John Rafferty

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I was interested in my colleague's comments. Some of them I agree with. Some of them I think he perhaps might not understand, which brings me to the question that I have for him. He talked about taking advantage of the crisis. He is probably aware that usually governments do not use that for a positive effect. It is usually a negative effect. In other words, the crisis presents an opportunity to further the government's own agenda which is very seldom positive.

I wonder if my colleague would like to make any more comments along those lines on that subject.

[Taxation, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, people from Thunder Bay to Rainy River woke up this morning to more than 15 centimetres of snow. They are also feeling the burden of the Conservatives' HST. Snow removal now costs 8% more. Home heating is up 8% too. This means that people already hit by the economic downturn will also face colder days and dangerous sidewalks.

If the HST is so great, why is it already causing so much harm to the people of northern Ontario?

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from my colleague. He is a great chair. I have had the opportunity to be in committee with him.

Let me answer this way. It is not that we are against the aid given to Afghanistan. I personally have a problem right now with two things. One is the cutting of the aid in half. That is disastrous. Second, he says that the security has to be there. The government has promised it will be behind the wire and that is where the security will be.

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2010]

I don't know where he was.

On February 13, 2008, to get a little more current, the Liberal Party's position on Afghanistan was clear. The leader of the Liberal Party stated, “We say there is no military solution in Afghanistan”. That was in 2008. If Canadians are concerned and members in this place are concerned, it is with good reason. When will it end?

My hon. colleague was kind enough to point out that very shortly the NATO forces will have been in Afghanistan longer than the Russians were. The Russians knew it would never end and they got out.

I have a couple of rhetorical questions which do not require answers. Perhaps if there is time, we could get an answer or two.

While Canada's military role has been extended for three more years, possibly more, who knows, our aid commitments have been abandoned. That is important to note. They have not been abandoned entirely, to be fair, but they have been cut by more than half, from around $205 million to about $100 million.

We know that the Liberal leadership has recommended the three-year extension of the military role, even though the caucus members were not consulted on the issue. Perhaps I could get an answer from one of the Liberal members later. Was it the Liberal leader's idea to also cut aid to Afghanistan? Was that part of the deal?

We know the member for Toronto Centre was fully briefed on the details of the military extension when he and the Liberal leader were putting on a show in the House and asking the government things to which they already had the answers. Why did he not raise any objection about the deep cuts to Canada's aid budget in Afghanistan?

With whom does the Liberal caucus agree? Does it agree with the Liberal Party leader who said in 2008, “The Liberal Party is opposed to renewing the mission beyond 2011”, or does it agree with the Liberal Party leader now?

I think those are all legitimate questions. Not to leave the Conservatives out, I have a couple of questions for them also.

The Prime Minister came to office after campaigning on accountability, promising to bring decisions on military engagements to Parliament and a vote. Time and time again the Prime Minister has assured this House and Canadians that our soldiers would be out of Afghanistan by 2011. Of course, these promises, these principles, are completely out the window.

Why is the government breaking its promise to bring our soldiers home in 2011? Why is it breaking its promise on such a serious and important matter and not bringing it to a vote?

Among all the promises we have heard this week, and promises we have always heard, the most devastating for Afghans was the Conservatives' cutting of development commitments to the people of Kandahar. The Conservatives promised to build 50 schools, but only 19 have been built. They promised to train 3,000 teachers, but we have not even reached half that target. Many of those schools are schools for girls. That was a definite commitment the Conservatives made.

What else are we talking about when we talk about cutting aid? It is not just about schools or training teachers, it is about agriculture, political reform, judicial reform, a number of things. I wonder if the Conservatives could explain to the people of Canada why they broke their word. Perhaps more importantly, why did the Conservatives break their word to the people of Afghanistan?

In spite of all the rhetoric we heard today, the Prime Minister did make a promise, a sincere commitment, to allow parliamentarians to vote on these sorts of issues. That is important for people to remember as we carry on.

Moving on to aid, the $205 million in aid is down to approximately $100 million. We have not met our other commitments. The Minister of International Cooperation has been very clear. Everyone is going to be behind the wire I guess. I do not know what that means for aid commitments. Are we abandoning them?

The deep cut in aid is a serious issue. I am having trouble understanding the math. There is $100 million left to be spent on aid. It has been more than cut in half. We have a signature project, the Dahla Dam that everybody has heard of, but it is far from finished. I assume some money will go to that signature project. Half of Canada's aid, which is more than now is committed over the next three years, now goes to Kandahar. I am not sure what is going to happen to that. How is that going to be spread out across the country?

Aid is reduced by half and there are still some signature projects which the reconstruction team is working on, not to mention the eradication of polio.

