Evan Berger responds to objections to Bill 36 Land Stewardship Act

[shaney]

See More at [URL="http://www.realagriculture.com"]RealAgriculture.com[/URL]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UUnrEVhR4fI" frameborder="0" width="560" height="315"></iframe>

[wilagro]

The PC government still sticks up for their terribly flawed Bills. Just vote for another party that will Void/Cancel/Do away with the present ones. Problem solved.

Enact laws that make sense and respect private land ownership.

[ASRG]

Only one party has a chance of kicking these skunks out? Hold your nose and vote Wildrose!

[TOM4CWB]

Shaney;

I am truly amazed by this audio.

Minister Berger uses the term 'Sham wow salesman’...!!!
As well as "telling the same story, over and over... does NOT make it true".
- BACK on YOU Minister Berger.
I couldn't have said this better...

Get out P.C. Bills 10/36 and 'SHAM wow' polish your own mirrors... you are totally right..."telling the same story, over and over... does NOT make what you say true".

I have PUBLICALLY challenged Minister Berger and (the Bill 36 LUF) Commissioner Seiferling to show us how Bill 36 would have saved ONE acre of productive Agricultural land... They haven’t been able to demonstrate this… very likely the exact opposite is true.

If Bills 10/36 had been in place for the last 10 years… Commissioner Morris acknowledged, to me, they would NOT save Ag lands... in fact; when, the ‘unintended consequences’ of EX Liberal leader Dr. Ken Nicols, Stelmach, and Mortons' "Environmental Goods and Services" Million $ Report are added in... Bill 36/10 puts far more pressure on taking even MORE the best productive Ag lands out of the Alberta private Land Bank.

The AB P.C.'s have failed to release this Dr. Nichol "Environmental Goods and Services" Stewardship action plan for 2 years...

Minister Berger being the latest offender since taking office last fall.
Thanks for bringing this up AGAIN Minister Berger.

I know… this is too complex for the average Alberta Citizen to understand… we must ‘Trust’ you and ‘Alison in Wonderland’.

"SHAM wow" Minister Berger... what an excellent quote for you and Minister Morton and ‘Alison in Wonderland’!


P.S. Just read this…from http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/news/pdf/morton-metis.pdf

You will see the ‘Stewardship’ "Environmental Goods and Services" issue is truly front and centre… the P.C. Cabinet wants to make the Ag Private land pool as small as possible which increases pressure on productive Agriculture in Alberta… by restricting native lands and property rights even further.

Thanks again Shaney… for bring this to us!!!

BACKGROUND E-mail:


From: tmortonl@telus.net
To: Frederick Lee
Sent: Sat Nov 15 18: 17:08 2008
Subject: revisions to LUF
Please see attached or below. Forward to Morris and whomever else needs to see it.

15 November
Re: Revisions to LUG Final Version
I've reviewed the latest round of revisions and changes, and am generally satisfied with four
important exceptions and two questions. I also have some additional editing that I'd like to see
done, but will bring tliat with me on Monday.
Not Acceptable:
1. Glossary, p.41, definition of "Aboriginals": As I told Min. Z at CPC, I cannot accept
adding "Inuit" to the membership of Aboriginals involved in LAND USE ISSUES in
Alberta. There are no Native Inuit communities, now or ever, in Alberta, so they have no
connection to land use issues. If they have other Aboriginal rights that can be exercised in
Alberta, ok. But they have nothing to do with land use policy.
1. Glossary, p. 43, definition of "private lands": "Metis settlements" have never been
considered "private lands" in the conventional sense of the tenm in Alberta, and now is not
the time to start. I could write pages on this, but to cut to the chase: if the Metis
Settlements suddenly want to share in some of the potential benefits of private land
ownership, do they also want to be subject to all the other restrictions and duties that attach
to private land ownership in Alberta? I doubt it. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
The issue of eligibility of Metis Settlement lands for possible benefits under future
Stewardship and Conservation programs is a legitimate question, but it is a question that
will have to be discussed, not simply asserted.
1. p.34, first column: re-write as follows: "The Land Use Framework will be implemented in
stages over the next four years. The first priorities are:
"The introduction and enactment oflegislation required to support the implementation of
this report. This legislation will be introduced in the Spring, 2009 Session of the
Legislature .
.. the development of metropolitan plans for the Capital and Calgary regions. Both of these
are scheduled to be completed in 2009 .
. "the regional plans for the South Saskatchewan and Lower Athabasca regions. These are
.-"'-----"'"~
both scheduled to be completed in 2010.
4. p.34, second column, fifth bullet: either clarify what this means or delete it. I certainly can't
understand what it means.
Questions:
1. Cabinet Policy Committee: What is the status of this? There seems to be some
changes/deletions on p. 4, but then it remains as before in the remainder of the document: pp. 2,
18,25,34. I thought Eric told my something about Premier's Office wanting it deleted, but it
seems a little late in the day for this. Please clarify with Morris and P AB.
2. p.24: Requirement that Municipalities submit compliance plans or "context statements" (a
terrible term) confirming/explaining how they have complied with the Regional Plan that applies
to them. Why was this requirement deleted and what was it replaced with? I don't recall any
discussion in CPC or otherwise about this. Please advise.