A sea of change

Depending on who you asked, David Lewis was either a brilliant new force in Canadian politics or little more than an “angry…shrewd, even cunning political animal.”¹

By 1944, Lewis had lived a thoroughly exciting life. Born to a passionately political family in a poor Jewish shtetl in today’s Belarus, his family fled the Russian Civil War after his father’s Bundist politics (the Jewish Labour Bund being a secular, social democratic, autonomist political party in pre-revolutionary Russia) brought him into conflict with the Bolsheviks. They came to Canada, trading the last name “Losz” for the Anglicized “Lewis”, and ended up where many Jewish emigres from the region did - Montreal. There, the young David excelled in school, was accepted into McGill, and began his own political activism. From there, Lewis earned a Rhodes scholarship and moved to Oxford where he linked up with Labour Party organizers, got into fistfights with fascists, and ruffled the stiff, uptight feathers of the British elite who balked at his radicalism and oratorical skill. Despite an offer to be parachuted into a safe Labour seat with a guarantee to be elected to the British House of Commons in the UK’s 1935 general election (Canadians were, at the time, only British subjects and had the right to run for parliament here or in the “home country”), as well as a partnership at a prestigious London law firm, Lewis opted to return home to Canada. A more appealing challenge had been offered by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), J.S. Woodsworth, who implored him to bring his skills back to help the fledgling party.

Upon his return to Canada, Lewis took a job with an Ottawa-area law firm, balancing his legal practice with his work for the CCF. That proved to be too much and, in 1938, he left the firm to become the CCF’s full-time National Secretary.

An incredible political tactician, Lewis worked to soften some of the party’s rougher edges and make it more appealing to a broad array of Canadians. This brought him into conflict with those of a more radical bent, many of whom would leave to join the Communists and pledge to oppose Lewis in all his efforts.

At the same time, he worked with one of his friends from McGill, the political theorist Frank Scott, on Make This Your Canada, a comprehensive book outlining the CCF’s economic and political theories. By 1940, it was Lewis’s turn to jump into electoral politics in his own right. He was appointed the party’s candidate in York West, a thin strip of a riding encompassing what are today the western suburbs of Toronto. In that year’s federal election, he earned just 13% of the vote.

Three years later, he was named the party’s star candidate in the Montreal-area by-election for the riding of Cartier. A riding with a large working class, Jewish population, the CCF believed this could be the party’s chance to win its first seat in Quebec. The Conservatives opted to skip this by-election, knowing that the scene would be uncharacteristically messy. The Liberals, who were defending the seat, nominated a local war hero and lawyer. The nationalist Bloc Populaire nominated a candidate who sought to capitalize on the Quebecois anger over conscription, as well as a growing sense of Francophone pride in the province.

But the biggest threat came from the Communists, who nominated Fred Rose. Rose was an activist who, like Lewis, immigrated from what would eventually become the Soviet Union as a child. The Lewis and Rose families lived in the same poor Montreal neighbourhood and both their political sons were so close in age that Rose was just one year above Lewis at Baron Byng High School (which would later become a scene in many of the books written by another one of its notable alums, Mordechai Richler). But the paths of Lewis and Rose diverged after their high school days; the latter landed himself in jail for his campaigns against Montreal’s capitalists and the hard right Union Nationale government of Maurice Duplessis while the former was cloistered within the walls of McGill and Oxford.

The campaign was brutal. The Communists called Lewis a “fascist” and a political opportunist. The Liberals not-so-subtly informed voters they would rather have a Communist in the House than a CCFer. The Bloc locked down the Francophone vote, fanning the flames of nationalism at a time when that ideology had set half the world ablaze. In the end, Rose won by just 150 votes over the Bloc, becoming the first and only Communist elected to the House of Commons. Lewis placed a distant fourth.

Demoralized, Lewis knew he would need to recalibrate and find a place more sympathetic to his brand of social democracy. A place where labour candidates had found success and held positions of power. A place where the growing union movement was beginning to transform the working landscape.

He found just such a place, 600 kilometres to the southwest.

