oilandlandowner.ca
Newsletter
On January 21st I attended my first
AltaLink open house session for the
proposed Heartland Transmission Project 500 kV transmission line. The open
house was held at the Woodvale facility & golf clubhouse in
As I made my way
around the various displays, I was eventually asked for my opinion by a very
nice lady representing AltaLink. Since I have never been guilty of withholding
my opinion, I replied I didn’t support the new legislation that eliminated the
necessity for a public hearing to determine if these transmission lines were in
fact needed. Before I could finish making my comments I was interrupted by an
individual who seemed agitated that I inferred that the Minister of Energy
could designate a project by a stroke of a pen. I quickly conceded to his point
that the decision was in fact made by cabinet, not just the minister. Although
from my perspective given the dictatorial perception of the cabinet, and that
fact that one of its newest members recently publically announced that there
would be no transmission lines connected up to any nuclear power plant in
Strangely enough,
this person wanted to make a public point of my misstatement, which I had
already conceded to, yet he proceeded to illuminate my misstatement. Not being
sure what this person was hoping to accomplish, I asked him to identify
himself. He refused, and continued to publicly berate me for crediting the
minister and not the cabinet. When I finally had enough, I corrected him and
told him that on a very technical level we were both wrong. The legislation
specifically states only the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate a project, but
I still failed to see the point of the discussion.
I introduced myself and asked this person three
separate times to identify himself, and he refused all three times. When I pressed
him, he would only say he was an interested stakeholder. By this time a small
crowd had gathered around. This individual now blurted out that
The conversation was intriguing me. Clearly this
individual had an agenda, and I was beginning to make him uncomfortable. When I
told him it made no economic sense for Capital Power to build a new electric
generator for $250 million in
I drew his attention to the fact that Enmax has
reassured us that
About this time this person had enough of me and
walked away to mingle in the crowd. I watched him for a while as he continued
to interject in various conversations taking place around the room. Unannounced
and uninvited this individual interjected and manipulated himself into random
conversations, always an advocate for the construction of the transmission
lines. He was quick to aggressively confront anyone who might question the need
for these expenditures.
The person, to whom I am speaking of, has now
been identified as Tim Grant, and he is the Assistant Deputy Minister for
electricity at Alberta Energy. Why the Assistant Deputy Minister for
electricity at Alberta Energy refused to identify himself is a mystery –
specifically when a member of the public asked? Why did he falsely claimed to
be just a stakeholder, when in fact he is a high profile public official
representing the government? What did he hope to accomplish by bring up the
topic of export, when the Minister of Energy clearly denies any correlation
between transmission lines and the need to export? Why did he speak so negatively
of Enmax in public and particularly its CEO Gary Holden? Why did he
continue to covertly mingle amongst the landowners, as if someone like me would
not investigate his identity?
The irony is that the more things try to change,
the more they stay the same. While industry desperately tries to improve the
consultation process, it is less than comforting to know that the Alberta
Government hasn’t changed and still prefers to conduct covert operations
against landowners. One only has to wonder what Tim Grant hoped to accomplish
by engaging in such risky covert measures. Are we truly that dangerous?
I don’t know if the Alberta Government has hired
private investigators (spies) to assist Tim Grant in his undercover covert
operations, but I do know that no one in the government was ever held
accountable for hiring private investigators to spy on landowners back in 2007.
It appears at the moment the Alberta Government still conducts undercover
covert operations, but it makes no sense for a senior government official to be
engaging in such an activity.
Is the budget so tight that Alberta Energy is
unable to contract for private investigators? Now these would be budget cuts I
could support!
-30-
For more information Contact
Joe Anglin
(403) 843-3279
(403) 963-0521 cell
Leader, Lavesta Area Group
******************************************
For Immediate
Release
January 6,
2010
(Rimbey, AB) AltaLink announced today that they will listen
to landowners, and that they will be more liberal with the purse strings, than
they have in the past, when negotiating with landowners.
We say, “OUR
RIGHTS ARE NOT FOR
AltaLink is being disingenuous when they claim
that they are now willing to listen to landowners. In our opinion this is an
admission that they were not truthful when they claimed they listened back in
2007. We are grateful for the admission!
If AltaLink is listening today, we say,
·
Disclose
AltaLink’s participation in the drafting and lobbying of the Electric
Statutes Amendment Act, which
circumvented the public process to determine the need for these transmission
lines!
·
Disclose AltaLink’s participation in the secret meetings between
industry and government that Enmax has now admitted took place.
·
Disclose all communication arising from the conflict of interest given
that former premier Ralph Klein immediately went to work for AltaLink’s
lawyers, upon retirement, and now has an office across the street from
AltaLink’s headquarters.
·
Disclose all communication arising from the conflict of interest given
that the former EUB Board Chairman, Neil McCrank, who originally approved the
need for these transmission lines, works for AltaLink’s lawyers.
