Changes passed to Alta. land-use act

The Alberta government has passed amendments to its controversial land-use legislation, but the changes face a rocky road.

Opponents say the changes and even the Alberta Land Stewardship Act itself may be rendered moot given that some of Premier Ed Stelmach's would-be successors say the plan needs to be revisited.

"The real issue is whether the government is actually committed to continuing with the land-use framework," Rachel Notley of the NDP said Wednesday.

"I think there are significant components of this government who are not interested in moving forward with it."

Notley was referring to Gary Mar and Alison Redford, two former Progressive Conservative cabinet ministers who are running to replace Stelmach when he steps down as premier and party leader this fall.

Mar, a health minister under former premier Ralph Klein, has signalled he's not happy with how the public was consulted on the land-use question.

Redford, who resigned as justice minister to run for the top job, has said she wants a full review of the act.

It was passed two years ago to give the government a more streamlined way to decide how land, water and other resources should be used and balanced with the competing needs of businesses, cities, rural regions and the environment.

Critics say the law centralized too much decision-making in cabinet and gave the province the right to take away private land without adequate consultation, compensation or recourse to the courts.

The Wildrose Alliance, the Tories' right-of-centre political rival, has been particularly vocal on the subject and used it to gain traction in rural areas -- traditional election strongholds for the Conservatives.

Hundreds of angry landowners have jammed town halls in recent months to hear the Wildrose detail what it calls the plan's capricious, draconian underpinnings.

In response, Mel Knight, the sustainable resources development minister, introduced amendments March 1. He said the government never envisioned taking away land titles, but noted his proposed changes specifically forbid that.

"(Bill 10) will clearly respect the rights to property, the compensation for anything that is removed (from the property) and will provide for mandatory compensation," Knight said at the time.

The bill also spells out avenues of appeal and compensation and allows the courts to hear grievances if cabinet deems they need to be heard.

Paul Hinman of the Alliance said the bill protects land titles, but leaves other leases and water rights open for the taking. And, he said, any appeal process that leaves the final say up to government doesn't pass muster.

"All the power is there (in cabinet)," said Hinman. "So what if I can go and ask, 'Ooooh, pretty please won't you reconsider?'

"This is pathetic. This is anti-business."

The Tories were given an earful on the bill by the public this spring even as it was being debated in the legislature.

On April 21, hundreds of residents in Eckville in west-central Alberta booed Tory leadership candidate Ted Morton when he defended it in a debate with a land-use critic.

Five days later, the government moved to limit debate in the legislature on specific aspects of the bill. It was the second time debate had been severely curtailed.

Laurie Blakeman of the Alberta Liberals said the moves smack of a party that is committed to passing legislation it doesn't really believe in.

"They're afraid to be seen pushing this bill through because it contains issues that pit their own natural supporters against them," said Blakeman.

"But they're also afraid not to get the bill done. They're between a rock and a hard place."

The act is one of three pieces of legislation critics say need to be overhauled or tossed out. They're also unhappy with a law that gives cabinet the right to hold onto private land while it decides if it is needed for a major project such as a road or power line.

The third law gives cabinet the right to forgo a public hearing and order a power line to be constructed if it determines the need for the power is critical.

Critics of that law say public hearings are vital to ensure taxpayers aren't saddled with hefty fees and costs for power lines that may not be needed.