Mike Wallace

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to be here at this late hour on a Wednesday night. I congratulate all my colleagues from all sides of the House for still being here at 11:40 p.m. I will try to make it as lively as possible to keep them going.

I want to do a slight review of what we are doing here tonight. I know the viewing public at home is very interested. We are dealing with an implementation bill. There are two a year, one in the spring and one in the fall. The budget that gets passed is really a policy document, and then the implementation bills actually take that information and turn it into actions, and those are done through those two implementation bills. That is what we are doing here today.

I have been here all day and all evening for the discussion and I have listened to some of the discussion about an omnibus bill. My colleague across the aisle just mentioned that the bill is 360 pages long. I happen to have it here with me, and he is absolutely right; it is 360 pages, in English and in French. Really, it is 200 pages in English. Then when we look at how it is printed in Canada, how bills are printed, we see it is in columns and there are two columns on a page. The columns have maybe 10 words across. It is really not that thick. I am very confident that the members opposite are smart enough and good enough readers to be able to read a couple of hundred pages of a bill.

The other really great thing about the way the system works is that, just in case members are busy and they cannot read the whole thing, all couple of hundred pages—if members are able to read it in both languages, I congratulate them, because I do not have that skill, unfortunately—at the beginning of all legislation, there is a legislative summary. The legislative summary for the bill is four pages long. I have the four pages here in front of me. We can go through and see the sections. We may read a section and say to ourselves that it makes sense. If we are on the opposition bench, we may not agree with it or, as we have heard today, there are certain sections that the opposition actually agrees with. They would not have to read over that section any more or study it further; they could just do it.

The other thing that happened with this implementation bill, which has been a practice of this government—I am not sure if it was a practice of previous governments—is that, when the implementation bill passes second reading, it gets split up into different committees to study. It is not all at finance.

For example, there was some discussion about the trademark clauses. I believe they went to the industry committee. That is where they were discussed. Witnesses came before the committee and there was a discussion.

Tonight we are at report stage. Amendments have been moved. I do believe there were no government amendments; I believe they were all amendments from the opposition benches, which is fair. There were a couple of hundred of them, I believe. When you first took the chair earlier this evening, Mr. Speaker—it seems like a long time ago, but it was earlier this evening—they were grouped. I think there are approximately 19 or 20 votes based on the groupings of the amendments, so as a House, once we have finished the discussion, we will come to vote on those amendments that are put forward by the opposition. I think it is only fair to say that I will be voting against those amendments, and I think most members on this side of the House will be voting against those amendments.

This is a confidence vote. This is not something members of Parliament can take lightly, and we are not. From listening to the speeches tonight, I think people are taking this implementation bill seriously and looking at the different issues.

One thing I do find a little bit ironic is that members will say that this omnibus bill is way too long, has too much stuff in it, and would change too many things. Then in the question and answer period, when they are asking a question of another individual who was speaking, they say, “There is nothing in here for this individual, or this group, or this organization”. We could imagine how big the budget bill would be if we put everything they have asked for in it. It would be as tall as I am. I am not that tall, but it would be a big bill if it were as tall as I.

[Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today our government was proud to welcome our Olympic and Paralympic heroes into the House of Commons to acknowledge their efforts and to thank them for a job well done during the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.

After both Olympic and Paralympic teams placed third in the medal standings, can the Minister of State for Sport please tell the House how our investments helped Canadian athletes own the podium?

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

If you don't respect yourself, at least respect this place.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I found the member's speech very interesting as he is a member of the Liberal Party, which is the party that put almost all of the minimum sentences in the Criminal Code to begin with. Year after year, the Liberals would put minimum sentences. All of a sudden, they are holier than thou, and the whole Liberal Party is against mandatory minimums.

This bill would actually increase some mandatory minimums and maximums on sexual crimes against children. Is the member telling me tonight that the Liberal Party is against minimum sentences for criminals who have sexual intercourse with children, either live or through child pornography? I would like to know the answer from the Liberal Party.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, as the chair of the justice committee, to ask a question of the minister, who has been an excellent Minister of Justice. He has been very available to our committee to discuss a number of issues.

Regarding Bill C-26, if I understand from the discussion and reading the bill, its main focus is to ensure that sexual offences against children receive sentences that are appropriate, that we are increasing the mandatory minimum penalties and the maximum penalties for sexual offences against children. The bill would also impose, for the first time, consecutive sentences for consecutive crimes against children. It also includes child pornography and those who commit offences against children by using child pornography as their vehicle.

Could the minister tell the House why it is important to the general public that we have sentences that match the crime, particularly against children?

[Burlington Citizen of the Year, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate Burlington's 2013 Citizen of the Year, Ms. Jean Longfield.

Jean has positively impacted the lives of thousands of people through her Gift of Giving Back program.