·
Disclose all official communications between AltaLink’s Senior
Executive Vice-President and her husband, who was a senior official with
Alberta Energy, (the government). We are particularly interested in the
communications during the time frame it was decided the public would pay for
these transmission lines and industry would be spared and costs.
·
Disclose AltaLink’s role in the incident of spying on citizens, which
the government investigator, retired Justice Perras, said he did not have time
to “delve into the allegations”.
If AltaLink is truly listening, then we as the
taxpaying public call upon them to publically support the repeal of Electric
Statutes Amendment Act and restore a transparent public approval process,
to determine whether these lines are truly needed or not.
We will only accept the results of a open and
fair approval process. We have been denied that right for five years, but we will
continue to fight for our rights.
-30-
For more information Contact
Joe Anglin
(403) 843-3279
(403) 963-0521 cell
Leader, Lavesta Area Group
*************************************
For Immediate
Release
(
· October 13th 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. SAGE building (the old Land Titles office) at 15 Sir Winston Churchill Square – meeting room B in the basement -- Sponsored by the Edmonton’s Seniors’ Action and Liaison Team (SALT)
·
October 13th @
·
October 14th
@
·
October 19th @
·
October 22nd
@
·
October 27th @
·
October 27th @
·
November 2nd @
·
November 6th noontime to
-30-
For more information Contact
Joe Anglin
(403) 843-3279
(403) 963-0521 cell
Leader Lavesta Area Group
*************************************
For Immediate
Release
(
Most importantly, the Lavesta Area Group would
like to extend its appreciation to the voters of the Calgary-Glenmore riding
who rejected Ed Stelmach’s PC sponsored Bill-50. Bill-50, if passed, will be
the largest tax increase ever imposed upon the taxpayers in the history of
-30-
For more information Contact
Joe Anglin
(403) 843-3279
Chairman
Lavesta Area Group
**********************************
PRESS RELEASE –
For Immediate Release
Call for Inquiry
into Status of Elections
How
many people in this province have the ability to file a complaint with
Elections Alberta on a Friday, and to have the acting “Chief Electoral Officer”
remain in her office with the “Director of Elections Operations” – late into
the afternoon -- investigating a complaint, with absolutely no corroborating
evidence? Joe Anglin filed a complaint with cogent corroborating evidence months
ago, in an effort to save the Green Party, and Elections Alberta saw fit to do
nothing.
We
are now expected to believe that the reason for the investigation (which has
changed since Anglin was first informed) is the result of a citizen’s
complaint. Yet, even if the complaint was legitimate (and it is not), what did
Elections Alberta hope to accomplish on a Friday afternoon at
It
is our opinion that someone of a higher ranking authority directed Lori
McKee-Jeske, Chief Electoral Officer, and Drew Westwater, Director of Elections
Operations, to work late into the afternoon on this matter. Had McKee-Jeske or
Westwater simply asked for a copy of the mail-out, they would have realized the
mail-outs had not been addressed -- end of investigation!
In
fact, the only evidence that exists is the evidence that Anglin exercised his
right of “Freedom of Speech” in a democratic process. Anglin’s response is
posted on the following Concerned Albertans for Responsible Government Facebook
link: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=129852548807&topic=10949#/topic.php?uid=129852548807&topic=10964
We,
the Lavesta Area Group, believe Anglin has been subjected by Elections Alberta
to a double standard of treatment, wherein rules and regulations
are selectively enforced against some individuals and not others.
We
are now calling upon this government for a full, independent, public inquiry
into the status and function of Elections Alberta. Is Elections Alberta an active political organization with an agenda, or
is it an independent agency with a defined function? Why are some complaints
investigated and others ignored? Why are some complaints pursued in the absence
of evidence, while others, accompanied with substantive cogent evidence of
wrong-doing, are never investigated? Anglin is willing to submit to a polygraph
test in Elections Alberta’s investigation; are they willing to submit to a
polygraph test in a full independent public inquiry?
-30-
Edwin
Erickson, Director
Lavesta
Area Group
Tel:
780-682-2368 Cell: 780-621-3442
*******************************
(
On Friday Ms Lori Mckee-Jeske, acting Alberta
Chief Electoral Officer, e-mailed, and then followed the e-mail with a phone
call to Joe Anglin, the leader of the Lavesta Area Group and vocal opponent of
Bill-50, stating that he may be subject to a $100,000 fine and/or one year in
jail. Anglin said he was told the phone call was necessary to make him aware of
the penalties just in case he had not read the letter. In the phone call Ms.
