 | ||
| ||
 |
|
|
|
|
Home->Elsewhere |
||
|
by John Honderich June 22, 2004 Canada’s big cities! Are they just another whining interest group? Or, a new political power force to be reckoned with? The answer, it seems, depends on whom you talk to. Listen to Conservative leader Stephen Harper and you get one perspective. In the election debate (Italics mine) he openly dismissed the country’s big cities as a “small interest group.” Listen to Paul Martin, Jack Layton and the mayors themselves, you get an entirely different picture. In that same TV debate, both Martin and Layton spoke glowingly about a new deal for cities and for the mayors’ role in it. And at their three-day meeting in Montreal…the 22 big city mayors appeared not only unified in purpose but defiantly determined to play a larger role on the national political stage. Indeed, it wasn’t lost on anyone that Martin deemed the meeting so important, he made a special detour to be there – even though he had met with the same mayors two weeks earlier. All of which begs the question: Do big cities and their mayors really matter? Both the hard evidence and past experience indicate that they do. Indeed, many would conclude that any national leader who ignores big cities does so at his or her peril. Why? For one, as the 22 mayors pointed, in their Montreal communiqué, more than 60 per cent of Canada’s economy is generated within their boundaries. It has become an article of faith that cities are the engines of growth for the Canadian economy. And the big three – Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver – are the most vital. Toronto’s government, with its $6.9 billion budget, is the 6th largest government in the land. Its mayor represents 2.5 million people and is not someone, presumably, any political leader can take for granted. (The recent brouhaha over the bridge to the Island Airport and the federal liberal’s hurried attempts to settle this contentious issue – which is near and dear to the heart of Toronto Mayor David Miller – comes quickly to mind). Perhaps most important, there is a broad consensus among all mayors that the current system simply isn’t working. Cities have a huge load of responsibilities to carry out (e.g. rapid transit and affordable housing) but lack the appropriate revenues to carry them out properly. No mayor in Montreal saw this as a partisan issue. In fact, a significant number of the 22 mayors are Conservatives, including Mississauga’s Hazel McCallion and Brampton’s Susan Fennell. Yet party stripe didn’t stop these two from speaking out forcefully about what they saw as deficiencies in the Harper approach. And no one should ever underestimate the electoral power of Mayor McCallion. During the last provincial election, she openly urged voters to reject the provincial Tories under Ernie Eves because of their views towards municipalities. The provincial Liberals won all seats in Mississauga. Finally, one of the mayors’ fundamental demands is that they be treated as ‘partners’ in coming to any new deal for cities. No longer are they prepared to sit back and have the provinces and Ottawa decide for them. Martin, Layton and a majority of provinces have accepted this new approach. Even Quebec’s ever-suspicious provincial government announced in Montreal it would pass on any urban-related monies from Ottawa directly to the cities. Yet Harper has made it clear he won’t sit down with city mayors unless and until the provinces agree. All 22 found this stance unacceptable and a throwback to a bygone era. There is no doubt the image of Canada’s mayors coming together in boisterous unity is a new one. In many respects, these mayors are just beginning to learn how to flex their muscles. Yet it was the summation of Mario Pezzini, a European director from the Organization of Economic Development (OECD) that put the Montreal meeting in perspective. Pezzini said that in all his experience of travelling through Europe and North America, it was the first time he had ever seen 22 mayors in the same room from across one country. One might ask, he said, why are they here? And the answer must surely be, Pezzini went on, that “they are dealing with the fundamental issue of how this country works…. they are not involved in a local discussion…but a conversation about the future of Canada.” Doesn’t sound much like a “small interest group.” With permission from John Honderich, former publisher of The Toronto Star.
|
