The Governance Gap: Why B.C.’s Regional System Needs a Rethink – Grumpy Taxpayer$
Content Creator: John Treleaven
“Governance” can sound like a big, abstract word. In reality, it’s quite simple — it’s about the rules, conventions, and frameworks that determine how organizations operate, whether public or private. Good governance keeps institutions transparent, accountable, and fair. Poor governance, on the other hand, breeds confusion, inefficiency, and mistrust.
Unfortunately, in British Columbia — particularly in Metro Vancouver and the Capital Regional District (CRD) — we are living with a serious governance flaw that undermines the very principles of good public administration.
Two Hats, One Problem
Under current provincial legislation, municipal officials who are elected locally also gain seats on the boards of their respective regional authorities. That means a mayor or councillor can simultaneously serve two masters — their municipality and the regional body.
Here’s where the problem deepens: they are paid by both.
This arrangement creates an inherent conflict of interest. No one can “ride two public horses at the same time.” The interests of a municipality don’t always align perfectly with those of the region, yet the same individuals are expected to navigate both — while being financially tied to each.
When I recently described this structure to a governance consultant in Ontario, she simply shook her head in disbelief. In most provinces, dual compensation and overlapping accountability would never pass a basic governance audit.
A Simple Fix: Clarify the Loyalty
The solution isn’t complicated. It comes down to clarity of duty and loyalty.
If a municipal representative’s compensation comes entirely from the region, then their loyalty should be to the region. Their fiduciary duty would be clear, and they could act with regional priorities front of mind.
Alternatively, if their salary comes from their municipality, as their elected position dictates, then they should not accept payment from the regional body at all. They would still participate fully in regional decision-making, but their accountability would remain rooted in the community that elected them.
This would not inhibit broad, regional thinking — it would simply make governance transparent to voters. Residents deserve to know who their representatives truly work for, and where their fiduciary duty lies.
Why It Matters: The Bent Crankshaft Analogy
Years ago, a European automaker discovered a puzzling quality issue in its new Canadian-built cars. Despite perfect assembly lines and top engineering, the vehicles weren’t performing well. After extensive investigation, the company found that crankshafts shipped by sea were bending ever so slightly during transport — a subtle defect with unpredictable consequences.
A bent crankshaft doesn’t always show where the damage is; sometimes the problems appear elsewhere — a vibration, a loss of power, or a failure down the line.
That’s exactly how governance failure works.
In B.C., the structural flaw in our regional system — this dual-role confusion — is our bent crankshaft. Its effects appear in unpredictable ways: misaligned priorities, lack of accountability, unclear fiscal responsibility, and frustrated taxpayers.
It’s not fair to residents, businesses, or the municipalities that fund these systems. We deserve regional governance that is as sound and balanced as the communities it serves.
A Call for Reform
Reforming the governance structure of the CRD and Metro Vancouver would not be a radical move — it would be a return to common sense. Clear lines of accountability strengthen democracy. When public officials know exactly who they serve, and why, the entire system functions better.
It’s time to straighten the crankshaft of B.C.’s regional governance model — before the wobble becomes a breakdown.