Quote:
Originally Posted by IliketoPuck
None of those situations are comparable to retroactively changing laws because YOU DIDN'T READ THE BLOODY CONTRACTS THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY YOUR ASININE CARBON TAX.
Jesus. This isn't soviet Russia. It's Canada.
One of the fundamental things that makes our country work is respect for the rule of law. Just because you are incompetent, doesn't mean you get to weasel out of that incompetence by changing the law.
How is that not sinking in.
|
They aren't planning on changing laws that I know of. From what I can tell they are planning on upholding them.
The legislation to create the PPAs (the Law) was clear that public consultation was required before any variations were added to the PPAs after they were announced.
The Enron clause did not follow the law and no consultation was undertaken even though it was identified within AUEB at the time, there are even emails that prove this. The clause was added anyway. To retroactively remove said clause is to uphold the law that was enacted in 1998.
In Soviet Russia these backroom illegal deals might be fair game. But in Canada we have the Rule of Law and any illegal clause in an agreement should be fair game to be removed.