Local News
A detailed look at how Jacob Brodovsky was targeted by one particular website – and how that led to him losing his job as co-executive director of BB Camp
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted April 25) The following is taken from Bnai Brith Camp’s website as the camp’s mission statement:
“BB Camp’s mission is to provide a fun, supportive, and inclusive Jewish environment in which youth can explore, grow, and mature. Campers are provided opportunities to develop independence, foster lasting friendships, and strengthen their identities within a natural wilderness setting. BB Camp is committed to making sure that every camper leaves with wonderful memories that will last a lifetime.
“Since its founding in 1954, BB Camp has remained committed to ensuring that all children, no matter what their financial situation might be, have the opportunity to experience the joy and wonder of attending Camp. At BB Camp, our goal is to offer a summer ‘home away from home’ where children can learn about and take pride in their Jewish culture, community, and heritage. It is a place where children can grow both individually and as a group. It is a place where important socializing skills are developed and where lifelong friendships are formed. It is a place where connection to the Jewish community can become part of a child’s life forever.”
Elsewhere on the website, under the category “Jewish Life at Camp,” this is what the site has to say about the role that Israel plays at the camp: Our main focus in Israel-based programming is to provide interactive opportunities for our campers and staff to develop a connection to Israel. We create connections to Israel by hiring Israeli staff to teach our
campers about daily life in Israel. Each summer we run an Israel Day program for both of our summer sessions where campers can learn about Israeli culture, food, and geography. In addition to this day-long program, we entwine Israel-based education with day-to-day camp life, including a ‘Hebrew word of the day’ at morning services and by using basic Israel education pieces including using Hebrew names for our camp buildings, flying the Israeli flag, and singing Hatikvah (Israel’s national anthem) as a camp each day when we lower the flags for the evening.”
Jacob Brodovsky had been a staffer at BB Camp for 15 years. Since 2021 he and his wife, Lexi Yurman, had served as camp co-executive directors. In an article posted to The Times of Israel website in August 2024, writer Jon van der Veen wrote: “He (Brodovsky) mentioned that BB has had a positive growth in campers over the years, “about 10 percent year over year” (emphasis mine). Lexie gave me the rough numbers, saying, (BB Camp) ‘consistently in a summer through both sessions, and including our LTP and AC programs, we have 300 to 350 campers.
“Jacob describes BB as a ‘Jewish camp for everyone,’ which is important because he also informed me that ‘about 15 percent of campers are non-Jewish‘ (emphasis mine). Jacob and Lexie believe this number is a testament to the appeal of BB camp and its good reputation. Lexie added, ‘Most of our non-Jewish campers, they just come with their friends, because their friends talk about camp, and they want to be a part of it.’
In the camp’s mission statement nowhere does the word “Zionism” appear.
But, following a series of three incendiary articles that appeared on a website known as thej.ca, beginning with an article that was first posted on April 6, and which was titled “Winnipeg Parents Outraged Over Camp BB Kenora Director’s Apparent Anti‑Israel Social Media Activity,” a campaign to oust Jacob Brodovsky as camp co-executive director quickly gathered steam. Ordinarily I would not lend credence to the vituperative attacks on Brodovsky that were posted to that website, but I think it important that readers see first hand the evidence that was used to martial what became an online campaign to have Brodovsky removed as camp co-executive director.
That article went on to make several statements that might well be considered defamatory, including describing Brodovsky’s behaviour as “incendiary.” The article also quoted (from an unnamed parent): “Parents send their children to BB Kenora for a safe, enriching Jewish experience—not political indoctrination against Israel.” (There is no evidence offered as to what “political indoctrination against Israel” in which Brodovsky might have engaged.)
The entire basis of the case against Brodovsky seemed to revolve as his having “liked” certain social media posts that had been posted by someone or some group that went by the name “Rusty_Robot,” and which were posted to Instagram in April and May 2024. Those social media posts were sympathetic to Palestinians.
