Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 128
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-04-19 13:25 [p.5793]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to joining the debate on Bill C-11.
“One who wants to know is better than one who already knows” is a Yiddish proverb, and members know I have a great love of them.
However, I want to go through the legislation before us, because a lot of constituents have written to me with major concerns. It is not that they dislike the legislation per se. They agree, as many members have said, with the principles and content, but the bill falls far short of their expectations.
As the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has said, it is an issue of control, who controls the information. My personal belief is that property rights are a human right, and our digital presence, our cookies, the way we look is their digital private property and it should really be treated that way. We have a come to time where we should extend our conception of what is a property right to our digital presence.
I remember knocking on doors in Mahogany in my riding. A gentleman who worked for a large IT company was very concerned about deepfakes, the ability for people to create some really lifelike images, voices and mannerisms of other individuals and the possibility for it to be used for a nefarious purpose, to mislead, misdirect and also to get money out of people. Imagine what type of use people could get out of deepfakes. I think of the past few years where we have seen a lot of companies make immense strides in providing a digital picture of people who never existed, but they look so lifelike that it is so difficult to tell if they are actually deepfakes. They trick our eyes and brains to think they exist.
On the issue of control, I have had constituents bring up issues of Clearview AI harvesting through facial recognition technology, the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandals. Closer to home in Calgary, is Cadillac Fairview and what constituents have termed “secret mall surveillance”. There was a panel put up in different parts of the mall, one of the biggest malls in Calgary, that were collecting information off the images of people going in. I cannot remember what the purpose was, but it was stopped once many people started to raise issues with what the information was being collected for.
It is an issue of control. There are principles in this digital charter, and I do not want to go over them too much. However, I want to raise issues specific to things like the right to opt out of the sale of personal information. That is a really big one. The GDPR does this already as does the European Union.
Sometimes when people go online, depending on the country source for the product or service purchase, after having clicked through terms and agreements, because many people do not read those, it will ask whether they are opting out of the sale of their personal information. That is missing in this legislation, and it really should have been in there.
Many constituents, like Chris MacLean in my riding, raised this as an issue, saying that they would like to have more control to consent to where their information would go. I could imagine certain situations where people are fine with their personal information being sold, perhaps some of what they give a particular company is not much and they feel it could have some type of purpose or there could be some controls put in place. However, this legislation does not have that.
Then there are the consent exemptions. I want to focus a little more on this one. This issue has been of major concern to people in my riding. As I mentioned, Chris had issues with it, Kevin Silvester, Shelley Bennett and Randall Hicks had issues with it. There is a lot of them. The issue is “for a public interest purpose” is how the government has defined it, that is socially beneficial purposes, clause 39 is one of them.
It kind of lists off government institutions, public libraries, post-secondary educational institutions, any organization that is mandated under federal-provincial law or by contract with a government institution. What if it contracted out a large government youth program, like the WE charity, and then it ran it. What kind of personal information would be collected? I know it has been embroiled in its own scandals of late. The ethics committee met this morning and discussed it even further.
It continues on to point four. This is subparagraph 39(1)(b)(iv) under the disclosures made to any other prescribed entity. Then there is paragraph 39(1)(c), the disclosures made for socially beneficial purpose. That is such a broad definition. Who gets to decide what is a socially beneficial purpose? I could drive two Hummers through that definition, working for a contracted out organization, perhaps collecting information, processing a program, a service on behalf of the federal government. I have major issues with the way that is structured, because it allows so many exemptions to be provided in interactions.
When we read about these organizations, it is a lot compared with any other prescribed entity. There are no limits on this prescription. There are no limits on what the federal government could prescribe as an outside entity and then our information would be shared with them. That is a consistent concern that my constituents have. They mostly focus on the business angle of it, but we know that the federal government oftentimes has a lot of contracting out of services, including IT services and procurement services. For the construction of ships, for example, the government does not own shipyards; it contracts that service out and asks someone else to do it for the government. When they do that, is there not a possibility, because it is for a socially beneficial purpose, that the federal government could decide just to share information quite broadly? I have an issue with it because I do not think it does a great service for Canadians.