***

In July of 1944, Lewis made a surprise announcement. Instead of running in Toronto or Montreal, he would make a bid for the vulnerable seat of Hamilton West.

The riding was, for nearly all of its history, a Conservative stronghold. From 1908 to 1940, the Hamilton West Tory machine had the seat on lockdown. But, in 1940, the party’s candidate, former alderman John Marsh, was defeated by his Liberal opponent, Colin Gibson of the city’s legendary Gibson family. Prime Minister King, recognizing how much of coup Gibson’s victory was, promptly named him Minister of National Revenue.

Lewis figured that, in a battle between the Liberals and Conservatives, there was a chance the CCF could sneak up the middle and pull off a surprise victory. Encompassing everything in city limits west of Wellington Street, the riding had pockets that may have provided natural voters for each party; wealthy enclaves for the Tories, upwardly mobile middle class families for King’s Liberals, and close-knit working class communities for the CCF.

On Monday, July 17, 1944, the Hamilton West CCF Association held their nomination meeting at the Royal Connaught. In the running were Lewis, perennial candidate William Jack, and faithful party member Frank Malloy. Lewis won the nomination easily. He told the gathered members that the race in Hamilton West “will be a contest between the forces of progress and the common people, represented by the CCF, and the forces of reaction and monopoly, represented by the old parties.”² For the election, Lewis listed the East Avenue home of his Hamilton East colleague’s financial agent as his address.

From the moment he announced his candidacy, local forces organized to oppose him. The Spec, then owned by the deeply conservative Southam Company, took the lead, burying what few articles they wrote on him deep in the less-viewed pages of the paper and snidely commenting on, of all things, the size of his rallies. Of a pre-election meeting in 1945, the paper glibly remarked that it was “a small one attended by about 50 persons.”³

The election shaped up to be a spirited battle. Gibson and Lewis were joined on the hustings by Progressive Conservative candidate Chester New, who was then the head of McMaster’s history department, and Dr. Sam Sniderman of the Communists (political observers were quick to note that Lewis, once again, had a Jewish opponent running to his left, though Sniderman was a deeply engaged member of the community who had just returned from serving as a Captain in the army. Sniderman - unrelated to the Sam Sniderman of “Sam the Record Man” fame - would die suddenly three years later after a short illness).

When it came time for candidate profiles in the Spec, Gibson and New received lengthy write-ups, noting their many accomplishments, their admirable families, their contributions to the community, and, interestingly, their athletic prowess. Gibson’s award-winning marksmanship and New’s success in aquatics, curling, and general collegiate sports were highlighted. In contrast, Lewis earned two perfunctory paragraphs, noting his time at McGill and Oxford, his full-time work for the CCF, and his failed bid for office in Cartier. Despite not being religious, his profile was ended with the line: “He is of the Hebrew faith.”⁴

Lewis, when the local media deemed it appropriate to even mention him, was treated as an outsider. His policies were maligned and his organization was disparaged. It is no wonder, then, that on election day, he placed third with 23.6% of the vote. In their election recap, the Spec echoed the sentiments of the riding’s winner, Gibson, running stories about the local results under the bolded headline: Interprets Federal Vote as Rejection of Socialism. Lewis was blunt with the Spec, telling the paper that the CCF campaign in Hamilton suffered because of how the political elites locally and nationally attacked the party and gave “the people what, in our opinion, is a wrong understanding and distorted view of CCF policies and intentions.”⁵

He returned to Hamilton for the city’s “burning year”, 1946. At a rally in support of striking Stelco workers at Woodlands Park on August 27, Lewis told a crowd of 6,000 that the federal government’s use of the RCMP during the strike may inspire a Canada-wide general strike, that Stelco management was in violation of federal laws, and that Controller Nora Francis Henderson’s account of mayhem in the city was dangerously hyperbolic. Using phrasing that was decidedly of-its-time, Lewis said of Henderson: “There is nothing worse than a hysterical woman in politics, but there is nothing as impossible as when a Tory woman in politics becomes hysterical!”⁶ Lewis’s phrasing was poor and, by today’s standards, could be interpreted as sexist, but his contention was that Henderson was mischaracterizing striking workers when she said they were a disorderly mob that made Hamilton unsafe for all.

