The e-library contains information about issues of local autonomy and local self government.

Those who visit the site are encouraged to suggest documents - speeches, research, legislative initiatives, news items, etc. - which might be added to the library. If you have material that you think should be part of the e-Library, please click `suggest a resource' and follow the instructions.

search   |   show all   |   suggest a resource

Description:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BULLETIN – No.43, January 2004
The purpose of this bulletin is to focus debate on the need to increase local self-government in Canada and to help local communities achieve more autonomy. The local self-government web site is http://www.localgovernment.ca

In this issue
*****
A New Deal Comes in View
1. A view from the East
2. A view from the Hill
3. A view from the big city mayors
4. A longer view
5. Subscribe to the Bulletin
*****

1. A view from the East

“For our cities a New Deal is the foundation of a healthy society," says Joel Richardson, councillor in Fredericton and past president of the Cities of New Brunswick Association.

“The cities in the East are the oldest in the country, and the infrastructure is the oldest in the country – and a problem. In St. John, wooden pipes are still used. About 40% of the raw sewage is pumped into the bay.

“We don’t have safe water and treated sewage. We don’t have the money to keep meeting our needs.”

Richardson says that any new deal from Ottawa has to have a lot of flexibility, even when it comes to infrastructure. “As cities we can’t afford to meet one-third of the cost of an infrastructure program. We can’t be a one-third partner. Our cities are losing population.”

He also notes that federal funds dedicated to transit won’t be of much help. “Only three cities in New Brunswick have a transit service," he says. “A New Deal can’t be broad brush across the country.”

Lorne Mitton, councillor in Moncton and current president of the Association, notes that the provincial government must be on side. Recently the New Brunswick provincial government has reduced unconditional grants to municipalities, and he fears that if the federal government gives money, the province will take it away. “We want a three-way discussion.”

Mitton also says cities need more freedom from provincial control, citing the inability of cities to levy a hotel tax to fund, for example, a new convention centre.

2. A view from the Hill

John Godfrey, member of Parliament for Don Valley West (in Toronto), is the Prime Minister’s point man on the New Deal for cities. He outlined federal thinking in a speech to big city mayors on January 22.

He said there are three priorities: stable, predictable, long-term funding; building sustainable relationships; and looking at federal activity through an urban lens.

Godfrey says new funding is constrained by the federal desire to balance the budget (not mentioning that corporate taxes have just been slashed by more than $4 billion a year), and that whatever the arrangement, it must be flexible enough to allow municipalities to meet their own needs. He said that sharing the gas tax is the most serious funding option, although it’s likely it won’t be in place for several years.

Regarding the “urban lens,” he suggests it is important that the federal government, which is a big landlord and employer in many cities, be a good corporate citizen.

“I can assure you that cities will rank high on this government’s agenda,” he said. But there is a depressing lack of substance in this speech, and the three priorities are both flabby and thin. It’s as though the federal government is coming at this issue fresh, without knowing what’s been said by mayors and others for the last few years. One fears that Paul Martin will drag out for several years the promise he made last summer of giving cities new federal money – and then find reasons for limiting those sums. If the Speech from the Throne on February 2 doesn’t says anything more than Mr. Godfrey said on January 22, that will be a clear signal that change at the federal level is not in the air.

The full text of Mr. Godfrey’s speech can be found in the library at http://www.localgovernment.ca

3. The view from big city mayors

When mayors and councillors from nine Canadian cities met in Toronto for two days starting January 22, they didn’t hold back on demands. They want to immediately be relieved of paying Goods and Services Tax (which costs cities about $500 million a year), and to have the $2 billion in infrastructure funds promised over the next ten years, to be fully available now.

They also advanced the urban cause by talking about the need for a “new partnership”, with cities involved in budget and policy deliberations which involve cities. That’s a lot different than a new deal. They want a share of the gas taxes now (5¢ per litre from Ottawa, as Martin had promised) and a share of sales tax and income tax.

