Anthony Rota

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, fearing that his guests would get indigestion, the Prime Minister offered the community development trust as an appetizer to his provincial counterparts when they dined together at 24 Sussex. The government tried to pass off a few appetizers as a main course, but this program is not enough to reopen closed plants or prevent other plants from closing.

Does the Conservative government have a main course to offer, or is the cupboard bare?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act, February 4th, 2008]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-499, An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present my private member's bill which looks to establish the economic development agency of Canada for the region of northern Ontario.

The purpose of this bill is to promote economic development, economic diversification and job creation in communities in northern Ontario. An integral component of this bill is the inclusion of Parry Sound-Muskoka among the 10 electoral ridings that comprise northern Ontario.

Regional development is crucial to the people of northern Ontario. My bill is designed to ensure that FedNor will not be subject to any more cuts or face the threat of elimination altogether by the current Conservative government.

I look forward to the successful passing of this proposed legislation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Elections Act, December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's very interesting speech. One of the things that I find very disturbing is the fact that any smaller party or anyone who does not have the cash cannot run for office, and this will make it a lot more difficult for individuals to run for office.

When people are starting off, as the hon. member mentioned, they borrow money. As the money starts coming in, they start paying off the loans. With a wealthy party or a wealthy area, the candidate will get all kinds of cash. However, what happens is that certain areas will end up not being represented and parties will start to get eliminated.

Could the hon. member comment on how this is going to limit accessibility for lower income Canadians and lower income areas of the country when it comes to the electoral system?

[Landmines, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating the anniversary of a major accomplishment to which Canada contributed: the convention banning the use of anti-personnel mines.

Canada brought nations together to make our world less violent and to make peace possible. This is the role traditionally adopted by Canada over the decades and it is this role that has earned us international respect.

However, we must continue our efforts. Much remains to be done. For example, cluster bombs are another type of barbaric weapon in the same class as anti-personnel mines.

On the anniversary of the convention banning anti-personnel mines, why do we not take up the challenge of banning cluster bombs? That is a challenge that Canadians can meet.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member previously mentioned something about infrastructure. I come from a municipal background as a city councillor. I know what shape the infrastructure of this country is in. It is crumbling. Its averages about 85 to 100 years old. What we do is look at something that breaks underground and go from one broken piece to another. We put in new material in between, but we are simply waiting for the next broken piece to fail.

This is causing some real problems when it comes to the safety and functionality of our communities and the possibility of raising our families in safe communities. As well, it is difficult for us to attract industry when we have crumbling communities.

What happened when the mayors and members of councils of this country went to the government and asked for help? They got a stern sneer from the Minister of Finance. He told them to stop whining. That is not the way to treat municipal mayors.

I have a question for the hon. member. We have a very strong economy right now. It is doing very well, thanks to about 13 years of the previous Liberal government putting the economy back in its place. How long can we sustain a strong economy with our communities falling apart because we cannot sustain the infrastructure that keeps industry going?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government has abandoned Canada's largest province.

The finance minister has told the mayors to “stop whining”. While they try in vain to get a fair deal from the federal government, the government House leader calls the Premier of Ontario the small man of Confederation, even as Manitoba and Quebec echo Ontario's call for fairness.

Why is it that when it comes to Ontario and Canadian municipalities, the government offers nothing but insults?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought that up. When looking at the incentive to buy cars, the reviews and the actual impact that it has had, they have been very minimal. When we look at the number of cars that actually qualify and make a difference, it really is minimal. It does not make a lot of difference as far as actually encouraging people to buy cars.

In fact, when we look at the way the thing is implemented, if people are getting money back, it comes from the government. If they are being charged, it is being charged to the manufacturer. We can see how, when the government puts a policy together, it thinks more on politics rather than benefit to individuals and the economy. It is not about Canadians, it is not about the economy and it is not about individuals; it is about politics. It is playing the smoke and mirrors game, and that is what this seems to be.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if you would like, you could answer in my place. I would not be held to it, just based on the question.

However, when we look at the seriousness of that question of climate change, we have seen a long history of denial when it comes to the Conservatives. There has been one denial after another.

For awhile, climate change did not exist. It did not happen. It was not going to affect anyone. There was no need to do anything. Now suddenly they are new converts, but really there is no conviction there. That is probably my biggest concern from this throne speech.

