 |
| Danielle Smith is the leader of the Wildrose party. A key aspect to the Wildrose energy platform is to "encourage understanding and support (for the energy sector) while resisting efforts by other governments and authorities to hinder growth through regulation," which columnist Deborah Yedlin calls "poppycock." Photograph by: Ed Kaiser, Edmonton Journal |
Yesterday, we posted two video presentations by Brad Stelfox on the subject of regional development plans. Today, we give you columnist Deborah Yedlin's take on the subject.
Wildrose push for property rights changes would serve little purpose
By Deborah Yedlin,
Calgary Herald
April 11, 2012
It's time to talk about what has made Alberta what it is today - a wealthy province with an educated population in an enviable position of being the place where the world wants to do business.
Some of this is the result of the dumb luck of its natural resource endowment, but it also relates to the fact the natural resources are owned by the province, not the federal government, that land rights are owned by the Crown, not the individual - as is the case in south of the border - and the royalty structure encourages exploration and development.
To be sure, there was a big hiccup under former premier Ed Stelmach on the royalty structure, but one is hard pressed to hear quibbling about royalties today. The real concerns in the oilpatch these days have to do with issues such as the development of new export markets, low natural gas prices, the regulatory burden, industry's social licence to operate and access to resources.
This last point includes property rights. In the current Alberta election campaign, the Wildrose party has made the point that without protection and preservation of property rights, the economy would cease to function.
True.
But given the strength of the Alberta economy, one would be hard-pressed to suggest the existing legislation governing property rights has had a negative impact on economic growth.
As an example: Is Bill 36 perfect?
No.
But having regional development plans is absolutely critical for certainty of land access; where things arguably might need to be tweaked is the split between regulation and policy - and what better achieves the desired ends.
The point, really, is that changing existing legislation to address one perceived problem does nothing but create uncertainty; no one knows what is coming, how long it will take and what the changes might be.
