Local News
Jewish Federation holds mayoralty election forum in front of packed audience at Berney Theatre, October 3rd
By BERNIE BELLAN On Monday, October 3 the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg sponsored an election forum in which six of the leading mayoralty candidates were invited to participate.
As was explained by moderator Jason Gisser, the rules were that each candidate would be invited to give an introductory statement, after which he would pose a series of eight questions to the candidates.
Each candidate would be given one and a half minutes to respond to the question. Once all the candidates had responded to the question, Jason would invite two of the six candidates to add a further 20 seconds to what they had said initially.
While the format was conducive to what turned out to be a relatively genteel event, the fact that the candidates were not allowed to enter into any sort of exchanges with each other no doubt removed any opportunity for a livelier debate. Also, five other candidates for mayor were not even invited to participate.
What follows is my impression of the evening. I want to make clear that I do not support any particular candidate and have not made up my mind how I will vote. Reports that I have read to date either tend to focus on individual candidates or, when they do report on a particular election forum, are relatively truncated. Instead, as is my usual style in reporting on a fairly lengthy event, I like to offer the reader snippets of what occurred so as to give more of a flavour of what went on – without intending it to be a comprehensive repetition of what was said.
Looming over the entire evening, it must be noted, however, given the news story that the CBC had recently broken which raised questions about Glen Murray’s behaviour while he was the executive director of the Pembina Institute, was the possibility that one or another of the candidates would want to launch into some sort of attack on Murray, who is the clear front-runner according to the most recent poll.
The fact is that the only reference to that news story came at the very end of the evening when Robert-Falcon Ouellette made an obvious allusion to the story – when he told of his experience having served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 27 years. During that time, he noted, there was a strong emphasis placed on maintaining the utmost respect for moral behaviour within the armed forces.
Ouelllette went on to say that “No matter what you do at the end of the day, you need a moral leader who will stand up for what is right in our city, that there are certain actions which are unacceptable in our city and there are times as a leader you must say the truth and speak that truth.”
“And so I speak it here today and I hope people understand what it is I’m talking about because it’s certainly unacceptable for us to be here on this stage all together.” (Interestingly, the CBC story that quoted Ouellette had the spelling of that last word as “altogether.” I would suggest that would impart quite a different meaning to what he meant.)
But, that remark came late in the evening, when the candidates were invited to give closing remarks for two minutes each, and – after moderator Jason Gisser had finished posing questions to the candidates.
Prior to that time though each of the candidates certainly came across as articulate and passionate. Perhaps the one candidate who decided to try to separate herself from the pack most distinctly was Jennie Motkaluk, who took a more strident approach when, for instance, she referred at different times to “critical race theory” and “woke” attitudes. She also brought a few smiles from the other candidates when she said she really likes “growth and money.”
The first two questions that Jason Gisser posed, however, might have seemed somewhat parochial to any non-Jews in the audience (and probably a good many Jews as well). The first had to do with anti-Semitism and what each of the candidates would do to combat it if they were mayor. Would they be willing to attend a planned mayors’ conference on combating anti-Semitism? they were asked. Not surprisingly, none of the candidates came out with a position defending antisemitism.
The second question – and one that evidently caught some of the candidates off guard, was whether they would want the city to adopt the “IHRA” definition of anti-Semitism. It was clear that not all the candidates were up to speed on what the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is. I’m not quite sure what bringing it up had to do with a mayoralty contest in Winnipeg. It reminded me of the effort some years back – not just in Winnipeg, but throughout the world, to declare cities “nuclear free zones” – an interesting proposal, no doubt, but what relevance does it have to urban issues?
The next question though was very much one that has elicited a huge amount of discussion during this election: What would the candidates propose to do about poverty and homelessness?
Glen Murray said that he had practical experience combating homelessness – even prior to serving as mayor of this city, when he helped to foster a neighbourhood housing project in the Spence neighbourhood where, he said, 300 houses were built.
Shaun Loney demonstrated an especially keen knowledge of this file, citing his own background as what he described as a “social entrepreneur,” placing a strong emphasis on creating jobs. “I would add add 1,000 social enterprise jobs to Winnipeg,” he said.
As far as housing is concerned, Loney said he would create a “$100 million land trust.”
“It’s not a money problem,” he added; “it’s a system problem.”
