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 136
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-05-06 14:08 [p.6794]
Mr. Speaker, Premier Ralph Klein used to say that Alberta is a place where a person can make a million dollars or lose a million dollars. Albertans are team players. We have contributed to the success of Canada through equalization, transfers and the boom that was our energy sector. However, the Liberal government continues to abuse Albertans and pass legislation that alienates prairie Canadians and costs us jobs and our livelihoods. In 2018, the Liberals kicked us while we were down by extending an old equalization formula designed for a booming resource economy even though royalty revenues were structurally anemic.
Albertans are frustrated. They have a right to be. That is why I tabled the equalization and transfers fairness act as a first step in getting Albertans a fair deal in Confederation. Studies show that the future of equalization is the fiscal convergence of our fiscal capacity. We are all getting poorer thanks to bad Liberal policies.
Let us secure the future of Albertans, vote yes on my bill, Bill C-263, and get a fair deal for Albertans in Confederation.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-05-06 19:55 [p.6846]
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I paid attention to the member's speech and he used the names of three cabinet ministers in a row. In this chamber, we are not supposed to use the names of ministers, but I would like to keep listening to his speech.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-05-06 21:18 [p.6858]
Mr. Speaker, there is a member who finally had a speech dedicated to what should we be doing now to save Line 5 and ensure that these good-paying energy jobs stay in Canada, and that customers, consumers in Ontario and Quebec, continue to have an ample supply of energy so that they can live their lives like they have been living them for the last few decades. I listened to the West of Centre podcast where we had the Minister of Natural Resources on it. He talked a really great game. They were doing all of these things. They were absolutely committed.
I wonder if the member could rate the performance of the natural resources minister in this current crisis with the potential shutdown of Line 5 in the next week and a half?
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-05-05 21:49 [p.6737]
Mr. Speaker, the member had an exchange earlier in the day with the parliament secretary to the government House leader talking about debates and us raising vaccines. The member rightly pointed out that the issue is numbers, targets and performance. That is what we are here to do. We are here to make sure the government is performing up to the expectations of Albertans and of Canadians. As of May 4, 85.5% of Alberta's vaccine supply has been used up. I am one of those who got vaccinated.
I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that we had not received the vaccines on time and in ample supply in January and February, and there were problems delivering them to people who wanted them. I was one of those who had difficulty getting an appointment. It kept getting cancelled because there was not enough vaccine supply. Could we have gotten that number even higher and gotten more of our population vaccinated to avoid these restrictions?
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-05-05 23:03 [p.6747]
Madam Speaker, I am glad the member spoke about living in an era of sound bites. A lot of what the Liberal members have been doing so far is blaming the people of Alberta for the situation we find ourselves in, but we would not be in this situation had we received vaccine supplies back in January and February. I am one of those who has been vaccinated. The vaccine supply is almost at 90% used in the province of Alberta.
I want to ask the member whether he agrees with the statement made by the member for Kingston and the Islands earlier when he said that if we had more vaccines we would not be in this situation. I agree with that statement. Many, many Albertans would have been vaccinated and we never would have had this third wave. Does the member agree we would not be in this situation if we had received more vaccines in January and February?
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-05-03 18:36 [p.6561]
Madam Speaker, the member spoke about a little of everything, but the debate is on concurring in the finance committee's report on the pre-budget submission to the government.
Over the years, we have seen that the number of recommendations being accepted by the Government of Canada keeps going down. I think it is around 25% to 30%. However, I want to draw the member's attention to recommendation 123, which is to withdraw from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. An all-party committee has recommended something that I have been requesting for nearly four years now.
Why did the Government of Canada not withdraw from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank following the series of human and democratic rights violations we saw in Hong Kong, in China seizing the South China Sea and also in the continued persecution of Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province?
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-05-03 19:02 [p.6565]
Madam Speaker, I liked that the member gave us a history of political debates in Quebec over the past 30 years.
However, I would like to come back to a comment one of the Bloc Québécois members made about old age security. In the budget, the federal government decided to give $500 to those 75 and older.
