Community Life

It is difficult to overemphasize the communitarian basis of contemporary Jewish life in Canada. The informal milieu is a network of social relationships. The formal community is defined by a vast array of voluntary associations that structure the public and private lives of Canadian Jews. Today most members of the group speak of the Jewish “community” without an afterthought, but such a term would not always have been appropriate. During the period from the 1890s to the eve of World War II, for example, divisions within the community were deep and polarizing. Indeed, one can legitimately question whether it made sense, in the decades before the 1930s, to speak of a Jewish community at all. Certainly, there was substantial fragmentation in Montreal and, to a lesser extent, in Toronto along the lines of economic class, birthplace, and cultural style. The cleavage was between the Anglicized and the eastern European immigrants or, in Montreal parlance, the uptown and the downtown Jews. Just as fierce were the ideological and cultural divisions among working-class eastern Europeans themselves.

The origins of the communitarian thrust can be traced first to the teachings of Judaism itself. The concept is embedded in the fundamental religious law that specifies that prayer take place only in the presence of a quorum of ten adult men (a minyan), a requirement that indirectly serves to bind the community together. Moreover, the Bible commands Jews to provide for the needy, including widows, orphans, and strangers, a task best fulfilled collectively. These cultural predispositions were externally reinforced for Jewish communities in the Diaspora by anti-Semitism, which forced them to look after their own and fostered a tradition of self-governance. Communities have, wherever possible, administered their own cemeteries to guarantee burial, even for the indigent, according to traditional Jewish law. In addition, schools, orphanages, and relief organizations were usually established by the community.

In the eastern European shtetl, social divisions existed, based on wealth, learning, or lineage. Yet there was a sense of community that unified Jews, perhaps nurtured by the ever-present danger of anti-Semitism. The importance of informal community among Jews is revealed in persisting residential segregation. Moreover, a form of informal solidarity can be seen in patterns of friendships and socializing. Over three-quarters of adult Canadian Jews in 1990 claimed that “most of their friends” were members of their own ethnic group, and a study in Toronto found that among first-, second-, and third-generation Jews, between 50 and 55 percent indicated that their three closest friends were Jewish. Thus the popular stereotype that they are “clannish” or “stick together” is reasonably accurate.

Part of the explanation lies in the fact that Jews face a religious proscription against exogamy. Thus social segregation that begins in childhood and persists into young adulthood may help to minimize interfaith dating and eventually marriage outside the group. It is quite common for Canadian Jewish families from rural areas or smaller towns to send their children to university in Toronto or Montreal, where there are larger numbers of marriageable young Jews. In addition, many members of the community feel, perhaps correctly, that few Gentiles share their concern about the security of Israel, Jewish assimilation, or anti-Semitism at home and abroad. In the words of sociologist Marshall Sklare, they often feel that they must play an “ambassadorial role” in interactions with non-Jews by making a good impression. If that is the case, it militates against the honest communications that are required for meaningful friendships.

Another possible explanation is that Jews have much in common with one another. Today, Canadian Jews are typically middle class and well educated. These commonalities may extend into recreational activities, such as social drinking. Some American studies suggest that Jews, for whatever reason, do less social drinking, get drunk less often, and suffer less from alcoholism than non-Jews. It is not clear whether, taking into account class and education, Jews differ in other lifestyle patterns. Although they are rarely found among professional athletes in Canada, they have participated enthusiastically in the recent craze for physical fitness and in all manner of racquet and water sports, golf, cycling, and fishing. Historically, the Jewish presence in Canadian sports was more noticeable because of the high-quality athletes produced by local Young Men’s Hebrew associations (YMHAs). Perhaps the most celebrated was Olympian Fanny Rosenfeld. A world-class athlete in track and field, tennis, basketball, baseball, and hockey, she was selected as Canada’s female athlete of the first half century.

The foundations for many of the earliest Jewish welfare institutions in Canada were laid by members of the Reform movement. Among them were the Hebrew Benevolent Society, founded in 1863, and the Baron de Hirsch Institute, established in 1902, both in Montreal. Welfare activities in Toronto in the late nineteenth century were concentrated in the (male) Toronto Hebrew Benevolent Association, the Ladies Montefiore, associated with Holy Blossom Synagogue, and the local chapter of the Anglo-Jewish Association. Formal organizations, which comprise the Jewish polity, can be classified in various ways. Daniel Elazar has outlined “religious, educational, community relations, communal welfare and Israel-overseas” as five spheres of activity. Among Jewish groups in Canada are government-like, localistic, mass-based, and special-interest organizations.

