LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT HISTORY

Mini-Histories  
  Mini Histories

 

Regional Districts Part 3: The Rise of Regional Districts

Note on citations: citations marked with an * are from the Local Government Department's historical records, which are held at the B.C. Archives. Relevant files are listed below in the Sources/Further Information section.

In 1960, British Columbia's local governments struggled to cope with recent social and economic developments. For more than twenty years, the nature of settlement, and people's sense of community life, had been in flux. Between 1931 and 1961, the share of B.C's population living in or on the fringes of urban areas (defined as people living in settlements of 1,000+) grew remarkably, expanding from 45% to 75% of the provincial population (McGillivray, 258). The automobile, a luxury item before 1940, had become a necessity by the mid-1950s. In 1960, there was approximately one licensed vehicle for every household in B.C.

Reflecting on changes that had taken place in B.C. since the 1930s, Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs Ev Brown noted in a 1968 paper that urbanization and the impact of the automobile had caused two types of regional problems. Rapid urbanization had:

  1. redefined the nature of urban communities by making municipalities interdependent, so that someone could live in one municipality and work in another; and
  2. increased the need for local government and local government services, such as sewage and roads, in formerly rural areas (Brown, 1968).

Despite regional innovations in the 1930s and 1940s (see Regional Districts Part 1) and determined efforts on the part of the Department of Municipal Affairs (DMA) to foster regional governance in the 1950s (see Regional Districts Part 2), the question of regional governance remained unsettled in the late 1950s. Led by Brown, DMA policy advisors intensified their efforts to find durable and acceptable solutions to regional problems.

Experimenting in the Early 1960s 1: Rural Regions

From 1955 onwards, B.C. local government representatives began raising concerns about unorganized communities outside of B.C.'s large urban areas. In 1957, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Wesley Black, introduced the new Local Services Act to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities' (UBCM) convention, suggesting it would address some of the concerns related to unorganized communities:

Either through scarcity of population or an unwillingness to assume the responsibilities of local government there are many areas in the province which fail to get the necessary guidance and control with regard to land use and development, or fail to obtain certain rudimentary services such as garbage disposal [and] fire protection.
Under the provisions of the new [Local Services Act, Cabinet] can designate any area of the province not incorporated as a municipality as a local area, and I, as Minister, then become in effect Council [with the power to impose regulations, provide services and, through the Ministry of Finance, collect taxes]. The ultimate objective...is local self-government [so] the Local Services Act is only to be used as an interim measure (UBCM, Minutes 1957, 65).

Between 1957 and 1963, the DMA established 28 local areas. One of these encompassed all unorganized territory within the province. In essence, this measure gave the Municipal Affairs minister the power to designate, for planning purposes, any unorganized area of the province where development was taking place as a "community planning area." Victoria-based DMA planning staff would then develop community plans for these areas. In some of the larger ones, the DMA provided on-site building inspectors to enforce ministerial regulations.

Aside from the province-wide planning area - and its designated sub-units, the community planning areas - there were 27 other service areas around the province. Eighteen of these service areas provided home nursing care and were administered by local health boards. Seven others provided fire protection, while one provided ambulance service and another funded a highway rest stop (DMA Annual Report, 1963, 9-10).

By 1960, there were signs that the local area method of service delivery was not meeting the needs of people living in both unorganized and municipal areas. Local area administration from Victoria faced two major hurdles: the absence of public agencies capable of providing on-the-ground services in remote areas; and the political unpopularity of administration from Victoria.

Originating from the City of Courtenay, one 1960 UBCM convention resolution drew attention to the difficulties of "joint participation in services between organized and unorganized territories" (UBCM 1960, 25). Another, sponsored by the District of Campbell River in 1961, addressed one of the most publicized problems in unorganized areas. The motion claimed that indiscriminate dumping of garbage near B.C.'s smaller cities had become a "major problem" for municipalities, as they had to deal with the potential health hazards and negative aesthetic effects of piles of garbage just outside their boundaries (UBCM 1960, 91).

