Greg Thompson

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for putting that document forward in the sense of a prop but I was leafing through it.

I wanted to make a point with regard to Mr. Nicholson. He is an honourable man. He is representing the community well. He does a fine job, as do a number of the individuals that make up that body. There is no question about that.

The point I am making is that the very people who have designs on taking over that port have representation on the board, the steering committee, which is absolutely bizarre. Hence the chicken coop and the fox scenario. That is exactly what it is.

It does not end there. In this document when I did make it public when it was leaked to me—I am not going to use it as a prop, Mr. Speaker, but only to pick some of the numbers out of it because it is important to note. In this document which is 42 pages in length the proponents of this project, in other words the people from New York and New Jersey who want to take over the port, no less than 14 times in this document do they mention that unless and until they are given absolute control of the port and the waiving of all fees, they could not possibly proceed with their project.

The parliamentary secretary is partially right in the sense that the aggregate project does not involve his department as much as it would the province of New Brunswick or the department of economic development. But the point we make is that some of the properties in which they want to do this piece of business are actually owned by the Government of Canada. I think there is an obligation to ensure that there is an orderly transition with regard to who takes over those properties and what they are going to be used for.

As I mentioned before, that particular company because its nearest competitor is Martin Marietta, an American owned company out of Canso, Nova Scotia, is saying that it has to have all federal wharfage fees waived. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? The company says that all fees have to be waived in order to make the project a success in order for it to be able to compete with its nearest competitor which again is an American company.

It is absolutely bizarre that the federal government would even entertain the waiving of any fees associated with setting up an American company in Canada. It is absolutely ludicrous that it would entertain doing that.

Going back to the motion in question, the integrity of that board and the responsibility of the board and the steering committee is very critical to the success of this bill. Unless we have top quality people with no interest in assuming ownership of a port that is to be transferred from the public sector to the private sector, unless we have that orderly transition, we will all be in trouble. What it does is it opens up the door for individuals like the New York and New Jersey individuals to come up here with bags full of money and find that they get their way. This is terribly wrong.

I support the strengthening of anything in the bill that will tighten the loopholes on the membership of that steering committee which will eventually determine who will own the port.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

What party? That was the Liberal Party spelled with a large L . He is in daily consultation with Mr. Paul Zed, former Liberal member of Parliament who was defeated in the last election. Mr. Paul Zed is in business with Mr. Doug Young, the former minister of transport.

Think about this. Would there be a possible conflict of interest? Doug Young, the former minister of transport charged with the overseeing of this bill. He was the minister who introduced the very bill that we were talking about in the last Parliament. He was the minister. Now he is being paid by these interests out of New Jersey to represent them in overseeing the orderly transition—they call it orderly transition—from a public facility to a private facility. Here we have this group of insiders all being paid by Mr. Randy Waterman to ensure that they gain control of that port.

The parliamentary secretary was given the wrong information and that is why I interjected quite vigorously on a point of order. I know I was ruled correctly by you, Mr. Speaker, that it was not a legitimate point of order but this is legitimate. This is the very document in my hands, 40 pages in length, that details page by page with the numbers there to present their case to the province of New Brunswick and the federal government why this port should be given to them. The name of the document is “Bayside Port Acquisition and Development Proposal”.

Acquisition. If we look in any dictionary, acquisition means assuming ownership, taking ownership. They want to take ownership of that port. I have a document here which the government denied existed for a number of weeks until finally the document was leaked to yours truly. That is why the make-up and integrity of that board is so important.

The parliamentary secretary did mention an individual by the name of Fred Nicholson. Fred Nicholson is an honourable man. He is a lawyer. He is a very bright individual. I want to point this out—

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things to the parliamentary secretary in terms of accountability and that would be referring to Motion No. 5.

It is interesting to note and can members believe that the company of which I was speaking, the American company out of the New York-New Jersey area, has representation on the steering committee that is charged with overseeing the orderly transition from a public facility to a private facility. Would this not be comparable to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop in a sense? Think about it. This Randy Waterman from New York-New Jersey who owns a series of layered companies involved in the aggregate business has his own paid representative on that board.

