bulletins.cfm

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. 32, November 2002
Local Government Bulletin No. 32, November 2002

The purpose of this bulletin is to focus debate on the need to increase the powers and authorities of local government in Canada and to ensure local communities achieve more autonomy. Our website is http://www.localgovernment.ca .

****
In this issue:
1. Sgro Report: Cities Strike Out
2. An Amalgamated City Unravels
3. Subscribe to the Bulletin
****

1. Sgro Report: Cities Strike Out

The Final Report of the Prime Minister’s Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues, chaired by Judy Sgro, M.P., states right up front the importance of urban areas to provincial economies. Page 1 lists the percentage of Gross Domestic Product contributed by each urban area to its province: Halifax, 47 per cent; Montreal 49; Toronto and Ottawa, 50+; Winnipeg, 67; Calgary and Edmonton, 64; Vancouver 53. Urban areas are powerful economic engines.

The report predicts that by 2020 more than half the population of Canada will live in the six largest urban areas, and that almost 90 per cent of the jobs in the country will be found in urban areas.

This is powerful information, and one is led into the report with the expectation these strengths will be recognized, and that cities, whose health is so critical to the country’s economic and social well-being, will be given the powers and financial where-with-all to govern themselves well.

In an interview after the report was released on November 19, Sgro said “The whole thing was to get the three orders of government working together, getting the city as an equal partner. We want cities at the table, and collaboration and consultation are needed between the three orders of government.”

Those are brave words. While the report talks about new partnerships, the brave words are not given structures, and the expectation of change peters out quickly as the report flails around in generalities about social harmony, sustainable environment, urban revitalization, and best practices. The report pointedly excludes city representatives from the several bodies it recommends be established. Nowhere can one find a statement to the effect that cities need more powers to govern themselves well, or that their tax resources are being squandered by provincial and federal governments that take from cities far more in taxes than they return in services, leaving cities in dire financial straights.

Instead, `Canada’s Urban Strategy,’ as it bills itself, sets out a very discouraging Blueprint for Action. It recommends that a Minister be designated responsible for “providing a `voice’ for the urban regions in Canada.” It would be tough to think of a weaker recommendation for urban presence than this. Sgro said in the interview that she thought the designated Minister would be someone appointed just for this task rather than having these duties tacked on to an already long list (as occurred with the issue of homelessness, which was tacked on to the duties of the Minister of Labour.) Perhaps Sgro’s hope will be fulfilled, but that’s not what the report says.

The report proposes the establishment of an Advisory Board to bend this Minister’s ear, but no representatives from our cities will be allowed to sit on the Board. The report is clear its members will be from academia, “urban experts from NGO’s” and from various national organizations including Boards of Trade, the Conference Board of Canada, and so forth. This seems like the perfect way to ensure the voices of cities are not permitted any status in Ottawa. Sgro says cities will be “at the table” but the report doesn’t mention what this table is or where it is located.

It proposes a National Urban Summit, and once again, the representatives of city councils will be excluded. The summit is for provincial ministers responsible for urban affairs, and “key urban partners.”

There is no recommendation that suggests city representatives should have a seat at any table, or on any committee, or have any real presence. If the report is not recommending that cities be shut out from whatever the federal government is doing about urban affairs – and Sgro is emphatic in saying it that’s not the case – one nevertheless looks in vain for the structure which gives cities some status in national affairs and national programs.

The report also recommends three priority program areas, as one assumed would be the case from the interim report. (See Bulletin No. 27, May 2002.) The Affordable Housing program involves several changes in policy by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, consideration of various tax mechanisms such as accelerated depreciation, a tax credit program for investors, other arrangements of financial interest to developers, as well as yet another extension of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP will never die). There is no suggestion of serious new money for affordable housing, which probably puts to bed the dreams of those who thought the housing program announced last year - $680 million over five years – might be just the start of something big.

The National Transit/Transportation program proposes consolidating existing programs into one (but no new money), making several tax changes (such as allowing the cost of transit use to be considered tax exempt), and federal investment (no dollar figure is proposed) in a high-speed inter-city rail network.

The third program area is Sustainable Infrastructure, which was announced in the recent Speech from the Throne. (See Bulletin No. 31.) It proposes stable capital investment, cost-shared arrangements, and an emphasis on `green’ solutions.

