Local News
Some thoughts on the passing of Jim Carr
By BERNIE BELLAN I first met Jim Carr when I decided to take an evening course Jim was teaching about politics at the University of Winnipeg in the 1970s. He was already well known to many Winnipeggers from his occasional appearances on the local CBC news program “24 Hours,” where, although still only in his twenties, he was able to offer informed insight about politics.
Jim was only two years older than me, but he was so much wiser. A scan of the many tributes that have poured forth since his death on December 12 was announced reveal – if you weren’t already aware, how incredibly diversified his interests were.
But, since this is a Jewish newspaper I’ve decided to focus on aspects of Jim’s life as they relate to his own Jewish identity. Yes, it’s true that even though Jim did not go out of his way to draw attention to the fact he was Jewish, he was still immensely proud of his heritage.
At the beginning of his contribution to the Jewish Foundation’s Book of Life in which he writes about his Jewish background, Jim notes, in a way that would probably sound so familiar to so many of us, that “My grandparents all arrived in Canada in the early 1900s. They came from Europe with no money and no English; they came with nothing but hope, optimism, and the desire to work hard to make a life for their families in this young country.
“Those early seeds of risk and hard work have taken root as the Carr and Golden families have flourished in this great land. It’s a story that can be told thousands of times for thousands of families who saw Canada as an oasis of calm and opportunity in troubled times. I’m very aware, and proud, that to this day people from around the world continue to come to Canada. Together, we weave an elegant, multicultural tapestry that is the envy of the world.
Jim didn’t attend Jewish school, although in conversing with him he often liked to drop Yiddish expressions. He also mentions that his mother belonged to “Hadassah,” while his father belonged to the “Montefiore Club,” which was really just a venue for Jewish men to play cards.
Typically for young south end boys growing up in the 1960s, Jim wrote that “I was involved in some Jewish youth activities and enjoyed my time as a member of Toppers in BBYO. I had my Bar Mitzvah at Shaarey Zedek where I shared the pulpit with another young man, Howard Gurevich.”
Jim goes on to describe his schooling and some of the organizations with which he was associated to that point in his life. (He was still with the Business Council of Manitoba until 2015, which is when he reentered politics, this time becoming the MP for Winnipeg South Centre.)
“I attended school at Brock Corydon, Montrose, Grant Park, University of Winnipeg Collegiate, the University of British Columbia, and McGill University. I have enjoyed—and still do—a diverse career. I have always been drawn to pursuits, both volunteer and professional, that have the potential to improve life in my city, my province, and my country. I played oboe with the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra; served on the editorial board of the Winnipeg Free Press; have held senior administrative positions with the Manitoba Arts Council and the University of Winnipeg; and I served my community for four years as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and as deputy leader of the opposition. Today, I am proud to be the President and CEO of the Business Council of Manitoba…”
It was shortly after having written that when Jim entered into the final chapter of his political career – in 2015, when he was first elected as the Liberal Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre – a position he held until his death last week.
A scan of our own Jewish Post archives reveals that Jim’s name didn’t enter on to our own pages until 1996, when we reported on a panel discussion held on February 28 that year which was sponsored by the Canadian Friends of the Hebrew University, the topic of which was prospects for peace in the Middle East.
Jim had just recently returned from a trip to Israel (his first time there), where he had gone to report on the Palestinian election for the Winnipeg Free Press. (With Jim on that trip also was the late Sol Kanee.)
That article also gave a foresight of the optimism that Jim continued to hold the rest of his life that Israeli Jews and Palestinians could work together, when he said that “Israelis and Palestinians now are talking about ‘taking walls down, not erecting new ones’ ”(in response to a series of terrorist bombings in Jerusalem that had been occurring), “and a proposal to divide the two peoples is a ‘non-starter.’ ”
In our June 27, 2001 issue we reported on yet another panel discussion on peace in the Middle East – again sponsored by Canadian Friends of the Hebrew University (Wouldn’t it be nice to have that organization contributing once again to the intellectual life of our community the way it used to?)
And, who was the chair of that panel discussion? You guessed it: Jim Carr.
Continuing in that vein, for years Jim was an active member of the Arab Jewish Dialogue, which was founded in 2006 by Ab Freig and the late Harold Buchwald as a means by which members of Winnipeg’s Jewish and Arab communities could engage in meaningful discussion.
Through the years whenever I spoke with Jim about the prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, he held to his belief that peace could be achieved, but only through a return by Israel to the pre-1967 borders and the recognition by Palestinians of Israel’s right to live within secure borders.
Was he naïve to continue holding to a view that has undoubtedly been rendered almost totally irrelevant as a result of Israeli settlements on the West Bank and the apparent utter refusal of most Palestinians to abandon the notion that violence against Israelis is justified? Perhaps, but Jim was a small-l liberal through and through.
The last time I had a chance to sit down with Jim and have a really meaningful chat was in September 2018 when he had just returned from another trip to Israel, this time as Canada’s Minister of International Trade Diversification. Jim was very proud of the growth in trade that had been occurring between Israel and Canada, especially since the signing of a free trade treaty between the two countries in 1997 (and which was modernized in 2014).
Yet, I wondered whether Jim’s almost dogged insistence on even-handedness might be something for which he could be criticized by Jewish groups for not doing more to represent “Jewish” interests? I pointed out, for instance, that in speaking with Dimitri Lascaris, who has long been a fierce critic of Israel, when I mentioned to Lascaris that Jim Carr was, in fact, Jewish, Lascaris said he wasn’t aware of that. I said to Jim that was indicative of how even-handed he was perceived by other politicians.
I wondered though how Jim felt about being a “Jewish” member of Cabinet?
He responded: “I can only speak for myself. I am not in Cabinet to represent Jewish interests to the Government of Canada, but I’m Jewish, so I bring with me my sensitivities, my sensibilities, who I am as a person – and who I am as a person is very much a product of how I was raised in the community in which I was raised and with which I still feel a very close association as early as today – when I was in synagogue.” (That interview took place the second day of Rosh Hashanah.)
That was quintessential Jim Carr – a thoroughly thought out and articulate sentence that reads as well on the written page as it sounded when he spoke those words to me.
At the same time I should mention that Jim was also actively engaged in a dialogue with Muslim members of the Federal Liberal caucus, along with fellow Jewish members of the Liberal caucus. That was Jim: always wanting to keep the discussion going – maybe not to achieve any specific goals, but simply for the sake of keeping lines of communication open.
In closing, I want to note that the last time I saw Jim was this past summer when he was at a meet and greet event in Lindenwoods. There weren’t many people there; I was a little surprised because it was a beautiful summer day and I thought more people would have turned out to see Jim. As it was, when I went up to say hi, Jim flashed that trademark smile and told me that he always enjoys reading The Jewish Post & News. I told him that in many ways he had been a role model for me – as a champion of a style of thoughtful liberalism that is often under attack. But he looked very tired and I saw that just coming out to that event, even though he was sitting down, must have been quite an effort for him.
I will miss Jim Carr, as a friend, as a devoted member of the Manitoba community, and as a Jew who represented values that were engrained in those of us who grew up in the 1950s and 60s when it was fashionable to believe that public service was a noble aspiration. I’m not sure there are any others like Jim Carr still around in our community.
Jim Carr’s body was laid to rest at Shaarey Zedek Cemetery on Wednesday, December 14 in a private graveside service.
Local News
Chesed Shel Emes is hiring
Chesed Shel Emes is looking for a daytime “Shomer Plus” – an individual who understands and appreciates the depth and significance of Shmira, who is able to assume some of the day to day tasks managing our facility, and who can take on some of the administrative work – be it graphic design, social media management, Board support, or providing back up for our 24/7 on call staff.
This is a unique position which calls for a blend of the spiritual and the practical. We are offering a part time, salaried, daytime position, with employee benefits. The successful candidate will need to be flexible, patient and have a sense of humor.
For more information contact Rena Boroditsky, executive director of Chesed Shel Emes at chesedwinnipeg@gmail.com or phone 204-582-5088
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
