The Alberta Land Stewardship Act Etcetera
Posted April 14th, 2011
I have been involved in property rights for the last decade and a half. Through the Alberta Property Rights Institute doing business as the Alberta Property Rights Initiative, (www.apri.ca) we undertook to forward a Property Rights Preservation Bill and it is still being considered. We were invited to appear before government policy committees, subsequent Ministers and MLAs. Through four years of advising government, there were two stalwarts to our cause, Evan Berger and Ted Morton. We reviewed the Surface Rights Act and the Expropriation Act, and in 2008 after four months we put our work on the respective desks of those who asked for it. An election was called so we didn’t hold much hope for results. In 2009 the Surface Rights Act was amended. It is noted that Proprietary Interest is recognised on Crown Lease Land. APRI continues to advise that, as the Alberta Government legislates and deliberates on issues concerning real property, the Provincial government must apply the principle that when the public gains interest over the interest of the property holder, compensation is an obliged component. ALSA is indeed an anomaly in Canadian Law. It actually provides for compensation.
The Land Assembly Project Area Act (2009) provided for acquisition of land for transportation corridors on behalf of the public; market value acquisition with a means to negotiate settlement and the ability to lease back the purchased property until such time as the project was to be undertaken. A two year limitation for action is offered and after that the lands can be reverted back to the original owner.
Throughout these documents ‘Compensation’ is front and centre. Read them. They are on the public record for a reason. Don’t take anyone’s here-say for granted. Read 36 to 42 of ALSA. Tell me what it says to you.
I hope that history doesn’t show, that Albertan’s had an opportunity to entrench protection of their interests in property within their Legislated Acts and turned it down.
Neil E Wilson
Nanton, Alberta.
March 10, 2011
Note to the reader: My positions on these legislations are not meant to diminish the ongoing discussion over the issues over the proprietary interests of property and are the result of my interpretation alone.
Back
to Top
Property Rights: Where did they go?
Impacts of New Alberta Legislation on Landowner Rights.
Posted January 12th, 2011
A must read presentation regarding new legislation impacting landowner, lease and water rights. Including analysis of Bill 36 -Alberta Land Stewardship Act, Bill 19 - Land Assembly Project Area Act, and Bill 24 - Carbon Capture and Sequestration Act. What do these bills mean for landowners?
By Keith Wilson.
Download pdf:
Back
to Top
News Archives 2010
Landowners Encouraged to Assert Their Property Rights.
Posted September 25th, 2010
Click to listen...
Hour #1 | Hour #2
|
LISTEN TO LIZ MARSHALL DISCUSSING OUR CROWN LAND PATENT GRANTS ON OTTAWA TALK RADIO...
If you would like to hear a recording of the Wednesday August 11-2010 two hour show featuring guest speaker Liz Marshall on Crown Land Patent Grants, use the links provided. |
Landowners encouraged to assert their property rights. Land owners are applying in droves for their Crown Land Patent Grants
(As appears on the Ontario Land Owners Association website)
You can find the original here.
By: Brett Hanson, The Working Forest Newspaper 10-08-2010.
Re-posted here by APRI September 25th, 2010
Ontario rural landowners are going back in time in their fight to preserve their property rights. Land owners are applying in droves for their Crown Land Patent Grants which Liz Marshall, secretary of the Ontario Landowners Association and a researcher with the Association’s Patent Committee says gives landowners the authority to challenge government legislation that designates land use conditions and plans without full compensation or regard to the property/land owner’s rights.
"The Crown Land Patent Grants were established for the settlement of Canada and created so the land would be granted free. There may have been certain conditions such as building a home or clearing the land within three years time," Marshall said. "The letters patent are what would be considered a contract; they are their own legislation and had specific reservations for the Crown such as, for example, mineral extraction and white pine. Everything else was for the owner of the land and they could do anything they wanted with that land, as long as the landowner respected neighbouring land, water or air, as expressed under Common Law.