The disappointments expressed in this Bulletin last May with the Interim Report have sadly been borne out in this final report. It’s not clear that this is a step forward, since the serious urban problems are never acknowledged. Page 9 of the report begins in a telling fashion: “Canada’s Urban Strategy will provide opportunities to: increase the visibility and credibility of the Government of Canada on urban issues and in urban regions; [and] build on the current federal presence and investments in urban regions and ensure those investments are prudent and effective.” It continues: “…the federal government’s approach [is] to collaborate with all urban partners to seek solutions” but there’s precious little of this latter objective in this document, and too much of the former.

It shouldn’t have happened, but cities come up empty. Yes, there’s the hope of some new money for infrastructure, but generally one is left with the discouraging thought that another good chance to recognize the needs and desires of cities to manage their own affairs for the benefit of Canada has been lost. Maybe there’s a rarefied air in Ottawa which believes that a report such as this speaks in a language which readily conveys city needs and aspirations to the national powerbrokers, but that’s not air to be found in most Canadian cities. Urbanites will be looking for more serious action.

The report is most easily accessed at http://www.judysgro.com , scroll to the bottom of the page, and click on Caucus Task Force.

2. An Amalgamated City Unravels

The residents of the City of Kawartha Lakes may be outlining a procedure which other cities in Ontario and possibly Quebec will want to use to de-amalgamate.

As reported in Bulletin No. 19, September 2001, the City of Kawartha Lakes in Ontario is geographically one of the largest cities in Canada, covering 2,300 square kilometres. But its population is under 70,000, and its largest settlement is a place that used to be called the Town of Lindsay, with a population of 17,000 residents. Before the January 2001 amalgamation, the 16 municipalities here were located in the County of Victoria.

Residents have been fighting the amalgamation ever since it was forced on them by a provincially appointed commissioner. In the summer of 2001 they used a citizen-based rolling referendum in each of the former municipalities to assess local opinion. Votes overwhelmingly opposed amalgamation, but the referendum was unable to attract the attention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in Ontario, Mr. Chris Hodgson, who also represents most of this area in the Legislature.

But now, a year later, things have radically changed. Residents throughout this “city” have found that municipal taxes have jumped by about one-third in the past two years and projections show that by 2003 the increase will be slightly more than 50%. The Manvers Tax Coalition (named after one of the former townships) called a meeting in early October and 700 angry residents attended. The push then was for a formal referendum on the subject of amalgamation and by the end of October Mr. Hodgson said he had an interest in the matter. By the middle of November, Mr. Hodgson met with the council of the “city” and there was an agreement that a referendum on de-amalgamation would be held.

The details of the formal referendum are yet to be settled. If it were held within the next 11 months it would be at municipal expense. But Mr. Hodgson has said that if it were held at the same time as the next municipal election in November 2003, then the provincial government would pay. The actual wording of the question is still unclear. Rather than returning temporarily to a structure where 16 townships provide local services and one county council provides regional services, and then working from there to determine what the new structures would be, it seems the referendum would, in one step, make a final decision on municipal government for the area. A further issue is ensuring the provincial government honours a referendum which is not binding on it because it is being held municipally. A provincial election is expected during the next 12 months and there is some fear that Mr. Hodgson might be agreeing to a referendum now because it has no cost for him and carries no obligation.

There is considerable unhappiness in numerous municipalities throughout Ontario about amalgamations forced on them during the last five years. The model being worked out here, in the former Victoria County, may be a process that attracts allies - begin with a citizen initiative in the hope it may be answered with a provincially endorsed referendum. This may prove to be one way of successfully restructuring amalgamated municipalities in Ontario.

3. Subscribe to the Bulletin

The bulletin is sent, at no cost, to about 1500 individuals involved directly or indirectly in local government in Canada. The next bulletin will be available in December. Those who receive this Bulletin directly (not forwarded by a third party) are already part of the subscription list. Others who wish to subscribe should go to the web site http://www.localgovernment.ca and following the instructions. To unsubscribe, please send a message to info@localgovernment.ca indicating your wish to unsubscribe.

More information about the sponsors of the bulletin, a library of relevant and useful documents, and an archive of past bulletins, can be found on our web site. We appreciate your comments, your feedback (to j.sewell@on.aibn.com ), and items of interest that you wish to share with us and others who visit the web site.
- end -