Last week Mel Knight, minister of sustainable resource development, announced 10 amendments the government plans to make to the Land Stewardship Act (former Bill 36). The amendments are a good step toward recognizing some of the flaws in the legislation, but whether it is enough to silence opposition against former Bills 19, 36, and 50 remains to be seen.
Knight showed what few of his counterparts in government have so far done in addressing opposition to former Bill 36. It took guts to stand in front of an audience mostly opposed to the act, and to admit that it contained mistakes that could affect property rights.
The amendments show recognition of critical shortcomings within the act - and suggest critics are right about the legislation's threat to property rights.
The real question, though, is whether the amendments go far enough, and if the changes will make the act acceptable to the electorate in time for the next election.
According to one of the most vocal critics, Keith Wilson, the amendments will not fix systemic problems within the act. He says a complete rewrite would be necessary, and favours repealing the three acts.
Several MLAs continue to dismiss critics like Wilson as “misinterpreting” the act.
However, if the act did not have serious problems, it would not require amendments. Clarity is not needed in law for superficial reasons – it's needed because legislation has real legal consequences.
Knight had the courage to admit the mistake and the sincerity to apologize to a packed room of concerned ratepayers - something from which everyone in government should take a lesson.
Knight denied Wilson's campaign over the last year influenced the government's decision to draw up the amendments. Wilson is reluctant to take credit for the government's backtracking on the act, which until January, the PCs steadfastly defended.
But it seems obvious without Wilson's campaign across the province, there would have been little motivation to amend anything.
The amendments are a positive sign. However, it may be a matter of too little, too late. The proposed amendments to the Land Stewardship Act are a validation of the opposition camp's arguments and repealing the three acts could be the next step in government's saving face campaign.
