Jim Maloway

[Petitions, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my petition calls on the Canadian government to negotiate with the United States government to reduce U.S. and Canadian passport fees. American tourists visiting Canada are at the lowest level since 1972. It has fallen by five million in the last seven years, from 16 million in 2002 to only 11 million in 2009.

Passport fees for multiple member families are a significant barrier to traditional cross-border family vacations and the cost of passports for an American family of four can be over $500. While over half of Canadians have passports, only one-quarter of Americans have them.

At the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments, attended by myself and 500 other elected representatives from 11 border states and 3 provinces, a resolution was passed unanimously, which reads as follows:

RESOLVED, that the...Conference calls on President Barack Obama and [the] Prime Minister...to immediately examine a reduced fee for passports to facilitate cross-border tourism;

...we encourage the governments to examine the idea of a limited time two-for-one passport renewal or new application; and be it further

RESOLVED, that this resolution be submitted to appropriate federal, state and provincial officials.

To be a fair process, passport fees must be reduced on both sides of the border. Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to work with the American government to examine a mutual reduction in passport fees to facilitate tourism and to promote a limited time, two-for-one passport renewal or a new application fee on a mutual basis with the United States.

[Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a partial answer to the member for Compton—Stanstead, who got no answer from the government when she asked what the government was doing about tax havens. The fact of the matter is that it is not doing anything.

On the very day that the recent stories appeared about the tax moneys being hidden in Switzerland, the government was trying to implement a free trade deal with Panama, which is a famous tax haven with 350,000 companies hiding money there.

In fact, the government is offering a tax amnesty. Two years ago, when one of the employees of a Liechtenstein bank turned over computer records to the German government, the Canadian government found out that there were 100 Canadians storing money in the Liechtenstein bank. What has it done? It has simply allowed people to declare and pay the taxes voluntarily. Basically, it has given them a tax holiday. It has now found another 2,000. The government got the information from a bank employee. That is where the information came from.

The point is that the government is not actively pursuing money in tax havens.

[Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his explanation of the features of Bill C-21. I did want to make an observation, a comment, about the value of $1 million. I am not sure why the government has picked $1 million as the threshold. I would like to know how MPs will explain that to their constituents who have been the victims of a fraud, perhaps elderly people living in their ridings who have been victims of a fraud of maybe only $30,000. To that person, that could be his or her whole life savings and could have as big a psychological effect as a case where bigger frauds are involved.

Also, are we supposed to now ensure that the frauds continue until they hit $1 million? If we are trying to investigate a ring of fraudsters, do we have to now ensure they get over the $1 million mark so that they get a minimum two-year sentence?

I would like to ask the minister why the government chose the $1 million mark in the first place and whether it would reconsider it and perhaps make it a little lower.

[Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has had laws similar to this since 2002 and in the eight years since then, the problem is getting bigger, not smaller. In fact as of 2009, the United States had 49% of the world's sites. The top five countries, that is, the United States, Russia, Canada, Japan and South Korea, have 87% of the sites, with 13% in the other 55 countries. The fact of the matter is that Germany and Sweden are not on the list because they effectively block the sites.

The government is spending even more money. It is putting another $42 million toward police resources to fight a problem that is getting bigger. I really do not see that as the answer.

The answer comes from looking at best practices. Obviously, the best practices are not in the United States, but in Germany and Sweden. I would ask the member whether he would agree with that analysis and that we should ask the government to look at the practices in those two countries.

[Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that even the government members are indicating that we are losing ground on this issue, that the number of sites is increasing rather than decreasing. The member pointed out that the United States passed legislation similar to this in 2002, which is eight years ago. Yet only one year ago Cybertip.ca said that the U.S. still had 49.2% of all the sites in the world. Clearly this is not working and the government is proposing to throw another $42 million at the problem, a problem that is increasing.

Therefore, the issue is why do we not look at something that works? Why do we not look at what Germany is doing? Why do we not look at what Sweden is doing? We should not just close our eyes and say that we will fight it the same way the Americans are because clearly it does not work. It is getting worse.

[Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act, October 4th, 2010]

I am very surprised that the member from the Conservative side would not at least agree that the Conservative government would look at following Germany and Sweden to block these sites and would simply skate around the issue and talk about freedom of the Internet, and so on. When we are dealing with an issue such as this, it would seem very reasonable to me that the government would at least come forward and say, yes, if it works in Germany, if it works in Sweden, we will at least take a look at it in committee. I do not know why he would not say that.

