Bill 19 – Land Assembly Project Act
Amendment A1
Ms Blakeman: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, on the amendment. Okay. My concern with what I’m seeing from the government amendments is that it’s one step forward and two steps back. I don’t in fact see that there has been much accomplished through these amendments. Just let me give you one really quick example. When we looked at section 2(3) of the original bill, we had, “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may not designate an area of land as a Project Area with respect to,” blah, blah, blah, and then (a), (b), (c), (d). In (a) it talks about “has prepared a plan, in accordance with the regulations,” and for (b), “has made the plan of the proposed project available to the public in accordance with the regulations.” That “in accordance with the regulations” phrase appears in every single clause.
As always, we don’t get the regulations. We don’t get the regulations in advance of the bill that is tabled before us in the Assembly. Members of the Official Opposition keep bringing up this issue because we’re asked to approve a bill in which, over and over and over again, the salient clauses in the bill are all subject to regulations. All the detail of what is supposed to happen here is by regulations. That’s like saying: would I please admire your child who is yet unborn. I’d love to admire your child, but the child is unborn. I have no child to admire here, and I don’t want to go out on a limb and say, “What a lovely looking boy” when it could turn out to be a girl, and I wouldn’t know because there’s no child.
In many ways what the government keeps trying to do is exactly that. The child that I’m referring to is the regulations. Until we can see the regulations, these bills don’t make sense. They don’t give us any information at all. Legislation should be a plan. It should be a good enough plan that I can follow it, that these people who have joined us in the gallery can follow it, that people that want to download the legislation at home and read it can follow the bill. It should be written in clear and understandable language, and you should be able to actually figure out what the government is trying to do as a result of reading it. That is an impossibility here because everything is subject to, and the detail of which is supposed to come through, the regulations, which we don’t have as we’re trying to debate the bill.
We now have an amendment come forward from the government, and I thought: “Yay. Glory. It’ll be great.” I look at it, and the section that has been replaced, which is appearing here as 2.1(1): “(a) has prepared a plan” – is this sounding familiar? Yes, I think it is, Mr. Chairman – “in accordance with the regulations.” Wait. Let’s go to the next one: “(b) has made the plan of the proposed project available to the public” – yes, again – “in accordance with the regulations.” And on it goes in (c), in (d), and henceforth through the rest of the bill. Can I tell what is supposed to be going on here? Could I explain it to someone else? Could anybody else in this Assembly explain it specifically? No, they can’t because none of us have the regulations to be able to understand the detail of what the government is anticipating here. Even though we’ve got a series of amendments, in many ways we’re no further forward.
This is what this government keeps doing. The previous time this bill was up for debate in committee, I talked about buying a pig in a poke, and it ended up getting picked up in the media. Essentially, we’re being asked to approve something that we can’t see and we can’t test and we can’t examine in any way, shape, or form. We’re just supposed to go, “Oh, I guess the government means well, and I’ll accept that.” But we can’t accept that, no, and I won’t accept that. There are too many examples of where the government actually made a mistake and, gee, in some cases passed legislation that was unconstitutional and then had to redo it, or in some cases we’re still waiting for them to redo it. Sometimes they make a genuine mistake, or they don’t foresee the consequences of something.
We have the government trying to address an issue that it has identified it wishes to modify. Thus we had the original Bill 19. That didn’t go so well. We even have backbenchers that, I’m delighted, have joined in the discussion. We rarely have them join us in discussion of a government bill, but we’ve certainly seen that this afternoon. They feel compelled to get on the record in order to address concerns that have been raised by their constituents. We’ve got amendments brought forward by the government, but that didn’t really take us that much further forward.
I’ll just pick up on the section that my colleague from Edmonton Riverview was querying the minister on, the language that we’re missing from that section that’s appearing as amendment 3 from the government, which is, in fact, amending section 5. It talks about an agreement to purchase the land and that it shall be entered into. My colleague is correct. The language that’s missing here is any language that talks about time: “expeditiously” or other kinds of time language that you get in legal documents, “forthwith,” “immediately,” or a number of other examples of language that has to do with time. There is no language that has to do with time appearing in this amending section.
