Debates of Oct. 31st, 1994

Immigration Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This being a private member's ballot item, there is an understanding that we will vote by rows as is traditionally done for private members' hour and not the system that is used for government bills.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We will be voting row by row. It should be a great way to start the week.

As is the practice the division will be taken row by row, starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover; then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called; and those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I wonder if I might ask a few of our colleagues for verification of their votes, specifically, the member for Burin-St. George's and Broadview-Greenwood. Could they indicate to the Chair if it was their intent to vote in favour of the motion?

The member for Broadview-Greenwood?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I stood and I was in favour of the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The member for Burin-St. George's?

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to support the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion lost.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

moved that Bill C-56 to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating today how to make good legislation even better. This bill sets out to improve one of the most outstanding environment acts in the world. With the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its important amendments, Canada will be a world leader in environmental thinking and practice. We are also making this country a better place to be.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was first planned by the current Leader of the Opposition in 1989 when he was Minister of the Environment. We were in opposition at the time. I was the Liberal critic for the environment.

Our party supported the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean in his efforts and voted in favour of the act. We put aside our partisan differences and voted for legislation which was good for the environment and good for Canada.

We supported the hon. member and wanted the law proclaimed. Indeed it was a red book promise because the law, as it previously existed, was complicated, arbitrary, unpredictable and incomplete.

We needed new legislation to simplify the process and strengthen it.

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We do not have French translation and cannot follow what the minister is saying in English.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We will certainly look into this and take the necessary steps to remedy the problem. In the meantime, I would ask the hon. Minister of the Environment to carry on with her speech.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the new law will ensure that the environmental impact of projects is taken into account before the projects go ahead. The new law nourishes and reinforces the link between environmental health, economic health and human health.

The act finally addresses the important issues which are so crucial to Canada. The new system is straightforward and streamlined. Small scale, routine matters will be dealt with through a simple screening process. We do not need to spend taxpayers' money to hold a grand inquisition for repairs to the roof of a building.

On the other hand, large projects or environmentally sensitive projects will receive the comprehensive public study they need. It is absolutely essential that projects in our national parks, nuclear power plants, dams, mines and new industrial developments undergo comprehensive environmental impact studies.

The act introduces the new principle of mediation. To the extent possible, we want environmental problems to be resolved by consensus to everyone's satisfaction.

Screening, comprehensive study and mediation will eliminate the waste and bureaucracy that unfortunately sometimes results in much time being spent on minor or easily resolved issues.

A project will only reach the stage of review by an independent public panel if there are difficult environmental issues which cannot be resolved in any other way. When the environmental impact is important enough to be subject to an independent review, the act allows for full public involvement and requires a more stringent assessment of the project.

For all projects we want everything out in the open and we want to ensure that the public interest is paramount.

It comes as no surprise that, referring to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean said, back in December 1989: "This will probably be the best legislation of the kind in the world". No wonder that, last month, the Leader of the Opposition described this act as his baby, adding that he had fought very hard for it in cabinet.

Maybe we should not be talking about babies.

No wonder that the Leader of the Opposition said: "I am not against this legislation. I never said a thing against it". And the present Leader of the Opposition suggested last month: "We must find a way to harmonize provincial and federal jurisdictions. These two levels of government have to work together, otherwise it will be chaos".

To opponents of the act, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean said in 1990: "We have jurisdiction. We take our responsibilities. If work is carried out in James Bay that can affect the nature and composition of Hudson's Bay's water, the federal government has the right, indeed the duty, to stop work, otherwise the courts will step in".

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act emphasizes the importance of federal-provincial co-operation and the harmonization of our respective systems. I am committed to working with each of the provinces to that end.

We are willing to work with the provinces; the federal government did in fact sign a harmonization agreement with Alberta, and next week I will sign a second agreement with Manitoba. We are also negotiating with Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces.

I know that everyone in this country is concerned about the environment. Whatever our political differences, we all want a livable world for our children. We may not always agree on the approach, but we want the same results. It was clearly stated in the red book that we would reinforce the power of review panels by letting Cabinet deal with federal projects, and I am going to go even further.

If I may, I would like to quote from the red book: "Individual Canadians have expertise and a valued perspective to contribute to environmental policy-making. These assets are often not tapped because of financial or legal restrictions. A Liberal government will amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to legally recognize intervenor funding as an integral component of the assessment process".

These were public commitments. Today, we are delivering the goods.

To those who are still questioning the act, I will quote the Leader of the Opposition, when he was talking about the old offer: "Current guidelines are not clear regarding federal-provincial co-operation on joint assessments". We are aware of the need for clarification and we are working on it. The result can be seen today. That is why we have this bill today.

I urge the Opposition to listen carefully to what Lucien Bouchard said about the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: "This bill does not encroach on provincial jurisdiction". It was not the current Minister of the Environment but the former Minister of the Environment-when he was a federal Cabinet minister-who said that we must ensure that there is no encroachment and step up harmonization efforts in order to avoid overlap.

For the last year the federal government has met with and listened to Canadians, environmentalists, communities, businesses and individuals. They have asked us to act further to improve the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and we have listened in good faith. The amendments we are introducing today are proof of that good faith.

The bill we are debating today proposes to entrench in federal law the principle of one project one assessment. It is wrong that responsible businesses may be subjected to more than one federal assessment for their project.

We need a strong, open public environmental assessment process but we do not need it repeated and repeated and repeated. Today's legislation commits us to ending confusion and overlap and to reducing cost and complexity.

The second amendment guarantees that communities will receive the support they need to take part in major environmental assessments. Local communities with a direct stake in the outcome of an environmental assessment must have the resources to participate if their rights are to have any real meaning. I use the example under the past process of Elliot Lake which obviously had a very direct interest in how the operations of Denison were decommissioned.

The last amendment requires the federal cabinet to respond to any recommendations of independent review panels. This means that no individual cabinet minister can overrule the environmental assessment made by an independent panel. This means that no Kemano projects can be signed behind closed doors. This means that as a government we are willing to be fair, to open up the process, to simplify the process, to listen to concerns and ultimately to take a full cabinet decision. Once again we have built it into the law in black and white.

We are not only talking about our belief in the principle of one project one assessment.

This is not only about the right of people from Chicoutimi, the Abitibi region, Quebec City or Montreal to have their say on environmental assessments. The bill establishes a participant funding program to help people who do not have the necessary financial resources exercise this right. How can anyone accuse the federal government of undermining the environmental rights of the people from the Lac-Saint-Jean region, when we give them the funds they need to participate in the environmental assessments of the projects affecting them?

This amendment has nothing to do with Ottawa politicians trying to impose their views. Rather, it is aimed, as the Leader of the Opposition realized, at giving the people from the Lac-Saint-Jean region the power to tell the federal government what they think about a federal project. It is aimed at giving the people from the Lac-Saint-Jean region the ability to influence federal decisions affecting them directly in their daily lives.

We are not just talking about ending backroom pressures to overturn environmental assessment. We have introduced legislation to take away the ability of any individual cabinet minister to overturn those decisions. We have introduced legislation to make sure that the recommendations of independent panels cannot be shoved on to the back burner.

The new law puts the onus on cabinet to respond to those recommendations. In the name of fairness and openness and in order to make sure that everything is completely transparent, we are acting to make sure that the whole government by virtue of cabinet is responsible for environmental assessment decisions.

Yes, this bill recognizes the essential federal role in environmental assessment. As the Leader of the Opposition said so well: "The federal government certainly has some powers which no one contests". For example, the bed of Hudson Bay belongs to the federal government. This would not change. So as I said and I repeat, if work goes on in James Bay which affects the nature and composition of the water emptying into Hudson Bay so that marine or other life in Hudson Bay could be affected, the federal government has the right and even the duty to act; otherwise, the courts will stop the work.

The Leader of the Opposition understands the law well and he was right when he described some federal responsibilities. It is not only legal; it is a matter of environmental reality. When you throw something into Hudson Bay, it affects northern Quebec. When you throw something into Hamilton Bay, it affects Montreal. Consider the International Joint Commission for the Great Lakes; what we do in these Great Lakes obviously affects the St. Lawrence River.

If a project on the north shore of Lake Superior is an environmental disaster, the problems end up not only in the Great Lakes but also in the St. Lawrence and the people of Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City and Rimouski suffer as a result. Environmental blunders in the Great Lakes affect Magdalen Islanders. Environmental problems do not respect borders. We have no choice but to face up to our shared environmental responsibilities. We must all come to an understanding here in Canada. The federal and provincial governments must work together, despite our political differences, to solve these problems, for the greater well-being of our people.

It is for the good of the people that we have to set aside our political differences, set aside our political agendas, and understand the point made by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government and said the time had come to end the duplication and confusion that surrounded the EARP guidelines.

We must present a common front internationally to solve global environmental problems. We must work together to solve our common problems with the United States. We must work together to solve our problems in the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Arctic.

We have acted, we are acting and we will act to put in place what the Leader of the Opposition has rightly called absolutely major legislation. We must go further. We must overcome our differences and find a way to reach agreement. I am counting on my colleagues in the Official Opposition to support the bill initiated by their own leader, which will benefit all the people of Quebec and Canada.

