The Real-World Politics of Federal Urban Policies - For Distribution

of 30

“If you like laws and sausages…” The “Real-World” Politics of Federal Urban Policies1

© C. David Crenna, M.A., M.Sc.

c/o Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario London, Ontario

December 4, 2009

“Our conclusion, for now, is that there is no simple explanation

for the rise of municipal issues onto the federal agenda in Canada. There is no “silver bullet” here.

Robert Young and Kelly McCarthy,

Department of Political Science, University of Western Ontario “Why Does a Federal Government Intrude into Fields of Provincial Jurisdiction? -

Municipal Issues on the Federal Policy Agenda in Canada”

Abstract A variety of books, research reports and articles have appeared on the topic of “federal-municipal relations”. However, most have tended to omit consideration of the partisan political elements of such relations, meaning: forming alliances based on ideology and mutual interests in gaining public office; sharing political and financial resources to win elections; recruiting candidates; collecting campaign contributions; rewarding supporters with patronage appointments or funding for local projects, etc. Here we explore the omission of such factors. First, we assess whether the topic is indeed left out of a representative range of recent studies. Second, we explore why such a gap in data collection and analysis may have occurred. Finally, we probe the implications of ignoring partisan political considerations in many expert assessments of the prospects for federal-municipal relations and for federal “urban” policy. The starting point for the analysis is a quick review of some of the main works on federal-municipal relations, as well as local government and politics. It is clear enough from this review that while the literature on partisan political activities and local government may be a bit thin, the subject has certainly been addressed within the walls of individual levels of government. For example, there is a substantial literature on whether political parties at the local level would be a good idea. It is the political dynamics between levels of government that have been largely ignored, as fully acknowledged by Young and Leuprecht (2006) in their introduction to the major recent book on federal-municipal relations. Such factors may be largely absent from the literature because university-based researchers are not aware of them. Studies of municipal government have tended to concentrate on formal governance structures and processes, institutional arrangements for urban governance, etc. The ostensibly non-partisan nature of municipal government may also account for a lack of robust literature in this context. Another hypothesis is that political factors can be dismissed by analysts as “froth” on the surface of federal-municipal relations… not affecting major substantive decisions. Governments of whatever political party do need to deal with municipalities on a routine and non- or bi-partisan basis. Third, the record of federal-municipal interactions is not impressive, at least from the perspective of those seeking comprehensive “urban” policies. Policy-oriented researchers may shy away from the topic because they are in denial. Finally, partisan political activities are deliberately kept “below the radar screen” of public awareness and documentation. Research on them is quite difficult, can be costly and risky, and is potentially more appropriate for approaches taken by investigative journalists than by academics.

1 The whole quote, attributed to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck is: “If you like laws and sausages,

you should never watch either one being made.” See: http://www.bartleby.com/73/996.html.

of 30

1. Scope In a seminal work published in 1935, noted American political scientist Harold Lasswell stated that “politics is who gets what, when and how”. He could easily and correctly have added the word “where” to the list.2 This review article briefly examines a sample of the recent literature on federal-municipal relations in Canada, placing it within the context of the literature on local government institutions and issues as a whole. It focuses on deconstructing and responding to a single question: what are the partisan political aspects of federal-municipal relations, and how to they play out in real life? How do these affect substantive policy outcomes, including the rather checkered history of federal efforts to enunciate a “national urban policy”? What exactly do policy planners mean when they attribute the failure to carry out a federal urban policy to “a lack of political will”? Or are they perhaps missing an assessment of political marketability and feasibility in their own calculations? There are two parallel lines of inquiry: • What are the potential impacts of partisan political motives on the substance of

federal policies toward municipalities? To what extent does published academic literature consider this in assessing the fate of consciously “urban” policies for Canada promoted by the federal government?

• What is the evolutionary arc of federal-municipal relations as a process? Are there

partisan motives for expanding and/or maintaining contacts, despite the formal constitutional and other barriers to them?

The ultimate aim in doing this review is to be able to assess the nature, extent and quality of evidence provided in the literature about the dynamics of comprehensive “place-based” policies, both nationally and within individual communities. The latter is a topic for future research, beyond the scope of the present review. Nevertheless, the author is somewhat skeptical that such policies can be sustained over time – at least in full public view – based on the limited to negative results of the past. Much of the literature on this topic has the air of a second or third marriage: the triumph of hope over experience.

2 See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lasswell.

of 30

2. Some Illustrations of the Dynamics in Question Let us begin with some specific examples of how federal-municipal relations play out in “real life”, in order to indicate more precisely the subject matter of the literature review as a whole. All happen to occur while the Conservative Party is in federal office and involve relations with current municipal leaders of various political stripes. However, this simply reflects a decision to select stories within recent memory. Similar illustrations could be found for periods when the Liberals were in federal office during previous years or decades. • On June 15, 2006, the Hon. Michael Harcourt, Chair of the Prime Minister’s

“External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities” submitted his report to Conservative Prime Minister Harper after two years of research and consultation. Having been initiated by the previous Liberal Government, the report quickly sank without a trace.3

• In August of 2007, the “Cities and Communities Branch” of the Ministry of Transport,

Infrastructure and Communities quietly disappeared. Its Assistant Deputy Minister was reassigned to a new Branch charged with a National Transit Strategy and Special Projects.4 This was only the most recent chapter in a rather long story of the federal government under both major parties first initiating and then abandoning formal efforts to establish a comprehensive “urban” policy, together with associated institutional arrangements. Despite these sorts of policy cycles, it is clear that active federal-municipal relationships persist under a variety of federal ministries, and may even be increasing in both complexity and importance over time.5

• On May 21, 2009, the Hon. John Baird, federal minister responsible for urban

infrastructure funding, testified at the trial of Mayor Larry O’Brien of Ottawa on a charge of influence-peddling.6 The specific allegation was that the Mayor had indirectly or directly offered a federal job to a rival candidate – as well as money for campaign expenses incurred – if the latter would drop out of the 2006 mayoralty race in his favour.

3 See: http://www1.unitedway.ca/sites/PortalEN/Lists/Latest%20News/DispForm.aspx?ID=38. Note that

this report has disappeared from the federal government Website. 4 This branch has subsequently been renamed: the Assistant Deputy Minister is now in charge of

“Special Projects” alone and has a single support staff person reporting to her. Documentation of the organizational changes can be found in the Departmental Performance Reports for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 respectively. Go to: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2007-2008/inst/inf/inf04-eng.asp#toc_4_1. 5 For example, the Federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities still makes an annual

trek to the conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and seeks to court the association, despite changes in the underlying political relationship. Furthermore, after initially resisting a direct federal role in administering infrastructure programs in their 2006 platform, the Conservatives have swung over to active adoption and expansion of such a role. 6 Note that the CBC news story is dated May 20

th but the actual appearance of the Minister at the trial

took place on the 21st.

of 30

Mr. O’Brien was alleged to have suggested to the candidate that the Parole Board job in question was within the power of Mr. Baird to arrange, and that he should contact the Minister about it. A verdict was published on August 5 that the Mayor was not guilty. Indeed, the judge found that such behaviour was very common in political circles. He said: “It is not an offence to encourage an opponent to seek alternative employment. Were this an offence, there would be a need for many more jails.”7

