bulletins.cfm

bulletins

The bulletin is prepared by John Sewell, the site manager, with the assistance and under the guidance of the advisory committee. It is published monthly, and is being sent to a wide range of people across Canada. Past copies of the bulletin will be archived in this section of the site.

search | show all | subscribe to the bulletin

Bulletin No. 48, June 2004
Local Government Bulletin No. 48, June 2004

The purpose of this bulletin is to focus debate on the need to increase local self-government in Canada and to help local communities achieve more autonomy. The Local Government website is: http://www.localgovernment.ca

In this bulletin:
***
1. Vancouver Ward System
2. De-mergers become a reality
3. Land Use Planning Reform, again
4. Subscribe to the Bulletin
***

1. Vancouver Ward System

Several weeks ago former judge Thomas Berger filed his report on a ward system for Vancouver. It’s a fine piece of work, and contains many observations of general application to other municipalities.

One of the strengths of the report is the style in which it is written. Berger quotes individual presentations as a way to talk about the variety of issues and viewpoints that must be brought to bear on the questions he is grappling with. This makes the report very accessible and gives it a sense that it is rooted in the many public hearings that were held.

Nor does the report shy away from touching on the most political of circumstance in Vancouver politics, a city where currently all councillors are elected at large. Berger says “East-siders have not been as well represented as West-siders, “ says Berger, “and it has been West-siders who have been largely chosen to represent both east and west on City Council.”

“Ward boundaries, crafted with the city’s neighbourhoods in mind,” says Berger, “would make it more likely that the voters would know, or at least know something, about the record and the reputation of their local candidates, whether they run under the banner of one of the political parties or as independents. Moreover, they would, if elected, be expected to be knowledgeable about local issues, represent the views of the ward, and be accountable to ward electors if they did not.”

Regarding parties at the local level, Berger notes both their strengths and their weaknesses. “Parties are,” he says, “a bulwark against the parochialism that some believe would follow a move to wards.” But he states, “Parties should not control the gateway to a seat on City Council.”

“I have come down in favour of wards because they enable citizens to cast an informed vote, they provide for neighbourhood representation and accountability (both during and between elections) and they will address the problem of under-representation faced by residents of the East side of the city. I also believe they will open up the political parties, permitting a more representative candidate selection process, and that they will improve opportunities for smaller parties and independent candidates.” He does not believe that the create of wards, in and of itself, will increase voter turnout.

Berger also considers whether proportional representation would be a good thing for Vancouver and concludes in the negative. “In its simplest terms,” Berger says ”proportional representation is geared toward the representation of political parties.” He reviews three different models including Mixed Member Proportional Representation, the Single Transferable Vote, and Instant Run-off Voting. He does not like any of these systems but, thinking that voters and City Council may at some point in the future favour one of them, recommends that the City obtain legislative power to introduce proportional representation when and if it felt appropriate.

A common practice in municipal government is to allow non-resident property owners to vote. Berger rejects this as “anomalous and undemocratic.” He also makes a fine proposal for the municipal Oath of Office which in most jurisdictions concerns itself with loyalty to the Queen. He says people should swear to “work together for goodwill and the common good.”

He concludes with recommending that a referendum be held to ensure there is public support for the ward system.

The full report can be found at the website of the Vancouver Electoral Reform Commission, http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/erc

2. De-mergers become a reality

In Quebec, on June 20 voters went to the polls in 89 former municipalities forcibly amalgamated by the Quebec provincial government in 2001. The vote was on whether they wished to opt out of the amalgamation.

This was the critical moment for those who had unsuccessfully opposed amalgamations. They had lobbied Jean Charest last spring, in the closing weeks of the 2003 National Assembly election, and he committed his government to demerger votes. They held him to his promises, but had to reshape the legislation proposed to ensure it was reasonably workable. Even so, the law finally passed required than 10 per cent of registered voters ask for the referendum before it could be held, and that 35% of the registered voters had to vote Yes on de-merging for it to be effective – when voter turn-out is usually less than a total of 30 per cent of registered voters in municipal elections. As well, the vote was not to be held for more than a year, a delay that, according to many de-merger advocates, simply gave the politicians representing the newly amalgamated council an unfair advantage as they tried to demonstrate the marvels of the newly amalgamated cities.

