Anthony Rota

[Census, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' ideological census cuts are harming vulnerable Canadians. Nurses say that the changes will compromise programs vital to pandemic planning, such as for H1N1. The United Way says that it will prevent it from adequately targeting help to our neediest Canadians.

Will the minister listen to the groups and restore the long form census instead of tossing aside the reliable information they need to make the best decisions to allow them to do their jobs?

[Liberal Party of Canada, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this summer the Liberal leader and the Liberal express team were met by enthusiastic crowds in all 13 provinces and territories in over 165 events, covering 56,000 kilometres.

Our leader was welcomed by people who simply wanted to meet him, talk to him and have their photograph taken with him. He took all the time he needed to listen carefully to each person. Everywhere we went, the message was clear.

We heard that the government's priorities of planes, prisons and photo ops were out of touch with what average Canadian families really needed: help with paying for post secondary education; strong and substantial public health care; help with caring for sick and aging loved ones; a secure retirement; and high-quality full-time jobs.

Liberals will keep fighting for hard-pressed Canadian families by focusing on their real priorities.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a brief question.

I am just concerned about the blind faith that seems to be placed in a free market system. That seems to be the mantra that goes behind the Conservatives. When I look at some of the decisions that people are looking at, both Conservative and New Democrat, they seem to know what is coming up in the future. There is a clairvoyance there that I am not sure is founded.

The concern I have is the $300 million that is being spent prior to a decision coming up and relating that to the blind faith in the free market system that the Conservatives have. Maybe the member would like to comment on the Conservatives' view of the future and how they are spending money, and making decisions not based on fact, but based on this blind faith that they have in the market, and how that leaves Canadians vulnerable, not only locally, not only nationally, but internationally.

[Organ Donation, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the citizens of the city of North Bay, in my riding, who have the highest organ donor registration rate in the province of Ontario, at 43%. This is compared to cities like Toronto, listed at between 4% and 8%.

Currently, more than 1,600 people are on waiting lists for transplants in Ontario. That number is expected to grow, especially as more people require kidney transplants due to rising rates of diabetes.

In Ontario, anyone 16 years of age or over can consent to donate his or her organs and tissue upon death. One donor can save up to eight lives. Kidneys, heart, eyes, bone, liver, lungs, skin and pancreas can all be donated.

Citizens in Ontario can obtain an organ donor registration form by visiting their local Service Ontario OHIP office or outreach site. Forms are also available online at the Ontario Ministry of Health website or the Trillium Gift of Life Network website.

Once again, I would like to congratulate and thank those in my riding who have already registered to donate their organs.

[Fairness at the Pumps Act, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member hit some key points and I liked the way he mentioned Lyle Hogan. The Conservatives often speak about competition and they go back to Adam Smith in the 1700s and talk about small competitors and how that would be a perfect market.

When I look at something like this, Lyle Hogan gets thrown out. He does not stand a chance because the big companies can afford to bring in their inspectors. I am not exactly sure where Lyle Hogan is but I think of my small producer in northern Ontario who is far away from major centres. He or she has to bring in a private inspector, not a government inspector, and major cost is involved. How does this disadvantage Mr. Hogan as opposed to the big monopolies or the oligopoly that is out there in the oil industry?

Maybe my colleague could explain how it really solidifies the hold of the larger companies while really getting rid of the small competitor that the Conservatives say they are helping but who they are hurting tremendously by basically putting them out of business.

[Fairness at the Pumps Act, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie for giving such a good synopsis of Bill C-14.

As a northern Ontario member of Parliament, I have a concern about how this bill would affect rural Canada. It would really be very expensive to get an inspector at a small gas station when we consider the volume that goes through its pumps. When one is a small gas pump operator, getting an inspector in can take up a big chunk of profit.

One of the concerns of small independents is that they have to bring in an independent inspector, not a government inspector, to inspect the pumps. To bring someone in to inspect the pumps, usually from a large centre like Toronto or Montreal, a rural company would have to pay for the cost of travel, accommodation, and a number of different expenses. Someone does not just drop in. The inspector knows what is going on so the element of surprise is pretty well gone if we are looking to catch anyone. There are not that many small independent operators who are doing anything wrong. It is a very small number.

With all the added expenses, how would Bill C-14 guarantee that small independent operators would not get squeezed out of the market leaving us with only large producers in the market, making a tough market even tougher for rural Canadians?

[High-Speed Internet, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the goal of 100% high-speed Internet for all Canadians has been talked about for a decade, but the Conservatives have never committed to it and after four and a half years have done nothing to bring us closer to this goal.

