|
On March 2, the Stelmach Government introduced Bill 19. It is seen as a draconian attempt to streamline the expropriation process of private property under the guise of acquiring land for Utility Corridors. While we agree Utility Corridors can be a good thing if well planned, this Bill 19 only serves to remove existing rights. If Bill 19 is passed in its current form, any cabinet Minister of the Alberta Legislature can design and plan a project, apply as the applicant for approval of the project, adjudicate the approval process of their own project; and enforce their own decision.
What constitutes a project? Section 2(d) of the Act states that a project is defined as anything they so determine. Bill
19 makes it legal for any Cabinet Minister to take away anyone’s
business, home, land or private property for pretty much any reason
they so desire. The Bill streamlines the expropriation process by
removing certain due-process rights, guaranteed under the
Expropriations Act. Section 13, of Bill 19, eliminates the
applicability of the Expropriation Act, just in case anyone wants to
use or invoke any provision under the Expropriations Act. No
public notice is required of any project under this act, and although
notice is required to be given to the registered owner of a property,
notice only has to be sent to the last known address – and a registered
letter is not required. If a person never receives notice that the
government is taking their property or home, Section 4(4) makes that
perfectly legal. If an individual wants to appeal the Minister’s
decision, they have seven days to appeal to the Minister’s
self-appointed Appeals Board. Most farmers and rural property owners
will not even get their notification letters within seven days: never
mind organize an appeal. The
worst part of this Bill is reserved for any Albertan who would
interfere with, object to, or resist, an order from the Minister to
vacate their property, or sign on the dotted line at a price determined
by the Minister. Sec 3(f) states the Surface Rights Act does not apply,
so even [arguably] a fair process to determine a fair price is
eliminated. Under section 7 and 12 of the Act, if in the Minister’s
opinion a person is doing something, or the Minister thinks a person is
going to do something, the Minister can order a person to stop, or do
something else. This has to be one of the most bizarre wordings found
in legislation, in the history of democracy. Failure to comply with a
Minister’s order can result in a $100,000 fine and/or two years in jail.
Conceivably,
and it is not to far a stretch, if the Minister thinks you are going to
contravene his or her orders, they can order you to stop what they
think you are going to do, and if you don’t stop what they think you
might do – they can put you in jail or fine you $100,000.
Conceivably,
this bill could become law in a few weeks. There is a general push by
some groups and people in Alberta to have all Canadians join in their
fight and to show the sunlight on what the Stelmach government is
trying to do in Alberta.
Here are the list of rigts seen to be lost under the new bill:
1. The right to question the project, or the expropriation of your property for that purpose 2. The right of notification 3. The public’s right of notification 4. The right to have compensation determined by a Board 5. The right to an inquiry if the expropriating authority is not a Crown Corporation 6. The right to have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence 7. The right to be represented by counsel at an Inquiry 8. The right to be compensated immediately 9. The right to be reimbursed for legal costs 10. The right to have the first the option to buy the property back if the project is cancelled 11. The right to have the property appraised 12. The right to be reimbursed for relocation and moving costs 13. The right to be compensated for business losses 14. The rights protecting “Mineral Rights Owners” from expropriation OTHER PENALTIES ADDED UNDER BILL 19
If an appeal of the expropriation could delay the project the Minister can require the property owner to provide security in the form and amount the appeal body considers necessary to cover the Minister’s costs. Those costs can be anything the Minister determines. A property owner can be held liable for any costs associated with the application, if it is determined that the property owner is not complying with the Minister’s order. This also applies to delays caused by stay orders and appeals. Under Bill 19 mineral rights can be expropriated.
Here is one anonymous legal opinion. given about this bill.
You have asked me for my legal comments on a proposed new provincial Act: the Land Assembly Project Area Act, also known as Bill 12(attached). I have reviewed the Bill as a courtesy to you and here are my comments. The proposed new provincial law deals with government take-over of private property. The Bill has serious implications for landowners. The Bill allows the government to issue a “Control Order” to take over control of private property while the government goes through the process of assembling land for utility and transportation corridors. In my opinion, establishing utility and transportation corridors makes good sense and benefits all Albertans. The problem, however, is that those people who own land, live in homes, or operate businesses on the land to be taken over by government will have to bear the costs and burdens from which all Albertans benefit. Because of this, if anything, the government should be going out of its way to treat these people fairly. But the Bill does not do that. The Bill as currently written allows the government to take over control of your land for an indefinite period of time. The Bill says the government will register a “Control Order” against your land title. Anyone who might consider buying it is subject to the Order. Since the Order will restrict what you can do on the property and will likely state that no further improvements or changes of use can be made to your property, who would want to buy it and, if at all, at what reduced price? It typically takes government several years or more to assemble land for corridors. Just because your land is designated under a Control Order does not mean that the government will actually follow through and buy your land. So, you could be faced with a long period of uncertainty where your life and/or business have to be put on hold. Putting your life and/or business on hold—and the uncertainty it brings—puts strain on personal relationships, and has both a human and financial cost. Here are some examples to illustrate the problem with the Bill: Home Owner · Assume it is your home that is designated by a Control Order and this happens in 2009. It might not be until 2013 that the government decides to go ahead with either a purchase or expropriation. This means that for the 4 year period you will be effectively prevented from selling your house or making renovations to it. You will have to put your life on hold while you wait to see if the government is going to take things to the next level and actually buy your land. You get no compensation for this under the Bill. Assume further that during this 4-year period you need to move to another town: who is going to buy your house knowing that it is subject to the Control Order? The Bill gives you absolutely no compensation for this and allows the government to leave the Control Order in place indefinitely. Business Owner · Assume that you operate a business on the land that is designated by a Control Order and this happens in 2009 and the government takes 5 years to decide whether to transition from a Control Order to a purchase. You had been planning on expanding your business and its buildings but now you can’t because of the Control Order. You get no compensation for this impact and the government could decide in the end not go ahead with the purchase. Either way, the Bill gives you no compensation for these real and significant impacts. Famer · Once the Control Owner is in place, the government controls your farm. Assume you are a dairy farmer and need to expand your dairy farm to stay competitive and economically viable. The Control Order prevents you from expanding. After a year or two passes, your farm is no longer economically viable because the Control Order prevented your expansion. You go into bankruptcy. The Bill says you get no compensation. The important point where this Bill goes wrong is that it does not recognize the financial and human impacts of having your land taken over by a Control Order. It wrongly assumes that if the government does not go through with the purchase or expropriation you will have suffered no harm or adverse impact. Such an assumption is clearly false. The Bill gives no consideration to the human disruption and financial costs of the long waiting period between the Control Order declaration and the final government decision to purchase or expropriate. Ways the Bill Could be Improved There should be compensation as soon as your land is declared as being taken over by a Control Order. There should be a strict time limit in the Act that limits the amount of time that the government can leave the Order in place for. For example, 6 months would appear to be reasonable. If the government wants to renew the Order for another 6 months, further compensation should be paid. The compensation should be in form of a payment for the adverse effect and nuisance and injurious affection caused by the property owner. Also, it would seem to make sense that once the Order in place, and the owner needs (or wants) to move because of a new job or another reason, that the government should be required to immediately purchase the property so that person and their family can get on with life. Consultation The government is saying that they will give notice in newspapers and consult with affected landowners prior to declaring control of private lands. I would respectfully point out this commitment is meaningless and will do nothing to help landowners. There is no standard or test that the government has to meet before it decides to issue a Control Order affecting your land and there seems no process through which a landowner could seek to convince the government not to impose a Control Order on their property. Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