Further, there were comments that levelled very serious allegations, not only against Brodovsky, but also his wife, Lexie, including: “Anyone who supports the dangerous and vicious views regarding the Jewish right to exist should be held accountable and fired. Our children deserve better !”
Another commenter write: “I’m confused why there is no commentary on his wife, who runs the camp along side him and has allowed for this behaviour from him for years. She is complicit to his actions.”
A third commenter writes: “if you are the director of a Jewish camp who shuts down support for hostages and protests the raising of the Israeli flag and singing Hatikvah, then your politics are affecting your role and the climate at camp.”
There were other very serious allegations made against Brodovsky, yet there were also comments that came to his defence, including: “My children came home from BB camp last summer more secure and attached to their Jewish identity than when they left.
“They sang Hatikva. They prayed at meals. They participated in a Havdalah service. Most importantly, they got to experience the sense of community that comes from being in a secure Jewish environment.”
At first, the BB Camp Board reacted by giving Brodovsky a vote of support following an emergency meeting of the board held on April 8, at which time the Board issued a statement that read, in part: “After conducting painstaking due diligence, the BB Camp Board of Directors unanimously (emphasis mine) voted to retain Co-Executive Director, Jacob Brodovsky, following his full apology for his serious error in judgement on social media.
“After listening to all comments and concerns, the Board made a decision that it believes is best for the organization moving forward.
“ ‘While we know not everyone will agree with our decision, we have full confidence that Jacob will continue to provide our campers, families, and clients with the same safe and nurturing environment that they have come to expect and enjoy over the last four years,’ said Board chair, Leah Leibl.
Leibl pointed to Jacob’s sincerity in issuing an apology.
“’ ‘I accept full responsibility and sincerely apologize for the gravity of my mistake and lack of judgement in liking posts that did not align with the values of BB Camp,’ said Co-Executive Director, Jacob Brodovsky. ‘ am extremely remorseful for my actions and most grateful to be able to continue in my role serving our Jewish community.’
“Jacob also reaffirmed his belief in the State of Israel and is working closely with others to examine steps that can be taken to strengthen Jewish life and deepen support for Israel at Camp.
“Jacob added, ‘I ‘ believe in Israel’s right to exist and care deeply about the safety of all Jews and Israelis.’
“In addition to the apology, the Board requires their Co-Executive Director, who agreed, to exercise due caution in his use of social media and avoid any activity that may run counter to the mission of the organization. The Board of Directors has also expressed to Jacob the extreme seriousness of this matter, and has reinforced to him his obligation to uphold all Camp policies.”
On April 9, however, thej.ca once again criticized the BB Camp Board of Directors in an article titled “Weak Leadership Exposed: Camp BB Kenora Board Keeps Controversial Director Despite Overwhelming Outcry”.
The lead line of that article said: “Despite irrefutable evidence of his anti‑Israel bias and incendiary pro‑Palestine online activities, the board’s decision to retain Jacob Brodovsky reveals a dangerous capitulation to woke (emphasis mine) pressures—at the expense of true Zionist values.”
On April 16, the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg held an emergency meeting for the purpose of discussing the BB Camp situation. On April 17 the BB Camp Board released a statement in which it reversed its decision to retain Brodovsky as co-executive director, noting “the camp’s Board of Directors has announced that “the Board of Directors and co-Executive Director Jacob Brodovsky have amicably agreed to part ways, having regard to the best interests of the Camp and the community at large.”
We have been in contact with various camp staffers, some of whom who wished to remain anonymous, but all of whom have denied that there were any instances where Hatikvah was not allowed to be sung or where the Israeli flag was not raised.
Another issue which was raised by other commenters had to do with campers not being allowed either to make or wear “yellow ribbons,” which have become symbolic of sympathy for the hostages still being held in Gaza.
Following the BB Camp Board’s complete reversal of its position, the j.ca ran a third article, on April 17, titled “Stunning Turn Of Events At BB Camp Kenora As Board Reexamines Leadership Choice.”
