Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I think its extra to the vote. The companies outside of Alberta vote via investment dollars so it doesn't show up in the polls and it creates long long term economic damage because once they decide its a business hostile government that money goes elsewhere and its not an infinite bucket.
I don't know how it can be called extremely unfavorable when it basically reads as, if the government makes changes that make a deal unprofitable the signee can walk away. Its not as if the company's actions are causing the problem.
|
I hear what are you saying but I still think that is the sort of policy decision that can be punished at the polls if it is regarded as a bad one (indeed, its safe to say from reading this thread that the NDP haven't earned themselves any new votes as a result of this decision so far.)
I think its unfavourable because it doesn't share the risk very evenly among the stakeholders. There are a great many unknowns in the world. Circumstances change (for example, climate change worsening). Governments need to react to those changing circumstances. That's a risk for everyone when they enter into commercial agreements (whether it is a family taking out a mortgage [faced with the prospect of a Bank of Canada interest rate change] or a huge elecricity generation company buying a PPA). Its reasonable to expect that in most commercial agreements, these risks are shared to some extent amongst the parties (although I suppose the parties are always free to distribute these risks as they see fit). In this case, it seems like the people of Alberta assumed all of the risk, that's all. (Sorry, long, rambling response).