With little fanfare, the House of Commons passed legislation last month to formally establish a federal child-care program.
The bill’s passage was never really in doubt. Between Liberal and NDP MPs, the government had more than enough votes. But it’s not every day the House agrees to create a major new social program (the bill still needs to pass the Senate).
Almost as notable as the bill’s passage is the fact that the vote was unanimous — 315 to 0.
Seventeen years after Stephen Harper’s Conservative government walked away from a set of child-care deals negotiated in the waning days of Paul Martin’s Liberal government — and two years after the Conservatives said they would scrap Justin Trudeau’s planned child-care investments — 110 Conservative MPs voted in favour of the Early Learning and Child Care Act.
The Conservative Party’s support wasn’t absolute — Conservatives complained that many of their proposed amendments were rejected. Crucially, it still remains to be seen whether the next Conservative campaign platform will commit to maintaining federal funding for child care at the level planned by the Liberals.
But the broad, multi-party support for the legislation may bode well for the program’s durability. It also can be read as an implicit endorsement of the Trudeau government’s particular — and muscular — use of the federal spending power.
The power of the purse
As researchers Peter Graefe and Nicole Fiorillo explained in a recent paper for the Institute for Research on Public Policy, the idea of a federal spending power emerged after the Second World War “as a workaround to the mismatch between the Constitution and pan-Canadian ambitions.”
While the federal government can’t directly regulate within areas of provincial jurisdiction, it can offer to transfer funds to provincial governments subject to specific conditions.
Graefe and Fiorillo say the way federal governments have used (or not used) that power has changed over the last 75 years — from the the postwar period of cost-sharing to the federal retrenchment in the 1980s and 1990s, from a renewed period of collaboration in the mid-90s and early 2000s to the (mostly) hands-off “open federalism” of the Harper government.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, right, looks at Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard during an announcement at Roberval, Que. on June 25, 2014. (Clement Allard/The Canadian Press)
Since Trudeau came to office in 2015, Canada has seen a return to an “activist” federal government, Graefe and Fiorillo argue — perhaps even more activist than in previous eras.
Their analysis of Trudeau’s government focuses on five major federal-provincial initiatives: the health care agreements signed in 2017, workforce development investments made in 2017, the child-care agreements of 2017 and 2021 and a housing partnership announced in 2018. Taken together, these deals “suggest that the current federal government feels more emboldened in asserting leadership than it did two decades ago.”
“Partnership” with the provinces was the stated priority when the Liberals came to office. Graefe and Fiorillo say that partnership now seems to be “conditional on a province accepting the federal government’s policy vision.” They also say recent agreements require provinces to provide “a lot more detail and transparency in planning and reporting” than federal-provincial agreements made in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Graefe and Fiorillo don’t cover the 10-year health care funding proposal made by the federal government earlier this year, but it seems to share the same characteristics. A new dental care program might bypass provincial governments entirely.
Will provinces start to push back?
If you support a strong federal government and national social programs, you’re probably happy with these developments. If you’re currently enjoying more affordable child care, you probably don’t care which theory of federalism underpins the funding arrangement.
But Graefe and Fiorillo speculate that this new federal assertiveness could eventually provoke some kind of pushback from the provinces.
The framework for such a backlash might be found in a speech given last month by Sean Speer, a former senior policy adviser to Stephen Harper. Speer argues the federal government would be better off sticking to its own constitutional knitting — national security, trade and defence — and provinces should more jealously guard their own prerogatives.
“To borrow from Ronald Reagan, protecting provincial sovereignty is kind of like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say no,” Speer said.
Graefe and Fiorillo point out that any claim to jurisdictional sanctity likely was weakened by repeated provincial demands for federal engagement when Harper’s Conservatives were in power. It’s also not hard to understand why a premier might want something more than abstract principle to offer when explaining to voters why they turned down billions of dollars in new funding to create child-care spaces or hire more doctors.
In the case of health-care funding, the provinces never have a strong hand to play. Not only do they want and need federal money, they can’t hope to escape the blame for shortcomings in health services resulting from a lack of funding.
On child care, reluctant provinces may have had even less ground to stand on. By committing $30 billion over five years, the Trudeau government was effectively offering to match what provincial governments were already spending.
Premier Doug Ford cut a child-care deal with Ottawa just months before a provincial election. (Nav Rahi/CBC)
There were conditions attached to that funding. And not every province was quick to sign on. But once the Liberals were re-elected in 2021, the remaining holdouts seemed to understand there was no use trying to tell voters that they’d be better off if their province didn’t take the money. Ontario Premier Doug Ford made a deal just months before his own government had to run for re-election.
