Skip to content

Critics argue legislation threatens property rights

Opposition to a series of laws approved by the provincial government in recent years is building as critics argue it will impact Albertans’ property rights.

Opposition to a series of laws approved by the provincial government in recent years is building as critics argue it will impact Albertans’ property rights.

As calls increase to repeal such laws as the Land Assembly Project Area Act and the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) — often referred to as Bills 19 and 36 respectively — Premier Ed Stelmach announced the province will review the legislation.

Alberta lawyer Keith Wilson said the laws should be scrapped and sent back to the drawing board.

“This legislation is dangerous, flawed and needs to be repealed,” he said during a public forum in High River on Jan. 12.

Wilson has been travelling across the province to meet with Albertans and promote his stance that the bills extinguish property rights without compensation and limit landowners’ abilities to appeal to the courts.

Wilson singled out four pieces of legislation he argued impact property rights — the Electric Statutes Amendment Act, the Land Assembly Project Area Act, ALSA and the Carbon Capture and Sequestration Act.

The premier released a statement via Twitter last week defending the pieces of legislation, saying they have been misinterpreted.

However, Wilson said he believes them to be a threat to property rights, adding ALSA is the worst offender.

The act divides the province into seven land use regions and mandates the creation of a plan for each area, as well as for both the Calgary and Edmonton areas.

Wilson singled out a number of provisions he argued will severely restrict property rights.

He said it contains legal wording allowing the government to extinguish documents like water licences and land titles, it doesn’t allow compensation and it doesn’t permit people to go to the courts over the act.

The law only gives people the right to compensation in one area — when the government issues what are called conservation directives. Otherwise, Wilson said there is no right for compensation as a result of a regional plan.

As well, he said the act removes access to the courts over a regional plan and there is no right of appeal.

“Whatever they do under a regional plan … you cannot take them to court,” said Wilson.

According to Wilson, the bill also restricts decision-making abilities for local municipalities. All municipalities will have to align their municipal development plans and other land use documents to the regional plans. He said this will infringe on the ability of local governments to make decisions in the best interest of their communities.

Wilson said he isn’t opposed to land use planning and Bill 36 has some redeeming qualities, but it doesn’t redeem the act.

“What concerns me the most is number one, the government thinks it’s appropriate for politicians at the cabinet table to have absolute power over people’s property and businesses and the current government thinks it’s OK to extinguish those rights,” he said.

Sustainable Resources Minister Mel Knight said ALSA is being misinterpreted and it will be reviewed to clarify the provincial government’s intention.

He said the provincial government is not eliminating people’s property rights.

“I can tell you categorically that is absolutely false,” he said.

The law does not change compensation rules under other pieces of legislation and anyone affected by a regional plan who qualifies for compensation under other laws can still receive it, said Knight. For example, he explained anyone who loses a portion of area they are permitted to log as a result of land being set aside for bear habitat under a regional plan would still be eligible for compensation under the Forestry Act.

“It’s always been there and it’s still there,” he said. “It clearly states in the legislation that the compensation resides in other legislation.”

As well, Knight said the regional plans will be matters of government policy, which cannot be challenged in court.

He said elected representatives are the best people to determine the contents of a plan and its impact, not a judge.

“It’s clear to me that most Albertans would prefer to have their duly elected representatives make that decision for them instead of a court making that decision for them,” said Knight.

He acknowledged the use of the word “extinguish” is concerning to people and said this too will be reviewed. He also stressed this section has absolutely nothing to do with land titles.

“Albertans deserve an opportunity to have this clarified and this is exactly what I’m going to do,” he said. “The word ‘extinguish’ is a very terminal word.”

Highwood MLA George Groeneveld said the response to the bills is an overreaction and people should read the legislation in its entirety to get the whole picture. The province’s intent was to bring in new tools to help with long-term planning in the province.

“That’s exactly what we were trying to do so there was no guessing where we’re at,” said Groeneveld. “Does some of the language need to be cleaned up? Absolutely it does.”

Wildrose Alliance leader Danielle Smith said her party would repeal all four bills listed by Wilson if elected to government.

“I don’t think (Bill 36) can be tweaked, I don’t think it can be tinkered with — I think it needs to be repealed,” she said.

Calling it a “government knows best” approach, Smith suggested the law gives cabinet the final say over land use, not municipalities. While there is a need for municipalities to work together on land use planning, she said ALSA goes too far.

She said municipal governments are best positioned to make land use decisions.

“Only local municipal councils, in consultation with people who are impacted in the region, know what the best land uses are in their areas,” said Smith. “This is not something that can be managed from a capital city 300 kilometres away.”

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks