Peter MacKay

[Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, copies of the 2006-2007 annual report of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.

[Atlantic Accord, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my colleague has his facts wrong. There will be, obviously, legislation forthcoming in the fall. There will be budget amendments tabled in November.

The reality is on this subject matter that Nova Scotians are happy and the government of Nova Scotia is very happy. The premier has spoken on this. The former premier, John Hamm, has spoken on this. Nova Scotians are well served by the flexible and fair approach taken by this government.

[National Defence, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that the previous government did not do enough. This government is doing enough and we have acted quickly.

I thank the Auditor General for her report. I met with her yesterday specifically on this issue. This government, along with others, has worked very closely on this issue. By 2009 we will have $100 million poured into the issues of mental health. This will allow us to double the current personnel, adding more than 200 mental health care professionals. We do rigorous pre- and post-deployment interviews. Questionnaires are filled out. We are going to do more to support the soldiers.

[Afghanistan, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear, as we have been clear time and time again. The mission has an expiry date of February 2009, as per the vote that was taken in the House of Commons in the spring. We have spoken in the throne speech of the Afghanistan Compact, which runs until 2011.

We have committed to having a vote in the House of Commons again were there to be an extension. The member knows that. She is the one who is trying to confuse Canadians.

[Afghanistan, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member without borders for his question.

It is clear. The minister, the Prime Minister and the Chief of Defence Staff agree. They said the same thing last week. It is clear.

The member is trying to show that the government is divided. This is not true. It is clear: the mission will end on the same date for all government representatives.

[Afghanistan, October 29th, 2007]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the member were to look at the words of General Hillier, he would see that he has been very clear. He gave a very clear indication that there is no separation, that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever with what he is saying. He was referring to the building of a professional army. He was referring to some of the necessity of the longer term.

With respect to the mission, there is a mandate from Parliament by virtue of a vote taken last spring to go to February 2009. There is a reference to the Afghanistan Compact of 2011. The only person trying to cast aspersions on the mission, the only person in the House trying to further confuse the issue, is the member opposite.

[Afghanistan, October 29th, 2007]

First, Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts straight. The Chief of the Defence Staff never used that date. The member is making up that particular fact.

We have been very clear. Unlike the members opposite, who were part of the government that sent soldiers to Afghanistan not only ill-equipped but without a mandate from Parliament, as there was no vote, we have committed to having a vote in the House of Commons. We have been very clear on our commitment with respect to February 2009. We have been very clear in the throne speech.

What is incredible and unacceptable is that a member opposite who was part of that government would now stand up and advocate to bring those troops home.

[Afghanistan, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think General Hillier was very clear on this point. He said that there is no contradiction whatsoever. As the hon. member knows, we have a February 2009 end date. There was discussion in the throne speech of the date of February 2011 with respect to our signature on the Afghanistan Compact.

Those are the facts. They speak for themselves. The general has been very clear. There is no contradiction.

[Afghanistan, October 23rd, 2007]

First, Mr. Speaker, clearly it is not a secret. The hon. member read about it in the paper today, so it is not a secret.

As we have seen on a number of other occasions, private security firms have been used from time to time depending on the issue and on the type of training required. That is standard practice. It has happened under the previous government.

We are very judicious when we enter into these contracts.

[Equalization Payments, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement that has been reached between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada has been overwhelmingly positive in the response. The specifics the member is referring to will be made public.

The reality is that much of these charts, these projections, are based on assumptions. We do know that the legislation that has to be amended will include the Budget Implementation Act. Currently there are discussions happening between the province and Ottawa.

I just want to quote for the record what the Premier of Nova Scotia says. He is satisfied that the federal government will follow through with its promise and introduce legislation to implement the changes. Former Premier Hamm also said last week that it “fits very nicely with the original accord”. This is a positive outcome.