Can my colleague tell me why, in his opinion, the government decided to proceed in this way, when the best option would have been to give that amount to seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement, in other words those with an income of less than $18,744?
I know that the Bloc is interested in this topic. We know that the demographics of our country is changing and that our life expectancy is going up. I would like my colleague's opinion on this.
If the government really wanted to help seniors, why did it decide to give this money to a certain group of seniors, but not another, when it could have done more to help seniors who have a much lower income than others in this country?
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-05-03 20:40 [p.6578]
Madam Speaker, as some members will know, I used to sit on the finance committee in a previous Parliament. I do not get to do that now as chair for the Conservative caucus, but I see this is a report that has 145 recommendations and is one of the biggest in the past five to six years. Typically, what I have noticed is that the Liberal government has been ignoring the finance committee's recommendations, and in this concurrence report we have an opportunity to compare what is in the recommendations from the pre-budget submission to the government, created by the Standing Committee on Finance, with the actual budget document. We can compare the two and what has been proposed.
Some of these recommendations I actually agree with, but I know the government has no intentions of following through. The recommendations are either not in the budget document, or the Liberals have gone completely silent, so I want to highlight those issues I am most interested in.
Recommendation 12 is a good one: “Ensure that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board changes do not create barriers for new medicines for Canadians.” It is Canadians with rare diseases who would be impacted by these changes. January 1 was when these new regulations were supposed to be coming in. I do not think I have spoken to a single patient advocacy group or stakeholder group that has said these changes were terrific and that they should go through, especially during a pandemic when we have interim health orders and special rules put in place by the federal health minister to manage the pandemic. This is the wrong time to be introducing changes such as this.
Now they have been delayed to July 1, so we have less than two short months, and the federal government should be delaying it further. This is the wrong time to be introducing PMPRB changes that would deeply impact new medications coming onto the market, including vaccinations that will be coming onto the market here in Canada, because they provide so little direction to provincial governments, health insurers and benefit plans. It would create more uncertainty.
In fact, it would create so much uncertainty that Alberta Health Services, the operator of the Alberta health care system, sent a letter to the federal health minister saying that these rules did not make sense. It could not inform the manufacturers or the people it negotiated with to give them any type of certainty on what the future would look like. That is Alberta Health Services, the provincial health insurer, telling the federal government it had gotten it wrong and that even it was confused by the contents. That was repeated by the Quebec government, and the British Columbia government said the same thing.
One of the biggest worries I have is that the federal government is taking its lead from an organization that, in its annual report to Parliament, says that medication is going up in cost and is actually one of the biggest drivers of health care costs in Canada, with 70% of those costs coming from expensive drugs for rare diseases. These are very expensive drugs, of which Kalydeco is a good example. The problem with what the PMPRB is doing is that, in that 70%, there are many rare disease medications that are given for everyday conditions. The health care systems decide that a rare disease medication works for a condition really well, and they allow it to be prescribed off-label. The federal regulator, this organization that is only supposed to look at excessive pricing of medication, is saying it is going to include that as if it was given to someone with a rare disease, and that is wrong. That is not the way it should be done. I have called them out on it at the health committee. I continue to do so in public advocacy, but recommendation 12 is very good. I think the finance committee got it correct, and the federal government is getting it wrong.
Recommendation 15 is about Diabetes Canada asking for Diabetes 360° to be implemented in Canada. I think this is a very good recommendation. I know there are many diabetics in my riding who suffer from this condition or have children or family members who suffer from it. This, to the government's credit, is in budget 2021. Diabetes is a condition that is chronic, and its numbers are going up. Every single year in Canada, more Canadians suffer from it. This is one of these chronic conditions that will crush the different medical systems in Canada, because there are so many associated costs. I have a friend who lost half of his foot to diabetes. It is a terrible condition, so I am pleased it is in both the pre-budget submission and budget 2021.
I will move on to recommendation 23, to “Uncouple the eligibility for the disability tax credit...and a registered disability savings plan”, so if someone loses access to the DTC, they would not also lose the RDSP and have to refund the RDSP. Members will remember that in the last Parliament the federal government, through the CRA, went through an audit process in which it denied tens of thousands of people with type 2 diabetes very unfairly. Many of those then also lost access to the RDSP and were forced into this massive refund.
