Local News
Jewish Federation holds mayoralty election forum in front of packed audience at Berney Theatre, October 3rd
By BERNIE BELLAN On Monday, October 3 the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg sponsored an election forum in which six of the leading mayoralty candidates were invited to participate.
As was explained by moderator Jason Gisser, the rules were that each candidate would be invited to give an introductory statement, after which he would pose a series of eight questions to the candidates.
Each candidate would be given one and a half minutes to respond to the question. Once all the candidates had responded to the question, Jason would invite two of the six candidates to add a further 20 seconds to what they had said initially.
While the format was conducive to what turned out to be a relatively genteel event, the fact that the candidates were not allowed to enter into any sort of exchanges with each other no doubt removed any opportunity for a livelier debate. Also, five other candidates for mayor were not even invited to participate.
What follows is my impression of the evening. I want to make clear that I do not support any particular candidate and have not made up my mind how I will vote. Reports that I have read to date either tend to focus on individual candidates or, when they do report on a particular election forum, are relatively truncated. Instead, as is my usual style in reporting on a fairly lengthy event, I like to offer the reader snippets of what occurred so as to give more of a flavour of what went on – without intending it to be a comprehensive repetition of what was said.
Looming over the entire evening, it must be noted, however, given the news story that the CBC had recently broken which raised questions about Glen Murray’s behaviour while he was the executive director of the Pembina Institute, was the possibility that one or another of the candidates would want to launch into some sort of attack on Murray, who is the clear front-runner according to the most recent poll.
The fact is that the only reference to that news story came at the very end of the evening when Robert-Falcon Ouellette made an obvious allusion to the story – when he told of his experience having served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 27 years. During that time, he noted, there was a strong emphasis placed on maintaining the utmost respect for moral behaviour within the armed forces.
Ouelllette went on to say that “No matter what you do at the end of the day, you need a moral leader who will stand up for what is right in our city, that there are certain actions which are unacceptable in our city and there are times as a leader you must say the truth and speak that truth.”
“And so I speak it here today and I hope people understand what it is I’m talking about because it’s certainly unacceptable for us to be here on this stage all together.” (Interestingly, the CBC story that quoted Ouellette had the spelling of that last word as “altogether.” I would suggest that would impart quite a different meaning to what he meant.)
But, that remark came late in the evening, when the candidates were invited to give closing remarks for two minutes each, and – after moderator Jason Gisser had finished posing questions to the candidates.
Prior to that time though each of the candidates certainly came across as articulate and passionate. Perhaps the one candidate who decided to try to separate herself from the pack most distinctly was Jennie Motkaluk, who took a more strident approach when, for instance, she referred at different times to “critical race theory” and “woke” attitudes. She also brought a few smiles from the other candidates when she said she really likes “growth and money.”
The first two questions that Jason Gisser posed, however, might have seemed somewhat parochial to any non-Jews in the audience (and probably a good many Jews as well). The first had to do with anti-Semitism and what each of the candidates would do to combat it if they were mayor. Would they be willing to attend a planned mayors’ conference on combating anti-Semitism? they were asked. Not surprisingly, none of the candidates came out with a position defending antisemitism.
The second question – and one that evidently caught some of the candidates off guard, was whether they would want the city to adopt the “IHRA” definition of anti-Semitism. It was clear that not all the candidates were up to speed on what the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is. I’m not quite sure what bringing it up had to do with a mayoralty contest in Winnipeg. It reminded me of the effort some years back – not just in Winnipeg, but throughout the world, to declare cities “nuclear free zones” – an interesting proposal, no doubt, but what relevance does it have to urban issues?
The next question though was very much one that has elicited a huge amount of discussion during this election: What would the candidates propose to do about poverty and homelessness?
Glen Murray said that he had practical experience combating homelessness – even prior to serving as mayor of this city, when he helped to foster a neighbourhood housing project in the Spence neighbourhood where, he said, 300 houses were built.
Shaun Loney demonstrated an especially keen knowledge of this file, citing his own background as what he described as a “social entrepreneur,” placing a strong emphasis on creating jobs. “I would add add 1,000 social enterprise jobs to Winnipeg,” he said.
As far as housing is concerned, Loney said he would create a “$100 million land trust.”
“It’s not a money problem,” he added; “it’s a system problem.”