• On November 5, 2009, the Globe & Mail reported that the “biggest winners” of the Conservatives' stimulus funding for infrastructure projects include one of the Prime Minister's closest friends, a riding the Tories desperately hoped to win in a by-election, and a long-time party stalwart.8

• An article of October 22, 2009 noted that a high-profile Conservative government stimulus fund that builds hockey rinks and other voter-friendly infrastructure projects has funneled about 38 per cent more cash, on average, to Conservative ridings than to those held by the opposition in the election battleground province of Ontario. A detailed analysis by The Globe and Mail of more than 750 projects funded by Ottawa's Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) program showed that Conservative-held ridings received an average of $2.1-million, compared to $1.5-million on average for opposition constituencies.9

• A federal-municipal relations saga of longer duration, but reported on July 9, 2009 is the “Insite” safe injection facility in Vancouver, originally promoted by a former Mayor of Vancouver who was also previously a federal RCMP officer. According to a Vancouver Province report, the idea of a drug-use facility funded with federal money every year is controversial. Some studies (also federally-funded) have found it useful. Other studies, backed by the RCMP and a report by a Health Canada committee question research conclusions about the facility, citing lack of longitudinal research and reliance on self-reporting by users. Despite support from the Province of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver and public-health officials, the federal government began a B.C. Court of Appeal process in late April of 2009 to overturn a lower court ruling that Insite was a service to which users have a constitutional right.10

• Another recent news story is ostensibly about a provincial politician shifting to the municipal level but turns out to have federal implications as well. According to the press report at the time, “…news that former Liberal deputy premier George Smitherman was running for mayor of Toronto is already complicating the Liberal family tree.”

7 See: http://www.ottawasun.com/news/obrien/2009/08/05/10369816.html.

8 See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stimulus-money-favours-key-tories/article1353130.

9 See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stimulus-program-favours-tory-

ridings/article1333239/. 10

See: www.theprovince.com/news/Insite+drug...facility.../story.html.

of 30

One of Mr. Ignatieff’s senior campaign strategists, Warren Kinsella, says he intends to campaign for John Tory – should he run – as future mayor of Toronto, rather than Mr. Smitherman. Mr. Tory is the former leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives. “I'm still a Liberal, always will be, and - if John runs, and I hope he does - I will be one of the many card-carrying Grits who supports him,” he wrote in his blog.11

In light of these and many other stories of federal “urban” policy and of federal-municipal links, it seems at least plausible to contend that there are vital partisan political motives involved in many such relationships. It is important to trace, document and explain roles played by partisan political factors in urban policy outcomes. Key elements of public policy decisions are surely affected by four main unrelenting efforts by virtually all successful politicians: • They seek to increase public support relative to rival leaders and parties, or to

competing ideology-based alliances in the case of municipalities. Polling, advertising, and consultation processes all serve to gauge the popularity of given policies and candidates. All these undertakings cost significant amounts of money to carry out, and all can potentially be funded by both federal and municipal governments on the public tab.

• Politicians also want to deliver tangible and visible benefits to constituents, whether

residents of specific geographic areas or members of special interest groups who happen to live in cities. Delivering to constituents entails a ceaseless struggle for credit for individual projects as well as broader program and policy announcements. A surprising amount of energy and attention of both legislators and senior officials is deployed in staging announcements and other political events.12

• Both federal and municipal politicians have a substantial say in the contracting

process for capital works, and municipal politicians directly manage the development approval processes for private sector developments. The development industry is the major source of municipal campaign funding (MacDermid, 2007; Young and Austin, 2008) and also an important federal donor industry. Elected officials want to obtain campaign donations from this and other industry and labour union sources, ideally well in advance of elections. Donations may in turn be based on delivering benefits that are either visible or preferably hidden. Politicians are looking for donations both in cash and in kind, e.g., campaign workers, free advertising.

• Political party executives are almost always interested in recruiting and mobilizing

good, electible candidates, and seasoned campaign workers at election time. One of the surprising findings of this study is that the municipal experience of federal Members of Parliament does not appear to have been examined systematically at all.

11

See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/warren-kinsella-votes-tory/article1356708/. 12

As just one source of evidence for this, the reader is invited to visit any Website of a federal Member of Parliament.

of 30

From the data provided on the Parliament of Canada Website, about a quarter of all current federal MPs have previously held municipal office. The proportion has declined gradually over time, but still remains a potential factor in federal-municipal relations.

Of course, the substance of policy issues matters a great deal to outcomes as well, but policy content is almost always viewed by federal politicians through a prism of how to gain partisan political advantage. This may especially be the case when it comes to urban issues and initiatives, for reasons already hinted above, and to be elaborated further below.

of 30

3. Implications of Partisan Political Considerations for Urban Geography

As a hypothesis, this article posits that the struggle for political advantage among different parties and ideological alliances -- as well as among individual politicians and leaders of advocacy groups -- is important to both the “preferred” substance and the final locational outcomes of federal public policies. Purely technical, geographic and other factors certainly come into play in virtually all choices to be made about cities and their development. However, especially when technical decision rules are less than clear-cut, partisan political elements of a public policy choice may well be the decisive ones, with both positive and negative consequences for the longer-term prospects of urban regions and cities. This hypothesis is not an invitation or argument for urban-focused political scientists to indulge in “gotcha” journalistic kinds of studies, or to abandon formalist and institutional analysis of urban issues altogether. It is simply advice to expand the level awareness of what they do to include partisan political considerations, much as a well-rounded explanation of human behaviour does not ignore sexual motives. Here are some examples of the potential urban geography consequences of partisan political decisions: • Locating federal facilities and employees in one urban centre rather than another,

which may contribute to its long-term growth;13 • Planning and investing in infrastructure that confers favoured access to some

localities and regions but restricts or denies it to others; • Giving some local leaders a higher profile in announcements of federal benefits in

preference to others, thus enabling them to implement their own plans and pursue their own agendas for urban change with greater ease;

• Adopting or discarding policies and programs that confer benefits on whole regions,

or on particular size groups of cities, resulting in long-term differences in their economic performance and quality of life.

Let us just take two potential indicators of the consequences of what may, upon closer examination be a long history of partisan political decisions: the size of federal employment in different metropolitan areas (see Annex “A”); and the location of key military bases (Annex “B”). You can see that, with a few exceptions, capital cities and cities with significant defence installations have proportionately the most federal public servants.

13

See, for example: P. Lackenbauer (2005). "Partisan Politics, Civic Priorities, and the Urban Militia: Situating the Calgary Armoury, 1907-17." Urban History Review 33 (2): 45-60.

of 30

The overall pattern of military-base placement according to what determined their location is not clear from the available data, but it appears to have favoured selected rural ridings, plus selected Western and Atlantic Canada cities, apart from the National Capital Region itself, of course. What is also rather remarkable is that these two sources of data on distribution of federal facilities, funds and employment are among the very few made available on a regular basis. For something much more in demand to undertake comparative analysis of “who got what and where?” – federal infrastructure stimulus funding – two privately-owned newspapers found it necessary to put together a special data compilation and analysis effort, taking two weeks to produce results. A bottom-line assessment reveals why: “Conservative ridings took in $4.7 billion, more than half of the $8.5 billion announced under the federal government's Building Canada infrastructure program, mostly for paving, water, sewer and transit programs.”14 The long-term pathways of urban development in Canada were established in virtually all cases for a combination of partisan political and technical reasons, though political ones may arguably have had the upper hand at crucial points.15 In the absence of a detailed analysis of initial and subsequent choices that established the pathways, however, one cannot conclude that partisan political considerations dominated. There has been such limited Canadian research on the subject that further conclusions cannot be drawn. By contrast, the American literature on the same basic topic is huge and diverse perhaps reflecting the differences in institutional arrangements and structures, most notably the separation of powers in formulating budgets.16

14

See: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Where+federal+stimulus+money+went/2195643/story.html. 15

The reference here is to the work of a variety of social scientists on “path dependence”. See, for example J. Mahoney, (2000), ‘Path Dependence in Historical Sociology’, Theory and Society 29(4): 507-548. 16

See, for example: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/taubmancenter/publications/fisc/index.htm.

of 30

4. Uncovering Partisan Political Dimensions of Federal Urban Policies

4.2 Description of the Literature As Young (2003) notes, the Canadian literature that analyzes federal-municipal relations is relatively small, although this topic also understandably arises in the larger and more robust works on municipal governance and politics. Even more limited are articles or chapters of books that examine in some depth federal efforts to develop consciously “urban” policies, to expand relationships with municipalities and to incorporate cities into federal agenda-setting. This is so especially from the standpoint of how they relate to mobilizing and deploying political resources. Looking at the whole body of work, three major types of literature appear to dominate the field: • Textbooks, books of readings and individual articles on municipal governance and

administration, which usually include chapters, sections or comments on federal-municipal relations, as well as on partisan political aspects of municipal dynamics (Graham, Philips and Maslove, 1998; Lightbody, 1995; MacDermid, 2007; McAllister, 2004; Philips, 1976; Rogers, 1976; Stewart, 2008; Thomas,1997; Tindall and Tindall, 2008; Young and Austin, 2008).

• Case studies of federal-municipal relations, including provincial roles in these

(Berdahl, 2006; Boudreau, 2000; Dunn, 2006; Ginnell and Oberlander, 2008; Horak, 2008; Leo and Pyl, 2007; Urbaniak, 2006.

• Critiques of municipal government and of their current constitutional, political and

fiscal status, including advocacy of changes to their status (Bradford, 2007; Dewing, Young and Tolley, 2006; Hulchanski, 2006; Young and McCarthy, 2009)

In addition, it is important to draw upon the wider literature that focuses on dynamics of partisan politics and on patronage and political corruption in Canada, notably works by Gibbons and Rowat (1976) and by Simpson (1988). 4.2 Book on Federal-Municipal Relations in Canada The recent literature on the topic of federal-municipal relations as a whole is dominated by one book of articles arising from a conference on this topic in 2003 (Young and Leuprecht, 2006). On the next two pages, you can find a table that reviews the contents of all the articles in this book, including the editors’ introduction, from a single perspective: to what extent are partisan political considerations included in the analysis of federal-municipal relations?

of 30

Article: Coverage of Partisan Political Factors: Introduction: New Work, Background Themes, and Future Research about Municipal-Federal-Provincial Relations in Canada (R. Young and C. Leuprecht)

Flags the lack of analysis of partisan political factors in research to date on federal-municipal relations

The Federal Urban Role and Federal-Municipal Relations (L. Berdahl)

An example of the way in which partisan political and institutional-political aspects of the federal-municipal relationship tend to be jumbled together. Overall, the author focuses on the need for institutional reform without clearly assessing the partisan political elements. Therefore it repeats, unexamined, many of the “conventional wisdoms” in the field… a good summary of developments to 2005 though.

Municipal Relations with the Federal and Provincial Governments: A Fiscal Perspective. (M. McMillan)

An excellent summary of the current municipal fiscal situation and of intergovernmental transfers… no discussion pf partisan political factors, however.

Citistates [sic] and the State of Cities: Political-Economy and Fiscal-Federalism Dimensions. (T. Courchene)

Focuses on the large-scale political, institutional and economic challenges of the Canadian federal system from the perspective of the urban-centred regions. No commentary on partisan political aspects.

Why Municipal Amalgamations? Halifax, Toronto, Montreal (A. Sancton)

Not an aspect of the issue under discussion.

Revisiting Municipal Reforms in Quebec and the New Responsibilities of Local Actors in a Globalizing World. (P. Hamel and J. Rousseau)


Intergovernmental Relations and Polyscalar Social Mobilization: The Cases of Montreal and Toronto (J. Boudreau)

The best single assessment of relationships among municipal, provincial, and federal partisan politics to be found in the book, although this is addressed in only a few pages.

Recent Changes in Provincial-Municipal Relations in Ontario: A New Era or a Missed Opportunity? (D. Siegel)


Ethnocultural Diversity, Democracy, and Intergovernmental Relations in Canadian Cities (C. Poirier)

Focuses on the institutional and programmatic aspects of immigration policy, leaving out the intensely partisan political aspects.

What Factors Shape Canadian Housing Policy? The Intergovernmental Role in Canada's Housing System (D. Hulchanski)

Addresses in considerable detail a major sub-field within urban policy from the standpoint of partisan politics at the highest level… in relation to ideological struggle over benefits to major socio-economic groups.

Local Whole-of-Government Policymaking in Vancouver: Beavers, Cats, and the Mushy Middle Thesis (P. Smith and K. Stewart)

Main emphasis is on fleshing out a taxonomy of different approaches to policy, but contains several pages on the dynamics of a new Mayor who straddled the ideological divide, and the politics of securing federal funding for local initiatives.

Rhetoric and Restraint: Municipal-Federal Relations in Canada's Largest Edge City (T. Urbaniak)

The fascinating story of how a single, long-serving, politically-capable Mayor (Hazel McCallion) has been able to use all the resources at her disposal in managing relationships with both federal and provincial governments to extract maximum benefits for her municipality, Mississauga, Ontario.

of 30

Article: Coverage of Partisan Political Factors: Urban Asymmetry and Provincial Mediation of Federal-Municipal Relations in Newfoundland and Labrador. (C. Dunn)

Deals with institutional and programmatic elements of the federal-provincial-municipal relationship, usually handled at a bureaucratic level. Avoids entirely discussion of partisan considerations in distributing federal benefits to localities.

Federal-Municipal-Provincial Relations in Saskatchewan: Provincial Roles, Approaches, and Mechanisms. (J. Garcea and K. Pontikes)

Emphasizes institutional aspects of federal-municipal relations, but does contain a useful summary of political dynamics among federal, provincial and municipal levels.

