There will an election for a seven person Council, not nine

Let's go back to the beginning, about 4 years ago while I was a member of Task Force for Civic Engagement, we asked for a staff report on the issue of whether the City had to increase the size of it's Council to nine when it passes the 50,000 population mark.  When a new Provincial Law ordering this came into force in 2004, they included a provision that if a municipality wanted to keep their old size to hold a referendum to authorize this. So the District was over that level and would of had to elect a 9 member Council in the election of 2008.  With its Mayor, Don Bell being elected a MP, they had to hold a byelection so during the byelection they did so.  Overwhelming, the voters voted against the extra Councillors and expenses associated with them.

Frankly, the Task Force was just looking for a way to increase voter turnout and if eventually the City would have had to hold a referendum anyway, why not now?  The City voters would overwhelmingly vote against the extra Councillors as well.  The Task Force decided not to recommend this.

A year later, when I ran for Mayor, I noticed BC Stats report that the City population had increased to over 52,000 and tried to drop this as a bomb at the Mayor's Candidates' Meeting.   I presented this as an unintended consequence of rapid development and was given the excuse that the population was only officially calculated according the Census which didn't jive with the Law.

The new Council pursued the issue prompted by Councillor Clark, the result was that further research revealed another reason why the size of was to stay at 7 despite the population of the City.  The Letter Patent says so.  The what? Think of it as the founding document of the City which the Lieutenant Governor of BC has to issue to create any municipality in BC.  It is full of outdated material, I looked for provision that said the City had to deliver 10 cows to the Mayor every New Years day.  It doesn't but it does say:

  "The Council shall consist of a Mayor and six Aldermen, and the whole number present at each meeting thereof shall not he less than four."

Recently, Council Watcher John Harvey restarted this argument since by the Census numbers the City is over 50,000 and by their own numbers, the city has no choice now the Provincial Law orders it.  So they are repeating the mistake made in that staff report in which I used to make a mistaken interpretation. As of Monday the 23rd of June, John was still promoting his mistake. Let's see the actual Law: 

"Size of council
118  (1) Unless otherwise provided by letters patent or by a bylaw under this section, the council size for municipalities must be as follows:
  
(a) for a city or district having a population of more than 50 000, the council is to consist of  a mayor and 8 councillors;
  
(b) for a city or district having a population of 50 000 or less, the council is to consist of a mayor and 6 councillors;

(c) for a town or village, the council is to consist of a mayor and 4 councillors.
        
(2) For the purposes of this section, any change to a council size under subsection (1) is to be based on the population of the municipality as at January 1 in a general local election year and the change takes effect for the purposes of that election.

(3) A council may, by bylaw, establish the number of council members as a mayor and 4, 6, 8 or 10 councillors.

(4) If a bylaw under subsection (3) would

(a) reduce the number of council members, or

(b) maintain the current number of council members, despite an 

increase that would otherwise result under subsection (2),
it may only be adopted if it receives the assent of the electors.

(5) A bylaw under subsection (3)
(a) must be made at least 6 months before the next general local election, and
(b) does not become effective until that general local election.
(6) The size of council as established under subsection (3) applies despite any provision of a municipality's letters patent."

Sorry to all those who have not worked as a Legislative Assistant like me but subsection (1) says it very clearly "Unless otherwise provided by letters patent" which I quoted above. If you have any question as to whether the statement which follows "or by a bylaw under this section" applies, it refers to subsection (3) which has never been passed by (or even discussed) by Council.  

Council could and could have at any time passed a bylaw to have a Council of 5, 9 or even 11 members.  Of course, one of the anti-amalgamation crowd have argued that one NVan would have a Council of 9 rather than 2 Councils of 7 would be a hideous reduction of citizen access to Councillors. Well, they could have increased their number at any time, adding up to 4 Councillors if the anti-amalgamation Council really thought that paying for more Councillors was a "social good".  

Apparently, as in the case of most anti-amalgamation arguments they don't really believe in the point of the argument, they'll say anything if it is true or not.