Alberta Politics Thread

[Slacker]

Originally Posted by nik-

Venezuela: A State we can all aspire to.

So I moved to Canada from there to relive that whole mess again?!

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Slacker

So I moved to Canada from there to relive that whole mess again?!

Well you're probably way less likely to be murdered at least


... for now.

[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".

EDIT: As you know, boards are created and maintained by the government in charge, who also control the terms of reverence. 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.

What? That administrative tribunals are not exactly the same as courts? I never claimed as much (hence the quasi- part of quasi-judicial). Of course there are differences, many important. However, none of those differences could, in my view, justify a view that government should be precluded from challenging the decisions of administrative tribunals.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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.

Meh, I was just sort of throwing that in there for good measure. Fair enough.

And again, of course there is a distinction between administrative tribunals and the courts. But there are also differences between administrative tribunals and the Minister responsible for the enabling legislation. The key difference is the measure of independence the tribunal has from the Minister (even though it is less independence than the courts enjoy).

[Kjesse]

Makarov,

This is starting to become a dance. You know full well that administrative tribunals, boards, or whatever other name you give to these entities are created by the government in control. For a recent example, and I assume your year of call includes this time period, the government actually dissolved all the health boards and created the superboard known as Alberta Health Services. The government could also dissolve that entity and go back to regional boards as it sees fit.

You must know that though, since this is your bread and butter.

EDIT: I love it that you rely on legislation to support your argument. The NDP has a majority. Guess how hard it would be for them to change that legislation, or issue a regulation, or an order-in-council.

EDIT: And again, admit that my distinction between courts and these boards is not "fundamentally" incorrect. Admit a wrong.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Makarov

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.

Really? So, if they create it, it exists forever?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Really? So, if they create it, it exists forever?

This is usually the case with entities like the AUC, ERCB, SRB, predecessor EUB, etc etc. They're created by statute with certain rights granted to the Minister to appoint individuals to the board and do other things, but the board itself is a creature of statute and not a discretionary creation by the Minister by means of an order, or something like that, which could just be revoked.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is usually the case with entities like the AUC, ERCB, SRB, predecessor EUB, etc etc. They're created by statute with certain rights granted to the Minister to appoint individuals to the board and do other things, but the board itself is a creature of statute and not a discretionary creation by the Minister by means of an order, or something like that, which could just be revoked.

Sure, and to use my prior post as an example, the province could actually -- as in legally -- dissolve the City of Calgary as a legal entity. I used that example intentionally -- its not going to happen, but it is possible. Taking it a level further, given s. 91/92 of the Constitution Act, if the provincial government did so, even the feds could not intervene.

I get Makarov's "quasi" language, and he's right to a certain extent on that. But there is huge difference in terms of independence comparing the courts to these boards, and while the boards are called "independent", they are not in the most practical sense -- once they do something the government doesn't like, they can be removed, replaced, cancelled, what have you.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Makarov,

This is starting to become a dance. You know full well that administrative tribunals, boards, or whatever other name you give to these entities are created by the government in control. For a recent example, and I assume your year of call includes this time period, the government actually dissolved all the health boards and created the superboard known as Alberta Health Services. The government could also dissolve that entity and go back to regional boards as it sees fit.

You must know that though, since this is your bread and butter.

EDIT: I love it that you rely on legislation to support your argument. The NDP has a majority. Guess how hard it would be for them to change that legislation, or issue a regulation, or an order-in-council.

EDIT: And again, admit that my distinction between courts and these boards is not "fundamentally" incorrect. Admit a wrong.

Two things: where did I ever suggest that administrative agencies and tribunals are not created by government. Indeed, I have repeatedly stated otherwise.

Second, I re-read our exchange. You're right. "Fundamentally incorrect" was too strong. I read your comment as "no similarities between the independence of the courts and the independence of the Utilities Commission". That's not what you said. I therefore withdraw my comment that you were "fundamentally incorrect". I was wrong. Not the first time and won't be the last time!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

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

Its in the lawyers' hands now. God help us all.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Sure, and to use my prior post as an example, the province could actually -- as in legally -- dissolve the City of Calgary as a legal entity. I used that example intentionally -- its not going to happen, but it is possible. Taking it a level further, given s. 91/92 of the Constitution Act, if the provincial government did so, even the feds could not intervene.

I get Makarov's "quasi" language, and he's right to a certain extent on that. But there is huge difference in terms of independence comparing the courts to these boards, and while the boards are called "independent", they are not in the most practical sense -- once they do something the government doesn't like, they can be removed, replaced, cancelled, what have you.

