Connect with us

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.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Local News

New Israel Fund to hold event in Winnipeg December 11

The Road Ahead: Israelis Fighting for Peace and Democracy in a Trump-Netanyahu Era

with Ben Murane, Executive Director, and Michael Mitchell, Board Member
of the New Israel Fund of Canada

Wednesday, December 11th at 7:30-9:00 pm in the Grant Park area
Advance registration required — exact location provided upon registration. Registration link at the end of this post.

Co-sponsored by Canadian Supporters of Women Wage Peace

As President-elect Trump’s return to the spotlight stirs tensions globally, the Israel-Hamas war drags on, and the hostages are not any closer to coming home, NIFC’s work takes on new urgency in confronting a government that continues to undermine democracy and human rights.

Israeli progressives are determined not to let this extremist agenda win again — they’re modeling a powerful vision of a more peaceful, shared future for the region and pushing back against the forces of division, inequality, and authoritarianism. They’re fighting for both the release of hostages and aid to Gazans, as well as civil liberties, Jewish-Arab partnership, religious freedom, and for an end to this bloody conflict.

Join this private discussion with our Executive Director Ben Murane to hear how NIF-fueled civil society initiatives are fighting today and preparing for a better tomorrow.

About our Executive Director and Board Member

Ben Murane is the Executive Director of the New Israel Fund of Canada and a leading voice of millennial engagement with Israel. For over fifteen years, Ben has led at the intersection of Jewish life, social justice, and Israel. He previously worked for NIF’s U.S. branch, won Jewish innovation awards for his work in environmentalism and campus life, and founded both online and offline Jewish communities. In 2012, he received the prestigious Dorot Leadership Fellowship in Israel, where he studied comparative nationalism and consulted for social action groups. He lives in Toronto with his wife and two young children.

Michael Mitchell is a board member of the New Israel Fund of Canada. He is Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and an Arbitrator/Mediator in private practice. Michael was a senior partner at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, a leading labour law firm in Toronto and Ottawa for almost forty years, where he also served as the managing partner. Michael was President of the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, and the President of Darchei Noam, the Toronto Reconstructionist Congregation. He is a long time donor and supporter of the New Israel Fund and participated in the NIFC study tour of Israel in 2018. Michael is married to Lynne Mitchell, has three daughters, Rachel, Alisa and Sara, and has six grandchildren.

About the New Israel Fund of Canada
Since 1986, NIFC has contributed over $10 million to more than 100 organizations in Israel that fight for socio-economic equality, religious freedom, civil and human rights, shared society and anti-racism, Palestinian citizens, and democracy itself.

To register, click here: NIF event

Continue Reading

Local News

The CJN (Canadian Jewish News) responds to accusations by Jewish National Fund Canada that it has been unfair in its reporting on JNF Canada’s problems with the CRA

Back in August we printed a story titled “A detailed look at the awful predicament in which JNF Canada now finds itself since the CRA revoked its charitable status.” A large part of that story was taken from reporting done by Ellin Bessner for the CJN (Canadian Jewish News). Since then we have been asked by Bessner to give the CJN’s side of the story.
At the time we printed that story, and even up until the CJN approached us on Nov. 22, jewishpostandnews.ca did not contact the CJN for comment on JNF Canada’s’ accusations about their reporting. We regret our own lack of journalistic standards and have since removed that story from our website.
On November 22, we received an email from The CJN’s Bessner.  She had come across the article we had on our website and reached out to us.
Bessner insisted that JNF Canada’s claims about The CJN’s reporting on the CRA story are false. Bessner adds that JNF Canada’s claim that the CJN never asked them for their views is also not true.. 
Following is Ellin Besser’s view of what happened between JNF Canada and the CJN:

After their Aug. 10 revocation, The CJN contacted the JNF to ask for an interview. They agreed to talk to The CJN, but asked us to wait to do the interview until Aug. 16, a full six days after the CRA revoked their charitable status. We waited because we wanted to give JNF enough time to speak to us fully.  Also, there was Tisha B’av on Monday Aug. 12 so JNF’s staff was not available.
As JNF well knows, and the public knows because we put it into our reporting, The CJN team of Bessner and Jonathan Rothman conducted an hour-long, videotaped interview with JNF CEO Lance Davis by ZOOM, on Aug. 16. We even made sure that Davis made his own audio recording of the interview on his personal phone. 
While other news organizations were quick off the mark after Aug. 10 to publish a JNF revocation story, these other outlets did not conduct a full journalistic investigation, and published only JNF’s side.
While waiting for our interview, we continued our reporting. We knew that under the Income Tax Act’s privacy rules, the CRA never comments on cases while the audits and negotiations are underway. In fact, by law, the CRA cannot divulge anything about its audit process to the public, until after a charity is revoked. Then, the public can ask for the CRA’s internal documents concerning the reasons why a charity was revoked. So we asked. 
On Aug. 15, the day before our scheduled JNF interview, the CRA released to us 358 pages of internal documents regarding its dealings with JNF, including some documents dating back to 1967, when JNF Canada was officially granted charitable status in Canada.
No other news outlet in the world received the documents at this time; The CJN was the first. Our team read all the 358 pages the night before our interview. 
During our interview with Lance Davis the next day, we told him that we had the CRA’s documents. During the interview, we went through the issues which the CRA documents had raised. 
It was obvious that Davis had prepared talking points for his interview, as we had sent him the questions in advance, which they had requested. He was reading off another computer screen. Davis answered all our questions, including a list of issues raised in the CRA documents.
These ranged from missing paperwork, lack of oversight and direction, why documents were not provided in English or French but in Hebrew, why they were not kept in Canada but in Israel, why in-house travel expenses were not receipted the way CRA needed, why the donations to JNF from Canada went not to buying trees at all, until 2017, but to paying labour costs for workers in Israel.
We went back and forth with the JNF team over the next ten days by email, as we fact-checked issues. They also acknowledged this. They answered our fact-checking questions. We told them when our stories would likely be coming out, and we told them there would be print stories and a podcast or two. 
In the meantime, to get our story as complete as possible, we consulted with financial experts and charity experts, with JNF donors and with our lawyers.
It became apparent that JNF was extremely careful about who we spoke to, as we learned they had vetted what one of the donor interviewees told us: JNF’s p.r. person told me he had heard the raw tape of our interview shortly after we had hung up after we conducted it, but long before it was published.
Only after all CJN’s due diligence, which was a full sixteen days after JNF’s revocation, did we publish our series of stories. 
On the evening of Aug. 26, we reported on the contents of the CRA allegations, linking to the CRA documents, and that same evening, we also released our podcast containing JNF’s Davis’ interview. We also ran a lengthy print story early the next morning, again quoting Davis extensively. 
The following day we ran another podcast with some donors’ views, and more JNF arguments.
Here are all the stories and articles which The CJN has published on the CRA/JNF story.
JNF has been spinning things to attack our reporting, because they assume few people actually took the time to read The CJN’s work.
JNF is saying it was “blindsided” by the CRA’s revocation. But the truth is, and the documents which CRA released (and later JNF released and JNF told us) show JNF has been secretive about its own legal communications with the CRA dating back to 1967, and through four subsequent CRA audits. They received an amnesty from the new Revenue Minister in the 1990s.
The fifth audit, started in 2014 and has been the source of the agency’s latest problem over the last 10 years. 
Unlike the CRA, JNF was always able to publicly release their legal communications and letters back and forth with CRA. They did not do this back in 1989, when they were told they were not in compliance. They did not do so in August 2019, when they received the official Notice of Intention to Revoke, from when the clock to revocation started ticking. And they did not do so in June 2023, even after JNF received a letter saying the NITR notice was confirmed. 
Even during our interview, JNF did not disclose it had its own documents that could better show the context of its challenges dealing with the CRA.  JNF chose to release these only in September on their website. But they selectively released a document here and there to a “friendly” columnist for the National Post. These documents would have shown the fact that JNF’s detractors in the anti-Zionist advocacy world of Independent Jewish Voices, had their letter writing campaigns and media statements and briefing reports taken into consideration by CRA communications staff.
JNF also did not disclose on its website their annual audit documents for the years between 2018 and 2023, where the auditors’ reports stated the CRA had informed JNF it was going to lose its charitable status.
This is a lack of transparency on JNF’s part, thus hiding this knowledge from their donors, supporters, and the wider public. They also did not file these with the CRA, as they were legally required to do.
Only after our stories came out, did JNF upload the missing paperwork to its own website and posted on the CRA’s.
Two things can be true at the same time: JNF was facing compliance problems with CRA rules for years and hid this from its donors and the Canadian public and JNF acknowledged to us and to the CRA that it wanted to keep this issue quiet.
It is also possible that JNF was treated unfairly by the CRA, who may have been influenced by anti-Israel groups, or anti-Israel staff. The CRA denies this, but only time and Access to Information requests for Cabinet documents and internal CRA communications will tell.
During the pandemic, JNF had requested and obtained some documents from the CRA through access to information requests, showing internal reports that outline the media campaigns/internal pressure on the department from anti-JNF groups including Independent Jewish Voices, who wanted to have the charity shut down. 
JNF could have released these important documents to the CJN and to the wider public immediately, but chose not to do so. We only found them on the JNF website, in September. And we reported on this, too.
Likely this will all be decided by the Federal Court of Appeal. 