Following the article, however, a commenter who identified as a camp staffer posted this comment: “As a current staff member at Camp BB, I have to say it’s outrageous that Jacob is being slandered over baseless rumours and social media activity taken wildly out of context. What’s even more ridiculous is that most of the people fuelling this outrage haven’t stepped foot on camp during the summer and have no idea how things are actually run. Jacob’s personal political views never once interfered with camp life. Camp BB remained very much a Jewish camp, rich in tradition and community, under his leadership.
The camp staffer goes on to refer to the “yellow ribbon” situation – in apparent reference to a paragraph which appeared in the April 6 j.ca article, which wrote: “Several parents told TheJ.Ca that Brodovsky also refused campers’ requests to create yellow ribbons in solidarity with the Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. ‘My daughter was heartbroken,’ said one mother. ‘She wanted to show support for the hostages in Gaza, but Jacob wouldn’t allow it.’ “
The camp staffer who posted a comment in defence of Brodovsky on the j.ca site wrote – with specific reference to the “yellow ribbon” situation: “It’s also interesting that none of the staff can recall this supposed ‘yellow ribbon’ situation—so where did that even come from? Are we really at the point where rumours and assumptions are enough to justify firing someone?”
Questions now remain as to why the BB Camp Board reversed its original decision to retain Brodovsky as camp co-executive director? Was it a result of some well-heeled donors exerting financial pressure on either the BB Camp Board or the Jewish Federation?
We have also received a copy of a letter that was sent to the BB Camp Board which also levels some very serious allegations against Brodovsky, especially with respect to his interactions with camp staffers. That letter offers specifics which the articles in thej.ca do not. Whether that letter – and perhaps other letters that were sent to the BB Camp Board played an influential role in the dramatic reversal of the Board’s original unanimous decision made on April 9 to retain Brodovsky as co-executive director, only to be followed by a decision eight days later to part ways with Brodovsky, we do not know.
Unlike the j.ca, however, we do not engage in idle speculation. We ask questions and await answers.
There is one final – and somewhat intriguing aspect to this controversy, and that has to do with BB Camp’s charitable status. As some readers might be aware, Jewish National Fund Canada had its charitable status revoked by the CRA in August 2024. To read more about how that came about, go to https://jewishpostandnews.ca/faqs/rokmicronews-fp-1/jnf-canada-responds-to-cra-decision-to-revoke-its-charity-status/
In order for any charity to retain its charitable status it has to clearly state its charitable object. If BB Camp were now to include, as part of its charitable object, “to better reflect the Camp’s fundamental support of Israel” (emphasis mine), which it says is now part of its mission in the statement issued on April 17, one might well ask whether that constitutes quite a departure from its previous mission statement, which makes no reference at all to Israel, and in particular, “fundamental support of Israel?” Based on what happened with the JNF, which lost its charitable status, allegedly for having deviated from its “charitable object,” one might wonder how the CRA would react to BB Camp becoming politicized to that extent?
We had sent a copy of this article to both the Federation and BB Camp Board asking both of them whether they had any response to issue before this article was published. Neither organization responded.
Local News
Winnipegger liver recipient Mark Kagan now in need of new kidney
By MYRON LOVE About a year ago, Winnipegger Mark Kagan reached out to the Jewish community through the pages of the Jewish Post (and jewishpostandnews.ca) in his efforts to find a liver donor. At the time, his liver and his health were rapidly failing and he was quickly running out of time.
Back then, the former Best Western Hotels manager – who is in his mid-60s – reported that there is no cure for his condition (a non-alcohol related rare liver disease called Nodular Regenerative Hyperplasia).
“My only hope for survival is a liver transplant,” he said.
The good news is that he was able to get a liver transplant this past April in Toronto and his recovery went well. Within a short time, he was able to eat normally and resume exercising. He spent three weeks post-op in the hospital in Toronto and another two weeks at the Health Sciences Centre before being cleared to go home again.
The bad news was that once his liver failed, in turn, it caused his kidneys to fail. “My doctors originally hoped that my kidney function would return on its own once the liver was transplanted,” he notes.
