Debates of June 7th, 1995

Crtc

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

I will give the Prime Minister another chance to act responsibly on this issue. I want to ask him how he can continue to claim he did nothing out of the ordinary and that the matter is being dealt with, when Expressvu, the competing consortium which had agreed to comply with the CRTC's criteria, has already made it clear that it would challenge the cabinet directives in the courts and that the CRTC will refuse to implement orders it feels are unlawful and also plans to bring this matter before the courts.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, throughout this issue the Prime Minister has acted with the utmost integrity by withdrawing himself from any discussion concerning it.

The government's objective is to establish a competitive environment in this important sector. Apparently there are plenty of legal opinions floating around. The hon. member knows very well that lawyers can be found to give opinions from virtually any point of view.

However, in this case we are confident we are acting entirely within the authority we have within the act. We have created a process that is open and transparent. We are seeking a policy that is pro competition and pro consumer.

Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he has a suggestion to make on how the policy ought to be shaped, if he wishes us to listen to protect one particular interest, we will hear him.

[The Speaker]

I urge hon. members to make the questions direct and the answers a little shorter.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or his messenger boy. I do not know who will choose to respond. The Minister of Industry may feign indignation, but he cannot hide his own and the whole government's discomfort.

The chairman of the CRTC told the parliamentary committee yesterday that the government's power to issue directives never meant that it could take over the CRTC's role of setting Canada's broadcasting policy.

Does the Prime Minister or his messenger boy, his underling, not think that, by bypassing the usual decision making process in this matter, putting in place a special committee as proposed, and drafting a very specific order tailor made for Power DirecTv, the government usurped the CRTC's powers, as CRTC chairman Keith Spicer claims?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we not only have the right to issue directives governing debate here in this House, but we also have the duty to set the best possible broadcasting policy for Canada.

That is what we did. We have not heard a single word from the official opposition about the broadcasting policies it favours.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take long. Given the kind of answer I am getting, I will try to make my question shorter and clearer. Perhaps then the minister will understand.

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

Impossible! It is impossible for him to understand.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Given the absolutely unprecedented attack by the CRTC chairman-not just anyone but the person appointed by the government to head the CRTC-, how can the minister continue to claim that the government followed normal procedures in this matter? How can he make such a claim, when it is quite obvious that all government decisions have directly benefited Power DirecTv, in which the Prime Minister's son-in-law has interests?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the hon. member's thesis is that it is wrong. Our order did not favour anyone. We proposed that the CRTC create a licensing system for everyone. We did not ask the CRTC to favour a specific group, company or individual.

The exemption order does that. It is an exemption order which is not subject to any appeal. It exists for a very limited purpose within the statute.

We have set in process a means of determining a policy which we think will be better in the interest of Canadians and the interest of consumers.

I have yet to hear from the hon. member whether he disagrees with the expert panel, whether he disagrees with Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, whether he disagrees with the Consumers Association of Canada, all of whom say this is what we should be doing. That is the advice we are taking, not his.

Minister Of Canadian Heritage

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, section 23 of the federal conflict of interest code includes this guideline:

A public office holder shall take care to avoid-the appearance of being placed under any obligation to any person-that might profit from special consideration on the part of the office holder.

In September the heritage minister blatantly broke the guideline. He did not avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. He participated in a private dinner at which guests were invited to pay $2,000 for access to the minister and after which several received government contracts.

The Prime Minister was therefore clearly wrong when he said in the House yesterday that "the minister has contravened none of our rules or directives".

Will the Prime Minister, before he digs himself in any deeper, now demand the resignation of the Canadian heritage minister for violation of this guideline?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I replied to these questions yesterday. I said that ministers have been engaged like all members of Parliament of all parties in fundraising. The names of the people and the amount of money have been transmitted to the party according to the laws of Canada. Every minister and every member of Parliament are doing that. Everybody has to do it according to rules set out by the elections act. In this case the minister has followed that.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1987 Conservative cabinet minister Roch LaSalle held a $5,000 a head cocktail party in a private home for a group of business people with interests in his department.

