NDP wants probe into 'breach' of Layton's right to speak in [Cdn] House

[iverglas]

http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041201/CPN/24259019
(emphasis added)

OTTAWA (CP) - Jack Layton was forced to limit his questions on missile defence Wednesday in the House of Commons, a situation his party says breached his privilege.

The NDP leader was trying to question the Liberal government about missile defence, each time prefacing his question by saying he talked to either U.S. President George W. Bush or State Secretary Colin Powell about the issue. He was hooted down each time, first by Conservatives, then by both Tory and Liberal MPs.

... He did manage to reveal that Powell told him the U.S. missile defence program will involve weapons in space to shoot down incoming missiles, a possibility Prime Minister Paul Martin's government has always said it opposes.

Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew repeated that stand in answer to Layton's questions.

Jack had promised to disclose publicly what was said to him by Bush and his officials during conversations at the dinner held for Bush in Ottawa yesterday. It seems that he'll have to do it somewhere other than in the House of Commons.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041201.wmiss1201/BNStory/Front
(emphasis added)

Outlining his foreign policy objectives in Halifax, Mr. Bush said that a missile shield is a crucial part of his overall strategy of protecting the continent.

"Our two countries are working together every day, every day to keep our people safe," he said. “I hope we'll also move forward on ballistic missile defence co-operation to protect the next generation of Canadians and Americans from the threats we know will arise."

... New Democratic Leader Jack Layton was met with repeated roars of derision as he tried to ask a question about missile defence. When finally able to speak he urged the government to refuse participation.

"With the evidence now absolutely clear that this is weaponization of space, will the Prime Minister say no and say no now?"

This bit of the story has been getting international notice:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-12/02/content_2284499.htm

[MrPrax]

1. CTV and CBC had advance marching orders...

So the spin is...

Martin, having promised debate, decided that the NDP leader was 'out of line', to play down widespread opposition to Moron's Halifax speech

martin is scum

[Maple]

2. Difficult question

I agree with what Layton says, and where he tried to say it.

On the other hand, Canada is in NORAD and therefore already partly responsible for air defence over North America.

If we opt out of this, then the US will go ahead anyway...'guarding' us whether we want it or not, and we won't even know what's being done. Or what's being installed, or what it does. No information at all.

Had Bush been defeated, this question wouldn't have arisen. But now we have to be diplomatic and keep a foot in the door, and an eye on things, for another 4 years.

[Lautremont]

3. We won't know anything anyway.

The choice is one of maintaining or not maintaining our integrity. That's all. By saying "no thanks" we'd maintain it; by saying "no thanks, and by the way fuck you" we'd look cool in the bargain.

[Maple]

4. Yes we'd know

but only if we're at the table.

Ignorance won't make us look cool.

[Minstrel Boy]

5. Being "at the table" is no argument to do the wrong thing.

You could say it's to make our voice heard. What is the virtue in that, if all we are allowed to say is "Yes sir"?

[Maple]

6. We aren't required

to 'do' anything. But we certainly need to know what's going on.

Otherwise we won't know where anything is, or what it does.

Would you rather be in ignorance about what they're doing around OUR country?

[Minstrel Boy]

7. I would rather have a government

which does more than passively acquiesce to "knowing" what they are doing around our country.

If that is the best Martin can do, then we may as well give the Americans the keys right now.

[Maple]

8. Well you'll never

have an NDP government, and I'm sure you don't want a Harper one, so you'll just have to make do with a compromise.

We can't get them removed 4 years from now if we don't know where they are or what they do.

[Minstrel Boy]

9. I can live with compromises.

It's capitulation I have a problem with.

And btw, Tommy Douglas, the Greatest Canadian (in case you hadn't heard ;)) wouldn't like the tone of your "never."

[Maple]

10. Compromise is very Canadian

but we already have satellites in space, and many of them aren't there for the science or for TV transmission. Missiles travel through space en route to the target. And the outer space treaty allows weapons, just not nukes.

As to Tommy Douglas, and I was pleased with the choice, I'm sure he wouldn't be happy about the state of his party, but it HAS been 60 years or more.

I don't think Canadians will ever go left or right, and at the moment we only have one party in the 'middle'. So they have to tread a thin fine line on this.

[ilovenicepeople]

12. Here,Here! No capitulation for me either.

It's just a realy(REALY!)stupid idea this Star Wars stuff.More importantly it goes against a majority of peoples intentions (PEACE)in Canada,so democraticly speaking our intentions should be known."No Thanks Darth,We're going to stick with the Force doctrine."Now the proposed Pan American Union is something Soverignty saving Canadians should be talking about.

[whirlygigspin]

11. link

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1101903110340_83/?hub=TopStories#

link to story with video of the Question Period uproar on the right of the page.