Features
The JP&N goes one-on-one with Pierre Poilievre
By BERNIE BELLAN (Note: This article first appeared in the June 7, 2023 issue of the JP&N, but our website was under reconstruction, so it didn’t appear here until July 5.)
In the waning days of the 2015 federal election I was one of a small group of journalists representing “ethnic media” that was invited to meet with then-PM Stephen Harper. I agreed to attend.
Frankly, I wondered though, what was I doing there? After all, Harper had a well-known disdain for journalists and I wasn’t especially keen at the notion that I would be representing an “ethnic” publication which, I thought, was so parochial. Further, the Conservatives were clearly in trouble at the time. Why else was the publisher of a small Jewish newspaper who would, under any other circumstance, not be invited to meet with the prime minister of the country now being asked to meet with him?
As a result, when I wrote about that meeting, I titled my piece “My accidental meeting with Stephen Harper.” (That piece was picked up by the CBC and posted to its website. I guess the CBC couldn’t resist taking one final poke at a PM who had long held them in disdain – by publishing my somewhat sarcastic piece.)
And so, on Wednesday, May 31, when I received an invitation to conduct a one-on-one interview with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre on Friday, June 2 (over the phone) – well, again, I was somewhat skeptical. We’re in the midst of a byelelection in which the Jewish vote in Winnipeg South Centre might be pivotal though, which would help to explain the logic in reaching out to a journalist who normally wouldn’t get the time of day from the Leader of the Opposition.
I was asked in advance what kinds of questions I might like to ask, but I was very general in my response, saying that I’d like to ask about climate change, Pierre Poilievre’s support for the convoy that laid siege to Ottawa in 2022, and abortion. The person who had contacted me didn’t say that I couldn’t ask about any of those subjects, which didn’t really surprise me, since Poilievre is an excellent debater and would surely be able to handle himself easily with the likes of me.
As it was, I did manage to get in all the questions that I had in mind – along with one more relating to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
Here is the interview:
JP&N: I’ve got to tell you before we begin to chat – you were on my street with Joyce Bateman in 2015 when she was running for re-election and you were helping her run. I met you. I remember you were wearing a black suit and a white shirt and it was a Saturday and I was thinking “You’re overdressed for this.”
Poilievre: Oh my goodness. Was it summer?
JP&N: Well, the election was in October, so it might’ve been in September, but it was a warm day. I wonder – are you dressed for the weather we’re having today (over 30 degrees when we spoke), or are you still wearing a suit?
Poilievre: I’m wearing a dress shirt and luluemons. They’re comfortable but not quite light enough for a day like this.
JP&N: Anyway, I was told I can ask you any questions I’d like, but I know you’re pretty fast on your feet so I don’t think I can corner you. Let me ask you this: Given the weather we’re experiencing and the conditions across the country, what would you say in answer to the question: “Do you believe in climate change, first of all? Do you believe it’s a reality?”
Poilievre: Yes
JP&N: Okay, but what about lessening the use of fossil fuels and drilling for oil? Does this change your thinking in any way – what we’re experiencing now?
Poilievre: I think we have to reduce emissions, which is different, so we will continue using hydrocarbons for everything from asphalt to plastics to medical equipment to components in electric cars for at least generations, and possibly centuries to come. The challenge is how to reduce the emissions into the atmosphere and the answer to that is you produce energy with less emissions, so that for instance in Alberta and Saskatchewan they’re investing in carbon capture and storage, which puts industrial emissions back in the ground where they came from.
You know, so power in the oil sands sustains emissions-free nuclear power instead of coal-fired electricity. We can speed up nuclear power production. It doesn’t take 15 years to get a big plant built; it can be done in five.
Fast- tracking hydroelectric dams in places like Manitoba, Quebec, and British Columbia to allow us more affordable, green emissions-free electricity.
We can incentivize large industrial corporations to reduce their emissions with a carb tax on their emissions so that they’re forced to reinvest in technology if they don’t bring their emissions down. The key here is investing in technologies to bring down the cost of carbon free alternatives rather than bringing up the cost of traditional energy that we still require.
JP&N: I’ll admit, the readership of our newspaper skews older, but a lot of our readers are as concerned about global warming as younger generations, but for younger generations – they’re so engrossed with what’s going on now, what can you say to them about the future because, quite frankly, the Conservative Party has aligned itself with the forces that would continue drilling for oil and continue building pipelines. What would you say to the younger generation – and the older generations that are also very concerned about that?