This is not just an ordinary employee who sits on that board representing Randy Waterman, McCormick Aggregates, McCormick Materials, Bayside Materials Handling, Charlotte County Ports, New York Sand and Gravel, Amboy Aggregates. This is not just an ordinary employee. He is a fellow by the name of Al Lacey.

Who is Al Lacey? Al Lacey owns Lacey and Associates. Al Lacey is a former minister of economic development in the province of New Brunswick. The consummate insider.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a document which disproves that.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

It was obviously the Liberal Party. He is a former minister in Mr. McKenna's government. The name of that individual is Mr. Al Lacey.

They vehemently denied that they had a secret plan to take over the port. In discussions with the premier of the province of New Brunswick in early August this year, he denied flatly to me as a member of Parliament that this group out of New Jersey and New York had any design on taking over the Bayside port. He had to eat his words two days later when this document was secretly released to me. The Atlantic television network actually aired this nationwide, when one of the consultants was lying through his teeth in regard to the intent of these individuals out of New York and New Jersey.

On speaking to the department of economic development yesterday, the owner of this particular group, an individual by the name of Randy Waterman, has all doors of government open to him. Why? Because they are hiring the best consultants they know how. That is done with the aid of a lot of money, to get through the doors of the ministers here and the ministers back in New Brunswick.

That is why this bill is flawed. It does not allow the citizens of the province of New Brunswick or any other province in this country protection from unwanted residents of the United States, United States businessmen coming here and taking over our ports.

The group is no slouch when it comes to doing business. This group is a multilayered group of companies. Here are some of the companies which Mr. Randy Waterman is involved with: New York Sand and Gravel, Amboy Aggregates, McCormick Aggregates, McCormick Materials. They have also set up a dummy corporation in New Brunswick called Charlotte County Ports. Does this not sound much better, Charlotte County Ports? Everyone would believe it is a home grown company, only to find out that it is 100% owned by these characters out of New York and New Jersey.

It does not end there. Bayside Materials Handling Inc. is another company they set up as a front for their New York-New Jersey operation. It does not end there. When they pay their bills they do not pay them through any of these companies. They pay them through a company called Trapp Hill Holdings.

The interesting thing is you never speak to anyone on the telephone that represents these companies in New York and New Jersey. They will not correspond with a member of Parliament. They will not correspond with anyone. They are silent. Who speaks on their behalf? Mr. Doug Young and Mr. Paul Zed, former members of Parliament who sat on that side of the House. That tells us how far they have infiltrated the levels of government in this country when they can hire former members of Parliament and transport ministers to carry their case forward to the federal government.

The present transport minister is being petitioned or lobbied at this very moment to reduce all shipping fees. Not only to reduce all shipping fees but to eliminate them completely so this company out of New York and New Jersey can compete with its nearest competitors in the marketplace in the United States of America. It is absolutely ludicrous to think the government would entertain doing that.

I spoke yesterday with the regional manager in Nova Scotia. He told me that they approached the government to eliminate the fees so they could compete with their closest competitor, a company named Martin Marietta from the United States, that was working out of Canso, Nova Scotia. Again it is an American company, and a Canadian company cannot export into the United States unless and until it controls either the shipping lines or the companies on the New York-New Jersey harbourfront.

These companies have been under investigation for 15 years by the FBI, and these characters over there are entertaining doing business with them? The province of New Brunswick goes haywire when we try to talk sense about these companies.

Who is being paid off? Who would have access to the premier of New Brunswick tomorrow on a moment's notice? I do not think I would. Who else in the House would? If we were to hire the best lobbyist in New Brunswick, a lobbyist who is intimately connected with the province, we would have access to its premier and to the minister of economic development who wants to be the premier of New Brunswick.

it is critically important if the legislation goes through that the make-up of these boards has the clout to keep such people out of Canada. We still have to exercise a degree of independence in terms of our economy and how we build it. We do not need these types of people in Canada. We do not want these people taking over our ports. That is why we have to beef up the legislation. We must ensure that individuals with the big dollars cannot come up from the south to take us over.

