Kinew’s two options: let Fontaine dig herself out of hole after outburst or fire her

Opinion

Is Nahanni Fontaine guilty of a firing offence?

Last week, the minister responsible for accessibility was caught making profane complaints about an American Sign Language interpreter. The comments were captured on a “hot mic” following a June 26 event celebrating Indigenous women graduates.

Fontaine, who is also the families minister and minister responsible for gender equity, was on a stage addressing graduates when she reportedly became frustrated by the close proximity of the interpreter. Following her speech, Fontaine exchanged comments with one of her staffers that were captured by a live mic and recorded by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, which was covering the event.

“The woman, she shouldn’t have been on the stage…” Fontaine is overheard saying. “I’m like ‘f—-, why did I have her on the stage? Like, Jesus, I’m like, ‘You need to leave.’”

Fontaine was immediately and summarily condemned by accessibility advocates and activists from Manitoba’s deaf community. Fontaine did apologize, but in politics, apologies on their own rarely solve a problem like this.

Given the legislature is on summer break, Fontaine has been spared from what would have been a relentless roasting by opposition MLAs that would have no doubt included demands for her resignation. Thanks to social media, those demands were made anyway.

On Facebook, Progressive Conservatives condemned Fontaine for comments “unbecoming of an elected official.” The Tories added, to no one’s surprise, that Fontaine needs to go. “She must also immediately resign this cabinet responsibility that she clearly does not respect,” the PC statement read.

In the modern world of hyper-partisanism, resignation demands between political combatants are ubiquitous. Still, Fontaine’s ill-advised comments do prompt a question: what is, in the current political climate, a bona fide firing offence?

One can only hope that, at the very least, Premier Wab Kinew is asking himself this question.

The premier has been put in a difficult position.

Fontaine has always been outspoken, both as an activist and later as a politician. While in opposition, she was one of the most disliked critics by the PC government. That alone suggests she has the potential to be an effective politician.

In government, Fontaine has been relatively low key, no doubt a reflection of the fact she does not possess one of the handful of truly front-bench portfolios. Families is a huge and potentially tricky department, but it’s not health, finance or justice, the marquee cabinet postings that tend to be the most politically challenging.

Having said that, Kinew needs Fontaine to be at her best in families and related responsibilities, including accessibility. What he doesn’t need is a minister who portrayed herself as more concerned about her personal space than she was about the need for an ASL interpreter. Particularly at an event where, it was reported later, there were deaf graduates.

There is no evidence Fontaine’s attempts to apologize have not been thorough and sincere. Since her comments were made public, she has issued two statements of apology, she has spoken directly to the interpreter and contacted organizations that advocate for deaf Manitobans.

Is that enough? The political calculus on this issue is complex.

Fontaine is an ambitious, well-known politician who has deep reach into several key NDP constituencies. Taking her down for this incident would, no doubt, produce blowback within the party’s base of support.

It isn’t clear whether Fontaine’s egregious behaviour will cost the NDP in the next election.

She has become estranged, possibly on a permanent basis, from the deaf community and many within the broader accessibility community. Even so, there are many within those constituencies who realize that dealing with an NDP government is preferable to the alternative.

However, beyond the immediate effect on the accessibility community, this does have the potential to become a smudge on an NDP brand that has been successful in drawing votes outside of the party’s traditional base.

This is one of those political anecdotes that could put a bad taste in the mouth of some voters who, for the most part, are not deeply engaged in the politics of accessibility. In other words, they won’t condemn Fontaine and the NDP specifically for insulting an ASL interpreter; they might, however, see it as a sign the NDP cannot back up its talk about being a party of equity and social justice.

To this point, Kinew hasn’t said a word about this incident and his continued silence is getting hard to ignore.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

It would not be wrong for Kinew to let Fontaine work her way out of the hole she dug for herself; good premiers and prime ministers often leave cabinet members to find their own solutions to self-made problems.

On the other hand, if there is concern in the premier’s office about longer-term damage from Fontaine’s outburst, then Kinew has to show Manitobans he is concerned about what happened.

That concern may not become evident right away. Fontaine must know that despite her boundless ambition to move up the cabinet hierarchy, every cabinet shuffle from this point represents a chance she will be demoted or left out altogether.

Such is the fate of a politician who lets her inner-most thoughts leak into the public realm.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.