Greg Thompson

[Charlotte County Ports, February 11th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should undertake a review of the Federal Department of Transport's role in the Charlotte County Ports Inc. quarry project.

Mr. Speaker, this is a continuation of debate that we have had in this House on this particular project. I think the last time we spoke in this House on this project was in December when the marine privatization bill was before this House.

I guess it would not be an overstatement for me to say that I am upset with this quarry project in the province of New Brunswick and some of the inconsistencies that have been exercised on behalf of the governments involved.

I am going to attempt to be as fair as I can to the federal government. To a large extent, the government's involvement up to this point has been marginal. I think it has been marginal for a number reasons, the biggest one being that the provincial government has never basically kept the Department of Transport abreast of what has been actually happening in that area.

To provide the House with an overview of what has been happening, the Saint Croix River is an international heritage river. It was designated a heritage river by the Government of Canada back in the early 1990s. A plan was submitted by the province of New Brunswick to ensure that this heritage river designation was in place. I was part of the process of designating that river a heritage river.

Now what we have is a group of individuals from the United States coming up with a plan to create one of the most offensive environmental undertakings that one could imagine on that river. They have basically been given a blank cheque by the province of New Brunswick to do so. Again, there has been a lot of debate in New Brunswick on this very project. In the summer months of 1997 it was front page news in all the provincial newspapers in New Brunswick for a number of weeks.

Recently I wrote a letter to the premier of New Brunswick stating some of our concerns, my concern as a member of Parliament and the concerns of others who are doing business in that area. Landowners and a group of international citizens called the Saint Croix River citizens committee have taken offence to what the government in the province of New Brunswick wants to do there.

This story goes back a number of years to when a company from Nova Scotia, related by the way to the leader of the NDP, the L.E. Shaw group of companies, a very reputable company I might add, proposed doing a similar type of business, a quarrying business on the banks of the Saint Croix River in the Bayside Ports area. The company, Shaw Industries Limited, is a very respected company. At the time, it stated that if the citizens of the area were against this type of project happening it would abandon all plans for that type of development. Mr. Ken Hardy, speaking on behalf of the company, stated publicly that it was no the way they did business. If the people in the area did not want this type of development he was not going to do it. He kept his word.

The company in question, the Shaw company, originally had to spend $250,000 to develop a plan for this quarry. It had to go through a public tendering process, a call for tenders, to come up with a plan for this. So there was a public involvement or a public tendering process so that all companies in Canada could bid on that project.

However, when the Shaw company decided not to do the deal, aside from the fact that it honoured its commitment to not do the deal if the people were against it, it also could not secure markets in the United States. This can be verified by the Shaw group. The United States aggregate market is a very tough market to break into. The company could never penetrate the U.S. market for aggregate materials. It also had the problem, if it had proceeded, that it did not have a market. However, it did not proceed because it was sensitive to the public outcry.

What we have now is a company from the New York-New Jersey waterfront entertaining doing the same thing. Lo and behold, it did not have to go through any public tendering process. It did not have to submit a proposal. It was invited to come up and take a look at the project by none other than the former minister of economic development in the province of New Brunswick, Al Lacey, obviously a former cabinet minister in the government of Frank McKenna. He was a minister at the time the Shaw group proposed doing this. He was looking for business interests. His job was to secure business interests. He was a paid lobbyist on behalf of the group out of New York and New Jersey. He went down there with a magnificent plan for these people to move into Canada and do a piece of business.

Lo and behold he was successful at bringing them into New Brunswick without having to publicly tender or submit proposals on anything. Those doors were all knocked down for the Waterman group. They simply came and said what they would do. Mr. Al Lacey was to lead their cause. Obviously they would get the type of co-operation they needed from the province of New Brunswick, and they have.

What is disturbing to the folks living along that international body of water on both sides is that the proponents lied publicly about what they want to do. I mentioned this in the House before. This is where Transport Canada, led by the former minister, had a proposal to take over, to assume ownership of that port and that quarrying facility. It was a document that the premier of the province of New Brunswick actually denied existed.

