"It would be naive to imagine we have solved all our income security problems simply because the roles of the federal and provincial governments in the area of skills training have been clarified"
About this Quote
Naivete is doing a lot of work here: Campbell uses it as a polite cudgel, a way to scold without sounding scolding. The line punctures a familiar Canadian habit of mistaking jurisdictional tidiness for social progress. Yes, Ottawa and the provinces can finally stop tripping over each other in “skills training.” But the deeper message is that bureaucratic clarity is not the same thing as economic security, and anyone selling it that way is either unserious or looking for applause.
The rhetorical move is classic statesmanship: she concedes a win (roles clarified) only to strip it of triumphalism. That pivot matters because it reframes skills training as a tool, not a cure. In the 1990s-era policy climate that shaped Campbell’s career - deficit anxiety, restructuring, and the offloading of responsibilities between levels of government - “clarified roles” often functioned as a substitute for outcomes. Governments could announce agreements, redraw program boundaries, and claim momentum while wages stagnated and precarious work spread.
Subtext: income insecurity is structural. Training can help individuals adapt, but it can’t by itself fix weak labor standards, uneven regional economies, caregiving burdens, or the quiet reality that “better skills” doesn’t guarantee better jobs. Campbell’s sentence also contains a warning about political theater: intergovernmental deals are easy to headline; building an income floor that actually holds is expensive, contested, and slow.
By choosing “income security” rather than “employment,” she widens the lens to the entire safety net. The point isn’t to dismiss training; it’s to deny policymakers the comfort of thinking they’ve finished the job once the paperwork is neat.
The rhetorical move is classic statesmanship: she concedes a win (roles clarified) only to strip it of triumphalism. That pivot matters because it reframes skills training as a tool, not a cure. In the 1990s-era policy climate that shaped Campbell’s career - deficit anxiety, restructuring, and the offloading of responsibilities between levels of government - “clarified roles” often functioned as a substitute for outcomes. Governments could announce agreements, redraw program boundaries, and claim momentum while wages stagnated and precarious work spread.
Subtext: income insecurity is structural. Training can help individuals adapt, but it can’t by itself fix weak labor standards, uneven regional economies, caregiving burdens, or the quiet reality that “better skills” doesn’t guarantee better jobs. Campbell’s sentence also contains a warning about political theater: intergovernmental deals are easy to headline; building an income floor that actually holds is expensive, contested, and slow.
By choosing “income security” rather than “employment,” she widens the lens to the entire safety net. The point isn’t to dismiss training; it’s to deny policymakers the comfort of thinking they’ve finished the job once the paperwork is neat.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Kim
Add to List
