Dear Mr. Hayden:
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 2009.
As a landowner and a taxpayer in this province, I have some serious concerns with the aspect of Bill 19, which you only briefly referenced in your letter. That is, the matter of public consultation. You say Bill 19 makes public consultation mandatory. That conclusion is not evident to me from your letter. More importantly, I am not confident, that even if the proper public consultation was mandatory it will be reflected in the consultation process by your government and the agencies assigned to the task.
I still maintain that there is really nothing new in Bill 19, because for the most part, the powers of government being defined in the Bill already exist in some form or another in Alberta legislation. All Bill 19 does in my opinion is affirm and consolidate those powers and clarify some of the procedures that go along with them. It is not the powers and procedures under Bill 19 that cause me serious concern. Rather, it is the spirit and integrity of the proponents of the Bill and your government and ensuring their respect for proper consultation and public input when they are exercising those powers that cause me grave concern.
By spirit and integrity of the proponents, I mean that I seriously question whether the advocates of Bill 19 and/or your government will truly respect my knowledge and interest as a landowner when it comes to defining why and where land will be assembled as provided for under the Bill. Based upon my experiences with having to deal with anyone empowered to publicly affect and/or acquire rural land interests I am not confident that my landholder and agricultural interest, and my public interest in expressing my opinion will be respected in the face of Bill19. In that respect, I must candidly say that my deepest disappointment with the proponents and your government in regard to project development and rural land acquisition was in relation to the ‘shenanigans’ and ‘farces’ that went on with respect to the now defunct Edmonton to Calgary 500KV transmission upgrade proceedings. Pardon me for using the terms ‘shenanigans’ and ‘farces’, but they are the only ones that come to mind to aptly describe how the powers that already exist and the equivalent to what is proposed in Bill 19, and that were abused by the AESO, the AEUB and the proponents of the proposed 500KV transmission upgrade. What was even more disturbing is that government officials, including government departments who are mandated, and have veto powers to ensure the respect of the public interest in the project (Alberta Environment to name one), together with legislators, sat on their heels despite massive public outcry and credible legal arguments that were made during more then two years of proceedings denouncing the project for lack of procedural fairness and public consultation. Instead of responding with a demonstration of true respect for the public interest in the matter, it was political favoritism and maneuvering, and desire for economic profit that governed the day. The project met its proper and timely demise, only because the indifferences and arrogances of the proponent players and public keepers of the project caused them to get caught and be without any alternative but to “cut and run”. In the meantime, a genuinely caring Alberta public and landowners had to give up almost three years of their lives and time, resort to unconventional means to get the attention of government officials and the project advocates in order to bring justice to the proceedings. That would never have been required if there had been true consultation and integrity in the proceedings, but quite frankly there wasn’t any.
Your government may now be attempting to ensure that there will be integrity in Bill 19 land assembly processes. The AEUB did get a new coat of paint, which justified it to change its name to the AUC. And the AESO is now attempting to demonstrate some sort of consultations in relation to the re-emergence of the Edmonton to Calgary 500KV upgrade. But it does not take a great deal of effort to see that once again, the predominance of the whole process is again staged and going on behind closed doors with a predetermined concept for an Edmonton to Calgary 500KV transmission upgrade. Insomuch as the AESO may appear to have rethought its ways, I must seriously question its integrity in doing so when it was the AESO that was the original spoiler of the 500KV proceedings for having failed to properly consult the public in the first place. What was even more disconcerting is that when the failure to consult was brought to the attention of AESO, Altalink and the AEUB at the commencement of what was determined to be an illegitimate review of the proceedings on the part of the AEUB, the only thing evident in the response of these three entities were Cheshire like indifferences to the public outcry for proper consultation. This behavior ultimately cost the Alberta taxpayers and electrical consumption ratepayers millions of dollars in intervener costs. Yet the AESO as the public keeper of the Alberta electrical infrastructure has gone unscathed in the course of the demise of this project, and is now back with what appears to be the same old game.
And so I ask you Mr. Minister:
What will your government do to make things different; regarding Bill 19, or the re-emerging Edmonton to Calgary 500KV upgrade, which I believe will come within the purview of the Bill? What will your government do to demonstrate respect for my interest in the matter as a directly affected landowner and as a member of the public in this regard?
Consultation can easily be said to be mandatory. However, true consultation in the case of electrical infrastructure must also include respect and consideration of other options to meet an identified need. This includes options for both generation and transmission. But where a project and location have been predetermined what good purpose would mandatory consultation or any other type of consultation serve if there are no checks and balances to correct the inequities that arise when that happens? What assurances can you give me that those checks and balances will be in place?
Jim Vetsch
Rimbey