Some anomalies in letter writers perception

ECA Review/Terri Huxley Letter to the Editor Header (LTE)
Written by Submitted

Dear Editor,

The recent letter by Mr. Fawcett from Consort has some anomalies in his perception of the Special Areas Act and its legalities.

That may be based off of his misinterpretation of what the government agency known as the Special Areas Board actually is and the area it defines.

The 1938 Provincial Act clearly defines that it is a government agency with full and unencumbered authority in the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The Act is similar in nature to the former federal Canadian Wheat Board Act that was created in 1943 and also allowed that Minister absolute control, therefore the use of the word ‘advisory’ when defining the locally elected input.

For example, if the local people had true democratic grassroots control, why then would the chairman’s position be subject to a Ministerial appointment?

That person is then the government-appointed chairman of the government agency, not unlike the ‘elected ‘advisory committee’ to the Minister for the former federal Canadian Wheat Board.

No amount of pandering and acceptance can change where the authority lies or the legal wording of the Act.

The legal authority to bring into law any provincial act is held only in the provincial legislative chamber, just as the power to change the federal CWB Act was held in the federal chamber.

Section 27 of the 1938 Special Areas Act goes on to confirm the prevalence of the Act as follows; Prevalence of Act “section 27, If any conflict arises between this Act and any other Act, this Act prevails.”

In regards to titled land within the designated Special Areas under “Powers of the Minster”; Powers of Minister, Section 7, The Minister may in respect of special areas generally or in respect of any specified special area or any part of it; (h) classify ALL lands within the special area for the purpose of utilizing them for the purpose to which they are considered by the Minister to be most adaptable; The notion that, 81 years after the Act was brought into law, this type of government overreach is in any way democratic or acceptable without the ability to challenge the Act is highly suspect.

It makes one wonder if a return to the 1943 Canadian Wheat Board days is what’s being subliminally and similarly advocated for here.


Rick Strankman

Altario, Ab.

About the author




* indicates required