Additional democratic safeguards are needed
A commentary by Stan Bartlett, vice-chair of Grumpy Taxpayer$ of Greater Victoria, a non-partisan citizens advocacy group for municipal taxpayers.
The next time you have a coffee with friends ask what they think of AAPs, one of the lesser known in the alphabet soup world of acronyms.
You will probably get blank stares so just tell them it doesn’t stand for Advanced Auto Parts or American Academy of Pediatrics or the Aam Aadmi Party.
AAP actually stands for alternate approval process allowing electors to indicate whether they oppose a long-term spending proposal by our local government. Most citizens, even those engaged in municipal affairs, haven’t the faintest idea.
That’s troubling since the involvement and integrity in our democratic process is surely our foremost priority. The province along with local governments must better engage citizens by reforming legislation and toughening regulations.
There are five concerns.
First, taxpayers and authorities should ask why there’s usually negligible voter interest or turnout.
Consider the AAPs held in Nanaimo from 2008 to 2018. One garnered only three votes, two had two votes, and three had three votes. That’s hardly participatory democracy when there’s almost 80,000 electors as there is now. Ten percent opposition is required to defeat a loan proposal.
City taxpayers just voted to spend up to $216 million to replace the Crystal Pool and hike their taxes for 25 years.
But the public was familiar with this referendum process and 21% exercised their democratic prerogative. The pros and cons were under full debate prior to the referendum and the process was straight-forward.
On the other hand, with an AAP, you can always go to the CRD website for a tutorial and answers to any of 25 possible questions on their AAPs.
Taxpayers are very familiar with petitions, counter-petitions or referendums, but not the bureaucratic moniker AAP.
In 1962, a “counter-petition process” was introduced so municipalities could test the waters in an effort to streamline and reduce the cost of a referendum.
In 1968, the counter-petition threshold to vote against a borrowing bylaw was lowered from 10% to 5%. Then the counter-petition process was replaced by the AAP under the Community Charter in 2003.
Then the threshold to oppose a bylaw was returned to 10% of eligible voters, substantial given what many believe is a flawed process. AAPs are often held with little fanfare over a short time frame held during public holiday periods.
This ‘negative option’ aspect of the vote confuses electors and should be stopped as it has been in some Canadian business practices such as utilities.
Taxpayers wonder why there’s few democratic safeguards with an AAP vote.
A laissez-faire approach is alarming as votes could have major financial repercussions.
The vote isn’t by secret ballot, there’s no need for confirmation your vote was registered, and there’s no problem even if you want to change your vote. Nor are there any scrutineers overseeing the process or need to visually show proof of identity and address.
Taxpayers are wary local governments use AAPs frequently and unexpectedly.
AAPs are viewed by the public as blunting the budgeting process, an expedient way to short-change budgetary scrutiny.
In Nanaimo, after previously failing twice, an AAP to borrow $90 million to build a new public works yard failed on a third attempt last fall.
There was strong opposition to the AAP process, not the yard itself.
Over the years AAPs have morphed from what’s a necessary mechanism to fund modest, unexpected expenditures such as a fire truck.
Now they are used to approve tens or hundreds of millions of precious tax dollars seemingly without limitations or much debate.
Lastly, taxpayers believe the Community Charter and AAP regulations should be bolstered.
The BC Supreme Court has recently upheld arguments by the CRD that it complied with the Community Charter when it held an AAP vote a year ago.
The purpose of CRD Bylaw 4522 was to borrow $85 million for land assembly, housing and land banking service.
Following a court petition by local citizens to strike down the bylaw, the justice ruled CRD decisions were ‘reasonable’. The justice said residents were given adequate notice, elector response forms were available on time, and there was sufficient disclosure of the purpose of the bylaw.
Unfortunately, there was little public awareness of the vote in the Capital Region comprising 13 far-flung municipalities.
The CRD board has since modified their communication policy tacitly recognizing that notifying residents required more effort than under provincial regulation.
While legal, it’s disappointing the boxes were simply ‘ticked’ by the CRD. While the letter of the provincial law was followed, the spirit of the law was absent.
After all, the province says local governments “…need to consider whether or not an (AAP) funding bylaw should be viewed as significant or sizable in cost, scale or scope from the community’s point of view.”
The citizenry voting in a municipal, provincial or federal election is sacred and sacrosanct for many. It’s no less so for a municipal referendum or an AAP vote.
Additional democratic safeguards to provincial legislation around AAPs are needed to uphold any respect from the public.
Unfortunately it looks like the District of Saanich will hold an AAP this year to approve funding for the extremely pricey replacement of the works yard project. Taxpayers may want to do their homework.
DIG DEEPER
Saanich Alternate Approval Process (AAP), March 2025.
Saanich Operations Centre Redevelopment, District of Saanich, March 2025.
Questions raised about Saanich mega project, Grumpy Taxpayer$, April 2022.