Bob Rae

[Afghanistan, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would not agree that it is hard for many Canadians to reconcile the kind of rhetoric, which the government has used for a long time, rhetoric that was contained in the minister's speech that I quoted in English where he said that Canada could not abandon its role until Afghanistan was free of the shadows of Taliban terror.

Does he not understand that it is very difficult for Canadians to reconcile that with the statement of the Prime Minister who is now prompting the minister? If the Prime Minister ever wants to answer a question from me I would be quite happy.

[Afghanistan, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as recently as February, the Minister of National Defence said that Canada could not abandon its leadership role in Afghanistan until the country was capable of governing itself, free of the shadows of Taliban terror.

Does the minister still believe that?

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the government is trying to have it both ways. The Prime Minister's statement came right out of, whether it is left field or right field, it certainly came as a surprise to a great many people listening to the Prime Minister. He needs to recognize that simple fact. He also needs to recognize that from General Petraeus to Henry Kissinger to so many other people, they are looking at this issue in the broadest way with respect to the politics and diplomacy of the region.

Where is the Canadian diplomatic intervention that is supporting and backing up our troops? That is the kind of measures we need and the kind of help our troops need to do the job they will be doing.

[Afghanistan, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government can hardly pretend that the Prime Minister's remarks do not represent something of a change for him. It is not a change for the rest of us but it certainly is for him in terms of the position he has taken.

Does the Prime Minister not realize the implications of that kind of statement for our NATO allies, for our troops and for the mission they are carrying on? Does he also not realize that other countries are engaging in far more diplomacy, politics and reconstruction than Canada? I wonder what the minister intends to do about that.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as the media starts to look at these estimates and the government starts to look at them, everybody will understand that the government is in fact cutting and it is cutting in critical areas.

My final question is for the same minister and it has to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Despite the comments of the parliamentary secretary yesterday, the fact remains that the Government of Canada is cutting its transfers to the CBC by over $60 million, which is putting that institution into a crisis.

Why is the government taking away the voice of all Canadians?

[Research and Development, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, reading from the estimates, we can see that there is a $13 million cut in basic research under Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. There is a further cut of $2 million to attract and retain faculty. There are cuts in all sorts of areas with respect to science and research.

This is an intensely competitive area in the world. It is an area in which Canada has had an advantage over several years because of what governments have done and because of the fact that the Bush administration was not that interested in science. We are now looking at an Obama administration that is interested in science.

Why is the government cutting back on basic research just at the time when we need to be increasing our competitiveness?

[The Economy, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

It has become very clear on reading the main estimates, which have come out this week, that the government's right hand does not know what its far right hand is doing.

The government talks a good game about how it is important to stimulate the economy and how it is important to increase Canada's international competitiveness, but it is very clear from the main estimates that it is cutting back substantially in areas that makes no sense.

Why is the Government of Canada cutting $150 million from the--

[The Economy, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can bluster or indeed move over as far as he wants in talking to it. It will have no effect.

The simple fact of the matter is that in the survey of business, which was contained in The Globe and Mail on Monday, the universal view of business leaders was very clear. That universal view was their main concern, their principal preoccupation, was the absence of credit. It is the lack of credit which is choking our system.

The simple question is this. Why are the credit measures that he talks about, that he blusters about and throws in front of us, not contained in Bill C-10?

[The Economy, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Around the world business leaders are indicating that the key issue for them is credit. Last night the President of the United States repeated this point when he said that the lifeblood of the new economy was credit.

Could the Minister of Finance please explain to us why there is no reference to this question and why did the government not deal with this question in Bill C-10?

[China, February 23rd, 2009]

I knew Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. Speaker, and none of those members is John Diefenbaker.

Every prime minister since John Diefenbaker has engaged with China and has paid attention to this relationship. The present Prime Minister is the first prime minister we have had who is not engaged with China and who has not dealt with this relationship.

The president of China is going to be present at the conference of the G20 that is taking place in London. Does the Prime Minister and the minister not realize how serious a mistake this is with respect to building that relationship?