When I look at the throne speech, I want to see vision. I want to see where we are going to go and I want to see some kind of commitment. There is no commitment there. When I look at what is going on in the actual policy that is being proposed, it is intensity-based.

There have to be absolute decisions made as far as climate change goes. There has to be some absolute targets. We cannot go on intensity. Intensity-based targets allow the economy to grow, which is necessary, but the percentage that the emissions grow grows along with the economy. Therefore, as our economy gets stronger, we end up pumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere. That is something that is clearly not acceptable.

The Conservatives are looking at solutions that were thought up yesterday, a long time ago, and they are not working today.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise today on behalf of the people of Nipissing--Timiskaming and offer my response to the Conservative government's Speech from the Throne.

On Tuesday evening I listened intently to the Speech from the Throne, eager to hear what the Conservative government planned on doing to address issues of importance to the people of my riding.

Unlike members of the Bloc and the NDP, I felt that I owed it to my constituency to take the time necessary to assess the speech's impact on my constituents and indeed all Canadians before deciding how to proceed.

In the end, like most Canadians, I was extremely disappointed that the speech included very little to address climate change, provide social justice or enhance economic prosperity and competitiveness. Furthermore, I was deeply troubled by the fact that the speech contains little or no mention of priorities such as health care, research and development, or education. I had also hoped to see a commitment to infrastructure programs for our cities and communities as well as regional development programs such as FedNor. Once again these were conspicuously absent from the Conservative agenda. In short, the Conservative throne speech lacked vision and failed to address the issues that matter most to Canadians.

In the interest of making Parliament work and doing the job that we have been elected to do, my Liberal colleagues and I have proposed a series of amendments to find solutions to correct the shortcomings of the Conservatives' vague agenda. We are calling on the Conservative government to take greater action on climate change, to announce now the Canadian combat mission in Kandahar will end in February 2009--that is the combat mission--to fight against poverty in Canada, and to bring forth proposals to help build a stronger economy.

When the Conservatives took office in January 2006, they acquired the strongest economy in Canadian history. They had campaigned on a platform of fiscal discipline. Since that time the Conservative government has raised federal government spending by over $25 billion. However, the average Canadian yet has to benefit from these expenditures.

Furthermore, the Conservatives recently announced a generous fiscal surplus. Yet they continue to make cuts to programs that have been proven effective and necessary tools in helping individuals and communities. The Conservatives have failed to address the five main priorities that they set out in 2006 in the Speech from the Throne. Now they have outlined five new priorities in the hopes that Canadians will not focus on the abysmal Conservative record over the past 21 months. Simply put, the current government is especially adept at being big on rhetoric and small on action.

The Prime Minister has demonstrated time and time again that he would much rather put good politics in front of good policy. For instance, let us take a closer look at the Conservatives' proposal to forge ahead with an additional cut to the GST. The cut is being made despite the fact that every serious economist in the country agrees that it is poor public policy and a misuse of about $4.5 billion in federal fiscal flexibility every year.

The Conservatives would like to have us believe that the cut to the GST is beneficial to all Canadians. However, there is wide consensus that the Conservatives' tax cut plan would largely benefit higher income families over those who need it most: low and middle income families, that is, low and middle income Canadians.

To improve disposable income and help build greater productivity, the first target of tax reduction should be income taxes, not consumption taxes, but the Prime Minister has chosen instead to raise income taxes for low and middle income Canadians to help pay for this regressive and expensive GST cut.

Tax cuts like these set the stage for more pressure for spending cuts. Low income Canadians benefit relatively little from these tax cuts, yet the Prime Minister and his Conservative government continue to window dress for a possible election.

Another example that the Conservative government cannot be trusted to implement substantial and long-lasting solutions to critical problems is its appalling approach to child care. During the last election the Conservatives pledged to make up the shortfall through a plan to use tax incentives to create 125,000 new child care spaces. Last month the human resources minister admitted that the Conservatives cannot and will not deliver on this commitment.

Since coming to power, the Conservative government has made the biggest child care cut in Canadian history, slashing $1 billion in funding from child care services in 2007 alone. The Conservative government's policy of handing over small amounts of money to individual parents instead of investing in a child care system is simply not delivering the support that young Canadian families require. This piecemeal approach to governance has become a trademark of the current Conservative regime. Canadians simply cannot trust the Prime Minister to produce a comprehensive effective solution to priority issues.

