Hon. Karen Sorensen: Honourable senators, I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak today on the essential — and often overlooked — role of municipalities in Canada. I’d like to thank my colleague Senator Simons for commencing this important inquiry.

I agree with Senator Simons when she states that municipalities “are the most poorly resourced order of government,” and that we need to redefine the federal-municipal relationship.

As many of you know, I have a long history in municipal politics, as do many of my Senate colleagues. I began my political career as a school trustee, before serving two terms as town councillor in Banff, followed by three terms as mayor.

As you can probably guess, I’m very passionate about municipal politics. But it’s not just the politicians and policy wonks who should be paying attention to this debate — all Canadians are impacted by the way their governments interact. I’ve often said that municipalities are the most grassroots level of government.

Decisions made at the municipal council table impact the everyday lives of residents, and mayors and councillors are among the most accessible politicians. Residents don’t have to travel to Ottawa or their provincial capital to make their voices heard when they can run into their local representative in the grocery store buying Cheerios.

Municipal leaders are able to hear directly from their constituents and engage with issues as they develop. They’re also personally affected by these issues and the debates and feel the impact of their decisions on their communities.

With that in mind, you’d think other levels of government would make a point of coming to municipalities for feedback and advice. But all too often, Canada’s towns and cities are an afterthought.

Housing, social issues, natural disasters and climate change are interjurisdictional, but it’s municipalities who are on the front lines.

The federal government is leading national efforts to fight climate change, but it’s the municipalities who bear the community burdens of fires, floods and other extreme weather.

It’s local communities who most keenly feel the impacts of crime, addiction and poverty, and it’s municipalities who pay the tab for local police and other first responders, but the federal government legislates on these issues.

It also frequently falls on municipalities to manage the impact of decisions made by higher levels of government, whether it’s figuring out appropriate zoning rules for cannabis shops after the legalization of marijuana, helping integrate refugees or determining how to care for vulnerable community members when social services funding is insufficient.

An example of this can be seen in the issue of police funding. Many towns and cities across Alberta and Canada rely on RCMP for policing. When the federal government negotiated a retroactive pay raise for RCMP officers, it was a serious and unexpected hit to many municipal budgets.

Some cities were on the hook for millions in back pay alone.

Global News reported that the City of Surrey was facing a bill of $46.6 million. It’s often the case that municipalities struggle to dance to the federal government’s tune.

I remember in 2016-17, when the federal government pledged free entry to all national parks for Canada’s one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. This was great news for Canadians, but over at the Town of Banff, we didn’t know how we would be able to accommodate the expected increased influx of visitors and vehicles.

Now, there is a silver lining to this story. The Town of Banff is unique in that it’s a municipality within federal land. So in this case, we were able to go directly to the feds to work out a solution. As it happened, we had long been pushing for Parks Canada to participate meaningfully in Roam transit, and 2017 was the first summer they actually stepped in to operate buses out into Banff National Park. Ever since, Parks Canada has been an active participant in Roam transit.

Canada’s municipal leaders are highly skilled at advocating for their communities and making their voices heard at a provincial and a national level.

It should also be incumbent upon the federal government to consult directly with cities and towns to understand the local impacts of their policies, not just after the fact, but as the policies are being designed.

I can’t gloss over the need for more tangible forms of support. Municipalities by their nature have limited avenues to increase revenue.

As Senator Simons noted in her speech, around 70% of municipal revenues come from property taxes. Residents, of course, don’t like to see property taxes and other fees go up, and many of those revenues don’t even stay local.

Municipalities are constantly collecting money for other people. A lot of people don’t realize that in Alberta 50% of municipal taxes go right back to Edmonton.

I have had to explain many times that the Town of Banff doesn’t get any cut of the National Park fees which support Parks Canada, or municipalities don’t get provincial hotel tax or the local tourism improvement fees that support marketing efforts. I certainly support all of these fees for their individual purposes, but the perception is that the municipality benefits from them operationally. They don’t.

In my experience, municipalities tend to have far less money and resources than people think. And the demand for services at the local level is only increasing.

I know municipalities across the country are grateful for programs like the Rapid Housing Initiative and the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, which support many worthy local projects. But the administration of these programs is not perfect.

Smaller communities are often overlooked for infrastructure funding; provincial grants are often per capita, based on federal census data that doesn’t tell the whole story. Using provinces as middlemen between municipalities and the federal government delays the flow of funding and resources, and in some cases lets politics get in the way of much-needed investments.

Several of my colleagues in this place have observed that the perception of municipalities as children of the provinces has resulted in a harmful, paternalistic mindset. This metaphor conjures an image of Canada’s towns and cities as meddlesome children with their hands in the cookie jar, and the federal government as an absentee grandparent, who occasionally hands over a $20 bill through the provincial parents, of course. But they’re not always quick to hand it over. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and municipalities are tired of being sent to the kids’ table.

I’m not proposing a one-sided relationship. I’ve long said that municipalities can be valuable partners in advancing national priorities. For example, municipalities play an essential role in advancing Canada’s climate goals. Municipalities have the ability to accurately track GHG emissions on a small scale, providing much-needed local data to advance the fight against climate change. They can also develop specific, actionable programs to target GHG emissions and promote sustainability in their day‑to‑day operations through zoning, developmental approval procedures and management of roads, public transit and parks and recreation. They’re the ones who make the call whether to build a new parking lot to accommodate more cars or to invest in public transit instead.

Again, a brief personal anecdote: One of my last accomplishments as Banff mayor was to call the vote and support the implementation of user-pay parking in our downtown core. Parking revenues from visitors are now paying for free transit for Banff residents to keep local vehicles at home. It’s not a bad trade-off, and it’s a win for the environment as well.

Taking all that into account, it’s not hard to understand how municipalities have influence over approximately 50% of GHG emissions in Canada.

Municipalities also do laudable work welcoming newcomers to Canada. Like many regions, Alberta relies heavily on temporary foreign workers, and the municipalities manage successful, federally funded programs that help these individuals to adapt and integrate. It always touches my heart to see my community providing this valuable mentorship and guidance — from helping new workers fill out their first Canadian tax return to supporting families as they reunite after many, many years apart.

While funding for these efforts comes from many sources, it’s the cities and towns where new immigrants will be making their homes, and the important work of welcoming them is done on the ground in local communities.

This issue, of course, is top of mind lately as thousands of Ukrainian refugees have entered Canada since January, and tens of thousands have applied for emergency entry.

Canada’s municipalities have the same goals as the federal government: to create opportunity for our residents and ensure our communities are safe, healthy places to live. Municipalities play a huge part in reaching these goals, and they need to be respected as partners in Canada’s prosperity.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the role and mandate of the RCMP, the skills and capabilities required for it to fulfill its role and mandate, and how it should be organized and resourced in the 21st century.

(On motion of Senator Busson, debate adjourned.)

(At 4:14 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)