Are we There Yet? Canada’s Pursuit of a National Urban Policy
Cities have become important in Canada’s public policy agenda. Many countries have either developed or developing a national urban policy that creates dedicated agencies, coordinate governmental resources and implement national programs in partnership with local authorities and networks. The leading examples include France, Belgium, Australia and the United Kingdom.
However, Canada is among a few countries that lacks an explicit national urban policy. Typically, the OECD only recognizes a ‘national urban policy’ once there is a designated agency to lead it, such as a ministry, a cross-departmental unit of staff experts, or some sub-national agency operating with the blessing of the national government. In Canada’s case, it lacks this feature, but this does not mean it is devoid of the elements that make up an national urban policy.
Canada, especially under the Trudeau government, pursues an implicit form of national urban policy. This is predicated on the trust and collaboration between all levels of government through informal connections, indirect leadership, and interactive governance. This manifests through three multi-governance models.
The first is Federal-provincial/territorial agreements with municipal involvement. Significant financial transfers are negotiated between federal and provincial/territorial governments for major investments. The second is Direct federal-municipal/community programming that incorporates pan-Canadian federal programs where municipal and/or community partners could receive financial and/or technical assistance for local projects that address national goals and satisfy federal criteria. Finally, Federal-provincial-municipal policy adaptation coordinates the three orders of government, often including community partners, in working together to tackle problems in selected urban areas. The federal government is rolling out various policies and programs in cities using any of the three multi-level governance models mentioned, such the Trudeau government’s $180-billion, 12-year Investing in Canada infrastructure plan. Additionally, 2016 to 2018 federal budgets featured a list of urban priorities, including transportation and transit, housing and homelessness, technology and networks, and immigrant settlement.
Currently, one argument proposes that Canada should shift away from an implicit national urban policy to an explicit one. Facilitating this change may require different strategies that empower the coordination, governance, and leadership among all levels of government. However, our pursuit for an explicit national urban policy may become problematic if the coordination and shared goals become misaligned.
Australia, due to the striking similarities with Canada in governance, best serves as an illustrative example to this point. In 2011, the Australian Government released their National Urban Strategy Our Cities, Our Future. At the local and regional level, the implementation strategy was devolved; a city or metropolitan region plan would be eligible for direct national financial support if it gained national support and input along with matching the broad directives of the national government.
Despite its refreshing take on urban policy, one problem risen from this strategy. Although Our Cities, Our Future conducted extensive consultation and developed an implementation plan, the strategy experienced unanticipated changes due to unfortunate political timing. In 2013, a change in government occurred that kept some features of the strategy intact, including the push for a common urban design protocol, and the use of Infrastructure Australia as a neutral agency for the assessment and tracking of national infrastructure priorities. However, the new government’s anti-urban shift in policy meant that city/metropolitan plans could only gain national funding if it was demonstrated as projects of national importance. This caused several cuts to urban rail projects and the Commonwealth government pulled back from a range of initiatives designed to fight congestion, promote housing development and meet environmental targets. In response to bubbling backlash to this shift in approach, the Commonwealth government designed a new ‘Smart Cities’ policy in 2016 that resembled a national urban strategy in scope. However, the funding model was still nationally focused.
Australia represents a scenario in which their national urban policy strategy led to less desirable outcomes. It highlights two important points. The first is that unless the agendas and interests of actors involved in intergovernmental policy development are aligned, effective policy outcomes will not be achieved. The second is that upper level governments have an interest in developing plans that promote local priorities and policies without any compromise to their greater constitutional authority over cities. In Australia’s case, despite the uproar by cities and metropolitan regions, the new government still maintained its approach to the national funding model.
Consequently, Australia’s case raises a question with Canada’s potential pursuit of an explicit national urban policy: Should we expect similar challenges to our pursuit for an explicit national urban policy in the foreseeable future? Given the increasing importance of urban priorities and policies over time, it would be safe to assume that there will be greater presence by the Canadian government over urban policy in the future. But as for when and if that change happens seamlessly, that remains uncertain.
Sources: Bradford, Neil. 2018. A National Urban Policy for Canada? The Implicit Federal Agenda. IRPP Insight 24. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Canadian Global Cities Council. 2018. Planning for an Urban Future: Our Call for a National Urban Strategy for Canada. CGCC.
