Dear editor,
When I first heard Mr. Keith Wilson speak in Ardmore a short while ago, I was introduced to what is happening in our Alberta government regarding land issues, high voltage transmission lines and power shifting to a select handful of people in the cabinet. Mr. Wilson is a very knowledgeable, intelligent, dedicated lawyer with expertise in property rights.
The grim picture that unfolded was shocking to me. The way former Bills 19, 36 and 50 were crafted has taken away fundamental rights we are entitled to as a democracy. This is not a wild overstatement. These bills were voted on and passed and are now laws. They affect every person in this province. I foolishly thought all the usual, that this is government by the people, for the people, this must be some huge mistake and surely it will be rectified!
But the question of how such bills could have passed the scrutiny of so many supposedly reasonably intelligent people as they made their way into law was very troubling. We elect people to pay attention to these things to make sure such bills never become laws. What went wrong? Or were they purposely crafted in such a manner?
When faced with the displeasure of the people, our MLA told us all was well and Minister Mel Knight was coming for a meeting and all would be explained. I went to the meeting and was very unhappy! I found Minister Knight to be patronizing. I was incredulous that he was trying to justify what was in the laws by repeatedly saying “the intention was…what we intended to do,” etcetera.
Myself and some neighbours attended the meeting last night in St. Paul where Keith Wilson spoke once again on laws 19, 36 and 50 and what they mean now with the amendments. Mr. Wilson is a very good, soft spoken speaker and most of his presentation is not using his words. He does a slide presentation using actual government documents, presentations industry has made to government, and papers from think-tanks like the Fraser Institute. This was a very wise way to present. One man’s words could possibly be suspect but when one is faced with considerable evidence in the government’s own words there is no room for argument.
To make a long story short, the amendments fixed only the land titles debacle. These bills are still horribly flawed to the point it may be easier to simply repeal them and start again.
Hon. Minister Danyluk, MLA for St. Paul, was the first MLA to ever attend one of Mr. Wilson’s meetings and I was hoping he would listen and contribute some positive, honest input. Instead Danyluk was defensive and in my opinion extremely combative. In my opinion again, it appeared he had not listened at all but instead had spent his time trying to come up with rebuttals to try to defend the indefensible.
Sincerely,
Marie Ilchuk
