John McCallum

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2011]

With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's Economic Action Plan funding for affordable housing, for every project funded, what is: (a) the name of the project; (b) the location of the project; (c) the program under which the project was funded; (d) the amount of federal funding broken down as (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan with conditions; (e) the amount of funding from other organizations or governments; (f) the amount actually spent; and (g) the expiry date of the funding?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2011]

With regard to the full colour backdrops used by the government for announcements, such as but not limited to the announcement regarding Canada’s response to the Major inquiry, for each backdrop purchased: (a) what were the date(s) (i) the tender was issued for the backdrop, (ii) the contract was signed, (iii) the backdrop was delivered; (b) what was the cost of the backdrop; (c) for what announcement was the backdrop used; (d) which department paid for the backdrop; and (e) on which dates was the backdrop used?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2011]

With regard to every project approved under the Economic Action Plan that was subsequently rescoped: (a) where is the project located; (b) on what date was the project originally approved; (c) on what date was the project rescoped; (d) what changes were made to the project; (e) how much federal funding was allocated to the project (i) before it was rescoped, (ii) after it was rescoped; and (f) what was the rationale for rescoping the project?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 31st, 2011]

With regard to the government’s planned announcement of a new North American security perimeter, for every meeting between Ministers, their staff or senior bureaucrats related to the announcement: (a) what was the date of the meeting; (b) who participated (i) from the Canadian side, (ii) from the American side; and (c) what was the location of the meeting?

[York Regional Police, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate retiring York Regional Police Chief Armand La Barge for his extraordinary achievements and service to the citizens of York Region. I also congratulate newly installed Chief Eric Jolliffe.

Under Chief La Barge's watch, York Region enjoyed one of Canada's lowest crime rates. He radically increased the number of visible minority officers at all ranks to much better reflect the face of our community. He also embraced and celebrated York Region's multiculturalism.

Chief La Barge's legacy is reflected in the countless events in recent months to honour his achievements as chief.

I would also like to welcome York Region's new chief of police, Eric Jolliffe. Chief Jolliffe, I know, will continue to build on the great foundation laid by his predecessor and will take York Regional Police to the next level.

On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate them both and look forward to working with the new chief.

[Railway Service, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, shippers have already waited during three long years of review and the time for the government to act is right now.

The shippers have been complaining for years that the rail companies overcharge and under-perform.

Why does the government not take immediate legislative measures to fill the gaps in this service?

[Railway Service, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government's own review panel found that the central cause of inadequate railway service is excessive railway market power. No one in farming, forestry or mining thinks that this power will magically disappear in the coming years.

Instead of waiting three valuable years, why will the government not immediately legislate to counteract excessive railway market power and ensure shippers receive the rail service that they need and deserve?

[Committees of the House, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, in relation to Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 7th, 2010]

With regard to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation's Economic Action Plan funding for affordable housing, for every project funded: (a) what is the project's name; (b) where is the project located; (c) from what program did the project's funding come; (d) what was the project's federal funding component, broken down by (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan with conditions; (e) what amount of funding came from organizations or governments other than the federal government; (f) what was the amount actually spent; and (g) what is or was the expiry date of the funding?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this subject. As was the case for my colleague, I also support the bill. The Liberal Party will support sending it for second reading.

In particular, when I was defence minister, I had the privilege of dealing with the Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer, whose report provided the foundation for this bill. I remember thinking he was an extremely fine and bright man with a keen sense of justice in what was right and fair. Knowing that he was the author of this bill, in many ways, reinforces my support for it, although not even Antonio Lamer was infallible. Therefore, there may be amendments at committee, but we certainly will vote to send it to committee.

That reminds me of another fine gentleman I knew when I was at defence, and that is Alan Williams, the former assistant deputy minister. While in a somewhat different category from Antonio Lamer, he was nevertheless a fine public servant and extremely able in the area of procurement.

In terms of the justice of the argument of the other side, Alan Williams, a very able man, has no axe to grind. He is retired. He is not a Liberal, to my knowledge. He is only speaking truth. Therefore, I think he is more credible than the current ADM, who is constrained by the powers that be. If he wants to hold his job, he has to say what his bosses want him to say, whereas Alan Williams, who is now entirely free from any constraint of that nature, said extremely clearly that we had absolutely no obligation to purchase this F-35. He said that we had absolutely no role in the American competition and we would be far better placed to go for a competitive bid. That way, according to Alan Williams, the taxpayers of Canada would likely save something in the order of $3 billion, which may not be a lot of money from the point of view of the government. However, from our point of view, that is a lot of taxpayer money which it is wasting through not going to a competition and insisting on going sole-source.

That is my brief reference both to Antonio Lamer, the father of this bill, and Alan Williams, the father of common sense when it comes to procurement.

However, let me now return more narrowly to the bill, as the parliamentary secretary has urged us to do. To ensure that the Canadian court martial system remains effective, fair and transparent, the military justice system must be reformed. Currently there are disparities between the military and the civil justice systems. Although we realize the need for the military and civil justice systems to be different in some respects, as they answer to different circumstances, both systems should be as similar as possible. One example of this is allowing for the security of tenure for military judges until their retirement. This is the case in the civil justice system and we believe it should also be the case in the military justice system.

As well, the addition of new sentences such as absolute discharge, intermittent sentences and restitution are positive steps toward developing a much fairer system.

We have concerns about clause 50 of the bill, which indicates that the size of the accommodations available will determine whether a hearing will be public or private. We do not believe that the size of a room should be the only determining factor.

Clause 101 refers to the review of this bill. We are in favour of a review; however, the review will not be conducted until seven years after the bill is passed. We are of the opinion that seven years may be too long in certain circumstances. If we consider Bill C-25, to which I referred earlier, the review took place five years after the bill was passed. However, we are still in the process of discussing the results of this review today, mainly because of the Conservatives' failure to act.

We certainly hope that, if additional changes were needed in this bill after it were passed, they would be made much more quickly and effectively than what we have seen to date.

As I said at the beginning of my comments, I have a profound respect for the late Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer who was indeed the father of this bill. For that reason, I am particularly pleased to say that the Liberal party will vote in favour of sending this bill for second reading.