Editor’s Note

The plight of Canadian cities
Illustration by Jeff Kulak


In 1867, when the British North America Act set out the terms of Confederation, most Canadians lived in small towns and villages or on farms. Cities as we now know them did not exist yet. The population of Montreal, then the country’s biggest city, was 105,000. Quebec City, at 60,000, was next, followed by Toronto, which had 50,000 inhabitants. Only one in five Canadians lived in a community with more than 1,000 residents, so the fact that the act made no provision for the financing of cities was unsurprising. Unsurprising, but unfortunate, because here we are, almost a century and a half later, an overwhelmingly urban society struggling to pay for pothole repairs and garbage removal because the Fathers of Confederation gave taxation rights exclusively to the federal and provincial governments. Then, as now, cities were an afterthought.

Urbanization is a global phenomenon. A few years ago, the Tate Modern in London, England, mounted a show to illustrate the magnitude of the post-industrial migration from rural to urban habitats. Over half of humanity now lives in cities, and the process is accelerating. In India, more than 275 million people will make the transition in the next twenty years. European countries are still the most urbanized in the world (97.4 percent of Belgians live in cities), although countries like Canada are catching up (80 percent of Canadians now live in thirty-three urban centres with populations greater than 100,000). According to Foreign Policy magazine, “100 cities account for 30 percent of the world’s economy, and almost all of its innovation.” The power of the global city rivals — and may soon surpass — the power of the nation-state; no country will prosper without one.

Where does that leave Canada? Fall municipal elections in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island produced unwelcome reminders of the plight of our decaying, underfunded cities. One has only to watch television news to see how quickly we are falling behind urban behemoths that, until recently, we had never heard of. In fifteen years, China will have fifteen urban centres with populations averaging twenty-five million. In Canada, the only city with global potential — by virtue of its size, wealth, and diversity — is Toronto, but Toronto is falling apart. Its public transit system, once the envy of North America, is now twenty-five years behind the times. Its streets and parks are an embarrassment. How did this happen? It happened because Toronto, dependent on the largesse of the federal and provincial governments, cannot afford to fix its subways, roads, and parks. Like many other Canadian cities, it is almost bankrupt.

The problem originates with the Constitution but is sustained by politics. The country’s electoral map has not been redrawn to adequately reflect this new urban reality. In the House of Commons, politicians representing rural ridings still hold a disproportionately large number of seats (138 of 308). This distortion of representation by population persists at the provincial level as well, compounding the problem. At the senior levels of government, then, there is little or no immediate advantage in addressing the welfare of cities, although, to be fair, some politicians have tried. Paul Martin promised a “new deal” for cities, but unfortunately his government was short lived. As for the current prime minister, the only word to describe his response to the challenges facing the country’s cities, notwithstanding recent stimulus spending, is indifference.

We get the governments we deserve, and if our political leaders are uninterested in urban issues we have ourselves to blame. David Miller, the outgoing mayor of Toronto, was fond of reminding the electorate that only six cents of every Canadian tax dollar is spent on cities. Perhaps he hoped that knowledge of this fiscal injustice would encourage us to take to the streets in protest. If so, he was disappointed, because in Toronto, as in Canada’s other big cities, the citizenry still seems to believe that city building is a municipal enterprise, when, as more enlightened nations are beginning to realize, it is also the job of the state.
John Macfarlane is the editor and co-publisher of The Walrus.
Jeff Kulak is completing a series of illustrations for Learn to Speak Dance, the second in a series of children's books.

8 comment(s)

Lady GoodivaDecember 12, 2010 17:55 EST

And with Rob Ford recently installed as Toronto's mayor, things can only go downhill.

Edmund Onward JamesJanuary 06, 2011 15:41 EST

I emailed the following, but likely will not see it published; hence I try this way.

Re: Editor's Note

Whenever I am at bookstore I pick up a copy of Walrus, thank goodness it's not called Beaver. First Nations peoples are not fond of beavers that stagnate free flowing waters. (Read Ojibway/Edler Duke Redbird's poem The Beaver).

However, the point of this email is about my disappointment with John Macfarlane's comment about our Prime Minister Stephen Harper who is considered to be a fine Statesman, world class; and the Conservative administration are doing a fine job considering the global financial crisis and the ongoing battles with Islamists.

Macfarlane stated in the January issue, "As for the current Prime Minister, the only word is to describe his response to the challenge facing the country's cities, notwithstanding recent stimulus spending, is indifference."

Our Prime Minister is indifferent to Canadian citizens. I think not. But this is so typical of the left. Several cheap shots were taken in Walrus Magazine at the PM, including a cartoon with Pierre Trudeau in a canoe like a saviour. I always wondered were Pierre Elliot's buckskin jacket was made. Perhaps at one of his favourite communist countries, China per se.