Polio is still a problem. Having worked and lived overseas for a number of years in Africa, I understand the problems with that. We did not expect the polio situation to be finished by 2009. It is probably close to 97% or 98% done, but how can we get it done 100%? We will still have to spend money on that. That is the second--

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little reluctant to stand. I was enjoying the back and forth between the members. I hope there will be time for questions for me.

I am happy to rise on this occasion to talk about this issue. I listened to my hon. colleague's speech and he is absolutely right. If I end up repeating some of the things he said, it is because they are important.

Before I start reading some quotes and talking about aid, et cetera in Afghanistan, I would like to remind Canadians that if they are not fully engaged in this issue, they might care about the economics of it. As of Christmas this year, taxpayers will have spent $18 billion. With the extension the Liberals and Conservatives are talking about, it will cost another $2.1 billion, give or take. It may even be more than that. If they are not too worried about the whole concept of Afghanistan, perhaps people listening or watching are concerned about the actual cost to taxpayers.

One thing that has been very clear throughout the day is the concern in the House and across Canada as to when this mission will end. It is not clear. I have a couple of quotes that I would like to share with the House.

In 2006, when the Prime Minister presented his motion to extend the war until 2009, he stated:

This mission extension, if the motion is passed, will cover the period from February 2007 to 2009 when we expect a transition of power in Afghanistan itself.

I bring forward this particular comment because it seems to me that people who think this mission will never end perhaps have some good grounds to think that way.

On May 29, 2006, the Liberal critic for foreign affairs was talking about the Prime Minister's decision to extend our presence in Afghanistan at that time and stated, “If I had been in the House, I would have voted against it”.

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Right near the end of his speech it sounded to me as if the member was voicing the concerns of people right across this country. That is, when will it end or will it ever end? Is there any possibility?

I have a couple of quotes that I would like the member to comment on if he would.

The first is what the Prime Minister said when presenting his motion to extend the war until 2009:

This mission extension, if the motion is passed, will cover the period from February 2007 to 2009 when we expect a transition of power in Afghanistan itself.

Then a bit later, on February 13, 2008, the Liberal Party's position was very clear when it said, “We say there is no military solution in Afghanistan”.

I would like the hon. member to comment, perhaps, on those two quotes and to further talk about whether he thinks it will ever end.

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments about capacity building, but let us talk about non-military capacity building for a second.

I would like the hon. member's comments about one of the things that is going to happen over the next three years if the government and the opposition get their way, which is that the actual aid component, the non-military aid component, is going to be halved, or will be actually less than 50%. I wonder if the member would like to comment on that and how that is going to help build capacity in the country.

[International Aid, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after January's devastating earthquake in Haiti, Canadians responded by donating an unprecedented amount of money. Yet while Canadians were generous, the Conservatives are still sitting on a shocking two-thirds of this money. Now, as the cholera epidemic is claiming even more lives, these funds are needed more than ever.

We welcome the minister's announcement today, but when will the government finally use the money that is supposed to help Haiti and will it also consider deploying DART to assist the UN with containing the cholera epidemic?

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Madam Chair, I would like to change tack a bit and not get into all the arguments they are having. This is a question for the member that I hope he can answer at some length, if we still have time.

Today marked the third day of committee hearings on my bill, Bill C-501, which is an act to protect pensions for six million Canadians and their families right across this country. While there are some problems and some difficulties, we are working on them, and I hope that all the parties are working together on this.

One of the things that happened today was that we had a lot of witnesses from industry. They seemed very concerned that defined benefit plans are going to disappear or they are going down. They said, “Woe is me; what are we going to do?” I suggested an alternative and I would like the member to make a comment on it.

The alternative was the we have the best pension plan in the country that we can be part of, and it is the CPP. The Canada pension plan is the best pension plan we have. Everybody can participate. Everybody can be protected and, most importantly, the government cannot get its hands on the money.

I would like to ask the member if he would expand on his thoughts about the CPP and the value that it will have on an ongoing basis as we move forward in this debate.

[Pensions, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology began two weeks of debate on an important piece of legislation, Bill C-501. It was sent to committee with strong support from members of all parties in the House. I want to extend my thanks to my colleagues for that support, for their participation so far, and for their further participation over the next two weeks.

I invite all members of the House to speak with me about concerns, bring their ideas forward, and explore ways in which we can work together to improve pension security in Canada and pass Bill C-501.

Every member of the House represents constituents who have defined pension benefit plans and who are presently stuck at the back of the line when a company runs into difficulty. Together we can protect the pensions of six million Canadians who have worked hard, played by the rules, and earned the right to retire with dignity.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to pass a bill that will serve as a shining example for Canadians of how we can all work together in this place and do the right thing for the people whom we have the honour of serving.