Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

Richard Neufeld: Some Provinces are calling Bill C-69 unconstitutional and a federal infringement on provincial jurisdiction, and others calling for its outright defeat


The year 2019 has been rough on the Trudeau Liberals. The Prime Minister has been accused of interfering in a criminal prosecution involving SNC-Lavalin. Even the Liberals most recent re-election budget has generated little interest from Canadians and, surprisingly, the media. Things aren’t so sunny in Trudeauland these days.

In the midst of all this, the government is pursuing its legislative agenda and urging Senators to pass Bill C-69 which seeks, among other things, to replace the  with the Impact Assessment Agency and replace the National Energy Board with the Canadian Energy Regulator.

I bet many Canadians have never heard of C-69. Yet, this bill has the potential of totally disrupting our energy and natural resources sectors. I don’t fault anyone for disregarding this legislation since it’s rather technical in nature with more than 350 pages. Quite honestly, it would probably put most people to sleep.
Senator Richard Neufeld

However, I urge Canadians to pay attention to it because its impacts are far-reaching. Bill C-69 (along with government bills C-48 and C-68) will further erode Canada’s competitiveness in terms of attracting capital into our resource development sector. It threatens the very fabric of our Canadian prosperity.

If Canada can’t get major projects off the ground – like pipelines, high-frequency trains, bridges, clean electricity projects and transmission lines, marine terminals – we risk serious harm to our economy.

Naturally, this implies less good-paying, family-supporting jobs for Fred and Martha – your everyday Canadians – and less revenues from royalties and taxes to fund our country’s many social, health and education programs. And don’t get me started on trying to reduce Trudeau’s year-over-year deficits.


Senators recognize the significance of this bill and the sweeping impacts it can have on our economy and our environment, which is why we have taken the extraordinary step to take this bill on the road. The Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources is traveling to Western Canada for five full days of public hearings this week in Vancouver and Calgary, Fort McMurray and then Saskatoon yesterday (April 11th) and Winnipeg.

Some argue this decision to travel is unnecessary – like environmentalists who are likely concerned we will further expose the negative impacts of this bill. I, on the other hand, feel this was the right decision considering the witness testimony we’ve heard in Ottawa.

In fact, the Committee has already held more than 30 hours of hearings in Ottawa and heard from dozens of witnesses including premiers and ministers, industry, indigenous representatives, and other stakeholders. Some of the testimony is seriously troubling.

Over the course of our meetings, many issues have been raised and given us much to consider in terms of amendments including on matters related to predictability and certainty for proponents; assessment timelines; regulatory independence; inefficient bureaucratic red tape; ministerial discretion; the lack of a designated project list; factors to be considered when assessing a project; poorly defined concepts; the removal of the standing test; and more.

For those who argue that Conservative Senators are stalling the passage of this bill, or that the Committee doesn’t need to hear from so many witnesses, I would simply say that more than 40% of the witnesses who appeared at the House of Commons committee represented the Government of Canada in some capacity.

To my astonishment, there were no pipeline companies, no port authorities, no natural gas companies, and no resource sector service businesses or local Mom-and-Pop shops who would be impacted by the bill.

The Liberal-dominated committee heard from zero provincial governments. Of course, this does not surprise me. Based on my calculations, 9 out of 10 provinces have concerns of various degree regarding this bill, some calling it unconstitutional and federal infringement on provincial jurisdiction, and others calling for its outright defeat.

It has become increasingly clear that this bill must be further amended and Conservative Senators are determined to make that happen – not as a delay tactic but rather as an attempt to partly satisfy some of the concerns we’ve heard and, ultimately, to try to make this work for Canada.

While the Ottawa bubble has been captivated by the SNC-Lavalin scandal (and rightfully so), the Prime Minister has another thing coming if he thinks the Senate’s Official Opposition will sit idle and let this high-consequence, high-controversy bill pass without putting the spotlight on its many flaws.

After all, that’s the role of the Senate – to take a sober, second look at legislation and try to improve it.

Bill C-69 needs serious improvement and I’m committed to making it better because Canadians deserve better.



The Honourable Richard Neufeld is a Senator for British Columbia. He is a member of three Senate Committees: Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources; National Finance; and Arctic. 

Prior to his appointment to the Senate in 2009, he served in the British Columbia Legislative Assembly from 1991 to 2008 as MLA for Peace River North. He was Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources from 2001 to 2009.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

RCMP gag order comes after BC NDP catch heat for diverted safe supply (Northern Beat)

In the wake of several high-profile police drug seizures of suspected safer supply that put the BC NDP government on the defensive last month, BC RCMP “E” division issued a gag order on detachments, directing them to run all communications on “hot button” public safety issues through headquarters in the lead-up to the provincial election. “It is very clear we are in a pre-election time period and the topic of ‘public safety’ is very much an issue that governments and voters are discussing,” writes a senior RCMP communications official in an email dated Mar. 11 in what appears to have gone out to all BC RCMP detachments . . . . CLICK HERE for the full story

KRUGELL: BC NDP turns its attention from BC United to BC Conservatives

The BC NDP turning its attention, from BC United, to BC Conservatives was reported over the weekend from a variety of sources. It is the result of the surge in the BC Conservative's polling numbers and the subsequent collapse of BC United. The NDP has largely ignored the BC Conservatives, instead they opt to talk about issues directly or attack their old foes BC United. Practical politics says that parties closer to the centre tend to ultimately prevail over the long haul. They do wane but often make comebacks. A good example is the federal Liberals going from third party to government in 2015. Centrism has a lot of appeal on voting day. The NDP shifting its fire from United to Conservative is a reflection of reality. BC United did buy advertising online and radio over the last few months. Did that shift the polls back to them? Nope. The reality is today, the BC Conservatives are the party of the Opposition, and day by day the Conservatives are looking like a party not ready to fig

Baldrey: 2024 meets 1991? How B.C. election history could repeat itself (Times Colonist)

NOTE ... not the original image from Keith Baldrey's op/ed 1991 BC general election -- Wikipedia   A veteran NDP cabinet minister stopped me in the legislature hallway last week and revealed what he thinks is the biggest vulnerability facing his government in the fall provincial election. It’s not housing, health care, affordability or any of the other hot button issues identified by pollsters. "I think we are way too complacent,” he told me. “Too many people on our side think winning elections are easy.” He referenced the 1991 election campaign as something that could repeat itself. What was supposed to be an easy NDP victory then almost turned into an upset win for the fledgling BC Liberal Party. Indeed, the parallels between that campaign and the coming fall contest are striking ... CLICK HERE for the full story

Labels

Show more