Robert-Falcon Ouellette was somewhat dismissive of candidates’ promises to alleviate homelessness and poverty, asking whether “any of the politicians here are going to do anything but check off all the right boxes? Politicians are great at discussing things,” Ouellette suggested, but when it comes to actually doing things –well, that’s a different matter.
Later he added this observation: “Seventy-five percent of homeless people are aboriginal. They don’t need a home; they need a friend.”
Kevin Klein related his own experience growing up in poverty. His mother was actually killed by his abusive father when he was a kid, he told the audience and “I’ve lived under the poverty line a good part of my life,” he said.
As for politicians not ever doing anything but discuss things, Klein said that he personally brought forward a motion at City Hall to create “Homes for Heroes” – a project that saw a small number of homes allocated to war veterans in Winnipeg.
Scott Gillingham said that he was proud to have been involved in the effort to create a certain amount of “modular housing” for people living below the poverty line. He also said that City Council is implementing a “poverty reduction plan” that he was involved in crafting.
As for Jenny Motkaluk – she said that “the solution for poverty is a really nice job.”
“I want to bring 16,000 high paying jobs” to Winnipeg, she added.
As for homelessness, Motkaluk said “there are 780 derelict houses in this city. I want to auction them off.”
Shaun Loney added that “we need to realize that governments and not-for-profits need to work together.”
Jason Gisser asked each of the candidates to describe their “bold vision” for the future.
Jenny Motkaluk said that “the single biggest impediment to growth and investment in this city is our political leaders.”
Glen Murray said “We need to spend money on things that will make this city more beautiful.” He noted that when he was mayor three of the projects that were built during his time in office included: Waterfront Drive, the Esplanade Riel, and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. (He observed as well that the CMHR was a great example of all three levels of government working together.)
In contrast, he noted that the single largest project undertaken by the city since his time in office was “$200 million spent of refurbishing the Post Office.”
Shaun Loney pointed to the deterioration of Winnipeg’s “green canopy”, saying that there are 30 different organizations devoted to protecting and expanding the number of trees in the city. He said he would like to consolidate all those efforts and work hard to protect our imperiled urban canopy.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette proposed the creation of an “urban national park” within Winnipeg to add green space to the city.
Kevin Klein said that his bold vision is to make Winnipeg “safe”, noting that “We can’t attract more people here if they don’t feel safe. People won’t ride the bus if they don’t feel safe.”
The next question was about infrastructure.
Jenny Motkaluk said “We’re going to end the corruption” associated with infrastructure projects.
Glen Murray said “We need more value planning to determine whether a project will return in value what it cost to build.” He cited Waterfront Drive as a project that has paid back many times over what it cost the city to create the infrastructure for that development.
Kevin Klein did comment later though that residents of Waterfront Drive are now having to deal with a huge upsurge in break-ins.
Shaun Loney said that rather than think about expanding infrastructure we ought “to focus on the infrastructure we’ve already built.”
Robert-Falcon Ouellette cited the example of Quebec City and its transit system as something Winnipeg could emulate, saying that in that city “People really enjoy taking the bus.”
In response to that suggestion, Kevin Klein said that currently “Seven thousand people a day in Winnipeg don’t even pay for the bus.”
Scott Gillingham proposed extending the Peguis Trail and widening Kenaston Boulevard.
Jason Gisser asked about public safety and what each of the candidates would do to make Winnipeg safer.
Scott Gillingham said that as mayor he would sit on the police board. He also said that he would split up police calls so that police don’t respond to every call for service, with other personnel used in situations that would be better served by another type of emergency responder.
Shaun Loney called for a return to community based policing – with “more cops walking the beat,” adding that “people are going to continue to commit crimes unless they get the intervention they need.” He also observed that we need to “address homelessness” before we can make inroads in enhancing public safety.
After the final question was answered the candidates were allowed one final opportunity to sum up their platforms. As noted, it was then that Robert-Falcon Ouellette was the only candidate even to obliquely refer to the controversy that had recently surfaced about Glen Murray.
And, while five of the six candidates hung around afterwards to schmooze with audience members, Glen Murray took off immediately after the forum was over. I offer that not as an editorial comment – merely an observation.
Local News
Jewish Federation holds first ever “town hall”
By BERNIE BELLAN It was a relatively small turnout – maybe 70 people were at the Shaarey Zedek Sunday morning, June 14 – but it may have been the start of a new foray by the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg into community outreach when a “town hall” was held to which members of the Jewish community had been invited to attend.