Given that the Young and Leuprecht (2006) book is the one reasonably current work in this field, it does quite a good job of covering the territory, albeit mainly from a formal, institutional standpoint as can be seen from the comments above. In addition, the editors do note in discussing research themes for the future the important roles played by elected officials and by political advocates in conducting federal-municipal relationships. They add a telling comment that “Purely partisan considerations have been largely written out of the study of federal-provincial relations by political scientists, perhaps unduly so.” This is a hopeful signpost for future work in this field. 4.3 UWO “Public Policies in Municipalities” Project A major SSHRCC-funded project on “Public Policy in Municipalities”, also called the “Multilevel Governance” project, is based at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), and led by Professor Robert Young. The wide-ranging and inclusive research team is producing a series of articles and books on a variety of topics, many of them signaled as matters of future research interest at the aforementioned conference. These studies address a number of the gaps in understanding of federal-municipal relations.17 Six policy fields were selected for detailed study, aiming for a representative selection covering different regions of the country. According to the project Website, these differ in the primary instrument used (spending or regulation), in their visibility to the public, and in whether they fall within federal jurisdiction. The team has also chosen a combination of “hard” fields involving physical matters and “soft” services to people. Here they are, with brief comments by the author in italics on their relevance to the principal topic of this paper:

• Emergency planning. This area principally involves municipal fire, police, and public health authorities, but large scale disasters such as the Winnipeg flood or SARS necessarily demand provincial and federal action. The latter offer the opportunity for the federal government, whether through the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Armed Forces, or other means to become directly involved in delivering tangible aid to local populations.

17

Go to: http://www.ppm-ppm.ca/ for a complete description of this project.

of 30

• Federal real property. The federal government owns a great deal of property - offices, military bases, ports, and many other facilities. These raise many issues of concern to municipalities, including payments in lieu of taxes, derelict land, and environmental matters. In the area of ports alone, recent issues concern marine pollution, waterfront conversion and possible privatization (as was the case with airports). Federal property is an ongoing opportunity to seek local partisan advantage through legal fees, consulting contracts, property management contracts, and real estate sales. The “federal presence” in communities is a basis for federal and municipal politicians to work together and build alliances.

• Image-building. The aim is to study efforts to sell municipalities to investors in a competitive market. “It allows access to political contests about how the municipality represents itself to the national and global world”. The research project examines the “rich vein of historical work which explores the representation of communities”- in a highly contested and negotiated fashion - at major events and commemorations. Of course, such events are also a major venue for partisan jockeying for visibility, as well as delivering advertising and public relations contracts, vital to future election campaigns.18

• Immigrant settlement. Large numbers of immigrants locate in Canada’s major cities, where policies to help settle them and to succeed in Canadian society are manifold. A host of important problems surround immigrant settlement. Offering programs to address these problems offers a major avenue for cultivating future voters as well as ethnic organizations, something most federal political parties recognize and actively pursue.

• Infrastructure. These programs are marked by complex municipal-federal-provincial negotiations about the choice of projects, the division of funding and the agency of implementation. This field also raises the issue of how badly the infrastructure has deteriorated, and highlights the tensions over priorities between expert engineers and elected politicians. Even more important are the conflicts over “priorities” among elected politicians of different parties and situated in different levels of government. In this case, “priorities” often refer to competing opportunities for visibility and for delivering to key constituencies. Typical conflicts between engineering professionals and politicians revolve around choices between system modernization (largely invisible) and flashier new infrastructure developments with ribbon-cuttings and high-profile announcements.

• Urban Aboriginal policy. First Nations people continue to migrate to large and small municipalities, especially in Western Canada. Serious problems of poverty exist in many urban Aboriginal communities, while there is much disagreement over which levels of government are responsible for services (especially to Métis).

18

Advertising, polling and public relations firms typically secure significant government business in return for favourable financial terms for election campaign services. These arrangements should be distinguished from those made during the “sponsorship scandal” when over-billing, billing for services never rendered, and other fraudulent activities occurred.

of 30

While there are political advantages to be sought in alliances with Aboriginal organizations in some localities, there is also a substantial effort afoot to “make the other guy pay” in responding to their needs and demands.

Note that only in few cases have the partisan political implications outlined in italics by the author been addressed in the university-based research described.19 This said, they all seemed to be solid and useful pieces of work nonetheless.

Articles arising from the Public Policy in Municipalities project to date include the following:

• "Determinants of Municipal Infrastructure Expenditures in Canada: 1988-2003. Is there a Flypaper Effect?" (F. Bojorquez and F. Vaillancourt)

• "Placing Social Policy? Reflections on Canada’s New Deal for Cities and Communities." (N. Bradford)

• "Mad Cows, Regional Governance, and Urban Sprawl: Path Dependence and Unintended Consequences in the Calgary Region." (G. Ghitter and A. Smart)

• "Making Biggest Bigger: Port Metro Vancouver's 21st Century Re-Structuring - Global Meets Local at the Asia Pacific Gateway." (K. Ginnell, P. Smith, and P. Oberlander)

• "Governance Reform from Below: Multilevel Politics and the 'New Deal' Campaign in Toronto, (M. Horak).

• "Canadian Ports: Trends and Opportunities." (M. Ircha). • "Multi-level Governance and Democratic Responsiveness: Federal Property in

Winnipeg." (C. Leo and M. Pyl) • "Settling the Unsettled: Migrants, Municipalities and Multilevel Governance in

British Columbia." (S. Kataoka and W. Magnusson) • "Ports, Politics and the Pacific Gateway: Consequences for Regional Development in Western Canada." (G. Wilson and T. Summerville) • "Transformation, Transportation or Speculation? The Prince Rupert Container Port

and its Impact on Northern British Columbia." (G. Wilson and T. Summerville) • "Alberta's Port? Prince Rupert Development and Network Federalism." (J. Young) • "Why Does a Federal Government Intrude into Fields of Provincial Jurisdiction?

Municipal Issues on the Federal Policy Agenda in Canada." (R. Young and K. McCarthy)

As in the case of the Young and Leuprecht book, articles listed above – with three exceptions – tend not to cover partisan political aspects of the relationship, except perhaps indirectly. The three exceptions are the articles by Bradford, Horak, and Young and McCarthy. These are all addressed in the next section on the “false dawns” of national urban policy.

19

The author was fortunate to be invited to a round-table discussion of all the research projects convened at Carleton University in March, 2008 at which all the research findings were presented. The most direct references to partisan political considerations were in relation to infrastructure, by a presenter who is mainly a private sector consultant. A presentation by two university-based researchers on “Federal-Local Machinery” did flag the importance of partisanship, but tended to regard it as a nuisance in pursuing the larger institutional agenda.

of 30

4.4 The “False Dawns” of a National Urban Policy Over the past four decades there have been no less than eight different organizations formally established to advise the federal government on some version of a “national urban policy” for Canada. Of these, four have been temporary creations intended to do some strategic research, consult with interest groups and the public at large and then report. The remaining four have – at least notionally – been permanent organizations, though all have been disbanded. It is also a matter of some note that such a revelation is probably fresh news to all but a few hundred Canadians, if that many. The table below offers a chronology of these institutional arrangements.