My further question on this is two things around compensation. Would this section address the time lag that takes place between when this idea to designate this particular area for future use by the government – does it take us from when that’s a twinkle in the government’s eye to the point where the landowner says, “Okay; I’m ready to sell,” and we have section 5(1) kick in? What is done about the devaluation, the lowering of the market value of the land that has happened from that twinkle in the eye to this point? If you start to negotiate from this point forward, you may have already had a devaluation in your land. If the government says, “Well, no, I mean, we do the regular due diligence that happens around the sale of land, and we look at the nearest ones or comparable property, and at this point in time or within the last six months it is X amount of money,” that may not be taking into consideration any devaluation that’s happened over the longer advance period of what’s contemplated in this bill. That’s the first question I have.
The second question is around the ability of the landowner to continue to negotiate contracts for the use of their land. I’m thinking grazing leases or access for oil and gas companies, in which a landowner can sign a contract for additional compensation. If they are now under the definitions of what is contained in Bill 19, is there compensation available to them if they’re not able to negotiate those kind of contracts?
I’ll see if the minister is willing to answer those two sets of questions for me.
The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister.
Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to first speak to the reference to regulations. The hon. member made reference several times that the regulations aren’t there before them to take a look at and that they never are in government. Well, the hon. member is correct. Only an arrogant government would create the regulations before it has the legislation to guide it. That’s the way the democratic process and this process works in the House. The regulations are guided by the legislation, and the legislation with this bill, as with all bills, is the tip of the iceberg. It’s what gives the high-level direction of what we’re trying to accomplish.
The only part I really got, question-wise, out of that second section is where the member talks about the value of land. We talk about the compensation, and we talk about market value. Market value is determined by all levels of government. Everyone uses the same principle with respect to market value. It does not consider any sort of damage that might be done to a value by the project that’s going to impact that piece of property. The market value is a property unencumbered, as this one is at the time that government comes in and has a project that they need to do. All considerations on compensation can be brought to the table. This is the advantage of this legislation compared to what we’ve done in the past. As soon as a determination has been made that it will go forward, the landowner can trigger the compensation immediately if they want that to take place.
I’m going to talk a little bit about my personal experience, but I can also talk directly with respect to the two projects that we’re familiar with now, the Anthony Henday and the Calgary ring road, over the past 30 years while land has been acquired, the value of those properties and the value of properties back in my old days. In fact, when you have a proper transportation corridor – and there are a number of members in the House with past municipal experience – you see the values increase dramatically. That is more the case.
So with proper consultation with landowners at the front end of this project I as an Albertan and as a person representing Albertans would like to make certain that that’s on the table so that they understand that they can be the speculator on land should they choose to be the speculator on land as it goes forward. If this creates a situation that they find is not in the way that they want to operate, they can trigger the compensation, or as has been mentioned, they can continue to use the land exactly as they have right up until the government needs it for the project. At that point, should they not wish to use all of those tools that are available to them for compensation, in section 5 expropriation is still available.
Having been involved and even being personally involved where the provincial government needed land from my property for a transportation project, I am very thrilled with this bill and these amendments and its clarification. The hon. member is correct. The intention of the bill before the clarification and the changes were made was to ensure that the landowners were consulted, compensated, and treated fairly in this process. But there have been many fears that have been put out there, people that continue to go out and talk about this being used for the placement of a nuclear plant, for example, or for the transmission of power, for those sorts of things, and these amendments have cleared that up. All of those clarifications have been made.
We have a responsibility, and these amendments show the responsibility. We have a responsibility to the landowner, but there is a greater public good, too, and we have a responsibility to plan towards the future. We need to have good legislation that’s responsive to all Albertans and also is responsive to the landowners.
I think that we’ve captured it very well with these amendments.
The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.
