House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.
Telecommunications April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, this is a case of the more noise, the less substance. As the hon. member knows, the condition of the exemption order which required that all content be carried through Canadian satellites excluded essentially everybody but Expressvu from-
Telecommunications April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, again the opposition is grasping at straws.
The hon. member is correct. I did confirm that I informed Mr. Goldenberg on the status of the file. That is normal. I received no submissions. Certainly I have never discussed the matter at all with the Prime Minister. I can assure the House of that. Nor did I receive, as the member describes, any pressure from Mr. Goldenberg in any respect with regard to this file.
What I did receive were hundreds of submissions through the review panel from Canadians from coast to coast who said: "Please review the order that was issued in August by the CRTC". When the report of the panel was issued it was again supported not only by editorialists but by many of the groups on behalf of which the hon. member claims to speak in the House of Commons and committee, groups like ACTRA, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, the Canadian Council of the Arts.
I do not understand what her problem is. If we did not listen to those groups she would be on her feet criticizing us for not having done so.
Seagram April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the process is really the assurance that the leader is looking for. I offer him a reminder of last Christmas when Canadians across the country told us loud and clear that they wanted competition. We have taken moves in the context of the DTH file to ensure that there is competition.
The member raises the issue of ethics. Surely he understands that the best assurance that ethical principles have been lived up to is a clear and transparent process. That is the process we invoked. We invoked one that was open to public debate and discussion. We have listened in a public manner to the submissions of Canadians from coast to coast.
If he disagrees with the submissions that we heard from hundreds of Canadians, from editorialists, from artists and from broadcasters then let him say so, but let him not criticize it on the basis of innuendo. It is below him.
Seagram April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the marriage of convenience between the Bloc and Reform is one formed in the gutter I must say.
Seagram April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may know there is an issue here as to whether or not Seagram is a Canadian company. If so, then the transaction is not reviewable by Investment Canada.
I want to assure the hon. member that that determination, which will be made according to legal principles by Investment Canada, is done entirely without reference to the Minister of Canadian Heritage as if that were relevant.
Telecommunications April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition keeps trying to find something that would discredit the process but he does not succeed.
The fact is the process was initiated yesterday in the House of Commons. It is true it is the first time it has been used. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would admit it is a power that has only recently been included in the statute, although it was proposed that it was included in the statute by the previous government. It is a relatively new power and was used in a circumstance which itself was unprecedented, namely the granting of the exemption order by the CRTC.
In the face of the exemption order being granted on August 30, many groups asked the government to act, saying there were problems with this. If we had not acted in response to those criticisms, I suspect that at least the Leader of the Opposition, or perhaps his critic who often claims to speak on behalf of groups like the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, would be standing in this House criticizing us for having not acted in the way we have acted.
Telecommunications April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, a lot of smoke but no fire.
The problem here for the Leader of the Opposition is very simple. He has a report of a panel of experts, yes, chaired by Gordon Ritchie, participated in by Roger Tassé and Robert Rabinovitch, three former deputy ministers in the Public Service of Canada. They produced a report which has been generally praised in editorial comments and by other groups.
The Leader of the Opposition has nothing to criticize in the report. In fact, as I recall from the publication of the report on April 6, the most telling criticisms came from the very party he claims it was intended to benefit. Why? Because the result of the report and the direction which was tabled yesterday really give nothing to anybody except the right to apply to the CRTC for a licence. That right is open to Power DirecTv. It is open to Expressvu. It is open to everybody else.
Our intention has been to be very, very careful on process. We invoked a process which was transparent and open. We have initiated it with tabling a direction, a process which is statutory, open to debate in a public forum, namely the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition cannot find anything to criticize in that process so he is left to asking about irrelevant details.
Telecommunications April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, we have been through this a number of times.
We have demonstrated repeatedly that the action the government took both in initiating a review of the exemption order issued by the CRTC and in adopting the report of the panel of experts chaired by Mr. Ritchie has been in conformity with the views of many disinterested groups, at least in terms of the commercial interests involved. These include Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, the Consumers' Association of Canada, ACTRA, groups which really are not involved other than as important users of the system. Newspaper editorials have also asked for this response.
If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to debate this matter on the basis of process, then we will have something of substance to talk about. So far, his only attack on this has been unbased innuendo, which I think reveals more about him than it does about our process.
Lobbyists Registration Act April 25th, 1995
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in and read the second time.
Environment April 25th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the member is aware of the importance of the automotive industry to Canada. He will know, for example, that Canadian producers account for about 17 per cent of automotive production in North America, whereas we only consume about 10 per cent.
Key to that is uniformity of standards between the U.S. and Canada. The member will know that MMT is not permitted in the United States by legislation. It is crucial that we have
uniformity of standards. The effort we put into trying to ensure there was a voluntary agreement between the two sectors has been well placed, but finally governments have to decide.