It also states in these patents that it is for the heirs and assigned forever. So everything that is in those patents stands and was to continue on."
Marshall says, it would seem that any legislation created after existing land patents does not trump original land patents. If new patents were issued they would be subject to current legislation. The OLA is using these documents as means of fighting back against intrusive government legislation such as wetland, endangered species habitat, tree cutting by-laws, and the Places to Grow Act which are violations of their property rights.
"We are trying to create the big stick that will make the government back off. The government is designating people’s property as wetlands, heritage lands and habitat for endangered species. They can’t do that, you can’t plan for it if you don’t own it" Marshall said. "When the provinces were created nothing was given to the province in that manner because everything had been conveyed previously. Land was either owned by the Crown or it had been conveyed to the private freehold land owner."
The movement which began in conjunction with the Muskoka Landowners Association has quickly spread across the province. Marshall says that she has personally sent out hundreds of applications by request and has delivered over a thousand at various association meetings around the province.
"At the different association meetings to explain the patents, organizers have expected 50 to 60 people and, routinely 150 to 200 have attended," Marshall said. "You can expect that there are thousands upon thousands of people who are actively seeking their land patent grant."
"I am not sure if MPs really understand the land patents or if they do they are trying not to allow us to move forward. We may have to contact the Governor Generals office. With the amount of people that are applying for and receiving their patent it is a movement that is taking on a life of its own," Marshall said.
Ultimately the issue will have to come before the Lieutenant Governor or Governor General because the land patents are Crown documents and as such a contract between citizens and the Crown, Marshall explains. The Federal and Provincial governments are merely administrators of the documents.
"A land patent is a contract, a letter patent, a piece of legislation, a royal proclamation that is specific to the Crown only. Because the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors of the province have the authority to veto, amend, revoke or repeal all pieces of legislation, except the Letters Patent, that may be the route we have to go," Marshall said. "If we are unable to meet with the Governor General’s office we will have to follow through and start initiating court cases."
Marshall says even if landowners possess only a portion of the original land grant they are still entitled to the document. For a $50 fee landowners can obtain a certified copy of the Crown Land Patent Grant relating to their property by contacting the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources with the lot, concession and original township information.
Back
to Top
Impacts of New Provincial Legislation and Recent Case Law Developments on Landowner Rights and Compensation
Posted March 25th, 2010
This paper is divided into two parts. The first part examines recent provincial legislation impacting on governmental processes for either taking rights in private lands or restricting the uses of private lands and occupied Crown lands. The second part of this paper examines recent trends and developments with respect to surface rights compensation and board procedures of the Energy Resources Conservation Board.
By Keith Wilson.
Download pdf:
Back
to Top
News Archives 2009
Alberta Land Stewardship Act: This Land is Your Land?
Posted December 30th, 2009
In June, Bill 36 was passed into law. In October the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) was proclaimed in force. The question posed by the title of this bulletin is whether the inspiration for the ALSA was Woodie Guthrie's popular American folksong "This Land is Your Land". Many verses remain to be written through regional plans and regulations required to implement the ALSA. The legislation has the potential, however, to significantly impact both existing and future development in Alberta.
By Bernard J Roth.
Download pdf:
Back
to Top
Land Regulation,
Expropriation and Appropriation Laws in
Alberta. By Fergus Hodgson
Posted October 28th, 2009.
An Analysis and Review of Bills 19 and 36: The Land Assembly
Project Area Act and the Alberta Land Stewardship Act.
Download pdf:
Back
to Top
Current Push
For The Right To Property
Posted April 3rd,2009
Jump to:
Download pdf:
Back
to Top
APRI's
Response to Alberta Draft
Legislation on Bill 19
Posted May 16th, 2009
Background
APRI agrees with the need for increased planning and
consultation with all Albertans as it relates to new project areas. We
are however concerned that all property owners, both surface and
subsurface be treated fairly and consistently when a
“taking” is required for a public interest. We also
recognize the need to avoid unnecessary burdens on the public treasury,
while at the same time minimizing unwarranted interference with private
property rights.