Poilievre: I would ask: “What is their alternative?” The world is going to continue to consume between 60 and 100 million barrels of oil a day for at least the next two decades, according to the International Energy Agency, so where do you want that oil to come from? Canada, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia? I want it to come from Canada and why not incentivize to grow greener, to reinvest in lowering emissions so that we have the lowest emitting barrel of oil on planet Earth? That’s the common sense solution. You can shut down our energy sector tomorrow. It’ll just mean more oil will come from Russia – where they have no climate change standards.
JP&N: Except that the oil sands are one of the dirtiest sources of oil on Earth.
Poilievre: No, not at all. Actually the oil sands have dramatically reduced their emissions from each barrel of oil. Alberta has had some of the most aggressive emission reductions policies for two decades that have worked through the “tier” program – the technology in a program that requires them to meet targets and, if they don’t, they have to contribute to a technology fund that all businesses can draw from to reduce emissions.
They also have an alliance of the five biggest oil companies that have drawn up a plan to get to net zero in the next several decades that is well advanced of almost all the oil producing countries in the world.
JP&N: Okay, the time is limited and we’ve been dwelling on this issue, so I want to switch gears and talk about what is undoubtedly going to be a wedge issue between you and the Liberals, which is the issue of abortion. I know the Liberals are looking forward to trying to trap the Conservatives in some way – I don’t know if that’s the right word, but does the Conservative Party have a unilateral position on abortion or is it left to each member to vote their conscience on that?
Poilievre: A Poilievre-led government will not have any laws restricting abortion, period.
JP&N: So if an individual member wants to bring it up as a private member’s motion, would you allow it?
Poilievre: No such bill would pass and no such bill has come from a Conservative MP – to ban abortion – in the 17 years that I’ve been a Member of Parliament, I’ve never seen that happen.
You know, a lot of people fear monger about it, but I’ve never seen it happen, so no such bill would pass.
JP&N: Another issue – perhaps it’s yesterday’s issue, but it still relates to the tone you adopted when you came out to greet the members of the (truckers’) convoy in Ottawa. Do you have any misgivings about having done that?
Poilievre: I think we had a group of people that had lost their jobs because the Prime Minister brought in unscientific and unnecessary mandates on the people who are least likely to spread a virus. A person sitting in a truck all day – we called these people heroes for two years while they brought us our goods and services across the border.
All of us were comfortable in our homes. These people were on icy highways bringing the essentials that kept us alive and suddenly, and inexplicably, Trudeau broke his own promise that the vaccines would be voluntary. He hit them with a mandate and took away their jobs, so they came to the nation’s capital to try to get their jobs back and I supported them in that.
I do regret the nasty, divisive approach the Prime Minister took. It was a political opportunity to divide people. What he really wanted to do is make you afraid of your trucker, forget about the fact you can’t pay your rent, you can’t pay your mortgage, you can’t afford groceries, the streets are more dangerous. Forget about all that and focus on the scary guy who delivers your food and your medicine in a truck. Maybe it was a successful political strategy but it was a terrible way to divide our people.
I’ll be a prime minister who unites our people, brings everyone together. That includes hard working truckers and others. What we need right now is less division and more unity.
JP&N: If you have a little bit more time, I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask you a question that’s close to the hearts and minds of a lot of Jews, especially in Winnipeg South Centre, which has one of the highest proportion of Jewish voters in the country.
Stephen Harper was here two weeks ago speaking at our Jewish National Fund Negev Gala and came out, as expected, four score in support of Israel. I wouldn’t expect anything different from you, but I’m wondering, what would you say to Jews who would like to see Israelis and Palestinians brought together in a way that maybe hasn’t been done? Do you have any ideas on how to do that?
Poilievre: Yes, I do. In fact, it’s a big priority of mine. I think there’s a lot of common ground between Israelis and Palestinians and one area in which Conservatives can help is by encouraging more trade and commerce between Palestinians and Israelis.
The Israeli economy is probably the most entrepreneurial in the entire world. If not – a close second to Singapore. And Palestinians are desperate for an opportunity to feed their families and to build a better future. I think if we – Canada – can assist in bringing together Palestinians and Israelis that share a common economic purpose to reduce poverty and desperation and division, I think it could create the foundation for a lasting peace. That’s how I’d like to proceed.
Features
A People and a Pulse: Jewish Voices in Jazz and Modern Music
By MARTIN ZEILIG Jazz history is usually told through its most iconic names — Armstrong, Ellington, Parker, Davis — yet running alongside that familiar story is another, often under‑acknowledged one: the deep and enduring contribution of Jewish musicians, bandleaders, composers, and cultural intermediaries.
