[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Locke

Actually, as complex as you believe it is, once the wheat is separated from the chaff it appears to boil down to more or less exactly that simple.

When everyone in the room is pointing and laughing at you, you become left with only two options:

1. You are the smartest person in the room who knows something everyone, literally everyone, does not.

2. You screwed up.

The NDP are not the smartest people in the room.

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

The bold does seem problematic for the government. Even if you accept, for the moment, that the PPA's aren't contracts, can the government change legislation unilaterally? Typically, I think the answer is yes, but a better question is can the government change legislation unilaterally, without consequence? The remedies provided are baked right into the contract/legislation. Contractually they would have zero chance, but even legislatively it would seem so procedurally unfair to allow this to happen. Moreso, it would seem insane from a long term view to tell the world that the government can change anything, anytime and expect business to react in any matter other than to run as far away from here as is possible.

The only other argument that I can think of (outside of outright fraud, which I don't think is on the table) is that the government agency overstepped its authority in agreeing to the "more unprofitable" language. I have a hard time believing that the enabling language for the board is so precise to provide that "to make it unprofitable" is A OK, but "more unprofitable" is illegal. It isn't as if they agreed to have payment back in hookers and blow. It seems pretty clear that this language, while beneficial to the utilities, is along the same continuum of language the would be negotiated amongst the parties.

The jurisdictional challenge is based on the procedural requirements set out in the enabling legislation (that the province argues should have been complied with but was not.) The province argues that the change from "unprofitable" to "unprofitable or more unprofitable) was a significant change that required (again, pursuant to the enabling legislation) a public consultation process permitting other stakeholders (including, notably, the government of the day) to provide input.