Connect with us

Local News

Ben Carr answers questions at Gwen Secter Centre about his candidacy for the Liberals in Winnipeg South Centre

By BERNIE BELLAN It might have seemed an odd venue for a candidate in a federal byelection in to be grilled about his candidacy, but on Thursday, May 18, Liberal candidate for Winnipeg South Centre Ben Carr (in a byelection that will take place on June 19) faced a series of tough questions from audience members at the Gwen Secter Centre (which is in the north end) who were there for the second session of the Remis luncheon series.
As a preamble, I should note that Ben Carr was invited to speak to the Remis luncheon group well before the byelection was called in Winnipeg South Centre. Just as I have written about other speakers who have appeared at a Remis luncheon (and elsewhere in this paper you can read my account of the first of this years’ speakers, Joan Druxman, who spoke on May 11), I decided to write about Ben Carr’s appearanc at a Remis forum.

Ben Carr is the 37-year-old son of the late Jim Carr and Dr. Ruth Simkin. I have to make an admission at this point: I’ve known Carr ever since he was a classmate of my daughter Shira, beginning in Grade 7. That didn’t stop me, however, from throwing some pointed questions at him.
When he got up to speak Carr joked that he had been out campaigning recently in Tuxedo and when he knocked on people’s doors at least four individuals told him that they were related to him (which came as no surprise to him, he said, since he’s found through the years that both the Carr and Simkin families have many relatives in Winnipeg – and elsewhere).

Still, being the son of a famous politician, whose mantle he is now trying to adopt, has its pros and cons. I asked him, for instance, whether he’s encountered people who have accused him of capitalizing on his father’s name in running for the Liberals in the same riding that Jim Carr held for seven years until his untimely death last December?
Carr said “no,” that hasn’t been brought up to him personally.
“I recognize that I was gifted a set of principles by my parents,” he said. “You don’t choose where you come from, but you choose what you do with that.”

Someone else asked Carr whether he had ever been to Israel? He said that he had, when he was 24, when he was on a Birthright trip there – and had his bar mitzvah at the Kotel (Western Wall).
How that came about was an amusing story. Carr said that there were two rules all members of Birthright were supposed to follow: Stick with the group always and no drinking.
But, one time when the group was in Jerusalem, he and his cousin Joel decided to venture away from the group at one point, he explained. They came across someone who “looked like a rabbi,” Carr recalled. (To be honest, how hard is it to find someone who looks like a rabbi in Jerusalem?) They asked the individual whether he was a rabbi and when the man said he was, Carr said that he would like to be bar mitzvah’d.
The rabbi said to Carr and his cousin, “Okay, if you’re going to be bar mitzvah’d we’re going to the Kotel” and that’s where Carr was bar mitzvah’d.
As well, the rabbi happened to have a bottle of vodka, Carr added, which led to him and his cousin breaking the second Birthright rule.

And, although he’s relatively young, Carr has already had a varied career. After graduating from the French Immersion program at Kelvin, Carr became a teacher, he said, later a principal at Maples Met High School which, he explained, has an innovative program whereby some students attend school three days a week, and apprentice in a workplace the other two days.
Most recently Carr has been Vice President of something called the Indigenous Strategy Alliance, working in tandem with an Indigenous woman by the name of Rebecca Chartrand. He described their relationship as “what reconciliation should look like.”

Of course, growing up in a household immersed in politics (Jim Carr was first elected as an MLA in 1988, Carr pointed out, as part of the resurgent provincial Liberal showing led by then-leader Sharon Carstairs), he has had more than his share of exposure, both to campaigning and the day to day workings of government.
In 2015, when Jim Carr was elected to the House of Commons for the first time, Ben went along with his father to live with him in Ottawa for four months. Later, Ben held various positions in the federal government, including serving as Director of Parliamentary Affairs to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Still, while Winnipeg South Centre has been a Liberal-held seat for the past eight years, it has also been won by Conservatives in the past, most recently by Joyce Bateman (in 2011).
Carr said that “there are three issues I’m most proud of”: The national child care program, “which has lifted 450,000 kids out of poverty;” the government’s position on climate change where, he said, the government has found “a good balance;” and the national day care plan, “which is going to help women get back in the work force.”
He added that the government has introduced “changes in support for seniors,” including “dropping the age of eligibility to receive the Old Age Pension from 67 to 65 and increasing the Old Age Supplement.”

I said to Carr that there are two other issues that clearly distinguish the Liberals from the Conservatives: gun control and abortion. Since gun control was not likely to be an issue in Winnipeg South Centre though, I wondered whether abortion has been brought up to him since he’s been out knocking on doors?
He answered: “For us, this (abortion) was settled a long time ago. You cannot be a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada unless you stand for a woman’s right to choose. I don’t know where my opponents stand on abortion, but I’d like to hear from them.”

Someone else asked him who else is running in the byelection? Carr said that the Conservative candidate is Damir Stipanovic, the NDP candidate is Julia Riddell, and the Green Party candidate is Doug Hemmerling. (Given how important the Jewish vote is in Winnipeg South Centre and how many of our readers live in the riding, we will try to profile each of the three other candidates in the June 7 issue.)
Someone wondered whether Carr had encountered any anti-Semitism while on the campaign trail? He said that he hadn’t, but he did offer an anecdote that illustrated how prejudice can work both ways.
One time when Ben was out campaigning for his father in River Heights, he said, he was confronted by a woman when he knocked on her door, he said, who told him that Justin Trudeau was an “antisemite.”
The reason she felt that way, Carr explained, was that Trudeau “had let so many Muslims into the country.”

That led me to ask Carr whether he has had anyone tell him that they’re not happy with the Liberal position on Israel, (e.g., either voting for or abstaining during votes on resolutions at the UN which are critical of Israel)?
Carr was adamant that the “Liberal government has been equal to or better than the Harper government was.” (It’s somewhat fitting that in this same issue we devote a fair bit of space to what Stephen Harper had to say about Israel at the Negev Gala.)
He went on to say that there is “an attempt within the Conservative movement in Canada to position itself as the only defender of Israel within the House of Commons.
“There is a little bit of a misconception when it comes to the Liberal Party’s position on Israel,” Carr continued.
“The fundamental principle is that Israel has a right to exist and is the homeland of the Jewish people,” he said.

Turning once again to the Conservative Party, Carr said the Conservative Party today is not the Progressive Conservative Party of “Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney.
“What Pierre Poilievre is trying to leverage,” Carr maintained, “ is the worst in us – and combining it with a kind of populism to turn us against one another.
“The vast majority of Conservatives that I talk to in Winnipeg South Centre identify with the PC Party.”
Carr brought up something that had been posted to the Damir Stipanovic website, (votedamir.ca) but has apparently been expunged, but not before someone had captured a screenshot of what was written:
“It is becoming increasingly clear that the Trudeau Liberals benefitted from corruption and interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. Leaks from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) indicate that the Trudeau Liberals were aware of alarming reports and did not respond to the threats.
“An open and transparent public inquiry is now needed. With Winnipeg South Centre heading into a by-election, how do we know that the Chinese Communist Party is not funding Ben Carr and the Liberal party in this very riding?”
As noted, we will attempt to contact each of the three other candidates in Winnipeg South Centre in time for our June 7 issue, including Damir Stipanovic, whom we will also ask about the question posed on his website.

Continue Reading

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