OPINION: From “We Will Fix It” to “I Want to Do It Alone”

Seventeen years ago, the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board (EMRB) was formed with an ambitious goal: to unite municipalities across the Edmonton metro area to work together on shared priorities such as land use, transportation, housing, and environmental stewardship. It was a symbol of collaboration, a model for how communities with different needs and priorities could come together for the greater good of the region.
And, for much of its existence, the EMRB did just that.
But on November 22, 2024, the Alberta provincial government delivered what would be a fatal blow. The Government of Alberta announced it would not be renewing the board’s funding in the 2025 budget. Further, it declared that membership in the EMRB would become voluntary. In the months that followed, member municipalities, faced with an uncertain future, debated their continued participation. Over the weekend, the final verdict was announced: the EMRB will cease operations by April 1, 2025.
This marks the end of an era, but and the EMRB is not alone.
The Calgary Metropolitan Region Board (CMRB) has been in disarray since late 2024, with Rocky View County and Foothills County pulling out and leaving the future of that organization similarly uncertain.
Across Alberta, a shift is underway. Regional collaboration is being replaced by a “go-it-alone” mentality. It’s a trend that might be celebrated in some circles as a victory for local autonomy. But for those who understand the value of collaboration, it feels more like a slow unravelling of the communal spirit that underpins good governance.
In many ways, this shift reflects broader societal trends. South of the border, we’ve seen the United States pull back from global institutions under the leadership of President Donald Trump, championing an “America First” agenda. What was once unthinkable—a country abandoning its leadership role in international cooperation—has become the new normal.
And now, we see echoes of this mindset here in Alberta. The idea that municipalities are stronger together is being cast aside in favour of a belief that each community can, and perhaps should, fend for itself.
But let’s not sugarcoat this.
While the promise of self-reliance may appeal to some, the reality is more complicated. Smaller municipalities, in particular, will find it difficult to survive without the support of their larger neighbours. Shared services—libraries, water infrastructure, protective services—don’t come cheap, and pooling resources across municipal boundaries has historically been one of the most effective ways to deliver these services efficiently.
The provincial government has, until now, mandated a framework for collaboration between neighbouring municipalities. The Intermunicipal Collaboration Frameworks (ICFs) require municipalities that physically border one another to work together on cost-sharing agreements and other regional challenges. However, with the dismantling of the metropolitan boards and the shift to voluntary participation, one has to wonder: Could this be the beginning of the end for ICFs too?
To anyone who’s been paying attention, the cracks in municipal relationships have been visible for some time. At recent conferences like the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) and Alberta Municipalities (ABMunis) gatherings, frustrations over ICF agreements have bubbled to the surface.
Some municipalities often feel they’re being taken advantage of, shouldering disproportionate costs for shared services that primarily benefit their neighbours. Larger municipalities, meanwhile, sometimes resent what they see as an expectation to subsidize smaller communities.
Take library services as an example. For a small town, maintaining a library is a significant expense. Regional collaboration has traditionally allowed these communities to share resources and provide better services to residents. But as relationships sour, questions arise: Why should one community pay for something that mostly serves another’s residents?
The same goes for water infrastructure, park upgrades, and protective services like fire and police. These services don’t stop at municipal boundaries, and yet the willingness to cooperate in funding and managing them seems to be evaporating.
So, what happens next? If the era of collaboration is truly over, what does a future of go-it-alone governance look like?
Later this week we will have a bonus episode of Municipal Affairs with EMRB Board Chair Allan Gamble. So stay tuned for that.
For some larger municipalities, this new reality may seem manageable. Edmonton or Calgary, for example, have the tax base and resources to provide for their residents without relying heavily on neighbouring communities. But for smaller municipalities, the story is different.
Without regional collaboration, smaller towns and counties may find themselves struggling to maintain even basic services. They’ll face difficult choices: raise taxes, cut services, or dissolve entirely. History has shown us that smaller communities often rely on larger neighbours to sustain their economies, attract investment, and provide essential services.
In the absence of collaboration, the risk is that smaller communities could be left behind, unable to compete or even survive in a world where every municipality is looking out for itself.
The dismantling of the EMRB and CMRB and the broader shift away from regional collaboration should serve as a cautionary tale. Cooperation isn’t always easy—it requires compromise, negotiation, and a willingness to look beyond short-term self-interest. But the alternative, a fractured and siloed system of governance, is far worse.
It’s worth remembering what the EMRB and CMRB were created to address. Sprawling, uncoordinated development. Redundant infrastructure projects. Environmental degradation is caused by a lack of cohesive land-use planning. These challenges won't go away just because the boards have been dissolved. If anything, they’ll become harder to manage without a mechanism for regional collaboration.
And let’s not forget that Alberta’s municipalities are interconnected in ways that go beyond governance. Residents of one town may work in another, shop in another, and send their kids to school in yet another. The boundaries between municipalities are often invisible to the people who live there, but they are all too real when it comes to decision-making.
The question now is whether this trend can be reversed—or whether it should be. Are we destined to see more and more fractured relationships between municipalities? Or is there still hope for a renewed spirit of collaboration?
Some argue that forcing municipalities to collaborate through mandates like the Regional Boards or ICFs was never the right approach. True cooperation, they say, can only happen voluntarily, driven by mutual interest rather than provincial edict.
There’s some truth to that, but voluntary collaboration is much easier to advocate for than to achieve. Without a strong framework to guide and incentivize cooperation, the path of least resistance is often to go it alone.
The provincial government has a role to play here. It can choose to abandon regional collaboration entirely, leaving municipalities to fend for themselves. Or it can step up and provide the leadership—and the funding—needed to support meaningful cooperation.
For municipalities, the challenge is to find a balance between local autonomy and regional collaboration. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution, but the reality is that no municipality can truly go it alone. Whether it’s through formal agreements, informal partnerships, or something in between, the need for collaboration isn’t going away.
As we navigate this new era, it’s important to keep in mind what’s at stake. The dismantling of these Regional Boards and the broader trend toward municipal isolationism aren’t just bureaucratic changes. They’re a reflection of shifting priorities and values—away from collective action and toward individualism.
For those who believe in the power of collaboration, now is the time to speak up. Municipalities, residents, and provincial leaders must recognize that we’re stronger together than we are apart. The challenges we face—whether it’s managing growth or providing essential services—are too big for any one community to tackle alone.
The era of “We Will Fix It” may be over, but the spirit of collaboration doesn’t have to be. Let’s not lose sight of what we can achieve when we work together.
I am a rural dweller who ‘interacts’ with the services of 6 municipalities on a regular basis. I live in one municipal district, and drive through that and 2 counties to utilize the services of 3 towns. I totally understand your point t about residents from other locations utilizing services. While the municipality with the primary services may not want to contribute to the less services MDs bordering them they should weigh in on the amount of economic benefit it brings them. I think with rural neighbors not visiting them they would be looking at a bit if a disaster in the making.