Minister Black acknowledged the problem of garbage disposal in his 1960 speech to the UBCM convention, noting that the Province had set up an interdepartmental committee to determine the best government agency to provide this service. This committee encountered a number of difficulties as it sought an appropriate agency to carry out this work. They identified close to 40 areas of the province where garbage disposal had become a serious problem. They first approached improvement districts (IDs) to take on waste disposal. When IDs proved largely unwilling, the committee asked individual health units (which were provincial administrative bodies responsible for managing health-related issues across municipal and unorganized territories). Health units also declined to take on garbage disposal.

In a December 1962 memo to his Minister, Deputy Minister Brown described the ongoing challenges of finding a suitable administrative body for garbage disposal:

The present proposals for dealing with disposal of garbage in unorganized areas of the Province are not working out because of our inability to find an organization at the local level which is willing and able to assume the responsibility for taking care of any site which may be set aside as a garbage dump (Brown to Black "Garbage Disposal in Unorganized Areas", December 13, 1962*).

He went on to suggest other bodies, with more resources and capacity at the local level, might also be approached:

Since school boards represent unorganized areas in addition to organized, they might be assigned responsibility, but I gather this idea is not very attractive... If the matter is to be resolved it appears that some Department of Government must take over...By virtue of the fact that the Dept of Highways have personnel and equipment distributed throughout the Province, they would appear to be the logical department (Brown to Black "Garbage Disposal in Unorganized Areas", December 13, 1962*).

School boards as local service providers may have been unattractive to other Provincial decision-makers, but Deputy Minister Brown would again turn to these regionalized, democratic bodies as he and his staff moved from garbage disposal towards a broader response to the problem of rural service delivery. In an extended memo to Minister Black, written November 1963, Deputy Minister Brown outlined the DMA's concept for "rural counties", and the steps that had been taken to develop the policy up to that point. Essentially, the rural county concept proposed that school boards become general purpose local governments in unorganized parts of the province.

The counties would be permitted to deliver services to communities in unorganized areas, providing the service was first approved by affected electors. Financing for services would come mainly from property taxes in unorganized areas, and the DMA had determined through research that assessed property values in these areas were sufficient to "undertake any reasonable tasks the citizen may ask of them" (Brown to Black, "Rural Counties", Nov. 29 1963, p.2*).

As for implementing these new counties, Deputy Minister Brown again pointed to the example of school districts, where 75 administrative units replaced over 800 local school districts after a 1946 legislative amendment to the Schools Act. The geographical form of these boards changed overnight, but their capacity to govern evolved more slowly over time. Brown recommended a similar approach for rural counties. The Province would quickly impose rural counties throughout the province, and then the DMA would work patiently with each county to build the capacity of elected and administrative officials.

The rural county plan was not ultimately implemented. But many of the principles that emerged in the DMA's later regional governance plans were already apparent in the rural county proposal. By addressing the lack of local government - the governance gap - across B.C.'s vast and sparsely populated rural areas, counties could provide services at a scale that was responsive to local conditions yet encompassed enough territory to ensure cost-effective service delivery.

In addition to democratic rural governance, Deputy Minister Brown's school board plan contained another element that would become an essential principle of later regional governance plans. B.C.'s history and geography made it a province of distinct regions, each with unique and evolving governance challenges. To be successful, Brown recognized that the functional content of each regional government would need to be determined by local communities as they changed over time. He thought his county plan could accomplish this flexibility:

The sum and substance of the foregoing proposals are that whereas the incorporation would take place almost at once, the actual functioning of each one of these entities could develop slowly. This would permit the staff to assist each one in taking on their new responsibilities, and thus insure that there would be fewer unsatisfactory situations arise as they gradually take control (Brown to Black, "Rural Counties", Nov. 29 1963, p.2*).

