On being a Jewish MP

...in a riding where it was definitely not an asset.

The first time I rose in the House of Commons in December 2015, it was to mark the start of Chanukah. Given the short sitting calendar in the weeks following the election, I took the offer from the Whip’s office as it was likely to be my only opportunity to speak before the House started in earnest early in 2016. Following my statement, my Jewish upbringing became far more important to the Jewish community than I expected — or particularly wanted. My riding’s permanent Jewish population was in the low three figures, though Jewish cottagers number in the thousands, and I was not there to wage religious wars. 

Being identified as a Jewish MP, particularly in rural Quebec, has no upside. It is to be stuck in the middle of a constant fight between the “Israel is always right” crowd and the “Israel is always wrong” crowd, neither of whom are correct, with the current war between Israel and Hamas bringing this division once again to the boiling point.

Moreover, I am best described as “Jew-ish”. I am more of an atheist nigh antitheist. I have often said for atheism to function, one has to accept the idea that there is a god in which we can choose not to believe, but that I do not accept the premise of such a god in the first place. Dogmatic religion, regardless of which one, always struck me as an objectively ridiculous and frankly destructive concept to begin with.

I do fully support freedom of religion, however, as it is not better for me to assert that I am right than it is for followers of any particular religion to do so. People are free to their delusions, as long as they are not imposed on others who do not share them. Indeed, in debate on Medical Assistance in Dying on May 3, 2016, I commented, in response to a speech from Conservative Alice Wong:

For me, freedom to life is very much like, and as important as, freedom of religion. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be religious in any manner we choose, just as it includes the freedom from religion. Freedom of life includes the freedom to live, but it includes the fundamental right not to live.

In second grade, I made a comment in class that the Jews were the ‘chosen people’, as I had been taught during my brief tenure in Hebrew school at the House of Israel synagogue just a block from my early elementary school. My grade school teacher scowled at me and asked ‘how do you know?’ Indeed, I had no answer for that, and never again accepted the notion that a supernatural being would choose some people over others when it is only our own hubris that suggests we are even the top species to begin with.

On paper, my Jewish pedigree was strong. My great-great grandfather, Hirsch Wolofsky, was the founder of Canada’s first Yiddish-language daily paper, der Kanader Adler. My grandfather, Montreal civil engineer Beno Eskenazi, was born in Istanbul speaking Ladino and in 1999 co-authored the English-Ladino Sephardic Folk Dictionary. Speaking Ladino was the mark of his family being expelled from Spain - Sepharad - during the Spanish Inquisition. 500 years later, my grandfather had not forgiven the Spanish. When I was 13, I was Bar Mitzvahed by Rabbis Lerner and Goldberg at Temple Emmanuel Beth Sholom in Montreal, and my identity has always been associated with Judaism. 

It is said within the Jewish community in Canada that 52% of Jews support Israel no matter what, and the other 48% think the first 52% are crazy. As the Canadian Jewish News noted, there were seven Jewish MPs in the House — myself, Dan Ruimy, Jim Carr, Karina Gould, Julie Dabrusin, Anthony Housefather, and Michael Levitt. Of those, Anthony and Michael were — are — of the first category, unreservedly pro-Israel, regardless of the actions the country takes. There was an eighth MP who identified as Jewish when asked: Nunavut MP Hunter Tootoo, who, unlike me, managed to keep himself off the official list, and as an Inuk MP nobody thought to ask him.

I have never objected to Israel’s right to exist — indeed Israel must exist, but have long wondered if there is any sincerity in the country’s approach to establishing peace with its neighbours. Does Israel see the Palestinian people as a partner with whom to find peace, or a nuisance to be managed?

The governing Likud’s party’s original platform stated, clearly, “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” which doesn’t leave a lot of room for an existent Palestine, and with the pro-Palestinian chants being a substantively identical “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” it’s clear that both sides in the conflict aren’t really intent on the other existing. To support either side in today’s war is to support the extinction of the opposite.

The continued expansion of ‘settlements’ sounds relatively innocuous until you take the time to look at the map evolution of them and realise that the Palestinians do not have two discreet autonomous territories — the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — but rather hundreds of small, isolated pockets where the emancipation and fulfilment of the people is completely impossible.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) had a long-running program in Parliament where it funded the insertion of Jewish interns in Parliament Hill offices of all parties, in order to ensure that pro-Israel staffers get recruited and promoted through the ranks. The interns provided were top-notch, among the highest quality people to come work on the Hill — and they were paid by CIJA, not the MPs they worked for.

It was an effective strategy, and a lot of very intelligent, very competent people provided free labour to MPs under the guise of being interns while being paid by an organisation with an agenda, the very definition of a corrupt practice. MPs with their painfully small budgets ate them up, and many interns were hired at the end of their ‘volunteer’ tenure, ensuring CIJA’s mission was a raging success. The program was mostly non-controversial; interns being granted to all parties made it “non-partisan”, as our perspective on partisanship rarely considers whether an outside influence properly balances Canada’s interests against those of private interests or foreign countries.

On June 8th, 2017, one former Hill staffer at CIJA contacted me directly, bypassing my staff, inviting me on an all-expense-paid trip to Israel for a week, as long as I answered immediately — which I did, in the negative:

Hi David,

I'm writing from CIJA - we knew each other slightly when I was on the Hill working for Carolyn Bennett.

