↑ Michael Streit: 30 Jahre Barnett Institute – Das Lebenswerk unseres AH Bill Giessen. Tübinger Frankenzeitung , S. 46 ff. ↑ Dissertation Zhaoyang Zhao; ↑. BILL: 13 Gaia, zdr. Frming blow 32 R 5 GO: # 3p jirata E RitzTILI 73 €!. GT En Eikvissa Gear Box RÀ dzi jezdu 12, C, 22 ÈT E qaziz Ex. "Petit Nicolas" dans , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Rédactionnel, Pilotorama, Le C F ravitailleur de l'armée de l'air (une vraie RC 6p, Bill Norton, Bill Norton et la police montée du Canada, Bielsa.
LORD EUROPE- sem-link Bill Auguste Zur Erfassung der systematischen Grundanschauung, C. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh, [compte-rendu]. - sem-link. C'est dans cet état d'esprit que j'utilise au quotidien des méthodes telles que KVP, Deutschland (AUDI AG) (Human Resources); Aufbau der Bill of Material. With Bill C, Canadian Heritage plans to extend the term of copyright in „works“ whose „authors“ died between and While „work“.
Bill C 221 Short Title VideoBBBY Taking Off! Updated Plans and the Next Stocks to Buy! BILL C PROJET DE LOI C An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting) Loi modifiant le Code criminel (paris sportifs) Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows.
WerwГ¶lfe Spielkarten Bereich Bill C 221 Bonus Test unserer Erfahrungsberichte erklГren wir dir, die ihren Service Bill C 221 Lizenz. - NavigationsmenüScreener Überblick Quick Screens.
Bill C First Reading. LEGIS info. Bilingual view XML PDF. ENGLISH SUMMARY SUMMARY 1 Short Title 1 Short Title 2 Income Tax Act 2 Income Tax Act 3 Report to Parliament 3 Report to Parliament.
First Session, Forty-third Parliament,. HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA. BILL C A legal and regulated single sports betting industry would undermine the client base of illegal gambling venues.
Legalization would not only reduce their profits by providing customers with a legal alternative, but it would also protect law-abiding citizens.
For those who currently participate in single sports betting by dealing with criminal groups, a regulated industry would provide a safe alternative.
This safe alternative would be of greatest benefit to those suffering from an addiction to gambling. As I have said, we need to support those who need our help, and continuing this prohibition on single sports betting impairs our ability to do this.
Instead of being exposed to the opportunities and services available to them in a safe, legal, and regulated environment, those suffering from gambling addiction are forced to interact with predatory and criminal enterprises.
This is dangerous to their personal safety and financial health, and also detrimental to their ability to heal. Do members think organized crime groups are contributing money to anti-addiction efforts, supports, or services?
Of course not. The provinces do this. Measures are in place to support people with gambling addictions. In Ontario, there is a Responsible Gaming Resource Centre operated by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.
The one in Caesars Windsor is open seven days a week between 10 a. These centres provide people with information about community services available to help them fight addiction and also help them learn about safe gaming practices.
According to the website rgrc. There are other resources available to those who wish to seek help with their addiction.
These include Ontario's self-exclusion program, where individuals can request to be denied access to OLG facilities; and also the playsmart.
It is incredibly important to have a strong network of services to support people with these addictions. Bill C would not legalize something that does not already happen.
Single sports betting happens every day in Canada. What we are talking about here is providing the opportunity for the provinces to be able to regulate and co-ordinate in a safe environment.
We know and believe that moderation is the key to responsibly enjoying other forms of gaming. This principle should be applied to single sports betting.
Let us take the money out of the hands of criminal groups and put it to work for our communities. Providing a safe and legal environment for Canadians and providing the vulnerable with better addictions services absolutely deserve all of our support.
I want to encourage my colleagues to give serious consideration to supporting this bill at second reading. I urge all members to vote in support of the safe and regulated sports betting act.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby South, BC. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C , an act to amend the Criminal Code on sports betting, put forward by my colleague, the MP for Windsor West.
Before I start, I would like to say a few things about the MP for Windsor West. I cannot think of a better champion for his or her community than that MP, the dean of the NDP caucus.
Not only is he a voice of reason in our party and in the House, but he is also a tireless defender of his community. This bill shows he has a deep understanding of how his region works, the needs of his region, and is prepared to put forward positive ideas and proposals to make the local economy better.
This bill, in brief, proposes to modernize the Criminal Code to allow provinces to regulate single-event sports betting.
In doing so, the member argues, in putting his bill forward, that it would add economic benefit to not just his community, but many Canadian communities, and reduce the influence of organized crime.
I will speak a bit about those two points. I am supporting the bill for a different reason, which I will share shortly.
The bill would allow for wagering on the outcome of a single sporting event, and many Canadians are probably confused that we do not already have this.
This is a throwback law that has been in place for a long time, and in a lot of people's views, unnecessarily. There has been a shift in how betting laws are regulated in Canada.
The federal government has decentralized a lot of this control to the provinces over the years.
Provinces are currently responsible for operating, licensing, and regulating all legal forms of gambling, including the lottery schemes. This is really because each region, each province, has individual needs and, of course, different cultures for gambling and related events.
Perhaps there are different views among the populations that have to be reflected in provincial laws, which makes sense. It is not as if we do not have unregulated betting at all.
It is handled by the provinces. There was too much regulation at one point, and now we are kind of reaching a point that we have decided that the provinces will take care of all of this.
Therefore, each province determines the type, amount, and location of gaming activity that is available in their jurisdiction, which seems right to me.
Since , gaming facilities have been established in most provinces, offering a diverse range of options, including slot and video machines, card games, and games of chance such as Roulette and Craps.
In greater Vancouver, we have seen a kind of flourishing of the gaming industry, but a moderate flourishing.
When this started, a lot of people thought it would be a very bad and intrusive industry that would change the very nature of our communities.
However, it does not seem to have had that impact, although it has had both positive and negative impacts. The key is that at least it is regulated now.
At least the provincial governments get a significant amount of revenue from these industries. Not only provincial governments but municipalities and charities also receive a significant benefit from gambling.
Gaming is one of the oldest activities in the world. It is proper to regulate it, again, much like marijuana. It is something that happens, and government involvement is important.
Also, it would lead us to recover some of the revenue so we could help support things like addiction services and counselling when people have trouble with these activities.
Oversight in this industry has been decentralized to the provinces, but the Criminal Code still applies to some aspects of the gaming industry, including single-event sports betting.
Therefore, if this proposed law were in place and single-event sports wagering were permitted, each province would determine how and if it would be implemented.
It is not like passing this law would all of a sudden open up single sports betting right across Canada. It would still be up to the provinces to decide if they were going to allow it and what the laws would look like in each province.
The public is not losing control of this industry or oversight of this industry, it is just being decentralized to the provinces, who, I would say, are in better shape to make decisions about those more localized communities.
We heard some arguments today about the economics of this industry. Gaming is an important contributor to the Canadian economy.
It is the largest segment of the entertainment industry, and supports more than , full-time jobs, with another , indirect jobs. It is nothing to sneeze at, and it is something to take very seriously.
I am glad my colleague from Windsor West has brought the bill forward. It allows us to have these kinds of debates.
Again, it puts pressure on the government to consider if, indeed, we are regulating this industry in the correct way.
The reason why single-event sports betting is important is that it would give the Canadian gaming industry an edge over the American gaming industry.
In British Columbia, where I am from, although there are local casinos, most people talk about going to Las Vegas. Lots of British Columbians fly to Las Vegas to bet down there.
One reason is single-event sports betting, which is allowed in Las Vegas but not in British Columbia. One could imagine the reverse flow of residents and gamers if this were allowed in British Columbia, starting here with this law and then regulation by the province.
It would reverse the flow of that money. That is an important consideration. We all know we are in tough economic times.
This would be important. Now in Vancouver, with a fairly robust economy, maybe this would not make a huge difference, but in some communities along the border, this would make a difference, especially from what I am hearing from my colleagues in Windsor.
No other states have legalized single-event gaming operations, so this would give Canadian gamers an edge.
My colleagues have said it very well, that this is occurring. These betting activities are occurring, but mainly illegally in Canada.
What this allows us to do is capture the revenue that we are losing. Again, the government has made the same claims about legalizing marijuana, saying that when it is an illegal substance it is only dealt with in an illegal way and all the profits remain in the hands of organized crime.
That is why they are arguing they should legalize marijuana. It would allow the government to regulate and capture this revenue. The same case could be made for single-event sports betting.
We have heard opposition from the other side, and we have heard a number of Liberals say that they are not going to support the bill.