Too many rural areas simply do not have the same access to essential services such as education, health care or economic development, that many Canadians take for granted, because these regions do not have digital infrastructure.

The Liberals, on the other hand, are committed to changing this Luddite path the Conservatives are leading us down. Today in Thunder Bay, our leader committed to the goal of 100% high-speed Internet connectivity within three years of being elected and to expansion of mobile coverage for rural and remote Canada.

The Liberals are convinced that all Canadians should have the same level of service, whether they live in Powassan or Winnipeg. We believe in a united Canada where urban Canada and rural Canada work together.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member that I will be in Burlington this weekend and I am looking forward to seeing his fine city.

As far as Stelco goes and the two locations, it is important to note and I did mention it, that the minister actually did write a demand letter asking them to open both locations, or demanding that they open both locations.

What we are looking at is how effective the minister was. They complained about the softwood lumber agreement saying, “We are spending all our time in court and we are not getting any action”. The Conservatives basically gave away the softwood lumber industry to the United States, and we had to kowtow to the Americans on that one.

All of a sudden they are saying that being in court is not such a bad idea when it applies to them. What are the actions? One of them opened up, the other one did not. There are Canadian jobs that do not exist in the steel manufacturing sector because of the government.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay is absolutely right.

When we look at where assets like Nortel started from, they did not start on their own. I spoke earlier about vision, about being able to see where we want to be down the road. Nortel is a prime example of where the federal government was involved right from the beginning. The federal government helped to develop it, helped to get it on its feet and going.

What we see on the other side of the House is a Conservative government that says, “Don't worry about it. Let the market take care of things. Leave it wide open. Don't worry about. The market forces will take care of it.”

Adam Smith is their hero, but Adam Smith lived hundreds of years ago. Things have changed a bit since the day when people went around in horse and buggies. We have changed. Technology has changed. Our needs have changed.

Leaving it wide open really destroys it and allows big multinationals to come in and basically take what they want and leave the rest. That does not benefit people in northern Ontario.

What I am hearing is that allowing large foreign nationals to come into northern Ontario without checking what they are going to do eliminates the vision that a Canadian government should be providing. The Conservative government is not providing any vision.

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to take part in this important debate in the House this evening.

I would also like to thank the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who gave a very good speech. He covered a number of important topics that affect all Canadians.

My Liberal colleagues and I firmly believe in the principle behind this motion, that the Investment Canada Act must be reviewed to give Canadians more transparency and accountability.

The Conservative government could have shown leadership in bringing Nortel and RIM together to create a new Canadian innovative giant, but it did not. The Conservative government should have fought every day in every U.S. congressman's, senator's and governor's office to fight buy America and prevent the closure of U.S. steel plants in Hamilton and Nanticoke, but it did not.

The Conservative government should have shown leadership in bringing Inco and Falconbridge together to create a new globally competitive Canadian giant, but it did not. Any country around the world would review these sales and hold those companies accountable, but the Conservative government did not.

Canadians want their government to stand up for Canada and help build Canadian champions. The Prime Minister and his Conservative government are abandoning our future, plain and simple.

Canadians want a government that offers a plan, a government that offers a vision: a vision of where we want Canada to be in 5, 10, 20, 30 years from now; a vision that looks to protect our jobs, our children's jobs and our grandchildren's jobs; a government that does not allow indiscriminate selling off of our resources, leaving us as serfs on our own home soil.

The Conservative government does nothing more than react to the latest crisis, selling off whatever comes up so that it can get it out of the way, hoping that it does not stick to them. Is it doing what is best for Canadians in the long term or simply doing what is expedient in order to get it through the next quarter? We know this is not a way to build a corporation. We have seen what happens when people take a short-term outlook into a corporation. Everything falls apart. It is certainly not a way to build a strong country.

On this side of the House, the Liberal Party supports foreign investment and encourages Canadian companies investing abroad. Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party believes in the positive role of government to lead, to create networks and to find solutions to strengthen the Canadian economy.

In order to understand the significance of the motion that has been put forward today, we should outline some of the history and background that has led to this point.

Inco, once a leading nickel and copper mining company in northern Ontario, was bought out in 2006 by Brazilian CVRD, or Vale. They merged, and Vale Inco is now the second largest producer of nickel in the world with sales of approximately $8 billion in 2009.