Sound environmental practices are essential if we are to move to the day when pollution prevention becomes a central part of our thinking. Sound practices are essential in planning projects which are environmentally and economically sound. Sound practices are essential to planning and creating a better future.

The legislation does not solve every environmental problem in the country. We will need to fine tune the legislation. That is why we have a one-year monitoring program in place. If there are real problems, let us move to solve them. If we can make more improvements, let us move ahead. If we can find new ways of eliminating overlap, of saving taxpayers' money, and of co-operating and harmonizing our efforts, let us do it.

The bill moves forward the federal government's commitment in meeting our obligation to the environment which all of us share and which all of us cherish. Not only does the act move in that direction, but certainly the amendments we are discussing today speak very specifically to making the law workable for all Canadians in the interests of a sustainable environment.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was announced on October 6, is now at second reading.

This legislation includes three amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as announced by the minister on October 6. That announcement almost went unnoticed, since the paper on social program reform had been tabled the day before. The minister's decision to make the announcement on that day was obviously an attempt to create a diversion, given the controversy generated by the reform proposal tabled by her colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The method used by the minister can certainly not be called transparent and open. On that day, the minister announced a piece of legislation which was first developed in 1990 when our current leader, who was then Minister of the Environment, tabled Bill C-78 on the environmental assessment process. That legislation was reintroduced in May 1991 as Bill C-13. In December of the same year, a legislative committee made over 150 amendments to the original bill. Several provisions and clauses were deleted, reworded or added.

However, the flexibility which had characterized Bill C-78 had completely disappeared and been replaced by a very strict legislative intent. Moreover, one of these amendments, which affirms the federal government's intention to promote sustainable development, clearly indicates that the federal government considers itself the sole responsible for the renewal of resources, even though these fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Bill C-13 was passed by Parliament in June 1992. The long delay before the proclamation of the bill was due to the need to draft the regulations required to implement the act, and also to the desire of the current Minister of the Environment to introduce the amendments which we are now examining at second reading.

Following all these changes, it is clear that the current centralizing vision does not agree with the original legislation tabled by our leader when he was Minister of the Environment. In an article published in Le Devoir on April 1, 1992, Mr. Michel Yergeau, a prominent lawyer specializing in environmental law, reminded those who were trying to justify federal interference in fields of provincial jurisdiction by invoking the fact that the original legislation had been drafted under Mr. Bouchard's responsibility, that the then Minister of the Environment was very aware of the constitutional realities imposed by the nature of environmental problems.

Mr. Yergeau quoted part of a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition who stated that in the grey areas, where the Constitution does not clearly define the role of each of the stakeholders, we must have co-operation. He added that, at a time when we realize that the debate on the environment is the fight for life itself and that this fight must be taken up by the whole world, and not affect only our own jurisdictions, our constituents would not understand and even less tolerate a wrestling match between federal and provincial politicians.

Moreover, the spirit of the ruling by the Supreme Court in 1992, in the Oldman River case, essentially boiled down to respect for provincial jurisdictions. The Court ruled that the assessment process provided for by the order did not apply to projects undertaken pursuant to federal legislation, and I quote: "On the issue of the positive obligation to regulate, Mr. Justice LaForest indicated that it was not intended that the guidelines order be applied every time a project could have an environmental impact of an area of federal jurisdiction". He added: "The federal minister or the panel cannot use the guidelines order as a disguised tool to impinge on areas under provincial jurisdiction that have nothing to do with the relevant field of federal jurisdiction".

We must admit that all the amendments made to this legislation between the time it was first introduced and the time it was enacted changed completely the spirit of the reform proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in 1989. Bill C-78 was designed to harmonize the assessment processes and not to put under federal supervision the processes already in place in Quebec and in other provinces.

Despite these revealing statements on the true spirit and purpose of the original bill, the minister jumped on the opportunity to give credit to the Leader of the Official Opposition for this legislation. In fact, the minister always uses this defensive strategy when we ask questions regarding environmental matters that date back to the period when our leader was Minister of the Environment. Could it be that the minister is looking for a good example or even for a guide to help her run her department? If she continues to link everything she does to our leader, Canadians will wonder whether our leader is still running this department or whether he has simply become the minister's mentor.

But knowing the minister and her political ways, which are always of a partisan nature, we have to conclude that this is just a strategy to slow down the Official Opposition. She uses the alleged inaction of her predecessors to try and justify her own incompetence.

