issue voters, but the threat posed by Iran and the deteriorating situation in Syria “create a heightened concern in general, and among Canadian Jews in particular,” he added.

photo - Thomas Mulcair — Thomas Mulcair *(photo by Asclepias via commons.wikimedia.org)*

The NDP’s support for Israel puts it at odds with other leftist parties in Europe, which have taken a much harsher tone with Israel, but places it alongside other Canadian political parties, said Judy Wasylycia-Leis, a former NDP MP for Winnipeg North.

“The position is unique in social democratic parties because of Canada’s role as a peacekeeper and mediator generally in the world,” she said.

The NDP, especially under Mulcair, has shown unwavering support for Israel, she said.

Voters got a good look at how Mulcair would handle a crisis in the Middle East during the war in Gaza last summer. The NDP leader acknowledged that Hamas was a terrorist group and that Israel had a right to defend itself, while simultaneously lamenting the deaths of innocent civilians and calling for a ceasefire.

The intensified attention to foreign policy has left the parties competing for the title of who is Israel’s best ally.

While the Conservatives have painted themselves as “a strong friend” of Israel, Wasylycia-Leis disagrees. “I don’t think a good friend of Israel would use this as a wedge issue,” she said. The Tories’ uncritical support for Israel has made it a polarizing issue for Canadians instead. “I think the NDP has been criticized for offering a more nuanced, balanced approach.”

Meanwhile, Mulcair’s pro-Israel direction has also generated tension within the party itself. Last summer, a Montreal-area MP quit the party, citing Mulcair’s policy on Israel. A Nova Scotia NDP candidate for this year’s election resigned recently after making critical comments about Israel, while two other NDP candidates are facing close scrutiny for previous remarks.

As foreign policy concerns play a greater role in the election, the question is to what degree this drives voters. In the Jewish community, it certainly plays a pivotal role for many voters, strategists say.

While “bread-and-butter issues,” – the economy, jobs and health care – have traditionally been the chief concerns for voters, Wasylycia-Leis, who’s been through 14 elections, said foreign affairs have taken on a new significance for Canadians because of the Tories’ handling of such issues as Bill C-51, which addresses terrorism, and domestic controversies, such as the legality of wearing the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. But, for Jewish voters, the issue takes on even greater importance, she said.

“Positioning on the Middle East conflict is very important for Jewish voters. I’m not so sure they appreciate the Conservative approach,” she said. “I think they also understand that approach doesn’t bring help in terms of a long-term solution that everyone wants.”

Weinfeld agrees that Jewish voters tend to show special interest in Israeli affairs, but especially in this election, when the Conservatives have positioned themselves as Israel’s strongest ally.

“The community is probably split at this point,” he said. “Those for whom Israel’s security is the Number 1 concern, and think things like the Iran deal are disastrous, would tend to lean toward Harper.” But “many would think that Harper’s position’s is too one-sided or that there are other domestic issues, which might lead them away from support from Harper.”

– For more national Jews news, visit cjnews.com.

Rights and security

When we see online memes saying that a Canadian is more likely to die from an interaction with a moose than a terrorist, we can justifiably relax and even admire the characteristics of a country where a gangly antlered mammal is more to be feared than the kind of ideological threats rampant around the world.

The moose meme is part of a campaign that views the federal government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as fear-mongering, trying to drive voters back to the Conservative party lest more “soft on terrorism” parties come to power in this fall’s election. The Conservatives’ weapon at hand is Bill C-51, which is seen by critics as a bludgeon against a mosquito.

It may be true that in the history of our country moose have been more deadly than terrorists, but times change. Moose are not mobilizing globally to attack civilians across the West. Vigilance tempered by pragmatism would seem to be in the Canadian tradition.

The difficulty of balancing overreaction with being prepared has been most evident in the mixed reaction to Bill C-51 from Canada’s opposition parties. Thomas Mulcair’s New Democrats voted against the bill; Justin Trudeau’s Liberals voted for it but Trudeau said he would make changes to the law if he forms government.

Canada has blessedly not suffered the magnitude of terrorist or hate-motivated violence seen in Europe recently, including the brutal Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cache attacks. But we have seen so-called “lone wolf” violence in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, where warrant officer Patrice Vincent was killed and another Canadian Forces personnel was injured, and in Ottawa, where Cpl. Nathan Cirillo was killed while standing guard at the War Memorial.

Barring a stunning reversal in a Conservative-dominated Senate, Bill C-51 will become law in the coming weeks. The legislation will make it easier for government departments to share information about Canadians across jurisdictional silos. It will also give police new powers to “preventatively” detain or restrict individuals who are suspected of plotting a terrorist act. It bans the “promotion of terrorism,” gives the public safety minister the right to add people to the country’s “no-fly list” and increases the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

CSIS is Canada’s spy agency and until now has had a role limited to observation. C-51 would expand that role to something called “disruptive” powers, allowing agents to act more directly in ways that are not fully spelled out.

Critics also fear a loss of individual privacy as, for example, tax information that is now secluded in the Canada Revenue Agency could be shared with other government departments.

