EDITOR;
I am responding to Trevor Busch's, Thursday, March 24 article on amendments to the land act.
The story stated with Bill 10 the "Stelmach government hopes to clarify the original intent..." and "can't figure out" why people who attended the High River meeting are still not pacified. I can. We attended what was probably a very similar meeting with Doug Griffiths and Mel Knight in Killam, and I likewise came away unconvinced of Bill 10's merits.
The Busch article stated MLA McFarland found the idea of scrapping Bill 36 unacceptable because of "the implications poor long-term planning could have for the province."
I would like to suggest there is very little correlation between the Land-use Framework with its seven tenets/pillars and long-term planning as set forth by Bill 36, which only addresses one of those seven pillars, and does it poorly. I would furthermore, suggest the Regional Plans, the RACs and much of Bill 36 are not acceptable "long-term planning.” The bills and subsequent RACs are the embodiment of centralized power and control in the PC cabinet and/or a minister. The regional councils (RACs) are hand-picked, appointed and vetted by cabinet and/or a minister, and their advice/suggestions can be ignored or amended. Cabinet and its appointed bodies make all the decisions. So, yes, we do need access to independent hearings and we definitely need access to the courts to maintain our democratic rights.
I was not at the High River meeting, but I did read the report in The Times. At that meeting reference was made to a "certain (well-known) lawyer" who has been discredited and accused of trying to scare people by misleading them and deliberately misrepresenting ALSA." In the Killam meeting, Mr. Knight also referred to “lawyers, stating "99 out of 100 lawyers"would agree… with the PC’s bills. Not so. In our county, a study was done by Brownlee LLP, which raised some of the same concerns we have. Contrary to McFarland's and other PC claims of "misconceptions," "rumour" and "conjecture," Alberta lawyers, members of the Legal Education Society and people in the financial sector dealing with refinancing/mortgaging properties, have raised legal concerns.
The people at the High River meeting do well to question the credibility of the previous bills and now Bill 10. They do well to remember Bill 36 "prevails" over all other legislation, even the Alberta Bill of Rights, which we teach in our school classrooms… rights that are now just a dream of the past.
The people who were thinking this PC government "can't be trusted" need to be applauded as critical-thinking builders.
It is unjust and irresponsible of Mr. McFarland to segregate Albertans into "a certain segment of the agricultural community," and to pit them against those of urban Albertans. The implications of Bills 19 and 50, and the HVDC transmission lines will be felt by all Albertans — everyone gets to pay the transmission fees to send power to the U.S. annually for the next 10 years (TransAlta has an NEB permit, effective Nov 1/10, to export 17,520,000 MW.h; Encana has applied to export 5 Million MW.h). The grid maps published in National Geographic (July 2010) show electricity going from Alberta to California. Our family owns properties in and near cities, and if/when urban development in the "best interest of the pubic" encroaches on city dwellers, and/or the fast train between Edmonton and Calgary ever materializes, urbanites will be just as subject to land-grabs as their rural cousins.
McFarland is wrong when he assumes it is just a few disgruntled farmers who are concerned about these bills. Our family, like many others, covers a fairly wide spectrum of Albertans and we have been protesting, writing e-mails/letters, phoning, signing petitions, attending meetings and trying our best to get the PCs to "listen.” So once again, the PCs are not listening. We have read all four bills. We also have read the debate in the House, surrounding the second and third readings of these bills in Alberta Hansard and would encourage others to do likewise. The Hansard debate record indicated who said what, and in some cases who voted for and against the bills. It is quite revealing.
What we need is some active media involvement to help make Albertans aware of how these bills are affecting every aspect of our (once-democratic) lives, and how this legislation steals our children's birthrights. And that is where you have a responsibility to report "full" coverage of both sides of these bills' issues. We need to be informed and educated as to all the implications of these bills. People need to know in the Milk River area the RCMP have been called in to enforce the right of entry order on an elderly farmer who has said he will "die for property rights in Alberta."
And, we have to make sure that every city and town dweller knows that they are equally affected... and that their children will pay for this PC government's alliances with private industry/utility companies. The Central Alberta Rural Electrification Association reported electricity cost increases (2009 –10) of 122 per cent. AESO estimates transmission fees will increase 135 per cent. IPCAA predicts transmission fees will triple or perhaps quadruple. That means every electricity user, even Mr. McFarland, will pay the tab, however high, for ATCO, AltaLink, MATL and such.
I commend Albertans in the High River area who are actively engaged in urging that Bills 36, 19, 50 and Bill 10 (if it passes third reading) all be revoked. We have to take back democracy, and hold our elected officials accountable for the tasks we gave them, and require them to act within the context of democracy and the rule of law.

MARION LEITHEAD
Bawlf