The minister obviously thinks that she just has to refer to our leader's past and we will buy everything she wants to sell us, but she is wrong. We will reject all of her proposals that do not respect the environment and we will protest against any infringement on the provinces' jurisdiction. Already, in 1992, the Bloc had expressed its strong opposition to Bill C-13 because it did not recognize the existence of a provincial environmental assessment process in Quebec. I also want to remind the minister that the Bloc Quebecois made a biting reply to the promulgation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

I also remind her that the government of Quebec reacted the same way. Mr. Jacques Brassard, provincial Minister of the Environment, even withdrew Quebec's representatives from federal-provincial discussions. The new Quebec environment minister described this new federal environmental assessment process as an arrogant attempt at displacing Quebec from that jurisdiction. He went on to say that this is precisely what business people were asking his government to avoid, that business executives think having two assessment processes will be a disaster for the Quebec economy.

The Quebec minister states that developers of all kinds will be faced with two processes having two different sets of requirements. He said: "It is clearly unacceptable to Quebec. It smacks of provocation, arrogance and lack of respect for Quebec".

As I already indicated, Quebec announced it was pulling out of discussions initiated by the federal government on environmental requirements harmonization because those discussions are a sham. The Quebec minister said: "They have gone too far. This bill is a deliberate act of provocation on the part of the federal government against the new sovereignist government in Quebec. It amounts to putting the province under a kind of guardianship".

The federal minister nonetheless proclaims a so-called new era of co-operation, but it is nothing but window dressing. It clearly demonstrates the centralist vision of the federal government. Certain provinces are used to justify the use of strong-arm tactics against other provinces. The federal government signs agreements with some provinces, Alberta and Manitoba in this case, indicates that negotiations are under way with five more provinces and, all of a sudden, introduces a bill.

The wall-to-wall theory is used. The Canada-wide approach is made to apply. National standards are implemented without any regard for what is already being done in some provinces or territories. The federal bulldozer starts rolling before discussions with the provinces are completed. That is precisely the attitude provinces reject and the public no longer accepts.

Unfortunately, ever since they came to office the Liberals have done nothing but centralize and encroach upon provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals still believe in a Canada that is the same from one end to the other, wrapped in the same red tapestry made from a book of the same colour on which the members opposite have fed abundantly during the last electoral campaign. However, as time passes, colour and direction are changing.

Take for example the last green, mauve and grey books that this government made public with great pomp. Their projects and propositions once more target ordinary Canadians and show this government's determination to encroach upon provincial jurisdiction.

This bill on environmental assessment is no exception to the rule of this overbearing and totalitarian federalism, as the former Liberal Environment Minister of Quebec, Mr. Pierre Paradis, called it. Coming from a convinced and orthodox federalist, from the same party as hon. members opposite, that says it all. May I remind you that Mr. Paradis came before the Senate to try to stop the passing of the bill introduced by then minister Charest, implementing the federal environmental assessment process. The minister said that Bill C-13 was trespassing dangerously on Quebec's preserves.

He also said that this bill would allow the federal government to encroach upon a provincial jurisdiction. He believed Ottawa could, from then on, intervene any time it wished to assess a Quebec project that could have an environmental impact.

This true federalist said that Bill C-13 would allow the use of every available lever to submit as many projects as possible to the federal assessment process and even to control all aspects of assessments done by another jurisdiction. He also said that the federal process would constantly interfere with Quebec procedure.

The person who said those things in 1992 was not a member of the P.Q. or the Bloc, not a separatist. He was a Grit, a Liberal, a federalist, just like the Minister of the Environment and the government.

On November 22, 1991, Mr. Paradis wrote to his old friend in Ottawa, minister Charest, the present member for Sherbrooke. He wrote: "Bill C-13, in its present form, far from clarifying the situation, allows for a useless encroachment of the federal assessment process on decisions which fall exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction, and this can only lead to a wasteful duplication of assessment processes and, inevitably, to numerous conflicts".

The federalist Quebec minister said he wished that Ottawa would recognize and respect the process used by the provinces to assess environmental impacts, something clearly under their jurisdiction.

It was not a P.Q. member who said that, that was not an evil separatist, it was a federalist who wanted the federal government to stay in Ottawa and look after its own affairs.

In another letter addressed to another minister of the Conservative government of the time-we should probably say of the era, since this party has virtually disappeared from the map-Minister Paradis wrote on December 17, 1990: "-the bill raises important constitutional questions and many implementation problems". He was saying clearly that the federal government had no business saying it had to protect the environment when trying to regulate areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

This legislation would mean that all Quebec projects would be submitted to a federal environmental assessment. Minister Paradis was concerned about wasteful and costly duplication and delays, since the federal process would be added on to the Quebec process.

Finally, in the March 17, 1994 issue of Le Journal de Montréal , federalist Quebec minister Pierre Paradis was quoted as saying on the question of environmental assessments: We have to harmonize the two legislations in order to have a single window, predominantly under Quebec control, for environmental assessment''. And he added:Quebec maintains that its jurisdiction must be protected and that it should be in charge''.