Chronology of “Urban Affairs” Organizations Within the Federal Government, 1968 to 2009

DATES: NAME OF

ORGANIZATION: TYPE OF ORGANIZATION:

1968 – 1969 Task Force on Housing and Urban Development (also called the “Hellyer Task Force)

Temporary policy advisory body, in this case headed by the Minister of Transport

1969 – 1970 Lithwick research team, led by Dr. Harvey Lithwick of Carleton University

Temporary policy research and advisory body reporting to the Minister responsible for CMHC

1971 – 1979 Ministry of State for Urban Affairs

Ministry established under the Government Organization Act, reporting to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, also the Minister responsible for CMHC

2001 – 2002 Prime Minister’s Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues

Temporary body, with support from officials task force within Privy Council Office, reporting to the Prime Minister

2003 – 2006 Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister

Secretariat within Privy Council Office reporting to a Parliamentary Secretary, who reported to the Prime Minister

2003 – 2006 Ministry of State (Infrastructure); Cities and Communities Secretariat

Department reporting to Minister of State, who reported to Minister of the Environment

2004 – 2006 External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities

Temporary policy advisory body with support from Department of Infrastructure Cities and Communities Branch, reporting to the Prime Minister

2006 – 2007 Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Cities and Communities Branch

Two departments reporting to the Minister of Transport and the Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

2006 – 2009 Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. (Some aspects of urban research still conducted by the Research and Analysis Directorate, Infrastructure Canada)

Two departments reporting to the Minister of Transport and the Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Activities focus on “infrastructure” policy rather than urban policy.

of 30

Those who take the time to compare this history of organizational arrangements with other federal institutions may find that it represents an extraordinarily high “death rate”, more akin to the life expectancy of individual government programs than that of a whole policy field. At a minimum, it would be hard to declare the federal venture into urban policy-making to have been a great success. So the issue at hand is: why has there been such limited success in this field, and what can be learned from this experience?20 Several of the authors noted above have sought to grapple with this question from a variety of perspectives. For example, Berdahl (2006) traces the main elements of the history of urban policy failure in her piece on “The Federal Roles and Federal-Municipal Relations”. She describes the end of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, and the gradual resurrection of the urban policy agenda only during the Chrétien era, culminating in Paul Martin’s “New Deal” for cities in 2004-05. Ever hopeful, following the election of the Conservatives to federal office in 2006, she published a piece entitled “A federal urban agenda by any other name”. She argues that the “cities agenda” is simply being pursued under different rhetoric. While the Conservative Harper government does not talk in the same soaring rhetoric it “…has maintained the steps taken by the Martin government, increased overall infrastructure funding, and added a number of public transit initiatives (including a tax incentive and the Public Transit Capital Trust) that will inevitably benefit cities.”

Bradford (2006) explores the issue of how best to link federal with local efforts in the most troubled urban neighbourhoods of the country. He starts with the observation that Canadian public policy has never featured the American pattern of community-driven anti-poverty policy, nor the European tradition of state-orchestrated urban regeneration policy.21 He notes that in the past five years or so up to 2006, considerable Canadian political discussion – and policy experimentation – has been devoted to the problems and prospects of the country’s cities. For example, the federal Liberal government in 2004 and 2005 launched its “New Deal for Cities and Communities”. Bradford assesses the application of the three main New Deal policy tools to the problems of concentrated urban poverty. He argues that while the revived urban agenda contained some promising elements, its impact on neighbourhood distress in the country’s largest city was limited. While the Liberal government spoke often about the New Deal’s “social pillar”, it offered little substance. After the Conservatives took power in early 2006, the federal urban agenda appeared to be shifting once again.

20

There is one book on the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs by P. Oberlander and A. Fallick, eds. (1987) The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs: A Courageous Experiment in Public Administration. Vancouver: Centre for Human Settlements, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of British Columbia. It consists mainly of a defence of the Ministry, however, rather than a thorough analysis of its limitations and why it was disbanded, other than “federal-provincial politics”. 21

There actually was a brief Canadian attempt in both of these fields via the “Neighbourhood Improvement Program” of 1973 to 1979. This affected several hundred lower-income neighbourhoods across Canada. The author declares a potential bias here, having been the main designer of this program within the bureaucracy.

of 30

Another article, by Horak (2008) describes the “New Deal” campaign mounted by the City of Toronto to seek “devolution of more powers and resources from its provincial and federal counterparts”. He argues that this campaign was unique in Canada in terms of its scope and its achievements, which include new sources of finance from the federal government (also called the “New Deal”) and new provincial legislation that expands the City’s powers. The achievements of the campaign, in turn, depended on a confluence of political leadership and support at multiple levels of government, a condition that he notes has proved difficult to sustain over time. The last article to be is the most directly relevant to topics being discussed in this review. In it, Young and McCarthy (2009) note first that there have been cycles of increasing and decreasing federal interest in urban issues for decades. The paper goes on to explore factors associated with federal interest in such issues from 1867-2005. The methodology chosen for their study was cross-correlation functions and lagged correlations. The dependent variable – the place of municipalities and urban issues on the federal policy agenda – wais measured in a variety of ways. The independent variables that the researchers thought may have been operative were: rapid population growth in cities; restructuring of municipal systems by provincial governments; and [municipal] financial stress. The analysis investigated the strength of each factor in placing urban issues on the national policy agenda. In the end, Young and McCarthy found “…no single explanatory model to account for the rise of municipal issues on the agenda: history matters”. Based on the author’s own direct experience of urban policy-making at the federal level, and his own extensive research over the same time period, the Young and McCarthy study is interesting and helpful in eliminating a range of potential explanatory variables, but incomplete. There are recurring patterns surrounding the rise of urban issues onto the federal policy agenda, but they were not captured directly by the variables selected by Young and McCarthy. More specifically, they are: the impact of war and/or economic crisis; the role of federal and municipal “political entrepreneurs” in moving the urban issue onto the federal agenda; and the federal search for urban votes following the loss of one or more traditional constituencies. The closest these factors may appear to come to the Young/McCarthy variables is “financial stress”, but this is not the case, as they are referring to municipal financial (budgetary) stress, not national economic stress. In reality, it is rather easy to make the case that municipal issues have not risen on the national agenda for municipal reasons at all, but only for federal reasons, and that these have often been political and partisan reasons. This possibility has recently been captured up to a point by a study conducted by Snodden and Hobson (2009). As related in a Globe & Mail article, the authors argue that the Conservative Government has taken up federal infrastructure funding with alacrity for a combination federal economic policy and federal partisan political reasons.

of 30

They say: “… Ottawa has a new and direct say on municipal budgets as well [as a result of cost-sharing requirements for federal funding]. It is all the Conservative government's advantage. It seems unlikely the Prime Minister would dismantle a funding system that perfectly meets his own needs and, as an added bonus, weakens the long-term objectives of his political rivals.”

