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.

Many Canadians rely upon natural health products for their health. These products are endangered and consumers need to act now to save them. Since 2004 when the Natural Health Product Regulations were introduced, natural health products have been increasingly threatened. The new Regulations were Health Canada’s response to consumer demands for the government to protect their access to natural health products. The Regulations have had the opposite effect.

To “legally” sell a health product the new Regulations impose a licensing requirement. The problem is that 60% of license applications have failed. These have been the “easy” applications. Expectations are that 70-75% of applications will fail. For the NHP Community this means that 75% of NHPs we rely upon for our health will become illegal.

This creates the following scenario:

• 75% of natural health products will become illegal;
• Illegal products must be voluntarily removed or be subject to Health Canada enforcement;
• Health Canada has publicly announced it is hiring more enforcement officers and is holding recruitment meetings at universities;
• Bill C-51 gives Health Canada unprecedented enforcement tools to force natural health products off of the market.

Bill C-51 reads like a Police State Manual

There has never been a death in Canada caused by a natural health product. Considering that there are multiple deaths every year caused by common foods such as peanuts and shellfish, it is clear that natural health products are extremely safe. When you consider the health benefits of natural health products, including that many of us rely upon them for our very lives, it becomes clear that the real danger in regulating them is to “over-regulate” them off of the market.

Bill C-51 gives Health Canada unprecedented power to take
natural health products away from us.

Traditionally in Canada we have had the rule of law. This meant that it was not okay for the State to take our property without a warrant and without Court supervision to prevent arbitrariness and abuse. Now to “protect” us the State can seize the property of persons in the natural health product industry, including natural health practitioners, makers of natural health products, and retailers. This would be problematic even if there had to be a realistic safety concern for the seizure, but there does not have to be a safety concern. Under the new law the State can seize without a reason, without a warrant, without limits to what can
be seized, without a time limitation, and without reporting the seizure to a Court.
In some cases seized property can be forfeited to the State without Court approval. Owners will have to pay the costs of the seizure, transport and storage of seized things, even if it turns out that there was not a safety risk. The State still needs to get a search warrant if they are going to search someone’s home, but if it is not a home they do not need a warrant and can trespass on private property without any liability. Small family businesses are subject to the same maximum $5,000,000 fines as large corporations. Directors, officers and agents of a company can now be personally charged for the misdeeds of the company. Even more troubling is that the State does not have to consider the health risk caused by their seizures. When the State seizes our natural health products, they are taking away our right to choose. That is, they are making our health decisions for us. We are then forced to use other treatments such as chemical pharmaceutical drugs which can be dangerous and ineffective. For those of us who only get relief from natural health products, the State forces us to suffer and in extreme circumstances, to die.

The seizure of Empowerplus is an example of where deaths resulted from the State seizing a natural health product that is now freely on the market. There is something wrong with “health” legislation which allows the State to seize health products without considering whether we need the products. There is something wrong with the State making personal health decisions for us. Health decisions are fundamental to our personal autonomy. There is something wrong with the State being able to seize our property without prior Court approval, without clearly defined reasons for the seizure, without time limit, and without Court supervision. There is something wrong with the State being able to trespass on our property without any recourse. Surely we can draft “health” protection legislation that
does not read like a police state handbook.

Urgent Call to Action

Bill C-51 was introduced into the House of Commons on April 8, 2008. The Bill is not yet law, but will become law unless Canadians act quickly.

It is essential that you let key Members of Parliament know that:

• You are opposed to the police state powers in Bill C-51;
• You want them to vote against Bill C-51;
• You want your access to natural health products protected.

Members of Parliament pay attention to personal efforts by voters you should:
- Send a hand written letter to:
- Phone your local Member of Parliament and the Prime Minister’s Office to voice
your concerns.
Stephen Harper’s phone numbers are (613) 992-4211 and (403) 253-7990.
Tony Clement’s phone numbers are (613) 944-7740 and (705) 746-9053.
For your local MP’s number go to: This web site
You can send your letters without postage to:
Name of person letter is to such as Stephen Harper
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6.

This article provided by:
NHPPA (Natural Health Products Protection Association)
#2 953 Laval Cres.
Kamloops, BC, V2C 5P4
www.nhppa.org
info@nhppa.org

Dear Sir or Madame:

I write today in defense of the proprietary right and responsibility of the individual and of Alberta’s Provincial government. I hardly have to cite to you the parameters in which the provincial government is to exclusively conduct itself, and suspect you tyre of the intrusion of the central government into the exclusive proprietary responsibility of the Province.

I might suggest a different approach might be in order. It is becoming more evident this province is in need of self definition, and to this end I will avail myself. We are in desperate need of a Provincial Constitution: one that would expel the mischief of our central governments of late. If you have occasion to look at www.constitutioncanada.com you will find the product of five years work on my committee’s behalf. A provincial constitution has to be compliant with what we have at the national level and I do not see that there is any obstacle to the development of a strong and workable statute in that regard.

In a Provincial Constitution or in a ‘Provincial Jurisdictional Sovereignty Act’ the words could be as follows:

The Province and its Legislature shall uphold the Jurisdictions specified as exclusive to the Province by the Constitution Acts 1867/1982, and for greater certainty shall, not-with-stand, to any Law contrived by any other order of Government that subrogates the exclusive jurisdictions of the Province or the proprietary interests of the Individual within the Province. Any relinquishment of Provincial Jurisdictional Authority by the Province shall be obtainable only through the comprehensive consultation of the Province’s Citizenry and the support of seventy percent of the same.”

