Connect with us

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

Thoughts on Sid Green

Grant Mitchell


By GRANT MITCHELL (Grant Mitchell is a well-known lawyer in Winnipeg whose father, Leon Mitchell, was Sid Green’s law partner for many years.

Following are remarks Grant delivered at the meal of remembrance which was held following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9:

Sid was a Gold medallist in law in the class of 1955.
He knew that my Dad, Leon Mitchell, was in sole practice in the Confederation Building. Leon was 13 years older than Sid but graduated just the year before. Leon had been the business agent for the Civic Employees Union of the City of Winnipeg before and during law school, and his union connections gave him a client base to start a practice.
After obtaining his call to the Bar, Sid attended Leon’s office and informed him, “You need me.”
Leon was taken aback. He was physically disabled from a major bout of Guillen-Barre syndrome, but felt fully capable of practising solo. He told Sid he didn’t need anyone.
Sid told Leon, “You don’t understand. I don’t mean you need me to advise clients, I mean I can do the physical side for you, attending court and hearings and other functions that require mobility.”
With that understanding, they became Mitchell & Green, and later Mitchell, Green and Minuk when Sam Minuk joined the firm. They were the only labour firm in Winnipeg at that time that acted exclusively on the Union side.
In around 1960, a Mitchell & Green client did not have the money to pay for his legal fees and offered the partially constructed cottage he was building at Big Whiteshell Lake to the firm as payment, with the excess to be refunded to the client. Sid and Leon became co-owners of that cottage. For years it had no plumbing and an incomplete ceiling. When Leon died in 1987, Sid got the cottage.
When Sid went into politics, Leon supported the move, and in fact delivered the nomination speech for Sid to be leader of the NDP when he ran against Russ Paulley and then Ed Schreyer.
When Sid was made a Cabinet Minister in the Schreyer government in 1969, Leon also left practice to go into public service, as Chair of the Municipal Board, Chair of the Mental Review Board and Commissioner in the Churchill Forest Industries inquiry. Sam Minuk became a Provincial Judge. It was the end of Mitchell Green and Minuk. That practice was the foundation of what has become the Myers firm.
Sid and Leon’s paths would cross again when Leon was mediator of the Northern Flood Agreement and Sid was the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
They had been professional partners with profound mutual respect, but they were also personal friends and remained so for the rest of Leon’s life.
Leon had a huge admiration for people he thought were unusually intelligent. Sid was at or near the top of that list.