The cities intend to keep active, attending the big city mayor’s meeting in Ottawa in February, as well as meetings in Edmonton, Montreal, and in the fall, Toronto.

The cities represented at the Toronto meeting were Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, and Halifax. A number of large cities complained that they hadn’t been included in these sessions.

The text of the communiqué issued at the end of the meeting is in the library of the website at http://www.localgovernment.ca

4. A longer view

John Sewell’s Citystate column of January 22, 2004 in Toronto’s ‘eye weekly’ was about the big city mayors meeting. He notes that the fatal weakness in the cities’ case has been the 75 year old court decision which concludes that the 1867 Canadian constitution considered cities mere `creatures’ of the province. That’s led cities to ask politely for modest sums of money, and for federal politicians to generally slough off these urban demands. The way the argument is pitched makes it look as though the mayors are whining, and that leaders of different levels of government are just fighting among themselves. He concludes:

“It’s time for a new strategy, one that offers something tangible and concrete that the public wants. In that way, it won’t be a matter of political leaders engaged in in-fighting, it will be a matter of mayors and city councils asking for things of real substance and value to their constituents.

“The first thing to say is that those cities who want to run an affordable housing program should be given the power to do so. As finance minister, Paul Martin cancelled the affordable housing programs more than a decade ago, so it’s clear he doesn’t want his government involved. That’s fine. But now that he has vacated that field, he should give cities the power to enter it – and he should give cities the tax tools to raise the money to support housing programs.

“Second, health care. The Romanow Commission stated that the critical issue to be addressed in health care was primary care – that is the availability of doctors for routine day-to-day health needs. This is not an issue the federal government has any interest in addressing, nor does it have the means. Primary health care needs will be addressed through community health clinics, and the only level of government capable of establishing such clinics so they are widely available (currently the number of community clinics is very limited) is the city. The federal government has had two years to act on this proposal by Romanow but has done nothing. The city should ask for the power to establish and fund community health clinics – and the tax tools needed to raise the money to support these clinics.

“Third, poverty. Women and children are most likely to be afflicted by poverty, and poverty rates have grown since Paul Martin became finance minister in 1991. [The FCM has recently issued a report on this very subject, documenting growing poverty in three cities.] Most people in Toronto think it’s unconscionable that one third of Toronto’s children live in poverty. City councils should have the power and responsibility to address questions of poverty by having firm control of the welfare system, including the amount paid out under it, the incentives built into the system, and the support available to those who receive it. Cities should have the responsibility of creating social equity that the federal government seems uninterested in. And it needs the tax tools necessary to support a welfare system that helps get people out of poverty, and reduces levels of poverty.

“These are real kinds of programs that people in Toronto, and probably in other Canadian cities as well, would like to see in place. Since one size doesn’t fit all, each city would have different ideas of the best ways of implementing these programs and the tax monies needed. There’s a good chance that demands formulated in these ways would attract much community support.

“And, as has been pointed out, Paul Martin himself has no intention of implementing any of these programs – they are all things he has already dropped. By running healthy surpluses each year while cutting taxes (the most recent tax cut is worth $4.4 billion a year to the corporate world) he has made it clear the federal government didn’t need any more money.

“Martin should be asked to allow cities to capture the tax room he vacated, and take responsibility for the programs he’s not interested in. That would be the best new strategy our city leaders should start talking about.

“Enough of this nickel and dime stuff. Starting tomorrow, let’s talk tough about the big social programs cities need and the powers and tax mechanisms needed to support them.“

The complete text of Sewell’s article can be found at http://www.eye.net, and look for Citystate column, January 22, 2004.
5. Subscribe to the Bulletin
The bulletin is sent monthly, at no cost, to about 1500 individuals involved directly or indirectly in local government in Canada. 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 http://www.localgovernment.ca and follow 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. Our next Bulletin will be in February.