My second question for him deals with the penalties. The member reiterated what they are for individuals: $1,000 for the first offence, $5,000 for the second, and the maximum of $10,000 or six months for a third offence. For corporations, we are talking about $10,000 for the first offence, $50,000 for the second, and $100,000 for the third.

The question is, given that these pornographic sites are largely run by criminal enterprises, does the member not agree that a $100,000 fine is nothing more than the cost of doing business and that these criminal organizations will be happy to pay the fines and keep operating the way they have in the past?

[Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that 87% of the child pornography sites are in five countries of the world, which leaves about 13% from the other 55 countries.

The member should also know that countries such as Sweden and Germany have actually blocked the sites completely.

The current government, while it has taken years to get this bill this far in the House, is proposing to spend another $42 million having the police chase around after these sites when in fact Sweden and Germany already have the answer: simply block the sites and the problem should be solved.

I would like to ask the member what sort of research the government has done on the Swedish situation and the German situation and report back to us and tell us why we cannot follow the same route.

[Older Workers, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Edmonton East for sponsoring Motion No. 515. I will read the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should continue to recognize the vital role of older workers in the Canadian economy and to ensure that its labour market programs and policies encourage older workers to contribute their skills and experience in the Canadian workforce.

It has been pointed out by other speakers that older workers are extremely valuable to our economy. They provide knowledge, skills, and experience that the workforce needs. But there are a number of industries in which older workers have to face the possibility of having to be retrained because of technological changes. I think it is incumbent upon the governments, both federal and provincial, to get together and cooperate to retrain these workers and keep them in the workforce.

I mentioned to the member in the question period, in a supportive way, that he should recognize that his government has already taken steps to encourage workers to stay in the workforce longer. The incentive in this last budget was that if they stayed in the workforce for an extra few years they would get a bigger pension than if they took early retirement.

That is fine if that is what the government wants to do, but there are experts out there who have written articles saying that, while it is the government's intention to have workers stay in the workforce longer, the policy is not actually having the desired effect, because it did not offer a large enough incentive for people to stay in the workforce. When they did the calculations, it turned out that there was only a marginal difference between what a worker would collect in early retirement versus what he would collect if he stayed in the workforce for an extra few years.

The member should take that back to his government, to his minister, to his caucus, and perhaps take another look at that issue. After a year or two of experience, the government will recognize that this initiative did not keep people in the workforce and that, to keep them in, it has to increase the benefit.

Older workers have had an increasingly difficult time over the years, especially with the dislocations in the economy and with the jobs that have been lost. When it comes time to rehire, older workers have a much more difficult time finding a job than younger workers. This is a problem that has been around for a long time. It has been recognized by governments, and governments at all levels have made adjustments, as have businesses, to try to keep older workers on the job.

Older workers are a huge resource. They have the training and experience of many years in the workforce. A new worker, somebody fresh out of school, cannot be expected to be up to speed and have the same experience and skill level as a worker who has been on the job for 10 or 20 years, whether it's roofing, plumbing, carpentry, or in any skill out there. The member for Winnipeg Centre will attest to that. A carpenter who has been in the business for 10 or 20 years is probably going to do a better job than people who have just come out of school and are looking to establish themselves.

[Older Workers, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, certainly older workers have the experience, knowledge and skills and should be encouraged to stay in the workforce as long as possible.

With that in mind, the member obviously has not read his government's 880-page omnibus finance bill, which passed the House recently. In fact, the government is giving incentive for people to stay longer in the workforce, but experts have been quoted in newspaper articles as saying that this incentive is not big enough to make very many people take the option of staying in the workforce.

On the one hand, he wants to have initiatives to keep people working. On the other hand, his government is acting in the opposite direction. Could he comment on that?

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, members will know that the total two-way trade between Canada and Panama in 1999 was only $132 million. Imports to Canada from Panama were only $21 million, and half of that was refined heavy oil. The fact of the matter is that members know that trade is not going to stop tomorrow if we do not implement this trade deal.

For a government that pretends to be tough on crime, it is somewhat surprising that it would be ready to implement a free trade deal with a country such as Panama that was blacklisted by the OECD in 2000 as an unco-operative tax haven. In fact, there are 350,000 foreign companies registered to hide from the tax man in their home countries.

Why would the Liberals get in bed with the Conservatives to facilitate this agreement when what we should be doing is following the American example and forcing Panama to sign tax agreements so that there can be an exchange of tax information about tax evaders? The Liberal opposition is actually facilitating the government promoting tax evasion if it supports this initiative.