These concerns are justified, particularly those that increase the powers of CSIS, which has been criticized for lacking adequate civilian oversight.

Some Canadian Jews, including the recently deceased Alan Borovoy, have been among Canada’s greatest civil libertarians and bulwarks against government overreach in individual lives. With a history deeply affected by totalitarian governments, some in our community may have a special sensitivity to legislation that threatens to impinge on individual rights. Because this is not an exact science, it will always be a matter for disagreement, with some arguing that security legislation goes too far and others declaring it absolutely necessary.

At the same time, though, terrorist attacks and hate crimes in Europe have been disproportionately directed toward Jewish people and institutions. Statistics on hate crime incidents in Canada also indicate that Jewish people and institutions are vulnerable to acts of hate in numbers disproportionate to population.

Most Canadians may be more vulnerable to a moose than a terrorist, but Jewish Canadians understand that terrorism needs to be taken seriously. Of course, so do civil liberties.

Canadians across the country will rally against Bill C-51 Saturday. Even so, it will almost certainly become law. When it does, concerned Canadians should pressure the government to improve civilian oversight of our spy agency, which is perhaps the most crucial measure needed to ensure the law does not lead to lawlessness by government officials.

We should also strengthen public vigilance by supporting organizations that monitor and measure government intrusions into private spheres, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

And we should do all we can to ensure that Canada remains a place that is both safe from a collective standpoint – and secure in terms of our individual liberties.

Canadian political support of Israel notable

As the conflict rages in Israel and Gaza, so it does, in a different way, worldwide. As is always the case when Israel is involved in a conflict, the rage level escalates swiftly among commentators, social media, street activists, politicians and diplomats. While both sides are engaging in heated and contentious “debate” – we should take nothing away from Zionists’ ability to engage in slapfests on social media – something darker is emerging.

Protests in France and Germany have been especially grisly. In Paris, one synagogue was firebombed while, at another, Jews were forced to barricade themselves inside the shul as a mob attacked with bats and chairs. Jewish-run businesses were ransacked in a Paris suburb. In Germany, overt neo-Nazis are marching daily, some chanting, “Gas the Jews.” “Anti-Israel” rallies worldwide are rife with anti-Jewish imagery and messaging. Individual Jews have been assaulted around the world. One man in Australia, badly beaten, told media that the antisemitic onslaught he experienced after going public was worse than the assault itself.

There are certainly examples of anti-Jewish prejudice amid the public discourse in Canada, though we have seen nothing near to what is happening elsewhere. In fact, the brightest spot in the whole sad global discourse around the conflict comes from right here in Canada. For the better part of a decade, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been an unequivocal voice of reason and support for Israel’s right – obligation, he said – to defend its citizens from terrorism. Our foreign policy has been steadfast in defending our closest ally in the region, and the only democracy there, amid a cacophony of vitriol and hatred.

Significantly, what was a few years ago considered a surprising and unusually unambiguous position has become the dominant Canadian political consensus. Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has issued a statement echoing the Conservatives’ strong support for Israel.

More remarkable has been Thomas Mulcair’s extraordinary success at turning his New Democratic Party from what was once a nest of Canada’s most vocal anti-Israel zealots into a moderate party in line with the other two mainstream parties. He has done this in the face of a small but venomous clutch of extreme Israel-haters. A writer on the website Rabble recently referred to “Mulcair’s abhorrence of Palestinian rights.” (We have been known to employ some extravagant semantics in this space, but for a really eccentric level of rhetoric almost unknown since the fall of the Berlin Wall, head over to Rabble for a nostalgic walk down memory lane.)

Mulcair’s accomplishment, of course, is derided by Israel’s enemies as proof that the craven Zionists have finally got their talons into the last of the major parties’ platforms. In reality, it is an acknowledgement that Canada’s body politic has recognized, alas, that morality and pragmatism demand that we stand with our allies and against those who seek to slaughter them. There is nothing novel in this – what was novel was the years when we went off the rails trying to play an “honest broker” role between a democratic, peace-seeking, pluralist Israel and the genocidal terrorists determined to destroy the country and kill its citizens.

There is a place for extreme views in a democracy – in extreme, fringe parties. Which may explain why Green party leader Elizabeth May is right now taking up an anti-Israel cudgel just as the rest of the civilized political spectrum is affirming the only position mainstream, moderate parties can justify.

There are tactical reasons, too. Israel-bashers insist that Harper’s Israel policy (and now that of the Liberals and NDP) is a sop to win Jewish votes, which suggests they are as bad at math as they are telling terrorists from allies. The “Jewish vote” in Canada is miniscule and shrinking, while the number of new Canadians coming from places where hatred of Israel is something akin to a birthright is growing.

While the three main parties are doing the right thing, the Greens seem ready to welcome those who have been left out in the cold by a consensus that our country should stand with democracies when they are under assault from terrorists. It may be a political strategy for a tiny party seeking a foothold, but it doesn’t seem like a moral one.