That didn’t happen. Now Kagan has to have dialysis three times a week while trying to find a kidney donor.
On Tuesday, December 9, Kagan’s quest for a kidney donor will be the focus of a program at the Rady JCC hosted by Renewal Canada, a Toronto based organization that works within the Jewish community to find kidney donors and facilitate transplants. The event – that begins at 7:30 pm – is described as a Kidney Donation Awareness and Swab Drive with the hope that a donor can be found for Kagan. Speakers will include Rabbis Carnie and Kliel Rose – both discussing the mitzvah of organ donation, Penny Kravetsky representing Renewal Canada, and past donor Esther Dick, as well as Kagan.
Kagan adds a special thank you to Rebbitzen Bracha Altein for her role in directing his mother to Renewal Canada.
Comments that Kagan made last year in the Post article still ring true:
“Your support means everything to me and my family,” Kagan said. “Even if you cannot donate, sharing my story could connect me with someone who can. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider helping in this crucial time.”
Interested readers can register by going online at https://www.renewalcanada.org/
Local News
Manitoba trained Jewish physician now living in US laments state of medical care in Canada
By BERNIE BELLAN (Nov. 27, 2025) Introduction: We received a comment this morning from a former Winnipegger who had something to say about the state of medical care in Manitoba. Once you read her message you will be able to read an exchange of emails into which we entered that give more information about her:
I’m a physician who graduated from the University of Manitoba medical school (class of 1999). After training, I moved to Arizona to practice as a gastroenterologist. During my training in Winnipeg, I was always told how bad the American health care system was. I am here to tell you that this is incorrect. The poorest American who can’t afford health insurance and qualifies for state funded insurance has better health care than ALL of you.
I work in private practice. Yes, I’m busy. Yes, it takes many weeks to see me. However , if a family physician calls me and asks me to see a patient urgently, I will. If a patient needs a procedure urgently, I will get it done. If a patient needs to speak to me after my office hours or on weekends and holidays, I call them back. I am not the exception to the rule. I am practicing standard of care.
My niece has been in an out of the children’s emergency room (in Winnipeg) for several weeks because of kidney stones. She has been told numerous times by numerous physicians that her case is not “urgent”. Apparently, you can only get care if you become “urgent”. Urgent means that you are really sick and have developed complications. So, my niece has to end up in the ICU with sepsis (infection) and in renal failure for her to have the procedure she needs? What she was given was a prescription for morphine. Great, getting a teenager hooked on opiods as a way to treat kidney stones , that’s the answer? Her urologist told her mother (my sister) that the system is broken. Finally, an honest answer but in no way a solution.
The American health care system is not perfect but it’s significantly better than what you have. I’m appreciative of my excellent training I received in Winnipeg however, I could never work in your broken system as now I know better.
Good luck to you all.
Dr. Elisa Faybush
In response to Dr. Faybush’s comment, we sent her the following email:
Hi Dr. Faybush,
I read your message about the state of health care in Manitoba with great interest.
I wear 2 hats: I’m both an editor at the Jewish Post newspaper, also the publisher of a website called jewishpostandnews.ca
I would consider printing your message, but I’m curious: Is there a particular reason that you sent it to a Jewish publication?
For instance, are you Jewish yourself? It might put things into some sort of context which would explain why the letter was sent to us – or perhaps you sent the same message to other publications.
It would be helpful if you could elaborate on why you sent your message to us.
Regards,
Bernie Bellan
Dr. Faybush responded:
Hi Bernie
Yes I’m Jewish. Raised in garden city. My grand parents were Ann and Nathan Koslovsky
I sent the letter to the Winnipeg free press and was contacted for an interview but they wanted to interview my sister as well. Unfortunately my sister didn’t want to be interviewed.
I read your publication on line regularly to keep up with the Jewish community in Winnipeg.
My family still lives in Winnipeg and I was home this past summer for my niece’s graduation
I will always consider Winnipeg my home.