Continue the awareness... sincerely,

Edmund Onward James
Lake Simcoe, Ontario
www.onwardjames.blogspot.com

ps. My small weblog has been read in several countries in the world even Taiwan, where quite a few read my profound and satirical comments.

Calgaryian, Vancouverite, MontrealerJanuary 12, 2011 16:27 EST

Thank you Edward James,

I sincerely appreciate your 'profound' (and satirical?) comments on our prime ministers struggle against the financial crisis and Islamists. [check irony alert]

While like you I find some contention with this article, I also find contention with your comment.

Although the issue is very interesting, to me the article was rather constrained. As our nation's economy becomes further more centred on a knowledge based economy cities will become more important, and at the moment I do agree (with John) that our understanding of what it means to have a successful and healthy city does not seem to be at par with the complex issues that plague them. However I find it bemusing that he concentrates on Toronto. Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary all face similar problems, all have large immigrant populations (perhaps not as large as Toronto, but clearly significant) and while Toronto seems to be a poor example of a city coping with its development; Calgary just elected a mayor very intent on transforming the city (for the denser and better I hope), as well as is in the process of expanding its c-train (light rail, subway...) and apparently thinking of building a new central library (although that is not official or anything); Vancouver is while maybe not dealing with gentrification so well at least putting in bike lanes; Montreal has bike lanes, great transit.... To me the article becomes something more of discussing Toronto's attempts to deal with its personal urban decline, and rather deflects the article from the issue of Canada's cities to Toronto.

But Edmund, your comment doesn't even begin to comment on the contents of the article, instead it seems to me to be solely an ideologically knee jerk reaction. I am assuming you know a Conservative can criticize Stephen Harper, and frankly there is no material in this article that would suggest at all the author's political leanings. You seem to have made this assumption based on the fact he is an Editor of the Walrus. And here is where I am confused (pardon my assumptions) if you are so staunchly a supporter of the Conservative party, (this I have based on my analysis of your comments towards Stephen Harper, the financial crisis and the "Islamists") why are you reading such a disgustingly Liberal publication? (proof by contradiction?)

Besides you have done nothing to back up your assertion, obviously (sic) the Right Honourable Stephen Harper is not completely and utterly negligent, he was elected, but I haven't seen him do anything to specifically improve the lot of Canadian cities. If you don't have a direct rebuttal of this claim it does not matter wether the criticism was fielded by the right or the left (whatever that means).

Mark Turcotte
Montreal, Quebec

Edmund Onward JamesJanuary 16, 2011 16:05 EST

Thank you John Macfarlane for posting my comment.

Now Mark, I thought I made my argument fairly clear, Prime Minister Harper is not indifferent of the cities. He is concerned for all Canadian citizens everywhere. He is not in the job for fame or money, but he appreciates conservative values. We must conserve our wonderful culture and country, without being fearful to stand tall in the global market.

Not am only am I card carrying Conservative (began shortly after 9/11), I am a Harperite. I receive news releases and achievement reports from the PMO. In my estimation he is one of the great Prime Minister's in the country, considering the times. And with a minority.

The Conservative Party might even win a majority... but if it's minority our prudent PM and capable administration will manage the country through these difficult times. We are still in what one might say is the second Great Depression or close to it. And do not forget about the Islamist onslaughts.

Perhaps you might like to read some recent piece in my weblog www.onwardjames.blogspot.com Once there, at the top left is a search box, you can type in a word or name and perhaps I have written on the person or topic, just scroll down.

I frequently check what the left is saying and writing. As a matter of fact many newspapers and magazines of the left have published my counter-comments. Awfully decent of them. Several periodicals asked or suggested that I write something for them, but the weblog is more fun. I edit. But welcome corrections or additions and fix and usually add. Except from the fellow, a converted Dutchman, from Morocco, who tries to educate me on the Qur'an and Islam. But that's another topic for another time.

Many talk radio hosts and publications — left, centre, right — check my weblog.

Yours sincerely,

Sagebrush James
I have many names, a few pejorative ones too. A First Nations friend, Ojibway Elder, mentor at a college, artist, called me Sagebrush... a sage with a rolling mind.

Mark TurcotteJanuary 26, 2011 17:02 EST

Dear Edmund,

Unfortunately your article in your weblog has not satisfied me.

You may be interested to know I grew up in Calgary, and was myself a member of the provincial progressive conservative party at 16 (legal voting age to vote in party conventions; I voted stelmach).

So if my call for the right and the left to get off their talking points, stop labelling each other into implicitly pejorative groups, and engage in actually constructive political debate, seems biased, you can be sure it is not. That was my intention with my first comment, and perhaps more credit goes to yourself because neither did the Editor back up his claims against Harper.

You may be surprised how many people understand both the dangers of complete centralization as well as absolute deregulation. (And if you call me a leftist for opposing absolute deregulation, I believe you are mistaken on where the actual lies in this country)
centre
Perhaps you will write another post.

