Class Notes (838,042)
Canada (510,648)
POL305Y1 (56)
Lecture 4

POL306 Lecture 4.docx

6 Pages
101 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POL305Y1
Professor
Rachael Gibson
Semester
Summer

Description
POL306 Lecture 4 Public and private places debate in city planning and this involved the role of the government. Municipalities and Canadian intergovernmental relations -Creatures of the province: -In Canada, municipal government lack constitutional status. -The province responsible for it determines Powers and responsibilities a municipality has -Provincial government -> municipality -Context of cities operates has changed over the years, and also the intergovernmental relations system in Canada -The old subordination of municipality is no longer adequate to meet contemporary economic and social issues -in urban area that many of the society’s major challenges and policy questions are being raised in social economic and environmental, large city and regions are key to Canada’s global competiveness. -Municipality has strong relation with provincial and federal level of government -Municipalities are increasingly involved in international relationship as a result of globalization, free trade agreements -Characterized by increasingly complex and changing combinations of participants. -Evolution of provincial-local relations typically characterized by increasingly provincial oversight -At beginning of 20 century departments of municipal affairs established to provide leadership and guidance in municipal development -After world war2 increased in provincial supervision due to growing service demands on local government -As revenues from property tax became less and less adequate, provinces increased financial assistance. -Conditional grants were most common and allowed provinces to ensure services met minimum standard -Provincial priorities were dominant as consequence, by 1960s local government had endured 3 decades the provicial-local relationship 1990s Disentanglement: Relates to issue of jurisdictional overlap and the interdependence of government programs and policies at all 3 levels -1990s saw major efforts in Ontario and Quebec to disentangle and reallocate or download their responsibilities -This was partly in response to the fiscal pressures facing provinces at this time, as many were dealing with major cutbacks in federal transfer funds -Reducing duplication and overlap in provincial and municipal services delivery was viewed as a way of cutting provincial costs, and also clarifying lines of responsibility -Considerable variation in the approaches and outcomes across provinces. Rationale for disentanglement -Service to property vs. services to people -Local vs. general -Services to people provides benefits that go beyond boundaries of one municipality so should be financed by broader revenue sources -Social services involved income redistribution often tied to broad provincial or even national standards -Some services shouldn’t be open to local variation -Criticism of this rationale: arbitrary allocation of responsibilities, are there any issues, which are still inherently local? Case study: Ontario -1990 reports suggested that Ontario shift cost of social assistance to provincial government -But this would mean around $800 million in extra cost -Issued follow up study focus on fiscal neutrality -Deal fell thru when province introduced major cuts in local transfer payments in response to growing debt and deficit -Key milestone in Harris government, shift of time is a great deal when social service is putting out there. -Who does what panel to discuss how delivery and funding of services should be redesigned -Recommendations largely followed the services to people vs. services to properly separation -1997 Ontario government response ignored recommendations of the panel -Result was a service swap, where province downloaded increased responsibilities for a number of social “Downloading” -Federal/provincial government shift expenditure responsibilities directly to municipalities -Provincial government reduces transfer to municipalities and in effect increase municipal funding requirement -Federal and provincial levels downsize their own responsibilities in areas such as immigrant settlement and municipalities feel need to step in and fill the gap -Federal mandates that municipalities meet certain
More Less

Related notes for POL305Y1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit