Debates of April 27th, 1995

Telecommunications

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, a long answer that could have been shorter if it had been the answer to the question.

The question is a question of fact: Is Mr. Goldenberg a former associate of the chairman of the panel that drafted the orders? The question is very straightforward. It is a question of fact that will clarify the matter for the public, since the Prime Minister took the unprecedented step-I do not think this has happened very often in Ottawa, and I think it is probably the first time ever in the history of the federal Parliament and the federal government-of trying, and I think he did so in good faith, to isolate himself as though behind a wall from a fundamental decision by his government.

I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would agree that his wall shows some serious gaps and whether he realizes that the actions of his principal adviser, Mr. Goldenberg, allowed him to do indirectly what his conflict of interest guidelines prohibited him from doing directly?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of smoke but no fire.

The problem here for the Leader of the Opposition is very simple. He has a report of a panel of experts, yes, chaired by Gordon Ritchie, participated in by Roger Tassé and Robert Rabinovitch, three former deputy ministers in the Public Service of Canada. They produced a report which has been generally praised in editorial comments and by other groups.

The Leader of the Opposition has nothing to criticize in the report. In fact, as I recall from the publication of the report on April 6, the most telling criticisms came from the very party he claims it was intended to benefit. Why? Because the result of the report and the direction which was tabled yesterday really give nothing to anybody except the right to apply to the CRTC for a licence. That right is open to Power DirecTv. It is open to Expressvu. It is open to everybody else.

Our intention has been to be very, very careful on process. We invoked a process which was transparent and open. We have initiated it with tabling a direction, a process which is statutory, open to debate in a public forum, namely the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada.

The Leader of the Opposition cannot find anything to criticize in that process so he is left to asking about irrelevant details.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, it is early in the question period. May I please appeal to you to keep the questions and answers as brief as possible.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is very strange to hear the minister hiding himself behind the process while they have put aside the process, squashing a decision made by the CRTC. It is the first time that has been done in the history of Canada. That is something.

I have the following question for the Prime Minister. Considering the fact that the order is tailor-made to meet the demands of Power DirecTv, that this order is a carbon copy of the draft prepared by a panel chaired by the former associate of the Prime Minister's principal adviser and that this associate personally intervened by speaking to the responsible minister, is the Prime Minister not bothered by this impression that Power DirecTv and his son-in-law were given preferential treatment?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition keeps trying to find something that would discredit the process but he does not succeed.

The fact is the process was initiated yesterday in the House of Commons. It is true it is the first time it has been used. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would admit it is a power that has only recently been included in the statute, although it was proposed that it was included in the statute by the previous government. It is a relatively new power and was used in a circumstance which itself was unprecedented, namely the granting of the exemption order by the CRTC.

In the face of the exemption order being granted on August 30, many groups asked the government to act, saying there were problems with this. If we had not acted in response to those criticisms, I suspect that at least the Leader of the Opposition, or perhaps his critic who often claims to speak on behalf of groups like the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, would be standing in this House criticizing us for having not acted in the way we have acted.

Seagram

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Star reported this morning that, through some strange coincidence, the Minister of Canadian Heritage happened to be in Edgar Bronfman's suite in Los Angeles when Seagram took control of MCA studios. Following this transaction, Seagram will have to secure Investment Canada's approval before it can also get the Canadian subsidiary, the movie theatre chain Cineplex Odeon, out of the deal.

My question, which is quite simple, is the following: Can the Prime Minister explain to us what business a minister of his government had in Edgar Bronfman's suite, when Investment Canada will have a very important decision to make regarding this transaction?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Investment Canada will review this investment proposal like it would any other. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is not responsible for this issue, the Minister of Industry is, I believe.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is a minister of the government.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Supposedly.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Yes, supposedly. So, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, a government minister, just happens to be in a businessman's suite at the moment that a transaction is taking place which will require the approval of Investment Canada, an agency over which the government has some influence.

Does the Prime Minister not feel that the Minister of Canadian Heritage exercised poor judgment by putting himself in a situation of conflict?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Bronfman Group's investment proposal will come before the government and will be evaluated in accordance with the laws of the country and we will see what will happen. The appropriate minister and commission will examine the case and make a decision. The government will then decide whether or not to approve the deal.

Many businessmen, citizens and opposition members speak to the minister every day, under all sorts of circumstances. That is normal. Because, before making a decision-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a decision will be made when there is an application. I do not know if we are faced with an application but with any investment made in Canada from foreign interests trying to buy Canadian concerns there is a review process. The review will be there. There will be a decision and that is it. That is the law of the land and the law will be respected.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as has already been referred to, the Seagram company acquired an 80 per cent interest in the movie giant MCA. Investment Canada may be required to make a ruling as to whether Seagram should be regarded as a Canadian company. While all of this is going on, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was apparently in Los Angeles being wined and dined by the principals to the deal.

Did the Prime Minister personally know about these meetings? Has he had the ethics commissioner determine that the minister has not once again put himself in a conflict of interest situation?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may know there is an issue here as to whether or not Seagram is a Canadian company. If so, then the transaction is not reviewable by Investment Canada.

I want to assure the hon. member that that determination, which will be made according to legal principles by Investment Canada, is done entirely without reference to the Minister of Canadian Heritage as if that were relevant.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question was about ethics and not the regulatory decision.

Power Corporation's DirecTv involving the Prime Minister's son-in-law just got the government to reverse a ruling of the CRTC for which the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible. Now the Bronfmans and Seagram board member Paul Desmarais who are closely related to the Liberal Party appear to be seeking the minister's help to get Investment Canada to leave them alone. We fear that the Minister of Canadian Heritage may be ending up as some sort of errand boy for an emerging Liberal family compact in the communications field.

What assurances can the Prime Minister give that the government's decisions in this rapidly developing communications field will not only be free from political influence but will also be free even from the appearance of political influence?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the marriage of convenience between the Bloc and Reform is one formed in the gutter I must say.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I know today is Thursday, not Wednesday. I would ask hon. members to please be very judicious in their choice of words. I would go back to the floor to the hon. Minister of Industry.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the process is really the assurance that the leader is looking for. I offer him a reminder of last Christmas when Canadians across the country told us loud and clear that they wanted competition. We have taken moves in the context of the DTH file to ensure that there is competition.

The member raises the issue of ethics. Surely he understands that the best assurance that ethical principles have been lived up to is a clear and transparent process. That is the process we invoked. We invoked one that was open to public debate and discussion. We have listened in a public manner to the submissions of Canadians from coast to coast.

If he disagrees with the submissions that we heard from hundreds of Canadians, from editorialists, from artists and from broadcasters then let him say so, but let him not criticize it on the basis of innuendo. It is below him.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will know from history books that the Liberal Party evolved from a group of reformers in pre-Confederation days who fought against the family compact, a closely knit group of elites, many of them related to each other, who subverted responsible government to protect and advance their personal and collective interests.

If the Prime Minister is really committed to integrity, surely he does not want to allow such a clique to develop around his government.

My question is very simple. How does the Prime Minister propose to prevent the formation and activities of this Liberal family compact, la clique du château libéral, from undermining the integrity of his administration?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in the House yesterday on this matter I said I did not participate in any discussion in committee or in cabinet. When the decision was made I was not there. I have absolutely no conflict of interest.

It is true that somebody who is earning his living working for the corporation in question is my son-in-law. This is why I

abstained in the discussion even though it had no conflict of interest at all. I know some people want to attack me but I have been standing proudly in the House for 32 years. Everyone can look at my record.

It just so happens there is a lot of controversy in Canada because there is not enough competition. We had complaints in December because there was an exemption to make sure there would be no competition. My colleagues in the cabinet, without my presence, using the laws of Canada, have made a ruling which is clear. Everybody who wants to can apply for a licence and it will be reviewed under Canadian law. I will not intervene.

However, I will not go down to the level of people who do not have the decency to realize that a Prime Minister of Canada has the right to have his daughter well married.

[Translation]

Telecommunications

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

By issuing unprecedented decrees, the government has reversed the CRTC's decision to license Expressvu and has allowed Power DirecTv to use an American satellite, rather than use a Canadian one exclusively, to broadcast its programs. The Minister of Industry has confirmed publicly that the Prime Minister's principal adviser, Eddie Goldenberg, intervened directly in the matter.

How can the Minister of Industry claim to have disregarded the financial interests at stake for the Prime Minister's son-in-law in discussing the Power DirecTv file with Eddie Goldenberg?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, again the opposition is grasping at straws.

The hon. member is correct. I did confirm that I informed Mr. Goldenberg on the status of the file. That is normal. I received no submissions. Certainly I have never discussed the matter at all with the Prime Minister. I can assure the House of that. Nor did I receive, as the member describes, any pressure from Mr. Goldenberg in any respect with regard to this file.

What I did receive were hundreds of submissions through the review panel from Canadians from coast to coast who said: "Please review the order that was issued in August by the CRTC". When the report of the panel was issued it was again supported not only by editorialists but by many of the groups on behalf of which the hon. member claims to speak in the House of Commons and committee, groups like ACTRA, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, the Canadian Council of the Arts.

I do not understand what her problem is. If we did not listen to those groups she would be on her feet criticizing us for not having done so.