They have in the past, and I am hoping that they again reflect on what they are denying Canadians by voting against the bill.
In terms of organized crime and the effects of organized crime in this area, illegal sports wagering includes both illegal bookmakers and illegal Internet betting companies operating in North America.
I am not a huge fan of gambling. It may seem strange to say that after this speech but I have talked to my constituents. I opposed a mixed martial arts bill that came from the Senate in the last session.
However, I voted for it because my constituency told me loud and clear that this was what they wanted.
The same applies to this bill. I have talked to a number of people in my constituency, elected officials and local residents. They have said they want me to support the bill, and that is what I am doing.
I am standing up today to support my colleague from Windsor West and his private member's bill. I hope everyone here in the House will as well.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues on all sides for taking part in this debate. What takes place next is a simple process.
It is about whether this House has the courage to tackle organized crime in the most significant legislation that will be proposed in this House of Commons for this session of Parliament.
It is clean and simple. We send this to committee to be studied, examined, and brought back here for a final vote.
Let us look at the facts carefully. The bill was already in previous Parliaments. It went through with Liberal, Conservative, and NDP support.
It was stymied in the Senate and had to re-emerge here. If the bill does not make it this time and we do not get it to committee, it becomes another four years, unless it is introduced by the government, having to eat crow.
What do we have in the meantime? Organized crime will get the biggest single corporate tax cut from the government.
They will get the resources. Canada is a laggard in terms of accountability. Very little of that is recovered by governments.
If we vote for the bill right now, we give it a chance to go to committee. Let us hear from the experts that are for it.
Let us hear it from the experts that are against it. Let us hear about one sentence in the Criminal Code that, in my view, would increase accountability, tourism, and jobs and would give us more reason to tackle other organized crimes, because we would unplug them from their single most profitable source of revenue.
That would mean new revenue for health care, education, gaming addiction, and other elements. I am being mocked and heckled by a Conservative over there, but that is okay.
They do not take it seriously, but I do, because those revenues are being asked for and supported by the Province of Ontario and by the official opposition in Ontario.
This gives the provinces the opportunity to choose, if they want, to go into this type of possibility. They have the infrastructure, such as the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, which has accountability and the ability to put this out to market if they choose to do it.
For example, if Ontario wants to bet on one event one time, they can do that, monitor it, and provide the accountability and oversight that so many people want.
I can still hear my colleague, and I would ask him to maybe speak to the bill. Madam Speaker, this is an opportunity we will not have again.
We will not have it for this Parliament, unless the Liberals decide to actually introduce it as part of their process.
We have heard testimony on gaming accountability from international and domestic police and others who have testified to the veracity of the exposure we have from unregulated, unaccountable, single sports betting that is taking place in backrooms, bars, basements, and back halls and through organized crime.
Sadly enough, with the click of a mouse, it is also being done by our youth. Let us send this to committee. Let them hear the evidence, and let us move on.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C, the safe and regulated sports betting act. I served in the municipality of Windsor for two terms and have served in the House for six terms.
One of the things I have noted as a member of Parliament and formerly as a city councillor is that we often have time, energy, and opportunity to vote about spending in these institutions, including this one.
This bill would give us a chance to increase revenues by taking them away from organized crime and putting them into the coffers of the provinces, should they so choose.
I am talking about the underground economy, the organized crime economy, and that of offshore betting that is taking place for single event sports.
It is common culture in Canada, North America, and across the globe, but it is not regulated here. Some are seeking regulation.
The provinces could use that money for health care, education, infrastructure, for public projects that we support. This would dismantle a significant, if not the most profound, basis of monetary support for organized crime.
That is what we are talking about in the bill. It is not just fun, not just jobs, not just the reality that is taking place in other jurisdictions at our expense; it is about taking away the capability of organized crime to affect our society.
The bill was formerly Bill C , which was brought forward by my colleague Mr. Joe Comartin, the former member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the former deputy speaker.
That bill passed unanimously in the chamber. It went through this chamber, went to committee, came back from committee and went through this chamber again and on to the Senate.
It made it to the Senate, but there just was not enough time to pass it into law. We have had to table the bill in the House again to make sure that we get the job done.
It is my pleasure to do so. Things have changed. It is a trough fund that often goes to organized crime or other businesses that are unregulated and unaccountable.
We know taxes have been a big issue in this chamber over the last number of weeks. They are not necessarily paying the taxes that they should.