In short, Deputy Minister Brown's county plan proposed a series of empty vessels across the province that, over time, would be filled with a locally-determined mixture of services and functions. First articulated by Deputy Minister Brown in 1962, the idea of empty vessels eventually became a cornerstone of the Province's regional government strategy in 1965. The ability of regional districts to adapt and continuously evolve to meet changing circumstances remains key to the regional district system today.

Experimenting in the early 1960s 2: Urban Regions.

As Deputy Minister Brown and his staff were developed new policy responses to rural issues, they also confronted growing difficulties in urban areas. Regional challenges that crossed municipal boundaries - such as water pollution from untreated sewage discharge in the waters around Greater Vancouver - had become highly publicized dilemmas for the government by the late 1950s (see Keeling). Newspaper editorials demanded the Province intervene with a regional solution, while some municipalities were unwilling to participate in regional plans. The problem, if not the solution, was clear by 1960: how could necessary regional initiatives come about without alienating municipalities?

Deputy Minister Brown and his staff turned to B.C.'s local government traditions to find solutions to the dilemmas of urban regionalism. In a 1961 memo to Minister of Municipal Affairs Wesley Black, Deputy Minister Brown considered the potential for regional governance in Greater Vancouver in the wake of the Ray Committee's 1960 report on metropolitan government for Greater Vancouver (Regional Districts Part 2). He acknowledged that the challenges of promoting inter-municipal service delivery and regional co-ordination had grown more difficult after a number of Lower Mainland councils rejected the Ray Committee's recommendations. But he proposed a "compromise solution" to his Minister (Brown to Black "Metropolitan Vancouver", June 14, 1961*).

He suggested that, by a series of legislative amendments previously separate administrative bodies for water, sewer and health in Greater Vancouver could be unified. Through the same legislative amendments, responsibility for regional parks and planning could then also be added to this now single administrative body. All of this could be done, Deputy Minister Brown suggested, without major changes to existing financial and contractual arrangements, meaning municipalities would have little to object to. Brown compared this method of inter-municipal service co-ordination and planning to a holding company and a lawyers' partnership, where separate entities federated to share common administrative costs (Brown to Black "Metropolitan Vancouver", May 29th, 1962*).

Another memo, written by Deputy Minister Brown in May 1962, expanded on his initial proposal. British Columbia municipalities had always been able to decide for themselves whether or not to participate in a single-purpose joint service board (see Regional Districts Part 1). Like earlier boards, a new unified board would give municipalities that same right to "contract in" for each service, rather than having to automatically cede responsibility for a suite of powers to a regional-level government.

Throughout his early 1960s memos on urban regional government, Deputy Minister Brown emphasized the importance of support from those who would be affected by new regional structures. In early 1962, Deputy Minister Brown met with Elizabeth Wood, Mayor of New Westminster, who had raised strong objections to earlier proposals for metropolitan government in Greater Vancouver. According to Deputy Minister Brown, Wood offered her "unqualified support" for the new proposal and gave him advice about winning over other mayors and councils.

Wood's reversal is significant, because it demonstrates a crucial element of the new approach. Based on two years of academic research, the Ray Committee's metropolitan plan was theoretically sophisticated but politically unacceptable to the Lower Mainland's well-established municipal governments. Deputy Minister Brown's new proposal recognized practical political constraints. Rather than a radical departure from established traditions, the unified board proposal relied on some of the local government system's most successful features but sought to adapt these features to new conditions of urban life.

A New Minister and the "Regional District Breakthrough"

Dan Campbell

Following a late 1963 election that returned the Social Credit Government to power, Premier W.A.C. Bennett appointed a new Municipal Affairs Minister on March 21, 1964. Dan Campbell was a young first-time minister from Campbell River, brimming with enthusiasm and ideas. An MLA since 1956, Campbell had criticized the inadequate level of public service in northern Vancouver Island on more than one occasion (see, for example, "Fight for Roads Pledged by MLA", The Colonist, Oct. 14th 1958, p. 16). He was well aware of the governance challenges in B.C.'s predominantly rural regions.