Ms Blakeman: Well, specific, of course, to the amendments, Mr. Chairman, but a little democratic vignette for the benefit of the member, who, I understand, was elected six or eight months before the last election and, in fact, has served as a member of cabinet for a year. In fact, in most other provinces it would not be uncommon to have draft regulations to consider at the time that you were considering legislation on the floor. Alternatively, most other provinces still have an all-party legislative standing committee called law and regulations, to which the regulations are referred. All parties would be represented and would be able to examine and debate the regulations often at the same time and even previous to when the legislation comes to the floor. I understand that this is a one-party state, I understand that this party has been in place for 40 years, and I understand that you all believe that this is the way it is. But the truth is that this is the way it is only in this one province, and everywhere else in a democracy those regs are available as part of the process.
I know that this government likes to keep control of everything. I know you love those three Cs. You love that control. You love to be able to control the consultation process as well, and you – well, it’s centralization as much as control. [interjections]
The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre has the floor.
Ms Blakeman: You know, Mr. Chairman, I’m always delighted when I can get any member of the government to engage, so I’m perfectly happy to have them heckle me. If they’ll actually pay attention to what we’re doing on the floor, I’ll take it. I don’t mind the heckling. It shows they are awake, which is an improvement over the status of things at some times in this place, so I’m happy to take it.
Now, back to where I was with the three Cs. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about a government that deals very much in centralization. It is centralization and control that it’s increasingly interested in, how it hangs on to consultation, which is addressed in these amendments, and also compensation, which is also addressed in these amendments. Those are three themes that I am seeing play out not only in this legislation and these amendments but in a number of other sectors that we are seeing this government involved with.
For example, the Auditor General: control of that compensation so that he can’t do the systems audits that he wants to do. It’s an example that relates to the amendments, Mr. Chairman. The control and the centralization of that control and who is able to report to whom and a real hard push-back from these government members about having any additional officials report to the Assembly, like the commissioner of human rights or the child advocate. So those and compensation: again, the government really likes to use those three things to bully its way through.
You know, if my party had been in power for 40 years, I might well do the same thing. I hope I don’t. I hope I’m not there for 40 years because I think that’s what happens. When you get a government in place for 40 years, you get amendments like we’re looking at here, and you get the rhetoric that we’re hearing in this House about how we should all be grateful that they have replaced a series of amendments and replaced legislation that talked over and over again about “according to the regulations,” which we don’t have, with amendments that do exactly the same thing.
Overall I’m not seeing that these amendments accomplished what the government said that it was going to accomplish. In the real world, outside of these doors, would they be up or liable for claims of false advertising? Well, I think there’s a good case to be argued there, Mr. Chairman. I don’t see enough forward movement in what has been presented in these government amendments to allay the concerns that were raised or, more importantly, to make this a piece of legislation that is useful to the citizens of the province over the long term that protects both the citizens and the government.
The larger picture here is about: how do we move ahead with that long-term, large-project planning? If we’re going to grow up as a province and take our place, as everyone keeps saying, in the global marketplace, et cetera, et cetera, it is around transportation. It’s around moving goods. It’s around moving people. But it’s also around our utility corridors, our environment, how we balance – I’d argue that we’re imbalanced right now – between the energy sector and environmental protection. We need to be planning long term on that, and we need to be understanding how big the projects are. I want something that does that. As a citizen of this province I want to see those kinds of plans and that kind of process in place, and I am not getting it from this government. Do I see protection for the citizen here in balance with a government’s ability to move forward on large projects like that? I don’t think it’s been accomplished in what I’ve seen here.
I know that there are other amendments that are going to be brought forward. I know that there are others that want to speak, and I have other colleagues that are interested in continuing to speak on these amendments. Maybe I will be convinced that they are more effective amendments than what I am seeing, but thus far I’m not able to support them in the manner in which they are currently presented.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Subamendment SA1
Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to support this amendment because I think it does bring some clarity to the overall legislation. As he was speaking, I could see how not having it in the act could be used by the government in its unique way. You know, this government has, shall I say, an Orwellian flair for language, so I could see how trucking toxic waste across the province can be justified by the government as being in the public interest because, in fact, the government has done that.