Continue Reading

Local News

‘Hateful remarks, gestures’: Canadian coffee chain boots franchisee at Jewish Montreal hospital

The Second Cup franchisee who chanted "The Final Solution is coming" at Concordia University (X photo)

Second Cup Café said that the anti-Israel protester had violated the chain’s “values of inclusion and community.”

(Nov. 24, 2024 / JNS) The Canadian chain Second Cup Café announced on Saturday that it shut down a franchisee’s cafe at Jewish General Hospital in Montreal and terminated its relationship with that person after the latter “was filmed making hateful remarks and gestures.”

“Second Cup has zero tolerance for hate speech,” the chain stated. “In coordination with the hospital, we’ve shut down the franchisee’s cafe and are terminating their franchise agreement.”

The person’s actions, the chain said, breach the franchise agreement and “violate the values of inclusion and community we stand for at Second Cup.”

Idit Shamir, the consul general of Israel in Toronto and western Canada, named the former franchisee as Mai Abdulhadi, and said that the latter had chanted “the Final Solution is coming” and performed a Nazi salute at Concordia University, “while running a café at Jewish General Hospital, a place built by Holocaust survivors.”

“Thankfully, Second Cup acted swiftly: café shut down, franchise revoked,” Shamir wrote. “Mai Abdulhadi—Hate speech isn’t just vile, it’s a threat, and it will be met with consequences.”

The company earned accolades—and some promises of business—from Paul Hirschson, the Israeli consul general in Montreal, and leaders at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center.

“This great Canadian, Montreal-owned company has taken this principled stand at risk to their own business. In so doing, they are showing the courage and leadership Canada needs right now but is so desperately lacking from those in the highest of public offices,” stated Leo Housakos, a senator from Quebec. “I hope everyone goes out and buys their coffee tomorrow.”

Michal Cotler-Wunsh, the Israeli special envoy for combating antisemitism, wrote that it “turns out moral clarity is not so difficult.”

“Thanks Second Cup for showcasing Canadian values standing up to lethal hate speech and incitement,” she wrote. “Antisemitism is not a problem of Jews. It’s a problem of antisemites and the people and places that allow it to spread.”

“How is it that a coffee chain was able to put out a statement condemning antisemitism and racial hatred, faster, clearer and unambiguously better, than the prime minister of Canada?” wrote Arsen Ostrovsky, CEO of the International Legal Forum.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News