There is another issue I have with one of the definitions provided. It is the definition being used in the law for how personal information is defined. It says, “an identifiable individual”. The example that I gave, that many of my constituents give as well, is an example from Calgary when, years ago, Cadillac Fairview, which owns the Chinook Centre in Calgary on the Macleod Trail, was using facial recognition and surveillance information. Maybe they were just tracking the flow of pedestrian traffic through the mall, perhaps to plan where the doors should be; I do not know this, but if the benchmark being used in the definition is “an identifiable individual”, how much effort is a company going to put in to identify someone? That is what makes it identifiable. When I read through the legislation, I have a hard time grasping how far this could go. Is there an expectation that the companies will not keep this information at all because they did not make it identifiable, so it is okay? Is it because the image is too grainy? Is it because their name is so common that it could be just about anybody? It is an imprecise definition that could have really been beefed up from the beginning instead of taking it to committee in such an incomplete format.
Those are the issues I found, just reading through the legislation and after so many of my constituents wrote to me. They still have major issues. What they want to see is a significant number of amendments brought forward to fix the legislation. There are a few ways to do that. The government could just draft a new piece of legislation and table it again and have it go forward. There are a lot of good things in the bill, like many members have said, that make it salvageable.
At the committee stage, that is where they get into it. I do really believe this should go to the industry committee. It may want to bounce the bill around to the different committees. I used to sit on the Standing Committee on Finance in the previous Parliament, and the government would apportion the omnibus budget bill to different committees and look at the parts in order to have the expertise. So much of this is about corporations and businesses that it should really go to the industry committee. Again, it is the industry minister who has tabled the law.
On the issue of identifiable information, the definition should include such information as people's email address, obvious personal information like location information, gender, biometric data, web cookies, political opinions and any pseudonyms they might use so the company or the organization that is collecting it can combine it all together. It does not have to be a private organization; it could be a public one, it could be a charity doing this; who knows? That could have been a much better definition than simply leaving it very open-ended as “an identifiable individual”.
Another matter that a lot of my constituents have raised is the playing field between a Canadian company based here where Canadian law can easily reach it with the fines that would be levied; and then international companies, perhaps based in Latin America, in parts of Africa, in Australia and other countries that have different privacy laws and how we would be able to find them and also collect the fines on them. That whole mechanism and the fact of a tribunal of three to six people and only requiring one expert is another issue.
I have tried to lay out as many issues as I have heard from my constituents in my riding. I mentioned that some of them had very specific concerns.
Much of the legislation is on the right path, but there are so many shortcomings. Like the previous member said, the issues here are data privacy and control, regarding who controls the information and where it can go and that the legislation is still unclear in certain parts, regarding who can deal with it; and exemptions and exceptions being given. Those two different concepts need to be fleshed out more in the legislation. It should be done at committee. It should be done at the industry committee first. If it needs to go to the ethics committee afterwards, so be it; but the industry committee should deal with it first, immediately.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-04-19 13:36 [p.5795]
Mr. Speaker, as far as I can tell, not much new in this legislation specifically deals with those types of issues. We have all seen the phishing scams, even on Parliament Hill, where people pretend to be banks, financial institutions or credit unions. It looks so real and the interaction is so real that people feel it was actually sent by the named institution. There is a lot more that could be done and witnesses could be brought forward at committee who could deal with it, but the industry committee is the right committee to deal with this bill.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-04-19 13:37 [p.5795]
Mr. Speaker, I will speak about the first part of his observation on privacy rights. Privacy rights should be property rights. That is where we should go and expand it, and that is the way it should be understood. I talked about, for example, deepfakes and the concerns I heard at people's doors, specifically in Mahogany. I had a constituent who spent a lot of time explaining it to me. It has panned out in public media about the misdirection and ability of people to be misinformed on something that looks so absolutely real. It tricks one's eyes and ears into believing the person is actually saying what is being said.
The member talked about algorithms. Many of us have children. I have three kids and they just love YouTube, but sometimes I wonder where the algorithm leads them based on the choices they are making as they are clicking. More than once I have had to stop them because the algorithm has gone completely out of control and showed them things that no child who is 10 years old should ever be able to see.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-04-19 13:39 [p.5796]
Mr. Speaker, the member is the parliamentary secretary to the House leader. He is participating in setting the agenda. It has been months since this legislation came to Parliament to be debated. He should perhaps look at his own schedule to determine how many more days the government could do this. I read directly from concerns of my constituents, and I invite all members to do that. That is exactly what I did. I printed off the emails because I wanted to discuss their specific concerns. That is what each of us should be doing and that is what matters the most.
This is not world-leading legislation. The GDPR in the European Union is world-leading. This is not that.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-04-19 13:41 [p.5796]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for his comments.
I agree with the first part of his question and his idea. I think people need to provide valid and informed consent. Many of my constituents have the same concern about private businesses sharing their personal information.
I agree with the first part, but as far as the second part is concerned, I would like to hear more debate on the matter before taking a position.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-03-26 11:43 [p.5360]
Madam Speaker, I wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage four months ago regarding substantiated claims of harassment, verbal abuse and intolerance levied against the Canada Artistic Swimming team's coaching staff by athletes on the team, including Cassie, an athlete and a constituent. It has been four months, and there is no answer. No coaches have been fired and there have been no apologies to the athletes, but Cassie deserves an answer.
The Artistic Swimming NSO is funded by Sport Canada, so what is the heritage minister going to do to fix this awful situation?
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-03-26 12:17 [p.5366]
Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to table today. They are from constituents and Canadians all across Canada.
The first one is on the Magnitsky act. The petitioners are asking for the Magnitsky act to be applied to those who are persecuting Falun Gong practitioners in mainland China. They would like sanctioned under the Magnitsky act, Jiang Zemin, Luo Gan, Liu Jing, Zhou Yongkang, Bo Xilai, Li lanqing, Wu Guanzheng, Li Dongsheng, Qiang Wei, Huang Jiefu, Zheng Shusen, Wang lijun, Zhang Chaoying, Jia Chunwang—for their persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in mainland China.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-03-26 12:17 [p.5366]
Madam Speaker, the second petition draws the attention of the House of Commons to the continued plight of Venezuelan refugees, specifically to an event that happened near the country of Trinidad and Tobago, where that country's coast guard boarded a vessel of Venezuelan refugees fleeing the country in contravention of section 2 of the Commonwealth charter.
The undersigned are asking for the Government of Canada to request that the Commonwealth Secretary General launch an inquiry into the actions of the Trinidad and Tobago coast guard in contravention of the Charter of the Commonwealth and urge the government of Trinidad and Tobago to respect the human rights of Venezuela refugees.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-03-26 12:17 [p.5366]
Madam Speaker, finally, I am tabling a petition on behalf of Canadians who are asking that the definition in Bill C-6 be abandoned and fixed to ensure that parents can speak with their own children about sexuality and gender and set house rules about those kinds of relationships.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-03-08 11:10 [p.4636]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to continue debate on Bill C-237, which was brought forward by the member for Brampton South, and to listen to the previous member. I agree with him. I do not see much to disagree with in this private member's bill. It was in the format of a motion in the previous Parliament, and I know the member for Brampton South is well-meaning in the work she is attempting to have the House pass to committee to study this issue.
The contents create more reports to Parliament and parliamentarians in which we would get further information, hopefully from government sources, that will track and provide very specific timetables and details in the content of this report, which I am all for.
Generally speaking, we find that in government legislation there is simply an ask for a report to be made to Parliament, but often it does not ask for much detail. This one does. It has five points that would be in the report, including an explanation of diabetes and pre-diabetes. It also asks for things like data on the promotion of research, prevention and treatment. There are a lot of good things this bill is attempting to do.
It could have also asked the Canada Revenue Agency to provide more information on the disability tax credit, which we know many diabetics would like to use. In 2017 or 2018 the Liberal government made changes and thousands with type 2 diabetes were no longer able to obtain the DTC.
We also know that the DTC and the registered disability savings plan are two very important programs that a lot of people with serious disabilities make use of, and the DTC maximum payable tax benefit in 2019 was $8,416. This is a substantial amount of money to help people with a disability. For constituents with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, it is a very serious disability.