The major national organization is the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), founded in 1919, moribund through the early 1930s, and then resurrected in 1933–34 to deal with the rising tide of anti-Semitism overseas and in Canada. In its early days the CJC was a force for democratic change and equality within the community and a threat to the entrenched power and authority of the elite, particularly in Montreal. It was seen as a “Parliament of Canadian Jewry” in which the eastern European immigrants would challenge such elite-run institutions as the Baron de Hirsch Institute. The Labour Zionists were staunch advocates of the congress and were opposed initially by the establishment Federation of Zionist Societies. But by 1917, following the Balfour declaration of British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine and with large numbers of Jews in Europe needing aid, the community edged closer together. In March 1919 an estimated 25,000 Jews voted to select 209 delegates to the congress, perhaps the greatest exercise of democratic governance in the history of Canadian Jewry. The second convention, held in Toronto in 1934 with some 3,800 delegates reportedly in attendance, was a feisty affair; all segments of the community contested the elections. Today the congress, ironically, is seen as the establishment, and it is periodically accused of timidity in defending Jewish interests, such as the federal government’s alleged lack of zeal in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in Canada.

The CJC has a loose regional structure. Its mandate is to represent communal interests to the government, usually at the federal or provincial level. Conventions and elections, in which all Jewish organizations can participate, are held every three years. The congress operates through a committee structure, while the day-to-day activities are carried out by a professional staff. However, the B’nai B’rith, a national fraternal organization made up of individual lodges, has remained outside the CJC umbrella and often bickers with it over jurisdiction. The B’nai B’rith usually petitions government on matters relating to anti-Semitism and human rights through the League for Human Rights, which it sponsors. Thus, for example, both the CJC and B’nai B’rith had standing before the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals headed by judge Jules Deschênes in the 1980s.

National Zionist and Israeli-linked organizations also play a role in the Canadian Jewish polity. Zionist groups have lost much of their salience since the founding of the state of Israel, especially given the fact that all Canadian Jews support its existence. Nevertheless, these organizations continue to run advocacy and educational-cultural programs. The umbrella organization is the Canadian Zionist Federation (CZF). Other groups include Mizrachi, the organization of religious Zionists; the Labour Zionists; the Revisionists, supporters of the Likud party and generally right of centre; and the Zionist Organization of Canada, a central grouping. Standing apart from these is Hadassah-WIZO, the women’s pro-Israel organization. Founded in Canada in 1917, it today boasts tens of thousands of members and is the largest of any group in Canadian Jewry. A smaller body, the National Council of Jewish Women, was founded in 1897 in Toronto and later spread to other cities; concerned with service and social action on women’s issues, it today has about 800 members. The CJC, the CZF, and the B’nai B’rith have jointly established the Canada Israel Committee (CIC), the main lobbying organization for Israel in Canada. In general, the CIC, as well as the other mainstream national organizations, support the position of the Israeli government regardless of the party in power and the specific issue. The community position is that only Israelis should criticize their own government. Thus small groups, such as the Canadian Friends of Peace Now, which have at times urged the country to take a more peaceful stance with regard to its Arab neighbours, have remained somewhat marginal.

Other active organizations represent Israeli institutions, such as universities and hospitals. The Jewish National Fund promotes agricultural settlement and forestation in Israel, while Israel Bonds raises funds from private and institutional investors. There are many other nation-wide Jewish organizations in Canada, some of which are affiliated with the CJC. An example is Second Generation, a group comprised primarily of the children of Holocaust survivors, whose work is now generally directed at awareness and education about the Holocaust. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre is active in combating anti-Semitism.

