Local News
Simkin Cenre hosts animated focus group on personal care homes hosted by MARCHE
By BERNIE BELLAN There are approximately 130 personal care homes in Manitoba with approximately 10,000 residents in those homes.
Of the 130 pch’s, 27 are in the not-for-profit category, most of which are faith-based.
One of those pch’s is the Simkin Centre.
The association of not-for-profit homes in Manitoba is known as “MARCHE” (Manitoba Association of Residential & Community Care Homes for the Elderly).
Recently MARCHE held a focus group at the Simkin Centre attended by staff, residents, relatives of residents, and others who were interested in hearing about the current situation insofar as most pch’s are concerned.
The discussion was facilitated by Julie Turenne-Maynard, executive director of MARCHE. Ms. Turenne-Maynard distributed points for discussion among the six tables at which participants sat. One person at each table was asked to take notes of the discussions that ensued. After approximately one hour of discussions at each table, the note takers were asked to give summaries of what had been said at each table.
According to Ms. Turenne-Maynard, the Simkin Centre focus group was the third and final one in a series of focus groups that MARCHE has conducted in Winnipeg.
Prior to our entering into the discussion groups Ms. Turenne-Maynard gave some introductory remarks pointing out the difficult situation faced by all pch’s in Manitoba, not just the not-for-profit ones.
She noted that there has been no increase in operational funding for pch’s for the past 15 years, even as inflation has made it increasingly difficult to deal with ever rising expenses.
“The majority of personal care homes in Manitoba were built in the 1950s and 60s,” Ms. Turenne-Maynard observed, yet “governments haven’t increased budgets for renovations to personal care homes in the past 25 years.”
The average age of residents in pch’s has risen dramatically. “In the 1960s and 70s many residents in personal care homes had parking spots,” Ms. Turenne-Maynard observed. Now a great many residents in pch’s are “level 3s and 4s,” she said – the highest level of care that can be provided.
“Baby boomers are coming up and we don’t have the room,” she added.
But, rather than turning the focus group into a litany of complaints, Ms. Turenne-Maynard said that the purpose was to be able to provide the provincial government with useful information that could be incorporated into policy decisions.
At that point the discussions at each table began.
Not having anyone myself who is a resident at a pch, I was interested to hear from others what their impressions of pch’s were and because everyone at my table was either a staff member at the Simkin Centre or a resident or spouse of a resident there, I was eager to hear their experiences. What was of particular interest to me was that even though there were two individuals at my table who work at the Simkin Centre sitting at my table, they were quite candid in discussing some of the frustrations they themselves have in working within the system.
The first point expressed by someone at our table was their frustration over the “panelling” process – the process whereby someone is admitted into a pch. It came as a surprise to me to learn that, under the current panelling system, if someone would like to be admitted as a resident into a pch, once a bed is available you do not have a choice where you can go. (No one at the table was quite sure when the system changed, but previously someone would be given a choice of three different pch’s.)
Not only is there now no choice as to which pch you can enter, if you are hospitalized and deemed fit for discharge into a pch, and you do not want to go the first pch that is available, you will be charged $200/day to remain in the hospital.
The situation, I was told though, is somewhat different for an individual still living at home. Efforts will be made to provide home care rather than have someone admitted into a pch, but the limitations of home care have been well publicized, with clients allowed to receive only a maximum of 2 1/2 hours of home care per day.
The discussion turned to personal experiences of home care residents. What did they think was lacking in their care, if anything?
The individual at our table who is a resident at Simkin Centre said they had “no complaints.”
A staff member at the table asked that resident if they thought there was enough “programming” at the Simkin Centre?
The resident answered that there was.
I asked the resident whether the food was good? The resident responded that they were quite happy with the food.
(I mentioned that I have heard from some residents at the Simkin Centre that they weren’t happy with the food. I also referred to a forum that had been held at the Asper Campus years ago during which many complaints were voiced about the food at the Simkin Centre. To be fair, it’s hard to make an overall assessment of food quality based on anecdotal reports, but I will continue to ask why the Simkin Centre has to serve kosher food to all residents when the majority of residents there are no longer Jewish? I realize this is a sacred cow among some members of our community, but the fact is that an increasing number of Jewish personal care homes in the US have gotten away from serving only kosher food.)
Another person at our table who actually has a close relative living at the Simkin Centre mentioned that person’s most commonly repeated complaint is that “people aren’t as johnny on the spot as she’d like” when it comes to responding to requests for assistance.
As well, apparently there is a problem at the Simkin Centre with “clothing sent to the laundry going missing.”
We were then asked to respond to this question: “What services would be most important to you?”
