Debates of May 2nd, 1995

Seagram

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I knew that Foreign Affairs was cutting down on spending by ministers abroad, but making them have lunch in cafeterias is going a bit too far.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[An hon. member]

How times have changed.

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

Indeed they have.

Will the minister admit that he went to Los Angeles at the invitation of Allan Karp, president of Cineplex Odeon which belongs to the Bronfman family and MCA and is a party to the transaction concluded the day he arrived in Los Angeles?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I have contacts with all players in the Canadian film industry, whether they are in distribution, production, post-production or movie-theatre chains. So it is entirely normal I should have contacts with Cineplex Odeon, one of the big chains. However, at no time during my contacts with Cineplex Odeon did I discuss what was happening, in other words, the acquisition of MCA by Seagram's.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm that two of the guests of honour at his lunch on April 10, Mr. Wesserman and Mr. Sheinberg, the two top executives at MCA, were actually having lunch in the room next door with Edgar Bronfman senior and junior?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I could not be in two places at the same time. I was where I said I was. Where Mr. Bronfman and the others were? I was not there. I was not a witness. It is too bad the Leader of the Opposition keeps flogging a dead horse.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that Cineplex-Odeon, which belongs to the Bronfman trust and to MCA, proposed to merge with Cinemark, an American company, to create a North American mega movie theatre company called Cineplex International. According to the Globe and Mail , if the transaction is completed, Americans will have a 42.6 per cent interest in Cineplex International, while the Bronfman/MCA group will hold 38 per cent of the shares of that company.

Considering that such a transaction would put Cineplex-Odeon under American control, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us if he expressed his strong disagreement to Cineplex-Odeon's president, Mr. Karp, who happens to be the person who invited the minister to Los Angeles, given the impact of such a merger on the control of Cineplex-Odeon movie theatres by the American majors?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I never discussed this issue, either directly or indirectly, with Mr. Karp. The ownership of Canadian or foreign businesses does not fall under my jurisdiction, but under that of the Minister of Industry. I can confirm that this issue is neither directly nor remotely related to my department.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the minister's answers. He behaves as though he were not a member of this government. Is he still? We think so.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not agree that, as the minister responsible for culture and communications in Canada, his primary responsibility is to clearly tell those who might be tempted to conclude a transaction deemed unacceptable by Canadian cultural groups that he and his government will fight tooth and nail to protect the Canadian industry?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that I strive to protect Canadian content on the information highway and in the audiovisual sector as a whole. I do it here in Canada, I did so in Brussels during the G-7 meeting and I will continue to do so.

Why protect Canadian content? So that we have our own identity, our own culture. How are we going to do it? By supporting cultural industries which produce this Canadian content.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's red book contains many high-flown promises including one to proceed full steam ahead with the undefined concept of aboriginal self-government and generous interpretation of treaties.

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development give us an update on what he and his department are doing to fulfil these promises?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, there is community based self-government with about 40 First Nations. There are the so-called land chiefs negotiations.

In Alberta we struck the first deal for moving gas and oil to aboriginal people, probably followed by another four or five.

In Saskatchewan there are nine co-management agreements. We are starting co-management in Saskatchewan.

In Manitoba we have dismantled the whole province. The province is now at the table.

[An hon. member]

They will be pleased to hear that.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

The member asked a question. I am sure he wants to be informed.

In B.C. the treaty process is moving. I am pleased to announce it is now supported as of the weekend by the Lutheran bishop, the Ukrainian Catholic bishop, the Anglican bishop and the Roman Catholic bishop for the first time.

In Ontario we are negotiating with NAN for dismantling and moving jurisdiction of education in treaty 3 that is around Fort Frances, which the hon. member never gets to.

In Quebec we are working with all 10 First Nations plus the Inuit.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear the minister is dismantling the province of Manitoba.

The minister implies that the government is committed to the concept of self-government and resolving treaty issues. However at the same time the minister's officials are advising him in a slightly different direction.

I quote from the minister's leaked briefing notes which advise the minister to bring the high expectations of the aboriginal community to manageable levels so that the federal government will avoid being placed in a position of trying to explain why it is not keeping its red book promises.

My question is for the minister. Why is the minister in his public statements raising high expectations with respect to aboriginal self-government while being advised in private by his officials to reduce high expectations for self-government and to avoid red book promises?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the leader of the Reform Party, what I say in private is exactly what I say in public.

With the aboriginal people I say just this. We have to scope out exactly what this means. That is part of the treaty process. If the leader of the Reform Party wants to know what I saw in my briefing books he should have been at the opening meeting with treaty 6 where I said just that. I signed a memorandum of understanding with treaty 6 in Alberta and said just that. It is in the public speech that was released. He probably got it from one of the Calgary papers.

We have to scope out exactly what this means. It is exactly what we did publicly in the treaty 6 memorandum of understanding. It is exactly what we will do with the Iroquois, with the Murray treaty in Quebec, always publicly and always straight up. We are making progress.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this advice is contained in ministerial briefing notes dated April 18, 1995. Many Canadians suspect from the minister's past behaviour that he does not read his briefing notes or follow the advice from his officials.

In the rash statements made by the minister with respect to self-government, do we not yet have another instance of an impetuous minister operating oblivious to the concerns of his officials and making rash statements publicly that he is advised against making privately?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for the famous aboriginal policy of the Reform Party. The leader has

done once again what he usually does. When he cannot deal with merits, when he cannot deal with compassion and when he cannot deal with issues, he personally attacks me.

I am doing my job. The hon. member should be doing his job if he is serious about helping the native people of the country.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The minister will announce today the appointment of a committee chaired by a friend of the government, Mr. Pierre Juneau, whose task will be to examine the operations of the CBC, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada. Now, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should table its report on the CBC by the end of this month.

How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage rationalize the appointment of a special committee chaired by a friend of the government when a committee of the House of Commons is preparing a report on CBC operations?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, nobody can question the qualifications of Mr. Pierre Juneau, who is a distinguished Canadian, one of the greatest experts we have in this country, and a French-speaking Canadian on top of that. I am outraged at such a disgraceful attack.

As to the review that is being launched, it was announced in the budget, and it is not at all incompatible with the report of the standing committee.

The task of Mr. Juneau and of other committee members is, in fact, to examine the standing committee's recommendations, and they must take those recommendations into account.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that, by setting up that new special committee, the minister is about to repeat what happened in the case of Power DirecTv, where he appointed a panel whose made-to-measure recommendations backed the federal government's decisions?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is very kind for the hon. member to suggest I wield so much power I can pull the strings. That is not the case. That committee will be totally independent. Its terms of reference will allow a thorough examination of the issue. When the report is handed to me, I will consider it. That is all.