Mckee-Jeske accused Mr. Anglin of misusing a list of electors in the
Anglin
said, “I view the phone call as disturbing, and the letter as a feeble attempt
to use Elections
“The
accusation is false and unsubstantiated! Neither I nor the Lavesta Area Group
is in possession of an Electoral List. We never had a list of electors! We have
a receipt from
The Lavesta Area Group believes Anglin has been
singled out on this issue because he has called Bill-50 the largest potential
tax increase ever introduced, in the history of
The Lavesta Area Group purchased a mass mailing
on
Lavesta is unable to
seek proper legal advice before Monday’s election, and to avoid the risk of
arrest and prosecution has in light of the menacing conduct by Elections
Alberta been distracted from full participation in the democratic process over
the week-end. The Lavesta Area Group categorically denies any wrong-doing! We
are unable to officially respond to the allegations before Monday’s election;
however, we will be presenting a Canada Post receipt for the purchase of a
mass-mailing in our defence. We view the anonymous complaint and the actions of
Elections Alberta as a “Violation of our Canadian Charter of Rights” and an
attack on our right to exercise “Freedom of Speech” in a democratic process.
-30-
For more information Contact
Joe Anglin
(403) 843-3279
Chairman
Lavesta Area Group
************************************
Deregulation
Debacle
Minister of Energy Mel Knight said
the two transmission lines “will facilitate expanded wind-generated power, more
low emission co-generation facilities, hydro and next generation clean coal
plants,” He further stated, “they will also reduce the losses on existing lines
that cost Alberta consumers more than $220 million last year.”
The fact that the Minister doesn’t
have the authority to approve the need for the transmission lines until Bill 50
is passed this fall, (what are the odds), and the fact that wind generation
north of Calgary is non-existent and there are no plans to remove or stop
transmitting over the high-loss existing transmission lines seems just as
irrelevant to the Minister’s announcement as the fact that the older thirty and
forty year-old coal fired generators will still continue to operate and burn
coal, but at an increased capacity.
Alberta Energy’s rules require that
a cost benefit analysis be completed before any project is undertaken. The
rules further state that industry must contribute to the costs of building the
lines, equal to the percentage industry will benefit from the lines. In 2005
the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) admitted it never did a cost
benefit analysis on the proposed transmission line. As of this date no one has
done a cost benefit analysis to see if this is the right proposal, or to
evaluate to what degree industry will benefit. In 2005 Alberta Energy ruled
that the public would pay for the transmission line even though transcripts
revealed the line was going to transmit an average of 750 MW, which would
increased export capacity by 750MW.
This is no small matter! Alberta
Energy is proposing over $14 billion in upgrades to
It is time we evaluated the de-regulation of the
electricity industry before we invest in any transmission up-grades.
De-regulation has made our electricity system less reliable, less efficient,
and more costly. Up to now de-regulation has not worked, and all the evidence
suggests that Albertans are poised to get gouged on their electric bills once
again. Before we spend a cent we need a full and complete transparent review of
what the public needs. We don’t need Bill 50 passed so the government can make
decisions unchallenged and in secret.
-30-
Joe
Anglin
Chairman
Lavesta
Area Group
(403)
843-3279
***************************************
Citizen’s concerns are ignored as
the controversial Land Assembly Area Act is railroaded
through
(Rimbey) The passage
of the controversial land assembly bill Wednesday eliminated many of the
environmental protections once afforded farmers, landowners and communities as
the government sets about acquiring properties for major infrastructure
projects. The new law goes so far as to authorize “the dumping of any
substance” on a person’s property, prior to the necessity of having to purchase
the land for a project, [Ref: Sec 3(1)(e)]. Where the old law mandated that the
government had to protect the watershed, the new law bestows upon the Minister
the unlimited power to “Manage Water”.
Infrastructure Minister Jack Hayden has maintained the bill
doesn't give the government any extra powers and landowners will be treated
fairly. He says the law is intended to acquire land for public projects such as
ring roads and reservoirs, but opponents say they do not have any reason to
believe him. The Act gives the Minister the ability to circumvent the courts
and issue judgments as if the Minister was a judge of the Queen’s Bench. Albertans
note the word “Fair” does not appear anywhere in the controversial land Act,
and the Act grants the Minister the authority to approve “any kind of use”,
which Albertans claim is akin to an open gate that will release the potential
for corruption. [Ref: Sec 3(1)(a)]
The Minister lost credibility with the public when he
refused to listen to the nearly 2000 Albertans who attended public meetings,
sponsored by private citizens, and who unanimously called for the Bill’s
withdrawal. Further government credibility was lost when the P.C. Caucus voted
down an amendment to limit project approvals, to only when necessary in the
“Public Interest”.
-30-
For more information contact:
Joe Anglin
(403) 843-3279
************************************
Why
Is the Minister of Infrastructure Lying to
On
March 2, Alberta Infrastructure Minister, Jack Hayden, introduced Bill 19, the
Land Assembly Project Area Act, to the Legislature. The Bill follows the
infamous Bill 46 as the next step in removing property and democratic rights
from
At
a number of public meetings sponsored by private citizens and community groups
across the province (in which only ONE
among almost 900 people polled in favour of the Bill), Minister Hayden and many
of his associate PC MLA’s have been spreading blatant misinformation about the
contents of the Bill. On April1, the Minister was a guest on the province-wide
Here
is a segment of the transcript from that program:
Jack Hayden: No! Power lines are not included in this, and this is one
of the big confusing factors that are out there. This is for public
infrastructure: transportation and utility corridors. There is legislation in
place and a process for transmission of power to be put in place, and that’s
all private. This has nothing to do with that.