The minister was here on March 17, 1994. How could she ignore a Quebec federalist minister's request?

A lawyer, Michel Yergeau, was of the same opinion when he wrote the following in the April 1, 1992 issue of the daily Le Devoir : ``It is not because Ottawa has taken over a matter which demands a global approach and knows no boundaries that it can altogether disregard the Constitution. With Bill C-13, Ottawa

uses its authority and unilaterally settles matters in its favour, of course".

He then adds: "To justify such abruptness, Ottawa puts forward the pressing need to protect the environment in its areas of jurisdiction. The net result of this unilateral exercise is not and cannot be good. It must be reviewed and refined". I repeat: "It must be reviewed and refined".

The way things are at the present time, C-13 is just plain raw material the courts will have to refine on a case by case basis, which can only create a lot of resentment. In the long run, the whole exercise will be more time-consuming than sitting at the bargaining table to settle this issue once and for all. This is a real timebomb the federal government has planted in the Canadian legislation. This is also a further threat to the constitutional reconciliation the government yearns for. It is not even good for the environment.

This is a rather serious statement on the part of an environmental lawyer. It seems to me that the minister should take heed.

Mr. Yergeau says that Ottawa ignores the Constitution. He talks about the abruptness of the federal government. He thinks Ottawa is setting a time bomb in the Canadian legislation. The members opposite who believe in federalism should be very concerned by these statements. They should at least wonder about the impact their actions could have on the system they so implicitly believe in. It is totally illogical to in such a manner as to destroy a federal system you trust so much.

Of course, we in the Bloc feel that this suits our purpose. If you go on like this, there will come a time in 1995 when Quebecers will tell you: We see what you are after and you can just go back to Ottawa. From now on, we will do our own thing. This is just perfect. Carry on like you have been doing. All that is grist to our mill.

In an article published in Le Devoir on March 21, 1992, Lise Bissonnette said that the passage of the Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process was a kind of takeover. She indicated that Bill C-13 added to the Quebec-Canada problem that has yet to be solved, since it looks a lot like the Constitutional issue that it exacerbates while giving a lesson to Quebec. All the elements are there.

Lise Bissonnette compared Bill C-13 to an enormous machine that can assess absolutely everything, including the areas most obviously under provincial jurisdiction. She also said that the terms and conditions of future federal-provincial agreements would ensure that the provincial process is subject to the federal process, even though Ottawa only had a small say in this area.

More far-sighted, Ms. Bissonnette declared that Ottawa was giving itself the power to jeopardize Quebec's whole energy policy and thus its choices for economic development.

Finally, she concluded her article by saying that Ottawa, by giving itself such wide, preponderant power that could take many shapes and forms, would control not only the quality of life but also a large part of economic development.

Today, the minister and the federal government are faced with the clear consensus in Quebec against the CEAA. The Quebec Liberal Party, the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois all expressed their strong opposition to this Act. But no matter what we do or say, the federal government will go ahead. Should we take comfort in realizing that such lack of understanding and respect leads to separation? As it did so many times in the past, the federal government leaves Quebec no choice. It is a take it or leave it situation. Quebecers will have to choose soon. That is what some people involved or interested in this issue said at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I must stop here. Will I be allowed to continue later?

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, yes, according to the Clerk, it seems that you have a few minutes left. I would also ask you to always address the Chair, not the members opposite.

It being one o'clock, pursuant to the order made earlier today with unanimous consent, the House will now proceed to Statements by Ministers.

Ethics

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this government has set high standards of integrity and probity for itself. I have made integrity a number one priority personnaly.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Setting such standards for the holders of public office is essential in renewing and maintaining the faith of Canadians in their public instructions.

This is the case in particular of ministers who must remain above reproach at all times and in all of their activities, whether it be as ministers, members of Parliament or private citizens. That is the burden of public office, and one that we all gladly accept to bear.

Last week, the actions of the Minister of Heritage were discussed in this House. Legitimate concerns were raised which we all share.

Everyone understands the rule that no one is to call judges concerning cases they have under consideration. This applies to everyone-ministers, MPs and ordinary citizens.

The rule concerning relations with the judiciary is unequivocal and has been in force for over 10 years. No minister may communicate with members of the judiciary concerning any matter which they have before them in their judicial capacities, except through the Minister of Justice or through duly authorized officials of, or counsel acting for, that minister.

But the situation is not as clear with administrative tribunals. The guidance we gave ministers in this area was that on those rare occasions when any minister might wish to communicate with members of the quasi-judicial bodies concerning any matter which they have before them in their judicial capacities, they should only do so through the duly authorized officials.

In addition to considering quasi-judicial matters, these bodies may consider a whole range of administrative, regulatory and policy matters.

Even in relation to quasi-judicial matters before them, administrative tribunals defer from the courts. As part of the decision making process, some tribunals welcome representations from ordinary citizens and members of Parliament. These representations are put on the public record.

When a representation is sent to the CRTC it is a public document. For example from September 1993 to October 1994 the CRTC held 18 public hearings. It received 15,422 letters in support of licence applicants. Seventy-two were from members of Parliament, from all parties in this House. Representations were made by many Liberal members, including ministers, members from the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party, the NDP, the Conservatives, and one independent.

Clearly we are not confronted with anything like calling a judge. What we are dealing with is the dilemma of ministers who also must fulfil their duties as members of Parliament who were elected to represent their constituents. That makes this whole area of relationships with administrative tribunals much more complex than with the courts.

I have learned a lesson too. This government has done a lot to give our ministers clear guidelines to do their jobs and avoid conflict of interest, including the historic ethics package we introduced in June. But now it is plain to me that the guidelines for dealing with administrative tribunals were not clear or complete enough.

Last Thursday, after Question Period, I gave instructions that all ministers and secretaries of State review their files and the operation of their offices to establish whether there existed any other cases like that of the Minister of Heritage, not only with respect to the CRTC but also with respect to other administrative tribunals.

We have found several cases of a similar nature:

The Minister of Citizenship and immigration, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa have each written, over the last year, to the CRTC in support of license applicants. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has also written on behalf of his constituents to a number of administrative agencies, including the Pensions Plan Review Tribunal and a board of referees concerning unemployment insurance benefits, as he has always done during his long career as member of this House.

This is what we know so far. There may be others. But whether there are five or a hundred, the issue is the same.

As Prime Minister I am dealing with ministers who did not act for personal gain, who did not act for partisan purposes. In each case they acted in good faith for their constituents. Let us put what they did into perspective. There is no scandal here, no violation of integrity, and no breach of public trust.

How did this happen? I believe it is because we have not been clear in distinguishing between the role of a cabinet minister and members of Parliament in our guidelines when it comes to dealing with administrative tribunals. The government bears responsibility for that, and so do I.

I promised Canadians we would provide an honest government and we have. I promised them we would provide an open and accountable government and we have. But I did not, and never could promise an infallible government.

I said before that this government will make mistakes, but they will be honest mistakes and we will always move to correct them. That is what we are doing today.

On Friday I gave instructions for more complete guidelines to be developed in consultation with the ethics counsellor to ensure that ministers deal with administrative tribunals in an appropriate manner. This morning I wrote to each minister and secretary of state instructing them that until the new guidelines were in place all dealings with administrative tribunals must be done through the ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson.

At Cabinet tomorrow, I will be reviewing the whole issue with ministers. No one wants to disenfranchise the constituents of a minister.

For example, on Saturday morning, I spent three hours in my riding of Saint-Maurice receiving my constituents. I even received some constituents from an opposition riding, Trois-Rivières. The Chamber of Commerce and mayor of Trois-Rivières came to see me. It is not even in my riding, but I thought that as minister responsible for the region, I would not punish the mayor who wanted to see me and just tell him to go and see his Bloc Quebecois member; because he wanted to see me, I received him.

Was I wrong? Was I right? I think that it is part of my duty to receive, as much as possible, people who want to see me. On the other hand, no one wants ministers to unduly influence administrative agencies. The challenge is to strike the right balance in imposing constraints on a minister that are not imposed on an ordinary member of Parliament.

Staff for ministers and secretaries of state will also be briefed. Finally, I believe this is a matter of legitimate debate and I undertake to hold a debate in the House of Commons before these guidelines are finalized. All members of this House have a responsibility to put my ministers-and me personally-under the closest possible scrutiny. We welcome that scrutiny, but that does not mean turning legitimate concerns into matters of scandal where none exists.

All my career I have believed that honesty is the best policy, that a government and a Prime Minister must level with Canadians, tell them the truth, and treat them with the respect and intelligence they deserve. That is what I am doing here today. I am proud of this government's record of honesty and integrity. We have worked hard to earn it. But honesty and integrity also mean facing up to moments like this. That is the responsibility that this government and I will never betray.

One of the values of our parliamentary system and our administrative system that is very important to me is that all cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, must first be elected in a riding where he or she is seeking the support and confidence of thousands of people like any other member of Parliament. After that he or she becomes the Prime Minister or is called to serve in the cabinet. The first duty of all of us is to make sure that the people who have voted for us are duly represented in this House of Commons and that their interests are defended. It is difficult sometimes.

