To whom it may concern, I am…

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to this government as a lawyer who specializes in advising small and medium sized companies. I have advised clients on working internationally, with a lot of experience advising on expanding into the US. I have the opportunity to negotiate internationally as a Foreign Service Officer and I have had the opportunity to negotiate bilateral contracts on behalf of companies. Finally, I have also worked for the Alberta provincial government, and at that time participated in the development of legislation and the review of legislative bills in terms of regulatory effect. I am particularly concerned about the ability of the Minister to intrude upon the Municipalities actions. The following are two examples wherein I believe that there will introduce a more politicized process, which then in turn could lead to reduce consistency in land development policies and decision-making.

Minister’s amendments to Official Plan
Provisions of Bill 23 that amend Section 23 of the Planning Act are intrusive. The previous provisions allowed for Ministerial intervention to the degree that it would provide feedback to the Municipality and invite the Municipality to re-submit its official plan. Instead of a well=thought through plan that the Municipality would have rationalized based on its citizens requirements, it will be receiving an official plan that is not of its making, and may not actually be suitable for the particular circumstances of the Municipality. Further the process at the new section 23 is obscure and lacks transparency as to why the Minister has decided to unilaterally amend the official plan.

This is an example of how the regulatory environment can increase irregularities, as municipalities will have no explanation as to the rationale for the Minister’s amendments. Where there is regular intrusion by the Minister, it could lead the public dealing with municipalities to question the consistency of decision-making. At minimum this section 23 should require that the Minister provide explanation and rationale as to the changes made to the Municipality’s official plan. This would then allow all municipalities to understand the policy considerations that played into the Minister's amendments.

Amendments to Section 42 of the Planning Act
The amended language to section 42 is again an intrusion into the Municipal decision making in regards to parks and other recreational services. It forces municipalities to spend money while in certain municipalities where the cost of land is at a premium, the option to accumulate its resources may be the only effective way to provide meaningful parks and recreational lands. This is another example of the province providing limitations on a Municipality that don’t seem to have any logic.
The issue of how fees are applied cannot be seen as a "one size fits all" solution. Rather, it seems to force municipalities then to forgo planning for broader community-level development in a community-specific way. Much development occurs over a series of years, so a year-over-year exigency to spend on timelines that are inconsistent with the timelines that typically govern the development of communities.

Removing the regional level of planning
It is unfortunate that the amendments to the Planning Act are largely removing the upper-tier municipalities from playing a planning role it has in regional development. It may in the short-term seem to reduce the regulatory requirements that the development and builder community faces. Yet it simply increases the burden at the lower-tier municipal level. If one looks at the changes to the other Acts, for example the Conservation Authorities Act that prohibits the CAs from reviewing and commenting on a proposal, when combined with reducing the support from the Conservation Authorities, I fear that lower-tier municipalities will simply not have the resources nor the expertise to effectively work as part of a regional coordinated whole.

Many of the amendments to the Planning Act seem to make efforts to reduce the regulatory requirements, which I applaud, but I am not clear that the broad-reaching amendments and short timelines for implementation will achieve the intended goals. I am concerned that any goal of reducing the regulatory burden will be overshadowed by a potentially uncoordinated and hasty effort to implement the amendments.

Changing the laws without providing the required resources or worse, while reducing the resources and decision-making authority available to the municipalities, I fear, will only reduce the transparency and consistency of the process. This in turn then can lead to a less predictable business environment for industry, which I anticipate will not be the desired outcome.