Debates of May 1st, 1995

Social Assistance

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, we have been through the discussion on MIL Davie. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, has dealt with it many times, pointing out that the major shareholder in MIL Davie is the Government of Quebec. If they are directly concerned about job creation then they have an opportunity to produce.

I point out a further observation for the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Because of the direct efforts and initiative of the government, in addition to setting a different climate throughout the country for the 430,000 jobs that have been created, over 120,000 jobs were created last year. There were infrastructure, new programs in internships and new developments dealing with applied programs for apprenticeships. Various kinds of direct initiatives have provided an additional 120,000 jobs for Canadians.

That demonstrates we are taking our responsibilities seriously. We are doing what we can to respond. We simply ask that other governments take their responsibilities as well.

Telecommunications

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry stated last Friday in the House that he had kept the Prime Minister's senior policy adviser, Eddie Goldenberg, abreast of developments on the Power DirecTv file, in which the rather large Liberal family, including the Prime Minister's son-in-law, has a stake.

My question is for the Minister of Industry. How can he claim that the Prime Minister remained at arm's length of the Power DirecTv issue, which has implications for his son-in-law, when his senior policy adviser was kept apprised of developments and intervened at every step of the process, until it culminated in the adoption of an order custom-made for Power DirecTv?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained in detail Thursday and Friday, I believe, the satellite broadcasting issue was handled transparently and was accepted by all independent parties concerned. I have yet to hear how the Bloc Quebecois would handle the satellite broadcasting issue, perhaps because they lack a policy on it. Our approach was to table a directive in the House of Commons, as provided for under the Broadcasting Act, which was tabled in the House when the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was a member of the Mulroney Cabinet.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what gall! When the minister talks about transparency on this issue, the only thing that is clear is that the Prime Minister's son-in-law lucked out when this extraordinary, unprecedented, exceptional measure was implemented. That is the one thing that is clear.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[An hon. member]

That is what I call clear. That is transparent.

[An hon. member]

That is family spirit.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Can the Minister of Industry actually be serious when he claims that Mr. Goldenberg was not involved in the Power DirecTv deal, when Cabinet made its first move in the company's favour, deciding to review the CRTC's order and to create a working group led by Mr. Goldenberg's former associate just days after the Prime Minister's senior policy adviser and the president of Power DirecTv met?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I think the report of the committee speaks for itself. The committee proceeded in a transparent fashion. It received submissions from across Canada. It made them available publicly. The report of the committee has not been criticized in its logic or its substance by any member of the House, including the hon. member who posed the question.

There is no basis upon which the government should fail to act to carry out its responsibilities in a way that responds to the interests of consumers and ensures a competitive structure for satellite broadcasting in Canada.

If there is any basis upon which the hon. member can suggest the government should not act or should refuse to act in the best interest of Canadians, let him explain it. He has the opportunity to do that during the course of review of the direction in the House of Commons.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the direct to home satellite debate the government has attempted to deflect criticism by portraying the Reform Party as anti-competition, and nothing could be further from the truth.

The government has also said that we could not criticize the process. Wrong again. Not one part of the tainted DTH process was above board. Expressvu is loaded with CRTC insiders and Power DirecTv has stronger Liberal ties than Mackenzie King.

The only thing that has been clear in all of it is that Canadians are paying the price for the government's lack of coherent cultural policy that favours true competition.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. If the government truly wants competition, why will it not live up to its commitment to release a comprehensive cultural policy?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we are making policy and this is what seems to be so irritating to the opposition. It is important to make policy for the information highway and the bottom line of it is Canadian content. The bottom line of Canadian content is the production of Canadian content. This is what we are doing.

We are bringing the policy before the House through the direction. There will be opportunity for members of both opposition parties to express their views. This is also the reason why I have been investing time in the film industry, in order to make sure there is Canadian content.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get a response to my question regarding competition. Policy is required but not the ad hoc weathervane approach of the government.

One day the government is restricting choice and competition in the country music industry. The next day it is opening the doors for its Liberal friends in Power Corp and their American buddies to set up their satellite networks across the country. It is

no wonder the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not know whether he is coming or going.

I have a supplementary question. Where does the government really stand on competition in cultural industries? Is the government for it or against it?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to understand one thing. In pursuing the issue of how to move forward the satellite broadcasting file, the government has repeatedly restated its commitment to a competitive environment.

I do not understand. Last Thursday quite properly Mr. Rick Anderson disclosed on national television that he had an interest in Expressvu. I would like to know, and I think Canadians have a right to know, whether the senior political adviser for the leader of the Reform Party has played a role in deciding what strategy members of that party were going to follow in pursuing this file because they are against competition and they are against consumers in the way they are conducting this file.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the most ridiculous spin I have heard yet in the House of Commons.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The government's ad hoc approach to cultural competition cannot continue. Eventually the Liberals will have to get off the fence. The CBC is in disarray for the lack of a cultural policy. The Canada Council is in disarray for the lack of a cultural policy. We are crawling along the information highway at a snail's pace because of the lack of cultural policy.

What is the holdup? Is the government waiting for the approval of Mr. Goldenberg, Mr. Desmarais or Mr. Bronfman?