I hope to speak later to the same issue.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to actually speak on Motion No. 1 regarding the make-up of the port authority boards. There is a port back home I want to mention. I hope the parliamentary secretary will have some patience here because I will come back to the motion.

This has to do with Bayside port, which is a small port on the St. Croix River, an international body of tidal waters. It is one of the few profitable ports in Canada. In fact last year that little port made a profit for the Government of Canada of about half a million dollars. It is blessed with deep water, close access to U.S. markets and so on and so forth. It is ideally situated, if you wish, and blessed with a good geography.

The reason I am concerned about this port in terms of privatization is simply that there is a group out of New York and New Jersey that wants to take over this port. All members on both sides of the House have to be concerned about this because the group that wants to take over this port is a large conglomerate from the United States. They are actually in the sand and gravel or aggregate business. They are big, extremely big.

The reason we are concerned in New Brunswick is that the aggregate business in the United States is controlled by a group of families. In fact, the shipping of aggregate is controlled by a group of families who are notorious, and many people refer to them as organized crime. It is an industry that is practically impossible for a Canadian company to break into. The only way to get into the aggregate business if you want to ship into New York or New Jersey is to be owned by the Americans. The Americans have set their sights on taking over this port.

I know the parliamentary secretary will find this very interesting. On May 20, 1997—and as the minister just said a few minutes ago, the legislation died on the Order Paper and obviously was not passed before the last election—these people from New Jersey had a plan to take over the port.

Now this is interesting. Please hon. parliamentary secretary listen very intently to this. They hired two former members of Parliament as consultants to expedite the transfer of that port into the hands of these Americans. The two former members of Parliament, one of them being Paul Zed, the other Doug Young, a former minister of transport, were hired to lobby the federal government to allow the transfer of that port into their hands. Not only did they attempt to get the port into their hands, in doing so they presented a 40 page document to the province of New Brunswick to assist them in expediting the transfer of the port into their hands.

We know that they hired two former members of Parliament to assist them, but they did not stop there. They hired a former member of the New Brunswick legislature and a former cabinet minister from the province of New Brunswick to assist them on the provincial side.

[Krever Report, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it has been one week since the Krever report came down. Many Canadians are looking very critically at the government to respond to the needs of over 12,000 hepatitis C victims, victims of a tainted blood supply in Canada.

I am asking the federal minister to respond unilaterally to show the leadership needed to address this very serious problem. Do not wait for the provinces. Show the leadership that we expect of the Minister of Health. Act now. Do not wait. They need your help.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I find this unbelievable. We are here debating one of the most important bills to come before this House, certainly in this session, and there is not a minister in the House. It has always been the practice, Mr. Speaker—

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to Motions Nos. 13 and 14.

Motion No. 13 has been proposed by the NDP and talks about eliminating the freeze on the yearly basic exemption. I cannot support that and I will go on to tell the House why a little later.

While I am on my feet, I also want to speak on our Motion No. 14 which would freeze the yearly basic exemption for 10 years only. I would like to frame this as best I can so that the House will know what we are proposing.

The elimination of freezing altogether as proposed by the NDP would impose an additional 1.4% in premiums. Obviously when we are changing the principal amount of money that we are dealing with and the numbers of people who are paying, it has a huge impact on the fund. We cannot operate in a vacuum when we are talking about the realities of finances. It would be fine if we could, but unfortunately we cannot. We need to make sure that the fund is stabilized. The stabilization of that fund is paramount.

Madam Speaker, earlier today you were very gracious in allowing me a few more seconds than what I should have had in the debate when I was talking about this bill. I talked about the government postponing the inevitable. That is what has happened in regard to the Canada pension plan. The government knew full well a number of years ago and certainly when it took power in 1993 that something had to be done. It could only postpone the inevitable for so long. At some point reality comes home and we have to deal with it.

If it was a normal business transaction in an insurance company in the private sector, it would have had to declare bankruptcy. It would be insolvent. However in government, and this is the only place it can happen, the government has the power to take measures to resurrect itself almost from the dead. Basically the fund at this point is dead. The Reform member mentioned that there is about two years of premiums in the fund. In other words in two years the fund will be broke.

