The Globe and Mail - 16.10.2019

A14 O THEGLOBEANDMAIL| WEDNESDAY,OCTOBER16,

EDITORIAL

PHILLIPCRAWLEY

PUBLISHERANDCEO

DAVIDWALMSLEY

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

M

idway through the only official English-language

leaders’ debate, the party heads turned to Indige-

nous issues – and quickly got sidetracked into ar-

guing about pipelines.

That was understandable, but unfortunate. Understanda-

ble, because resource development always raises questions

about Indigenous rights. Unfortunate, because Indigenous

Canada’s future is about so much more than the pros and

cons of Trans Mountain.

Canada is one of the world’s richest countries, but the aver-

age Indigenous Canadian is not sharing in that prosperity.

Our common future has to be one where Indigenous Cana-

dians, whether on- or off-reserve, are at least as likely as other

Canadians to have graduated from high school and gone on

to college, apprenticeship or university. It has to be a future

where they are just as likely as other Canadians to enjoy mid-

dle-class incomes, good health and long lives.

Looking at the past four years, the Liberals can claim pro-

gress, marked by contradictions.

Take Indigenous child welfare. The Liberals worked to im-

prove outcomes, and the 2019 budget said Ottawa would

spend $1.2-billion over the next three years on better services

for First Nations children. The Liberals also passed Bill C-92,

to grapple with the fact so many Indigenous children are in

the child-welfare system.

But the Liberals are also seeking a judicial review of a Can-

adian Human Rights Tribunal ruling that found Ottawa dis-

criminated against Indigenous children on reserve by inade-

quately funding family services. Ottawa in court estimated

costs between $5-billion and $7.9-billion. The Conservatives

have said they, too, would appeal the ruling.

The Liberalgovernment has also made progress on anoth-

er chronic problem: the lack of clean water in some First Na-

tions communities. Thegovernment is spending close to $2-

billion to eliminate long-term advisories; the 2019 budget

said Canada is about halfway to the goal and on track to get

there by early 2021. Questions, however, remain. The Parlia-

mentary Budget Officer has said the Liberals are significantly

underestimating costs.

The Conservatives have several Indigenous promises in

the party platform: reviewinggovernment policies to “re-

move barriers to prosperity”; creating a minister in charge of

consultations on major projects; and supporting work to end

long-term boil-water advisories.

But what the Conservatives are most known for on this file

is their opposition to the United Nations Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. The UN declara-

tion has become a powerful symbol. The Liberals want to in-

corporate it into Canadian law; they promise, if re-elected, to

pass legislation within a year. The Greens and New Demo-

crats are similarly supportive.

The Conservatives are more wary. They have reason to be.

Under the Constitution, the Crown already has a signifi-

cant duty to consult and accommodate when Indigenous

rights are at stake. That’s why lengthy talks were required pri-

or to the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion – and

why the courts struck down the first approval, because of in-

adequate consultation. These are real and substantial legal

rights. But they are not a veto for affected communities, at

least under current law.

The question is whether making UNDRIP part of Canadian

law would change that.UNDRIP saysgovernments must ob-

tain Indigenous Peoples’ “free and informed consent prior to

the approval of any project affecting their lands.” It suggests

that just one community along the route of a project such as

Trans Mountain could block it, even if other Indigenous com-

munities were on board.

Some legal experts have suggested that UNDRIP’s lan-

guage does not grant such a veto, and may not even change

the Crown’s obligations under Canadian law. Some argue it is

purely symbolic and carries no legal weight – although the

Liberal platform explicitly criticizes the previous Conserva-

tivegovernment for saying exactly that.

There’s a lack of clarity on what UNDRIP means or what it

will do if it becomes part of Canadian law. That should be

cause for pause.

But what is clear is that Indigenous Canadians are still not

equal beneficiaries of Canada’s economic prosperity and that

much more work is needed. Getting stuck on pipeline argu-

ments is missing the point.