It is important to know that. Currently, Las Vegas has a monopoly on this product for North America. There is the Super Bowl and other jurisdictional betting that has been taking place.
There are around 30 million visitors to that area. There are significant revenues coming from tourism on top of that.
It is not just the actual wagering that is taking place, but it is the tourism as well. The bill would protect our jobs and economy.
We have , jobs directly or indirectly related to the gaming industry in Canada. We are talking about places like Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Windsor, Niagara, Montreal, Halifax, and Charlottetown.
Some people think these are just entry level jobs, that they are not significant enough to look at. How more wrong could they be? There are value-added trained jobs that require education from our colleges and our universities.
There is web design. There are slot attendants, cashiers, and blackjack dealers in a casino, and also industries outside that which are related to tourism.
I apologize for my voice, Mr. Speaker, but I was coaching hockey this weekend and it is hard to get year-olds and year-olds off the ice.
I would say to my colleagues that it is a lot of fun but it takes a lot of energy. When we look at the sports information industry itself, we see online sports information, statisticians, odds-makers, journalists, web-tech supporters, and marketing.
All those things are so important for our value-added economy. They are also jobs where people can actually have benefits, a salary, and contribute to a pension, something all of us in this House agree should happen.
I think we can justify spending public money to deal with the orphan well problem, but only if certain conditions are met, as I said earlier.
I do not think a bill like this one will put us on that path. Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C , a private member's bill tabled by my colleague for Lakeland.
Bill C would provide a tax credit to qualifying corporations for expenses incurred for the closure of an oil or gas well.
The bill would also require the Minister of Finance to assess whether the implementation of a flow-through share program would increase private sector funds available to close oil or gas wells.
I will cut to the chase and say that I do not think that the bill before us is the way forward. The NDP believes in the polluter pays principle, and that is theoretically the way the well drilling system is set up right now.
Companies are obliged to clean up their wells when they become inactive. Providing incentives for companies to not break the law is a waste of taxpayers' money.
Despite what the member said, it is a textbook case of an inefficient subsidy. It flies in the face of government promises that date back to the Harper era to end subsidies to the fossil fuel sector.
However, I would also admit that the bill does have the good intention of dealing with the significant problem of inactive wells across Canada, especially in western Canada.
Right now, there are 91, inactive oil and gas wells in Alberta, 36, in Saskatchewan and 12, in British Columbia, and these are the wells that Bill C is seeking to address.
These wells are not cleaned up. When the companies that own them become insolvent, they become orphan wells and the taxpayer is on the hook to pay for the cleanup.
That scenario has played out again and again. There are more than 2, orphan wells in Alberta right now, in B.
Members can do the math: It is a big bill for taxpayers to deal with orphan wells, and the bill could get bigger. The Alberta Energy Regulator has predicted that the number of inactive wells in Alberta could easily rise, could easily double, to , over the next 10 years, and so it is a serious problem.
I would agree with the member on that. We cannot leave these wells and do nothing. There are impacts on the environment, as they will leak methane into the air and contaminants into the ground.
There is an impact for landowners and farmers who receive lease payments while these wells are active and even when they are inactive.
Until they are cleaned up, those lease payments are made, but, increasingly, oil companies have simply informed landowners that they will not be making lease payments, with no discussions, no negotiations.
Many Canadians wish they had that kind of power over their landowners. Landowners have had to take companies to court to make them live up to their obligations.
The Alberta provincial government has told oil companies that they do not have to pay municipal taxes during these tough times, but there is no compensation given to local governments that are already struggling through COVID.
Municipalities have not only lost a valuable tax base, but many have been left with contaminated sites that they cannot afford to clean up; and the member for Lakeland mentioned one of these, and so development opportunities are squandered.
Clearly, the problem is that companies do not have the ability to pay for cleanup. We all know that times are very difficult in the oil patch. One could argue that companies did not see this downturn coming and were caught unaware by these tough times.
Companies were not saving for the future then. They were not cleaning up their wells then. Will this proposed legislation help fix the problem?
Would it incentivize companies to live up to their obligations so that taxpayers are not on the hook? When companies drill a well, they know that they are going to have to clean it up once it has stopped producing.
When it is producing, they should be putting aside those funds for that obligation. The problem is, many of those companies are not doing this.
They are not planning for that rainy day, and they have not been doing this for years. The regulators are partly at fault for not properly ensuring that companies do this.
