Debates of April 27th, 1995

Telecommunications

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

Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister of Industry explain Power DirecTv's failure to apply to the CRTC for a license, which it could have done since last July, other than by the fact that Power DirecTv had been assured that the government would issue a customized order enabling it to take over Canadian airwaves with an American satellite?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, this is a case of the more noise, the less substance. As the hon. member knows, the condition of the exemption order which required that all content be carried through Canadian satellites excluded essentially everybody but Expressvu from-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

They are getting louder and louder, Mr. Speaker. It excluded potentially everybody but Expressvu from-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. Minister of Industry may finish.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The effect of the exemption order was that essentially nobody but Expressvu could possibly have carried on the service.

If Power DirecTv had got what I assume it wanted, the government would have tabled a direction that would have changed the conditions of the exemption order to authorize Power DirecTv to operate under an exemption order. Then it would have been able to do it right away. It did not get that from the panel. In fact it got an obligation to apply to the CRTC for a licence which had already set conditions that put it essentially out of business in Canada.

The whole hypothesis of the member's question is entirely unfounded, but is obviously inherently contradictory. She does not understand the case.

Investment Canada

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The government abused Investment Canada over the Ginn Publishing affair and it is poised to do it again over the Seagram acquisition. The government blamed the Tories for the Ginn Publishing deal but it cannot blame them this time.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage attended meetings in Los Angeles with MCA and Seagram prior to this transaction being filed officially with the securities commission or cleared by Investment Canada.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that as a result of these meetings the Minister of Canadian Heritage appears to be influencing Investment Canada's decision?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I guess this is just my day.

Again we have a false hypothesis. With respect to the issue that is before Investment Canada at the present time, it is one simply of fact, whether or not Seagram is a Canadian controlled corporation. If so, then the transaction is not reviewable by Investment Canada.

The hon. member implies by her question that somehow or another the Minister of Canadian Heritage ought to be able to know in advance of a visit to a facility such as MCA that a takeover is about to be launched. If he has the ability to see in advance, then my suggestion would be that perhaps he would have succeeded very well as an investment counsellor.

How could he possibly have known in advance that this transaction was to occur? It is a ridiculous question.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the insidious backroom family connections continue.

Investment Canada has confirmed that the ADM for cultural affairs in the department of heritage is directly responsible for the Seagram file. He also has family ties with the Bronfmans. He is-

[The Speaker]

I appeal to the hon. member to put her question now.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why is the Prime Minister allowing this sensitive issue to be handled by an individual who is in a direct conflict of interest and whose family stands to benefit from the decisions made?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for Investment Canada, has explained very clearly that there is a process.

There will be an application from the buyers of this complex. They will have to establish very clearly something that is very easy to understand: Is this company Canadian controlled or not? It is a matter of fact. Investment Canada will review this. If it is a Canadian company it means the huge corporation will be controlled by Canadian interests. I do not see anything wrong if that is the case.

If it is not the case and it is an American concern, it will have to follow the same route as any other foreign investment. Therefore, it will be decided by Investment Canada. Investment Canada will look at the books of the Seagram corporation and decide if it is Canadian or not. It is not my decision. It is for Investment Canada to decide.

Telecommunications

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Power DirecTv needed an exemption order from cabinet, since the use of its partner's American satellite violates current CRTC rules. Moreover, because of such exemption orders, the federal government could be liable to court action, this according to the CRTC's secretary general.

Will the Minister of Industry recognize that, with this made-to-measure order for Power DirecTv, the government is allowing that company to use DirecTv's American satellite, thus avoiding having to pay tens of millions of dollars in fees for using the Canadian satellite?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say two things. First, the legal opinion which the government received does not support CRTC's contention. Second, the process which we undertook yesterday is of a parliamentary nature. If the hon. member has suggestions to make regarding the handling of this issue, we are prepared to listen.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that legal opinions are usually debated before the courts, which raises the following question: How can the Prime Minister, as head of the government, accept a decision which not only favours his son-in-law's interests but, more importantly, which makes his government liable to court action?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows there are often differences of opinion among lawyers. I can assure the hon. member our view is that the government acted entirely legally and is not subject to any civil suit for the actions it has taken in issuing a direction in pursuance of its powers under the Broadcasting Act.

However, I want to make clear that our objective in this, as I have stated several times in the House on previous days, is to create a competitive environment for direct to home satellite services, a level playing field. We think the direction we have tabled is the best means of achieving it.

Again, since there is a parliamentary process invoked here, if members in either of the opposition parties think there is a better way to do it, they may want to suggest changes to the direction.

Seagram

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the backroom family connections continue. Investment Canada has confirmed the assistant deputy minister for cultural affairs in the department of heritage is directly responsible for the Seagram file. Surprise, surprise.

He has family ties to the Bronfmans. He is Victor Rabinovitch, the brother of Robert Rabinovitch, who wrote the DTH satellite directive that benefits Power Corp and who works for the Bronfmans.

Why is the minister allowing this sensitive issue to be handled by an individual who is in direct conflict of interest and whose family stands to benefit from the decisions?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, let me help the hon. member to understand the process that is being invoked here.

The public servant in question does not work either for Investment Canada or for Industry Canada. Until it is determined that Seagram is not a Canadian company, there is in fact no role to be played by the Department of Canadian Heritage in the matter.

If Seagram is a Canadian company, the transaction is not reviewable by Investment Canada. As far as I can tell, the consequence of that would simply be that the sequel to "Jurassic Park", which I know is one of the hon. member's favourite movies, could perhaps qualify for the Oscar for best foreign film.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to go very far in the House to find "Jurassic Park".

This morning when asked about the heritage minister's trip to Los Angeles to meet with MCA and the Bronfmans, the ethics counsellor admitted that he had no knowledge of the trip. Considering the strong ties of the Bronfman family to the Liberal Party and the decisions that lie before Investment Canada, we have yet another problem of conflict of interest.

Why did the minister fail to consult again the ethics counsellor on an issue that affects the integrity of the decisions made by the government from "Jurassic Park"?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, now I will have to inform my cabinet ministers that when they go on trips they should ask the permission of the ethics counsellor.

Come on, look at the facts. This Canadian company of the Bronfman family, a great business success in Canada, has expanded into the United States. We should not be ashamed of that.

If it is still a Canadian company, it does not have to apply to Investment Canada. If it has too many interests outside Canada and has no more Canadian interests, it will have to apply.

There is no mystery. Why do they use innuendoes to try to destroy the reputations of people when the process is completely open and when we want to introduce some competition in the communications system of Canada?

I know le désespoir of these guys on the other side of the House. They do not have anything to say. They are trying to find fault when there is no problem. That is why the Canadian public is not responding to them and why they are so low in the polls.

Welfare

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

In January 1995, nearly 5,500 Quebec households applied for welfare for the first time. More than 40 per cent of these new applicants were young people under the age of 25. Altogether, sadly enough, we have a record 808,000 people in Quebec, 25 per cent of whom live in Montreal, who must turn to welfare as a last resort.

Considering that 40 per cent of new welfare recipients-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people I am talking about do not have the same lobbying power as those who were referred to repeatedly just now, but I would like to be heard just the same.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.