Indigenous

issuesandthe

2019election

ALBERTA VS. EVERYBODY?

Re Liberals Fire Up Anti-oil Rhet-

oric Despite Risk To National

Unity (Report on Business, Oct.

15): It seems Canadians do not

have to imagine what it is like to

have the Liberal Leader loudly

proclaim that, under his contin-

ued leadership, he will stand up

against Alberta’s Premier – one

who was recently elected with a

decisive majority.

While it is a fact of Canada that

there are disparate regional

strengths, needs and political

leanings, this feels like the first

time a political leader has resort-

ed to the divisive strategy of driv-

ing a wedge between a province

and the rest of the country to win

re-election. This is a line that,

now crossed, may be difficult to

walk back.

In the event that the Liberals

retain power, they stand to gov-

ern a severely broken confeder-

ation. To me, attacking Albertan

interests is one tactic too far.

David McClurgCalgary

KNOCK, KNOCK

Re Singh Opens Door To Coali-

tion To Keep Tories Out Of Power

(Oct. 14): Professor Donald Sa-

voie believes “it’s inappropriate

for the leader of any party to talk

coalition before Canadians have

spoken.” While the election is too

early to call, I believe it’s not pre-

mature for party leaders to ac-

knowledge current electoral

trends, one of the most notable

being the NDP’s recent spike in

The Globe and Mail’s Nanos poll.

By casting an eye to his party’s

possible parliamentary role after

election day, Jagmeet Singh is ac-

knowledging a scenario that

could rightly occur. A potential

kingmaker’s plan of how to gov-

ern, publicly laid out, should be

important for voters to know pri-

or to election day.

Canadians ultimately get final

say in how the next Parliament is

composed, but we need to be in-

formed beforehand.

Hedley MyersKingston

VOTE WITH YOUR HEART

Re Give Thanks For Our Annoy-

ing Democracy (Editorial, Oct.

14): In our democracy, can Cana-

dians really “vote our con-

science?” I know several people

who say, “I don’t want X in pow-

er, so I’m going to vote Y, because

it’s the best chance we have of

stopping X.”

If Canadians voted with their

heart in a truly democratic sys-

tem, we would have a minority

government made up of parties

X and Y, but also Z and maybe

one or two seats occupied by the

far-right or far-left. Then Cana-

dians would have a government

that represents the disparity

across the country and our poli-

ticians would have to compro-

mise to pass any legislation.

Tony BurtVancouver

OTHER OPTIONS

Re The Problem With Ottawa’s

Stand On ESOs (Report on Busi-

ness, Oct. 9): Early in their last

mandate, the Liberal govern-

ment attempted to increase the

tax rate on stock options. Their

plan faced resounding opposi-

tion from high-tech companies

and venture-capital firms, which

argued that it would severely dis-

advantage Canadian companies

competing in the global market-

place.

It seemed an odd move by the

Liberals, given the history be-

hind stock-option taxation. In

the late 1990s, then finance min-

ister Paul Martin astutely took

action to lower stock-option tax

rates to urgently tackle the very

real brain drain from Canada to

the United States. That change,

combined with other measures,

helped significantly to stem the

exodus.

In this election, economists

supporting Liberal policy argue

that stock-option tax rates

should be significantly increased.

This is a worrying proposition,

because it would take Canada

backward to the days when our

best and brightest talent readily

took their skills elsewhere.

Nicholas SwartKelowna, B.C.

CHRISTIAN VALUES

Re Christian-Canadian Voters Are

At A Crossroads (Oct. 14): When I

was 24, there was a federal elec-

tion in Canada. A blind neigh-

bour asked me to drive her to the

polling station.

When we got to there, I went

into the voting booth with her.

She told me how she wanted to

vote. I marked the ballot accord-

ingly – the only time in my life I

“voted” for this party. But it was

okay, because I was voting for my

neighbour.