of 30

5. An Assessment of the Available Literature 5.1 Empirical Basis Consideration of partisan political factors in determining the geography and form of cities and urban regions is a field quite understandably dominated by political scientists and to some extent historians and planners. Accordingly, most of the literature is based on government documents, including political speeches, budgets, and policy statements, as well as formal legal agreements between governments, constitutional rulings and histories, etc. In addition, there is some use of various indicators and proxies, such as in the Young/McCarthy study. There is surprisingly little use of polling data, interviews with key political figures, focus group data, or ephemera such as advocacy literature. 5.2 Strengths There can be no question that the formal, constitutional, and public policy literature offers an essential starting point for considering the politics of urban policies at national, provincial, and local levels. The visible face of government decision-making is essential if wild assumptions, amounting to conspiracy theories and gossip in a number of cases, are to be avoided. The books and articles considered here present a rather solid and concise description of what has been happening on an institutional, formal basis. Of greatest interest and certainly holding out hope for the future of this sub-field are the works of those like James Lightbody, who have combined research work in academia with practical experience of municipal politics. They do not hesitate to inject realism into their discussion of intergovernmental relations, as for example, when they discuss federal and provincial lip-service to a lack of municipal empowerment, followed by a noticeable lack of action to change the situation once in office. 5.3 Weaknesses As noted by Professors Young and Leuprecht, to a surprising extent, the “real politics” of urban decision-making and federal-municipal relations rarely appear in the academic literature. Because the latter is couched almost exclusively in terms of constitutional, institutional, and formal public policy choices, it is almost bloodless, and potentially quite misleading if left where it is. It omits a great deal of information and knowledge essential to understanding and explanation if read on its own without reference to partisan and political struggles for advantage. Even explanations of municipal electoral outcomes read for this review focus mainly on demographic and positional factors such as incumbency (MacDermid, 2007; Young and Austin, 2008). Just these two recent studies even speak of the importance of campaign financing to the success of municipal candidates, although it is a constant preoccupation of almost every elected official. It is not clear why the literature should be limited in these respects. However, it would seem incumbent upon those interested in presenting comprehensive explanations of factors affecting federal urban policies at least to document why partisan political considerations are unimportant to policy outcomes.

of 30

From an “insider’s” perspective, they appear quite important indeed, though perhaps not overwhelming in the larger scheme of things. 5.4 Key Gaps Remaining It is difficult to know where to begin in identifying gaps, when the range of possibilities is so large. One cost-effective way would be to start with some of the simplest gaps to address first. For example, an important early opportunity would be to supplement research projects already underway with the appropriate partisan political aspects. A variety of suggestions on precisely this point are already set out above in relation to the work on projects by the research team for the Public Policy in Municipalities project. With the formal and institutional aspects already in place, an intellectual structure exists within which to situate partisan aspects. Essential to such an effort however, will be a researcher attitude that considers them integral to decision-making by all elected officials, rather than nuisance distractions from the “main agenda” of advocating institutional reforms. Such an attitude arguably places the researcher into a “pre-scientific” frame of mind, and can mislead both the possessor and the audience. Another of the obvious and easily-researched aspects of federal-municipal political linkages is the extent to which federal Members of Parliament previously served as elected municipal officials. The answer, based on a quick look at the Parliament of Canada Website is that roughly a quarter of all MPs in most federal Parliaments have previously served in local governments. In historical times, the proportion appears to have been much higher… at least 35 to 40 percent or more. Such a study would also examine the federal legislative interests of the former municipal politicians, along with their role, if any, in advancing a “cities agenda” (See example in Annex “D”.). In the current Parliament, there are 75 MPs out of 308 with municipal experience, of whom 22 have previously by mayors or deputy mayors of the cities or towns in which they reside. Three federal Cabinet Ministers in the year 2009 previously served on municipal councils, as well as the Leader of the New Democratic Party and several senior critics from the Liberal Party. Beyond such an obvious gap in very basic information about municipal-federal political connections, there is a need to examine three major aspects of federal-municipal relations and federal urban policies: • The evolution and current status of federal “urban” departments and agencies from

the perspective of the political credit that can be obtained for distributing benefits to urban constituencies, e.g., the role of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in building support for different parties by facilitating expanded home ownership.22

22

Note that at previous points in its history, CMHC was considered a direct avenue for dispensing patronage through the many contracts for legal services issued by the Corporation. Its role in direct lending has reduced to such an extent that this is no longer significant.

of 30

• Management of federal relationships with mayors and municipalities, viewed through the political and partisan prism or “lens”, e.g., the relative effectiveness of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in the context of different parties being in office, and different principals both at the Federation and in the key federal departments and agencies.

• Political saliency of “urban” programs within the broader federal policy agenda, and

the dynamics of adding or dropping “urban” initiatives from the government’s agenda of the day, e.g., the career arcs and Cabinet appointments of urban policy champions in determining whether urban initiatives live or die.

of 30

6. Conclusion: Learning from Failure There are many potential reasons that can be adduced for the long-standing tendency to leave aside consideration of partisan aspects of federal municipal relations: • As we have noted, studies of municipal government have tended to concentrate on

formal governance structures and processes, institutional arrangements for urban governance, etc. The ostensibly non-partisan nature of municipal government may also have accounted for a lack of robust literature in this context.

• Political factors can possibly be dismissed by analysts as “froth” on the surface of

federal-municipal relations… not affecting major substantive decisions. To be sure, governments of whatever political party do need to deal with municipalities on a routine and non- or bi-partisan basis.

• As we have also documented and will elaborate more here, the record of federal-

municipal interactions is not impressive, at least from the perspective of those seeking comprehensive “urban” policies. Policy-oriented researchers may have shied away from the topic because they are in denial.

• Finally, of course, partisan political activities are deliberately kept below the “radar

screen” of public awareness and documentation. Research on them is quite difficult, can be costly and risky, and is potentially more appropriate for approaches taken by investigative journalists than by academics.

Nevertheless a key question posed by this paper must be addressed in evaluating past efforts, and in assessing the prospects for new initiatives: how well does the substance of “urban” policy and program ideas offered by those with expertise on urban issues fit with the “real-world politics” of this field? How do they contribute to winning elections and maintaining political power afterward? Urban policy advocates who ignore, or worse, go against the fundamental political calculus in putting forward agenda items and formulating recommendations for action will probably fail. What has been rather surprising in retrospect is the willingness of some federal politicians in the past to advocate policies with limited or contradictory popular appeal.23 Also somewhat surprising in the face of such an unending tale of woe in achieving intended results is the persistence of some in advocating the “same old, same old”. As noted above, the number of “false dawns” to be found in the literature over the years is quite remarkable or even unprecedented. The full story of federal engagement in urban issues is longer than that summarized above, stretching back to the failure of the first housing program in 1919 and the disbandment in 1921 of the first urban policy agency.

23

As an advisor to all four of the federal Ministers of State for Urban Affairs, the author has personally witnessed both their perplexity at advice being offered, and also at times their credulousness in adopting proposed urban policies that combined abstraction with the potential for electoral disaster, such as advocating curbs on the “uncontrolled” growth of the largest cities.

of 30

It includes the termination of at least a dozen other programs in more recent times, including for example: the Urban Renewal Program; the Land Assembly Program, the New Communities Program; the Municipal Incentive Grant Program; the Neighbourhood Improvement Program; the Sewage Treatment Program; and the Community Services Contribution Program.24 Another, related question for further consideration is why, precisely, such an important topic as partisan advantage is omitted from much of the Canadian literature on federal-municipal relationships, or alternatively why it is treated as the “elephant in the room”. Despite the ample evidence to the contrary, each successive policy declaration tends to be greeted in each case as the final and permanent federal recognition of the importance of cities, only to be crumpled by the intruding reality of its subsequent disappearance. For this pattern to change, those engaged in researching the field will need to drop the facile blame encoded in a “lack of political will”, and turn their main attention to the substance and intellectual heft of what they are advocating. On the next page are some suggested lines of advance in making such a change.