When we had Swan Hills and the deal the government had with Bovar, they weren’t making enough money despite the fact that the government was paying them a guaranteed amount of money, and they wanted more business. The government said, “Righty-ho; no problem; we will allow you to bring toxic waste from other places and truck it across our beautiful province” so that the toxic waste treatment plant had more gunk to process so that they could make more money. This was all justified by the government of the day, which is the same government, by the way, that we’re looking at, which is what happens when you have someone in place for 40 years. It’s not a good thing. They justified that as being a reasonable thing.
I am seeking – and many people have been trying to assist me in this Assembly over the last 15 minutes – a definition of “in the public interest” that would work with what I am seeing proposed in the subamendment brought forward, actually, by the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. We’re finding that the term “public interest” appears in 121 statutes, and none of them really have a definition attached to them.
I know that as I speak the good people in the Legislature Library are trying to find me a dictionary definition or some overriding legal reference, you know, like the reasonable person test we have, for example, in law, to see if they could find me something that we would then understand is a definition of “in the public interest.” I’m a little loath to let these guys across the way, my hon. colleagues, have at their definition of “in the public interest” because, as I’ve noted, they’ve managed to justify trucking toxic waste around the province as in the public interest in the past.
I was looking for something that I was a bit more comfortable with, so I’ve gone to the Random House concise version. They’re not giving me “public interest” as such, but they’re giving me “public.” So it’s “of or for the people as a whole; open to all persons; owned by a community.” That’s interesting. “Serving a community . . .; generally known; familiar to the public, as a person; intending good to the community” as in public spirit. That would be useful if I could go on that one. “The people as a whole; a particular group of people having something in common; in public” as compared to in private.
If I put that together with “interest,” it gets difficult. “A group financially involved in a given enterprise, industry; benefit or advantage.” Okay. That might work for us if we could put those two together. “A sum charged for borrowed money; the rate for such charge.” Unfortunately, it’s not definitive enough.
I’m wondering if the member who has proposed the subamendment is able to provide something to me. I know they’ve referenced that it appears – and, indeed, it does – in 121 statutes but not in a definition, that I think both the sponsoring member and myself would be happy with given the one-party state that we live in. Perhaps the member could address my concern.
The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands Norwood.
Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just have looked up a definition of public interest for the hon. member, and it may or may not help her. I want to indicate, however, that putting public interest in the legislation means that ultimately that will be decided by courts, not by the government. Neither the hon. Member nor I trust the government to define public interest. They will try to do so, of course, but if they do so in a way that’s unfair or arbitrary in a situation, then it may ultimately be adjudicated in court. If that’s the case, then that is the intention, and that’s why my answer to the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview was that it would be a definition of case law.
I’ll try to provide you with one definition which I have just found. It says:
The public interest refers to the “common well-being” or “general welfare.” The public interest is central to policy debates, politics, democracy and the nature of government itself. While nearly everyone claims that aiding the common well-being or general welfare is positive, there is little, if any, consensus on what exactly constitutes the public interest.
That may not clarify things quite as much as I had hoped.
Ms Blakeman: Okay. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Peace River.
Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a brief comment. Until that last exchange I was seriously considering the merits of including the words “public interest” although it seems somewhat self-evident to me that when we talk about the transportation of people and goods, that by nature is a public project, and it is by nature in the public interest. But I was seriously contemplating the inclusion of that term. Would it be harmful?
Here we have two opposition parties that are fighting fervently for the inclusion of the words “public interest.” They (a) can’t agree on the definition, and (b) neither one of them knows whether it’s going to help them or not, yet they’ve tabled an amendment with that wording in it. Mr. Chair, I find it very strange. I think the wording in the bill is self-evident, and I’m back to going with the bill as is.
Ms Blakeman: Oh, I’m so sorry that the Member for Peace River has trouble understanding.
Mr. Oberle: I understand perfectly.