At the funeral, I spoke of Sid’s relationship with my father, Leon Mitchell.
I will just add that during their years at the Confederation Building and then in the Crown Trust Building, they hired an articling student named Bill Rachman, who made Sid and Leon nervous about everything he did. When the articling period ended, Sid told Leon that notwithstanding their reservations about Bill’s ethics and practicing skills, Bill would be far more financially successful than either Sid or Leon. Leon agreed. They were correct.
When Sid returned to private practice after his time in government, the unions and he had a falling out and he found himself acting against unions rather than on their behalf
Sid’s philosophy on unions was that protective labour laws produced weak unions, who would not represent their members’ interests effectively. He felt that Wagner Act type labour legislation, now universal in North America, was a tragic compromise by unions. He believed that the recognition strike and the wildcat strike were fundamental weapons for successful trade unions, and that certification of unions, the duty to bargain in good faith and mandatory grievance arbitration were the poor cousins of the recognition and wildcat strikes. This was opposite to the position of the union movement at that time, which lobbied strenuously for union-friendly legislation in the form of greater and greater regulation of the union employer relationship.
In fact, Sid said that the only labour laws that unions should need were to protect the right to picket, and to take away a court’s power to order a person to work. These 2 provisions are found in sections 56 and 57 of the King’s Bench Act to this day, more than 50 years later, and still known to people of my generation as the “Sid Green amendments”. No injunction to enforce a personal services contract. No injunction to restrict assembly on a public thoroughfare to communicate accurate information, that is, a picket sign.
Sid supplemented professors at the law school, Robson Hall, by delivering several lectures in each term about the fundamentals of labour law. I taught that course for 22 years and I had Sid come for a guest lecture, as he had done in the labour law class when I was a student.
He had a powerful and persuasive way of making his points. For example, he felt that a legislated duty to bargain in good faith was a mistake – let the parties fight it out, and let the stronger survive. If employers don’t bargain genuinely, the response is to hold a strike, not run to the labour board.
“If I offer $1, $2, $3, $5, $10 then I’m bargaining in good faith. If I offer $10, $10, $10, $10, then I’m bargaining in bad faith. But it’s still $10!”
He didn’t like certification and preferred the recognition strike. Settle disputes through battle, not argument. Conflict rather than compromise. He particularly objected to certifying unions by card count as opposed to secret ballot vote. A card signer had no meaningful way of revoking their support for the union if they changed their mind after the union applied for certification.
Sid said, “If I buy a vacuum cleaner from a door to door salesman, under the CPA I have a month to change my mind and get my money back. But if I sign a union card, the next day may be too late to change my mind. Which is more important, having a union take over my bargaining rights, or buying a vacuum cleaner?”
Apart from representing employees against unions, Sid also built a practice of representing lawyers who faced disciplinary action from the Law Society. When he ran to be a bencher, he received more votes than any other candidate, even though he was not affiliated with any of the larger law firms. As a bencher, he would send out a “Report from a Bencher” after each Bencher meeting, giving his analysis on the decisions the Society was making, often critical of the majority.
In so many ways, he believed in a “survival of the fittest” approach to human differences. He did not care for protectionist legislation like Human Rights laws. He particularly objected to affirmative action or any other form of “reverse discrimination”.
In one case I had with him, he was acting for Nabila Malik, an economist in the Cabinet secretariat who had been laid off. I was acting for the employer. He called me to tell me that he wished to amend his statement of claim. “I want to add a paragraph to the claim to say that in letting my client go, the government violated its own affirmative action policy because the policy said that there should be more women in senior civil service positions and yet my client, a woman, was let go when many men in senior civil service positions had remained employed.
“Do you object to my amendment?” “No.”
“You don’t think I believe in that affirmative action bullshit do you?” “I don’t know.”
“I DON’T!” But I say, ‘If you are going to preach bullshit, you have to practice bullshit.’”
Sid took up hockey when he was 50. As a young man, he had been a good athlete, quarterbacking the law school football team. It was a late stage of life to learn to skate and join a new sport but Sid approached it with the same gusto he applied to everything else. When he awoke after cardiac surgery a few years later, his first question was, “Will I still be able to play hockey?” You don’t have to be great at something to love it, as I well know. And Sid loved to play hockey, indoors or out.
An employer client of mine had one of its managers vilified in the union newsletter – the “Golden Turkey Award”. My client said, “We want a lawyer for the manager, and we want that lawyer be one with the kind of reputation that when the other side sees who is threatening to sue them, they will involuntarily cringe uncontrollably.” I gave them 2 names, with Sid’s being the second one. “Sid Green, that name sounds familiar. Who is he?” “Oh, he was once the Minister of Labour in the NDP government, but after he left politics, the unions treated him as a pariah, and now he fights them regularly.” “That’s the guy we want.” Sid took the case. He got a settlement offer so generous that the manager desperately wanted to accept it: full page retraction, apology, substantial payment. He may have been a turkey, but he was not foolish. Sid said it was not enough. He got more, before yielding to the client’s wish to settle. And oh, yeah, there were no more golden turkeys awarded.
Sid loved to litigate. He would rather fight than settle. His adversaries knew that, and as a result, he achieved great settlements. Sid’s rejection of an offer was never a bluff.
He had a fundamental belief in democracy, that the rules should be made by people who were elected, not appointed. If he had the choice, he would prefer to be a law maker rather than a lawyer or judge. He also felt that if a matter was worth taking on, it was worth taking all the way. I doubt that any private lawyer has been involved in more appeals.
Others know more about Sid’s career as a politician than I do. He did love to tell one story about his time in government. In 1975, Bob “Junior” Wilson had just been elected in a Wolseley by-election, narrowly defeating Sid’s friend, D’Arcy McCaffrey. In his first appearance in the Legislative Assembly, Wilson stood up to make his maiden speech. The protocol had long been that when a member speaks for the first time, they give a benign speech about how honoured they are to serve their constituents and how they look forward to working with everyone in the house. Instead, Wilson launched into an attack on the governing Schreyer government, accusing them of every misdeed known to politics, and demanding that they immediately resign and call a general election. It fell to Sid to respond on behalf of the NDP majority.
“The Honourable Member has ignored the usual protocol for new members. I don’t mind that. I have no particular affinity for protocols. I think members should say what they genuinely feel. So I commend the Member for being so frank. I have some difficulty with his message, however. He says that we should resign and cease to govern. But that would be undemocratic. A majority of Manitobans have elected us to run the Province. That is our duty. He may not like it, but the fact is that we are his government. But if he feels badly about that, he should imagine how I feel. He is my member!!”
I’ll close by saying that in Sid’s pre-politics practising days, there were many colourful lawyers that made being a lawyer a fascinating profession. By the time he returned to practice, there were only a few of the wild ones left. The profession needed a gadfly like Sid to make practice fun. The reason he got so many votes from the profession is that Manitoba lawyers recognized that in Sid there was a fearlessness mixed with skill, humour, joy and a profound understanding of the policy reasoning behind the letter of the law. There was no one like him, and I doubt that there will be one. I will miss him.

Continue Reading

Local News

Sid Green – famed lawyer, one of the first Jewish provincial cabinet ministers, and first director of BB Camp – passes at age 96

By BERNIE BELLAN Sid Green, whose name was well known in so many different circles in Manitoba, passed away on Sunday, June 7, at the age of 96.
Green was perhaps best known as one of three Jewish Members of the Legislature who became cabinet ministers in the first ever NDP government in Manitoba, which came to power in 1969 under the leadership of Ed Schreyer. (The other two Jewish members who became cabinet ministers were the late Saul Cherniack and the late Saul Miller.)
Green, who had first been elected as an MLA in 1966 representing the riding of Inkster, led a challenge to then-NDP leader Russ Paulley in 1968, which eventually led to Paulley resigning as leader. The subsequent leadership race saw Green, who was only 39 at the time, facing off against a 32-year-old Ed Schreyer.
Although Green and Schreyer were later to part ways over a number of issues – especially over the issue of aid to private schools, Green and Schreyer were actually good friends.
In fact, Ed Schreyer, who is now 90, spoke at Green’s funeral, which was held Tuesday, June 9, at the Chesed Shel Emes (with interment following at the Hebrew Sick Benefit Cemetery).

