A month before the election, Calgary\u2019s hugely popular mayor Naheed Nenshi told a reporter: \u201cWhoever gets transit right, whoever figures out how to improve the quality of life for people who live in Canada\u2019s cities, well that person gets to be prime minister.\u201d<\/p>\n
Many voters in Canada\u2019s largest cities decided that Justin Trudeau got<\/em> cities best: all of Toronto\u2019s 25 ridings went red, as did most in the 905 belt, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Halifax and Montreal. And, for the first time in almost 50 years, Calgary elected not one, but two Liberal MPs.<\/p>\n As Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson told me in an interview last week, \u201cVoters spoke loud and clear for cities.\u201d<\/p>\n This election affirms that cities have regained their political voice. But if Trudeau is to continue harnessing the power of the urban voters who put him into the Prime Minister\u2019s Office, he must emphatically commit to creating a strong institutional relationship between the federal government and urban regions, even if the constitution suggests that municipalities are \u201ccreatures\u201d of provinces.<\/p>\n The mayors of Canada\u2019s largest 22 cities are members of the Big Cities\u2019 Mayors Caucus (BCMC) and together represent fully 40% of the country\u2019s population. This body, which has put together a robust national agenda for cities on issues like housing, transit and infrastructure, deserves a seat at Trudeau\u2019s renewed intergovernmental table.<\/p>\n Municipalities as mature governments<\/strong><\/p>\n Section 92 of the British North America Act<\/a> gives provinces power over \u201cmunicipal institutions.\u201d But in 1867, 80% of Canadians lived in rural areas and 20% in cities. This proportion today is reversed. Yet for decades, provinces have treated municipalities like unruly teenagers while prime ministers and premiers used the constitution as an excuse to avoid forging a federal-municipal relationship.<\/p>\n In recent years, some provinces have elevated the status of their largest cities with charters or special legislation. In 2006, the Ontario Liberals granted the City of Toronto extra taxation and accountability powers, and Queen\u2019s Park must now directly consult Toronto if it is planning to introduce new policies that will affect the city. Montreal, Quebec, Edmonton and Calgary are all pushing for the same framework, replacing one-size-fits-all municipal acts.<\/p>\n With a few exceptions, the federal government has avoided any direct relationship with cities, citing that outdated constitutional mandate. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, attention to \u201curban issues\u201d took the form of multi-billion dollar infrastructure programs, like the Gas Tax Fund (introduced by Paul Martin\u2019s Liberal government) and the New Building Canada Fund<\/a>, which heavily favoured rural areas and small municipalities.<\/p>\n Yet big cities contend directly with federal policies, such as immigration, disaster relief, and homelessness. Urban mayors \u2013 and most Canadians \u2013 know that regardless of wording in legislation, it doesn\u2019t matter which government is technically in charge; what matters most is that things get done as quickly and efficiently as possible. While the Conservative\u2019s infrastructure transfers were substantial, Ottawa largely allocated dollars based on political patronage instead of policy. Much of the rest of the federal-urban relationship was ignored.<\/p>\n Trudeau\u2019s platform<\/a> has promised to end these politicized spending decisions by making infrastructure funding more transparent. The Liberals offered up dozens of policy pledges, including a quadrupling of public transit funding<\/a>, renewing federal investment in housing<\/a>, and investing in social infrastructure<\/a> such as seniors housing and daycare, all issues that matter most in large urban areas.<\/p>\n But does regime change provide an opportunity to fundamentally change this fraught relationship, beyond simply transferring dollars? Robertson, currently BCMC\u2019s Chair, concedes that the municipal sector opted to avoid that discussion in the past. \u201cMayors have been reluctant to challenge the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n Robertson is emphatic that cities need the federal government to fulfill its promise to increase funding, especially for infrastructure. He also believes that BCMC has the right institutional structure to get those dollars flowing.<\/p>\n Yet some legal scholars believe that the language of the Constitution should be interpreted as a \u201cgrowing tree,\u201d respectful of today\u2019s context, not as fathers of the BNA Act wrote it 148 years ago, before we had cars, indoor plumbing, subways, subsidized housing and income support, which are largely delivered by big cities.<\/p>\n Towards a new partnership?<\/strong><\/p>\n BCMC\u2019s members, including mayors from every province, have tremendous political capital and are no ordinary interest group. They have first-hand knowledge of enormously significant issues facing the country. Robertson, Edmonton\u2019s Don Iveson, and Brian Bowman of Winnipeg represent a generation of young, energetic leaders with new ideas and a hopeful vision that arguably sets the stage for the acceptance of an equally youthful prime minister.<\/p>\n Other countries have recognized the importance of linking national and local government. Strengthening and formalizing the federal\/municipal relationship has been a part of President Barack Obama\u2019s agenda. In 2009, he set up, by Executive Order<\/a>, the Office of Urban Affairs, which reports directly to the President and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. He regularly attends the U.S. Congress of Mayors, which represents cities with populations of more than 30,000. Experts say that Obama\u2019s urban agenda led to an unprecedented level of interagency collaboration and new initiatives like the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, the Affordable Care Act and the Promise Neighborhoods Program, all aimed at helping the urban poor. Still, as the University of Toronto\u2019s Richard Florida notes, still more can be done to advance urban needs.<\/p>\n Trudeau has the opportunity to go further by making cities direct partners in crafting and implementing policy solutions on housing, infrastructure and the environment. In bringing cities to the table, Canada and the provinces will be forced to reconsider their governmental relationship to the four in five Canadians who live in urban centres.<\/p>\n As Robertson puts it, \u201cThe dark ages of cities without resources and jurisdiction isn\u2019t going to serve us in the 21st<\/sup> century. BCMC is hopeful that the Trudeau government truly wants to build a strong partnership with cities. An institutional structure will help.\u201d<\/p>\n Alexandra Flynn is a PhD candidate and adjunct professor at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law\u00a0School. Follow her at\u00a0@alexandraeflynn<\/span><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n photo by Alex Guibord<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"