Friday , February 21 2020
Home / canada / Braid: One law for the interests of Quebec, another against the West

Braid: One law for the interests of Quebec, another against the West

Premier Rachel Notley talks to the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources on Bill C-69 in Ottawa on Thursday, February 28, 2019.

Sean Kilpatrick / / AND CANADIAN WASG

The Federal Liberals bend the law for the Quebec company and allegedly payable to poets for a strong Libya son.

Meanwhile, Premier Rachel Notley goes to Ottawa to convince parliamentarians that there is a completely different bill to oil, gas and other western resources.

On a live demonstration the fierce loyalty of the Trudeau to Quebec government, and destructive paternalism towards Western interests.

Former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould spread the nation on Wednesday with a myth of inappropriate pressure to charge against SNC-Lavalin.

As that happened, Montreal & La Presse broke news about SNC-Lavalin probably pays $ 30,000 in 2008 for "sexual services" for the son of the former head of Libya Moammar Gadhafi.

He was visiting Canada hoping to improve English, he probably started with "yes, yes!"

On Thursday, Notley was struggling to convince parliamentaries to significantly improve Bill C-69.

I let two women, solicitors, make silent and reasonable cases for the fair application of the law wisely.

The Liberals wanted Wilson-Raybould to bend the law so that SNC-Lavalin would not face a criminal trial for bribery and fraud payments in Libya.

Notley is trying to save the country from a staggering law, or to actually plan to drive Alberta's main industry out of business.

Only a day ago we could have suspected simple incompetence. Now the laces of the SNC-Lavalin case suggest something more elaborate and deliberate.

Not as if Bill C-69 was anything new. He has passed five votes in the Commons and Senedd since last February. Even the liberal liberal legislator was time to see his enormous implications.

But they'll continue to pass that thing.

Common Reading was March 19 last year. Then the third reading came on 20 June.

From the Senedd he went, for the first time on the first reading the same day, and re-read December 12.

There is now one vote calling for a complete disaster.


Many provinces have sent emergency submissions to Ottawa, warning that the bill will defer projects endless in giving all opponents to objectors, and no credit at all to the positive economic effects and the creation of any project jobs.

The current bill continues to capture power from the Canadian resources sector by the environment and climate change department Catherine McKenna. Unusually, she sponsored her, not the minister of natural resources.

C-69 also challenges provincial ownership and the development of natural resources, constitutional warranties.

The feds could step into Alberta, for example, and re-regulate a local refinery or pipe project that has already been studied and approved by the province.

One of Notley's debates Thursday was that Ottawa should leave projects within a province for provincial regulators.

He noted, for perhaps the 1,000th time, that Alberta has a strict regulation and also an energetic environmental and climate plan.

The main attention received a friendly attention from the parliamentaries of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Premier Dwight Ball shared a lot of concerns in Newfoundland and Labrador.

And everyone is amazed, why would Ottawa want to regulate all these things?

Weekly events suggest what Notley suspects clearly: it's about control that would eventually be used to reduce oil and gas as an industry nationally important.

She asks for a clear legal statement of what Bill C-69 would regulate, and what he would not do. He says that the minister should only be able to add a project to the review list if it was clearly related to a federal jurisdiction.

Federal officials have provided assurance that all this will be done.

But Notley saved his best line for the end:

"You do not intend to build trust in industry by telling us." And there's a lot of trust in the current version (of C-69). "

She wants the issues to be made clear in law. That would be better, although the Liberals have already shown what happens when they do not like clear law.

Trust them? This week, who could?

Don Braid's column appears regularly in the Herald

Twitter: @ DonBraid

Facebook: Politics Don Braid

Source link