What happens when the two most powerful mayors in Metro Vancouver don’t see eye to eye?
It’s an important question because, for the first time in more than a decade, there isn’t a strong relationship between the mayors of Vancouver and Surrey — and that has all sorts of ramifications on how the region is governed.
“It's a dramatic change to what we had before with mayor Stewart and mayor McCallum. It is a new era,” said Anmore Mayor and Metro Vancouver vice-chair John McEwen.
First, the tea: over the last year, several mayors from different parts of Metro Vancouver and with different political ideologies have told Metro Matters that there’s a strained dynamic between Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim and Surrey Mayor Brenda Locke, despite both sides publicly saying they have a good relationship.
A lot of this, like a lot of stories involving Surrey, centres around the never-ending policing controversy. Sim has made a
strong relationship with the provincial government a big priority, while Locke has
taken legal action against the province, and has accused Solicitor General Mike Farnworth of
bullying and misogyny.
In particular, Sim’s statement that “
it’s time to move forward on policing in the Lower Mainland” allegedly caused some consternation.
But this matters for more than mere gossip.
Under the rules of Metro Vancouver and the TransLink Mayors’ Council, every municipality has a different number of votes based on population.
Combined, Vancouver and Surrey have 63 of the 145 votes — enough to be very close to a majority on any issue, just requiring the votes of a couple of other municipalities to get their way.
This most notably happened when Stewart and McCallum teamed up to make
TransLink prioritize a SkyTrain line to Langley City instead of the agreed-upon light rail system throughout the city. And generally, it created a culture where mayors knew who was driving the bus — for both good and bad.
“It made the rest of us kind of disengage and feel like our voice really truly isn't heard … I've never been on a board that's been this collaborative and has wholesome debates,” said McEwen.
“It has availed an opportunity for some of the smaller communities to have a bigger impact with things through Metro Vancouver.”
At least, that’s the perspective of some of the middle powers that now have greater influence over regional issues.
The potential risk in the long-term, as UBC political scientist Gerald Baier points out, is the same as any power structure that switches from bipolarity to multipolarity
“When you have two power bases that don’t agree … those institutions themselves become much less efficient,” said Baier.
“It's a lot less stable, but it can often be much more creative. And so more interests get their opportunity to participate.”