In their 1972 article on the development of B.C's regional governments, Paul Tennant and David Zirnhelt emphasized Campbell's role:

[He] quickly distinguished himself from his predecessors by participating fully in Departmental policy-making and by committing himself to implementing the regional district concept... By June 1964 - only four months after the appointment of the new minister - the basic goals and strategies for regionalization had been formulated (Tennant and Zirnhelt, 12).

Tennant and Zirnhelt went on to suggest that the five-year implementation phase of regional districts (from 1965 to 1970) was shaped by Campbell's "personality and political style." There can be no doubt that Campbell acted as the public face of the DMA during this period, winning over or assuaging many doubtful municipal officials with his "self-assured" mixture of "suggestion, persuasion and cajolery" (Tennant and Zirnhelt, 12). Moreover, Campbell, Deputy Minister Brown and DMA policy advisors agreed on the general problems affecting the local government system in B.C. and worked effectively as a team to initiate changes. However, there is now evidence that indicates the DMA, led by Deputy Minister Brown, had been formulating the concept and the implementation strategy for regional districts from as early as 1961.

Campbell's arrival as Minister certainly hastened the pace of change. Unlike Minister Black, Campbell could devote most of his ministerial time to municipal affairs because it was his only cabinet duty. Little more than a month after his appointment, it was apparent that the DMA had taken a crucial step forward in its regional governance policy. On May 4, 1964 Brown wrote a memo to Campbell outlining the fiscal implications of an earlier discussion between the two about the possibility of:

[assigning schools boards] the responsibility of looking after those activities primarily of direct service to individuals, namely welfare, health and recreation, in addition to their existing responsibility of education (Brown to Campbell, "Counties", May 4 1964, 1).

Brown went on to suggest that school boards could feasibly take on these responsibilities - as well as planning and policing - in both unorganized and municipal areas, without having to significantly increase property tax rates (but taxing authority for these functions would be transferred from municipalities to the school boards).

In some ways, this plan resembled the DMA's earlier concept of rural counties, first presented to Minister Black in 1962. The plan still sought to address the governance gap in rural communities. But whereas the previous plan had envisaged school boards providing services in the rural 'donuts' that encircled municipalities, the new plan proposed counties that would overlay all of a school district' geographic area and provide regionalized services to the entire population. What had changed, in other words, was that elected school boards would now be responsible for funding and administering regionalized services in unincorporated and municipal areas of the province.

Brown's May 4, 1964 memo considered the fiscal feasibility of this new form of regional government, but did not address the political challenges of convincing local leaders and administrators of the merits of regionalized services. With their fingers seemingly on a fast-forward button, just one month later it was clear that DMA officials had refined their plan in ways designed to make regional governance acceptable to local communities in three ways:

  1. Brown's earlier proposal for urban regions (i.e. a unified joint service board) was combined with the 'county' plan for regionalized services.

  2. The idea of having school boards take over regional services was dropped in favour of a model of co-operative federalism between existing local government units and elected representatives from non-municipal areas.

  3. There was a decisive move toward the 'empty vessel' approach--where regional service responsibilities would not be predetermined but selected by communities themselves.

The DMA then took steps to "test" their concept in a conveniently located region that contained populated urban municipalities, unorganized fringe areas facing the challenges of sprawl, and rural farming communities. On June 20, 1964, the DMA hosted a meeting of representatives from Greater Victoria's six municipalities, as well as leaders from communities in the region's unincorporated areas. The DMA presented a detailed proposal for the physical and representational structure of the new regional entity, but not a pre-conceived notion of what functions it was expected to provide.