The chief spokesman for the company, Al Lacey, the paid lobbyist, a former minister of the crown in the province of New Brunswick, lied publicly. He lied to the media. He lied to business interests. He lied to me as member of Parliament on their true intentions of taking over that port. Lo and behold lies will eventually catch up with you. We know that.

A 40 page document was leaked to me indicating step by step, inch by inch, how the group would take over the port, the group out of New York and New Jersey, and owned by a man by the name of Randy Waterman. When that document surfaced they all scurried like rats trying to get away from it, but they could not. They were videotaped on national television lying through their teeth on what were their true intentions.

The government continued its sort of conspiracy of silence. There is no transparency at all in this process. It simply pursued the course it was intent on pursuing and not deviating from to make sure that this group out of New York and New Jersey, led by Mr. Waterman and represented by Mr. Al Lacey, would get their way.

They lied on their intention to take over the port. Their 40 page document amounts to nothing more than what I call economic blackmail. I will table it in the House for all to examine. They state that unless they get full and complete ownership of the port they will abandon their plan to take over the port. That amounts to economic blackmail.

The local people were absolutely outraged when that secret document surfaced, indicating that they wanted to take over the port. It did not end there. What has happened in the meantime is that they went after the provincial government. They said that maybe they would not abandon their plans to assume ownership of the port if they struck a better deal. The better deal was to give them the land. They would do the job and compete with other American interests located in other parts of North America.

They have actually achieved what I call the ultimate in economic blackmail. Now the province is entertaining selling them the lands. The lands in question are not federal lands. They would be provincial lands that would be handed over to the company for a 40 year project. In other words, the life of this project would be 40 years.

This sounds quite bizarre but it is accurate. Two weeks of mining this aggregate at the price they would be receiving for the aggregate in the United States would actually pay for the cost of the entire package of land on which they want to do the 40 year deal. That is absolutely bizarre. This is better than giving them the land. They are selling it to them at what we would consider a bargain basement price. It is a deal made in heaven for these people.

How do these people get their foot in the doors of government in the province of New Brunswick? It still has a democratic process where things like this have to be debated and talked out in a public forum. There was a complete conspiracy of silence in the province of New Brunswick.

The minister of economic development refused to provide me with information. He does not correspond with a member of Parliament representing people living in that area. A brick wall has been put up between the government of the province of New Brunswick and me and the citizens group representing citizens up and down both sides of that international water. There is something wrong in the process when that happens.

Who are these people? That is a big question. I had serious discussions with the FBI and the RCMP. There are a lot of unanswered questions about these companies as represented by Mr. Randy Waterman and owned by Mr. Randy Waterman. They are big and they are powerful. They operate out of New York and New Jersey. That should tell us something.

They basically have a cartel. They actually control the aggregate business in the east coast of the United States. It is impossible for foreign interests to import aggregate into the United States. Hence, the inability of the Shaw group to establish markets there.

We have a fellow by the name of Al Lacey. I would not consider Al to be a stupid man. He is certainly not stupid. He heard the bells and whistles and immediately said he knew a group that could do this deal. They can establish markets. They can make this thing profitable but they happen to live outside Canada. They happen to be one of those families down in the United States that have been very successful in the aggregate business.

The worst of all deals possible is taking place at the moment in the province of New Brunswick because its government does not care about transparency when it comes to business with individuals, in many cases individuals of ill repute. If we look at the legacy of the government of the province of New Brunswick in the last 10 years, a number of deals have gone flat, have gone belly up, because it had not done its homework. The FBI and other police officials in the area have suspicions about these people and what their true motives might be in Canada.

I suggested that the premier of the province of New Brunswick should undertake a full scale investigation which the citizens committee has demanded from day one. The government has been reluctant to do that. I do not think it wants to know the truth. The people in that area demand to know what is going on. They deserve full and complete transparency in that entire piece of business.

It is incumbent upon the Government of Canada, the Department of Transport and the minister to say there are a lot of unanswered questions, some of which were recently brought to their attention, that need to be complied with. As I said at the outset, I do not think the province of New Brunswick has been full and complete in the information provided to the minister and the department.

[Criminal Code, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the prime minister on December 4, just about a week ago, in relation to Summa Strategies Inc., a lobbying company in Ottawa.

