More than a year after an Alberta judge declared that the legislation guiding licensed land agents was bad, the provincial government has introduced amendments to change the rules.
Bill 9, the Land Agents Licensing Amendment Act, will make it easier for landowners to hire anyone to represent them in negotiations with energy companies.
Now, only licensed land agents or lawyers are permitted to charge a fee for providing landowners with advice on land negotiations. Under the new proposal, any person would be able act on behalf of landowners.
Read Also
Government, industry seek canola tariff resolution
Governments and industry continue to discuss how best to deal with Chinese tariffs on Canadian agricultural products, particularly canola.
“My southern Alberta constituents have told me the Land Agents Licensing Act, in its present form, is too restrictive. They want less red tape and they want choice. That’s what this amendment is about,” said Len Mitzel, a southern Alberta MLA who introduced the legislation May 6.
Don Bester, president of the Alberta Surface Rights Federation, said the changes are long overdue.
“We’ve lobbied for changes for years and years,” said Bester.
“As president of the federation, I think it is about time. We just hope the bill is expedited through the house. It’s a worthwhile amendment to the act,” said Bester.
The amendment was introduced just hours after Ray Strom, an unlicensed land agent, won leave to appeal his case to the federal court.
In a ruling released March 2007, judge Peter Ayotte said he had no choice but to find Strom guilty under the act for accepting a fee for acting on behalf of landowners during negotiations with three companies between October 2002 and November 2003.
Judge Ayotte said the current act creates an uneven playing field favouring the oil and gas industry. There are more than 1,500 licensed land agents in Alberta. All but a handful work for energy companies.
Strom later appealed Ayotte’s decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench, but lost.
Bester said while Strom may not have won the court cases, they accented problems with the legislation.
Strom said the amendments fall short of what they need to accomplish. The act does not state clearly whom it pertains to, he said.
“There’s still no clarification (on) who are the interest takers.”
