Meanwhile the cities increasingly are
the major source of revenues for the provincial and federal governments.
Income taxes, the gasoline tax, the GST and provincial sales taxes
(or in a regressive sleight of hand, Alberta's users' fees) flow
to the provinces and the feds.
Some is returned, but the cities must be supplicants and the donors
are fickle. The federal government once had a cabinet post devoted
to urban matters and something similar may return depending on
shifting perceptions of political advantage.
It has certainly slashed the funds it makes available for urban
initiatives, and these tend to be dispensed in response more to
party priorities than public benefit.
Alberta's flip-flops over the amount of gasoline tax returned
to the cities for investment in transportation infrastructure,
and their dismantling of arms-length dispensation of provincial
lottery funds demonstrate the unreliability of existing arrangements.
In a recent discussion, Alberta Minister of Municipal Affairs
Guy Boutilier, an unusually well-informed and savvy politician,
once a city planner and mayor himself, merrily quipped he'd gladly
see the federal share of the gasoline tax returned to the cities.
It seems unlikely he could persuade his cabinet colleagues to
give up the provincial cut.
This points to the root problem, almost certainly beyond fixing.
When the U.S. and Canadian constitutions were agreed upon (for
Canada the British North America Act of 1867), cities were nowhere
on the political horizon.
Not only were both countries still predominantly rural and agricultural,
attitudes still reflected the 18th-century British disdain for
city life. The novels of Jane Austen epitomize the view that cities
are centres of sophistication: that is, greed, superficiality,
and vice, where rural life is wholesome, honest, and the source
of virtue. Thoreau's Walden embodies a similar train of thought.
Constitutional change to mend the problem seems far beyond reach.
Canadians are still dealing with the fallout from the last round,
now 20 years old. Still, a direct and independent share in the
nation's wealth remains an enticing dream.
One reason for its distance beyond reach is an electoral system
more directly related to representation by hectare than by population.
Again, rural beginnings, plus the problem of representing enormous
rural and northern constituencies biases representation and the
legislatures against municipal interests.
Explicit constitutional provincial power over municipalities (creatures
of the provinces) further complicates federal efforts to intervene
(although direct federal measures are not debarred). In the past
this has meant federal involvement in cities only with provincial
agreement (and, usually cost-sharing).
The three levels of government have to find common ground on proposed
policies; a difficult though not impossible goal given their divergent
interests, and the diversity of provincial views and circumstances.
Usually Quebec opts out. I gather arrangements are looser and
federal power to intervene much greater to the south. Much more
generous tax sharing also prevails, at least in some states.
What is needed is some sub-constitutional solution that is less
unstable and undependable than the present system of grants, tax
rebates, and short term programs.
As well, cities need to band together, both in regional and national
alliances, to muster the maximum lobbying power. Some of this
is already happening, and some responses are evident.
When aspiring prime minister Paul Martin cut loose from the federal
cabinet earlier this year, he declared himself in favour of new
arrangements favouring cities. The incumbent, Jean Chretien, is
now expected "to pledge billions to urban infrastructure"
in the next federal budget (The Globe and Mail, Saturday, September
21 2002, p.A4).
A rash of thoughtful recent reports and studies from, among others,
the Calgary-based Canada West Foundation
has framed the issues and canvassed possible solutions.
It has taken a long time: as a very green, young architecture
student at a conversation organized by a well-connected residence
don, I remember raising some of the same issues with Lester Pearson
in the early '60s.
Perhaps the tide is at long last flowing in the right direction.
Certainly there seems to be a new and broader recognition of the
economic and cultural importance of cities to our nations.
Let's hope new resources and better long-term policies wash ashore.
Michael McMordie is a professor
in the Faculties of Environmental Design and Communication &
Culture, and director of the Resources and the Environment Program
in the Faculty of Graduate Studies at the University of Calgary.
He is president of the Calgary Civic Trust.
Have an opinion? Join
the discussion in this week's forum.
Or click
here to view all our forums.
click
here for a printer-friendly version
