ok wow. so, I looked into the Canadian Energy Centre (formerly the "Alberta Energy War Room") as a public agency governance expert, which is what I am irl. The way it is structured avoids alot of accountability, and potentially allows the UCP to hijack the Corporation(?) #ableg
Ok, buckle up. So normally, there are two ways the gov't creates a corporation that provides beneficial services on its behalf. The first is to just make a public agency, like with the Indigenous Opportunities Corporation. #ableg
In these cases, an Act of the Legislature creates the Corp, Cabinet appoints the members, and it becomes part of a Ministry, under whichever Minister is responsible for its enabling Act. The enabling act also will set out if and how the Corp can make money #ableg
These enabling Acts will define the reporting relationship. Corporations that handle money are usually required to make detailed financial reports annually. Here's the IOC's for an example. #ableg 
These agencies are almost always are brought under FOIP as well, meaning anybody can access nearly any of their records. The FOIP Reg has an involved schedule that lists all the public bodies subject to FOIP, sorted by responsible Minister. #ableg
These corporations are also subject to the Alberta Public Agencies Governance Act, which sets governance requirements, especially how the board of directors is to be selected and how long a board member may serve. #ableg
being a public agency for the purpose of APAGA also invokes requirements under the Reform of Agencies Boards and Commissions Compensation Act, which set salary and benefit rules for agencies and their execs. Even high rollers are not immune, as you can see #ableg
Being an APAGA Agency also invokes the Conflicts of Interest Act, which requires the Corporation to have a Code of Conduct that the Ethics Commissioner approves and that has real legal teeth, and sets conflict rules for the CEO and board Chair. #ableg
The CEC is not subject to any of these oversight rules. #Ableg
Instead it is structured as a "Designated Administrative Organization". these are basically a non-government corporation that is given power by the Government to deliver services on its behalf. #ableg
This is usually done to keep an industry service within the control of that industry, but keep it accountable to government (which gives it its power to operate, and often money - or the legal authority to make money by charging fees and such). #ableg
These are normally Corporations created under the Societies Act or the Business Corporations Act by somebody other than Government, who Government has an arrangement with. Usually they get their powers by regulation, and that comes with accountability and reporting rules #ableg
Take Livestock Identification Services, which delivers the gov't's livestock tracability services, which doesn't usually receive gov't money but has robust reporting requirements just because the gov't *gives it power to make money*. #ableg
There are fewer accountability tools here, for example htere's no control of salary and usually these Corps aren't subject to disclosure under FOIP, but CEC is not subject to this lower tier of accountability either. #ableg
The CEC is incorporated under the Business Corporations Act, like any for-profit. Its records office is a Calgary corporate Law Firm (not subject to FOIP), and (here is the important thing) the Directors are three UCP MLAs who are also Cabinet Ministers. #ableg
Now, it is possible that the Corporate Bylaws of the CEC give the government the right to appoint certain Ministers as a Director; the CEC doesn't publish its bylaws. But it *appears* that these people have been appointed in their personal capacity. #ableg
The CEC *is* a "Provincial Corporation" for the purpose of the Financial Administration Act. This means the Government can advance it money directly out of Treasury Board, and CEC has to report *to Treasury Board* IF *Treasury Board* asks. #ableg
There are some other very high level reporting requirements WRT indemnities and loans; basically they amount to knowing what the gov't pays the CEC. But for instance, if the CEC takes money from companies, advocates, even another gov't, it doesn't have to report that. #ableg
The main accountability mechanism is that the Government is the sole shareholder; as such, it has all the powers and rights a shareholder under the AB Business Corporations Act would, although it is not clear *who* could exercise them. #ableg
When there is an enabling Act for a public agency or DAO, the Designation and Transfer or Responsibility Regulation tells us who represents the Crown WRT that Corporation. The Desi Reg does *not* establish responsibility for the CEC. #ableg
But in theory, once these reports are delivered, they could be subject to FOIP: once you could figure out where to look. Each Ministry has its own FOIP Coordinator, and if the docs end up in the Directors' MLA Offices - rather than Ministerial Offices - they're gone. #ableg
But Government holds the hammer in that, as the sole shareholder, it could wind up the CEC. The shareholders would split any money in CEC and that would be that. But there's a *big* problem there. #ableg
Under the ABBCA, the Directors have the power to issue shares, subject to any restrictions to Corporation has placed on itself. The CEC has created 2 classes of shares, and it may issue an unlimited number. That's... totally improper, and highly unorthodox #ableg
So, let's imagine the UCP government were to lose the 2023 Election. Let's also imagine that these UCP Directors do serve in their personal capacity, and created the corporation in a way to disguise that, as it appears. Let's also imagine they aren't ethically scrupulous. #ableg
Before the new government forms and can assign responsibility under the DesiReg, the UCP Directors could issue themselves and other UCP members CEC shares. This would allow them to block winding up, *or* to receive leftover (taxpayer) money in the CEC if it were to wind-up #ableg
wow this blew up, thank you for the nice thinks folks have said and taking an interest in my boring field. the main thing i have seen is: "what can be done"? this is potentially a breech of the COIA for the MLA directors. I'll post my letter to the ethics commissioner later.
I'm going to need to mute this, but if you are the media or a researcher or something like that, my DMs are open.
