"Applied Science, Faculty of"@en . "Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Dragushan, Graham N. G."@en . "2010-03-06T00:07:58Z"@en . "1979"@en . "Master of Arts in Planning - MA (Plan)"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "Planning legislation in Alberta, particularly in the area of regional planning, has long been thought to be in the forefront of planning efforts in Canada. However, Alberta's experience has also been described as a lost opportunity and with the enactment of Alberta's new Planning Act, it is now appropriate to review the system of regional planning in Alberta. The objective of the thesis is to provide an understanding of the system of regional planning in Alberta by analysis of the evolution of the structure of the regional planning commission - the institution responsible for regional planning. In this thesis, a sequence of theoretical perspectives was identified including: Regionalism (establishing the concept of regions and regional evolution and identifying centralizing and decentralizing strategies for government organization); Regional Planning (defining criteria for successful institional [sic] arrangements for regional planning); and Representation (providing a context for analysis of political representation of regional authorities). This was followed by a description of the evolution of the regional planning commission system in the province, especially that of the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission. It was traced through statute research, relevant literature, and strategic interviews with authorities and participants within the regional planning system in Alberta. From the application of the theoretical perspectives, it was then possible to assess the structure of the regional planning commission system as it has evolved in Alberta, and to generate some general observations related to regional planning in that province. In addition, the theories themselves were reviewed for relevance in light of the thesis research."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/21596?expand=metadata"@en . "R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G I N A L B E R T A . * . T H E E V O L U T I O N O F A L B E R T A ' S S Y S T E M O F R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N S by GRAHAM N.G. DRAGUSHAN B.A., University of Alberta, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1979 \u00C2\u00A9 Graham N.G. Dragushan, 1979 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n advanced degree at the Univers i ty o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t the L ibrary sha l l make i t f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference a n d s t u d y . I further agree that permission for extensive copying o f t h i s t h e s i s for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by his representat ives. It i s understood that copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f th i s thes i s f o r f i nanc i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my written permission. D e p a r t m e n t of C^n^^^u^^.i^'j^j < ^ - ^ w g - C ^\.<2c^-e>^~ J 2 & The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 D a t e i i ABSTRACT Planning l e g i s l a t i o n i n Alberta, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the area of regional planning, has long been thought to be i n the forefront of planning e f f o r t s i n Canada. However, Alberta's experience has also been described as a l o s t opportunity and with the enactment of Alberta's new Planning Act, i t i s now appropriate to review the system of regional planning i n Alberta. The objective of the thesis i s to pro-vide an understanding of the system of regional planning i n Alberta by analysis of the evolution of the structure of the regional planning commission - the i n s t i t u t i o n responsible for regional planning. In t h i s t h e s i s , a sequence of t h e o r e t i c a l perspectives was i d e n t i f i e d including: Regionalism (establishing the con-cept of regions and regional evolution and i d e n t i f y i n g cen-t r a l i z i n g and decentralizing strategies for government organ-ization) ; Regional Planning (defining c r i t e r i a for success-f u l i n s t i t i o n a l arrangements for regional planning); and Representation (providing a context for analysis of p o l i t i -c a l representation of regional a u t h o r i t i e s ) . This was followed by a description of the evolution of the regional planning commission system i n the province, e s p e c i a l l y that of the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission. It was traced through statute research, relevant l i t e r a t u r e , and s t r a t e g i c interviews with authorities and participants within the regional planning system i n Alberta. From the application of the t h e o r e t i c a l perspectives, i t was then possible to assess the structure of the regional i i i p l a n ning commission system as i t has evolved i n A l b e r t a , and to generate some general observations r e l a t e d t o r e g i o n a l planning i n t h a t province. In a d d i t i o n , the t h e o r i e s themselves were reviewed f o r relevance i n l i g h t of the t h e s i s research. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES. . . lL. ; \"Jf v i i LIST OF FIGURES -AND MAPS .... v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Regional Planning i n Alberta 1 1.2 Thesis Concept 2 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL MILIEU 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Regionalism 5 2.3 Regional Planning 20 2.4 Representation 23 CHAPTER 3: EVOLUTION OF REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS 3.01 Introduction 32 3.02 The 1913 Act 32 3.03 The 1929 Act 36 3.04 Alberta's Post-War Growth 39 3.05 The Amending Act of 1950 44 3.06 The Evolution of Planning L e g i s l a t i o n from 1913 to 1950 - A Summary 53 3.07 The 1953 Act 55 3.08 The Amending Act of 1957 60 3.09 The Amending Act of 1958 68 3.10 The Amending Act of 1959 69 3.11 The Act of 1963 . 70 3.12 The Evolution of Planning L e g i s l a t i o n from 1950 to 1963 - A Summary 78 V 3.13 The Amending Act of 1965 81 3.14 The Amending Act of 1968 82 3.15 The Amending Act of 1969 84 3.16 The Amending Act of 1970 88 3.17 The Amending Act of 1971 89 3.18 The Amending Act of 1973 93 3.19 Related L e g i s l a t i o n of the 1970's 94 3.20 New L e g i s l a t i v e I n i t i a t i v e s 95 3.21 B i l l 15, the Proposed Planning Act for 1977 106 3.22 The Planning Act, 1977 107 3.23 The Evolution of Planning L e g i s l a t i o n from 1963 to 1977 - A Summary 129 3.24 Conclusion of Chapter Three 133 CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS 4.1 Introduction 134 4.2 Regionalism 134 4.3 Regional Planning 149 4.4 Representation 160 4.5 Conclusion of Chapter Four 174 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 5.1 Introduction 176 5.2 Evaluation of Theoretical Material 176 5.3 Overall Conclusions about Alberta's Regional Planning System 180 BIBLIOGRAPHY 182 APPENDIX I. , L i s t , of Interviewees 192 APPENDIX 2. . L i s t , o f * Important.Statutes\u00E2\u0080\u009Efor Regional Planning 194 v i APPENDIX 3 Excerpts of \"A Report on the Ci t y of Edmonton...\" by John Bland and Harold Spence-Sales, 1949 195 APPENDIX 4 Membership C r i t e r i a for Regional Planning: Excerpts of Statutes, Regulations and Orders 199 APPENDIX 5 The Alberta Planning Fund 203 APPENDIX 6 Excerpts of the Planning Act, 1977 204 APPENDIX 7 Order-in-Council and Regulations for the ERPC under the Planning Act, 1977 213 APPENDIX 8 Excerpts of the Minutes of the E R P C \u00E2\u0080\u0094 21? v i i LIST OP TABLES TABLE I Forms of D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n Government v i i i LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS FIGURE 1 Population Growth and Important Statutes for Regional Planning 40 FIGURE 2 Employment Growth and Important Statutes for Regional Planning 41 FIGURE 3 P r o v i n c i a l Departmental Representation on the ERPC 52 FIGURE 4 Adoption Process for Regional Plans - 1957.. 63 FIGURE 5 Municipal Representation on the ERPC 67 FIGURE 6 Adoption Process for Regional Plans - 1963 73 FIGURE 7 Hierarchy of Statutory Plans, By-laws and Permits 109 FIGURE 8 Adoption Process for Regional Plans - 1977 124 MAP 1 Alberta's Regional Planning Commission - 1978 48 MAP 2 The Edmonton Regional Planning Commission - 1978 I l l MAP 3 Edmonton Region Growth Study Area 151 i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e t o thank P r o f e s s o r Brahm Wiesman f o r h i s adv i c e and encouragement i n the p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s . I would a l s o l i k e t o thank Dr. S e t t y Pendakur and oth e r members of the School f a c u l t y as w e l l as my f e l l o w students f o r t h e i r i n t e r e s t and u s e f u l comments on t h i s p r o j e c t , w i t h s p e c i a l thanks t o Dr. Mi c h a e l P o u l t o n f o r h i s guidance i n the e a r l y stages o f the t h e s i s . For her support and p a t i e n c e throughout t h i s seemingly i n t e r m i n a b l e p r o j e c t , I owe the deepest g r a t i t u d e t o Jean Dragushan who, i n a d d i t i o n t o e v e r y t h i n g e l s e , typed and e d i t e d the s e v e r a l p r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t s o f the t h e s i s . To our c h i l d r e n , Aaron and E l l e n , my thanks f o r i n d u l g i n g a par t - t i m e p a r e n t . (1) 1 Introduction: Chapter One 1.1 Regional Planning in Alberta In late 1977, the Legislature adopted a new statute, the Planning Act, 1977, the latest in a long line of planning acts in Alberta. The Act came into effect early in 1978 and heralds a new era for planning in the province. Planning legislation in Alberta has long been thought to be at the forefront of planning efforts in Canada, especially in the area of regional planning. Glowing descriptions of Alberta's pioneering efforts to establish urban-centered regional planning authorities appear in the literature from the late 1950's up to the present (see Marlyn and Lash, 1961; and Gertler, 1976). More recently, how-ever, there have also appeared less positive reviews. Alberta's regional planning commissions, as these regional authorities are known, have received rather unconstructive criticism, having been portrayed as hapless organizations whose plans are labouriously produced - i f at a l l - and then easily circumvented (see Bettison, et a l , 1975). Alberta's experience has also been described as a lost oppor-tunity. While regional planning commissions have had the respon-s i b i l i t y (and the power) to enact regional plans for a consider-able number of years, the commissions were prevented from doing so because of (among other things) inadequate staffing, lack of provincial policy guidelines, and excessive demands of other responsibilities, especially subdivision approval (Perry, 1974, p. 11). The relevance or appropriateness of regional planning (2) commissions has also been questioned since they have no authority over highways, p i p e l i n e s , and railways, nor authority to undertake other regional functions (Perry, 1974, p. 11). In addition, regional planning commissions were considered vulner-able to ad hoc agencies created to assume sp e c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i -t i e s such as water supply or waste treatment, Perry having con-tended that commissions could not assume supplemental functions (Perry, 1974, p. 11). F i n a l l y , regional planning commissions were considered i s o l a t e d , with few formal l o c a l or p r o v i n c i a l linkages because t h e i r boundaries were \"delineated for planning purposes\", not to coincide with \"other-purpose agencies, regional forms of government\" or i n accord with a p r o v i n c i a l regional planning program (Perry, 1974, p.13). These are serious charges that i l l u s t r a t e the controversial nature of regional planning i n Alberta. 1.2 Thesis Concept This thesis i s intended to provide a current perspective on the regional planning commission model developed i n Alberta by examining the evolution of the regional planning system i n that province. The evolution w i l l be described on the basis of statute, l i t e r a t u r e , and interview sources and w i l l be examined on the basis of three broad t h e o r e t i c a l perspectives. The objective of the thesis i s to understand the evolution of regional planning i n Alberta and, within the context of the t h e o r e t i c a l perspectives employed, to i d e n t i f y evolutionary trends within the system. The thesis i s l i m i t e d to consideration (3) of the evolution of system structure as opposed to system performance. 1.2.1 Theoretical Context In order to explain how regional planning has evolved and to make analysis of the system possible, i t i s necessary to e s t a b l i s h a t h e o r e t i c a l context. Relevant theories include those of Regionalism, Regional Planning and Representation; each i s presented i n Chapter 2. The formal research question i s : Do theories of Regionalism, Regional Planning and Representation o f f e r explanations for the evolution of Alberta's regional planning com-m missions to t h e i r current form or suggest what might become of them i n the future? One concept of Regionalism establishes the idea of regions and regional evolution, the importance of regional authorities and an associated model purporting to explain the mechanisms for regional evolution and the role of government i n the pro-cess. Another concept of Regionalism i s also presented; i t i d e n t i f i e s two d i f f e r e n t philosophical perspectives for the r a t i o n a l organization of society. Regional Planning theory i s presented to f a c i l i t a t e an assessment of the conception and practice of regional planning i n Alberta. F i n a l l y , Representa-t i o n theory i s presented to provide for analysis of regional authorities within the context of the democratic system of government. (4) 1.2.2 Data Base The evolution of the regional planning commission system i n Alberta i s the subject of Chapter 3. A review of available l i t e r a t u r e on regional planning i n Alberta, interviews with key people involved i n Alberta's regional planning system (See Appendix I) and a detailed analysis of l e g i s l a t i o n relevant to regional planning i n Alberta provide the necessary data base for t h i s chapter. Available l i t e r a t u r e includes reports and publications of regional planning commissions, e s p e c i a l l y the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission (ERPC) as well as more widely published material. The interviews provide c l a r i f i c a -t i o n of d e t a i l and candid observations from participants i n Alberta's regional planning system. L e g i s l a t i o n referred to i n t h i s thesis consists of Alberta's Planning Acts dating as f a r back as 1913; also included are regulations and orders under the authority of those Acts as well as other related statutes. 1.2.3 Analysis and Conclusions Chapter 4 contains an analysis of the Alberta experience based upon the t h e o r e t i c a l perspectives developed i n Chapter 2 -those of Regionalism, Regional Planning and Representation. In Chapter 5, these theories are, i n turn, b r i e f l y evaluated for usefulness i n l i g h t of the thesis analysis. F i n a l l y , o v e r a l l conclusions are drawn concerning the concept of regional plan-ning as developed i n Alberta. (5) 2 Theoretical M i l i e u : Chapter Two 2.1 Introduction The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to provide a t h e o r e t i c a l framework within which developments i n Alberta's regional planning system may be placed and examined. To a i d i n an analysis of changes i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l structures and planning mechanisms, theories of Regionalism, Regional Planning and Representation are of p a r t i c u l a r value. The theories of the process and philosophy of regionalism e s t a b l i s h the importance of regional authorities by explaining the r e l a t i o n s h i p between regions and i n s t i t u t i o n s . Regional planning theory i s necessary i n the analysis to define the scope of a regional authority and the ambit of i t s planning mandate. Representation theory i s useful because of the role of that concept i n democratic l o c a l government i n Canada. 2.2 Regionalism Regionalism may be examined from two r e l a t e d but d i s t i n c t perspectives. In one sense, i t i s a natural force, a process r e s u l t i n g i n the evolution of regions that come to be perceived by people as d i s t i n c t from other regions. In another sense, regionalism i s a philosophy or strategy for r a t i o n a l organiza-t i o n of society. The philosophy of regionalism i s based upon an i m p l i c i t recognition of the r e a l i t i e s of the process of regionalism. In the next part of t h i s chapter, each sense of regionalism (6) w i l l be presented. A major part of the discussion of regional-ism as a process i s taken up in the presentation of a model: Regionalism, Change and Intervention. The discussion of regionalism as a philosophy or strategy w i l l concentrate on what i s referred to as \"regionalism from below\" and \"regionalism from above.\" 2.2.1 Regionalism As a Process 2.2.1.1 A Systems View - The Basis for the Model The process of regionalism can best be understood in terms of complex interacting systems. Central to a systems perspective is the premise that any attempt to control or manage a system without an adequate understanding of i t s dynamics w i l l often result in completely unexpected results elsewhere in the system (Hall, 1975, p. 271). The development of a systems model, there-fore, i s of considerable value as i t fa c i l i t a t e s an understanding of the system's interacting parts. The model that follows, in which a systems approach i s used to represent the process of regionalism, relates this process to subsystems of particular interest. 2.2.1.2 Model of Regionalism 1 The model represents the dynamic process of regionalism. \"'\"This model i s based upon an earlier version developed in associa-tion with fellow students Vladamir Aleksandric and Margaret De Grace. The earlier model was presented in an unpublished paper in 1977 and in a revised form in the M.A. thesis of Aleksandric (Aleksandric^ 1978). (7) I t relates t h i s process to subsystems i l l u s t r a t i n g the emer-gence of problems and regional i d e n t i t y as a product of change, and the mechanism of i n s t i t u t i o n a l intervention into the process of regionalism. A central concept i n the model i s that of the \"region\". The term may describe purely physical phenomena - a coastal region, an a r c t i c region, a p r a i r i e region, or i t may be used i n conjunction with c u l t u r a l phenomena that have economic, s o c i a l or p o l i t i c a l components. Regions of the l a t t e r type ari s e because culture - language, forms of s o c i a l organization, customs etc. - are s p a t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d . Hence, the concept of \"region\" has developed out of the need to i d e n t i f y , i n t e r -pret and explain the incidence and d i s t r i b u t i o n of these physi-c a l and c u l t u r a l phenomena (Aleksandric, De Grace and Dragushan, 1977, p. 6). The concept i s thus an hypothesis, an attempt by people to r a t i o n a l i z e t h e i r universe. The phenomena encapsulated by the term region r e s u l t from interactions between people and t h e i r environment. Hence, a region i s \"an area within which i n t e r a c t i o n i s more intense than i t s i n t e r a c t i o n with other areas\" (Blumenfeld, (circa 1960), p. 287). Regions so created become d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from others and thus are recognized both by residents and by those from outside the region. People l i v i n g within the region develop \"a conception of themselves and acquire a more or less stereotyped conception i n the minds of others\" (Wirth, 1951, p. 391). The self-consciousness developed through regionalism i s the source of the conception of the regional fact - that i s , the hypothesis that a region e x i s t s (Aleksandric, De Grace and (8) Dragushan, 1977, p. 8). The presence of the hypothesis, i n turn, influences the behavior of the region's residents and i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s such that the i n t e r a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y i s modified. 2.2.1.3 The Process of Regionalism and Regional Systems Regions e x i s t as a r e s u l t of the process of regionalism -i t i s the mechanism through which regions evolve. In th i s con-text, the concept of regionalism may be viewed as a natural force or a process involving complex interactions between the residents, resources and i n s t i t u t i o n s i n a p a r t i c u l a r area, r e s u l t i n g i n the development of regional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and id e n t i t y . Interactions occur i n a continuous state of flux as resources change within the region and as the national context i s modified by other evolving constituent regions and changes i n inte r n a t i o n a l conditions. F u l l description of i n t e r l i n k i n g r e l a -tionships would be f u t i l e and i n any case not h e l p f u l since a description of the system i s not the aim of the model. Suffice i t to say that the dynamic process referred to as regionalism results i n the evolution of regions by i n t e r a c t i v e a c t i v i t i e s among the resources, residents and i n s t i t u t i o n s of the region within a national and int e r n a t i o n a l context. 2.2.1.4 Regional V a r i a t i o n - Regional Problems Within t h i s model, the process of regionalism leads to the evolution of discrete regional units that may be distinguished from one another. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that allow one to d i s -criminate between regions are regional variations (Aleksandric, (9) De Grace and Dragushan, 1977, p. 8). These may be differences i n language, i n resources, or i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l or technological development and they a f f e c t the evolutionary development of the region v i a the dynamic process of regionalism. The interactions may bring about r e l a t i v e l y marked imbalances between regions (or regional d i s p a r i t i e s ) that r e s u l t i n serious handicaps or s i g n i f i c a n t advantages when the region i s contrasted with i t s national environment (Aleksandric, De Grace and Dragushan, 1977, p. 10). The manifestations of regional imbalances are, by and large, regional problems such as environmental p o l l u t i o n , unemployment or housing shortages; the l a t t e r two r e f l e c t the negative aspects of a region i n either the decline or growth phases of i t s evolution, respectively. 2.2.1.5 A r t i c u l a t i o n The nature of regionalism as a self-conscious process i s such that people recognize the unique features of t h e i r region (or of another region), including i t s advantages or problems. The recognition of regional features requires a r t i c u l a t i o n , however, so that the region's residents share a common view of th e i r region. Furthermore, problems that e x i s t w i l l not be perceived as regional problems without an a r t i c u l a t i o n of them as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the region. Since the d e f i n i t i o n of a problem determines the design of measures to cope with i t , t h i s perception i s important. When unemployment i s perceived as a regional problem, for example, people may decide to leave the region, moving to another region that i s perceived to have job (10) opportunities, rather than remaining i n the region, waiting for jobs to become avai l a b l e . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a demand for government action may arise within the region. The demands may come from many quarters -the i n d i v i d u a l whose income or access to housing i s r e s t r i c t e d , the union whose membership finds themselves i n the p r i c e -income squeeze. Pressures for action impinge upon p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s of government which are perceived as contributing to the problem or which are seen to hold solutions to i t . Again, before any action on a problem may be taken by an i n s t i t u t i o n , the problem must be perceived. Problem perception may also occur d i r e c t l y within an i n s t i t u t i o n based upon i t s own view of the dynamics of the region. The subsequent actions of the i n s t i t u t i o n to cope with the problems are interventions i n the process of regionalism. 2.2.1.6 Intervention The manifestation of a regional, economic, or s o c i a l pro-blem may require a s p e c i f i c response tuned to the r e a l i t i e s of the region i f the problem i s to be e f f e c t i v e l y dealt with (Aleksandric, De Grace, and Dragushan, 1977, p. 14). These responses are interventions - actions undertaken by an i n s t i -t ution which modify e x i s t i n g relationships or introduce new relationships between the region's resources, residents and i n s t i t u t i o n s within the regional system. As stated e a r l i e r (See 2.3.1) an understanding of the system i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s a prerequisite to well founded management and control of (11) the system. For example, regional unemployment perceived as a general problem and followed by interventions at the national scale w i l l have either l i t t l e regional effect or may make matters worse within the region. On the other hand, a regional intervention sensitively designed to affect c r i t i c a l relation-ships within the region w i l l have a much better chance of effecting the desired changes and working towards the resolu-tion of the region's problems. Indirect intervention may also be undertaken by an i n s t i -tution. This may be achieved by making modifications to the internal characteristics of institutions intended to control and manage the process of regionalism. These interventions may include the creation of new institutions or modification of existing institutions. Whatever strategy i s chosen for this indirect form of intervention, the design of the strategy depends upon the philosophy of regionalism - that i s , the i n s t i tution&s perspective on the rational organization of society. This w i l l be discussed later in this chapter. 2.2.1.7 Institutional Characteristics The identification and definition of regional problems by an institution i s significantly affected by characteristics of the particular institution that is impelled to act on the problem. This articulation is affected by biases found both within and outside of the institution. External factors would include the existing p o l i t i c a l milieu (including p o l i t i c a l articulations of the problem) and the relative power or pres-tige of the institution vis-a-vis a l l other institutions. A (12) government whose main p o l i c y concern was economic growth would have a d i f f e r e n t view of the world than a government whose main concern was c u l t u r a l well-being. High prestige i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l see a multitude of problems as being within t h e i r perview whereas weaker i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l view t h e i r sphere as being t i g h t l y circumscribed. An excellent example i s to be found i n the interdepartmental arena within the government of Alberta, where the Environment Act was used as a zoning t o o l f o r matters that could have been dealt with under the Planning Act (See 3.19). Internal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n s t i t u t i o n are important as w e l l , for they a f f e c t i t s a b i l i t y to act. This includes such things as whether the i n s t i t u t i o n i s a centralized or decentralized arm of the government, whether the i n s t i t u t i o n i s merely advisory or has s p e c i f i c powers, and so on. A l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t e r n a l or external to the i n s t i t u t i o n w i l l thus f i l t e r the perception of regional problems and by exten-t i o n w i l l also a f f e c t the way i n which the i n s t i t u t i o n reacts to the problem. A regionalized i n s t i t u t i o n w i l l perceive pro-blems i n a q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t manner than a more c e n t r a l -ized authority - regional problems w i l l probably be more e a s i l y defined and recognized as regional and ultimately dealt with i n that context. I n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are important for another reason. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may have a s p e c i f i c and d i r e c t e f f e c t upon the conception of a region by i t s residents. When a decentralized i n s t i t u t i o n or one with devolved powers i s (13) created, the conception of the region is modified. The representative nature of a regional authority w i l l affect how i t is perceived by the region's residents, other i n s t i -tutions, etc., and w i l l directly influence i t s a b i l i t y to carry out i t s responsibilities. The location of a regional office in a particular center w i l l reinforce the focus oof the region upon that center. Furthermore, the defined area of a regional jurisdiction w i l l modify the perceived extent of the region. 2.2.1.8 Use of the Model of Regionalism It i s intended that this model, based upon the \"process\" concept of regionalism, be used to assess in a general way the province's design of regional institutions such as the regional planning commission. That i s , do regional planning commissions have the power and organization necessary to achieve what they have been set up to achieve? Specific characteristics relevant for this inquiry include the composition and boundaries of a regional planning commission, i t s membership, legal status, staffing, financing and i t s responsibilities and powers. Given the limitation of the thesis to structural considerations, the staffing characteristic is not useable as i t relates p r i -marily to performance of a regional planning commission. Compo-sit i o n , boundaries and membership characteristics are considered in the theoretical areas of regional planning and representa-tion. Thus legal status, financing, responsibilities and powers are considered in the context of the model of Regionalism. (14) Besides drawing attention to institutional character-i s t i c s , the model of Regionalism also sets the stage for analysis of the regional planning system in Alberta in terms of the organization or conception of the role of the regional planning commission as may be explained by the philosophies of regionalism as well as the theories of regional planning and representation. 2-2.2 Regionalism as a Philosophy and a Strategy The philosophy of regionalism i s the second of the two major meanings of regionalism being discussed in this chapter. It developed out of intuitive recognition of the process of regionalism - the natural unfolding of regions as a product of that process. The philosopy of regionalism manifests i t s e l f in theories and strategies for the rational organization of society. These strategies of organization are applied, within the context of the model of Regionalism, Change and Interven-tion, in the design of institutions intended to interact with, control, or manage various aspects of society. The literature on the philosophy of regionalism i s implicitly s p l i t along two lines of argument. Sharpe has identified what he calls \"two regionalisms\" - one from \"below\" and one from \"above\" (Sharpe, 1972). Regionalism from below is concerned with economies of scale for local services and the strengthening of local government, while regionalism from above is concerned with the effectiveness of central government (Sharpe, 1972, p. 132). The objectives are similar, that of (15) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of \"levels of authority\" that are greater than l o c a l and lesser than national. Thus, i n the middle ground i s a r a t i o n a l unit of authority at what i s c a l l e d the \"regional\" l e v e l . 2.2.2.1 Decentralizing Regionalism P a r a l l e l to Sharpe's \"regionalism from above\" i s what Cornford describes as a reaction to c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n govern-ment (Cornford, 1975). Reaction to government c e n t r a l i z a -t i o n may take several forms depending upon either managerial or p a r t i c i p a t o r y motives and upon ei t h e r a t e r r i t o r i a l or functional basis (Cornford, 1975, p.8). TABLE I FORMS OF DECENTRALIZATION IN GOVERNMENT basis motive \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ^ T e r r i t o r i a l Functional Managerial Deconcentration Hiving-Off Pa r t i c i p a t o r y Devolution Interest Group, Workers' Control (Cornford, 1975, p.8) As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table I, decentralization based on t e r r i t o r y and motivated by management concerns w i l l r e s u l t i n \"deconcentration\". An example of t h i s form of decentraliza-t i o n i s the creation of the seven Resource Management Regions (16) i n B r i t i s h Columbia for the regional administration of p r o v i n c i a l resource departments with Regional Resource Management Committees providing inter-departmental coordina-t i o n . Decentralization based upon t e r r i t o r y and motivated by p a r t i c i p a t o r y concerns leads to devolution of powers to elected regional governments. This form of decentralization i s represented by authorities who hold powers to perform certa i n functions or exercise powers that are usually dele-gated by statute from the central government. Good examples of the devolution form of decentralization are represented by the current proposals for a Scottish assembly and some of the proposals for \" p r o v i n c i a l \" government i n the U.K. (U.K., 1973) and the current debate on p r o v i n c i a l status for the Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s i n t h i s country. These two forms of decentralization based upon t e r r i t o r y are of primary i n t e r e s t i n t h i s thesis, as regional authorities are t e r r i t o r i a l e n t i t i e s . Decentralization based upon functional l i n e s and motivated by p a r t i c i p a t o r y concerns w i l l r e s u l t i n i n t e r e s t group or worker control such as that proposed by the s o c i a l democratic movement and current practices i n several industries i n Europe. Examples of t h i s form are rare but professional associations such as those for engineers or medical doctors are p r o v i n c i a l l y created and controlled by the i n t e r e s t group. Where decentral-i z a t i o n i s based on function and motivated by management con-cerns, the r e s u l t i s \"hiving o f f \" . Excellent examples of t h i s are p r o v i n c i a l Boards which are created for a p a r t i c u l a r purpose (17) or function. In Alberta, the Local Authorities Board is an example; i t was created to administer financial control of municipalities, to order changes in municipal boundaries and to carry out related matters. The Board i s a corporate entity and has the powers of the Supreme Court of Alberta. Using this matrix of forms of decentralization, i t should be possible to identify what form is represented by regional planning commissions. It should also be possible to identify those changes in form represented in the evolu-tion of these commissions. 2.2.2.2 Centralizing Regionalism Of Sharpe1s \"two regionalisms\", that from \"below\" relates to rationalizing local administration and government. This is particularly well illustrated in the vigorous debate in England on the reform of local government - a debate that began in the early years of this century and culminated in the Local Govern- ment Act of 1972. One of the parties to the debate was the Fabian Society. The Fabians argued persuasively for a rationalization of local government function and the area of jurisdiction for each local government unit. Their argument was based on the premise that \"local government gets i t s value as the con-crete expression of the democratic principle that the people themselves, through their chosen representatives, should exert the maximum control possible over public services\" and that this democratic control \"should oper-ate at every level which becomes necessary\" (Self,. 1949, p. 46) . The rationalized regional-scale local government units that (18) were proposed by the Fabians would, in addition to assuming responsibility for service functions, have had the powers of planning for their regions including the location of new industry and the location and development of New Towns -two major functions that had been centralized to Whitehall (Self, 1949, p. 92). More recently, the Royal Commission on Local Government in England (chaired by Lord Redcliffe-Maud) produced a majority report recommending a system of unitary authorities - those responsible for a l l local government functions (U.K., 1969, Vol I ) . In a memorandum of dissent, Derek Senior argued for a two-tier system, one being a \"city region\", the other a \"town d i s t r i c t \" . The city region was conceived of as being similar in scale to the then existing administrative countries in England, the proposed dis t r i c t s considered somewhat smaller subdivisions of the city regions but larger in any case than the then existing d i s t r i c t s (U.K., 1969, Vol II). A similar debate has taken place in Canada, although with less vigour than was the case in the U.K. (See Rowat, 1969). Whereas the local government, situation in the U.K. had been a long-standing problem derived from the industrialization and urbanization of the country over the last century, the corres-ponding situations arose very quickly in Canada - largely after World War II. The relatively dispassionate approach to the issues i s illustrated in the next chapter where mechanisms for coping with urban growth around Edmonton in the late forties were recommended by a consultant adopted by the (19) City, recommended to the Province by the City and enacted by the Province within the space of about one year (See 3.04.1). Admittedly, the changes in this case were not nearly as drastic as those enacted in 1953 in Ontario to establish a metropolitan authority for Toronto effecting a federal plan for local government, or those proposed for the Halifax metropolitan area in the early 1950's (Rowat, 1969, p. 80 et seq). 2.2.2.2.1 The Need For Regional Authorities The major factor supporting the development of rationalized local authorities throughout the regionalism movement was the inab i l i t y of existing local governments to meet the servicing needs and control the effects of rapidly expanding urban centers. This was because the constituent units were usually too small to provide the necessary services and were unable to coordinate their activities in the provision of services. Another con-sideration was the fact that the effects of urban growth in one unit had direct and indirect impacts upon neighboring units. Thus there has arisen a demand for rationalized units of local government that are able to supply needed services e f f i c i e n t l y and equitably throughout the urban area. At the same time, fears are expressed that rationaliza-tion of local government to effect more efficient service delivery w i l l destroy local identity. This was a forceful theme in the British debates and was equally valid in Canada. The solution often advanced is two-tier local government -(20) the lower (smaller) l e v e l assuming the most l o c a l functions and the upper l e v e l being assigned the service functions requiring the larger j u r i s d i c t i o n . This conception of regionalism thus provides one with the l o c a l government r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n perspective. From t h i s perspective the actions of the province i n creation and modi-f i c a t i o n of regional planning commissions may be assessed. 2.2.2.3 Use of Regionalism as a Philosophy and a Strategy From the description of the two philosophies of regional-ism, i t i s clear that the design of an i n s t i t u t i o n may be founded upon a desire to decentralize central government or c e n t r a l i z e l o c a l government to achieve a more r a t i o n a l organ-i z a t i o n of society. The structure of regional planning commissions i n Alberta w i l l be reviewed from t h i s perspective i n order to i d e n t i f y strategies that may have been used by the province i n i t s design of the regional planning system. 2.3 Regional Planning In the model of Regionalism, i t was pointed out that i n s t i t u t i o n s e f f e c t changes i n the i n t e r a c t i o n a l systems i n response to regional problems. Regional planning i s one form of intervention s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to modify p a r t i c u l a r aspects of the i n t e r a c t i o n a l process and to bring about problem solut i o n . (21) 2.3.1 Regional Planning Defined As a form of intervention in the process of regionalism, regional planning is characterized by strategic efforts to resolve regional-scale problems. It has been defined as \"a process, based on law and undertaken by a form of responsible government directed towards influencing private and public development in a manner which results in the best environ-ment and the soundest use of resources of which we are capable\" (Gertler, 1961, p. 30). Curiously, this definition contains elements that are features of the practice of regional planning as opposed to more s t r i c t l y theoretical elements. For example, the legal basis and government involvement are not essential elements of regional planning except as these are helpful in ensuring the success of regional planning. The values exhibited in the \"best\" environment or \"soundest\" use of resources suggest that other goals are not relevant. Obviously this cannot be the case. Elsewhere, regional planning has been defined in terms of a function tied to a geographic unit - planning for a region (Alberta Task Force, 1971, p. 5; Hall, 1975, p. 81). When the concept is so defined, one must search out the operational concept of \"planning\" and the operational concept of \"region\" and attempt a synthesis. A particular synthesis of c r i t e r i a for regional planning that includes a reasonably comprehensive inventory of principles for regional planning i s as follows: 1. Sensitivity to existing regional perceptions: Regional boundary definitions should be determined on the basis of their effectiveness (22) in achieving the support and participation of the people in the region. 2. Part of a provincial hierarchy: Regional planning must be guided by broad social, economic and physical planning at the provincial level. 3. Based in local government: The regional area, in that i t would be required to be large enough to embrace^a number of constituent urban centers and rural areas must be represented on a principle con-sidered equitable by the constituent munici-p a l i t i e s . 4. Regional-Provincial coordination: A highly sophisticated liaison should be maintained between the regional planning areas and the provincial departments involved with their areas. 5. Planning legislation: The planning function i t s e l f must have a strong statutory base in order to be effective. 6. Interim plans: Authority must be given the regional planning body to establish an interim regional policy to guide growth until a comprehensive regional plan i s implemented. 7. Commitment to regionalism: Development choices... are philosophic choices (and) this calls for the tangible\u00E2\u0080\u0094 leadership and policy guidelines\u00E2\u0080\u0094and, as well, the intangible\u00E2\u0080\u0094cooperation and communication\u00E2\u0080\u0094 down through a l l the tiers of the planning process. (Gertler and Lord, 1973, p.A-3) Since the objective of this thesis i s to consider system structure as opposed to system performance, two of these c r i -teria are of limited value. The second and seventh c r i t e r i a (23) are unuseable within this context as they require an analysis of provincial policy. The remaining c r i t e r i a w i l l be con-sidered in the context of structural features. 2.3.2 The Use of the Theory of Regional Planning As noted earlier, regional planning is a form of inter-vention - in this case direct intervention in the process of regionalism. Gertler's c r i t e r i a for regional planning are not purely theoretical but include elements of practical value reflecting awareness of the process of regionalism and the problems of creating new regional institutions between the local and provincial levels of government. However, since the major objective or function of regional planning commissions in Alberta i s the exercise of regional planning, the c r i t e r i a enumerated w i l l enable an assessment of the regional planning commission structure as a mechanism for this responsibility. 2.4 Representation In the model of Regionalism, the characteristics of an institution were identified as pivotal to the effectiveness of the institution in meeting i t s responsibilities. In the case of institutions of local or regional government, the repre-sentative nature of the institution commands considerable attention in the literature. For example, the concept of representation appears in two important Royal Commission Reports from the U.K. The Redcliffe-Maud Commission spoke of representation in terms of how the representative relates (24) to the demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the constituency represented (U.K. 1969, p. 64) and i n terms of the r e l a t i o n -ship between a l o c a l council member and his council when he i s s i t t i n g on a regional board (U.K. 1969, p. 114). The Kilbrandon Commission Report spoke of the dilemna of the in d i r e c t l y - e l e c t e d regional council member, namely whether he represents the region as a whole or represents his l o c a l authority (as a delegate) (U.K. 1973, p. 290). In a review of the \"Council of Governments\" regional concept that has evolved i n the U.S., M.B. Mogulof i d e n t i f i e d a c o n f l i c t developing over the representational base i n the trend from unit of government representation to population-based rep-resentation (Mogulof, 1971, p. 81). A.W. Bfomage, another American, placed representative forms on a continuum from d i r e c t e l e c t i o n to private i n t e r e s t group nomination and appointment (Bromage, 1962, p. 5). In the Canadian arena, D.C. Rowat suggested that regional councils \"be made up of representatives either d i r e c t l y elected or chosen by the councils\" i n order that these regional councils w i l l be \"tr u l y democratic organs of l o c a l government\" (Rowat, 1949, p. 141). Similar c r i t e r i a for representation were established by L.O. Gertler for regional authorities i n Canada: \"...the governing council (board or commission) w i l l have to be based on a p r i n c i p l e of represent-ation that w i l l be considered equitable by the constituent m u n i c i p a l i t i e s \" . (Gertler, 1972, p. 28) (25) It i s apparent that the concept of representation has considerable value in terms of regional planning but exactly why the concept i s important and what is meant by representa-tion i s not e x p l i c i t l y stated. 2.4.1 The Meaning of Representation The concept of representation i s more complex than i t appears on the surface; in fact, i t i s possible to define the word \"representation\" in several ways. One such possibility i s suggested by the Gallup P o l l . It surveys, selects and interviews people, using random sample techniques which are said to represent a l l Canadians. In another context, the Governor General represents the Sovereign (according to the BNA Act, Sections 9 and 10). The Sovereign in turn, represents the \"embodyment\" of the whole nation -including past and future generations. In legal issues or in commerce, one might represent the interests of a client. Members of the provincial legislative assemblies and the federal parliament are said to represent the people of the province and of the nation. In each case, the representation is of a different sort; powers and responsibilities (among many other things) vary widely from one sort of representa-tive to another. Pitkin argues that representation has an essential meaning common to a l l uses (See Pitkin, 1967 and 1969) although her approach to the terra makes i t d i f f i c u l t to grasp exactly what is meant. H.J. Spiro makes the general-ization that \" l i f e without representation is impossible in (26) contemporary societies (Spiro, 1965, p. 2). In his argu-ments, Spiro appears to mean that government is representa-tive either because i t is elected, or because of i t s composi-tion vis-a-vis the religious, ethnic, r a c i a l , economic, pro-fessional or other composition of the constituents. Spiro's discussion is interesting but confusing because of this juxtaposition of meanings. 2.4.2 Po1itical Representation In an attempt to rationalize the use and understanding of representation, A.H. Birch has developed a much more help-fu l conceptual framework. By way of introduction, he has identified four main uses for the word, each of which he claims i s logically distinct from the others. Of these, three have both p o l i t i c a l and non-political aspects while the fourth is entirely p o l i t i c a l : (a) 'delegated representation* - where an agent or spokesman acts on behalf of the principal (lawyers, sales representatives, ambassadors, and spokesmen for pressure groups (b) 'microcosmic representation' -where the rep-resentative shares personal characteristics with the larger group - the representative sample (c) 'symbolic representation* - where the rep-resentative symbolizes some aspect of the identity of a large group (the Queen, the Pope, etc) (d) 'elective representation* - where the rep-resentative is authorized by the larger group to exercise power. (Birch, 05/ 1971, p. 5 et seq) (27) 2.4.2.1 B r i t i s h Theory H i s t o r i c a l l y , Birch notes that the B r i t i s h Parliament and the Assemblies of France r e l i e d upon a system of delegated representation. The English Whigs developed the notion of p o l i t i c a l representation i n response to the b e l i e f that the Parliament ought to be the center of power rather than simply a check on the power of the crown (Birch, 05/1971, p. 9). The French adopted s i m i l a r notions i n the f i r s t revolutionary con-s t i t u t i o n i n which the elected assembly was said to embody the \" w i l l \" of the nation and i n which mandates or i n s t r u c t i o n to representatives were prohibited (Birch, 05/1971, p. 9). Edmund Burke summarized the Whig arguments i n a 1774 address to the electors i n B r i s t o l by saying that the English Parliament was \"not a congress of ambassadors from d i f f e r e n t and h o s t i l e i n t e r e s t , which int e r e s t s each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament i s a deliberate assembly of one nation, with one i n t e r e s t , that of the whole - where not l o c a l purposes, not l o c a l prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, r e s u l t i n g from the general reason of the whole.\" (Pitk i n , 1969, p. 175) Thus Burke describes succinctly the difference between dele-gated and e l e c t i v e representation. 2.4.2.2 American Theory A contrasting notion of e l e c t i v e representation developed i n the United States. Birch points out that Americans did not subscribe to the Whig notion of the supremacy of Parliament. (28) Indeed, the American p o l i t i c a l system developed from \"the radical notion that sovereignty rests with the people and (that) p o l i t i c a l representatives are the peoples' agents\" (Birch, 1971, p. 48). The result is frequent elections, intended to keep Congress accountable - dependent upon the electorate and responsive to the sectional interests of the local level (Birch, 1971, p. 42, 43). What is particularly interesting in this comparison is the promotion of sectional interests in the U.S. while a very similar notion - localism -is feared in Britain. The American Constitution provides for a sheltered chief executive whose responsibility is the interpretation of the national interest. Thus the Americans arrived at a system of elective representation lacking the concept of the indepen-dence of the legislature and being entirely unique in the world with biennial elections (Birch, 1971, p. 81). This fundamental difference in representative institutions might suggest a different approach to the concept for American theorists as opposed to those from Parliamentary systems. 2.4.2.3 P o l i t i c a l experience in Canada The constitutional conventions of the British and Cana-dian systems define the supremacy of Parliament and the responsibility of the individual legislators in terms of a concern for the best interests of the state as a whole. How-ever, this role of the 'elective representative' does not mean that an elective representative may not also act as a (29) representative in one of the other meanings (delegated, microcosmic, or symbolic). By way of il l u s t r a t i o n , i t is currently thought to be a good thing to increase the number of women in Parliament or in the Legislatures to more adequately 'represent' women (microcosmically). An electoral 'mandate' is often sought by a p o l i t i c a l party as part of an election platform. This was the case in the 1979 election campaign of the Alberta Con-servatives in which the party sought a mandate to 'deal with Ottawa on resources'. Their sweep of 90% of the seats in the Legislature suggests that they won that mandate. Winning such a mandate may lead one to assume that the new government would be bound by i t s promises in a manner similar to the way a delegate is bound by his contract with his principal. Such i s , however, not the case as demonstrated by the events surrounding the 1974 federal election in Canada. In this case, the Liberal party platform was strongly opposed to wage and price controls, a proposal supported by the Con-servatives. Shortly after taking office, however, the new Liberal government imposed wage and price controls, an action that caused considerable debate about the 'good faith' of the government. Thus, what appeared to be a mandate, a party plat-form that one might assume lead to the success of the Liberals at the polls and which might also be assumed to be tantamount to an instruction by the electorate, had only the force of influence. (30) 2.4.2.4 Functions of P o l i t i c a l Representation In order to assess the 'representativeness* of a p o l i -t i c a l system, Birch has developed a series of operational definitions of the concept of representation. These are applicable to any system of government that claims to be representative. Birch identifies the main function of p o l i -t i c a l representation as follows: \"1. Popular control: to provide for a degree of popular control over the government. (a) Responsiveness: to ensure that decision makers are responsive to the interest and opinions of the public. (b) Accountability: to provide a way of holding p o l i t i c a l leaders publicly accountable for their actions. (c) Peaceful change: to provide a mech-anism for replacing one set of leaders by another without violence. 2. Leadership: to provide for leadership and responsibility in decision making. (a) Leadership: to provide for the recruitment of p o l i t i c a l leaders and the mobilization of support for them. (b) Responsibility: to encourage p o l i t i c a l leaders to pursue long-term national interests as well as reacting to immediate pressures. 3. System maintenance: to contribute towards the maintenance and smooth running of the p o l i t i c a l system by enlisting the support of citizens. (a) Legitimation: to endow the government with a particular kind of legitimacy. (b) Consent: to provide channels of communi-cation through which the government can mobilize consent to particular policies. (31) (c) Relief of pressure: to provide a safety valve through which aggrieved citizens can blow off steam and to disarm potential revolutionaries by engaging them in constitutional forms of activity.\" (Birch, 1971, p. 107) Birch discusses but does not adequately operationalize these functions. However, for the purposes of this thesis, the following c r i t e r i a should suffice: Responsiveness: Can decision-makers be influenced or controlled before a decision is made? Accountability: Can decision-makers be controlled or influenced by the threat of defeat at '* the next election? Peaceful Change: Can decision-makers be replaced without violence? Leadership: Is there a party system or other mech-anism available to recruit, train and promote leaders? Responsibility: Do leaders have some level of security in office such that they w i l l take the longer view? Legitimation: Are the decision-makers authorized to exercise power in a manner consistent with democratic government principles? Consent: Are the decision-makers able to explain policies and convince the public of their veracity? Relief of Pressure: Is i t possible to adapt the system to co-opt or involve dissenting groups acting outside the system? These c r i t e r i a are consistent with Birch's discussion of the functions of representation (Birch, 1971, p. 107 et seq) although i t cannot be certain that they are exactly what Birch intended. In any case, these c r i t e r i a w i l l serve for the purpose of assessing the representative characteristic of the system of regional planning commissions in Alberta. (32) 3 Evolution of Regional Planning Commissions; Chapter Three 3.01 Introduction This discussion of enabling l e g i s l a t i o n for regional planning i n Alberta follows the development of the province's planning l e g i s l a t i o n from i t s beginning i n the early 1900's. 1 The objective of t h i s chapter i s to i d e n t i f y the origins of regional planning i n Alberta as these are found i n the l e g i s -l a t i o n of the province. Appendix 2 l i s t s the major statutory landmarks of significance for regional planning i n Alberta. Within t h i s chapter, Figures 1 and 2 place the more important enactments within the context of population and employment growth within the province. 3.02 The 1913 Act Planning-specific l e g i s l a t i o n i n Alberta dates from The Town Planning Act of 1913, although p r i o r to that date, the Land T i t l e s Act of 1906 included s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of street and lane widths (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 18). The 1913 Act i s e s s e n t i a l l y a copy of Part II of the B r i t i s h Housing, Town Planning Etc. Act, 1909, although modified to s u i t the l e g a l and administrative circumstances i n Alberta. The 1913 Act 1 Although the Statutes of Alberta form the basis of t h i s Chapter, very useful interpretations and analyses have been provided by David Bettison, John Kenward, and L a r r i e Taylor, i n Urban A f f a i r s i n Alberta. Another excellent source was material prepared for the University of Alberta Department of Exten-sion by Noel Dant, one of Alberta's f i r s t Town Planners, appointed by the City of Edmonton i n 1940 (Ward, 1975, pg 30). The f i r s t d i r e c t o r of the ERPC from 1952-1957, Leonard Gertler, has also written a great deal on thi s subject. (33) i s the f i r s t example of what was to become almost standard practice up to the 1950's, that i s , the incorporation of ideas from planning legislation in the U.K. into Alberta planning law. British-trained planners such as Thomas Adams, John Bland, Harold Spence-Sales and Noel Dant, have helped to transmit those ideas into Planning thought in Alberta. The 1913 Act enabled the preparation and implementation of town planning schemes \"...with the general object of secur-ing suitable provision for t r a f f i c , proper sanitary conditions, amenity and convenience in connection with the laying out of streets and use of the land and of any neighbouring lands for building or other purposes\" 1 (Section 1). Any municipal council interested in using this device could apply to the 2 Minister of Municipal Affairs for permission to prepare a town planning scheme. Once the scheme was prepared i t required the sanction of the Minister to be effective. Amendment or cancellation also required the sanction of the Minister. While the 1913 Act mirrored the 1909 British Statute, there were a few sections that were not found in the original. The most interesting one for this thesis also illustrates the influence of American planning ideas by introducing the 'town planning commission'. Such a commission may have acted as a 'responsible 1 Each reference in this thesis to a specific section of legis-lation is a reference to the Act as amended (as i t existed during the period being discussed) and not to sections of the amending Act. The reference w i l l include only the section involved. 2 This department was set up in 1912 (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 17). (34) authority' as an alternative to the municipal c o u n c i l : \"The Authority to be responsible for the carrying out of a town planning scheme, herein referred to as the \"Responsible Authority\" may be eithe r : (a) The l o c a l authority applying for approval of the scheme; (b) Where land included i n a town planning scheme i s i n the area of more than one l o c a l authority or i n the area of a l o c a l authority by whom the scheme was not prepared, the responsible authority may be one of those a u t h o r i t i e s , or for certai n purposes of the scheme i t may be one l o c a l authority and for certain purposes another l o c a l authority; or (c) A body constituted e s p e c i a l l y for the purposes of the scheme as hereinafter provided and a l l necessary provision may be made by the scheme for constituting such body and giving i t the necessary powers and duties. For the purpose of preparing a town planning scheme and carrying the same into e f f e c t , a l o c a l authority, or the l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s , where more than one i s interested, may singly or j o i n t l y appoint a commission of not less than f i v e , or more than ten members, whose names s h a l l be sub-mitted to the Minister for approval, and upon the approval by the Minister of the scheme, and of the constitution of the commission named therein, the commission thus appointed s h a l l become the responsi-ble authority for carrying the scheme into e f f e c t , to whom s h a l l be delegated a l l the powers conferred by, and for the purposes of thi s Act upon the l o c a l authority\" (Section 2). 3.02.1 Powers of a Responsible Authority The powers of a responsible authority went far beyond the preparation of town planning schemes, and where the responsi-ble authority was a town planning commission, the powers were more extensive than i n any subsequent planning l e g i s l a t i o n i n the province. For example, when approved by the l o c a l (35) municipality and the Minister, the responsible authority was able to raise money by bond issue (Section 2). It also had the power to enforce a scheme by demolishing non-conforming buildings or by undertaking works where necessary (Section 4). In addition, action could be taken as required by the scheme to purchase or expropriate lands. (Section 2). The Act included the compensation and betterment provisions of the 1909 British Act, and here again, the responsible authority was liable for compensation (100% of incurred loss) and entitled to betterment (50% of increase in value) (Section 5) . A town planning commission created by joint municipal action and sanctioned by the Minister would therefore have had exten-sive powers potentially outside of the control of the municipali-ties that created i t . This fact, together with the extensive involvement of the Minister in the process, the financial d i f f i -culties of the compensation/betterment provisions (Wiesman, 1977, p. 6), and the end of the 1911-13 land boom (precipitated by both the war in Europe and the end of European immigration) (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 23) made the Act essentially unusable; a town planning scheme was never prepared nor implemented (Dant, 10/1971, p. 2). Despite this, the 1913 Town Planning Act provided the f i r s t legal framework for regional planning in Alberta. The meaning of 'regional' here is greater-than-municipal. A town planning commission could be considered a regional phenomenon i f i t had been inter-municipal in authority and concerned with urban (36) development spanning more than one municipality. In addition to this regional aspect, the 1913 Act intro-duced an even more fundamental idea to Alberta legislation. The 1913 Town Planning Act can be seen as a clear indication that the province recognized the need to manage urban growth and that this management was a public responsibility. The province was aware that urban growth and development was a product of community investments, not simply the results of investments of land owners or developers. The rights of the community to the benefits of land development were found not only in the betterment provisions of the Town Planning Act, but also in the Unearned Increment Tax Act of 1913. This statute provided for a 5% tax (later 10%) on the increase in value of land (exclusive of improvements) at the time of sale (with certain exemptions f for example, for small agricultural operations) (Section 3). The Unearned Increment Tax Act remained in force from October 1913 until i t was repealed in Ap r i l , 1956. 3.03 The 1929 Act Legislation which f i r s t specifically mentions 'regional planning' was enacted in Alberta as the Town Planning Act of 1929. This statute was based on the 1922 Town Planning Act (a redraft of the 1913 version) and the 1928 Town Planning and Preservation of Natural Beauty Act, both the products of the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) Government which was then in power (Dant, 10/1971, p. 3). (37) 3.03.1 Powers of Planning Authorities The Act enabled a city or a town to appoint a \"Town Planning Commission' charged with preparing and administering 'Official Town Plans', 'O f f i c i a l Schemes* (being proposals for specific public improvements) and zoning by-laws (Section 17). Any municipality could prepare an o f f i c i a l town plan for the 'orderly and convenient' development of i t s municipal t e r r i -tory (Section 19). Thus, any municipality was able to pre-pare and implement o f f i c i a l plans, while c i t i e s and towns alone could delegate this authority to in-house town planning commis-sions. The power to delegate could be extended to any munici-pality i f i t acted jointly with neighbouring municipalities. Two or more adjoining municipalities (including both urban and rural authorities))were able to jointly form a 'Regional Planning Commission' with whatever powers were necessary to 'carry into effect a town planning scheme', except where raising money or expropriating land were concerned (Section 18). The 'regional planning' implied in the statute was physical planning and zoning on a greater-than-municipal scale, similar to the concepts found in the 1913 Act. These regional planning commissions were intended to be supported by contributions from member municipalities in proportion to their tax base (Section 18). According to Bettison, the regional planning commission was consistent with the UFA principle of co-operation although biased in favour of urban municipalities since they carried weight in proportion to their contributions (Bettison et a l , 1971, p. 51). (38) This form of co-operation amongst municipalities was considerably enlarged by another statute, also enacted in 1929. \"An Act Respecting the Union of Municipalities for Certain Purposes\" (The Union of Municipalities Act, 1929, Chapter 48) enabled rural municipalities to collectively administer any of their responsibilities including tax assessment and collection, road works, and indigent r e l i e f . It was possible for co-operating municipalities to delegate supervision of the jointly-administered function or functions to a * committee composed of representatives of the councils' (Section 4). Herein l i e s an interesting difference between committees found in this statute and the commissions of the Town Planning Act of 1929. 3.03.2 Structure of Regional Planning Commissions The members of Town or Regional Planning Commissions were to be appointed by the council for overlapping three year terms (Section 18). Regional planning commissions were to consist of \"not more than three representatives from the j u r i s -diction of each council interested\" (Section 18). There was no specificaiton about who was or was not eligible for appoint-ment as a commission member. The 1929 Town Planning Act remained in effect for twenty years with only minor administrative revisions (Dant, 1971, p. 4). Unhappily, the regional planning provisions of Section 18 of the Act were not ever used; nowhere in Alberta was a regional planning commission established (Dant, 10/1971, (39) p.6). Blamed for this was the unexpected economic collapse of October 1929 (Dant, 10/1971, p. 4), only seven months after the 1929 Act was given Royal assent. 3.04 Alberta's Post-War Growth The post-war development of Alberta, accelerated by the 1947 Leduc O i l Field discovery, has been well documented (Gertler, 1968, p. 89, Marlyn and Nash, 1961, p. 69, Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 87 et seq) and the growth rate has since been maintained. From 1947 to 1956, agricultural productivity rose from 286 million dollars to 368 million dollars. Over the same period, agriculture's share of the province's net value of production dropped from 55% to 25%. The increase in the proportion of productivity was captured by the expanding o i l and gas, manufacturing, and construction industries (Marlyn, 10/1967, pg. 4, 5). Figure 1 illustrates the population growth of the Edmonton region and the province. Figure 2 illustrates the growth in the labour force for the Edmonton region and the province. (Upon each figure i s superimposed the dates of important changes to or redrafts of planning legislation in Alberta). These figures i l l u s t r a t e the dramatic growth of Edmonton, a situation which was duplicated in Calgary. The impact of this tremendous growth surge in Edmonton and Calgary was such that these cit i e s were unable to keep up with develop-ment pressures. In response, the province centralized certain planning controls, placing them in the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his department by amendments to the (40) (41) (42) Town Planning Act which were enacted in 1948 (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 92). 3.04.1 The Bland and Spence-Sales Report The in a b i l i t y of the City of Edmonton to cope with new development proposals within i t s jurisdiction and the threats posed by ad hoc developments on i t s periphery (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 94), prompted retaining Professors John Bland and Harold Spence-Sales1 of McGill University to advise the city. Bland and Spence-Sales foresaw the emergence in the Edmonton area of a metropolitan form of urban development -\"a complex of inter-dependent c i t i e s and towns\" whose emer-gence and integration \"may be more beneficial than the contin-uous expansion of the area of jurisdiction of the City of Edmonton\" (Bland and Spence-Sales, 1949, p. 36). In their report, they noted the possibility of coping with these prob-lems by using a regional planning commission as enabled under the 1929 Act; in this circumstance, however, they considered the commission model found in the 1929 Act inappropriate. Thus the report's authors recommended the establishment of the 'Edmonton District Planning Board' with area municipali-ties as 'constituent members'. The Board would be composed of one person nominated by the Minister of Public Works and one person from each of the constituent members (Bland and 1 Spence-Sales was a veteran of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning in England and his ideas reflect this experience and the British Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 (Wiesman, 1977, p. 7-8). He and Bland toured Canada as provincial planning consultants for CMHC, surveying the planning frame-work across the country (Spence-Sales, 1948). (43) Spence Sales, 1949, p. 38). The Board would exercise planning control in the interests of orderly urbanization. This Board was to be staffed by the Provincial Town Planning Branch and supported by provincial funds with contributions coming as well, from the constituent members (Bland and Spence-Sales, 1949, p. 39). (Appendix 3 contains the relevant excerpts of the Bland and Spence-Sales Report). The model of the regional planning authority that was designed by Bland and Spence-Sales was based on the problems of the urbanizing Edmonton area plus their own notions and perceptions of urban growth and structure from Montreal and England. These issues were seen to involve the City of Edmonton and the immediately surrounding country-side; thus Bland and Spence-Sales referred to the required planning control mecha-nism as 'sub-regional or d i s t r i c t ' control. It does not appear that these controls were intended by the City's consultants to be exercized over the entire extent of the participating muni-c i p a l i t i e s . Instead, Bland and Spence-Sales seem to refer to the area immediately surrounding the City of Edmonton -that area directly affected by the process of urbanization. The point, then, i s that this limited area was considered a sub-regional unit or a 'd i s t r i c t ' . Another matter which should be noted relates to the mem-bership and composition of the proposed District Planning Board as seen by Bland and Spence-Sales. Membership of the proposed Board would have included persons representing the constituent municipalities, and a person nominated by the (44) M i n i s t e r o f P u b l i c Works (most l i k e l y a c i v i l servant) (Bland and Spence-Sales, 1949, p. 38). Thus, the Board was not con-c e i v e d o f as a p u r e l y p o l i t i c a l e n t i t y having o n l y e l e c t e d persons p a r t i c i p a t i n g , but p o t e n t i a l l y as a mix o f m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l l o r s and p r o v i n c i a l c i v i l s e r v a n t s . These, then, are a few p o i n t s t o be noted i n the r e p o r t prepared by Bland and Spence-Sales; they are of a b i d i n g i n t e r -e s t as they have c o l o u r e d the nature of r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g i n A l b e r t a s i n c e t h a t time. 3.05 The Amending A c t of 1950 As a r e s u l t o f the Bland and Spence-Sales r e p o r t presented to C i t y C o u n c i l i n 1949, Edmonton made r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s to the p r o v i n c i a l government f o r l e g i s l a t i v e amendments. These sug-g e s t i o n s were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the s t a t u t e s by amendments i n 1950. 1 The t i t l e o f the A c t was a l t e r e d t o emphasize the inter-dependence o f urban and r u r a l developments; i t became known as the Town and R u r a l P l a n n i n g A c t . Under the amended Act , r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were extended powers t h a t p r e v i o u s l y were a v a i l a b l e o n l y to urban c e n t e r s , i n c l u d i n g the a b i l i t y t o c r e a t e boards w i t h p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y ( S e c t i o n 11). 3.05.1 D i s t r i c t P l a n n i n g Commissions Most important f o r t h i s t h e s i s i s the implementation o f one of the Bland and Spence-Sales recommendations; the 1950 1 There i s no evidence to i l l u m i n a t e the reasons f o r the L e g i s -l a t u r e adopting the Spence-Sales recommendation (verbatim Hansard r e c o r d o f l e g i s l a t i v e debates d i d not begin u n t i l 1971). (45) amending Act gave the Lieutenant Governor in Council (i.e. Cabinet) the power to create a 'dis t r i c t planning commission* upon the request of two or more adjoining municipalities. If the request was granted, an Order-in-Council established the commission, which provided the middle-tier of planning between local and provincial levels as suggested by Bland and Spence-Sales. Also to be set out in the Order were the area included, the form of representation, the financial resources, and regu-lations for organization and transaction of business. The 1950 amendments permitted commissions to be created at the direction of the province where local interest was demonstrated and the need apparent. The new commissions were partly funded by the province, thus reducing the demand on municipal resources (Section 11 b). By contrast, the 1929 Act had provided for a voluntary mechanism for joint planning by co-operating municipalities, funded from local resources. The sections of the 1929 Act enabling joint municipal action etc. were repealed with the 1950 amendments although they reappeared in 1963 (Section 95) following the evolution of d i s t r i c t planning commissions. In order to emphasize the co-operative aspects of d i s t r i c t planning commissions (as one must assume that the government had envisioned them), a commission was prohibited from taking any action that affected a local council i f that council's representative was not present at the meeting in which the action was being discussed 1 (Section 11). Unfortunately, ^This restriction has become customary and persists today, even though the prescription no longer exists. (46) this section made i t possible for a municipality to withdraw participation and prevent a commission from making decisions or taking action affecting i t . This occurred briefly, in fact, in 1951 when the Municipal District of Sturgeon with-drew i t s member over an annexation dispute with the Edmonton District Planning Commission and the Town of Beverly (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 134). Another section of the statute, however, was available to prevent a concerted effort to subvert d i s t r i c t planning commissions: \"If a municipality f a i l s or neglects to comply with an order providing for i t s participation in a District Planning Commission, the Minister shall give notice of the default by publishing i t in The Alberta Gazette and may thereupon authorize the Commission to act on behalf of the defaulting municipality.\" (Section 11 e) 3.05.2 Powers of District Planning Commissions District planning commissions were authorized by the 1950 Act to advise on planning matters that were of inter-municipal or municipal-provincial concern (although exactly who was to be advised was not specified). They could also prepare 'general plans' and zoning by-laws for municipal councils of ' o f f i c i a l schemes' for two or more concerned municipalities, thus providing planning expertise to small councils or groups of councils who could not otherwise afford these services. A d i s t r i c t planning commission was charged with promoting public interest in \u00E2\u0080\u00A2d i s t r i c t or regional planning'. Commissions also had author-i t y to exercise other powers that might have been delegated to (47) them by the Cabinet or by member councils (Section 11 c). District planning commissions, then, were essentially advisory, and relied upon the cooperation of member municipalities for their success. The f i r s t d i s t r i c t planning commission was established in the Edmonton area in 1950 - the Edmonton District Planning Commission - (Minutes, EDPC, 10/07/1950), presumably initiated by the City of Edmonton and a neighbouring municipality. Although the structure and authority of d i s t r i c t planning commissions has changed significantly since 1950, this was the beginning of the continuous existence of regional planning authorities in the province of Alberta. Map 1 shows the loca-tion and jurisdiction of existing regional planning commissions in Alberta and the dates of their creation. 3.05.3 Composition of District Planning Commissions The 1950 Act did not specify the composition of a d i s t r i c t planning commission. This was to be spelled out by the Cabinet in the Order-in-Council that created the commission. Guide-lines for membership, however, are contained in the Act: \"The District Planning Commission shall consist of: (a) such number of members to be appointed by and to represent each of the munici-palities as may be provided for in the order establishing the Commission; and (b) not more than three members representing the Province and appointed by the Provin-c i a l Planning Advisory Board\". (Section 11 b) (48) yi AP L (49) In the Edmonton D i s t r i c t Planning Commission, each municipality had one representative, and i n addition, three p r o v i n c i a l departments were represented. Although most municipalities i n the EDPC were represented by council mem-bers, the City of Edmonton was represented u n t i l 1953 by o f f i c i a l s of i t s town planning s t a f f . This was possible because i n the Act, the membership c r i t e r i a was not s p e c i f i c for municipal representation. The following i s an excerpt from the minutes of the Edmonton D i s t r i c t Planning Commission held on July 10, 1950 i n the L e g i s l a t i v e Buildings. I t can be seen from the minutes that a commission was conceived as consisting of the major urban center, the surrounding r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and the more important towns and v i l l a g e s i n the area, almost exactly as had been recommended by Bland and Spence-Sales. As w e l l , the Province was represented by i t s Planning Director from the Department of Public Works and representatives of the Departments of Municipal A f f a i r s and Education. Public Works, (later to be known as Highways) and Municipal A f f a i r s had long been a c t i v e l y involved i n planning matters, while Education became involved presumably because of i t s i n t e r e s t i n student populations and school l o c a t i o n / \"The meeting opened at 2:15 p.m. under the provisionalchairmanship of J.H. Holloway, Director of Town and Rural Planning. The following municipalities and government departments were represented as below: The City of Edmonton, Mr. Weisman ( s i c ) , s u b stituting for Mr. Dant; (50) The Municipal D i s t r i c t of Sturgeon, Mr. Walters, substituting for Mr. Rowswell; The Municipal D i s t r i c t of Strathcona, Mr. Mover; The Municipal D i s t r i c t of Stony Plan, Mr. Evjen; The Municipal D i s t r i c t of Leduc, Mr. Zeiner; The Town of Fort Saskatchewan, Mr. Rocque; The Town of Beverly, Mr. Payne; The V i l l a g e of Jasper Place, Mr. Stone; The Town of Devon, Mr. Stover, substituting for Mr. Powell; The Town of M o r i n v i l l e , Mr. Labonte, sub-s t i t u t i n g for Mr. Soataert; Department of Municipal A f f a i r s , Mr. Potts; Department of Education, Dr. Swift; Department of Public Works, Mr. Holloway. (The) Town of St. Albert and the Municipal D i s t r i c t of Mor i n v i l l e were not represented.\" (Minutes, EDPC,-10/07/50) As far as representatives of the province are concerned, for the f i r s t three years the chairman of the Edmonton D i s t r i c t Planning Commission was a c i v i l servant. In fa c t , for the f i r s t two, the chairman was the Director of Town and Rural Planning who was also an ex o f f i c i o executive member of the Pr o v i n c i a l Planning Advisory Board (Section 57). The l i m i t of three c i v i l servants who may be appointed to a d i s t r i c t planning commission was dropped i n a minor amendment i n 1952 (Section 11 b); as a r e s u l t , the Edmonton D i s t r i c t Planning Commission had four or f i v e members representing the Province from 1952 to 1956. The following are the members representing the Province for the 1953-54 year: \"Department of Municipal A f f a i r s . . . H.M. Lash P r o v i n c i a l Government J.H. Holloway Department of Education J.F. Swan Department of Agriculture R.M. Putnam Department of Highways C.W. Lester\" (Annual Report, EDPC, 1954) (51) The member representing, the 'provincial government' i s the executive member of the P r o v i n c i a l Planning Advisory Board - the same in d i v i d u a l who had represented Public Works. Public Works became the new Department of Highways. Figure 3 traces departmental representation on the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission from 1950. A popular explanation for the i n c l u s i o n of c i v i l servants i n commission membership i s that the Province was eager to see d i s t r i c t planning commissions get o f f on the proper f o o t i n g . 1 By providing c i v i l service expertise i n planning and related f i e l d s within the commissions, the Province was more able to ensure adequate professional competence i n the 2 preparation of plans by the commission (Dant, Marlyn,etc, interviews, 1978). In t h i s respect, the Edmonton D i s t r i c t Planning Commission seems to have f u l f i l l e d that aim. In May of 1951, an o v e r a l l plan for the 'metropolitan area* was being discussed. One year l a t e r , the commission had adopted an \"Outline General Plan' based on the e a r l i e r proposals. This plan covered the City of Edmonton and i t s immediate v i c i n i t y - the area covered being equivalent to what Bland 1 Exactly what the province wanted from the commissions was not cl e a r , One can assume that the intent was to implement the Bland and Spence-Sales recommendations; however, t h i s was not a r t i c u l a t e d (Wiesman, 1979). After i t s creation, a commission charted i t s own course. 2 A more pessimistic view suggests that the province placed c i v i l servants i n d i s t r i c t planning commissions to cope with the competition between l o c a l authorities i n planning matters (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 97) (52) THE- \u00C2\u00A3 - / L P C &-(T>LE^ \"~ tie. PucVrtUce. MUMICIPAL Armas \u00C2\u00A3t>U CAT IDKj As C H i . 1 * t \u00C2\u00A3 Est ]/l K. ON Mi\u00C2\u00A3 MT L AS) VI $rt>ZS$TS / fecifE ATietl filKief f Ml LP LIFE. '1. -f- h 1 \u00C2\u00B05C>0 1 e\u00C2\u00BB7 o \u00E2\u0080\u00A246- IMDICAT^ \u00C2\u00A3HA>J&)~ T>ePA KT MthJT A L. SlMME. (53) and Spence-Sales referred to as the Edmonton ' d i s t r i c t ' . The plan was intended to be used as an interim control measure over urban development and was to be replaced by a series of more s p e c i f i c plans for the 'evolving general plan' for the whole metropolitan area (Minutes, EDPC, 16/05/51, 9/04/52). 3.06 The Evolution of Planning L e g i s l a t i o n from 1913 to 1950 - A Summary The concept of regional planning existed i n embryonic form i n the 1913 statute. L i t t l e development of the idea took place u n t i l 1950, when s p e c i f i c i n i t i a t i v e s were made by the City of Edmonton. 3.06.1 Regional Plans Over t h i s period, the precursor of a regional plan began i n 1913 as a greater-than-municipal 'town planning scheme'. This form remained through the new Act of 1929 u n t i l 1950 when i t became ' o f f i c i a l scheme of development'. 3.06.2 Regional Authorities 3.06.2.1 Composition; The authority responsible for regional planning began as a j o i n t l y appointed 'town planning commission' i n 1913 created by cooperating m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . A town planning commission could have consisted of from f i v e to ten members appointed by each p a r t i c i p a t i n g council subject to the Minister's approval. The 1929 Act changed the name to 'regional (54) planning commission' and enabled cooperating councils to create a commission by by-law with the Minister's approval. A commission would have consisted of up to three representatives from each municipality. In 1950, the Cabinet was empowered to create 'd i s t r i c t planning commissions *, to which member municipali-ties could appoint the number of representatives as directed by Cabinet. Additionally, up to three rep-resentatives could be appointed by the Provincial Planning Advisory Board to represent the province. 3.06.2.2 Powers; A joint town planning commission created under the 1913 Act would have had a l l the powers avail-able to a municipality under that Act. In the 1929 Act, these powers were reduced to whatever powers were needed except raising money or expropriating land. In the 1950 amendments, powers were more closely defined - limited to advice and assistance for planning matters and promotion of public inter-est in planning, although Cabinet could delegate other powers to a commission. 3.06.2.3 Finance: Under the 1913 Act, a commission would have had the power to raise i t s own money in the same manner as a municipality. The financial basis changed in 1929 with commissions relying on contributions from municipalities in proportion to the tax base. In 1950, municipal contributions were specified by the Cabinet and supplemented by funds from the province. (55) 3.07 The 1953 A c t F o l l o w i n g the f i r s t years o f experience w i t h the new mechanisms i n t r o d u c e d i n the amendments o f 1950, the p l a n n i n g l e g i s l a t i o n i n A l b e r t a was completely r e d r a f t e d i n 1953 (Dant, 10/1971, p. 7). D i s t r i c t p l a n n i n g commissions r e t a i n e d the power t o advise a m u n i c i p a l i t y on m u n i c i p a l , i n t e r - m u n i c i -p a l or m u n i c i p a l - p r o v i n c i a l i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o 'planning and o r d e r l y development*, the advice to be s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d a t the m u n i c i p a l i t y ( S e c t i o n 14). A commission continued t o be a b l e to prepare g e n e r a l p l a n s and r e l a t e d by-laws as a s e r v i c e t o member m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 3.07.1 New Powers o f D i s t r i c t P l a n n i n g Commissions A new r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was added as d i s t r i c t p l a n n i n g commis-s i o n s were to \"study the resources and development of the d i s -t r i c t p l a n n i n g area w i t h a view to p r e p a r i n g a g e n e r a l p l a n f o r the area\" ( S e c t i o n 14). Although the mandate to prepare r e g i o n a l plans was worded i n a remarkably clumsy manner, the i n t e n t i o n was c l e a r t h a t such a p l a n be based upon the r e a l i -t i e s o f e x i s t i n g development and on the resources o f the a r e a . I t i s , of course, i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t the Edmonton D i s t r i c t P l a n n i n g Commission had a l r e a d y prepared and adopted an 'Out-l i n e General P l a n ' f o r Edmonton and v i c i n i t y which had the support of a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s on the commission (Minutes, EDPC, 09/04/52). A l s o c o n t a i n e d i n the 1953 A c t was an amended v e r s i o n of a s e c t i o n found i n the 1950 Act which allowed p l a n n i n g commissions to e x e r c i s e c e r t a i n powers t h a t (56) may have been delegated from the province or from a member municipality. In June, 1953, the Edmonton and Calgary District Planning Commissions were delegated the province's powers of subdivi-sion control 1 (Dant, 10/1971, p. 7), which could be exercised throughout the d i s t r i c t planning area (except for the areas within the ci t i e s of Edmonton and Calgary where the local Technical Planning Boards exercised subdivision control (Dant, 11/1971, p. 4). The status of subdivision approving authority gave these commissions implementation and control powers that could be used to work toward what had become known as the 'evolving general plan'. This status also facilitated greater contact between a d i s t r i c t planning commission and the region's municipalities. 3.07.2 Commission Membership Another change introduced in the 1953 Act was the c l a r i -fication of vague membership c r i t e r i a for municipal representa-tion. A council, by resolution, could appoint i t s representa-tives only from members of the council. Prior to the 1953 Act, i t appeared that anyone could qualify for membership. With this change, the City of Edmonton was no longer able to send i t s staff planners to the d i s t r i c t planning commission 1 By 1953, three d i s t r i c t planning commission had been established: the Edmonton, Calgary and Red Deer District Planning Commissions. Of these, Edmonton and Calgary were the predominant metropolitan centers of the province. (57) and so a council member was appointed. The absence of a municipal representative no longer prevented action by a commission under the 1953 Act. Pre-viously a member's absence halted a l l a c t i v i t y by the commis-sion that affected the municipality he represented. The dropping of that r e s t r i c t i o n also made i t possible for a commission to exercise i t s powers i n member municipalities who did not have a representative on the commission. The Order-in-Council establishing a commission s p e c i f i e d those municipalities who were to be represented on a d i s t r i c t planning commission and, independently, that area within which a d i s t r i c t planning commission could exercise i t s powers (Section 11). This change was evidenced by changes i n membership i n the Edmonton D i s t r i c t Planning Commission. In 1955, three munici-p a l i t i e s were included i n the l i s t of members i n the EDPC Annual Report with the accompanying note, \"no permanent representative appointed\" (EDPC, Annual Report, 1955/56). While these munici-p a l i t i e s were under EDPC j u r i s d i c t i o n , they had no d i r e c t voice i n the ongoing a f f a i r s of the Commission. (This issue was addressed i n amendments i n 1957 - See 3.08.4). 3.07.3 The Cooperation of Mu n i c i p a l i t i e s Under The 1953 Act The continuing p r o v i n c i a l philosophy behind inter-munici-pal planning was that municipalities were p a r t i c i p a t i n g volun-t a r i l y i n a s p i r i t of co-operation (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 131). However the success of d i s t r i c t planning commissions' planning e f f o r t s was compromised by the deep-rooted philosophy of the (58) government to respect the autonomy of local authorities. Where the wishes of a local council and a d i s t r i c t planning commission were in conflict, the local council was usually able to achieve i t s goals in the end (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 131). For example, the Provincial Planning Advisory Board - as the appeal authority in the province - maintained a policy of granting appeals on subdivision proposals that had the support of the local council. The province did not appear to recognize the fact that a d i s t r i c t planning commission was composed primarily of local council representatives. Decisions of a commission could therefore be considered decisions of local councils. (On the other hand, the commission was not 'pure' in that regard, as there were c i v i l servant members). When the Municipal District of Strathcona met s t i f f opposi-tion from the Edmonton District Planning Commission in 1954 for a 'new town' proposal that was not permitted in the Commis-sion's Outline General Plan, i t petitioned the government for withdrawl from the Commission. The Act did not provide for this circumstance - stating that, upon application by a muni-cipality (and with support of the Board), Cabinet could amend an Order-in-Council establishing a commission so as to \"provide for the representation of the municipality on a commission, or alter the d i s t r i c t planning area...\" (Section 13). When Strathcona petitioned the province, the Minister of Muni-cipal Affairs and his Deputy were out of town. The Attorney General was available and he interpreted the Act permissively and recommended approval of Strathcona's withdrawl request. (59) Strathcona remained outside of the EDPC from August, 1954 to August, 1956 during which time the municipality secured the approval of their new town of Sherwood Park (Giffen, interview). As a result of this and other concerns about urban growth in the province, the government appointed a Royal Commission on Metropolitan Development of Edmonton and Calgary in 1954 (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 97). The McNally Commission, as i t was known, reported in 1956, making recommendations to the government that were subsequently enacted in the legislative amendments of 1957 (Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 192). Not sur-prisingly, the Royal Commission concluded that: \"The enforcement of a general plan, whether inter-or intra-municipal, thus depends entirely on the willingness of the municipality or the Provincial Planning Board to enforce i t . Since the policy of the Board is not to overrule the municipality, in practice the control of the spread of subdivisions into rural areas depends entirely on the willing-ness of the individual municipality\". (McNally Commission, in Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 131) The McNally Commission was convinced that \"there can be no orderly development in any area (where) ... the dissent of one member municipality alone could disrupt the entire (dis-t r i c t ) plan\" (Alberta, 1956). Thus they stated that \"the time has come to amend the legislation to authorize enforce-ment of a d i s t r i c t general plan\" (McNally Commission, in Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 135). (60) 3.08 The Amending A c t o f 1957 The 1957 l e g i s l a t i o n was a major milestone f o r r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g i n A l b e r t a . By then, the system's b a s i c dilemna had been r e c o g n i z e d - the s p l i t between p l a n p r e p a r a t i o n and p l a n implementation ( G e r t l e r , 1960, p. 84). While i t i s even now q u i t e common f o r a p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y to have the power and r e s o u r c e s necessary to prepare p l a n s , i t i s the e x c e p t i o n f o r i t t o have the power to ensure t h a t such p l a n s are f o l l o w e d . T h i s i s s u e was addressed i n the 1957 amendments. 3.08.1 The D i s t r i c t General P l a n The 1957 amendments added a completely new p a r t to the A c t . 1 I t d e f i n e d a s t r u c t u r e d formula f o r the \" d i s t r i c t g e n e r a l p l a n \" which a \"commission s h a l l prepare and adopt...to secure the o r d e r l y and economical development o f the d i s t r i c t p l a n n i n g area as a whole\" ( S e c t i o n 101). The 'area as a whole' r e f -erence i s an e x p l i c i t expansion o f the p l a n n i n g f u n c t i o n from an ' o f f i c i a l scheme of development' or the g e n e r a l p l a n f o r the area o f the 1950 and 1953 A c t s . A d i s t r i c t g e n e r a l p l a n \" s h a l l d i v i d e the d i s t r i c t p l a n n i n g a r e a . . . i n t o zones o f per-m i t t e d l a n d uses, d e f i n e p e r m i t t e d uses f o r each zone, s p e c i f y stages of development f o r each zone, p r o h i b i t c o n t r a r y develop-ment, and propose v a r i o u s p u b l i c works\" ( S e c t i o n 101). Nine s p e c i f i c zones were d e f i n e d i n the A c t i n c o n s i d e r a b l e d e t a i l , although a commission had the o p t i o n of u s i n g the zones from the A c t o r d e f i n i n g zones of i t s own (Section 99). \"''Complex s t a t u t e s are o f t e n d i v i d e d i n t o p a r t s ( M i l n e r , p. 164, i n Lane, 1975, p. XI-2) and A l b e r t a ' s P l a n n i n g Acts are no e x c e p t i o n . (61) An interim device called a preliminary d i s t r i c t plan was required while the d i s t r i c t general plan was being pre-pared. It was to include a map of the d i s t r i c t planning area (or a part of it) divided into zones, and a schedule of con-trolled uses (Section 114). Clearly, the province had some pre-conceived notions about what sort of plan would be produced, and that was a broad brush, zoning-style plan which would be used to manage the physical development of the region. The requirements for both preliminary d i s t r i c t plans and d i s t r i c t general plans applied to any d i s t r i c t planning commis-sions which had within i t a municipality whose population exceeded 50,000 people (Section 100). Of the five commissions existing in 1957, only the Edmonton and Calgary Commissions met this c r i t e r i a , although Cabinet had the power to specify others upon recommendation of the Provincial Planning Advisory Board (Section 100). 3.08.1.1 Plan Adoption Following the completion of a preliminary d i s t r i c t plan, a commission was able to adopt i t by a 2/3 majority vote (Section 113, 115, 116). Once adopted, a preliminary d i s t r i c t plan was to be respected by a l l member municipalities; 1 in fact, contradictory by-laws were to be made to conform (Section 117). 1 The District Planning Part of the Act applied to a \"municipality and the council of a municipality represented on\" the commission (Section 100). Thus, non-represented municipalities were not bound. The conception of representation was therefore important in the operation of the d i s t r i c t general plan. (62) While the interim plan was in force, a commission was required to prepare the d i s t r i c t general plan. Adoption procedures for d i s t r i c t general plans were la i d out in the Act as well, although these were more complicated than those required for the interim plans (See Figure 4). The commission was required to adopt the plan by a 2/3 majority vote, and in addition, advertise the adoption, hold a public hearing, and fi n a l l y , to confirm the plan's i n i t i a l adoption by another 2/3 majority vote (Sections 103-107). Upon being confirmed, the plan was binding on a l l municipalities represented on the commission and on a l l school, health, hospital and other similar local authorities having jurisdiction in the d i s t r i c t planning area (Section 109, 112). It was, of course, possible for a commission to amend a d i s t r i c t general plan or preliminary plan. However, amendments could also be initiated by third parties, that i s , \"a person or a council\" (Section 118). Procedure for an amendment was the same as for adoption of the original d i s t r i c t general plan or preliminary d i s t r i c t plan (Section 119). 3.08.1.2 The Appeal Process The power of a d i s t r i c t planning commission to impose a plan upon a municipality (or any other local authority) within the region appears, on the surface, to be a remarkable departure from the previous stance of the province whereby the tradition of local autonomy in Alberta was respected. However, a commis-sion was composed by and large of municipal representatives, so (63) Vf&7-/Z>\u00C2\u00A3T \u00C2\u00A3>E;AJ \u00C2\u00A3 A**- PL.A*^ 1 AT>ofr-r*\u00C2\u00A3 T>1 3-ri?i B.ACH CO n.AJ_ i __ *0 P cS- 1 1 ) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 l<9&>0 197D (68) small municipalities: \"The order (establishing a commission) may provide that two or more municipalities shall be rep-resented on the commission by the same member who shall be appointed by the councils of those municipalities, jointly or in rotation as the order may prescribe\". (Section 12) This provision made i t possible for several small municipali-ties to be o f f i c i a l l y represented by a voting member. This regularized a situation in the Edmonton District Planning Commission, where, since 1955, three municipalities had been members without specific representatives. Figure 5 also illustrates the number of municipalities indirectly represented in this fashion on the EDPC. 3.09 The Amending Act of 1958 In this short amendment, given assent in April of 1958, the province reduced the membership possibilities for civ i c o f f i c i a l s . Provided the f i r s t representative was a council member, others could be \"a resident of the municipality who is not a municipal o f f i c i a l , or in the case of a mun-ic i p a l i t y other than a city or town, the secretary-treasurer of the municipality\". (Section 86) It appears that the possibility of having municipal staff s i t t i n g as members of a d i s t r i c t planning commission was intolerable. It is not particularly clear why municipal staff were excluded from membership when provincial depart-ment staff were members representing the province. Practically speaking, since the only municipalities in the province with (69) multiple commission membership were c i t i e s , this provision was superfluous as i t only referred to those other than ci t i e s or towns. 3.10 The Amending Act of 1959 A section introduced with the 1959 amendments adds a revealing statement of provincial philosophy on planning legislation in Alberta: \"The purpose of this Act i s to provide means whereby municipalities, either singly or jointly, may plan for orderly and economical development without infringing on the rights of land owners except to the extent that is necessary, for the greater public interest, to obtain orderly development and use of land in the province\". (Section 2 a) This section clearly stated that planning was conceived of as . the business of local government; Municipalities acting alone, or supposedly together in d i s t r i c t planning commissions, were responsible for the physical planning of the province, bound only by the limitations imposed by property rights in their quest for the greater public interest. The unspoken implica-tion was that the province had l i t t l e interest in planning or at least was not to be expected to lead the way, and by associa-tion, that local goals were rather more important. Also amended in 1959 was the adoption procedure for pre-liminary d i s t r i c t plans. Whereas from 1957 a preliminary d i s t r i c t plan came into effect upon adoption by the commission, such a plan would thereafter require the approval of the Provin-c i a l Planning Advisory Board (Section 117). Amendments to a (70) plan also required Board approval before they took effect (Section 119). This provincial supervision of d i s t r i c t planning commissions' plan making powers appears, inter-estingly, to be contrary to the tone of the 'purpose' section just described. At the end of 1961, the Minister established terms of reference for the review and redrafting of the Act (Dant, 10/1971, p. 8). The terms of reference included a revealing expression of the Government's attitude towards delegation of authority to non-elected o f f i c i a l s : \"At the local and regional levels, a l l planning decisions shall be made by the elected authorities and their decision making powers may be delegated to appointed officers only within the terms of Provincial Planning Board rules and regulations which cover clean-cut 'yes' or 'no' situations or where the exercise of discretion in decision making is covered by specific and explicit limi-tations\" . (Dant, 11/1971, p. 2) This policy statement has influenced the operation of planning offices since that date (for example, in subdivision approvals) and has resulted in further changes in the legis-lation. 3.11 The Act Of 1963 The new statute, enacted in 1963, was called The Planning Act. It contained some important changes for regional planning in Alberta as well as several changes of lesser significance that nonetheless il l u s t r a t e the development of regional planning in the province. For example, the 'purpose' clause of the Act (71) was redefined: \"The purpose of this Act is to provide means whereby plans and related measures may be prepared and adopted to achieve the orderly and economical development of land within the province without infringing on the rights of individuals except to the extent that is necessary for the greater public interest\". (Section 3) The implied restrictions of planning to municipalities found in the 1959 version was dropped in recognition of other plan-making agencies such as regional planning commissions or, for that matter, the Provincial Planning Branch of the Department of Municipal Affairs. A more important change was the new name for the d i s t r i c t planning commissions - they were to be called 'regional planning commissions' and were responsible for the preparation of 'regional plans' in place of the former d i s t r i c t plans (Section 14). This name change signified an awareness of the regional character these commissions had acquired - a fact that had already been recognized in the literature (See Gertler, 1960, or Marlyn and Lash, 1961), and shook off the semantics derived from the days of Bland and Spence-Sales. 3.11.1 Changes in Regional Planning The provision for preparation of regional plans was not mandatory in the 1963 Act as i t had been under the 1957 amend-ments. Whereas the 1957 amendments stated categorically that a d i s t r i c t planning commission \"shall prepare and adopt a d i s t r i c t general plan...of the d i s t r i c t planning area as a whole\" LThis had not applied to a l l commissions - see 3.08.1. (72) (Section 101), the 1963 Act stated that a commission \"may resolve to prepare and adopt a regional plan for the whole or such parts of the regional planning area as are specified in the resolution.\" Thus while a l l commissions had the oppor-tunity to prepare regional plans, they were not bound to do so. The option of preparing these plans was couched in terms of a duty, however, in another section. Specifically, one of the stated functions of a regional planning commission was \"to prepare a preliminary regional plan for the purposes of development control during the period of preparation of a regional plan\" (Section 14). Another was \"to study the resources and development of the regional planning area, with a view to preparing a regional plan\" (Section 14). The drafting of these provisions exemplifies an irresolute approach of the province to the issues of regional planning, and is probably one of the reasons for the lack of performance in regional plan preparation characteristic of regional planning commissions. As was the case in 1957, should a regional planning commis-sion opt to prepare a regional plan, the Act stated \"the commis-sion shall prepare and adopt a preliminary regional play by which development shall be governed...by the regions' munici-p a l i t i e s \" (Section 71). The adoption process i s illustrated in Figure 6. After either a regional or a preliminary regional plan had been adopted by the commission by a 2/3 majority vote, the plan required approval of the Provincial Planning Board before i t had any effect (Section 78), a step initiated in (73) A V o P n&hj Pp. ee, B ' <_3 <_> \"3 P \u00C2\u00A3r<& >Ot^/ Ai- Pi~A*J Pi. A SOrtO^j At- Pi-AK/ > VftAFT- PS4.ID*JAi* PLA^t f/K\u00C2\u00A3PARAj> *^ KPC- 3C? Z ^ V - r A/on_._ or H \u00E2\u0080\u0094 PtfDWS.IDMAUl.Y APT~ PPc K PC COK/* ivea.s P*. &OAR.l> CotJ 5 Pi.AKJ Apcnoisei PP C 6.ft/&-$ K/OT7CS. -rt*IAT P. PC pRiPATisi PPC Give* so zMyy AVOPT Pi~A KPcZ A-POPT* PlAMMMtt* &OAX.5) APPKOVS* Pn\u00C2\u00A3UM WAX.* ^E^/OA/AL. w \u00C2\u00A3 . o r > i \u00C2\u00A3 $ OF PLAH'Z A\tze. Fort. PU6L.><^_ (74) 1959. This p a r t i c u l a r provision i s curious i n l i g h t of the terms of reference established by the Minister for the writing of t h i s Act. The Minister had required that major decisions be made by elected o f f i c i a l s , as opposed to non-elected o f f i c i a l s , such as the people who make up the Pr o v i n c i a l Planning Board. This reticence of the province to delegate complete authority to adopt a regional plan may however, have been due to another change i n the Act: \"(1) When a regional plan comes into e f f e c t the com-mission s h a l l give notice thereof to any public authority having j u r i s d i c t i o n within the regional planning area. (2) Upon receiving a notice i n accordance with sub-section (1), each public authority having j u r i s d i c t i o n within the regional planning area s h a l l thenceforth r e f r a i n from enacting any by-law, taking any action, or undertaking any work or any construction project that c o n f l i c t s with or i s inconsistent with the regional plan.\" (Section 80) Thus a regional plan bound a l l public authorities which were defined i n the Act as including: \"...a Minister of the Crown and any council, school board, hospital board or other public body with power to use or develop land for public or com-munity purposes;\" (Section 2 (0) ) There can be no doubt that the intention was that a regional plan was to have the force of law - a l l a c t i v i t y touched by a regional plan that lay within the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n (75) of the province would have been affected by such a plan. By requiring provincial sanction through the Board, a regional plan would thus have been considered acceptable to the province as a guide for a l l development activity and land use within the region. If a regional plan was unac-ceptable to the province, the Board's approval could have been withheld. Provincial action contrary to an approval plan may not have been prohibited, but would li k e l y have caused con-siderable p o l i t i c a l opposition. While a regional plan would have bound a l l public authori-ties, a preliminary regional plan would have bound only munici-pal councils. Zoning and other by-laws, a municipality's general plan and, \"any action taken or powers exercised by a council... shall be in conformity with any preliminary regional plan or regional plan that i s being prepared or has been adopted...\" (Section 91). This is an extension of the control of such a plan over munici-pal action (as was found in the 1957 amendments) to include the period of preparation of the plan. The Act did not, however, contain direction to a council to amend existing by-laws or a general plan already in place, as was specifically stated for regional plans elsewhere (Section 79) and as had been stated in the 1957 Act (Section 117). \u00E2\u0080\u00A2*\"The Planning Act does not ex p l i c i t l y state that the Crown is bound by the provisions of the Act as is required by the Interpretation Act: \"No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty's rights or perogatives in any manner unless i t is expressly stated therein that Her Majesty is bound thereby.\" (Section 13) (76) Once a plan was in place, the procedures used for amend-ments and appeals in the 1963 Act were essentially unchanged from those outlined in 1957, except in one respect. Previously, i t had been possible for an individual to apply for amendments and launch appeals; the 1963 Act, however, eliminated that option. Only councils had the right to apply for amendment of the plan, (Section 82) while any public authority (including councils) had the right to. launch appeals against objectionable provisions of the plan (Sections 80, 85). In order to ensure that a plan remain relevant, i t was required that i t be completely reviewed every five years (Section 83). Finally, the Act stated that: \"no person is entitled to compensation by reason of the adoption or the carrying out of a provi-sion of a regional plan or preliminary regional plan...\" (Section 92). Although this prohibition concerning compensation had existed since at least 1953, i t had related only to local by-laws (Section 86 of 1953 Act). Its inclusion in the part of the Act dealing with regional plans gives recognition to the potential impact of these plans on individual property owners. This section reinforces the pre-eminent position of the regional community and rejects the concept of an unlimited or unbridled right-to-develop flowing with the t i t l e of land. 3.11.2 Other Changes in the Act: Powers and Membership The 1963 Act contained a few other changes respecting the (77) powers and composition of regional planning commissions. The Provincial Planning Board was added as an agency that could delegate powers to regional planning commissions (Section 14). Regional planning commissions retained subdivision approving authority (a delegated power) for their regions as well as the powers of studying the region, advising local councils and preparing plans on their behalf, and promoting public interest in planning (Section 14). As was previously the case, the expenses of a regional planning commission were met by funds from i t s constituent municipalities and contributions from the Province, once i t s budget had been approved by the Provincial Planning Board (Section 10, 11). A chance of more significance in the 1963 Act was found in membership c r i t e r i a . The Act contained the following speci-fications : \"Where a municipality is represented by one member, that member shall be a member of the municipal council. Where a municipality is represented by more than one member, one member shall be a member of the municipal council and any other member may be (a) a member of the council, or (b) a resident of the municipality who is not a municipal o f f i c i a l . \" (Section 11) Thus, the potential that existed since 1958 for the appointment of the secretary-treasurer as a representative of certain mun-ic i p a l i t i e s was eliminated. (78) 3.12 The Evolution of Planning Legislation from 1950 to 1963 -A Summary 3.12.2 Regional Plans 3.12.1.1 Purpose; The purpose of a regional plan as implied by the circumstances surrounding the 1950 Act was to guide and control the process of urban growth in Alberta's metropolitan areas. This continued in the new Act of 1953, although the regional plan was referred to as 'a general plan for the area'. Specific detail f i r s t appeared in the 1957 amendments when the 'distr i c t gen-eral plan' was intended for 'orderly and economical development' of the entire planning area including regional zoning and use designation, development stan-dards and sequencing and proposals for capital works. A 'preliminary d i s t r i c t plan' was required to guide and control development in the interim. 1963 saw regional plans named as such but otherwise unchanged from the intentions of the 1957 Act. 3.12.1.2 Enactment: Procedures for enactment of regional plans were not defined in either 1950 or 1953. However in 1957, plans became mandatory, proceeding through a process which included referrals, public hearings and eventual adoption. Amendments moved through the same process. In 1959 an adopted plan required Provincial Planning Board approval. This system remained essen-t i a l l y unchanged in the 1963 Act. (79) 3.12.1.3 Effect: A regional plan as i t existed in 1950 and 1953 was intended to guide urban development. Where a plan existed, i t s effect rested on cooperation among regional municipalities. In 1957, the regional plan was greatly strengthened by the requirement that local councils and other local authorities conform to the plan. This requirement could be enforced by the Board upon appeal by a commission. In 1963, the authorities bound by an approved plan included, i f only t a c i t l y , the province. In addition, subdivi-sions came under explicit control of a regional or preliminary plan. 3.12.2 The Regional Authority 3.12.2.1 Composition: In 1950, regional authorities -'di s t r i c t planning commissions * were created by Order-in-Council. Commission members were appointed by each municipal council, with up to three members appointed by the Board to represent the province. In 1953, mun-ic i p a l representatives were restricted to members of council while the limit of three provincial representa-tives was removed. In 1957 i t became possible for smaller municipalities to share a member on the commis-sion. Otherwise, municipal representatives could include o f f i c i a l s or residents of the municipality, although in 1958 o f f i c i a l s were no longer able to par-ticipate. Membership c r i t e r i a remained unchanged in 1963. (80) 3.12.2.2 Powers: In 1950 a regional authority was charged with advising and assisting member municipalities and promoting public interest in planning. Additionally, a regional authority could have other powers as delegated by Cabinet. Added to these in 1953 was the power to study the resources and development of the region and the implied power to prepare a 'general plan for the area'. In 1953, subdivision approving authority was delegated to commissions by Cabinet. In 1957, prepara-tion of a 'di s t r i c t general plan' and an interim 'pre-liminary d i s t r i c t plan* became a mandatory responsibility. Once adopted, the plans of a commission could be enforced by appeal to the Board. Commissions also gained the power to arbitrate inter-municipal disputes that were referred to i t . In 1963, regional plans were not speci-f i c a l l y required although this was one of a commission's responsibilities. Otherwise, powers remained much as they were in 1957. 3.12.2.3 Finance: In 1950, financing of a d i s t r i c t plan-ning commission was dependent upon contributions from member municipalities (50%) and from the province (50%) as defined in the order establishing the commission. This remained the basis for finance through the 1953, 1957, and 1963 Acts, although the proportion of provin-c i a l support grew to 60%. (81) 3.13 The Amending Act of- 1965 The 1965 amendments were of relatively l i t t l e s i g n i f i -cance compared to the changes that had been enacted in 1963. The Planning Act was, however, placed within a jurisdictional framework: \"This Act does not apply when a development or a subdivision is effected solely for the purposes of providing for (a) public roadways, highways, highway main-tenance garages and sites, government weigh scales, or (b) drainage ditches, irrigation ditches and irrigation canals, or (c) wells or batteries within the meaning of The O i l and Gas Conservation Act, or (d) pipe lines within the meaning of The Pipe Line Act, or (e) rights of way for public u t i l i t i e s within the meaning of The Public U t i l i t i e s Act, or (f) rights of way of railways, or (g) any other thing that the Lieutenant Gov-ernor in Council may determine\". (Section 18) Without reference to certain things that were largely beyond the jurisdiction of the province such as interprovincial r a i l -ways, this amendment demonstrated the provincial significance of the enumerated areas excluded from the terms of reference for municipal and regional planning. The implication was that planning for these major transportation and resource areas would be undertaken at the provincial level. While such province-wide planning has taken place, i t has failed until recently to significantly control pipeline location such that pipelines (82) seriously fragment land, resulting in subsequent urban develop-ment problems in and around Edmonton in recent years. 1 In general, the lack of publicized provincial framework has been identified by local and regional authorities as being one of the serious impediments to planning at the local or regional level (Saghati, 1972, p. 45). The 1965 amendments also affected regional planning by allowing a regional planning commission to propose an amendment to an adopted regional or preliminary regional plan (Section 82); the 1963 Act had enabled only a council to i n i t i a t e amendments to a plan. t And f i n a l l y , the 1965 amendments c l a r i f i e d an aspect of the relationship between a municipal council and a regional planning commission, where a regional planning commission had been requested to prepare a general plan for a member municipal-i t y , i t would \"be responsible to the council\" (Section 96). This reinforced the consultative position of a commission in relation to the municipal council expressed in Section 14 (advice and assistance). 3.14 The Amending Act of 1968 The 1968 changes to the Planning Act included two rather important modifications. The f i r s t of these relates to the powers and responsibilities of regional planning commissions 1 The importance of this issue was illustrated by the evacuation of about 119,000 people from a sector of Edmonton in March of 1979 following a gas pipeline rupture. (83) in general. A commission was previously bound to advise and assist only municipalities who were represented on the commission. With these amendments, a commission had the duty to advise and assist the council of any municipality \"situated within the regional planning area\" (Section 14). This amendment makes the planning service supplied by the commission available to a l l constituent municipalities. The effect of this amendment can be seen in what took place in the Edmonton region. By 1971, twenty unrepresented \"summer village municipalities\" were entitled to planning services (ERPC Annual Reports, 1968, p. 2). 1 In addition to these twenty unrepresented municipalities, there were now twelve municipalities that were indirectly represented (See Fig. 5) by sharing a representative from another council. 3.14.1 A Planning Deadline The other change of note in the amendments of 1968 con-cerned the imposition of a deadline for the preparation of preliminary regional plans and the mandatory requirement for such a plan: \"(1) A commission shall prepare a preliminary regional plan for the whole of the regional planning area, and development within the area may be governed by the exercise of development control or by adopting a zoning by-law. (2) A preliminary regional plan shall be completed in i t s entirety before January 1st, 1972 or such further time as may be prescribed by the Board. 1 (Section 71) The summer village i s a part-time or seasonal municipality consisting of recreational cottage owners and located on one of the region's several lakes. (84) The 1963 version had required the preparation of a preliminary regional plan only i f a commission had resolved to prepare a regional plan. The deadline of January 1st, 1972 had remarkably l i t t l e effect on regional planning commissions in Alberta; the Board has had to authorize regular extensions to the deadline. After three years, only the Edmonton and Calgary commissions had preliminary regional plans in place (Alberta, 1971, p. 11). The ERPC, in fact, had made virtually no progress beyond the 'Metropolitan Part' of i t s Preliminary Regional Plan of 1972, despite the fact that the plan had been in existence in varying forms since 1952.1 Although the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission is s t i l l relying upon the same 'part', a Draft Regional Plan for the whole region i s now being considered (ERPC, 12/1978). 3.15 The Amending Act of 1969 Several sections of the 1963 Act were redrafted in this amendment although there were new sections regarding membership and financing. 1 The 'Highway Commercial Zoning Section' of the Preliminary Regional Plan was f i r s t adopted in 1959 and a review was undertaken in 1964 (ERPC Regulations, 1973). Other than that, i t appears to have been ignored. Considering the requirement for a complete review every five years, and given the lapse (to this date) of fifteen years, the Commission clearly has abandoned that part of the plan (Fillmore, 1975, p. 24). (85) 3.15.1 Commission Membership 3.15.1.1 Members-At-Large Under the 1963 Act, the Order-in-Council and Regulations establishing a commission contained specifications for the number of members who were to represent each municipality and the province. These specifications were set out in f u l l in the Act with the 1969 amendments. In most respects the new provisions were the same as those in the Order-in-Council prior to the change. A major departure from the 1963 Act, however, was the inclusion of: \"Not more than two members to represent the public to be appointed by the Board upon the recommenda-tion of the commission.\" and, \"A person appointed to a commission to represent the public may only be a resident of the regional planning area (Section 10). Thus, for the f i r s t time, members of a regional planning commis-sion could include persons who represented the regional popula-tion in general. They were known as members-at-large. The change suggests that representatives of a municipality were understood to represent the interests of the municipality as a corporate entity. The representative of the public, the so-called 'member-at-large', was supposedly an unbiased represen-tative of a l l citizens of the region co-opted by the commission. In the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission, appointed members-at-large were, in fact, long-standing municipal council represen-tatives who were no longer council members. (86) 3.15.1.2 Other Representatives on Commissions Municipal representation was slightly changed in the 1969 amendments. Previously, a city council could appoint two mem-bers to a commission, provided the commission agreed (Alberta Regulation 216/68, Section 6). The 1969 amendments raised the limit of city council representation to three persons (Section 10). Provincial representation had been limited to five under the former regulation and this was continued in the 1969 Act (Section 10). 3.15.1.3 Alternate Members Another change involved the establishment of specific c r i -teria for appointment of alternate members. Included here was the re-introduction of a former option, that of appointing a municipal secretary-treasurer: \"An alternate member appointed to a commission may be a member of a municipal council, or a resident or municipal secretary or a munici-pality represented on the commission.\" (Section 10) The appointment of alternate members allowed a municipality to be represented at commission meetings when the regular member was unable to attend. 3.15.2 Funding of Commissions\" A change in the 1968 amendments which expanded the responsi-b i l i t i e s of regional planning commissions to include those muni-cipa l i t i e s who were not members(See 3.14) was followed up in the 1969 amendments by a corresponding change in financial support: (87) \"The Council of a municipality situated in a regional planning area which is not represented on the regional planning commission shall pay to the commission (a) the funds required of i t to meet i t s portion of the annual expenses of the commission, and (b) the cost of any planning services performed by the commission upon the request of the municipality.\" (Section 11 a) This amendment corrected the inequity which arose from the 1968 legislation whereby non-member municipalities were, in effect, subsidized by those who were members of planning commissions. This rationalization of planning functions and financial respon-s i b i l i t y , however, resulted in rather complicated accounting procedures. The annual budget of a regional planning commission required approval by a majority of represented municipalities (and sub-sequently the Board). The approved funds were then to be payed to the commission: \"by the province and the represented municipalities in the following proportions: (a) by the provincial government - 60 per cent (b) by the member municipalities in such pro-portion as may be found equitable by the commission in session - 40 per cent.\" (Alberta Regulation 216/68, Section 17) In the Edmonton Region, the total number of municipalities had grown to 45, and following instructions from the province, the ERPC decided to invoice a l l municipalities who received planning services but were not members of the Commission (ERPC Annual (88) Report, 1970, p. 4). The complications involved in this pro-cedure contributed to changes in finance in 1971. In the meantime, another amending Act was passed. 3.16 The Amending Act of 1970 In this year, amendments affected the operation of a regional planning commission and the efficacy of f preliminary regional plans. The former change enabled a commission to: \"appoint standing or special advisory committees consisting of not less than three of i t s members\" and to delegate to the committee: \"any matter for consideration and inquiry, and any of the duties and powers conferred upon the commission...\" (Section 14) Analagous provisions had previously been expressed in the regula-tions established by Order-in-Council, although the wording implied a more limited delegation of powers but to a wider range of delegates: \"The commission may delegate such of i t s duties...to the...executive director or to any person or persons...\" (Alberta Regulation 216/68, Section 15) Thus, i t appears to have been formerly possible for duties to be delegated to persons other than members of the commission. The 1970 amendments exclude, by implication, a l l non-members from committees to whom the commission delegates specific powers. However, another corresponding change allowed the commission to delegate very limited power to i t s director to approve (89) subdivision applications where they conformed to the applicable regulations (Section 14). 3?.16.1 Preliminary Regional Plans A f i n a l change of i n t e r e s t i n the 1970 amendments involved a s l i g h t rewording of the section of the Act that required every council i n the region to enact new by-laws or amend e x i s t i n g ones as necessary to give e f f e c t to a regional plan. The amend-ment required councils to react to a preliminary regional plan i n the same manner. Preliminary regional plans were thus e l e -vated to the l e v e l of regional plans, and i n fact, were returned to the f u l l status they had under the 1957 Act. 3.17 The Amending Act of 1971 Another of the annual 'touch-up' acts to amend the 1963 Planning Act was enacted i n 1971. I t contained three changes relevant to t h i s review of regional planning l e g i s l a t i o n i n Alberta. The f i r s t change simply displaced membership c r i t e r i a from the Act and delegated these s p e c i f i c a t i o n s to the Minister. The r e s u l t i n g M i n i s t e r i a l Order was i d e n t i c a l i i n a l l respects to the c r i t e r i a s p e c i f i c i e d i n the 1969 amendment which f i r s t set them out i n the Act (Alberta - M/0 # 148/71). A subse-quent order i n 1976 contains s l i g h t modifications of the wording e f f e c t i n g l i t t l e substantial change (Alberta - M/O # 407/76). (90) 3.17.1 Special Representation for Non-Represented Municipalities The second change modified the representation afforded mun-ic i p a l i t i e s who were not represented on the commission by a council member specifically appointed by the Minister. A l l such municipalities were empowered to appoint a member of council who could represent them at the annual general meeting of the commission (Section 9). This representative could also attend any regular meeting of the commission where a matter that affected his municipality was before the commission (Section 9). The special representative was able to participate in the debate as a f u l l member of the commission and then vote on the specific question of interest. This amendment revealed a sensitivity to the level of int-erest an indirect representative might have to a question that affects him only in principle. The change also recognized the problems of differing positions that two municipalities, rep-resented by the same person, might encounter on a particular question. 3.17.2 The Alberta Planning Fund The last change of interest in the 1971 amendments was one concerning financing of regional planning in Alberta. 1 This was one of the most important changes in many years, centralizing and simplifying the funding of regional planning commissions. No longer were commissions required to collect funds from each 1 Appendix 5 contains the relevant sections of the 1971 amendment. (91) constituent municipality. Instead, municipalities payed into a provincially-adminstered fund. The section contains a clause with tremendous power to encourage municipalities to make their contributions promptly: \"In default by any municipality of the payment required of i t , the Minister may require the Provincial Treasurer to withhold any monies payable by the province until the amount owing by the municipality is paid.\" (Section 11) It might be suspected that i t was tardy payments to commissions and the complexities of the former funding arrangements which lead to the centralization. However, in the report that gave rise to the Fund, i t was clear that the issues being dealt with were more fundamental: \"To date l i t t l e has been accomplished in the preparation and implementation of regional plans due to a variety of reasons: shortage of trained planners, concentration on day-to-day problems, the inab i l i t y of the commissions and the province to have complete representa-tion of municipalities on the commissions, and the problems of financing regional planning commissions. If the province intends to achieve proper and viable regional plans a new approach must be taken to the task.\" \"Financing of regional planning commissions i s without doubt the most pressing problem confronting the commissions...\" \"The province has recognized the importance of regional planning commissions and has supported them to the extent of 60 percent of their operating expenses. However,...\" \"If the province is convinced of the merits of regional and municipal planning, then i t would appear necessary that a uniform levy be applied by the province to a l l municipalities in order that a l l municipalities pay their rightful share of the cost of planning.\" (as quoted in Bettison et a l , 1975, p. 202) (92) Thus, the government recognized the staff shortage of regional planning commissions. The ERPC, for example, had ten staff members in 1960, and in 1970 s t i l l had only ten people on staff (Giffen, 1977, p. 2). By 1973, however, the fund was having the desired effect on staffing, with the ERPC staff totalling twenty, and by 1975, i t numbered forty-seven (ERPC Annual Reports, 1973, 1975). With this new support, the ERPC had developed two specialized staff arms, one to investigate the issues of metropolitan growth, the other to develop and prepare a regional plan. This l e f t the balance of the staff with the day-to-day matters that the report had cited as con-suming the productivity of a l l commission staff. 3.17.2.1 Operation of the Fund Operationally, the new Alberta Planning Fund established a measure of equality across the province - the Fund concept ta c i t l y recognized the province-wide implications or urbaniza-tion. Cabinet established mill rates and corresponding classes of municipalities each year; the appropriate m i l l rate was then applied to the equalized assessment for each municipality and the required amount paid into the Fund. From the Fund, and from grants authorized from the general treasury, the Board paid annually to each commission the monies required for i t s operation. The proportion of contribution remained the same, on aver-age, as i t had been under the regulations of 1968, with the province contributing an amount 60 percent or 1.5 times that (93) amount contributed by local government (Alberta, 1971, p. 6). Since then, this position has changed, with provincial contri-butions rising to $2.96 million or about 80 percent (Johnston, 1975). The mill rate formula placed Edmonton and Calgary (cities with their own extensive planning departments) at 0.05 mills, with a l l others between 0.10 mills for rural mun-i c i p a l i t i e s , and 0.45 mills for the largest of Alberta's non-metropolitan ci t i e s (Alberta, 1971, p. 6). 3.18 The Amending Act of 1973 1973 saw the last minor amendment to the 1963 Act. This amendment was significant in that i t revealed a t e l l i n g lack of confidence on the part of the government in the a b i l i t i e s of regional planning commissions to adequately protect the major airports of Alberta. Severe pressures were being placed upon the Edmonton International Airport by the growth of the Town of Leduc and i t may be assumed that federal pressure for control was being exerted upon the Alberta government. Neither a regional plan nor a preliminary regional plan had been adopted for this part of the Edmonton Region. The amendments enabled Cabinet to establish airport pro-tection areas by Order-in-Council (Section 93.1), and to issue regulations establishing standards to be contained in local zoning by-laws (Section 93.2). Such an Order and reg-ulations were binding on a l l local authorities and regional planning commissions; each of these authorities was further obligated to amend or adopt appropriate plans and by-laws when (94) an airport was declared as being included in a protection area (Sections 93.3, 93.4). In October of 1975, the Cabinet issued regulations known as the Airport Vicinity Protection Area General Regulations, (Alberta Regulations 291/75) and subse-quently named the Edmonton International Airport as a protected airport. 3.19 Related Legislation of the 1970's There are three statutes that demonstrate the provincial commitment to regional planning. The f i r s t two are directly relevant to this thesis as they contain specific planning controls while the third proves that regional development planning i s thriving in Alberta. The Department of the Environment Act enables Cabinet to establish a 'restricted development area' (or an 'RDA*) for environmental protection (Sections 15, 17). With a remarkably lib e r a l interpretation of 'environment', these provisions were applied to the proposed route of a freeway ring road around Edmonton, f i r s t suggested in a Commission report in 1963 (ERPC, 1963, p. 24). This provides a clear example of a vacuum in planning legislation, or at least the use of existing legislation, with the application of a statute for environmen-t a l protection for what are quite obviously land use planning purposes. Another piece of legislation reinforces this notion. The Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Act was passed in 1973. Regulations under the Act, approved by Order-in-Council in August of 1977, required that detailed land use suitability (95) plans be prepared for fifteen Alberta lakes, seven of which l i e within regional planning areas (all but one in the Edmonton Region). No development could occur until these plans were approved and unless i t conformed with the approved plan (Alberta Regulation # 233/77). The North East Regional Commission Act of 1974 provided for the consolidation of government authority and other powers in the office of the Commissioner of the Northeast Alberta Region. The Commissioner, whose office is located in Fort McMurray, has the authority to assume the powers of existing governments either by agreement or by order of Cabinet. These powers are remarkably comprehensive and reveal a desire of the Alberta government to ensure co-ordinated development of the rapidly developing Fort McMurray region. 3.20 New Legislative Initiatives Because of the funding arrangements of the 1971 amendments, the preliminary regional plans and regional plans (the essen-t i a l raison d'etre of regional planning commissions) were fin a l l y receiving the staff attention they required. Never-theless, the 1972 deadline established by the 1968 amendments came and went with nothing particularly notable occurring in regional plan preparation. The Conservative government, f i r s t elected in 1971 and re-elected with an overwhelming majority in 1973, took i t s f i r s t steps toward drafting planning legis-lation in 1972. Early in that year, a letter to Alberta's planning commissions from the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced his intention to present a new Planning Act to the (96) following Spring Session of the Alberta Legislature (Russell, 1972). The Minister, sensitive to the r e a l i t i e s of planning i n Alberta, requested suggestions from the commissions and t h e i r constituent municipalities on the underlying p r i n c i p l e s for the contemplated l e g i s l a t i o n and proposals for changes. The response from the ERPC contained a staff-prepared section-by- section review of the Act and comments from member munici-p a l i t i e s (ERPC, 1972). However, despite the province's s e l f -imposed deadline for a draft act i n the spring of 1973, i t was not u n t i l 1974 that proposals were made. Even then, these were i n the form of a working paper. 3.20.1 The 'Red Book' Published i n January 1974 by Alberta Municipal A f f a i r s , Towards a New Planning Act for Alberta introduced 'a p h i l o -sophical and s t r u c t u r a l pattern for a possible new Alberta Planning Act' (Russell) 1973). In the format of a working paper, i t was c o l l o q u i a l l y known i n planning c i r c l e s as the 'Red Book' (inasmuch as the report was bound within red covers). The working paper was published ostensibly to generate public comment and debate, with the ultimate objective being the draf t i n g of a new act (Russell, 1973). The authors i d e n t i f i e d a 'modest' goal stated by the Minister for the planning act proposals: \"...the new Planning Act was to be the best i n North America\" (Alberta, 1974, p. 1). Other than th i s best-in-the-west exhortation, the authors had no other guidance from the Minister (Dant, interview). (97) Nevertheless, the 1971 election platform of the new Progressive Conservative government revealed some of the guiding policies for reinforcing local government and decentralization, which would have the tacit support of the government. These policies include: \"to return, wherever practical, the decision making process to local government\", 1 to recognize the \"very different problems of the metropolitan centers of Edmonton and Calgary\", to \"build a much more diversified economy\", \"to create a more balanced province wide growth; and hence, encourage decentralization of both public and private investments\". (ERGS, 1975, p. 18, 19) The 'Red Book* did in fact propose rather remarkable depar-tures from the status-quo, and generated considerable debate and excitement in the province's regional planning commissions and municipal councils. The authors revealed areas to tension in the planning environment that they f e l t would be resolved by the proposals of the 'Red Book'. The proposals would offer, \"an attempted reconciliation of the often conflicting interests of an owner of land and the interests of the general public\" (Alberta, 1974, p. 1), as did the 1963 Act. The report then states that because land \"is more a resource than a simple economic commodity... is so v i t a l and yet so limited, i t is taking on more and more of provincial and indeed, national per-spective, and yet we s t i l l think in terms of pro-tecting local autonomy at a l l costs.\" (Alberta, 1974, p. 1) (98) The allusion to the inadequacy of local or regional planning efforts becomes more apparent when the authors conclude that: \"the planning of land use must be made with the greater interest in mind, and this greater public interest cannot be viewed from the point of view of residents of towns, ci t i e s and coun-ties and municipal d i s t r i c t s , but rather from the point of view of Albertan's (sic) collectively. This requires a greater provincial input than in the past.\" (Alberta, 1974, p. 1) These arguments for centralization of planning powers and the several accompanying proposals were countered in a study pre-pared by the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission in reply to several of the specific proposals. In general, i t was stated that: \"the Commission considers that centralization of planning i s contrary to existing government pol-icy (decentralization of activities of government and industry) and further that there is no evi-dence that...(these proposals)...would be more effective than under the existing structure.\" (ERPC, 12/74, p. 1-3) More basic criticism of the 'Red Book' centered on the fact that i t contained proposals for changes in legislation, seem-ingly without adequate review of the existing planning system in the province. The Commission noted the lack of comprehen-sive analysis concerning: \"the operations, problems and effectiveness of the existing system and organizational framework; the current planning and zoning laws and their opera-tion; the changing pattern of urbanization; the changing concerns of the people; and, the whole question of intergovernmental relations and plan-ning. \" (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 7) (99) The 'Red Book' did, however, have another focus - a review of existing legislation both in Alberta and elsewhere, supple-mented by submissions on the proposed Act and public hearings (Russell, 1973). In any case, the province had developed other sources from which the c r i t i c a l analysis desired by the ERPC could be obtained. The Task Force on Urbanization and the Future, established in the last months of the 35 year reign of Social Credit in Alberta, was to investigate urban-oriented problems in Alberta, to identify key urban issues and prepare policy recommendations to Cabinet (Ward, 1975, p. 40). The Alberta Land Use Forum was appointed in 1973 to enquire and report to the Cabinet on, among other things, land use, agriculture, and housing costs. Its Report and Recommendations were published in 1976 (Alberta, 1976, p. (i) ). Thus, while the research to be used as background for the planning legislation may not have been what the ERPC wanted, i t must be noted that research and public debate on the issues was generated. 3.20.2 Proposals for Regional Planning Commissions In general, the 'Red Book\" recommendations for regional planning retained the commission structure for most of the province, except for the metropolitan areas around Edmonton and Calgary which would be included in \"metropolitan planning commissions\" (Alberta, 1974, p. 4, 8). The province was to be divided into planning regions, within which a regional planning commission (or a metropolitan planning commission) (100) would be established. Specific c r i t e r i a for definition and delineation of regional planning areas were not la i d out in the proposal. The omission of these c r i t e r i a was seen as a deficiency by the ERPC (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-8), although to include that level of detail would have rendered the act overly constrained and subject to continual revision. A l l commissions were proposed to consist of council mem-bers and other persons appointed by Cabinet for a three year term 1 (Alberta, 1974, p. 4, 9). Reasons for Cabinet involve-ment were not given, but this proposal reflects the thrust of the 'Red Book* to centralize powers. The ERPC questioned who \u00E2\u0080\u00A2other persons' might be and what the meaning of 'member' was. At the extreme, i f each municipality in the ERPC had one mem-ber, the village and summer village municipalities with 30 out of 50 members and only one percent of the regional popula-tion, would control the Commission (ERPC, 12/1974, 1-10). The 'Red Book* further proposed corporate status for a l l commissions, althoughthis was done in a circuitous fashion by specifying several powers that are associated with corporate status. In response, the ERPC stated that i t was \"not in favour of having the responsibility\" associated with corpor-ate status, citing administration and staffing requirements as the major obstacles (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-11). 1This proposal reveals a discrepancy between the contents of the Speech from the Throne of March, 1972, in which representatives' were to be elected rather than appointed for the consideration of \"new and better policies and legislation\" (Alberta Hansard, 1972, p. 4). (101) Also considered i n the 'Red Book' were duties and respon-s i b i l i t i e s of regional planning commissions - at least for those outside of metropolitan areas. These included prepara-t i o n of regional plans, assistance to councils i n planning matters, co-ordination of p o l i c i e s and programs for land use, and promotion of the public's i n t e r e s t i n planning. Most i n t e r e s t i n g l y , a commission would also be able to enter into agreements with municipalities for transportation, recreation, and u t i l i t y purposes (Alberta, 1974, p. 5, 6). The l a t t e r provision i s new insofar as s p e c i f i c reference i s made to par-t i c u l a r services. This change departs from the idea of dele-gation of duties from municipalities to commissions, a provi-sion that dates from the 1929 Act. Thus, as a corporation, a commissiontvwould be able to contract with i t s municipalities to provide j o i n t services. The ERPC expressed i t s aversion to th i s proposal, s t a t i n g that i t represented 'a regional govern-ment function' (ERPC, 12/1978, p. 1-12) - which i t no doubt does. I t i s perhaps not unexpected that the ERPC would take t h i s p o s i t i o n . Current r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for municipal services l i e s with l o c a l government. The proposition of a regional government, even i n t h i s form, thus threatens to remove jealously guarded r e s p o n s i b i l i t y from l o c a l councils. Certainly, t h i s view could be expected from a 'council' of l o c a l governments such as a regional planning commission. 3.20.3 Proposals for Regional Planning The 'Red Book* set out detailed s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for the con-tents of a regional plan, touching on population d i s t r i b u t i o n , (102) land use, environmental, economic and resource concerns. Additionally, i t stated that a regional plan was to contain generalized long term and detailed short term proposals for development, including project cost-benefit analysis and regulations. The level of detail found in the proposals, compared to the 1963 Act, was considered unnecessary by the ERPC; some of the required provisions would be unnecessary or superfluous in some regions (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-16). In response to the short or long term implementation provisions, the ERPC contended that the 'plan aspect should be distinct from the implementation aspect' - rather an astounding asser-tion - and furthermore, that a regional plan should be pre-pared in two phases: \"Fi r s t l y , a comprehensive regional development plan should be prepared and adopted...After adop-tion of this plan, an Implementation Plan should be prepared and adopted.\" (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-16) This reveals a palaeolithic understanding of planning and may hint at the source of the ERPC's historical problems in regional plan production. Adoption of a regional plan would require a public hearing (for ' f u l l ' participation) and a two-thirds majority vote, not unlike the provisions of the existing 1963 Act. A regional plan would, however, require a higher level of f i n a l sanction than was the case under the existing Act - in addition to the Alberta Planning Board (the former Provincial Planning Board), Cabinet approval would be required, a factor that the ERPC considered would add unwanted inertia to the plan (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-12). (103) The plan, when in effect, would require complete compliance at the local level as was the case under the 1963 Act (Alberta, 1974, p. 8). Thus, the 'Red Book' proposals for a regional plan were not particularly innovative - the only important change, aside from the extensive detail concerning plan con-tent, was the proposal for Cabinet approval of a regional plan. There was, however, a rather curious proposal in this section of the 'Red Book'. It was that a regional plan be prepared by consultants responsible to the Board, although one of the purposes of a regional planning commission was the preparation of a regional plan. The contradiction was not specifically noted by the ERPC; however, the Commission strongly recommended that reference to the Board in regional plan prep-aration be dropped (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-15). 3.20.4 Proposals for Metropolitan Planning Metropolitan planning commissions were proposed for the Edmonton and Calgary metropolitan areas and were proposed to be composed of members selected in the same manner as was set out for regional planning commissions. However, these commissions would be completely emmasculated versions of the regional plan-ning commission; metropolitan commissions were not intended to have any staff, nor were they intended to carry out any function other than to adopt a metropolitan plan. Responsibility for plan preparation was to be assigned exclusively to the Alberta Planning Board (Alberta, 1974, p. 9, 10). The object of creating a 'metropolitan planning commission1 was not spelled out in the (104) 'Red Book'. It would appear that the formal adoption and amendment of a metropolitan plan was i t s only real function, and insofar as the commission would hold the required hearings e t c l , i t would be charged with explaining the justifying a plan prepared by others outside of i t s control. The logic behind these provisions i s remarkably elusive. Additionally, the de-facto centralization of metropolitan planning, a part-and-parcel of these proposals, is directly contrary to Alberta tradition of local control of planning, especially as this relates to the ci t i e s of Edmonton and Calgary, although this approach to centralization is consistent with the stated posi-tion of the authors. The predictable response of the ERPC to the proposed metropolitan commissions was an unqualified rejection. The Commission found no useful relationship between a metropolitan planning commission and other authori-ties and i t noted that the planning process would be isolated from the authorities responsible for implementing the plan (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-19). Associated with the proposals for Metropolitan Planning Commissions were suggestions for considerable centralization of power in the Alberta Planning Board. The Board was envi-sioned as an agency involved in provincial-level policy form-ulation and the coordination of planning efforts of other agencies (Alberta, 1974, p. 3). The Board as thus described would have a higher profile and greater responsibilies for administration which would displace i t s current role as a quasi-judicial board. As might have been expected, the ERPC (105) strongly opposed the transfer of planning responsibility to the Board, although the assignment of provincial-level policy planning was greeted by the Commission with favour (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-3 et seq.). 3.20.5 Other Proposals Two other areas are covered which are of interest here. The f i r s t concerns the Alberta Planning Fund, for which the \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Red Book* proposed no changes. The ERPC, however, suggested that a change was in order, namely, that funds be earmarked specifically for regional and local planning purposes (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-19, 20). The Commission f e l t that this would encourage better evaluation of planning performance and would provide incentive for the preparation of local plans (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-20). Interestingly, the ERPC refrained from making proposals which would encourage preparation of regional plans. The second proposal which deserves mention here relates to Special Areas which would be established by Order-in-Council. This proposal, having the general support of the ERPC, (ERPC, 12/1974, p. 1-20, 21) recognized that there might be special areas of provincial or regional concern requiring decisive action at the provincial level. This provision implicitly recognizes the apparent in a b i l i t y of a regional planning commis-sion to act with the speed and strength necessary to achieve desired results. The circumstances envisioned here are sites for major public investments such as airports, new towns, or (106) other areas that require provincial protection from develop-ment such as ecological or recreational areas (Alberta, 1974, p. 11). The concept here was already in place under the 1973 amendments relating to airports and under other statutes (See 3.18). 3.20.6 Overall Implications The 'Red Book', then, identified the directions in which the province proposed to proceed. Many of i t s proposals con-stituted a clear threat to the Edmonton and Calgary Regional Planning Commissions and to their municipal members insofar as local control over the planned fate of their regions was concerned. Certainly, the proposals for Special Areas could be interpreted as a threat as far as local control of land use was concerned. Of lesser concern were the proposals for commission composition, legal (corporate) status and powers of regional planning commissions, and for the content and format of regional plans. Before drafting a B i l l for presentation to the Legislature, however, the government received the fin a l report of the Land Use Forum, thus adding further to the infor-mation base from which the Act was to be written (although the Forum Report did not have any noticeable impact on regional provisions in the new Act). 3.21 B i l l 15, the Proposed Planning Act for 1977 After completing seven redrafts of the 'Red Book' proposal, the Minister of Municipal Affairs presented B i l l 15 to the \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 (107) Legislative Assembly in the spring of 1977 (Dant, interview). It was given third reading and Royal Assent in November of 1977, becoming the Planning Act, 1977. The Act was proclaimed by Order-in-Council to be effective on April 1, 1978 (O/C 356/78). Between the presentation of B i l l 15 to the Legis-lative Assembly and third reading of the B i l l , the Minister of Municipal Affairs received representations from interest groups and authorities throughout the province. The di f f e r -ence between the B i l l and the enacted version are, for the most part, minor. This review of the new Act includes appro-priate reference to B i l l 14 and representations made. Excerpts of the Act are found in Appendix 6. 3.22 The Planning Act, 1977 The Planning Act, 1977, the current statute iii; Alberta, bears the marks of i t s legislative predecessors as well as the 'Red Book'. Nonetheless, the Act is completely rewritten and reorganized. The former Act had been organized in a way that revealed the priority of the front-line planning activity -the subdivisions of land - which consumed and continues to consume the bulk of the time and energy of regional planning commissions in Alberta (ERPC, 1978-79 Budget, p. 6). In the 1963 Act, subdivision provisions occupied the f i r s t operational part of the statute, following after the specification of authorities. The new Act re-orders these operational areas, beginning with 'Regional Plans and Statutory Plans' (including 'regional', 'general municipal', and 'area structure' plans), followed by (108) the 'Implementation of Plans', 'Development Control' and, fi n a l l y , 'Subdivision of Land'. Thus, the Planning Act, 1977 i s rationally organized; i t places planning activity in a hierarchy from implied provincial and regional levels, through the municipal, to the local by-law levels and f i n a l l y , i t concludes with the subdivision of land (See Figure 7). By way of this clear hierarchical structuring of the Act, the government reveals a conscientious attempt to re-order the priorities of planning in the province. Thus, the Act sets the implementation tools of zoning and subdivision in a subor-dinate position in relation to regional and municipal planning. 3.22.1 Application and Administration of the Act (Part I) The Planning Act, 1977 contains explicit sections defining the purpose of the Act and exempted ac t i v i t i e s , both of which are similar to the former provisions. The purpose section includes interesting modifications revealing current popular notions of planning: \"The purpose of this Act and the regulations is to provide means whereby plans and related measures may be prepared and adopted to (a) achieve the orderly, economical and beneficial development and use of land and patterns of human settlement, and (b) maintain and improve the quality of the physical environment within which pat-terns of human settlement are situated in Alberta, without infringing on the rights of individuals except to the extent that is necessary for the greater public interest.\" (Section 2) (109) THE. H I & r?. cu y OF 5 r A T U TDK. y VLAKI-Z. <5u$p /c/V , SPeciAi.. AREAS t e r ^ 1 41 i . C 5\u00C2\u00A3 1-40 ) AR.EA DEVELOPMENT -FLAMS (f5E 0 - 7 0 -r\u00C2\u00B0) j S&) (<5E-CT/D\j \u00C2\u00A3 / 2. - / A% ATJDKj *K fZ&6->&K/Ai- P^AKJ PPC- PiteeAHBj, V/ZAP-r R^,QKJA^. Avi/eH-TfZB^ T)&A FT- K P C CIILCU,LATB\"S 'PrtAPT\" f?\u00C2\u00A3drlt>KtAL. Pi.AKJ TO H IKi>iT%Z^ COU.KICII.% &TH6R- AurHonrtiBZ Gh-\u00C2\u00A3. %PC Uouj>* Pu. S<-,c U P PC C0K/f/P\u00C2\u00A3*.S KJoTy\u00C2\u00A3 T-0 Ax?opr ri. A KJ P.PC >V6*,<> %\u00C2\u00A3g-/i>K/Ai-. PUAKJ AX>e>PT*$ APPROVE < H&TUKKIS PLAKt P OR CHA^C^H. & H\u00C2\u00A3,6.lOKiA "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "10.14288/1.0094665"@en . "eng"@en . "Planning"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "Regional planning in Alberta : The evolution of Alberta\u00E2\u0080\u0099s system of regional planning commissions"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/21596"@en .