Keith Gerein: The relations between the city and the provinces need a solution in Edmonton, but can it be done?

Article content

When I was a kid, the bullies in the schoolyard always presented a strategic puzzle.

Article content

Tackling them never seemed to work as often as seen in the movies, especially when they were bigger, stronger, and had more friends who already sported facial hair.

Sympathizing or trying to be her friend sometimes prevented disaster; sometimes it just pissed them off.

Which meant giving in to the bully tended to be the short-term path of least resistance, except that it almost ensured that he would come back for more.

Although the schoolyard policy is not a perfect analogy for the state of provincial-municipal relations in Alberta, I think there are at least some similarities faced by the Edmonton mayoral candidates who have been emphasizing the need to “fix” the relationship of the city with the province.

The goal is important, of course, but actually achieving it with a government that tends to use its power advantage to dictate rather than collaborate is not an easy task, especially in a city where most voters are likely to seek a contrast with that government.

Article content

The depths of the UCP’s dysfunctional relationship with municipalities, and especially Edmonton, are detailed in a new report from the left-wing Parkland Institute called Unfair treatment.

I won’t go into all the details here, but the list includes significant reductions in infrastructure financing, imposing more conditions on financing, a recovery of municipal fine revenue, offloading more policing and disaster recovery costs, and breaking a big city charter agreement that would have given Edmonton and Calgary access to a form of revenue sharing.

Other provincial decisions, although not specifically directed at municipalities, continue to have a great impact. Think of cuts to universities, refusals to adequately fund social services and housing, and failures to implement adequate COVID protections.

Article content

That said, where the report falls short is that it only addresses one side of the relationship. For example, it does not evaluate the claim that Alberta municipalities have been better funded than their counterparts in other parts of Canada. It also fails to address the argument, I think valid, that many Alberta cities and towns have lagged a close look at their structure and spending. (COVID has accelerated that process.)

The question, then, is how to reestablish the relationship on a more productive basis, which of course makes the assumption, at best, questionable, that both parties agree that it should be reestablished.

For example, when asked for advice on Friday, outgoing mayor Don Iveson could only offer frustration rather than guidance.

Article content

“I’m not sure it’s possible to have a functional relationship with a dysfunctional government,” he said.

Iveson is probably not the best person to ask at this point.

But several of the contenders vying to succeed him have suggested they see a better way forward, so I pressured them to describe their strategy.

Michael Oshry, for example, has been one of the most critical on this issue, saying that Edmonton has played a secondary role to Calgary and lost provincial investment due to “political prowess with the mayor’s office.”

His solution is to develop a common agenda with the premiere of four or five projects in which the city and the province see a mutual benefit, and then let the relationship grow from there.

Kim Krushell also emphasized the importance of winning victories for all, by finding ways to structure applications in ways that benefit the provincial agenda. Backtracking is sometimes necessary, but it is vital to avoid public divisions, she said, adding that her lack of past party affiliations makes her the ideal candidate to work with prime ministers, prime ministers and ministers of any political stripe.

Article content

Amarjeet Sohi’s response focused on building consensus in the community for a particular agenda, presenting a united front that would be difficult for the province to ignore.

“As a cabinet minister, I have seen first-hand the impact other cities have had in approaching government as a collective voice,” he said.

Cheryll Watson said “insisting on housing” has left the city out of critical talks with the province. His approach would try to put the city on the good books of the UCP by cutting red tape, supporting businesses and finding areas of mutual alignment.

Mike Nickel said his only request to the province was to fund more mental health and addiction beds for the homeless.

In all, while I would have liked to hear the candidates advocate for more municipal powers to better level the playing field, there were still some thoughtful responses, including promises to better listen to the province’s concerns.

Article content

At the same time, I also feel a certain naivety, particularly around the idea that a change in the mayor’s office will cause the province to suddenly put aside partisanship and pettiness.

Instead, all signs suggest that this will remain a very complicated minefield for the next mayor, who must find a way to voice the opposition voters expect, without burning the bridges that residents ultimately need.

Blaming Iveson for diplomatic failures in this area is fair game, because perhaps there has been an overly caustic personality clash with provincial leaders.

But just because there will soon be a new kid in town with a different strategy doesn’t mean the old bullies are willing to change theirs.

[email protected]

twitter.com/keithgerein