Making the case for constitutional power for Canadian cities
When we think of Canadian cities, we might picture the places where we live, work, and gather—a straightforward concept at first glance. But from a constitutional standpoint, cities in Canada occupy a challenging position, often compared to the “middle child” in the family. Like the middle child, they’re regularly overlooked, undervalued, and dependent on provincial governments for authority and resources. While Canadians spend around 80 per cent of their lives in urban areas, cities lack the constitutional power to govern on the national issues they face every day, like housing, climate action, and infrastructure.
The fact that cities aren’t front and centre in our Constitution isn’t a coincidence; it’s historical. When Canada was formed in 1867, cities weren’t recognized in the British North America Act, instead tucked away in Section 92(8). In other words, cities weren’t considered partners in governance but rather subsumed within provincial power. One-hundred and fifty years later, that designation has left municipalities with little formal authority over their pressing urban challenges.
Canadian cities lack power to tackle major national challenges
This legal status has real implications. Canada’s biggest challenges—housing, public transit, climate action, immigration—are primarily urban issues. But the places where these national and international challenges hit the hardest are also the places with the least power to address them effectively.
To tackle this disconnect, the Massey Cities Summit was convened in 2021 to explore transformative approaches to Canadian urban governance. Hosted by Massey College and then-Principal Nathalie Des Rosiers, the summit brought together scholars, policy experts, and advocates from around the world to imagine a future where cities have the authority they need to manage issues on the ground. The summit took place amid the pandemic and on the heels of the Toronto v. Ontario case, where the city’s limited legal rights were spotlighted, sparking conversations about the broader constitutional framework for Canadian cities.
For those involved in areas like Indigenous-municipal relationships and urban governance, the interest was particularly strong: the lack of constitutional status undermines municipal obligations to First Nations and Indigenous communities, and limits cities’ power to make critical decisions about housing, environmental regulation, and transportation. This summit produced a wealth of insights, discussions, and materials, including a podcast series, that continue to shape conversations on urban governance.
But perhaps one of the summit’s most significant outcomes was the creation of two important edited books, the first of their kind, showcasing frameworks, case studies, and proposals to reimagine the constitutional paradigm around Canadian cities.
How constitutional change could empower cities
These two new books delve into both the legal landscape and practical realities that Canadian cities face, providing strategies for a possible constitutional evolution. The books Cities and the Constitution: Giving Local Governments in Canada the Power They Need and The Past, Present, and Future of Canadian Cities: Where the Law Went Wrong and How We Can Fix It cover topics such as constitutional amendments, charter cities, provincial constitutions, and potential partnerships between municipalities and federal and provincial governments. Co-edited by Professor Richard Albert, Justice Nathalie Des Rosiers, and myself, with chapters written by experts from across Canada and internationally, they offer an in-depth look at how a stronger constitutional foundation could empower cities to address urban challenges head-on.
The books aren’t abstract—they’re deeply practical, highlighting the urgent challenges of our current constitutional framework. While some Canadian provinces grant cities limited leeway to make local decisions, arrangements are precarious. They’re shackled in their ability to address our country’s most pressing policy issues, like housing, given their lack of constitutional power or the necessary tax and legislative authority. While provinces may support municipal efforts, their cooperation is inconsistent, and cities can’t rely on stable support for long-term solutions. And, federal initiatives around housing or transit lead to conflict with provinces, adding legal and bureaucratic hurdles that prevent that support from flowing efficiently.
Toward constitutional reform: Steps to strengthen Canadian cities
The books’ chapters offer insights on the kind of constitutional reform that would allow Canadian cities achieve the constitutional power they need. They also examine potential legal frameworks, looking to examples from around the world where cities have successfully secured new models. In some countries, cities have emerged as constitutional entities, responsible for tackling issues like housing, climate change, and public health. Canada, the books argue, could follow suit by creating frameworks that define clear roles, rights, and responsibilities for municipalities, aligning power with the reality of urban life.
While achieving constitutional recognition may be an ambitious goal, smaller steps—like deepening intergovernmental cooperations, acknowledging Indigenous-municipal legal obligations, or rationalizing constitutional interpretation—may help cities gradually secure more authority and accountability.
Cities lack visibility in Canada’s Constitution, but they are where much of Canadian life happens. As the heartbeat of the economy, localities are essential to how policies play out in people’s lives, how businesses operate, and how communities thrive. If Canada’s governance is to evolve alongside the changing urban landscape, rethinking the constitutional status of cities is essential.