Jack Layton

[Labour Relations, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government should be protecting the right of seniors to security and an economic future they can count on. However, now we see, with the government's interference in the current labour dispute, the real motive. The government is backing executive bonuses in the millions instead of standing behind pensioners and retirees who are trying to protect their future.

The government's approach on pensions is going to leave the next generation with a burden that it will not be able to handle, a social debt for the future. It should be our job to ensure that retirees can age with dignity.

What the government is doing is wrong. Why is it leaving people to fend for themselves--

[Labour Relations, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we have to let the parties come to an agreement. The government should not be getting involved so early on in the process and picking winners. The workers are currently fighting to protect their pensions. They do not have a choice, because the government did not do what was necessary to strengthen and protect the retirement pensions of workers here in Canada.

Why does the government want to impose a pension model that leaves people to fend for themselves?

[Labour Relations, June 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canada accepts and protects the rights of workers to collectively bargain. This is a normal process that should not be interfered with. With its special bills, the government is clearly siding with management and is taking away the right of workers to use legal pressure tactics.

Why is the government so quick to interfere in a legitimate negotiating process?

[Employment, June 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not have a plan to create jobs then. That is quite clear. Its only strategy is to prevent working people from the right to bargain. Labour disputes should be dealt with fairly at the bargaining table.

First, the government threatens back to work legislation mere hours after Air Canada workers used their legitimate right to strike. Then it turns around, takes a government corporation and locks out its own workers, preventing Canadians from getting their mail.

Does the Prime Minister consider that this could in any way be interpreted as fair bargaining practice?

[Employment, June 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the facts run counter to what the Prime Minister is saying.

Since the Conservatives came to power, the fact is we have lost hundreds of thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs. The latest data from Statistics Canada today confirms that the bleeding continues. Manufacturing, in particular, and the auto and aerospace industries are losing thousands of jobs.

When are we going to realize that the policies are creating low wage part-time jobs and killing the balanced economy that we have been building in our country since the Second World War?

[Employment, June 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the economy and job creation depend on four key factors: consumption, exports, investment and the government. Canadian household debt is far too high. Canadians are at a breaking point. Exports are declining. Corporations are no longer reinvesting because the tax cuts they are getting from the Conservatives are nothing but bonuses for senior management. The ball is in the government's court.

When will there be a real strategy for growth and job creation for our workers and our Canadians?

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the most frequent problem with this government, this administration, is a lack of co-operation and transparency when it comes to the cost of operations, such as the operation in Libya.

Can the Prime Minister commit to having his team work with the Standing Committee on National Defence to ensure that the same high degree of transparency and availability of information adopted by some of our allies will also be adopted by this government?

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

I will assume that is a yes, Mr. Speaker, but I guess we will wait to see the results of the vote.

Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs responded to our suggestion that there be increased humanitarian support for the people of Libya and gave confirmation today that there will be an additional $2 million provided.

Now the question is what is the timetable for that help and how can we be sure that the government is taking the actions necessary to achieve the ceasefire so that the help can actually get to the people?

Could we have an explanation of how that is going to be done?

[Libya, June 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want assurance that the involvement in Libya will be in strict accordance with United Nations resolution 1973. That means it has to focus on civilian protection, humanitarian assistance and diplomatic support for the UN efforts to reach a ceasefire so that there can be, ultimately, a Libyan-led political resolution to the crisis. That is precisely what the New Democrat amendments to the motion propose today.

Will the government support our proposals?

[Auditor General's Report, June 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the government is not precisely sure what the money was spent on, but let us just remind folks here in the House that even under the disguise of the G8 legacy fund some of this just does not cut it.

There is $1.2 million for benches, bike racks and flagpoles 62 kilometres from the summit; $1.3 million on sidewalks 85 kilometres from the summit; and $2 million on a walkway, docking facilities, landscaping and lighting 131 kilometres away from the summit, nowhere near the border. How can the government justify these kinds of expenditures?