I had broached the idea of the Federation’s holding a community town hall with Federation CEO Jeff Lieberman back in the fall on an evening when he and newly installed Federation President Carrie Shenkarow had invited members of the community to come meet them for some one on one conversations.
I was disappointed that evening how few individuals showed up, so I shouldn’t have been surprised that the turnout for the town hall itself was relatively low.
But, give full marks to Lieberman and the others who were on the panel with him on June 14 for coming out to an event where they were prepared to answer any and all questions from audience members, as well as respond to questions that had been sent in by members of the community prior to the actual town hall.
Now, I should make clear that I have a particular position when it comes to attending any type of forum of the sort the Jewish Federation held, which is that any and all questions should be allowed – even if those questions might anger both the respondents to the question and audience members as well.
Toward almost the very end of the town hall I did ask a question that did elicit a somewhat negative reaction from within the audience – about the uproar over the upcoming Nakba exhibit at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, but I’ll save what I asked and the response I got for later. Suffice to say for the time being, it seems apparent the suggestion that some Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes and have a right to have their story told is anathema to many in the Jewish community.
The town hall was moderated by Neil Duboff. Accompanying Duboff on the podium at the Shaarey Zedek were four other individuals, each of whom was representing a particular Jewish organization: the aforesaid Jeff Lieberman, CEO of the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg; Dr. Ruth Ashrafi, Regional Director, B’nai Brith Canada; Gustavo Zentner, CIJA Vice-President, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; and Bellle Jarniewski, Executive Director, The Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada. Later in the program, they were joined on the podium by Rabbi Anibal Mass of Shaarey Zedek Congregation.
Each of the panellists gave what turned out to be fairly lengthy descriptions of what it is they do in their opening remarks, lasting a total of 20 minutes.
From time to time William Sagel, who is community security director for the Jewish Federation, but was not present in person, also joined in the discussion via a remote link.
Rather than report on how each of the panellists described what they do in their respective positions, I’ll jump right into the question and answer session that ensued. However, the initial question and answer segment of the program turned out to consist of questions that had been submitted beforehand and were read out by Neil Duboff, who took turns asking different panellists to respond to different questions.
Considering that a town hall is supposed to be a forum where, after opening remarks by whoever is going to respond to questions from audience members, the floor is supposed to be opened up to members of the audience to ask questions, having Neil Duboff read questions that had been submitted beforehand contradicted what is supposed to happen at a town hall, but hey: This was a first for our community, so I’ll give them a pass this town – but guys, next time – if there is a next time, how about having a real town hall?
What follows are snippets of what turned out to be a very long event that ran well past the allotted two hours that had originally been set aside. (If answers to questions posed, either by Duboff – reading from questions that had been submitted or by actual audience members themselves, seem exceptionally short, it’s for reasons of space, not because respondents gave abbreviated answers.)
The first question Duboff asked, and which was directed at Gustavo Zentner, was: “What is CIJA’s strategy for holding public officials accountable when current laws are not being enforced?”
Zentner responded that he prefers to meet one on one with officials – on a confidential basis, but he tries “to set a paper trail of accountability.”
One particular event that had a significant impact on the relationship CIJA (as well as other community organizations, other panellists noted) has had with politicians at various levels of government was the Bondi Beach attack in Australia last December during Chanukah, when 15 people were killed and 40 wounded by two gunmen who opened fire as members of the Sydney Jewish community were gathered to celebrate Chanukah on the beach.
Zentner noted that, following that attack, he met with the premier of Manitoba as well as the leader of the opposition, to discuss how the Manitoba government could bolster security for the Jewish community here.
Zentner said that, coming out of that discussion, the Manitoba government has now created a position of prosecutor specifically to deal with hate crimes and that the government “gave specific funds for security infrastructure for the community.”
He added that “two weeks ago” the Winnipeg Chief of Police released hate crime stats for the City of Winnipeg. “We were interviewed four times in 24 hours” about what the chief had said, Zentner added.
The next question Duboff asked was addressed to Jeff Lieberman: “What does the Federation do to prevent people from attending events who aren’t invited?”
Lieberman answered: “We pre-register” attendees.
He also said he wanted to add something to Zentner’s response to the question asked about holding public officials accountable.
