It Takes Three: Making Space for Cities in Canadian Federalism
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic and the economic crisis it has produced have highlighted pre-existing cracks in Canada’s federal structure, particularly in relation to Canada’s cities. On the one hand, Canadian cities are on the front lines addressing and dealing with the impacts of Canada’s major policy challenges – not only COVID-19, but also climate change, the opioid crisis, homelessness, housing unaffordability, and insufficient transit development. On the other hand, cities remain “little siblings” in Canadian federalism: the federal government and the provinces and territories dominate the political and policy conversation, the powers and responsibilities of cities are subject to unilateral provincial change, and provinces maintain a strong presence in municipal affairs through oversight and regulations. Cities face four specific challenges because of this situation: 1. Paternalism: Cities have a semblance of authority in several policy areas, but often little actual power to make changes unilaterally. 2. Constrained finances: Cities have inadequate revenue sources and insufficient fiscal flexibility to meet their responsibilities. 3. Poor coordination: Unclear and overlapping jurisdiction between orders of government leads to poorly coordinated programs and disputes over responsibility. 4. Fragmentation: A lack of appropriate regional governance structures in much of Canada prevents necessary coordination among cities in a metropolitan region. How can these imbalances be addressed? This report recommends two fundamental steps. First, a clarification of the powers and responsibilities of cities is needed. In practice, this entails a review of provincialmunicipal relations, which should take place in the context of a similar review of the imbalance in federal-provincial relations. Six core principles should underlie the review: 1. Take a collaborative approach 2. Start with who does what 3. Follow the pay-for-say principle and avoid unfunded mandates 4. Consider revenue capacity and fiscal flexibility 5. Accommodate differences among municipalities 6. Look forward, not backward Second, trilateral relations in Canada should be deepened. Cities, provinces, and the federal government should have formal avenues for regular meetings and collaborative governance. At the same time, governments should pursue trilateral agreements to address policy challenges that require coordinated action and multi-level funding. In combination, these measures will not only put cities on a firmer footing, but they will also ensure the effective funding, coordination, and delivery of public services across all orders of government. Canada will be better able to “build back better” from COVID-19, including by addressing climate change, reforming social policy, and improving health care, if the governments best able to deliver on these efforts can afford to take them on. Canada will also be better equipped to handle these challenges with better coordination and cooperation among all three orders of government.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,034 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,039 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».