John Manley

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand an allegation of wrongdoing "on the Seagram file" when so far nothing has been done on the Seagram file.

I state again very clearly that the threshold issue is whether or not Seagram is a Canadian controlled corporation. That is a matter entirely within the determination of the acting president of Investment Canada, based on criteria set out in the act. That determination will be made based upon information we obtain from Seagram or its counsel. The next stage would be a review under the Investment Canada Act of whether the transaction is of net benefit to Canada.

I suspect the hon. member wants to say that he does not think Heritage Canada, Investment Canada and Industry Canada will act in the best interest of Canada in reviewing the transaction. That is an extreme allegation. I invite him to make such allegations in a public forum where he is subject to all disciplines of civil law. I would ask him, if he is going to say things like that, to provide real evidence rather than just innuendo.

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see it as a tainting of the transaction whatsoever.

As I indicated in my earlier answer, as did the Minister of Canadian Heritage, a visit to a group of industry people in Los Angeles is in the normal course. I must say that as industry minister it is common for me to meet with representatives of companies and industrial groups on a daily basis. It is part of our normal activities. It is one of the ways in which we do our jobs. That is normal. The fact that a transaction may come forward is still hypothetical.

I can assure the hon. member, as I did earlier, that our objective as a government, in the event the transaction is reviewable, will be to secure improved undertakings on the part of MCA to make the transaction of greater benefit to Canada.

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if I gave that impression in my answer yesterday, then I was wrong.

To be exact about it, on the issue of whether Seagram is a Canadian corporation, heritage has no role to play. That is a determination made by the acting president of Investment Canada. If the transaction is reviewable by Investment Canada, then it does become an acquisition in the cultural sector. With respect to that decision, which is a decision I would make, I would consult in the normal manner with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and officials would consult with each other.

What I was endeavouring to explain was that at this stage we do not have an application under review because we are still at the stage of satisfying ourselves as to whether or not Seagram is a Canadian corporation.

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let us set a few facts straight from the beginning. Yes, the use of the direction by the government is unprecedented. It is a relatively recent power contained in the Broadcasting Act, as the hon. member knows.

There is nothing wrong with the government having power to make policy. That is what we are elected to do, to establish policy. That is what our responsibility is, to establish policy, yes, for Canadians. That direction does not give anyone a licence. What it does is create a level playing field for competition where companies can apply to get a licence on fair terms.

The government does not direct who gets a licence. The government does not tell the CRTC what to do. The government sets the policy direction. That is what our responsibility is.

If the Reform Party is against competition, if Reform Party members do not care about the interests of consumers, let them stand up and say so. If they are interested in competition, let us hear one, just one, solitary, useful suggestion as to how we get competition.

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of seeking briefings on the heritage minister's meetings.

Let me advise the hon. member that this infamous luncheon she is making a great deal of seemed to have quite a few people at it who are associated with a variety of companies in the Los Angeles area. Yes, Mr. Karp was present, as were officials from Canada. Also present were Mr. Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America; Lew Wasserman, chairman of the board of Music Corporation of America, Universal; Sid Scheinberg of Music Corporation of America, Universal; Bill Baker of Motion Picture Association of America, and on it goes. There were quite a lot of people at this secret meeting to somehow influence the decision of Investment Canada.

These allegations are really not worthy of the hon. member.

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe what undermines Canadian confidence are unfounded allegations.

I remind the hon. member that those in this House who stand to accuse others may one day have to stand to defend themselves. I suggest that she should be a little more sensitive.

I will give her a suggestion of what the popular media is saying on this. I offer her at this time today's Financial Post which states: ``Rather than being politically motivated the cabinet decision is clearly based on the desire for competition and not the creation of a monopoly in DTH satellite service''.

If the Reform Party is interested in competition, then the hon. member would be saying something about the content of the report, rather than making the silly allegations that she has made this morning. In fact what I observed on "Canada AM" yesterday was that the spokesman for the Reform Party said he could not comment on this because he had interests with Expressvu.

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, actually this is a worthwhile question. It reveals the real motivation of the Bloc Quebecois in this, which is to malign personally the integrity of a minister of the government without fact, without any basis in policy or otherwise.

The government stands prepared to debate its policy with respect to DTH satellite broadcasting, to review the issue of the acquisition of MCA, in fact its review under the Investment Canada Act and to respond to questions concerning the objections or otherwise of these decisions.

For the hon. member to stand up and make the ridiculous and absurd allegations that he is making today, totally unfounded, demonstrates the political motivation. That is all there is behind this.

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in the House over the last few days, members like the one opposite are prepared to make allegations founded not on fact but simply on innuendo.

In the preamble to his question he tries to link the decision to table a direction with respect to direct to home satellites to some kind of apparent conflict. As recently as this morning's Montreal Gazette , we have yet another editorial opinion saying: ``The government in overruling the CRTC has made its future decisions easier. The guiding principle for the CRTC is that all its decisions reflect the best interests of consumers and that includes competition in choice''.

I can understand that perhaps the member opposite is not in favour of competition in choice and is not interested in the affairs of consumers. That is for him to say. But to suggest that acting in the interest of consumers is somehow motivated by a conflict is an entirely unfounded, improper and irrelevant allegation.

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the event of a review of the transaction by Investment Canada, it would be the objective of the government to improve on the existing undertakings with respect to the corporation MCA.

It is clear that in the interests of Canadians, any review of that transaction, if it were favourably disposed of, would result in benefits to Canada pursuant to the Investment Canada Act.

The government has an obligation to have the best possible understanding of the business and of the undertakings of the acquirer as well as the acquiree corporation in Canada. That does not create a conflict of interest.

If there is a conflict of interest, I do not know where it is.

[Seagram, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Canadian Heritage will be present later in question period if there are questions regarding the details of his visit to Los Angeles.

There is neither an apparent nor a real conflict of interest in the Minister of Canadian Heritage meeting with a group of film makers and producers, all of whom carry on business in Canada, and representing the interests and views of Canadians in that milieu.

No review is under way at the present time. No application for review is under way at the present time. In fact, the threshold determination of whether or not Seagram is a Canadian company has yet to be made.