
It has been almost two decades since Peter Clutterbuck and Marvyn Novick wrote
their reflections on building inclusive communities in a diversifying Canadian urban
context. Jointly commissioned by the Laidlaw Foundation and the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities (FCM), this work was based on the results of a series of community soundings with civic officials and community leaders in ten cities across Canada.
The report makes the case for creating cross-community alliances to urge more direct support by the federal government for strong municipal social infrastructure. Novick’s and Clutterbuck’s conclusions were that the federal engagement in developing strong social infrastructure should not be impeded by provincial claims that cities were exclusively their domain. Further city governments were to be seen as a mature order of government capable of managing their cities and capable of multi-lateral partnerships.
The last section in the report, “Civic Alliances for a Mutual Canada” written by Marvyn
Novick astutely identified a number of key issues facing Canadian cities and communities
– the growing diversity of Canadian society, most notably in urban centres, the increasing
pressures towards fragmentation of the Canadian mosaic, the lack of social infrastructure
accompanying the growth in population and physical infrastructure, the withdrawal and
underfunding of social housing, the marginalization of racialized communities, youth,
Aboriginal communities, and newer immigrant groups, the structural weaknesses of
governments at all three levels to work together to affect change, and the lack of
municipal revenue sources to meet growing needs. These issues dominated governmental
fora like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, social planning councils across the
country, advocacy organizations and academics.
The report was a succinct presentation of the woes of urban communities, while also
suggesting ways by which the issues could be addressed. No one order of government
could do the job itself and history has shown that it has often been difficult to align the local, provincial and national in any common cause. Given the turmoil of much federal-
provincial relations during the 1990s, Novick beckoned deeper federal engagement with cities by noting that “the social infrastructure of urban communities is a new frontier of federal responsibilities . . . too vital be left to the discretion of the provinces.”
Acknowledging that provinces have a direct role in municipal affairs and sometimes need
to have their feet held to the fire, he further argued that “an active federal presence will
ensure that provincial responsibilities are met.” Citing the input of civic and community
leaders in the cross-Canada soundings that “local conditions have national significance,”
Novick’s plea was “for direct federal engagement in helping to create and sustain inclusive
communities.”
There was also a vision of a strong community sector that could support and provide the
frontline services required to build inclusive communities. Cities and local communiti
were understood as being “closest to the people” and in the best position both to hear
the social needs and to respond in contextually sensitive ways while adhering to national
and provincial equity standards.
If there were any assumptions in the article, it would be fair to say that Novick
assumed that success was possible with all levels of government working together
with a strong civic sector building all kinds of cross-sectoral collaborations. History has
taught us that in some historical periods this collaboration works while in other periods,
especially when provincial and federal governments have hostile relationships running
at cross-purposes, cities and social services/justice agencies need to be more strategic.
Well, that was then and this is now, and one wonders about the changing landscape
for cities and senior orders of governments. The diversity of Canada has intensified
and Canada’s future promises even more diversification with new immigrant groups
arriving in large numbers, with the shift from rural communities to larger urban centres
increasing, and homelessness, poverty and social marginalization ever on the rise.
Some groups have benefited greatly from a generation of prosperity, and it is worth
noting that Canada continues to be among the wealthiest and most prosperous countries
of the world. At precisely the same time however, all the indicators show that the
wealth is not being shared equitably, not even close to it, and that a greater number
of Canadians are losing ground, especially among the very communities – newcomers,
Aboriginal, homeless, youth and racialized – that were identified as needing support.
The changing context of 2021 and beyond also includes the COVID-19 pandemic
and the post-pandemic effects. All the negative social trends present before its onset
have both increased and accelerated. Homelessness in Toronto, as a marker of social
woes, is for the first time hovering around the 10,000 person mark, a first in post-WWII
history. In the meantime, the wealth of many corporations, especially in the high tech
sector, and high net worth individuals have seen their wealth climb astronomically. The
social impacts of COVID-19 both reflect deepening social divides while at the same
time accelerating those same divisions. It is clearly a situation begging for strong
governmental intervention.
It does beg the question: What happened in the last generation? What is it about
Canadian society, about the Canadian governmental system, about the political
enterprise, about the movements for social justice, that we have not been able to achieve any substantial victory in any of the areas mentioned by Novick. Has the Canadian spirit of community and social solidarity that built our post-WWII institutions of social equity and justice so atrophied into a spirit of complacency? Have Canadians lost that strong sense of community cooperation and public good in favour of an ethic of consumerism and Darwinian competition? And is there also something in the structure of municipal-provincial-federal governance that makes it so hard to develop a stronger social infrastructure supporting vulnerable people and communities?
The impacts of COVID-19 provoke further questions: will orders of government seize
the moment, appreciate the deepening and overlapping crises and build new systems of
equity and justice? How much damage did the social distancing feature of the pandemic
do to Canadians’ sense of social solidarity? What are the post-pandemic issues around
which broad-based, pan-Canadian coalitions can construct renewed visions of greater
social equity that all orders of government will find a need to respond to?
Cities and communities need allies and partnerships with other orders of government
now as much as in prior generations. When a provincial order of government is hostile
to the needs of cities, as is currently the case in Ontario today, then a civic partnership
with the federal order of government needs to be re-visioned and strengthened. Direct
urban-federal relationships are in fact already being built and could be strengthened.
Novick and Clutterbuck’s basic insight that a pan-Canadian approach, augmenting
provincial relationships where possible, is insightful for the present moment. Cities
wanting to build their social infrastructure need all the friends they can get and if one
order of government is stalled or working backwards, another order of government can
and needs to be leveraged to fill the gap.
Novick’s and Clutterbuck’s analysis on the lack of progress on social issues is as right
on the mark today as it has ever been. The political question of today, a generation
after the writing of their report, is first to figure out the “how and why” for the lack
of meaningful progress on social justice and inclusion. Canadian society and values of
social solidarity are stuck, even moving backwards, and we need to figure out a way to
focus attention and make something happen. The Trumps and Fords of the world are
certainly a piece of it. But a deeper understanding of the social, political, and economic
underpinnings that gave them an opening and propelled them to power is needed.
Further, governmental structures and relationships are a piece of the puzzle. These are
the challenges that a re-read of Novick and Clutterbuck raises for the next generation.
Joe Mihevc is a Visiting Professor at York University and a former city councillor in
Toronto.
The document Building Inclusive Communities can be found here.