LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

Welcome to the Summer of 2021, when politicians are doing what politicians like to do best: shifting blame.

With the bodies of Indigenous children now being found all over Western Canada, and with an unwanted and unneeded federal election in the offing, our political leaders can be observed energetically passing the buck. Trying to pin it the horror on someone else.

Justin Trudeau insists the Pope needs to come to Canada and apologize. Putting on his Serious Face, Trudeau says: “It is not just that [the Pope] makes an apology, but that he makes an apology to Indigenous Canadians on Canadian soil.”

Gotcha. But the Prime Minister hasn’t travelled to Kamloops – or Cranbrook, or Marieval, or Brandon – to do likewise, has he?

No, he hasn’t.

Back in December, Erin O’Toole told some young Conservatives that the inaptly-named residential schools actually provided schooling. And that the issue provide a handy way to “silence Liberals” politically.

When caught out, O’Toole had to apologize.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, meanwhile, doesn’t think Trudeau is solely to blame for inaction on Indigenous issues. He blames O’Toole, too. It’s all the fault of “the inaction of Conservative and Liberal governments,” Singh has said.

Predictably, some partisans have gotten in on the act, and reached for the history books to find scapegoat. Some, to this writer’s astonishment, have started pointing fingers in the direction  of Jean Chrétien.

So, a senior advisor to former Conservative leader Andrew Scheer took a swipe at Chretien on Twitter, calling the respected Liberal leader’s policies “racist,” quote unquote.

Chretien being the father of an Indigenous boy, and the highest-regarded ministers of Indian Affairs ever, this seemed particularly unhinged. The slender basis for the anti-Chretien drive-by smear, it seems, was the 1969 “white paper” that was written by Chretien’s bureaucrats.

Chretien met with dozens of Indigenous leaders from across Canada in Ottawa in May 1969. A couple months later, the white paper was published, but not passed into law.

Here are the main things the white paper advocated:

a) it called for Indigenous people to be finally made equal, in law, to every other Canadian,

b) it suggested permitting Indigenous people to do what other Canadians have always done, which is own land – and sell it and buy it without government approval,

c) it criticized the separation of racial and ethnic groups,

d) it offered millions to compensate for changes to treaties, and,

e) it called for Indigenous people to be given the power to run their own schools.

That last one would have ended residential schools a generation before they actually came to an end (under one Jean Chretien, Prime Minister). Oh, and this: Chretien was essentially calling for he, himself, to be removed from his job – because the “Indian Affairs” department would no longer be needed.

The white paper hit a wall of controversy, and was scrapped.

A source close to Chretien told me this: “In his attempt at eliminating the Indian Act in the white paper, [Chretien] believed strongly in eliminating the apartheid/reserve system that existed at the time.

“He got rid of the governor system. He created local decision-making and worked at protecting Indigenous languages. And he ended residential schools once and for all in 1996.”

So, as you all get haircuts and shaves in anticipation of the looming election, Messrs. Trudeau, O’Toole and Singh, consider looking elsewhere as you try to shift blame for the growing residential school scandal.

Consider blaming the men who actually hold power and influence right now, for example.

You know: the guys you see looking back at you in the bathroom mirror every morning.

[Kinsella was Chretien’s Special Assistant.]


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

A month or so ago, I wrote in these pages that, “McKenna is laying a lot of track for what a Liberal version of ‘build back better’ would look like”, referring to what I then called “bevy of announcements focused on transport infrastructure – from active transportation, to increasing the gas-tax transfer to municipalities and a new focus on rural transit” from federal Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna.

That “bevy of announcements” continued this week, with a nearly daily joint announcement between McKenna and Ontario Transportation Minister (and my local MPP) Caroline Mulroney.

It seems both the federal Liberals and the provincial Tories are metaphorically (and soon literally) laying track on major infrastructure plans that will be central not only to our economic recovery, but also to their reoffering offers in a federal election that could come this fall and an Ontario election that will be underway this time next year.

It shows a strategy articulated in Finance Minister Chyrstia Freeland’s budget to get the pandemic under control, and then like Ross from Friends “pivot” to stimulating economic growth through infrastructure.

What is intriguing to note is that the Ford Tories are undertaking much the same approach as their federal Liberal counterparts, of course with subtle differences.

Speaking of matching strategies, another interesting piece of Ontario provincial politics has emerged this week through the focus the Ontario Liberals under Steven Del Duca are taking to tie themselves to the Trudeau Liberals on childcare. Del Duca announced in front of a Zoom of mothers and babies (many of the former who are also MPP candidates) that he would match the Trudeau plan to deliver $10-a-day childcare.

It is no secret, and he has conceded it himself, that Del Duca has struggled to define himself, being elected mere days before the lockdown last March. With his childcare announcement, he seems to be banking on the strong brand equity of the federal Liberals having a reciprocal or halo effect on the provincial party.

With our politicians all on similar pages in terms of their economic thinking coming out of the pandemic, I’m reminded of comments former President Barack Obama used to make about epochal intellectual movements in public society – from the New Deal and Great Society liberalism, to Reaganomics and Thatcherism, followed by the centrism of Blair/Clinton/Chretien, we are now seemingly in an era where big government is back in vogue.

Look at President Joe Biden’s massive spending plans to remake American infrastructure, childcare and healthcare as the leading example, and the Trudeau Liberals’ plan as its Canadian equivalent (smaller in comparison largely because unlike the US, we have a fifty year head start on social programmes).

I suppose that means we’re all Keynesians, at least for now.

That leaves the federal Tories struggling for an intellectual foundation. What is their offering? Are they deficit hawks, despite the public appetite for government support? Or is there a way to retool Conservative playbooks to offer people support and social solidarity, but in a more small government kind of way?

Erin O’Toole has yet to answer this question, though he hints that he wants to. The problem he faces is that his party doesn’t yet have its marching orders, so they vacillate between austerity and attempts at appealing to blue-collar workers, depending on which MP is speaking.

And with the Ford Tories embracing a populist version of “build back better”, and their provincial Liberal rivals looking to one-up them on particular offerings such as childcare, it leaves O’Toole in a tough spot that looks a lot like the odd man out in the Confederation’s surprising intellectual and policy alignment these days.

To torture the metaphor, if there are no atheists in foxholes, it seems there are no libertarians or deficit hawks in pandemics.

Photo Credit: The Conversation

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.