The next year, federal riding boundaries were redrawn. The unwieldy riding of Wentworth, which once encompassed all of today’s City of Hamilton aside from the lower city between Paradise Road in the west and Ottawa Street in the east, was split in two. Much of rural Wentworth was appended to Brant County, leaving a much smaller, more urban riding of Wentworth in its wake. This riding included the working-class east end between Ottawa Street and the Red Hill Valley, the growing working-to-middle class suburbs on the mountain, and the towns of Dundas and Stoney Creek.

It was in this riding that Lewis next tried his hand at electoral politics. He deftly defeated his fellow CCF candidate from 1945, Hamilton East’s Roy Aidow, for the nomination. Lewis - described by the Spec after his nomination as “short, dark David Lewis” - was bullish in his nomination speech, promising to win the riding of Wentworth and help the CCF form government at the federal level. Alderman Bill Warrender, one of the most right-wing members in Hamilton city council’s history, wrote to the Spec to attack Lewis’s candidacy, noting again that “Mr. David Lewis doesn’t even live in the city,” and that “it is obvious, therefore, to anyone that the National Socialist machine is at work and that the ‘big guns’ find that Hamilton is a soft spot for the spreading of their propaganda,” purposefully mischaracterizing the CCF as the same fascist menace that had been defeated only a few years prior.⁷ As malicious as Warrender’s letter was, there was a kernel of truth to it; Lewis was still based in Ottawa and used the home of CCF MPP Joe Easton as his address for the campaign.

During a pre-election meeting in 1949, Lewis told a crowd of party supporters that “the CCF will sweep Hamilton” in the election and that, in the riding of Wentworth, “the contest is clearly, and only, between the Conservatives and the CCF,” mentioning rumours that the Liberals had considered not running a candidate out of fear that the vote would split in favour of Lewis. Lewis’s comments were optimistic at best; the CCF had slipped in the polls from a high of 21% in October of 1948 to just 16% by the time he gave his speech. Typical of the Southam-owned Spec, the article was buried on page 8 between an article about the US Army Band playing at Gage Park and concerns over “striking seaman” at the docks (meaning labour strife, just to clarify).⁸

The placement of the Spec’s column was apt, then, when they ran a candidate profile of him a few days before the election. “The gap between the background of David Lewis,” they wrote, “and that of the majority of the people in the Wentworth constituency…is as wide as the seas.” This time, the paper really leaned into it, informing readers that the family “changed their name to Lewis” and that the candidate “had spoken no English until he was twelve years old”. All the more “remarkable”, the paper opined, that he had made it to McGill and Oxford, then. “Mr. Lewis, age 38, is an intellectual of the first order [and] a political careerist,” they wrote, before saying that his victory would “be a tough assignment for any candidate under the best of circumstances, but the difficulties of an outsider with limited contacts and scant acquaintanceship with the voters of a constituency are formidable.” Indeed, Lewis’s Communist opponent received a more positive review from the Spec, though that may have been due to his being Stanley Ryerson, the great-grandson of Egerton Ryerson himself.⁹

Lewis improved on his result from 1945, but still failed to capture the seat, earning 27% of the vote. It would be 13 more years before he was elected to parliament.

After Tommy Douglas stepped down as leader of the brand new NDP, Lewis took his place and, amidst a Liberal minority government, was able to extract important concessions from Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, including the creation of Petro Canada. But, as is often the case for the NDP in minority parliaments, their work ended up making the government look good at their own expense, and the party limped into the 1974 election facing down a wave of Trudeaumania.

The Spec, once Lewis’s most ardent opponent, took a more nuanced view of his campaign in ‘74. The paper’s editorial team rehashed what their predecessors had said of Lewis, but quietly acknowledged where they were wrong. Instead, they considered what Lewis had done for Canada during his time in politics, concluding that “even those who disagree most violently with his party’s platform will have to agree that in their present leader, the New Democrats have a superb political organizer, an articulate spokesman and a man who does what he feels right no matter how enormous the odds.”¹⁰  

On election night, Lewis lost his seat, as did 15 of his caucus members. Not a single New Democrat was elected to represent Hamilton in that election. Lewis stepped down and spent his last years writing and teaching in Ottawa.

