Broad, multi-party support for the Liberal child care legislation may bode well for the program’s durability. And it can also be read as an implicit endorsement of the Trudeau government’s particular — and muscular —use of the federal spending power.
This is kind of an aside, but… I often feel like there is a negative connotation with the word “activist” in government. I think a lot of this is fallout from people calling the courts “activist” when they are supposed to be purely objective and non-partisan.
I don’t think this needs to be the case in parliament though. I admit, for certain administrative ends, things need to be objective. However, for governance that is rooted in partisanship, sometimes ideology overrides that need for pure objective policy.
Having parties that aim for some ideological objectives helps to accrue and galvanize support. It gives voters something to believe in, and strive for.
I definitely agree. Judges shouldn’t be activists, trying to shape laws to fit their ideology, but that’s literally what law makers are elected to do.
I have nothing against the federal government offering provinces cash to provide social programs. As the article says, it puts provincial leaders on the spot. They either accept the money and put the program in place or they tell their voters why they won’t be providing a service to the public even if it won’t cost anything.
Trudeau talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. He’s not an activist.
