Nenshi talks about the real issue here, it is the Rule of Law:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/11/15...gislation-nuts
Quote:
“To think (investors) have to take into account that kind of political risk as though you were investing in a place without the rule of law ... That is nuts. It’s absolutely nuts.”
That was Nenshi. Smart guy. What is the Rule of Law? Its a huge topic but here are some snippets from the Wikipedia page on it. Keep in mind "citizens" and "corporations" are not distinguished here, they are the same thing for the purposes of the entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
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. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials.
The economist
F. A. Hayek analyzed how the Rule of Law might be beneficial to the free market. Hayek proposed that under the Rule of Law individuals would be able to make wise investments and future plans with some confidence in a successful return on investment when he stated: "under the Rule of Law the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by
ad hoc action. Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts."
As used by the
World Justice Project, a non-profit organization committed to advancing the rule of law around the world, the rule of law refers to a rules-based system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:
[70] 1. The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law;
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property;
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient;
4. Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
A suggestion in this thread by one poster claims the contract was not entered into in "good faith" because certain amendments came about late in the negotiations and were not publicly vetted.
That poster does not understand what good faith means in contract law. Law that has existed and evolved for centuries. I also suspect he (or she) does not know that the amendment was proposed, considered, discussed, and then accepted as a written and vetted part of the agreement. This is the best, most recent statement of the concept described from the Supreme Court of Canada (2014 if anyone cares):
In
Bhasin v Hrynew, a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada recognized that good faith contractual
performance is a general organizing principle of Canadian common law, and that parties to a contract are under a duty to act honestly in the
performance of their contractual obligations. The case is the first time our highest court has examined whether parties owe a duty of good faith in contractual
performance.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...14438/index.do
In other words, you don't put your political desires above the deal that had been reached. It does not matter even if, over a decade after the fact, a particular new government thinks the deal should not have been reached. It was reached. It is binding. The Rule of Law means the King can not change the law or its own contracts retroactively/retrospectively.
The government does not get to change the deal because they have a philosophical difference about taking on the consequences of a new tax which the same government of a different political philosophy previously agreed might allow the power companies to escape a loss based on a new tax which was never even on the radar screen at the time.
The Alberta Government enters into contracts numbered in the hundreds or even thousands, every day, and there are almost no requirements to consult the public: If they had to do so, there would be no contacts because there will always be detractors. Even with consultation, the government can do what it will within its own regulations.
A person or a company can rely upon the government's promise contained in a contract even if said government does not consult their citizens: They have the power to govern within the rule of law.
The Notley government is proving themselves to be either incompetently advised from a legal perspective, or tyrants.
My own view is they are simply incompetent, guided by ideology that makes little practical sense.
