Debates of Oct. 28th, 1994

Ethics

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

At first blush the 35th Parliament appeared like no other when 205 rookie MPs eagerly took their places in the House of Commons, unprecedented in any Canadian Parliament.

I am one of those rookies who ran on a platform that states: "We affirm that political parties should be guided by stated values and principles which are shared by their members and rooted in the political belief of Canadians. We believe in the accountability of elected representatives to the people who elect them".

Why is it today that I feel embarrassed as a member of this House when the honesty and integrity on which all of us supposedly ascribed to has been eroded? Public confidence in the politicians of this country will never be restored when inaction and imprudence creeps into the system.

As the hon. Prime Minister said in his throne speech: "Trust once shattered is difficult, almost impossible to rebuild".

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister told this House that he had been aware of the heritage minister's letter, the beginning of the month. Yet, we learned in today's Ottawa Citizen that ethics counsellor Howard Wilson said late Wednesday afternoon that he had never heard of the case.

Did the Prime Minister consult the ethics counsellor and, if so, when?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak to Mr. Wilson myself, but I asked that he be consulted yesterday.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister explain to this House that he consulted the ethics counsellor only a few hours before the minister of heritage made his statement? Is this not an admission of how little importance he attaches to this counsellor's advice?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when I was informed of the minister's letter, I knew that Privy Council advisers had analyzed the problem and I was given a recommendation to that effect. I did not know whom they consulted. I was briefed on the various options. I knew that Mr. Sharp had been consulted and I thought that Mr. Wilson had been consulted, but that did not change the decision. The decision is still the Prime Minister's responsibility. The Prime Minister cannot say, "My counsellor advised me to do this or that". At the end of the day, the Prime Minister must take his responsibilities and that is what I did.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that, after making such a big fuss over the appointment of an ethics counsellor, they consult him only a few hours before a statement, probably to save face.

Given his party's ambitious commitments with regard to integrity and openness, does the Prime Minister not agree that the episode of the letter shows that his government is in no hurry to adopt clear guidelines for ministers, especially when dealing with quasi-judicial bodies?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I checked the long-standing guidelines on this, and those concerning judges are very clear. They say that anyone who has a problem with the judiciary must go to the Minister of Justice. It is very clear that a minister cannot write or telephone a judge. Even when I was a minister, there were guidelines to the effect that one must go to the Minister of Justice, who must use his judgment.

As for the guidelines for members of Parliament and ministers concerning quasi-judicial bodies, they say that there must be communications among these bodies, but after reading the guidelines yesterday, I concluded that they were not clear enough and I ordered that new ones be prepared.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

After a series of failures, including the Ginn Publishing episode, the avowed helplessness of the minister to adequately protect the interests of French-speaking people living outside Quebec, and now his refusal to resign following his blunder with the CRTC, the minister no longer has any credibility.

At a time when the government is about to slash his budget, what credibility does the minister think he still has to protect the interests of Canadian cultural institutions and industries?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I assume my responsibility to all Canadians who expect me to look after their interests, including those of cultural communities.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think that, given his poor record and his inability to deal with several major issues, he would have served the interests of Canadians better by resigning yesterday, as he was asked to do?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he had learned of the letter to the CRTC from the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the beginning of the month of October and that he had consulted the ethics counsellor.

I draw the House's attention to yesterday's Hansard at page 7312 where the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:

I consulted the government's ethics counsellor and one I appointed for myself-

In light of those remarks I would like to ask the Prime Minister how he could say just a few moments ago that: "I did not speak to him myself. I asked that he be consulted". Further, how could he justify saying just a few moments ago: "I thought Mr. Wilson had been consulted". Why the discrepancy?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when you are Prime Minister, you have people working for you, preparing reports and discussing issues. Officials worked on this issue and then made recommendations.

As to the minister's letter, I was of the opinion that he had made a mistake, but when he realized that, he himself corrected the situation. I knew that the issue had been reviewed by lawyers

from the Privy Council Office. These people do not come to see me personally; I have an excellent Clerk of the Privy Council who keeps me informed.

I did receive the recommendation. I did not ask them to whom they had talked. The recommendation was made to the Prime Minister who is fully responsible.

