bulletins.cfm

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.

Highlighted by lampertina

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.

Highlighted by lampertina