For example when I was member for Beauséjour and Leader of the Opposition, a group decided to close a radio station. A representation was made before me. Some local people said: "We want to keep a radio station in operation in Shawinigan. Will you support us to get a licence if it is closed?". It was not in my riding but I knew these people. They knew there was interest in keeping a radio station operating in Shawinigan and I told them I would support them. They were in the business and wanted to buy the assets and operate it.

Fortunately somebody else bought the station and I did not have to support them. However, the local citizens of my riding wanted to keep a radio station in operation. They thought a person like me who was still a member of Parliament could help them to maintain a link of communication for the local citizens through a radio station. That is the type of thing and that is done in public.

A letter that a member of Parliament or a minister writes to the CRTC is not a private letter. It is not a confidential letter. All these letters are public documentation in a public trial that everybody can look at, just like the 14,000 people who wrote in support of applications.

When I asked my ministers-there may be a couple of others, I do not know who wrote letters like that in support of applications-I found that one of them, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, wrote in support of francophones in his riding who want to make sure that all the news programs for French news are accessible to the francophones of his riding.

Apparently he wrote too late, but the reality is that he was representing the interests of a little group of francophones isolated in the southwest corner of Newfoundland who wanted to communicate with people who speak French, the other official language of Canada, at home as completely as possible.

I am happy to report what I have been able to gather over the weekend to clarify the situation. From here on, while we are developing the proper guidelines, ministers will have to keep in mind all the time that we are members of Parliament and we are at the same time ministers and what are due or undue public interventions such as those I have mentioned.

I think it was in response to requests by their constituents in open fashion in open files. That is why I did not ask anybody to do anything. However, we will give proper guidelines after I hope a debate in this House of Commons so that the members of Parliament can tell us how to resolve this obligation to serve the nation as a minister and to serve the people who have voted for these ministers before they were called upon to serve in the cabinet.

With leave of the House, I would like to table a copy of the letters that ministers have written to the CRTC. These are public letters whose release in no way violates people's right to privacy. I would like to table these letters immediately.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just reiterated his commitment to integrity and ethics in government.

We salute these noble remarks, which he has repeated on many occasions, notably during his assessment of his government's performance in the past year. But I would daresay that last week, the Prime Minister, who was preparing for situations in which he would have to rigorously demonstrate his commitment to ethics, faced for the first time-after giving many speeches and making numerous commitments to uphold public integrity; and we understand how difficult it must have been for him-a situation in which he had to make a decision and translate talk into action.

With all due respect, I submit that for an honest leader of the government like the Prime Minister-which is something I recognize and congratulate him for; I think having an honest leader of the government is encouraging to all of us and important to all citizens-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

-it was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to go beyond his role as party leader and fully assume his primary responsibilities as leader of the government, namely being a vigilant and ruthless-repeat, ruthless-guardian of ethical standards. He had an opportunity to make an example, to ensure the continuity of ethical standards that have always been followed by Canadian government leaders by asking his minister to resign. I understand how difficult it must be. I understand how difficult it must be, especially when there is a personal relationship-as often happens within political parties-between individuals who work together for a while in the public interest. But one must sometimes look beyond personal relationships with fellow party members when fundamental values are at stake. I say that the Prime Minister-I say it with as much restraint as I can-failed his first test in honouring his commitment to integrity.

Let us have a quick look at the facts. On March 15, the Minister of Heritage wrote the Chairman of the CRTC to, I say, support a licence application. My claim is strengthened by the fact that the addressee himself wrote that he saw this letter, this action, as a letter of support. This is in the public file. On March 29, a letter thanking the minister for his support was put in the file. It was perfectly normal to think that the letter was one of support, since the minister was requesting that due consideration be given to the application, asking the CRTC to keep him abreast of any developments in the matter. Indeed, the minister, who is the CRTC's boss, asked to be kept informed about an application in which he had such an interest that he wrote a letter about it. Moreover, the minister offered, in writing, to provide any additional information the CRTC might have required.

It took six months for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to feel somewhat remorseful, decide to apologize and write to the CRTC to say that the March letter was not intended to convey support to the application. This is what the minister did. A minister's actions are judged by the Prime Minister. One of the duties of the Prime Minister is to ensure that ministers behave properly and comply with his own code of ethics and principles of integrity.

The Prime Minister was, to say the least, slow to react, since he found out on October 1 what happened but did nothing for a whole month. He waited until the whole issue became public and there is every reason to believe that we would never have known about this violation of basic rules of ethics for ministers if the letter had not been made public. The Prime Minister waited until the whole thing became public to suddenly start saying that this was an unacceptable mistake. It was too little too late on the Prime Minister's part.

