The Budget

[bizorky]

I think most of us are well aware of the jurisdictional responsibilities with respect to cities. For my own part, my reference was to previous suggestions made on this board concerning how a conservative government would respond to the needs of cities. I recall no particular names, and thus aim my comments at no one person in particular.

Of course, it is easy to for the present government to exclude cities from the budget because they expressly do not fit into the federal government range of responsibilities. Then again, neither does education. Families are also not a defined constituency either, yet this social unit has evolved into a specific focus for attention. Over time, federal reach and involvement has evolved, so the national government has shown flexibility over time in augmenting and extending its responsibilities when it sees fit to do so. In this case, it appears to have made a direct choice to avoid direct contact with those jurisdictions in which the greatest portion of the Canadian population lives.

In terms of constitutional responsibilities, can they do this? Yes, of course. Should they do this? In my opinion, no. Cities are too important to neglect.

 

[cacruden]

The federal government (through equalization) funds education which is a provincial responsibility and/or via other federal departments (i.e. research) that provide education as part of other departments responsibilities. The province and the federal government co-operate.

The federal government dealing directly with cities (bypassing the province) should not happen, that is interfering in a provincial jurisdiction. Until the city and the province have agreed, the federal government's involvment should be avoided, it just will end up greating a political triangle (nightmare).

If Toronto needs/wants to bypass the Ontario government -- then seperate from Ontario (not easy) or update the constitution and elimate the provincial (or federal) level of government.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Theory of constitutional division of power is one thing, the reality is that effects of federal policies manifests themselves at the local level. Like it or not, it has always been (and will always be) a political triangle; hiding behind the facade of the constitution won't change that reality.

re: tax room

Remember how the City of Toronto not reducing the GST rate on some city services was being framed by Flaherty et al? That tells you the issue is more loaded than simple "provincial failure".

AoD

 

[cacruden]

hiding behind the facade of the constitution won't change that reality.

So the constitution is a facade? Why have a constitution at all then, when it is politically expedient to ignore it when it does not favour the position that you support....

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

cacruden:

I didn't say ignore the Constitution, I said the reality of intergovernmental relationship is more complex than reducing everything to the theoretical level. Besides, it isn't like what was done so far is "unconsental" - in fact, I would suggest that it's positively welcomed in many cases, if by interference is inferred as funding opportunties. When and if the provinces found the level of interference unacceptable, there are constitutional mechanisms that could be invoked - but it doesn't mean that no allowances can be made for triparite, cross-jurisdictional policy making.

Interestingly, that's exactly what the current government is doing, contrary to all the talk. Why fund Spadina subway and 407 extension otherwise? Political expedience, indeed.

AoD

 

[bizorky]

The federal government (through equalization) funds education which is a provincial responsibility and/or via other federal departments (i.e. research) that provide education as part of other departments responsibilities. The province and the federal government co-operate.

The federal government dealing directly with cities (bypassing the province) should not happen, that is interfering in a provincial jurisdiction. Until the city and the province have agreed, the federal government's involvment should be avoided, it just will end up greating a political triangle (nightmare).

Concerning the first part, you make my point for me. The federal government is already involved in jurisdictions beyond its own limitations. It could easily negotiate with each province and the major cities on investment in something like transit or infrastructure. By doing so, the process could even become more transparent by exposing the provincial governments to an accounting on how they spent federal dollars.

As for the triangle and its dangers, it already exists. Toronto and Montreal have populations and economic clout far greater than some provinces. As such, they deserve and demand recognition. The GTA accounts for an extremely significant portion of the Canadian economy, as does that of Greater Montreal. For that reason alone, they should not be treated as lesser entities than P.E.I, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan.

 

[cacruden]

Concerning the first part, you make my point for me. The federal government is already involved in jurisdictions beyond its own limitations.

I believe if you read the 1982 constitution, equalization payments are in there.

 

[blixa442]

The solution to this problem is simple: 416 RESIDENTS MUST BECOME SWING VOTERS. Until that happens we'll be seeing absolutely nothing from either the Tories or the Liberals. The NDP is not fit for office hence is not an option.

 

[prometheus the supremo]

swingers usually do have more options and fun.