I apologize for writing out of the blue, but you've been on our minds for awhile to ask to come on a CIJA mission with us. Well, we've had a scheduling conflict with another MP, and we would like to ask if you're able to join us very soon- from July 9-17. I'm afraid we need an answer today. Would this be something you would be interested in and if so, is it possible for you to get back to us today? If it is I can send more details. Please also note you can bring your spouse (we can provide one premium economy ticket or two economy).

Warmly,

Allyson Grant

CIJA

In the fall of 2018, CIJA invited me to a round-table lunch with other Jewish MPs. It was not clear until I arrived that it was a self-congratulatory love-in about how great it was to be a Jewish MP and we were each expected to talk about how important being Jewish was to our role as an MP and our ability to help Israeli-Jewish interests. I found the questions difficult to answer honestly without offending the room and let Anthony do most of the talking.

CIJA’s internship program, as well as similar programs from other organisations with both internships and agendas including, notably, the Ukrainian Parliamentary Internship Program, was largely brought to a crashing halt at the end of 2018 when then-Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion issued an advisory opinion recognising its conflict of interest. As noted in his 2018-2019 annual report:

In fact, the importance of education and outreach in minimizing conflicts of interest is illustrated by a matter that was brought to my attention in September 2018. For years, third-party organizations have been providing Members with interns to work in their offices, at no cost to the Members. Such arrangements not only benefit the Members by providing them with free labour, but also benefit the interns by giving them parliamentary experience, and they could even benefit the sponsoring organizations, some of which are registered to lobby the House of Commons.

In short, Members who accept free intern services could be in a conflict of interest vis-à-vis the sponsoring organization.

To prevent such a situation from developing, I issued an advisory opinion in October 2018 under subsection 26(4) of the Code. In it, I noted that even though the interns are not paid by Members, they are not volunteers, because they are paid by the organization that placed them.

I am of the view that any intern services provided to Members free of charge by a third party are benefits as defined in the Code and are therefore subject to the acceptability test set out in subsection 14(1).

When the organization offering the intern services is registered to lobby the House of Commons—even if it has not lobbied the Member in question—the Code does not allow the Member to accept a gift or other benefit from that organization as it might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the Member in the exercise of a duty or function of their office. The same applies if the Member has or may have official dealings with the organization, now or in the future. Furthermore, even where accepting intern services provided at no cost is allowed, these services are subject to the requirement to report the benefit within 60 days after the start of the internship, as prescribed in subsection 14(3) of the Code.

Indeed.

Having already been on the Hill for the five years prior to my mandate, I was aware of the disproportionate influence of CIJA and their sister organisation CJPAC, the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee. Between them and organisations like B’nai Brith Canada (BBC), it had become doctrinal that criticising any action of an Israeli government or challenging the obvious crock that Israel sought sustainable peace with Palestinians made one anti-semitic. This particular relationship with a foreign power is not discussed when exploring foreign interference by larger countries such as China and Russia, which is a testament to its own greater success. Interference by allies is, after all, still interference.

Israel serves a role within the worldwide Jewish community; a critically important one. Operation Solomon, the effort to evacuate Ethiopia’s Jewish population in 1991, among many other events, shows it to be a country and a people ready and able to defend Jews anywhere, often when nobody else will. These acts are extremely important to the survival of jewry worldwide, but do not make the country perfect nor infallible. While some argue about whether or not the Palestinians are even a real people or entitled to be where they are, they are real people and they are really there. It is incumbent on Israel to find a way to make real, lasting peace, not simply manage the problem.

At the beginning of my mandate, I wanted the other perspective, too, and invited Tyler Levitan of Independent Jewish Voices to come have a conversation with me in my office on February 3rd, 2016. He was bright and clear in his communication, showing more of the reality of the situation in the Middle East than CIJA, CJPAC, or BBC would like anyone to fully understand.

Only a few days later, on February 22nd, the Conservative opposition party used their first opposition day motion to try and cleave the Liberal caucus on the issue of Israel:

That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (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.

It was a good strategy for them to explore and exploit divisions. For me, it left me in what can only be described as an existential crisis. I did not want being Jewish to define my term in office. I was there to work for the greater interests of my home community, the community where I grew up, and Israel was not on the priority list of the people of the Laurentians. Supporting the motion would be against my values —if you take away Palestinians’ right to non-violent protest, you leave them only with violence, but opposing it would make me the headline: ‘Jewish MP supports BDS’ which was both not true — supporting one’s right to protest is not necessarily supporting the substance of the protest — and would not serve anyone well. I spoke to my family, to friends, to Tyler Levitan, about my deep internal conflict on this vote.

It is not that I support or oppose BDS; I don’t really have an opinion on the substance, credibility, or ethics of this particular movement one way or the other, nor on the motivations or understanding of those who support the movement. But I do support the right to protest as a general principle. That BDS bothers Israeli ultra-zionists so much is evidence that this method of protest is actually profoundly effective. Banning it and forcing a people who endure permanent refugee-camp grade conditions drives them inevitably to violent uprising, which serves the Israeli right wing agenda quite well — meeting violence with violence is far easier than meeting peace with violence; just ask Mahatma Gandhi. 

Ultimately only three Liberal MPs voted against it, with several abstaining. If I could do it again, with the benefit of hindsight and experience, I would not have voted for it.