Mike Wallace

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 10.

Part of the presentation that I was going to make was toward the end of my speech. However, based on the comment that was just made, I would like to bring it forward first. The comments were made by the critic for finance, the former opposition House leader, about how when we all agreed, we could not seem to get anything done.

I would like to use today as a perfect example of why we are doing this. Vanessa's law was being debated in the House. Every person in the House agrees with it, in all the speeches we have heard from the Liberals, from the official opposition and from our side. We wanted to bring it to a vote today. We wanted the debate to collapse so we could have the opportunity to vote on it after question period tomorrow, based on the rules we have.

What happened today is exactly the problem with this place. The New Democratic Party put up speaker after speaker saying the same thing. They all agreed that they were supportive of the bill. This bill is not at third reading. We are not yet making it law in the House and sending it to the Senate for it to review the bill and give it royal assent. This was just to send it to committee.

We have spent hours and hours on a bill that absolutely everyone in the House agrees with. The NDP members said that they were interested in going to committee because they may have some amendments, which is fair and we should have done that.

I was prepared, when the debate collapsed, to move that the vote would happen tomorrow. I sat ready to go in front of the Speaker at the time to make that happen, but there was speaker after speaker. Then they complain that we do not put enough people up. It is because we have said what we had to say on the Conservative side. We know where we stand and we want things to move along.

I checked my notes to see how far we had gone on government bills since we had taken office and since our last throne speech. We have passed, all the way through all stages and received royal assent on, nine bills. We are praising that we got nine through, but do members think the general public thinks that is a good use of our time and their taxpayer dollars, paying us to be here every day, saying the same thing over and over again? No.

There are items like Vanessa's law today that we could have passed quickly, got to committee and got back from committee. Even if there were amendments, we have report stage to deal with those. They come back for report stage. We deal with them. There is a debate and a discussion.

Let us face it. We call it debate, but it is mostly speeches and a short question and answer period after. That is really where there is some debate on our positions on the different issues.

Members cannot come to the House and claim that we are not doing enough and that we are delaying. In the same sentence, in the same presentation, those members complain about us using time allocation. They complain when we say that this is enough time on a particular item. Then they complain when we add more time for items to be discussed. They cannot have it both ways.

I know the New Democrats think they can have both ways. They think the taxpayer pays for everything and that everything is glorious. However, that is not the reality of the situation.

We have only passed nine bills into legislation. We have 18 government bills still on the order paper. We have 18 government bills that we want—

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to the study of the main estimates for 2014-15 and all of the votes that were assigned to our committee.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate enough to be the chair of the justice committee. As members know, our government has a fairly extensive justice agenda. We are dealing with Bill C-13 at present. We have a number of other issues coming forward.

Could the House leader tell the House the effect that the extended hours would have in helping us proceed with our very important justice agenda?

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

The amendments or the member?

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do get it, contrary to the hon. member's question. If the police came to me and asked me who I called and what I said to them, I would be happy to provide it for them voluntarily because I have nothing to hide. I am not sure whether that would happen with my colleague from the other side.

On the voluntary piece, I have no issue with that. However, I do understand that once we get into that, it is important that people have the right to privacy, to say, “No. If you want to see who I've talked to and what we've talked about, if you want to see what websites I'm looking at and the information that I'm passing back and forth using the Internet, yes, you do need, if that's your decision, a warrant to get that information”. That is what is still and continues to be protected under the law.

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was. I do not think any of us on this side are saying that the information is not important. Why would the police forces or the intelligence agencies be asking for it?

The question is this. Is it important, is it voluntary, and does it assist the police in beginning the process of whatever investigation it has started, to help an individual or a family in terms of whatever they need that information for?

I do not think that anyone has said today that the 1.2 million requests are frivolous. The police and the intelligence agencies do not have time to ask for information from IP and telecommunications companies for frivolous reasons. It is important because there is an issue that needs to be investigated even further and it is just a start.

I would remind the House that this information that we are talking about has been provided voluntarily. Companies can refuse, if they feel so inclined. Then a warrant would be required for further investigation.

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for sharing her time today. She gave an excellent speech on this topic and it is an honour for me to speak to this issue. I appreciate the New Democratic Party using its supply day that provides opposition parties an opportunity in every session a number of days to put forward any items they would like for discussion.

Frankly, in the past some of the topics that have been brought forward on supply days I thought were very much a waste of important time that the opposition is allotted. However, in this case it is important. It is in the news. It is something that has been happening in terms of information that is out there and it is important for us to have a debate on this and discuss what the facts are in this case and going forward.

There is an important balance required between privacy and the ability of law enforcement, in particular, to be able to do their jobs. The Conservatives have has put in around 30 measures since we have taken office to improve issues with privacy and access to information regarding this and it is always important to have a balance.

There have been a few misconceptions propagated in the press or in the House and connections with what was in the newspaper and Bill S-4 in the Senate that talks about PIPEDA and a number of other areas, but I want to focus on what is in front of us today. The main question is what type of information our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are requesting from telecommunications service providers.

The vast majority of those investigations were agencies requesting voluntary co-operation. Before we go any further, it is voluntary co-operation. They ask and the service providers provide. They are not providing all the content of what an individual may be using or looking at through their IPS or service provider, whether it is a cellphone or the Internet, but they are providing basic address information such as name and address.