Schreyer told some humourous stories about his and Sid’s competition for the NDP leadership back in 1969. Although the two were rivals they agreed occasionally to share expenses along the way as they toured various Manitoba locations, including one night in a hotel in Flin Flon (or it may have been somewhere else; I wasn’t taking notes at the funeral.) Regardless, they agreed to share a room that night but, as Schreyer recalled, it had to have “two beds.”

Another time during that race, when they were somewhere in western Manitoba, they both received a call from someone in a place on the eastern shore of Lake Manitoba. (Again, I don’t remember which location Schreyer said it was.) The caller said they both had to get there soon because there was going to be a crowd of several hundred people gathered for some other event – and it would have been a perfect time to do some politicking.

But, as they pointed out to the caller, that location was 250 kilometres away and they couldn’t possibly drive there on time – so they both agreed to hire a float plane to fly them there. Unfortunately, that was a very windy day, Schreyer noted, and the plane wasn’t able to land close enough to shore for the both of them to wade in. Instead they decided to jump off the plane’s pontoon – landing up to their armpits in water. They bravely went to meet the assembled crowd – in their soaking wet suits.

Green had a long career as an MLA, being elected to the Manitoba Legislature four times: in 1966, 1969, 1973, and 1977. Eventually he broke completely with the NDP and, along with fellow NDP MLA Ben Hanuschak, started a new party, called the Manitoba Progressive Party, in 1981, which failed abysmally.

I remember well how captivating a speaker Sid Green was when he was campaigning in 1981. One story that he told several times to different audiences went along these lines: After the NDP first formed government in 1969 – much to the surprise of almost everyone back then, Green was often called upon to speak at different venues because he was such a powerful orator.

One time he was somewhere in rural Manitoba and before he was called up to the podium to deliver his remarks, the person who was introducing Green said to the audience: “Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce to you the ‘Green Minister.'”

Not missing a beat, Sid took to the podium and said something along the following lines to the audience: “My first appointment to Cabinet was as Minister of Energy, Mines, and Natural Resources. Well, I little knew about energy, even less about mines, and nothing at all about natural resources. So the title “the Green Minister” is an apt one.”

In his early years, Sid Green was a very active member of the YMHA on Albert Street, serving as president of the house council for several years. A dedicated athlete, Green competed in basketball and volleyball at the Y. At the age 50 he took up ice hockey – and was known for his fierce competitiveness. He was to serve on the board of directors of the YMHA for many years, right up until its closing in 1997.
Green was also the quarterback for the University of Manitoba law school football team during the early 1950s – and led them to two school championships. In a 2019 interview I conducted with Green about his early years at the YMHA, he noted that he was the only 5’6″ 150 pound quarterback in the inter-faculty league.
In 1954 Green became the first director of BB Camp, which had just moved to Town Island from Sandy Hook.
In 1955, Green graduated from the U of M law school, winning the gold medal in law that year.
He went on to become one of Manitoba’s most successful labour lawyers, subsequently pairing withfamed labour lawyer, Leon Mitchell, later to be joined by Sam Minuk (who was to become a provincial court judge) in what became the firm of Mitchell, Green & Minuk.
During his time as a lawyer, Green often represented employers – which might seem a little surprising for someone who such a staunch NDPer. But Green was staunchly opposed to entrenching laws such as anti-scab legislation or secret ballot voting to unionize. He thought it important to represent any client, including employers engaged in disputes with unions, no matter how much he might have disagreed with that client’s position, and because he was so skilful in arguing a case, he was much sought after by employers to represent them in labour disputes.
He was so respected as a lawyer, moreover, that he was often asked to represent other lawyers in cases before the courts.
Green was also very pro-Israel and extremely proud of his Jewish roots. Although not a religious man, during his many years at the Y – first on Albert Street, then later on Hargrave, Green was involved in developing many Jewish cultural programs.
In days to come we will have much more about the life of Sid Green. In the meantime, if you want to watch a video interview I did with Sid about his experiences at the Y on Albert Street, you can go to Sid Green reminisces.
Sid Green was predeceased by his wife Shleema in 2009 and is survived by his five children: Arthur, MIndy, Cathy, Sharon, and Marty, as well as 15 grandchildren.

For more about Sid Green’s career, read Grant Mitchell’s eulogy, which was delivered at the Meal of Remembrance following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9: Grant Mitchell on Sid Green

Continue Reading

Local News

The Jewish Post Ltd.’s brand new website

Click here to be taken to our new website featuring foods you can find on Facebook Marketplace

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News