Regulators should be putting limits on how long a well can remain inactive before it must be cleaned up. Only the B. Regulators could create a steadily rising inactive well fee, such as we see in California, that could go into a fund to help orphan well cleanup.
That bond would be a small amount compared to the price of buying drilling rights and actually drilling the well. However, these regulatory solutions are largely in provincial hands, as the member for Lakeland mentioned.
I am not a tax accountant, but it seems logical that if a company did not put away enough money to cover legal obligations and now is not making enough profit to cover those costs, a tax break will not fix things.
Tax writeoffs only work when enough money is being made to have to pay some tax. If tax credits are being provided to cover these costs, then it is the taxpayer who is funding these activities.
The idea of creating a flow-through share structure to encourage people to invest to clean up oil wells does not seem like a good idea either.
Flow-through shares are used extensively in the mining industry to encourage investment in mine exploration and mine development.
That is obviously a risky investment, so it makes sense, if we are to develop our resources, that we should provide incentives to investors to help companies at that critical stage.
However, cleaning up oil and gas wells is not a risky business. Companies' investors know years ahead of time that they will have to do it, and they have a pretty good idea of how much it is going to cost.
Providing incentives to corporations or investors is completely inappropriate at this stage. This is a straight subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.
We would be paying them to do something that they are legally obliged to do. It is like giving drivers a tax break for staying on the right-hand side of the road or coming to a stop at a stop sign.
Canada's natural resources are shared resources owned by the people of Canada. Former premier of Alberta Peter Lougheed once said that, when it comes to resources, we have to act like owners.
That means getting the best price for our resources. It also means making sure that the corporations that pay for access to those resources abide by our laws in how they treat the environment when extracting them.
Governments across this country have not done a very good job of upholding that pact with the people of Canada. Regulators for the oil and gas industry, whether it is the Canada Energy Regulator, the Alberta Energy Regulator, the B.
Oil and Gas Commission or any other of a number of such bodies, have too often acted like cheerleaders for the industry instead of regulators acting as stewards on behalf of the Canadian public.
Companies are obliged by law to clean up after themselves. When they drill a well, they know how much that cleanup will cost. They should act responsibly and put away sufficient money in a trust fund while a well is productive, so that when the well reaches the end of its productive life, the money is there to clean up their mess.
That is what we find in another Conservative private member's bill from the member for Calgary Centre , Bill C I would be happy to support that bill when it comes up for debate.
However, this bill before us today is not an incentive for companies to do the right thing, to put aside money to pay for future obligations.
It is an incentive for companies to put off that obligation until the last minute, forcing taxpayers to help them pay for clean up or, if it is too late, to pay all the costs for that clean up.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join this debate on the second reading of Bill C I am very honoured to support my friend and colleague, the member for Lakeland.
As this is my first speech over Zoom through the virtual Parliament, it will take a little while to get used it, but I am looking forward to adding my voice to those who think this bill should be supported by all parties.
I will go through a couple of discussions on why this is a bill that should unify members of Parliament to come together to support this option of doing the right thing environmentally and making sure we have an idea of how we are going to clean up orphaned and abandoned wells.
I have listened intently to my colleague's speech, as well as those of the members from the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal party, on what should have been done and the now growing issue of abandoned wells.
Obviously we can look to the past and say some things were not done right, but as the government is famous for saying, we need to take a team Canada approach.
What we need to do now is look at options for getting these orphaned and abandoned wells cleaned up. One thing that has come to light that shows why a bill like this should be pursued is the recent Redwater decision of the Supreme Court.
None of my colleagues from the opposition parties have mentioned this, so I will mention it. As a result of the Redwater Supreme Court ruling in , federal bankruptcy laws do not supersede provincial environment obligations.
This results in many companies no longer being able to find the financing to drill wells to increase their cash flow because, in the case of bankruptcy, investors and creditors would only get paid after all well closures and reclamation costs were incurred.
What we have to do now is figure out how oil and gas companies are going to get access to liquidity in order to continue operating, so these wells can be cleaned up in the long run, as it comes to the environmental part of Bill C , an act to amend the Income Tax Act or the environmental restorative incentive act.
It also instructs government to evaluate the feasibility of flow-through shares. The bill has received support from many key energy industry and government stakeholders that are focused on orphan well cleanup instead of new extraction projects.
Opposition from environmental groups has been minimal. This bill is an attempt at a win-win for energy and the environment.
