bulletins

The bulletin is prepared by John Sewell, the site manager, with the assistance and under the guidance of the advisory committee. It is published monthly, and is being sent to a wide range of people across Canada. Past copies of the bulletin will be archived in this section of the site.

search   |   show all   |   subscribe to the bulletin

Bulletin No. 03, January 2000
 LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT - BULLETIN No.3 - January 2000
The purpose of this public service bulletin is to focus debate on the need
to increase local self government in Canada and to help local communities
achieve more autonomy. Our web site is http://www.localselfgovt.org . This bulletin prints out to 5 pages and includes:

1. The emerging debate about city-state status for big cities, with specific reference to the way that debate is being shaped in Toronto.

2. Two new additions to the Library tab of the web site: one on the history of municipal authority in Canada; the other analyzing recent provincial proposals to enhance municipal autonomy.

3. An invitation to subscribe to this bulletin and to join in our discussion space at http://www.localselfgovt.org .

1. The emerging city-state debate

No sooner had the words passed his mouth than they were disowned, but once out, the idea has proven difficult to stuff back into the darkness. It is taking on a powerful life of its own.

The words were, `maybe it's time Toronto considered becoming a province.' They were uttered late last year by Toronto mayor Mel Lastman at an urban conference in Florida, in another moment of exasperation at another
anti-city decree from the Ontario government. Within a few days, Lastman said he didn't really mean it.

But the city-state, city-province, or charter city idea has now moved into something approaching the centre of political debate. A growing number of people are thinking some initiative is needed to gain more status for the
Toronto urban area, and it seems certain serious proposals will be put on the table in the next six or eight weeks. It's entirely likely the same
debate will be quickly joined in Montreal and Vancouver.

Up to this point in Canada, the focus has been on the status of municipalities. Formal recognition of municipalities was not given in the 1867 negotiations between provincial representatives, probably because they
were more concerned with the nature of the federal government they were creating and its relationship to the provinces they led. But, as pointed out in Professor Andrew Sancton's history of local government in Canada (this
paper is found in our web site's Library, http://www.localselfgovt.org ) municipalities have had informal recognition and considerable autonomy - until fairly recently. In the last decade, autonomy has been substantially
removed by many provincial governments. Municipalities have been stripped of power, many have been restructured, local institutions (such as school boards) have been hollowed out, and new financial responsibilities have been
downloaded without compensating sources for revenue generation.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has argued vigourously against these trends. FCM has developed a set of principled demands which it has been unable to get onto the constitutional table for debate. (The policy paper can be found at http://207.245.206.64/english/national/role/role.html
.)

One limitation of the FCM approach is that it lumps all municipalities together, the big with the small, as indeed FCM must do since it represents all kinds and sizes of municipalities. Another diversion is that because of constitutional convention municipalities relate directly to provinces, not
to the federal government, posing a problem for a national organization.

Since the 1984 publication of Jane Jacobs' book, Cities and the Wealth of Nations, there has been general agreement among urban scholars on two
points. First, it is big cities (not national governments) that produce the wealth in nations, and too often national governments play an unhelpful role in sustaining urban vibrancy. Healthy big cities also help foster healthy
smaller cities, towns, and rural areas, just as big cities in decline lead to hinterlands in decline. Accordingly much of the country depends on the economic and social health of big cities.

Second, trading, economic, cultural and social relationships in the new global world are between large urban areas (although, ironically, national governments seem to be in control of trade agreements.) In recognition of this belief, there has been much scrambling by the leaders of big cities to confirm their connectedness to international routes and patterns, in fear that otherwise they will be left behind.

The new emphasis on the role of big cities has come at exactly the same time as provincial downloading and restructuring has been felt. These changes have impacted big cities like Toronto in a far harsher manner than smaller
municipalities (some think they were specifically designed that way.) It is
hardly surprising that the result is a demand by some Torontonians (including the mayor, if only momentarily) for significantly more power and
independence.

The Toronto debate goes beyond asking for autonomy and respect, and raises the question of the kinds of power which should be exercised by a big city. What's interesting to watch in this initiative is how edges are placed on
the major issues at hand, and how some of the choices are emerging. As the politics of the situation heats up, the outcomes can be expected to be innovative and surprising. Here are the major issues that seem to be emerging in Toronto.

a) Different views of the problem produce different structures

Some suggest that big city autonomy is important to meet expectations of global competitiveness. This rationale argues into favour of amalgamations and bigger structures to respond to outsiders, as though bigger is necessarily better. It also implies that if one is thinking of a more powerful big city state, then the model might be the one big municipality
approach of Hong Kong or Singapore.