I’m so frustrated with the Canadian health care system and wanted the people from Winnipeg to know they deserve better.
Elisa Faybush
We wrote back:
Thanks for the speedy reply Elisa. I’ll add something to the end of your message about your roots.
And, for what it’s worth, I agree totally with you about the state of health care in Canada. It’s a sacred cow but this cow should be put out to pasture.
She responded:
100% agree
Feel free to call if you would like
(number redacted)
We wrote:
Well, if you’d like me to do a profile of you – which we do quite often of doctors who left Manitoba, usually written by Gerry Posner, I’d be glad to do that.
But it would be a full-on profile, not just a lament for the Canadian health care system. By the way, I searched your name in the History of Jewish Physicians in Manitoba, which was authored by Eva Wiseman a few years ago. I didn’t see your name in there, but one of the criteria for inclusion in that book was someone must have practised in Manitoba for at least 5 years after graduating. I assume you left before 5 years had elapsed. Is that right?
Elisa responded:
You are correct. I left after residency to complete my fellowship in gastroenterology in Arizona and never left.
I went to garden city collegiate graduated in 1991 and then went on to complete my bachelor of science at the u of w.
I’m not looking for a profile but thank you for the offer. I just need to express my opinion and I appreciate you giving me an outlet to do so.
We wrote:
When did you graduate from medical school?
Elisa responded:
1999
We wrote:
And did you go to Arizona immediately upon graduating?
Elisa responded:
After graduating u of m medical school in 1999 I completed my internal medicine residency at the u of m from 1999-2002. I then left to go to the university of Arizona in Tucson for my gi fellowship from 2002-2005. I then moved to Phoenix and started private practice. I just completed 20 yrs in practice this year.
We wrote:
ok great – I think it’s important to provide a fuller description of your career to lend some further significance to your original comment. By the way, you must have studied under Chuch Bernstein – right?
She responded:
Yes. He is the reason I did my fellowship in the USA. He encouraged me to do so. He probably thought I would come back to work in Winnipeg like he did!
We wrote:
He’s a great guy. I bet I know a lot of your schoolmates from med school. It’s too bad the Canadian medical system has alienated so many talented people. I still have lots of friends who were doctors and who still live here, but they’re all so embittered about our system.
Elisa responded:
I never practiced in Winnipeg but I hear about the problems with it as family members have to navigate through this broken system.
If I lived and practiced in Winnipeg I would know the doctors and specialists that I could call to help my family members but I’ve been gone for so long I don’t have any relationships with anyone anymore:
Local News
Simkin Centre shows accumulated deficit of $779,426 for year end March 31, 2025 – but most personal care homes in Winnipeg are struggling to fund daily operations
By BERNIE BELLAN The last (November 20) issue of the Jewish Post had as an insert a regular publication of the Simkin Centre called the “Simkin Star.”
Looking through the 16 pages of the Simkin Star I noticed that three full pages were devoted to financial information about the Simkin Centre, including the financial statement for the most recent fiscal year (which ended March 31, 2025). I was rather shocked to see that Simkin had posted a deficit of $406,974 in 2025, and this was on top of a deficit of $316,964 in 2024.
In the past month, I had also been looking at financial statements for the Simkin Centre going back to 2019. I had seen that Simkin had been running surpluses for four straight years – even through Covid.
But seeing the most recent deficit led me to wonder: Is the Simkin Centre’s situation unusual in its having run quite large deficits the past two years? I know that, in speaking with Laurie Cerqueti, CEO of the Simkin Centre, over the years, that she had often complained that not only Simkin, but many other personal care homes do not receive sufficient funding from the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority.
At the same time, an article I had read by Free Press Faith writer John Longhurst, and which was published in the August 5, 2025 issue of the Free Press had been sticking in my brain because what Longhurst wrote about the lack of funding increases by the WRHA for food costs in personal care homes deeply troubled me.
Titled “Driven by faith, frustrated by funding,” Longhurst looked at how three different faith-based personal care homes in Winnipeg have dealt with the ever increasing cost of food.
