Momentum appears to be growing for municipalities to ask their voters this fall what they think about an amalgamation study. Everyone should get on this train, and if they all don鈥檛 ask the same question, the questions should at least be similar.
The grassroots organization Amalgamation Yes has been pushing municipalities in the capital region to put a non-binding referendum question on the ballot in this year鈥檚 municipal election to gauge interest in launching a study on the issue. Sidney and Esquimalt have joined Langford, Central Saanich and Victoria in plans to put the issue to voters on Nov. 15.
John Vickers, Amalgamation Yes vice-president, says other municipalities are still pondering the idea and he expects others will agree to the move. The only municipality that has said no to putting the question on the ballot is Sooke, he said, because it already has a ballot question planned and doesn鈥檛 want to confuse voters.
In July, Amalgamation Yes released results of an Angus Reid poll that showed more than 80 per cent of respondents favour amalgamation, would like to see a non-binding referendum and want an independent cost-benefit study and analysis. According to the poll, only 16 per cent believe the region鈥檚 status quo is working.
Those are numbers worth noting, but a poll has many shortcomings. The survey did not collect enough information to accurately gauge attitudes in most communities; only the Saanich, Victoria and region-wide results had large enough sample sizes to be statistically significant.
And it鈥檚 important to assess the wishes of the residents of each community. There can鈥檛 be a shotgun wedding 鈥� provincial legislation will not allow amalgamation to be forced upon any municipality.
Municipalities are still working on the wording of the referendum question. The Central Saanich question, for example, will focus on the idea of amalgamation with other peninsula communities.
On the surface, amalgamation in some form makes a lot of sense. Few of us live, work, shop and pursue leisure activities in one municipality. Most of us travel frequently across municipal boundaries, often unaware that we have done so. Having 13 separate municipalities with 91 mayors and councillors for a population of less than 400,000 seems excessive and inefficient. We have multiple police departments, fire departments and other services that, surely, could be delivered more efficiently and less expensively than under the current arrangement.
Or not. Bigger is not necessarily better. Bigger can be less responsive and more cumbersome, more prone to wasteful procedures. A large municipality looks upon a million dollars more casually than a small town would, but it鈥檚 the same million dollars.
Yet there is strength in unity, particularly in dealings with senior governments. There are savings to be had by combining resources and eliminating duplication. And many services are, by their very nature, regional in scope, and are better handled regionally.
It鈥檚 complicated, and amalgamation isn鈥檛 some magic answer that will make everything right. In fact, done without deep research and analysis, it could make things worse. We should step carefully.
But the question should be asked, and the question should be simple. We like the question suggested by Amalgamation Yes: 鈥淎re you in favour of reducing the number of municipalities in the Capital Regional District through amalgamation?鈥�
Whatever the wording, it should not try to influence the outcome and it should be unambiguous.
This isn鈥檛 about deciding to turn the 13 municipalities into one large entity, it鈥檚 about studying the complex issue of amalgamation and collecting information that can ultimately help voters decide if amalgamation should take place and to what extent.
It isn鈥檛 a proposal of marriage, but an exploration of possibilities. No one should fear it.