When David Lewis ran for office in Hamilton, the local political machinery labelled him an outsider, an opportunist, and a radical. They hinted at (and, sometimes, outright pointed to) his background in negative ways. They mislabeled his politics, mocked his pursuits, and did their best to ostracize him.

What hits closest to home for me, though, is how he was branded “an intellectual of the first order [and] a political careerist.” This, as the Spec implied, meant he had no business even being in a working class city. Lewis’s skills and talents and passion were weaponized against him, used to say, outright, that he didn’t belong.

In many ways, today’s political strategies haven’t changed much from 1949. Hamilton’s political elites and their wealthy friends fixate on who “belongs” in this city and the political conversations we have here. It’s an easy tool used by shallow actors, creating tiny little groups of acceptability. Step outside those groups, or raise your voice too loud, and you’re labeled an “outsider”. Former councillor Terry Whitehead said as much in 2022 when he told the Spec’s Scott Radley that anyone with left-leaning critiques of the previous council were “barbarians at the gates”.¹¹

The opinions of certain councillors can be dismissed because they’re too “woke” (read: gay and progressive). The motivations of some councillors are called into question because they’re too “loud” and “out-of-touch” (read: women who have the courage to speak up). The perspectives of some members of council and trustees and MPPs and MPs and candidates don’t matter because they have an “agenda” and are “activists” (read: they’re People of Colour or Jewish or Muslim or queer or disabled or too young or too old or New Democrats or Greens or left-leaning Liberals or they just didn’t kiss the rings of the people who hold the real power in this city - the developers and the publishers and the backroom political operatives and the old boys who linger in local coffee shops, hungry to relive their glory days - with enough reverence and awe).

I’ve always admired David Lewis for standing up to the entrenched political elites in Hamilton during some of our city’s most formative years. His work here, and across Canada, helped transform this country. He had missteps and make mistakes, but he was, as the Spec wrote in 1974, a leader who did what he felt was “right no matter how enormous the odds.” That’s a quality sorely lacking amongst some in positions of leadership today, much to our collective disadvantage.

Now, 81 years after David Lewis presented himself as a candidate to the voters of Hamilton West, another Lewis is on the ballot for your consideration.

I’ve been rather up front about my history with the New Democratic Party. After the last federal election, I published a lengthy personal history, chronicling my journey from bright-eyed young idealist in 2008 to demoralized and jaded rebel by 2021.

That post came long before the official kick-off of the leadership race right after Labour Day last year. Indeed, from the time I posted, it was two months before any candidate even declared their intention to run to replace Jagmeet Singh.

In that time, five serious candidates have emerged: President of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Rob Ashton, Campbell River city councillor Tanille Johnston, Edmonton Strathcona MP Heather McPherson, farmer and past school trustee Tony McQuail, and past NDP candidate and journalist Avi Lewis - David Lewis’s grandson.

Two others - Montreal-based fringe agitator Yves Engler and his wife, Bianca Mugyenyi - have attempted to run. Engler’s candidacy was rejected by the party because of his history of, as the CBC noted, “engaging in Rwandan genocide denialism, echoing Russian propaganda about the war in Ukraine and making comments ‘consistent with anti-Semitic attitudes’.”¹² Mugyenyi’s candidacy application is under review.