A much different argument is that big city needs are best met by programs devised and funded by politicians responsible to the city, and that those needs can rarely be met by politicians elected by a different constituency (a majority of legislative members are elected in smaller centres, or rural and agricultural areas) with different values and priorities. Thus autonomy is needed to increase efficiencies and effectiveness. A good welfare program for the big city is best devised in the big city itself. Ditto programs for housing (including rent controls), health, transportation, immigrant services - all of which play out
fundamentally differently in the big city than the smaller centre. The model for the more powerful big city state here could easily envision a number of different municipalities sheltering under one city state roof, while
maintaining some local independence.

A third argument, often heard in Europe, is subsidiarity, which means that powers should be placed in the government body closest to the people and most capable of providing the service. Powers might be allocated in a cascade system involving national, provincial and local government, each negotiating as equals to determine how best to order public services
and powers. As a principle, subsidiarity is likely to be diverted by ideological differences about the roles of public and private sectors. Any strong debate about it assumes some degree of equality as a starting point.

b) Province or city state?
Those who argue the big city should become a separate province must overcome what so far has been an impregnable political hurdle: the issue must get itself onto the constitutional agenda which seems controlled by those who
cite how difficult constitutional change really is in this country. Some dismiss this whole idea as a non-starter, simply beyond the pale.

Others say a simpler approach is structuring the change as a city-state status or charter status negotiated between a province and the big city, secured by both provincial legislation and a binding contract, neither of which would require the agreement of the national government or other provincial governments. The charter could define the precise powers to be exercised by the big city and the relationship between the province and
the big city on dossiers which they might share.

A charter could also specify financial relationships. Taxes generated in the big city produce enormous revenues for the provincial and federal governments - each big city resident probably pays a sum of $2000
per annum to each senior government above and beyond services received - and one can assume the provincial government will demand some guarantee of this revenue in exchange for the city's charter status. The big city will have to
buy its freedom.

c) Powers
The powers the big city needs depend to some extent on the approach taken to the problem. Using the efficiency argument, one can assume the city would want policy and expenditure control over social services (including
welfare), children's services, health, and education, as well as unfettered
powers over traditional municipal services. The big city might also want control over revenue sources and taxation mechanisms. There might be some shared control between the city and the province over high-end services such as some universities, some specialty and research hospitals, perhaps the major airport.

If reliance is put on the subsidiarity or global economy approaches, a more collegial approach to social, educational and health services might seem more appropriate, with more emphasis put on consultation about policy and expenditures on this matters.

d) How big is the big city?
Setting a boundary between the big city and its hinterland isn't easy, given the impact of a vibrant economy on even the smallest of neighbouring communities. One boundary might be the edge of the commutershed, that is,
the distance people are willing to travel to work within the city. But a clear distinction between the city and the area on which it has an economic impact should be kept in mind: no matter what boundary is set for the city,
economic impacts will continue, undiminished by a new border - the boundary itself will not prejudice a neighbour.

Boundaries can probably best be determined by finding out which communities want in - with more powers and responsibilities - and which want to stay out. An overlay should be natural boundaries which do (or should)
constrain city spread, and can act as a positive influence to force the city to become more dense and land-efficient.

The larger the land mass covered, the more important it will be that some device be found t to protect local government within the big city, perhaps by a two-tiered system of government harkening back to the most successful of Canadian big city models, the metropolitan federation. That will provide for regional decision-making on regional issues, and local
control over local issues.

The interplay of the different approaches to the city-state issue allows for many creative interventions. What will be interesting to watch in the next few months are the strategies adopted for placing this on the public
agenda, and which community leaders actually commit to a different arrangement for Toronto.

2. Getting a good handle on the past can provide a better understanding of our options today. Professor Andy Sancton's paper on the role of municipal government in Canada makes it abundantly clear that calling municipalities
`creatures' of the provinces is self-serving for provincial governments, and not a fair reflection of the past. Sancton's paper is found on the web site in the Library tab, http://www.localselfgovt.org .

Also new to the Library is a paper (of undetermined origin) which helpfully discusses recent legislative proposals about municipal powers.

3. Subscribe to the bulletin, participate in online discussion

This bulletin is sent to more than 900 individuals involved directly or indirectly in local government in Canada. If you have not already done so, we invite you to subscribe to the bulletin: go to http://www.localselfgovt.org and follow the instructions. More information
about the sponsors of the site, and members of the advisory group, may be found on the same website.

We also invite you to provide your comments in the discussion tab of the web site. We appreciate your comments, your feedback, and items of interest that you wish to share with those who visit the web site.

'