Alberta Politics Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Wouldn't this be equivalent to a company selling gift certificates for lets say 50% off and then when they start losing money hand over fist they want to change it retroactively to no longer cover their more profitable items.

"Sorry sir you can't redeem this for the Hugo Boss Underwear anymore"

"Where does it say that"

"Well it doesn't but we've decided it doesn't anymore"

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I also can't get my head around the whole not aware storyline that the government is playing, since first of all, its pretty clear that they knew and plowed ahead with the Carbon levy anyways which would reduce someone like Enmax's profitability to nearly zero (15 million cost to 150 million cost).

As its been pointed out these PPA's and the terms of them were readily available to the government.

IF the government had been so unhappy with this not profitable condition and what it involved, they should have been filing this court challenge before they made the changes to the Levy, or they should have gone to these utility companies to understand what their trigger point was for returning them, I tend to think instead that they would sneak through the Carbon Levy on coal plants and hope that the companies wouldn't understand the implications of the Levy to their bottom line. Instead they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

This is a good point, if the Government was so assured of their position on this, they should have been ahead of the game.

Challenge the clause before altering the rules as opposed to now being behind the ball and looking like idiots and doing damage control.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wouldn't this be equivalent to a company selling gift certificates for lets say 50% off and then when they start losing money hand over fist they want to change it retroactively to no longer cover their more profitable items.

"Sorry sir you can't redeem this for the Hugo Boss Underwear anymore"

"Where does it say that"

"Well it doesn't but we've decided it doesn't anymore"

I would say... no, not evenly remotely.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is a good point, if the Government was so assured of their position on this, they should have been ahead of the game.

Challenge the clause before altering the rules as opposed to now being behind the ball and looking like idiots and doing damage control.

Certainly room for criticism of the government on this front.

[Kjesse]

While its good to have comments from the other side of the fence, in this case Makarov picking up the counter-argument, in my view this whole argument about the PPAs not being contracts in the most proper sense of its legal meaning has no consequence in these circumstances.

Lets say they aren't contracts, because they are regulations. That distinction does not help the NDP because, we are a society that above all else respect the Rule of Law -- to use wikipedia (for ease): The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials.

For the NDP to now try to undo the rules established by a prior government, and to do so not just retroactively but retrospectively, offends the most basic tenets of our legal system.

The NDP says, the prior government and board should not have done this. Let's even assume that is true, looking back. But the fact is, they did. Even if not perfectly compliant with their own rules. Everybody... the companies, the government, the citizens, relied on this decision or have enjoyed the ups and downs of it for over a decade.

The NDP needs to suck it up, admit their error of this lawsuit, and focus on doing some good during their remaining time in power.

There is a reason Notley is staying away from this publicly. She should come out from her hole and own this terrible decision, should she fancy herself a leader.

Notice also that Ceci has been fully silent? He has the Finance portfolio, what is his excuse?

[Frequitude]

I just can't believe that Notley is hanging Sarah Hoffman out to dry here. What a cowardly act by the supposed leader.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

While its good to have comments from the other side of the fence, in this case Makarov picking up the counter-argument, in my view this whole argument about the PPAs not being contracts in the most proper sense of its legal meaning has no consequence in these circumstances.

Lets say they aren't contracts, because they are regulations. That distinction does not help the NDP because, we are a society that above all else respect the Rule of Law -- to use wikipedia (for ease): The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials.

For the NDP to now try to undo the rules established by a prior government, and to do so not just retroactively but retrospectively, offends the most basic tenets of our legal system.

The NDP says, the prior government and board should not have done this. Let's even assume that is true, looking back. But the fact is, they did. Even if not perfectly compliant with their own rules. Everybody... the companies, the government, the citizens, relied on this decision or have enjoyed the ups and downs of it for over a decade.

The NDP needs to suck it up, admit their error of this lawsuit, and focus on doing some good during their remaining time in power.

There is a reason Notley is staying away from this publicly. She should come out from her hole and own this terrible decision, should she fancy herself a leader.

Notice also that Ceci has been fully silent? He has the Finance portfolio, what is his excuse?

Curiously, the province's argument is based expressly on the rule of law principle you cite.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I just can't believe that Notley is hanging Sarah Hoffman out to dry here. What a cowardly act by the supposed leader.

And whats worse is the fact that Hoffman is our Deputy Premier which would suggest that shes the second most qualified individual within the party, a party hurting for qualified individuals.

Most recent photo of Sarah Hoffman:

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Curiously, the province's argument is based expressly on the rule of law principle you cite.

I was expecting that response, actually.

The NDP says there were irregularities as to the enactment of the regulations and their official interpretation. That's their "Rule of Law" argument.

