Local News
Winnipeg South MP Jim Carr answers questions about his positions on Israel and antisemitism

By BERNIE BELLAN On July 23 I spoke with Jim Carr, Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre and Minister without Portfolio in the Federal Cabinet (also special representative to the prairies). I began our conversation with an explanation why I was asking to speak with Minister Carr at this particular moment:
“There are two different angles to me wanting to interview you, Jim. One is Canada’s position re Israel and the Palestinians. The other is the summit on anti-Semitism.
“The first question that I have for you is prompted by a phone call I had from the representative of a national Jewish organization who thought you have been unduly quiet when it comes to giving any kind of a point of view on Canada’s position vis-à-vis Israel and the Palestinians, especially as it relates to the recent war. What do you have to say to that?”
Carr: “My position is the government’s position, Bernie. I’m a member of the Cabinet. We speak with one voice. The advocacy that I offer is with my colleagues as a member of the government, but the public expression of Canada’s point of view is the same view that would be expressed by all members of government. We continue to be steadfast allies of the State of Israel and we believe in Israel’s capacity and Israel’s ability to defend itself.
“We work toward a two-state solution and that does not represent a change in Canadian foreign policy vis-à-vis the Middle East. That’s what Canadian foreign policy has been for a long time now and across different governments.
“It’s one I share, so the government’s position as would have been expressed by the Prime Minister or by Minister Garneau (Minister for Foreign Affairs) is also my position.
“I would add something else. Every position I take as a member of the government is informed by who I am as a person, as an individual, and the values and the perspective how I see the world – the larger world, my own community, and that is very much molded by my Jewish upbringing, my Jewish values, my Jewish culture. So, not only on questions of Israel and the Middle East, but also on questions of social policy, of inclusion, on diversity – all those ways of looking at public policy are informed by the fact that I’m Jewish – and proudly so, and have been personally the object of anti-Semitism in my lifetime.
“I understand the anxiety felt in our community, so I think it’s very important that I make that point that the views of the government are views that I share – and all of my views are informed by being Jewish.”
JP&N: “Following up on that then, how would you respond to the suggestion that, while other members of your caucus – and the government, referring to the Cabinet, were fairly outspoken in defense of Israel – you were quiet?”
Carr: “I wrote a letter to the Jewish Federation that detailed my own experience with anti-Semitism, with my own steadfast support of the State of Israel. I’ve never made a secret of that.
“You also know that I am a founding member of the Arab-Jewish Dialogue in Winnipeg and that I share with that group a belief that a two-state solution is the path we ought to be on.
“Canada has a long history of diplomacy in the region. My goodness, it dates all the way back to peacekeeping and Lester Pearson. We have experience, we have diplomatic credentials. Minister Garneau has already visited the region.
“We are available to those who are interested in knowing about how my Jewish values inform all kinds of issues, but it’s important to say, Bernie, that the government’s expressions of policy are ones that I share because I’m a member of government. That’s the way our system works and that’s the way I feel comfortable expressing the government’s point of view.
“The time for personal expressions of policy is within caucus or Cabinet, but I’m very comfortable with how the Prime Minister himself – just two days ago, was very articulate on the subject of anti-Semitism and our support for Israel.”
JP&N: The Minister of Citizenship of Immigration (Marco Mendicino) has come out quite forcefully in defense of Israel. Do you see that as being in any way in conflict with the government’s position?”
Carr: “No. I’d be very surprised if anything he would have said would have been offside the government’s position. He and I and others are very in tune with the thinking in our Jewish community. Let’s also remember that there are very many opinions within your community – and you have reported on that yourself.
“Again, there is a very important point to make: When it becomes the official policy of a government, a minister – that would be me, when it comes to values and respecting points of view, much of my world view is formed by the fact I have been raised in a Jewish home, in a Jewish community, have been very close to the State of Israel – and continue to be, but also understand that peace and a two-state solution is the value we’re trying to achieve.”
JP&N: “Turning then to Irwin Cotler’s Summit on Antisemitism, which was followed by one on Islamophobia – interesting juxtaposition there – one following on the heels of another, do you see anything substantive coming out of these various summits?”
Carr: “I do. I see an anti-racism strategy – and it comes at a moment when the country is so sensitive to crimes of hatred and the moment is a very tender one for communities across the country, and I understand the sensitivity that’s being felt in the Jewish community and in the Muslim community now because of these horrible acts of hatred and the response to them has to be coordinated. It has to be rooted in the security of these communities.
