Pay no attention to that [province] behind the curtain!
Who’s really running the show? The notion that municipalities are creatures of the province is perhaps my biggest takeaway from week two’s topic on the municipal outlook. We know that municipalities across the country are primarily concerned with property-related services and physical infrastructure management. But perhaps the biggest snub from the class discussion was a deeper discussion on special-purpose bodies such as school boards, conservation authorities, health boards, and utilities. While Taylor and Bradford note that Canada lacks an updated national inventory of local governments. I suspect that a nationwide inventory of school boards, conservation authorities, and health boards is also lacking. But they are also creatures of the province — a result of downloading provincial powers and responsibilities to local settings. Which then raises another question, how much autonomy do local municipalities and boards have?
Self-governance is a principle that all levels of government adhere to. Still, there is a question of autonomy in the case of municipalities and boards. Municipal governments and school boards exist because provincial governments deem them so. And every so often, we see an example of exactly how powerful a province can be in dictating local policy and governance. We saw this in 2018 when the province of Ontario decided to reduce the size of Toronto City Council a few months ahead of a municipal election. Another example is the amalgamation of serval municipalities and regions across Ontario during the Harris government. Dubbed a cost-saving measure, the forced amalgamation of several towns and cities resulted in long-term consequences and implications that can still be felt today. While amalgamation created new challenges in balancing municipalities’ political and professional models, the CAO model is virtually used in every city in Ontario.
Indeed, there are limits to local autonomy. As Sancton mentions, a unique feature of local government policymaking is that they involve reacting to provincial and federal initiatives, whether for compensation or implementation of direct mandates. Furthermore, I find that local issues are rarely unique in that many other municipalities often grapple with the same problem. Another challenge centers around generating revenue at the local level, as highlighted in Hains’ article. Likewise, Meloche and Vaillancourt’s paper notes that most tools available to Canadian cities for financing often yield relatively low revenue levels. It is possible that diversifying revenue tools could help, but more research is needed. Indeed, municipalities are limited to property taxes, fees, and licensing as primary revenue sources, aside from transfers from other levels of government. Likewise, local school boards are limited to transfers from the province or education development charges, which can only be used as proceeds of disposition to fund capital projects after receiving Ministry approval.
Clearly, municipalities and local boards are creatures of the province. Evidence of that fact can be found everywhere — from how local government is structured, how financing and revenue are generated, to how actual policy decisions are made and implemented. When understanding how municipalities and local boards operate, perhaps all we need do is look behind the curtain to see who’s really running the show.
