Ontario’s Next Top Model: Regional Governance Edition

Last week, the Urban Policy class at Munk were joined by alumni who worked at the Regional level of municipal government. In my group’s discussion, a last minute question was posed: “what policy issue do you think could be better addressed at the regional (as opposed to the city/town/village/township) level?” His response: “Well, most emergency response departments, like the Police and ambulances, are delivered at the upper (regional) tier, which makes a lot of sense. So, why isn’t the fire department?” He then proceeded to tell my group about a time a city in his region proposed that the fire department be a regionally provided service. Apparently, this caused a lot of backlash — how could we amalgamate all city fire chiefs under one? Does that mean people will lose their jobs?

From a policy standpoint, this proposal seems like a more efficient use of resources. However, it came down to this: “good policy, bad politics.” Surely, there would be some groups, namely each city’s entire fire department, that would be outraged by this policy. And firefighters are local heroes!

To provide some context, currently, Ontario approaches regional governance under the Metropolitan government structure, where there is a federation of local (lower-tier) municipalities that provides regional services across local boundaries.

This got me thinking: if one region decided to shift the fire department to be delivered at the upper tier, would others follow suit? Under what conditions could a shift like this be made?

For starters, it would require coordination and consensus amongst lower-tier municipalities (city/town/village/township), which are under the upper tier (region, like the Region of Peel). This can be a difficult task given that each lower-tier municipality has their own interests. For example, the Region of Peel is divided into three lower-tier municipalities: the Town of Caledon, the City of Brampton, and the City of Mississauga. In order to make decisions at the upper tier, there needs to be some degree of consensus amongst the three lower-tiers. But the individual interests between the three can be polarizing: how can Caledon, which is characterized by its vast farmland, have the same interests as the up and coming Metropolis, Mississauga?

This begs the question about whether or not our diffused arrangement can adequately address policy issues that span regional boundaries. Even alternatives to this approach, like fragmentation or amalgamation, fall short. Instead, they create various implications and can even exacerbate certain issues, like inequality.

In short, the noble quest to find the next top model for governing growing urban areas is still ongoing.