The spouse of the resident at our table said, “Not being stuck in the rooms.”
Someone else suggested that medical consultants coming to residents’ rooms rather than requiring residents to be taken to see a doctor would be very helpful. That same individual listed a variety of specialists who are urgently needed at the Simkin Centre, including gynecologists, dermatologists, dental hygienists, and psychiatrists,” as well as “estheticians.”
The need for better x-ray services was also mentioned.
Someone else noted that the Garden Café is only open from 11-1.
The next question which respondents were asked to consider was: “What style of personal care home would you like to live in?”
Someone brought up the idea of “small house” personal care homes, in which groups of 20 individuals live in a separate residence, where each resident has their own kitchen and their own shower.
But, as much as that style of living might seem to be especially appealing when one incorporates their own life experiences into thinking about where they’d want to live, one of the individuals at our table suggested that “many people often blossom when they come here” precisely because they’re living with a large number of other residents.
Still, the consensus among everyone at the table (with the exception of this writer, since I offered no opinion on the subject) was that, if they could ask for certain things in particular – which are not all available under current rules, they would be: 1) a private room (which is the case at the Simkin Centre); 2) their own fridge (not available); 3) their own shower (not available); and 4) their own coffeemaker. (I admit I was surprised to learn that coffeemakers are not allowed until it was explained that it was a safety issue).
The final question which respondents were asked to consider was: “What would you ask from the new NDP government?”
Answers included: “An increase in the hours per day allowed to each resident”; “more programming”’; “ask them to cover the increases in fixed costs”; “hours/worker have stayed the same while the needs of residents have increased.”
Ms. Turenne-Maynard asked the notetakers from each table to give summaries of what had been discussed. Some of the points that were expressed were:
- there is a need for more staff
- staff need to interact more with residents
- while it’s nice that the previous government has budgeted millions of dollars to build more pch’s, “don’t build in a vacuum”
- “regulate the off-label use of pharmaceuticals”
- units in pch’s should be smaller; instead of having 40 living in a unit, ideally it should be 12-15
- “people need a purpose”
- “a personal care home is a place to come and live, not a place to die”
Ms. Turenne-Maynard offered the following assessment of what to expect from the new government: “Because of the NDP sweep there’s going to be a lot of reconnecting” – with new ministers and some new deputy ministers, but many deputy ministers and policy analysts will be staying on,” which should give some continuity when it comes to planning.
At the same though, someone else observed that, as a result of so many failings in the private-for-profit personal care home sector, and the possibility that even more private pch’s may close, there might be even more pressure placed on the not-for-profit pch’s to fill the vacuum left by private pch’s closing.
It was also suggested that the government “avoid building pch’s using an outmoded funding model” that has long proved inadequate.
As one of the senior staff members at the Simkin Centre who was in attendance observed of government decision making: “Every pch operator submits their own 10-year plan – full of proposals – and you’re lucky if you get one thing done.”
Ms. Turenne-Maynard did say that MARCHE will take all the proposals that emerged from the three focus groups it has held and come up with a coherent set of ideas which it will take to the new government.
Local News
Scenes from Shalom Square 2026
Shalom Square – the Israel pavilion, is on until Saturday night, August 8. As usual, audiences have been packing the Rady JCC gym to watch entertainment provided by the Chai Folk Ensemble and Kadima Dance Troupe.
(All photos courtesy of Keith Levit)
Local News
Nakba exhbit at CMHR – you can see it right here and make your own assessment
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted June 26, updated July 19) The Nakba exhibit at the Canadian Exhibit for Human Rights opened to the public June 27. The morning before the exhibit was set to open to the public, (it had a private opening for invited guests the evening of June 26) we received a press release from the CMHR. That press release gave a very detailed description of what was in the exhibit, along with photos (supplied by Annie Kierans of the CMHR).
There is also a link right at the beginning of the press release that will allow you to watch the same videos that anyone attending the exhibit can watch. We reprinted what was sent to us without making one edit. We leave it to you to form your own opinion as to whether the exhibit is fair in its presentation, and whether it is lacking “context” – which is an accusation that has been levelled at the exhibit’s organizers by some representatives of Jewish organizations.
We have received many emails in reaction to the exhibit. If you have an opinion and would like to see it published on this website, you can send it to jewishp@mymts.net, but please indicate whether you would be willing to have it published on this website.
Here is what we received the morning of June 26:
Winnipeg, MB — June 26, 2026 — The Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) will open a new exhibit tomorrow that explores human rights violations related to the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinian Canadians.
Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present will be on display in the Rights Today gallery on Level 5 until 2028. Featuring personal stories told through artifacts and video testimonies, the exhibit presents Palestinian Canadians reflecting on their ongoing struggle for human rights. The small exhibit reveals enduring patterns of loss and resilience, helping visitors understand more about this contemporary human rights story.
Palestinian Canadian stories are now included alongside many other stories of forced displacement and human rights violations featured in the Museum’s galleries. Each of these stories contribute to our visitors understanding of human rights and help the Museum fulfill its mandate to foster reflection and dialogue.
Exhibition highlights
Personal stories and artifacts: Experience firsthand accounts from Palestinian Canadians sharing their journeys of displacement and memory through a series of five artifacts. Cases display artifacts like property deeds, house keys, and a traditional Palestinian embroidered dress, accompanied by short videos that deepen understanding of the impacts of displacement.
Powerful artworks: In her painting Bound Together in Gaza, Malak Mattar, a Gazan artist, captures the struggles and resilience of her generation shaped by conflict. Her work pays homage to Guernica, Picasso’s powerful masterpiece depicting civilian suffering during war.
Curfews and Closures, by Rajie Cook, bears witness to life under military occupation during the 2000–2005 Palestinian uprising, when curfews and closures were expanded and further limited basic rights and freedoms.
Cultural heritage: Discover traditional Palestinian embroidery called tatreez. Tatreez motifs and colours are tied to place, family history and regional identity. Patterns are associated with particular towns, villages or areas of Palestine. In this way, tatreez is a form of storytelling: a way of preserving memory, sustaining identity and expressing resilience across displacement and exile.
Poetry and reflection: Engage with Mahmoud Darwish’s evocative verses, inspiring personal reflection on exile, voice, and responsibility. Visitors can take a card containing Darwish’s poem and add a personal note, fostering ongoing dialogue beyond the exhibit.
Contemporary context: Witness striking images of current events in Gaza and the West Bank, connecting past displacement to ongoing struggles.
Quotes:
“No force can silence the truth we carry. Growing up in Canada, my children lived the Nakba through our stories. And now we watch it happen again, live, on our phones. When I see the images coming out of Gaza, I am not watching the news. I am watching my history repeat itself.” -Fouad Sahyoun, a Palestinian Canadian featured in the exhibit
“We developed this exhibit with a clear awareness that Palestinian Canadian voices have too often been marginalized, silenced or spoken over — and that anti-Palestinian racism affects whose stories are heard and whose suffering is recognized. That is why we intentionally centred Palestinian Canadian voices throughout the exhibit.” -Isabelle Masson, Curator of Palestine Uprooted
“Human rights matter precisely when they are inconvenient, when the question of who deserves the dignity of having their rights recognized is genuinely contested. These are the moments where having a national museum for human rights is most important.
There are people who believe this exhibit should not exist in its current form. There are people who believe it should have existed sooner. There are people who will visit this exhibit and feel that it does not say enough, and others who will feel it says too much.
We have listened to every one of these voices. We have reflected. And we have renewed our resolve to continue the difficult, sometimes contested, and often controversial work of building understanding about human rights. We are a museum grounded in Canada’s human rights framework, whose mandate requires us to bear witness to the full complexity of the human story. We are proud to open this exhibit because the story it tells will help achieve that mandate, and because this story belongs in the collective memory of Canadians.”
- – Isha Khan, CEO
Local News
Jewish Federation releases amounts to be allocated to each of its 12 beneficiary agencies
By BERNIE BELLAN I had been reporting on allocations given to the 12 beneficiary agencies of the Jewish Federation for over 11 years – until last year, when I took a break from covering our major Jewish organizations.
These past couple of months, however, I’ve gone back to looking at financial information for some of our major Jewish organizations, including the Jewish Foundation of Manitoba and Jewish Child and Family Services. (If you want to read my reports on the two Annual General Meetings held by those organizations you can find them elsewhere on this website.)
Over the years as well, I had also been adding to a table that I began to compile 12 years ago that showed comparison figures year over year for how much had been allocated by the Jewish Federation to each of its 12 beneficiary agencies. Even though I didn’t do any reporting on allocations by the Jewish Federation last year, I was able to obtain information about the 2025 allocations that I’ve reproduced in the table that you can see here. (That table only shows information for the past five years, although I do have tables showing information about allocations going back as far as 2014 that can be found on my website if anyone is interested.)
Looking at the figures for this coming year though, a couple of things stand out: For one, there will be no allocation for Aleph Bet Child Life Enrichment, just as there wasn’t one last year either. This comes after having received allocations for as long as I’ve been covering the allocations committee, so that might require some further investigation to find out why Aleph Bet Enrichment is no longer receiving an allocation. Secondly, there will be a small allocation for the Irma Penn School of Jewish Learning – as there was last year also, after a multi-year absence of the school applying for allocations. The Irma Penn School used to advertise in The Jewish Post & News when it was active, but I don’t recall seeing anything about it the past two years. At one time it was very popular among adults. It would be worth looking into how it functions these days. (Over to you, Myron. You used to write about the Irma Penn School.)