Workers at Vale Inco in Sudbury and in Voisey's Bay have been on strike for over 10 months, deadlocked over the issue of nickel price bonuses and pension reform. Local workers, as well as Liberals and the NDP, have pushed hard for the federal government to reveal the agreement and conditions for jobs and investment made under the Investment Canada Act when Vale purchased Inco. The Conservative government gave us nothing.

Falconbridge, also once a leading Canadian nickel and copper mining company in northern Ontario, was bought out by Xstrata of Switzerland in 2006. Xstrata most recently came under scrutiny when it was announced that Xstrata was eliminating 700 jobs from its Timmins facility. The Conservative government did nothing.

Stelco, once a major producer of steel in the Hamilton region, was purchased by U.S. Steel for $2 billion in August 2007. In early 2009, Stelco-U.S. Steel announced it would close its Hamilton and Lake Erie plants, laying off some 700 employees. Citing cost concerns, Stelco-U.S. Steel claimed at the time that it would be closing the two plants and transferring the production south of the border. This has been linked to the U.S. buy American clause, requiring stimulus funds to be used for only U.S.-produced steel.

On May 7, 2009, the industry minister actually did something this time. He sent Stelco-U.S. Steel a demand letter to reopen two plants, claiming the closure violated U.S. Steel's commitment when it took over Stelco. On June 13, Stelco-U.S. Steel reopened its Hamilton plant, but no change was made to the Lake Erie plant. He should have kept going. He did not go after it. He did nothing.

Nortel, after years of turmoil, entered bankruptcy protection in 2009. Since that time, Nortel has sold many of its constituent parts from its wireless enterprise and optics division to foreign companies. In the sell-off of its wireless technology division, the federal government was presented an opportunity to bring together Nortel and RIM of Waterloo to create a newly merged wireless company with RIM and Nortel cutting-edge technology. The Conservative government chose not to do so and refused to review the sale of Nortel's wireless division to Sweden's Ericsson, despite the fact that the Investment Canada Act clearly defined that a review was required. Once again, the Conservative government did nothing. The result was significant.

Expertise and intellectual property with regard to the next generation, as mentioned earlier by my colleague, the long-term evolution, LTE, technology was transferred to Ericsson. LTE is without a doubt the key to technology worth billions of dollars. Significant European and U.S. companies with more than 50% of all global mobile subscribers have declared they are moving to LTE. Among them are Verizon Wireless and AT&T in the U.S., NTT DoCoMo in Japan, China Mobile, Chunghwa in Taiwan, TeliaSonera in Sweden, Telenor in Norway and Sweden, and Bell, Telus, Vodafone, Nokia and Ericsson.

The motion we are debating today specifically challenges whether the Investment Canada Act, which I will refer to as the ICA, empowers the federal government with sufficient tools to ensure Canada's best interests of strengthening the economy and protecting jobs and valuable intellectual property.

A more recent example in the riding north of mine, Timmins—James Bay, the member for which spoke earlier, affects my riding directly because many of the people who used to work at Grant Forest Products live in my riding. Grant Forest Products is in the process of being taken over by Georgia Pacific. Is this a good idea? I do not know. Will it work out well? Is there a net benefit? I would like to think so, but the minister looked at things from a distance and what did he do? He did nothing. He did not check it out. He did not review it.

My NDP colleagues and I agree with the motion before us today that the Investment Canada Act must be reviewed to ensure greater accountability and transparency. We may differ on a few specific changes, but overall we believe it has to be reviewed.

One of the areas that really perturbs me is that every time we bring something up, it is mentioned that we have the Red Wilson report and the Conservatives say that all the economists will tell us that foreign investment is the way to go. Economists have different views and they will tell us what they believe in, but being an economist is one of the few professions where, if an economist is right just once, the economist becomes a genius and a guru in the field. The reality we have to look at is, what is it doing for our communities? What is it doing for Canadians?

Unfortunately, the Conservative government is not taking the Investment Canada Act seriously and is going by ideology as opposed to following the rules on what they should do, making sure there is a net benefit to Canadians. In short, the Conservatives have proven inept in their ability to keep foreign companies accountable for job commitments.

While my Liberal colleagues and I support foreign investment, we do not support takeovers that cut jobs indiscriminately. Unfortunately, the Conservative government fails to recognize the fundamental difference between foreign investment and foreign takeover.

I am out of time and will not be able to say everything I wanted to say. I just want to reiterate how important it is that we have an Investment Canada Act that allows Canada to protect what we have when it comes to natural resources, jobs and what we can offer to Canadians so that our standard of living does not fall to the lowest common denominator on a global basis.