A Regional Plan for Greater Victoria
Mun. Pop.   Assess Votes Board Members
Victoria 5 1/2 + 9 1/2 = 15 3
Esquimalt 1 1/2 + 1 1/2 = 3 1
Oak Bay 2 + 4 = 6 2
Saanich 5 + 8 = 13 3
Sidney 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 1
Central Saanich 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 1
North Saanich       = 1 1
View Royal       = 1 1
Langford       = 1 1
Colwood       = 1 1
Metchosin       = 1 1
        44 16
             

During his introductory remarks, Campbell stressed the need for inter-governmental co-operation in building a regional governance framework. He raised criticisms of other approaches to regional government (including metro, amalgamation, single boards and royal commissions), and went on to propose a new "participatory" model (Campbell, "Report on Municipal Meeting re. Capital Region Area", n.d. pg.1*). Reporting on the meeting afterwards, the Victoria Times provided this description of Campbell's comments:

The minister said amalgamation and metro government schemes have been tried elsewhere but rarely succeeded because they have been imposed on the people concerned...'The people who live in the house must help to build it. Leadership without participation by those who will be led is dictatorship' he said, calling on all present to take part in mutual planning (The [Victoria] Times, June 21, pg 2).

Deputy Minister Brown struck a similar tone during his speech to the meeting, emphasizing the importance of co-operation:

He said that for 30 years there have been strong advocates of metropolitan government in Canada, but in only two cities in Canada (Toronto and Winnipeg) had it come about.
But on the other hand, where co-operation has been tried in boards encompassing several municipalities to plan common projects, they have worked well. ...The only failing is that they tend to forget other community activities. One board with a number of parallel functions would provide better co-ordination and planning he believed (The [Victoria] Times, June 21, pg 2).

Following these remarks, participants debated the DMA's proposals and agreed to the following elements for a future regional governance structure:

  • A federative board structure made up of representatives selected by municipal councils or elected in unorganized "special areas".
  • A voting system for the board that apportioned membership and votes to each participating unit on the basis of population and property assessment (see Figure 2).
  • Mutual agreement on services to be carried out at the regional level.
  • Ongoing meetings to develop the details of the unified regional board, as well as meetings with DMA officials to work out the technical and legislative details of the plan.

A New Minister and the "Regional District Breakthrough" Going Province-Wide

To a large degree, consensus on these four elements was the outcome that the DMA had hoped for from the Greater Victoria meeting. Reporting on his thoughts afterwards, Campbell spoke positively about the meeting and outlined the next steps for the project. He emphasized the importance of a "phased-in" approach to the implementation of a new regional entity. Amendments to the Municipal Act would enable the immediate consolidation of Greater Victoria's three existing regional boards (water, health and regional planning) into one unified regional board to be followed by the addition of various functions as and when they were agreed to by municipalities and unincorporated area representatives.

Minister Campbell reported that DMA staff were working to develop this sort of legislation, and he hinted that the plan for the Victoria region might be repeated elsewhere in the province. He thought the plan would be "the basis for a clear break through on the problem of politically acceptable regional government machinery" and that their proposal could serve as "a model for all of Canada" (Campbell, "Report on Municipal Meeting re. Capital Region Area,"n.d. pg. 3*)

By August 1964, DMA staff had made significant progress on the details of their regional governance plan, and it was now clear that the DMA sought to implement it across the province. In an August 16 memo titled "Regional Districts" - possibly the first time the term appeared in a DMA document - Brown outlined recent research that staff had undertaken in support of the plan. They had analyzed the populations and assessment bases of various schools boards. Outside of Greater Victoria and Greater Vancouver, they identified 21 areas, based on combining two or more school boards, which would have populations of 25,000 or more. With some initial Provincial assistance, Brown suggested these areas could each sustain: local services in unorganized areas, specified inter-municipal services, and local shares of health and welfare financing (Brown to Black, "Regional Districts," August 16, 1964*).

While Deputy Minister Brown and his staff studied the feasibility of the plan, Campbell began discussions with municipal politicians. At the end of June 1964, Campbell met with the UBCM's executive and received "unanimous endorsement" for the "basic structure" of the regional district plan (UBCM AGM, 1965, 85). At the UBCM's annual convention in late September, the executive presented a motion to the delegates entitled "Joint Services." After significant debate and amendments, delagates voted in favour of a resolution that endorsed "the concept of Joint Service Boards to deal with certain regional problems", provided there was further communication between the DMA and the UBCM executive on the content of the joint services legislation (UBCM, 1964 33-34).