Further evidence of this exists in the Conservative environmental policy.

The Conservatives have an obligation to reduce their weak approach to combatting climate change crisis with real action. Canada will likely not meet Kyoto targets because the Prime Minister scrapped all climate change programs upon coming into office and then implemented weak substitutes. Basically, they ignored our obligations.

The Conservatives have admitted that their so-called plan would result in absolutely no reduction in Canada's total greenhouse gas pollution during the first phase of Kyoto and would not even be in place until 2010.

According to the C.D. Howe Institute, something that our Conservative friends can relate to, the Deutsche Bank, the Pembina Institute and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, the Conservatives will not meet their own far too modest targets and will allow the country's carbon emissions to increase until 2050 or beyond.

Under two consecutive environment ministers, there has been no attempt to move forward seriously and not even an honest and full effort to curb greenhouse gas pollution. In fact, one of the Prime Minister's first acts in office was to scrap a fully funded plan to meet Canada's Kyoto obligations and then do nothing.

This is simply unacceptable to Canadians who are looking for action and leadership in the fight against climate change and are being presented, instead, with a Prime Minister, and a government, who would much rather deny that climate change even exists.

My constituents are also looking for clarity on Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.

The Liberal opposition is committed to staying in Afghanistan to complete a humanitarian and peacekeeping mission. However, we must be clear and unambiguous in our signal to NATO that Canada's participation in the combat mission in Kandahar ends in February 2009. Only through such clarity can Canada truly be a valuable service.

To that end, Canada must finally say our friends in NATO and the Afghan government that the February 2009 deadline to withdraw our troops from the combat mission in Kandahar is firm and they have 17 months to plan our replacement. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have approached this debate with considerably more ambiguity. Their statements on this issue have been confusing and often contradictory.

Again and again the House of Commons we heard the Conservative mantra that the mission in Kandahar would not be extended beyond 2009 without consulting Parliament. Then, while in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister changed his tune. The mission could be extended. His government would not be bound by arbitrary deadlines.

Finally, we heard there was no urgency to make a decision about extending the mission because NATO had not asked for an extension. However, NATO's Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, obliterated that argument when he requested that Canada extend its combat mission in Kandahar, forcing the Prime Minister to change his position and claim the mission would not be extended without some degree of consensus.

In Tuesday's Speech from the Throne, Canadians learned for the first time that the Conservatives would prefer to see the combat mission in Afghanistan extended to 2011. This is in addition to the fact that an independent panel has been created to advise Canadians on how best to proceed in the given circumstances.

What exactly are Canadians and their allies to make of that latest position? This ambiguity has put our allies in an unfair position. Instead of being strung along, they deserve an honest answer about Canada's desire to rotate out of Kandahar. This indecisiveness can only be harmful to our troops and the people and the values that they are working to protect.

Constituents in my riding and throughout northern Ontario were looking for some substantial investment in infrastructure and with so little included in the Speech from the Throne to address the growing concern, it has become painfully apparent that the Conservatives continue to ignore the people of that region.

The people of northern Ontario want to know why the Prime Minister and his Conservative government continue to abandon them, and I believe that it is time for the Prime Minister to start providing some answers.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The Conservative throne speech lacks vision and fails to address the issues that matter most to Canadians.

Over the coming weeks, my Liberal colleagues and I will be working very hard to ensure the gaps in the Conservative agenda are replaced by policies that have a positive and long-lasting effect on all Canadians. We must remain committed to build a richer, fairer and greener Canada.

[Relay for Life, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize those who helped organize as well as those who participated in the annual Relay for Life which took place in North Bay, Ontario this past weekend.

This fundraising event, which involved over 225 cancer survivors, also served as a memorial to friends and family members who succumbed to the disease.

The theme of this year's event was “Cancer Never Sleeps”. Those who took part in the overnight relay will not rest until a cure for cancer has been found. Every step taken during the relay takes us one step closer to that goal.

The Relay for Life takes place in communities across Canada and is a celebration of life, a way of remembering loved ones and a tribute to the family members and care workers who help cancer patients through a trying time. On behalf of all survivors, I thank them. We would not have made it without them.