I ask again: When will the government release its long awaited cultural policy? We have been waiting for 18 months.

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, before asking about Canadian cultural policy, our colleague should know about Canadian culture.

The hon. member seems to have been fighting to bring American culture here by supporting some American interest in the Country Music Network rather than supporting Canadian interests. It is no wonder that through a lot of accusations which have nothing to do with policy she gets a wonderful quote in the Globe and Mail . The Saturday editorial in the Globe and Mail said: ``The public has a pretty good nose for a rat and this time it is not on government benches''.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Minister of Industry acknowledged that Eddie Goldenberg, the Prime Minister's senior adviser, had communicated two things to him, and I quote: "-that the Prime Minister did not want to be involved in any way in the matter, and neither did he". Not long before, however, the Minister of Industry had said he had kept Mr. Goldenberg informed of all developments concerning Power DirecTv.

How does the Prime Minister explain the Minister of Industry's regularly informing his senior adviser, Eddie Goldenberg, of decisions concerning Power DirecTv, after Mr. Goldenberg had said he did not want to be involved in the matter in any way?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I find it peculiar that opposition members seem to think there is something wrong here when they cannot point to anything wrong either with the report or its implementation.

I will restate that of course it is normal in important files that the Prime Minister's office would be informed of what was happening. However, I would also like to state as I have repeatedly that with respect to this file decisions were taken by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and myself. We were neither instructed nor requested either by the Prime Minister or by his principal secretary to do anything in particular on these files. The decisions we took were our own. As far as I am concerned, I have yet to hear any substantive criticism of any of them.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the direct involvement of the Prime Minister's son-in-law, in view of the millions of dollars at stake and in view of the serious allegations as to the role of the Prime Minister's office in the Power DirecTv matter, will the Prime Minister agree to table in this House the memorandum in which he insisted he not be involved in this matter in order to avoid any conflict of interest given his son-in-law's interests in Power DirecTv?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, this same question was put on Friday. There is no question of something being tabled. The Prime Minister made it clear in his only comment on this file in my hearing that he wanted nothing to do with it. He removed himself from cabinet when it was discussed at that time. There is really nothing there for the hon. member to ask for.

It is more important to ask what exactly this is all about. I think that is a complete bankruptcy of policy in both of the opposition parties, neither of which has the faintest idea what should be done with respect to satellite broadcasting policy in this country.

Members Of Parliament Pensions

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government appears particularly sneaky. First it told Canadians that MP pension reform would save taxpayers over $3 million. It did not mention the fact that Canadian taxpayers would have to top up the trough annually to the tune of $7 million.

The government told Reformers that we could opt out if we found the pension scheme a little too rich for our blood. What it did not say was that future MPs will be forced to join this obscene pension plan.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why has the government limited the opting out provision to current MPs only? How deep is this cabinet's commitment to real pension reform?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it was on February 22 that the President of the Treasury Board made the announcement with respect to MP pensions. A backgrounder was also available on that day indicating very clearly the conditions under which the legislation would come forth. It is an opportunity for people to opt in once the legislation is in. Everybody will be treated in a very similar way.

I might add that the member for Calgary West and the leader of the Reform Party were in attendance at the meeting. I do not know why there are any particular surprises. If there are suggestions to be made, they can be made in this House when the legislation is debated. They can also be made in committee.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my surprise stems from the fact that this government had the gall to actually introduce that legislation without making some kind of statement.

Nothing has really changed. The MP pension plan is still astronomically rich. We will still receive twice the national limit. Those benefits are still indexed against inflation and there is no cap on ministerial pensions.

Maybe the class of 1988 and the others who will choose to join me in opting out of this pension plan could change things from the inside. The legislation that was tabled is not acceptable.

Why did the government rule out replacing the entire MP pension scheme with a more realistic private plan such as other Canadians receive, one dollar for one dollar?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, this particular question shows very clearly the opportunism sought by the Reform Party. The red book made two promises. It said that the age of eligibility would be raised and that has been done. The red book also said there would be no double dipping and that has also been done.

However, the government decided to go further. It said that it would contribute one-third less to MP pensions than it had in the past. It also said that MPs did not need to participate. It also said there would be 20 per cent less accrual rate for MPs. It went beyond what was promised. The Reform Party is trying to exploit this issue for its advantage.

Seagram

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister claims that he learned of the takeover of MCA by Seagram only after getting off the plane in Los Angeles, adding that the transaction was highly secretive, when there had been reports about the imminent takeover of MCA by Seagram for weeks.

How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain his travelling incognito to Los Angeles accompanied only by his chief of staff, without being given the usual pre-trip briefing that department officials always give their ministers before a trip abroad?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, such trips, this one in particular, are carefully planned. As I told the House before, I had taken the time to consult with several representatives of the Canadian film industry. That qualifies as preparation.

Second, to keep travel expenses to a minimum, I do not travel abroad with an entourage of government officials unless I have to, and I dare anyone to come out and disprove it. I would also point out to our colleagues opposite that the our consul general in Los Angeles was with me at every meeting I attended. So, every single one of the allegations we have heard over the past few days is false.