Beginning in 2007, the annual food drive program has collected more than 770,000 pounds of food with a collective value of more than $1.9 million to help the less fortunate in Burlington. Through Jean's leadership, the Salvation Army, the Carpenter Hospice, Partnership West Food Bank, and Halton Women's Place have all benefited from her food drive.

Jean has inspired and engaged thousands of Burlington minor hockey players, students, and parents. Jean and her minor hockey food drive program were even featured this year on Hockey Night in Canada.

Congratulations to Jean Longfield, a great leader in our community and a great Canadian.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question and the work he is doing as foreign affairs minister. He is doing a fantastic job.

The point the minister is making happened today, and I want to use today as the example. In my speech, I talked about Vanessa's law. During the question and answer period, even my friends in the Liberal Party asked the New Democratic speakers why they were not letting this go to a vote. They asked, if the New Democrats were supporting it going to committee, why were they not voting on it. They debated it until question period, and that stopped debate. We could have had that done hours before question period.

The next bill to be called was going to be Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, one that requires, in my view, a lot of discussion in the House, because we would be making a fundamentally different change in the Criminal Code and in the protection of victims in the criminal justice system. It requires a lot of discussion, and I believe there are a lot of members of Parliament who would like to speak to different parts of that bill. It is a significant bill and deserves that kind of attention, but no, we spent hours and hours on the bill for Vanessa's law, which is very important but agreed to by all sides. That is what is wrong with the system. That is why we are forced to have extended hours: to give members an opportunity to debate.

If we did things more efficiently and effectively around here, we would not need the types of motion we are seeing in front of us today.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to time allocation a number of weeks ago. I completely disagree with the member opposite from the Liberal Party.

Time allocation, even by definition, sets aside the amount of time. It does not limit debate. If we look at the number of hours, the number of speaking slots that have been provided through time allocation at second reading before bills go to committee and at third reading, we would find that there are hours and hours of discussion.

I would then challenge the members to look at the blues, to look at the transcripts of what is actually said. I think members would find that in many cases there is a repetitive message, over and over again, which is fair.

However, how many times do we have to hear the same thing before we move on and say, okay, we agree to disagree; or we agree, we understand the message, we understand the position? We do not need to hear it 308 times.

If we gave every single person in this place a speaking slot on every issue, we would get one bill done every four years. That would not be a good use of government time.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the question, in the sense that we are actually adding time. We are adding speaking slots, so our New Democratic friends and other members of the House will have an opportunity to speak to things.

We are not limiting; we are adding speaking opportunities. We are adding 20 hours a week. With the 20-minute slots with 10 minutes for questions and answers, that is 20 people. If they split their time, that is 40 people.

Through this motion, we are actually giving the member from the New Democratic Party even more opportunities to get a speaking slot, to be able to go on the record with the member's position on whatever particular bill is being debated at that time.

The member criticizes the motion in that it limits debate, but in actual fact it is extending debate. That is what “extended hours of debate” means.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time.

I want to speak about why it is important we do this. I have been here eight years. Every year we get a calendar printed in the fall that indicates with little stars the days we can have extended hours. Extended hours are not new. This year, I will admit, that we are doing extended hours about a week prior to when it normally would have happened. It is a normal process, a normal way of doing business in this House that I have experienced eight times.

My understanding is it was the process prior to that. In fact, there were years in the past when extended hours took place in the evenings throughout the year, not just at the end of the session. However, things have changed and this is a normal way of proceeding so we can get some of the work done we need to do.

We have added approximately 20 hours of opportunity for debate per week. That is 20 hours, so 40 members of Parliament could make 20-minute speeches with 10 minutes of questions and comments. Often people split their time. Technically we could get as many as 40 people of the 308, or whatever there is, of us at this particular time. There are byelections going. That would be 40 more opportunities to get up and say what the constituents we represent feel about a particular issue or about a particular bill.

We often get complaints that there is not enough time and that more members from whatever party in the opposition want to speak. This motion provides that opportunity for them to speak.

I would be the first to agree that likely at 11:30 p.m. there would not be a lot of people in the House. Some people would have said their piece and are not interested in talking about whatever issue is before the House, but there is opportunity for other members of Parliament to say their piece. That is what extended hours do. They provide opportunity for as many as 40 members a week. If we do it for three weeks, that is 120 more spots, so almost half the House would be able to speak in those extended hours.

That does not mean we are not meeting during the day, that we are still not opening at 10 and having debate all day long with a break for question period, routine proceedings, and private members' hour. All that opportunity is still there.

We are not limiting debate. We are increasing debate. It is important, in my view. We need to do this. When I go back to my constituency and tell the folks at the local riding association that we passed nine bills, people say to me, “That's it? What did you do the rest of the time?”