Mark

cityzenFebruary 09, 2011 15:56 EST

Mr McFarlane makes some valid points. It's too short a piece, of course, to delve into the complexity of the issue. I really don't think partisanship has anything to do with these facts. Changing the fundamental political structure of a country is never a simple task, and I don't think any of our current legislators have much interest in taking on such a formidable beast, necessary as it may be. I don't think Canadians feel much empowered either when much about our current system works to make their vote irrelevant in this - or any - regard. Most in Canada now realize we don't really live in a democracy as much as under a regime controlled by various powerful immortal sociopaths (aka corporations), and who we vote for really has no bearing on the outcome, unless they're good at getting scraps from the table.
We certainly can't ask Mr Harper to kindly acknowledge the existence of Canada's new city-states and magnanimously give up the federal power to them they justly deserve. Prime Minister Harper has proven himself to be nothing more than a capable oil man, not unlike Daniel Plainview, working solely to turn Canada into a petro-state. Everything his government has done supports this single-minded tar-sands-centered goal (as Canadians have no taste to support the "Conservatives" regressive social agenda), and with his quasi-dictatorial approach certainly doesn't have the time or inclination to improve the fraying social fabric of Canada. He's certainly not shown himself to be "a fine Statesman" (unless you're referring to pandering to American-based companies, Mr James) - in fact, Canada's global reputation has significantly suffered during his tenure, from losing the seat on the Security Council to sending out his goons to sabotage Copenhagen. Canada's sovereignty is also at stake with his "classified" perimeter accord; but this loss-of-nation has been occurring at least as far back as Mulroney's NAFTA, and Mr Martin's and Mr Chretien's Liberals certainly also colluded in undermining Canada.
I won't comment on the gibberish of Harper's cheerleader above - it grunts for itself.

A.R.February 16, 2011 12:25 EST

I strongly agree with this article. The federal and provincial system neglects cities. Some politicians work to overcome the shortcomings, but all they get are piecemeal projects like Toronto's subway extension but no real strategy among both upper levels of government for the long term, for instance, with large scale expansion. Toronto's transit system is simply funded out of the fare box to the tune of 75%, and it shows in terms of maintenance, cleanliness, and affordability.

Why is Toronto "a poor example of a city coping with its development", Mark? Under the poor conditions facing cities in Canada, which the article barely outlines, Toronto seems to be doing decently. Development is happening by subway stations and mass-transit amenities, new public spaces are being built, new cultural spaces are opening, social housing projects are being rebuilt. The city is more vibrant than ever. It isn't the best example given its slow pace of infrastructure and public space improvement, but we must realize that the cards are stacked against cities functioning properly in Canada. Are there not similar problems in Montreal? Vancouver is having good times with the Olympics and the fact that its coming of age building boom seemed to have happened in the past couple of decades, but it will definitely encounter its own struggles as well in the future.

Finally, I must remark on Edmund Onward James's pathetic comments. He claims that Harper is attuned to these issues, but seems to skirt getting specific about anything mentioned in this article so far, seemingly out of a lack of interest. That only reinforces the negative perceptions of Conservatives as out of touch on urban issues.

Paul SmithMarch 31, 2011 10:06 EST

It is sad that the Walrus repeats the simple-minded urban myths bandied about by the National Post and the Globe and Mail. I thought we had an informed alternative.

The census states that in 2006, 80% of Canada's population lived in "urban" areas. But urban is defined as—wait for it—" 'urban population' refers to persons living within centres with a population of 1,000 or more and within areas with at least 400 persons per square kilometre". That's right, villages and hamlets are defined as "urban". That is verbatim from StatsCan.

Just over two-thirds (68%) of Canada's population in 2006 lived in the nation's 33 census metropolitan areas or census agglomerations (>100,000 people). Again, verbatim from StatsCan.

So about a third of Canadians or 10.1 million people are in "rural" areas or smaller cities and towns (yes they do exist, Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto are not the only places in Canada).

And two-thirds live in cities >100,000 people. That includes places like Brantford, Red Deer and Brandon. The places the Globe and the National Post and now Walrus want to ignore.

I guess we do have a rural-urban divide. We also have a urban-urban divide. The biggest cities want to ignore the rest of the country.

And they will go to the length of creating a fiction—a lie—to justify their power play.

Add a comment

  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
June 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Foundation National Event Guide

The Walrus HOOPP Pension Debate
Be It Resolved That Canadians Are Incapable
of Saving for Their Retirement Needs Alone

12 pm, Wednesday, May 30 at
Hart House Debate Room, Toronto

The Walrus Glenbow Debate
Calgary’s Cowboy Culture:
Living Legacy or Just History?

6:30 pm, Thursday, June 7 at
Epcor Centre: Max Bell Theatre, Calgary

The Walrus Laughs
The Walrus SoapBox