Michel Gauthier

[Seagram, May 2nd, 1995]

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?

[Telecommunications, May 1st, 1995]

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?

[Telecommunications, May 1st, 1995]

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.

[Telecommunications, May 1st, 1995]

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?

[Business Of The House, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Leader of the Government the typical question for a Thursday. What is on the agenda of the House for the next few days?

[Seagram, April 27th, 1995]

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?

[Seagram, April 27th, 1995]

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

[Seagram, April 27th, 1995]

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?

[Telecommunications, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister deny that this is a clear case of favouritism, given that, in the CRTC's opinion, cabinet orders in council compromise the independence and integrity of its licensing process to such an extent that the government exposes itself to the risk of being taken to court over these retroactive orders?

[Telecommunications, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in a notice sent to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the secretary general of the CRTC said that the federal cabinet would be overstepping its bounds if it went ahead with its proposal to use orders in council, which are too specific, too narrow and go much further than the general policy set out in the Broadcasting Act. The CRTC even believes that such orders in council could lead to legal action.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, for the first time in history, cabinet orders in council would force the CRTC to reconsider its decision and that this action would constitute preferential treatment for Power DirecTv?