“You will know that we announced a further $6 million investment that will apply in our own community to places of worship so that security and infrastructure can be bolstered – which is very important because people are insecure, especially I think young people. I am, because of the role I played in recruiting Argentinean Jews to Winnipeg – that is a particularly important story for me: many Jews coming to Canada, looking for the freedom to live their lives as Jews now have to contend with this latest outbreak of intolerance and hatred, which is utterly unacceptable.
“As for the Government of Canada – on the security front, on education, on coordinated action, on internet hatred – it’s all coming together now. I think it’s a moment now where all Canadians understand, whether their particular group has been the object of hatred or they observe it as Canadians who care, know it’s time for coordinated action and we’re seeing it now.”
JP&N: “Referring specifically to the internet, which is the source of so much of the hatred that we’re seeing – I watched the presentation of the inter-parliamentary conference on anti-Semitism, where (Montreal MP) Anthony Housefather and (US Congresswoman) Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and several other representatives from parliaments around the world participated. It seemed there was a frustration they all felt reining in social media. I don’t know that any government has found a particularly effective approach to trying to legislate that. Do you see anything that can be done that’s realistically feasible and that can rein in the kind of hatred that’s so pervasive on the internet? They (parliamentary representatives) talked about the “Whack a Mole” problem where you clamp down on one area of the internet and another one springs up. Do you see any way of controlling that?”
Carr: “There is a balance in a free society – you know that as well as anybody. We have to safeguard for people to speak freely, but it has limits that are defined in law. The Charter speaks to them. There are pieces of legislation that speak to them, and the balance is something that one is always searching to find, but I think you would find that there is a consensus among many Canadians that when you are inciting people to take the law into their own hands and to stimulate violence against an identifiable group and for hatred against these groups to be perpetrated is a value that Canadians abhor and to find that balance between freedom of speech and the necessary safeguards to make sure that doesn’t become far more dangerous that we have seen playing out on the internet is where the discussion is joined.”
JP&N: “Okay, this has been interesting. I have to note though that your Conservative challenger in the next election is, once again, going to be Joyce Bateman (for the third time).
“Since I know both of you I have to say that I have nothing negative to say about either one of you. I find you both to be capable, likable individuals. I just find it interesting that the Conservatives are going back to a candidate who’s lost twice to you. But what’s your situation going to be? Are you going to be campaigning full out?”
Carr: “Yes, as full out as the moment will allow, and that will depend on where we’re at when the writ is issued, but I never underestimate an opponent and it’s a huge mistake for any candidate to do that. Joyce Bateman will run hard, she’ll run – I’m sure, an ethical campaign. I have no reason to think she won’t. We’ll run on our platform, on what we’ve accomplished, on what we hope to do for the people of Winnipeg South Centre in the next mandate.
“I’m in that school of politicians, Bernie, where you never take anything for granted, you take your opponent seriously, and you treat them with respect.”
JP&N: “ I have to ask you though about the Green Party MP (Jenica Atwin) who defected to the Liberals. To me there was an element of hypocrisy in the Liberals accepting someone who had been so critical of Israel when you just said yourself that the Liberal Party position is fully supportive of the State of Israel. I know she walked back some of her comments, but it would seem to me to sort of reflect a willingness of the Liberals to try and be all things to all people all the time. How would you respond to that?”
Carr: “When you’re a member of caucus you have your conversations in caucus meetings that are privileged and when you walk out of caucus you talk about policy that caucus and the government formulated. That’s the way it works and that’s the way you maintain discipline in any caucus. If, over time, a member of caucus believes that their view of policy or their view of the world is sufficiently offside with what the caucus’s position is, then they have to have a long conversation with themselves. If you have difficulty aligning yourself with the view of the caucus, then you have to determine whether you want to be a member of that caucus.”
JP&N: “I would be remiss if I didn’t ask the question that has been top of mind for so many people – which is about your health. What can you tell our readers about your state of health?”
Carr: “I continue to receive treatments. They’re going very well. My energy level is good. I’m optimistic. I have been working hard – in a very odd environment – like everybody else, with a computer on the second floor of my house for the last 18 months. I’m looking forward to the campaign. I feel energized by it. I have been, since the day when I made my (blood cancer) diagnosis public which, by the way, was the day after I knew about it, surrounded by goodwill and all kinds of wonderful expressions of support. I’m very grateful for that. I feel ready for the campaign ahead. It’s an honour and a privilege to represent the people of Winnipeg South Centre I and look forward very much to representing them again.”
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