Also, the report of the Allocation Committee says: “The Jewish Learning Institute resumed their participation in the Allocations process after a hiatus of a few years to enhance their revitalized programming.” But the Jewish Learning Institute did receive funding in 2025 and 2024, so it’s not clear why the report says there was a “hiatus of a few years.” No big deal, really.
It’s always been interesting for me – and I’m sure for you, too, to look at trends: Which beneficiary agencies have been receiving the largest increases in allocations year over year or, as the case may be, the smallest increases in funding – relative to what other agencies received?
According to the report of the allocations committee, “The 2025-26 Combined Jewish Appeal Campaign raised $7,224,856 this year.”
That amount is $660,577 more than what was raised in the 2024-25 campaign, which was $6,864,279. While a portion of what was raised goes toward beneficiary agencies, another portion goes to Israel, another portion is to cover operating expenses of the Federation, and another portion goes to replenishing the Federation’s emergency fund, which was badly depleted during Covid.
Insofar as how much each of the beneficiary agencies receives,, each year the allocations committee of the Jewish Federation meets during the course of the year to decide how to allocates funds to the 12 beneficiary agencies of the Federation.
The allocations are to be given to the respective agencies on September 1.
The total amount allocated to the Federation’s beneficiary agencies is $95,700 more than what was allocated last year, and $193,600 more than what was allocated in 2024. There will be a total of $3,050,000 allocated in 2026, compared to $2,954,300 in 2025, and $2,856,400 in 2024. Interestingly, the total amounts allocated in 2023 and 2022 were higher than what were allocated in 2024 and 2025, but the allocation to Gray Academy in 2022 was exceptionally high – $974,000, compared with $900,000 this year. In 2022 Gray Academy was still dealing with the fallout from Covid and the huge increases in costs that arose from having to resort to online teaching.
As well, until this year, the most ever allocated by the Jewish Federation to its beneficiary agencies was also in 2022 – when the community was still in the grip of the Covid crisis and total allocations were $3,003,000. At that time the Federation tapped into an emergency fund that it had on hand – and totally depleted that fund.
In its report the allocations committee went into some detail explaining its methodology and how certain criteria were given special attention when it came to determining allocations.
Each of the agencies had representatives appear before the committee. Those representatives were given 15-20 minutes to make presentations to the members of the committee and answer a series of questions pertaining to eight different criteria.
Here, in summary, are the main criteria the report cites as “priorities” when it came to deciding how much to allocate to agencies:
- Social isolation and lack of belonging: “Longing for belonging,” a desire for a
stronger sense of connection to the Jewish community and Jewish identification. - Seniors Isolation: Does this program address the problem of seniors’ isolation?
- Teen Program Continuity Gaps: Gaps in programming continuity limit teen
leadership opportunities. Peer connection programs across this demographic
must be prioritized. - Building Jewish Identity and Connection: Strengthening Jewish identification
ensures every program builds Jewish community through authentic Jewish content
and context. - Poverty and Financial Barriers to Participation: Financial challenges can prevent
community members’ full participation in Jewish life. - Accessibility and Inclusion for People with Disabilities: People with cognitive or
physical challenges face barriers to full participation in Jewish life. - Exclusionary or Unwelcoming Environments: Language and practices may
unintentionally exclude interfaith families, LGBTQ+ individuals, Jews of color, and
others. - Data on Participation and Community Needs: Do you have data available on who
participates in programs, who is underserved, and what impact programs have?
Even after having subjected each of the agencies to that sort of rigorous scrutiny, however, the fact remains that the sizes of the increases given to each agency were quite consistent with what had been given in previous years.
Here, for instance, are the increases that have been given to some of the agencies for the past three years:
Gray Academy – 2026 increase over 2025: $30,000; 2025 increase over 2024: $30,000
Gwen Secter – 2026 increase over 2025: $19,000; 2025 increase over 2024: $11,500
JCFS – 2026 increase over 2025: $30,000; 2025 increase over 2024: $25,000
Rady JCC – 2026 increase over 2025: $18,000; 2025 increase over 2024: $10,000
What it all boils down to, I would suggest, is that the allocations each of those agencies received are consistent with what they had received in previous years, notwithstanding the supposedly rigorous criteria that the allocations committee says it adopted in reviewing the presentations given by each agency.