A mom came to one of my town halls, and at a later point to an annual general meetings in my local association, and she explained how difficult it is to live with a daughter who has diabetes. It involves waking up in the middle of the night because an alarm would go off on the diabetic pump. It is trying to ensure that they have enough insulin, especially after eating.
It is a serious condition, but I do not think many Canadians really understand the depth of how bad it can go. The member for Winnipeg North spoke to how serious this condition can be because of the complications that arise from being a diabetic, and of one of his friends having had a leg amputated.
I have a friend who was diagnosed later in life, and he had half of his foot amputated because of diabetes, so we know it is a very serious condition. Diabetes Canada and JDRF have done extensive, profound work to try to sensitize Canadians and governments across Canada to how serious this condition is, but also to the weight it places on our health care systems. It is one of the fastest rising chronic conditions in our health care system, and it is a big driver of Canadian health care costs.
If we look at Diabetes 360°, I think Diabetes Canada has put forward an excellent plan within it. This framework could be used to further those types of private sector projects that are trying to gather more support, both from government and from private sources. This funding is to ensure that we deal with the rising tide of diabetes diagnoses across our country.
There is a Yiddish proverb that says, “Spare us what we can learn to endure”. Diabetes is a difficult condition to endure. I have kids who have a chronic kidney condition, so I have an inkling of what goes into trying to manage a condition like this. A framework to Parliament is a simple ask by the member from the back benches in this Parliament for the government to build information and report it back to Parliament, so we can have good, solid evidence for decisions to be made in the future.
The disability tax credit is one of the key tools being used by those with a disability across Canada. Members will know I proposed Bill C-399 in the last Parliament. It never came to a vote because I drew too high a ballot count. It would have made changes to the DTC specific to diabetics. This is where it ties in with the national framework that the member is asking the House to pass to committee.
Making it easier to access the disability tax credit, or any type of disability program that the federal government could run, should be addressed directly in the framework. I would hope that the reports provided to Parliament in the future would specifically address the disability tax credit, how it functions, and how it addresses issues and conditions such as diabetes.
An important piece of evidence to be tracked is the cost per person, across all of Canada's health care systems, of a diabetic's condition as it worsens in later years. Its annual cost to the health care system would lead to better decision-making at the front end when considering different types of insulin and technology, and whether there is a government role or support that could be provided to bridge the gap for those who cannot afford it.
One of the recommendations in the pre-budget report from the finance committee in this Parliament was to make the disability tax credit refundable. Because tax credits are administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, those types of decisions would be easier to make if a national framework, and a report from a national framework specifically on diabetes, provided information and evidence from the DTC program on the top 10 doctors in Canada who are approving the six-page form for the DTC, and if they are approving them specifically for diabetes. That would offer an excellent opportunity for parliamentarians to reach out to those doctors and ask them to describe their experience filling out these applications, how serious the condition is, what the downside is and what it can lead to. That would be an interesting data point, and we cannot easily get that information without having something like a national framework that produces evidence.
As I said, I would like to see the Canada Revenue Agency compelled, through a report tabled in Parliament through this national framework, to provide such information. I would also like to see which provinces are applying the most for this one condition, specifically diabetes. JDRF, Diabetes Canada and other stakeholder groups have all asked in the past for more information to be provided to us so that we could make better decisions.
Often, I find that the Canada Revenue Agency is a black box: It does not like to reveal any type of information. A few years ago, the Auditor General reported on the DTC and the program's performance and administration. It was not very good. It was not what we parliamentarians would expect to see in the administration of such an important tax credit for Canadians.
A report like this is important. It is beneficial. I applaud the member for bringing it forward. I have no doubt that we will be able to pass it to committee, and I am hoping at that stage there would be further consideration given to perhaps including a specific mention of the disability tax credit and other federal government programs specific to diabetics, and that we could address the specific lack of information in the framework. When the bill returns to the House and we have our final say before it heads to the Senate, we could add that important piece of information. The changes that were made a few years ago by the Canada Revenue Agency, as directed by the government, really hurt the case for thousands of diabetics across the country who were removed from the disability tax credit. It would be good for us all to have that type of information available.
