MLAs hold meetings Mar 11 & 18 to defend bills

[bmwilson]

Sadie:
Which is why I'm perplexed with the obvious political stance this issue has taken. This is less about sticking up for landowners and more about sticking it to the Alberta Government.

[Ruken]

Sadie and others. Be careful to keep the issues separate.

Pipeline work is ok and important. Landowners rights are critical too. But for them to get into a half cocked kahoot with a lawyer looking for work is just plain unprofessional. They'll hurt their credibility in the end over this. Once they recieve a bad reputation for taking a stance without doing their homework, they'll have years to try to gain their reputation back. People (the rest of the Albertans who are not with you on this bill changing resistance) will not forget easily...

[stubblejumper]

How long before Tony Merchant is involved

[nicolaas]

So what is wrong with the system we have now?

[parsley]

Ruken, I just love the way you come out of the blue at midnight and start threatening.

*****Intimidation tactic alert******

[TOM4CWB]

Ruken,

Many good questions asked... for instance Keith Wilson was in the Farmers Advocates office for years.

Your political tack is a political attack. The property rights issue in ALberta will certainly NOT go away with the introduction of Bill 10.

The Ministers that support this recent legislative bent are so proud of the 'Progressive' power they keep for themselves. Being the wise men of Alberta... certainly deserves notice... and many have found the initiative less than trustworthy... and more than offensive!

By the way... WHAT was so BAD with the 'old' system... other than they couldn't easily jam nukes and electromagnetic charges down our and our children's throats?

[bmwilson]

I'm wondering what's so bad about entrenching compensation to landowners in legislation. If there is a public impact on private property, the property owner should be compensated. Municipalities and their constituents will have the final say with their regional plans as to how ALSA will be implemented. All government levels will have to consider stakeholder input - yes, even those carrying anti "nuke" amd power line signs.

[bmwilson]

There are many threads in Agriville on this issue. Is there a way to consolidate all of those comments in one thread? There are a lot of good comments sprinkled throughout that should be discussed. This issue is important to all of us and should be fleshed out intelligently.

[bmwilson]

Went to the High River meeting. I'm convinced that there's some political posturing going on. Can we move this conversation to:
http://www.agri-ville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1299531672
in Rural Issues? It would be good to collect everything in one spot.

[per]

Bmwilson, I too was in High River but for both presentations. Interesting how you call the January Wilson meeting slick and the March Morton et al presentation not slick. The January presentation had at least an hour and a half of question and answer afterward and the March meeting ran up against the clock. There was no review or Bill 10 until after the January meetings across southern Alberta. I would suspect if ALSA was defensible there would be no need for Bill 10 yet Morton et al kept calling all the concerns Myths and Lies. Bill 10 went a long way in the right direction for those of us that had concerns but now I am a little concerned that if it was completely defensible why not defend it instead of wasting time with a bill to amend a year and a half old act. All of the Acts we call bills 19, 36, 50 and 24 concentrate power in the cabinet. That should be concerning as well.

Much of the content in 36 is what many of us have been asking for. I am also concerned that many drink the cool aid from both corners without doing their own due diligence. Wilson brought up many good points (enough that bill 10 was born) but Morton et al dismissed them as posturing a fear mongering. By not defending ALSA they gave credence to the opposers. One thing is for sure, to defend ALSA you are painted as a PCer and to have concerns you are painted as WR. It seems if you have issues with your government you no longer have a place in the fold. I suppose it is because the present PC party doesn't have much experience with opposition from with in.

[bmwilson]

I guess I could be described as a PC'er although I've had memberships in several provincial parties over the years. I guess I'm puzzled when the perception of an overbearing government springs out of this kind of legislation. I'm obviously reading something different into it than many others. I won't deny that it might be bias, but I consider myself to be open minded enough to try to limit that bias. I do see all governments stifling dissent these days and that concerns me. Being pro-active and explaining the reasoning for legislative change may not be a strong PC attribute. Much of this debate could have been avoided if it was sold better in the beginning. If that came off as autocratic and heavy handed, that's unfortunate. Whatever the result, there is much political hay being stacked.