By Don White

Okay, full disclosure. I’m still really shocked by the lack of enshrined rights of municipalities in provincial/federal constitutions. But even more concerning is how the lack of such rights is routinely used by some provinces to effectively disenfranchise voters at the local level.

Canadian municipalities are created by and exist at the pleasure of the provinces. They are creatures of the provinces without independent authority to decide on actions, policies, or solutions for local issues. This relationship is “often characterized by provincial dominance” and numerous examples exist where provincial governments have ruled against local wishes.

In the recent past, both Nanaimo and Penticton have experienced the willingness of Victoria to ignore or override local governments, community plans, and bylaws. In Ontario, Queen’s Park overrode Toronto’s choice of an electoral system on the eve on an election and have thrown around Ministerial Zoning Orders in a way that suggests that province is hell-bent on being the worst offender.

While BC isn’t alone in this, it may be one of the most committed to maintaining the imbalance of power. When Toronto sued Ontario for its actions on the eve of their municipal election, BC was the only province to file an opposing intervention. To repeat: BC was the only other government – out of the remaining eight provinces and three territories – to argue municipalities must remain subservient to provinces. (And Toronto subsequently lost its lawsuit.)

Equally dismaying are Victoria’s fiscal shenanigans associated with this imbalance. The province collects the tax dollars for funding many key programs and services located in municipalities. However, as noted in a previous VN Viewpoint, there’s a pattern of Victoria downloading responsibility for dealing with crises at the local level unaccompanied with the needed authority, funding, and training to manage the events. Recently, local efforts have been handcuffed by the province failing to act or provide the means to deal with floods, homelessness, overdosing, and recovery from disaster.

By downloading responsibilities to local governments without the needed funding, the monies “saved” in Victoria can be shifted into provincial general revenues and used for other purposes. (Just sayin’.) And local voters stand to be short changed/shafted in the process.

How this situation came about is a matter for historians. There may have been good reasons to omit the rights of local governments when relationships between the federal government and provinces were constituted. If so, those reasons are long past.

Dividing responsibilities and authorities among the three levels of jurisdictions is fine when it is done to increase efficiency and effectiveness. But when one level of government uses it to wilfully impede another level only as an exercise of power or for its own self-serving benefit, it’s another matter. It is less a example of good governance than it is of authoritarian posturing.

If there is irony in this, it may be that all levels of governments are meant to be serving local voters since local voters comprise the electorates of all three levels. Granted, the purview of higher levels of government are broader than lower levels. However, community plans/bylaws should not be overridden unless there’s no other way to serve a greater and a broader good.

Municipalities shouldn’t be losers in provincial power plays – as have happened in Nanaimo, Penticton, and Toronto, to cite only the three instances I’ve already mentioned. As the system stands, however, municipalities have no effective means to protect their electorates when provinces go rogue. They have no enshrined rights like the provinces have with Ottawa.

Interestingly, our best means of redressing this imbalance may also lie with the same commonality of local voters.

We consciously elect provincial governments to defend us from unwanted incursions by the federal government. Why not do the same in municipal elections? Why not elect a council in Nanaimo to defend us from Victoria overriding our local government and voters and withholding resources? Not for everything, of course, but on what would be determined as municipal rights, authority, and means.

We can consider the upcoming Municipal Election on October 15, 2022 as a timely opportunity to pursue that option. We can assess which candidates running in the upcoming municipal election

already understand how this imbalance and provincial dominance often render them powerless to act locally when local action is needed. Local voters can’t afford to wait for naive candidates – new or incumbent – to climb past this section of their learning curve.

We can ask candidates if they are prepared to work with Victoria to correct the situation for as long as the process is productive and mutually beneficial, and, when it’s not, assess whether they have the will and the stamina – the moxie – to continue the fight alone.

Recognizing that it is unlikely that Nanaimo, on its own, can prevail against the Capital, another measure of the suitability of Nanaimo Council candidates can be their willingness to work towards enlisting the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) and other municipalities in righting current provincial-municipals inequities of authority and resources. Will they be proactive leaders or just followers?

Sure, asking this of Nanaimo Council candidates may feel a bit unusual. But if we’ve learned anything from the recent past, it should be that “extraordinary” is exactly what is now most needed. Nothing about the old way of doing things will change without extraordinary action.

Admittedly, changing the municipal-provincial relationship will be an uphill battle. Just because it will be difficult, however, doesn’t mean it isn’t what we need to do. Electing local candidates who possess the commitment and stamina to fight Victoria may be just the place to start the process. Doing so equates to exercising personal empowerment. In the end, that’s the way true democracies work.