Unless you were sleeping under a rock last week, you couldn't have missed the release of the 2001 Census. Given the depth and breadth of the data, it is self-evident to see why Statistics Canada is considered a world-leader in data aggregation and publication.

Yours truly hasn't seen so much ink devoted to one story since September 11th. The national dailies set aside three and four pages for analysis the day after the Census release with every pundit and editorial writer chiming in with their take as well. Now, it's my turn.

If you're taking your kids to hockey this morning, here's the Coles Notes version.

As of last year, there were 30,007,094 of us. Over 79.4% of Canadians now live in census metropolitan areas (CMAs), read: Cities. Toronto (GTA), Montreal, Vancouver and the Edmonton-Calgary axis are booming when it comes to population growth and now account for 51% of our entire population.

On the downside, we are an aging nation of city dwellers with a declining fertility rate (1.5 births per woman) and immigration, which is a big factor in T.O. and the Lower Mainland out on the recently liberated West Coast, is not keeping pace to meet our long-term population needs. Now, don't forget to hit the drive-thru and play roll up the rim to win before heading to the rink.

For the rest of you who are still with me, let's look at the policy implications of the Census. If one takes the GTA from St. Catharine's north to Barrie and East to Oshawa, this area alone represents 22% of Canada's population. This number is greater than the combined population of our six smallest provinces and three territories. But to add a touch of humility to the big egos of Torontonians (I should know, I'm a transplanted one), this enlarged GTA is still only the 10th largest CMA in North America.

Toronto still trails the top nine CMAs which are: 1) NYC-New Jersey-Long Island; 2) LA-Riverside-Orange County; 3) Chicago-Gary-Kenosha; 4) Washington-Baltimore; 5) San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose; 6) Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City; 7) Boston-Worcester-Lawrence; 8) Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint; and 9) Dallas-Fort Worth. Just behind T.O are Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, Atlanta, Miami-Fort Lauderdale and Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton. (Note: Keep this list for Cliff Clave trivia time at cocktail parties).

The Census only reinforces what many urban leaders and policy experts have been saying for more than a decade, "cities are where it's at in the 21st century." This phrase is taken from my fist regular Ottawa Sun column published on January 31st, 2001.

This column also stated "if health care was the defining flash point in federal-provincial relations during the last five years, look for cities - how they are funded, treated and what new powers (including taxation) they are given and/or demand - to dominate the federal-provincial radar screen over the next five years."

Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the smartest of them all? Hey, I warned you about my ego. But in all seriousness, the Census must surely underscore the case for an urgent urban agenda. Hello Parliament Hill, hello provincial capitals, is anybody home?

According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), on average, most Canadian cities rely on property taxes for 60% to 65% of their revenues. Another 30% to 35% comes in the form of fees, fines, permits, licenses, and other local taxes. At most, 5% of their funds come from federal and provincial transfers. This is neither fair nor sustainable.

Many Canadian metropolitan transit systems are now thirty to fifty years old in terms of their supporting infrastructure. Our highways and roads range from conditions of minimal life cycle maintenance upkeep, at best, to states of prolonged neglect, in some cases. As for our water and wastewater systems, well think of your grandparents in their teens as the last time these utilities received proper attention.

From a constitutional perspective, Canadian cities are still stuck in the past. Their diminished status as creatures of the province stems from Baldwin's Upper Canada Act (1849) where cities (local authorities) were relegated to such monumental tasks as regulating public drunkenness and controlling public parades of poultry.

This is unfortunate and places our economic future in some jeopardy. And this is in stark contrast to the United States where, for example, 84% of the $25 billion they collect each year in federal gas taxes is returned to the cities and region from whence it came for roads, public transit and housing initiatives. For the record, Ottawa returns less than 5% of its annual $4.8 billion haul in gas taxes back to roads and infrastructure. The provinces are a little more generous, but still have a ways to go in building our cities.

This gap is not only a North American issue, it is a global competitiveness issue. In a speech last November to the Canadian Club of Toronto, Robert Fung, the chair of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, noted that "prior to the revitalization of Barcelona's waterfront for the 1992 Olympics, Barcelona was rated as the 24th destination in Europe for tourists. Today it is rated as the 3rd destination in all of Europe in the company of London and Paris."

Mr. Fung went on to note that cities like Hong Kong with its cyberport, Shenzen, China and the nation of Singapore, in two words, get it. Other cities in this elite group include - by sheer economic weight alone, New York, along with Seoul, South Korea and Tokyo, Japan.

Calgary may be the Canadian city that has come closest to "getting it' along with Ottawa's attempts to build a smart city and diversify away from its traditional reliance on the federal government for wealth creation. But both, along with other Canadian cities to one degree or another, risk stagnation under the weight of their own growth unless senior orders of government wake up to the reality of urban Canada.

Finance Minister Paul Martin is on record saying that he supports a "new deal" for our cities. Fair enough Mr. Minister, but actions speak louder than words.