Dave Rutherford: Does this affect pipelines, private company pipelines,
etc?
J H: No, it doesn’t.
D R: Gas wells?
J H: No.
D H: Nuclear reactors?
J H: No, not at all.
One
would think that the Minister who sponsored the Bill, and who is mandated to
act in the best interests of Albertans, would know and understand the Bill’s
contents. However, that does not seem to be the case. Here is the exact wording
as stated in Bill 19:
Section 2(2): For the
purpose of this Act and the regulations, a project is a public project if the
project is any, or a combination of any, of the following:
a)
a project related to
the transportation of people or goods;
b)
a project to confine
to a corridor of land pipelines, pipes or other conduits, poles, towers, wires,
cables, conductors or other devices, including any ancillary structures.
The
discrepancies can hardly be more clear, and this is only one example of the
huge amount of misinformation coming out of the mouths of Minister Hayden and
his entourage of MLA’s.
The
question begs an answer: Why is the
Minister of Infrastructure Lying to
Edwin
Erickson,
Buck
******************************************
Please see
updated schedule of meetings and accompanying letter re: BILL 19:
LEARN the FACTS behind
BILL 19
Bill 19
Presentation by Joe Anglin
The press and public is invited
to attend an open public presentation and discussion of Bill 19
Wednesday
April 1st @ 7:30 PM Lakedell Community Centre Westerose, AB
Thursday
April 2nd in the Telus Centre Room 236, @
1st
Session
2nd Session
Friday
April 3rd @ 7:30 PM
Monday
April 6th @ 7:30 PM Legion Hall Innisfail, AB
Tuesday
April 7th @7:30 PM Crossfield Community Centre Crossfield, AB
Wednesday
April 8 @ 7:30 PM Elks Hall Leslieville, AB
Thursday April
9 @
Bill 19 has Serious Consequences for Small
Businesses, Farm/Ranch Operations and property owners. The press and public are
welcome to attend any or all these sessions to learn the FACTS about Bill 19.
Letter from a Concerned Albertan:
March
29.2009
Roughly
three quarters of a century ago, legislation was passed in
Ask
yourself how long it has taken to forge democratic rights in the history of our
western civilization. Ask yourself why you cherish to live in a
country such as
The need
to construct public infrastructure and the ramifications for individuals in
conflict with such undertaking has already been acknowledged and covered by the
Expropriation Act. Procedures are in place to serve the individual as
well as the common good.
Bill 19
removes the need for these procedures. Bill 19 diametrically opposes your protection
by the law. Bill 19 challenges the fundamental understanding of legal ethics in
a just society. For all of us, these democratic rights will be taken from us by
the stroke of a pen if Bill 19 becomes law.
Land
owners of
Anne
& Roly Brandt
Thorsby
********************************
LEARN the
FACTS behind BILL 19
SPECIAL INFORMATION
MEETINGS:
LAKEDELL Community Centre, Westerose, AB – Wednesday, April
LESLIEVILLE Elks’ Hall, Leslieville, AB – Wednesday, April
Speaker: Joe Anglin - Landowner Advocate/ Leader
Presented by:
For more information:
Edwin Erickson, Spokesman
Tel: 780-682-2368 Cell: 780-621-3442
Everyone is
encouraged to attend
***********************************
United Power Transmission Area
Groups
(UPTAG)
Presents Two Public Forums
Discussing Bill 19
The Public is
Invited to Attend a Critical Meeting Pertaining to Democratic Rights and the Proposed Bill
19, which gives the Government Unprecedented Powers to
Expropriate
Private Property
Plan on
coming to
INNISFAIL LEGION HALL
MONDAY APRIL 6TH
or
APRIL 7TH
and Learn the
Facts about the proposed Bill 19!
ADMISSION IS FREE
Bill 19 has Serious Consequences for Small Businesses, Farm/Ranch
Operations and your Democratic Right to be Fairly Compensated!
Attend a meeting and learn for free what the
Government will not tell you at their meeting on Wednesday night April 8th!
Come and ask questions!
For more information contact Marie Barkley @ (403)
335-8915
*********************************
For Immediate
Release
Bill 19 was Drafted in Error?
(
Mr. Hayden told the crowd in the attendance, as the government has
done at previous public forums, Bill 19 was needed because the Restricted
Development Act was struck down in a previous court decision. When queried by
Mr. Anglin over the referenced court decision, Mr. Hayden was informed that a
Restricted Development Act has never existed in law in
Anglin went on to ask Mr. Hayden that if he could not produce a copy of a
court case striking down the assumed Restricted Development Act, would he then
agree that the premise for drafting Bill 19 was based on an error concerning a
court ruling that doesn’t exist, and would he then withdraw the Bill because of
this error?