24

It can be argued, however, that the new generation of programs in support of municipal infrastructure take the place of several of these long-defunct programs of the 1970s.

of 30

Potential Research Strategy to Address Gaps in Understanding and Explaining the “Real-World” Politics of

Federal Urban Policies

Topic: Source Data/Methods: Hypothesis: Composing winning election platforms that include an “urban agenda”

Content analysis of items in election platforms over several decades; assessment of trends in “urban” issues in public opinion polling over time

There is a disconnect between what urban policy experts are offering as solutions to societal issues and the indicators read most avidly by politicians and their advisors.

Building alliances with local elites

Psephological analysis of key supporting segments for each political party

Federal-municipal political alliances are based mainly on ideology, and focus on the role of the state in society.

Raising election campaign funds

Geographic analysis of sources of campaign funds by urban location as disclosed in political party reports.

Sources of campaign funds shift over time based on success and perceptions of success of parties. It is unwise to count heavily on past geographic patterns.

Recruiting marketable candidates

Data-based analysis of electoral success of candidates with municipal experience compared with those lacking it.

Municipal experience is no substitute for the intrinsic qualities of candidates, but can be a useful training ground for younger people getting ready for more responsibility. The question is whether the experience leads to a preference for local issues, or whether there is “growth potential” beyond them alone.

Sharing local electoral organizations

Interviews with a sample of different political professionals in different locations to determine the extent to which federal and municipal campaign resources are shared.

There is no national pattern… each party and each urban region have different amounts of sharing, ranging from none to significant. The New Democratic Party, having more elected local officials proportionately to those elected federally, is most likely to be sharing resources.

Allocating benefits to key constituencies

Statistical analysis of federal funds by urban constituency according to electoral outcomes and saliency of projects in question.

Constituencies are systematically ranked by political managers according to whether they are currently held or considered “winnable” if not held. Most resources proportionately are likely to those considered “winnable”.

Securing credit for benefits delivered

Communications audit of announcements in relation to assessment of electoral prospects noted above.

Loss of opportunities for visibility and credit will lead to loss of federal interest and disappearance of urban programs

of 30

ANNEX “A”: References Berdahl, L. 2006. ‘The Federal Urban Role and Federal-Municipal Relations’ in R.

Young and C. Leuprecht, Canada: The State of the Federation, 2004, Municipal-Federal-Provincial Relations in Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Bojorquez, F. and F. Vaillancourt. 2006. "Determinants of Municipal Infrastructure

Expenditures in Canada: 1988-2003. Is there a Flypaper Effect?" Paper presented at the CPEG meeting, Montréal.

Boudreau, J. 2000. The MegaCity Saga. Toronto: Black Rose Books. Bradford, N. 2007. ‘Placing Social Policy? Reflections on Canada’s New Deal for

Cities and Communities’, Canadian Journal of Urban Research 16 (2): 1-26. _________. 2005. Place-based Public Policy: Towards a New Urban and Community

Agenda for Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc. Dewing, M., W. Young and E. Tolley. 2006. ‘Municipalities, the Constitution, and the

Canadian Federal System’. Ottawa: Library of Parliament. Dunn, C. 2006. ‘Urban Asymmetry and Provincial Mediation of Federal-Municipal

Relations in Newfoundland and Labrador’, in Young and Leuprecht (2006).

Ghitter, G. and A. Smart. 2009. ‘Mad Cows, Regional Governance, and Urban Sprawl:

Path Dependence and Unintended Consequences in the Calgary Region’, Urban Affairs Review 44(5): 617-644.

Gibbons, K. 1976. ‘The Study of Political Corruption’, in K. Gibbons and D. Rowat,

eds. Political Corruption in Canada: Cases, Causes and Cures. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited.

Ginnell, K., P. Smith, and P. Oberlander. 2008. ‘Making Biggest Bigger: Port Metro

Vancouver's 21st Century Re-Structuring - Global Meets Local at the Asia Pacific Gateway’, Canadian Political Science Review 2(4): 76-92.

Graham, K., S. Philips, and A. Maslove. 1998. Urban Governance in Canada:

Representation, Resources, and Restructuring. Toronto: Harcourt Canada Limited.

Horak, M. 2008. ‘Governance Reform from Below: Multilevel Politics and the “New

Deal” Campaign in Toronto, Canada.’ UN-Habitat, Human Settlements Dialogue Series 4, Nairobi.

of 30

Hulchanski, David. 2006. ‘What Factors Shape Canadian Housing Policy? The Intergovernmental Role in Canada’s Housing System’, in Young and Leuprecht (2006).

Ircha, Michael. 2008. ‘Canadian Ports: Trends and Opportunities’, Canadian Political

Science Review 2(4): 4-25. Kataoka, S. and W. Magnusson. ‘Settling the Unsettled: Migrants, Municipalities and

Multilevel Governance in British Columbia’. Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Seattle WA, April 26, 2007.

Leo, C. and M. Pyl. 2007. ‘Multi-level Governance and Democratic Responsiveness:

Federal Property in Winnipeg’. Unpublished document. Winnipeg: University of Winnipeg.

Lightbody, J., ed. 1995. Canadian Metropolitics: Governing Our Cities

Mississauga, Ontario: Copp Clark Limited. MacDermid, R. 2007. ‘Campaign Finance and Campaign Success in Municipal

Elections in the Toronto Region’. Paper presented to the Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Oberlander, P. and A. Fallick, eds. 1987. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs: A

Courageous Experiment in Public Administration. Vancouver: Centre for Human Settlements, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of British Columbia.

Philips, A. 1976. “Graft in Civic Office”, in Gibbons and Rowat (1976). Rogers, I. 1976. ‘Municipal Conflict of Interest: The New Ontario Law’, in Gibbons and

Rowat (1976). Simpson, J. 1988. Spoils of Power: The Politics of Patronage. Toronto: Collins

Publishers. Taylor, P. 2009. “Harper’s fourth pillar of federalism?” in Globe & Mail, June 27, 2009.

At: <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/harpers-fourth-pillar-of-federalism/article1197517/>.

Tindall, R., and S. Tindall. 1995. Local Government in Canada. Fourth Edition.

Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Urbaniak, T. 2006. ‘Rhetoric and Restraint: Municipal-Federal Relations in Canada’s

Largest Edge City’, in Young and Leuprecht (2006).

Young, J. 2008 ‘Alberta's Port? Prince Rupert Development and Network

Federalism’, Canadian Political Science Review 2(4): 51-59.

of 30

_____, R. and K. McCarthy. 2009. ‘Why Does a Federal Government Intrude into Fields of Provincial Jurisdiction? Municipal Issues on the Federal Policy Agenda in Canada’. Presented to the annual conference of the Public Choice Society, Las Vegas, March 5-8, 2009. At: <http://www.ppm-ppm.ca/>.