He referred to Premier Wab Kinew’s controversial comment at the Federal NDP convention, held this past March, when Kinew said “Let the Epstein class fight the Epstein war” – a remark that was widely regarded as a dog whistle to antisemites.
Lieberman said that “Kinew said some things that were not favourable. We met with him and around one month later we got $1 million in new funding for security.”
Duboff asked Ruth Ashrafi to comment about the upcoming Nakba exhibit at the CMHR – which is scheduled to open June 27.
Ashrafi noted that in December 2023, in response to Israel’s incursion into Gaza following the October 7 massacre, there had been a “die-in” at the CMHR and word began to circulate that the CMHR was preparing to open an exhibit about the Nakba.
In April 2024, Ashrafi said, lawyer David Matas, acting on behalf of B’nai Brith Canada, sent a letter to the CMHR, in which he voiced reasons that such an exhibit should not be mounted.
In November 2025, Ashrafi added, Jewish organizations were supposed to be informed about the Nakba exhibit, “but B’nai Brith wasn’t informed.”
She also referred to “all that other nonsense you can be a very good Jew and a non-Zionist.”
Belle Jarniewski also spoke about the Nakba exhibit, saying “consultation has not taken place on the exhibit…The problematic title suggests that the very creation and ongoing existence of the State of Israel is an ongoing catastrophe…This exhibit is putting a target on the backs of Jews across Canada…They (the CMHR) consulted with six percent of Jews across Canada – who are not Zionists…Carla Compton (the newly elected MLA for Tuxedo) said that ‘a museum is supposed to be about facts, not feelings’…The museum refused to say who is on the advisory council for the exhibit.”
Gustavo Zentner added: “The moment we were advised of the exhibit in November we asked them (the CMHR) not to make any more announcements…It is the federal government’s responsibility to take action on this problem. It doesn’t matter whether the government appointed the board.”
Duboff asked Lieberman: “What security planning is underway for community events?”
Lieberman asked Williams Sagel to respond. Sagel said there are security enhancements being implemented across a wide swath of community institutions, but he didn’t want to get into details.
Duboff asked a follow-up question: “What do you say to the suggestion that community responses to security threats are inadequate?”
Lieberman responded that “We have to be very careful what we do.”
Questions from the audience then followed. As one might expect, given the opportunity to speak, once handed the microphone, most audience members would go on and on without asking a question.
Here, in capsule form, are some of the questions asked:
“Why is there no Israeli person on the panel?”
“Why not put on a counter exhibit to the CMHR exhibit at the Convention Centre?”
“Why do we have three different organizations dealing with antisemitism?” (Actually, the questioner could have asked “Why do we have four different organizations” doing that, because the Jewish Federation, B’nai Brith, CIJA, and the recently formed Manitoba Institute to Combat Antisemitism, which is part of the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, all deal with antisemitism in one way or another.)
“How is what Belle is doing different from what Ruth and Gustavo are doing?”
Jarniewski responded: “We all collaborate all the time.”
A questioner asked what can be done about the Winnipeg Free Press which, he suggested, rarely prints an op-ed defending Israel.
Lieberman said: “It is not our mandate to take a stand against that particular business.”
A questioner asked “Why isn’t ‘Shomrim’ incorporated into the community?”
For readers unfamiliar with who “Shomrim” are, here is something generated by AI about Shomrim: “Shomrim Toronto is a dedicated volunteer organization committed to ensuring the safety and security of the Jewish communities across the Greater Toronto Area. As guardians of peace (Shalom), we bridge the gap between the community and local law enforcement through vigilant community patrols, educational programs, and direct incident response.”
In Montreal, “This is the community safety and emergency response patrol operating primarily within the Hasidic and broader Jewish communities (particularly in the Tosh and Outremont areas).”
Lieberman responded: “The organizations in Toronto an Montreal have been operated for numerous years.”
William Sagel added: “We’re training volunteers for the future.”
Then, I asked my question, followed by angry muttering from the audience. I began by suggesting that the Jewish community is far more diffuse than the panelists would have us believe and the idea that there is unanimity about the Nakba is not right. I also said that speaking at this particular “town hall” was really nothing more than speaking in an ‘echo chamber’ since none of the questions asked dared to challenge accepted wisdoms about Israel and the Nakba. I asked: “Is it not possible to acknowledge the existence of what Palestinians refer to as the Nakba?” (And, for anyone who might think what I said was absolutely outrageous, I simply suggest you do some reading about what Israeli leaders, including David Ben Gurion, Chaim Weizman, and many others, said about the necessity of expelling large portions of the Palestinian population in order to create a viable State of Israel. I deal in reality, not mythology. And yes, I know that 800,000 Jews were also forced to leave their homes in Arab lands.)