One sentence in that article really caught my attention, however, when Longhurst wrote that the “provincial government, through the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, has not increased the amount of funding it provides for care-home residents in Manitoba since 2009.”
Really? I wondered. Is that true?
As a result, I began a quest to try and ascertain whether what Longhurst claimed was the case was actually the case.
For the purpose of this article, personal care homes will be referred to as PCHs.
During the course of my gathering material for this article I contacted a number of different individuals, including: Laurie Cerqueti, CEO of the Simkin Centre; the CEO of another personal care home who wished to remain anonymous; Gladys Hrabi, who wears many hats, among them CEO of Manitoba Association for Residential and Community Care Homes for Everyone ( MARCHE), the umbrella organization for 24 not-for-profit personal care homes in Manitoba; and a representative of the WRHA.
I also looked at financial statements for six different not-for-profit PCHs in Winnipeg. (Financial statements for some, but not all PCHs, are available to look at on the Province of Manitoba website. Some of those financial statements are for 2025 while others are for 2024. Still, looking at them together provides a good idea how comparable revenue and expenses are for different PCHs.)
How personal care homes are funded
In order to gain a better understanding of how personal care homes are funded it should be understood that the WRHA maintains supervision of 39 different personal care homes in Winnipeg, some of which are privately run but most of which are not-for-profit. The WRHA provides funding for all personal care homes at a rate of approximately 75% of all operational funding needs and there have been regular increases in funding over the years for certain aspects of operations (including wages, benefits, and maintenance of the homes) but, as shall be explained later, increases in funding for food have not been included in those increases.
The balance of funding for PCHs comes from residential fees (which are set by the provincial government and which are tied to income); occasional funding from the provincial government to “improve services, technology, and staffing within personal care homes,”; and funds that some PCHs are able to raise on their own through various means (such as the Simkin Centre Foundation).
But, in Longhurst’s article about personal care homes he noted that there are huge disparities in the levels of service provided among different homes.
He wrote: “Some of Winnipeg’s 37 personal-care homes provide food that is mass-produced in an off-site commercial kitchen, frozen and then reheated and served to residents.” (I should note that different sources use different figures for the number of PCHs in Winnipeg. Longhurst’s article uses the figure “37,” while the WRHA’s website says the number is “39.” My guess is that the difference is a result of three different homes operated together by the same organization under the name “Actionmarguerite.”)
How does the WRHA determine how much to fund each home?
So, if different homes provide quite different levels of service, how does the WRHA determine how much to fund each home?
For an answer, I turned to Gladys Hrabi of MARCHE, who gave me a fairly complicated explanation. According to Gladys, the “WRHA uses what’s called a global/median rate funding model. This means all PCHs—regardless of size, ownership, or actual costs—are funded at roughly the same daily rate per resident. For 2023/24, that rate (including the resident charge) was about $200+ (sorry I need to check with WRHA the actual rate) per resident day.”
But, if different residents pay different resident charges, wouldn’t that mean that if a home had a much larger number of residents who were paying the maximum residential rate (which is currently set at $37,000 per year) then that home would have much greater revenue? I wondered.
Laurie Cerqueti of the Simkin Centre provided me with an answer to that question. She wrote: “Residents at any pch pay a per diem based on income and then the government tops up to the set amount.” Thus, for the year ending March 31, 2025 residential fees brought in $5,150,657 for the Simkin Centre. That works out to approximately $27,000 per resident. I checked the financial statements for the five other PCHs in Winnipeg to which I referred earlier, and the revenue from residential fees was approximately the same per resident as what the Simkin Centre receives.
Despite large increases in funding by the WRHA for personal care homes in recent years, those increases have not gone toward food
I was still troubled by John Longhurst’s having written in his article that the “provincial government, through the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, has not increased the amount of funding it provides for care-home residents in Manitoba since 2009.”
These days, when you perform a search on the internet, AI provides much more detailed answers to questions than what the old Google searches would.
