Peter MacKay

[National Defence, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We are doubling the number of mental health professionals within the employment of the Canadian Forces. We have made significant investments through the legacy of care. We are locating mental health professionals at Petawawa to do exactly what the member suggests: to make them more accessible and to ensure that those investments are providing the service when and where it is needed.

However, the member might have missed that, because in his haste to point this out, he is forgetting the fact that he and his party have voted against every investment we made to--

[National Defence, May 18th, 2012]

That is not true, Mr. Speaker. Once again and as always, this hon. member is providing inaccurate information.

We are in fact relocating professionals to Petawawa, in order to have them closer to those members of the military who will need that support. We have had to do so because of retirements and because individuals have transferred to new jobs. This is common turnaround within the Canadian Forces.

We are moving forward to hire more mental health professionals. We, in fact, have a goal of doubling the number. We are moving rapidly in that direction and will continue to support those soldiers, their families and our veterans when they need those services.

[National Defence, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times in this House, we are proceeding with this important replacement of the CF-18s. There is a need to do so because an operational gap would occur if we do not make these investments.

The hon. member herself should know that these investments will happen over time. There has been no contract signed. There has been no money spent on the actual acquisition. It was, in fact, a previous government that entered us into an MOU to replace the CF-18s some years ago.

Now a very comprehensive review is taking place, led by a secretariat. There will be independent oversight and greater reporting to Parliament and the public, and we are moving ahead on that basis.

[National Defence, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we will not speculate. What I would suggest is that the member take a look at the recommendations that will be coming out when the secretariat has a chance to bring all of these departments together to look at this important procurement project.

I would also suggest and encourage him to support this important replacement of the CF-18. This is a very major investment for our country. It is great for the aerospace industry. It will ensure that we have the ability to participate in Norad and NATO missions in the future. That is why we are pursuing this important replacement project, as we are on a number of fronts when it comes to our military.

[The Budget, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, to the member from sarcastic inaccuracies, we will continue to look at this recommendation from the Department of Justice and we will make a decision. That is the way things are done.

[National Defence, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is still false, as it has always been.

We provided the cost of the Libya mission in October. It was correct. We provided the cost of certain equipment for the Canadian Forces. It was correct.

Clearly, the hon. member does not want to accept reality.

While I am at it, it is very unfortunate that we have not seen the type of support and enthusiasm for the Canadian Forces while in opposition, because we certainly did not see it when the Liberals were in government.

[National Defence, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done at the Department of National Defence under this government. We have seen the budget rise by over $1 billion annually.

With respect to the costs that he is referring to, he is doing what he has been doing for some time now, deliberately giving misinformation, deliberately attributing things to this government that he has in fact said.

I have been nothing but upfront and honest on this file. The figures that were given in October were the figures to date. The figures provided last week were the final cost figures.

I will give the hon. member numbers: third party, third row.

[National Defence, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is still the same. The amount that I gave at the time was the cost of the mission at that particular moment.

Let me read from the transcript. I went on to say, “I'm giving you that number with the proviso that there could be more costs that come in after the fact. The fact that we are now ramping down the mission, bringing back significant equipment and personnel, some 650 were there, we have a ship in the area, we have aircraft, fighter aircraft, patrol aircraft, refuellers.”

All of this is on the record. All of this is missing from the accusations coming from the members opposite and conveniently from one of the networks that reported this.

[National Defence, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said a moment ago, the figure of under $50 million that was given in October was the actual cost that we had received from the department. Of course, estimates are one thing and what Canadians want to hear is what the actual costs are. I provided that qualification at the time. I said there were more costs to be reported. Of course, bringing all of those ships back and bringing the personnel back does cost money.

What is important here is that this was a tremendous investment to help the people of Libya, who were being exploited and murdered by their own government. That is why Canadians were there. That is why we are in Afghanistan. That is why we will continue to make these investments.

[National Defence, May 14th, 2012]

Well, Mr. Speaker, he is still at it because on October 13, what I clearly communicated was the cost of the mission to date. I went on to say in the same interview there would be more costs. Then in May we reported the full costs in Parliament. All of that, of course, was conveniently absent from the member's question and conveniently absent from much of the reporting in the last few days.