It is at the local level, however, that most Jewish communal organization takes place and where the power is concentrated. The welfare federations are responsible for collecting funds for the United Jewish Appeal and disbursing this money to a variety of welfare, social, cultural, and recreational agencies. In Montreal, for example, the Federation–Combined Jewish Appeal oversees more than twenty agencies, such the Young Men’s and Young Women’s Hebrew associations, the Golden Age Association, and the Jewish Public Library. Occasionally there is tension between lay boards and professional staff, and power relations vary according to the agency and the personalities involved. The annual appeals raise money, not only for the communal agencies, but for Israel as well. This fund-raising is largely separate from that carried out by the national and Israel-related agencies discussed earlier and by the synagogues and schools, which all seek financial support for their own activities. Roughly half the funds collected in the annual appeals is earmarked for Israel, while the other half is directed to local needs. Jewish philanthropy, a form of voluntary taxation, is prodigious, and Canadian Jews are perhaps the most generous givers in the Jewish world, rivalled only by Jews from South Africa. According to a 1990 survey, 41 percent of the community in Canada claimed to make a gift of $100 or more to the annual appeal. Moreover, for those households who do give more than this amount, the average is $1,700. The Montreal appeal, in a community of roughly 100,000, raised about $30 million per year in the early 1990s.

There are also organizations that are indirectly affiliated with the Jewish community, such as Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto and the Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital in Montreal. These institutions were founded because of the difficulties faced by Jewish doctors in securing positions and in providing kosher food and a supportive environment for Jewish patients. Today they are funded primarily by the provincial governments, and their staff and patient profile is decidedly mixed, though Jews are well represented. Other agencies founded as alternatives to Gentile organizations, such as the YM and YWHAs, continue to enjoy communal funding. Finally, there are the private “Jewish” golf and eating clubs that were created when Jews faced exclusion from Gentile organizations. Today, although access to those organizations is relatively more open to affluent Jews, the Jewish clubs continue to exist. In ironic symmetry, they have few or no Gentile members.

The old saying “For every two Jews, there are three organizations” seems justified by the proliferation of associations. Certainly, there is some duplication in services, and groups compete for control. Scheduling in the crowded Jewish communal calendar leads to conflict over major events, such as lectures and fund-raising dinners. It is common in ethnic organizations to find a low degree of participation by the ordinary community member, with the result that the association is top-heavy, it is poorly funded, and membership numbers are inflated. Such is not the case among Jewish organizations. In 1990, 47 percent of Canadian Jews claimed to belong to a Jewish organization, 31 percent actually did volunteer work, and 25 percent sat on a board or committee.

The Jewish polity is highly professional and well funded, but some may question whether it is democratic. At one level, the wealthy Jewish families who comprise the “big givers” exercise power by holding office in the federations or through behind-the-scenes contacts with communal agencies. A rule of thumb has been that 80 percent of the funds collected by the appeals come from 5 percent of the donors. Slowly through the 1970s and 1980s, however, positions in Jewish organizations became more representative and meritocratic. Whereas in earlier periods, power was concentrated in the hands of elderly businessmen, recently women, younger people, and professionals, such as lawyers, doctors, academics, and rabbis, have joined their ranks. In Montreal, francophone Jews have established their own organizations, notably the Communauté Sépharade du Québec, as well as beginning to involve themselves in the general community. However, other groups, including low-income Jews, the elderly, and recent immigrants, remain under-represented. The Jewish polity is voluntary, and so are most of the agencies. By and large, positions of power on lay boards are open to those who have the time and talent to become involved. The bias favours the middle class rather than any elite group of Jews.

The community is far more united than it has been in the past. The organized Jewish left declined even before the end of the Cold War; the Workmen’s Circle, long a mainstay of the progressive immigrant community, has shrunk in size and influence, as has the radical United Jewish People’s Order. The community strongly supports the existence of Israel and the basic principles of the welfare state. Problems of immigrant integration and concern for the poor remain, but without the earlier class conflict. Still, there have been issues that have challenged the organized community in the post-war period. After some initial resistance, the established organizations have co-opted many of the new groups and broadened the communal agenda to include their concerns. Among examples of such change are the increased activity by the community in the late 1960s and early 1970s on behalf of Soviet Jewry, a greater emphasis on the importance of Jewish education, and support for Ethiopian Jews in the 1970s and 1980s. Younger militants have been brought into the fold, and the community today is inclusive. Indeed, the tests for inclusion are limited to minimal support for Israel and for basic liberal-democratic values. Only groups such as the right-wing Jewish Defense League, which has advocated violence, and radical left-wing and ultra-Orthodox groups that are actively opposed to the existence of Israel are outside the broad consensus.