I have carried that memory

with me all my life: In my imag-

ination, I take people with me to

the polls, casting a ballot with

them in mind. As a religious per-

son, I am offended by campaign

appeals to my self-interest. I want

to express my love and concern

for my neighbour in all aspects of

my life, including when I vote.

Tom SherwoodOttawa

DYING AND THE LAW

Re Standing Down (Letters, Oct.

15): I will scream this until the

day I die: Our political leaders

are out of order to not appeal the

Superior Court of Quebec’s deci-

sion that lifts restrictions on as-

sisted-dying laws.

Before anything else, Canada

should pass a bill to make elder

abuse a crime. Only then should

government be able to decide

whether to allow people with de-

mentia the right to an assisted

death.

Canada should protect us be-

fore planning our deaths.

Andrea MarcusToronto

Re A Chosen Death, In The Nick

Of Time (Oct. 12): My wife died of

early onset dementia at 61, after

being gripped by an irreversible

eight-year trajectory toward her

demise.

Along the way, she was stub-

born, uncontrollable, inconti-

nent, non-ambulatory, non-ver-

bal, and wound up breaking her

hip, requiring surgery. At the

end, the coroner decreed that

she starved to death, unable as

she was to chew solid food or

swallow liquid nutrients. In

short, her quality of life in her fi-

nal months was nothing anyone

would want to endure, despite

stoic efforts by her care team.

I assure University of Toronto

professor Trudo Lemmens, who

finds it worrisome that “we try to

focus on ending the life of people

with Alzheimer’s, rather than im-

proving quality of life,” that I’ve

seen the futility of his perspec-

tive: Death, drawn out and un-

dignified, patiently awaits. The

best way to reduce the worst suf-

fering, which comes in the pa-

tient’s final months, is to fully

implement assisted-dying laws

to provide true compassion,

sparing them from the horrific

hallmarks of a lonely, natural

death.

Bruce Rhodes

Richmond Hill, Ont.

CALL ME BY YOUR NAME

Re What’s In A Name? (First Per-

son, Oct. 11): Contributor J Mor-

gan Dick wrote that she had nev-

er met a Dyck before and im-

plored, “Dycks, do get in touch!”

So here I am.

We, too, laugh about filling a

conversational pause with spell-

ing our name out, something all

in the family do instinctively. My

spouse was even good enough to

take on our last name in mar-

riage!

In southern Manitoba, my

birthplace, Dycks are quite com-

mon. But even there, naming a

child “Harry” is only done by

those well outside contemporary

culture. In Ontario, people often

pronounce it like “dike,” which I

don’t bother correcting.

It has occurred to me that I

could change my name, maybe

to something indicative of my

profession as a bookbinder. But

so far, it is still an issue of pride I

can’t shake.

Timothy DyckDurham, Ont.

LETTERSTOTHEEDITOR

Thesubjectwhoistrulyloyaltothechiefmagistratewillneitheradvisenorsubmittoarbitrarymeasures-Junius

LetterstotheEditorshouldbe

exclusivetoTheGlobeandMail.

Includename,addressanddaytime

phonenumber.Keeplettersunder

150words.Lettersmaybeeditedfor

lengthandclarity.E-mail:

[email protected]

SINCLAIRSTEWART
DEPUTYEDITOR

CHRISTINEBROUSSEAU
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITOR,NEWS

DEREKDECLOET

EXECUTIVEEDITOR

EDITOR,REPORTONBUSINESS

SHAWNARICHER

ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITOR,

FEATURESANDSPORTS

ANGELAPACIENZA

MANAGINGEDITOR,EXPERIENCE

GARYSALEWICZ

ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITOR,EXPERIENCE

DENNISCHOQUETTE

HEADOFENTERPRISE

TONYKELLER

EDITORIALPAGEEDITOR

SYLVIASTEAD

PUBLICEDITOR

NATASHAHASSAN

OPINIONEDITOR