Gustavo Zentner said: “The museum has not been transparent in its dealings….The (federal) government has a responsibility to step in and handle its responsibilities for corporate governance.”
A series of questions were asked by audience members about financial aid for members of the community, either to attend Gray Academy or Jewish camps. One audience member said that more parents are now sending their kids to Gray Academy or to Jewish camps as a result of antisemitism, but there was a need for more bursaries for those kids.
Jeff Lieberman agreed that “more and more kids” have left public schools and enrolled in Gray Academy after facing antisemitism in public school. He added that Gray Academy is giving out “$1 million in bursaries” each year. Lieberman pointed out that Gray Academy Head of School Lori Binder was in the audience and he asked her to come to the front to address the question of financial aid for parents wanting to send their kids to Gray Academy.
Binder said: “No one who comes to our door will ever be denied a Jewish education,” but in response to the suggestion from one audience member that non-Jewish families are receiving financial aid to send their kids to Gray Academy, Binder was unequivocal in saying that’s not true, saying that “non-Jewish families are not receiving financial assistance at all.”
Although this has been a long article to read (if you made it this far) I’ve really only attempted to give a flavour of what happened at the town hall. By the time it was nearing an end, Neil Duboff suggested that it would be a good idea to hold another such town hall. Yes, tempers may fray at a town hall (and I’m used to being criticized for daring to say things that don’t go over well with many others), but it was a very civil discussion, albeit with not enough time for questions from actual audience members. Full credit to Jeff Lieberman for following through on my suggestion to hold a town hall. And now that there’s been one – and the organizers may have learned where they can improve things, it would be a good idea to hold another one – but please, try to include members of the community who are either disaffected – which I would suggest is the majority of the Jewish community, or even those who are stridently opposed to the positions taken by our established Jewish organizations.
Local News
Temple Shalom suffers significant flood damage – rendered unusable for rest of the summer
The following notification was recently received from Temple Shalom:
Dear members and friends of Temple Shalom,
As you all know by now, Temple Shalom suffered significant damage when part of the building flooded during the intense storm last week. I wanted to take this opportunity to provide you with a quick update on the situation at this time.
The flood primarily affected the entryway, the stairs, the lobby outside the sanctuary and the lobby downstairs. There is also a smaller amount of damage to other areas of the building, including the kitchen, the music room and the sanctuary. The damage is extensive and we have now learned that asbestos is present in the flooded area of the building and that we will need to undertake a major abatement project before the actual repairs can begin.
Steve has been managing this project and is working with our insurance company, restoration company, roofers, electricians and other trades. Flynn Roofing was able to assess and make temporary repairs to the roof, and so far, there have been no further leaks. Steve and Bernie have been working tirelessly to remove water, clean up debris and move furnishings and other material out of areas that will need repair. Cynthia has been answering phone calls and emails and making arrangements for the next steps in this process.
It is now clear that we will not be able to use the building this summer. By next week, no unauthorized individuals will be permitted in the building, and our staff will be working from home. We are still working on a location for our services this summer and will let you know the arrangements as soon as they are finalized; we are grateful to the congregations and community organizations that have already reached out to us and offered space. Currently, our Torahs are safe at Shaarey Zedek. Until the location for in-person services is confirmed, we will hold our services on Zoom (details to follow).
We are planning ways to keep our community together during this time.
Judith
President, Temple Shalom
Local News
Chesed Shel Emes is hiring
Chesed Shel Emes is looking for a daytime “Shomer Plus” – an individual who understands and appreciates the depth and significance of Shmira, who is able to assume some of the day to day tasks managing our facility, and who can take on some of the administrative work – be it graphic design, social media management, Board support, or providing back up for our 24/7 on call staff.
This is a unique position which calls for a blend of the spiritual and the practical. We are offering a part time, salaried, daytime position, with employee benefits. The successful candidate will need to be flexible, patient and have a sense of humor.
For more information contact Rena Boroditsky, executive director of Chesed Shel Emes at chesedwinnipeg@gmail.com or phone 204-582-5088