I did research on how many hours we spend on this. I think there is a better way of doing it more efficiently and effectively, and I may speak to that. We need to use our time efficiently and effectively to get changes made. Of the 18 bills that we have standing, a lot of them have not even got to committee yet, so all we need to do is move them on to committee.

Our committee right now is dealing with Bill C-13. We have had excellent panels come before us to talk about that bill. We have two more weeks of analyzing that bill, and I think it is an excellent demonstration of why it is important to get things out of the House. Each party has its say, a number of members put on the record their position and what they would like to see changed or why they support the bill, and then it goes to committee for a real discussion with debate. I think we should be doing that much faster, and maybe even providing more time for that at committee, but that does not work with the process we have here.

We are going to debate a private member's bill later tonight that talks about some changes in how we operate. It was brought forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. There is some real opportunity for further change. Many of us spend hours and hours having staff members change our schedules because we have to get coverage for this and we are here and we have to give a speech at committee meetings, so we have to have someone cover us here. I do not know what it is like on the opposition benches, but I know what it is like on our side of the House.

There should be a review of how we operate here. Maybe we should have all our committee meetings in the morning with the House not sitting in the morning. Members would not be missing coverage or House duty because House duty would not start. Maybe we should do that. Maybe we should start debate on different items after question period. Maybe we should have all the votes after question period. I know this motion does that, but if we were a corporation we would not be operating this way. It is not efficient. It is not effective and it does not produce results as the smart people in the chamber could do.

My suggestion is that the House leaders from all sides look at why we need to bring the system of how we operate into the 20th century, maybe even the 21st century. It has been a traditional way of doing things. I think it is time to look at all those issues.

People will ask why we need to extend. As chair of the justice committee I will give one perfect example of why we need this time. The Minister of Justice introduced the victims bill of rights, a very important bill to the House. Tonight we will start debating that issue even further. In this case, there are many members of Parliament who would like to speak to the bill because it would make some fundamental changes to how we treat victims of crime in this country. It is appropriate that it is on the agenda for this evening and it gives us an opportunity for many more members to speak to it because we have extended the hours.

I would like to see the bill go to committee. It is still at second reading. I fully understand why so many members would like to speak to it. Extended hours provide that opportunity to do. Then I hope it will come to a vote before we rise for the summer. That would provide the justice committee with an opportunity to get ready over the summer for this very important bill, to make sure we invite the right number of witnesses. A relatively large list of people would like to come and talk on what could be improved, what they like about the bill. I do not know if people understand there are only nine weeks in the fall session between September until we leave at Christmastime. Nine weeks is not a lot of time. It does not provide much opportunity for members to speak to this fundamental bill.

We also will deal with Bill C-24 this week. Many members in the House would like to speak to strengthening the Citizenship Act. There are some fundamental changes in it. If we do not get it done and sent to committee before we leave, we basically will have to start over again in September. People now are engaged in the topic and understand what is going on. There is debate in the House and then the summer comes. Members go back and work in their ridings all summer and they have to get geared up again when they come back here.

I think it is important that we get that bill through, and there are a number of other bills. The opposition finance critic is at committee tonight dealing with the implementation bill, which is a significant bill. There is a lot of discussion about what is happening with that.

We need to be able to move forward, and there is nothing wrong with working late. I heard from the leader of the Green Party and the previous speaker. I do not think there is a lot of opposition to working late on these particular items because it does provide opportunity.

We have heard a little on who can bring forward certain motions, and the opposition is not happy about that. However, the whole concept of adding hours is to make the place a little more efficient and not bogged down with procedural motions, because that is what slows us down here.

There is a place for procedure. As chair of the justice committee, I understand that there needs to be procedure and it can move efficiently and effectively. Those rules are in place for a purpose, and I believe they have a role to play here, but we need to move forward.

There are nine bills, and to be frank about it, there are 18 bills still on the order paper from the government now. We have nine weeks in the fall and then we come to the last session before we break in 2015, and we know we will not be coming back before an election. We do not have a lot of time left from the government's perspective to get the legislation through the House, through the Senate, to royal assent, and into law. Once it becomes law, it then takes time to implement.

In Ontario, I talk to a grade 5 civics class and a grade 10 civics class. They ask how long it takes to get a law through. I am honest with them. I tell them that the reality is it takes at least a year. Some bills are a little faster than others, but in a normal process, from the start when a minister introduces it in the House to royal assent, it is approximately a year. Then, it depends on what kind of law it is, but let us say it is on the Criminal Code, it takes a while for it to get implemented. Also, there are often regulations in other areas that have to be added before it actually comes into force. It is a slow process to begin with.

With the process we have here, in my view, as a city councillor who advocated for the council to go from 17 to 7 for improved efficiency and effectiveness of the councillors, I think we can do a much better job here in the House of Commons for efficiency and effectiveness. We need to look at that in the future, but in the meantime, extended hours help us get our legislation through this House.