In the summer and fall of 1964, there was clearly some opposition to the DMA's regional governance plan. But because the plan emphasized municipal consultation in the development of each regional unit, the majority of delegates at the 1964 UBCM convention found the DMA's plan to be an appropriate response to the regional problems that many municipalities faced.

By October 1964, Minister Campbell could present the regional district plan to Cabinet. In his October 20 brief, Campbell outlined for his colleagues the details of the DMA's proposal for regional districts, including their federative organizational form, their physical structure, and their financial requirements. Echoing Brown's 1961 emphasis on patient capacity-building, Campbell stressed the need for "generalized" legislation. A generalized approach would permit the DMA to incorporate regional districts across the province with very limited responsibilities and slowly work with each new entity to build up its ability to provide various regionalized services:

The more generalized this legislation can be designed the better. It should be authority to do a wide range of things jointly having in mind the long range goal. Any specific provisions can be looked after by the variety of ways in which we can construct letters patent [which are a form of implementing regulation]. Therefore if we construct it as a general vehicle of authority to proceed in general direction outlined, I think we have a chance of selling it (Campbell brief to Cabinet, "Legislation: Joint Services Board", October 20th, 1964*).

For Campbell and the DMA, this approach offered the best chance of convincing local communities and UBCM members of the limited and collaborative nature of regional districts.

B.C.'s Adaptable Approach to Regional Governance

In March 1965, the Legislature voted unanimously to support amendments to the Municipal Act, that added a series of provisions for regional districts. As Minister Campbell, Deputy Minister Brown and DMA staff began to work with local government officials; they faced difficult hurdles and, at times, opposition to their plan. By the late 1960s, however, regional districts blanketed most of the province. The approach to implementation after 1965 was key to the way in which regional districts developed, but the DMA's regional governance plan had, in fact, emerged from an intricate policy-making process that evolved over many years prior to 1965.

In a number of ways the DMA took a novel approach to regional policy-making while accommodating what Brown described as "the powerful grip that the past had on the present" (Brown, 86). Both Minister Campbell and Deputy Minister Brown continuously pointed out that the models and theories of regional governance in existence elsewhere did not seem to suit British Columbia's needs. Metropolitan government - the idea that there should be two predetermined tiers of government in large urban areas - had only succeeded in two large cities in Canada (Toronto and Winnipeg). Inter-municipal service boards had been successful in British Columbia and elsewhere, but their fragmentary character weakened local government control over the boards and made integrated regional planning and co-ordination more difficult. Campbell also called the "royal commission" approach inappropriate because commissions were a way for Provincial governments to "duck" responsibility for regional governance reform (Campbell, Confidential Report on Municipal Meeting Re: Capital Regional Area, Pg.1*).

As early as 1961, Deputy Minister Brown recognized that local participation was crucial to the success of any regional governance plan for B.C. In the series of memos to his Minister between 1961 and 1963, he stressed the need for local determination of regional responsibilities, for collaborative support and resources from the Province, and the importance of incorporating democratic representation for unorganized communities within the organizational structure of the regional entity. These themes continued to be important when Minister Campbell took over as minister in 1964. Minister Campbell began to compare other provinces' responses to regional issues - where solutions were often imposed from above - with the DMA's proposal for what he called a "participatory" approach, emphasizing the value of active municipal involvement in the process:

..The people to call on when a change of direction in municipal affairs is indicated are the people who now clearly represent [the communities] involved in the change and who clearly, over the years, should have accumulated a wealth of experience...[We hope] that through the devices of consultation and working conferences we can achieve the administrative devices which are required to meet the challenge of a growing province (Campbell, "To All Mayors and Municipalities," July 20th 1964, pg. 2*).