What we are really talking about is pay in and pay out. It is on a day to day basis that the fund is sustaining itself now. The reality of having to deal with it is there.

Picking up from where I left off earlier in the day, the chance to have dealt with this reality presented itself in 1993 but postponing it is only postponing the inevitable. Now with compound interest and the demographics changing and moving around as they are and more people retiring and the pressures that are being placed on that fund, it has forced the government to increase the rates. I would call it an astronomical increase in rates.

Getting back to the reality of it, we have to deal with the cards that we have. None of us in this House or in the country want to see the fund go broke. There is an unfunded liability of $600 billion staring the government in the eye.

The motion that is proposed by the NDP just will not work. The one proposed by the Liberals talks about an indefinite freeze on the basic exemption, and we are talking about a 10 year freeze on the exemption. The differences in these three divergent points of view reminds me of what Aristotle said 2000 years ago when he said that virtue was in the middle. It is in the middle, between the two extremes. That is what our amendment does. It is grappling with reality but it is not going to one extreme or the other. We are looking at a 10 year exemption.

What could happen in the meantime if the plan's earnings are invested wisely, and much more wisely than they have been in the past and are left untampered with, in a 10 year time period we could be looking at a completely different picture. The reality at that time would be that maybe our plan of a 10 year exemption would work, but in the meantime we have to deal with the cards that are on the table. I do not think any of us wants to duck that bullet because if we do, there is going to be a lot of hurt out there in Canadian society.

I think every member of Parliament is dealing with Canada pension plan problems galore back home. A number of disabled people are applying for Canada pension, and rightfully so, and are being turned down. They are just not getting it. One of the PC party members from Nova Scotia spoke yesterday of some of these situations back in his riding. That was during the statement period yesterday, right around 2.15, shortly before question period.

I have the same type of cases back home. People who have had hip replacements and cannot work. People who have a chronic disease or a crippling disability and cannot work, some of them much younger than I am. People apply only to find out that their applications are turned down, whereas just a few short years ago those same people would have been successful in their application for Canada pension plan benefits.

What we have now is the government accepting the reality that the fund is almost broken, but in the meantime there are a lot of innocent people who are casualties because of the inability to deal with this fund in the last number of years. In other words the fund is money in and money out. The government is taking a very hard look at who qualifies for these benefits. I think that is wrong. It is absolutely wrong because we are brought up to believe that if we pay into the fund, it is going to be there.

Now we find out that mismanagement over a number of years has left a lot of Canadians out in the cold. The worst thing that we could do at this point is to allow that mismanagement to continue and to not deal with the reality of having to readjust the premiums paid by you and me to sustain that fund.

Laying blame is not going to solve the problem. It would be easy for me to stand up here and condemn the government for having to do what it is doing, which is fine. And I do not agree with the huge increase in premiums either. Nobody could.

Our position has always been and it continues to be to this day, that if we are going to tackle the question of the CPP, let us also look at the employment insurance fund. Canadians are paying too much into that fund. It is just the opposite of the CPP. We are paying too much into that fund. Today as we sit, there is about a $12 billion surplus in that fund.

What we are saying very simply is that the surplus in that fund should be applied to reduce the premiums in the Canada pension plan or at least to reduce the EI premiums that all Canadians pay so that at the end of the day it is a wash and will not be an extra tax burden on Canadians and on businesses. An increase in the CPP premium is really a hidden tax and we cannot stand any more of those hidden taxes on our businesses and professionals.

[Krever Inquiry, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in questioning the government in regard to compensation for the hepatitis C victims, the government basically said “wait 15 minutes for the Krever report to come down and we will act on it”. The minister indicated he would act on it. Today in the House, he is saying “I have got to consult with my provincial counterparts”.

There are 12,000 Canadians suffering. They have now suffered for 10 and 15 years with no financial reimbursement or support.

Will the minister show leadership and act unilaterally to help these people as we did in 1991—