Thus, when I asked the question: “How much funding does the WRHA provide for personal care homes in Winnipeg?” the answer was quite detailed – and specific:
“The WRHA’S total long-term care expenses for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024 were approximately $632.05 million.” There are approximately 5,700 residents in personal care homes in Winnipeg. That figure of $632.05 million translates roughly into $111,000 per resident.
“The budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year included a $224.3 million overall increase to the WRHA for salaries, benefits, and other expenditures, reflecting a general increase in health-care investments.” (But, note that there is no mention of an increase for food expenditures.)
But, it was as a result of an email exchange that I had with Simkin CEO Laurie Cerqueti that I understood where Longhurst’s claim that there has been no increase in funding for care-home residents since 2009 came from.
Laurie wrote: “…most, if not all of the pchs are running a deficit in the area of food due to the increases in food prices and the government/wrha not giving operational funding increases for over 15 years.” Thus, whatever increases the WRHA has been giving have been eaten up almost entirely by salary increases and some additional hiring that PCHs have been allowed to make.
Longhurst’s article focused entirely on food operations at PCHs – and how much inflation has made it so much more difficult for PCHs to continue to provide nutritious meals. He should have noted, however, that when he wrote there has been “no increase in funding for care home residents since 2009,” he was referring specifically to the area of food.
As Laurie Cerqueti noted in the same email where she observed that there has been no increase in operational funding, “approximately $300,000 of our deficit was due to food services. I do not have a specific number as far as how much of the deficit is a result of kosher food…So really this is not a kosher food issue as much is it is an inflation and funding issue.
“Our funding from the WRHA is not specific for food so I do not know how much extra they give us for kosher food. I believe years ago there was some extra funding added but it is mixed in our funding envelope and not separated out.”
So, while the WRHA has certainly increased funding for PCHs in Winnipeg, the rate of funding increases has not kept pace with the huge increases in the cost of food, especially between 2023-2024.
As Laurie Cerqueti noted, in response to an email in which I asked her how the Simkin Centre is coping with an accumulated deficit of $779,426, she wrote, in part: “The problem is that the government does not fund any of us in a way that has kept up with inflation or other cost of living increases. If this was a private industry, no one would do business with the government to lose money. I know some pchs are considering out (sic.) of the business.”
A comparison of six different personal care homes
But, when I took a careful look at the financial statements for each of the personal care homes whose financial statements I was able to download from the Province of Manitoba website, I was somewhat surprised to see the huge disparities in funding that the WRHA has allocated to different PCHs. (How I decided which PCHs to look at was simply based on whether or not I was able to download a particular PCH’s financial statement. In most cases no financial statements were available even to look at. I wonder why that is? They’re all publicly funded and all of them should be following the same requirements – wouldn’t you think?)
In addition to the Simkin Centre’s financial statement (which, as I explained, was in the Simkin Star), I was able to look at financial statements for the following personal care homes: West Park Manor, Golden West Centennial Lodge, Southeast Personal Care Home, Golden Links Lodge, and Bethania Mennonite Personal Care Home.
What I found were quite large disparities in funding levels by the WRHA among the six homes, either in 2025 (for homes that had recent financial statements available to look at) or 2024 (for homes which did not have recent financial statements to look at.)
Here is a table showing the levels of funding for six different personal care homes in Winnipeg. Although information was not available for all homes for the 2025 fiscal year, the figures here certainly show that, while the WRHA has been increasing funding for all homes – and in some cases by quite a bit, the rate of increases from one home to another has varied considerably. Further, the Simkin Centre received the lowest percentage increase from 2024 to 2025.
Comparison of funding by the WRHA for 6 different personal care homes
We did not enter into this project with any preconceived notions in mind. We simply wanted to investigate how much funding there has been from the WRHA for personal care homes in Winnipeg in recent years.
As to why some PCHs received quite large increases in funding, while others received much smaller increases – the WRHA response to my asking that question was this: “Due to the nature and complexity of the questions you are asking regarding financial information about PCHs, please collate all of your specific questions into a FIPPA and we can assess the amount of time needed to appropriately respond.”
