Roger Valley

[Veterans Affairs, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in November of last year the Gerontological Advisory Council at Veterans Affairs Canada released a report calling for an integrated health system for our veterans, with statements such as these:

There is no time for extensive debate; there is only time to act. It is time to keep the promise.

Five months later we have heard nothing from the minister on his plans to implement this program. Worse, the Conservatives have presented two budgets to the House without improving the quality of health care for veterans. When will the government stop stalling? When will it honour its commitments to our veterans and implement this program?

[Status of Women, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last year, 2006, should have been a year worth celebrating. It was the 25th anniversary of Canada's ratification of the only UN convention on women's human rights, yet there was no celebration.

The new federal government has made some very disturbing changes to Status of Women. It has removed the word “equality” and changed the rules regarding funding for women's groups to ban all domestic advocacy and lobbying with federal funds. It has closed 12 of the 16 Status of Women Canada offices, one of them being the only northern office, in Thunder Bay, which was important to the women in the Kenora riding.

Many women's groups, especially aboriginal women's groups, will not have the necessary access to funding initiatives. Women in the Kenora riding and throughout Canada will be impacted negatively by these changes. Women's voices will be weakened.

The Prime Minister has said that he would respect and uphold women's human rights--

[April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that answer, but in his comments he promised seven years and we did not even get seven good months and they are back for formal consultations. They can use the excuse of the market in the United States, and there are lots of excuses they can use, but when an industry, one of the largest in Canada, is in crisis, the government has to respond. The government has to support and acknowledge the importance of this industry. It owes it to the forestry workers and their families not only in Ontario, but right across Canada.

When the going got tough, the Conservatives sold out to American lumber lobbyists and left $1 billion behind. That is Canadian company money and guess what? They are back now. There is no more money to take so now they are after the forestry jobs in Ontario. When will the Conservatives support every part of Canada and support us in our forest sector?

[April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on April 18 I had the opportunity to ask a question to the Minister of International Trade, and I will do it again here tonight.

In September the government announced its version of the softwood lumber deal. In reality, the deal was little more than a sellout to the United States, leaving $1 billion of Canadian company money in the hands of the United States.

The forest industry in Canada is in crisis and instead of recognizing the insecurity of thousands of families across Canada and fighting to protect their jobs, the government would rather appease its American counterparts.

Thousands of jobs have been lost in northern Ontario alone and countless mills have been closed down. Communities have been devastated by these mill closures. In 2005 Abitibi announced the closure of their operation in Kenora, 500-plus jobs gone. A week later in Dryden 100 or more jobs were gone. Last year, just one week before Christmas, the Ignace sawmill went down and 50 jobs were lost. This was a direct result of the softwood lumber deal and the quotas that the Ontario government was forced to accept.

Our communities in northern Ontario are dependent on an integrated forest industry. We need a federal government that is taking an active role in protecting and supporting our communities, not one that is protecting our competitor's industry.

It is not only the municipalities that have been abandoned by the Conservative government, but many first nations communities have been adversely affected by this shoddy deal. Many aboriginal people and aboriginal businesses are being hurt by this. Mckenzie Forest Products Inc. in Hudson just lost 90 jobs last month. Many of those workers were from first nations.

Across Canada 17,000 aboriginal people are employed in the forestry sector and 1,400 aboriginal businesses are impacted by this industry. We need to support these types of initiatives, not abandon them.

It is not my intention this evening to debate the merits of the deal, which are very few. It is however my intention to question the minister on the false sense of security the Conservative government tried to provide to the industry. Nearly seven months later, after the Minister of International Trade announced that he had achieved in this so-called deal, the Americans are back criticizing the operations of our industry. The letter sent by President Bush's trade representative on March 30 to the minister requests formal consultations regarding several programs in Ontario with which they are not happy.

The minister promised peace and now the United States is back with concerns over programs ranging from loan guarantees, which are essential to our industry, to initiatives meant to assist companies with construction and maintenance of access roads, and the list is long.

The Americans are questioning the safety of some of the roads we use and they are not allowing the $75 million that Ontario put toward making these roads safe and usable for the companies.

