IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance, 2020

This paper takes stock of current practices of metropolitan governance in Canada to identify patterns of institutional and policy development. While Canada was best known in the postwar decades for innovating two-tier metropolitan local governments in Toronto, Montr al, Winnipeg, and other cities, this model no longer exists at the metropolitan scale anywhere in the country. Instead, we see five distinct models in operation, sometimes in combination with one another: the “unicity,” or single-tier municipal model; the compulsory regional intergovernmental organization; the voluntary intermunicipal partnership; the metropolitan single-purpose body; and the provincial policy overlay. This diversity of institutional forms found across Canada reflects variation in both provincial systems of local government and geographies of urban settlement. It also points to both the flexibility of Canadian governance and policy making and the central role provincial governments play in establishing these systems.

Toronto is at a remarkable point in its history. As one of the most prosperous, diverse and inclusive cities in the world, and as a major centre of commerce and culture, it also plays a special role on the national scene. The anticipated powers under a new City of Toronto Act will give Toronto special, unique status in Canada. For the first time, the City will have the power to respond to the changing needs of its residents and to chart its own path for its future. Toronto will have the power to reform its model of democratic government. This report contains our recommendations.

IMFG Pespectives, 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic and the economic crisis it has produced have highlighted pre-existing cracks in Canada’s federal structure, particularly in relation to Canada’s cities. On the one hand, Canadian cities are on the front lines addressing and dealing with the impacts of Canada’s major policy challenges – not only COVID-19, but also climate change, the opioid crisis, homelessness, housing unaffordability, and insufficient transit development. On the other hand, cities remain “little siblings” in Canadian federalism: the federal government and the provinces and territories dominate the political and policy conversation, the powers and responsibilities of cities are subject to unilateral provincial change, and provinces maintain a strong presence in municipal affairs through oversight and regulations. Cities face four specific challenges because of this situation: 1. Paternalism: Cities have a semblance of authority in several policy areas, but often little actual power to make changes unilaterally. 2. Constrained finances: Cities have inadequate revenue sources and insufficient fiscal flexibility to meet their responsibilities. 3. Poor coordination: Unclear and overlapping jurisdiction between orders of government leads to poorly coordinated programs and disputes over responsibility. 4. Fragmentation: A lack of appropriate regional governance structures in much of Canada prevents necessary coordination among cities in a metropolitan region. How can these imbalances be addressed? This report recommends two fundamental steps. First, a clarification of the powers and responsibilities of cities is needed. In practice, this entails a review of provincial-municipal relations, which should take place in the context of a similar review of the imbalance in federal-provincial relations. Six core principles should underlie the review: 1. Take a collaborative approach 2. Start with who does what 3. Follow the pay-for-say principle and avoid unfunded mandates 4. Consider revenue capacity and fiscal flexibility 5. Accommodate differences among municipalities 6. Look forward, not backward Second, trilateral relations in Canada should be deepened. Cities, provinces, and the federal government should have formal avenues for regular meetings and collaborative governance. At the same time, governments should pursue trilateral agreements to address policy challenges that require coordinated action and multi-level funding. In combination, these measures will not only put cities on a firmer footing, but they will also ensure the effective funding, coordination, and delivery of public services across all orders of government. Canada will be better able to “build back better” from COVID-19, including by addressing climate change, reforming social policy, and improving health care, if the governments best able to deliver on these efforts can afford to take them on. Canada will also be better equipped to handle these challenges with better coordination and cooperation among all three orders of government.

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 2001

This article examines the saga of local government restructuring in Canada's capital city. Specifically, it analyzes the interplay between provincial and local agendas for local government reform over many years, which culminated in provincial legislation and a one-year transition process to establish one municipality for the Ottawa city region. In doing so, the article addresses the extent to which the Ottawa transition demonstrates learning from other major urban restructuring efforts and the extent to which the Ottawa case provides new insights for future local government reform efforts. Key conclusions are that the key motivation for provincially initiated reform-cost saving through simplification of the local government structure in Ottawa-does not fully coincide with local needs and interests. Furthermore, the promise of financial savings has proven difficult to realize as a result of the local politics surrounding existing municipal debt and unresolved human resource management costs. Instead, future benefits from the amalgamation may lie in improved capacity to manage physical development, environmental sustainability, and cultural diversity.

Over the past 50 years, interest in a national urban policy in Canada has waxed and waned. Although the 1960s represented a high water mark in terms of creating national institutions on urban issues, efforts to develop a national urban policy languished until the early 2000s. While national urban policy can mean different things, a useful distinction is made between explicit urban policies directed to cities and implicit policies that may significantly affect cities, but are not targeted at cities.The 21st century has seen a renewed interest internationally in national urban policies.This paper draws on the experience of countries that have explicitly pursued national urban policies to solve complex and interrelated urban challenges: 1) in the United Kingdom, the national government works directly with the largest cities to identify specific place-based priorities; 2) in the Australian federal system, a national policy involves collaboration among all tiers of government and institutional alignment across key departments and agencies; 3) in Germany, experimental initiatives on a range of issues in urban development involve citizens actively in their city; 4) in Brazil’s federal decentralized system, a strong recognition of the importance of cities has resulted in a national urban policy and a federal Ministry of Cities to support municipalities in carrying out their functions; and 5) France’s Politique de la Ville is an integrated approach to problems of deprived neighbourhoods and social fragmentation. It is unclear whether Canada will establish a similar policy or institution. If it does, however, this paper proposes three elements for a national urban policy: collaborative governance involving cities as joint partners in deciding their fates with the provinces and federal government; coordinating the diverse policies that affect the quality of life of Canadians living in cities; robust policy, research, and monitoring mechanisms to identify what is working and best practices both nationally and internationally.

Canadian Journal of Political Science, 2011

Urban Geography, 2007

This paper compares the transformation of metropolitan institutions in two Canadian city-regions (Toronto and Montreal). Taking Neil Brenner’s argument about new state spaces as a starting point, we discuss comparatively how governance restructuring in recently consolidated Toronto and Montreal has been part of more general changes to the architecture of governance in Canada. We look specifically at changes to the mediation channels between civil society and metropolitan institutions. A “nationally” scaled comparison, this project must take into account the specific differences between Francophone and Anglophone Canada, between the different civic traditions in Montreal and Toronto and different traditional significance attributed to the scale and nature of metropolitan governance structures and variously scaled agency in both cities. This makes our case in many ways more like an international comparison.

Dela, 2004

Cities, increasingly, are the principal arenas in which global, national and local forces intersect. Canadian cities are no exception. Those cities are currently undergoing a series of profound and irreversible transitions as a result of external forces originating from different sources and operating at different spatial scales. Specifically, this paper argues that Canadian cities are being transformed in a markedly uneven fashion through the intersection of changes in national and regional economies, the continued demographic transition, and shifts in government policy on the one hand, and through increased levels and new sources of immigration, and the globalization of capital and trade flows, on the other hand. These shifts, in turn, are producing new patterns of external dependence, a more fragmented urban system, and continued metropolitan concentration. They are also leading to increased sociocultural differences, with intense cultural diversity in some cities juxtaposed with homogeneity in other cities, and to new sets of urban winners and losers. In effect, these transitions are creating new sources of difference-new divides-among and within the country=s urban centres, augmenting or replacing the traditional divides based on city-size, location in the heartland or periphery, and local economic base.

2009

Revista de economía pública urbana, 2004