The existing Expropriation Act and Surface Rights
Act, and the
Land Compensation Board and Surface Rights Board that are established
from these acts, have for the most part served Albertans well in past
land issues. As the Province experiences the need to accommodate new
and competing land uses it is increasing apparent that present
legislation relating to compensation for takings is inadequate. Bill 19
certainly addresses the need for increased consultation and planning on
the front end of public projects. However, the issue surrounding
compensation for not only takings of property but also regulatory
takings of property has not been fully addressed. As Landowner groups
around the Province formally debate the draft Bill 19, it is the issue
of compensation for regulatory and full takings that is at the centre
of controversy.
The following document will address specific areas of
concern
in Bill 19 as well as possible legislative solutions as it relates to
fair and reasonable compensation for public interest takings.
Bill 19 and Draft Amendments
Draft amendments to section 2.1(1)
indirectly indicate that a project area may be anything the Lieutenant
Governor in council may decide. This continues to leave Bill 19 with
extreme powers with regard to takings of property and this area needs
to be narrower in focus.
A time constraint of two years outlined in 2.1(2)
of draft amendments helps to limit the time private property is in the
proposed project area. Although we recognize the time constraints
required in the developmental and consultative phase of a project area,
one must also recognize the interference this consultation phase has on
property values. In limited cases property values in and adjacent to
proposed project areas will rise in anticipation of a designation, but
in the vast majority of cases these properties experience devaluation
during this consultative phase. An example of this devaluation may
present itself as a lost opportunity to sell a property during this
consultative phase, or a reduced price for the land in anticipation of
the land being re-designated. This devaluation may be addressed by
shortening the consultative phase, addressing this pre designation
devaluation during the land purchase phase, and addressing the proven
devaluation of property value should the land in the consultative area
not be designated as a project area. Regulations to Bill 19 may
partially address this issue, and a change to the definition of
expropriation in the Expropriation Act to include a regulatory taking
will also be necessary.
It is interesting to note that Aboriginals, although
not
specifically mentioned in Bill 19 (but noted in other legislation that
pertains to any new Act), and Metis Settlements under section
(5) are recognized as having “collective”
property rights. Changes to the Expropriation Act, to include
regulatory takings, may help propel the balance of Alberta’s
citizens closer to this recognition of property rights afforded to
certain sectors of Alberta society.
Section 3 (1) (f) and (g) limits
the use of
the Surface Rights Act and the Expropriation Act as it pertains to
crown land. This portion of the proposed Act comes from sections 9 and
10 of the Restricted Development Area Regulations under the Government
Organization Act, dated 1976. These sections copied into Bill 19
continue to provide concerns for crown land disposition holders.
Although it may have been the intent by Bill 19 authors to indicate
that once Government has obtained the project area land it need not go
through the above mentioned acts to determine compensation for
electrical lines, pipelines, etc. within the new project area
(compensation was already paid for the private property when the
designation was applied and the land is now crown), this section
provides contraindicated meaning to disposition holders.
Of concern is whether the limited property value
afforded to
Crown land dispositions such as a Grazing, Forestry, Recreation, and
Hunting leases or a subsurface Mineral lease will be fairly compensated
when the property is taken for a project area. Surface leases such as
grazing dispositions, are bought and sold at fair market value, and pay
land tax. Subsurface dispositions also sell and/or are sublet at fair
market value thus indicating a partial property value.
An example of concern on a grazing disposition may be
the
designation of a pipeline right of way as a project area. The Alberta
Government already owns the land used on the grazing disposition and in
this case is expropriating the value of the disposition contract as it
pertains to the project area. A further example may be a new dam and
related flooded land being designated as a project area. A subsurface
mineral lease holder may be denied access to mineral extraction on
wells now under water. Directional drilling may or may not recover the
known minerals and thus compensation in this case will need to be
expended on the total minerals lost or the value of the area of
subsurface land being denied access.
