Sunday , September 20 2020
Home / canada / Braid: One law for the interests of Quebec, the other against the West

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


Prime Minister Rachel Notlei talks to the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources on the C-69 account in Ottawa on Thursday, February 28, 2019.

Sean Kilpatrick / T CANADIAN PRESS

The Federal Liberals bend the law to a Quebec company that allegedly paid prostitutes for the son of a Libyan powerful man.

In the meantime, Prime Minister Rachel Notleigh goes to Ottawa to convince senators that a completely different law has been destroyed by Western oil, gas and other resources.

A lively display is the loyalty of Trudeau's government to Kuebec and its destructive paternalism toward the interests of the West.

Former State Prosecutor Jodi Wilson-Raibould drew the nation on Wednesday with his story of an undue pressure to reject the charges against SNC-Lavalin.

As it happened, La Presse in Montreal broke news that SNC-Lavalin paid $ 30,000 in 2008 for "sexual services" for the son of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi.

He was in Canada in the hope of improving his English, apparently starting with "yes, yes!"

On Thursday, Notley desperately tried to persuade senators to radically upgrade Bill C-69.

It was left to two women, both lawyers, to apply wise and reasonable cases of fairness to the wise.

The Liberals demanded that Vilson-Raibould bind the law that SNC-Lavalin would not face a criminal trial for bribery and fraud in Libya.

Notlee is trying to save the country from a law that is either incredibly messy, or is actively designed to throw out the main industry of Alberta.

Only a few days ago we could have suspected a simple incompetence. Now the interference in the case of SNC-Lavalin suggested something more cunning and deliberate.

It's not like Bill C-69 is anything new. Since last February, he passed five votes in the joint and Senate. Even the smallest liberal legislator had time to see his terrible implications.

But they still go through that thing.

The second reading of municipalities was on March 19 last year. Then there was a third reading on June 20.

The Senate went on, for adoption on the first reading of the same day, and the second reading on December 12th.

It's now a call to the voice of a complete disaster.


Several provinces have sent urgent reports to Ottawa, warning that the law will endlessly postpone projects while giving all the complaints, not due to positive economic impacts and job creation.

The draft law represents a powerful step forward by the Canadian sector of resources by Catherine McKenna's Department for Environmental Protection and Climate Change. It was unusually sponsored by her, not the minister of natural resources.

The C-69 also challenges the ownership of provinces and the development of natural resources, a constitutional guarantee.

For example, the Feds could enter Alberta and re-regulate a refinery project or a local pipeline that was verified and approved by the province.

One of Notley's arguments on Thursday was that Ottawa should lend projects to the province's provincial regulators.

She pointed out, probably a thousand times, that Albert has strict regulations, as well as a strong ecological and climatic plan.

The prime minister received the friendly attention of senators from Nev-Brunswick and New Scotland. Newfoundland and Labrador Prime Minister Dvight Ball have shared many of her concerns.

And everybody is wondering why Ottawa would want to regulate all these things?

Weekly events suggest what Notley clearly doubted: everything is in control that will ultimately be used to reduce oil and gas as the main national industry.

It requires a clear legal statement on what the C-69 law would regulate and what would not. She says the minister should be able to add the project to the review list, if clearly included in federal jurisdiction.

Federal officials have been convinced that all this will be done.

But Notleaf saved her best line for the last:

"You will not build confidence in the industry by saying" believe us. "And there is a lot of" confidence in us "in the current version (C-69)."

She wants questions that are clear in the law. It would be better, although liberals have already shown what happens when they do not like a clear law.

Believe them? This week, who could?

Don Braid's column regularly appears in the Bulletin

Твиттер: @ DonBraid

Facebook: Don Braid Politics

Source link