_____, L. and S. Austin 2008. ‘Political Finance in City Elections: Toronto and Calgary Compared’, The Canadian Political Science Review 2(3): 88-102.

of 30

ANNEX “B”: Federal Employment within Census Metropolitan Areas Compared with Total Employment, September 2009*

Total employment Federal government

employment As a proportion of total

employment

thousands %

Ottawa–Gatineau 673.8 132.6 19.7

Kingston 78.6 6.8 8.7

Halifax 215.8 17.4 8.1

Victoria 181.1 10.2 5.6

St. John's 101.1 5.2 5.1

Moncton 74.3 3.2 4.3

Québec 385.7 15.3 4.0

Saguenay 72.4 2.8 3.8

Winnipeg 399.0 12.6 3.2

Regina 115.5 3.4 2.9

Sudbury 77.9 2.2 2.9

Edmonton 616.8 14.4 2.3

Abbotsford 87.2 1.6 1.8

Saskatoon 147.0 2.6 1.8

Saint John 67.4 1.1 1.6

Thunder Bay 60.8 1.0 1.6

Vancouver 1,244.8 18.5 1.5

Windsor 151.0 2.2 1.5

Sherbrooke 86.2 1.2 1.4

Montréal 1,900.3 23.8 1.3

London 231.1 2.8 1.2

Hamilton 374.7 3.2 0.9

Guelph 73.6 0.6 0.9

Toronto 2,886.2 23.1 0.8

Trois-Rivières 69.1 0.5 0.7

Calgary 703.6 4.6 0.7

Brantford 52.8 0.3 0.7

St. Catharines 188.8 1.2 0.6

Peterborough 53.9 0.3 0.6

Kitchener 253.2 1.1 0.4

Kelowna 99.1 0.4 0.4

Barrie 89.4 0.2 0.3

Oshawa 184.0 0.3 0.1

Total 11,996.2 316.8 2.6

* Source: Statistics Canada Daily, November 30, 2009.

of 30

ANNEX “C”: Distribution of Federal Military Base Infrastructure by Electoral District*

Province: Base Location: Electoral District Alberta Calgary

Cold Lake Edmonton Suffield Wainwright

Calgary-Centre Westlock–St. Paul Edmonton-Leduc Medicine Hat Vegreville-Wainwright

British Columbia Comox Chilliwack Esquimalt Nanaimo

Vancouver Island North Chilliwack - Fraser Canyon Victoria Nanaimo-Cowichan

Manitoba Portage la Prairie Shilo Winnipeg

Portage-Lisgar Brandon-Souris Winnipeg South

New Brunswick Gagetown Moncton

Fredericton Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe

Newfoundland & Labrador

Gander Goose Bay St John’s

Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor Labrador St John's East

Nova Scotia Aldershot Greenwood Halifax

Kings - Hants West Nova Halifax

Ontario Borden Kingston London Meaford NDHQ North Bay Petawawa Toronto Trenton

Simcoe-Grey Kingston and the Islands London North Centre Bruce - Grey - Owen Sound Ottawa-Vanier Nipissing-Timiskaming Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke Willowdale Northumberland-Quinte West

Quebec Bagotville Farnham Montréal Nicolet St. Jean Valcartier

Chicoutimi-Le Fjord Brome-Missisquoi La Pointe-de-l'île Bas-Richelieu-Nicolet-Bécancour St. Jean Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier

Saskatchewan Moose Jaw Palliser

Northwest Territories Yellowknife Western Arctic

Yukon Whitehorse Yukon

Source: http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/fp-pf/eeedp-edcep/2005-2006/mil-eim-eng.asp

of 30

ANNEX “D”: Sample Biography of a Municipal Politician Who Became a Federal Member of Parliament25

Honourable Judy A Sgro, Privy Council Member of Parliament, York West

The Honourable Judy Sgro was first elected to the House of Commons for the riding of York West in a by-election on November 15, 1999, and re-elected in November 2000, June 2004, January 2006, and October 2008.

She has a long record of public service.

In January 2009, Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, appointed Judy Sgro to serve as Official Opposition Critic for Veterans Affairs, Seniors and Pensions.

Veterans and seniors in York West and across Canada need our help to ensure their health, security, dignity and quality of life, especially in these tough economic times. Judy is very pleased to be asked to focus her efforts working on behalf of Canada's veterans and seniors.

Ensuring that all veterans and seniors enjoy good health, and can count on independent living and good-quality housing, are priorities for the Liberal Party of Canada. In her capacity as critic, Judy will work to make sure that the Government implements programs to allow seniors to remain active members of our society, and to provide benefits that fully respond to the needs of Veterans and their families. Previously, Judy served as Official Opposition Critic for Labour, and Official Opposition Critic for National Revenue.

In 2006, Judy served as Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. During her tenure as Chair, the Committee conducted an in-depth study on Human Trafficking.

25

See: http://www.judysgro.com/bio.html.

of 30

In 2005, Judy was a Member of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. This role complemented her work as a community safety advocate, and her commitment to make Toronto a safer place to work and play. Judy continues to champion community safety issues, encouraging crime-prevention programs at the local level, working to promote victim's rights, and supporting tough sentences for offenders.

In December 2003, Judy was appointed Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Paul Martin's Cabinet. While Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Judy championed family re-unification policies and worked hard to ensure our Immigration system is fair and compassionate.

Previously, Judy served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. In this role, she assisted Honourable Ralph Goodale with numerous files and gained valuable experience.

From May 2001 to December 2002, Judy was Chair of the Prime Minister's

Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues. Her report A Blueprint for Action was

acclaimed and highly praised by numerous stakeholders. It has served as a

reference for the creation of government policy to ensure Canada's urban regions have a sound foundation for future growth and prosperity.

The report focuses on three priority programs as pillars of Canada's Urban

Strategy: a National Affordable Housing Program; a National Sustainable Infrastructure Program; and a National Transit/Transportation Program.

Judy served on the Toronto City Council from 1995 to 1998. She was a member of many committees, and was appointed Mayor Lastman's Designate on the Toronto Police Services Board where she was elected Vice-Chair. As Vice-Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, she worked tirelessly to preserve the integrity of the Toronto Police Service. Judy used this opportunity to champion the fight for the rights of the Residents of Toronto.

In 1994, Ms. Sgro was elected Regional Councilor to the Metropolitan Toronto Council where she was a member of Metro Toronto's Budget Committee, as well as Planning and Transportation. She initiated Canada's first "John school" to combat street prostitution; a model adopted across Canada and the United States. Judy was a founding member of Streetlight Support Services, an organization to provide alternatives for individuals involved in prostitution.

She served on the North York City Council from 1987 to 1994 where she was a member of the executive committee of the Council. Judy was a member of the planning committee, North York Library, Intergovernmental, and numerous other committees of Council.

Involved in many community and charity organizations, she is Past President of the Downsview Unit of the Cancer Society. Most recently she has served on the Board of Governors for Villa Colombo. She is also a former Member of the Humber Hospital Board of Directors.

Judy was born in Moncton, New Brunswick. She is married and has three children and five grandchildren.

The Real-World Politics of Federal Urban Policies - For Distribution

Documents

Transcript of The Real-World Politics of Federal Urban Policies - For Distribution