He accused "Bay Street" of backing Mulcair. Of the five "Bay Street" examples he gave, four of them had distinctly Jewish names. He then used that as a segue to talk about Mulcair's "support" for Israel. Get it yet?
I assume that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of indivduals have donated to Mulcair`s campaign. The author chooses to specifically highlight 4 Jewish donors out of these hundreds or thousands of people. How about now?
He uses it as a segue to invoke a commo anti-Semitic stereotype of wealthy Jews controlling the government. Make sense?
Finally, the idea that "supporting Israel" is inherently a negative thing. As far as I can tell, Mulcair's "staunch support" for Israel consists of his hesitancy to see Israel (and the six millions Jews who inhabit it) driven into the sea. This is apparently controversial. I'm trying to think of another country in the world in which the mere support of their right to exist is somehow worth discussing. I presume that Mulcari is also against Japan, Mexico and Argentina (to pick 3 countries at random) being destroyed and their populations killed, but that is apparently common sense, whereas with Israel it's contentious.
I still think your over the top on this.