The above two examples further demonstrate the need
to make
changes to the definition of expropriation to include regulatory
takings.
Orphaned Property and Project Lands
In many cases once project lands have been defined,
property
will be orphaned from the balance of their existing private property.
This may be the case in a freehold mineral property where minerals may
not be recoverable under a project area, or it may be the case where
the adjacent surface property owner to a project area is unable to
access owned land on the other side of the designation. Compensation
for orphaned property will need to be addressed.
Since project areas, as defined by the Lieutenant
Governor,
may be extended to include recreational corridors or the linking of
paramount areas of interest close to existing corridors, or the linking
of recreational corridors together, it is essential that property
owners have continued access to orphaned land on either side of the
designation. This has not been the case with current recreational
corridors and demonstrates the need to accommodate orphaned lands
within Bill 19. The intent is to leave the property holder
“whole” when property is taken for a public
interest.
Injurious Affection
This is defined as the loss or depreciation in value
to the
remainder of the land attributable to the actual taking for a project
area. In some instances land adjacent to a designated project will
increase in value. An example may be land next to a “gasoline
alley” or land next to a new recreational reservoir.
Unfortunately in most cases land values adjacent to project lands will
be devalued. An example of this may be land adjacent to one or more
large power lines. If the project lands are wide enough so as not to
position large power lines close to property lines of non project areas
then this devaluation may be mitigated. If an Edmonton/Calgary project
area (corridor) was wide enough to have large electrical lines a couple
kilometres away from adjacent property (corridors at least 6 kilometres
wide) then this injurious affection would be vastly diminished.
Mitigation of injurious affection as described above
then
leads to providing compensation for land owners within a circle of the
corridor, or alternatively purchasing a wider corridor. This principle
if adopted in Bill 19 would set a precedent for the Surface Rights Act
as well. Compensation under the SRA needs to be changed to provide
compensation for landowners in a circle around industrial development.
This is not the current policy and needs to be addressed in the
amendments to the SRA in this session as well. The circle drawn around
industrial activity, either around a well site, or a series of circles
around linear disturbances such as power lines, would provide a
diminished compensation the farther out from the centre of the circle.
The actual total amount of compensation may increase slightly, but will
be distributed to all landholders in the circle, not just the owner of
the land experiencing the industrial development.
No Net Loss of Private Property
As private property, either surface or subsurface, is
taken
for project areas the total amount of crown land in Alberta will
increase. One may take the position that the total area of crown land
in Alberta shall not increase, and therefore for every hectare of land
taken for a project area there must be provision for an equal amount of
Alberta Crown land to be sold. This would provide two important
principles: 1) the current public/private land ownership ratio shall
not increase; and 2) the Alberta public may sell Crown land to help
offset procurement costs when obtaining land in designated project
areas.
This principle of no net loss has already been
effectively
used by Federal and Provincial governments as it applies to no net
habitat loss for land used for certain industrial development on
environmentally sensitive lands.
New Property Rights Legislation
Unfortunately, Alberta is under a severe time
constraint as it
relates to the implementation of project areas. New pipelines from the
McKenzie Delta, CO2 pipelines, electrical lines Calgary/Edmonton,
electrical lines to new power generation (wind or nuclear), Edmonton
/Calgary rail line, the Meridian dam, and expanded roadways are but a
few of the projects that need to use Bill 19. The United States has
allocated $15 billion in the present stimulus package to be used for
new corridors, some of which are energy related. Our Federal government
has allocated monies for short time infrastructure projects, some of
which may include the above-mentioned projects. Alberta is but a small
player in the overall outlook in a North American corridor structure.
These new projects must go ahead now and legislation such as Bill 19 is
critical in this time period.
A rush to move these critical projects ahead should
not
include a rush to diminish property rights of those property owners
inflicted with a new project area. Our elected government and we as
Alberta citizens have the capacity to provide an environment to move
these projects ahead while at the same time protecting property rights.
