After a year of upheaval and reviews, Metro Vancouver directors are awaiting a report that could tweak a few parts of the biggest regional government in B.C. — or could kickstart massive reforms in the way the area from Lions Bay to Langley is overseen.
“I’ve heard the word amalgamation,” said Metro Vancouver vice-chair John McEwen, referring to the concept of merging some or all of the patchwork of 21 municipalities that comprise the Metro Vancouver Regional District.
“I don’t know how to change the governing model so that everybody still has a say. Right now, we allow a say from the mayor of Vancouver or Surrey, but also the mayor of Anmore or Port Moody.”
Metro Vancouver initiated an independent review of its governance by Deloitte Canada following months of media reports about the oversight, cost overruns and remuneration of its directors and senior staff.
That report is expected by the end of the month. Directors have pledged to have an open mind on whatever recommendations are made.
But regardless, Metro Vancouver faces a question similar to municipalities across British Columbia — whether people can disagree agreeably and move forward, or suffer potential consequences.
“When you have a council that is rowing in the same direction, you can achieve some very positive things,” said Brad West, the mayor of Port Coquitlam and one of the 41 board members of the Metro Vancouver board.
“If you have a council that is at war with each other, and everything is political? You know what usually happens is voters say you’re all gone.”
In advance of the governance report, CBC News interviewed four directors at the centre of debates over Metro Vancouver over the past year:
In addition, CBC News spoke on background with another eight past and present directors across the region.
Together, they paint a picture of an organization that has struggled to respond in the aftermath of the negative attention.
Different municipalities took different strategies in dealing with the fallout, with the two biggest — Vancouver and Surrey — effectively boycotting different parts of the regional government. The subsequent politicization created plenty of split votes and a lack of clear direction.
“It is really challenging to have 41 people around the table,” said Kruger, who has pushed for Metro Vancouver to focus more clearly on the 80 per cent of its budget dedicated to water and waste.
“We have to adjust our expectations. It is a different creature than a council table. And if we put the same expectations of a council table on it, I think we’re going to be naturally disappointed by the result.”
West, whose motion ruffled some feathers with directors in several municipalities, said the sheer number of directors made it difficult to move quickly.
“There’s not the same degree of nimbleness that you might find in a city council in responding to issues that emerge,” he said.
“What you saw play out was 41 people kind of waiting for someone to do something.”
Many directors believed media criticism of expenses was excessive relative to Metro Vancouver’s billion-dollar annual budget, or lacked comparison to other jurisdictions.
“I think we certainly put a lot of materials out that weren’t reported or for whatever reason … I didn’t think that was fairly done,” said Hurley.
But at the same time, he and other directors agreed the criticisms were warranted, and a review was helpful.
“I think both things can be true at the same time,” said Kruger.
“This is a multibillion-dollar organization that does incredibly great things every single day … but we need to get back to focusing on those fundamentals and stop getting distracted by things that just don’t deliver good value for taxpayers.”
One of the reasons it’s hard to compare Metro Vancouver to other regional governments is that there’s nothing like it in Canada.
In most big urban centres, the same mayor and council elected for the whole city are also responsible for water and sewage. There are a few exceptions where a number of municipalities oversee services, like the Montreal Agglomeration Council or the Regional Municipality of Peel, but they are dominated by one or two cities, and have around 25 directors.
Metro Vancouver’s 41 directors from 21 municipalities (along with a representative from the Tsawwassen First Nation and the UBC-dominated lands of Electoral Area A) is a unique creature for delivering utility services, the flip side of allowing individual areas of the Lower Mainland to retain their own local government.
The question the Deloitte review will have to effectively rule on is whether it can still produce effective and concentrated oversight for utility services or if another model is needed.
“It’s very complex, but at the same time, if you take the time to dig in and fully understand, I think it’s very manageable,” said Hurley.
“But we have to compromise, and we have to see everyone else’s point of view. And I think it’s become a challenge.”
If Deloitte thinks otherwise? The ultimate decision, then, would not lie with Metro Vancouver, but with the provincial government.
“When it’s convenient, the province really tries to divorce itself from any involvement that they have in this,” said West.
“All of these big issues right now around who Metro Vancouver is? At the end of the day, it’s going to be the provincial government having to make a change if there’s going to be a change.”
