top of page
Jerome Dickey
Jun 2, 2026
Metro Vancouver Has a Governance Review. But Can It Rebuild Public Trust?
Over the past several months, Metro Vancouver has undertaken something many public organizations are reluctant to do: look in the mirror.
The independent Deloitte Governance Review identified a number of governance challenges and provided recommendations to modernize Metro Vancouver’s board structure, improve oversight, streamline decision-making, and strengthen accountability.
More recently, Metro Vancouver has launched public engagement on potential changes to board size and structure and as someone who attended the recent public webinar on governance options, I want to begin by acknowledging that these are positive steps.
Recognizing that governance systems need improvement is not always easy. Commissioning an independent review takes courage. Opening a public conversation about governance is also commendable.
As I listened to the discussion, I found myself wondering whether we are focusing on the right question. The real challenge facing Metro Vancouver may not be board size but one of public trust.
Governance Reform Is Not the Same as Governance Renewal
The Deloitte review examined important governance questions. Board size, committee structures, representation models, and decision-making processes all matter.
However, many of the concerns residents have expressed over the past several years extend beyond organizational design with these being much of what people are concerned about:
cost overruns on major projects
governance failures
legal disputes and lawsuits
rising utility costs
compensation practices
transparency
accountability
and whether taxpayers are receiving good value for their money
In short, many residents are asking:
Can we trust the system?
Changing the number of directors around a board table may improve efficiency, and it may even improve decision-making but efficiency alone does not rebuild trust.
Trust is rebuilt when people believe:
decisions are transparent
leaders are accountable
public money is being managed responsibly
and residents have a meaningful voice in shaping outcomes
Who Decides What Gets Implemented?
This is where I believe the conversation becomes particularly important.
Metro Vancouver commissioned the governance review and Metro Vancouver received the recommendations, and Metro Vancouver will ultimately decide which recommendations are implemented, modified, or ignored. While that may be entirely appropriate from an administrative perspective, it creates a perception challenge.
Many residents may reasonably ask:
If the purpose of the review is to improve governance and rebuild trust, should the organization being reviewed be the primary decision-maker regarding implementation?
This is not a criticism. It is a governance question and governance questions deserve thoughtful discussion.
Is There a Role for a Citizens’ Assembly?
One idea worth exploring is a Citizens’ Assembly or Citizen Advisory Panel focused specifically on governance reform.
Citizens’ Assemblies have been used successfully in British Columbia and elsewhere to address complex public policy issues.
A representative group of residents could be tasked with:
reviewing the Deloitte recommendations
hearing from governance experts
considering alternative models
gathering public input
and making recommendations regarding implementation priorities
The value of such a process is not simply the recommendations it produces but rather, the value is legitimacy.
People are more likely to trust reforms when they have confidence the public helped shape them.
How Can Residents Have a Stronger Voice?
One of the recurring themes throughout the engagement process is representation.
· Who should sit on Metro Vancouver boards?
· How should communities be represented?
· How should votes be allocated?
These are important questions but perhaps we should also ask: How can residents themselves have a more direct voice?
Potential options could include:
Citizen advisory committees
Citizens’ Assemblies
Public governance panels
Annual governance reviews with public reporting
Direct public surveys on governance priorities
Greater transparency regarding director voting records
Regular public accountability forums
Democracy works best when people feel connected to decision-making.
Are Four Boards Necessary?
Another question worth examining is organizational complexity since Metro Vancouver currently operates through multiple boards and governance structures, including responsibilities related to regional government, water services, liquid waste management, and solid waste management.
The rationale for separate boards is understandable. These are highly technical areas with different legal responsibilities. However, residents may reasonably ask whether some functions could be consolidated.
For example:
Could water and liquid waste governance be more closely integrated?
Could committee structures be reduced?
Could overlapping governance responsibilities be streamlined?
Could fewer meetings and fewer governance layers improve efficiency and reduce costs?
These are exactly the types of questions that should be explored openly.
The goal should not be consolidation for its own sake but delivering the best outcomes for residents while maintaining accountability and reducing unnecessary complexity.
Trust Is Earned Through Implementation
The Deloitte review is an important first step while the public engagement process is another positive step but neither will rebuild public trust on their own.
Trust will be rebuilt through what happens next.
Residents will be watching to see:
Which recommendations are implemented.
Which recommendations are not.
How decisions are made.
Whether transparency improves.
Whether accountability improves.
Whether governance becomes more effective.
And whether taxpayers see better value for the money they contribute.
In many ways, Metro Vancouver now faces a rare opportunity. It can treat governance reform as an internal administrative exercise or it can treat governance reform as an opportunity to strengthen democratic legitimacy and rebuild public confidence.
The second path is harder. It requires openness, humility, and public participation but it is also the path most likely to restore trust and in the end, trust may be the most important infrastructure investment Metro Vancouver can make!
Jerome Dickey
bottom of page