The other side says, the government approved the regulations and the official interpretation, causing the stakeholders to act accordingly-- and not just for a month or a year, for 16 years.

Which Rule of Law argument makes more sense?

If you take the NDP side, you are saying, the government and its board were incompetent back in the year 2000, the stakeholders should have known better, now the NDP will fix it.

If you take the other side, you say, these are the rules imposed and interpretations the government supported, just follow through.

I'd be happy to read your argument of why the Rule of Law angle supports the NDP succeeding here.

Imagine a legal system where the citizens and corporations can not rely upon the government's own rules. A system where the enactment of regulations can not be relied upon-- where they see it in writing but have to question if it really is binding should another government take a different position a decade or more later.

Its patently absurd, but moreso, its dangerous. Its very Kremlin-like.

[Makarov]

Well, as but one example, provincial governments routinely challenge the vires of decades old federal legislation (and vice versa).

And for the nth time' the Utilities Commission is an independent, quasi judicial administrative tribunal. It is not "the government's board". Governments challenge the actions of administrative tribunals (that they created by passing the enabling legislation) every day in Canada.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, as but one example, provincial governments routinely challenge the vires of decades old federal legislation (and vice versa).

And for the nth time' the Utilities Commission is an independent, quasi judicial administrative tribunal. It is not "the government's board". Governments challenge the actions of administrative tribunals (that they created by passing the enabling legislation) every day in Canada.

I agree my own posts tend to by their wording conflate the government and its board. That being said, the board is not independent in the sense of, for example, the judiciary, who are also ruled by regulations such as the Alberta Rules of Court.

The problem is "the government" has acted in support of these rules for 16 years.

How about addressing the Rule of Law argument, and why, even if the regulations or interpretations were not properly enacted under a strict interpretation of their own procedures, a subsequent government can then discard them in the face of reliance upon them?

[northcrunk]

Well Notley has said she is a fan of Hugo Chavez.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Well Notley has said she is a fan of Hugo Chavez.

I forgot about that. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I agree my own posts tend to by their wording conflate the government and its board. That being said, the board is not independent in the sense of, for example, the judiciary, who are also ruled by regulations such as the Alberta Rules of Court.

This is unfortunately fundamentally incorrect. They are very much independent in a similar sense as the courts (hence their description as "quasi-judicial). And ultimately their processes and decisions are subject to judicial review by the courts.

How about addressing the Rule of Law argument, and why, even if the regulations or interpretations were not properly enacted under a strict interpretation of their own procedures, a subsequent government can then discard them in the face of reliance upon them?

Administrative tribunals and bodies only have the authority granted to them expressly by their enabling legislation. When they exceed that jurisdiction, the ultra vires action or decision is a nullity.

Interestingly, as far as I know, this is the first time in 16 years where any party has actually sought to rely on the impugned provision. To the extent that other buyers were aware of the change prior to the auction (which the government seems to dispute), that may create difficulties in terms of crafting a just remedy, but not insurmountable (I wouldn't think).

[nik-]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Well Notley has said she is a fan of Hugo Chavez.

Venezuela: A State we can all aspire to.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Well Notley has said she is a fan of Hugo Chavez.

Source? Google search revealed nothing.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This is unfortunately fundamentally incorrect. They are very much independent in a similar sense as the courts (hence their description as "quasi-judicial). And ultimately their processes and decisions are subject to judicial review by the courts.

I'd like to hear an argument about the government's ability to dissolve a board, and also dissolve the judiciary, given the allegation that my comment was "fundamentally incorrect".

EDIT: As you know, boards are created and maintained by the government in charge, who also control the terms of reference. In fact municipalities themselves only exist if the province allows it (see the Municipal Government Act*). Contrast with the judiciary, which is fully independent, and constitutionally protected.

I know you have posted this area of law is your bread and butter, but at least admit this.

*Further Edit: This is why Nenshi is asking for a City Charter, or at least one of the reasons.

[IliketoPuck]

It's like I have a front row seat to a trial! Two lawyers debating on CP is excellent viewing.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

And ultimately their processes and decisions are subject to judicial review by the courts.

But so is any judgment made by any arm of government. For example, a decision made by a Minister or his / her delegate is also subject to JR. So that's not a meaningful thing to note. And I'm not clear how the AUC's role in this instance is "quasi-judicial", but happy to be educated on the point.

There's definitely a distinction between an administrative body like the AUC and Courts, in my view at least.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I'd like to hear an argument about the government's ability to dissolve a board, and also dissolve the judiciary, given the allegation that my comment was "fundamentally incorrect".

The government has no authority to "dissolve the board" (not exactly sure what that means, to be honest) except by repealing the legislation. Appointments to the Commission are dealt with in ss. 2 and 3 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.