The CBC’s senior Parliamentary Correspondent, David Thurton, has assessed that Ashton, Lewis, and McPherson are presently in a three-way tie for first place and, in the absence of any real polling, it’s hard to disagree with that claim. Ashton is bringing heavy labour support, Lewis is out-fundraising his opponents, and McPherson is collecting plenty of endorsements from party insiders. But Thurton also remarks that “While the NDP leadership campaign has the makings of a compelling political news story, for those outside the party, it's hard to tell.”¹³

You’d think more Canadians would be paying attention, considering the alternatives. The Conservatives are happily continuing their process of MAGAfication, best exemplified recently by a local-area MP’s social media habits. Long-time Tory MP Dean Alison of Hamilton’s neighbouring riding of Niagara West took to X - a platform he uses obsessively and where his pinned tweet is still a screenshot of a note he wrote on his phone blaming “DEI extremists” for trying to destroy the “Western way of life” - to spread misinformation about Mark Carney banning X and “trying to take your rights away because [he doesn’t] think you deserve them.”

In contrast, the Liberals have offered almost no substantive opposition to this most recent dramatic escalation of American aggression, even as our sovereign neighbours prepare for a direct invasion and 31% of Canadians indicate they are sure the United States will soon try to invade our country. Long gone are the days of Defence Scheme No. 1 and, instead, Canadians wait quietly, searching “when should I start a militia” and “I’m not right wing but are guns okay and where do I find them” on the Internet, all while our government issues well-meaning statement after well-meaning statement.

Indeed, as the people of Greenland prepare for a full-scale American military attack - an attack that may drag Europe and the United States into an all-out war - the current government has been eerily silent, so much so that the Walrus published a piece yesterday entitled “Greenland Is on the Brink. Canada Is Nowhere in Sight.”

It sure seems like those elbows fell pretty quickly after the election.

***

Not for not, but if the response to the idea that urban residents feel less safe in cities despite falling crime stats is to try and make them feel more safe, then should it not also be the policy of the Canadian government to try and make Canadians feel more safe as we face this existential threat from a hostile foreign power? MP John-Paul Danko, who built a career as a municipal politician whipping the community into a lather about encampments and crime and public safety at the local level, has spent his time in the House of Commons continuing on with his “crime in cities is out of control disorder is everywhere society is falling apart” rhetoric while only mentioning the actual, real threat south of the border to score political points against opposition members.

On that point…Hansard is a great way to keep tabs on what our local MPs are doing up in Ottawa. One of the few times that Danko has actually mentioned the Americans was on December 10 of last year. During a debate in the House, Danko responded to comments from Michelle Rempel Garner, a Conservative MP from Calgary, who was calling for a tightening of Canada’s immigration system. In his response, Danko calls Rempel Garner “straight-up racist”, accuses her of using “MAGA-theory talking points”, and calls her “the member from Oklahoma”, referencing the fact that she spends much of her time in that state with her American horse therapist husband. Rempel Garner then says that Danko “will be voting in favour” of the amendments to the immigration system she proposed, which doesn’t make any sense, but I’m sure sounded like a sick burn to her. A Bloc member chastises both of them for bickering, leading Rempel Garner to fire back that she was just responding to “that incomprehensible tirade from a backbench Liberal member whom I just dunked on”, referencing Danko.

Unparalleled professionalism all around. Great work everyone. I feel our democracy getting stronger with every word.

I digress, but only slightly.

***

The fact that Canadians aren’t paying attention to the NDP leadership race is concerning. A leadership race is a time for a political party to define itself, fundraise to ensure the new leader can hit the ground running, and figure out how it can present itself to the electorate. The hope is that, as the Liberals and Tories carry on with their usual games, a sizable number of Canadians would want to participate in building a viable and principled progressive party that can inspire people and strengthen our fragile democracy.

That being said, it does look like the NDP leadership race might be heating up as we approach the January 28 deadline to sign up as a member and be eligible to vote for the next leader. Over the past few days, Lewis has picked up the backing of David Suzuki and MP Leah Gazan while MacPherson scored Charlie Angus’s endorsement. At the same time, the Ashton campaign is suffering after the passionately anti-AI candidate was found to have used AI to answer questions during his recent reddit “ask me anything” event.

Back to where I started with all this, I haven’t been particularly involved with the New Democrats over the past few years. That changed when Avi Lewis announced his leadership campaign. After reading through his ambitious platform, I was inspired to re-up my membership to support his candidacy. As the leadership campaign has progressed, I have been consistently impressed with his ideas, organizers, and passion.