For Campbell, Brown and others in the DMA, the introduction of regional district legislation in 1965 was only the beginning of a long, sometimes contentious implementation process. For those who had spent much of their careers in the DMA - particularly the long-serving Deputy Minister Ev Brown - the 1965 legislation was the J. Everett Brown culmination of an even longer period of policy development and experimentation. As secretary to the 1947 Goldenberg Commission, Brown first heard the problems associated with growth across urban regions and the need for some form of local government in unorganized areas of the province. Joining the DMA in 1952, Brown attended UBCM conventions where delegates passed many resolutions asking the Province to deal with regional problems. When Brown became Deputy Minister in 1954, the DMA began working with municipalities and UBCM to overhaul the Province's municipal legislation. Introduced in 1957, the new Municipal Act included a number of tools designed to address regional governance challenges. Many of these tools proved difficult to administer, and Brown and his team again returned to the drawing board in the early 1960s, slowly piecing together the elements of what would eventually become the "empty vessel" approach to regional governance.

With the 1965 legislation, Brown finally, after 15 years of sustained effort, of quiet consultation and of innovative thinking had a regional plan that he thought could adapt to B.C.'s diverse geographic regions, was acceptable to B.C.'s existing local governments, and could evolve over time to meet changing socio-economic trends. The next five years would test whether his "empty vessel" theory could meet these challenges.


Sources/Further Information

Note on Archival Sources:

All citations in the text marked with an * are taken from the Local Government Department's archive, which is held at the B.C. Archives. The records cited can be found in one of two record groups:

GR 0238, Minister of Municipal Affairs Records, 1953-1964

In particular see:

  • Box 1, File C-2. "County government," 1962-1964.
  • Box 1, File G-2. "Garbage dumping roadsides,"1960-1962.
  • Box 2, File M-4. "Metropolitan areas," 1960-1963.
  • Box 2, File M-4-L-1. "Lower mainland metrop. area," 1957-1962.
  • Box 2, File M-4-L-2. "Lower mainland metrop. area," 1960-1961.
  • Box 2, File M-4-L-1-B-1.

"Lower mainland metro. areas: briefs," 1961-1962.

  • Box 2, File M-V-1. "Victoria metropolitan area," 1962-1964
  • Box 2, File U-2. "Unorganized territory," 1959-1964.

GR 0239, Minister of Municipal Affairs Records 1964-1967,

In particular, see:

  • Box 1, File 15. "County Government," 1964.
  • Box 1, file 21. "Garbage Dumping - Roadsides," 1964.
  • Box 3, File 3. "Joint Services Board," 1964.
  • Box 3, File 4. "Joint Services Board," 1964
  • Box 3, File 9. "Local Services Act," 1964

Other Primary Sources

British Columbia. Department of Municipal Affairs. Annual Reports (1957-1964).

Brown, James E. "Regional Districts in British Columbia." Municipal Finance, 41.2 (Nov. 1968): 82-86.

The Colonist (Victoria), 1957.

The Times (Victoria), 1964.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM). Annual Reports (1957-1964).

Secondary Sources

Keeling, Arn. "Sink or Swim: Water Pollution and Environmental Politics in Vancouver, 1889-1975" BC Studies 142/143 (Autumn 2004): 69-104.

Collier, Robert. "The Evolution of Regional Districts in British Columbia." BC Studies 15 (Autumn 1972): 29-39.

McGillivray, Brent. Geography of British Columbia: People and Landscapes in Transition, 2nd ed. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005.

Chadwick, Narissa Ann. Regional Planning in British Columbia: 50 Years of Vision, Process and Practice. MA Thesis, University of British Columbia, 2002.

Corke, Susan. Land Use Controls in British Columbia: A Contribution to a Comparative Study of Canadian Planning Systems. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, 1983.

Tennant, Paul. "The Emergence of Metropolitan Government in Vancouver." BC Studies 15 (Autumn 1972), 3-28.

Tennant, Paul and David Zirnhelt. "Metropolitan Government in Vancouver: the Strategy of Gentle Imposition." Canadian Public Administration 16.1 (1973): 124-138.