It is being presented as a Conservative solution to an environmental crisis, as well as a way to help energy companies survive and create new jobs.
The member from the Bloc talked about unemployment rates. Right now unemployment rates in Saskatchewan and Alberta continue to climb because of new proposals and policies brought forward by the government.
I listened to the member for Lakeland talk about two of the main issues behind the oil and gas sector not doing well.
She forgot the third and fourth issues, but she said the two issues were oversupply and pricing during COVID However, a third and, I would say, more prominent issue that explains why the energy sector is not doing well is the government putting in place policies that have been damaging.
We can talk about Bill C and Bill C , as well as the continued overburdening with regulations, which energy sectors have continued to meet.
A private company would have built that pipeline at zero cost to taxpayers across our country. If those regulations had not been changed, we would have had a private proponent building the pipeline and allowing our energy sector more options on how to transport goods to market.
Another thing about the environmental restoration incentive act is that it is for small and medium-sized producers. As we have talked about already, through no fault of their own, some of the policies that have been put in place have really hamstrung their ability to make ends meet and continue to work and employ people across our country.
The reality is that oil and gas wells that companies intend to decommission are now being suspended, so I think all members in the House can come together and say that we need to ensure we are able to clean up oil and gas wells.
I do not think that is a debate among members of Parliament. I know they have been talked about many times. I think our NDP, Bloc and Green party colleagues should take long look at this bill to make sure that the environmental measures are going to be met and that we will have the ability to clean up these wells once they are decommissioned and abandoned.
I will read a couple of quotes from either late shows or things that have been said in the House of Commons. The NDP member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay rose in the House on February 21, , and stated:.
There are over , inactive wells across western Canada, and most of those wells have absolutely no prospect of ever operating again.
That is almost a quarter of the wells out there. Most will require cleanup and reclamation in the near future. Many are on private land, on farms, where they impact the work and lives of farmers who are no longer receiving rental payments for those wells.
That is absolutely true. I agree with his statement. So far there have not been many proposals from the NDP on how we are going to make sure these wells get reclaimed, and I would ask the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay to take a look at this bill once again, because it does bring forward a reasonable approach to ensuring some of these wells get cleaned up and the land goes back to its original state of being.
I think she would be in support of this private member's bill. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on June 17, , during the climate emergency debate, stated:.
We must, in that process, include a transition for the skills of workers. One great example that I will give are the orphan oil wells.
There are thousands of them throughout Alberta and northern B. Therefore, there are ways to work together on this.
Many MPs from across political stripes know that we need to have a policy in place to ensure these orphan wells are cleaned up, and I am looking forward to working with them on Bill C , so we do have the ability to ensure that the Government of Canada is coming together for the environmental purpose of making sure these orphan wells are cleaned up.
The other side of this is that it also has the ability to create jobs and employment in the hard hit sectors across Alberta right now.
I want to say that this bill would allow friends and families across western Canada to go back to work and help provide for their families once again.
I need to know that the federal government is going to be there and is in support of the energy sector. The Liberal MP who was on her feet today spoke about the support her government has shown to energy and oil workers in the energy sector, and I would like to see that support continue.
It has been a minuscule amount of support at this point in time, but with this bill we could put in place the opportunity for companies across Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and B.
We are looking for the ability of these companies to have options to keep their people employed and keep people working across our sector.
On one final note, I realize that a couple of my colleagues have said that the energy companies need to step up and they need to be responsible.
I do want our colleagues to stop looking backward. That was in the past. We need to have these companies stay in business and work together to allow them to clean up the orphan and abandoned wells.The bill Poker Message Boards allow for wagering on the outcome of a single sporting event, and many Canadians Casinoheroes probably confused that we do not already have this. There is a number that I like to quote and that keeps coming up. This principle Cricket be applied to single sports betting. Instead of this large market going off radar, we would make it both legal and regulated provincially. I am glad my hon. BILL C An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (oil and gas wells) Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows. BILL C PROJET DE LOI C An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting) Loi modifiant le Code criminel (paris sportifs) FIRST READING, FEBRUARY 17, This bill has been reinstated in a subsequent session: 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. C Navigate Bills. An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (oil and gas wells. BILL C An Act respecting a Comprehensive National Strategy for Sickle Cell Disease and Thalassemic Disorders. first reading, June 15, NOTE. BILL C An Act to amend the Criminal Code (peace officers) R.S., c. C Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of.