John Manley

[Tourism Industry, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first let me stress for the hon. member the importance of the tourism sector to the government's jobs and growth agenda.

I am pleased to tell him the $50 million commitment that the government made to the Canadian Tourism Commission has already leveraged an addition $30 million from the private sector, no strings attached.

The campaigns are under way, both on television as well as in newspapers. The responses are formidable. I would like to mention to the House that in the first quarter of 1995, we already have very encouraging numbers.

Travel receipts are up by 19.5 per cent and the travel deficit figures for the same period are down by 11.3 per cent. Tourism is jobs for Canadians in all parts of the country. It is jobs and growth.

[Crtc, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important the opposition understand what we are trying to do.

The complaint would have validity if there was an attempt to interfere with the CRTC's process, if there was an attempt in some fashion to determine who would receive a licence or who would not.

Instead we are dealing with situation in which the government is endeavouring to establish policy. That policy includes an obligation on the part of those who wish to provide direct to home satellite services of applying to the CRTC to obtain a licence to do so. Nobody would be able to carry on that business without a licence granted by the independent tribunal, the CRTC.

That does not in any way limit its independence. It is an appeal to it to use its independence in a way that is understood by the process to have a public application heard, debated, discussed and licences issued free of interference from the Government of Canada.

[Crtc, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will once again explain to the Bloc Quebecois that we did nothing to compromise the CRTC's independence, since we followed a process which is provided for in the broadcasting legislation.

The situation is very clear. There is a parliamentary process. We could debate the issue in this House. We have no intention of restricting the CRTC's independence. If Bloc members have a different view on the directive, they can share it. We are prepared to listen.

[Crtc, June 7th, 1995]

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?

[Crtc, June 7th, 1995]

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?

[Crtc, June 7th, 1995]

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.

[Crtc, June 7th, 1995]

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.

[Crtc, June 7th, 1995]

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.

[Crtc, June 7th, 1995]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition chooses to confuse policy with accusations that have nothing to do with reality.

Let me remind him again that the origin of the issue was the issuance of an exemption order which effectively created a monopoly in the direct to home satellite sector.

Let me remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition exactly why the exemption order was created in the first place in the bill proposed by the former government.

The explanatory note says that an exemption order exists as part of the technology neutral approach of the act. An example of a service which is technically broadcasting but which the commission would probably want to exempt is real estate radio.

What we have here is the use of the exemption order by the CRTC to authorize the entry into a very major component of the broadcasting service in the country of direct to home satellite broadcasting.

It was never anticipated that an exemption order would be used for such a purpose. It is entirely appropriate that the government seek a transparent method of looking at the means of licensing and recognizing the entry into the market in this important sector.

[Crtc, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what has happened here. The government has pursued a process which is set out very clearly in the Broadcasting Act. We have tabled a direction in Parliament.

The job of the government is to make policy. It was for that reason we were elected. It is the job of the CRTC to implement policy. It is for that reason it was created.

We have tabled a direction in the House which is part of a parliamentary process. It sets out a policy which is in favour of competition and in favour of consumers. Consumers have asked for leadership. That is what we are providing.

If the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party would like to suggest either that the direction be withdrawn and that the monopoly created by the exemption order remain or that the direction be amended, let us hear their suggestions.

The direction is on the table of the House. It is an open, transparent and public process. We are looking for good policy. Let us hear what the opposition has to suggest.