Coping with Canadian federalism: the case of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Abstract

Since the early 1960s, the only pan‐Canadian association of municipalities has shown two decades of decline followed by two decades of growth. This paper analyses this decline and subsequent growth in the context of the changing position of municipalities with Canada, particularly those in Quebec. Examination of the association's recent history provides useful insights into how Canada's municipalities cope with Canadian federalism. It provides lessons as to how best to prosper as a pan‐Canadian organization concerned with what are mainly matters of provincial interest. The paper's theoretical contribution includes reference to the nature and roles of interest groups in Canadian federalism and to the application of structural contingency theory. Sommaire: Depuis le début des annees 1960, l'unique association pancanadienne de municipalités a connu deux décennies de déclin suivies par deux décennies de crois‐sance. Le présent article analyse ce déclin et cette croissance dans le contexte de la position changeante des municipalites à l'égard du Canada, en particulier celles du Québec. L'examen de la récente histoire dee l'association suscite des réflexions utiles sur la maniére dont les municipalités au Canada font face au fédéralisme canadien. II explique comment un organisme pancanadien principalement préoccupé par des questions d'intérséCt provincial pour prospérer le mieux possible. La contribution théorique de l'article fait référence à la nature et aux rôles des groupes d'intéráCts dans le fédéralisme canadien et à l'application de la théorie de contingence structurale.

The Limits and Opportunities of Networks: Municipalities and Canadian Climate Change Policy

“…Nationally, the FCM has been the organization most affiliated with supporting and facilitating municipal climate change response. In terms of national relevance and membership, FCM suffered through a low point in the 1980s, but in the 1990s, its membership grew, and its prominence and role as a conduit between municipal governments and the federal government improved (see Stevenson & Gilbert, 2005). In February 2007, FCM had 1,427 members from Canada's ten provinces and three territories.…”

“…Mayors Agreement, does not specifically advocate for federal or provincial government action (see Gore & Robinson, 2009). FCM's weaker advocacy position is not surprising given its decision in the 1980s to move away from “high politics”—contentious national issues—to be more pragmatic and focus on sector specific issues (see Stevenson & Gilbert, 2005, pp. 540–541).…”

“…Municipal governments in Canada, even though they may be active in responding to climate change, are viewed as “policy‐takers not policy‐makers” (Sancton, 2006). Second, for practical, structural, and historic reasons, the network of municipalities active in climate change response is not advocacy oriented and prefers to remain in the “low politics” of national affairs (see Stevenson & Gilbert, 2005). Lastly, the network includes municipalities that are very diverse with respect to population size, geographic location, and socioeconomic character.…”

L’administration publique dans la gouvernance multiniveau infranationale : état de la question et perspectives

“…Dans la GMN infranationale, le rôle des associations de municipalités est souvent mentionné et parfois analysé, au Canada par Stevenson et Gilbert (2005) et par Chenier (2009), et en Europe par Callanan (2012).…”

The evolving role of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities

“…Simply maintaining the organization as a functioning whole can be a demanding task. The trials and tribulations of the FCM from its near demise in the early 1980s to its re-emergence as an active participant in federal-municipal relations have been well documented in various papers and monographs (Federation of Canadian Municipalities 1987;Graham 1977;Stevenson and Gilbert 2005;Dewing, Young, and Tolley 2006).…”