PM proving he’s no placeholder
Big items tackled but there’s plenty of risk of failure
As a catalyst for grumpi ness, he’s off t he charts. As t hough it weren’ t enough Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent most of the past month being lauded by presidents, prime ministers and the occasional hereditary monarch, he must now add insult to injury by getting himself held up by The New York Times as an example to the world on Syrian refugees.
He must be featured in a fawning Vogue magazine article that both deploys the dreaded Camelot reference and f eatures s umptuous photographs of the beautiful, famous, wealthy, young and now powerful Trudeaus l ooking as though they’re very fond of one another. Can anything be more galling?
In the Stephen Harper era we had khaki vests, receding hairlines and bulges where there should be none, as well as a world view that filtered all reality through the eyes of an annoyed accountant. We were used to that. But now, this … effusia. It’s a lot. It’s an as- yet un- deployed argument for proportional representation, that it could mitigate whiplash- inducing revolutions in personal style among the political class. Let svelte Tories henceforth wear silk scarves over tuxedos to CBC galas while Liberals are lumpy and wear plaid. Can it be so hard?
But we digress. Let’s look more closely at where we stand, six weeks in.
It’s quite fair to say the Trudeau government is highly aspirational — even perilously so.
This is, as the slogan says, a real change. Jean Chrétien took office in 1993 with an implicit promise to stay out of our faces, as Brian Mulroney had never managed to do.
Harper borrowed a l eaf from Chrétien’s book. Hence the incrementalism to which Canadians had grown quietly, if glumly, accustomed.
Trudeau has upended that apple cart, and in so doing is daring the risk of failure on multiple fronts.
His first act was to put in place a cabinet dominated by talented, politically untested newcomers and set t hem free. Since then potentially transformative events have followed thick and fast.
The Senate is i n chaos, with century- old norms of operation suddenly up for reexamination.
The new appointments process, intended to be nonpartisan, could fail utterly. The f i rst Senate appointments in the New Year will be picked over for even minute traces of pro- Liberal partisanship, which will be held up as evidence of hypocrisy. How the new Upper House will push through legislation remains anyone’s guess.
To call the government’s just- renewed commitment to First Nations sweeping is an understatement.
There’s the inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women as a starting point.
Long overdue, it is a pot ential minefield because of the truth it will likely lay bare, which is that the racist Indian Act itself is a huge part of the problem. That’s not even getting to redressing the underfunding in aboriginal education, ensuring potable water on reserves and adopting all 94 recommendations of t he Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Success in each of these areas will require a sea change in attitudes as well as very substantial spending. Then there are the outstanding land claims — the settlement of which will cost an unknown sum, certain to be in the billions.
The Liberals’ democratic reform agenda — in particular their vow to abolish the first- past- the- post electoral system before the next vote — is a monumental challenge all by its lonesome.
It’s already clear, from the tenor of early debate, that it will be very difficult to justify pushing this through without a referendum. Yet, aren’t such potentially fractious national debates just what these Liberals, on the campaign trail, promised to avoid? Here again, the potential for a teeth- shattering misstep is large.
Set against that, however, is this: The status quo in the Senate was broken — and
Success will require a sea change in attitudes
had been broken for longer than anyone can remember. The status quo i n aboriginal affairs was appalling inequity and injustice, dating back 150 years. The status quo in Canadian democracy, by common agreement since at least the Pierre Trudeau era, has been one of steady decay.
Would it be better to just leave it all alone? Forever?
In broaching major reforms the Liberals are inviting the certainty of some future failures.
They are also opening the door to debate, which can lead to eventual compromises that may result in lasting improvements, whereas until recently there was little hope of any, on multiple fronts.
No one in Canada, six months ago, contemplated a Syrian refugee rescue on the scale being implemented now, missed deadline or no. Yet it is happening.
That the Prime Minister was on hand to greet the first planeload of arrivals, and that opposition critics were invited to attend and did so, can’t easily be waved aside.
It marks a profound change. From the start of his run for the Liberal leadership in 2012, Trudeau said he would not be a placeholder. It appears he meant that. We are in for a ride.