Politics, as much as ideology, might explain much of what the Trudeau government’s activism has achieved. Not only has it enjoyed the power of the federal treasury, it has been pursuing things that are broadly supported by the public.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s statements on housing policy signal an activist approach. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
A future Conservative prime minister might exercise more restraint. But Pierre Poilievre seems more than a little willing to take an activist approach himself — and not just because his party supported the Liberal government’s child-care legislation.
The Conservative leader is, understandably, preoccupied with the issue of housing. He has vowed that a government led by him would do a better job of getting more houses built. Part of his plan for doing so involves using federal funds to “reward” municipalities that get homes built faster — an idea similar to the Liberal government’s own $4-billion housing accelerator fund.
But Poilievre has said he also would go a step further. He would withhold funds from, and even penalize, cities that fail to build houses fast enough.
Whatever one thinks of that idea, it probably can’t be described as “open federalism.” Indeed, it might be the case that Trudeau has ushered in a new era of bipartisan activist government.
Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.
He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.
In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.
Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.
He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.
Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.
He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will not be taking advice from Pierre Poilievre after the Conservative leader challenged him to bring down government.
“I say directly to Pierre Poilievre: I’m not going to listen to you,” said Singh on Wednesday, accusing Poilievre of wanting to take away dental-care coverage from Canadians, among other things.
“I’m not going to listen to your advice. You want to destroy people’s lives, I want to build up a brighter future.”
Earlier in the day, Poilievre challenged Singh to commit to voting non-confidence in the government, saying his party will force a vote in the House of Commons “at the earliest possibly opportunity.”
“I’m asking Jagmeet Singh and the NDP to commit unequivocally before Monday’s byelections: will they vote non-confidence to bring down the costly coalition and trigger a carbon tax election, or will Jagmeet Singh sell out Canadians again?” Poilievre said.
“It’s put up or shut up time for the NDP.”
While Singh rejected the idea he would ever listen to Poilievre, he did not say how the NDP would vote on a non-confidence motion.
“I’ve said on any vote, we’re going to look at the vote and we’ll make our decision. I’m not going to say our decision ahead of time,” he said.
Singh’s top adviser said on Tuesday the NDP leader is not particularly eager to trigger an election, even as the Conservatives challenge him to do just that.
Anne McGrath, Singh’s principal secretary, says there will be more volatility in Parliament and the odds of an early election have risen.
“I don’t think he is anxious to launch one, or chomping at the bit to have one, but it can happen,” she said in an interview.
New Democrat MPs are in a second day of meetings in Montreal as they nail down a plan for how to navigate the minority Parliament this fall.
The caucus retreat comes one week after Singh announced the party has left the supply-and-confidence agreement with the governing Liberals.
It’s also taking place in the very city where New Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on Monday, when voters go to the polls in Montreal’s LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. A second byelection is being held that day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, where the NDP is hoping to hold onto a seat the Conservatives are also vying for.
While New Democrats are seeking to distance themselves from the Liberals, they don’t appear ready to trigger a general election.
Singh signalled on Tuesday that he will have more to say Wednesday about the party’s strategy for the upcoming sitting.
He is hoping to convince Canadians that his party can defeat the federal Conservatives, who have been riding high in the polls over the last year.
Singh has attacked Poilievre as someone who would bring back Harper-style cuts to programs that Canadians rely on, including the national dental-care program that was part of the supply-and-confidence agreement.
The Canadian Press has asked Poilievre’s office whether the Conservative leader intends to keep the program in place, if he forms government after the next election.
With the return of Parliament just days away, the NDP is also keeping in mind how other parties will look to capitalize on the new makeup of the House of Commons.
The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it’s written up a list of demands for the Liberals in exchange for support on votes.
The next federal election must take place by October 2025 at the latest.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante is defending her decision to turn off comments on her social media accounts — with an announcement on social media.
She posted screenshots to X this morning of vulgar names she’s been called on the platform, and says comments on her posts for months have been dominated by insults, to the point that she decided to block them.
Montreal’s Opposition leader and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have criticized Plante for limiting freedom of expression by restricting comments on her X and Instagram accounts.
They say elected officials who use social media should be willing to hear from constituents on those platforms.
However, Plante says some people may believe there is a fundamental right to call someone offensive names and to normalize violence online, but she disagrees.
Her statement on X is closed to comments.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