I will be voting for this private member's bill. It is a good bill. It provides the foundations for better work to be done at committee to add the disability tax credit angle. Again, spare us not what we can endure to learn. Diabetes is a very serious chronic medical condition, and it is about time we had a framework in this country to deal with it.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-02-25 17:38 [p.4580]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on this very important issue, which my colleague for Lakeland has proposed.
I have listened to the debate so far, and as an Albertan, I am disappointed to hear that other members will not be supporting a piece of legislation that is good for the environment. I have heard people say that it is good for oil and gas companies, but this is about the environment. The member for Lakeland has proposed a means for the private sector to contribute additional funds to remediate oil and gas wells that are basically at the end of their useful life.
I do not know how many members have done this, but I have walked along a well line that was successfully remediated and got its environmental certificate from the Government of Alberta. As far my eyes could see, I could no longer see where the drill pad had been. It was restored to a state of nature, where animals and everybody else could walk and use it on an everyday basis.
This is the result of an inevitable shift from conventional oil and gas to unconventional oil and gas production, which is mostly the bitumen oil sands, SAGD operations and in situ operations. What we sometimes see, ridiculously presented as what happens in the northeast corner of Alberta by, say, the National Geographic, is the open-pit mining, which is the way of the past. Those are very old mines that will be decommissioned in 10 to 20 years.
However, members can look at the legislative costing note provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer for Bill C-221. It is flow-through shares, and this is the solution for decommissioning costs. Yes, there are a lot of oil sites, as the previous member mentioned. The Orphan Well Association is a repository for a company that goes bankrupt or into receivership and returns its energy leases to the people of Alberta when it can no longer operate. There was a fund set up in order to pay for these things.
I hear a member chirping away and disagreeing with me, but it is a solution for private-sector dollars to be put towards an environmental goal. It is not offsetting all of a company's costs. We are talking about wells that produce the equivalent of 100,000 or fewer barrels per day. I think this is what we want. We want the private sector to be more involved in remediating environmental costs associated with production.
In my riding, where Imperial Oil has its headquarters, a lot of oil and gas workers are unemployed, and this would put them back to work. There is a very slight time window that these flow-through shares would work for, which is basically between 2019 and 2026. We are talking about a very small group of wells that would be eligible for this. Companies could use this to offset some of the costs associated with it, but it is for the environment.
The bill before us has an excellent goal behind it. Why would we not support it? It would get people back to work with jobs. It would improve the environment, our landscapes and ecosystems. It offers an opportunity for us to do something that we are going to have to do anyway, which is fix up these well sites, which are all over Alberta, usually on people's properties. They will need to be remediated either way. Again, this is not for companies. It is for the environment.
To me, the downside is that it would cost $264 million by 2026, according to the PBO's cost estimate. However, it would get people who have great technical skills back to work and back out in the field. An excellent way of putting people back into the field is remediating these oil and gas wells.
The industry is the best in the world when it comes to this type of environmental work. There are wildlife biologists, people whose expertise is in rough fescue, which naturally grows in the foothills of Alberta. They are ready to go and do the work required for well remediation sites.
It was only a few years ago when some of the major Suncor sites were being remediated. What used to be an open-pit mine was completely remediated. We now have bison roaming again. It is a natural environment. One would not be able to tell what had been there, if it was not for the giant sign at the front of the site saying it used to be an open-pit mine. We have these large-scale industrial sites all over Canada.
I have known the member for Lakeland for a very long time, even pre-politics. We were in different provincial political parties. I am sure she would admit, and she would probably laugh at this, that we were probably each in the wrong political party. We likely would have identified as being in another one, should we have discussed it then.
However, she has been working at this for a long time. This type of proposal, had it been in place a decade or two ago, would have been able to support the sector and jobs in Alberta. We would not have to just wait for the Orphan Well Association to help remediate the sites for companies who can dig deep into foreign sources of capital to pay for remediation.
This would have been available for the smaller oil and gas companies in Alberta. It would have been available for the private sector. We say we have an ESG goal, say in a hedge fund or an equity fund, and we want to meet those. We have environmental and social goals that our fund investors want to meet. There is an opportunity right there. It would put tens of thousands of people back to work improving our environment and our landscapes. What could be better than that? We are using the Income Tax Act to do it, to offset some of the cost, not all of the cost, of this proposal.
