Get a grip: The whiff of a small-town pol, with elements of ward-heeling and corruption, has often hovered around Jean Chrétien. Personally, I think his lobbying for a loan for a hotel in his riding to which he was financially connected was ethically graver than the sponsorship case.

But what I don’t understand is why people fail to weigh, against these smudges, his major legacy: the campaign finance reform act. He passed it in his final year. It was the first serious national effort to curb the pollution of democracy by contributions from rich donors — the blight of electoral democracy everywhere. It is even more impressive than his other triumph: saying No to Canadian troops in Iraq. That may have been based on a political calculation about votes in Quebec.

But what motivated him to remake campaign finance? There was no great demand; other things could have served as his legacy. Might it have been a reaction to his own experience in the graft-drenched world of politics in which he spent his life? That it takes one to know one — and finally do something about it, especially at the end of his career, when he no longer needed to participate in the grubby system of take and give? Was it a nod to how his life in politics might have been?

People sometimes want to redress the ugly realities they know best. Consider Pierre Trudeau’s legacy: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Near the start of his reign as prime minister, he was responsible for the worst attack on the rights of Canadians since the Second World War: the imposition of martial law during the 1970 October Crisis in Quebec. It depended on a non-existent, “apprehended insurrection,” which was as feeble in its way as the threat of Saddam Hussein’s WMDs. Might Trudeau, in the final phase of power, have sought to atone and assure that no one else could behave similarly in the future?

I don’t know if one thing balances another. But the Chrétien bill on campaign finance reform (especially if you think of it as a very good start) has the potential to alter our politics profoundly. It could even make the grungy dealings associated with this, and other scandals of his era, obsolete.

Child-care priorities: The real question about the final list of nominees for The Greatest Canadian contest last fall was not: Why were there so few women or artists? It was: Why were there no kindergarten teachers or child-care workers? It tells a lot about social priorities, which is what the fate of the national child-care program, subject of a “summit” today in Vancouver, should also do.

A recent Globe editorial was refreshingly frank, like a partner who dumps you honestly. Sure child care is a good idea it suggested, but now is choosing time, which means money-spending time, and other things matter more, like the military Why does our society have trouble, at such moments, opting for child care? Ken Dryden, the minister in charge, says it has to do with the model, which has always been babysitting. Babysitting, he says, will never become a national priority. Early childhood education might.

On the other hand, having the debate at all raises a scary question: Why would a society not make the welfare of its youngest members its top priority? Could anything be more pertinent to the general good? If the family were still in charge, that might be okay, but we know it is no longer so for most young kids, and will not be again. Saying no to such a program does kind of amount to child abuse.

Is it possible some people are cool because it all reminds them of how neglected their own childhoods were? If a doctor treats you badly, it hurts and you complain. If you were badly raised or parented, there are strong reasons to avoid acknowledging it. (We didn’t have a national child-care program and we turned out fine. Yeah, right.) The whole area, as a subject of political debate, is fraught. It involves parental guilt and denial. Plus, it’s not very glamorous. You don’t see TV series on child-care workers. They, like teachers and therapists, operate mainly in the oral tradition, where the deepest impressions are made, but most results are hard to quantify.

rick_salutin_small_24_1_1_1_1_0

Rick Salutin

Rick Salutin is a Canadian novelist, playwright and critic. He is a strong advocate of left wing causes and writes a regular column in the Toronto Star.