What is he doing now? Today, the Prime Minister is drawing a fine line between judicial and administrative tribunals. The Prime Minister is a lawyer. He has always been in public life and he knows public law. He is perfectly aware that a large number of decisions made by the CRTC fall under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law. What makes a tribunal a tribunal is that it makes decisions on rights, on their delegation and creation, on disputes, and on complaints or penal complaints and charges.

The CRTC does more than determine policy. It acts as a judicial tribunal when applying the law. It makes decisions based on civil, financial and public law that directly affect Canadians, since these decisions concern the management of all aspects of broadcasting and telecommunications. It is also empowered to deal with complaints.

In this respect, the CRTC is subject to the same arm's length rules as judicial tribunals, and I would say even more so, because these quasi-judicial bodies have become so important that very often, the decisions they make are more important than the judgments of a civil court. For instance, the CRTC has the authority to decide whether or not a company will go bankrupt and whether a broadcasting or telephone monopoly will be awarded to one company rather than another. We all know that the financial stakes may be considerable, and citizens are directly affected by the implications, so these decisions are crucial.

One can hardly stand up in this House especially when as Leader of the Government, one is thoroughly familiar with the situation, and claim that an administrative tribunal is less important than a judicial tribunal and that the strictly arm's length relationship that must exist to ensure the independence of judicial tribunals does not necessarily apply to tribunals like the CRTC. The distinction does not hold water.

Second, the Prime Minister's attitude today is rather surprising. Here we have the holder of the highest office in our parliamentary democracy, who already made an extremely controversial decision not to accept the minister's resignation, although most newspapers who carried editorials on this issue asked for the minister's resignation and criticized the Prime Minister for not demanding that resignation, and now, today or yesterday, I am not sure which, but some day we may find out, the Prime Minister hears there were four other cases in addition to this one.

And today, he comes before us, neither repentant nor deeply apologetic, and refers to the fact that four other ministers were involved as an extenuating circumstance, as though there were safety in numbers.

Third, we have the Prime Minister making this incredible distinction, while at the same time muddying the waters with respect to the duties of members and ministers. I submit that the Prime Minister did Canadian democracy and the public perception of Canada's democratic institutions a great disservice when he appeared to erase the fine line between the duties of members and ministers.

The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that this entire debate is about the fundamental principle of the separation of powers. Our democratic institutions are all founded on the separation of powers: the legislative power, the judicial power and the executive power. The walls that separate these powers from one another are absolutely solid and impenetrable, because democracy requires us to dilute power and thus prevent the concentration of all these powers in one person, which is how dictatorships are born.

A strict division of powers is essential to the development of democracy, respect of civil rights and operation of public liberties. A minister cannot encroach on the judiciary. Why? Why is the rule so strict? Why is it that we do not have to prove dishonesty? Why is it that we do not have to prove corruption? How come the simple fact of over-stepping this boundary carries a sanction? Why? Because the principle to be protected is absolute, it is the principle of the judiciary's independence.

Democracy rests, first and foremost, on the rule of law. We all know that when the state violates the rights of an individual, when two individuals disagree, instead of resorting to violence or some other manifestation unacceptable in a democracy, we go before a wiseperson, someone totally independent, appointed for life, who will render a decision we can trust. I think that this country should pay tribute to the quality of its tribunals.

All governments try their best to make sure they only appoint to the bench people with an impeccable reputation, competent and honest. This is a rule which, up to now, has been observed by all parties. This is vital, because the day the judiciary is compromised, democracy as we know it will be over, we will not be able to resolve anything in a proper manner. Therefore, we have to respect judicial powers and we have to recognize the necessity of a separation of powers.

When the Prime Minister tries to pretend that there is no difference between the job of an MP and the job of a minister, he confuses two other powers, he crosses in an unacceptable manner the line separating the executive and legislative branches.

When a MP is chosen to be a minister, he enters a new phase, crosses the line between the executive and the legislative and is asked to behave with great rigour so as to respect the separation between both duties, both categories.

If a member is unable to understand that the fact of becoming a minister adds to his duties the obligation of being rigorous and respectful of these fundamental rules, he should not be a minister, he does not have the skills to be one, and should either resign or be dismissed.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

All these lame attempts at comparing him with an opposition member, even a government member who would intercede with an administrative tribunal on his constituents' behalf, do not wash because the Leader of the Opposition does not belong to the executive. The Leader of the Opposition is confined to legislative work and to representing his constituents. The Prime Minister knows full well that he twisted the facts, distorted these institutions when he confused both.

Do we really need new rules? Do we need to tell you that a minister who has broken the aforementioned rules must resign? There are many precedents, and in a British judicial system such as ours, precedents make the rule.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs knows full well that he cannot contact judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals. He did it once and had to resign. The member for Sherbrooke knows it too, he learned it at his expense.