My question was with regard to the activities of this company because two former Liberal members of Parliament were acting on behalf of an American company to take possession of a Canadian port.

We had a vote in the House last night on the marine act, Bill C-9, which would see the privatization of ports in Canada.

What disturbs me about these two members of Parliament is that one of them is Doug Young, the former minister of transport who was the architect of the marine privatization act or Bill C-9. It is identical to the original bill that he introduced to the House when he was the Minister of Transport in the previous Parliament.

There is something patently wrong when the government allows that type of activity to happen, because here we have it. The gentleman who knows the department intimately, the former minister who wrote the act, now works on behalf of an American company that wants to take ownership of a Canadian port.

It is bad enough that Mr. Paul Zed, a former member of Parliament, is also involved in that consulting company. In fact, he is one of the co-owners with Mr. Young of Summa Strategies. It is bad enough that a member of Parliament would be involved, but when you have a minister acting along with the member of Parliament doing that, the former member of Parliament and the former minister, there is something absolutely wrong.

When I raised that question in the House, I asked the Prime Minister, does this meet his definition of ethical behaviour. They just fudge on the answer. A lot of Canadians want to know whether or not that would meet the Prime Minister's definition of ethical behaviour. I think most people in this House on both sides would say no, it does not meet what would be an acceptable level of ethical behaviour.

What Mr. Young and Mr. Zed are doing in terms of the law, I am not going to stand up here and say they are breaking the law, because obviously they are both very smart men, they are intelligent men. But we are talking about ethical behaviour, and insider knowledge and information of departments, and the architect of the very act which we debated in this House this week which will be given royal assent very soon. There is something wrong when that happens.

On the provincial side of this equation, we have a former minister of economic development in the province of New Brunswick by the name of Al Lacey who owns the company Al Lacey and Associates. He is lobbying on behalf of the provincial government.

We have the consummate insiders both federally and provincially. There is something wrong when that is allowed to happen, especially when we are looking at giving ownership of a Canadian port to an American company.

It is absolutely bizarre that we would allow the Canadian government and the province of New Brunswick to allow a port like that to be sold and allow the highest paid lobbyists in the country to represent these companies, every one of these lobbyists being former members of the crown cabinet or members of Parliament.

On that I rest my case. I look forward to the response from the parliamentary secretary.

[Motions For Papers, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is in relation to a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers. The notice was given on September 23.

I just want to remind the government of documentation relating to the recent provincial ministers of health meetings, the health care transition fund and the Council of Deputy Ministers of Health and Ministers of Health. Specifically it is documentation pertaining to discussions on the national blood agency, discussions on a new national pharmacare program and discussions on the proposed new national home care program. I am extremely interested in having those papers produced.

[Fishers' Bill Of Rights, December 10th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-302, an act to establish the rights of fishers including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly.

Mr. Speaker it is a pleasure to introduce this bill. It will be seconded by the member for West Nova.

This is an act which will be commonly referred to as a fishermen's bill of rights or to be more politically correct, a fisher's bill of rights. It is an act to establish the rights of fishers including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly.

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

[Division No. 68, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on November 25 I asked a question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That question was in relation to the Indian First Nation in Oromocto.

The issue at hand here is the mismanagement of funds at the Indian nation. As a result of the mismanagement of those funds this Indian nation finds itself $1.3 million in debt. Even after a cash advance of $464,000 it is still going through difficulties. Some of those difficulties have to be addressed immediately. I hope when the parliamentary secretary responds he can tell me that they have been addressed.

Up until now, council members, band staff and others have gone for five weeks and longer without any pay. Employees of the band have been laid off, including the band's police constable. The power bill has not been paid and the health facilities are shut down. Young people are also suffering. For the young people who are attending university, some of their tuition and the moneys they need to continue their education have been cut off because of this mismanagement.

It reaches beyond the band as well. The Oromocto band with the assistance of the departments of Indian affairs and northern development and fisheries have moved into the commercial fishery and we all support that. It is to make the band self-sufficient. Everyone of us supports that.