This would at first be seen as a means to destroy social programs and the opposition expected from those who have a large appetite for central government dependency and control, will try to delineate it as such. But the truth of the matter is this; ‘It will strengthen the document that defines Canada as a Nation’. It would also send a strong message to Ottawa that caution is prudent when attempts are made at emasculating provincial entitlement or exceeding Constitutional authority. As far as social programs are concerned; we are quite capable of caring for our neighbours and likewise capable of provision.

Making law regarding “Property and Civil Rights” is exclusive to the province. Proprietary interest and responsibility then is the same, and that includes those of the Provincial Legislature. That includes our provincial resources.

Sir, this might seem a severe action, but the activity of the central government into the jurisdictions of the Province will not likely lessen. This would definitely damper the current tendency. (Especially with a future Liberal government). Alberta, Strong and Free, is something we mutually desire.

Regards, and hope to be of some assist,

Neil E. Wilson

Do you Believe that it would be best to revamp existing Legislation such as the Expropriation Act and Surface Rights Act or.

To work towards a Stand Alone Property Rights Bill that could lead to Legislation?

Please leave your insights on the comments button below.

APRIPRES.

That following summer Ray Danyluk’s (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing) office was reviewing the Municipal act for purposes absolutely contrary to our presentation earlier in the spring. See section 534 below.

You will notice that by removing the term “use of land”, a criterion for compensation as it was in 2006 no longer exists, as it pertained to partial takings. In the mindset of APRI, this is not acting in good faith nor in the interests of Property owners.

Government at the provincial level can now arbitrate land use and compensation outside of municipal input. Please recognise that the control of the properties within our communities has been further centralized and the citizenry has once again lost authority over those issues regarding development within their localities. You will also notice that there is real potential for government to remove your use of land without paying for it. You still get to own and pay taxes on it but you just can’t use it to the fullest extent. Land can be reassessed through various drawn out processes, but in Alberta land is a hot enough commodity that it would not likely affect your tax burden. If a provincial trailnet cuts your property and the landowner has to securely fence it, and he does, and assume all of the liabilities including insurance, weed control, guarantee of safety for the users, and he does, the landowner cannot access his property through the trailnet trail as it allows a “means for the public to be put at risk”… a gate.

Likewise if the provincial government were to apply a species conservation action to your property and remove the use of that portion from you the landowner, the landowner is in the most enviable position to pay taxes on something he cannot fully use. I’ll quote an entry to our blog. “Oh Canada the States Home and Native’s Land”.

What is the government agenda?
By Neil Wilson, Chairman of the Alberta Property Rights Initiative.

Various scenarios of regulatory takings, unfairly appraised municipal takings and land reserve allotments together with recommendations on how we might improve the plight of the landowner in Alberta when it comes to the diminishment of proprietary interest to real property (land) were all addressed throughout.

Throughout the document, compensation arguably was key to cooperation. At the end of the day, it is recommended that the landowner must remain whole. He either has the use and ownership of the land or is monetarily compensated. This concept was strongly acknowledged by the CPC on Environment and Resources.

Subsequent to that acknowledgment the CPC commissioned the APRI board to review and make recommendations to the Surface Rights Act of Alberta. As we, (Norm Ward, Neil Wilson, and Gordon Butler) reviewed the Act it became apparent that the Expropriation Act of Alberta was the real ‘driver’ for the Acts that support the EUB, SRD, NRCB, PUA etc. so we reviewed the Expropriation Act as well. We wrote our proposals in three columns; original text on the left, proposed changes in the middle and the reasons for the proposed changes on the right and hand delivered the finished product to each of the MLA.s that sit on the CPC committee. The Expropriation Act is succinct enough although it does not, in any meaningful way, address partial takings.

The current definition of expropriation reads thus:

• “Expropriation” means the taking of land without the consent of the owner by an expropriating authority in the exercise of its statutory powers;

Our proposed change reads thus:

• (G)“expropriation” means the taking of any proportional interest of land by statutory or regulatory means without the consent of the owner by an expropriating authority in the exercise of its statutory powers;

By extending the definition to include the taking of the potentials or the use of the land we thereby relieve the diminishment of proprietary interest by compensating because when land is expropriated, compensation becomes a component as supported by precedent in case law.

After we made that change to the Expropriation Act we then worked the rest of the document over to reflect the expanded intent of the term. The Surface Rights Act then was easier to modify because we didn’t have the encumbrances of the Expropriation Act.

We are now seeking advice on how the Provincial Government might put this into effect. We hope that the Expropriation Act could be opened for the exclusive purpose of making these alterations and then, either the Surface Rights Act could be opened for the exclusive purpose of compliance or done so by ‘Order in Council’. To date we have had no indication what route might be feasible. Either way if these proposals are taken seriously and implemented it would alleviate much of the angst landowners are burdened with these days.

The Land-use Framework would operate much better with the cooperation of the Landowner. We believe that our proposals, if implemented, would make governments work appear less hostile to proprietary interest and the Land-use Framework much more salable.

You might remember that last year we had a proposal for an Alberta Property Rights Preservation Bill. It hasn’t gone away. Perhaps the steps we have taken this year will make it more palatable further down the road. May we all live long!!

APRI is currently working on a re-vamp of its web site and these documents will be available for your discretion and viewing. We invite your comments, and hope to soon have a discussion forum on this site as well.

APRI takes this opportunity to thank all those who have supported us in the past and hope we have earned your support in the future.

APRI’s new mailing address is

Box 834 Nanton, Alberta. T0L 1R0.

Neil E. Wilson
Chair, of the Alberta Property Rights Initiative.