If there had been any doubt about the legal consequences of the Land Stewardship Act, a head-to-head between Keith Wilson and MLA Evan Berger sews it up.
Just before Christmas, Berger, parliamentary assistant to the Minister for Sustainable Resource Development, issued a written response to an interview between Real Agriculture and Keith Wilson. Real Agriculture is a website based in Picture Butte that provides agriculture news and views.
The Nouvelle received a copy of the exchange. Berger's response to the original interview is paired with Wilson's reply on the side, making the point for point arguments easy to digest.
However, the legal language is not so easy to digest. But here's an attempt.
At the top of the interview, Berger and Wilson seem to agree on the new role of municipalities, although in different words. “Municipal plans must align with the regional plans,” Berger confirms
The Land Stewardship Act, former Bill 36, gives cabinet the authority to create the regional plans such as the Vision for the Lower Athabasca Region.
“Municipalities will have to do whatever cabinet tells them to do (s.20),” says Wilson. Municipalities will no longer be able to follow the advice of ratepayers if the advice does not adhere to cabinet's edicts, according to Wilson.
Berger and Wilson then spar over the legal definition of “statutory consent,” what could be deemed the crux of the debate. “Statutory consent” is the piece of legislation that refers to a land title, contends Wilson, while Berger denies it.
For anyone who attended Wilson's presentation in Ardmore last month, his attention to this detail will be remembered as he belaboured this point by repeating it. He insisted the definition would come in handy when talking to politicians.
Acts work in conjunction with other acts, and in this case, reading the Land Titles Act becomes necessary, Wilson says in his response.
Statutory consent includes an “instrument” issued under an enactment, Wilson says. A lawyer looks to the Land Titles Act, an enactment, to see what it says about “instruments,” which includes land titles, Wilson says. The Land Stewardship Act says the government can extinguish a “statutory consent;” therefore, it can extinguish a land title.
Subsection 15 (3) bars Albertans from taking the government to court, and subsection 15 (4) strips the court of its authority to grant remedies to Albertans who feel they were treated unfairly, Wilson writes in his response.
Berger claims someone affected by the act would receive compensation. Wilson refutes the government's claim.
Wilson reviewed how numerous acts work with the Land Stewardship Act, none of which “create a right to compensation if the cabinet extinguishes existing rights using its powers under section 11,” he says.
Wilson ended his presentation in Ardmore by saying the rights gained by landowners with the Magna Carta no longer apply in Alberta.
Jargon aside, Mr. Wilson's thorough analysis goes a long way to supporting his comments that the government just doesn't understand its own legislation. That the government neglected to see how the act works with other pre-existing acts could be one reason Premier Ed Stelmach has ordered a review of former Bills 19 and 36 – and perhaps a reason he's choosing to step aside.
Berger will spend tomorrow afternoon at the Beaver River Fish and Game with MLA Genia Leskiw and Minister Mel Knight trying to convince landowners that Wilson has misread the act.
Based on the 21-page document discussed above, I find it hard to believe someone Mayor Ernie Isley describes as probably the highest respected agricultural lawyer in the province is wrong.
The document is available online at landownersagainstbills.com.