One should not be exclusive of the other.
To that end Alberta Property Rights Initiative
proposes the
following:
Amendments to the Expropriation Act to include
regulatory
takings in the definition of expropriation will go a long way to
mitigate the diminished property rights Albertans now have.
Alternatively APRI has provided a stand-alone property rights bill-
named The Property Rights Preservation Bill. This made for Alberta bill
has been modified from similar legislation that has now been passed by
over 30 US states. These states have gone through a similar situation
where there was increasing diverse public interest for the use of
private land. This bill was a response to that situation.
As we move farther into a Land Use Framework policy
and
legislation for Alberta, it is essential that property rights be
included in all up front aspects of land planning.
APRI looks forward to discussing and helping the
Alberta
government with new legislation as it pertains to property rights.
Back
to Top
Property
Rights Preservation Bill
Posted April 5th, 2009.
Her Majesty,
by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of
Alberta, enacts as follows:
Section
1. Preamble.
- It
is the
intent and policy of the democratically elected Government of the
Province of Alberta that no private property may be taken from a
resident of Alberta for public interest by governmental action without
payment of just and fair compensation, in accordance with the meaning
ascribed to in these precepts of due process of common law through the
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta and within the precepts of
due process of English common law.
- The purpose
of this Act is to require Provincial agencies, guided and overseen by
the Attorney General, to evaluate proposed government actions that may
result in taking of private property, in order to avoid unnecessary
burdens on the public treasury and unwarranted interference with
private property rights. It is not the purpose of this Act to affect
the scope of private property protections afforded by any common law
rights provided to Albertans by way of the English common law prior to
the Canadian Federal Constitution enacted in 1982.
Section
2. Short Title. This Act shall be known as the “Property
Rights Preservation Act”.
Section
3. Definitions. As used in this Act:
- “Provincial
Agency” means the province of Alberta and any officer,
physical board, commission, department or similar body of the executive
branch of provincial government, and any of the political subdivisions
of the province or agencies thereof;
- “Government
Action” means:
i.
existing and proposed rules and regulations that, if adopted or
enforced, may limit the use of private property;
ii. existing or proposed license issuance requirements, leasing or
permitting
conditions, requirements or limitations on the use of private property;
iii.
required dedications or exactions of private property;
- The
term
“Government Action” does not include:
- the
forfeiture or seizure of private property by law enforcement agencies
as evidence of a crime or for violations of law;
- orders
issued by a provincial agency or court of law that result from a
violation of law and that are authorized by statute;
- “Taking(s)”
means the taking of private property by Government Action such that
compensation to the owner of that property is required by this Property
Rights Preservation Act.
- “Property”
for the purposes of this Act, refers to, and includes all things or
possessions that are conveyable through a commercial or bequeathal
action.
- The
Attorney General for Alberta shall develop and provide to provincial
agencies fair and equitable criteria to assist in the identification
and evaluation of Government Actions that may result in a Taking of
private property from any resident of Alberta. The Attorney General
shall update the criteria at least on an annual basis to take account
of changes in the law and to ensure equity prevails.
- In
developing such criteria, and subject to the provisions of subparagraph
A. of this Section, the Attorney General shall adhere the following
principles:
i.
if
Government Actions shall result in a physical invasion or occupancy of
private property or decrease the value or limit the use of property,
these actions shall constitute a Taking;
ii. Government
Action shall amount to a Taking even though it constitutes less than a
complete deprivation of all use or value of all separate and distinct
interest in the same private property or the action is only temporary
in nature;
iii.
the
mere assertion of a public purpose is insufficient to avoid a Taking.
Government Actions to protect the public health and safety or other
wise to further the public interest should be taken only in response to
real and substantial public needs and shall be designed significantly
to address those needs;
iv.
although
normal government processes do not ordinarily constitute takings, undue
or unreasonable delays in decision making that interfere with private
property use shall be a Taking. In addition, a delay in processing may
increase significantly the size of compensation due if a Taking is
later found to have occurred; and
v.
these
protections against Taking private property are self- executing and
require compensation regardless of whether the underlying authority for
the action contemplated a Taking or authorized the payment of
compensation.