Ms Blakeman: No, I don’t think he does because the point is that it needs to be in the legislation so that the government cannot do something to the people that we don’t wish to have done. That’s why it needs to be clarified, and it needs to be in the legislation. [interjection] I am so good at getting people engaged, Mr. Chair. You must be so pleased with me today. I’m just delighted that we’ve had a second person engaged in debate in this House. It is about underlining the importance of having it in the legislation and to have it clearly defined.
Thank you so much for getting engaged in the discussion. I’m always delighted to see another government member on their feet because it’s such a rare occasion in this House.
Amendment A1
Ms Blakeman: Okay. Thank you. My understanding of what the government was trying to address with this main amendment was a couple of areas specifically around the time limits that the government could hold the private land that they had an interest in, compensation, and – there were three Cs, I thought. My concerns that I had outlined previously were that although the government talks about a two-year time limit after they propose a project area before they actually put it into a project order, because that was open to such interpretation through the regulations, we in fact really didn’t have enough specifics to understand exactly what it was that the government intends. I’m presuming that the minister will say, no, that he knows what he intends, but he can’t share it with us using enough specificity of language so that we can all understand what that is meant to be.
As I have stated in the House before and I heard my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona say earlier today, nobody reads Hansard years from now to see what the minister said by way of explanation. You know, if it’s not in the legislation, if it’s not in the regs, nobody goes back and reads Hansard to see what was intended by government with this. They go off the actual legislation, so anything that we need in there should be in there.
Now, the government has chosen to vote down the inclusion of language around the public interest, which again I think doesn’t help us with the specificity of what’s being considered here. I would argue that it has not addressed the timing problem, and I would argue – and I think others have argued actually better than I – that the compensation issue has also not been addressed here. I mean, the government has enough members that they’re going to vote this through.
There was a small group of people that travelled from throughout Alberta to be in the gallery today, and that’s indicative of a larger number of people that are unhappy with the efforts of the government, and their unhappiness doesn’t seem to have been alleviated by the government amendment. But I think that that’s an indicator of a wider unhappiness with policies of the government and a distrust.
You know, unhappiness with this particular legislation may not bring down a government, but a growing distrust that the government has the best interests of the public in mind does become more problematic for the government, I think. So I would have thought that they would take advantage of the opportunity that was presented with this bill, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.
The final piece that I want to talk about around these amendments is consultation. I talked a little bit about this the previous time we were debating, but let me complete the argument here. What I keep seeing the government trying to do is organize different ways of consulting without actually consulting or without being in a position where they’re held to what the stakeholders or the invited participants had actually directed the government to do.
I talked about the number of summits that we had seen. In the earlier days I’d gone to a gambling summit when I was the gambling critic, and I’d gone to a justice summit when I was, I think, the justice critic. Then they sort of petered out. Then we had two more attempts with the growth summit and the future summit. I never remember which order they came in. Oh, I’m sorry; those were preceded by the round tables. That was it. There were the roundtables, the specific summits, and then we had the sort of catch-all summits, the clean-out-the-fridge summits where everything got discussed, which the growth summit and the future summit were supposed to be. In each case the public confirmed growing suspicion because they would go and participate in these, and we had all the people that were trained by community development that came out and put little coloured sticky notes up on the wall, and then they moved the coloured sticky notes around and would end up with a very bland statement at the end. People said: “That’s not what I said. That’s not what I came here to say, and that’s not what I spent three days saying.” But that’s what went forward, and people became very suspicious that they were being manipulated. They weren’t being consulted at all.
Frankly, public consultation is a pain in the posterior extension. You know, it’s time consuming. It’s expensive. People say stuff you don’t want to do, and sometimes the public says stuff that’s unimplementable. It sounds like a good idea, but it’s unimplementable. But I would still argue that like democracy, yes, it’s noisy and time consuming, but you’ve still got to do it, and you should do it with as much good faith as you can muster.
