The C.D. Howe Institute recently weighed in on the Capital Regional District’s long-standing amalgamation conversation with its new publication, Thinking Regionally: How to Improve Service Delivery in Canada’s Cities. It rejects amalgamation in favour of increased voluntary “inter-municipal co-operation.”
But although an anticipated game-changer in the debate, the Ontario-based paper ultimately boils down to a set of weak suggestions that sound charming, but lack teeth.
The conversation surrounding this regional structure is a deeply complex one, involving questions on both sides of not only economic efficiency, but also identity, democratic equity and financial fairness.
The report, on the other hand, is extremely simplistic. Between lovely sounding buzzwords and vast generalizations, its only real takeaway is the highly enlightened idea that “everyone needs to work together.”
But while co-operation is an important feature of any political relationship, the idea that “inter-municipal co-operation” alone is sufficient has little to do with the realities of our region.
For one, co-operation is not effective in promoting the “regional interest,” as the authors seem to imply. By definition, a regional perspective requires councils to be willing to support projects that might not neatly coincide with their local interest, “in the interest of the region.”
But when municipalities such as Esquimalt refuse to fund the Johnson Street Bridge — which not only benefits their residents, but strengthens the downtown core and the face of regional tourism — because it does not fall within their borders, it becomes clear that the “regional interest” is a challenging sell.
Even if agreements are met, they are fragile; municipalities can freely pull out at whim, in many cases threatening the initiative as a whole.
To ensure accountability, co-operation would need to be mandated in a way that violates its very nature. While the report’s solution is for municipalities to “set aside parochial and mistrustful attitudes,” without any tangible measures to ensure this, the sentiment is meaningless.
Furthermore, while the authors are right to observe that amalgamation doesn’t always mean cost reduction, they ignore the overwhelming cost we bear from regional co-ordination. We are not only composed of 13 municipalities, regional co-ordination is predominantly led by the CRD board, whose operating budget alone is $217 million.
Even outside this, we have about 350 integrated service-delivery agreements between municipalities. This institution bears an overwhelming bureaucratic cost, and expanding it would only drive this cost up.
Yet as the report praises Victoria’s governance model as one that “city-regions across Canada should be looking to,” it doesn’t mention this cost.
The one convincing argument of the study is that the current model would “keep decision-making closer to local residents.” Having our voices heard is an important issue, and talks of amalgamation raise fair questions and concerns.
Yet again, the report fails to acknowledge the democratic flaws of our current system. Not only is the CRD board unelected, but representation across municipalities is inequitable; half of all CRD citizens are represented by only two municipal councils (Saanich and Victoria), while the other half finds representation in 11 councils.
This means that a community such as James Bay, with a population of about 12,000, is represented by the equivalent of one councillor, while comparable communities such as Sooke, North Saanich and Sidney each have their own governing body.
The report’s ideas that our current system preserves representation demonstrate how disconnected the Ontario authors are from our region.
It’s certainly important to have a system of high and equal representation, and it is completely valid for citizens in the Highlands, for example, to be concerned that their voices will be lost in the shuffle. But unless we write off the half of the population whose voices are being drowned out, it’s clear the current system is not the answer.
Full amalgamation might not be (and probably isn’t) the answer for the CRD. But a valuable policy recommendation requires that we take a complex look at a range of possible solutions, and ground our conclusions in the context of our specific region structure.
Despite priding itself in objectivity, it is clear on the first page that this study is not open to holistic discussion of amalgamation, bluntly describing it as “forced” or “imposed authority,” and underscoring the need to “keep amalgamation at bay” as though it is a dangerous new strain of influenza.
In their quickness to praise the “regional co-ordinators” of our region, the Ontario-based authors overlook the many shades of grey that any meaningful conversation requires, and ultimately contribute little to this important debate.
Isabella Gudgeon, born and raised in Victoria, is in her third year at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.
