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. https://thecjn.ca/news/jnf-canada/
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.
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
