Roger Valley

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I agree with the member 100%. The companies need help and they need it now.

As chair of the forestry file in our caucus, that is one thing on which I have been working. Whether loan guarantees are the answer, I cannot say. We have been working on it and gathering information. We had that proposal before our committee. We are trying to find everything we can do to ensure all forestry sectors are going to get the support they need.

The biggest thing we need to do right now is deal with the softwood lumber issue. Loan guarantees may be part of the plan. There is a whole host of things we can try to do, but it is not the only thing. We are going to continue to work on that.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I will answer the question from the bottom.

One benefit we have is our greatest friends in this dispute are the American public, and we have not used that enough. We can do more in marketing in their areas. We cannot afford to make our greatest friends angry with us. Everything else we can do from that level up is a bonus. It is something that we can gain in experience. We as Canadians have never been successful in marketing ourselves, the products we produce and how we can help Americans. We need to be involved in their trade.

At the higher levels, we try to involve ourselves. Our forestry caucus has been meeting with as many people as we can. We are trying to involve ourselves at the grassroots level. We are trying to ensure that the American public stays on our side.

The member mentioned 3%. How big this event could be if we get into an all-out trade sanction dispute is too often blown out of proportion. We are on the right track. We may have to raise the level of awareness, but we have to keep in mind that the American people are our friends, and that is one of the tools we should use.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the House for this opportunity to debate the issue of softwood lumber. This debate acknowledges the considerable impact the softwood lumber dispute has had on the forestry industry in Canada. Many points have already been made and I will try to reinforce some of these as well as introduce some new ones. Some of the key areas of concern need to be covered.

The first point I would like to make is our great friendship with the United States. We are both very serious about free and fair trade. The softwood lumber dispute is not an isolated one. Whether we are speaking specifically on the softwood lumber sector, pulp and paper operations or value added plants, it is important to realize that the impact of this dispute is wide ranging and has been significant to the entire forestry sector. When I make comments tonight on the forestry sector, I am in fact speaking about the softwood lumber issue.

I would like to take a minute to talk about the issues in my riding of Kenora. My riding covers almost one-third of the land mass of Ontario. Some of the greatest boreal forests in the world are part of my riding. This tremendous expanse of natural beauty and economic opportunity is our home. We have pride and respect for our forests and we realize we are there to look after our forests for future generations.

We understand the power of our forests. The modern world has come to depend on their products, be they lumber for our homes, paper products for our businesses, or the stabilization mechanism for our environmental initiatives. We have what the world needs and the world is willing to pay a fair price in a fair trade marketplace.

In the riding of Kenora we have two pulp and paper mills, an engineered lumber plant and numerous sawmill operations. These mills range in size. There are the very large operations like McKenzie Forest Products in Sioux Lookout, Kenora Forest Products in Kenora and the Weyerhaeuser sawmill in Ear Falls. We have medium size mills and we have mills right down to the family run operations that have been in the Dryden area for over 100 years. The Skene family is a perfect example of pioneers who came and took the lumber from our forest to build the communities in northern Ontario.

All of these operations have faced difficulties, and rising costs for energy and transportation for many years, and now they are faced with another obstacle in the softwood lumber tariffs. In some cases this obstacle is proving to be insurmountable. The American administration has decided to ignore parts of the NAFTA, our agreement that we negotiated in order to have tools to protect our Canadian companies in case of trade disputes. We have used this mechanism as we have negotiated a deal. It is time the United States did the same.

The action has kept billions of dollars from being reinvested in capital projects at our sawmills and our plants. Before the dispute the industry was focused and knew what it had to do. It understood the importance of new technology in order to achieve maximum value from our sawlogs. More than understanding this importance, the industry took action to invest in such technology creating a momentum for the forestry sector. Up to a few years ago it was not uncommon to read in the local papers about upgrades, new equipment, new plants being built and all this to add value so we could get value out of our Canadian trees. The industry had been enabled and was working with our fair trade markets.

Since the escalation and the adding of tariffs to Canadian lumber, there have been no new investments in our area. These tariffs will have a strangling effect on our ability to renew and operate our plants. In a world of increasing competitiveness, we must guard against threats that will render Canadian companies obsolete. We must not allow the American government to reinvest the billions of Canadian company money received unfairly to increase the American industry's competitiveness. Canadian companies have been responsible in reinvesting in new technologies. We must not continue to allow Canadian companies to indirectly subsidize the American industry which has not kept up with innovation.

With all that is happening, it is no wonder we cannot build the confidence of forestry companies to invest in Canada. In my home province of Ontario we face additional challenges with the increasing energy and delivered wood costs. These challenges affect the ability of forest companies to operate in a profitable and sustainable manner. Whether it is a softwood lumber sawmill or a pulp and paper plant, the entire industry is affected.

To illustrate the interrelated nature of the industry let me give a simple example from our part of Ontario. When the logs are sawn and the residue is chipped, they are sent to the pulp mill. At the pulp mill sawlogs are sorted out and sent over to the sawmill. Because of the great distances involved, the need for cooperation is essential. Thus, if one mill is struggling, as many softwood lumber mills are, the others are affected as well. This is the way business is done in northern Ontario. The strength of one operation is the strength of all. All operations need to be viable to support the others.

The softwood lumber issue creates a ripple effect all through the forestry sector. We cannot lose or slow down one aspect of forestry without causing job losses throughout the sector.

We need a resolution to this dispute. We need our American counterparts to honour their part in NAFTA. As a country we need to have confidence in the agreements that we have chosen to abide by. We as Canadians have lived up to our part of the agreement and we expect our friends to do the same.

At our forestry caucus we have been gathering information, talking to communities and companies. We have been working with departmental officials to find ways the federal government can become involved with forestry. We have been very conscious of the provincial jurisdictions involved in this matter.

We understand the provinces have plans to help the forestry industry. We as a federal government need to find a way to support the provincial efforts, to bring confidence to the forestry companies so they will invest back into their plants, their operations and our communities.

We owe it to the families. We owe it to all the communities that are dependent on the forestry sector for their livelihood. We owe it to a sector that is one of the world's leading exporters. We owe it to an industry that is responsible for the largest private sector employers of aboriginal people in Canada. We owe it to Canada.

By strengthening the forestry operations, we will strengthen our communities, our provinces and our country. The softwood dispute has carried on for too long. We have had agreements that have carried on for a number of years, but there have been no lasting solutions. This time Canada has succeeded through the NAFTA rulings one after another. We have used all the mechanisms at our disposal and we have repeatedly won disputes. We need our American friends to honour the NAFTA agreement. We need to keep Canadians working in the forestry sector.

[Forest Industry, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, forestry is one of the most critical industries in my riding of Kenora. This industry affects everyone in all communities. Hundreds of families depend on forestry to provide paycheques for quality of life in the north.

Abitibi Consolidated, in the city of Kenora, has decided to stop operations at the plant, permanently shutting down half of its machines and idling the other half. Many fear that if operations do not restart this winter, the entire shutdown will be permanent.

Forestry and logging represents one of the most important wage earning industries in Canada. My entire riding will be impacted if things are allowed to proceed without intervention from governments. Concerned parties have been working toward a solution for months but continue to be stonewalled in Ontario by high energy prices.

As Abitibi Consolidated contemplates the closure of one of the most significant places of work in my riding, I am asking the government to devise a strategy to work with citizens, industry and all levels of government to keep these Canadians working.

[Northern Ontario, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the government was elected.

This has been an important year for the people of my riding, who have seen progress for which this government is directly responsible. We have seen improvements in our infrastructure through the work of FedNor. Our municipalities and unincorporated areas have benefited from the government's commitment to create a lasting partnership by supporting their initiatives through the reimbursement of the gas tax. The people in northern Ontario will have access to millions of dollars of new money to support their infrastructure.

During the past year I have had a chance to learn more about our remote communities. The potential for these communities is enormous but we must do more to address the unique challenges these communities face. We have made important steps to strengthen our relationship with the aboriginal people. This can be highlighted by the conclusion of the national round table.

I have been fortunate to work with municipal governments, local roads boards, fellow parliamentarians and people in my riding to achieve such positive results. I thank the people of my riding for the opportunity to serve them. I look forward to working with them over the next year.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Northern Development.

June 21 is National Aboriginal Day, a day to recognize the contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis to the development of Canada. I am delighted to extend my best wishes to the millions of Canadians celebrating National Aboriginal Day.

In recognition of this important day, will the Minister of State please tell the House what the government has done to close the gap that still exists and improve the quality of life for the first aboriginal peoples of Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak in support of the 2005 budget implementation act. The theme of the bill is delivering on commitments. That is what the budget would do as we try to pass it.

These commitments have been designed not only to face the challenges within our nation's borders, but to meet global pressures and to support the ever increasing ambition of our nation and our people.

As the only G-7 country to post total surpluses in each of the past three years and the only nation expected to continue to be in surplus again in 2005-06, the government's sound fiscal management model offers a rock solid basis upon which these future commitments can be delivered.

Canadians expect nothing less, so we have decided to respond to such high expectations with an ambitious program promoting a marked increase in our overall quality of life based on five mutually reinforcing commitments: healthy fiscal management; promoting a productive and growing economy; reinforcing Canada's social foundations; enhancing the sustainability of the environment in our communities; and reinforcing Canada's role abroad.

The proposals contained in the bill will take major steps to deliver on all these commitments. What my opposition colleagues miss, however, is that the budget is an interrelated road map for sustained improvements to the quality of life for Canadians and not some à la carte menu with no relationship between one item or another.

The days when fiscal, social and foreign challenges facing Canada could be addressed by our government in isolation are over. The approach underlying the budget reflects this new reality. Unfortunately, our friends across from us, as they have on so many occasions, are clearly stuck in the past. I will give a few examples.

During the election last summer, barely nine months ago, the government committed to implementing the new deal for Canada's cities and communities. Canadians elected us so we could fulfill that promise, among others.

In particular, mayors and municipal councillors from across the country held forth in the hope that the government would be capable of providing them with two equally important benefits that no other government had been capable of finding of a way to provide for them before.

First, there is long term, stable and predictable financing. I spent nine years in municipal government. Always one of the complaints we had was the need for stable and predictable financing. This is something we will achieve.

Second is development of new working relationships between federal, provincial and municipal governments with a view to developing better long term strategies with a view to improving the economic, environmental, social and cultural sustainability of the places Canadians live.

How do I know this? When the Prime Minister first created the infrastructure and communities portfolio, what were we hearing from our municipal friends from across the country? We were hearing that there was an infrastructure gap rapidly reaching an unsustainable level, that our cities, the face of Canada to the world, did not have enough institutional fora to express their views to the federal government, that fresh thinking was needed on how best to ensure our rural communities could remain viable and strong and that new partnerships were needed among all three levels of government to begin to think about how best to move forward together.

While no order of government can be responsible for meeting these challenges alone, what has the government been able to deliver in response in less than 18 months?

In budget 2004 a GST rebate went to every municipality in the country. It was worth a total of $7 billion over 10 years. This source of funding will grow with the economy and can be used by each municipality for any priority it may wish. It is stable, long term and predictable financing. This is one of the issues back in my own riding. We constantly have to remember that this is new money for the municipalities. It is something on which they can count. It is something with which they can plan. It is something that is helping them to move some of their budget issues forward and take some of the burden off the local taxpayer.

Budget 2005 was a fulfillment of our pledge made during the last election, to provide 5¢ of gas tax revenue over five years with $600 million coming as part of this bill, rising to a running rate of $2 billion a year in year five and every year thereafter. It is targeted toward environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure such as public transit, water, waste water treatment and community energy systems.

We also committed to renewing existing infrastructure programs as necessary, programs which have combined to flow over $12 billion to municipalities over the past 12 years and have leveraged more than $30 billion in total investments by all partners. Moreover, we more than doubled our contribution to the green municipal funds administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to a total of $300 million for projects designed to deliver cleaner air, water, soil and climate protection.

All of this means that the government has crafted a strategy for helping municipalities gain stable, predictable, long term funding, to the tune of $22 billion over 10 years.

However, it is not just about the money. The funding must be accompanied by new partnerships and long term vision, enabling the transformation of these financial resources into a concrete reality that Canadians want and need. It is a matter of respect. That is why the Prime Minister met with mayors from some of Canada's largest cities at 24 Sussex last fall and gave them a literal seat at the national table.

In my own riding we had the convention of the Northern Ontario Municipal Association, or NOMA, with mayors from across the great north of Ontario. They had the opportunity to have a lengthy discussion with the Prime Minister on some of their needs and concerns. This organization has been in existence for 59 years and had never had that opportunity. The Prime Minister came to the city of Kenora, took the time to listen to their concerns and made sure that the municipal mayors and councillors were heard.

That is why the finance minister met with another group of mayors from across Canada in formal prebudget consultations. That is why provincial and territorial ministerial counterparts came together in November. That is why we will continue to meet with elected and other municipal stakeholders from communities across Canada, large and small, as they advocate for a place at the cabinet table, all this of course being entirely respectful of provincial jurisdictions.

If some politically motivated marriage of convenience between opposition parties would choose to prevent the fulfillment of these commitments by seeking to modify or defeat this bill, let me remind everyone of some of the reactions shortly after the budget was delivered. They will surely pay a price for changing their minds and rescinding their support.

The president of the FCM said, “We have been waiting for this. The new deal is now a real deal. It is a good deal for our communities and for Canadians and also a commitment to a long term partnership”.

The mayor of Toronto said, “Groundbreaking: the federal government has delivered respect and has been listening”.

The mayor of London, Ontario, said, “Fantastic for municipalities”.

The mayor of Saguenay considered it “a real godsend”.

It is clear that mayors from across the country, of cities and towns large and small, respect this agreement and look forward to the budget being implemented and getting value for the taxpayers and their citizens.

However, perhaps the denial of stable long term funding, and certainly intellectual focus, should not be too surprising coming from our Conservative colleagues. After all, their party ran in the last election on a platform that was almost the opposite of what municipal leaders and Canadians in every province and territory were crying out for.

Their commitments were as follows: shut down Infrastructure Canada, the focal point for thinking on municipal issues in government and the open door municipalities need for getting their voices heard in Ottawa; cancel all infrastructure programs but one, programs designed to meet the specific needs of both large and small municipalities; and flow less gas tax without any thought given to the longer term partnerships needed between all three levels of government.

In fact, who knows what they could come out with next, whether it is a further commitment to reducing the fiscal tools and productive relationships or a flip-flop.

Finally, I encourage all forward thinking MPs in the House to support this bill and support the mayors and councillors and places where Canadians live.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, recently there has been some uncertainty concerning the future of the urban multipurpose aboriginal youth centre initiative. The program is important to aboriginal youth across Canada, particularly in my riding. For example, the Ne´Chee Friendship Centre in Kenora serves approximately 250 aboriginal youth with important projects that help restore their cultural identity.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage provide the House with some details of her department's plans for the future of this very important initiative?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage--

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is one of Canada's key marketplace framework laws promoting both economic and social stability. Indeed, it is unique in its dual economic and social orientation encouraging commerce and entrepreneurship while ensuring that vulnerable individuals have a means of dealing with unmanageable debt. The statute has been crafted to reflect the balance between these orientations.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act balances the risk between creditors and debtors in determining how shortfalls will be allocated and setting out the circumstances under which a fresh start is warranted. It encourages the payment of debts while allowing well-intentioned but unfortunate debtors a means of eliminating their debt loads.

It has been argued in the House that former students face crushing debt loads without the recourse to bankruptcy offered to other debtors. It is argued that individuals with student debts are unfairly hampered by the bankruptcy system, forced to live with debt levels that would otherwise qualify for bankruptcy protection.

I suggest that these arguments present only half the picture. It is true that student loans are not easily discharged under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act but bankruptcy is a last option, not a first option.