From the moment jazz emerged at the turn of the 20th century, Jews were not simply observers but active shapers of the music and the industry around it. Their influence — artistic, entrepreneurial, and cultural — has been both significant and, in many respects, disproportionately large. Jews and Jazz (171 pg. $18.75 US) a self‑published work by Laurence Seeff, brings this parallel narrative into sharp, affectionate focus.
Seeff is an ideal guide.
Born in London in 1951, he built a career that moved from statistics to energy policy in Paris, from financial markets at Bloomberg to corporate training in the City of London, all while writing poetry, songs, and humorous verse. Today he lives in Israel, where he continues to write, perform, learn Ivrit, and enjoy life with his large family. Through all these chapters runs a constant passion for jazz — a passion sparked more than fifty‑five years ago when he first heard Terry Lightfoot’s Jazzmen in a Bournemouth pub.
His writing blends clarity, humour, and genuine love for the music and the people who made it.
The musicians he profiles often came from immigrant families who brought with them the musical DNA of Eastern Europe — the cadences of synagogue chant, the urgency of klezmer, the cultural instinct for learning and artistic expression. When these sensibilities met the African American genius of early jazz, the result was a remarkable creative fusion.
Some figures, like Chico Marx, are better known for comedy than musicianship, yet Seeff reminds us that Chico was a serious pianist whose jazz‑inflected playing appeared in every Marx Brothers film and whose orchestra launched young talents like Mel Tormé. Others — Abe Lyman, Lew Stone, and Oscar Rabin — shaped the dance‑band era on both sides of the Atlantic.
Canadian readers will be pleased to find Morris “Moe” Koffman included as well: the Toronto‑born flautist and saxophonist whose “Swinging Shepherd Blues” became an international hit and whose long career at the CBC helped define Canadian jazz.
Seeff also highlights artists whose connection to jazz is more tangential but culturally revealing. Barbra Streisand, for example — a classmate and choir‑mate of Neil Diamond at Erasmus Hall High School — was never a natural jazz singer, yet her versatility allowed her to step into the idiom when she chose.
She opened for Miles Davis at the Village Vanguard in 1961 and, nearly half a century later, returned to the same club to promote Love Is the Answer, her collaboration with jazz pianist Diana Krall. Her contribution to jazz may be limited, but her stature as one of the greatest singers of all time is unquestioned.
Neil Diamond, too, appears in these pages.
Though not a jazz artist, he starred — with gusto, if not great acting finesse — in the 1980 remake of The Jazz Singer, 53 years after Al Jolson’s original. The film was not a success, nor was it truly a jazz picture, but its title and its star’s Jewish identity make it part of the cultural tapestry Seeff explores.
Diamond and Streisand recorded together only once, in 1978, on “You Don’t Bring Me Flowers,” a reminder of the long‑standing artistic ties between them.
Mel Tormé, by contrast, was deeply rooted in jazz. Nicknamed “The Velvet Fog,” he was a prodigy who sang professionally at age four, wrote his first hit at sixteen, drummed for Chico Marx, and recorded with Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw. Ethel Waters once said he was “the only white man who sings with the soul of a black man.” His story exemplifies the porous, collaborative nature of jazz.
Seeff also includes non‑Jewish figures whose lives intersected meaningfully with Jewish culture. Frank Sinatra — perhaps the greatest crooner of them all — was a steadfast supporter of Jewish causes, from protesting during the Holocaust to raising funds for Israel Bonds and the Hebrew University. His multiple visits to Israel, including a major concert in Jerusalem in 1975, underscore the depth of his connection.
Danny Kaye earns his place through his close work with Louis Armstrong, his pitch‑perfect scat singing, and his starring role in The Five Pennies, the biopic of jazz cornetist Red Nichols. Though not a jazz musician per se, his performances radiated a genuine feel for the music.
A later generation is represented by Harry Connick Jr., whose Jewish mother and New Orleans upbringing placed him at the crossroads of cultures. A prodigy who played publicly at age five, he went on to become one of the most successful jazz‑influenced vocalists of his era, with ten number‑one jazz albums.
Even Bob Dylan appears in Seeff’s mosaic — another reminder that Jewish creativity has touched every corner of modern music, sometimes directly through jazz, sometimes through the broader cultural currents that surround it.
Taken together, the concise portraits in Jews and Jazz form a lively, engaging mosaic — a celebration of creativity, resilience, and cross‑cultural exchange. They show how Jewish musicians helped carry jazz from vaudeville and dance halls into swing, bebop, cool jazz, pop, rock, and film music.
They remind us that jazz, at its heart, is a meeting place: a space where people of different backgrounds listen to one another, learn from one another, and create something larger than themselves.
