Jim Maloway

[Petitions, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition which calls on the Canadian government to negotiate with the United States government to reduce the U.S. and Canadian passport fees.

The number of American tourists visiting Canada is at its 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. The cost of the passports for an American family of four can be over $500. While over half of Canadians have passports, only a quarter of Americans have passports.

At the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments attended by me and over 500 other elected representatives from 11 border states and three 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 new application fee on a mutual basis with the United States.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 29th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I had another question for the minister that I was unable to ask, but maybe the Liberal critic would have some comments on this.

I pointed out for the minister that 54 United States congressmen had demanded that President Obama forgo the agreement with Panama until Panama signed the tax information exchange treaties. The minister said that he did not follow what the United States did.

The fact is the Americans know that Panama is a tax haven. I would like to know where the minister has been since he is obviously not aware of it. For example, the U.S. justice department says that Panama is a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers and money laundering activities. Surely, the minister and the government would not want to help drug traffickers and money launderers. We all remember Manuel Noriega, the president of Panama a few years ago. He is now doing time in a Florida jail for drug trafficking.

As long as Panama refuses to sign these tax agreements, why would Canada support this type of essentially illegitimate and criminal activity? The government has an opportunity to get its signature on those agreements before it signs. That is what the Americans do. That is best practice. It is just plain common sense. If Panama is prepared to sign those agreements, then perhaps the government could proceed with the agreement.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 29th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make some observations regarding this free trade agreement.

Panama, as the minister likely knows, is regarded as a tax haven by OECD countries, including the United States. In fact, in 2008, Panama was one of 11 countries that did not have tax information exchange agreements signed or in force. It is one of three states, with Guatemala and Nauru, that will not share bank information or any tax information for exchange purposes. In fact, there are over 350,000 foreign-registered companies registered in Panama.

Fifty-four democratic congresspeople in the United States have called on President Obama not to ratify the agreement until Panama signs an agreement to forward information on these tax evaders. I would like to ask the minister why the government is proceeding when 54 congresspeople in the United States have said that unless Panama signs on and allows the Americans to get information on these tax evaders, they will not sign this agreement.

The minister wants to basically reward Panama. I would like to know what efforts he is making to get Panama to sign on so that we can find out who is hiding out in tax havens such as Panama.

[Petitions, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my petition calls upon the Canadian government to negotiate with the U.S. government to reduce United States and Canadian passport fees.

American tourists visiting Canada are at their lowest levels since 1972. It has fallen by five million in the last seven years, from sixteen million in 2002 to only eleven million in 2009. Passport fees for multiple member families are a significant barrier to traditional cross-border family vacations. The cost of the passports for an American family of four can be over $500. While over half of Canadians have passports, only a quarter of Americans do.

At the Midwestern legislative conference at the Councils of State Governments, attended by myself and 500 other elected representatives from 11 border states and three provinces, a resolution was passed unanimously, stating:

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 a 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 upon the government to: (a) work with the American government to examine a mutual reduction in passport fees to facilitate tourism, and (b) promote a limited time two-for-one passport renewal or new application fee on a mutual basis with the United States.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the government's position has changed on this point over the last four years, because four years ago when Conservatives were dealing with the 2006-07 census, the member for Beauce was defending the position of the government and defending StatsCan's 2006 contract with Lockheed Martin. He was quoted as saying:

Statistics Canada has taken a number of important safeguards to protect the privacy and confidentiality of Census responses.

However, this time around, just recently, the member for Beauce wrote:

Fundamentally, my position is that whatever the presumed usefulness of these data, I don’t believe it justifies forcing people to answer intrusive questions about their lives, under threat from [a fine or jail time] if they don’t

The question is, why did the government change its position from 2006-07 to now?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member hit on a very important point, that there are many thousands of businesses across the country that rely on census data. In fact, they contribute to the revenue flow to the government to support the census. The government is finding that it has climbed out on a branch and somebody is sawing the branch.

In all these years I have never seen a government operate in this fashion. Normally consultations are done. It is rudimentary practice to do some consulting. The government did not do any consulting. The Conservatives are in a situation now where even their friends are against them on this issue. One wonders what kind of thinking is going on.

In terms of phone calls, I believe it was the member forBeauce who indicated that he had 1,000 phone calls on this issue. Other MPs in neighbouring ridings report zero or maybe one or two calls. I have not had any phone calls whatsoever supporting the government on this. I do not understand what is going on in the government and who is really in charge and what direction it is headed when it picks up on issues like this one.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, given that the Conservatives should be looking at best practice, and certainly in the past they have liked to follow the United States, we only have to look back to 2003 when George Bush was the president of the United States and this experiment was tried there. The U.S. Census Bureau conducted an experiment in 2003 and what did it find out? It found out that the data degraded so much that fixing it would be too expensive and the idea was quickly abandoned.

Did the Conservatives look at other jurisdictions? If they had taken time to look at other jurisdictions, they would have found that this movie had already been played and it was a failure.

[Petitions, September 28th, 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 their lowest levels since 1972 and has fallen by 5 million in the last seven years, from 16 million in 2002 to 11 million in 2009. The passport fees for multiple member families are a significant barrier to the traditional cross-border family vacation 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 passports.

At the recent midwest 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 that reads, be it:

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 a 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: (a) work with the American government to examine a mutual reduction in passport fees to facilitate tourism; and (b) promote a limited time two-for-one passport renewal or new application fee on a mutual basis with the United States.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question and train of thought from the hon. member for the Liberal Party.

The fact of the matter is that it has not been since demise of the Liberal government that we have seen any clear initiatives in the whole area of government online programs or any sort of initiatives in that vein from the government.

England is a very good example of a case where the prime minister took control of the agenda and set up the government website announcing a list of all the government programs that were going to be online over the next five to 10 years.

When Reg Alcock was here in Parliament and Paul Martin was the Prime Minister, we saw some real developments in government online programs. What have we seen since the Conservatives have come into power? We have seen nothing.

We have seen a secure channel that was being developed basically shutdown or put to bed. There are no clear national objectives or directions being given by the government.

I think that is what the previous member was alluding to when he was asking a question of the minister.

The government is trying to deal in isolation on one piece of albeit important legislation, 10 years past its prime, but it does not tie into an overall plan that the public is looking for on the part of the government.

So I would ask the member, when is he going to talk to his Prime Minister about the idea of getting a national vision enunciated by the Prime Minister to set up government online programs? The electronic health records of the country should be well advanced right now and they are not, as well as other areas to complement what we are doing here tonight.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the minister in his address to the bill who said that we were looking at $130 billion in losses throughout the world economy.

I would be interested in knowing how he came up with that figure and what Canada's portion of that loss would be.

The fact of the matter is that the government has waited for six years to get this legislation through. Yet the House could resolve the Karla Homolka pardon issue in a day and a half.

The question is, if the government is so concerned about this, then why has it not done something before now?