The Prime Minister is fully responsible. With all the facts in front of me I said I think that the minister made an error in not being that careful but he tried to correct it as soon as he realized his error. I did not ask him to resign. Eventually I asked if Mr. Wilson had been consulted in the process. I have been told he was not. Therefore, I asked that he be consulted right away. He was consulted yesterday and he gave his advice. The advice he gave was given to me and it did not force me to change my mind about the decision I took a few days ago.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is not something we are dealing with just a couple of days ago. The ethics counsellor said that he was contacted on Wednesday night, not by the Prime Minister or his officials but by a Southam News reporter. This has been going on literally for months. According to the ethics counsellor he was only contacted Wednesday night. This is not good enough.

I ask the Prime Minister: Where are the reports and the minutes from this meeting with the ethics counsellor? Why can we not have all the facts for this? Will he table a report from the ethics counsellor with the facts?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is not about that at all. I said that the Prime Minister is responsible. I was made aware of the problem. I looked at all the facts and I made the decision. I am fully responsible.

If I were to make the wrong decision and then come into this House and say that I received advice from somebody telling me to do this or that you would have said: "You are the one responsible". I take full responsibility on that matter.

The Prime Minister can consult whomever he wants. At the end of the day when he gets up in this House he is the only person responsible. I am not running away from my responsibilities.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are asking for: absolute responsibility and accountability from every member in this Chamber.

Instead of establishing an independent ethics watchdog to investigate ministers and hold them publicly to account, the government has established an ethics lapdog that answers to nobody but the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister keeps him in the dark and employs him only when he is needed at the last minute to excuse the actions of an embattled minister.

Will the Prime Minister stop dodging his responsibilities as he is proud to do and demand the resignation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I explained the situation yesterday. I said that it was an honest mistake. The minister recognized that himself and acted without pressure from anybody outside. When he realized it was interpreted like that and when checking the guidelines he realized he wanted to correct the situation and he wrote the letter. I was satisfied with that.

I would have preferred that he had not written the letter of course. But as I said, when you look at the facts it was not to influence a decision, it was to have a decision. When you look at the facts today the letter was written in relation to one applicant who did not get the permit. He lost it.

Cultural Institutions

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

After weeks of waiting, the government will release today a series of studies on the future of its cultural institutions, for the sole purpose of justifying the major cuts it is about to make in that sector.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage realize that imposing major budget cuts to cultural institutions, such as the NFB, will only result in jeopardizing their integrity, and even the survival of an institution which is internationally recognized?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member thinks that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has made decisions concerning the future budgets of some federal cultural institutions. This is only an assumption.

What I did was to have these studies made public precisely so that people and institutions concerned can react. This is in total agreement with the government's desire for transparency in these fields.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister endorse the recommendations contained in the Secor report on Telefilm Canada, to the effect that investments should be limited to presumably profitable ventures, from a commercial point of view, and does the minister realize that the implementation of such a recommendation would jeopardize the whole independent film production industry, thereby affecting young producers and original work?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, if I had endorsed anything, it would mean that I would have already made decisions. My original answer indicates that I did not make any such decision.

Ethics

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were concerned about the judgment of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Today we are concerned about conflicting statements by the Prime Minister who yesterday said: "I consulted. I consulted with the ethics counsellor". Today he is saying: "I asked somebody else to go and see him and see what he said". This is a discrepancy and I am very concerned.

The Mulroney government was not known for setting high standards but at least when it had a problem it was dealt with immediately. This Prime Minister has not.

I ask him to ask his minister to resign immediately and clear the air.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I consulted. I asked somebody to call him to ask him the question. He gave a very clear answer. He did not speak to me directly. Most of the time I have a staff that consults with me because I have a lot of work to do. The answer that came from him did not lead me to change my mind about the decision I had made earlier in the month. I think it was October 1 and we are still in the month of October.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on page 95 of the red book, the Liberals promise and I quote: "to appoint an independent ethics counsellor that will report directly to Parliament". This is a broken promise made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. The Prime Minister has said that he would be accountable for fulfilling every promise in the red book. This need not have happened. The Prime Minister would not be in this mess had he stood up and kept his own promises.

I ask the Prime Minister to give the ethics counsellor his independence, make him responsible to Parliament, and allow him to report directly to Parliament on this issue as he promised. Then he would not be in such a mess as he got himself into today.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we debated that theory in the House at that time. We came to the conclusion that at the end of the day, whatever advisers you have around you, when you are the Prime Minister you make the decision. Even if that adviser is to report to Parliament, I will have to decide whether I do or do not keep a minister in the cabinet. Nobody but the Prime Minister chooses a cabinet minister and is responsible for the cabinet.

The man does the advising but the decision remains the responsibility of the only one who is responsible for the cabinet, the Prime Minister of the country.