Section
5. Designation of Responsible Official. The Attorney General
shall designate an official within the office of the Attorney General
who shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Act.
Section
6. Takings Assessment by Provincial Agency. Before a
Provincial Agency takes any Government Action, the agency shall prepare
a written assessment of the Takings implications of such action, in
compliance with the guidelines developed pursuant to Section 4 of this
Act. The agency shall deliver copies of this assessment to the Premier
of Alberta, the affected landowner, the respective municipal
government, the appropriate financial management authority and the
Attorney General. The agency’s assessment shall:
- assess
the
likelihood that the Government Action may result in a Taking;
- clearly
and
specifically identify the purpose of the Government Action;
- explain
why
the Government Action is necessary substantially to advance that
purpose, and why no alternative action is available that would achieve
the agency’s goals while reducing the impact on the private
property owner;
- estimate
the potential cost to the government if a court determines that the
action constitutes a Taking;
- identify
the source of payment within the agency’s budget for a
compensation that may be ordered;
- assess
the consequential effect on the local tax base for municipal purposes;
and
- certify
that the benefits of the Government Action exceed the estimated
compensation costs.
Section
7. Emergency Action.
If there is an immediate threat to public health and safety that
constitutes an emergency and requires an immediate response, the
Takings assessment required by Section 6 of this Act may be made when
the response is completed.
Section
8. Source of Compensation.
Any award made to an owner of private property from a government agency
for a Taking, including any award of solicitor (lawyer) –
client fees and cost, shall come from the agency’s existing
budget unless the agency has previously disclosed an estimate of the
costs to the appropriate financial management authority and funds were
included in the budget for that purpose.
Section
9. Solicitor – Client Fees and Cost.
An owner of private property who successfully establishes that a
government action is a Taking of such owner’s property
requiring payment of just compensation shall be awarded reasonable
Solicitor – client fees and other reasonable costs incurred
in establishing that claim, including reasonable expert evidence
required by property owner, in addition to other remedies provided by
law.
Section
10, Causes of Action.
- An
aggrieved property owner shall have a legal cause of action against a
provincial agency that violates this Act for compensatory damages;
including writs of mandamus or prohibition, or other appropriate legal
or equitable relief.
- A Municipality may seek relief
and cost recovery
from the Provincial or Federal Government for any loss or incurred
expense resulting from a Taking through government program.
- The
Attorney General may bring an action to enforce compliance with this
Act.
Section
11. Valuation of Property.
The effect of Government Action that is a Taking on the fair market
value of private property shall be reflected in the assessed valuation
of such property for taxes, levies and similar purposes.
Section
12. Effective Date.
This Act is effective January 1, 2006.
Back
to Top
The
jurisdictions developed
because…
Posted January 8th, 2009.
The
Fathers of Confederation and indeed the Imperial government of Great
Britain were distrustful of centralized political authority. Civil war,
beheadings, slow roasting people in iron cages over the embers of their
once dwellings, drawing and quartering, public degutting and such, all
has a way of instilling such. It was the experience of the
Anglo and Franco that when government or the Crown gains more
authority, the citizen looses his. The Magna Carta (1215) entrenched
property rights and is still interpreted as a guarantee of liberties
including the right to property and not to be deprived of same without
compensation. The Instrument of Government (1653 Britain’s
written Constitution) established jurisdiction between levels of
government and led to the Westminster style of government. The English
Bill of Rights provided one with the right to protect his property and
not to be deprived of without compensation. In Scotland, the Treaty of
Unity of 1706 ratified for their use, the common law of England
including the Instrument of Government and the English Bill of Rights.