In spite of these hurdles, the results of the June 20 vote show the deep unrest among residents of many of the former municipalities which were destroyed in amalgamation. In Montréal the adequate number of votes was obtained in 15 of the 28 former municipalities, permitting them to de-merge. In seven other former Montreal municipalities a majority favoured de-merging but they did not achieve the 35% threshold of support.

The Montreal Gazette began its news story with the phrase “One island, 16 cities.” But it is not quite that simple. First of all, the amalgamated Montreal still counts for about 90% of the population and at least that much of the tax revenue. Second, the de-merger rules require the de-merging municipalities to pay regional expenditures equal to about 2/3 of the tax levy on each property to the City of Montreal. Nevertheless, the situation has been set up for interesting negotiations about the exact nature of municipal government in Montreal, in Longueuil on the south shore and in Quebec City, the other amalgamated communities where strong reservations were expressed about amalgamation.

Any time that voters in more than half of the former 28 municipalities in Montreal say they are not satisfied, one can be sure that this will impact next the municipal election, scheduled for November 2005, even if the de-mergers are not implemented until January 1, 2006. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Jean Marcel Fournier, has created a number of committees to oversee the post-demerger transition. It’s hard to believe it will be smooth.

3. Land Use Planning Reform, again

The Ontario Provincial Government has introduced proposals to reform the land use planning process in Ontario, an initiative that was undertaken by previous governments in 1995 and 1996. The reforms proposed attempt to establish an Ontario Municipal Board not quite so intrusive in local affairs, planning policies which are more comprehensive; and some amendments to the Planning Act itself.

There have been many complaints that the Ontario Municipal Board, a provincially appointed body, intrudes on local government by having final approval on any land use matter passed by a local government. But the provincial government has no intention of taking away the OMB’s oversight. Instead, some smaller changes are proposed, including narrowing the scope of OMB hearings, and confining the OMB to reviewing municipal decisions rather than holding entirely new hearings. There may be limits on the kinds of issues which could be appealed to the OMB, and there may be changes to the way OMB members are appointed and how they do their jobs.

Provincial land use planning policy will be considerably expanded. Legislative changes are already being made to ensure that decisions will be “consistent with” the new policy, rather than simple “having regard to” the policy.

The new policy proposals are to a large extent a return to those policies put in place by the provincial government of the New Democratic Party in 1995, and them removed by the Conservative government of Mike Harris in early 1996. Policies are comprehensive and lengthy – about 34 pages long – and one can assume that some municipalities and developers will complain about the provincial government trying to set a province-wide agenda rather than leaving planning to local government. Generally the new policies favour intensification and compact communities (although there seems to be a fair amount of wiggle room) and in the suburban mentality which has drowned South Ontario in the last two decades, that may raise the considerable ire.

The consultation period prescribed by the government is awkward and short: it takes place over the summer, and comments must be in to the government by August 31.

Further information on the proposed changes to the OMB, to land use policy and the legislation may be found at the government website, http://www.planningreform.ontario.ca

4. Subscribe to the Bulletin
The bulletin is sent monthly, at no cost, to about 1500 individuals involved directly or indirectly in local government in Canada. Those who receive this Bulletin directly (not forwarded by a third party) are already part of the subscription list. Others who wish to subscribe should go to http://www.localgovernment.ca and follow the instructions. To unsubscribe, please send a message to info@localgovernment.ca indicating your wish to unsubscribe.

More information about the sponsors of the bulletin, a library of relevant and useful documents, and an archive of past Bulletins, can be found on our web site. We appreciate your comments, your feedback (to j.sewell@on.aibn.com ), and items of interest that you wish to share with us and others who visit the web site. Our next Bulletin will be in July.
- end -