For further information, contact the author at the following email address: laurenceseeff@yahoo.co.uk
Features
Jews in Strange Places
By DAVID TOPPER The Jewish contribution to 20th century popular music is well known. From Jerome Kern through to Stephen Sondheim, Jews played major roles as both composers and lyricists in the so-called Great American Songbook. (An exception is Cole Porter.) It continued in Musical Theatre throughout the rest of the century.
One very small piece of this story involves what Time magazine in the December 1999 issue called “the tune of the century.” First recorded sixty years before that, it is the powerful and haunting tune called “Strange Fruit,” which is about the lynching of black people in the southern USA. First sung by Billie Holiday in 1939, it became her signature tune.
So, why do I bring this up? Because there is a multi-layered Jewish connection to this song that is worth recalling, which may not be known to many readers.
Let’s start with the lyrics to “Strange Fruit,” which are the essence of this powerful piece:
Southern trees bear strange fruit,Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.Pastoral scene of the gallant south,The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,Here is a strange and bitter crop.
Before becoming lyrics in a song, this poem stood alone as a potent statement about the lynchings still taking place throughout the American South at the time. The strong metaphorical imagery never explicitly mentions the lynching, which adds to the poetic power of this poem. Standing alone, I believe it’s an important protest verse from the 20th century.
Searching it on the internet, you may find the author listed as Lewis Allan. But that’s not his real name. “Lewis Allen” is the often-used pen name of Abel Meeropol, a Jewish High School teacher from the Bronx in New York. He and his wife, Anne (nee Shaffer), had two stillborn children with those names – a fact that adds a poignant element to this story.
The origin of the poem for Abel was a photograph he had seen of a lynching of black men in the South. I have seen such images, possibly even the one Abel saw: for example, a sepia photograph of two black men hanging from a long tree limb, and a large crowd of white people below (men, women and even children!), most seeming dressed in their Sunday best (some men with straw hats) looking up and gawking at the sight, some with smiles on their faces – as if attending a festive spectacle. Like Abel, I felt repelled by the picture: it turned my stomach. This communal display of horrific cruelty gave me a glimpse into Abel’s mind, and I understood how it compelled him to write about it. He thus wrote the poem, and it was published in a teacher’s magazine in 1937.
Being a songwriter too, in 1938 Abel added a melody and played it in a New York club he often attended. But here’s where this story’s documentation gets contradictory, depending upon who is recalling the events. The club owner knew Billie Holiday, and he showed the song to her. What her initial response was, we cannot know for sure. But we do know that in a relatively short time, she added it to her repertoire. It eventually became her signature tune. She initially sang it in public, but because of its popularity among her fans, there was pressure to record it too.
There were initial rejections from recording companies because of the controversial content. But Commodore Records took a chance and pressed the first recording in April 1939. This was the same year the movie “Gone with the Wind” came out; it was steeped in racial stereotyping. It was also sixteen years before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.
As a record, the song obviously reached a large audience. Since the content was about racism, the song was seen as politically radical; not surprisingly, many radio stations banned it from the airwaves.
Furthermore, it’s also not surprising that Abel, a schoolteacher, was called to appear before a committee of New York lawmakers who were looking for communists in the schools. Possibly they were surprised to find that the poem and the song were written by a white man – and a Jew to boot. In particular, they wanted to know if he was paid by the Communist Party to write this song. He was not. And, in the end, they let him go. But shortly thereafter he quit his teaching job.
This took place in 1941 and was a precursor to the continued American obsession with communism into the 1950s, under Senator Joe McCarthy.
Indeed, that episode had an impact on Abel and Anne too. In 1953 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of giving information about nuclear science to the Soviet Union, and they were the first married couple to be executed in the electric chair. They left two sons, Michael (age 10) and Robert (age 6). Apparently, immediate family members were reticent to get involved with the boys, possibly afraid of being accused of sympathizing with communism.
Enter Abel and Anne. Without a moment’s hesitation they stepped in, taking and raising the boys. As Michael and Robert Meeropol they eventually went on to become college professors – and naturally were active in social issues. Anne died in 1973. Abel died in 1986 in a Jewish nursing home in Massachusetts, after a slow decline into dementia. Long before that, Billie Holiday died in 1959, ravaged by the drug addition that took her life at forty-four years of age.
See why I called this a multi-layered Jewish story that’s worth telling?
To hear Billie Holiday singing “Strange Fruit” click here: Strange Fruit
Features
Is This the End of Jewish Life in Western Countries?