There are many members on the Conservative side, in other parties, and on the Liberal benches as well, although not in the government unfortunately, who thought this was deeply unfair. Uncoupling it would be the right way to go, but it would be much better if the CRA simply ceased going after diabetics in this country and treated them like people who have a very bad chronic medical condition.
Recommendation 24, asking to make the disability tax credit refundable, is a very good recommendation. I had a private member's bill on this in the last Parliament, which I am hoping to reintroduce with some tweaks in this Parliament.
The disability tax credit is for Canadians with disabilities that never go away. Some people are unable to walk, like my daughter who passed away in the last Parliament. People with a rare condition like Patau syndrome, which she had, Edwards syndrome or spinal muscular atrophy will never walk, and the disability tax credit makes it possible for parents, when they still need support, to pay for things like a wheelchair or assistance to get into a bed. It pays for those costs. However, with the way it is set up right now, lower-income Canadians do not get access to it because they are not paying taxes. This is a good recommendation, and I really wish the government had taken it up, because it would help lower-income Canadians especially.
I am going to move on to recommendation 45, which asks us to adopt Bill C-395, the opportunity for workers with disabilities act, from the 42nd Parliament. It is also about disabilities. The member for Carleton actually proposed this private member's bill. This is a terrific idea for a person who chooses to work when they have a disability, like a learning disability or a physical disability, that makes them unable to work perhaps a full week or makes it challenging for them to go to a workplace every day even though they want to. They get innate dignity from working and a great sense of self-worth just for showing up to work and doing a job with their own two hands, and they should not be made worse off at the end of the day. There are a lot of programs, such as PDD and AISH in Alberta, that penalize people who go to work. They actually lose more money than they get from them.
I am glad to see that the finance committee decided to put that recommendation in. However, it is very sad that for budget 2021, it was not added into the bill. It would bring a great amount of fairness to persons with disabilities.
I have looked at the content of the pre-budget report and budget 2021. There is a Yiddish proverb that says, “It doesn't cost anything to look”, so I'm looking through the window at what's being done.
Recommendation 62 says, “Simplify access and implementation of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation funds for housing.” I have been a huge critic of the CMHC and I make no apologies for it whatsoever. However, I do welcome Romy Bowers, who is the new chief executive officer, and look forward to filing many, many access to information requests with the CMHC.
I do not like this recommendation because the CMHC is there to provide one service. I know it tried to rename itself “housing Canada”, and I believe it misled a parliamentary committee when it pretended that it was not using current funds to fund the rebranding. This has been set aside during the pandemic as something to do in the future, but hopefully CMHC will return to Parliament to ask for more money to do the project.
It has a project called the first-time home buyer incentive, which was introduced before the 2019 federal election. At the time I called it an election gimmick. Officials were saying that this was going to help 100,000 first-time homebuyers in Canada, but by my count, as of January 31, 2021, there have been 9,108 approvals. One hundred thousand people were supposed to be helped between 2019 and 2022. We are about at the midway point now, and we have 9,108 approvals. Also, an approval does not mean that a first-time homebuyer actually followed through and accepted the offer to have the government share in the equity of their home in a purchase. I strongly believe that even if we simplified access and implementation, this program would still be a failure.
During the 2019 election, the governing party announced that it was going to change the rules for the incentive to make it easier, to broaden the reach and to expand the income levels so that people could still apply for it. The city where the most people applied for it and took the offer from the federal government through the CMHC is Edmonton. Edmonton is perhaps an expensive city in the Alberta context, but it is nothing compared with Vancouver or Toronto. Very few people in those two large metropolitan areas took advantage of it.