I just do not see a downside to passing such a piece of legislation when the goal behind it is not subsidizing oil and gas companies but improving our environment. I just do not understand why other members of this House who had been in there originally will not support a piece of legislation like this. When we thought about this originally, it was just a total win on both sides. We would achieve a private sector goal, which is obviously to make a profit; and we would achieve an environmental goal, which is the remediation and improvement of our environment and the restoration of it to the condition it was in before industrial work was done on the property.
There is a Yiddish proverb that says, “he that cannot pay, let him pray.” Madam Speaker, I know you enjoy the Yiddish proverbs as much as I do. However, that is the case here.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-02-25 17:47 [p.4581]
Madam Speaker, I hear the same member chirping away again. I am sure it is a different condition out there in Hamilton and the regions that he comes from, but in my neck of the woods, in the southeast part of Calgary, I have a lot of oil and gas workers who have been out of work for years now.
Their severance pay has run out, they have no more space in a home equity line of credit, they are at the limit of what they can afford and the outlook is grim. For many of them, their kids, spouses, friends and former co-workers have moved to the United States or Algeria or South America to seek work, because there is a booming industry worldwide for oil and gas development. That might be hard to believe, but it is still going on. One of my neighbours is an LNG specialist, and he spent time working in Venezuela.
I have a lot of family members who moved out west specifically for work opportunities. Lots of those have dried up, and in connected industries the same thing is happening. We know in Alberta that oil and gas is not going to bounce back to the same as it was before. We have been through this before. Albertans are extremely resilient. This is not the first bust that we have experienced, frankly, and there will be other booms and other busts in the future. We have adapted, every single time, by changing our legislation, changing our regulations and looking after the environment. That is what we do best. That is what this piece of legislation proposes to do.
Through this, I see an opportunity to harness the power of the private sector to invest in things that it cares about. I see these hedge funds and equity funds out there, all over North America, looking toward investing in projects that have environmental and social goals behind them. ESG is the way of the future. Many of them are looking at things like carbon net-zero investments that they would like to make.
My riding is home to one of the most efficient gas turbine electricity-producing power stations in North America, with something like a 98% to 99% efficiency, producing half of the city of Calgary's electrical power. It is hyperefficient. There are barely any people working in that facility, and it has now added on a carbon capture and carbon utilization system as well.
Projects like this are how we are going to get to our environmental goals. Changes like this to the Income Tax Act would help the private sector achieve the environmental goals that we all share in this House. Climate change is real. We have to address it. This is a way to get there because, as I said, “he that cannot pay, let him pray”.
We are done praying. There is an opportunity here to make sure that the private sector pays for these types of costs.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-02-23 10:06 [p.4411]
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first is an e-petition. It is sponsored by Holly Oshust and signed by 576 Canadians.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House and the Government of Canada to the fact that minors do not need a piece of identification in order to board a flight in Canada. The petitioners are asking to amend subsection 3(1) of the Secure Air Travel Act to provide that air carriers must, at the boarding gate for a domestic flight, verify the identity of each passenger regardless of age and not just those who appear to be 18 years of age.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-02-23 10:06 [p.4411]
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents in my riding who are calling upon the Government of Canada to remove the per capita cap on the fiscal stabilization program, referred to as the equalization rebate, which the petitioners say equals about $3 billion to the public treasury in Alberta.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-02-23 10:06 [p.4411]
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from residents all across Alberta, who are reminding the Government of Canada that there was a Fair Deal Panel that was struck and had reported recommendations. The petitioners draw the government's attention specifically to the recommendation related to community policing. The petitioners are asking for the following, which I will read into the record:
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to make a public statement that, should the Alberta government decide to terminate the community policing agreement with the RCMP as per the recommendation of the Fair Deal Panel, there would be no penalty levied against the Province of Alberta from the Government of Canada, and that the Government of Canada would support the transition towards a province-wide community police force, as is Alberta's constitutional right.
Results: 1 - 15 of 128 | Page: 1 of 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data