When I look at the consultation that’s happening with this government, I think we’ve reached a new phase. This new phase seems to be sort of generic in-advance consultation, where a large consultation is held in very broad terms, very vague, that people are notified about. It’s on the website, they have town halls, they move around the province, it goes on for an extended period of time, but nobody is very clear about what, in fact, government is talking about. Then the government says: “Okay. That’s it. We’ve done the consultation. We know what we’re doing, and now we’re going to move forward.” From then on any specific legislation that’s brought forward where the public says, “Yes, but you didn’t consult us,” they go, “Yes, we did. We did that general consultation. Remember, a year ago? We’ve covered it. We’re not going to go back and do anything specific anymore. We’ve done the general consultation.”
I’m watching what the minister is doing around human rights consultation with great interest because I haven’t seen that sort of broad generic one happen. We’ve certainly seen that happen in some other areas like land use or the consultation with the seniors around one of the pieces of legislation that they implemented, the Dependent Adults Act, for example. I think that’s now what we’re looking at by way of consultation. So the three Cs that I started with, which were around centralization, compensation, that’s completed with consultation. Again, I think that few people would be happy with what is outlined as consultation in this act and the ability of people to bring the government to the table in a meaningful way to hear what their concerns are and with an expectation that those concerns will in turn be dealt with rather than be dismissed or cast in a different light.
Those are the concerns with the overarching themes that I’m seeing in this legislation. Speaking to the amendment, I understand that it was an attempt – but I think it was a very poor attempt – at trying to address the concerns. I can’t say that I’m unhappy to see the government get raked over the coals by its citizens. I wish there was more of that, and I hope there is more of that because the more engaged the citizens get, the more pressure there is on us to be better legislators. I think that would be a good thing for all involved.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment A2
Ms Blakeman: Let me try this with slightly different wording, which is commonly used in law, which is to sort of flip it on its head and say: what is the harm? What is the harm that would be caused if this amendment was in fact passed – that, I think, is at the root of what my colleague from Edmonton-Riverview was trying to get at – if the following areas were appealable?
Currently section 7, where it’s in the minister’s opinion that someone has contravened a regulation that’s under section 3, which is a very long section that talks about – well, I’ll just refer people to it. In the hard-copy bill it’s on page 4, but for those reading along at home, it’s in section 3 of the bill. It’s basically all of the control, restriction, and prohibitions section. So where someone has contravened that regulation, the minister can serve that person with an enforcement order, and the enforcement order includes directing a person to take any action or measures that the minister deems necessary, including the removal or demolition of a structure that’s been put in place in contravention or the restoration of land to a condition that it was in before this contravention occurred. It includes stating a time that person has to comply to this and that if they don’t comply with these directions within the particular time that is set out, once again, in ever-elusive regulations, the minister can take the directed – there are consequences to it. Let me shorten it by saying that.
What is the harm that is created here for the minister by including the section that says that the last words I just read through would be appealable? So far, the only one that can be appealed is the section that directs a person to cease the contravention and directs them to stop doing something or change the way they’re doing it. But it doesn’t allow them to appeal around the demolition or removal or the restoration of land and the timelines and complying within those same timelines. So what is the harm that is created, then?
The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister.
Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the hon. member for the question. The enforcement actions in what you refer to are completely and totally consistent with the abilities of municipalities and the federal government in taking these actions to fix what’s happened, like a land-use bylaw, as an example, or a zoning restriction with respect to the type of development that can take place. All of these things, all of these powers, are available right now to every municipality in the country to step in and do that. Now, when we talk about fines and penalties that are referred to in the enforcement order, they are appealable through the courts. It is not at the decision of the minister or at the decision of government.
The fines are appealable through the courts. To take action, to remediate a building situation, as an example, to move in: those are abilities that all orders of government have. They’re not an abuse in any way, shape, or form. When a restriction is placed, be it by municipalities, by the province, or by the federal government, if they are not followed, all orders of government can move in, correct that, send the bill to the owner or put it against the land on a lien. I’m sure that hon. members with municipal experience in both opposition parties are very aware of that.
Other Sections
Youth Voice
@ The Leg
Photo Blog