Mr. Hayden did not respond to Anglin’s question, and the other five MLAs
scrambled and shuffled paper. However, Mr. Hayden and the other MLAs in
attendance would not comment further on the fact the Minister may have drafted
Bill 19 in error – in view of the fact the courts have not struck down any
legislation in Alberta called the Restricted Development Act.
-30-
Joe Anglin
Leader of the
(403)
843-3279
****************************************
(
This will be the first time the Minister, and
sponsor of the controversial Bill 19, will defend his proposed Bill. Mr. Hayden
and Mr. Anglin will answer questions from the public at the
open forum.
The public and press are invited to attend. The
forum starts at
-30-
Joe Anglin
Leader of the
(403)
843-3279
************************************
LEARN the
FACTS behind BILL 19
SPECIAL INFORMATION
MEETINGS:
WARBURG, AB Community Centre - Tuesday, March
PEACE RIVER, AB Weberville Hall – Wednesday, March
GRIMSHAW, AB New Horizons Drop-In Centre – Thursday, March
RYLEY, AB Community Centre – Monday, March
Speakers:
Joe Anglin - Landowner Advocate/ Leader
Edwin Erickson – Spokesman,
Invited Guests – PC
MLA’s, MLA’s & Representatives of All
Political
Parties
Everyone is
encouraged to attend!
*******************
Notice Change of address (Ponoka)
The public and press are cordially
invited to an open forum and presentation of Bill 19 at
Royal Canadian Legion Branch #66 3911
HWY 2A
(Please note the change in address from previous notices)
******************************************
Bill 46 was a
huge assault on the rights of
Bill 19 was
presented for first reading in the Legislature last Monday, March 2. This Bill
makes Bill 46 look like a pussy-cat! In fact, it pretty much totally removes
any remaining rights that Albertans may have left to protect their property
from unfair expropriation.
Please read the
attached information OVERVIEW below regarding
Bill 19, and email and/or telephone your MLA and the Premier, expressing your
opposition to the Bill.
Time is of the essence
– we expect that the Stelmach government will try to rush this Bill through,
before
I urge you to act in your own best
interests, and read the Bill in its entirety at this link: www.assembly.ab.ca/bills/2009/pdf/bill-019.pdf
Please do not allow your rights as a
property owner and citizen of this province to be eroded any further than they
already are!
Thank you.
Edwin Erickson
780-682-2368
*******************************************
OVERVIEW
The introduction of Bill 19, on March 2, 2009, is a
draconian attempt to streamline the expropriation process of private property
under the guise of acquiring land for Utility Corridors. While we agree Utility
Corridors can be a good thing if well planned, this Bill 19 is a very bad Bill
and only serves to remove existing rights. If Bill 19 is passed in its current
form, any cabinet Minister of the Alberta Legislature can design and plan a
project, apply as the applicant for approval of the project, adjudicate the
approval process of their own project; and enforce their own decision.
What constitutes a project?
Section 2(d) of the Act states that a project is defined as anything they so
determine.
Bill 19 makes it legal for any
Cabinet Minister to take away anyone’s business home, land or private
property for pretty much any reason they so desire. The Bill streamlines the
expropriation process by removing certain due-process rights, guaranteed under
the Expropriations Act. Section 13, of Bill 19, eliminates the applicability of
the Expropriation Act, just in case anyone wants to use or invoke any provision
under the Expropriations Act.
No public notice is required of
any project under this act, and although notice is required to be given to the
registered owner of a property, notice only has to be sent to the last known
address – and a registered letter is not required. If a person never receives
notice that the government is taking their property or home, Section 4(4) makes
that perfectly legal. If an individual wants to appeal the Minister’s decision,
they have seven days to appeal to the Minister’s self-appointed appeals Board.
Most farmers and rural property owners will not even get their notification
letters within seven days: never mind organize an appeal.
The worst part of this Bill is
reserved for any Albertan who would interfere with, object to, or resist, an
order from the Minister to vacate their property, or sign on the dotted line at
a price determined by the Minister. Sec 3(f) states the Surface Rights Act does
not apply, so even [arguably] a fair process to determine a fair price is
eliminated. Under section 7 and 12 of the Act, if in the Minister’s opinion a
person is doing something, or the Minister thinks a person is going to do
something, the Minister can order a person to stop, or do something else. This
has to be one of the most bizarre wordings found in legislation, in the history
of democracy. Failure to comply with a Minister’s order can result in a
$100,000 fine and/or two years in jail.
Conceivably, and it is not to
far a stretch, if the Minister thinks you are going to contravene his or her
orders, they can order you to stop what they think you are going to do, and if
you don’t stop what they think you might do – they can put you in jail or fine
you $100,000.
Joe Anglin
(403) 843-3279
RIGHTS LOST UNDER BILL 19
1.
The right to question the project, or the
expropriation of your property for that purpose
2.
The right of notification
3.
The public’s right of notification
4.
The right to have compensation determined by a
Board
5.
The right to an inquiry if the expropriating
authority is not a Crown Corporation
6.