The Liberal opposition declared this to be a conflict of interest and demanded the minister's resignation. Prime Minister Mulroney, that great guardian of public ethics, eventually asked LaSalle to resign.

In 1994 the Liberal heritage minister held a $2,000 a plate dinner at a private home for a group of business people with interests in his department. We demand his resignation and declare it to be a conflict of interest, but the Prime Minister denies there is any wrongdoing.

Will the Prime Minister now abandon this double standard and raise himself to the ethical standards of Brian Mulroney and demand the resignation of that minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat all that has been done according to the information I have is the member has contributions, the money has been paid to the Liberal Party of Canada and we know the names of the people and the amount, as every party does. Some of the contributors to that dinner have also given money to the Reform Party.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the red book of the Liberals makes reference to ethics being the discipline of discerning right from wrong. By his answers yesterday and today the Prime Minister displays a disappointing ability to tell right from wrong where patronage is involved and where influence-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

The justice minister and the minister of public works are wrong over patronage. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is wrong over conflict of interest and the Prime Minister is wrong to defend those types of errors.

In the name of red book ethics, will the Prime Minister start today to do the right thing and demand the resignation of the minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have replied to these questions and the hon. member has not put forward any new facts.

We have the names of the people who contributed to the Liberal Party at this occasion. The names were printed in public documents. It is part of the political process of contributions to the party. As I said yesterday, the contributors did not receive a contract in relation to the government. Most of these contributions came from corporations which gave to the Reform Party as well.

Crtc

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not fooled by the government order, which has a double objective: help Power DirecTv and hinder Expressvu.

Canadians' confidence in the integrity of the process that led the government to favour Power DirecTv was strongly shaken by the striking revelations made by the chairman of the CRTC.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not feel that, by letting the heritage and industry ministers undermine the authority and integrity of the CRTC in a matter that benefits his own son-in-law, he is in fact condoning an unacceptable situation that was strongly denounced by the chairman of the CRTC?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, again, the facts are the following. We introduced a transparent public process. The directive issued in this House is open for discussion. It is possible for both the official opposition and the Reform Party to propose amendments. To date, they have not proposed any. Neither have they discussed the CRTC order in terms of the monopoly it set up. Consumers in Quebec and Canada prefer that there be competition in every sector. In the emerging satellite broadcasting sector in particular, there is no reason for not having open competition.

We are on the side of consumers. We are in favour of competition. What does the opposition have against that?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a limit to leading people down the garden path. With Expressvu, there was no monopoly; Power DirecTv, however, did not meet CRTC requirements. That is why he wants to prevent the start-up of Expressvu.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Given that the Prime Minister's senior adviser was kept abreast of progress on the Power DirecTv issue and that we now know that the government orders are illegal because they have a retroactive effect, how can the Prime Minister continue to maintain that the usual transparent procedure was followed in the case of Power DirecTv and that his son-in-law's interests did not carry inordinate weight in the matter?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I will not begin to take my legal opinions from this hon. member. We have acted entirely in accordance with the law. The Broadcasting Act is quite clear and we have followed it to the letter. We have tabled the direction in the House; it is there for discussion.

I have yet, despite numerous times today, to hear once from the opposition whether it thinks the directions should simply be withdrawn in order to create a monopoly for one company or whether it thinks the directions should be changed in some way. If so, let it propose it.

We are in favour of competition. We are standing up for the consumers. What is the opposition standing up for?

Minister Of Canadian Heritage

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, talk about secrecy, the minister's office will not give us the entire list of who contributed to the fundraising dinner. Elec-

tions Canada has not yet made the names public, which makes me wonder why he thinks there were Reform funds.

Will the Prime Minister table the entire list of those who attended and those who contributed?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague has some good information because I gave it to her no later than this morning. She is flaunting around a piece of paper alleging to contain the right information.