Paramountcy
Coming soon to a future near you?
Quebec Introduces Legislation Regarding Upper Churchill Contract
Québec, DATE — Premier Jean Charest, P.C., M.N.A., today made the following statement in the National Assembly. (Check against delivery.)
Mr. Speaker:
I stand today to inform my honourable colleagues and the people of Québec of a very important piece of legislation our government will introduce today in this Assembly.
Earlier today, Nalcor, the Newfoundland and Labrador crown energy corporation, commenced an action in the Superior Court, with a view towards nullifying or varying the 1969 contract between Hydro-Québec and the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation for the purchase of power from the Churchill Falls hydro-electric station.
I therefore give notice that we will table, for first reading, a government bill, consisting of exactly one section, as follows:
1. The action between Nalcor Inc. and Hydro-Québec, Superior Court reference 2010 ABC 123, is discontinued without costs.This legislation is modeled after similar legislation passed thirteen months ago by the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador, which was passed with minimal debate.
To the naysayers, let there be no doubt: We have full authority to do what we've done. We have full legislative authority.
The National Assembly is paramount in Quebec, and we stand by that. If Nalcor wants to launch any legal challenges, then that is up to them. We have no control over that. I'm sure they will get legal opinions that indicate our National Assembly has full authority to do what it's done.
That corporation has the right to do whatever it has to do to keep their company profitable, but from my perspective as Premier, and on behalf of people of Québec, we're willing to tell them to go on and do their business in other parts of the country and other parts of the world.
We wish you well.
Labels: Lowered Churchill expectations, Quebec
posted by WJM @ 1:51 AM
9 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
The only problem with your proposed scenario is the fact that the Churchill Falls contract involves a federal corporation. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that a provincial legislature can't negate the legal rights of a federal corporation. There's always recourse to superior courts, especially the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Can you point to other instances where a single legal action was cancelled by legislation? Is it routine for the legislative/executive to determine issues before the judicial branch of government? Sounds bizarre to me if not impossible.
As for the NL - Abitibi legislation it affects a contract governed under provincial law. It might be unconstitutional as well but who's tested it? I think AB is happy to go the NAFTA route and arouse the interest of higher powers anyway.
The only problem with your proposed scenario is the fact that the Churchill Falls contract involves a federal corporation. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that a provincial legislature can't negate the legal rights of a federal corporation.
Federal corporations enjoy their civil rights (in the classical sense of the term) under provincial law, the same as any other real or moral person... And, in case you didn't already know, AbitibiBowater is incorporated federally under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
Can you point to other instances where a single legal action was cancelled by legislation?
Noop, except...
Is it routine for the legislative/executive to determine issues before the judicial branch of government?
... in a few rare cases, usually involving aboriginal land claims, where both (all) parties mutually agree to drop a matter which was before the courts, and the agreement was incorporated by reference into the ratification legislation. Not the same thing as a province, being the defendent or respondent in a court action, quashing that action through legislation. I stand to be corrected, and I would welcome to be so, but I can't find another example of that.
As for the NL - Abitibi legislation it affects a contract governed under provincial law.
Umm... you mean like the Churchill Falls contract, which is made under the civil code — provincial law — in Quebec?
It might be unconstitutional as well but who's tested it? I think AB is happy to go the NAFTA route and arouse the interest of higher powers anyway.
I imagine they can walk and chew gum at the same time: the NAFTA challenge seems to be targeted at the expropriation, which is separate from, though related to, the legislative discontinuance of an action.
The expropriation of Abitibi's property is not equivalent to the legislative/executive interfering with the jurisdiction of the judiciary. What you're proposing is impossible. In the Abitibi case Williams invited them to try the courts but warned they wouldn't find success - not exactly the same as barring them from legal recourse. CLFco will always have recourse to Quebec courts and federal courts.
Working late tonight, pig?
The expropriation of Abitibi's property is not equivalent to the legislative/executive interfering with the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
Who said it was?
Read s. 9 of the Abitibi-Consolidated Rights and Assets Act, S.N.L. 2008, c. A-1.01:
9. The action between Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. and Abitibi-Consolidated Company of Canada and Her Majesty in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador , reference: 2003 01T No.2113 is discontinued without costs.
That action had nothing to do with the expropriation, pig, because it pre-dated it.
If what I'm (satirically) proposing is impossible, pig, then so too is whatever was intended by s. 9 of the Abitibi act.
Perhaps you can run next door and ask what that was.
I don't know but I'm guessing NL had started an action (2003 01T No.2113) against AB for Buchans contamination. Anticipating notice of the mill closure the decision was made to clean up ABs mess, collect the Brownie points, and pre-absord some of the expected hit from the expropriation. Governments could certainly cancel their own legal actions but they can't just interfere in the work of the judiciary and simply legislate themselves out of exposure to legal threats, as per your fantasy.
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/env/1007n03.htm
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/env/1007n03.htm
By the way, where or what is "next door"?
I don't know but I'm guessing NL had started an action (2003 01T No.2113) against AB for Buchans contamination.
You're guessing wrong: in the action which the provincial legislature terminated, Abitibit-Bowater was going after the provincial government, and not the other way around.
By the way, where or what is "next door"?
You tell me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home