The right to have a reasonable opportunity to
present evidence
7.
The right to be represented by counsel at an
Inquiry
8.
The right to be compensated immediately
9.
The right to be reimbursed for legal costs
10.
The right to have the first the option to buy the
property back if the project is cancelled
11.
The right to have the property appraised
12.
The right to be reimbursed for relocation and
moving costs
13.
The right to be compensated for business losses
14.
The rights protecting “Mineral Rights Owners” from
expropriation
OTHER PENALTIES ADDED UNDER BILL 19
If an appeal of the
expropriation could delay the project the Minister can require the property
owner to provide security in the form and amount the appeal body considers
necessary to cover the Minister’s costs. Those costs can be anything the
Minister determines.
A property owner can be held
liable for any costs associated with the application, if it is determined that
the property owner is not complying with the Minister’s order. This also
applies to delays caused by stay orders and appeals.
Under Bill 19 mineral rights can be expropriated.
LEGAL
OPINION
Here is one anonymous legal opinion. I am still gathering others.
I agree with most all of this person's interpretation except the
comments about a requirement of public notice. As I read Bill 19, Section
4 details the notification process, and limits notification to
the chief administrative officer of each municipality and the registered
property owner. No public notice is required in Section 4. That said,
Section 4(4) eliminates any liability or requirement by the Minister to execute
the notification process properly. For example: If the Minister fails to
properly notify a property owner, or a municipality properly -- Sec 4(4)
indemnifies the Minister and the project from any mistake or failure in the
notification process and requirements thereof.
Many of the suggestion made below, are already found in the
Expropriations Act. For example, public notice was required under the
Expropriations Act -- but Section 13 of Bill 19 eliminates that
requirement.
Establishing utility and transportation corridors does make good sense
and does benefits all Albertans. Destroying our fundamental democratic rights
in the process does not!
Joe
LEGAL OPINION
You
have asked me for my legal comments on a proposed new provincial Act: the
Land Assembly Project Area Act, also known as Bill 12(attached).
I have
reviewed the Bill as a courtesy to you and here are my comments.
The
proposed new provincial law deals with government take-over of private
property. The Bill has serious implications for landowners. The
Bill allows the government to issue a “Control Order” to take over control of
private property while the government goes through the process of assembling
land for utility and transportation corridors.
In my
opinion, establishing utility and transportation corridors makes good sense and
benefits all Albertans. The problem, however, is that those people who
own land, live in homes, or operate businesses on the land to be taken over by
government will have to bear the costs and burdens from which all Albertans
benefit. Because of this, if anything, the government should be going out
of its way to treat these people fairly. But the Bill does not do that.
The
Bill as currently written allows the government to take over control of your
land for an indefinite period of time. The Bill says the government will
register a “Control Order” against your land title. Anyone who might
consider buying it is subject to the Order. Since the Order will restrict
what you can do on the property and will likely state that no further
improvements or changes of use can be made to your property, who would want to
buy it and, if at all, at what reduced price?
It
typically takes government several years or more to assemble land for
corridors. Just because your land is designated under a Control Order
does not mean that the government will actually follow through and buy your
land. So, you could be faced with a long period of uncertainty where your
life and/or business have to be put on hold. Putting your life and/or
business on hold—and the uncertainty it brings—puts strain on personal
relationships, and has both a human and financial cost. Here are some examples
to illustrate the problem with the Bill:
Home Owner
·
Assume it is your home that is designated by a Control Order and this
happens in 2009. It might not be until 2013 that the government decides
to go ahead with either a purchase or expropriation. This means that for
the 4 year period you will be effectively prevented from selling your house or
making renovations to it. You will have to put your life on hold while
you wait to see if the government is going to take things to the next level and
actually buy your land. You get no compensation for this under the
Bill. Assume further that during this 4-year period you need to move to
another town: who is going to buy your house knowing that it is subject
to the Control Order? The Bill gives you absolutely no compensation for
this and allows the government to leave the Control Order in place
indefinitely.
Business
Owner
·
Assume that you operate a business on the land that is designated
by a Control Order and this happens in 2009 and the government takes 5 years to
decide whether to transition from a Control Order to a purchase. You had
been planning on expanding your business and its buildings but now you can’t
because of the Control Order. You get no compensation for this impact and
the government could decide in the end not go ahead with the purchase.
Either way, the Bill gives you no compensation for these real and significant
impacts.
Farmer
·
Once the Control Owner is in place, the government controls your farm.
Assume you are a dairy farmer and need to expand your dairy farm to stay
competitive and economically viable. The Control Order prevents you from
expanding. After a year or two passes, your farm is no longer
economically viable because the Control Order prevented your expansion.
You go into bankruptcy. The Bill says you get no compensation.
The
important point where this Bill goes wrong is that it does not recognize the
financial and human impacts of having your land taken over by a Control Order.
It wrongly assumes that if the government does not go through with the purchase
or expropriation you will have suffered no harm or adverse impact. Such
an assumption is clearly false. The Bill gives no consideration to the
human disruption and financial costs of the long waiting period between the
Control Order declaration and the final government decision to purchase or
expropriate.
Ways
the Bill Could be Improved
There
should be compensation as soon as your land is declared as being taken over by
a Control Order. There should be a strict time limit in the Act that
limits the amount of time that the government can leave the Order in place
for. For example, 6 months would appear to be reasonable. If the
government wants to renew the Order for another 6 months, further compensation
should be paid. The compensation should be in form of a payment for the
adverse effect and nuisance and injurious affection caused by the property
owner. Also, it would seem to make sense that once the Order in place,
and the owner needs (or wants) to move because of a new job or another reason,
that the government should be required to immediately purchase the property so
that person and their family can get on with life.
Consultation
The
government is saying that they will give notice in newspapers and
consult with affected landowners prior to declaring control of private
lands. I would respectfully point out this commitment is meaningless and
will do nothing to help landowners. There is no standard or test that the
government has to meet before it decides to issue a Control Order affecting
your land and there seems no process through which a landowner could seek to
convince the government not to impose a Control Order on their property.
If you
have concerns about this Bill, I would recommend that you contact your MLA, the
Minister of Infrastructure, and the Premier to convey your concerns and
suggestions.
The Bill could
become law in the next two weeks so you need to act now!
************************************
In an effort to pipe and transmit its
energy resources, over the rights of many of its citizens, to the United
States, the Conservative Alberta Government has introduced one of the most
draconian pieces of legislation known to a democratic society. Known as Bill
19, and if passed, any cabinet Minister of the Alberta Legislature can design
and plan a project, apply for approval as the applicant of the project,
adjudicate the approval process of their own project; and enforce their own
decision.
What constitutes a definition of a project
under Bill 19? Section 2(d) of the Act states that a project is defined as
anything they so determine.
Bill 19 gives the Energy Minister the power
to expropriate anyone’s home, land or private property for pretty much any
reason he desires. Section 13 of the Bill streamlines the expropriation process
by eliminating certain due-process-of-law rights, guaranteed under the
Expropriations Act. If passed, Bill 19 eliminates the applicability of the
Expropriation Act.
Public notice of a major project such as a
nuclear power plant proposal, gas pipeline or transmission line proposal
falling under the jurisdiction of the act is not required to be given.
The registered owner of a piece of property being expropriated is required to
be notified, however if for some reason they are not notified that their
property or home is being expropriated, Section 4(4) makes that perfectly
acceptable. If an individual wants to appeal the Minister’s decision, they have
seven days to appeal to the Minister’s self-appointed appeals Board.
Individuals seeking a fair hearing for compensation under the Surface Rights
Act will be disappointed because Sec 3(f) of Bill 19 eliminates the Surface
Rights Act.
The worst part of Bill 19 is reserved for
any Albertan who would interfere with, object to, or resist, an order from the
Minister to vacate their property, or sign on the dotted line at a price
determined by the Minister. Under section 7 and 12 of the Act, if in the
Minister’s opinion a person is doing something, or the Minister thinks a person
is going to do something, the Minister can order a person to stop, and do
something else. This has to be one of the most bizarre wordings of Legislation
in the history of democracy. Failure to comply with a Minister’s order can
result in a $100,000 fine and/or two years in jail.
Conceivably, and it is not to far a
stretch, if the Minister of Energy thinks a person is going to contravene his
orders, he can order that person to stop what he thinks they are going to do,
and if they don’t stop what he thinks they might do – they can be arrested and
jailed.
The Bill is a disgrace to the fundamental
principles of democracy.
Joe Anglin
******************************************
Bill 19 -Déjà vu – All
Over Again
If
you thought BILL 46 was a threat to
property owners and to the democratic rights of all Albertans, BILL 19, presented by
Drumheller-Stettler MLA, Jack Hayden, for first reading in the Alberta
Legislature on Monday, March 2, makes its predecessor look like a babe-in-arms.
This Bill takes the notion of expropriation to a whole new level.
Bill
46, passed by PC MLA’s in the middle of the night on December 5, 2007,
stretched the limits of democracy by effectively taking away the rights of
citizens to a public hearing, to fair and timely notice of any potential
hearing, and even changed the name of the EUB, to distance that government
Board from its prior illegal use of spies, bias, etc. against the public.
But,
apparently, that was not enough to keep utilities corporations and the new AUC
(read EUB) safe from the perils of the Alberta citizenry.
The
new Bill 19 will further allow any Cabinet Minister, through the
Lieutenant-Governor, to make regulations “respecting the removal of any
buildings, improvements, materials or animals from the Project Area.” In other
words, as I read it, you WILL BE REMOVED from your property, at the discretion
of the Minister.
Furthermore,
you will have only seven days to mount an appeal, and the qualification for
serving notification on the landowner is sketchy, at best. For example, you
could conceivably be away on holidays and come home to find your farmstead
demolished and that notice had been served in the newspaper or to an unknown
neighbour while you were away.
If
you should be fortunate enough to receive proper notice and quick enough to
find a good lawyer to stage an appeal within the seven days, you will face an
appeal panel appointed by the very Minister who is authorizing the confiscation
of your property!
And,
should you decide to interfere
with, object to, or resist, an order from the Minister to vacate your property,
or to refuse to accept a price determined as fair by the Minister for your
holdings, you will probably not even be allowed a hearing by the already
suspect Surface Rights Board. The mandate of Bill 19 will apparently supersede
the Surface Rights Act.
And, as a last crippling slap in the face
of democracy and the people of this province, if you should persist in your
objections, and, if the Minister even thinks
you may be going to oppose the expropriation of your property, you will be
served with an injunction to cease the activities that the Minister thought you were going to partake in!
Failure to comply will result in a maximum $100,000.00 fine, 2 years in the
slammer, or any combination thereof, and you will be permitted to pay the
costs.
Back in the early 1920’s, Thomas Crerar,
leader of that era’s Progressive Party said that his party represented “all who desire to see
purity in the government restored, who desire to see public morality supplant
public corruption, who desire to sweep away abuse of the function of government
for the advancement of the privileged few.”
Who
says history doesn’t repeat itself? If you are a property owner, I’d be picking
up a copy of Bill 19 and reading it over very carefully. We know that with a
72-seat PC majority in the Alberta Legislature, there is no hope of stopping
this Bill, but maybe it’s once again time, almost 90 years later, to heed the
words of Thomas Crerar.
Edwin Erickson
Buck Lake, AB
780-682-2368
***************************************************************
For Immediate Release
July 3, 2008
(RIMBEY, AB) Today the Alberta Court of Appeal granted
landowners leave to appeal the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board’s (EUB)
decision to license the Montana Alberta Tie Link’s Ltd. (MATL) proposal to
build a high voltage electrical transmission line from Lethbridge, AB to Great
Falls Montana USA.
The MATL Ltd proposal to build a high voltage
transmission line from Lethbridge, AB to Great Falls, Montana is unique because
MATL is not a registered public utility and the MATL project is not
commissioned as representing the public’s interest. MATL Ltd. is a private
company proposing to usurp private property for a private for-profit project,
against the will of many of the property owners in the region.
When MATL Ltd lawyers were asked by Justice
Martin, “When do landowners get to question MATL’s decision to create a high
voltage transmission line corridor that includes their property?” The MATL
group’s lawyer responded, “They don’t....it’s the law!”
The Lavesta Area Group was told very close to
the same thing in 2006 when the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) and
AltaLink’s lawyers told the court that landowners didn’t have any right to
question the need to usurp their property for a transmission line.
In addressing the question of public
interest Justice Martin stated in his ruling,
“I
am inclined to grant leave on this issue. I consider the issue to be of
significance, and agree with the approach taken in Bur v. Alberta (Energy
and Utilities Board), 2007 ABCA 210, where similar concerns regarding
the interpretation of the public interest provisions resulted in leave being
granted”.
Joe Anglin Chairman of the Lavesta Area Group,
said today,
“Today’s
ruling is the first step in a victory for landowners all across Alberta. The
MATL proposal is a classic case of competing private interests, and if MATL is
allowed to just usurp private property for their own private interests what is
to prevent some other private interest, such as a used car company or a bank
from taking possession of a farmer’s field because they like the location. If
MATL is allowed to proceed with its project, why can’t someone else just set up
a concession stand in a bank lobby or car dealership, against the will of the
bank or dealership, because it is a good location”?
“This is a
huge victory for us, we are extremely pleased with Justice Martin’s decision to
allow the appeal to go forward. We feel very confident we can overturn the
EUB’s decision. For us this is more than a significant property rights issue;
we believe it is a fundamental issue dealing with due process of law and civil
rights.”
The Lavesta Area Group financed the MATL appeal
because the MATL case shares many of the same landowner issues as the AltaLink
transmission line proposal. Lavesta defeated the AltaLink transmission line
proposal last September before many of the legal issues could be resolved
because the government and industry admitted to hiring Private Investigators,
who were eventually caught spying on landowners in conversation with their
lawyers.
The 800 member Lavesta Area Group has just begun
new rounds of talks with industry on a new proposal for a transmission line.
Anglin says the group is not opposed economic growth; they are opposed to
unjust laws that deny due process to a fair and transparent hearing. The
Lavesta Area Group intends to fully challenge any decision by industry that
violates their rights to due process of the law.
-30-
For further information contact
Joe Anglin
Chairman
Lavesta Area Group
(403) 843-3279
(403) 963-0521 (cell)
***************************************************************
May 15, 2007
TOWER COLLAPSE
West of
High
voltage power transmission line collapses amidst safety concerns being
expressed by landowners at an EUB---Altalink—Landowner hearing, presently being
held in Rimbey, Alberta.