That’s why I am happily casting my ballot for Avi Lewis for leader of Canada’s New Democrats.

I know a great many of you, dear readers, will have different perspectives. I have many readers who are Greens and Liberals, many who are New Democrats backing other candidates, and many who are not formally aligned politically. And that’s perfectly okay. In a healthy and vibrant democracy, we can and should be allowed to have spirited debates about our perspectives and share who we are supporting in any given election without fear of having our subsequent or previous thoughts and actions being permanently dismissed.

I’m supporting Lewis because he will fight for a truly mixed, diversified, and robust economy that doesn’t leave regular people behind. His ideas are bold - the exact kind of bold thinking we need in this moment to counter the unrestrained rage, fear, and anger coming from the political right. Lewis’s plan calls for building one million social, co-op, non-profit, and supportive homes, bolstering our public health care system, making meaningful progress on the climate crisis, and providing real public alternatives that challenge the power of corporate monopolies in Canada.

But I admire the passion and ideas from the other candidates as well. In fact, Tony McQuail’s passionate calls for the New Democrats and Greens to work closely together echo what I have been saying for many years. MacPherson has been a strong voice in parliament, Johnston is a fresh new voice, and Ashton brings an important connection to organized labour. Each candidate offers something unique that has the potential to turn the page in a positive direction for the NDP and for the country.

Every Canadian (in Ontario, anyone 13 and up) can join the NDP to vote for the party’s next leader. Even if you aren’t willing to become a member, I’d encourage you to follow along with the party’s leadership race and see if the values of any of the candidates in the race align with yours.

***

Before he came to Hamilton to run for office, David Lewis published Make This Your Canada. In it, he wrote that, in the post-war period, Canadians were offered a unique opportunity. “Democracy must expand and become again creative. It must move forward, unafraid, to the next logical and progressive stage in the evolution of human organization…Unless we advance to the co-operative commonwealth, we may be forced back into the fascist darkness. We have our chance now in Canada. Let us arise and take it.”¹⁴

Avi’s campaign has that same spirit. And, in a moment when the fascist darkness is swirling around us, that kind of spirit is more important than ever.

1  Ben Tierney. “David Lewis: Always defended the working man” Hamilton Spectator, May 25, 1981 (Spec archive link).

2  “CCF will run its secretary in local riding.” Hamilton Spectator, July 18, 1944 (Spec archive link).

3  “Lewis shocked at Drew denying ‘Gestapo’ charge” Hamilton Spectator, May 26, 1945 (Spec archive link).

4  “Hamilton West” Hamilton Spectator, June 9, 1945 (Spec archive link).

5  “Interprets Federal Vote as Rejection of Socialism” Hamilton Spectator, June 12, 1945 (Spec archive link).

6  “Speakers want withdrawal of outside police,” Hamilton Spectator, August 28, 1946 (Spec archive link).

7  “Name David Lewis CCF Candidate” Hamilton Spectator, September 28, 1948 (Spec archive link); “Soft Spot For Spread Of Propaganda? - Letter” Hamilton Spectator, November 26, 1948 (Spec archive link).

8  “Lewis says CCF to sweep city” Hamilton Spectator, May 20, 1949 (Spec archive link).

9  “Here are the candidates - Wentworth” Hamilton Spectator, May 20, 1949 (Spec archive link).

10  “A Question of leadership - David Lewis” Hamilton Spectator, June 21, 1974 (Spec archive link).

11  Scott Radley. “After a controversy-filled term, Terry Whitehead is running for re-election in Ward 14” Hamilton Spectator, May 13, 2022 (Spec link - Paywalled).

12  David Baxter. “Self-described 'agitator' Yves Engler barred from running for NDP leadership” CBC News, December 10, 2025 (Link).

13  David Thurton. “The NDP leadership race is a nail-biter. But is anyone paying attention?” CBC News, January 11, 2026 (Link).

14  David Lewis and Frank Scott. Make This Your Canada. 1943 (2001) Hybrid Publishing Producers Cooperative: Winnipeg. p 161.