Michel Dupuy

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, no I will not.

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the fullest confidence in the CRTC. The CRTC is an arm's length agency, which I respect, as I stated in this House on several occasions when some members of the

opposition were suggesting that I should interfere in its operations.

When there was an indication that the letter I sent could lend itself to misinterpretation, I quickly made arrangements through a second letter to make sure the original meaning was understood.

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the letter I sent to the CRTC was the letter of an MP designed to ensure that a constituent received due process.

I attach great importance to my role as a member of Parliament. I am sure that my colleague feels the same way when she has constituents coming to visit her constituency office. She takes account of what they are requesting.

[Privilege, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last March I was approached at my constituency office by a constituent whom I had not met before and whom I have not met since, to write a letter drawing the attention of the CRTC to his application for a radio licence. I explained to this constituent that as minister responsible I could not interfere with the workings of the CRTC, but I agreed as his member of Parliament to do my best to ensure that he was treated fairly.

On March 15, I wrote to the chairman of the CRTC in my capacity as an MP for this constituent asking the commission to give the application a fair hearing. This was the letter of an MP seeking to ensure that a constituent received due process.

I wish to table the letter. The letter was not meant in any way to be an endorsement of the licence application, nor was it intended to exert pressure on the CRTC. I also understand that on March 30 the CRTC acknowledged my letter, categorizing it as a letter in support of the licence applicant. That acknowledgement letter was never brought to my attention. If it had been, I would have immediately rectified the matter.

As soon as I did learn that one of the interested parties wrote to me in September regarding my "alleged support" for the licence application, I took immediate corrective action. I wrote to the interested party, clarifying my earlier letter and clearing up any misunderstanding.

In this letter dated September 30, I wrote:

My letter of March 15, 1994 to the CRTC simply asked that due consideration be given to the application. It is not intended to convey support for or opposition to the application. The CRTC is the body mandated by law to make independent decisions on all such applications. It is therefore for the CRTC to weigh the merits of the arguments raised by the applicants and the interveners.

I wish to table the letter. Members will note that I took these actions before the matter became public. I did my best to clear up and correct the situation not because of public or media pressure which did not exist at the time but because it was the right thing to do.

Being an MP and a minister is not always easy. Among other things it is a learning experience. In hindsight it was imprudent to send that original letter to the CRTC. I regret any misunderstanding it may have caused.

I assure the House that I have never for a moment had any hesitation or misunderstanding about my role or responsibilities as a minister. As I said in the House on October 3 in answer to a question from the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, the minister of heritage cannot dictate to an independent body like the CRTC, which is also a regulating agency. It would be quite inappropriate for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to tell it what to do.

I have held to that position every moment on this job and the House has my commitment that I will continue to do so.

[Indian Affairs, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that there was an investigation into the funding of that society.

Some auditors looked at the books. They have been retained as counsel to the society. The two levels of government, the federal government and the provincial government, have agreed in light of the fact that Deloitte & Touche is advising the financing of the society to resume some degree of funding.

[Fort York, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that the federal government remains firmly committed to the original conditions attached to the transfer of Fort York to the city of Toronto.

Both the Department of Public Works and Government Services and my department recognize the importance of Fort York to our national heritage and to tourism.

My colleague can rest assured that the minister of public works and myself will make sure that the provisions of the covenant are respected. This is an important piece of national heritage. We are devoted to it. We have offered to discuss it and we will support it.

[Copyright, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is no postponement. The hon. member misunderstood what I said. I think that she wants to look like she is trying to protect the artists. But I will tell you: She can try all she wants, people will not be fooled.

[Copyright, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confusing two different things: The basic decisions regarding the object of the bill which, as I said, will be made by the Canadian government before the end of this fall, and the actual tabling of the bill, which requires a substantial amount of work by the Department of Justice.

I did not contradict myself. We are on schedule. We are on course and we are following our timetable.

[Canadian Radio-Television And Telecommunications Commission, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think our colleague is very confused. A while ago the CBC applied to provide a certain service on specialized channels. The CRTC has granted that application. This is in keeping with the law. The CRTC is an arm's length agency and the Canadian government, including the minister, is not interfering in the process. There is no grab there.

I can understand that our colleague would have difficulty accepting all of this, because as she said in Hansard at page 6986: ``I agree with nothing''.