Local News
Simkin Centre staff have been doing a fabulous job dealing with the demands placed on them by COVID-19
By BERNIE BELLAN
The role that Personal Care Homes have been playing in the COVID-19 pandemic is a crucial one.
We’ve all heard about the horror stories associated with seniors’ homes in other jurisdictions – especially Quebec, so it’s natural for anyone in Manitoba who has a loved one in a PCH to be especially concerned about the heightened risks associated with those facilities.
Whether it’s good luck or good management – or a combination of the two, we seem to have been spared any serious outbreaks in PCH’s in Manitoba – and none at all in the Simkin Centre.
In our April 15 issue, I reported on some steps that Laurie Cerqueti, CEO of the Simkin Centre, had said were being taken at the Centre in response to what has already begun to emerge as a pandemic here in Manitoba, along with the rest of the country. That article noted that:
“The front entrance is now the only entryway for staff into the building so that we can ensure full screening of everyone entering the building.
“20 extra bedside tables have been ordered to assist with social distancing during resident meal times.
“All vendor supplies are now dropped off only at the receiving entrance and are not being brought into the building as was normally done prior to this.
“A system has been developed for Resident supplies being brought by family. They are now left on a table in the vestibule and items are being wiped down with an antiviral wipe prior to being distributed to the care areas.
“Dr. Koven, our Medical Director, is now the only MD that will be onsite to assess Residents. He does not attend other sites at this time so is less likely to bring COVID-19 into our building. Other MDs will respond to phone calls from nursing and do virtual visits as able.
“Over 95% of all staff have now been trained in feeding and swallowing so that we can all help to ensure that are Residents are being fed. Currently, about 52% of our Residents require assistance with meals. Helping Residents with meals has brought joy and new purpose to staff that would not have previously been involved in Resident care.
“We have prepared for the eventuality that many staff and managers may be living at the Centre. We have ordered extra mattresses for staff to sleep on, purchased toiletries for staff, and purchased portable cell phone chargers.”
On Thursday, May 6, I spoke with Laurie and with Aviva Tabac, Fundraising and Administrative Officer at the Simkin Centre, to find out how things have gone for the 200 residents and 250 staff at the Simkin Centre since that April 15 report.
Laurie Cerqueti began the conversation by saying: “We’re actually doing quite well in many ways and staff have gone above and beyond to do things, to make sure the residents are cared for and fed. We’ve seen a lot of good come out of this.”
I said to Laurie that a recent story in the news about how resident Shirley Kleiman receives visits every day from her husband, Sam, who comes to a window to say hi – and tell her how much he loves her, must have resonated with anyone who saw that story. I wondered how many residents are actually able to be brought to windows to see loved ones?
“Not all residents would go and do the window visits with family,” Laurie answered, “but all of the rooms have windows and all of the windows open so they can get fresh air, but we do the window visits in the atrium area. There are also families that will go to a particular resident’s room and connect there (using cell phones). Anyone on the main floor would have the opportunity to do that.”
I wondered whether the issue of putting cameras into residents’ rooms had come up (stemming from the shocking lack of supervision in certain Quebec nursing homes).
Laurie said: “You mean the ‘nanny cams’? No, we haven’t had that requested, and I think families know we’re doing the best we can – with the Facetiming, Skype or Zoom. Aviva does a Zoom call with a resident here and there have been up to 12 family members participating in that Zoom session.”
Laurie went on to explain that an iPad is brought into residents’ rooms – one at a time, for those interactive sessions, which are all prearranged. “We’ve actually just launched an online booking system for those types of visits,” she explained (including window visits) at www.simkincentre.ca.
I referred to our April 15 article, which referred to staff preparing to sleep over at the centre, if necessary. Although that hasn’t proved necessary, according to what Laurie told me, I wondered about the state of morale among staff in general, considering the extreme stress under which they must be working.
“Actually, I think we have a very high morale now,” Laurie said. “Everybody’s working together – probably better than they ever have been, including a lot of us that wouldn’t typically help with assisting residents with meals. We’re all chipping in to make things work.
“That doesn’t mean that staff aren’t scared,” Laurie added, however. “I think everyone’s a little bit scared, including me and you, Bernie”.
“Yah,” I said, “but I think the level of apprehension must be lower than when the virus first emerged in Manitoba because we seem to have escaped the brunt of it here.”
Have there been any Personal Care Homes in Manitoba that have seen the virus show up, I wondered?
“Yes, there have been,” Laurie responded, “but all sites went into a lockdown some time ago.” She noted that “all staff are required to wear face masks and goggles; staff are screened every time they come to work; we take their temperature; we ask them a series of questions. It would probably be safer here than when you go to the grocery store.
“The other thing we do,” Laurie continued, “is every week we try and show our appreciation for staff so some board members and family members have donated funds, treats or products to help make this happen.”
I wondered about programming for residents – and to what extent there are still programs available?
“All of the programs in the atrium and the multi-purpose room have been canceled,” Laurie answered. “Recreation programming happens on the individual units now or out in the courtyard, where we’re able to physically distance residents one from another. And, any new admissions we would have isolate in their room up to 14 days. Otherwise residents are out and about in their individual units. There are a few residents that are able to make it to the atrium on their own, but there aren’t large groups of them together.”
“What about meals?” I wondered. “Are meals being taken in the residents’ rooms or are they still able to go to the common areas in the units?”
“They are able to go to the common area,” Laurie explained, “but we spread it out so we have ordered extra bedside tables so it’s not as tight as it would normally be where we’d have three to four residents at a table.”
I asked Aviva what else the Simkin Centre has been doing for residents as far as being able to make the time pass under these stressful circumstances?
“The recreation department has stepped up in a huge way,” she began. “They’re running smaller programs on the units now. They have programs that run in the morning and the afternoon. Now, we also have evening and weekend staff that are doing recreation.
“And, even though Steven Hyman (who regularly conducts Shabbat and holiday services at the centre for residents and families) is not able to be here in person, he has been recording videos of services that we show to residents.”
Laurie noted, as well, that “we are having services on the units every Saturday.”
Aviva continued: “The residents are pretty busy. They’re doing art programs, they’re doing bingo, exercise programs…we’ve had musical entertainment.”
“We’ve actually had musicians come to our courtyard,” Laurie noted, “where they play and we open the windows so that the residents can hear the music and see the musicians.”
“What about the financial situation for the Simkin Centre?” I wondered. “How different is it as a result of the pandemic?”
“There are a number of large costs for equipment and supplies – right when it started happening,” Laurie answered, “and there are ongoing costs.”
“And you mean Simkin will have to assume responsibility for those costs – and not the province?” I asked.
“I’m not confident that the province will fund partially or fully any of this,” Laurie said.
“Really – wow!” I said. “You mean it’s all going to fall on to the Personal Care Homes themselves to fund?”
“It could,” Laurie said. “I’m not confident” (that the province will provide the funding).
She added that, in addition to the extra costs imposed on PCH’s for equipment and supplies, “there are all these new rules – if you’ve traveled, you can’t come to work for 14 days; if you have any symptoms you have to go get swabbed, and then you have to have the A-OK, you can come back to work; or people that have pre-existing conditions aren’t able to work. So there are increased staffing costs that we are incurring.”
“Have you had a lot of staff who have been affected by all these new rules?” I asked.
“There would have been, especially in March, which was peak travel season” for a lot of people, “including our staff,” Laurie said.
“We are staying close to the community and I think people are appreciative of the work we’ve been doing here,” Laurie said in conclusion.
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