The difficulty is that neither the department of Indian affairs nor the fisheries department want to take responsibility for moneys that are still owing the private sector in the fishing communities in southern New Brunswick. It has left some of those people in a very difficult position. That $1.3 million the band owes, if you wish, the moneys which they do not have to pay their bills, reaches outside the Indian community as well.

The question that I had for the minister on November 25 was to see if she could expedite a process to relieve this difficulty both on and off the reserve. That is the point I am making here this evening as well. I am hoping that can be resolved. I did mention previously that they did have a cash advance of $464,000 but that still has not paid the bills in the private sector in southern New Brunswick nor all of the bills on the reserve.

I am hoping that a resolution to this can be found somewhere. I think it has to be the tightening of the regulations between departments and the drafting of some of these guidelines when we attempt to move our native people into the traditional fisheries. Bureaucrats at both fisheries and Indian affairs and northern development are making these proposals and drafting this legislation with the appropriate guidelines but apparently those guidelines do not work. They fall short of the line and the reporting procedures do not work.

As a result of this delay we are moving into the Christmas season of all times to see people going without and they are hurting both on and off the reserve. I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary can respond favourably tonight and tell us that yes indeed those guidelines have been tightened and yes indeed this problem has been recognized and will be resolved very shortly.

[Canada Marine Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the government on this vote.

[Division No. 64, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If this bill is really important to the government, I think the least that we could expect is quorum. I think if you look, the government does not have quorum.

[Summa Strategies, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, think about it. To accept that statement from the minister, we would have to believe in the tooth fairy. These people are the highest paid lobbyists in the country working on behalf of an American company to take control of a Canadian port.

Does the minister find something wrong with the system when the former minister of transport can lobby the government, in fact, the ministry to do such a thing?

[Summa Strategies, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Summa Strategies is a lobby company owned and controlled by two former Liberal members of Parliament, Paul Zed and Doug Young.

Mr. Young, being the former minister of transport, has been hired by an American syndicate to expedite the control and ownership of the port of Bayside.

Does the government support lobbying efforts on the part of the former minister who, in fact, wrote the port's privatization act? Does this fit in with the prime minister's definition of ethical behaviour?

[Business Of The House, December 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I questioned the Minister of Health on October 1 with regard to the promise on pharmacare in the Liberal red book.

In the question to the Minister of Health I alluded to the election campaign and the promise to introduce a pharmacare program for all Canadians. I proceeded to quote from the red book two and I will quote now from page 75 of the Liberal election platform:

We will work with our provincial partners to ensure that all Canadians have access to medically necessary drugs within the public health care system. The federal government has a role to play in bringing together provincial and territorial partners and a range of other interests to develop a national plan and timetable for introducing prescription drugs into the medicare system.

I guess the only response the minister could make was that he would consult with his provincial counterparts. That is not good enough. I contend it was an election promise simply for the purpose of getting elected. The minister and the Liberal government had no idea of how to implement such a program. I have lots of evidence to back me up on this, that it was nothing more than election rhetoric. The cost of doing so is astronomical, is well beyond the present government's ability to pay.

Presently in Canada we spend $10.8 billion annually on drugs. Out of that $10.8 billion about $5 billion is for prescription drugs. So the question is, how will the government come up with $5 billion, knowing full well that there are financial restraints on the government.

It did not stop there. When the present minister was first appointed to cabinet in his new role as health minister, I guess he could not resist the idea of going back at it. I quote from the Ottawa Citizen of June 12 which states: “Canada's new health minister promised yesterday to preserve medicare and perhaps even expand it with universal pharmacare and home care programs”. That was long before he had the opportunity to realize what he had said and what he would have to do, again because of the cost.

The Minister of Health has found out and he comes back to it in every single answer in the House with regard to the pharmacare program that he has to consult with the provinces. Indeed he would have to consult with the provinces because there is a hodge-podge of programs across this country provincially with regard to pharmacare and none of them are the same. In other words we have 10 provinces and every one of them has a different policy with regard to pharmacare. Some provinces have a very good system of pharmacare for seniors and some provinces do not. Some provinces have a pharmacare program for people below a certain level of income.

The point I am making is that the minister and the government had no idea what they were promising in 1997 with regard to the pharmacare program.