Kinew’s tolerance for Fontaine’s antics could set dangerous precedent for others in cabinet

Opinion

What exactly does someone have to do to get fired from Premier Wab Kinew’s cabinet?

That question was left hanging in the air following the latest missteps by Families Minister Nahanni Fontaine, who drew a rebuke from Kinew and public criticism for sharing a social media post criticizing far-right activist Charlie Kirk following his assassination in Utah last week.

Kinew said he spoke directly with Fontaine and asked her to apologize. For now, she will remain in cabinet.

“It would be too easy to show her the door,” Kinew said. “It is a much harder task to say we’re going to work through this together and I am going to try to help you understand why we need to bring people together and not divide people at this time.”

Fontaine did not do interviews last Friday but did issue a statement of apology. “In a world too often divided, we should strive to show empathy to everyone, even those we don’t agree with,” Fontaine wrote.

It’s hard to escape the sense that the stiff, formal statement was written by someone other than Fontaine. That is not to say she does not regret her actions, only that the language in the statement did not seem, for lack of a better term, remotely Fontaine-esque.

Throughout her public life, Fontaine has proven time and time again she has strong opinions and a complete lack of hesitancy to say exactly what she is thinking in real time.

Fontaine rose to prominence in Winnipeg as a fearless activist on Indigenous justice issues and during her years on the opposition benches of the Manitoba legislature, she proved to be an effective agitator who frequently enraged the Progressive Conservative government.

After reaching out to some longtime New Democrats who have long known the outspoken Fontaine, it was quickly noted she might well have preferred being dispatched from cabinet rather than have to endure a public lecturing at the hands of the premier, a man with whom she has had a sometimes prickly relationship. So, in that context, perhaps the punishment fit Fontaine’s crime.

However, this is not the first time Fontaine has engaged in behaviour unbecoming of a cabinet minister. There is a nagging sense it won’t be her last error in judgment.

In July, Fontaine was caught on an open mic making profane comments about the presence of an American Sign Language interpreter, who the minister believed should not have been sharing a stage with her at a ceremony to celebrate Indigenous women graduates at the University of Manitoba.

In late August, a senior official with the Manitoba Foster Parents Association complained she had been called a “colonizer” and a “white saviour” at an encounter in early 2024. (Fontaine denied that she had made those comments.)

It should be said that not all Manitobans will take issue with what Fontaine said, save for the inexplicable attack on the ASL interpreter. That was a hubris-inspired brain fart that no reasonable person could defend.

However, in her exchange with the foster parents association and, in this recent incident with the social media post about Kirk’s death, Fontaine was only saying or subscribing to beliefs that many Manitobans share. The big difference — so big it feels almost silly to make note of it — is that Fontaine is currently a minister of the Crown and, in that role, needs to choose her words way more carefully.

Fontaine has talked often and openly about her commitment as families minister to decolonizing the child-welfare system which has, for too long, failed to find Indigenous homes for Indigenous foster children. Add in the residential schools system and the ’60s Scoop — the wholesale apprehension of Indigenous children for placement and eventual adoption with non-Indigenous families — and any efforts this government can make to decolonize the current system are most welcomed.

However, progress on that file certainly will not be found by assailing non-Indigenous foster families, many of whom provide a valuable resource in a system that struggles to find Indigenous placements.

The same goes for the assassination of Kirk, who embraced some pretty awful ideas. However, a minister of the Crown should know that violence is never the way to respond to someone who espouses toxic beliefs.

Kinew’s decision to retain Fontaine in cabinet may indeed prove to be the right one. She can be an extremely effective and passionate emissary of the NDP government’s agenda. And who knows? If Fontaine agrees to embrace a new mindset when it comes to the mixing of her personal politics and her political responsibilities, keeping her will have been the right move.

But in resisting the temptation to pull the rip cord on Fontaine, Kinew may find he is forced to tolerate other misbehaviour with other ministers. How could he fire someone else from cabinet for saying the wrong thing now that he’s shown an incredible willingness to tolerate Fontaine’s unministerial behaviour?

It’s a dilemma that would likely be solved by punting Fontaine for the next misstep. Which is undoubtedly what will happen if she does it again.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca