Does the Capital Region Board meet the dreams and expectations stated in the report produced by Lou Hyndman, former Alberta cabinet minister and chair of the 2000 report of the Alberta Capital Region Governance Review?
We need to go back a bit in this region’s metropolitan governance history to understand what drove the creation of the present CRB.
In 1950, the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission was formed to manage the growth in the Edmonton district by preparing plans and proposals for local government and the provincial government respecting growing demands for urban growth in the area.
In 1982, the Edmonton Regional Metropolitan Planning Commission (EMRPC) was formed and carried out planning for most of the regional area which included some 22 municipalities. EMRPC also provided planning services for the smaller municipalities that did not have a planning department and also held planning hearings to resolve issues within municipalities and between municipalities.
I served on the EMRPC along with then alderman Ken Allred who eventually became the chair. Most of my duties were as a chair of a sub-committee dealing with smaller municipalities and their growth and planning issues.
EMRPC had a very large scope and responsibilities including providing development plans for many of the smaller municipalities such as Namao, Sherwood Park, Calmar, Devon, Fort Saskatchewan, Stony Plain, Morinville, Gibbons and Legal; some 37 in all.
In 1994, the provincial government made a surprise announcement that they were dissolving the EMRPC with Premier Klein commenting that he had too many complaints from the smaller municipalities in the region. This move left a planning vacuum respecting a number of planning issues not only for smaller communities but also created a crisis for the larger growing municipalities surrounding Edmonton. The Capital Region Forum was created to try to manage growth in the Edmonton district and absorb some of the responsibilities of the former EMRPC.
The provincial Municipal Affairs were swamped with regional planning issues without a planning authority to deal with the growth problems which would grind to a halt without some planning body for appeals.
Municipal Affairs Minister Walter Paszkowski told cabinet that the provincial government had to take charge and attempt to restructure a planning authority similar to the former EMRPC or properly structured regional growth would stall and his department would be overtaxed trying to deal with a multitude of local planning issues and disputes. Former MLA Lou Hyndman was asked to chair what would be called the Alberta Capital Region Governance Review which would include some 21 local municipalities.
One of the key recommendations of the Hyndman review was that regional governance be strengthened and formalized, that a new governance organization be built upon the shared vision identified by the municipalities.
Hyndman also recommended that the “vehicle” as he referred to the future organization be formalized as a regional governance facility of the Edmonton Capital Region. It would be a legal entity recognized in provincial legislation and that the chief elected officers from all municipalities in the region be charged with the development of a charter for the regional council. This may have been a tough pill for Klein to swallow but his cabinet was adamant that planning issues of the region had to be dealt with and the province could not simply stumble along with ad hoc planning decisions and mounting conflicts.
One of the most powerful but simple statements contained in the report was “That a new relationship with the province be developed” along with a commitment by the government to provide transition funding.
This was the genesis for what we now know as the Capital Region Board (CRB). The question we need to answer is pretty simple. Does the CRB meet the needs of the region, especially the smaller communities and are there inequities that have been created by the process the CRB follows?
I note from the Gazette’s editorial of April 16 that St. Albert mayor and CRB chair Nolan Crouse along with his CFO Doug Lagore are going on a road show soon to visit local rural members. That’s a great idea and they will get an earful from some officials of smaller municipalities, and if Crouse pays attention, which he often fails to do, there may be some good come of this tour.
While the Hyndman report was silent on who should chair the regional planning group that he envisioned, I have learned that some of the smaller municipalities think that a more independent person should chair the CRB. They say that too often in the past, Crouse seemed to be under the thumb of Edmonton mayor Mandel who was known to amend the agenda without notice and had the complacent cooperation of Crouse. This too often meant that there was no opportunity to go home and consult with their council before being forced to vote on an issue.
CRB Chair Crouse was also guilty of voting on issues that affected the St. Albert municipality without consulting with his council. The matter of the Sturgeon County Villeneuve Area Structure Plan is a good example where Crouse voted against the plan without consideration of his council who may have given him some strong advice as to why they should have supported the ASP.
Former Premier Ed Stelmach often takes blame for the voting structure that members claim was forced on them and gives Edmonton what amounts to a veto power especially when Edmonton promoted Crouse as chair. Edmonton and St. Albert can carry the day with any issue before the board. Actually, Stelmach didn’t decide this; the members of those municipalities that developed the charter established that position.
With respect to the Villeneuve issue, we have to see the fine print in the recent agreement that promises to resolve the planning issue for Villeneuve including the airport development along with the critical issue of piped water.
Redwater Mayor Mel Smith is not the only local official who has threatened to leave the CRB unless they change their attitude towards the planning aspirations of smaller communities. Some have threatened to go to court and the response of CRB has been to say that they have deeper pockets and that the CRB will prevail.
The chair and executive of the CRB should take note of a March decision of the B.C. Supreme Court that dealt a blow to Metro Vancouver. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the regional district board had no authority to dictate land use in individual municipalities. Metro Vancouver is a planning authority very similar to our Alberta CRB and includes 22 Vancouver metro municipalities.
The Supreme Court ruling followed an attempt by Metro Vancouver to stop Langley from proceeding with an urban expansion even though the Agriculture Land Commission had given prior consent. Justice Neena Sharma ruled that Metro Vancouver “does not have superiority over land use management within the boundaries of the Langley municipality.” Sturgeon County … take note!
In closing, I think that the CRB should consider appointing a chair who is not from the elected mayors. Perhaps someone with planning experience and an experienced chair such as Ken Allred would be a good example for a choice.
The CRB should also take notice of the B.C. Supreme Court decision and give more sincere consideration of the plans of smaller communities such as Villeneuve.
The Gazette editorial states that the CRB is the best we’ve got in terms of regional planning but it can be better in terms of some regional understanding of the goals and ambitions of our smaller communities. And a good shot of democracy on how the CRB operates would also be a welcome move.
Bob Russell is a former St. Albert alderman and served on the former EMRPC for six years.