I do not like this recommendation because, frankly, the CMHC's primary purpose for existing is to provide mortgage insurance for chartered banks, credit unions and financial institutions. That is its primary role and it should focus on that job. It acts as a backstop. It does an immense service by providing and broadening the ability of first-time homebuyers to become homeowners. That is the purpose of its existence. I am happy to continue to criticize the previous CEO now that he has joined Alberta Investment Management Corporation, but that is the purpose of CMHC. Home ownership is the purpose of CMHC. That is what it was created for. I do not like this recommendation because I do not like it getting more powers. I am sure I will get a letter in the mail from someone at CMHC disagreeing with me and I look forward to submitting an ATIP for the drafting of that letter as well.
Recommendation No. 90 says, “Require the companies receiving the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility”, which was the LEEFF program, a program that some employers in Calgary did take advantage of, “to prove that their business plans are in line with the Paris Agreement target to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees.” This is interesting because the Paris Agreement does not say 1.5°C. It has several models in it, too. The IPCC also talks about several different models. A lot of that work is based on the social cost of carbon by William Nordhaus, who is an award-winning Nobel laureate.
This is the stuff that really worries my constituents. This is the stuff where they start accusing the government of trying to reimagine the economy and taking advantage of a crisis to force through its ideas. The large employer emergency financing facility was to help large employers during a pandemic. It should not be used to then leverage them on the one side to do policy objectives of the government and, on top of that, who is going to review these business plans? Who is going to sit down and kind of add up what is leading to the Celsius degree reach?
For a trucking company I might be able to understand it, but what about a really large employer like a post-secondary institution? That is where it becomes really difficult. Who is going to review my business plan if I am trying to teach tens of thousands of students every single year? What does that have to do with demonstrating my temperature increase? Do I need to lower the thermostat in my buildings? Stuff like that seems kind of ridiculous, so I am perplexed as to why it is in this finance pre-budget document.
The report goes on like that. There are some good ideas and some bad ones. Recommendation No. 109 says, “Require airlines to reimburse their customers whose flights are cancelled.” I agree with that. I have a lot of constituents who are extremely angry at the airlines. Calgary is home to WestJet, which used to be its biggest employer after the downturn in the oil and gas economy. Now that the pandemic has hit, oil has drastically rebounded and is very close to $70 for West Texas Intermediate and Western Canadian Select is just a few dollars behind it, so the price of a barrel of oil is very strong right now.
A lot of my constituents still have not gotten their refunds. The government has struck a deal with Air Canada and WestJet is still waiting to hear from the federal government, but independent travel advisers also cannot be hurt with any refund. I know the two major airlines, and others have been doing it too, are leveraging independent travel advisers, trying to extract out of them their commissions for services already rendered. I really wish this recommendation had included independent travel advisers. I have probably met with 40 to 50 in my riding several times. They are suffering. They are small business owners, typically they are single parents and it is a really big deal.
Recommendation No. 123 says, “Withdraw from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.” I have been on this train for four years now trying to get the federal government to withdraw from this bank. It was the member for Malpeque who put it best to the government when he said that the federal government needed to wake up and smell the roses. This is the only way we are going to find leverage.
Canadians are being held against their will in the People's Republic of China. It has cracked down on democracy activists in Hong Kong and renegued on the basic agreement it signed with the United Kingdom. It has intimidated Taiwan, which is an ally and close friend of Canada. It has tried to annex the South China Sea. It has persecuted over a million Muslim Uighurs, an ethnic minority in Xinjiang province, that it has interned in concentration camps to try to wipe them out culturally.
The least the federal government could do is get a stick and withdraw from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank as a way to apply political pressure, to have a G7 country back out of the AIIB, a bank that is based in Beijing, has built pipelines in the suburbs of Beijing, has built pipelines in other countries and financed projects. In Recommendation No. 123, I really wish the federal government had taken this on.
It is nice to see an all-party committee such as the Standing Committee on Finance actually say to the federal government that it is right, and no less than the chair of the committee tell the federal government it is wrong on the matter of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We need to withdraw from it. It would send a signal to Beijing that we will not be intimidated and that we will stand up for the two Michaels, and other Canadians who could be, in the future, held hostage by a regime that has taken advantage of the federal government at every single opportunity.
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.
Results: 1 - 15 of 136 | Page: 1 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data