Further evolvement of the Westminster Style of Government provided for
more decentralization of political authority especially concerning
those issues that were/are considered local and private in nature. In
1864 the Northern Colonies of North America undertook the task of
writing a constitutional document called the Quebec Resolutions for the
consideration of the Imperial Government of Britain, resulting in the
British North America Act of 1867, which further decentralized
political authority. It is from this document, spawned from the most
brutal civil wars and experiences witnessed by man, that we have our
Constitutional Directives today. Constitutions are by definition the
instrument by which the citizenry governs their governments (in
traditional Westminster style). It was the citizenry that demanded its
existence and primarily the scholars of that citizenry authored it. To
not recognize the importance of our Constitutional documents does a
great disservice to the founders of this nation and shows blatant
disregard for the historical suffering endured in its development. To
violate our constitution is treasonous to both the people of the past
and their scholars and treasonous to Canada and the Canadians that
fought for its preservation during the wars of the twentieth century.
On to the matters at hand.
Those involved in provincial and federal governments have told me, that
the department of Fisheries and Oceans has jurisdiction in this
province at the local level. From what I have studied of our
Constitution, It does not. I will explain.
It is true that the central government of Canada has jurisdiction over
“Navigation and Shipping”(91.10 Const.Act 1867),
and “Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries” (91.12
Const.Act 1867), but if we look to Schedule 3 of the Constitution Act
1867 we will see where the central government has its’
proprietary responsibility concerning the waters of Canada.
I
quote,
- “Canals,
with Lands and Water Power connected therewith.
- Public
Harbours.
- Light
Houses and Piers, and Sable Island.
- Steamboats,
Dredges and public Vessels.
- Rivers
and Lake Improvement."
In short, the central government, akin to any other level of government
is to exercise its proprietary responsibility within these parameters
only, just the municipal government does not meddle within the purview
of the provincial government or the province within the central.
Watersheds, seasonal streams, watercourses that are not used for
commercial means, and the lands adjacent are matters and properties
that are to be addressed locally and privately. Consequently to
accomplish this, it is up to the province to make law exclusively
addressing these subjects and have the municipal and county governments
administer remedial action when confronted with environmental and above
river concerns. The province has exclusive
authority to make such law.
I
cite…
“In
each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to
matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter
enumerated: that is to say, -
13.
Property and Civil Rights in the Province.”
Because the province has exclusive authority over Property and by
extension the civil activity upon it, it is clearly apparent that the
initiatives, in such cases, are beyond the mandate of the central
government. We might consider the activity of other central government
agencies and their involvement in local and private issues. The CFIA
and its regulations that make every kitchen in Canada suspect, Kyoto
initiatives, education programmes, health care, Environment (SARA)
etcetera, all symptoms of ever-gluttonous tendencies of governments to
centralize the control of every activity the individual might
legitimately pursue.
We might ask, ‘how did this get so far away from the intended
purpose of government?’ The answer… ‘We
let them.’ We did little while the supreme law of Canada was
and is being violated. We do not take the time to know what we have as
an instrument, to govern our governments and we would rather let them
at it because we have not felt the full lash of complete tyranny. To
deter this activity, it requires that we elect people who understand
what it means to have some influence over those issues that affect us
on a daily basis and also how their station is defined
constitutionally. If we don’t take the necessary steps to
curtail the status quo, then we expect to suffer the pillages of the 13th,
14th and 15th centuries
because
rulers and people haven’t changed much. At the very least
this country will not endure, for it is non-compliance to our
constitution that fuels the fire of succession and revolution. Precious
few wars were not fought over jurisdiction and history will repeat
itself again and again. Those who aid and abet in non-compliance of the
citizens’ right to govern governments are simply agents of
this country’s demise. Folks, elect otherwise. Next time you
consider voting for any provincial or federal candidate, first ask,
‘Have you read and do you understand the entire Constitution
of Canada?’ Vote accordingly. Those jurisdictions are
vital.
Neil E Wilson February 2008
Back
to Top