By HENRY SREBRNIK “Globalize the Intifada” has been the chant echoing through streets since October 7th, 2023. It was never a metaphor, and we now see the gruesome results across the western world, from Australia to Canada: the rise of groups of large, active networks of Islamist and anti-Zionist organizations.
Jews in the West are discovering that the nations they defended, enriched, and profoundly shaped have become increasingly inhospitable. After the Holocaust, explicit Jew-hatred became unfashionable in polite society, but the impulse never disappeared. The workaround was simple: separate Zionism from Judaism in name, then recycle every old anti-Jewish trope and pin it on “the Zionists.”
We have seen the full legitimization of genocidal anti-Zionism and its enthusiastic adoption by large segments of the public. The protests themselves, as they began immediately on October 7th, were celebrations of the Hamas massacres. The encampments, the building occupations, the harassment campaigns against Jewish students, the open calls for intifada, the attacks on Jews and Jewish places have become our new norm. History shows us that antisemitism does not respond to reason, incentive or the honest appeals of the Jewish community.
Outside the United States, there is no Western political establishment with either the will or the capability to address this problem, let alone reverse its growth. I’m sorry to say this, but the future of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is likely to be increasingly Jew-free.
Today, police stand and watch mobs chant for Israel’s destruction, call for the genocide of its people, harass visibly Jewish citizens, and drive antisemitic intimidation deep into urban life. They now believe their job is to enforce the law only if it does not risk upsetting violent constituencies. This makes Jews expendable, because defending them risks confrontation. This was very clear in the Bondi Beach massacre.
Jews are again donning caps instead of kippot, dressing generically with no cultural markers, and avoiding even a tote bag with Hebrew on it. A corrosive creep toward informal segregation in retail and service sectors is occurring, as Jewish customers report being refused service. A mezuzah hanging from a rideshare mirror leads to cancellations. When Jews express frustration, they are accused of exaggeration or attempting to suppress criticism of Israel. Jewish fear is not treated as a real problem.
“Jews Are Being Sent Back into Hiding,” the title of a Dec. 15 article in the New York Free Press by David Wolpe and Deborah Lipstadt, asserts that the attacks on Jews, including physical assaults, social media campaigns and, most tragically, the recent murders in Australia, are part of a purposive campaign designed to make Jews think twice about gathering with other Jews, entering a synagogue, going to kosher restaurants, putting a mezuzah on the doorpost of their apartments or dorm rooms, or wearing a Jewish star around their necks.
“We know of no one who would consider giving a niece, nephew, grandchild, or young friend a Jewish star without first asking permission of their parents,” they write. The unspoken, and sometimes spoken, question is: “Might wearing a star endanger your child’s well-being?”
Recently, a prominent American rabbi was entering a Target store in Chicago with her grandson, whom she had picked up from his Jewish day school. As they walked into the store the 10-year-old reached up and automatically took off his kippah and put it in his pocket. Seeing his grandmother’s quizzical look, he explained: “Mommy wants me to do that.”
Borrowing a phrase from another form of bigotry, they contend that Jews are going “back into the closet.” No public celebration of Hanukkah took place in 2025 without a significant police presence. Some people chose to stay home.
Lipstadt and Wolpe know whereof they speak. They are respectively a professor of history and Holocaust studies who served as the Biden administration’s ambassador tasked with combating antisemitism, the other a rabbi who travels to Jewish communities throughout the world, and who served on Harvard’s antisemitism task force in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 pogrom.
What the world has seen over the past two years is a continual, often systematic attempt to terrorize Jews. When political leaders fail to condemn rather than merely “discourage” chants of “globalize the intifada,” we are seeding the ground for massacres like the Hannukah one in Sydney.
If each Jewish holiday will now be seen by antisemites as an opportunity for terror, then the prognosis for diaspora Jewry is bleak. There will be fewer public events, more alarms, more bag checks at doors; there will have to be more security and more police. Unless things change, Jewish life in the diaspora will become more sealed off from the larger society.
Why has this failure come about? Confronting antisemitism, stopping the mobs, challenging the activists, and disciplining antisemitic bureaucrats all carry electoral risk for politicians; Jews are demographically irrelevant, especially compared with Muslim voters, with the U.S. being the only partial exception.
There are those who suggest Jews stop donating funds to educational and other institutions that have turned against us. At this point, I doubt very much that withdrawing dollars will have an impact. For every dollar withdrawn, there will be 100 from Qatar and other sources in its place.
Throughout history, the way a society treats its Jews predicts its future with unerring accuracy. If Jews leave, it will be because a civilization that will not defend its Jews will also defend next to nothing and may itself not survive.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island
