ADAM OLSEN: There is no question that small local governance units provide ease for citizens to access their democratic bodies. But what are those units? Are they correct? Do they serve us?

In a post a few weeks ago, I began to tackle a big, messy issue. A legacy issue from my time at the Central Saanich Council table – watersheds, drainage ditches, agriculture and fish.

This post is about another one of those big, messy issues. Local governance and transportation in the Capital Region – traffic, congestion, bike lanes, and transit.

To be clear, this is not a post about amalgamation. In fact, it’s a post about leadership.

When it comes to transportation on Southern Vancouver Island, there are many jurisdictions, authorities and interests.

Provincial government:

 ... which includes the Ministry of Transportation covering Roads and Highways as well as the British Columbia Transit Act

... Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing ... covering the Local Government Act

Little fragments everywhere covering 13 municipalities

Local governments:

... which includes the Capital Regional District, thirteen municipalities, and of course the roads therein

Little fragments everywhere!

The division of powers between the federal, provincial, and local governments creates gaps and overlaps, and the challenges show up in many ways.

For example, we regularly hear about regional governance, planning, development and service delivery (i.e. sewage, police and fire services). Most of this is governed by provincial legislation. It’s politically perilous to wade into local governance issues, as it has become a toxic topic.

But it’s provincial legislation, and as an MLA, it’s my responsibility to address the structural challenges that results from the laws we make. Indeed, we are the only ones that have the power to do anything about it.

Local government borders are artificial – they are our constructs. If you look at them on a map, they are nonsensical. What are they based on?  So, ask the question. If we were to start with a fresh map, what would it look like? What principles would we use to determine the best set up? How can we best govern this region?

Shouldn’t that be the priority question we are answering?

When it comes to managing a finite amount of resources and space, one would think we would want to make sure we were using them as efficiently as possible.

Critical questions

Community planning and development must be integrated, because people move about our urban landscapes, barely noticing that they are criss-crossing arbitrary lines on a map.

Efficiently administering services and infrastructure is costly. Fragmentation increases cost, confusion and unnecessary opportunities for political deflection.

There is no question that small local governance units provide ease for citizens to access their democratic bodies. But what are those units? Are they correct? Do they serve us?

Why are we so afraid of the answers to these questions?

As elected officials we need to be prepared to lead our constituents through these important discussions. We should be regularly reviewing our governance, to ensure it continues to serve us. But, by allowing these topics to become taboo, the status quo persists, because it is politically safe.

It’s not SimCity you know!

Prior to my election to Central Saanich Council, my only understanding of land use and zoning, was extensive experience playing SimCity. Now, some may think that is a problem. And, perhaps it highlights that there are no prerequisites for local government decision-makers when it comes to the complexity of community-building.

Community development is complex, expensive and politically charged. And, anyone who has played SimCity knows how quickly it gets out of hand. Before you know it, it’s a sprawling urbania, choking the entire landscape.

The main difference of course is the use of the bulldozer tool is highly contentious in real life -- we need to be thoughtful about how we use our space, and spend our money.

Frankly, the fragmentation is letting us down. The unwillingness of successive provincial governments to take control of the situation, and provide mechanisms that allow for better coordination, needs to change.

On transportation

The congestion we see and feel every day, is a reflection of the congestion in the public and political discourse.

The Greater Victoria Regional Transit Commission is the legislated body that makes decisions about transit in the Capital Region. But there are limits on its decision-making authority. And, member appointments are a mystery. Even to some of the members, as it turns out.

So, what about transportation on Southern Vancouver Island?  Well, it’s more than just a discussion about transportation. At the core, it is about local and provincial governance.

Awhile back, I put a question to Minister Claire Travena (Transportation and Infrastructure) in Budget Estimates, about the recent appointments to the Greater Victoria Regional Transit Commission.

She did respond, but I am still looking for more clarity. So, when Estimates resumes, I will pick up where I left off, and perhaps push further. Is a commission enough? Or, is it time for transit authority?

Just as I am not done with the discussion about ecological veins and arteries, the circulatory network of our ecosystems, I will continue to poke and prod the discourse on the economic circulatory system of our communities as well. None of these topics should be off-limits.

What do you think? And of course, please share.

Adam Olsen is the Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia for Saanich North and the Islands

Born in Victoria, BC in 1976, Adam has lived, worked and played his entire life on the Saanich Peninsula. 

He is a member of Tsartlip First Nation (W̱JOȽEȽP), where he and his wife, Emily, are raising their two children, Silas and Ella.

---

Excerpt from Hansard

“A. Olsen:

As I was listening to the member ask questions about the potential for a regional transit commission in his riding, it sparked in me a question that I have for the minister about how the — it kind of fits in with the line of questioning that he has — members of the regional transit commission for the metropolitan area of greater Victoria are selected.

I note that from my riding, one of three mayors — it’s in the legislation — is selected to sit on the regional transit commission. In the past, it’s been noted that there’s been kind of a regular rotation of these mayors. We did some investigation and were not able to figure out how it was that those mayors were selected or what the process was.

Perhaps, since the member was asking about the establishment of a regional transit commission in his riding, I’d just ask the minister for some clarification on how it is that the mayors of my riding, the one seat that is representative on the regional transit commission, are selected.

Hon. C. Trevena:

I thank the member. The appointments are prescribed under the act. At the moment — and there is no formal policy that they rotate — we have: two representatives from Victoria, the mayor and a councillor; one from Sooke, who is the mayor of Sooke; a mayor and a councillor from Saanich; I believe the mayor of Oak Bay; and the mayor of Colwood. It is at the minister’s discretion. The names come to the minister, and decisions are made on that.

A. Olsen:

I note in the act that it is very prescriptive with respect to the mayor of Victoria; a councillor from Victoria; Esquimalt; a mayor from Saanich; a councillor from Saanich; one of the following from Sidney, North Saanich or Central Saanich; and then one of the following: a mayor of Colwood, Metchosin, Langford, View Royal, the Highlands or Sooke.

I note that there are two from the Western Communities currently sitting. I’m just not sure what the mechanism is which…. I recognize that it’s not formalized in any way, that it rotates. That has been the practice. I recognize, also, that it’s an order-in-council that formally approves these, and we were notified that the approval happened. But I’m just wondering what the mechanism was.

We were asking about this prior to the decision being made, and it was never made clear to us what the process was to determine whose name is on that. Furthermore, while I don’t have any quibbles over the fact that there is a member of…. There are two, in part (g) of the act. I’m just wondering how that happens? It seems like a bit of a mystery, frankly.

Hon. C. Trevena:

I thank the member, and I understand the desire for clarification.

Names are put forward, obviously. We have a Crown agency board resourcing office that helps ensure that we get names. They look at that and talk to people about that and come with recommendations.

The concern, I understand from the member, is, potentially, that there are two from the Western Communities. I think this reflects, really, the growth of the Western Communities. Sooke is no longer a quiet backwater now. I’m not sure whether the people of Sooke like that or don’t like that. But I think it’s very important to have them engaged in transit decisions, because we are hoping that more people are using transit from the farther west we go, rather than be driving in.”

View the entire exchange in Hansard.