Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
In good faith to who? Because the "unprofitable or less profitable" clause was not done in good faith. It was added without the public consultation like the other clauses. It wasn't included in normally public access to the agreements and hidden to the point where you needed to find the original documents in the archives to actually find it. What good faith do you mean?
|
We elect governments to negotiate deals on our behalf. Sometimes the deals aren't that great in retrospect but that makes no difference when it comes to the legitimacy of the deal. They may hold public consultations but they are certainly not bound by them. Just because the NDP didn't do their homework doesn't mean they can just change signed contracts after the fact.
I'd really be interested to see some of these contracts the govermnet has changed retroactively that you are referring to. Back to work legislation doesn't even remotely qualify.