The letter also mentions a request for consultations on programs intended to strengthen our industry and ensure its sustainability, such as value added manufacturing. Essentially, the United States has taken issue with the Canadian industry ensuring its competitiveness in the world market, and our government is letting it. The extent of the sellout is becoming only too clear: forest sector loans; prosperity fund; $75 million for access roads; northern Ontario grow bonds; and Ontario wood promotion.

Everything that the Ontario government has done to try to help the forest industry and the people who live in our communities is now back on the table.

When will the minister admit that he has failed to protect the forest industry in Ontario? When will he stand up to the United States and stop selling out Canada's forest industry?

[Softwood Lumber, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the government is not paying attention to the thousands of forestry workers who have lost their jobs.

Clearly, the deal is bad for Canada and especially Ontario. The U.S. is attacking loan guarantees, programs that are necessary to help the industry grow. It is attacking programs that will help value added manufacturing, diversification, and the long term health and sustainability of the Ontario forest sector.

When will the Minister of International Trade admit that this deal does nothing to protect the Ontario industry and when will he start making sure forest policy is made in Canada and not in Washington?

[Softwood Lumber, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade has stood in this House and pretended that the softwood lumber deal would protect lumber programs and policies in Canada.

Yet what is happening is exactly the opposite. We have a letter from President Bush's trade representative attacking several programs in Ontario because the Americans are unhappy with them. They are even attacking a program to fund the construction and maintenance costs of access roads.

How can the Minister of International Trade claim that this is the best deal in three decades for Ontario and will he spend some time on it now?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre mentioned diabetes and other health care concerns that were forgotten by this Conservative budget.

In my riding of Kenora we have a growing epidemic of diabetes and in the first nations communities they are suffering. Children and youth, adults and seniors are all suffering and I want to put it in context. In many communities in the south we have services that can be accessed by the residents, but first nations communities generally have no services.

My question is in regard to the abandonment of first nations communities and what it is going to mean for health care. These people are suffering now. I believe it is only going to get worse, but I would put that question to the member for Vancouver Centre.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's fine speech one thing he said raised a question. He spoke about the regional agencies and mentioned ACOA. This budget fails all regional agencies. It fails FedNor in my part of the world, and we have heard no mention of this. For those who do not know, FedNor is one of the lifelines for northern Ontario as we suffer through the forestry crisis and a number of other things.

The member mentioned that the regional agencies would suffer the death of a thousand cuts. How can this can serve northern Ontario, my area, or Atlantic Canada and will this shake the confidence in the regions that have struggled so much? How is abandoning the regional agencies going to serve Canadians?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 21st, 2007]

With regard to the cost and outcomes of the on-site audit procedures conducted under the provisions of the Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) Program's claims processing contract: (a) what is the total number and cost, including expenses such as accommodation, travel and meal expenses, of all on-site audits conducted of the dental benefits portion of the NIHB Program; (b) what are the details about the types of fraud uncovered by any on-site audit the government has conducted regarding the dental benefits portion of the NIHB Program between 2000 and 2005; and (c) for each of the fiscal years 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, what is the detailed accounting of the amounts recovered by the government in each category of fraud as a direct result of these on-site audits?

[Canada Transportation Act, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask a question, but first of all I have to apologize. I did not hear the first part of the hon. member's speech, so she may have addressed this, but I will ask the question I was trying to ask earlier.

In my riding, in a community called Sioux Lookout, there are a lot of concerns from CN workers about some of the safety issues. They know a safety audit was performed. They know it was quite some time ago and they know that the government has that audit. The concern or the issue raised is whether CN has to sign off on this before it can be released to the public.

The workers at CN would like to know what is in that report. They would like to know what recommendations or what actions the government is going to take to ensure that if there are any deficiencies, they are cleaned up. The workers have lost confidence in the system and in the rail line they are using, so I would like to know from the hon. member if she has any thoughts on how we get this report out.

How do we protect the workers who are there, and how do we actually come to address any deficiencies if there are any?