Jack Layton

[National Defence, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister understands the fear that Canadians are feeling right now. Canadians want the face of Canadians to be their own face--

[National Defence, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up this morning sharing a deep concern that many of us feel about the future. The American people have an absolute right to make their choices, but Canadians have a right to ensure that our values are protected.

The star wars missile defence program is the next initiative of George Bush's values, and is based upon them. Will the Prime Minister seek guidance from Canadian values or George Bush's values? Will he say no to missile defence right now today?

[National Defence, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister clearly has not even picked up the phone to call the President. Maybe he could raise it in his next conversation with the oval office.

Now, I want to speak about the so-called missile defence shield, a threatening armament system. It will start the arms race again, and that will be very costly.

Will the Prime Minister at last heed the concerns from all sides and ask the next U.S president to give up this dangerous idea?

[Privacy, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who refuses to act to protect Canadians in the face of George Bush's patriot act.

The facts are that the CIBC bank records of Canadians are in the hands of the Bush administration. The facts are that the B.C. privacy commissioner has indicated grave concerns and says that the patriot act knows no borders.

The Prime Minister has refused to lift a finger so much as to ask the United States to obey Canadian laws. How can the Prime Minister pretend to act when our bank records are in the hands of the--

[National Defence, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. ambassador said that the Canadian government, the Liberal Party, and the Prime Minister had not even picked up the phone to express any concern on behalf of Canadians. Some expression of concern that is, absolutely nothing.

On the weekend the Prime Minister gave the Danny Williams treatment to foreign affairs, saying one thing and doing another. He pretends he supports multilateralism, but at the same time is hell bent on pursuing defence missile systems.

It is absolutely impossible to defend on the one hand multilateralism and at the same time to proceed with missile defence. Why is the government--

[Privacy, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, inside and outside the House, the NDP has raised the question of Canadian privacy vis-à-vis George Bush's patriot act. We raised it in the context of the Lockheed Martin contract with Statistics Canada. We raised it with regard to banking records. Now the British Columbia privacy commissioner is sounding the alarm.

The U.S. ambassador on the weekend indicated that the Canadian government has not even asked that Canadian laws be respected by the Bush administration in this regard.

Why is the government doing absolutely nothing to protect the privacy of Canadians against the George Bush patriot act?

[Natural Resources, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I can see why the Prime Minister and George Bush get along. Neither of them is ever wrong.

I want to ask a question about the staff. We have staff in the Prime Minister's office who insult premiers. They lose premiers' messages on important issues. They cancel VIA Rail funding. What is going on is really quite astounding.

Today in the papers we read that the staff in the Prime Minister's office said that the premier would pay for just simply demanding what the Prime Minister promised. Why are these people still employed?

[Natural Resources, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians get angry when the Prime Minister gives them promises and then he breaks them. Liberals get angry. Premiers get angry, like Danny Williams whom I spoke to today. The Prime Minister does not seem to realize that he is the problem, not the others.

He promised 100%. He did not deliver. Could he explain to Canadians how it is that when he promises 100% and does not deliver, he is not breaking his promise?

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his comments.

It is true that the consequences of the decisions of the last decade have ended up on the backs of ordinary Canadians. The hon. member described the impact on the constituents of New Brunswick, and the fact that such a high proportion of them are now having to live in poverty. This is a direct result from the decisions that were made that created the fiscal imbalance, the decisions to shift the resources that belong to Canadians to those who already have, the people at the top, to take it from employment insurance, out of programs that Canadians relied on, out of support that should have been there, and put it on the backs of--

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and comment. There will be not only good debates in this committee, as the Bloc motion proposes, but also important debates to find the solutions that we need now.

I particularly want to indicate that we will be very active on this committee when it is set up, and I hope it will be as a result of this motion. There will be some disagreements, no question about it.

For example, it is unlikely that we would support massive reallocations of tax points from one level to another. We believe that as a country we need to have some broad objectives that we pursue together.

In fact that philosophy of flexibility in our federalism, the use of the financial capacities of the federal government merged with the provincial competencies for delivery, and even the local and municipal abilities to deliver solutions in so many areas, is the place where we find the best solutions to the problems facing Canadians. One could mention the medicare system. One could certainly mention affordable housing and many other examples.

We look forward to those discussions. We think that they could help to renew our federation in a way that needs to take place. We will be very active in that process.