Gladys Hrabi of MARCHE, however, offered this explanation for the relatively large disparities in funding levels among different PCHs: “Because funding is based on the median, not actual costs, each PCH must manage within the same per diem rate even though their realities differ. Factors like building age, staffing structure, kitchen setup, and resident complexity all influence spending patterns.
“The difference you found (in spending between two particular homes that I cited in an email to Gladys) likely reflects these operational differences. Homes that prepare food on-site, accommodate specialized diets (cultural i.e. kosher), or prioritize enhanced dining experiences (more than 2 choices) naturally incur higher total costs. Others may use centralized food services or have less flexibility because of budget constraints.
“The current model doesn’t adjust for inflation, collective agreements, or true cost increases. This means many homes, especially MARCHE members face operating deficits and have to make tough choices about where to contain costs, often affecting areas like food, recreation, or maintenance. The large differences you see in food spending aren’t about efficiency —–they’re a sign that the current funding model doesn’t reflect the true costs of care.”
But some of the disparities in funding of different personal care homes really jump off the page. I noted, for instance, that of the six PCHs whose financial statements I examined, the levels of funding from WRHA for the 2024 fiscal year fell between a range of $63,341 per resident (at Golden Links Lodge) to $78,771 at the Simkin Centre – but there was one particular outlier: Southeast Personal Care Home, which received funding from the WRHA in 2024 at the rate of $98,321 per resident. Not only did Southeast Personal Care Home receive a great deal more funding per resident than the other five PCHs I looked at, it had a hefty surplus to boot.
I asked a spokesperson from the WRHA to explain how one PCH could have received so much more funding per capita than other PCHs, but have not received a response.
This brings me then to the issue of the Simkin Centre and the quite large deficit situation it’s in. Since readers might have a greater interest in the situation as it exists at the Simkin Centre as opposed to other personal care homes and, as the Simkin Centre has reported quite large deficits for both 2024 and 2025, as I noted previously, I asked Laurie Cerqueti how Simkin will be dealing with its accumulated deficit (which now stands at $779,426) going forward?
Now, as many readers may also know, I’ve been harping on the extra high costs incurred by Simkin as a result of its having to remain a kosher facility. It’s not my intention to open old wounds, but I was somewhat astonished to see how much larger the Simkin Centre’s deficit is than any other PCH for which I could find financial information.
From time to time I’ve asked Laurie how many of Simkin’s 200 residents are Jewish?
On November 10, she responded that “55% of residents” at Simkin are Jewish. That figure is consistent with past numbers that Laurie has cited over the years.
And, while Laurie claims that she does not know exactly how much more the Simkin Centre pays for kosher food, the increases in costs for kosher beef and chicken have outstripped the increases in costs for nonkosher beef and chicken. Here is what we found when we looked at the differences in prices between kosher and nonkosher beef and chicken: “Based on recent data and long-standing market factors, kosher beef and chicken prices have generally gone up more than non-kosher (conventional beef and chicken). Both types of meat have experienced significant inflation due to broader economic pressures and supply chain issues, but the kosher market has additional, unique cost drivers that amplify these increases.”
In the final analysis, while the WRHA has been providing fairly large increases in funding to personal care homes in Winnipeg, those increases have been eaten up by higher payroll costs and the costs of simply maintaining what is very often aging infrastructure. If the WRHA does not provide any increases for food costs, personal care homes will continue to be squeezed financially. They can either reduce the quality of food they offer residents or find other areas, such as programming, where they might be able to make cuts.
But, the situation at the Simkin Centre, which is running a much larger accumulated deficit than any other personal care home for which we could find financial information, places it in a very difficult position. How the Simkin Centre will deal with that deficit is a huge challenge. The only body that can provide help in a major way, not only for the Simkin Centre, but for all personal care homes within Manitoba, is the provincial government. Perhaps if you’re reading this you might want to contact your local MLA and voice your concerns about the lack of increased funding for food at PCHs.