Local News
Situation re possible sale of Town Island gets even murkier
By BERNIE BELLAN
The situation regarding the possible sale of Town Island took a somewhat confusing twist these past two weeks when an online publication known as Kenora Online reported on Monday, January 13, that Kenora-Rainy River MPP Greg Rickford (who is also Ontario’s Northern Development Minister) said “he’s working with the City of Kenora on a possible Town Island land swap.”
However, a careful reading of what Rickford is actually quoted as having said might be interpreted as the exact opposite of what the Kenora Online wrote when it said Rickford is working on a “land swap” with Kenora. Here is what the article actually said:
“Kenora Rainy-River MPP and Northern Development Minister Greg Rickford says he’s working alongside staff with the City of Kenora to create an opportunity for more housing and land developments, and the plans include Kenora’s Town Island.”
“ ‘There’s discussions with the city and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry on the opportunity. Now that we more clearly understand the city’s intentions are with it, I’ve assured the Mayor and Councillors (sic.) that we’re going to move forward and try to create an opportunity for them,’ said the minister.”
When I emailed Adam Smith, the City of Kenora’s Manager of Land Services, to ask him whether he could confirm that there have been negotiations with the Province of Ontario over Town Island, Smith categorically denied that there have been any negotiations with the Province of Ontario over anything to do with a land swap for Town Island.
Here’s what Smith wrote to me on January 17:
“Hi Bernie,
“The City has not had any discussions around a land swap with the Province (emphasis ours). I understand there is an article suggesting otherwise and I would suggest following up with the editor on the content.”
As a result of the possible misinterpretation of what Minister Rickford said to the reporter for Kenora Online, we have attempted to contact Minister Rickford himself to seek a clarification of what it is exactly that the Province of Ontario would like to do re Town Island.
In an email I sent to Minister Richford on January 17, I asked the minister the following:
“A careful reading of what you had to say could lead one to think that the province is interested in helping to ‘develop’ Town Island – which is the opposite of what those hoping for a land swap would want (which would be to see Town Island conserved in its natural state).
“Can you help me to understand just what it is that the province is interested in doing? Also, have there been negotiations with Kenora, but they don’t have anything to do with a land swap?”
In a previous article we noted that the City of Kenora had set January 31, 2020 as the deadline for receiving expressions of interest re Town Island. The clock is ticking. As we noted in our Short takes column of January 8, the Province of Ontario holds the key cards in this situation if it were to propose a land swap with Kenora for Town Island.
But, it is entirely possible that Kenora will want to move ahead with the sale of that part of Town Island which it still owns regardless of the position that the Province of Ontario might take. Thus, it is crucial to understand what Minister Rickford meant when he said that “There’s discussions with the city and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry on the opportunity”.
What opportunity is he referring to? Is it the opportunity to “develop” Town Island, which is what he seems to be saying – and which would be devastating news for the Friends of Town Island and other groups that have rallied in support of halting the sale of Town Island or is it the opportunity to conserve Town Island as a “nature conservancy”, which is what the Friends of Town Island are proposing?
Certainly, ambiguity is what most politicians are very good at delivering when they offer any comments at all – if you can even get a politician to make a public comment. But, in the case of Minister Rickford, it doesn’t seem that he was being deliberately ambiguous. He certainly had something in mind when he said “he’s working alongside staff with the City of Kenora to create an opportunity for more housing and land developments, and the plans include Kenora’s Town Island.”
The problem here is that the reporter for Kenora Online didn’t follow up that remark with this sort of question: “Are you talking about developing Town Island?”
Instead, the reporter – and it would seem whoever was responsible for posting the story online, took Rickford to mean that he was interested in the idea of swapping Town Island, which explains why the headline for the story read: “Province, City working on Town Island land swap”.
Naturally, when I read that headline, my first reaction was: “Whew! Finally, the Province of Ontario is stepping in to help save Town Island from development”, which is something I suggested in our January 8 issue was the desired outcome for this vexing situation.
Thus, when I sent an email to Adam Smith of the City of Kenora, asking him whether he could confirm that there had been discussions with the Ontario provincial government about a land swap for Town Island, I was shocked to read that, not only was there nothing to announce regarding a deal to swap provincially owned land either in or adjacent to Kenora for Town Island – Smith denied there had even been any negotiations on the matter.
But, it took three days for Smith to respond to my query about a land swap. Once I received his response late Friday afternoon, I immediately contacted the reporter for Kenora Online to ask him whether he had recorded anything else Minister Rickford might have said that would have justified going forward with a headline that Ontario and Kenora were working on a land swap for Town Island?
Here’s what the reporter wrote back to me in an email: “That is the direct quote I received from Minister Rickford after speaking with him in person in regards to the Town Island land swap (emphasis ours). I’d encourage you to contact his office for more.”
So, it would seem clear that the reporter for Kenora Online was asking about a land swap when he spoke with Minister Rickford. And, I can well understand the reporter’s interpreting the minister’s response to mean that the Province of Ontario was indeed interested in a land swap, but this wouldn’t be the first time that a reporter might have rushed to judgement without asking a more specific question that would have removed any doubt as to what the minister meant.
Why all this concern about Town Island, you might be wondering? Well, if over 10,000 individuals have taken the time to sign a petition asking the City of Kenora not to sell Town Island, it’s pretty clear that this is an issue that resonates with a great many people.
And, with the clock ticking as we move ever closer to the possibility that Kenora may indeed sell off the rest of Town Island to a private developer (although there is nothing to forestall an organization or individual from coming forward with an offer that would see Town Island safeguarded from private development), it’s awfully important to remove any ambiguity as to what the Province of Ontario is prepared to do to protect Town Island – if anything at all.
I’m just afraid that the Kenora Online might have got it all wrong though – and, rather than wanting to preserve Town Island, the Minister of Northern Development for Ontario actually wants to develop Town Island. After all, his title contains the word “development”, not preservation.
And, given the response that I received from Adam Smith of Kenora in which he said there have not been any negotiations at all with the Province of Ontario over a land swap for Town Island, it doesn’t appear that the Province of Ontario will do anything to stop the sale of Town Island to private developers. Just the opposite seems the most logical interpretation of what Minister Rickford had to say: He wants to “develop” Town Island.
Post script: We have to attempted to reach Minister Rickford several times since this article first appeared in our print edition, including through his government office in Toronto and his constituency office in Rainy River – to clarify just what is the Government of Ontario’s intent with respect to Town Island, but have not heard back from anyone associated with the Ontario government.
This is one case though, where I hope I’m proved absolutely wrong though – and the Ontario government is sincerely interested in doing a deal with Kenora.
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