A simple example would be this. The police could look in the phone book. They know where I live. I know who is on my street. I have lived there for 16 years. Police might come to my door and ask if so-and-so lives next door. I have to say “yes”. I voluntarily provide that information and that is basically what has been asked for. I do not give the police permission to go into my neighbour's mailbox, open their mail, and read their mail. That is not the permission we are providing and that is being accessed here.

I would not expect the police or anyone else to be able to go into my mailbox in my house. I am happy for them to come to my door to find me. I think that is information that has been out there for many moons, but they are not entitled to go into my mailbox and read my mail. They can if they get a warrant through the judicial system that allows that to happen. That is exactly what is happening here.

The world is changing. In the late eighties, early nineties, I worked for a company and I had what was called a car phone. It was on a post attached to the floor of my car. At that time, there were few of us who had them, but times have changed. Now 21 million Canadians have access to a cellphone, they are texting and it is a different type of communication. There is no reason why we, as the government or the police force or intelligence agency, should not be able to keep up with the times. How are we going to do our jobs if we do not keep up with the times?

Many of my constituents think that government is always behind the times, and some days here I actually agree with them.

However, it is not about the content of this information that is voluntarily being provided. If a company decides that it does not wish to provide it on a voluntary basis, then the police force, intelligence agency, or whoever is asking for it, is required to go and get a warrant or whatever legal document they need through the legal system to be able to have access to that information. I have no particular issue with this. Does any of this information require a warrant? Not if it is voluntarily provided.

I would say that if there is any further detail about exactly what somebody is accessing through their email, who they are emailing and all of that larger data, even as it is grouped, is not allowed. One needs a warrant for that particular information. Megadata is not covered in the voluntary aspect of those requests and they would still need a warrant.

I think members will find that the information that has been asked for and voluntarily provided is very simple address information. The parliamentary secretary indicated a number of uses for that information, and I think that is appropriate.

I can say that if I had a loved one who was missing or recently found and officials were able to contact me because they were able to find, through who they were dealing with, my phone number so they could let me know that they had found this individual, I would be very happy for the police to do that.

I had my home broken into a number of years ago and we had some property stolen. We voluntarily provided the police information to contact us if they were able to find some of our stolen goods. In fact, the police did. They found it at a pawn shop and they contacted us. They were also able to track down the individual who was in our home and prosecute the individual for the crime against us.

This is the kind of information that is now available and required. It is address information that happens to be in an electronic format. It is not on paper any more. It is not a phone book on paper, but in an electronic format, and officials are able to use that.

The justice committee that I chair is presently looking at a cyberbullying bill, Bill C-13. We are just embarking on that study and as of tomorrow we will hear from victims of cyberbullying. We will also hear from police forces and agencies that protect children. I will be interested to find out how they feel about basic address information being provided to law enforcement organizations to help prevent this kind of abuse and tragedy that happens to our young people throughout the country.

I have great faith and trust in our law enforcement agencies, as I think all of us do in this House. I am confident that our law enforcement agencies are following the law that is on the books presently. They are gathering information that they are entitled to, which is given voluntarily to help them solve crimes. For information that is deeper and more informative that they need, they will get the proper legal documentation, whether that is a warrant or other devices available to them. I have confidence in our system.

I have confidence in our law enforcement agencies. I believe it is important to balance the issues of privacy and protection of the public. I believe our law enforcement and intelligence agencies do an excellent job for Canadians.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, that is one of the issues we will be facing in the near future. The issue of a famine is real in South Sudan. It will not be just us, but all partners will have to look at it if the food security issue does worsen over the next number of months due to the crisis.

Let us hope the crisis comes to an end and we are able to provide other opportunities for self-sufficiency. However, if not, it is a fair question to ask the House and the agency whether we need to do more in South Sudan based on the circumstances of the day. The circumstances at present are that Canada is doing at least its share, if not more, of assistance to South Sudan in terms of food security. However, as we know in other parts of the world, as circumstances change due diligence has to be done by this government and governments around the world to make good decisions on what is right for that community, that country and the development of the world.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I would not disagree with the comment that in conflict it is often children, women and other vulnerable demographics that suffer greatly.

The concept of allocating resources to help those individuals is a very noble one and one I think all governments, including our government, does consider. Our Prime Minister has taken leadership on maternal health issues and a number of other areas. However, where the difficulty comes is how. It is easy to talk about and allocate, but how do we deliver it to make a difference and how do we make change? That is why it needs a comprehensive approach. That is what we are doing.

As was previously mentioned, we need other partners that want to make a difference on the ground for those vulnerable groups and suggestions that we can take up as a government. That is the kind of approach that is not partisan, that we can take from either side: are there ways to deliver to make a difference, not just to say we spent the money? That is the kind of approach we would like to take and the kind of input we like from the opposition, or whomever has the ideas that would make an actual difference on the ground for those vulnerable groups.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development does a fantastic job in her responsibilities in that area and has a true understanding of some of the issues that face other countries around the world in her position.

I believe the point that the parliamentary secretary was making is this. For Canada and other NGOs, it is not all about sending money or sending food that is developed here or in other parts of the world and hoping it gets to the right people. As we know, there are difficulties in ensuring aid gets directly to those who actually need it.

The point is that we in this country, as do other countries, have tremendous expertise in making individuals, organizations, families and communities more self-sufficient, so they are able to provide for themselves. On the food security side, there is no better agriculture knowledge than what we have in Canada and we need to take that knowledge and expertise and apply it to those who really need it in other countries so they can become self-sufficient, rely on themselves, and reduce their dependency on the generosity of other nations to help them develop their own democracy and self-worth as a country.