Robert-Falcon Ouellette was somewhat dismissive of candidates’ promises to alleviate homelessness and poverty, asking whether “any of the politicians here are going to do anything but check off all the right boxes? Politicians are great at discussing things,” Ouellette suggested, but when it comes to actually doing things –well, that’s a different matter.
Later he added this observation: “Seventy-five percent of homeless people are aboriginal. They don’t need a home; they need a friend.”
Kevin Klein related his own experience growing up in poverty. His mother was actually killed by his abusive father when he was a kid, he told the audience and “I’ve lived under the poverty line a good part of my life,” he said.
As for politicians not ever doing anything but discuss things, Klein said that he personally brought forward a motion at City Hall to create “Homes for Heroes” – a project that saw a small number of homes allocated to war veterans in Winnipeg.
Scott Gillingham said that he was proud to have been involved in the effort to create a certain amount of “modular housing” for people living below the poverty line. He also said that City Council is implementing a “poverty reduction plan” that he was involved in crafting.
As for Jenny Motkaluk – she said that “the solution for poverty is a really nice job.”
“I want to bring 16,000 high paying jobs” to Winnipeg, she added.
As for homelessness, Motkaluk said “there are 780 derelict houses in this city. I want to auction them off.”
Shaun Loney added that “we need to realize that governments and not-for-profits need to work together.”
Jason Gisser asked each of the candidates to describe their “bold vision” for the future.
Jenny Motkaluk said that “the single biggest impediment to growth and investment in this city is our political leaders.”
Glen Murray said “We need to spend money on things that will make this city more beautiful.” He noted that when he was mayor three of the projects that were built during his time in office included: Waterfront Drive, the Esplanade Riel, and the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. (He observed as well that the CMHR was a great example of all three levels of government working together.)
In contrast, he noted that the single largest project undertaken by the city since his time in office was “$200 million spent of refurbishing the Post Office.”
Shaun Loney pointed to the deterioration of Winnipeg’s “green canopy”, saying that there are 30 different organizations devoted to protecting and expanding the number of trees in the city. He said he would like to consolidate all those efforts and work hard to protect our imperiled urban canopy.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette proposed the creation of an “urban national park” within Winnipeg to add green space to the city.
Kevin Klein said that his bold vision is to make Winnipeg “safe”, noting that “We can’t attract more people here if they don’t feel safe. People won’t ride the bus if they don’t feel safe.”
The next question was about infrastructure.
Jenny Motkaluk said “We’re going to end the corruption” associated with infrastructure projects.
Glen Murray said “We need more value planning to determine whether a project will return in value what it cost to build.” He cited Waterfront Drive as a project that has paid back many times over what it cost the city to create the infrastructure for that development.
Kevin Klein did comment later though that residents of Waterfront Drive are now having to deal with a huge upsurge in break-ins.
Shaun Loney said that rather than think about expanding infrastructure we ought “to focus on the infrastructure we’ve already built.”
Robert-Falcon Ouellette cited the example of Quebec City and its transit system as something Winnipeg could emulate, saying that in that city “People really enjoy taking the bus.”
In response to that suggestion, Kevin Klein said that currently “Seven thousand people a day in Winnipeg don’t even pay for the bus.”
Scott Gillingham proposed extending the Peguis Trail and widening Kenaston Boulevard.
Jason Gisser asked about public safety and what each of the candidates would do to make Winnipeg safer.
Scott Gillingham said that as mayor he would sit on the police board. He also said that he would split up police calls so that police don’t respond to every call for service, with other personnel used in situations that would be better served by another type of emergency responder.
Shaun Loney called for a return to community based policing – with “more cops walking the beat,” adding that “people are going to continue to commit crimes unless they get the intervention they need.” He also observed that we need to “address homelessness” before we can make inroads in enhancing public safety.
After the final question was answered the candidates were allowed one final opportunity to sum up their platforms. As noted, it was then that Robert-Falcon Ouellette was the only candidate even to obliquely refer to the controversy that had recently surfaced about Glen Murray.
And, while five of the six candidates hung around afterwards to schmooze with audience members, Glen Murray took off immediately after the forum was over. I offer that not as an editorial comment – merely an observation.
Local News
Thoughts on Sid Green
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.
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
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