Before condemning the rules and changing them, we must understand the rationale for their creation. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was amended in 1998 after careful consideration by Parliament to stem the increasing option of declaring bankruptcy rather than paying student loans.

In the years leading up to the amendments, losses to the Canadian student loans program due to bankruptcies were becoming unsustainable. For the fiscal year 1995-96 alone the cost of losses due to bankruptcy was more than $100 million. Losses of that magnitude threatened the viability and the continued existence of that program.

A look at the statistics suggest that bankruptcy was being treated as a first option by student loan holders. Many of the bankruptcies were filed shortly after the former student left the school and before any effort was made to repay the loans. Bill C-236 would encourage a return to this sort of behaviour.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was changed in 1998 to discourage students from taking the plunge into bankruptcy but it does not work in a vacuum. It works in tandem with the Canadian student loans program which is constantly being improved. For example, in the recent budget the government announced plans to improve the debt forgiveness provisions applicable to students who face the most serious hardships, including those who suffer permanent disabilities, while repaying their loans.

The Canada student loans program has evolved to ensure the mechanisms are in place to help individuals in financial distress, including interest free periods and debt forgiveness. Student loan debtors do not have to resort to bankruptcy. They can look to the student loans program and seek relief there.

Bankruptcy is still available for people in need. Individuals with student debt can opt to seek bankruptcy protection and have their non-student loans forgiven. This combined with the interest relief and debt forgiveness provisions of the Canada student loans program is sufficient to allow must students with debt troubles to become financially stable and capable of paying their loans.

If someone suffers from continued hardship and remains unable to pay his or her loans, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act allows a person to obtain a discharge on hardship grounds. To obtain such a discharge, the person must have demonstrated good faith in dealing with the loans and that the financial hardship will likely continue over the foreseeable future.

To be certain, obtaining a hardship discharge is not easy but it should not be easily obtained. Student debt holders must not be encouraged to opt for bankruptcy until the option for bankruptcy is the only possible route. They should take advantage of the protective measures offered by the student loan program and attempt to pay their debts.

This is economically responsible behaviour and it is socially responsible behaviour. It is economically responsible because it ensures that those who benefit from the loans make reasonable efforts to pay them back and socially responsible because paying one's debts back is a good thing.

Governments ensure easy access to loans in order to allow people to pursue a goal of education but we must not forget the taxpayers ultimately pay the cost of losses due to bankruptcy. Student loans are funded through tax dollars. Allowing easy access to bankruptcy and making that option more attractive than repaying loans unfairly increases the burden on the taxpayer.

Easier access to bankruptcy, as contemplated by Bill C-236, also poses a threat to future students. We have seen what easier access to bankruptcy did in the past, leading to massive losses to the student loans program and threatening its continued existence. The program is an essential one, designed to benefit Canadians today and in the future. If people are allowed to abuse the system, taking money out of it without any repayment, the system will not likely be sustainable.

Is it fair to allow former students to take the easy way out at the expense of taxpayers? No, it is not. Allowing students to pursue bankruptcy as an option only two years removed from school is an unsound prospect. It does not encourage former students to pay their debts or to use the debt repayment portion of the Canadian student loans program. It does not provide sufficient time to assess whether the individual will be able to capitalize on his or her education and earn a good living, nor does it provide time to accurately assess whether the individual will be able to pay back the money borrowed from the taxpayers.

Education is not free. It is a valuable resource and one that must be worked for and respected. Loans are provided for prospective students with the understanding that they will be repaid. The student loans program provides people with the time to start their post-study lives and build their careers before requiring them to pay the interest or repay their loans. We should encourage people to use these methods rather than opting for bankruptcy.

Change to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act should not happen in a vacuum. It should be handled as part of a comprehensive reform that is capable of ensuring continued balance within the statute and its relationship to other statutes. Changing this provision would throw off the balance and create disharmony between it and the Canada student loans program.

The government is currently reviewing the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and is preparing legislative reform options. The issue of student loans is being carefully considered and should be handled in the context of a comprehensive reform rather than a stand alone item. The government cannot support Bill C-236.