Fair points. But are you arguing that the Utilities Commission has so little independence that the Minister of government ought to be held responsible for every decision it makes? Or that the government should be precluded from challenging its jurisdiction by way of judicial review? Because that is what many posters in this thread seem to suggest.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^It's a weird situation though because the Government was one of the applicants. It's like asking for an order, getting the order, and then appealing the order.

Originally Posted by Delgar

I get Makarov's "quasi" language, and he's right to a certain extent on that.

I agree, to the extent that the Board is conducting a hearing and rendering a decision on an application by an interested party. But this is a bit of a different situation, no? My understanding is, they basically just rubber-stamped the agreements. Seems less "quasi-judicial" in its role in this context.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its in the lawyers' hands now. God help us all.

Sorry, just can't resist an argument. I'll bow out for a while because (a) I know it's annoying for other posters; and (b) I'm going to be at the office until 10 o'clock unless I get back to work!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Sorry, just can't resist an argument. I'll bow out for a while because (a) I know it's annoying for other posters; and (b) I'm going to be at the office until 10 o'clock unless I get back to work!

Not at all, its informative. We're on opposite sides of the argument but you're presenting important information that I'd never considered and would never have known and I'm sure others appreciate it as well.

You've also admitted when you're wrong which tends to instill greater confidence in what you're saying.

Take me for instance, I'm pretty one-sided about this entire ordeal, albeit most of that is for comedic effect and comic relief, theres something about this Government that if I dont laugh I'll cry.

In conclusion, dont bow out due to annoyance of others while you're actually bringing your expertise to bear. I may not agree with what you're saying, but I enjoy the discourse.

[Kjesse]

Makarov, thanks for the civility I came off a little heavy on a couple edits. Your posts have been important to this thread, and not annoying at all.

I for one would like to hear the Rule of Law argument from the other side. Give it a shot when you have more time.

Arvay is going to make one, but it will be a while before we see the brief. Its got to be a tough argument to make.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

^It's a weird situation though because the Government was one of the applicants. It's like asking for an order, getting the order, and then appealing the order.


I agree, to the extent that the Board is conducting a hearing and rendering a decision on an application by an interested party. But this is a bit of a different situation, no? My understanding is, they basically just rubber-stamped the agreements. Seems less "quasi-judicial" in its role in this context.

These are all great points. I think we'll have to wait for the briefs to see how much of this is correct. I just don't see how a party advancing and supporting something--- especially the government proper --- can then reverse course 16 years later. Rubber-stamp or not it happened.

[V]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Sorry, just can't resist an argument. I'll bow out for a while because (a) I know it's annoying for other posters;

I don't think that's the case. This has been way more enlightening than what was happening before your involvement. At least for me.

[Kjesse]

Consider one of the worst decisions in Alberta politics, outside the Lougheed era funding family reunions: Ralph Bucks.

If the government slipped and did not enact that refund properly, should those who received it now be required to pay it back, and with interest?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I don't deal with a lot of contracts but I haven't come across one before. Lots of private contracts include so-called "change of law" clauses, but those are very different. They typically same something to the effect of: if the law changes to make this contract or any art of this contract illegal or impossible to perform, the parties agree to renegotiate new language which achieves the original intended effect.

I currently have 2 contracts in place with government and arms length government entities.

Both contracts have a change in law clause that allows us to end the contract.

We would NEVER go into business with someone who can change the rules without an out clause. That would be insanity.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

^It's a weird situation though because the Government was one of the applicants. It's like asking for an order, getting the order, and then appealing the order.


I agree, to the extent that the Board is conducting a hearing and rendering a decision on an application by an interested party. But this is a bit of a different situation, no? My understanding is, they basically just rubber-stamped the agreements. Seems less "quasi-judicial" in its role in this context.

Doesn't sound like their mandate was to rubber stamp. Indeed the Commission apparently received 70 requests for amendment or variance of the original proposal (prepared by an independent assessment team. 8 of those requests proceeded to a public hearing (held for over a week). Interestingly, none of those requests were related to the "change in law" provision. Also, interestingly, after the public hearings, the Commission determined that none of the proposed requests met the criteria to justify ordering a change (which I suppose might lend some support for your "rubber stamping" argument.)

Anyway, as I understand it, the government's complaint isn't about rubber stamping. If the Commission had just rubber stamped the IAT'a proposal, we probably wouldn't be here (or maybe we would but it would be a very different argument). The government is complaining that the Commission changes the PPA language proposed by the IAT outside the public hearing process set out in the legislation (that's the allegation anyway).